K Debate

kritik. (n)

an argument that addresses the underlying mentality/assumptions behind an argument/model of thinking

kritiks in debate are a form of activism. they aim to change harmful ways of thinking that impact marginalized communities on a deeper level. kritiks are not just meant to “cancel people,” they address systemic issues embedded into our mindsets and aim to fix them. a step towards reform is often rooted in well-run kritiks.

kritiks are still unconventional in many forms of debate. progressive argumentation is often stigmatized because it deviates from the traditional norms established. debaters are often criticized and marginalized for seeking change in the space. we cannot continue to shun attempts to reform. we must accept discomfort if it means fostering change. kritiks are a driving force behind spreading advocacy and reforming debate.

basic structure of a kritik:

link: how someone violates the K and further the assumption or method of thinking in which you are trying to dismantle

impact: states the harms of this methodology being spread by your opponents

alt: an alternative solution to solve the issue 

role of the ballot/judge: tells the judge why this K matters more than anything else in the round and why they should vote for it over other types of arguments

basic starting points in K debate:

1. find an aspect of the debate space we can improve or reform

2. reach out to K debaters for help in learning the literature

3. install extensions like unpaywall to find free papers of K literature online

4. watch K rounds on youtube to learn the structure of K debate + find literature

5. search opencaselist.com for examples

6. message Debate Hotline on instagram for more resources/additional direction