What are some common misconceptions or pitfalls to avoid when running or answering kritik arguments?

1 Know your kritik

One of the most common mistakes when running a kritik is to rely on generic or vague critiques that do not engage with the specific context of the resolution, the opponent's case, or the judge's expectations. A good kritik should have a clear link, impact, and alternative, and should explain how and why they outweigh the affirmative's advantages. A bad kritik can be easily dismissed as irrelevant, confusing, or abusive.

2 Know your opponent

Another common mistake when running a kritik is to ignore or misunderstand the opponent's position, arguments, or framework. A kritik should not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather a tailored response that exposes the flaws or harms of the opponent's advocacy. A kritik should also anticipate and address the possible counter-arguments, such as no link, permutation, impact turn, or framework challenge. A kritik that fails to do so can be easily refuted or turned.

3 Know your judge

A third common mistake when running a kritik is to assume that the judge will automatically buy into the kritik's perspective, methodology, or language. A kritik should not be a lecture, but rather a dialogue that engages the judge and persuades them to adopt the kritik's worldview. A kritik should also be respectful, accessible, and coherent, and should avoid jargon, acronyms, or complex theories that may alienate or confuse the judge. A kritik that fails to do so can be easily ignored or rejected.

4 Know your options

One of the most common mistakes when answering a kritik is to concede or dismiss it without engaging with its substance or implications. A kritik is not a minor or peripheral issue, but rather a fundamental challenge to the validity or desirability of the affirmative case. A kritik should be taken seriously and responded to strategically and comprehensively. A kritik can be answered in several ways, such as denying the link, outweighing the impact, defending the framework, or offering a permutation.

5 Know your strategy

Another common mistake when answering a kritik is to rely on generic or defensive arguments that do not address the specific claims or assumptions of the kritik. A kritik is not a simple factual or logical dispute, but rather a philosophical or ethical clash that requires a nuanced and critical analysis. A kritik should be challenged on its own terms and exposed as flawed, harmful, or contradictory. A kritik should also be turned or outweighed by the affirmative's advantages or alternatives.

6 Know your role

A third common mistake when answering a kritik is to lose sight of the big picture or the burden of proof in the debate. A kritik is not a standalone argument, but rather a part of the negative's overall case and strategy. A kritik should not be treated as an isolated or decisive factor, but rather as a component of the judge's decision calculus. A kritik should also be weighed against the affirmative's case and the resolution, and should not be allowed to shift or evade the negative's obligations.

7 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?