How do you run a kritik?

Let's say I wanted to argue I should win a debate because I have a small penis or because I am black or because my opponent is Australian, how would I go about doing that?

A K is challenging the assumption of the resolution. If the resolution was about whether or not the gov should recognize Same Sex Marriage, a K would be to challenge why the gov should recognize any marriage. If a debate was about whether or not Beethoven is better than Mozart a K would be to challenge the assumption that one is inherently better than the other. 

Not what I am looking for

You admire my big cock and bait me into enjoying your Kritik and agreeing to your tiny, thin one.

Worst pick up line ever.

Dumbest question ever.

A K has multiple parts, it functions pretty similarly to a stock issue argument;  here's how you do it;

 

 The Link:  In order for a K to be topical, you have to link in to the other sides advocacy, so you have to establish that their side of the debate is intrinsically linked to whatever the topic of your K is.  An example of this might be that if you are running a Colonialism K on a foreign policy topic, you have to show how the other sides advocacy is linked to Colonialism.

  Impact:  Once you have "linked in" to your opponents advocacy, it is pretty much the same as a stock issue argument.  You run harms/impacts of whatever destructive ideology or system that your opponents advocacy is supporting.  So if you were running that Colonialism K, you would run harms of colonialism.  If you found some card that said that Colonialism has caused 50 million deaths in the past century, you could run a harm of "violence".  Colonialism causes violence, your opponents advocacy is linked to colonialism, thus your opponents advocacy causes violence

 Alternative:  You have to have an alternative to whatever ideology or system you are running your K against.  

There is no such thing as a topical K.  A K refuses to debate the resolution because of some a priori assumption entailed by the resolution makes the resolution undebatable or because the resolution itself is prima facia undebatable. 

a K does not by definition say that we can't debate the resolution.  i guarantee you will find no source that says an integral part of a K is saying that we "can't debate" the resolution.  also attacking an underlying assumption of the resolution makes a K topical.  imagine if in day to day discourse we only responded exactly to what someone said word for word without drawing inferences about what their statements assume.  if someone told you they supported declaring war against iran, for example, that implies that they support a government, since only governments can wage war.  if i said "i do not support war with Iran because I am an anarchist, and thus do not believe in governments at all" that WOULD be responsive to what they said.  its weird that people will acknowledge this but then if I called my argument an "anarchist K" they would say its now nontopical.  to be clear, what you and others don't like is that people don't engage the resolution using only the arguments that you think are acceptable.  the attacks on K's are always purely about limiting the scope of debate.

Wrong.

A kritik is an argument that contends that the resolution as written cannot be debated.  Generally, there are two possible reasons why a resolution cannot be debated.  Either the resolution is flawed on its face, or there is some inherent problem with the resolution beyond its face.  

Problems with the resolution on its face (read: prima facie flaw) include, but are not limited to: terms that are ambiguous, terms that are vague or unclear, language that implies certain biases which are unreasonably inflammatory, terms that do not have generally agreed upon definitions, and resolutions that themselves that are phrases in ways that lend to multiple interpretations that are equally reasonable (such as the resolution itself, rather than any particular word or phrase is vague, unclear, ambiguous, etc.).  

Problems beyond the resolution include, but are not limited to: a priori assumptions laden within the resolution that make the topic undebatable, implications of the use of certain language within the resolution which would render the debate itself exclusionary, prejudicial, racist/sexist/etc., normative/moral assumptions that are improperly assumed by the resolution, positive/factual assumptions that are assumed by the resolution.  

To the extent that you are addressing any of these, you do so to the exclusion of debating the resolution on its own terms.  In this way, you can never advance your burden of proof by making a K, and a K is therefore by definition non-topical.  After all, none of the facial or non-facial issues raised above would advance an affirmative or negative burden.  You are literally neither affirming nor negating, therefore you're not making a topical argument.  There is no reasonable argument to the contrary; any argument to the contrary is wrong, likely because it misunderstands what distinguishes a K from an argument that is not a K. 

On the other hand, if an argument ACTUALLY advances a burden, then it cannot be a K.  For example, maybe you are arguing on neg that the resolution should be negated FOR ANY REASON, then you are advancing your BOP and therefore making a topical argument.  The standard is incredibly broad.  Likewise, if you are on AFF and you are making an argument FOR ANY REASON that the resolution should be affirmed, then you are making a topical argument.  Again, the standard is incredibly broad as it relates to what is versus what is not a topical argument.

Many stupid coaches have mistaught their kids to think that a K is something other than what a K is; this is because they are ignorant themselves.  To the surprise of none, ignorance begets ignorance.  This is why you will often hear some spunky little freshman run what he thinks is a K but which is in reality a neg argument because his coach said it was a K, because the coach didn't know what a K was, because the coach was never taught the difference between a non-K.  

This plague of ignorance afflicts camps (e.g., Blue Key, Florida; many in Texas) and major programs (e.g., certain policy teams in New York).  Some literature published by the ignorant for the sake of self recognition has also been made available online.  

Nevertheless, the above is what a K is.  This is how they work. 

wrong

no evidence for this

lets use another analogy here;  if I ask if you want cake, and you say that you do not want cake, because cake has bread, and you do not want extra carbs, and I say "How dare you assume that my cake has bread?", that would be total nonsense, right?  obviously bread is an essential component of cake, so not wanting to eat bread is a perfectly sound reason for not wanting cake.  Sort of like rejecting a certain ideology inherent in advocacy for a resolution is a perfectly sound reason to reject it, to negate it.  that said, while not all K's state that the resolution cannot be debated, saying that something can't be discussed is also an act of negation and thus squarely within the bounds of the resolution.  so even your interpretation of what a K is, while not always accurate, does not prove that a K is nontopical.  if you are saying that how a statement of advocacy (a resolution) is worded is immoral or incorrect, you are by definition negating it.  negating is defined as "to show something to be wrong or to be the opposite of what was thought, or to cause something to have no effect"   (cambridge dictionary).   something can be 'wrong' either because it is not correct or because its not morally acceptable.  the aff is tasked with defending the entirety of the resolution, every word of it.  if even one word of it is wrong or immoral, the resolution in its entirety is.  thus showing that a part of the resolution is worded inn a way that is immoral or wrong is negating it.  

Nothing you have said undermines what I said.  The claim of "no evidence" doesn't work for things as conceptually simple as 2+2=4.  It will equal 4, without regard to how emphatically you argue for NOT 4 or 5.