What is and is not a postfiat kritik?

I've heard postfiat kritiks being described as "non-unique disadvantages" and "arguments that challenge assumptions in the resolution."

However, I'm unsure on where the line is drawn.

If the Pro case assumes a utilitarian framework, would challenging that utilitarianism with an alternate framework, such as egoism or deontology, be a kritik? The intuitive answer is "no," but a popular argument on DDO that "suffering is good and we should seek suffering" has been described as a kritik -- that seems logically equivalent to proposing a different framework.

Is an impact turn a kritik?

What about a radical counterplan? (e.g. in the debate "RONA should adopt a new conflict of interest policy," if Con advocates a counterplan of shutting down all HOAs; or, in the debate "we should implement a system of school vouchers," if Con advocates a counterplan of banning all private schools)

This is why i set my debates to anything goes and either make a solid resolution or do my level best to tear it to shreds as Con/Opp.

Understand you are the coward no doubt about it when you are terrified of a K and are defending a BS thing that's more of a truism based on the values you ban Con to K.

Not formally trained, so take what I say with a grain of salt...

Some K's are just BS. Suffering is good, you haven't proven otherwise = BS. The missing impact turn leaves the new proposal weightless against the presumably justified argument.

With some overlap, I'd draw the line of K with using the underlying foundation upon which their argument is based. Like what they took to be self evident. If writing out their reasoning, it'd be hidden inside one of premises, a condition needed for it to be true.

Say the Pro in a debate takes utilitarianism to be self-evident.

Con then runs a purely deontological case and challenges util. Would that be a kritik?

I would not consider that a K. That's more akin to not conceding, as there must be a counter argument. In the case of two competing ethical frameworks, both can be wholly valid even if judges will be asked to choose which comes ahead in the particular case.

I believe a decent example of a Kritik is seen with Robin Hood vs. Blackadder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzijOEHcFxk). Robin Hood takes utilitarianism to be self evident to justify his cause and the suffering of his men, all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor... Blackadder basically says those efforts are for naught because it makes the poor dependent on charity, denying them the actual progression they could attain with their own effort, leaving it at best a zero sum gain.