A kritik, sometimes spelled critique, is a debate argument that challenges the philosophical or structural assumptions behind an opponent's position - or behind the debate itself. Instead of attacking the specific claims being made, a kritik argues that the way the opponent is framing the issue is fundamentally flawed.
Where Kritiks Are Used
Kritiks are most common in Cross-Examination (Policy) debate in the United States. They are rare or absent in most parliamentary formats. CX kritiks often draw on philosophers like Foucault, Derrida, or Heidegger to argue that the opposing team's framing perpetuates a deeper harm - militarism, colonialism, capitalism, or similar critical-theory concepts.
Controversy and Use
Kritiks are polarizing in the debate community. Some judges love them and see them as a way to engage with deeper ideas. Others reject them as technical tricks that avoid the actual topic. DSDC generally does not teach kritiks at the high school level because most Canadian tournament judges do not evaluate them well and they are rare outside American CX.