Theory and kritiks: what they are and how a novice answers them

Theory

A theory argument claims that the way an opponent debated was unfair or uneducational, and asks the judge to vote on that basis. Every shell has four parts.

• Interpretation: the rule the opponent should have followed ("the affirmative must defend the whole resolution").
• Violation: how the opponent broke it.
• Standards: why the rule matters, usually fairness (ground, limits, predictability) or education.
• Voter: what the judge should do: reject the argument, or reject the debater.

Topicality is the most common and most legitimate theory argument: the claim that a plan or advocacy is not an example of the resolution. Definitions decide it, and definitions come from dictionaries, statutes, and expert usage.

Answering theory in four steps

1. Counter-interpretation. State the rule you actually followed, with a definition or a reason it is reasonable.
2. We meet. Show that under your interpretation, you did nothing wrong.
3. Counter-standards. Explain why your rule is better for fairness and education: it preserves ground for both sides, or reflects how the topic is actually discussed.
4. Reject the argument, not the debater. Argue that even if you lose theory, the remedy is to drop the disputed argument, not to lose the round.

Time budget: sixty seconds in a rebuttal, never more, unless it is the only argument in the round.

Kritiks

A kritik (from the German for critique) argues that the assumptions behind an opponent's case, or the resolution itself, cause harm, and that the judge should reject those assumptions rather than evaluate the plan. Common kritiks in high school: capitalism (the case assumes market solutions), security (the case treats threats as objective and justifies state power), anthropocentrism (the case values only humans), and various kritiks of language. A kritik has a link (what the opponent did), an impact (why it is harmful), and an alternative (what the judge should endorse instead).

Answering kritiks in four steps

1. Ask what the alternative does. In cross-examination, ask what happens in the world if the judge votes for the alternative. Most novice kritiks cannot answer.
2. Permutation. Argue that you can do your case and endorse the critique's insight at the same time; a kritik is only a reason to reject you if the two are incompatible.
3. Link defense and link turn. Show that your case does not make the assumption, or that your case reduces the harm the kritik describes.
4. Weigh the case. Concrete, evidenced impacts against a vague alternative. Tell the judge that a plan that helps identifiable people outweighs rejecting an assumption.

When to run them yourself

Run topicality when the violation is real; judges reward genuine topicality and punish frivolous shells. Run other theory only when an opponent's practice made the round unfair for you. Run a kritik only after you can explain the alternative in one plain sentence and have read the author it is based on; a kritik you cannot explain in cross-examination loses in front of every judge. In front of a volunteer judge, the answer to both is usually the same: debate the resolution clearly and explain why that is what the judge signed up to evaluate.

Related: the philosophy primer for the frameworks kritiks draw on and the topicality guide for the Policy version.