Editing Lincoln–Douglas debate format (section)

=== Kritiks ===
Although the kritik (Sometimes called a K) originated in policy debate, its use in Lincoln–Douglas debate is becoming increasingly accepted as a legitimate argument in some debate districts and states. A kritik seeks to challenge an underlying mindset, usually from the perspective of critical theory.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Justin |last=Bowles |journal=Rostrum |url=https://pbcfl.net/wp-content/uploads/Rostrum-Article-A-Rejection-of-Kritiks-in-LD.pdf |title=Nothing Special About K: A Rejection of Kritiks in LD |volume=84 |pages=37-38 |issue=5}}</ref> There are a few different types of kritiks. The '''resolutional kritik '''argues that a fundamental assumption of the resolution is flawed or offensive and thus it can't or shouldn't be debated or proven true. For example, in the January–February 2014 topic, "Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict," a kritik of the resolution would be that the resolution uses the words "resource extraction", opening itself to an [[anthropocentrism]] kritik by assuming the world to be a resource for human use and degrading the moral character of nature. This kritik would further argue that an anthropocentric mindset would justify major harms, which, in order to avoid, would require the win go to the side presenting the criticism. The '''discourse kritik''' argues that the effects of an action one's opponent has taken during or in relation to the round should outweigh consideration of the resolution. An example of a common [[discourse]] kritik is a gendered language kritik, which could be used if an opponent's case has been written exclusively containing the male pronoun. Another example is if the opponent uses a slur (such as a derogatory term for homosexuals) in or out of the round, which opens the way to a "bad discourse" kritik.

A kritik is generally composed of four parts: the '''role of the ballot''', '''link''', '''impact''', and '''alternative'''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Viewing the Kritik as an NC |url=https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/viewing-the-kritik-as-an-nc |first=Connor |last=Engel |date=2021-07-27 |access-date=2025-03-30 |website=debatedrills.com}}</ref> In order to make a criticism, there has to be a '''link''', or reason. A link can be a certain phrase in the resolution, something the opponent said, something conceded in cross-examination, etc. The link opens the gate to the criticism. Now that the link to the mindset being criticized has been established, there has to be a significant harm linked to that mindset, or '''impact'''. For example, if an opponent links in to [[statism]], a harm or impact of this would be that statism justifies nuclear war or rights violations. An impact explains why the mindset is bad. In general, the '''alternative''' provides solvency for the harms proposed. Most alternatives look something like, "reject the negative," "reject statism," or something along those lines. The '''role of the ballot''' functions as framework for the kritik. A role of the ballot explains how the judge should view the debate round. If a kritik criticizes the ethics of the round, then an acceptable alternative would propose another type of ethic that should be used for reasons like better discourse.