It's a kritik if you run a framework that ethical issues/whatever should be most important... The fundamental difference from a DA is that a DA weighs itself against the affirmatives framework/criteria, a k creates it's own
Erm... no. All
disadvantages AND kritiks ultimately impact to ethics, and you can ALWAYS fight about whose ethical framework to use. You can't distinguish a kritik from a DA that way.
The key difference between a kritik and a disadvantage is pre-fiat vs. post-fiat. DAs are post-fiat; they argue that the outcome of passing
the plan is bad. Kritiks are pre-fiat; they argue that the outcome of running
the plan (regardless of whether it's passed or not) is bad.
Example: Arguing that "the plan would foster the devaluation of life if it was passed" is post-fiat, so it's a DA. Arguing that "the Affirmative team is themselves fostering the devaluation of life by running their plan" is pre-fiat, so it's a kritik. (You can conceivably argue both pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts at the same time, but that just means you're running two different impacts, not that the post-fiat impact magically becomes a kritik.)
A kritik HAS to supply a new framework. It does not operate in a net benefits world, but puts itself as a priori. A DA argues that the same type of things the affirmative has already said are important (number of deaths, economy, environment) are made worse by the plan. If aff ran a specific criteria, obviously you have to respond to it, but no affirmative would question that people dying is bad. The same would not be true for an argument that capitalism is bad, so anything that endorses it is bad. Also, you dropped the end of that sentence. What you quoted is not sufficient for a k, it also needs the alternative.
No, pre/post fiat is not the distinction. Having a framework and an alt is the distinction. Ks can be post-fiat. In your example, if I ran framework that value of life is the most important issue, with impacts that loss of value of life leads to endorsing slavery and presented an alternative of rejecting aff, I'd have a K. It's not a DA because I'm not weighing against your case. If I win framework, I probably win the round. Losing framework means that I probably lose because there's no way to weigh the K under the aff framework. A DA says something is bad, impacts that, and then the impacts are weighed.
Another aspect is that the K does not need uniqueness. A K generates non-linear impacts without uniqueness, because it argues that the issue should be valued first, regardless of whether there is already a problem.
A clearer example of a post-fiat kritik is that a plan to intervene in Syria fosters a mindset of Western superiority. This is obviously a k, but it's also post-fiat (the mindset is not of the people in the room, it's of large populations). A capitalism k is another example.
Basically, pre vs post-fiat will determine the type of framework in a k, but pretty much any argument with the structure I outlined is a K (if it doesn't have moral or ethical implications, it probably won't win as a k, but creating a framework based on a single issue and having an alternative to solve it means you should treat it as a k)
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!debatecamp.pssda.net