The HSD wiki article for kritikal case
has a decent summary and some examples. The main TP example given is Will Malson's anti-global warming case, which was used in a vdebate here (link
The defining characteristic is that kritikal Affs don't have a fiat-based plan. It's all about expressing your
abstract support for a philosophical position - if the case actually has the government do anything, it's not a kritikal Aff, it's just a regular case with philosophical harms. "We should reject utilitarianism" is a kritikal Aff. "The government should reject utilitarianism by doing X, Y, and Z" is not.
One potential response: kritikal Affs effectively throw out the resolution. The resolution asks, "should the government reform election law?" A kritikal Aff doesn't actually answer that question, because it doesn't talk about what the government should do - it talks about what we
should do. So it doesn't prove the resolution true. (This arguably works under a pure plancentrism
framework, where the resolution merely establishes the topic of discussion, but it's fundamentally incompatible with the rescentrism
frameworks.) You can make similar arguments about terms like "reform" and "policy", where present.
EDIT: Added a brief discussion of objections to the wiki article. Arguably, this goes with the territory - kritiks always
argue that mindsets can win without the resolution, so if you accept kritik theory, it makes sense to accept kritikal affs.
_________________Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe
- "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook
- NCFCA/Stoa (thread)Factsmith research software
- v1.5 currently available (thread)Loose Nukes debate blog
- stuff to read with your eyes.