Definition
A kritik (from the German word for "critique") is an argument that challenges the underlying assumptions, language, or framework an opponent's case relies on, rather than disputing the specific claims within it. Instead of arguing that a policy will not work, a kritik might argue that the way the policy's problem is framed relies on a flawed or harmful assumption that should be rejected before the specific plan is even evaluated. The style originated in competitive policy debate and has since spread into other formats.
Example
An affirmative case proposes a policy justified partly by projected economic growth figures. A kritik might argue that treating economic growth as the primary measure of a policy's worth ignores who actually benefits from that growth, and that the round should reject arguments built entirely on growth as the metric, regardless of whether the specific growth numbers cited are accurate.
Common mistakes
A kritik is not simply "your assumptions are bad" asserted without support; like any other argument, it needs its own claim, warrant, and impact, explaining specifically what assumption is being challenged, why it is flawed, and what should follow from rejecting it. Debaters new to kritiks sometimes run them without a clear alternative framework, leaving the judge unsure what to do with the critique even if they find it persuasive.