Critiques frequently avoid uniqueness problems. Critiques are often found in the writings of those who criticize current policies. Affirmative debaters frequently rely on some element of the current system to implement their plans or to prove why new policies would better achieve the goals of the present system. Critique writers frequently argue, in effect, that the goals of the present system should be rejected at every opportunity. In addition, many critique writers argue that the most important place to reject accepted ideas is in individual settings, thus making the critique unique each time a judge has the opportunity to reject the affirmative.
Critiques shift the debate to negative ground.
These are essentially punishment arguments urging the judge to strike a preemptive blow against some failure of the other team. Examples might include language-based value objections, questions of jurisdiction, evidence fabrication, etc. These arguments point out to the judge why some error deserves punishment before the issues of the case are even examined. We are seeing more and more attempts to inject instructions to guide the judge in understanding the preeminence of particular values, value hierarchies, or even full- scale deontology. These are not a priori, but, rather, are attempts to shape the on-going weighing process unfolding in the round.