Because the case arguments frequently stem from the critique, the negative has a position in the debate that is coherent. Critiques frequently have a priori implications. An a priori argument is one that must be resolved first, usually before the substantive issues of the debate are resolved. In our example of testing, the negative could argue that policies that reinforce racism or sexism are so evil that they need to be avoided absolutely. If testing is racist or sexist, it should be rejected regardless of substantive benefits that might result from increased testing.
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.