I think that kritiks are becoming less relevant to overall “strategy” because the “Policy” debate community is becoming more divided between those who engage in more traditional policy
debate and those who read kritiks as “one-off” positions and only “kritik.” The emergence of the new all-kritik labs at summer camps only reify this trend.
While factoring the kritik into overall strategy considerations has become less relevant, the presence of the kritik has only grown and, at the very least, people need to be prepared to debate the most popular ones.
Capitalism. Probably the most popular kritik in debate, there are strong links that are focused around the idea that engaging China and promoting relations would promote capitalism and neoliberal development.
One important strategy note is that the Capitalism K is also useful to Negative teams that want to fight off performance Affirmatives, as there is good evidence that addressing economic oppression is the essential to solve oppression. There is also an entire body of literature that argues that racial oppression cannot be solved until economic inequality is addressed.
Ant-blackness. This is really not my wheelhouse, but I can imagine several applications of anti-blackness two the resolution. One, China is anti-black and, therefore, we should not engage it. Two, the international relations system is anti-black, so engaging it should not be supported. Three, the plan supports the global economic system, which is also anti-black. Certain representations and policies themselves may also be anti-black.
Shunning/human rights. As discussed in the case section, US policy toward China has most often included consideration for how US policies could encourage China to have greater respect for human rights. One way this argument manifests itself on the Negative is to argue that the US should not engage China because of its human rights abuses. There is a “shunning” argument that claims it is immoral to engage countries that promote human rights.