Please do not argue a Critique unless you actually know it well enough to truly understand and explain it. I only voted a few times ever (less than 5) for a Critique prior to the current topic / season where I have voted for more of them than ever before but it usually does not result in the best speaker points due to lack of actual understanding demonstrated by the team running the Critique. My preference would be that if you have a better idea than the affirmative plan, offer a counterplan that is why this is called policy debate. If you want a particular "alt", make a counterplan which takes us there, then you can debate if it is good, bad, or better than an affirmative policy (plan). I like clash in policy debate rounds. Preferably you will do actual line by line debate which means that you respond to your opponent rather than just keep repeating what you said in a prior speech. Repeating without answering the opposing argument does not make for a winning position. Lastly, theory arguments are rarely convincing unless a team is actually abusive in some way during the round. If you clash on multiple or all of the rest of the arguments in the round, then it is probably not abusive. Arguments are conditional unless a team specifically says that they are not, in either a speech or cross examination. Answers in cross examination are binding and included in how your positions could be judged in a round; make sure you ask and answer questions in a manner consistent with your advocacy.