The quality of a community is not determined by how well people debate, but how well everyone meshes together in that community. So arguing well might help things mesh together, but it is not the end-all-be-all. Informative article, I suppose, but I would've rather seen a critique than a dry instructional list.
A Kritik of what? As a rule, TIF users are more logical, but also more prone to use logical fallacies then other RS users in game or on the RSOF. Ye, the first article was boring. But I'm curious what type of K you'd have been interested in, as I might write one lol.
A kritik is, to overgeneralize, a challenging of the mindset/viewpoint of a stance before the proposed action can/should be taken, among other things. Example: I ran the "F-ing K" at my last debate when the Neg dropped the F bomb a few times. It basically says that the F bomb is the linguistic equivilant of a nuclear bomb, it degrades women by exalting the cultures "male dominated" view of sex, and the impact was something bad (I forgot exactly what the MPX and terminal impact was-I'm tired lol) that's a very general view of one type of K.
Perhaps a better example would be the "whiteness" K we use in debate. The team argues that the debate community is "white" (generally rich/privilaged/socially higher up, etc) and as such the resolution can not be enacted before this problem is addressed. As such, until the debate community is so "non-white" that the resolution does not require X to be used (In this case using the USFG as the actor) that Y bad things will occur/are occurring etc. I never use this K, so I'm not as familiar with it, and it has many layers and things which can be changed.