Several issues with this stance / this is where I'm doing overview stuff
1) Your "policy research" isn't indicative of real policy making. Hate to break it to you, but Nate Cohen wrote an excellent post on the CEDA forums about why this style of debate is not only plain false, but also unethical. When we focus our research on hyperbolic apocalyptic scenarios, which are already unlikely and not how the real world works, that drowns out any claims regarding the ethics or social implications of a policy. This makes us ethically bankrupt through a deliberate disengagement from philosophical discussions. In a world of 100% "policy" debate, there would be no claims to ethics, then, as everyone would go straight for extinction impacts.
2) Debate as an activity has already become intertwined with critical thought. There is no way to discuss policies without discussing the social implications of them. What separates "policy" debate from "critical" debate? Are critiques not simply another negation of a policy? They're almost no different than DA+CP debate, except for content.
3) If critical debate has value, why should it be ignored? Maybe I fundamentally misunderstand your argument, but on one hand you seem to be saying that this style is ruining the activity, and on the other you seem to be saying it has value. If it has value, and we have reason to believe that it does, then it should be valued. In other words, if critical debate is educational or beneficial in any way, why shouldn't we embrace it?
Several solutions here.
1) Double down on going hard right. If you're going to say US leadership or democracy or [insert impact that teams criticize] is good, then you have to bite the link to the K. You will not win the link debate, period. You have to go for impact comparisons and framework arguments to make this debate winnable.
2) Don't go hard right. Taking a soft-left approach makes the link/perm debate a bit easier, but you have to be willing/able to defend the state as good.
3) Write blocks to answer their blocks. You read a framework argument in the 2AC, you know (roughly) what the neg block will say in response, so prepare answers to that in advance. "Blocks and pathos" don't win debates on their own, its how they are utilized, and they can be utilized by both teams.
You argue that pushing debaters into certain argumentative styles is bad, but
1) This contradicts the arguments you're making about kritiks being bad for debate, thereby entailing that all debaters must be policy-oriented.
2) Adaptation is good, even if that means "policy" debaters have to start making "critical" arguments (such as ontology first/not first, etc.).
Here's where you misunderstand the argument. The argument is not "oh you're some conservative who hates debate", the argument is rather that the same rhetoric you use to explain why critical debate is bad falls exactly in line with the rhetoric that neocons use to criticize the debate space and talk about the liberal takeover of academia. If you clicked any of the links I posted, you'll easily find someone saying "the topic is x, why are they discussing racism and not a policy? silly libs!" which is, in essence, the same argument you're making. Publishing a book about it suddenly empowers those same neocons by giving them a (relatively) qualified author to cite when criticizing debate for a focus on identity.
Then you must not understand what it means for others. NDT 2013, Emporia SW. Debate is a home. Your stance evicts the people who live there.
1) Not antithetical to the structure, policy vs kritik debates happen all the time and it is possible for either team to win those debates.
2) It doesn't silence policy debaters, there are solutions mentioned above.
3) Your stance silences critical debaters, even if you win silencing is bad you don't make it better, just scapegoat teams that read kritiks.
How do people take advantage? Calling out policies/rhetoric/resolutions/etc that have harmful social implications doesn't sound like "taking advantage", that sounds like bringing forward new discussions that challenge what we previously assumed. Even then, it's arguable that it's impossible for kritiks to give a team an "advantage", because there is no unbeatable argument. Every argument has a weakness, and that doesn't change with philosophy.