Most people don't even know how to run Nietzsche kritiks, and they do so anyway. It annoys me a lot. I heard one Nietzsche kritik that advocates for moral nihilism. The argument was basically this:
1) Moral realism is contingent on God
2) God is dead
3) Ergo, moral realism is false
The only justification for (1) is a Brown card (Wendy Brown, Politics Out of History) that says any moral motivation, sans epistemological ground, would result in subjective moralism; it doesn't even talk about God being the sole epistemological ground, much less the Christian God. And for (2), they ran a literal interpretation of Nietzsche, plus used Nietzsche card as an appeal to authority. I didn't really contest (2) however stupid the argument was (seeing as I'm an atheist), but that's just how bad Nietzsche K's can be. I can understand well-explained ones.
If someone just completely uses obscure language, etc. kritik the kritik, run Foucault's obscurantism kritik, argue that whatever they're saying is incoherent and insufficiently explained, and say it's bad for debate.
Tell me what the kritik is, I'll tell you how best to respond.