(I want to call the article ill-informed but I suspect the author is actually at least generally aware of all the dynamics you describe and just relying on their audience not to be.)
> “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist... I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging... I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments... Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.”
This is not at all a typical judge paradigm, she had to search quite hard to find, that (she also is wrong about where she got it from, this is not a 2023 ToC paradigm).
If your thinking is sound, your arguments should be sound and they should be able to stand on their own.
The most interesting part of this article to me was the end, where the author argues about how important High School Debate is and how Kritiks are the ruin of this important tradition. I was a HS debator in the early 90s, before K's were popular, and from my experience debate was already a fun but ultimately harmful activity. The whole idea was to spew a constant stream of arguments that didn't have any merit as quickly as possible, hoping the opposing team would forget to respond to just one out of 100, and then you win.
HS Debate already trained a generation of win-at-all-costs, who cares if you are right folks like Karl Rove. I don't see how the current generation of kritik based debate could possibly be any worse
In Lincoln Douglas debate it was common to construct what is called a 'collapsing tautology'. Your argument is constructed to look like a series of logical steps with which there can be argument, but in fact all it is is a tautology that ultimately can't be refuted. It's a trap and if the opponent engages at all they lose.
More generally HS debate is politics and persuasion. Know the judges, build charisma, learn what works regardless of the content.
The introduction of a new noxious debating strategy might be noteworthy, but it is no more ruining debate than all the others, and the students don't actually care about the strategy or its tenants any more than they care about the validity of Rawlsian justice.