Yes, because the article is, as I said, rage bait. It completely misrepresents how kritiks operate, and cherry-picks judge paradigms. There is nothing wrong with liking kirtiks anymore than liking any other type of argumentation, but the author doesn't like them, so they're trying to make it seem like they're bad, and thus so is liking them.

There are FAR more paradigms out there where judges will say they don't want to hear Kritiks, especially K-Affs.

> they don’t even bother advocating for the original resolution!

There is no requirement that the debaters advocate for the resolution in most forms of debate; the author is trying to make it sound unusual, but that's extremely normal, and always has been.