Ok, so I currently debate in a region which is not too open to progressive arguments, so I was wondering how to explain why Ks and K affs are legitimate.
My reasoning for Ks is that because fiat is illusory, the judge should vote on real-world benefits first (such as educational value), and that the opponent's plan inherently contains wrong/immoral assumptions about the world which affect the real world and the views of the debaters/judges in the room and future debaters/judges that hear the aff's ideas if the aff is not shown that their ideas are wrong through a neg ballot. Is there anything else I need to explain, as it seems that if I only say what's written above, the aff can easily argue that they don't actually support the ideas/assumptions found in the resolution and are instead bound to them by the resolution? I don't understand how K affs are legitimate myself, so if someone could explain why the aff doesn't have to uphold the resolution and can kritik it, that would be much appreciated.
