The author's take is a little confusing in an activity where the validity of certain types of argumentation, including kritiks, is routinely debated and playing to judge's preferences is a (often underutilized) part of the game. I recognize it's probably changed a bit in the last decade or so since I participated, but at that time it was about as common to have judges refuse to consider kritiks as embrace them. Arguments that they undermined debate (using many of the same points as this article) often won.
Part of the activity is arguing over the rules, which makes it much more interesting, I think, than one as narrowly defined as the author seems to be advocating.
Part of the activity is arguing over the rules, which makes it much more interesting, I think, than one as narrowly defined as the author seems to be advocating.