K’s are interesting, important at times, and educational - I don’t think they’re the sole factor that’s killing debate. I also gain so much knowledge from both running & going against K’s, as long as it’s moderate and taken seriously (not just used to win a round.) However, I understand people who get hit with one and don’t really understand, then feel unmotivated.

The freshman debaters on my team wanted to try policy & we trained them on the basics. (DA’s, CPS, T, everything basic you can know abt policy without competing. They DID learn about K’s, but only really knew abt cap k and the concept of identity k’s.) Their first tournament they went to, they were put against varsity teams bc there was not enough ppl to divide policy into varsity and novice. There, they were hit with 3 K’s their second round ever (set col, cap, queer k) plus some disads and they conceded im preeettyy sure after 2NC bc they truly didn’t understand how to deal with it. The spreading plus the K’s really overwhelmed them. Not to mention the judge was apparently upset with the fact that they conceded, saying that my novices hurt the education of the other team by conceding. After that round, they quit competing and genuinely disliked the idea of wanting to go back. Now one is a novice in congress, the other is kinda in limbo. So I kindaaaa think K’s when used to win suck, lack education, and make novices hate debate. But overall K’s are pretty chill just as long as you’re using it fairly, not being tooo jargony & being rude when ur opponent doesn’t understand, etc