A/T KritiksA. Interpretation: Burdens should be reciprocal, so negatives must actively prove the converse of the resolution through a counter-advocacy.B. Violation: The negative does not negate the text of the resolution, but simply offers disadvantages of [ ].C. Standards:1.Time-Skew: The K skews prep time because it takes much less time to link a criticism to an argument compared to responding to the specific warrants. Thus the NR gets virtually 100% of preptime, while I have to more equitably divide my prep because I have to refute all arguments. Also, theneg skews my 1AR prep and speech time on an issue that I can’t win off of. If I just prove [my epistemology is sound/not oppressive], I don’t necessarily win. 2.Ground: kritiks explode neg ground because a. they can pick any problematic assumption or mentality that affirming entails, whereas the aff has to prove the text of the resolution. This grants them infinite ground because no epistemology is perfect. It’s easier to deny something’s assumptions than to prove it true. [b. They do not have to actively prove a statement true. Allowing the neg to choose anything that contradicts the aff means Ks skew ground because they isolate one part of the case that’s bad, while I have to prove every level of the resolution true. c. the neg must demonstrate a clear alternative because else they garner a severe advantage because it is easier to think of a generic denial of a statement rather than actually refute it.]Ground is key to fairness because an unequal distribution of ground structurally ensures one side better access to the truth of the resolution. Even if the topic might always skew ground, minimizing that ground skew is always preferable.