Original sentence: Some argue that kritiks (when offered without an alternative) put judges in situations where articulating a fair winner is impossible because the judge is asked to "eat" the affirmative cases harms in order to endorse the Kritik's ethical position
Edited sentence: How can a judge evaluate a plan without knowing what will replace it if the plan is rejected.Kritiks attempt to show flaws in affirmative logic but they don't always provide an alternative, but there is no reason to reject a plan when the alternative is unknown