Not specifying the agent of the alternative destroys education by implicating alternative agent fiat, as well as object fiat.

Negative claims that excluding critical alternatives is detrimental to education fail to be persuasive when decision-making logic is taken into account. [because] Critical intellectuals and policymakers both take into account the probability that their actions will be successful. Fiating that individuals alter their method of thinking circumvents these questions of probability and thus not only destroys education about policymaking, but offer[ing] a flawed approach to activism (or any other purview of action/philosophy the negative is advocating), Intellectuals and activists have many important considerations relating to resources, press coverage, political clout and method. These questions all are directly related to who is taking action. Alternative debates thus often become frustrating because they do a poor job of explaining who the subject is. Consider the popular Nietzschcan alternative, "do nothing." Who is it that the negative wants to do nothing? Does the USFG do nothing? Is it the debaters? Is it the judge who does nothing? Is it every individual, or just individuals in Africa that have to do with the affirmatives harm area? All of these questions directly implicate the desirability of the alternative, and thus the education that we can receive from this mode of debate. Alternatives like "vote negative to reject capitalism," "detach truth from power," or "embrace an infinite responsibility to the other" fall prey to similar concerns. This inability to pin the negative down to course of action allows them to be shifty in their second rebuttal, and sculpt their alternative in a way that avoids the affirmative's offense. Rather than increasing education, critical frameworks are often a mask that allows the negative to inflate their importance and ignore crucial decision-making considerations.