This is almost 100% correct. As I've written on my own blog, proper argumentation requires that advocates for changes actually build a case and not just make a critique. Let's put it formally and say the proposition is: RESOLVED: Social Security should be reformed. If all the affirmative arguers do is state the problems with Social Security, they lose. They've presented no alternative. If the alternative they present is the current private accounts proposals, they need to demonstrate that their proposed solution will actually solve the problems they've identified or, at the very least, present a comparative benefits case. I haven't seen one advocate do that. So as it stands the private account proposal is a non sequitur.