Jump to content
CoolioBrah

Is policy debate a dying art?

Recommended Posts

I've actually been thinking about this, it seems that policy debate participation seems to be steadily decreasing due to funding etc. Paperless debate has come and that allows debate to be far more accessible but I do not understand why the opposite is occurring. What are yall thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think that policy is probably a better forum of debate, I can see why it is dying out. As someone who has shifted from policy to LD over the last year, I can 100% verify that accessibility is a, if not the, driving force. Its not becasue of the esoteric language that policy is dying, it's just wayyy harder to be successful as a policy team than it is to be successful in LD. 

This can be seen by the number of "lone wolf teams." (teams that compete without school funding.) How many Lone wolfs were at the TOC in policy? Becasue none come to mind. Contrast this to LD however, and I know of 5 off the top of my head that had positive records at the TOC in LD. 

Plus, LD is still taking arguments from policy (I always run policy cases in LD lol) which means the transition to an event that rewards individual success is highly preferable when the alternative is staying in an event dominated by a select few schools.

 

That's just my analysis of the situation though, I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only other person's thought that matters -- he's been in the debate space for quite a long time

 

Everything has become art and art in itself has entered a banal existence as it has transformed itself to advertising – and you wonder why the "art" of debate is dying.

Baudrillard 1993 (Jean, Critical Theorist and Dead French Wizard, The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomena //TH)

We see Art proliferating wherever we turn; talk about Art is increasing even more rapidly. But the soul of Art - Art as adventure, Art with its power of illusion, its capacity for negating reality, for setting up an 'other scene' in opposition to reality, where things obey a higher set of rules, a transcendent figure in which beings, like line and colour on a canvas, are apt to lose their meaning, to extend themselves beyond their own raison d'etre, and, in an urgent process of seduction, to rediscover their ideal form (even though this form may be that of their own destruction) - in this sense, Art is gone. Art has disappeared as a symbolic pact, as something thus clearly distinct from that pure and simple production of aesthetic values, that proliferation of signs ad infinitum, that recycling of past and present forms, which we call 'culture' . There are no more fundamental rules, no more criteria of judgement or of pleasure. In the aesthetic realm of today there is no longer any God to recognize his own . Or, to use a different metaphor, there is no gold standard of aesthetic judgement or pleasure . The situation resembles that of a currency which may not be exchanged : it can only float, its only reference itself, impossible to convert into real value or wealth. Art, too, must circulate at top speed, and is impossible to exchange. 'Works' of art are indeed no longer exchanged, whether for each other or against a referential value. They no longer have that secret collusiveness which is the strength of a culture . We no longer read such works - we merely decode them according to ever more contradictory criteria. Nothing in this sphere conflicts with anything else. Neo-Geometrism, Neo-Expressionism, New Abstraction, New Representationalism - all coexist with a marvellous facility amid general indifference. It is only because none of these tendencies has any soul of its own that they can all inhabit the same cultural space; only because they arouse nothing but profound indifference in us that we can accept them all simultaneously. The art world presents a curious aspect. It is as though art and artistic inspiration had entered a kind of stasis - as though everything which had developed magnificently over several centuries had suddenly been immobilized, paralysed by its own image and its own riches. Behind the whole convulsive movement of modern art lies a kind of inertia, something that can no longer transcend itself and has therefore turned in upon itself, merely repeating itself at a faster and faster rate . On the one hand, then, a stasis of the living form of art, and at the same time a proliferative tendency, wild hyperbole, and endless variations on all earlier forms (the life, moving of itself, of that which is dead) . All this is logical enough: where there is stasis, there is metastasis . When a living form becomes disordered, when (as in cancer) a genetically determined set of rules ceases to function, the cells begin to proliferate chaotically . Just as some biological disorders indicate a break in the genetic code, so the present disorder in art may be interpreted as a fundamental break in the secret code of aesthetics. By its liberation of form, line, colour, and aesthetic notions - as by its mixing up of all cultures, all styles - our society has given rise to a general aestheticization: all forms of culture - not excluding anti-cultural ones - are promoted and all models of representation and anti-representation are taken on board. Whereas art was once essentially a utopia - that is to say, ultimately unrealizable - today this utopia has been realized : thanks to the media, computer science and video technology, everyone is now potentially a creator. Even antiart, the most radical of artistic utopias, was realized once Duchamp had mounted his bottle-dryer and Andy Warhol had wished he was a machine . All the industrial machinery in the world has acquired an aesthetic dimension; all the world's insignificance has been transfigured by the aestheticizing process. It is often said that the West's great undertaking is the commercialization of the whole world, the hitching of the fate of everything to the fate of the commodity. That great undertaking will turn out rather to have been the aestheticization of the whole world - its cosmopolitan spectacularization, its transformation into images, its semiological organization. What we are witnessing, beyond the materialist rule of the commodity, is a semio-orgy of everything by means of advertising, the media, or images. No matter how marginal, or banal, or even obscene it may be, everything is subject to aestheticization, culturalization, museumification. Everything is said, everything is exposed, everything acquires the force, or the manner, of a sign. The system runs less on the surplus-value of the commodity than on the aesthetic surplus-value of the sign.

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so. 

 

It kills your ability to not see the world as purely adversarial at heart. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...