Jump to content
debategirl52

Policy debate has fallen apart

Recommended Posts

Hello - I debated on the NatCirc in HS for 4 years. K debate has much educational value but has crushed policy debate. I am writing a book on the state of HS debate and would like input from community members. Please comment your thoughts on K debate and how it harms policy debaters. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It harms policy debate by giving the tools to debaters to become self-advocates and by having the be their own person who shall not be tied to advocate for the USFG.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't. In fact, it allows us as individuals to have discussions about social issues regarding the plan, the topic, or debate as a whole.

After taking a look at your post history...

edit: RIP, spoiler box was only meant to hide screenshots for space. More text included in the box below the screenshots, although it was intended to be outside of it.

edit 2: another link as to why the right hates philosophy in the debate space - this one authored by a HS debater! (https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/afrmjd/disqualified_in_a_high_school_debate_for_quoting/?ref=share&ref_source=embed&utm_content=body&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_name=4d4b9b62cb044823abe9c6c891a6a829&utm_source=embedly&utm_term=afrmjd)

 

 

image.png.c71a92d81a0848a49fe74fe71a0a0597.png

image.png.28760073007a25db89e61b1252ffac5f.pngimage.png.0887d6e3a7b83682661154f2bbf096f2.png

image.thumb.png.cacb3f61b2aeea355a82efe93b8031eb.png

image.png.6c5010653433cf007a67c6798a3b1dc8.png

my guess is, you think the K is ruining debate because you struggle with it. That doesn't make it an inherently bad argument.

Further, I'm not sure how great of an idea publishing a book on this concept is. It sounds like fuel for neocons to continue targeting the activity in the way that they have. Surely you've seen articles like this (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-to-speak-gibberish-win-a-national-debate-title/comment-page-2/) or comments under videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSB-byH8VTI) that attacking the activity for being too liberal or focusing too much on identity.

 

Just my two cents though.

 

Edited by NickDB8
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I have a few major problems with considering K debate as holistically problematic-

 

1. Policy-policy debate isn't dead- there are plenty of teams on the national circuit that are almost exclusively policy oriented (IE Greenhill AE, MBA BH) that are still probably some of the top teams in the entire nation. It's not that policy debate isn't dead whatsoever, because that is completely false. In fact I would like to think that this topic has been rather K light on the national circuit in terms of national circuit (except for teams like North Broward MR, we see your like 6 bids).

 

2. I think that the conception of K debate ruining debate is wrong- this same process happened with the introduction of the counterplan in the 1980's, and the disad before that, and the t shell as well. Point is, debate is constantly shifting and coming up with different ways to interact and present argumentation, and there is nothing we can do about that. I think that restricting teams from learning about these kinds of arguments puts teams at a disadvantage for a few reasons, A- because they never learn how to cohesively answer these types of arguments which means they'll inevitably lose when they run into these types of arguments, B- they re growth as debaters are restricted, I think that preventing debaters from experimenting with the K constricts their growth as debaters into learning how to think kritikally when trying to answer these types of arguments due to a lack of knowledge. I think that K debate injects education into the debate space that we could never gain through policymaking frameworks (IE how our in-round discourse undermines others or has dehumanizing implications) which require the K within the debate space. I was told a story by the UTNIF LD camp curriculum director, Jana Harrison (who's action I in no way, shape, or form condone for those of you who have heard about the completely inappropriate things she did with her students, this is just an anecdote that was given to us about the injection of the K into Oklahoma debate) about a certain team that would always use horrific and abusive language to the other team before round in order to intimidate them, which gave ground to run a K about how their demeanor and language were a tool of the patriarchy in order to conceptualize a submissive, feminine subject. Which also proves that the K is a tool that is critical (pardon the pun) in order to confront and combat completely abusive practices within the debate space. Along with that, the K also exposes us to critical theory that would be unbeknownst to us otherwise which also allows for a deeper philosophical education and promotes the free exchange of ideas among debaters (I personally think that methods debates are in fact one of the most educational debates that could ever occur in the debate community.

 

3. This doesn't mean that K debate at times can't be problematic- I think that trading off learning the foundations of debate (IE the stock issues, how to go for T, a counterplan/DA) with learning K debate is bad because it prevents debaters from being able to form coherent arguments (I know this from personal experience with novices at my school), which is why I agree that policy-policy debate has its place and importance in the community. I also tend to disagree with the way some debaters tend to frame K's (IE the "They mention money= they're capitalist pigs" is completely misrepresenting the literature which it derives from, or the "using ad homs within the literature 'such as calling your opponents homophobic when you're running queer theory when they in fact did nothing related to homophobic in-round discourse' to substitute actual args" example which I completely agree is bad for debate. That being said, that's A- a very, very, small amount of people who do so, and B- just an issue of framing the argument and using that as a reason to completely dislike K debate is bad because it misrepresents a good K round. Next I also think that K debate is legitimate in the circumstances of 1. discourse K's (IE security, language K's) and 2. when structural K's (IE Baudrillard, Queer Theory, Deleuze, Cap) have a legitimate link to the action of the aff or the resolution because they ensure further topic engagement that delves into the critical side of the resolution

 

4. If you really dislike K debate so much, just learn how to beat it- coming from a mainly policy school, it took me time to actually find out the proper way to answer K's, but once I did it was rather easy to beat them back if you knew what you were talking about. For example, a good strat if you were running a hard right policy would be going for framework and the perm in the 2AR and winning that extinction outweighs the K so vote aff. Next, if running a soft-left aff, would be to use some sort of perm and a link turn off of the aff along with a state good warrant. There are many ways to beat back the K, it's just a matter of you learning to get good at them and winning on them. 

 

I agree with Nick a lot on their post, I don't think that you've developed a sufficient opinion on K debate because everything you are saying is based on you not being the greatest at execution of critical strats, which is nothing to be ashamed considered it's not as easy as it looks and it's not for everyone

 

 

Now, I also agree with Nick on the conception that a book only worsens the publics perception of debate which only spurs further backlash and hurt our ability to recruit new members which means that the activity would die

 

Now, I am happy to elaborate my opinions on K debate more, just message me and I will happily answer any questions y'all have,

 

Sorry if this post is incoherent, I'm really tired seeing as it is 1:11 AM where I live

 

edit: changed to use correct pronouns, I am deeply sorry for any harm done and will do whatever necessary to make it right

Edited by TheTrashDebater
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with critical debate is a simple one. Commenters prior have identified certain trends -- things like advocacy skills or educational growth -- both of which are valuable in an abstract level but are often neglected when the majority of these discussions occur. The problem with critical debate is that the intellectual labor necessary to adequately condense and explain broad swaths of theoretical concepts, then apply those concepts to a debate round is an impossible task (if one values accurately reading that scholarship). In debates I have judged and participated in, complex language has become a crutch rather than a mechanism for meaningful deliberation. It's easy to say K debate makes you more ethical or a better advocate but I'd wager that 90% of graduating high schoolers couldn't have a more than a ten minute conversation about the critique they are best at with an academic in the field -- I know I couldn't and I only lost three rounds going for Baudrillard in three years. 

Debate -- specifically K debate -- doesn't demand evidence quality or production (although when it does have new or good cards, those articles are stolen and recirculated until any meaning is stripped from it). If you want an example of critical debate's lack of innovation, just look at Wilderson or Baudrillard debates: despite a plethora of new evidence (of way higher quality) being released every day, people are still reading cards from Red White and Black or primary source Baudrillard. This trend isn't new: I know I stole a bunch of cards when I read the K. What's different now is the attitude of superiority surrounding the debaters who do it now. I implore you to return to debate once you're no longer a debater because the view from the outside is toxic. More than any other style, K debate has encouraged disrespect as strategy (especially at the high school level! After KM videos were posted, Baudrillard debaters weren't just obnoxious, they were mean!) which exacerbates any divide this community already had. Don't get me wrong, language Ks were extremely important in curtailing sexist discourse in the community but the collapsing of debate to only language games defeats the purpose of debate's unique pedagogical value. 

Paradoxically, K debate raises the long-term barrier to entry for small schools more than any other resource impediment. I know what you're thinking: "I was a small school and K debate helped me participate against the big schools!" To some degree, yes. In the short term, small schools won vs big schools. But how does one meaningfully recruit and retain novices and junior varsity debaters when they expect to debate Immigration policy decisions and are forced to defend the legitimacy of the Civil Rights movement? It's not that these discussions aren't valuable (I know a ton about psychoanalysis and its relationship to physical markers), but the applicability of these discussions outside academia is limited. Extremely limited. If you want to become a social advocate, lawyer, or policy wonk, having historical background is important but absent being able to advocate and write about policy or specific demands, you'll only ever get so far. 

The second aspect of access is journals. If you're a small school from Nebraska, there's a decent chance you can't access one of the thousand articles people have cited from behind a paywall. A great example of this was round 7 of Glenbrooks last year where MBA GH read a miscut card from Paperson that concluded NEG but they didn't include that part of the paragraph in their card. The book was 20$ so if someone was going to call them out for this, they would have to shell out a ton of money for a single round. While this definitely occurs in policy rounds, the frequency of such occurrences are lower. On a similar note, the fact that more K teams either don't use the wiki or are purposefully opaque in what their argument is (I know I was), crushes the ability for anyone to meaningfully clash. Strategies like removing tags, having incomplete citations, or misdisclosing are practices almost exclusively held by K teams. It's not transgressive; it hurts everyone's ability to engage which is allegedly what critical AFFs say is soooooo important.

Teams on framework who say the AFF can always shift to something unpredictable miss the point: the majority of teams reading critical AFFs aren't doing it to be strategic, it's because they're lazy. Compare the amount of work necessary to write a policy AFF to writing a critical AFF. To write a good policy AFF, you need a solvency advocate, a variety of internal links, add ons, a diversity of impacts, answers to every DA (plan un/popular, link turns, impact turns), counterplans, researching topicality and discussions around your plantext -- and from there it's barely readable. For a decent critical AFF, you need one or two good books or theory articles about the topic. a framework, cap, and wilderson block, then you're set -- sometimes you can just reuse the framework block from your last AFF. In High School, the AFF I wrote with the highest win percentage was a collection of the greatest hits of framework impact turns and it took under a half hour to write. Concessionary ground isn't a platitude, it's a way of life. If you write your critical AFF to encourage clash, you're guaranteed to lose. The less you link to, the better off you'll be. While this is obviously a problem in policy debate (Peninsula TW), those cases are an exception, not the rule. The obvious answer to this is, "go for the impact turn!!!! Debates about capitalism and wilderson or whatever are good!!!!" and if the words "no link -- not our xyz" have ever crossed your lips you can sit down and shut up. The reason every critical debate devolves to the permutation is because debate distorts theory to fit a competitive framework that it doesn't belong. Ask any Marxist if they think Black women should never talk about intersectionality -- anyone but the most orthodox followers would look at you in confusion. Why? Because academia is almost never as ideological as debate implies. The choice authors we've picked to discuss (Agamben, Baudrillard, Wilderson) are at the fringes of the field because their views aren't conducive to any practical action or movement. Critical debate necessitates the most radical and outlandish positions because anything else would not operate in the set up of our game. 

When people say "well debating about nuclear war and spreading isn't applicable to every day life either!!!" they're not wrong, but they've missed the point. K debate and its progression to long overviews, complicated jargon, and convoluted internal disads unsettles the most important aspect of clash. It's much easier to beat your opponent  on how their neglect of the ontological condition of ideological state apparati distort their knowledge production than an in depth discussion about PCLOB's efficacy. I should know, I debated in a UDL and won plenty of rounds by going one off with a Frankenstein of a K but that doesn't mean its useful or educational. Alternatively, policy debate permits complex discussions without falling into the trap of no longer applying to the real world. Arguments like Dedev or Trade Bad seem silly, but to argue against or for effectively, one needs to have a handle on economic cycles of growth which is actually portable knowledge. On the flip side, I've never needed to know the difference between necro and bio politics in any job I've interviewed for but every economics job I've interviewed, I've used dedev as an example of how debate taught me to research diverse economic thought, even if I didn't buy into it. 

As a concluding thought: I've coached and read critiques and will continue to do so because that is the irreversible direction that debate is moving. Anyone who's followed academic and philosophical trends will realize that there is never any problem where the answer hasn't been "the answer's a little more complicated than just A or B." With that, there is a certain humility that it takes to acknowledge when something you've done and you've participated in isn't always the best. And it takes a big person to refuse to unquestionably follow one thing or another. The above could have just been my old 2AC to framework and it would have angered just as many people (unclear though given the pro-k bias on this site) but having and defending alternative perspectives is the point of debate. 

Edited by baedrillard
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a current HS judge and assistant coach and a longtime regular of the site, though currently on a different account than I've previously used. I strongly agree with everything Baedrillard says, in particular that K arguments are often used as an excuse for mean or disrespectful behavior towards others. The promise of K debate was enormous, but in many ways has failed to be realized, and I do not think it ever will regain its missed potential. Rather than serving to energize and reinvigorate traditional approaches to policy analysis, it has chiefly served to crowd them out and encourage polarization. To Bae's analysis, I'll add two other factors:

1. There is systematic literature skew in the critical theory and postmodernist literature that means policy affirmatives generally start from further behind than they ought to. The philosophical journals have many more low-quality hot takes in them than rebuttals to low-quality hot takes, due to the publishing incentives of authors. This pushes debates towards areas where one team has bad evidence and the other has only generic responses.

2. Judges who are sympathetic to Kritiks often fall into the trap of oversympathizing. It is very difficult for someone to have the personal belief that X is problematic and not allow that to influence their opinions on the quality of arguments related to X, even where debaters' arguments might fail to adequately make the case. This problem is also faced by judges with traditional policy-policy leanings, but only to a lesser degree, as such judges are generally more likely to adopt dissociative filters like belief in the value of roleplaying or switch-side debate, and are less likely to believe individual rounds or debater's beliefs may have high stakes for the future of activism. In contrast, K-friendly judges sometimes explicitly proclaim their hostility and mistrust towards ideals of neutrality and non-intervention. For judges for whom discourse matters, omission is a link, or questioning incommensurability is an act of settler-colonialism, it is much harder to set aside one's own opinions and pretend that the round should be seen as a game where fairness or arbitrary rules ought to meaningfully constrain teams' odds of victory.

Philosophy is extremely rich and interesting as a field, and this extends to the arguments of continental philosophers, postmodernists, and would-be revolutionaries, all of which are worth engaging with no matter what one's opinions. But, although I don't know how to fix it, there's a real problem with how philosophy is generally deployed in debate rounds. Arguments are treated as bludgeons to be dodged or smash with, rather than nuanced positions to engage with earnestly, thoughtfully, and this has me very concerned for the future of the activity. When we've grown old and look back on it in twenty or thirty years, I fear we'll find the activity peaked around 2014 or so.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, XrossEcramination said:

go away. it's too late. k's are here to stay.

lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone - I appreciate all of these comments... even those thoughtful pleas for me to "go away" ... anyways, the fact that many of you wrote multi-paragraph responses means a lot to me. I love debate. As I originally stated, K debate has educational value. However, I personally believe that it causes harm to debaters who want to talk about policy AND research policy (not philosophy). These are my beliefs and what I am writing my book on. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks again!

Edited by debategirl52
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add that I am particularly grateful to those who had the courage to speak out in this thread. Many debaters and coaches have pointed out the problems with K debate in a very articulate manner. I appreciate this and am glad to see that there are community members as worried as I am. Not only this, but I am happy to see @TheTrashDebater share his opinion with respect. Although I see your points, I must say that running a hard right AFF and going for FW isn't a solution. K teams destroy this strategy almost every time with their blocks and pathos. Not only that, but pushing policy debaters into this box is BAD. They shouldn't have to do this. Thank you!

Edited by debategirl52
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NickDB8 - No need to label me as a member of the "right" simply because I believe in policy debate. I support those who express their identity through debate. I understand the survival strategy method. What I am saying is that is antithetical to the structure of policy debate. It silences policy debaters. And frankly, I have seen too many people take advantage. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

As I originally stated, K debate has educational value. However, I personally believe that it causes harm to debaters who want to talk about policy AND research policy (not philosophy).

Several issues with this stance / this is where I'm doing overview stuff

1) Your "policy research" isn't indicative of real policy making. Hate to break it to you, but Nate Cohen wrote an excellent post on the CEDA forums about why this style of debate is not only plain false, but also unethical. When we focus our research on hyperbolic apocalyptic scenarios, which are already unlikely and not how the real world works, that drowns out any claims regarding the ethics or social implications of a policy. This makes us ethically bankrupt through a deliberate disengagement from philosophical discussions. In a world of 100% "policy" debate, there would be no claims to ethics, then, as everyone would go straight for extinction impacts.

2) Debate as an activity has already become intertwined with critical thought. There is no way to discuss policies without discussing the social implications of them. What separates "policy" debate from "critical" debate? Are critiques not simply another negation of a policy? They're almost no different than DA+CP debate, except for content.

3) If critical debate has value, why should it be ignored? Maybe I fundamentally misunderstand your argument, but on one hand you seem to be saying that this style is ruining the activity, and on the other you seem to be saying it has value. If it has value, and we have reason to believe that it does, then it should be valued. In other words, if critical debate is educational or beneficial in any way, why shouldn't we embrace it?

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

II must say that running a hard right AFF and going for FW isn't a solution. K teams destroy this strategy almost every time with their blocks and pathos.

Several solutions here.

1) Double down on going hard right. If you're going to say US leadership or democracy or [insert impact that teams criticize] is good, then you have to bite the link to the K. You will not win the link debate, period. You have to go for impact comparisons and framework arguments to make this debate winnable.

2) Don't go hard right. Taking a soft-left approach makes the link/perm debate a bit easier, but you have to be willing/able to defend the state as good.

3) Write blocks to answer their blocks. You read a framework argument in the 2AC, you know (roughly) what the neg block will say in response, so prepare answers to that in advance. "Blocks and pathos" don't win debates on their own, its how they are utilized, and they can be utilized by both teams.

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

Not only that, but pushing policy debaters into this box is BAD. They shouldn't have to do this.

You argue that pushing debaters into certain argumentative styles is bad, but 

1) This contradicts the arguments you're making about kritiks being bad for debate, thereby entailing that all debaters must be policy-oriented.

2) Adaptation is good, even if that means "policy" debaters have to start making "critical" arguments (such as ontology first/not first, etc.).

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

No need to label me as a member of the "right" simply because I believe in policy debate.

Here's where you misunderstand the argument. The argument is not "oh you're some conservative who hates debate", the argument is rather that the same rhetoric you use to explain why critical debate is bad falls exactly in line with the rhetoric that neocons use to criticize the debate space and talk about the liberal takeover of academia. If you clicked any of the links I posted, you'll easily find someone saying "the topic is x, why are they discussing racism and not a policy? silly libs!" which is, in essence, the same argument you're making. Publishing a book about it suddenly empowers those same neocons by giving them a (relatively) qualified author to cite when criticizing debate for a focus on identity.

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

I understand the survival strategy method.

Then you must not understand what it means for others. NDT 2013, Emporia SW. Debate is a home. Your stance evicts the people who live there.

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

What I am saying is that is antithetical to the structure of policy debate. It silences policy debaters.

1) Not antithetical to the structure, policy vs kritik debates happen all the time and it is possible for either team to win those debates.

2) It doesn't silence policy debaters, there are solutions mentioned above.

3) Your stance silences critical debaters, even if you win silencing is bad you don't make it better, just scapegoat teams that read kritiks.

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

And frankly, I have seen too many people take advantage. 

How do people take advantage? Calling out policies/rhetoric/resolutions/etc that have harmful social implications doesn't sound like "taking advantage", that sounds like bringing forward new discussions that challenge what we previously assumed. Even then, it's arguable that it's impossible for kritiks to give a team an "advantage", because there is no unbeatable argument. Every argument has a weakness, and that doesn't change with philosophy.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @NickDB8 ... Although I am a little concerned that you have so much time to write a paper on K debate being good, I appreciate all of the thought you put into this. That being said, I noted your arguing that policy debate is unethical. That alone should help you empathize with the opposite statement (K debate bad). I understand that critical literature is good for challenging AFF plans, but do believe that the structure of Ks and mandated POSTAL defeats the "challenging" of politics. It turns into a game. The K team just waits for the FW team to either drop something or for them to fail to offer one of the mandated elements. This is what I meant by taking advantage....among other things. Even if you don't agree with me on that, I and many others on this thread see the harms in K AFFs. Even if you don't like policy research, many policy-oriented community members are forced to invest much time in critical literature when they would rather be learning about the real world. On the other hand, K debaters can neglect to research policy research completely and win on their K blocks. See the unfairness? One group has total freedom to learn what they want and the other group is forced out of their own interests in order to be competitive. 
 

I would like to add that I am not silencing K debaters.... K debaters are silencing me. I simply believe that their valuable and educational arguments should either be run in a different format, under a different FW, or in a different entity. Check out the "out of round CP". Many of my friends are K debaters and I support their arguments wholeheartedly. Please do not insult me by implying that I am ignorant. Also, this isn't a debate round. It is merely a conversation. You don't need to construct your responses in the "even if" format. 

 

I could pull up all of the evidence pointing out why policy debate is good, common subject matter is good, roleplaying the USFG is good, and K's don't do anything. However, I am sure you have already seen all of these cards. Frankly, I am tired of playing nice. There is a lot more I could say. I will write and publish my stance whether you like it or not. Anything I can do to help struggling policy debaters is what I will do. 

Edited by debategirl52
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, debategirl52 said:

Hi @NickDB8 ... Although I am a little concerned that you have so much time to write a paper on K debate being good,

 

On 3/19/2019 at 2:07 PM, debategirl52 said:

I am writing a book on the state of HS debate

I am concerned you have time to write a book about your opinion on the state of HS policy......

He isn't being rude and also check who you are talking to before you talk friend so take your pointed tone elsewhere.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AnthonyUwU - On your first comment, I view publishing my views as the best way to fight for policy debaters. As you know, debaters love debate! So don't judge me for caring.... as you clearly do. Your second comment is far more patronizing than anything I have said thus far. No offense, but you aren't really adding any substance to this conversation. All you have brought to the table is sarcasm, judgement, and more attempts to silence me. Remember: Hope is harmony! Bye.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate was pretty good, bit messy in the 2AC and block though. I vote neg, I think @NickDB8's 2NR was way better on the question of lbl/tech and @debategirl52's 2AR just grandstands on some defensive claims at best.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, debategirl52 said:

@AnthonyUwU - On your first comment, I view publishing my views as the best way to fight for policy debaters. As you know, debaters love debate! So don't judge me for caring.... as you clearly do. Your second comment is far more patronizing than anything I have said thus far. No offense, but you aren't really adding any substance to this conversation. All you have brought to the table is sarcasm, judgement, and more attempts to silence me. Remember: Hope is harmony! Bye.

I am pointing out you are being VERY contradictory and it bugs me you came off hella condescending. You were being rude with your post to Nick! Check👏 Yourself👏

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All joking aside, none of you are special for complaining about K debate. DanBan and Trufanov are policy fascists who think Framework is true, none of you will ever accomplish as much in your careers as them and even they can't get rid of K debate (see: 2018 NDT Doubles). This is a worthless game that doesn't matter and saying it's "falling apart" implies it was coherent in the first place (you guys remember hypothesis testing? what about the emory switch? let's not forget that Bill Shanahan was an actual human being who was part of debate. all that was way more absurd than any K debate stuff I've ever pulled and I've done some wonky shit). Nobody cares, if you write a book nobody who matters will read it, Berkeley kids already tried to Ban the K and it didn't work. Having just had my last ever high school debate round yesterday, I think looking over my career the only real morons I ever encountered are the ones who think that they're actually correct about what debate is or should be. You still probably don't know how the perm double bind works, and you're super annoyed because you lost to cap or something and still don't understand what a Communist Hypothesis is. All ya'll can buzz off, let us play the game however we want, I gotta go read some K books my future college policy coach fleeced me.

 

 

Edit: Removed "ableist language" - now make a real reply or cut the crap @debategirl52

Edited by AQuackDebater
Language I guess
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, debategirl52 said:

@AQuackDebater please refrain from using ableist language on my thread.

Seriously? You're telling an autistic kid to watch his "ableist language?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I didn't know that. I don't know anyone's identity on this thread. Nevertheless, my apologies.

I think I am done engaging this thread. I didn't intend on creating arguments. I simply wanted to gather quotes. 

Thanks everyone!

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, debategirl52 said:

To be clear, I didn't know that. I don't know anyone's identity on this thread. Nevertheless, my apologies.

I think I am done engaging this thread. I didn't intend on creating arguments. I simply wanted to gather quotes. 

Thanks everyone!

Why the actual hell are you going on a forum infamous for trolling and idiots for quotes? Go email some actual debate directors for college if you're serious

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...