Jump to content
debategirl52

Policy debate has fallen apart

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, debategirl52 said:

Frankly, I am tired of playing nice. 

those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones smh

Edited by AnthonyUwU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've been involved in policy debate in one capacity or another for (good lord) four decades. the reason some of us "old school" peeps have embraced kritikal argumentation is because of the ahistoricality of policy arguments. we have literally watched the link stories of a thousand das come to pass in the real world and yet none of the impacts have occurred. these constructs are PROVEN to be meaningless. so what does that leave other than the effect we have on one another in the round and as a community? if the focus of debate is education, we should be educating about things that actually matter and have a real impact on the real world, not weighing who has the best strung-together farce that will NEVER have an impact on any of us.

all that being said, i have seen hard policy kids OWN the framework flow and they've gotten my ballot. because, if what happens in the room is what matters, the quality of argumentation matters too.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmc_va said:

i've been involved in policy debate in one capacity or another for (good lord) four decades. the reason some of us "old school" peeps have embraced kritikal argumentation is because of the ahistoricality of policy arguments. we have literally watched the link stories of a thousand das come to pass in the real world and yet none of the impacts have occurred. these constructs are PROVEN to be meaningless. so what does that leave other than the effect we have on one another in the round and as a community? if the focus of debate is education, we should be educating about things that actually matter and have a real impact on the real world, not weighing who has the best strung-together farce that will NEVER have an impact on any of us.

all that being said, i have seen hard policy kids OWN the framework flow and they've gotten my ballot. because, if what happens in the room is what matters, the quality of argumentation matters too.

This guy gets it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's obvious that a sizable majority of the community, regardless of being K oriented debaters in their own right, are perfectly fine with K debate existing. Yes, policy-policy debate stuff matters. Yet "Silencing" arguments from policy hacks are often hypocritical because they subvert the fact that K debate itself has always faced substantial resistance from certain groups within the community. I don't want to paint all policy centric debaters as hating K debate, or vice versa. Tons of debaters fluidly engage in both "policy" and "kritikal" strategies in the same round, or at least at some point throughout their whole debate career. I dislike and hate the idea of trying to discredit K debate for being exclusive, or whatever debategirl452 is trying to say. I may not love all K debate, yet I recognize that it is a supremely valuable part of our community.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so all you haters know, I will be publishing my opinions. And you can't stop me! There is a whole community of people just like me and we are uniting to restore debate.

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a hater whatsoever, I just think that your framing of what K debate is constituted as is just plainly wrong, go ahead and publish your article but in actuality what you're doing is no better than what you think K debate is doing to policy debate. Mostly in the sense that it only creates an environment of silencing that only damages teams further by preventing them from learning about critical debate, take this from a person who didn't have a school coach that went over K's with me which cost me the ability to pick up some rounds I could have. Exposure and practice in critical debate is also key to foster skills that can be integrated into policy style arguments, and vice versa. I think that crowding out that substance not only makes us ignorant of how our rhetoric and how our policies reflect marginalized groups and power structures, which only hurts the image of the debate community by preventing a fostering of true activism for those social groups. 

 

Post it if you want, but be aware that all you're doing is causing more polarization in the debate community over an issue that has already divided us extremely to the point where debaters on teams where their other teammates and/or coaches make them feel like they aren't legitimate debaters anymore because they don't "run real arguments" this rhetoric harms the inclusive value of the debate space, and harms the safety of the activity. Emporia SW didn't win on a conceptualization of debate as a home for no reason. The argument is true, and we need to open the doors of our home up to everyone, not exclude them

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make a few comments, feel free to engage or avoid them, please do not quote me in any book lol. Obviously "it's a free country" and all that, so I doubt anyone genuinely wants to prevent you from publishing your book, but I think you should consider the implications of what you want to do and maybe take some advice. I just want to make some points assuming you do move forward, and to help contribute to your research if you want to make a serious academic effort.

1) You seem to have made up your mind. Speaking as someone who has also debated for 4 years in high school as well as had some limited coaching experience, I have both argued and actually held most opinions about the validity of K debate at various times. I would encourage you to listen to other people on this issue and actually consider their perspectives. 

2) As Patrick said, "email some actual debate directors for college." This is a mostly abandoned forum only occasionally populated by maybe 20ish people, almost none of whom hold positions of authority within debate. If you want your book to be credible, you should contact people who do hold such positions. You could do that by posting on the CEDA forums or emailing coaches directly. Jonah Feldman (UC Berkeley) and Jarrod Atchison (Wake Forest) are two directors who have employed a "big tent" style (both policy and K arguments welcome). Their contact information is not particularly difficult to find. 

Other significant figures you may wish to contact are Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, director of debate at Pittsburgh who wrote her PhD on black participation in debate, Scott Harris, director at Kansas and president of CEDA who wrote a highly influential RFD on the finals of the 2013 NDT, or Amber Kelsie, assistant coach at Wake Forest and immediate president of CEDA. This list is hardly exhaustive, but it you should contact at least each of these people before writing a book if you are serious about it. You should always engage with the best arguments for a position before rejecting it, and you won't get that here. I would also suggest you approach these individuals with a somewhat less flippant attitude than you have displayed towards the members of this forum who disagree with you. 

3) Regardless of the validity of the impact of Ks on debate participation, you should really consider the impact of what you seem to be advocating on those who are already in debate. The affirmative from Emporia in the 2013 NDT finals provided one of the most eloquent and influential statements on the role of debate for many of those who do K debate (in all the various forms that may take) in recent years at a time when opinions like yours were much more common. This is a debate which directly addresses your complaints and I highly encourage you to watch the entire debate. The 2ar in particular addresses your belief that K debaters are the ones excluding policy debaters. Since that time debate has changed significantly, but it is sufficient to say that the majority of the collegiate debate community has accepted that Ks are something to be debated at least, and not excluded a priori. This opinion is nearly as common on the national circuit of high school debate, which always lags slightly behind the trends in college. You are challenging the existence of K debate: consider why so few people hold this opinion anymore and why teams like Emporia had to fight for the right to express themselves and their ideas in this forum in the first place. I cannot imagine that banning Ks would be healthy for either the community at large, competitive quality, or the individuals who read Ks, considering that Ks exist at all levels of debate and that they often hold a meaningful role in the intellectual and personal development of those who read them.

4) Last point is about this remark:

2 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

There is a whole community of people just like me and we are uniting to restore debate.

I'm actually rather curious, who is this community? Other than the ill-fated Policy Research League, I'm not aware of any sort of policy secession or anything like that, especially not recently. Additionally, as I mentioned the people who are in debate now do not generally hold your position, so one might fairly ask where your "community" is coming from. This is directly adjacent to the point others have made about how your book would likely aid neocon attacks on debate. The question has to be asked, why do you feel the need to publish a book? I would welcome a book which took a rigorous and well-researched position on the current state of policy debate, but you are not going to produce that book if you do not contact serious debate coaches, if you dismiss those who disagree with you as "haters," and if you form your opinion before conducting that research.

I would take the guess that you believe K debaters lean unfairly on personal experience. While I would disagree with this characterization of those debaters, you would be correct to say that personal experience is not enough. You have said in several places throughout this thread that you have "seen enough" K abuse, that you know others who hold your beliefs, etc. You have also said that this is the reason to hold those beliefs. I worry that you have formed an opinion based on your personal experience without confirming the universality of this experience. This is why you should conduct further research, such as from those sources I have suggested, to check against your personal biases and limitations, before deciding that you will write a book on this topic with the predetermined conclusion that K debaters are silencing you. 

Now, obviously I disagree with you about your conclusion, but I don't imagine I will be able to prevent you from publishing if you set your mind to it. My primary concern is, again, that this whole thing would only fuel neoconservative attacks on "liberal universities," "snowflake students," and more specifically, debate as an institution and the funding for it. I doubt the "real" impact of this would be too great, but I always hate seeing the right misconstrue debate and academia generally. So the question "why publish?" is significant for the reason that K debate is hardly the most pressing issue you could write about, except for those for whom it contributes to a broader, anti-intellectual right-wing narrative.

If you do respond or if you don't, please just actually do some research if you move forward. I am not a great authority of any kind, which is part of why I have directed you elsewhere, but if you have more questions I'll probably respond since I have time and I care about this issue.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've largely left this thread alone, mostly because I can't tell if it's bait or not, but I would like to highlight some of seanarchy's points that I agree with, in case it isn't.

13 minutes ago, seanarchy said:

obviously I disagree with you about your conclusion, but I don't imagine I will be able to prevent you from publishing if you set your mind to it.

^ I can't stop you, but I do encourage you to consider the implications in publishing, of which seanarchy and I have both mentioned,

15 minutes ago, seanarchy said:

please do not quote me in any book lol

^ and this. I do not consent to having any views I express in this thread published outside of this site.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@seanarchy - 

Thanks for this thoughtful response. I take all you have said into account. I will not be using any of these quotes. My fear was right: K debaters have resorted to judgment and anger instead of trying to see my point fo view. Its a double standard. You ask me to show empathy with K debaters and I do. I have said from the beginning of this thread that K debate has educational value. None of the people who have commented on this post will step in the shoes of a policy debater. K debaters would rather make fun of policy debaters and label them than show empathy. 

 

To answer your question, there is a growing community of college and high school debaters who are communicating daily. We are all fighting and planning to turn debate around. It has turned into a space lacking true controversy or disagreement. Theoretical assumptions have shattered policy debate and caused many rounds to discuss NO POLICY. Its important that we engage current events and the real world. Stop forcing people into high theory! 

 

You continue to misunderstand me. As I said prior, 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. JUST READ IT AS A NON-UQ DA. K AFFs are another story.

 

Your attempt to guilt and silence me will fail. 

Edited by debategirl52
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

@seanarchy - 

Thanks for this thoughtful response. I take all you have said into account. I will not be using any of these quotes. My fear was right: K debaters have resorted to judgment and anger instead of trying to see my point fo view. Its a double standard. You ask me to show empathy with K debaters and I do. I have said from the beginning of this thread that K debate has educational value. None of the people who have commented on this post will step in the shoes of a policy debater. K debaters would rather make fun of policy debaters and label them than show empathy. 

 

To answer your question, there is a growing community of college and high school debaters who are communicating daily. We are all fighting and planning to turn debate around. It has turned into a space lacking true controversy or disagreement. Theoretical assumptions have shattered policy debate and caused many rounds to discuss NO POLICY. Its important that we engage current events and the real world. Stop forcing people into high theory! 

 

You continue to misunderstand me. As I said prior, 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. JUST READ IT AS A NON-UQ DA. K AFFs are another story.

 

Your attempt to guilt and silence me will fail. 

I'm literally a policy debater, (who goes for policy args like PTX DAs or terrible Agency CPs) so I'm already in a policy frame of mind. If you feel guilty, that's on you. No one is silencing policy debaters, literally no one, yet you're acting as if people are out to get your "growing community". The random CAPITALIZED stuff doesn't make your point(s) any more valuable.

No one is misunderstanding you, we completely get the hypocritical view you have. Perhaps just argue that the the praxis of any debate you're in should be policy based. This is much better than ranting about how debate is "a space lacking true controversy or disagreement." Have you ever even witnessed a K on K debate, or a solid K aff v FW debate? Seriously. 

To me, it sounds like you truly don't know much about CX debate at all, much less K debate. Keep your own opinions, but don't warp your artificially induced fears into well suited facts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know how serious you are just because your rhetoric seems defensive and immature, but I'll try and engage you again to address some of your complaints. I'm sure you have enough self-cognizance to recognize that you are resorting primarily to ad hominem and unwarranted attacks (I have not seen much effort on your part to engage back), so barring a serious response I don't intend to continue this conversation.

17 minutes ago, debategirl52 said:

You ask me to show empathy with K debaters and I do. I have said from the beginning of this thread that K debate has educational value.

I doubt many people are really concerned about your "empathy," since it is meaningless as long as you insist that K debaters cease and desist with their entire way of debating. This has been mentioned elsewhere, but if K debate has educational value then why resist it?

10 minutes ago, debategirl52 said:

None of the people who have commented on this post will step in the shoes of a policy debater. K debaters would rather make fun of policy debaters and label them than show empathy.

I've debated both K and policy against both K and policy, and I know plenty of other people have and continue to do so as well. You are factually incorrect to say this. I would suggest that you do a serious investigation of this matter by combing through the wikis. For example, North Broward MR, one of the top high school teams in the country and typically considered a K team, have read not 1 but 3 policy affs this year. Your assertion only makes sense if you decide someone is always and only a K debater, otherwise the multitude of flex teams who read Ks and K affs as well as policy DAs, CPs, and plans, would seem to disprove this thesis.

20 minutes ago, debategirl52 said:

there is a growing community of college and high school debaters who are communicating daily. We are all fighting and planning to turn debate around.

This is a rather confusing proposition. You are "planning to turn debate around?" You and your "growing community?" Because I'm sure that in the interests of "true controversy," by which you presumably mean clash and free exchange of ideas, it would best serve the interests of both your community and the broader debate community to be open about this intent and the reasons behind it, rather than posting outdated and unproven conspiracy theories on obscure and underused forums. Let's be quite frank, debaters have been reading framework for years, and Ks haven't gone anywhere. The status quo on the national circuit and college circuit seems generally resolved to letting debaters make the choices about how they want to debate. Some judges already make clear that they will not vote on Ks, but this is a relative minority in serious circuits. So the only alternative is something like the PRL, that is, a newly established tournament which bans Ks from the outset. This project was attempted in 2013 (I linked the thread) and failed disastrously. It only deepened the resentment on both sides. You cannot force any debaters to attend such a tournament, and I doubt many serious debaters would attend such a tournament. The PRL was a pariah in the college debate community, due to both its structural similarities with phenomena such as white flight, and due to the fact that it would have excluded, a priori, many of the most skilled debaters in the country. 

39 minutes ago, debategirl52 said:

Theoretical assumptions have shattered policy debate and caused many rounds to discuss NO POLICY. Its important that we engage current events and the real world. Stop forcing people into high theory!

No one is calling for an end to policy debate as such, but for an end to policy debate which cannot tolerate critical challenges within it. Rounds in which "NO POLICY" is discussed occur because both teams choose not to debate policy. That is their choice. Rounds which involve a defense of policy by one team and a defense of some critical theory by the other obviously involve policy. The interplay between these two styles is extremely interesting and a worthwhile investment for any real academic. And of course rounds which involve exclusively policy discuss policy: the finals of the NDT, which occurred last night, was a debate of just this sort.

"Current events and the real world" obviously does not stop at or even always include debates in which one team reads a plan and one reads a counterplan. Improbably nuclear war scenarios as read in most policy rounds are just that, improbable, and also bear little resemblance to real policy making. Other policy debates obviously do bear on such issues, but national security is hardly the full extent of current events. Issues like police brutality, fake news, or global capitalism that are frequent points of interest in debates involving Ks obviously touch on current events and employ descriptions of the real world no more preposterous than your average nuclear war scenario.

Imagine you are reading an affirmative that defends government action to reduce restrictions on immigration, the high school topic last year. In my 1nc, I argue that your authors' evidence employs self-referential, circular reasoning and is likely not credible due to their connections to an influential corporate think tank who stands to gain capital from the passage of the plan. Furthermore, I argue that your plan is likely to cause a shift from obvious and indefensible forms of immigration restriction to more discreet forms which nonetheless produce the same insidious outcomes. These are, respectively, a Baudrillard K and a Deleuze K, two of the most "high" of high theory authors in existence, which I had my teams run this year. These are exceedingly reasonable claims which make claims that no one could reasonably ignore or disregard without first disputing them. They have to be debated. There is literally no brightline for choosing where to draw the line. This is why in debates between evenly or similarly matched teams you often hear judges say "the aff was ahead on x, but the neg was ahead on y," before they go on to evaluate the relative importance. It's rarely 100% either way, and this is the very point of debate.

I watched two debates over the weekend featuring Kentucky BT, the hyper policy-oriented team who won the Copeland earlier this year and just now won the NDT. In one, after Trufanov read 5 off in the 1nc, Bannister kicked 3 of these and argued for 8 minutes that if we didn't nuke Russia right now they wouldn't surrender in an inevitable war, and would consequently develop AI and super soldiers programmed to, and I'm quoting him, "delete humans." This is patently absurd and somewhat abusive, but it was hilarious and he almost proved it using evidence. There is no substantive reason I can imagine that this practice would not be just as "bad for debate" if not worse than you claim Ks are, while remaining completely within the frame of typical policy debate. In a second Kentucky debate, a similar strategy involving 7 off in the 1nc was used in which Bannister again kicked most of the off positions in the 2nc and then argued that we should allow economic collapse now so that we can transition to a care-based economy in order to avoid environmental collapse (and rogue corporate AI). This is barely distinct from a cap K at a substantive level. The only difference is maybe that he read more cards than most cap debaters, but then again he read more cards than most any debaters.

1 hour ago, debategirl52 said:

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. JUST READ IT AS A NON-UQ DA. K AFFs are another story.

First, if you really believed this, your complaint would not be about K debaters "forcing people into high theory." 

Second, this is an absurd claim. There is no intrinsic reason that "mandated POSTAL" would be bad. Answers to T or DAs follow rigid structures (link turn + non-UQ). But POSTAL is still not even very rigid or very unique. This is a very introductory understanding of the Kritik, and is not very different from how you are supposed to answer a CP (POST if I remember correctly). But it is also rather flexible. Perms encompass a wide variety of strategic combinations and double binds. Offense is obviously extremely broad, as is solvency. You can also always just read framework or an impact turn, and have that be all. I am furthermore curious about what you think "the 'challenging' of politics" means and why you think all Ks do this. 

Third, if Ks can really just be transposed into the artificial format of a DA, then you or anyone else should have no difficulty answering them with the research you are presumably ready to do for these DAs. The impact would remain the same, the link would probably remain the same, and the distinction between plan and alt is blurry at best: the difference between the cards we place below a tag starting with "the united states federal government should..." versus those we place below a tag starting with "the alternative is..." is not too big.

1 hour ago, debategirl52 said:

Your attempt to guilt and silence me will fail.

No one is trying to "guilt and silence" you. No one has said "you should feel guilty" or "you should stop talking," or anything to that effect. Do most people here disagree with you? It seems that way. But you introduced an inflammatory opinion which has not been widely held in the debate community for almost 5 years now, and which seems like it could provide more ammunition for right-wing attacks on academia writ large. Of course you were going to face opposition, and I can't imagine you could have entered this forum in good faith believing anything otherwise. If you feel guilty, or if you feel like you should not publish your book because of something someone here has said, then that is your prerogative. Acknowledge and engage those who disagree with you, don't disregard them. That is quite literally the point of debate.

Last point, which I want to reiterate from my last post, is that whatever you do moving forward, please do some research. Contact debate coaches or other figures and note their agreement or disagreement in your book. This is not my opinion or desire, just a fact: you will not be able to publish a book whose only quotes and points of reference are a few anonymous high schoolers or college students on an abandoned forum. I doubt most credible or widely read sources would publish even an article without that basic qualification, and I doubt any real publishing house would be willing to print and distribute copies of such a book. If you are serious about that project, act like it. Don't whine about being silenced by the haters because you got downvoted by some randos. Do some research, engage alternative opinions, and stop acting like a victim. You posted here first and you defended a widely discredited opinion about K debaters. That's your responsibility.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@seanarchy - I read your lengthy response and many of your points make sense. Yes, I am in fact serious and I believe you are the slightly defensive one. Nevertheless, I appreciate your words. You are stuck on the line by line and missing the big picture framing. However, I stick to my bottom line: Critical literature has been normalized to the point that policy debaters are forced to learn intricate theories that they don't care about. Simultaneously, K debaters get the freedom to research and debate whatever they want. Policy debate is policy debate. It should focus on POLICY instead of obscure ideas. Many K teams are taking the easy way out. I am not 'providing more ammunition for right-wing attacks on academia writ large' simply because I think that the cornerstone of CX includes solvency advocates and policy mechanisms. 

 

@HunterJordan - As a policy debater, I encourage you to question whether a K v. K debate belongs in the realm of policy debate. Yes, it has much clash and value. Should policy debaters be forced into research and debate of high theoretical substance? I would argue no! 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you should thank me for starting a dialogue. This website is kinda dead and there is some real traction as of recent days!

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't win on framework, I'm not sure how valuable your policy debate experience will be. Framework is just articulating why your style of debate provides a beneficial form of education. If you don't know why you're doing debate and are just blindly asserting "policy good," you probably won't get any useful skills out of it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, debategirl52 said:

@PrideOfLenin - The point is that policy debaters shouldn't be forced to have a FW debate instead of discussing policy mechanisms. 

I don't think that addresses my central point, which is that rigorous FW debate is a prerequisite to maximizing policy education.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting thought here. I love both policy debate and K debate. I vote both ways on K's and policy depending on the merits of what is argued in round.

It is possible to have excellent clash and excellent discussion with K debate and policy debate.

I think the biggest problem is that K debate has not been developed to fill its real potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for one thing using something like Fem K to establish harms of status quo and need for change could help the narrative for a case where one would be hiring women for instance, or have a desire to target women for recruitment.

Or perhaps K's discussing Race could work well along side a transportation topic. A whole lot of black communities were displaced when the interstate highways were built.

Securitization K is actually a really rational response to a lot of Affirmatives.

Civil Liberties K's....

A lot of K's deal intelligently with real world issues. As a coach and a judge, I actually kind of like them and welcome them when they are well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 6:55 PM, debategirl52 said:

@seanarchy - I read your lengthy response and many of your points make sense. Yes, I am in fact serious and I believe you are the slightly defensive one. Nevertheless, I appreciate your words. You are stuck on the line by line and missing the big picture framing. However, I stick to my bottom line: Critical literature has been normalized to the point that policy debaters are forced to learn intricate theories that they don't care about. Simultaneously, K debaters get the freedom to research and debate whatever they want. Policy debate is policy debate. It should focus on POLICY instead of obscure ideas. Many K teams are taking the easy way out. I am not 'providing more ammunition for right-wing attacks on academia writ large' simply because I think that the cornerstone of CX includes solvency advocates and policy mechanisms. 

 

@HunterJordan - As a policy debater, I encourage you to question whether a K v. K debate belongs in the realm of policy debate. Yes, it has much clash and value. Should policy debaters be forced into research and debate of high theoretical substance? I would argue no! 

They should be forced to argue the merits of case and deal with societal harms policy actions cause and defend their reasons for advocating policy. That isn't too much to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 8:46 PM, debategirl52 said:

@PrideOfLenin - The point is that policy debaters shouldn't be forced to have a FW debate instead of discussing policy mechanisms. 

Nothing wrong with them defending Framework. That should be a fairly easy defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 11:25 PM, debategirl52 said:

Just so all you haters know, I will be publishing my opinions. And you can't stop me! There is a whole community of people just like me and we are uniting to restore debate.

Restore it to what...?  Debate is constantly evolving and will continue to evolve.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 4:13 PM, debategirl52 said:


 

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. 

 

 

if you really wholeheartedly supported their args, why would you write a book about it being bad? Some K debaters actually use their args as a voice for themselves and their social location-think about that.

Edited by akom50
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, akom50 said:

if you really wholeheartedly supported their args, why would you write a book about it being bad? Some K debaters actually use their args as a voice for themselves and their social location-think about that.

K debate can really be valid debate.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...