Jump to content
debategirl52

Policy debate has fallen apart

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, debategirl52 said:

@akom50 - I am allowed to have an opinion. Perhaps I don't believe policy debate is the right venue for this.

not saying you can't have an opinion- but what alternative is there? complaining about k debate being bad isn't going to spark some revolution where the NSDA suddenly implements a rule saying 'no kritiks'- even if you have a large following (which tbh i doubt you do), k debate is inevitable.

Share this post


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

@akom50 - I am allowed to have an opinion. Perhaps I don't believe policy debate is the right venue for this.

No one is saying you can't have an opinion. We're just saying you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

@akom50 - I am allowed to have an opinion. Perhaps I don't believe policy debate is the right venue for this.

Are you thinking of doing ld or pf instead?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 9:15 PM, hkuang said:

No one is saying you can't have an opinion. We're just saying you're wrong.


There are ways to disagree with someone else that don't consist of tearing them down or accusing them of wanting terrible things or being stupid, but those are unfortunately in short supply in this thread. Telling someone that voicing their opinion is evidence they are a bad person is not the same thing as telling them they can't have an opinion, but it lives in the same neighborhood.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea how you could possibly do debate and not understand the concept of consequences to one's actions. I doubt anyone gives a shit if OP is a good/bad person, but the action they proposed and the justifications they gave for it were flawed and harmful. Plenty of people have explained the reasons for this in a civil and well reasoned manner.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@seanarchy - just because my opinion is different doesn't mean it is harmful. I simply propose a different venue for K AFFs. Another section at tourneys like LD or Puff. They need to make a K section. This would allow policy debaters to debate policy.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

@seanarchy - just because my opinion is different doesn't mean it is harmful. I simply propose a different venue for K AFFs. Another section at tourneys like LD or Puff. They need to make a K section. This would allow policy debaters to debate policy.

Why allow critical debate in certain events when that just encourages a decrease in participation in debate?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

that just encourages a decrease in participation in debate?

Yeah no doubt that would just weaken all the sections of the community since they'd more than likely have to pick and choose which event to attend.

This is of course setting aside all other issues that have been laid out in this thread. How do you make judges who like all types of debate enforce it? What if soft left type affs are too critical for some judges, or if someone attaches a plan to a Baudrillard aff (as many do)? How would you make any large national tournament, most of which are run by directors who disagree with you, enforce these rules? You don't, that's how. You can't make debaters debate things they don't want to unless you're doing the debating yourself.

Share this post


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

@seanarchy - just because my opinion is different doesn't mean it is harmful. I simply propose a different venue for K AFFs. Another section at tourneys like LD or Puff. They need to make a K section. This would allow policy debaters to debate policy.

Kinda like the PRL........🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has confirmed each and every one of my deepest fears about the debate community. True deliberation is no longer strived for. Punishment for any idea that doesn't align with the current state of debate is encouraged. Anyone who feels negatively about Ks/K AFFs is truly silenced. Whether fighting for this issue is worth my time is questionable. I am reconsidering everything. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

This thread has confirmed each and every one of my deepest fears about the debate community. True deliberation is no longer strived for. Punishment for any idea that doesn't align with the current state of debate is encouraged. Anyone who feels negatively about Ks/K AFFs is truly silenced. Whether fighting for this issue is worth my time is questionable. I am reconsidering everything. 

Feel however you feel like about certain arguments. That doesn't contest what we've all been saying the entire time, which is that writing a book or article about it is unnecessary and only gives further negative attention to the debate community. Seriously, if you have a problem with K's and K affs, and you think that they're so horrible for debate, then run theory. Argue why your model of debate is better. I am sick and tired of people otherizing the type of debate that brings me joy, and have it knocked as "not real debate." It is opinions like this, and the complete close minded attitude around this, that make me wanna quit sometimes. I am tired of being judged by people for simply thinking that we ought to question our assumptions and our positions in society. Debate has become a home, and when people threaten to set the room I reside in on fire, it makes me wanna leave that home. Stop skirting the actual issue and debate the actual debate instead of using ad homs and completely disregarding the points of others. We're providing the deliberation, you just have to engage with our deliberation. Tell us why K debate isn't educational, why ought it be banned in policy specifically, don't knock us as closed minded people who think that policy-policy debaters are terrible people. I larp in LD, I think that policy discussion is a good idea and that it's a cool discussion to be had, but I don't think that limiting the discussion of the debate space is a good idea. Look back to almost anyone in this thread and you'll see that the discussions from K debate are a good thing, and that they ought to be engaged in.

 

Seriously, stop attacking me, and stop attacking my style. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

@seanarchy - just because my opinion is different doesn't mean it is harmful. I simply propose a different venue for K AFFs. Another section at tourneys like LD or Puff. They need to make a K section. This would allow policy debaters to debate policy.

DONT YOU DARE, You assume we are privileged to have other venues and you want to EVICT US FROM OUR HOME (Policy Debate) I AM NOT AS PRIVILEGED AS YOU TO HAVE OTHER FORUMS WHERE I WONT GET BEAT UP. Get Out Of Here With That Nonsense! You belittle advocacy that does not fit your EuroCentric model and I am truely disgusted. Please do the debate community a favour and please stop with your nonsense. I am sorry I do not fit your White Model of debate, Sorry I am Brown, Sorry I speak out against Oppression I have felt in debate, Sorry you got so mad because you couldn’t run a tight framework.....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, debategirl52 said:

This thread has confirmed each and every one of my deepest fears about the debate community. True deliberation is no longer strived for. Punishment for any idea that doesn't align with the current state of debate is encouraged. Anyone who feels negatively about Ks/K AFFs is truly silenced. Whether fighting for this issue is worth my time is questionable. I am reconsidering everything. 

@debategirl52 you DO NOT have my permission to record ANYTHING that I have EVER said on this site or this forum or this page or anything else. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of policy debate is that there can be a mix of both or even a mesh in both styles of debate saying that one style of debate is better or "meant for policy debate is kind of messed up. There are multiple examples of policy teams winnings against K teams and vice versa policy vs K debates are honestly one of my favorite debates to partake in and watch. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know K debate is important. I know that it is a home for people. Believe it or not, I enjoy watching K debates and often judge them for my novices. I strongly believe in and defend the importance of critique. I am close with so many K debaters. Virtually my whole team has transitioned. It is simply hard to accept the fact that policy-centric debaters are forced to involve themselves in rounds which don't allow them to express themselves or their solvency mechanisms. Instead, they must discuss critical literature and defend every single intricacy of the AFF. It is truly ridiculous to have to spend the majority of my rounds no-linking or perming instead of doing impact comparison or finding solvency deficits to a CP. Please have some empathy. I am sorry I came off as close-minded. I truly am not. I wouldn't even classify myself as anti-K. Please try to see my point of view as I am trying to do with you. Please? I know this exactly the type of statement a K debater would make fun of, but my home has been ruined, too. I had a home in policy debate, too. I had a home where I could stand up for what I believe. But I have been silenced. And this is why I come off as angry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AnthonyUwU - please try and see things from my point of view. if you don't want to try showing empathy, please refrain from bullying and spewing hate. i am a member of the debate community just like you. we should talk to each other with respect, not hate. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheTrashDebater - I am sorry that you have interpreted my opinion as an attack. It wasn't meant to be received that way, nor is my viewpoint based in exclusion or hate. I feel that policy debaters have been silenced. I fear, with reason, that the rapid increase in Ks and K AFFs will lead to a policy debate world free of policy. Policy debate was created for policy-centric discussion. When the debate is centered on anything other than the plan, the debate turns into a deliberation-free echo chamber. One where people talk passed each other. The issue is that the K team can win the round with no knowledge on the plan because the links are pre-written. Conversely, policy debaters must have a fair to good understanding of the K lit in order to win. The burden is on policy debaters. They have lost their freedom both in the performative sense and the sense of research/prep. This is just one of the many problems. Nevertheless, my delivery could have been better throughout the thread. I got defensive because people were attacking me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

@AnthonyUwU - please try and see things from my point of view. if you don't want to try showing empathy, please refrain from bullying and spewing hate. i am a member of the debate community just like you. we should talk to each other with respect, not hate. 

Hypocrite I swear, you have been rude to others and the moment I pointed out that you wanted to evict me from my home you use your emotions to shield yourself from any wrong! You have been rude to others on this thread! You seem to want to push the Idea that Policy Debate is being oppressed, and you are dead wrong. Neg has so many tools against K Affs like FW, T, TVA, K, DAs, and Case and K forces Policy Debaters to think how not to link to them and how to win on their case alone. Ks have done nothing but better debate as a whole. Ks have forced debaters to not be lazy and research, research, research! Ks have given platforms to those who did not have any prior, so I will say it again Stop acting like Policy Debate has degraded just cause we ain’t doing the Lilly White way. I will not be made to feel my style of advocacy is lesser to the White Mans no longer. You are open to critique and I am saying that your implications K debate is any lesser is the same method White Oppressors use daily even if it is covert or unintentional! 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop acting like the victim here. You initiated this conversation now face the music. You feel as you are being silenced cause you have people pointed out your BS and now act like the white people who say they are the victims black people silencing them in conversations. This is a can of worm you will never close! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AnthonyUwU said:

This is a can of worm you will never close! 

I mean this situation hardly seems so dramatic. I would just advise her to either not publish or to form an opinion after actually conducting research. I've noted ways to do so in other posts.

As an aside Anthony I doubt this is a very effective way to engage her. This is not a debate in which she has to respond to every point or lose. Call-outs are unlikely to convince her to change her mind because there are not actually "consequences" to her posts unless she continues to post. Going straight to the "this is actually just like racism" strategy is not too convincing without explanation, which is difficult to convey in such an animated post.

The opinions @debategirl52 expressed in her last few posts are not entirely unreasonable and it is understandable how they would not appear problematic. There are undeniably benefits to plan-centric debates, as in they should occur, but there is no real reason these debates should exclusively occur. The issues with the opinions expressed in this post are that 1) they overestimate the frequency of K debates, 2) they underestimate the rigour of these debates, and 3) they don't account for the actual critique.

The first two details here are probably a result of apparently often judging novice K debates. Novices are not a good model to extrapolate the benefits of K debate writ large. This is the case all the way up through high school for virtually all kinds of debate until you reach a threshold of competition usually somewhere around the elimination rounds for ToC bid tournaments. High schoolers are dumb, and mostly don't know what they're talking about regardless of what type of debate they are doing. In highly competitive high school debates and college debates, these problems go away for the most part, or else teams are skilled enough at reading framework that they can still efficiently research policy. Watch any college debate about a K on YouTube and you'll see what I mean. 

The last of points I've discussed elsewhere, but policy is somewhat paradoxically the best site for many K debates because Ks are critiques - they are identifying something wrong. A "separate forum" to debate these issues would probably be more of an echo chamber than the status quo, because they would not have to prove themselves against policy. And if someone could choose to debate policy in such a setting it begs the question of why it had to be separate in the first place. It is almost entirely policy policy debaters who want separation of those who still do. No one is calling for the end of plans. Which raises the question: who really wants the echo chamber? A form of policy debate which emphasizes exclusively the rigorous debate of plan-centric legalistic details is one which has utterly failed to comprehend any critique of technocracy. Noam Chomsky famously said that "the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Elsewhere and in more detail he has elaborated on this point to say that social control functions by "creating the illusion that there's a debate going on, but making sure that that debate stays within very narrow margins. Namely, you have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions, and those assumptions turn out to be the propaganda system." This roughly sums up the point of critique, which is that it does not always get bogged down in the details of the plan. Plan-centric debate does not equate to rigorous debate, just limited debate. Critique points out those limits and suggests that debate is impotent as long as it fails to address what lies beyond them.

This is not just an argument either. Debate is known for producing influential political figures (Karl Rove being probably the most famous). Gordon Mitchell wrote a significant 1998 article making the point that the idealized model of the policy debater is the corporate lawyer, a hired gun who apolitically takes whatever case comes before him. That is what traditional policy debate, uninflected by critique and obsessed with technical detail, is designed to produce. Comparatively, what sort of student do you think is likely to emerge from years spent studying unlikely nuclear war scenarios versus years spent studying social injustices and philosophy? Student interests and skills are informed by debate. Even the supposed middle ground, "soft left" debate, only emerged as a response to K debate, i.e. critique competitively forced debaters to adapt. That's the nature of competition. Many radical leftist perspectives are de facto incapable of being adequately expressed in terms of a traditional plan and disad. This is why the anarchy CP died off and became the modern K. Debaters who are exposed to these ideas and who have to honestly and rigorously engage them are more likely to adopt more ethically and politically informed positions. That doesn't happen if policy policy debaters get to self-segregate before they have to hear what the other side has to say.

 

Edited by seanarchy
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

*Claims to be writing a whole Book about how K is bad despite clearly having no accurate conception of the contemporary state of Debate or running Kritiks in general*

*Questions a clearly dedicated debater for understanding K*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, seanarchy said:

 This is not just an argument either. Debate is known for producing influential political figures (Karl Rove being probably the most famous). Gordon Mitchell wrote a significant 1998 article making the point that the idealized model of the policy debater is the corporate lawyer, a hired gun who apolitically takes whatever case comes before him. That is what traditional policy debate, uninflected by critique and obsessed with technical detail, is designed to produce. Comparatively, what sort of student do you think is likely to emerge from years spent studying unlikely nuclear war scenarios versus years spent studying social injustices and philosophy? Student interests and skills are informed by debate. Even the supposed middle ground, "soft left" debate, only emerged as a response to K debate, i.e. critique competitively forced debaters to adapt. That's the nature of competition. Many radical leftist perspectives are de facto incapable of being adequately expressed in terms of a traditional plan and disad. This is why the anarchy CP died off and became the modern K. Debaters who are exposed to these ideas and who have to honestly and rigorously engage them are more likely to adopt more ethically and politically informed positions. That doesn't happen if policy policy debaters get to self-segregate before they have to hear what the other side has to say.

 

Just FYI, this is kind of a dated reference. Just a few years later (and still today if you talk to him), Gordon changed his mind about SSD and the importance of debating about policy. If you read any of his articles today (I highly recommend it), the high-level of evidence comparison traditional policy debate produces regarding different legislative options are at the forefront of his personal philosophy. While I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I would try to find an author who at least currently agrees with your position 

Share this post


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

try to find an author who at least currently agrees with your position 

Fair enough but I'm not actively engaged in debate research and I wrote that on my phone at 9 am. It's still a bit of a touchstone that makes a compelling case that I generally agree with. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...