K theory

Policy Debate is a governmental structure

No author listed, “The Death of Policy Debate,”3.26.2003, http://www.cross-
x.com/content.php?file=archives/Debate_Concepts/03262003The_Death_of_Policy_Debate.shtml, July
11, 2008
However, before I take a “critical” view of “kritiks”, let me first define what I believe to be policy debate.
Combining definitions of “policy” and “debate” from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, policy debate can be
defined as “a regulated discussion of a governmental proposition between two sides on a high level overall
plan.” (Yes, it is my sole intention to silence voices by using a dictionary definition.)

Policy Debate is about education

No author listed, “The Death of Policy Debate,”3.26.2003, http://www.cross-
x.com/content.php?file=archives/Debate_Concepts/03262003The_Death_of_Policy_Debate.shtml,
July 11, 2008
The intent of the activity is education, period. Competiveness, entertainment, friendships, etc. are all good, yes,
but are second to knowledge. While introduction of arguments does, I will not deny, increase knowledge, it is
far outweighed by its distractedness. Dismissal of problems that the majority of the public believes to exist, that
the majority of politicians believe to exist, does not increase our knowledge or scope of the world, it makes us
ignorant to the mainstream. Ones ability to mingle and converse with the average person will be limited, if not
impossible, if they are speaking in terms of Szasz, or, for that matter, nearly any critical author. Our society
exists because of the innate human nature to be part of a community, and to be part of that community one
must have a common language, a common purpose. The value of education should, therefore to enhance ones
knowledge of the community, and further the progress of the community.

Kritiks lack real warrents as to why the affirmative is bad

No author listed, “The Death of Policy Debate,”3.26.2003, http://www.cross-
x.com/content.php?file=archives/Debate_Concepts/03262003The_Death_of_Policy_Debate.shtml,
July 11, 2008
Framers intent and education are only part of the reason I am outraged that kritiks exist and believe that they
will lead to the downfall of debate. Kritiks make teams extremely lazy. The concept of kritiking the resolution,
terms of the resolution, or the “framework” of the resolution (by that, I mean the concept of realism in
international relations) causes debaters
Kritiks are quickly leading to the downfall of the activity because of the lack of specific warrants for why
affirmatives are good or bad. As previously stated, the activity is about education. The outrageous claims made
by critical teams make certainly do not help education, but rather hurt it. Authors such as Zizek, Hardt, Negri,
Bernauer, Foucault, Nayer, Tickner, etc. realistically would either not care or in fact advocate the removal of
Tactical Nuclear Weapons from Europe. This year alone I have encountered all of these arguments, and
inevitably it is these critical teams that make absurd, broad based, outrageous claims by cutting evidence to
tailor a certain position. By taking authors work and chopping it up to such a degree that it may be end up
arguing the opposite of what the author would advocate has a few “implications”.

Kritiks do not properly convey the message of the authors

No author listed, “The Death of Policy Debate,”3.26.2003, http://www.cross-
x.com/content.php?file=archives/Debate_Concepts/03262003The_Death_of_Policy_Debate.shtml,
July 11, 2008
First, it detracts from the true intent/message the author is trying to relate to the world. This is of significant
importance because critical debaters are always making claims that there is a need to accept some
“alternative” mode of thought in order to solve the problems a certain author says is occurring. By detracting
away from the authors true message/meaning and potentially running the authors arguments out of context
debaters risk co-opting the very alternative they are attempting to solve. Secondly, chopping up critical
arguments to tailor them to make links and impacts to various arguments drastically decreases education.
Debaters have chopped up arguments to such a degree that often times they do not have so much as a clue as
to what a given author is really advocating. I have been in contact with several mainstream critical authors such
as Spanos, Chaloupka, Martin, Derber, Tickner, Der Derian, Walker, Mutimer, Bernauer, Campbell and know
people that have been in contact with Dillon, Kato, Ssasz, and others. Nearly all of these authors either
advocate the opposite of the way their arguments are being ran in debate or are outraged at how their
arguments are being “bastardized”. If debaters are running arguments the opposite of the way their authors
believe they should, two things are blaringly clear. First, the links debaters make to their arguments are in fact
so outrageous that they should be dismissed altogether. Secondly, that most debaters don't have a clue what
the author they are reading really advocates.