k theory | Argument | Proposition

K theory Policy Debate is a governmental structure No author listed, “The Death of Policy Debate,”3.26.2003, http://www.

crossx.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.crossx.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.crossx.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.crossx.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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful