[aabhay]

As a debate student that goes to dozens of tournaments a year, arguing about the same policy topic over and over can get very dry. When I was in high school debate, I found these diverse literatures exciting and stimulating, which made my passion for debate much stronger.

[jmye]

It seems like there should be a place for both: one where diverse literature and meta-debate is both accepted and maybe even the point (e.g. make the premise actual critical to the Ks), and another where you are expected to argue for or against a position you don’t agree with. I think there’s tremendous value in having to steelman positions you think are fundamentally bad/incorrect, but I think you’re also right that there’s potential growth value in looking into deeper and different theory systems entirely.

But I think it’s generally a bad thing all around for the Ks to infiltrate literally all debate and crowd out anything else (in the same way the speed-talking phenomenon was [is?] a fundamentally bad thing for debate).

[nrfulton]

> It seems like there should be a place for both: one where diverse literature and meta-debate is both accepted and maybe even the point (e.g. make the premise actual critical to the Ks), and another where you are expected to argue for or against a position you don’t agree with.

There are many regional circuits in this country where running a kritik is an instant loss.

Aside from that: debate and meta-debate are not meaningfully separable. If arguments are being made, then there will be an argument about how to evaluate the arguments.

Meta-debate is not unique to debates that contain critical theory. See e.g. http://open-evidence.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/file... which is full of meta-arguments that happen when there isn't any critical theory introduced into the round.

Once you ask the question "what is fiat?" -- which becomes necessary far before any critical theory arrives on the scene -- the door is open to "perhaps pretending something happens and then evaluating the effects isn't the best way to test a resolution".

My basic thought about how academic debate should work:

1. Students should be allowed to choose their own arguments as often as possible.

2. Judges should try to be as impartial as possible and should evaluate student's arguments rather than impose their own opinion. (Pedagogic debate and non-pedagogic debate serve very different purposes. The emphasis on the student's performance rather than the judge's understanding of the world is motivated by pedagogic considerations, and obviously isn't how debates should be evaluated in the real world.)

3. The kids are fine. I promise that seeing a bit of critical theory isn't going to rot their brains.

[jmye]

Nothing to add or disagree with, just appreciate learning more about debate. Thanks for the in-depth response!

I do want to clarify that

> 3. The kids are fine. I promise that seeing a bit of critical theory isn't going to rot their brains.

This was not my argument at all, though I think it was the writer’s. Hopefully it didn’t come across that way.

[whimsicalism]

I disagree about speed talking being apriori bad, but agree it has crowded out everything else on the national circuit.

The same is simpoy not true of critical theory in debate which has been around for a long time and is not the winning argument in anywhere near close to a majorit of rounds.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> As a debate student that goes to dozens of tournaments a year, arguing about the same policy topic over and over can get very dry.

That brings up a good point. We probably need to differentiate between a student debate as part of a class vs extracurricular debating.

Students participating in a classroom debate only get so many minutes of exposure; each is valuable. Tighter boundaries would seem to be called for there.

[whimsicalism]

Yes :) As someone very familiar with high school debate, this article is exclusively talking about the extracurricular variety.