| > 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. |
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.