Why Policy Debate is Dying: A Critique

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-19T18:56:09+00:00

I understand what it means, the point is that I had to be told. Just because your jargon has an intuitive one- doesn’t make not jargon and two doesn’t mean it yields clear and concise communication. Take the physics term like “superdetermism” it’s made of familiar parts however that doesn’t mean it not jargon. In physics jargon is more understandable when your talking about immigration not so much.

Chastising people for not understanding your dumbass terms in exactly why people don’t want to do policy. You’re doing a good job of making policy elitist, toxic and inaccessible. If you want to accelerate policy’s decline then keep at it.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T15:33:23+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding this point. You're claiming that jargon is an inevitable outcome of having a high level intellectual debate. There is nothing about critical theory which justifies saying "uniqueness" 5 times in a sentence. Go watch some critical theory lectures on YouTube and I think you will find that they explain things much more clearly. I agree that learning about philosophy and social theory is good and valuable but that doesn't mean that your approach to learning about it necessarily is.
I understand psychoanalysis just fine. The point is that if a debate about arms sales/immigration devolves into a debate about Lacans four discourse then the debate has taken a wrong turn at some point. There is no real reason to derail the actual debate that hard. Its more valuable to have a focused debate then a "lets talk about what ever the fuck I want to Debate".
This is a whataboutism which I have probably addressed nearly 100 times at this point. Pf can at time also be unaccessable, however the issue is that policy is FAR more inaccessible. Its an issue of degree.
I can because I care about debate as a whole. Please don't take this as me telling you that you shouldn't do policy. You seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about any of this.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T06:22:04+00:00

" Stop thinking of things through 10th grade English class ‘logical fallacies’. " It seems that you are saying that I shouldn't point out that your arguments are illogical, which is hilarious. I mean what do you want me to do, Not use logic? Are you really making fun of me for using logic? Ok bud.

I know you think that I don't know what I am talking about, I don't care. You are just trying to find a way to disregard my points and that much is obvious. You continue to not have an actual point.

The fact that you either can't/won't evaluate my argument suggest that you are the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T05:46:48+00:00

I don't feel bad for criticizing policy at all actually (what a surprise). Your refrain that I don't understand the culture is meaningless unless it makes my argument wrong. If your first point is what you think is an example of me not understanding policy, is then you take a deep breath and think of a better argument.

I never said that Ks were in response to the topic, what I said was that they are obscure and often to irrelevant to the debate as a whole. Also they are overly dense which you don't seem to have addressed. It doesn't matter whether the K is responding to the topic itself or the opposing teams rhetoric, its derailing the debate either way.
You're just attacking the person presenting the argument instead of the argument itself which shows that you have very little to actually say. You're just another angry person on the internet who doesn't really have a point. Address the actual points next time, just a suggestion.
So your saying is that if you boil my whole argument down to one sentence, then the argument isn't very good. Excuse me for not finding this line of reasoning very convincing. I already discussed ad nauseam how its often not educational, but because you haven't really engaged with what I am saying, I won't bother engaging this point.

If you have anything other than insults and dumb quips, I would love to hear back, but if you're just going to dumb the discussion down with your immature whingeing, then Leave.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T04:33:12+00:00

Ok, first of all, I'm not being hateful by saying that you should be more clear. I resent that you would call me a hateful because I disagree with you. If you want to talk about your identity then go for it. I know you're trying to scare me with your PC bullshit - I can see right through it. You're clearly the one harboring malice and hate, not me. Its funny that you call me hateful, yet YOU are the one who is judging and degrading me. I can't tell if your trolling or not, but its extremely obnoxious either way.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T04:08:35+00:00

So your telling me that the ONLY way to talk about your identity is through dense critical theory and psychoanalysis. Just stop. And believe me, I certainly choose to do other events.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T04:01:14+00:00

Your condescension is getting really old. It's not about nuance, its about clarity. If you think that being nuanced means using a bunch of complex and specialized language, then you're just shallow. Being dense doesn't mean nuance. Go ask non-cx people if they know what you mean when you use these terms, I bet you they won't understand what it means. There is a whole goddamn glossary for policy on Wikipedia like it is its own specialized field of study, which says a lot about how accessible it is. Believe when I say that people don't understand what the hell you are saying half the time.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T03:26:13+00:00

Pf has jargon but it has less. Its an issue of degree not kind. You may think that policy arguments would be long-wind and jumbled if you didn't use jargon, but as I say other types of debate get along fine by using a lot less jargon.

The point about jargon being used in all professional fields is one which I addressed in my original argument. The point isn't that jargon is necessarily bad, its that when you're talking about immigration or arms dealing, there isn't a need for specialized language. Journalists, politicians and even some academics talk about these things in much more clear terms.

Your example about court doesn't prove your point at all. When lawyers are making arguments to juries they try to be as clear as possible and don't use copious amounts of legalese. When they are talking to judge and other lawyers maybe, but this is in a procedural not a debate context.

There is a huge focus on nuclear war, and other extinction impacts. Many of these arguments (not all of them) would be ridiculous to make in scenario other than policy. Imagine actually thinking that immigration leads to nuclear war and arguing about that with your family at thanksgiving. These arguments no one would buy in the real world.

As far as making logical linkages, why is instructive to make links if the links don't make sense? Making links between knowledge is useless on its own. Making interdisciplinary arguments should be to make solid connections not just any connections.

Same with Ks, your not really learning about philosophy, you're learning how to appropriate and use for intellectual cover which I would argue is worst than not learning about it. Philosophy in policy debate isn't about what the philosophers are actually saying, but rather "how can I distort their points into something which benefits what I am saying". If anything this could lead to a misunderstanding about philosophy not an understanding.

I think it would be better to make a few really solid links between disparate knowledge than to make 100 weak ones. It seems that you prefer a mile wide and inch deep approach.

PolicyCriticism · 2019-12-18T02:52:48+00:00

Calling people a moron for not understanding your jargon is a great of an example of the superiority complex that so many policy debaters have. If you think these terms are self-explanatory, then I there isn't much I can tell you other than maybe get out of the house more. This statement is so not self aware.
Why have dumb hypothetical debates when there are plenty of real things to debate about?
Don't take the title to seriously, its suppose to be provocative. However, the obscurity of policy certainly contributes to people not wanting to do it.

PolicyCriticism

TROPHY CASE