Re:The Corrosion of High School Debate
by throwawayknecht on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @03:42PM
(#15444760)
On the other hand, focusing intensely on "critical thinking and argument" is detrimental to the purported goal of debate as a civic institution - rather than a high school sport - which to educate, seek truth, and ideally come to common ground either via persuasion or compromise.
K-heavy policy is kind of the extreme opposite of that, increasingly meta arguments where no one ever has to concede even a basic model of reality to the other side. I didn't like it as a debater, and I had a dim view of it as a judge, especially from aff side.
(These frustrations had me drift towards group disco and student congress after 2.5 years in policy.)
Re:The Corrosion of High School Debate
by throwawayjava on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @07:09PM
(#15446046)
Yes, the civic and educational goals of debate are often at odds.
I'm comfortable emphasizing the educational goals over the civic goals because I've yet to see a high school debate round weigh in on the balance of national (or even state) policy...
Not to mention the work ethic and research skills that are honed through debate and cutting cards. I am convinced that my college experience was much easier than others because I was efficient at doing research. Now that I'm in the professional world, long nights of cutting cards has changed into long hours or writing code and I'm not sure I would be able to handle my workload were it not for my debate experience
Edit: Moving from a long-form rant about something that a freshman barely understands to philosophical minutia that lead to nuclear war takes a significant amount of learning. And that learning is worthwhile.