Can Debate Change Our Perspectives?

Debate single-handedly transformed me into a communist.

Well, not exactly. While I am not really a communist, the amount of literature I’ve read through in order to run cap ks and k affs in debate has certainly changed my perspectives on core power structures and relations.

But through this reading of kritikal and more policy-oriented literature, the extensive research required to make backfiles for each topic, and even having to deal with responding to lists of paradoxes, how much of what we say and do in the debate space changes how we think about the world?

Policy arguments 

When I told my friends about the normalcy and relative ease with which debaters link their arguments with extinction scenarios, they were concerned for my mental health. However, in the debate world, at a tournament, you’re just as (if not more) likely to hear the word extinction as the phrase “I’m going to go find coffee”. 

While I’m assuming most debaters do not believe that their specific advocacy is the ultimate key to preventing extinction, it has got to affect our opinions, right? Or are extinction scenarios normalized to the point that we don’t see them as real? 

So then, what does policy debate do?

Going back a little, debate certainly creates a larger concern for world events and helps shape opinions about fundamental issues and solutions within society. For instance, the current Lincoln Douglas topic about military presence forces debaters to engage in discourse about the harms of US military intervention, the potentialities of conflict escalation, and the impacts of alliances. 

Further, LARP/policy debate, the research that comes with it, and conversations with other people who only speak debate, pushes debaters to be more knowledgeable about the world around them. These include topics such as domestic and international politics, current affairs, and basic economics and can help spark interests (or obsessions) with topics you wouldn’t typically explore. As a result, debaters can make more informed and educated opinions about the world. You also begin to almost question what each action can actually change or do, making us more observant of these topics in the real world. 

On the other hand, I’ve often wondered whether debate made me more pessimistic about the world. After cutting politics disads and answers to them, I’ve come to realize that yes, our government is so messed up that it can’t pass effective policy because it's too busy fighting over whether or not it should shut down. And with the most recent Lincoln Douglas debate topic , I’ve only delved deeper and deeper into the war crimes committed by the US government, how the government profits off of starting wars in other countries, and how terrorism has only increased since US intervention began. Throughout that, although I’ve started caring way more about advocacy and policymaking, there’s also the question of what actually can change. Is reform truly possible?

I never used to be interested in politics, but now I watch it like a reality TV show.

Simultaneously, a sense of apathy can follow the intense amount of research required for LD backfiles. “Ruining an entire country? Exploiting the underprivileged? Unable to pass anything due to gridlock? Oh, it's just the United States back at it again -- nothing new there” That sense probably isn’t good, nor is it what the founders of debate expected the activity to become, yet I wonder if it is the only default response left.

Kritiks

A huge part of Kritik strategy relies on winning that “the ballot creates change, " whether through changing minds or allowing for increased accessibility. 

However, considering the normalization of kritiks and the fact that debaters will find k links to every argument made, it's unlikely that hearing one (unless it’s for the first time) will suddenly create new perspectives. While they are certainly important since they force the debater to consider the implications of their case outside the typical five extinction scenarios, it is likely that no matter how many times we claim that voting for the kritik “ruptures the debate space”, it probably won’t open any minds. (There goes all of the solvency for my K-aff) 

However, perhaps the core value in kritikal debate comes from the research itself. 

As an avenue for debaters to question underlying assumptions (eg capitalism being good) and challenge core power structures, kritiks hold an immense amount of power. From securitization to settler colonialism, they question what each political action really implicates, creating a more in-depth understanding of our assumptions and position in politics. They also push debaters into engaging with the implications of ideas we normally tend to glace past, such as threat construction, how discourse shapes reality, and the position of certain people and identities in the world. I would have never come close to understanding, let alone engaging, with arguments like afropessimism or orientalism without debate.   

Further, once you begin to get passionate about a certain kritik, in order for it to become a core element of your strategy (as with any argument) comes massive amounts of prep and reading of kritical literature, pushing you extremely in-depth into assumptions about the world. You begin looking at the implications of power dynamics, different political structures, the state, and as a result, it can change your outlook on key issues within the world. Cutting links, writing frontlines, and having rounds can make you notice small things in the world and what they implicate. You gain an understanding of how what you do reinvests in certain systems, and as a result, learn more about political processes, not just their outcomes. 

And of course, there are always Kritiks such as Baudrillard that may make you question all of reality. 

Phil 

I have never read a phil argument, nor have I ever met a genuine Kantian, so my understanding of how philosophy can change our world views are a bit sparse. They’re certainly interesting, and push us to question the best ways to make a decision (and determinism did make me question everything the first time I heard it). The main difference I’ve noticed is that defending or refuting a syllogism forces you to have to respond to small technical details, which in the long term can help us be more inquisitive and observant in the world. In turn, this can help us formulate better opinions and question things we might not have before. 

Theory

Will shoe theory really make me think that I shouldn’t wear shoes in debate?  

Probably not. 

Can arguments like disclosure theory and pronoun theory force debaters to reconsider their actions and opinions and help create positive norms within the debate space?

Yes. 

There are arguments people will keep reading no matter how many times someone reads theory or topicality versus them, yet certain core arguments can help change the debate space. Our team didn’t disclose until we lost a couple of times to disclosure theory and were then pushed into considering the positives of disclosure. Further, pronoun theory and misgendering theory can truly make the space more accessible. 

‍Conclusion

Debate has become such a big part of what I do that it's hard to go back and think of how it changed my views on the world. But there is no question that it has largely shaped my opinions and interests.

After all, how else would I have been able to explore communism?

‍