Today, a form of intellectual self-masturbation in which one attempts to scale an ivory tower in the shortest time possible. Policy debate was founded in 1957 in an attempt to disguise the throes of the real world with dignified, "intellectual" switch-side arguments. The framers intended it to allow young people to become more active in the world around them and encourage them to do something to help the ailing world. Instead, debaters made the activity into a competition of who could spew the most statistics, impacts, horribly damnable effects/results, screaming evidence at cutthroat speed, and modern debate sprouted as a result. Debate resides close to the top of the proverbial "ivory tower", as the real world gets translated into evidence and impacts, statistics and "strats" to win tournaments. Those who participate for the fun of it are exempt from this definition; it is only applicable to debate when it is applied as a critical theory that can "benefit the world".
Debate, when converted into a social theory, becomes a laughable mockery of the suffering of the world.
A policy debate
argument which attempts to undermine the fundamental basis of the affirmative. More often than not revolves around ludicrous "revolution" style alternatives
that a bunch of cafe intellectuals
in the ivory tower came up with. The spelling itself - German for "critique" - represents the feel-good attitude of the guys who came up with it.
The poster child: Slavoj Zizek.
Kritiks only smear shit on policy debate's already elitist image.
"John always tries to show off in history whenever Dr. Rosenblum talks about the motivation for the Cold War."
"What does he do?"
"Duh, he's a fucking debater, so he tries to pull this thing called a kritik on him. Says the only way out of the 'recurring cycle of violence' is to have a 'total proletariat subconsciative otherization of the real'."
"Is the dude on acid or what?"
"No.. he's a debater, remember? He's the guy who whines about starving kids in Africa all the time from his Benz."