What is traditional policy debate
To continue the debate from earlier posts from Mike & John, I came across this great article in the Debater’s Research Guide from Wake Forest University in 2003. It attempts to define what is traditional policy debate and argue that critiques, as usually argued, do not constitute traditional policy debate and are bad for debate.
As I mentioned in my comment on Mike’s post, I tend to agree that critique arguments should be excluded from NFA-LD debate based on my interpretation of the rules. However, I am of the opinion that it should be an issue debated in the round not categorically decided by the judge since rules are always up for interpretation. And as John persuasively points out, since there is no explicit rule against critiques, one can argue critiques are allowed under the rules. Debaters and coaches can come to their own decision and try the strategy they think is most cogent at tournaments.
Regardless of where you are on this debate, this article will help you to argue critiques are not good traditional policy debating (what I see as the purpose and intent of NFA-LD debate) as well as see what people will argue against critiques if you are running them. If anyone knows of any responses to this article or as articles on the other side of the issue (why critique debate is good) please link to them in the comments.
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving break!
If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?
Pilgrims!
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply