New Wave Debate: What's the point?

Spreading. Kritiks. Performance affs. Narratives. Debate (and not just CX, either) is taking off in a whole new direction in some areas of the country. The trouble is, not everyone likes it.

To understand this issue, one must first understand the concepts that are being discussed. First, and probably most controversial, is the strategy of spreading. Spreading is the strategy that some debaters employ in order to fit in many arguments in the course of their speaking time. This involves speaking very, very fast. You can see an example of this here. Spreading is seen in advanced CX rounds and some advanced LD rounds. It has not hit the PF world yet but I imagine it's only a matter of time before some teams begin employing this strategy in PF rounds.

I am conflicted about the idea of spreading as a strategy. While it makes sense to try to make more arguments, the debate you end up with is only going to be understandable to a few select people in the room (those that are used to debating or flowing spread rounds). I believe this to be antithetical to the concept of forensics, a word that means 'suitable for public speaking'. Spread rounds are not suitable for public consumption at all; they simply advance the 'in-crowd' of those who can follow the spread, and thus negate the idea of becoming a better forensicator.

Solution? I believe that the arguments put forth during a spread round can be legitimate. If you want to run a K, two off-case arguments, T, DAs, etc etc etc, I believe there should be a forum for you to get it all said. In this case, I believe that instead of speaking faster, the speech times should be extended. Perhaps a 10 minute constructive period would give one adequate time to say everything they would like to say. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints of rounds at tournaments, this is unlikely to happen in the near future.

Kritiks, performance affs, and narratives: these are all new ways of looking at the old, tired, worn-out, same-ol, same-ol speeches of the 'old school' of debate. In the 'old school', the affirmative side presents their arguments and/or plan for the case in a fairly straightforward manner. In CX or LD, the debater would present first the problem, then the solution/s to said problem, then the advantages shown by adopting their solution. The negative side, then, refutes the arguments of the aff in a similarly straightforward manner. "My opponent thinks that this is a problem. Here is why this is not a problem." or "My opponent says that these good things will happen if we adopt their plan. I will show you how these bad things will happen instead."

A kritik (or critical argument), rather than debate in a straightforward manner, is a different kind of strategy for the negative side in CX or LD to employ. Rather than directly refute the arguments the aff is making, the neg will simply create a discussion about the philosophy or language that has been brought up in the debate, and how the judge ought to reject the parameters of the debate as a whole due to, for example, the racist language of the proposition, or the futile pursuit of money in the affirmatives plan, etc etc. The key word here is philosophy. These arguments tend to be very intellectual and theoretical in nature.

Performance Affs, seen mostly in CX but occassionally in LD, is a method of delivering your first affirmative constructive speech in an unconventional way, via video, poetry, theatrics, etc. The idea is that you are challenging the conventions of delivering a speech in a conventional way to get your point across. It is, of course, against the rules of debate to run most performance affs (many of them violate some rule about visual aids, etc) but you are trying to argue that the educational benefit of what you are doing outweighs any rules you are breaking.

Narratives (ran in CX and LD) look a lot like a conventional speech in that they take about 6-8 minutes to read. However, the text of the speech is set up more like a story than a debate. For example, someone might do a 'Batman Narrative' and tell the story of the latest batman movie to debate the idea that democracy fails. (In a crucial scene in the movie, people on a boat take a vote about an action they should take, and although they all vote to act in one way, they end up taking a different action). This is a powerful way to get a point across but certainly bucks the conventions of normal debate.

I enjoy watching kritiks, performance affs, and narratives if only for the sheer pleasure of listening to a student think in a philosophical way. However, in practice, these tactics end up being used by students who don't understand the theory behind them, they confuse the opponent, and the education of debate is not served.

Solution? Once again, I believe a seperate division should be created for students who want to debate in this manner. A new event, called "New Wave Debate" or something to that effect would be a nice way to allow students to explore philosophy but also maintain the traditional integrity of the original styles of debate.

Again, it would be unlikely that this will happen anytime soon, if at all, but in Mama Cole's perfect world, this would be the best case solution. And that's my two cents.