WEBVTT


00:00:03.330 --> 00:00:05.890
[music]
All debate is a training in a method


00:00:06.200 --> 00:00:07.890
of arriving at a decision.


00:00:07.890 --> 00:00:12.060
It is putting forward a proposition, testing
that proposition from multiple angles, and


00:00:12.060 --> 00:00:17.130
at the end of the day, having to make a decision
about whether or not the policy proposed


00:00:17.130 --> 00:00:18.130
is a good or a bad idea.


00:00:18.130 --> 00:00:20.970
I'm going tell you, you have a resolution for
the year.


00:00:20.970 --> 00:00:25.000
This year, it's the United States federal government
should establish a national health insurance


00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:29.310
and the affirmative’s job is to affirm the spirit
of the text.


00:00:29.710 --> 00:00:34.400
First thing you would do is say, "What are
the different strategies


00:00:34.700 --> 00:00:36.500
that experts are discussing?"


00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:44.150
And so you'll craft an affirmative case offer – here
are all the good reasons why we think that this


00:00:44.150 --> 00:00:47.140
is a good political option that the United
States should pursue.


00:00:47.140 --> 00:00:51.960
The negative has to also anticipate what all
of those affirmative cases are, because the


00:00:51.960 --> 00:00:58.280
negative’s job is to say that the case presented
by this given affirmative is wrong.


00:00:58.280 --> 00:01:02.570
You have different generic strategies for
policy teams and then different generic strategies


00:01:02.570 --> 00:01:04.030
for Kritikal teams.


00:01:04.030 --> 00:01:08.420
In terms of preparing for policy teams, just
doing research on the topic can give you a


00:01:08.420 --> 00:01:11.650
good sense of what advantage grounds are out
there.


00:01:11.650 --> 00:01:17.310
National health insurance is at the very least
some form of universal-ish coverage,


00:01:17.310 --> 00:01:22.010
maybe saving people's lives, stopping pandemic
diseases, saving the economy.


00:01:22.010 --> 00:01:26.170
We create these hypothetical scenarios in
which the federal government themselves, like


00:01:26.170 --> 00:01:30.280
the three branches, were to actually give
healthcare to its citizens.


00:01:30.280 --> 00:01:35.540
But as Kritikal debaters, we're more interested
in the underlying assumptions of what is national


00:01:35.540 --> 00:01:41.640
health and conversations of race, class, gender,
sexuality, can all emerge from these things.


00:01:41.640 --> 00:01:47.000
I do all my research – this is where I’m finding
articles, I’m finding books.


00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:51.180
Anything that I can search on Google Scholar,
on the Wake Forest database, that talks about


00:01:51.180 --> 00:01:53.909
national health insurance, risk assessment.


00:01:53.909 --> 00:02:00.320
I imagine, in my head, the debate equivalent
of a chess board, trying to move all the pieces


00:02:00.320 --> 00:02:03.210
and simulate how your opponent would move
pieces in response.


00:02:03.210 --> 00:02:08.720
I don't even have to assume what our opponents
are going to say before I'm already trying


00:02:08.720 --> 00:02:16.590
to put together a document that would pre-empt
every single possible thought they might have.


00:02:16.590 --> 00:02:21.330
[background conversation]
At this point in the process, we're actually


00:02:21.330 --> 00:02:24.370
exactly two weeks out from our first tournament.


00:02:24.370 --> 00:02:30.400
We took inventory of what we have and basically
what we needed is a bunch of more research.


00:02:30.400 --> 00:02:36.960
Yes, so his argument is intuitively, you were
biased against making those utilitarian judgments.


00:02:36.960 --> 00:02:38.910
Another example is with the trolley experiments… [fades]


00:02:38.910 --> 00:02:44.670
We approach debate from this perspective
that intellectual diversity is welcome, right?


00:02:44.670 --> 00:02:47.860
In addition, that it ought to be proliferated.


00:02:47.860 --> 00:02:52.720
We're describing big tent debates with the
philosophy that the student comes to us with


00:02:52.720 --> 00:02:56.810
the types of arguments that they're interested
in and then we as a coaching staff 


00:02:57.110 --> 00:02:58.810
help cultivate that.


00:02:58.810 --> 00:03:01.349
[shouting] The second strategy!
- The second strategy!


00:03:01.349 --> 00:03:03.980
We are trying to make that the best forum possible.


00:03:03.980 --> 00:03:08.320
“Big Tent” is the metaphor, but I think it's
very real.


00:03:08.320 --> 00:03:12.410
Everyone should be able to make whatever arguments
they want and they should have to do it how


00:03:12.410 --> 00:03:19.610
they want and no one should get in your way
except to facilitate that.


00:03:19.610 --> 00:03:24.270
[music]
Brent and Varun are what many in the debate


00:03:24.270 --> 00:03:27.320
community would call an odd couple.


00:03:27.320 --> 00:03:31.120
The idea, on one hand, is you have a policy
debater who looks at the government and you


00:03:31.120 --> 00:03:36.020
have a Kritikal debater who looks at Kritikal
questions in society.


00:03:36.020 --> 00:03:43.489
Kritik debate is seen as emphasizing human
values and emphasizing emotion and emphasizing


00:03:43.489 --> 00:03:44.489
notions of identity.


00:03:44.489 --> 00:03:46.500
“We are not separate from the people around
us”


00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:48.700
is our fundamental argument.


00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:53.260
Whereas policy is traditionally interpreted
to be this kind of debate that focuses on


00:03:53.260 --> 00:03:57.040
the normative questions of legislation and
how the courts acts with it.


00:03:57.500 --> 00:04:01.870
Also our argument is that linking markets means
that there is two-way economic streams occurring in


00:04:01.870 --> 00:04:06.709
between the countries, i.e., should U.S. firms invest
in Chinese firms, Chinese firms invest in


00:04:06.709 --> 00:04:07.900
U.S. firms, and they invest in the U.S. marketplace?


00:04:07.900 --> 00:04:12.740
I think more often than not, the division
between the two is arbitrary.


00:04:12.740 --> 00:04:20.019
Varun is someone who is extremely well-trained
in philosophy.


00:04:20.019 --> 00:04:25.460
Brent is someone who is an economics and religion
studies major.


00:04:25.460 --> 00:04:30.740
It's a very different style of debate than
I've been usually doing.


00:04:30.740 --> 00:04:35.050
Varun comes from the more Kritikal camp whereas
I’ve been policy the last seven years


00:04:35.050 --> 00:04:36.360
of my debate life.


00:04:36.360 --> 00:04:42.039
It gets old talking about the same things
every debate.


00:04:42.039 --> 00:04:45.539
Being partners with Varun, I'm making arguments
that I would have never probably


00:04:46.839 --> 00:04:47.539
made otherwise.


00:04:47.839 --> 00:04:49.830
In consciousness, we ought to make the world
better.


00:04:49.830 --> 00:04:50.830
Right.


00:04:50.830 --> 00:04:54.129
So [Kingsley] Dennis is like the way that we create social
revolutions is through turning inward.


00:04:54.129 --> 00:04:59.300
It's new and it's refreshing and it adds a
little a bit of fun into my senior year.


00:04:59.300 --> 00:05:04.919
The flexibility to both adapt based on our
opponent, adapt based on our judge, really


00:05:04.919 --> 00:05:08.719
has given us all options on the table.


00:05:08.719 --> 00:05:12.000
All debaters could make any of the arguments,
but to perform at the level we're


00:05:12.250 --> 00:05:15.740
talking about, they have to practice them all
and know them all.


00:05:15.740 --> 00:05:17.259
That's what makes Brent and Varun unique.


00:05:17.259 --> 00:05:21.599
It's not they could say anything, it's they
can say anything very successfully because


00:05:21.599 --> 00:05:23.879
they've thought it all the way through.


00:05:23.879 --> 00:05:29.949
Policy debate is just more boring Kritik
debate honestly, but no, but debate is meant


00:05:29.949 --> 00:05:35.779
to be fun and I think it's the most fun when
we're pushing our traditional notions of what


00:05:35.779 --> 00:05:38.029
one style of debate ought to be.


00:05:38.029 --> 00:05:42.879
The hope is that if this was a team that was
successful, it would cause people to rethink


00:05:42.879 --> 00:05:44.150
how they approach argument.


00:05:44.150 --> 00:05:46.089
It doesn't have to be one side or the other.


00:05:46.089 --> 00:05:48.839
You don't have to be a philosophy person or
a policy person.


00:05:48.839 --> 00:05:53.969
You can really be a person that blends the
two thoughts together so that our society


00:05:53.969 --> 00:05:59.259
can both answer the question of values and
what should we do and recognize that those


00:05:59.259 --> 00:06:02.550
are not separate conversations but part of
the same ones.


00:06:02.550 --> 00:06:03.050
[music]