IS

(It Just Exists!)

There is an epidemic plaguing debate, the plague of debate itself. How many
times have we had to stand up here and deny ALL arguments presented against us, even
if they are beautiful? How many times have we felt like mindless drones, reacting the
same thing over and over again for the sake of argument, without purpose and when we
know we are wrong? How much longer much must we endure this? It is time to put an
end to this blasphemy (tomfoolery): once and for all!
The main problem with debate is that there is no room for true enlightenment. We
are presented with arguments, which we must categorically deny, no matter what. This is
foolish both in principle and real world implications. In life outside the confined
oppressive walls of this classroom there is compromise (unless your name is Joseph
Stalin). Rarely do we achieve what we want unconditionally and without compromise.
Debate has become an institution that allows for no dialectic. If debate’s main purpose is
to educate us; then it has failed miserably so. No education can be achieved in this
system, for both competitors and for the judge. We must change this at once to allow
dialectic into debate and allow it to enlighten us all. Dialectic, as Hegel describes it, is
when we have an original idea, the syntheses, an opposing idea, the antithesis, and finally
these reach a point of the syntax, or true enlightenment. Yet, in debate this is not possible.
Either the synthesis or antithesis wins, unconditionally. If we are to reach this level of
syntax the structure of debate must be changed entirely, and with no due haste.
Therefore let it be stated (affirm or negate resolution) and furthermore that debate
shall become an open structure, which shall allow for a true syntax. Before I proceed I
would like to extend the opportunity for my opponent to ask questions, right now, to
clarify (Wait for questions)

(Reasons to affirm/ negate resolution)

A once great man, who is known as Paulo Freire, proposed a great problem that
plagued education, traditional pedagogy. Since debate aims to educate then it must fall
under the problem specifically so. Freire said that students had a “banking education”,
where the students are like safety deposit boxes in which information is placed, with no
reason why it was of importance. Much like the current method of high school debate.
Furthermore, in this banking situation a false, hypothetical view of reality is presented,
“The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend
simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited on
them” (Freire). In this way you the judge are regarded as this passive student, and so are
we the debaters, in that we listen attentively to the information deposited on us. Even if
the debaters have a chance to refute this we still do it under the oppressive system in
which I talk and you listen without asking, “Why?” We must transform debate into an
open structure not merely talk about it, kritque it and pretend to be part of it as Freire
explains: “ Those truly committed to the cause of liberation can neither accept the
mechanistic concept of consciousness as a vessel to be filled nor the banking methods of
domination (propaganda, slogans –deposits) in the name of liberation”.
Therefore let it be changed that the entire structure of debate be changed and
modified so as to not include the former oppressive methods (Hot Damn). In order to
achieve the dialectic, our ultimate goal, we must engage in true dialogue. With that in
mind, this debate is no longer a form of rigid time structures and speeches; but rather, a
conversation or discussion. IF you my judge, and you my dear opponent, accept that
debate’s ultimate goal is to provide us with education then, break free from the confines
of debate and oppression. You have nothing to loose but the chains of the oppressive
education and everything to gain. Debaters of this room unite! (Hell to the motherfuckin’
yeah!)