I will post my response from a past thread about these type of issues in the policy debate community.
Some background on me, I debated collegiate debate for five years and then coached it for about four more. I was decent, I qualified for the National
Debate Tournament which only 72 teams make a year. I was slightly unusual in that I went to a rural state school (almost none of which have teams let
alone have any success) and had no high school experience, which almost all people at the high levels of collegiate debate had for at east four years
in high school.
First off, allow me to say in almost all forms policy debate is an abomination. You are taught to "spread" the other team, or speak like an auctioneer
to get as much info in as possible. This makes it so the laymen will have zero idea what you are saying, but those in the community have trained
themselves to understand it (supposedly the best debaters can speak and understand over 500 words a minute).
You are also taught to take arguments to their extreme. For example say we are debating the health care law and I am against it. Instead of just
saying it will hurt the US financially, I would read a piece of evidence from an extreme source that would say it will collapse the us economy, and
the read another piece of evidence that would say that would lead to nuclear war. I kid you not when I say almost every round ends in arguing in about
10 nuke war scenarios.
This was the way debate had been for years, and in my opinion it was a farce. But that isn't even the worst of it. For over a decade now (and getting
worse as time goes on) Performance debate has became popular. This basically amount to refusing to debate the topic and instead talking about your
personal life and why that means you should win, as the OP is showing. Actually, the round in the op is rather tame.
Here are some rounds I had.
I walk in and am told to acknowledge my privilege as a white man and forfeit the round to advance people of color.
I am told all men are evil and deserve to die and so I should lose for being a man.
I don't have any coaches of color so I should lose.
I speak like a white person of privilege so I should lose.
A team simulated gay sex and claimed because I didn't understand how that had to do with the topic we were supposed to debate about I was a bigot and
I should lose.
And so on. These are not exaggerations. And the debate community is so liberal that to defend yourself as a white or man or defender of capitalism
etc. is not only an almost automatic loss, it will get you outcast from the community.
My only defense was to claim I am NOT REALLY a white man. I have to get the to clarify what that means, and when they define it as power, I have to
argue that I too am underprivledged and I shouldn't be punished.
Whats worse is that this is in some ways the apex of academia, the supposed brightest we have to offer, with literally millions of dollars in
scholarships and payments toward coaches and other things going on. And there almost ZERO tolerance for any non liberal ideology.
And the community knows it is a joke. I believe it was the 2008 CEDA nationals finals where a ridiculous racially charged debate led to a coach
"mooning" the audience.
Ever since then (and largely before) it was known that the debate community should do everything possible to not be filmed or allow the outside world
(particularly the administrators from schools that were financing this nonsense) to know what was going on.
The debate community is an example of people that are so arrogant and insular that they are a joke to any outsider, but the still have an air of
superiority over everyone else. I learned a lot of positive things in this activity, and made many friends, but overall as a group I have more have
nothing but the utmost contempt for them. Many of them are the future leaders of this world, and they feel victimized and entitled and superior to you
in every way. They are a metaphor our entire political system.