Any policy debaters? WTF is going on here?

Disclaimer: I did one debate tournament ever (college level) and hated it so I'm not the most informed.

This looks extremely bizarre to someone not familiar with this format of debate. The criticisms levied against it are absolutely valid, but are really not unique to the participants being black. Look at video of other debates and you will see the same rapid-fire talking and bizarre arguments.

Think of it like olympic boxing vs regular boxing (this anecdote may be 100% inaccurate but bear with me). A fighter could control the ring, push his opponent around, end the fight completely unscathed while his opponent is bruised and beaten, and still lose. In an effort to make the judging objective, they implemented a strict scoring system where only the number of punches landed counts.

This style of debate is similar. The judges are restricted in what elements they are allowed to consider/score and that creates bizarre incentives for the debaters. If you want to watch/get involved with something more in line with what "normal" people would consider quality debate, you are looking for the "impromptu persuasive" competition at a speech tournament.

This format of debate is more similar to a trading card game than "normal debate". People "run strategies" the way a Magic the Gathering player would play a certain color deck against another deck. The "play" involves reading evidence into the record. Apparently they allow laptops now, but we used physical evidence cards. You find published research that makes a certain argument or presents a fact, summarize it in the most concise way possible, and put the citation on the card. When your opponent makes an argument, you counter it by "playing a card" against it. You don't think of the most eloquent way to attack the underlying logic, or focus on your delivery or presentation. Your opposition said that implementing X policy will lower the defecit, you respond with an evidence card claiming the opposite. The faster you talk, the more cards you can play. Teams play their cards against each other and the judge scores the outcome. There is a definite skill to it, but it is not the skill set someone would need to win, say, a presidential debate. Think of a technicals focused day trader vs a fundamentals focused long term investor. Different skill set, different game.

A recent strategy trend in debate are what might be called "fundamental" or "meta" arguments. I faced this myself at the tournament I attended. I don't remember what the resolution was but my partner and I were well prepared with facts and evidence and had anticipated all the possible arguments and had our counter arguments ready to go. We were affirmative and opened the debate explaining why the policy should be implemented. Our opponents run a "pomo neg" (postmodern negative) strategy. They argue that there is no such thing as "good" or "bad", therefore the resolution cannot be adopted because it is not possible for anything to be a "good" policy. We were totally unprepared for this and lost horribly. These types of strategies force players to bring massive amounts of evidence with them. At the tournament I attended our top team went in to their debate with 5 or 6 large tubs full of evidence cards. They had a set "deck" they could run against all of the popular strategies. If they were in the debate my partner and I lost, they would have recognized the strategy immediately, ran to their tub, and pulled out a counter deck to win.

From what I could gather, mostly from an article written by a member of the winning (female) team, the strategy played was the following: Resolution is that the US should reduce presidential war powers.

Affirmative runs a "performative" strategy. They argue that since war disproportionately affects black people and other minoriites, the resolution must be framed through a lense that is sympathetic to these cultures. They argue that the entire resolution, and structure of the debate, is itself racist. Essentially that their opponents are "acting white", the judges are racist, and that reading poetry/hip hop into the record, rather than evidence cards, is more in line with the black-sympathetic lens through which this policy is properly viewed. Form is function and their performance is itself a part of the argument. Let's pause for a moment. I know your initial reaction to this. But the judges are not allowed to consider the subjective quality of the argument. It's a real argument, it's logical (remember logical vs correct vs good), and it must be responded to (burden of rejoinder). It is entirely possible/likely that the affirmative does not in any way agree with their own argument. Like a lawyer, or chess player, they are playing the strongest strategy they have. They expect it to catch their opponent off guard. Another advantage of a "fundamental" strategy like this is that it could be run for/against almost any conceivable resolution. Meaning that by the end of the season, they are experts in its execution since they play it every time. Like that HS football team that does onside kicks every time. Is it really a good strategy? Hard to tell ceteris paribus since that team gets to practice onside kicks 100x more than everyone else.

What do I think of this strategy?

I am the first to rag on "critical studies in the dialectic of XYZ" type of courses and leftist academia. But I think what these kids are doing, and maybe i'm interpreting it the way I want to, is throwing the ridiculousness that is leftist academia right back in their own stupid faces. Debate has been degrading for a long time into this rapid fire card game and they just took it to its logical conclusion. Like in poker, the old "live pros" thought the young internet kids were destroying the game. But they were taking it to its logical conclusion. It's really hard to make a hand, any hand, in texas hold 'em. Therefore, against the "traditional strategies", you can get away with a hyper-agressive strategy of betting or raising almost every street, no matter the cards. Eventually they pushed all the live pros out of the game entirely and switched to Pot Limit Omaha, a game where you can actually make a hand. Getting back to the debate, I think these kids are playing the ultimate strategy, a strategy so strong it threatens the game itself. They looked at the rules, looked at the character of the judges, and came up with something that, at least at the moment, seems to strictly dominate the old strategies. Don't hate the player, hate the game. They're winning. Good for them. Hopefully it leads to a major revamp of the rules and judging sytem. And when that happens, I bet these same players will excel in the new format.