On the other hand, focusing intensely on "critical thinking and argument" is detrimental to the purported goal of debate as a civic institution - rather than a high school sport - which to educate, seek truth, and ideally come to common ground either via persuasion or compromise.

K-heavy policy is kind of the extreme opposite of that, increasingly meta arguments where no one ever has to concede even a basic model of reality to the other side. I didn't like it as a debater, and I had a dim view of it as a judge, especially from aff side.

(These frustrations had me drift towards group disco and student congress after 2.5 years in policy.)