In policy debate, something along the lines of "White power rules in debate" would fall into what's called a Kritik (cri-teek) I remember seeing a kritik a few years back. affirmative teams plan was to reduce the number of U.S Soldiers in other countries. The negative team ran a "fall of an empire" Kritik, where basically the argument was "U.S has to keep soldiers in other countries to stay powerful, or risk not being the top dog." There were some other things in that Kritik but I can't fully remember. The negative team won that round. Kritiks, and the arguments you talked about in the OP aren't designed to get rid of the oppositions plan by proving it won't work. They are designed to prove that the resolution in general is a waste of time, thus making the aff plan pointless. [quote] But I am concerned that the outcome of this is debates will not be decided solely on reasoning, but on volume, passion, and who "feels the strongest".[/quote] This has always been the case in Forensics and policy debate. That's not the future, that's right now.