It's often said that critical thinking is the cornerstone of a well-rounded education. Universities and colleges around the world extol the virtues of critical

It's often said that critical thinking is the cornerstone of a well-rounded education. Universities and colleges around the world extol the virtues of critical thinking and its ability to elevate our intellectual prowess. However, I'd like to argue that critical thinking, or more specifically, the way it's often employed in certain academic contexts, has become overrated and counterproductive to meaningful, constructive discourse. In American college policy debates, a common phenomenon has emerged where "kritiks" (critiques) and "critical theorists" wield their tools of analysis in a manner that stifles the flow of ideas and inhibits the development of practical, solutions-oriented discussions. For those unfamiliar with policy debate, it is a competitive speaking activity where teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically proposes a policy change. Kritiks are arguments that challenge the assumptions, methodology, or discourse used by the opposing team. While they can serve a valuable purpose in exposing biases, promoting introspection, and advocating for marginalized perspectives, they have also evolved into a means of derailing debates by focusing on abstract philosophical points rather than addressing the policy issue at hand. Critical theorists, heavily influenced by postmodernist and marxist philosophy, have taken what was originally a quirk of Policy Debate and brought it to the mainstream. This has ended up with serial policy failure among the left wing, and has decimated our social science academic community. "Critical Thinking" is overrated. We need constructive thinking, like what you get in engineering school.