theres no fucking way this is legitimate debate practice
what the video doesn't mention is that these guys are both training to be auctioneers in their free time
[QUOTE=dot.rich;48533347]theres no fucking way this is legitimate debate practice[/QUOTE]
Its called spreading. Its a form of debate usually used in Lincoln and Douglas or a 1v1 moral topic type round. The idea is to spread out your argument as fast as possible, throwing in as much as you can to try to overwhelm the person you're debating. Its usually not THIS extreme, but its pretty close.
[QUOTE=dot.rich;48533347]theres no fucking way this is legitimate debate practice[/QUOTE]
Every single person in college level debate does this, and most if not all kids in highschool level policy debate do this. If you don't do this, you lose.
[QUOTE=ScoutKing;48533803]Its called spreading. Its a form of debate usually used in Lincoln and Douglas or a 1v1 moral topic type round. The idea is to spread out your argument as fast as possible, throwing in as much as you can to try to overwhelm the person you're debating. Its usually not THIS extreme, but its pretty close.[/QUOTE]
Nowadays LD does this but it used to be (when I was in HS 2009-2013), that LD never did this (at least in my circuit). Other leagues did this, but to say that it's primarily done in LD is wrong: it was invented by policy debaters back in like the 1960s.
Yes it is usually this extreme.
Look up spreading drills
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48533877]Every single person in college level debate does this, and most if not all kids in highschool level policy debate do this. If you don't do this, you lose.
Nowadays LD does this but it used to be (when I was in HS 2009-2013), that LD never did this (at least in my circuit). Other leagues did this, but to say that it's primarily done in LD is wrong: it was invented by policy debaters back in like the 1960s.
Yes it is usually this extreme.
Look up spreading drills[/QUOTE]
This sounds like total horseshit. Doesn't this completely defeat the point of having a debate in the first place?
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;48533908]This sounds like total horseshit. Doesn't this completely defeat the point of having a debate in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Sort of the reason why I never did more than a year of debate.
it was more of a dick measuring contest of who could fuck with the opponent as much as possible.
At least it was in high school.
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;48533908]This sounds like total horseshit. Doesn't this completely defeat the point of having a debate in the first place?[/QUOTE]
"Debate teams" are literally just about debate and winning them. Not about discussing something to try to find the answer with the understanding that both parties might be wrong, literally just "winning". It encourages intentional use of fallacy and selective thinking just to make the best sounding argument.
Now you know one of many reasons modern politics and economics are so fucked.
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;48533908]This sounds like total horseshit. Doesn't this completely defeat the point of having a debate in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Here's how "The Great Debaters" debate works:
you get a topic, you get a side. you go up and give the most beautiful speech ever. The judges are so moved by your eloquence and logic that they vote for you.
Here's how real debate works:
you get a thing called "the flow". This is basically the record of everything that happens in a round. When one side says something, it goes on the flow. When another side says something, it also goes on the flow. There are 2 different types of rounds: constructives and rebuttals. During the constructive, you state your case. During the rebuttal, you attack your opponents case.
So, let's say you've got 5 points in your constructive, and your opponent has 5 points
So in the rebuttal, if your opponent attacks 4 points, but either runs out of time before they can attack the fifth point, it "extends across the flow". This basically means the opponent cannot talk about this point for the rest of the debate. In effect, the judge must accept this "dropped" point as fact. Regardless of what it says, the judge must accept it as fact. The judge's job is not to be logical. The judges job is to tally all the points dropped and not dropped and decide which were the most important ones. Basically the one who didn't answer the most amount of points is the one who loses.
This is why spreading exists. at NDT at sometime in the 1960s, someone decided "if I read really fast, they'll run out of time and drop all of my arguments!"
and they won and policy debate has been terrible ever since
There are other forms of debate that are closer to what we consider to be what not-crazy people do, called Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. LD debate has a bit more structure to it (it has these things called values), but Pofo (public forum) is pretty much 100% unstructured and the most like real life.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48534753]Here's how "The Great Debaters" debate works:
you get a topic, you get a side. you go up and give the most beautiful speech ever. The judges are so moved by your eloquence and logic that they vote for you.
Here's how real debate works:
you get a thing called "the flow". This is basically the record of everything that happens in a round. When one side says something, it goes on the flow. When another side says something, it also goes on the flow. There are 2 different types of rounds: constructives and rebuttals. During the constructive, you state your case. During the rebuttal, you attack your opponents case.
So, let's say you've got 5 points in your constructive, and your opponent has 5 points
So in the rebuttal, if your opponent attacks 4 points, but either runs out of time before they can attack the fifth point, it "extends across the flow". This basically means the opponent cannot talk about this point for the rest of the debate. In effect, the judge must accept this "dropped" point as fact. Regardless of what it says, the judge must accept it as fact. The judge's job is not to be logical. The judges job is to tally all the points dropped and not dropped and decide which were the most important ones. Basically the one who didn't answer the most amount of points is the one who loses.
This is why spreading exists. at NDT at sometime in the 1960s, someone decided "if I read really fast, they'll run out of time and drop all of my arguments!"
and they won and policy debate has been terrible ever since
There are other forms of debate that are closer to what we consider to be what not-crazy people do, called Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. LD debate has a bit more structure to it (it has these things called values), but Pofo (public forum) is pretty much 100% unstructured and the most like real life.[/QUOTE]
Fuck this, the only thing i see being "spread" is the relentlessly ravaged anus of rational discourse's defiled corpse. Now i have one more reason to feel depressed. Thanks, asshole.
Guys, try the vid with 0.5 speed.
Holy shit that is annoying
Ah, yes. This infuriating event is known as "Policy Debate."
I was the leading Policy debater for two years in high school on our team, and frankly, the only one. The event is regarded as a joke by most debate associations for reasons that others have already pointed out, including its overall uselessness.
[editline]25th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48533877]Every single person in college level debate does this, and most if not all kids in highschool level policy debate do this. If you don't do this, you lose.
[/QUOTE]
I was actually able to win several tournaments by not spreading and challenging my opponents of the status quo of Policy rules, getting them off-topic while giving my debate partner more time to form legitimate arguments.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.