I saw the word debate and I...didn't really expect this
I don't understand how this is considered a debate. How do people sitting there not start laughing? Why do they do this?
Sounds more like slam poetry.
Why is he rapping what
[editline]4th May 2014[/editline]
merge
pfff i won my regional debate championship and I'm only 15% black
and we couldn't use music wtf is this
Jesus christ, just stop and take a breath
you're not trying to sell an auction to the highest bidder, you're trying to make logical points with evidence
slow the fuck down
[QUOTE=Last or First;44725021]Jesus christ, just stop and take a breath
you're not trying to sell an auction to the highest bidder, you're trying to make logical points with evidence
slow the fuck down[/QUOTE]
Even in actual policy debate they talk this fast. It's so you can get in as many points as you can to give more and more for the other side to refute.
It's pretty sad watching this as none of them actually answer to the resolution, instead the negative does a kritik on why the resolution is racist.
The resolution for the debate was supposed to be
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.
not what defies a "real nigga".
Edit: also people usually talk faster in debates, the strategy is called spreading and it's also what made debate unpopular to an audience. I've done varsity debate where spreading is the norm, i no longer listen to the person instead just skin the evidence they give me which is pretty much just a copy of their speech.
[video=youtube;EvNNtEVkckc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvNNtEVkckc[/video]
seriously? you can't understand what they're trying to say. I thought the whole point of a debate was to get your point across, not play the who-can-read-off-the-teleprompter-the-fastest game.
[QUOTE=Psycho9182;44725218]
not what defies a "real nigga".
[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYsylOnVlxg[/media]
[QUOTE=Laferio;44725247]seriously? you can't understand what they're trying to say. I thought the whole point of a debate was to get your point across, not play the who-can-read-off-the-teleprompter-the-fastest game.[/QUOTE]
There are other forms of debate where speaking this fast is not allowed. The problem is with policy debate is that you get so little time with your constructive speech, you only get 8 minutes (CEDA does 9) to describe the resolution and give a solution to it. Novice debaters usually struggle to give the evidence they need in there speeches while also keeping a solid argument in the 8 minutes they have speaking just above normal speed. You can cut it more but it can leave more holes in your argument.
why the fuck do they give you more points depending on how much crap you say on your timeslot that's the dumbest shit ever.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;44725448]why the fuck do they give you more points depending on how much crap you say on your timeslot that's the dumbest shit ever.[/QUOTE]
Not points as in score, points as in stuff you say like "making my point" or "these are the points to my argument."
This is some Lincoln-Douglas shit right here
I couldn't even understand her. She just sounds like she's on a caffeine high.
[QUOTE=Rexxasaurus;44725502]I couldn't even understand her. She just sounds like she's on a caffeine high.[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell, in these debates it's less important to be coherent and mor eimportant to bring up everything you have written so it all counts
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;44725493]This is some Lincoln-Douglas shit right here[/QUOTE]
Actually LD style debate is generally a bit slower paced than this and in my opinion is much closer to what people tend to consider as "debate". Policy debate always seemed so strange to me, but competitively it is the most popular by far.
This seems like linguistic racing rather than debating. If the point is to outrun the clock then there should be a speed limit.
It's a cool gimmick but being able to talk quickly has no real relevance to intelligence and getting your point across.
I guess it has it's place as a sport or something but that's it.
I just want to say that these two debaters are some of the slower debaters on the circuit, so if you think debate is just about "speed", you are very very wrong - they have no trouble beating teams that clock out at something like 400 wpm. These two ladies from Towson will rock your world and are as immersed in academic literature as any of ya'll.
Second, policy debate is wacky, very very very wacky, but there is a great pedagogical value to it.
In fact, I am in my sophmore year and had the pleasure of losing to these two phenomenal black women at the National Debate Tournament (THOUGH I AM FUCKING CONVINCED WE WON THAT ROUND)
[QUOTE=Flameon;44725843]I just want to say that these two debaters are some of the slower debaters on the circuit, so if you think debate is just about "speed", you are very very wrong - they have no trouble beating teams that clock out at something like 400 wpm. These two ladies from Towson will rock your world and are as immersed in academic literature as any of ya'll.
Second, policy debate is wacky, very very very wacky, but there is a great pedagogical value to it.
In fact, I am in my sophmore year and had the pleasure of losing to these two phenomenal black women at the National Debate Tournament (THOUGH I AM FUCKING CONVINCED WE WON THAT ROUND)[/QUOTE]
what value is there in a bunch of pedants rapping inaudible strings of word vomit at each other
debate has become a complete farce, this is an embarrassment to the very concept of logical discourse
For those wanting to know what Towson's arguement was in the final round, you need to first understand what Oklahoma was saying.
This team from OU argued that the president shouldn't be allowed to use war powers against "niggas" and part of their arguement was that what it means to be a "Nigga" is an indeterminate identity - i.e: we want to say that black people are 'thugs', or 'gang bangers', or 'drug dealers', or even 'democratic citizens', but all of these moves at coding are white people saying, "here is what you are." and OU's arguement was that black bodies are always prior to that, always more.
Towson made an arguement about the way that OU described the authentic black experience was over-saturated with narratives of pain-and-suffering which made it impossible for black bodies, specificly queer black bodies, to live out their lives because they would constantly look over their shoulders for a police officer that was probably not present. As such, it was an environment of fear and suffering.
I don't have the articles to OU's research but here are some of the scholarly articles that Towson used to win in the final round.
[url]https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf[/url]
and
[url]http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/2398/D_Gumbs_Alexis_a_201005.pdf?sequ[/url]..
[editline]5th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44725869]what value is there in a bunch of pedants rapping inaudible strings of word vomit at each other
debate has become a complete farce, this is an embarrassment to the very concept of logical discourse[/QUOTE]
Part of OU's arguement is that the assumption that they are "just rapping" and not making arguements is the way that white society claims to prioritize and privlege discourse by making a lingo that de-values forms of black thought and subjectivity (they didn't speak right [I][B]for you[/B][/I]).
They argue that black people always have to do 'code switching', i.e: stop talking black vernacular and speak "right white people speak", so they ask their opponents to try code-switching against them.
I...
I think that he (Mr. Scorpio) meant that nobody understands what they're saying. it's not about what they're trying to argue, it's just trying to even understand what they're saying.
[QUOTE=Laferio;44725908]I...
I think that he (Mr. Scorpio) meant that nobody understands what they're saying. it's not about what they're trying to argue, it's just trying to even understand what they're saying.[/QUOTE]
Debate has become sort of insular, in that those in the activity has devloped a lingo and an ear to the activity.
Towson debates like-fast-traditional "spewing" debate as Mr. Scorpio says, but OU does not speak fast at all... what part of what the two dudes from OU was saying was too fast?
[QUOTE=Flameon;44725873]For those wanting to know what Towson's arguement was in the final round, you need to first understand what Oklahoma was saying.
This team from OU argued that the president shouldn't be allowed to use war powers against "niggas" and part of their arguement was that what it means to be a "Nigga" is an indeterminate identity - i.e: we want to say that black people are 'thugs', or 'gang bangers', or 'drug dealers', or even 'democratic citizens', but all of these moves at coding are white people saying, "here is what you are." and OU's arguement was that black bodies are always prior to that, always more.
Towson made an arguement about the way that OU described the authentic black experience was over-saturated with narratives of pain-and-suffering which made it impossible for black bodies, specificly queer black bodies, to live out their lives because they would constantly look over their shoulders for a police officer that was probably not present. As such, it was an environment of fear and suffering.
I don't have the articles to OU's research but here are some of the scholarly articles that Towson used to win in the final round.
[url]https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf[/url]
and
[url]http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/2398/D_Gumbs_Alexis_a_201005.pdf?sequ[/url]..
[editline]5th May 2014[/editline]
Part of OU's arguement is that the assumption that they are "just rapping" and not making arguements is the way that white society claims to prioritize and privlege discourse by making a lingo that de-values forms of black thought and subjectivity (they didn't speak right [I][B]for you[/B][/I]).
They argue that black people always have to do 'code switching', i.e: stop talking black vernacular and speak "right white people speak", so they ask their opponents to try code-switching against them.[/QUOTE]
did I mention that debate people are also insufferable navel gazers who hide behind impenetrability instead of actually articulating their point concisely
yeah, don't actually address the point, just go on dozens of wild tangents. Who cares what the argument is about anyway, not when you could gain the lauded title of "debate winner". I mean, no one will ever know [I]why[/I] you won since, again, no one could possibly understand what you're saying and even if they could they'd never be able to make heads or tails of your vine forest of an argument. But you won, and that's what matters, right?
yeah, LD debate def would be the go-to.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44725925]did I mention that debate people are also insufferable navel gazers who hide behind impenetrability instead of actually articulating their point concisely
yeah, don't actually address the point, just go on dozens of wild tangents. Who cares what the argument is about anyway, not when you could gain the lauded title of "debate winner". I mean, no one will ever know [I]why[/I] you won since, again, no one could possibly understand what you're saying and even if they could they'd never be able to make heads or tails of your vine forest of an argument. But you won, and that's what matters, right?[/QUOTE]
You should know that give the gravity and depth of their arguements, concision is not very easy. To understand what i'm getting at.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlL2Jj-kCNU[/media]
Everyone in the room: opponents, the judges, people in the debate activity, know what Towson and OU were saying and why they won. If the panel was you, they'd slow down and change their arguements to adapt to your judging philosophy, but it isn't, so they do their things.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzxUS04qRl0[/media]
Here is one of the debaters from OU debating in High school for a more "lay" i.e: moms, parents, etc, and changing his demeanour... but you should know that as I said above, part of OU's arguement was a kritik of having to "look and debate white" for you.
don't think I like the speed-policy debate thing.
i don't think it's about judging philosophy, seems like one giant cult-following circle-jerk to me.
[QUOTE=Laferio;44725990]i don't think it's about judging philosophy, seems like one giant cult-following circle-jerk to me.[/QUOTE]
To an extent, there is a circle jerk... but that doesn't mean you can't get into debate and throw a wrench in the machine.
One of the cool things about debate is that nothing is accepted as "given". Debaters win rounds on wacky shit. You think economic collapse is bad? Theres tons of authors who disagree. You think that global warming is bad? Some disagree. You think that death is bad? One of the best debate teams in the country lost in the Quarter Finals on an arguement that human extinction is the only ethical thing we can allow.
I've lost rounds against teams for "talking fast". If the arguements against it are good and you can argue them, you can win it. Get in debate and show us up.
[QUOTE=Flameon;44726010] Get in debate and show us up.[/QUOTE]
People are obviously talking fast because it puts them at a distinct advantage. If anyone who wasn't a professional speed talker debated against someone who was trained in this form of structured debate they would obviously lose.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.