|
On February 16 2012 15:26 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:On February 16 2012 14:53 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 14:47 Navillus wrote:
Policy is stupiddd... Sorry I'm an LDer and LD is stupid too, honestly spreading in general is silly and a practice that I really think needs to go away, both events have become way too elitist and are basically useless in the real world. And yes I spread, I do LD on the national circuit, I actually debated the Aff in that sunvite video, Yang Yi, in my first ever round of varsity LD. I got rolled. anyway for people that don't do Policy or LD both events are extremely closed, elitist, use esoteric and ridiculous arguments that are inapplicable in the real world, and require a way of delivery that is even worse and more useless. I'm not really sure what my point of all this is, I just don't like debate because it's my main academic thing and I think it's silly, I'm also not sure if we really should have a general forum thread on policy, most people will have no idea what policy is really like and if anything it should cover all 3 debate events or even all forensics events because policy is the as far as I know the smallest of all forensics events because of how ridiculously progressive it has become.
Edit: and yeah I'm gonna be at Harvard So because it's hard and requires a bit of education it's worthless? You at once declare it elitist and closed and go on to talk about it being progressive, and labeling that point as a negative. Policy, LD, and debate in general do a large part to educate middle school, high school, and university school students about ideas and topics that they would never talk about critically because of how standards-based this country's education system has become. And in terms of you not wanting a General thread about it, this thread is certainly better than one of those threads with low-content OPs and sensationalized titles with hordes of people failing to read the content before posting. Or maybe those 'debates' with extremely little clash and tendency to fall into ad-hom and subsequent moderation action are more worthy than this thread. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc... In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad. As someone who had participated in both sides [lay and circuit] extensively, both sides have their benefits. However, I think your claim that it is the "norm" to "not mention domestic violence" is outright false (for one, Topicality kills that). While off-case strategies are prevalent, LD for the most part will be centered around constructives with at least some link to the resolution, and most judges naturally prefer it to be that way.
I'm not saying no link and yes saying literally not mentioning it as my case does was overstating it but what I mean is many people myself included link in very minimally to domestic violence focusing on simply proving general moral permissibility, which as far as I can see has no T violation. And from what I've seen judges will allow most cases with any minimal link at the competitive national circuit.
|
On February 16 2012 15:23 Regime wrote:
well for starters unless u are a member of the TeamLiquid admin team u cant make nething an offical thread thats ur policy. and theres no need for debate
^ LOL. Example of person that reads topic title and posts instead of reading OP.
Is the purpose of this thread for Speech and Debate Policy Debate Event Discussion, or is this thread suppose to actually have a Policy Debate? If this actually works, we should establish a LD and PF debate.
Go PF, go Congress!
|
yeahh that would actually be really good practice... though I dunno how many other NLD debaters are on TL.
|
On February 16 2012 15:25 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:On February 16 2012 14:53 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 14:47 Navillus wrote:
Policy is stupiddd... Sorry I'm an LDer and LD is stupid too, honestly spreading in general is silly and a practice that I really think needs to go away, both events have become way too elitist and are basically useless in the real world. And yes I spread, I do LD on the national circuit, I actually debated the Aff in that sunvite video, Yang Yi, in my first ever round of varsity LD. I got rolled. anyway for people that don't do Policy or LD both events are extremely closed, elitist, use esoteric and ridiculous arguments that are inapplicable in the real world, and require a way of delivery that is even worse and more useless. I'm not really sure what my point of all this is, I just don't like debate because it's my main academic thing and I think it's silly, I'm also not sure if we really should have a general forum thread on policy, most people will have no idea what policy is really like and if anything it should cover all 3 debate events or even all forensics events because policy is the as far as I know the smallest of all forensics events because of how ridiculously progressive it has become.
Edit: and yeah I'm gonna be at Harvard So because it's hard and requires a bit of education it's worthless? You at once declare it elitist and closed and go on to talk about it being progressive, and labeling that point as a negative. Policy, LD, and debate in general do a large part to educate middle school, high school, and university school students about ideas and topics that they would never talk about critically because of how standards-based this country's education system has become. And in terms of you not wanting a General thread about it, this thread is certainly better than one of those threads with low-content OPs and sensationalized titles with hordes of people failing to read the content before posting. Or maybe those 'debates' with extremely little clash and tendency to fall into ad-hom and subsequent moderation action are more worthy than this thread. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc... In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad. And esoteric theory is worthless because it is esoteric right. There are spaces for critical and straight-up in both forms; but at an ultimate point, yes, it is a game and people play to win. That doesn't mean it suddenly isn't educational though, which is what you are hung up on.
No... esoteric theory is bad because it is literally contrived pieces of made-up debate arguments that kids run not because there is any existing abuse but because it is strategic. And I'm not saying BECAUSE it is a game it is uneducational, I'm saying because it is a game all of these things I mentioned have been adopted which makes it largely uneducational. Just saying there are spaces for critical and straight-up doesn't suddenly make learning to speak at 300-400 wpm (higher in policy) a useful life skill or something kids should be wasting time learning. It doesn't make it educational that people right purposefully abusive cases to bait theory and read RVIs because they're good at theory. It doesn't make it educational that kids read silly moral frameworks with 50 skep triggers then just always go for skep in the 1AR. It doesn't make it educational that it's impossible to break into the national circuit if you're not at a school that can teach you how to do and respond to these things or have enough money to go to a camp and hire a private coach. Oh and that last one legitimately pisses me off so if you say anything please make the first thing an explanation of why when you read a TOC bid list you can fit probably 70-80% of the kids with 3+ bids into maybe 10-15 schools, maybe less, because somehow I doubt that that few schools actually manage to pull ALL of the smart, articulate kids that are interested in debate to them, and I don't think it's a coincidence that those are the schools with the best progressive coaches and former debaters that helped pull debate into this situation.
|
On February 16 2012 15:35 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:26 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:On February 16 2012 14:53 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 14:47 Navillus wrote:
Policy is stupiddd... Sorry I'm an LDer and LD is stupid too, honestly spreading in general is silly and a practice that I really think needs to go away, both events have become way too elitist and are basically useless in the real world. And yes I spread, I do LD on the national circuit, I actually debated the Aff in that sunvite video, Yang Yi, in my first ever round of varsity LD. I got rolled. anyway for people that don't do Policy or LD both events are extremely closed, elitist, use esoteric and ridiculous arguments that are inapplicable in the real world, and require a way of delivery that is even worse and more useless. I'm not really sure what my point of all this is, I just don't like debate because it's my main academic thing and I think it's silly, I'm also not sure if we really should have a general forum thread on policy, most people will have no idea what policy is really like and if anything it should cover all 3 debate events or even all forensics events because policy is the as far as I know the smallest of all forensics events because of how ridiculously progressive it has become.
Edit: and yeah I'm gonna be at Harvard So because it's hard and requires a bit of education it's worthless? You at once declare it elitist and closed and go on to talk about it being progressive, and labeling that point as a negative. Policy, LD, and debate in general do a large part to educate middle school, high school, and university school students about ideas and topics that they would never talk about critically because of how standards-based this country's education system has become. And in terms of you not wanting a General thread about it, this thread is certainly better than one of those threads with low-content OPs and sensationalized titles with hordes of people failing to read the content before posting. Or maybe those 'debates' with extremely little clash and tendency to fall into ad-hom and subsequent moderation action are more worthy than this thread. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc... In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad. As someone who had participated in both sides [lay and circuit] extensively, both sides have their benefits. However, I think your claim that it is the "norm" to "not mention domestic violence" is outright false (for one, Topicality kills that). While off-case strategies are prevalent, LD for the most part will be centered around constructives with at least some link to the resolution, and most judges naturally prefer it to be that way. I'm not saying no link and yes saying literally not mentioning it as my case does was overstating it but what I mean is many people myself included link in very minimally to domestic violence focusing on simply proving general moral permissibility, which as far as I can see has no T violation. And from what I've seen judges will allow most cases with any minimal link at the competitive national circuit.
Sure, judges "allow" that, but only because most things are allowed with the current norm of tabula rasa. The difference is in what they encourage, which is often dictated by speaker points.
Now, the current Jan-Feb might be an exception because of the nature of this particular topic, compared to the IR focus of most past Jan-Feb resolutions. Still, the trends on whole favor more in-depth and positional topical debate. Sure, some judges would really like a particularly nuanced philosophical position that may largely circumvent the core of the resolution, but almost all judges enjoy an in-depth approach to the core of the resolution. Just as you expect debate to be about the substance of its subject, most judges walk in to those rounds expecting to hear about the resolution's content.
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 16 2012 15:41 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:25 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:On February 16 2012 14:53 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 14:47 Navillus wrote:
Policy is stupiddd... Sorry I'm an LDer and LD is stupid too, honestly spreading in general is silly and a practice that I really think needs to go away, both events have become way too elitist and are basically useless in the real world. And yes I spread, I do LD on the national circuit, I actually debated the Aff in that sunvite video, Yang Yi, in my first ever round of varsity LD. I got rolled. anyway for people that don't do Policy or LD both events are extremely closed, elitist, use esoteric and ridiculous arguments that are inapplicable in the real world, and require a way of delivery that is even worse and more useless. I'm not really sure what my point of all this is, I just don't like debate because it's my main academic thing and I think it's silly, I'm also not sure if we really should have a general forum thread on policy, most people will have no idea what policy is really like and if anything it should cover all 3 debate events or even all forensics events because policy is the as far as I know the smallest of all forensics events because of how ridiculously progressive it has become.
Edit: and yeah I'm gonna be at Harvard So because it's hard and requires a bit of education it's worthless? You at once declare it elitist and closed and go on to talk about it being progressive, and labeling that point as a negative. Policy, LD, and debate in general do a large part to educate middle school, high school, and university school students about ideas and topics that they would never talk about critically because of how standards-based this country's education system has become. And in terms of you not wanting a General thread about it, this thread is certainly better than one of those threads with low-content OPs and sensationalized titles with hordes of people failing to read the content before posting. Or maybe those 'debates' with extremely little clash and tendency to fall into ad-hom and subsequent moderation action are more worthy than this thread. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc... In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad. And esoteric theory is worthless because it is esoteric right. There are spaces for critical and straight-up in both forms; but at an ultimate point, yes, it is a game and people play to win. That doesn't mean it suddenly isn't educational though, which is what you are hung up on. No... esoteric theory is bad because it is literally contrived pieces of made-up debate arguments that kids run not because there is any existing abuse but because it is strategic. And I'm not saying BECAUSE it is a game it is uneducational, I'm saying because it is a game all of these things I mentioned have been adopted which makes it largely uneducational. Just saying there are spaces for critical and straight-up doesn't suddenly make learning to speak at 300-400 wpm (higher in policy) a useful life skill or something kids should be wasting time learning. It doesn't make it educational that people right purposefully abusive cases to bait theory and read RVIs because they're good at theory. It doesn't make it educational that kids read silly moral frameworks with 50 skep triggers then just always go for skep in the 1AR. It doesn't make it educational that it's impossible to break into the national circuit if you're not at a school that can teach you how to do and respond to these things or have enough money to go to a camp and hire a private coach. Oh and that last one legitimately pisses me off so if you say anything please make the first thing an explanation of why when you read a TOC bid list you can fit probably 70-80% of the kids with 3+ bids into maybe 10-15 schools, maybe less, because somehow I doubt that that few schools actually manage to pull ALL of the smart, articulate kids that are interested in debate to them, and I don't think it's a coincidence that those are the schools with the best progressive coaches and former debaters that helped pull debate into this situation.
This is funny because just about everything you said is used by teams who generally come from low-income backgrounds and argue the merits of the system in performance. But what it comes down to is that they still want to win. They still want that judge or that panel in the back of the room to sign that ballot for them.
You may win that there is some sort of elitism pervasive in the system. You don't isolate any changes that can solve it except rejection. The way you articulate these points make it sound like you don't like how some people are playing the game; yet you continue to play it. You speak the words of the academy and yet rail against it. Something makes it worthwhile to you though. I called it education. At the very least, strategic thought is a good skill to have.
Kids work hard at what they do. Bid teams have what it takes in terms of practice and dedication to the activity. Yes you see the same schools perhaps, but what it comes down to is effort and time. And investment, because official debate programs have suffered just as much if not more than music and arts programs. I'll argue the majority of why you see the same 10-15 teams in the TOC is because not many schools do it in the first place. There will always be an elite because schools with successful programs are able to pass on backfiles, coaching, and help to their newer entrants.
|
On February 16 2012 15:41 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:25 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:On February 16 2012 14:53 itsjustatank wrote:On February 16 2012 14:47 Navillus wrote:
Policy is stupiddd... Sorry I'm an LDer and LD is stupid too, honestly spreading in general is silly and a practice that I really think needs to go away, both events have become way too elitist and are basically useless in the real world. And yes I spread, I do LD on the national circuit, I actually debated the Aff in that sunvite video, Yang Yi, in my first ever round of varsity LD. I got rolled. anyway for people that don't do Policy or LD both events are extremely closed, elitist, use esoteric and ridiculous arguments that are inapplicable in the real world, and require a way of delivery that is even worse and more useless. I'm not really sure what my point of all this is, I just don't like debate because it's my main academic thing and I think it's silly, I'm also not sure if we really should have a general forum thread on policy, most people will have no idea what policy is really like and if anything it should cover all 3 debate events or even all forensics events because policy is the as far as I know the smallest of all forensics events because of how ridiculously progressive it has become.
Edit: and yeah I'm gonna be at Harvard So because it's hard and requires a bit of education it's worthless? You at once declare it elitist and closed and go on to talk about it being progressive, and labeling that point as a negative. Policy, LD, and debate in general do a large part to educate middle school, high school, and university school students about ideas and topics that they would never talk about critically because of how standards-based this country's education system has become. And in terms of you not wanting a General thread about it, this thread is certainly better than one of those threads with low-content OPs and sensationalized titles with hordes of people failing to read the content before posting. Or maybe those 'debates' with extremely little clash and tendency to fall into ad-hom and subsequent moderation action are more worthy than this thread. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc... In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad. And esoteric theory is worthless because it is esoteric right. There are spaces for critical and straight-up in both forms; but at an ultimate point, yes, it is a game and people play to win. That doesn't mean it suddenly isn't educational though, which is what you are hung up on. No... esoteric theory is bad because it is literally contrived pieces of made-up debate arguments that kids run not because there is any existing abuse but because it is strategic. And I'm not saying BECAUSE it is a game it is uneducational, I'm saying because it is a game all of these things I mentioned have been adopted which makes it largely uneducational. Just saying there are spaces for critical and straight-up doesn't suddenly make learning to speak at 300-400 wpm (higher in policy) a useful life skill or something kids should be wasting time learning. It doesn't make it educational that people right purposefully abusive cases to bait theory and read RVIs because they're good at theory. It doesn't make it educational that kids read silly moral frameworks with 50 skep triggers then just always go for skep in the 1AR. It doesn't make it educational that it's impossible to break into the national circuit if you're not at a school that can teach you how to do and respond to these things or have enough money to go to a camp and hire a private coach. Oh and that last one legitimately pisses me off so if you say anything please make the first thing an explanation of why when you read a TOC bid list you can fit probably 70-80% of the kids with 3+ bids into maybe 10-15 schools, maybe less, because somehow I doubt that that few schools actually manage to pull ALL of the smart, articulate kids that are interested in debate to them, and I don't think it's a coincidence that those are the schools with the best progressive coaches and former debaters that helped pull debate into this situation.
Look, I understand your perspective - I came from largely the same situation. But circuit doesn't just breed familiarity with the technical esoteric features of debate like theory - you do have to delve into areas of high content. IR was a breeze for me in college because I already learned it all in debate, and many things in philosophy, too. In my opinion, much of the "learning" of debate, however, is not merely in terms of content, but in process. Yes, circuit debate is a game, but as a game (such as SC), it employs strategy, and this process of critical thinking, of strategizing and planning, is pretty important, too.
Now, about the elitism: first, you should be thankful you do LD and not policy, because that gap is much less present in LD (although it's still a notable presence). Second, I agree it's a problem - it's just not fair. But perhaps this is another benefit of circuit debate - it's an early lesson that life, in general, is not fair. But just as in life, a lot if it is up to you. Bigger schools do have the advantage. But (and this is particularly true in LD) - program strength doesn't dictate everything. A huge amount of it is the time you put in and the energy that you devote to the activity. A lot of it is also in making connections - most of the deficiencies in program can be overcome just by making the right connections. Even if you're not a member of the big school, befriending people from one can make you a virtual member of that school. Or just befriending certain ex-debaters who then become mentors, and so on. I wouldn't exactly point to myself as an example - by the end of my senior year, I got lazy, I got overconfident, and I just got apathetic (maybe my start of playing SC2 didn't help too much). I still had okay results in the end, but mostly riding on my efforts made when I was motivated and working hard in the past, so the very conclusion of my career was a tad disappointing for me personally. But one of my friends, who had nobody on his debate team but a novice, ended up going far and breaking at TOC (although I'm personally satisfied with the knowledge that I beat him in the bid round of a tournament earlier in the year  ). The morale is that yes, inequalities suck. But there's obviously something attracting you to debate as an activity. And if you truly like the activity, if you truly have that competitive drive, then those obstacles and inequalities may hinder you, but they are merely roadbumps on your personal path to success.
Wow, this post ended up a lot longer than I realized. If only I told myself this motivational spiel a little back, I might have a cooler trophy or two - oh well .
|
Anyone do or thinking of doing college parli?
|
On February 16 2012 15:34 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:30 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:
I like how this thread became an debate about forms of debate haha Pretty standard as much of the activity of debate is debating about debate. There is also the policy vs LD rivalries and the policy and LD vs everything else rivalries to consider.
Don't forget about the policy vs PF rivalry. That's the worst one
|
Shouldn't people be good at being persuasive instead at crazy speed reading (to get as many points as you can) in a debate? Seems very counter intuitive to me...
|
On February 17 2012 03:22 JieXian wrote:
Shouldn't people be good at being persuasive instead at crazy speed reading (to get as many points as you can) in a debate? Seems very counter intuitive to me...
I agree that persuasiveness is a good skill, which is why imo a truly good debater should be good at both circuit (the speed reading style, or spread as we call it) and at lay (your ordinary idea of slow, persuasive speeches a la The Great Debaters with Denzel Washington).
To give you a very brief background on the evolution of spreading, though - ordinary persuasiveness is clearly very subjective. Every judge, even lay judges like ordinary parents, want to be a good and "objective" judge, they want to make the "right" decision in who to vote for [this is from firsthand experience knowing my parents who have volunteered as judges]. Coaches and ex-debaters who returned to judge soon applied a specific way of taking notes of all the arguments in a debate round in a way that "mapped" the arguments of a round to determine a set of rules that would produce a more objective standard for judging rounds, a specific form of note-taking called "the flow". Certain technical rules developed, for example: if a person doesn't respond to their opponent's argument in their rebuttal speech, that argument is considered "conceded" (this makes sense, because otherwise, affirmative debaters who spoke last could simply ignore everything their opponent said, and suddenly in their last speech make all their best points to refute their opponent, without the opponent getting a chance to counter these "new arguments" introduced at the last second).
Under these technical rules, getting in as many points as you can through speed soon flourished, and took advantage of the technical form of debate.
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy.
|
On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy.
Yeah, one of our teams was devastating as freshmen because they were better at getting through more stuff, but when they came up to varsity level, they started losing because they weren't as good on strategy
|
On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy.
Meh, in the current field of debate, good spreaders seem clear to the flow judges who were spreaders themselves.
Edit: I'm graduated, and I did more Extemp than debate, but maybe I should go around at Harvard (if I judge there) and see if people respond if I yell out Teamliquid.
|
On February 17 2012 07:45 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy. Meh, in the current field of debate, good spreaders seem clear to the flow judges who were spreaders themselves.
Key word there is good. Far too often the middle tier of debaters (for lack of a better word) equates increased speed with being better and attempt to spread but are completely unintelligible because they aren't speaking clearly.
|
On February 17 2012 07:45 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy. Meh, in the current field of debate, good spreaders seem clear to the flow judges who were spreaders themselves. Edit: I'm graduated, and I did more Extemp than debate, but maybe I should go around at Harvard (if I judge there) and see if people respond if I yell out Teamliquid.
Would you be judging extemp or LD?
And I'll be listening for it
Do you guys think spreading is essential for succeeding in national circuit? or would it be of equal difficulty for someone who doesn't spread to do really well?
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 11:04 Jaso wrote:
Do you guys think spreading is essential for succeeding in national circuit? or would it be of equal difficulty for someone who doesn't spread to do really well?
I did just post about it not being necessary, but I also think that you will have higher probabilities of success if you can out-tech people.
On February 17 2012 07:45 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy. Meh, in the current field of debate, good spreaders seem clear to the flow judges who were spreaders themselves.
Yes, good spreaders are good, but bad ones are very clearly unclear and easy to spot.
|
On February 17 2012 11:12 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:04 Jaso wrote:
Do you guys think spreading is essential for succeeding in national circuit? or would it be of equal difficulty for someone who doesn't spread to do really well? I did just post about it not being necessary, but I also think that you will have higher probabilities of success if you can out-tech people. Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 07:45 Zergneedsfood wrote:On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy. Meh, in the current field of debate, good spreaders seem clear to the flow judges who were spreaders themselves. Yes, good spreaders are good, but bad ones are very clearly unclear and easy to spot.
I disagree with the point of spreading being unnecessary. If you ever want to compete on a national level, you're going to have to get through a good bit of evidence, unless you're Beacon/Louisville, and read a performance aff. But you're definitely right that bad spreaders are easy to spot. Most judges make you think they are flowing everything you say, but they're actually missing half of your points
|
On February 17 2012 11:04 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 07:45 Zergneedsfood wrote:On February 17 2012 06:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Spreading is often times a hobble for debaters as well. It is far more important to be CLEAR than be fast. Being both is the object of spreading. Unfortunately a lot of people are terribly unclear.
Plenty of examples of teams that aren't technically fast but are able to beat those kinds of teams simply because they make better arguments and have a broader understanding of strategy. Meh, in the current field of debate, good spreaders seem clear to the flow judges who were spreaders themselves. Edit: I'm graduated, and I did more Extemp than debate, but maybe I should go around at Harvard (if I judge there) and see if people respond if I yell out Teamliquid. Would you be judging extemp or LD? And I'll be listening for it Do you guys think spreading is essential for succeeding in national circuit? or would it be of equal difficulty for someone who doesn't spread to do really well?
I'd be judging Extemp (and based on my results, I don't think they'd have it any other way really). Never was much of a debater. Left that up for my other friends.
Also, in terms of national circuit, it depends on what tournament you're in.
If you're at Nats (which I assume many hardcore debaters have traditionally blown off as not as important iirc) then you probably will need more of that persuasive, lay style that seems like you're actually speaking to a general audience.
On the other hand, tournaments like TOC and other "circuit" tournaments will most likely need spreading to succeed on most levels. There are very few debaters that have really proven me otherwise, and those that have either are really really good or get crushed after breaking into quarters or semis because there's way too much evidence.
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-spreading. Being able to do 10+ off and case is one of the best feelings you can have in the activity. It's just in the years later when I became a judge, I found I desire and appreciate clarity over speed, especially on the T, theory, and RVI flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
