|
On February 17 2012 11:29 itsjustatank wrote:
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.
I generally don't like spreading, if only because I'm more speech oriented then debate oriented. I understand all the arguments for spreading, but it just never sat well with me on a number of levels.
|
On February 17 2012 11:32 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:29 itsjustatank wrote:
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. I generally don't like spreading, if only because I'm more speech oriented then debate oriented. I understand all the arguments for spreading, but it just never sat well with me on a number of levels.
Personally, I think spreading is key for debate, because in a game of arguments and the way they link together, you have to be able to explain all your points. I do however favor persuasiveness in the rebuttal speeches
|
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It also doesn't prepare you for anything. Oh, you're a great debator, you'd do great in our discussion group? What, no you can't talk at 9000 wpm, sorry.
|
On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying.
Spreading is at every non-novice level of debate, and I hope you understand that even though they're speaking really fast, the top level debaters that compete at the university level are very clear, so you'll be able to understand that which they're saying
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying.
It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough.
|
On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough.
I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce?
|
I don't think spreading is standard at novice for sure... maybe JV, but definitely not novice. I made octafinals at Princeton and didn't encounter anyone who read faster than me (and I wasn't reading fast at all).
edit: I wish I could understand it, lol. Guess it comes with practice.
|
On February 17 2012 11:35 BaconofWar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:32 Zergneedsfood wrote:On February 17 2012 11:29 itsjustatank wrote:
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. I generally don't like spreading, if only because I'm more speech oriented then debate oriented. I understand all the arguments for spreading, but it just never sat well with me on a number of levels. Personally, I think spreading is key for debate, because in a game of arguments and the way they link together, you have to be able to explain all your points. I do however favor persuasiveness in the rebuttal speeches
It's key for debate, yeah, but it wasn't always like that. I'm sure that if I understood everything spreaders were saying (I'm not there yet) it would be pretty intellectually stimulating if I went past most of the BS evidence about nuclear war, genocide, and all the other dumb impacts (like aliens) that policy and LD usually throw out.
Again, I did a bit of debating myself, and debated against a good number of spreaders when I was still in high school. I'm fine with people spreading against me, and I don't really mind it. It's just that as a more speech oriented person that actually cares about delivery and presentation, there's something about spreading that doesn't sit well with me.
On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce?
Hmm.....To be honest, debate is still debate. It might not necessarily be a style that you like (and I sympathize with you because I'm kind of along the same vein as you), but you're still debating decently relevant topics and arguing about them with other people evidence, warrants, facts, etc. etc.
|
On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce?
All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you
|
On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you
Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve.
|
On February 17 2012 11:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve.
EDUCATION VOTER ON THEORY!
Actually I really don't know theory, or if you can use it on spreading, lol.
|
Man, this thread is so nostalgic for me. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school and judged it while I was in college for extra cash. My favorite case I ran was the Agent Orange performance case for resolution, Resolved: That the United States should significantly reduce the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Incoming nerd alert) Myself and my debate partner made the case while at the Uni of Texas debate camp. The first time we ran it, the Neg had no idea what was going on, and we rode that case to the semi's where we lost on the Neg side.
Also, OP, I feel you should separate Topicality out as its own thing. I have won quite a few times on T alone. My 5 min 2NR was refuting any turns that were there and spending the rest (4-4.5 mins) of pure T.
As to the resolution, I would probably have 2 Affs, one hawkish and one passive. Both of them revolving around anti-satellite systems. Though it maybe difficult due to the moratorium on the weaponization of space.
|
On February 17 2012 11:44 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:43 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve. EDUCATION VOTER ON THEORY! Actually I really don't know theory, or if you can use it on spreading, lol.
No idea what you just said.
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 11:45 xavierofsparta wrote:
Also, OP, I feel you should separate Topicality out as its own thing. I have won quite a few times on T alone. My 5 min 2NR was refuting any turns that were there and spending the rest (4-4.5 mins) of pure T.
That's how you win T in my book :D
|
On February 17 2012 11:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve.
Spreading makes you have to move your mind at a much quicker pace, so that you can make answers to arguments quicker than usual. Spreading helps you to hone your mind in general. Plus, any form of argument can hone your ability to make a point, all you have to is give them a reason to listen to you. Debate of all things lets you know why the impact of what you say is key
|
On February 17 2012 11:46 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:45 xavierofsparta wrote:
Also, OP, I feel you should separate Topicality out as its own thing. I have won quite a few times on T alone. My 5 min 2NR was refuting any turns that were there and spending the rest (4-4.5 mins) of pure T. That's how you win T in my book :D
I'll gladly do something on T, It's a huge argument that's irritating for everyone to go against.
|
On February 17 2012 11:46 BaconofWar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:43 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve. Spreading makes you have to move your mind at a much quicker pace, so that you can make answers to arguments quicker than usual. Spreading helps you to hone your mind in general. Plus, any form of argument can hone your ability to make a point, all you have to is give them a reason to listen to you. Debate of all things lets you know why the impact of what you say is key
It'd probably be great if I could actually understand it. Watching it without being able to understand it is painful though.
What are the rules with respect to being able to understand it? What if someone talked so fast (or so poorly) that nobody understood it? Do they just win because their opponents were unable to understand it? If not, how do you judge if someone is speaking fast and well or just speaking fast and poorly?
|
On February 17 2012 11:45 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:44 Jaso wrote:On February 17 2012 11:43 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve. EDUCATION VOTER ON THEORY! Actually I really don't know theory, or if you can use it on spreading, lol. No idea what you just said.
You were talking about improving yourself... sounds like an education theory shell lol.
|
On February 17 2012 11:48 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:45 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:44 Jaso wrote:On February 17 2012 11:43 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:41 BaconofWar wrote:On February 17 2012 11:39 cz wrote:On February 17 2012 11:38 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:36 cz wrote:
Spreading might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Is this standard at university level debates? Just use a written format or something, because nobody can tell wtf the guy is saying. It's standard at all levels, probably even down to middle school. The people who do the activity can understand it, and that's enough. I was thinking of joining my university's debate team, but having seen this I'm uninterested. Are there any actual debate circuits that are actually about debate and haven't been turned into some farce? All of them are about debate. What do you define as being debate, because it seems like spreading makes debate not debate to you Actual debate that is verbally understandable to the average person. Not this bullshit 9000 wpm crap. I want to debate in order to A) improve my mind, ability to reason / think logically and so on and B) improve my ability to argue a point outside of a formal debate. This spreading stuff is counter-producitve. EDUCATION VOTER ON THEORY! Actually I really don't know theory, or if you can use it on spreading, lol. No idea what you just said. You were talking about improving yourself... sounds like an education theory shell lol.
What's an education theory shell?
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 11:47 BaconofWar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:46 itsjustatank wrote:On February 17 2012 11:45 xavierofsparta wrote:
Also, OP, I feel you should separate Topicality out as its own thing. I have won quite a few times on T alone. My 5 min 2NR was refuting any turns that were there and spending the rest (4-4.5 mins) of pure T. That's how you win T in my book :D I'll gladly do something on T, It's a huge argument that's irritating for everyone to go against.
Protip: If you want me, and most other flow judges, to vote on T, theory, or an RVI in the final rebuttals, you should go all-in and not waste time talking about things that don't matter. If you win those arguments, they are a prerequisite and I don't look at other parts of the flow; it becomes an easy place to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
