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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
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
In my experience, spreading never helped me develop any of those skills.
In general, what I learned from spreading was to be able to pick and choose what were bogus sinkhole arguments and what arguments I needed to argue no matter what. Most arguments in debate can easily just be "Oh, I know that evidence, let me pull a card from my file", and that's really that.
There's not a lot of hard thinking involved because after a while, you get a general idea of what is mostly run on certain topics, especially after a few rounds into a tournament.
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
Ok, I just added T to the OP. I'll ad something about theory eventually, but it's basically one team whining about how something that the other team did is unfair for debate. RVI stands for a reverse voting issue, and its where the team which is being attacked for being unfair says that the nature of the theory the other team reads justifies a vote for them.
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
In my experience, spreading never helped me develop any of those skills.
In general, what I learned from spreading was to be able to pick and choose what were bogus sinkhole arguments and what arguments I needed to argue no matter what. Most arguments in debate can easily just be "Oh, I know that evidence, let me pull a card from my file", and that's really that.
There's not a lot of hard thinking involved because after a while, you get a general idea of what is mostly run on certain topics, especially after a few rounds into a tournament.
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
These are technical debate terms.
What do the terms mean? What does it mean to "know that evidence"? wtf is going on?
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
Ok, I just added T to the OP. I'll ad something about theory eventually, but it's basically one team whining about how something that the other team did is unfair for debate. RVI stands for a reverse voting issue, and its where the team which is being attacked for being unfair says that the nature of the theory the other team reads justifies a vote for them.
Read entire OP and have no clue wtf is going on. It's like trying to explain sc2 to someone who has never played by saying "oh btw just go fast blink stalkers take your natural and harass his third while getting colossi tech." Don't really understand.
Slowly getting it. Do you have a link to a youtube video of a debate at this level that doesn't have any spreading in it? I'd like to see this in action.
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
T is short for topicality, which are arguments as to whether or not what the Affirmative wants to change in the status quo is actually allowed within the set topic for the year.
Theory consists of analytic arguments regarding the legitimacy of certain strategies and whether or not they are abusive.
RVI is short for reverse-voting issue, which is simply theory arguments with voting reasons attached to them that are intended to make them highly important.
All of these operate on a level above the actual policy debating being done in round--affirmative must win these arguments before any other argumentation is considered. If they do not, negative wins automatically.
A flow judge is typically a judge who has some experience in the activity and is a coach or judge for one of the schools currently in the tournament. They are highly prized in the activity because of their ability to understand highly technical nuances of debate, specifically critical arguments and spreading. Flow judges also keep a 'flow' which is a digital or paper account of every argument made in round in relation to other arguments made in round, allowing judges to make good decisions about whether or not teams actually won or lost. Being 'persuasive' doesn't matter if you have dropped multiple arguments on the flow.
This is contrast to lay judges, who are typically parent volunteers who are not as technically skilled as flow judges. Lay judges do not react well to critical arguments and speed. Anything more than stock issues and you will have a serious problem with them. They generally do not keep a flow. They award wins based on who speaks prettier and dresses prettier.
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
T is short for topicality, which are arguments as to whether or not what the Affirmative wants to change in the status quo is actually allowed within the set topic for the year.
Theory consists of analytic arguments regarding the legitimacy of certain strategies and whether or not they are abusive.
RVI is short for reverse-voting issue, which is simply theory arguments with voting reasons attached to them that are intended to make them highly important.
All of these operate on a level above the actual policy debating being done in round--affirmative must win these arguments before any other argumentation is considered. If they do not, negative wins automatically.
A flow judge is typically a judge who has some experience in the activity and is a coach or judge for one of the schools currently in the tournament. They are highly prized in the activity because of their ability to understand highly technical nuances of debate, specifically critical arguments and spreading. Flow judges also keep a 'flow' which is a digital or paper account of every argument made in round in relation to other arguments made in round, allowing judges to make good decisions about whether or not teams actually won or lost. Being 'persuasive' doesn't matter if you have dropped multiple arguments on the flow.
This is contrast to lay judges, who are typically parent volunteers who are not as technically skilled as flow judges. Lay judges do not react well to critical arguments and speed. Anything more than stock issues and you will have a serious problem with them. They generally do not keep a flow. They award wins based on who speaks prettier and dresses prettier.
Thanks, I understand the judging terms now, but still don't understand the first three terms. What is the status quo and why is the affirmative trying to change it? What is an analytic argument (and how is it different from non-analytic arguments)? What is an abusive argument? What is voting, and what is a voting reason? What do you mean by "making highly important"?
cz they are talking about a formal type of debate, they use law dictionaries, and tubs full of information about predetermined topics. Its just a style but its not the only style. You should try and get into LD Debate if your university has it. You will probably like it.
Why don't you change SHITS to SHIPS? It even lets you use a Ship to explain that missing any of these points is likely to lose you the debate. Sinking your ship.
I did CX the first two years of highschool, I should link this thread to my old CX partner. He would have a lot of good advice for anyone competitively debating. He took debate 10x more serious than me. We tried to be analytical in CX and use kritiks. Judges always seemed to punish us for it honestly.
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.
What are T, theory or RVI? Can someone give some basic explanations for this stuff? Otherwise the whole "want to spread debating to TL" is going to fail because it clearly has it's own language. Edit: also what is a flow judge?
T is short for topicality, which are arguments as to whether or not what the Affirmative wants to change in the status quo is actually allowed within the set topic for the year.
Theory consists of analytic arguments regarding the legitimacy of certain strategies and whether or not they are abusive.
RVI is short for reverse-voting issue, which is simply theory arguments with voting reasons attached to them that are intended to make them highly important.
All of these operate on a level above the actual policy debating being done in round--affirmative must win these arguments before any other argumentation is considered. If they do not, negative wins automatically.
A flow judge is typically a judge who has some experience in the activity and is a coach or judge for one of the schools currently in the tournament. They are highly prized in the activity because of their ability to understand highly technical nuances of debate, specifically critical arguments and spreading. Flow judges also keep a 'flow' which is a digital or paper account of every argument made in round in relation to other arguments made in round, allowing judges to make good decisions about whether or not teams actually won or lost. Being 'persuasive' doesn't matter if you have dropped multiple arguments on the flow.
This is contrast to lay judges, who are typically parent volunteers who are not as technically skilled as flow judges. Lay judges do not react well to critical arguments and speed. Anything more than stock issues and you will have a serious problem with them. They generally do not keep a flow. They award wins based on who speaks prettier and dresses prettier.
Thanks, I understand the judging terms now, but still don't understand the first three terms. What is the status quo and why is the affirmative trying to change it? What is an analytic argument (and how is it different from non-analytic arguments)? What is voting, and what is a voting reason? What do you mean by "making highly important"?
The status quo is the world as it is now. Every year a topic is put out. For example: Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations.
In the status quo, affirmative argues that the USfg isn't supporting UN peacekeeping. They isolate specific problems that this has in the world. They go on to offer a plan, a change in the status quo... for example:
Thus my partner and I stand resolved: The United States federal government, specifically the Executive Branch, should substantially increase its support for United Nations peacekeeping operations by rescinding Presidential Decision Directive 25.
Negative then has to defend the status quo, isolate either why the status quo already supports UN peacekeeping, or why affirmative's brand of action is uniquely bad.
Analytics are arguments made without citations. The basis for argumentation in debate is the 'card.' Here is a classic example:
US leadership solves nuclear war Khalilzad95 [Zalmay, Defense Analyst at RAND, 'Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War' The Washington Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; p. 84]
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
First line is the tagline and cite: what you are trying to argue, who supports what you are trying to argue and why they are important, and where they wrote about the issue The rest is the text of what they said or wrote. What is underlined is what you say, the important things are bolded.
An example of an analytic in contrast:
US leadership solves global nuclear war.
No text, no cite; it's weaker in terms of offense/defense analysis, but it still makes an argument.
What is voting, and what is a voting reason? What do you mean by "making highly important"?
Voting is what the judge in the back of the room is for. A judge decides at the end of the round as to whether affirmative or negative won the debate. Voting reasons are arguments in round highlighted for the judge as places of importance to look at whether or not a team won or lost. By 'making highly important,' I meant times when teams elevate certain voting issues over others in my analysis of the debate after the round is over.
1) Do you have a link to a full, no-spreading debate?
2) Are there more accessible types of debates? I feel like I'd have to read hours of arcane rules to understand all this.
The Speech part of Speech & Debate is usually more accessible, and how most people get into Debate. Just look on youtube for debate videos if your looking o.o
EPT
