EPTThe Official TL Policy Debate thread - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
|
lightrise
United States1355 Posts
Michael Klinger is undoubtedly the best debater in a long time. Just watching him spread people was sick and his 2ar here is just gross haha | ||
|
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
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? | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 12:54 cz wrote: Still looking for an answer on this, with respect to spreading: 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? It's down to whether or not the judge understands the speech. It's common practice for judges to yell out CLEAR in the middle of speeches when debaters wander into becoming unclear. It becomes the debater's job to become more clear and perhaps slow down if they can't do it properly. Generally it ends up being okay and working. Most of how the spectrum of being clear to unclear is addressed is through the speaker point system. Debaters are given a number of points, from 0 to 30. Generally the given range is between 25-30. Speakers who are more clear or make better arguments end up getting more points than the others. These points end up mattering because they decide tiebreaks and whether or not teams on the cusp of qualifying for the elimination bracket make it there or not. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On February 17 2012 12:58 itsjustatank wrote: It's down to whether or not the judge understands the speech. It's common practice for judges to yell out CLEAR in the middle of speeches when debaters wander into becoming unclear. It becomes the debater's job to become more clear and perhaps slow down if they can't do it properly. Generally it ends up being okay and working. Most of how the spectrum of being clear to unclear is addressed is through the speaker point system. Debaters are given a number of points, from 0 to 30. Generally the given range is between 25-30. Speakers who are more clear or make better arguments end up getting more points than the others. These points end up mattering because they decide tiebreaks and whether or not teams on the cusp of qualifying for the elimination bracket make it there or not. I'm talking about actually understanding what words are being said though. Like I can't understand what the youtube video guys are saying, it's just all a blur to me. Does the judge yell CLEAR if he can't understand the words coming out of their mouth? Doesn't that mean that a good spreader can't spread unless he has a "flow" judge? Also seems pretty bullshit if you win because your opponent was not able to understand the words you were saying. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 13:02 cz wrote: I'm talking about actually understanding what words are being said though. Like I can't understand what the youtube video guys are saying, it's just all a blur to me. Does the judge yell CLEAR if he can't understand the words coming out of their mouth? Doesn't that mean that a good spreader can't spread unless he has a "flow" judge? Yes. If, for example it was you as a judge in the back of the room, the teams would have hopefully asked you questions before the round as to your experience level in debate and your preferences. Either you would tell them you are not okay with speed or they would figure it out, and a more manageable debate for you would take place. Teams have backup plans for judges like that. | ||
|
Shaetan
United States1175 Posts
On February 17 2012 13:02 cz wrote: I'm talking about actually understanding what words are being said though. Like I can't understand what the youtube video guys are saying, it's just all a blur to me. Does the judge yell CLEAR if he can't understand the words coming out of their mouth? Doesn't that mean that a good spreader can't spread unless he has a "flow" judge? Also seems pretty bullshit if you win because your opponent was not able to understand the words you were saying. Yes, judge can yell clear. Yes, spreading is something you will do if you have a flow judge, if you do it in front of a "lay" judge then you are dumb and will probably lose. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
Shaetan
United States1175 Posts
On February 17 2012 11:59 cz wrote: 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. Here is college parli at a slower rate of delivery (from what I remember): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8250313232186075498&q=college debate It is similar to policy except you get a new topic every round and have 20 minutes to prepare a case so as a result the speeches are spontaneous and rely less on who has the right piece of evidence backing up their line of argument but rather who can most cogently express reasons their argument is right. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 13:11 cz wrote: Are there any transcripts of these debates available? I think I might understand if I could read them as opposed to trying to listen to them. Closest thing to having a transcript of a round would be a judge's flow, but those would be practically unintelligible to people outside of the community. Example I found through a Google search: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Vvq5.png) | ||
|
Felnar
5 Posts
 I wanted to just give a little insight on my views on policy.if your a debater <3 you, you are learning skills that will replicate themselves in your day to day life in ways you can't yet see, but stick with it! Policy debate > LD (speaking purely HS circuit haven't ever really sat down and watched collegiate LD rounds)... This is also an opinion LD is quite different from policy in a lot of ways but in a comparison between both debates I would ask my kids to debate policy over LD. Anyways I just wanted to talk about some other parts of debate and my thoughts, or for anyone currently in debate or thinking about debate to read so hopefully they can understand a little bit more on how this wonderful game is played and how you can play it. Edit: This post is already getting long as I type it so I will focus on fiat from the perspective of the K debater (cause I <3 good K's). Also K's get misrepresenteted or run incorrectly a lot or are believed to be more complex than DA's and CP's which is just not true they just generally communicate higher level thoughts than the standard DA or CP. If your looking to run K's in your debate career feel free and read on hopefully it helps. Policy debate takes place, or can rather, in three different worlds simeltaneously. Fiat, Pre-Fiat, Procedural.... For those non debaters Fiat is actually a procedural argument or idea that says essentially we as the aff can blindly assume our policy passes legislation for the purpose of analyzing advantages and solvency of the plan without getting bogged down in this world of "well congress wouldn't look at X plan"... Fiat also can be expanded to encompass the theoretical world of the aff and neg impacts and solvency. Pre-Fiat is an argument predominatly used by neg K debaters or affs (counter King or running K affs). Pre-fiat says that the language we use within this round as debaters competeing in an event have a mesurable impact coming out of the round. an example (making this up off the top of my head) say aff case is saying .. inh: diverse marine wildlife dying because of lack of saction/protection of ocean space adv: keytone species (kill too many of one type of fishy it could be the hidden link holding food chain together and without extinction ensues). Plan: the USFG will pass a plan to create Marine Protected Areas or MPA's Solvency: by the USFG stepping in and roping off certain area of the ocean known to be more diverse we don't overfish and don't kill keystone species thuse plan solves inharent issue and captures the advantage of us not all dying)... seems like a good plan but the K debater might come back and run a K that looks something like this: A: Link: Plan assumes that human beings have control over the planet B: Implications: i. Assuming human beings can control extinction fuels anthropocentric thinking (this tag makes it sound more like a link now that i reread it but it wouldnt necisarilly matter how you road mapped it) ii. Anthropocentric thinking is bad because it generates an assumption that we buy into that wedo have control over the homeostasis of the planet.. iii. Beliving we are at the center of life/world leads to potential for more radical and devistating changes to the world because humans believe themselves to be infallable which causes X harm C. Alternative: Vote down aff... passing policy can only further entrench us in anthropocentric thinking..Now as the neg this argument is okay... but when it comes to impact calculation in the rebuttal potential extinction vs anthropocentric thinking on just those merits alone how is a judge going to vote for the K alternative? Assuming we only debate in the world of fiat or this theoretical world that ceases to exist after the judge casts their ballot than theoretically speaking extinction worse than anything else... so if we debate in the world of fiat which is just a theoretical model of the status quo after aff plan is in existance... than pre-fiat must be the non-theoritical model of the status quo as it is. Or in other words reality. In a situation like this the K debater is going to set up a framework for the debate which if unanswered will almost guarnateebly win them the round on a tab judge (ideal judging paradigm if your the actual debater). The framework doesn't have to be(and shouldnt be) complex. In this case it is basically the negative getting up and stating that the world we live and not the theoretical world of fiat needs to be solved for before anything else can be looked at. WE need to look at the pre-fiat implications (anthropocentric thinking) before we ever evaluate plan action and solvency in the fiat world. The aff in the very design of there case want you to believe that you as a human have the power to control the outcomes of this planet and all life on it, this way of thinking is bad (flow across my implications) and actual hurts our development as humans here today in this round. as a student and some random in the back of a class room. Now the judge has to weigh Theroetical, and not likely, extinction... vs. the fact that the aff teams plan essentially is saying out loud that I have the authority and power over the world... which would be bad because restate implications of anthropocentrism In itself the Pre-Fiat and Fiat worlds can add increasingly deeper dimensions of a debate round and also give either side more intellectual space to play in without over expanding the topic itself. On the subject of K alternatives the one i posted above is not ideal. Reject aff alternatives feel like they weaken the K and end up being the reason people inacurately refer to them as non-uniq disads. Preferably you can find a CP that can PIC the aff but still capture the K as a net benefit, or just a even a competitve CP that can't be permed without a severence perm. Or run the K Alt as a PIC... anything is better than do nothing... unless you have good evidence on how doing nothing is better than doing the aff plan to solve for some if not all the K implications. If your going for reject aff i'd at least suggest finding case specific implications use can use to mitigate or turn solvency. i.e. Aff says plan: USFG will increase military recruiting. Neg says CP: Abolish Military Netbenfit: Militarism K, Solvency <insert solvency here> then run militarism k as a sperate off case from the CP flow... this means that you now have two arguments locked together and make eachother stronger and create more of a chance for teh aff to undercover allowing you kick one and go for the other or using the lack of coverage on one to save the other. Now the neg has an actual alternative something of subtance for the judge to vote on. if they win the framework debate or if hte debate gets dropped by the aff than they even have established on the flow that any impact that reaches outside the world of fiat is to be weighed heaveier than any impact that takes place soley inside of it. When I first started debating K's I didn't actually run frame works as seperate off's then about my junior year I learned that this is one of the key's to strengethening your K. But to this day I hate framework debates, and with K's and running seperate frameworks as off case or under/overviews on the K flow you ended up inviting framework debates. IF you do set up a framework and go for a Kritikal sort of round than you need to be fully ready to defend that framework against any sort of team that knows how to argue policy making good. thats all for K's for now lastly I just wanted to say the last level of debate the procedural level is one of the coolest things about policy and one of the reasons why, to me, it is superior to other forms of debate. In policy you can debate the rules while debating. Procedural arguments, the most common being topicality, are arguments that state the other team is causing unfairness or breaking the rules by running certain arguments. Topicality is the most common procedural and a lot debaters will run two or 3 in the 1NC because they take 20 seconds or so to get through and the aff has to respond. " A. Definition: Establish "Having to create from 0" B. Violation: Plan only increases upon what is already there c. Standards: 1. Limits: aff definition unlimits the topic, defining establish in they it is used in the plan creates a limitless amount of case options 2. Research Burden: Establish being read as increasing upon already existing programs means the neg now has to prepare for far more possible cases under the topic. D. Voters 1. Fairness - Untopical cases aren't fair, if they were we wouldnt need a resolution. 2. Education - In order for us to become more educated on the resolution we must debate topical cases. They are easy to make easy to kick and if unanswered will undeniably win you rounds unless you have a judge with pre-bias. Okay wow i know this is probably already TL;DR but this topic sparked some nostalgia GL to those currently debating out there and hopefully this could help in some small way, or at least help non-debaters understand how much more indepth and intricate debate is compared to what people assume debate is. | ||
|
Felnar
5 Posts
On February 17 2012 11:53 BaconofWar 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 [/QUOTE] I'll gladly do something on T, It's a huge argument that's irritating for everyone to go against.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] Agreed I couldn't stand seeing debaters run 2-4 T's and then run Off-Case arguments with specific links or a grip of on case arguments. if we are so not topical how the fuck do you have us blocked out through the 2NR? We were obviously topical enough for you to go for other arguments. I might even try and turn it into an RVI, though really I always just wanted the T debate to get dropped and those flows to disappear so we could talk about something more releavent... That being said if a case isn't topical or its squirelly enough that you know you can win on T then prove and go for it in the 2NR and go for it hard. if you stick with it through the whole debate and you tell me in every speech for at least 2 mins why they aren't topical and its bad you have a much better chance of picking up my ballot on it, than if you are just trying to use it to spread the aff and get them to undercover one of them and then try and crush em with it at the end. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On February 17 2012 14:10 Felnar wrote: Policy debate > LD (speaking purely HS circuit haven't ever really sat down and watched collegiate LD rounds)... This is also an opinion LD is quite different from policy in a lot of ways but in a comparison between both debates I would ask my kids to debate policy over LD. That's an absurd statement to make. They both fulfill certain needs and have their respective strengths, and I doubt you have extensive experience with both events and in both lay and circuit styles in the first place. Also, sorry cz, but it's pretty clear that some of the people here have done mostly circuit without any adaptation to "traditional" styles (which is what a normal person envisions as your slow, persuasive orators), so their explanations seem pretty convoluted and unclear (seriously guys, why the hell are you referencing T shells, especially when you don't understand what a T shell is, when trying to answer questions from someone not familiar with this jargon). Regarding the question as to what happens if nobody understands the person speaking: the judge obviously has to understand the debater. The format of "winning" in debate is pretty simple. The judge simply marks who they believe won the debate/better persuaded them, and assigns point values to evaluate each debater's quality of debating (speaker points). The judge is the audience that the debaters have to appeal to, and any truly good debater knows not only how to debate technically, but how to adapt to a lay judge (a judge who is just an ordinary person without prior experience with debate) and to switch to a traditional style of persuasion. If the judge doesn't understand the debater, the debater loses becauses, for example, if you were to judge a round where one person spoke incomprehensibly (to you) and the other spoke persuasively at an ordinary pace, you'd obviously vote for the latter. [Edit] cz, as to seeking more "traditional" forms of debate in college, do parliamentary debate. Your account says Australia though, so I'm not unfamiliar with how debate might be over there. College LD is just one-man policy, though. [Edit2]: Ultimately, I feel like all these technical details about fiat, Ks, DAs, CPs, PICs, T, etc. aren't relevant to the bigger picture for people who aren't already immersed in the world of debate. I think you should just first establish the nature of the flow and broader generalizations if you're trying to "introduce" people to it - I mean, it's perfectly fine to reference it in discussion with other debaters, but I don't see why there should be this obligation to explain an RVI to a random observer. I mean, it's actually find to go ahead and catalogue a sort of glossary for those unfamiliar, but you need the proper organization/foundation of debate in general before you jump into those details. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
It is a game in which what you say really matters, and you have to strategically defend what you say, and indeed how you say it, against the onslaughts of an opponent. It isn't focused on the generation of phrases more apt as sound bytes for cable news, which is what most people think when they hear 'debate.' Who can blame them? All most people see are our really lame presidential 'debates' every four years. For those of us who have experienced or are currently experiencing it, it is hard to break out of the academic shell that the community swathes itself in and become more accessible. A lot of ideas and processes in the activity are taken for granted by participants, and unpacking it takes time. | ||
|
Felnar
5 Posts
On February 17 2012 14:26 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That's an absurd statement to make. They both fulfill certain needs and have their respective strengths, and I doubt you have extensive experience with both events and in both lay and circuit styles in the first place. And my argument is the needs and strengths of policy in terms of debate as a game, and academic event outweigh those of LD from my experience which is on a highschool circuit. I also presented it as an opinion, but I don't think i'd go so far as to say it was absurd. Yes we could have a whold debate on the merits of either and especially the merits of communication vs information. But policy is also a team event requires and develops research, logic, comprehension and critical thinking to a level beyond that of LD. You also have a resolution that lasts year round. Which means you have a lot more time to not only gather more information and subsuquently more sheer knowledge on the topic and arguments your debating, but also get to redebate the same debates differently helping you use prior experience to find new ways to alter your arguments. Much like if SC2 decided to throw new units or buildings and take old ones away every season, it would make for interesting and fun gameplay but ultimately lose out on the possiblities that the game staying static over a long peroid of time can offer. i.e. refined builds, deeper comprehension of the game ect ect.. I don't disagree with you LD has a place, has value, is an intelligent and well designed form of debate. The thing I love most about LD is the fact that framework of the case is also used to define the framework of the round and it comes down to these theoretical or philisophical discussion of what is the most logical or moral model to prefer when discussing topics.. but if i ever go back into coaching i will teach my kids policy. . | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On February 17 2012 15:46 Felnar wrote: And my argument is the needs and strengths of policy in terms of debate as a game, and academic event outweigh those of LD from my experience which is on a highschool circuit. I also presented it as an opinion, but I don't think i'd go so far as to say it was absurd. Yes we could have a whold debate on the merits of either and especially the merits of communication vs information. But policy is also a team event requires and develops research, logic, comprehension and critical thinking to a level beyond that of LD. You also have a resolution that lasts year round. Which means you have a lot more time to not only gather more information and subsuquently more sheer knowledge on the topic and arguments your debating, but also get to redebate the same debates differently helping you use prior experience to find new ways to alter your arguments. Much like if SC2 decided to throw new units or buildings and take old ones away every season, it would make for interesting and fun gameplay but ultimately lose out on the possiblities that the game staying static over a long peroid of time can offer. i.e. refined builds, deeper comprehension of the game ect ect.. I don't disagree with you LD has a place, has value, is an intelligent and well designed form of debate. The thing I love most about LD is the fact that framework of the case is also used to define the framework of the round and it comes down to these theoretical or philisophical discussion of what is the most logical or moral model to prefer when discussing topics.. but if i ever go back into coaching i will teach my kids policy. . Both can, and do, coexist at high levels of the activity. No need for one to be higher than the other. | ||
|
Felnar
5 Posts
Lay judges have to watch policy rounds, yes debaters have to adapt. As a policy debater I understood and went real slow and didnt read much evidence when debating in front of comms and lay judges. However whatever type of judge you are you have to be able to at least attempt to follow the basic construction of the arguments.. refrencing a T shell or constructing one should be enough insight in itself to provide context to where its going. Is the topic or how the argument is debated deeper than that? Yes. Also if your page 7 in a policy thread i'd assume you have at least a basic understanding of what policy is or what types of policy arguments are out there. If your a lay person or don't know what it is and are reading through I attempted to explain the arguments i did to the best of best of my ability without writing a book hopefully there is enough context in the examples to make sense of it if not. My appologies. | ||
|
Felnar
5 Posts
Both can, and do, coexist at high levels of the activity. No need for one to be higher than the other. [/QUOTE] I agree but I value to merits that the high level of policy debate incorporates over those of LD. LD debate is in no way dumber, worse or any other demeaning adjective to that of policy debate and I wouldn't want to imply anything like that. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
Well, carry on. | ||
| ||
