Ok, so i'm going to be guessing that most of you guys don't understand what exactly policy debate is, but it's for sure something I enjoy, and a lot of my friends enjoy as well, and we all want to try and spread it to as many people as is possible, and if theres anywhere that likes good intellectual debate, it's TL. So I'm going to begin with a brief overview of how exactly debate works:
Policy Debate is a game of enacting into life real world policies, and discussing the impacts and endgames of such a plan being enacted. There are two sides, the affirmative and the negative. In basics, the affirmative promotes a plan, which is then contested by the negative. A judge then decides whether the plan: A. Adequately solves for the risks it presents B. Overcomes the disadvantages the negative presents to the plan This is the basics of debate, without incorporating any of the more complex and complicated arguments, which i'll discuss later on in the thread. So, now that I've completed the overview of basic debate, let's move on to debate structure.
Debate is separated into 8 speeches, four given by each side, two given by each partner. There are two types of speeches: Constructives and rebuttals. Constructives are generally 8 minute speeches, in which the affirmative and negative teams present and develop their arguments. Rebuttals are 4 minute speeches in which the two teams tune up their arguments and present their final arguments to the judge.
The order goes: 1AC->1NC->2AC->2NC->1NR->1AR->2NR->2AR
C Standing for constructive, and R stands for rebuttal. In between each of the constructive speeches, there is a three minute period known as Cross examination or cross ex. During cross ex, one team will attempt to point out clear flaws in the arguments of the other team, and set up the arguments they're going to make in the next speech. Cross ex seems like a very small part of the debate, but I have been in many debates in which Cross ex had made the debate. So, since I've finished the explanation of the structure of debate, i'm going to list a couple terms, relevant arguments and important things about policy debate in general, that you'll need to know to understand anything about it as a whole
1. The resolution: This is basically the outlined topic for the year. The resolution is what guides people as to how they're going to choose their plan and do their research
2. Evidence/Cards: While it is possible to have a debate mainly on your own analytical arguments, when talking about real life policy and real life possibilities, it's best to have a qualified author backing you. Policy Debate takes excerpts from certain articles and uses it to help qualify exactly what the team is saying.
3. Disadvantage: A negative argument in which the Negative team presents a reason as to why the plan is bad, mainly how the action of enacting the plan causes something bad to happen.
4. Counterplan: This is basically a strategic negative alternative to the plan. The only rules to what your counterplan can be is that it has to be either mutually exclusive to the plan, or have a net benefit to it. A net benefit is basically something that the plan causes/ does which is bad that the counterplan doesn't do. Otherwise, GO NUTS!
5. The Status Quo: While I'm sure all of you know the meanings of these words in general, in debate, the Status Quo is used to describe the current world and the world with out any other options(i.e Counterplans). Basically it is what the negative advocates unless it has a Counterplan or a Kritik in the debate
6. The S.H.I.T.S: Yeah, yeah, I know its' profanity, but these are actually important things to debate as a whole. The Shits, aka stock issues, are the original way that debat used to work. They made sure that an aff's plan was: A. under the resolution B. Able to solve significant harms C. Able to overcome the negative's harms D. Not happening currently E.Actually making a difference
7. Kritiks: Basically a philosophical indict of the plan's philosophical underpinnings. A kritik says that the idealogical system that you work under is flawed, and that idealogical system is what causes your harms to happen. Therefore, your plan can't really solve any of its' harms. Kritiks usually come with alternatives, which presents a way to transition away from the mode of thought currently in the status quo.
8. Spreading: Speed reading. This is what makes policy debate as daunting as it is, because debaters read at 9 million miles per hour.
You thought i was kidding didn't you. Debate at the highest competitive level is like this, and it is an attempt to get through as many arguments in 8 minutes as is humanely possible
9. Flowing: A specific style of how one writes down the arguments read by each time. Generally you have a different piece of paper for each general argument(ie disad, kritik, advantage etc) and you flow down for each speech. Every card read is tagged once, and every analytical is usually pretagged, so flowing shouldn't be too hard if you understand those
10. Advantages: Reasons as to why enacting the plan is good
11. Topicality: One of the stock issues, topicality is basically an argument highlighting why teh affirmative's plan isn't under the resolution. The Negative provides a definition as to why your specific plan isn't in line with a specific word in the resolution, and because of that, the Aff can lose the debate
So this is the basics of policy debate, and I encourage discussion about it. To any of you still in high school or college, I'd encourage you to sign up.
Some rules for the Forum:
1. No shit talking debate: It's exactly like the IdrA fanclub, if you have nothing nice to say, don't bother saying it.
2. Don't cry imba: Don't let everyone how good kritiks are, and they should be banned, we don't really care about that shit.
3. Don't whine: don't yell at me that you lost your break round, or that kritiks are stupid.
EDIT: Lol this year's Policy topic is hella complicated. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
On February 16 2012 13:07 1Eris1 wrote: Are you telling me I actually have to professional and articulate when I argue?
omggggggggggggggggg..............
Uh, alright. Whats the first topic?
Not necessarily articulate. You can say random bullshit that doesn't make sense in debate too.
The 2012 resolution is: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and/or development of Space beyond the earth's mesosphere.
On February 16 2012 13:08 Jaso wrote: LD is totally better... ^^
-preparing for tournament in 2 days lol-
EDIT: Lol this year's Policy topic is hella complicated. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
Not complicated no. It's just space. Launch into space. Do something in space
Out of curiosity, is Policy normally this much more empirical? The fact that you need to know stuff about space and atmospheres is a lot different from LD's philosophical tendencies.
edit: Idk, seems like it requires a lot more background knowledge.
On February 16 2012 13:11 Jaso wrote: Out of curiosity, is Policy normally this much more empirical? The fact that you need to know stuff about space and atmospheres is a lot different from LD's philosophical tendencies.
True true. Policy debate is less philosophy and much more actual evidence and empirical background. And you only really need to understand what your evidence says
EDIT: Not that much background knowledge is necessary
On February 16 2012 13:02 ticklishmusic wrote: Are you referring to LD Debate? I did that for three years in high school.
Policy not LD. Different things in their entirety. But any form of debate is good for all the others
Hmm, the format you outlined seemed similar to what I remember of LD. Escalation to thermonuclear war argument was so imbalanced.
I was considered pretty decent at doing Cross-ex in my area, but then I watched some videos of debaters at nationals, and it was innocent question 1, innocent question 2, and SO I HEARD YOU LIKE DEAD BABIES. Those people are scary. :X
On February 16 2012 13:02 ticklishmusic wrote: Are you referring to LD Debate? I did that for three years in high school.
Policy not LD. Different things in their entirety. But any form of debate is good for all the others
Hmm, the format you outlined seemed similar to what I remember of LD.
I was considered pretty decent at DOING Cross-ex in my area, but then I watched some videos of debaters at nationals, and it was innocent question 1, innocent question 2, and SO I HEARD YOU LIKE DEAD BABIES. Those people are scary. :X
On February 16 2012 13:07 1Eris1 wrote: Are you telling me I actually have to professional and articulate when I argue?
omggggggggggggggggg..............
Uh, alright. Whats the first topic?
Not necessarily articulate. You can say random bullshit that doesn't make sense in debate too.
The 2012 resolution is: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and/or development of Space beyond the earth's mesosphere.
Basically It's space
I am a fan of space and space travel. I would like us to know more about our own planet before bullshitting around in space though, at least if we're prioritizing one over the other.
I find it funny as all hell that the people supporting this idea in the US government are the same people complaining that we spend our money horribly. Frankly I think this is solely coming up as a political response to the democrats taking more money out of nasa.
On February 16 2012 13:02 ticklishmusic wrote: Are you referring to LD Debate? I did that for three years in high school.
Policy not LD. Different things in their entirety. But any form of debate is good for all the others
Hmm, the format you outlined seemed similar to what I remember of LD.
I was considered pretty decent at DOING Cross-ex in my area, but then I watched some videos of debaters at nationals, and it was innocent question 1, innocent question 2, and SO I HEARD YOU LIKE DEAD BABIES. Those people are scary. :X
Yeah, cross-ex is the same, but you aren't going to come around a form of debate without it. Policy is a lot less philosophical and moralistic and a lot more HOLY SHIT NUCLEAR FUCKING WAR kind of stuff
On February 16 2012 13:02 ticklishmusic wrote: Are you referring to LD Debate? I did that for three years in high school.
Policy not LD. Different things in their entirety. But any form of debate is good for all the others
Hmm, the format you outlined seemed similar to what I remember of LD.
I was considered pretty decent at DOING Cross-ex in my area, but then I watched some videos of debaters at nationals, and it was innocent question 1, innocent question 2, and SO I HEARD YOU LIKE DEAD BABIES. Those people are scary. :X
Yeah, cross-ex is the same, but you aren't going to come around a form of debate without it. Policy is a lot less philosophical and moralistic and a lot more HOLY SHIT NUCLEAR FUCKING WAR kind of stuff
Straight-up stock issues maybe, but not with the K, or with performance.
On February 16 2012 13:07 1Eris1 wrote: Are you telling me I actually have to professional and articulate when I argue?
omggggggggggggggggg..............
Uh, alright. Whats the first topic?
Not necessarily articulate. You can say random bullshit that doesn't make sense in debate too.
The 2012 resolution is: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and/or development of Space beyond the earth's mesosphere.
Basically It's space
I am a fan of space and space travel. I would like us to know more about our own planet before bullshitting around in space though, at least if we're prioritizing one over the other.
I find it funny as all hell that the people supporting this idea in the US government are the same people complaining that we spend our money horribly. Frankly I think this is solely coming up as a political response to the democrats taking more money out of nasa.
Please don;t bring your own personal political views into the fray. I love debate and all, but don't be the dick that says it's all the democrats fault. But to link this back, You can make disads off of too much deficit spending. so there
On February 16 2012 13:02 ticklishmusic wrote: Are you referring to LD Debate? I did that for three years in high school.
Policy not LD. Different things in their entirety. But any form of debate is good for all the others
Hmm, the format you outlined seemed similar to what I remember of LD.
I was considered pretty decent at DOING Cross-ex in my area, but then I watched some videos of debaters at nationals, and it was innocent question 1, innocent question 2, and SO I HEARD YOU LIKE DEAD BABIES. Those people are scary. :X
Yeah, cross-ex is the same, but you aren't going to come around a form of debate without it. Policy is a lot less philosophical and moralistic and a lot more HOLY SHIT NUCLEAR FUCKING WAR kind of stuff
Straight-up stock issues maybe, but not with the K, or with performance.
Yeah, but you as a policy debater know that while the K comes up often, performance isn't that big of an issue. Theory is really a much bigger deal than performance Ks. But even then, there are more straight up policy teams than K hacks
On February 16 2012 13:07 1Eris1 wrote: Are you telling me I actually have to professional and articulate when I argue?
omggggggggggggggggg..............
Uh, alright. Whats the first topic?
Not necessarily articulate. You can say random bullshit that doesn't make sense in debate too.
The 2012 resolution is: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and/or development of Space beyond the earth's mesosphere.
Basically It's space
I am a fan of space and space travel. I would like us to know more about our own planet before bullshitting around in space though, at least if we're prioritizing one over the other.
I find it funny as all hell that the people supporting this idea in the US government are the same people complaining that we spend our money horribly. Frankly I think this is solely coming up as a political response to the democrats taking more money out of nasa.
Please don;t bring your own personal political views into the fray. I love debate and all, but don't be the dick that says it's all the democrats fault. But to link this back, You can make disads off of too much deficit spending. so there
I didn't say anything about it being the democrats fault? Reading comprehension?
On February 16 2012 13:07 1Eris1 wrote: Are you telling me I actually have to professional and articulate when I argue?
omggggggggggggggggg..............
Uh, alright. Whats the first topic?
Not necessarily articulate. You can say random bullshit that doesn't make sense in debate too.
The 2012 resolution is: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and/or development of Space beyond the earth's mesosphere.
Basically It's space
I am a fan of space and space travel. I would like us to know more about our own planet before bullshitting around in space though, at least if we're prioritizing one over the other.
I find it funny as all hell that the people supporting this idea in the US government are the same people complaining that we spend our money horribly. Frankly I think this is solely coming up as a political response to the democrats taking more money out of nasa.
Please don;t bring your own personal political views into the fray. I love debate and all, but don't be the dick that says it's all the democrats fault. But to link this back, You can make disads off of too much deficit spending. so there
I didn't say anything about it being the democrats fault? Reading comprehension?
And...am i missing the point of this thread? o.o
Actually I'm so sorry, you're right, reading comprehension error. Please go along with business as usual
You should link to this Wikipedia article in the OP so the unwashed understand you aren't actually debating policy but rather talking about the unique activity.
On February 16 2012 13:28 itsjustatank wrote: You should link to this Wikipedia article in the OP so the unwashed understand you aren't actually debating policy but rather talking about the unique activity.
On February 16 2012 13:28 itsjustatank wrote: You should link to this Wikipedia article in the OP so the unwashed understand you aren't actually debating policy but rather talking about the unique activity.
Anyone have suggestions on how to approach spreading (in general)?
Rap music helps you establish a cadence. After that, strive for clarity over speed by doing basic drills like speaking while holding a pen in your mouth. Good spreading develops over time and practice.
And in terms of understanding it, it is also just a case of just being around it and learning over time. I remember being spread out of the room in my first round by a team that, by the end of my career, wasn't speaking that fast at all.
Anyone have suggestions on how to approach spreading (in general)?
Rap music helps you establish a cadence. After that, strive for clarity over speed by doing basic drills like speaking while holding a pen in your mouth. Good spreading develops over time and practice.
I agree with the speaking drills part of this, but don't listen to music while you spread. If you mess up even once, it ends up seriously screwing up your rhythm
Anyone have suggestions on how to approach spreading (in general)?
Rap music helps you establish a cadence. After that, strive for clarity over speed by doing basic drills like speaking while holding a pen in your mouth. Good spreading develops over time and practice.
I agree with the speaking drills part of this, but don't listen to music while you spread. If you mess up even once, it ends up seriously screwing up your rhythm
Listening on headphones while speaking also doesn't do well to your speaks. Not to mention the potentially valuable audio cues judges and your opponents might give off during speech time.
On February 16 2012 13:48 Jaso wrote: Actually, I'm more looking for how to understand spreading.
Ok, in understanding every word someone says, that's difficult to do. Really the best way to understand it is to listen to it a lot and get your brain to adjust to hearing people talk that fast. But a good trick: every card and argument is tagged, so listen for those, and you'll get a basic idea of the upcoming argument.
Don't fall into the habit of just looking at their blocks instead of keeping an accurate flow, regardless of their speed. I fondly remember watching a 2AC answering a one-off K with a 60 pt block with a lot of analytics and RVIs thrown in that werent in the blocks.
CX went something like this:
"So everything you said is in here right?" "Were you flowing? No. We can use your preptime if you want to make sure you have everything I said though."
On February 16 2012 13:58 itsjustatank wrote: Don't fall into the habit of just looking at their blocks instead of keeping an accurate flow, regardless of their speed. I fondly remember watching a 2AC answering a one-off K with a 60 pt block with a lot of analytics and RVIs thrown in that werent in the blocks.
CX went something like this:
"So everything you said is in here right?" "Were you flowing? No. We can use your preptime if you want to make sure you have everything I said though."
Hahahah lol. Plus a tip, if they're not flowing it when you're answering it, they're going to kick it
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
No, by they I mean the opponent. You should poke questions into whichever part seems logically flawed
LOL I didn't know this thread existed. I love policy debate. To understand spreading, I am watching debate videos online (even though they aren't as clear due to quality, they are helluva a lot better than people in my league.) To practice, 15 mins of speaking drills all day err day! (oh yeah does anyone know what it means to "err" the affirmative or negative?)
I know that's what I should be doing in CX.. but like if they're spreading to the point where I don't understand anything what should I try to clarify? Just v/vc and taglines?
edit: Last weekend I had a non-lay judge who didn't flow lol. She was spinning around in her swivel chair -_-;
On February 16 2012 14:09 Tendou wrote: LOL I didn't know this thread existed. I love policy debate. To understand spreading, I am watching debate videos online (even though they aren't as clear due to quality, they are helluva a lot better than people in my league.) To practice, 15 mins of speaking drills all day err day! (oh yeah does anyone know what it means to "err" the affirmative or negative?)
On February 16 2012 14:09 Tendou wrote: LOL I didn't know this thread existed. I love policy debate. To understand spreading, I am watching debate videos online (even though they aren't as clear due to quality, they are helluva a lot better than people in my league.) To practice, 15 mins of speaking drills all day err day! (oh yeah does anyone know what it means to "err" the affirmative or negative?)
Like 'err neg on presumption?'
Has to do with the burden of proof in round. If aff can't prove that there are advantages to changing the status quo (which neg defends), neg wins on presumption, even if all arguments left in round are purely defensive, not offensive.
On February 16 2012 14:23 forgottendreams wrote: I'm new to debating but during the burdon of proof rounds am I allowed to use the logic "because God willed it"?
No.
Unless you win some sort of framework that makes religious imperatives matter.
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].
I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.
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.
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.
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].
I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.
Using CX time to do something you should have done during their speech time is a major no-no. CX should be used to setup your upcoming arguments for your partner. Even if it's a new aff you've never seen before, you should have off-case args that work generically--set up for those.
Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Flow their arguments, don't let them turn your CX into additional speech time.
Yeah I'm kinda disgusted by how LD becomes focused on just spreading mass arguments and theory. (though I can't speak from actual experience since I've never debated varsity).
I did pretty good at Princeton (broke and made octas) but I did absolutely awful last week at Montville, went 1-3 lol. I'm kinda worried for Harvard because novice is combined with JV... any insight on what I should expect?
^ if you hit Whippany EW or AP they're my captains :D.
edit: Also, is anyone well-acquainted with the current LD resolution? "It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to domestic violence" I ran a neg case saying that it's actually morally praiseworthy/required.. judges really didn't like it lol.
So if I'm hitting someone who I absolutely can't understand, I should just read their case as they read (if it's on a laptop)?
On February 16 2012 14:57 Jaso wrote: Yeah I'm kinda disgusted by how LD becomes focused on just spreading mass arguments and theory. (though I can't speak from actual experience since I've never debated varsity).
I did pretty good at Princeton (broke and made octas) but I did absolutely awful last week at Montville, went 1-3 lol. I'm kinda worried for Harvard because novice is combined with JV... any insight on what I should expect?
^ if you hit Whippany EW or AP they're my captains :D.
edit: Also, is anyone well-acquainted with the current LD resolution? "It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to domestic violence" I ran a neg case saying that it's actually morally praiseworthy/required.. judges really didn't like it lol.
So if I'm hitting someone who I absolutely can't understand, I should just read their case as they read (if it's on a laptop)?
Are you policy or LD? Because if you;re policy debating JV, Pace Academy LS will destroy you. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just repping for my best friend
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].
I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.
Using CX time to do something you should have done during their speech time is a major no-no. CX should be used to setup your upcoming arguments for your partner. Even if it's a new aff you've never seen before, you should have off-case args that work generically--set up for those.
Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Flow their arguments, don't let them turn your CX into additional speech time.
You didn't even read the post I was addressing/understand the context at all. A: this is LD, meaning he's most likely not going to have that broad a span of generic arguments to fill up his next speech, nor a partner to set up, and B this is presuming that he didn't understand anything that happened in the constructive (ie, couldn't understand/flow the spread), not just an opponent breaking a new case.
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.
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].
I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.
Using CX time to do something you should have done during their speech time is a major no-no. CX should be used to setup your upcoming arguments for your partner. Even if it's a new aff you've never seen before, you should have off-case args that work generically--set up for those.
Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Flow their arguments, don't let them turn your CX into additional speech time.
You didn't even read the post I was addressing/understand the context at all. A: this is LD, meaning he's most likely not going to have that broad a span of generic arguments to fill up his next speech, nor a partner to set up, and B this is presuming that he didn't understand anything that happened in the constructive, not just a new case.
Ah my bad. My judge hat went on a bit too quickly; what I posted about is a big pet peeve when having to judge prelims. At any rate if he utterly could not understand the other person's speech act, especially in LD, the judge likely couldn't understand it either. You end up in a much nicer place in-round than your opponent that way,
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
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.
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].
I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.
Using CX time to do something you should have done during their speech time is a major no-no. CX should be used to setup your upcoming arguments for your partner. Even if it's a new aff you've never seen before, you should have off-case args that work generically--set up for those.
Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Flow their arguments, don't let them turn your CX into additional speech time.
You didn't even read the post I was addressing/understand the context at all. A: this is LD, meaning he's most likely not going to have that broad a span of generic arguments to fill up his next speech, nor a partner to set up, and B this is presuming that he didn't understand anything that happened in the constructive, not just a new case.
Ah my bad. My judge hat went on a bit too quickly; what I posted about is a big pet peeve when having to judge prelims. At any rate if he utterly could not understand the other person's speech act, especially in LD, the judge likely couldn't understand it either. You end up in a much nicer place in-round than your opponent that way,
Unless it's just me, haha. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect spreading in a JV round and the judges should probably be prepared for it as well... ofc if I get a lay judge then it's a lot better for me probably.
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.
On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote: By they, you do mean the judge, right?
Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)
Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].
I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.
Using CX time to do something you should have done during their speech time is a major no-no. CX should be used to setup your upcoming arguments for your partner. Even if it's a new aff you've never seen before, you should have off-case args that work generically--set up for those.
Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Flow their arguments, don't let them turn your CX into additional speech time.
You didn't even read the post I was addressing/understand the context at all. A: this is LD, meaning he's most likely not going to have that broad a span of generic arguments to fill up his next speech, nor a partner to set up, and B this is presuming that he didn't understand anything that happened in the constructive, not just a new case.
Ah my bad. My judge hat went on a bit too quickly; what I posted about is a big pet peeve when having to judge prelims. At any rate if he utterly could not understand the other person's speech act, especially in LD, the judge likely couldn't understand it either. You end up in a much nicer place in-round than your opponent that way,
Yup, for a Harvard like tournament especially, and JV on top of that, most of the judging pool is probably lay (at least for prelims).
[Edit]
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
I think people like the above are misreading this thread as a place to debate about Team Liquid's forum policies/rules [which, to be fair, was what I first thought when I read the title haha xD], instead of being about the forensics high school/college activity.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 .
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.
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 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 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?
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 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 11:04 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 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 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.
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.
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 11:29 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
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 11:36 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 11:29 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 11:36 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 11:36 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 11:36 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 11:36 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 11:36 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.
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.
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 11:45 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 11:36 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 11:36 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 11:36 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 11:45 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.
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
This man is possibly the best debater ever. He is just god-like and watching him debate was amazing. Had him as a coach at debate camp which was pretty sick
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Little background I did policy for 4 years in HS qualified to national tournament twice state 4 times and won state once. I also coached for a year or two after leaving HS and going to the work force but I hadn't thought about debate for years until this post 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.
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.
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.
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.
It comes down to the activity requiring more than a few minutes reading a thread OP in order to be able to understand it. That's the beauty of the activity, the sheer complexity of it. It goes beyond merely speaking 'persuasively' and looking pretty for the audience.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also a T shell is an indictment of affirmative plan text saying that a way in which they use a word in the plan is being misdefined and that in doing so it puts the negative at an unfair disadvantage and that unfairdisadvantage should cause them to win for x votes.
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.
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.
Oh... I thought this thread was going to be about debating the policies of TLnet. Was eager to see who could incite the ban hammer to drop. Never mind.
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.
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.
.
First, the comment of policy being better "as a game" doesn't make sense, that literally drops to the level of apples and oranges; as games, their value is contingent upon subjective "fun" [in the competitive sense, and both have the same competitive structure]. It'd be like arguing whether playing zerg or terran is more fun.
As to the educational value, your effort at weighing analysis is pointless because the benefits are non-quantifiable and non-falsifiable, hence my claim that any attempt at saying one is better than the other is absurd. Additionally, the only unique distinction between policy and LD [at least that you draw here] is the year-round topic versus revolving topics. Yet, the only educational advantage this has among those you cite ("research, logic, comprehension and critical thinking") is to that of research. First, as nice as it is to learn about current events, true education is about shaping processes of thinking, not merely filling in the brain with content, as A: that memory will naturally fade anyways, and B: the process of thinking has a fundamentally greater magnitude in affecting a person's conscious awareness in treating all forms of knowledge for the rest of their life. In fact, LD arguably benefits the process of thinking more by having a less stable framework of debate, as the offense-defense paradigm is not assumed, meaning that the greater flexibility and analysis of this more fundamental level forces people to think in a more critical sense by questioning basic assumptions rather than operating on plain facts built on those implicit ideas. Second, the breadth versus depth debate is a false dichotomy. In reality, every plan and K creates its own specific topic, with its own realm of analysis and research to be performed, and likewise in LD. Sure, there are tons of plans available in policy, but there are also tons of different cases in LD, multiplied by the number of topics [as well as the fact that there are independent cases for both affs and negs]. Add that to the fact that the Jan-Feb topic is also used for TOC, you essentially have a half-year-long topic mixed in with all the other topics, so the cumulative time of research for the different topics arguably is longer than that of policy. Finally, the only real difference is in the amount of time spent in research, which has zero uniqueness to policy.
Now, I'm not actually arguing that LD > policy, it's just force of habit that has me making offense-oriented arguments for my side . In reality, the impossibility of any real comparison point is the most straightforward and undeniable.
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.
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.
.
First, the comment of policy being better "as a game" doesn't make sense, that literally drops to the level of apples and oranges; as games, their value is contingent upon subjective "fun" [in the competitive sense, and both have the same competitive structure]. It'd be like arguing whether playing zerg or terran is more fun.
As to the educational value, your effort at weighing analysis is pointless because the benefits are non-quantifiable and non-falsifiable, hence my claim that any attempt at saying one is better than the other is absurd. Additionally, the only unique distinction between policy and LD [at least that you draw here] is the year-round topic versus revolving topics. Yet, the only educational advantage this has among those you cite ("research, logic, comprehension and critical thinking") is to that of research. First, as nice as it is to learn about current events, true education is about shaping processes of thinking, not merely filling in the brain with content, as A: that memory will naturally fade anyways, and B: the process of thinking has a fundamentally greater magnitude in affecting a person's conscious awareness in treating all forms of knowledge for the rest of their life. In fact, LD arguably benefits the process of thinking more by having a less stable framework of debate, as the offense-defense paradigm is not assumed, meaning that the greater flexibility and analysis of this more fundamental level forces people to think in a more critical sense by questioning basic assumptions rather than operating on plain facts built on those implicit ideas. Second, the breadth versus depth debate is a false dichotomy. In reality, every plan and K creates its own specific topic, with its own realm of analysis and research to be performed, and likewise in LD. Sure, there are tons of plans available in policy, but there are also tons of different cases in LD, multiplied by the number of topics [as well as the fact that there are independent cases for both affs and negs]. Add that to the fact that the Jan-Feb topic is also used for TOC, you essentially have a half-year-long topic mixed in with all the other topics, so the cumulative time of research for the different topics arguably is longer than that of policy. Finally, the only real difference is in the amount of time spent in research, which has zero uniqueness to policy.
Now, I'm not actually arguing that LD > policy, it's just force of habit that has me making offense-oriented arguments for my side . In reality, the impossibility of any real comparison point is the most straightforward and undeniable.
Well ya you wouldn't want him to kick the position after you spent so long on the line by line :-p
On February 17 2012 15:59 Felnar wrote: 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.
Sure. As for myself, I've always valued policy more over other forms of the activity. As I've grown older, I've come to realize that most of why that is so is because policy was the only thing I ever had the opportunity to do. I wish my school had been larger, because that would have given us the ability to perhaps try out other speech activities. Who knows, I might have liked them as much as I did policy.
On February 17 2012 16:02 Mortality wrote: Oh... I thought this thread was going to be about debating the policies of TLnet. Was eager to see who could incite the ban hammer to drop. Never mind.
Well, carry on.
Hahhaahh I thought that at first too. It was like "ooooo spicy"
On February 17 2012 16:02 Mortality wrote: Oh... I thought this thread was going to be about debating the policies of TLnet. Was eager to see who could incite the ban hammer to drop. Never mind.
Well, carry on.
Hahhaahh I thought that at first too. It was like "ooooo spicy"
Hahaha lol, No I would've gotten temp banned for sure, no debate necessary
Hey OP, maybe you should post a few links about basic argumentation. I thought I'd throw this one out-- it outlines some common logical fallacies. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Vvq5.png)
