did you or did you not disclose your case? answer me now *or suffer my wrath*

4:09 is definitely a k debater

LMAO I LOVE THIS GAME!

im at this tourney rn 10 years after, i spotted three k debaters great job debate@@hellohowareyou9745

Run Death good on that boi.

I'd run the Steve Murray Deleuze and Guattari K on those boys.

@@mattaecus Baudy 4 dayz

@@jamesmop7759 are you an active debater?

@@mattaecus Yeah. I do circuit LD tho...

Big brain: call anyone racist who calls you out

Thats an actual debate framework

I'm pretty sure that could work as super niche theory lmao

I'll just read T-FWK on you, then say presumption negates because you have a different advocacy from the plan text AND your performance K doesn't spillover to the real world

Must spread at 1200 wpm.

man the flow need to go hard thats how you win the rounds

why would you not like it? These are the smartest debaters in the country

I never said that they were the smartest debaters in the country, but do you really have evidence that they're intellect is far superior than all debaters in our country. I personally don't like spreading because it's hard to flow accuratley while the debater is flowing and if the judge can't understand what they're saying then what's the point? As a debater, I've had judges say not to spread because it's hard for them to flow also. Murdoc Kolder

Arie The Fire Sign Lol i have the same problem. I like parlimentary though

i hate spreading, its horrible, useless and overall hard to understand

you have 8 minutes. Not 10.

The correct answer to a "controversial speed argument" is to slow down. The correct answer to anything in conversation is to slow down and unpack what is being said. That is if you want to approach truth. If you just perform for an audience, of course go ahead and use all of those stupid tricks.

Policy Debate takes bad habits people have and maximize them by x 1000. The point is not to have a conversation, anyone who has done policy debate knows the point is to overwhelm the opponent so they drop arguments. This is the exact same thing as the psuedo-debate technique known as the gish gallop. This is no longer debating like P.F. or traditonal L.D. or very old school Policy but nonsense.

With Policy Debate you can break apart arguments at a lot of different areas. If you're good at policy you'd understand links, impacts, credibility, etc. You also read up on a crapload of theory arguments.

@@MrCmon113policy debate is a game, deal with it. Also, these speeds are needed to address a lot of issues in limited times

@@CapsFan117 maybe at low level tournaments you outspread opponents. But at high levels everyone can function at speed and you get deep discussion at 350 wpm

If you think Util is futile I'll just read woller XD

No, you're not allowed to use Internet in rounds. Maybe if the tournament allows it, but to all the open tournaments I've been to its a definite no-no. Because it's literally cheating >_>. If you catch someone tell the judge and the judge will check or whatnot. But it's pretty hard to catch someone because you can just put Airplane mode on really quickly and it'd be no issue. But in final and semi-finals they tend to have people sit behind the debaters too so they can see what you're doing. I mean, I've heard of people using hangouts in the middle of rounds to get their coaches to help them, I've seen people use the internet, and I've heard people cheat by cutting info off the ends of lines or whatnot.

@@mastersanada depends. on many national tournaments dont care as much

​@@123rtXd No. I would argue National tournaments definitely enforce the "No Wifi" rule. Unless their source is shady thats the only time that I can see it being used. Because lets face it, there are plenty of weird sources out there and I'm guessing it's practical to check. But in round? Never use Internet. More prestigious the tournament the more Wifi is banned. I haven't been to a tournament where the rules were you can use Wifi. Ofc, emailing files is different, but using Wifi for any other purpose is prohibited.

@@mastersanada a number of toc bid tournaments do/don't have a way to really check anyway.

@@123rtXd Yea TOC bid tournaments have that issue xd. But I'd say that TOC and Nats definitely got strict rules on that stuff. I think usually it's up to the judges and the debaters to actually catch people cheating in round. I've seen the audience alert the judge before and I've seen tournament officials sitting behind the debaters so that they can see their screens too.

he seems to be thinking that they are being possessed by spirits. Can't blame him, considering they look like K debaters

+Devin Vering What are you saying? I fail to see the connection between intricacies of policy debate and the gross issue of not being able to understand what's being said. How can one persuade without giving people the ability to reflect on what's being said to them, meanwhile, what does that have to do with knowing the intricacies of a particular type of debate competition. Debate comps were meant to prepare someone for a real-world debate, teaching useful real-world skills along the way... Enter a boardroom, talk like these kids, and see how quickly you get laughed out of the room.

Do you even do debate? No one's going to talk like this obviously in real-world politics, and Policy Debate spreading isn't meant to prepare us for actually making policies either. In policy debate, the judges and the opponents (if they're good) can understand what is being said. The purpose of Policy Debate is not exactly who has the most persuasive arguments; it's about weighing them like on a scale.

Iris Peng​ this is my entire argument in a nutshell, paired with the fact you're obviously an "insider" vs my "uninformed outsider perspective". If it's not a facsimile to real world debate, it's not measured like real world arguments (most persuasive vs largest volume), and it doesn't prepare you to make actual policies... Then what, pray tell, is the purpose and/or value? You've accidentally backed up my whole thesis. Get a real hobby that doesn't teach you to talk like a robotic fact-repeater. It's poorly prepared you for debate so seemlessly that you just poked yourself in the eye without even recognizing it. /thread

Chris Campbell Does ice skating mean that you'll survive the world if there's an ice age? No. There's simply no correlation because ice skating is not MEANT to prepare you for real-world situations. Similarly, policy debaters speaking quickly is not meant for real life debates; obviously if it were a real-life debate, we would speak slow enough for a common audience to hear, but that is reserved for "public forum debate." We learn how to way pros and cons, answer blocks, use evidence as arguments, form analysis on the spot, etc. And we get to research in depth about a certain resolution every year, 2016-2016 being engagement with the People's Republic of China. Obviously if it's enjoyable, then you can keep your own criticism to yourself since it affects you in no way. Btw if you check the list of notable policy debaters, several of them are involved in politics and law, and some even became president.

No, but practicing ice skating prepares me to ice skate. You can't artificially expand the comparison just to make it work in your favor. What I ask is that participants spent the valuable and limited practice time on the arguments and their structure, not how to speak at the pace shown. If the speed, as you admit here, does not transfer as a skill to other venues, scrap it so you stop making silly arguments. What you've done at the end to drive home your point is a classic mistake, you assume causality when you've only presented correlation (at best). This is case-in-point of my belief that you should spend more time on the content and less on the rate of delivery. If we continue your poorly constructed example, it actually does affect me because participants in your goofy debates are apparently going to be future public servants.

The first few speeches maybe. But later speeches are only slightly slower (250 or 300 wpm) and are very much analytical and not prescriped.

+EthanMakesVideos OK that's good to know. I am filling in CX tomorrow - any basic advice for a PFer?

Madeleine Nagle I know this is a little late, but advice for a pf-er doing policy: Read cards, impact calc, overview, line-by-line. Impact calc is the most important part of policy debate.

sammmmmme!

Madeleine Nagle well, i mean, policy is essentially PF tag team so

**retches**

Well yes, I _literally_ can't understand it because they are mumbling too fast.

@jabberwolf this is a game

That's just a horrible thing to get used to. The goal of conversation should always be to approach truth. Not to "win" by wooing someone. You are teaching those children to be obnoxious hacks like Dinesh D'Souza.

@@MrCmon113 You misunderstood completely. The goal wasn't to have good conversations, but to be persuasive. There's a time and a place for both, but debaters will annihilate others at persuasion.

Taxtro It’s not conversation, it’s debate. Speaking faster lets you get to more arguments, and be more efficient overall. If a policy debated actually wanted to debate with a non-debater, they can speak slower

@@MrCmon113 this is a game!

@@skepticmoderate5790 well not really. policy makes you good at analyzing arguments, finding flaws, and gathering evidence and such. What it doesn't teach you is how to speak persuasively, nor public speaking. There's not much tone of voice in spreading, so it's not like you're being taught how to relate to an audience, which is the main time you'll be persuasive.

Um no at national tournaments everyone does this

Go to national tournaments... everyone spreads

I mean if ur arguing "trumps base leave" at the top of ur 10 cards in the 1ac and ur impact of "nuclear war with iran" is at the way bottom and ur reading in a normal pace then ur def not gonna get ur needed arguments = boring debate w no clash

LD spreads and pf is seeing spreading rise. policy is still probably the best format but im an LDer

@@123rtXd pf literally made to counteract spreading.

banoop100 Yeah and some abuse theory blocks lol. However, you only need to say slow down and your opponent will.

+RKFCGSBGK These students spend a great deal of time on the research to understand the issues and their significance. Someone new to the event probably couldn't keep up but these students become experts in the field. The presentation of arguments in speeches (called constructives) is only part of the contest. There are also questioning periods (called cross examination) that go at a mostly normal pace in which they do a pretty incredible amount of analysis of the information just presented. In addition they are required to have a fairly advanced knowledge of philosophy to make the underlying importance of the argument in terms of consequentialism or deontological perspectives.

ntcouncil42 I guess I just don't understand this contest since I'm barely becoming aware of its existence. It's very interesting but I'll just assume my ignorance on this is why I don't understand it.

+RKFCGSBGK You're not wrong, just because self-styled "experts" deem it perceptible doesn't mean it's not a useless skill to teach kids due to its terrible impracticality for all real-world persuasion interactions. If talk like the video, get ignored in the real world, therefore why waste time learning useless skill is a solid logic loop. Stand your ground (though I tip my cap for your willingness to learn/be aware of your own ignorance).

Spreading is truly a skill only useful in the round, I can agree with that. What is useful is the ability to process the information and formulate a response. I don't think anyone would say that the speed of speaking has a real world use, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what the students are learning as a waste of time, considering the amount of detailed analysis these competitors are capable of.

I've seen the watermelon drill and similar that these guys/gals do, so if we agree to put that time into reading more (not that they aren't already) and we're good to go.

Noone hates a bunch of nerds babbling. It's just fun to mock them.

@jabberwolf The people involved are trained to hear and follow the information.

Oh that's it, im running a spreading K.

/r/iamverysmart

wrong context for this comment /r/therewasanattempt

+f0rt1ss1m0 _ You know damn well this fits there.

Wooing others by vomiting a lot of information at once or responding super quickly are not skills I want to teach young people. This kind of "debate" makes the children obnoxious hacks unable to have a constructive conversation.

Criminally under appreciated comment my friend. 🥲

Pf and ld is good. Congress isn't even a debate.

They are

They are, they’re reading from cards. Usually at that point they can recite the tag lines of their cards though

I think that is the point of debate. It is an exercise in the formation of logical arguments and spotting the fallacy in arguments. Yes, there are a lot of bad arguments, there are a lot of bad arguments in every aspect of life, the skill is to identify why they are bad and create arguments showing how they are bad.

bverji Sure, but spreading makes it easier for debaters to get away with bad arguments. It’s like people no longer care about making good arguments. Instead they try and make arguments quickly to make it difficult for opponents to comprehend and respond effectively. Additionally, it takes away the thorough, more well-thought arguments, simply because we don’t have the time to be thorough if we have to speak so quickly. Spreading values quantity over quality, and that decreases the richness and value one can get from a slower, more well thought out approach to debating.

​@@vaibhavsinha7291 "Sure, but spreading makes it easier for debaters to get away with bad arguments" Not significantly. The arguments that spreading is used are prewritten. It is customary to have the arguments to follow along with. People can read much faster than anyone can talk. "It’s like people no longer care about making good arguments" That is literally the focus of policy debate and why they sacrifice presentation to make better more involved arguments. "Spreading values quantity over quality," It is actually the exact opposite. You are viewing it from your limited experience. Students are trained in this so they can provide more information to make better more complex arguments within the limited time. "that decreases the richness and value one can get from a slower, more well thought out approach to debating." There is absolutely no correlation to talking faster and thinking longer, richer, deeper. Debaters have separate time to form arguments, they aren't creating their arguments on the fly as they speak.

+Dan Jones Speed reading in policy debate is only half the battle. I get that speaking fast and using jargon in a room with people who understand it as well and no one in the real world does doesnt seem to make sense. But it's like training as a boxer. Boxers on average jog about 15 miles a week. Now fights typically only last 10 rounds and each one only being 3 minutes, but there's no way that each boxer is going to run 15 miles in those 10 rounds. But the long term benefit of running those 15 miles is that those boxers will now be able to keep their energy up for longer times. Applying this to debate, policy debaters don't always start speed reading in a public debate or say even if they are in some sort of city council debate. This is obviously very silly. But having that skill of long term - overwhelming argumentation would help policy debaters be able to condense their arguments more precisely much like how a boxer prolongs their endurance in boxing rounds. I myself being a policy debater have had judges who know absolutely nothing about policy debate. So I, like many other debaters, have learned to sort of "adapt" the way we debate to best appeal to the non-experienced judge in a way so that they could follow the debate as well. How we do this is by obviously slowing down our speed, clarifying, and clearing up our arguments. The only reason that speed reading and debating is preferred is because it's basically a more advanced level of debating. Sort of like the difference between a soccer game for elementary students and a FIFA world cup soccer game. Both are the same thing, but there is a obvious difference between them. I really hope this changes your opinion on policy debate, thank you for reading :)

***** I just doesn't seem like a debate to me, it seems like there's little discussion/refutation going on. You just pile on the words. Debates should be held point by point and discussed by both sides to be accessible to the audience. I find it very hard to believe that anyone manages to have the time to dissect any of the arguments put forth because of the absolute barrage within which it is delivered.

To a certain extend you're right. Not every argument is withheld in rounds. Some arguments are purposely dropped because debaters would usually considered them not argumentively viable enough and they prioritize a different argument instead. This is why everyone in the round uses note paper to write down arguments said to keep track of what is functionally "dropped" after a speech. Not everyone just simply remembers everything read after a speech, they write it down. And usually when something important is dropped (which happens often, debaters are human, no robots), the judges who also wrote down the arguments will give tips to the debaters and tell them what could improve on. In review, arguments are indeed held point by point. But in terms of be accessible to an audience, it's true not many would be able to follow. But policy debate isn't the only form of debate, there are many other forms of debate that are more traditional. But Policy debate is just held to a higher standard because it's a lot more complicated and requires an infinite amount of time to get good at. I get that you would think that no one would be able to dissent certain arguments in that barrage of arguments, but it's more than that. Not every speech is like that. Usually the First Affirmative and Negative Constructive speeches are spoken very fast to initiate the debate. Afterwords, debaters slow down and take time to "flesh out" arguments previously stated and pick and choose which arguments they want the judge to evaluate the most. For example, a debater would read about how their plan would solve for US hegemony and secondly how it would also solve for climate change. If their opponent read many arguments on the hegemony argument and not the climate change argument, sometimes the debater would "concede" some of their opponents arguments on the hegemony flow. Debaters conceding an argument does not mean they admit defeat, they just decided that certain argument wasn't important enough for the win because they would still have the climate change argument. In a sense, not every point is fleshed out. Only certain points are. That's because policy debate is like a chess game, you pick and choose what pieces you keep and lose. If you still disagree with this setup, I don't blame you. It's totally understandable that you would rather have a debate where every argument is fleshed out more. That just doesn't happen in policy all the time because debaters are constantly pressed for time. But at the same time, in policy debate you could actually come into round and talk about why this type of debate is bad and you could have a legitimate debate about it. Judges and debaters consider all arguments an argument and find it their duty to answer them no matter what. If you were see a debate like this, you would see very many debaters justify their current form of debate very viably and you might change your mind. But yeah, this video doesn't do nearly enough coverage on what policy debate is and I feel like they're at fault for people not agreeing with this form of debate. But then again, there's a reason why this event is on a national level and is still considered very prestigious.

Whether it seems like a debate to you or not, there is a LOT of discussion and refutation going on. The students are trained to understand it. However, it is true that it's pretty inaccessible to most audiences. Really, it's all because a long time ago, some guy went up at a tournament and spoke this fast for the first time when he should've been disqualified. Ever since, this is how it is.

That's novice policy though

badmuthahubbard mhmm in dope audiobooks kappa. Well its good for enouciating words

People sovling Rubik's Cubes don't impact public discourse.

It teaches you to form and rebut arguments quicker. That's a real-world skill.

Ofc, you learn from it, and you gain skills about argumentation that will be important throughout your whole life. The speaking fast just makes it more efficient to compare and make arguments.

Hah, those are warrants. We don't care about those. Listen for them TAGS.

f0rt1ss1m0 _ 😂 agreed

no,

Lucas Peters I agree , no

They aren't "double breathing..." they're taking single breaths. These guys are not bad at speed reading, it's just that the news anchors are trying to emphasize the speed reading which really doesn't matter.

...This is shit? Tell that to the debaters that are spending hours a day researching. Then, come back when you know how to debate Topicality, Theory, Kritiks, Counter-plans, and disads. You may feel that the Oxford/Cambridge debates are good... Because you can understand slow speaking. Don't hate what you can't understand.

This is amazing training. The thing is, you have to be able to win both ways. They can beat you off paper. But they should be able to and encouraged to win both ways. Not just as a technical advantage over another in a debate, not just through the superior of fact, but with a heartfelt affirmation that the better argument is argued by the better communicator. The formulas should be as butter-crooned at 1/4 speed as full rate.

You do realize this is completely and utterly useless, right? Their speaking style is absolutely horrible, their breathing is strange and irregular, and there is no beauty, satisfaction, or rhythm to anything they say. Not to mention, what is the point of speaking if NO ONE can understand a single word? In fact, getting into this bad habit of speed debating makes you a worse public speaker.

Kunal Sinha if you make it to finals, tradition dictates that you speak at normal pace with the full oratory arsenal. i guarantee you top spreaders.will eviscerate you, what you think, disgrace your family, and make you remember them the rest of your life. But yeah, it takes training to even listen to what they are saying. Lay judges gonna lay.

Now you're just being condescending. Not to mention, you still cannot seem to explain what the actual purpose of speed debating is. Speed debating is the quite literally, by definition, the exact same thing as normal debating, except you speak so fast no one can understand you. This type of debating style will not help you at all once you enter the real world, whether it be law or politics; in fact, learning to speak in this bizarre, unnatural way is not only useless, it's a detriment to your speaking ability. Please explain to me why this is a good idea.

+army103 Speed reading in policy debate is only half the battle. I get that speaking fast and using jargon in a room with people who understand it as well and no one in the real world does doesnt seem to make sense. But it's like training as a boxer. Boxers on average jog about 15 miles a week. Now fights typically only last 10 rounds and each one only being 3 minutes, but there's no way that each boxer is going to run 15 miles in those 10 rounds. But the long term benefit of running those 15 miles is that those boxers will now be able to keep their energy up for longer times. Applying this to debate, policy debaters don't always start speed reading in a public debate or say even if they are in some sort of city council debate. This is obviously very silly. But having that skill of long term - overwhelming argumentation would help policy debaters be able to condense their arguments more precisely much like how a boxer prolongs their endurance in boxing rounds. I myself being a policy debater have had judges who know absolutely nothing about policy debate. So I, like many other debaters, have learned to sort of "adapt" the way we debate to best appeal to the non-experienced judge in a way so that they could follow the debate as well. How we do this is by obviously slowing down our speed, clarifying, and clearing up our arguments. The only reason that speed reading and debating is preferred is because it's basically a more advanced level of debating. Sort of like the difference between a soccer game for elementary students and a FIFA world cup soccer game. Both are the same thing, but there is a obvious difference between them. I really hope this changes your opinion on policy debate, thank you for reading :)

+Tommy Mounarath This is a style of debate that I was completely unaware of and, in spite of your description above (which I honestly do appreciate), I have to agree with the original comment. Outside of this academic arena, debates about policy are won by a combination of presentation skill and (if we're lucky) well researched positions. As far as I can surmise, the above style is essentialy a timed essay contest in which the essays are read to the judges rather than being submitted as text. The reading part seems purely ceremonial and offers little practical benefit to anybody (unless you're also training to be an auctioneer or rapper on the side). The thing that I really have against this speed style is that its "presentation skills" are considered bad habits nearly all other areas of public speaking. Rapidly spitting the highest number of facts at an opponent is a rookie move that usually causes the audience to shut down and ignore your point. Instead, the important skill in the "real world" is to identify your audience's biases and present no more than three points that you think will appeal to them. Accessibility and brevity is key; anything else can be safely relegated to a whitepaper appendix.

But I have to clarify, the reading of the first few speeches are the norm of the debate. As in, it happens often but not all the time. There are debaters who take it a different way and aim to be more presentive. But in no way is this form of debate NOT practical in real world skills. Debaters are not speaking robots, they learn to properly adapt their speaking style according to the judges. Often times, there will be a judge who is inexperienced, so the debaters will take it down a notch to make it to where the judge can keep up. Also, Debates in congress can last way longer than a debate round (which is nearly 2 hours long). Just look at congress, it's not often bills are passed and they're almost hundreds of pages every time. Debaters can't fully replicate that in a 2 hour time span and the event coordinators aren't going to change the rules for that. The only form of debate similar to a real congress session is called congress debate. It fits perfectly in what you want, but it lacks everything intellectual that policy debate provides. Congress consists of about 15 to 20 kids in a room, who have prepared 3 minute long speeches on wither or not to support the bills presented. It actually goes about 2 sessions per tournament and each one is a bit longer than a policy debate. But the judges don't judge the kids according to how argumentively sound they are, they judge them according to how many speeches they give and how good the speech sounded. But arguments on a single bill are almost never carried over for more than 5 minutes. In a policy debate, there are multiple arguments but eventually only a select few get fully developed through out the entire debate, giving those arguments the intellect they deserve. The sole purpose of policy debate is to engage in a fully purely argumentively strong argument. Not some simplified version of a bill that passes cyber security. Because debates generate their arguments so strongly, there's a reason the topic doesn't change the entire year. Topics go from economic and diplomatic engagement, to space, ocean, and energy development. There's plenty of former debaters who have been able to run the public very well. Lyndon B Johnson, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Malcolm X, and many more. In fact, my debate coach who was a policy debater in highschool and college, ran for mayor in some town in idaho, who the running mayor had always been around for a long time, and he almost won the election. My debate coach was a renowned college debate coach across the nation and every single person in the debate community knows who he is. He's very educated on very many topics. Other forms of debate change their topic every 1 or 2 months, and their debates only last around 45 minutes. Do you think a 45 minute debate could cover substantial amounts about topics like gun control, military presence in okinawa, or free community college? Those are all pretty large topics and it certainly takes congress more than 45 minutes to talk about them, and when they do, they speak way more than 4 minutes, which is the norm of how long you have to present your case. Policy debates are simulation formatted. As in, the affirmative presents a plan about the topic, creating a "hypothetical status quo" and the negative talks about why that status quo would be bad. Right from the get go, the system doesnt seem very "real world" because nobody in congress does simulations. But we do simulations because we're debaters, not congressmen, and we have no power to actually pass bills. So learning about how those bills turn out is what we aim to do and to be quite frank, when president truman decided to drop the bomb on Japan, he didn't talk about it to the public and try to convince them he was right, he just talked to a few people in a room who knew what he was talking about and he just did it. There's a lot of things the government does without trying to "present" to the public. Just look at the pentagon and the NSA. Everyone is blowing up about privacy rights. They don't talk about those kinds of things until its already a problem. As debaters, we simulate the repurcussions of such governmental actions and try our best to prevent such events to happen. Policy debaters are everywhere in the nation and they have the capabilities to take up any position they want. Just look at Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon getting involved in politics with not much political experience. Sure you may argue that he is able to speak to the public well, but imagine if everything he said was actually argumentively sound. He just said he didnt like trump but he endorses him because he promised a spot. Who trusts a man like trump in the first place? If a neurosurgeon can ran for president, so can a debater. And debaters already have all the technical skills that you're saying isn't provided with this type of debate. Because again, that speed reading isn't the entire debate. IT's the norm. not all debaters do it. Plus, the debate space is very open, which means anything is welcome. That means that debaters can talk about how speed reading is exclusionary to those who are: poor, disabled, not american, or not caucasian. There have been many debates about how dominantly white the debate space is, not just in population. Any arguments you have about why policy debate or the form of debate that exists is bad, could be said in a debate round and it will be valued just as much as any other argument.

+Tommy Mounarath Of course I'm not claiming that there are no benefits to participating in this sort of debate, nor am I calling you and your peers robots, nor am I claiming that understanding policy is unimportant. You folks do lots of research and preparation which certainly gives you a leg up in life. My only clam is that the oration format might be doing the students a disservice and, if you're going to verbally state your positions, you might as well learn to sound compelling. If you don't care about making it sound good, why not change the contest into an essay format? Whether you are giving a speech to the public or to the board room, there's a reason that nobody speaks like an auctioneer (I assume you know that). This doesn't mean the information isn't important but in the real world much of the challenge is making it understandable. This is ESPECIALLY true in the professional world. Try giving a fast barrage of information to a four star general or a top executive; ten seconds in, he'll stop you and say "Give it to me in two sentences and I'll tell you if I want to hear more." Also, if my reading is correct, the specific policy debaters you cited were all well out of high school before this rapid-fire technique was adopted in the 60s. (not saying that successful folks haven't come out of the program since, just saying)

+Tommy Mounarath Still, you're using/training in skills that have zero practical value outside of this little world of debate competitions. You're developing accuracy-by-volume structure and delivery skills that aren't just poor facsimiles for real-world skills, they're poor habits that will actively hinder you in a real world "persuasion situation".

+MrCool Mug There is proper debate. Public forum debate is very similar to what you're trying to say. But policy debate is just a different caliber.

You have no idea how many hours of research policy debaters put into this. These debaters do countless research about hegemony, international relations, economics, nuclear war, politics, critical theory, epistemology, ontology, pedagogy, philsophy, evidence based claims and warrants and countless amounts of evidence cut. Research things like Nietzche, Zizek, Marx, Edelman, Queer Theory, Anti-Blackness based mostly off of Wilderson, Foucault's theory of biopower and Agamben's theory of Biopolitics, discourse and rhetoric, ableism, feminism, Ethos, Pathos, Logos, Domestic surveillance, Ocean exploration and development, economic engagement with Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc., Neoliberalism, Realism, Mearshimer, Calculative thought, analysis of argumentation, international relations, terrorism, colonialism, and so much more. If you don't know what all the things I just listed are, you have no right to call it stupid. There's a reason why policy debate is a big deal on the college circuit and why no other debate really is. I myself have earned a full ride scholarship because of it. Something "stupid" doesn't do that for you. You can't call something stupid when you know absolutely nothing about it.

***** I'm aware of those things, and even know about many of them. I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss these topics (That's called strawmaning by the way), I'm saying I disagree with this ridiculous method of spurting out words at an incomprehending pace. It isn't even a real debate. You can earn a scholarship in all sorts of foolishness at university these days, just look at that whole fucking womens studies crowd and black studies etc.

Practically only the first negative and affirmative speeches consist of reading evidence off of paper and laptops. Every speech after that debaters actually answer their arguments, but again there's way too much answer in just 8 minutes. Speed is required just to catch up. You still know nothing about this event and thereby have no warrants to claim what"real" debate is. The public debates that republicans and democrats have on live television are pathetic in comparison to this. They're basically reality T.V. shows more than they are debates. And citing women's and black's studies as "foolish" scholarships really speaks about where you're coming from on your opinion.

***** Do you think womens and black studies are good classes to take? Are they, or rather, have they ever helped anyone get a job or helped them expand their mind? I think not. I think it's propaganda. A real debate is when two or more people come together to discuss a problem or topic in the hopes of finding an answer or solution. Its for anyone, as long as they know how to reason. What you have is something that seeks to rarefy debate into an elitist form that is impenetrable to most people. This is dangerous, it also isn't a real debate to just splurge facts out at a rate of knots. You have to actually argue and discuss and reason with the other person(s). How you can do that by spitting out words incomprehendingly is a fucking mystery to me.

First, comparing the difference between arithmetic and calculus to the difference between policy debate and philosophical debate is not apt because calculus necessitates at least some level of arithmetic knowledge (in most cases). However, it is completely possible to run a philosophical argument against a plan without understanding the complexity of the plan or the evidence that supports it.

Second, most of the "philosophy" brought up in policy debate is mostly critical theory. It is mostly based on Marxism, or psychoanalysis, or some combination of the two (schizoanalysis). These topics are way too intricate in logical structure and difficult to read that I could hardly imagine the people reading these things understand more than 75% of what they're saying. Conceptualize yourself as a "weak policy debater," who now has to argue against something they do not really understand with evidence that is vaguely related to the critical theory involved. At the point where what you understand is more important than if what you understand actually makes sense, you might as well just make up your own shorthand for every multisyllabic word that you mention (oh wait, that's happening now). Lastly, if a team knows what you do not understand, then they can just respond to your arguments explaining why their critical theory is incorrect with more strings of words you do not understand. Is it the policy debater's fault that they do not understand the writings of PhDs and MDs, who have a crazy amount of experience and education?

If an actual conversation is arithmetic then this "debate" is painting numbers. There is nothing "nuanced" about vomiting information at your audience so fast that it's barely comprehensible.

This isn’t a very recent thing. Policy debate has had high speeds like this since the 80s.

No way. We spread so we can talk about more stuff and get in more information.

Crackpot theory. People have only gotten more educated and informed over time.

This is a game. Policy is a game. Deal

It's a competitive event. What you think people should focus on is irrelevant to those who are competitive.

Education is an impact in debate, so debate naturally corrects itself to be more educational

This is a game

@Joshua Lee did oxford debate. you know - the one for normal people

topster888 how does talking fast make it useless?

David McWilliams can *you* understand what the hell they're saying?

Yes

You realize that their are judges in each round that understand what the teams are saying, if not then the round could not be judged? And the debaters have to understand what each other are saying to actually debate. As a debater, you sound very ignorant.

David McWilliams Well, tbh, if they don't understand what they are saying, then they ask to slow down. Usually, between good opponents, all parties understand.

Not in my circuit

Um no you spread more at national tournaments and the toc.

Dude you ONLY spread at nationals... this is policy.

If someone has a knack/the will, which I did, to learn debate at this LEVEL. Then slowing down, in the "real" world, and speaking with the same LEVEL of precision and articulation that high school policy debate induces; makes arguing/convincing a board room member or CEO of something trivial, almost boring. The LEVEL that a persons critical faculties function are far faster and well adapted to process information/situations when one is forced to "compute" SOLUTIONS TO REAL WORLD ISSUES at this speed. Spreading is key to next level thinking. What this news program doesn't cover as well, is the LEVEL of research tools/methods that competitive high school policy teaches. I would also like to stress the term "competitive." Nowadays if a debate tournament disallows spreading via the judging pool, when someone like me shows up; the tournament to an individual versed in spreading is considered a "layup." Almost a laughable affair. Simply, because no one else at "x" tournament has the ability to think/problem solve at the speed which spreading facilitates. Of course now I am a lowly judge, and whenever I hear "spreading is bad theory." I begin to laugh; it's a complete misunderstanding of the entire concept/reasoning behind what spreading UNLOCKS within the minds of young people.

+Christian Gotsch, sorry man you are false. I am a policy debater which is what this is, all of your information must be empirical. You have to supply authors, everything you say has to be backed. Analytical arguements typically are not flowed, and if they are they are usually weak. Often times people will question the feasibility of whatever information you are proposing based on the author you used. For example running an apocolysm kritik written by justin bieber is questionable.

+Christian Gotsch Yeah, the other dude is right. These debaters don't just read a bunch of arguments. Most of the things they are reading fast are articles from credible authors who they research before the round. How they would usually read the evidence is "US Hegemony is key to world economy, that's Ikenberry in 2007" and then they would read Ikenberry's article.

Dude you go and try to make these arguments. The trick is to find an article, then make an argument using the information in the article but not necessarily the article's thesis.

@Murdoc How about you actually debate instead? Have a go at a subject, get refuted and adapt instead of spewing your essays at people without refutation? There is no counter-argument in this sort of debate, it's willful ignorance in speech form.

thairrificflute Well, for instance, learning about philosophical and dense polisci theories in order to construct kritiks and k affs, maybe?

hi! i know i'm six years late. but unless you actually participate in this event or actively witness it, you don't have enough knowledge to make the distinction between "debate" and "gibberish".

+ClockworkCleffa But most judges arent like that, and when debaters are presented with lay judges, they adapt the style of debate to them.

Where have you been for the last 2 decades? Nerds rule the world.

The point of any debate is to learn. Policy is a more complex and content full debate. Every year a topic is introduced, and teams gather and compile evidence. The reason debaters talk fast is because there are many points to be made. NSDA finals make speed readers, or spreaders, slow down for TV. However, less arguments can be made. It takes a ton of effort to be able to quickly use evidence, create strong arguments, and concentrate to all arguments made. Talking fast enables teams to make viable arguments with evidence. In general, policy debate is incredibly hard. For instance, cross examination takes place after each speech, and the goal of a debater is to attack all links, points, and evidence. It takes quick thinking and good attention to be able to deliver a good cross ex. Plus, this extra curric provides some good backbone for your college resume. Don't critic the art without learning about it fool.