Jump to content
Nelsonwins94

Why does Speed kill Policy debate?

Recommended Posts

I have noticed over the past few years how many debaters have left policy to join pf and LD. not just individually but some whole teams switch over. Most say its because they cant keep up with the speed both in comprehension and in amount of evidence needed. Is speed Killing policy? and if so why?

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly has at my school. We have people coming to the interest meeting and specifically asking if we do the "fast talking debate." All people see about policy is Resolved, and that turns them away.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This process is called "natural selection." Weak debaters are weeded out, while strong debaters continue further in policy debate. Let it run its course, or soon CX will become full of those who are only smart enough to be able to compete at the PFD level.

But that right there is just what im talking about. isnt it bad that weaker debaters are leaving because they cant keep up? isnt it bad how we are exluding kids from this sport because they may have a learning disability or a physical disability like dyslexia or a stutter? shouldnt we slow down debate to account for all individuals and allows for the most fun and most participation?

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, you are going about presenting policy wrong. You can't present policy debate as a warp-speed talking contest. If it's presented differenlty, perhaps as a higher intellectual game, you'll get more people interested in competing in it. Don't show them Resolved at first. Talk about the benefits it confers, how it's really a contest in policy analysis, etc. They'll get involved and THEN in time they learn the speed thing. I never started in on the spread at first. You should get to speed after you've covered all the basics - that will take them a while. AND..in Virginia, at least in WACFL, the first two years of policy still has Classic division where they CAN'T spread, and thus can concentrate on the basics of debate. That said, I am curious - LD is becoming just as fast and specialized as policy, and the delivery rate and argument specialization of PF rounds is ticking up too- they are both on different levels, of course - but the better LD rounds are approaching or equal to policy speeds...so why aren't kids rejecting those types of debate as well, if speed is the fly in the ointment?

 

As for the larger questions does speed kill? I think it doesn't help the activity, but I think most kids work through it. What is killing policy is that fewer and fewer kids have time to sacrifice to engage in the work that policy requires at the higher levels of the activity. I suspect we will see this happen within 15 years in LD as it evolves into a more evidentiary form of debate - with more specialized arguments, etc. As kids are burdened with AP classes, other activities, athletics, etc., fewer kids have time - so they opt for less time intensive forms of debate. Thus, they turn away from policy. Policy will always survive, mostly do to the hard work of coaches who recruit and put their sweat equity into programs, but fewer and fewer schools will compete as the years go by. But..policy will survive at the high school level as long as it continues to survive at the college level, as new, younger coaches, continue to enter the high school coaching ranks.

Edited by hylanddd
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that right there is just what im talking about. isnt it bad that weaker debaters are leaving because they cant keep up? isnt it bad how we are exluding kids from this sport because they may have a learning disability or a physical disability like dyslexia or a stutter? shouldnt we slow down debate to account for all individuals and allows for the most fun and most participation?

 

No. Slowing down policy debate would be dumb.

 

1. Hurts those who are actually committed/paid shitloads on camp/spend a lotta time

 

2. Brings it to PFD level

 

3. Can disabled kids debate well in any division anyways?

 

4. You don't have to be fast to win

 

5. Policy db8 is 1337, tough luck if you aren't

 

6. Having weaker debaters leave helps coaches focus on those who are dedicated to debate

 

7. Speed doesn't kill policy debate

 

8. Welcome to cross-x, the world's premier debate forum!

 

-Red Spy

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Slowing down policy debate would be dumb.

 

1. Hurts those who are actually committed/paid shitloads on camp/spend a lotta time

 

2. Brings it to PFD level

 

3. Can disabled kids debate well in any division anyways?

 

4. You don't have to be fast to win

 

5. Policy db8 is 1337, tough luck if you aren't

 

6. Having weaker debaters leave helps coaches focus on those who are dedicated to debate

 

7. Speed doesn't kill policy debate

 

8. Welcome to cross-x, the world's premier debate forum!

 

-Red Spy

1) what if somone is just as committed but reads slower? what if somone still goes to camp but cant master speed?

 

2)Why do we have to bring it to a new level? why cant is stay the way it is?

 

3) disabled kids can debate just as well if not better in many division. isnt your point of view elitist?

 

4) you may not have to be fast to win but it sure helps. the slower you are the more likely you are to have a team spread on you. is it not true?

 

5) nice internet slang, and this isnt about me. this is about the bigger picture.

 

6) shouldnt judges give just as much attention if not more attention to the struggling debaters as i does the the whos who speed?

 

7) cant you see how the activity is dieing because of speed?

 

8) thanks for the welcome

Edited by Nelsonwins94
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben, you are going about presenting policy wrong. You can't present policy debate as a warp-speed talking contest. If it's presented differenlty, perhaps as a higher intellectual game, you'll get more people interested in competing in it. Don't show them Resolved at first. Talk about the benefits it confers, how it's really a contest in policy analysis, etc. They'll get involved and THEN in time they learn the speed thing. I never started in on the spread at first. You should get to speed after you've covered all the basics - that will take them a while. AND..in Virginia, at least in WACFL, the first two years of policy still has Classic division where they CAN'T spread, and thus can concentrate on the basics of debate. That said, I am curious - LD is becoming just as fast and specialized as policy, and the delivery rate and argument specialization of PF rounds is ticking up too- they are both on different levels, of course - but the better LD rounds are approaching or equal to policy speeds...so why aren't kids rejecting those types of debate as well, if speed is the fly in the ointment?

 

As for the larger questions does speed kill? I think it doesn't help the activity, but I think most kids work through it. What is killing policy is that fewer and fewer kids have time to sacrifice to engage in the work that policy requires at the higher levels of the activity. I suspect we will see this happen within 15 years in LD as it evolves into a more evidentiary form of debate - with more specialized arguments, etc. As kids are burdened with AP classes, other activities, athletics, etc., fewer kids have time - so they opt for less time intensive forms of debate. Thus, they turn away from policy. Policy will always survive, mostly do to the hard work of coaches who recruit and put their sweat equity into programs, but fewer and fewer schools will compete as the years go by. But..policy will survive at the high school level as long as it continues to survive at the college level, as new, younger coaches, continue to enter the high school coaching ranks.

 

i hear what your saying but i got to ask. is there a way to stop this decline in debate? is there a way to stop the craziness and jsut go back to the 70's and 80's during the golden time of debate? the modern system is strange and i think needs to be halted. any ideas?

Edited by Nelsonwins94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben, you are going about presenting policy wrong. You can't present policy debate as a warp-speed talking contest. If it's presented differenlty, perhaps as a higher intellectual game, you'll get more people interested in competing in it. Don't show them Resolved at first. Talk about the benefits it confers, how it's really a contest in policy analysis, etc. They'll get involved and THEN in time they learn the speed thing. I never started in on the spread at first. You should get to speed after you've covered all the basics - that will take them a while. AND..in Virginia, at least in WACFL, the first two years of policy still has Classic division where they CAN'T spread, and thus can concentrate on the basics of debate. That said, I am curious - LD is becoming just as fast and specialized as policy, and the delivery rate and argument specialization of PF rounds is ticking up too- they are both on different levels, of course - but the better LD rounds are approaching or equal to policy speeds...so why aren't kids rejecting those types of debate as well, if speed is the fly in the ointment?

 

As it is, we don't show Resolved first; we don't show it at all. But people have heard of it, and they have preconceived notions of what Policy is. As for LD, people do not associate LD with speed. When it comes to Policy, the first thing that jumps to mind for a large number of people is Resolved – people speaking incredibly fast, with those horrible pauses to catch their breath, and linking everything to nuclear war. Fair or unfair, that is the perception. With LD, that perception has not yet taken hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) what if somone is just as committed but reads slower? what if somone still goes to camp but cant master speed?

 

2)Why do we have to bring it to a new level? why cant is stay the way it is?

 

3) disabled kids can debate just as well if not better in many division. isnt your point of view elitist?

 

4) you may not have to be fast to win but it sure helps. the slower you are the more likely you are to have a team spread on you. is it not true?

 

5) nice internet slang, and this isnt about me. this is about the bigger picture.

 

6) shouldnt judges give just as much attention if not more attention to the struggling debaters as i does the the whos who speed?

 

7) cant you see how the activity is dieing because of speed?

 

8) thanks for the welcome

 

As disturbing as it is to say this, I agree with Red Spy (formerly Hadoken, the name associated with bad trolling).

 

Speed adds another level of competitiveness. And it isn't impossible to debate a spreading opponent at slower speeds, it just requires good organization and a strategic idea of what is and isn't important. It isn't going to be a much greater level, it's at a pretty high level already. As for struggling debaters, there are slower tournaments, there are other divisions, and there is practice. The activity isn't dieing because of speed, it is flourishing to the people involved in it, and it attracts the people who see the competitiveness and critical thinking required to be involved in it. And what's this whole disabled thing? The entire event shouldn't have its standards lowered for a minority of people in the community, that is what would destroy the event. No one wants to see a football game where the defense steps aside for the runningback in the cast, and no one wants to be in that game.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As disturbing as it is to say this, I agree with Red Spy (formerly Hadoken, the name associated with bad trolling).

 

Speed adds another level of competitiveness. And it isn't impossible to debate a spreading opponent at slower speeds, it just requires good organization and a strategic idea of what is and isn't important. It isn't going to be a much greater level, it's at a pretty high level already. As for struggling debaters, there are slower tournaments, there are other divisions, and there is practice. The activity isn't dieing because of speed, it is flourishing to the people involved in it, and it attracts the people who see the competitiveness and critical thinking required to be involved in it. And what's this whole disabled thing? The entire event shouldn't have its standards lowered for a minority of people in the community, that is what would destroy the event. No one wants to see a football game where the defense steps aside for the runningback in the cast, and no one wants to be in that game.

 

This concept is insane! this is elitist and wrong. the fact that you are saying that if there struggling debaters they should go to slower debate tournaments. thats wrong. it should be an activity for all to be able to do, other wise you violate everything this country holds dear, and what you often argue about get violated. people with learning difficulties should be allowed to debate like everyone else, they shouldnt have to deal with this problem that debate has been bread with it. you have to see the idotcracy of this arguement

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This concept is insane! this is elitist and wrong. the fact that you are saying that if there struggling debaters they should go to slower debate tournaments. thats wrong. it should be an activity for all to be able to do, other wise you violate everything this country holds dear, and what you often argue about get violated. people with learning difficulties should be allowed to debate like everyone else, they shouldnt have to deal with this problem that debate has been bread with it. you have to see the idotcracy of this arguement

 

It's elitist to say that people should go to tournaments they can actually compete in before they attempt to go to the big tournaments with the hardcore debaters? And the event is open to everyone, but different people will have to devote different amounts of time to do well in this event. The only way i'd violate what this country holds dear is if Harrison Bergeron were reality.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's elitist to say that people should go to tournaments they can actually compete in before they attempt to go to the big tournaments with the hardcore debaters? And the event is open to everyone, but different people will have to devote different amounts of time to do well in this event. The only way i'd violate what this country holds dear is if Harrison Bergeron were reality.

 

There is a difference between elitism an equality. to say that people shouldnt do something because there weak or because they cant physically do it is elitist. honestly i dont have a problem with your opinion but its the people that say speed up or get out. Its the ones that say if you dont liek speed your dumb. and thats not right. But what about the new schools that want to go to national tournaments? shouldnt all people be allowed that opportunity with hope of succes? im not sayign to move aside and let slower debaters win. im saying debaters should slow down for more indepth and competitive debate for all debaters

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference between elitism an equality. to say that people shouldnt do something because there weak or because they cant physically do it is elitist. honestly i dont have a problem with your opinion but its the people that say speed up or get out. Its the ones that say if you dont liek speed your dumb. and thats not right. But what about the new schools that want to go to national tournaments? shouldnt all people be allowed that opportunity with hope of succes? im not sayign to move aside and let slower debaters win. im saying debaters should slow down for more indepth and competitive debate for all debaters

 

If you care so much, read Speed Theory. Otherwise, get over it. Unless you can shift how the majority of successful teams operate, adapt to it. Or compete exclusively in NFL. And you saying that everyone should slow down for everyone is stupid, there are things inherent in the community and culture, the people coming in should adjust to that in some way, they can try and shift things if they can, but the people who continually compete in policy debate and succeed and have fun doing it don't have many problems with it. There are multiple debate circuits that operate differently, not everyone should get a chance at the TOC just because they happen to be on the debate team. That is something that is worked for; a lot of effort goes into it, and it also takes a lot of natural critical thinking abilities. Newer schools should put in the work if they want to be a circuit team, that is their opportunity for success.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you care so much, read Speed Theory. Otherwise, get over it. Unless you can shift how the majority of successful teams operate, adapt to it. Or compete exclusively in NFL. And you saying that everyone should slow down for everyone is stupid, there are things inherent in the community and culture, the people coming in should adjust to that in some way, they can try and shift things if they can, but the people who continually compete in policy debate and succeed and have fun doing it don't have many problems with it. There are multiple debate circuits that operate differently, not everyone should get a chance at the TOC just because they happen to be on the debate team. That is something that is worked for; a lot of effort goes into it, and it also takes a lot of natural critical thinking abilities. Newer schools should put in the work if they want to be a circuit team, that is their opportunity for success.

 

i understand that national tournaments are alot of work, and that its the bes t of the best. but everyone should be given the opportunity to at least be able to try to get to that level. but this speed turns so many people away and switiches so many people to pf that in 10 years there wont be toc for policy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i understand that national tournaments are alot of work, and that its the bes t of the best. but everyone should be given the opportunity to at least be able to try to get to that level. but this speed turns so many people away and switiches so many people to pf that in 10 years there wont be toc for policy

 

The people who do well at the Glenbrooks and Harvard are the people that spend a LOT of time getting better and cutting cards. It's not right to say that everyone should be able to compete equitably in those tourneys because that undermines the work that those top-tier debaters do. Should they not get ANY advantage because they work harder and longer both on arguments and technique?

 

All it takes to get faster is something to read and a pen, max. There's no reason why a person who is determined enough (absent other factors that make debate a not desirable activity for that person anyways, like speaking disorders) can't get fast enough to make a reasonable attempt at speaking fast enough to compete nationally.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people who do well at the Glenbrooks and Harvard are the people that spend a LOT of time getting better and cutting cards. It's not right to say that everyone should be able to compete equitably in those tourneys because that undermines the work that those top-tier debaters do. Should they not get ANY advantage because they work harder and longer both on arguments and technique?

 

All it takes to get faster is something to read and a pen, max. There's no reason why a person who is determined enough (absent other factors that make debate a not desirable activity for that person anyways, like speaking disorders) can't get fast enough to make a reasonable attempt at speaking fast enough to compete nationally.

 

are you saying that teams that work harder should be aloud to run 6 t blips 4 das 3 ks and a cp and not be subject to an abuse arguement? most people will never get to that level. shouldnt this be considered in the debate community? we are just going to see the same debaters every year, instead of a good competition

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you saying that teams that work harder should be aloud to run 6 t blips 4 das 3 ks and a cp and not be subject to an abuse arguement? most people will never get to that level. shouldnt this be considered in the debate community? we are just going to see the same debaters every year, instead of a good competition

 

Yes, they should be able to run those arguments because if there are that many of them, then chances are those arguments suck and are under-developed. Also, these are people who are TOTALLY dedicated to this activity. Would you tell a sprinter who works out hours every day that they have to slow down because not everyone who wants to race can do a 11 second 100m? No, you wouldn't because that's ridiculous. All reducing debate to exclude speed and complex arguments does is reduce the educational value of the activity. And don't bring up the bullshit about "1930 procedurals and 1324 other off-case." Most national circuit teams never go more than 6 off, check the wiki.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference between elitism an equality. to say that people shouldnt do something because there weak or because they cant physically do it is elitist. honestly i dont have a problem with your opinion but its the people that say speed up or get out. Its the ones that say if you dont liek speed your dumb. and thats not right. But what about the new schools that want to go to national tournaments? shouldnt all people be allowed that opportunity with hope of succes? im not sayign to move aside and let slower debaters win. im saying debaters should slow down for more indepth and competitive debate for all debaters

 

http://tinyurl.com/2daks8w

 

Plus, your argument is incoherent. You engage in lowering the top rather than raising the bottom, or even segmenting. Competing within their own division will work fine. However, I am not entirely convinced that you are not trolling, so I will not waste my time proving what everyone already knows.

Edited by bond1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone knows debate is more than jsut a sport. its a lifestyle. even someone like me nows that its a mental sport. so using the running example does not translate, because its different. and if you want to pull the bad sports examples heres one. the last three years the boston marathon has been won by a guy in a wheel chair. so if you really want to say that slower debaters shouldnt debate because there are better people than them , than your all more elitist than i thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
everyone knows debate is more than jsut a sport. its a lifestyle. even someone like me nows that its a mental sport. so using the running example does not translate, because its different. and if you want to pull the bad sports examples heres one. the last three years the boston marathon has been won by a guy in a wheel chair. so if you really want to say that slower debaters shouldnt debate because there are better people than them , than your all more elitist than i thought.

 

Now I know this thread is a troll. Goodbye.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. First off, I Debated for 1 season, and At that time, Speed wasn't all that common, and that wasn't more than 6-7 years ago. Since then I have been a judge and judging Novice/JV/Varsity and I have seen speed/spread (Whatever you want to call it) become more commonplace.

 

Here are a few things I have to say.

 

 

1) I have tried those Speed Drills, and I am pleased to say this. It has increased my ability to read faster. But not to the extent that I see in VSS round and on the national circuit. I read maybe 3 times faster than I did when I debated. Which if you ask the team I judge for, Itsn't all that much faster. I reached a certain point and the drills were not helping anymore.

I just can't reach those speeds.

Am I learning disabled? No.

Do I have a Speech disorder? No.

I just can't go that fast. For as long as I can remember, my brain tries to process the words I read. So at a certain speed, I just can't read anymore without having to stop and 'refocus'.

 

2) As a judge, even if I can't Speed read all that fast, there is the issue of HEARING words read at high speed. When I sit in on VSS/National Rounds, or am Judging them, I hear words, but due to the high speed of the words coming out of the mouth, I can't PROCESS them. How do I judge a round when I can't Understand the sentences?

Now, before you say I suck at it or whatnot, Know this, I have been doing it for 6-7 years, I have gotten better at hearing faster speeds. But I still have a LOT of issues with the HIGH Speed.

 

3) I understand the arguments for speed that say that it improves education because you hear more in a round. and the arguments that say you can process faster when you speed, but some people just CAN'T Do it, be it a disability or the fact they just can't. EVEN IF they try super hard. I am one of those people. And why should those people Not be allowed to Debate? Why should they be forced to do something else just because they can't speed? I personally ENJOY Policy Debate, I love the way it works, the information you learn, the research, and even the argumentation. But when I am trying to judge a HIGH Speed Round, and no one slows down, I look like the bad guy because I can't understand them. Where's the Education for me? If I can't hear/understand them, I'm getting no education.

 

4) Also, Do this. Ask your neighbors to sit in on a round and watch you debate. Then tell them if it is something they would be willing to support and donate money to. Don't tell them anything else, just ask them if that is a sport they would be willing to support. I'm curious as to how many would sit there during the whole thing and be thinking "What in the heck are they saying, I can't understand a word they are saying.. he/she is talking to fast. " And even more curious to how many would support it after hearing it.

 

5) WHAT Reason do you have for speeding? What Profession will you take up that you HAVE to be able to speed read that fast? What Profession has SPEED as a Requirement? or even a 'Preferred'?

I can name only one. Auctioneer.

Now, tell me. How many Debaters are going to become Auctioneers?

Edited by Quantum-Wolf
Addition to entry
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben: Then perception will meet with reality, and I'll be curious to see what the result of that meeting is. If you think there won't be nuclear war impacts, rapid delivery, and bad breathing technique at WACFL I in LD, you should rethink. (Good policy debaters seldom gasp, it is all in the way you are taught to breath.)

 

Nelson: I'm not interested in returning to the 70s and 80s. I think policy is fine the way it it is. BUT..I do realize that as it is the way it is, it is not the first option for kids in today's very busy, activity crowded, academically competitive world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×