Jump to content
Nelsonwins94

Why does Speed kill Policy debate?

Recommended Posts

Speed results in

1) teams talking past each other because they can't hear 50% of whats going on

2) lack of clarity in speech

3) A poor model for persuasion. Why would NBA players play in a league with 21 foot goals (no matter how challenging it was...or how much it pushed them). It creates a bad model, which changes and normalizes behavior. (if you've talked to judges who are in the "real world" you know that these habits are hard to break).

 

LD produces almost all the benefits and half of the research burden--which leaves free time for socializing, exploring other opportunities, and making life decisions like college.

 

Theoretically, the judging in LD is better, because it doesn't require to same level of intelligence to judge LD debates. Admittedly, this is a much closer call at TOC-level tournaments in the varsity division.

 

LD produces fewer coaching inequities.

Also, new teams can quickly bootstrap to be decent in LD.

 

I've never heard the real DA to the C/P.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please dude, this thread is entirely pointless. Obviously you can't do anything to change the current situation when everyone is in disagreement with you so why even go on? I haven't met a single person who is "scared off" by the speed. When novices from my school see hardcore db83r$ they're usually more motivated to get to that level. Also, I know many ld'ers who switched to cx because cx is the better debate with both a critical and a policy aspect... STOP TROLLING PLEASE. BYE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speed results in

1) teams talking past each other because they can't hear 50% of whats going on

2) lack of clarity in speech

3) A poor model for persuasion. Why would NBA players play in a league with 21 foot goals (no matter how challenging it was...or how much it pushed them). It creates a bad model, which changes and normalizes behavior. (if you've talked to judges who are in the "real world" you know that these habits are hard to break).

 

LD produces almost all the benefits and half of the research burden--which leaves free time for socializing, exploring other opportunities, and making life decisions like college.

 

Theoretically, the judging in LD is better, because it doesn't require to same level of intelligence to judge LD debates. Admittedly, this is a much closer call at TOC-level tournaments in the varsity division.

 

LD produces fewer coaching inequities.

Also, new teams can quickly bootstrap to be decent in LD.

 

I've never heard the real DA to the C/P.

 

I assume you aren't serious about any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed isnt a problem if the speaking mechanics have been co-developed. The problem is that most debaters don't develop into strong speakers first. This ends with debaters slurring, stumbling, mumbling, and committing any other act of incoherency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This ends with debaters slurring, stumbling, mumbling, and committing any other act of incoherency.
Agreed.

 

I think even Ross Smith, former coach at Wake Forest (who I'm pretty sure is in the top 10 of most influential and top 10 for most successful coaches of the last decade), thought it was absurd that people do speed drills, but rather should do "clarity drills." Don't quote me on this exactly...but I'm pretty sure its true. You can check his 30 ways to increase your speaker points (aka to get better at debate) Berkeley from a year ago.

 

The problem is many debaters have the same problem (and truth be told...I'll put myself in this category as well) that 90% of the drivers and students in America have--they don't know they aren't clear and their coaches either don't care or don't tell them or can't tell. (I think its called attribution error)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually have to say another problem is method. We hit a team at LSN this weekend that were pretty clear, but literally all they did were read cards. Policy is about analyzing evidence, not reading it. In the end our analytics were a lot more devastating. Anyone can practice reading words really fast, but a good team can think fast on his feet and actually debate fast instead of just read fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed.

 

I think even Ross Smith, former coach at Wake Forest (who I'm pretty sure is in the top 10 of most influential and top 10 for most successful coaches of the last decade), thought it was absurd that people do speed drills, but rather should do "clarity drills." Don't quote me on this exactly...but I'm pretty sure its true. You can check his 30 ways to increase your speaker points (aka to get better at debate) Berkeley from a year ago.

 

The problem is many debaters have the same problem (and truth be told...I'll put myself in this category as well) that 90% of the drivers and students in America have--they don't know they aren't clear and their coaches either don't care or don't tell them or can't tell. (I think its called attribution error)

 

The problem is that debaters, by and large, are an intensely competitive bunch. The pressure to win mounts quickly because lets face it, who likes to lose a lot?

 

Policy debate has an enormous learning curve between understanding the mechanics of speech, improving one's speed (and yes, to some degree, it is very important), understanding the fundamentals of argumentation, familiarizing oneself with the common classes of arguments and the specific concepts being discussed in debate and so on. Afterall, its impossible to compete well on a politics disad if one has no comprehension of what political capital is...

 

So debaters take shortcuts. Tradeoff clarity for speed; tradeoff real research for horrible research; tradeoff case specific argumentation for generic to save time and effort... (did anyone actually read the original evidence?)

 

I don't fault them for it - I fault their coaches for not helping them appropriately. Behind every unclear debater is a coach who let it happen. Inevitably I am sure someone will be offended by that and make claims like "coaches work hard" and yes, they do work hard. I am not taking anything away from their dedication, effort and sacrifice. But some coaches do need to realize that the failure to help their students evolve into strong speakers will ultimately limit their potential. And once poor speaking habits are formed, its terribly challenging to break a debater of them.

Edited by Ankur
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How one team goes about when they spread, doesn't define how every team does it. Teams who are unclear are disadvantaged from the get go since the judge misses arguments and will most likely lose speaker points.

 

Also, my username is fresh

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is irrelevant please punch me, but I feel like the real reason people are quitting debate is the quality of arguments. Speed would be all well and good if we were making legitimate points and truly engaging in deep debate, but we're not. My friends who have quit debate in the last two years haven't quit because of speed, they've quit because of politics DAs, consult counterplans, and nuclear war :-P

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is irrelevant please punch me, but I feel like the real reason people are quitting debate is the quality of arguments. Speed would be all well and good if we were making legitimate points and truly engaging in deep debate, but we're not. My friends who have quit debate in the last two years haven't quit because of speed, they've quit because of politics DAs, consult counterplans, and nuclear war :-P

That's probably valid as well. It is unlikely that policy debate's decline in participation is the result of any one factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My friends who have quit debate in the last two years haven't quit because of speed, they've quit because of politics DAs, consult counterplans, and nuclear war

 

Is this a question of expanding research burdens?

 

And if they quit, did they move to other speech/deabte events or quit entirely?

 

Nuclear war doesn't seem like a reason to quit....it seems like a reason to do better impact calculus which fits your impacts and the relative risk (or risk profile) you are espousing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear war doesn't seem like a reason to quit....it seems like a reason to do better impact calculus which fits your impacts and the relative risk (or risk profile) you are espousing.

 

Lets not get hypocritical here.

 

You can hardly complain that speedy talking is not a skill useful in every day life and then support the idea of linking nuclear war to Obama's bowel movements as being remotely intellectual. You and I both know that the overwhelming majority of arguments in debate is the literal equivalent of absolutist intellectual diarrhea conjured up by highly sensationalized and fictionalized theorists with tendencies of narcissism and gross stupidity. Only in debate would anyone with 2 marbles rolling around upstairs still be citing Mead after decades of pointless doomsaying which was repeatedly proven wrong. Only in debate would we be perfectly accepting of poor evidence because it doesnt matter whether the evidence was idiotic; it only matters if your skill in arguing it is superior. One could make the point that this is the essence of debate - that its about the argumentation not the argument (and that IS valid) but its hardly a contest of skill when debate is a contest to the team with the most bad evidence.

 

An outsider would be correct in describing modern debate as being absurd, providing no useful knowledge in daily life. I am still waiting for an episode of Jeopardy on Russian nukes, Chinese energy and the Spratly Islands. Alex has not yet called me for a Ken Jennings-esque participation in that endeavor....

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets not get hypocritical here.

 

You can hardly complain that speedy talking is not a skill useful in every day life and then support the idea of linking nuclear war

Interesting perspective.

 

I think the habit of speech practices is harder to break than the habit of research practices. I don't have the neuroscience to back it up, but I think it might make sense.

 

I think you're attack is a bit of a straw person...although it probably does describe 55 to 75% of disadvantage debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is full of crap. Specifically, 2 billion gallons full.

Johnson Injunraiv and Mayer Ray Nagin 08 // Drew probably went to college or something and Injunraiv and Mayer Ray Nagin are independent commentators on the Obama election // creative underlining is good because creativity is key to aesthetics// availiable online @ http://www.leftlanenews.com/obama-speaks-out-against-mccains-300-million-battery-prize.html

Obama called the plan a “gimmick” and said any plan to reduce the U.S.’ dependence on oil required action by the U.S. Government, not just by a single person or company. Instead of relying on new technology, Obama says he has a plan to use current technology to boost fuel economy to 50 mpg by 2027. “I have a plan to raise the fuel standards in our cars and trucks with technology we have on the shelf today,” Obama said. While Obama may see Senator McCain’s plan as a gimmick, the Senator from Illinois is also offering a few gimmicks of his own. According to The Detroit News, Obama is offering some prize money of his own in the form of “tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts” to help speed the development of “the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol” to market by 2013. No matter which Presidential candidate ultimately prevails, either plan would still face plenty of hurdles before being enacted.

img-photo.gif

injunraiv, 860 days ago

0 0

Well, he was right about one thing – it’s a gimmick!

Reply

img-photo.gif

mayer_ray_nagin, 860 days ago

0 0

Maybe it’s a gimmick, but Obama once again offers nothing tangible. Yeah, sure, “Obama has a plan to use current technology to boost fuel economy to 50 mpg by 2027.” Guess Obama alone has some load of knowledge that all the automotive engineers don’t, because Obama can use current tech to do this for the mainstream, only it’ll take him 20 years to do it at which time no one will remember his promise. That’s as big a crock as McLame’s plan and we all know it.

Obama loves to talk about this nebulous “hope and change” crap. I personally hope Obama will change and actually back up the garbage he spews.

Reply

 

Plan causes Obama to have a bowel movement, that overloads the DC sewer system.

Wikipedia No Date // peer reviewed website that anyone can edit // wait? aren't those contrdictory? // Put it down anyway no one ever reads the qualifications. // OK sure. // availiable online @ wikipedia.org... I don't have the rest of the url, will be up ASAP!!! //

The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) provides drinking water, sewage collection and wastewater treatment in the District of Columbia in the United States. It also provides wholesale wastewater treatment services to several adjoining municipalities in Maryland and Virginia. In addition, DC Water provides maintenance and repair of more than 9,000 public fire hydrants on behalf of the District of Columbia. DC Water was created in 1996, when the District Government and the U.S. federal government established it as an independent authority of the District government.

DC Water provides nearly 600,000 residents, 16.6 million annual visitors and 700,000 people who are employed in the District of Columbia with water, sewer and wastewater treatment. DC Water provides wholesale wastewater treatment for 1.6 million people in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland and Fairfax and Loudoun counties in Virginia.[1]. In 2010, under new leadership, the Authority underwent a rebranding effort. The rebranding included a new logo, new color palette, and a new name. The Authority previously did business as DC WASA since its inception. Its legal name remains the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.

[edit] Statistics

 

  • Employees: 1,000 (FY 2009)
  • Service area: 725 square miles (1,880 km2)
  • Drinking water pumped: 108 million gallons a day (FY 2009)
  • Drinking water distribution
    • Pipes: 1,300 miles (2,100 km)
    • Pumping Stations: 5
    • Reservoirs: 5
    • Elevated water storage tanks: 3
    • Valves: 36,000
    • Public Hydrants: 9,000+

     

    [*]Sewers

    • Sanitary and combined sewers: 1,800 miles (2,900 km)
    • Flow-metering stations: 22
    • Off-site wastewater pumping stations: 9

     

    [*]Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

    • Largest advanced wastewater treatment plant in the world
    • 150 acres (0.61 km2)
    • Capacity: 370 million gallons per day
    • Peak capacity: 1.076 billion gallons per day.

     

 

 

Overloaded sewers are disgusting.

Bieber 5/15/1984 /// Scotty is a staffwriter for The Morning Call // 6 Communities Bracing For Sewer Hookup Ban // availiable online @ http://articles.mcall.com/1984-05-15/news/2413942_1_sewer-line-new-sewer-connections

The State Department of Environmental Resources is notifying the communities they are violating state law by permitting sewer connections to an overloaded sewer line that periodically discharges sewage [is] into the Little Lehigh creek. Local fisherman are circulating a petition, with more than 1,000 signatures so far, calling on DER to ban permanently all new connections until the overflows are stopped. The executive director of the state Fish Commission has criticized the overflows as a "disgusting situation" in the "most heavily fished trout water in the entire region."

 

Maintaining DC's good image is key to soft power.

Dinerman 09// Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City // NASA and soft power, again // avaliable online @ http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1

As we embark on yet another NASA budgetary roller coaster ride, courtesy of our political masters in Washington, it may be time to step back and examine why NASA is such an important part of America’s image at home and abroad. It is not simply the memories of what the space agency accomplished 40 years ago, and the still-haunting black and white film of John F. Kennedy telling us that “We choose to go to the Moon.” It is more than that. The human spaceflight program is a symbol of the idea that America represents a technologically advanced and optimistic future. It’s easy to belittle this as just PR fluff. What is often misunderstood is the source of soft power.

 

 

Soft power key to American hegemony- foundation of military alliance

CSIS 9 [April, Volume 9-No. 2, Pacific Forum, I didn't cut this card myself so I'm going to read all of it just in case, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/issuesinsights_v09n02.pdf]

Young Leaders conclude that it is in America’s interest to deepen engagement with Asian allies in all fields. Although nontraditional security issues are the center of discussion, Young Leaders recognize that military engagement is a building block of our alliances and thus do not imply that the current emphasis on military relations needs to be decreased. However, without broadening the alliance structure to include more soft power tools, including Track II cooperative efforts, strictly military-based alliances will not be a sufficient tool to face evolving nontraditional security threats. Thus, the U.S. needs to build upon these military alliance structures to ensure they are always relevant to the challenges and threats of the 21st century.

 

 

Nuclear war.

Khalilzad 95(Zalmay, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at RAND & former US Ambassador to Afghanistan) "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. proquest)

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.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a problem with speed, don't do policy debate. Simple enough.

 

This thread is bad enough to warrant a lock, but I'll leave it open

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but speeding literally disgusts me, most of the time debaters that speed are not better debaters. Normally i see people that have tons of briefs that tey printed offline that say if they read this i read that vis-a-vis. No one actually debates when speed is invloved, it doesn't matter wo has the better argument. The person that has the least drops in the round wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but speeding literally disgusts me, most of the time debaters that speed are not better debaters. Normally i see people that have tons of briefs that tey printed offline that say if they read this i read that vis-a-vis. No one actually debates when speed is invloved, it doesn't matter wo has the better argument. The person that has the least drops in the round wins.

 

I agree for theory debates, this is 100% true. We (most of us anyways) read blocks at each other and it's more of a timesuck than an argument. But for the rest of debate, that's not true at all. And if someone prints off blocks from a website then there are deeper problems than just talking too quickly.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like speed destroys debate, however, I do believe it can depending on the sorts of arguments you read. For instance, in straight up policy debates it's probably okay, but if your 1AC is comprised of reading poetry from oppressed individuals from the Middle East, you probably want to stray away from the speedy reading.

 

But I guess this is just from a persuasive perspective...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but speeding literally disgusts me, most of the time debaters that speed are not better debaters. Normally i see people that have tons of briefs that tey printed offline that say if they read this i read that vis-a-vis. No one actually debates when speed is invloved, it doesn't matter wo has the better argument. The person that has the least drops in the round wins.

 

Thats generally not true on the circuit, or even at most regionals. The faster debaters are not always the best debaters in the round, but that's definitely not true most of the time. To build speed, one needs practice and time, and that means more experience in debate, and that generally means better skills learned through competition, i.e. a better debater.

 

But the opposite is also not true. A slower debater is not necessarily a worse debater. I have seen enough conversational teams beat the pants off a team much faster than themselves... which also disproves the idea that the least drops in the round wins. That would be a sign of bad judging and poor skills from from the slower team. And by skills, I mean identifying the arguments which need answering and justifying why not answering the irrelevant arguments doesnt merit a ballot for their opponents.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Policy used to be pretty big in the Carolinas, but after it became faster it died out. Now, it doesn't even exist as no school in either state offers it. which is ironic since Georgia is right next door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Turn: spreading boosts short term memory, key to education and everyday life

Psychology Today October 1992 (report of the results of the Raine et al study)

 

"If friends criticize you for talking too fast, at least they can't also accuse you of having a bad memory. Speech rate is a strong index of short term memory span... 'Therefore, the faster you can talk, the greater your short-term memory,' says Adrian Raine, PhD, a University of Southern California psychologist. The link has been established for adults for some time, Raine reports in Child Development. Now, he and his colleagues find the correlation holds for kids as well, a finding that promises short-term payoff in the classroom and long-term payoff in life. Short-term memory is the power behind recall of phone numbers, directions, and other everyday tasks. It is also the foundation of arithmetic and reading skills... That raises the possibility that speech- training may be a short-cut to achievement." (p.14)

 

2. How fast is ‘too fast’? There’s no bright line, my partner’s pretty sure i’m moving along way too slow now

 

3. Turn: Talking faster increases memory, preventing losses with age

 

Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory and Severe

Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pg 45

 

"These results are striking in that the same linear function relating recall to speech rate fits the results for all age groups. Subjects of different ages in this study all recalled, on average, as much as they could say in roughly 1.5 seconds. Increases in memory span with age are seen to be very closely related to changes in speech rate with age. Thus the results of these different studies are remarkably clear and consistent. The dramatic improvements in serial recall performance with increasing age are closely and quantitatively related to changes in speech rate. In terms of the articulatory loop theory, which gave impetus to these studies, the length of the loop appears to remain constant across different ages; more material is stored in this system because it can be spoken and so rehearsed more rapidly. These results, relating developmental increases in speech rate to increases in short-term memory efficiency, lead quite directly to a simple causal theory: That increases in memory span with age depend upon increases in speech rate. Needless to say, however, such a theory is not necessitated by the findings. The findings are essentially correlational; as children get older their speech rate increases and in line with this so does their memory performance. It could be that both these changes depend upon some other factor. The obvious way to test this causal theory is to conduct a training study. If short-term memory depends upon speech rate, if we can successfully train children to speak faster, then this should, according to the theory, lead to a corresponding increase in short-term memory. (p.45)

 

4. Turn: speed solves elitism: you can come from a poor background and practice an hour a day spreading anything, newspapers or books, and you’ll be a better debater for it. Without speed debate would be for the rich elite only.

 

5. Turn: expanded working memory is critical to literacy and math

Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory and Severe

Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pg 21

 

"In its broadest sense, working memory refers to the use of temporary storage mechanisms in the performance of more complex tasks. So, for example, in order to read and understand prose, we must be able to hold incoming information in memory. This is necessary in order to compute the semantic and syntactic relationships among successive words, phrases, and sentences and so construct a coherent and meaningful representation of the meaning of the text. This temporary storage of information during reading is said to depend on working memory. In this view the ability to understand prose will depend on, among other things, the capacity of a person’s working memory system. Such temporary storage of information is obviously necessary for the performance of a wide variety of other tasks apart from reading, such as mental arithmetic (Hitch, 1978) and verbal reasoning (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)."

 

6. Turn: spreading increases education by allowing a discussion of more issues, if we couldn’t read a bunch of answers we couldn’t have a tenth the depth of a good fast round

 

7. Turn: Speed is critical linguistic abilities

Stine, Elizabeth L., Wingfield, Arthur, & Poon, Leonard. (1986). How much

and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language in later adulthood.

Psychology and Aging, vol. 1, no. 4, 303-311. P.303

 

"At a very fast rate, several things must be accomplished. The various processes required to recode linguistic stimuli into meaning have been articulated for both spoken language (Just & Carpenter, 1980; Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980) and written text (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978; J. Miller & Kintsch, 1980). There must be some initial phase in which the stimulus is encoded, physical features (visual or acoustic) are extracted, and lexical access is achieved (Just & Carpenter, 1980). Next, the language content must be parsed into meaningful idea units in which relationships are determined among words (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978). These relationships are typically represented in terms of propositions consisting of a predicate and one or more arguments that are related by the predicate. Third, relationships between idea units of the text must be established in order to construct overall structural coherence in the text. Finally, the text must be related to and integrated with world knowledge. Although such processes would undoubtedly have to work in both a top-down and bottom-up fashion, the output at each of these stages would have to be held in an online working memory for an effective integration of meaning."

 

8. Turn: fast debate is more fun, it adds such a new level of depth to debate, speed is indispensable to it, I’d probably quit if I couldn’t go fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Turn: spreading boosts short term memory, key to education and everyday life

Psychology Today October 1992 (report of the results of the Raine et al study)

 

"If friends criticize you for talking too fast, at least they can't also accuse you of having a bad memory. Speech rate is a strong index of short term memory span... 'Therefore, the faster you can talk, the greater your short-term memory,' says Adrian Raine, PhD, a University of Southern California psychologist. The link has been established for adults for some time, Raine reports in Child Development. Now, he and his colleagues find the correlation holds for kids as well, a finding that promises short-term payoff in the classroom and long-term payoff in life. Short-term memory is the power behind recall of phone numbers, directions, and other everyday tasks. It is also the foundation of arithmetic and reading skills... That raises the possibility that speech- training may be a short-cut to achievement." (p.14)

 

2. How fast is ‘too fast’? There’s no bright line, my partner’s pretty sure i’m moving along way too slow now

 

3. Turn: Talking faster increases memory, preventing losses with age

 

Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory and Severe

Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pg 45

 

"These results are striking in that the same linear function relating recall to speech rate fits the results for all age groups. Subjects of different ages in this study all recalled, on average, as much as they could say in roughly 1.5 seconds. Increases in memory span with age are seen to be very closely related to changes in speech rate with age. Thus the results of these different studies are remarkably clear and consistent. The dramatic improvements in serial recall performance with increasing age are closely and quantitatively related to changes in speech rate. In terms of the articulatory loop theory, which gave impetus to these studies, the length of the loop appears to remain constant across different ages; more material is stored in this system because it can be spoken and so rehearsed more rapidly. These results, relating developmental increases in speech rate to increases in short-term memory efficiency, lead quite directly to a simple causal theory: That increases in memory span with age depend upon increases in speech rate. Needless to say, however, such a theory is not necessitated by the findings. The findings are essentially correlational; as children get older their speech rate increases and in line with this so does their memory performance. It could be that both these changes depend upon some other factor. The obvious way to test this causal theory is to conduct a training study. If short-term memory depends upon speech rate, if we can successfully train children to speak faster, then this should, according to the theory, lead to a corresponding increase in short-term memory. (p.45)

 

4. Turn: speed solves elitism: you can come from a poor background and practice an hour a day spreading anything, newspapers or books, and you’ll be a better debater for it. Without speed debate would be for the rich elite only.

 

5. Turn: expanded working memory is critical to literacy and math

Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory and Severe

Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pg 21

 

"In its broadest sense, working memory refers to the use of temporary storage mechanisms in the performance of more complex tasks. So, for example, in order to read and understand prose, we must be able to hold incoming information in memory. This is necessary in order to compute the semantic and syntactic relationships among successive words, phrases, and sentences and so construct a coherent and meaningful representation of the meaning of the text. This temporary storage of information during reading is said to depend on working memory. In this view the ability to understand prose will depend on, among other things, the capacity of a person’s working memory system. Such temporary storage of information is obviously necessary for the performance of a wide variety of other tasks apart from reading, such as mental arithmetic (Hitch, 1978) and verbal reasoning (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)."

 

6. Turn: spreading increases education by allowing a discussion of more issues, if we couldn’t read a bunch of answers we couldn’t have a tenth the depth of a good fast round

 

7. Turn: Speed is critical linguistic abilities

Stine, Elizabeth L., Wingfield, Arthur, & Poon, Leonard. (1986). How much

and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language in later adulthood.

Psychology and Aging, vol. 1, no. 4, 303-311. P.303

 

"At a very fast rate, several things must be accomplished. The various processes required to recode linguistic stimuli into meaning have been articulated for both spoken language (Just & Carpenter, 1980; Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980) and written text (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978; J. Miller & Kintsch, 1980). There must be some initial phase in which the stimulus is encoded, physical features (visual or acoustic) are extracted, and lexical access is achieved (Just & Carpenter, 1980). Next, the language content must be parsed into meaningful idea units in which relationships are determined among words (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978). These relationships are typically represented in terms of propositions consisting of a predicate and one or more arguments that are related by the predicate. Third, relationships between idea units of the text must be established in order to construct overall structural coherence in the text. Finally, the text must be related to and integrated with world knowledge. Although such processes would undoubtedly have to work in both a top-down and bottom-up fashion, the output at each of these stages would have to be held in an online working memory for an effective integration of meaning."

 

8. Turn: fast debate is more fun, it adds such a new level of depth to debate, speed is indispensable to it, I’d probably quit if I couldn’t go fast

 

Yay, you posted the cards that everyone ever uses to answer the speed K without actually explaining why speed is good. While I generally support speed (and do speed myself), there are some negatives that this thread exposes: namely that it tends to magnify any existing inequalities (just because you can work for an hour a day and learn to talk faster doesn't mean you'll have the best evidence or arguments, and debaters who go to bigger schools are still going to have better/more arguments) and that it can lead to lazy/ineffective debating.

 

The prior is largely inevitable as long as some schools will continue to dominate the debate scene, and the latter is entirely the fault of the individual debater, and isn't intrinsically tied to speeding in general. Even if there wasn't speed, people would run stupid arguments and some wouldn't be able to speak very well because they just suck at talking convincingly. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

 

Fuck the social order and the Child in whose name we're collectively terrorized; Fuck Annie; Fuck the waif from Les Mis; Fuck the poor' date=' innocent kid on the Net; Fuck Laws both with capital Is and with small; Fuck the whole network of Symbolic relations and the future that serves as its prop.[/quote']

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...