Jump to content
Nelsonwins94

Why does Speed kill Policy debate?

Recommended Posts

The reason you are having a difficult time understanding the point we are making is because you are jumping to the impact debate before you EVER sort out the rest of the argument.

 

My answer is simple.

 

Team A reads that China is aggressive because of our troops in the pacific and removing troops from Japan solves a scenario of regional war and nuke war.

 

Next, Team B reads that the power vacuum created by removing troops from Japan leads to greater Chinese aggression resulting in regional war and nuke war.

 

Who wins? By your logic, it can never be Team B. After all, regardless of the fact that Team B claims the precise opposite, there is still risk that the Team A is right. By your logic, it doesnt matter whether Team B's argument is defense, a turn, or whether it has an impact - Team A is always the default position. Until you look to the warrants of their arguments, you can never sort it out and thus, the team that speaks first is always at the advantage. This proves that warrants matter, and if warrants matter, then they should universally matter - you don't get to pick an choose moments in which warrants matter and in which they dont. Warrants either matter or they dont. Do you see the problem with your position now?

 

I am going on a short ski trip for a few days. Might not be back to respond until then.

I don't understand why my logic makes warrants not matter or in what way I am jumping to the impact debate first or how I am claiming warrants only matter in certain cases.

 

My argument is that defensive claims alone should not be considered enough to win zero risk. There is always a risk of the link due to known unknowns. The probabilities for unwarranted claims being true or false is 50/50. The magnitude of being wrong outweighs the magnitude of being right because if you're wrong we'll go extinct and if you're right nothing bad or good will happen. Therefore we should err on the side of avoiding the impact by not triggering the link. Therefore, if there are only defensive arguments made against a DA, and there are no other issues in the round (case was dropped, etc.) I would vote negative.

 

O/D paradigm doesn't function unless there are only defensive arguments made against the DA, by definition.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Defense would serve as substantial probability mitigation which would help you weigh case against the DA, etc.
What is there to weigh in this paradigm? Worst case scenerios should be avoided. You are left with only picking the most extreme impact asserted and the direction of the impact and voting appropriately.

 

Perhaps I'm not flushing out your position enough. One team says nuke war will happen if you don't vote for them. Their opposition's only response is that MAD prevents nuke war. The opposition also says that you, the judge, will get a very bad cold if you don't vote for them to which that argument has no response. I'm guessing you vote to avoid nuke war, despite evidence that it won't happen and a guarentee of a lesser impact. I suggest you should ignore the nuke war impact due to the defense and vote on the avoidance of the impact that is known versus the known unknown.

 

O/D paradigm is basically a different interpretation of presumption. It's superior to other interpretations because change is not inherently bad.

 

Agreed, a flawed interpretation. Even if change is not inherently bad, it is also not inherently good, which is what you are left with. When you assume worst case scenerios you are forced into the try or die mindset which means change is always good. You out of hand reject the status quo, though the status quo is the only known known. In defending your paradigm you reject defense as known unknowns, but so assume that all offense is known. The traditional concept of presumption is that change is bad because the only known knowns are in the status quo. I know I'm alive now. I can't predict the future, so I will default to what I know which is what is current. The traditional interpretation of presumption is superior using the exact criteria you are a proponent of.

 

There's no reason we should assume that every little thing is gonna be all right. A nonwarranted claim should be assume to have an equal probability to be wrong or to be right, but the probability that the claim is right has a bigger impact. We should err on the side of avoiding the worst case scenario.
Agreed that we can't assume everything will be alright, but we can assume everything is alright. Harms must be proven. A nonwarranted claim is the most extreme known unknown and thus should be given substancially less weight. It is a horrible falacy to think that everything has a 50% chance without warrants (the old "it will or it won't happen" is a statistical falacy). To say that nuke war has a 50% chance even without warrants is judge intervention given that the only known known is that nuke war is not occurring. Without warrants you can not make any prediction, and thus should default to the known known that nuke war is not occurring and thus no impact. Please note, I'm not advocating that in the absence of warrants that the status quo is utopia, just that the status quo is the only known known.

 

This seems to be an appeal to popularity more than anything else. Just because people don't make decisions logically doesn't mean that the offense defense paradigm should be abandoned.
I think you misunderstand my intention and we are entering circular logic. Your warrant for people not using logic in decision making is that they don't use your paradigm, and thus we should accept your paradigm as logical. My counter examples are to illustrate that people make logical decisions that run counter to using your paradigm.

 

Your argument is that we should assume the worst case scenerio and avoid it. Well, it is within the realm of possibilities that you could die by going to a debate tournament. I can make countless scenerios for this (especially after watching 1,000 ways to die) and probably even produce warrants. Unless you can prove that you will die if you don't go to a debate tournament, you should always choose to not go to debate tournaments. However, you go to debate tournaments because you know the defense to my arguement and know that the likelihood of any of my scenerios is not likely. You aren't going to tournaments in order to save your life, only because you don't believe the impacts. Thus in real life you reject the O/D paradigm. I'm not appealing to popularity, but displaying that the O/D paradigm is flawed through your own actions.

 

I don't understand the relevance of speed debate to my defense of the O/D paradigm.
Fair enough. That was me going off on a tangent. I personnally have become quite the fan of the study of the evolution of policy debate and can see the cause and effect that speed debate has resulted in the blind application of the O/D paradigm, which I see as flawed. If I were to be correct, that would be a indict on speed debate, but it probably needs more development.

 

There is always a risk of the link due to known unknowns.
Isn't there and equal risk of utopia for the same reason? Known unknowns are not a reason to accept risk but a reason to reject risk.

 

The probabilities for unwarranted claims being true or false is 50/50.
This is decidedly false. That is to say the following unwarranted claims all have the same likelihood of being true:

 

1. Space aliens not only exist but are coming to provide a cure to hepatitus but will accidently infect us with a disease that makes us grow extra appendages (and then we have to debate if this is a good or bad thing)

 

2. It will snow tomorrow.

 

3. All of the oxygen atoms in the room will, through random action, move to the corner of the room you are in and will cause you to sufficate and die.

 

4. Obama will sign a law to repeal the health care bill he signed last year.

 

By your logic, each of these assertions should be treated as equally likely. This isn't just a falacy of thought but results in a bizarre decision making that forces debate further from reality and into a world of irrelevance.

 

The magnitude of being wrong outweighs the magnitude of being right because if you're wrong we'll go extinct and if you're right nothing bad or good will happen. Therefore we should err on the side of avoiding the impact by not triggering the link. Therefore, if there are only defensive arguments made against a DA, and there are no other issues in the round (case was dropped, etc.) I would vote negative.
This is where Ankur is saying you jumping to the impact debate. You are determining the link from the magnitude of the impact. If the defense says the link can't happen, then the magnitude of the impact is irrelevant. You are saying that you are so scared of the impact that you can't risk the link even if it is clear that the link won't happen, thus in a sense inventing the link.

 

By chance, will you be judging at NFL? Rather than changing your mind as a judge, I think I'll just have my teams adapt to it. We will run that the other team not only kills us all, but eliminates time itself so we never existed nor will anything ever have existed. That's the biggest impact I can think of, and as long as there is a risk, we'll just outweigh all other impacts in the round and pick up your ballot. I'm not being sarcastic. If I can't change your mind then I just respect you enough to give you the round that you seem to want. At the end of the day, our paradigm should reflect the debate we want.

Edited by Corporate DB8er

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I said "another discussion for another thread"... but since the hijacking has already occurred:

 

Offense-Defense taken to its logical extreme is... illogical, of course, the practice has its limitations.

 

Example: Aff team says lack of health care infrastructure in X country kills 10,000 people a day. Plan: Improve the infrastructure in X country. Assuming they win 100% solvency (thus they solve 10,000 deaths) they have an impact of 10,000.

 

Neg team: Disad, with a global warming impact. 6 billion people will die.

 

Aff team refutes the disad with very compelling defensive arguments to the point where the risk of the disad is .01% (cause, even philosophical, there is always a risk).

 

Problem? .01% of 6 billion is still 60 times a bigger risk than 10,000 deaths. Offense-Defense to its logical extreme produces a neg ballot.

 

Now - Second example: Aff team has a typical aff that results in saving the lives of 6 billion people.

 

Neg team has a disad with a 10,000 people die impact and a counterplan that they argue solves the case.

 

Aff team argues only perms versus the counterplan, and defense against the disad, but successfully mitigates the disad substantially

 

Neg team is factually correct about the permutation theory, and the aff loses their only arguments versus the counterplan

 

Outcome: The solvency of the counterplan is never contested. The negative has met their burden to prove the CP is mutually exclusive with the plan. The "net benefit" to the counterplan is a substantial mitigation to 10,000 people dying.

 

Would you not vote negative? If voting aff I run the risk, however small, that 10,000 people would die, but by voting neg I absolve that risk because I a) solve the entire of the affirmative harms and B) solve the entirety of the negs disadvantages, then voting aff is illogical. This is where offense-defense has its utility.

 

So while both examples I present are extremes, they, I think, point to that a complete rejection of offense-defense, and a complete acceptance is somewhat silly. Obviously having offense is extremely helpful as there's always a "risk" of your turn just as there's always a "risk" of the link, but blind rejection of the logic is just as silly as blind acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say the aff "successfully mitigates the disad substantially" what do you mean? Where the arguments that it is very unlikely that the 10,000 people will die, or that the 10,000 will die anyway, or that the assumptions within the logic chain of the DA are flawed thus the 10,000 people won't die. These are all defensive arguments and would mitigate the DA. If the aff "successfully mitigates" that could mean there is still risk of the DA or there is not risk of the DA. If I thought there was still risk, though successfully mitigate, I'd vote Neg. If I thought there was no risk (rejecting the notion that there is always risk) then I vote aff since the CP is not an opportunity loss of passing the affirmative plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos,

 

Answer me a series of questions, and answer honestly based on how you would decide a situation as a normal person. This isnt directly debate-related. Its more to probe your decision calculus and the irrationality of human psyche so I have come up with a regular every day non-debate scenario to show you a scenario of irrational behavior.

 

But since my later questions could influence your response to the previous questions, I am withholding them at the moment. I am liking the progression of this discussion and wish it not to end in my brief absence (I return Monday night). I have sent my other questions/scenarios to Mr Volen hoping that as you answer them this weekend, that he can post the follow ups for you to answer. Complicated process , but its only because I wont be here and I dont want this line of discussion to end just yet.

 

 

SCENARIO 1:

=========================================================

You are sitting around a table at a bar, eating peanuts and watching sports on TV with two other people.

 

Man #1 says: The Philadelphia Flyers are the best team in hockey. Their goal differential is among the top 10, their goals scored is in the top 5, their plus/minus is huge, and though their penalty killing and power play are not lethal, they have potent regular strength scoring as half way through the season 8 players have scored 10+ goals and the next closest has only 5 players with 10+ goals. Their goals-for-average vs goals-against-average differential is 0.8 which is atrocious and huge in hockey. Therefore, they will win the Stanley Cup.

 

Man #2 says: The Vancouver Cannucks are the best team in hockey. The Atlantic division in which the Flyers play also has the Devils and the Islanders, two teams which are so awful that kiddie leagues could beat them and that the Flyer's stats are padded by having to play these two awful teams so often. Furthermore, not only divisions, but the Flyer's entire conference is weaker than Cannucks' conference. And though Vancouver has a few less points and few less wins than the Flyers, its because of that difference in competition. If Vancouver played in the East, their stats would be better than the Flyers. Plus, Vancouver is dominating the west which is dominating the east in inter-conference games this season. Therefore, they will win the Stanley Cup.

 

QUESTION 1: After listening to both men, who do you agree with and how did you arrive at your conclusion? Please be precise when you describe your decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone recognizes that I'm not rational and doesn't try to take my actions or thoughts as proof that the OD paradigm is good or bad I'm open to the thought experiment.

I might answer the above objections to my defense of the OD paradigm later, but there's a lot of arguments for me to answer. I feel like the above posters are trying to overwhelm me with half thought objections rather than engaging in mutual decisionmaking. Basically the reason that I might not answer is the same reason that the 1AR is such a difficult speech.

 


SCENARIO 1:
=========================================================


You are sitting around a table at a bar, eating peanuts and watching sports on TV with two other people.

Man #1 says: The Philadelphia Flyers are the best team in hockey. Their goal differential is among the top 10, their goals scored is in the top 5, their plus/minus is huge, and though their penalty killing and power play are not lethal, they have potent regular strength scoring as half way through the season 8 players have scored 10+ goals and the next closest has only 5 players with 10+ goals. Their goals-for-average vs goals-against-average differential is 0.8 which is atrocious and huge in hockey. Therefore, they will win the Stanley Cup.

Man #2 says: The Vancouver Cannucks are the best team in hockey. The Atlantic division in which the Flyers play also has the Devils and the Islanders, two teams which are so awful that kiddie leagues could beat them and that the Flyer's stats are padded by having to play these two awful teams so often. Furthermore, not only divisions, but the Flyer's entire conference is weaker than Cannucks' conference. And though Vancouver has a few less points and few less wins than the Flyers, its because of that difference in competition. If Vancouver played in the East, their stats would be better than the Flyers. Plus, Vancouver is dominating the west which is dominating the east in inter-conference games this season. Therefore, they will win the Stanley Cup.

QUESTION 1: After listening to both men, who do you agree with and how did you arrive at your conclusion? Please be precise when you describe your decision making process.

I agree with the second man because the arguments of the first man all depend upon biased sampling for the statistics. I give those arguments minuscule weight.

The Cannucks are the best of the West, and the West is better than the East, therefore the best of the West is better than the best of the East.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say the aff "successfully mitigates the disad substantially" what do you mean? Where the arguments that it is very unlikely that the 10,000 people will die, or that the 10,000 will die anyway, or that the assumptions within the logic chain of the DA are flawed thus the 10,000 people won't die. These are all defensive arguments and would mitigate the DA. If the aff "successfully mitigates" that could mean there is still risk of the DA or there is not risk of the DA. If I thought there was still risk, though successfully mitigate, I'd vote Neg. If I thought there was no risk (rejecting the notion that there is always risk) then I vote aff since the CP is not an opportunity loss of passing the affirmative plan.

 

Successfully mitigated means there is a substantially lower than 100% risk the disad is true. Somewhere in the 1%-5% range less say. For the purpose of this exercise, you thought there was still a risk (although a 1% risk)

 

By voting neg you have affirmed the offense / defense model. the aff won MORE total arguments, but the neg controlled the direction of a very small risk of offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos,

 

QUESTION 2: If man #1 is drunk, holding a billy club in his hand and smacking it on the palm of his other hand, and he looks rather menacing as in he is angry with people who disagree with him... does that mean his argument is more true? Yes or no? (Yes or No answer only... and note that I did not ask you whether you agree with him more... just whether his argument is more true/valid)

 

 

(Still not back... but had a very brief moment of internet access... time for a cross-x.com intervention for me.... )

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaos,

 

QUESTION 2: If man #1 is drunk, holding a billy club in his hand and smacking it on the palm of his other hand, and he looks rather menacing as in he is angry with people who disagree with him... does that mean his argument is more true? Yes or no? (Yes or No answer only... and note that I did not ask you whether you agree with him more... just whether his argument is more true/valid)

 

 

(Still not back... but had a very brief moment of internet access... time for a cross-x.com intervention for me.... )

No.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTION 3: Considering that man #1 is drunk and menacing, are you more likely to agree with his position because you feel that your life or health might be endangered if you disagree with him (i.e. that you are worried he will beat you with the billy club)? Yes or No? (yes or no only)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUESTION 3: Considering that man #1 is drunk and menacing, are you more likely to agree with his position because you feel that your life or health might be endangered if you disagree with him (i.e. that you are worried he will beat you with the billy club)? Yes or No? (yes or no only)

Yes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTION 4: (open ended) You already stated that man #1's position isn't more true/valid. You already stated that the man#2's position is superior. What does man #1's menacing attitude have to do with your opinion of his position? Why are you now more likely to agree with man #1?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed itself doesn't ruin policy debate in my eyes, it's when teams abuse it that it gets bad. It's kind of ridiculous when teams can win simply because they can out spread you with 7 or 8 DAs and something like an X/O CP in the 1NC while they hardly understand any of the real in and outs of debate itself.

 

Though it is nice when they think they can do that and they hit something like security and they bite into the argument/case without realizing it.

 

It's too subjective to say overall, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUESTION 4: (open ended) You already stated that man #1's position isn't more true/valid. You already stated that the man#2's position is superior. What does man #1's menacing attitude have to do with your opinion of his position? Why are you now more likely to agree with man #1?

Ankur, a much shorter way to do this:

 

Q1: Suppose a bar of soap you want costs $50 at a store. Then a friend calls you and says there's a store 15 minutes away from you that sells the same soap for $5. Do you drive 15 minutes for the cheaper soap?

 

Q2: Suppose you want a Porsche for $100,050. Then a friend calls you and says there's a dealership 15 minutes away from you that sells the same car for $100,050. Do you drive 15 minutes for the cheaper car?

 

If your answers for 1 and 2 differed, you are thinking irrationally.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Successfully mitigated means there is a substantially lower than 100% risk the disad is true. Somewhere in the 1%-5% range less say. For the purpose of this exercise, you thought there was still a risk (although a 1% risk)

 

By voting neg you have affirmed the offense / defense model. the aff won MORE total arguments, but the neg controlled the direction of a very small risk of offense.

Not sure what you mean that the aff won more total arguments. Am I missing something in the example. And even if I granted that they did, I'm not sure how that effects my ballot. Are you saying that in the absence of an O/D paradigm I'm only left with with counting arguements?

 

Yes, if the aff doesn't win the defense then they don't win. I'm not sure that affirmed the O/D model. As I pointed out, if the aff does win the defense, in which I don't assume a risk, then I vote aff. It totally depends on the specific arguments and how they function in the round.

 

Sorry Ankur, didn't extend your logic test, but it looks like you handled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff WON the defensive arguments... as a mitigation. I mean after all, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

So the aff won that their arguments are 99% true, the neg rebuttal to the aff arguments are 1% true. You still vote neg because there is a 1% risk the neg rebuttal is true.

 

The affirmative has won the majority of arguments and is generally on the side of truth, yet the negative controls the direction arrow on the only offense in the round, and yet you still said you would vote negative. You sir have affirmed the O/D paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The aff WON the defensive arguments... as a mitigation. I mean after all, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

So the aff won that their arguments are 99% true, the neg rebuttal to the aff arguments are 1% true. You still vote neg because there is a 1% risk the neg rebuttal is true.

 

The affirmative has won the majority of arguments and is generally on the side of truth, yet the negative controls the direction arrow on the only offense in the round, and yet you still said you would vote negative. You sir have affirmed the O/D paradigm.

You do realize that misquoting me and only responding to half of my arguments does not lead to an affirmation of your position and if anything further discredits you.

 

Let me repeat one more time, the concept that there is always risk is wrong. Your response that "only the Sith deal in absolutes" is amusing, but not a warrant is without a doubt incorrect. If your argument is that Sudan will nuke me, and my response is that Sudan doesn't have nuclear weapons, that is defense and it eliminates risk. I would not assign a 1% risk, because that is nonsensical at the point that I accept the defense. It is judge intervention to provide a 1% risk, because the only way to logically do that is to provide arguments such as they might have them and we don't know or that they will attain them. When you manufacture the risk because the impact is very large, you are intervening.

 

Since I reject your notion that risk is inevitable, I find your orginal scenerio incomplete and thus am forced to answer on both sides, to which you conveniently continue to pick only one. Since you fail to respond to the "offense" in this little debate that there are situations in which I would vote aff on the defense, you lose this little debate under your flawed paradigm. Ha! That make me chuckle...

 

No where in your original scenerio did you say that the aff was on the side of truth, and I'm still not getting the relavance of counting the number of arguments "won".

 

So, does the perm in your original scenerio have a risk too, or is it an absolute? Interesting... you believe in absolutes too, but just in debate theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a direct quote from you: "These are all defensive arguments and would mitigate the DA. If the aff "successfully mitigates" that could mean there is still risk of the DA or there is not risk of the DA"

 

In my scenario I am going with the former. "Successfully mitigates" means there is still a risk. So despite the GREATER risk of truth being on the side of the affirmative, you still vote negative.

 

It's funny how you backtrack so much when I call you out on using the O/D model. It's almost like you'd rather not be tagged with that label, even if its logical and true in this sense, just to avoid admitting there are instances where you use it.

 

I agree there is such a scenario when a judge should assign no risk... see the first example in my original O/D post. But in THIS scenario, as the judge you believe there is a risk (for the purpose of the exercise). You thought the aff was winning a lot of defensive mitigation to the point where the disad is MORE unlikely than likely (but still possible), yet you voted negative (which YOU said you would).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a direct quote from you: "These are all defensive arguments and would mitigate the DA. If the aff "successfully mitigates" that could mean there is still risk of the DA or there is not risk of the DA"

 

In my scenario I am going with the former. "Successfully mitigates" means there is still a risk. So despite the GREATER risk of truth being on the side of the affirmative, you still vote negative.

 

It's funny how you backtrack so much when I call you out on using the O/D model. It's almost like you'd rather not be tagged with that label, even if its logical and true in this sense, just to avoid admitting there are instances where you use it.

 

I agree there is such a scenario when a judge should assign no risk... see the first example in my original O/D post. But in THIS scenario, as the judge you believe there is a risk (for the purpose of the exercise). You thought the aff was winning a lot of defensive mitigation to the point where the disad is MORE unlikely than likely (but still possible), yet you voted negative (which YOU said you would).

Growing tired of the symantics game. I have repeatedly said that the specifics are important, and it could go either way, that your scenerio is not specific enough. Even where you quote me above, I am showing that your scenerio does not give a definitive result. For some reason you are obsessed with there is a possibility that if the specifics fall down in one way I would vote neg and ignore that there are situations in which I would vote aff. I don't believe I have backtracked. I believe someone who is a proponent of the O/D paradigm would always vote neg, and I have given a counter to that which should be enough to reject the premise that the O/D paradigm is always the superior paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe I said "always superior"... in fact Example #1 was a case against the O/D paradigm.

 

Suppose aff answered DA by saying "X...Y...Z" Fill in X...Y...Z to be three arguments you find persuasive, but would not put the risk of the DA at zero, in other words, three arguments that while may be more likely than not, still don't mean NO scenario for the disad materializing. I don't really care what the specific arguments are, it is irrelevant to this example in every conceivable way.

 

O/D taken to its extreme is illogical. Rejecting it in every scenario is illogical. That is my point. Logical policymakers both reject and accept the O/D paradigm as a model for cost-benefit analysis (CBA). CBA training is one of debates greatest educational tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUESTION 4: (open ended) You already stated that man #1's position isn't more true/valid. You already stated that the man#2's position is superior. What does man #1's menacing attitude have to do with your opinion of his position? Why are you now more likely to agree with man #1?

I don't know if man #2 is angry or not, so I don't know if I'm more likely to agree with man #1.

 

I didn't spot the fallacy I made until I was forced to justify my decision.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume that man #2 is not angry. He is just chillin with his beer. Does that change anything?

 

SCENARIO 2:

You are a judge or juror in a courtroom. The defendant is a notorious mobster and the evidence for awful crimes is overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution. You have received "anonymous" threats against your life if you find the defendant guilty of the heinous crimes of which he stands accused. Do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty? And why?

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assume that man #2 is not angry. He is just chillin with his beer. Does that change anything?

I don't think I'd be any more likely to think that #1's position is true. Rationally I wouldn't, but I rarely act in a wholly rational way. It's hard to tell because this is so abstract.

 

 

SCENARIO 2:

You are a judge or juror in a courtroom. The defendant is a notorious mobster and the evidence for awful crimes is overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution. You have received "anonymous" threats against your life if you find the defendant guilty of the heinous crimes of which he stands accused. Do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty? And why?

I hope I'd find the mobster guilty because I would save more lives by putting the mobster in jail, even if I died. The problem is again the abstraction inherent in hypothetical scenario.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed's good. I used to have a speaking disability and working hard at debate to be able to speak faster helped me get rid of it more than any of the exercises that I got for it. I'm only a novice now but I'm able to outspeak a junior on my team who's a pretty good speaker.

  • Upvote 1

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...