Jump to content
Nelsonwins94

Why does Speed kill Policy debate?

Recommended Posts

speed doesn't kill debate it was a thing that attracted me to policy over LD or PF. If you can't keep up that is on you or you can change your strat up some to stay in policy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your robust mindset is seriously hurting the fk out of my awesome, antifragile mindset.

I detect a newly created troll account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're here I might as well post something useful. Here's my revised thoughts on the offense-defense paradigm, from the discussion earlier.

I think it's important before I get into the meat of my argument that I stress I don't defend the way in which the paradigm is generally utilized today, which can be very lazy. I think that there isn't nearly enough weight given to defensive arguments by most judges, and I think that the offense-defense paradigm in its current form allows for lower quality negative strategies than which would otherwise be deployed. I won't defend current practices, only the basic idea of the offense-defense paradigm, and in a weaker form than it is usually used.

Using an example will allow me to explain my position more effectively, so I'll insert that now. Suppose that the negative team reads a politics DA and claims that 1. Obama's pushing Cap and Trade now and it will pass. 2. The plan hurts Obama's political capital. 3. That stops Cap and Trade. 4. Cap and Trade stops Global Warming. 5. Warming causes extinction. Then suppose that the affirmative team is incompetent and responds with an incredibly strong argument disproving Global Warming, but reads nothing else and drops all of their advantages. Further suppose that the negative team is also incompetent and responds to the affirmative's impact defense with only an argument about the offense defense paradigm, while also extending the parts of the DA that were dropped. What might such an argument look like?

If I were that incompetent negative, I'd argue something such as the following:

 

Err negative on the impact because of the offense-defense paradigm. Despite appearances nothing is certain because human knowledge is limited and intervening actors are always a possibility. Even if the affirmative seems to have disproved the threat of Global Warming, the possibility of such a threat exists nonetheless. Don't risk the planet on their studies, because if they're wrong we're doomed forever.

 

If I were also the affirmative, I'd reply:

 

We'll concede that there's always a risk of everything, but that doesn't mean that you should prefer the claims of the negative. Although there's a risk that despite all reason and evidence the plan would cause Global Warming, that risk is so negligible that it must be ignored. Even if there's a chance that something bad would happen as a result of the plan, there's an equal chance that something good could happen, so you shouldn't consider the offense defense paradigm when evaluating the round.

 

Negative-me would then respond:
 

They have no warrant for their claim that some risks must be ignored. All risks are worth considering in the eyes of a rational agent, no matter what. Even if you're dealing with small probabilities, you're dealing with huge impacts that can't be neglected "just because". Further, they fail to identify a brightline between those risks that are improbable yet legitimate and those that are improbable yet illegitimate, proving that their assertion is self serving and unjustified.

They claim that there's an equal chance something good could result from the plan as that something bad could result. However, believing in a literal equal probability for both outcomes is totally arbitrary. There's no inherent reason that we should expect the probability of utopia and the probability of disaster to balance so closely. It's much more likely that the probability would be skewed in one direction of the other. If we win that the probability is skewed towards bad outcomes, rather than towards good or neutral ones, then we should win the round through the DA despite their impact defense.

Here's why the probability is skewed:
1. There's no such thing as Anti-Global-Warming - we've at least got a theory which justifies our appeal to an extinction event while they don't have the same. Although we can perhaps speculate on vague abstract possibilities which would allow CO2 to solve extinction, the affirmative hasn't actually articulated any such scenarios, and you should assume that Global Warming is more probable than Anti-Global-Warming because Global Warming is at least a specific and internally consistent theory. The risk of vague impacts occurring post plan may be the same on both sides, but the risk of specific impacts occurring flows towards us.
2. The world is a dangerous place - there are more bad possibilities than good ones in a world with nuclear weapons. The status quo is the descendant of a long line of actions produced by agents who, whatever their other flaws, at least managed to produce a semi-stable global society that hasn't yet destroyed itself. The world is filled with fragile and important structures that protect the human race, and inserting an unknown plan into the mix is at least slightly more likely to destroy those structures than it is to build those structures up, so the risks are slightly higher if you vote affirmative.

[As an aside, I almost feel as though the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to 2. I'm unsure whether or not that would be a misapplication. Please help.]

My position now differs from my earlier one in that I now think the team using the offense-defense paradigm needs to prove at some point that the a priori probability of disaster and of utopia when considering the opponent's side are not balanced but are actually skewed towards disaster. Whether or not I succeeded within my example to do so is secondary to the idea that I'm trying to illustrate with that example, so long as the principle of the idea remains plausible. If it's proven that disaster is more probable then the offense-defense paradigm becomes legitimate, even without more specific warrants in the impact debate.

 

Obviously, however, this isn't a very good strategy to actually deploy in round, because it's not incredibly persuasive, it's rather confusing, and it takes a lot of words (at least when I attempt it B)). This is more of an investigation into the idea of the offense-defense paradigm than a defense on its actual usage within rounds. I dislike the paradigm's use in almost all actual scenarios, despite my abstract defense of it here. I'm willing to hear it out and possibly use it as a tie-breaker in a desperate situation, but nothing more.

If anyone disagrees with anything I've said, please feel free to either post a "2AR" to my example or to respond in your own words, whichever you find best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As long as we're here I might as well post something useful. Here's my revised thoughts on the offense-defense paradigm, from the discussion earlier.

 

If I was purely evaluating through impacts, I would most definitely vote negative -- because since the Affirmative conceded all of their advantages, they're basically going for "there is a chance that something good could come out of our plan" (but they don't have ANY specific scenarios). By contrast, the negative team gets to access 2 impacts the "chance that some random bad thing could come out of the plan" (the inverse of what the affirmative discussed) and "the 1% risk of the ptx disadvantage." That means that I automatically vote negative, because they have one more impacts with a clearly defined magnitude, ie. the whole "something good could come out of the plan" is reciprocal and I would pretty much disregard it.

 

If this were a real debate round, I would vote negative on presumption -- because they didn't extend solvency and didn't have any offense in the round.

 

I don't think that this scenario is an example of the failings of the offense-defense paradigm, if anything, it re-enforces the ability that it has to determine really close debate rounds, and putting offense above defense makes intuitive sense to me. I would never vote for a team that just read solvency takeouts against an affirmative.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't writing the scenario as a criticism of the offense-defense paradigm, the opposite is true. I agree that voting negative on presumption is the easiest resolution here - I realized right at the end of my post that I'd set up the scenario backwards, but didn't care enough to revise the post. For now, if everyone would just pretend that presumption doesn't exist when evaluating the scenario then I'd appreciate it because it would allow me to make my point without investing more time into writing the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 its killing debate for on major reason. people that can spread think that makes them more competitive. That is the biggest lie about speed. you have to think less when you can just spread the same K every round and when you can speak faster than your opponent you can easily beat them, and this is coming from someone who can spread. its a very abusive tactic and doesn't require skill. making actual arguments do. so all the ass hats who think spreading is competitive need to watch the second half of resolved - you can win without spreading. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 its killing debate for on major reason. people that can spread think that makes them more competitive. That is the biggest lie about speed. you have to think less when you can just spread the same K every round and when you can speak faster than your opponent you can easily beat them, and this is coming from someone who can spread. its a very abusive tactic and doesn't require skill. making actual arguments do. so all the ass hats who think spreading is competitive need to watch the second half of resolved - you can win without spreading. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/overgeneralize

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 its killing debate for on major reason. people that can spread think that makes them more competitive. That is the biggest lie about speed. you have to think less when you can just spread the same K every round and when you can speak faster than your opponent you can easily beat them, and this is coming from someone who can spread. its a very abusive tactic and doesn't require skill. making actual arguments do. so all the ass hats who think spreading is competitive need to watch the second half of resolved - you can win without spreading. 

The past high school topic has been one of the most innovative years when it comes to the K and probably disproves that assertion. there were nuanced criticisms the entire year by different fields of lit. Also speed is a skill. webster even defines skill as a" learned power of doing something competently :  a developed aptitude or ability"  you can totes develop speed through drills so stahp. 

 

also why did you bump a 1 year old thread/how'd you find it?

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.

In a lot of cases, myself included, I had to switch over to LD for a year because I had no partner due to mine graduating. After going to VBI for a 3 week session, I realized that LD really has become 1 man policy, and far more kritikal. I'm back to CX this year, but I have a healthy respect for LD'ers now.

 

Also as an edit:

 

If I had to blame one thing in particular for making more debaters cede to LD, thinking that it's easier than policy, is the sheer amount of K's that are run in policy lately. It's the main reason the new novices on my team aren't going to be learning policy because my coach feels that his knowledge is no longer applicable to debate.

Edited by Xil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for a theory argument here are some standards from an LD Speed Bad Shell:

 

1. Accessibility
When the debater uses excessive speed it harms accessibility by causing a difficult time for debaters that aren’t as experienced with speed. Additionally I can’t respond to all my opponent’s arguments so they can just cover the ones I dropped and win the round. Speaking at normal conversational speeds allows for all debaters – whether they be veterans or not – to participate in the activity while learning as much as they can effectively. Accessibility is key to education because without it a debaters access to the round itself wouldn’t exist, meaning that they do not gain any active educational benefit. 
 
2. Clash
Speed is a way for my opponent to avoid clash as I don’t have the ability to speak as fast as them and cover all arguments, so instead of debating thoroughly on a few arguments I am forced to use blanket arguments that either a) aren’t substantial to teach either of us anything or b ) aren’t enough to let me win the round. Conversational speed allows for both debaters to go in-depth into certain key points rather than spreading out time in hopes of not dropping anything vital. Clash is key to education since it teaches us how to properly respond to arguments and create our own arguments.
Edited by DarkDesi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean "normal conversation speed"

4-5 words per second, adjusted to the request of the other team.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the teams that won be all that different given the skill set would be roughly the same.

 

Affs wouldn't get to have as robust an affirmative….and negatives would be slimmer.  I think negs would have to rely on generics more to generate offense (in relation to overall time and evidence read).

 

Interesting criteria:

4-5 words per second, adjusted to the request of the other team.

 

 

Also, no double clutch breathing patterns would probably also be a pretty decent heuristic or criteria.  If you are huffing and puffing….you might be going to fast.

 

BTW, its all about smarts & clarity.  Period.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think speaking fast is ok if you arent just going straight down evidence, when you go straight down the evidence its just like ok its an ability competition but if you can honestly make an argument to satisfy every piece of evidence then it allows fair competitiveness because then the opposing team could group arguments and explain discrepancy, so no only in certain scenarios in my opinion is it harmful for policy debate, otherwise its just a sign of competitive logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think speaking fast is ok if you arent just going straight down evidence, when you go straight down the evidence its just like ok its an ability competition but if you can honestly make an argument to satisfy every piece of evidence then it allows fair competitiveness because then the opposing team could group arguments and explain discrepancy, so no only in certain scenarios in my opinion is it harmful for policy debate, otherwise its just a sign of competitive logic.

gabe,.,,, thank's

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...