Is speed killing debate?

[Enterprise 371]

I still see this as a defensive argument rather than an offensive one.

 

See ankur.

 

Almost everything in life is characterized by striving toward a Platonic goal, when in reality that goal isn't 100% achieveable.

I threw up a little bit in my mouth.

 

That perfect truth, justice, and ethics are "impossible" doesn't stop us from striving. (ps we're not going to solve the aff or its harms perfectly either--that doesn't mean we should stop trying)

I threw up a little bit more

 

If debaters were incentivized with the ballot--they would internalize that norm far more readily. Also, that pre-supposes what debate and competition are....not what they could be in a world in which the norms changed.

Last I checked, you were not a critical race debater. Why are you using jargon and rhetoric like you were one?

 

It sounds like we're not going to agree on this...

Duh?

 

 

 

(As a side note, it does seem weird that Ks of Capitalism & modernity use speed given that both Ks take issue with the practice)

 

I Lol'd. Really hard.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Enterprise
Found something even more lawlarific.

[nathan_debate 745]

Enterprise. Those were great args yo.

 

Ink next to ink is not an argument. PS.

[Chez-Out 134]

Enterprise. Those were great args yo.

 

Ink next to ink is not an argument. PS.

Ink.

 

Edit: Wow, you totally conceded my INK turn, you are downright FUCKED.

 

Edit 2: Tags and card text should be read at the same speed.

[Red Spy 146]

successful troll is successful

[Enterprise 371]

successful troll is successful

I'm not trolling; everything I said was true.

[us5halls 24]

I just skipped to the bottom here so if anyone has already posted this analogy, I apologize for wasting your time.

 

 

It's kinda like high school basketball, just because you want to play really bad doesn't make you varsity material. In the case with disabilities and whatnot, some people are just better apt at certain things than others. A guy who's 7' is going to be a little more apt to play center than someone who is short. The same thing can be applied to debate.

 

It's terrible to say, and I believe everyone should debate if they want, but there's certain aspects to it that pre-excludes some just by the very nature of activity.

[Dark Talon 66]

I would quit debate if speed was somehow taken out of the picture............

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

It's terrible to say, and I believe everyone should debate if they want, but there's certain aspects to it that pre-excludes some just by the very nature of activity.

 

But is it really the "nature of the activity"?

 

Speaking quickly is not an essential element to making a logical argument backed by supporting evidence. Speed is a norm in policy that the debate community has grown to accept over the years. But if speed is excluding people who could otherwise be very good debaters, then perhaps it's time to consider revising the norms. It's all a question of what you want your community to be; do you want to be generally inclusive or exclusive?

[Nelsonwins94 4]

 

 

It's kinda like high school basketball, just because you want to play really bad doesn't make you varsity material. In the case with disabilities and whatnot, some people are just better apt at certain things than others. A guy who's 7' is going to be a little more apt to play center than someone who is short. The same thing can be applied to debate.

 

quote]

 

Again the point it missed with the sport anology. Imagine if we sped up basketball. Made it so complicated that only those involved can understand whats happening. support would deteriorate for that sport thus the sport would die. Same thing applies in debate.make somthing to exclusive for both the participints and the specatators, then the sport dies.

[Chaos 2587]

Imagine if we sped up basketball. Made it so complicated that only those involved can understand whats happening. support would deteriorate for that sport support would deteriorate for that sport thus the sport would die. Same thing applies in debate.make somthing to exclusive for both the participints and the specatators, then the sport dies.

This is similar to an argument except that it's not.

 

You don't give a warrant, you give an analogy. You don't identify a brightline for "to exclusive". Policy has been fast for decades and is still alive. Debate isn't a sport. Public forum solves public support for debate programs. In the worst case scenario, debate evolves.

[AK-47 74]

But is it really the "nature of the activity"?

 

Speaking quickly is not an essential element to making a logical argument backed by supporting evidence. Speed is a norm in policy that the debate community has grown to accept over the years. But if speed is excluding people who could otherwise be very good debaters, then perhaps it's time to consider revising the norms. It's all a question of what you want your community to be; do you want to be generally inclusive or exclusive?

 

Inclusivity doesn't matter if the activity then has little to no educational value. The reason speed has developed as a norm is because it is a POSITIVE norm. It's positive competitively - allows teams to make more arguments and read more cards. It's positive educationally - the ability to make more arguments = more in-depth discussion and the ability to explore a wider variety of issues. Oh, and there's the whole issue of more arguments meaning that there are more interactions between positions to analyze.

 

Speed may not be "essential," but it's certainly beneficial. More on this in the other Speed thread in the Theory forum.

[geneva 9]

I don't think that speed is killing debate. While it does make it more difficult for novices to start, seeing as it's terribly difficult to understand at first, I think after a year or so of debating you get used to it, and speed allows more arguments in a round, making it more interesting. The only thing I think speed is killing is the ability of parent judges to fairly judge a round, although debate jargon might have killed that long before speed.

[...Hi... 586]

Not killing debate. The sport has adapted.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

I don't think that speed is killing debate. While it does make it more difficult for novices to start, seeing as it's terribly difficult to understand at first, I think after a year or so of debating you get used to it, and speed allows more arguments in a round, making it more interesting. The only thing I think speed is killing is the ability of parent judges to fairly judge a round, although debate jargon might have killed that long before speed.

If speed is very difficult for novices to grasp, and attracting and retaining novices is a big cause of the activity's decline, then can't speed be blamed for killing debate?

[Aznpanda 9]

I debated freshman year, left for a year and came back this year with no camp experience.

I won a trophy. the speed is fine, if you cant keep up you probably shouldnt be debating

[Corporate DB8er 199]

...if you cant keep up you probably shouldnt be debating

...and thus the activity dies from exclusion.

[Red Spy 146]

...and thus the activity dies from exclusion.

 

debate should die an honorable death instead of being noob friendly

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

debate should die an honorable death instead of being noob friendly

I'm glad that wasn't the philosophy back when I was a noob. We were all noobs at one point.

[Red Spy 146]

^and instead of quiting I instead overcame my noobiness

[Corporate DB8er 199]

debate should die an honorable death instead of being noob friendly

So the answer of the question of the thread is, "yes, speed is killing debate, and that is good because speed is equivalent of honor and it is better to have honor than avoid death." We should value speed in the event over the existence of the event itself. Interesting argument.

[Chaos 2587]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[Corporate DB8er 199]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Not in this case. It is not absurd to say that it is better for policy debate to be killed in its honorable form rather than continue to exist. Soldier's traditionally live this motto. Give me freedom or give me death. I believe Red Spy is saying, "Give me speed debate or give me no debate." I find that interesting. I don't particularly agree, but I'm attempting to see other perspectives.

[The Incredible Hulk? 2106]

Speed breeds competitions and competition will always improve debate.

 

In any activity people will quit because they can't take the heat. It doesn't mean we should lower the bar and assimilate people.

 

Furthermore, just because other people have to spread doesn't mean you do.

I used to do drills routinely, and I became fast because I LIKED COMPETITION. I still lost every fucking semi finals to this guy named Ben that would talk slow as shit because he had the deepest and most soothing voice on the planet. (no homo)

He made me adjust how I debated him. The third or fourth time I went one off foucault, and went slower than slow shit. This was the only time I picked up a ballot against him.

[Chaos 2587]

Not in this case. It is not absurd to say that it is better for policy debate to be killed in its honorable form rather than continue to exist. Soldier's traditionally live this motto. Give me freedom or give me death. I believe Red Spy is saying, "Give me speed debate or give me no debate." I find that interesting. I don't particularly agree, but I'm attempting to see other perspectives.

ok

please ignore above

this guy named Ben had the deepest and most soothing voice on the planet. (no homo)

This actually seems like a good strategy for me to use with locals because my voice is pretty low. Thanks.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Chaos

[thechillsauce 46]

 

 

It's kinda like high school basketball, just because you want to play really bad doesn't make you varsity material. In the case with disabilities and whatnot, some people are just better apt at certain things than others. A guy who's 7' is going to be a little more apt to play center than someone who is short. The same thing can be applied to debate.

 

quote]

 

Again the point it missed with the sport anology. Imagine if we sped up basketball. Made it so complicated that only those involved can understand whats happening. support would deteriorate for that sport thus the sport would die. Same thing applies in debate.make somthing to exclusive for both the participints and the specatators, then the sport dies.

To this argument, the whole thing is that debate right now is like high school basketball right now. they both require a certain amount of skill. speeding basketball up wouldn't make it the same as debate right now because debate is already sped up and basketball already requires you to develop skills to be able to participate