Jump to content
Snarf

Spreading K Answers

Recommended Posts

What do you normally read in the 2AC if the 1NC is a kritik of spreading?

 

long version

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 consistentThe 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 systemSuch 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

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

WOAH IM VOTING AFF NOW!!!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think this K is totally stupid (And it's abuse of Virilio) 

 

If they flash you what they're reading, why would the neg whine? Is it because they feel that they can only win by out spreading? 

 

Like, I'd buy this K in a heartbeat if some D-bag team was like "We're not flashing", but other then that I don't understand why it even exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think this K is totally stupid (And it's abuse of Virilio) 

 

If they flash you what they're reading, why would the neg whine? Is it because they feel that they can only win by out spreading? 

 

Like, I'd buy this K in a heartbeat if some D-bag team was like "We're not flashing", but other then that I don't understand why it even exists. 

I don't think the spreading K uses Virilio's theories of societal speed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was nice of you to post that frontline.

 

#4 doesn't quite make sense.

 

Speed probably increases elitism--particularly in terms of money.

a) Rich schools are priviledge in speed debate (more coaches = more evidence + more coaches = more efficient use of speed)

B) The metaphor for this is the speed of globalization creating centralization for the US.  Its a multiplier effect.

 

I would also suggest at least one answer more directly answer the claims of the speed critique around ability/disability......or whatever they are saying.

I think the top level competition versus muted competition is one way to make this argument.  Its simple, Averageness versus excellence.  Thats exactly what plagues

the middle class.  They feel like they can't achieve--they must be in some range versus at the top of their game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be clear, most of those studies about speed don't suggestion any causation, just correlation (i.e. people that are capable of speaking fast tend to have better memories, but talking faster doesn't necessarily improve your memory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1NC: "Spreading is ableist and the practice re-entrenches the elitist hierarchy of debate that excludes poor and under-privileged students and schools! We should focus on more educational styles of debate that reach out to more people than causing the activity to become an insular island of masturbatory faux-argument!"

 

2AC: "Ha yeah, BUT it increases your memory!"

Something tells me that the above frontline might be reasons that spreading is a good thing - arguments that I might make when non-debaters say "but why do you talk so fast? What's the point?" -  but those reasons are (probably) totally unrelated to a K of spreading.

 

I don't think anyone would kritik spreading on the grounds that it's... bad for our health, or understanding of syntax, or memory, or the other things these cards talk about. Given that, why would you read arguments about why it's good for literacy or math or whatever? They seem non-responsive and I fear you will probably end up quite behind on that flow with these arguments.

 

Regardless, thank you for sharing your frontline, I love when people do that, open-source-education hip-hip-hoorah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me that the above frontline might be reasons that spreading is a good thing - arguments that I might make when non-debaters say "but why do you talk so fast? What's the point?" -  but those reasons are (probably) totally unrelated to a K of spreading.

 

I don't think anyone would kritik spreading on the grounds that it's... bad for our health, or understanding of syntax, or memory, or the other things these cards talk about. Given that, why would you read arguments about why it's good for literacy or math or whatever? They seem non-responsive and I fear you will probably end up quite behind on that flow with these arguments.

 

Regardless, thank you for sharing your frontline, I love when people do that, open-source-education hip-hip-hoorah!

No problemz!

 

But when people kritik Spreading, it usually ends with "this is exclusionary/hurts education/hurts fairness." Even though it is a K, i consider it more of a theory argument (Spreading Bad, vote them down for it). The frontline I posted is meant to answer those education claims.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with ktg most of the time spread bad does boil down to theory, most of the time I dont even need to pull out evidence. If you can win the standards such as education, fairness, predictability and such forth most judges vote in your favor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problemz!

 

But when people kritik Spreading, it usually ends with "this is exclusionary/hurts education/hurts fairness." Even though it is a K, i consider it more of a theory argument (Spreading Bad, vote them down for it). The frontline I posted is meant to answer those education claims.

True, they turn education. I don't know how you would answer the exclusion and fairness arguments though - are there any studies (read: cards) that have analyzed whether or not spreading actually makes it difficult for new or underprivileged teams to win? I don't know how that could be represented statistically... even that might miss the mark, especially since spreading can be (and I think is) a deterrent for many to even do policy in the first place. Or to judge or coach it for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished reading WAIT by Partnoy. There are a few interesting studies in there suggesting that speed changes the ways in which people think about things and enjoy things (for the worse, if the title's not a hint). Seems relevant. The Speed K is hardly a threatening argument, but the literature has probably changed a lot since the last time everyone updated their blocks to it, so it might be able to take the unprepared by surprise.

Also, I hate blocks that label every argument as a turn. I somehow doubt the terminal impact to the K is memory deterioration or any of the other offensive arguments up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished reading WAIT by Partnoy. There are a few interesting studies in there suggesting that speed changes the ways in which people think about things and enjoy things (for the worse, if the title's not a hint). Seems relevant. The Speed K is hardly a threatening argument, but the literature has probably changed a lot since the last time everyone updated their blocks to it, so it might be able to take the unprepared by surprise.

 

Also, I hate blocks that label every argument as a turn. I somehow doubt the terminal impact to the K is memory deterioration or any of the other offensive arguments up there.

"Turn" just generically means "offense". 

 

You're referencing an "Internal link turn", which is specific to the other team's impacts.  The block is accurately labeled. 

 

Also - seen the above block before, and that's what I thought. I'm going to start a new thread and crowdsource the kritik like Lazzarone did with Johnny 23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor point here, but I think "turn" means that you take one of their arguments and flip it. Think of the literal definition of the word turn, that's where the debate term comes from. It doesn't just refer to any piece of offense, if it did then the use of that specific word would be senseless.

Wikipedia verifies:
 

 

 In policy debate, a turn is an argument that proves an argument the other side has made is in fact support for one's own side.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_(policy_debate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've cited wikipedia so the discussion is over. That's why "impact turns" to a disad are always about the same impact as the disad, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've cited wikipedia so the discussion is over. That's why "impact turns" to a disad are always about the same impact as the disad, right?

 

I am honestly not trying to be hostile, but I think you think I am. I'm not. Chillax.

 

Impact turns are always about the same impact as the DA. They say heg good, we say heg bad, they say econ good, we say econ bad. I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly not trying to be hostile, but I think you think I am. I'm not. Chillax.

 

Impact turns are always about the same impact as the DA. They say heg good, we say heg bad, they say econ good, we say econ bad. I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm just talking about debate jargon. 

 

I suppose you don't know what I'm talking about; impact turns to a disad )or anything) are absolutely NOT always about the same impact as initially presented, though they can be. If you read a free trade politics disad with an econ impact in the 1NC, the 2AC can be "free trade key to relations, relations bad" or "free trade causes warming, warming bad". Both of those are impact turns.

 

Same with kritiks - common impact turns to the cap k are "cap key to space colonization, space col good" and "cap key to agriculture, agriculture good". Neither of those are likely in the 1NC to the cap k, but both are indeed impact turns.

 

Your whole spatial metaphor about turning demonstrates the point - if you're going left and I turn you around right, you may go down any number of different roads to the right. "turn" signifies diverse types of offense in the same way that  its physically possible to turn around and travel many different directions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my understanding, those are impact turns because you're turning the overarching free trade good impact or the capitalism bad argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my understanding, those are impact turns because you're turning the overarching free trade good impact or the capitalism bad argument.

 

likewise, those args are the "speed good" answer to the "speed bad" DA. They're turns because they're offense running the other way that concedes the link level of the argument (i.e. that the team is, in fact, being 'speedy')

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That feels wrong, somehow. My intuitions are contradicting each other now. That's probably a good sign, though. Thanks for the connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this interesting, especially the part about communicative capitalism towards the end: http://soundstudiesblog.com/2012/09/17/easy-listening-spreading-and-the-role-of-the-ear-in-debating/

 

I didn't like the article because I don't think it successfully made the link from spreading to trusting in experts or the argument that spreading privileges form over content (to a significant degree), but the comment below was very interesting to me regardless.

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...