Jump to content
Miro

Netflix!

Recommended Posts

"You'll qualify for the state tournament and Harvard will give you a full ride." Where is my full ride scholarship at? lol

 

For real though, can I get me a full ride for getting coached over in sems? l:<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda amazing that they get so much right (literally no one can understand spreading 100%, the stands, "is anyone not ready") but get so much wrong (notecards, qualifying for state being hard). Still, i'll watch it. Probably make it a ddc lesson (spot the differences, flow the speeches).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda amazing that they get so much right (literally no one can understand spreading 100%, the stands, "is anyone not ready") but get so much wrong (notecards, qualifying for state being hard). Still, i'll watch it. Probably make it a ddc lesson (spot the differences, flow the speeches).

I think that the notecards and qualifying being difficult are just about making it appealing to the public. They could show two students cutting cards on a laptop and qualifying to state, but that wouldn't really be as much of a story to tell.

 

edit: they're also debating "The costs of a college education are outweighed by the benefits" and not reading any evidence cards or seemingly debating a plan or a DA or anything.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda amazing that they get so much right (literally no one can understand spreading 100%, the stands, "is anyone not ready") but get so much wrong (notecards, qualifying for state being hard). Still, i'll watch it. Probably make it a ddc lesson (spot the differences, flow the speeches).

Is it hard in every single state?  I think anyone can sign up for state in illinois, louisiana, vermont, actually I think that the vermont contest allows new hampshire debaters because they'res no state tournament in new hampshire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maury was talking about qualifying for states not being hard. The movie frames states as like the holy grail of debate, and being ridiculously hard or whatever. Honestly, I would have rathered them just go to the TOCs, rather than framing states as being extremely difficult to qual for.

Edited by OutKTheK
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maury was talking about qualifying for states not being hard. The movie frames states as like the holy grail of debate, and being ridiculously hard or whatever. Honestly, I would have rathered them just go to the TOCs, rather than framng states as being extremely difficult to qual for.

fwiw people were handwriting evidence onto notecards into the 90s.  I've heard tfa is hard to get into though, probably true of at least a few other states as well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's so cool and presents debate in a way the world won't hate, yay. Thanks for sharing.

 

this is pretty much how i feel

 

i get so tired of reading the hateful comments that random people leave on debate videos. When people run into something outlandish like policy debate, i wish that their reaction would be something along the lines of "this is strange to me and I don't understand it. I'm either going to continue on with my day or try to better understand it", rather than "this is strange to me and I don't understand it. I'm going to trash it and insult the intelligence of everyone who participates in it, because even though I've never participated in debate, I know everything about what good debate is"

 

i hope this show becomes popular and contributes to a more open attitude toward debate and other "obscure" activities like it. Maybe some people will watch this and think debate is cool and interesting (like we do), and decide they want to participate in debate themselves

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is pretty much how i feel

 

i get so tired of reading the hateful comments that random people leave on debate videos. When people run into something outlandish like policy debate, i wish that their reaction would be something along the lines of "this is strange to me and I don't understand it. I'm either going to continue on with my day or try to better understand it", rather than "this is strange to me and I don't understand it. I'm going to trash it and insult the intelligence of everyone who participates in it, because even though I've never participated in debate, I know everything about what good debate is"

 

i hope this show becomes popular and contributes to a more open attitude toward debate and other "obscure" activities like it. Maybe some people will watch this and think debate is cool and interesting (like we do), and decide they want to participate in debate themselves

 

People hate what they don't understand, and then they don't attempt to understand it. It's very similar with other debate styles. I'll regularly hear policy be called a "fake event" by people in PF, congress, etc. I hope this can dissolve some of the stigma on policy debate, as God knows how much we need it to recruit more novices in the years to come. I remember when I saw my first round between two of my upperclassmen, I listened to them speak fast and didn't think like "oh, this is fake debate, I am going to leave now", I thought "holy shit, this is cool af, where can I speak like I'm permanently on LSD?" I had the benefit of not hearing about it before, because I didn't participate in middle school debate. I hope that more people will get the chance to listen to a real policy round and judge for themselves if it is worthless and bad, or if it is interesting, unique, and maybe even fun. Maybe then, our policy program will grow to be bigger than just a team for each year, like our pf team with like a billion novices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People hate what they don't understand, and then they don't attempt to understand it. It's very similar with other debate styles. I'll regularly hear policy be called a "fake event" by people in PF, congress, etc.

Well to be fair, policy debaters shit in PF as much as PF debaters shit on policy. Of course, from our perspective, it’s justified because what they do seems like a joke compared to what we do (snarf please don’t hit me with warning points for saying that) and I tell myself that I’m allowed to think that because I debated PF for three years before switching to policy because I grew so frustrated with the event.

 

But the thing is, even though I did the event and didn’t like it, why does that mean I have the right to shit on it? Lots of people pour their hearts into PF and they get a lot out of it. I may not understand why, but unless I want to be a hypocrite, I should be okay with that.

 

But I also think that the intra-debate conflicts between different events are a different animal from outsiders critiquing Policy. I think someone who does competitive debate in any form has enough experience to come to a reasonable conclusion about what debate ought to be, but a random passerby on YouTube has no right to speak on the matter.

 

Just some random thoughts. I don’t disagree with anything in your post, I just wanted to comment on the issue of people criticizing other events.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the cost vs benefits of college education was a PF topic in like 2011.

Not to rain on the parade, but it's very unlikely this is going to move the barometer of public opinion at all. To the extent that it makes people more aware what policy debate is actually like, I would expect the effect to be negative. We might get upgraded to "quirky" in a few especially openminded people's books. But it's just noise regardless.

To actually rain on the parade, I'm a bit surprised at the positive reception this is getting. I enjoyed Rocket Science because it made me cringe every three seconds and had an earnest bleakness to it that made it kind of a thrill. This looks like the anti-Rocket Science, in that it's supposed to be a light-hearted feel good romp, where maybe the real trophy is the friends we made along the way. Not that that message is necessarily invalid, but I don't like having a movie tell me so. I can't engage with it because I feel like I'm being pandered to. Am I simply an emotionally crippled cynic, or did anyone else flinch away for similar reasons?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the cost vs benefits of college education was a PF topic in like 2011.

 

Oh my god...

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I simply an emotionally crippled cynic, or did anyone else flinch away for similar reasons?

Let’s just say that when I watch this, it definitely won’t be for the plot.

 

Edit:

 

Oh god that sounds messed up. I mean I’m gonna watch it for the debate stuff because the plot seems stupid, or rather, not my thing

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the numbers for four year degrees, but only 40% of the population in the US have a 2 year degree or higher. This suggests it's at least plausible that college is a bad deal for the majority of the population, assuming that people are making sensible decisions about how to spend their time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s just say that when I watch this, it definitely won’t be for the plot.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, policy debaters do look down on pf, but the thing is, there are already probably a lot more pf debaters than policy debaters, and policy is declining really hard, too. I like to shit on pf all the time, but it's usually in jest.

 

...

 

Speech, on the other hand...

 

EDIT:

 

Also, I think policy (and to a certain extent, circuit LD) are different animals than the other debate styles because from what I've seen, people from other styles don't really understand how policy works, because it's a much more nuanced event than pf. That's not subjective, either.

Edited by OutKTheK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the negative ground, stupidity good?

Vocational training good + debt DA, obviously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished watching the movie on Netflix and I have to say that it was a good Independent film. Although it does not encompass all aspects of debate, the movie does incorporate sentimental underlying themes and shows the importance of maintaining a strong, healthy social life. I would recommend watching. It may not mirror debate exactly, but it is a step in the right direction in helping people understand our activity. 

  • Upvote 4

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...