The Speed Kritik
FarlyM
about the Rostrum letter sparked by attention. I think it makes some valid
points about speed (though don't confuse me with the "communication radicals",
I believe that good speed rounds are great; just look at Head Royce, who by the
way is capable of winning in a very lay tournament-- CA States). I just wanted
some feedback to the various points. So, argue away at it, or feel free to use
it. I don't care.
David Keene
La Costa Canyon
flash...@aol.com
Thesis: The thesis of this kritik is that speed is abusive in debate. The
opposing team, by speaking extremely rapidly, is destroying the purpose and
future of debate. We will see in this kritik how debate quality and fairness
are lost through excessively rapid speaking.
Subpoint A: The Link: The opposing team engaged in a speaking style that was
far beyond conversational pace. During the last cross examination period, we
engaged in conversation with them. That set the pace for a true conversational
speed. The opposing team's rate of speaking went well beyond that threshold.
Subpoint B: Decreased debate quality: In subpoint B we will see that fast
debate destroys debate quality and reduces debate clash.
1. FAST DEBATE DECREASES DEBATE QUALITY
Fast debates are usually resolved on dropped arguments as opposed to being
resolved by choosing the superior of two arguments. Debate should be about
clash, not absence of clash, but fast rounds do not facilitate clash, they
facilitate the absence of clash. You should not support a process that
encourages participants to simply try to overwhelm the opponent with volume of
argument; rather, you should instead favor a process that encourages
participants to emphasize argument quality.
2. FAST DEBATE DECREASES ARGUMENT QUALITY
When arguments are delivered more rapidly than participants can easily cope
with, analysis suffers. A rate of speaking that allows all participants to
listen carefully and reflect on the arguments made in the speech should be
preferable because it will yield superior debates. By choosing to speak
excessively fast, we are unable to fully comprehend the depth of the evidence
and arguments read.
3. FAST DEBATE DECREASES CLASH
James Talley, Rostrum, October 1996
"Misuse of rapid delivery is a similar breach of ethics. The very nature of
this strategy is a retreat from argumentation, an escape from clash, an
avoidance of the mutual testing of competing claims which is intended to result
in the discovery of the probable truth. The advantage of this strategy is that
it allows a speedy debater to take the easy way to victory, but the easy way is
not the proper course for the ethical debater. Like the fabricator, the speed
tactician is usually afraid of letting his arguments receive an honest and
thorough investigation."
Subpoint C: Debate was not designed for spreading: In subpoint C, we will see
that the activity of debate's framework simply wasn't designed with spreading
in mind.
1. FAST DEBATE ABUSES PREP TIME.
The preparational time was set when debates occurred at a conversational pace.
It is reasonable to expect someone to prepare to respond eight minutes of
conversational paced arguments in the time allotted. Fast debate, however,
allows for the introduction of more arguments without a corresponding increase
in prep time. That decreases debate quality because it forces speeches to be
given based on inadequate preparation. We can not be expected to fully
investigate the validity and quality of evidence read when it is delivered in
such mass quantities. The times in debate simply aren't created to handle this
speed of debate.
2. FAST DEBATE RESULTS IN JUDGE INTERVENTION
When debates get too fast it is impossible to listen to the evidence in the
round and understand what it says. That forces critics to read evidence after
rounds. Reading evidence after rounds results in judge intervention, since you
inevitably come to understand the argument better in the evidence than it was
explained in the round. If judge intervention were allowed, we might as well
not debate, and just hand you a case, the disads and evidence, and have you
make your interventionous decision.
3. NEG BLOCK NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE SPEED
The negative block of twelve minutes was designed with a conversational pace in
mind. The advent of fast debate has exponentially increased the number of
arguments expelled in this block, and thus, the affirmative speaker's five
minutes become correspondingly tighter. It is simply unfair for the
affirmative to be faced with so many arguments to handle, and expect them to be
fully developed and of high quality. Allowing fast debate only forces more
blip and undeveloped arguments to come out; which becomes a necessity to keep
up with the spreader's little game of "Let's see what they drop and then kill
them for doing it."
Subpoint D: Fast debate undermines communication skills: In subpoint D, we will
see how the opposing team has undermined one of debate's main goals: to improve
communication skills.
1. FAST DEBATE PROVIDES NO REAL LIFE COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Debate's purpose is to provide participants with a number of real life skills.
Ranging from teamwork and research to writing and organization, debate has many
of these applicable skills inherent in it. But none more so than oral
communication. Most debaters join debate to improve these skills. These oral
communication skills are vital for numerous career options. But, fast debate
does not improve these oral communication skills; in fact, if anything, it is
detrimental to them. A lawyer in a court room who engages in persuasive
communication at a pace that everyone can comprehend will be more likely to win
over a jury, than one who is spewing innumerable arguments at an
incomprehensible pace. Short of being the Micro Machines man, spreading
provides no skills that will useful in the real world.
Subpoint E: Fast debate entrenches an elitist and discriminatory attitude: In
subpoint E, we will see how spreading can only be enjoyed by those of wealth
and who are fortunate enough to attend schools of wealth.
1. Debate wasn't always about spreading and mass produced blocks, evidence and
frontlines. Before the early 1980's, to research, debaters would visit
libraries and search through printed media. Upon finding useful evidence, they
couldn't just walk over to a copier and xerox it. Instead, they had to take
index cards and hand copy the cite and evidence. Tedious, yes, but without
photocopying equipment, it was the only way. Thus, with such difficult means
to research, evidence was not as prevalent, and debates did not usually consist
of masses of evidence. It included more analysis and explanation. And with
this, it also included debate at a conversational pace. With the arrival of
affordable copiers popping up everywhere, debaters were able to increase their
evidence piles exponentially, and thus with more evidence, they began to try to
fit more of it into their debates. To do this, they began to increase their
rate of speaking.
2. XEROXING IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT
A) A debater who finds evidence usually thinks nothing of popping in ten cents
and copying it. But, this expendable money is not always available to
families. Allowing spreading, and putting the emphasis on evidence, locks
these individuals, who simply don't have the money for copies, out of the
activity. This person, under the framework that allows this fast debate, is in
a situation where it is nearly impossible for them to be successful.
B) Many schools are not fiscally able to support debate teams because of the
increased costs that have come along with the age of fast debate. For
instance, there is a reason we don't see too many debate teams hailing from
extremely low class areas, and that Long Beach Polytechnic High School isn't
one of the top teams; they simply can't afford it, and the emphasis of xeroxed
evidence that is required to maintain a successful program in a world of
spreading only exacerbates this problem. In addition, it is no coincidence
that schools who annually have successful teams, such as Glenbrooks, Head
Royce, College Prep and Caddo Magnet, are also wealthy schools who have the
funds to support this increasingly, and wrongly, expensive activity.
Conversely, we've also seen many formerly successful teams prior to the 1980's,
cease to exist, because this cost gap brought on by xeroxes increased their
cost so massively.
3. EVIDENCE IS THE SUPREME FACTOR ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GO FAST
Evidence, blocks, shells and frontlines are usually the chief tools of fast
debate; after all it can be read extremely fast. Analysis straight from the
brain usually isn't able to put out so fast, and thus, without evidence, speed
debate simply can't exist. Mountains of available evidence are required for
the spreader to read, to sustain this type of fast debate.
4. INTERNET RESEARCH HAS WIDENED THIS COST GAP
In the past few years, internet research has become increasingly prevalent.
But, internet access simply isn't available to everyone. Again, it is much
more likely that the student from Glenbrooks or Head Royce is going to have
this access, than a student from Long Beach Polytechnic or Watts High School.
This cost gap reinforces the fact that poorer schools and individuals simply
can't compete on the same level, not because differences in skills, but because
of differences in resources. In addition, Lexis-Nexis has become a mainstay
for debater's research. This service is extremely expensive, and again, only
the wealthier schools will have this access, locking out the poorer schools.
Spreading, and its corresponding emphasis on evidence simply worsens and
entrenches the problem.
5. DEBATE CAMP ENTRENCHES THE ELITIST ATMOSPHERE OF DEBATE
Debate camps and institutes have become more necessary in past years for a
debater or program to be successful. This is because they provide huge amounts
of evidence for the debater. Unfortunately, this does not come cheap, with
prices ranging from a thousand to thousands of dollars. In addition, camp is
often where debaters are introduced and taught spreading. Again, the poorer
schools and debaters simply are unable to afford this debate extravagance,
while the wealthier, thus more successful, ones are.
Subpoint F: Fiat is Illusory: Fiat is illusory. Passing the affirmative plan
will not accomplish anything. This is proven by the fact that we've debated
before, and even when we do win on aff, shockingly, our plan does not really
get put into law. Voting for their plan accomplishes nothing.
Subpoint G: Implications: In subpoint G, we will see the reasons why you should
vote on this kritik.
1. FAST DEBATE DECREASES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The administrative authorities that fund debate usually feel excluded and
alienated by rapid debates. This has undercut the funding of more than one
debate program in the past. The administration does not fund debate for fun.
They fund it to provide vital skills, and when those skills are no longer
taught, there is no reason for them to fund the program. In addition, fast
debate repels corporate sponsorship which would provided vital funds. A good
example is the petroleum company Philips 66, which switched its sponsorship
over to LD, once they discovered the atrocity of fast debate. Fast debate has
already cost the activity needed funds; we can't risk this continuing. You
should favor the format that maximizes the durability of the debate process
itself.
2. FAST DEBATE REPELS FUTURE PARTICIPANTS
Learning to speak rapidly is a lengthy process, as is learning to listen and
track rapid speech. Incoming novices are unlikely to have that skill, and are
likely to be intimidated and excluded by fast debate. Scared of the rapid
speaking but still desiring the valuable skills debate teach you, future
debaters will simply migrate towards LD, and team will slowly die as its pool
of participants withers and dies. We should not favor arguments that
discourage vital entry level participation, since to do so undercuts the
inclusive nature of debate, as well as the future of debate.
3. FAST DEBATE CAUSES DISCRIMINATION AND ELITISM
Fast debate entrenches the idea that evidence is king in debate. This makes it
impossible for poorer schools to even participate in debate. Not only does it
limit the number of participating schools, in doing so, it limits the number of
points of view we can learn from, and thus undermines the very process of
learning we are here for. Voting for spreading, is voting for the "country
club atmosphere" embodied by such wealthy schools as Head Royce, College Prep
and others that can afford the skyrocketing cost of keeping a debate program,
and thus a vote for elitist discrimination. By voting for a conversationally
paced debate, we can again return to the days when any school, regardless of
wealth, can field a successful program, because winning would again be based on
skill, rather than solely evidence. This would truly restore the inclusive
nature of debate back to the way it should be.
In conclusion, fast debate is utterly destructive to the activity we all
cherish and participate in. By spreading, the opposing team threatens the very
continuation of this great activity. The longevity of debate must be
considered before all other issues, for without the proper precautions, ALL
debate, learning and advancement that debating brings with it will end.
Supporting the spreading team, ensures that never again will we be able to
discuss policy implications in an academic environment. The proper precautions
must be taken to observe the principles of debate, and given this, we strongly
urge a ballot for us.
Joker
discussion
>about the Rostrum letter sparked by attention. I think it makes some valid
>points about speed (though don't confuse me with the "communication
radicals",
>I believe that good speed rounds are great; just look at Head Royce, who by
the
>way is capable of winning in a very lay tournament-- CA States). I just
wanted
>some feedback to the various points. So, argue away at it, or feel free to
use
>it. I don't care.
>
>David Keene
>La Costa Canyon
>flash...@aol.com
This might be interesting.
<snip>
>Subpoint A: The Link: The opposing team engaged in a speaking style that
was
>far beyond conversational pace. During the last cross examination period,
we
>engaged in conversation with them. That set the pace for a true
conversational
>speed. The opposing team's rate of speaking went well beyond that
threshold.
1. No link: I talk really really fast in my CX periods.
2. No link: "conversational" is subjective. Conversational for me is 300
words per minute, how about you? I shouldn't be forced to conform my
natural, comfortable speaking rate to someone else's idea of what is
"right." Stop normalizing me. We don't all have to talk at 100 words per
minute.
>Subpoint B: Decreased debate quality: In subpoint B we will see that fast
>debate destroys debate quality and reduces debate clash.
>
>1. FAST DEBATE DECREASES DEBATE QUALITY
>
>Fast debates are usually resolved on dropped arguments as opposed to being
>resolved by choosing the superior of two arguments.
Actually, this is untrue, although it does happen. However, when it does,
it's not mouch more frequently than in slow rounds, which are also resolved
on dropped arguments occasionally.
>Debate should be about
>clash, not absence of clash, but fast rounds do not facilitate clash, they
>facilitate the absence of clash. You should not support a process that
>encourages participants to simply try to overwhelm the opponent with volume
of
>argument; rather, you should instead favor a process that encourages
>participants to emphasize argument quality.
Turn: we can have argument quality and quantity simply by spreading more
competently or by the team running this kritik rising to the challenge. The
spreading team already provides this opportunity and the kritikers are
attempting to stifle it.
>2. FAST DEBATE DECREASES ARGUMENT QUALITY
>
>When arguments are delivered more rapidly than participants can easily cope
>with, analysis suffers. A rate of speaking that allows all participants to
>listen carefully and reflect on the arguments made in the speech should be
>preferable because it will yield superior debates. By choosing to speak
>excessively fast, we are unable to fully comprehend the depth of the
evidence
>and arguments read.
1. Non-unique. No one listens to cards no matter how slow they are read.
It's boring.
2. Turn: reading cards fast means that we don't have to listen to boring
congressmen as much.
3. No impact. It's not like anyone is videotaping the debate round or the
judge is flowing every word said. For the purposes of actual debating, the
judge and competitors will write down and evaluate the same crap on their
flow essentially no matter what the speed.
>3. FAST DEBATE DECREASES CLASH
>
>James Talley, Rostrum, October 1996
>
>"Misuse of rapid delivery is a similar breach of ethics. The very nature
of
>this strategy is a retreat from argumentation, an escape from clash, an
>avoidance of the mutual testing of competing claims which is intended to
result
>in the discovery of the probable truth. The advantage of this strategy is
that
>it allows a speedy debater to take the easy way to victory, but the easy
way is
>not the proper course for the ethical debater. Like the fabricator, the
speed
>tactician is usually afraid of letting his arguments receive an honest and
>thorough investigation."
1. The Rostrum is a the center of the conservative-debate system. It's
biased.
2. The card is horrible. Not only are the initial assertions such as "a
retreat from argumentation" unwarranted and incorrect, a moral judgement (ad
homenim) attack is made (also unwarranted) upon speed debaters. Furthermore,
it draws a false analogy between speed debaters and evidence fabricators
solely for the purpose of vilification. This card is a repugnant tool for
active marginalization.
>Subpoint C: Debate was not designed for spreading: In subpoint C, we will
see
>that the activity of debate's framework simply wasn't designed with
spreading
>in mind.
>
>1. FAST DEBATE ABUSES PREP TIME.
>
>The preparational time was set when debates occurred at a conversational
pace.
>It is reasonable to expect someone to prepare to respond eight minutes of
>conversational paced arguments in the time allotted. Fast debate, however,
>allows for the introduction of more arguments without a corresponding
increase
>in prep time. That decreases debate quality because it forces speeches to
be
>given based on inadequate preparation. We can not be expected to fully
>investigate the validity and quality of evidence read when it is delivered
in
>such mass quantities. The times in debate simply aren't created to handle
this
>speed of debate.
1. Turn: fast debate forces debaters to utilize prep time more effectively,
increasing critical thinking skills and improving the activity in general.
2. Empirically denied. If fast debate destroyed prep time, you would see
every team in outrounds at national circuit tournaments saving 3/4ths of
their prep for the 2NR or 2AR when they don't even need that much.
>2. FAST DEBATE RESULTS IN JUDGE INTERVENTION
>
>When debates get too fast it is impossible to listen to the evidence in the
>round and understand what it says. That forces critics to read evidence
after
>rounds. Reading evidence after rounds results in judge intervention, since
you
>inevitably come to understand the argument better in the evidence than it
was
>explained in the round. If judge intervention were allowed, we might as
well
>not debate, and just hand you a case, the disads and evidence, and have you
>make your interventionous decision.
1. What, it's judge intervention to better understand the arguments made?
Sorry, yo. If the argument is made, it's made, and if the judge didn't
understand it the first time, well-- that's irrelevant. The card was in the
round. Don't you think it would be worse if the judge misunderstood the
evidence?
2. Reading evidence is good in all rounds. It's difficult to get full
comprehension of an argument in a card even when read at slow speed. Being
able to evaluate cards post-the-debate and to compare them quantitatively to
one another facilitates a fairer decision.
3. "Reading after rounds results in judge intervention" is unwarranted. I
would contend the opposite.
>3. NEG BLOCK NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE SPEED
>
>The negative block of twelve minutes was designed with a conversational
pace in
>mind. The advent of fast debate has exponentially increased the number of
>arguments expelled in this block, and thus, the affirmative speaker's five
>minutes become correspondingly tighter. It is simply unfair for the
>affirmative to be faced with so many arguments to handle, and expect them
to be
>fully developed and of high quality. Allowing fast debate only forces more
>blip and undeveloped arguments to come out; which becomes a necessity to
keep
>up with the spreader's little game of "Let's see what they drop and then
kill
>them for doing it."
1. Non-unique. Let's say the Neg puts out 65 arguments in the block going
slowly. The 1AR response time, going at the same speed, will allow the
argumentation of 25 corresponding arguments. Now if the Neg puts out 260
arguments in the block going quickly, then the 1AR should be able to argue
100 at the same speed. The point is that if everyone is speaking at the same
speed, the 1AR gets to/has to cover the same amount, proportionally.
2. Empirically denied. The Aff wins 60% of all rounds, even at the national
circuit level, which suggests to me that maybe the Neg doesn't have *too*
much of an advantage.
Seriously, it's not *that* hard to respond to the Neg block. Ever heard of
selective argumentation?
>Subpoint D: Fast debate undermines communication skills: In subpoint D, we
will
>see how the opposing team has undermined one of debate's main goals: to
improve
>communication skills.
>
>1. FAST DEBATE PROVIDES NO REAL LIFE COMMUNICATION SKILLS
>
>Debate's purpose is to provide participants with a number of real life
skills.
>Ranging from teamwork and research to writing and organization, debate has
many
>of these applicable skills inherent in it. But none more so than oral
>communication. Most debaters join debate to improve these skills. These
oral
>communication skills are vital for numerous career options. But, fast
debate
>does not improve these oral communication skills; in fact, if anything, it
is
>detrimental to them. A lawyer in a court room who engages in persuasive
>communication at a pace that everyone can comprehend will be more likely to
win
>over a jury, than one who is spewing innumerable arguments at an
>incomprehensible pace. Short of being the Micro Machines man, spreading
>provides no skills that will useful in the real world.
1. Go join LD if you want communication skills.
2. Every iota of speed in debate that reduces communication neccessarily
increases criticaly thinking skills. There's no way to evaluate which is
better, thus no way to weigh this argument.
3. Debate is not neccessarily a communication activity. The founding
contention of the card is without basis.
The argument was made earlier: claiming that we shouldn't go fast because
most of the populace does is like saying that we shouldn't play chess
because checkers is easier for most people.
So?
>2. XEROXING IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT
>
> A) A debater who finds evidence usually thinks nothing of popping in ten
cents
>and copying it. But, this expendable money is not always available to
>families. Allowing spreading, and putting the emphasis on evidence, locks
>these individuals, who simply don't have the money for copies, out of the
>activity. This person, under the framework that allows this fast debate,
is in
>a situation where it is nearly impossible for them to be successful.
I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. Yes, cost is an issue in debate, but there
is nil causal connection to speed. Go get come quarters, or a damned job.
Personally, I work at Wendy's solely to hold up my debate career.
> B) Many schools are not fiscally able to support debate teams because of
the
>increased costs that have come along with the age of fast debate. For
>instance, there is a reason we don't see too many debate teams hailing from
>extremely low class areas, and that Long Beach Polytechnic High School
isn't
>one of the top teams; they simply can't afford it, and the emphasis of
xeroxed
>evidence that is required to maintain a successful program in a world of
>spreading only exacerbates this problem. In addition, it is no coincidence
>that schools who annually have successful teams, such as Glenbrooks, Head
>Royce, College Prep and Caddo Magnet, are also wealthy schools who have the
>funds to support this increasingly, and wrongly, expensive activity.
>Conversely, we've also seen many formerly successful teams prior to the
1980's,
>cease to exist, because this cost gap brought on by xeroxes increased their
>cost so massively.
Once again, no causal connection. Also, those expensive prep schools would
have to budget to train badass debaters even if there was no speed debate.
Furthermore, if there was no such thing as Xeroxing, they would kick
everyone else's asses even more than they do now, because they would have
larger, more well-funded squads to cut evidence and Joe Schmoe from the NW
couldn't even get a handbook.
>3. EVIDENCE IS THE SUPREME FACTOR ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GO FAST
>
>Evidence, blocks, shells and frontlines are usually the chief tools of fast
>debate; after all it can be read extremely fast. Analysis straight from
the
>brain usually isn't able to put out so fast, and thus, without evidence,
speed
>debate simply can't exist. Mountains of available evidence are required
for
>the spreader to read, to sustain this type of fast debate.
So what?! Turn: evidence is great. Carrying around tubs builds muscle,
something most debaters really need, because they're damned out of shape.
Also, I've seen plenty of debaters who can spread analysis just as fast as
ev. Jake Foster comes to mind. (Well-- maybe not *as* fast but damned
close.)
>4. INTERNET RESEARCH HAS WIDENED THIS COST GAP
>
>In the past few years, internet research has become increasingly prevalent.
>But, internet access simply isn't available to everyone. Again, it is much
>more likely that the student from Glenbrooks or Head Royce is going to have
>this access, than a student from Long Beach Polytechnic or Watts High
School.
>This cost gap reinforces the fact that poorer schools and individuals
simply
>can't compete on the same level, not because differences in skills, but
because
>of differences in resources. In addition, Lexis-Nexis has become a
mainstay
>for debater's research. This service is extremely expensive, and again,
only
>the wealthier schools will have this access, locking out the poorer
schools.
>Spreading, and its corresponding emphasis on evidence simply worsens and
>entrenches the problem.
As for Internet research: give me a break. It's not *that* expensive, and
you can always go to the local library or college. Why not get rid of your
cable, stop watching MTV, and get an unlimited-usage internet account
instead? You'd be much better off.
As for Lexis-Nexis: it's not too hard to get by without, I did for a long
time. You could also steal a password like pretty much everyone else does.
I'm pretty sure that even the richest debate school (most of them) don't use
private Lex accounts.
>5. DEBATE CAMP ENTRENCHES THE ELITIST ATMOSPHERE OF DEBATE
>
>Debate camps and institutes have become more necessary in past years for a
>debater or program to be successful. This is because they provide huge
amounts
>of evidence for the debater. Unfortunately, this does not come cheap, with
>prices ranging from a thousand to thousands of dollars. In addition, camp
is
>often where debaters are introduced and taught spreading. Again, the
poorer
>schools and debaters simply are unable to afford this debate extravagance,
>while the wealthier, thus more successful, ones are.
Get financial aid. Get a job. No sympathy; I'm broke most of the time and my
family doesn't have a great deal of cash available, but I manage to go to
camp with little trouble.
<snip>
>Subpoint G: Implications: In subpoint G, we will see the reasons why you
should
>vote on this kritik.
>
>1. FAST DEBATE DECREASES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
>
>The administrative authorities that fund debate usually feel excluded and
>alienated by rapid debates. This has undercut the funding of more than one
>debate program in the past. The administration does not fund debate for
fun.
>They fund it to provide vital skills, and when those skills are no longer
>taught, there is no reason for them to fund the program. In addition, fast
>debate repels corporate sponsorship which would provided vital funds. A
good
>example is the petroleum company Philips 66, which switched its sponsorship
>over to LD, once they discovered the atrocity of fast debate. Fast debate
has
>already cost the activity needed funds; we can't risk this continuing. You
>should favor the format that maximizes the durability of the debate process
>itself.
Phillips 66 still funds CX last time I heard. Lincoln-Douglas funds
Lincoln-Douglas debate. Also, most fast debaters dont' spread in front of
corporate executives and community members and such, so there's not
propensity for the impacts cited.
>2. FAST DEBATE REPELS FUTURE PARTICIPANTS
>
>Learning to speak rapidly is a lengthy process, as is learning to listen
and
>track rapid speech. Incoming novices are unlikely to have that skill, and
are
>likely to be intimidated and excluded by fast debate. Scared of the rapid
>speaking but still desiring the valuable skills debate teach you, future
>debaters will simply migrate towards LD, and team will slowly die as its
pool
>of participants withers and dies. We should not favor arguments that
>discourage vital entry level participation, since to do so undercuts the
>inclusive nature of debate, as well as the future of debate.
This is all hella empirically denied, but whatever. Hey, my novices think
spreading is cool and can't wait to learn. It's just an attitude thing.
>3. FAST DEBATE CAUSES DISCRIMINATION AND ELITISM
>
>Fast debate entrenches the idea that evidence is king in debate.
Good. This isn't parli.
>This makes it
>impossible for poorer schools to even participate in debate.
Impossible, nothing. Once again, it's not *that* hard. You won't be able to
travel all over the country every weekend like some schools, but then again
in that case you're probably not attending a really expensive private school
either. Distribution of wealth is one of the facts of life.
>Not only does it
>limit the number of participating schools, in doing so, it limits the
number of
>points of view we can learn from, and thus undermines the very process of
>learning we are here for. Voting for spreading, is voting for the "country
>club atmosphere" embodied by such wealthy schools as Head Royce, College
Prep
>and others that can afford the skyrocketing cost of keeping a debate
program,
>and thus a vote for elitist discrimination. By voting for a
conversationally
>paced debate, we can again return to the days when any school, regardless
of
>wealth, can field a successful program, because winning would again be
based on
>skill, rather than solely evidence. This would truly restore the inclusive
>nature of debate back to the way it should be.
Hmmm... yeah, the elitism comment kinda strikes home. None of the prep
schools is very nice to little backwater schools, but I don't think that
that's unique to debate... I think that they're just elitist in general.
<snip>
Seth Poulos
Ashland Debate
Acting the Zealot
M. Williams
> Subpoint A: The Link: The opposing team engaged in a speaking style that was
> far beyond conversational pace. During the last cross examination period, we
> engaged in conversation with them. That set the pace for a true
conversational
> speed. The opposing team's rate of speaking went well beyond that threshold.
1) RVI: The other team (whoever it is in this case) never defined what a
reasonable limit is. This means they are allowed to set arbitrary limits, not
respond to our arguments, and still get the W. That's way more abuseive than
speed.
2) No Link: They can't quantify what "fast" or "far beyond conversational pace"
is.
3) There's no conversational speed standard.
4) No analysis as to why CX should be the standard for speed.
> Subpoint B: Decreased debate quality: In subpoint B we will see that fast
> debate destroys debate quality and reduces debate clash.
>
> 1. FAST DEBATE DECREASES DEBATE QUALITY
>
> Fast debates are usually resolved on dropped arguments as opposed to being
> resolved by choosing the superior of two arguments. Debate should be about
> clash, not absence of clash, but fast rounds do not facilitate clash, they
> facilitate the absence of clash. You should not support a process that
> encourages participants to simply try to overwhelm the opponent with volume
of
> argument; rather, you should instead favor a process that encourages
> participants to emphasize argument quality.
1) Prove it sucker. The claim that fast debates are usually won on dropped
arguments can't be verified.
2) Turn: this kritik encourages a lack of clash by not responding to our
arguments.
3) Turn: avoiding the presented issues is worse than addressing those that can
be addressed. This kritik doesn't answer the arguments.
4) Debate should be about having fun, thinking quickly, and a whole bunch of
other things. There's no reason debate has to be what they are telling you it
is.
5) Turn: More clash can occur within a framework that encourages rapid speech.
If we speak twice as fast we can talk about twice as many arguments and clash
on all of them.
6) If you can't go fast... TOO BAD! I can't run as fast as Michael Johnson but
that doesn't mean he should have to crawl when we race. Debate isn't about
equality. Competition necessarily exposes inequality and awards the team whose
skils are greater than the general field.
> 2. FAST DEBATE DECREASES ARGUMENT QUALITY
>
> When arguments are delivered more rapidly than participants can easily cope
> with, analysis suffers. A rate of speaking that allows all participants to
> listen carefully and reflect on the arguments made in the speech should be
> preferable because it will yield superior debates. By choosing to speak
> excessively fast, we are unable to fully comprehend the depth of the evidence
> and arguments read.
1) No intrinsic connection. Analysis and delivery speed are not necessarily
connected.
2) Turn: by speaking quickly we encourage quicker thought processes. This
means our capacity to process information, devise strategies, and make
decisions becomes more efficient at higher rates of speed. "Conversational"
speech rates don't make us stretch or become better.
> 3. FAST DEBATE DECREASES CLASH
>
> James Talley, Rostrum, October 1996
>
> "Misuse of rapid delivery is a similar breach of ethics. The very nature of
> this strategy is a retreat from argumentation, an escape from clash, an
> avoidance of the mutual testing of competing claims which is intended to
result
> in the discovery of the probable truth. The advantage of this strategy is
that
> it allows a speedy debater to take the easy way to victory, but the easy way
is
> not the proper course for the ethical debater. Like the fabricator, the
speed
> tactician is usually afraid of letting his arguments receive an honest and
> thorough investigation."
1) This card assumes misuse. We aren't misusing speed.
2) Who the hell is James Talley?
3) This card leaves open the possiblity that properly used speed can be
beneficial. Cross apply the #5 and #6 from the b sub 1 answers.
4) The kritik let's the slimy debater who can't respond to the argument to win.
> Subpoint C: Debate was not designed for spreading: In subpoint C, we will see
> that the activity of debate's framework simply wasn't designed with spreading
> in mind.
>
> 1. FAST DEBATE ABUSES PREP TIME.
>
> The preparational time was set when debates occurred at a conversational
pace.
> It is reasonable to expect someone to prepare to respond eight minutes of
> conversational paced arguments in the time allotted. Fast debate, however,
> allows for the introduction of more arguments without a corresponding
increase
> in prep time. That decreases debate quality because it forces speeches to be
> given based on inadequate preparation. We can not be expected to fully
> investigate the validity and quality of evidence read when it is delivered in
> such mass quantities. The times in debate simply aren't created to handle
this
> speed of debate.
1) Debaters have been going faster than conversational speed for a LONG time.
Read some old Rostrums, buddy.
2) c/a the turns [which are on the b sub 1, I think] that say fast debate
forces more efficient decision making skills, better information processing
skills, etc. outweigh your inability to get better.
> 2. FAST DEBATE RESULTS IN JUDGE INTERVENTION
>
> When debates get too fast it is impossible to listen to the evidence in the
> round and understand what it says. That forces critics to read evidence
after
> rounds. Reading evidence after rounds results in judge intervention, since
you
> inevitably come to understand the argument better in the evidence than it was
> explained in the round. If judge intervention were allowed, we might as well
> not debate, and just hand you a case, the disads and evidence, and have you
> make your interventionous decision.
1) Uhm, No. Many skilled debaters and judges can handle very high rates of
speed. Your inability proves nothing!
2) Reading evidence doesn't necessarily = intervention.
3) Judges often call for key pieces of ev. after slow rounds, too. That must
mean slow debate is also bad.
4) Speed doesn't require the judge to read ev. post-round. The judge can
simply say "I don't read ev. after the round."
> 3. NEG BLOCK NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE SPEED
>
> The negative block of twelve minutes was designed with a conversational pace
in
> mind. The advent of fast debate has exponentially increased the number of
> arguments expelled in this block, and thus, the affirmative speaker's five
> minutes become correspondingly tighter. It is simply unfair for the
> affirmative to be faced with so many arguments to handle, and expect them to
be
> fully developed and of high quality. Allowing fast debate only forces more
> blip and undeveloped arguments to come out; which becomes a necessity to keep
> up with the spreader's little game of "Let's see what they drop and then kill
> them for doing it."
1) Says who? The negative block was designed to balance out the affs advantage
of having the last speech, and the first speech, and a hell of a lot more
specific prep time, etc., etc., etc...
2) The rest of the argument is the same as all the others.
> Subpoint D: Fast debate undermines communication skills: In subpoint D, we
will
> see how the opposing team has undermined one of debate's main goals: to
improve
> communication skills.
>
> 1. FAST DEBATE PROVIDES NO REAL LIFE COMMUNICATION SKILLS
>
> Debate's purpose is to provide participants with a number of real life
skills.
> Ranging from teamwork and research to writing and organization, debate has
many
> of these applicable skills inherent in it. But none more so than oral
> communication. Most debaters join debate to improve these skills. These
oral
> communication skills are vital for numerous career options. But, fast debate
> does not improve these oral communication skills; in fact, if anything, it is
> detrimental to them. A lawyer in a court room who engages in persuasive
> communication at a pace that everyone can comprehend will be more likely to
win
> over a jury, than one who is spewing innumerable arguments at an
> incomprehensible pace. Short of being the Micro Machines man, spreading
> provides no skills that will useful in the real world.
1) Assumes debaters can't slow down. Too bad LOTS of debaters do it all the
time in rounds and in real life.
2) Assumes oral comm skills are paramount. Why? I say decision making and
information processing skills are paramount. Whoops, neither of us have
analysis...
3) Who said I want to be a lawyer? c/a #1
> Subpoint E: Fast debate entrenches an elitist and discriminatory attitude: In
> subpoint E, we will see how spreading can only be enjoyed by those of wealth
> and who are fortunate enough to attend schools of wealth.
> 1. Debate wasn't always about spreading and mass produced blocks, evidence
and
> frontlines. Before the early 1980's, to research, debaters would visit
> libraries and search through printed media. Upon finding useful evidence,
they
> couldn't just walk over to a copier and xerox it. Instead, they had to take
> index cards and hand copy the cite and evidence. Tedious, yes, but without
> photocopying equipment, it was the only way. Thus, with such difficult means
> to research, evidence was not as prevalent, and debates did not usually
consist
> of masses of evidence. It included more analysis and explanation. And with
> this, it also included debate at a conversational pace. With the arrival of
> affordable copiers popping up everywhere, debaters were able to increase
their
> evidence piles exponentially, and thus with more evidence, they began to try
to
> fit more of it into their debates. To do this, they began to increase their
> rate of speaking.
1) Uhm, no. Lots of people from "poor" schools can and do spread. The
scenario is emprically denied.
2) Debate isn't about equality in the first place. I'm sure a hell of a lot of
private schools have bigger budgets than my public school, that doesn't mean
they shouldn't be able to gain the benefits of what they pay for.
3) Again, competition necessarily exposes inequalities. Using your logic,
smart people shouldn't win because they are smarter than everyone else. Sounds
like a competetive advantage if I've ever heard one.
4) Turn: faster debate encourages more research, more education, and less
carpal tunnel...
> 2. XEROXING IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT
-come on, you just said above that copiers are affordable...
> A) A debater who finds evidence usually thinks nothing of popping in ten
cents
> and copying it. But, this expendable money is not always available to
> families. Allowing spreading, and putting the emphasis on evidence, locks
> these individuals, who simply don't have the money for copies, out of the
> activity. This person, under the framework that allows this fast debate, is
in
> a situation where it is nearly impossible for them to be successful.
1) You have to read the ev. in order to tag, highlight, and block it. Think
again, turbo.
2) Copiers are affordable... you said so. This shouldn't be a problem. And a
good used one that will copy fairly quickly only costs about $700
> B) Many schools are not fiscally able to support debate teams because of the
> increased costs that have come along with the age of fast debate. For
> instance, there is a reason we don't see too many debate teams hailing from
> extremely low class areas, and that Long Beach Polytechnic High School isn't
> one of the top teams; they simply can't afford it, and the emphasis of
xeroxed
> evidence that is required to maintain a successful program in a world of
> spreading only exacerbates this problem. In addition, it is no coincidence
> that schools who annually have successful teams, such as Glenbrooks, Head
> Royce, College Prep and Caddo Magnet, are also wealthy schools who have the
> funds to support this increasingly, and wrongly, expensive activity.
> Conversely, we've also seen many formerly successful teams prior to the
1980's,
> cease to exist, because this cost gap brought on by xeroxes increased their
> cost so massively.
1) No necessary connection between speed debate and fiscal ability or
inability.
2) This division is non-unique. There have been economic inequalities forever.
3) Copiers are cheap... you said so.
4) There are other factors that are much greater in evidence producing ability.
Library access and quality is more important than how expensive copies are.
If you can't get the books you can't copy them by hand or by machine. Should
every school with access to a univ. library be required to give it up to be
fair to those who don't.
> 3. EVIDENCE IS THE SUPREME FACTOR ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GO FAST
>
> Evidence, blocks, shells and frontlines are usually the chief tools of fast
> debate; after all it can be read extremely fast. Analysis straight from the
> brain usually isn't able to put out so fast, and thus, without evidence,
speed
> debate simply can't exist. Mountains of available evidence are required for
> the spreader to read, to sustain this type of fast debate.
1) Copiers are cheap.
2) Analysis can be "put out" quickly... I've seen teams that can analyze very
quickly. If you can't, maybe you need to learn.
> 4. INTERNET RESEARCH HAS WIDENED THIS COST GAP
>
> In the past few years, internet research has become increasingly prevalent.
> But, internet access simply isn't available to everyone. Again, it is much
> more likely that the student from Glenbrooks or Head Royce is going to have
> this access, than a student from Long Beach Polytechnic or Watts High School.
> This cost gap reinforces the fact that poorer schools and individuals simply
> can't compete on the same level, not because differences in skills, but
because
> of differences in resources. In addition, Lexis-Nexis has become a mainstay
> for debater's research. This service is extremely expensive, and again, only
> the wealthier schools will have this access, locking out the poorer schools.
> Spreading, and its corresponding emphasis on evidence simply worsens and
> entrenches the problem.
1) TURN, TURN, TURN, TURN, TURN, TURN, TURN! Internet access is far cheaper
than any copy machine. Furthermore, almost every public library on earth has
it.
> 5. DEBATE CAMP ENTRENCHES THE ELITIST ATMOSPHERE OF DEBATE
>
> Debate camps and institutes have become more necessary in past years for a
> debater or program to be successful. This is because they provide huge
amounts
> of evidence for the debater. Unfortunately, this does not come cheap, with
> prices ranging from a thousand to thousands of dollars. In addition, camp is
> often where debaters are introduced and taught spreading. Again, the poorer
> schools and debaters simply are unable to afford this debate extravagance,
> while the wealthier, thus more successful, ones are.
1) What the hell does this have to do with speed?
2) Scholarships are available.
3) Only a small amount of debaters attend camps anyway.
4) Debaters are often taught speed in their class rooms by their coach(es).
> Subpoint F: Fiat is Illusory: Fiat is illusory. Passing the affirmative plan
> will not accomplish anything. This is proven by the fact that we've debated
> before, and even when we do win on aff, shockingly, our plan does not really
> get put into law. Voting for their plan accomplishes nothing.
1) You are the master of the obvious.
2) The kritik and the aff plan are both academic speech acts with the same
amount of advocacy weight. The probability that the 1AC will convince the
judge to support the plan in real life is about as large as the probability
that the kritik will change the face of debate.
1) Turn: LD is better anyway. Everyone should switch. [let's see you answer
this one without conceeding a few of my arguments above -- keep an eye out fer
those pesky turns]
2) Can't harm the future of debate -- everyone will be in LD.
3) Prove the connection between speed and participation demographics.
> 3. FAST DEBATE CAUSES DISCRIMINATION AND ELITISM
>
> Fast debate entrenches the idea that evidence is king in debate. This makes
it
> impossible for poorer schools to even participate in debate. Not only does
it
> limit the number of participating schools, in doing so, it limits the number
of
> points of view we can learn from, and thus undermines the very process of
> learning we are here for. Voting for spreading, is voting for the "country
> club atmosphere" embodied by such wealthy schools as Head Royce, College Prep
> and others that can afford the skyrocketing cost of keeping a debate program,
> and thus a vote for elitist discrimination. By voting for a conversationally
> paced debate, we can again return to the days when any school, regardless of
> wealth, can field a successful program, because winning would again be based
on
> skill, rather than solely evidence. This would truly restore the inclusive
> nature of debate back to the way it should be.
1) They can still do LD which is better.
2) There isn't a "country club atmosphere" anyway. When I was at camp [I guess
I'm a damned elitist], I met people from many private schools. They were just
like everyone else (except for the school they attended).
3) Assumes fast debate doesn't include skill. Makes you wonder why the fastest
debaters don't necessarily win the NDT or TOC? Maybe skill is involved in
faster debate. Maybe even more skill.
Matthew Williams
Bonneville Debate [one of those poor, public, excluded schools]
Idaho Falls, Idaho
THE THREE KINGS
witness many fast debates in which nothing was dropped by either team. The
argument quality doesn't go down, there are just more good arguments. When
one is months into the debate season, one only needs to hear the first tag
line to know what the other team is running. People are prepared. They
don't need prep time to prepare for their speech. They are prepared, so
they pull out their blocks while the other team is speaking. Clash doesn't
suffer, there is more clash because there are more arguments.
Judges will intervene no matter what. There are no true tabula rasa judges.
If they didn't intervene because of speed, they'd intervene because they're
tired of certain arguments. Maybe they'd intervene because they think the
speed kritik is stupid.
Speed doesn't really burder the 1AR. It's fun to try to answer tons of
arguments in five minutes. Contrary to what you may believe, it's quite
possible to give fast analyticals. I've seen people answer 5 off case and
case in five minutes.
Whether or not speed is a "real life" communication skill is irrelevant.
Why do anything that's not a real life skill? By your logic, little kids
shouldn't "play pretend" because it's not a real life skill.
Whether or not a school can afford it is not another school's problem.
Should all school stop having football teams because some team from
asdfsdfsdf, Montana can't afford uniforms? Maybe those schools that can't
afford debate teams should just drop their sports teams.
Speed does not repel future participants. Empirically, my school has a
small LD team because novices all think that policy is cool. Speed adds to
the aura of coolness surrounding it. Speed takes about two weeks to learn.
Maybe you should learn to speak rapidly instead of wasting people's time
with the speed reading kritik. You say that speed wasn't originally a part
of debate, so it'd bad. That's the fallacy of argumentatum ad antiquitatem.
You're appealing to antiquity. By your logic, slavery should be legal
because it was in the constitution. Your scenario regarding the end of
debate is the fallacy of slippery slope. It's an alarmist scenario.
Lastly, speed is subjective. To a champ debater, debaters in senior are
slow. Your kritik speaks of "conversational rate" as if it's naturally the
rate for comparison. Universalizing a subjective view is groundless, and so
is the kritik.
BSicwa
rounds are decided on either dropped or insufficiently covered arguments. This
is primarily because debates at the highest level of a tournament are extremely
fast. Now, the responses put forth by people to this kritik are not offensive
in most parts and I have a feeling that everyone sees some truth in this
argument.
After all, why do people not want to debate some of the traditionally dominant
schools in their first prelim? Is it because of their overwhelming
intelligence that cannot be handled? Usually not. Instead, it is because the
fastest teams run big ass cases with multiple, huge ass advantages. If the
round was slightly faster than conversational speed, but slower than a fast
round (and don't give me this shit about the arbitrariness of WPM, because we
all know what i'm talking about), I would not be afraid to debate anyone in
this nation.
The result would be that affirmatives that are good ideas would end up winning
more. People would analyze evidence quite a bit more. The judge would not be
reading every card in the round (tournaments might run on time).
Now, there are a few reasons I think this discussion is semi-pointless. One,
is that fast debate is inevitable absent a huge mindset shift. People will
always take advantage of various ways to win - going fast is one of them. Plus,
if you have ever looked at cards cut in the early 80's, they are all like one
sentence long. Because they compensated for speed with shitty ass, one line
evidence.
Second, going fast is fun. Sometimes it's just great to have a throw down on
ballistic missile defenses. It is really damn hard to cover in the 1AR
sometimes, but when you do - it feels terrific. It's one of the best feelings
in debate to give a great 1AR or give a dope negative block...you get the idea.
Before you guys answer, genuinely reflect on fast debate - does it really
promote knowledge on the core of the topic. Is the activity that found solace
in the Clinton disad really the one we aspire to uphold?? Probably not.
Brad Simmons
Bellarmine
Jeffrey Zimmer
Speed Kritik on our team's site? The site is at
<http://www.warbarge.com/cfhsdebate/index.html> and I would be sure to include your
name
and E-mail, if you want.
M. Williams
> For some reason, I really agree with the speed kritik that was presented.
Most
> rounds are decided on either dropped or insufficiently covered arguments.
This
> is primarily because debates at the highest level of a tournament are
extremely
> fast. Now, the responses put forth by people to this kritik are not
offensive
> in most parts and I have a feeling that everyone sees some truth in this
> argument.
At the high school level, this is, in many cases, true. However, when I
watched octos through finals at last year's NDT in Salt Lake City, I saw *very
few* rounds decided on dropped or undercovered arguments. Only the octo round
I saw came even remotely close to the sceanrio you paint.
> After all, why do people not want to debate some of the traditionally
dominant
> schools in their first prelim? Is it because of their overwhelming
> intelligence that cannot be handled? Usually not. Instead, it is because
the
> fastest teams run big ass cases with multiple, huge ass advantages. If the
> round was slightly faster than conversational speed, but slower than a fast
> round (and don't give me this shit about the arbitrariness of WPM, because we
> all know what i'm talking about), I would not be afraid to debate anyone in
> this nation.
However, I think one of the disadvantages to this scenario is that issues will
be discussed less in depth than if speed were allowed. When I debate some slow
team running a Ban NATO case (or similarly large case) I have nothing to fear
because the deeper arguments will never be reached.
> The result would be that affirmatives that are good ideas would end up
winning
> more. People would analyze evidence quite a bit more. The judge would not
be
> reading every card in the round (tournaments might run on time).
I'll respond to this in my conclusion...
> Now, there are a few reasons I think this discussion is semi-pointless. One,
> is that fast debate is inevitable absent a huge mindset shift. People will
> always take advantage of various ways to win - going fast is one of them.
Plus,
> if you have ever looked at cards cut in the early 80's, they are all like one
> sentence long. Because they compensated for speed with shitty ass, one line
> evidence.
Granted.
> Second, going fast is fun. Sometimes it's just great to have a throw down on
> ballistic missile defenses. It is really damn hard to cover in the 1AR
> sometimes, but when you do - it feels terrific. It's one of the best
feelings
> in debate to give a great 1AR or give a dope negative block...you get the
idea.
Granted.
> Before you guys answer, genuinely reflect on fast debate - does it really
> promote knowledge on the core of the topic. Is the activity that found
solace
> in the Clinton disad really the one we aspire to uphold?? Probably not.
I have genuinely reflected on what debate is and what I think it should be. As
an argument to be used in a debate round, I think the Speed Kritik is a
complete loser. However, I do agree that excessive speed can be bad for
debate. But, I don't think any real limits can be imposed upon what is and is
not fast. A definate mindset change would have to occur. Additionally, "fast"
is relative to the participants. I consider myself fairly fast, but there are
certainly many teams around that nation which are much faster than I. Would I
be more likely to drop to them because I undercovered and/or dropped something?
Yes. This leads to a discussion on what exactly we should value in debate
(something that is VERY often ignored). I wish not to create concrete
dichotomies, but the two camps (fast and slow) seem to value infomation
processing, research, decision making, and strategy vs. communication (in the
general public's interpretive sense), less technical discussion, etc.
I think it is VERY true that slower debate necessarily will reduce the amount
of research one does. Traditionally, many of the schools in my area are very
slow. Since less information can be presented in a given round, less is
needed. In fact, some teams become successful with little more than a 1AC and
a few pages of extensions when they are affirmative? Are we willing to give up
the depth of research that faster debate seems to facilitate?
I think it is also quite true the the fastest of debates can be tarnished when
a team wins or loses based upon the dropping or undercoverage of the 2NCs
solvency #16. This seems to reduce the academic, analytical aspects of debates
when drops are counted to see who wins.
Where do I think the happy medium is? In my experience, it is what I would
guess is around 290-350 words per minute [I know that sounds slow to many of
you; but all of you who claim you or other routinely speak over 500 are
probably lying or ignorant of your actual rate of speech. Avg. conversational
speed is approx. 120]. Arbitrary? Yes. But, since we have moved this
discussion from the academic debate realm to the public forum realm, I am
confortable with my arbitrary assignments.
Finally, Brad links the Clinton disad to the speed culture of debate. I don't
agree with this linkage for a few reasons. First, I prefer moderately fast
debate yet despise the Clinton disad. Second, the Clinton disad (and other
political disads) are not necessarily connected with speed debate, and thus the
Clinton disad isn't a reason to reject speed. Yet, they (political disads,
relations disads, etc.) do seem to be prevalent in faster debates.
Matthew Williams
Bonneville Debate
Idaho Falls, Idaho
BSicwa
>watched octos through finals at last year's NDT in Salt Lake City, I saw
>*very
>few* rounds decided on dropped or undercovered arguments.
Perhaps I should reconsider doing college debate. If that's the case, I'm very
pleased. However, I would also point out that college debaters are
extraordinarily clear such that every single word of every card can be
understood, even at the expense of less speed in some cases (e.g. Corey
Rayburn). High school debate will never be as sophisticated as college debate
for obvious reasons. In the meantime, while I suggest we do not make debate a
conversational event, we should surely attempt to slow it down whenever
possible. Some of the best speakers/debaters in the nation last year were not
considered to be terribly fast.
>However, I think one of the disadvantages to this scenario is that issues
>will
>be discussed less in depth than if speed were allowed. When I debate some
>slow
>team running a Ban NATO case (or similarly large case) I have nothing to fear
>because the deeper arguments will never be reached.
>
This is where I disagree. In a round where there would normally be a fast
debate, a slow debate would be just as in-depth. This is because the fast
judges are always searching for the analysis within your statements. In a Ban
NATO Expansion round, it would be impossible to give a slow 8 minute speech
without giving some analysis. With smart judges in the back of the room, you'd
realize when you were beginning to bullshit and you'd move on to your next
argument. Basically, you'd be very efficient, not speak that much faster than
conversational pace, and definitely not boost your voice an octave higher.
>I have genuinely reflected on what debate is and what I think it should be.
>As
>an argument to be used in a debate round, I think the Speed Kritik is a
>complete loser.
Unfortunate, but true. The only way debate will change is if there is a
conscious decision by judges to require debaters to slow down.
>However, I do agree that excessive speed can be bad for
>debate.
Agreed.
>But, I don't think any real limits can be imposed upon what is and is
>not fast.
Disagree, a reasonable standard can be established, maybe not enforced by WPM,
but just generally slower than it currently is. No one needs to yell anymore.
>A definate mindset change would have to occur.
Yep.
>This leads to a discussion on what exactly we should value in debate
>(something that is VERY often ignored).
True, I'm up for that. I have several complaints about what judges/debaters
value nowadays.
>I think it is VERY true that slower debate necessarily will reduce the amount
>of research one does.
I don't, because people will have to become better on the case debate. In a
slower round, ridiculous disadvantages will be summarily dismissed, like
Clinton or Relations or even Nationalism at points. People will do DIFFERENT
research...instead of finding a Clinton link, they'll look for good reasons to
maintain the status quo or phatty case-specific counterplans.
I think the biggest dilemma in change is that the best judges enjoy faster
debates. The ideal situation for me would be "fast argumentation" in slower
rounds. That probably won't happen soon.
Brad Simmons
Bellarmine
SNbkwm
to be that quality is lost. Why not run the Poor Spread Kritik, that poor
spreading hurts speed debating's image and causes a backlash against debate. It
promotes good arguments, no matter what the rate of delivery is.
Matt Singer
M. Williams
> High school debate will never be as sophisticated as college debate
> for obvious reasons.
I agree.
On a side note: does anyone else out there feel like they have a lot of room
for improvement even after 4 years of debate? It seems ol' Al Einstein's
quote, "the more you know, the more you know you don't know" applies to debate.
> In the meantime, while I suggest we do not make debate a
> conversational event, we should surely attempt to slow it down whenever
> possible. Some of the best speakers/debaters in the nation last year were
not
> considered to be terribly fast.
Hmmm, that means there's still hope for me...
> This is where I disagree. In a round where there would normally be a fast
> debate, a slow debate would be just as in-depth. This is because the fast
> judges are always searching for the analysis within your statements. In a
Ban
> NATO Expansion round, it would be impossible to give a slow 8 minute speech
> without giving some analysis. With smart judges in the back of the room,
you'd
> realize when you were beginning to bullshit and you'd move on to your next
> argument. Basically, you'd be very efficient, not speak that much faster
than
> conversational pace, and definitely not boost your voice an octave higher.
I think we essentially agree on the substantive issues. I think our difference
is when the "bullshit barrier" arises as one approaches greater speed and where
the depth of argumentation is hurt when one slows down. If we could only graph
the two curves and find the intersecting point...
> I don't, because people will have to become better on the case debate. In a
> slower round, ridiculous disadvantages will be summarily dismissed, like
> Clinton or Relations or even Nationalism at points. People will do DIFFERENT
> research...instead of finding a Clinton link, they'll look for good reasons
to
> maintain the status quo or phatty case-specific counterplans.
I agree that a research shift may very well occur and is, in fact, proved in
many slower area of the country. However, there would be no need for deep
files because one would simply not be able to get through them at a slower
speech rate. For example, before I went to camp last summer, I wrote a nuclear
deterrence file (about 20 pages). At camp I got a hell of a lot more stuff.
But, at my slower, local tournaments, I've never used more than a few pages of
the files. Yet, at the TOC quals I've been to, I've used a far greater
percentage of my files. This would seem to indicate that people would simply
do less research because they'd never use any more than a few pages on each
area.
> I think the biggest dilemma in change is that the best judges enjoy faster
> debates. The ideal situation for me would be "fast argumentation" in slower
> rounds. That probably won't happen soon.
I agree for the most part. I love fairly fast (not hyper-speed) case spec.
debates. I think the possibilities this year are often manifest in many
de-alert and NATO debates. Everyone has about 7 tubs of stuff on each case so
generic positions are run less often.
Later,
Karma
>
> I agree that a research shift may very well occur and is, in fact, proved in
> many slower area of the country. However, there would be no need for deep
> files because one would simply not be able to get through them at a slower
> speech rate. For example, before I went to camp last summer, I wrote a nuclear
> deterrence file (about 20 pages). At camp I got a hell of a lot more stuff.
> But, at my slower, local tournaments, I've never used more than a few pages of
> the files. Yet, at the TOC quals I've been to, I've used a far greater
> percentage of my files.
TOC quals? as far as i know, you win bids at regualar tourneys, not quals.
--
Karma Police
"This is what you get
When you mess with us..."
-Radiohead, Karma Police
SNbkwm
No, TOC puts out a list of TOC quals. every year. Technically, they are other
tournaments in their own right. However, they are hardly regular tourneys.
Matt Singer
M. Williams
> > Yet, at the TOC quals I've been to, I've used a far greater
> > percentage of my files.
>
Let me explain very slowly so you are sure to understand.
The TOC or Tournament of Champions occurs in early April in Lexington, KY. In
order to go to the TOC, one must (a) receive two qualifying bids, or (b)
receive and at-large bid. For one to get their qualifying bids, they must
attend and advance sufficiently far in a tournament sanctioned by the TOC
committee. Thus, said tournament could quite reasonably be called a TOC
qualifier. Not all regular tournaments are TOC qualifiers.
Robert
> The TOC or Tournament of Champions occurs in early April in Lexington, KY.
In
> order to go to the TOC, one must (a) receive two qualifying bids, or (b)
> receive and at-large bid. For one to get their qualifying bids, they must
> attend and advance sufficiently far in a tournament sanctioned by the TOC
> committee. Thus, said tournament could quite reasonably be called a TOC
> qualifier. Not all regular tournaments are TOC qualifiers.
>
> Bonneville Debate
> Idaho Falls, Idaho
>
"quals" could be found? Either a webpage, posted or emailed list would be
cool. I doubt I will be taking any of my teams to one any time soon, but I
would like to know where they are for future reference.
Thanks,
Rob
Jaskulke
>TOC
>"quals" could be found? Either a webpage, posted or emailed list would
>be
>cool. I doubt I will be taking any of my teams to one any time soon, but
>I
>would like to know where they are for future reference.
toc.debate.org I belive is the webpage, if thats not it, just goto debate.org
(ingore the qualifers, that is last years, they have yet to update the page...)
and it will be there.
Flt Adm Francis Jaskulke, CO Red Devils Fighter/Bomber Group
CaptN. U.S.S. iMac Apple Class Battleship "The Bondi Blue nightmare"
Currently recycling some clan clusters into pop cans.
Karma
and policy....(this is small town NE, that is nearly the population of the town we
were in!)
aaa bbb
Your kritik is interesting...about 3 kritiks rolled into one (lexis-nexis,
debate elitism,
and speed). My one reccommendation is that you adhere to your own standards
when running it. according to you no photocopied ev should be used (or if
it is--it
should be limited. if you limit, how much is deemed acceptable? By page
number or by number of tubs, etc?) Is using handbook ev allowed, or is that
elitist as well?
Is handbook ev that cites lexis-nexis acceptable? how much speed is
allowed?
"Conversational speed" varies by person--how does one determine a
speed that is acceptable to all? If one has attended a debate camp that
is expensive, does that mean he/she loses the round? What if he/she
received a scholarship to go, thus meaning they weren't financially
privileged?
Several questions...But at the very least, you should be careful that
any ev you read in the round isn't from lexis-nexis, the internet,
a handbook, etc; that you're carrying about one tub; and that your
one tub doesn't have stickers from dartmouth, northwestern, kentucky,
kansas, or any other camp. In theory the kritik makes sense,
however, I think you're setting an almost unrealistic standard, one
that other teams would be sure to attack.
I'm not saying that I don't agree with several facets of this kritik, it
just may prove to be a difficult argument to defend.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****