4 ms·

Yeah, it's a game - is someone surprised by this? - and a really fun one. I played it for 4 years and sucked at it. Still fun as hell and really intense, even i

by newobj 9y ago

Yeah, it's a game - is someone surprised by this? - and a really fun one. I played it for 4 years and sucked at it. Still fun as hell and really intense, even if you are mediocre. Kinda like PUBG... :P I'm sorry, did someone really think that a high school extra curricular was going to act as some kind of deep and wisened meditation for teens on rhetoric? More than anything else, debate forces you to think quick on your feet - really, /really/ quick. Tantamount to an e-sport, but WAY more open ended, since the aff and neg can run just about anything under the sun, or even go meta (which seems more common since the early 90's when I debated). Yes debate is a terrible model for useful rhetoric. It's also a hellishly fun boxing match for brains/mouths.

phlakaton 9y ago
Actually yes, I really did think that, if you're going to spend time honing the craft of rhetoric, you should come out of it with actual, useful rhetoric. This probably comes from my background in music. Marching band members don't demonstrate their proficiency by ripping through scales at top speed, after all. Yes, speed is going to be a component of many live competitions, particularly among the young and impressionable. In the case of music, though, we simply temper that by including aesthetics in our judgment. It is not enough to play fast, correctly, and synchronized – you must play musically as well. Musicality may require you _not_ to take a piece quickly at all! Debate practiced at 300wpm pretty much just relegates you to the realm of competitive Rubik's Cube solvers. Which, if that's your thing, great, but it's not something you should want to highlight on your college application...
- lukasschwab 9y ago
  How do you feel about grindcore? Certainly it has musical and aesthetic merit, historical importance, and it demands talented composers and performers. Additionally, there is lots of other music for folks who don't enjoy it. If popular accessibility is all that matters, we could pare down music to the major popular genres. I don't think marches would make the cut. Fast debate is like grindcore; there's room in civics for specialization, even specialization that isn't aesthetically obvious. It's hard for most to pick out the logic or musicality from the noise of debate or grindcore, respectively. I would hate to live in a world where grindcore is the only music out there. But I'm glad I have the option of putting on some John Zorn when I'm in the mood. Competitive cubing is pretty cool, but it's an algorithm/dexterity problem that requires none of the creativity that debate demands.
  - phlakaton 9y ago
    It's not my favorite, to be sure! But I suppose we share an appreciation for John Zorn, and there are other noisy bands out there that we probably both like. Can we agree, though, that this sort of debate ought to be relegated to the fringe, to be enjoyed by people with weird hair who like to jump around and scream? ;-) The point of Bach, or band songs, is not precisely to be popular. At least I sure never got popular playing them. :-)
    - lukasschwab 9y ago
      Yep, we agree entirely! And I think most other technical debaters would, too. I don't talk to my friends at high speeds, my favorite speakers speak slowly, and I certainly wouldn't talk like a debater when I'm trying to be my most persistent. The kind of debate McCordick is criticizing is, in my experience, indeed fringe. There are more mainstream offerings: less technical debate formats such as Public Forum, Parliamentary, and Congress; Mock Trial; Model United Nations; Junior State of America; the Center for Civic Education's We the People competition; popular organized political debates; other oratory activities outside of civics. To be fair, I've had the good luck to be involved in High Schools with the resources to offer a selection of these programs, which isn't always the case. I wish speech––the kind of slow, articulate expository speech that wins over non-debaters––was a bigger part of core curricula (in civics, but also in sciences).
  - newobj 9y ago
    Hah, I love grindcore!! I've been into grindcore, crust, black metal, and death metal since the early 90's when I was also a debater :)
- mathperson 9y ago
  There are debate formats and tournaments that encourage 'actual, useful rhetoric'. I.e. Congressional Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and certain tournaments and competitive circuits in LD. I.e TOC bidding tournaments are oriented towards the high speed fun stuff with Nietzche and Kritiks etc etc compared to the National Debate Tournament which ruthlessly enforces a much more traditional style of debate... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE High School Debate is not some monolithic top down hierachy- there is a vast array of tournaments and events that cater primarily to the needs and preferences of the students who choose to compete in them for fun. Fast debate with competent judges doesn't just stop being debate...everyone starts slow and over time learns to speak cogently at speed. If their arguments don't make sense at speed to the judge they are typically discarded outright. Fast debate really opens the competitive landscape, since you have a lot more time to open up complex ethical frameworks and longer arguments. If you and the judge and the other debater understand what is being said..well..why should we restrict ourselves from having an educational and fun round? because it matches the preconceptions of some musician on hackernews about what 'debate' is? pish posh

by newobj 9y ago

phlakaton 9y ago

Actually yes, I really did think that, if you're going to spend time honing the craft of rhetoric, you should come out of it with actual, useful rhetoric. This probably comes from my background in music. Marching band members don't demonstrate their proficiency by ripping through scales at top speed, after all. Yes, speed is going to be a component of many live competitions, particularly among the young and impressionable. In the case of music, though, we simply temper that by including aesthetics in our judgment. It is not enough to play fast, correctly, and synchronized – you must play musically as well. Musicality may require you _not_ to take a piece quickly at all! Debate practiced at 300wpm pretty much just relegates you to the realm of competitive Rubik's Cube solvers. Which, if that's your thing, great, but it's not something you should want to highlight on your college application...

lukasschwab 9y ago
How do you feel about grindcore? Certainly it has musical and aesthetic merit, historical importance, and it demands talented composers and performers. Additionally, there is lots of other music for folks who don't enjoy it. If popular accessibility is all that matters, we could pare down music to the major popular genres. I don't think marches would make the cut. Fast debate is like grindcore; there's room in civics for specialization, even specialization that isn't aesthetically obvious. It's hard for most to pick out the logic or musicality from the noise of debate or grindcore, respectively. I would hate to live in a world where grindcore is the only music out there. But I'm glad I have the option of putting on some John Zorn when I'm in the mood. Competitive cubing is pretty cool, but it's an algorithm/dexterity problem that requires none of the creativity that debate demands.
- phlakaton 9y ago
  It's not my favorite, to be sure! But I suppose we share an appreciation for John Zorn, and there are other noisy bands out there that we probably both like. Can we agree, though, that this sort of debate ought to be relegated to the fringe, to be enjoyed by people with weird hair who like to jump around and scream? ;-) The point of Bach, or band songs, is not precisely to be popular. At least I sure never got popular playing them. :-)
  - lukasschwab 9y ago
    Yep, we agree entirely! And I think most other technical debaters would, too. I don't talk to my friends at high speeds, my favorite speakers speak slowly, and I certainly wouldn't talk like a debater when I'm trying to be my most persistent. The kind of debate McCordick is criticizing is, in my experience, indeed fringe. There are more mainstream offerings: less technical debate formats such as Public Forum, Parliamentary, and Congress; Mock Trial; Model United Nations; Junior State of America; the Center for Civic Education's We the People competition; popular organized political debates; other oratory activities outside of civics. To be fair, I've had the good luck to be involved in High Schools with the resources to offer a selection of these programs, which isn't always the case. I wish speech––the kind of slow, articulate expository speech that wins over non-debaters––was a bigger part of core curricula (in civics, but also in sciences).
- newobj 9y ago
  Hah, I love grindcore!! I've been into grindcore, crust, black metal, and death metal since the early 90's when I was also a debater :)
mathperson 9y ago
There are debate formats and tournaments that encourage 'actual, useful rhetoric'. I.e. Congressional Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and certain tournaments and competitive circuits in LD. I.e TOC bidding tournaments are oriented towards the high speed fun stuff with Nietzche and Kritiks etc etc compared to the National Debate Tournament which ruthlessly enforces a much more traditional style of debate... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE High School Debate is not some monolithic top down hierachy- there is a vast array of tournaments and events that cater primarily to the needs and preferences of the students who choose to compete in them for fun. Fast debate with competent judges doesn't just stop being debate...everyone starts slow and over time learns to speak cogently at speed. If their arguments don't make sense at speed to the judge they are typically discarded outright. Fast debate really opens the competitive landscape, since you have a lot more time to open up complex ethical frameworks and longer arguments. If you and the judge and the other debater understand what is being said..well..why should we restrict ourselves from having an educational and fun round? because it matches the preconceptions of some musician on hackernews about what 'debate' is? pish posh