> extracurricular I don't understand what you're trying to say :( Do you mean it should be required curriculum? Or just an activity? (If the latter, FWIW footb

> extracurricular I don't understand what you're trying to say :( Do you mean it should be required curriculum? Or just an activity? (If the latter, FWIW football and board games club are also extracurricular. The term really just means "something done in association with school but outside the classroom" these days.) > I don't think the quality of argumentation matters if ordinary people can't keep up with it. The goal is to educate the student. Also, students learn to present slowly and persuasively, then speed that up. It's not like they're talking quickly day 1. Many top policy debaters also do well in e.g., extemporaneous speaking, which is much more presentation-oriented. It's not an either-or. I've found that debate formats which emphasize persuasion/rhetoric tend to only teach persuasion/rhetoric, whereas formats that emphasize evidence and logic (even o the exclusion of rhetoric) tend to teach all three. (Just not always at the same time.) > but at the cost of significant extra work IME the extra work to move fast, once you have the basics, is not all that significant. Plus, smart beats fast.