3 ms·
I think a big problem is how debate is taught in school. Certainly when I was in school debate was taught essentially as a sport, like chess or tennis. The poin
by dagw 5y ago
I think a big problem is how debate is taught in school. Certainly when I was in school debate was taught essentially as a sport, like chess or tennis. The point was to win at any cost, no matter what side you where on. If you through obfuscation could make a weak argument sound much stronger than it was or intentionally misrepresent what you opponent said and make him look stupid or ill informed, then you where Good At Debate. If you conceded that you where wrong or admit that your opponent has convinced you of something, then you are Bad At Debate. The winner of any debate was the person who was best at the abstract skill of debate, not the person who was 'right' in any meaningful way.
As long as that is how debate is taught, we cannot be surprised that people debate that way
- beaconstudios 5y agoThey should be called rhetoric clubs.
- jwally 5y agoSPREADING: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)) Spreading is the act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating event, with the intent that one's opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. It is a portmanteau of "speed" and "reading".[1] The tactic relies on the fact that "failing to answer all opposing arguments" is an easy criterion for judges to award a win on, and that speaking fast and fielding an overwhelming number of distinct arguments can be a viable strategy.[2] Spreading dominated the US school debate circuit in the 1990s.[3] The public forum debate format was introduced in the early 2000s, with the intent of slowing speakers down by rewarding deeper arguments.[3] As of 2018, spreading was described as still being "de rigueur" at Lincoln–Douglas debate format events.[3] Senator Ted Cruz, who was a national debating champion in his student days, described spreading as "a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate".[3]
- latexr 5y agoRadiolab’s “Debatable” episode (March 11, 2016) goes into the subject: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/debatable https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/debat...
- jlangemeier 5y agoThe problem with Spreading in LD & Policy debate is it's actually trivial to counter; but since it's still primarily focused as the approach, people's usual response is to do it themselves. LD & Policy both 'require' a virtue and criterion being evaluated, and spreading has the unintentional effect of spreading an argument too thin and ignoring that base virtue/criterion, leaving it weak and unsupported. The easiest way to not get burried in shit isn't to dig yourself out or fling it back, but to side step it... But tactics like this are actually at the core as to why I don't believe the author of the article is actually talking about debate (instead about discussions, dialectics, etc); since debate - at least how we establish it in both school and what we'll generously describe as 'debates' at the legislative level - is solely about 'winning' the argument, even if there's no win to be had.
- ianai 5y agoIt’s unfortunate if that’s what passes for debate at the college level. I’ve had people do that with me just in casual conversation. Once it happens I just politely terminate my participation. I view it as a form of abuse if it’s taken to an extreme and not constructive in the minimum.