3 ms·

I never debated, but it was explained to me that a key aspect was talking as fast as you can to introduce as much argumentation to your point as possible (newsp

I never debated, but it was explained to me that a key aspect was talking as fast as you can to introduce as much argumentation to your point as possible (newspaper scoring, kind of). "I guess misdirection from deconstructionistism would be an entertaining alternate tactic. Yes you have introduced 122 points in your favor, but alas the very foundation of your arguments is undermined by my simple deconstruction." The world/life is insane. It is far too large to understand, and even if you did, so unpredictable to be predicted anyway. Thus logical argumentation is subject to nihilistic nullification by a sufficiently skilled / pedantic debater?

klooney 3y ago
I mean, debate is Calvinball, so you could go either way. I've seen people win arguing that a K is too generic/doesn't link to the affirmative team's case, and I've seen the affirmative's response get nailed the same way. There's also more performance than people admit to, if your responses seem more competent, that goes a long way. A slow talking K that gets responded to by a team speed reading their prebuilt, 20 point "Foucault was a wanker" folder is probably going to lose.