4 ms·
To question the premises of the debate topic rather than support a side seems like a huge cop-out. You don't have to do your research to support evidence based
by dgs_sgd 3y ago
To question the premises of the debate topic rather than support a side seems like a huge cop-out. You don't have to do your research to support evidence based arguments and your opponent who may have done their research to support their arguments now has to argue against a completely different position for which their evidence is useless.
What is going to happen when these people wield actual power in politics and public policy and the conclusion policy debates is "society is rotten to the core" (example Kritik from the article).
- cratermoon 3y ago> To question the premises of the debate rather than support a side seems like a huge cop-out No, in fact it is the beginning of wisdom. Contrary to your assertion that you don't have to do research, the ability to question the premises begins with understanding not only your argument but many other arguments as well.
- zdragnar 3y agoIn my experience, it was a cop-out. In my day, it was usually centered on some grammatical error that turned into a game of semantics. The whole point is to catch your opponent off guard and reframe the topic into an arena they hadn't prepared for. Debate rounds don't really allow time for thoughtful contemplation; you typically have at most a minute of prep time between speeches within the round.
- cratermoon 3y agoWell, nobody ever accused high school debate teams as being founts of wisdom.
- oofta-boofta 3y ago[dead]
- sixo 3y agoIt's the beginning of wisdom when you do it on your own, in your own time, and at whatever length it asks of you. But another aspect of wisdom is to think intelligently about the problem at hand by choice. To refuse to do so, or not to be able to, is to not be wise.
- woah 3y agoThey aren’t going to wield power because “talk fast and derail the entire conversation with unrelated arguments that appeal to far-left college students” isn’t going to convince any normal people of anything and is not a useful rhetorical technique. The most this style of debate might do is to cause left wing political cause to shoot themselves in the foot.
- c_crank 3y agoIn the real world, left wing causes seem to be making progress by means of college students anyway.
- dundarious 3y agoThere is an argument that "debate" in the manner performed by these clubs primarily trains people to think only in the ideological terms/framing given to them by their "betters". "Debate" in this sense is intellectually impoverished. Call it "rhetorics" if that's all you want -- it's useful, but it is more akin to Toastmasters than politics or political debate. If there is to be any actual political thinking involved, then some challenge to the given framing must be allowed, or the framing must be capaciously defined. But it will still be mostly a lesson in rhetoric.
- lupire 3y agoIf you are a revolutionary/anarchist, why would you think that a organized debate league with a rigid rule structure is the hobby for you?
- dundarious 3y agoI'm not a revolutionary/anarchist and never have been. Does that answer your question?
- morelisp 3y agoUnlike the commenter, I was an anarchist when I did policy debate. What does my political orientation have to do with what kind of hobby I enjoy? This feels like an extremely conservative take, that hobbies and policy goals must have some kind of libidinal connection. More practically, do you think anarchists don't debate? Have you ever met a leftist?