4 ms·

So called competitive debate is really just a joke about who talk faster. There is no positive feedback loops where either side should take a moment to think an

So called competitive debate is really just a joke about who talk faster. There is no positive feedback loops where either side should take a moment to think and gives feedback. Sometimes agree to disagree is the best option. You learn nothing from the competitive debate. It's basically twitter debate before twitter exists where ppl talking over each other

Retric 3y ago
It’s somewhat beneficial to lawyers etc simply because it exposes people to a different way of thinking. It’s roughly equivalent to science fairs, popsicle bridges, or math competitions for STEM students.
tekla 3y ago
Completely wrong. The fast talking is worthless if you don't have good arguments and anyone worth their shit can see right through that. As it turns out the best debaters can talk fast AND make good arguments simultaneously. If you can't think fast on the fly about how to refute a position, that's on you.
- InvertedRhodium 3y ago
  Regarding the fast talkimg - as I understand it, points are deducted heavily if you fail to address the entirety of the oppositions position, so it often devolves into verbal diarrhea where one position will attempt to overwhelm the other with sheer volume. Am I misinformed on this topic?
  - tekla 3y ago
    Yes, you are misinformed. That kind of shit works with entry level debate since a) The debtors tend to suck since they are new. b) The judges tend to just be randoms or not high quality (ie some are just random parents who volunteer who may not have actually debated) so they don't have the ability to parse through what actually happened during the debate properly. When you get better, you have to learn what arguments matter and don't matter. The skill part of debate is knowing how to throw away as much useless arguments as possible and argume defensively and offensively against the parts that do matter. You do not have to bother with any of the opposing sides arguments if you have concluded they are pieces of trash. I myself have won debates just by proving in 10 seconds that 4 minutes of the opposing teams arguments was irrelevant and just moved on. Sheer volume is a valid tactic, since the opposing team COULD drop important arguments that actually matter, so that's part of the skill. I've watched plenty of top level debates where people talk both fast and slow. Nobody wins just by being fast.
    - ChainOfFools 3y ago
      As much as I instinctively feel a pretty strong sense of approval about the structure of high level competitive debate, I wonder if it's bordering on a certain niche admiration for form which doesn't prepare one for what I assume debate is supposed to prepare one for, engaging with the whole spectrum of the public on issues of importance to both them and yourself. It reminds me of what happened to the cloistered world of esteemed traditional martial arts masters when MMA came along. This is part of the reason why Twitter ended up controlling so much of the world's publc discourse.
    - ajolly 3y ago
      Yes, but you still have to point out that the opposing teams arguments are irrelevant. If you just drop the argument, you will lose points. (Caveat: I'm speaking as a parliamentary debater, I have extremely limited experience with policy debate. In policy, can you just drop an argument without responding to it at all?)
      - ang_cire 3y ago
        So in policy there aren't 'points', it's just a ballot decision, and I haven't seen speaker points deducted for dropping arguments that didn't factor into the ballot. The danger in dropping an argument is that dropped arguments are supposed to be accepted as true, since they were unchallenged. So it's essentially conceding that particular argument, which unless it's really dumb and tactically useless, can be pretty dangerous of it's a potential "voter" (which not all arguments are). But there's no need to spend a bunch of time on each one.
- lupire 3y ago
  > If you can't think fast on the fly about how to refute a position, that's on you. Sure, it's on me to decide that competitive debate is stupid, optimizing for gimmicks.
  - tekla 3y ago
    You not being good at arguing and lacking the skills to parse through lots of information and pick out the important bits does not make debate a gimmick.
    - c_crank 3y ago
      Do you think the characters in the Socratic dialogues Plato writes about are terrible at arguing, because they speak in a normal cadence instead of scrambling through rhetoric as fast as possible?
      - 1000bestlives 3y ago
        [flagged]
        c_crank 3y ago
        Perhaps adding a strict time limit to a debate is also a gimmick.
      - ang_cire 3y ago
        No, I think they weren't bound by a time limit in a competitive activity. If they had been, and not spread, I'd think they were terrible at debating, yes. Do you think competitive debate are unable to speak slowly when there's not a time limit?
        c_crank 3y ago
        Unable? No. The format of competitive debates often lends itself to awarding 'points' based on the number of arguments that can be put out, rather than examining their validity. A time limit only makes that pressure worse. The Socratic dialogues are written like normal human conversations in an attempt to give the audience the ability to read and understand the ideas being spoken. That's why they are still studied, thousands of years later. The insane drivel-speak of competitive debates will be lucky to be remembered for any few years after the topics they regurgitate stop being relevant.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  > As it turns out the best debaters can talk fast AND make good arguments simultaneously. Ideally yes, that's what's its SUPPOSED to be like. But I have seldom or never seen it in practice. It's on the system and judge to stop the students from talking over each other. I don't blame the students. They are just playing the game. If they get rewarded by short-cutting the debate, why not?
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    Talking over each other? What form of debate did you do? In policy there only one speaker at a time, and no one interrupts the other team's time to try to talk over them. That would be a sure loss, assuming the judge didn't straight end the round immediately.

Retric 3y ago

It’s somewhat beneficial to lawyers etc simply because it exposes people to a different way of thinking. It’s roughly equivalent to science fairs, popsicle bridges, or math competitions for STEM students.

tekla 3y ago

Completely wrong. The fast talking is worthless if you don't have good arguments and anyone worth their shit can see right through that. As it turns out the best debaters can talk fast AND make good arguments simultaneously. If you can't think fast on the fly about how to refute a position, that's on you.

InvertedRhodium 3y ago
Regarding the fast talkimg - as I understand it, points are deducted heavily if you fail to address the entirety of the oppositions position, so it often devolves into verbal diarrhea where one position will attempt to overwhelm the other with sheer volume. Am I misinformed on this topic?
- tekla 3y ago
  Yes, you are misinformed. That kind of shit works with entry level debate since a) The debtors tend to suck since they are new. b) The judges tend to just be randoms or not high quality (ie some are just random parents who volunteer who may not have actually debated) so they don't have the ability to parse through what actually happened during the debate properly. When you get better, you have to learn what arguments matter and don't matter. The skill part of debate is knowing how to throw away as much useless arguments as possible and argume defensively and offensively against the parts that do matter. You do not have to bother with any of the opposing sides arguments if you have concluded they are pieces of trash. I myself have won debates just by proving in 10 seconds that 4 minutes of the opposing teams arguments was irrelevant and just moved on. Sheer volume is a valid tactic, since the opposing team COULD drop important arguments that actually matter, so that's part of the skill. I've watched plenty of top level debates where people talk both fast and slow. Nobody wins just by being fast.
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    As much as I instinctively feel a pretty strong sense of approval about the structure of high level competitive debate, I wonder if it's bordering on a certain niche admiration for form which doesn't prepare one for what I assume debate is supposed to prepare one for, engaging with the whole spectrum of the public on issues of importance to both them and yourself. It reminds me of what happened to the cloistered world of esteemed traditional martial arts masters when MMA came along. This is part of the reason why Twitter ended up controlling so much of the world's publc discourse.
  - ajolly 3y ago
    Yes, but you still have to point out that the opposing teams arguments are irrelevant. If you just drop the argument, you will lose points. (Caveat: I'm speaking as a parliamentary debater, I have extremely limited experience with policy debate. In policy, can you just drop an argument without responding to it at all?)
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      So in policy there aren't 'points', it's just a ballot decision, and I haven't seen speaker points deducted for dropping arguments that didn't factor into the ballot. The danger in dropping an argument is that dropped arguments are supposed to be accepted as true, since they were unchallenged. So it's essentially conceding that particular argument, which unless it's really dumb and tactically useless, can be pretty dangerous of it's a potential "voter" (which not all arguments are). But there's no need to spend a bunch of time on each one.
lupire 3y ago
> If you can't think fast on the fly about how to refute a position, that's on you. Sure, it's on me to decide that competitive debate is stupid, optimizing for gimmicks.
- tekla 3y ago
  You not being good at arguing and lacking the skills to parse through lots of information and pick out the important bits does not make debate a gimmick.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    Do you think the characters in the Socratic dialogues Plato writes about are terrible at arguing, because they speak in a normal cadence instead of scrambling through rhetoric as fast as possible?
    - 1000bestlives 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - c_crank 3y ago
        Perhaps adding a strict time limit to a debate is also a gimmick.
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      No, I think they weren't bound by a time limit in a competitive activity. If they had been, and not spread, I'd think they were terrible at debating, yes. Do you think competitive debate are unable to speak slowly when there's not a time limit?
      - c_crank 3y ago
        Unable? No. The format of competitive debates often lends itself to awarding 'points' based on the number of arguments that can be put out, rather than examining their validity. A time limit only makes that pressure worse. The Socratic dialogues are written like normal human conversations in an attempt to give the audience the ability to read and understand the ideas being spoken. That's why they are still studied, thousands of years later. The insane drivel-speak of competitive debates will be lucky to be remembered for any few years after the topics they regurgitate stop being relevant.
gloryjulio 3y ago
> As it turns out the best debaters can talk fast AND make good arguments simultaneously. Ideally yes, that's what's its SUPPOSED to be like. But I have seldom or never seen it in practice. It's on the system and judge to stop the students from talking over each other. I don't blame the students. They are just playing the game. If they get rewarded by short-cutting the debate, why not?
- ang_cire 3y ago
  Talking over each other? What form of debate did you do? In policy there only one speaker at a time, and no one interrupts the other team's time to try to talk over them. That would be a sure loss, assuming the judge didn't straight end the round immediately.