4 ms·
It's interesting how this happens. You don't need a judge to suddenly prefer extreme speed. You just need one person to win because being slightly faster earned
by gowld 3y ago
It's interesting how this happens. You don't need a judge to suddenly prefer extreme speed. You just need one person to win because being slightly faster earned an extra point from a judge (and the might hate super speedy speakers), and that person gives an extra point to someone slightly faster, and the slippery slope slides.
- zerbinxx 3y agoI always found this interesting because I grew up in a rural area and the debate judges were frequently not familiar with the metagame of debate, or could be aware but were downright hostile to it. Among my friends it became its own metagame: who could get away with the most egregious perversions of the form (including intentionally sneaking in logical fallacies into our arguments) in order to win in an atmosphere where point-keeping was highly contingent on the judge’s preconceived beliefs. While there was no substitute for a very strong positive or negative case, there were little rhetorical levers you can pull: calling the opponent a smooth-talking shuck-and-jiver in a political debate or appealing to your own family history that could win big with the right audience if you could guess correctly on what type of person they were.
- addled 3y agoMy favorites were the ones that intentionally defined terms in the most outrageous ways. One time the topic was something about allowing pilots to be armed in the cockpit. After the first couple rounds we realized our jokers were scheduled to face an equal opponent for what promised to be an epic showdown: Pro: Yes pilots should armed, because it is hard to fly a plane with only their feet. Con: Pilots have no business in a cock-pit. Cock fighting is a horrible sport, not to mention being illegal in many states. Sadly the opposing coach pulled their team before the round started.