I guarantee you they are not going for speed in this clip. These are just the rebuttal speeches which are relatively slow compared to the constructives. This is literally the summary of everything happening prior.
I used to do PF, then I switched to Policy this year. I'll go ahead and say that PF builds better analytic argumentation skill (natural casual argumentation) but Policy, builds better strategic thinking and literature analysis. Policy is usually harder, but easy Policy rounds are easier than easy PF rounds. (Just pick a random argument against a novice and win) Policy is the more in-depth more rigorous and time consuming activity, but PF is still a challenge if you're up against a good team.
We got a Heidigger K ran against us at our last tournament, it was fun. They argued status quo, so we just had to go hard on case. I'm a 2N and can't wait to run Securitization K on Orion.
This is just stupidly impractical. What purpose does it serve to try to squeeze as many words into a certain time frame as you can aside from developing rhetorical acuteness? This type of debate is more, "can-you-make-your-point-as-fast-as-possible" and is very pretentious, whereas actual debate should be approachable to most educated individuals. If you can't even tell if they're making good points because they're going ridiculously fast, why even debate at all?
@quenwolf Thats the sad point of Policy debate. These Debaters or similar will reach the TOC and probably win. Watch Resolved it explains Policy debate.
@quenwolf just because YOU can't tell what they're saying doesn't mean no one can. All it takes is a trained ear. and they have to go fast because they have a time limit. the faster you go, the deeper your arguments and the better you develop them rather than superficially skimming over the topic. every competitive activity requires some degree of commitment, someone who has never seen a football game would have a similar reaction (i.e. "why are these people hitting themselves so hard?)
@890slay Heheh. This is actually really really really slow to how fast policy debaters can actually go. This kind of talking is really just to present your evidence in your first speech. But really good kids can debate like this right out of their head.
Gosh, are humans supposed to communicate like this? I mean throwing information like that is nothing but annoying and makes no desire to be digested. To say as much as possible for a certain period of time doesn't mean you'd be heard better, and it makes difficult to get back to the point someone missed along, isn't it? It is interesting, though as a competition...
If you think you can understand this because you're getting better at listening, think again. This is the 2NR + 2AR, the 2AC + 2NC are probably twice as fast.
haha if u dont like spreading go to public forum. arguing that spreading shouldnt be allowed in a debate is like saying you shouldnt be able to run fast in a football game. the fact that debaters can effectively understand and respond to arguments made a such speeds should increase the respect to debaters, not lessen it
@whit3vvip3 a football game is much more different than spreading in a debate round. PFD is more like real debating, however policy is just ok which guy did more research and spent the most time.
This highlights the reasons why parliamentary debate is a superior format; regardless of whether or not you believe a trained judge can hear and follow all of this information, a lay individual could not hope to accurately listen to this. Policy debate has moved so far away from a form of public advocacy that it has lost nearly all educational value. In addition, it just sounds bad --- how many people would vote for a politician that sounded like this?
@jcandnp I have watched both of these debaters live at tournaments several times and although I did not get the opportunity to watch this round it is possible to "really get all of this". The fact that judges make correct, accurate decisions in round proves this. Your argument is only an assertion, if either side couldn't understand the other in the round there would be no debate. The trained ear can accurately understand 700 words per minute while policy debaters reach btwn 300 and 400 tops
Perhaps some of the confusion about the video is the way it is edited. In an actual debate round the person on the left would have said everything he says in this video in five minutes of uninterrupted speaking then the person on the right would say everything he said in five minutes.
@capaneo The fact is that it is not impossible to listen to but it takes time and practice to train your ear to listen to it. Which is just another testimony to the time that must be invested in policy debate. And the origin of this form of delivery speaks to the intelligence and creativeness fostered by this rigorous activity
@soulsistaable i just don't buy that you can ever really get all this when you're live and in person. i would bet my life that the maker of this video, who did do a terrific job btw, had to listen several times to the clips of these speeches to do the transcribing. when that's the scenario...and i'm sure it is...the quality of the debate suffers, obviously because the judge does not have the luxury of re-listens and transcriptions. debate = great, spreading = not great.
@jcandnp actually you can understand and you should be flowing all arguments. Im reading comments and not watching the video with the scrolling transcript and i can understand what they are saying. You learn to understand speed. Also spreading is a strategy and is part of argumentation. PS this is why CX'ers hate when people who dont do CX judge.
@ace448 No disrespect to you ace, but I just don't believe you. I submit that if you listened to this recording live, without the ability to replay it over and over (so basically in the position of a judge), you would not be able to reproduce a single sentence with 100% accuracy to what the debater just spreaded. Not one sentence. If you disagree I'd love to set up an experiment where you could put you money where your mouth is. But mostly accurate wouldn't be good enough...not for a judge.
How can anyone respect this as a form of intellectual conversation if it is impossible to listen to? This is ironically backwards and very sad. if Berkeley & Harvard train people like this no wonder the political system in USA is so messed up.
Listening is not part of the debate in USA i guess.
Everyone forgets to discuss the kind of practice that goes into effective policy debating. Word efficiency is highly stressed as well as rapid cognizance both of which are essential to everyday speaking. Its not like you become a policy debater, learn to spread and then speak at 300 wpm every second of your life. The speed does not ever translate into your life only its benefits. These arguments are absurd the intelligence, talent and commitment to achieve success is immense and deserves respect
it is policy or classical debate ...speed debating...nearly incomprehensible...it claims to use arguments which are real world based( yes often rounding the absurd)...but no consideration to persuasive skill quality of speech...special debate form for the nervous disorder.
what the s.h.i.t is this? i must admit i have never seen college debates , but this is totally different from our high school debate. its like a freaking blitz debate... can only understand word of the beginning ... must you suffer from some sort of nervous disorder to qualify for debate team? leaves no real room for quality of speech.No room for developing argument ...maybe it does i dunnno cant understand...Im not gay my nick i s a spoof ... F__ck communism
While I do greatly admire the skill that spreading takes, I also feel that it totally obliterates all the fun and style in debate. What about actually using your voice and your rhetoric to persuade? Speaking slowly but deliberately also takes a l skill and it varies greatly differently from person to person. Spreading and talking as fast you can destroys the entertainment and beauty of speech and debate. I dont see a need for it.
@EnegueVokatsehs An interesting counterpoint to this could be the role of persuasion itself in an argument - by removing that aspect, listeners are forced to consider the ideas by themselves, not the speakers. (Ex: Kennedy/Nixon, first televised debate. Kennedy had the appeal.)
Don't get me wrong, though - I couldn't listen to this for more than a minute. I do enjoy listening to a good orator - however, I can see the merits of a system that removes emotional and personal appeal within a debate.
@lavenderU they're not reading - the majority of this is off the top of their heads or small clips that they've written down to remind them of what to say
@mrbojangles671 you must not be a debater. It's not pointless. They have to cram everything they want to say in order to win the round. The more evidence and more quality points the better. That's how you win. They ARE making their point. Just in a non amateur way. That up there is a real policy debate. Nothing matters except the fact that the opponents and the judge gets it. Spreading is a technique, not a joke.
Why is this necessary? It sounds dumb and you can't understand them because it sounds like they're weeping. I thought the point of debate was to make your point, not a words per minute race.
Nothing like the inevitable debate on spreading. I don't understand why there is so much animosity over this issue. It's a perfectly reasonable way to gain an advantage by presenting more evidence. It's also something just about anyone can accomplish with practice. At the end of the day this is a matter of preference and/or what form of debate you are accustomed to. There's really no ground for a claim of stupidity in either direction. Good vid, nice idea putting flows up for everyone else
Teehee. All the non-policy debaters here whining about how they can't understand and therefore it's stupid etc. etc. etc. some dumb shit makes me laugh.
Teehee.
Why don't y'all go watch a public forum round to make you feel better?
i have actually seen real competitive debate, and i still think it's ridiculous. i've also tried many cases and i'm not impressed at all by this style of debating .... sorry
@avzeolla Is it the spreading? That is the only complaint I have ever heard about this form of debate. What would you say about policy if you saw a round at a slower speed? It is not a requirement to spread and there are some tournaments that limit the speed you read evidence. It's about winning on logical arguments not speed or persuasion. Either way there are other forms of debate out there. You might be more interested in PF or LD. I've debated in both but I always come back to policy. :)
whoever says that spreading removes the substance of debate is just wrong. The point is to fit as many good arguments into the amount of time as possible. It takes more than just speaking quickly to do well.
also everyone in that room could understand what they say. It's not like one group is trying to "trick" the other.
The arguments may indeed be skillful and even brilliant but who will listen if there are not subtitles during his argument?
Seriously, though he is the fastest I've heard, he will have to slow down for a political campaign! Otherwise, he sounds like an auctioneer or a hyped-up preacher. This may be good academically but he knows in the real world debate will be quite relaxed as it was with Nixon-Kennedy and even more relaxed with Obama-McCain.
@pjmnash Yea, debaters use slow speaking as speaking drills anyways. We know how to speak at both speeds and can argue all those points at actual debate speed.
Also, to the LD people. Don't compare these two styles, they are both the best in their respective fields. LD is more about philosophy and individual thought while policy is about just that, policy and research. Being good at both styles is what a true debater should strive for. Also, policy has been around since 1928 its not that new, spreading introduced in the 60s. All these arguments are carefully thought out and research and analytics are made skillfully. Also, i agree on asking who won.
Spreading is a legitimate technique. It requires both sides to think about different arguments which can deal with a wide variety of topics or styles. I.E a Kritik is not a DA, and not a CP or T. You may say that this diminishes focus on the actual content, but judges vote on which arguments are left unanswered and which arguments are stronger in the round, not who is faster. The fact is that this technique actually increases your total rhetoric skills and helps you to learn about more things.
These guys are pretty great. I really liked the flow, it helped because I'm from a lay-dominant region and am therefore not used to speed as much as I'd like to believe. But I'm confused. What was the disad and was it the net ben to the CP? ...and what was the CP?
God, this isn't debating. I know this is the new style of debate, but it almost deteriorates the entire premise of debating in general. True, these guys are very intelligent. Then let their intelligence be shown in a fashion that doesn't involve them seeming like they are having a panic attack.
this is where the quote: "if you can't convince them, confuse them". CX is a legit debate, however, it seems as though really it's just about spreading and not actually convincing your judge and using logic, theory, and evidence in good balance. this is mostly a spreading and evidence debate and it's unfair that people say CX is the supreme debate, when, really, LD is.
LD Debate > All other types of debate. Although Policy is pretty damn legit, nothing beats a good, thought-out LD round. To all of you who think these two kids are geniuses: you could learn most of this easily by just joining your debate team (as long as your school doesn't suck at debate). Trust me, they're probably not much more intelligent than you.
Политичка дебата о садржају ... Ми треба да настоје да буду што јаснији и пажљив могуће...Politika je o ljudima živote, to se mora uzeti ozbiljno. Ako su prodajom rabljenih automobila, onda bih biti impresioniran.
this is how the best colleges r luring the dummy out of us to face the world. this is what we get points for, they might as well b competing to find out who can stay under water longer ... the whole idea of the debate is futile and the very very approach and foundation is corrout. how is the content ever gonna matter ?
this is how the best colleges r luring the dummy out of us to face the world. this is what we get points for, they might as well b competing to find out who can stay under water longer ... the whole idea of the debate is futile and the very very approach and foundation is corrout. how is the content ever gonna matter ?
@panathinaikosforeva They're merely reading because they've spent hundreds of hours preparing for the debate. The hardest part of debate is writing answers to every possible argument that is out there. Both of these teams have obviously prepared very well.
i pretty much figured that competative college debate would equate to this: simple pleonasm..... No one in their normal RIGHT minds could understand this. Esoterically speaking, this form of debate can only be understood by a select few... very interesting...lol
@smlax1234 I think what he means to say is that they are speaking in vagueries. It really is nonsense. It's useless vocabulary salad that has no relevant context.
this is so - breath breath - fucking - breath breath - stupid. I feel like - breath breath - smacking - breath breath - the shit - breath - out - breath - of you - breath - a-breath-noy-breath-ying-breath- bitches.
This clip just made me want to puke...the kids sounded just like machines regurgitating positions of status quo academics and pseudo-thinkers. I m sure that the guy on the left is a Francis Fukuyama die hard fan (posters on his walls and all)...I also find it sad, very sad...
I'm sure they can turn their 5 min speech into something 20 minutes long that's informative by talking more normally. :)
I tried listening to a few more of these videos and the speech is becoming clearer to me actually. Although usually the sound quality isn't that good.
@zcepinsowavyy Maybe in another life. I'm already behind in engineering courses and would like to take care of that. That and i can't talk for 5 minutes at normal speed without getting my jaw sore sadly.
@thafix82 dude we do talk fast in rounds but think about how intellectually stimulating it is to put 30 answers on one argument or to have a debate about how the world going to end if we dont end capitalism. Policy debate isnt for everone. In 3 weeks of policy debate camp a debater has wriiten enough and done enough research to have the thesis written for a book towards a phd... now what have you done with your summer.
@zcepinsowavyy What have I done with my summer? I've interned at an internationally recognized not-for-profit organization and am preparing for the start of a degree at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Hbu?
By the way "the world will end if we don't end capitalism" is the stupidest, most one-sided debate I've ever heard of.
@thafix82 Policy debate is more of a competitive form of debate. It's not meant to persuade anyone but instead to see who can protect their points and dismantle the other teams points better. The spreading is necessary for time and it also adds some more difficulty to the debate. If it wasn't there it would turn a 1 hour debate into a 5 hour debate. That's a little too much when you have 4 or more matches in a tournament.If you want to listen to a more "real world" debate go watch Public Forum.
Wow. I guess my immediate thought is that someone within the system should take a step back and look at the end product and say 'does this bear any analogy to the ordinary practice of rhetoric and argumentation which university debating is supposed to epitomise?' Without questioning the skill which these chaps quite evidently has it would be hard for someone not to think something had gone with a system to which this is the ultimate end product.
As a debater, I have never understood why people like to harp on the fact that we (policy) talk fast, which somehow renders the activity useless.
So why do you all sit back on your couches and watch people with muscle and technique useless in day to day life slam into each other come the Superbowls? Speed is a technique, just as playing notes quickly on an instrument is.
How people use it is up to them. Some debaters are bad and just read fast; others actually engage. Don't judge so fast.
In football by the nature of what the players are doing, well, they are generally fit and healthy. It also pays well. That's pretty damn useful. Research skills are quite useful, in and out of school. Being able to talk like a hyperactive mental patient... not so useful as far as I can see beyond a Tournament.
Sorry, but your stance just isn't sound. Respectfully, here's why. While you purport to be weighing both against each other (policy vs. football), you aren't judging the same criteria.
Talking fast is no more the essence of debate than tackling is of football. If you say "there's no use in talking fast outside," what use is tackling in day to day life. When you talk about being fit, it has nothing to do with the act of tackling.
@Neosquall (part two because my iTouch can't give me a char limit)
If we judge by that, the value of talking fast becomes plain in that, when speaking at a normal speed, a debater can go on at length without stumbling because of the mental acuity they've been forced to develop. Talking fast is something people assume debaters always do. On the contrary; better debaters in the policy community will always maintain te ability to debate effectively at any speed.
Leadership and teamwork do not stem from singular actions in any sport, no matter how defining. Rather it is the process by which we develop those skills that we derive utility later in life. A debater has anywhere from five to eight minutes to prepare over a one hour plus round, shared with a partner. And no, it's not all just reading. It takes practice, just like any sport.
Damn I thought for the most part people could talk at length without stumbling. But I'll buy that. You know I followed a link from a forum to some debate videos and was quite surprised at how bizarre people spoke. And it's just hilarious! And alright, earlier I was trying (poorly) to be harsh particularly at the rate of speech. I have no doubt the entire process of policy debate is intense and I also don't doubt the teamwork required and so on. But the speech, its weird.
@meinperpetualmotion Heideggers argument isn't a rejection of technology in the physical sense. when Heidegger refers to technology he is referring to what he calls the essence of technology. So your statement that they are a rejection of the physical instance of technology is just wrong. So it really doesnt matter whether or not he flows on a laptop or not.
Alright i have a question.. i have an LD and my case is.. Secondary education in america should value the fine arts over athletics, what would my value you be?! Some1 plz help
@kaorunootaku This is Policy Debate. Spreading (talking fast) is quite common. They do this to try to confuse their opponents on what they're saying, and since they're talking so fast, it makes their opponent forget some argument that they have brought it. It's quite effective.
@kaorunootaku I'm guessing you have never been in the National Forensics League then. This is actually quite common in varsity policy debates. I'm guilty of doing it myself. That's the point though, you speak so fast that you confuse your opponents. You want them to not understand what you're saying so that.
NOT TRUE AT ALL. I'm a debater as well. We speak fast so that we can fit all of our arguments into the set speech time. If you are interested in understanding this type of Forensics, I suggest you watch the documentary Resolved. Explains everything quite well.
@cmeyerowitz I have watched the documentary. for some reason my comment got cut off. I meant to add on "you want them to not understand what you're saying, and you want to put in as many arguments as you possibly can which is the other main reason."
It's funny that they've got nothing to say to each other afterwards and it lapses into an awkward silence. But it's another skill that highlights what the brain is capable of, like the speed mental arithmatic masters. We've got a Lamborghini in our heads and most of us drive it like a golf cart!
Tooooo much time signposting and referring to the opposition's arguments -- the actual # / quality of new arguments is really low given the speaking speed.
I guarantee you they are not going for speed in this clip. These are just the rebuttal speeches which are relatively slow compared to the constructives. This is literally the summary of everything happening prior.
Powduhh 3 days ago
NERDGASM
wrathofme03 4 days ago
@ishmam1414 I agree, I have hit people faster than this in LD
chocomaniacs345 1 week ago
im in ld and this is average o.o
ishmam1414 2 weeks ago 2
They arent even going fast, and im in LD.. lol
wow5heyy 1 month ago
Comment removed
V61Sunda 2 weeks ago
@wow5heyy 2 things:
1. This is a rebuttal so everything they say is on the fly
2. Michael Klinger (2N) is one of the best debaters of all time.... i guarantee that he's plenty fast
V61Sunda 2 weeks ago
eh...ok.
energeez 1 month ago
does anyone own the movie?
If so, could you contact me please?
lolzorsish 1 month ago
I used to do PF, then I switched to Policy this year. I'll go ahead and say that PF builds better analytic argumentation skill (natural casual argumentation) but Policy, builds better strategic thinking and literature analysis. Policy is usually harder, but easy Policy rounds are easier than easy PF rounds. (Just pick a random argument against a novice and win) Policy is the more in-depth more rigorous and time consuming activity, but PF is still a challenge if you're up against a good team.
TheNinjaFilipino 1 month ago
for me I think it ruins the essence of debate.
dukelinius 1 month ago
I think I'll stick with LD... oh wait I already experience this in LD ._.
LannyTran 1 month ago
We got a Heidigger K ran against us at our last tournament, it was fun. They argued status quo, so we just had to go hard on case. I'm a 2N and can't wait to run Securitization K on Orion.
free2write26 1 month ago
Klinger is one badass muthafuka...
V61Sunda 1 month ago in playlist Cross-Examination Debate
And this is why I don't spread. I just don't think i could do it.
SuperHackBros2 1 month ago
Wow. You guys sound like you need inhalers.
jivetome 2 months ago
So this is spreading... I think I'll stick with public forum.
acibarth 2 months ago
rofl this is not fast! oh wait its the rebuttals... nvm
rangerapprenticefan 2 months ago
3:23 is the best!
aozgaa 3 months ago
This is just stupidly impractical. What purpose does it serve to try to squeeze as many words into a certain time frame as you can aside from developing rhetorical acuteness? This type of debate is more, "can-you-make-your-point-as-fast-as-possible" and is very pretentious, whereas actual debate should be approachable to most educated individuals. If you can't even tell if they're making good points because they're going ridiculously fast, why even debate at all?
quenwolf 3 months ago
@quenwolf Thats the sad point of Policy debate. These Debaters or similar will reach the TOC and probably win. Watch Resolved it explains Policy debate.
spartan5261 3 months ago
@quenwolf just because YOU can't tell what they're saying doesn't mean no one can. All it takes is a trained ear. and they have to go fast because they have a time limit. the faster you go, the deeper your arguments and the better you develop them rather than superficially skimming over the topic. every competitive activity requires some degree of commitment, someone who has never seen a football game would have a similar reaction (i.e. "why are these people hitting themselves so hard?)
ubermensch826 2 months ago
Comment removed
jivetome 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ubermensch826 justbecauseYOUcan'ttellwhatthey'resayingdoesn'tmeannoonecan.Allittakesisatrainedear.andtheyhavetogofastbecausetheyhaveatimelimit.thefasteryougo,thedeeperyourargumentsandthebetteryoudevelopthemratherthansuperficiallyskimmingoverthetopic.everycompetitiveactivityrequiressomedegreeofcommitment,someonewhohasneverseenafootballgamewouldhaveasimilarreaction(i.e."whyarethesepeoplehittingthemselvessohard?)
jivetome 2 months ago
@quenwolf but that doesn't mean that the activity doesn't have merit
ubermensch826 2 months ago
Total mind-blower...this is the kind of thing that Enterprise Architects recommend to each other!
outlawv 3 months ago
so stupid
oghabra1 3 months ago
@oghabra1 lol... u=n00b
V61Sunda 3 months ago
@890slay Heheh. This is actually really really really slow to how fast policy debaters can actually go. This kind of talking is really just to present your evidence in your first speech. But really good kids can debate like this right out of their head.
badgerback000 3 months ago
this is ridiculous
occision 3 months ago
Gosh, are humans supposed to communicate like this? I mean throwing information like that is nothing but annoying and makes no desire to be digested. To say as much as possible for a certain period of time doesn't mean you'd be heard better, and it makes difficult to get back to the point someone missed along, isn't it? It is interesting, though as a competition...
890slay 3 months ago
"interrupt reading which takes up a rock star madonna forever the smoke cigars" -- 0:50 with transcribe audio turned on :))
UNTAMEDmtcj 3 months ago
If you think you can understand this because you're getting better at listening, think again. This is the 2NR + 2AR, the 2AC + 2NC are probably twice as fast.
33mballer 4 months ago
the neg literally "destroyed" the aff.
rangerapprenticefan 4 months ago
haha if u dont like spreading go to public forum. arguing that spreading shouldnt be allowed in a debate is like saying you shouldnt be able to run fast in a football game. the fact that debaters can effectively understand and respond to arguments made a such speeds should increase the respect to debaters, not lessen it
whit3vvip3 4 months ago
@whit3vvip3 a football game is much more different than spreading in a debate round. PFD is more like real debating, however policy is just ok which guy did more research and spent the most time.
dannyboy10155 4 months ago
This highlights the reasons why parliamentary debate is a superior format; regardless of whether or not you believe a trained judge can hear and follow all of this information, a lay individual could not hope to accurately listen to this. Policy debate has moved so far away from a form of public advocacy that it has lost nearly all educational value. In addition, it just sounds bad --- how many people would vote for a politician that sounded like this?
WabashTMac 4 months ago
Wow if I can understand a Harvard guy my listening skills have hit a new high.
Storm0Wolf 4 months ago
@MrFrankie401 Or the words are being shown on the screen.
33mballer 4 months ago
Either their spreading sucks or I'm getting better at understanding their words!
MrFrankie401 4 months ago
TURN ON CLOSED CAPTIONS
CulinaryOddities 5 months ago
This is dumb, join a sport.
drinkmouse 5 months ago
@drinkmouse hahaha, then not ever get a job because you won't ever get drafted into any major league sports program!
Kwoute 5 months ago
thumbs up if you cant help but breathe everytime they breath!
mushrom 7 months ago
@jcandnp I have watched both of these debaters live at tournaments several times and although I did not get the opportunity to watch this round it is possible to "really get all of this". The fact that judges make correct, accurate decisions in round proves this. Your argument is only an assertion, if either side couldn't understand the other in the round there would be no debate. The trained ear can accurately understand 700 words per minute while policy debaters reach btwn 300 and 400 tops
soulsistaable 7 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Perhaps some of the confusion about the video is the way it is edited. In an actual debate round the person on the left would have said everything he says in this video in five minutes of uninterrupted speaking then the person on the right would say everything he said in five minutes.
javap22 7 months ago
Comment removed
javap22 7 months ago
@capaneo The fact is that it is not impossible to listen to but it takes time and practice to train your ear to listen to it. Which is just another testimony to the time that must be invested in policy debate. And the origin of this form of delivery speaks to the intelligence and creativeness fostered by this rigorous activity
soulsistaable 7 months ago
@soulsistaable i just don't buy that you can ever really get all this when you're live and in person. i would bet my life that the maker of this video, who did do a terrific job btw, had to listen several times to the clips of these speeches to do the transcribing. when that's the scenario...and i'm sure it is...the quality of the debate suffers, obviously because the judge does not have the luxury of re-listens and transcriptions. debate = great, spreading = not great.
jcandnp 7 months ago
@jcandnp actually you can understand and you should be flowing all arguments. Im reading comments and not watching the video with the scrolling transcript and i can understand what they are saying. You learn to understand speed. Also spreading is a strategy and is part of argumentation. PS this is why CX'ers hate when people who dont do CX judge.
ace448 5 months ago
@ace448 No disrespect to you ace, but I just don't believe you. I submit that if you listened to this recording live, without the ability to replay it over and over (so basically in the position of a judge), you would not be able to reproduce a single sentence with 100% accuracy to what the debater just spreaded. Not one sentence. If you disagree I'd love to set up an experiment where you could put you money where your mouth is. But mostly accurate wouldn't be good enough...not for a judge.
jcandnp 5 months ago
This reminds me of Southern Baptist preachin'...
ZacharySmith89 8 months ago
USA should start organizing a Berkeley v. Harvard "listening competition". That would be much more useful to the society.
capaneo 8 months ago
How can anyone respect this as a form of intellectual conversation if it is impossible to listen to? This is ironically backwards and very sad. if Berkeley & Harvard train people like this no wonder the political system in USA is so messed up.
Listening is not part of the debate in USA i guess.
capaneo 8 months ago
Everyone forgets to discuss the kind of practice that goes into effective policy debating. Word efficiency is highly stressed as well as rapid cognizance both of which are essential to everyday speaking. Its not like you become a policy debater, learn to spread and then speak at 300 wpm every second of your life. The speed does not ever translate into your life only its benefits. These arguments are absurd the intelligence, talent and commitment to achieve success is immense and deserves respect
soulsistaable 8 months ago
lmfao wow i never knew this type of debating existed
hiphoppacmotion 9 months ago
wow amazing debate...
TheX3Gamer 9 months ago
it is policy or classical debate ...speed debating...nearly incomprehensible...it claims to use arguments which are real world based( yes often rounding the absurd)...but no consideration to persuasive skill quality of speech...special debate form for the nervous disorder.
TheThegayandproud 9 months ago
what the s.h.i.t is this? i must admit i have never seen college debates , but this is totally different from our high school debate. its like a freaking blitz debate... can only understand word of the beginning ... must you suffer from some sort of nervous disorder to qualify for debate team? leaves no real room for quality of speech.No room for developing argument ...maybe it does i dunnno cant understand...Im not gay my nick i s a spoof ... F__ck communism
TheThegayandproud 9 months ago
UHHHH.......
amelialxp 10 months ago
this is the stupidest thing i've ever seen
etizzle1 10 months ago
While I do greatly admire the skill that spreading takes, I also feel that it totally obliterates all the fun and style in debate. What about actually using your voice and your rhetoric to persuade? Speaking slowly but deliberately also takes a l skill and it varies greatly differently from person to person. Spreading and talking as fast you can destroys the entertainment and beauty of speech and debate. I dont see a need for it.
EnegueVokatsehs 10 months ago
@EnegueVokatsehs An interesting counterpoint to this could be the role of persuasion itself in an argument - by removing that aspect, listeners are forced to consider the ideas by themselves, not the speakers. (Ex: Kennedy/Nixon, first televised debate. Kennedy had the appeal.)
Don't get me wrong, though - I couldn't listen to this for more than a minute. I do enjoy listening to a good orator - however, I can see the merits of a system that removes emotional and personal appeal within a debate.
lunchmeat317 9 months ago
why are they reading?
lavenderU 10 months ago
@lavenderU they're not reading - the majority of this is off the top of their heads or small clips that they've written down to remind them of what to say
linskawt 10 months ago
Comment removed
DEQuinlan 10 months ago
@mrbojangles671 you must not be a debater. It's not pointless. They have to cram everything they want to say in order to win the round. The more evidence and more quality points the better. That's how you win. They ARE making their point. Just in a non amateur way. That up there is a real policy debate. Nothing matters except the fact that the opponents and the judge gets it. Spreading is a technique, not a joke.
mish629 10 months ago
Why is this necessary? It sounds dumb and you can't understand them because it sounds like they're weeping. I thought the point of debate was to make your point, not a words per minute race.
mrbojangles671 10 months ago
@mrbojangles671 well that's obviously not the case because they're responding directly to each other's arguments so they can understand each other.
linskawt 10 months ago
Wait until you have to perform without subtitles to build a cohesive argument almost on the fly
andrewkrogman 11 months ago
Nothing like the inevitable debate on spreading. I don't understand why there is so much animosity over this issue. It's a perfectly reasonable way to gain an advantage by presenting more evidence. It's also something just about anyone can accomplish with practice. At the end of the day this is a matter of preference and/or what form of debate you are accustomed to. There's really no ground for a claim of stupidity in either direction. Good vid, nice idea putting flows up for everyone else
pleasereason 11 months ago
HERP DERP!
GameKingMartin 11 months ago
I don't think Reddy got too many points for speech ;)
snotberg123 11 months ago
Teehee. All the non-policy debaters here whining about how they can't understand and therefore it's stupid etc. etc. etc. some dumb shit makes me laugh.
Teehee.
Why don't y'all go watch a public forum round to make you feel better?
animelover654 11 months ago 11
@animelover654 I'm in Public Forum and I can understand this, but I do plan do do Policy next year if I can find a partner.
TheNinjaFilipino 11 months ago
@TheNinjaFilipino yay!! I really do hope you do policy because Public Forum is stupid! In Policy you actually got to "debate"
girlla123 7 months ago
@animelover654 In public forum though you actually have to be a good speaker unlike policy where you just talk really fast
MrMaazMuhammad 1 month ago
Lol at all the non-debators commenting this video
colinrocks636 1 year ago 3
really people
just stop dissing spreading
its a fantastic technique that increases the value of debate
learn before you make judgements
YesProductionz 1 year ago
i have actually seen real competitive debate, and i still think it's ridiculous. i've also tried many cases and i'm not impressed at all by this style of debating .... sorry
avzeolla 1 year ago
@avzeolla Is it the spreading? That is the only complaint I have ever heard about this form of debate. What would you say about policy if you saw a round at a slower speed? It is not a requirement to spread and there are some tournaments that limit the speed you read evidence. It's about winning on logical arguments not speed or persuasion. Either way there are other forms of debate out there. You might be more interested in PF or LD. I've debated in both but I always come back to policy. :)
lolturtle13 11 months ago
@avzeolla You're weird...
girlla123 7 months ago
They must get bad gas.
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
You ignorant fucks. Policy debate is about spreading.
SuperAnontroll 1 year ago
as a lawyer and debate fan, this is the dumbest thing i've ever seen
avzeolla 1 year ago
@avzeolla you obviously haven't seen actual competitive debate then
mafleeted 1 year ago 21
whoever says that spreading removes the substance of debate is just wrong. The point is to fit as many good arguments into the amount of time as possible. It takes more than just speaking quickly to do well.
also everyone in that room could understand what they say. It's not like one group is trying to "trick" the other.
avenging209 1 year ago 3
To people wondering: Harvard won.
ChoboToss91 1 year ago
@ChoboToss91 Klinger smoked 'em right out the door
vhking29 1 year ago
After listening to that, Who is reading comments but getting them processed at CX speed? :D
TheJamessaddler 1 year ago
good LORD!!!!!!!!!! i've never seen anything like this
democratsdominatee32 1 year ago
The black person was obviously from Harvard.
AsianFighters 1 year ago
@AsianFighters Noo yur wrong... the "white" guy is Michael Klinger, he's from harvard...
iluvlulu1221 1 year ago
The arguments may indeed be skillful and even brilliant but who will listen if there are not subtitles during his argument?
Seriously, though he is the fastest I've heard, he will have to slow down for a political campaign! Otherwise, he sounds like an auctioneer or a hyped-up preacher. This may be good academically but he knows in the real world debate will be quite relaxed as it was with Nixon-Kennedy and even more relaxed with Obama-McCain.
pjmnash 1 year ago
@pjmnash Yea, debaters use slow speaking as speaking drills anyways. We know how to speak at both speeds and can argue all those points at actual debate speed.
mydogdaisy1212 1 year ago
Also, to the LD people. Don't compare these two styles, they are both the best in their respective fields. LD is more about philosophy and individual thought while policy is about just that, policy and research. Being good at both styles is what a true debater should strive for. Also, policy has been around since 1928 its not that new, spreading introduced in the 60s. All these arguments are carefully thought out and research and analytics are made skillfully. Also, i agree on asking who won.
mydogdaisy1212 1 year ago
Spreading is a legitimate technique. It requires both sides to think about different arguments which can deal with a wide variety of topics or styles. I.E a Kritik is not a DA, and not a CP or T. You may say that this diminishes focus on the actual content, but judges vote on which arguments are left unanswered and which arguments are stronger in the round, not who is faster. The fact is that this technique actually increases your total rhetoric skills and helps you to learn about more things.
mydogdaisy1212 1 year ago
These guys are pretty great. I really liked the flow, it helped because I'm from a lay-dominant region and am therefore not used to speed as much as I'd like to believe. But I'm confused. What was the disad and was it the net ben to the CP? ...and what was the CP?
Finally, who won?
Bravette2012 1 year ago 2
econ d/a = cap k?
Razorscale2 1 year ago
God, this isn't debating. I know this is the new style of debate, but it almost deteriorates the entire premise of debating in general. True, these guys are very intelligent. Then let their intelligence be shown in a fashion that doesn't involve them seeming like they are having a panic attack.
HamBurglerMan 1 year ago
this is where the quote: "if you can't convince them, confuse them". CX is a legit debate, however, it seems as though really it's just about spreading and not actually convincing your judge and using logic, theory, and evidence in good balance. this is mostly a spreading and evidence debate and it's unfair that people say CX is the supreme debate, when, really, LD is.
whattheheckeven 1 year ago
LD Debate > All other types of debate. Although Policy is pretty damn legit, nothing beats a good, thought-out LD round. To all of you who think these two kids are geniuses: you could learn most of this easily by just joining your debate team (as long as your school doesn't suck at debate). Trust me, they're probably not much more intelligent than you.
ilyLaura1 1 year ago
Sounds like asthma. Looks like a nervous disorder.
melikeyyeah 1 year ago 24
this is a JOKE! Nothing intellectually accomplished here!
bellasanela83 1 year ago
@bellasanela83 How exactly is nothing "intellectually accomplished"?
SuperAnontroll 1 year ago
@SuperAnontroll : Seltitbus evah oediv eht seod yhw?
Политичка дебата о садржају ... Ми треба да настоје да буду што јаснији и пажљив могуће...Politika je o ljudima živote, to se mora uzeti ozbiljno. Ako su prodajom rabljenih automobila, onda bih biti impresioniran.
noitseuq rouy srewsna taht epoh I.
bellasanela83 1 year ago
@bellasanela83 Well I have no idea what that means,
just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not 'intellectual'
SuperAnontroll 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
bellasanela83 1 year ago
policy gods.
darkangel102030 1 year ago
shits
FEETURS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is how the best colleges r luring the dummy out of us to face the world. this is what we get points for, they might as well b competing to find out who can stay under water longer ... the whole idea of the debate is futile and the very very approach and foundation is corrout. how is the content ever gonna matter ?
is the expected means of civilized debate ??
hanicsousa79 1 year ago
this is how the best colleges r luring the dummy out of us to face the world. this is what we get points for, they might as well b competing to find out who can stay under water longer ... the whole idea of the debate is futile and the very very approach and foundation is corrout. how is the content ever gonna matter ?
is the expected means of civilized debate ??
hanicsousa79 1 year ago 2
haha all these idiotic comments are so ignorant. its frustrating to see for a person who is actually invloved in CX
mushrom 1 year ago
@mushrom involved*
mushrom 1 year ago
This is so stupid, they are merely reading...
panathinaikosforeva 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@panathinaikosforeva
no they are not.
These analytics are all written by them, or they are going of the top of their heads. Your a dumbass.
Mead921 1 year ago
@panathinaikosforeva They're merely reading because they've spent hundreds of hours preparing for the debate. The hardest part of debate is writing answers to every possible argument that is out there. Both of these teams have obviously prepared very well.
redwings93 1 year ago
this hasn't been sped up, that is how fast they talk
AAkram21 1 year ago
i pretty much figured that competative college debate would equate to this: simple pleonasm..... No one in their normal RIGHT minds could understand this. Esoterically speaking, this form of debate can only be understood by a select few... very interesting...lol
ThunderKittys 1 year ago
Comment removed
thenextmarionette 1 year ago
their breathing is just a double breath
to be able to go for a longer period of time
snowmando1 1 year ago
1) turn on "Transcribe Audio"
2) die laughing
DKproductions 1 year ago 2
LOL policy debate is crazy.
erasers9876 1 year ago
ok whats up with their breathing??
jungweizer 1 year ago
Wooow. they talk super fast. and heckkaa smart
digimon969 1 year ago
@digimon969 it been sped up =.=
weaselswithmeasles 1 year ago
Thats like 1000 wpm
KOBE24x5 1 year ago
rofl
KruspeFTW 1 year ago
This is not debating. This is speed reading nonsense out loud obviously.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago 2
@zbigniewzapora
you are an idiot - just bc you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's nonsense
smlax1234 1 year ago
@smlax1234 I think what he means to say is that they are speaking in vagueries. It really is nonsense. It's useless vocabulary salad that has no relevant context.
Jorell1000 1 year ago
this is so - breath breath - fucking - breath breath - stupid. I feel like - breath breath - smacking - breath breath - the shit - breath - out - breath - of you - breath - a-breath-noy-breath-ying-breath- bitches.
jakmere 1 year ago
This can't be healthy
libbycuriel 1 year ago
This clip just made me want to puke...the kids sounded just like machines regurgitating positions of status quo academics and pseudo-thinkers. I m sure that the guy on the left is a Francis Fukuyama die hard fan (posters on his walls and all)...I also find it sad, very sad...
sloukos 1 year ago
intelligent idiots
Willem73GVD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pointless, and it sounds like they are crying.
wsxvgy 1 year ago
In the real world delivery is an important part of debate...and these guys won't persuade anyone with their breakneck pace...
thafix82 1 year ago
@thafix82
I'm sure they can turn their 5 min speech into something 20 minutes long that's informative by talking more normally. :)
I tried listening to a few more of these videos and the speech is becoming clearer to me actually. Although usually the sound quality isn't that good.
Neosquall 1 year ago
@Neosquall yea dude you should give it a try
zcepinsowavyy 1 year ago
@zcepinsowavyy Maybe in another life. I'm already behind in engineering courses and would like to take care of that. That and i can't talk for 5 minutes at normal speed without getting my jaw sore sadly.
Neosquall 1 year ago
@thafix82 dude we do talk fast in rounds but think about how intellectually stimulating it is to put 30 answers on one argument or to have a debate about how the world going to end if we dont end capitalism. Policy debate isnt for everone. In 3 weeks of policy debate camp a debater has wriiten enough and done enough research to have the thesis written for a book towards a phd... now what have you done with your summer.
zcepinsowavyy 1 year ago
@zcepinsowavyy I am not a debater, but I definitely have respect for them. This is a sport.
QdaniT 1 year ago 4
@zcepinsowavyy What have I done with my summer? I've interned at an internationally recognized not-for-profit organization and am preparing for the start of a degree at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Hbu?
By the way "the world will end if we don't end capitalism" is the stupidest, most one-sided debate I've ever heard of.
thafix82 1 year ago
@thafix82 Policy debate is more of a competitive form of debate. It's not meant to persuade anyone but instead to see who can protect their points and dismantle the other teams points better. The spreading is necessary for time and it also adds some more difficulty to the debate. If it wasn't there it would turn a 1 hour debate into a 5 hour debate. That's a little too much when you have 4 or more matches in a tournament.If you want to listen to a more "real world" debate go watch Public Forum.
lolturtle13 1 year ago
@thafix82 idiot this has been sped up
weaselswithmeasles 1 year ago
Wow. I guess my immediate thought is that someone within the system should take a step back and look at the end product and say 'does this bear any analogy to the ordinary practice of rhetoric and argumentation which university debating is supposed to epitomise?' Without questioning the skill which these chaps quite evidently has it would be hard for someone not to think something had gone with a system to which this is the ultimate end product.
Faboba 1 year ago
is it classified as a sport?
adamdebaiser 1 year ago
As a debater, I have never understood why people like to harp on the fact that we (policy) talk fast, which somehow renders the activity useless.
So why do you all sit back on your couches and watch people with muscle and technique useless in day to day life slam into each other come the Superbowls? Speed is a technique, just as playing notes quickly on an instrument is.
How people use it is up to them. Some debaters are bad and just read fast; others actually engage. Don't judge so fast.
GunboatDebater 1 year ago
@GunboatDebater
In football by the nature of what the players are doing, well, they are generally fit and healthy. It also pays well. That's pretty damn useful. Research skills are quite useful, in and out of school. Being able to talk like a hyperactive mental patient... not so useful as far as I can see beyond a Tournament.
Neosquall 1 year ago
@Neosquall
Sorry, but your stance just isn't sound. Respectfully, here's why. While you purport to be weighing both against each other (policy vs. football), you aren't judging the same criteria.
Talking fast is no more the essence of debate than tackling is of football. If you say "there's no use in talking fast outside," what use is tackling in day to day life. When you talk about being fit, it has nothing to do with the act of tackling.
GunboatDebater 1 year ago
@Neosquall (part two because my iTouch can't give me a char limit)
If we judge by that, the value of talking fast becomes plain in that, when speaking at a normal speed, a debater can go on at length without stumbling because of the mental acuity they've been forced to develop. Talking fast is something people assume debaters always do. On the contrary; better debaters in the policy community will always maintain te ability to debate effectively at any speed.
GunboatDebater 1 year ago
@Neosquall (part three, same problem as before)
Leadership and teamwork do not stem from singular actions in any sport, no matter how defining. Rather it is the process by which we develop those skills that we derive utility later in life. A debater has anywhere from five to eight minutes to prepare over a one hour plus round, shared with a partner. And no, it's not all just reading. It takes practice, just like any sport.
GunboatDebater 1 year ago
@GunboatDebater
Damn I thought for the most part people could talk at length without stumbling. But I'll buy that. You know I followed a link from a forum to some debate videos and was quite surprised at how bizarre people spoke. And it's just hilarious! And alright, earlier I was trying (poorly) to be harsh particularly at the rate of speech. I have no doubt the entire process of policy debate is intense and I also don't doubt the teamwork required and so on. But the speech, its weird.
Neosquall 1 year ago
Ironic, the debater arguing against technology is the one flowing on a laptop...
meinperpetualmotion 1 year ago
@meinperpetualmotion Heideggers argument isn't a rejection of technology in the physical sense. when Heidegger refers to technology he is referring to what he calls the essence of technology. So your statement that they are a rejection of the physical instance of technology is just wrong. So it really doesnt matter whether or not he flows on a laptop or not.
btownchoirboi 1 year ago
@btownchoirboi I know, it was just a joke, I wasn't attacking his position.
meinperpetualmotion 1 year ago
Alright i have a question.. i have an LD and my case is.. Secondary education in america should value the fine arts over athletics, what would my value you be?! Some1 plz help
6tlong 1 year ago
If you actually understand the content of this speech (I used the subtitles), they're obviously incredibly intelligent.
Hungary123Jack 1 year ago 18
Wanna see a real debate? Look for Noam Chomsky vs. Michel Foucault
tulioigor96 1 year ago
why are they talking too fast???
kaorunootaku 2 years ago
@kaorunootaku This is Policy Debate. Spreading (talking fast) is quite common. They do this to try to confuse their opponents on what they're saying, and since they're talking so fast, it makes their opponent forget some argument that they have brought it. It's quite effective.
VideoGameSpeed 1 year ago
wow...
then how could the adjudicators catch what they say??
honestly, i've been debating for 2 years and i've never seen such debate...
kaorunootaku 1 year ago
@kaorunootaku I'm guessing you have never been in the National Forensics League then. This is actually quite common in varsity policy debates. I'm guilty of doing it myself. That's the point though, you speak so fast that you confuse your opponents. You want them to not understand what you're saying so that.
VideoGameSpeed 1 year ago
NOT TRUE AT ALL. I'm a debater as well. We speak fast so that we can fit all of our arguments into the set speech time. If you are interested in understanding this type of Forensics, I suggest you watch the documentary Resolved. Explains everything quite well.
cmeyerowitz 1 year ago 2
@cmeyerowitz I have watched the documentary. for some reason my comment got cut off. I meant to add on "you want them to not understand what you're saying, and you want to put in as many arguments as you possibly can which is the other main reason."
VideoGameSpeed 1 year ago
then your not in real debate =P
TheFallenFilms 1 year ago
It's funny that they've got nothing to say to each other afterwards and it lapses into an awkward silence. But it's another skill that highlights what the brain is capable of, like the speed mental arithmatic masters. We've got a Lamborghini in our heads and most of us drive it like a golf cart!
CaptainFrenzy 2 years ago 3
Remember to breath people
halfvisconte 2 years ago
Great debate.
Sadly, i always disliked the time. It does take away from our thoughts or intrests. Takes away from our achivements, it does.
Idealistic arguements. A luxury of the well off and well fed.
mopuffy01 2 years ago 3
Tooooo much time signposting and referring to the opposition's arguments -- the actual # / quality of new arguments is really low given the speaking speed.
goblygok 2 years ago
@goblygok I would challenge you to say that to Michael Klinger's face. There's a reason he was one of the best debaters in his year.
GunboatDebater 1 year ago
what the hell is this aff? how do they read onto-first in the 1AC?
x4812k 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL i thought this was a joke, debaters speaking absurdly fast, how the hell do they understand each other?
kyphugen12 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
not real debate
eldiablo0684 2 years ago
that's freaky
zhuchu9605 2 years ago
OMG...
IZHHL 2 years ago