Yeah this isn't even close to fast... I was watching this to see if NFA LD was anything like CEDA policy... and THIS is what people consider fast? Give me a break.
i need some help for my debate speeches. UIL topic of RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking websites. I need value and criterion for AFF and NEG. Please help!
Additionally, when debaters speak to lay people, they speak slowly and avoid debate jargon.
Similarly, you wouldn't understand doctors talking to each other using medical jargon, but when they talk to lay people (i.e. patients), they can clearly articulate the condition.
I'm not sure what this comment is an indict of. I do find their speeches to be coherent, though I would have avoided making some of their claims. Is the speed what is incoherent or is it the claims? Feel free to elaborate, as I'm sure commentary is welcome on either front.
I would say that I don't believe that debate is "about understanding one's opponent." I have witnessed many an incomprehensible kritik, for instance. On occasions like those, it makes it clear that debate is more about forwarding valid, defensible claims than about seeking understanding of positions. Sometimes exploring the incomprehensible is both counter to the educational merits of debate and strategically disadvantageous. Asserting defensible competing claims beats "understanding."
You don't believe that debate is about understanding one's opponent? How can you possibly make a valid argument than if you don't comprehend what your opponent is talking about? It would be worthless to get into an argument with a Spanish speaking person who knows not a word of English with someone who is English speaking. The debate, then, would just be a matter of semantics than logical, coherent principles. You cannot defend a point if you don't understand what point you are defending.
No, debate is not "about understanding one's opponent." You cite an example of arguments that are incomprehensible. I hope that you can tell that the debaters in the round comprehend each other. I'd also like to tell you that the judging panel comprehends these arguments. So if the charge is that these people are spewing incoherent gibberish, then you are right to say that it is incoherent gibberish to some people. Those that speak only Spanish, for instance?
How do you know they comprehend each other? Perhaps they are acting as if they are. A good indicator would be to cross examine, which they did not do here. Again, how do you debate if you don't understand the opponent's argument? You think understanding simply means hearing words. NO!!!! You have to be able to process those words and ideas to get a broader understanding of your opponents views. If he's rapping incoherent gibberish every mili-sec, there is no way he could be understood.
But these are evaluable arguments for the debaters and judges. It isn't just "understanding" and that's why these aren't just lectures. Opponents may not comprehend argumentation- but that'ss not an indicator that they're "gibberish."
Another example? A debater argues that nuclear power contributes to proliferation leaks. The other doesn't know what proliferation is. The debate is incomprehensible to one person in the room. That doesn't mean that the prolif debater was wrong or hurt the debate.
How do you speak to people? I would imagine you talk to them calmly, slowly and coherently. You do that to be understood. You seriously have a big misunderstanding about human communication. You bring up the very same points over and over again. You apparently think that this is normal communication. If opponents don't understand, as you mentioned in your response, how in the hell can they refute the opponent's views? If I'm arguing a misunderstood point, my argument is not valid. LOL
I completely agree with politicaldebauchery. Not only is this guy close to completely incomprehensible because of the speed of his talking, he is stumbling over words as he is speaking, making it even harder to understand him.The very idea that spewing out tons and tons of stuff without any thought behind it could be an effective strategy is ridiculous. I have no doubt in my mind that if someone got up there and talked at a normal rate, and expressed arguments coherently, they would win.
I'm on a debate team and I can say that you get used to the rate of speech very quickly. In addition, between rounds you have a three-minute period in which to question the speaker about anything you found unclear. It also helps that you'll have your topic researched, and therefore will be able to get the gist of what your opponent is saying.
The rate of speech is key; if you don't speak quickly, your opponent will have more arguments than you can respond to and you will be unable to meet them.
There's no purpose then to have a debate if the opponent's arguments are already known. If it's just about spewing out the most points, even if the points are invalid, then this is exactly what I originally stated, a motor-mouth contest.
Technically, all timed speeches would be a motor-mouth contest. You have X minutes to state your case and want to give as strong of a position as possible. Invalid points are irresponsible and ought to be pointed out as such by all. But do you expect judges to automatically deem points invalid or is it the role of the debaters? Careful how you answer. The point is this:Some of the fastest rounds I've seen have had the best argumentation. It's not for eveyone and it shouldn't be used to abuse.
Well, then, I guess there's no reason to continue to beat this subject up when you agree that it could be seen as a motor-mouth contest for outsiders. Though I'm no outsider to debate, I simply find this style to be a bit unorthodox compared to the traditional, comprehendible style of debates I'm familiar with.
In response to your question, I think it is the judge's responsibility to deem points invalid if the argument is illogical. Often times, logicality, comprehension, point/counter-point, rhetoric, defense, etc. are factors that make up the judging requirements in a debate. The opponents role is to simply argue the opposing view of the argument, pro guns/ anti guns, by producing a better logical and concrete argument to invalidate the others.
Rate of speech can be important- but being efficient may be more so. Grouping argumentation and identifying the strongest arguments against a position can trump speed. This is why the faster debate isn't presumed to have won.
But you're right- there isn't a speed barrier that prevents everyone from comprehending it. Lots of people (including you and I) have learned. It's not wrong for two people that comprehend fast speech to speak swiftly with each other.
I can clearly understand every argument being articulated in the round. The point of speed is to increase discourse on the topic. If you can't understand it then a) join a debate team or b) learn to listen to fast speaking, it's not that difficult.
Also, he doesn't stumble very much in his speech. It's actually well articulated and easy to follow. The judges understand everything being articulated. So there really is no problem here.
a distinctive trait of a good debator is keen observation, a characteristic you are clearly lacking. maybe you should go back, say, four months ago when this very topic was hashed to get clued in on what was discussed. find some other discussion to chime in on, loser.
Yeah this isn't even close to fast... I was watching this to see if NFA LD was anything like CEDA policy... and THIS is what people consider fast? Give me a break.
demotheses 10 months ago
lol "if u didnt know that than google it" i like how he uses his humor to win his debates
deathdrain123 1 year ago
i need some help for my debate speeches. UIL topic of RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking websites. I need value and criterion for AFF and NEG. Please help!
redraidersfan6 2 years ago
this isn't fast at all - like not even close to fast.
thelastmim 2 years ago 2
SIGHS no roadmapping..... unclear responses... "shame on you"
oh my god, what kind of argument is that?
shigenmakizan 2 years ago
Additionally, when debaters speak to lay people, they speak slowly and avoid debate jargon.
Similarly, you wouldn't understand doctors talking to each other using medical jargon, but when they talk to lay people (i.e. patients), they can clearly articulate the condition.
ashiundar 3 years ago 2
Debate is about understanding one's opponent, not spewing out incoherent gibberish.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago 3
I'm not sure what this comment is an indict of. I do find their speeches to be coherent, though I would have avoided making some of their claims. Is the speed what is incoherent or is it the claims? Feel free to elaborate, as I'm sure commentary is welcome on either front.
iliketrains76 3 years ago
I would say that I don't believe that debate is "about understanding one's opponent." I have witnessed many an incomprehensible kritik, for instance. On occasions like those, it makes it clear that debate is more about forwarding valid, defensible claims than about seeking understanding of positions. Sometimes exploring the incomprehensible is both counter to the educational merits of debate and strategically disadvantageous. Asserting defensible competing claims beats "understanding."
iliketrains76 3 years ago
You don't believe that debate is about understanding one's opponent? How can you possibly make a valid argument than if you don't comprehend what your opponent is talking about? It would be worthless to get into an argument with a Spanish speaking person who knows not a word of English with someone who is English speaking. The debate, then, would just be a matter of semantics than logical, coherent principles. You cannot defend a point if you don't understand what point you are defending.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
No, debate is not "about understanding one's opponent." You cite an example of arguments that are incomprehensible. I hope that you can tell that the debaters in the round comprehend each other. I'd also like to tell you that the judging panel comprehends these arguments. So if the charge is that these people are spewing incoherent gibberish, then you are right to say that it is incoherent gibberish to some people. Those that speak only Spanish, for instance?
iliketrains76 3 years ago
How do you know they comprehend each other? Perhaps they are acting as if they are. A good indicator would be to cross examine, which they did not do here. Again, how do you debate if you don't understand the opponent's argument? You think understanding simply means hearing words. NO!!!! You have to be able to process those words and ideas to get a broader understanding of your opponents views. If he's rapping incoherent gibberish every mili-sec, there is no way he could be understood.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
But these are evaluable arguments for the debaters and judges. It isn't just "understanding" and that's why these aren't just lectures. Opponents may not comprehend argumentation- but that'ss not an indicator that they're "gibberish."
Another example? A debater argues that nuclear power contributes to proliferation leaks. The other doesn't know what proliferation is. The debate is incomprehensible to one person in the room. That doesn't mean that the prolif debater was wrong or hurt the debate.
iliketrains76 3 years ago
How do you speak to people? I would imagine you talk to them calmly, slowly and coherently. You do that to be understood. You seriously have a big misunderstanding about human communication. You bring up the very same points over and over again. You apparently think that this is normal communication. If opponents don't understand, as you mentioned in your response, how in the hell can they refute the opponent's views? If I'm arguing a misunderstood point, my argument is not valid. LOL
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
I completely agree with politicaldebauchery. Not only is this guy close to completely incomprehensible because of the speed of his talking, he is stumbling over words as he is speaking, making it even harder to understand him.The very idea that spewing out tons and tons of stuff without any thought behind it could be an effective strategy is ridiculous. I have no doubt in my mind that if someone got up there and talked at a normal rate, and expressed arguments coherently, they would win.
pyroatheist 3 years ago
yeah, this is more like a motor-mouth contest than a debate. lol
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
I'm on a debate team and I can say that you get used to the rate of speech very quickly. In addition, between rounds you have a three-minute period in which to question the speaker about anything you found unclear. It also helps that you'll have your topic researched, and therefore will be able to get the gist of what your opponent is saying.
The rate of speech is key; if you don't speak quickly, your opponent will have more arguments than you can respond to and you will be unable to meet them.
quartzy 3 years ago
There's no purpose then to have a debate if the opponent's arguments are already known. If it's just about spewing out the most points, even if the points are invalid, then this is exactly what I originally stated, a motor-mouth contest.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
Technically, all timed speeches would be a motor-mouth contest. You have X minutes to state your case and want to give as strong of a position as possible. Invalid points are irresponsible and ought to be pointed out as such by all. But do you expect judges to automatically deem points invalid or is it the role of the debaters? Careful how you answer. The point is this:Some of the fastest rounds I've seen have had the best argumentation. It's not for eveyone and it shouldn't be used to abuse.
iliketrains76 3 years ago
Well, then, I guess there's no reason to continue to beat this subject up when you agree that it could be seen as a motor-mouth contest for outsiders. Though I'm no outsider to debate, I simply find this style to be a bit unorthodox compared to the traditional, comprehendible style of debates I'm familiar with.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
In response to your question, I think it is the judge's responsibility to deem points invalid if the argument is illogical. Often times, logicality, comprehension, point/counter-point, rhetoric, defense, etc. are factors that make up the judging requirements in a debate. The opponents role is to simply argue the opposing view of the argument, pro guns/ anti guns, by producing a better logical and concrete argument to invalidate the others.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
It is not the job of the opponent to deem points invalid (thats the judges role), but to invalidate his opponents argument with counter evidence.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago
Rate of speech can be important- but being efficient may be more so. Grouping argumentation and identifying the strongest arguments against a position can trump speed. This is why the faster debate isn't presumed to have won.
But you're right- there isn't a speed barrier that prevents everyone from comprehending it. Lots of people (including you and I) have learned. It's not wrong for two people that comprehend fast speech to speak swiftly with each other.
iliketrains76 3 years ago
I can clearly understand every argument being articulated in the round. The point of speed is to increase discourse on the topic. If you can't understand it then a) join a debate team or b) learn to listen to fast speaking, it's not that difficult.
Also, he doesn't stumble very much in his speech. It's actually well articulated and easy to follow. The judges understand everything being articulated. So there really is no problem here.
ashiundar 3 years ago 5
This is normal communication for an ld round. If the opponent can't understand the spread, then they don't belong in the round.
Understanding this speed and flowing it is LD 101. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't do it.
Not to mention you would not make a finals round much less a nats finals round.
heartofmysins 3 years ago
a distinctive trait of a good debator is keen observation, a characteristic you are clearly lacking. maybe you should go back, say, four months ago when this very topic was hashed to get clued in on what was discussed. find some other discussion to chime in on, loser.
politicaldebauchery 3 years ago