Berkeley v. Harvard at USC, final round (deleted scene)

More debate at www.debateteamdocumentary.com

This is a very interesting debate between Berkeley, arguing a Heidegger critique and Harvard defending old-school policy analysis. I worked really hard to make this debate interesting and understandable to non-debaters, but in the end I think I could never make it work right. The more information I put on the screen the harder it became to digest everything. Non-debaters felt even more confused than before. So the scene was cut, in part because it was so confusing, but also in part because this particular pairing of Harvard's A team and Berkeley's then-B team never materialized as an important story line.

This scene went through a number of iterations. First I just tried the images switching back and forth. Then I put the images up split-screen style. Later I tried moving the images around, and introducing subtitling. Later I added the flow, you now see in orange and blue. This version you see here has everything. It's a bit of overload, so in the final movie I backed off the flow idea. Now there's some subtitling in the movie and some split screen effects, but that's it. Still this scene is an interesting relic of some early experimentation. And the debate is interesting too--albeit very technical and sort of abstract.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Debate
• Team
• Documentary
• Harvard
• UC
• Berkeley
• Heidegger
• USC
• Tournament

[soulsistaable]

@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

[ishmam1414]

im in ld and this is average o.o

[Powduhh]

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.

[wrathofme03]

NERDGASM

[chocomaniacs345]

@ishmam1414 I agree, I have hit people faster than this in LD

[V61Sunda]

@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

[wow5heyy]

They arent even going fast, and im in LD.. lol

[energeez]

eh...ok.

[lolzorsish]

does anyone own the movie?

If so, could you contact me please?

[TheNinjaFilipino]

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.