Policy Debate Semifinals (Part 1)

Carabelos/Craddock (AFF) vs. Byrnes/Griffith (NEG) in the semifinal round of the 2009 NCFCA Region 3 Invitational. Josh Craddock delivers the Second Affirmative Constructive of the round.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Regionals
• Debate
• Semifinals
• NCFCA
• policy
• policy debate
• team policy debate
• India
• Social Security
• Social Security Totalization
• social
• security
• totalization
• Josh
• Craddock
• Josh Craddock
• Carabelos/Craddock
• Finals
• final debate
• final debate round

[awesomeballer123]

This is Policy Debate! you made so few arguments in your 2AC!  Your not supposed to talk to the audience, you should say your evidence and arguments and move on!

[mrconceeded]

@awesomeballer123 It's all about communicating to the audience. If you fail to communicate, you fail to persuade. This isn't about speed and spread, it's about quality. :) Thanks for watching though.

[PKNproductions]

@mrconceeded If it is entirely about speech, then you are rewarding lying through your teeth over making a fully coherent and logical case.

This is the problem with modern politics. People only agree with the guy who speaks nicely and uses "convincing" words. No one cares about the "boring guy" who focuses on the content over the shallow aspects of flowery speech.

Logic is by far superior to presentation, and as such should be the entire basis of the judge's ballot.

[mrconceeded]

@PKNproductions I'm not saying it's ALL about speech. I'm saying that learning how to communicate well is a more important skill than learning how to communicate quickly (speed and spread debate) like awesomeballer123 said. Content and quality of communication is absolutely important as you point out. However, being able to communicate truth *well* is better than being the "boring guy."

[xXSpudmeister94Xx]

Wait, this is policy? But I can actually understand what you are saying!

[Herculaneus]

You need to tell the story of your aff, and why it SOLVES for ___ and ___. etc... You should also be speaking louder, with more confidence, and faster. Your giving your opponent all the more reason to use LESS prep time. Which means they have MORE to prep for the 2nr.

[giwannabe13]

@drinkmouse Whoa whoa whoa whoa homeboy... :p

[giwannabe13]

@daminkymonkey NCFCA; we try to let the judges keep up with us ;)

[giwannabe13]

@xXSpudmeister94Xx Lemme guess: You're an LD'er :p

[giwannabe13]

@mrconceeded Well, by audience do you mean mainly judges? I usually try to communicate most to the judges because they're the ones checking the box, but I see what you're saying. It's better to also have the audience following too, and laughing, crying, and screaming in rage ;p jk My main strategy is almost always personal appeals, and direct impacts.

[giwannabe13]

@PKNproductions Seriously? It's about thinking on your feet, and using your evidence to persuade someone of something while using speaking skills. If you can say something convincingly against your opponent well and professionally, you are an excellent debater and should win the round. I get high speaker points in most rounds, but that doesn't mean we win every round. The judges are trained to vote mainly on content, but also take presentation into consideration.

[Frecciasful]

This is NCFCA (national christian forensic league) which talks much, much, much more slowly than NFL (national forensics league) policy.

[daminkymonkey]

lolol he speaks so slowly

[fallin2pieces96]

he's cute... 

[quenwolf]

@tantheman6254 He did weigh the arguments. Hurr durr.