this guy won the TOC in high school and was top speaker at the NDT in college for Harvard. also has won the Copeland which is given to the best policy team over an entire season. has won double digit national tournaments and is universally considered one of the most naturally talented debaters the activity has ever seen. yeah he's definitely not going at any ridiculous speed (its obviously a camp demo debate) but you have no idea what you're talking about
@yoghurtgames
6 жыл бұрын
such dirty and common util advantages lol. this guy answers critical literature with adhoms about author quals and evidence dates. i guess he weighed thoroughly and did link turns so it probably didn't matter but i'd bet he would have been swept by even an incompetent k debater bc this honestly wasn't much of a beat down, these are among the worst framework answers i've ever heard... "the morality debate"... jesus, i know it's 2007, but surely y'all knew how to argue framework beyond just author quals and calling people hacks. so little substantive engagement, so little clash, just link turns and shady evidence comparison. if you are spending 30+seconds in the 2AR doing evidence comparison, the round is no longer a beat down. this guy would get trashed in any nat circuit ld or cx outround today. makes me remember my high school years, and a sage expression i heard time and time again.... "I wish i could down both of you."
@jerrywang7360
Жыл бұрын
breh he was literally the national champion of policy debate and this was a demo where he slowed down
@jainabraina
7 жыл бұрын
This boi slow
@kyojins9467
6 жыл бұрын
this is a decent speed for a 2ar but still slow lol
@carterrasnicolson9069
7 жыл бұрын
yall fuckin weak this isn't even that fast
@Mo-mz2dq
7 жыл бұрын
Just give them the paper.
@AntonioKowatsch
7 жыл бұрын
What a bunch of weirdos. I am a debate pro and don't need to talk fast to get my point across.
@aksprkl6594
7 жыл бұрын
Anyone who can't understand this obviously doesn't listen to enough rap. I'm trained to understand Eminem. I got this.
@redblueyellowlol
7 жыл бұрын
if politicians spoke like this noone would understand them and they'd be considered insane. this has no practical value. using a need to argue every point made and a fallacy of implying that not comprehending shows that someone does not understand the debate has allowed this bullshit. these students could not do that without a script. would the judges consider it acceptable for a debater to speak a foreign language, and rebut attempts to show how stupid it is with a fallacious, extreme form of 'it's not my fault you don't understand'. these event-debates should have a maximum speaking rate in place to enforce using good reasoning and imagery over the sjw-esque normie-like swamping tactics.
@dylanfrederick7379
7 жыл бұрын
Literally what? You have no idea what you're talking about. The entire point of the debate is to convince the judge that you have the strongest arguments. If the judge can comprehend them they are fine to talk this way and can fit in more arguments that help prove they have the better reasoning. Also how is speaking fast "sjw-esque" or "normie-like"? And since you've clearly never done this activity before, everyone participating in that debate can understand each other or see what pieces of evidence are being read in the debate, allowing for them to have a high intensity, evidence based debate. Whining that this encourages debaters to win on technicalities and logical fallacies shows that you have no comprehension of what judges are like in this activity. By being able to communicate ideas this quickly and intensely in a limited timeslot it gives debaters an edge over others when they actually have lots of time to communicate their ideas, and they know what sort of arguments make logical sense.
@ytpanda398
7 жыл бұрын
Dylan Frederick I feel like if a debater has that much to say, it's not worth saying anything. In the UK, we generally have 2 points per speaker for university challenges. The judges will judge you based on your analysis of points and how effectively you strike at the core of the opponents points. Also. How.The.Shit are you supposed to make a POI. A lot of this is filler. This could be said at normal speed with half the information. Debates should be on principle, I believe, rather than technicalities.
@dylanfrederick7379
7 жыл бұрын
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If it takes more than a few sentences to explain how rocket science works, is it a pointless activity to learn it in the first place? Is any scientific pursuit worthless if you can't figure it out with less than 15 seconds of thought? Policy debate in the US is just a different form of competition. Speaker points are given in a round by judges unless they are elimination rounds. Scoring based on points seems more technical than "who did the better debating?" To make a point of interest you structure your arguments and learn how to emphasize major points. You frontload your statements so listeners can get an grasp on what point you're making and they catch the following analysis and the warrants your statement contains. I agree, some debaters go much faster than they can handle and just end up using filler words. As a judge this can be irritating but if they have better substance to their arguments they can still win, they just get a lower amount of speaker points. If you have low speaker points, you're not likely to be rewarded with a victory in the elimination rounds of a tournament. If debates are on principle, what constitutes proving your principles are better than your opponents? Just whoever the judge likes the most? Would that make the outcome of the debate round just a luck of the draw with your judge? In Policy debate that sort of notion has been decided as only worthwhile if there are more objective standards for comparing who has the better argument. Sure they are spoken fast, but that doesnt change what is actually being said. Policy debate has some technicalities but they are critical for determining what exactly the debate round has presented the judge, and how they should make a decision on who did the better debating. If one team showed that the affirmatives argument was entirely dependent on huge chain of improbable events that were incredibly unlikely, but failed to mention any scenario that showed the judge that voting for the negative was the best choice, should the judge conclude nothing will happen no matter what so they should stick with the status quo, or should they vote for the change advocated by the affirmative to stop that small tiny risk from happening, as it is an actual scenario the affirmative claims to resolve, compared to no scenario that would be a disadvantage to implementing the affirmative plan. These technicalities allows for a high level of decision making you just dont see in most everyday life scenarios, and its one of the main reasons the activity exists.
@ytpanda398
7 жыл бұрын
Dylan Frederick Well said. I see your point as well as the key differences in these types of debates.
@jainabraina
7 жыл бұрын
It makes debate more in-depth. It's much better to have two two-hour rounds than one four-hour round with the same amount of information.
@bgregz
7 жыл бұрын
wtf do people actually do this unironically?
@willmercurio9926
6 жыл бұрын
The Notorious B.R.Y.A.N. Yes :(
@yonniesimon5847
7 жыл бұрын
lol
@connorduke4619
7 жыл бұрын
A self -defeating exercise. From experience you will never convince a room of executives by speaking in this way, they''ll say *"slow down and stick to your main point"*.
@MrLukec360
7 жыл бұрын
Ecky Thimble This event made me an exceptional speaker. Sure this style won't get you far in real life, but the skills you obtain through doing high level policy debate definitely will.
@dylanfrederick7379
7 жыл бұрын
Exactly what Luke Carnes said. Obviously you cant communicate this way to a complete random person, but debating like this constantly allows you to process a surprising amount of information in a relatively short amount of time. What you're not seeing is the evidence being read in the constructive speeches that form a warranted basis for their arguments, as well as cross examinations given at normal speaking speed, and generally the entire picture of what happened in the debate. Ask any policy debater yourself and they're more than likely to tell you it was an extremely worthwhile experience.
@sfl928
2 жыл бұрын
tired of “spreading bad” comments on debate videos 😭
@ladhkay
7 жыл бұрын
Surprisingly I could keep up and understand most of what was said...
@InfurnozzPlayzMC
7 жыл бұрын
I swear to god my friend can speak faster then this so I technically have a trained ear but since of that "OHHHHHHH" I lost track and now everything got jumbled for 10seconds then i got back on track,
@nicholaslee5473
7 жыл бұрын
I found Fishlegs :D
@doubleetendre
7 жыл бұрын
Is she taking notes? What could she possibly be writing?
@heylinedgear3510
5 жыл бұрын
Anybody not in policy debate cant, for obvious reasons, comprehend what anyone could take from the speeches. But surprisingly, you get into a sorta “zone” during debate where you can write down what you need to and prep your next speech. I do policy myself, and if I focus, I can catch almost everything he says, and can detect the most important points he makes. But if I’m casually watching this, fuck no I wouldn’t catch half of it.
@heylinedgear3510
5 жыл бұрын
Also around 6:04ish, everyone laughs at the joke the dude made. Which adds onto the point that experienced policy debaters have no problem keeping up. Also keep in mind the judges have to keep up with flows/ write notes down too, which adds onto the point that they can simultaneously listen and write down what they need to even with the fast talking/ spreading
Spreading was started as a "trick" by a student who "gamed" the system. Knowing the time limit allowed only so many seconds and knowing the every argument offered had to be rebutted to get points he decided that if he talked a little faster he would basically "swamp" his opponent. As time went by and more and more students started using this trick the speed increased to ridiculous levels. This concept of "spreading" (speed reading debate) has ZERO -- repeat ZERO -- application outside of academia yet is the standard that Communications Majors are required to aspire to in preparing them for a career in "real life". The Americans with Disabilities Act requires reasonable accommodations for disabled students but there is no way to accommodate this form of debate. It should be ILLEGAL considering that it **automatically** excludes students with speech impediments, hearing issues, and some kinds of learning disabilities (like dyslexia) which are all protected by the ADA.
@ALYSSAISTHEBESTWOO
7 жыл бұрын
Jean Robinson I was with you until you said this kind of debate should be illegal, simply on the basis that it excludes some people with disabilities. People with disabilities will encounter many things in their life that they cannot do because of their disabilities - that's just how it is. Making stuff that they can't do ILLEGAL just so they don't feel excluded is ridiculous and benefits no one.
@madegg549
7 жыл бұрын
Jean Robinson Actually the debate space is surprisingly accepting of students with disabilities. Most teams (on the national circuit especially) have a version of the 1AC that is much less fast for judges and students that prefer a debate space without spreading. Also, if a team asks you to not spread due to disability and you do anyways, you are very vulnerable to an Ableism Kritik which will almost immediately lead to a negative ballot. The debate space is one of the most progress in academia and has numerous ways of accomodating to those with disabilities. Also, as you increase in divisions many judges place weight on your ability to make impromptu arguments that aren't necessarily carded. I have debated a few individuals with dyslexia. Sure, they didn't spread and in return we didn't either. Their disability didn't make them any less of a competent debate. As long as everyone in the room is okay with spreading, there is no reason to bash it really. Plus, it is a lot of fun ;)
@cameronmullins2407
7 жыл бұрын
As a CX Debater who suffers from a hearing impairment, I still see value from this form of debate. Rather than focusing on the public speaking aspect, which some lay formatted debate relies too much on, CX focuses on the critical thinking part of debate. Even though the framework of CX is not understood by the common man, the people who have dedicated time to learning it are benefiting tremendously due to the amount of researching and card cutting required. Not to mention the insane amount of clash that happens within each round. Hope this helps clear up some misconceptions about the event.
@alexrowe5423
6 жыл бұрын
Hey, I have mixed feelings about your criticism because I agree that spreading is used purely as a tool to win debate, but debate is a game more than anything. Moreover, as someone who is an active debater for my college, I have to disagree with your "ADA forbidden exclusion" statement. From personal experience I can tell you that people with mental and/or physical handicaps are accommodated. Before the start of a round a debater can ask that spreading not be allowed due to a condition which would inhibit their ability to spread, and 95% of judges will agree with them. If their opponent(s) spread anyways they can be automatically voted down on the basis of ethics. I'm reminded of a dyslexic girl from my own team who had difficulty following spreading, and when her opponent agreed not to do so but did anyway, the judges voted for her by default (though IMO the debate file she was reading from wasn't very strong). So yeah, spreading isn't inherently necessary, but nor is it some sort of academic discrimination that you claim. If you have evidence contrary to what I've just said I'd love to hear them, I'm just describing my own experiences in what I see as an extremely, surprisingly, progressive amount of accommodation in the world of debate.
@atheistphilosopher
8 жыл бұрын
This isn't debate. It's fucking retarded.
@atheistphilosopher
7 жыл бұрын
roland kristo No. I mean it quite literally. It appears these people are imitating mentally disabled people.
@ashwinvarma5953
9 жыл бұрын
Goddamn Klinger
@aldentom
9 жыл бұрын
How the hell does anyone know what this guy just said??
@aldentom
8 жыл бұрын
+Shlyn Morton ... if you have to rush to squeeze it all it... chances are none of it is worth saying.
@aldentom
8 жыл бұрын
+Jason Lin ... it that before or after you are taught how to be a pointless, pedantic douche??
@alexlawson7022
7 жыл бұрын
Thomas Alden we practice to. Debate is a game fam, we know that we don't have any portable skills as a result of debate, it's just fun
@nateabillion
9 жыл бұрын
You are supposed to go slow dingus
@nateabillion
9 жыл бұрын
***** Yes in a policy debate ;)
@nateabillion
9 жыл бұрын
***** Not true, being someone who did debate a lot and still does, you need to go slow or else the judge won't know what the fuck you are saying in turn not noticing the points you have made
@enayatkapadia1157
9 жыл бұрын
Welcome to policy
@Claytonnn
6 жыл бұрын
Baron Von Chicken you're delusional, this is obviously a finals debate hence the vast amount of spectators and the judges at this point are flow judges and varsity debaters and not lay judges.
@aldemchips565
9 жыл бұрын
Lol that opening statement though. And we get disqualified (in policy) if we spread.
@Claytonnn
6 жыл бұрын
Aldem Chips what the fuck, spreading is ENCOURAGED in policy in the vast majority of the country.
@heylinedgear3510
5 жыл бұрын
Oof those lay judges
@DavidSSabb
10 жыл бұрын
@Colinrocks, it's absolute bullshit. I've seen plenty of debaters including myself speak that fast without double-breathing. It doesn't actually help you draw in more breath.
@EebstertheGreat
9 жыл бұрын
Double-breathing is not a tactic, it's an incidental effect of spreading. Not everybody who spreads naturally catches their breath in that way, but it is very common. People develop a spreading rhythm, and their breaths naturally follow that rhythm. Because they breathe infrequently, one breath at that pace is not enough, so they breathe twice, sometimes audibly stopping the breath at the beat. Maybe it does lose some time, but probably not much, and attempting to "correct" it will likely lose much more than it gains. People shouldn't look to emulate it or to avoid it; it's just a tick.
@DavidSSabb
10 жыл бұрын
If I was the judge I would have taken off speaks for that first line, there's no need to bring personal insults into it just for a laugh.
@jakeberran
7 жыл бұрын
DavidSSabb Actually, those 5 seconds cost him the entire debate, he could have fit in 37 key extensions in that time, but he didn't. Just kidding...
@ironmantis25
10 жыл бұрын
fuck it, I'll just get a computer to read it
@mikew151Manhattan
10 жыл бұрын
get a girlfriend!
@intialmayhem6973
10 жыл бұрын
everything in policy debate is debatable. If you are the opp hit them up with a framework education argument. That speed reading hinders education. I have seen it win.
@palmjang5788
10 жыл бұрын
Sounded so good.
@jamesyim3927
10 жыл бұрын
...
@suneetsixtyseven7593
11 жыл бұрын
go cats
@ashwinvarma5953
11 жыл бұрын
Klinger is absurdly good.
@Deconstruction7
11 жыл бұрын
I flow my partner's 2AR. Some people just like a complete flow
@bogay1330
11 жыл бұрын
/watch?v=3G-tpkGfNI4
@JC_Revan
11 жыл бұрын
Why on earth is his partner flowing the 2AR?
@joncas54castle24
5 жыл бұрын
What would you do if you were sitting there? Just nod and smile?
@aisha.b.4090
5 жыл бұрын
Some people like to give rebuttal redos in practice or maybe she just wants a complete flow, idk
@chairmobile
11 жыл бұрын
Fair enough.
@MultiBlasian
11 жыл бұрын
National circuit is more of a reference to the TOC than NFL.
@DraconicFury
11 жыл бұрын
It is a rebuttal so i guess that's why he's not speaking faster
@chairmobile
11 жыл бұрын
So there are no good LD'ers at nats? Because nats isn't fast.
@notcomp1ex0
5 жыл бұрын
chairmobile ld nats is just lay
@MrBRSchool
11 жыл бұрын
Won a tourney spreading as fast as possible in POFO just for laughs once. Poor kids didn't know what hit them.
@TheNikelopez
11 жыл бұрын
Guess you're not a good LD'er. The national circuit is just like this.
@TheNikelopez
11 жыл бұрын
Go watch a POFO round, you noob.
@MrHalfempty5
11 жыл бұрын
my 2ar in JV octafnals of the recent Gonaga tourney was this
@ubermensch826
11 жыл бұрын
this comment barely qualifies as English.
@ubermensch826
11 жыл бұрын
if it's so absurd i guess you could easily beat the top debaters from the country whose arguments "always end up at nuclear warfare."
@bogay1330
11 жыл бұрын
Absurd? debate is all about learning how to present arguments effectively. I think it is an annoying stigma of debate that all arguments end in nuclear war. In reality, there are many, many other things that are argued.
@DBCOOPER888
11 жыл бұрын
Uh, the point of this is argumentation. Making it the goal to always end up at nuclear warfare is one example of absurd logic, for example.
Пікірлер