It’s like Scrabble. Casual players think that scrabble is a word game that basically tests your vocabulary.
But it’s not. Competitive scrabble is a game that combines rote memorizations with probability. The fact that the combination of letters signifies something in the English language is pretty much besides the point. Competitive players memorize massive amounts of letter combinations, tally what is on the board, and make guesses about the probability of pulling letters that create high scoring combinations. Having a good vocabulary or being well read has nothing to do with it.
Debate is not about a conversation, or making logical arguments. It’s a game based on organizing and presenting information in a particular way.
If these debates were the kind of discussion magellan01 and Shodan and ITR Championthink they are, some of these complaints might be fair. No, you don’t want a discussion of the ideas to be hijacked by stunts and you don’t want disputes about the rules to take place on the field of play. But at this point you have to be deliberately ignoring the truth and certain posts in order to make the argument that that’s what is happening.
In any game, teams and players will always look for loopholes in the rules and they will play the game in the style that is most conducive to winning under those rules. That’s how gameplay will evolve over time, and if the people who run the sport don’t like the way it’s evolving, they will change the rules. That happens all the time in sports. Under the existing rules of this type of debate, it’s better for teams to talk like the Micro Machines guy and use special breathing techniques than it is to have a real discussion. The whole thing is already a stunt and not a reasoned discussion of ideas. This is evidently not a problem for CEDA for some reason. I have no idea why anybody would find this stuff interesting, so I assume that the fun is in assembling the argument rather than delivering it. But nobody’s bringing this stuff to the floor of the Senate or the Supreme Court. If you watched Buck Godot’s team in isolation, the black team does something much more like debating in the real world sense of the term. If you didn’t know if was a debate, I don’t know what you would think the white team is doing.
For those of us not in this debate association, who cares if teams win manipulating the rules one way instead of manipulating them another way?
I saw the CEDA debate from 2013 and it’s not much different from the 2004 championship.
I don’t know much about school debates. I never participated or watched any. But I had assumed they were not unlike the debates I’ve seen on youtube with people such as Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza.
The CEDA debates look like insanity. The debaters are trying to spout off as much words as they can per minute, if not per second, and yet I can’t even understand what they’re saying, so what’s the point?
I’d like to think that I was in a debate and the opponent went way off the intended topic to deliver a screed about racism in America, I’d be quick-witted enough to rebut with “I’m glad my opponent is free to express himself, even if it’s not on topic. I’m glad because I love America…” and the rest would be a seeming-sincere flag-waving throat-lumping tribute to America, best and greatest country on Earth, with no reference whatsoever to the content of his statement.
I mean, if making a mockery of the debate process is fair game, then let’s do some real mockery, shall we?
“Spread” debating arose back in the 1980s as debaters started to game the rules. In a typical debate, the format goes Aff-Neg-Aff-Neg-Neg-Aff-Neg-Aff. Debaters noticed the big block of Neg time (2NC-1NR) and used to to put out so many arguments that the Aff couldn’t cover them all in their next speech. That would get the Neg the win, since they could spin any dropped argument into Global Thermonuclear War (no, I’m not kidding.) Fast(sorry)-forward 30 years and you have the train-wreck that is modern college (and high school) policy debate.
Why not? Logic has little to do with it. It’s a game. I repeat my previous: a game. I really don’t see what people are getting so upset about. If they started doing weird moves in Ultimate Frisbee would it raise such a ruckus? People are getting so hung up on their particular ideal for “debate” that they can’t envision any activity with the same name being anything but what they want it to be. It isn’t, it ain’t never gonna be, deal with it.
The reason it will never change? College debate is run by college debaters, or former college debaters. You actually expect logic from a bunch of 20 year old college students?
I get that it’s a game but it’s not just a game. It’s a game sponsored by educational institutions. Hence my confusion that it would be allowed to evolve into something that is less educational for participants and completely noneducational for spectators.
Though you have captured my emotional reaction perfectly. I’m offended they would refer to this activity as “debate” at all. But that’s my problem and not theirs.
Real “debate” would be impossible to judge in any meaningful way. I think what you guys are looking for is speech competitions, where people are judged by the force of their argument and their presentation. Those exist, and people are totally free to join them if they like.
Gad, I’ve clearly been spoiled by the Hitchenses and Dawkinses of this world. The auctioneer-style or rap-style “debate” of these college kids is just awful.
I was unaware that high school/college athletics have been dumbed down. So, no.
I was thinking about ease of judging but more in line with my prejudices, I guess. That is, I figured lazy judges found it easier to just count the points each team presented or something. I guess I don’t see why arguments can be judged in speech competitions but not in policy debate. But again, it’s their thing so they don’t have to try to please me.
And like, this is an activity people actually enjoy getting into competitively, and being an audience for? Man, the crazy things kids get into these days…
With a debate, they have to choose topics that are roughly matched for or against, with good points on either side, otherwise you set up one group to get steamrolled. That means your topics won’t ever be too fresh. These topics are going to have a finite number of key points for and against. Look at GD here- people rarely come up with new takes on issues.
So if you want to have a judged competition (as opposed to an exhibition like a presidential debate), you need something to judge on other than the key points. That’s why you get into the game of cramming in lots of points, or using the framework to do something else.
A speech competition is different because you don’t need to choose balanced arguments, and different people can compete with different topics.
