ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- A nerdy high school competition has morphed into a nonsensical exercise in high-speed talking.
Subscribe to the all new Wired channel here:
/ @wired
Visit the Wired channel for more video: / wired
High School Debate at 350 wpm - Wired
Connect with Wired Online:
Visit Wired.com: www.wired.com
Follow Wired on Facebook: / wired
Follow Wired on Google+: plus.google.co...
Follow Wired on Twitter: / wired
Follow Wired on Instagram: / wired
Follow Wired on Tumblr: / wired
Subscribe for more WIRED videos: wrd.cm/15fP7B7
Want even more? Subscribe to The Scene: bit.ly/subthescene
CONNECT
Twitter: / wired
Facebook: / wired
Google+: plus.google.co...
Instagram: / wired
Tumblr: / wired
WEBSITES
wired.com and video.wired.com
WIRED on The Scene: thescene.com/wired
High School Debate at 350 wpm - Wired
I cringe at every double breath.
Sammeeeee
Lmao I also do policy debate and I never do them double breaths, idk how people even do them. It just confuses me. Tbh I don't even speak that fast, but I'm doing alright.
That's tourettes.
They fill one lung at a time obviously
@@bryn8900 What really slows them down is stumbling. These people focused on speaking first and clarity last. Should be the other way around.
For the first 60 seconds I was convinced this was an Onion parody.
I find the gasping for breath really off-putting and distracting.
Wow is this why we need to build more trees to obtain more oxygen
Build more trees lmfao
@@Amused_Comfort_Inc bro he really said build
For anyone thinking that this is what debate really is. You must realize this is a facet of debate not an entirety of what it is there are various styles and most don’t include talking at crazy rates it’s about finding what style you prefer as debate encompasses a variety of styles
This is all policy debate is 😢
Congress is the goat
it doesn't even sound very fast the just making themselves look dorky
Also, it doesn't count as fast talking if they stumble over words this much. I expect the words to flow like butter
Facts
how do u even refute someones argument when u dont even understand what theyre saying
for policy debate, at the varsity level, you share your speeches with the opposing side so they know what they're reading
Myworldandyours Then what’s the point of reading it? This whole scenario is just confusing, if you ever speak that quickly in a public debate neither side is going to convince the audience going that fast.
It's just cringe all around
Dumbass yeah they can understand what they're saying and so do the judges. Everyone can understand what they're saying
@@thinehero I was competing at the JV level and they put me in with a varsity level debater for some reason and I had none of their files. I was mad, lol.
I’m in Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy is pretty much just LD on steroids
Lmao, thissss. I did both. Liked LD better.
@@notaburneraccount which one was harder
@@clara-vp5ve I did both too, they’re both hard in their own ways, but personally I prefer LD a lot more.
ld in my progressive circuit is literally just 1 man policy LOL
That’s because contemporary LD is based on Policy lol
I did debate in high school and loved it but this is something entirely different. We were always taught to deliberately slow our cadence to give weight to what we were saying. Nobody (outside of high school apparently) ever wins a policy argument by speaking like a hyperventilating auctioneer. To my mind, this competition formalizes every bad habit that young people have in public speaking and turns it up to an eleven.
not true, college is faster. All policy debate is fast and has been for a long time given the depth of argument and need to get it out.
***** (shakes head) ...ok nobody outside of high school or college competitions. The point is that this form of speech is not used to gain influence in the real world.
+neanderslob actually I know of one guy who used it to get a contract for 600k a year. But that doesn't matter, the point is eloquence is very easy to learn and has limited uses, where as the depth of argument and the high level of theory and research involved with debating at this speed is hard to learn and very useful later in life.
***** Man, I would love to see someone score a half a mil by yelling at the other side of the negotiating table at 300 words/minute. But hey, if he did, good for him; I've just never seen it work (or even attempted) before.
lmao, just because I drop out of college and try to build a computer in my garage doesn't mean I'm going to invent the next Microsoft. Stop pulling anomalies out of your ass and just see it how it is. These people would sound really dumb if they go out on the street or try to debate someone educated.
in the southeast any judge will drop for spreading instantly
Spreading is not allowed in my circuit
Spreading is seen as ridiculous outside of like California and Kansas. Here in Missouri I've never encountered a single true spreader, and debates flow much better.
Simon Yeeter the Chicago circuit also spreads
Spreading is really common on the east coast. I went to the Harvard Invitational every year and every other participant was a spreader. Most of them were garbage at debating too which just goes to show that this meme strategy isn't useful
@@simon9978h Most major / ivy league law schools across the nation want students to excel in the Policy Debate form. Winners of the NDT & CEDA competitions tend to have a better acceptance rate than average (though I admit that is only correlate evidence and not causal proof). Supposedly this skill is desirable in lawyers because spreading helps them in the courtroom be able to respond quickly to the other side's arguments during trial. Of course effective spreading requires anticipating all possible arguments and in the real world of trial law that is not always possible so what use is this skill when you are caught off guard? Also, not all lawyers are going to be trial lawyers so this is a waste of time for the rest of them.
the texas circuit allows spreading
but then again the texas circuit is crazy
It's so sloppy. You could say the same amount of things in the same time without having to take those awful breaths and stuttering. It sounds like a toddler having a tantrum.
Oh, I can understand the speed bubba, it's the occasional stuttering (which isn't that big of an issue) and constant gasping for air (which is a MAJOR issue)... trying to listen to one of your debates with the gasping for air is like trying to do research on a computer that has a problem with the screen flickering on and off.
It seems like this style of competitive debate has taken something that could be both informative and entertaining and turned it into a side show to take advantage of an ill-conceived point system. I guess it qualifies as a skill, but it's about as useful as being able to speak Klingon. With either ability, the most they can accomplish is impressing the handful of other people capable of understanding their babble. They certainly aren’t going to win arguments in the real world like that.
I see your point BUT that's only for the first two speeches and a little bit of the next two. Otherwise, people just read normally. You can EASILY maintain both skills.
Idk what this is but in most policy rounds the spreading is accually understandable and not... that..
yes, but I don't see football players full on tackling players when playing backyard football, or professional swimmers going full speed in a kitty pool, the same thing applies. I think there is a lack of understanding that debate is a game, and you play to win, and thus, you speak fast to gain an advantage by making more arguments by speaking fast. IF these debaters wanted to debate more conversationally of course they could and adjust, but that is signing a losing ticket in a real debate round.
This is literally one of the most difficult styles of NSDA debate as it requires full, extensive knowledge of the topic as well as complete memorization of your entire case. These high schoolers spend a whole year in order to deeply study extensive and realistic political topics. You value is skewed and you constructive lacks support, as well you link to the impact of an "ill-conceived point system" is better suited in the rubbish bin.
Well when congress is reading at a 5th grade level then yes youre correct... As a person who participated in this neurotic sport, it made me much better at reading and comprehending information even if I wasn't speaking at 350 wpm in real life. It made me smarter and my brain feel better.
Honestly, they aren't speaking very fast. Their natural cadence is super slow and they're forcing it. You can hear it especially when they are trying to breath. Somewhat poor, they can't enunciate their words at all.
It's highschool policy. If they keep it up in college they'll get better.
...If you think you can enunciate better at 350-500 WPM, you have the right to say that they can't enunciate. But you can't. So you don't have the right.
+Andrew Lee lol thats not 350 wpm....
Andrew Lee lmao there’s plenty of debaters who
A) are faster and are way more clear or
B) the same speed and still way more clear
They're actually pretty bad spreaders yea. I can speak faster and more clear than they can. But I tend to be a lot louder. These guys are more of the quieter pushy types. Double breath is a really bad habit too.
Lay judges be like...
For anyone who wants to join debate don’t try this if a judge can’t understand you he will vote against you on the ballot
In policy, they give you the case
Lmao dude stop spreading misinformation. OFC a novice cant spread this fast but they should still try to speak fast so they can actually answer their opponents' arguments. But don't do this in the rebuttals.
This only really happens on the nat circuit or state tourneys
If you slow it down to 0.5x it just sounds like slurred speech
yeah I think that's what slower speeds do
I'm not american, this sounds insane to me lmao. I thought this is more akin to a speed rap competition. The handful of times we did debate in class, we researched and showed our arguments slowly and precisely for everybody to understand. We didn't have a time limit either.
It’s stupid. Progressive debate just ruins debate
No you're right, US policy debate is complete garbage. period.
No this is policy debate, it’s a different style that doesn’t mean that it ruins debate bc they go much faster it just means that they expand on the arguments they make a lot farther so there’s benefits to both slow and faster debates but doing one or the other doesn’t ruin debate
There’s far more research involved in fast debate and arguments go much further in depth
This "it adds depth" sounds like absolute hogshit. The point is to overload your opponent with arguments so that they lose points when they don't address them all.
Awful to listen to.
I think it's great that you're crafting a skill that will be applicable in the real world. Oh wait.
Yep, research is valuable, being able to see to sides of one scenario, patience developed by researching every possible fact to rebuttal with....teaches not to criticize things you don't understand
+jim barks in reference to the style of debate with rushing and gasping: this is a waste of time
speed reading meaning more information conveyed and needed to be researched...how is that a waste or worse than regular debate. high school debate is not about the audience's knowledge, it's about the development of the debaters
Pointless given the speed is punctuated by gasps and almost hiccups, as well as mispronunciations and the overall goal to just "spam" in as much information, relevant or irrelevant.
it's always relevant, though. policy debaters have one topic per year; they have a long time to develop their case and it's always chock-full of relevant information.
"nerdy high school competition" (in the desc)
that hit me on a personal level
That threw me, lol. I thought it was gonna be something funny lol
Ben Lerner bought me here.
I declare this is not debating, just reading a typed essay very quickly.
@@matthewwalker7464 wow! He is quite the sensation these days! Did you read Topeka School? A lot of it is a critique of this sort of debate with regards to its corrosion of civic discourse.
The closest thing that real-world debates have to this is called the "Gish gallop." It's where you trot out a list of surface-level arguments within your time. Like 15 arguments in 3 minutes time.
I was researching policy debate for my high school and then I found this video and realized it’s literally about my high school 😅
wow you go to lexington, i have a friend who goes there lol
aaa ikr i went to a tournament here a couple months ago and now im realizing it’s this school lol
I was going back to this video to become better at debate only to realize I beat this high school literally yesterday in a tournament 😭
lmao imagine doing the double breath thingy and then spreading 400wpm to a lay judge who judged MS pf and nothing else
that's why you should always ask about the judges experience before ur first speech it rly changes how you conduct the entire debate
@@mioyakiyama5499 as a novice debater, is there any actual real life benefit to knowing spreading or is it just for being good at debate? I do speech and debate bc I wanna be a better public speaker but I don't see how spreading helps me in everyday life
@@FffffffffffffffffffffffffffffL It makes your thoughts far more concise and improves writing skills. I have been doing debate since August and have noticed significant improvements in a lot of areas of my life.
not the pf lol
I cringe at every double breath
OMG the spitting and the double breaths BAHAHH
this sounds like them normally talking but unclear and forced
Wow, this is some REALLY sloppy journalism on the part of Wired. Accuracy is important, forgetting that is dangerous.
Almost as sloppy as calling them out for inaccuracy without stating what was inaccurate
Sad that the beauty of debate has devolved into this. Word vomit.
lowkey they cant even spread well. double breathing and stuttering with a low wpm
I think debate is a great way to learn by doing research and providing good arguments, but I'd rather lose every time, if it meant that I had to "spread" or talk as fast as possible to get as much information out as possible in order to win.
You still have to have valid structures to your arguments. They hyper fixated on a small aspect of policy debate. You’ll notice in cross x they speak at a normal rate. You actually get to read e very card. The issue is you have to speak in evidence, hence speed
@@ace448why don't they just get rid of the part where you have to speak the evidence?
this is some Exorcist level business
This is probably how Destiny was introduced to debate, but is too afraid to admit this.
lmao that is probably true
bro policy spreading is a plague
This is why Canadians do Parliamentary debate lmao. Style/content are both important to convince people you are correct.
I did Public Forum in high school. This is why my school didn’t teach or allow us to do Policy. Screw that.
This is why everyone hates national circuit policy debaters.
𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣'𝙩 𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮'𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘼𝙏 𝙮𝙤𝙪, 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙨.
I do policy and this is not what it is about. First of all, spreading does not mean that you have to do double breath. This is not even fast. I heard and understood everything so it is not even close to 360 words per minute.
how is this debating? it's a speed-talking competition.
a debate is people that disagree with each other explaining their idea to try to persuade the other side and/or a neutral audience to agree with them, not this unintelligible gibberish that no regular person would try to make sense of.
This is why policy is a dying event
How have they not changed the rules yet so this nonsense isn't the dominant strategy?
"Not a lot of people can understand it because people are talking so quickly..." Well no shit... do these guys present charts and data of their 'research' by showing 100 graphs for 1 second as well?
It's a stupid 'score system' or set of rules they are abusing by vomiting out as many points as possible and hoping their opponent can't respond in time.
l l no it’s not they literally say the header or overview slowly then speed read the evidence. You don’t really have to understand every word of the evidence just the header
Yeah, but if your arguments are crap then it takes less time to answer them.
l l You clearly don't do policy. Teams give their cases 30 min before the round starts to the opponents. It's to have great debates with lots of research, arguments, and impact. It also requires you to think on your feet.
Amen
Imaging reading your case at 350 WPM and you get a lay judge...
SchlauKerl judge adaptation, it’s a skill ain’t it?
Most of the places that people use spreading they don't typically use lay judges for policy.
Put it at 50% speed for a fun time.
bruh whats with all the hate? i do policy and the fast reading is only in the first 2 speeches, it becomes debate off the top of one's head past the first constructives, also the fast speaking allows for more topics and content added to the debate, folks don't understand what it's really like because they don't get the format.
@Noah Christian THat is so not true
Dash is right first of all only the 1nc 1ac 2nc 2ac you need to spread, for the rebuttals there aren't that many things you have to say.
a camel is a horse designed by a committee
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.
Wow you're so right it's illegal to have something that excludes people, you're 100% correct on your interpretation of that law for sure. They should ban AP classes people they *automatically* excludes students with learning disabilities, too
+garbage town: Actually that is ignorant "garbage". I have a very profound learning disability and I was AP and Honors all through high school and Dean's List in college. Of course I had to audio-record my 3-hour college lectures and then listen to them each 3 times again to get the information (12+ hours of study for each 3 hour class, 48 hours per week for 12 units).
Run an Abelism-K then.
yeah, spreading is shitty. instead of whining about it, actually *join* policy and run spreading theory with ableist standards.
How could you say this? It's literally saying music should be banned because the deaf cannot listen to it.
Plus, policy can be taken slow. Judges understand if one person has a disability, and if the other team spreads, they're absolute a-holes + they will lose the round.
And spreading is not a trick. There is so much evidence compiled every year the debater is forced to spread, rather than to win.
1:33 Japanese enabled
*Korean
This comment section has never policy debated, judges understand more than you think, we know what we are saying guys.
Exacto
Oh I policy debated, it was trash and it was all about teaching students, to shut down an other with their kritiks filled with marxist propaganda, and policy plans that took evidence out of context, and were filled with logical fallacies, to say the world was going to end. We weren't talking about the issues, we were learning to be special snowflake SJWs.
Actually, you might want to learn something brother and that is respect, you come here with a very hasty generalization, you know nothing of what debate program I came from, whether we had a coach, or what region of debate I competed in, you also do not know what my record was at all. This sort of smug elitist attitude, is a terrible trap to fall in to, what happens to many people who happen to have this personality trait, they hit the floor hard, when someone disproves their delusions of grandeur. Not saying you, but I am talking about these a generic internet "commentator". Know lets attack your claims, faster about outcomes, seriously?! That is entirely subjective, not just, that while going with your first instinct is important, cogent, well though out, and outcomes that emphasize reaching out to others you do not agree with have been historically better for all sides involved. Instead of thinking about delusional outcomes, like Nuclear War, and a class uprising, things that have no historical precedence, and honestly have little to no chance of happening, are not skills to be taught, they are a form of cultural brainwashing, that high school debaters have been taught by LSD consuming college "debaters". If you want real forms of debate literally any other Parli, LD, or PF in high school debate, would be better, even though they too have been addled, by cultural marxism.
MrYum EXACTLY
It's still garbage.
This was what Ben Shapiro was doing during his high school years 😭😂
Seems like a Air Pollution debate..
imagine if we have the presidential debate in this format 😂. gotta be interesting AF
As a high school debate teacher, I use this video to demonstrate what NOT to do during debate if you are trying to educate, inform, and persuade others to your construct.
This is a different style of debate to say that you shouldn’t do this would be naive it just is a different kind of debate and it is more about spreading than persuading and talking to the judge
It's efficacy is negligible.@@calebhudson7872
Convincing is not the goal. Maybe with what you do but recognize this is not the same competition you do.@@anthonycristo376
Your team probably doesn’t perform very well 😂
Sure if your team isn’t competing on the nat circuit. If you want national trophies without doing this then you’re screwed
Whoa, somebody toss this poor kid a nebulizer!
Can we all agree this is just stupid?
I do this. I'm nowhere near as fast, though.
This is why you don't do policy debate.
Shut up, policy debate is the best. Check out my vlog.
this is precisely the reason you do policy debate
when having a asthma attack:
what a gigantic waste of time
tell that to a those kids in the video who all probably got scholarships for debate
Otherized Meme lies
It's actually really fun.
there is a reason cross examination and rebuttals exist
people get paid half a mil for this because the important skill they learn isnt the debating, its the research
Yo where's the signposting
mouth breathers
Shouldn't understanding the competitors be point of debating in the first place?
The competitors and judges understand it.
no
Usually thats Public Forum debate. For LD and Policy (LD = Lincoln-Douglas) it's spreading, which is basically reading as fast as possible to get the information out. With Policy though its alot more intensive, as it's basically a war of information and preparation for months.
2X Speed Thank me later.
This isn't debate
reasons?
f0rt1ss1m0 _ I just want to say I really enjoy how concisely you are making your argument. even as an LD debater I can understand what they are saying and why they are spreading, although it is quite fun and easy to make fun of
I do it. Trust me, it is. People only read like this for the first half, and most of what they say is evidence that was summarized earlier.
debate is to help people in real life situations and i dont think talking like a maniac will help you get out of a lawsuit
Speed allows debaters to develop more in-depth and nuanced arguments because of the limited time for each debate. Those research skills and being able to think quickly to respond, are useful in the real world.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. I can't stress enough how stupid this is.
I'm just glad they probably realize how this isn't how actual debates in the real world happen, and that this is more of a non-representative club activity.
Agreed.
And people complain that I talk fast....
If you don't like something, run a theory argument. Theirs a reason spreading theory isn't popular, because spreading is logical and if they are unclear then the judge can't flow or weigh their arguments. Simplifying complex issues to allow random people to understand is for public forum debate, it doesn't allow for deep analysis of issues and ideas.
Second hand embarrassment
This is ridiculous. Debates should limit the amount of points made for any given topic to allow for proper articulation. In fact, points should be given for proper articulation, impact and persuasion. THIS IS DUMB!
it is proper articulation the human mind can comprehend over 700 wpm listen closely and you can follow
the point of this is to win the debate by proposing so many arguments your opponents physically do not have enough time to counter all of them as opposed to actually constructing watertight arguments
That's what Public Forum debate is for. Policy is for onslaught of information. Public Form is for persuasiveness.
Jarred Davidson Policy is fucking ridiculous now. Also, FUCK PROGRESSIVE LD. Keep Policy in Policy but leave LD alone you fuckers
Lol the point of talking fast is to put in evidence. Plus debaters are time constrained. At the end of the debate, it gets super chill and debaters slow down.
This is cringy and embarrassing, i wanna see twista debate busta rhymes..
this is not a debate it's a speed talking contest. a debate would actually require them to listen to their opponents points and dispute them. at best all thy are accomplishing is to list reasons for their point of view with no actual direct counter to counter to each of the points annunciated.
I didn't see a comment explaining what they're doing. In this style of debate, the other team has to have a counterpoint to every point they have. Back in the 90s (?) a debate team realized that a good way to win would be to just throw out as many points as possible and no one speaking at a normal pace would be able to argue every point. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, that's just the story I heard.
Most people only spread at more than 300 wpm in the constructive where they have everything written out. For the rest of the round, they talk normally
I have destroyed tons of these Gish Gallop method of debaters. None of them have any general idea of what they are reading and spewing onto their opponents so when they do get called on what they are saying they can't respond. Honestly it's cute to see their world crumble when they face actual experienced debaters who know when to call them on their own bullshit. Policy debate doesn't mean you have to have a damn mini-seizure every time you speak.
+Alexander Whitehorse Honestly, it just sounds like you are really salty
Then you clearly don't understand why they read fast. It's called policy debate for a reason:
Reading fast allows debaters to introduce evidence into arguments under constrained time frames. This usually happens in the beginning of the debate, so teams could compile evidence to use later on.
Reading fast is also important when answering multiple arguments. Specifically, the negative team has 13 minutes in a round after an affirmative's speech. The aff only has 5 minutes to answer to 13 minutes of evidence, analytics, and new arguments.
Speaker's don't get rated on their speed, they get rated on their clarity, flow, and ideology. No judge would be like: "holy shit, this guy reads faster. Ima vote for this team." A speaker can be called out for badly speed reading and making no sense.
Plus, in NSDA live tournaments, debaters slow down for audiences. However, less arguments and evidence can be read and given.
As a policy debater, come at me bro. :^) As a matter of fact, why not have a pleasant conversation with Penninsula TW?
I hate cap hacs , just read baudrillard you commie
f0rt1ss1m0 _ lies
Stop the madness. Find a cure.
If I ran a debate league I would ban this. They're not learning a useful skill if people can't understand what they're saying, they're no persuasive, and they make themselves sound so weird no one would voluntarily listen to them anyway.
Ashtar galactic command lmao
Spreading is a corruption of debate. It's like a personal foul in football. The perpetrator should be immediately disqualified. That would put an end to it.
Like most things in life now...its quantity over quality... Defeats the purpose of debate if your argument is incoherent
This is not debate, it is just doing research and presenting.
what do you think debate is then?
JDBaiocco
Who two sides present opposing sides to a topic and then reciprocate to initial presentations with rebuttals, based on logic and facts, in a back and forth basis.
+Tianming Zhao thats literally what policy debate is...it just happens really fast
that's exactly what policy is, though.
It's called policy debate. They 'spread' the evidence cards so that they can fit more into their short time limit. If you learn to understand it, you can have more evidence in shorter debates. They are trying to convince a judge of their side, so it's definitely debate.
OMG im a middle schooler and do debate and we speek WAY MORE slower than this. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS
Put on 0.5 speed
This is just the irl version of the Redditor keyboard warrior
Eminem's children joined a debate team
PD is so much better when it's not like this. You don't have to read at this speed.
LMFAO and those breathes are so they need to get enough air in so they can still read their arguments with little pause
maybe they should judge them on delivery of their speech 50% and content of the speech 50%
This isn't new, or news. Debate was at this pace in the mid-1980s. I debated 1984-1989; much of this seems slow.
This is why I do LD
I hated flow policy debate so much
How does speaking at 350wpm help anyone, may I ask? lol
It allows you to get a lot more evidence in you speech (sorry for responding to a six year old comment lol)
JT McAwesome-Face It allows you to say a lot more evidence and cards. Also, you’re opponent will have a hard time answering to you since they’ll have a lot to touch on.
@mr_godman The debates already last about 2 hours because each speech is about 8 minutes long
Everyone: wow that's so fast
Me: *starts flowing the introduction speech*
don’t you get a copy of their speech?
@@MCAwesome15 rip you fell into the trap of a k
the video image is too poor, you need to fix it more
I googled for competetive debating and this is on the first side... is this a representative sample?
no these guys are way to slow, while being to unclear. the majority of noobies are faster and clearer
@@kingtoaster4862 It was a joke. Curb your irony.
btw c: that gay argument is stupid and not necessary. literally gay isn't a insult anymore (: and its just pretty dumb to even call this gay anyway
This comment section has never debated before. You can understand all this stuff pretty quickly if you do debate. And all the judges can too. Ultimately, it’s irrational not to speak fast as more arguments is good. You can fit in more arguments and better arguments if you talk faster.
No they can't, they get bored and miss things like everyone else and say nothing to avoid looking stupid. You are a pack of idiots, if you want a format that values volume of points made this is the stupidest way to deliver it. The idea more arguments make a position more convincing is also stupid, we've seen the champions of policy debate on YT. Its a joke. You are wasting your time kid.
People who pull this kind of crap in a debate are obnoxious. Nobody can understand you. Judges can say what they do and don't permit, and judges that allow this are just as annoying as the people who do it
this is like, spreading squared. absolute disgrace because like.. nobody, especially your judge, even your teammate, will be able to understand you like that 💀💀 writing a 16 minute speech and trying to cram it into 8 minutes by spreading is honestly dumb fr