The annual High School Debate Championship featuring Victor Mezacapa, University School student, and Lisa Peng, Laurel School student. Hosted by The City Club of Cleveland
No, in debate, during cross examination, the goal is to get the answer you want with the shortest explanation possible, allowing for more questions. Also, the person being cross examined often tries to speak as much as possible without interruption to prove their point, if she allowed that, she would have been a bad debater. The point of cross examining is to prove your point. He tries to interrupt her during his cross, but doesn't do as well.
I'm sorry but Lisa did a better job. It would appear that women's rights are still being undermined. Victor didn't effectively deal with Lisa's points. I liked her point on vigilantism. The intervention of the US would be very unpredictable. Look at Zimbabwe. US has done nothing there. The uncheck power that the US wields simply facilitates the pursuit of their own interests.
I remember and loved debating in High School in Australia but we were given 3 topics to choose from with each team locked in seperate rooms. We could each eliminate 1 topic and vote for 1. This always left a topic then a coin was tossed to decide negative and affirmative. We then had 30 minutes to sit and discuss with our team of 3. We didn't have a month with the help of a coach like these guys that seem to be reading a pre written script. The cross examination in this case at least means think on your feet but the rest of the concept is flawed. Debate should be based on immeadiate response and not from a rehearsed reading off a group researched piece. Finally at least PLEASE give someone the courtesy of finishing their answer before you barge in over the top of them. This happens in politics all the time but there is a very simple remedy. Ask the person if they would yell over and stop the question of an elderly person who is a countryman/ woman. Nobody wants to be seen as a bully of the elderly so ask them to afford you the same respect.
Yes. In general view, that Chinese girl might look like rude but in accordance with the principle of the debate especially type of debate like this, her behavior was still reasonable. Well in my own view the entire process of debate was kind of amazing considering the fact that they are both high school students. Both of them did a good job when they presented their position on certain issues. Good counterarguments against the presentation of their opponents.
victor is the slooowweesst debator i've ever heard like that was fucking ridiculous... and he stumbled so much i wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even have a case written out. he was awful.
Isn't interesting how the country that robs people of there human rights based on race religion gender and sexual orientation is the same country that says they have the right to intervene on foreign policies to protect other peoples human rights.
Lisa was fantastic lol!!! However, I think instead of saying 200 years we've struggled she could have said 400 because that's when the U.S. was at their lowest point when it comes to rights all the way up to now.
Finally they did not lose their confidence even after being attacked by their counterparts and when we consider the fact that counterargument from both of their counterparts were all ferocious and extremely sharp, we can easily recognized that how good they were. About the result, some might think that it is unfair result since the girl looked overwhelming the guy during the most of debating session. Yes. About general speaking ability she was better than the guy.
Bull shit judges, Lisa definitely had better arguments, sure she spoke fast, but that is a technique in debate used so your opponent can't write things down, not her fault these idiots couldn't keep up, and sure she interrupts the guy during cross examination, but that again is part of debate, get your point across and speaking time is crucial for that.
That's the thing with speaking fast, your opponent may not be able to get everything, but you also run the risk of your judges not being able to get everything.
Doesn't she understand that asserting the US's responsibility to act multilaterally still asserts a need for US intervention. The affirmative debater never specified that he wishes for the US to act unilaterally; in fact he said that there are many ways for the US to take action. The negative provides examples of intervention such as appealing to international court systems or NATO. Since the affirmative never said the US would not be using said means of intervention providing these examples does nothing to prove the negative case, in fact it furthers the affirmative case since, as I've already pointed out, she is recommending a means of US intervention that meets the criterion set by both debaters. So for those of you who think that the Neg should have won ... there's a reason she didn't.
i think the US make things that is not there business theirs. last time i check no one intervened in the way they chose to develop there society, stay out of internal affairs of other countries and only attempt if officials of that country ask you to.
But as for the aspect of conveying their opinion, guy can be considered better and this is because his speaking speed was decent and his point were all logical with the citation of appropriate examples. In contrast the girl spoke too fast. It was hard to understand what is the point she tried to speak out. And this affected the quality of other processes of her debate such as cross examination and responses on the counterarguments from her opponent. I think this was the reason for her failure
One, no Moderator, she owned him using the bully effect at 16 minutes. He couldn't give a BS answer to save his life and well she was VLadimir Putin having a peace conference.
I don't get this. She is allowed to cut him off in his answers like a rude reporter? This doesn't sound like any political debate I've seen. Aren't there rules against this in HS debates? She cuts him off before he finishes even half of his answers to her questions. Assuming that sort of rudeness is permitted in the rules here, is that behavior typically perceived by the judges as strength? She reminds me of Bill O'Reilly.
Thanks for explaining. All rules aside, cutting off someone when they are in mid (or early) explanation of their answer does three things: 1) It's rude and is perceived as rude (reflecting negatively on you) 2) It's annoying to audience/judges who are interested to hear the full answer (not a rambling answer, just a comprehensive thought so they can weigh its merit, and not out of mere interest or curiosity, but so that they may properly weigh his counterargument against her argument). 3) It gives the impression she doesn't want him to finish because she is fearful that his answer is legit and she won't be able to rebut it. A truly good debater should be able to rebut any argument and should display this skill. A better strategy would have been to permit him to convey his point and then impress judges with an ability to articulately and logically rebut said point. Now, if she's incapable or not smart enough to do this, then I agree with you the better strategy is to cut him off :)
She is cutting off his answers. You say "it's a time to be getting information." She is blocking his information before he finishes his first sentence/thought. He cuts her off when she starts elaborating and rambling. She cuts him off after a few words. Btw, I'd venture to say the judges weren't "fine with it" nor would any reasonable judge I could conceive, per my three points above.
+sirmolio This is a realistic tactic. It is not that she is unprepared to rebut or is worried about his answer; it's that the opponent is trying to take up all her cross-examination time. By cutting him off, she is able to ask more questions, make more attacks, and ultimately should have won this debate.
Evan Cherpeski First intelligent answer I've heard. Thanks. Much better than "This component of the debate doesn't matter for shxt and judges are typically on their cell phone" from an obvious non-revolutionary unwilling to consider implementation of such pie-in-the-sky, evidently idealistic changes like enforcing respectful listening of answers by opponents. Anyhow, thanks, it makes sense to me now.
Guys dont bash the girl. Speaking fast is a style and a techique that is very common in debates such as these. I was actually suprised on how the guy had such a slow measured speech pattern, however he paired that with effective examples and reasonings
I enjoy these debates, they allow a forum for all arguments. Personally, I favored the young man. The young woman was confusing, interrupting and too emotive. The young man had a clearly structured argument, but he should have had more concrete support facts/evidence/statistics.
they should do "hood" debating lol real people on real life issues not just privilaged students.. it would be more impassioned specially on issues that effect their own lives, like welfare, drug abuse etc
Um...they do. It's a lincoln-douglas debate. Did you listen to this at all? Sure, this topic was a bit boring but the topics you mentioned do surface in practices and contests. And they're not for "privileged people"...anyone can debate. Every school I've been to offers debate and I live in arkansas...which isn't a "privileged" state.
To me, the weakest part of Lisa's argument, was that some of the reasons she gave for why it wouldn't be good for the US to unilaterally intervene ( such as violating certain rights), equally applies if the UN intervenes. These counties rights would be violated whether it was the US or NATO came in dropping bombs, freeing them from tyranny. One might equally be afraid of the UN policing the world, as one should be worried about America policing the globe
White privilege is the true affirmative. The judges decision was clearly indicative of sexism. Women -and women of minority especially- are always viewed as rude and brusque when they show a robust presence of confidence. The young lady won and by a large margin in my opinion. I would dilapidate both their asses in debate though.
Does the speaker realize that using higher vocabulary alienates him from the common tax payers? It sounds good but all in all, a debate is to convince people listening to you to see your point. The speaker just wants to sound good win a speech contest and sound good without getting support.
She does not know what the women’s right movement was truly about.. it was funded by entities such as the Rockefellers to break up the family and create a nanny state as well as a house hold that has more than one major tax payer.
I know Debating....This was a TH-cam staged bully. I dislike both of the debators, I this is overbearing and both are rehearsed, however it was used as a way for a female to speak her voice show her opinion without interuption.
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm scrolling down to the comment section waiting for the debate to start
Bleh Blah me too
Lisa is amazing. She has a strong voice and knows what she wants
Both did an amazing job.
what a brilliant talent they both have.i learned from both of them
BRO her value was clearly the highest one in this debate. Lisa deserved the W
No, in debate, during cross examination, the goal is to get the answer you want with the shortest explanation possible, allowing for more questions. Also, the person being cross examined often tries to speak as much as possible without interruption to prove their point, if she allowed that, she would have been a bad debater. The point of cross examining is to prove your point. He tries to interrupt her during his cross, but doesn't do as well.
why is victor getting so much hate? he made just as many good points... she just has a nice voice that's the only reason you guys think so
the boy's cross-examination though is amazing.
That was a really well organized debate.
This Victor guy got ripped. It was so agonizing for me to watch him pause and think while Lisa just shoots points off like a mini gun.
I'm sorry but Lisa did a better job. It would appear that women's rights are still being undermined. Victor didn't effectively deal with Lisa's points. I liked her point on vigilantism. The intervention of the US would be very unpredictable. Look at Zimbabwe. US has done nothing there. The uncheck power that the US wields simply facilitates the pursuit of their own interests.
Lisa was AMAZING. Victor was..... not deserving of the win. Sorry Victor.
Unfunny Human being shut up
did u just insult my name? like.......why?
Unfunny Human being People like you disgust me.
Why she never Victor chance to answers fully? She was just interrupting ..,......
He sounds like a news reporter. Cool.
Excellent debate. Good job!
I have "self-determined" that she hasn't said, "self-determination" enough. It's only in every sentence.
Victor is chill as fuck
Agreed ^_^
I remember and loved debating in High School in Australia but we were given 3 topics to choose from with each team locked in seperate rooms. We could each eliminate 1 topic and vote for 1. This always left a topic then a coin was tossed to decide negative and affirmative. We then had 30 minutes to sit and discuss with our team of 3. We didn't have a month with the help of a coach like these guys that seem to be reading a pre written script. The cross examination in this case at least means think on your feet but the rest of the concept is flawed. Debate should be based on immeadiate response and not from a rehearsed reading off a group researched piece. Finally at least PLEASE give someone the courtesy of finishing their answer before you barge in over the top of them. This happens in politics all the time but there is a very simple remedy. Ask the person if they would yell over and stop the question of an elderly person who is a countryman/ woman. Nobody wants to be seen as a bully of the elderly so ask them to afford you the same respect.
australs/ap format?
Yes. In general view, that Chinese girl might look like rude but in accordance with the principle of the debate especially type of debate like this, her behavior was still reasonable. Well in my own view the entire process of debate was kind of amazing considering the fact that they are both high school students. Both of them did a good job when they presented their position on certain issues. Good counterarguments against the presentation of their opponents.
Poor Victor, you could tell Lisa was testing his patience.
Hear hear!
She is amazing! Lol
this is the slowest debate i have ever seen
I was betting on Victor the entire time :)
victor is the slooowweesst debator i've ever heard like that was fucking ridiculous... and he stumbled so much i wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even have a case written out. he was awful.
Isn't interesting how the country that robs people of there human rights based on race religion gender and sexual orientation is the same country that says they have the right to intervene on foreign policies to protect other peoples human rights.
What country
Lisa was fantastic lol!!! However, I think instead of saying 200 years we've struggled she could have said 400 because that's when the U.S. was at their lowest point when it comes to rights all the way up to now.
Anyone else here from plourde????
Finally they did not lose their confidence even after being attacked by their counterparts and when we consider the fact that counterargument from both of their counterparts were all ferocious and extremely sharp, we can easily recognized that how good they were. About the result, some might think that it is unfair result since the girl looked overwhelming the guy during the most of debating session. Yes. About general speaking ability she was better than the guy.
Bull shit judges, Lisa definitely had better arguments, sure she spoke fast, but that is a technique in debate used so your opponent can't write things down, not her fault these idiots couldn't keep up, and sure she interrupts the guy during cross examination, but that again is part of debate, get your point across and speaking time is crucial for that.
That's the thing with speaking fast, your opponent may not be able to get everything, but you also run the risk of your judges not being able to get everything.
radioactivated the gamer That's the thing about parent judges, they're biased.
No better names that wasn't even spreading!!
Isn't that really a pussified way of debating
Doesn't she understand that asserting the US's responsibility to act multilaterally still asserts a need for US intervention. The affirmative debater never specified that he wishes for the US to act unilaterally; in fact he said that there are many ways for the US to take action. The negative provides examples of intervention such as appealing to international court systems or NATO. Since the affirmative never said the US would not be using said means of intervention providing these examples does nothing to prove the negative case, in fact it furthers the affirmative case since, as I've already pointed out, she is recommending a means of US intervention that meets the criterion set by both debaters.
So for those of you who think that the Neg should have won ... there's a reason she didn't.
i think the US make things that is not there business theirs. last time i check no one intervened in the way they chose to develop there society, stay out of internal affairs of other countries and only attempt if officials of that country ask you to.
folayan campbell right the us is so quick to jump into another country business and help them out but can't make our own country
But as for the aspect of conveying their opinion, guy can be considered better and this is because his speaking speed was decent and his point were all logical with the citation of appropriate examples. In contrast the girl spoke too fast. It was hard to understand what is the point she tried to speak out. And this affected the quality of other processes of her debate such as cross examination and responses on the counterarguments from her opponent. I think this was the reason for her failure
felt like she was annoyed so much debating with someone who isn't on her level
One, no Moderator, she owned him using the bully effect at 16 minutes. He couldn't give a BS answer to save his life and well she was VLadimir Putin having a peace conference.
I don't get this. She is allowed to cut him off in his answers like a rude reporter? This doesn't sound like any political debate I've seen. Aren't there rules against this in HS debates? She cuts him off before he finishes even half of his answers to her questions. Assuming that sort of rudeness is permitted in the rules here, is that behavior typically perceived by the judges as strength? She reminds me of Bill O'Reilly.
Thanks for explaining. All rules aside, cutting off someone when they are in mid (or early) explanation of their answer does three things:
1) It's rude and is perceived as rude (reflecting negatively on you)
2) It's annoying to audience/judges who are interested to hear the full answer (not a rambling answer, just a comprehensive thought so they can weigh its merit, and not out of mere interest or curiosity, but so that they may properly weigh his counterargument against her argument).
3) It gives the impression she doesn't want him to finish because she is fearful that his answer is legit and she won't be able to rebut it.
A truly good debater should be able to rebut any argument and should display this skill. A better strategy would have been to permit him to convey his point and then impress judges with an ability to articulately and logically rebut said point. Now, if she's incapable or not smart enough to do this, then I agree with you the better strategy is to cut him off :)
She is cutting off his answers. You say "it's a time to be getting information." She is blocking his information before he finishes his first sentence/thought. He cuts her off when she starts elaborating and rambling. She cuts him off after a few words. Btw, I'd venture to say the judges weren't "fine with it" nor would any reasonable judge I could conceive, per my three points above.
+sirmolio This is a realistic tactic. It is not that she is unprepared to rebut or is worried about his answer; it's that the opponent is trying to take up all her cross-examination time. By cutting him off, she is able to ask more questions, make more attacks, and ultimately should have won this debate.
Evan Cherpeski First intelligent answer I've heard. Thanks. Much better than "This component of the debate doesn't matter for shxt and judges are typically on their cell phone" from an obvious non-revolutionary unwilling to consider implementation of such pie-in-the-sky, evidently idealistic changes like enforcing respectful listening of answers by opponents. Anyhow, thanks, it makes sense to me now.
hahaha!
Victor won because he was a master debater. Seriously though, he was better the girl went all over the place.
Lisa? I'm sandy lai
It's a man's world.
Guys dont bash the girl. Speaking fast is a style and a techique that is very common in debates such as these. I was actually suprised on how the guy had such a slow measured speech pattern, however he paired that with effective examples and reasonings
I enjoy these debates, they allow a forum for all arguments. Personally, I favored the young man. The young woman was confusing, interrupting and too emotive. The young man had a clearly structured argument, but he should have had more concrete support facts/evidence/statistics.
Patrick Leamon Yeah this isn't true at all. All debate forms need evidence or LD would be filled with warrantless claims.
they should do "hood" debating lol real people on real life issues not just privilaged students.. it would be more impassioned specially on issues that effect their own lives, like welfare, drug abuse etc
Um...they do. It's a lincoln-douglas debate. Did you listen to this at all? Sure, this topic was a bit boring but the topics you mentioned do surface in practices and contests. And they're not for "privileged people"...anyone can debate. Every school I've been to offers debate and I live in arkansas...which isn't a "privileged" state.
Hannah Kizer shut up Hannah, you privileged white girl
No need to get into an aggressive state and insult others.
M A don't be racist, there was literally no reason to bring up her skin color/ race
Lisa is confident,does anyone notice an embarrassment moment during prize hand over to lisa.why take so long
To me, the weakest part of Lisa's argument, was that some of the reasons she gave for why it wouldn't be good for the US to unilaterally intervene ( such as violating certain rights), equally applies if the UN intervenes. These counties rights would be violated whether it was the US or NATO came in dropping bombs, freeing them from tyranny. One might equally be afraid of the UN policing the world, as one should be worried about America policing the globe
is this one of those events where borderline programmed people talk as fast as they can and simultaneously emulate the effects of chronic bronchitis?
Loonop
White privilege is the true affirmative. The judges decision was clearly indicative of sexism. Women -and women of minority especially- are always viewed as rude and brusque when they show a robust presence of confidence. The young lady won and by a large margin in my opinion. I would dilapidate both their asses in debate though.
Does the speaker realize that using higher vocabulary alienates him from the common tax payers? It sounds good but all in all, a debate is to convince people listening to you to see your point. The speaker just wants to sound good win a speech contest and sound good without getting support.
She lost though.
The girl was robbed damn
That girl is a little bit presumptuous.
nerds
The girl is so annoying
Bren M lol she was amazing 😂
Lol too damn emotional
God this is boring. Fail for everyone.
She does not know what the women’s right movement was truly about.. it was funded by entities such as the Rockefellers to break up the family and create a nanny state as well as a house hold that has more than one major tax payer.
I know Debating....This was a TH-cam staged bully. I dislike both of the debators, I this is overbearing and both are rehearsed, however it was used as a way for a female to speak her voice show her opinion without interuption.
+James Warden The reason she was doing this was to preserve her own cross-examination time.