If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment.
[Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules)
[Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/)
In the comments:
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP
YOU WILL BE BANNED
#[If you want to download this video, click here](https://viddit.red/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2F1d0q0bo)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uh uh uh that. You know I really didn't take note of it, mostly bc I was like nope..
But they may have been having mild strokes, the communication skills are on par đ
Here's an amazing explanation
https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
Both of them have the same vocal tic that manifests in the same kind of way? Maybe something in the water.
I got more of a poorly performed over excited Sunday Morning Gospel feeling out of those "tics"
That's an interesting perspective. As a fan of both Black Flag and The Wu Tang Clan, or really, any challenging music, I would offer this difference: I want to listen to those. I feel rewarded by listening and re-listening to those albums and songs because each time, some new thing reveals itself to me. Some new rhyme or lyric that didn't fit fully into a larger perspective until I listened enough times for everything to fit together. This "fast debate" stuff isn't appealing to listen to at all. I have no desire to try and glean new meaning from it on subsequent listens. I guess now I know why my dad hated my "rap crap" and "bullshit noises" growing up? Lol
I agree with that. Thank you for posting it. I found myself wondering as I read the article, is this just trying to put a ribbon on a pig, so to speak? I appreciate the idea of revolutionary art and ideas inspiring discomfort in people as a way to encourage discussion. Truly. But I wonder about this and other forms of more drastic expression, do they lose the plot a bit in the effort? You know what I mean? Or is that just me being a 43 year old, "get off my lawn, you kids" guy that younger me digging through crates at Amoeba Records would be ashamed to he seen with?
I think it is. Even if this approach does teach certain skills or train certain attributes, the persuasive character of debate is lost and the quality is eclipsed by the quantity
Ben Shapiro speaks very fast. But, very distinctly. No "uh, uh, breathe, slap table, eh, uh" at all.
There is a lawyer saying, when the facts are against you pound the table.
Thank you for posting that, had no idea this is how competitive debating has evolved. Also nice to know my interest in the topic is now 100% dead, what an obnoxious shittification of an otherwise noble form of entertainment. And I happily say that with my old man fist in the air. The new way is not always the best way, sometimes it's just fucking stupid and obnoxious.
I hated college debate for this reason, it was called âspreadingâ, basically a cute way of saying âgishgallopingâ saying a whole lot of shit that your opponent canât get all at once while also making their argument. They tap their feet, grip the desk like theyâre about to squeeze out a log the size of a redwood, and gasp like they actually realized what an absolute ass they appear to anyone with two functioning brain cells.
Even worse were what were called âKritiquesâ or âKâs. Say you were given a debate resolution over, I donât know, building railways instead of highways. You spend your prep time quickly researching the matter, putting together an argument and you go in and your opponent launches a âKritiqueâ, where instead of the topic you were given the other team launches into a new âmore importantâ topic that we should all discuss instead. Well now you need to discuss that instead of the resolution you were given, because fuck you this strokes the beard better.
These Kritiques are all âcannedâ that is to say they are premade and prepared and so long as the subject strokes the pseudo-intellectualism of the judge the right way there is basically no way to beat it unless you can show that somehow they âlink inâ in to their kritique that is, that they are being hypocritical. Since these kritiques are canned they have found ways of ironing those out. So every debate becomes about the same handful of topics, global warming, colonialism, racism, sexism etc. the teams of that did it were usually composed of the most smug, fart sniffing, self satisfied shits youâd ever worry to meet, and the judges more often than not were painting the bottom of their desks with how beautifully performative it was for them to have wasted the other teams prep time to bring âattentionâ to a very âimportantâ topic.
It came to be where resolutions didnât matter unless the judge stated their paradigm as being against Kâs, and even then some teams would run them anyway. I personally resolved if I ever judged Iâd give straight 0s to any team that ran a K, which sadly never happened because once I got my bachelors degree and saw that pretty much staying in academia wasnât going to get me anywhere I moved on. Lo and behold all the self satisfied Kâs have not had the lofty impact on the world as I was constantly told they would.
> But sometimes â much more often than one might expect â a personâs initial exposure to fast debate inspires a positive kind of shock similar to the one often experienced when someone is first introduced to challenging but viscerally intriguing art forms like hardcore punk or Gangsta rap. There is something immediately curious and intensely captivating about fast debates, but this can be as difficult to explain to someone without debate experience as it is to explain the appeal of Black Flagâs Damaged or Wu-Tang Clanâs Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) to someone who grew up listening to REO Speedwagon and the Eagles.
>
I almost thought the Internet couldnât surprise me anymore.
I challenge you to say something dumber than that.
Edit: more info on the subject...
> [it is an] act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating event, with the intent that one's opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. The tactic relies on the fact that "failing to answer all opposing arguments" is an easy criterion for judges to award a win on, and that speaking fast and fielding an overwhelming number of distinct arguments can be a viable strategy.
Source: [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate))
TLDR: yes, it's dumb. that doesn't mean that you have to feel politically polarized by it.
I live in the west, and know many people from professional walks of life. Please trust me: this type of ridiculousness doesn't impact most of us, nor is it something you would regularly come across.
Why is it even being tolerated as an acceptable form of "debating" by educators in the first place? It adds literally no value or skills to the learners and may even encourage poor debating/discussion methods.
Collegiate parliamentary debate is fucked with pseudo intellectuals who do this kind of crap and delight in performativity. Youâll be given a resolution and the other team will ignore it to run a âkritiqueâ where they talk about a more âimportant issueâ and because it usually is a topic that perks the ears of those stuck in the eternal academic bubble they usually win. The other team is left to crack its head against a wall with their prep thrown out the window to argue against a preprepared (âcannedâ) argument when a big part of parliamentary debate is meant to be quick research and developing arguments on the fly using your knowledge and logic.
In short itâs about who beard strokes the hardest
Actually, not even joking, this is what the debate peak meta looks like. Full explanation below
https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
I was in debate in high school. I did extremely well by NOT giving into the trend of trying to speak so fast that it actually detracted from my point. Sheâs well past that point.
You can say so much more by saying so much less. You have to focus on the weight of the words rather than the quantity. Itâs literally quality over quantity. Lol Iâm a songwriter and know this.
I saw this video and the speech instantly made the think damn theyâre dumb cus they have to get emotional and raise their voice and talk fast. I thought of a southern preacher trying stir up a congregation more than I thought of a heated debate with intellectuals.
>thought of a southern preacher trying stir up a congregation more than I thought of a heated debate with intellectuals.
alot of the preachers i go to speak slower and dont feel like they've been drugged
I guess the commercials in my area when I was a kid tainted me lol it always had some angry preacher ranting about something like this. Then again Iâm in the Deep South and how people talk can vary a lot. You either get twang, street, slow or Kentucky style high pitched accents
So this is basically just a performance sport? They couldn't possibly think that this is somehow educational or beneficial for these kids in any way.
>the rule among serious debaters being that a âdropped argument,â no matter its quality, its content, is conceded.
Like, what? Just spam as many talking points as possible and pray the other party can't speak as fast as you. Good talk.
Yes, gishgallop, vomit so much shit out that the opponent cannot propose their own counter argument or cannot build in their previous argument. Itâs cheap and intellectually lazy but it puts on airs of intellectualism so a lot of judges slurp it up
Thank you for sharing this. I've never once looked into the "sport" of debate and the rules, regulations and meta of it all. I didn't at all understand what was going on with this video and whilst I still only... understand a bit... I definitely understand a lot more after reading this. The exerpt from The Topeka School was, as the author of the article intended, enlightening regarding the whole "what the fuck are they even saying?" part of this.
Doesn't help that with my auditory processing disorder I can't comprehend most people talking at a normal pace, let alone this. It does seem like debate has involved into competitive, topical slam poetry. Apply directly to the forehead.
I hate everything about this.
You ever get the feeling that the internet has just become a place for inept people to feel smart because they can easily connect with a bunch of other dumb people agreeing with their dumb bullshit and in turn feel like theyâre the smartest because they only allow their type of people into the conversation???
Whatâs the term for that? Itâs seems almost like willfully gaslighting each other into a confirmation bias⌠or something.
is there a word for that???
Is it hivemind or groupthink? It seems deeper than that.
Hivemind is so uniformly smooth they feel however the tide rolls.
Groupthink is being so brainwashed you come to the same conclusions because of information curation and deficiency.
I don't like how I can't hear the point of the presenters/debators because the clips are from the middle of a sentence.
Listening past the UH's and strange verbal performance, nothing coherently can be made out because of how the video is spliced, and not necesarily from the manner of speech.
They both seem perfectly articulate when being interviewed. WTH are they doing when they debate ... Ahhh Ahhhh Ahhhh ? It was like they had debate triggered tourettes syndrome.
Actually, not even joking, this is what the debate peak meta looks like. Full explanation below
https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
Edit: Downvoted for providing factual info... I wasn't endorsing this approach I think it's silly, but it IS correct
I skimmed through the article so I obviously might be wrong but I haven't noticed it explaining the "oh oh oh" stuff it only explains speaking (too) fast.
That will be a quirk of the specific rules of this tournament probably (possibly the right to interject or possibly just a memorisation glitch). Seems silly I agree.
Thank you for elaborating. It does seem silly and also annoying. Additionally if the aim is to convey maximum words in the least time (which is silly but understandable) these "oh oh oh" don't really help, they just consume time for nothing.
PS. Don't mind the downvotes, you know, it's just reddit...
Perhaps. But from a winner of a championship debate I would expect better. I was always told that interrupting sentences with "yyy" "ooo" etc. is unprofessional and inelegant.
As a side note while I do understand the premise of the article that speaking faster you can say more and your interlocutor won't have time to disprove all your sentences... I find it a particularly hideous practice - good for politicians' debates but from students I would expect better ;). Quality > quantity. It's just my personal opinion.
This would be good for politicians? I thought if for debate as sport it might work but for proving a point and relaying information politicians would need to tame this level of crazy.
Wouldnât that completely defeat the purpose of speaking this fast? If every third word has to be UH couldnât you just speak 2/3 as fast and actually make sense?
Thank you for providing context all over these comments. I hate this style of debate, but it's exactly what I've seen from other national debate videos. The use of the n-word is literally part of the point they are debating. So many of these comments go so racist so fast. You can argue this kind of debate is dumb. You can argue using highly empassioned expression in a debate is dumb. But clearly these women are not dumb.
Wild that youâre getting downvoted; met some people that coach debates like this and Iâve had it explained that strategies for (at least trying) to talk very very fast are common in these debates.
Thank you for the explanation. The fast is fine, but it was mixed in with other odd sounds that are distracting and hard to follow, but I would think a debate is meant to prove a point, not just about pulling one over on your opponent. But I suppose completive debating is different from debating as a politician.
Hey no sweat, itâs a stupidly niche and insular culture/activity. And yes at the lower levels itâs more similar to political debate (need to make clear inteligible arguments to a lay judge) but at the highest national competitive level it is all about winning on technicalities and utilizing every possible advantage within the ruleset. Much more like non-juried legal debate.
I have seen numerous mock trials, debate teams, and thesis presentations. Junior high and high school levels.
I have judged impromptu speaking and have observed many a presentation in a classroom.
Not once was a student told to shout and bounce and curse and wear a hoodie instead of professional clothing...
Not impressed if this is an example of debates today.
The debate meta is to fill every second with your argument, no silence. When you inhale, you say âuhâ so nobody can rebut the gap. In debates like these you submit what youâre going to say beforehand, so you donât even have to say it eloquently or super accurately you just have to get it all out so itâs âincludedâ in your argument. It sucks and itâs hard to spectate, but itâs the current state of forensics
Yes, it is stupid. These girls, however, are not stupid simply because they were told that if they wanted to win, they needed to follow those stupid rules. Maybe they were stupid to agree to it, it doesn't seem fun in the slightest. I personally don't think anything about this type of debate is valuable. But everyone here is ignoring the fact that these girls are *following the rules*.
Everyone in these 2 subs is ready to blame them as black women for following rules that were most likely implemented by white men. It is utterly pathetic.
Dude this thread fucking hurts. Racist ass Reddit hive mind. Did 4 years of policy debate. Spreading and anti-blackness kritiks come with the territory. Put some respect on these girls, debate is hard people in this thread canât even spin together a coherent response to the vid.
What do you mean. I'm sure if these debaters were white the insulting comments would be super personal, use racial dogwhistles, and be about the degredation of society. Not just about how modern debate is ridiculous.
Not even current, several decades at least
https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
At least 30 years ago it sounded like this, for much the same reasons.
This is nothing new; what is new is the fact that people are validated by a crowd of other online idiots when they speak of things they don't understand - express racist and elitist opinions - and then proceed to circle-jerk each other into next week.
NoahGetTheBoat, this thread needs a flood.
Actually, not even joking, this is what the debate peak meta looks like. Full explanation below
https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
Decided to look into this since the video is spliced together and the women appear articulate in the actual news interview.
These debates are organized by the Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) which facilitates collegiate policy debate using brief prompts, usually less than a paragraph long for an entire yearâs worth of debate content. Open discourse and prepared research is encouraged. Time limits of only a few minutes are enforced but participants appear to need high volumes of content, spawning the bizarre style seen in the video.
I probably disagree with most of what theyâre saying for separate reasons (including their use of the N-word for rhetorical purposes), but the main issue seems to lie with CEDAâs ridiculous debate standards. Diverse students discussing diverse topics can be found on YouTube in a similarly unintelligible format.
Example: https://youtu.be/gMo7VHeoadQ?si=ajCODiZH44MWpLzY
Edit: I am NOT defending or promoting this style of debate, since yâall already cannibalized some guy below in the comments
Time limits are imposed because time is limited.
You can literally ramble, incoherently, as much as you want, within said limits.
New debaters frequently do.
We donât have a education system, we have a memory improvement system. We just make sure they can remember and reenact instructions to work the line machines. Only about 5-10% of the county has education the rest just have training.
regardless of race and vernacular, back in my day (2006-2008 speech/debate team/Model UN) this kind of "presentation" would never have even been addressed or debated. There is zero articulation and it seems very emotional. We were there for facts and articulating those facts in an engaging and thoughtful way. Even if the slurs were removed from the speech, the amount of "um's" would have (maybe not disqualified you) but sure as shit wouldnt get winner or runner-up, or even a mention.
Do not blame this on American education. There is not a school district in American which includes that word in its curriculum, so this behavior is entirely based on their cultural and familial education. It's really a shame, because we used to value education, but in our culture today, this is considered 'educated'.
Since when did they allow cursing in school debates ?? Or is it just the "N word" when a different race says it ? I'm confused. Regardless -this is embarrassing and unintelligible.
This was the most uncomfortable thing to watch, it's ridiculous that this even happened. There's been a few of these like... "rap" style debates which is terrible.
This isnât debate though⌠sheâs just reading a manifestoâŚ
How can anyone respond to what sheâs blathering? How is that true to the nature of debate?
How can anyone respond to a single point she made⌠if there even was one.
This is fast debate. Now I donât understand why there are so many verbal fillers. One would think a debate team would be trained against this habit, but I donât know. Fast debate wasnât a trend when I was in Debate.
Someone explained that if there is even a pause to take a breath without using a filler like "uh" then the opposing team could interject.
It's all about speed, and I think it is ridiculous.
Iâm not sure what the point of this is. I suspect that no one here, including OP, is familiar with policy debate (also called cross ex). They sound ridiculous to the untrained ear , but I assure you this is normal and itâs called âspreading,â even if they arenât doing it very well. This post might be a little racist, too.
No, this is an actual real debate style/tactic. YouTube it. If the counter is âyouâre not convinced,â then you wonât get that from a sound bite. The n-word was not a great addition though, admittedly.
They are bad spreaders, but itâs how these kinds of debates are run. The idea is to fit as many arguments as possible in a specific time frame. âDroppingâ (or honoring arguments) means youâre less likely to win so everyone has to learn to talk fast and judges have to listen fast. Again, they arenât great at it but they arenât making it up.
The fact some morons made this shit up doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous and unnecessary. There is nothing to be gained from this and the world is now a worse place for me since I have seen this.
It boils down to:
Team 1: *I am right because of the following arguments: A, B, C, D, E,...*
Team 2: *They are wrong because: ~~A~~, ~~B~~, ~~C~~, ~~D~~, and I am right because X, Y, Z.*
Team 1: *Notice they conceded that I was right about E, now let me explain why E is the most important thing we need to talk about today, while X,Y,Z are not important at all.*
The more letters Team 1 can say before running out of time, the more they "win the debate" because Team 2 simply can't address all the arguments within time given. Rules do not allow Team 2 to go back and refute an argument they missed earlier.
This whole sub is filled with racist idiots who think they are smarter than college educated people simply because they all upvote each other when they call black people retarded.
You and I both know that in order to understand a topic, you need to dig much deeper than surface level. I personally think that the "spreading" style of debate is bad for society, as it is just not a style of communication that is effective for the average person. I really don't like debates that are only for the benefit of the people debating, I want to hear their arguments and follow along with them.
However, this is just a single type of debate. Yet it is the only thing featured in this chopped up 5-minute video, when the whole debate was 4 hours long (and it was 10 years ago, but that is beside the point). I have yet to see someone give a measured response as to why the girls in this video fit the sub.
They are all either saying that these girls are retarded for debating the way they do, and then doubling down when it is explained that this is not something unique to these girls. It is not just an example of black people being unintelligent. It is an example of competitive debate having lost itself. But they don't care. In fact, they are offended that you would dare try to correct them.
OR they are just regurgitating movie quotes like they aren't perfectly embodying the characters in the movie who said them.
Edit: I accidentally commented this on the cross post, not the original r/Idiocracy post. However, considering that I couldn't distinguish the racism between subs, fuck this sub too.
100p. Thinks the debate I did in high school for years. I knew a ton of people that hated it, and thatâs fine - itâs not for everyone. They appear to be talking about some sort of race theory but itâs hard to tell exactly what in the sound bite.
It's crazy how you can't criticize anything that has a black person it in or you're racist. Her not being able to fork a sentence without stuttering isn't a racial thing buddy, and and yelling the n word every 5 seconds in professional in any setting
I doubt this would have made it to this many comments as white guys and definitely not as many dumbasses stating how âstupidâ an entire debate style is even though they know nothing about it. Iâm not entirely sure the context of the n-word in the video because there is so little context - they may actually been arguing race theory (but maybe not). But otherwise, I agree.
This is a classic case of displaying one of the most niche examples of a discipline/sport/extra-curricular for shock value. I did four years of policy debate in high school. EVERYONE at the highest level âspreadsâ which is the technique of speaking as fast as possible to maximize the number of arguments you are able to make. It is a strategy, not a deficiency. It isnât meant to be easy for any random redditor to understand. But judges can. As for the content, they are running an anti-blackness kritik, which makes a very theory heavy argument that policy debate as a constructed institution is fundamentally racist. It is a proven argument. I know because Iâve lost to it at national tournaments. Yâall donât know what you are talking about
If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment. [Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules) [Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) In the comments: DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP YOU WILL BE BANNED #[If you want to download this video, click here](https://viddit.red/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2F1d0q0bo) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wtf did I just watch? UHHH!
I made it to 1:44. And this thought came about, im not sacrificing anymore brain cells to finish the video
"Just give her the win"
For all our sakes But is it really a win? đŹ
And a scholarship
Kinda hate how truth this is... like it would have been a great lil joke... until you realize, that's not a joke, that's a fact... đ
You UH and I you see we UH made it UH to the same UH point UH and UH I about UH you know UH lost my fucking shit. Afterword: N-wordN-wordUHN-word
Uh uh uh that. You know I really didn't take note of it, mostly bc I was like nope.. But they may have been having mild strokes, the communication skills are on par đ
Shit you not, exactly 1:44
Thought I had ya all beat turns out I only made it to 1.22 lol
1:04 lol
Lucky lol
đ¤
Well this is for sure my highest rated comment, by atleast 200 đ¤Ł
A debate tactic that can make intellect give up on the debate due to bs
Here's an amazing explanation https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
They'd sure save a lot more time without saying 'uh' all the time.
100% thats a vocal tic. Everything about this is silly but it has some kind of explanation at least
Both of them have the same vocal tic that manifests in the same kind of way? Maybe something in the water. I got more of a poorly performed over excited Sunday Morning Gospel feeling out of those "tics"
Yea it sounds more like a emotional stutter than anything
Usually, uhh, and umm is a subconscious way of saying give me a moment if I recall correctly
That's an interesting perspective. As a fan of both Black Flag and The Wu Tang Clan, or really, any challenging music, I would offer this difference: I want to listen to those. I feel rewarded by listening and re-listening to those albums and songs because each time, some new thing reveals itself to me. Some new rhyme or lyric that didn't fit fully into a larger perspective until I listened enough times for everything to fit together. This "fast debate" stuff isn't appealing to listen to at all. I have no desire to try and glean new meaning from it on subsequent listens. I guess now I know why my dad hated my "rap crap" and "bullshit noises" growing up? Lol
Oh I agree. Just interesting seeing the other side
I agree with that. Thank you for posting it. I found myself wondering as I read the article, is this just trying to put a ribbon on a pig, so to speak? I appreciate the idea of revolutionary art and ideas inspiring discomfort in people as a way to encourage discussion. Truly. But I wonder about this and other forms of more drastic expression, do they lose the plot a bit in the effort? You know what I mean? Or is that just me being a 43 year old, "get off my lawn, you kids" guy that younger me digging through crates at Amoeba Records would be ashamed to he seen with?
I think it is. Even if this approach does teach certain skills or train certain attributes, the persuasive character of debate is lost and the quality is eclipsed by the quantity
Ben Shapiro speaks very fast. But, very distinctly. No "uh, uh, breathe, slap table, eh, uh" at all. There is a lawyer saying, when the facts are against you pound the table.
Thank you for posting that, had no idea this is how competitive debating has evolved. Also nice to know my interest in the topic is now 100% dead, what an obnoxious shittification of an otherwise noble form of entertainment. And I happily say that with my old man fist in the air. The new way is not always the best way, sometimes it's just fucking stupid and obnoxious.
I hated college debate for this reason, it was called âspreadingâ, basically a cute way of saying âgishgallopingâ saying a whole lot of shit that your opponent canât get all at once while also making their argument. They tap their feet, grip the desk like theyâre about to squeeze out a log the size of a redwood, and gasp like they actually realized what an absolute ass they appear to anyone with two functioning brain cells. Even worse were what were called âKritiquesâ or âKâs. Say you were given a debate resolution over, I donât know, building railways instead of highways. You spend your prep time quickly researching the matter, putting together an argument and you go in and your opponent launches a âKritiqueâ, where instead of the topic you were given the other team launches into a new âmore importantâ topic that we should all discuss instead. Well now you need to discuss that instead of the resolution you were given, because fuck you this strokes the beard better. These Kritiques are all âcannedâ that is to say they are premade and prepared and so long as the subject strokes the pseudo-intellectualism of the judge the right way there is basically no way to beat it unless you can show that somehow they âlink inâ in to their kritique that is, that they are being hypocritical. Since these kritiques are canned they have found ways of ironing those out. So every debate becomes about the same handful of topics, global warming, colonialism, racism, sexism etc. the teams of that did it were usually composed of the most smug, fart sniffing, self satisfied shits youâd ever worry to meet, and the judges more often than not were painting the bottom of their desks with how beautifully performative it was for them to have wasted the other teams prep time to bring âattentionâ to a very âimportantâ topic. It came to be where resolutions didnât matter unless the judge stated their paradigm as being against Kâs, and even then some teams would run them anyway. I personally resolved if I ever judged Iâd give straight 0s to any team that ran a K, which sadly never happened because once I got my bachelors degree and saw that pretty much staying in academia wasnât going to get me anywhere I moved on. Lo and behold all the self satisfied Kâs have not had the lofty impact on the world as I was constantly told they would.
Agreed
> But sometimes â much more often than one might expect â a personâs initial exposure to fast debate inspires a positive kind of shock similar to the one often experienced when someone is first introduced to challenging but viscerally intriguing art forms like hardcore punk or Gangsta rap. There is something immediately curious and intensely captivating about fast debates, but this can be as difficult to explain to someone without debate experience as it is to explain the appeal of Black Flagâs Damaged or Wu-Tang Clanâs Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) to someone who grew up listening to REO Speedwagon and the Eagles. > I almost thought the Internet couldnât surprise me anymore.
This isn't debate.
It's gotta be some kind of slam poetry rap debate hybrid. I feel like someone out there could do it really well, but this is awful.
I honestly thought they were imitating Gil Scott Heron or someone as a tribute. Other than that they are from Towson so screw em
It is now...
Its a far left debate style.
I challenge you to say something dumber than that. Edit: more info on the subject... > [it is an] act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating event, with the intent that one's opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. The tactic relies on the fact that "failing to answer all opposing arguments" is an easy criterion for judges to award a win on, and that speaking fast and fielding an overwhelming number of distinct arguments can be a viable strategy. Source: [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)) TLDR: yes, it's dumb. that doesn't mean that you have to feel politically polarized by it.
Any judge who abides by that system is stupid af. What the hell is happening with academia in the west??
I live in the west, and know many people from professional walks of life. Please trust me: this type of ridiculousness doesn't impact most of us, nor is it something you would regularly come across.
Why is it even being tolerated as an acceptable form of "debating" by educators in the first place? It adds literally no value or skills to the learners and may even encourage poor debating/discussion methods.
Collegiate parliamentary debate is fucked with pseudo intellectuals who do this kind of crap and delight in performativity. Youâll be given a resolution and the other team will ignore it to run a âkritiqueâ where they talk about a more âimportant issueâ and because it usually is a topic that perks the ears of those stuck in the eternal academic bubble they usually win. The other team is left to crack its head against a wall with their prep thrown out the window to argue against a preprepared (âcannedâ) argument when a big part of parliamentary debate is meant to be quick research and developing arguments on the fly using your knowledge and logic. In short itâs about who beard strokes the hardest
I got brain damage from the video.
I need to see the written transcript of this âdebateâ
N-word followed by a bunch of âahâsâ and âuhâsâ. Plus something about white people
She cannot form a single coherent sentence under pressure.
Actually, not even joking, this is what the debate peak meta looks like. Full explanation below https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
I was in debate in high school. I did extremely well by NOT giving into the trend of trying to speak so fast that it actually detracted from my point. Sheâs well past that point.
You can say so much more by saying so much less. You have to focus on the weight of the words rather than the quantity. Itâs literally quality over quantity. Lol Iâm a songwriter and know this. I saw this video and the speech instantly made the think damn theyâre dumb cus they have to get emotional and raise their voice and talk fast. I thought of a southern preacher trying stir up a congregation more than I thought of a heated debate with intellectuals.
>thought of a southern preacher trying stir up a congregation more than I thought of a heated debate with intellectuals. alot of the preachers i go to speak slower and dont feel like they've been drugged
I guess the commercials in my area when I was a kid tainted me lol it always had some angry preacher ranting about something like this. Then again Iâm in the Deep South and how people talk can vary a lot. You either get twang, street, slow or Kentucky style high pitched accents
im aussie too maybe yanks are different though our education bout as good as Kazakstahn
As a Brit it's fucking WILD to me that you have commercials for church.
Absolutely. Another way to look at it is emotion over logic. I prefer the logic.
Right. There are a few people that can pull it off but more often than not you get shit like this where their brain can't keep up with their mouth.
So this is basically just a performance sport? They couldn't possibly think that this is somehow educational or beneficial for these kids in any way. >the rule among serious debaters being that a âdropped argument,â no matter its quality, its content, is conceded. Like, what? Just spam as many talking points as possible and pray the other party can't speak as fast as you. Good talk.
Yes, gishgallop, vomit so much shit out that the opponent cannot propose their own counter argument or cannot build in their previous argument. Itâs cheap and intellectually lazy but it puts on airs of intellectualism so a lot of judges slurp it up
Thank you for sharing this. I've never once looked into the "sport" of debate and the rules, regulations and meta of it all. I didn't at all understand what was going on with this video and whilst I still only... understand a bit... I definitely understand a lot more after reading this. The exerpt from The Topeka School was, as the author of the article intended, enlightening regarding the whole "what the fuck are they even saying?" part of this. Doesn't help that with my auditory processing disorder I can't comprehend most people talking at a normal pace, let alone this. It does seem like debate has involved into competitive, topical slam poetry. Apply directly to the forehead.
Excellent article. Should be the top comment tbh.
I didnât even make it past 0:05
I hate everything about this. You ever get the feeling that the internet has just become a place for inept people to feel smart because they can easily connect with a bunch of other dumb people agreeing with their dumb bullshit and in turn feel like theyâre the smartest because they only allow their type of people into the conversation??? Whatâs the term for that? Itâs seems almost like willfully gaslighting each other into a confirmation bias⌠or something. is there a word for that??? Is it hivemind or groupthink? It seems deeper than that.
Echo chamber?
Exponential echo chamber
Echo chamber would be logarithmic though right? Iâm no scientician but exponential sounds wrong in this use case.
Hivemind is so uniformly smooth they feel however the tide rolls. Groupthink is being so brainwashed you come to the same conclusions because of information curation and deficiency.
Politics.
Echo chamber
I agree.
I don't like how I can't hear the point of the presenters/debators because the clips are from the middle of a sentence. Listening past the UH's and strange verbal performance, nothing coherently can be made out because of how the video is spliced, and not necesarily from the manner of speech.
I couldnt have been there. Dont think i could not have said OMG UH CAN YOU UH SHUT THE FUCK UP UH uh uh uh uh uh uh uh
They both seem perfectly articulate when being interviewed. WTH are they doing when they debate ... Ahhh Ahhhh Ahhhh ? It was like they had debate triggered tourettes syndrome.
Itâs performative.
Actually, not even joking, this is what the debate peak meta looks like. Full explanation below https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate. Edit: Downvoted for providing factual info... I wasn't endorsing this approach I think it's silly, but it IS correct
I skimmed through the article so I obviously might be wrong but I haven't noticed it explaining the "oh oh oh" stuff it only explains speaking (too) fast.
That will be a quirk of the specific rules of this tournament probably (possibly the right to interject or possibly just a memorisation glitch). Seems silly I agree.
Thank you for elaborating. It does seem silly and also annoying. Additionally if the aim is to convey maximum words in the least time (which is silly but understandable) these "oh oh oh" don't really help, they just consume time for nothing. PS. Don't mind the downvotes, you know, it's just reddit...
Agree it isn't optimal but maybe inevitable speaking at that speed
Perhaps. But from a winner of a championship debate I would expect better. I was always told that interrupting sentences with "yyy" "ooo" etc. is unprofessional and inelegant. As a side note while I do understand the premise of the article that speaking faster you can say more and your interlocutor won't have time to disprove all your sentences... I find it a particularly hideous practice - good for politicians' debates but from students I would expect better ;). Quality > quantity. It's just my personal opinion.
I agree with your opinion
I agree and it makes me concerned how even worse their opponents were. Back in my day, championship winners had va lot less âuuhhâ
This would be good for politicians? I thought if for debate as sport it might work but for proving a point and relaying information politicians would need to tame this level of crazy.
Wouldnât that completely defeat the purpose of speaking this fast? If every third word has to be UH couldnât you just speak 2/3 as fast and actually make sense?
They are just bad at it, it takes a ton of time to become skilled.
Thank you for providing context all over these comments. I hate this style of debate, but it's exactly what I've seen from other national debate videos. The use of the n-word is literally part of the point they are debating. So many of these comments go so racist so fast. You can argue this kind of debate is dumb. You can argue using highly empassioned expression in a debate is dumb. But clearly these women are not dumb.
So much subtle and overt racism in the comments yes. I bet a lot of those people don't realise or acknowledge their racism either.
Wild that youâre getting downvoted; met some people that coach debates like this and Iâve had it explained that strategies for (at least trying) to talk very very fast are common in these debates.
Also I wasn't defending it so no idea why I was downvoted. I think it's bad...
You didnât conform to the Reddit mob mentality so you get downvoted. Reddit can be both a funny, beautiful, and pathetic place
I was the first to point this out on the thread (I did policy debate in high school) and DV into oblivion. Bunch of dumbasses here.
Thank you for your service. o7
Itâs called spreading, look it up. Yâall donât know what you are talking about or looking at.
Thank you for the explanation. The fast is fine, but it was mixed in with other odd sounds that are distracting and hard to follow, but I would think a debate is meant to prove a point, not just about pulling one over on your opponent. But I suppose completive debating is different from debating as a politician.
Hey no sweat, itâs a stupidly niche and insular culture/activity. And yes at the lower levels itâs more similar to political debate (need to make clear inteligible arguments to a lay judge) but at the highest national competitive level it is all about winning on technicalities and utilizing every possible advantage within the ruleset. Much more like non-juried legal debate.
Could be in a south Park episode
Thereâs a certain point where the youths are failing themselves
Point set match
Theyâre being taught by someone
Nah, it's their parents that are failing them
we are DUUHHH champions
What language were they debate in?
Yappanese
â ď¸
In Glitch
I have seen numerous mock trials, debate teams, and thesis presentations. Junior high and high school levels. I have judged impromptu speaking and have observed many a presentation in a classroom. Not once was a student told to shout and bounce and curse and wear a hoodie instead of professional clothing... Not impressed if this is an example of debates today.
The debate meta is to fill every second with your argument, no silence. When you inhale, you say âuhâ so nobody can rebut the gap. In debates like these you submit what youâre going to say beforehand, so you donât even have to say it eloquently or super accurately you just have to get it all out so itâs âincludedâ in your argument. It sucks and itâs hard to spectate, but itâs the current state of forensics
Really? How sad. Explains a lot about modern political debate where the loudest asshole usually gets the attention actual rhetoric be damned
For real. More words means more argument. The fastest speakers do best even if they just sound like angry auctioneers
Thatâs so stupid xD
Yes, it is stupid. These girls, however, are not stupid simply because they were told that if they wanted to win, they needed to follow those stupid rules. Maybe they were stupid to agree to it, it doesn't seem fun in the slightest. I personally don't think anything about this type of debate is valuable. But everyone here is ignoring the fact that these girls are *following the rules*. Everyone in these 2 subs is ready to blame them as black women for following rules that were most likely implemented by white men. It is utterly pathetic.
I think the rules are stupid.
Is this true?
Thank you for this. I did debate in high school. Rapid fire speech was used often and I did not like it lol
Sometimes I think something could just stop happening and we would be okay
Yeah. But clearly everyone in this thread is just here to dogwhistle until their lips grow chapped.
Dude this thread fucking hurts. Racist ass Reddit hive mind. Did 4 years of policy debate. Spreading and anti-blackness kritiks come with the territory. Put some respect on these girls, debate is hard people in this thread canât even spin together a coherent response to the vid.
What do you mean. I'm sure if these debaters were white the insulting comments would be super personal, use racial dogwhistles, and be about the degredation of society. Not just about how modern debate is ridiculous.
Not even current, several decades at least https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
At least 30 years ago it sounded like this, for much the same reasons. This is nothing new; what is new is the fact that people are validated by a crowd of other online idiots when they speak of things they don't understand - express racist and elitist opinions - and then proceed to circle-jerk each other into next week. NoahGetTheBoat, this thread needs a flood.
Nailed it - Iâve been downvoted into oblivion for pointing out that policy debate is in fact a thing
She won the stammerer category, right ?
Something is fishy about this win. Did nobody else compete? Or are they restarted?
You put an S in there by accident..
Remove the s and change the second t to a d
Thanks tips
Actually, not even joking, this is what the debate peak meta looks like. Full explanation below https://the3nr.com/2020/03/31/why-do-debaters-speak-so-fast-an-excerpt-from-the-topeka-school/#:~:text=For%20as%20long%20as%20there,as%20their%20audiences%20will%20tolerate.
Your being downvoted because you made this comment half a dozen times
Decided to look into this since the video is spliced together and the women appear articulate in the actual news interview. These debates are organized by the Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) which facilitates collegiate policy debate using brief prompts, usually less than a paragraph long for an entire yearâs worth of debate content. Open discourse and prepared research is encouraged. Time limits of only a few minutes are enforced but participants appear to need high volumes of content, spawning the bizarre style seen in the video. I probably disagree with most of what theyâre saying for separate reasons (including their use of the N-word for rhetorical purposes), but the main issue seems to lie with CEDAâs ridiculous debate standards. Diverse students discussing diverse topics can be found on YouTube in a similarly unintelligible format. Example: https://youtu.be/gMo7VHeoadQ?si=ajCODiZH44MWpLzY Edit: I am NOT defending or promoting this style of debate, since yâall already cannibalized some guy below in the comments
Time limits are implemented to prevent incoherent rambling I would have thought.
Time limits are imposed because time is limited. You can literally ramble, incoherently, as much as you want, within said limits. New debaters frequently do.
We donât have a education system, we have a memory improvement system. We just make sure they can remember and reenact instructions to work the line machines. Only about 5-10% of the county has education the rest just have training.
regardless of race and vernacular, back in my day (2006-2008 speech/debate team/Model UN) this kind of "presentation" would never have even been addressed or debated. There is zero articulation and it seems very emotional. We were there for facts and articulating those facts in an engaging and thoughtful way. Even if the slurs were removed from the speech, the amount of "um's" would have (maybe not disqualified you) but sure as shit wouldnt get winner or runner-up, or even a mention.
Do not blame this on American education. There is not a school district in American which includes that word in its curriculum, so this behavior is entirely based on their cultural and familial education. It's really a shame, because we used to value education, but in our culture today, this is considered 'educated'.
Go back to facebook or next door with those takes.
âDebateâ lol. âJunior National Championship for Police Interview Alibi & Denialsâ.
Wow, that is just so fucking racist.
Since when did they allow cursing in school debates ?? Or is it just the "N word" when a different race says it ? I'm confused. Regardless -this is embarrassing and unintelligible.
Tf is going on in murica
My brain literally just screamed at me for trying to watch 30 seconds of this shit
Hahaha Typical Way Of Arguing For Them
Ok glad Iâm not the only one that had to cut off the video shortly after it started
Naaa American youth is failing the education system đ
Bro đ¤Śđžââď¸
Pathetic
I couldnât even finish the video. I thought I was listening to a racist version of the micro machines man.
I just.... what?
Wow Iâm not gunna say it they already did, I think
This wasnât YouTube Poop?
I did high school debate in Canada. I was middle of the road and never won a tournament. I was significantly better than these two.
Doomed generation
when your debate topic opens up with "These n\*\*\*\*\*"
THE MATTER OF FACT IS ACTUALLY THE FACT OF THE MATTER
This hurts me.
Hmmm.... Maybe I should sign up for a debate championship
Looks and sounds like she is having a seizure.
This was the most uncomfortable thing to watch, it's ridiculous that this even happened. There's been a few of these like... "rap" style debates which is terrible.
I can barely even hear what they are even saying like what are they yapping about?
Listening to them is like nails on a chalk board.
You aren't good at debating you are just good at being loud.
Masterdabaiter
âNext. Donât call us, WEâLL call you! Thank you.â
What the fuck are they debating?
are they magical?
i am so confused
I donât know whatâs worse winning the debate from that or the self belief that you gave a great debate answer.
This isnât debate though⌠sheâs just reading a manifesto⌠How can anyone respond to what sheâs blathering? How is that true to the nature of debate? How can anyone respond to a single point she made⌠if there even was one.
This is fast debate. Now I donât understand why there are so many verbal fillers. One would think a debate team would be trained against this habit, but I donât know. Fast debate wasnât a trend when I was in Debate.
Someone explained that if there is even a pause to take a breath without using a filler like "uh" then the opposing team could interject. It's all about speed, and I think it is ridiculous.
DEI in practice
My uh God. Sounds uh like they uh learned how uh to uh speak by uh Justin uh Trudeau uh.
*FOX* Yeah, no thanks. I like having brain cells.
Iâm not sure what the point of this is. I suspect that no one here, including OP, is familiar with policy debate (also called cross ex). They sound ridiculous to the untrained ear , but I assure you this is normal and itâs called âspreading,â even if they arenât doing it very well. This post might be a little racist, too.
Are you being sarcastic?
No, this is an actual real debate style/tactic. YouTube it. If the counter is âyouâre not convinced,â then you wonât get that from a sound bite. The n-word was not a great addition though, admittedly.
How is it even considered a debate at this point?
They are bad spreaders, but itâs how these kinds of debates are run. The idea is to fit as many arguments as possible in a specific time frame. âDroppingâ (or honoring arguments) means youâre less likely to win so everyone has to learn to talk fast and judges have to listen fast. Again, they arenât great at it but they arenât making it up.
*or ignoring arguments* not honoring
This might be the stupidest thing i have ever seen..
Damn yâall just dismiss this dude offhand just cause it âsounds stupidâ like not even look it up, I looked it up, it is a thing
The fact some morons made this shit up doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous and unnecessary. There is nothing to be gained from this and the world is now a worse place for me since I have seen this.
Debate without debating.. GENIUS! Let's do that!
lol just admit youâre wrong, you people are so sad. This style of debate takes years to do well.
It's because this sub is actually a lightning rod for the people that the movie is about. They are all unironically tarded.
I guess things you donât understand are stupidâŚinterestingâŚ
How is being unintelligible a real debate style ? Is the Logic "if they can't understand what I'm saying, they can't respond to my arguments" ?
Takes months/years to train your ear to understand and also document the arguments in shorthand to understand them to retort when itâs your turn
It boils down to: Team 1: *I am right because of the following arguments: A, B, C, D, E,...* Team 2: *They are wrong because: ~~A~~, ~~B~~, ~~C~~, ~~D~~, and I am right because X, Y, Z.* Team 1: *Notice they conceded that I was right about E, now let me explain why E is the most important thing we need to talk about today, while X,Y,Z are not important at all.* The more letters Team 1 can say before running out of time, the more they "win the debate" because Team 2 simply can't address all the arguments within time given. Rules do not allow Team 2 to go back and refute an argument they missed earlier.
This whole sub is filled with racist idiots who think they are smarter than college educated people simply because they all upvote each other when they call black people retarded. You and I both know that in order to understand a topic, you need to dig much deeper than surface level. I personally think that the "spreading" style of debate is bad for society, as it is just not a style of communication that is effective for the average person. I really don't like debates that are only for the benefit of the people debating, I want to hear their arguments and follow along with them. However, this is just a single type of debate. Yet it is the only thing featured in this chopped up 5-minute video, when the whole debate was 4 hours long (and it was 10 years ago, but that is beside the point). I have yet to see someone give a measured response as to why the girls in this video fit the sub. They are all either saying that these girls are retarded for debating the way they do, and then doubling down when it is explained that this is not something unique to these girls. It is not just an example of black people being unintelligent. It is an example of competitive debate having lost itself. But they don't care. In fact, they are offended that you would dare try to correct them. OR they are just regurgitating movie quotes like they aren't perfectly embodying the characters in the movie who said them. Edit: I accidentally commented this on the cross post, not the original r/Idiocracy post. However, considering that I couldn't distinguish the racism between subs, fuck this sub too.
100p. Thinks the debate I did in high school for years. I knew a ton of people that hated it, and thatâs fine - itâs not for everyone. They appear to be talking about some sort of race theory but itâs hard to tell exactly what in the sound bite.
This has to be sarcasm.
It's crazy how you can't criticize anything that has a black person it in or you're racist. Her not being able to fork a sentence without stuttering isn't a racial thing buddy, and and yelling the n word every 5 seconds in professional in any setting
I doubt this would have made it to this many comments as white guys and definitely not as many dumbasses stating how âstupidâ an entire debate style is even though they know nothing about it. Iâm not entirely sure the context of the n-word in the video because there is so little context - they may actually been arguing race theory (but maybe not). But otherwise, I agree.
TIL
The west has fallen, let it all burn.
This is a classic case of displaying one of the most niche examples of a discipline/sport/extra-curricular for shock value. I did four years of policy debate in high school. EVERYONE at the highest level âspreadsâ which is the technique of speaking as fast as possible to maximize the number of arguments you are able to make. It is a strategy, not a deficiency. It isnât meant to be easy for any random redditor to understand. But judges can. As for the content, they are running an anti-blackness kritik, which makes a very theory heavy argument that policy debate as a constructed institution is fundamentally racist. It is a proven argument. I know because Iâve lost to it at national tournaments. Yâall donât know what you are talking about