Debate is a game
Some great comments on recent posts hashing out why we do debate (here as well). One of those comments, which as been agreed upon, is the statement that “debate is a game.” I hear this often and it is spoken as if it’s carved in stone. I, for one, disagree.
NFA-LD Debate for me is a co-curricular activity sponsored by colleges and universities meant to improve one’s critical thinking, public speaking, and argumentation skills. There is nothing game related. Is your political science or history class a game? Is my public speaking class a game? I do not view it as such. My classes are places where my students learn new concepts and theories and apply those through papers, exams, and presentations. Do you view your classes as a game? If not, then we can agree that not everything we do is a game. I will contend that there is no reason why debate has to be a game just like class is not a game. We could have debate as a game and play it just like we do board games – that each debate is self contained and we debate just for the sake of debating. But I reject the view that debate is a game as insufficient and unrewarding – especially given there is a better alternative.
A game is something we engage in to have fun or win. I play monopoly all the time just to enjoy the game. I don’t seek to be educated about real estate while playing monopoly nor banking rules. I just play because it’s fun. I learn strategy about how to win each game – that is, winning at Monopoly requires different skills than winning at scrabble. And there may be some benefits outside of the game sometimes – I may learn new words playing Scrabble but that certainly is not the point. I do not play scrabble to learn new words since the game draws upon my existing knowledge. Games are self contained – when the game is over you’re done and the skills most likely do not apply outside of that game. My scrabble skills do not serve me well when writing this post since the strategy in scrabble is unique to that game.
Is NFA-LD the equivalent of monopoly? We go out weekends and play a game called debate? We just as easily could break out a monopoly board and be doing the same thing?
I answer in the negative. The debaters are not merely players who have picked a board piece and roll the dice. Instead, debaters are students who are practicing their critical thinking, public speaking, and argumentation skills. One of the reasons I really like debate is that it involves a competition between students which is the best driver I’ve ever seen to encourage hard work and improvement. The drive to win the competition does amazing things for motivating students to improve their skills to be successful.
But a competition is distinct from a game. Sure, both a competition and game have “winners.” But a competition captures the idea that two or more people are trying to win but the goal is more than just winning the game. If what we do is a game than any strategy to win the game is encouraged. In monopoly I may buy 1 property of each color not to benefit myself but to ensure my opponent can not form a monopoly. In scrabble I may not play a particular word if it opens up a way for my opponent to get the 3x word score box. If debate is a game than I can strategically place a turn randomly throughout my responses to try and confuse my opponent into dropping one so I win. If debate is a game I can strategically be confusing until my final speech.
Instead, if debate is a competition, distinct from a game, than how you play matters. What we reward is different. We, as both judges and the community, do not reward games playing or strategy that works just for winning the game, but instead practices which encourage critical thinking, public speaking, and argumentation. The competitor who seeks to improve clash, to improve understanding, to engage the other debater and the audience, is competing at the tournament and upholding academic goals.
I tell my debaters the same thing that Mat wrote in the comments: If you are here for the trophies we can go to the trophy store and buy you a huge one for $10. You can put it on your shelf and be proud you have a big trophy. But if you are here to improve your critical thinking, public speaking, and argumentation skills, then you should be doing those things in your rounds. Why did you join debate in the first place? For trophies?
This can be thought of in terms of the debate about speed/spread as well. Why would a debater engage in speed/spread debate? Most likely to improve their chances of winning based on the idea of dropped or conceded arguments. If I can make 15 arguments rather than 10 arguments than that is 5 more the other debater has to answer which increases the chances they may drop an argument I can pull through in my last speech to win the debate. That, to me, is seeing debate as a game. Each argument is a piece on the game board that you strategically line up in order to win that game.
Instead, if debate is a competition, than rather advancing 15 arguments you’d advance only your best arguments demonstrating your ability to engage in critical thinking. Which of those 15 arguments are the best? Win because you understand the issue better and win because your arguments were stronger. Win because you are a better public speaker and can engage the audience in your debate through eye contact, humor, and rhetoric. Win because you can demonstrate through sound argumentation your arguments are better than your opponents. If you can do those three things the trophies will come and will mean a lot more than you played a game better than your opponent.
In NFA-LD when the rules state “Competitors in NFA Lincoln-Douglas will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver, and refute arguments.” Nowhere in that statement do I see the promotion of games playing or rewarding strategy just for strategy sake.
As a coach and judge I do not view debate as a game. I view it as a competition where students are working to improve their critical thinking, public speaking, and argumentation skills. As a competitor I often saw debate as a game and I think it decreased the value of the activity for me. As a debater I only cared about earning the “W” and lost a lot of the benefits of debate beyond winning rounds. I now see why that mindset minimized the benefit I gained from debate. Viewing debate as a game decreases the educational value of the activity and likely would decrease participation. I know I do not sell the activity to new students or school administrators as a game. I sell it as a place to improve critical thinking, public speaking and argumentation skills. We have competitions but we do not have games.
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
Good points Ian.
Monopoly can be educational, and debate can be a fun game. The difference is the end goal. Is the end goal of debate to have fun?
If so, the “fun strategy things” to which you refer are right at home. In that case as well, there is no justification for a school spending money on debate. Even in athletics, the goals of personal character and camaraderie are held up as the ultimate goals. If debate is like Monopoly, we should all be getting together to do it for fun, and any learning should be an accidental and extra benefit. All rules should then be decided by whoever shows up, and the only question to be asked about the appropriateness of a rule would be, “Does this make the activity more fun?”
On the other hand, if the end goal of debate is education then colleges and universities should support it, and there should be rules in place to maximize learning. In this case, the question to be asked about the appropriateness of a rule would be, “Does this make the activity more educational?”
There may be room for both interpretations. I hope by explicating Ian’s reasonable claims, we can reach clarity as to the impact of our metaphors concerning debate.
Debate is a game. We make strategies to beat other teams on the neg, we make affs that we think no one will have great answers to. This is a “game mentality.” We do what we can to win the round, which is the overall goal of debate, which is to win.
I don’t understand the difference between competition and games. Football GAMES are a COMPETITION between two teams. Basketball, baseball, volleyball, golf, etc. are all types of GAMES that involve some kind of COMPETITION. A debate round is a game between two or more COMPETING people. These two words are the same, or are used in the same context of one another.
The idea that if “debate is a game, stay at home and play” is just ridiculous. Are you going to tell your football team “hey, uh, I think its kinda dumb that you travel to play a game against another team so, just play amongst yourselves.” Of course not, that’s just not practical. Are you trying to say that if I do debate for fun I shouldn’t travel? What is your argument? It doesn’t make any sense to me. To travel would I have to hate debate and only do it so I can learn more about the issues?
Mike says that the only reason why colleges fund debate programs is because of education, this is wrong. If you don’t have a winning program, they aren’t going to keep funding you at the same level. The school itself has to justify its budget for the program. If you are bringing home trophies every weekend then guess what? The institution is going to be more willing to give you more money to travel to more tournaments. If a football team is constantly having losing records, do you think they are getting as much funding as a winning football team? No, and that’s because schools can’t justify the spending if you aren’t getting any positive results.
You say that we don’t take classes as a game, therefore we shouldn’t take debate as a game either. This is dumb. I don’t go to class and compete in class. You don’t go to class and get a trophy, or a medal. This analogy is just a really bad one. The difference between class and debate is that there is a competition.
“Is the end goal of debate to have fun?”
Yes.
Everything else is an externalities, just as camaraderie and team work are externalities to sports. they are significant, and make the activity a valuable thing to have done once you are finished, but it is not the end goal. You can engineer debate to be as educational as possible, but if it wasn’t fun, then I wouldn’t do it. And if no one does it, none of the positive externalities happen.
Tangentially, I would also like to argue that the sort of strategic thinking that a game mentality develops is also a valuable type of education. So, I think it is false to say that this way of approaching debate is anti-educational.
Ryan, thanks for your participation on the site and the energy you bring to this discussion. Even though I think you misrepresent several of my opinions and even refer to Danny and my arguments as “dumb”, I think we’re progressing nicely to clarity on this issue.
As a hypothetical, let’s imagine that a coach found a strategy to make speeches less clear, to misrepresent evidence in such a way as to not be caught breaking the rules, and to constantly frustrate new competitors who didn’t understand how to overcome such techniques. If debate is a game, then that coach would be justified in doing what it takes to win. They would get more trophies, their funding might go up, and their students might even have more fun.
To borrow Kant’s Categorical Imperative for a moment, would we prefer that every debate coach undertake this type of strategy of winning? I would not prefer that, and so I believe that strategy to be immoral. Of course, this borrows only one standard of morality.
Obviously, everyone who takes part in academic debate believes it to be both fun and educational. I think a couple of the above points have argued a straw man on that point. Fun and education are not mutually exclusive.
The fun should be built on the premise of education, or we as debate coaches have trained quasi-ethical tricksters who had a lot of fun on weekends and may not have learned as much about critical thinking as they could have.
An interesting last note is the different views of this issue between coaches and competitors. Are coaches involved in debate primarily for the fun or the pedagogical opportunities?
Granted some people view debate as a game, however when I am prepping my case for NFA-LD or parli I don’t view it as a game. I am very passionate about the NFA-LD topic this year. I’m not a K debater, I’m a stock-issues person. But if you want to run a K because you think it’ll get you the round, be my guest.
Why?
Because as a debater, I’ve been trained to deconstruct “The game” (K’s and frivolous CP’s, T’s and DA’s) that people enjoy running in NFA-LD anyway.
If people want to debate merely to win, then what have they ultimately learned at the end of the day? Here’s my response: NOTHING. with the exception that material posessions equate into happiness. You no longer view individuals as worth talking to unless they are “winning trophies”.
Let me tell you, I see this every time I go to tournaments. People (Coaches and individuals) from other schools don’t see me as a person or even worth talking to unless I am winning trophies.
Now that I am winning medals, the speaker award, parli and soon back with LD, I expect the response from the community to be, extremely welcoming, that they recognize I exist just as long as I continue the trend. In fact, I expect them to take the route, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (and this is only because I’m winning awards.) In honesty, I’m not so into the politics (whos who) of debate. I’m about the educational value, people and connections that are made.
If you’d rather not believe my personal example, Look to the example of Karl Rove, a former debater. Sure, he got to the White House, but he is arguably the most unethical, unlikable man in recent times. You don’t see people running up to Karl Rove congratulating him on his accomplishments of practically stripping the United States citizens of their natural born rights due to his political clout placing together the Patriot Bill.
Regardless of my examples, debate is meant to be educational. When people view it as a game, this begins to strip away at the fundamentals of debate, which ultimately affects the individuals and their quality of life in the activity. When people view debate as a game, they want to run K’s to win debates, talk as fast as they can so people cannot interpret their arguments, just for the win. If this really is where debate is heading, it’s not looking too good for educational value of the activity.
I appreciate the those who are in the activity doing their best to ensure debate doesn’t become a game.
If debate is all about education, I’m sure one of you wouldn’t mind posting/emailing a synopsis of what the big affs/negative strategies are at this point in the year. I go to a school that hasn’t been to a tournament yet and has little resources and I have no clue what is going on other than from seeing what was produced by the camps. Please don’t refer me to the case list again, that is a joke of a production. It seems like much of the community likes to hide from each other, unlike the NDT/CEDA case list that is as accurate w/ cites as you can imagine.
Any information would be appreciated. The more information available concerning what is going on at the major tournaments, the better debates we will all have.
BTW, as soon as I’m finalized with my major arguments (this weekend), I will be posting them on the case list.
Debate by itself is for education and critical thinking, etc etc. Intercollegiate debate is a game. This is why there are rules, a governing body and a national championship.
@Shantal: I don’t know on what circuit you compete, but that’s a pretty dismal view of a generally nice community. Sorry you feel that way.
Shantal, you are quick to make conclusions about things you don’t seem to have a lot of experience with. I.E., your rash conclusions about the value of critical arguments and your conclusion that “spreading” is only about speaking so fast that others don’t understand you.
More often than not, the top debaters compete against the top debaters and both sides can clearly understand each other, including the judge. It enables much more to be discussed in the limited time allowed. Sure, some mediocre debaters will try to spread against equally mediocre opponents because it confuses the other side, but at the upper levels of debate, it allows more in-depth discussion. Slower teams develop strategies to counteract faster teams. The education is two-fold: more in-depth debates about the topic, etc. and more critical education in terms of making argumentative and strategic decisions.
I’ve seen plenty of “slow” debates that consist of undeveloped solvency and adv./disad discussions w/ poor, under-highlighted evidence. On the other hand, there are plenty of slower debaters that compromise by having unbelievable word economy and argumentative efficiency.
Shantal, the way you completely dismiss critical arguments as frivolous, meaningless attempts at winning a ballot contradicts the spirit of your post. Does that mean every time you run a disad/cp on the negative that you might not personally agree with, you are engaging in meaningless debate for the sake of the ballot?
With all this talk about education, who is to be educated? It is it laypeople who come in to the round, or is it the debaters and the critics participating in the activity?
Because the way that the activity continues to be educational for skilled debaters is by getting more difficult, and speed increases the difficulty level significantly.
Take the round that Nick spelled out in Round 2. I ran a somewhat tame LOC strategy, 3 off and case. I did so at a reasonably quick clip, but certainly I wasn’t using spread delivery. Nick describes his 1AR as a difficult speech.
Would it be more educational for Nick if I were to have run 2 off instead of three? If he were to have more time to think about arguments, if he were under less pressure to respond quickly and efficiently? Clearly not. The faster, more in-depth, and more nuanced my speech, the harder Nick has to work in order to win the debate, and the more he learns in the process.
Debate should be hard. It’s what makes it worthwhile.
Will – what you’re describing is not an increase in education, it’s an increase in critical thinking skills. Yes, harder debate makes for better critical thinking. That’s part of the reason why I prefer faster debates. But it’s not necessarily increased education: see my post below.
Obviously the main reason why that debate was hard was because I was (relatively) unprepared to answer those two procedural arguments; next time I will be fully prepared to answer them. And then it will be equally hard for you to win as well on those arguments, thus further increasing in-round critical thinking.
Also, if anyone tries to attempt to convince me that I will somehow be magically educated on a certain aspect of transportation infrastructure after barely 30 minutes of verbal arguments, I will laugh out loud. Go ahead, try me.
Let me be brutally honest – education occurs outside the round when you spend hours in front of your computer screen or in the library doing research.
You acquire education on the topic by reading the literature, cutting an affirmative, and preparing specific on-case strategies to negative cases before tournaments. In doing this you cover a substantially larger depth and breadth of material than you would be even potentially capable of going over in an actual debate round.
What we do in debate rounds is we *debate*. It is a game and the object is to win. We strategize and make correspondingly strategic arguments. Personally, I am a very fast and technical debater because that is what my style entails. But I don’t need to resort to cheap tricks to win, I just happen to make more quality arguments than my opponents do.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I’ll bump my original off topic question once again. Would anyone be able to provide a quick list of the major aff/negative strategies being run this year? I’m not asking for handouts, but as I said before, the case list this community has is embarrassing. If we are trying to invite smaller programs into the activity in reaction to NDT/CEDA, why is it that everyone is so secretive?
Scouting is a necessary tool for pre-tournament preparation, and it seems like those with “connections” or “bigger programs” are more favored in this aspect than they are in NDT/CEDA.
Part of the reason this site exists is to encourage new schools to participate. I would check out the evidence sets that have been released – a lot of debates I have seen are still relying on camp evidence so that should give you an idea. Some debaters as well are still doing the camp plans but have rewritten some of the other parts of the case.
So far I’ve judged: treating ballast water, high speed rail, retrofit midwest bridges, coordinate evacuation routes, stop cell use while driving. I’ve also heard about cases which deal with native american infrastructure, scanning cargo ships, a ferry case. There is the STA Act case that is posted here under the evidence. People were talking about running bike lanes, hybrid cars/plugins, privatize (?) FAA controllers, privatize amtrak, toll roads – that’s all I can think of right now.
If you had generic neg against those you would probably be ready for your first tournament. I also think the post Mike put up regarding Phil’s observation should make negative prep much easier.
Nick says:
Also, if anyone tries to attempt to convince me that I will somehow be magically educated on a certain aspect of transportation infrastructure after barely 30 minutes of verbal arguments, I will laugh out loud. Go ahead, try me.
OK – the affirmative runs a case you have never heard about before. There ya go =) But “content” is not exactly what I was referencing in my original post anyway. I mentioned, repeatedly, the three skills of critical thinking, public speaking, and argumentation. Those three things can be learned during a 30-45 minute debate round.
Great discussion throughout the comments – I’ll respond more later but want to digest all of your thoughtful comments.
Ok Ill be honest and I havnt read the thread. But Ill gvie my take on this issue. Im just tired.
My opinion is debate is what debaters make it. Some say that its a competition between two speech acts. Some may say that it is chess match. Whatever they case may be. It ought not to be up to a judge to dictate what “debate” is.
I feel that debate as a game can be inclusive to competition if the debaters so choose. Debate allows us engage in strategic discussion. If someone wants to impact turn why war with china is a good thing. Then its up to that other debater to beat him the arguments why it is not. If a debater wants to say untopical plans are a good thing because its abusive and it teachers the other debater about how to live in the real world, then that debater should be able to beat him on the arguments, OR concede abuse is a good thing and go for completely new args in the rebuttal (hahahah). Debate is a beautiful engagement of rhetoric. Debaters may choose to simply persuade based on basic syllogisms, or not. More, quality arguments on whatever should be debated about should be debated about. (I cant stress that enough, I hate spreading as much as anyone). Who are we to dictate what debate is or isnt? Why should we ever limit debate to such a simple mindset? To do so is to ignore all the possible benefits. Debate should be evaluated based on how the debaters choose to provide a criterion for the round. If you dont like it, you better provide more quality arguments to why the criterion is bad and the alternative is better. otherwise the judge would be simply intervening.
What im trying to say is, this mindset of of “debate is like this and only this” is ridiculous. It perpetuates the mindset of closed mindedness, it stifles creativity, and limits the activity to people with only similar mindsets and excludes debaters who dont.
I dont debate for trophies, I debate because its fun. I debate because its the greatest competition there is. The engagement of logic is game of the highest level (not spreading). And just because one person thinks debate should be one way , shouldnt be a reason I cant debate the way I want to. Is it impossible to improve public speaking, persuasiveness, critical thinking, and engage in a game all at the same time? I find the top debaters in the country can do this. And its something we should all strive for. Game or no game. I feel that it is all our responsibility as debaters, critics, and coaches to come to this understanding. We must be opened minded. Or I fear there could be a true collapse of the activity.
After reading this whole sad post, I must say you all sound very grumpy and unhappy 
Really people, who cares? Whether you call debate a game or education, it is quite obviously a little of both. I echo Travis in that it fun and has it’s strategic, gamelike aspects. However it is also an avenue for me to hone my speaking, critical thinking, and argumentative skills.
That aside, call it what you want! It is an issue of such little importance I am surprised you all wasted your time on this silly discussion.
Case lists for this topic are difficult because very few abide by a reasonably limiting interpretation of the topic. As you can see from Danny’s list, people would like to consider everything from cell phone usage to evacuation routes–and everything in between.
So, if you’re a small school, I would cut some solid T files, but also have a strong generic on-case strat for those judges who think T is worse for LD than arbitrary limits on aff case selection.
As I have said debate is a game, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t also educational, fun, and encourage critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with looking at it this way, it makes it easier to step back after a bad beat and say, “it’s just a game don’t worry about it.” This is good for teamwork, respect, and keeping your cool (all kind of the same). If what we do in the game is morally/educationally bankrupt we might as well not even play…
I think that the education happens in the research and the critical thinking happens in the round. Two different forms of education that are equally important. The slower speed of ld with an emphasis on speaking style and the shitty time skew/constraints makes critical thinking even more important.
Danny, if you think someone can’t inform you on transportation infrastructure you haven’t seen my aff then 
I have a friend that goes to school out East, he told me that people are running the space elevator aff, WKY was running lift the Mexico trucker boycott, I have been jumping up and down for weeks about how I am running fix 1st world nation’s roads (IRR), someone was running the old school destroy the salmon dams parli case (ask your coaches they should know about it), I ran a space case and I know someone else is running one now, and then check the wikispaces for the rest (its not as bad as you make it seem).
After Fall Champs I am going to post, with cites (not cut cards), some of my aff stuff. I am waiting until then because I plan to change a lot of it (just a heads up to all of you I love!) by then so it won’t do any good to see cites I wont ever use again.
why is debate being a game a bad thing? i think its been proven time and time again competition of some nature significantly improve quality, insert theory of the frim micro economic theory here . but to further prove the point education is emblematic of the game lets take a look at college courses. many courses in business schools employ computerized “games” as a way of teaching concepts and providing a simulated real world experience. now granted i dont think any of us will talk at these speeds in the real world, but thats not the point. the debate round in a vaccum allows you to develop argumentation skills, critical thinking, i would contend that is a form of education. Out of the vacuum the research for the round, the community it self, and probably the most educational tool you get from debate the ballot become the mechanisms that these rounds actual education are processed and refined for use in the next round. the game gives you a frame work to examine different forms of education its your job afterwords to interpret and learn. its like class in college, education is going on but wither or not learning occurs is a different question.
Thanks Danny and Brandon for your help.
I had a few more questions if anyone would like to share.
1. What are the big generic negative strats out there? I could only assume that politics, lopez/states cp,federalism, econ disads are big. Are there any more topic-specific disads or region-specific disads that are common on the circuit? Any unique CPs or generic PICs being run?
2. Any common kritiks being run by the more successful teams?
3. Has any community consensus formed on some of the limits of this resolution? What are the most common negative T violations?
Thanks
tix, states/xo, fism, etc, of course. i’ve heard of a lot of fism being run, but have never hit one. a lot of the plans aren’t topical enough to permit states CPs, though.
not likely to get a lot of traction on the K debate in LD. i’d have one handy if the judge is conducive, but don’t put too much sweat into it.
i believe transpo infrastructure should be limited to physical infrastructure, and reform != just improve, but that’s me.
DA: I saw some environmental DAs at PCC last weekend to add to the list
K: I won’t out a certain someone from running the same K 2 years in a row but you know who you are! Also, the best K’s that link are Cap bad (there are some states competition links in most generic cap bads). I also ran anthro aff and neg a bit but probably wont anymore.
T: Brandon and I share similar interps of the T debate from what I gather
Thanks,
So other than XO, States/LOPEZ, we aren’t really seeing any interesting domestic agency CPs? That’s unfortunate.
Has anyone heard anything interesting from the more successful teams? Teams that might have diven a little deeper into the topic and read unique disads?
Does anyone have an idea what schools will be at UOP next weekend? I’m trying to figure out what affs will be out there.
It seems like this topic is really disappointing due to its explosion. Are judges that afraid of voting on T?
My 4 cents (or “for sense”)
1. “A priori” (to coin a phrase) – nobody should be involved in debate unless he/she is having fun. Debate is -first and foremost – an extracurricular activity in which (alas) there is no “going pro.” So it should be enjoyed.
2. “Fun” can only be properly defined by each individual. But the more the merrier. My problem is that the audience -especially the well-educated laity (“lat judges”) – has been severely restricted or outright excluded from the enjoyment.
3. Debate should be “educational” – for both the debaters AND THE WIDEST POSSIBLE AUDIENCE. To me, this requires meaningful acedemic research and contrasting ideas, as well as drafting meaningful initiatives (plans).
(Is Parli Debate “educational?” I save that issue for another time and place.)
4. It may not be en vogue, but there is nothing WRONG with debating in complete sentences, fully citing evidence,
and making argument which aren’t patently absurd. However, people who try to debate this way are outcasts.
Conversely, what is the educational value of learning to communicate in a mode which is isolated and obsolete the instant you graduate?
1. Many that participate in technical or fast debate find it more fun. It involves different types of training, is quicker-paced (duh), forces one to think quickly, allocate time well, choose arguments wisely, have more breadth and depth in argumentation, etc.
2. Critical thinking skills/mental processes. Sure, you don’t engage in technical or fast debate once you graduate, but there is plenty of educational value that stems from that type of debate that carries with you. It is very difficult and it demands lots of practice and attention to detail–qualities valuable long after graduation. It speeds up critical thinking skills and trains one’s ability to process a lot of medium quickly. There are studies that show this.
3.Topical education. Often times, the development of positions in the debate is far more advanced in technical/fast debates. From what I’ve seen in NFA-LD, slower doesn’t always mean more topically-relevant or better less breadth/more depth. Evidence quality and the depth and extent of research is often poor.
For all that is said about how technical/fast debate has no regard for the topic or a quality argument, I think that is a blanket statement that is not necessarily warranted. I’ve seen plenty of high-quality, well-developed positions in those types of rounds. Many of these debaters spend more time diving into the literature and their knowledge level is leaps and bounds beyond the casual debater.
4. Strategic thinking–longer, more nuanced positions often increase the amount of strategic preparation necessary to win a debate. Understanding what issues one needs to win, what issues one doesn’t need to win, where to allocate time, how anticipate and preempt arguments are all valuable exercises.
5. The assumption that fast debates have more “blip” arguments is a myth. Maybe mediocre debaters who need to refine their skills or slow down–or are using speed to compensate for something else–but slow debates have an equal amount of the same. I’ve seen so many unwarranted arguments that rely on “general knowledge” and have no concept of offense/defense and make no attempt to understand their opponent’s position. There are plenty of ways to make good, offensive arguments using “common knowledge” or your own case, but you have to be willing to spend time understanding the other side’s position!
Debate is a game, and I have always seen it as such. In high school, I got into debate because it looked like a fun game all friends were playing. I kept doing debate because it is a fun game. I don’t see why it should be anything more than that, and especially if giving it any more meaning would take away all the fun strategy things. I enjoy those things, I think they are the best part of debate, and a game mentality allows me to do that. Honestly, I found it really quite confusing when I got to college, and people stated saying thing like debate is more than a game or that it is really an educational activity or some other justification for other than a fun thing we all do on weekends.