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!

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?

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.