the aff is painfully slow to the point where he's at a large disadvantage during the first cx. he clearly has a good grasp of framework debate and has excellent vocal control but frankly his speech is monotonous and stale.
oceanofhorses, I disagree, as he fulfilled all of the criteria necessary for a a good presentation. It is not necessary to be emotional when speaking, he spoke slowly and comprehensively as well as defended himself very nicely
You fail to explain why monotonous speech is negative. Monotonous speech is used to emphasize logic: Presidential speech and such are not monotonous as emotion is a major factor; in a standard debate, however, monotonous speech is a viable option.
+Mrbloodydischarge I don't suppose I'd ever want to be a part of this freak show. They lack the most important skills to debate, which are effective communication and logic.
As a BP debater I dislike the way arguments are made, meaning that the depth of argumentation is more shallow than we are used to in BP (or at least Euros). Given that, I found these speeches fairly good.
Affirmative had a very calm, collected feel during the round. I enjoyed listening to his voice and his points. I try to style my speaking after people like him.
+Ryan Thurston I actually like the negative. He is really energetic. This gets attention from the judges and makes it feel like he is constantly "on to something" if you will.
+Dart Slinger technically it shouldn't, but as my debate coach said once: if you sound really convincing, the judge will be like "oh, this kid looks like he knows what he's talking about" and be biased towards you for the rest of the round. Tone of voice is very important
I competed in high school and college speech and debate. Debate is still oriented on speaking. The negative is a poor speaker. You can literally hear him inhale. You can be a faster and more passionate speaker without hyperventilating. I shouldn't be able to hear you gasp for breath as a judge.
While the affirmative may have been a bit more calm and collected, the negative seemed to care more about the side he was arguing. He spoke much more enthusiastically and I Beleive that led him largely to the victory
+Nathan Roper I agree with you completely that passion from a speaker is in reality a large part of convincing an audience. Ideally, though, should this be? Should not logic triumph over passion?
Smart of neg to restate his case during Aff’s cross-ex, good way to lessen the attack done by affirmative; gotta give it to him for that strategy, man 😂👏🏼
The second kid didn't actually have a strong argument, at least not stronger than the first one. He just spoke faster and more confidently. The question was concerned with the *justice* of a DNA system. The first kid proved that it was unjust, and the second kid simply changed the definition of justice to fit his narrative. The first kid would make a good professor, the second one would make a good politician.
Actually what the second kid did is an important part of debate called spreading. It is not so much about the morality or correctness of the case but rather, how convincing the argument is, making the negative case stronger and better defended.
@@reflectmusic6746 If you've seen Policy or even some PFers debate, you'd see real spreading. The second guy is just naturally speaking as fast as his thoughts come.
in my opinion speaking style should have nothing to do with who wins a debate, and it should all come down to the arguments made. that being said, this was a pretty easy aff ballot. aff has a better hold on justice and more clearly addresses the resolution while also showing why the neg doesnt uphold his burden as effectively. neg makes good arguments for the benefits of such a data base but benefits =/= justice.
@@bensmith2234 doesn't that give the wrong picture of debate to kids though? In a serious debate content and good arguments should ALWAYS win over finesse in speech. The philosophy behind the entire concept of debating is educating yourself by being confronted with other views, and that includes leaving your own view behind and giving in to opposing arguments, if they are better than yours. Not defending your standpoint for the sake of winning, even if you realise that the other person might be right
@@bensmith2234 It should just be about the arguments and points that the people are debating and nothing more. Louder & Faster should never equal better. The same should apply to the opposite.
COME ON AFF! All you've got to do is deal with the issue on the Neg's level! Neg core argument is "We can't strive for perfect- we need to strive for practical". All Aff has to say is that having the DNA information of all individuals allows for more discrimination based off of the impracticality of the government keeping that information protected and not using it for other things. Those with medical conditions could be charged more, or mild psychiatric disorders could be discriminated against in the workplace because employers may gain access to that information. And if Neg argues the impracticality of that scenario, just bring up the Wiki-leaks. BAM! CASE CLOSED. Aff would just beat Neg in his own court. Aff wins on Neg's discrimination and practical justice claims.
It would work if you phrased it as a counter-argument of Neg's case. Taking Neg's case to it's natural conclusion is a perfectly acceptable way to argue. The most beautiful part about LD is the ability of the debators to slightly wander from their prepared information and use convincing moral reasoning in the unforseen areas that a clash between an infinite number of cases will naturally produce. That's the beauty of LD. That's the beauty of debate. It's an essential part of it. Neg won because he was able to do that.
Do you even know how debate works, its not about which side is inherently right or wrong, but about who did a better job defending it. You’re wasting your time trying to determine who should’ve won based on your own logic, morals, and opinions. It’s just not how this works
By ur logic, you’d actually be giving the Neg more ammo. He could come back and say, look! My opponent has highlighted the inevitable nature of DNA through the use of genealogy banks. Where some distant relative may already volunteered your familial DNA…without consent! It’s a new world and we need to come up with new rules.
I think the main reason the negative won this debate is because he did much better in the cross. While the affirmative may have done better in his first speech, the negative was better at posing and answering questions in the cross, and handling the pressure.
When I first watched this as a novice LD debater, I was outraged that the neg won because I thought the aff was so concise and great. Now, two years later, it's clear to me that the neg won by a long shot. Pretty entertaining to me.
@timroth i agree man as a former lder all that shit sucks and that is what drove me out of the event but that is unfortunately what largely dominates ld these days
The neg sounds more like policy than morality. The aff won moral wise. When he attacks the neg all he says is the opponent isnt debating the resolution, not a good argument. The neg gave a more practical real-world view, and was a better speaker as in not borring wise. I could see either side winning
I don't think there should be a 9-2 vote for neg. This debate wasn't outright 1-sided. While neg may have more speaks, aft had some pretty good arguments, especially the argument against neg's support, which was justice for 1 person falls to injustice of everyone.
Guy 1: I’m gonna speak clear so that the judges can understand me and so that I remain calm and do not slip up. Guy 2: What do mean we aren’t allowed to spread??
good round, neg just a bit more agressive doesn’t mean he should have won though, aff was very analytic and explained well. if he didn’t spend so much time in the rebuttles talking about the topicality (neg logic was a bit off) and would have just attacked his arguments, aff would have won. the round should have not been a 9-2 though. The aff did insanely good on framework but overall the debate goes neg but don’t agree with a 9-2.
9-2 means that 9 people thought he won the round and 2 didn't. It dosent say how much they thought he won by, it could be a very narrow or big victory in their eyes those 9 wins could think the same as you and think they won the round by a little bit.
I cant remember who said it, but theres a quote that says humans are not just a number. Whether its 1 person murdered or a whole genocide, no one life is greater than the other. Therefore, no one civil liberty is more significant than any others. Great debate, the opposition should have been better for Ben. this is a national debate not a debunk bully assertion
Negative's logic is kinda weird. His only justification is that "we do X with Y, therefore we can always do X". Like he doesn't give u any specific analysis.
Basic Summary: Affirmative speaker had a slow, clearer delivery with an arguably better case, but got caught up in the Negative's own delivery, which was quick, logical on face, and appealed a lot more to the judges. Which I think explains the vote.
Both sides had their strong points. The affirmative had morality in his claim and warrant, which is, in my opinion, more important than policy. However, he was extremely boring and, sorry, but I found it very hard to listen to him. I wanted to yell, "LIGHTEN UP." The negative brought a more of a bigger picture point of you, along with the reality of the situation, which in some cases, will most always win the debate. He was also humorous and engaging, something I find very compelling, even if you are spitting out nonsense.
Dustin McLaughlin It's clear that he was the superior debater. He more thoroughly refuted everything about the aff while remaining poised. He was the clear winner
***** Truth, I said this before I joined my school's debate team, and since then I too have learned what you are talking about above. I totally understand now.
I show this debate to my students to serve as an example when we do a modified LD debate assignment, and I take extra care to point out three factors in the judges decision for the NEG: 1. The AFF remains too rigidly committed to specific points regarding the resolution without providing enough concrete evidence as to why his argument is more solid than the NEG. 2. The AFF employs a number of logical fallacies, primarily begging the question and the false cause fallacy, all without providing concrete evidence (or at least as strong of evidence as the NEG brings to the table). 3. Any form of debate, whether focussed on questions of facts, values, or policies, is not always about who made the objectively better arguments, but about how arguments are defended or seen in comparison to their opponents arguments. Think about a court of law: you don't always have to prove that a client is innocent or guilty, because in many cases, sowing a seed of doubt is enough to acquit or convict for a jury. This is where the use of evidence by the NEG, as well as the confidence that he displayed, really gave him a significant boost. He didn't need to proved that he was objectively better; he just needed to demonstrate his strength compared to his opponent. Examples of this from the debate include his flexibility within his rebuttals, his ability to answer questions during the CX, and his opponents inability to either answer or outright shut down possibly irrelevant questions in the first CX.
Both these guys are very good debaters. Neg suffers from Nixon syndrome. Nixon had a debate with JFK, in which case Nixon made very good points, but calm handsome JFK blew him out of the water simply because he was more composed. Neg just needs to relax a bit.
This is very late and I know almost no one in the comments is an actual debater, but if you are in debate and understand LD and the flow, neg one by FAR! Aff flowed through ink on literally everything and was pretty nonresponsive, did poorly in cross although that doesn’t matter, neg was just winning everything
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the NEG position providing some form of implementation as solvency? So wouldn't that be discarded as policy because this is within the parameters of LD Debate?
Affirmative should have won easily, he spoke logically and realistically, while the negative won simply because he made some jokes and was the most offensive
I totally agree with you. Given the resolution, Affirmative easily proved a compulsory DNA database would be unjust (even if the alternative is equally or even more unjust). However, from a real-world analysis, I do believe the negative proved that his side was overall the better option.
I do Public Forum most of the time, but I have done Lincoln Douglas before, and am doing it in a few weeks. I really find it hard to be Neg in LD, because the timing is so different of that of PF, and AFF is so much more similar. Any advice on how to get used to the Neg layout?
As a past Public Forum Debater and current Lincoln-Douglas Debater, I assure you that as you gain experience you will begin to enjoy the negative set up far more. In PF you get 4 minutes to actually attack your opponents case, in LD you get 4 minutes to attack your opponents AND defend your own. The negative, however, gets around 3-4 (dependent on length of constructive) minutes to attack. The negative, in my opinion, has a clear advantage in terms of the settings of the round.
Well, I just went to the tournament this weekend, and I did pretty badly. I went 2-4, lol. Sure, it was a national tournament, and everyone in my school got the same score, but I really hope I get to improve before the next tournament, which is on the 30th for me. I did notice that negative was a lot easier this time, although I didn't win a round as negative. Hopefully I will succeed in negative next time! :D
+FlurryFunk Most of it is in the case and the morality/philosophy. LD is a value debate so without a sound value structure you will lose. This is part of whats wrong with LD today, there are too many statistics and the Value structure is something that gets overlooked. Also while aff may seem like it has an advantage because it gets the first and last speech, this is not really true, as they cant rebut any statements said in the 2nr, nor can they bring up any new points during voting issues
Lol it's okay I ended up going to back to PF anyway. No I can go back to not having a soul and saying that lives are irrelevant, and that money is all that matters. :D
Negative won because the affirmative did not make the best arguments and included bad arguments. He never actually mentioned possible practical concerns that arise out of the government having access to DNA. That would have killed and silenced the negative completely.
i disagree the neg had a bigger and more well-constructed argument. Try coming into the round with no personal basis then you'll see why neg was so much better
Negative and Affirmative made interesting points, but Affirmative did not really defend his case. Affirmative pretty much, just attacked Negative's case throughout this round. Affirmative continued to repeat his attack over and over again, while Negative came in with different approaches. Although this point doesn't really matter, I will state it anyways, Affirmative was very boring in his speech. He did not really catch the judges attention, while Negative had humor in his case. It was a no brainer, that Negative won, he got the judges attention, he attacked, and defended. Affirmative only did one of those things. I would have voted for Negative, if I was a judge, but what do I know? I am only twelve years old...
+David Deng aff is harder than neg because neg has one speech of 7 minutes and another of 6, whereas aff has a 6 minute constructive, and then speeches of 4 and 3 minutes to respond. so you have 7 total minutes of speaking to refute the opponent, whereas neg has as many as 13 minutes. its also harder to effectively give speeches as short as 3 and 4 minutes.
They are both, clearly, highly skilled individuals, but, with all respect, how the hell did the first guy make it to nationals. I could see middle school nats but high school?
He made it to nationals because the competition between states are states very different, such as, if you live in New York, the overall style of debate and or caliber of the debate could be drastically different from Indiana.
Trebula Yeah. In the South, where I am, LD is very heavily in moral arguments and presentation, like attacking the value and criterion and speech, but in the West, I've heard that it's much more like a policy style
The Negative side is aggressive, but I agree he did a great job (+1 on diction, +1 on humor, -1 for scaring me in the beginning) BUT the Affirmative has a pleasant way of debating and makes me happy:D
Neg won the big picture while aff was more polished and won the details. Overall, I'd probably vote neg. Aff had great rebuttals but I thought his case was weak. "Making people give dna violates human rights which is bad" is a simple and ineffective argument, the negative literally countered the whole case in his observations. Like he said, considering any minor infractions on human rights unjust is regressive and not operable in the real life.
There is a lot of controversy occurring between who should have won. However, I believe the negative was right to have won. First of all, he persuaded judges and audiences by seeming enthusiastic about the topic, while some other comments counter the negative as being "aggressive" and a "bully". He had the overall better points, better links, but he lacked on his cross-examination as he kept going on with the same question for 2 minutes and never addressed it later on.
Hey! I do Progressive LD, so if you want help, just follow me on Google Plus and I'll e-mail you some pointers. I'm sorry your debate coaches are no good!
I think the aff should win because the neg just said moving to a compulsory is an improvement but never said anything about whether the compulsory database is justifiable.
Deontology vs. Consequentialism!I loved the debate, but it seems to me that it's impossible to reach a satisfactory victory with the primary contention being such a vast field of philosophy.
Amazing job done there. Just like to point out that the affirmative man has some amazing Ethos Logos and Pathos. Very well done and a great example for the class I'm taking!
In the accusative, it's ethos, logo and pathos Ethos and pathos are neutral and end in -os, so the s stays Logos is masculine and ends in -os, so the s goes away
10:28: The negative asks if the government should sacrifice the rights of one person to save the entire population. This question is irrelevant - what the government should or should not do does not determine the injustice of a situation.
Neg kind of won the justice vs perfection argument pretty hard; according to the flow, a government's conception of justice is solving real world problems without getting entangled in an impossible pursuit of perfection. At this point, most judges would vote neg bc "just" basically became solving bigger injustices at the cost of smaller injustices, which the affirmative does not do.
Luffy Dragneel Yes do learn speech and debate, it is literally like a second home to me! Join your school team, or join an academy. I hope you have a good time~~!
In my personal experience. I learned how to debate because of games like Phoenix Wright. Basically a story about a lawyer defending his client's rights with profound arguments and evidence.
@@BachieCamaclang Pheonix wright breaks every law in the book, disrupts courts, and would have been disbarred many times over, but I get you. I enjoyed the trilogy haha.
aff. is clear and coherent. aff. uses facts and historic policy/human rights. neg. is in a lala land where injustices go away when everyone is included. neg. admits flaws and injustices in the current felon dna collection practice, but an expanded version will not be injust.... without explanation
aff. states DNA is left almost everywhere a person has been (not just blood, but this includes hair, skin cells, spit, finger-nails, and/or bubble-gum). this is a reality. considering a DNA data bank is not intended for LOTTERY winners or free trips to the moon, a DNA data bank is intended for incriminating review and evidence. the neg. is stating discriminating against a single person is only permitted when the discrimination is performed upon everyone in society, thus discriminating is no longer discriminating but "normal" this is simply a liberty vs security issue. all discrimination can be eliminated + all security issues can be eliminated, if the government treats everyone alike. "i tell you..." the neg states, the public will trust the state more if they have more this DNA tool at their disposal. but 1] there is no evidence, or historic examples providing reason why this should be held as true. 2] neg. drop the argument that a crime scene may be polluted with innocent DNA. 3] police departments inherently discriminate as other means, even as there is a felon DNA data bank. neg drops this argument. ============================= neg. is arguing a lala-land argument. "if" arguments. the strongest argument held is the discrimination argument. yet in his world, a discrimination-free world, would far more resemble a 1984/ matrix standard of living. aff. is arguing historical, current, and practical benefits. aff. is not defending injustice in police practices, he is defending the injustice of having everyone involuntary commit themselves to a judge, jury, and executioner state. where an individual's DNA is not a breach of your 5th amendment, where DNA is heavily relied upon. but i do see how/where this debate was won and lost. different points should/could have been emphasized
+Rohan Bha We agree that Neg use of poor logic and assumptions, won the round. you wrote: "Just because he had evidence doesn't necessarily make it true, there needs to be a sign of logic as well. For example, I could find some author saying that evolution is false, but that doesn't necessarily make it a true fact." I am glad we can agree on this, because as we see this to be true for "facts"; we can also see that this is true for "logic". just because believing logic is present, does not actually mean logic is present. premises must bind with links AND show use of reason all dogs have four legs a turtles have four legs therefore, turtles are dogs.
im aware Value requires Reason. i think we are all aware that our views are our opinions. im sure people will feel differently about this issue, and that is also okay. i just wanted to let you know i am also aware of that too. im okay with people's views/opinions. the main point is; Aff. is placing a higher Value on our guarantee liberty. "one in the hand is better two in the bush" vs; Neg. is placing a higher value on the promise of a judicial system that can deliver on justice and a non-discrimination. "two is better than one" for many, it sounds like a no brainer. however, for minorities of color/ poverty, a fair and unbiased judicial system is something non-minorities talk about. fairy-tales. to ask me to place my values in a system that demands my DNA to be held on file and ran every-time there is a crime: over a system that ENSURES me to live with more peace of mind and without fear of being prosecuted - is too much. Neg. states, DNA is not the only method used to solve a crime; there are other methods like eye witnesses, video... etc . which sounds a lot like: a DNA database isnt needed. a Felony DNA database is far enough. If anyone searches "The Central Park Five" they can see how unbias and how just our judicial system is for themselves. The Central Park Five is a true event story where NYC prosecuted five innocent boys for the rape and beating of a woman. No victim testimony, No DNA of the accused. Just five kids wrongfully accused and sentenced. a DNA database can only strengthen the prosecution's argument. it will not weaken prosecution's position; and it will not strengthen the defense's argument. and Neg. expects everyone to believe, after PLANTED DRUGS, PLANTED WEAPONS, FALSIFIED EVIDENCE, FALSIFIED POLICE TESTIMONY, WRONGFULLY ACCUSED, ACCIDENTAL SHOOT/KILLINGS, ACCIDENTAL PRISONER RELEASES, etc.. that my belief, a judicial system that can't even handle and control their own employees - can handle a DNA database on the US populous. ........what if it were my family: what if i was a victim of a violent crime: wouldn't you want the criminal found?! yes i would. in the video when Neg. began speaking he started asking: "would you hurt an innocent to save the entirety of society?" so how many innocent homes do we have to kick in; how many innocent men and women must be pulled over in public, yanked out their autos and brutality attacked -- so that i have my justice ? because the flaw in that "logic" is that we (society) violates only one individual to ensure everyone benefits. that that one individual is actually everyone. thus is really: we violate everyone to ensure everyone benefits. in a society where everyone's liberty is violated at will, without cause, etc... is not a society/system that upholds justice, non-discrimination, liberty, or practical order.
The presidential debates or mud slinging contests should be more like this debate between high school students. I wonder how well Trump would hold up against these guys!
