Just because the format is no longer aesthetically pleasing to you doesn't mean that debate is any less intellectual. In fact, now, debate incorporates more elements of critical thinking and analysis than what was in the previous format. If the only thing you used to respect about debate is the fact that the participants can talk puuuuuuurdy, that probably hints to a deeper problem
If you think there's not enough analysis in speed debate you're wrong and evidently haven't seen enough of it. High level speed debate has PLENTY of analysis, especially in the last speeches.
Yet you form your opinion by watching a ten minute video on the subject. You know nothing about actually debating. It's because of people like you that it's for the love of the argument.
loyola marymount had pbr and pitchers?? thats pretty clutch, even if they are complete tools. but anyways, this video was awesome; good highlight of both kansas and college policy debate in general
Find yourself an auctioneer with Emphysema and I'm sure you'll blow the competition out of the water. 4:10 That's from the amphetamines, not passion. Dial it back or all that argument-love-induced jaw clenching will take its toll on your teeth.
The whole "spreading" technique is some kind of absurd farce. The notion that any sort of debate or intellectual process at all can abide the jabbering gibberish of this annoying cacophony is a joke. If anything, this nonsense guides the debater towards the chanting jabber of hip-hop. And what's the point in the first place? As though a barrage of blathering--which is largely unintelligible--will somehow persuade or provide more support for their argument? It's an insult.
I understand perfectly well the idea of packing in as much information as possible to support one's argument. There's nothing complex about the basic idea of "spreading.". But what seems lost upon its use is the sheer absurdity of turning what should be an intellectual display of logic and reason into a jabber session of hyper ventilated gibberish. Are we to assume that some judge of the debate is actually taking note of just how many supporting points are contained within the fire hose bloviating? Are you kidding? It's a total farce, and of course no actual subject can be discussed or debated at all in this mockery of actual debate.
Communications are not as important as the validity or quantity of the argument. Id rather have 8 off case positions on the table than 3 that sound pretty.
