Competitive Debate

Submitted by fire with fire on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 11:57am

In my junior and senior years of high school and all through my college years, I participated in competitive debate. It was a very strange exercise. As a contest, there is one winning side and one losing side -- the classic zero-sum game. There are two debaters per team, each participant speaks twice in the individual debate. The topic debated is the same in every contest for the academic year.

"Resolved, that the Federal Government should do X." The affirmative side goes first and last in the two speeches allotted, called Constructive Speeches and Rebuttals. There are tight time limits for each speech. This is the key factor in how academic debate played out.

The strategy becomes to make so many points that your opponents cannot reply to all of them. Believe it or don't, this was officially recognized as correct strategy -- called the "spread."

Debaters talked like auctioneers, practically incomprehensible to normal human beings. But the logic of "the spread" was impeccable. If you fail to say something at all about the Affirmative Side's Contention 13, you lose the point.

This formalism always annoyed me, even as my debate partner mastered the art of talking a mile a minute and he made sure we never dropped a point and we had some success in college winning first place in one statewide tournament and third in another national level tournament.

Even with trophies in hand, the whole business offended me as a hippie era baby boomer. If you don't prove that shit stinks, then for that one hour of time, shit does not stink.

This kind of formalism shows up on message boards quite often, as earnest advocates of particular points of view try to apply this zero-sum game logic to internet discussion. "Since you did not cover this point, you lose and my take is therefore true."

Good luck with that.

Tags:

Debate

Vote

Comments

Submitted by studentofearth on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 12:34pm

Little twist

The contests I participated were parliamentary type of debates and included a mastery of Roberts Rules of Order.

A strong argument for a popular worthy cause could be completely stalled with effective control of parliamentary procedures, while appearing to be supportive of the position. Practiced grid-lock.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by fire with fire on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 1:30pm

So many ways

@studentofearth to game any system on earth.

Interesting point about Parliamentary Procedure. In my day, there was an occasional event called "discussion." I only competed in it once, but it was even more absurd than auctioneer style debate.
The "judge" of the event had virtually no framework to base the decision on who is the First Place Discusser or the last place. So it looked to this high school smarty pants like he was just picking whom he agreed with politically to be the winner.

—

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

Submitted by MrWebster on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 1:34pm

Debating cops can be harmful. Dont do it, sorta.

A lesson in classical rhetoric I suppose. I have over the years seen may videos of cop/civilian interactions. For whatever reason people who have interactions with cops will start debating them. In some cases justified if the detained person knows the actual laws for the situation and quick on their feet verbally.

But mostly one will never win with cops because cops can legally lie, and even the most ignorant cop can make up fictitious laws and facts which throw people for a loop. Saw one clip of a traffic stop where after id, insurance, etc. cop started fishing and guy invoked 5th amendment. Cop said it was against the law not to answer questions--they can only remain silent after being arrested. Cops are making up laws all the time. The rhetorical technique here is to shut up and know your rights.

On the political side, after watching Ben Shapiro he actually relies on made up propositions which have no basis in fact. Unless strictly moderated, I don't watch political debates or panel discussions for the most part. I will however watch anything from Glenn Greenwald as he is master debater in the true sense as he seeks to find the others position and not strawman it. He is great at teasing out and understanding the implicit claims and assumptions when in particular people attack him.

One item of debate which does not seem to exist, is understanding other side's position. No need, Ad hominem is the rhetorical technique of the day. I once had a dictionary of latin names for all the rhetorical flourished one has at their disposal. Great dictionary but lost it. Put together I am sure by Medieval monks who studied rhetoric and all its uses and variations. If I were to engage in public debates I would memorize every technique and be ready for them.

Here is a clip about a team that won a debating contest....understand now why they won if a debate is about making as many points as possible.

Submitted by fire with fire on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 2:18pm

Interesting post

@MrWebster Gotta brag about an incident in the iconic year of 1984:

My job at the time was General Counsel of UFCW Local 540, based in Dallas. I was running a major strike against Safeway as that employer was trying to force us to roll back wages all cross the state, in keeping with the national collapse of union wages then sweeping the nation. We used our time-honored guerilla style union tactics. We put picket lines only in front of only a few stores at a time, asking for our meat department members to walk out in the middle of the day, disrupting the hell out of the store's operations for the rest of the day. About two months into our hit and run strike on a Saturday, I was leading a picket line crew to hit a half dozen stores in Fort Worth.

There was a hassle at one store where a member did not understand the program. The legal right for union visitation of job sites was in effect and I went into the store to talk with our member.
This pissed off the store manager who told me to leave. I told him about my legal responsibility to represent my members, but he was not interested in what I had to say and he walked away and he came back with a Ft. Worth PD officer in plain clothes who told me to leave the store or he would take me to jail.

I said, "I have no doubt that you will do that. But the store manager here needs to understand my legal right to talk with the union members here." Then I turned to the store manager and said, "Before you send me to jail, you need to call your corporate office to see if you are supposed to put me in jail."

The cop started to say something, but I cut him off just like Jim Rockford. "I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to him."

My union colleagues watching this drama all looked like they were about to shit their pants, but the store manager took off for his office to make the call. A few minutes later, he came back to tell Officer Friendly to forget about it.

We won the strike and nobody took a pay cut that contract cycle.

Not a debate with the pig, but I love to tell this bear-baiting story, one of the very few happy endings during those Reagan years.

—

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

Submitted by MrWebster on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 2:46pm

Now there is a winning debate.

@fire with fire Good job standing up to cop's threat...made both realize more hassle to arrest you than leave you peace.

#2 Gotta brag about an incident in the iconic year of 1984: My job at the time was General Counsel of UFCW Local 540, based in Dallas. I was running a major strike against Safeway as that employer was trying to force us to roll back wages all cross the state, in keeping with the national collapse of union wages then sweeping the nation. We used our time-honored guerilla style union tactics. We put picket lines only in front of only a few stores at a time, asking for our meat department members to walk out in the middle of the day, disrupting the hell out of the store's operations for the rest of the day. About two months into our hit and run strike on a Saturday, I was leading a picket line crew to hit a half dozen stores in Fort Worth. There was a hassle at one store where a member did not understand the program. The legal right for union visitation of job sites was in effect and I went into the store to talk with our member. This pissed off the store manager who told me to leave. I told him about my legal responsibility to represent my members, but he was not interested in what I had to say and he walked away and he came back with a Ft. Worth PD officer in plain clothes who told me to leave the store or he would take me to jail. I said, "I have no doubt that you will do that. But the store manager here needs to understand my legal right to talk with the union members here." Then I turned to the store manager and said, "Before you send me to jail, you need to call your corporate office to see if you are supposed to put me in jail." The cop started to say something, but I cut him off just like Jim Rockford. "I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to him." My union colleagues watching this drama all looked like they were about to shit their pants, but the store manager took off for his office to make the call. A few minutes later, he came back to tell Officer Friendly to forget about it. We won the strike and nobody took a pay cut that contract cycle. Not a debate with the pig, but I love to tell this bear-baiting story, one of the very few happy endings during those Reagan years.

Submitted by on the cusp on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 2:47pm

A cop pullued over an old man

who was driving an atv on the hwy and it is only legal to drove along the hwy. I saw it, pulled over, walked up on the scene and told the cop i would be representing the old man if there was a proble. The cop was going to write him a ticket, and I told the cop he must be new in town, and wasn't very observant. The old man was born with birth defects, could not stand or walk. He drove on the side of the road every day it was dry, but when it was muddy, like on that day, he could flip over and get killed.Cop, are you forgetting the defense of necessity? Were you absent from academy classes when that was taught?
He apologized. Later, he hired me to do some deed work for him. The old man died last year. I had prepared his will, was hired by his family to probate it. They said he told that story to everyone until he died.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by MrWebster on Wed, 05/14/2025 - 3:32pm

Great fun those clips when cops suddenly face a lawyer.

@on the cusp When aggressive cops confront somebody who asserts their rights, angry cops always ask "what law school did you go to?" (or in Alabama cops call it lawyering school) Still trying to figure out how to respond if ever asked. Probably say nothing to discourage any verbal sparring. I think lawyers have some bar card?

There is a channel content creator on Youtube called Lackluster who started showing cop/police interactions after he was threatened with arrest while on his front porch for recording some cops the next door. I think what burned him was that he served overseas in Iraq as a military medic and was not appreciating being threatened with jail.

He with others has created a mobile app called Attorney-Shield. For a monthly free, you can call up a lawyer on duty on your cell phone and get instant representation. Soi far have seen mostly used at traffic stops. Surprises the cops for sure--most not sure how to act/interact. If interested link is at:

attorney-shield.com