The Instigator
NatetheGreat365
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YYW
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Spreading has its place in Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,453 times Debate No: 43850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

NatetheGreat365

Pro

No sources need be cited unless you're using some statistics or foreign rhetoric for some reason (I don't see a need for either of those in this debate). To be honest, I'm just doing this because I need to have three debates to be allowed to vote--I love debating but before I start a really serious debate, I just want to get those three out of the way and I think this might be a fun debate for fellow capital-d Debaters. First round should just be acceptance; maybe say why you're interested in this topic. I'd like to keep it light and friendly; just a good discussion piece between us Debaters.
YYW

Con

LOL.... I'll take this one.

I took this debate for the same reason that anyone ought to instigate or accept any debate... it's an interesting topic.

In any event, welcome to DDO, PRO.

Make your case, below.

Peace and Love,

YYW
Debate Round No. 1
NatetheGreat365

Pro

NatetheGreat365 forfeited this round.
YYW

Con

So it is that my opponent was unable to post his previous round. At the considerable risk of exploiting this for my own benefits, I will say that in my not so humble opinion that spreading (a term which refers to the practice of speed reading in debate rounds) is as futile as it is stupid. Futile, because the value of the exercise of oratorically delivered debate is lost in many, if not most cases where spreading occurs. Stupid, because the need to spread implies that a debater has not allocated sufficiently careful consideration to his or her case to distill only the best, most reasonable and significant arguments/points and instead opts to shotgun arguments with all the force and utility of the projectile vomiting that is most frequently often associated with a peculiarly acute manifestation of gastrointestinal viruses of various forms.

Spreading on its most basic level is the result of a debater who has not been properly coached, and therefore cannot edit his or her own crap out of the case he or she reads, and includes orders of information that serve to confuse genuinely attentive judges, and distract the flow-judge idiots who ignore the substance of any specific argument and opt instead to look only for "key words" or phrases THAT ARE STATED in response to other arguments, and not which actually REFUTE arguments. Spreading therefore has no place in either LD or policy debate because it is a cheap gimmick that has little to any persuasive value, reflects and enables debaters to continue to not know how to form/edit arguments, confuses and irritates good judges, plays to idiot-judges inherent stupidity (insofar as they "flow," rather than listen)*, and sacrifices the persuasive value or oratorically delivered debate in what is more often than not no more than a mirage of bullsh!t.

*When I say idiot-judges who "flow" rather than listen, what I am referring to are all of those people who ignore the qualitative and logical merit of what specific arguments actually state and instead consider IF an argument was responded to in some way, and not THAT an argument was refuted.

It is at this point that I'm supposed to ask you, the judge to vote CON -which is another practice that lacks merit or value in the exercise of debate. The reason is because this entire argument is purposed in persuading you to vote in a certain way, and to ask you to vote CON is practically an affront to your ability to understand what an argument does. So, I will not ask you to vote CON. I assume, after all, that you are mentally adroit enough to understand that my asking you to vote CON is implied.

Peace and Love,

YYW
Debate Round No. 2
NatetheGreat365

Pro

NatetheGreat365 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
It's cool, man. No worries.
Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
NatetheGreat365
I have no idea what happened. I definitely went to post last night (when it said there was still 8 hours left for me) and then it said that "It is not your turn to post an argument." So I don't know what's going on which is too bad because this would have been a good debate. Not a very good first experience on DDO... no fault of yours, YYW. I wish you the best!
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
It's fine...
Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
NatetheGreat365
YYW, I'm so sorry about that; I logged on and saw that my time ran out! It's finals week at my school and I've just been so busy. Feel free to post for round 2! I'll post for round 3 and we can still have this debate. Again, so sorry.

-Nate
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Hm. If I were to accept this debate I'd claim spreading is elitist and classist, and generally makes debate inaccessible. Which tends to be true.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Hm. If I were to accept this debate I'd claim spreading is elitist and classist, and generally makes debate inaccessible. Which tends to be true.
Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
NatetheGreat365
bsh1--I'll be fine if you want to debate but think that it may take you a day or two or three to post for each round. Sounds like we could have a good debate. :)
Posted by NatetheGreat365 3 years ago
NatetheGreat365
kbub-- LD is definitely the most, for lack of a better term, intellectual debate. Meaning that if you were to have someone who knew nothing about debate listening to each type (PoFo, Parli, C-X, and LD), they would definitely be most confused/intrigued/in awe about LD. Philosophy rules and it's purely theoretical. Being an eloquent, extravagant speaker also comes in handy in LD. If you are really interested in getting into it, feel free to add me as a friend and message me if you want more information or whatever it may be. :) I'm President of my debate team so I'm used to and happy to help!
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
I would like to accept--but I don't think I'll have the time.

I did LD for four years and I've been judging for about 6 months, and I don't approve of spreading. It's just used to get out myriad, underdeveloped arguments in the hopes that the opponent will drop one so that it can be flown through. It encourages the wacky arguments about race and global apocalypse you're starting to see emerge in LD.

Spreading should stay strictly in policy debate.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
There is something utterly beautiful about policy, during of course the rare times it can be understood. I admit, I've never debated LD. Can you tell me about it? I think I'd like it...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
NatetheGreat365YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: While I do believe that spreading should be excised from LD, I do believe it has a place, albeit one that should be kept in check, in policy. Personally, I think I may fall under the category of "flow-judge" to which Con refers. To me, debate implies comprehensive technical debate; i.e. that debaters should hit every argument on the flow, if only to say that the argument lacks logical merit. If it is dropped, extended, and impacted back to framework, I will treat it as untouchable offense for the debater extending it. As a debater and as a coach/judge, I also want to see logical args, but I can't intervene. A debater must point out flaws before I can recognize those flaws. I don't drop solely because of spreading, though I'll award lower points. I only instantaneously drop LDers if they run non-traditional cases (theory, off-cases, non-value oriented kritiks, alts) or run policy crap in my rounds. But, I think I've digressed on my judging philosophy enough. 7 points to Con due to FF
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
NatetheGreat365YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Arguments are easily awarded to con for FF's. However, con is well articulated(S&G), makes clear definitions and provides reasonable causes and negative effects of spreading(RS).
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
NatetheGreat365YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
NatetheGreat365YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit and so full points for Con. I hate forfeits
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
NatetheGreat365YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit = full 7
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
NatetheGreat365YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro has forfeited.