zlacker

> Sounds like you basically want political debate, but only among smart and/or well educated people?

formalized highschool and college debate is pretty much this

>>whimsi+(OP)
That is sort of the opposite of what I've been told about high school and college formal debate, from people here who did it --- i.e., that there's little actual discussion involved. I'm trying to track down something Patrick McKenzie wrote about it; it made me stop regretting missing out on debate (one of only a few aspects of school I used to think I would have enjoyed).

>>tptace+NJ
I did one year of high school debate and this is accurate. There is no real discussion at all, strictly statements supported by facts.

It was really boring for me, and at times a lot of work. However, one thing I appreciated about it is that at times you'd obviously be arguing a side you don't necessarily agree with, and learn a ton in the process. Also surprise yourself a bit in how convincing you can be. In a way, I wish everyone had the time and effort to research a POV they don't agree with, but as if they did.

Probably great training for a lawyer or paralegal, perhaps even public speaker, but I personally didn't find a lot of joy in it.

>>silisi+7O
> There is no real discussion at all, strictly statements supported by facts.

What do you mean by this? I did a few different forms of debate in highschool and this seems like a really surface level characterization of just a few of these sub-types.

>>whimsi+lP
Mine only had one, but it's been 20 years so some details elude me. I remember we used to have LD and policy, but there wasn't enough interest to maintain two anymore.

So in ours, it was a 1v1 and basically you just spoke for 2 or 3 minutes to a judge, wrote down notes from the other speaker to make rebuttals, then it was over.

What I meant is it very much isn't a back and forth discussion of any sort. In fact, you were never really speaking to each other at all, just to the judge or moderator. Speak for a couple minutes spewing facts and references, listen, do it again, etc.

Apologies if I overgeneralized all debate based only on my experience.

>>tptace+NJ
I've written a lot about debate over the years, but the one you're most likely referring to is (copied from a Reddit comment):

---

The jargon in the community for speaking really fast to win] is “spreading” and it was a dominant strategy by the late 1990s. Serious debaters expect to learn to read, listen, and talk that fast. There is widespread acknowledgement that it is tactical, and many sniff “against the purpose of debate” (while speaking at 200+ words per minute), but debate is a sport like football is a sport and if you want to play football without running or losing to people better at running than you, you may be selecting for a high friction lifestyle.

(There are several debate communities with some overlap, given that there are several styles of debate with different rulesets, organizations, and microcultures about performance. At least when I was doing it in 2000-2004, spreading was hegemonic in Policy debate and less effective (and beatable) in Parliamentary debate.)

>>patio1+Io4
This is absolutely true and it is prevalent in the two forms of debate I participated in (lincoln-douglas and policy). But I think it is disingenuous to say that there is "little actual discussion involved."

Spreading is not intelligible to the layperson, and to the extent to which debate is about presenting ideas in a way that convinces a layperson, it is a failure. But there really is only so much that one can say in short 6 minute speech times. Talking faster, provided people can follow what is happening/read quickly, allows oftentimes for a more in-depth discussion than what was previously possible.