Northland Christian Wang Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenhill | 2 | Dulles AW | bietz |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 3 | Round 3 | Tan |
|
| ||
| Greenhill | 3 | Round 3 | Tan |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Coal DATournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Round 3 | Judge: Tan | 9/17/16 |
Coal DATournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Round 3 | Judge: Tan | 9/17/16 |
Spread KTournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Dulles AW | Judge: bietz One indication of the nature of this problem can be seen by exploring various definitions of speaking rate applied to a modest-sized corpus that has been carefully aligned at the word level. This is the version of The English Switchboard conducted a study 13 corrected and aligned at ICSI, comprising of over 2,000 2,438 conversations. If we calculate the overall speaking rate for this corpus, by simply adding up the number of words spoken by both participants, and dividing by the total elapsed time of the conversations, we finding an overall average rate of 196 words per minute (WPM). For individual conversations, the rate measured in this way ranges from 111 WPM to 291 WPM. If we use the word alignments to exclude silences, and non-speech noises and so on, we find an average “net” speaking rate of 236 WPM, with a minimum of 158 WPM and a , and a maximum of 312 WPM. However, if we calculate the rate by adding up all of the turns for each speaker in order to get the total time, we find that there is so much overlap in the turn boundaries that the average turn-wise rate (total word count divided by the sum of segment times) is only 164 WPM, or 14 less than the rate calculated using the total conversational time. ELL like myself are at an even more distinct disadvantage. I cannot read as quickly as others. The University of North Carolina finds: The University of North Carolina. “Tips on Teaching ESL Students” http://writingcenter.unc.edu/faculty-resources/tips-on-teaching-esl-students/tips-on-teaching-esl-students/. Accessed 9/17/16 Language and sentence structures used on multiple choice tests are often deliberately challenging. They require students to discern subtle differences in language in order to select the correct answer, something native speakers will naturally do with greater speed and facility than non-native speakers, independent of content knowledge. The average spreader, in contrast, debates far past the average, surpassing even the maximum. Sarah English of the Boston Globe found that: English, Sarah. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/education/articles/2009/in_fast_company. 2009. This group of fast-talkers is hardly your average debating club. For the past 33 years, including yesterday's championship in Danvers, the Lexington team has won the state tournament and garnered all sorts of national awards. It recently came in second - behind the prestigious Bronx High School of Science - in a field of 20 schools from across the country. 400 words per minute exceeds any external standard of reasonability, and coming close to it is inherently abusive, warranting the drop of the affirmative debater. You reject the concept of excessive speed for the following reasons. Two Voters. 1) Education Gregory Hayken writes about speed: Hayken, Gregory. “The Value and Role of Accelerating Speech in Debate”. http://books.google.com/books/gregory20hayken20debate. 1996. There are no major disadvantages to slowing the speed of debate. Arguments are still made, though there may not be as many at once. Other A. academic facets such as construction of an argument can be improved and can be viewed with even more scrutiny as they will be presented in a slower and/or more concise fashion. Advantages to slower speech, however, are numerous. First of all, B. slower speech tends to lend itself more to emotional speeches, and allows for more emphasis on different points. This type of emotional speech can be just as helpful in convincing an audience and adds to the ethos and pathos aspects of persuasion. Also, it is easier to use and understand rhetoric when spoken at a reasonable pace. Also and C. slower speech allows for the strategic use of cross-examination rather than forcing teams to request tag lines and cards so that they can be flowed. 2) Fairness A) Cross-X B) Location C) Income 3) Continuation of Debate Excessive speed leads to the destruction of debate. Requiring the ability to speak quickly and the ability to listen to it deters new debaters from continuing with the activity. In addition, by tolerating speed, we restrict the audience of debate only to those who have debate experience. Decreasing speed would create a friendlier environment, supporting debate as an activity. 4) Real-world Applications Real-world debates outside of a high-school debate tournament use persuasion on all three scales (ethos, pathos, and logos) to win. Speed eliminates the focus on ethos and pathos, delegitimizing the debate as we escape the reality of real-world situations. 5) Debate was not made for spreading B) Judge Intervention And drop the debater. We can solve for the problems shown in the Speed K by voting negative and dropping the affirmative debater in the following ways. First, my opponent, after losing the round, will reconsider his use of speed after recognizing that the judging pool doesn’t accept it. The affirmative debater will slow down in his next rounds. Second, negating would reinforce the use of the Speed K. I will use the K in future rounds, leading to a mass reduction of speed in circuit. Third, we can maximize its effectiveness in another way through publication of the K. Picking up the negative debater will increase the chance of seeing the Speed K in heavily watched out rounds. More debaters will recognize the culture change in the judging pool, leading to even more speed reduction in future tournaments. Fourth, voting negative supports fairness. Allowing my opponent to indulge in unfair practices by voting for him rejects the concept of fairness. Finally, observe that using excessive speed to respond to the Speed K is abusive because we are assuming that the argument is wrong before we prove it so. We’re rejecting the fundamental idea of rebuttal in debate. If we could assume an argument to be wrong before we respond to it, then we might as well not respond in the first place. The way to reject an argument is to either reject the conclusion or show holes in the logic, not to just reject the premise. In addition, by spreading against the K, my opponent is banking on me dropping an argument regarding the K instead of using the quality of his arguments to prove that speed is good. If my opponent comes up in his next speech and spreads his responses, use that as a final justification to vote negative. The affirmative debater rejects fundamental ideas of debate, and thus ought be dropped to deter the practice. | 9/17/16 |
Transmutation CPTournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Round 3 | Judge: Tan And of that waste, we can recycle most of it for more power. This is net beneficial. WNA ‘16 | 9/17/16 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/17/16 | yancheng_wang@northlandchristianorg |
|