I feel like I'm watching a sloth fight a hummingbird...

@harryzhang1244

5 жыл бұрын

agreed, wolf against rat

@qwallace4832

4 жыл бұрын

Listen to what they do with the resolution though

@fluxnfiction5559

4 жыл бұрын

Lmao

@tuatarian6591

4 жыл бұрын

Aff is extremely good, even if neg is more agressive

@stikbotregion9242

4 жыл бұрын

300th like thats why I liked

the aff is painfully slow to the point where he's at a large disadvantage during the first cx. he clearly has a good grasp of framework debate and has excellent vocal control but frankly his speech is monotonous and stale.

@logansmith2771

7 жыл бұрын

oceanofhorses

@jamessartorius7662

7 жыл бұрын

oceanofhorses

@edenwitelson8268

7 жыл бұрын

oceanofhorses, I disagree, as he fulfilled all of the criteria necessary for a a good presentation. It is not necessary to be emotional when speaking, he spoke slowly and comprehensively as well as defended himself very nicely

@arcarc9947

6 жыл бұрын

You fail to explain why monotonous speech is negative. Monotonous speech is used to emphasize logic: Presidential speech and such are not monotonous as emotion is a major factor; in a standard debate, however, monotonous speech is a viable option.

@aubreyelle-joymateoarringt5583

6 жыл бұрын

oceanofhorses I'm just in jv and just got out of middle school debate, and we can't even speak this slow

By far the best debate I have ever watched. As a debater I could only dream of being this skilled in arguments.

@TheGr8one1022

8 жыл бұрын

Your standards are awful then. These guys stunk.

@Mrbloodydischarge

8 жыл бұрын

I don't suppose you've made it to the final's of nationals before?

@TheGr8one1022

8 жыл бұрын

+Mrbloodydischarge I don't suppose I'd ever want to be a part of this freak show. They lack the most important skills to debate, which are effective communication and logic.

@youcock90

8 жыл бұрын

As a BP debater I dislike the way arguments are made, meaning that the depth of argumentation is more shallow than we are used to in BP (or at least Euros). Given that, I found these speeches fairly good.

@Ckdude100

7 жыл бұрын

+TheGr8one1022 you couldn't even make it this far.

These two low key remind me of L and Light from death note. Especially with all that talk about J U S T I C E

@salmandjingueinabaye8046

5 жыл бұрын

The quality of this comment is slept on

@happytimewithcarl

3 жыл бұрын

👀

negative was a policy debater at one point

@connorlee8593

5 жыл бұрын

@Joshua Teem honestly he wasn't that fast

@tuatarian6591

4 жыл бұрын

@@connorlee8593 that's the speed that you'd use for a lay judge in parli or pol

@connorlee8593

4 жыл бұрын

@@tuatarian6591 ya but this is LD

@bethanytong2338

3 жыл бұрын

he goes to harvard now

@aanya1899

3 жыл бұрын

ikr he was SO FAST

Can you restate the question

@PigeonFlare

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@cloversoda

4 жыл бұрын

NOPE *dab*

Affirmative had a very calm, collected feel during the round. I enjoyed listening to his voice and his points. I try to style my speaking after people like him.

@chrispan7986

8 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Thurston I actually like the negative. He is really energetic. This gets attention from the judges and makes it feel like he is constantly "on to something" if you will.

@DartSlinger

8 жыл бұрын

+Chris Pan Should the tone of a person's voice or the content of his speech gain the attention of the judges, though?

@chrispan7986

8 жыл бұрын

+Dart Slinger technically it shouldn't, but as my debate coach said once: if you sound really convincing, the judge will be like "oh, this kid looks like he knows what he's talking about" and be biased towards you for the rest of the round. Tone of voice is very important

@teresacontreras4999

7 жыл бұрын

I competed in high school and college speech and debate. Debate is still oriented on speaking. The negative is a poor speaker. You can literally hear him inhale. You can be a faster and more passionate speaker without hyperventilating. I shouldn't be able to hear you gasp for breath as a judge.

@savitbhat610

6 жыл бұрын

speaker points is one of the least weighted sections of scoring in debate, usually used as a tiebreaker

"And I hope that (...) someday all of you will have your DNA in a government database." Best. Ever. XD

@daviddarby1960

4 жыл бұрын

"Someday? you'd be surprised-

I like the first guy. His calm and collected composure show that he is very matured and intelligent.

@deqahussein3821

2 жыл бұрын

We shouldn’t judge debaters based on their style, but the content of their arguments.

@iziahdavis3561

2 жыл бұрын

@@deqahussein3821 she didnt judge the debater but yet stated how she enjoyed and loved the style.

@immortalkeiji4451

Жыл бұрын

he looks like one character from shrek

@itmightbe

5 ай бұрын

@@immortalkeiji4451he kind of looks like Dream

While the affirmative may have been a bit more calm and collected, the negative seemed to care more about the side he was arguing. He spoke much more enthusiastically and I Beleive that led him largely to the victory

@DartSlinger

8 жыл бұрын

+Nathan Roper I agree with you completely that passion from a speaker is in reality a large part of convincing an audience. Ideally, though, should this be? Should not logic triumph over passion?

@joshpryce9923

8 жыл бұрын

+Dart Slinger hahaha ive nvr played it. but it sounds about right. but it probably devolope after the girl scouts

@joshpryce9923

8 жыл бұрын

thats definitely the pronunciation i was going for :))

@DartSlinger

8 жыл бұрын

Josh Pryce ;)

@july1747

7 жыл бұрын

we are talking about the mass mentality here; ergo the passion is more of an immediate effect

Smart of neg to restate his case during Aff’s cross-ex, good way to lessen the attack done by affirmative; gotta give it to him for that strategy, man 😂👏🏼

@goldenduper94

2 жыл бұрын

True, I do PF and restating my case although reduces my speaker points, can't let them attack

Heard the topic and was like WTF lmao

I think the main reason the negative won this debate is because he did much better in the cross. While the affirmative may have done better in his first speech, the negative was better at posing and answering questions in the cross, and handling the pressure.

COME ON AFF! All you've got to do is deal with the issue on the Neg's level! Neg core argument is "We can't strive for perfect- we need to strive for practical". All Aff has to say is that having the DNA information of all individuals allows for more discrimination based off of the impracticality of the government keeping that information protected and not using it for other things. Those with medical conditions could be charged more, or mild psychiatric disorders could be discriminated against in the workplace because employers may gain access to that information. And if Neg argues the impracticality of that scenario, just bring up the Wiki-leaks. BAM! CASE CLOSED. Aff would just beat Neg in his own court. Aff wins on Neg's discrimination and practical justice claims.

@cloudgalaxy9231

7 жыл бұрын

It would work if you phrased it as a counter-argument of Neg's case. Taking Neg's case to it's natural conclusion is a perfectly acceptable way to argue. The most beautiful part about LD is the ability of the debators to slightly wander from their prepared information and use convincing moral reasoning in the unforseen areas that a clash between an infinite number of cases will naturally produce. That's the beauty of LD. That's the beauty of debate. It's an essential part of it. Neg won because he was able to do that.

@jaya5848

4 жыл бұрын

this was in 2010 before hillary clinton...

@reflectmusic6746

2 жыл бұрын

Do you even know how debate works, its not about which side is inherently right or wrong, but about who did a better job defending it. You’re wasting your time trying to determine who should’ve won based on your own logic, morals, and opinions. It’s just not how this works

@deqahussein3821

2 жыл бұрын

By ur logic, you’d actually be giving the Neg more ammo. He could come back and say, look! My opponent has highlighted the inevitable nature of DNA through the use of genealogy banks. Where some distant relative may already volunteered your familial DNA…without consent! It’s a new world and we need to come up with new rules.

@blessnorthamerica7919

2 жыл бұрын

@@deqahussein3821 family dna doesn’t count

I would like to see the first guy's collected composure and the second guy's confidence all in one. I think they both did amazing!

The second kid didn't actually have a strong argument, at least not stronger than the first one. He just spoke faster and more confidently. The question was concerned with the *justice* of a DNA system. The first kid proved that it was unjust, and the second kid simply changed the definition of justice to fit his narrative. The first kid would make a good professor, the second one would make a good politician.

@benbrown3786

3 жыл бұрын

That's true about justice v practicality, but in the first CX, neg established that justice inherently entails an idea of pragmatics

@reflectmusic6746

2 жыл бұрын

Actually what the second kid did is an important part of debate called spreading. It is not so much about the morality or correctness of the case but rather, how convincing the argument is, making the negative case stronger and better defended.

@philipdai8682

2 жыл бұрын

@@reflectmusic6746 As an LD debater, that's nowhere near spreading. Spreading speaks at a way faster pace even compared to Ben in this video

@toastedgrapes7961

Жыл бұрын

@@reflectmusic6746 If you've seen Policy or even some PFers debate, you'd see real spreading. The second guy is just naturally speaking as fast as his thoughts come.

Compared to policy, or even pf, this is incredibly relaxing to watch

@ryanbazail

6 жыл бұрын

this isnt real ld

@jacobhenderson1732

5 жыл бұрын

Ryan Bazail this is real LD, it’s traditional LD so much better than progressive LD which is just saying cards as fast as humanly possible

@ryanbazail

5 жыл бұрын

@timroth i agree man as a former lder all that shit sucks and that is what drove me out of the event but that is unfortunately what largely dominates ld these days

@iamsearchingforthefiletmignon

2 жыл бұрын

@Gabriel Fuks congress is where its at

When I first watched this as a novice LD debater, I was outraged that the neg won because I thought the aff was so concise and great. Now, two years later, it's clear to me that the neg won by a long shot. Pretty entertaining to me.

in my opinion speaking style should have nothing to do with who wins a debate, and it should all come down to the arguments made. that being said, this was a pretty easy aff ballot. aff has a better hold on justice and more clearly addresses the resolution while also showing why the neg doesnt uphold his burden as effectively. neg makes good arguments for the benefits of such a data base but benefits =/= justice.

@bensmith2234

5 жыл бұрын

Nothing to do with it? That's kinda silly since this is a speech based competition...

@legendary_igel_master

5 жыл бұрын

@@bensmith2234 doesn't that give the wrong picture of debate to kids though? In a serious debate content and good arguments should ALWAYS win over finesse in speech. The philosophy behind the entire concept of debating is educating yourself by being confronted with other views, and that includes leaving your own view behind and giving in to opposing arguments, if they are better than yours. Not defending your standpoint for the sake of winning, even if you realise that the other person might be right

@MrHappy4311

5 жыл бұрын

@@bensmith2234 It should just be about the arguments and points that the people are debating and nothing more. Louder & Faster should never equal better. The same should apply to the opposite.

@JohnnySins69XO

5 жыл бұрын

The way someone speaks compels the listener, if you sound like a robot, you won’t convince anyone

@atrashbag8105

4 жыл бұрын

I agree, Aff should have won. Neg's speaking style carried him to the win.

1:42 is the start of the debate :)

that first cx was one of the best i’ve ever seen in my life

The neg sounds more like policy than morality. The aff won moral wise. When he attacks the neg all he says is the opponent isnt debating the resolution, not a good argument. The neg gave a more practical real-world view, and was a better speaker as in not borring wise. I could see either side winning

Neg won delivery Aff won the flow

@pascal.bakari

5 жыл бұрын

Lina Zuela yes!!!

@STKHub

5 жыл бұрын

@@dennistang4823 Which one are you?

@joshm7005

4 жыл бұрын

@Joshua Teem ok but to get your whole argument inside the time limit you need to talk fast

I don't think there should be a 9-2 vote for neg. This debate wasn't outright 1-sided. While neg may have more speaks, aft had some pretty good arguments, especially the argument against neg's support, which was justice for 1 person falls to injustice of everyone.

@tuatarian6591

4 жыл бұрын

Aff was extremely good.i would have voted neg by an insanely small margin

Everyone here is so smart and I'm just sitting here like what are they talking about😬🤤

@user-gq1jq9pe9m

5 жыл бұрын

me too

@crimmus

5 жыл бұрын

William Walsh Aff was not a fast talker, Neg was.

@al6607

3 жыл бұрын

totally can relate, luffy

I cant remember who said it, but theres a quote that says humans are not just a number. Whether its 1 person murdered or a whole genocide, no one life is greater than the other. Therefore, no one civil liberty is more significant than any others. Great debate, the opposition should have been better for Ben. this is a national debate not a debunk bully assertion

Doing Lincoln Douglas debate was one of the best times I had in high school and college

People are forgetting this is a competition not politics, the judges care about who was the better speaker just as much as the actual facts

did. this. man. fart. at. 1:26 .

@khushishah3035

6 жыл бұрын

Shooketh

@lucasrobinson7775

6 жыл бұрын

FroYoBros OMG

@saddoge4568

5 жыл бұрын

lmao

@vivianbeauregard1177

5 жыл бұрын

Omg

@DJ-xp9bs

5 жыл бұрын

Yall crazy, dude swallowed. It makes sense because the mic is closer to his neck/mouth than his butt. LOL

Basic Summary: Affirmative speaker had a slow, clearer delivery with an arguably better case, but got caught up in the Negative's own delivery, which was quick, logical on face, and appealed a lot more to the judges. Which I think explains the vote.

Guy 1: I’m gonna speak clear so that the judges can understand me and so that I remain calm and do not slip up. Guy 2: What do mean we aren’t allowed to spread??

@bxnjxmxn2942

3 жыл бұрын

ok ok but this is NOT spreading you’d be in shock if you saw what it’s like - search any TOC ld vid lmao

@paddyharrigan1530

3 жыл бұрын

@@bxnjxmxn2942 For real, neg is speaking as fast or even slower than any jv debator lmao

In the description ---> he is coached by Mike BS. Dang, what a name.

One of the best debates I've seen! Congrats HW Debate Team!

I have to do a Lincoln-douglas debate next week in class at school(for the first time)...this shows how unprepared I am

I show this debate to my students to serve as an example when we do a modified LD debate assignment, and I take extra care to point out three factors in the judges decision for the NEG: 1. The AFF remains too rigidly committed to specific points regarding the resolution without providing enough concrete evidence as to why his argument is more solid than the NEG. 2. The AFF employs a number of logical fallacies, primarily begging the question and the false cause fallacy, all without providing concrete evidence (or at least as strong of evidence as the NEG brings to the table). 3. Any form of debate, whether focussed on questions of facts, values, or policies, is not always about who made the objectively better arguments, but about how arguments are defended or seen in comparison to their opponents arguments. Think about a court of law: you don't always have to prove that a client is innocent or guilty, because in many cases, sowing a seed of doubt is enough to acquit or convict for a jury. This is where the use of evidence by the NEG, as well as the confidence that he displayed, really gave him a significant boost. He didn't need to proved that he was objectively better; he just needed to demonstrate his strength compared to his opponent. Examples of this from the debate include his flexibility within his rebuttals, his ability to answer questions during the CX, and his opponents inability to either answer or outright shut down possibly irrelevant questions in the first CX.

The first kid absolutely tore the affirmitive’s arguments apart in the rebuttal.

The affirmative was clearly the winner. Had a far better grasp on the resolution

@reflectmusic6746

2 жыл бұрын

You clearly don’t know how debate works

good round, neg just a bit more agressive doesn’t mean he should have won though, aff was very analytic and explained well. if he didn’t spend so much time in the rebuttles talking about the topicality (neg logic was a bit off) and would have just attacked his arguments, aff would have won. the round should have not been a 9-2 though. The aff did insanely good on framework but overall the debate goes neg but don’t agree with a 9-2.

@AkulBhambhani1991

2 жыл бұрын

9-2 means that 9 people thought he won the round and 2 didn't. It dosent say how much they thought he won by, it could be a very narrow or big victory in their eyes those 9 wins could think the same as you and think they won the round by a little bit.

@cragetty-ragetty5673

Жыл бұрын

wait but the main problem here is that the aff only had one (logical ) argument: infringing on human rights which does not make sense from my point.

Both sides had their strong points. The affirmative had morality in his claim and warrant, which is, in my opinion, more important than policy. However, he was extremely boring and, sorry, but I found it very hard to listen to him. I wanted to yell, "LIGHTEN UP." The negative brought a more of a bigger picture point of you, along with the reality of the situation, which in some cases, will most always win the debate. He was also humorous and engaging, something I find very compelling, even if you are spitting out nonsense.

Negative's logic is kinda weird. His only justification is that "we do X with Y, therefore we can always do X". Like he doesn't give u any specific analysis.

@chriscotrutsa2979

4 жыл бұрын

That's a permutation in debate, it actually makes a lot of sense if you do debate and know what that is

Bro I just learned about the Lincoln Douglas debates in history class and thats the only reason I'm here.

This debate made me feel so tense i have no idea why

The negative winning is the true injustice here

@joeytarnowski6018

7 жыл бұрын

Dustin McLaughlin It's clear that he was the superior debater. He more thoroughly refuted everything about the aff while remaining poised. He was the clear winner

@xHannibal

6 жыл бұрын

The neg clearly won

@lalabinh4446

5 жыл бұрын

Who is the negative and the affirmative?

@danaealexandrax

5 жыл бұрын

Phước Xương I believe that the boy in the red shirt is the aff & the blue shirt is the negative

Both these guys are very good debaters. Neg suffers from Nixon syndrome. Nixon had a debate with JFK, in which case Nixon made very good points, but calm handsome JFK blew him out of the water simply because he was more composed. Neg just needs to relax a bit.

@brodhax6148

5 жыл бұрын

@William Walsh what isnt

Aff just seemed so much more mature and controlled, neg had great points but seemed immature and spazzy (just my opinion)

@SakthiPandiSocialMedia

8 жыл бұрын

***** Truth, I said this before I joined my school's debate team, and since then I too have learned what you are talking about above. I totally understand now.

@SakthiPandiSocialMedia

8 жыл бұрын

***** Thank you sir!

@calebhisel7247

8 жыл бұрын

I feel you confuse "spazzy"with aggressive and "mature" with calm.

don't judge on how the negative side does things . its part of his strategy . its simply all in the content of what he said

Can somebody Help explain the Neg in response to the Aff's contention 1.

Great debate! Well fought. Negative was talking a bit fast which made it difficult to find flaws in the arguments, but he did defend his points well.

Aff is calm while neg is aggressive

@meandtheboisvlogs8109

3 жыл бұрын

Not really aggressive. I presume the neg has more experience with policy debate which is why he debates like that

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the NEG position providing some form of implementation as solvency? So wouldn't that be discarded as policy because this is within the parameters of LD Debate?

This is very late and I know almost no one in the comments is an actual debater, but if you are in debate and understand LD and the flow, neg one by FAR! Aff flowed through ink on literally everything and was pretty nonresponsive, did poorly in cross although that doesn’t matter, neg was just winning everything

@RupmujMusic

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! I am an actual debater, and I agree. 9-2 was pretty accurate

Negative won because the affirmative did not make the best arguments and included bad arguments. He never actually mentioned possible practical concerns that arise out of the government having access to DNA. That would have killed and silenced the negative completely.

the affirmative totally won! the biggest injustice here is allowing the negative to win 9-2

@penguinlingo8203

4 жыл бұрын

i disagree the neg had a bigger and more well-constructed argument. Try coming into the round with no personal basis then you'll see why neg was so much better

We are watching this in my English 2 class right now

I do Public Forum most of the time, but I have done Lincoln Douglas before, and am doing it in a few weeks. I really find it hard to be Neg in LD, because the timing is so different of that of PF, and AFF is so much more similar. Any advice on how to get used to the Neg layout?

@kbean23

8 жыл бұрын

As a past Public Forum Debater and current Lincoln-Douglas Debater, I assure you that as you gain experience you will begin to enjoy the negative set up far more. In PF you get 4 minutes to actually attack your opponents case, in LD you get 4 minutes to attack your opponents AND defend your own. The negative, however, gets around 3-4 (dependent on length of constructive) minutes to attack. The negative, in my opinion, has a clear advantage in terms of the settings of the round.

@FlurryFunk

8 жыл бұрын

Well, I just went to the tournament this weekend, and I did pretty badly. I went 2-4, lol. Sure, it was a national tournament, and everyone in my school got the same score, but I really hope I get to improve before the next tournament, which is on the 30th for me. I did notice that negative was a lot easier this time, although I didn't win a round as negative. Hopefully I will succeed in negative next time! :D

@chuggaa100

8 жыл бұрын

+FlurryFunk Most of it is in the case and the morality/philosophy. LD is a value debate so without a sound value structure you will lose. This is part of whats wrong with LD today, there are too many statistics and the Value structure is something that gets overlooked. Also while aff may seem like it has an advantage because it gets the first and last speech, this is not really true, as they cant rebut any statements said in the 2nr, nor can they bring up any new points during voting issues

@FlurryFunk

8 жыл бұрын

Lol it's okay I ended up going to back to PF anyway. No I can go back to not having a soul and saying that lives are irrelevant, and that money is all that matters. :D

I feel that the second would have had an even better delivery if he slowed down and let his points sink in before moving on to another.

The Negative side is aggressive, but I agree he did a great job (+1 on diction, +1 on humor, -1 for scaring me in the beginning) BUT the Affirmative has a pleasant way of debating and makes me happy:D

When you don't have a computer to debate

Positive won the debate..100%, without a doubt

@odee9223

8 жыл бұрын

I think you mean positive in terms of for the compulsory database, so ya he killed it.

@chuggaa100

8 жыл бұрын

Aff

@aakashkurse4200

8 жыл бұрын

I agree , the aff won the debate

There is a lot of controversy occurring between who should have won. However, I believe the negative was right to have won. First of all, he persuaded judges and audiences by seeming enthusiastic about the topic, while some other comments counter the negative as being "aggressive" and a "bully". He had the overall better points, better links, but he lacked on his cross-examination as he kept going on with the same question for 2 minutes and never addressed it later on.

I love the Negitives thank you's. amazing!

Why is the Affirmative beginning and ending the debate? That doesn't seem fair. Are some parts cut out?

@chuggaa100

8 жыл бұрын

+David Deng Not really, Aff cannot make new points in the last speech. whereas Neg gets to rebut and bring up new points in their last speech.

@teddywyman8412

8 жыл бұрын

+David Deng aff is harder than neg because neg has one speech of 7 minutes and another of 6, whereas aff has a 6 minute constructive, and then speeches of 4 and 3 minutes to respond. so you have 7 total minutes of speaking to refute the opponent, whereas neg has as many as 13 minutes. its also harder to effectively give speeches as short as 3 and 4 minutes.

@housebeats4600

8 жыл бұрын

I thought the defense was to go first during the ending session then the Affirmative

@owenmulqueen243

7 жыл бұрын

that's how ld format works

They are amazing! If I were to debate about this case, I would have done it the way the aff did it. But the negative is very convincing here!

"and I hope that some day, you all have your DNA in a Government Database." Oh my god wow

Deontology vs. Consequentialism!I loved the debate, but it seems to me that it's impossible to reach a satisfactory victory with the primary contention being such a vast field of philosophy.

First debate tomorrow, I'm gonna suck lol

@arilohr5641

7 жыл бұрын

Y-it Magnusen How did it go?

@bug5327

6 жыл бұрын

Y-it Magnusen If you try hard and speak pretty, you'll always win as a novice.

@anikadixit3243

6 жыл бұрын

He/She commented this almost a year ago I think they figured it out by now.

@kellysong3320

6 жыл бұрын

same here!

@PrinceJes

5 жыл бұрын

Good or bad?

5 years later........ FOR NO REASON.......... recommend✅

Amazing job done there. Just like to point out that the affirmative man has some amazing Ethos Logos and Pathos. Very well done and a great example for the class I'm taking!

@somebody9232

3 ай бұрын

In the accusative, it's ethos, logo and pathos Ethos and pathos are neutral and end in -os, so the s stays Logos is masculine and ends in -os, so the s goes away

Negative and Affirmative made interesting points, but Affirmative did not really defend his case. Affirmative pretty much, just attacked Negative's case throughout this round. Affirmative continued to repeat his attack over and over again, while Negative came in with different approaches. Although this point doesn't really matter, I will state it anyways, Affirmative was very boring in his speech. He did not really catch the judges attention, while Negative had humor in his case. It was a no brainer, that Negative won, he got the judges attention, he attacked, and defended. Affirmative only did one of those things. I would have voted for Negative, if I was a judge, but what do I know? I am only twelve years old...

@FlurryFunk

8 жыл бұрын

+Invisible Nightmare I agree completely, and it doesn't matter if you are twelve years old, you can formulate better sentences than most 20 year old.

@FlurryFunk

8 жыл бұрын

+Invisible Nightmare That Neg Rebuttal was goals. I do Public Forum, but I'm doing LD soon, and I wish I could speak like that. :(

@saarthaksharma6552

8 жыл бұрын

+FlurryFunk that neg rebuttal tho

@chuggaa100

8 жыл бұрын

+FlurryFunk Tis the end of the season though

@user-qf3ik8je4f

8 жыл бұрын

FlurryFunk Well, thank you.

the first speaker is me talking to people

Negative looks like the guy from the Lorax

@itmightbe

Жыл бұрын

Bro it’s Dream

My debate team must hate me. I've been on the team for 2 weeks and have to compete in 2 days. I'm panicking big time rn.

@jjyu5633

7 жыл бұрын

Where do you debate? How did the tournament go?

@narwhallegion8583

6 жыл бұрын

Legend has it he’s still panicking

@jayilham6548

6 жыл бұрын

T-NRP even until today

@PrinceJes

5 жыл бұрын

Hey

@PrinceJes

5 жыл бұрын

Hey

I think the aff should win because the neg just said moving to a compulsory is an improvement but never said anything about whether the compulsory database is justifiable.

Affirmative should have won easily, he spoke logically and realistically, while the negative won simply because he made some jokes and was the most offensive

@rags1901

8 жыл бұрын

this is as far from the truth as you can possibly get.

@lukegrey7698

7 жыл бұрын

True he should have but it is about who can debate better not just the subject at hand.

@zes3813

7 жыл бұрын

wrong

@williamcone9623

7 жыл бұрын

I totally agree with you. Given the resolution, Affirmative easily proved a compulsory DNA database would be unjust (even if the alternative is equally or even more unjust). However, from a real-world analysis, I do believe the negative proved that his side was overall the better option.

@savitbhat610

6 жыл бұрын

You are wrong.

I was going to join the debating team in college but someone talked me out of it.

his perfection argument is good

he sounds like the next siri

I have my first debate saturday and my debate coaches know nothing about ld, i'v taught myself everything i know and im so nervous, any pointers

@HorusSorcerer

7 жыл бұрын

Hey! I do Progressive LD, so if you want help, just follow me on Google Plus and I'll e-mail you some pointers. I'm sorry your debate coaches are no good!

@HorusSorcerer

7 жыл бұрын

Okay so I can't e-mail you for some reason, but shoot me an e-mail at crdec123@gmail.com; I'll help you from there.

who is the guy in brown? (his name)

"Equating an innocent individual with a criminal is definitely not justice." 25:10 That's the line that won the debate for me.

I've debated Harvard Westlake kids before they're hardcore.

@arilohr5641

3 жыл бұрын

going to harvard-westlake is a link to a k

@paddyharrigan1530

3 жыл бұрын

@@arilohr5641 lmao fr

Neg won the big picture while aff was more polished and won the details. Overall, I'd probably vote neg. Aff had great rebuttals but I thought his case was weak. "Making people give dna violates human rights which is bad" is a simple and ineffective argument, the negative literally countered the whole case in his observations. Like he said, considering any minor infractions on human rights unjust is regressive and not operable in the real life.

what is the AFF guy's name?

I would say in this debate, Affirmative is Lincoln and Negative is Douglas. xD

I heard about this debate on Jimmy Fallon. LoL

@lizethflores1988

7 жыл бұрын

shit. me. to. jimmy Fallon. lmao. hahahaha

@LoRJ17

7 жыл бұрын

LOL dang me too..

@spoorthysiddam4562

3 жыл бұрын

@Ana Mastilovic neg won

Neg needs to slow down. I'm a fast listener but that is just too fast to make the impact of his points.

@dragosrusu9982

4 жыл бұрын

@John Skipper what is LD?

@theguyintheworks8838

4 жыл бұрын

@@dragosrusu9982 Lincoln-Douglass, it's the debate format

@bxnjxmxn2942

3 жыл бұрын

you are not a fast listener lol

11:08 Ozarka got a free sponsorship

How glorious

10:19 "That is an injustice to that person, so yes." Holy shit

This is what I expected when I clicked on the CEDA 2013 championships video. What I got...

I just started a speech and debate team and I'm leaning towards speech, while my co cap is doing debate bc this looks nerve wracking af to a newbie

They are both, clearly, highly skilled individuals, but, with all respect, how the hell did the first guy make it to nationals. I could see middle school nats but high school?

@trebulanebula

7 жыл бұрын

He made it to nationals because the competition between states are states very different, such as, if you live in New York, the overall style of debate and or caliber of the debate could be drastically different from Indiana.

@joeytarnowski6018

7 жыл бұрын

Trebula Yeah. In the South, where I am, LD is very heavily in moral arguments and presentation, like attacking the value and criterion and speech, but in the West, I've heard that it's much more like a policy style

@arilohr5641

6 жыл бұрын

I do LD in Oregon. LD is basically policy when people can't get along with their policy partners.

@arilohr5641

6 жыл бұрын

At least in Oregon it is.

Who won at last? Is that affirmative?

What's the name of aff ?

I gave it to the negative. I'm less sure about the actually proposal but I believe the neg was much more convincing and I'm bias to appeals to practicality rather than ultimate values.

aff. is clear and coherent. aff. uses facts and historic policy/human rights. neg. is in a lala land where injustices go away when everyone is included. neg. admits flaws and injustices in the current felon dna collection practice, but an expanded version will not be injust.... without explanation

@johnag7784

8 жыл бұрын

aff. states DNA is left almost everywhere a person has been (not just blood, but this includes hair, skin cells, spit, finger-nails, and/or bubble-gum). this is a reality. considering a DNA data bank is not intended for LOTTERY winners or free trips to the moon, a DNA data bank is intended for incriminating review and evidence. the neg. is stating discriminating against a single person is only permitted when the discrimination is performed upon everyone in society, thus discriminating is no longer discriminating but "normal" this is simply a liberty vs security issue. all discrimination can be eliminated + all security issues can be eliminated, if the government treats everyone alike. "i tell you..." the neg states, the public will trust the state more if they have more this DNA tool at their disposal. but 1] there is no evidence, or historic examples providing reason why this should be held as true. 2] neg. drop the argument that a crime scene may be polluted with innocent DNA. 3] police departments inherently discriminate as other means, even as there is a felon DNA data bank. neg drops this argument. ============================= neg. is arguing a lala-land argument. "if" arguments. the strongest argument held is the discrimination argument. yet in his world, a discrimination-free world, would far more resemble a 1984/ matrix standard of living. aff. is arguing historical, current, and practical benefits. aff. is not defending injustice in police practices, he is defending the injustice of having everyone involuntary commit themselves to a judge, jury, and executioner state. where an individual's DNA is not a breach of your 5th amendment, where DNA is heavily relied upon. but i do see how/where this debate was won and lost. different points should/could have been emphasized

@johnag7784

8 жыл бұрын

+Rohan Bha We agree that Neg use of poor logic and assumptions, won the round. you wrote: "Just because he had evidence doesn't necessarily make it true, there needs to be a sign of logic as well. For example, I could find some author saying that evolution is false, but that doesn't necessarily make it a true fact." I am glad we can agree on this, because as we see this to be true for "facts"; we can also see that this is true for "logic". just because believing logic is present, does not actually mean logic is present. premises must bind with links AND show use of reason all dogs have four legs a turtles have four legs therefore, turtles are dogs.

@chuggaa100

8 жыл бұрын

+john 'sweetness' Aguilar LD is a Value debate, not a statistics debate. This is not PF

@johnag7784

8 жыл бұрын

im aware Value requires Reason. i think we are all aware that our views are our opinions. im sure people will feel differently about this issue, and that is also okay. i just wanted to let you know i am also aware of that too. im okay with people's views/opinions. the main point is; Aff. is placing a higher Value on our guarantee liberty. "one in the hand is better two in the bush" vs; Neg. is placing a higher value on the promise of a judicial system that can deliver on justice and a non-discrimination. "two is better than one" for many, it sounds like a no brainer. however, for minorities of color/ poverty, a fair and unbiased judicial system is something non-minorities talk about. fairy-tales. to ask me to place my values in a system that demands my DNA to be held on file and ran every-time there is a crime: over a system that ENSURES me to live with more peace of mind and without fear of being prosecuted - is too much. Neg. states, DNA is not the only method used to solve a crime; there are other methods like eye witnesses, video... etc . which sounds a lot like: a DNA database isnt needed. a Felony DNA database is far enough. If anyone searches "The Central Park Five" they can see how unbias and how just our judicial system is for themselves. The Central Park Five is a true event story where NYC prosecuted five innocent boys for the rape and beating of a woman. No victim testimony, No DNA of the accused. Just five kids wrongfully accused and sentenced. a DNA database can only strengthen the prosecution's argument. it will not weaken prosecution's position; and it will not strengthen the defense's argument. and Neg. expects everyone to believe, after PLANTED DRUGS, PLANTED WEAPONS, FALSIFIED EVIDENCE, FALSIFIED POLICE TESTIMONY, WRONGFULLY ACCUSED, ACCIDENTAL SHOOT/KILLINGS, ACCIDENTAL PRISONER RELEASES, etc.. that my belief, a judicial system that can't even handle and control their own employees - can handle a DNA database on the US populous. ........what if it were my family: what if i was a victim of a violent crime: wouldn't you want the criminal found?! yes i would. in the video when Neg. began speaking he started asking: "would you hurt an innocent to save the entirety of society?" so how many innocent homes do we have to kick in; how many innocent men and women must be pulled over in public, yanked out their autos and brutality attacked -- so that i have my justice ? because the flaw in that "logic" is that we (society) violates only one individual to ensure everyone benefits. that that one individual is actually everyone. thus is really: we violate everyone to ensure everyone benefits. in a society where everyone's liberty is violated at will, without cause, etc... is not a society/system that upholds justice, non-discrimination, liberty, or practical order.

The other guy speaks monotone and seems obvious he's reading. I enjoyed the debate, where should I learn to debate??

@BiggieChungulus

7 жыл бұрын

School. It's so much fun. I do Impromptu, which isn't debate (it's a speech event)

@anderski01

7 жыл бұрын

Luffy Dragneel Join your schools debate team. You'll make friends that you'll never forget!

@daphneyan7935

7 жыл бұрын

Luffy Dragneel Yes do learn speech and debate, it is literally like a second home to me! Join your school team, or join an academy. I hope you have a good time~~!

@BachieCamaclang

6 жыл бұрын

In my personal experience. I learned how to debate because of games like Phoenix Wright. Basically a story about a lawyer defending his client's rights with profound arguments and evidence.

@Liamvshobos

2 жыл бұрын

@@BachieCamaclang Pheonix wright breaks every law in the book, disrupts courts, and would have been disbarred many times over, but I get you. I enjoyed the trilogy haha.

The second guy speaks so fast. Is it just his way of speaking or do they have a time limit so he speaks faster to be able to say more?

10:28: The negative asks if the government should sacrifice the rights of one person to save the entire population. This question is irrelevant - what the government should or should not do does not determine the injustice of a situation.

@arcarc9947

6 жыл бұрын

This point is also discussed in several parts of the negative's speech.

@rockingwoohyun

6 жыл бұрын

Neg kind of won the justice vs perfection argument pretty hard; according to the flow, a government's conception of justice is solving real world problems without getting entangled in an impossible pursuit of perfection. At this point, most judges would vote neg bc "just" basically became solving bigger injustices at the cost of smaller injustices, which the affirmative does not do.

@brackin

4 жыл бұрын

@@arcarc9947 preach

aff how many times do you have to ask to repeat the question