Comment by 3131s | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3131s | Hacker News Reader

This is an on-point critique of high school debate and hits on many of the reasons I didn't stick with it for more than a season.

My best friend growing up is a near mystical figure in the insular LD debate community and has coached a lot of nationally successful debaters, including his younger sister who won the TOC and is considered the most dominant LD debater ever as far as I know. Aside from him, at one point another close friend was #1 ranked in the country (he had the most TOC bids that year) and another won Novice Nationals. I was naturally good at it as well (I quit literally hours after winning the Novice state tournament), but I absolutely hated debate for all the reasons listed -- "spreading", abstruse philosophical critiques that always devolved into nuclear war, and the barely intelligible speed-talking that even motivated the dorkiest of debaters to practice circular breathing. I had to find a new friend group (for a while, we're still all close) because these guys talked about nothing except for debate.

> High school debate today is basically an intellectual game, not an exercise in truth-seeking.

I couldn't agree more, and I have said nearly the exact same thing to many people that are unfamiliar with high school debate.

See, I loved debate for all the reasons you disliked it. It was a game and seemingly everyone knew that - it was never touted as an exercise in truth-seeking. The truth one discovers in debate is through their research, not in the round itself.

I just wished they called it something besides "debate".

It made it cannoying for those of us who were actually trying to organize a club around debating issues.

I'd like to propose "Fast Arguing Team"

"Like Guitar Hero But For Arguing"

I like this, it captures the "this has a superficial resemblance to arguing with someone, but really there's not much in common." Potentially shorten to "Argument Hero"?

At this point, they should just teach rhyming and rebrand as rap battles.

We called that "Model UN"

And you do debate issues, just very very quickly and efficiently.

One of the problems with treating debate as an exercise in truth seeking is that it is a competition between two "sides." In that context, there is little room for phrases like "I will concede that..." or other things that we might associate with intellectual honesty and a pursuit of the truth.

I don't think this necessarily points to any inherent flaw with the competition, either. The goal of a debate participant is not to discover the "truth," it is to defend the side of the debate you are assigned (and over the course of several rounds against multiple opponents, you will inevitably find yourself alternating between sides). It's similar to arguing in a courtroom: as a defense attorney, your goal is not to discover the "truth," but to get a "not guilty" verdict for your client, even if you believe (or know) them to be guilty.

> The truth one discovers in debate is through their research

When I was in debate (mid-90s) most research was on paper - you'd have a brief with cut out photo copies ("cards") with the words to read underlined. If you weren't at one of the big schools, you were at a disadvantage, as the debaters themselves weren't seeking any truth in their research; they had teams who just cut every card imaginable. The goal, as in spreading, was just to overwhelm your opponent. (More baffle them with bullshit than dazzle them with brilliance)

You might want to remove some of that detail. I know exactly who you're talking about right now. I'm happy to confirm more detail via PM, but this is definitely enough to reveal your identity to anyone who was remotely involved in the LD debate community.

I want to add to this, I also know exactly who you're talking about. Also the history of his club and how it was shut down are certainly interesting! Oh so deafening even..

Huh, I have some notion of what you are referring to but I'm not even sure. That's ok, let's leave it at that. The only point of including these personal details was to prove that I was not just some guy who failed at debate and came away disliking it. I had some personal success and a lot of exposure to the things that the article is discussing. My friends and the people I met through debate were all awesome though!

I'm not sure anyone would remember me personally and I didn't say anything that I wouldn't want my friends seeing, or that my friends would mind me writing. Maybe it came off as negativity towards them, but that's definitely not the case. Just negativity towards debate, which they all know I disliked already.

Anyway, there are other comments I've made that would allow someone to attach my real identity to this profile.

I may have some bad news for you

the best at any highly competitive activity - when assembled together - will talk primarily about that thing.

It's not just high school debates that end up like that. Most matters of opinions or incomplete data devolve into stupid arguments when it gets political.

I think there's a difference between stupid arguments and stupid arguments delivered at 300WPM by highschoolers specially trained over years to breathe in such a way that they can produce and deploy stupid arguments as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's like... littering versus the government selling our highway medians to WM.

everything is political

There is nothing for which everything is X, unless one is making a metaphysical claim (everything is matter).

Ah ha! But not everything is "matter". There exist volume-less particles which do not fit a universal definition of matter.

So indeed, there is nothing for which everything is X.

This is a discussion on high school debate, so please take this comment in that light (with a grain of matter).

Maybe we shouldn't be teaching our kids to do so in sanctioned debate competition.

When did it become socially acceptable to behave in this manner?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com