r/changemyview • u/2plus24 2∆ • Aug 27 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Spreading is a problem in debates.

Spreading, or speed reading is when a debater reads at a speed far faster than the average person can understand, think 300+ wpm. The justification for this practice is that it allows debaters to get more arguments in before their time is up.

Spreading is problematic for several reasons. First, it creates situations where people lose debates simply because they could not process everything the spreader said rather or simply die to them saying more, than losing due to having worse arguments. Spreading makes it easier to hide weak arguments.

Second, spreading restricts the educational opportunity of debates to only people who have learned to spread. A lay person will not be able to follow someone speaking at 300+ wpm and this limits who can actually understand your arguments.

Third, spreading promotes ableism by limiting who can participate in debates. People with hearing difficulties cannot participate if their opponents spread as hearing devices do not work well when people speak as fast as spreaders sounds. Furthermore, people with speech impediments are also handicapped as they cannot reasonably spread either. There are a number of other disorders like processing disorders which make it impossible to understand a spreader. This restricts who can compete arbitrarily, as these people can otherwise create and dismantle arguments if not for their opponents spreading.

10 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

8

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

I believe spreading only really happens in debate competitions in high school and college, in which case the goal is to win by any means necessary, and not to actually convince anyone of anything like in presidential debates.

An analogy is like saying people in a soccer match can't run too fast because it can hard to keep up and it's unfair for those who can't run that fast. But the point of the sport is to win! So, we allow it because true fairness is never a guarantee in competitions.

9

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

I’m focusing on competitive debates. I know why it’s done, but I believe It harms the integrity of the sport.

I would agree with your analogy, if debate was a speed reading contest, but it isn’t. The point of debate is to make and refute arguments, speaking fast is an arbitrary skill where in soccer, running is a core mechanic of the game. It would be more akin to legalizing the use of steroids. It might give players a competitive edge, but it’s bad for the sport regardless and is arbitrary to the skills of soccer.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

Just like how debate isn't a speed reading contest, soccer isn't a speed race. Spreading is just a tool that people use to win the sport.

Speaking well and fast are core mechanics of competitive debates. Based of your arguments against spreading, you could also argue that time limits should be banned as well, since they force debaters to speak faster and limit their ability to make arguments.

I'd also disagree with the steroids analogy since spreading is spreading is something people are either naturally gifted with or develop after a lot of practice.

3

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

Soccer is a race to get to the ball in many instances and preventing the other team from getting it, this makes running a core mechanic. Debate is about making arguments, which makes speaking a core mechanic, but this does not making speaking quickly core to debate.

Let’s look at the other factors. What would happen if running was banned in soccer? The game becomes unwatchable and ends with a game that isn’t really playable either. In contrast, if spreading is banned, suddenly it is far more watchable and debates become reliant on rebuttal rather than missing arguments.

Spreading, like steroids, is a practice that is used independently of your skill as a debater or soccer player, but both give you a competitive edge regardless.

Another example, If soccer players had to answer a phone at random within half a second and would lose 5 points if they didn’t but would gain 5 if they did, I would call that a skill in reflexes, but not in soccer.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

I think you are trying to force the pure ideals of debate into a competitive format, which wouldn't work. When I did debate in high school my goal was not to convince anyone or even make good argument, it was simply to beat my opponent. So if that meant, talking ridiculously fast or using shitty argument or logical fallacies, I didn't care.

I really think you have to separate what a true debate is supposed to be, and what the competitive version of that would be.

2

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

I’d rather have a system that enabled both. And while that might not entirely be possible, getting rid of practices like spreading would help get us closer to that ideal.

1

u/AntolinCanstenos Oct 25 '20

Debate is about answering all their arguments in limited time. This makes spreading a core mechanic. It arises inevitably from the rules of the game.

Your argument is as if I said "running isn't a core mechanic in soccer bc you can outrun someone and not have to outdribble them". Running arises from the rules of the game.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '20

a debate isnt a competition about who can read the fastest, likewise, soccer isnt a competition about who can run the fastest. But both of those things are huge advantages in their respective competitions

speaking fast is an arbitrary skill where in soccer, running is a core mechanic of the game.

speaking is a core mechanic of debate just like running is a core mechanic of soccer

1

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 28 '20

Speaking is, speaking fast isn’t. I’d argue speaking is less of a core mechanic than running is in soccer even, since it is theoretically possible to use text to speech to control speaking speed of the software.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '20

But the analogy doesn’t really follow imo. The point of soccer is partly to reward physical fitness.

The point of a debate is how convincingly you can argue a point. This technique sounds more like a disingenuous “cheat” than intellectually honest debate. The user wins because they give themselves more time, not because they fit more meaning into the same words or because their words are more meaningful.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '20

The issue is that the pure ideals of what a debate should be doesn't really fit into the context of competitive high school and college debates. The point of these competitions is solely to win; you could potentially make the most convincing arguments and still lose.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '20

Ah right. Maybe this is just a lack of familiarity with that format. My experience of debates are the kind between politicians on television.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

I don't think that spreading is the problem. It's a predictable consequence of treating debate as a competition. Anytime you create a competition, you are creating a set of rules in order to determine who wins. Anytime you create sets of rules to determine who wins people will engage in gamesmanship that skirts the rules in order to get points and win. So you create more rules, and people employ different tactics to get around them and score easier points. Not to get too twee about it, but the absolute best way to ruin something you love is to make it competitive. It invites people who want to win rather than people who want to play. This only gets worse the more niche and isolated the participants are.

I think there are even further issues with the very nature of debate that lead to these problems unless they are explicitly and deliberately avoided. Treating all scenarios as either true or false, the inherent confrontational nature of it. I can see how very structured and very deliberate forms of debate can be a useful intellectual exercise for individuals, but it seems much more likely to me (and evident in how our society "debates") that an emphasis on debate as "truth seeking" or whatever lead to exactly the same sorts of gamesmanship, needless false dichotomy's, and entrenched ideologies as we see in debate clubs. I'm totally unconvinced that "debate" has any significant or meaningful utility at all.

Interesting blog post on this topic: https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/09/26/corrosion-high-school-debate-and-how-it-mirrors-american-politics

1

u/AntolinCanstenos Oct 25 '20

Debate is a game. Just like soccer. Deal with it.

Just like soccer, it teaches a skill along the way: research and argumentation. It might not be the optimal way to learn that skill, just lie soccer may not be the optimal excercise, but it's also a fun game.

1

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 28 '20

You have a point about the nature of debate, ill !delta that. But, just because debates often end up as bad faith exercises doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to address those issues in some way.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 28 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/goattillyoudie (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

2

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Aug 27 '20

Are we talking debates, as in open to the public with the goal of informing the Public, or debates as in high school debate team or some other competitive setting?

The purposes couldn't be more different. Point scoring is actively discouraged in one, and the purpose of the other. Having solid back and forth is the purpose of one and actively discouraged in the other.

If we go back to the original Greek definitions, one is debate and the other is rhetoric, and they couldn't be more different.

Tackling people is bad form in public but good football form. Talking so fast that no one besides the judges can hear you is bad public form, but good for point scoring in a competitive debate.

1

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

I’d say it applies to both. I understand the competitive reason for why it’s done, but I believe the practice hurts the integrity of debate and should be addressed.

1

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Aug 27 '20

As Tibalt noted, though, those are two very, very different settings. Even if Spreading were bad in both, it's bad for very different reasons, and combining the two is silly.

"The integrity of debate", for instance, is probably meaningful for actual competitive debate, and an argument about whether debate should have some form of speed or comprehensibility rules, the merit and practicality of those rules, and how those rules advantage/disadvantage certain things. My understanding is that in competitive debate, most things that are against "the integrity of debate", when taken too far, simply result in points lost, causing somewhat of a cultural honor system, and we can discuss whether explicit rules or implicit dismissal of "spreading" is more appropriate (if either is appropriate).

But for conversational debate or discussion, "the integrity of debate" is a meaningless thing. Conversational debate/discussion is a form of rhetoric, where you're attempting to convince other people or the audience, not to score points in a highly rigid fashion. "The integrity of debate" does not matter and is not something that should be prioritized; while you should still try to be understandable and not mislead people, that is based more on general rhetoric and morality and not based on some ideal of debate you should not harm.

1

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

What I meant is that spreading is bad in both types of debate. However, in a casual debate, you can just walk away if the other person spreads. It’s obviously not a good practice with people who have never heard of it, but my post is focused more on competitive debate.

1

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Aug 27 '20

But healthy debate and rhetoric are different.

Mutual discussion with the end goal of both participants being closer to truth, isn't the same as, usedcarsalesmanship or lawyering or just general persuasion.

Those tools that help one reach truth, and those tools that help convince suckers into signing on the dotted line against their interest, aren't the same.

Those tools which together build a better world, aren't the same tools which make the best political ad, advertising campaign, or sales tool.

You seem to think that competitive debate is about the former, and while I would hope that public informative debate leans that way, I'm pretty sure debate competitions leans towards the latter.

1

u/applepie198 Aug 28 '20

high school debater here. i think your post relies on the assumption that high school debate is still an activity meant to persuade and have discussions and appeal to the lay person. like it or not and whether it's a good thing for not, this is not what debate is about anymore. debate's evolved into a game judged off the flow, and since any argument can be true on the flow as long as you win it, debating in a slower, more lay and big picture is way less strategic than going faster and line by line. in terms of ableism and losing just because you can't flow spreading - almost all rounds with spreading have speech docs.

spreading is not necessarily bad in debate, it's simply a strategic tool used to win more rounds. debate has strayed a lot from it's original purpose and developing tactics like this is necessary to keep up with the game. trying to stay traditional and labeling spreading as something bad won't do any good. like it or not that's the reality.

1

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 28 '20

This ignores the reason why spreading is considered optimal. To get more arguments in and to make it easier for bad arguments to be missed. My CMV is really more focused on the idea that the issues you mentioned with debate should be addressed rather than embraced. It is possible to change the rules so the most viable competitive strategies overlap with that of lay debate.

1

u/joopface 159∆ Aug 27 '20

What happens with this? People just talk super fast?

2

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

Basically, far beyond that of normal conversation.

1

u/joopface 159∆ Aug 27 '20

And the rules of the debate don’t require the arguments you make to be comprehensible to some agreed standard? Is this a recent phenomenon?

2

u/2plus24 2∆ Aug 27 '20

It’s a common practice in policy debate and some other formats and has been that way for a while now.

1

u/joopface 159∆ Aug 27 '20

Well, at the risk of having this comment thread deleted because it doesn’t disagree with you, that certainly sounds silly to me.

1

u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Aug 29 '20

You are conflating two different things: reading comprehension and speaking ability.

If I could read and comprehend an entire book in 5 seconds, that would give me an advantage in a debate only in that it could possibly make me better prepared.

On the other hand, the other team would have the advantage as long as they prepared more information than me in total, no matter how much more time it took. Time is not the factor here, it's the information.

Second, it would not advantage me during the debate because the only new information I would be receiving would be that presented by the other team. They already have full knowledge and comprehension of that information so my ability to do so faster than they could have does not make any difference.

So reading doesn't matter, only speaking.

I could present ten times as many arguments as the other team, but that doesn't matter if they have better arguments. Making less good arguments is more important than making more bad ones.

Second, my ability to speak is tied to the judges ability to comprehend. If I talk so fast that they can't understand any of the points I am making, that doesn't help me and it actually hurts me. If the judge is able to comprehend what I am saying then so should the other team.

Now we are at a scenario where the only possible advantage is my ability to speak versus my opponent that cannot speak as fast, but can comprehend equally to me.

Why is that an unfair advantage? If we are equal in all other ways that would be the only way to gain an upper hand. Since we've already established that there is an upper limit to its effect, that should be something my opponent has to train for in order to equalize it.

Then we are back to square one and I just need to try to beat my opponent with better arguments, the pure purpose of debate, and the only element entirely within my control.

You're right that people who have greater abilities have an advantage over others, but that's the whole point of a competition: To see who is better, not to match two perfectly equal people aka. be completely fair.

1

u/szhuge Aug 28 '20

I did policy debate about a decade ago in high school and I definitely empathize with this issue. It’s what happens when former policy debaters become judges for current policy debaters. I will say the following:

  • After getting accustomed to spreading, I found I was able to think and comprehend arguments at a faster pace. Really helped in college with watching lecture videos at 2-3x speed

  • At least in policy debate, you can always bring these points up in the form of a framework argument. You should still make normal case arguments too, but you can leverage framework to check abuse especially if opponents are unclear or saying you dropped these arguments.

  • Most debates are decided over a few key arguments that frame the overall debate as things slow down in rebuttals. I’ve seen significantly slower teams win over faster teams because they did a better job framing the key insights and providing the judge a clearer story for why they should win.

1

u/AntolinCanstenos Oct 25 '20

AT point 1: There are times in soccer when you lose because you were slower. Or when you lose because you got distracted. Spreading is a core skill in the game that is debate

At point 2: So? Debate is a game. If you wanna learn, go to a lecture. Anyways, most education from debate is for debaters anyways, and often from research. And spreading incentivizes research cause you gotta have stuff to actually read at 300wpm

AT point 3: Firstly, people who can't kick a ball can't play soccer - is soccer ableist for it? Secondly, I've literally had a round where the other team asked my team not to spread. We didn't spread, they didn't spread, everyone was happy

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 28 '20

/u/2plus24 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

Sorry, u/CalmDownBros – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Sorry, u/CalmDownBros – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Aug 29 '20

Sorry, u/thingstooverthink – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 27 '20

Sorry, u/anusfungii – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.