MovieChat Forums > Resolved (2007) Discussion > Don't these kids realize that talking th...

Don't these kids realize that talking that fast...


...makes them sound like douchebags?

And why bother speaking at all if all of that stuff is typed out? Basically, it's a contest of who can speak fast? Maybe I don't get it.

reply

You don't get it. It's about argumentation and learning how to make and rebut arguments. Public speaking is a skill that comes along with this. It's less about HOW you speak, it's about how you make your speeches flow. It's not a contest of who can speak the fastest: really fast teams get beat all the times by slower teams who can make better arguments and know how to actually argue better.

The point of typing all of the info out is that it is available. It's not ONLY about reading evidence. The last 4 speeches of the debate rarely contain a single piece of evidence. A bad debater hides behind his (or her) evidence. A good debater knows how to use his or her evidence to make arguments. A great debater knows how to examine evidence and make a great speech with only necessary pieces of evidence.

reply

I'm pretty sure that public speaking IS about HOW you speak. If I was listening to two people argue something, and someone talked like how they did in these debates, I would just ignore them. There is no practicality to it. You wouldn't talk like that anywhere in the real world, and it seems like this would be the LAST place you would want to rush through speaking.

"...really fast teams get beat all the times by slower teams who can make better arguments and know how to actually argue better."

Exactly. So, like I said, they shouldn't rush through things, and instead, take their time and make good arguments.

reply

lol the point of typing out the info is because otherwise no one else would know wtf they're talking about in the first place.........if you talk fast that's fine, but the requirement should be that you need to be comprehensible..........watching the documentary, most debates seem won/lost based on what comes out of the cross examinations, which as i recall does not go back and forth in the same lightning speech as their arguments ( why? probably because they actually have to think, plus it hard's to go back and forth if you dont know what they're talking about)

do these judges actually make determinations based on what the hear? or do they have the text in front of them and go by that?

reply