Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all who weighed in. Good to know, I guess, that my kid's experience is "normal."

The former debaters might be interested in reading this Harpers piece by Tess McNulty about toxic gender dynamics in h.s. debate: https://harpers.org/archive/2022/09/both-sides-now-domination-and-abuse-on-the-high-school-debate-circuit/

As for the poster who asked "What's the point?" If you looked at any activity through the lens of "in demand skills," I think you'd find most of them lacking. What's the point of striving to run a mile in less than five minutes or putting your body (and brain) on the line for high school football? I think all activities can have a point if the student finds fulfilment in them. As PPs have noted, policy debate can work to sharpen critical thinking and writing, collaboration, public speaking and confidence.

Thanks for sharing that article. My kid is in middle school, but reading that made me definitively conclude that there's no way I would encourage them to do debate. It seems incredibly toxic.

+1 to Lincoln-Douglas.

I debated in high school in the 90s, and even then the “spreading” and the “kritiks,” which no one has mentioned but are probably even sillier and more toxic than the spreading, dominated the national circuit. Now I have a middle schooler who enjoys debate as a novice (no spreading or kritiks yet) and is doing quite well. I see some educational value in the activity — she’s learning about policy issues and analyzing evidence to find flaws and counter-arguments — but I worry about her getting too deep into the toxic and somewhat ridiculous culture of higher-level competitive policy debate. I wish there were a more traditional form of debate that focused more on research, logical argumentation, and persuasion. Is Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum debate the answer? Anyone with recent experience, I’d love to hear from you!

I coached debate for many years but it was horrible for all of the reasons PPs have described. I quit coaching when I was judging a tournament and had the realization that I was making mini Ted Cruz (he has a HS and college debater).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who is interested in mock trial, and I was curious if mock trial is also as intense as debate? I am the PP right above whose sister found debate toxic. I would like to avoid such a culture if possible. Can anyone with experience comment?

My kid is in policy debate, but her school also has a mock trial team. My understanding is that mock trial is much more chill.

Mock trial has more overlap with theater ( prepping a role in the trial etc), kids who do it love it but it’s a slightly different crowd than debaters

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who is interested in mock trial, and I was curious if mock trial is also as intense as debate? I am the PP right above whose sister found debate toxic. I would like to avoid such a culture if possible. Can anyone with experience comment?

My kid is in policy debate, but her school also has a mock trial team. My understanding is that mock trial is much more chill.

Anonymous wrote:Omg I’m laughing also at that speed-talking girl in the video. The only issue with speed talking is you can’t under WTF they’re saying. It may help in high school debates, but it’s a pretty useless skill in the real world.

How do the judges even understand?
How do you debate someone talking like that?

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't oversell debate as the hot ticket for future lawyers, even trial lawyers. Plenty of those pompous popinjays in my top law school, but most of them went into corporate or finance. Being a former debate champion does, however, give you a top-notch reputation as an a-hole--you can spot them a mile away.

My closest policy debate peers from college are now early retired following a startup exit or in venture capital, finance, or the law. In the law, they are 50/50 in transactional and litigation. None are a holes unless you run into one of the litigators in court. I'm in transactional and have an opportunity to refer out quite a bit of litigation matters and I only send them to former debaters.

Omg I’m laughing also at that speed-talking girl in the video. The only issue with speed talking is you can’t under WTF they’re saying. It may help in high school debates, but it’s a pretty useless skill in the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the fast talking? Is the goal just to make as many points as possible?

https://www.wsj.com/video/this-debater-can-talk-twice-as-fast-as-you-can/19BD8EB4-7470-429F-98F8-56BF99D02EB8.html

That's idiotic. I was excited that my kid wanted to try middle school debate team because I thought it would help them think more flexibly and learn to construct arguments. Ideally communicate more clearly.

That is the opposite!

Lol that was comedic. Even she (the fast talker) was laughing at herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is on the policy debate team. Kid likes the intellectual rigor and seems to be decent at it, and yet also seems to be made miserable by the stress of tournaments. I was never involved in debate, so it's all new to me, but it seems really intense (or maybe that's just my kid?) and the wacky arguments on both side and the practice of "spreading" (basically speed talking the entire time) make the debates themselves seem incoherent. Can anyone familiar with policy debate tell me if what I'm describing sounds normal?

They really need to tone it down and make debate a non-competitive activity for kids.

You can't make debate "non competitive", competition is literally built into the activity. But I agree it has spun out of control. I live in an area that has intentionally kept things more low key and reminds me of high school debate in the 80s. The upside - it's a fun activity for kids who like to nerd out on the weekends and helps build a lot of confidence. The downside - even our very best debaters don't do very well out on the national circuit. I'll take it though, I think it's the better balance.

Anonymous wrote:My kid is on the policy debate team. Kid likes the intellectual rigor and seems to be decent at it, and yet also seems to be made miserable by the stress of tournaments. I was never involved in debate, so it's all new to me, but it seems really intense (or maybe that's just my kid?) and the wacky arguments on both side and the practice of "spreading" (basically speed talking the entire time) make the debates themselves seem incoherent. Can anyone familiar with policy debate tell me if what I'm describing sounds normal?

They really need to tone it down and make debate a non-competitive activity for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the fast talking? Is the goal just to make as many points as possible?

https://www.wsj.com/video/this-debater-can-talk-twice-as-fast-as-you-can/19BD8EB4-7470-429F-98F8-56BF99D02EB8.html

That's idiotic. I was excited that my kid wanted to try middle school debate team because I thought it would help them think more flexibly and learn to construct arguments. Ideally communicate more clearly.

That is the opposite!

I wouldn't oversell debate as the hot ticket for future lawyers, even trial lawyers. Plenty of those pompous popinjays in my top law school, but most of them went into corporate or finance. Being a former debate champion does, however, give you a top-notch reputation as an a-hole--you can spot them a mile away.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the fast talking? Is the goal just to make as many points as possible?

https://www.wsj.com/video/this-debater-can-talk-twice-as-fast-as-you-can/19BD8EB4-7470-429F-98F8-56BF99D02EB8.html