Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly doing any activity at a high level in high school is really intense. Sports, music, debate, STEM, all of it. Being a high achiever has its costs.

+1

Overall, it is not great for kids' development or mental health.

Maybe. But some kids really enjoy it. My kid honestly seems to thrive on the intensity of her sport. And, she's very good. We keep an eye out for her mental health and well-being, but I think she'd be unhappy without her activity. No need for generalizations, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:Policy debate is a toxic self-parody ruined by kids who never grew up.

You mean the judges/team leaders?

Policy debate is a toxic self-parody ruined by kids who never grew up.

Shoutout to extemp! Love extemp and so glad I did it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 think it has more to do with the region and how connected debaters are to national circuit style, than the specific debate activity. I love LD, I did it in high school myself in the 80s and I judge it now on our local circuit which is quite low-key and reminds me of the activity I did. But I went to a few national circuit type tournaments with my kid and just for fun watched some elimination rounds and I didn’t even recognize the activity. It has gotten much more like old policy with spreading/kritiks and just loads of BS. I actually really liked PF that I saw at national circuit tournaments, the kids were really smart and well informed and it more about learning the issues than some silly game rules.

The wall Street journal video says the fast talking girl does Lincoln Douglass style, was that incorrect?

PP here - not sure what video you're references but probably correct. LD in the early days was really about ideas and persuasive speaking, speed spreading was not a thing, nor were all the fancy tricks that were part of policy debate (I did both in the 80s, policy was fun and fast, LD was slower and more thoughtful.) In the intervening years LD has become much more like the policy pacing even though it is still ethics based debate. So it really depends which kind of debate circuit you're on. Where I live LD is still pretty "old style" and that is managed by the coaches who have a shared agreement about what they want the activity to look like. It means that when our LD kids go to national circuit tournaments they get hosed, they don't know how to do it. But I think they have a better experience locally. Interestingly I watched LD finals at the Harvard tournament and it was crazy newer style, but at NSDA nationals a few years ago it was very old school LD! Apparently this is because the funders of the NSDA tournament hate the developments in LD and want the kids to be focusing on ideas and persuasive speaking.

Sort of off topic but my kid did mock trial which has some of the same research and public speaking skills but seems less demanding (less to research no points for talking as fast as possible).

Also when I was in college we used to have “off topic” debate where there was no research at all— it was extemporaneous and humorous but I doubt anyone does that in HS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 think it has more to do with the region and how connected debaters are to national circuit style, than the specific debate activity. I love LD, I did it in high school myself in the 80s and I judge it now on our local circuit which is quite low-key and reminds me of the activity I did. But I went to a few national circuit type tournaments with my kid and just for fun watched some elimination rounds and I didn’t even recognize the activity. It has gotten much more like old policy with spreading/kritiks and just loads of BS. I actually really liked PF that I saw at national circuit tournaments, the kids were really smart and well informed and it more about learning the issues than some silly game rules.

The wall Street journal video says the fast talking girl does Lincoln Douglass style, was that incorrect?

Anonymous wrote: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 think it has more to do with the region and how connected debaters are to national circuit style, than the specific debate activity. I love LD, I did it in high school myself in the 80s and I judge it now on our local circuit which is quite low-key and reminds me of the activity I did. But I went to a few national circuit type tournaments with my kid and just for fun watched some elimination rounds and I didn’t even recognize the activity. It has gotten much more like old policy with spreading/kritiks and just loads of BS. I actually really liked PF that I saw at national circuit tournaments, the kids were really smart and well informed and it more about learning the issues than some silly game rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, if we view this activity as beneficial and open to all, then, everyone should be acknowledged for their efforts. Viewed through the lens of equity, why should one team have to lose? Can’t this be a win-win activity?

I don’t think “lens of equity” means what you think it means

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, if we view this activity as beneficial and open to all, then, everyone should be acknowledged for their efforts. Viewed through the lens of equity, why should one team have to lose? Can’t this be a win-win activity?