Speed K NC Version Debate is a communicative activity; anything that hinders our ability to understand one another renders all

l argumentation vacuous. Affirmative responses that further link into the criticism are precluded by my winning offense against them, since the kritik indicts our ability to evaluate that argumentation. The criticism is further evaluated before any other critical or theoretical argumentation, since I can't effectively engage in other areas of the flow; our inability to understand an argument is the equivalent of that argument not having been made. You endorse the criticism even if I lose the line-by-line since you as a judge are obligated to use the ballot in the most constructive way, and so have the ability to deviate from the flow in order to secure greater outside benefits. Even if I link into the substantive part of the criticism, the affirmative is uniquely linking on a theoretical level, since he forced the round into a speed contest. A: Link. The affirmative speech rate exceeds the limits of regular comprehensibility; my ability to engage his argumentation is contingent on my being farmiliar with its content. We evaluate the link using reasonability as a standard; the absence of a clear brightline is not a reason to reject my argumentation, as a reasonable deviation from absolute objectivity is preferable over allowing infinite abuse of theoretical standards. B: Implications. First, a speed contest is completely uneducational. Gregory Hayken writes, wrote: There are no major disadvantages to slowing the speed of debate. Arguments are still made, though there may not be as many at once. Other academic facets such as construction of an argument can be improved and can be viewed with even more scrutiny as they will be presented in a slower and/or more concise fashion. Advantages to slower speech, however, are numerous. First of all, slower speech tends to lend itself more to emotional speeches, and allows for more emphasis on different points. This type of emotional speech can be just as helpful in convincing an audience and adds to the ethos and pathos aspects of persuasion. Also, it is easier to use and understand rhetoric when spoken at a reasonable pace. Also slower speech allows for the strategic use of cross examination rather than forcing teams to request tag lines and cards so that they can be flowed. Second, incomprehensible speaking is inherently unfair. I shouldn't have to spend all my cross-X finding out what cards actually say. Also, I shouldn't have to read their books to understand their arguments, as it imposes an infinite research burden on me; my ability to engage their argumentation assumes that I'm familiar with the literature being read. Third, speed is destructive to debate as an academic activity. Academic debate no longer has an audience, except for its own participants. The rapid speech rate that is commonly used prevents potential debaters from participating. This is the most important theoretical implication since debate must exist before theoretical standards have value; the less people there are debating the less it matters how constructive debate actually is. Charles Morris writes, wrote: Over the past two decades, critics (McGough, 1988; McGlashen, 1990) have noted that specialization of several kinds - the development of a sophisticated debate theory literature, the emergence of arguments (both affirmative and negative) virtually devoid of real world relevance, and the increase in the rate of delivery [has grown] to the point where few are even able to comprehend a debate - [This] has functioned to severely limit the audience attractiveness of the activity.

Empirically, better speaking has been shown to solve these problems. The National Federation of State High School Associations writes, (2000) wrote: Dritschilo has worked diligently to restore policy debate in Vermont. He helped change Vermont's debate rules to stress the importance of eloquence and deemphasize speed. As a result, Vermont has seen an increase in the number of schools participating in policy debate. Fourth, slow debate combats real-world stagnation by providing a mechanism for effective reevaluation of state policies. Gregory Hayken writes, wrote: The aspect of gaming which encourages speed is the further emphasis on winning. Of course it has been argued that all games and sports are for the purpose of winning, and this argument is consistent with the widely held belief that debate perpetuates speedy speech. However, advocates of slower speech may argue that the purpose of debate is to win, but to win by means of convincing instead of "outcarding." In the context of the debate round, it is often naive to think a debater can convince another team, but it is entirely possible to convince a judge, panel, or audience (depending on the context of debate).

C: Alternative. Dropping debaters as punishment is the only way we can effectively deter destructive speaking. No other form of punishment is sufficient, as the incentive to win the round will always outweigh a risk of less severe punishment. Charles Morris writes, wrote: As more and more judges have ceased to impose educational standards in debate rounds, gamesmanship elements (i.e., excessive speed. counter-intuitive arguments, [and] destructive theoretical constructs) have begun to be utilized with greater frequency by debaters. Knowing that judges will passively assign credibility to all arguments and allow a wide range of competitive practices, debaters have advocated increasingly abusive theoretical constructs and preposterous arguments. Experienced competitors often overwhelm weaker opponents, not with greater depth of analysis, but by employing speed, [or] unusual theory, or esoteric arguments. By rewarding debaters who employ such tactics, judges have encouraged others to teach and learn them until these gaming techniques overshadow substantive argument as preferred strategy in the forensic community. Such judge passivity is responsible for the often dramatic decline in the quality of debate arguments and the promotion of shallow practice nearly devoid of educational utility. Negating breaks the loop of stagnation, as once it's been demonstrated that the criticism could actually solve something it becomes easier to endorse it. Even if the criticism doesn't achieve 100% solvency, the risk of losing for speed will make debaters more conscious such that they stay within the limits of reasonable comprehensibility.

Blocks OV: Speed > more / better argumenation. (-) Extend from the first Hayken card that reasonable speed allows us to better understand an argument, which is more educational. This outweighs because either way we're making arguments, so slow debate still captures educational benefits, but if the arguments are incomprehensible then we can't attain any such benefits. (-) Since I don't have the ability to comprehend and engage all his argumentation the extra arguments he's making have no value, so he can't claim any advantages; if he reads 20 offcases and I stop flowing after 5 then the extra 15 are meaningless. A2: Speed boosts cognative capacity. (-) The correlation between speech rate and cognative ability is a product of genetic overlap, not a causual relationship. Mary Smyth and Keith Scholey write, (1996) wrote: The analyses above suggest that articulation rate does not make a specific contribution to any spatial memory task, although it is correlated with all of them. Using another visuospatial task as a predictor in these analyses does not alter this picture. It is unlikely that any of these [memory] tasks [have] has a particular relationship with articulation rate which causes all the correlations between articulation rate and spatial and pattern tasks.

A2: Speed solves elitism. (-) Non-unique: You need something to read in order for speaking abilities to matter. (-) Turn: Fast debate favors the teams with good coaching as then they can do more effective speed drills. (-) Turn: Fast debate centers around carded evidence which requires research tools, whereas anyone can write analytics and practice persuasive speaking. A2: Wrong forum. (-) No impact: As long as I'm solving my harms I'm getting my offense. (-) Turn: Spreading is for policy, so he's in the wrong forum. A2: Spreading is fun. (-) There's no harm because people who are well into fast debate aren't going to quit. (-) Education outweighs because the impacts extend beyond the debate round and have realworld value. A2: I need to speak fast to keep up with my competition.

(-) They don't need to go fast to cover a slow NC. (-) They still link notably more than they need to; even if they need to go fast, they don't need to be the fastest.