Harvard-Westlake's Ben Sprung Keyser wins the National Tournament on a 9-2 Decision. He is coached by Mike Bietz.
Пікірлер: 609
@wessel57995 жыл бұрын
I feel like I'm watching a sloth fight a hummingbird...
@harryzhang12445 жыл бұрын
agreed, wolf against rat
@qwallace48324 жыл бұрын
Listen to what they do with the resolution though
@fluxnfiction55594 жыл бұрын
Lmao
@tuatarian65914 жыл бұрын
Aff is extremely good, even if neg is more agressive
@stikbotregion92424 жыл бұрын
300th like thats why I liked
@oceanofhorses7 жыл бұрын
the aff is painfully slow to the point where he's at a large disadvantage during the first cx. he clearly has a good grasp of framework debate and has excellent vocal control but frankly his speech is monotonous and stale.
@logansmith27717 жыл бұрын
oceanofhorses
@jamessartorius76627 жыл бұрын
oceanofhorses
@edenwitelson82687 жыл бұрын
oceanofhorses, I disagree, as he fulfilled all of the criteria necessary for a a good presentation. It is not necessary to be emotional when speaking, he spoke slowly and comprehensively as well as defended himself very nicely
@arcarc99476 жыл бұрын
You fail to explain why monotonous speech is negative. Monotonous speech is used to emphasize logic: Presidential speech and such are not monotonous as emotion is a major factor; in a standard debate, however, monotonous speech is a viable option.
@aubreyelle-joymateoarringt55836 жыл бұрын
oceanofhorses I'm just in jv and just got out of middle school debate, and we can't even speak this slow
@the1andonlytrollface8 жыл бұрын
negative was a policy debater at one point
@connorlee85935 жыл бұрын
@Joshua Teem honestly he wasn't that fast
@tuatarian65914 жыл бұрын
@@connorlee8593 that's the speed that you'd use for a lay judge in parli or pol
@connorlee85934 жыл бұрын
@@tuatarian6591 ya but this is LD
@bethanytong23383 жыл бұрын
he goes to harvard now
@aanya18993 жыл бұрын
ikr he was SO FAST
@skeletonlord19807 жыл бұрын
Can you restate the question
@PigeonFlare5 жыл бұрын
Thanks
@cloversoda4 жыл бұрын
NOPE *dab*
@thecapedinventor64225 жыл бұрын
These two low key remind me of L and Light from death note. Especially with all that talk about J U S T I C E
@salmandjingueinabaye80464 жыл бұрын
The quality of this comment is slept on
@happytimewithcarl3 жыл бұрын
👀
@sum1tookish3807 жыл бұрын
"And I hope that (...) someday all of you will have your DNA in a government database." Best. Ever. XD
@daviddarby19604 жыл бұрын
"Someday? you'd be surprised-
@caroto10058 жыл бұрын
By far the best debate I have ever watched. As a debater I could only dream of being this skilled in arguments.
@TheGr8one10228 жыл бұрын
Your standards are awful then. These guys stunk.
@Mrbloodydischarge8 жыл бұрын
I don't suppose you've made it to the final's of nationals before?
@TheGr8one10228 жыл бұрын
+Mrbloodydischarge I don't suppose I'd ever want to be a part of this freak show. They lack the most important skills to debate, which are effective communication and logic.
@youcock907 жыл бұрын
As a BP debater I dislike the way arguments are made, meaning that the depth of argumentation is more shallow than we are used to in BP (or at least Euros). Given that, I found these speeches fairly good.
@Ckdude1007 жыл бұрын
+TheGr8one1022 you couldn't even make it this far.
@noirdecat22865 жыл бұрын
I like the first guy. His calm and collected composure show that he is very matured and intelligent.
@deqahussein38212 жыл бұрын
We shouldn’t judge debaters based on their style, but the content of their arguments.
@iziahdavis35612 жыл бұрын
@@deqahussein3821 she didnt judge the debater but yet stated how she enjoyed and loved the style.
@immortalkeiji4451 Жыл бұрын
he looks like one character from shrek
@itmightbe4 ай бұрын
@@immortalkeiji4451he kind of looks like Dream
@nathanroper26118 жыл бұрын
While the affirmative may have been a bit more calm and collected, the negative seemed to care more about the side he was arguing. He spoke much more enthusiastically and I Beleive that led him largely to the victory
@DartSlinger8 жыл бұрын
+Nathan Roper I agree with you completely that passion from a speaker is in reality a large part of convincing an audience. Ideally, though, should this be? Should not logic triumph over passion?
@joshpryce99237 жыл бұрын
+Dart Slinger hahaha ive nvr played it. but it sounds about right. but it probably devolope after the girl scouts
@joshpryce99237 жыл бұрын
thats definitely the pronunciation i was going for :))
@DartSlinger7 жыл бұрын
Josh Pryce ;)
@july17477 жыл бұрын
we are talking about the mass mentality here; ergo the passion is more of an immediate effect
@cloudgalaxy92317 жыл бұрын
COME ON AFF! All you've got to do is deal with the issue on the Neg's level! Neg core argument is "We can't strive for perfect- we need to strive for practical". All Aff has to say is that having the DNA information of all individuals allows for more discrimination based off of the impracticality of the government keeping that information protected and not using it for other things. Those with medical conditions could be charged more, or mild psychiatric disorders could be discriminated against in the workplace because employers may gain access to that information. And if Neg argues the impracticality of that scenario, just bring up the Wiki-leaks. BAM! CASE CLOSED. Aff would just beat Neg in his own court. Aff wins on Neg's discrimination and practical justice claims.
@cloudgalaxy92317 жыл бұрын
It would work if you phrased it as a counter-argument of Neg's case. Taking Neg's case to it's natural conclusion is a perfectly acceptable way to argue. The most beautiful part about LD is the ability of the debators to slightly wander from their prepared information and use convincing moral reasoning in the unforseen areas that a clash between an infinite number of cases will naturally produce. That's the beauty of LD. That's the beauty of debate. It's an essential part of it. Neg won because he was able to do that.
@jaya58484 жыл бұрын
this was in 2010 before hillary clinton...
@reflectmusic67462 жыл бұрын
Do you even know how debate works, its not about which side is inherently right or wrong, but about who did a better job defending it. You’re wasting your time trying to determine who should’ve won based on your own logic, morals, and opinions. It’s just not how this works
@deqahussein38212 жыл бұрын
By ur logic, you’d actually be giving the Neg more ammo. He could come back and say, look! My opponent has highlighted the inevitable nature of DNA through the use of genealogy banks. Where some distant relative may already volunteered your familial DNA…without consent! It’s a new world and we need to come up with new rules.
@blessnorthamerica79192 жыл бұрын
@@deqahussein3821 family dna doesn’t count
@mikez33498 жыл бұрын
I think the main reason the negative won this debate is because he did much better in the cross. While the affirmative may have done better in his first speech, the negative was better at posing and answering questions in the cross, and handling the pressure.
@yaboi9128 жыл бұрын
Affirmative had a very calm, collected feel during the round. I enjoyed listening to his voice and his points. I try to style my speaking after people like him.
@chrispan79868 жыл бұрын
+Ryan Thurston I actually like the negative. He is really energetic. This gets attention from the judges and makes it feel like he is constantly "on to something" if you will.
@DartSlinger8 жыл бұрын
+Chris Pan Should the tone of a person's voice or the content of his speech gain the attention of the judges, though?
@chrispan79868 жыл бұрын
+Dart Slinger technically it shouldn't, but as my debate coach said once: if you sound really convincing, the judge will be like "oh, this kid looks like he knows what he's talking about" and be biased towards you for the rest of the round. Tone of voice is very important
@teresacontreras49997 жыл бұрын
I competed in high school and college speech and debate. Debate is still oriented on speaking. The negative is a poor speaker. You can literally hear him inhale. You can be a faster and more passionate speaker without hyperventilating. I shouldn't be able to hear you gasp for breath as a judge.
@savitbhat6106 жыл бұрын
speaker points is one of the least weighted sections of scoring in debate, usually used as a tiebreaker
@sarahf43615 жыл бұрын
Smart of neg to restate his case during Aff’s cross-ex, good way to lessen the attack done by affirmative; gotta give it to him for that strategy, man 😂👏🏼
@goldenduper942 жыл бұрын
True, I do PF and restating my case although reduces my speaker points, can't let them attack
@GymMasterT17 жыл бұрын
When I first watched this as a novice LD debater, I was outraged that the neg won because I thought the aff was so concise and great. Now, two years later, it's clear to me that the neg won by a long shot. Pretty entertaining to me.
@ryanly85656 жыл бұрын
Heard the topic and was like WTF lmao
@morgantempleton45963 жыл бұрын
The second kid didn't actually have a strong argument, at least not stronger than the first one. He just spoke faster and more confidently. The question was concerned with the *justice* of a DNA system. The first kid proved that it was unjust, and the second kid simply changed the definition of justice to fit his narrative. The first kid would make a good professor, the second one would make a good politician.
@benbrown37863 жыл бұрын
That's true about justice v practicality, but in the first CX, neg established that justice inherently entails an idea of pragmatics
@reflectmusic67462 жыл бұрын
Actually what the second kid did is an important part of debate called spreading. It is not so much about the morality or correctness of the case but rather, how convincing the argument is, making the negative case stronger and better defended.
@philipdai86822 жыл бұрын
@@reflectmusic6746 As an LD debater, that's nowhere near spreading. Spreading speaks at a way faster pace even compared to Ben in this video
@toastedgrapes7961 Жыл бұрын
@@reflectmusic6746 If you've seen Policy or even some PFers debate, you'd see real spreading. The second guy is just naturally speaking as fast as his thoughts come.
@neftaliruiz83007 жыл бұрын
The neg sounds more like policy than morality. The aff won moral wise. When he attacks the neg all he says is the opponent isnt debating the resolution, not a good argument. The neg gave a more practical real-world view, and was a better speaker as in not borring wise. I could see either side winning
@08Pixel8 жыл бұрын
1:42 is the start of the debate :)
@anonymoussecret59488 жыл бұрын
I don't think there should be a 9-2 vote for neg. This debate wasn't outright 1-sided. While neg may have more speaks, aft had some pretty good arguments, especially the argument against neg's support, which was justice for 1 person falls to injustice of everyone.
@tuatarian65914 жыл бұрын
Aff was extremely good.i would have voted neg by an insanely small margin
@teddywyman84128 жыл бұрын
in my opinion speaking style should have nothing to do with who wins a debate, and it should all come down to the arguments made. that being said, this was a pretty easy aff ballot. aff has a better hold on justice and more clearly addresses the resolution while also showing why the neg doesnt uphold his burden as effectively. neg makes good arguments for the benefits of such a data base but benefits =/= justice.
@bensmith22345 жыл бұрын
Nothing to do with it? That's kinda silly since this is a speech based competition...
@legendary_igel_master5 жыл бұрын
@@bensmith2234 doesn't that give the wrong picture of debate to kids though? In a serious debate content and good arguments should ALWAYS win over finesse in speech. The philosophy behind the entire concept of debating is educating yourself by being confronted with other views, and that includes leaving your own view behind and giving in to opposing arguments, if they are better than yours. Not defending your standpoint for the sake of winning, even if you realise that the other person might be right
@MrHappy43115 жыл бұрын
@@bensmith2234 It should just be about the arguments and points that the people are debating and nothing more. Louder & Faster should never equal better. The same should apply to the opposite.
@JohnnySins69XO5 жыл бұрын
The way someone speaks compels the listener, if you sound like a robot, you won’t convince anyone
@atrashbag81054 жыл бұрын
I agree, Aff should have won. Neg's speaking style carried him to the win.
@mallorylewis14182 жыл бұрын
I would like to see the first guy's collected composure and the second guy's confidence all in one. I think they both did amazing!
@jailjill25407 жыл бұрын
Compared to policy, or even pf, this is incredibly relaxing to watch
@ryanbazail6 жыл бұрын
this isnt real ld
@jacobhenderson17325 жыл бұрын
Ryan Bazail this is real LD, it’s traditional LD so much better than progressive LD which is just saying cards as fast as humanly possible
@ryanbazail5 жыл бұрын
@timroth i agree man as a former lder all that shit sucks and that is what drove me out of the event but that is unfortunately what largely dominates ld these days
@iamsearchingforthefiletmignon2 жыл бұрын
@Gabriel Fuks congress is where its at
@saintnicole32095 жыл бұрын
Guy 1: I’m gonna speak clear so that the judges can understand me and so that I remain calm and do not slip up. Guy 2: What do mean we aren’t allowed to spread??
@bxnjxmxn29423 жыл бұрын
ok ok but this is NOT spreading you’d be in shock if you saw what it’s like - search any TOC ld vid lmao
@paddyharrigan15303 жыл бұрын
@@bxnjxmxn2942 For real, neg is speaking as fast or even slower than any jv debator lmao
@carolinavalenzuela60208 жыл бұрын
Neg won delivery Aff won the flow
@pascal.bakari5 жыл бұрын
Lina Zuela yes!!!
@STKHub5 жыл бұрын
@@dennistang4823 Which one are you?
@joshm70054 жыл бұрын
@Joshua Teem ok but to get your whole argument inside the time limit you need to talk fast
@Aiden-by1dn7 жыл бұрын
Everyone here is so smart and I'm just sitting here like what are they talking about😬🤤
@user-gq1jq9pe9m5 жыл бұрын
me too
@crimmus4 жыл бұрын
William Walsh Aff was not a fast talker, Neg was.
@al66073 жыл бұрын
totally can relate, luffy
@salvation71418 жыл бұрын
I cant remember who said it, but theres a quote that says humans are not just a number. Whether its 1 person murdered or a whole genocide, no one life is greater than the other. Therefore, no one civil liberty is more significant than any others. Great debate, the opposition should have been better for Ben. this is a national debate not a debunk bully assertion
@kyro85594 жыл бұрын
that first cx was one of the best i’ve ever seen in my life
@keriganmoore85786 жыл бұрын
Both sides had their strong points. The affirmative had morality in his claim and warrant, which is, in my opinion, more important than policy. However, he was extremely boring and, sorry, but I found it very hard to listen to him. I wanted to yell, "LIGHTEN UP." The negative brought a more of a bigger picture point of you, along with the reality of the situation, which in some cases, will most always win the debate. He was also humorous and engaging, something I find very compelling, even if you are spitting out nonsense.
@caidenfx55876 жыл бұрын
good round, neg just a bit more agressive doesn’t mean he should have won though, aff was very analytic and explained well. if he didn’t spend so much time in the rebuttles talking about the topicality (neg logic was a bit off) and would have just attacked his arguments, aff would have won. the round should have not been a 9-2 though. The aff did insanely good on framework but overall the debate goes neg but don’t agree with a 9-2.
@AkulBhambhani19912 жыл бұрын
9-2 means that 9 people thought he won the round and 2 didn't. It dosent say how much they thought he won by, it could be a very narrow or big victory in their eyes those 9 wins could think the same as you and think they won the round by a little bit.
@cragetty-ragetty5673 Жыл бұрын
wait but the main problem here is that the aff only had one (logical ) argument: infringing on human rights which does not make sense from my point.
@alohaflow94096 жыл бұрын
Negative's logic is kinda weird. His only justification is that "we do X with Y, therefore we can always do X". Like he doesn't give u any specific analysis.
@chriscotrutsa29794 жыл бұрын
That's a permutation in debate, it actually makes a lot of sense if you do debate and know what that is
@Joseph-ou6jy4 жыл бұрын
Basic Summary: Affirmative speaker had a slow, clearer delivery with an arguably better case, but got caught up in the Negative's own delivery, which was quick, logical on face, and appealed a lot more to the judges. Which I think explains the vote.
@brodhax61485 жыл бұрын
Both these guys are very good debaters. Neg suffers from Nixon syndrome. Nixon had a debate with JFK, in which case Nixon made very good points, but calm handsome JFK blew him out of the water simply because he was more composed. Neg just needs to relax a bit.
@brodhax61485 жыл бұрын
@William Walsh what isnt
@narwhallegion85836 жыл бұрын
People are forgetting this is a competition not politics, the judges care about who was the better speaker just as much as the actual facts
@YOGERTV7 жыл бұрын
did. this. man. fart. at. 1:26 .
@khushishah30356 жыл бұрын
Shooketh
@lucasrobinson77756 жыл бұрын
FroYoBros OMG
@saddoge45685 жыл бұрын
lmao
@vivianbeauregard11775 жыл бұрын
Omg
@DJ-xp9bs5 жыл бұрын
Yall crazy, dude swallowed. It makes sense because the mic is closer to his neck/mouth than his butt. LOL
@ZzLiGHTNiNGzZ7 жыл бұрын
Doing Lincoln Douglas debate was one of the best times I had in high school and college
@georgelopez5416 жыл бұрын
The affirmative was clearly the winner. Had a far better grasp on the resolution
@reflectmusic67462 жыл бұрын
You clearly don’t know how debate works
@vinceangsuban26115 жыл бұрын
don't judge on how the negative side does things . its part of his strategy . its simply all in the content of what he said
@dylancanyon7234 жыл бұрын
This is very late and I know almost no one in the comments is an actual debater, but if you are in debate and understand LD and the flow, neg one by FAR! Aff flowed through ink on literally everything and was pretty nonresponsive, did poorly in cross although that doesn’t matter, neg was just winning everything
@RupmujMusic Жыл бұрын
Thank you! I am an actual debater, and I agree. 9-2 was pretty accurate
@ritwiksathe37868 жыл бұрын
Aff is calm while neg is aggressive
@meandtheboisvlogs81093 жыл бұрын
Not really aggressive. I presume the neg has more experience with policy debate which is why he debates like that
@SakthiPandiSocialMedia8 жыл бұрын
Aff just seemed so much more mature and controlled, neg had great points but seemed immature and spazzy (just my opinion)
@SakthiPandiSocialMedia8 жыл бұрын
***** Truth, I said this before I joined my school's debate team, and since then I too have learned what you are talking about above. I totally understand now.
@SakthiPandiSocialMedia8 жыл бұрын
***** Thank you sir!
@calebhisel72478 жыл бұрын
I feel you confuse "spazzy"with aggressive and "mature" with calm.
@revitellect31295 жыл бұрын
Great debate! Well fought. Negative was talking a bit fast which made it difficult to find flaws in the arguments, but he did defend his points well.
@covingtoncampbell82508 ай бұрын
The first kid absolutely tore the affirmitive’s arguments apart in the rebuttal.
@brookenoneyabuisness52645 жыл бұрын
I have to do a Lincoln-douglas debate next week in class at school(for the first time)...this shows how unprepared I am
@John-lf3xf5 жыл бұрын
Negative won because the affirmative did not make the best arguments and included bad arguments. He never actually mentioned possible practical concerns that arise out of the government having access to DNA. That would have killed and silenced the negative completely.
@AudreySu136 жыл бұрын
the affirmative totally won! the biggest injustice here is allowing the negative to win 9-2
@penguinlingo82033 жыл бұрын
i disagree the neg had a bigger and more well-constructed argument. Try coming into the round with no personal basis then you'll see why neg was so much better
@LawSchoolChef7 жыл бұрын
There is a lot of controversy occurring between who should have won. However, I believe the negative was right to have won. First of all, he persuaded judges and audiences by seeming enthusiastic about the topic, while some other comments counter the negative as being "aggressive" and a "bully". He had the overall better points, better links, but he lacked on his cross-examination as he kept going on with the same question for 2 minutes and never addressed it later on.
@BlakkLining8 жыл бұрын
In the description ---> he is coached by Mike BS. Dang, what a name.
@SoufianeChoubani8 жыл бұрын
One of the best debates I've seen! Congrats HW Debate Team!
@KroNiiCClaN8 жыл бұрын
The negative winning is the true injustice here
@joeytarnowski60187 жыл бұрын
Dustin McLaughlin It's clear that he was the superior debater. He more thoroughly refuted everything about the aff while remaining poised. He was the clear winner
@xHannibal6 жыл бұрын
The neg clearly won
@lalabinh44465 жыл бұрын
Who is the negative and the affirmative?
@danaealexandrax5 жыл бұрын
Phước Xương I believe that the boy in the red shirt is the aff & the blue shirt is the negative
@calvinbailey3279 жыл бұрын
Positive won the debate..100%, without a doubt
@odee92238 жыл бұрын
I think you mean positive in terms of for the compulsory database, so ya he killed it.
@chuggaa1008 жыл бұрын
Aff
@aakashkurse42008 жыл бұрын
I agree , the aff won the debate
@soothee50867 жыл бұрын
The Negative side is aggressive, but I agree he did a great job (+1 on diction, +1 on humor, -1 for scaring me in the beginning) BUT the Affirmative has a pleasant way of debating and makes me happy:D
@thegreencircle14055 жыл бұрын
I feel that the second would have had an even better delivery if he slowed down and let his points sink in before moving on to another.
@lowvariance5 жыл бұрын
Neg won the big picture while aff was more polished and won the details. Overall, I'd probably vote neg. Aff had great rebuttals but I thought his case was weak. "Making people give dna violates human rights which is bad" is a simple and ineffective argument, the negative literally countered the whole case in his observations. Like he said, considering any minor infractions on human rights unjust is regressive and not operable in the real life.
@yonggrey64076 жыл бұрын
They are amazing! If I were to debate about this case, I would have done it the way the aff did it. But the negative is very convincing here!
@M_Chen3336 жыл бұрын
I would say in this debate, Affirmative is Lincoln and Negative is Douglas. xD
@kosmo75745 жыл бұрын
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the NEG position providing some form of implementation as solvency? So wouldn't that be discarded as policy because this is within the parameters of LD Debate?
@FlurryFunk8 жыл бұрын
I do Public Forum most of the time, but I have done Lincoln Douglas before, and am doing it in a few weeks. I really find it hard to be Neg in LD, because the timing is so different of that of PF, and AFF is so much more similar. Any advice on how to get used to the Neg layout?
@kbean238 жыл бұрын
As a past Public Forum Debater and current Lincoln-Douglas Debater, I assure you that as you gain experience you will begin to enjoy the negative set up far more. In PF you get 4 minutes to actually attack your opponents case, in LD you get 4 minutes to attack your opponents AND defend your own. The negative, however, gets around 3-4 (dependent on length of constructive) minutes to attack. The negative, in my opinion, has a clear advantage in terms of the settings of the round.
@FlurryFunk8 жыл бұрын
Well, I just went to the tournament this weekend, and I did pretty badly. I went 2-4, lol. Sure, it was a national tournament, and everyone in my school got the same score, but I really hope I get to improve before the next tournament, which is on the 30th for me. I did notice that negative was a lot easier this time, although I didn't win a round as negative. Hopefully I will succeed in negative next time! :D
@chuggaa1008 жыл бұрын
+FlurryFunk Most of it is in the case and the morality/philosophy. LD is a value debate so without a sound value structure you will lose. This is part of whats wrong with LD today, there are too many statistics and the Value structure is something that gets overlooked. Also while aff may seem like it has an advantage because it gets the first and last speech, this is not really true, as they cant rebut any statements said in the 2nr, nor can they bring up any new points during voting issues
@FlurryFunk8 жыл бұрын
Lol it's okay I ended up going to back to PF anyway. No I can go back to not having a soul and saying that lives are irrelevant, and that money is all that matters. :D
@ArkiloMagnus7 жыл бұрын
First debate tomorrow, I'm gonna suck lol
@arilohr56417 жыл бұрын
Y-it Magnusen How did it go?
@bug53276 жыл бұрын
Y-it Magnusen If you try hard and speak pretty, you'll always win as a novice.
@anikadixit32436 жыл бұрын
He/She commented this almost a year ago I think they figured it out by now.
@kellysong33206 жыл бұрын
same here!
@PrinceJes5 жыл бұрын
Good or bad?
@gups59606 жыл бұрын
"and I hope that some day, you all have your DNA in a Government Database." Oh my god wow
@jessicalizarraga56324 жыл бұрын
I've debated Harvard Westlake kids before they're hardcore.
@arilohr56413 жыл бұрын
going to harvard-westlake is a link to a k
@paddyharrigan15303 жыл бұрын
@@arilohr5641 lmao fr
@bobbanmillan81688 жыл бұрын
Affirmative should have won easily, he spoke logically and realistically, while the negative won simply because he made some jokes and was the most offensive
@rags19018 жыл бұрын
this is as far from the truth as you can possibly get.
@lukegrey76987 жыл бұрын
True he should have but it is about who can debate better not just the subject at hand.
@zes38137 жыл бұрын
wrong
@williamcone96237 жыл бұрын
I totally agree with you. Given the resolution, Affirmative easily proved a compulsory DNA database would be unjust (even if the alternative is equally or even more unjust). However, from a real-world analysis, I do believe the negative proved that his side was overall the better option.
@savitbhat6106 жыл бұрын
You are wrong.
@user-qf3ik8je4f8 жыл бұрын
Negative and Affirmative made interesting points, but Affirmative did not really defend his case. Affirmative pretty much, just attacked Negative's case throughout this round. Affirmative continued to repeat his attack over and over again, while Negative came in with different approaches. Although this point doesn't really matter, I will state it anyways, Affirmative was very boring in his speech. He did not really catch the judges attention, while Negative had humor in his case. It was a no brainer, that Negative won, he got the judges attention, he attacked, and defended. Affirmative only did one of those things. I would have voted for Negative, if I was a judge, but what do I know? I am only twelve years old...
@FlurryFunk8 жыл бұрын
+Invisible Nightmare I agree completely, and it doesn't matter if you are twelve years old, you can formulate better sentences than most 20 year old.
@FlurryFunk8 жыл бұрын
+Invisible Nightmare That Neg Rebuttal was goals. I do Public Forum, but I'm doing LD soon, and I wish I could speak like that. :(
@saarthaksharma65528 жыл бұрын
+FlurryFunk that neg rebuttal tho
@chuggaa1008 жыл бұрын
+FlurryFunk Tis the end of the season though
@user-qf3ik8je4f8 жыл бұрын
FlurryFunk Well, thank you.
@joshm70054 жыл бұрын
This debate made me feel so tense i have no idea why
@DrivingOnTheEString6 ай бұрын
I show this debate to my students to serve as an example when we do a modified LD debate assignment, and I take extra care to point out three factors in the judges decision for the NEG: 1. The AFF remains too rigidly committed to specific points regarding the resolution without providing enough concrete evidence as to why his argument is more solid than the NEG. 2. The AFF employs a number of logical fallacies, primarily begging the question and the false cause fallacy, all without providing concrete evidence (or at least as strong of evidence as the NEG brings to the table). 3. Any form of debate, whether focussed on questions of facts, values, or policies, is not always about who made the objectively better arguments, but about how arguments are defended or seen in comparison to their opponents arguments. Think about a court of law: you don't always have to prove that a client is innocent or guilty, because in many cases, sowing a seed of doubt is enough to acquit or convict for a jury. This is where the use of evidence by the NEG, as well as the confidence that he displayed, really gave him a significant boost. He didn't need to proved that he was objectively better; he just needed to demonstrate his strength compared to his opponent. Examples of this from the debate include his flexibility within his rebuttals, his ability to answer questions during the CX, and his opponents inability to either answer or outright shut down possibly irrelevant questions in the first CX.
@johnag77848 жыл бұрын
aff. is clear and coherent. aff. uses facts and historic policy/human rights. neg. is in a lala land where injustices go away when everyone is included. neg. admits flaws and injustices in the current felon dna collection practice, but an expanded version will not be injust.... without explanation
@johnag77848 жыл бұрын
aff. states DNA is left almost everywhere a person has been (not just blood, but this includes hair, skin cells, spit, finger-nails, and/or bubble-gum). this is a reality. considering a DNA data bank is not intended for LOTTERY winners or free trips to the moon, a DNA data bank is intended for incriminating review and evidence. the neg. is stating discriminating against a single person is only permitted when the discrimination is performed upon everyone in society, thus discriminating is no longer discriminating but "normal" this is simply a liberty vs security issue. all discrimination can be eliminated + all security issues can be eliminated, if the government treats everyone alike. "i tell you..." the neg states, the public will trust the state more if they have more this DNA tool at their disposal. but 1] there is no evidence, or historic examples providing reason why this should be held as true. 2] neg. drop the argument that a crime scene may be polluted with innocent DNA. 3] police departments inherently discriminate as other means, even as there is a felon DNA data bank. neg drops this argument. ============================= neg. is arguing a lala-land argument. "if" arguments. the strongest argument held is the discrimination argument. yet in his world, a discrimination-free world, would far more resemble a 1984/ matrix standard of living. aff. is arguing historical, current, and practical benefits. aff. is not defending injustice in police practices, he is defending the injustice of having everyone involuntary commit themselves to a judge, jury, and executioner state. where an individual's DNA is not a breach of your 5th amendment, where DNA is heavily relied upon. but i do see how/where this debate was won and lost. different points should/could have been emphasized
@johnag77848 жыл бұрын
+Rohan Bha We agree that Neg use of poor logic and assumptions, won the round. you wrote: "Just because he had evidence doesn't necessarily make it true, there needs to be a sign of logic as well. For example, I could find some author saying that evolution is false, but that doesn't necessarily make it a true fact." I am glad we can agree on this, because as we see this to be true for "facts"; we can also see that this is true for "logic". just because believing logic is present, does not actually mean logic is present. premises must bind with links AND show use of reason all dogs have four legs a turtles have four legs therefore, turtles are dogs.
@chuggaa1008 жыл бұрын
+john 'sweetness' Aguilar LD is a Value debate, not a statistics debate. This is not PF
@johnag77848 жыл бұрын
im aware Value requires Reason. i think we are all aware that our views are our opinions. im sure people will feel differently about this issue, and that is also okay. i just wanted to let you know i am also aware of that too. im okay with people's views/opinions. the main point is; Aff. is placing a higher Value on our guarantee liberty. "one in the hand is better two in the bush" vs; Neg. is placing a higher value on the promise of a judicial system that can deliver on justice and a non-discrimination. "two is better than one" for many, it sounds like a no brainer. however, for minorities of color/ poverty, a fair and unbiased judicial system is something non-minorities talk about. fairy-tales. to ask me to place my values in a system that demands my DNA to be held on file and ran every-time there is a crime: over a system that ENSURES me to live with more peace of mind and without fear of being prosecuted - is too much. Neg. states, DNA is not the only method used to solve a crime; there are other methods like eye witnesses, video... etc . which sounds a lot like: a DNA database isnt needed. a Felony DNA database is far enough. If anyone searches "The Central Park Five" they can see how unbias and how just our judicial system is for themselves. The Central Park Five is a true event story where NYC prosecuted five innocent boys for the rape and beating of a woman. No victim testimony, No DNA of the accused. Just five kids wrongfully accused and sentenced. a DNA database can only strengthen the prosecution's argument. it will not weaken prosecution's position; and it will not strengthen the defense's argument. and Neg. expects everyone to believe, after PLANTED DRUGS, PLANTED WEAPONS, FALSIFIED EVIDENCE, FALSIFIED POLICE TESTIMONY, WRONGFULLY ACCUSED, ACCIDENTAL SHOOT/KILLINGS, ACCIDENTAL PRISONER RELEASES, etc.. that my belief, a judicial system that can't even handle and control their own employees - can handle a DNA database on the US populous. ........what if it were my family: what if i was a victim of a violent crime: wouldn't you want the criminal found?! yes i would. in the video when Neg. began speaking he started asking: "would you hurt an innocent to save the entirety of society?" so how many innocent homes do we have to kick in; how many innocent men and women must be pulled over in public, yanked out their autos and brutality attacked -- so that i have my justice ? because the flaw in that "logic" is that we (society) violates only one individual to ensure everyone benefits. that that one individual is actually everyone. thus is really: we violate everyone to ensure everyone benefits. in a society where everyone's liberty is violated at will, without cause, etc... is not a society/system that upholds justice, non-discrimination, liberty, or practical order.
@keegan24685 жыл бұрын
Bro I just learned about the Lincoln Douglas debates in history class and thats the only reason I'm here.
@cool_cocohearts5 жыл бұрын
I think the aff should win because the neg just said moving to a compulsory is an improvement but never said anything about whether the compulsory database is justifiable.
@BristonRains5 жыл бұрын
11:08 Ozarka got a free sponsorship
@gardnerjp17 жыл бұрын
I heard about this debate on Jimmy Fallon. LoL
@lizethflores19887 жыл бұрын
shit. me. to. jimmy Fallon. lmao. hahahaha
@LoRJ177 жыл бұрын
LOL dang me too..
@spoorthysiddam45623 жыл бұрын
@Ana Mastilovic neg won
@thomaskaminsky13987 жыл бұрын
Deontology vs. Consequentialism!I loved the debate, but it seems to me that it's impossible to reach a satisfactory victory with the primary contention being such a vast field of philosophy.
@elijahjns816 жыл бұрын
I gave it to the negative. I'm less sure about the actually proposal but I believe the neg was much more convincing and I'm bias to appeals to practicality rather than ultimate values.
@aria95025 жыл бұрын
I just started a speech and debate team and I'm leaning towards speech, while my co cap is doing debate bc this looks nerve wracking af to a newbie
@arcarc99476 жыл бұрын
10:28: The negative asks if the government should sacrifice the rights of one person to save the entire population. This question is irrelevant - what the government should or should not do does not determine the injustice of a situation.
@arcarc99476 жыл бұрын
This point is also discussed in several parts of the negative's speech.
@rockingwoohyun6 жыл бұрын
Neg kind of won the justice vs perfection argument pretty hard; according to the flow, a government's conception of justice is solving real world problems without getting entangled in an impossible pursuit of perfection. At this point, most judges would vote neg bc "just" basically became solving bigger injustices at the cost of smaller injustices, which the affirmative does not do.
@brackin4 жыл бұрын
@@arcarc9947 preach
@isntshelovelyy5 жыл бұрын
We are watching this in my English 2 class right now
@jt-qj8iu6 жыл бұрын
the first speaker is me talking to people
@prairiewindtunnel59858 жыл бұрын
Why is the Affirmative beginning and ending the debate? That doesn't seem fair. Are some parts cut out?
@chuggaa1008 жыл бұрын
+David Deng Not really, Aff cannot make new points in the last speech. whereas Neg gets to rebut and bring up new points in their last speech.
@teddywyman84128 жыл бұрын
+David Deng aff is harder than neg because neg has one speech of 7 minutes and another of 6, whereas aff has a 6 minute constructive, and then speeches of 4 and 3 minutes to respond. so you have 7 total minutes of speaking to refute the opponent, whereas neg has as many as 13 minutes. its also harder to effectively give speeches as short as 3 and 4 minutes.
@housebeats46007 жыл бұрын
I thought the defense was to go first during the ending session then the Affirmative
@owenmulqueen2437 жыл бұрын
that's how ld format works
@talonanderson10348 жыл бұрын
I love the Negitives thank you's. amazing!
@SpectreTheHorseman5 жыл бұрын
Neg needs to slow down. I'm a fast listener but that is just too fast to make the impact of his points.
@dragosrusu99824 жыл бұрын
@John Skipper what is LD?
@theguyintheworks88384 жыл бұрын
@@dragosrusu9982 Lincoln-Douglass, it's the debate format
@bxnjxmxn29423 жыл бұрын
you are not a fast listener lol
@JaCrispy3132 жыл бұрын
Negative looks like the guy from the Lorax
@itmightbe Жыл бұрын
Bro it’s Dream
@ampswithfans7 жыл бұрын
The presidential debates or mud slinging contests should be more like this debate between high school students. I wonder how well Trump would hold up against these guys!
@jeydangosman6996 жыл бұрын
"Equating an innocent individual with a criminal is definitely not justice." 25:10 That's the line that won the debate for me.
@RandomStuff-dr7rl Жыл бұрын
When you don't have a computer to debate
@NerfingPro5 жыл бұрын
Can somebody Help explain the Neg in response to the Aff's contention 1.
@bensonfang18686 жыл бұрын
his perfection argument is good
@mrmiggie10643 жыл бұрын
5 years later........ FOR NO REASON.......... recommend✅
@james16167 жыл бұрын
They are both, clearly, highly skilled individuals, but, with all respect, how the hell did the first guy make it to nationals. I could see middle school nats but high school?
@trebulanebula7 жыл бұрын
He made it to nationals because the competition between states are states very different, such as, if you live in New York, the overall style of debate and or caliber of the debate could be drastically different from Indiana.
@joeytarnowski60187 жыл бұрын
Trebula Yeah. In the South, where I am, LD is very heavily in moral arguments and presentation, like attacking the value and criterion and speech, but in the West, I've heard that it's much more like a policy style
@arilohr56416 жыл бұрын
I do LD in Oregon. LD is basically policy when people can't get along with their policy partners.
@arilohr56416 жыл бұрын
At least in Oregon it is.
@mikedang36136 жыл бұрын
10:19 "That is an injustice to that person, so yes." Holy shit
@rbpdreporters969 Жыл бұрын
Amazing job done there. Just like to point out that the affirmative man has some amazing Ethos Logos and Pathos. Very well done and a great example for the class I'm taking!
@somebody9232Ай бұрын
In the accusative, it's ethos, logo and pathos Ethos and pathos are neutral and end in -os, so the s stays Logos is masculine and ends in -os, so the s goes away
@faithanne29647 жыл бұрын
I have my first debate saturday and my debate coaches know nothing about ld, i'v taught myself everything i know and im so nervous, any pointers
@HorusSorcerer7 жыл бұрын
Hey! I do Progressive LD, so if you want help, just follow me on Google Plus and I'll e-mail you some pointers. I'm sorry your debate coaches are no good!
@HorusSorcerer7 жыл бұрын
Okay so I can't e-mail you for some reason, but shoot me an e-mail at crdec123@gmail.com; I'll help you from there.
@parizodanasimjonova29097 жыл бұрын
My debate team must hate me. I've been on the team for 2 weeks and have to compete in 2 days. I'm panicking big time rn.
@jjyu56337 жыл бұрын
Where do you debate? How did the tournament go?
@narwhallegion85836 жыл бұрын
Legend has it he’s still panicking
@jayilham65485 жыл бұрын
T-NRP even until today
@PrinceJes5 жыл бұрын
Hey
@PrinceJes5 жыл бұрын
Hey
@ashlynnpollard52608 жыл бұрын
I would have to disagree with the comments and the judges and say that the Affirmative actually won this round. Even if you look at this as an Abstract vs. Real World Application, what is more real than the point he brought up on how society does discriminate and that there is no actual proof that you will see these benefits? For me, the Negative was painfully reaching for a Utopian world of his own by saying that he will help lower discrimination. People in society are discriminatory for their own reasons, not because of what the government DNA database holds. In no way, shape, or form will it actually decrease discrimination except for the reason that it could possibly pin point someone exactly. Don't get me wrong, I understand the Negative's argument on saying that he could potentially help with putting away people easier because have a match on DNA is a 1 in a million, or something like that, so it would potentially be more helpful. However, with that in mind, police officers will still be out in the field and when police officers are used it is, more likely than not, for on the scene jobs (responding to 911 calls) so the police officers would still be used with or without a bigger DNA database. If police officers were just used for arresting people then we wouldn't have nearly as many police brutality cases in court today considering there would be less time for an issue to occur and a warrant would be with them. Also, the Affirmative bringing up the resolution was actually an interesting take and should be considered by the judges, just as every argument in the round should be considered until the end or until dropped. I believe that the Affirmative was right in saying that by arguing an expansion of the current "unjust" system wasn't really debating on whether or not it was just but rather on something else, much like a counterplan that you may see in Policy Debate. For me, the point that Affirmative brought up that the Negative could not actually guarantee that the benefits the Negative were claiming would come true would have been the moment I stopped and thought about it. If we have a system now that helps us put away people and (something that wasn't brought up in this but should have been) the government is always advancing technology to help us with that goal (including DNA analysis) then why should we go against America's own core beliefs? Right now, in the status quo, law enforcement can get warrants for people who are suspected in crimes and get DNA which is why we have DNA comparison right now. Why should we expand it to include all Americans when, potentially, all Americans can already be compared given that every American commits a crime? Plus, the Negative kind of self defeats himself, to me, when he says that everyone's blood is taken as a baby... So wouldn't that mean we would already have record of blood samples for every American-born citizen in the United States? Please keep in mind, I am a Policy Debater who loves theory, not a Lincoln-Douglas Debater. (:
@ScrotalSands7 жыл бұрын
But I have a question, what is your definition of slavery?
@Dr.Pepper0016 жыл бұрын
I was going to join the debating team in college but someone talked me out of it.
@lordmcswain14368 жыл бұрын
How glorious
@luffydragneel56357 жыл бұрын
The other guy speaks monotone and seems obvious he's reading. I enjoyed the debate, where should I learn to debate??
@BiggieChungulus7 жыл бұрын
School. It's so much fun. I do Impromptu, which isn't debate (it's a speech event)
@anderski017 жыл бұрын
Luffy Dragneel Join your schools debate team. You'll make friends that you'll never forget!
@daphneyan79357 жыл бұрын
Luffy Dragneel Yes do learn speech and debate, it is literally like a second home to me! Join your school team, or join an academy. I hope you have a good time~~!
@BachieCamaclang6 жыл бұрын
In my personal experience. I learned how to debate because of games like Phoenix Wright. Basically a story about a lawyer defending his client's rights with profound arguments and evidence.
@Liamvshobos2 жыл бұрын
@@BachieCamaclang Pheonix wright breaks every law in the book, disrupts courts, and would have been disbarred many times over, but I get you. I enjoyed the trilogy haha.
@saravanajogan12214 жыл бұрын
Who won at last? Is that affirmative?
@elaynablair29836 жыл бұрын
what is the AFF guy's name?
@ethanzz5958 жыл бұрын
who is the guy in brown? (his name)
@alexhazard68713 жыл бұрын
The second guy speaks so fast. Is it just his way of speaking or do they have a time limit so he speaks faster to be able to say more?
@Demonizer51349 жыл бұрын
I'm shocked that the guy on the left in a national finals for debate. Multiple times he asks for his opponent to "restate the question". That really looks bad. How the hell did he make it this far?
@lloollyypoopp8 жыл бұрын
NOT GIVEN NOYB try speaking in front of all those people :P and he may have heard it correctly, but wanted to confirm, just in case he misheard.
@danielburnham53258 жыл бұрын
NOT GIVEN NOYB I know people who specifically ask to restate the question as a tactic it's generally not a bad thing.
@elizabethlee68408 жыл бұрын
I agree with Daniel. It probably is a tactic for.... wasting the cross x time for the Neg.
@chouter218 жыл бұрын
When I debated, I would do that just to have more time to fire back a good answer
@elizabethlee68408 жыл бұрын
That too. Its similar to politicians saying "that's a good question"