[barry-cotter]

> A variant of this technique is now standard in competitive debating

Not outside the US it isn’t. Policy debating is a special US abomination, with unfortunate extensions into the cultural colony to the north. Everywhere else does parliamentary debating.

[zorked]

It's more than just what the arguments are about. Anywhere else in the world someone making points so quickly as in the videos would sound desperate and instantly "lose" the debate. Nobody is expect to refute point by point a nonsensical diatribe.

[canofbars]

Recently I saw on the local Australian politics debate show someone asking a question rattled off about 5 questions with opinions shared in between each one and the responder said something like "That was a political statement, could you please rephrase that as an actual question?"

[leereeves]

Even in the US everyone but the participants and judges thinks these nonsensical diatribes are absurd. No one is convinced, the players are just scoring points in some arbitrary game that happens to be called "debate".

[NikolaeVarius]

I find it mind boggling that people have such strong opinions about policy debate when they have no idea of the work and skill required to be competitive in it. Policy debate is literally teaching you how to deal with "intellectual DOS attacks". It explicitly trains you how to deal with large amounts of arguments being thrown at you and how to parse out important refutations with limited time.

Being fast is a side effect of optimization.

[barry-cotter]

Being competitive at policy debate is genuinely impressive, just as getting really good at the racing on pogo sticks is impressive. It takes a lot of hard work and skill. But if you want to learn to persuade people outside your little subculture do parliamentary debate. Real debate is rhetoric, it engages in pathos and ethos as well as logos. Given its size and education levels the US should be crushingly dominant in debate, not competitive. Policy debaters don’t persuade people.

[scottlocklin]

Marketing techniques, propaganda and low-level politics (promote your guys, blow up the other guys) are obviously vastly more efficient than old school rhetoric.

[woah]

The things you mention are rhetoric, and are as “old-school” as anything else. Your comment smacks of a bizarre attitude that seems popular among programmers, that “marketing” is at once all-powerful, impossible to understand, and completely without merit.

[scottlocklin]

I dunno, if you read, say, "Merchants of Attention" or some other history of marketing, you'd not find any mention of Aristotle, but a whole bunch of snake oil salesmen and cousins of Freud. Maybe "programmers" know something you don't.