Certainly it has musical and aesthetic merit, historical importance, and it demands talented composers and performers. Additionally, there is lots of other music for folks who don't enjoy it.
If popular accessibility is all that matters, we could pare down music to the major popular genres. I don't think marches would make the cut.
Fast debate is like grindcore; there's room in civics for specialization, even specialization that isn't aesthetically obvious.
It's hard for most to pick out the logic or musicality from the noise of debate or grindcore, respectively. I would hate to live in a world where grindcore is the only music out there. But I'm glad I have the option of putting on some John Zorn when I'm in the mood.
Competitive cubing is pretty cool, but it's an algorithm/dexterity problem that requires none of the creativity that debate demands.
It's not my favorite, to be sure! But I suppose we share an appreciation for John Zorn, and there are other noisy bands out there that we probably both like. Can we agree, though, that this sort of debate ought to be relegated to the fringe, to be enjoyed by people with weird hair who like to jump around and scream? ;-)
The point of Bach, or band songs, is not precisely to be popular. At least I sure never got popular playing them. :-)
Yep, we agree entirely! And I think most other technical debaters would, too.
I don't talk to my friends at high speeds, my favorite speakers speak slowly, and I certainly wouldn't talk like a debater when I'm trying to be my most persistent.
The kind of debate McCordick is criticizing is, in my experience, indeed fringe.
There are more mainstream offerings: less technical debate formats such as Public Forum, Parliamentary, and Congress; Mock Trial; Model United Nations; Junior State of America; the Center for Civic Education's We the People competition; popular organized political debates; other oratory activities outside of civics.
To be fair, I've had the good luck to be involved in High Schools with the resources to offer a selection of these programs, which isn't always the case. I wish speech––the kind of slow, articulate expository speech that wins over non-debaters––was a bigger part of core curricula (in civics, but also in sciences).
Certainly it has musical and aesthetic merit, historical importance, and it demands talented composers and performers. Additionally, there is lots of other music for folks who don't enjoy it.
If popular accessibility is all that matters, we could pare down music to the major popular genres. I don't think marches would make the cut.
Fast debate is like grindcore; there's room in civics for specialization, even specialization that isn't aesthetically obvious.
It's hard for most to pick out the logic or musicality from the noise of debate or grindcore, respectively. I would hate to live in a world where grindcore is the only music out there. But I'm glad I have the option of putting on some John Zorn when I'm in the mood.
Competitive cubing is pretty cool, but it's an algorithm/dexterity problem that requires none of the creativity that debate demands.