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).
The point of Bach, or band songs, is not precisely to be popular. At least I sure never got popular playing them. :-)