# Intellectuals Don't Debate Much **URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/intellectuals-dont-debate-much/2127 **Category:** Elliot Temple **Tags:** bot, cf-article **Created:** [November 16, 2025, 10:23pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/intellectuals-dont-debate-much/2127 "2025-11-16T22:23:38Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 7
### Author: ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity) #### Post date: [November 17, 2025, 8:22pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/intellectuals-dont-debate-much/2127/7 "2025-11-17T20:22:53Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > And what are you supposed to do when someone makes multiple errors? Idk if you were just saying that, but the thought process is that you shouldn’t make too many points in a debate/you should make your points easier to follow. Here’s a related thing, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading\_(debate)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading%5C_(debate)) : > **Spreading** ([/ˈspriːdɪŋ/](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English "Help:IPA/English"); a [blend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend_word "Blend word") of “speed” and “reading”)[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)#cite_note-1) is the act of speaking extremely fast during a [competitive debating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_debating "Competitive debating") event, with the intent that one’s opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. For the debate I did spreading wasn’t allowed (it is allowed in other formats though which I think is odd). People still did it and it was rarely, if ever, penalized, but there’s the idea. My debate format was something like this 6 minutes for the affirming side to argue their case, (3 minutes of questioning) 7 minutes for the negating side to argue their case and **rebut/attack the affirming sides case** (3 minutes of questioning) 4 minutes for the affirmation to **defend against the attacks on their case and attack the negations case** 6 minutes for the **negation to defend** and then present why they should win this round 3 minutes for the affirmation to explain why they should win So during the negations first speech, the affirmations second speech, and the negations last speech all points have to be addressed. You are supposed to write your case, and speak, in such a manner that things can be followed in that time frame. That really doesn’t happen. Most judges feel reluctant to say that someone lost because they made “too many points” (even though they fail to keep up with all those points themselves). So they just usually let making too many points slide. * * * I looked up high school policy debate (which is a specific type of debate, different from the LD debate I did) where spreading is allowed. https://www.youtube.com/embed/0hUZLdmkji0?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PLHaG-zIzA-QFVlMUHD2LO30Lz1R2kt1hn The kid is talking really fast. I don’t see what kind of intellectual value someone thinks their getting from that. I guess, from when I did debate, they treat winning debate as being smart. If you’re someone who wins debate you’re smart. Doesn’t really matter how that happens. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/intellectuals-dont-debate-much/2127)._