Online debates are better than real life debates

In today's debate, the aff must prove that online debates are a better source of practice than debates in real life. Definitions Better: more beneficial Real life debates: my partner and I define real life debates as debates that actually physically occur. Also, real life debates must include a judge, opponents, and must actually finish. If a round does not finish or include a judge, it is not even considered a real round. This is because if a person just gives a speech and leaves, then it is just a speech, with no actual debating. Framework: The negative side must include all the parts that are included in a real-life debate. For example, the neg must take into consideration the time spent traveling to the topic, or setting up the debate round. This is a logical framework because when considering whether something is better, you as the judge must consider how much work goes into preparing a round and whether or not it contributes to the overall effect. Contention 1: Online debates allow for more analysis In a online debate, the two participants are allowed more time to think of their contentions in the actual round. This lets online debaters more time to think and comprehend their opponent's arguments before actually having to give a speech against it. However, in real debates, debaters only have a limited amount of time to think of arguments, which leads to less benefits for both sides. As a result, people do not actually get a lot of practice refuting and analyzing their opponents arguments; instead, they are forced to stand up and give a speech without much time to prepare or the ability to review their arguments. At the end of the day, the participants in the online debates are left off worse and with less practice than if they had done an online debate. Contention 2: The time it takes to prepare a physical debate is not worth it. Remember back in the framework that our opponents must consider what goes into preparing an actual round. For example, in an actual physical debate, the debaters must first make sure that the debate can take place at a time and a place that is convenient for both of them. Also, you as the judge also have to consider the time and money that it takes in order to prepare the debate. For example, at a debate tournament, all schools must pay an entry fee, get judges, organize the tournament, provide food, and take care of many other things that are just a drain on money. Looking at the example of a debate tournament, we can see that at the end of the day, a person only gets three rounds of practice. Also, that person pretty much uses the entire day in order to get only three rounds of debate done. Conversely, looking at the time it takes to participate in a tournament, people could have gotten many rounds done online, considering the amount of time and resources that are spent on a real tournament. For example, if the people that were to participate in a real tournament were to spend all that time doing an online debate instead, its easy to conclude that those people would be able to get a lot more rounds done, with a lot more practice. Contention 3: online debates give a higher quantity of practice. In an physical debate, all of the debaters must stay for the entire duration of the round. This is bad because then the round takes up a large portion of time, which does not allow for the debate to be held at many times of the day. Also, the debaters must also make sure that their schedule does not interfere with the debate round. This leads to less practice because people are unable to hold as many debates. In an online debate however, the participants are allowed to post their speeches whenever they want. For example, a debater could post their speech and then go eat dinner, as I have just done. Another example would be that debaters could post a speech then have the rest of the day to think of refutations and new arguments, which ties in with contention 1. As a result, more practice is gained by both sides because debaters are given a much more ample time span to think of their arguments and refutations. Contention 4: online debates give a higher quality of practice Subpoint A: Online debates exercise all the same skills as a real debate. A main benefit of online debates is that it exercises the same skills as an actual physical debate. Both sides practice arguments, refutations, and analysis. The only benefit that physical debates give is speaking practice. However, this is not necessary for two reasons. First of all, a person can become a better speaker by taking a speech class or doing an event that involves more speaking. Second, a debate does not even improve speaking very much. A debate focuses on refutations and analysis, which we have already proven to be better exercised in an online debate. In a physical debate, speaking is only used as a method to get the point across, not as an actual debating skill. Subpoint B: people can get help and critique from others In an online debate, people can see what others people from all around the world think about their debate. They can get critiques from their coaches, as well as helpful points from other people. In addition, the result of a debate is much more equal and much more helpful. This is because the winner of the debate can be decided by many people. In a physical debate, people are limited to critiques from only a few judges, and whoever happens to be watching the round. Subpoint C: Online debates allow for practice against many different people. People who rely on physical debates are unable to practice against different people. More practice would be achieved if people constantly debated different people. However, physical debates are limited in the sense that people are stuck debating the same people over and over again. For example, at a school, there is a very small pool of opponents to practice against. After a person has debated everyone else in the school, the only way to get more practice would be to go out of the way to debate people from other schools, or from a long distance away. Online debates solve this problem because pretty much every debater has a access to the internet. This allows people to debate all kinds of people from every location. For example, two people living on the opposite sides of the US would be able to have a debate online, while if they wanted to do it physically, it would be much harder. In addition, people would be able to go up against some of the best debaters around, with less hassle. For example, if the greatest debater in the world lived in Europe, not many people would be able to debate against him or her in the US. However, using the handy invention of online debating, people would be able to practice online against that person. Also, online debates allow for practice against many different types of debating styles. Because of this, we can see that online debates are better than physical debates, and we urge an affirmative ballot.