Re: defending the buzz {part 2}

[lindalc@aol.com]

Dave Foti said:
"It does not take a PhD to realize that debates like octos at Nats last year
where Emporia debated K-State do improve one's education.  In this round,
which should be an example of dialectical speed since both teams were more
than capable of speed ended with both teams spending their rebuttals
discussing the amazingly edifying topic of topicality!

--Well, Wacky Dave, perhaps you do need a PhD, because having judged the
round in question, I can't see how it improved many people's educations.  I'm
wondering if you're missing the entire distinction between dialectical speed
and rhetorical speed if you think that the oct's round was an example of
dialectical?!?!
 1)  Just because both teams were "more than capable of speed" does not mean
that they were using DIALECTICAL rather than rhetorical speed.  Even good
teams occasionally regress to fast & blippy goo.
2)  While both those teams generally can be used as examples for dialectical
speed, I don't think either team would claim that this round was
representative of a good dialectical speed round.  

For those of you who forgot or never saw the round ... One of the most
anticipated rounds of Nationals ended up coming down to Topicality and a
pre-criterial culture argument.  (The kind of arguments Mr. Rosen loves...)
Not lots of great analysis on the positions themselves and aff responses were
literally 3-word blips.  To me, this was an example of the RHETORICAL speed
everyone has been complaining about -- lots of blippy answers that have
little analysis to them, but spat forth at a quick rate.

So--Dave, use another round as an example if you want to bag on DIALECTICAL
speed!

--Linda Coye

---

• Prev by Date: Re: speed (fwd)
• Next by Date: critique arguments
• Prev by thread: Re: HAPPY HOLIDAYS...
• Next by thread: Re: defending the buzz {part 2}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page