[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Arroganceam rather disturbed by the tone and attitude you display in this post. I

I was disturbed by your post. I too am concerned with why other educators
disagree with me on the speed issue. I welcome them engaging me in places
like the L on this issue. The difference between you and I is that I respect
your opinion enough to allow your debaters to speak in the manner you (as
their coach) have chosen to teach them. Unfortunately, you don't show my
debaters the same respect.

I believe my original post on arrogance is justified when you write:
>>>>
I have no obligation to flow as fast as I can because that is the way the
students and their coaches want me too.
>>>>

Seems like you don't want to discuss the issue. This statement is pretty
blanket. 

Then you say:
>>>
If people do not want me to judge and it appears that many no longer do, I
must admit that hurts me feelings a little, but so be it.  I have 36 years of
experience in this activity as a coach and a debater.  I believe I have
learned something and I have something to contribuite.
>>>

You probably do have something to contibute and I want my debaters to hear
it. However, I prefer you mention it after your decision is made. I see the
roles as very distinct but not mutually exclusive. When the debate starts you
evaluate arguments made by the debaters. Based on those arguments you make
your decision. After you make your decision you discuss your decision with
the debaters and offer comments. Those comments could include any number of
things including rate of delivery. Your insights are valuable but they don't
need to be a part of the debate.


You write:
>>>
I wish to see BOTH effective argumentation and effective general audience
type communication.  I still believe that is possible, but maybe not.  I
assume that you believe it is unnecessary and  undesireable.  OK, but you
indicate you think I am arrogant because I won't judge the way the speed
debaters and coaches wish me to.  Why do I have to conform to their wishes?
 One of the principles of effective Public Speaking is that it is audience
centered. You tell me that I have no rights as an audience and I must conform
to what the speaker says.  I'm sorry, but that is one of my points, debate
does not
conform to rhetorical principles and I think it should.
>>>>

We obviously have different perspectives on what should take precedence,
public speaking or argument. However, I don't take an absolute perspective.
I'm not indicting your argument that debaters must be comprehensible.
However, part of your position was that you could understand and even flow
their speech but if you think it is too fast then you don't have a
responsibility to do so. That is what we disagree on. I do think you are
arrogant because you force debaters to adapt your 'Public Speaking is
Supreme' position. Many coaches disagree with you. Yet, you make the
assumption that you are right so debaters have to do it your way. If I judge
your students I won't force them into a 'Fast Speaking is Supreme' position.
I don't think it is unreasonable to want the same courtesy for my debaters
when you judge them.
If you think debate should conform to more rhetorically based principles then
lets discuss that issue on the L, in journals, etc. But using your power as a
judge to brow beat debaters into agreement doesn't seem like much of a
discussion. Besides it won't persuade them that you are right. Some of them
will just get mad. Making a decision based on the arguments in the debate and
then suggesting that a slower rate of delivery might have been helpful seems
to be a much better way to convince debaters that your perspective is the
right one. They are more likely to respect you both as a critic and as an
educator.

Tim Mahoney, Pace U.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page