Re: Speed

[dmuschel@mail.gac.peachnet.edu (David Muschell)]

"Seem" is the correct word here.  I teach audience awareness in all its
facets.  My term was "discourage" not "forbid" involving rapid delivery. 
In our dichotomous endeavor we seek education and victory, sometimes
paradoxical pursuits.
>
>If adaptation is good then I call for adaptation to all judges, as they are
>all worthy of our respect. The fact that your debaters have to prepare to
>adapt to a style other than yours behind your back seems to me, somehow,
>wrong.

The tone of my comments on the "behind the back" methods of my debaters was
meant to be slightly humorous.  My feeling here is that you are using the
word "wrong" too much.
>
>Please explain why you need not adapt to approaches you disagree with but
>others must adapt to you?

Much like the referee that the players know will call a tight game and
therefore refrain from the physicality that other refs may allow, I have to
call the round from my own perspective, which I hope will be fair and as
objective as possible.  Or like the judges in our Okmulgee District: 
lawyers know which will give stiffer sentences or will be tougher on court
demeanor.  I believe that all of us who judge rounds have slightly
different approaches.
>
>Novice debate seems slow enough for me and my raw novices. If not, then I
>have no problem with a different format and a different division. Let a
>thousand flowers bloom. A world with multiple debate formats reflects the
>differences between different communication contexts, so I prefer it to a
>world with only one debate format.

Agreement!
>
>Once again, the bottom line seems to be that we have to adapt to judges who
>prefer slower delivery but they don't want their students to adapt to
>judges who prefer a more rapid delivery. And there it is, at the bottom
>line, the assumption that you are RIGHT and others are WRONG. I say we are
>neither. I say there are different judges and students must learn to adapt
>to all of them.

Drop the assumption line from this paragraph, and I say "here, here!"  
>
>There have been a lot of indications as to how rapid delivery improves
>cognition and communication skills. I urge those in favor of much slower
>delivery to do the same for their position.

I don't know of these studies.  I'd like to read them before I accept this.
 Point me in their direction, please.

David Muschell
Georgia College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Lemoine and Achten
• Next by Date: Re: Arrogance Ok, things are becoming more clear to me. You seem to view debate I believe that debate is PRIMARILY an argumentation activity, but I did do what you suggested for many years. I heard the debate and You indicate that you would not force your position on my debaters, My goal in starting this line was to check and see if there was a
• Prev by thread: RE: Speed
• Next by thread: Re: ALERT:INTERNET DAY OF PROTEST TUESDAY DECEMBER 12, 1995 (fwd)Evidence Ethics Policy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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