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

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

Mike Dugaw, Lower Columbia College

>Mike Dugaw writes:
>>>>
> am rather disturbed by the tone and attitude you display in this post.  I
>believe I very carefully said I am attempting to understand why educators who
>I respect higly disagree with me on speed in debate.
>>>>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page