[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Communication?
>But I am not sure that Professor Hunt was suggesting a "dilution" of
>anything nor was he advocating a return to an elocutionist model of
>debate. What sacrifice is needed for a debater to speak in complete
>sentences, to be organized, and to read evidence in such a way that each
>word is understandable?
>
>[from the original Hunt message:]
>
>> I know debaters have to get in a lot of information and arguments in a
>> minimum amount of time, but many are trying so hard to do this that
>they
>> fail to communicate by spewing. I define spewing as blurred
>> incomprehensible speech. Words are not enunciated or pronounced
>> correctly.
>
>Yeah. That happens sometimes. And sometimes a negative team has to be
>told that they lost a disadvantage because the 1NC was unwilling or
>unable to read the evidence in a comprehensible manner. How much
>sacrifice or dilution of argument quality would be involved here? Quite
>the opposite.
Fair enough. In fact, that's exactly why I began my note by saying I
agreed with Professor Hunt on the problem, but not on the solution. Why
is it necessary to forsake MPS for strike sheets and debate in front of
more communication-oriented or lay judges in order to solve this? Why
don't we just say "clearer," and in addition to that give debaters
opportunities to talk in front of audiences who will stare at them in
disbelief if they slur, spit and turn purple?
The _solution_ Professor Hunt proposed may be a dilution of the debate
experience. The way the _problem_ is described doesn't implicate that
at all.
Doyle Srader
University of Georgia
<706> 548-9938
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page