Visual argumentation

[Michael Bryant <MBRYANT@central.weber.edu>]

If you think visual elements of persuasion should be kept out of
debate, how about...

1. Judges that visually read evidence.

2. Debaters that shake their heads no during new 2AR args.

3. Judges that give lower points or losses for perceived clothing
    deficiencies.

4. How about debaters that make a big production out of waving a
    piece of ev around to highlight its strengths or weaknesses.

5. Teams that carry endless backfiles to convince the judge that they
    are not lazy grasshoppers.

The attempt to separate visual persuasion from simultaneous oral
persuasion is a meaningless illusion. Why take another human-centered
aspect out of debate? The justification that oral communication is
most objective is a clear case of masking. Additionally, if we limit
debate persuasion to the oral realm, isn't silence a legitimate form
of response?

Random thoughts,

Bear

This Goldilocks crap has always deeply disturbed me....






Michael "Bear" Bryant           Internet: mbryant@central.weber.edu
Director of Forensics           Home:   801-399-4253
Department of Communication     Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University          Fax:    801-626-7975
Ogden, UT  84408-1903

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: Visual argumentation
• From: LUCHETTIS@urvax.urich.edu

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Narrative ?
• Next by Date: narrative/ simple narrative
• Prev by thread: Aimee, please clerify (harveyjo@ziavms.enmu.edu)
• Next by thread: Re: Visual argumentation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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