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

Re: clothing as communication

Wow, thanks.  I was fine.  Now I am trapped in the endless circle of CEDA-L
arguments:)  And how are you?  Debating this weekend?
 
> > I have to disagree with Scott's interpretation of debate.  It is not only an
> > oral communication activity.  Rather it is, in general, a communication 
> > activity.  While oral communication is a large part of this, so are aspects
> > such as the overall way you carry yourself.  
> 
> Ok, stop.  I contend that debate is an oral communication activity, and 
> that the decision is based on oral communication because of one simple 
> thing: the flow.  A judge is to decide the round based on the arguments.  

OK, Scott, the judge is to decide the round based on the arguments.  I'll
give you that.  Now, can you claim that the arguments are made up of only
oral communication?  What about judges who don't flow every word spoken? 
Don't they lean toward the team that comes across as more persuasive?  And
what makes that team come off as better?  Answer:  Nonverbal communication
such as poise, amount of evidence, and actions.  These are part of the
arguments as much as the verbal part.
  
> Now, in a novice round, there is probably more of a likelihood that it 
> will be a simple decision on which arguments still stand undropped at the 
> end - I won't deny it, I've dropped args.  In a Varsity round it might be 
> based on the merits of the arguments.  Either way it's the arguments, not 
> how they are presented.  

Really Scott, _you've_ dropped arguments?  Is that why Greg and I won round
5 at Queens?  Or was it something else?

Main point:  Decisions are based on the arguments _and_ how they are
presented.  Judges do pay attention to all aspects of communication.

> The judge doesn't write on the flow: Contention 
> 1  blah blah.. (stumbled over words) Contention 2 blah blah (fidgeted 
> while speaking) etc...  In other words, the only thing on the flow is the 
> arguments.  The only thing the presentation might influence is about 37% 
> or 2.5 of the categories of the speaker points. 

True, judges do not pay attention to speaking on the individual contention
level.  They tend to look at the overall speech.  However, if they don't
understand a specific argument because it is not presented well, they won't
give it as much credibility.  They won't pay that much attention to it if it
is not presented in an appealing (nonverbal as well as verbal) way.

<snip>

> BTW: the confidence's role is part of how 
> effectively the args are put out - so in that respect presentation has an 
> indirect effect, but is not, as you and others say, a direct part of the 
> decision of the round.

Effectiveness of arguments?  I think that does play an important role in the
decision.  And it happens to be based on a nonverbal aspect of
communication, the confidence which is shown visually as well as audibly. 
 

> > If they weren't
> > important, we wouldn't need to show up physically at debate tournaments.
> 
> Hmm... that would be interesting - sorta like playing chess by mail - we 
> can just mail (or email) our rounds.  Hmm, but how would we do time 
> limits, and prep time...   :)
 
So, they must be important.  We still have to travle hundreds of miles to
tournaments, right?   

<clip>
> No no.. You should absolutely try, otherwise you'll come out w/ 
> zero speaker pts! :(  I'm saying you should try, but don't expect your 
> speaking skill to win you rounds if your args are crap.

I don't think it is possible to get zero speaker points.  Although I did get
18 at one round at my first tournment.
  

> > Expanding debate will not happen if we limit it to only one goal, in this
> > case, only oral communication.  Hey, last semester a team from Syracuse
> > debated and won rounds.  However, one of them _never_ said a word.
> 
> Hmm... What exactly do you mean?  who was the Syr. team?  How did they 
> manage that?
 
Spoon Shepard and Cindy (I can't remember her last name.)  Cindy is deaf and
used sign language to argue.  She didn't speak, she had an interpreter.  She
received pretty good speaks, a lot of the time higher than Spoon.  Most of
the communicating she did was nonverbal.  It was very expressive.  They made
quarters at Vermont last semester and semis at West point.

As I said before, decisions are not based soley on oral communication. 
Well, maybe I won't know for sure until I am a judge and making decisions. 
Maybe a few judges think their decisions are verbally based, but nonverbal
communication probably also plays a role.

Later,
Angela Watterworth
University of Rochester
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page