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

Speaking Rate


Before proceeding to the announced subject of this message, I would like to
indicate my appreciation of the recent message from Randi and Matt.  They do
much to explain why certain comments are perceived as threatening or
pejorative by self-defined "younger" contributors to CEDA-L, where youth is
defined by ideological commitments rather than physical age.  _Contra_ my
friend Mike Korcok, I believe that spirited and rigorous intellectual
engagement usually is possible without a decline in civility (even if one is
defending profanity).  

If at any point I have made a reference to Matt Roskoski alone when I should
have noted dual authorship (Randi AND Matt), I publicly apologize.

Now, concerning rapid speaking rates, Arnie Madsen properly has noted that,
from a practical point of view, absolute measures of rate in terms of words
per minute are less important than is comprehension.  Critics who have spent
several years in intercollegiate debate are quite capable of taking notes and
comprehending arguments that would be unintelligible to the uninitiated.  The
locus of controversy for the purposes of this CEDA-L discussion, I think, is
whether judges who have this (admittedly odd) competency should tolerate
rapid delivery (however defined).  Judges invariably are free to discourage
such behavior--if they wish to do so--with speaker points or the win-loss
decision.  Of course, judges who make this choice may take some heat from
some quarters if they make this choice.  However, as Professor Most's
comments make clear, no judge's choice on tolerance of rapid delivery will
make everyone happy.

Others, including Doyle, have explained the time constraints and strategic
concerns that have resulted in present delivery practices in CEDA and NDT.  I
have been willing to tolerate very rapid rates of delivery from Devereaux et
al. in the past for these and other reasons, and I expect that I will
continue to do so in the future.  (Nevertheless, I find a less frenetic pace
between talented teams much more pleasant interpersonally.  But I don't
attend debate tournaments to maximize my personal pleasure.)  My own response
to rapid rates of delivery is that such delivery practices constitute a
strategic choice made by debaters, much like the choices made to make some
arguments and not others.  Utilizing a rapid rate of delivery may increase
the risk that the critic will miss responses, misunderstand arguments, etc.,
where such critic problems would not occur if the debaters used a different
style of delivery. In other words, if debaters make this choice, I will do my
best as a critic to keep up, but I bear no responsibility if I miss the key
#5 out of nine responses because of their strategic choice.

In the past, Professor Frank has worried about the use of speed as a
"weapon."  I believe there are have been some cases in the past where a team
would use a rapid rate of delivery to intimidate and embarrass a much less
experienced team.  These incidents, where speed consciously IS used as a
weapon with destructive consequences, are regrettable.  However, I think
that, when debaters and critic recognize the systemic imperatives to maximize
the number of arguments made and (hopefully) the depth of analysis offered,
the characterization of rapid delivery rate as a weapon is not appropriate. 
I revile the use of "speed" ruin the day of a novice debater placed in an
open division, but I cannot condemn the use of such delivery practices by
those who see substantial strategic (and intellectual) advantages to rapid
delivery and who are willing to run the risk of being the "slow" team in a
debate.  In any event, we have ample anecdotal evidence of"slow" debaters in
both NDT and CEDA who were successful despite their alleged strategic
disadvantage.

Please do not misread my comments.  I am not suggesting that debaters should
not be required to adapt to critics who disapprove of a rapid rate of
delivery.  A fair-minded critic who strives to make a considered and
defensible decision, despite her/his announced distaste for rapid delivery,
should be preferred to her/his opposite number who loves a quick round but
has the habit of ignoring student arguments in making win-loss decisions. 
Advance warnings about a critic's perceptions of common sense seem virtually
impossible, but fair warning about one's own willingness or ability to
adjudicate a high-speed debate seems prudent and feasible.

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