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

Re: OJ & Fast Debate


On Wed, 1 Mar 1995 Debateone@aol.com wrote:

> Some folks rail against fast debate, claiming that it is not real world.
>  Without engaging in a full discussion of the advantages of fast debate, let
> me provide a useful example which might serve as a reason why we should train
> our students to debate quickly--albeit clearly--and flow arguments.
> 
> In the OJ trial, the prosecution accused the defense of sandbagging their
> evidence, that is, they did not provide evidence in a timely fashion.  Marcia
> Clark, the lead prosecutor, was appalled.  She asked for sanctions.  Judge
> Ito asked Clark to list the sanctions that she thought appropriate.  Clark
> listed four sanctions that she felt were justified.  Simpson defense
> attorney, Carl Douglass, was the respondent.  I watched him as Clark spoke.
>  Much to my chagrin, he was not flowing.  He sat impassively as Clark
> indicated to Ito what sanctions ought to be applied, remember there were
> four.  
> 
> After Clark finished her diatribe.  Douglas stood up and responded.  He was
> intent on explaining that no egregious violations had been committed.
>  Ito--on the other hand--was interested in Douglas answering the legitimacy
> of each sanction.   Said Ito:  "Mr. Douglas, I am interested in hearing what
> your response is to the proposed sanctions. Douglas had to pause, for he had
> not flowed the four sanctions and was ill-prepared to answer them.  Asked
> Douglas:  "Can you refresh my memory as to what the sanctions were?  Of
> course, Ito & Clark reiterated the sanctions.  As I sat, I had feelings of
> deja vu.  Memories of statements like "haven't I told you to flow; haven't I
> told you to go line-by-line," rang incessantly through my head.
> 
> I was flabergasted by his performance.  I thought to myself, good Debaters
> would have flowed the four sanctions and answered each.  Douglas'
> line-by-line was atrocious.  I think if he had been trained in academic
> debate, the debate that many opine has no real world application, he would
> have flowed her answers, answered them line-by-line, and looked better
> prepared.   I would have loved to have seen him say, "Now, off the first
> sanction where the prosecution argues that we should have a trial delay to
> allow them to prepare.  First, no reason, they have had six months already.
>  No reason to give them more time.  Second, delays confuse the jury, and we
> have had numerous delays already.  Third, . . ."  
> 
> You should get the picture.  
> 
> Flowing and fast debate have a place in the real world!
> 
> Thoughts.
> 
> Mark J. Jones
> California Lutheran University
> 
> "Murder was the case that they gave me."  Snoop Doggy Dogg
> 
well, i didnt realize that "slow" debaters dont go line by line.  the 
last time i checked, all "good" debate contained a line by line, 
especially if there were just four arguments-  while the line by line may 
not be as extensive, it seems that the argument is slow debate isnt good 
debate- dont confuse bad lawyers with debaters who still think 
communication is an important part of the activity, and choose to go slow!:)

michelle bailey
utsa debate
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page