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

Re: NEDA, CEDA, Speed

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Dale Reed wrote:

> What should become obvious to anyone studying the history of spread speaking
> style is that it is nearly inevitable where debate is concerned.  Debate is
> a competitive activity.  Thus, debaters will always strive to attain a
> competitive advantage.  This inspires debate to continually move in the
> direction of faster debates.

Not necessarily.  Debaters are very bright, ambitious, and adaptable.
(With a few exceptions of course.)  They will tend to do what gets
rewarded.  Thus they will move to speed IF it is rewarded.  They will run
postmodernist arguments, use arcane theories, tell jokes, or do
strip-tease, if judges reward such behavior.

Conversely, if judges started evaluating link and uniqueness arguments
differently, debaters would not be running as many cataclysmic
disadvantages.  And if judges demanded delivery that were, say, 5% slower,
debaters would adapt.

> I do
> not think that there is much room for argument that more topic-area
> knowledge is gained with a faster pace.  The spread delivery requires teams
> to research and run more positions.  Thus, there is no doubt that increased
> subject-matter education is a direct effect of a spread delivery.

Again, maybe but not necessarily.  Lets take a hypothetical example.  Say
a team was running a case on polygamy all semester.  Say a negative team
had lost several rounds to the case, presenting arguments on socialism,
patriarchy, etc., at a rapid rate of speed.  Several judges may have even
made comments to the negative debaters about their argument selection.  At
the end of the semester, these teams meet again.  This time, the negative
team speaks at the same rate of speed, but, wait, this time someone on
their squad had researched the case!  They run a number of specific,
evidenced, on-point arguments.  And they win the round.

In other words, there is no relationship between speed and either breadth
or depth of research.  In fact I have heard some very fast teams in big
rounds at NDT go SLOWER than I had ever heard them, because by that point
in the year (and in their research) they KNEW exactly what arguments the
aff COULD answer and what arguments the aff COULD NOT answer.  They
focused in, and didn't clutter the round.

Speed is not a huge issue (although it is much better than reading more
basketball banter) one way or the other.  It can go to the point of
silliness, though, such as seeing students in stairwells and restrooms
reading briefs out loud, trying to trim the counterplan shells down
another ten seconds.  There are, however, two things on this subject that
DO concern me.

(1) Comments that I have heard from debaters, inside of rounds and
outside, suggesting that they think rapid delivery is "macho" and "manly,"
(terms I have actually heard applied), and that they think speaking faster
than the other team (even if raw novices) is a good thing in itself.  I
think it can become a tool of exclusion, and a barrier to entry or
retention of students.

(2) I also feel confident in saying that there are some judges who just
cannot keep up, and who are unwilling to admit it and to tell the debaters
to slow down.  I do not pretend to be able to say HOW MANY there are.  But
I have judged elim rounds with them.  I have sat in on rounds they have
judged.  I have listened to their post-round comments.  And I have talked
to them after rounds.  When you ask them about what the 2NR said and
their eyes blur over, or when you compare the source of the negative
evidence to the source of the affirmative response evidence and they don't
have a clue as to what either source WAS, or when you glance at their flow
and it is a bare outline without even subpoints let alone flowed evidence,
it can give the impression that they could not follow the round.  In those
instances where the judge was lost, what was being accomplished in the
round?
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page