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

Re: Maxwell's spewing comment



On Mon, 8 Nov 1993, Michael Marshall wrote:

  You seem to be saying that if a
person is training to be a  
> lawyer or something then they shouldn't spew but others should be  
> allowed to spew as a matter of style. 
	I am just saying that if a person doesn't think they can, or
doesn't think they should spread...don't!   You can debate slow if you
listen, flow, and think well.   (If the problem is listening or flowing,
then work on those skills.)   But if you want to be a lawyer and want to
practice your oratory, don't let spread threaten you, find the logical
holes in the arguments and beat them. Bottom line. 

 If anyone begins to spew then  
> the other team has go at an increased speed to tackle all of the  
> arguements. 
	Not neccessarily. You can beat great teams without using speed...
I think I have mentioned this a few times. 


 Sometimes a little analysis goes along way but that  
> can't be assumed... after all, would you leave weak links in your  
> case just out of consideration for slower speakers? 
	Wait a minute, is your problem with my speed or my strong links?  
You are right, if the person has better evidence and are going to debate
better than you, and is winning -- then you will lose.  But that is not a
problem of speed, it is a problem with arguments.  You should work on how
to respond to them and cut some cards.  Not complain about speed. Where
analysis will work, it will work, where it won't, it just plain won't. 
Now I have argued cases with no evidence and won.  I have also argued
cases with no ev and lost.  It is part of debate.


 If enough people  
> start spewing then others have to start spewing and then everyone  
> gets great training to spew... but they do not get good training at  
> normal public discourse. 
	Maybe I am ignorant, but the two can be done hand in hand. . .
People can learn how to do both, and should, it is called Judge adaptation
(something I still need to work on.)


 I guess it all boils down to whether or not  
> someone considers public speaking to be a significant part of  
> debate's educational mission, which means that majority (or is it  
> mob?) rule will decide the day as either all speech-oriented judges  
> drop spewers or spew-oriented judges drop slower speakers.
> 
	No, I don't think this is the case.  I think that critical
thinking is the primary goal of debate.  And that is served in both fast
and slow rounds.  And I think that Debaters can help facilitate which way
the debate rounds go, by adapting. 


	****Frankly michael, I am growing tired of this.  There are great
slow debaters.  and there are crappy fast debaters (I may be one of them
to many of you.)  But the answer is to do what you do well.  This is still
an activity.  And beat them on their ground, beat them on your ground, but
beat them.  (But think for yourself and love thy neighbor). *****
Maxwell
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page