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

Re: SPEED

>Yet, some debators (that Mike heard talking at Vermont) thought that the only
>way some people win                is by talking fast. Well, people any body
>can talk fast. Developing skills for speed is probably the easiest part of
>debate.  It is the research and argumentative development that wins rounds.

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment.   I've attempted to listen to many of the arguments  
made in defensive of speed as a strategy, with an open mind.  And I must admit, Jamie  
does make some convincing arguments...i.e. that debaters in a fast round must learn to  
make arguments quickly and that this will actually facilitate better communication skills in  
the future.  To that extent...I'll agree.  I've watched many rounds in the East and the  
Midwest which were composed of two teams who where clear, fast, and deadly.  Their  
logic was beautiful and their speed was comprehensible.  But I've also seen more debates  
where the 1nc spends eight minute speeding through shells with little or no explanation.   
And where the affirmative team (or negative team depending on who's spewing) remains  
clueless about what the links really are...then the 2nc gets up and speeds through 4 more  
offcases and barely explains those or the ones previously run.  I'm sorry....I don't care  
how much being in this round may theoretically sharpen my skills in the future....those  
rounds always end up messy and confusing....and what has either team learned?   
They've both learned that judges will reward teams who can hide one small link within a  
mass of unlinked arguments.  And this is okay for those who feel that debate is a game.  

	But as a member of a team who travels both east and west, I can tell you that I see  
CEDA splitting in the future into two factions, those who believe that debate is a game and  
those who are in it for the communication skills.  In fact, I would assert that this cleavage  
is already occurring and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing.  In the Midwest  
we've attending three or more tournaments that are centered around the Wise  
paradigm...or the audience paradigm.  The judges and teams are told in the invitations to  
the tournaments that they are requested to use this paradigm as their judging philosophy  
and their debating style.  And most of these tournaments also use a majority of lay judges  
to help facilitate compliance with the paradigm...since they don't a lot of the  
technicalities...you have to convince them through direct cash clashes.  By organizing  
the invitations this way,  teams who like to spew as a strategy are forwarned and can  stay  
away and attend tournaments that are more condusive to that form of debate.  Perhaps  
more of the tournaments could do the same....i.e. have a theme for their tournaments.  

	 I think that this allows for teams who have not "risen to level" of some of the negative  
spewers discussed above, can still end the year with a winning record and with more of  
the developed skills that they're seeking.

Anyway this is more of my two cents worth....feel free to bash, I'm sure many  
people....especially the eastern teams will disagree with me.

Kristina
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page