LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for USDEBATE Archives


USDEBATE Archives

USDEBATE Archives


USDEBATE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

USDEBATE Home

USDEBATE Home

USDEBATE  March 2011

USDEBATE March 2011

Subject:

Re: USU Nationals 2011 in Brief

From:

Robert Trapp <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

USA Debating in the WUDC Format <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:59 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (243 lines)

Steve and others,

I agree that the briefing makes no claim to be an absolute set of 
rules.  My worry is that it will be interpreted as such, especially in 
particular cases: "the whip did not address 3 questions."  I think rules 
should be few and should be procedural-- time limits, procedures for 
POI, etc.

The statement that it does not offer "exhaustive instructions" may not 
be of much help.  I read that statement to mean that the briefing does 
not "exhaust" the infinite number of guidelines that might be written, 
not that there are particular cases in which these guidelines should be 
set aside. 

In reference to the counterplan in particular.  I'm pretty sure I don't 
agree that a counterplan is good only in "rare circumstances" as the 
briefing and this clarification suggests.  This particular example is 
not so important as to stress what I hope is my main point: rules and 
guidelines should be about the procedures of debate, not about the kinds 
or substance of the arguments that debaters make.

best,

Robert

Stephen Boyle wrote:
> John, Steve et al
>
> There seem to be a few specific issues at play here
>
> 1. Is this something that judges and debaters are expected to follow. 
> I'm sorry if there was any lack of clarity, but I would refer you back 
> to the beginning of the briefing.
>
>
>     Good debating is persuasive speech of the sort that would persuade
>     a normal, well-informed citizen of the merits of a particular
>     position. It arises out of a synthesis of reasoned argumentation,
>     sound structure, and appealing style. _*There is no single way to
>     debate well, nor can any briefing offer exhaustive instructions as
>     to how to debate well in every conceivable circumstance.*_ The
>     guidelines below are an attempt to sketch, broadly, a number of
>     important principles that should help you deliver the best
>     possible speeches.
>
> As such, the briefing should be taken as guidelines, particularly for 
> people starting out. John is right that it will mainly provide help to 
> novices. I disagree that it would be ''cold comfort'' for novices to 
> have a frame of reference that reflects normal practice on the 
> debating circuit. In terms of freeing people to think and create 
> arguments for themselves, I think it would be giving a great deal more 
> weight to how people view the briefing to argue that it will radically 
> alter their approach to debating having read it. Instead I think for 
> people looking for extra guidance it will prove a useful tool, while 
> it acknowledges, as noted above, that it is not a guide to every 
> circumstance, nor could it ever conceivably be so.
>
> 2. On the specific issue of counter-plans. John is correct that there 
> can be effective counter-plans. For the specific reasons mentioned in 
> the briefing (that you can gain the benefit of the argumentation of a 
> counter-plan by introducing it as an 'even-if' argument rather than 
> having to nail your colours to a plan) it's normally not the most 
> effective way of arguing. For circumstances where it is, I would 
> suggest that 'nearly always bad' also carries the clear implication of 
> 'in rare circumstances good'.
>
> 3. Counter-props in speech one. A counter-prop is different to an 
> explanation that an alternative might solve better, it is the 
> commitment of a team to that position above all possible alternatives. 
> Therefore it falls under the pre-existing obligations to consistency 
> established under the worlds rules. It is unjust for a first 
> proposition to not have the possibility of refuting an entirely new 
> and exclusive way of viewing the debate.
>
> 4. Judging: As noted in the judge briefing itself, the judging test, 
> and as will be emphasised at the tournament itself,* judging should be 
> holistic. *I would imagine that on this point, John, that we will be 
> in total agreement. I think it is useful for speakers to have a frame 
> of reference that they can choose to apply as they learn, should they 
> wish to do so. That should not for a moment be seen as saying that no 
> other strategies are valid. Again, it was my feeling that the 
> beginning of the document established that very clearly, but I will 
> re-iterate is so that there is no ambiguity.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen Boyle
>
> CA USU 2011
>
>
> On 29 March 2011 10:39, Stephen Llano <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Finally John has written an email that I could not agree with more.
>
>     Let's stop worrying about silly "rules" and teach our students
>     what really matters - persuasion and argumentation that is in
>     resonance with the current scholarship on these ideas. Persuasion
>     and argumentation are always situational, audience-adapted, and of
>     the moment (Gr: Kairos).
>
>     Llano
>     _____
>     Stephen Llano, Ph.D.
>     Director of Debate
>     Assistant Professor
>     Department of Rhetoric, Communication & Theater
>     St. John’s University
>     Queens, NY
>     718-990-5606
>     718-990-2435 (fax)
>     callto://stevellano -- Skype Me!
>
>     "Knit the brows, and a strategem comes to mind." - Lo Kuan-chung,
>     Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
>
>     "Poetry is a rival government always in opposition to its cruder
>     replicas." - William Carlos Williams
>
>     "Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." - Henry Miller
>     ________________________________________
>     From: USA Debating in the WUDC Format [[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Meany, John
>     [[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>     Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:34 AM
>     To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     Subject: Re: USU Nationals 2011 in Brief
>
>     Are debaters and judges expected to follow this briefing? The WUDC
>     rules are fairly open-ended, allowing debaters to select best
>     practices and innovate strategies and tactics. In this way,
>     debaters may develop diverse and exceptional presentation and
>     argumentation skills. But this briefing often instructs debaters
>     on what they can say and how they can say it. It seems to add a
>     whole set of ‘rules’ that do not appear in the WUDC rules. Here is
>     just one example, regarding argumentation from the opposition –
>     the counterproposal (just about all of it seems so wrong). The
>     briefing seems to indulge in a certain wistfulness regarding
>     counterplan concepts, circa 1955. But what is the point of
>     repeating those ideas unless one is planning to expose, discredit,
>     and update them?
>
>     How can one understand the claim that “It is nearly always a bad
>     tactical decision for opp to offer a counter-prop?” This question
>     from the briefing is accurate, to a point. Yes, of course, it is a
>     bad tactical decision to use a bad version of a counterproposal.
>     [Ed. note: Duh.] But what if one did not follow the briefing’s
>     guide to bad counterplanning? What if one had a more modern or
>     effective version of counterplanning? What about a version
>     developed and used in serious personal and policy argumentation
>     for millennia? How about a version applied to formal debating in
>     the 19th and early 20th centuries and re-invented for academic
>     debating some 40 years ago? How about a version used by all
>     debate’s participants in decision-making each day? How about the
>     version inevitably used by the author(s) of the briefing, a
>     version about which they are, quite obviously, unaware? How about
>     a version routinely used in public policy debates and current
>     events discussions on the very motions selected for tournament
>     competition? What if a sound version of counterplanning had, as
>     its foundation, the identical logic used in the construction of a
>     proposition policy model? If it is fine for the prop, would it
>     then be fine for the opp? What if it served the acceptable ends
>     identified for the opposition teams? What if it met the purpose of
>     engaging in rebuttal of the proposition’s arguments in precisely
>     the terms established by the proposition? What if it served the
>     purpose of positive matter and proved that the proposition model
>     was counterproductive? What if it could be successfully
>     implemented by talented debaters in academic contests?  (For
>     example, I regularly observe good public policy counterplans on
>     diverse motions at middle school tournaments in debate outreach
>     leagues sponsored by the Claremont Colleges Debate Union). Still a
>     bad tactical decision?
>
>     To add insult, the briefing also demands that the counterprop
>     argument be presented in the opening speech for opposition side.
>     [Ed. note: Huh?] No need for a history lesson here. The non
>     sequitur is alive and well. In fact, recently saw a clever
>     presentation by Richard Haass, CFR, on Libya intervention. He
>     waited until colleagues agreeing with his non-intervention
>     position had their say before introducing his counterplan. It came
>     late in the televised discussion, which added to its authority –
>     it carefully considered all previous argument positions from those
>     favoring and opposing intervention. A relevant and powerful policy
>     argument, focused precisely to the question, expressed in less
>     than 30 seconds. And this is the sort of thing that should be
>     out-of-bounds for intercollegiate debaters?
>
>     There is a more of this sort of grey goo in the briefing –
>     manufactured rules, objective tests, empty opines, and other
>     claims that suggest, if anything, limited meaningful debate
>     experience and/or imagination – and debaters must struggle through
>     it all to get to substantive matter. Some info in the briefing may
>     be helpful for the novice debater (formalism and rule-bound
>     approaches often provide comfort, too often cold comfort, for the
>     inexperienced) but so much of it seems to suggest that there is
>     ‘one right way’ to debate, rather than the many available elegant
>     and effective ways.
>
>     Can’t we just follow the WUDC rules and liberate debaters to make
>     their own choices about argumentative and stylistic strategies and
>     tactics? Why must judge and debater briefings so frequently tell
>     debaters what to say? Shouldn’t debaters have the opportunity to
>     investigate and analyze issues and attempt persuasive approaches
>     independently of previous debate practice, judge preferences, and
>     applied conventions? Some of the choices they make may not be as
>     good as those listed in the briefing but other decisions, and
>     certainly those regarding counterplanning, may be MUCH BETTER.
>     That is how debaters develop and apply CT and debate practice
>     improves.
>
>     Although this note addresses the briefing document, it is also
>     relevant to the general imposition of judge preferences and
>     conventional practices that may interfere with the development of
>     genuinely exceptional public speaking, argumentation, and
>     refutation skills. It is time to put a stake in the heart of so
>     many zombie debate practices, the manner/matter/structure undead –
>     the revolving techniques that have been buried, again and again,
>     only later to escape to haunt and torment the perplexed villagers
>     (they’re back! – the judge demand for an explicitly expressed
>     split at the beginning of a speech, the ‘3 questions’ tactic of
>     the whip speaker, etc. – popular high school extemporaneous
>     speaking practices, circa 1955, now available in 2 forms – sources
>     of cable television and online parody and, without a trace of
>     irony, recommendations for BP debaters).
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     John
>
>     John Meany
>     Director of Forensics
>     Claremont Colleges Debate Union
>     Claremont McKenna College
>     500 East Ninth Street
>     Claremont, CA 91711-6400
>     909.607.2667 TEL
>     909.621.8249 FAX
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2022
January 2022
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager