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:

Stephen Llano <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:39:28 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (53 lines)

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]] On Behalf Of Meany, John [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:34 AM
To: [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]

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

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