| Subject: not safe anymore |
Author:
sibo
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:19:04 05/20/02 Mon
In reply to:
Melody
's message, "I know you are, but what am I" on 18:43:19 05/20/02 Mon
I hereby risk a long, unsettling debate due to Melody's impression that I chickened out of posting more, due to Paul's possible involvement. She was right. But this shot to be ego must be mended.
Melody says, "I seriously considered responding to the original post, because we all know that extemp better than debate. But once Paul posted, there was really no question as to which is better."
Notice that the original post was on Wednesday afternoon. Melody knew of my post almost right after it went up. "I will post a response." Then, "g2g, I'll post a response later tonight"....so I guess this is the period when she was "seriously considering responding to the original post." So she was "seriously considering," but never actually posted until AFTER paul posted, Saturday afternoon." A period of around 72 hours. Seriously considering posting, right.
But suppose Melody ahd a busy schedule, and cuoldn't respond until after Paul had already posted, which is a very real possibility. Now we move on the the real debate of which forensics event is better.
The only Extemp arguments presented were Pauls. They are 1) extemp is far more useful in anything you do, including research and 2) breadth beats depth.
1) How is extemp more 'useful'? And why isn't any usefulness of extemp also applicable to debate? After all, the rebuttals are essentially extemped speeches. Moreover, examining the research subargument, what are these 'good habits' that FX teaches you? Researching for FX and Policy seem very similar. You get articles, file them. Only difference is that you can cut cards of evidence for debate, and you file for a larger topic area in most instances for FX. But why would that be a large advantage? This is covered in the refutation of the second point.
2) Breadth over depth? How so? If one had to make an informative speech, wouldn't the ability to deeply cover one area be supreme than the ability to lightly cover many areas? Or is this an issue of speaks vs. analysis. Speaks are arguably more important than analysis in real life. Arguably. BUT, a supreme debater has good speaks as well as analysis. In fact, the best debaters often succeed as extempers due to their speaks. Examples: Paul, Mike, Melody, Adam Wesoloski, John Jernigan, etc.
Peace, gotta go back to my dad's house. bring it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 