| Subject: meow - the noise a padawan makes |
Author:
sibo
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:14:28 05/21/02 Tue
In reply to:
Paul Musgrave
's message, "Much to learn, have you." on 11:20:53 05/21/02 Tue
This was getting fun. Now all these equations and complex sentences are getting dizzying. Luckily the Force is on my side, allowing me to fight through the pain and post some more.
1)
a) You assume that debaters only learn a specialized form of speaking and that this helps very little in real life speaking compared to extemp. Sure debaters tend to speak in staccato, and use debate jargon in debate rounds, but these aren't the only things learned in debate speaking. Word economy is stressed highly, and enunciation is beat to death due to the generally more rapid pace of speaking in policy compared to extemp. Keep in mind that the 'faults' of debate style speaking are not used in debate rounds out of habit, but out of necessity, due to time constraints. Now, debate may seem useless then, because of its forced time contraints and subsequent usage of jargon et al, but if asked to give a persuasive speech with no time constraints, a debater could 'expand' his arguments, replacing the jargon such as 1AC with actual words in the English language.
As for real life situations, you address my example of School Board meetings. First, you note that no jargon is used in School Board meetings. Well, if a debater were to give a speech at one such meeting, I doubt that he/she would refer to the opposing opinion as "My opponents presented in their last constructive" or say "The negative only was able to present a NONUNIQUE DA." Although jargon is used in debate, to think that this necessarily carries over to any speaking that a debater does is illogical.
As for the style of speaking in 'parliamentary' School Board meetings, it is much closer to debate than extemp, at least the important issues. Sure, someone has to announce good news about the EVSC, and everyone claps. Yahoo. But when the school board is debating an issue, such as Signature School's charter, often the opposing sides debate point by point the positives and negatives of an action. So yeah, discussions generally are distinct from extemp or debate, but there are times when they degenerate into debates, and your opinion must be defended.
And by the way, I'd like to comment that the staunch 'no half day sig next year' coalition on the School Board had horrible analysis.
As for Nixon vs Kennedy, you are missing my point. I realize that Kennedy won the actual election, but I am addressing the issue of who had "higher speaks" during the debate. The television viewers may have voted for Kennedy, but the reason for their decision is undeterminable. It could have been Kennedy's good looks, or Nixon's ugly suit that cause television viewers to prefer JFK. It may have been something more subtle like Nixon's visible shakiness while speaking. Who knows? But then you examine the radio listeners, and there is only one quality that could have been used to determine who won the debate: speaking. Point by point debate speaking style won out. Unless you can link debate to poor dressing habits and plastic hair, it is clear that although Kennedy was more photogenic, his extemp-style speaking was not as good as Nixon's point by point. If Nixon had Kennedy's poise and youth, it's very possible that Nixon would have dominated the opinion of television viewers of the debate.
2) Research
What do you mean by Therefore, "branding" frequently stands in for objective analysis of each article , I'm just curious.
Once again, debaters can and are not discouraged from using 'high-quality' cites. The mentioned examples of the New York Times and Washington Post may not be directly cited often in debate rounds, but any knowledgable debater reads up on the news from credible sources, such as those just noted, and later presents this information in a way that makes him/her seem incredibly smart.
You said that it was prima facie evident that using high-quality articles was useful...I agree. What I didn't get was how did extemp teach you this 'habit'? Since it is so obvious anyhow. If it were prima facie evident that one should use good sources, then a debater, when given the choice, would use a good source. Doing FX doesn't get one in a habit of using good sources, that tendency is already there. Unfortunately for debaters, sometimes the best sources don't have content on certain case, so debaters are forced to look to less desirable places. This is not necessarily a habit that they unconciously practice in all their research though.
Finally, breadth vs. depth, I meant that breadth and depth must coexist as processes. For the pure educational knowledge gained, extemp may be superior, but I was referring to the process of covering large areas of knowledge being of no more importance than the process of specializing oneself and one's research on a specific area. I dunno if that makes since, but right now I am going to play basketball on Alex's house, peace.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 