Response -- mikeknight dot com discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

Subject: Response

Author:
Paul

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:36:10 06/01/02 Sat
In reply to: sibo 's message, "One quick question in favor of debate" on 08:08:50 05/31/02 Fri

A few points:

1) you don't _have_ to persuade the judge of the falsity of the other side's positions; quick example is national missile defense. Aff might argue that limited NMD will save American lives, allow for increased American intervention, and deter the use of WMD by rogue states. Neg might point out that NMD takes funds away from more valuable conventional weapons programs, intimidate our allies n' enemies, and do nothing to reduce the risk of a Russian accidental launch. At no point in this argument have Aff and Neg clashed on points of fact; the Neg can in fact concede everything Aff has brought up and still win.

2) "I thought the whole purpose of debate was identical to extemp- to persuade a judge or audience to accept your stance on an issue. So how does extemp more keenly develop persuasion skills?"

Yes, old-school (pre-ca. 1980) debate was fairly close to extemp....but no more. Just watch how the two competitions differ from each other; with the exception of boxes, the two are clearly different at every stage. Debate is more combative, evidence-based, and jargony; extemp is more reportorial, rhetorical, and persuasive in its style. Extemp more keenly develops persuasion skills because extemp speeches are given with the presumption that the judge knows nothing/next to nothing, and therefore an extemper must not only provide a viewpoint on what's happening, but an explanation of what's happening as well. Debaters always proceed from the assumption that the judge brings a large body of theoretical and practical knowledge to the table, especially by November and December.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]