There is a process in debate where both schools in a debate get to “strike” one judge from a panel in order to ensure that the judging panel is as unbiased as possible. Mr. Oppenheimer points out an argument two coaches had over one such strike in order to try to attack modern debate.
He says that scholastic debate today does not incorporate witty flourishes or glamorous speeches. However, that is not what the essence of debate is about. If you need to use catchy phrases and practically sing your arguments to win them, you have no place debating. Modern policy debate is about research, preparedness, knowledge, and an ability to think on your feet. It is not an issue that “debaters no longer aspire to combine erudition and inspiration.” In my opinion (and many people agree with me), it is much more important to have a substantive debate where actual issues are discussed than it is to mindlessly rattle off ultimatums.
Mr. Oppenheimer points out that some college debaters now practice postmodern debate. However, he fails to notice that those people are in a minority. After 57 debates across the country, I have yet to debate such a team. And it’s not just me. I know of only 2 instances throughout the entire year where a “critical affirmative” was run. And, even if a consensus were reached that postmodern debate is bad, eliminating it from debate would be impossible, because it is the very lack of rules that makes debate so interesting.
Mr. Oppenheimer brought up the issue of talking fast and shorthand (which is typically referred to as “flowing,” a method used to take notes at a rapid pace). However, there is absolutely nothing lost by quickening the pace that you speak at. He uses the fallacy that either you make smart arguments or you talk fast. This is decidedly not true. If one could get away with making bad arguments because they were talking quickly, I would quit debate. He fails to notice the incomprehensibly large amount of research done before every tournament. Debaters are sure of their arguments before the round, and that keeps the arguments intelligent and tricky.
His argument about the more enthusiastic converts makes no sense. If he says that smaller high schools and colleges bring about modern debate, then he is making himself a victim to the very argument he set out to take down. This would mean that modern debate is a step in the right direction because older debate was exclusionary, and was senseless and dead-end competition between snobby products prep-schools. If he is saying that those “scrappy workhorses” should be eliminated, he is once again setting out to create a more exclusionary environment.
He goes on to show ignorance of how modern debate truly works. His claim that debate is “unmoored from oratory” is unfounded. There is a system at debate tournaments at every level where judges award speaker points based on how persuasive the debater was. At the end, all the speaker points are tallied for each debater and the ones with the highest totals get rewarded. He also says that debate does not prepare Americas youth for the real world. However, does the process of flowing not help during a particularly long meeting, or during a lengthy lecture? Does the ability to construct an argument effectively and based off of research not help write reports and papers?
Also, if Mr. Oppenheimer wishes to change presidential debate, perhaps he should run for president, or write the candidates. I doubt that Obama spends much time reading peoples complaints about the stylized fashion policy debate takes on. At the end, he once again brings up the point that you can talk slowly and convey ideas. This is entirely true. However, there is no reason you can’t talk quickly and convey just as smart, if not smarter, ideas.
As we debaters actually say, in a world where 70% of congress has debated in high school, we should try very hard to focus them on learning about substantive issues, rather than mindless cliché phrases that will woo crowds.
Posts
2 comments:
is this jacob again? i get so confused with people's blogger names.
Yeah, this is Jacob.
I'm a little confused here though.
Is the author trying to say that congressional debate is more useful than today's policy debate?
Mostly, I agree with you, but there are a few areas where I'm not so sure. You say that there's no need for "witty flourishes or glamorous" speeches. Yet isn't the ultimate goal of debate persuasion? I wouldn't totally exclude these types of speeches because if those types of communication are what persuade, then they're useful to debate.
Also, with the talking fast part- I have nothing against it, but it is questionable on its effectiveness as a form of communication. You're totally right that one can still convey smart ideas while talking at superspeed. However, you sacrifice some persuasiveness to it because you no longer have that emphasis and strength in each and every one of your words.
Post a Comment