|
hello
Jul 11, 2007 16:13:03 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 11, 2007 16:13:03 GMT 10
Hello Since I cannot post elsewhere without a "password" I will post here.
I am a 32 years young arts graduate. I am not at preseent a member of any university. I am studying editing through TAFE.
I have begun to attend Toastmasters and get into public speaking. I have also contacted the DAV to be trained to adjudicate the school debates next year.
Has anyone got any tips on entering debates, public speaking etc as a speaker or adjudicator? I used to debate in DAV a .long time ago at A grade. I wasn't very good.
Thank you. Andrew
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 8:37:40 GMT 10
Post by Tom on Jul 12, 2007 8:37:40 GMT 10
G'day Bookeditor. Just bear in mind that Toastmasters doesn't really have anything to do with university debating. There are some similar principles in terms of public speaking skills, but the structural and general knowledge requirements are vastly different. Check out Tim Sonnreich's training guide for an intro to uni debating. www.monashdebaters.com/members_stuff/training_guide.doc
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 9:59:51 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 12, 2007 9:59:51 GMT 10
(I would describe my way of debating as the "microscopic matter school" Grab matter. Make example. Grab matter. Make example. Grab matter... When I used to debate this way in DAV a rather streetwise teammate always used to say to me "don't use too many examples; it gives the opposition stuff to attack. They will just take your example and go 'nah, nah, nah' . " One time in A grade I was debating "if executions are allowed then they should be televised". I went into graphic examples of capital punishemnt as part of my argument for deterrance [we were affirmative] and the rather cluey negative third speaker who followed me took all my graphic examples and used them against me to show that if executions were so graphic then what about kids seeing them, a cable channel devoted to executions etc... One is entitled to ask "what was I doing going into such detail as third affirmative? Shouldn't I have been summing up the team line and rebutting? Well, there was a reason for this. My first two speakers had misunderstood the topic completely. They missed the conditional aspect and argued about capital punishment itself! Hence, after my second speaker had admiited in his speech that "this debate is not about whether capital punishemnt is right" [ the most effective rebuttal of one's own case I have ever seen, the adjudicator said when summing up] I was left with no case to sum up! Faced with such a herculean task I could not salvage the debate. It was my fault. I should have made it clear earlier on that the topic was conditional; I had assumed that it would be as obvious to them as it was to me. I don't know if any of my adjudicators were people on this board. It is possible!! They never said who they were. I know that most of them had debated at Melbourne/Monash. I think that Ben Richards did adjudicate some of the debates in that region [Mt Eliza] but they might not have been mine. Of course with the new changes in DAV that preclude people adjudicating in any region where they are employed by one of the competing schools, I think that there will be a greater need for people to adjudicate from now on. The first debate I had that year [1992] was on "Our Treatment of Aborigines is Still Our Greatest Shame". [topical!] That was the only debate I won all year. I suspect that if I had Ben Richards in any debate it was in that one. I can tell when I hear the synopsis how much debating at any high level he or she has done. It was clear to me from the brilliant summary that whoever the adjudicator was he had debated A LOT. These were the topics for A grade DAV that year: That Our treatment of aborigines is still our greatest shame. That heroin should be decriminalised. That we should work for the dole [secret] That if executions are allowed they should be televised. That Columbus should have stayed at home [secret]
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 12:25:17 GMT 10
Post by guest on Jul 12, 2007 12:25:17 GMT 10
microscopic school of debating.... gotta remember that one... Good old Toastmasters
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 12:55:28 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 12, 2007 12:55:28 GMT 10
Yep. The microscopic school of debating, where the bigger picture is missed completely and two minutes is spent describing the effect of the proposal upon a single groove in a ball bearing. Well, that might be a slight exaggeration...two grooves in a ball bearing might be more accurate.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 14:35:50 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 12, 2007 14:35:50 GMT 10
Thanks for that! Tim Sonnreich has written an excellent manual of value to all levels of debater. He says that there are two types of debater: those who see extrinsic value in debating and others who see its intrinsic worth. Facetiously, I would suggest a third type: people have read Plato's Gorgias and see all debating as intellectually corrupt sophistry rather like Plato's villain Callicles in these dialogues. Plato's thesis is that an argument has to not only persuade; it must also contain actual substance. In a world of slick advertising and lawyers intent upon winning at any cost, Plato was surely making a point that retains much relevance. Tim says many things that are new to me. The "first principles" approach is one that I wish that I had been taught at D grade. The 5 methods of rebuttal are also excellent. Then I found this quite interesting bit: Finally a note about speaking third; a disproportionate number of former high school debaters consider themselves to be ‘natural’ third speakers. That’s not necessarily a problem, and every good team needs a strong third speaker, but the reality of university debating is that in most cases, third is the last place to have your best speaker. Especially in 3-on-3 styles, the strength of the case and the sophistication of the analysis early on are absolutely vital, and if it’s not done well then a brilliant 3rd speaker will be unable to save that team from any decent opposition. Speaking 1st and even 2nd can seem daunting or even boring sometimes, but at this level a great 1st speaker is much more valuable to a team then a great 3rd. I have to disagree with Tim here. I would always put the best speaker third. Why? The extemporised nature of rebuttal, and the ability to synthesise more material than the second speaker has to in deciding the main things to attack, requires skill and experience to do it adroitly. The third speaker cannot memorise his or her speech for that is at best detrimental and at worst disastrous. He or she must understand "how the tide has turned" in the debate and be ready to address it. Part of it is my bias, I know, as a former debater who always went third. Perhaps I was a somewhat egotistical optimist who always believed that I could save any shipwrecked debating case from ruin. [He is correct to say that different positions should be experienced and it is a deep regret of mine that, from memory, I have never been a first or second speaker] I promise that if I ever adjudicate debates I will restrain my galloping vocabulary.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 14:59:36 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 12, 2007 14:59:36 GMT 10
I also found Tim's comments about soft and hard lines to be quite interesting. In the majority of topics he is right; a moderate to hard line is the ideal for a good, robust debate. There are some cases, however, where I feel that a soft to moderate line should be adopted. These are in extreme topics. Take the one I debated in A grade DAV:
If executions are allowed then they should be televised.
This is a very hard case to argue without qualification. There is the dreaded execution cable channel that the negative can hold up as a regressive step for society. Surely the only real hope with such an "extreme" topic is to specify it: take "televised" to mean a broadcast to certain relatives of the person/s murdered by the inmate. Then say that the tapes will be destroyed afterwards so no TV channel or utube gets them. Another avenue would be to show the executions to inmates to perevnt recidivism. Both argumnets tie up nicely with the "if" conditiona;l that capital punishment attempts x and y [perevnt future crime and give closure to victims] so hence televised versions to certain persoins should be there to do x and y.
I would call this a soft to moderate line. It was certainly the most extreme topic I ever had to argue for in the affirmative.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 19:33:50 GMT 10
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jul 12, 2007 19:33:50 GMT 10
Ah, but that is a perfect example of how soft lines can be problematic. The more exceptions you add, and the more limitations you put it, the more you take away from the effectiveness of your model.
For example, I would say that having televised executions restricted to, say, later at night where mostly adults would view it, would have a detterent effect on the wider population. Part of the point of capital punishment is to also act as a deterrent (whether or not that is the case is another matter), and this fits in nicely with that. Cutting out televising executions to the wider populace may cut out negative arguments about "execution cable channels", but it also cuts out arguments about the benefits of detterence to wider society.
That in fact is part of the point about soft lines - they cut out harms, but also cut out benefits for your side, and simply cut out stuff to debate about, making for a less interesting debate. Usually, the stuff they cut out isn't stuff that will necessarily win/loose the debate for either side (I don't think that either of the detterent argument or the "execution channel" argument are particularly stronger than the other, and certainly nothing that will win the debate for either side). You're better of in those situations putting the argument in, and running a tough line - you might even win that point. And if you don't, you can learn how to win next time.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 12, 2007 21:58:09 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 12, 2007 21:58:09 GMT 10
Thank you for the contribution. When I debated the topic that year [92] I tried the hard line that you describe, including arguments of deterrance. Maybe I didn't do it very well. As I said earlier on my first two speakers made a mess of it!
A few weeks ago i was watching some C grade debating. The topic [secret] was:
We need paid advertising on the ABC.
The adjudicator, in summation, said that one reason for the affirmative losing was that they ran a "soft case" in which qualification followed qualification and "the case became harder and harder to argue". For instance the negative team said that advertsing would be intrusive for an audience who, aftre all, watches ABC to be free of ads. So the affirmative countered by saying that they would follow the SBS model of only ads between programs. Then the negative team asked if the ads would be morally dubious such as that "cougar" ad with the well endowed barmaid. Again the affirmative countered with "ads will be censored". And on it went until the affirmative case turned into a knotty ball of noodles.
I am still not sure how that case should be argued. So there's a challenge for someone: pretend that you have the affrirmative in that topic and try to construct a case for " We need paid advertising on the ABC. "
|
|
|
hello
Jul 13, 2007 11:54:41 GMT 10
Post by Mr Witty on Jul 13, 2007 11:54:41 GMT 10
I find it interesting that you disagree with Tim Sonnreich. Chances are, if you debated in A Grade in 1992, you might have actually debated him a few times....
I think Alex Law might have been a few years ahead of you though.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 13, 2007 13:50:05 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 13, 2007 13:50:05 GMT 10
I never made it to the finals so if I ever debated against him it would have to have been in my region -Mt Eliza. I wish that I had debated against him though! The only debater that I can think of who you would know is Andrew Phillips - he was a few years after me and he went on to debate at Australs etc. He was a brilliant debater even in early secondary school. I did meet him a few times at school and he could just back you into a corner in any argument! And I don't mean that in an aggressive way. Rather, he had clever ways of making arguments! It is interesting that the most brilliant people at arguing do not necessarily make the best debaters. Let me give an example. I knew a person with whom I did school internal debates. Cameron was a brilliant creator of ideas. I would give any debating topic and he would come up with 10 great ideas and argumnets in a minute. The next year [1993] he won the prize for the highest VCE mark in the state[ yep, the state, ALL candidates.] That didn't surprise me and I was happy for him. He was also a great speaker. He had a fantastic grasp even at year 11 of "first principles" in any debate and he could throw around Latin terms like a wedding throws around confetti. How he never got to repesent Australia in the student world champs I will never know. I can only think that he was not in the "loop" for where they get Victorian repesantative debaters from [MHS, Wesley, Macrobs etc...it seems that we don't run a trial system like the WADL does. But if there had been a state trial I can tell you now his chances of getting picked would have been VERY high.] However, he had one weakness that my school debating coach told me about: he could not tolerate what, to him, were such stupid arguments from the opposition. And hence he came across as somewhat arrogant in his annihalation of them. I don't doubt that they were silly arguments. But I don't know...he could have done with some restraint [humility?]. Clearly, this marked his manner down a bit in debates if nothing else. Interesting also is that people who are not that great at debating can actually be very useful in helping you debate better. For instance there was one person I debated with in D, C and A grade . Mark was not great a debater. He was solid and reliable. But after I spoke he would always tell me what I did well or badly and I never took umbrage to his counsel. For instance if I wove my rebuttal into my speech he would tell me "you should have -put it at the start" or if I memorised too much as 3rd speaker he would say "you had to make up more stuff on your feet becuase your mmemorised stuff was no longer relevant to the way the debate had gone". And I found that I learned a lot from him and he was great for feedback. He just a way of saying it all without me feeling bad or anything. And he meant it all genuinely; he wasn't trying to put me down etc. I just think that it;s great when you debate with someone like that.
By the way when I began debating in 1989 there was no Mt Eliza region. Everyone got on the schoolbus and hiked to Brighton Grammar where that clock chimed once an hour. Those bus trips were a laugh. Nervous girls shouting "where are my cards for my speech? what am I going to argue?" etc
I still have to disagree with Tim Sonnreich about putting your best speaker first or second. I don't mean to downplay the importance of those positions. But surely in a high level debate, and certainly the ones I have watched or been in, it is the rebuttal by the third speaker and the summary/consolidation of the case that win the day. Being a third speaker needs skills that are unique to it: you must, must, must be able to extemporise rebuttal and do it with a disciplined regard for what really matters. And as someone who was a third speaker that is very hard to do. There is far more memorised stuff going first or second. But going third is like batting in the middle order in a one day cricket game. You might have to go defensive and tough it out, or you could be asked to do an all out assault mission. The only thing that a first or second speaker might do that comapares with a third spekare's demands is in a definition debate, where the first negative must challenge the definition and supplant ity with an alternative. If I were any debating coach in a 3 by 3 format I would ALWAYS get the best and mostb experienced speaker to go third.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 14, 2007 14:20:10 GMT 10
Post by smartarse on Jul 14, 2007 14:20:10 GMT 10
Hi Andrew,
I'm in KLIA so i'll be brief. Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read my training guide, i'm happy that you gained some benefit from it. Its still (and probably always will be) a bit of a work in progress, so i appreciate comments and feedback.
I understand your argument on the importance of third speakers, and its true that sometimes a stella third speech can save a debate (its my understanding that a superb third neg speech got Vic1 across the line against Mon1 in the Australs semis, but i wasn't in the room so that may be a over simplification).
That said, i'd make two general comments. Firstly, you're assumption that earlier speakers get the benefit of greater preparation and memorization of materials is an overstatement and potentially misleading. At the university level teams only get 15-30 mins to prepare, so no one has time to memorize anything, but the 1st speaker has get up and synthersize the case into a consise set-up that conveys the complexity of the case, without wasting time that should be devoted to making arguments. By contrast the 3rd gets (in effect) another 30-45 mins to consider the debate and their own speech, which is obviously advantageous.
So in my experience, all things considered equal, in the vast majority of cases, i wouldn't put the best speaker 3rd. but thats simply my advice, you're welcome to take it or leave it!
Finally - many of the people on this board know Andrew "fish" Phillips. He's a legend in MAD - former World Champion, and Australasians Grand Finalist. Also a great guy to drink 3 or 30 beers with.
gotta run
Tim Sonnreich
|
|
|
hello
Jul 14, 2007 14:38:55 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 14, 2007 14:38:55 GMT 10
Tim Thanks for your reply. Of course you are making valid enough points for the university debates. I can only draw upon my experience of school debates which are, in the majority of cases, preapred debates though a trend is developing to have more secret topics.
Of course when I responded I did not know that you were someone on this board!
I did not mean to deny the merits of your guide. They are numerous and far outweigh any of my criticisms. You are to be congratulated for having put together the best guide to debating I have ever seen and I would not hesitate to give it to any debater at any level. There are many things that I wish I had known about in my school deating, especially the "hard and soft" cases and the exercises at the end for developing a grasp of first principles. All this is meant without obseqiousness.
In fact, what I will do as an exercise is to use your appendix on the first principles and try to put into my own words what they all mean. Such an exercise should be a part of any debater's repertoire even going back to D grade. At that stage a debater proably won't be able to handle the ideas with the cultural sophistication of an older student. Nonetheless, I think that such an attempt would be of benefit.
Thanks again. Andrew
|
|
|
hello
Jul 15, 2007 15:21:32 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 15, 2007 15:21:32 GMT 10
Hence, here is a discussion about one of the terms mentioned in the appendix of Tim's guide: communitarianism. plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/This discussion is quite complex. To simplify it to a large extent, communitarianism is a belief that individual rights should be overridden for the greater good, or, to be strictly correct, when teh compromise to the greater good is minimal or only harms oneself. The compulsory wearing of seatbelts is probably the most communitarian law that our society has adopted; only the person's individual injury is at stake unless one factors into account the feelings of rescue workers, relatives or surgeons. If I had to use my own word for "communitarianism" it is paternalism though this word is applied more often to things that can harm others, such as gun control, than is communitarianism. It should be noted that communitarianism should not be confused with communism.
|
|
|
hello
Jul 15, 2007 19:07:13 GMT 10
Post by bookeditor on Jul 15, 2007 19:07:13 GMT 10
I also hope that my last post dispels all of the idiocy in another thread that I am some sort of loser who won't improve at speaking and adjudicating.
I am serious. More serious than anyone can imagine on this thread.
It took a lot of backbone to turn up to Toastmasters and start to speak. I even won an award for my stump speech! I used the word of the night "circumvent" twice in meaningful ways!
If I ever get to suggest the word of the night...muhahaha ;D
|
|