Monday, January 28, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2008 – DEBATE TEAM WILL MEET AT 1 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD. We will begin to develop our affirmative and negative case on gun control. The resolution will be: “Resolved: that gun control should be modified/abolished in New York State.” Drani is checking the status quo which is the basis for the affirmative team’s case. Online source material includes numerous video testimonies as well as this latest report: Bush Signs New Gun Control Law (Click here.)
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008 – THE COMMUNICATION CLUB WILL MEET AT 1 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD. After a lively discussion we decided to focus on Reading Aloud.” This will be a fun session where we will start with reading the telephone book in an exciting manner. Then we’ll turn to reading of published short poetry and prose (not original writing this time) to discover how your voice can make the words come off the page. Bring a couple of your favorite poems and short prose pieces to experiment with. Hal Wicke will get you used to sounding silly and stretching your voice.
WHAT HAPPENED ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 –CLUB MEETING?
Drani Gabu and James Millner joined George Backinoff, Richard Green, David Nussbaum and Hal Wicke in a very interesting session. Antoinette Miller, in her last day on her job as the Department’s Administrative Assistant, kept joining the group. She will be on an internship for her Human Services major for the spring semester.
George led off with a three person Communication exercise where Drani spoke extemporaneously for five minutes; James listened carefully without taking notes and summarized what Drani said; and Richard observed both Drani and James and reported on the accuracy of the James’ report. We talked a long time about what went into both the impromptu speaking and the careful listening necessary for a successful Communication transaction. George talked about his experience in Japan, teaching Japanese to do this exercise.
David showed a purple Lord and Taylor bag with a print of a Hudson River painting taped to the outside and many objects inside it which he brought out to reveal more about himself. David explained that this was an example of the standard “JoHari Window” exercise where a four-part window symbolizes the degree of self-disclosure a person will show to others. The four windows are Open, Hidden, Blind and Unknown. As David revealed his interest in opera (he was once a super for Wagner’s Lohengrin at the Met Opera), Hal then talked about his stage directing in opera. The conversation went on like this as David slowly revealed “hidden” aspects from inside his bag.
The session seemed to revive the energy of the conversation with each new discovery. Everyone got involved and shared. At the end, there seemed to be a very warm feeling among the six of us. We started playing with our voices – fast, slow, whisper, raspy – and that led to the idea of experimenting with reading aloud some published poetry and/or prose. Hal volunteered to lead the next session. Although we are not conscious of how we use our voice most of the time, when we practice reading aloud we can begin to become aware of how to use our voice to emphasize our ideas.
WHAT HAPPENED ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2008? – DEBATE TEAM?
We had an entire United Nations at this meeting. Every person was from a different country: Senegal, the Ukraine, Guatemala, Sudan, Barbados, India, Venezuela, Hawaii and Morningside Heights, NYC. Drani Gabu was the mainstay of the meeting along with Milton Rivera. The new people included Mor Sarr, Tetyana Averkina, Johnny Celestin, Joanel Stuart-Jones, Vikram Jannavedy joined David Nussbaum, Richard Green and Hal Wicke. They represented a wide range of majors: Political Science, Business, Physical Therapy, Human Services and the Master’s Degree program in Computing.
Since we had so many new people, Hal reviewed basic ideas about debate and how its training is very helpful to every aspect of school, business and personal life. It is particularly useful in helping to understand the current Presidential campaign where candidates often make errors in fact and misstatements. The past week was full of accusations between the Obama and Clinton camps about who said what about whom.
Any political campaign moves so fast that the ordinary citizen can get fooled into believing everything that a candidate says. An excellent resource to check the accuracy of anything, but particularly this political campaign is FactCheck.org. You can even ask them to verify something and they will get back to you. It’s a great resource!
Hal focused on a rubric for types of evidence and tests of evidence. He put the following chart on the board {He revised the chart since the meeting.)
Types and Tests of Evidence
All assertions (thesis statements) must be supported by evidence to be proved valid. Assertions without valid evidence are opinions without support.
This is especially important in debate. The debater must know the full range of evidence available to both the affirmative and negative positions to be able to judge its validity.
Knowledge of this menu of types and tests of evidence is helpful to any writer or speaker who is intent on documenting a position, building a persuasive case, or writing an essay or term paper.
Aristotle speaks of three ways of using rhetoric (the art of persuasion). Each must support the other.
  • Logos – using logic to persuade
  • Pathos – using emotions to persuade
  • Ethos – using personality and character to persuade
Types of Evidence
Tests of Evidence


1. Current Events
1. Quantity
2. Historical
2. Quality
3. Economic
3. Variety
4. Cultural
4. Primary source
5. Socio-economic
5. Secondary source
6. Psychological
6. Reputable source
7. Religious
7. Recentcy
8. Ethical
8. Relevant
9. Social
9. Accurate
10. Legal
10. Coherent
11. Personal
11. Appropriate

12. Parallel

13. Statement in context

14. Representativeness

15. Degree of bias






We went over the chart and everyone took notes and asked questions. It was a solid session with lots more work for the Debate team to do if we are to present a public debate in front of the school at the end of the semester.
See you next time. Bring a friend.
Hal Wicke