Touro Communication Club #19
The Presidential campaign has heated up this past week with the surrogates of the candidates getting Clinton and Obama into messy food fights. Add the sudden Spitzer resignation to the political mix and after a while one can have second thoughts about what is happening in America. I admit the events of the past week have strained my own ability to maintain a level of hope in public service.
I keep thinking that the public politics are often macro versions of the micro experiences we have with our families, classmates, colleagues and co-workers. (That’s why Shakespeare wrote about kings.) With each revelation, I ask how can this event have some relevance to our understanding of Communication. My observation is that events like the past week occur when there is a failure of communication. Then how can we prevent Murphy’s law from happening? (And remember Murphy was an optimist!)
P.S. On Thursday, 3/13, Professor Gary Sheinfeld and Dean Timothy Taylor performed Sheinfeld’s final interview with James Baldwin. Professor Carlisle Yearwood provided introductory material and read some of Baldwin’s poetry. Sheinfeld was a long-time friend of Baldwin.
Our two-week schedule:
WEDNESDAY, March 19, 2008 – THE CLUB WILL MEET AT 1 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23rd Street
The current Presidential Campaign will be the topic this week. George Backinoff will lead what will probably be a free-wheeling experience. There are so many ways to look at the dominant news story: Democrats vs. Republicans, Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain, delegates vs. super delegates, Florida and Michigan voter fights, the leaks and off-message statements by the Obama campaign, the probable appearance of “dirty tricks” made famous by Watergate, gender and race issues, the anti-Clinton and the anti-Obama internet sites, and on and on. Come with your questions and your opinions. This is a great time to speculate and shoot your mouth off –responsibly we insist – not like some of the TV pundits and talk show hosts. Bring a friend to add to the excitement!
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 – THE DEBATE TEAM WILL MEET AT 1:00 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD STREET
The Debate team has two copies of “Opposing Views: Gun Control” in addition to the extensive research they’ve already collected. We will now be able to push ahead in developing the both Affirmative and Negative arguments with the appropriate supporting evidence. We may be able to experiment with cross-examination technique in this session. This is the hard and boring drudgery necessary to get the cases up to speed.
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CLUB MEETING ON Wednesday, March 12, 2008?
Drani Gabu, Kazi Faltah and Tetyana Averkina welcomed Theresa Wright to the session. James Millner arrived late. David Nussbaum took notes and Hal Wicke led the session.
This was a hard, brain-numbing, yet exhilarating session. We finally got into the material David’s notes provide the outline of the session. First we confirmed our resolution:
Resolved: That NYC enact a law prohibiting the sale and use of small handguns, except for law enforcement officials.
As the debaters move ahead in developing their cases, they must define the terms of the resolution. Often, an entire issue can change based on one definition.
The group brainstormed some of the issues relevant to gun control. They included:
- Homicide/injury.
- Robberies,
- Domestic violence,
- Unintended shooting,
- Second amendment rights,
- Guns at work/school/public places,
- Registration of guns,
- Control crimes (limit) – reduce crime,
- Control who carries guns (registration)
- Reduce hospital costs
- Cases in which gun has been weapon of choice
The team began to develop a chart which listed the arguments. This is an early step to clarify each team’s case. For each argument, the other team must prepare for an opposite argument. Then the issues will “clash” and a judge can determine which side had the better argument and evidence. If there is no “clash,” or opposing view, the side that advocates the argument wins that point.
You will notice that the team was able to come up with more Negative arguments than Affirmative ones. We have much more work to do. Once the arguments are clarified, then the debaters plug in the supportive evidence.
Pro and Con Chart
| Pro/Affrmative | Do arguments clash? | Con/Negative |
| Does not protect | Not parallel/ no clash | Need guns to protect ourselves, materials, etc. |
| | | Hunting.& Sport |
| | | No legislation will prevent gun use |
| | | Black market |
| | | Second amendment |
| | | Gun control laws don’t work |
| Thou shalt not kill | | |
Research for next meeting
Cases in which handguns have been the principal weapon of choice
Evidence from non high profile cases
Next time the debate should be able to find other arguments and develop them.
See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke
No comments:
Post a Comment