Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #21

This is a big week for the Communication people. On Monday, Richard Green gets honored by the New York Times as ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) Teacher of the year. A full-page ad was in Wednesday’s edition of the NYT. Then on Wednesday, the Department has its 5th Speech Contest. These are always interesting events because the Finalists present some very interesting topics. Come and watch Touro’s leaders for tomorrow show their stuff! Right now, the Speech Contest is Touro’s only activity which regularly recognizes student accomplishments.

Our three-week schedule:

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 – 5th Speech Contest – 2 pm – Room 314 – Midtown - 27 West 23rd St. Student Finalists from 3 Communication classes will present their winning Information speeches. These Finalists were selected by their classmates from speaking assignments in “Survey of Human Communication,” “Public Speaking” and “Interpersonal Communication.” A panel of faculty and administrative judges will rate the speakers according to the content, organization and delivery of their speeches. First Prize is $100 cash; Second Prize is $50 cash; Third Prize is $25 cash. Refreshments will be served while the judges are deliberating.

Come to “See How It’s Done!” Learning how to speak in public is one of the fundamental skills in today’s competitive job market.

WEDNESDAY, April 9, 2008 – THE DEBATE TEAM WILL MEET AT 1:00 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD STREET
At this session, we are going to begin building the negative case against Gun Control. There are many people who argue that gun control doesn’t work and have the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment to support them. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard landmark arguments against the gun control law in Washington DC. This is the first time that the Court has heard any kind of gun case since 1939. We are also going to work on our cross-examination technique of how to ask punchy questions and give cogent answers.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 – Club @ 1 pm @ 610 @50 West. – “The Bully Pulpit”
The Communication Department faculty was talking last week about the impact of race and gender on this year’s Presidential campaign. Barack Obama’s speech on race and religion two weeks ago raised the standard for discussion about these two volatile issues. There were so many ways we could approach these sensitive issues in a Club session that we finally decided to focus on “The Bully Pulpit.”

The term, “Bully Pulpit” comes from President Teddy Roosevelt’s constant saying “Bully” when he was in office (1901-1909). One hundred years ago, to say “Bully!” would be equivalent to saying today “Great!” or “Cool” or “Dope” or “Thass Baaad!” The “Pulpit” is an advantageous position, as for making one's views known or rallying support:

The President of the United States has a built-in “Bully Pulpit.” So do preachers, minister, priests, rabbi and imams. So does a teacher. And, with so many TV personalities (“talking heads”) and Radio Show hosts becoming “pundits,” the media has become a major “Bully Pulpit’ for competing ideas. My unsolicited personal definition of a “pundit” is “a self-appointed windbag that spews opinions that are mistaken for facts or knowledge.’

Jason Carvell will lead the discussion on how “The Bully Pulpit” has become the dominant – and noisy – way to promote your position. With so many opinions thrown about, we become easily confused because it is hard to differentiate between fact and opinion. Too often we are forced to listen to the loudest voice regardless of what is being said.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat!

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE DEBATE MEETING ON Wednesday, March 26, 2008.

Today’s Debate training session brought the largest crowd (12) we’ve had to date. Old timers, Drani Gabu, James Millner, Tetyana Averkina, Kazi Fathah and Theresa Wright welcomed two returnees Amina Bibi and Gabriel Amar and two new debaters in Pramila Ghimire. and Resul Akgeyik. Pramila was a Finalist in the lst Speech Contest in Spring, 2006. As usual, faculty stalwarts Richard Green and David Nussbaum helped Hal Wicke as the team developed their AFFIRMATIVE case.

The group began with the restatement of the RESOLUTION: “Resolve that New York State enact a law prohibiting hand guns, with the exception of law enforcement officers.’ Then we defined each of the key words in the RESOLUTION. Definitions are important to make sure everyone is using words with the same meaning. The NEGATIVE team may choose to redefine the AFFIRMATIVE’s definitions.

Next week we brainstormed the initial section of the AFFIRMATIVE case: the status quo – what is the current situation about gun control – no overall law in NYS, a mish-mash of gun licensing, much confusion, the number of deaths caused by hand guns, etc. More needs to done to bolster the status quo.

The status quo establishes the NEED for the AFFIRMATIVE side to advocate the RESOLUTION. The stronger the need, the more compelling the case. (Again, the Negative team is just waiting to poke holes in the AFFIRMATIVE’s case.)

Then we developed several preliminary reasons for the RESOLUTION – control, clarity, certification, etc. This part was hard work and more needs to be done to build a stronger case. Again, more work is needed.

Once the AFFIRMATIVE team builds its case for the NEED to enact the RESOLUTION, then they have to develop a PLAN to show how their ideas are going to work, once enacted into law. But we aren’t there yet.

At many points during the 2 hours (several stayed for another half-hour), team members were asked to defend their points of view on the spot. One person would ask the speaker a question and he/she would have to defend their point. Lots of times both questions and answers were very muddy. Each was asked to rephrase their questions and answers more clearly. It was excellent that veryone participated more than once.

Another aspect came up with the fact that so many of the debate team are ESL students and often their spoken English was not comprehended by others. Several times a listener was asked whether he/she understood the speaker. If they did, they would repeat what was said. If not, they got used to not being polite and covering up their confusion.

It was here that David, and sometimes Richard, became especially helpful is giving instant Voice and Diction lessons to several of the speakers. Certainly, the fast pace of the session slowed down to a crawl, but the Debate team is working on its clarity of English expression as well as the substance of their argument. This verification process is one way to make sure the debaters are communication with each other.

I thought it was a very intense and exciting session. Every one was willing to participate in some really difficult training in identifying and clarifying ideas as well as speaking them clearly. The reality is that no matter how well prepared we are as debaters, if our opponents and judges don’t understand what we say, our team is going to lose.

Next time we will begin to frame the NEGATIVE case, even though we aren’t finished with the AFFIRMATIVE case.

See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke