Touro Communication Club Notes #25
As the semester comes to a close, this is a very busy time for everyone. The debate team is gearing up for a public presentation on Wednesday, May 28. This is a huge leap for every member of the team. But I am confident that they will do well. More details as they are confirmed.
Meantime, the Presidential campaigns continue with two important primaries this coming Tuesday in Indiana and North Carolina. These look to be make-or-break events for Senator Clinton in her attempt to catch Senator Obama in the delegate count. As of this writing, the Pastor Jeremiah Wright controversy, although not at the top of the news, is still a subject of conversation – even at Touro. Senator Clinton is looking to have her 21st debate with Senator Obama, although he is reluctant because he has a delegate lead.
If you watch the cable TV shows, you’d think that the Presidential campaign was the only thing happening in the world. Because of the explosion of news media in the last 20 years, each of us has to look at several sources to get a broader picture of what is happening in the world. Among the many headlines is the controversial Sean Bell decision, the Texas polygamy investigation, the leap in gas prices and the growing shortages of food.
Because of the enormous impact of the media as our principal filter of news, we will explore some of these issues in the upcoming “Bully Pulpit II: - The Media and the News.”
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 – 1 pm – Club – “The Bully Pulpit Meets Politics”
Professor George Backinoff has a funeral to attend to that day, so Hal Wicke will lead the discussion. George’s original intention was to focus on how the media filters politics. Hal will start with politics and then, hopefully broaden the discussion to a range of topics that the audience is interested in.
Wednesday, May 14 – 1 pm -Debate Team
The team has set Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on Gun Control. That’s 2 weeks away. It’s during Finals period. We have much to do as we finalize the affirmative and negative cases and practice presenting them and enduring cross-examination. Now is the time to test our juggling ability!
What happened on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at the Debate Team?
We had an excellent turnout of 7 new and old debaters. Regulars Drani Gabu, Tetyana Averkina, Theresa Wright and James Millner welcomed 2nd timer Olushile Atkintade and newcomers Osa Ogieva and Jetante Morris (a Finalist in the 5th Speech Contest). Richard Green and David Nussbaum helped Hal Wicke to run the session.
After an intense review of the format of the lst Affirmative speech and the issues involving gun control, we divided into arbitrary teams who reviewed the issues and their strategies.
Drani and Theresa were the Affirmative team while James and Tetyana were the Negative team. Each side presented 2 2-minute Constructive speeches and 1 minute Cross-Examinations. There were no formal rebuttals.
After the tense 10 minute debate, the judges voted a tie. David Nussbaum thought the Negative Team won the debate, while Richard Green thought the Affirmative team won the debate. Following the decision, the group reviewed their experience and what they learned. I was impressed with the honesty and candor of everyone’s comments. This openness says a lot about the trusting atmosphere of the experience. With a supportive atmosphere, we can begin to raise our sights.
Then, in a brief encore debate, Olushile and Drani defended the Affirmative case while Jetante and Osa presented the Negative case. Tetyana coached the Negative Team during the prep session. The Affirmative team won the votes of both judges.
It is easy to see how the judges came up with different decisions in the first debate. Each listened for different things and came up with different conclusions. (Sounds like your daily life, doesn’t it?) In the debriefing, all the debaters were very nervous. That goes with the territory in each debate. Only with practice do the nerves subside; but they never disappear.
In post-debate conferences with Drani and James, Hal suggested that they write out their points rather than try to think on your feet. When Tetyana told Jetante to “Prepare more,” that was wise advice. “You sound like a teacher, Tetyana!” Hal exclaimed. But the advice remains true. The real question is “HOW” – and that takes practice. “Inch by inch is a cinch; yard by yard is hard,” says Rev. Robert Schuler.
We made significant strides today. Much more is to be accomplished, but several things are obvious –
- dealing with nerves- more progress next time.
- taking a “flow chart” of the opposing team’s case – these are the debater’s notes
- using the research you’ve already collected – inserting it at the right time.
- Creating and following a clear plan of what you are going to talk about. – an outline?
This part of learning debate is extremely hard and exhausting (my brain is about to explode, said someone.).I would say this is the hardest part of the entire experience – getting all the elements in your head. In order to succeed at this or anything else, staying with the process is crucial. If you quit now, climbing the same mountain gets harder.
Here is another review of the basic responsibilities of the Affirmative and Negative teams:
The Affirmative team must support the Resolution (“Resolved that New York State enact a law which prohibits the sale of hand guns, except for law officers.”) The basic rule of any debate is that the Affirmative must prove its case, that their ideas to change the status quo are the best.. Similar to the prosecuting attorney in a trial, the Affirmative team has the “burden of proof” to present arguments and issues that demonstrate that their position is the valid one.
As always, the Negative, like the defense attorney, has a Chinese menu of options
- The Negative can say the Affirmative Team has failed to carry their ”burden of proof” – they dropped the ball. Listing point by point, the Negative could say that the Affirmative’s case was very weak because of “x-y-z” reasons.
- The Negative can agree with the position but attack the Affirmative’s analysis or evidence or plan is inadequate;
Attack the Analysis – The Affirmative didn’t understand the current situation – the status quo – therefore they couldn’t prove their case.
Attack the Evidence – The Negative has equally valid evidence that contradicts and negative the Affirmative’s evidence, thus nullifying their position.
Attack the Plan – The Negative find enormous flaws in the Affirmative’s plan to carry out the resolution – financing, monitoring, black market, etc.
- The Negative can attack the entire case, disagreeing with the resolution and everything else.
- The Negative can tear apart the various Affirmative points and refute them one by one, with opposing arguments and evidence.
- The Negative also has the option of agreeing with the Resolution and presenting an opposing analysis and plan that is superior to the entire case of the Affirmative team.
Affirmative Team Case Format
1st Affirmative
Amenities:
Statement of Resolution
Resolved: New York State enact a law which prohibits the sale of handguns with the exception of sale to law enforcement
Definition of terms of Resolution
Summary /History of topic – What is the status quo?
Establish Need
Why do we need the plan? (There are many, many more that this list!)
Safety
Reduce deaths
Reduce health care costs
Reduce/Control drugs, deaths/burglary
Accidental killings
One law is desirable – Why?
One law will make a coherent statewide plan for enforcement
Hard to enforce current laws
Summary/Review of Position
2nd Affirmative
Amenities
Summary of the lst Affirmative’s statement
Repair Case based on lst Negative’s attack
Explain the plan – how with the resolution work – (Needs to be developed much more)
1 Tougher penalties
2. Background checks
3. Stricter rules for manufacture
4. Funding
5. Quotas for manufacturers
6. PR campaign
7. Raise price
8. Destroy illegal guns
9. Database
10. Certification of gin stores
11. Control/eliminate black market
12. Enforcement agency
13. No imports
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke
No comments:
Post a Comment