Touro Communication Club Notes #27
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
Everyone has started to hunker down for the finish line at the end of school. Summer internships summer jobs, getting ready for graduation are all on the horizon. Representative Charles Rangel, the famous and powerful Harlem Congressman who is Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, will be the SGS graduation speaker at Lincoln Center. Rangel also spoke at the 2002 Graduation. As always, Hal Wicke will coach the oral presentations of the Valedictorian (the Bachelor degree speaker) and the Salutatorian (the Associate degree speaker).
Some students would like to continue meeting during the summer. If there is enough interest, we will continue the process. Learning about communication doesn‘t stop just because school stops!
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, May 21, 2008 – 1 pm – Club – “Awareness” with Jason Carvell
Jason will explore the concept of “awareness” and how it affects so many aspects of our daily living. He speaks of “being present” conscious of our thoughts, our surroundings and the people with whom we interact. In addition to teaching Communication at Touro, Jason is a professional actor, director, voice-over specialist and a sculptor.
Wednesday, May 28 – 1 pm -Debate Team – Final Contest
The Debate Team has one more week before the final public presentation on Gun Control. on Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on It’s during the stressful Finals period. We have much to do as we finalize the affirmative and negative cases and practice presenting them and enduring cross-examination. As you will see in the summary below of the Debate format, Affirmative and Negative Constructive speeches where the debater builds or tears down the case. Each Constructive speech is followed by a Cross-Examination (+x). The entire debate concludes with the Rebuttals where each side gets a brief chance to repair and restate their respective cases. A very intense experience for both debaters and audience!
What happened on Wednesday, May14, 2008 – Debate Team run-through on Gun Control?
Since Drani Gabu and James Millner were the first to arrive, they were chosen to face each other. James took the Affirmative side while Drani took the Negative side. Olushile Akintade, Amina Bibi, and Alba Campuzano were observers at the beginning, but participated later. After Hal Wicke left for a meeting, Richard Green and David Nussbaum managed the debate. David took the notes on which this entry is based. Thank you, David.
The order of the debate speeches was written on the board with their time limits.
Constructive Speeches & Cross Examinations
1. 1st Affirmative Constructive Speech 3 minutes
2. +x by 2nd Negative Cross Examination 2 minutes
3. 1st Negative Constructive 3 minutes
4. +x by lst Affirmative Cross Examination 2 minutes
5. 2nd Affirmative Constructive 3 minutes
6. +x by lst Negative Cross Examination 2 minutes
7. 2nd Negative Constructive ` 3 minutes
8. +x 2nd Affirmative Cross Examination 2 minutes
Rebuttals
9. 1st negative 1 minute
10. 2nd affirmative 1 minute
11. 2nd negative 1 minute
12. 1st affirmative 1 minute
Time elapsed: 24 minutes
Responsibilities of each team:
Burden of proof is on the Affirmative
Affirmative must prove correctness of its position
Negative must “punch holes” in argument – see previous Blog #25 for various strategies
Review of Affirmative Constructive Speech format
Amenities
Statement of Resolution
Definition of terms of Resolution
Statement of Status Quo – review to establish Need
No clear laws
Chaotic laws
Injuries
Medical costs
Establish the Need for Resolution
Sketch of ideas for 2nd Affiirmative Constructive
Repair the damage from the First Negative +x
Repair the damage from the First Negative +x
Review of some possible solutions
Task force enforcement
Raise prices
Limit gun manufacture
Monitor gun sales centers
The following is a summary of the debate as noted by David Nussbaum:
| 1st affirmative | 3 minutes | After a review of the first affirmative protocol involving amenities, James began with amenities and stated the resolution | |
| +x 2nd negative | 2 minutes | Drani put forth that guns are not the only things that can kill, giving cars as an example. He also stated that we need guns for protection | |
| 1st negative | 3 minutes | The points made were: 1. The resolution would limit the constitutional right to bear arms 2. People’s actions kill, not guns in and of themselves. | |
| +x by affirmative | 2 minutes | What about children who may find the guns, | |
| 2nd affirmative | 2 minutes | 1. Blame the manufacturer 2. Eliminate guns and the children won’t get them 3. Parents set the example 4. Eliminating guns would eliminate the debate | |
| +x by 2nd affirmative | 3 minutes | 1. Change constitution | |
| 2nd negative | 3 minutes | Here Anima joined in 1. Resolution infringes rights 2. One should be able to protect oneself 3. Changing the constitution would tamper with the intention of the founding fathers (Anima pointed out that she really believes the affirmative and felt funny arguing the other side) | |
| +x 2nd affirmative | 2 minutes | 1. People may overreact 2. We don’t want “gunfight at the Ok corral”. |
Rebuttals
| 1st negative | 1 minute | 1. Doesn’t reduce hospital bills 2. “Thou shalt not kill” an integral part of moral foundation |
| 2nd affirmative | 1 minute | Restricting Irresponsible access does not restrict liberty |
| 2nd negative | 1 minute | Constitution defends right |
| 1st affirmative | 1 minute | Additional amendment |
In the post debate analysis, Richard Green analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.
A discussion arose as to what the constitution means by “militia”. This brought out the need to define terms, even those outside of the resolution, such as “militia” and “law enforcement” it was pointed out that law enforcement, under the terms of the resolution, would be the “right people” yet through error, emotion or other unusual factors, one may be killed by the “right people”, so a definition is needed here as well. The elephant in the room with any discussion on law enforcement and guns in the current news climate is the Sean Bell case, and there was some discussion about that.
Shile summarized the post debate discussion on the blackboard as follows:
| Affirmative | Negative |
| Law enforcement officials | Why shouldn’t any individual be the “right person” |
| Second amendment – militia; right to bear arms | You have the right to defend yourself, even from the government |
| Militia should mean police | What good is freedom of speech if we cannot defend ourselves to enjoy it? Murder is still illegal, answering that issue |
| Training before bearing arms – What is the right training? | Sean Bell’s case should be addressed by the negative |
| A child may find a gun in the street | Who is the “right person” to bear arms? |
| What is the definition of militia? | Does one retain the “right to bear arms” if they go crazy? |
| What is the Second Amendment addressing? | How many fatalities are caused by guns in relation to other causes? |
It was decided that the affirmative won. The participants found the session useful and have noted that the meetings are having a cumulative effect in that they are learning by doing and by discussion. The process is now clearer to all, as are the issues in this particular debate. Thinking on one’s feet and controlling emotion while speaking are two skills participants are acquiring as well.
Going through your first extended debate is a mind bender for everyone! The debaters’ minds are in over-drive, trying to listen, take notes, thinking of arguments and counter arguments, think of and anticipating questions in the cross-examination. Listeners are trying to follow the arguments of both sides. When you’ve done your first debate, all you want to do is to sleep. I can assure you the process gets easier with more practice!
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