Debate and Communication Club Meetings

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. 1^st Affirmative Constructive Speech 3 minutes

2. +x by 2^nd Negative Cross Examination 2 minutes

3. 1^st Negative Constructive 3 minutes

4. +x by lst Affirmative Cross Examination 2 minutes

5. 2^nd Affirmative Constructive 3 minutes

6. +x by l^st Negative Cross Examination 2 minutes

7. 2^nd Negative Constructive ` 3 minutes

8. +x 2^nd Affirmative Cross Examination 2 minutes

Rebuttals

9. 1^st negative 1 minute

10. 2^nd affirmative 1 minute

11. 2^nd negative 1 minute

12. 1^st 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 2^nd Affiirmative Constructive
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

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #26

With the end of semester in sight, the pace of everything at Touro picks up dramatically. Our eyes turn toward the academic tasks at hand. Students have final projects and finals to complete. Teachers have meetings and the grading of projects and exams on their agendas. Everyone is juggling the impact of the economy on our lives.

Even though our peripheral vision about the outside world is somewhat diminished, we still are aware of the headlines – the subject of our Club meeting today. The Democratic Presidential campaign seems to have turned a corner with Barack Obama as the apparent winner and Hillary Clinton fighting for her political life. As she says, “It ain’t over until the lady in the pants suit sings, “ she says. The Myanmar cyclone has reminded us once again of how Mother Nature can cause extensive devastation. Both the local and national events continue to create surprising or unsettling news that is worth examining in our session today.

This is the time to test our juggling ability! How many things can we juggle without dropping any or getting sick? School, work, family, finances? Playtime? All I hope!

Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club:

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. We will now add the Rebuttal segment of the debate cycle.

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.

What happened on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 “Bully Pulpit II – Media and the News” ?

Debate team members Drani Gabu, James Millner, Amina Bibi and Olushile Atkintade participated. Poet and English instructor, Jan de Castro joined Richard Green and David Nussbaum. Jason Carvell came late. Hal Wicke led the session.

This session was “Bully Pulpit II – The Media and the News,” a continuation of the first session which focused on the Presidential campaign. Hal asked everyone for the stories the group had heard a lot about on the “news” on the “blackboard.” The group mentioned these stories:

• Presidential Campaign – Barack vs. Hillary
• Sean Bell trial decision
• Rev. Jeremiah Wright
• Myanmar Cyclone
• Texas polygamy
• Housing Foreclosures
• Gasoline prices

All of the stories are very different, but what are their similarities. This was a tough one, but the group came up with several similarities:

• There are controversial aspects of every story.
• All the stories are highly emotional.
• Almost all stories affect a lot of people.
• People have an opinion about all of these stories
• Most of the stories affect everyone’s daily lives or their beliefs.
• Many stories question the fairness of the outcome.
• Many disagreements are part of each story.
• Many stories concern money.
• There are sensational (eye/ear-catching) qualities of each of these stories.

We all agreed that no one in the room had first hand knowledge of these issues. That means that we learned about all these stories through the media. We made a List of Media from which we heard these stories:

• TV
• Internet
• Newspapers
• Radio
• The courts
• Places of worship (churches, synagogues and mosques)
• School (teachers, classes)
• Gossip (overheard and directly told)

Every media source has a Media Tool Box with which it transmits these stories. We arrived at these general categories:

• Every media uses Language(words) to tell these stories
• In the media where people tell or write these stories, they use Non-Verbal behaviors (space, time, touch, eye gaze, facial expressions, body language, the voice, and dress) to support the meaning of their language.
• In order for the audience to make sense of these stories, the people who tell or write these stories use a director or hidden Logic which may or may not include Logical Fallacies which the audience may or may not recognize.
• Since we agreed that no one is without Bias, the audience needs to be aware of a variety of Strategies to understand, neutralize & defeat bias.
• As we hear, read or watch these stories being told to us, we also need to sharpen our Critical Thinking abilities to analyze these news stories.

We were running out of time by the time we got to the list of Filters through which all information is delivered. Filters are part of our Media Tool Box. Consciously or unconsciously, these filters change or “color” the stories we tell, hear watch or read. Unfortunately, we didn’t have time to go into any detail to demonstrate how these filters can change the receipt of the information in the story. Here’s the list (to be discussed later).

• Self- Concept
• Perception
• Beliefs and values
• Emotions
• Gender
• Power
• Economics
• Culture

As the session was coming to an end, Amina told the group of her encounter with a senior Touro administrator regarding her campaign to get a student lounge at the Midtown site. She felt the meeting went well and they planned to meet again. Amina is interested in politics and plans to return to her native Pakistan to participate in politics. In a very small way, she gained a little experience in local politics by proposing an improvement for her constituency – the students.

Jason commented that to become more conscious of all the elements that occur simultaneously, we needed to become very aware of what is happening around us. The discussion that followed led to Jason volunteering to lead the next Club session in two weeks on “Awareness” strategies. In addition to teaching Communication at Touro, Jason is a professional actor, director, voice-over specialist and a sculptor.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

Hal Wicke
Deputy Chair/SGS
Department of Speech and Communication
Touro College
50 West 23rd Street - Suite 621
New York, NY 10010
212-242-4668 ext 6040

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

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 21^st 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 2^nd timer Olushile Atkintade and newcomers Osa Ogieva and Jetante Morris (a Finalist in the 5^th 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

2^nd 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

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #24

While the Communication students have been busy with the Debate Team and Communication Club, the Communication faculty has also been pushing the frontiers of Communication into other parts of Touro College. We already have a rotating Communications seminar in the MBA program of Graduate School of Business in the Wall Street area. The seminars cover public speaking, memo writing, teamwork and interpersonal communication.

This past week Touro’s Graduate School of Education. accepted two new Communication proposals, beginning this fall. The first is the only graduate course in Oral Communication in the Master’s degree program in TESOL (Teachers of English for Students of Other Languages). It will introduce TESOL teachers of grades K-6 to methods of including oral Communication in their classes. The courses will include vocabulary building, conversation skills, impromptu speaking, voice and diction, leading a discussion, questioning practice, etc.. Video will be used in the class. This is an unusual course since most of their TESOL coursework deals with writing.

The second course will be called “Communication Skills for Teachers.” Master’s students in Education and Special Education will practice a variety of oral skills similar to the TESOL course but geared to the students themselves. Strategies to build vocabulary, practice conversation, develop class discussions, impromptu speaking, learning how to question, etc., are among the topics to be covered. Video will also be used. The course is being added to enhance the oral skills of these MS students.

Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club:

Wednesday, April 30 – 1 pm -Debate Team

The team has set Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on Gun Control. That’s 4 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. We have a tough month ahead.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 – 1 pm – Club – “The Bully Pulpit Meets Politics”

After a very successful discussion about “Race, Religion and Rhetoric” in our first Bully Pulpit discussion. Professor George Backinoff will continue the exchange of the ways the concept of a Bully Pulpit moves into the arenas of politics and media. It should be very interesting!

What happened on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at The Bully Pulpit”?

A solid turnout made the discussion very interesting. Drani Gabu, Theresa Wright and James Millner of the Debate team welcomed newcomers Olushile Akintade, Dennis Kniazev and Lara Koerfer. Lara won lst place in the recent 5^th Speech Contest.. Professor Jason Carvell led the discussion while Communication faculty member George Backinoff, Richard Green, David Nussbaum and Hal Wicke participated along side of the students. Dean Timothy Taylor also participated in the discussion.

Jason began by asking what “Bully” in the workshop title meant. “Intimidation, pushy, scary” were among the responses. To his question, “What does a bully do?” the group responded with a variety of negativity behaviors that characterize bullying. What is a pulpit? Who has one? were the next questions. The Pope (Pope Benedict XIV was about to visit New York City this weekend) and religious leaders, politicians and teachers had their pulpits of various kinds. They had pulpits because each had a forum where people listened to what they said.

So an audience is necessary for a pulpit, Jason summarized. And that audience had to belong to some group and have an identity, he concluded from the discussion. He pointed out there are competing bully pulpits for different audiences. The audience was divided into three discussion groups who were asked to identify 2 individuals who had competing bully pulpits. The group was asked to define where these “bullies” derived their authority - “What right did these people have to have their “pulpits”?

One group chosen “Presidential spouses” – Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton – the significant others of Democratic Presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Another group chose Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler. The third group picked Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In the discussion that followed, many issues affecting both the “bully” and the “pulpit” were mentioned – formal title; personal authority; style of speaking; all speakers gave hope to their listeners; their supporters were people willing to listen to the speakers.

For the sake of a humorous comparison, Jason mentioned the power and authority of Miss USA. Although she had a title, her power was very limited and perhaps was only a symbol of the popular American ideal of “beauty.” “American Idol” is another example of a title with dubious power and authority, except in the eyes of those who voted for a particular singer.

Jason asked the group to identify the source of the following quote, “I have come to believe that the biggest purveyor of violence in the world...is my own government.” The author was Martin Luther King. Before he was assassinated, King was called “anti-American’ because he opposed the Vietnam War. Then Jason made a transition to the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Barack Obama’s church in Chicago. There has been a public outcry about Wright’s controversial “anti-American” comments. There was discussion about the issue as the group struggled to answer Jason’s question, “Why were Wright’s comments controversial?” The group generated a number of possibilities.

Jason proposed having a controversy with a dog .over some issue. The group agreed that there could not be any controversy because there could not be any significant communication between human and dog.. Another topic was President Jimmy Carter’s recent controversial meeting with the Hamas leadership, an anti-Israel Arab group. Napoleon was mentioned as using his Corsican roots to help him return to power.

To give a more vivid picture of the tradition of fiery African-American preachers, Dean Taylor commented on his experience in the black church. Often, he said that certain ministers would use their righteous indignation to the history of unjust treatment of African-Americans to motivate their congregations toward actions to correct these terrible conditions. Dean Taylor commented that Dr. King was famous for fiery sermons to galvanize his people to take action.

Jason commented that when the bully pulpit changes contexts, the meaning of the message changed also. He raised the use of the generic bully pulpit. In a religious and political context, the bully pulpit is a platform designed to change behavior. By comparison, Hollywood uses the bully pulpit to get their audiences to feel the depth of the issue, but not to act on it.

The entire 90-minute discussion gripped the attention of everyone present. As we left, knots of students and faculty continued to talk about various aspects of this endlessly fascinating topic.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #23

This week’s “Bully Pulpit” topic promises to be an interesting one. Sunday’s NYTimes’ Magazine featured Chris Matthews on the cover. He is one of the biggest loudmouths on cable TV and has a quite visible negative attitude toward Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. What was more interesting to discover was how much these “pundits” – at least Matthews – socialize with the political people behind the scenes. Everyone seems a little too “chummy” for me if the media is to report the news.

As Jason Carvell’s brilliant flyer demonstrates, everyone has a mouth and is willing to shoot it off. Sounds like French politics where everyone has a very loud opinion. For us in the Communication Club, we have to sharpen our listening skills to discern the differences between fact and opinion plus, more importantly, accuracy of those facts and the validity of those opinions. Just because someone has a pulpit – media, politician, teacher or religious leader – doesn’t necessarily mean that person knows what he/she is talking about. See you Wednesday!

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!

Our three-week schedule:

Wednesday, April 23 – Spring vacation – get some sleep!

Wednesday, April 30 – 1 pm Debate Team
With Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public presentation, we will be working hard on the cases and practicing the cross-examinations.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 – 1 pm – Club – topic to be announced

What happened on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at Debate Team meeting?
Drani Gabu and Amina Bibi worked hard reviewing the Affirmative case outline and then outlined the Negative case. Hal Wicke and David Nussbaum helped them to develop their cases. Before the team meets next time, each of the arguments needs to be developed and filled out with evidence.

During the session, both Drani and Amina talked about their political aspirations. Amina definitely wants to return to her native Pakistan to pursue a career in politics while Drani, although very concerned about the tragic events in Sudan, is not yet sure but wants to keep learning. Amina spoke about a petition she is presenting to Mr. Alan Schoor, Touro’s Vice President of Operations, about the creation of a student lounge at Midtown. We talked about her strategies for presenting the petition. Amina has 15 minutes to present her case.

See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #22

The intensity of activities seems to escalate for the Department. Richard Green’s NYT Teacher of the Year Award seems to be getting a lot of attention. The Times did a press release on the event. Touro wrote its own press release recognizing Richard’s honor. Dean Boylan asked Richard to stand to faculty applause at the opening ceremonies of the Faculty Development day on Thursday, April 10. As word spreads about Richard’s honor, many people have been coming up to congratulate him. Richard is not unlike so many Touro instructors who teach their classes and do an excellent job, but no one shines a spotlight on them. Now, at least one Touro teacher has been given a moment in the sun. And I’m delighted Richard is in the Communication department!!

On Faculty Development day, Hal Wicke practiced his communication skills when he shared a workshop on “Writing Across the Curriculum” before two groups of interested faculty. He used the 15–sentence outline speech format to demonstrate how it can be used for writing essays as well. He believes to teach and learn this simple 5- paragraph recipe allows both students and teaching to learn one structural paradigm for both writing and speaking. After learning the paradigm, the writer and speaker learns to transcend it to make it your own. The 15-sentence outline process is analogous to taking the sonnet form and turning it into a work of art. Hal also provides a sample of the 15-sentence outline in a speech “Stage Fright” which was adapted from an ESL textbook. Finally, he shared the handout he created for the Debate team on Types of Evidence, Tests of Evidence and the Language, Logical Fallacies and Propaganda Devices used in written and oral work.

Our two-week schedule:

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 5th Speech Contest WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008
Twelve Finalists presented excellent informative speeches during the contest. The general reaction was that the quality of the speeches was higher than in the last few contests. The judges seemed to think so too. Here are the results;

First Prize ($100) – Lara Foerster spoke on “A Berlin Impression of Manhattan.” Lara is a business major at Touro/Berlin and is in New York for the semester taking Communication courses. She is the second Touro/Berlin student to win the contest. Simone Weber won the 3rd Speech Contest with her speech on “Male-Female Relationships.” Lara presented her speech for Interpersonal Communication, taught by Hal Wicke.

Second Prize ($50) – Amina Bibi spoke on “Human Trafficking.” Amina is a political science major and wants to return to her native Pakistan when she graduates to enter politics. A member of our fledgling Debate Team, she came to watch the Speech Contest and then, on the spot, decided to enter the contest. Her passion for her topic persuaded the judges to give her 2nd prize.

Third Prize ($25) – Akeem Poe spoke on “I am an American and I love it.” He is a 100 student of Professor Delores Albert and brought a lot of enthusiasm to his presentation.

George Backinoff, who coordinated the judges, commented that the scores for 2nd and 3rd prizes were often just a point or two apart. Clearly, the judges found performance level of all the Finalists to be very close and were impressed with their work. The judges were Adriana Jiminez, Coordinator of Student Job Placement; Professor Carlisle Yearwood, English instructor and Freshman Coordinator; and Robert Babsky, an administrator in the Institutional Advancement office of Touro College.

Over 30 students and faculty watched the Contest. All Finalists receive a Certificate of Participation, suitable for framing. Your resumes should include a reference to being a Finalist. In alphabetical order, the excellent remaining Finalists were:

Rose Guzzo, “The Effect Music Can Have on Children’s Grade performance in School.” GCA 101 – Public Speaking, Professor George Backinoff
Stephen Bouskila, “The Nargila”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor George Backinoff
Clifford Fulmore, “The Golden Ratio”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Jason Carvell
Esther Mitchell, “High Blood Pressure”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Richard Green
Jetante Morris, “Peer Pressure on Smoking”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Richard Green
Lorinda Moore, “Discrimination: No Man Is An Island”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Barry Cline
Ferdinand Moulton, “How to Get Rich in Life”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Diana Thompson
Aryeh Rapoport, “Diamonds”
GCA 153 – Introduction to the Arts, Professor Barrie Cline
Saroya Stowe, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” (our first PowerPoint presentation)
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Diana Thompson

Congratulations go to everyone who presented a speech! As more and more people are learning, being able to present a credible speech in public is a valuable tool in your professional life. Public Speaking has long been recognized as a confidence building exercise and can be important in achieving recognition in your field.

The 6th Speech Contest will be held in Fall, 2008. Richard Green videoed the speeches which will be posted on his own blog as soon as possible. When the speeches are posted, you will be reminded to look them up on the tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com Aside from enjoying the speeches again, they can be used by students and teachers as examples to study how they were constructed and delivery. We are fortunate to have such an archive of student work.

See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

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