It would seem as if what OC wanted me to write about for WTF was debate practices, which I guess means what happens in a round, and two things occurred to me fairly quickly, things that have changed in my remarkably long tenure in this activity. Of course, by writing about them here I obviate the need to write about them there, but I never did hear anything from him about paying me that $5000.
First of all, in the golden days of yore, also known as the Periclean Age because debaters felt some pressure to argue the actual resolution (which is not what I'm talking about today), it was common practice to lead off a case with a relevant quotation. No one flowed the quote, or cared about it for the most part, but debaters put it in there as a kickoff for their speech. Today, at best someone says, “I affirm,” and then dives in headfirst, and the game is afoot.
One can see why the quote has been lopped off, from the tactical standpoint, since it never mattered. If no one flowed it, or really seemed to listen to it, and certainly never argued it, why bother? Hopelessly un-hip in certain circles, I would imagine. That is soooo ‘90s.
But the point of the quote was never for it to be flowed or argued, although it could be listened to. The quote is, or could be seen as, a piece of public speaking tradition. Since LD was born of public speaking, it brought with it certain best practices of oration. And one of those best practices is to lead off with a piece of business. The business in a standard speech can be germane, like a quote, or intriguing, like a rhetorical hook, or an ice-breaker, like a joke at the beginning of an after-dinner speech. This business, whichever it was, had certain goals. First of all, you would make a connection immediately with your audience, either through a challenging statement of some sort or an attempt to make a personal leveling diversion. Speakers want to be listened to, and loved; there is nothing worse than giving a long speech that no one likes, or listens to. The business helps you connect, and to overcome quickly the space between speaker and listener. Secondly, the business gives you, as the speaker, something to say before you start talking. It’s a warmup, a chance to move your mouth with something easy before the hard part—maintaining audience interest—comes into play. This is especially important for unhardened speakers, newbies to the ranks, who may be nervous speaking in front of a group. By the same token, the business gives the listener something to listen to before you start talking. A chance to say, oh, the talking has begun, I’d better start listening. And third, with any luck the business could indeed be relevant to the later content in such a way to amplify that content, or simplify it, or point a path through it.
In LD, all this was true. A short quote allowed you to get started, to clear your throat, and to get your listeners’ attention. A good, germane quote could have value as it resonated through your case, or it could just be revving the engine to get it started. Without this quote, you’re on your own immediately.
I have been training, rather futilely, that people use quotes, regardless of fashion. Those are the reasons why. Yeah, you’ll probably be hopelessly un-hip, but you’ll connect with your listeners and get your engine and your listeners’ engines revved up before taking off. That’s why it’s a public speaking best practice. At the point where LD is no longer a public speaking activity, then you can lop off the quote.
The second practice of the modern age is the ubiquitous single contention. “I have one contention,” the debater begins. And then a number of things might happen. Mostly, the debater has more than one contention, but the fashion is to have one contention, and no one wants to look like they don’t belong in the national $ircuit, so a number of ideas are all jumbled up as if they are one. This is tantamount to writing an essay without breaking it into paragraphs. A paragraph contains an idea, drawn out and examined, and then there’s the next paragraph with an ensuing idea suggested by or led to from the previous paragraph, and so forth and so on. If you’ve ever read a book that doesn’t have very many paragraphs, you’ve probably found it dense. Likewise, a case that isn’t broken down into “paragraphs” or contentions is similarly dense. And this density is a burden on your listeners. If a judge is taking notes, and you’ve got everything as a single, unbroken contention, the judge has to figure out where the emphases are, where the tags are, where the meat is—in other words, what the hell you are talking about, with little help from you. Is your intention to confuse the judge, or make it easy for the judge to follow you? If you do, indeed, have a single contention, which is highly unlikely on the aff, okay. But if you have multiple ideas, or multiple ways of looking at your main idea, and you don’t make it easy for the judge to see those multiples, what are you gaining? Oh, yeah, that’s right. You’re being hip and modern. Which is invaluable in winning a debate round.
Of course, as I say, and you’ll notice I have correctly begun a new paragraph here, you could perhaps truly have one contention. This would be a strategic mistake for the simple reason that the fewer offensive missiles you lob at your opponent, the easier it is for your opponent to fend them off. If you make it easy for your opponent to summarize what you’ve been saying, you’re making it easier for your opponent to win. Even in the Periclean Age there were folks who had one- or two-minute negs of virtually no content. Not taking an offensive position in a round, or taking a negligible offensive position, is simply a bad strategy.
So when I hear, “I’ve got one contention,” I know that either you have more than one contention and I’m going to have to sort everything out, or I know that you have a short, weak case. And do you really want me knowing either of those two things if I’m in the back of the room?
(Reprint rights available to WTF. Starting asking price: $5000.)
No comments:
Post a Comment