Somebody called me yesterday from Rippin’ wondering why I hadn’t re-upped for the year. I think I showed remarkable restraint, which is similarly demonstrated here on a daily basis. ‘Nuff said.
When last we looked at the eleven items on the top ten list, we were up to here:
8. Speaking well
If you sound like your mouth is filled with month-old molasses, yet everything you say is intelligent, you will win some rounds. If you sound like a polished Shakespearean actor, with resonant tones that soothe the judgic ear, yet everything you say is idiotic, you will win even more rounds. If you sound good AND talk smart, you will dominate. Practice speaking exercises. Listen to the advice at meetings. Never underestimate oratorical skill.
I would say that this has become way less important in LD (it was on its dying legs even when we last espoused it) and absolutely crucial in PF, where the audience is almost entirely parents. Plus, the paradigm for PF in the first place was presentation, when it was called Crossfire and based on the TV news commentator idea. I can’t say I’m upset that this will feature higher up on the final PF list. Speaking well is a good thing, and while I have nothing against the other skills being taught/learned in Policy and LD that have replaced classic public speaking, I nonetheless like that it is still alive and well somewhere in the debate forum.
7. Opponent adaptation
Adjust your style appropriately. Treat lesser opponents with respect. Treat stronger opponents with the understanding that anyone can be beat. Don't speed-talk against a slow talker. Getting good speaker points often depends on your keeping your cool in tough, unbalanced pairings, regardless of where you yourself are in the balance.
This one probably still holds true in LD, and will be true in PF, although most people don’t practice it as much as they should. Not the treating opponents with respect part; I think that most debaters know enough to be polite in their LD rounds when they know they’re capable of eating their opponents alive. But adjusting to the opponent, absent competitiveness? That’s something else. For the judge, when it’s not so match a matter of talent balance but a question of approach, if the two debaters are coming from totally different directions, the judge must immediately intervene by deciding which approach is preferable. If both debaters are coming from the same place, life is much easier for everyone in the room. In the new rules, this one will probably be rewritten, but one way or the other will continue in the running.
6. Fast flowing
Practice flowing from day one, and never attend a round without flowing it. Even practice rounds. You will simply continue to get better at it. Fast, accurate flowing will mean the difference in your toughest rounds. Learn all the different flow styles and use (or create) one that works best for you, not the one that works best for someone else.
Why would I change a word of this?
5. Confidence
If you act like you know what you're doing, you might actually convince your opponents and judges that you do, in fact, know what you're doing. It is easiest to act as if you know what you're doing, by the way, if, in reality, you do know what you're doing.
Also hard to improve. How many rounds have been lost the very second that debaters look at the schematics and see that they’re hitting someone they think is better than they are? You don’t have to even walk into the room to lose the round, in other words, because it’s already lost in your head. Do the best debaters always debate the best? Is every round completely predictable? But I think more to the point on this one is that people (judges) respond in a certain way to confidence (as compared to visible abject dismay) that is favorable. Not arrogance, just a belief that you belong there, and have something to say worth listening to. It’s usually true, so why not act as if it’s true?
No comments:
Post a Comment