MORNING RANT (condensed version)
OPEN THREADSTRIBES SECTS DENOMINATIONS CLIQUES CLASSES RACES DEPARTMENTS NATIONS PARTIES JIHAD FATWA EVANGELIZE MARGINALIZE POLICE ACTION HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION ISOLATION DESECRATION MUTILATION PARTICIPATION?
RANT/OFF
ADD YOUR OWN VERSION
TRACY
longhorn said:
HA! That's a pretty good rant there Tracy. I'll try to come up with one AFTER I get my well fixed today.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy's rant reminds me of what passes for arguments these days in high school debate competitions (and in college, too); as many "supporting" quotes rattled off as fast as possible, with no attempt to meaningfully relate the same to the position being argued.
Maybe my disdain for this process is why I'm not asked to judge debates any more.....
Maybe my disdain for this process is why I'm not asked to judge debates any more.....
Tracy Phillips said:
VeeTee, I understand.
In the dumbing down process, we have exchanged "sound byte" debates for anything meaningful.
In the dumbing down process, we have exchanged "sound byte" debates for anything meaningful.
Vaughn Tolle said:
lh, hope the well gets fixed today. Do you have the appropriate outdoor facilities available "just in case"? :-)
Vaughn Tolle said:
The first time I was asked to be a debate judge and that I accepted the invitation, I went to "training". One question I posed (since it had been a very LONG time) was whether the affirmative still had the burden of proof (or persuasion); the response I got was "yes".
Armed with that information, off I went, paired with another judge who had been a debater in college as my mentor. After listening to the debate, we scored the same on our ballot. We both saw it the same way, the Negative won (based upon the Affirmative not carrying its burden). As we were leaving the room, and after our ballots had been collected, I asked him about what I perceived, namely the rapid fire assertion of "facts" in support of the position without any attempt to show how these "facts" were relevant to the argument, as meeting the burden. He sighed and stated that that's how debate was done when he was in college, and that's how the high schoolers were doing it, but he didn't like it, and would continue to score the rounds as both of us had done the first round.
About three rounds in (and I'm now on my own), I was confronted by a debate coach who was excoriating me about how I'd "misunderstood the rules" in marking his "best team" as the loser in an earlier round; that due to this, they'd have to go against inferior opponents, and didn't have a chance to win the tournament. After listening to him for what seemed an hour, I told him that if his arguments to me were any example of how he coached his students, then he should be fired so the students might have a competent coach, and then turned him in (as such contact is very inappropriate). I also asked, at that time, to not be the judge for any team from his school, which worked until the final round, when I (and two others) were judging the "winner's bracket". I then asked to be replaced; this request was refused, due to a shortage of judges. Needless to say, I was relieved when all three of us, acting independently, determined his team lost again (for which, BTW, we all were confronted by his crying team; at that point, I became a bit contentious and told the students they should demand that their coach be fired as he was leading them the wrong way, and to get out of my face) at which point the coach decided he wanted to talk to me "out back". I then really lost it, and demanded of the tournament supervisor (who had, by then, been made aware of what was happening and who had come to see for herself) that his teams be totally DQ'd from the places they had been awarded in the tournament, based upon the improper conduct of the coach; she determined I was right. Needless to say, I waited until he and his team had gone before leaving that evening.
Sorry about the rant; but this, as Tracy said much more succinctly than I, is a part of the "dumbing down" of all processes I see happening in today's society.
Armed with that information, off I went, paired with another judge who had been a debater in college as my mentor. After listening to the debate, we scored the same on our ballot. We both saw it the same way, the Negative won (based upon the Affirmative not carrying its burden). As we were leaving the room, and after our ballots had been collected, I asked him about what I perceived, namely the rapid fire assertion of "facts" in support of the position without any attempt to show how these "facts" were relevant to the argument, as meeting the burden. He sighed and stated that that's how debate was done when he was in college, and that's how the high schoolers were doing it, but he didn't like it, and would continue to score the rounds as both of us had done the first round.
About three rounds in (and I'm now on my own), I was confronted by a debate coach who was excoriating me about how I'd "misunderstood the rules" in marking his "best team" as the loser in an earlier round; that due to this, they'd have to go against inferior opponents, and didn't have a chance to win the tournament. After listening to him for what seemed an hour, I told him that if his arguments to me were any example of how he coached his students, then he should be fired so the students might have a competent coach, and then turned him in (as such contact is very inappropriate). I also asked, at that time, to not be the judge for any team from his school, which worked until the final round, when I (and two others) were judging the "winner's bracket". I then asked to be replaced; this request was refused, due to a shortage of judges. Needless to say, I was relieved when all three of us, acting independently, determined his team lost again (for which, BTW, we all were confronted by his crying team; at that point, I became a bit contentious and told the students they should demand that their coach be fired as he was leading them the wrong way, and to get out of my face) at which point the coach decided he wanted to talk to me "out back". I then really lost it, and demanded of the tournament supervisor (who had, by then, been made aware of what was happening and who had come to see for herself) that his teams be totally DQ'd from the places they had been awarded in the tournament, based upon the improper conduct of the coach; she determined I was right. Needless to say, I waited until he and his team had gone before leaving that evening.
Sorry about the rant; but this, as Tracy said much more succinctly than I, is a part of the "dumbing down" of all processes I see happening in today's society.
lindainks55 said:
WOW! Vaughn, that's a side of you I've never met! You were / are right and those students deserved better. I judged a few debates back when Chad was in high school. He was a master debater (;-0), didn't continue into college but it was a big part of his high school years.
He says it was of great benefit in his profession as there are few scientists who can do public speaking or even explain their work to laymen well (ya know in English vs science speak). He relates a story back when he was being courted by grad schools. He had been flown to Washington University in St. Louis and at a reception they trotted out a Nobel Laureate whom Chad had (of course) heard of and his work. He said he shuffled over looking extremely uncomfortable, stuck his hand out and said, "I'm supposed to tell you to come to our school. Ok, bye now." Chad said he actually stopped the man from leaving and engaged him in conversation about his work, much of which went right over Chad's head, but the man stayed for the whole reception and talked as if he had been wanting to be there. He was a brilliant man who had never learned social skills or speaking skills. Chad learned this was more than norm in his field.
He says it was of great benefit in his profession as there are few scientists who can do public speaking or even explain their work to laymen well (ya know in English vs science speak). He relates a story back when he was being courted by grad schools. He had been flown to Washington University in St. Louis and at a reception they trotted out a Nobel Laureate whom Chad had (of course) heard of and his work. He said he shuffled over looking extremely uncomfortable, stuck his hand out and said, "I'm supposed to tell you to come to our school. Ok, bye now." Chad said he actually stopped the man from leaving and engaged him in conversation about his work, much of which went right over Chad's head, but the man stayed for the whole reception and talked as if he had been wanting to be there. He was a brilliant man who had never learned social skills or speaking skills. Chad learned this was more than norm in his field.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, Chad's experience is why debate and forensics (notwithstanding the shortcomings that might exist) are so valuable. I suspect this is why, "back in the day", public speaking was a required class at KU.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, I must admit to quite a temper. As I've matured (hopefully), I've been able to do much better in keeping it under control. That coach, that day, just pushed me to my limit; and frankly, what were they going to do; fire me?
Loading....