At least, that's what Alec Baldwin says.
I've been accused of being a Republican hack. I'm not. I have no problem calling it like I see it. Hannity was acting like an ignorant boob.
Hannity is a polarizing figure because of stunts like he pulled in this exchange with Baldwin. Regardless of whether his points may be right or not no one is going to hear his message if he continues distributing it in such a polarizing manner. Calling Baldwin a "third-rate Hollywood egomaniac" does no one any good. People who support Baldwin automatically tune Hannity out because he's just being a jerk and people who don't like Baldwin don't need to be told that. They already believe it.
Why am I ranting about this? Because Hannity and others should use their platform more judiciously. Millions of people every week hear Hannity in one form or another. This heated exchange will probably be heard by even more. The problem is, he's not leaving a positive impression with anyone who hears him. To be clear, I don't think anyone should ever compromise their beliefs simply to be heard by more people or to leave a more favorable impression. I do believe people should be aware of the opportunity that they have, though. Rather than attacking Baldwin, Hannity should reach out to him. Be civil. Try to genuinely discuss the issues. Don't immediately put him on the stand and drill him, even if some of his statements are out there. Ask him why he believes those things. Give him an opportunity to explain why, by his own admission, he believes our Vice President is "a terrorist."
The most valuable thing an elected official, talk show host, movie star, or celebrity of any kind has is a platform. Unfortunately they don't all have the wisdom to use it judiciously.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
More Good Debate Press
BugMeNot.com is a great resource for access to websites that require registration to view their content. Such is the case with this fantastic article about Liberty debate from the New York Times. Try logging in with a username of test122 and a password of test122.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
College Debate Continued
I debated at Liberty University in 95-96 and 96-97. I learned more about how to think in those two years than I probably have in the rest of my life combined. That said, I think to really sort out some of the comments of these articles and others that have come out recently you really have to have an understanding of debate.
If you don't feel like you need this explanation then read on. There are two main types of debate: Lincoln-Douglass (commonly referred to as LD debate) and policy. LD is a persuasive art. Facts are commonly used but the facts aren't necessarily any more important and are sometimes even less important than delivery and persuasiveness. When I think LD debate, I think of the guy on C-SPAN. He's speaking to an audience for the purpose of motivating and persuading the audience.
Policy debate is a very different animal. There are very strict rules, timelines, and procedures, and unlike LD, policy debate is not exactly a spectator sport. The goal of policy debate is not to convince a broad audience but a panel of judges (generally 1 or 3 but sometimes as many as 7 or 9 I've seen). The judges are always former debaters, current coaches - all people that are very familiar with the sport. Because of the strict time limits and the desire to get in as much information and argumentation as possible, the debaters talk as quickly as humanly possible, commonly over 200 words per minute and at times upwards of 400 words per minute. Most people can't hear and think that fast, let alone speak that fast.
I debated policy so that's what I know. A policy debate consists of two teams of two. One team is the affirmative and the other the negative. The affirmative's goal is to offer up a "plan" within the bounds of the "resolution." Given all the talk you hear in some of these articles about creationism and abortion you'd think that was what was debated all the time. My freshman year the resolution was "Resolved: That the US Federal Goverment should substantially increase security assistance to one or more of the following: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestanian National Authority, and Syria." My sophomore it was "Resolved: That the US Federal Government should increase regulations in order to require a substantial decrease in the production and/or emission of environmental pollutants." As an example, a common plan my freshman year was to give missile defense technology to Israel to help them better defend their cities from missiles from Syria, Iraq, and the like. The negative's plan is the prove the affirmative wrong. There are numerous ways to do that, the most popular would be things like arguing that Israel is capable of defending their cities now and don't need our help, that our missile defense systems don't work, that something else bad bad will happen because of the plan (commonly referred to as a disad or disadvantage), that the plan is outside the bounds of the resolution (called topicality), or by proposing an alternative plan to accomplish the same objective by a different means (called a counter plan). There are others but those are the main ones.
The affirmative and negative battle back and forth through 8 speeches, 4 by each side. The first 4 speeches are called the constructives because that's where the positions are being constructed and where new arguments are made. "Evidence" is read to support the different arguments. Evidence is a published opinion from some Ph. D, professor, government authority, beat writer, or other supposed expert. There are also plenty of published hacks and the authority of someone's cited evidence can always be questioned. The last 4 speeches are referred to as rebuttals and are used to summarize and explain the argumentation and the overall impact of the specifc issues. Generally each debater will give one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. 9 minutes are allotted for each constructive and 6 for each rebuttal. After each constructive, the presenting team is questioned for 3 minutes by the opposing team in what is called "cross examination." Each team also has 10 minutes of "prep time" to prepare for their speeches.
The affirmative begins with the First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) in which lays out the need for the plan, the specifics of the plan, and what the plan accomplishes. The negative counters with the First Negative Constructive (1NC) which outlines the negative position. The affirmative answers with the Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) at which point every argument made by the negative that the affirmative wants to answer must be addressed. Anything not addressed is considered "dropped" or conceded. The 2NC is where the negative really expounds upon some of their positions. This is the last of the constructives and where something of a reversal in the debate takes place. The negative immediately follows with a second speech, the First Negative Rebuttal (1NR). The 1NR picks up and explains the negative positions that the 2NC did not cover. When combined with the 2NC, this gives the negative a straight 15 minutes of talking time, often referred to as "the spread." The 1AR has 6 minutes to answer 15 minutes and can often be spread very thin for time. The 1AR in my opinion is one of the most difficult speeches. You have to be extremely fast, if you're good using no prep time, and answer every argument made by the 2NC and 1NR. You also have to do so in a manner that leaves your partner a clear strategy to go for the win in the 2AR. Before the 2AR is the 2NR, though. This is the last of the negative speeches where the negative team presents their final plea to the judges. The 2AR concludes the round by giving one final assessment for the affirmative team.
For anyone that's ever participated in or witnessed a policy debate round, this is not what Roger Bullard referred to as, "a finely honed method of persuasion." It is, exactly what he arguest that it is not, "a means for arriving at truth." It's an intense, fast paced, dissection of thought and argumentation. Why then, don't creationists fare as well in court as they do in debate, as Mr. Bullard asks? For starters, I've never heard creationism argued in policy debate. The type of debate that Mr. Bullard is talking about doesn't remotely resemble college policy debate which is what the article talks about. If creationism were argued in policy debate, or any debate for that matter, both parties start on level ground. In the courtroom creationists are met by years of precendence that puts them at an immediate disadvantage. They must not merely "win" the argument at hand, they must do so in such a convincing fashion that it justifies overturning years of judicial precedent. In a courtroom creationists are also disadvantaged by the precedent that the judge's decision may create. Even if the ruling was not overturning precedent, the judge may be hesitant to rule in a particular way because it may create confusing and possibly even contradictory precedent. That would also put creationists at a disadvantage. There's also the argument that at the level that these sorts of determinations are made, the justices do not by and large represent the populus of the country. That's another arugment for another time, though.
I also came across another article here. This guy makes a similar argument, "The right is already better at resonating with the public in a visceral, emotional way; our advantage is that we're the logical ones, and that reason, in theory, prevails over sound and fury in the end." To continue repeatedly arguing that "we" (whoever in the heck this "we" is) are the logical ones and they are not - only "visceral, emotional" and therefore inferior is only to continue to lose touch with the American people and show your ignorance. When it comes to America, there is no we and they. There is no "two Americas," Senator Edwards. America is 285 million different people all with different wants, different needs, and different issues that are important to them. Sure, some of those issues overlap and intersect and on some single issues there are two primary groups of people but the equation as a whole is far more complex than that.
The Nation article is right about one thing. "The rising generation of the Christian right aren't going to be batty Pat Robertson types---they're logically-sound, rhetorically-gifted debate champions, who know their foes' arguments inside out." The "batty Pat Roberton" type would not passionately defend a viewpoint they did not believe. Neither would they believe a viewpoint they could not defend. There is not a right wing conspiracy that leads unknowing kids into college debate to brainwash them on talking points to talk around issues they don't understand. These are the brightest of the bright that are open-mindedly seeking truth. They consider their own motives and predispositions as well as those of the people around them. This is why debaters are so passionate. This is also why this rising generation is here now.
If you don't feel like you need this explanation then read on. There are two main types of debate: Lincoln-Douglass (commonly referred to as LD debate) and policy. LD is a persuasive art. Facts are commonly used but the facts aren't necessarily any more important and are sometimes even less important than delivery and persuasiveness. When I think LD debate, I think of the guy on C-SPAN. He's speaking to an audience for the purpose of motivating and persuading the audience.
Policy debate is a very different animal. There are very strict rules, timelines, and procedures, and unlike LD, policy debate is not exactly a spectator sport. The goal of policy debate is not to convince a broad audience but a panel of judges (generally 1 or 3 but sometimes as many as 7 or 9 I've seen). The judges are always former debaters, current coaches - all people that are very familiar with the sport. Because of the strict time limits and the desire to get in as much information and argumentation as possible, the debaters talk as quickly as humanly possible, commonly over 200 words per minute and at times upwards of 400 words per minute. Most people can't hear and think that fast, let alone speak that fast.
I debated policy so that's what I know. A policy debate consists of two teams of two. One team is the affirmative and the other the negative. The affirmative's goal is to offer up a "plan" within the bounds of the "resolution." Given all the talk you hear in some of these articles about creationism and abortion you'd think that was what was debated all the time. My freshman year the resolution was "Resolved: That the US Federal Goverment should substantially increase security assistance to one or more of the following: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestanian National Authority, and Syria." My sophomore it was "Resolved: That the US Federal Government should increase regulations in order to require a substantial decrease in the production and/or emission of environmental pollutants." As an example, a common plan my freshman year was to give missile defense technology to Israel to help them better defend their cities from missiles from Syria, Iraq, and the like. The negative's plan is the prove the affirmative wrong. There are numerous ways to do that, the most popular would be things like arguing that Israel is capable of defending their cities now and don't need our help, that our missile defense systems don't work, that something else bad bad will happen because of the plan (commonly referred to as a disad or disadvantage), that the plan is outside the bounds of the resolution (called topicality), or by proposing an alternative plan to accomplish the same objective by a different means (called a counter plan). There are others but those are the main ones.
The affirmative and negative battle back and forth through 8 speeches, 4 by each side. The first 4 speeches are called the constructives because that's where the positions are being constructed and where new arguments are made. "Evidence" is read to support the different arguments. Evidence is a published opinion from some Ph. D, professor, government authority, beat writer, or other supposed expert. There are also plenty of published hacks and the authority of someone's cited evidence can always be questioned. The last 4 speeches are referred to as rebuttals and are used to summarize and explain the argumentation and the overall impact of the specifc issues. Generally each debater will give one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. 9 minutes are allotted for each constructive and 6 for each rebuttal. After each constructive, the presenting team is questioned for 3 minutes by the opposing team in what is called "cross examination." Each team also has 10 minutes of "prep time" to prepare for their speeches.
The affirmative begins with the First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) in which lays out the need for the plan, the specifics of the plan, and what the plan accomplishes. The negative counters with the First Negative Constructive (1NC) which outlines the negative position. The affirmative answers with the Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) at which point every argument made by the negative that the affirmative wants to answer must be addressed. Anything not addressed is considered "dropped" or conceded. The 2NC is where the negative really expounds upon some of their positions. This is the last of the constructives and where something of a reversal in the debate takes place. The negative immediately follows with a second speech, the First Negative Rebuttal (1NR). The 1NR picks up and explains the negative positions that the 2NC did not cover. When combined with the 2NC, this gives the negative a straight 15 minutes of talking time, often referred to as "the spread." The 1AR has 6 minutes to answer 15 minutes and can often be spread very thin for time. The 1AR in my opinion is one of the most difficult speeches. You have to be extremely fast, if you're good using no prep time, and answer every argument made by the 2NC and 1NR. You also have to do so in a manner that leaves your partner a clear strategy to go for the win in the 2AR. Before the 2AR is the 2NR, though. This is the last of the negative speeches where the negative team presents their final plea to the judges. The 2AR concludes the round by giving one final assessment for the affirmative team.
For anyone that's ever participated in or witnessed a policy debate round, this is not what Roger Bullard referred to as, "a finely honed method of persuasion." It is, exactly what he arguest that it is not, "a means for arriving at truth." It's an intense, fast paced, dissection of thought and argumentation. Why then, don't creationists fare as well in court as they do in debate, as Mr. Bullard asks? For starters, I've never heard creationism argued in policy debate. The type of debate that Mr. Bullard is talking about doesn't remotely resemble college policy debate which is what the article talks about. If creationism were argued in policy debate, or any debate for that matter, both parties start on level ground. In the courtroom creationists are met by years of precendence that puts them at an immediate disadvantage. They must not merely "win" the argument at hand, they must do so in such a convincing fashion that it justifies overturning years of judicial precedent. In a courtroom creationists are also disadvantaged by the precedent that the judge's decision may create. Even if the ruling was not overturning precedent, the judge may be hesitant to rule in a particular way because it may create confusing and possibly even contradictory precedent. That would also put creationists at a disadvantage. There's also the argument that at the level that these sorts of determinations are made, the justices do not by and large represent the populus of the country. That's another arugment for another time, though.
I also came across another article here. This guy makes a similar argument, "The right is already better at resonating with the public in a visceral, emotional way; our advantage is that we're the logical ones, and that reason, in theory, prevails over sound and fury in the end." To continue repeatedly arguing that "we" (whoever in the heck this "we" is) are the logical ones and they are not - only "visceral, emotional" and therefore inferior is only to continue to lose touch with the American people and show your ignorance. When it comes to America, there is no we and they. There is no "two Americas," Senator Edwards. America is 285 million different people all with different wants, different needs, and different issues that are important to them. Sure, some of those issues overlap and intersect and on some single issues there are two primary groups of people but the equation as a whole is far more complex than that.
The Nation article is right about one thing. "The rising generation of the Christian right aren't going to be batty Pat Robertson types---they're logically-sound, rhetorically-gifted debate champions, who know their foes' arguments inside out." The "batty Pat Roberton" type would not passionately defend a viewpoint they did not believe. Neither would they believe a viewpoint they could not defend. There is not a right wing conspiracy that leads unknowing kids into college debate to brainwash them on talking points to talk around issues they don't understand. These are the brightest of the bright that are open-mindedly seeking truth. They consider their own motives and predispositions as well as those of the people around them. This is why debaters are so passionate. This is also why this rising generation is here now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
