"Mind you, the American approach has, I think, infested proper debating too. The days of the amateur are long gone. In the good old days - by which I mean the period up to and including 1997 - a fellow could turn up and rely on little more than whatever he held in his cranium supplemented by a cursory glance at that day's newspaper. If you were really keen you might consult an old copy of The Economist found tucked beneath one of the Conversation Room sofas. Preparation was for people who, frankly, weren't very good at debating..."
The people who would devote large amounts of time to debate preparation always confused me. American debate (as I experienced it in high school) was about spectacle: wear your fanciest suit, carry a couple of tubs on rollers (like airport carry-ons) which are filled with your 'evidence,' and absolutely, absolutely talk as fast as humanly possible*--the judge can't mark you down if he doesn't know what you're saying, right?
By way of contrast, I was granted a dispensation my senior year, which made me the only person on the team not required to do any research (a wise decision on the part of my debate coach, as I wouldn't have done research even if she had made me). I refused to follow the conventional argumentative style--if the burden of proof falls on the Affs, why should I bother constructing my own argument when I can just point out the flaws in theirs? My particular shtick was to enter the room with all my materials in a mess, and spend the time before the debate began as though I was frantically looking for something and I just couldn't find it. Went 7-1 that year. Good times.
*I have a distinct memory of going to the state-level debate finals my sophomore year of high school, and having to surpress the desire to bust out laughing everytime someone opened their mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment