| Top Ten Ways to Lose a NEDA Ballot |
|
By Heather Norton and Jeff Gregory
Regardless of the type of audience, a public speaker is most persuasive when he / she can make the audience remember the key points made during the speech. Using long, wordy phrases instead of clear, brief ones diminishes a speakers ability to persuade an audience. When a round is in progress, it is the responsibility of all debaters to understand and have the ability to defend any position of the team during that round. For example, A debater should not try to escape a cross-examination question by answering "My partner will address that later." If you are desperately trying to turn a judge against you, and / or lose a ballot, try giving incomplete source citations. Evidence is important in NEDA rounds, and one way to assess the quality of evidence is to examine its source. According to NEDA, "evidence should include full citation of source, source qualifications, and date" (2)*. Neither the judge nor your opponents can read your mind. One sure way to alienate a NEDA judge is to fail to explain yourself. That includes not explaining the relevance of evidence you have read, using jargon such as "T" and "Hasty G" without developing the argument coherently, and not explaining your position in relationship to your opponents arguments. Tag--Evidence Tag--Evidence is not acceptable explanation. You need to explain your position and provide connections between arguments. To surely alienate a NEDA judge, just follow a few simple guidelines. First, assume that lay judges do not "really" know debate, that they are just there because they have nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon. NEDA believes that "debate is an exchange that, when witnessed by a member of the general pubic, would be viewed as comprehensible and enlightening." Lay judges are a valuable resource to the Association. Everything that you say and do in a debate round should be understood by people from "outside" of the activity. Second, ignore all non-verbal communication that you receive from the judge. That perplexed look on a judge's face surely doesn't mean that he or she is confused, so just continue on as you have been. Finally, to really push judges over the edge, argue with the judge after the round while he or she attempts to give you an oral critique. The people judging your round are there for a reason, and their opinions count. Listen courteously to what they have to say, and don't dismiss it when the critic's perception does not match your own. In the real world, not everything leads to nuclear war or global disaster. In NEDA it doesn't either. Remember that this is audience-centered debate--would a real audience buy the conclusion that congressional term limits will ultimately destroy the world? Probably not. NEDA judges are given the latitude to dismiss claims that appear counter-intuitive. However, if you really want to lose your judge you can try those counter-intuitive arguments--it is a sure way to show your critic that you expect them to put their common sense to hold. Picking insignificant points to dispute will only serve to frustrate your judge. By failing to clash on the major points of your opponents position you are doing yourself a great disservice. Elaborate sub-structure used in an effort to veil key points in hopes that your opponents will miss them also discourages clash. Don't hide your arguments and hope that your opponent overlooks the pivotal point--put it out on the table and then defend it. Pick a few big issues and argue them--clash on the important things. If you really do not believe that an affirmative team has a non-topical case, then by all means argue topicality as a fairness issue. However, if you are pulling out every jurisdictional argument ever heard of simply because you have nothing better to say, then you had better re-think your arguments. Neither judges or audiences want to hear a complete debate that focuses on a procedural argument--they want to hear clash on the issues of the resolution. On the other hand, NEDA judges expect cases that directly address the resolution, and favor direct clash over trickery. So, if an affirmative team has created an obscure case that is simply designed to avoid clash, many NEDA coaches would probably be receptive to negatives who point out how such practices that degrade the activity. Make it an issue. By making procedural arguments against such cases, you ask a judge to vote to eliminate abusive debate practices and to maintain the integrity of NEDA. NEDA values, and requires, a conversational rate of speech. We realize that it is difficult to say all that you need to in such a short period of time, however, if the audience can not follow your arguments because they fly by at the speed of light, you will not be persuasive. Concise arguments are valued. Remember, NEDA states that the judge may stop a round at any time and render a decision against a team that he / she finds to have an "incomprehensible / non-communicative style." We have already discussed how lack of respect for judges tends to alienate them. The same goes for lack of respect for debate and NEDA. Keep in mind that "judges have the option of giving a double loss in a round in which neither team argues in a manner consistent with Association standards." There are any number of ways that you can succeed in ticking off a judge by disrespecting the activity. Here are a few.
It is true that NEDA is committed to communicative debate, however, do not make the mistake of thinking that style is a substitute for substance. The two values are not mutually exclusive. You will be expected to analyze arguments critically, use evidence to support your claims, and to do it so that lay audience would understand. |
