Help me coach my teams to adapt!

[WWUPhil]

It has recently been pointed out in another thread that in some regions you can break as a 3-3 and work your way up the back side of the bracket if you have fancier shoes than the high seed. I acknowledge that the team would have to combine argumentation and maybe some presenattion savvy to accomplish this... but

How much emphasis does your region put on argumentation?
Have the judges and communication professionals learned how to evaluate a speaker beyond "first impressions?"
Do the judges use the six little categories traditionally on ballots in some forms of debate to assign speaker points?
Which of these six includes shiny shoes?
Do the clotes you wear affect who did the "better job of debating" in your region?

[USC MissingLink]

I think this is a hard question to answer, since undoubtedly every region has people who consider shoe-shinyness and others who barely look up from the flow to look at the debaters.

In D1, there seems to be a definite preference on the part of "expert" judges to consider argumentation over presentation.

<em>But</em>, I'd like to add a caviat here. It's been my experience that debaters who <em>don't</em> dress up tend to be more abstract in thier argumentation. Of course this is a generalization and there are exceptions, but from what I've seen debaters who challenge the norms of dress also like to challenge the norms of thought. They run language kritiks and philosophical off-case positions. These <em>arguments</em> in D1 seem to fall more readily to "real world" analysis. So while dress may not be the RFD, there seems to be a correlation between how someone dresses and whether or not they win.

jEd

[WWUPhil]

Hey Jed,
I wasn't really looking for an answer, but your second part got at it a little. i guess you have shown a valid reason why in some cases, a person dressed less could correlate to them not being what the judge wants at the debating level. Though the generalization is wrong, you have pointed out a valid correlation that can occur.

[PancreasMatt]

actually, i noticed the same thing. As i said in a previous post, i think that the policy community is way ahead of the parly one here, since they eschew the whole dresscode thing entirely. But yeah, i used a "scale o' goodness" that was inverse to the quality of someones clothes- for example, congress debate- very good dresscode, little or no argumentation. l/d - not as foppish as congress, little more debating. Policy- pinnacle of sloppiness, and the height of argumentation and competeitiveness. i honestly got a comment at a tournament last year in extemp that said "wash your shoes, and get black socks. it really hurts your credibility if your jacket isnt spotless."
matt c.

[BrendoFTC]

I think that speaker points should be based on arguementation, as judging a round effectively doesn't ever really have to require you to look up, as long as the flow is there. But parli has a tradition from it's inception that presentation of an arguement offers it an extra dimension based on presentation in the eyes of a judge, and that presentation right now has it's credibility tied directly [at least in part] to dress code. I've seen great speakers in three piece suites, collars without ties and hockey jerseys, but they were all winning and persuasive in the intelligence and legitimacy of the arguements, regardless of garb. The best speakers win the flow and the audience.

[pattybar]

I used to coach a pretty good debater who would say, "I'll sacrifice speaks for the W" -- granted, this is a decent occasional strategy, but it does not work when you are against someone who does not have to sacrifice speaks for the W... funny, his greatest success with with a partner who was all speaks.

Part of what makes parli both accessible and easily sold to administration is the public debate aspect. Since it allows us to quickly get people into competition and allows them to stay in competitive debate, have some social life (sorry Will :) and keep up in school, I think the presentation aspect of parli is quite advantageous.

Patty

[truthisjust]

I never really thought about that Jed but now that you mention I think that is very true. interesting....

[pattybar]

Brendo,

If speaks are for arguments, why bother with them... shouldn't the Win follow the arguments. Granted, you could give speaks on speaking ability without looking up, but that is more than the arguments alone.

Patty

[Eagle of Meaux]

I see speaker points as more of a way of awarding debating ability. tons of stuff goes into that including style, , persuasive ability, quality of argumentation, coverage, and strategic sense. As they are speaker points and not presentation points I don't understand how attire ought impact them.

Keith

[pattybar]

Keith,

The only way I see dress impacting speaks is if it detracts from the credibility, thus the persuasive ability of the speaker.

Also, if dress impacts anyplace at all, it should be in speaks.... as the Win should not hang on whether or not your sox match your shirt or pants...

Patty

[WWUPhil]

Patty,
I know that you wouldn't take a win from a team over dress, but I am wondering why ballots often list 6 categories that speaker points are derived from and none of them are dress.

Why do you think that the way a person dresses has to affect their credibility? I could see poor vocabulary, and other presentation issues hurting credibility, but why would we let a societal norms flow over into the activity.

If our judging pool was all public in nature...(it is a myth that this is public debate). Parli can be a public oriented activity, but we give it rules and game regulations that change the nature of the thing... Why do we pretend that it is like a job interview or a business presentation?

I am just looking for my explaination and development of the argument and I know you can give it to me.
Thanks,
Phil

[pattybar]

Phil,

There are three ways I could see dress impacting persuasive ability... The problem is that many judges assess the whole debater and use clothing choices as part of the matrix without even realizing it. I will say, in my own defense, that these scenarios are not common ones for me... In fact, I'm not sure I've ever actually had #2 or #3... but I clearly remember noticing a recent competitors toes, not her arguments....

1) I'm paying more attention to the grossness of the competitor's toes (see another thread ) than to their argument... my attention is diverted and I miss the key point of analysis that shows the debater's brilliance.

2) The competitor is dressed like my more casual students... which could send a message that they do not care enough about debate to make a good impression. This calls my attention to other areas in which their argumentation is sloppy and I am more critical of them than the others in the round.

3) The competitor is dressed ok, but dirty/smelly or otherwise unpleasant... I start to wonder what that unusual stain pattern is on both their jacket and their pants, and how in the world that got there... I am distracted and I miss the brilliant bit of analysis that pulls the world together for me.

Notice, the point is not the clothing itself, but that the clothing acts as a factor that reduces the effectiveness of the argument. Thus, many may award speaks on clothing and not even know it.... This seems odd and valid in some way, as the clothing impacts the ability of the speaker to communicate with the judge...thus, lower speaks. Sad but true.... personally, it wouldn't be bad for me if all were just clean and covered as I would be able, then, to be the same way.

Patty

[WWUPhil]

Those are all some ways that one might fail to do their job as a judge... which is to listen, despite outside distractions. There's a million things that a judge could be distracted by. I would also argue that allowing a judge to be distracted is a consequence of non-dynamic speaking, or a hangover.

I still think that we have an obligation to listen regardless of the humorous stain on the persons clothing(which one of my competitors should up with a big one on his jacket. I promised to take him to Goodwill and find him a better one! I don't mind the stain, I just think he was sick of being made fun of.)

[pattybar]

Phil,

You are correct, that the judge has a duty to listen, despite their distracted natures... but, since the competitor's job is to take control of the room, they can do much to eliminate the enviornmental distractions -- including dressing in a non-distracting way.

All other sorts of distractions should be spread rather equally among teams/speakers, as presumably if the judge is hung-over -- not that any judge would drink at a tournament... :) -- they are hung-over pretty equally for every speech etc...

What this comes down to is that speaks are only awarded to the speakers who hold the judge's attention, as the judge cannot give speaks to that which they do not hear.

Patty