A stop to "shame" - PLEASE!!!

[UCSDanny]

Hey everyone,

if there's anything I could change about parliamentary debate is the constant and irrelevance of "SHAME" in rounds - especially outrounds with audiences from one school supporting their team. I'm fine with one team only knocking for their team since I think teams inround do this themselves - as I have yet to knock for another team's arguments. Shaming, however, goes beyond this. Once again this past weekend we had whole teams "SHAMING" arguments which I'm pretty sure were not "shameful" positions - if that's what it's supposed to stand for. Just because we "disagree" with the position of the other team I really don't think we deserved to be shamed throughout the round on every single position. I think the main area this started was on topicality. Because we argued "ground abuse" we got shamed. Because we argued "Topicality is a voter for fairness" we got shamed. If anything I think it just annoys everyone in the debate round. One or two shames - fine, whatever, but one every 30 seconds just pisses me off.

ERGH! So annoying, disruptive and just plain rude.

-danny
ucsd

[Western Amy]

The most blatant episode of what you mention I saw at NPDA in 2001, a deep out round where stakes were high. The additional stress that they provide is unnecessary I think, and I abhor the intimidation tactics that some schools employ in using them.

They do have their time and place.

[properwinston]

Isn't part of public speaking knowing how to deal with a hostile audience?

[Western Amy]

uuuuuu. . .there are hostile audiences and hostile audiences. I have heard people shame an enitre PMR loud enough to DROWN out the speaker. Why should someone have to deal with bullies and/or an angry sounding mob? Is that reall providign a significant education in public speaking?

Moreover, since the audience is generally made up of debaters, isn't part of public speaking learning how to have MANNERS as an audience?

[Liz]

Sometimes audiences have a right to be hostile, when circumstances are appropriately offensive, but using vocal abuse as a tactic in a round is poor sportsmanship.
It seems that I have mostly seen "shame" being muttered spastically, uncontrollably even, every time someone on the other team makes a point. That's not heckling, that's just really rude and tedious for everyone.
Arbitrary interjections are disruptive and obnoxious. If your opposition is really being so personally offensive to you that you have to moan aloud about it, your critic has probably already noticed, and therefore going on at length with the shaming is redundant.

If you want a mantra, try "om."

Liz

[UCSDanny]

Hi,

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Isn't part of public speaking knowing how to deal with a hostile audience? [/quote]

Is it? Is an intercollegiate NPDA debate round, especially an outround where one team has a significantly greater share of the audience, an appopriate place to learn it?

I've never heard a justification for debate "learning to deal with hostile audiences." If so, why do debaters refrain from straight out fist fights? How about throwing things at the speaker? Are you advocating I can throw tomatoes at speakers so they'll "learn" to deal with them? Futhermore, I know you apparently hate T, but let's look at hostile. Is "shame" after every argument really being hostile? Or is that just rude and working for the advantage of one team over another. Like Amy has said it's not fair for a PMR to be drowned out, is it? Even if I buy your argument I don't think "shaming" would constitute "hostile" - I'd say it's more an anonyance and one I wish judges would use to just straight kick people out of the room - if they could.

They'll always be rounds where one team has a unique advantage in supporters versus another. I'd say let's not let that be an advantage over another.

-danny
ucsd

[pattybar]

Hello,

In retrosepect, I've wondered about how to deal with just this situation.

It seems to me that the chair of the panel needed to do something after the first round of "shames" to control the room. Were it bad enough, I'd take a minute to discuss it with the other judges and then let the "shaming" team know that we will stop time and clear the audience out if they don't behave.

How about the chair calling a point of order in the middle of the speech? How about the chair calling the point, telling the audience to behave or get out and then starting speech time over?

At a minimum, the coach of the "shaming" team needs to know that their squad was VERY disruptive and that I would consider dropping the team because their supporters made the room so hostile. If the team with the "shaming" supporters advances, I would discuss the problem with the tournament chair and see if I couldn't talk to the chair of the next panel to prevent the BS from continuing.

As a debater whose supporters are being obnoxious, there are ways to reduce it also. Simply saying, "while I think our position is better, theirs is not shameful".. can often cool down the mob.

What happened to having manners in debate?? I know that when I started coaching, we'd go to elim rounds just to make sure our own team didn't do anything too obnoxious... I made a kid change his pounding hand as he was pounding pretty hard and had a ring on his finger that made a metallic ping....

Patty

[Dan6814]

Worlds-style debate has something like what you're talking about, Patty... if the chair thinks that the round is getting out of hand, too rowdy, or things like that, they can say "Order," and everyone quiets down. Saying that a couple of teams will get the message across.

Dan