X-Post from Parli L: Danny Shea's rant on communcation

[Western Amy]

This was posted today: I thought it had a lot of interesting ideas. What do you all think? What is the future of communications?




Recently, in my SC 498 class (ethnography) we were asked what it means to be a speech commmunication major. I responded with the idea that I felt we are dinosaurs. We engage in the "lost art" of public speaking. My largest fear is that teachers and human communicators are rapidly being replaced by virtual conference centers and web course designs. This appears to me to be part of the erasing process of CRITICAL THOUGHT from much of our society. Our reactions with digital interface are becoming more simbiotic while our social skills and communication skills are shallow at best. Once upon a time, students were taught to look for fallacies in politicians rhetoric. Today, we have millions of Americans rallying in a nationalistic orgy over BUSH BOY saying simple and stupid catch phrases like "EVIL DOERS" and "WITH US,OR AGAINST US". We no longer look for proof, or data to back such claims because we no longer know how. The fact of the matter is our attention can't handle the lengthy speeches which used to move audiences because our brains can only handle 30 second commercial-like blips and sound bites of political information. What this means is our politicians must resort to shallow and meaningless statements which are superficial appeals at best.
This trend towards the extinction of communication and critical evaluation can also be seen in terms of the programs around us which have suffered from a lack of administrative support. This is a grave mistake. The puposeful "shunning" of communication and forensic programs further entrenches this movement away from critical thought and practice. We are going to die off if this trend continues!
Finally, as I stated in class, I feel that a speech communication degree is an act of rebellion. The trends around us are Orwellian in the sense that thought is being washed down. In this post-modern world of separate classes and specialized disiplines, someone is going to have to teach the CEO's how to speak with some shred of persuasion. Someone is going to have to prompt the presidents with easily flowing analogies that they can no longer make. Most importantly, someone is going to have to teach our future. Hopefully it will be more than a disk that does this. To the future educators and sophists and philosophers, I salute you! Bring on the revolution!
Danny Shea
NAU

[Gavin499]

<img src=http://www-scf.usc.edu/~link/netbenefits/emoticons/hearhear.gif ALT=":hear">

[WWUPhil]

Is this Danny Shea guy some kind of communist or technocrat... his partner uses a palm pilot for someone's sake. He sounds like some kind of Neal Postman child. What a wacko.
-P

[USC MissingLink]

While I agree with the thesis (public speaking is important) I disagree with the conslusion (that public speaking is a lost or dying art).

The warrant that people blindly follow "Bush Boy" (a "catch phrase" in its own right) does not suggest the unimportance of public speaking. In fact, if anything it proves its value. The public being led by fan rhetoric over substance is not a new idea. In the past however, dissenting opinions were silenced by threat. Now, people are allowed to criticize or have different ideas.

But to my point: Public speaking is still important. Granted, we do not live in an oral society as the ancient greeks did. Consequently, the way we think is different (we can rely on facts and details that are written down for us). However, speech (as public as in front of an arena to in front of someone interviewing for a job) determines how we, and therefor our ideas are percieved by thier audience. Speech is essential for the sharing of ideas. Technology, I believe, merely increases the audience that speech incites; now the whole country can be your audience instead of those direclty in front of you.

This brings me to one last point I'd like to make: That of the Universal Audience. In order for speech to be useful, it must be given in what G.T. Goodnight calls the "public sphere" as opposed to the "technical sphere." I feel, however, that parliamentary debate - intended to teach public speaking to just such an audience - is beginning to lose sight of this goal. Teams now win on technical "dropped" arguments and "the best" among us now resort to "the flow" instead of being persuasive to win a debate.

I won't name names, but there are some debaters out there who are amazing rhetorical speakers. However, at the end of the season, they sacrificed thier speaking in favor of getting a lot on the flow. I even saw two policy debaters (turned parli for the tournament) spit out 12 T answers in 20 seconds from a pre-writen block. What shocked me was that these debaters that I am talking about were rewarded for thier speaking with great tournaments success.

Of course, John and I are also guilty of this. Because of certain strenghts and weaknesses of our partnership, we struck communication "non-flow" judges at NPDA. We just didn't want to have to adapt to them. Personally, I would rather have had those judges to persuade as well, but our competitive success often flowed from John's excellent coverage of the flow.

My parents came to watch me at NPTE and NPDA. They loved the event, but often had no idea what arguments were being made in the round. I have nothing against the "technical sphere" - which Robert Trapp associated with NDT/CEDA debate. I just think that the "public sphere" in parli should be preserved.

jEd

[WWUPhil]

Now I agree with Danny. What is Jed talking about? Did you find that in a Law review? or at the G&R site?
-P

[truthisjust]

I do not think we should be attempting to play towards the universal audience. I used to be anti-jargon but now I think that I am not just not anti-jargon, but I am pro-jargon. When we ignore the fact that we are speaking in front of a specialized audience I think we fail to learn how to play the game. I am not just saying that debate is a game, everything is a game.

You have to remember that we play language games all the time. When I am talking to my mom about a perm, she in no way thinks I am talking about a theoretical test of plan competitiveness. The idea is that specialized language exists in specialized contexts. I think it is horrible to ignore that because you will have to deal with it in every aspect of your life. Every business, every social organization, everything has a specialized language and not learning how to deal with it robs you of education.

Parli debaters like to sit in their ivory towers and think that they are the great communicators. When are you ever going to use public speaking to a “universal” audience? The only time I can think of is when you are running for a political office and even then you are mostly dealing with specialized audiences (ie labor unions with one speech and churches with another speech). Why is it so wrong to deal the particular audience? And that is what we have in debate, a particular audience.

[USC MissingLink]

Why is it bad?:

1) it excludes those who do not know the jargon from understanding what transpires in the debate. this has ramifications from making debate an elitist activity to not being able to showcase for school officials the benefits of debate. we are currently morning the loss of one school from the community, and others are threatened. this is largely because of the fact that those who control the money are a part of the group excluded by the use of things like jargon.

2) it creates a significant barrier to entry for new debaters. success is not about who is smarter or who's arguments are better, but about who knows the jargon. if you use the term "perm" in front of a new debater, that debater may have great responses but because she or he doesn't understand the jargon, those ideas won't be given. this doesn't indicate stupidity - merely that the person is not oriented to the technical field of debate.

3) it increases the need for fast delivery: you allude to the theoretical constructs that the word "perm" suggests. thus, by saying "perm" in front of a technical audience, the whole concept of "theoretical competativeness" is invoked in thier minds. In order to counter this, the other team must address those arguments. Thus, gov says "perm" and opp must now give much more analysis as to why the arguments invoked by that word are wrong. This time trade-off forces the opposition to deliver more arguments in the same amount of time, thereby increasing the rate of delivery.

4) ignorant debaters: the fact that you can say "perm" in a round and rely on the judge/audience to understand what you mean and essentially make the argument for you in the round (in thier mind's interpretation of the word) suggests that a debater (not the creme de la creme granted) can invoke arguments that he or she really doesn't understand. I have a friend who's taking a class on argumentation for which she has to have a debate. The teacher taught her all the fancy terms, and she was going to run a counterplan. Upon questioning, though, she had no idea the theoretical merit of such a strategy. Of course, if she were to run a counterplan, her teacher, with a strong back-ground in forensic debate, would have made all those theoretical argumets for her and she would essentially be plagerizing the arguments.

5) hidden judge intervention: look at the thread on Perms in On Case. There is no set idea about what this theory means. So if a debater just says "Perm" thinking it means X while the judge thinks it means X', there will be a disconnect in meaning and the judge will be intervening with his or her own ideas in the round.

6) gender exclusion: there is a lot of arguments out there that jargon defines the bounds of a community and that those boundaries are determined by the dominant power of the community. in the case of jargon, it has been created predominatnly by white, middle class debaters and perpetuated by those debaters becoming judges. thus, perpetuating the use of jargon perpetuates the system that allows for such domination.

jEd

[pattybar]

On Justin's rejection of the idea of a 'universal audience'...

Granted, each audience has a particular background and good speakers make those adjustments according to their audience. I do this every time I give a lecture in class... I adjust to the school and their background information (readings etc...).

On the other hand, if parli skills are supposed to transfer to real-life skills, the current habit of using jargon in place of communicating essential ideas seems to be a bad one. The use of techinical language is sound... but when the explanation of that language is lost (and sometimes not actuallhy known by the USER), then the skills parli teaches are of much less use post-competition.

Patty

[truthisjust]

Off the 1:

1. Non-unique: debate is an elitist activity. Lets not try to fool ourselves. Under your line of thought, those who can't speak pretty are excluded. Now I know that you are going to say that that stuff can be taught... well so can jargon then, right?

2. Administrators rarely see actual debates so the claim that jargon excludes them is just not true.

3. Even if administrators do see a debate, I am advocating particular audiences. In other words, if you have an administrator watching, you adapt to that person. You may even want to specialize your language in another way (ie talk about school policies etc.)

Off the 2

1. Cross apply the previous 1
2. New debaters, for the most part, face other new debaters who do not understand the jargon.
3. Jargon doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its not like if I am perming something, I just say “perm.” I still have to justify the perm in some way right? The debater can then figure out what it means.
4. This is what I am talking about. When you get into the “real world,” people in your workplace are not going to just stop using jargon so that you don’t get confused. Learning how to acclimate to this type of environment is crucial.
5. Get a list of jargon words and pass it out to your debaters, that what I do.

Off the 3

1. Jargon is bi-directional (jargon on both sides) and thus effects both team equally.
2. Other jargon answers
3. Turn: speed allows for more arguments and thus more critical thinking.
4. Turn: jargon allows you to slow down. Word economy allows you to get out all of you arguments with out having to fast.

Off the 4

1. This doesn’t seem unique to jargon. It seems like it would apply to all theory blocks.
2. You also still have to know when to use the jargon. It isn’t like jargon-terets is going to win you a round.

Off the 5
1. Turn: the reason that people don’t understand what a perm is, is because there is this reactionary movement away from jargon. If coaches coached it, there would more likely be agreement on the meaning.
2. Non-unique: It happens with any argument that isn’t justified. You still have to justify the perm, if not, you shouldn’t win.

Off the 6
1. This is a HUGE stretch and I think you know that
2. Non-unique: debate is a power structure in and of itself. It is entirely oppressive in every way shape and form. Just some examples:
a. topics force us to debate what the tab room gawds want us to
b. look to all of the discussion on gender bias
c. wins and loses objectify people
3. Non-unique: we get all of our information from power structures (ie news etc.)

[USC MissingLink]

i have to say, that was about the most boring post i've ever read the first half of... but thank you for proving my point...

i may deal with the "point-by-point" later, but right now i doubt it. not because i can't, but because it would take too much effort.

jEd

[truthisjust]

well... I am bored at work today... sorry next time I will bust a rhyme in the middle of my post for you...

Thank you for proving my point though... with out the use of some jargon in there, my post would have been much longer and thus MORE boring...

[RJM]

I think very few communication concepts are as misunderstood as Perelman and Olbrechs-tytecca's Universal Audience. Without getting too boring here I just want to clarify that they (P and O-T) don't advocate walking into a public speaking situation with some vague notion of what everybody in the world would want to hear. They ask you to construct a model of a rational audience member (the universal) out of the particual audience that you are addressing. So, Justin's claim that we will rarely if ever speak in front of a universal audience is grounded in a misunderstanding of the concept. In fact, you do it all the time in your debate rounds. If somebody tells you they are a "flow judge" then you create arguments that you think any rational flow judge would buy. Hence, you just assumed a universal audience.

Not sure where this is headed so I'll stop now.

RJM

[truthisjust]

Granted, but I do not think that defeats my position because I think Jed and I were using the same (mis)definition of the term.

[RJM]

Honestly, I have only skimmed the posts you reference so I didn't both to cross-apply my clarification of the term. I just wanted to stop the misuse of the term since it makes the rhetorician in me cringe.

RJM

[USC MissingLink]

I wasn't intending to cite Perelman's "Universal Audience" - I intended to refer to arguments in the public sphere which would be universally understandable (within the confines of those who speak the language, of course).

jEd

[Samopolis]

I'd just like to reinforce Jed's fourth contention; he makes a critical point: the gratuitous use of jargon by sophmoric debaters is a major problem. I spent quite a bit of time this season competing at the higher levels of JV and the lower levels of varsity, and a superficial understanding of technical arguements doesn't stop many kids from making them anyway. Many young debaters throw words like "parametricize," "pre-fiat," and "perm" around like a frisbee. The concept of a reverse voting issue, in particular, seems to inspire some kind of weird fixation among our generation.

The problem is that when a young team hits another young (but somewhat more experienced) team and the latter starts spouting off technical jargon it will either alienate the other team from debate, or, even worse, cause them to begin mimicing their counterparts' superficial use of complex arguements. Tiberius and I have never had a problem dealing with such people, as we're good at detecting bullshit and then calling our opponents' bluff. (The ironic thing is that we generally don't use much jagon to begin with.)

However, I sometimes wonder about all those rounds out there that are decided on one's team use of intimidating jargon that they don't really understand....

(Sam is listening to: The Police - Spirits In the Material World)

[Daniel Grossberg]

Danny Shea is one of the finest debaters I know, both as a competitor and a human being. I have known Danny for several years and am thankful that I do.

I know Phil (who stayed at Danny's cabin and went fishing with him) was just kidding, but I hope no one who doesn't know Danny judges him without actually meeting him. You should only be lucky enough to know him.

[Daniel Grossberg]

Now that I have had a chance to read the thread, I would like to say all of your are right in your arguments.

"How can that be so? They disagree!" Well, it is a matter of context. If I were debating most of you guys in a prelim round with an exeperienced judge, I would let the jargon fly. But if we were debating in front of an audience, or with an inexperienced judge, I would avoid the jargon. And if a team was inexperienced, I would avoid the jargon as well.

Nate and Judd - who had a long string of winning tournament after tournament after tournament - never used jargon. They abhored it with passion. They debated in what they call a "universal" style. That is, they would not change their style in front of an audience at a public debate or outround, or with an inexperienced judge or opponent. They always used plain English.

While this is different from most of us, I hope part of our judge adaptation (and audience adaptation - and opponent adaptation) includes the use of jargon, even a simple word like "turn" that Justin uses.

(Jed, remember that judge who would write on ballots, "What is an 'off case'? If it is 'off case' why does it matter? What do you mean 'cross-supply this argument''?

-Dan

[Eagle of Meaux]

Dan, I grant that adaptation is key, but the argument I'm getting from Jed is that jargon in all senses ought be discouraged due to several intrinsically bad qualities it has (which he outlined nicely.) Justin’s more than slightly effective rebuttal has yet to be challenged, with the exception of the 4th point Jed made regarding new debaters being intimidated and stuff. Here I want Justin’s number 1. There are all kinds of things which may be intimidating to new debaters. Unless we are willing to eliminate all theory, topicality, critiques, and counter plans (which, I imagine) would piss off most opp teams quite a bit) then we can not call for a limitation of jargon. I also want the turn on the number 5, because I think it’s big. The fact that there is a reactionary movement away from any jargon actually decreases debater understanding and education in the round. It’s kinda like banning sex ed in schools and then getting surprised when kids wind up with STDs.

Keith

[Tutakai]

Eagle, your perception of debate is very stunted if you don't think topicality, counterplans, and even kritiks are able to be run without retreat into debate jargon. I used to make it a point of pride to run those arguments while avoiding jargon. And the no-jargon versions of these were often MORE effective because they were more accessible to the judges' minds AND they showed that I had more than a surface knowledge of what I was arguing.

[Eagle of Meaux]

you missed my point entirely. I'm arguing that the only rational for rejecting jargon that people seem to be trying to resurrect after Justin's barrage is that it intimidates new debaters. If we accept the premise that all things that intimidate new debaters ought be discouraged then all the aforementioned argument types would be gone. The link level isn't the jargon, it’s the motivation for the rejection of jargon.

Keith

[pattybar]

On the other hand, the argument Jason brings up should not be ignored.... the real problem I see with jargon is not that new debaters will be intimidated by it, but that they won't.... they'll start using a term before they completely understand it and they will never learn how to explain it to a non-jargon-knowing judge.

If you don't know the meaning of the word, you don't know the concept behind the word, so you don't know the concepts which are a key element to debate. Jargon is bad because it encourages short-cuts in thinking about debates and thereby stunts that thinking.

On the other hand, dropping someone for saying 'solvency' in a debate round is an arbitrary and capricious RFD.

Patty

[truthisjust]

I see your point patty but I think the same thing happens to any argument that coaches don't coach. I remember when someone first ran topicality on us (jargon free I might add) and I tried to do the same thing to a senior team the next round... lets just say it hurt because I didn't understand what the arguments meant because my coach at the time refused to show because he hated topicality. The same thing happens with jargon. Until the community abandons these notions that jargon is bad, teams will continue to misuse and misapply it.

[Tutakai]

As long as people persist in casting the discussion into simplistic "jargon good or jargon bad" terms, the real issues surrounding the use and misuse of jargon will be missed.

Jargon in debate, like many other things in debate, has its uses but also its drawbacks. The smart debaters and coaches will try to enhance the usefulness and minimize the drawbacks.

Unfortunately, simplistic "jargon good" or "jargon bad" claims always destroy such nuanced approaches.

[USC MissingLink]

'Cause this is long overdue and they've got me doing boring stuff @ work.

Off the 1:

1. Non-unique: debate is an elitist activity. Lets not try to fool ourselves. Under your line of thought, those who can't speak pretty are excluded. Now I know that you are going to say that that stuff can be taught... well so can jargon then, right?


Debate may be primarily composed of people who are on average more intelligent than your average joe, but that shouldn't mandate elitism. NCAA Football is also elite in that only the best athletes (and UCLA) are able to play. Yet it strives to maintain it's appeal to the general public. Debate can and should do the same.

While both Jargon and "pretty speaking" can be taught, which one is more useful to learn? Jargon, by definition only works within the community which spawns it. You don't fiat in the real world. You can't beat an business competitors proposal with topicallity. You can beat it with a) a good proposal and b) good presentation. A study that I read indicates that delivery is 3X as important as content in selling ideas. Jargon undermines delivery to a non-debate audience.

2. Administrators rarely see actual debates so the claim that jargon excludes them is just not true.

This may be because debate coaches are afraid to show-case thier debaters knowing that the administrators won't understand what's going on. I was talking with an Associate Dean at USC - a former NDT Debate coach - and he mentioned how ugly NDT debate has gotten. If he has debate experience and thinks that, imagine someone without debate experience. It's not in the organization's interest to showcase itself if it uses things like jargon to remain "elite," because the definiton of "elite" suggests that you must exclude someone.

Additionally, administrators may not want to watch debate because they don't understand it. Jargon is a major cause of this.

3. Even if administrators do see a debate, I am advocating particular audiences. In other words, if you have an administrator watching, you adapt to that person. You may even want to specialize your language in another way (ie talk about school policies etc.)

But if you've been practicing X it's not an easy transision to suddenly go Y. NPDA has even instituted "judge-strikes" to prevent teams from having to adapt to judges who don't prefer they're "style." I think we should foster the type of speaking that we'd do in front of an administrator because in the long run, those skills are more useful in the real world.

Off the 2

1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Cross apply the previous 1

Cross apply my responses as well; especially the one's about educational utility.

2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp New debaters, for the most part, face other new debaters who do not understand the jargon.

And yet they use it, which just exacerbates the problem and makes it worse because now they can win with a bad application of the theory that they incite with the jargon. If one team always understood the jargon, then counterfeit arguments wouldn't be a problem because there would be accountiblity.

The fact of the matter is that using the words comes much faster than understanding them.

3.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Jargon doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its not like if I am perming something, I just say “perm.” I still have to justify the perm in some way right? The debater can then figure out what it means.

Sometimes. I happen to know a team from Regis who did fairly well at NPTE who basically ran NDT-style tags ("Perm: do plan, and then counterplan"). I will admit that currently in parli, most jargon is also explained - more so by the better teams. However, in the four years that I've been competing this trait has shifted significanlty toward getting a lot of arguments out to win on a drop on the flow. Thus, the level of explanation has diminished.

4.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp This is what I am talking about. When you get into the “real world,” people in your workplace are not going to just stop using jargon so that you don’t get confused. Learning how to acclimate to this type of environment is crucial.

Do a quick search of business and training manuals to find out the general consensus on jargon. Almost universally, people must be trained NOT to use the jargon because it is necessary for Public Relations and Sales to communicate with members outside of the industry. Just as jargon doesn't exist in a vacuum, neither do jargon-using communities.

Seriously, do the search.

5.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Get a list of jargon words and pass it out to your debaters, that what I do.

As I already said, 1) learning the words is different from understanding thier meaning because the words are loaded with argumentative theory ( fiat invokes a whole slew of arguments), 2) the meangings of the words are disputed accross the board. Find one jargon-related concept on which the meaning is shared throughout the community.

Off the 3

1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Jargon is bi-directional (jargon on both sides) and thus effects both team equally.

Right, which just makes things even worse and faster and faster. It becomes a game of one-upsmanship, and jargon doens't always answer jargon. Sometimes it does, but more frequently, an answer to a jargon-laced argument (which is a shortcut) requires a long-cut answer.

2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Other jargon answers

See above.

3.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Turn: speed allows for more arguments and thus more critical thinking.

What's a "turn?" Justin, do you even know what this jargon is short for?

Explain to me how 10 quickly delivered arguments require more critical thinking than 3 well-developed, well explained, well explored concepts. And since the use of jargon is essentially a canned argument (i.e. they are arguments that are used over and over again, and pretty much shelled out) these arguments are not new discoveries of ideas. Instead of delving into new intellectual territory, debaters try to show off intelligence by regurgitating as many arguments that they've already made as they can in thier time-limit.

Speed also undermines public speaking skills. There is no real-world place where fast-talking is a job-requirement (barring MicroMachine Man and Auctioneer).

4.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Turn: jargon allows you to slow down. Word economy allows you to get out all of you arguments with out having to fast.

In theory, this is right. However, the use of jargon isn't intended to allow debaters to use word-efficiency to lower the rate of delivery. Instead, the word efficiency is a specific advantage because it allows more arguments to be delivered at the prevailing rate of the round. Jargon is a significant symptom of "the spread."

Off the 4

1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp This doesn’t seem unique to jargon. It seems like it would apply to all theory blocks.

Even if it also applies to theory blocks, this doesn't make it a good thing.

But I contend it's more-so with jargon because just leaning a word can give the "expert" audience the assumption that you understand the issues. In a book called "Language and Jargon" one of they key uses of jargon cited is that it can mystify an audience, hiding ignorance or inexperience. This seems especially applicable in this situation; a team can use jargon they don't understand to make themselves seem smarter.

I also don't contend that this is a problem with the better teams in the circuit; it primarily applies to newer debate teams.

2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp You also still have to know when to use the jargon. It isn’t like jargon-terets is going to win you a round.

It actually can. 2 examples. The first is the policy cross-over team at NPTE who, when we debated them, had a bad case of the jargon-terets. They were very successful. The second example is a friend of mine from school who is taking an argumentation class in which she is required to have a debate. She wanted to run a "counterplan" but when I asked her about it, she had no idea what a counterplan theoretically accomplished. Her counterplan was legitimate, by luck of the draw, but if I'd been judging her and unable to cross-examine her understanding of the argument she was making I may have assumed she understood CP theory and given her the win.

Off the 5
1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Turn: the reason that people don’t understand what a perm is, is because there is this reactionary movement away from jargon. If coaches coached it, there would more likely be agreement on the meaning.

This proves my point very eloquently. If a coach can explain a "perm" in a way that is understandable by someone who doesn't know what a perm is then there's good reason to believe that a debater can do the SAME thing to a lay-audience. The thoery of a perm really isn't that complicated.

The problem is that we use a word like "perm" which we only understand if we have a coach who has coached us to the meaning. The ideas make intuitive sense if exlained. The disconnect in understanding comes not from the complexity of the theories but the confusion of the words used to invoke the thoeries in a debate.

2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Non-unique: It happens with any argument that isn’t justified. You still have to justify the perm, if not, you shouldn’t win.

I agree. But many teams don't justify thier jargon-based arguments and win on them anyway because the judge does the justifying for them based on his or her understanding of the word.

But if you have to justify the jargon, why not just explain it in the first place without the jargon. What purpose does jargon therefore serve? Since, as I've argued, jargon is used to allow more arguments into the round, it makes sense that debaters won't explain thier arguments as much as they could/should. This would counteract the short-cut feature that jargon provides. Thus the use of jargon suggests that arguments, by nature, are underexplained.

Off the 6
1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp This is a HUGE stretch and I think you know that

Again, read the literature. I suggest Jargon: It's Uses and Abuses, Language and Jargon, and a great little article called Games Mother Didn't Teach You. There is also an article in the Southern Speech Journal called The Emasculation of Tournament Debate Speech. If you are truly interested in reading these, I'll be happy to post the authors and more detailed bibliographical information.

2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Non-unique: debate is a power structure in and of itself. It is entirely oppressive in every way shape and form. Just some examples:
a.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp topics force us to debate what the tab room gawds want us to
b.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp look to all of the discussion on gender bias
c.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp wins and loses objectify people

Even if all of this is true, it does not justify continuing to use jargon. Just because jargon isn't the only bad thing doesn't make it good. I never claimed "solvency" for any of these arguments; I am merely addressing what I percieve to be a significant problem.

Look, NPDA was created to succeed where CEDA failed. To provide an alternative to the argumentation focus of Policy-Style debate. There are uses for this form of debate. However, if we are going to remain an alternative we must counteract elements within our community which threaten to make effectively like policy without evidence.

There are great benefits to public speaking as an discipline. Aristotle called rhetoric an Art. I think that, consistent with the NPDA's founding goals (read the Purpose statement on Page 1 of the NPDA Constitution), parliamentary debate should remain accessible by the general public. After all, we are named for the audience... the parliament.

jEd

[USC MissingLink]

BTW: if your wondering why I have all these sources, I'm writing my Thesis on jargon in parli ;)

jEd

[truthisjust]

now that is long... lol

[WWUPhil]

Time

[oshannonmurphy]

I'd like to see the cites.

[USC MissingLink]

Archer, Maureen, and Ronnie Cohen. “Leaving Women Out In Left Field: Sports Metaphors, Women, and Legal Discourse.” Women and Langauge 20 (1997): 2-3.

Burke, Peter, and Roy Porter. Languages and Jargons: Contributions to a Social History of Language. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1995.

Nash, Walter. Jargon: Its Uses and Abuses. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1993.

Stelzner, Hermann G.. “Tournament Debate: Emasculated Rhetoric.” The Southern Speech Journal 27 (1961): 34-42.

I don't have "Games Mother Didn't Teach You," but it's a fairly well known source... you probably can find it in google.

jEd

[oshannonmurphy]

Thank You