Topic For Debate: Where are the Orators?
posted by Bietz on March 29th, 2006
Today I was searching through the world wide web trying to find a Jesse Ventura campaign speech. I came across a website called AmericanRhetoric.com. I started to poke around a little bit and noticed that they had a ranking of the Top 100 American Speeches. Are we in a time when the Art of great speaking is a lost art? Since we live in a world of soundbytes, where even the majority of television stations do not carry the State of the Union, are we losing the grand, inspirational speeches of yester-year? If so, is that good or bad? If not, what are some of the great or at least important speeches of this generation?
Popularity: 1% [?]
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 64.12.116.197
March 29th, 2006 16:07
The Gettysburg Address is conspicuously absent from the Top 100.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
March 29th, 2006 16:36
I wonder if it is more that our politicians are making more apologies… There isn’t much in the way of convincing the public anymore. Do first, ask for apologies (or make excuses) later.
Posted from: 67.83.98.233
March 29th, 2006 16:41
“The Gettysburg Address is conspicuously absent from the Top 100.”
I don’t think it counts as a great oratory, since it is only 10 sentences long.
As for the orators, I don’t think they can survive in today’s environment, given the role of soundbytes becoming the predominant form of political commentary. This is very very bad in my opinion, because such a culture only bases its discourse on blantant catch phrases that can by thrown at each other endlessly.
Posted from: 128.91.24.116
March 29th, 2006 16:45
alex zhao, that is the inverse of the truth. the gettysburg address said more in 10 lines than most other great speeches say in 10 minutes. quality not quantity.
Posted from: 69.118.113.224
March 29th, 2006 16:49
My AP English teacher decided that our entire 2nd quarter would be reading all 100. Although we only made it to about 45 before she realized that we really should me on to something else, it was still a noble attempt. If you plan on reading any, only read one Martin Luther King, and then go for the obsucre ones. Otherwise, they all start sounding the same after a while. Freedom, freedom, and more equality.
Posted from: 67.83.98.233
March 29th, 2006 16:58
“alex zhao, that is the inverse of the truth. the gettysburg address said more in 10 lines than most other great speeches say in 10 minutes. quality not quantity.”
I’d disagree: a lot of speeches longer than the Gettysburg Address were probably more powerful than it. I still don’t think it could count anyway, as it was 2-3 minutes in length and designed to be short commentary at the end of a 2 hour long speech preceding it.
Posted from: 72.66.75.83
March 29th, 2006 17:24
The Gettysburg Address was also in 1863. The website is title “Top 100 American speeches of the 20th Century.”
Posted from: 162.83.226.40
March 29th, 2006 17:27
yea….whatcha gon do about it jaclev
Posted from: 24.6.202.25
March 29th, 2006 17:36
FEW POLITICIANS OR CURRENT LD DEBATERS NOW HOW TO THROW DOWN THESE DAYS.
The country just needs to wait for Brian Fletcher, Jon Wedrogowski, Adam Lauridsen, Oscar Shine, Shyam Ravinderan, Andrew Garvin, Vikrum Aiyer and Adwait Parker enter the political arena – from what I barely know about them, their political wit and speaking styles will surely floor the world.
(assuming they’re not addicted to drugs or anything by then)
Posted from: 24.6.202.25
March 29th, 2006 17:37
FEW POLITICIANS OR CURRENT LD DEBATERS NOW HOW TO THROW DOWN THESE DAYS.
The country just needs to wait for Brian Fletcher, Jon Wedrogowski, Adam Lauridsen, Oscar Shine, Shyam Ravinderan, Andrew Garvin, Vikrum Aiyer and Adwait Parker enter the political arena – from what I barely know about them, their political wit and speaking styles will surely floor the world.
(assuming they’re not addicted to drugs or anything by then
Posted from: 67.83.98.233
March 29th, 2006 18:04
I’d vote for Adwait if he abolished Disneyland.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
March 29th, 2006 18:14
George Clooney’s acceptance speech at the Oscar’s seemed moving. Although Spike Lee basically answered it back.
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/entertainment/153762004.htm
Director SPIKE LEE has criticised GEORGE CLOONEY for highlighting GONE WITH THE WIND actress HATTIE McDANIEL’s Oscar triumph in 1933 as an example of Hollywood’s “forward-thinking”.
While accepting his Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor earlier this month (05MAR06), Clooney fired back at critics who claim Hollywood is out of touch by citing McDaniel’s win.
Lee says, “To use that as an example of how progressive Hollywood is is ridiculous. Hattie McDaniel played MAMMY in Gone With the Wind.
“That film was basically saying that the wrong side won the Civil War and that black people should still be enslaved.
“C’mon! I like George a lot. I’m not hating on him. But I don’t think he really thought it out.
Posted from: 24.159.242.235
March 29th, 2006 22:19
What Bietz says is right. I watched it on South Park tonight :)
Prof. Lucas is hands down the smartest guy I’ve ever met. It’s too bad I won’t get to take a second class with him.
Posted from: 24.159.242.235
March 29th, 2006 22:26
A further note. Professor Lucas, when he gives the lecture on “I Have a Dream,” likes to note that JFK’s second place speech wasn’t even close in the voting. In forensics terms, MLK’s “I have a Dream” was the equivalent of going strait ones.
Every other speech is just a combination of 2 through 100.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
March 30th, 2006 08:32
There are no great orators anymore in LD because as everyone knows, if you speak persuasively, you are not smart, you probably come from a rural state, you are pre-modern (or at most modern), and alas, you will never see the face of god in the “six-off, 2 K, performative discursive theory bomb NC” . . . pity.
Posted from: 66.208.26.115
March 30th, 2006 09:27
Bryce, that simply is not true. While I often agree with a lot of your opinions, it is not fair to suggest that because some of the students are less/not at all focused on those skills, that all students lack them or have abandoned them. I’ve judged over 200 rounds this year, I feel that I am a fair judge of oratorical skills in LD, speech, and outside of forensics. (You know me, and, at the very least, have some lost remnant of a memory regarding my “oratorical skills” in debate, so you can be the judge of that.) On that basis, I can confidently name several students — from regions throughout the country — who have been very succesful AND who have great oratorical skills. And, oh my gosh, I would even go so far as to say that their success is, in part, a result of those skills. What’s the basis of your sweeping dismissal of all of them? (In other words, I love ya man, but don’t be too quick to give up hope).
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
March 30th, 2006 10:25
Surely Anjan you can’t be suggesting that there is not a necessary trade-off between eloquence and analysis, are you? I will withdraw my statement that there are no great orators anymore, admitting that I got sucked into Hyphy’s claim that no one could throw it down like they once did (though really, I saw Lauridsen debate Fletcher once, and it was like watching white meeting rice for a spot of tea). But I am pretty sure that there are two types of debaters: good debaters, and then debaters who speak pretty to mommies from Montana. I simply refuse to accept that someone could be eloquent and persuasive and at the same time be substantive. If it was even theoretically possible to be both an eloquent speaker and substantively strong, there simply would be no reason to have a traditionalist/progressive dichotomy, no? Think how many would have needlessly died in the great debate wars of the aught years then…
(Anjan: I received an e-mail that I think put it best: “being called a
‘good speaker’ can truly be a veiled insult in debate-speak” – you know we are on the same side on this one, and all I am fighting is a perception… my sarcasm was just a little too heavy, and I never give up hope)
Posted from: 160.39.130.183
March 30th, 2006 11:32
That was my e-mail. I agree this dichotomy between substantive argument and oratorical presentation is unnecessary. But for whatever reason, this division has been fostered and aggravated over the years. Many debaters now receive the notion that good speaking and good analysis are often exclusive and irreconcilable.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
March 30th, 2006 13:46
From Michael’s e-mail to me:
“When the debate community refers to good or “legit” or experienced judges, this largely refers to a judge’s proficiency and specialization in flowing, i.e. does he write small enough? does he flow vertically?
(therefore writing more extensively) does he flow quick enough to keep up with rapid delivery, how many sheets does he consume to flow one case’s worth of claims? It seems that if a niche of judges develops
whose reputation is contingent upon flowing-prowess, that faction has an incentive to hold up a debate model in which all relevant events that determine the debate happen on the flow. Perhaps this is not happening on a conscious level, but it is gratifying for a critic to assume that the relevant parts of the debate are those parts which would not be noticed without his special skills. Debate aspects that can be acknowledged by all kinds of critics, the “big picture,” ethos,
speaking, etc, are often derided or considered secondary (being called a “good speaker” can truly be a veiled insult in debate-speak). Things that could only be detected by a specialized judge, drops, theory arguments, T, are made primary.”
Posted from: 12.226.26.225
March 30th, 2006 15:49
Back to the original question for a brief moment. I think that a quick survey of American politics shows there are still orators. Alan Keys may be crazy but he is a fantastic speaker. Barak Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was unbelievable. The late, great Johnny Cochran managed to convince twelve people that O.J. was innocent (seriously, read his closing argument and tell me how you would possibly vote to convict).
The real problem is that there are less outlets for the great orators. Certainly, debate is a bastion for it.
Posted from: 66.208.26.115
March 30th, 2006 16:23
To clarify, I do not think that good “technical debate” (whatever that means) is mutually exclusive of good public speaking skills. Hence, when I said above that that there are debaters who have good oratorical skills, I count plenty of so-called “technical debaters” in that category.
Posted from: 160.39.130.183
March 30th, 2006 18:00
“Certainly, debate is a bastion for it.”
Yup, that or OO, though I haven’t watched an OO round in a while. What is that event like today? Has it been mutating? Anybody know any OO competitors?
“To clarify, I do not think that good “technical debate” (whatever that means) is mutually exclusive of good public speaking skills.”
Neither Bryce nor I suggested that. I know for a fact that plenty of “techno-circuit” debaters speak persuasively and with conviction and can present a compelling “big picture” in addition to their addressing of particulars. I was hinting that some judging paradigms maximize incentive for the former and eschew incentive for the latter.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
March 31st, 2006 10:45
The great Marilee Dukes used to criticize the “dueling oratories” style of debate. I never understood what was so wrong with dueling oratories, until my partner in crime Yaverbaum pointed out to me that that she was criticizing LD that sounded like “dueling Oratories” (upper case O) not “dueling oratories” (lower case o). Michael, I think you are making the same mistake when you are saying there is diminishing utility to practicing oratorical skills . . . when I (or Anjan) speak of oratorical skills, we are not talking about the fifteen year old using an old-time radio voice giving a speech to the American Legion on the importance of flag maintenance . . . I like good speakers, who don’t attempt to be Wilford Brimley, and speak directly and calmly to their audience, conveying credibility and committment to the ideas they espouse…
As for the diminishing utility (versus the technical skills) . . . having great oratorical skills (the ability to persuade and inspire off the cuff) could lead to a career where you make millions, inspire a nation, change the world. It is a skill that very few have (hence the millions, the inspired, the changed). Having the technical ability to deliver forty-three line-by-line answers in an 1AR in a dry robotic fashion can lead to a career of . . . I am not sure, maybe some demo rounds at summer institutes while you are in college? I am not sure you have calculated the utilities correctly…
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
March 31st, 2006 13:58
I did indeed leave those arguments unaddressed.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
March 31st, 2006 14:23
What I haven’t seen anyone cogently explain is what was so deficient about the thousands of years of academic, philosophical and political debate that preceeded the advent of LD debate in 1980, and why these deficiencies necessitated the development of a specialized/technical form of debate to allow for the very first time in the history of the world for someone to use critical thinking skills during an argument. It happened in 1993, it was a sixteen year old from North Shore Chicago in the middle of an NR at a tournament in Appleton, Wisconsin, just so happened to be in Ms. Henderson’s third grade classroom in the lower school, and it was truly a historical moment in the history of human thought. Maybe now, finally, having discovered the tools that allow critical thinking, humans can finally shake off their ape masters…
Posted from: 151.204.150.77
March 31st, 2006 14:57
what is good oration? is it sounding pretty? is it proper use of grammar syntax and an expansive vocabulary? is it making effective arguments?
i dont think there is an answer (also why i think michael’s point ab not wanting to become a politician is very valid…if we want to become poets we should be allowed to speak like them…if we want to sound like scientists or philosophers or even ndt debaters thats prolly fine too).
other forensics events suffer RADICALLY in the inverse way…sometimes, the good orators in events like congress and extemp beat the better argument. politics goes back and forth: george bush lacks the ability to orate or make an argument, someone like howard dean is better at making a good argument, but is terrible in his oration (see iowa). someone like, say, HITLER was really, really really good at orating but made pretty terrible arguments. the point is that you cant isolate a particular element of discourse (presentation, substance, whatever) and say that lacking that quality makes them bad at it.
the fact that there is no objective way to isolate what makes a speech good implies that there is normative value in adaptation, as it teaches debaters to be good at all the particular parts of discourse.
Posted from: 65.29.46.219
March 31st, 2006 15:33
I would also question the extent to which judges offer incentive for debaters to completely abandon persuasive speaking skills. No judge is like “Oh please let me hear 5 minutes of topicality at ungodly speeds! PLEASE!” Although (some) judges are willing to vote on it, I’d put money on the fact that most still prefer a reasonable interpretation that is clearly articulated.
Also, maybe I espouse the Coach K approach to debate, but I play to win now. I don’t think debate has to be about preparing someone for a career in politics (although it certainly can be). Maybe I want to be an auctioneer when I grow up…..
Posted from: 68.49.180.49
March 31st, 2006 16:36
“We should never vote for a Nazi in a debate round”
-Jacob Levi (who is a good orator)
As a useless side commentary, I continue to find these dichotomies silly, and i think they produce silly discussions. Does anyone really want to argue that you should strive to be a bad speaker? Does anyone really believe that the only part to good debate is good speaking? As another aside, apparently Liz is going to star on the Duke basketball team and then parlay their disappointing finishes into a career as an auctioneer…
Posted from: 160.39.130.183
March 31st, 2006 16:36
“I would also question the extent to which judges offer incentive for debaters to completely abandon persuasive speaking skills.”
I would refer you to Bietz’s past article “You Don’t Have to Vote for What You Don’t Like” from three years ago. The incentive disparity is underscored by this account,
“I recently had a discussion with a colleague of mine who was complaining that s/he had to vote for a debater who had terrible arguments and rebuttals full of assertions. I countered the lament with a simple question: why did you have to vote for this person? The response: I don’t intervene. The individual who won the round ended up going undefeated at the tournament, and placing as top speaker. I don’t blame the debater for using this strategy. I mean, if you can continue to do what judges hate, yet, they will still vote for you AND give you high enough points to make you top speaker, I call it solid adaptation.”
If you think that the proliferation of one style is no tragedy and no worse than the proliferation of another, that there is no distinction of worth between them, fine. If however one style is worth maintaining or worth receiving incentive from judges, personal preferences seem to be an ineffectual incentive, or at least one that does not overpower loyalty to the official paradigm.
If in fact a judge is faithful to the non-interventionist paradigm, his/her “personal” preferences have demonstrably less influence on debate behavior and evolution than the structural demands of the adjudication philosophy. Stomaching “five minutes of topicality” is the lesser evil compared to possibly gaining the stigma of being an interventionist judge who constrains content and possibly picks up flowery debaters. When delivery is a secondary issue considered only after the claims and arguments have been counted and adjudicated, it obviously ranks lower on the triage. Under a certain paradigm that does not intervene against claims, making and covering claims definitely determines who wins, whereas delivery is relegated to affecting the judge’s personal ambivalence and maybe speaks (sometimes just the former).
Posted from: 160.39.130.183
March 31st, 2006 16:49
““We should never vote for a Nazi in a debate round”
Well, Hitler and Nazism came into this discussion as well, and it only took one day, one hour and fifty minutes.
Posted from: 160.39.130.183
March 31st, 2006 16:51
I mean one day, twenty-two hours and fifty minutes.
Posted from: 66.65.182.173
March 31st, 2006 17:57
Anjan: you tell me not to give up hope? I honestly can’t tell the difference between my sarcastic posts and the earnesthearted posts assuring me they haven’t “forgotten” how to speak persuasively, it’s okay to want to be an auctioneer, and it is simply the case that eloquence and the logical validity of arguments are in some eternal struggle for dominance…and of course, proficiency in the flow is the equivalent of critical thinking skills.
A critique of a flow as a spatial mapping of arguments is out there. People can not equate the analytical element of debate to require speed without first defending the flow as an accurate spatial mapping of argumentation.
Critical thinking skills do not require speaking quickly and attempting to drown an opponent in argumentation. It never has before in the history of thought, and I refuse to believe high school debate has stumbled onto the path to the meaning of life through the use of the flow. The flow is a crude, educative device to try to force students to be responsive. To take it literally as the underlying analytical framework of dispute is like trying to race the Tour de France with training wheels.
So without the necessary link between speed and critical thinking skills, why not want to be both a scientist and a poet? Why not try to perfect every element of an advocate, simultaneously (judge adaptation is only a useful skill if you are to be a door-to-door salesmen (not that there is anything wrong with that) – a truly strong advocate can simultaneously appeal to a wide audience of diverse backgrounds – tailoring to a specific audience is the easier skill than learning to appeal universally). You do not need to trade the intellectual for the beautiful – and it is a dark view of this world when you convince yourself that you do.
The great ones have it all, and don’t see a dichotomy between developing oratorical skills and developing a substantive appreciation of arguments. To the degree the activity encourages debaters to see a dichotomy that does not need to exist, and therefore de-emphasize an important skill of an advocate, the activity is failing. It has been failing for decades.
Hope.
Posted from: 66.65.176.173
March 31st, 2006 18:53
Am I going crazy, or did some posts disappear from this thread?
Posted from: 66.65.176.173
April 1st, 2006 07:16
Maybe I am going crazy, but I wish the posts that were deleted were restored, or their disappearance otherwise explained? Jon?
Posted from: 68.221.205.192
April 5th, 2006 16:48
i have no idea why my posts disappeared; itd be cool if they came back because i havent like changed my mind or anything
Posted from: 66.65.110.230
April 5th, 2006 16:54
I want to apologize for the confusion with the post; this problem apparently affected at least two people. I have no idea what caused it and I’m still looking into the problem.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
April 7th, 2006 06:55
I would just like to say that Michael and I were engaged in an exchange that would have put Plato and Aristotle to shame…it will have to be our Lost Episode…