Hey Dalektek…is this your brother?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[b] Everyone in Speech & Debate thinks like me, Squish. What I mean is, I typify the Speech psychology. I was a devoted member of the S&D Team at my high school, and I still keep in touch with some of my friends from the Team. And for the record my school’s Lincoln-Douglas champion agrees with my statements about His Divine Shadow and says I did a very good job in defending my argument.
It is highly inaccurate to say L.D. is dead. There has been a significant decline in its use in the National Forensic League since the early 1970s, but the 2000-2001 debate season saw a significant revival in L.D. participation. Besides, its use in N.F.L. S&D is really beside the point. It is an important facet of human society that cannot be killed.
I get the feeling you don’t understand what I’m talking about. Lincoln-Douglas style is the standard debate format in Western society today. L.D. might be called something else in England, I don’t know. It is a form of [b]dialectic[/b]. Dialectic is the rarely used Modern English equivalent to the dialektik(os) of ancient Greek philosophers of the Academy and Lycæum. The [i]Oxford English Dictionary[/i] defines “dialectic” as “The art of critical examination into the truth of an opinion; the investigation of truth by discussion…logic as applied to formal rhetorical reasoning; logical argumentation or disputation.” With that definition out of the way, I’ll describe the format of Lincoln-Douglas debate for you:
First, each speaker makes a constructive statement, which lists their opinions, beliefs, and other things the opponent will likely disagree with. These are called [b]contentions[/b]. Each contention traditionally has two or more [b]subpoints[/b], which explain specifically the meaning and implications of each contention. Speakers then present clearly organized, logic-oriented statements defending their contentions and rebut the contentions and arguments of their opponent. The idea is to ignore the actual person and focus entirely on their argument. The failure to do this, that is opposing the person instead of the idea is called a [b]personal attack[/b]. Statements may include any pertinent initial or subsequent line of argument. Rebuttals may include only extensions of arguments previously introduced into the debate.
Please don’t condemn a practice just because you don’t understand it.
I don’t condemn it, but there is simply no reason to use it here, how many other’s in this group have you come across that will enter into this type of debate?
It’s obviously something you take pride in, but nobody on here could care less about it, and you are not going to convert anyone or educate anyone on this group…we are not interested.
Like I have said, practice this elsewhere, somewhere where it is used in abundance, on here we just want people to have a laff and discuss Lexx light-heartedly, we don’t want to go into raging debate’s that end’s up giving everyone a blinding headache.
Keep it simple and keep it polite, then people will understand you, it’s all good fun at the end of the day, there is no seriousness, so there is no need for the heavy handed way you handle a reply.
Keep it cool…
Squishy
——————
Annoyed Squishy