Dropping the Bomb in CEDA.
Saved in:
| Title: | Dropping the Bomb in CEDA. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Hubbard, Bryan K. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 21 |
| Publication Date: | 1991 |
| Document Type: | Speeches/Meeting Papers Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Audience Awareness, Debate, Higher Education, Identification (Psychology), Nuclear Warfare, Persuasive Discourse, Public Speaking, Rhetorical Criticism |
| Abstract: | Given a choice of one argument, most Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) competitors would choose the nuclear war scenario, which attempts to capitalize on apocalyptism. A three-stage methodology can be applied to apocalyptic appeals. First is an application of the concept of universal audience, composed of all reasonable and competent people. A debater makes a good argument by satisfying the universal audience's motivations. The second tier of the methodology, psychological force, comes from the debater's use of the inherent power behind apocalyptic appeals. Debaters empower judges by enabling them to decide on an apocalyptic issue. Kenneth Burke's terms--identification, hierarchy, and transcendence--underscore the final stage of the methodology. Debaters must: (1) structure appeals to underscore identity with the audience; (2) use hierarchy to explain how a round should be decided; and (3) provide transcendence by enabling judges to choose the side that best prevents the apocalypse. Two case studies from elimination rounds of the CEDA National Tournament demonstrate how these methodological concepts are manifested. Understanding the mechanisms of apocalyptism can highlight the educational value of such appeals for debaters. Increased awareness of apocalyptic appeals among debaters, judges, and lay folk can only better serve CEDA, forensics, and society. (Fourteen references are attached.) (SG) |
| Entry Date: | 1992 |
| Accession Number: | ED341100 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED341100 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Conference PubTypeId: conference PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Dropping the Bomb in CEDA. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hubbard%2C+Bryan+K%2E%22">Hubbard, Bryan K.</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 21 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1991 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Speeches/Meeting Papers<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Audience+Awareness%22">Audience Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification+%28Psychology%29%22">Identification (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nuclear+Warfare%22">Nuclear Warfare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Speaking%22">Public Speaking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rhetorical+Criticism%22">Rhetorical Criticism</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Given a choice of one argument, most Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) competitors would choose the nuclear war scenario, which attempts to capitalize on apocalyptism. A three-stage methodology can be applied to apocalyptic appeals. First is an application of the concept of universal audience, composed of all reasonable and competent people. A debater makes a good argument by satisfying the universal audience's motivations. The second tier of the methodology, psychological force, comes from the debater's use of the inherent power behind apocalyptic appeals. Debaters empower judges by enabling them to decide on an apocalyptic issue. Kenneth Burke's terms--identification, hierarchy, and transcendence--underscore the final stage of the methodology. Debaters must: (1) structure appeals to underscore identity with the audience; (2) use hierarchy to explain how a round should be decided; and (3) provide transcendence by enabling judges to choose the side that best prevents the apocalypse. Two case studies from elimination rounds of the CEDA National Tournament demonstrate how these methodological concepts are manifested. Understanding the mechanisms of apocalyptism can highlight the educational value of such appeals for debaters. Increased awareness of apocalyptic appeals among debaters, judges, and lay folk can only better serve CEDA, forensics, and society. (Fourteen references are attached.) (SG) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1992 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED341100 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED341100 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 21 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Audience Awareness Type: general – SubjectFull: Debate Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Identification (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Nuclear Warfare Type: general – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Public Speaking Type: general – SubjectFull: Rhetorical Criticism Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Dropping the Bomb in CEDA. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hubbard, Bryan K. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 10 Type: published Y: 1991 |
| ResultId | 1 |
