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 |
| 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) |
|---|
