Treating debates as a performance

Re “Does this debase debate?” Column One, Dec. 12

“Performance debating” is fine if your only objective is to win. People can strip, rap or perform whatever theatrics they want. But the win is in a carefully controlled academic environment. In the real world, you can’t strip at a job interview, nor can you rap to convince your co-workers that you have the best idea at a meeting.

As a former debater, I can say that the traditional approach of researching both sides of an issue was invaluable in teaching me how to approach life and deal with everyday issues. I don’t mind kids doing performance debating, but it doesn’t teach them anything except how to audition for a reality show. In fact, it just reduces job competition for the rest of us.

RAYMOND TAM

Temple City

*

If performance debating proves to be more persuasive than a traditional oral presentation, then it belongs in the competition. If, however, it reflects an emphasis on form over content, the judges are to blame for validating performance debating. If the judges are being bamboozled by distractions and persuaded by shock value, then the problem college debating faces is not performance art but the quality of judging.

KEVIN CAVANAUGH

Costa Mesa

*

Performance debating does debase debate. Jon Bruschke, coach of the Cal State Fullerton debate team, reveals a superficial understanding of Aristotle’s discussion of the role of the appeal to an audience’s emotions when he claims that Aristotle ranked emotion equal to logic as a tool for seeking truth. Not true. I suggest Bruschke read more carefully Aristotle’s classic, “The Art of Rhetoric.”

GARY NAGY

Gardena