Syllabus Spring 2015
COMM 4323 Forensics
8:00 am to 9:20
in 244 Umphrey Lee on Tuesday & Thursdays
Dr. Ben Voth
Instructor: Dr. Ben Voth
Office: 247 Umphrey Lee
email: bvoth@smu.edu
website: Blackboard and benvoth.com
Office hours: Tuesday; Wednesdays 10-11:00
Purpose: This course increases student understanding of advanced public speaking
through the specific practice of forensics. Forensics is composed of individual events
speaking and debate. Various formats of competitive public advocacy will be performed in
order to make students more advanced public speakers overall and prepare them for local,
national, and global advocacy.
Learning outcomes: Students will:
-- confidently perform speeches indicating proper form and delivery.
-- demonstrate attention to the details of current events pertaining to the American public sphere
with a particular emphasis on politics
--demonstrate mastery of individual event speeches such as impromptu speaking, public address,
and interpretation
--demonstrate mastery of debate events such as research, constructive speeches, rebuttals, and
cross examination
-- demonstrate awareness of basic techniques in rhetorical analysis through written assignments - demonstrate mastery of course content through exams
-- engage in classroom discussions regarding the principals of rhetorical study as they apply to
major speeches and current events
--complete successful interractions of judging to help younger competitors learn speech and
debate
Textbook: The Rhetoric of Genocide: Death as a Text-- Voth
Assignments:
Impromptu Speeches (100): Students will react to a current event question and provide a 34 minute answer to the question. Students will have four minutes to prepare their answer to
the question.
Quizzes (50): Students will regularly receive five or more current event questions designed
to stimulate regular study of the news.
Community forensics volunteering (100): Students will attend two outside class events
supporting speech and debate activities in a community such as the Dallas Urban Debate
Alliance. Students will judge at least two rounds of activity per event (This means four
ballots in total). Students must produce proof of their attendance at the event. Joseph
Reyes is a contact person for DUDA events which are easy to access and help with
(joseph@dallasurbandebate.org).
Speech Event (100): Students will perform a memorized speech conforming to genres
described in the course.
Judging (50): Students will complete ballots for all in class competition events.
Public debates (50): Students must attend and participate in two public debate events.
These events are typically at 7-8 pm in the evening.
Class debate (200): Students will create evidence and debate in class with a partner. topics
will be created for the debates.
Alumni contacts (100): Students will find students who competed in speech and debate at
SMU from that past century. Students should do historical research to find out pictures
and at least five names of people who did this at SMU in the past.
Grading Scale:
Impromptu speeches
Alumni listings
IE speech
Debate research
Quizzes
Judging in Class
Foren volunteer
Public debates
Debate
TOT AL
A = 940 and above
A- = 939 to 896
B+ = 895 to 850
B = 849 to 820
B - = 819 to 796
C+ = 795 to 750
C = 749 to 720
C- = 719 to 696
Below is D or F
Syllabus
TR Spring 2015
100
100
100
100
200
100
50
50
200
1000
January
20
What is Rhetoric? Why we study communication & argumentation?
22
Speeches of introduction/ Extemporaneous speaking
27
Extemporaneous speaking/ Judging
29
Argumentative speaking
February
3
Extemp speeches 1
5
Extemp speeches 2
10
Farmer vs. Alinsky
12
Basics of debate/ Judging Debates
17
Resolution/ Research
19
Problems in Reasoning/ Fallacies
24
Evaluating Evidence
25
Is Reality secular? lecture: Mary Poplin
26
Judging and the ballot
Feb 28 weekend
UTD Dallas Debate tournament
March
3
Review
4
Voth sermon on Christianity & Intellectual life @ Underground
5
Midterm Exam
10
Spring Break
12
Spring Break JCCC Debate nationals in Kansas City
17
Extemp round 2 on Debate resolution
19
Extemp round 2 on Debate resolution
24
Bush Presidential Conference-Hofstra/ Research
26
Bush Presidential Conference-Hofstra/ Research
31
James Farmer Jr. & the Great Debaters
April
2
Flowing and debate organization
7
Constructive speeches in a debate
9
Rebuttal speeches
14
Cross examination
16
Review
21
TBA
23
TBA
28
Debate 1
30
Debate 2
May
Final Exam
MAY 7 Thursday
3pm to 6pm
3 pm Debate 3
4 pm Debate 4
5 pm Debate 5
Debate topic 2014- 2015
Resolved: The United States should
legalize all or nearly all of one or more
of the following in the United States:
marihuana, online gambling,
physician-assisted suicide, prostitution,
the sale of human organs.
Ukraine Presidential power global agression disadvantage
A. Link-- Reducing Presidential Military incites global aggression and war
Cliff May 2014 http://townhall.com/columnists/cliffmay/2014/03/13/punish-putinn1808039?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl President of the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies.
Si vis pacem, para bellum: That’s Latin for "If you want peace, prepare for war,” a doctrine dating back
to Plato. President Obama does not subscribe to it. Instead, he assures us that the “tide of war is receding.”
But Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, continues to spin centrifuges. Al Qaeda forces are
fighting in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and North Africa. China is throwing around its growing military weight –
including a 12% increase in military spending for 2014. And, again, Putin’s troops have seized Crimea,
six years after having taken two big bites out of Georgia.
You don’t have to be Clausewitz to see that this is the wrong moment for the United States to take another
“peace dividend,” to shrink the military, reduce capabilities and readiness.
The list above is by no means exhaustive. The point is to adopt policies that will make the United States
stronger -- economically, militarily and by extension diplomatically. Nothing is more likely to cause Putin
to regret his actions and think hard before repeating them elsewhere. Nothing would send a clearer
message to Iran, China and other aspiring empire-builders.
“You don’t just in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion,” Secretary of State John Kerry said the
other day. That’s true in the sense that top hats and petticoats are no longer stylish. Despotism, however,
seems to be making a comeback. In consequence, the United States has 21st century responsibilities. If
we’re unwilling or unable to shoulder them, no one else will.
Uniqueness: Now is the key time to maintain presidential power to prevent global aggression
Cliff May 2014 http://townhall.com/columnists/cliffmay/2014/03/13/punish-putinn1808039?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl President of the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies.
But what can an American president do? No one expects Barack Obama to put “boots on the
ground.” Serious economic warfare – using “banks instead of tanks” as Russian dissident Garry
Kasparov has proposed – may be impossible because Europeans have grown dependent on
Russia for natural gas.
The answer is not to posture. Nor, I think, is it to punish Russia directly. Instead, recognize that
Putin, along with Iran’s Supreme Leader, China’s rulers and other dubious international actors,
regard the diminution of American power as their strategic goal, a necessary precondition for
the achievement of their regional and global ambitions.
So make it clear that the weakening of America stops right here and right now. Do that by
implementing policies to strengthen America. That will frustrate our adversaries and enemies,
and bolster our allies.
Teaching philosophy of Ben Voth
November 30, 2013
My teaching purpose is to equip individuals to have their voice.
Philosophically, I approach this from a rhetorical tradition of study. Rooted as far back as
Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric-- the faculty of observing in any given situation, all available
means of persuasion-- rhetorical study seeks to guide students in discovering how to best
convince an audience. Methodologically, I teach this perspective in may ways: argumentation,
debate, public speaking, rhetorical criticism of speeches, textual analysis, and other forms of
communication study. As suggested by my list, my philosophy for equipping individuals to have
a voice in society is rooted primarily in my experience and expertise as a debate coach.
I believe that the ethical conditions of our human societies depends upon free communication
and individuals capable of carrying this out. A principal I articulate in all courses is an ethical
condition known as: discursive complexity. Discursive complexity is the capacity of an
individual, group, organization, or society to entertain and consider multiple points of view.
Without this, our ethical condition is terminal and with it, our opportunities and strength grow. I
believe every person should be equipped to speak and communicate in order to best preserve and
improve the future. Ideas mean little unless they are communicated. Because there are so many
ideas competing in the midst of limited time and resources, quality of communication is vital to
this ethical process.
At a deep philosophical and even theological level, I seek to improve the human ability to “love
one another.” Though often romanticized, love is simply meeting the needs of another person.
Human beings have a need to communicate. In communicating, we meet our needs and the
needs of our fellow human beings. Martin Luther King, a great American rhetor, explained the
communication principal bearing on this philosophical point:
“Men often hate each other because they fear each other;
they fear each other because they don't know each other;
they don't know each other because
they cannot communicate.”
I teach individuals to have a voice, so that their lives can be better and therefore all of society can
be better. Whether I was teaching Holocaust survivors, city employees, college freshman,
accomplished seniors, fellow faculty, high school students or any member of the community; I
taught them to speak so the world could be better and more easily be changed from the world
that is to the world that should be. Communication makes that possible.
When I look for outcomes in my teaching, I look for evidence of this better world. I think when
you examine my academic record-- my students and my writing-- this is what you will find: a
world of people better able to have their voice and make the better world with that voice.
Syllabus alternatives:
Students have the option of doing more advanced work in exchange for higher point values.
These higher point values will allow students to forego other parts of the curriculum.
Optional values:
250 points
Performing a public debate
500 points
Completing a full speech or debate tournament
[see calendar of tournaments in syllabus]
These options are limited by the resources and time of the overall forensics program.
Time Limits are 6-2-4 with 5 minutes prep !-- Spring 2015
2015 Southern Methodist University Debate Ballot
Division__________ Round_______ Room: UL
______ Judge ___________________
Affirmative______________________________ Negative ____________________________
1st Affirmative
2nd Affirmative
1st Negative
2nd Negative
_________ __________
_______________
____________
________________
Total_____Rank_____
Total_____ Rank____
Total_____ Rank____
Total_______ Rank______
In my opinion, this debate was won by _________________ representing the_______________.
Judge’s Name___________________________ School affiliation: _______________________
Comments and RFD
Speaking quality [100pts]
Research Materials [100 pts]
1st Affirmative constructive
rebuttal speech
1st Negative:
2nd Affirmative:
2nd Negative:
RFD: [Reason for Decision]