Impromptu Editorializing
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines editorializing as "Introducing opinion into the reporting of facts". There's probably a "fake news" joke in there somewhere, but I'm gonna skip over that wall.
"Well what if I don't really know what I'm talking about, or aren't qualified to do this?"
Might I direct your attention to every politician in office. You can do this.
Impromptu editorializing is less predictable than the other variations so you're gonna have to think quick on your feet. Good thing we've worked on that for the last five posts. The prompt will sometimes be an opinion piece that critiques a news article, and other times it will be a news article that reports on a current event. Either way, your job is to discuss the article that you are given. We will look for weaknesses and strengths in the argumentation, decide if the author advocates for the appropriate action or response, and attempt to persuade the judge to agree with you as we do it.
The first thing we will need to do is skim the article. For this event, there will only be two minutes allotted for prep and you need to prepare five minutes worth of material. These articles are long so read quickly. Make sure you fully understand the article though, too many people misinterpret the stance because they read too quickly and skip too much. Then they sound like the kid in English class who gets called on and didn't read the book so he makes it all up.
Make sure to summarize. Give em the Spark Note version. If you don't know what that is, you were the diligent student in high school who read the entirety of the Iliad. Probably while stuffed in your own locker. Obviously we don't want to stand there reading the article for the first half of the speech. Make notes on what the main points are so that we can address them quickly and efficiently.
After summarizing the article to the judge so that they know what we are talking about (some of these judges are super lazy and didn't read the prompt beforehand) we can now move on to the points we wish to make.
Like I said, the articles are so varied it's almost impossible to predict what you're gonna see. But here are some thoughts to take into the round with you.
1. Look for flaws in the logic of the writer. Breaking news, they aren't perfect and they can make mistakes. Point these out, but be gracious should you choose to do so.
2. Help the audience decide to either agree or disagree with the article. The best way to do this is by elaborating on what was already said in the prompt. Explain why they are on the right track or not, and what the implications are.
3. Acknowledge that there is credence to the other side so that you don’t look like you ignore the opposing arguments. When you do this, be sure to focus on explaining why your side is still stronger and better. If done correctly, this will strengthen you side. One way to approach this is to say "Now some people might say *this* but here's why that's wrong." It shows you have considered both sides.
4. Some of these articles make predictions or give advice. Is it good and accurate? Explain why or why not.
With that, I leave you to give it a try. Bottom line – make sure to actually editorialize. Interject your own opinion. Choose a side. The worst thing you can do is agree with both, it makes you look wishy-washy. Unless you want a career in politics, then you'll have it made. Good luck!
"Well what if I don't really know what I'm talking about, or aren't qualified to do this?"
Might I direct your attention to every politician in office. You can do this.
Impromptu editorializing is less predictable than the other variations so you're gonna have to think quick on your feet. Good thing we've worked on that for the last five posts. The prompt will sometimes be an opinion piece that critiques a news article, and other times it will be a news article that reports on a current event. Either way, your job is to discuss the article that you are given. We will look for weaknesses and strengths in the argumentation, decide if the author advocates for the appropriate action or response, and attempt to persuade the judge to agree with you as we do it.
The first thing we will need to do is skim the article. For this event, there will only be two minutes allotted for prep and you need to prepare five minutes worth of material. These articles are long so read quickly. Make sure you fully understand the article though, too many people misinterpret the stance because they read too quickly and skip too much. Then they sound like the kid in English class who gets called on and didn't read the book so he makes it all up.
Make sure to summarize. Give em the Spark Note version. If you don't know what that is, you were the diligent student in high school who read the entirety of the Iliad. Probably while stuffed in your own locker. Obviously we don't want to stand there reading the article for the first half of the speech. Make notes on what the main points are so that we can address them quickly and efficiently.
After summarizing the article to the judge so that they know what we are talking about (some of these judges are super lazy and didn't read the prompt beforehand) we can now move on to the points we wish to make.
Like I said, the articles are so varied it's almost impossible to predict what you're gonna see. But here are some thoughts to take into the round with you.
1. Look for flaws in the logic of the writer. Breaking news, they aren't perfect and they can make mistakes. Point these out, but be gracious should you choose to do so.
2. Help the audience decide to either agree or disagree with the article. The best way to do this is by elaborating on what was already said in the prompt. Explain why they are on the right track or not, and what the implications are.
3. Acknowledge that there is credence to the other side so that you don’t look like you ignore the opposing arguments. When you do this, be sure to focus on explaining why your side is still stronger and better. If done correctly, this will strengthen you side. One way to approach this is to say "Now some people might say *this* but here's why that's wrong." It shows you have considered both sides.
4. Some of these articles make predictions or give advice. Is it good and accurate? Explain why or why not.
With that, I leave you to give it a try. Bottom line – make sure to actually editorialize. Interject your own opinion. Choose a side. The worst thing you can do is agree with both, it makes you look wishy-washy. Unless you want a career in politics, then you'll have it made. Good luck!
Comments
Post a Comment