Hope you guys find this interesting... maybe you will end up at school with them.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/
The problem is that they don't debate; they just really good at evoking emotion.
OMGLOLBBQ!!!To borrow the xoxohth tradition: "TTTrash, 120"."Fire and brimstone" isn't going to do jack sh*t come bar exam time. I love how the article somehow implies that because a) these are law students and b) they are successful competitive debaters that c) they must be brilliant legal minds. Fraid' A does not equal C, and if they or anyone else thinks so, they're in for a shock.
I do believe that law should be as independent of them [ethos and pathos] as is humanly possible.
Actually, yes. According to my old roomie, depending on the tournament, one quarter to one half of most competitions are graded on "rhetorical ability" -- not the actual legitimacy and substance of their argument.I'd also like to point out that the article has a further explanation: funding the team so that it can attend virtually every competition. Places like Harvard only fund the teams for the big tournaments.
My old roommate was a national debate champion in high school, and even though she's devoutly religious (Russian Orthodox, though), she says they're the most frustrating people on the planet. The problem is that they don't debate; they just really good at evoking emotion.