Systematic Look at Events
I was judging a round of After Dinner Speaking last weekend, hoping for a laugh. Some competitors were successful through their use of wit, others used cheesy lines, and the last student was probably supposed to be entered in Persuasion. It was extremely difficult and frustrating to fill out the ballots. Should I have voted for the funniest person, the funniest looking person, or the most significant topic with some jokes thrown in at the end like laws on a California proposition? This is a question facing many individual events judges today, while the students competing in this event are equally confused. Although many forensics judges maintain that whoever can entertain them the most will take "the one" in an ADS round, AFA-NIET final rounds are consistently full of speeches jam packed with importance. This is just one example of how the waters of ADS have become murky. Since its inception, the After Dinner Speech has changed more than Hillary Clinton's stance on the war in Iraq. Therefore, it is important to analyze the communicative evolution of this event and the controversies that have arisen since its incarnation. In order to do so, we must first, peek into the past of After Dinner Speaking, ponder the present status of the event, and finally, have a premonition of how to pursue progression.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In Copyright https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en
"After Dinner Speaking: Problems, Causes, and Still No Solutions,"
Proceedings of the National Developmental Conference on Individual Events: Vol. 4:
1, Article 14.
Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/ndcieproceedings/vol4/iss1/14