This paper aims to advance the level of argument made in the introductions of competitive forensic oral interpretation of literature events. It is argued that the status quo of arguments in oral interp introductions is overall sub-par, and perhaps limited. Connections are made between the goals of the oral interpretation introduction and current work in the scholarship of historicity. Akin to conclusions performance scholars have made, it is not the truth or falsity of literature or history which is of primary concern, but rather the (potential) generative nature of literature. Just as Pollock calls performance scholars to make history go rather than go away, I argue that as a parallel, we can make oral interpretation go rather than go away through the use of an expanded understanding of the use of an argument in the oral interpretation introduction. In lieu of an Aristotelian-only reading of argumentation in oral interpretation, we can take cues from both our performance studies and performance-based debate colleagues in order to inflate the possibilities of both meaningful and generative arguments in oral interpretation introductions. Implications for the competitive, educational, and game aspects of forensics are also offered.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
Swift, Crystal Lane
"Rejecting the Square Peg in a Round Hole: Expanding Arguments in Oral Interpretation Introductions,"
Speaker & Gavel: Vol. 46
, Article 4.
Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/speaker-gavel/vol46/iss1/4