Week 3 - Debate #2 Adjudicator

In the position of the adjudicator, I focused on the performance, presentation and structure of the case at hand, There is no inherent opposition between a live and mediated performance. Both teams maintained material from Phillip Auslander's 'Live Performance in a Mediatised Culture and introduced references throughout the debate, which allowed for a great understanding of the text.

The first speaker of the affirmative team stated their debate overview from the Auslander reading. That media has become the source of our "live" access to the world and that we depend on media to bring us to a pre-recorded "live experience" that constitutes as the "live". The debate was very close. The negative team provided strong, new information for the affirmative team as well as a lively, and entertaining delivery. I felt that they drew out a very strong case however I was not convinced that they were fighting for the 'opposition' of there being no connection of live performances opposed to mediatised performances. The first speaker of the negative team confused me early on. She gave information and quoted Auslander's reading about performance needing to be "live" in context to performance. She then drew out similarities between the "live" and the "mediatised" and that they work to the other's advantages however there was no direct statement or comment explaining their "inherent opposition". I felt that they continued to contrast the two and that you can have one without the other and vice versa. This, for me was not direct enough and believe it is why their case suffered. The case needed to be stronger.

Is there an inherent opposition between live and mediatised performance or not?

The affirmative team, I believe had the more difficult case in the sense that they had to "out perform" new information and structuralize their debate well enough to keep the audience and adjudicators asserted to the actual debate topic.

The second speaker of the affirmative team re-emphasized their understanding of their stance and rebutted that the "live" and the "mediated" do coexist together, which the negative team kindly pointed out for them. The second speaker also brought up the presence of the live audience makes the difference between the two cases and went on to solidify their statement by using the example by Auslander explaining that the live broadcast is not spatially co-present, which reasserts the idea that mediatised live broadcast purses certain quantities of a performance space but will never have the same spatial qualities. She went on to express the point from the reader that the media was a means to satisfy the mass culture, which didn't hold true to their case however the previous arguments cemented the comment.

The second speaker of the negative team did not create specific rebuttals to the affirmative teams case points, which was integral to the debate. She argued that there is a need for media and that there is a necessary appeal for it in a live performance, which was not necessarily a statement that was positive for her case. This is where I became uncertain with the stance that the negative team was taking. An interesting point that she did bring up was Peggy Phelan's ideology that mediatised recordings were altered copies and that rewatching a live performance was not being able to have a feel of a "live" atmosphere.

The third speaker of the affirmative team rebutted and concreted their arguments by reinstating that live performances and mediated performances are certainly separate entities however they are not in any inherent opposition. This statement strongly implies that the two performance projections don't necessarily fit well together.

The third speaker of the negative team could have rebutted this statement however chose to develop new concepts that didn't apply to our debate topic such as the early existence of performance and theatre spaces were made for the purpose of being "live". She also developed an argument surrounding the idea of mediatised dating such as Facebook and if this was all that occurred she could easily be in several relationships and the "live" aspects of dating would no longer be a hassle. I believe these statements could have been left out as they continued the idea that the live and the mediatised performance were two separate entities and not specifying the inherent opposition between the two performance types.

This is indeed why we did go with the affirmative teams case because in the end they stood by their case and did not back down from it, they defined it and strengthened it. The negative third speaker could have enhanced their debate and essentially won it had there been more of a push in the direction of the debate topic, the line was not held quite strong enough. I also believe that a lot of the negatives rebuttal and information was not relevant. The affirmative team themselves may not have delivered as well or as strong or charismatic for that fact. But they were convincing and stood by their case and that was what made them stronger.