July 4th, 2009 Tim Buck 2 Performance: The NEAs win again!
Were you at this performance? Let us know your thoughts and feedback. Hopefully this is the first stage of development for this project and we’d like to know what you thought.
Uncertain what this is all about?
Come check out Tim Buck 2 at the Toronto Fringe Festival to learn more.
Come on audience! It was supposed to be based on the arguments presented, not personal biases. And quite clearly Jody’s snakes and ladders anecdote takes the cake. *shakes his head in defeat*
Seriously, great show team – particularly the Air India monologue is still with me. I can’t wait to see what Praxis has in store for Summerworks.
Thanks for your feedback Michael. This actually raises an excellent point for me about the show. We haven’t been explicit about whether the debate should be determined by how people feel about the question in practice vs the argument presented and its persuasiveness on a given performance. Do you think we should clarify that point somehow? If so, got any suggestions?
i don’t think that this is about personal bias. clearly, the voters were swayed to the nea side by my gripping and well-rehearsed pot dealer speech from the floor.
I also thought the statement from the audience was interesting as well regarding some flaws in how we phrase the question to be debated. Could we phrase the question better?
The question of how the audience should vote is a good point to bring up. It certainly fosters a more playful experience to ask the audience to vote based on the merit of the debaters, but it might be an interesting poll about how people feel to ask them to vote based on thier opinions. I voted with my opinion when I saw the show, and both I and my theatre buddy felt like we had to chose the least wrong of the two. In any society, there will invariably come a time when some people will be infringed upon in order to protect the many. It’s nasty, it’s unfortunate, innocent people may be suspected of horrible things, and sometimes horrible things happen to those innocent people in an attempt to protect others. We’re human, and humans make mistakes, even with the best of intentions. It’s also true that sometimes people are lazy, sloppy and abuse this system with drastic and hideous results. Because the system is flawed doesn’t mean we should have no system of protection at all. Over the course of Canadian history, many groups and individuals have been infringed upon and had their rights taken away in the name of protection for others. Over time, our opinions and perspectives about the validity of these practises may have changed and developed, we may choose to label these actions right or wrong, but at the end of the day, those in power made a choice. They made choices using a flawed, imperfect system, undoubtabley with some ulterior motives at work, but they were trying to protect more people than they hurt. On the other hand, the question that was posed was is it ever right to take away the rights of the few in order to protect the many. Obviously, one’s first reaction is to say “No! That’s why they’re called rights, not privelges. How can we debate taking away someone’s rights?” Perhaps a subtler question is needed.
Have a wonderful run, I really enjoyed the show!
Thanks Kate. You make a very persuasive argument. I going to at least ask whoever draws Speaker of the House tonight to clarify why you should leave through a certain door, and we”l talk about what a better phrasing of the question could be for the second half of the run after the show tonight.
For the second half of the run you should switch the Yea and Nea doors (unless you already do that each show). I think people are habitually drawn to the door the enter.
Interesting: We actually had the signs reversed (with NAY at the front) for the first performance, but then we thought giving easy access to the beer tent would be too enticing for an already biased audience, so we switched the signs for the 2nd and 3rd performances. No matter where the signs are, we seem to begetting similar numbers in favour of NAY though: 33 -9, 47 -16, 50-11.
In recognition of the fact that a Fringe audience that has opted to see a play about Communists will approach the material with a heavy bias, we are changing the instructions to the audience: to vote not on your beliefs concerning civil rights, but on which side (the gov’t or the opposition), presents a more compelling and well-argued position in the time allotted. This will actually make this element of the show truer to competitive debating, and hopefully will add some suspense to the exercise.