Discovering the World Through Debate : A Practical Guide to Educational Debate for Debaters, Coaches, and Judges [4 ed.] 9781617701030, 9781617700897

Citation preview

Discovering the World through Debate FOURTH EDITION

Discovering the World through Debate A Practical Guide to Educational Debate for Debaters, Coaches, and Judges FOURTH EDITION

Nick Bibby

International Debate Education Association New York, London & Amsterdam

Published by International Debate Education Association P.O. Box 922 New York, NY 10009 Copyright © 2014 by International Debate Education Association This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

This book is published with the generous support of the Open Society Foundations. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Discovering the world through debate : a practical guide to educational debate for debaters, coaches, and judges / Nick Bibby. -- Fourth Edition. pages cm Previous edition: 2005. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-61770-089-7 1. Debates and debating. I. Bibby, Nick. PN4181.D75 2014 808.5’3--dc23 2013042027

Design by Kathleen Hayes Printed in the USA

for Marc

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Part 1: Core Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chapter 1: Successful Debating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What Is Debate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What Do Debaters Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 What Are the Attributes of a Successful Debater? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter 2: How to Structure a Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The First Task Is to Communicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Basic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Introductions and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Brief Note on Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Body of the Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 3: Argumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 What Do We Mean by an Argument? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 What Makes a Good Argument? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Putting the Pieces Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 What Makes People Believe an Argument? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Consistency and Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Chapter 4: Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 What Is Rebuttal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 What Does Rebuttal Look Like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Rebuttal and Substantive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Process of Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Reactive Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Proactive Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Types of Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Strategic Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Managing Your Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Chapter 5: Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 What Is Evidence? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Sources of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Newspapers (Print and Online) and News Shows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Magazines, Blogs, and Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Books and Lectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Think Tanks, NGOs, International Bodies, Academic Centers, and Government Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

viii 

Discovering the World through Debate



Corroborating Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Evaluating Standards of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Chapter 6: Critical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 What Is Critical Thinking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 What Is Critical Thinking in Debate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 What Skills Are Involved in Thinking Critically? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 How Is Critical Thinking Applied in Debate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Transferability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Chapter 7: Active Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Hearing and Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Being an Active Listener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Why Use Active Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Using Active Listening in Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 What Is Actually Being Said? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Why Is This Being Said? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 What Isn’t Being Said? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Deafened by Style and Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Part 2: Debate Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Chapter 8: Karl Popper Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Important Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Preparation and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Cross-Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Contents ix

Preparation Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Refutation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter 9: British Parliamentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 “Top Half” of the Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 “Bottom Half” of the Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Important Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Chapter 10: World Schools Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Important Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Content, Style, and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Reserve Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Points of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Chapter 11: Asian Parliamentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Important Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Reply Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Secret Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

x 

Discovering the World through Debate



Part 3: Debate in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Chapter 12: Viewing the Debate as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Viewing the Debate from the Outside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Teamwork in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Individual Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Chapter 13: Opening Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 First Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 The Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 First Affirmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 The Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 The Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 First Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Case Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Laying Solid Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Establishing a Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Chapter 14: Elaboration and Extension: The Role of Middle Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Tidying Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 The Roles of Middle Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Middle Speakers in Three-Speaker Formats (World Schools and Asians) . . . . . 135 Role of Second Speaker in the Karl Popper Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Role of Middle Speakers in Four-Speaker Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Moving Toward the Endgame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Contents xi

Chapter 15: Closing Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Distinguishing Between Summation and Reply Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Role of the Closing Speakers and Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Functions of the Closing Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Summation Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Summation by Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Summation by Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Reply Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Biased Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Part 4: Debate Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Chapter 16: Preparation Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Preparing for a Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Principles of Short and Long Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Short-Notice Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Long-Notice Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Peculiarities of First Affirmative Speakers and Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 To Write or Not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 In-Debate Preparation Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Informal Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Formal In-Debate Prep Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Chapter 17: Taking and Using Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Some Notes About Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Recording the Whole Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Speaker’s Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

xii 

Discovering the World through Debate



Notes for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Chapter 18: Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Why Time Limits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 External Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Internal Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Sensing Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Chapter 19: Manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 The Absolute Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Audibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Volume, Pitch, and Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Body Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Mannerisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Remember the Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Sound As Though You Mean It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Chapter 20: Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination . . . . . 187 Points of Information and Cross-Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Have a Goal in Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Tying Questions to Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Types of Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Offering Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Delivering Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Responding to Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Timing of Hard Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Points of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Cross-Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Contents xiii

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Chapter 21: Soft Interaction—Clash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Setting Up Clash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 The Role of First Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Running Through the Whole Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 How to Identify Clash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Different Lines of Clash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Clash and Final Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Chapter 22: Understanding the Adjudicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Adjudicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 The Basic Tasks of an Adjudicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 What’s Catching the Adjudicator’s Attention? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Helping the Adjudicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Roadmapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Listening to the Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Bibliography and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

xiv 

Discovering the World through Debate

Preface

Discovering the World Through Debate is a guide to educational debate. It is intended to help you understand and acquire the skills you’ll need as a debater and to give you information on and an insight into four of the world’s most popular styles. Every effort has been made to ensure that each chapter builds on those that go before, so you’ll find it most useful if you follow the chapters and tackle the exercises in order. However, poring over every page and memorizing every word would still not replace the experience of witnessing a debate live or, preferably, of participating in one. Debate is not a body of knowledge than can be absorbed, regurgitated, and then set aside. It is a practical methodology that should affect how you interact with other people and their ideas. If you win every debate you ever speak in and end up with a cabinet-full of trophies and awards but don’t use the critical skills of the debater in the outside world, then you will have somewhat missed the point. There are many ways to debate, but they all have the same goal: to gain and demonstrate the capacity to examine and evaluate ideas in a critical and objective manner, whether those ideas are other people’s or our own. The book is divided into four sections, each one of which will provide insight into how to participate in a debate and do so successfully. Part 1 begins with two chapters on what a debater does and how she might measure success. Later chapters then examine some of the debater’s foundational skills: how to deliver a speech, approach evidence, listen and think critically about what others have said, as well as how to build logically consistent arguments and rebut the arguments put forward by others. By the end of this section, you should have a clear understanding that learning how to find evidence, appreciate what others are saying, and think about the issues under discussion are as valuable as the rhetorical skills that you will acquire through debating. Indeed, they’re fundamentally intertwined, reinforcing one another, and, as each one improves, the others improve also. The purpose of Part 1 is to provide a basis for what comes next, and that is reflected in the exercises. In this section, only the exercises in Chapter 2 ask you to actually speak in a debate. The rest require you to practice certain key skills without the additional pressures

of structuring and delivering a speech. The later chapters of the book will provide plenty of opportunity to put these skills into practice in real debates. Part 2 explains the workings of four popular debate formats: Karl Popper, British Parliamentary, World Schools, and Asian Parliamentary. In large part, these are four ways of tackling the same task—critically examining an issue—thus, what unites them is vastly greater than what divides them. Each format emphasizes different aspects of debate, but all four demand the same skills—although how those skills are demonstrated may vary. All four require participants to be able to identify a problem with precision, propose and test a solution, demonstrate the merits and weaknesses of that proposal, and prove or bring into question its superiority to the alternatives. There’s nothing magical about any of the rules, and none of the formats is better or worse than the others. If you find one more enjoyable than the others, so be it, but you will gain insights from using all four. You will notice that this section has no exercises. That’s because the best “exercise” for applying the abstract concepts in these chapters is observing and participating in debate. Inevitably, the description of any set of rules is confusing without seeing them in context, so watching debates will make them far clearer. Read a chapter, watch a debate in the relevant format, read the chapter again, and then organize a practice debate in that format. The rules will then really make more sense. Part 3 shows you how you put the theoretical knowledge you gained in the previous sections into practice. Its opening chapter views debate holistically and chapter first outlines the process of debate: 1. Frame the issue. The Affirmative, the team in support of the motion, addresses the question: What is the question to be answered or the problem to be solved? 2. Propose the solution. The Affirmative offers a definition delineating the motion in more detail. 3. Identify weaknesses. The Negative, the team in opposition to the motion, describes what’s wrong with the proposal as defined or puts forward an alternative they can demonstrate to be preferable. 4. Give context to evidence. The Affirmative offers arguments for and the Negative against the proposal. And, at the same time, 5. Respond to criticism. Both teams offer arguments countering what the other side has said. 6. Tie the case back to the issue framed in point one. Each team demonstrates that it has proved their case and the other side has failed.

2 

Discovering the World through Debate



By working through this process collectively, members of each team present a complete picture to the audience. Chapters then take you through the speeches in the order they occur in a debate and ground them in the wider context of how a debate works. They explain the role of each speaker in the debate and also examine how the team must work together to create a robust, coherent case that will win the debate. Exercises in this section ask you to watch debates and analyze how expert debaters handle the various components of a debate. Up to this point, the text has focused on how to debate. Part 4 explains how to debate well. What has gone before sets out the rules and the protocols of debating; this section tells you what you must do to win a debate. It addresses the practical issues that you will confront: how to use preparation time, take notes, pace your speech, deal with Points of Information and cross-examination, use manner (style) effectively, and ensure clash. The ideas presented throughout this book don’t set out a “right” way for you to speak as a debater. They are just ideas that have worked and that you might want to try. That’s particularly true of this last section—it’s full of suggestions to help you, but it’s just as important for you to find out what works for you personally and what doesn’t. The exercises in this section focus on understanding and then polishing your debating skills. Alongside the exercises, you should now begin organizing debates to put your abstract knowledge into practice. Debate really can only be learned by doing, so begin speaking in debates regularly. In your first debates, don’t be strict about particular rules. As long as both sides have the same amount of time to prove their case, there’s an opportunity for the cases to develop throughout the debate and there’s a means by which the two sides can interact—the other details can come later. However, you may find it useful to have some trial debates in the four formats set out here to give you a feel for which approach you prefer. Through the process of debate we challenge ourselves and others to question their own ideas and assumptions and investigate a perspective that is not their own. In offering a forum in which to reject ideas that are really just habits and opinions that are simply assertions, a debate provides a crucible in which knowledge, judgments, claims, and values can be tested. Doing so allows us to refine, temper, and clarify our understanding of the world around us and, through that process, discover it anew. As you will see, debate is both challenging and enjoyable. Have fun and good luck! Nick Bibby June 10, 2014

Preface 3

Acknowledgments Thanks are due to the authors of previous editions, Robert Trapp, Joseph P. Zompetti, Jurate Motiejunaite, and William Driscoll. Although this edition is a full rewrite, I hope that they will see it as an appropriate development of their work and consider the new text as a useful stage in an ongoing process. Thanks are also due to IDEBATE Press for the opportunity to work on this project and, in particular, to my editor, Eleanora von Dehsen, without whose endless patience, encouragement, and expertise this book would probably not have been started and certainly not have been finished. My thanks are also due to Carole Campbell for copyediting the manuscript. I am also grateful to Sharmila Parmanand and Irena Kotíková for their efforts in reviewing the format chapters in Part Two and to Irene McGrath who came through in splendid style with guidance on certain aspects of the World Schools format. Chapter 17 on notes is hugely improved by the addition of an example of debaters’ shorthand and I am grateful to Emily Ravenscroft-Stuckenbruck for allowing me to reproduce her work. I am also grateful for the advice and guidance of various friends and colleagues, notably Professor Stephen M. Llano, Professor Sean Corner, Neill Harvey-Smith, Ray D’Cruz, Andy Hume, and Chris Elliott for their advice relating to aspects of the chapters on critical thinking, argumentation, and manner, as well as for their friendship and support throughout the process and in so many other projects.

Part 1: Core Skills

CHAPTER 1

Successful Debating

Debating is a tool we can use to question the assumptions that people, including ourselves, make about our world and how it works. This chapter will elaborate on this statement. After a brief explanation of the basics of debate, the chapter will suggest some ways in which a debater’s success can be measured, not necessarily in terms of wins and losses but in terms of her own progress as a debater and growth as an engaged and thoughtful person. In other words; if the debater never wins a single debate, let alone a competition, can she be said to have succeeded as a debater? The answer is a resounding “yes.”

What Is Debate? Debate is a way of testing ideas by disagreeing with other people. An idea is phrased as a motion (sometimes called a “topic” or “resolution”)—a standardized statement on which the two sides will disagree. Each person involved in a debate is either for or against the motion so that an equal number of debaters are on either side. Those in favor of the motion are referred to as the “Affirmative” and those against it are called the “Negative” (some debate formats use other terminologies). The side of a debate on which an individual speaker finds himself does not necessarily reflect his personal opinion on the motion. In any formal debate, each side has the same amount of time to prove their case (their position on the motion) and the same opportunities to demonstrate the weaknesses in the arguments of the other side. Participants take turns delivering a speech for their side. First, a member of the Affirmative team will speak in support of the motion; then a member of the Negative team will argue against it. The third speaker (Affirmative) will then argue in support and address issues raised by the previous speaker, and so on until everyone has spoken.

In some formats, speakers may deliver more than one speech; in some, they can interrupt opposing speakers at certain times to ask a question or raise a short point; in still others, they have opportunities to cross-examine speakers from the other side. Regardless of the format, the basic predicate of any debate is that it must be fair—all teams should have an equal chance to argue their case. The debate is largely decided on the basis of the clash of ideas. Teams first set out their case in a series of arguments that attempt to prove that their position is the most reasonable way to address the motion. Affirmative speakers try to demonstrate that the course of action or set of beliefs required by the motion is logical, moral, and practical; conversely, Negative speakers try to demonstrate that such actions or beliefs are inconsistent, ethically questionable, or simply unworkable. Speakers for the Affirmative need to demonstrate that their proposal would be an improvement on the status quo, whereas speakers for the Negative have the choice of demonstrating either that Affirmative’s proposal would be worse than the status quo or that a different course of action is available that would be better still. Speakers also rebut the arguments of the other side, trying to show that their opponents’ arguments are inconsistent, contradictory, or based on questionable evidence. The objective of a debate—how you win—is to persuade an impartial observer (usually called an “adjudicator” or a “judge”) that your team has the better case. The decision about who has won is made on the basis of which team presented the most persuasive case rather than preconceived ideas in the minds of the adjudicators. This, in large part, will relate to the quality of your evidence and the logic of your arguments. However, it would be impossible to cover every aspect of the available material in the allotted time or answer every conceivable question that your listener might have. As a result, you are also seeking to attract the adjudicator to your case by demonstrating that your perspective is the most reasonable; that your overall approach sees to the heart of the issue more clearly than the other team(s). You want the adjudicator to feel that the other side may have made many interesting points about, for example, political feasibility or economic development but that your perspective—that the issue under debate is really one of democratic renewal or social justice—most clearly addresses the framework by which the debate should be understood.

10 

Discovering the World through Debate



What Do Debaters Do? A debate can be thought of as a battle of ideas. It’s those ideas that do the fighting, with the debaters acting as generals and directing them on a field of well-crafted language. In developing those ideas, a debater has three basic tools: arguments, cases, and rebuttal. In this section, we’ll take a quick look at what these three are and how they work.

ARGUMENTS

When debaters refer to “an argument,” they don’t mean a verbal fight between two people. Instead, they define an argument as a complete unit of thought offered in support of their case. An argument demonstrates that the motion is either a good or bad idea depending on whether the speaker is a member of the Affirmative or Negative. An argument will usually contain three elements: a claim that something is true, evidence in support of that claim, and a method of linking the evidence and the claim, sometimes called a “warrant.” Let’s look at an example of an argument from a debate on using nuclear power. The speaker is a member of the Negative side and is arguing that the time taken in reprocessing nuclear fuels is immoral because it requires future generations to bear the risks and costs of a decision made by this generation: According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there are “millions of gallons of radioactive waste” as well as “thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material.” Some of this latter material, in particular, will remain dangerous to all known life-forms for millions of years [evidence]. It is an acknowledged that in the areas of both politics and law that one generation cannot obligate the next, we routinely hear concern expressed that we should not hand on debt to generations as yet unborn, and we are increasingly aware that our climate is also their climate, our natural resources are theirs, too, the biodiversity that gave to us so richly should also belong to our descendants. Despite this, we are bequeathing a waste product—toxic, deadly, and expensive to contain— to generations that will be born at a date many multiples of years hence than the entire period of human history to date [warrant]. It is deeply unjust that those who have not chosen to use this technology should shoulder the bulk of the risk and the cost in clearing it up [claim].

The speaker starts with evidence, presents a warrant by drawing analogies with other recognized social activities, and then makes her claim that these principles should also apply in this particular case.

Successful Debating 11

You could imagine the process as a pyramid with a solid basis of evidence at the bottom supporting a more general statement about social activity (the warrant) and finally a claim about this particular situation sitting on the top.

CLAIM

WARRANT

EVIDENCE

CASES

If you think of your own experience, you rarely believe or do something for one reason. Usually we are convinced only when several lines of reasoning justify that decision. Take the decision to buy an ice cream cone. Chances are that several factors would need to coincide for you to buy one:

• The weather is hot. • A stand nearby is selling them. • The price of the ice cream is affordable. If any one of these factors is missing, you probably skip the cone. The same principle applies in a debate. Rarely will a single argument persuade an adjudicator—just as it would be unlikely to persuade an audience, who the adjudicator represents. As a result, debaters will put forward several arguments to support their case. For their case to be effective, the arguments need to point in the same direction without contradicting one another. So, if the Affirmative were to support the decision to commission

12 

Discovering the World through Debate



new nuclear reactors or deploy troops, they would have to demonstrate that the decision was desirable, possible, and timely. They would attempt to build a case that proved the motion is in tune with the popular will, won’t bankrupt the treasury, and is appropriate to the wider national or international situation.

REBUTTAL

While the debater is trying to prove her case, she is also trying to demonstrate that the other side has failed to prove theirs. In a debate, the interaction between speakers—offering the listener alternatives—is fundamental. However, if each team simply announced what they thought, with no way of comparing the two positions, you might as well decide the outcome with the toss of a coin. The debater’s objective is not just to establish that her case is simply good, but that it’s better than the alternative put forward by the other side. To do so, she points out that her opponent’s ideas won’t work or are immoral, unaffordable, or, frequently, have nothing to do with topic of the debate—although they may appear to at first glance. Often, speakers will contend that the arguments put forward by the other team are all well and good in themselves but have unintended consequences that outweigh any conceivable benefits.

What Are the Attributes of a Successful Debater? All debaters bring a different blend of skills, knowledge, and experience to the tasks of building and rebutting arguments and cases. However, there are certain traits that the successful debater can expect to develop as he progresses in the art. This list sets out these likely attributes, which we discuss in more depth in later chapters.

• An appreciation for clash. The controversial issues in a debate, those that will be the source of the disagreement between the two sides, are referred to as “points of clash.” Correctly identifying these points is important because doing so enables a debater to guide the adjudicator to the important areas of contention and identify why her team has the stronger arguments. (We look at clash in greater depth in Chapter 21.)

• Well-honed critical thinking skills. Much of a debater’s progress relates not to the fluency or power with which she argues a particular position, but, rather, how she thinks about her position and that of her opponent. A critical thinker will analyze her arguments and question those of her opponents. Trying to list all of the questions that a critical thinker might ask in any given situation would be both time-consuming and unhelpful. Instead, critical thinking is better conceived of as an attitude that is unwilling to

Successful Debating 13

believe that things are as they immediately appear to be. The critical thinker is as wary of received wisdom as she is sceptical of evident truth. When in doubt, question. Without question, doubt. (Critical thinking is discussed further in Chapter 6.)

• Excellent listening skills. In everyday conversation, we often hear what we expect to hear—assuming that the person who is speaking is telling the truth and that he has thought through what he’s saying. Frequently, even when he has said something that is clearly wrong, we let it slide, assuming that it is a mistake and that no harm is meant or will result. However, a debater listens more actively and is alert to slips in logic or unfounded assertions. The active listener also keeps an ear out for what is not said, the critical piece of information that has been glossed over or conveniently forgotten. (See more detail on active listening in Chapter 7.)

• Clear leadership skills. A good debater leads her audience. She clearly outlines and structures her speech. She knows what content can be covered quickly and where the audience or adjudicator will need more help to see the logic of the argument. Where necessary, she points out difficulties and then explains how to get through them. (We discuss some approaches to guiding an audience in Chapter 2.)

• An evidential understanding of the world. Good debaters are good researchers. They read newspapers and blogs, keep up-to-date with current affairs, and have a working knowledge of the current disputes in a range of social policy areas. They know where to find evidence, and, just as important, they know how to evaluate whether that evidence will be strong and persuasive. (Evidence is discussed further in Chapter 5.)

• The empathy to understand the perspective of another. Debate requires a speaker to argue positions that she does not personally hold. Being required to do so allows her not only to appreciate the strengths of that position but also to identify the weaknesses in her own—and then to either rectify those failings or, in some cases, abandon that position. She develops a growing empathy for those who disagree with her and realizes that they are neither bad nor mad—they may simply have followed a different intellectual path. Yet, it would be untrue to deduce from this that a debater must assume that all positions are equally valid. She is likely to conclude that the validity of a position comes more from the rigor with which it has been established than from the position per se.

14 

Discovering the World through Debate



Conclusion To answer in greater detail the question posed in the introduction—can a debater who never wins a debate be said to be successful—requires an understanding of why we learn debate in the first place. Ultimately, we do so not to become brilliant debaters, although that is no mean accomplishment, rather, it is to acquire certain skills that will prove useful in both in education and in wider life. You may have noticed that “a confident public speaker” is not one of the attributes of a successful debater listed above. This is, in part, because it should be self-evident but also because it can be a distraction. Debate does improve public speaking skills; however, that is not the be all and end all of learning to debate. Of course, it is unlikely—more than unlikely—that the imaginary debater with these attributes will not have won a debate. Even were that the case, she could still quite comfortably describe herself as a successful debater because she can develop arguments logically and in a manner that is easy to follow, hear inconsistencies and confusion in the arguments of others, use logic and evidence to reach decisions, and appreciate that someone with whom she disagrees is not a bad person, although he may be a person with a bad argument.

EXERCISE

Watch a debate online or, if possible, live. If you don’t have the opportunity to see a live debate, the Appendix has a list of websites where you can watch recorded debates. 1. Act as the adjudicator for the debate and take notes as the debate progresses. 2. Discuss in a group who you think won. You should not focus on the debate topic or on which side you agree with personally. Instead, focus on which team had the most persuasive arguments:

• Who used evidence the most effectively? • Whose arguments were the most logical? • Who was most involved in the debate, interacting well with other participants? • Who guided you most clearly through her own speech and gave the best insights into those of other speakers?

Successful Debating 15

3. In many competitive debates, adjudicators are required to give feedback to the speakers, explaining their decision about who won the debate. Write feedback for the winning and losing teams. Make sure to mention both what they did well and how they could improve.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Debate is a way of testing ideas. • A debate involves two sides who present opposing views on the same issue. • Debate centers around the interaction of the speakers, with speakers trying to prove their own case while demonstrating that the other side has failed to prove theirs.

• Debaters use carefully constructed formal arguments to support their position. • Speakers may be arguing a position with which they do not, personally, agree. • The progress of a debater is better measured by the acquisition of certain skills and abilities than by a defined body of knowledge.

16 

Discovering the World through Debate

CHAPTER 2

How to Structure a Speech

The ability to speak well is one of the central skills in the debater’s toolkit. In fact, students often assume that being an effective speaker is a prerequisite for debating. It isn’t: Eloquent and persuasive speech is a skill that can be learned and developed over time. This chapter will look at the first stage in becoming an effective speaker—the framework around which you build your speeches. The chapter begins by explaining the importance of structure. Next, it outlines the basic organization of a speech—introduction, body, and conclusion—and explains how you can use introductions and conclusions to help your audience follow your case. Then, it lays out what should be included in the main body of your speech. Later chapters will look at the content and style of your speeches, but, by the end of this chapter, you should have a clear sense of the building blocks of speechcraft in a debate.

The First Task Is to Communicate The purpose of any speech is to persuade—and to be persuasive the speaker must communicate clearly. As with any other form of communication, the brilliance of your ideas doesn’t really matter if your audience can’t follow what you’re saying. Having a clear structure allows you to be confident that the audience at least understands the point you’re making. They may not accept your argument, but they’ll know what they’re disagreeing with. Setting out a structure is similar to guiding a group of travelers on a journey. Chances are that they have a general idea of where they’re going and are eager to get there and also enjoy the sights along the way. However, they are dependent on the guide to get them to the destination with as little hassle as possible. As with a journey, so with a speech. Your arguments are uncharted territory for the listeners, and you need to help them through that territory by explaining what your case will be, deciding for them what arguments

most strongly support it, and demonstrating that you have proved your point. To continue the analogy of a guide, you need to tell them what to look out for; nobody likes to be told that the building they passed twenty minutes ago was the highlight of the tour. You shouldn’t patronize your audience, but you do need to provide an intellectual map charting how you will get from one point to another. This allows listeners to know where they’re going.

Basic Structure The basic structure of any speech is determined by its aims. Usually, your speech will have more than one goal, so it’s important to prioritize your objectives and to organize the speech accordingly. Debate speeches may want to:

• define the motion • summarize the debate or the points made by one team • interact with the ideas presented by other speakers • advance new arguments • introduce new evidence • disprove what has been said by other speakers • support what has been said by other speakers • extend the debate into new territory Different speeches will aim to achieve a different balance of these objectives, depending on the speaker’s position in the debate and progress of the debate at the time. In some cases, the goal is unique to the speaker; for example, only the First Affirmative speaker needs to define the motion. Others goals, such as interacting with or disproving what other speakers have said, will feature in several speeches. Whatever your goals, both you and your audience must clearly understand what they are, what points you bring in support of your objective, and that you have met those goals. Consequently, your speech should have three parts: 1. The introduction establishes your goals. It explains what you’re going to say and why it’s important.

18 

Discovering the World through Debate



2. The body of your speech presents your arguments, demonstrating why each proves the strength of your case. 3. The conclusion demonstrates that you have met your objectives. It reminds the audience of what you said and why it mattered. Sometimes this process is described as: 1. tell them [the audience] what you are going to tell them (Introduction) 2. tell them (Body) 3. tell them what you told them (Conclusion) All three parts of your speech should refer to the same material, with the introduction and conclusion outlining it briefly and the body dealing with your points in greater detail. The exact way you deliver each part of the speech may vary depending on your personal style, the audience’s likely level of knowledge of the subject, and what has been said by previous speakers. However, your speech still needs to contain each of these three elements. Let’s be quite emphatic about the importance of having a clear structure. If the adjudicator cannot follow the points you and your team are making you will lose the debate. It’s that simple.

Introductions and Conclusions The introduction and conclusion of a speech provide your audience with mental “hangers” on which to drape the points you will make. If the order of the arguments you make in the body of your speech corresponds to the “hangers” you’ve set out in your introduction, it’s easier for the adjudicator to hang them up. If the order is replicated in your conclusion, it’s easier for her to take them down again when she heads off to make a decision. The difficulty the debater faces is remembering that, although everything is clear in her own mind, the adjudicator has no idea what she’s likely to hear because she hasn’t heard it yet. Consequently, carefully organized introductions are important in helping the judge see the big picture—the case the debater intends to present. Similarly, the debater may assume that all of her arguments tie together to prove her case, but the adjudicator is likely still considering them individually because that’s how they were set out. An effective debater uses her conclusion to demonstrate not only that the pieces of the puzzle fit together but that, when you stand back from it, the picture is the same as the one set out in the introduction. This may sound blindingly obvious but, were it that easy to grasp, far

How to Structure a Speech 19

fewer debaters would start their speeches apparently halfway through. It seems safe to assume that they would also show less of a tendency to stop talking just as things appear to be getting interesting.

INTRODUCTIONS

Although the introduction is the first element of your speech, it is not the first you should construct. Just as a travel guide needs to know where she is going, how she will get there, and what landmarks she will point out along the way before she tells her tourists, so too, in preparing a speech, think through the arguments that are actually needed to reach your conclusion and the evidence that you will present to support those arguments; then, go back and craft the introduction. Don’t start your speech with the first idea that pops into your head and hope the adjudicator catches up. The process of introducing a speech is similar to the guide taking out a map and explaining to her party where they will be going during the course of the day. In debate, this process, usually referred to as “roadmapping,” allows the listener to relax and wait for you to take them where you’ve promised.

Roadmapping

Roadmapping encourages absolute clarity on the part of the debater; she identifies and names each of the arguments she plans to put forward. She also mentions how, and when, she intends to deal with the arguments that have been put forward by other speakers on her side and, especially, the arguments of the opposing team(s). By clarifying what she will say and what will be, or has been, addressed by other speakers, she allows the listener to focus on the speech without wondering whether or not she is going to address what the listener considers to be an important point. To see how roadmapping would work in practice, let’s assume that our imaginary speaker has three arguments to make. She sets out what they are and what type of evidence will support them in the first minute or so of the speech. This enables the adjudicator to jot down what to expect and allows everyone in the room to focus on what’s coming next. For example, the opening moments of a Second Affirmative speech might be: Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, during my speech I will develop on the points made by my colleague the First Affirmative speaker and address some of the confusion that appears to exist on the other side of this debate. First, I shall address the way in which the opening speaker for the Negative has failed to grasp that this debate revolves, fundamentally, around preparation for work. After that, I shall develop the



economic analysis we have already established on this side of the debate by demonstrating that our proposal would also enhance society through increased political engagement and, ultimately, be good for the business community by more effectively equipping young people for the workplace. By the end of my speech, I believe that you will agree with me that side Affirmative has demonstrated that our proposal is good for the economic health of the nation, the political engagement of its citizens, and the educational and vocational prospects of young people. Let me start by addressing the speech we just heard from the First Negative speaker . . . ”

Within a little more than 150 words (just over one minute of speech), the speaker has identified what she is going to talk about for the remainder of her allotted time and demonstrated how her speech ties into what has already been heard from her teammate. Thus, the adjudicator has a clear understanding of what can be expected and an appreciation of how the whole case will hang together. Either mentally or literally, the adjudicator can check the arguments off as they are made to be satisfied that the speaker has put forward a coherent case. Roadmapping also fulfills another useful function: it helps the debater order her own thoughts. In most debating situations, speakers work from notes—often hastily put together. Getting into the routine of roadmapping forces the debater to adopt and follow a coherent structure.

Setting Priorities

As well as providing directions for your audience, the introduction should also let them know what to look out for on the way. In practical terms, you’re encouraging the adjudicator to see the issue from a certain perspective by identifying what’s an important argument and what’s pleasant but insignificant background. How you set out the introduction to a speech plays a significant role in this process. The Affirmative team may put forward their arguments from the perspective of “economic reality,” but Negative’s response may portray it as “cold-hearted and money-mad” in contrast to their own “case grounded in the real world,” which Affirmative will describe as “pie-in-the-sky financial fantasy.” Debate is intellectually engaging because it is quite possible that both perspectives are correct; the challenge is in getting the adjudicator to see the issues from the same perspective as your team.

CONCLUSIONS

In many ways, conclusions are the mirror opposite of introductions; they are an opportunity for you to remind the adjudicator of the arguments that you’ve made and to demonstrate

How to Structure a Speech 21

that you have done what you set out in your introduction. You would hope that you have laid out your arguments flawlessly by the time you come to your conclusion, but, if you haven’t, you can use the conclusion to make amends. That doesn’t mean introducing entirely new bits of evidence and argumentation—there isn’t time—but you can use the conclusion to demonstrate how your arguments neatly segued into each other since this might not have been immediately apparent during the main body of your speech. While your conclusion as a whole can be a checklist of what you’ve said, reflecting the introduction, your last words should leave hovering at the front of the adjudicator’s mind the clearest, most concise overview of your argument that you can manage. Your conclusion should leave no room for doubt that you have proved your arguments. The final sentence involves your picking the best picture of the trip for the adjudicator to take home with her. For example: We have demonstrated that the pedagogical benefits of our proposal are based on solid research, our economic model is tried and tested elsewhere in the world, and its potential for increasing civic engagement has already been acknowledged by some of the country’s leading analysts. I am proud to stand in proposition of the motion.

BRIEF NOTE ON TACTICS

In a number of debate formats, the opening and closing periods of the speech are “protected time,” meaning that a speaker cannot be asked questions or offered Points of Information. Deliver your introduction and conclusion during this time. It’s important that the adjudicator has a clear, cohesive picture of what you are going to say and what you have said without distractions. Even if you are debating in a format that does not allow interruptions, brevity is key to effective introductions and conclusions. By keeping introductions and conclusions short, you leave the greatest amount of time for the main body of your speech—wherein you can spell out your arguments in detail. The primary goal of your introduction is to make it as easy as possible for the adjudicator to identify your arguments so that she can appreciate that they are powerful and persuasive. Your opening remarks should allow her to grasp the perspective from which to assess what comes next. An introduction is not a time to rehearse, word for word, the arguments you will present. If your role is to define, briefly tell the adjudicators the definition; if it is to extend or develop or summarize, highlight that this will happen. Set out which issues will form the main focus of your speech. Give each argument a name to help the adjudicator keep track and devote one or, at most, two sentences of the introduction to

22 

Discovering the World through Debate



highlighting them. By the end of the first minute, anyone listening should be able to see the framework of what is to come. The final minute of your speech should be a reflection of your introduction. In your conclusion, demonstrate that you have achieved the goals you set out at the beginning of your speech. Mention all your arguments, highlighting how they work together to prove your case. Your concluding remarks should convince the adjudicator that the perspective you set out in your introduction is the correct one.

The Body of the Speech In between the introduction and conclusion comes the main body of your speech. In this section, you present the arguments in support of your case and the evidence buttressing those arguments. The body of any debate speech should include the following: 1. Reference to your teammate(s). This can be very brief and is often incorporated in the introduction or conclusion but can happen anywhere in the speech. Simply mention your partner or teammates; there’s no need to rehearse their arguments in detail. You do this to indicate to your audience that you understand your place in the debate and can demonstrate how the arguments you’re putting forward fit into your side’s case. In a two-person team such a reference might be: I will demonstrate the economic need for this policy in the current climate and my partner, Ms Smith, will examine how it will likely have a wider social impact beyond this one industry.

Or, from a concluding or reply speaker on a three-person team: We have heard from Ms Jones a compelling case for the immediate economic benefits of this approach and, as has been demonstrated by Ms Smith, those benefits will have a wider social impact; I should like to draw those themes together and look at how they have dominated this evening’s debate.

It’s that simple, no need for masses of adjectival praise; just set the scene for the adjudicator and let her know that you are all singing in harmony. 2. Rebuttal. With the exception of the First Affirmative, everyone should respond to the other side’s arguments as well as reference their own. Doing so not only shows that you are actually listening to what is being said but also enables you to demonstrate that your ideas are better than your opponents’ by comparing and contrasting the two. You don’t need to address everything they’ve said and certainly don’t waste your

How to Structure a Speech 23

time repeating their points in detail. Attack the weaknesses in one or two of their major arguments. Point out why they’re wrong and move on with demonstrating why you’re right, ideally at the same time. Other than your own arguments, rebuttal will be the longest section of your speech. 3. Three(ish) arguments. There are good reasons for making three points in a speech— three arguments feels like a proof, whereas two looks like coincidence and one is just a curiosity—but there’s nothing magical about it. Also, in practical terms, three arguments fit neatly into the length of a typical debate speech. Again, there’s no mystery to this, it’s why speeches tend to be 7 or 8 minutes long rather than 15 or 20. Don’t add a third argument just to check off the box and don’t limit yourself to three if doing so leaves an obvious hole in your case. Be particularly aware of your time limits; include as many arguments as you have time to set out convincingly. Each of your arguments should be complete, including a claim, warrant, and evidence. The amount of evidence you provide depends on the situation. Don’t allow your speech to drown in it, especially in proving obvious points, but if you want the adjudicator to accept something that she may not have heard before, you’ll need to present some reason to do so. If you don’t have the time to present a complete argument, don’t bother putting forward the point at all—you will just be wasting your time. Start with your most important arguments—primarily to get and keep the audience’s attention but also so you don’t lose too much if you’re running out of time and have to rush or omit the last argument. Aim to spend at least three-fifths of your speech setting out your own arguments, longer if possible. An extraordinary number of speeches spend three minutes on an introduction, a bit less on the conclusion and treat the main body of the speech as a sort of intellectual intermission. Your arguments should not be treated as the unstructured ramble in the middle; they should be the main narrative that runs through your speech as a whole. Give each enough time for the adjudicator to properly make their acquaintance. 4. Role fulfillment. Whatever your position on your team, you have a particular role to fulfill. You made clear your role in your introduction. You now use the body of the speech to accomplish the tasks you so eloquently set out in the introduction. If your job is to conclude, conclude. If your job is to extend, extend. If it’s to define, define. Don’t spend all of your time telling everyone what you’re thinking of doing. Just do it! 5. Response to Points of Information. In those formats that allow for Points of Information, give yourself time to take and address them but, ideally, weave your answer into your own arguments. Don’t leave taking one to the last possible moment and don’t be

24 

Discovering the World through Debate



rushed into taking one when you’re just getting under way or when you’re on shaky intellectual ground. Take them when you’re dealing with material about which you feel comfortable. Allow 10 seconds for the point to be made and, ideally, about twice that time to deal with it. Sometimes your answer will take longer, but avoid being led down obscure rhetorical cul-de-sacs to address points that have little to do with the thread of your arguments. 6. Clash. Clash is the point of conflict in the debate, the material over which you and the other side genuinely disagree. It is the focus of the debate—the reason for the arguments, the evidence and the structure. Your arguments should relate to it, your rebuttal should respond to it. Resist the temptation to wax lyrical on fascinating details that nobody disputes. Keep the focus on the areas of dispute. If you are the first speaker on either side, you should have a clear idea of what you want these areas to be and steer the debate in that direction. If you’re speaking later, these areas should be apparent to you, and you should focus your attention on these rather than what you thought or hoped might be up for debate.

Conclusion This chapter has given you some insight into the basic building blocks of a speech and some sense of how they fit together. In reality, a speech is not mechanical, and many of these blocks come into play intuitively. You should be able to see from this chapter that there is a very real difference between “speaking” for a set amount of time and “talking” for that period. You’re not like the radio DJ whose job is to fill space with his general views on whatever subject pops into his head until it’s time for the next track. Instead, you are a speaker with something to prove and an array of tools at your disposal to help you. In any given debate, you are likely to use those tools slightly differently—a greater emphasis on evidence here, more time for rebuttal there. Your general task remains the same; to prove your part of your team’s case in the allotted time and within the format of the debate. You cannot do this just by chatting about some of the more interesting points and suggesting that the adjudicator should agree with you because you think you’re right. What you do is work through a speech that guides the adjudicator to the conclusion that your analysis is correct because it is reasonable and logical to reach that conclusion. An important part of that process is having a structure for your speech and, as a result, a route to guide both you and your audience.

How to Structure a Speech 25

EXERCISE

Discuss the issue of wearing school uniforms in groups of six. 1. Divide into two teams of three, one Affirmative and one Negative. Develop some arguments within these teams and take notes—but do not write a complete script for your speech. 2. Ask a student from another group to act as an adjudicator. Debate the issue. For the purposes of this exercise, all speeches should be three minutes in length with no Points of Information or cross-examination allowed. Use your notes, but allow space to take further notes on what other speakers have said and mention their points during your speech. Make sure your speech has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Don’t worry if you don’t speak for the full 3 minutes, but, if you are still speaking after about 3 minutes and 20 seconds, the adjudicator should ask you to stop. 3. After your debate, one member of your group should act as the adjudicator for the group that supplied yours. 4. If there’s time, merge the two groups and ask each person how she felt about her speech.

• Did she feel more nervous before she had to speak or during her speech? • Did she cover everything she planned to say? • Did she think she responded well to the points other speakers had made? • Could she have provided a clearer roadmap for her speech?

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• To be successful, a speech must have a clear structure. • A speech should include three components: introduction, body, and conclusion. • Some goals of a speech are common to all speakers and others are specific to one or two. • Speakers are trying to prove or disprove a particular case rather than giving a general overview of an issue.

• A clear structure not only provides a roadmap for the adjudicator but can also prove useful in forcing a debater to clarify her thoughts.

26 

Discovering the World through Debate

CHAPTER 3

Argumentation

Argumentation is the process by which you steer anyone listening from what they initially think or believe to what you want them to think or believe; in short, it is persuasion through the use of evidence, reason, and logic. Argumentation, along with interaction between the speakers, is what debating is really about. Without these, you just have a bunch of people talking in a room. Entire libraries have been written on argumentation; this is not the place to repeat all that has been said. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a basic outline of what an argument is and how it works, as well as what makes arguments effective.

What Do We Mean by an Argument? When most people refer to an argument, they’re referring to a heated conversation between individuals or a disagreement between countries or political parties. Debaters define the term differently and more specifically. An argument is a line of reasoning—a series of logically connected statements—that persuades listeners that, if something they accept about the world currently is true, then the speaker’s claim about how the world should be must also be true. Debaters refer to distinct lines of reasoning within the speech as separate arguments; “I liked her argument on the UN providing legitimacy for the intervention, but the argument on democratic justification needed more evidence.” Usually a speech will contain more than one argument; taken together, a series of arguments offered by speakers on a team are the case in support of their side of a motion.

What Makes a Good Argument? There are lots of ways of getting an audience to listen to you, even to agree that you might have a point, whether or not they think you’re right, but getting them to believe you—to accept that what you are saying is irrefutably true, rather than just interesting or informative—takes arguments that are proved and based on evidence rather than on assertions.

CONTENT

A formal argument comprises three elements: evidence, warrants, and claims. As we saw in Chapter 1, we could view an argument as a pyramid, with a solid basis of evidence— statements your listeners accept as true—supporting a more general statement about social activity (the warrant). On top of the pyramid is the claim, the contention you want your audience to accept.

Evidence

Evidence has as many definitions and descriptions as there are ways of challenging it and testing it. For our purposes, focusing on the intent and target of the evidence—the audience—is more useful than precisely defining the term. The debater’s goal in using evidence is to lay a foundation for an argument in the listener’s mind. To that end, evidence is anything that your audience will accept as being a true and accurate statement of the way the world, or some aspect of it, currently exists. There’s a depressing tendency to assume that evidence needs to consist exclusively of a litany of numbers, statistics patiently garnered from the desiccated bowels of government agencies or survey data laboriously mined in some long-forgotten seam of academia. Certainly information of this type has its place and provides valuable ammunition for both building your own case and destroying that of the opposing side. However, plenty of other forms of evidence are available. For example, a situation or event that the audience knows well works just fine and often can be more persuasive than a dry statistical recitation. Your statement of the world as it is may be a very simple one: “The World Food Program stated in a report last year that if the rains in (country X) were to fail again, the resulting famine would be the worst for half a century. There was no rain this year.” Simple statements such as this can often carry far more force than detailed extrapolations of the exact definitions of poverty or hunger or famine. You have a statement of the world as it is that your audience is likely to accept as being true—an additional benefit is its simplicity: it is

28 

Discovering the World through Debate



harder for other speakers to challenge as no loose ends of information are lying around for them to tug at.

Warrants

Warrants are a process of reaching a conclusion that the audience can see works in another situation and so can easily be applied to the one at hand. They are why an audience believes the claim is true. A good debater will be familiar with many types of warrants, which he can apply to any particular situation. For example:

• examples leading from a specific to a more general truth • analogies with similar or diametrically opposed situations • authoritative or widely acknowledged views • cause and effect (judgment based on consequences) Just look at the range of options set out in that short, and by no means comprehensive, list. The debater could contend that because a government has consistently failed to deliver large, complex information technology (IT) projects under budget, it will fail to do so in this situation (example). Or she might argue that other types of capital projects tend to overrun their budget so it is likely that IT projects with similar management practices will as well (analogy). She could point to the report of a legislative committee or a consistent finding of public opinion polls that such an outcome is likely (authoritative view). Or she might point out that budgets always overrun because the tendering process is flawed. That same process has been used for this project, which is highly likely to go over its budget as a result (cause and effect). In reality she is likely to use several of these warrants or something else altogether. The general point is that you have several different ways to get from differing pieces of evidence to the same conclusion. You should also notice that the approaches overlap; the “cause and effect” warrant given above has more than a whiff of analogy about it. Added to which, if you happen to have an authoritative source—an academic report or the findings of a reputable firm of consultants—saying that this was the root of the problem, you could safely throw an “authoritative view” in for good measure. The common feature of all of these warrants is that they are grounded in concrete, real-world situations—the audience can accept them as the basis of a reasonable statement. Warrants can also be based on principle. By accepting that the principle is a fundamental value (free speech, or equality before the law, for example), the debater can tie a particular action or decision to it. For this approach to work, the principle needs to be widely

Argumentation 29

accepted (at least by the audience) and there should be neither well-known exceptions to that principle nor another countervailing principle that might offset it. In a debate over banning smoking in public, for example, the claim that smoking should be banned can be connected to the evidence that passive smoke causes cancer by the warrant that bystanders have a right to be protected from actions they have not chosen. Where necessary, you could provide other examples of how this principle works in practice—licensing or regulating the use of hazardous materials because of their impact on third parties, for example—but the general principle that people have the right to harm themselves but not others could also be used without the need for examples. One final element to be aware of in using warrants is that sometimes they are self-evident— so much so that debaters can spend time looking for one when they don’t really need it. To take a simple example: Stella bought and drank some orange juice (evidence), therefore, Stella likes orange juice (claim). There is simply no need to add: “We usually purchase and consume products that we like” (warrant), it’s taken for granted. However, in more complex situations, such an assumed warrant may be open to challenge, and, as we shall see in Chapter 7, the active listener will be alert to such unspoken warrants and question them. At the risk of overextending this example, perhaps the store only sells orange juice or that was the only thing that Stella could afford. Warrants that seem self-evident can usually be left for the adjudicator to accept without the need to spell them out—but the opposing team would do well to check whether the warrant is as obvious as it appears.

Claims

In everyday speech, a claim could be described as “the point you’re trying to make.” It’s a statement about how the world might or should be that is open to challenge and toward which the debater, using evidence and warrant, has attempted to lead her audience. When making a claim, do not overreach. Let’s return to our example about government expenditure on large IT projects. You are unlikely to persuade anyone but the most partisan of observers that all governments, everywhere in the world, will always overspend on every project involving any degree of computer integration from now until the end of time. You, therefore, should avoid suggesting that public bodies should never undertake capital IT projects, that all such projects should be left to the private sector, or that we should go back to using the abacus and slide rule. Of course, this claim has been deliberately exaggerated. Speaking in absolute terms—“it is always true that . . . there is no situation in which. . . everybody agrees . . . “ and so on— may seem like a good idea during a speech, but, in most situations, making an absolute statement is likely to be both wrong and reckless, wrong in terms of accurately describing

30 

Discovering the World through Debate



the situation and reckless in terms of your chances of winning the debate. All your opponents have to do is to find one example where everything worked rather smoothly—or, as in the example above, outline the likely chaos that would ensue from your suggestion—and your artfully constructed case will collapse under its own weight. Make claims that are comfortably supported by the evidence you have presented and the warrants you have deployed. Your claim should be reasonable; it should be supported by the evidence you have presented without requiring your audience to assume a large number of other factors that have not featured in your speech. Your claim should also be credible; however solid your reasoning for an immediate migration of the population of planet Earth to Mars, it isn’t going to happen. Finally, it should be acceptable; your audience is unlikely to follow you to conclusions that lie on the outskirts or fringes of political or social thought. Even some claims that experts accept as true often sound improbable to the point of absurdity to a lay audience. In essence, the top of your pyramid of argument, the claim, should both be within reach of those climbing it and should not be so massive or so improbable as to damage the underlying structure. Remember, debating isn’t just about your being right, it’s about others accepting that you’re right.

Putting the Pieces Together How you build an argument from the three component parts is, to a certain extent, a matter of style. As we saw in Chapter 1, the sequence of evidence ➝ warrant ➝ claim is very easy to follow and helps the listener see what you’re trying to achieve. It also helps you follow the chain of your own logic because you can mentally check the stages of your argument. However, this sequence is not always the one that comes most naturally when we speak. Also, as the debate continues, the listener may find a constant barrage of apparently identical arguments repetitious. What is frequently more natural is to start with the claim and then present the evidence and warrant. For example, “We believe there are solid grounds for banning smoking in public [claim]. The basis for this is the proven link between smoking and cancer [evidence], but we would ask you to consider this within the more general point that we expect the state to act when the safety of innocents [warrant] is threatened by the selfishness of a minority.” Alternatively, you could start with a warrant: “In many walks of life, members of society will expect government to protect them from unnecessary harm—we don’t allow polluters to dump waste wherever they choose but require them to dispose of waste in a way that minimizes harm to the public [warrant]. In the same way, we expect government to

Argumentation 31

act to protect the public space from the toxic by-products of smoking—cancer-causing chemicals whose health dangers have been recognized by the medical community for decades [evidence].” When thinking about the order of your argument, consider three determinants: 1. Appeal. Which stage in your argument is the one with which your audience is most likely to agree? In a debate, it’s unlikely to be the claim because adjudicators are aware that they are looking for a proven argument. However, where the issue the debate is addressing is particularly heinous, starting out with a solution will grab everyone’s attention. If you can find an analogy that is current in the news and will serve as a warrant, you would start there because it’s the easiest part of your argument for your audience to appreciate. There is no hard and fast guide about which element to present first, but you should start with the part of your argument that you think the listener will find easiest to grasp. 2. Audience. This is the other side of appeal. Although an adjudicator represents an ordinary, intelligent audience, she is still an individual with specific interests and concerns. A student judge is likely to have different interests than a judge who is a teacher or other professional. Lead with the part of your argument you think will “hook” your listener. Usually, this would be the most current or eye-grabbing element as outlined above, but don’t be afraid of speaking to the specific concerns of your adjudicator. 3. Clarity. Whatever element you start with should lead clearly into the rest of the argument. Your starting point may need a little explanation but, once that is done, the other two components should tie to it as simply as possible without the need for extensive elaboration or retrospective clarification. For example, once an audience has accepted that average citizens can expect the government to protect them from the harmful by-products of the actions of others, the fact that passive smoking is a risk and that a ban on public smoking would reduce such risk slots quickly into place.

What Makes People Believe an Argument? Even where an argument is logically coherent and well-evidenced, it’s not necessarily a surefire winner. A listener needs to be convinced that the argument a debater is making speaks to the particular issue the debate is trying to address. In addition to logical consistency, a convincing argument should be:

32 

Discovering the World through Debate



• Relevant. Stick to the point. It can be tempting to get ahead of your audience because you’ve thought through the implications of your case. But remember that they haven’t heard it yet. The evidence you select should self-evidently speak to the subject under debate or, where it does not, you’ll need to demonstrate its relevance. An audience can be expected to know that there is a link between smoking and cancer, so arguments that use cancer rates as evidence for banning smoking in public will strike a chord with listeners. However, if you start talking about losses in economic productivity (a significant but frequently overlooked result of smoking), you’ll need to explain the link when setting out the argument.

• Defensible. Other speakers are going to try to tear apart any claim you have made, so do not leave lines of argument that you think “speak for themselves.” If you can’t back it up, don’t put it in. Some points may appear self-evident, but it is still worth supplying some evidence for good measure and tying up as many loose ends as possible. Opposing speakers will be able to make use of the one example of where your argument doesn’t apply and thus question the entire case you have put forward. If you have already acknowledged the limits of your case and presented evidence that takes it that far and no further, opposing speakers will have a much harder time of parodying or undermining your arguments.

• Comprehensible. Assume that your audience is intelligent, but don’t assume that they have specialized knowledge of the subject under discussion. If you get bogged down in details that they can’t understand, or don’t find interesting, they can’t appreciate your argument. Even when a judge does have specialized knowledge, she has been enjoined to avoid using it. So it’s important to avoid jargon and esoteric acronyms and to explain, quickly and clearly, any technical terms that you use.

Consistency and Triangulation We’ve looked at building an individual argument, but bear in mind that each argument you introduce should fit with the others you are presenting. The basic reason for keeping your arguments complementary is that if you propose diverse solutions, you tend to sound as though you haven’t really made up your mind and thus you are unlikely to inspire confidence in your audience. There’s also a tactical reason for complementary arguments—as we shall see in Chapter 4, one of the most effective forms of rebuttal is that a proposed course of action may be legal, it may be ethical, but it won’t work. The more types of action you propose, the more of them you have to defend as being practical. By

Argumentation 33

contrast, the more complementary reasons you can present for one course of action, the easier it is for the audience to follow and for you to defend. Although each argument should work in the same direction, each should also be distinct so that if the other side destroys one, they don’t take out your whole case. For example, if your claim from one argument is for a precision strike under UN supervision, you can’t allow the claim in another to leave the door open for carpet bombing the entire country. By contrast, if your claim in one argument is that sanctions are the recognized diplomatic tool for the issue you’re addressing, there’s no point in presenting another argument whose claim is that the UN Security Council should pass a resolution that allows for the use of military force.

Conclusion Argumentation is a key skill for a debater, but it’s unreasonable to expect that you will provide masterful arguments the first time and every time thereafter. Instead, you should come to appreciate that the structure of argumentation is, predominantly, an analysis that tends to be imposed retrospectively—you start with the claim and then look for ways to support it. Developing the habit of providing evidence for all of your claims and helping the audience see the route for getting from the evidence to the conclusion is part of building your skills as a debater. Finally, trust your judgment. Just because an argument is well-evidenced, has a logical warrant, and provides a reasonable claim does not automatically make it believable. Before you announce a particular course of action or piece of analysis to the world, do a final mental check of whether or not you find it credible. It’s entirely possible that you’ve made an assumption or overlooked an exception that isn’t immediately apparent. Applying a simple “Do I find this convincing?” test frequently prevents you from saying something you hadn’t thought through as much as you might. As we’ll see in Chapter 16, even if you’re convinced, try your idea out on your teammates—if they’re not convinced, there’s not much chance that it will persuade an adjudicator. Where time allows, consider how you would oppose your arguments, find the holes in your reasoning and either fill them or discard the argument.

34 

Discovering the World through Debate



EXERCISE

Have your group/class read an opinion article from any respected newspaper or news website. 1. As a group, determine claim is the writer trying to make. 2. Take the same article and work with a partner to identify the evidence the writer is putting forward and the methods she uses for tying that evidence to her claims about how the world should be. Discuss with your partner whether the warrant is up to the task of supporting the claim (assuming that one is supplied at all). 3. In small groups, discuss whether the article is convincing—are you convinced?—and how the writer could improve any part of her argument. Does she need more or better evidence? Is there a more persuasive link from that evidence that she could have used? Is the claim reasonable enough to be supported? If not, how could it be improved? 4. Decide what you think about the subject discussed in the article and write your own arguments to reach that conclusion. Avoid repeating the material used in the original article. 5. Return to your class and exchange your work. How have different individuals addressed the same problem? Try not to think about it in terms of who agrees most closely with you but in terms of who has done the most convincing job even if they have reached a conclusion that you don’t share. 6. Take your work back and keep it for the next chapter.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• An argument is a series of logically connected statements designed to persuade. • Formal arguments contain three components: evidence, warrant, and claim. • Arguments can be considered in their own right, unrelated to their particular content. This means that you can distinguish between an argument that is well-constructed but with which you disagree and one that is simply a bad argument.

Argumentation 35

CHAPTER 4

Rebuttal

Debating is a two-way process that requires speakers not only to develop and refine their own arguments, but also, through rebuttal, to defend them and critique and disprove those of the other side. This interplay of promoting the strengths of one position and identifying the weaknesses of the alternatives gives debating its distinctive character. The chapter begins by looking at what rebuttal is and what it is used for before examining some common types of rebuttal. Next, it explains when rebuttal should take place during a speech and how best to use it in support of your wider argument. Finally, it offers some practical considerations about the tone and spirit in which you should make rebuttal and discusses how rebuttal can add to the winnowing process of assessing the ideas under discussion.

What Is Rebuttal? In plain terms, rebuttal is an exercise in which a debater explains why what the audience just heard from her opponent either won’t or shouldn’t work and why her side of the debate was right all along. Common forms of rebuttal involve indicating that a particular course of action is too expensive, is impractical, is immoral, is illegal, or has simply missed the point altogether. In rebutting her opponent, a debater might point out that her opponent’s arguments are based on factually inaccurate evidence, logically inconsistent reasoning, or have reached conclusions that will not solve the problem under discussion. Effective rebuttal draws the audience back to the thread that the speaker’s side of the debate wants them to follow. In doing so, it promotes the analysis put forward by her side as the dominant narrative running through the debate. Ultimately, rebuttal is a defensive activity, although attack is a pretty good form of defense. The aim of rebuttal is to protect your arguments against both the criticisms leveled at



them by opposing speakers and also to suggest that any recommendations put forward by your opponents are inferior to your own. Rebuttal reiterates the strengths of your case and questions the validity of the other side’s.

What Does Rebuttal Look Like? Rebuttal should be present to a greater or lesser extent in all speeches, except that of the First Affirmative, who obviously has nothing to rebut. Most commonly, rebuttal takes place after the introduction to a speech but before the speaker presents her own arguments. There’s no hard and fast rule about this timing, and some speakers will interweave rebuttal with their own arguments as they work through their speeches, particularly where there has been lots of clash between the two sides and contrasting the two point by point will clarify the advantages of the speaker’s case. Neither approach offers a guaranteed benefit, and, over time, you will find you are comfortable, in different circumstances, with one or the other. However, interweaving rebuttal with arguments frequently leads to the speaker forgetting to offer rebuttal or the audience disregarding it. So, in your first few debates at least, give rebuttal a designated section in your speech. Usually a speaker will just tackle the ideas put forward by the previous debater. For example, the Second Affirmative’s rebuttal would relate directly to the arguments put forward by the First Negative speaker. Occasionally, a flaw, or an apparent flaw, will be running throughout the speeches of the opposing team; then a speaker may encompass the remarks of more than one of her opponents to point this out in her rebuttal. Rebuttal is always focused on the adjudicator and addressed to the chair of the debate, who may sometimes be the adjudicator. The reason is fairly straightforward: it is highly unlikely that you will convince the opposing side that you’re right. Even if you were to do so, it’s even more unlikely that they will publicly acknowledge the fact that you’re entirely vindicated and that their case is now lying in smoking ruins at their feet. Fortunately, you don’t need to persuade them; you need to persuade the adjudicator. Like everyone, adjudicators prefer to be addressed in person rather than being treated as bystanders to the main event, so do so. Address him or her as Mister or Madam Adjudicator or Mister or Madam Chair. Remember to maintain eye-contact so you make it clear you’re talking to him or her. Not only is this more likely to be persuasive, it also avoids the possibility of getting into an exchange with the opposing speakers and leaving everyone else in the room feeling excluded.

Rebuttal 37

Rebuttal should not take up your entire speech; you must leave time to develop your own arguments. Point out a failing in one or, at most, two of the previous speaker’s points and present evidence and a logical explanation of why that flaw undermines his argument. Alternatively, if he has pointed out one benefit of his approach, respond with one negative consequence, intended or otherwise. Although you could devote an entire speech to highlighting the failings in the previous speaker’s arguments, doing so isn’t all that persuasive. Audiences find such a presentation tedious, and adjudicators want to hear something more substantial than a review of a speech they have just heard and on which they have probably reached their own conclusions. Finally, doing nothing but attack your opponents suggests that you have nothing to say on the subject—hardly a situation that inspires confidence. So, having spent about a minute setting out what you will say in your speech, move on to rebuttal. For example, after setting out what your arguments will be you would say, “However, first I’d like to present two problems with what we’ve just heard. The Negative arguments have ignored: 1) the widespread bulk of academic research on this issue, and 2) the current framework of political discourse on the subject. To take just one example, we have been told that . . . ” Then you would present strong evidence that the previous speaker ignored and demonstrate why, as a result, the audience consequently can safely ignore his conclusions. In reality, of course, rebuttal is rarely so neat and tidy, but that’s the ideal. As we shall see in the next two sections, you can approach rebuttal in various ways but what is set out above is the gold standard: quick, relevant, and destructive.

REBUTTAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS

Although we separate rebuttal and substantive argument for the sake of clarity, don’t think of them as unrelated or as different boxes that need to be separately checked in your speech. If your objective is to demonstrate that your analysis of, and solution to, a given problem is superior, tackling the alternatives put forward by the other team should be an integral part of developing your own case. Seen in this light, rebuttal is simply the extension of substantive argumentation by other means. Rebuttal and substantive arguments should not be independent. You may rely on different pieces of evidence and take a different approach to rebuttal than to your own arguments, but always remember that these are different means to the same end. The objective is to show that your case is superior to your opponent’s, not for the teams to present two unrelated alternatives and hope that the adjudicator prefers yours. If your rebuttal has

38 

Discovering the World through Debate



nothing to do with your substantive arguments, then a very real problem is present in the debate as a whole—the teams have failed to clash with each other.

Process of Rebuttal Broadly, we can divide rebuttal into two steps. The first should see you respond directly to criticisms made in the previous speaker’s speech and explain why his analysis of your team’s case is wrong. The second step is where you criticize his arguments. There are two good reasons for handling rebuttal in this order. First, it sandwiches the discussion of his speech between a defense of your colleague’s case and the development of your own. This order makes following your ideas easier since they are presented in the same order as the speeches occur in the debate. The result is that the process tends to be quicker as the audience requires less direction to follow the more natural sequence. Second, this approach gives the impression that your opponent’s material is subordinate to your own. Thus, we can consider rebuttal to have two components: reactive rebuttal and proactive rebuttal. Before we address these two directly, it is worth reiterating that, as much as possible, these should be treated as two sides of the same coin. Although you may have to use material unrelated to your own arguments to rebut the claims of the opposing side, try to demonstrate that this material is also germane to your case. It is both neater and more persuasive if the reasons you are right are the same as the reasons they are wrong— it is also likely to take considerably less time to explain.

REACTIVE REBUTTAL

Reactive rebuttal is the process of defending your arguments against the criticisms made by the immediately preceding speaker. Let’s say that you’re the Second Affirmative speaker. Your colleague, First Affirmative, has set out a case that requires government expenditure, and First Negative has criticized the case for not addressing how government will pay for such expenditure. You could take four possible approaches for rebutting First Negative, and it is worth consciously selecting one of these approaches rather than just noting down the general need for rebuttal.

Rebuttal 39

40 

First Affirmative’s Actions

First Negative’s Actions

First Affirmative has already set out a clear funding model.

First Negative has simply Simply point out that First ignored this fact and is hopNegative is ‘mistaken’ (it’s nicer ing the adjudicators have, too. than suggesting that he’s clearly making things up or wasn’t listening) and briefly reiterate how the funding mechanism works—it doesn’t matter if the speaker is convinced, it’s the adjudicator you’re trying to remind.

First Affirmative has set out a funding model, but it was incomplete or confused.

First Negative is either confused or is taking advantage of the confusion and exaggerating it in the hope of getting more credit in the eyes of the adjudicator.

Refer to the funding model in your introduction, making sure to mention that it has already been addressed and clarify it in your rebuttal.

First Affirmative did not give a funding model but made clear that you would do so in your speech.

First Negative is taking advantage of the fact that your team hasn’t put this important plank of your case into place yet.

In your roadmap, highlight that you will be dealing with funding during your speech. In your rebuttal, mention that First Affirmative had made clear that you would address the issue. Then, in the main body of your speech, set out the funding model in detail.

First Affirmative failed or forgot to mention funding and gave no indication of anybody else doing so either.

First Negative has spotted a major flaw in your case and has taken advantage of it.

In your introduction, roadmap the fact that you will deal with funding in your speech. In your rebuttal, challenge First Negative for not addressing the underlying principles behind your case and focusing instead on details of delivery (or something similar). Lay out a funding model in the main body of your speech.

Discovering the World through Debate

Your Actions



Generally, reactive rebuttal will follow one of the approaches set out above. As a result, your response is likely to be along one of these lines:

• We dealt with this issue already and here’s what we said. • We dealt with this issue already but, since you’ve given me the opportunity, here’s a better version of what we said.

• We said we would deal with this issue later and here we are dealing with it. • We haven’t got around to the issue yet but, since you ask, here’s the answer. If you and your teammates never thought to address an issue, under no circumstances admit that your case has a massive hole in it. This happens, of course, but your job is to fix the problem, not to make it worse by blaming a colleague. As you and your teammates become more experienced, this problem should become only an occasional difficulty and you should become increasingly skilled at integrating the missing issue into your case. More commonly, your team thought to address the issue but First Affirmative forgot to do so. This problem highlights why effective teamwork is so important. Although it can feel false and formulaic in the extreme, mentioning what your teammates have said or are going to say is an important habit to acquire. In the situation set out above, you may be able to cover up the initial mistake by going through that process, but the adjudicator is still quite likely to think you had just forgotten about an important part of your case. It’s much better to avoid the problem altogether by referencing the other speakers on your team. Where the first speaker has mentioned the issue but not said who will deal with it in the case-split, simply incorporate the matter into your own speech as naturally as possible. At worst, it will appear that you’ve divided the case slightly oddly. Where a previous speaker has said that she will address an issue and then simply forgotten to do so—or run out of time—’fess up and move on. Debaters can waste a lot of time pretending that they didn’t make mistakes that they clearly did. Protestations of innocence are unlikely to convince anyone and are also likely to lead into time-consuming arguments that achieve nothing but provide ammunition for the opposing side. Admitting to your mistakes (assuming there aren’t too many) is not only quicker but helps convince your audience to accept your other statements at face value.

PROACTIVE REBUTTAL

Proactive rebuttal points out the weaknesses in your opponent’s arguments. To do so, you need to listen actively and think critically. We’ll discuss critical thinking and active listening in more detail in chapters 6 and 7, but for now it’s important to remember to listen

Rebuttal 41

to what has actually been said and, just as important, to be alert for what’s not said. Then analyze what you’ve heard and question the intentions and assumptions that lie behind your opponent’s arguments. Before running through some common forms of proactive rebuttal, let’s be quite clear on what the goals are. In proactive rebuttal, you are aiming to alert the adjudicator of one of two things: 1) an opponent’s mistake that the judge has likely noticed and you want her to know that you heard it, too, or 2) an oversight on the part of the previous speaker that the adjudicator may have missed and you want to draw to her attention. To do this, you have five tools at your disposal: 1. Precision. Completely refute one point. This will do far more to raise a question about the validity of your opponent’s entire case than will launching into a rambling rhetorical broadside at everything they have said. If you can point out one glaring and significant factual inaccuracy, it will raise questions about their research as a whole. If you can point to one logical failure, however small, you can leave it to the adjudicator’s imagination to unravel the rest of their case. Similarly, identifying one overblown claim will suggest that the entire case is fanciful. By contrast, emotional appeals to some sense of innate “wrongness” of their case will fall on deaf ears. Everyone knows the two sides disagree, that’s why they’re on different sides. 2. Clarity. Explain exactly what you are refuting. If possible, quote the preceding speaker and attack that statement or, at the very least, identify a particular point by using the same name of that argument he used. Don’t exaggerate your opponent’s point or take it out of context. Identify exactly what you maintain is wrong and then explain in a simple and straightforward manner why you think so. Quoting somebody out of context is not only unethical, it’s also self-defeating. The adjudicator heard the original statement, knows whether your portrayal of it is fair, and is likely to ignore your rebuttal if you’re attacking something that didn’t happen. All you’ll end up doing is wasting everyone’s time. 3. Brevity. Do not belabor the point. Say what you are refuting, why it is wrong, and move on with your speech. Even if the speaker has made a huge error, have a little fun with it but get on to your own case. It’s up to the adjudicator to determine the validity of a particular point, and you don’t want to spend two or three minutes hammering away at a point only to discover that the previous speaker was right and you’re the one who has made the mistake. 4. Relevance. Wherever possible, pick weaknesses in the speaker’s argument that actually help your case or damage his. If he’s made a casual remark in his introduction that was wrong, let it go or, at the very most, just mention it in passing. You are trying to

42 

Discovering the World through Debate



undermine those opposing arguments that are significant and damaging to your case. Attacking statements that don’t matter is simply eating up precious seconds of your allotted time. Focus your attention on points of clash and don’t get caught up in uncontroversial details. 5. Proportion. Be realistic about the errors you’ve identified. Doing so in the middle of a debate can be difficult, but the more you can make yourself think like an adjudicator, the better. Getting the name of a study wrong or making an obviously verbal mistake does not undermine your opponent’s case. Point out the mistake briefly. This will give the impression that you have a total mastery of the subject and are helping out in the spirit of a collaborative pursuit of truth. By contrast, if your opponent has omitted an entire strand of the debate—funding, legality, morality—deal with it in greater detail and emphasize the error’s impact on his case as a whole. In principle, you use this two-step strategy of reactive and proactive rebuttal because the cases of both sides should be running along the same track: they simply offer differing analyses of the same concepts and body of information. In practice, even the best of debates run along parallel tracks, addressing related concepts more or less in tandem. Debates become confused when the two cases veer off in wildly differing directions, with separate origins and differing destinations. In these situations, your rebuttal of the other team’s case may have very little to do with the defense of your own or the elaboration of your own substantive arguments. If you find yourself in this situation, make sure your rebuttal doesn’t undermine your own arguments and try to tie your rebuttal as closely to your case as you can.

Types of Rebuttal Any schema for types of rebuttal will be limited and, largely, fabricated because the reason an argument could be rebutted depends primarily on what was said and how it ties into the debate as a whole. The list below is meant to set out some common errors in speeches and explain how best you might highlight these to the adjudicator. Some forms of rebuttal target knowledge, others reasoning; some highlight mistakes of commission, others omission. The net result is the same: you are seeking to raise doubts in the adjudicator’s mind and make your case look stronger by contrast. The list below isn’t exhaustive, but it provides a sufficient range to give you a feel for how rebuttal works.

Rebuttal 43

• Critique. An effective critique (sometimes called “kritik”) of an argument points out a major flaw in the argument itself. It allows you to accept all the facts and evidence that have been presented and focus instead on the assumptions that underlie them. To take a fairly common example: the motion is THW Reduce Taxation, and the Affirmative team has built a case around the idea that reducing taxation encourages economic growth. The Negative team could question that idea if they choose to, but it is difficult to challenge. A stronger approach might be to accept that reducing taxes would encourage economic growth but to challenge whether that should be an end in itself, raising the prospect of the impact that economic growth can have on the environment or that encouraging companies that are simply chasing the cheapest place to do business is likely to offer only a transient benefit—particularly in developed nations. Or, they might argue, it is better to have a comparatively high rate of taxation but use such funds to ensure a highly educated workforce and a state that provides an efficient place to do business in terms of infrastructure and laws.

• Disadvantages. This type of rebuttal, usually used by the Negative, points out that the proposed plan causes more, or bigger, problems than it solves. Highlighting the disadvantages of a plan allows you to accept much of the positive reasoning in your opponent’s argument and, when confronted with tightly argued cases, relieves you of the burden of having to dispute arguments that are clearly true. When developing a disadvantage, speakers ask questions such as: What has the previous speaker not said? What would their otherwise sensible proposal cost? What other priorities would need to be neglected? In a foreign policy debate, what would the implications be for other countries in the region? Typically, debaters using disadvantages will place the problem under discussion in a wider context. By doing so, they can often demonstrate that the Affirmative hasn’t really understood the issue and is looking at it too narrowly. Consequently, the Affirmative’s approach will either make the underlying problem worse or create new ones. For example, while a war would solve an immediate problem, the outcome is likely to be a long, protracted, and bloody occupation, regional instability, the threat of terrorist reprisals, and many deaths on both sides.

• Contradictions. Attacking contradictions is an absolute staple of rebuttal. Building a case is a complex exercise and relies on having several arguments put forward by different speakers based on many pieces of evidence all pointing toward the same conclusion. It’s not surprising, therefore, that arguments can often get tangled up in delivery. While you may sympathize, make sure to point out these contradictions to the adjudicator. Take advantage of one speaker contradicting what another on her team has

44 

Discovering the World through Debate



said or point out that a speaker has contradicted herself. Often contradictions occur at the meeting of the theoretical and the practical; a team may extol the benefits of a smaller state but, in dealing with a particular problem, one of their speakers calls for greater government involvement.

• Factual Oversights. Obviously, this is a catchall group that could cover anything from a speaker calling for the creation of an agency that already exists to urging an action that would be illegal. Serious factual errors—for example, calling for the introduction of a school uniform policy in a state that already has one—can devastate a case. More common are errors that ignore an implication or are grounded on an assumption. An example would be calling for the introduction of uniforms on the basis that wearing uniforms would encourage greater discipline in schools, only to discover that a state that did not have uniforms topped the national rankings for educational attainment. This latter error doesn’t undermine the logic of the case per se—wearing uniforms may still have some benefit—but it raises serious questions about why you would bother introducing the policy.

• Questioning the Paradigm. A “paradigm” is a particular worldview that tends to consider some things as unquestionable benefits and others as assumed problems. This approach could also be thought of as a “meta-critique”—that the other side has not just overlooked an important consideration but has failed to understand the question altogether. This form of rebuttal can be useful when the Affirmative has put forward a technically solid and reasonable case. If the case has been largely grounded in technical considerations, attack the moral implications. A moral response to a practical case is best typified by discussions about issues such as increasing the minimum wage. For the purpose of this example, let’s look at how the Affirmative can use rebuttal. The motion under debate is THW Increase the Minimum Wage. The Affirmative has proposed an increase in the minimum wage as a stimulant to the economy. Poorer people spend a greater proportion of their income than the rich; consequently, an increase in the minimum wage would act as a financial stimulus and cause employment to rise. It would also bolster business confidence by demonstrating the existence of a greater domestic market for goods and services. The Negative counters that a higher minimum wage will negatively affect smaller businesses, which cannot afford an increase in costs. If such businesses fail, employment would drop and, ultimately, raising the minimum wage would have the exact opposite effect from the one the Affirmative is trying to establish. At this point the debate is, broadly, tied. Both sides have fair points; a higher minimum wage would inject cash into local economies but only where employers can absorb the cost. The Affirmative needs to use their rebuttal to gain the upper hand. They

Rebuttal 45

concede that some small businesses will indeed fail but argue that this would be in much the same way that chimney sweeps went bust when child labor was outlawed. Abolishing child labor was still the right course and so is the principle of paying workers a living wage. The Affirmative can then return to their constructive case by arguing that getting rid of companies that rely on paying very low wages frees labor and resources for stronger companies that pay people at a level where they can use those wages to stimulate the local economy. By using a moral rebuttal and then building on their earlier economic case, Affirmative requires the remaining Negative speakers to fight on two fronts—moral and economic—neither of them very easy.

Strategic Rebuttal So far, we have assumed that rebuttal can be neatly slotted into a handful of categories and that the debater can simply select an option, then aim and fire. The reality is usually more complicated. However, this smorgasbord approach does help to make clear that you need to think about what you want to rebut, how you can best do so, and, most important, to what end. Resist the tendency to spot a mistake in an opponent’s speech and just grab it. That’s not the best way to start. Instead, think strategically. Just as important, you need to make effective use of your time and also rebut in a way that doesn’t alienate the adjudicators. The exact nature of your rebuttal will be determined by the specifics of the situation, but you should remember some general points as you develop your strategy.

• Pick the errors that can be used to greatest effect. When putting together a case, debaters use various building blocks, some of which have been better thought through than others. Ideally, in rebuttal, you’re looking for the block that has been placed precariously and the removal of which brings down the entire edifice.

• Attack evidence integral to the case. Some pieces of evidence are integral to a speaker’s case; others tend to be thrown in for interest or to demonstrate that the speaker has done her research. Attack the evidence that is essential to the structure. Spotting this evidence can be difficult, but usually it will be an apparently factual piece of information that much of the rest of the case depends on. Frequently, you’ll be looking for points where A appears to cause B, but, in fact, A and B are just happening at the same time. Think about the claim the speaker is making about B and ask yourself “what else was happening at the same time that could have caused that?”

46 

Discovering the World through Debate



• Place your rebuttal within the wider context of your own speech. For example, if your speech focuses on the ethical dimension of a particular discussion, then your rebuttal may wish to focus on how the other side has ignored this. Alternatively, if your points are grounded in political necessity, you might use your rebuttal to demonstrate that the preceding speaker has ignored political reality. Once again, don’t treat rebuttal and constructive argumentation as two distinct items; they should intertwine with each other organically.

Managing Your Rebuttal Rebuttal is not just about defending your ideas and attacking those of your opponents. It’s about working strategically with your teammates, organizing your speech so you can highlight major points, and presenting your material in a manner that shows respect for your opponents. To be successful you must:

• Work closely with your teammates. There are few areas in which the teamwork that is fundamental to debate is more evident than in rebuttal. In reactive rebuttal, you’re using your rebuttal to defend an earlier speaker on your team and, in turn, you can expect to have your arguments defended by your teammates. The same applies to proactive rebuttal. If a teammate has already won a point, you have little to gain by hammering away at it as well. Unless you have something new and substantive to add, move on. Similarly, your speech will be rebutted, so try not to leave too much work for the next speaker on your team in defending you. Teammates must work together, and debaters who are too absorbed with their own speeches to bother defending others on their team tend to find that they then cause problems later in the debate. That’s not a formula for success—or popularity.

• Be aware of time. Can you realistically address a particular point in the minute or so that you can devote to rebuttal? If you can’t, don’t attack it; it will consume your whole speech, and you’ll be left squeezing your own material in at the last minute when you should be presenting your conclusion. If the point you want to attack is a major issue, develop the rebuttal as an argument in its own right. Just as you should start with your most important arguments, so you should prioritize the major flaws for rebuttal. If you’re left with time at the end of your speech, you can always come back for another volley, but you don’t really want to run out of time before pointing out that the other team’s entire case is illegal or that their proposal

Rebuttal 47

already exists. The more powerful a point, the sooner you should get to it and the more time you should devote to it.

• Watch tone and language. Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”) refers to attacking speakers rather than their arguments. Don’t do it. The purpose of debate is to discuss ideas, not the people presenting them. All rebuttals should focus on the ideas being put forward by the other side and be addressed either to the audience or to the person chairing the debate. Remain polite! Debate is not a shouting match, and most rules require the use of parliamentary language—speakers must avoid swearing or using intemperate language. Thus, an argument is not “stupid,” it’s “misunderstood” or “misguided.” A point made by an opposing speaker is not “dumb,” it’s “unlikely” or “poorly conceived.” Never accuse a speaker of outright lying; euphemisms such as “Ms. X seems to be ignoring important data, such as . . .” work just as well as (or better than) “Ms. X is clearly inventing her facts as she goes along.” Everyone understands what’s being said, but no feathers are ruffled. Polite discourse is integral to the philosophy of debate. Basic to debate is the concept that the other side might well be right—that’s important to remember while rebutting their ideas. Use of appropriate language demonstrates not only that are you aware of that fact but also that you accept it as a reality. Similarly, brash statements about the general “wrongness” of ideas—“nobody believes . . . ” or “it’s clearly just wrong to say . . . ”—suggest that you don’t have the evidence to support that claim. If you think that something is unlikely, prove it to be wrong.

Conclusion Effective rebuttal is a vital part of the process of tempering not just the ideas under discussion in the debate but our approach to the world of ideas more generally. Like steel, arguments that have been tempered tend to be stronger and purer at the end of the process than they were at the start. It is quite rare for an argument that we hold to be true to be completely destroyed and utterly rejected; it’s simply not in our nature to say, “I see, my worldview is wrong. Hum ho.” However, the critical skills of argumentation and rebuttal can help us frame ideas for debate and for life that are, at least, logically consistent within themselves.

48 

Discovering the World through Debate



EXERCISES

A. Watch a speech by a politician or other social leader, ideally from another country and with whom you are unfamiliar. If possible, find an interview on a subject about which you have no particularly strong opinions. Then: 1. Identify the points in what they say that you feel are the weakest and the removal of which would most undermine their position. 2. In pairs, discuss why those points are the weakest and what could be done to defend them. 3. In the same pair, take turns attacking and defending the speech. First, one of you should take a turn pointing out the weaknesses in the speech while the other tries to defend it. After a few minutes, change roles but work on new weaknesses. B. Look again at the argument you wrote at the end of Chapter 3. Read it over and then exchange it with your partner—without discussing it first. Now, read your partner’s argument. Try to rebut it while she defends it. Then swap roles and defend your own while she rebuts it.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Debate is a two-way process that involves not only presenting arguments but also rebutting those made by other speakers.

• Rebuttal is the process of criticizing an opponent’s arguments and defending your own. • The process of developing your own arguments and critiquing those of the other team should be two sides of the same coin.

• The purpose of your rebuttal is to persuade the adjudicator, not your opponent; address you remarks to the adjudicator not the speaker.

• Rebuttal should not take up the major portion of your speech. • Rebuttal is both reactive and proactive. • Rebuttal can target knowledge or reasoning; it can highlight mistakes of commission and omission. • When building your own arguments and case, you should consider how you would attack them and then reinforce those areas in advance.

• Rebutting an argument is about critiquing the idea that has been put forward rather than criticizing the person who is propounding it.

Rebuttal 49

CHAPTER 5

Evidence

Much of what is considered to be “evidence” is of very little help to the debater, who is as unlikely to be expected to produce the blood-smeared knife as she is a mathematical formula or a test tube. Equally, as this chapter shows, some types of evidence are considered persuasive in one context but not in others. Perhaps most important within a debate setting, the speaker cannot present a “fact” with a flourish and a simple “Ta-da! I win, you lose.”—at least it’s very rare. Instead, evidence needs to fulfill a function; it forms part of an argument rather than being an argument in its own right. This chapter reviews what sorts of evidence work, what doesn’t, and how to tell the difference.

What Is Evidence? Evidence is the foundation on which we build an argument. It should provide the grounding for the claim you make about how the world is now. From the point of view of the debater, evidence is anything your audience will accept as being true. So, you might start off with the statement “people prefer freedom to tyranny” and then offer evidence to support that position. The other components of your argument—your warrant and claim— will depend on the evidence you give at this critical stage. Of course, your audience may accept your assertion even without the evidence (or in spite of it), but, generally speaking, both you and they should be swayed primarily by the available evidence. As we shall see, evidence comes in various forms, many of which may be open to challenge, but the critical point is that your audience must believe it to be true. Whether you are using evidence to explain your point or to illustrate it, the more reliable the evidence, the more force your argument will carry. Evidence can be broadly divided into four types:

• facts



• theories • presumptions • values These, in turn, can be arranged according to the apparent “hardness” of the data each type provides. Statistics or historical events would be toward the harder data end of the spectrum, while widely held political or legal principles would be placed nearer to the softer judgments. Data Facts

Theories

Presumptions

Judgments Values

This organization does not make any one type of evidence more empirically “true” than any other; many an inaccurate—or more often irrelevant—“fact” lurks out there, as do a lot of clearly true values. However, the scale might provide a useful guide as we review each type. Broadly, these types could be defined as follows:

• Facts. Facts are data that either have been or could be observed as being empirically true. Critically, this kind of evidence relates to events that have happened or are happening in the observable world around us. They might come from the speaker’s own experience, those of commonly shared experiences familiar to the audience, or from a dependable and reliable third source. For example, neither the speaker nor the audience is likely to have personal experience of the remote exploration of Mars, so facts are likely to be drawn from newspaper reports or NASA’s website or some similar source. By contrast, both the speaker and the audience are likely to have experience of life as a schoolchild, the price of gas, or knowledge of the lead stories on that day’s news shows. Types of facts include statistical data, historical examples that are clearly relevant to the issue, academic or other empirical studies, or polling data. Any of these could act as the basis for an argument: According to a recent CNN/USA Today Poll, 66% of Americans believe . . .  Rates of unemployment are currently higher than they have been since . . . 

Solid pieces of information like these are where a fact-based argument starts.

Evidence 51

• Theories. Theories explain facts or predict the results of those facts. Some theories may be very formal, as in the case of scientific theories. For example, scientists consider gravity to be a theory—it is the best available explanation of why objects act as they do but, because it is an explanation rather than a piece of data, it’s called a “theory.” Other theories are less formal—mothers always love their children, education helps you get a better job, politicians lie. You could find exceptions to any of these statements, but they are all premises that an audience will accept. For our purposes, then, a theory, whether formal or informal, works as evidence if a reasonable audience accepts it as credible. So, in a debate on capital punishment, the team arguing in favor of the death penalty might put forward the theory that the greater the punishment, the less likely someone is to commit a crime. It’s not a statement of fact but it sounds reasonable, and an audience is likely to accept it as evidence. Like many theories, it may well take some explanation and your opponents will have evidence of their own to challenge it. However, it provides a reasonable starting point for the speaker because the audience is likely to accept it as being believable and, as a result, probably true.

• Presumptions. Presumptions are statements that it’s sensible to accept as being true or that are commonly agreed to be true. Presumptions fill a gap between what we demonstrate as being true based on what we can observe and what we believe to be true because we consider it to be right or just. At one level, we can say with a fair degree of certainty that New York will be cold in February. We presume this because it always has been before. But what about the presumption that an uncle will be older than his niece? It’s probably true, but not always. Young grandparents can have second families after grandchildren from the first family have been born. However, generally we presume uncles will be older than their nieces. Then there are presumptions that we deliberately make knowing that they might well be wrong: the presumption of innocence being the most obvious. The fact that someone has been charged with a crime suggests that he is considerably more likely than the average citizen to be guilty, but we presume his innocence. Presumptions are important because they remove the “But, what if . . . ” from the debate. We can presume that democratic nations will still be democratic tomorrow and that dictatorships will still have a dictator tomorrow. Presumptions—essentially that extraordinary circumstances, by their nature, can’t be predicted—can be presented as evidence. So, in a debate on U.S. trade relations you could hear: Let us presume that the growth of China isn’t going to stop any time soon . . .  or,

52 

Discovering the World through Debate



Let us presume that Western Europe will remain a major economic force for the foreseeable future . . . 

Both reflect a status that is likely to continue. Let’s be clear here; there is a difference, albeit one of degree, between making presumptions that ordinary events are likely to continue as they are unless an intervention is made to alter them and making assumptions, which is making a claim without evidence.

• Values. Values are commonly shared understandings about how the world either does or should work. At first glance, values would appear to be the vaguest and most subjective of the four categories. However, it’s just as robust as any of the others. Imagine you asked 10,000 high school students, picked at random, whether capital punishment deterred crime or whether they agreed with a certain poll or study. You’d likely get some pretty mixed results. Now, ask the same 10,000 students, “Is it fair to be punished for something you didn’t do?” If you had 1 in 10,000 say “yes,” it would be astonishing. Nonetheless, “fairness” is a value judgment. Value statements provide evaluations of the world around us; they place judgments on people, ideas, institutions, and actions. To be effective as evidence, they need to be meaningful. Look again at the fairness question and replace it with, “Is fairness good?” Again everyone would agree, but no definition of “fairness” is provided. It is a statement so bland that everybody—including the person who is punishing someone without cause—can support, but it’s useless as evidence. Like a political sound bite or a marketing slogan, it sounds nice but doesn’t really mean anything. To use a value as evidence, a judgment must be associated with a situation or what would be more helpful in this case, a definition of what is meant by “fairness.” So, were we to say, for example, that fairness is “being treated equitably in accordance with what we could have expected before committing an action on the basis of past experience” or that “fairness consists of rewards and punishments applied consistently to the situation rather than the individuals involved,” then we can ask the audience to accept that such a state of affairs is “good” and measure a particular instance by that standard. None of these types of evidence is completely distinct from the others. Some theories are a bit more “factish” and others are a bit more “presumptiony.” Frequently, when building an argument, you may use a theory, backed up by some facts and wrapped in a presumption. Don’t worry too much about what box it checks off as long as the audience finds your evidence reasonable.

Evidence 53

Sources of Evidence We live in an increasingly information-rich world, where, possibly for the first time in history, the primary difficulties facing anyone conducting research relate to having too much readily available information rather than too little. As a result, the core research skill for the debater is often evaluating rather than locating evidence. However, before addressing some tests to apply to any type of evidence, it is worth considering how some common types might be approached. You can find evidence in various places, among them: books, classes, the Internet, journals, newspapers, magazines, TV, think tanks, lectures—both on and offline—government data, and academic centers. Each of these sources of evidence has strengths and weaknesses in researching for a debate because each has different goals; for example, some emphasize analysis and background, some focus on currency and the flow of changing events. Thus, each will play a different role in your research strategy. Ultimately, you will determine what approach works best for you, but the odds are against the idea that the first five sites Google spits out will be exactly the pieces of evidence you need to support your case. As you begin your research, keep two points clearly in mind: 1. A debater cannot read too widely. Debaters need to read a variety of materials, preferably from different bodies of knowledge and from different perspectives. Remember, if you find a useful piece of evidence in one source, check it in another. 2. You’re going to use this information, not just hoard it. Thus, your research should be the basis for your arguments rather justification for a conclusion that you’ve already reached. For the most part, you’ll be researching broad topics long in advance of knowing the motion or having any idea of your position in the debate, so you’re looking for information and ideas that underpin the principal discussions in given areas.

NEWSPAPERS (PRINT AND ONLINE) AND NEWS SHOWS

Professional news gatherers, primarily journalists, specialize in providing up-to-date information. That’s their role, they’re very good at it, and debaters should use these sources to find the most current information on a topic. Reputable news sources try to provide objective coverage of events; however, they do bring their own editorial bias in terms of what is ultimately included and—much more frequently—what isn’t in their papers or programs. If you’re not convinced that different news organizations can cover the same story in different ways, select any major domestic news event and then look at how the

54 

Discovering the World through Debate



foreign press covers it. You’ll be surprised by the extent to which something your country considers a major issue is completely ignored elsewhere, particularly where there’s a language barrier—and, when an issue is noticed, it’s often seen as just one small aspect of a broader topic. Consequently, it’s worth getting into the habit of using more than one news source.

MAGAZINES, BLOGS, AND JOURNALS

News magazines and popular journals can offer an understanding of why events happened or why they are significant. These sources provide context for events and give an insight into their likely repercussions. This is the area on which the debater really needs to focus. Even for debate subjects that are not obviously “newsy”—school uniforms, capital punishment, the legalization of narcotics—a surprising amount of material is available. Articles in publications such as these are structured in much the same way as a speech and will start with an overview of the subject and the author’s or authors’ viewpoint. It’s worth reading these introductions before deciding whether the rest of the article will be of use to you. In the light of both of these elements—the balance between currency and evaluation, and the structure of the writing, the kinds of publications discussed above are often favored sources for debaters.

BOOKS AND LECTURES

Books and lectures can provide a nuanced understanding of a topic and a detailed analysis of events. As well as offering an understanding of cause and effect, they can also offer insight into the motivations of those involved in shaping events. Be wary of falling into the “I read it in a book so it must be true” trap; authors make mistakes and hold biases, so treating a text as absolute is very risky. Instead, use the indexes and subheadings of books to find what several authors say on the same subject; this will give you an idea of what most parties accept as true and what is a matter of interpretation or in dispute.

THINK TANKS, NGOS, INTERNATIONAL BODIES, ACADEMIC CENTERS, AND GOVERNMENT REPORTS

Academic and quasi-academic organizations are excellent sources of high-quality evidence. Not only do their websites offer rich seams of data, they also provide professional analysis of an issue. Which organizations are trustworthy and which are not is the subject of dispute, but, generally speaking, they can be judged by association. If they have links

Evidence 55

to major universities, foundations, governments, and publishers, their opinions are likely to be of more use to you as evidence. Be aware, though, that NGOs and think tanks can be supported by organizations with specific political or cultural agendas, so be sure to understand the group’s motivations before using their evidence. Remember, your objective is to find information that your audience will accept as true. If they have heard of and trust a particular institution, any information you mention from that organization will carry more weight in their mind.

INTERVIEWS

Interviews with decision makers can be an excellent source of evidence; however, you should always have this question at the back of your mind: “Why is this person telling me this?” Wherever you see an interview, think about what the motivation of the interviewee is likely to be. If he benefits in some way from being believed, then take what he says with a grain of salt. In a news story about a labor dispute, for example, both parties have a clear financial interest, if not for themselves, then for those they represent. Ideally, you should select the parts of any interview that are uncontroversial. For instance, in the example above, both parties in a negotiation may agree on what needs to be resolved but disagree on the best resolution. You can, then, present the fact that they agree on something as evidence but should steer clear of presenting one outcome as such—unless you are happy to see it contested by the other side. At the very least, if you use information you know will be contested, you should do so with a knowledge of how you will respond when your opponent challenges it.

THE INTERNET

Virtually all of the sources listed already are available online, so why single out the Internet as a source in itself? For one very simple reason: no quality control. Many sources of information we find online encourage us to accept them because they’re well-designed or popular rather than because they are grounded in reality. If I post online that “84% of Americans say they have had an encounter with an alien,” it can achieve the appearance of truth long before someone can point out that it was just made up. The Internet is the most powerful research tool ever invented, but you need to know how to use it. Before you use data that you find online, ask where it came from, what, if any, methodology underpins it, and whether the claims it makes are supported by the evidence it presents—just as you would for a speech in a debate. For the most part, sites that also have an offline presence with a real-world editorial process, for example respected

56 

Discovering the World through Debate



newspapers such as the New York Times, are the safest to use. In the case of our alien encounter, it might have been true (it isn’t), but without double-checking it, it may also be:

• A lie. The writer simply made up the statistic either out of a desire to mislead or because she has herself misunderstood.

• Bad data. Basing the statistic on asking 100 Americans who were attending an expo for those who say they have encountered aliens, then extrapolating that to the public at large simply doesn’t make sense.

• A “blip.” All survey methods occasionally just get something wrong. The more accurate the method, the less often this happens, but rogue polls are a reality of research;

• Irrelevant. Even were it true, the fact that 84% said they have encountered aliens doesn’t actually mean that they have; people say all sorts of odd things, especially to strangers with clipboards. Apply this type of critical thinking to all your sources.

Corroborating Evidence Whatever source you use, verify the information elsewhere. Even well-intentioned writers can make mistakes, and information also simply becomes outdated. Corroborating information with another source will also allow you to check that you have correctly understood what is being said. In part, checking is simply good practice; it’s good to tell the truth. However, it’s also good strategy. If you cite a piece of evidence that is wrong, and another speaker points this out (or the audience already knows this), the audience will mistrust the rest of that argument and probably your whole case. Karl Popper debate takes the most rigorous approach to accuracy in evidence, expecting debaters to be able to provide exact citations for the evidence they are using. Other formats are less stringent; however, it’s not the worst idea in the world to have this information to hand. Clearly, this advice relates particularly to the harder end of the evidence scale we looked at earlier, but being able to reassure your audience that you have reasonable grounds for believing information to be correct will help you make bolder claims than are possible on evidence that your listener may have grounds to mistrust.

Evidence 57

Evaluating Standards of Evidence What, then, will determine whether your audience thinks your evidence is believable? Not how many times you say it or how assured you sound (although the latter helps). Believability is based on four criteria. Strong and persuasive evidence will generally be: 1. Relevant. Evidence should relate to the issue at hand, agree with your side of the debate, and fit into your argument. It’s always tempting to show the audience how much you know about the subject and recite all the evidence you have. One well-chosen fact or idea is far more effective than a thousand random ones and, conveniently, takes a lot less time to say. It may seem obvious, but it’s also important to check whether the evidence you’re using pertains to the situation. Data that is very old or about another country will be less persuasive than up-to-date and geographically appropriate information. Wherever possible, use evidence that is set in the country you are discussing and that is no more than five years old—assuming that a complete change hasn’t occurred, for example, a revolution. Ideally, the evidence should be current and specifically about the particular situation you are debating—but we don’t always get what we want. It’s also important to have a sense of scale. In a debate on compulsory homework in high school, you may be tempted to give examples of how forced labor around the world has led to revolutions and the overthrow of tyrannical regimes, but the audience could be forgiven for thinking that you have lost a sense of proportion—and, quite possibly, your grasp on reality. 2. Comprehensible. Debate takes place in a forum where you can assume your listener is intelligent but is unlikely to be a subject specialist (the same is also true, of course, of the debaters speaking). If you take the closest available professional model, the selection of experts who talk on National Public Television or in the media more generally, you will notice that most of them deliberately avoid long, technical terms or jargon and endless reams of statistics or obscure references to distant events or complex equations. Why? Because their goal is to be understood by the audience, not to impress everyone with how much they know. You may very well be the greatest statistician or ethicist ever born, but if the audience doesn’t understand the evidence, it doesn’t really matter. This doesn’t mean that you should address the audience as though they were dim, but, rather, that you should present evidence clearly and concisely and in a manner that you would expect a reasonably intelligent person to understand.

58 

Discovering the World through Debate



3. Trustworthy. As mentioned earlier, where your evidence comes from plays a powerful role in the likelihood of your audience accepting it. If they recognize and accept the source—“Harvard,” “the UN,” “the Red Cross”—as impartial, they will take your evidence more seriously and will believe it to be true without the need for more work on your part. This is particularly true with statistics. An old joke has it that 87.6% of statistics are made up on the spot—and there’s more than a degree of truth in that. Giving a source is an important way of showing that your information is real. The more respected and trusted the source, the better. This also applies to opinions or quotations—what a professor of history says about wars in Asia is more authoritative than the opinion of a football coach. However, if the debate is on sports in schools, then the coach’s opinion is going to be a lot more useful to you. With the exception of the most basic data, almost all information contains some degree of bias; your job is to assess how much. If you’re putting forward evidence, think about where it came from and ask yourself, “Does this person have anything to gain from me believing this?” That’s not to say that such evidence is never useful—inevitably one side of the debate will take evidence from one set of experts and the other side from another set. The point is that both sides should be using experts. 4. Believable. In many ways, this is both the hardest and most important of the four tests, and it’s toward this goal that the other three are driving. Evidence, no matter how solid, relevant, comprehensible, and well-sourced, still has to be believable. Let’s take an example from an actual debate: Motion: This House Would Send Another Manned Mission to the Moon. Position: Opposition Argument: There is no more science to be done on the moon. Evidence: Several articles from respected journals and the opinions of well-known cosmologists and astronomers—all of whom said there was no point in going back to the moon, there was no interesting science to be done there, short of building an observatory on the other side to look out into space. The moon itself is just a lump of fairly uninteresting rock. Result: Nobody believed it. It’s true, the evidence is completely solid, but in a room full of intelligent people who were not astronomers, nobody believed it and assumed the evidence had been made up.

When you find yourself in a situation like this, your only solution is to pile on the evidence. You need to move your audience from what they currently think is true to what is actually the case. Here, your own judgment comes into play; how much of a stretch is accepting

Evidence 59

the evidence for your audience? If the point you are trying to convey is already widely understood (even if it is actually untrue), a point or two of fairly shaky information will do the trick. If, however, it’s counterintuitive, then your evidence needs to be rock solid and copious. Use evidence to move your audience in baby steps. Start with statements they can easily accept and avoid bold assertions (“everyone agrees” or “it is never true”). Your audience will follow you toward the conclusion, but you need to give them time. If you rush the process with one enormous leap into the counterintuitive dark, they will pull back and reject the whole argument.

Conclusion To continue the analogy of a debate speech being like a journey, evidence is how you get your audience over the obstacles they might encounter along the route. If the evidence you use is believable, it is much easier for the listeners to follow their guide—in this case, you. If you ask them to wade through rivers and cut their way through brush, they’re unlikely to believe that the destination is worth the effort or trust your skills as a guide. If their route is over wide bridges and along well-cut paths, they are unlikely to question anything else you may say. Don’t be afraid to use your own judgment, just as you would test the path ahead for your tour party. If a piece of evidence surprised you, then it will probably come as news to them; if it struck you as unlikely, they may be slow to accept it as well. One final thought about evidence—all of the tests suggested in this chapter for strengthening your own evidence can also be used to break down what the other side is using. Is their evidence out-of-date? Is it biased? Is it implausible? Is it irrelevant? Is the source untrustworthy? Is your evidence more up-to-date, from a larger study, or a more authoritative source? If the answer to all of those questions is “yes,” you will usually win comfortably.

EXERCISES

A. Select a debate from http://idebate.org/motions and identify the evidence the writer has used. Using a scale of one to five (five being highest), decide in your group whether the evidence used is:

• relevant

60 

Discovering the World through Debate



• comprehensible • from a trusted source • believable B. Use the motion: This House Would Abolish School Uniforms. 1. Working in a group, find three pieces of evidence both for and against the motion. Use the same marking scale as above to evaluate each other’s evidence and discuss why some pieces of evidence worked and some didn’t. 2. Divide the group into pairs and debate the motion. As other members of your group are speaking, take notes on what evidence was persuasive and what wasn’t. 3. Reconvene the group and discuss whether there were common experiences between your group and others.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• “Evidence” is a term used to describe a body of knowledge that an audience will accept as being true.

• Evidence is the foundation of any argument; its absence may invalidate any position you put forward.

• Evidence can be found in a wide variety of sources, each of which must be evaluated. • Whatever source you use, verify the information elsewhere. • Four factors will determine the likelihood of an audience accepting your evidence: Is the evidence relevant, comprehensible, trustworthy, and believable?

Evidence 61

CHAPTER 6

Critical Thinking

This chapter looks at how debaters think and why these thinking skills are vital to success. That’s not to say that all debaters should—or do—reach the same conclusions or share the same opinions. However, effective debaters think about the world in a critical manner and tend to apply that approach to their interactions with the world more generally. This chapter will also take a look at how this approach works. The chapter begins with a definition of critical thinking in general terms and then develops that in terms of debate. It then looks at the skills involved in practical terms and how these are applied during a debate. Finally, it examines how the skills learned in the classroom and debating chamber transfer to the outside world. Critical thinking is more an attitude than a set of skills, but it certainly encourages the use of particular skills that we shall examine as they relate to debating. As well as requiring critical thinking, debate also encourages its development and is thus a self-replicating process that allows the debater to test and improve her skills. By encouraging her to reflect on and criticize the opinions and arguments she hears, she is required to question ideas and practices that are taken for granted in her own society or elsewhere. Although it would be quite untrue to suggest that there are “right” opinions that the critical thinker must hold, it would certainly be possible to say that there are plenty of sloppy or ill-considered ones that she would likely reject. It would be unusual if the process of developing these skills did not lead the debater to question, refine, and, at times, reject her own assumptions about the world—and that is no bad thing.

What Is Critical Thinking? Critical thinking is the essential condition for living an examined life. It involves the disposition to reflect on the world and on our beliefs and to apply our reason to their examination.



As a result, it encourages us to consider ideas and conclusions that might seem obvious but, when scrutinized rationally, become highly questionable. Often the very concepts we come to question are the assumptions on which we build other ideas about how the world works or should work. When thinking critically, we might examine whether these ideas are compatible with each other and the world as we observe it, attempting to undertake that observation as dispassionately and rationally as possible. For the critical thinker, inconvenient truths must be accepted just as convenient or comfortable fallacies must be rejected. By applying reason and honesty to the world around us, we are able to build not only a clearer view of that world but a sharper vision of what it, and we, might become and how that change could be achieved.

What Is Critical Thinking in Debate? For the debater, critical thinking requires the consideration not just of a statement or argument but also of the assumptions and intentions that underlie it and are contained within it. Frequently these assumptions may sound convincing, and we may wish to believe that they are true, Nevertheless, if a process of rational scrutiny is applied to every idea put forward in a debate and to the links between these ideas, and, equally, if ideas are examined through the lens of compatibility with each other, what appeared to be sensible and true is frequently revealed as being nothing more than pleasant-sounding words built on nothing of substance. The process of debate is about testing the ideas at the heart of any given proposal. Each side of the debate has a critical role in that process, attempting to find ways of defending a particular course of action or set of values that are consistent both with each other and with the model of the world they assert is true. Every case that a debater puts forward can be thought of as a chain of evidence, logic, and conclusions (the evidence, warrant, claim model we looked at in Chapter 3). The role of the speakers on the other team is to test every link in that chain for flaws. The chain may look strong enough to pull the weight of the speaker’s claims, but is it really? Of course, the debater uses other skills, eloquent speech among them, to try to persuade his audience, but the role of his opponents is to listen their way through all of these distractions to the underlying logic of the argument and then use critical thought to test whether it is actually true. The next chapter looks at listening skills that are important to assessing what a speaker is actually saying, but, having got down to the core of their argument, it is the thinking

Critical Thinking 63

skills outlined in this chapter that allow the critical thinker to appraise the argument itself, shorn of rhetorical devices and other distractions.

What Skills Are Involved in Thinking Critically? As you now know, critical thinking is more a disposition than a fixed set of skills; that is not to say, however, that you cannot identify certain approaches that will help you analyze an argument—whether that’s part of the process of building your own case or assessing that of the other side in the debate. This section examines some of the approaches that tend to be contained in the process of critical thought. It’s not an exhaustive list, but if you apply these skills rigorously in any debate, you’ll be well on the way to being a more critical thinker and a better debater. For the purposes of this chapter, critical thinking comprises the capacity and tendency to:

• consider how ideas connect logically to each other • assess the appropriateness of evidence used in supporting a particular case • be familiar with common errors in reasoning and logical fallacies • insist on evidence for even the most apparently self-evident of claims • subject our own beliefs or claims to the same scrutiny as those with which we disagree • approach problems consistently • identify the relevance—or irrelevance—of proposed solutions to a given problem • identify, construct, and evaluate arguments Let’s briefly consider what each of these skills actually means before discussing how they are deployed in debate.

Consider How Ideas Connect Logically to Each Other

Ideas that appear to support each other are not always as compatible as they seem. The tendency is to pursue the explanation that is immediately apparent. If one thing is true, another must be false; two things that society tends to put together must be treated as indivisible; entire platforms of thought must be consistent with each other because they tend to be promoted by the same groups or individuals. In reality, none of this is true—life

64 

Discovering the World through Debate



is simply more complex than that. The critical thinker will accept that while one idea may be true, those generally placed alongside it are not necessarily also true. Instead, the critical thinker will want it demonstrated that two ideas fit together for a particular reason that is more persuasive than that they sound good or originate from the same source.

Assess the Appropriateness of Evidence Used in Supporting a Particular Case

Pieces of evidence are commonly offered to prove something that is, in reality, unrelated; one season’s weather tells us nothing one way or the other about climate change, for example. That evidence says something about a particular subject does not mean that it demonstrates what the speaker hopes or believes it does. This is particularly true of statistics. For example, higher grades in schools are routinely used as evidence that exams are getting easier, although there’s no reason to assume this. Higher grades may well prove that students are working harder or that teachers are getting better at their job. Statistical data is excellent at telling us what is happening; it is very poor at telling us why it is happening. For explanations, we need expert opinion or research that focuses on only one possible outcome. Questioning whether the evidence presented proves the specific claim being made is a useful habit to acquire.

Be Familiar with Common Errors in Reasoning and Logical Fallacies

As critical thinkers, debaters should be familiar with common logical fallacies frequently found in debate and elsewhere, including:

• False dichotomy. The assumption that if A is true, then B must be false. This is rarely the case, and such a claim should usually be questioned.

• Correlation and causation. The belief that because one thing happened after or at the same time as something else, it must have been caused by it. The two events may just have happened coincidentally; you should demand proof of the cause. This is probably the most common error debaters make.

• Proof by repetition. The notion that if something is said often enough—or by enough people—it must be true. This is probably the most common error made, period.

• Fallacy of composition. The assumption that if something is true of one part of the whole, it must be true of all of it. For example, if I leave the house early, I can beat the rush hour; therefore, if we all leave early, we can all beat the rush hour. Obviously, this doesn’t work—if everyone left early, the rush hour would simply start earlier.

Critical Thinking 65

• Oversimplification of cause. The belief that any given situation must have only one cause. If this is not true of the answer to “Why did you choose to have pizza?,” it is unlikely to be true of “What caused the recession?,” and yet we continue to act as though it is.

• Moral high ground. The idea that some actions, people, or ideas are innately virtuous and that any association with them proves the truth of a particular case. One easy way of thinking about this model is to consider whether the fact that someone is a criminal automatically renders his opinions on all subjects worthless. It clearly doesn’t, the opinion can be assessed in its own right regardless of the source. There are many, many more fallacies; take some time to examine other lists. The purpose of the one above is simply to demonstrate an approach to how we should consider assertions. Simply ask yourself whether a particular point has actually been proved or whether you’re being asked to take it for granted.

Insist on Evidence for Even the Most Apparently Self-Evident of Claims

We believe many things to be both factual and true that are neither, especially in areas that affect most members of society but actually require advanced training to understand properly—science, health care, or economics, for example. We have a tendency to assume that anyone who has been sick knows about health care, that watching the Discovery Channel entitles us to comment knowledgeably on science, or that getting an allowance makes us experts on economics. There is some truth in this; experiential knowledge—knowledge gained by being a participant—can provide useful insights, but all three of these disciplines require methodological rigor that may well produce counterintuitive outcomes. Statements such as “it must be true” or “surely everyone knows” should be treated as warning signs that something widely believed and quite probably untrue is about to enter the discussion. Even at the level of fundamental beliefs about how the world works, it’s good to get into the habit of acquiring evidence before you accept a statement as true. After all, if you look around you, the Earth appears to be flat and the stars are, quite obviously, holes in the sky where the light gets in. Until relatively recently in human history, some very clever people believed both of these because they are obviously true.

Subject Our Own Beliefs and Claims to the Same Scrutiny as Those with Which We Disagree

One of the most common intellectual errors made is to assume that something is true because we happen to think it. Most of us carry around beliefs and values that we picked up fairly uncritically at the age of six or when somebody we like mentioned it in passing.

66 

Discovering the World through Debate



All of us hold utterly contradictory ideas to be true. Often these values are applied in different areas of our lives so the contradiction is not readily apparent. Or, we know one thing rationally but our actions take no account of that knowledge because its implications fall in the future. Separating our own knowledge from the skills of evaluating knowledge is difficult because both our knowledge and the skills we need to evaluate knowledge are in the same place— inside our own heads. However, accepting that one thing we hold to be true has implications for the others, that our own views should not be accorded special status just because we hold them and that we should require the same—or higher—standards of proof for our own values than we do of others, is a foundational part of becoming a clearer and more logical thinker. Accepting our own opinions uncritically is the ultimate example of an “as everyone knows” approach, which, all too often, is simply a cover for “I think.” If you accept your own views as self-evidently true and representative of the opinions of all right-thinking people, you close your mind to the possibility that others may have valid views that you would benefit from considering seriously. The debater who is reluctant to examine her own views but subjects everyone else’s to rigorous and logical scrutiny has somewhat missed the point of thinking critically.

Approach Problems Consistently

Critical thinkers treat the ideas of those they instinctively like or agree with to the same scrutiny as those with whom they are immediately uncomfortable. The odds really are against all of your friends being right all the time and all of the people you dislike being wrong about everything. Critical thinkers can disagree about a subject—indeed it would be extremely unlikely if they didn’t—but they should do so on the basis of honesty and respect for perspectives that are not their own.

Identify the Relevance—or Irrelevance—of Proposed Solutions to Given Problems

Frequently what sounds like a solution to a problem is nothing of the sort. It’s just bluster put in place to give the appearance of activity in the face of a problem that is difficult or complicated. This attitude is often summed up as “There is a problem, something must be done. This is ‘something’, therefore I will do it.” We tend to replace activity with bluster particularly when we view the solutions we propose as “drastic,”“vital,” or “once and for all.” Ask yourself whether any proposed solution actually solves the problem that it purports to address or whether it just makes everybody feel better because they appear to be doing something.

Critical Thinking 67

Identify, Construct, and Evaluate Arguments

From the perspective of the debater, all of the traits we’ve identified so far result in this final one. The capacity to actually break apart an argument, our own and other people’s, and examine its component parts is the purpose of debate as a critical exercise. Arguments that appear to be true are comforting; those that actually are true are satisfying— it is this latter group that should be the focus of the endeavor.

How Is Critical Thinking Applied in Debate? Debaters deploy their critical thinking skills in a number of ways, but most frequently they do so to examine their own case for weaknesses to avoid losing the battle of rebuttal and then to criticize their opponents’ case to win it. Some questions that often concern debaters when examining a case are:

• Is this an answer to the question being asked or is it an answer to something that sounds similar but is quite different?

• Is my opponent actually responding to the point I’ve made or is he just seeking to sound informed, popular, or moral?

• Is this particular argument consistent with itself and with the other things that have been said on the same side of the debate?

• Is this point something that has been demonstrated as being true, or is it something that has been assumed to be true? Typically in a debate, the Affirmative will be attempting to demonstrate that their proposal addresses a particular problem that is either stated or implied in the wording of the motion. The Affirmative’s job is to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that their idea works; that it’s consistent, realistic, practical, appropriate, sensible, moral, affordable, or whatever may be germane to their case. By contrast, the Opposition has the task of demonstrating that the proposal is unworkable, dangerous, unethical, impractical, destructive, unaffordable, impossible, irrelevant, unhelpful, or whatever may be appropriate to theirs. For that debate to take place, both teams need to remain absolutely focused on what is actually being discussed, rather than offering wide-ranging generalizations of what sounds right to the uncritical mind. By applying the skills of critical thinking, debaters are able to address whether the proposed solution—as well as the objections to its implementation—relate to the problem

68 

Discovering the World through Debate



set forth in the motion. They will also use those skills at the various levels of argumentation that underpin both of those cases. Does the evidence relate to the claim? Are the claims of the various arguments within a case complementary or would they defeat each other? Is the Affirmative’s proposed solution genuinely problematic or simply unpopular, counterintuitive, or new?

Transferability Of all of the debate skills covered in this book, critical thinking is, without a doubt, the most applicable to wider life. It has applications for us as citizens, as voters, as scholars, as conversationalists, as writers, as scientists, as job holders, and as thinkers—in short, as active members of the human race. Its uses apply in business, academia, law, politics, the arts and sciences, in our approach to history and literature. It is a skill—or, more accurately, an approach—that should affect all our interactions with the world around us. The ability to question what has been said; to consider whether the answer that was given was actually related to the question that was asked or was a distraction; to think clearly and logically to the heart of the question; to challenge assumptions and accept only cold, hard, logical proof is both the aim of the debater and one of the most useful skills anyone can develop. It is for this reason that debaters tend to score well in exams and also do well on university entrance tests and later in both job interviews and in employment. A critical approach to problems and the realization that just because something is obvious, it isn’t necessarily true is why debating has proved to be valuable in building democratic societies and enduring critiques of human activity.

Conclusion Being able to think through to the heart of any problem, being open to new and unexpected explanations or solutions, taking pleasure in the process of thought itself, and having confidence that you have reached a conclusion as free from bias or preconceptions as possible can be one of the most rewarding pleasures of debate as an art. Although critical thinking may appear to be the most esoteric of the skills outlined in this book, it is hoped that this chapter has given you some appreciation of its applicability. Our capacity to think independently of the demands of the majority or the powerful, to be willing to consider the particular situation and reach our own conclusions—free of

Critical Thinking 69

preconceptions or dogma—is fundamental not only to the process or debate as set out in this book but also to its role more generally in any human society. The debater aims to make the ability to discern and examine arguments a part of her arsenal of skills, but she is likely to find that doing so spills over into her wider life and makes a habit of independent thought.

EXERCISE

A. Look at the list of common errors in reasoning and logical fallacies given above. Can you think of situations in which these have occurred in everyday conversation? If not, where and when do you think they would be likely to occur? B. In groups, discuss situations where you have encountered them or where you think they might be significant. C. In the same groups, try to establish a meaningful answer to the question: When is it legitimate to lie? 1. Consider whether the answer you come up with covers all situations.

• Does it rely on assumptions that might not be true in all circumstances? • Would it require an audience to have already agreed with a certain position? • Is it self-proving? • Does it work for situations where other people are lying to you—or just where you are lying to them? 2. Exchange your answer with another group and scrutinize their answer while they do the same to yours. What flaws are there in their approach, how could it be improved? 3. Report back to the class as a whole and then discuss the various answers as a class. You may wish to consider:

• Do any of the answers hold true in all situations? • Is it possible to find one that does?

70 

Discovering the World through Debate



CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Critical thinking involves the disposition to reflect on the world and on our beliefs and to apply our reason to their examination.

• Critical thinking is an attitude more than a set of particular skills. • For the debater, critical thinking requires the consideration not just of a statement or argument but also of the assumptions and intentions that underlie and are contained within it.

• Common logical fallacies include: false dichotomy, correlation and causation, proof by repetition, fallacy of composition, oversimplification of cause, and moral high ground.

• Debaters can apply critical thinking skills to wider life.

Critical Thinking 71

CHAPTER 7

Active Listening

Textbooks on debating generally overlook listening skills. Our instinct is to consider listening as a passive activity and to want to focus on speaking. If that’s the view you bring to this chapter, wise up! You will spend most of your debating career listening. In a six-speaker debate, for example, you will be listening for more than 80% of the time. This chapter will give some guidance on how to listen actively and what to listen for.

Hearing and Listening We don’t listen to most of what we hear. Feel free to read the last sentence again, but listening and hearing are very different capacities, and we conflate them only as a convenience. Listening is the process of attaching meaning to sound. We hear the sound of traffic as we walk along the street. We hear the hubbub of conversation at a party. We listen to a panicky horn near us or when someone at the party shouts out our name. We instinctively listen to enough of a conversation—or a speech—to confirm that the speaker is saying what we expected and then get on with formulating our response. That’s fine when discussing whether to go for pizza or a burger, but in debate—or lectures or negotiations for that matter—it’s a serious limitation. Our brains predict what is going to be said next and decide what was said previously—regardless of what actually happened. For what it’s worth, our eyes do the same thing with text. You will have read several sentences in this book that aren’t there and not read several that are. Active listening is the skill of listening to what has actually been said rather than hearing what you expected to be said. You hear with your ears, you listen with your brain. Active listening allows you to become a true participant in what is going on around you rather than a casual observer swept along in the moment.



Being an Active Listener Being an active listener means ridding yourself of all of the distractions that usually clutter up your various filters of the world to focus remorselessly on the point that a speaker is actually making. It means cutting through his use of easily accepted assertions and assumptions, setting aside the tone, inflection, demeanor, and everything else to focus just on what he says. You can then analyze what has been said and question the intentions and assumptions that lie behind the words and phrases. Active listening means taking into account the words that a person uses and comparing them to concepts she raises later in an argument. It is a process of asking why someone has made a statement, whether he has proved it, and what that statement really means. Active listening is the same process as not being distracted by the fact that a salesman is talking about the weather or a politician is talking about what a lovely family you have. As an active listener, you are aware that the speaker is doing this to build some kind of connection with you so that you are more likely to trust him subsequently. As an active listener, you are able to concentrate on just the bits of the conversation that relate to whether you should buy the product or cast your vote and judge those parts of the conversation on their merits, not on the basis that the speaker has said something nice about the jacket you’re wearing. Cynical? Maybe. Realistic? You bet.

Why Use Active Listening Debaters have a tendency to focus on—and train for—the speaking part of debating. That’s understandable. For many, improving their skills as an orator is the main motivation for learning to debate. However, it’s less than half the story. Debate is about the art of persuasion—to persuade you need a very clear idea of what the audience (in this case an adjudicator) is hearing and thinking. You also need a forensic understanding of what is being said by the other side—an analysis based on what is convincing rather than what sounds convincing and an appreciation that their claims and evidence can, and should, be scrutinized. After all, they are trying to persuade the same audience that you are but in the opposite direction. Active listening allows you to witness the debate as the adjudicator witnesses it. As a result, you gain a major competitive advantage over other speakers who are busy focusing on what they will say next rather than thinking about what the adjudicator understands from

Active Listening 73

what has just been said. All an adjudicator does is listen to every word, take notes, and think about whether speakers have addressed the key issues, given sufficient evidence to prove their claims, and developed their cases logically. If you are listening in the same way, you can address her concerns when you speak. Ask any experienced adjudicator, and she will tell you that one of the hardest parts of the job is continuing to focus while desperately hoping that someone tackles the really obvious point that she’s noticed but none of the speakers have mentioned yet. You want to be the person to bring it up. In addition to allowing you to understand the debate as the adjudicator sees it and gain an advantage through doing so, there’s another reason for sharpening your listening skills— it makes for a better debate. If everyone in the room is an active listener—and is good at it—you no longer have a competitive advantage. Nevertheless, other speakers are more likely to address the points you make, and all participants are engaged with what is happening rather than what they hoped might happen or thought probably happened while they were muttering about strategy with their teammates.

Using Active Listening in Debate Three questions should be at the forefront of the active listener’s mind throughout a debate. This section deals with the first two: What is actually being said? and Why is it being said? The next section takes a look at the toughest of the three: What isn’t being said? Listening actively may seem challenging, especially if you’re doing so while thinking about your own speech. However, as with the thinking skills covered in the last chapter, listening is actually more of an attitude that you acquire over time than a process you apply in response to every word a speaker utters. Usually, the major challenge for the active listener is to avoid thinking about what you’re planning to have for lunch or whether the essay you finished yesterday will get a good grade. Focusing on just what’s happening in the room is an important first step. The next step, of taking that information and assessing it in the context of what else has been said, is made a lot easier when you realize that your own speech is directly affected by what the person speaking is saying now, at this very second. By taking the points that a speaker has made and comparing them to your own remarks, those of your teammates, and the questions and issues raised by your own side, you can appreciate her speech as the adjudicator does—as one component to be judged by how well it relates to the broader debate. By gaining such an insight, you will find that fulfilling the requirements of your position in the debate ceases to be an exercise in box-checking and becomes an intrinsic and natural part of the way ideas and information flow in analytical situations. Speakers often feel that the most effective listening skills

74 

Discovering the World through Debate



require them to grab a passing phrase and disagree with it, mostly to show the adjudicator that they’re still awake. This approach couldn’t be more wrong. Active listening isn’t about ignoring your own role in the debate, it is the very heart of making your speech as persuasive and powerful as it can be. So, relegate your desire to comment on one particular word or phrase to the same place as thinking about lunch and the essay. Instead, ask what the speaker is actually saying. If it’s a teammate, what has she missed, how does this relate to your team’s control of the debate in the mind of the adjudicator? If it’s a comment from a member of the opposing team, why is she focusing on that particular issue? Is she saying something that’s already been said? Has she run out of material? Why is she not addressing the salient point made earlier? Does she not understand it or was it not clear? Does it need further explanation or is she ignoring it because she doesn’t have an answer?

WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING SAID?

The debater’s job is to use logic to question whether what is being said—really being said—makes sense. Whenever another speaker makes a statement, it’s worth asking yourself, “Really? Is that true? Is it relevant?” Most important, is the speaker saying something reasonable and logical or is he inviting his audience to follow him into happily accepting an assumption? A few phrases tend to be a clue that some sloppy thinking is coming up: “As everybody knows . . . ,” “It’s obvious that . . . ,” “Nobody can deny that . . . ,” “Everyone agrees that . . . ” Any statement using these introductions is quite likely to be followed by an unproved assumption. That’s not always the case, but it’s always worth listening for and inwardly questioning whether there is any proof whatsoever for what comes next. Carefully listen to the transitions from one element of an argument to another. Are they really logical? Does B really follow from A? Am I only accepting what this person is saying because it’s easier than thinking about it? At any point in a speech where the argument moves from one element to another, the actively listening brain should kick into gear and ask whether the speaker has really built a link or whether he’s just hoping that nobody will notice that he’s made a jump without any foundation. As an active listener, be alert for the following:

• Flaws in logic. Has the speaker demonstrated a logical link between two things or is she asking you to accept their relationship because it seems obvious? Is she encouraging you to just accept, as you might in casual conversation, that A caused B simply because A happened first or that the two options she has presented are the only two available and are mutually exclusive?

Active Listening 75

• Generalizations and Assumptions. Is the speaker telling you something that has been demonstrated as true or something that is widely believed but has never been proved? At their most grotesque, generalizations descend into simple prejudice, but even apparently aspirational statements—“Everybody wishes to be free” or “Liberty is grounded in respect for the individual”—almost certainly try to disguise the fact that the speaker can’t prove her point. If she’s then drawing a conclusion based on that kind of reasoning, you might want to ask for evidence that is more clearly defined or open to verification.

• Unfounded Claims and Assertions. Is the speaker’s claim directly related to (or even remotely connected with) the argument he has just made? To take a common example, is the existence of bad practice in a particular industry an argument for banning the industry’s products? Not really, it’s an excellent argument for banning those practices or regulating that industry more tightly; it may have remarkably little to do with the end product.

• Rhetorical Questions. Rhetorical questions (the speaker asks herself a question and then either answers it or invites the audience to draw a particular and unavoidable conclusion) can be a useful way of bringing focus to a debate, but usually they are used to draw the focus away from the fact that the speaker doesn’t have an answer to a different question. Rather than allowing your brain to do what it naturally wants to and follow the tangent of the rhetorical question, impose some discipline on the situation and analyze whether the question has anything to do with the subject of the debate.

• Contradictions and Disconnects. Place the statement the speaker is making in the wider context of what he and his team have previously said on the subject. Does the proposed methodology promote its supposed goals or contradict or prevent their attainment? Will the course of action he has put forward actually achieve the goal, however virtuous, that he has set out?

WHY IS THIS BEING SAID?

The overwhelming—and obvious—answer to this section’s title should be, “He’s trying to win the debate.” However, taking this process a little further uncovers a more revealing question: “Why is he saying this rather than something else?” The answer the speaker would hope to have to that question is: because it is the most accurate and incisive way of making a powerful and persuasive point. If that’s the answer you come to as well, it’s time to start thinking about how you or your teammates can rebut the argument with equal precision. If that’s not the answer, other contenders could be:

• He’s run out of material and is just filling time.

76 

Discovering the World through Debate



• He can’t prove it and is hoping I don’t notice. • He wants the adjudicator to ignore that this isn’t what the debate is about. If any of the above is the reason for what an opposing speaker is saying, then you’re in a much stronger position—but only if you notice that it’s happening. If he’s foundering and obviously struggling to get to the end of his allotted time, just sit back and let him drown. If he’s giving a good appearance of talking about the subject but clearly has no evidence, you might, format permitting, offer a Point of Information that contains a direct question requiring a factual answer. If he can’t answer it, his speech will probably unravel. Of course, a given argument is more likely to be neither the most incisive and forceful point possible nor over-padded, unsubstantiated nonsense but somewhere in between. Most debaters have a fairly clear idea of where their speeches are going and a reasonable amount of evidence to support the claims they make. However, it’s almost inevitable that some parts of a speech will be stronger than others. Some arguments may be more relevant to the points of contention than others and some links between the evidence and the claim clearer. The effective listener is aware of this fact and strategically targets those parts of an opponent’s speech that are the least well-protected and those of her colleagues that would benefit from more elaboration or explanation. In practice, this means not offering a Point of Information because you haven’t said something for two minutes or picking a point for rebuttal just because it was the one being talked about when you were writing that part of your notes. It means thinking like the adjudicator and confirming her concerns about the other side’s case in your own remarks or alleviating concerns about a weaker argument made by a teammate. To understand how active listening might work in practice, let’s take two fairly common examples:

• Why is a speaker spending more time on one particular point while barely mentioning another? Almost certainly because he knows a lot about the former but not the latter. Make this weakness a target in your rebuttal.

• Similarly, why is the speaker lurching between points without ever seeming to complete one? Chances are that his thoughts and/or notes are very disorganized, so don’t do him a favor and clarify his points in the mind of the adjudicator when you address them. Just pick one weak point and focus on that. There are as many answers to the question of why a speaker is saying a particular thing as there are situations in which it might be asked, but the key lesson is to resist the temptation to leap in and take advantage of what might seem like a mistake. Think it through a first: What is happening in the speaker’s mind? What should your response be in terms of winning the debate?

Active Listening 77

What Isn’t Being Said? What the speaker, either by accident or design, isn’t saying can be vital in finding the weakness in his case. But determining what isn’t being said is one of the hardest skills for the debater to acquire because she must concentrate on two unrelated issues simultaneously. The first of these issues is the point that an opposing speaker is putting forward, the second is whether he should have raised that point in the first place. If a speaker tells you that the debate revolves around a particular point, there is an understandable desire to evaluate what he goes on to say about that point. That’s fine, but you also need to be thinking about whether it really is the focal issue of the debate and, if not, what is. The natural tendency is to focus on what is in front of us and look for the strengths and weaknesses of the points that are being made rather than “listening” for the points that aren’t being made. Let’s take a simple, and entirely accurate, statement: nuclear power plants produce some of the cheapest energy available. Indeed they do. However, what is unsaid is that the costs of mining, transporting, refining, and then reprocessing nuclear fuel are enormous. It is surprising how many debates on nuclear energy carry on quite happily with nobody making that point. It remains unsaid by both sides because the initial statement, in and of itself, appears to be true and whoever makes the point can rattle off a list of statistics to demonstrate that truth. In many debates, the point of clash is brushed over in a few seconds before both teams spend their time arguing over the minutiae of the issues raised. The active listener needs to be aware that just because a previous speaker hasn’t devoted much time to a particular consideration doesn’t make it unimportant—no matter how much he doesn’t want to talk about it. The very way in which points are framed can contain assumptions that then dominate the debate. Let’s take an example from a debate on the regulation of prostitution. As part of her definition, First Affirmative comments that, “By choosing this particular lifestyle, the women involved leave themselves open to great risks and then pose further risks to society in the form of STDs and the criminality associated with the lifestyle. This debate focuses on the extent to which legalization can mitigate those risks and where the interests of the state should reasonably lie between protecting the interests of the sex worker and those of the wider public.” If the idea that this is a “lifestyle” that has been “chosen” is left unchallenged, Negative will almost certainly lose the debate. The point of contention in this debate is who has moral responsibility for the STDs, violence, and associated criminality. If Negative doesn’t make clear that they see the men paying for and profiting from the situation as culpable, they’ll lose.

78 

Discovering the World through Debate



Often listening to what hasn’t been said requires the debater to take a step back and see the debate in its wider context. If the debate has begun to focus on how an institution should be reformed or how a military campaign should be conducted, it’s frequently worth checking that, at some point, the case has been made for having the institution or conducting the campaign at all. Or has the speaker just skipped that bit of the argument and everyone has gone along with him because it seems like the polite thing to do? What, in any argument, is the speaker asking his audience to take for granted by the simple expedient of not mentioning it? The approach of considering what has not been said can apply more generally to the arguments on both sides of the debate. Inevitably any speaker will put forward those arguments that she feels work best for her side. An active listener asks if this is the whole story. For example, if a case has been demonstrated for a particular curriculum reform on the basis that it will bring wider social benefits and ultimately stimulate the economy, there is nothing to stop you from asking about its immediate pedagogical impact in the classroom or whether teachers qualified to teach it are available—and interested. You may well end up debating within the paradigm set up by other speakers, but it’s worth at least being aware of what you’re doing and considering alternatives. Learning to think about what is not being said takes practice and vigilance. It’s all too easy to accept that certain topics should be discussed in certain ways. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that; there will always be some issues that are more germane to any given topic than others. However, taking a few seconds to think whether a speaker is presenting the whole story will save you a lot of time in blind alleys.

Deafened by Style and Situation There is a popular myth in debating. It is the notion that it’s possible to ignore a speaker’s style. It really isn’t, and pretending otherwise can be quite dangerous. Instead, you should be aware that you are swayed by style and be alert to that fact, while, in your turn, you are using style as freely as possible to distract your opponents. Giving the benefit of the doubt to speakers who are confident, charming, or witty is simply part of how we communicate. We’re less likely to notice logical mistakes if we’re enjoying the way someone is speaking. And we’re vastly less likely to interrupt them because we instinctively want to hear what they have to say. Conversely, if a speaker has a monotonous voice or is difficult to hear because she speaks quietly or to understand because of a strong accent, we are more likely to “tune out” and think about something else. If you

Active Listening 79

want proof of this, take any one of the great speeches of history, put it through a computer’s voice synthesizer, and see how long you pay attention. We also tend to trust deeper voices and those that have an accent similar to our own—or one of a quite small range of accents we have been trained to respect as authoritative. When we hear the voice of a friend—or just someone we know well—we are less likely to approach what is being said critically. If it’s a friend, we assume he is right; if it’s someone we dislike, we assume he is wrong—what is said is rarely an issue in making that decision. A speaker’s style is usually apparent within the first 30 seconds or so of his speech, and it’s worth making a conscious decision about whether you will need to concentrate extra hard to follow what is being said. Brilliant style gets in the way of active listening just as much as bad style, and both require added concentration. One other quick note on times when added concentration is required: immediately before and after your own speech, it’s very difficult to concentrate on what others are saying. It’s important to be aware of this, but it’s more important to be aware that this applies to your teammate(s) as well. In the minute on either side of their speech(es), you should be listening for both of you rather than frantically giving advice or offering congratulations on a job well done. Speakers also frequently cease listening once they’ve given their speech and think that their involvement in the debate is over. This is most true of First Affirmative speakers and with the least justification. You should actively listen throughout the debate for four reasons: 1. An extraordinary degree of self-importance is required to believe that once your speech is out of the way, the highlight of the debate has passed and you can now sit back while others digest your brilliance. 2. It’s bad tactics, especially in formats with Points of Information. When the judges come to make their decision, it may be nearly an hour since they heard First Affirmative speak— anything you can do to remind them that you were part of the debate should be seized with both hands. Most adjudicators will note who offered points of information during a debate or will check to see if your subsequent involvement has actually taken account of what has been said since you spoke. In addition, if the format you’re using relies on Points of Information or cross-examination, you will be hard-pressed to do either if you haven’t listened to the other debaters since you spoke. Alternatively, if the format uses reply speeches, it’s important to incorporate what is said throughout the debate rather than just regurgitate an earlier speech. 3. Not listening is bad strategy. You will learn much more about your case by paying attention to how it fares as the debate progresses than you ever did in delivering your speech. And, since it’s likely that you’ll be speaking on the same or a similar subject at

80 

Discovering the World through Debate



a later date, it’s a good idea to know which ideas floated, which were torpedoed, and which simply sank without a trace. 4. Not listening is just plain rude. You expected other debaters to listen to you, it’s only good manners to return the favor.

Conclusion It would be reckless to suggest that listening is more important than speaking as a skill in debate. You could have a sublime analysis of the cut and thrust of what is going on, meticulous notes, and a precise, analytical assessment of what others have said; however, if you then stand up and grunt inaudibly for a few minutes, it’s not going to matter much. That said, good listening skills will not only turn a good performance into a great one, they can also save what could otherwise have been a bad one. If nothing else, however long your debate career, you will spend considerably more of it listening than speaking. Without effective listening skills, you will devote many, many hours to aimlessly staring out of windows or composing shopping lists. Active listening, by contrast, will ensure not only that your speech is better in any given debate but that you also acquire skills and knowledge from others to help you improve in future debates. There is one, final, reminder of the benefit to working on listening skills—they are the ones most frequently ignored by other speakers. Even if you’re not convinced by anything else in this chapter, a healthy focus on listening provides any debater with a competitive advantage. It also provides a competitive advantage as a voter, a consumer, a student, and a citizen.

EXERCISE

Identify a speech made by a politician, or similar leadership figure with whom you usually agree, but pick a subject with which you are not particularly familiar. 1. Without going into detail, discuss in pairs whether you agree or disagree with the general conclusion the speaker reached. 2. Research a speech in opposition to the general conclusion the speaker reached. Use as much time as is available and whatever resources you feel may be useful. Don’t feel constrained simply

Active Listening 81

to rebut the points the speaker made. Read about the subject and pursue areas you feel are particularly important to an understanding of the issue and, if it helps, write a few short paragraphs to clarify your thoughts. It’s not an essay, just a few ideas that you think are important to the issue as a whole, regardless of whether they were mentioned in the speech. 3. If possible (and it may well not be) track down a transcript of the speech. If it was made in a legislature, it will be transcribed in an official report; if it was made elsewhere, then a party website or press office may be able to provide one. If not, work in groups to transcribe the speech as a whole, with the first person writing down the first part, someone else the next chunk and so on so that you can piece together the complete speech. 4. Work through the speech on your own, noting any questions or issues that you would like to ask the speaker and anywhere that you feel the speaker has missed an important point or has allowed the audience to assume that something is the case when it may not be. 5. Discuss your questions in a group and note on your copy of the speech any questions that others have raised that you think are important for the speaker to address. 6. Listen to the speech again. Has your view of the speech changed? Has your view of the speaker changed? Discuss in your group how listening actively to this or any speech can affect your view of a speaker.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Active listening is the skill of listening to what has actually been said rather than hearing what we think should have been said.

• Debaters listen to each other’s speeches actively—analyzing what was said and what wasn’t said—and consider them more than we tend to in everyday conversation.

• Speakers may be allowing their listeners to make assumptions or take positions without really considering them.

• Certain phrases can be clues to a piece of sloppy argumentation or lack of evidence. • Your involvement in a debate does not start when you stand up to speak or end when you sit down.

82 

Discovering the World through Debate

Part 2: Debate Formats

CHAPTER 8

Karl Popper Format

The Karl Popper (KP) format of debate is named after the twentieth-century philosopher who argued that critical thinking is a collaborative process of dialogue and that knowledge progresses by the rigorous public testing of ideas and opinions. KP is popular in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and now has an established presence in Africa. The format was devised by the Open Society Institutes and has been adopted by the International Debate Education Association’s annual Youth Forum. Karl Popper format is promoted primarily as an educational tool to encourage critical thinking, tolerance for different views, and respect for ethical principles. It is often considered a good starting point for high school debaters. The Karl Popper format particularly accentuates role of the team within debate. Team members perform individually and have different responsibilities, but the format requires them to work together to succeed. The constructive speeches present each side’s basic case, while later speakers elaborate and expand the arguments as necessary. The two rebuttal speakers on each team may not usually introduce new arguments. The team works as a unit throughout a competition, switching between Affirmative and Negative over the course of a tournament. Reflecting the format’s emphasis on cooperation, teams are judged as a unit. Variants of the format have evolved as it has been adopted in different countries. The length of speeches, length of prep time during the debate, point system for evaluation, and sometimes even the notes for adjudicators may vary. Many KP formats now allow for the Second Affirmative speaker to introduce a new argument, although in practice this happens very rarely. The original format is referred to throughout this book.

Structure In Karl Popper format, six individuals speak during each debate. Three for the Affirmative support the proposition; three for the Negative oppose it. The debate is composed of

Name: Karl Popper (KP) Number of teams: 2 (Affirmative; Negative) Number of speakers: 6 Length of debate: 44 minutes of speaking time plus in-debate preparation time, which varies between countries Length of speeches: Constructive speeches: 6 minutes; Rebuttal speeches: 5 minutes: Cross-examination: 3 minutes Topics: Vary; announced usually a month in advance. Impromptu debates are also common, especially in the final stages of tournaments. Preparation: Significant preparation and research before debate; no research or assistance permitted once the debate has begun. Prep time for impromptu debates: 60 minutes. Key features: Emphasis on debate as an educational tool; emphasis on teamwork; use of cross-examination Unique terminology: Refutation—Responses to the speeches of the other team are termed “rebuttal” in other formats but are known as “refutation” in KP to distinguish them from Rebuttal—In Karl Popper format, “rebuttal” refers specifically to the second speakers’ efforts to address the arguments of the first speakers. This is dealt with in detail in the overview section below. Points of Information: No Cross-examination: Yes Reply speeches: No

10 parts. Six are speeches; the remaining four are periods of cross-examination. The first two speeches are constructive speeches in which the debaters present the basic arguments about the resolution as well as all of their reasons for supporting or opposing it. The remaining speeches, the rebuttals, are devoted to challenging and defending arguments. Debaters present objections to their opponents’ arguments and defend their own. In the rebuttal speeches, debaters are not allowed to introduce completely new arguments in support of their position. Each of the first four speeches is followed by a period of

86 

Discovering the World through Debate



cross-examination that is used to clarify arguments and to lay the groundwork for objections that will be made in the rebuttal speeches. Order of Speakers

Time

Speaker

1. Affirmative Constructive

6 minutes

First Affirmative Speaker

2. Cross-Examination

3 minutes

Third Negative Speaker questions First Affirmative Speaker answers

3. Negative Constructive

6 minutes

First Negative Speaker

4. Cross-Examination

3 minutes

Third Affirmative Speaker questions First Negative Speaker answers

5. First Affirmative Rebuttal

5 minutes

Second Affirmative Speaker

6. Cross-Examination

3 minutes

First Negative Speaker questions Second Affirmative Speaker answers

7. First Negative Rebuttal

5 minutes

Second Negative Speaker

8. Cross-Examination

3 minutes

First Affirmative Speaker questions Second Negative Speaker answers

9. Final Affirmative Rebuttal (Reply) 10. Final Negative Rebuttal (Reply)

5 minutes

Third Affirmative Speaker

5 minutes

Third Negative Speaker

Roles Although the responsibilities of the individual debaters vary, in keeping with the emphasis on teamwork, roles are not specialized or significantly different. Team members must work together throughout the debate.

• First Affirmative Speaker. The First Affirmative speaker gives a definition of the motion, which should be reasonable, debatable, and within the spirit of the motion. She then sets out the entire case of the Affirmative side. Although later speakers can refer to

Karl Popper Format 87

her arguments, elaborate, and expand on them as necessary, they may not introduce new arguments. She also defines any complex issues and criteria that her side will rely on throughout the debate. For example, if her side is using one specific aspect of a concept that is generally considered more broadly, she must state and define this. Her definition will stand for the remainder of her team’s case; later speakers will not be able to reorient the concepts to their subsequent advantage.

• First Negative Speaker. The role of this speaker is to react to the arguments presented by the First Affirmative. He has the opportunity to challenge the definition, although this should only happen in exceptional circumstances, and also any criteria that the Affirmative team has introduced. If he does not challenge them, they are considered to have been accepted by his side. Similarly, First Negative identifies and challenges all of the Affirmative arguments that his team plans to contest; if he does not do so, those arguments are considered to have been accepted. In this format, the Negative does not have to present its own substantive policy.

• Second Affirmative Speaker. The Second Affirmative both attacks the constructive arguments put forward by First Negative and defends the arguments advanced by his colleague. If he does not challenge a constructive argument put forward by First Negative, that argument is considered to have been accepted; if he does not challenge a criticism, it is deemed to have been accepted. Consequently, he must be specific about the arguments that he is addressing. He is free to introduce new evidence—indeed, the format encourages this—to demonstrate why the First Negative’s criticisms are not as strong as they may have appeared. He also points out to the adjudicator any arguments that First Negative conceded.

• Second Negative Speaker. In large part, this speech is the inverse of Second Affirmative’s speech—exactly the same twin-track approach but criticizing both the refutation and the constructive evidence that has been presented by her opposite number. Both second speakers should be conscious that through the effective use of evidence-based refutation, they can begin to raise doubts in the mind of the adjudicator about the validity of research cited by the other side. This is where solid preparation pays off. If one team uses new evidence to respond to changes in the debate as they come up and the other is stretching the same evidence ever-thinner to cover the cracks in their responses, that begins to build up an impression of authority on one hand and desperation on the other.

• Third Affirmative Speaker. In this speech, the speaker’s role is reactive: she responds to any new material that the Second Negative introduced. She may also offer new evidence in defense of the Affirmative case, but this is a summary speech, not a rebuttal in the manner of the debate’s middle speakers. At this point, the speaker works to

88 

Discovering the World through Debate



focus the adjudicator on the decision she wants him to reach. She will drop extraneous arguments and emphasize those key to the debate—the points of clash. She also aims to establish the criteria by which the debate should be judged by urging the adjudicator to consider one factor or perspective as being paramount. .

• Third Negative Speaker. The job of the Third Negative is to summarize the Negative case. It is an opportunity to focus the debate and the attention of the adjudicator on the key issues in the debate. The speaker aims to blend defensive and attacking arguments into the same line of reasoning, making them appear to be the same thing or, at the very least two sides of the same coin. Five minutes is not long to summarize the entire debate successfully, so he must remember that each point against the Affirmative is also reflected in a point in favor of the Negative team’s arguments.

Important Features

PREPARATION AND RESEARCH

Because the topic is announced well in advance of the debate, debaters can—and should— spend significant time researching evidence and developing arguments. The groundwork for the collaborative teamwork central to the format must be laid during the working sessions and practices that precede the debate. Arguments are based not only on general knowledge the audience may have or accept but also on specific or detailed information uncovered during research. Thus, debaters may be introducing their audience, usually an adjudicator, to new evidence and should offer sufficient detail and authority to be persuasive. It is a peculiarity of KP that debaters should be able to cite the sources of the evidence on which they rely and so should record this as they build cases.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

KP is perhaps best known for its use of cross-examination to create direct clash between participants and to encourage in-depth exploration of issues. Cross-examination is intrinsically linked to the process of speech delivery, with teammates working together so that information extracted or solicited under cross-examination is then used to develop points of rebuttal in the following speech. The interweaving of constructive and refutation/rebuttal, of speeches and cross-examination, and the rapid shift in arguments requires teams

Karl Popper Format 89

to work together closely to keep up with a fluctuating web of arguments around them if they are to win.

PREPARATION TIME

Each debate includes several minutes of preparation time. Usually 3–5 minutes per side, although the specific the amount varies in different countries; in some countries, the Negative team also has more prep time than the Affirmative. This time is not scheduled for a specific place in the debate, it is taken at the discretion of each team, in whatever amounts the team desires. The use of preparation time is a strategic element in Karl Popper debates. The more prepared a team is for the debate, the less preparation time it will require early in the debate round. The more preparation time the team can save for the second or last speech, the more time it can devote to synthesizing and summarizing its positions. During preparation time, teammates must pass on their ideas and suggest strategies to one another. If team members cannot work together and communicate efficiently, the whole debate may fall apart. Arguments will not be made and refutations will go unanswered. Cross-examination also can be a valuable preparation time. While one member of the team is engaged in cross-examination, the other team members can use this time to prepare the next speech. In this way, a team can maximize its prep time. Using cross-examination time for preparation also can help a team save its official preparation time for later in the round when it is most needed. . However, debaters should limit their discussions with each other to ensure that they are still aware of important aspects the cross examination going on in front of them.

REFUTATION

The interaction of ideas and arguments is the heart of debating; hearing half a dozen well-informed but disconnected speeches on a subject is very interesting and can be a stimulating way to pass an hour or two, but it’s not a debate. In any format, simply dismissing an argument would be unacceptable; instead, a debater is expected to point to a flaw, either evidential or logical, in the argument. However, KP debaters are expected to then provide a counter example of a preferential alternative that supports their case. In KP, this process can be formalized in the following five steps, which debaters should always use in refutation: 1. Reference: identify exactly which of your opponent’s arguments you are addressing.

90 

Discovering the World through Debate



2. Response: specify the problem with the argument. 3. Support: cite or introduce evidence to support your contention that your preferred alternative is superior. 4. Explanation: demonstrate logically that the evidence speaks directly to the argument in question and justifies your claim of a superior position. 5. Impact: this stage is optional but you may explain why this argument is of significance to the wider debate and why it benefits your team.

Adjudication Adjudicators in KP base their decision on the argumentation and evidence introduced in the course of the debate rather than on any prior values or knowledge of competitors. Because of the format’s emphasis on education, structure is generally more important than communication style. KP debates are often judged by a sole adjudicator. Judges are also required to provide constructive feedback on the debate, not simply announce the winner.

CHAPTER CHECKLIFST

• The Karl Popper format is promoted primarily as an educational tool to encourage critical thinking, tolerance for different views, and respect for ethical principles.

• The format conceives of debate as a team activity; teams are judged as a unit. • The first two speeches are constructive speeches in which the debaters present their basic arguments; the remaining speeches, the rebuttals, are devoted to challenging and defending arguments.

• All the arguments for each side must be laid out in the first speeches, with later speakers free to develop them.

• The Negative team does not have to present its own substantive policy.

Karl Popper Format 91

CHAPTER 9

British Parliamentary

The British Parliamentary format of debate (usually called just “BP” or “Worlds” format) is the standard model of debating used in the United Kingdom and is popular in many countries around the world. It is used primarily in universities, although it also has a good following among high school debaters. Because it is the format of the World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC), it is sometimes also called “WUDC format,” or “Worlds format,”—do not confuse it with the World Schools format. In most of the world, BP is the closest thing debating has to a lingua franca; many university societies will either conduct all of their debates in BP or will use another, often regional, format and BP. The situation is different in the United States, where there is often a stark divide between parliamentary debating and the separate tradition of policy debate. BP is very loosely based on the traditions of the British Parliament and retains some of the conventions of the House of Commons. The two sides are known as Government or Proposition (Affirmative) and Opposition (Negative), and speeches alternate between sides. Debaters offer Points of Information (POIs), similar to the interruptions made by Members of Parliament. The motion is worded “This House Would . . . ” or “This House Believes . . . ” and is treated like a piece of legislation. BP calls for four teams—two for the government and two for the Opposition—that compete against each other. This structure gives BP debate a unique dynamic. Speakers compete against both the other side of the house and the other team on their side. This, inevitably, affects the flow of the debate. In other formats, the issues that dominate the beginning of the debate are likely to be those that still are uppermost by the end. This can be the case in BP, but often is not. Like any format, BP has its fans and its critics. Inevitably it develops some skills more than others but, whatever the reality, because it’s one of the most widely used formats, any serious debater should become familiar with the rules of BP and, preferably, to have seen— or better still, spoken in—a few BP debates.

92 

Discovering the World through Debate



Names: British Parliamentary (BP; Worlds Format; WUDC Format) Number of teams: 4 Opening Government Prime Minister or First Proposition Deputy Prime Minister or Second Proposition Closing Government Member for the Government or Third Proposition Government Whip or Fourth Proposition Opening Opposition Leader of the Opposition or First Opposition Deputy Leader of the Opposition or Second Opposition Closing Opposition Member for the Opposition or Third Opposition Opposition Whip or Fourth Opposition Number of speakers: 8 Length of debate: 1 hour Length of speeches: Usually seven minutes, although this may vary. Topics: Because of the geographic range of Worlds as a format, the motions vary significantly between countries. As in other formats, politics, economics, and current and foreign affairs dominate. However, many competitions feature rounds with more specialized subjects and provide information slides to allow debaters to brief themselves on the pertinent facts. Preparation: 15 minutes, taken between the time the motion is announced and the debate begins. Key features: The four teams compete independently; speakers aim to beat both the other side and the other team on their side. Unique terminology: Extension—The introduction of a major new platform of argument by the third government speaker (Member for the Government). Knifing—Attempt by the third government speaker to abandon the definition introduced by the first government speaker (Prime Minister). Points of Information: Yes Cross-examination: No Reply speeches: No

British Parliamentary 93

Structure The distinguishing characteristic of BP is the two teams on each side of the house. Each team comprises two speakers, making four speakers for the Government and another four for the Opposition. Each debater speaks only once, usually for seven minutes. There are no reply speeches. The speaker cannot be interrupted during the first and last minutes of each speech—they are protected time. The intervening minutes are open time during which Points of Information can be offered. POIs usually take the form of a question or a short observation and should be no more than about 10 seconds in length. Debaters are expected to take at least one POI during their speech; it is considered very unwise to take more than three. However, debaters should be optimistic and offer at least three per person during each speech by an opposing speaker. Teams on the same side may not offer POIs to each other. Order of Speakers Opening Government

Opening Opposition

1. Prime Minister

2. Leader of the Opposition

3. Deputy Prime Minister

4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Closing Government

Closing Opposition

5. Member for the Government

6. Member for the Opposition

7. Government Whip

8. Opposition Whip

Roles The four-team format poses particular challenges for all speakers because each team of two is trying to win the debate for themselves, not in conjunction with the other team that happens to be on their side of the house. As in all forms of debate, if two speakers on the same side disagree, or even appear to do so, their opposite numbers should point out this fact and attempt to exploit it. As well as looking for contradictions between the individual speakers on the other side of the motion, BP debaters should be particularly alert to differences between the two teams on the other

94 

Discovering the World through Debate



side and miss no opportunity to highlight even differences in nuance where they occur. However, such actions should be considered within the context of the expectation that the Closing Government team will introduce one significant new platform of information.

“TOP HALF” OF THE DEBATE

• Prime Minister (Opening Government). The principal role of the Prime Minister is to define the motion—clearly explaining what the debate is going to be about. This might involve elucidating where a particular proposed legal change should take place or what area of policy is the focus of a particular motion. The definition should tie clearly and logically to the motion; failure to do so is usually penalized harshly by adjudicators. As with other formats, the definition must be reasonable and debatable. In the case of most modern BP motions, relatively little definition is needed as the motions are usually precise. The speaker then sets out the case to be proposed by her and her partner, dividing the material between them, before developing one or more of their arguments. The Prime Minister in particular must be aware that the second team on that side will be looking for an important additional area for debate, so she would be wise to make sure that she does not leave out obvious areas of argument from her speech. She is, after all, trying to beat both the Opposition teams and the other Government team.

• Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition). The role of the Leader of the Opposition is to introduce the arguments to be made by his team and develop one or more of these ideas. The first Opposition speaker also critiques the Prime Minister’s arguments, demonstrating ways in which they are inaccurate, inconsistent, illogical, impractical, or just straightforwardly wrong.

• Deputy Prime Minister (Opening Government). The Deputy Prime Minister develops her team’s remaining arguments and responds to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. She also concludes the case for her team. It’s important that this speaker tidies up any loose ends and make sure that the focus of the debate is clear in the minds of the adjudicators, so that neither Opposition nor later Government speakers can muddy the waters. This speaker must remember that the debate may move on to new territory. Consequently, she must ensure that she leaves the adjudicators with the impression that her side has taken control of the debate thus far.

• Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition). The task of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO) is, essentially, the same as that of the Deputy Prime Minister— to conclude the case for his team. This speaker is in an interesting position, however, because, in some ways, the debate comes to an end here. It’s fairly common for the

British Parliamentary 95

second half of the debate to focus on somewhat different themes from the first half, so this speaker should stress why the Opposition has won the argument thus far. He must be aware that another four speakers are yet to come and his is not a concluding speech. However, he does conclude this part of the debate, and, as with the Deputy Prime Minister, should use the closing minute or so to ensure that the adjudicators have a clear understanding of the arguments put forward by his team. Both second speakers should not rely on the subsequent speakers on their respective sides to do much in the way of further development or defense of their arguments. This is of particular concern for the DLO because, while his arguments will be rebutted by the third Government speaker (Member of the Government), the next Opposition speaker owes him no particular favors in terms of undertaking major defensive work—an extra reason to make sure the arguments are neatly sewn up.

“BOTTOM HALF” OF THE DEBATE

• Member for the Government (Closing Government). The critical role of the Member for the Government is to offer an extension to the Government’s case. This is usually a new area of argument that tallies with what the opening speakers said but addresses the issues raised from a new perspective. This speaker must not begin an entirely new debate. Doing so, nicknamed “knifing,” is usually penalized heavily. In exceptional circumstances, where Opening Government’s case has been disastrously bad, the adjudicators will usually accept that Member for the Government simply had no choice but to knife. That said, finding an extension that allows this speaker to save the Government’s case without disagreeing with the first two speakers will be rewarded heavily.

• Member for the Opposition (Closing Opposition). The Member for the Opposition deals primarily with the arguments put forward by his opposite number. However, assuming the extension has been done properly and ties in well with the first half of the Government case, he should introduce new critiques of both parts of that case. There is no formal requirement for the Member for the Opposition to offer an extension as such, but it is unlikely that he could fulfill his role without addressing largely new material—even if simply by dint of the fact that he has to deal with the Member for the Government’s extension.

• Government Whip (Closing Government). The Government Whip’s job is to summarize what the other Government speakers have said. She can introduce some new evidence if necessary, particularly in rebuttal to the previous speaker. However, it is too late for Government to introduce new areas for debate, so she should not introduce new arguments. Although this speaker is concluding the case for the whole of the

96 

Discovering the World through Debate



Government, she should demonstrate why her team (Closing Government), in particular, was better.

• Opposition Whip (Closing Opposition). This speaker can rebut the new information of the previous speaker but should otherwise avoid new information. He should not introduce new evidence or new areas for discussion. Essentially all of this speech is referencing other speakers and demonstrating why the Opposition should win. This speech is the last the adjudicators will hear before making their decision; thus, a speaker who can help the adjudicators impose sense on the arguments they have just heard is likely to be rewarded. As with the concluding Government speaker, the Opposition Whip should summarize the debate in a way that highlights the strengths of his side of the house in general and his team in particular.

Important Features

EXTENSIONS

Of all of the elements of the four-team debate that can seem odd or confusing, the issue of the extension offered by the Member for the Government is the one that tends to command the most attention and cause the most anxiety. It is very difficult to explain precisely what makes a good extension—although it tends to be obvious when you see one. Generally, it should be in accordance with the case so far but examine the issue from a new perspective. This might just be one new line of argumentation. So, if the Opening Government team has addressed the political, social, and economic implications of a particular approach, the Closing Government team might want to look at the consequences of the suggested change on foreign affairs and the relations of the nation in question with its allies and neighbors. It cannot be stressed too strongly that an extension should not start an entirely new debate. In effect, the two Government teams function as a coalition, reaching the same conclusion but from slightly different starting points. Ultimately, they are still trying to prove the original motion, although the debate is now framed in terms of the definition. If the Member for the Government simply disagrees with the Opening Government or talks about a completely different subject, she is highly unlikely to do much to prove the motion is true. She is attempting not to prove something different to be true but the truth of the same motion for different reasons.

British Parliamentary 97

ADJUDICATION

In many debate formats, a panel of adjudicators simply votes, and the team with the largest number of votes wins. In BP, that approach simply doesn’t work because BP involves four teams and, usually, at least three adjudicators. Consequently, no team might garner enough votes to win. In addition, there is a need to rank the three teams that didn’t win. As a result, decisions in BP are made by consensus. Although this can be time-consuming—and occasionally excruciating—it tends to result in decisions that have been considered from every angle. One of the advantages of the system is that the feedback given to speakers can be very detailed, and debaters should take advantage of this fact.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• The presence of four teams gives BP an unusual dynamic because speakers compete against both the other side of the house and the other team on their side.

• The two teams on each side must work together, although each is trying to beat the other. • The second speakers for the Opening Government and Opposition should make sure their arguments are complete when they hand the case on to the second teams.

• The third Government speaker (Member of the Government) must introduce an extension—a major new reason to support the motion as defined.

• Concluding speakers should sum up their side’s case as a whole but should place particular emphasis on their own team’s arguments.

• Adjudicators determine the winner and rankings by consensus.

98 

Discovering the World through Debate

CHAPTER 10

World Schools Format

World Schools was “purpose built” for the first World Schools Debating Championship in 1988. Originally designed to be a format different from all national competitions, it subsequently became popular throughout the world and is now used at both national and regional competitions. The World Schools Debating Championship is held annually, with high school students from around the world competing in English as part of national teams. In the championship, debates are divided into long- and short-preparation rounds. Long-preparation (“long-prep”) motions are announced several weeks in advance, giving speakers the opportunity to investigate an area in some depth. For short-prep rounds, the motion is announced an hour in advance, thus debaters are largely dependent on preexisting knowledge. World Schools asks speakers to grapple with general issues rather than specific programs or proposals. Speakers are encouraged to address the broad themes that surround topics rather than focus on details of implementation or political expediency. Overall, this format rewards good teamwork, preparation, participation, and persuasion. The debate is between teams, not individuals. Each speaker has a role to play in presenting the team’s case and also attacking the other side while defending their own arguments. The format encourages the use of Points of Information (POIs) to keep debaters involved when they are not speaking. World Schools marks debaters for content, style, and strategy; thus, a debater needs to have an awareness of not just what she says but how she says it.

Structure In World Schools, six individuals speak during each debate: three for the Proposition and three for the Opposition. The debate comprises eight parts. During the first six speeches, debaters present substantive arguments and rebut the arguments of the other team. As

Names: World Schools (WSDC Format; World Schools Style Debating) Number of teams: 2 (Proposition; Opposition) Number of speakers: 6 Length of debate: 1 hour Length of speeches: Constructive speeches: 8 minutes; Reply speeches: 4 minutes Topics: Mixture of prepared and extemporaneous topics focusing on general issues rather than specific programs. Preparation: Significant pre-tournament preparation for prepared motions; one hour preparation for extemporaneous motions with no help except for an almanac and dictionary. Key features: Uses three categories (style, content, strategy) when evaluating a debate; permits reserve speakers. Unique terminology: Strategy—It is common in other formats for debaters and, more specifically, adjudicators to discuss a speech’s content and style (matter and manner). WSDC adds a third criterion, strategy, which refers to the timing and structure of a speech and a more general appreciation of whether the speaker appears to understand the issues under debate. Points of Information: Yes Cross-examination: No Reply speeches: Yes

the debate progresses, speakers move from presenting new arguments and issues to addressing issues already raised. Each team finishes with a Reply Speech in which the speakers summarize the key points of both sides, emphasize the areas of clash, and analyze the debate to attempt to show the adjudicators that their team has won. Debaters engage each other using Points of Information during the first six speeches.

100 

Discovering the World through Debate



Order of Speakers

Time

Speaker

1. First Proposition

8 minutes

First speaker of the Proposition

2. First Opposition

8 minutes

First speaker of the Opposition

3. Second Proposition

8 minutes

Second speaker of the Proposition

4. Second Opposition

8 minutes

Second speaker of the Opposition

5. Third Proposition

8 minutes

Third speaker for the Proposition

6. Third Opposition

8 minutes

Third speaker for the Opposition

7. Opposition Reply Speech

4 minutes

Can be delivered by either the 1st or 2nd Opposition speaker

8. Proposition Reply Speech

4 minutes

Can be delivered by either the 1st or 2nd Proposition speaker

Roles The roles of the first six speakers are similar to those in many other formats—they will build cases and offer and rebut arguments. The inclusion of reply speeches creates an interesting dynamic, however. These may well be the most powerful speeches in the debate because they aim to guide the adjudicators on how they should award the debate.

• First Proposition. The role of the First Proposition is to give a definition of the motion that is reasonable and debatable. She also outlines the case as a whole for her side and explains which speaker will address which parts of the case (known as “case division”). She then begins the argumentation for her side. In dividing her team’s case, she should make sure to split it by subjects for argument rather than by stage of argumentation. Put simply, she should avoid allotting to herself a description of, for example, the particular status of an issue and to the second speaker the task of explaining why this is a good or bad thing. Taking such an approach, although laudably logical, leaves First Opposition with nothing to respond to. Instead, First Proposition might set out three areas for her side to consider before addressing one of them in totality and leave the remaining two for Second Proposition.

World Schools Format 101

• First Opposition. The First Opposition should divide his speech equally between reacting to the First Proposition and introducing the Opposition case. Assuming there are no problems with the definition (there virtually never are), First Opposition sets out his side’s principal objections to the Proposition’s case. He outlines his team’s overall direction of rebuttal—insofar as this is possible—and directly rebuts the argument put forward by the First Proposition. He indicates how his side will divide addressing the case and then moves into his main area of argument.

• Second Proposition. Second Proposition rebuts the arguments extended so far by the Opposition and defends what First Proposition said against the attacks raised against it. Usually a speaker will expect to spend roughly one-quarter to one-third of her speech roadmapping her remarks and dealing with those of the previous speaker, so Second Proposition should leave herself around four or five minutes to set out her arguments in detail.

• Second Opposition. If Opposition is developing its own case, Second Opposition would normally spend five-to-six minutes responding to the Proposition’s case so far and defending First Opposition. He would then turn to his own case. If his speech is grounded entirely in rebuttal, he would pick up on those themes introduced by First Opposition and expand on them in the light of the comments made by Second Proposition.

• Third Proposition and Opposition Speeches. Generally, the vast bulk of these speeches will be spent attacking the arguments of the other side. This should, however, be done in the context of what has been said on the speaker’s own side. Remember, this is not just an exercise in demonstrating that the other side is wrong but that the perspective put forward by the speaker’s own side makes more sense or is more reasonable and attractive than the interpretation of the world offered by the other team. If necessary, both speakers can deal with a small part of their side’s case, but, in practice, this should be seen as a tidying up exercise rather than as a required part of these speeches.

• Reply Speeches. Reply speakers do not introduce new material. Instead, they draw on the overarching themes of the debate to explain why their side’s interpretation of the world is considered more accurate and why their view of how the world could be is preferable—or at least more likely. Reply speaking is all about the impression it leaves with the adjudicators. Speakers hope to leave a clear impression that their perspective is both reasonable and positive. They should provide the adjudicators with an easy means of interpreting the debate as a whole and invite them to take advantage of that interpretation.

102 

Discovering the World through Debate



Important Features

CONTENT, STYLE, AND STRATEGY

A World Schools debate is judged on three elements:

• Content—the strength of the arguments presented and how they are supported and explained.

• Style—the way a particular speech is presented; how a debater says something. • Strategy—the structure of the speech and timing and how speakers demonstrate their understanding of broader issues. Each of these elements is judged separately—up to 40% each for content and style; up to 20% for strategy. Yet, to be successful, a debater must combine them. She must present sound arguments in a logical manner and with an interesting, persuasive speaking style. A good speaker makes the substance of what she says integral to how she says it, using an appropriate style for the matter at hand.

RESERVE SPEAKERS

Some tournaments permit teams to include reserve speakers—team members who prepare for and attend the debate but who do not take the floor. These members play a key role by providing instant feedback and encouraging their team members through the use of applause and appropriate gestures. Because reserve speakers will have seen the debate from the same perspective as the adjudicators and have a clearer understanding of which arguments have been strongest, they can play a critical role in advising the debater who will be giving the reply speech. Reserve members can also substitute in the rare event that a designated speaker is unable to speak.

POINTS OF INFORMATION

World Schools encourages the use of POIs to ensure that debaters remain engaged throughout the debate. Each debater is encouraged to offer between three and five POIs per speech and can lose points for failing to do so. Likewise, each speaker should accept at least one or two. Those who do not are penalized for content on the grounds that they are trying to limit the clash in the debate. Points of Information may be offered after the

World Schools Format 103

first and before the final minutes of each of the first six speeches; they are not permitted during reply speeches.

Adjudication Usually World Schools uses a panel of three adjudicators. (There may be more, but the panel must be an odd number.) After the debate, adjudicators will take a few moments to look over their notes and marks, checking that, for example, the team they instinctively thought won is also the team to which they have given the highest points. When the individual adjudicator is happy with her decision, she simply casts a vote—there is no discussion at this point. Whichever team has two or more votes wins the debate. It is then standard practice for the adjudicators to leave the room to discuss the debate (or stay in the room and ask the debaters to step outside). The purpose of this discussion is not to affect the vote, which must not be changed, but to make suggestions for a short speech to be delivered by the chair of the panel explaining their decision. It’s worth taking notes on this speech to look for themes that start to arise from multiple adjudicators. Although adjudicators tend to give positive feedback to the individual speakers and negative feedback more generally, if you hear comments about one topic for three or four panels in a row, it’s safe to assume that they’re talking about you, and whatever they are highlighting is an area that you should work on. On a practical note, speakers should be aware that adjudicators will usually make a note of an initial score at the end of a speech but can then alter it by a couple of points in either direction depending on the debater’s subsequent involvement in the debate. Thus, the First Proposition speaker who sits down after eight minutes and considers her job done can be in for a rude awakening: a failure to offer Points of Information will cost her; if, however, she remains engaged throughout, her score may rise. Finally, it’s worth being aware that, although in theory each speech is marked on a scale of 0–100 (except reply speeches, which are 0–50), in practice marks will always be in the 60–80 range. It is not uncommon for some adjudicators to give marks only ranging from 65–76 because they are “saving” the other marks for speeches that, apparently, they never hear. Although the split remains 40%, 40%, 20% of the total marks they are handing out, this takes place within a surprisingly narrow range, so debaters need to be an active force throughout the debate to chase every available point.

104 

Discovering the World through Debate



CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Topics tend to address broad issues of international appeal rather than specific programs. • World Schools debate is between teams, not individuals. • The format encourages the use of Points of Information. • Reply speakers are to review the debate, not to contribute new material to it. • Some tournaments permit teams to include reserve speakers. • The debate is judged on content, style, and strategy.

World Schools Format 105

CHAPTER 11

Asian Parliamentary

Asian Parliamentary is possibly the most widely used format in the world. It is used at the university level in the All-Asian Debating Championship and various regional competitions throughout Asia. It is also widely used at the high school level in some parts of Asia, notably Korea, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. The format of Asians is very similar to that of the World Schools. There are differences, however. For example, in World Schools, debaters must debate the motion as it is; the level of abstraction or generality of the motion carries over to the debate. In Asians, the Government may set a context (define the motion to a region or to a country). Asians also requires the Opposition to demonstrate that the position they are defending has a net benefit or fewer harms than the Government proposal. The Opposition cannot take a straight negation approach wherein they only disprove the Government’s benefits. One of the primary advantages of Asians is that the rules are intuitive. The format has three speakers per side and features both reply speeches and Points of Information. That’s about it. That said, it would be quite wrong to consider the format simplistic. Quite the reverse. Its relatively straightforward rules allow for speakers to take a wide range of approaches without being hidebound by particular requirements. The result is a fluid, pleasingly fast-moving format that allows speakers to tackle both general issues of principle and morality as well as specific policy concerns. Asians is worth using for that reason alone, but because it is an extremely popular format, anyone with an interest in meeting and competing with other debaters—which is a major part of the activity—would be well-advised to be familiar with the approach.



Names: Asian Parliamentary (“Asians”) Number of teams: 2 (Government or Affirmative; Opposition or Negative) Number of speakers: 6 Length of debate: 50 minutes Length of speeches: Constructive speeches: 7 minutes; reply speeches: 4 minutes. Topics: Generally focused on politics, economics, and foreign affairs although they can relate to any subject so long as it contains two reasonable and mutually exclusive positions. One important aspect that is unique to this format is the process of motion selection. Before the start of prep time, teams are presented with three motions, which they rank from 1 to 3. Teams compare motions, whichever motion has been ranked third by either team cannot be debated. If both have ranked the same motion first, that is the motion for debate. If both have ranked the same motion third but have the other two in reverse order, the matter is decided by the toss of a coin. Preparation: 30 minutes, including motion selection Key features: The requirement for the Negative to demonstrate that reasons exist to support them other than flaws in Affirmative’s case is made explicit in the rules of Asians, although there is no requirement for a counter-case. What this requires in practice is demonstrating that some other situation, including the status quo, would be preferable to the solution being proposed. Unique terminology: Biased adjudication—Although the concept applies to reply speeches more generally, the term is most widely used in Asians. Points of Information: Yes Cross-examination: No Reply speeches: Yes

Asian Parliamentary 107

Structure In Asians, six individuals speak during each debate. Three for the Government support the motion; three for the Opposition oppose it. The first six speeches are constructive speeches in which the debaters present the basic arguments and reasons for affirming or opposing the motion. The final two speeches are reply speeches in which either the first or second speakers from each team compare the strengths and weaknesses of both cases. The goal of the reply speeches is to give a biased judgment as to why the adjudicators should give their team the win. During the constructive speeches, members of the opposing side may raise Points of Information after the first minute and before the seventh. The speaker may refuse or accept POIs. POIs may not be raised during reply speeches. Speakers speak in the following order: Order of Speakers

Time

Speaker

1. Prime Minister

7 minutes

First speaker for the Government

2. Leader of the Opposition

7 minutes

First speaker for the Opposition

3. Deputy Prime Minister

7 minutes

Second speaker for the Government

4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition

7 minutes

Second speaker for the Opposition

5. Government Whip

7 minutes

Third speaker for the Government

6. Opposition Whip

7 minutes

Third speaker for the Opposition

7. Opposition Reply Speech

4 minutes

Can be delivered by either the 1st or 2nd Opposition speaker

8. Government Reply Speech

4 minutes

Can be delivered by either the 1st or 2nd Government speaker

Roles Speakers would do well to think of their involvement as funneling arguments toward their own team’s reply speeches. At each step, the room for maneuver becomes narrower in

108 

Discovering the World through Debate



terms of introducing new information and the requirement to focus the adjudicator on one particular worldview becomes correspondingly greater.

• Prime Minister. The Prime Minister opens the debate by defining the motion and presenting a general overview of the Government case—what specific arguments the team will use and which speaker will address which arguments. Finally, she tackles one or two substantive arguments herself.

• Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition responds to the Prime Minister’s definition and context by giving the Opposition’s general view of the motion and setting out the areas of clash. He then proceeds to rebut the Prime Minister’s arguments and presents one or two arguments from his case.

• Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will usually start by introducing her own speech, although this may require her to remind the audience of what the Prime Minister has said. She then rebuts what has been heard so far from the Opposition, defending the Prime Minister’s speech against attacks from the Opposition, and then moves on to making her arguments.

• Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Structurally, the speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be fairly similar to the Deputy Prime Minister: remind, rebut, defend, advance. Depending on how the Opposition’s case is structured, however, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is likely to spend more time in rebuttal than her opposite number.

• Government Whip. The Government Whip makes an issue-based rebuttal of the Opposition’s case and summarizes the case of the Government. She does not introduce new arguments but may introduce new evidence to rebut what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said and new examples or analysis to support the Government’s case. Generally, however, the Government Whip should err on the side of not introducing material unless she has no choice; her focus should be on drawing together her team’s case.

• Opposition Whip. The Opposition Whip is expressly forbidden under the rules from introducing new arguments. The structure of his speech is essentially the same as that of the Government Whip but is more focused on analysis and rebuttal. Because the next speech the adjudicators will hear will be from his side, he can set up the reply speech, highlighting the areas of clash in the debate that will allow the Opposition reply speaker to present a thematic overview of the debate to the Opposition’s best advantage.

Asian Parliamentary 109

• Opposition Reply Speech. Reply speakers don’t introduce new arguments or evidence. Instead, they give the adjudicators what is called a “biased adjudication,” which sums up what the team is trying to achieve. It offers an overview of the highs and lows of the debate, delivered in a manner that encourages the listener to take that team’s perspective on events as they transpired.

• Government Reply Speech. The Opposition has the benefit of having two speeches back-to-back; the Government has the advantage of the last word. The Government reply speaker utilizes the same structure as the Opposition reply but uses her speech in general, and her conclusion in particular, to try to focus the minds of the adjudicators on the means of determining the outcome of the debate that most favors her side.

Important Features

REPLY SPEECHES

Reply speeches aim to give each team a brief opportunity to consolidate their ideas and review the debate in the most favorable light for their side. The goal of this speech is not to win an argument but to explain why the team has won the debate. To do so, a speaker presents a biased adjudication. She tries to give the impression that she is above the partisan bickering of the rest of the debate and is attempting to impose some objective framework on what has been said for those listening. In reality, of course, she is doing nothing of the sort and aims to ensure that the adjudicators find the worldview that underpins her side of the debate the most appealing and reasonable of the two offered. Reply speakers present an overall analysis of the debate and highlight the points of clash in the best light for their own side but do so without the cut and thrust of the “debate proper.” Replies are an opportunity to step back and reflect out loud on how your own side has been right all along. These methods of determining success or failure should be the same determinants of victory that were established by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—frequently the same person as the reply speaker. However, debates are not always that neat. As a result, the speaker may need to clarify how the determinant the adjudicators should use to make their decision is the same as the metric her side set up nearly an hour previously.

110 

Discovering the World through Debate



COACHING

In common with other formats that may have a team coach, Asians requires that coaches stop all and any advice to their teams as soon as the motion has been announced. As is also the case in all formats, anybody coaching a team—or even affiliated with the institution that the team represents—cannot act as an adjudicator for any round in which that team is debating.

SECRET BALLOTS

Adjudicators do not confer with one another before reaching a conclusion in Asians. Where there is a panel, this means that debaters will have to persuade all of the adjudicators individually rather than focusing their attention on the chair of the panel. Although, in practice, this makes relatively little difference, it does mean that speakers should be sure to make eye contact with all members of the panel and try to read their body language to see if they are all following the thread of an argument as it is being made.

Adjudication Adjudication in Asian Parliamentary is by secret ballot rather than by consensus. Adjudicators do not discuss their views before voting. Generally, they’ll either ask speakers to leave the room or do so themselves. There are usually three adjudicators—although there will be more in finals of competitions and other very important debates—who will spend a few minutes reviewing their own notes before casting their ballot. Whichever team has the majority of the votes wins. As is common in other formats, the presiding adjudicator will usually give an explanation of the panel’s decision and a few tips and suggestions for improvement. However, unlike other formats, in the event of a dissenting judge(s), that person can also give an adjudication speech explaining her perspective and why she voted contrary to the majority. Asians judges matter (content/POIs), manner (style), and method (structure and organization of arguments). The balance of marks is: Matter 40%; Manner 40%; Method 20%.

Asian Parliamentary 111

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Asians has relatively straightforward rules that allow speakers to take a wide range of approaches. • In Asians, the Opposition cannot take a straight negation approach to the motion. The Opposition must demonstrate that the position they are defending has a net benefit or fewer harms than the Government proposal.

• Each team’s arguments should be set out by the end of the second speeches. • Reply speakers do not introduce new arguments or evidence. Instead, they give a biased adjudication that sums up why the adjudicators should give their team the win.

• Because the Opposition reply speech follows the Opposition Whip’s (OW) speech, the OW can set up the reply speech, highlighting the areas of clash in the debate.

• The goal of the Government reply speaker is to establish or clarify in the mind of the adjudicator the standard by which she should decide the debate.

112 

Discovering the World through Debate

Part 3: Debate in Practice

CHAPTER 12

Viewing the Debate as a Whole

The reader of this or any book on debate might easily come away with the sense that a debate consists of several distinct parts, each requiring the individual speaker to play a certain role. There’s a degree of truth in such an assessment, but it’s a long way from the whole story. These roles are not ends in themselves; rather, they exist to ensure that both the Affirmative and Negative teams, as well as the debate as a whole, hang together to produce a result that is considerably more than the sum of its parts. This chapter examines how that works in practice, looking at the debate holistically and outlining how members of each team work together to present a complete picture to the audience. We will also examine the importance of speakers keeping their remarks clearly focused on the adjudicator and understanding the debate from the perspective of an external observer rather than that of a participant.

Structure Formal debates have a strict structure that sets out the order and time limits for all speeches, as well as the responsibilities of each speaker. The specific structure depends on the particular format used, but in broad terms:

• Opening speakers set out their team’s case. They sketch an image of the world as they wish the adjudicator to see it.

• Middle speakers present or elaborate on arguments, attack the other side, and defend their case against challenges. They fill in the details, adding emphasis, color and tone as necessary, to help the adjudicator see the picture clearly and focus on those details that are most persuasive.

• Final speakers summarize their case, highlight their side’s key arguments, and explain why, in light of what has gone on during the debate, their side has won. They talk the adjudicator through the mental landscape that has been created, pointing out aspects that may have been missed at first glance or adding final pieces of detail to bring out the full force of the argument as a whole. Each speaker has a specific function, yet, to win a debate, each member of a team must work with her teammates to develop the same overall narrative and demonstrate that their analysis of the problem (and their proposed solution) is the correct one. In debates where the speakers see their roles only as tackling one particular area or checking off the box marked “role fulfilled,” the adjudicator will not gain a clear idea of the overall theme behind their team’s arguments and why that should be considered more persuasive than other interpretations of a given situation.

Viewing the Debate from the Outside To win in debate, you and your teammates should endeavor to view the debate from the perspective of the judge, not a debater. The debater views the debate from the standpoint of her speech. She hears what she intended to say and sees everything else as a commentary on it. The adjudicator, on the other hand, views the debate as a whole. From her perspective, the balance of the debate moves back and forth between the teams with good and bad points made on both sides. In a good debate, all speakers will introduce and develop some good arguments and interesting material and give the debate a life of its own. From this mass of interesting data and, hopefully, salient points, the adjudicator must determine which team has been most persuasive. In practice, viewing the debate from the judge’s perspective requires focusing on three elements: working with your teammates to present your case, interacting with the opposition to encourage clash, and, for individual speakers, offering the best speech in the debate.

Teamwork Debate is a team activity. This can’t be emphasized strongly enough. The only way you can win a debate is by working closely with your teammates to present a clear, persuasive case. You can see the importance of teamwork clearly if you view a team’s case as an essay or speech. A well-structured essay has several distinct parts: an introduction, a main body, and a conclusion. Yet, the essay is presented as one, seamless whole, rather

116 

Discovering the World through Debate



than disconnected chunks that point more or less in the same direction. Presenting a case works in much the same way. The first speaker outlines the case (introduction); the middle speakers offer arguments and evidence while refuting the opposition (main body); and the final speaker summarizes the case (conclusion).

TEAMWORK IN PRACTICE

Remember, you and your teammates sink or swim together. The concept of “a great speech in a poor team” is invalid. If you are going to win, your teammate(s) also have to win, so problems in their speeches are your problem. Ideally, of course, the best way to avoid problems is not to have them in the first place, but we don’t always get what we want, so speakers often have to think on their feet to rectify an unanticipated situation once it’s happened. As you and your teammates prepare for and engage in a debate, remember the following four points: 1. Delineate responsibilities. When planning your case, clearly determine who will address which issue. Two speakers covering the same ground means that it’s easy for one to appear to undermine what the other has said by explaining it slightly differently or placing emphasis on a different aspect. Order your team’s arguments in such a way that they flow logically from each other toward the conclusion you are trying to reach— and always double-check that you actually have two different arguments, rather than two names for the same one. 2. Reference your teammates directly. Mention your teammate(s) and their arguments directly. This is both good practice and good manners. Opening and closing speakers on each side should mention other speakers while outlining or reviewing their case, and intervening speakers should do so while defending colleagues against rebuttal. Preferably you should reference your teammates in the context of explaining how your arguments support each other but, if nothing more, it’s useful to let the adjudicator know that you are aware of what the rest of your team is saying and have been listening to the debate. If you fulfill your role correctly, referencing your teammates should become automatic, almost regardless of what else is happening in your speech. 3. Back up your teammates. As your team’s case unfolds, some arguments will usually prove to be stronger than others. Some of what they say will just be accepted as being self-evident and, for this part of the case, you can just mention it in passing to show that you agree. However, for those areas of your case that form the focus of clash, you need to defend the arguments they have made, even where they are problematic. You must not publicly criticize their arguments or undermine what they have said by suggesting that its purpose was unclear or that the argument could have been better

Viewing the Debate as a Whole 117

presented. And, you must never ignore their arguments when they’re under criticism. Obviously your approach will be slightly different when there is more than one team on each side. In such an instance, you should avoid directly criticizing members of the other team, but you aren’t required to go to superhuman lengths to defend what they’ve said. 4. Don’t contradict one another. Arguments that support one another are vital to the success of any case. All of your arguments may have the same destination but, for example, if the methodologies you set out in different parts of the case are mutually exclusive or if some implication of one argument would, in practice, undermine another, then you have a serious problem. The other side of the debate will probably pick up on the contradiction and, even if they don’t, the adjudicator should. Avoid presenting arguments that are mutually exclusive or contradictory. In part, this is about good planning, and you should consider this issue during preparation time. However, it’s easy to get flustered and say something without thinking in response to a question. Take your time before responding to a point of information or under cross-examination. There’s nothing like actually considering your answer to make it look as though you’ve considered your answer, so you lose nothing by taking a second or two before you speak.

Interaction As we have learned, presenting a brilliant case is not necessarily enough to win. The adjudicator is looking to see how teams interact with each other—how they clash. This means that:

• First Negative cannot address the debate she was hoping for but must deal with the debate as defined by First Affirmative.

• Speakers on both sides should tackle the points made by the speaker who immediately precedes them.

• All speakers should seek to demonstrate that observable or predictable events are more accurately explained by their own analysis and that of their colleagues than by the opposing side’s.

• Affirmative speakers should address the case put forward by Negative speakers— whether that is an alternative model to achieve the same ends or a critique of purported inadequacies in their own case.

118 

Discovering the World through Debate



• All speakers should demonstrate that they are aware of the case put forward by the other side through direct reference to speakers and the substance of their arguments as well as through rebuttal. Of course, it can be tempting to address the debate you hoped the other side would put forward—or the one you would have put forward in their position. Sadly, this is a surefire way of ensuring your defeat. In all normal circumstances, the adjudicator will judge you on the way you interact with the debate that is actually happening and not with some hypothetical construct of your own imagining. Thus, the debater will need not only to address the weaknesses in the opposing case but, ideally, demonstrate how disagreeing with that position and agreeing with her own are two sides of the same coin. She may wish to present herself as a reasonable person who admires the goals of her opponents but considers their proposal naïve or fantastical. Alternatively, she may criticize the arguments put forward by the other side as failing to address the key concerns at the heart of the debate, which, she will suggest, have been admirably and thoroughly dealt with by her and her colleagues. Possibly she will conclude, reluctantly, that the world the other team is asking you to accept is dangerous and that following their proposed route would be ruinous to wider society or would imperil the security of the nation. The exact details of how she interacts with the opposing team’s case will, inevitably, vary depending on the nature of their arguments. However, the broad idea that she is both promoting her perspective and rejecting that suggested by the other side holds true for all situations. Victory comes from persuading the adjudicator that accepting one means rejecting the other—and that doing so is the only reasonable position.

INDIVIDUAL SPEECHES

Viewing the debate from the perspective of the adjudicator, the wise speaker does not ask herself. “Was my speech good or bad?” rather, she asks, “Was my speech better or worse than the rest?” What are the hallmarks of a “better” speech? How can the speaker put herself in a position to most influence an adjudicator? With all probability, a “better” speech will fulfill the following goals:

• bring clarity to the debate as a whole • fit smoothly into the rest of the debate • allow the adjudicator to move comfortably from neutral ground to the speaker’s side of the debate

Viewing the Debate as a Whole 119

• answer those questions that an Ordinary Reasonable Person might have—and do so more precisely than other speeches

• easy to follow both within itself and as part of the wider case put forward by the team • not ask the listener to take anything on trust but lead him to conclusions in easy steps made easier still by the provision of reasonable evidence Shifting mental gears to see your own speech and arguments from the perspective of the objective observer is difficult but is worthwhile both for the immediate result of being more persuasive in the eyes of the adjudicator and also for a longer-term, more ephemeral benefit. The capacity to consider our own views from the perspective of others, and to treat their views with the same value and respect we accord our own, helps us to live in the real world of many viewpoints and opinions. “Whatever happens to be coming out of my own mouth at the moment” is a pretty lousy definition of truth and one that should be treated with disdain by any reasonably critical thinker. The process of considering what we are saying from the perspective of a neutral party, in this case the adjudicator, encourages precision and consideration in the process of presenting those ideas but, more important, in constructing them.

Conclusion A case that holds together, in which all speakers are demonstrating the links between their arguments and the reasons why they are preferable to those being put forward on the other side of the debate, will hold the attention of the adjudicator far more certainly than a mass of unrelated information and a torrent of argumentation, however interesting. Of course, there are moments when an entire debate turns on one point, one blinding flash of insight or killer fact used in rebuttal, but they’re pretty rare. A more reliable strategy is to set out clearly what the case will be, demonstrate that it has internal cohesion and validity through clear and compelling evidence-based arguments, and then sum up the case so cogently that the adjudicator does not have to spend time trying to work out what the contents of one speech had to do with another. Remember, the adjudicator is hearing all of the tunes being played, and the best way to ensure that she follows yours is to make sure that it is the most striking melody, one that encapsulates all of the others in a memorable strain. A clear case in which speakers reinforce what other team members have said and guide the adjudicator through it is the easiest way of ensuring that the melody she hears is yours.

120 

Discovering the World through Debate



EXERCISES

Watch the final of an international debate such as that of the IDEA Youth Forum and answer the following questions:

• How well do you think the speakers interact with other members of their own team? • Are you able to follow their arguments readily? • Do the speakers use interaction with the other team to extend their own points or to make new ones?

• Which team is easier to follow? How do they achieve this? If both are much the same, which one do you prefer? Why?

• Who do you think won the debate? Discuss this in a group and see if you agree.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Each speaker has a specific function, yet team members must work together to develop an overall narrative and demonstrate that their analysis of the problem is correct.

• To win in debate, view it from the perspective of the judge, not a debater. • The case put forward by a team has a similar structure to a speech advanced by an individual speaker: introduction, body, conclusion.

• Teams must clearly delineate responsibilities and members must support each other throughout the debate.

• Interact with the debate as defined, not the one you were hoping for or expecting. • A clear case in which speakers reinforce each other and guide the adjudicator through it will go far to ensure a win.

Viewing the Debate as a Whole 121

CHAPTER 13

Opening Speeches

This chapter looks at the role of opening speeches—both their formal roles and the strategic function they fulfill in relation to what will come later in the debate. After some introductory remarks on the challenges facing opening speakers, the chapter looks at the issue of definitions in some detail before examining how both First Affirmative and First Negative speeches should work. Finally, it considers the role that opening speakers have in establishing a platform for their colleagues in terms of framing the material for subsequent debate and establishing their perspective as being the more reasonable.

First Words As seen in the previous chapter, opening speakers have the opportunity to frame the debate in the mind of the adjudicator and set the direction for the other speakers. The opening Affirmative speaker is required to do so in a formal way by giving a definition of the motion—delineating in more detail the topic for discussion during the debate. In turn, the First Negative speaker outlines the approach his team will take by setting out the key areas of disagreement (establishing clash). In some cases, the First Negative speaker will set out a series of objections the Negative side has to the Affirmative’s case, in others he may offer an alternative solution. By the end of the two opening speeches, all participants should have a clear idea of what areas the debate will cover and a sense of the main lines of argument for both teams. Each side is trying to demonstrate that the other is wrong, thus the position each team takes must be mutually exclusive—what the Negative proposes cannot occur simultaneously or as an addition to the Affirmative plan. More specifically, the Affirmative team is putting forward a specific solution to an acknowledged problem, the Negative team is trying to demonstrate that such a course of action is impractical, immoral, or both. Before she is able to make a decision about which side of the debate is the more persuasive,



the adjudicator must be left in no doubt whatsoever that she can agree with one or the other, but not both. This need for disagreement poses a particular challenge for the first speaker in the debate. As well as having a particular job to do, First Affirmative is in a unique position: she is the only speaker who does not follow somebody else and, as a result, has nobody to whom she can respond. In debate, First Affirmative is often considered to be the hardest position—she has nothing to refute, no opportunity to fill her speech with criticisms of other people’s arguments or to build on what’s gone before. Instead, she has to set out an idea that everybody else at the table will get to poke and prod, try and test. If that prospect seems a little unsettling, however, glance across the table. First Negative has a fairly daunting task as well. Even in formats that announce the motion well ahead of time, he enters the debate armed with only an educated guess as to what his case is likely to be. The particular elements First Negative will be expected to tackle are only revealed once the Affirmative starts their case. First Negative has the duration of the First Affirmative’s speech to pull together a case on which the rest of the Negative team can build all of their arguments. No mean feat. Of course, in all probability, both teams will have a fairly clear idea of the general area for debate and should have used whatever preparation time is available to put together the arguments that they expect to use. However, the definition of the motion sets out the actual issue for debate. Once it is set out, speakers should focus on that and ignore any areas they may have preferred to discuss.

The Definition If you think about it, the average motion is around 10 words long—and some of these words are standard: “This House Believes that” or “Resolved.” It’s not a lot of space to express the details of nuclear disarmament or a major shift in macroeconomics. Nor should it be. Where is this policy to be implemented? How can a particular course of action be pursued? How will it be paid for? What are the metrics that would determine success? Answering these and other questions is the sole preserve of the First Affirmative speaker. It is her duty to give what is termed “the definition,” giving answers to the sorts of questions just mentioned. This definition is a statement of what the debate is actually about. From the moment the First Affirmative has set out the definition, it replaces the motion as the focus of the debate.

Opening Speeches 123

Different formats and competitions have different rules and varying suggestions about what makes a good definition. However, broadly speaking, they can be reduced to two simple statements: 1. The definition should be reasonable. 2. The definition should be debatable. “Reasonable”—a definition should cover material that a typical competitor could be expected to know about and should be clearly linked to the motion. “Debatable”—a definition should clearly allow for two sides in a debate. Let’s take an example of a “reasonable” definition. If the motion is THW Scrap School Uniforms, it’s fairly clear that the motion should be about the wearing of standardized clothing in schools. However tempting it might be to try to redefine it into being about a national curriculum—Resist! Beyond wildly off-topic definitions, First Affirmative has some leeway. It’s perfectly acceptable to say that the Affirmative is applying the motion only to high schools—or just to elementary schools for that matter. However, the Affirmative should give a reason for narrowing the focus. Further, that reason should relate to their wider case. If, for example, their case is based on scrapping school uniforms because they’re expensive, they might chose to limit the exemption to ages when children are still growing quickly. In terms of a “debatable” definition, speakers should avoid forcing the Negative to defend the indefensible. In a debate on euthanasia, defining the motion in such a way as to require the Negative to defend nonvoluntary euthanasia is wrong. Asking a team, in effect, to defend murder makes for a lousy debate, and you can rest assured that the adjudicators won’t blame the Negative for struggling; they’ll place blame fair and square where it belongs—with Affirmative’s bad definition. What, then, are the hallmarks of a good definition? It should be clear. It should answer all basic questions about the process of what is being proposed and should also underpin why the Affirmative is suggesting a particular course or position. From the strategic point of view of First Affirmative, the definition should also be “tight.” A tight definition is one that stands in its own right without requiring lots of clarification to be done by later speakers. That certainly doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t allow plenty of room for development; quite the contrary, it should. However, by the time First Affirmative sits down, everyone in the room should have a clear idea of what the Affirmative is going to be talking about. Let’s take an example. Motion: THW Legalize Prostitution

124 

Discovering the World through Debate



Definition: Prostitution should be legal within registered brothels and nowhere else. City authorities should undertake the process of registration within a regulatory framework set forth at the state level. Registration should require regular drug and STD testing of prostitutes. Registration will also ensure the safety of prostitutes who cannot currently report abuse by pimps or customers because they are engaged in an illegal activity. There would be a zero-tolerance policy toward soliciting in any area other than registered brothels. The costs of running the associated health checks and policing would be met by taxing this now-legal activity.

Such a definition allows plenty of room for debate, and everyone in the debate has a clear idea of what the discussion will be about. The definition gives the rest of the Affirmative team a reasonable proposition to take forward rather than requiring them to defend all of the difficulties that a more general amnesty would create (the Negative can’t just say that the Affirmative is in favor of nightwalkers and criminals). It also gives Negative plenty of issues to raise—for example, the morality of the state raising revenue from prostitution; the failure of the state to address the underlying social pressures that have women turning to prostitution; or the very real possibility of cheaper, unregulated, and untaxed prostitution continuing regardless of the law, thus further marginalizing those least able to defend themselves. In presenting the definition, there’s one final tactical point the First Affirmative should be aware of. The belief endures among inexperienced debaters that waiting as long as possible before revealing the definition is beneficial. Presumably, this strategy is meant to put the First Negative at a disadvantage because it reduces the amount of time he has to pull together the details of the Negative case. Ignoring for the moment that such an approach is scarcely sporting, it is also self-defeating. First Negative may not be able to write anything down, but neither can the adjudicator come to grips with what’s being proposed. In effect, all this approach does is eat into the amount of time First Affirmative has to build her definition in the minds of the adjudicator.

First Affirmative

THE CHALLENGE

Compared with other speakers, First Affirmative has the least leeway in how she performs her designated role. This can make it difficult to make a lasting impression on the adjudicator, and, because of the more technically specific nature of the role, it is easier to be

Opening Speeches 125

judged as having fallen short. However, over the course of a competition, organizers take care to ensure that no one team gets more than their fair share of their turns in this slot. Some evidence exists that it is harder to win—or, perhaps, “easier to lose” would be more accurate—from the Affirmative side in general and this position in particular. However, simply by dint of being first, the speaker has the opportunity to control the debate; in those formats where Points of Information are used, First Affirmative has more time to prove herself in offering them. Everybody finds this position hard, but the strategic debater views this as a challenge and as motivation. The speaker who can master this role will consistently win competitions by excelling in an area where others tend to fail. Assuming that a majority of teams win a comparable number of rounds from other positions, it is this capacity to win from First Affirmative that is the hallmark of successful teams.

THE SPEECH

For the sake of simplicity and clarity all round, First Affirmative should announce the definition explicitly: “Our definition is . . . ” Don’t imply, don’t suggest, don’t intimate. State it as clearly and concisely as possible, trying to anticipate any reasonable questions that other speakers might have about the details—chances are the adjudicator has them, too. This doesn’t mean that you should go into minutiae; it does mean offering a general idea of how Affirmative will accomplish their program and what the impact would be. First Affirmative should also outline the arguments that her teammate(s) will make to support their case and, usually, tackle at least one substantive argument herself. She should use the opportunity this presents to demonstrate that her speech is the start of a coherent line of thought, developing her own argument and outlining those of her teammates. In doing so, she can begin to establish the perspective that she hopes the adjudicator will take to see Affirmative’s case as the more reasonable. Because this position, uniquely, has no required rebuttal, First Affirmatives are often tempted make some up—to try to rebut what hasn’t yet been said. Resist this temptation; attempting to address what you think the Negative might say makes no more sense than Negative trying to guess what the definition is going to be and writing a speech accordingly. If you want to build a defense into the definition, just build it in—don’t endlessly speculate on what might happen. It may be a fine line between preempting rebuttal and putting defensive bulwarks into place around your case, but that distinction will largely come down to phraseology. When preparing your case, think through the possible attacks on it and how you would address those and then, when you are speaking, set out the answers as an integral part of your

126 

Discovering the World through Debate



case, rather than highlighting the problems first. Avoid saying “no doubt side Negative will argue. . . ” or something along those lines. Let First Negative work out the weaknesses in the case, without suggestions from you as to which might be their strongest lines of attack, and trust to later Affirmative speakers to respond. Let’s take a specific example. There is a considerable difference between how these two statements will be perceived by the listener: 1. Negative will, no doubt, argue that we cannot afford additional spending for education in the current economic climate; we would argue that this is something we cannot afford to ignore. By creating this opportunity for future growth through a skilled workforce, we enhance business confidence domestically and reassure international investors that we are in business for the long term. 2. An investment in the workforce of the future will ensure that we do not again face the difficulties that are currently so evident in our economy. By attracting investment and demonstrating confidence, as well as ensuring the long-term viability of our skills base, we can lead the world out of recession rather than waiting to be asked to join the rest of the pack. By using positive phrasing to answer to a probable question (#2), you leave the impression that the other side is reacting to your ideas rather than your appearing defensive before they have even given a speech. The objective of the First Affirmative speaker is to give the impression that their position is normative and that Negative now has something to prove.

First Negative The main role of the First Negative is to highlight weaknesses in the Affirmative case. He can take any approach to this task but should both develop his own arguments and introduce the avenues of investigation his teammate(s) will pursue. It may be appropriate to propose an alternative solution to the problem First Affirmative highlighted (this is known as presenting a counter-case), but First Negative is equally entitled to simply point to major flaws in the proposal that has been put forward in the definition. It may well be that he prefers to do a little of both, highlighting flaws in the Affirmative case and citing examples of alternatives as evidence of those weaknesses. He almost certainly will have to give examples of what option or options would work better and, critically, why they would do so. Those options may well contain the status quo, but he should still demonstrate why this is preferable rather than simply claiming that

Opening Speeches 127

First Affirmative has failed to prove her case so it would be better to do nothing about the problem. The danger of defending the status quo is that, where there is manifestly a problem, the Negative can end up having to defend the indefensible. Acknowledging that problems exist and setting out how Affirmative’s proposed course of action will make things worse is often a safer course. Of all the positions in the debate, First Negative is the one most likely to be tempted to deliver a speech on the debate he was hoping would take place, rather than the one he is actually in. It’s worth being aware of this vice as it’s easy to slip into, especially for inexperienced debaters who may be casting around for something to fill out the time. A good First Negative speech goes straight into what the First Affirmative has just said. Spending a couple of minutes discussing what the debate might have been about may be tempting, but usually achieves nothing and is worth doing only in the face of a truly terrible definition. In that event, First Negative is in a strong position to reshape the debate to the advantage of his side. If the definition is full of holes, fill them in ways that benefit the Negative. If the definition proposes an expensive government program with no suggestion of how it is to be paid for, raise the specter of all of the most unpleasant possibilities. By contrast, don’t waste time arguing with what is obviously true. First Negative does not have to disagree with everything. If First Affirmative has said that crime is a problem for society, First Negative’s job is to prove that the Affirmative’s solution wouldn’t do anything to reduce crime rates, not to argue that crime doesn’t really bother people all that much. The First Negative speaker is perfectly placed to define the terms on which clash is likely to take place. Focus on the important areas of disagreement. It’s easy to nitpick at the definition. If it’s genuinely weak, point that fact out, but don’t get bogged down in legalistic detail or semantic squabbling. Quickly move to the major areas of disagreement that you believe should frame the debate as a whole.

Case Division In addition to setting out the cases for their respective sides, the first two speakers should give a clear indication of how the arguments will progress in terms of personnel. In Karl Popper debate, the first speakers set out the case as a whole and leave rebuttal to the second speakers (who also will do some development of the case as they defend it). In other formats, the first speaker should explain the case as a whole and identify which parts she will detail herself and which will be left to the second speaker. Making a point of saying explicitly who will be dealing with what allows both the adjudicator and the

128 

Discovering the World through Debate



other speakers to understand that more is to come and that you shouldn’t be criticized for issues that you accept as important but haven’t yet had time to address.

Laying Solid Foundations The job of the first speakers is to lay a solid foundation for the debate. If the second speakers are still arguing about, or are required to clarify, what the debate is about, at least one of the opening speakers hasn’t done her job properly. In the case of a debate surrounding a particular policy proposal, by the time the first two speakers have finished, everyone in the room should know:

• Exactly what problem is being addressed. • Exactly what solution is being proposed, including how it will work to address the problem.

• Why the Affirmative team considers the proposal to be an effective solution. • Why the Negative team has a problem with that, and whether they are proposing an alternative solution (and what it is) or challenging that Affirmative’s proposal would work better than the status quo.

• What later speakers are planning to say. • Key areas of disagreement between the two sides or, at least, between the first two teams in a four-team debate. The adjudicator should also have heard either one or two arguments in detail on either side of the debate. In short, the debate should have started in earnest. In the case of a debate over a moral consideration—euthanasia, abortion, assisted suicide, vegetarianism, for example—the two first speakers should have made clear that there are two consistent interpretations of what constitutes a moral position and by what standards the two sides are determining morality. In addition, the speakers should have laid out some substantive arguments. If both of the opening speakers can pass on to the next speakers concrete cases that are internally consistent and allow for the development of new arguments on the basis of a solid foundation, they have done their jobs well.

Opening Speeches 129

Establishing a Perspective The opening speakers should also be aware of the importance of being seen as reasonable in the eyes of the adjudicator. We shall see in Chapter 15 how the final speeches on both sides will be used to encourage the adjudicator to assess the debate from a particular perspective. The groundwork for that needs to be laid in the opening speeches. If, at this early stage, you can persuade the adjudicator that any possible answers to the question you have set out must come from a particular perspective, then you will make life much harder for opposing speakers. To take the example of the debate we considered earlier on the legalization of prostitution, if the Affirmative speaker can persuade the adjudicator that the problem she is trying to address is, ultimately, one of public health, she will almost certainly win. By contrast, if Negative can persuade the adjudicator that this is really a matter of morality or public order, then his team will win. It’s unlikely, although not impossible, that you would state such a perspective explicitly at this stage. However, the arguments you select and the evidence with which they are supported should draw the adjudicator in that direction. You should try hard to make that selection process seem as reasonable and natural as possible, so as to give the impression that anyone failing to address the issue in terms of your perspective has completely missed the point.

Conclusion Good opening speeches frame what will happen in the rest of the debate; bad ones encourage squabbling over what was or wasn’t said and arguments over irrelevant points. A debate is largely an exercise in asking an audience to make a decision or answer a question. By the end of the first speeches, the listener should be in no doubt about what that decision or question is and the standards by which they are being asked to make or answer it. Strong opening speeches may not necessarily win debates, but problematic ones can certainly lose them. A lack of clarity or focus on what is being discussed is one common error, a failure to set out the direction of the debate is another. Failing to fulfill the function expected of an opening speaker—especially First Affirmative—is, perhaps, the most common error.

130 

Discovering the World through Debate



EXERCISE

Listen to the opening speeches of debates in as many of the four formats as you can. Focus on speeches given in semifinals and finals of national or international competitions. A list of these competitions, by format, and corresponding websites where videos can be found is included at the end of this book. 1. As you watch the speeches, pay particular attention to:

• The definition and how it relates to the motion. • The extent to which the opening Negative speaker responds directly to the definition. • How speakers refer to what will be debated in later speeches. • Whether the definition and the Negative response allow for elaboration by later speakers. 2. Pick whichever debate you think sounds the most interesting and discuss as a group how you think the debate will progress. Then:

• Watch the debate as a whole. Did it develop as you predicted? • Consider which opening speaker did the better job of controlling the debate. Did his team capitalize on that advantage as well as they could?

• How else could the motion have been defined and why do you think the speaker chose the definition he or she did?

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Opening speakers frame the debate in the mind of the adjudicator and set the direction for the other speakers.

• The First Affirmative must offer the definition, which forms the basis for the debate. • A good definition is clear, answers all basic questions about the process of what is being proposed, supports why the Affirmative is suggesting a particular course or position, and is tight.

• The First Negative sets out why the Affirmative’s proposal won’t or shouldn’t work. • Opening speakers should identify the areas of clash. • The two first speakers must adopt positions that are mutually exclusive.

Opening Speeches 131

• The opening speakers identify the issues each of their colleagues will be addressing. • The opening speakers establish their cases from a given perspective that they present as being reasonable.

132 

Discovering the World through Debate

CHAPTER 14

Elaboration and Extension: The Role of Middle Speakers

The first and final speakers have explicitly defined roles, which tend, as a result, to be easier to discuss than those in the middle. However, the central speakers do the bulk of the heavy lifting in terms of actually winning the debate. In large part, their roles are spelled out in the chapters on evidence, argumentation, rebuttal, and speech structure. This chapter will not repeat that information. Instead, it looks specifically at what the middle speakers should aim to achieve. It begins by examining how they should deal with any problems left to them by the first speaker before turning to a general overview of how central speakers should operate within the debate. Although most of this book has considered how debate works regardless of the format, this is not possible for this chapter. In two formats, World Schools (WS) and Asian Parliamentary (Asians), that have one team of three speakers on each side, the middle speakers put forward the majority of arguments. In Karl Popper (KP), which also has three speakers, the second speaker does not present new arguments. Instead, she delivers a rebuttal speech that is sufficiently different from second speakers in other formats that it will be dealt with separately. The chapter examines the first two formats together and analyzes the role of the second speaker in terms of how they work with the rest of the team. It then looks separately at the role of rebuttal speeches in KP. A fourth format, British Parliamentary (BP), comprises two teams of two speakers on each side of the debate. This has a dramatic effect on the roles of the middle speakers who, in addition to putting forward the majority of the argumentation, are also required to wrap up the case for one team and open it for another. The chapter also addresses the role of each of these speakers in turn; in particular that of the third speaker on the Affirmative side (Member of the Government), who is responsible for introducing what is called an “extension”—the process of opening a major new area for consideration within the debate. Extensions, although relatively straightforward in reality, are the source of constant panic

for speakers new to either debating or BP, so the chapter examines how they work and addresses a few common misunderstandings. Finally, the chapter looks at what state each side’s case should be in when it is handed to the final speaker. This last phase—handing over what should be a completed body of argumentation—is shared by all formats.

Tidying Up In theory, the opening speakers should have spelled out and explained how their teams will develop their cases, identified the areas of disagreement, presented their side’s first argument, and handed their cases on for the next speakers to explain the remaining arguments, add rebuttal, and generally finish the case off. But frequently the transfer between speakers is not that neat. If this happens, you need to tidy things up before moving on to the main points of your speech. When doing so, refer to what the preceding speaker on your side has said. If there is genuine confusion about the case, use this opportunity to give a sentence or two of clarification and move on. If you’re speaking on the Affirmative, reiterate the definition; if on the Negative, restate simply the first speaker’s principal objection and move on to yours. Resist the temptation to spend half of your speech reviewing the debate so far. If you do, you will have insufficient time to develop your arguments in any detail, and the final speaker will be left with nothing to summarize. In effect, you will have lost three speeches rather than one. Bear in mind the make-up of your audience. Just because the speakers on the other side of the debate haven’t understood your argument does not mean the adjudicator hasn’t. Use your judgment as to whether the case is genuinely muddled or if the other side has just been slow on the uptake or surprised by a line of argument they hadn’t anticipated.

The Roles of Middle Speakers Once you’ve done any necessary tidying up, you should have a clear starting point to begin your own speech in earnest. What follows is debating in the truest meaning of the word: both sides arguing in both directions, defending parts of their own cases, introducing new ones, and critiquing opposing ideas. The middle speaker’s primary task is to use her remarks to draw out the narrative that holds the case together. The opening speaker sets up the scaffolding and framework

134 

Discovering the World through Debate



for the case as a whole, the concluding speaker will provide the color and furnishings to show it in its best light. The middle speaker puts in place the bricks and mortar of argumentation and the plumbing and wiring of evidence. In short, their job is to make sure it stands up and everything works. To succeed, the middle speaker must present robust arguments and deliver strong rebuttal. She must think of substantive and rebuttal arguments as being two sides of the same coin. The adjudicator is being asked to judge between two perspectives of how the world works; each side is trying to demonstrate that their perspective is more in line with reality. To that end, all arguments—substantive and rebuttal—function as examples of either perspective. By the time the middle speakers sit down, the adjudicator should have a clear sense of what the Affirmative is proposing and why their grasp of the world’s workings means that their solution is likely to succeed. Conversely, the Negative should have supplied enough rebuttal to convince the adjudicator that the Affirmative perspective has flaws and thus Affirmative’s solution to the problem is unlikely to work. Since the second speaker’s role is about providing a sense of reality, let’s take a look at how it works in practice in our four formats.

MIDDLE SPEAKERS IN THREE-SPEAKER FORMATS (WORLD SCHOOLS AND ASIANS)

Role of Second Affirmative

In World Schools and Asians, you can organize a Second Affirmative speech in many ways, but the following will work as a basic structure: 1. Quickly (in your first minute) recap what the opening Affirmative speaker has said and remind the adjudicator of the material you will cover in your speech. 2. Tackle the main points the First Negative speaker has made. Ideally, you should complete this part of your speech in 60–70 seconds. If this section runs to a minute and a half, that’s fine, but only if you’re seguing neatly into your first argument. 3. Set out your first argument, being careful to tie the components of the argument together logically. At this point, you should begin to demonstrate how this argument and that put forward by the opening speaker tie together and, as a result, start creating a mental image for the adjudicator of how the case would work in practice.

Elaboration and Extension: The Role of Middle Speakers 135

4. Introduce your final argument, the last piece of the puzzle. With this argument you should show the adjudicator that your side is not merely presenting a collection of interesting commentaries on the issue but a clear perspective that is more valid than your opponent’s about what will or will not work in the real world. Consequently, you should take pains to make clear how this final argument relates to the others to present a comprehensible package. Let’s see how the second speeches would work using the example of the legalization of prostitution debate from the last chapter. First Affirmative has defined the motion (Prostitution should be legal nationwide within registered brothels and nowhere else) and has demonstrated the health and personal safety benefits to prostitutes, a frequently victimized group. She supported this well using a study from Europe that included clear statistical evidence. However, First Negative has attacked the proposal as giving legitimacy to prostitution, which he has argued undermines the family and encourages an objectified view of women in wider society. Second Affirmative then engages with what First Negative has said. She may point out that he has missed the point; Affirmative fully accepts that prostitution has social harms but is trying to mitigate the worst or most immediate of these. She points out that Negative has failed to address the public health and personal safety issues Affirmative raised and settled instead for the “cheap shot” of blaming the prostitutes for undermining the family rather than the men who solicit their services. Negative isn’t required to provide a solution, but they do need to demonstrate that the solution put forward by Affirmative will either make the situation worse or will simply not work; in this instance, Negative has tried—and probably failed—to rely on moral outrage to make his point for him. Second Affirmative then turns her attention to the public health benefits for those people not directly involved, especially the reduction in the transmission of STDs to the wives of the men who use prostitutes. By so doing, she demonstrates a wider social good. Finally, she sketches an even wider benefit to society by introducing another study, from a different city. She highlights the effect that removing prostitution and the associated criminality from the streets of particular neighborhoods had on that city’s ability to revitalize those neighborhoods, thus providing a boost to the local economy. Notice that Affirmative doesn’t need to demonstrate that everything is now fine and everybody is happy, just that regulated brothels are better for the life of all concerned than are unregulated streetwalkers. With that final piece of the picture, she has demonstrated how Affirmative’s policy benefits not only those immediately involved (the prostitutes) but also improves the situation for a group that was victimized through no fault of their own (the wives). Finally, she demonstrates a benefit to the population at large through increased legal commerce in the city. At this point, the adjudicator has a sense of how the policy can be seen as positive,

136 

Discovering the World through Debate



regardless of whether she has been convinced by First Affirmative’s portrayal of prostitutes as victims rather than criminals.

Role of Second Negative

The role of Second Negative is broadly the same as his opposite number: to put the bulk of argumentation into place to support the Negative case. His rebuttal emphasizes that the studies offered by the Affirmative focus only on very small areas of provincial cities and that Affirmative is proposing adopting legal brothels as a nationwide program. He then adds a new line of attack: He introduces evidence from the cities mentioned that the proposal created a two-tier system of prostitution, one legal and one illegal. Such a system would further marginalize the most vulnerable because prostitutes working outside the brothels would be in danger both from their pimps and the law because of the proposed zero-tolerance policy. This is a classic argument: the proposal being put forward would, indeed, provide a slight improvement in the situation of a majority of those involved but would do so at an intolerable cost to those outside the proposed system. He is now clashing with the Affirmative case by tackling it head on in terms of the personal safety of sex workers. He then goes on to raise the issue of whether simply legalizing criminal activities is a sensible approach to tackling crime and highlights studies that demonstrate that a similar approach with narcotics has had mixed results. Neither of the examples above is a perfect case on the issue, and the evidence has simply been invented to suit the example, but they serve to illustrate how second speakers can use evidence-based arguments to construct an image in the mind of an adjudicator. In the case of the Affirmative, that image is one of protecting innocent people from serious health problems; in the case of the Negative, it is of the Affirmative’s proposal pushing the most vulnerable people further into harm’s way, thus exacerbating rather than alleviating the problems associated with prostitution.

ROLE OF SECOND SPEAKER IN THE KARL POPPER FORMAT

As we have seen, in the Karl Popper format, the first speeches present all the arguments for each side. So, the second speeches are considered rebuttal speeches, and it’s rebuttal that takes up the bulk of their time. If second speakers need to develop the points made by the first speaker on their side, that’s fine, but they can’t introduce a new argument at this stage in the debate. Second speakers combine material presented by the first speakers with rebuttal of the other side, synthesizing a complete case to hand on to the final speaker. In short, although all the arguments are presented in the first speeches, the bulk of the “arguing” goes on in the second.

Elaboration and Extension: The Role of Middle Speakers 137

On the surface, the division of labor between the first and second speakers might lead you to believe that they have unrelated tasks that could be completed independently of each other. They can’t. Karl Popper is designed specifically to encourage teamwork in a debate. The second speaker must develop the arguments presented by the first speaker, rebut her opponent’s points, and utilize material gleaned from the third speaker’s cross-examination of the first speaker to demonstrate that her case is superior to that of the other side.

ROLE OF MIDDLE SPEAKERS IN FOUR-SPEAKER FORMATS

British Parliamentary’s unusual format, with two teams on each side, presents some very real logistical problems for the middle speakers on either side. The heart of these difficulties is this: both teams on each side are trying to beat the opposing side as a whole and the other team on their own side. The main tool for allowing this to happen is the “extension,” a device by which the second teams in the debate can focus on new, although complimentary, material without having to disavow what has already been said by the first two speakers on either side.

Role of Second Speakers

The role of a second speaker in BP is not especially different from that of her counterpart in Asians and World Schools. She must make powerful arguments and offer a strong rebuttal. However, in BP, the second speaker must also be aware that the following speakers on her side have no particular inclination to do her and her teammate any favors. If second speakers in other formats would be well-advised to leave their cases neat and tidy by the end of their speeches, it is vital in BP. The third and fourth speakers, who form a separate team, may say a few nice things about the first team for the sake of professional courtesy but that’s about all. Consequently, as well as providing argumentation, a second speaker needs to build a mini-conclusion into her speech. She must ensure that the last part of her speech gives a summation of the debate so far and impresses in the mind of the adjudicator what her team’s case was and the reasons it should be considered strong enough to place first.

Role of Third Speakers

The role of the Third Affirmative speaker (Member of the Government) is to introduce a major new platform into the debate. Similarly, the role of her opposite number is to respond to that new element. This process is referred to as an “extension”; Affirmative

138 

Discovering the World through Debate



teams who fail to provide one will be marked very harshly. The purpose of an extension is not to redefine the motion or to propose a new course of action. It is to give a new reason for following the proposal presented by First Affirmative. Neither of the third speakers should ignore the material that has gone before; they should use it and respond to it as they see fit. Nevertheless, they should make clear that they are doing more than just nodding assent to the arguments the first teams have presented; after all, in theory at least, these arguments should now be fully supported and be ready to stand on their own. Completely changing the direction of the debate with, in effect, a new definition (this is nicknamed “knifing” the opening Affirmative team) is usually heavily penalized. In exceptional circumstances, where a debate has been extremely confused or of a very low standard, adjudicators will accept that the Third Affirmative had no choice but to either knife her colleagues or follow them into third or fourth place, but it’s a risky strategy and best avoided unless you are very confident that you are in the right.

Moving Toward the Endgame Soon the time will come when the case needs to be handed over to the final speakers to be polished up and presented in its best possible light. To do that, the final speakers need to receive a debate that should have met the following conditions:

• Both sides have clearly explained their mutually exclusive positions. • Each side has presented arguments in support of those positions and supported those arguments with evidence.

• No substantial questions remain to be answered about either side’s case. • The Affirmative has demonstrated that a move away from the status quo would have clear benefits in addressing a particular concern and has given reasonable grounds to believe that such a change is possible.

• The Negative has challenged the likelihood of realizing those benefits and has suggested that either the status quo or some other alternative would be preferable and given reasons why this might be the case. Or,

Elaboration and Extension: The Role of Middle Speakers 139

• In the case of a debate on moral grounds, both sides have established a metric for determining the morality of their given position and have demonstrated how an action or series of actions is either meritorious or invidious according to that metric.

Conclusion The middle speakers are easy to take for granted because their job is to debate—plain and simple. The bulk of their work requires them to fulfill the main roles of rebuttal and argumentation with the strategy and evidence that goes along with them. If we think of the responsibility of each side as building a perspective from which to view the world, the middle speakers have a critical role. Sometimes they may use broadsides of evidence to achieve their aim, at other times they may steadily lead the listener through intricate stages of argument to reach an unavoidable conclusion. Whatever their approach, the second (and third) speakers need to make sure that the adjudicator appreciates that their case is grounded in believable evidence and results in reasonable claims. They need to establish the strongest case possible because little room is now left in the debate. Any information or case building that needs to be done must have already been done by the time the penultimate Negative speaker sits down. That is not to say that the debate is over, however. Far from it. Plenty of debates are won, and lost, by the final speaker on either side. Summation is a remarkable skill and, in the hands of an expert, can be fascinating to watch. However, even the best concluding speakers need something to work with—for the bulk of that material, they rely on the speakers in the middle.

EXERCISES

Watch the opening two speeches from a debate in either Asians or World Schools format up to the concluding speakers. As you watch the speeches, take notes on:

• The quantity of argumentation presented by the middle speakers and how that compares with the more descriptive roles of the opening speakers, especially First Affirmative.

• How the cases, as divided by the opening speakers, have largely been addressed by the time Second Negative sits down.

140 

Discovering the World through Debate



• Whether the second speakers responded effectively to the criticisms of the first speakers. • Whether the second speeches were consistent with what had already been said on that side; if not, how could these speeches have been improved?

• Whether you think the adjudicator now has a clear idea of the concept she is being asked to accept or reject.

• The extent to which the two cases clashed. After you’ve watched the debate, discuss your findings in small groups.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Except in the Karl Popper format, middle speakers do the bulk of the arguing. They present the majority of the arguments, rebut the opposition, identify the areas of clash, and prepare the case to hand over to the final speaker.

• The first and second speeches combine to present the substantive case for a side and, as part of that, address concerns that may be in the mind of the adjudicator, whether they have been put there as a result of rebuttal or not.

• Middle speakers must leave the case essentially complete, with no questions remaining. • In the Karl Popper format, second speeches are rebuttal speeches. • Second speakers in BP must not only offer argumentation but also offer a mini-conclusion in their speech.

• The Third Affirmative speaker (Member of the Government) in BP must offer an extension—a new argument for adopting the proposal. The Third Negative speaker responds to this.

Elaboration and Extension: The Role of Middle Speakers 141

CHAPTER 15

Closing Speeches

Closing speeches are of two types: summations and reply speeches. All formats have summations, but some, including Asian Parliamentary and World Schools, also have reply speeches. This chapter begins by distinguishing between the two types of speeches and then discusses the general functions of both. Finally, it looks at two different approaches to summations and one main approach to reply speeches.

Distinguishing Between Summation and Reply Speeches The distinction between summation and reply speeches may seem minor, but it is important. Summation speeches continue the debate. These speeches do not present new substantive arguments. Instead, in formats without replies, they briefly make any final rebuttal necessary before offering a summary and conclusion of their side’s case. In formats that have both summation and reply speeches, the emphasis in summation speeches is on rebuttal. The speaker must address every significant idea that the opposition has raised or show how it has already been rebutted in another point. The summary portion of the speech is brief. In contrast, by the time the reply speeches are delivered, the debate has concluded. Thus, the goal of the reply speech is not to win arguments but to explain why the team won the debate.

Role of the Closing Speakers and Speeches The primary role of the closing speaker—whether she is the reply speaker or summation speaker in formats that have no reply speeches—is to provide a conclusion. She takes the framework set out by the opening speaker and the evidence and arguments that



have run through the case and demonstrates that her side has done what they said they would, and done it well. The exact manner in which she presents the conclusion will vary with the particular approach she chooses, but her aim is to demonstrate that her team has proved their case or attacked the motion successfully in one seamless flow of argumentation. To do so, she will highlight the strengths of her side and the weaknesses of the opposition. She may use the structures set out by the opening speakers or may find it more persuasive to impose a new structure to clarify and promote her side’s perspective. Generally, closing speakers give very little additional evidence and introduce no new arguments. As a result, a closing speech is not an exercise in trying to get in all of the points you would have mentioned at the start if only your side had thought of them. Rather, it presents the evidence in a compelling and attractive way. You shouldn’t misquote or distort the opposition’s arguments, but feel free to ignore some or present them in their least flattering light, usually demonstrating how they have missed the focus of the debate all together.

FUNCTIONS OF THE CLOSING SPEECH

Closing speeches have certain functions. They must:

• Tidy up. As discussed in the last chapter, the main arguments of both sides should have been completed by the middle speakers. However, that’s not always the case, so the closing speaker may have some tidying up to do. If you do this with skill, the adjudicator will not notice that your teammates left you with loose ends. Simply structure your summation in such a way as to make it seem that your teammates were just fractionally clearer than a verbatim recording of events would suggest. You might, for example, take a piece of evidence that a colleague has mentioned in passing and place it front and center for the adjudicator. Frequently you might take a link between a piece of rebuttal and a substantive argument and state explicitly how the case as a whole rests on them. Conversely, where a colleague has been distracted by something that adds little, or even detracts from, your case, a judicious summary would overlook it altogether. In a good summation, you should be drawing out the main themes rather than cataloguing every detail, so this process actually takes place quite naturally.

• Frame the debate. In practical terms, the closing speaker is trying to give the adjudicator a way of interpreting what has happened in the debate. She will pull out the strengths of her side and demonstrate how they answer the major issues behind the debate. She will mention the points of clash that have happened as the debate progressed, pointing to ways in which her side had the better of them all. She will demonstrate how the opposing side failed to really come to grips with the whole topic from the start

Closing Speeches 143

or, if they did, have failed to adequately address the issues that were raised. She will present alluring considerations for the adjudicator to reflect on when pondering what the debate was really about, and to whom, and for what reasons, victory should be awarded. She will reinforce the narrative that has run through her side—the perspective that the adjudicator should adopt on all of the issues that have been presented.

• Leave an impression. The final few sentences of both concluding speeches are important because they will be the last statements the adjudicator hears before she considers who has won. These final remarks provide the opportunity to place an idea firmly in the mind of everybody listening. The last speaker should finish with the clearest, most engaging, perspective-reinforcing remarks she can muster. Your hope is that, because we tend to best remember the most recent thing we’ve heard, your last sentences will prove to be the adjudicator’s starting point for interpreting the debate. For example, the final sentences of the last Negative speech might be “Because we have demonstrated that the proposition’s plan is both economically reckless and politically naïve, their case must fall. I urge you support the Negative.” Another tactic takes the strategy a little further and actually asks a question, “The Affirmative’s case has shown scant regard for the rights of the individual or the freedoms of society as a whole. Madam Chair, would you wish to live in such a society?” Giving the audience a sense of how they feel about a particular idea can be just as persuasive—if not more so—than guiding how they think about it. The closing Affirmative speaker wants to engender certainty, a sense that all of the questions about the case have been answered and a sufficient number of practicalities considered so that the adjudicator should support the Affirmative’s proposal. The final Negative speaker, by contrast, may want to leave his audience with a nagging sense of doubt that everything is not quite right with the Affirmative proposal. The final few words in their speeches—both the words themselves and the manner in which they are delivered—are a powerful tool for achieving those goals.

Summation Speeches Because summation speeches are a continuation of the main debate, some of the speech will work in much the same way as middle speeches: particularly rebutting the previous speaker. However, for the bulk of the speech, rather than developing new arguments based on primary evidence (evidence from outside the debate), the speaker will use what might be termed “secondary evidence,” the speeches of the other debaters, to win

144 

Discovering the World through Debate



an argument about which team was more successful. Generally, summation speakers will follow one of the following structures: Summation by Speaker

• rebut the immediately preceding speaker • use that rebuttal to lead into the weaker points of the opposing team’s case • highlight those points made by colleagues that counter the arguments put forward by the opposing team

• demonstrate how the opposing side’s weaker arguments, the counteractions of her side, and the substantive arguments from her own side have dominated the debate Summation by Theme

• rebut the immediately preceding speaker • briefly sum up the key developments on her side • provide an overview of the key points of clash in the debate as a whole • synthesize the key themes that have dominated the debate, contrasting the perspectives used, to show the benefit of her side’s analysis Let’s have a look at these two approaches in more detail.

SUMMATION BY SPEAKER

Summing up by speaker is the simplest form of summation but is not necessarily less effective. It has the twin advantages of clarity and simplicity for the listener. The speaker is simply recapping what other speakers have said, albeit edited to fit a particular narrative. This is likely to lead an audience to think: “Yes, they did say that, didn’t they?” in a way that imposing an analysis on the debate may not. This approach is clear because it relates to recent events; it is simple because your assessment of what the debate was about does not require the audience to take a further leap in logic. The key to effectively summing up a debate by speaker is to take a step beyond “he said . . . then she said . . . then she said . . . .” As with any type of summation, if she is to win then the debater needs to put herself in the shoes of the listener and ask what she needs them to remember. This is not an exercise in giving a faithful historical account of what has just happened. It’s more of a sales pitch—and the tone, internal timing, and content should reflect that fact. Usually, the bulk of the concluding speaker’s remarks will relate

Closing Speeches 145

to her own side (in BP, disproportionately to her own team). However, where the other side has made a serious mistake, she should feel free to spend time exploiting that fact. It’s important that the debater acts more like an editor and less like a reporter, selecting stories that lead the listener to a particular conclusion rather than regurgitating an account of events. She’s had the chance to listen to the debate and should be aware of which arguments were persuasive and which were not. Her job is to accentuate the successes of her team and the failures of the opposing team. A slightly weak argument on the other side of the house should be presented as a disaster, while an adequately workable argument on her own side should become a triumph. Although a summation by speaker should aim to mention all of the speakers in a debate, there is certainly no requirement to divide time evenly between them. The speaker should begin with some immediate rebuttal of the previous speaker, but should do so with an awareness that she is about to address the ideas of that team more generally and select those of the previous speaker’s remarks that segue neatly into a broader attack on the opposing side. She should aim to finish the speech talking about the strongest points her own side made—that is, after all, what she wants the adjudicator to remember, so it’s worth making sure that it’s the last thing that the judge hears. The division of time should run along the same lines, giving slightly less time to the weaknesses in the other side’s arguments than she gives to the strengths of her own.

SUMMATION BY THEME

Summing up by theme requires the speakers to look inside the debate. A concluding speaker taking this approach needs to focus on those issues that she sees as key to the debate. Sometimes these will be those arguments that were explicitly stated and provided the main basis for clash between the earlier speakers. Sometimes she will have to look a little deeper into the issues and establish the broader themes that underlie all of those arguments. Whichever approach she takes, she is trying to develop an interpretation of the facts that most suits her side’s interests. This is where active listening and critical thinking skills really come into play because previous speakers may not have explicitly identified themes, thus the closing speaker must ask herself “looking back, what was this debate really about?” It’s difficult to see the debate from the outside when in the middle of it, but it can be done. For example, in a debate about government regulation of online material, the speakers may have focused on the technological possibilities, the existing legal framework, and commercial sensibilities as points of clash. However, depending on how the debate has flowed, the external observer may see the debate as centering on the issue of privacy or the relationship

146 

Discovering the World through Debate



between the state and the individual. Quite possibly, however, if the debate has been confused, the listener is simply drowning in a mass of data and apparently unrelated evidence and argument. An effective final speaker can do the adjudicator a favor—and win the debate for her team—by imposing order on that mass of information. A good conclusion can draw together the disparate elements of the debate into a neatly wrapped package and present it to the adjudicator with a note explaining why her team should win. In a debate that has been focused throughout, the speaker more commonly identifies the points of clash, highlights each of those as the flow of the debate has developed, and traces the argument through the debate, explaining how her side has convincingly proved each of those points of contention. In doing so, the speaker makes sure to reference others in the debate. Although she is taking a thematic approach, she still uses secondary evidence to prove her contention that her side has offered the better arguments. In this approach, the debater is neither editor nor reporter. Instead, she is an historian, selecting evidence as appropriate to highlight particular aspects of her narrative while appearing to give an explanation that fits all of the facts and justifies her analysis. Summation by theme offers the speaker the opportunity to point out to the adjudicator issues that he may have missed, to demonstrate that the individual arguments of her teammates—the evidence they have used, the warrants outlined, and the claims made— all lead to one simple but overwhelming conclusion. Remember, assertion has no more place in a concluding speech than it has anywhere else in the debating chamber. Victory cannot just be claimed; it needs to be won by the speaker’s comments as evidence, the logic of the arguments as warrants, and the superiority of their case as the claim.

Reply Speeches In formats that have reply speeches, the debate per se has ended by the time the reply speaker gets up to speak. Her role, then, is to consolidate her team’s ideas and review the debate. Generally, reply speeches will have the following structure:

• identify the central question of the debate and phrase it in a way that most benefits your team

• review how your team has successfully answered this question and note how the other team failed to do so

• offer an analysis of the two that draws out the strengths of your side of the debate

Closing Speeches 147

In formats that include reply speeches, the Negative has the advantage of having two speeches back-to-back (a Negative constructive speech and a reply speech), while the Affirmative has the advantage of having the last word. Developing strategies that take advantage of these positions is an important part of the reply speaker’s craft. At the most immediate level, this means that Negative can reinforce their points more thoroughly and Affirmative can more effectively frame how the adjudicator should view the debate.

BIASED ADJUDICATION

The reply speaker’s speech is often called a “biased adjudication.” “Adjudication” is a term for the feedback given by the adjudicator to speakers after a debate. It usually presents an overview of the debate as a whole, touches on the contributions of each speaker, and indicates which issues really dominated and which could have been dealt with more thoroughly. A biased adjudication does the same, but always, and unsurprisingly, concludes that the speaker’s side had the better case. It pretends to be considered and balanced but highlights the points the speaker’s own side wishes the adjudicator to consider as she reaches her decision, while expressing concern that the opposition may have misunderstood the real issue of the debate. This approach to concluding is closer to the role of reviewer or critic than to the other roles mentioned above. In a review of a movie or book, the critic spends very little time recounting the plot, rather the focus is on the film in its totality: its underlying messages, its tensions and themes, its relation to the experiences of the audience and, ultimately, its strengths and weaknesses. The reply speaker’s biased adjudication does much the same.

Conclusion The process of concluding is not about giving a faithful, objective account. Rather, it is about using those aspects of the debate that most favor the concluding speaker’s side to prove that they have won. Sometimes a concluding speech is a form of rhetorical triage—presenting strong arguments that speak for themselves, patching up those that can be saved, and leaving those that are beyond saving to die quietly in the darker recesses of the audience’s memory. The concluding speech needs to accomplish a number of goals: demonstrating that the team has set out the arguments they said were necessary to prove their case, providing a framework for the adjudicator, tidying up some of the remarks that have gone before, and presenting everything in a comprehensible package. The final speaker uses

148 

Discovering the World through Debate



the arguments of her colleagues and opponents to demonstrate that only one answer is possible to the question that has dominated the debate—conveniently enough, her team’s. Just as the concluding speaker relies on the rest of her team to give her the material to work with, the rest of the team relies on her to make those arguments shine bright in the light of scrutiny.

EXERCISES

A. Think about the debate you watched for the exercises in the last chapter. 1. In small groups discuss the themes that dominated the debate and how you would give the remaining speeches for each side. 2. Watch the remaining speakers.

• Did they take the same approach as you? • How did the reply speaker act compared with the final speaker of the main debate? • With the benefit of not being in the debate and being able to go back and check, what did the final speakers ignore that could have made their speeches clearer? B. You should now have watched at least one each of KP, WS, and Asians debate. Now it’s time to watch a BP debate and attempt to adjudicate it as though it were a live debate. 1. In groups of three, discuss the first three speakers on each side. Which side you do you think is most convincing by the time the Third Negative speaker has finished? 2. Now turn your attention to the final speakers. In your groups, discuss the extent to which the final speeches reflect the debate that has taken place and how well the speakers have selected secondary evidence to demonstrate that their teams and sides had the better arguments. You may wish to consider:

• Do the speakers successfully focus on parts of the debate that are helpful to their sides? • Do the speakers do a good job of leaving the adjudicators with a clear idea of what they are being asked to agree with?

• Which speaker does the best job of drawing out the overarching themes of the debate convincingly?

Closing Speeches 149

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• The primary role of the closing speaker is to provide a conclusion that proves her team has been most persuasive.

• Both summation and reply speakers draw out themes that ran through the debate and use them to retrospectively demonstrate the strengths of their cases.

• Closing speeches must: tidy up, show that the team has proved their case, and provide a framework for understanding the debate.

• Summation and reply speakers can introduce either very little new evidence (for Affirmative summation speakers) or none at all (for all the rest).

• Summation can be tackled by speaker or theme. • Reply speakers offer a biased adjudication to review and critique the debate.

150 

Discovering the World through Debate

Part 4: Debate Tools

CHAPTER 16

Preparation Time

A debate doesn’t start when the two teams sit down to face each other. It begins in the weeks, days, and minutes before the round as the teams prepare, generate arguments, and make notes. All formats give preparation time (frequently called “prep”) before the debate. Prep can be as little as 15 minutes (short prep) or as long as a month (long prep). Some formats alternate between the two for different rounds, others announce the motion in advance but speakers will not be told their sides in the debate until shortly before it starts, allowing for general research but discouraging the building of specific cases. Some formats, including Karl Popper, also include formal prep time during the debate. Prep time is an important component of debate. It is through good, well-structured prep that debaters develop good speeches and arguments. This chapter first offers some general suggestions about how to utilize pre-debate prep time and then examines the challenges of short and long prep. Finally, it looks at how to utilize prep time strategically during a debate for those formats that include it.

Preparing for a Debate Regardless of how long or short pre-debate prep time is, the purpose is the same: to allow speakers time to analyze the motion and build as much of a case as is possible, ensuring that the case is consistent and well-informed. In practical terms, this means developing notes that can be used as a working document throughout the debate.

THE PROCESS

Broadly speaking, however long the prep time, preparing for a debate follows the same three-stage process:

1. Overview and identification of information. What issues do you need to address in your case? What are well-known areas of concern on this subject? Have you read or seen anything particularly interesting on the subject recently that will help? What are the key considerations that your position will need to address? For the moment, brainstorm ideas; nothing is “too stupid to mention.” What do you know and what can you find out? During this stage, you should start to get a sense of the general shape of your case and the direction your team will take on the motion. For the Affirmative team, what exactly—be as precise as you possibly can be—is the problem you are trying to address or the question you are trying to answer? How are you going to answer it? Once you have made decisions about these two questions, you should have your definition. Then think about the advantages of your proposal: What are the general benefits of pursuing a course of action, whose lives will be improved, how will they be improved, and why should they be improved? Negative teams can take a fairly reasonable guess as to what the opening Affirmative speaker is going to say and begin to develop some ideas about how to respond. Determine what questions the Affirmative will need to answer and what problems might lie within the specifics of a possible case. 2. Case structuring and division. Next, prioritize your arguments. If it’s a lovely point but you have no evidence, toss it. If it’s an interesting fact but doesn’t support you case, ignore it for now but hold on to it in case it touches on a point that the opposing side introduces. You want to present about three arguments, so if you have a list of eight or nine after the brainstorming, winnow it down. Determine which you can support with strong evidence and which you can’t defend adequately. Having decided what your best arguments are, rank them and divide them among the team. Your opening speaker should take the strongest, best-supported, most logically rigorous argument—the one for which you have ironclad evidence and rocksolid warrants. For second teams in BP, decide what arguments you think the opening teams will definitely make and how you can extend them. It’s worth spending some time on arguments that you think you may not need to make. If the opening teams don’t mention an obvious or vital point, then your extension, and probable victory, is sitting there waiting for you to pick it up. 3. Speech development and rebuttal planning. This step could just as easily be called “write it down, tidy it up, and check before takeoff.” Write down what you know you need to say. Write it in note form and, if you’re a later speaker, leave space to add notes on what earlier speakers say as the debate progresses. Look at the arguments you have.

154 

Discovering the World through Debate



How might the opposition attack them? How can you shore them up against those attacks and what can each speaker add to make his teammates’ arguments stronger? Essentially, this is the stage at which you take your ideas and structure them along the lines discussed in Chapter 2. Very roughly, one-third of preparation time should be given to each of these steps, but try out variations and see what works for your team. Regardless of how you organize your time, you’re likely to want to move from the more general to the more specific. Put more simply still: Topic  ➞ Case ➞ Speech

TEAMWORK

Debating is a team activity, and all speakers should have a role in shaping their case and testing it to ensure that it is comprehensible to the adjudicator. Nevertheless, preparation varies from speaker to speaker. Basically, the amount of notes you can expect to have by the time prep ends is in inverse proportion to your place in the speaking order. First Affirmative must know exactly what she’ll say. First Negative will also have a fairly clear idea of his main points but must wait to hear the definition before he can draw them together. He also should be prepared to use his general notes to create a response to an unexpected definition. Second Affirmative will have an idea of the arguments allotted to her by the case division, but the remaining debaters must respond to what is said during the debate. Teams that are speaking second in British Parliamentary should not work with the other team on their side. Remember, you are not only competing against the other side but also the other team on your side.

Principles of Short and Long Preparation As you grow as a debater, you and your teammates are likely to develop your own approach to preparation. You’re quite likely to use different approaches to long and short prep, which is fine. However, whatever your approach and regardless of the length of preparation time, you should:

• Remember the “Goldilocks Principle.” This is a variant on the fairytale’s too hot/too cold/ just right analysis applied to evidence. Consider your available evidence and determine what you can use in this particular debate—does the evidence relate to the right issue, the right time frame, the right country?

Preparation Time 155

You want to compile as much useful information as possible, but if you don’t have arguments to offer by the end of your prep time, all the evidence in the world will avail you nothing. So, consider the overall shape of your case: What will you need to demonstrate? Then go back to your evidence and see if it supports what you’ve developed—if it doesn’t, refine your case and work through it again. Your case and the evidence feed each other, neither will work without the other.

• Be inquisitive. When you discuss your ideas for a case, be prepared to ask questions. If you don’t understand an argument your teammate is suggesting, ask her to explain. Questioning is important for several reasons. First, you’ll need to understand your teammate’s point to be able to defend it. Second, if you don’t understand the point, an adjudicator won’t either, thus questioning will help your teammate clarify the argument in her mind. Finally, the argument might be bad, and it’s better to discover that while talking among yourselves than when you’re in the debate. There’s very little to be gained in losing a debate because you didn’t like to ask a question.

• Think about structure from the start. How does your case tie together? If you’re using the same evidence for several different lines of reasoning, you quite probably have several versions of the same argument. Your objective is to have a range of arguments that support one another without overlapping to the point of replicating each other.

• Don’t be too spontaneous. Generally, blinding flashes of inspiration just before the debate are best ignored.

Short-Notice Preparation Preparation within a limited timeframe requires discipline and focus. This can be difficult at competitions where teams may also have to use that time to find the debate room, so it’s worth planning in advance how you will use prep. Don’t be hostage to the plan, however. Be flexible. Remember, the objective is to have a practical set of notes by the end of the process. When organizing short prep:

• Be disciplined. Make whoever is speaking last responsible for keeping everyone focused during prep time. If you’ve spent two or three minutes discussing an idea and getting nowhere with it, she can move you on to something else and stop you wasting your time.

• Think with your hands. We think more clearly when we take notes. Write ideas down as you discuss them. Then go back over your notes and choose the best arguments before organizing them into a case.

156 

Discovering the World through Debate



• Be practical. Once the debate starts, you’re going to be busy. If you need a spare pen, extra paper, a glass of water, or to go to the toilet, sort it out during prep time. Perhaps most important, don’t leave finding the debate room until the exact time the debate is scheduled to start. If you get there 10 minutes late, you will have been disqualified and all of your hard work will have been for nothing.

Long-Notice Preparation Long-notice preparation can give you more time to develop your case, but also provides more time for getting it wrong in creative and imaginative ways. Whether you have a day, a week, or a term, longer prep is not necessarily easier. Your long-prep strategy should reflect the following principles:

• Don’t invent the debate before it happens. One of the temptations that long-prep presents is the risk of tunnel vision. It can seem so obvious that the debate should take a certain direction and, when it doesn’t, the debaters can be blindsided. Here, more than in any other situation, it is worth restating the dangers of guessing how the debate will unfold. You can use additional time to research both more widely and more deeply. However, assuming that the debate will follow the exact path you predict or hope for is extremely risky.

• Don’t over-prepare. With long prep, it’s also possible to over-prepare—providing a long list of disparate arguments rather than a well-developed case and reducing evidence to a catalogue of statistics and references. Long-prep is a bit like having a digital camera—you may have the capacity to take a virtually infinite number of photos but, on its own, that doesn’t make the photos any better.

• Don’t prepare your case and then sit back for a month. Use long prep to both develop and test arguments—both your own side’s and the opposition’s. What arguments are they likely to use? What are the flaws in those arguments? What are your strongest arguments? Are there gaps in the logic? How can they be filled? If you have time, run trial debates against other teams using different arguments in your case and see which ones work in practice.

Preparation Time 157

Peculiarities of First Affirmative Speakers and Teams The first speaker in a debate is in a unique position because the rest of the debate hangs on her getting the definition right. Thus, regardless of how much time she and her team have spent preparing, she will need a little time immediately before the debate to gather her thoughts and structure her notes. Before the debate begins, she should make sure that her notes have clearly written out:

• the definition, with any justification required to get to it from the motion • the team’s overall position or perspective • a list of the arguments that will make up the case • the case division for the team (who will say what) • the argument(s) she will present with supporting evidence Novice first speakers may also find it useful to have:

• the motion • the first sentence written out in full • the names and positions of the other speakers (it’s a good idea for all speakers to have this information, but the first speaker in particular doesn’t want to be thrown by misspeaking the name of the first person she needs to refer to) Obviously, the amount of time First Affirmative gets to gather her thoughts will vary depending on the length of preparation time, but frantically discussing the case right up until she is called to speak is not the efficient use of time it may appear to be. It is incredibly difficult—arguably impossible—to shift from talking about how a teammate should tackle a particular problem to giving the speech that will set out the general structure of the debate as a whole. Although First Affirmative, in particular, needs time before speaking, other speakers also benefit from a little mental space. During the last minute of the speech immediately preceding yours, listen to what the speaker has to say; it’s likely to be a recap of his speech. Resist the temptation to plan furiously with teammates. You need to be aware of what the previous speaker has said. Once he sits down, take the few seconds to take a breath and clarify in your own mind the points you are about to make: How do they relate to what has just been said and how are you going to steer the adjudicator’s thoughts back to your territory?

158 

Discovering the World through Debate



TO WRITE OR NOT

In formats that have long-prep, the First Affirmative speaker can assume that the debate will run according to plan, at least for the duration of her speech. Should these speakers write a full speech? Many coaches would say that they should. Prewriting the speech may help ensure a clear structure, but it does have drawbacks. As a debater, you should be in the habit of thinking, and speaking, on your feet, and the habit of prewritten speeches is an obstacle to that. Perhaps most important, we speak and write in different ways; unless you’ve had a huge amount of practice, a written speech sounds like what it is; someone reading out an essay. It’s not persuasive and it’s not that interesting. If it helps, write the first minute or so, setting out the definition and the outline of the case but then use notes. However, in the long term, you’ll do yourself far more favors by just getting used to speaking from notes.

In-Debate Preparation Time It’s impossible to predict everything that will happen during the course of a debate, and some planning is needed while the debate is in progress. Of the four formats discussed in this book, only one , Karl Popper, formalizes that reality. The following discussion outlines how to address both the formal and informal approach to this reality.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION

Inevitably, teammates need to speak with one another during a debate. This is not ideal, but it’s unavoidable. Exchanging a few words or pointing to a phrase in your notes, or those of a teammate, is fine. Quickly strategizing between the members of a team who aren’t speaking while another is on her feet is fine. Treating your opponents’ speeches as an opportunity for lengthy discussions on the minutiae of the subject for debate is not fine. Indeed, it’s both very rude and very foolish. The adjudicator is going to be listening closely to what speakers from the other side have said and will expect you to be able to respond in detail. If you haven’t heard it, you can’t respond as expected and your speech will suffer. As discussed in Chapter 7, listening is a key skill for the debater. You are better off listening actively to an opposition point and thinking about its flaws and then suggesting a one-sentence rebuttal to a colleague than you are carrying on a lengthy conversation on the subject.

Preparation Time 159

FORMAL IN-DEBATE PREP TIME

The Karl Popper format gives each team eight minutes during which they can huddle together and strategize the next section. Teams can use this prep time before or after any speech and in any amount as long as they don’t go over the total allotted time. In theory, you can use the time all at once, but strategically, speakers aim to keep as much prep time as possible for the later stages of the debate. To a certain extent, you should be able to predict what will happen during the opening speeches and have built into your speeches defenses and lines of attack accordingly. However, as ideas progress throughout the debate, you may need more timeouts to adjust your arguments or consider responses to unanticipated twists and turns in the progress of the debate. Consequently, don’t assume that you have to use prep time between every section. Wait until you need it. Equally, while using it, be direct about what is needed; this is not a time for lengthy discussions but for a literal exchange of notes to consider each other’s ideas and decide on the best response. Come to these discussions with practical suggestions for how to move the case forward rather than open questions such as “what do you think?” These periods should be a chance to make a decision between two or three options rather than starting over with new lines of thought. Of course, sometimes the other side will have taken a line that is unexpected and requires more lengthy consideration but, generally, the aim should be to keep the discussion short.

Conclusion Preparation time is time with a purpose: to produce a working case written up in a set of notes rather than just talking around the motion and seeing what happens. Keep that purpose uppermost in your mind. The three-stage process suggested here is a useful starting point, but you and your teammates will quickly get a sense of what works for you and what doesn’t. Bear in mind that you are preparing one case as well as two or three speeches. Communication and precision are the watchwords here. When you walk into the debate, every member of your team should be clear about what their case is, what their role in delivering that case is, and how they intend to fulfill that role. It is the job of each team member to ensure that is what happens, both for herself and her teammates. Effective preparation should allow you to look confident, informed, and in command both of the subject and debate.

160 

Discovering the World through Debate



EXERCISE

Spend an evening, day, or weekend researching issues relating to nuclear power. 1. In groups of three brainstorm the pros and cons of whether nuclear is a “green” solution. 2. Pick a side and generate as many arguments as you can in support of that side. 3. Prioritize these arguments but ensure that your top three work together as a case. 4. As a class, see which (if any) arguments were common to all groups and discuss whether these can meaningfully be built into cases for both sides. 5. As a class vote to decide the best three arguments. Each student has three votes but can only cast one per argument and only one of their votes can be given to an argument from their own group. 6. If time allows, have volunteers give short speeches as to why particular arguments should or should not be included on the final list.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• The aim of preparation is to allow speakers time to analyze the motion and build as much of a case as possible.

• Preparation is a process that involves developing several arguments, selecting the best, refining and defending them further, and ranking them.

• Preparation moves from the more general to the more specific. From the topic to the case to the speech.

• The amount of detailed preparation you can do is in inverse proportion to your place in the speaking order.

• Test arguments and ideas in prep time before the debate starts. • Preparation should be undertaken as a team and the team should take ownership of the case you produce.

• Those debating in formats that have in-debate prep time must use that time strategically.

Preparation Time 161

CHAPTER 17

Taking and Using Notes

Taking good notes is just as much an essential skill for a successful debater as speaking, active listening, and critical thinking. Debaters use notes to see clearly the progression of the debate, to alert themselves to good points or missed arguments in their team’s case, and to record opposition arguments and jot down thoughts on rebuttal. Notes are also essential in setting out the structure and contents of your own remarks. This chapter examines how to take and use notes. It begins with some general pointers on note-taking, then looks at a technique called “flowing” before discussing speaker notes. Finally, it highlights the importance of taking notes on the entire debate.

Some Notes About Notes You have probably taken notes for your school classes—jotting down key facts and concepts as the class progresses, but these types of notes are not sufficient for debaters who must accurately record and organize the arguments made and evidence offered by both teams. Consequently, debaters develop a rapid means of note-taking that relies heavily on abbreviations and symbols to track the progress of arguments through the debate. Each debater must develop a system that works for her, so offering a detailed description of how to take notes is not useful. Nevertheless, some useful suggestions can be offered. Much of what is said below may be intuitive but better to be aware of such information when you start debating, rather than, as tends to be the case, when you are nearing the end your debating career. When writing notes:

• Record what is happening in front of you. Always remember that, from the unveiling of the motion through to the adjudicator’s closing remarks, the debate in which you are



involved will never be replicated. Ever. Anywhere. You may sometimes feel as though you’ve sat through the debate a thousand times before, but, in reality, no two are the same. The dynamics between the teams, the individuals, and, most important, the ideas are subtly different in each instance and so the notes, which you can use for future debates, need to reflect this.

• Stay focused on what the notes are for. You are not an adjudicator. Don’t try to record the debate in a calm, even-handed manner. If the other side builds an indestructible argument, note it for future reference but, since it’s of very little use to you in your current debate, don’t spend a lot of time detailing it. On the other hand, jotting down one of their terrible arguments and your possible responses is useful.

• Abbreviate, abbreviate, abbr., a-. Your notes are for you and, to a much lesser extent, your teammates who may glance at them from time to time to see what you’re thinking. So, notes do not have to be whole sentences, whole words, or even words at all, as long as you and your teammates understand what is meant and can expand on them when speaking. Here’s a list of examples to give you ideas. Feel free to use different abbreviations for the words and concepts listed here—or to use these for something else entirely. They’re your notes. +ive: Positive –ive: Negative B: Benefit Cit: citizens Def: Definition Dem: democracy/democratic DisA: Disadvantage Ex: Example Fut: future I?: What is the impact? Indiv: individual L?: Missing link within the argument’s structure Mo: Model

Taking and Using Notes 163

NORM: normative/normatively P: Plan Q: Question QoD: Quality of debate QoL: Quality of life R: Rebuttal S: Substantive Small star or circled argument: Good point made by debater Soc: Society SQ: Status Quo Stnd: standard Three dots in upside down triangle: therefore WLD: Western Liberal Democracies

• Use symbols. Arrows, question marks, underlining and circling, stars, floating hearts. For example: : increased or greater than or more of : decreased or less than or less of It doesn’t really matter what you use, but a downwards arrow is a lot quicker to jot down than writing out “would probably get worse.” It’s also useful to use arrows and lines to link different points and arguments as the debate progresses.

• Use full sentences for direct quotations. This is the only situation in which recording full sentences is helpful. Sometimes your opponent will make a statement that undermines his case or your teammate compellingly proves some aspect of yours. It’s useful to have one or two of these instances written down verbatim so you can include them in your speech. A quotation from an earlier opposition speaker can also make for a killer POI or cross-examination question.

• Write what is not said. Note the questions raised by what opposing speakers don’t say. What do they need to say? If the first speaker says they will address three arguments, jot those down and check them off as they’re addressed. If they have missed one, circle

164 

Discovering the World through Debate



it and point out that omission in your speech. If an opposing speaker’s case demands certain answers that she ignored—how will it be paid for? who will implement it? is there a mandate for their policy? jot it down and raise the concern in your speech.

• Use lots of space. Leave room to jot down what is said about an argument later in the debate. A few speakers seem happy to cram vast quantities of information into tiny sections on the page, but most appreciate space not only to leave room for later ideas or jotting down points of rebuttal but also because it makes reading notes easier.

• Refer back as you write. Look for contradictions, disagreements, and inconsistencies. Do this for both the other side so you can highlight weaknesses and for your own side so you can address them. Some speakers use different color ink to indicate different types of points—a green pen for contradictions in the other side’s case, blue for strong evidence made on the same side—but others find that confusing and stick to arrows and abbreviations.

• Do not get so engrossed in what you are writing that you stop listening. Your notes should help you listen actively, not prevent it. This is the main reason for not using full sentences: it’s very hard to concentrate on what somebody is saying while also searching for the perfect word to sum up your thoughts on the subject.

• Don’t doodle. Although it’s fine to note anything, in any form, that you will find useful during the debate, cluttering the page with pictures of cats, or games of tic-tac-toe will just be distracting. Added to which, were you really listening actively while you were doing that?

• Find the approach to note-taking that is best for you. Don’t assume that starting at the top of a sheet of paper and recording everything in order is the best approach. Some debaters find keeping all of their notes on a single, horizontal sheet divided into columns for each speaker useful. This allows them to follow each argument as it progresses across the page, much as one might read a chart. Others prefer a mind-map spreading out from the motion or definition in the middle. Still others prefer to write chronologically over several pages. The only right way to take notes is the one that feels comfortable and natural for you and that is ultimately most useful. There’s one caveat, however; remember that notes are a working document and you must be able to use them. Watching somebody rummage through a dozen pages of disjointed scrawl is not fun for even the most patient audience. Your approach to note-taking will change over time, but the twin principles of speed in getting information down and clarity for you to understand what you wrote should be uppermost in your mind.

Taking and Using Notes 165

Recording the Whole Debate Many debaters and adjudicators find it useful to flow the debate. They divide sheets of paper into a grid or columns before the debate, marking out space for each speaker or stage of the debate. One side of two sheets is generally preferred to both sides of one sheet because it’s easier to refer to and harder to get lost in. Some debaters use quarters of the page in a portrait format (Fig. 1), while others use columns in the same format running across the full width of the page (Fig. 2). They reserve a quadrant or column for each phase of the debate or speaker. Within that space, they record the progress of the debate. By having everything on one or two sheets, they can record the arguments thematically across the page and by speaker running down the page. This arrangement makes following what happens to a particular argument easier and gives you a more accurate overview. Flowing is particularly popular with summation and reply speakers as well as adjudicators. If you use this approach, flow the debate as one document to be used for reference and the notes for your own speech as another. In Figure 1, the third Negative speaker has given herself the four quarters of a sheet of paper (in portrait orientation) to take notes on the first four speakers and one half of another page for the third Affirmative speaker’s comments, which she will need to rebut directly. She’s also left herself space on the second sheet to record any interesting points that come up in POIs and to note down other thoughts about general themes for the debate as a whole. In addition to these two sheets, she would have a third sheet on which to write the notes from which she will deliver her own speech. In Figure 2, the speaker has taken a different approach. She uses a landscape page to record each of the preceding speakers’ ideas in columns. Utilizing this approach allows her to more clearly identify themes and particular arguments as they run between speakers. Here too, she would use another sheet to set out the notes for her own speech. Any type of note-taking balances what would be ideal and what is practical. For example, using the second approach, the debater sacrifices the luxury of space for the convenience of seeing the debate at a glance. What approach works for you—and that may be one of these or another one entirely—has as much to do with individual factors (how big is your handwriting, for example) as with the more generalizable considerations of the balance between clarity and comprehensiveness. Just as with how you use abbreviations, you should choose the approach that feels most comfortable for you. It’s worth trying out different ideas and, quite possibly, different approaches depending on your position in any given debate.

166 

Discovering the World through Debate



Figure 1

1st Aff

1st Neg

Def = Leg in reg est’bs + Reg’ted + taxed STD + drug tests

2nd Aff

public health

2nd Neg

Taking and Using Notes 167

3rd Aff

POIs

Note: These notes would come from the start of the legalization of prostitution debate we’ve considered before. The third Affirmative has noted that the definition is that prostitution would be legal in registered establishments and would be regulated and taxed (Def = Leg in reg est’bs + Reg’ted + taxed). She’s also made a note of the prediction that regular tests for drug use and sexually transmitted diseases would improve public health (STD + drug tests public health).

168 

Discovering the World through Debate



Taking and Using Notes 169

Neg—DoD $800bn

1st Neg

2nd Aff

2nd Neg

3rd Aff

Note: These notes are from the start of the debate This House Would Withdraw the Troops. So far the Third Negative has recorded that the Affirmative has defined the motion as relating to the NATO invasion of Afghanistan and split the case so that the first Affirmative speaker will deal with the economic reasons for withdrawal (stating that the cost by 2017 will be more than $5 trillion) and that the second Affirmative speaker will deal with political and geopolitical reasons for withdrawal. First Negative’s Point of Information has been that the Department of Defense estimates the cost at $800 billion, far lower than the Affirmative’s claim.

Soc. (2 aff)

Pol. (2 aff)

Current cost - $5tn

Econ.

Def: NATO inv. —> 2017

1st Aff

Figure 2

Speaker’s Notes However you have chosen to record the rest of the round, you will also need a separate set of notes from which to speak. Some speakers use a sheet of paper with points set out as they plan to make them, others use index cards with a card devoted to each point. Both approaches offer benefits and have drawbacks—which you use is more a matter of comfort than anything else. Clarity is vitally important whichever method you choose. Clearly delineate between points and write down the relevant information required to support each section of your speech. This includes the introduction and conclusion. Don’t assume that you’ll be able to see how you’re going to introduce your speech from the notes for the rest of the speech. For each argument, write down the name of the argument, use arrows or some similar method to indicate logical progression, and note down the evidence you are using—and where it comes from if possible or required—to support that argument. One final, albeit vital, point: Don’t just read your notes aloud during your speech. Your notes are there to support you when you speak. They act as an aid for your memory and help you keep your points in order; they are not a script. Chances are, for a seven- or eight-minute speech, you’ll have jotted down 50 or 100 words and phrases that mean a great deal to you but little to anybody else. Use these notes to guide your mind, and those of your audience, through a subject and toward a particular conclusion. Just reading them will last 30 seconds or so and nobody, probably yourself included, will be much the wiser as to what you were talking about.

Notes for the Future Make a point of taking notes of the entire debate. Even if your own speech is long over, keep track of what is being said. Having a record of all speakers provides invaluable evidence for Points of Information and cross-examination. It also keeps you mentally engaged with the debate rather than staring out the window thinking about lunch. Taking notes throughout the debate is a good way of staying focused. Keeping a complete set of notes serves another purpose. Notes can be useful for future reference. In the immediate term, having a record of the whole debate will help give context to the comments the adjudicator makes. In the longer term, notes can be a useful source of ideas and evidence for future debates on similar subjects. It’s unlikely that you’d want to replicate an entire case, and less likely still that it would fit into another debate.

170 

Discovering the World through Debate



However, some of the ideas could prove useful. If possible, take time after competitions to write up your notes into short summaries so that you’ll still be able to understand them when you refer back in a month or a year’s time.

Conclusion Your notes are for you—a sense of what works and what doesn’t will come with practice. Nobody is going to mark them, so there is no right or wrong approach. Your main goal should always be practicality, both in terms of writing down what you need and using it afterward. Effective note-taking will help you improve not only the content and structure of your speech but also your listening and critical skills. The physical process of writing an idea down helps us not only remember but also analyze it. And, most useful for a debater, recording a series of notes on related points stimulates the brain to seek out points of connection that would not be apparent simply by listening. Notes are the point at which we interact physically with the world of ideas; they represent not only a functional role in terms of recording our thoughts and those of others but also a developmental stage in the thinking process itself.

EXERCISES

A. Look over the notes you produced for the exercises in the last chapter and determine how you would change them in light of the hints in this chapter? B. Flow a discussion on a news or current affairs program. See if you can follow individual arguments as they pass between speakers. C. Look at the list of abbreviations given earlier in this chapter, then develop your own note-taking shorthand for the following terms: 1st Amendment

education

attainment

educators

creativity

examinations

discipline

freedom of speech

Taking and Using Notes 171

grade school

standards

high school

state

school district

students

schools

uniform

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Notes are just for you; no one else needs to understand them. • The goal of note-taking is to record information quickly and clearly. • The purpose of notes is to help you maintain your structure, not to determine every word you say. • Flowing can help you see the arguments that run through the debate. • A debater should maintain two sets of notes: one to record the round, the other to organize her speech.

• Debaters should not read their notes aloud during their speech. • Annotate the entire debate for later reference.

172 

Discovering the World through Debate

CHAPTER 18

Timing

All debate formats impose time limits on speeches. It’s not uncommon to have speeches of different lengths depending on speakers’ positions in the debate or different lengths for speeches at different stages of a competition. Time limits are set out in advance and you will lose points if you ignore them. Timing can be either external or internal. External timing is simply speaking for the allotted time; internal timing is how best to apportion time to different parts of your speech. For novice debaters both external and internal timing can be a challenge. This chapter looks at how best to deal with both and how to get a feel for the length of your speeches. The two remaining time-management elements, Points of Information and Cross-Examination, are discussed in Chapter 21.

Why Time Limits? Formats impose time limits for several reasons. Some are practical; other people need to use the room or the adjudicators need to decide a winner and, in a competitive debate, someone will be waiting for that decision. Some are based on the fairness inherent in debate: all speakers and both sides should have the same amount of time to make their points. The most important reason for imposing time limits is that they help the speaker clarify her thoughts. Given 30 seconds, she might be tempted to simply announce that that something was true, making little effort to explain why it was logical or sensible. Alternatively, given an hour, she might wander her way through the general topic rather than structuring a case around a few critical issues. Time limits help keep the speaker focused.

External Timing External timing is the single biggest issue for most beginner debaters. Nervousness about speaking in public or, just as frequently, poorly structured notes can make filling the allotted time seem like an impossible task. There are three overlapping approaches that will help the debater tackle the problem of filling time: 1. Have a clear structure. Knowing what your introduction will be and how you will roadmap your arguments enables you to navigate the rest of the speech. If arguments follow sensibly from one another, you can develop the speech in a way that will fill the time quite comfortably. Normally, writing out any part of a speech is a very bad idea, but for your first few speeches, jot down your first couple of sentences so you have a clear idea of how you will begin. 2. Remain focused and avoid the temptation to gabble. Delivering a speech can be nerve-wracking, so there’s an understandable desire to get through the process as quickly as possible. Slowing down the rate at which you speak gives both you and the audience the chance to keep up with what’s going on. If you watch most professional speakers, from politicians to actors, you’ll notice that they tend to speak more slowly than people do in regular conversation; it helps them think and the audience listen. For the novice debater, speaking slowly also fills valuable seconds. You may see some more experienced debaters speaking at a mile a minute and think that you should be doing the same. It’s a widely held misconception that squeezing an extra 150 or so words into a speech will make for a better speech; it really doesn’t. Speaking with the precision that a steady approach allows for will prove easier for both you and the adjudicator—remember, she has to write your excellent ideas down. 3. Remember that the business of the debater is to prove her case, not just to state it. Let’s assume that the speaker is allotted seven minutes and is making three points as well as giving an introduction and conclusion. Let’s further assume that the introduction and conclusion should take about a minute each. That leaves about five minutes. Subtract another minute to take and answer two POIs, and the speaker is left with four minutes. That’s only 1 minute and 20 seconds to prove each point. Proving anything in that time is difficult. Simply stating the evidence, mentioning the warrant, and then making the claim can take most of that time. And, you still have to refer your teammates and rebut what the other side has said. If you structure your thoughts and your notes to reflect all the tasks you have, then, very quickly, your allotted time becomes worryingly short.

174 

Discovering the World through Debate



Aim to be within about 10–20 seconds of the time limit. Like a sort of rhetorical Goldilocks, most debaters’ first speeches are too short, their next speeches are too long, and then they get them just right. On the basis that it’s easier to cut material out than to make it up on the spot, notes that err on the side of being too long are better than those that would come in short—but not by much. With early speeches, getting to the time limit is an important goal. If that means repeating information, so be it. The speech won’t win the debate, but one that finished three minutes early wouldn’t either, and as long as you’re speaking, you may well think of something new to say about something you’ve already mentioned. When speakers start going over time, the best advice is: stop. It may seem terribly important to get through the remaining 57 points that would really clinch the argument, but most adjudicators put their pens down about 20 seconds after the final time signal anyway. They certainly stop awarding points and start deducting them. Filling out time takes practice. After a few speeches it becomes fairly straightforward.

Internal Timing Once you’ve become comfortable with external timing, internal timing often becomes the issue. No sooner have you become confident about filling the full time limit than you find yourself having run out of time while only halfway through your introduction. Internal timing has more to do with tactics than anything else, so allocating time to the various parts of the speech can be critically important. Keeping introductions and conclusions within protected time (if the format has this) allows the speaker to get through these vital stages with a clear head and no interruptions. After the introduction, first tackle rebuttal, but don’t let it consume the majority of your time. Particularly following a weak speech from the opposition, a speaker can be tempted to spend all of her time in rebuttal, pointing out the many flaws in the preceding speech. Tempting, but ultimately unhelpful. The judge or audience heard the speech as well and will be perfectly able to figure out the mistakes for themselves. The best rebuttal in the world won’t win the debate if the speaker doesn’t present her own ideas. If you can deal with rebuttal in 30 seconds—which is frequently possible—then you can spend more time developing your own case, adding more evidence, and protecting it with further lines of argument. When allocating time for individual arguments, make the first argument both the strongest and longest. If you end up running out of time, it’s far more sensible to truncate an

Timing 175

argument that didn’t carry too much weight and is just squeezed in before the conclusion. And, remember, rebuttal and substantive argument should feed off each other— they should be two sides of the same coin. So, if you’re a middle speaker giving a seven-minute speech, your timing might be: Introduction: 30 seconds to 1 minute Rebuttal: 90 seconds Main argument: 2 minutes Secondary argument: 90 Seconds Conclusion: 30 seconds The remaining 30 seconds to a minute is for dealing with POIs, if your format permits them. Of course, these times are rough guides and will vary depending both on your position in the debate and the state of the debate at the time. First and final speakers must be realistic about how much time is needed to introduce a case in its entirety or to summarize one. Concluding speakers, in particular, need to remember that an effective conclusion should stress the points made by the other speaker or speakers on her team. This is particularly true in formats that have more than one team per side. There’s not much point in giving a detailed summary of what happened at the beginning of the debate if that doesn’t leave enough time to mention the great arguments put forward by the concluding speaker’s teammate. So, for concluding speakers, the division of time might be: Overview of the debate’s themes: 1 minute Rebuttal of the previous speaker: 1 minute Gathering together the arguments of her side’s case: 2 minutes 30 seconds Critiquing the argument of the other side: 90 seconds Conclusion (demonstrating the superiority of her team’s position): 1 minute The internal timing of any good speech is really about effective balance—a little of everything. Too much time spent on one element means not enough time left for the others. There are no hard and fast rules, but generally:

• spend more time on your arguments (or those of your team) than on other people’s • spend about twice as much time on constructive as on rebuttal

176 

Discovering the World through Debate



• keep introductions and conclusions short and to the point (roughly between onefifth and one-tenth of the overall speech for each) The most important part of effective internal timing is to be realistic. Like handling external timing, managing internal timing comes with practice. As your sense of structure improves, your speech comes to fit the time. As it does so, it’s tempting to digress and take advantage of what feels like a greater leeway. Don’t do it. Stick to the structure. Avoid digressions; ignore anything that isn’t actually aimed at either proving your case or disproving that of the other side.

SENSING TIME

The poet Rudyard Kipling suggests that “If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run” then the world would be yours for the taking. That may be something of an exaggeration, but trying to do so certainly helps a lot with the timing of a debate speech. Breaking down the allotted time into its component parts and allocating a function to virtually every second is the key to effective timing—internal and external. As the seconds tick by, you need a sense of when to move on, and this requires getting a feel for how long a spoken minute is. Good speakers instinctively know this. It’s different from how a minute feels when someone is reading aloud, watching TV, sitting in class, or waiting for a bus. It’s an important tool in the debating toolkit and is worth making an effort to develop the skill. Some speakers practice talking aloud while a friend times them, others record what they think feels like a minute and then check the recording with a stopwatch. It’s also useful before a debate to arrange a series of time signals with a teammate for the entire speech, but it’s particularly worth agreeing on one for “stop now.” In most debates, the chair of the debate, a timekeeper, or an adjudicator will give time signals, but it’s helpful to have a teammate supplementing that in case you just don’t hear the final bell.

Conclusion Almost all novice debaters initially struggle with speaking for the right length of time but, fairly quickly, they have that problem licked and stop thinking about timing altogether. It’s now standard to use the stopwatch on a cell phone and start it when the adjudicator gives you the nod to get going. When the 7:00 comes up on the screen, the debater

Timing 177

wraps up and moves back toward her chair, and everyone is happy, right? The problem is that the story doesn’t end there. A speech isn’t a race; the objective isn’t to struggle over the finish line and then soak up the adulation of the crowd. Instead, you can use the time limits, both the external ones imposed by the rules and the internal ones imposed by yourself, to refine and clarify what you say. It isn’t just a case of finding enough material to fill, for example, 60 seconds of rebuttal. Instead, the challenge is to find the best available material, evidence, and arguments that are completely appropriate to the situation and then work out how to fit them in to the available time. Doing so shouldn’t require speaking faster but thinking smarter. How can you say more with fewer words? What’s the shortest distance between two ideas that still does justice to them both? How can you ensure that you are understood by the listener in the available time, your idea expressed with perfect clarity but without a word too many or too few? Timing is simply the means by which we punctuate our speeches, giving them shape and meaning. However, first things first. Get the feel for the length of a minute, the sense of how much is too much of any given part, and then work to make the time fit what you have to say—not the other way around.

EXERCISES

A. Watch speeches from finals and semi-final of competitions (WS, Asians, BP) and pay attention to how speakers use their first and last minutes. B. Practice speaking for a minute—it doesn’t much matter what you’re taking about—to get a sense of how long a minute is. C. Practice filling the time in your speeches by dividing your speech using the following guidelines: introduction: 1 minute rebuttal: 1.5 minutes arguments: 3.5 minutes (90 seconds for one, 60 for the next, 30 for the third) conclusion: 1 minute If you run out of material, wait until you’re meant to start the next part and begin from there. Work toward having no gaps. The silences may feel excruciating, but this technique will help you get used to speaking for the longer period.

178 

Discovering the World through Debate



D. If you’ve been going over time, try the previous exercise but in reverse. Move on mid-sentence if necessary.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Formats impose time limits for practical reasons, to ensure fairness, and to help speakers clarify their thoughts.

• The adjudicator will harshly penalize poor timekeeping. • External timing is speaking for the allotted time; internal timing is how best to apportion time to different parts of your speech.

• Speakers can control external time by having a clear structure to their speech and remaining focused.

• Allocating internal time is based on tactics. • Keep introductions and conclusions short. • Allocate time for individual arguments based on importance. • Filling and allocating time take practice.

Timing 179

CHAPTER 19

Manner

When debaters refer to “matter” and “manner,”’ they might be said to be speaking of “substance and style” or “what you say and how you say it.” “Matter” refers to the content of your speech—evidence and argumentation. “Manner” refers to the style of delivery and those parts of the content that exist purely to keep the listener engaged or entertained. In many competitions and some formats, the belief has grown that speeches should be judged primarily or exclusively on matter. Such an approach is neither possible nor desirable. Even were it feasible to ignore style, it is questionable whether debate, which ultimately assesses the skills of a persuasive communicator, would benefit from doing so. This chapter examines the fundamentals of style and delivery. It first looks at the basics of style and then discusses how you can develop your own approach to speechcraft and establish a style that is your own.

The Absolute Basics On the most basic level, a speaker must be audible and must keep her audience interested. She must employ a dynamic style—varying volume, pitch, and speed, and using nonverbal language—to help her audience focus on and accept her ideas. If the audience or adjudicators can’t hear the speaker, or her face is hidden behind notes, or she speaks in a monotone with no variation in pitch or tone, it’s very unlikely that anyone will follow what she says. A speech that can’t be followed is very unlikely to win.

AUDIBILITY

Usually, speakers are inaudible for two reasons: nervousness and a failure to look at the audience. Everybody is apt to mumble when they are nervous, which frequently results



in looking down and speaking to the floor or desk. Often, novice speakers deliver their speeches with hands spread on the desk in front of them, neck bowed, and eyes fixed intently on their notes. Or a debater will stand with notes gripped like a lifeline in one hand, held about six inches away from her face—blocking both her face and her voice. In either of these situations, it is virtually impossible for anybody to take more than an educated guess about what the speaker is saying. Everyone lip reads more than you might imagine, and if a speaker’s lips aren’t visible, the audience has a very hard time following her words. Equally, if a speaker’s face is pointed toward a desk or into notes, that’s where the sound will end up. Your nervousness will subside as you become more comfortable with debating, but you can also use the following tips to ensure that you are heard:

• Stand properly. Stand straight with your feet a little apart, toes pointing out slightly, and your shoulders back. Your body should feel comfortably balanced. This posture automatically improves your breathing and, as a result, increases the volume at which you speak. It also conveys to both the audience and you the sense that you are in charge. If you have a lectern, hold on to it; it will force you to stand upright. Once in this posture, STAY THERE. Shuffling back and forth is incredibly distracting for anyone trying to follow a speaker’s argument.

• Maintain eye contact. This serves two functions. First, an adjudicator or audience member is far more likely to trust what you say if you look him in the eye than if you are shuffling around and staring at the floor or out the window. Second, if you are looking at the audience, your neck is straight so the air passes more freely over the vocal cords and resonates with more force through the jaw and front of the skull, where most of the volume in speech comes from. If the prospect of eye contact with your listeners makes you more nervous still, look just slightly over their heads. Chances are that the adjudicator will spend most of her time buried in her notes, and, if you are at least looking and speaking out into the room, she’ll tend to assume that she just missed the eye contact when she glances up.

• Breathe properly. Even in a world of small rooms and microphones, breath control is a useful skill that enables you to project you words loudly and clearly. Breathing so that your lungs are in full use and your words fall evenly into place gives an air of authority to what you say. Take time to practice controlling your lung capacity and the physical structures behind your voice. It will pay huge dividends in terms of your ability to command a room and modulate your voice.

Manner 181

VOLUME, PITCH, AND SPEED

As well as being audible, an effective speaker needs to be comfortable to follow. When any of us have a conversation, our voices change in volume, pitch, and speed. The same should apply to a speech. It’s often tempting to fill every second with breathless noise, frequently delivered in a “I AM DELIVERING A SPEECH AND I WILL NOT PUNCTUATE IT WITH ANY PAUSES OR CHANGES IN TONE AND WILL JUST CARRY ON LIKE THIS REGARDLESS OF WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY EVERYTHING WILL BE DELIVERED IN THE SAME WAY BECAUSE THIS IS A SPEECH AND THIS IS HOW I MUST SPEAK AND THERE CAN BE NO POSSIBLE CHANGE IN WHAT I AM SAYING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT AND IF I CAN JUST GET THROUGH THIS THEN OH MY GOD WHY ISN’T THE TIME FINISHED YET CAN I CARRY THIS ON FOR ANOTHER THREE MINUTES I DON’T KNOW MAYBE I CAN SHOULD I SAY THAT AGAIN IS ANYONE LISTENING TO WHAT I’M SAYING” tone. But that is extremely difficult to follow. Good debaters vary their volume, pitch, and speed to help the audience follow what’s being said. We often think that we have to speak more loudly to stress a point, but speaking softly is just as effective, particularly if you are trying to convey emotion. Use a lower pitch for a calm, authoritative tone, and a higher pitch to indicate excitement or concern. Vary your speed. Slow down for important material, but remember not to speak too slowly or too quickly—too slow and you might not have time for all your arguments, too quick and the audience may not understand you.

BODY LANGUAGE

You speak as a whole being, not a disembodied voice. Consequently, body movements are important. Careful gestures can help you express what you are saying. For example, you might lean toward your audience to make an important point. Don’t stand rigidly still. An open, relaxed position and slow, deliberate movements will convey that you are calm and in control. You can move slightly, but don’t pace up and down the room. This can drive the audience to distraction. Finally, your facial expression conveys the clarity of your thoughts just as much as your words. A look of blind panic will do little to infuse your audience with the sense that you know what you’re talking about. Even if you’re panicking inside, affecting an outward appearance of being in control will result both in giving your audience confidence and settling your own nerves. Once again, forcing yourself to take slow, steady breaths will act both to calm you physically and will also allow you to appear calmer still.

182 

Discovering the World through Debate



MANNERISMS

Debaters tend to pick up an array of nervous gestures and verbal tics. They may click a pen or twirl their hair, or they may use “um” or “Ladies and Gentleman” in place of commas throughout the speech. The speaker is often unaware of using them, but they can seriously annoy the audience. If you’ve picked up any of these unfortunate habits, try having teammate clap every time you use one unintentionally during practice. Usually such an approach breaks the habit very quickly by making the speaker aware of what she’s saying.

Remember the Audience Your speech—both style and content—needs to be appropriate to the setting. Comments that might be appropriate in a practice debate with classmates simply don’t work in a setting with an adjudicator you’ve never met and an audience you don’t know. Just as determining the content of your speech too much in advance is dangerous, so, too, is having a set tone. A good speaker should adapt to the subject matter at hand. In part, this means treating serious matters with the gravity they deserve and reserving a more lighthearted approach for less sensitive issues. Always remember that what may be just another issue of public policy or moral philosophy for you—say same-sex marriage or euthanasia—may be very personal for the gay couple or a member of the adjudication panel or audience who has a dying relative. Even were that not the case, these are serious discussions and should be treated with respect. A good rule is if you’re not comfortable with a certain style, don’t use it—you will convey your discomfort to the audience and make them uncomfortable as well. “In-jokes” make anyone who is unaware of their meaning uncomfortable, as do political or religious pronouncements in a context where they are not shared. Likewise, if the previous speaker has just delivered a blistering intellectual broadside, standing up and starting off with a funny story is unlikely to be your best move. (Although, if done properly, it can be devastating.) Generally, a tone of quiet authority will sit most happily with any audience. Avoid both ranting with too much self-confidence or endlessly apologizing for what you are saying. Most of us can feel when the room is becoming uncomfortable because our remarks are inappropriate; if you begin to sense that feeling, move on quickly to new territory. Finally, show a degree of sympathy with the listener. If you need to work through some dry and complicated data to illustrate a point, take pity on the audience and give them time to absorb what you are presenting. Although silence and repetition can be the sign

Manner 183

of panic in the inexperienced debater, with practice, they become powerful tools, allowing the listener time to catch up with the speaker.

Attitude How the speaker feels about being in the debate comes across all too obviously in any speech. Speakers who simply don’t want to be there, who have decided that they have already lost, or that they are speaking on the side that’s doomed to fail communicate that sensation in a thousand little ways, and audiences pick up on them. However, a healthy dose of self-confidence that she is comfortable with what needs to be said and how her position in the debate should work goes a long way toward helping the speaker build that aura of control. Effective manner is not based on following hard-and-fast rules. A good debater’s most effective manner will come from within far more frequently than being imposed from without. Taking this attitude will make you sound far more natural and, as a direct result, more authoritative. Some people have a good sense of comic timing; if that’s you—great, use it. Some people are blessed with a natural sense of presence or a voice that exudes authority and control; if you are fortunate enough to be one of those lucky few, use it. Some of us speak in slow ponderous statements, grave of purpose and heavy with consideration—if you’ve got it, flaunt it. Others have a manner suggestive of a mind that scuttles into the deepest recesses of an idea, ferreting out every detail and hoarding every consideration; if that’s you, don’t be afraid to show it. Don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You might think that copying the style of a successful debater is a good way to develop as an effective speaker. Don’t. It is a virtual certainty that if you speak to that person outside the debate room, she speaks in much the same way. Her manner in a debate may be an exaggerated or refined version of how she speaks in conversation, but it’s unlikely to be completely fabricated. It’s that natural approach to speaking with your own, unique voice that is worth developing, not the particular set of results that work for another. To take an extreme example: many hesitant speakers worry that they may be conveying a sense of indecision to their audience. However, such a manner, if acknowledged and accepted, can also suggest thoughtfulness, care, and precision, while an apparently more confident speaker comes over as being bellicose and slapdash.

184 

Discovering the World through Debate



SOUND AS THOUGH YOU MEAN IT

Nothing is more likely to leave an audience or adjudicator unmoved than a speaker who lacks conviction. It’s very difficult to affect this, but, inevitably, you’ll be in debates where you will have to. This, again, is a skill that comes with practice; relatively quickly, you will find yourself boldly declaiming ideas that you would have dismissed half an hour before. Displaying conviction isn’t just a process of mouthing the words, however. You need to find ways of convincing yourself that these words are true, at least for the duration of the debate. Fortunately, the desire to win the debate usually carries any speaker a long way in this direction; having the other side contradict or misrepresent what you said will work wonders on your ability to exhibit an authentic attitude of moral outrage. Try to get into the mindset of someone who might hold the views you have to defend. Debate is, after all, an exercise in seeing things from the perspective of another. If you approach the issue with a genuinely open mind—an acceptance that the perspective to which you are giving voice might just be a valid one, even if it is not the one that you held previously—the impression that you believe it will come far more naturally. The words you use are important in this process. Avoid phrases such as “Proponents of this view believe . . . ” in favor of “We believe . . . ” The more you can convince yourself for the duration of the debate, the more you can convince others. Contrary to popular belief, debate is not an exercise in training would-be politicians and lawyers to convincingly say things they don’t believe, although it has been used as such. It is a tool for encouraging open and enquiring minds to consider the possibility that their own preconceptions may be incorrect. Delivering speeches that make clear to the listener that you take these arguments seriously, rather than just going through the motions, is just as important as any other part of that process.

CONCLUSION

In everyday conversation, only about 20% of what we communicate comes from the words we use. The rest is expressed by tone, pitch, body language, attitude, and other factors— in short, style. In debate, the role of the words themselves is greatly expanded, but, with the best will in the world, some of these other elements are going to come into play. Even if they didn’t, why make it difficult for people to follow what you’re saying? Using pitch, volume, speed, and nonverbal language—just as you would in everyday conversation— will make your argument much easier to follow. Beyond speaking in a way that is possible and practical to follow, how you address the other issues of style is up to you. Ultimately, your style should be the one with which you

Manner 185

feel most comfortable and one that is appropriate to the rest of the debate and the subject matter under discussion. Your delivery might not work the first time, and it might not work every time, but you will learn and develop more and more quickly as a speaker by being true to what feels right to you than by chasing after illusory “correct” styles.

EXERCISES

A. Organize a debate on the motion This House Believes Fashion Matters. Appoint as many adjudicators as you like but they should focus entirely on style and offer feedback. B. Record yourself speaking—or watch yourself in a mirror (this is best done in private). What mannerisms do you find distracting in your own performance? C. In pairs, try different speaking speeds for reading out different types of material—use anything from poetry to the phonebook. Discuss what effect different speeds have on how engaged the listener feels with the material. D. Practice steadying your breathing. Breathe in for the count of four seconds, and out for the count of four seconds. Get used to using your full breathing capacity and what projection feels like.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Manner—the style of delivery—is an important component of any speech. • At the most basic level, a speech must be audible and easy to follow. • Eye contact, pace, intonation, volume, and speed can have an impact on how persuasive your speech is.

• The style of delivery needs to be appropriate to the subject matter and setting. • Debaters must convince the audience that they believe in the arguments they are presenting— even if they don’t.

• Don’t copy someone else’s style. • Ultimately, the correct style is one with which the speaker feels comfortable.

186 

Discovering the World through Debate

CHAPTER 20

Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination

Interaction is the very heart of debate, without it you just have a group of people in a room talking among themselves. Interaction comes in two forms: hard interaction, where debaters are speaking directly to each other, offering questions, making short points for contrast, or demanding clarification or explanation, and soft interaction, where speakers are referring to each other’s ideas and adjusting their own in responses. Between them, these two activities provide the pillars on which the “debateness” of debate rests. This chapter examines hard interaction—Points of Information and cross-examination. It first looks at the similarities and differences between the two and then discusses the goals they share. Then it describes the reasons for offering questions and explains how to respond to them.

Points of Information and Cross-Examination Hard interaction takes place in the form of cross-examination (CX) in formats such as Karl Popper, and Points of Information (POIs) in formats such British Parliamentary and World Schools. Because hard interaction is used to solicit a response, it is frequently in the form of a question. Occasionally, it may be phrased as a statement but one that is fulfilling the role of a question, encouraging the respondent to elucidate further on a particular point. Adherents of particular formats will, rightly, observe that there are many differences between CX and POIs; however, they share enough in terms of strategic function that we can usefully consider them together. The most obvious difference between CX and POIs is the amount of time each takes up. Periods allotted for cross-examination typically last three minutes and allow for multiple questions, usually pursuing a single theme. They follow directly from a speech and form a distinct element of the debate. The closest analogy for their use would be a courtroom

lawyer questioning a witness. Points of Information, by contrast, are short—usually about 10 seconds—and interrupt the speaker during the “open” or “unprotected” time (the middle) of her speech. Generally, a speaker will only accept one or two POIs during a speech. The closest analogy here would be a parliamentary or congressional question. In theory, the questioner could follow up with another question, called a “supplementary,” but in practice this is very rare. In CX, you are using a logical scalpel to peel back the layers of obfuscation or circumlocution in an opponent’s case, whereas, with POIs, you are using a single rhetorical hammer blow to smash the shell apart—the objectives, however, are the same. You may well wonder what a 3-minute, stand-alone process of inquiry could possibly have in common with a one-use 10-second “rhetorical grenade” thrown into the middle of another speaker’s remarks. It’s a good question and has several answers. First, both are strategic parts of the debate. They serve to clarify arguments and, in so doing, focus the debate on the clash that distinguishes the two sides. Debaters employ them to elicit information, demonstrate knowledge or the lack of it, create the basis for later rebuttal, and highlight inconsistencies in the constructive arguments of the other side. Both can be used to compel a speaker to clearly state her position or to acknowledge that she’s abandoned a certain line of argument. They can both be used to force speakers to make concessions or overextend a particular point toward a conclusion she would rather not acknowledge and was hoping everyone had missed. Both approaches require the questioner to use precision in asking questions and the respondent to exercise caution in answering them. They both require the questioner to use a degree of imagination in guiding the respondent down a dangerous path and, in turn, the respondent to spot the trap in time. Critically, they both represent the most immediate and direct form of interaction between the two sides. In that regard, they are the closest a debate comes to what might be thought of as a conventional argument. However, in that they both require precision, courtesy, planning, and brevity, they are also the best example of how far from an everyday argument debate really is.

Have a Goal in Mind You have two possible goals in CX or when offering POIs. Sometimes you will be trying to get the speaker to provide information, clarify a point, or commit to a position. In other instances, you’re planting a seed of doubt in the mind of the adjudicator about your opponent’s argument that you or a teammate can return to and develop at a later

188 

Discovering the World through Debate



stage. In either case, you must have a specific goal in mind before asking a question. Even when the purpose of your question is simply to gain clarification, you should have a better reason than idle curiosity for doing so. Is that information likely to be useful to your case? Or damaging to theirs? If you are pushing your opponent to develop a point further, make sure you’re not offering him the opportunity to strengthen his case by going into greater detail. Likewise, always be alert for the reason a question is being asked. Your opponent may ask for a seemingly harmless piece of information to lay the groundwork for a later attack.

Tying Questions to Arguments For any Point of Information to be effective, it should be relevant to the arguments at hand, both yours and your opponent’s. Asking questions about points that have long since passed is unlikely to strengthen your case or demonstrate your skill as a debater. However brilliant the question, if the speaker has moved on to a new topic, then so should the questions. You can always bring up your point later in your speech. CX is markedly different because the questioner has the opportunity to work through her opponent’s speech as a whole and set it within the framework of what she knows her teammate is about to say. Thus, the questioner can ask for apparently innocuous pieces of information or clarification that leave the respondent open to particular lines of rebuttal. An approach such as this serves a further function in addition to drawing out exactly the information the questioner’s teammate needs and flagging the issue for the adjudicator. It leaves later speakers on the opposing side nowhere to go. Once the information has been conceded in this explicit manner, later speakers will have no opportunity to backtrack or renege on their teammate’s words. Teamwork and timing are important when offering POIs and during CX. Brilliant questions asked too late in the debate will likely achieve little except to leave an adjudicator contemplating what might have been. Try to bring in strong questions early and then follow them up in a speech at the next available opportunity.

Types of Questions The questions used in hard interaction can fulfill a range of functions. The list below is by no means exhaustive but serves to give a flavor of the sort of goals a questioner might

Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination 189

have in mind and, conversely, the possible pitfalls that a respondent would do well to be aware of and avoid.

• Soliciting information/seeking clarification. This is the most basic reason for asking a question. Before you ask the question, consider who benefits by the opposing side’s case being clearer. Sometimes the question helps them more than you, but usually it will just make the debate move more smoothly. Usually, you will be seeking information that you will use at a later stage of the debate. In the case of CX, a request for information or clarification may also form the starting point for a prolonged series of questions. Sometimes you might raise a question to which you already know the answer just to lodge the point firmly in the mind of the adjudicator. There are also times when asking for information or clarification is not strategic; you simply need the information. That’s fine. There’s no point in rushing off attacking a point only to discover that it wasn’t what was said in the first place. Regardless of the reason for asking the question, you should have a goal in mind. This type of question is also used for POIs to clarify a definition that is unclear, longwinded, or late to arrive.

• Forcing a commitment to a point. Before rebutting a point, it can be useful to have an opposing speaker commit to it. “Can I just confirm that you are arguing that flying pigs will provide a carbon neutral alternative to air flights? Is that correct?” You should be aware that asking a question like this might encourage the respondent to tidy up his position rather than just confirm it, but, in the case of the flying pigs, he could only clarify so far. More probably, he has made a step that has strained logic beyond breaking point (“Can I just confirm that you are suggesting that the importation of Big Macs by Iran will lead directly to the fall of the regime?”) The most common form of this type of question, however, is to push for details, to find out how a certain claim might work, or to demand that an opposing speaker quantify a particular claim. “You said that you would use increased taxation to fund this proposal. Which tax and how much of an increase?”

• Challenging credibility. Knowledge-based questions, in particular, can be used to both challenge the credibility of an opponent’s argument and endorse that of the person asking the question. Once again, remember that the target of the question is the adjudicator rather than your opponent. It is also worth repeating that once you’ve demonstrated that you know something your opponent doesn’t, there’s no need to hammer the point home. Questions of this kind would take the form of “Are you aware that report was subsequently withdrawn?” or “Are you aware that the resolution you

190 

Discovering the World through Debate



mention is just one of hundreds of nonbinding resolutions passed every year? It has no legal force.”

• Demonstrating weak arguments or evidence. Of course, POIs and CX are important for pointing out when arguments are simply wrong. Drawing attention to evidence that isn’t credible, or for which you have data that clearly refutes it—preferably from a more reliable source—can work well in hard interaction. However, you want to maintain a balance between keeping quality material for a speech later in the debate and deploying it in questioning. This is particularly true for BP—where you may not want to give away a strong argument to a speaker on your side but not your team. A good rule in these circumstances is to consider whether you can destroy a particular line of argument with the question or series of questions. If all you will accomplish is to damage it and allow your opponent time to tidy up her position, leave the material for your speech when you can deal with it more fully. However, a well-placed question that refutes a vital piece of evidence or interrupts a logical progression can bring a case to its knees before it even gets started. If that is the situation, deploy the question and use your speech to focus on the arguments that remain of the other side’s case.

• Highlighting inconsistencies. Point out inconsistencies or contradictions sooner rather than later. If the opposing team continues to put forward mutually exclusive or incompatible arguments, continue questioning their logic. The respondent will have to ditch one of the arguments or try—usually unsuccessfully—to present it as part of a seamless whole or waste time prevaricating. It’s possible that the respondent will have contradictions within his own arguments, but it’s more likely that the divisions will lie between two speakers. “You’ve said trade sanctions are the main driver of change but First Affirmative said diplomatic pressure was. Which is it?” Asking your opponent to clarify points that are inconsistent not only takes the speaker aback but also demonstrates to the adjudicator that you are engaged in the debate and aware of the remarks of all speakers. In CX, this process can be drawn out by using examples that are at variance with an earlier point. With POIs, you can usually just point it out and leave the speaker to backpedal his way into a broken case.

• Pointing out unintended consequences. It’s easy for speakers to forget that any course of action will have multiple consequences, many of them less helpful than the ones they would like to focus on. Use POIs or CX to point these out. Remember that these may lie a couple of steps further down the course of action than has been apparent up until that stage in the debate. “Your case as to how sanctions will hurt [country X] is very interesting, but you haven’t discussed how our car industry will cope without the steel we import from them.”

Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination 191

• Forcing a dead stop. Using a very short question can catch a respondent off-guard. For example, if she has claimed that the economy will rebalance “at some point in the future,” try a simple word, “When?” This leaves no time for thought and can often lead the speaker to lose the thread of her argument while she works out what is being asked.

Offering Questions Regardless of your specific goal, keep the following points in mind when asking a question.

• Keep the question brief. Questions should not turn into speeches; they are neither an opportunity to start in early on rebuttal nor do they provide an opening for filling in the blanks in your team’s case. Whether it takes place over 3 minutes or 10 seconds, the objective of hard interaction is to identify a flaw in the opposition’s case and then either highlight or exploit it. Keeping your questions short offers a strategic benefit. Long rambling questions in multiple parts, covering several stages of logic, give the respondent time to think and the opportunity to pick up on the flab surrounding your question. They also give the impression that you are uncertain about what you’re really asking. And, in the case of a POI, if the question is too long, the respondent can legitimately ignore it.

• Be polite. Haranguing or shouting at the respondent is off-putting for listeners and leads them to sympathize with the respondent who, in turn, will seem justified in sticking to his guns. It’s also against the rules in some competitions.

• Don’t pursue the point until the respondent concedes that he is wrong. That’s unlikely to happen, and the adjudicator will have seen the point you’re making long before the respondent does. Think strategically. Your question may well prove as important, or more important, than the answer. Not only are you seeking that answer, you are also aiming to leave that question in the minds of your listeners. This won’t happen if you keep pushing for a concession. Finally, don’t worry too much if the respondent obviously fails to answer a valid question. It simply suggests to the adjudicator that the speaker doesn’t have an answer—the goal of undermining the opposing case is still achieved.

192 

Discovering the World through Debate



Delivering Questions How you deliver your question is an important part of CX or offering a POI. Standing confidently will send a good message to the judges but will also put your opponent on guard. When offering a POI, don’t leap to your feet, straining at the bit to be asked to speak; it’s too obvious that you have a humdinger. Likewise in cross-examination, if you appear unsure, you may encourage the respondent to speak less cautiously. Body language and facial expressions can give people a good idea of what to expect, so if you can affect a tone or a stance that may leave the respondent uncertain of where your questioning is going, do it.

Responding to Questions By now it should be obvious that your response to a question would not be a full and frank extrapolation on the subject of inquiry. The fact that you are not just exchanging opinions should always be uppermost in your mind. The questioner wants something, she is trying to force you to make an error or offer up a piece of information that can be used to undermine your case at a later stage. There are a few basic rules to follow in terms of answering questions:

• Be brief. Give the questioner as much as you need to but nothing more. This is particularly true if you are uncertain where a particular line of investigation might be leading. Your questioner is clearly after something, the least you can do is make her work for it. The more you say, the more likely you are to make a comment that is ill-considered.

• Be honest. Be honest, even when that means admitting that you don’t know something. Being caught in a lie is strategically much worse than admitting ignorance, and lying also contravenes the spirit, and often the rules, of debating. Admitting that you simply didn’t know something or that you made a mistake can be galling, but it’s vastly preferable to being shown to have just made something up. There is no need to showcase your lack of knowledge, however. Concede that you didn’t know something and move on to more certain ground.

• Retain control. Where possible try to retain control of the debate. Don’t be bullied into answering ridiculous questions or addressing improbable hypothetical situations. Where the questioner is trying to set up a false dichotomy to compel you to portray your position as the lesser of two evils, you can say as much and offer alternative explanations that portray your case more positively: “I don’t accept that this is a case

Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination 193

of having to choose either security or liberty, indeed I would suggest that we most defend our liberties by being free to pursue them without fear.”

• Use caution. Use exactly the same skills in answering hard interaction as you would in asking the question or raising a point. Think about where the line of inquiry could be going and make claims that cannot be characterized as something other than what they are. Where possible, avoid being drawn along by a series of questions. The questioner will want to demonstrate that a question itself draws the balance of the argument away from your position. Even if your answers are solid, such a line of investigation may raise doubts in the mind of the adjudicator. Finally, don’t be afraid to pause for a second or so to think about how you could provide information that reinforces your case. It both looks better and is better than leaping straight in.

Timing of Hard Interaction Timing is an important strategic component of both asking and responding to Points of Information and in CX. Remember, brevity is the key to hard interaction.

POINTS OF INFORMATION

Remember, these are not speeches; they’re questions or very brief statements. As such, they should be no more than 10 seconds. If the person offering the point goes much over this, the speaker is at liberty to ask him to sit and carry on with her speech as though nothing had happened. A response to a POI should take about 20 seconds and certainly no more than 30. Try to keep the total time given to POIs to no more than a minute of the speech and preferably less. A speaker should never take a second Point of Information immediately after answering one. She should always return to her speech for a while, otherwise the timing and structure of the speech will be lost (and quite probably her train of thought, not to mention that of the adjudicator).

CROSS-EXAMINATION

The principle of brevity also applies here. Several short questions will prove far more effective than one long one with several parts. Your objective in CX is to move your respondent through incremental stages to a position that you can use later in the debate. If you

194 

Discovering the World through Debate



ask him to do that one piece of information at a time, or one step of logic at a time, he is far more likely to follow your line of enquiry without seeing clearly where you are leading him until too late. Similarly, if you are seeking to put the respondent in a position where he has publicly committed himself to a particular position, you would be better off briefly asking him to confirm that he made particular points rather inviting him to extrapolate further on a whole area of his speech. Perhaps oddly, brevity is also useful in responding to a question. Give as much information as is required by the question or as little as you can get away with. Until you have a clear idea of where the questioner is trying to take you, don’t make her life easy by hurling additional fuel onto whatever fire she is kindling. Although occasionally filibustering out of a line of questioning you would rather avoid might be appropriate, such occasions are rare and, at best, look desperate. Clear, emphatic, short answers are almost always the better option: “We said that was only an option when the economic conditions were correct.” As a rule, aim to keep your answers shorter than the questions. Sometimes this simply isn’t possible but it’s a useful goal to keep in mind.

Conclusion Hard interaction is one of the most enjoyable parts of debate. There is a real sense of cut and thrust as each side tries to find a weak point in the argument of the other without revealing their own case too soon. You will develop your own style for approaching CX and offering POIs, but always remember the basics: keep questions brief and relevant to what is happening at that stage in the debate and have a purpose for every question. The next chapter discusses how victory in debating comes down to which team can control the flow of the debate—even when they’re not speaking. Hard interaction is a vital part of doing this. As long as opposing speakers are answering the questions you’ve asked, responding to your agenda, finding ways to defend their ideas against your rebuttal, you’re in charge of that flow and the adjudicator is seeing things from your perspective.

Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination 195

EXERCISE

Use the issue of animal rights to explore POIs and CX. Part I: 1. In groups of four, spend five minutes talking through the issue. You may wish to consider one or more of the following concerns: vegetarianism, medical experimentation, testing of cosmetics, and hunting. However, if you want to take the conversation in other directions, that’s fine. Don’t use Internet-enabled devices during this exercise—it’s all about what’s already in your head. 2. Working on your own, take notes on the question: Do animals have rights that exist independently of the interests of humans? 3. Take turns speaking for between 60 and 90 seconds setting out your view on the subject. After each speech, the other three members of the group have 30 seconds each to cross-examine the speaker. Part II: 1. Ask the teacher to act as facilitator for the class or select one student to do so. 2. Have the facilitator make one quick point about the issue of animal rights. The point should only be about 10 seconds in length. At the end of the point, have her call out the name of a student, who must disagree with the point she made. 3. After 10 seconds—regardless of whether the student has finished the point—have the facilitator call out the name of another student, who must disagree with the point the first student made. 4. Continue the process until eight students have made points. Then start over—but this time introduce the following rules:

• Hesitation: if the named person doesn’t start immediately, the student sitting nearest to her on the right must start instead.

• Deviation: if the student doesn’t respond exactly to the previous point, the student sitting nearest to her on the left can interrupt and start making the point instead.

• Repetition: if a student reiterates a point that has already been made, the facilitator can rule it out of order and either tell her to try again or ask another student to make a point.

• Challenge: if any of these rules are broken (or if they were not broken but the rule was applied unfairly), any student may challenge the decision and has 10 seconds to claim the right to speak instead.

196 

Discovering the World through Debate



CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Hard interaction—CX and POIs—plays an important strategic role in the debate. • The basic goal of CX and POIs is for a team to control the flow of the debate—even when they’re not speaking.

• Hard interaction has two possible goals: getting the speaker to say something—provide information, clarify or commit to a point—and planting doubt in the mind of the adjudicator.

• Keep questions brief and relevant to what is happening at that stage in the debate. • Have a purpose for every question. • Teams must work to tie cross-examination and rebuttal together. • Answering questions requires the debater to think carefully and avoid giving more information than is necessary.

Hard Interaction: Points of Information and Cross-Examination 197

CHAPTER 21

Soft Interaction—Clash

“Clash” is the term given to the points of disagreement between the two sides of a debate. It is where the debate happens, where the cases meet. The best speeches and the most artfully structured cases are worth nothing if they don’t interact with what’s happening on the other side. As we’ve seen, the opening speaker, in presenting the definition, sets up the structure that the debate should follow. This chapter takes us through what happens after the definition has been given. It briefly reviews the role of the First Negative speaker before looking in detail at how clash can continue throughout the debate. It then explains how to identify clash. Finally, it will explore how final speakers should use clash.

Setting Up Clash In setting out the definition, the First Affirmative aims to present more than a list of arguments. She aims to set out a narrative, a believable and functioning model that can both be understood by a reasonable person and can persuade him of its merits. In turn, the Negative takes the basic framework set up by the First Affirmative speaker but offers another narrative. In short, the Negative lays out the areas of clash. The Negative doesn’t have to present a completely new way of solving the problem, although in some formats they may offer a counter-case. And, as we shall see, they should not negate everything the Affirmative has put forward. Instead, clash should be a meeting of the interesting bits of each case, the points where there is genuine disagreement.



The Role of First Negative First Negative has the task of setting out the general direction of clash, highlighting where the two sides will disagree. He needs to do considerably more than just say “we disagree”; he must demonstrate why the change proposed by the Affirmative team would be wrong. This might be because there is a fundamental disagreement with the principles that underpin the case or because the mechanism put forward to deliver the change won’t work. Chances are, it’s a little of both. Within the first minute or so of his speech, the First Negative should give the audience a clear idea of what he sees as the main problems with the Affirmative, framing the points of clash in just a few sentences—one, if possible: We agree with Affirmative that drug addiction is a serious problem, but the solution they suggest won’t work because it further alienates addicts from the medical support they need by compelling them to risk imprisonment if they discuss their problem with a doctor.

Obviously, the speaker will then need to provide details of the arguments that he and his teammates are planning to use, but the adjudicator and the other speakers now have a clear idea of Negative’s approach, and the debate can begin in earnest. First Negative next rebuts some of what First Affirmative said, divides his team’s case between himself and other speakers, and sets out in detail their first argument, usually the strongest one. In Karl Popper format the two opening speakers set out their teams’ cases in entirety, establishing two clear perspectives, to which the second speakers can then respond. The adjudicator now has two perspectives on how to tackle the problem and a clear idea of the framework for her decision as to which team has the stronger case.

Running Through the Whole Debate In theory, after the two first speakers, everyone could take a vote and go home. In reality, that wouldn’t make for a very satisfying process because lots of questions would still be hanging in the air waiting for someone to answer them. So, the debate—and the clash—continue. Where cross-examination has taken place before we hear from the second speakers, the listener will have a far clearer idea of which arguments are strong and which are questionable and is waiting for the second speakers to confirm or refute her perception. In other formats, listeners who were entirely convinced by the First Affirmative may well have

Soft Interaction—Clash 199

been equally convinced by the First Negative. Thus, the second, and subsequent, speakers need to demonstrate the strengths of their side and the weaknesses of the other team. Of course, later speakers don’t just stand up and repeat what has already been said. They respond to the debate as the ideas evolve. The role of each speaker, in turn, is to give new perspectives on those themes. At each stage, speakers will be introducing new ideas, along with supporting evidence. They will be finding ways to show that their side has the better narrative, both by demonstrating the strengths of their own arguments and the weaknesses of the arguments of the opposing team(s). When the debate works well, these two processes happen simultaneously. Sometimes, however, the processes need to be distinct, especially when attacking statements as being factually incorrect. Either way, the processes are symbiotic: rebuttal and constructive proposals feed off one another. For each speaker, both sets of arguments combine to make a speech. Within each team, the speeches combine to make a case. For the room as a whole, the cases should combine to make a debate. That final combination results from, and in, clash. That debate should be typified by clear points of disagreement that, ideally, represent mutually exclusive perspectives on the issue. You are not necessarily demonstrating that your opponents are just plain wrong, although you may be. You are frequently demonstrating that they are misguided and that their failure to grasp the real causes of a problem or their odd sense of priorities or their obsession with one small aspect of the situation mean that your arguments are more reasonable and satisfying.

How to Identify Clash To ensure clash, do you have to disagree with everything the other side says and enthuse lyrically about everything your side says? A qualified “No.” “Qualified” because you should avoid publicly or too obviously agreeing with the other side just as you should avoid disagreeing with your own side. If the other side has said something that is clearly true, “Murder is wrong,” you don’t need to try to prove that murder is fun for all concerned and should be taught in schools. Likewise, if one of your teammates has said something dumb, just quietly drop the subject unless the other side challenges you—at which point you should support his statement, defend it, and then quietly move on hoping never to have to discuss it again. Negative speakers, in particular, sometimes feel that they must contradict every word of the Affirmative. They don’t. Indeed, it would usually be impossible to do so. Even in the event of a truly terrible case, the Affirmative is likely to have stumbled across one or two

200 

Discovering the World through Debate



valid points, simply on the basis of the laws of big numbers. Yet, even if everything they have said makes no sense whatsoever, challenging everything they say is a bad idea. It brings you down to their level and makes it look as though you think they have a point. In that situation, pick their very worst points and attack those before setting out your own ideas, which should look dazzling and brilliant by contrast. Arguments that are simply wrong can often be dismissed with a single sentence “The proposition have based much of their case on the idea that the Red Cross should use the threat of preemptive nuclear strikes to compel leaders to feed their people; we feel that killing an entire population with nuclear war is a solution to world hunger that we cannot endorse.” How should you identify which areas put forward by the other side are productive sources of clash?

• Select major arguments, not minutiae or trivia. Shy away from nitpicking and disagree with the other side in bold, declarative terms. If they have one big, bright, and shiny argument at the heart of their case, go after that. Resist the urge to be conciliatory or considerate. Although these are admirable qualities elsewhere in life, they have no place in a debate.

• Prioritize those aspects that can be used to demonstrate both that they are wrong and that you are right. Debate works in two directions, and you are looking for issues where your perspective and theirs directly contradict each other. You’re not looking to attack their arguments and then develop an entirely separate case for your own team. Look for areas where both teams have something significant to say and demonstrate that your ideas are better.

• Pick areas in which the two sides are clearly and significantly different. If they want to increase investment in an area by 1% and you think it should be 2%, there’s not a great deal of argument; you’re just squabbling about details. By contrast, if they want to increase expenditure by 1% and you want to cut it by 10%—or abolish it altogether— that’s a point worth pursuing. In short, look for clear, meaningful, and significant points of disagreement. If proposed courses of action are mutually exclusive, so much the better. This is no place for mealymouthed policies that turn out to be the same idea by another name or pale imitations of the other teams proposals packaged in a more attractive sound bite. Debate requires disagreement on both what to do and how to do it. The best debates see two distinct worldviews clash over how to resolve a significant problem. If you avoid confrontation, if, in effect, you avoid or dilute clash, there’s not much point in being in a debate.

Soft Interaction—Clash 201

Different Lines of Clash You should not treat debate as a point-scoring exercise based on which side has the greater tonnage of data. Clash that is reduced to mere factual disagreement is, ultimately, unsatisfying. Instead, both sides are presenting different perspectives with different priorities. Let’s take one of the subjects from the exercises in the last chapter: medical experimentation on animals. Neither side in that scenario is “wrong” in a factual sense; they simply have mutually exclusive interests. The researchers’ objective is to cure disease, the antivivisectionists’ goal is to prevent suffering; both admirable aims. The problem is that you can’t have both within the confines of this debate. Your job is to make one of those positions more reasonable—more attractive—than the other. In doing so you should persuade the adjudicator that an ordinary, reasonable person should order their priorities accordingly. Just as your team will set out a series of arguments to give breadth to your case, so your clash should engage with the other side in more than one area. It may be tempting to largely focus on the positive aspects of a case, engage in a little direct rebuttal, and hope that the adjudicator sees things your way, but it is far more effective to simply take up a position on the same ground as the other side and stake your claim to every inch of it. By doing this, you make clear in your speech that what you are saying and what they have to offer are not occasionally overlapping discussions of the same general area of policy or thought but are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed interpretations of the same issue. In short, they are different answers to the same question, not differing answers to similar questions. One last point on diversity of themes. It may seem like a good idea to present several ideas that are really the same idea but wrapped up slightly differently. For example, “X policy will reduce unemployment, increase revenues from payroll taxes and allow people to earn a salary they can then spend” is just saying the same thing three different ways. They are three excellent reasons for increasing employment, but they are all still reasons for increasing employment. The danger of trying such a trick is that if the other side can demonstrate that policy X will do absolutely nothing to increase employment, then your side of the debate is left with nothing. By contrast, if you demonstrate that a certain policy will increase employment, enhance the aesthetic feel of communities, and promote positive interaction between neighbors, you are better protected against the ensuing clash in the debate. You can afford to lose the argument in one area and still have a chance of carrying the day.

202 

Discovering the World through Debate



Clash and Final Speeches Final speakers can use the points of clash in a debate to frame their speeches. Rather than rehearsing what each speaker said, they aim to draw out those parts of the debate that relate directly to the areas of clash and demonstrate how their side had the better arguments on these points. Both speakers may agree on what the areas of clash were, but they will use those common areas to advocate for their side. The areas of clash may be obvious; if the two sides have been attacking two or three points repeatedly, then speakers will focus on those. However, sometimes the debate will have moved through many issues, and the final speakers must identify what those points of clash have been. This process requires the speakers to go back to the origins of the two sides’ cases: What did they identify as the problem, what did they say was the point of contention, what perspective is each side expecting the adjudicator to accept as the dominant one? How did each side answer these questions—and did they answer them effectively? Good final speakers consider all of the issues raised and then find one theme that crystalizes those into a standard against which the points of clash can be assessed. Once she has that analysis of what divides the two sides, she must sell that assessment to the adjudicator. If she can convince the adjudicator that the whole debate can be reduced to a single question or concern over which the two sides clashed and that her side has the better answer, her team will win.

Conclusion Debaters are often tempted to present a case so modest, so full of arguments that are safe and demonstrably true that nobody could possibly disagree with it. Doing so defeats the purpose of debating; after all, the aim is to test the value of an idea by attacking it from both sides and seeing what works and what doesn’t. It’s important not to let your desire to win get in the way of actually doing your job. Clash is the interesting bit of debate and, over the long term, far more useful than any number of victories or defeats. The process of critiquing ideas and questioning assumptions about the world around us, developing a process of thought that questions and criticizes sloppy thinking and assertions of the mundane, lies at the heart of why we should use debate as a tool. Debate is a process that should encourage us to pursue ideas because they work rather than because they are safe. It allows practitioners not only to

Soft Interaction—Clash 203

understand the world around them and how it works but to articulate and defend ways in which it could be improved. If you just want to say things that everyone agrees with, become a pop singer. Debate is an exercise in discovering things that, often surprisingly, turn out to be true.

EXERCISE

Take from a newspaper an op-ed piece that you believe to be untrue; the more you disagree the better. Consider, in particular, the conclusions the writer draws from the information she presents. 1. Work with a partner to establish a different explanation for the information the writer sets out and identify how that evidence could be interpreted in an opposite way. 2. Take turns defending and attacking the points the writer makes. The purpose of this exercise is to see ways in which the same information can often lead to different conclusions. Discuss how it might appear from the perspective of different people. How would a scientist think about it? An environmentalist? An employer? A trade unionist? 3. Once you have some ideas about other interpretations of the available data, use the Internet to investigate what responses other people had to the article or how that data was used elsewhere. 4. Then seek out additional data that supports your interpretation of events. 5. Use both the information from the original article and any additional evidence you have discovered to present the opposing point of view. Try to blend your criticism of the article with your own position in a way that uses both sets of data to support your case.

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• Interaction is at the heart of a debate, and debaters should not seek to minimize or avoid it. • Speeches should focus on the clash within a debate and ignore issues that are uncontroversial. • The first two speakers have a critical role in determining which areas of the topic will be disputed between the two sides.

204 

Discovering the World through Debate



• The concluding speakers will draw on those areas where the two sides clash when reviewing the debate for the adjudicator.

• Teams should demonstrate that their approaches are mutually exclusive. • Whichever team deals most effectively with the areas of clash will almost certainly win the debate.

Soft Interaction—Clash 205

CHAPTER 22

Understanding the Adjudicator

This final chapter focuses on the adjudicator in competitive debates. The chapter first looks at the basics of the adjudicator’s role. Then examines what she might be thinking or looking for in a debate and explains how best to influence that process. Finally, the chapter discusses the importance of the feedback adjudicators offer at the end of a debate.

Adjudicators Adjudicators come from a variety of backgrounds. At university-level debating, the background of the adjudicator varies according to the format. Judges may be teachers or lecturers, but some will be retired debaters who volunteer because they enjoy listening to debates. At the secondary school–level, teachers are likely to do the bulk of the judging, but active debaters from nearby university clubs often help out. All of these individuals have usually seen many debates and developed a clear sense of what works and what doesn’t based on both theoretical and practical knowledge. Realistically, each adjudicator sees a debate differently, which is why many competitions use a panel of judges. How that panel reaches a conclusion varies among formats. In some, panel members simply vote, in others they are required to reach a consensus. Different formats have different rules for adjudication and ask adjudicators to look at different elements. For example, in World Schools, judges are asked to give marks for style, whereas in Karl Popper they are specifically asked not to. Consequently, this chapter does not touch on those areas where there are differing requirements but focuses instead on points that are broadly true of all formats.



The Basic Tasks of an Adjudicator The primary task of the adjudicator is to be objective. This is the golden rule and trumps experience, expertise, or even intelligence. From the perspective of the debater, the emphasis on objectivity means that you are unlikely to be judged by anyone who could be considered biased for or against you as a speaker. An adjudicator in a competition is, therefore, unlikely to be directly associated with a team, society, or school of which you are a member. Where this is impossible for logistical reasons, conflicts of interest are both minimized and made public to all participants. Objectivity also applies to the debate topic. Although an adjudicator may have strong views on the subject, she must set them aside for the purposes of the debate and her assessment of the speakers or teams. If she has specialist knowledge on the subject, she will ignore it. She can, however, utilize all of the knowledge and experience she has as an intelligent and reasonably informed human being. Consequently, even if an adjudicator knows you have said something incorrect, she will be looking for the opposing team to point that out. If that doesn’t happen, your error will rarely form part of her decision unless it is an error that would have been widely noticed by the general public. If she mentions it after the debate, it’s probably just for reference to stop you from making the same mistake in the future. In theory, the ideal adjudicator would be an odd combination: a well-rounded and intelligent person who had no views on any subject. She would have no religious, political, or professional affiliations and no strong opinions on any issue of contemporary dispute. There is one caveat, however: views that would rightly repulse the “average, reasonable, intelligent person” can also repulse the adjudicator. After objectivity, the next intellectual task of the adjudicator is to be attentive. Critical thinking and active listening are key skills; the judge is trying to get an overall sense of the themes as they run through the debate and to determine how effectively each speaker addresses them. Adjudicators assess effectiveness in the context of the particular format being used and the speakers’ positions and roles in the debate. At a basic level, they also consider issues such as timing to check that the speaker is staying within the rules of the competition. More important, they are also aware of why the format’s rules exist and the way in which they support the overall objective of creating satisfying cases. You will be measured against this standard as well. As a result, debaters should be familiar with the rules and marking system the adjudicator will be using. Finally, the critical role of the adjudicator is to act in lieu of an audience and ask, “Is this persuasive?” So, where a debater’s failure to perform a particular task affects the development of her case or the debate more generally, the adjudicator will pick up on that fact. How

Understanding the Adjudicator 207

a judge defines “persuasive” varies depending on the format. For example, some formats assess the role of manner in determining the persuasive force of a speech, others do not. Some formats have more exacting standards than others for what evidence can be presented, and the adjudicator will consider how well teams have met these. Although an adjudicator does not utilize specialized subject knowledge when judging the debate, she will bring her expertise of debate to bear and this will be reflected in how she appraises areas such as role fulfillment and manner. Persuasion is not easy to judge, but the adjudicator will certainly look for consistency, coherence, and reasonableness. Does the argument make sense? Is it internally consistent with itself and with other speakers on that side of the debate? Does the speaker engage with others? Does the speaker demonstrate an understanding of the subject under discussion? Has the debater brought additional insight to the table? Where manner is also an element in scoring, the adjudicator is also asking: Does this person hold my attention easily? Does she have a fluent and engaging style? Is her pace easy to follow? Is the manner appropriate to the subject under discussion? Does the speaker appear convincing? Other considerations include eye contact, audibility, and the avoidance of distracting physical and verbal mannerisms. Adjudicators will keep notes throughout the debate, although different judges do this in different ways. Where scores are required for individual speakers, a judge will usually determine your score at the end of your speech. Most competitions require adjudicators to give the highest total speaker scores to the team that also won the debate and the lowest to the losing team. Some require members of a panel to agree on speaker scores and the outcome of the debate, so remaining engaged in a debate is additionally important because adjudicators may have to review their initial score after the whole debate is over. In other formats where adjudicators simply vote and consensus is not required, the typical adjudicator will still review her marks in light of those given to other speakers so that she is confident that she has applied a consistent standard throughout.

What’s Catching the Adjudicator’s Attention? There is a scene in the movie The Great Debaters where the coach drills his team into reciting: “Who is the judge? The judge is God. Why is he God? Because he decides who wins or loses. Not my opponent.” Modern adjudicators probably wouldn’t put it in quite such megalomaniacal terms. Nevertheless, because the judge decides the winner, it’s worth trying to figure out what is going on in her head. Although all adjudicators should be looking for consistency, role fulfillment, effective use of evidence, interaction with other

208 

Discovering the World through Debate



speakers, and so on, specific arguments or styles might hold their attention, and it’s worth remembering and catering to that fact. Some might not like rapid speaking or may prefer specific kinds of arguments. If you’re speaking further into the debate, pay attention to the ideas and actions that seemed to make the adjudicators take particular notice. In practical terms, this means looking at the adjudicator throughout the debate. A judge may give you nonverbal clues that can offer some insight into what she is thinking. For example, she may nod her head in agreement with an argument or circle her pen involuntarily—indicating that she’s heard enough of the argument and you should move on. Look at the judge’s body language even when your opponent is speaking. It may provide valuable indications of how she is evaluating the round. Obviously, you cannot base your case on what the judge is thinking, but where you can adapt to her, you should.

Helping the Adjudicator Your job is not to persuade the other side. Your audience is the adjudicator who is standing in for the world at large. Your primary goal is to make the adjudicator’s job easy; she should have no problem determining that your team was most persuasive. The best (and easiest) way to do this, of course, is for you to do your job well. Speeches that are poorly structured are hard to follow. If a speech can’t be heard, an adjudicator can do only so much to give it marks. With the best will in the world, it’s harder to pay attention to a monotonic speaker than one who varies pitch and tone. Speeches that quickly address the major themes in the debate are more engaging; clear and incisive summations help the adjudicator understand the issues. In essence, the adjudicator’s task is to be persuaded. You make that a great deal easier by being persuasive.

ROADMAPPING

One of the best ways to help the adjudicator follow your speech is to roadmap it. This tells the judge the order in which you will present your major arguments. Roadmapping allows the adjudicator not only to jot the points down and check them off as you go but also, at a very practical level, to structure her notes in a way that makes them easy for her to review later. If you tell her, quite explicitly, “I’m going to examine why the economic model we’ve heard about from Affirmative doesn’t work” or “Let’s take a look at the social and demographic implications of what we’ve heard so far,” she knows what to expect and your speech becomes that much easier to follow. The clearer a speech, the clearer the notes that record it.

Understanding the Adjudicator 209

Roadmapping should not become an exercise in demonstrating how much debate terminology you know. Statements such as “I will start with some rebuttal of what First Aff has said and then move on to our constructive case, including an extension” can have a negative effect on adjudicators for two reasons. One, the adjudicator who knows what all those terms mean will find their use patronizing. The second, albeit worrying, possibility is that the adjudicator doesn’t know—so she is baffled. Either way, patronizing or confusing the panel should be avoided. If the judge cannot determine when you’re disagreeing with other speakers and when you’re agreeing with them, you have major problems with your speech that are unlikely to be rectified by demonstrating that you know the meaning of the word “rebuttal.” Finally, be alert to the practicalities of judging. Judges take notes but not shorthand. If you have a complex point that is fundamental to your case, give the adjudicator time to hear it, understand it, and write it down. Where necessary, rephrase the same point a couple of times to allow her time to take it down. If you mention a point at the beginning of your speech, use the same term when you return to the point in more detail later. If you’re speaking at the start of a debate, the odds are against the adjudicator remembering anything you said that wasn’t written down, so it may be more important to allow her time to take notes than for you to race on to the next argument—no matter how brilliant or urgent.

FEEDBACK

Adjudicators have two interconnected roles: they are both judge and teacher. They determine the winner of the debate, but they also offer feedback on it, analyzing the arguments and speeches from the round. They present feedback for two reasons: first, to provide accountability and demonstrate that the decision hasn’t been pulled out of a hat and, second, to give some suggestions for improvement that speakers may find useful. Usually the chair of the adjudication panel presents an oral account of the decision and the reasons for it. In those formats where consensus is not required, if there is a dissenting minority, a representative of this group may also explain their view of the debate. In some circumstances, the adjudication may be given in written form for distribution after the competition is over. As a general rule, adjudicators criticize generally and praise individually. They do not approach their task with an “I could have done this better” attitude or express their views on the subject of the debate because either is likely to suggest a bias in their approach to the debate. Adjudicators’ opinions are always worth listening to and, usually, worth remembering. As a result, it’s useful to take notes when they are giving feedback. Review these notes from time to time and look for comments that come up repeatedly, even where these

210 

Discovering the World through Debate



comments were made about a debate in general. Since you were the common factor in them all, they may well be suggesting an area that you should look to develop. It’s much quicker to learn from the experience of others than it is to make all possible mistakes yourself and learn from those. The views of adjudicators often reflect their experience of other debates, so using that experience can prevent you from forming bad habits. By listening to the explanation of the decision, you will increase your understanding of what adjudicators are looking for. This may change slightly from judge to judge and panel to panel, but not much. As a result, over time you should be able to gain insight into:

• What generally impresses adjudicators and, by contrast, what doesn’t tend to grab their attention. You should remember both of these when structuring and delivering speeches in the future.

• What a particular judge focuses on. If you debate for any length of time, you’re likely to run into the same adjudicators. Knowing that one really focuses on clear introductions and another likes to see speakers get straight into the clash of the debate can be useful.

Listening to the Decision Adjudicators are human and so make mistakes. However, they also see a debate from a perspective that is quite different from that of the competitors. After all, the job of the debater is to be partisan and impassioned; the job of the adjudicator is to be impartial and objective. For either—and sometimes both—of these reasons, the result of the debate may be quite different from the one you and your teammates were expecting. In such a circumstance, don’t argue the verdict with the adjudicator (note to parents, partners, and friends of debaters who may be reading this—this applies to you, too). The adjudicator may well be right, and she can’t change her decision in any case. Most obviously, it’s really not worth annoying someone who may be judging you later in the competition; although adjudicators shouldn’t hold a grudge, they are, as mentioned, only human.

Conclusion There are many excellent reasons for an involvement in debating. However, if your only focus is winning, then you may well be wasting your time, and you’re certainly missing the point. Winning a debate is good, winning a competition is better. Winning loads of them is fantastic. Congratulations, you’re a megastar! However, long after the trophies

Understanding the Adjudicator 211

are gathering dust and the names of the champions are nothing but a whisper on the wind, something remains. What lasts are the intellectual skills gained from the process. Adjudication plays an important part in refining and honing those skills. However, it should be the start of a process rather than the end. When an adjudicator highlights an argument that didn’t work or a flaw in a case, she may elucidate why there was a problem or she may not. However, it is an issue that the debater should certainly address. Everybody has assumptions about certain ideas that don’t stand up to scrutiny, we all give credence to particular views and arguments that don’t really make sense. We all are guilty of not challenging the opinions of those who claim to be more important or better informed than we are. Debate is a method for correcting some of these oversights, and adjudication plays a significant role in that. It will quickly become apparent to any debater that some adjudicators have thought about some of these issues more than others, likewise that some have more experience or are more willing to share that experience than others. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that the adjudicator who says the most necessarily has the most to say but do listen honestly and intelligently to those suggestions that are offered in the same spirit. Adjudication is primarily an art rather than a science, and experienced adjudicators will usually admit that they have encountered close decisions that, on another day, could have gone another way. That’s simply part of the process and it evens out over time. Win or lose, however, good adjudicators should make debaters think for a moment about more than just gleaning tips to help win a future debate—although they are important. It can provide an opportunity for all concerned to ponder the processes of thought that made certain arguments stronger than others. Was the evidence applied more effectively, was the argument more consistent with the rest of the case, were the logical steps pursued with greater precision? Equally, why did one particular team win and another lose; were the speakers more engaged with what else was being said, did they genuinely appear to appreciate that all of the ideas flowing around them should and could be considered and weighed in the balance?

EXERCISE

Act as a judge in a live competitive debate, if possible. Alternatively, watch a debate online and act as though you were the judge. Take notes and reach a decision. Follow the rules of the format for how that decision should be reached—individually, by ballot, or by consensus.

212 

Discovering the World through Debate



1. In groups of three, have each member justify his decision—why did you give the win to the team you did? 2. Where you disagree with the other members of your group, outline which issues you thought were the most important in the debate and why you chose those. 3. Where all three agree on the outcome, identify the best two speakers in the debate and discuss your reasons for reaching that decision. 4. Determine the feedback you would give to the teams. Have something to say on, at least, each of the following areas:

• the definition • did Negative debate the definition • areas of clash • role fulfillment • timekeeping (internal and external) • interaction between speakers

CHAPTER CHECKLIST

• The adjudicator, not the opposing team, is the audience for your speech. • The primary task of the adjudicator is to be objective. • The adjudicator acts in lieu of an audience. • Where possible, adapt your speech to the preferences of the judge(s). • Help the judge by offering a clearly structured speech that includes a roadmap. • Adjudicators will usually offer feedback and are frequently happy to answer more detailed questions.

• Keep notes of what adjudicators say and use them to improve future speeches. • The advice an adjudicator gives reflects her experience and can often prevent you from forming bad habits.

Understanding the Adjudicator 213

Appendixes

Glossary

Active listening—Skill of listening to what is said and not said and interpreting the intention behind the words used. Active listeners are not distracted by style but focus on the logic and evidence an opposing speaker uses. Adjudication—Feedback provided by judges after a debate, giving the result, explaining their decision and offering suggestions for improvement. Usually this is given in the form of a short speech (verbal or oral adjudication) but can sometimes be written and distributed at the end of the competition. Adjudicator—Individual who determines the winner of a debate and, where appropriate, ranks the other teams. A judge. Affirmative—Side arguing in favor of a motion or resolution. Sometimes called “Government,” “Proposition,” “Side Affirmative,” or “Side Positive.” Argument—Basic component of a case. An argument is a logically coherent line of reasoning used to demonstrate that a particular idea can be considered to be true. A complete argument includes a claim, warrant, and evidence. Assumption—Claim or statement not supported by evidence. Audience—Individuals listening to a debate who are not participating as speakers. Frequently an audience is represented by an adjudicator. Biased adjudication—Reply speech. An overview of the highs and lows of the debate delivered in a manner that encourages the listener to take that team’s perspective on events. Body—Central part of a speech in which the debater presents the arguments in support of her case and the evidence buttressing these arguments. Case—Organized series of arguments a team uses to support its side of the debate. Case-split (case division)—Designation of which members of a team will deal with which issues.

Claim—Idea, concept, or value that a debater wants an audience to accept as being true; usually the culmination of an argument. Clash—Point of conflict between Affirmative and Negative arguments. Constructive (substantive) arguments—Main developed points put forward by a debater in support of her case—as distinct from rebuttal. Critical thinking—Disposition to reflect on the world and on beliefs and to apply reason to their examination. Critical thinking demands logical consistency and objectivity. Cross-examination (Cross-X, CX)—Direct questioning of one debater by another from the opposing team. Definition—Process of setting out Affirmative’s interpretation of the motion or resolution. The definition is then the focus of the debate. Evidence—Facts, theories, presumptions, or values that debaters use to support their arguments. It is the first stage of an argument and should be information that the audience holds to be true. Extension—Introduction of a major new platform of argument by the Closing Government team in British Parliamentary debate. An extension is not a new case but a new way to prove the same case. Flow—A technical form of note-taking that allows debaters to keep track of the arguments presented by both teams in a debate. Interaction (hard)—Stage at which debaters speak directly to each other, offering questions, making short points for contrast, or demanding clarification or explanation. See Points of Information and cross-examination. Interaction (soft)—Stage at which speakers refer to each other’s ideas and adjust their own in response. See Clash. Introduction—Opening part of a speech. Judge—See Adjudicator. Knifing—In British Parliamentary debate, a slang term used to describe an attempt by the third Government speaker to abandon the definition introduced by the first Government speaker. Manner—Style (delivery) and structure (organization) speaker uses to present her ideas and persuade an audience.

218 

Discovering the World through Debate



Matter—Content of the speech; arguments a debater uses to present his case and persuade the audience. Motion—Standardized statement over which two sides in a debate will disagree; sometimes called a “topic” or “resolution.” Negative—Side of a debate with responsibility for proving that a motion or resolution is untrue. Sometimes called “Opposition.” Point of Information—Short question or statement made by a debater during an opposing speech. Points of Information are taken at the discretion of the debater holding the floor. Position(s)—Speaker’s place and title in the debate. Preparation (Prep)—Time set aside for researching, planning, and drafting of a case and speech. In most formats, takes place before the debate but in some, including Karl Popper, time is also set aside for prep during the debate. Prep can be as little as 15 minutes (short prep) or as long as a month (long prep). Rebuttal—Various methods of criticizing or attacking the arguments put forward by the other side. Reply speech—Given at the end of the debate, sometimes by a speaker who has already spoken. These speeches clarify the main themes of the debate and suggest a standard by which the adjudicator should determine victory. Resolution—See Motion. Roadmapping—Setting out and identifying by name the arguments that will make up the speaker’s case. Role—Technical functions required of a speaker in a given position. Role fulfillment—Extent to which a speaker performs the requirements of her role. Signposting—Identifying arguments during a speech, giving indications to the audience of what to expect as they listen. Status quo—Situation under debate as it currently exists. Strategy—In World Schools debate format, the structure, timing, and the speakers’ general appreciation of the subject. Structure—Framework of a debater’s speech; usually used to mean the extent to which her arguments flow logically from one to the other.

Glossary 219

Substantive arguments—See Constructive arguments. Summation—Process used by a final speaker to draw together the themes of the debate. Warrant—Middle part of an argument wherein the debater bridges the evidence she has presented and the claim she wishes to make.

220 

Discovering the World through Debate

Bibliography and Resources

This section contain details of web resources, books, and videos. The videos are a very small sample of those available on YouTube; they have been selected for the clarity of the recording.

General Resources Meany, John, and Kate Shuster. On That Point, An Introduction to Parliamentary Debate. New York: IDEBATE Press, 2003. http://idebate.org/sites/live/files/9780972054119.pdf Debate Central. Videos, books, lectures, training material and more; this excellent resource is hosted by the University of Vermont. http://debate.uvm.edu/ International Debate Education Association. Source of news and information about the debating world, the site contains the Debatabase resource with written debates on hundreds of topics. This is also the starting point for the World Online Debate Championships and the IDEA World Youth Forum. www.Idebate.org

Asian Parliamentary Debate Format 2013 United Asian Debating Championships Final. http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=PtGtrRQxjA4 2013 United Asian Debating Championship English as a Foreign Language Final. http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cni5MHu8EM

British Parliamentary Debate Format (Also search for WUDC) Harvey-Smith, Neill. The Practical Guide to Debating Worlds Style/British Parliamentary Style. New York: IDEBATE Press, 2011. http://idebate.org/sites/live/files/9781617700163-web.pdf. Johnson, Steven L. Winning Debates: A Guide to Debating in the Style of the World Universities Debating Championships. New York, IDEBATE Press, 2009. http://idebate.org/sites/live/ files/9781932716511.pdf 2010 WUDC Semi Final. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwRvr5EVE1A 2013 WUDC Final. http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/debate-wudc-ban -religious-expulsions.html

Karl Popper Debate Format 2013 Youth Forum, World Karl Popper Debating Championship. http://youthforum .idebate.org/streaming/archives/2013/elims

World Schools Debate Format (WSDC) Quinn, Simon. Debating in the World Schools Style: A Guide. New York: IDEBATE Press, 2009. http://idebate.org/sites/live/files/9781932716559.pdf 2010 WSDC Final. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZvhB9BozTs 2011 WSDC Quarter Final. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_1-YCbVip4 Debate Central, http://debate.uvm.edu/wsdcvideo.html World Schools Debating Competition. http://www.schoolsdebate.com/

222 

Discovering the World through Debate