Basic Debating Skills.
A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an
undisciplined shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a
particular point of view. In fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict
rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques and you will often
be in a position where you will have to argue the opposite of what you believe
in.
If a debate is a form of argument then it logically follows that there must
be something to argue about. This is called the TOPIC. The topic changes from
debate to debate. They are often about current issues of public importance
("That Canberra should have self government") or about general
philosophies or ideas ("That beauty is better than brains"). All
topics begin with the word "That". As in other arguments there are
two sides to any topic. The team that agrees with the topic is called the
AFFIRMATIVE (or the `government' in parliamentary debating) and the team that
disagrees with the topic is called the NEGATIVE (or the `opposition' in
parliamentary debating). When organising a debate it is important to select a topic
that is appropriate to the age and education of the debaters concerned. Often
topics will cover areas that the debaters have a specific interest in or, in
the case of schools debates, that have been covered in classes or are current
news items. Click here
for a list of possible topics from the Queensland Debating Union.
If a debate is going to take place then it must be agreed in advance what
the debate is going to be about. Thus it must be agreed what the topic means.
This may seem obvious in a topic like "That Canberra should have self
government" but with something like "That a cabbage is better than a
rose" is might not be so clear. Deciding and explaining what a topic means
is called `defining the topic'. The job of defining begins with the
AFFIRMATIVE. The first speaker of the affirmative must explain in clear terms
what they believe the topic means. In deciding this the affirmative team should
always try to use the "person on the street" test. That is if this
topic were presented to the average person on the street - is this what they
would take it to mean. Where the topic is too obscure to allow this test then
apply the `reasonability' test. The affirmative team should ask themselves
"Is this definition reasonable ? Is it something the average person might
expect ? Does it allow for both sides of the debate ?". If you can answer
yes to these questions then the definition is probably reasonable, if not
search for something more reasonable. Try to avoid the dictionary, except in
cases where you don't understand a word. In your definition explain the meaning
of the whole topic rather than each separate word.
The negative team may agree with or choose to challenge the definition
presented. The negative team should be very careful about challenging as it is
difficult to continue the debate with two definitions. Challenges may be made
if the definition given is unreasonable or if it defines the opposition out of
the debate. If the negative team chooses to challenge the definition it should
be done by the first speaker who should clearly outline why the negative is
challenging and then propose a better definition.
Because debating is a team event it is important that the three speakers
work together as a team. The TEAM LINE is the basic statement of "why the
topic is true" (for the affirmative) and "why the topic is
false" (for the negative). It should be a short sentence, presented by the
first speaker of each team and used by the other two speakers to enforce the
idea of teamwork.
In a debating team each speaker has specified roles that they must fulfil
to play their part in the team. They are laid out below in the order that the
speakers will speak.
1st Affirmative must:
- define the topic.
- present the affirmative's team line.
- outline briefly what each speaker in their team will talk about.
- present the first half of the affirmative case.
1st negative must:
- accept or reject the definition. If you don't do this it is assumed that
you accept the definition.
- present the negative team line.
- outline briefly what each of the negative speakers will say.
- rebut a few of the main points of the first affirmative speaker.
- the 1st negative should spend about one quarter of their time rebutting.
- present the first half of the negative team's case.
2nd affirmative must:
- reaffirm the affimative's team line.
- rebut the main points presented by the 1st negative.
- the 2nd affirmative should spend about one third of their time rebutting.
- present the second half of the affirmative's case.
2nd negative must:
- reaffirm the negative's team line.
- rebut some of the main points of the affirmative's case.
- the 2nd negative should spend about one third of their time rebutting.
- present the second half of the negative's case.
3rd affirmative must:
- reaffirm the affirmative's team line.
- rebut all the remaining points of the negative's case.
- the 3rd affirmative should spend about two thirds to three quarters of
their time rebutting.
- present a summary of the affirmative's case.
- round off the debate for the affirmative.
3rd negative must:
- reaffirm the negative's team line.
- rebut all the remaining points of the affirmative's case.
- the 3rd negative should spend about two thirds to three quarters of their
time rebutting.
- present a summary of the negative's case.
- round off the debate for the negative.
Neither third speaker may introduce any new parts of their team's cases.
In debating each team will present points in favour of their case. They
will also spend some time criticising the arguments presented by the other
team. This is called rebuttal. There are a few things to remember about
rebuttal.
1. Logic - to say that the other side is wrong is not enough.
You have to show why the other side is wrong. This is best done by taking a
main point of the other side's argument and showing that it does not make
sense. Because a lot of the thinking for this needs to be done quickly this is
one of the most challenging and enjoyable aspects of debating.
2. Pick the important points - try to rebut the most important
points of the other side's case. You will find that after a while these are
easier and easier to spot. One obvious spot to find them is when the first
speaker of the other team outlines briefly what the rest of the team will say.
But do not rebut those points until after they have actually been presented by
the other team.
3. `Play the ball' - do not criticise the individual
speakers, criticise what they say. To call someone fat, ugly or a nerd does not
make what they say wrong and it will also lose you marks.
There are many techniques that each speaker can use in their speech but
there are three main areas that you will be marked on and they are matter,
method and manner.
Matter is what you say, it is the substance of your speech. You should
divide your matter into arguments and examples.
An argument is a statement "The topic is true (or false depending on
which side you are on) because of x", where the argument fills in for the
x . For example in the topic "That the zoos should be closed" an
argument may be: "the zoos should be closed because they confine the
animals in an unnatural environment".
An example is a fact or piece of evidence which supports an
argument. If our argument is: "that zoos should be closed because they
confine the animals in an unnatural environment" then an example might be:
"that in the lion cage at Taronga Park Zoo in Sydney the animals only have
about 200 square metres where in the wild they would have 2000 square
kilometres to roam in.".
Any examples that you use should be relevant to the topic at hand.
Examples which have very little or nothing to do with the topic only make a
speech look weak and lacking substance.
Matter cannot be just a long list of examples. You do not win a debate by
creating the biggest pile of facts. Facts are like bricks in a wall, if you
don't use them, cement them together properly then they are useless. Similarly
you cannot win a debate solely by proving that some of the facts of the
opposition are wrong. It may weaken their case a little, the same way that
removing some of the bricks from a wall will, but you really need to attack the
main arguments that the other side presents to bring the whole wall crashing
down.
Many debates are on currently important issues so it is good for any debater
to keep themselves informed of what is happening in the world around them and
what are the issues involved. Watching the news helps (but watch a credible
broadcast like the ABC , you are hardly likely to get a topic on some
heartwarming story about a lost cat in western Sydney) as does reading a good
paper or periodical like the Canberra Times or the Sydney Morning Herald.
Where matter is what you say method is how you organise what you say. There
are many delicious pieces of the method pie; here are a few tantalising
crumbs.......
1. TEAM. Good team method involves unity and logic. Unity is created by all members
being aware of the definition, what the other speakers have said and what the
team line is. Each member of the team needs to reinforce the team line and be
consistent with what has already been said and what will be said by the other
members of their team. You may as well shoot yourself in the foot as change the
team line mid debate just because you think it isn't working. Your team will
look poorly organised and will be severely penalised by the adjudicator.
2. INDIVIDUAL. You must structure your own speech well. The first
step is to have a clear idea of your own arguments and which examples you will
be using to support those arguments. As you speak make a clear division between
arguments and let the audience know when you are moving from one argument to
the next, this is called sign posting and is a very important debating tool.
The key thing to remember is that although you know exactly what you are saying
the audience has never heard it before and will only hear it once so you have
to be very clear about it.
When you are presenting one particular argument make sure that the argument
is logical (makes sense) and that you make clear links between your team line
and the argument, and between the argument and the examples that you will use
to support it.
Rebuttal should be organised the same way. Attack each argument that the
opposition presents in turn. Spend a little while on each and then move on to
the next. That way the other team's case is completely demolished.
Also organise your speech well in terms of time. Adjudicators can pick up
when you are waffling just to fill in time .... and can see when you've spent
too long on one point and then have to rush through all your other points and
rebuttal just to finish your speech in time. Whew!! You will probably make a
few mistakes with this early on but practice makes perfect.
Manner is how you present what you say and there are various aspects of
manner that you need to be aware of. There is no one prescribed way of
presenting your argument. It is not true, no matter what Paul Keating thinks,
that the best way of being convincing is to shout and thump on the table. The
best advice you can get is to develop a manner style that is natural to you.
Here are some tips and pointers.
1. CUE CARDS. Do not write out your speech on cue cards. There
is even a current, and indeed deplorable, trend towards computer generated cue
cards. Debating is an exercise in lively interaction between two teams and
between the teams and the audience, not in reading a speech. Use cue cards the
same way you would use a prompt it a play, they are there for reference if you
lose your spot. You can tell when someone is reading.. remember the television
announcements by the politicians in the recent ACT elections?
2 EYE CONTACT. Is very closely related to cue cards. If you look
at the audience you will hold their attention. If you spend your time reading
from cue cards or looking at a point just above the audience's head they will
lose concentration very quickly. When you've got them by the eyeballs their
hearts and minds will follow.
3 VOICE. There are many things you can do with your voice to make it effective.
You must project so that you can be heard but 4 minutes of constant shouting
will become very annoying very quickly. ( Like a butcher shouting out the daily
specials ). Use volume, pitch and speed to emphasise important points in your
speech. A sudden loud burst will grab your audience's attention while a period
of quiet speaking can draw your audience in and make them listen carefully.
4. BODY. "Work it baby, work it!". ( Although any other links between
the movie Pretty Woman and debating end here ! Your body is a tool for you to
use. Make hand gestures deliberately and with confidence (a fine example of
someone who can't is that idiot on the Canberra Toyota ads at the moment). Move
your head and upper body to maintain eye contact with all members of the
audience (although automatically moving your head from side to side makes the
adjudicator want to pop a ping-pong ball in there). If you want to walk up and
down do so but move with effect and deliberately, don't wear worry lines into
the carpet. If you are going to stand still, stand with confidence. Don't let
your body apologise for your presence by appearing nervous.
5 NERVOUS HABITS. Avoid them like the plague.
Playing with your cue cards, pulling on a stray strand of hair, fiddling with
your watch, bouncing up and down on the balls of your feet or bouncing your cue
cards off the nose of the nearest audience member as you are finished with them
only distracts from your presentation. Use your whole person to effect, don't
let any one thing detract from your ability to persuade the audience.
6 ELOCUTION AND OTHER BIG WORDS. This is not an exercise in
grammar or elocution. Try to avoid being too informal but don't go overboard
the other way. There are no marks to be gained from trying to use big words you
don't understand or can't pronounce. In the same way it is a huge mistake to
let someone else write your speech. People that do that aren't entering the
spirit or developing the skills of debating and end up looking really silly
getting stuck on a word they just can't say.
Every adjudicator marks to a standard. You will get a mark out of 40 for
matter, 40 for manner and 20 for method, a mark out of 100 total. The average
for any speaker is 75 and most marks won't go much outside 6 or 7 marks either
side of that. Don't spend your debating life worrying about numbers, like most
statistics they are meaningless unless you understand the reasons behind them.
Adjudicators are friendly people who will happily speak with you after the
debate and tell you about your individual performance.
On the Courtesy of http://www.actdu.org.au/
No comments:
Post a Comment