Let the Games Begin:

Quick Tips for Winning Debates

 

While teachers dream of lofty goals of world peace, the average debater is interested in one thing: how to win a round. Here are some quick tips to persuade the judge to vote for you.

 

By Gary Gillespie ©  A version of this article appeared in I Debate, Journal of the International Debate Education Organization, January 2003.

 

2,600 years ago a group of people living on a peninsula jutting out in the Mediterranean ocean conceived of a bright idea. Instead of submitting to tyrants or dictators, they would be ruled by persuasion and mutual consent. Public speaking became the tool to govern their nascent democracy. Each year at festivals in Delphi, crowds gathered in marble amphitheaters to listen to the philosophers engage in public debates offered in honor of the god Apollo.

 

When Plato founded the Academy in 387 BC, debating among students was a primary teaching tool. Each night students were assigned to deliver after dinner speeches on study topics. Aristotle made public speaking a major part of the curriculum at his rival university, the Lyceum, founded in 338 BC.  Debates were no doubt held between the Academy and the Lyceum.

 

Ever since the golden age of ancient Greece, college students have entered the arena of academic debate to match wits and battle with ideas. Today at our own intellectual Olympics, we enjoy a speaking game designed to teach one of the most important lessens of civilization--how to transform what is worst in humanity into what is best--how to substitute symbols for aggression; dialogue for violence; reason for force.

 

We believe that debate is a powerful educational tool to promote democratic self-rule -- and build the foundations for peace in a society. Jean Kirkpatrick, former U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations, once observed that self-governing nations rarely attack each other.

 

History shows that countries that permit citizens to freely debate policies -- and vote in elections -- usually live in peace with neighbors.  In contrast, the dictatorships that forbid debate are behind most wars.

 

While educators dream of lofty goals of promoting world peace and national self rule, the average student is most concerned with how to play the game successfully. As a debate coach for 17 years, I have discovered that students learn to debate primarily by debating – that the more experience you can get the more confident you will become.

 

Here are some tips before, during and after a debate tournament for improving your chances to win the judge’s ballot and become an accomplished competitor.

 

Non-verbal Tips

*Try to appear like you are enjoying yourself. Don't be too serious or tense.  Smile, laugh at jokes.  Appear in good spirits.  This puts the judge at ease. 
 

*Direct your communication to the judge. Avoid looking directly at the other team -- instead when asking a question or speaking to the opponent, turn at a 45 degree angle so that most of your face is seen by the judge. Try to avoid turning your back to the audience or judge.
 

*If a judge gives you negative or questioning non-verbal feedback, or if you notice him responding positively non-verbally to opponents, connect with him or her non-verbally also and suggest that you are willing to adapt or will try to win them back. Don't appear to give up on a judge that seems to be going against you.  This makes it easy for him to drop you.
 

*Always look confident--you may think you are losing but the judge still may vote on one of your winning issues.
 

*Avoid friendly fire. Never show non-verbally that you don't like what your partner just did--you are a team. This is the quickest way to lose. Remember the leadership principle--solve problems and don't place blame.
 

*As you speak, watch the judge closely.  Seem to encourage him or her to give you feedback by pausing and nodding your head--like "Do you see what I mean?"  Don't act like you are speaking to an empty room--connect with the judge.  Make sure he or she is taking notes on your points.  If they are not taking notes, then adapt by dropping sub-points, slowing down, giving more concrete examples--especially of people (which are more memorable that abstract ideas), and by summarizing. 
 

*If a judge votes against you on a point of order--don't look dejected or questioning.  Simply nod and suggest non-verbally that the point is not a voter anyway.  You might even make a quick comment showing respect for the judge--like "Yes Sir, we can handle that."
 

* Appearance has a powerful effect, especially in a close round. Thus, try to appear conservative and clean cut. Solid or near solid color ties--avoid browns and yellows (which tend to emphasize your hair instead of contrasting or complimenting your face) or cartoon character ties (which might distract the judge). Do not wear pins or jewelry, they can distract.  Men, do not decide to grow a beard the week before a big tournament.  
 

*When answering questions, face the judge or turn your face at 45 degrees to the judge, not 90 degrees--this way you will appear in control of the space and more powerful. But, don't be a robot, either--look at the opponent long enough to suggest you know they are a person.
 

*If possible avoid standing behind the table or speaker's stand.  Stand to the side of the table--this way you can connect with the audience non-verbally.
 

*Support what your partner is saying non-verbally with nods, facial expressions or responsive sounds or phrases.  If you are a member, when you are done speaking, continue to flow and look involved and interested--even if you are tired.
 

*Never lean on the table. Never cross you feet.  Move only to help communicate an idea. Communicate with your whole body.  Think about the meaning of your words so that your facial expression will add to the total impact of what you are saying.
 

Tips Before the Round

*Try to be in good shape physically before a tournament.  Make 20 minutes of exercise daily part of your routine (stair machines or exercise bike and weight lifting require no athletic ability). Better yet, work out until you are exhausted. Your mind will not work well if you are a slug. There is no reason why young men and women should be out of shape. Make vigorous exercise part of your life.
 

*Get the sleep you need -- recent research shows that most people need 8 hours or 8 and a half hours of sleep each night.  While you can function on 5 or 6 hours of sleep, your brain's ability to process information is reduced by as much as 25 percent!  Let the losing teams stay up late the night before.
 

*Be sure to eat in the morning so your blood sugar will help you think later in the day. You may not feel hungry because you are psyched up for the tournament,  but in two hours you will start feeling tired or sleepy and you may not have time to eat. If you can eat a small portion of protein and carbohydrates every two and a half hours, your energy levels will rocket -- and you will loose weight. Impact: skip meals you will be hurting your performance.
 

*Be sure to drink lots of water.  Research shows that water gets oxygen to your brain--don't let your self get dehydrated. Don't go for the gold (urine should be almost clear.) Drink 8 large glasses of water a day, especially if you are exercising -- which of course you are. You will be surprised at how much better you feel. Do you feel groggy when you wake up in the morning? That is because you are dehydrated after not drinking all night. Drink a large glass of water immediately and you will wake up fast.
 

*Avoid candy or sugar snacks--when you eat sugar, your insulin goes up, giving you a brief high.  But then your body is flooded with insulin which uses up all blood sugar and this actually makes you more tired. 
 

*Take a multiple vitamin that has B "anti-stress" vitamins.
 

*Keep up with your Research. Being informed is for the debater like exercise is for an athlete. Study current events by reading the newspaper daily. Many tournaments will have topics on recent headliners. Set aside an hour a day to read news magazines, Information Plus or the CQ Researcher.  Subscribe to the Washington Post Weekly edition, the Wall Street Journal or the Economist. Make a note book of editorials.  Take notes on what you read.  Read news web pages like the Drudge Report.
 

* Take University classes that relate to debate – logic, history, political science and philosophy courses usually cover material useful in debating. Think of how concepts studied in your classes might be used for arguments in debates. Write papers on possible debate topics.
 

*Try to get to the room first to set up the physical environment to your advantage.  Pick up garbage--arrange chairs and tables so you have a clear space to connect with the judge.  Turn the tables so you can have eye contact with the opponents, also.  Research shows that a messy, chaotic room hurts concentration.
 

*ALWAYS if you are Gov., sit on the left hand side of the room from the judge's perspective. This is because the ballot has the Gov. on the left column. There have been times when a judge, rushing to get his ballot in, votes for the wrong team by mixing up the teams on the ballot.
 

Tips During the Round

*When choosing speaker order--the leader should be the student who has the most knowledge of the topic.  The leader should generally be the most experienced or better speaker. Teams do not have to alternate speaking positions each round--the goal is to win the round.
 

*Take careful notes or "flows"--use large paper.  Develop abbreviations or signs ($, >, #) for common words.  Use Two colored pens--one for Opp. and one for Gov.  Write the resolution, the opposing school and the number of the round so you can refer to the flow when analyzing the case later.
 

*When preparing the Gov. case, first decide if the resolution is a question of fact, value or policy.  Since the Gov. has the right to define, you are free to stretch the meanings to your advantage.  Be careful that your definitions are reasonable.
 

*When challenging a definition, use the "common person on the street" criteria--will a guy on the street understand or agree? 
 

*If a value case, think of a value criterion to evaluate the resolution (utilitarianism, humanitarianism, equality, social progression, nonviolence, cost effectiveness, self actualization, freedom of choice, protection of the weak, human survival).  Put the issues on a "scale" and weigh them for the judge.  "Let's put cloning on the scale of protecting the individual form elitism." 
 

*Don't just list your value, but explain why it is a desirable or useful value to guide our thinking. Discuss a philosopher who justifies the value perspective you advocate.
 

*If resolution of policy--the Gov. must show a significant need for change.  They must show benefits form change.  They do not have to defend a specific plan--if possible it is better to simply argue that change is desirable.  This way you can avoid disadvantages and solvency attacks by the Opp.  "TH supports tax reform."  Instead of defending a national sales tax plan (which you could do if you are prepared), simply show the harms of the present system and conclude by saying "For these reasons we believe it is time to turn our attention to finding alternatives to the income tax."  The Opp. is forced to defend the income tax and is unable to so easily give disadvantages to a specific plan. 
 

*If the Opp. asks for your plan, you say that the resolution does not require a specific plan, and that the Gov. burden is only to show that reform is needed.
 

*Sometimes you must present a plan. Any plan you do advocate should be advocated by someone who is credible in the real world.  If not, there is probably a good reason that the Opp. will exploit.
 

*Speak in outline form.  Number your points "I will have two responses.  The first point is.... The second point is...."
 

*Try to form harms (Gov.) or disadvantages (Opp.) in terms of how people are/will be hurt. "This plan will cause death and suffering." Inflation or unemployment is bad because people suffer from poverty, hunger, etc.
 

*If the resolution uses the word "would" then the Gov. is obliged to prove something will take place (a plan).  If the resolution says "should" then all the Gov. does is argue that it would be a good idea and workability (a specific plan) is not an issue.  If we could, then it is good. But, Opp can argue that if something isn't workable then it can't be of much good.
 

*Opp. should always be on the lookout for "alternative causality."  Memorize: "Correlation does not impute causality."

*If Opp. faces a policy case then they will argue disadvantages (Gov. will cause more harm than good) and solvency (the plan--or any plan if Gov. refuses to be specific--won't work). 
 

*The present system is presumed to be good until the Gov. shows a significant harm.  Opp. can always argue that there is a good reason why we have the system we do--alternatives won't work.  Ask "Does any one in the real world propose this?"
 

*If a value comparison case, the Opp can argue that one is not better than the other, but both are desirable depending on the relative perspective of the individual. Cats make better pets than dog?--hey, both make good pets--so the resolution is not true.
 

*What if the Gov. defines terms that force the Opp. to defends what is not debatable?  Use the "surely the Gov. does not mean X" strategy.  Instead of only calling a truism point of order, in the first Opp. speech say "The Gov. has said that all murderers should be executed with out any appeals, but they couldn't mean that because it would not be debatable—there are different degrees of murder.  No one in the real world would ever suggest that the accused may never appeal. What would be debatable would be to say that murder in the first degree should be grounds for execution. That would be debatable.  But, there are serious arguments against such a case...."
 

*Clear up muddled debates by offering the other team a better case, then refuting it.  If they are vague, ask points of information to make them be specific.  If you are confused, the judge will also probably be confused. The judge will love it when you make it clear and vote for you.
 

*If you find that arguments are lost in the fog of debate battle, remember to look to the north star to gain your bearings. The north star is the resolution -- is the resolution true. Is it justifiable. If you are lost, always go back to the big picture of what the debate is about and point the poor judge in the right direction. "The other side of the house seems to be focusing on issues that are irrelevant to the main purpose of the debate -- is this resolution justifiable."
 

*When making an argument, make statements, don't ask questions.  Instead of  "How many people will be hurt here?  Can the Gov. show significance?" Say "Too few people are really affected. The problem is not significant to warrant major change."
 

*Create coherence between team members by each beginning with a common Philosophy or reference to the same value.  "The Opposition philosophy in this debate will be that nonviolence should be paramount."
 

*Use the Ice and Fire strategy to make your team appear more memorable and dynamic.  One student assumes a cool, professorial, logical and restrained style.  The other debater takes on an emphatic style of delivery that is aggressive and energetic.  The contrast will make your team stand out and be more persuasive.
 

Tips After the debate

*Be a good winner--avoid appearing arrogant or superior. Humility will improve your mental health and help your character to grow. Try to develop the habit of considering others as better than yourself.


*Be a good loser--one of the best lessons learned from forensics is dealing with set backs and failure.  If you aren't failing, you aren't trying.  Try to avoid placing blame for losses on your partner, the judge who doesn't like you, or the endless rationales that losers seem to easily imagine.  Instead learn form losses.
 

*Avoid bad mouthing the judge that gives you a loss --  especially in the presence of students form other schools. No body likes to be around a whiner. Remember: if you didn't convince the judge, you deserve to lose.
 

*Go over ballots with your partner.  Look for points that may help you next time.  If the judge makes a comment that does not seem justified, just ignore it. Sometimes judges don’t do a very good job of explaining why they decided as they did. But, look for helpful tips to improve.
 

*You might want to discuss the debate with the debate after he or she has turned in the ballot. But, approach them politely. Ask them for some pointers for how to improve. They might point out something that you are doing wrong that you are unaware of.
 

*Talk to your partner about what you are doing well and what you need to improve. List three things that you are doing well on a piece of paper. List three things that you need to improve. Post this list and review it daily.
 

*Try to befriend students from other schools.  Building friendships with these bright, future leaders is one of the most satisfying parts of this activity. By building friendships you will always be a winner.

____________________________________________________________

 

Try this Rhetorical Battle Plan

Because debate is a verbal war game – designed as a substitute for physical violence -- we can look to a military metaphor for tactical insight. Remember this four step plan of attack: Ready, Aim, Fire, Flag.

(Note: You may plant a mini – flag statement at the end of each contention as well  as a major flag summary at the end of your speech.)

 

(1) Ready: Wait until you have eye contact with the judge. "Society should help each person maximize -- not cut short -- their potential. Each week, my grandmother used to go swimming at our home town pool late into her eighties and she wouldn't be happy to hear the arguments my opponent made in that last speech."

(2)  Aim: "In the first contention they said that assisted suicide promotes freedom of choice for the individual.  I will respond by saying that freedom of choice is an illusion for two reasons. 

(3)  Fire: “First, most terminally ill patients experience clinical depression which causes an irrational desire for death.  When the depression is treated with drugs or counseling, the patients say they don't want to commit suicide.  Second, patients will not freely choose but will feel pressured into choosing death in order to spare their families or they may be coerced by greedy family members (a leading motive for murder), so

(4) Flag: "The impact is that the Opposition wins when it come to personal choice. Assisted suicide is a threat to the individual and should not be given the blessing of the law.”