Back to Q & A Main Page
Your Debate Questions Answered
This set of questions was sent from the Debate Center in Latvia and has been answered by Eric Di Michele.
Thanks for your terrific set of questions.
Generally, with an introduction. You want to engage the audience right from the start. Remember, you are trying to persuade them to agree with your side of the resolution - first impressions are important. You should start with an inspiring quote or personal anecdote that captures the essence of your position or with establishing a context for assessing the key issues of the debate. Your introduction should highlight what's at stake in the round. However you start, you should link your introduction explicitly to the resolution.
No, a debate should not depend on the quality of graphs or models. Obviously, these aids can be relevant in highlighting aspects of a case, but then it becomes something other than a debate.
It's allowed, but it would be more persuasive to support your arguments with new evidence, whether it be statistical or philosophical, especially evidence which specifically addresses arguments raised by the opposition.
It's allowed, but unwise. Some debaters thinks it's good strategy to bombard the other side with arguments, so as to overwhelm them. But they also risk overwhelming the judge. It also raises serious questions about the quality of these arguments. How persuasive are arguments that are merely asserted or poorly substantiated? How difficult is it really for your opponents to refute them? One is better off developing strong arguments with ample evidence.
This isn't always and everywhere true. To some extent, it's always difficult to go first in anything. The adrenaline in debaters starts pumping when the arguments start clashing. Indignation often leads to eloquence. Debaters also tend to rush through their opening speeches. Before any speech you give, take a deep breath and acknowledge in your own mind and heart that what you are about to say is important. Feel the passion of your arguments as strongly as you understand the logic of them. If you really care about what you are saying, you will eventually find the appropriate delivery.
Generally, no - you want your logic to be more universal than personal - that is, any right-thinking person would draw the same conclusions. This is not to say that the universal and personal are necessarily mutually exclusive. It's perfectly legitimate to illustrate a point through the use of a personal anecdote or hypothetical situation. The key is show the underlying logic. The personal illustrates, the universal proves.
Cross-examination is very important. Some debaters tend to minimize it because they are not very good at it. The best debaters are excellent cross-examiners. They will skillfully expose the weaknesses of their opponent's case - either in logical or evidentiary terms. They will also ask questions which set up their own case. Cross-examination allows the judge to evaluate a debater's understanding of the key issues of the round. Good judges listen to constructives and form questions in their own mind, hoping that the cross-examiner will ask the same questions. A judge will also evaluate how successfully a debater uses what they've elicited in cross-examination in their rebuttals. It's amazing how many debaters will get a damaging admission in cross-examination only to fail to follow-up on it in rebuttal.
The date of the statisitic is not as important as what the statistic indicates substantively. In either case, logical refutation is more convincing than a statistic - it's harder to discredit because it transcends any particular situation. Quite often statistics depend on the context in which they are analyzed. It's important to note that in general most logical arguments are going to be supported statistically, too. If this isn't the case, either the logic is faulty or the statistic is inaccurate or aberrational.
It probably makes sense for the negative to address the principal arguments of the A1 as well lay out the principal arguments of the negative. A skillful debater will lump arguments together in refutation - look for the common threads in argument; for example, if two arguments are based on the same assumption, challenge the assumption. Also, where possible, link your refutation to your independent case. For example, if you were debating whether the government has an obligation to provide for the poor and you're negative, you would link your refutation that government handouts foster dependency to your argument that human dignity is tied to self-reliance.
The last speeches are meant to be short. The idea is not to reenact the debate in its entirety, but to focus on the key issues in dispute. While a debater often feels pressed for time, the short allotments force him or her to prioritize his or her arguments. A debater really has to decide what's most important. The format could be changed but you would lose the opportunity distill the debate to its essentials. Remember, in real life, you often have make choices in arguments.
It depends on the type of behaviour. If a debater misbehaves - perhaps sticks his tongue out at his opponent or makes faces while he or she is speaking - then sure, he should be penalized. Good debate - hard fought debate - rests on a foundation of common courtesy. Try to defeat your opponent's arguments not the debater himself. Body language? - again it depends on what type. Enthusiastic physical movements which reflect your passion for your side but don't interfere with your opponent are fine.
Yes, of course, that's their job. They're supposed to analyze the arguments of both debaters, not only as they are presented in their opening speeches but as they are developed in the round. They are also supposed to evaluate how effectively a debater "clashes" with his or her opponent's case, being especially attentive to how well arguments are recast in light of new challenges, including new evidence.
But I also think your question is hinting at something else - should the judges do the debating for the debater - what we call "intervention?" The answer is no. As a educator, a judge should always comment on the merits of the cases before him or her, even if they go uncontested. Just because the other debater missed the weaknesses, doesn't mean they didn't exist. However, in deciding who should win the round, a judge should only rely on what's actually transpired in the round, not on what he or she would've have done. I don't know how many times I've written a a ballot that "this doesn't make sense" or "that's incomplete" or "why didn't you pursue this line of reasoning?" only to have to decide for that debater because his or her opponent failed to identify these weaknesses or had too many of his own. Deciding a round is always a relative judgement - someone has to win. Sometimes that's a pity. On the other hand in a really good round, it's unfortunate that someone has to lose.
If I knew the answer to this, I'd be a millionaire! In an ideal world, this wouldn't happen. Intelligent judges applying the same standards would arrive at the same decision. Sometimes judges look for different things based on different backgrounds or their conception of the resolution (motion). Some are persuaded by smooth delivery others by the simple quality of the arguments. Despite our best attempts to be "objective," it's hard to keep our personal preferences from influencing our decisions, especially if we believe these personal preferences to be "eternal truths." I think it's important for judges to discipline themselves to be fair to both debaters - to really listen to what they are saying and not to prejudge their arguments, and to be clear about the standards agreed upon to judge the round. This last part is particularly important at the early stages of a debate program. Judges need to talk about how they decide rounds.
This is a tough issue. Most debaters at some point in their career believe that there is a massive conspiracy against them, that judges are plotting their downfall. Believe it or not, most judges are fair. In those few instances where there may be questions about their integrity, your coach or teacher ought to be the one to investigate, and remember anxiety is not proof. Judges should only be removed as a last resort.
Sure, it may not be as exciting as live competition, but it's certainly a lot cheaper. Anything that enhances communication and debate is worth pursuing. Ideally, our whole Soros debate world would be talking to each other through e-mail.
I don't know the exact number, but a lot of youngsters are involved. There are debate leagues in all fifty states, and there are three diferent national championships. There are also a number of high school tournaments sponsored by universities. My team travels to at least seven a year, including those hosted by Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
High school debating in the United States has been around in one form or another since the nineteenth century. My own school - Regis - has had a debate society since its founding in 1914. Its aim was and remains the developement of critical thinking and speaking skills, the foundation of any democracy.
Back to Q & A Main Page
Table of Contents