Debating Tips
...before you, regardless of whether you expected it or not. Negative teams often fall into the trap of not listening to the specifics of an affirmative model. If your opposition restrict a debate to a particular group (in a way that is reasonable) then you must adjust your case around those limits. Quite often negative teams present arguments that are interesting, but irrelevant to that particular debate because of the way in which it was set up (and agreed to) by the affirmative. How to tip the scales in a “more-than” debate Debates are commonly worded in the “that we have more to hope than to fear from X” or the similar “that X will do more harm than good”. These debates can pose a challenge to teams which have not dealt with this sort of topic before. Here’s what you need to know: Where the ‘more-than’ debate can differ from other types of debates is that by virtue of the wording, both sides must concede their opponents have some reasonable arguments. The wording of a topic such as “that we have more to hope than to fear from Genetic Engineering” accepts that people have hopes and fears about the technology, and asks the debaters to compare the reasoning behind these feelings. This can make it difficult to take a hard-line either in favour or against genetic engineering. Teams have to accept that people do feel hope and fear about this issue, however if those people thought about it rationally, they would see that one emotion should outweigh the other. So how do you show that balance in the debate? To win a ‘more-than’ debate, speakers need to focus on big issues. You don’t have to disprove every fact your opposition raises, in fact you can choose to concede some of them, and then show that those facts are only due to the public’s ignorance of other facts or of longer-term benefits. For example in the genetic engineering debate, it is common for negative teams to argue that there is good reason to fear the misuse of gene technology by various groups. In a ‘more-than’ debate, it is not necessary for the affirmative to show a watertight mechanism of regulation and enforcement to combat the fear of misuse. Instead an affirmative team can show various ways in which the threat of misuse can be minimised. Further, by showing how the benefits can be many, and the risk of misuse minimal, the negative argument is outweighed. In a good ‘more-than’ debate each team should find themselves arguing the opposite side of their opponents argument, in a cost-benefit analysis, for example, the difficulty of enforcement versus the benefits of transparent regulations, the amount spent and the amount saved. Third speakers in this type of debate should adopt this style of comparison. Start by quickly restating the major arguments of your opposition, but then for each of their major arguments show how your team has offered a more reasonable alternative. It’s ok to admit that something might cost a lot of money to do, because it might be worth it if the gains are high enough. Thematic rebuttal When scoring a debate a mark of 15 is considered “average” for method. By average, adjudicators mean; ‘the expected standard for that grade’. OK so the next question is what is the expected standard”? In terms of ‘A’ and ‘B’ grades, the expected standard is thematic rebuttal. The purpose of this article is to teach you the ‘Why’, ‘What’ and ‘How’ of thematic rebuttal in the simplest way possible. Firstly the question of ‘Why’? This is really easy, thematic rebuttal is : · Less repetitive · Saves time · More comprehensive · Allows for greater development of ideas · More organised Sound good? Then let’s start from the basics; thematic rebuttal means “rebuttal by themes or issues”, and it requires you to take a broader view of the arguments presented in a debate. Thematic means that you have not only understood the individual argument or example used in a debate, but that you understand the underlying themes and issues that are behind the argument. How does that compare to standard rebuttal? Let me give you an example of what many third speakers do in lower grades: “Good evening ladies, gentlemen, chairperson and fellow debaters, before I summarise my teams arguments I would like to address some of the mistakes raised by the opposition. The first speaker said guns are bad because they kill people, but cars kill people and we don’t ban them! The second speaker then said….” And so on and so on… What’s wrong with this? Apart from being really simplistic, for a senior debater the “expected” or “average” level of analysis is somewhat higher. Let me give you a thematic version of that speech: “Ladies and Gentleman, the problem that has arisen in tonight’s debate is safety. Both teams are concerned with the rights of the individual and the safety of the public. What we disagree on is the best way to protect people; our opposition fear that guns are dangerous and therefore should be banned. We argue that the real issue here is a balance - many things in society are dangerous, but we balance the danger with regulations and education…” This is an example of thematic rebuttal because it expands on the individual argument, and identifies the greater issue behind it. Although most adjudicators don’t start talking about thematic rebuttal until B grade, there is no reason why C and D grade debaters shouldn’t practice this technique as well. Any C or D grade team who make a serious attempt at thematic rebuttal will always impress an adjudicator and usually result in quite favourable marks for Method. What have you got to lose? You’ll have to give it a go sooner or later, so you might as well get as much practise as possible! Now that you know ‘What’ thematic rebuttal is, and ‘Why’ you should do it, let’s examine ‘How’ you can learn to do it. There are many techniques taught by different people to help you locate the ‘big issue’. What I will try to do, is give you a basic model which you can adapt to suit your own style. Start by copying down the definition and team split of the opposition. The definition gives you the framework, and the split gives you the scope of the issues. Since a good team split is thematic, it will give you a clear indication of the issues that are likely to dominate the debate. But the split alone is not enough, you must copy down the major arguments presented by speakers and compare them to the split; see if there is a pattern forming, do their arguments go back to the same idea? If so, then that’s the issue you attack. At the end of each speech, write down the themes you think are the focus of their case and compare them with your team, hopefully you’ll all agree. Be careful though to listen to each speaker as the debate develops. In some debates the major issues can change or lose focus - your rebuttal should be structured in order of emphasis; for example: “the major themes in this debate were (1) providing a stable system of government and (2) balancing minority views with the majority”. Also, remember that to win a debate you don’t have to rebut every argument against your case. You must defend your case from the strongest criticisms and provide a strong critique of the opposition case. So attacking the ‘big issues’ makes more sense than a point by point “shopping list” approach. By limiting your rebuttal to two or three key issues, you will be able to organise yourself better and deal with the important arguments, without getting tied down by the smaller arguments. Thematic rebuttal is not just a Method issue, it makes your speech clearer and easier to follow (Manner) and means that you deal with the important arguments (Matter). My final tip is this: practice, practice, and practice. Thematic rebuttal only seems easy with experience, so don’t expect to get it right the first time. After each debate ask your adjudicator whether or not you picked the big issues, and if not, try to figure out what you missed out on. And don’t give up! The Secret To Preparing For Secret Topics What I’m about to tell you isn’t really a secret. What I am going to share with you is the process by which I’ll be selecting the secret topics for 2001. I make no promises about secret topics, but I do have a policy and here it is. In my opinion, secret topics have two main functions. Firstly, they test your ability to construct a viable case in a short period of time, with little assistance. And secondly, they test your ability to make general knowledge sound like specialised knowledge. The only way you can prepare for the first element of secret topics, is practice. At first an hour may seem like a short preparation time, but I assure you that it’s plenty if you use it correctly. Finding a formula that works for your team is a matter of experimentation and practice. But you can prepare for the second element of secret topics - general knowledge - every day of the year. The policy of this year’s DAV Executive (as with other years) is to endeavour to select secret topics that are new and interesting. Where possible, the topics will be taken from the events of the previous fortnight, and be something different to what you have debated in previous years. However, I cannot guarantee that the two weeks before each secret topic round will be filled with interesting and contentious events that you can debate. Often the issues of the day may be too complex, too simplistic, or simply too boring to give year 11s and 12s. Alternatively, it is important that issues remain balanced: just because it is an issue in the media does not mean that there will be a balance of...