DEBATE CENTRAL
Debating Resources for the World since 1994
FORMAT OF DEBATE: ASPECTS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Advice for International Debaters
Alfred C. Snider
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont
8 May 2002
Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico
Segundo Torneo Hispanoamericano de Debate
I
feel honored to be asked to participate in this prestigious event. As a teacher
with over 30 years of experience I would like to share with you some ideas that
might improve your experience as a debater, judge, and coach now and in the
future.
Please
excuse me if you are already familiar with many of these concepts, but I want
to make sure that I reach every student at their level of knowledge. For those
of you who are interested in more detailed and advanced approaches to these
issues, please see the resources listed at the end of this piece.
It
is useful to understand the conceptual processes involved in a debate. Once
again, this is a prescriptive approach to what a ÒgoodÓ debate should involve
as opposed to the depths to which many debates can sink. These conceptual
components are development, clash, extension and perspective.
Robert Branham, one of AmericaÕs leading debate
proponents, originated this distinction in 1991:
If debate is Òthe process by which opinions are
advanced, supported, disputed, and defended," the fulfillment of these
actions in turn requires that the arguments of the disputants possess certain
attributes. Thus, true debate depends on the presence of four characteristics
of argument:
1. Development, through which arguments are
advanced and supported;
2. Clash, through which arguments are properly
disputed;
3. Extension, through which arguments are
defended against refutation; and
4. Perspective, through which individual
arguments are related to the larger question at hand (22).
In a debate ideas and positions are developed. This
development involves description, explanation, and demonstration. In a debate
about universal health coverage one does not simply state that it is a good
idea, there is also an obligation to explain why we need this policy, what that
policy will be and how it will operate successfully. Some specificity is always
called for in a debate as advocates outline what it is they are in favor of and
what it is they are opposed to.
In a debate ideas are refuted. This is the concept
of clash. Those ideas presented by opposing advocates need to be examined with
a critical eye, locating weaknesses, faults and inconsistencies in these ideas.
We call this Òclash,Ó in that opposing advocates must not just disagree, but
must demonstrate the specific reason why they reject the specific ideas of
opponents. In a useful debate the ideas of the other side cannot be ignored,
but must be critiqued.
In a debate ideas are defended. This is the process
of extension. When an opponent has criticized an advocateÕs ideas, these
criticisms should be answered. Arguments against an idea cannot be ignored, but
must be answered. This process creates a cycle of critical analysis, where
ideas are presented, refuted, defended, refuted again, and then defended again
until the debate has concluded. This process creates a rich interchange of
ideas that audiences and participants find to be some of the most
intellectually stimulating experiences of their lives.
Finally, each debate should call for a decision.
This is the process of perspective. The decision is the sum of the arguments
and ideas presented. Some ideas are more important than others, and ideas in a
debate can relate in complex ways. Debaters should assist the audience in
weighing the ideas and issues so that a logical decision can be made.
The danger is that a debater will fulfill only some
of these roles, and thus deliver an inferior performance. It is essential to
present your ideas, defend your ideas, and clash with the ideas of others. Most
importantly, it is essential for the debater, near the end of the debate, to
weigh the issues and show that even if there is some merit to the ideas of the
other team, the audience and judges should still agree with you.
One description I have found useful
for students and judges is a simple checklist of behaviors that distinguish the
good debater. I was asked by
several of the New York Urban Debate League coaches to come up with a list of
characteristics that describe a good debater as well as those that describe a
poor debater. Since the debate is
supposed to be won by the team who did the "better job of debating,"
these rather abstract and symbolic characteristics very often translate
directly into competitive success. I also think they translate into success
later in life.
á
Is a gracious winner and a respectful loser
á
Gives strong rhetorical reasons for the probative force of his or
her arguments.
á
Makes needs of and benefits to others the focus of the debate
through their arguments, instead of focusing on his or her own competitive
triumph
á
Argues through excellent evidence, but always makes argument the
focus, not evidence. These good
debaters use evidence to support their own arguments and do not assume the
audience recognizes the importance of their arguments.
á
Debates dynamically, with enthusiasm and commitment
á
Sees the big picture, is aware of how ideas influence one another,
and uses those relationships to enhance analysis in the debate
á
Knows the value of having a working command of the knowledge base.
There is no substitute for knowing what it is you are debating about
á
Understands the need for organization in order to identify the
critical tipping points in the debate
á
Portrays an image of an intelligent person who is seeking to
understand and discover the truth
á
Becomes frustrated when debate success isnÕt easy or automatic and
loses the benefits of debating through lack of determination
á
Whines that everything is against her or him: judges, situations,
other teams, fate
á
Fails to show respect to all participants -- opponents, judges,
audience, and hosts.
á
Speaks from a position of privilege - demanding that you trust and
accept their ideas over those of others without demonstrating why
á
Fails to make connections between various issues and arguments in
the debate
á
Speaks only in generalities or only in specifics, not
understanding that both the big picture and the minutiae are important at all
times
á
Fails to have fun in the debate because of an overly competitive
nature or disinterest
á
Fails to pay rigorous attention to the judgeÕs critique, learning
neither from failure nor successes
á
Fails
to focus during the debate at hand, allowing their mind to wander and be
distracted by outside events
The terms Ògovernment,Ó Òaffirmative,Ó
and ÒpropositionÓ all refer to the team that agrees with the topic statement,
and ÒoppositionÓ and ÒnegativeÓ refer to the team that disagrees with the topic
statement.
Teams
advocating the government or proposition side of the topic should conceptualize
and organize their research into the format of the case. The case is a cohesive set of arguments
that justify the side of the topic that they have been assigned. More importantly, the case allows
debaters to choose the ground that they would like to defend. The debate case allows debaters to
focus in on the arguments that they think are important and how they get to
interpret the topic of the debate to defend these arguments. The case is important because it sets
up the framework for the rest of the debate.
Usually
the government or proposition team will present their case in the form of three
or four major arguments, which are clearly labeled and introduced to the
audience in a clear fashion. Making a debate case composed of such major
arguments depends in large part on the kind of topic being debated.
For a policy based topic or when calling
for a change or advocating some transformation, then the problem and solution
format works best. In this
situation they want to clearly outline the problem that calls upon us to make a
change, their specific plan, and the reasons why their solution will solve the
problem. Students may also want to
aware of the reasons why the solution is yet undone (ignorance, lack of
political will) and be aware of any additional benefits that might stem from
their advocacy.
An example is a debate on the topic of
ÒEducational reform is justifiedÓ.
An affirmative side might want to argue that the educational system
should support same-sex based educational institutions. If this were their case, then the
affirmative team might want to outline the harms of a co-educational system,
particularly outlining the damage done to women. They might propose that the government provide funding for
women-only educational institutions.
Then they would want to present arguments that proved that the solution
they have chosen would solve the problem they outlined.
For a value resolution, it is generally
accepted to have a criteria-based case.
In this case, one would want to provide a way to evaluate the values in
the round. Because debates of
value are extremely subjective, it is important to establish a way for everyone
to think about the arguments in the debate. This means providing criteria for judgment. This might be as simple as suggesting
that the debate round be judged on a particular value.
Consider a debate on the topic ÒThe body is
sacredÓ. An affirmative team might
want to use this to argue that against recreational tattooing and piercing of
the body. In which case they might
want to frame the debate using the criteria of bodily integrity. They would build their case by defining
the notion of bodily integrity as the highest value in the debate round. They would talk about religious
traditions that hold the body to be a gift from a higher power, and the
practical dangers associated with piercing and tattooing (infection,
disease). A negative team can
present a counter-criterion that clashes with the affirmativeÕs chosen
criteria. In this example, a
negative team might want to argue in favor of personal freedom as being the
highest value in the debate. After
providing the importance of personal freedom, they would then analyze the
debate about tattooing and piercing through the lens of this criterion.
For a resolution of fact, the least
common type of debate topic, debaters should organize your ideas to support
your position. Because resolutions
of fact contest our perceptions of truth, the debates are most easily
conceptualized through a case that might prove the resolution. Within this framework, debaters might
want to organize their arguments chronologically, or based on the topic being
debated.
It
is vital in a debate that each team is prepared to respond to the arguments
made by the other side. The
easiest way for students to do this is to brainstorm the best arguments on both
sides and then during the preparation phase use composing answers, keeping
track of these ideas.
Students should make a list of all the arguments
they would use if they were on the other side of the debate. Debaters should put such an opposing
argument at the top of an index card or the top of a piece of paper and then
they should think of arguments that respond to each one. Then, if and when
these arguments are made in the debate, you will already have thought of
answers to those arguments.
This
is critical thinking Ð exposing and challenging an opponentÕs ideas. Critical
thinking is an inherent part of the debate process. McBurney, OÕNeill and Mills
describe the components of critical thinking and relate them to debate:
Skill
in critical thinking is a fourth general objective which in part comprehends
the others. It is useful in speaking, listening, writing, and reading. A
critical thinker habitually applies the precepts of argumentation: discerns
propositions; discovers issues; knows how to study a subject; is aware of the
proof requirements of a proposition; applies the tests of evidence;
distinguishes between valid and fallacious reasoning; identifies implicit
assumptions; recognizes the non‑logical means of persuasion. This skill in
critical thinking is no mere by‑product if the debating is based upon the
sound principles of argumentation (266).
Discovery,
analysis and preparing to defeat opponentÕs arguments are fundamental parts of
debate.
In
a competitive debate the goal is to gain the votes of the judges. Here are
three ideas that might assist you in this task.
My consistent
experience demonstrates that judges prefer dynamic speakers. A dynamic speaker
presents an image of energy, enthusiasm, commitment to an idea, and sincerity.
This is usually communicated through changes in volume, tone, and pitch of the
voice as well as through active and expansive hand and body gestures. Facial
expressions of concern, hope, and determination can also be useful. This does
not mean that the presentation is more important that the argument being made,
because a very dynamic presentation of a weak argument might damage the credibility
of the speaker more than a less dynamic approach.
It is inevitable in
almost any debate that each side will have some good ideas and make some strong
arguments. The way to win the debate is for the last speaker for each side to
weigh the arguments of the two sides against one another and show that when
that is done their side of the debate is most advantaged. For example, you
might say that Òeven ifÓ there were some validity to what the other side is
saying, the audience would still vote for your side in the debate ÒbecauseÉÓ .
When you admit that
there is some validity to what the other side is saying, but still show that
you have won the debate, you gain credibility with the judges and the audience
and you show them an easy way to make their decision.
The audience and the
judges are more likely to consider an issue to be important if it is personally
relevant to them. If you show those personal connections, they will reward you
for it. Illustrations of how the issues at hand have an effect on those in the
room during the debate can be very useful for this. Also, do not be afraid to
indicate a personal relationship with the topic that you, as a speaker, may
have. In speech supporting the rights of homosexuals it can be useful to
mention friends, neighbors, and family members who are homosexual and should be
given their full rights as citizens. Narratives from your own life experience,
especially if they build sympathy for you, can also be effective.
This tournament has
an innovative approach to questions and answers to be exchanged by the two
teams in the debate. This is an example of how increased international
competition can create new and innovative approaches to debating. I applaud the
organizers for this format. However, there are certain ideas that the debaters
might want to keep in mind so that they can take advantage of this format.
The time period
allocated for each team to ask a question is considerable, and far longer than
it takes to ask a simple question. Therefore, the debaters should prepare the
questions statement before the debate, and practice it as well. The question
statement should highlight what you believe to be the greatest weakness in
supporting their assigned side of the topic.
One danger is that
the long question statement will be a disorganized and random collection of
sentences. The question statement should be properly structured so that, for
example, it establishes a favorable background for the introduction of an issue,
it explains what the issue is, it explains why this issue is so important, and
then it poses this issue to the other team as a strongly worded question. There
are other types of organization that could be used, but the important thing is
to have an organizational system and to design it strategically to assist your
arguments.
Because this is
supposed to be a question statement, it is expected that its ultimate structure
should be a question. The final question posed should be powerfully worded and
should take advantage of all the comments and ideas that came immediately prior
to it.
The team responding
to the question statement should begin formulating their answers to the ideas
being presented while the question statement is being made. One partner might
want to listen carefully while the other begins to formulate, perhaps in an
outline format, the answers to be presented in response. Or, both team members
could be preparing an answer while the question is being asked. This will allow
the answer statement made to be more complete, more specific, and more
organized.
One of the best ways
to counter a long and effective question statement is with a direct and short
answer (most often ÒnoÓ) and then go on to explain that answer at greater length.
The answer statement
should not only answer the question posed and refute the issue being raised,
but should do so convincingly. If an even better answer statement obliterates a
strong question statement, the answering team is in a good position to win the
ballots of the judges. Too often debaters will produce one answer as to why an
argument by an opponent is invalid, when it is far more devastating to provide
four, five, or even six reason why an opponentÕs argument should be rejected.
Do not just answer a question; crush it so that the issue will never be taken
seriously in the debate.
One danger is that teams
that are poorly prepared or are weak at extemporaneous speaking will not be
able to use their complete allotted time for questions or answers. This puts
them at a very serious disadvantage because the other team used time to make
arguments and they did not. Also, failure to use all allocated time is a signal
to judges and the audience that this team is not the better team in the debate.
CONCLUSION
I look forward to working
with all of you in the future as we expand debating around the world. I look forward
to hosting some of you at the World Debate Institute during the summer. I look
forward to visiting many of you in your home countries. Together we can promote
debate as a powerful force for change without violence or war.
RESOURCES
RECURSOS
BIBLIOGRçFICOS
Vea
un debate en inglŽs o en castellano http://debate.uvm.edu/watchdebate.html
Liga
Nactional Debate Universitario de Espa–a http://www.lndu.net
Cuaderno
ÒInfluencing through argumentÓ (influenciar por medio de argumentos) Texto en
inglŽs de Robert Huber.http://debate.uvm.edu/huber/huber00.html
C—mo
debatir, texto en inglŽs http://debate.uvm.edu/learndebate.html
Alfred
Snider y Maxwell Schnurer, MANY SIDES: Debate Across the Curriculum
[IDEA: NY], Mayo, 2002, texto en inglŽs.