To get a sense of someone’s interests and expertise, probe them with a detailed question like: “So do you believe that the gap in the fossil record says anything serious about Darwinism?” Ask directly for their opinion. “So what’s your position when it comes to affirmative action?”
If you’re not sure about what their argument is, help them out in a non-threatening way: “So, if I understand what you’re saying, you mean that the penny should be abolished because it costs more than a penny to produce a penny?”
For example, if they say the government should give tax breaks to hybrid car owners, don’t just say, “What I believe is that you’re wrong and that’s a terrible idea. " Instead, counter their idea with another: “I think the government should focus on building citywide transit–it’s better for the environment if we dismantle car culture altogether. " Offer examples along with your thesis for why you hold a particular belief.
“Does it really make sense to say that any form of government — municipal, state, or federal — should legislate sexual morality? It’s not a question of “could” — they’re more than capable of doing it; it’s more a question of whether it’s right for them to say how we should treat our own bodies in the privacy of our own home. Where does it stop if we let them get a foot in the door?”
Because this is an informal setting, you won’t be taking notes as you go. Use more casual methods to remember your friend’s points. For example, you might keep track on your fingers of the number of points you want to address. Fold down one finger for each point, and release one when you have rebutted a point. If that doesn’t work for you, just ask your friend to remind you what they said. They’ll enjoy repeating it.
Suppose your interlocutor says, “If we let war refugees into our country then pretty soon we’ll have to let anyone suffering a manmade disaster into our country and then we’ll have to let in anyone suffering a natural disaster and then we’ll have to let in anyone who is suffering in any way at all and then our country will be completely overwhelmed!” You might respond, “I understand that concern, but I think there’s a flaw in your logic. One thing doesn’t necessarily lead to another—saying so is a slippery slope fallacy. "
Hog the conversation. It’s an informal debate, which should mean a free-flowing exchange of ideas, not you rambling on and on about why you’re right and they’re wrong. Assume the other person means ill. They might misspeak or the debate could get unintentionally heated. It’s best to assume that the other person is coming at the debate expecting only some friendly verbal sparring, and isn’t out to hurt you. Raise your voice or let things get heated. Try not to get so wrapped up in the debate that you lose your cool. A debate should be civilized and enlightening, not a lesson in browbeating.
Don’t wear anything tight or revealing. Face the judge when you speak, and speak standing. Read full citations when you are quoting. If you’re not sure if what you are doing is professional, ask the judge’s permission. For instance, if you want to leave the room for water, ask. In team debates, avoid prompting your partner unless they are immediately jeopardizing your chances of winning. Try not to do it at all. Keep your cell phone off. Do not curse. Limit jokes to those that would be appropriate in a professional setting. Don’t tell jokes that are off-color or that rely on insensitive stereotypes.
For Policy Debate, the affirmative team proposes a plan and the negative team argues that it should not be enacted. [5] X Research source Both teams will be seated near the front of the room they are to speak in — affirmative team (Government) on the left, negative team (Opposition) on the right. The chairperson or adjudicator will start the debate, and the first speaker will present their speech. The order of the speakers is generally affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative, and so on.
The affirmative always gets the first and best opportunity to define the topic. To define well, try to mirror the way an average person on the street might define the topic. If your interpretation is too creative, the other team might attack it. The negative team is given an opportunity to refute the definition (otherwise known as challenging the definition) and offer their own, but only if the affirmative’s definition is unreasonable or it renders the negative’s position obsolete. The first negative speaker must refute the affirmative’s definition if s/he wishes to challenge it.
Depending on what position you argue, you must follow certain protocol such as defining the topic or presenting a main argument.
Your opposing arguments might be “The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison,” “the death penalty provides no opportunity for redemption,” or “the death penalty makes us look bad in the international community. " Evidence can include statistics and expert opinions.
If they don’t understand it, they can’t refute it. Keep in mind that the judge probably won’t understand you so well either, but trying is probably better than saying, “I know nothing. I give the case to my opponents. " Don’t use rhetorical questions. Always give a clear answer to every question you ask. Leaving a question open-ended gives your opponents room to refute. Use religion only when appropriate. Things that are written in the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc, are not usually sound resources to use to prove your argument, as not everyone takes these sources to be the truth.
Make eye contact with whomever decides the winners of the debate. While it’s okay to look at your opponents every once in a while, try to direct your argument at the judge. Give a layout of your argument before you make it. That way, your audience will know what to expect and your judge won’t cut you off unless you run way overtime.
1st affirmative: Define the topic (optional) and present the team’s main line. Outline, in brief, what each affirmative speaker will talk about. Present the first half of the affirmative’s argument. 1st negative: Accept or reject the definition (optional) and present the team’s main line. Outline, in brief, what each negative speaker will talk about. Offer a rebuttal of a few of the points presented by the first affirmative. Present the first half of the negative’s argument. This will continue into second and third affirmative and negative arguments.
Define the topic (optional) and present the team’s main line. Outline, in brief, what each affirmative speaker will talk about. Present the first half of the affirmative’s argument.
Accept or reject the definition (optional) and present the team’s main line. Outline, in brief, what each negative speaker will talk about. Offer a rebuttal of a few of the points presented by the first affirmative. Present the first half of the negative’s argument.
Offer evidence for your rebuttal. Do not rely on vigorous assertion alone. Show the chairperson why the other team’s argument is fundamentally flawed; don’t just tell. Attack the most important parts of their argument. It’s not very effective if you pick bones with an obscure part of the opponent’s argument. Go for the crux of their argument and pick it apart with the ruthless efficiency of a surgeon. For instance, if they are arguing for an increase in the military budget, but they also make a casual assertion about citizens being ungrateful for what the military does, you can dismiss the latter with a calm “I beg to disagree” and focus on the problems with increasing the actual budget. No ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is when you criticize another person instead of their ideas. Attack the idea, not the person.
Matter is amount and relevancy of evidence. How much evidence does the speaker marshall to support his/her claims? How strongly does the evidence used support the argument? Manner is eye contact and engagement with audience. Don’t stare at your cue cards! Speak clearly. Accentuate your arguments with volume, pitch and speed to highlight important parts. Use your body to emphasize your arguments: stand straight and gesture confidently. Avoid stammering, fidgeting, or pacing. Method is team cohesion. How well does the entire team organize their arguments and rebuttals? How well do the individual arguments mesh together, as well as the rebuttals? How clear and consistent is the team line?
Try your hand at a policy debate. This is a two-on-two format in which your team debates a topic that is fixed by the NSDA throughout the year. This will test your research skills and your overall grit, and is popular with high school students trying to get into competitive colleges. Try World Schools debate. This is an National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) approved debate style where teams argue three to three. Topics are both fixed and impromptu, and the style is highly interactive, with teams asking questions even during speeches.
Check out Lincoln-Douglas Debates. For this 45 minute debate, you will debate a topic chosen by the NSDA. This debate involves extensive research prior to the debate, but research is not allowed during. Explore Extemporaneous Debate. For a fast-paced and exciting experience, try extemporaneous debate. You will be told your topic and your stance (pro or con) half an hour before the debate begins, and will have to research and form your argument within that time. The entire debate lasts only 20 minutes. [8] X Research source
Do Congressional Debate. Congressional debate is a popular NSDA format that follows the conventions of the United States legislature. Ten to twenty-five debaters participate, and an elected presiding officer runs the show. At the end, everyone votes to pass or block a resolution. Check out British Parliamentary Debate. This format is popular in academic settings and is used worldwide. It consists of four teams of two, two of which represent proposition and two opposition. One speaker represents each team, meaning the actual debate is still two-on-two.
