12| International Debate Education Association

BEGIN:LET THE GAMES

Quick Tips for Winning DebatesWhile 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*/Northwest College, Seattle Washington, USA

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

When Plato founded the Academy in 387 BC, debat-ing 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, students have entered the arena of academic debate to match wits and battle with ideas. Today at our own intel-lectual Olympics, we enjoy a speaking game designed to teach one of the most important lessens of civi-lization--how to transform what is worst in human-ity 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 dicta-torships 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 improv-ing your chances to win the judge’s ballot and become an accomplished com-petitor.

analysis:..

International Debate Education Association |13

Non-verbal Tips• Try to appear like you are enjoy-ing 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 oppo-nent, 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 pos-itively non-verbally to opponents, connect with him or her non-ver-bally 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 win-ning 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 exam-ples--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 show-ing 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 con-trol of the space and more power-ful. 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 inter-ested--even if you are tired.• Never lean on the table. Never cross you feet. Move only to help communicate an idea. Communi-cate 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.

QT

14| International Debate Education Association

Tips Before the Round• Try to be in good shape physi-cally before a tournament. Make 20 minutes of exercise daily part of your routine (stair machines or exer-cise 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 infor-mation 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 perfor-mance.• 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 news-paper 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 Econ-omist. Make a note book of edi-torials. 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 usu-ally cover material useful in debat-ing. 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 oppo-nents, also. Research shows that a messy, chaotic room hurts concen-tration.• 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 alter-nate speaking positions each round--the goal is to win the round.• Take careful notes or “flows”--use large paper. Develop abbrevia-tions 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 ana-lyzing 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 rea-sonable.• 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 reso-lution (utilitarianism, humanitari-anism, equality, social progression, nonviolence, cost effectiveness, self actualization, freedom of choice, protection of the weak, human sur-vival). Put the issues on a “scale”

analysis:..

International Debate Education Association |15

QT

International Debate Education Association idebate|15

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 dis-advantages 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 credi-ble 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 dis-advantages (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.

16| International Debate Education Association

• 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 reso-lution 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” strat-egy. 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 differ-

ent 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 exe-cution. 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 prob-ably 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 reso-lution 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 reso-lution justifiable.” • When making an argument, make statements, don’t ask ques-tions. 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 war-rant major change.”*Create coherence between team members by each beginning with a common Philosophy or reference to the same value. “The Opposi-tion philosophy in this debate will be that nonviolence should be para-mount.”• Use the Ice and Fire strategy

to make your team appear more memorable and dynamic. One stu-dent 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 appear-ing arrogant or superior. Humility will improve your mental health and help your character to grow. Try to develop the habit of consid-ering others as better than yourself.*Be a good loser--one of the best les-sons learned from forensics is deal-ing 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 jus-tified, 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

analysis:..

International Debate Education Association |17

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.

* Associate Professor Gary Gillespie has 24 years college experience as a debater, judge, coach and instructor. Since 1980, he has critiqued more than 4,500 student speeches and has taught the argumentation course 17 times. He is one of the three most experienced debate coaches in the Northwest corner of the United States and serves as the Northwest Representative to the National Parliamentary Debate Association board of directors. Gillespie directs the nationally ranking Eagle Debate team. The program ranked first in Washington State in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and in 2002 ranked 54th in the nation out of 345 American colleges and universities in the National Parliamentary Debate Association. After a national search, one of his students was one of two chosen by the National Communica-tion Association to represent the United States in a series of debates in Europe in 1999. One team won third place at the Great Alaska Speakout in September. The team faces competition across the nation and around the world. Northwest debaters have traveled to debate the best and brightest in Canada, Greece, England, Scotland, Ireland and Australia. Northwest College debaters have defeated teams from Princeton, Oxford, Rhodes, Notre Dame, The Air force Academy and Stan-ford University.

Visit his web page at: http://eagle.ncag.edu/academic/doh/faculty/ggillespie/

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.

• Ready: Catch the attention of the judge verbally or non-verbally. Tell a brief story, vivid image or refer to a value or theme. Try to illustrate your case with a story, famous quotation, folk saying or proverb, classical myth, personal anecdote, a current event, film, commercial, ad, or startling statistic. Or simply pause and give judge eye contact -- wait until he or she looks at you. • Aim: Call the attention of the judge to where you are in the flow of the arguments. Clearly state the point that you are making or refuting. “The PM said in his first point ... I will respond by saying …”• Fire: Prove your arguments by explaining your ideas and backing them up with reasoning and commonly known evidence. • Flag: Show that you occupy the ground by planting a flag. Summarize your arguments and proclaim them established. A flag statement is a vivid phrase stating that your points taken together confirm that the resolution is true. The question is settled. You win. Do this by repeating your main points and state the impact for deciding the debate. “For these three reasons, we can see that capital punishment is a form of barbarism that has outlived its time -- we should ban it.”

(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.”

International Debate Education Association idebate|17