Guides & Materials:
Dan Neidle's Guide to Competitive Debating
1997

rules
strategies
practicalities
case construction
argumentation
opposition strategies
points of information
miscellaneous

The Rules

Two teams per side. Each team consists of two speakers from the same college.

A hypothetical debate might be announced as follows:

The room for the debate will look something like this:

(image missing)

Some people may argue about which side sits where. Humour them gently.

Order

The order zigzags around the table in the order: College of Law first speaker, Durham first speaker, College of Law second speaker, Durham second speaker, Bristol first speaker, Cambridge first speaker, Bristol second speaker and finally Cambridge second speaker.

Notice that this is one debate - it is not in two halves despite the two separate teams on each side. The proposition (or opposition) argument must flow smoothly throughout all four speakers, without any contradictions or sudden changes of direction.

There is no separate summation - rather, final proposition and opposition speakers are expected to summate for their sides. They should not introduce any new information.

Scoring

Most competitions are run on a ‘league’ basis - with teams being allocated 4 points for coming first, 3 for coming second and so on. After an initial series of rounds, the top eight or sixteen teams progress to a knock-out stage (rather like golf).

Timing

All speakers have five minutes. The chairman will knock one minute into the speech, and one minute before the end. After five minutes he will knock twice. Should the speaker continue for more than thirty seconds, the Chairman will ask him to finish.

Points of information may be made at any time in the three minutes between the two knocks. The point may only be made with the consent of the speaker.

Points of order may be made at any time and must be accepted, but their use in competitions is inadvisable.

Formalities

Address all remarks ‘through the Chairman’, referring to them as ‘Mr/Madame Chairman’. Address all other speakers as ‘Mr/Ms XXXX’. Ignore the judges.

Judging

Judging’s easy - the team that’s most convincing should win. When a judge cannot go on gut instinct, there are almost limitless criteria that he will consider.

Good Things

i)        Judges love teamwork. Work out a neat way to divide your content between the two of you. Then ensure the first speaker says what the second will do, and the second refers to what the first has said.

ii)       Finish memorably - i.e. with a prepared peroration.

iii)     Offer as many points of information as you can. Accept only two yourself

iv)    Be aware of your position in the debate

v)     Picking up contradictions in your opponents’ arguments

Bad things

Some great ways to lose marks are:

i)        Reading from a prepared script

ii)       Blatant contradictions with a previous speaker or yourself

iii)     Use of ludicrously untrue ‘facts’

iv)    Incomprehensible delivery

v)     Ignore your partner completely

vi)    Finish more than thirty seconds late or early

vii)  Offer no points of information. Accept none at all, or every one that’s offered.

Judges should not take into account the relative difficulty of a team’s arguments. If the tournament organisers think the legalisation of assault weapons is a good debate then that’s their call - it’s not for judges to start creating a handicap system.

Delivery

The manner of a speakers’ speech is far less important than his matter. Only when two teams cannot otherwise be separated will stylistic considerations be relevant.

Strategies

Defining the motion

Be as tough on your opponents as possible, without ever being unfair. The test is: can you think of a way to oppose your definition of the motion? If you can’t, it’s an unfair definition.

i)        Define onto home ground - so you are as comfortable as possible with the material.

ii)       The proposition should never argue for the status quo - proposing that Britain should not introduce capital punishment, for example, is deeply uninteresting. A proposition doing so is effectively shifting the burden of definition onto the opposition, who - in the previous example - would have to say under what circumstances capital punishment should be introduced.

iii)     If any words in the motion are uncertain, define carefully how they fit into the debate. Bear in mind that you are merely defining the scope of debate - you cannot redefine the words themselves. For example, in a debate about feminism, it is unacceptable for the proposition to try to fix the definition of ‘feminism’ - this is clearly a matter of debate and not something that can be settled via definition.

iv)    If you are worried about particular examples or arguments, see if you can exclude them from your definition. For example, a debate about the success (or not) of feminism could be fixed to feminism in the 90s.

The first speaker should take perhaps three quarters of the content. The second will then be largely free to rebut the opposition case.

Initial opposition

Generally, the proposition’s definition must always be accepted. The following are generally accepted as being exceptions:

i)        No definition offered

ii)       Definition is a ‘squirrel’- ludicrously at odds with the wording of the motion

iii)     Truistic or platitudinous definition

In these cases, the first opposition speaker only may reject the definition and supply his own. All subsequent opposition speakers must follow his lead.

During the first proposition speech, the first opposition team should allocate their case between them. A good first speaker should lay down the framework for the entire opposition case. It’s often useful for the first of the two to set out the general ideological opposition case, and the second to deal with specifics.

The first opposition speaker has the most difficult task in the room. Correspondingly, judges will weigh this in his favour.

Second teams

The first speaker on each of the last two teams should try to broaden out the debate. Often this will involve taking a new angle on the subject. He should avoid repeating arguments already made, and take care to leave the bulk of the rebuttal for his partner. Note that ‘broadening’ is not the same as ‘completely disregarding’. Any expansion of a case cannot contradict or go outside the boundaries of the case already put.

The final speakers are expected to summate. There are essentially two ways of doing this. The ‘simple’ approach is to run through the opposing speakers one by one, answering each of their points - and then briefly doing the same with supporting speakers’ points. A more sophisticated approach is to summate by theme, rather than by speaker.

Practicalities

Delivery

Delivery is the icing on the cake. Matter is far more important than manner. But in a close debate, the winner will often be the team whose presentation has impressed the most. A speaker should always use the style that suits them, rather than following a model set by someone else. Get in the habit of listening to what you are saying, as you say it.

Things to watch are:

Position: if there’s a clear despatch box or lectern, use it. If not, move to a position from where you can see everyone in the room without having to swivel. In case of doubt, ask the Chairman beforehand.

Walking: thanks to LA Law, many debaters find themselves taking a gentle stroll in the course of their speech. Don’t do it! The easiest way to wean yourself off this awful habit is to keep one hand on the table/lectern as you speak.

Speed: racing at breakneck speed loses an audience and can result in running out of material with no time to think of anything new. It’s impossible to go too slow. Concentrate all the way through on speaking as slowly as possible. Pause as often, and as dramatically, as possible.

Ending: always end in a controlled and memorable manner - never give the impression you’ve been thrown by ‘the bell’. If you’re not inspired to a towering peroration, fall back on something along the lines of “Mr Chairman, we have shown X,Y and Z. This motion lies in tatters. I beg to oppose”.

Timing: it’s always tricky to say everything you want to say in five minutes. Normally the only solution is to say less. Just make sure the important stuff gets out first. Perfect timing comes with practice. Some people use elaborate semaphore-style hand signalling to show the time to their partner - other people think this looks really silly.

Points of information: always respect the formalities to avoid problems.

Note taking

It’s imperative to keep track of the debate. Most debaters do this by constructing some sort of grid with a space for each speaker. Some people draw arrows from rebuttals to original points. You may think life is too short.

Speaking straight from your grid is difficult if not impossible, due to the sheer volume of stuff on the page. One solution is to write down an outline structure of your speech a few minutes before you are due, including your positive case and rebuttals.

When you step up to the despatch box, take the flow plus the plan with you.

Case construction

Simply the creation of a debatable definition from the motion you are given.

Most motions fall between the extremes of being ‘closed’ or ‘open’.

Closed

‘This house calls for Britain to enter EMU’s first wave’ or ‘This House would legalise all drugs’.

Virtually no definition is required. Any attempt at defining beyond the obvious and apparent meaning will normally be considered cheating (this is sometimes called ‘squirreling’).

Open

‘This House would look before it leaps’, ‘This House believes blue is the colour’.

Here, definition is everything. The naîve approach is to fire off dozens of examples of where one should look before leaping. This will lose. Far more sensible to ‘set’ the definition on one particular case, and argue that. Take care to ‘link’ the motion to your definition in easy-to-follow steps, preferably with a straight face.

To avoid accusations of squirreling, try to pick something highly topical - particularly if you think that’s what those setting the motion had in mind. For example ‘This House believes the Tiger is facing extinction’ at the time the Far East was diving into recession was best defined as the inherent weakness of the authoritarian democracies of the Far East. Any mentions of striped cats would have been most un-sporting.

These really irritate me. Novice teams don’t know what to do, fall apart and wreck the debate. Experienced teams pull out a speech they prepared earlier. Neither makes for good debate. End of rant.

Ajar

‘This House would reject Europe’, ‘This House rejects the Welfare State’.

Here the proposition are free to select an issue within the limits of the wording. There are many forms of welfare, and almost dozens of things related to Europe that could be rejected. Practically, the proposition probably have more freedom to choose their favourite subject than they would with an open motion, since accusations of unfairness are less likely.

·       Do something unexpected. Everyone would expect a Europe debate about the EMU or EU. Far more clever to discuss the incorporation of the European Charter of Human Rights into British law.

·       Build a case around your knowledge base. Make life easy for yourselves. But don’t be tempted to regurgitate that lecture on quantum chromodynamics.

·       Don’t be afraid of taking on a difficult, controversial or unpopular argument. Polarised debates are almost always better, and judges like teams that create them.

·       Define away from the probable knowledge of your opponents. For example, in the welfare debate, don’t debate workfare against Americans, since they are likely to know the arguments back to front.

·       Don’t debate the status quo. As in “we think the government’s doing just great”. This is incredibly boring, and also lets your opponents to define just what it is they are opposing - making their life far too easy.

Argumentation

A rather nasty Americanisation for the structure that lies behind an argument.  Before engaging with the facts of an argument, engage with the underlying logic.

Your opponents may find an answer for your best factual rebuttal. But identify a logical flaw, and their argument will fall apart.

Forms of argument that are against the rules

Truistic and self-proving definitions are never allowed.

A truistic definition is one for which there is no reasonable opposition.

An example: for some reason “This house  believes the developing world needs feminism” often prompts teams into arguing that the infanticide of infant girls in India should be stopped. Opposing the slaughtering of babies can be quite tough.

Be warned - something is not truistic merely because it is difficult or (currently) unpopular to oppose. Some would have you believe that advancing an equal gay age of consent is truistic - it clearly isn’t.

A self proving or tautological definition is the assertion of something that is factually true. For example to define ‘Crime is out of control’ by arguing that crime is higher now than in the 1960s is simply true, and inarguable.

Don’t try to argue against a truism or tautology - by definition, you can’t. Challenge it as described later. Supplant it with some related but debatable proposition, and oppose that.

Other unlawful cases

‘Time setting’ is the (largely American) practice of trying to fix the debate in a period of time other than today. For example, a debate about opposing European Union might be defined with “the House” as Britain in 1939.

‘Space setting’ is defining a motion so it is set in situation and geographical area unrelated to the subject of the motion. For example, trying to fix a feminism motion to an imaginary desert island with no women would be space setting. It would also be stupid.

It’s not unusual in US competitions for a debate on abortion, say, be defined around the hypothetical moral dilemma of two nuclear holocaust survivors stranded in the South Pole in the year 3020; a time and space set debate. This just daft - which is why it is not allowed in international and domestic competitions. You’re unlikely to encounter these oddities outside the United States - but stranger things have happened. If in doubt, take the piss.

Logical fallacies

There are dozens of classical logical fallacies, discovered by some Greek chap and merrily deployed at a debating competition near you. Don’t use them yourself (unless, of course, you really want to and you think your opponents are comatose).

If your opponents base an argument (or even an entire case) upon a logical fallacy and you point it out, you’ll have a hard time losing.

An incomplete list of the more common logical fallacies might look like this:

Ad hominem:     As in ‘Play the man, not the ball’. Attacking the person that made the argument or the way in which it was made (“and his so-called ‘statistic’ came from the Daily Telegraph (cue sneering)”).

Analogy:           If there’s a substantive difference between the real situation and the analogy, then the analogy is worthless. In practice, this will be pretty much always. Can tie in with caricature (see below) - watch for any sentence that starts “That’s just like saying...”.

Assertion:         Arguing a state of affairs exists without any evidence, argument or supporting proof. For example ‘Capital punishment is a deterrent’. Normally masked by repetition or rhetoric. 9 out of 10 debaters prefer it.

Authority:         Proving the truth of an argument by quoting someone famous who agrees. Just because some dead bloke said it two thousand years ago doesn’t necessarily make it right.  There is, of course, nothing wrong with using a point made by someone, so long as it’s the point itself that advances the argument and not merely the name attached.

Black and white:    The ‘black and white’ fallacy is the argument that there are only two possible approaches to an issue - the nice cuddly argument being advocated by your good self and a horrid extreme argument that your opponents have to make (or they’re cheating). Common in international dispute debates - e.g. if you’re not in favour of land for peace in Israel you must be a religious maniac. As the Guinness advert says, nothing is black and white.

Caricature:        The misrepresentation of an argument and subsequent attack on the caricature. Probably the most common debating strategy - weak teams use it often, good teams use it just as often but more subtly.

Common sense If anything is said to be “common sense” you know that (i) the speaker can’t think of a single argument; and (ii) it’s probably wrong. Common sense thought the earth was flat.

Detail:               Demanding far more detail than it is reasonable or possible to provide in the scope of a debate about principle. (“Well if you want to increase income tax by 5% what will you do about the Northern Island capital allowances third year tractor scheme?”)

Example:          Cherry picking favourable examples in an attempt to prove the generality of an argument. The validity an example depends upon the size of the ‘set’ of possible examples. For example, there is a small set of privatised industries in the UK, but a large set of divorcing couples. So raising examples of privatised industries will advance your argument about privatisation, but discussing the experiences of a few divorcing couples in the context of a debate about marriage is moronic.

Experience:       Personal experience is valueless in debate - being the most extreme form of argument by example. Crops up as a poor-man’s alternative to statistics  (“I was in Zimbabwe and saw that, despite what your World Bank survey may say, the economy was a mess”) or as a version of argument by authority (“I met a bloke who told me that...”). Can be excruciatingly embarrassing when the topics get more “personal” - or funny, depending on your approach to public humiliation.

False Association:  Attacking something associated with an argument rather than the argument itself. The classical version goes  ‘you are arguing X, Stalin/Hitler supported X, therefore you are as bad as Stalin/Hitler’.

False causation:     The argument that since two situations occur together, one causes the other. This might be true. On the other hand, it might not: the second could cause the first, there could be a common cause or they could simply be unrelated. (“The sale of sherbet in UK plummeted in the 1980s, at the same time as crime rates soared. The link, I think, is clear”. Sadly this example has never been used, but I live in hope)

Incredulity:        As in ‘there can be no way that’ or ‘it seems impossible that’. The speaker is saying that because he lacks the imagination to see how something might happen, it couldn’t possibly happen.

Irrelevance:      An argument that is simply not capable of advancing the case it sets out to. For example in a murder trial, the suffering of the victim is irrelevant to the (factual) question of a suspect’s guilt. The correctness of the argument is besides the point when the argument is irrelevant.

Popularity:        Using the popularity of an argument as proof of its correctness. Just because 90% of the population think something’s so, doesn’t make it so.

Shifted Burden: Logically (and in debate), the burden of proof is always upon the person seeking to prove the truth of an argument. A common fallacy is to reverse the burden and demand proof of the opposition. Or, even more feebly, to demand proof that something doesn’t exist. Challenge anyone trying this on to prove leprechauns don’t exist.

Slippery slope:  That a particular policy being advocated may be acceptable, but will inevitably lead to far worse policies. Bedevils freedom of speech debates (“a right to privacy for celebrities will end free speech”). This is just assertion, unless the intermediate steps between initial policy and nasty results are explained or justified. Strangely, they rarely are.

Utopia:             Arguing that since something is not 100% successful, it is a failure. Universally deployed to attack a proposition for failing to solve all conceivable difficulties.

Wrong Argumentation

These aren’t logical errors. Despite that, anyone using them is “not even wrong”.

Causal link

If someone is arguing that something causes something else (A causes B), the causal link or causal connection is the explanation of why A causes B.

The link can be factual (i.e. between screen violence and real life violence) or solvative (between the proposition’s plan and their desired outcome, e.g. capital punishment and reduced crime rates).

The causal link is often crucial to a debate - and many proposition teams won’t even try to prove it, or even realise it’s there. Hunt it out, point it out and win.

Contradiction

Jump on contradictions between team members, or even within one speaker’s speech. Often emerge in over-hasty answers to points of information. Always pleasant to gently tell a speaker that his first speaker said one thing, his second said another - who does he think was wrong and why?

Assumptions

There are often assumptions implicit in an argument that are never justified. Find them and throw them at your opposition.

Statistics

For every statistic thrown at you, ask yourself:

i)     Does it advance their case? If not, it’s irrelevant.

ii)   Is it just argument by example? If so, then it’s irrelevant.

iii)  Is it credibly sourced? If not, take the piss - they’ve probably made it up.

iv)Is the source respectable? Can you attack the source?

v)  Does the statistic really prove what they say it does? Some examples (not true, but who cares):

·       Crime in the US fell 20% last year [This is from the highest level since records began].

·       Crime in the UK is higher than in the US [But violent crime is 20x lower].

·       62% of people in Britain support capital punishment [Only half of those would support it if “life meant life”].

Opposition strategies

Coping with bad propositions

Empty definition

Poor teams will meander around a subject, never fixing the debate on any particular issue. It’s imperative to try to nail down the debate as soon as possible. A standard strategy is to draw out the theme linking their speech and oppose that.

Squirrel

i.e. a perfectly good definition, but one irrelevant to the motion. The best strategy is probably to accept the definition and debate it as per normal. Rely on the judges to penalise the squirrel - confine yourself to no more than a few digs at the tenuous link or you begin to look indecisive.

Truistic, self proving or tautology

Never even try to oppose a truism - by definition you can’t. Make it clear straight off that you are not going to accept the definition and spend your first two minutes explaining why. There are essentially two approaches as to how to redefine. If there was a kernel of debatable matter in their speech, make that the entire debate. Otherwise revert to a more literal reading of the title, and oppose that.

Black and white fallacy

Some teams will try to box you in to a situation where your only possible opposition is unpalatable or extreme, without quite being truistic. Make it quite clear you do not accept that the issue is black and white. For example, in a debate about gay marriage a proposition may say the opposition have no choice other than to be virulent homophobes. But an alternative (and more effective) opposition would be to argue that marriage is an intrinsically homophobic and patriarchal institution.

Pick and mix

Very common with incompetent teams. No principles, no definitions, just a guided tour of half a dozen unrelated examples. Don’t waste time on the examples - attack them for argument by example and then zero in on the principle behind their case (you may have to help them out here).

Your ‘line’

Often there are several possible lines of attack that an opposition could take; many contradictory. For example, it is possible to attack EMU from a monetarist or a state-socialist perspective; pornography can be attacked from a feminist or conservative standpoint. Choose whichever line suits you best and stick to it.

Partial oppositions

You don’t have to oppose everything the proposition says (unless you have an American judge). It can be quite cunning to choose an attacking line that actually concedes much of the first proposition’s speech - rendering much of his speech irrelevant. If used effectively, strategic concessions can throw a proposition off balance.

This is perhaps most common in ‘bad thing’ debates where the proposition is arguing that something is bad and should be somehow controlled; if a proposition is stupid enough to spend lots of time explaining why it is bad, the opposition should agree it is bad but deny it should be controlled. To take an extreme example, anti-pornography debates often start with an attack on how bad pornography is - an opposition can easily agree but argue that freedom of speech means we must allow the propagation of images we find offensive.

Points of information

Receiving

When to accept points

·       Check the etiquette for the competition - but it is likely you will be expected to accept two points in a five minute speech, three in a seven minute speech. Never accept more or less than this.

·       Don’t keep accepting points from the same speaker, particularly if they’re strong. On the other hand, don’t ‘cut out’ and ignore speakers you are worried about - it’s normally quite transparent when people do this.

·       Obviously, if you think you’re on flimsy ground with an argument, then don’t accept any points until you’re back to safer territory.

·       If your opponents are sitting quietly and you’ve got an argument for which you’re sure they can’t answer, a neat tactic is to say ‘And I’ll take a point of information from them now if they can explain why......’. Whether they choose to sit tight, evade or attempt to answer you should have the better of it. A bonus to this is that it safely  ‘uses up’ one of the two points you’re obliged to take. It’s particularly useful in summations, where you can press for answers to points that have been ignored by all the previous opposing speakers.

Answering the point

·       Don’t ignore a point. It won’t go away by itself. Lines like ‘I will get to that later’ irritate people, even if they are true. ‘I have already dealt with that’ is similarly unsatisfactory. By all means say you have made, or will make the point - but at least summarise it in a short response.

·       Don’t get distracted by a point. Spend a few lines responding, and revert to your structure.

·       Ideally you will have a proper response to the point. Should words fail you, be prepared to fall back on a standard dodge such as:

i)     Witty put downs. My most memorable and effective witty put downs come to me two days later in the shower. Some less scrupulous debaters come to competitions armed with lists of pre-prepared spontaneous quips.

ii)   If confronted with an uncomfortable fact/statistic, damn its source (or the lack of one).

iii)  Answer another (easier) point that’s close enough to the question for no-one to notice.

iv)Agree with the point, and say it either makes your argument or is completely irrelevant.

v)  Be patronising (‘We’ve made this point half a dozen times by now. Let me make it slower and in words of fewer syllables.’) and hope you’ve thought of an answer before you get to the end of your spiel.

Giving

·       Keep the flow of points of information constant - although always be careful not to descend into intimidation (‘badgering’).

·       Never let a point become a speech - if it can’t be put into two short sentences, it’s not a point of information. Plan what you’re going to say, and hone it down to the shortest and most succinct form possible. That said, don’t gabble - pause for a couple of seconds to get everyone’s attention and then make the point slower than you would a normal speech. A controlled delivery will also help to break up a speaker’s momentum.

·       Work with your partner - never compete against each other to make different points. As either of you thinks of a point, write it down so you have an agreed list of points you will both make. Don’t waste the few chances you will get. Resist the temptation to prioritise a spontaneous rebuttal (satisfying but better in a speech) above one of your pre-planned points.

·       If you’ve got a superb argument that will be the centrepiece of your speech, never ‘flag’ it in a point of information. You may well lessen the impact of the point when you come to make it - and run the risk of giving your opponents advance warning of what you’re going to say.

·       Carefully note down responses to your points. Often a speaker will say something unplanned that will contradict or hinder their case.

There are probably four types of points of information:

i)     Genuine points - i.e. responses to a point the speaker makes. The general rule should be not to make points like this:  the speaker has the last word, so your best result may be a stalemate. Rebuttals are best kept in speeches. Only make rebuttal points of information if you have a reply you think is unanswerable to a central point of your opponent’s speech.

ii)   Repetition of points from your (previous) speech that the speaker is ignoring/misunderstanding. Be especially quick if you think you are being misrepresented - here it’s particularly effective if your partner corrects the speaker (as in ‘My partner never said X... his point was Y’.).

iii)  Pre-prepared points and statistics you have designed in advance to throw a speaker.

iv)Killer facts (see below).

Killer facts

Much in fashion amongst spin-doctors, a killer fact or argument is one to which there is no rebuttal. In some debates, there may be points from either side that simply have no answer. If you can identify one, then use it in your speech and keep on pressing it - in as many different ways as you can.

The classic use is for the first speaker in a team to make the point, and challenge the opposition to answer it. The second speaker then slams the opposition for not answering it. Throughout each subsequent opposition speech, they are then regaled by points of information along the lines of ‘But you have still not said how...’.

Some common killer arguments are ‘no alternative’ where a team defends their proposed solution by demanding an alternative from the opposition (e.g. Northern Ireland, welfare reform) or ‘causal link’ where a proposition is repeatedly challenged to provide a causal link when it’s clear that the link is unprovable (e.g. movie violence and crime, pornography and violence, monetarism and growth).

Miscellaneous

Delivery

The key word is ‘control’. Always listen to yourself as you speak. Make a conscious effort to speak slowly and pause frequently

Structuring a speech

Never let a speech become a succession of points. Make a clear plan and stick to it.

Teamwork

Teamwork is often neglected, yet is (at its simplest) merely a matter of formulaic (“I will say X, Y and Z - my partner will argue A, B and C”). Of course there should be more to it than that - ideally a clear division of work between a team and arguments flowing seamlessly from one to the other.

Clear teamwork can sometimes be a decisive criterion for judges faced with a close debate.

Humour

Humour, particularly vicious humour, is the stuff of good debates.

The most effective way to use humour is to interleave it with rebuttal, so the humour strengthens your response. Never use humour in the place of rebuttal. Be wary of ‘gags’ that are separate from the substance of your speech - many judges do not approve. There is nothing wrong with having pre-prepared ‘spontaneous’ jokes so long as it is not obvious - World Championship winning teams have done this.

Quoting

Verbatim quoting from an opponent’s speech can be invaluable. Divorced from its context, its remarkably easy to make an apparently sensible quote look very silly. The speaker will, of course, never forgive you.

Clash

There is no point saying things the other side will agree with. Judges always look for direct clash between teams.