Monash Debating Review Volume 9 is now available‏

Dear Debating Community!

Volume 9 of the Monash Debating Review (MDR) is now live! Edited by Worlds Co-Chief Adjudicator Doug Cochran with the assistance of an illustrious International Editorial Board, including World Champion Victor Finkel, Volume 9 promises to be an exceptional contribution to academic discussion of debating.

Volume 9 features

• A concise introduction to debates about economics by Worlds Semi-Finalist Harish Natarajan;
• A feature article examining potential options for expanding the Worlds break by Eric Barnes, Andy Hume and Steven Johnson; and
• A fascinating look at Rwandan debating by World Champion Will Jones.

Volume 9 can be downloaded here.

If you have any questions about the MDR, please email mdr@monashdebaters.com. We will be opening applications for next year's editorial panel in early 2012.

-- Monash Association of Debaters PO Box 10, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia http://www.monashdebaters.com

Interesting end to Kentucky Policy Debate

Rob Ruiz, Director of Forensics at the University of LaVerne sent me an interesting story that it has taken me a couple of days to get my head around.  The story goes like this:

At the recent Policy Debate competition at Kentucky University (one of the largest Policy debate competitions in the US) the Loyola Marymount team of James Mollison and Jack Ewing went undefeated in every round and picked up all the ballots. They ended up breaking and made it through the knock out rounds to the Final, collecting all the ballots except "one," which didn't matter since they beat the 3rd through 8th best team in the competition and ended up in the Final against the number 2 school, Georgetown.

Upon finding out that the two finalists from Georgetown were African American and then finding out that the final was to be held at Campbell Hall, a "former" slave house, the Loyola Marymount team (two Caucasian students) immediately found this Georgetown team to have a discussion. The Loyola team offered to give Georgetown the ballots as well as the WIN in finals if they choose NOT to have a Final debate and instead, spend the time allotted to have a discussion on racial problems considering this tournament final was in a former slave house named Campbell Hall and one of the finalist's last names was actually Campbell. They tell them that a racial forum involving everyone is far more important to them and the Georgetown team decides to accept. For the next couple of hours, the entire tournament becomes a forum for discussion about the racial issues facing society today.

Now this story is certainly an interesting one.  As a person focused on competitive debating my initial reaction was why the hell did they agree to concede the final and instead hold an open discussion about racial issues.  Surely there are more than enough discussions about the problems of society in the media.  Would the audience, organizers and sponsors not be disappointed not to get a debate on some prepared topic.

However on reflection this shows a willingness to forgo the glory of competition to instead debate more fundamental problems in wider society.  Remember that initially debating societies were set up not to compete among each other but to give students a chance to hone their rhetorical skills by discussing the important issues of the day.  Once the great chambers of university debating were some of the few places where people could go and watch the major topics discussed.  Perhaps we may think that the media has replaced this with a near constant stream of discussion panels on radio and TV. However that assumes that there is a free media in the country and that a “free” media does not have an editorial agenda dictated from on high. 

I’m sure there were people who were disappointed that they did not get to watch a formal debate that night.  However I would use this story as an opportunity to remind people that the weekly meetings in your debating society need not be, and in fact should not be, about preparing for Worlds, Regionals or Nationals.  You can easily hold competitive debates in smaller training sessions.  Instead debating societies should use at least some of their main weekly public meetings to hold large, open, balanced debates on issues of public interest. It may be an issue related to your local college or it may be a discussion on a global crisis.  Whatever the topic debating societies are uniquely positioned to give students a chance to listen to and take part in discussions about issues that impact on them (even if they don’t realize it).  Debating societies can invite guest speakers to address the student body that no other society would attract.

Now it may be that you think your society does not have the resources to do this. Well in my experience most colleges like large public debates because they attract media attention and it takes very little spin to conjur up images of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc in the minds of university officials. If you are willing to hold large debates on issues of public interest you will find that the resources to do so tend to be easier to come by than you may suspect.  You may be in a coach led club rather than a student led society and believe you as a mere student have no control over what debates happen. Well in my experience most good coaches are happy to have their students take the lead on organizing events within the debate club. Ask and see what happens.

So as I said on first reaction I thought the decision of Loyola and Georgetown was a strange one. But on reflection I believe it may show that in the drive towards a global competitive circuit we have lost focus on some of the core benefits debating societies should bring to their local student body.  If you are in a debating society that has never organized a public debate why not add it to your to do list for this academic year.

New research on impact of debate from the ESU‏

The ESU is pleased to launch a research paper into the impact of teaching debating skills to school-aged pupils today.

In association with CfBT (the Centre for British Teachers) and EdComs, the ESU launches a research paper Debating the evidence: an international review of current situation and perceptions, exploring what is currently known about the impact and benefits of participating in debate activities.

Download it here: http://esu.org/news/item/?n=13810

Source: WSDC mailing list

New book: The Practical Guide to Debating

Neill Harvey-Smith's new book "The Practical Guide to Debating" is now available on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk - perhaps more - with a Kindle version in preparation.

Neill says: "I wrote it because I wanted to share what I've picked up from being part of the debating world over so many years. In particular, I wanted there to be a resource that people totally new to debate could pick up, read through in a sitting and feel ready for what is coming. There are techniques and insights in there that will help those keen to improve their speaking and adjudicating skills. It is relentlessly practical, with just the odd bit of misty-eyed nostalgia".

The Practical Guide to Debating Worlds Style/British Parliamentary Style equips you to debate in Worlds Style, currently the most popular, most international, and fastest-growing format of competitive debate. It provides you with techniques, ideas, and advice to develop your debating skills. It also offers tips for organizing a vibrant club, picking teams, and getting the most out of tournaments. It shows you how to adjudicate debates and also contains an in-depth guide to entering and hosting competitions.

The Practical Guide helps you see inside the mind of an adjudicator and cuts through debate jargon with a comprehensive glossary of terms. It will guide and accompany your journey of improvement - whether you are a nervous beginner or an accomplished speaker.

Neill Harvey-Smith was chair of the World Debating Council from 2008 to 2010. He has been chief adjudicator of the European Championships, the U.S. National Championships, and the World Online Debating Championships; he has judged the grand final of the World University Debating Championships on five occasions. As a speaker, Neill was twice national champion, a World Masters winner, and reached the final of the World Championships.

New debate book

Think Speak Win is an introductory textbook for debating - for newbie students, teachers, coaches and interested adults. This book distills the complexities of debate into simple, memorable, easy-to-follow components. Learn how to debate, judge, and coach a team. Hone your critical thinking skills, refine your delivery style, and outwit the toughest opponents. Even if you're not a debater, the skills of debating can help you achieve greater success, whether at school or at work. This book guides you through a six-step process to apply Debate-Thinking to interviews, impromptu speeches, essay writing, leadership and management.

All the author's royalties from the book will be donated to the Debate Association (Singapore), to help them spread debating to students from less privileged backgrounds. International customers can buy the book from Amazon.com or http://www.marshallcavendish.com/marshallcavendish/genref/Think-Speak-Win_B24238_Singapore.aspx. Thanks for supporting this project!

About the author:Gaurav Keerthi was the President of Debate Association (Singapore), and is a founding Fellow of Raffles Debate Academy and has over 16 years experience in the field. In 2006-08, Gaurav worked with MediaCorp to develop and star in the Emmy-nominated student debate TV show, The Arena. He was listed as one of Prestige's 2008 "Power List" for his work as President of Debate Association (Singapore). He has also served as a debate consultant for Google, the World Bank, the Singapore Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance, and written speeches for cabinet ministers.

ULV Summer Debate Training / Individuals Tournament‏

Dear All,
The University of La Verne would like to invite you all to sunny southern California for a week of intense debate training followed by a uniquely formatted individuals tournament. This guarantees anyone who attends excellent instruction and guidance from some of the most experienced trainers in the country, and in fact the world. Between them, they have racked up over 30 visits to the World Universities Debating Championships. In addition, the University of La Verne’s debate team promises to assist in any way possible including transportation to and from airports and, if necessary, from lodging to the school. Of course, they will also be providing assistance in their specialty, making sure that everyone has a great time outside of the training!

We are looking to make this event as accessible as possible to participants outside of the state of California, so we are only charging a $75 registration fee per individual or a $250 fee for any team with 4 or more participants (with no upwards limit), inclusive of the entire week of training and the tournament. Waivers will be considered for teams dealing with extreme travel expenses or suffering other financial hardships. Also, we have secured affordable housing in the University’s dorms for participants who would like to take advantage of this. This event will run from July 19th - July 23rd, 2011. We will also be accommodating individuals who would like to attend only the training, or only the tournament. We would ask that anyone interested will have registered by July 1st. For more information see below.

Cheers,
Josh Martin

ULV Summer Training Camp / Tournament 2011

Training:
The goal of our training is to provide as individualized of an experience to each debater as possible. Our trainers have worked with all levels of debaters, from coaching World Finalists and National Champions, to teaching new students who have never even seen a debate before. We will be covering virtually every aspect of debate, including basic format, advanced strategy, manner, research techniques, case construction, and argumentation theory. With a strong emphasis on drilling and participation to put this material into practice, participants are sure to come out as much more complete debaters ready to excel in competition.

Main Trainers:

Ian Lising:
6 years as Chair of World Council
6 time World Grand Final Adjudicator
10 time Oxford International IV Final Adjudicator

Justin Jones Rodriguez:
2000 World Grand Finalist
Oxford & Cambridge IVs Finalist
2001 Worlds Breaking Judge

Josh Martin:
Worlds Breaking Judge: Cork ’09, Koc ’10, Bots ‘11
Oxford & Cambridge IVs Breaking Judge
Top Judge 2009 US National Championships
2007 US National Champion
Individuals Tournament:
The tournament will consist of 5 preliminary rounds, breaking either to semis or finals. This BP formatted tournament is designed to accompany the training and highlight the chance to be exposed to different schools of thought and approaches to debate, as debaters will be changing partners every round. Partners for the first round will be randomly assigned, and for every subsequent round power matching will be done based on team points and then within each room, partners will be reallocated based on speaker points. The highest two speakers will be paired together, then 3rd and 4th, etc. giving everyone the chance to work with individuals from different institutions, around their same skill and experience level, throughout the tournament. At the University of La Verne we have had the tradition of running a tournament in this format every year, and it has always been hugely successful.

Socials:
We have a team at La Verne that is almost as (or maybe more) committed to having a good time as they are to debate. Add to that our being located in the middle of Southern California and you have the chance to take part in virtually any kind of social you can think of. We will be letting the participants choose what the socials can be, ranging from beach trips, clubbing, cultural downtown Los Angeles, or anything else you can suggest.

Schedule:
July 19th : Arrival; Introductions; Beginning of training
July 19th – 21st : 8 hour training days, Social events
July 22nd : 4 Preliminary tournament rounds
July 23rd : 1 preliminary round; Elimination rounds; Departure

Registration:
For any other questions regarding the training or tournament feel free to contact Josh Martin at either jmartin@laverne.edu or 909) 263-1112. Registration should be finalized by July 1st.

WUDC 2012 Adjudication Webseminar 1

From http://dlsuworlds.wordpress.com/

The hardworking DLSU Worlds Adjudication team will be producing webseminars on adjudication in the run up to WUDC in December in Manila.

Here is the very first one — An Introduction to Adjudication. Web seminar 1 comes with slides on an introduction to adjudication and a video of a debate complete with oral adjudication from the co-CA Sam Block. So if you want to hear their thoughts on adjudication issues, pick up some new methods of tracking debates, hear Sam’s oral adjudication and compare your notes with his, take the DLSU Worlds 2012 Webseminar 1. Enjoy!


DLSU Worlds 2012 Webseminar 1 Slides: An Introduction
Practice Debate 1: THB national sporting teams should reflect the diversity of the national population
Oral Adjudication 1
DLSU Adjudication Webseminar 1 Notes

Ten lessons from USU 2011‏

Fresh from being CA of the US Universities Debating Championships Stephen Boyle, the CA, has posted a list of ten lessons from the tournament.  It's common practice after major international tournaments for the CA to prepare a report for the organising council on how things went. However this report rarely gets published to the wider community (not for any secret reason just that it comes out a year later at council and gets lost in all the other information coming out about the current tournament). 

Even though USU has no governing council Stephen still thought it might be useful for people hosting the competition over the next few years, and indeed for anyone organising a competition at all, if he shared some of the lessons that they learned.

For anyone interested, the 10 lessons can be found here.

USU judge briefing.

The United States University Championships have posted a judge test for judges attending the upcoming championships.  The briefing is a copy of the briefing for Botswana Worlds but I'm sure there are lots of people may not have seen it so it is worth a look.  I have deleted the segment about the test itself because I'm sure they don't want lots of people filling in the test who do not intend to go to the championships.

Like major international tournaments such as worlds, we will be requiring all of our judges to take a judge test before round one. The test involves watching a debate as an online video and then rendering a decision as well as answering some questions about the format.


We urge all judges to review the judge briefing materials (we are glad to be using the excellent judge briefing document used for Botswana worlds, by permission) BEFORE they take the test. The judge briefing can be found at: http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/BW2011JudgeBriefing.pdf


After that, judges should go to the JUDGE TEST at the USU 2011 website and watch the debate. http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu2011/Judge_Test.html


We will then use this data in judge assignment at the tournament, and will supplement it with feedback gathered from debaters and judges during the tournament.


If you are the contact person for your institution you need to inform all of your judges of this requirement and make sure that they complete the judge test. It is your responsibility to do this. If your judges fail to take the online test they may not cover your commitment at the tournament and you WILL BE CHARGED A HIRED JUDGE FEE at registration to cover your teams.


Many of the best debaters in America and the world will be at the tournament. They deserve competent judging and this is our attempt to make sure they get it. We appreciate your cooperation.

New debating podcasts available

During the World Debate Forum held in Botswana in January 2011 many African debate organizers said that they needed basic training materials, but that the poor conditions of local Internet connectivity made it difficult for them to use videos. As a solution, Alfred Snider (World Debate Institute and Debate Central) volunteered to take video training files and turn them into audio only, then organize them and make them available for download.

http://debate.uvm.edu/low.html
The podcasts include presentations from the World Schools Debate Academy, International Debate Academy, East Debate Institute, the World Debate Institute's world schools session and the Serbia Debate Academy.  There are also two WUDC format debates from the USA and two WSDC format debates from Europe. They are available as mp3 files. Download them, load them up in any mp3 player, and enjoy.

Q&A Debating for "adults"

Here is another question and answer from my e-mail archive.  This one is a common question because once people finish college there really isn't an option for them to continue debating.  The question is about Ireland but I think it can apply to almost any country.  Perhaps a few of us should get together and set something up but in the meantime I hope this is useful to someone.

Question:

Hi Colm

I am looking to join a debating club/ public speaking club for adults in Dublin. Do you know of one?


Thank you

XXXX

Answer:

Hi Xxxx,

This is actually a very common question but not one I have an easy answer for.  I’ll split my answer to your question into two areas Debating and Public speaking. For debating the options are not very good but for public speaking things are a bit more hopeful.

Debating: I’ve looked a couple of times to see if is a debating club for adults and actually it tends to be a very rare. They pop up every now and then but often they are run to a political agenda (I have seen a few socialist debating clubs advertise events and I know Ogra Fianna Fail do some debating but you aren’t really going to get a diverse range of opinions in events like these).

Some organisations like Macra na Feirme and Junior Chambers hold debating competitions but that’s only an offshoot of their core activities. I came across a Dublin Debating Society a few years ago as they were debating against a Toastmasters club. However I haven’t heard anything about them in a long time and can find no trace of them on line now.

Given the popularity of debating in college I’m always surprised how there isn’t more debating for adults. I once looked as setting one up in Limerick but found that there was not a lot of interest from the general public and we didn’t even have enough people to hold a debate let alone have an audience. I think the key is to have regular interesting guest speakers to attract a crowd and from that crowd the membership will develop. Unlike Limerick a club in Dublin would have a much greater pool of interesting speakers to call on but no one ever seems to have tried setting one up. I know there are clubs in London, Toronto, Singapore etc that seem to do quite well.

Public speaking: I’ve already mentioned Toastmasters above. Toastmasters are often looked down on by university debating and certainly its a very different atmosphere and philosophy.  However it is the only world wide organisation catering for public speaking.  I think this might be an option you should try. A typical toastmasters meeting contains both impromptu short speeches and longer prepared speeches. It’s an interesting mix that seems to suit most people. You will get to make a impromptu “table topics” speech at every week. No one is forced to speak so if you don’t want to you don’t have to but in general once people have settled in they tend to be happy to take part.

Then 3-4 times a year you make a longer prepared speech based on a training manual which develops your public speaking style over 10 modules. Feedback is given by an assigned evaluator (and by the general audience in the form of feedback notes) but in a very encouraging positive way. Once you have completed the first manual of 10 modules there are a number of other shorter manuals you can then take up to develop other areas (e.g. business communication).

I believe the key thing about Toastmasters is finding a club that suits you. The first club I went to was the original club in my city. The member profile was on the older side (I would say the average age was late 40s). There is nothing wrong with that but I was in my 20s and didn’t really feel comfortable there. After that I tried a newer club in Limerick (there are 3-4 in the city) and there I found the member profile much younger and really enjoyed the company of the people there (I actually met my wife there, but that’s another story).

I recommend looking at your local newspapers and see what toastmaster clubs are near you (or try http://www.toastmasters.com/ to find a list of clubs). Don’t feel obliged to join the one closest to you. You can normally attend 3 meetings as a guest without joining so you can see if you like the atmosphere and the people. If you don’t feel comfortable there then try another club. Hopefully you will find one that you like.

I hope that gives you some guidance. If there is anything more I can do to help let me know. If you want clarification on anything above let me know.

Regards,

Colm

Q&A Confidence hit in "second season"

Here is the next Q&A e-mail I came across in my clean up of my e-mails.  I suspect this is a common problem as a lot of speakers find they do well as freshers/maidens but find it difficult when they reach second year and are expected to compete against senior speakers.

Hi Colm,

I was looking at the guides for debating at KOC worlds, and I found them really interesting. The thing is, I've been debating for a year (I'm now a second year) and I'm still pretty shit but I really want to improve and I found that the advice on some stuff to be a little general for where I'm at. I'm not that bad, but I came pretty low on the tab at XXX and we have one or two really good first years who I'm afraid could out strip me this year !

I've been told my problem is that while I have the basics of stuff like role fulfillment and structure and I understand how it works, I am still sloppy and tend to forget about the more nuanced aspects of it. Would you have anything on that ?

I have also been told that while I have the basics of analysis and structure to my speech it is only mediocre. Again would you have anything to show me on that ?

Also, I am wondering if you have any advice on how to clear up messy debates ? Do you have any pointers on how to watch out for and recognise it and how to rectify it ? Or how to prevent creating one when in first prop ?

I know I'm already asking you a lot, but I also found your articles on first principles to be really interesting. Would you have any more guides on first principles and how I can improve my competence with bringing debates back to that ? That's where I could really gain, because I often get bogged down by weird motions and hence make dodgy points.

I'm sure you get a lot of emails like this so I'd be very grateful if you could respond.

Regards,
XXXX

Answer:

Hi XXXX,

I know where you're coming from. Some people seem to take it up very quickly but for most people it's a bit of a slog. I was not a good debater. It took me 3 years to even become average at debating. I think if I was to go back now I would be better but in reality it was hard work for me. I think the best way to think about it is like Golf. There are some golfers who can just pick up a club and do really well (Darren Clark) but there are others for whom it is a hard slog of work (Padraic Harrington). Both can be successful you just have to remember that just because you aren't a natural doesn't mean you can't win majors in the future.

Without having seen you speak it's hard to say what are your strengths and weaknesses. You say you know the basics and that's good to start with. After that the the main thing is practice. There really is no replacement for it. Debating is like any skill. The more you practice it the better you get. A lot of the reason for that is there isn't a check list that can be applied to every debate. Sure there is the basic stuff but after that every debate is different. The definitions, the challenges, the arguments, the rebuttal etc or the lack of any of these all change the course of the debate. You have to go through this time and again to learn the differences. In the likes of Oxford, Sydney etc they will have several debates and workshops a week and competitions at the weekends so some speakers (in particular in the run up to Worlds) are practicing 2-3 times a week and debating 5-7 times at the weekend.

OK so that's not a very helpful suggestion on the debating stuff. Practice. Anyone could have told you that. One other thing strikes me on your e-mail though. "I'm still pretty shit" "I am still sloppy" "I'm afraid", "only mediocre", "bogged down". Your confidence is shot!

That's fine. That's fixable. I was there in my debating career. I didn't think I was good enough and therefore I was not good enough for a very long time. What you need to do is build up something that can be the core strength of your debating ability. Something that can be your crutch that you can mentally go to when you walk into a room and look at the others in there and say to yourself "I'm better than everyone else here at.......". For some people it is their speaking style, For some people it is their analytical ability. For some people it is their depth of knowledge.

If you can do that in one area your confidence will improve. If your confidence improves you will become more persuasive. If you become more persuasive you will win more debates. If you win more debates your confidence improves and so on.

So what do you do. Well the easiest is to start to work on your knowledge. I don't know if case files are still common on the circuit. They go through phases when they are seen as essential and when they are seen as naff. In the times when it's naff those people in the final with backpacks. They are hiding their case files in the backpacks. You are not going to know everything about the huge range of topics we expect debaters to be able to argue so you need to have a case file of information.

Do you have your Times or Mace motion yet? If you do start working on those. Read about the subject. What's the background to the topic. Understand the issues on BOTH sides. Get the best articles you can find on the subject and summarise the main points. Attach the summary and the key articles together and there is your first file of knowledge. Don't try to memorise it. This isn't an exam. Understand what you are reading then file the sheets so you can get the info out when you need it.

Now once you have done your times and mace debates move on to the motions that were at UCD. After that the motions at Oxford and Cambridge. Start reading the paper every day. If you have some free time instead of listening to music listen to a news show on the radio at least once a day. It's probably only 30 minutes to get the main issues and you will be surprised what sinks in. Over time you will build up your knowledge base so that you can walk into a room and realise that you know more about this topic than everyone else in there.

Now how do you apply that knowledge. For that look at http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2005/12/preparing-for-worlds-3-first.html. The basic principle of how to think about your argument What is this Debate really about? What is usually required to win this debate? What can we add to the debate that hasn’t already been said? Are our arguments convincing? Are our examples good & getting to the heart of the issue or simply taking up time?

If you have the knowledge and ask yourself those sort of questions about your argument you will find that your performances improve.

It's going to be a slog. Don't get disheartened. You are going to take some beatings over the next few months but hopefully you will see some progress as well. The best thing is to set yourself a target (say top half at a particular IV). That gives you something to aim for and a reasonable time frame to get the work done.
I hope some of that helped.  Let me know how you get on.

Colm

Q&A Points of information

You may recall that around the last World Championships I created a lot of posts with information from my computer archive.  Continuing on this I'm working my way through my hotmail account and cleaning up years of messages in it.  In this process I have come across a lot of questions I have been asked about debating and the replies I sent. I've decided to post some of them here for future reference.  So to continue.....


Question: I have some questions points of information. I'll be doing the xxxx debate soon, so I'm just confused about them.

What should their content be?

Is it ok to stand up and tell the speaker that you don't agree with their point, to tell them that their explanation is bad?
Should it be like a piece of rebuttal, or is it hust a simple piece of fact?
Plus, I made an absolute fool of myself last year by making NONE. I just got shy, and I was trying to come up with full rebuttal sections, but  by the time that I had them finished, they had moved onto another point.

By the way, is it ok to give a point of information on a point that the speaker has moved on from?

Answer:

First of all I'll direct you to my training article on points of information.  http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2007/09/tips-points-of-info.html.  That will cover the specifics of how and when to offer a point.
 

To address some of your specific queries you asked is it a piece of rebuttal or a fact. It can be either, neither or many other things. That probably doesn't seem like it help but my advice is this : if you are just starting out don't tie yourself up in knots worrying about what makes a good point of information.  There are some very simple things to do as a beginner:

- If you think of something to say then offer a point with it. It doesn't matter if you think you sound stupid because they very rarely are stupid. Get up there and offer it.

- Research your motion. Know it as well as you can and then listen carefully to what the other side are saying. You will find that the better you know the subject the more flaws you spot in the opposition speeches and these are what you can offer points on.

- A point of info is just like an interjection you make in a conversation with your friends. It could be a fact, a joke, a disagreement (i.e. rebuttal) whatever comes naturally in the conversation. The same applies to the POI.

- Don't sit there over analysing your points of information. Does it hit the right issue, is it worded correctly, is it backing up my case, will I look stupid. Just offer it. You will find if you trust your first instinct then 90% of the time you will get it right.

- Like any skill in debating practice makes perfect. Don’t expect to be offering killer points of information in your first year debating. Keep offering them and as your skill and confidence increase your points of information will become better and better.

Now some things to avoid in your Point of Information

- Don't go over 15 seconds. They can be as short as you like (if you offer a point in 5 seconds then there is a chance the speaker wasn't listening and was looking at his/her speech and then they look stupd) but don't go over 15 secs as the chair will cut you off and you may not have made the point.

- Be relevant to what they are saying at the time. Don't try to drag them back to a point back in their speech. It looks bad and indicates that you are struggling to keep up with what they are saying. If you think of a good rebuttal point but the speaker has moved on to another issue then just note it down and use it for your rebuttal in your speech. If you have already spoken note it and hope someone else on their side makes the point again. If that person is the last speaker and you don't get to make the point don't worry about it. That will happen to you dozens of times in your speaking career.

Some thoughts about leaders debates

With the third and final Irish election leaders debates coming up on Tuesday I thought I would summarise some of my thoughts about the debates. It is based on being applied to an election leaders debate but at the same time many of the concepts can be applied to any debating or interview format.

1. Body language is often cited as a key factor to watch for but it is often overstated as generally speakers will start off nervous and then relax into it. While they will find it hard to hide being tense and nervous they will be prepped well enough not to wipe their brow when asked a difficult question as Nixon did in the debate with Kennedy. If anything their fear of making an inadvertent gesture will make them appear more rigid and nervous at the beginning. As they settle into the debate and get more comfortable then an adequately prepared debater will become more natural in their body language. If they continue to appear rigid then they may have been over coached on avoiding a particular gesture that their support team may feel comes across badly to the audience. At the same time if there is a repeated gesture that comes across as unnatural (e.g. thumping the podium) then it may be that they have been asked to incorporate a new, alien, gesture into their body language which is never a good idea. Natural is almost always most convincing.

2. Watch for the same phrase over and over. Political debaters are sometimes briefed to use a party slogan as often as possible. The success of slogans like “Yes we can” means political handlers now think they need to have a similar catchy slogan to summarise the tone and content of their campaign. It rarely happens with the success of “Yes we can” but even Obama didn’t use “yes we can” in the debates. A poorly prepared political debater may think they should use the party slogan repeatedly (especially if they get a good reaction the first time) but they can easily use it to the point where it will become annoying and counterproductive. Slogans are best left to the posters and the party rallies.

3. Watch their eye contact but bear in mind that an issue here may be a fault of the candidate or the TV director. If the debate is happening in front of a live audience then the tendency will be to speak to the audience. However if the TV director may have set up his cameras at an angle to avoid blocking the view of the audience which in turn means the debater is on TV from the side and never makes eye contact with the TV audience (as I recall this happened to one of the candidates in the first UK general election debate). However, to the other extreme, an over coached debater may address the camera at all times and will appear to be staring out of the TV at the audience. The best approach will be a balance of addressing the camera, the audience, the moderator and the opponent depending on which approach is most natural at the time. Separate to that their support team should have worked with the TV director in advance to make sure there is a good camera angle for each of those options.

4. Watch out for the leader failing to answer the question asked. You might say it is easier to count the questions that are answered. This is because political debaters are often briefed to avoid difficult questions by going back to the party line. Most voters are aware of this tactic and hate it. Most interviewers or moderators will also pick up on it and may highlight it with a follow up question. The more questions the debater fails to address the more votes he/she is losing. It may be that the debater wants to address an issue that they didn’t get to mention before the last area of the debate was closed off. Then they should deal with it in 10 to 15 seconds and get immediately onto the current topic. However the overriding instinct should be to address the question asked.

5. Watch for a pause (or waffle) accompanied by a distant stare or squint as they try to recall a difficult fact that they clearly have been told but not understood. Here they are trying to remember one of the pages of facts and talking points they have been given by an assistant. They may well get it but this is a sign that it is not something they really understand. The best debaters will understand the issue first and then the facts to back it up will be much easier to recall. The best debaters will also recognise this in their opponent and may pursue the issue seeking to expose their rival’s lack of knowledge.

6. Watch out for them discussing issues at a high theoretical level. They should be aiming to engage with the individual average voter but too often they will address topics with a language and tone that is best suited to addressing a meeting of the economists and academics that have spent the last couple of weeks briefing them. Political parties often draft in leading figures in an area to prepare their debaters. However being an expert in an issue does not mean you are the best person to lead on that issue. Addressing topics with a theoretical or academic approach will not come across well to the voters who may not understand the nuanced detail of the issue but will understand how it impacts on them in day to day life. The person who wins the debate will be the person who persuades most of the floating average voters that they best understand their situation. That person may not be the one the highly educated academics and journalists declare to be the winner. I think the best way to sum this up is: Don’t tell them what is wrong and why it is wrong. Tell them what is wrong and how you are going to fix it.

7. Outgoing government party leaders are rarely popular in times of economic hardship. Everyone expects them to be torn apart on their performance in government. Therefore they will often resort to the philosophy that attack is the often the best form of defence. They will accuse the opposition of having poorly defined policies. They will accuse them of being ill informed or nor seeing the whole picture. They will accuse them of making populist promises which are not practical in reality. All of this is predictable. However instead of expecting this many opposition leaders seem shocked that they are the ones being attacked. They may have spent the past 4-5 years on the attack and defence does not come naturally to them. They find themselves on the back foot and become defensive both in outlook and body language (e.g. tightly clasped hands). The default position in their debate prep should be that they will be attacked. They should have a couple of brief defences prepared and then plan to go back on the attack just as hard.

8. Leading on from the previous point about being on the back foot, leaders shouldn’t worry about their mistakes in the debate. If they are looking back at what has already happened in the debate instead of forward to the current/next topic then they are more likely to run into further trouble. It is natural to be self critical but only they know exactly what they intended to say. If the message was delivered but not in the way they had designed they should not worry about it. If they have been absolutely destroyed on a topic (and that is rare) then they must put it behind them and focus on performing well on the remaining topics.

For more information on Election debating visig http://www.electiondebates.org/ which is a website set up to give independent analysis of TV leaders debates.

23 Public Speaking Secrets Gleaned from the Greats

Carol Brown from onlinecollege.org has sent me a link to a selection of quotes they have recently published. 

The article, "23 Public Speaking Secrets Gleaned from the Greats", contains 23 quotes from successful public speakers on how they approach making a speech.  While many debaters may think they know it all or may prefer more detailed training tips there are a few nuggets to at least think about in relation to your speaking style.  From "Believe in your message" to "Repeat yourself without sounding repetitive" every debater should find something to contemplate on in the list.

You can find the list at http://www.onlinecollege.org/2011/02/01/23-public-speaking-secrets-gleaned-from-the-greats/)

Interesting post about presidential speaking style

The BBC website recently had an interesting article about the speaking style of president John F Kennedy.  The article was to mark the 50th anniversary of his inagural address. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12215248

It lists 6 key elements to JFK's style which made it so successful.

1. Contrasts

2. Three-part lists
3. Contrasts combined with lists
4. Alliteration
5. Bold imagery
6. Audience analysis

While it may not be possible or practical to apply all of this in your debating style it is worth a read.  It certainly may be more applicable if you are writing a prepared speech and have time to develop and build in such elements.