Debatepedia launches a Global Warming Debates Portal for The People Speak Global Debates, a UN Foundation initiative.

From Debatepedia

[]

Introduction

Debate is a formal method of presenting arguments in support and against a given issue (expressed in a form of a debate topic –or a resolution) in which debaters – either individuals or members of opposite teams, exchange arguments on a given issue in order to persuade an audience. The term formal indicates that debate is governed by some explicit rules and that debaters must adhere to these rules throughout the debate. Although debate involves dissent and disagreement the main function of debate is to educate both participants and the audience on a given issue and provide them with opportunities to explore solutions to different problems facing their community ( in fact the word debate derives from the Latin word Debatum which means to reach an agreement).

Informal debate occurs in many places - for example in families, schools, work places and the media. Informal debates often do not follow any rules of verbal engagement – speakers speak when they manage to get the floor (often through the power of their voice) and the quality and depth of such debates often leaves much to be desired. Everybody is sure to have watched debates on TV between politician of different factions when it was almost impossible to follow what they were saying through the constant interruptions, digretions and some speakers monopolizing the floor.

A more formal debate occurs as part of democratic systems where deliberative bodies such as parliaments and legislative assemblies engage in debates. These debates are characterized by a higher degree of formality- usually with a Speaker of the House or a Chairman making sure that speakers from different parties have equal opprtunity to present their arguments. Also formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the presidential election campaign are common in democracies. The outcome of such debates is decided by vote – either in, a house of parliament or through citizens’ vote.

In many societies rule-based competitive debate is often encouraged in high schools and colleges. This is a contest two teams with explicit rule: during which one team supports, while the other team opposes a given proposition. Competitive debate begins with a resolution, a simple statement of a topic that is subjected to critical analysis by both teams. The team supporting the resolution speaks first and is referred to as an affirmative team (since it affirms a given resolution). The other team must then oppose the arguments offered by the affirming team and offer arguments against adopting the resolution (it is referred to as a negative team). Each team is expected to respond directly to the arguments offered by their opponents. It is the job of a judge (or judges), a neutral third party, to listen carefully to the arguments presented by both sides and decide which set of arguments is most persuasive.

Competitive debate develops many skills but the major goal of the study of debate as a method is to develop one's ability to argue on either position (pro and con) with equal ease. Experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or destroyed after the same amount of preparation time (sometimes quite short).

Thousands of young people all over the world are engaged in competitive debates and participate in local, national and international debate competitions and tournaments. There are many different organizations promoting debate both nationally and internationally and many different styles and formats of debate are practiced.

One of the organizations that promote debating among young people globally is the International Debate Education Association (IDEA). IDEA was founded in 1994 with the goal of encouraging and enabling young people to become active citizens in an open society. Through debate, principle methodology employed by IDEA, young citizens express their opinions, gain self-confidence, and meet and discuss important issues. To date IDEA has introduced and developed youth debate programs to over 40 countries.

While IDEA supports competitive debate among young people (by organizing debate tournaments and competitions) the main focus of the organization is education and youth participation. IDEA’s main goal is to empower young people through debate training, developing and strengthening of a variety of skills as well engaging them in participation in the lives of local communities.

IDEA aims to achieve this objective by implementing different projects and programs that focus on young people and the communities in which they live. One of such programs is establishment of IDEA Houses and promotion of Debate in the Neighborhood (DIN) programs.

The concept of IDEA House is comprised of a few vital components: it is a safe, accessible place for young people who choose to meet and socialize in an informal setting; it provides opportunities to participate in discussions and debates on the issues affecting the lives of young people and their communities (through public debates, round-tables, open community forums, etc.); offers opportunities to develop skills and confidence through a variety of youth-centered interactive programs (adapted and developed to meet the specific needs of young people) as well as positively affect change in the local community.

IDEA Houses operate a number of programs for young people with a special focus on disadvantaged youth and communities (often minority youth). The main focus of the programmatic activity is youth debate and IDEA Houses provide training and instruction in debate to young people and support organization of regular public debates in the neighborhoods.

Debate in the Neighborhood Program involves young people as well as members of the public. It links young people with the community in which they live and establishes and maintains a dialogue between different members of the community aimed at addressing the very issues challenging local communities. Through Debate in Neighborhood program IDEA Houses serve as meeting points for different generations, ethnic and professional groups to congregate and engage one another in a friendly and stimulating exchange of ideas for the development of the community.

This publication aims at introducing the concept of public debate and its main elements: topic, formats, argument, evidence and cross-examination (or points of information). It also offers practical tips for both debaters and debate organizers on how to prepare and conduct public debates and engage both young people and their neighborhoods in this important civic activity. We hope that this manual will assist young people in becoming interested in debating and promoting debate in their neighborhoods. We hope that the regular public debates taking place in IDEA Houses or any other locations in neighborhoods will assist in bringing different groups and individuals together in a desire to address different issues and to get to know each other in a friendly, inclusive and intellectually stimulating environment where one’s ethnicity, age and professional background do not matter and where the people are united by a common goal to not only express their views but also listen to each other.

[]

Definition of Public Debate

Public debate is a formal event (with varying degree of formality) in which advocates on opposing sides of a controversial issue make use of argument and the power of speech to express their own points of view and react to opposing points of view for the benefit of a large and non-specialized audience.

• Controversy: An issue, a question, or a problem; something that is unsettled and that ought to be settled
• Opposition: There are two or more parties who have opposing views of the issue, question or problem
• Argumentation: The parties have committed to the use of arguments and will support their claims with reasoning and evidence
• Engagement: The parties have committed to focus not only on their own views but also on the views of their adversaries
• Audience: The argumentation is presented to a particular or general audience, adapted to their level of comprehension, and aims to gain their understanding or agreement.

A public debate, then, occurs in any setting in which advocates on two or more opposed sides of a controversy engage each other through arguments before an audience. The remainder of this section of the manual will develop and present a rationale for public debates. We intend this rationale to serve not only as a justification for the subject matter of this publication, but more importantly as a resource for individuals who need to persuade others of the value of public debates.

Of course, if you yourselves were not already believers in the value of public debating, you probably would not be reading this book. However, at some point you may be in the position of having to justify the value of a public debate to a youth group or organization, a local government, a potential opponent or expert guest, or an organization that may supply funds to sponsor public debates. In all of these cases, you will need arguments on the benefits of public debates. In the following sections, we offer arguments to support three general claims: public debates build skills, contribute to the public sphere, and help an organization meet its goals.

[]

Public Debates Build Skills

[]

Communication Skills

Debaters: Speaking in front of a diverse audience (s) speakers will have to employ effective presentation: using variety and emphasis in voice; developing eye contact with the audience; controlling and employing facial expression, gesture and movement; creating and communicating clear organization and clear logical connections; and selecting concise, appropriate, memorable, and vivid language. Public debates also emphasize extemporaneous presentation; a style in which the speaker is neither presenting memorized or pre-written material nor speaking from the top of her head, but is instead actively fitting prepared knowledge and ideas to the needs of the moment.

Audience: For the audience members, the public debate also provides a setting in which to develop the communication skills of listening, evaluating, and in some settings, participating as a speaker as well.

[]

Critical Thinking Skills

Debaters: Through public debate, debaters learn how to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively, and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief. Public debate – by adding additional elements such as moderator and audience – has the potential to promote a deeper experience in critical thinking. Speaking in front of a given audience, debaters need to think critically of how to appeal to the audience’s beliefs, prior knowledge as well as how to respond to potential questions and arguments.

Audience: Attentive audience members at a public debate will hear and appreciate the speakers and they will also follow and evaluate a line of argumentation. This means critically understanding claims, searching for their logical support and implication, and weighing the relative strength of competing claims. In this way, the active audience member of a public debate will be participating in a critical thinking process that parallels the thinking of the debaters.

[]

Public Debates Contribute to the Public Sphere

Public debates have the potential to encourage the general population to experience an actual and sustained engagement with issues. By promoting a dialogue between parties on opposing sides, and between experts and non-experts, public debates facilitate a deeper level of interaction than that which is normally afforded by vehicles of mass communication (TC, radio, press). While an audience member may choose to be passive at a public debate, as much as they are passive as a television viewer, the dynamics of the public debate provide several incentives for a greater level of involvement:

• Participation: Audience members attending a live public debate have a direct opportunity to be heard. By their comments, their applause, and their very presence at the debate, they send a message.
• Evaluation: The exchange encourages audience members to investigate and re-examine their own views.
• Improved information: Public debates provide a better chance to develop arguments fully as well as a better chance to learn more about given issues- whether they are more general concerns (national or global issues or ethical consideration) or whether they are issues related directly to community or neighborhood life.

[]

Public Debates Help Organizations Meet Their Goals

A final category of benefit relates to the organizations that support debates. Whether they are community groups, activist organizations, government agencies, educational institutions, or youth clubs or organizations or any group that seeks to carry a message to the public can benefit from public debates. While potential benefits may be as numerous and specific as the goals of these groups, public debates can be seen as yielding the following general outcomes for organizations:

• Promoting visibility by allowing the group receive attention for its message
• Providing information by educating audience in a dynamic way
• Attracting new membership, audiences, and partners
• Leveling the playing field by allowing smaller, less recognized or less powerful groups to compete on an equal footing
• Motivating existing membership by providing an exhilarating and even addictive experience

In addition, as it was mentioned before public debates in neighborhoods provide opportunity for members of the public from different backgrounds to meet together and to get to know their views on different issue in a friendly environment, conducive of dialogue and exchange of ideas.

[]

Ethical Consideration

Like any other social and public activity, debate should be governed by some rules. Since debate involves investigation of controversial issues, both debaters and debate organizers should consider ethical aspects of their actions and decisions before the debate (e.g. when choosing a debate topic and conducting research) or during the debate itself (when presenting arguments to a public). To better illustrate the importance of ethical consideration in public debates, we would like to present the following true story:

The year 2001 Tournament and Youth Forum, conducted by the International Debate Education Association (IDEA) and held in Saint Petersburg, Russia, ended with a final debate before an audience of more than two hundred students and teachers from twenty-six different countries. The two teams of debaters, who themselves represented several different nations, focused on the issue of cultural rights, with the affirmative side advocating a United Nations role in increasing educational opportunities for Europe’s Roma population. The negative side was responsible for opposing this policy, and while other options certainly existed, they chose to argue that there was no need for such a policy. Appealing to broad racial stereotypes, these debaters argued that Roma children have no interest in learning anything and simply can’t be taught. At a factual level, there are good reasons to doubt this conclusion. Even in the audience there were living refutations to this claim since two Roma observers attended the program outside of their normal school year in order to gain education. Believing that the claims were not only wrong but insulting as well, both of these Roma participants left the room in protest, returning only when the debate ended and then only for the opportunity to address the audience and to defend, as forcefully as possible, the idea that the Roma should not be stereotyped as a people who don’t seek out or benefit from education. Others spoke as well, the problem was laid bare and in the end both teams apologized for the way they had handled the issue.

One could hopefully say that these remarks from the final debate served to instigate an important discussion and may have raised the consciousness of those who witnessed it or heard of it. Still, there are better ways to promote understanding, and the story of this debate gone wrong serves as an important reminder to all involved: participants and audience members alike need to view public debates from an ethical perspective, understanding that debates are better or worse, effective or worthless, noble or disgraceful based upon the degree to which the participants emphasize several elements of a good relationship: honesty, respect, and dialogue.

Public debating, because it involves practical communication, reasoning, and adaptation, always involves choice. All issues involving choice are potentially moral issues. Because a public debate is aimed at a general audience, unethical debaters might be tempted to engage in demagoguery by appealing to popular emotion and prejudice rather than making arguments. The fact that most public debates are specific and solitary events also means that opponents and audience members will rarely have a chance to use the “next time” in order to point out an erroneous quotation or criticize a suspect strategy. The importance of ethics is further emphasized by the fact that public debates take place in a context in which it is impossible to check on the validity of each bit of information and unwise to call attention to each act that is arguably unethical. Few audiences enjoy watching debaters bicker over who is more moral, and that is why the ethics of any public debate should be established and understood before the debate even starts. Good public debates can be found where event organizers, advocates, and audiences are committed to a positive view of responsible communication.

We can identify four cornerstone responsibilities of the public debater:

• A commitment to full preparation
• A dedication to the common good
• A respect for rational argument
• A respect for ideas and people

Let’s consider each of these responsibilities in greater detail and look at some of the resulting guidelines.

[]

A Commitment to Full Preparation

By spending time at a public debate, an audience is doing more than simply spending; they are actually investing. The time and the effort that it takes to follow a public debate attentively are given in the hope that there is some sort of return or benefit for the listener. The audience’s reasonable expectation of benefit creates an obligation on the part of the debaters to do their best to provide the audience with useful information presented in a way that is interesting and engaging. Without full preparation, opportunities for productive dialogue are limited. Thus the need for public debaters to commit to full preparation, and this obligation includes a number of elements:

• Plan in Advance of the Debate: a public debate demands thorough preparation. This includes previewing the necessary arrangements, selecting and developing arguments, planning speeches and all of the other steps mentioned below.
• Know Your Subject: complete preparation for any public debate requires that advocates seek out answers to a number of different questions: What is the factual foundation of the controversy? Who are the major parties? What has happened up to now? When debaters only rely on what they already know (or think they know) then they are limiting the potential for clash and the possibilities for genuinely informed dialogue. Solid knowledge is essential for a successful debate.
• Make Reference to External Research Material When Necessary: by researching the subject matter, you are avoiding error and presenting a more comprehensive argument in favor of your side. Turning to external authorities doesn’t limit a debater’s originality; rather, it allows debaters to participate along with others in an ongoing discussion of the topic.
• Avoid Representing the Thoughts of Others as Your Own: when presenting the thoughts and ideas of other people – give credit to them and indicate the original sources of information
• Identify Your Sources: instead of saying, “I remember reading somewhere that . . .” or “Scientists say . . .” debaters should let listeners and opponents know where their information comes from. Information from a source that is unidentified or vague is difficult to evaluate and may simply be discarded the audience. Identifying a source of information you are citing will make you appear more credible to your audience.
• Ensure That Your References Are Not Exaggerated or Distorted: when you refer to an author to support one of your arguments, make sure that you are giving the argument as much force as the author would give it, but no more. When you represent an author’s views, the critical question of fairness is this: Would that author agree to the way in which you have used his or her words, including your selection, emphasis, and implication?
• Ensure That You Are Using Fully Accurate and Legitimate References: fabricating support by inventing an expert who doesn’t exist or creating a quotation that was never published represent the absolute lowest points of debate. Even if you believe that something like this was probably said by someone, it is never acceptable to lie about evidence. Because it is impractical to verify independently every reference used in a public debate, the survival of intelligent debate in this context depends on trust.

[]

A Dedication to the Common Good

Inherent in the act of choosing debate over other potential means of persuasion is a willingness to place the common good over one’s own interests. The purely self-interested persuader would probably prefer an uninterrupted monologue to a debate in which an opponent receives equal billing and equal time. By choosing debate, you commit to a process that allows to present both sides—a process that may or may not help your “side” conceived narrowly, but a process that will serve the common good by promoting complete understanding and fair judgment. The following considerations will allow you to reach the goal of achieving the common good:

• Address the Debate to the Audience’s Level of Understanding: in public debates you usually address a general audience, and while audience members have a responsibility to try to understand, ultimately the question of whether the debate is enlightening or incomprehensible is in the debaters’ hands. Addressing the audience using terms that they don’t understand or in a style of speech that they find incomprehensible makes as much sense as debating in French for an audience that understands only Russian.
• Share Information: those focusing on the debate as a battle might be disturbed at the prospect of sharing information with the “enemy.” Viewed from the perspective of the debate’s larger goals, however, sharing information (specifically, main arguments and sources of information) can only improve the quality of debate. For those still focused on individual performance, remember that you can only look good if your opponent presents a reasonable challenge—sharing information will help that happen.
• Choose Depth Over Breadth: while you may put maximum pressure on your opponent by including every good argument that you can think of, that strategy is also likely to overwhelm the audience and result in insufficient development and explanation. A few fully developed arguments are always going to be more conducive to dialogue than a presentation of more shallow arguments.
• Privilege Content Over Competition: showing your skills and besting your opponent can be an important motivator in debate. However, the emphasis on the common good requires you to remember that audiences are rarely interested in personal rivalries and instead want to see debate as a contest in ideas. During the debate, your attention should focus on showing that your arguments have the most merit, not on showing that you are the best debater.

[]

A Respect for Rational Argument

Public debates are more than an opportunity to showcase your speaking skills or state your point of view. They are opportunities for argument and for the reasoned exchange of views. This interest in dialogue requires an emphasis on reasons.

• Make Your Reasoning Explicit- a central factor of argument is that it always addresses the question “why?” In a public debate this question may be silent or it may be quite vocal, but debaters have a responsibility to provide an answer in each argument that they make. Statements like “my support for this is . . .”, “here is why . . .” and “the reason for this is . . .” should run throughout the debate. In order to prevent the debate from becoming a simple exchange of position-statements, debaters should identify their reasoning and not rely on what they assume to be true or obvious.
• Avoid Basing Arguments Solely Upon Your Audience’s Prior Beliefs: reasoning in any public context must account for and include audience beliefs, but this is not a license simply to parrot audience views without offering reasons. Speaking to an audience of hunters, for example, you could probably rely on their belief that people should have the right to own guns but providing rational justification for gun ownership will make your case stronger and more defensible against your opponents’ attacks.
• Attack the Argument Not the Person: “My opponent is still very young and inexperienced . . . scarcely knows English . . . can’t grasp the complexities of my argument . . . looks funny . . . dresses badly.” All of these statements fail to promote rational dialogue by substituting an attack on the person for an attack on the argument. While there are a few circumstances in which the character and honesty of the advocate is a relevant issue (for example, in a debate between political candidates one may argue that character predicts future policy choices), in many cases the character assault merely covers for an inability to address the arguments. In most public contexts, debates are best conceived as contests between ideas, which happen to be represented by people, not contests between people.
• Avoid Appeals to Fallacious Reasoning: reasoning solely based on audience beliefs may be termed argumentum ad populum just as attacking the person rather than the argument may be termed argumentum ad hominem. Like other fallacies, these strategies subvert reason by offering an appearance of proof. Other “tricks” of reasoning include popular appeals (“everyone thinks it is so . . .”), reasoning from too few or atypical examples (“I know in my town it is true that . . .”), slippery slope (“if we require licenses for guns, what is to stop us from requiring licenses for everything?”), and many others.
• Evaluate Arguments Based on the Reasons Offered: as an audience member or judge of a public debate, you may be tempted to base your assessment of the debate on the credibility or speaking skills of the debater, or the extent to which the debater’s views mirror your own. While these considerations can’t be dismissed, you should be committed—whether as a spectator, participant, or judge—to the debate’s main function of allowing a comparison of reasoning rather than other considerations.

[]

A Respect for Ideas and People

An essential element of a debate is that it is a human encounter, one that respects reason over force, arguments over assertions, and persuasion over demagoguery. Aside from a simple recognition of respect for all parties in a debate and the process itself, there are several important elements that we see:

[]

Avoid Name-Calling, Personal Categorization, and Harassment

While most of us are smart enough to avoid making gratuitous insults to our hosts, our audience or our opponents, many public debates still provide opportunities for insensitivity and incidents such as the one described at the beginning of this chapter. The negative team in that debate, by wrapping their arguments in gross generalizations and ethnic stereotypes of Roma people, failed to show respect to specific audience members, for the reasoning process, and for simple human diversity. Even if there had been no Roma in the audience, arguments along these lines would have been offensive—perhaps especially so. That is, it would have been even worse if no Roma had been there to defend themselves. In these and other situations, there is a tension between a desire to promote an open forum free from restrictions on speech and the desire to maintain a civil dialogue.

[]

Appeal to the Best in Your Audience

It has already been mentioned that in a context of public debate, debaters can appeal to the beliefs as well as values that their audiences hold important- for example compassion, intelligence and honesty. We dishonor dialogue, however, when we appeal to vanity, nationalism, pure self-interest, or prejudice of any kind. For example, let’s say that in a debate before students, a student debater argues that a change to their school’s honor code is a good idea because it will allow students to cheat more effectively without getting caught. In this case, he would be communicating a specific image of the audience—namely that he sees them as people who would applaud the opportunity to cheat. He communicates not only his own views in the subject but also implicitly suggests that his audiences share the same view.

[]

Preserve the Value of Free Expression

All debates will at least attempt to restrict discourse to a more or less specific topic but there is a world of difference between topic restriction and viewpoint restriction. Consistent with the values of debate in the public sphere, organizers and participants should avoid any a priori effort to exclude a particular viewpoint. While adhering to the principles articulated above, advocates should consider themselves free to pick the best available argument and should not restrict themselves to whatever the audience considers most acceptable. Sometimes in public dialogues, those who advocate unpopular viewpoints, and are criticized for it, will answer their opponents: “I have the right to my own views!” Certainly so, but as long as their opponents are saying, “You can express your view, but you are wrong,” and not, “You can’t express your view” - then they are not censoring. On the contrary, we avoid censorship precisely in order to allow criticism.

When we are dealing with debate opponents that we know, we can ideally rely on an unspoken understanding with regard to respecting ethnical aspects of public debate. In other contexts it may be advisable to make our ethical commitments explicit. One way to adapt the need for clear ethical commitments to the one-time nature of the public debate is to use a signed ethical compact. The purpose of an ethical compact is to set forth the advocates’ mutual views on appropriate debating behavior in the form of an agreement that could exist on its own or could be incorporated into a larger agreement to debate that includes other elements such as format, topic, schedule and physical arrangements. While an ethical compact in itself is not likely to be enforceable on debaters who may after all still behave unethically even after agreeing not to, the existence of such a compact has several advantages nonetheless. First, it is explicit and thus reduces the possibilities for misunderstanding. Second, the positive act of affixing one’s signature can serve as a strong inducement to follow those commitments. Finally, the existence of the signed agreement can substantially increase the chance that an advocate who violated one of the principles can be effectively criticized for doing so after the fact.

The possibility of being criticized for ethical violations is a powerful deterrent— especially so in high profile debates that involve the possibility of coverage by the mass media. In settings that are likely to be highly contentious, the compact could even be made public or be distributed to the audience prior to the debate. While it isn’t always necessary, a signed agreement can promote clear understanding and deter unethical behavior, something that is in the interests of both sides.

We offer the following as one example of an ethical compact. Because such agreements, and ethics more generally, can be seen as the product of dialogue, your own compact may differ.

<<ETHICAL COMPACT HERE>>

[]

Preparing for a Public Debate

Successful public debates require a lot preparation. There is a lot of to be done before debaters even start working on developing persuasive arguments and practicing their speeches or securing the venue for a debate or advertising it. Before moving into the above stages of preparation debate organizers must analyze—they must analyze their own motives, the audience, the situation, the medium and their opponents. In the pages that follow, we will discuss each of these tasks separately, but we cannot emphasize too strongly that all of these issues are inter-connects. Organizers may begin by asking, “Who is our audience?” but in almost the same breath, they must ask, “What do they care about and what should they care about?” and “How do we want to affect them?”

[]

Analyzing Motives

The first question anyone organizing a public a debate should ask is “Why? Why are we having this public debate? What are we trying to get out of this? What do we hope to achieve?” A public debate can have six distinct goals. The organizers of a public debate must decide which of these goals they intend to pursue:

To Inform

When debaters decide to adopt this goal, they may present both sides of a controversy, and each side argues its position forcefully; the primary purpose of the debate, however, is just to convey information, perhaps as a preparatory step for some persuasive efforts at a later date.

To Bring Attention to an Issue

Sometimes the primary aim of a debate is to get the issue on the table. If the debaters and organizers conclude that the target audience does not care enough about a certain issue, or is unaware of it and its importance, their motive would be to raise awareness about the issue. The debate may spur the audience’s interest and prompt them to get involved by making donations, helping other people, writing letters (e.g. to their MPs and to newspaper editors), or by contributing in some other way. Remember: sometimes just raising awareness can do wonders for a cause!

To Persuade

When debaters try to convince the audience to adopt their proposition, and not the one of their opponent- persuasion will be the primary goal of a public debate. Debaters will want to persuade the audience about the merits of their respective policies.

To Move

Debaters may want to move their audience into action. Public speaking is an art, which is, just like any other art, capable of moving and inspiring people. The debate can aim to provide spiritual uplift, or foster passion for a cause. Getting people to take some action is impossible without moving them, usually with emotional appeals, as a lot of highly influential leaders know very well. Pure logical reasoning does not move masses of people to wage war or overturn a government. Whether the ultimate goal of debaters is to rally their audience around a certain cause or political candidate, or to sign a petition, or to join a protest, the first thing they need to do is to move that audience.

To Entertain

Although there are some forms of debates whose purpose is only entertainment (e.g. “pub debates- taking place in pubs or bars!), all debates must to a certain extent entertain. A debater is not going to capture much of an audience unless, on some level, the audience is having fun. So even when addressing the most serious topics, debaters should consider this goal. It is impossible to inform or persuade an audience about an important issue unless the audience is entertained enough to stay and listen to the debate.

To Display Skills

Sometimes the goal of the debate may be to teach about the activity itself. If debaters want to recruit new members for your debating society or debate team, or if a teacher wants to use debate as a teaching tool in the classroom, or if an advocate wants to persuade his/her colleagues that debate is a good tool for advocacy, the debate is an end in itself, not just a means to achieve some of the goals mentioned above.

It is important to remember that many debates will share more than one of the objectives above (e.g. will both inform and persuade). Analyzing the audience and the context

No public debate is an isolated event, but a response to a broader world and its context. Therefore, it is critical for debate organizers to understand the historical, cultural, social and political context of the audience, the setting and the topic.

The organizers of a public debate must ask themselves the following questions:

• What are the primary societal concerns of the moment?
• How familiar is the proposed topic to the potential audience?
• Is it something that they will immediately be interested in or is it something that will require some marketing?
• How does the average listener feel about the topic? (Is it something unlikely to inspire strong views because the public does not know much about the issue? Is the topic something that would strike most people as so implausible that it would be a waste of time to listen to it?)
• Is the topic appropriate for the type of audience to be invited? (Isn’t it too controversial and likely to spark negative emotions?)

[]

Analyzing the Audience

A public debate preparation should be based on thorough audience analysis since the outcome of the debate will ultimately depend on its effect on the audience.

Organizers of a public debate can seek information about their audience through many different channels: direct observation (from previous similar (or even different) settings), opinion surveys, focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, etc. The important thing is to keep the central role of the audience in mind in every step of the debate preparation process. Organizers of public debates should consider the following characteristics of an audience:

• Demographic Characteristics
• Age/Generation
• Will most of the audience be younger or older? What generation do they belong to?
• Sex/Gender

Although it is important to avoid stereotypes and hasty generalizations related to gender roles, it is also wise not to disregard these differences; they should be considered when choosing a topic and adapting it to the anticipated audience. The controversial issue of abortion, for example, affects women differently than men, aside from their political orientation and religious beliefs.

Race/Ethnicity

Race and ethnicity can be very pertinent factors in the response of an audience, depending on the issue. Racial and ethnic groups sometimes have their own specific interests and needs, and debaters need to be aware of them in order to respond to them adequately.

Other

Other demographic characteristics can also be important factors in audience analysis – e.g., socioeconomic background, occupation, religion, political orientation, education, etc. Knowing as much of this information in advance as possible can serve as a good predictor of how the audience will be affected by the debate.

[]

Anticipating Audience Expectations, Needs and Interests

In anticipation of their audience’s needs the organizers of debates should ask themselves the following questions:

• Why is this audience here?
• What do they expect to get out of this debate?
• What will they leave with?
• How much does the audience already know about the topic? (remember: debate which offers too little information may be too boring – debate which offers too much may be incomprehensible for some audiences)
• What the audience thinks and knows about the debaters? (the speaker’s credibility is inevitably linked to his or her message).

[]

Determining Audience Attitudes Towards the Topic

Anticipating the audience’s attitudes about the debated issue is essential. First, the attitude of the audience – favorable, neutral or unfavorable – will to a great degree determine the choice of arguments, reasoning, evidence, language, style, etc. Second, it is impossible to measure the outcome of the debate – that is, how it affected the audience – without knowing where they stood on the issue before they heard a debate on it.

[]

Favorable Audience

The debater’s goals in speaking to a favorable audience could be to solidify and strengthen their attitudes, or to move them from theoretical approval to positive action. Debaters could ask the audience for personal involvement by showing them how their lives will be affected, or how their actions will create a difference. The goal could be to get the audience to make a public commitment (oral or written) by signing a petition or by raising their hands. Another goal of debating in front of a favorable audience could be to make them carry on the message, to give them “ammunition” to persuade others – arguments, evidence, and responses to counter arguments. By listening to the debate, they will learn how to do it themselves.

[]

Neutral Audience

The audience can be neutral for several reasons:

• They could simply be uninterested.
• They could be uninformed about the issue altogether.
• They could know a lot about the issue, but remain undecided about the particular controversy under discussion.

If the audience is neutral because they are uninterested, debaters should stress attention-getting factors; they should provide concrete illustrations of how the issue affects the audience, and sprinkle their remarks with humor and human interest. If the audience is uninformed, it is a good idea to emphasize clarifying and illuminating material such as explanations, definitions, examples, and restatements. If people in the audience are undecided on the issue, debaters need to make a greater effort at establishing their credibility by presenting new arguments that blend logical and emotional appeals; they should also make sure to recognize opposing arguments, and if they can, refute them. It is also important to offer new arguments rather than recycle those that have been heard already a hundred times; using more logical appeals is usually better for this type of audience.

[]

Unfavorable Audience

Since an unfavorable audience is predisposed to reject the debaters and their message, the debaters should try to set limited, realistic goals for the debate. It is important to stress common ground with the audience – that is, common values, goals, and needs. Common ground establishes a basis for communication, which is the first step in addressing an unfavorable audience. Furthermore, debaters should base their cases on sound logic and extensive evidence; emotional appeals are likely to be rejected as “manipulation.” Every step of reasoning should be explained; nothing should be taken for granted. The extensive use of factual and statistical evidence is needed, and debaters should always cite their sources. The refutation of counter arguments is crucial here. Special attention ought to be paid to establishing and projecting a credible image, an image of a calm, reasonable, fair, well-informed and congenial person.

[]

Selecting and Crafting the Topic for Public Debates

Choosing a good debate topic is one of the most important and yet also one of the most difficult tasks for debate organizers (whether they organize a debate tournament or a public debate). A good debate topic will make for good debates- likewise – a bad debate topic will result in poor debates and potentially a lot of disappointment on the part of debaters, judges and the audience. When selecting a topic area and eventually wording it in a form of a debate resolution, debate organizers should take into account the following criteria for good debate topics:

• A good debate topic should be interesting – a lot of times this means that a topic concerns a significant contemporary issue or something that is hotly discussed and debate in a public sphere (in the media, etc.). Good debate topics can be inspired by the newspaper headlines, TV news reports and editorials.
• A good debate topic should be controversial – which means that it should be debatable. Good debate topics provide enough disagreement or pose a problem with many potential solutions
• Good debate topic should be balanced - it should provide enough arguments and evidence for both sides in debate- the affirmative and negative.
• A good debate topic should avoid being too abstract and focus on issues that both debaters and the audience understand and can relate to.
• At the same time a good debate topic should avoid being too specific and technical- some issues related to science may pose good debates for scientists or experts specializing in a given narrow field but would be to complicated for most layman debaters and audiences.

When looking for god topics for debates organizers of a public debate could begin by asking themselves a number of questions:

• Have there been any recent events which are dominating public discourse right now?
• These days when acquaintances meet, what do they talk about?
• What are my country’s political leaders currently arguing over?
• Are there any new or proposed laws which have been the subject of controversy or criticism?
• What topics are being covered on the opinion pages of my local newspaper?
• That last time I got into a discussion about political or social issues, what was that discussion about?
• Are there any subjects which the debaters already know a great deal about?
• Are there any subjects which the debaters have an interest in learning more about?

When organizing a debate in a neighborhood, debaters may want to focus on issues that are directly related to the life of people in the neighborhood. For example, specific proposals or plans for any changes to be implemented in a neighborhood- e.g. new constructions or developments (or lack of thereof) may be good topics for debates in neighborhoods which will generate big interest and allow members of the community to express their views on a given issue.

Once you have decided on the subject area, it is time to craft the debate topic for your debate. As a communication device, which will be presented to the audience prior to debate (e.g. in the form of advertisement, on a poster, etc.) the topic should be clear; it should convey the scope of the dispute and should communicate the separation of the two adversaries’ arguments in the public debate context. Broadly, we see the functions of the proposition in a public debate as follows:

• To attract interest: the topic is the most compelling element for audiences seeking to attend a public debate in order to add to and focus their own understanding of important political and societal issues. Organizers should pick a topic that is likely to arouse passions on both sides of the issue.
• To communicate the debate’s central theme: the proposition should identify the subject matter in a clear and simple phrase. “Resolved: that our government should provide for the general welfare” gives no clue to the real content of the debate, while “Resolved: that our government should guarantee a living wage for all working adults” is much clearer.
• To communicate the debate’s central division: the proposition should provide potential audience members with an expectation of what sort of advocacy to expect from each side. “This house would reject the current intellectual property laws” may lead to good debate, but may also lead audiences to wonder whether the proposing side seeks stronger laws, or no laws at all. “This house would strengthen claims to intellectual property” would be much more clear in letting the audience know what to expect from each side.

[]

General Considerations for Crafting Effective Propositions

A public debate proposition should embody elements of good communication. Given the importance of language and the important function of debate topic for the success of a given debate, crafting its specific language should take a bit of time and more than a little care. The following elements should be contained in any public debate propositions:

• An Identified Controversy: for a debate to occur, there needs to be controversy. There must be a question that reasonable people would answer differently. “What nations comprise NATO?” can be answered in only one way, with the appropriate information; “Should NATO membership be expanded?” will produce more than one answer. The existence of such a question forms the root of the proposition.
• One Central Idea: in order to provide a clear focus and an understandable sense of the responsibilities of each side, the proposition should center on one subject. Multiple subjects make it hard for debaters to take clear positions. Given the proposition that “Gambling and prostitution are immoral,” debaters would essentially have to take on two cases: one against gambling and one against prostitution. Despite any perceived connection between two subjects, to combine both in the same proposition is to promote confusion. What would happen, for example, if the proposition’s supporters won their case against prostitution, but lost it against gambling?
• A Single, Simple Declarative Sentence: the proposition should always be a single sentence. In order to communicate meaning to your potential audience quickly, it should be a simple sentence as well. A simple subject-verb-object pattern that avoids unnecessary modifiers and clauses will often produce a proposition that communicates the essential content in the fewest possible words. For example, the proposition might be: “The European Union (subject) should support (verb) gay rights (object).”
• Clear Burden of Proof on the Proposing Side: the proposition should be phrased so as to place the greater burden of proof on the proposing side. There is a presumption in favor of the existing situation, or status quo (the accused is innocent and “free” until proven guilty); the party that bears the burden of proof must argue to change the status quo (the accused should be judged guilty, and subject to imprisonment).
• Phrasing that Includes a Conclusion Only, Not Reasons: although the reasoning behind a conclusion is essential in a debate, in order to promote clarity and add flexibility, the reasons are best left to the debaters and ought not be included in the proposition. The proposition, “This house believes that the death penalty is unacceptable because it devalues human life” is better addressed as simply, “This house believes that the death penalty is unacceptable.”
• Two or More Identifiable and Reasonable Sides to the Issue: debate propositions should be well- balanced providing equal opportunity to find arguments and evidence for both sides in a debate.
• Neutral terminology: a debate propositions should be phrased in a neutral manner avoiding terms that appear to slant the evaluation one way or another.
• Avoidance of ambiguity: use clear and unambiguous terms when crafting a proposition

Below are samples of debate resolutions divided into categories that you may want to use for your public debates, before you start developing your own debate topics.

[]

International Issues

• National interest should be valued over moral principle in the conduct of foreign affairs.
• A government owes no duty to protect the welfare and rights of citizens of other nations.
• A nation's sovereignty ought to be valued over international order.
• The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.
• Nations should retaliate against terrorists.
• The United Nations should expand the protection of cultural rights.
• Resolved: that the nations of the world should support the creation of an international criminal court.
• Terrorists deserve justice delivered by soldiers, not by courts of law.
• The European Union should increase environmental regulations.

[]

General National Issues

• Resolved: that all citizens ought to perform a period of national service.
• Resolved: that citizens ought to have the right to bear arms.
• Risking human life to gain greater scientific knowledge is unethical.
• Genetic engineering is immoral.
• The death penalty deters crime.
• Gay-parented families are harmful to children.
• Resolved: that our government should guarantee a living wage for all working adults.
• This house would strengthen claims to intellectual property.
• Resolved: that the death penalty is never justified.
• This house would oppose the use of animals by science.
• Society overvalues material success.
• Violence on television causes violence in society.
• Resolved: that community service is an obligation for all citizens.

[]

Political Process

• Resolved: that civil disobedience in a democracy is justified.
• Resolved: that society's obligation to the poor ought to be valued above individual economic freedom.
• Capitalism provides for a better society than socialism.
• Every citizen has a duty to participate in elections.
• Religion and governments don’t mix.
• The Government is superior to the marketplace in guaranteeing quality health care.

[]

Rights

• Resolved: that human rights ought not be sacrificed for national security interests.
• Resolved: that the restriction of civil liberties for the sake of combating terrorism is justified.
• Mandatory drug testing of public officials is justified.
• Resolved: that the protection of society's health interests is ensured through broad-based mandatory drug testing.
• Testing for AIDS ought to be more important than personal privacy rights.
• Resolved: that the public's right to know outweighs a candidate's right to privacy.
• The public's right to know ought to be valued above national security interests.
• Resolved: that an individual's freedom of expression is of greater value than social harmony.
• Resolved: that hate speech ought to be censored for the good of society.
• Community censorship of pornography is justified.
• Governments have a responsibility to regulate the content of information available to their citizens through the internet.
• Resolved: that laws which protect citizens from themselves are unjustified.
• Capital punishment is justified.
• The criminal justice system ought to place a higher value on rehabilitation than on retribution.
• Terminally ill patients have the right to die.
• Resolved: that physician assistance in the suicide of gravely ill patients ought to be legalized.
• The school's right to search students and lockers is more important than a student's right to privacy.
• The Boy Scouts should have the right to exclude gays.
• Marijuana should be legalized.
• Society should legally sanction homosexual marriages.
• Resolved: that schools should teach acceptance of homosexuality.
• This house would not sacrifice civil rights for security.
• When in conflict, liberty is more important than security.

Propositions in public debates play several unique communicative roles that are not found in other debate settings. Public debate propositions do not simply serve to limit the discussion and define the sides of the debate; they also play an important role in gaining attention and communicating the purpose of the debate. Topic analysis precedes the creation of the proposition in order to ensure that the proposition selected captures the controversy that advocates would like to embrace. Public debate propositions should not be designed to fit the requirements of any preexisting mold or model; their development is best guided by a complete analysis of the particular situation in which the debate will take place, with a proposition designed for that situation.

[]

Debate Formats

If the goal of public debate were simply to promote a spirited discussion, then it could be accomplished simply by putting opponents in the same room with an audience, a camera or a microphone and letting them go at each other. The resulting debate might be vigorous—but the debaters would probably spend just as much time arguing over whose turn it was to speak as they would arguing about substance. The purpose of a format for debate is to ensure that both sides get a fair opportunity to be heard. Usually taking the form of a sequence of timed opportunities to speak, opportunities to question, and often opportunities to receive and respond to audience feedback, the format ideally allows the advocates and the audience to focus on ideas rather than on procedure. When the specific norms that regulate speaking times and opportunities recede into the background because they are understood and accepted by all parties, then the debate can be an intelligent contest of ideas and not a desperate fight for time.

Effective public debate formats should address the following concerns.

• The format should be adapted to the attention needs of the audience, the subject matter, and the advocates: planning should always begin with a consideration of your situation: Is the subject fairly technical and in need of developed and time-consuming explanations, or will the themes be simple and well known? Is the audience coming to see a spirited contest, or are they coming basically to be educated? Different answers will yield different format choices.

• The format should promote the orderly development of arguments: Arguments in a debate develop through phases: after the debater articulates the basic thesis of her argument and supports it with reasons (the “construction” phase), her/his argument is subject to the responses of her/his opponents (the “evaluation” phase); she/he then answers these responses, and reaffirms her/his position (the “defense” phase). Public debates could also incorporate questioning periods and audience participation as part of the evaluation and defense phases. Below is a list of debate phases:
  • Position Construction: the position of each side needs to be laid out. Controversial terms need to be defined, major claims need to be explained, and positions need to be supported with clear logic or quoted evidence.
  • Refutation: Once the opponent’s arguments are heard, advocates have a responsibility to provide a reaction. Refutation – the act of evaluating the reasoning, the support, or the implications of an adversary’s argument – should occur as early in the debate as possible.
  • Rebuttal: The act of defending a teams’ argument after it has been refuted is called “rebuttal.” Generally, this defense of a team’s arguments against attacks belongs in the closing phases of the debate. Often, in order to encourage final speeches to focus just on rebuttal (and to avoid the continuing articulation of more and more arguments), advocates are forbidden to introduce new arguments in the closing speeches of a debate.
  • Questioning: Questioning is used to clarify information, to uncover flaws and to lay the groundwork for a teams’ own argument. By either allowing a specific time for questioning (often referred to as “cross-examination”) or by allowing questions which interrupt an opponent’s speech time (often referred to as “points of information” or simply “points”), debaters/organizers of debates can add the excitement of direct interaction between speakers.
  • Audience Participation: An excellent way to build audience involvement and expand the scope and interaction of the debate is to allow a specific time for the audience to ask questions, make short speeches, or both.
  • Preparation Time: While the majority of preparation for a debate should occur before the debate begins, advocates may need time to collect their thoughts and find information prior to their own individual speeches. This kind of preparation time offers little of interest to an audience attending a public debate, however so it is best for preparation time to occur at the same time as other activities: for example, a speaker might prepare for his/her speech while his/her partner is questioning the other side.

• The format should include equal and alternating speaking time. A core principle of debate is that each side should have an equal opportunity to make its case and this suggests that the speaking time should be strictly equal for each side. The ultimate defense against charges of unfairness is, “You each had an equal opportunity to make your case.” In addition, the need to respond to what the other side has said suggests that speaking time should alternate from one side to the other so that attacks may be made and responded to in sequence.
• The format should provide the first opportunity to the side supporting the proposition. Generally, the proposition being debated will place the greater burden of proof on the side supporting the proposition. For this reason, audiences will need a reason to accept a proposition before they need to hear a reason to reject it. Frequently, but not always, this principle also extends to giving the side with the greater burden of proof the last word as well. The greater the burden on the proponent’s side – that is, the more unpopular or difficult their position is – the greater the reason to follow this convention.
• Your format should include variety. In order to retain interest, your public debate should include a mix of types of activities – speeches, questions, and audience comments – without any one activity dominating for an extended period of time. Particularly for debates on television or radio, the need to keep speaking opportunities short and varied is critical to maintaining a lively debate.

While you can develop your own debate format that will best suit your and your audience’s needs – there are already a lot of popular debate formats that are used for the purpose of competitive debates.

The formats discussed below—many of which were developed for tournament settings— must be altered to include audience participation. In developing a format for your public debate, you should approach these formats as illustrative and should not feel the need to adopt a format exactly as laid out: questioning styles and opportunities can be changed, the number and length of component sections can always be changed and adapted, and audience participation can always be added. We will refer generally to the side supporting the proposition as the “affirmative” and the side opposing the resolution as the “negative” side. All of these formats can also be followed by an audience decision or discussion period or both.

[]

The Lincoln-Douglas Format (individual debate with two sides)

It is a one-on-one format. It got its name from the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

The Lincoln-Douglas format includes constructive speeches, rebuttals and questioning time in less than 35 minutes. Although the total speaking times for affirmative and negative are equal, the affirmative speaks three times (beginning and ending the debate) while the negative speaks twice. Each speaker begins with a constructive speech to present his/her main arguments, with the negative debater’s speech being a bit longer so as to include both negative case development and refutation. The affirmative debater has two short rebuttals in which to refute the negative’s case, defend his/her own, and conclude the debate. The negative debater has one relatively longer rebuttal in which to extend and defend his arguments and summarize the debate in his/her favor.

6 min. Affirmative Constructive 3 min. Questioning by negative 7 min. Negative Constructive 3 min. Questioning by affirmative 4 min. First Affirmative Rebuttal 6 min. Negative Rebuttal 3 min. Second Affirmative Rebuttal

[]

The Policy Format (team debate with two sides)

Currently associated in the U.S. with high school and collegiate policy debate, this format has the advantage of strict equality: every speaker gets exactly the same amount of speaking and questioning time as any other. On the other hand, at least if used with the tournament time limits listed below, this format can make for a fairly long debate – as much as two hours if the standard allotment of preparation time is used. Each speaker delivers a constructive as well as a rebuttal speech, e.g., the first speaker from the affirmative side delivers both the first affirmative constructive as well as the first affirmative rebuttal. The basic debate case is laid out in the first affirmative constructive, and a case against the proposition, combined with a refutation of the affirmative’s case, is provided in the first negative constructive. The following two speeches develop and extend those arguments and continue the refutation of the other side. Questions follow each constructive speech and the person doing the questioning is never the person who has to speak next; thus, the questioning time can also be used as last-minute preparation time for the upcoming speaker.

9 min. First Affirmative Constructive 3 min. Questioning of first affirmative speaker (by second negative speaker) 9 min. First Negative Constructive 3 min. Questioning of first negative speaker (by first affirmative speaker) 9 min. Second Affirmative Constructive 3 min. Questioning of second affirmative speaker (by first negative speaker) 9 min. Second Negative Constructive 3 min. Questioning of second negative speaker (by second affirmative speaker) 6 min. First Negative Rebuttal 6 min. First Affirmative Rebuttal 6 min. Second Negative Rebuttal 6 min. Second Affirmative Rebuttal

[]

The Karl Popper Format (team debate with two sides)

Designed for members of the International Debate Education Association (www.idebate.org) this format is predominantly used in secondary school programs in Eastern and Central Europe and Central Asia (but is also expanding in Africa, South-East Asia and Latin America). This format involves three speakers on each side and provides just one speaking opportunity for each speaker (although four of the six speakers also conduct questioning). Its strengths are that it includes a greater number of speakers and provides a gentle introduction to debate for less-experienced speakers (the responsibilities are somewhat uneven: the first speakers on each team have a total of 12 minutes on stage; the second and third speakers on each team have 10 minutes apiece.)

The first speech from the affirmative side has the goal of laying out the team’s main arguments. The first negative speaker follows, developing not only that team’s case but also their refutation of the affirmative’s arguments. The two speeches that follow are designed for extending the arguments and the refutation of each side, but not for introducing new arguments. A final speech from each side provides an opportunity to compare and summarize respective debate cases.

6 min. First Affirmative (Constructive) 3 min. Questioning of first affirmative (by third negative) 6 min. First Negative (Constructive) 3 min. Questioning of first negative (by third affirmative) 5 min. Second Affirmative (Rebuttal) 3 min. Questioning of second affirmative (by the first negative) 5 min. Second Negative (Rebuttal) 3 min. Questioning of second negative (by the first affirmative) 5 min. Third Affirmative (Rebuttal) 5 min. Third Negative (Rebuttal)

[]

The Parliamentary Format (team debate with two sides, audience included)

The parliamentary format is probably one of the most recognized formats. The format has the advantage of a relatively short duration (compared to other 2-on-2 competitive formats) and nearly constant interaction. The format includes the honorific titles of a European-style parliament: the team usually referred to as “Affirmative” is called “Government” and includes a Prime Minister and a Member of Government; and the team usually referred to as “Negative” is called “Opposition” and includes a “Leader of Opposition” and a “Member of Opposition.” These terms may or may not be used. Although the use of these terms might convey a special sense of importance or history, they are likely to create more confusion than they are worth in a public debate context – if only because the position taken by the “government” team may not be the same as the position taken by the actual government in the country where the debate is taking place.

This format lacks specifically set-aside times for questioning, but includes the possibility for questions offered throughout the first phase of the debate in a form of points of information. Once a constructive speech has completed its first minute but before it has entered its last minute, an opposing speaker may rise at any point and request a “point of information” – that is, the speaker requests permission to ask a question. At that point, the speaker holding the floor can either accept the question and answer it, before moving back into his speech, or he can say, “No, thank you,” and continue on with his speech. The strength of this feature is that it offers a chance to address a point just after it has been made. A weakness is that, if overused, it can be distracting to the speaker and the audience.

7 min. Government: Prime Minister’s Constructive ‘Points’ allowed after first minute and before last minute. 8 min. Opposition: Leader’s Constructive ‘Points’ allowed after first minute and before last minute. 8 min. Government: Member’s Constructive ‘Points’ allowed after first minute and before last minute. 8 min. Opposition: Member’s Constructive ‘Points’ allowed after first minute and before last minute. 4 min. Opposition: Leader’s Rebuttal 5 min. Government: Prime Minister’s Rebuttal

[]

The ‘Town Hall’ Format (team debate with two sides, audience included)

This is a format for two teams that includes a focused period for audience interaction. Based on a form of debate used at the National Communication Association’s ‘Town Hall Debates’ held at the association’s annual conventions, this 50-60 minute format has proven to be useful and popular for public on-campus debates as well.

Through the first four speeches, the first half hour of the debate roughly, the audience hears from each of the speakers, and hears each speaker ask questions and answer questions. The goal of the four constructive speeches is to lay out all of the arguments for one’s side and to introduce all of the planned refutations against the other side. Up to this point, the debate follows the pattern of the policy debate format described above. After all four debaters have been heard, there is a 15-minute questioning period, during which audience members can make their own arguments or can directly question the speakers. A moderator can handle this audience participation period by providing individual speaking times to audience members who would like to give speeches from the floor (2 minutes, for example) or by simply letting audience members speak for a reasonable amount of time. The moderator should attempt to balance the questions and statements for the two sides as much as possible – for example, by allowing the other side time to answer or react to a question that was asked of their opponents. Finally, the debate ends with two summaries presented by each side. This summary, presented by one member of each team (it doesn’t matter which one) reviews the main issues of the debate and provides reasons why the speaker’s side should be chosen the winner.

5 min. First Affirmative Constructive 2 min. Questioning of first affirmative (by second negative) 5 min. First Negative Constructive 2 min. Questioning of first negative (by first affirmative) 4 min. Second Affirmative Constructive 2 min. Questioning of second affirmative (by first negative) 4 min. Second Negative Constructive 2 min. Questioning of second negative (by second affirmative) 15 min. Audience Speech/Question Period 3 min. Final Negative Summary 3 min. Final Affirmative Summary

[]

A ‘Quick Debate’ Format (individual or team debate with two sides)

Particularly in settings involving the broadcast media, debates sometimes must be accomplished in very short amounts of time. Debaters with experience in tournament debate, as well as public policy advocates, may feel that any issue worth debating needs at least an hour of debating time – but it is possible to offer the kernel of a debate, the fundamental give and take on the central controversy, in far less time. The following format requires only ten minutes, and provides two speaking opportunities and a questioning opportunity to two sides.

This format requires speakers to have both discipline (selecting only one or two arguments) and a great deal of word economy. While the abbreviated format may not permit very complete argument development or extension, it does allow the basic points of view to be communicated and contrasted. As such, it might be ideal for a program that includes debate along with other activities – for example, a talk show or a radio call-in show. Starting such a program with a quick debate may be an excellent way to gain attention and briefly communicate the gist of the controversy.

2 min. Affirmative Constructive 1 min. Questioning of affirmative 2 min. Negative Constructive 1 min. Questioning of negative 2 min. Affirmative Summary 2 min. Negative Summary

[]

A Three-Way Debate (team debate with three sides)

The formats that have been considered so far, and debate more generally, could be accused of presuming that all conflicts have only two sides. While it is certainly most common to conceive of disputes in a way that permits a single “pro” and a single “con” on a question, it is at least conceivable that a debate might involve more than two delineated sides. The more parties that are added, of course, the more the event moves from a debate to a discussion.

This format equalizes time with a varied speaking order; ensures that each debater speaks three times, questions both of his opponents, and is in turn questioned by both of his opponents. It is a little confusing, to be sure, but it remains possible to envision a setting in which it would not only be appropriate but would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues.

6 min. Affirmative, 1st Constructive 2 min. Questioning by Negative B 5 min. Negative A, 1st Constructive 2 min. Questioning by Affirmative 6 min. Negative B, 1st Constructive 2 min. Questioning by Negative A 5 min. Negative A, 2nd Constructive 2 min. Questioning by Negative B 5 min. Negative B, 2nd Constructive 2 min. Questioning by Affirmative 5 min. Affirmative, 2nd Constructive 2 min. Questioning by Negative A 3 min. Negative B, Summary 3 min. Affirmative, Summary 3 min. Negative A, Summary

[]

A ‘Running’ Format

The chief value of any format is that it lays out a clear understanding of who speaks when, as well as a clear understanding of who can ask questions, and when question can be asked. In some settings, however, it may be appropriate to employ a less formal and less rigid system. A “running” format, as the name suggests, is a format which is worked out ‘live’ by the moderator during the actual course of the debate. In other words, just as in a normal conversation, speaking turns and times are worked out in a reasonable fashion without applying strict rules and limits. A person speaks, within reason, until it seems fair to allow the opponent to respond. The response continues in turn until it seems like it is time to move on to another issue. If a question comes up it can be asked, and the debate as a whole becomes as self-regulating as a friendly discussion.

In the abstract, at least, this sounds very natural. In practice, on the other hand, it is quite difficult to achieve. Particularly in a debate in which the two sides have strongly conflicting interests and perspectives, self-regulation can quickly turn to bickering. The debate with which we began this chapter was intended to be a freewheeling exchange. It involved two public figures and probably one of the most experienced moderators in the United States. The fact that it still devolved into rancorous bickering should give caution to anyone contemplating this format. With a set format, debaters no longer wonder, “When do I get to speak? How long can I speak? When can I ask questions? When do I have to answer questions?” A set format removes much of the potential for conflict over procedure and keeps the conflict where it should be: on the content.

Still, there may be settings in which organizers might prefer to work with a natural and unstructured “running” format. For those settings, we suggest the following.

• The moderator has to be highly engaged in the debate. Rather than just letting people speak, the moderator must constantly ask herself questions like, “Is it time to move on?,” “Did both sides get a chance to address this issue?,” etc.
• The moderator has to be trusted by both sides, so much so that her decisions go unquestioned during the debate. If the moderator has decided that one side has gotten its argument out and that the other side should now be heard, that decision should be accepted without complaint by the participants.
• The moderator should ensure equality in all things – speaking times, questioning opportunity, and speaking turns (i.e., the same side shouldn’t always be given the last word). One essential element is that the moderator, or an associate, should keep a running clock on both speakers to ensure that at all points during the debate, their respective speaking times remain roughly equal.

[]

Coaching and Preparation

This chapter focuses on that process of preparing for public debates and it focuses on the role of those who help others prepare for public debates: namely, coaches. While most chapters in this book focus on one aspect of preparation or another, there are elements that relate to the preparation stages as a whole, and because there are individuals who will focus primarily or exclusively on the role of a coach, this chapter is provided in order to serve as a useful overview of the roles and processes involved in preparing for the presentation of public debates. This chapter is intended for anyone who prepares and anyone who helps others prepare. In the context of a public debate, the “coach” may or may not bear that formal title. The coach may be a teacher, an event organizer, a youth worker, debate mentor or even one of the debaters themselves. Coaching may be a role that is shared by several participants. Indeed, to the extent that the need to motivate and organize is common to just about any cooperative enterprise, coaching is a role that is often shared among several public debate participants. For that reason, this chapter is geared not just to teachers but to anyone who plays a constructive role in the planning and execution of a public debate.

After introducing some general elements of coaching motivation, and then considering one basic but important distinction between two modes or approaches to coaching, we will move on to consider the unique elements and responsibilities of preparation, at each of four phases in the debate: first, reaching important agreements; second, exploring the issues; third, preparing, practicing and developing individual speeches and questioning strategies; and fourth, moving into full-group practice.

[]

Motivation and Leadership

Coaching is a highly individualized skill that varies based upon the personality of the coach, the personality of the individuals being coached, and the situation. If it were possible to amass a comprehensive description of the specific elements of coaching, such an accounting (by individuals more experienced than ourselves) would fill the remainder of this book. That, however, is not our purpose. Instead, we aim simply to provide a few general reminders on coaching prior to considering the unique attributes of coaching for a public debate, at each of four phases of preparation.

So, what does it mean to coach? Is it just the act of telling participants what they need to do, when they need to speak, what they need to say? Is it just the act of providing confidence and encouragement, cheering them up when they are feeling overwhelmed? Is it just serving as a support person for the true performers in the debate, providing an ear that they can speak to, another mind against which they can test their ideas? It is safe to say that coaching can be boiled down to none of these, but involves an aspect of each.

Because our first image of a “coach” may involve an individual in a gym, whistle in hand, perhaps we should first return to the field of sports. Craig Clifford and Randolph Feezell, two philosophy professors whose 1997 book, Coaching for Character was originally intended to aid sports team coaches in the process of promoting in their players a sense of respect for themselves, the game, and their opponents, developed a series of guidelines for coaches to follow in promoting this kind of sportsmanship. By substituting “public debate participants” for “players” and by shifting “sportsmanship” to the somewhat similar need to develop in debaters a concern for audience, opponents and the entirety of the event and not just their own performance, we found that many of the principles developed in this book apply quite well as advice for the public debate coach.

Some elements of advice are:

• Be a good role model. Demonstrate good preparation habits, good advocacy practices, and a good attitude toward the event.
• Emphasize the value of the entire event and the public’s perceptions from the very beginning. By speaking, first and foremost, of what the audience walks away with, and not just what each individual will say, you send the message that the debate’s value is found in the understanding and appreciation that the audience gains.
• Remember to combine seriousness and play. Debate is hard work, but the creative generation of ideas and arguments should also be enjoyable. That is a big part of why people debate. In this case, it is not a question of work vs. fun, because the work is fun.
• Talk about the relationship between the success of the event, and the debaters’ personal success. It is a cliché to say “when the audience wins, you win” but there is a truth contained in the idea that the more the audience understands, appreciates and enjoys, the greater the likelihood that a speaker’s objectives will be attained.
• Regularly use language that focuses on the success of the whole event, not just on one’s own performance. Avoid an “us versus them” attitude toward the audience, and in many cases, toward your opponents as well.
• Expect a focus on the success of the whole event and the public’s perception in both practice and in the debate itself. Encourage participants to think about the audience from the very beginning, not just when the audience arrives.
• Establish norms, customs and traditions that reinforce a collective focus and esprit de corps. A feeling of being part of something important is reinforced by social elements, such as group meals.
• Encourag