Advanced Debating

Advanced Strategy Tips

2011-10-26T08:20:00.000-07:00

ADVANCED STRATEGY

Compiled by Alfred Snider

Thanks to Stephen Boyle,Gavin Ilsley and many others

There is no silver bullet.

Some you want to do often,some rarely, some only in emergencies.

Anything can be overdone.

Points of information tactics: essential realm for establishingyour personality and character.

Giving

How can I get accepted? Intransitions, quiet partner can get taken, make eye contact with the speaker,takes the less famous partner (stand up at same time).

Presence in the debate: Standup quietly when others are boisterous, stand when the other team stands, blockback half with your body if you can, back half stay in line of sight, give yourpoint without making your argument clear, do not always say the same thing whenyou rise (rotating is good), changing inflection when you offer a point (soundunhappy with what they are saying, Okay different ways) same as flagging butyou get away with it (but not over and over again), do not act up too much whenthey decline, if they say “no thank you” you should stand up more to disrupttheir speech, stand up every 30-40 seconds, stand if they have not taken oneand get deep into the speech, if they say not taking any more ignore them butdo not barrack.

Avoid: flagging a point ofinformation, do not barrack.

Content: If they spend toomuch time on an argument send them back into it, give points that are not aboutwhat they are talking about (“This is defeated by our argument you have not answeredthat,” attack premises of the case (thematic refutation), interject withinteresting words (“others will say…”), contrast their style (fast vs. slow,slow vs. fast), second team should not give away extension, if they give itaway and you are first team steal it if it is good, ask leading questions(either answer helps you), point out a contradiction (not call it knife) butonly if it is a serious one.

Taking

Never say “not taking anymore,” take points during breaks in arguments, if refuting argument of a personrising tell them you have disproven and sit them down, if they barrack let themstand for a while (you are in control), never leave them standing for more than40 seconds, but if they speak next let them stand because they cannot prep butbe cautious on this, make sure you seem in control of the debate and the floor,if they barrack don’t get mad but smile, sit them down with an arm gesture,take their points quickly if they lack experience, take them right at oneminute (they will be surprised), take points from second half if you are on thefirst half (engage with them), do not close out a whole team but take at leastone from the team trying to shut out but do it early.

Behavior when not speaking

Communicate with partnerwhen they are stupid or misrepresenting (not to the judge), watch judges forsignals (but do not stare), watch for judge nods agreement or shakes headdisagreement, watch for mistaking (clever, good point) nod with (you said thatalready) nod; walking into room with a smile, say hello to other teams, showconfidence, always indicate positive results of speech (approve of what partnerdid), avoid bad signals during partner speech (speed up, etc.).

Front half specifics

Prioritize which argumentsgo in which speech, put argument judge expects first, group arguments together(if related) to matter grab, second speech argument might be more sophisticatedand need a bit more explanation, avoid a hanging case (should stand on its ownin first speech), lead off with an argument of theirs that is very damaging andhighlight it, try and shut out second half by taking all the BEST arguments butdo not try to take all arguments, have a lot of examples in the front half soyou get credit for that.

Back half specifics

If they missed a goodexample develop it in some depth, differentiate yourself from the first halfmeta explanation of why you are extending in the way you are (they covered X,so now let’s consider Y; or, “this was introduced but could do with moreexplanation,” avoid knifing but if you absolutely must (what they said is stupidso you need to not endorse it) but you can revert to principle, if they have noreal model talk about how the policy would work based on current trends (thisis what policymakers would do, not offering a new model), make sure toemphasize your extension in your whip speech (“my partner said”), or claim thatyour partner escaped an argument made by the first team, complement first teamand then say why your extension is more important.

Target teams and judges

Become aware of judges fromother regions. Australian judge with weak panelists will make the decision,Australian like real world; UK judges like principle arguments a bit better,but be careful and do not rely on it too much by avoiding counter argumentsthat are clever. Remember what judges told you earlier, give them what theywant.

Become aware of the “go to”arguments of other teams. If you are on top of them, take it. If you areopposite them, pre-empt their arguments (“You might hear this argument, but itis false because…”

Persuasion Research, Public Speaking and Debaters

2011-10-17T14:14:00.000-07:00

EMPIRICAL PERSUASION RESEARCH AND PUBLIC SPEAKING FOR DEBATERS

Alfred C. Snider
World Debate Institute, University of Vermont

In a tough debate little differences make all the difference. Good teams become great by ALSO doing all the little things very well.

Here are findings from the empirical persuasion literature that seem relevant.

AVOID POWERLESS LANGUAGE
Avoid it as it makes you less persuasive.

Hesitations: um, ah, pause
Fillers: like, ya know, ladies and gentlemen, we believe that. Secret is to avoid repetition.
Hedges: Too much qualification
Intensifiers: I really, really believe this, and hope very much that you will too.
Too Polite: Indicates deference and subordination. Excuse me if you wouldn’t mind too much, I have an idea I hope you will consider.
False questions: This is fun, don’t you think? Different from rhetorical question.
Disclaimers: I know this is a really dumb question, but…

USE PROPER NON-VERBALS

EYE CONTACT

Regular not prolonged
Lack it causes loss of trust
Helps beggars get money
It enhances your good arguments, but hurts when you have bad arguments (illegitimate requests look away for humbleness)

FACE

Smile often but not constantly.
Smiling too much makes you seem insincere
Match your face with your message: no smiling during description of suffering
Try and often mimic the facial expressions of the judges

BODY

Open body poses are more persuasive
Too much moving is distraction
Repetitive movements indicate nervousness, give lack of trust
Stand whenever you can.

HANDS

Types of gestures: emblems (precise meanings), illustrators (general indications acceptance, exclusion, emphasis, excitement), self-touching (never do it)
Variation important.
Good gestures increase memory and persuasion.

DISTANCE

5-14 feet is best.

DRESS

Appropriately, not to stand out too much.

PHYSICAL

Shaved heads better than baldness
Beards make you look more mature
Young look is seen as more honest, old look is more expert

LANGUAGE CHOICES:

Avoid Devil terms (terrorist, Nazi, etc.).
Use charismatic terms (feel good about themselves, power).
Aphorisms and idioms can be effective with lazy listeners.
Avoid profanity. Lack of it never hurts you.
Politically correct: it never hurts. If you are politically incorrect you can get hurt.
Vivid strong language good up to a point, then becomes linguistic pornography.
Vivid language works with those who agree, not with those who disagree.
Vivid language must not violate their expectations. More credible speakers have more latitude here. Rape of the forest (no).
Too vivid language can make your position sound more extreme, and make people not want to go along with you.
Talking like the audience talks is the best adaptation

Refutation

2011-10-12T08:12:00.001-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

REFUTATION:

FOUR STEP REFUTATION PROCESS

1. YOU SAY

2. WEDISAGREE

3. BECAUSE

4. THEREFORE

DIFFERENT WAYS TO REFUTE:

· HERE ISANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT PROVES THE OPPOSITE.

· YOURPROOF OF THE ARGUMENT IS INSUFFICIENT.

· YOURARGUMENT IS NOT SO IMPORTANT:

o Outweighedby costs

o Gettingsmaller all the time

o People donot care

o Smallnumber

o Based onfalse assumption

o Eachinstance is small even if a lot of them

o Tiny partof greater whole

o Voluntaryrisk

o Can bereversed

o Highlyimprobable

WHEN TO REFUTE:

§ Important,not the unimportant

§ Selectissues that transcend a single argument

§ Refutetheir strength

EXERCISE:

§ Hear a 1^stspeech

§ Take 3minutes to refute

§ Tell uswhat you were trying to do

Speech Notes

2011-10-05T07:46:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

WUDC SPEECH NOTES
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont

Use whatever works for you. This is what I do when I debatein this format.

Different pieces of paper:
Ø Yourprep page
Ø Your flowof the debate
Ø Your newargument/whip summary
Ø Yourintro and conclusion

Prep page
Ø Top:terms to define
Ø Middle:List of strongest arguments for your side, cross off as team in front uses one
Ø Bottom:rhetorical ideas
Ø Side:List of facts and examples you may use
Ø Upperright: PoI ideas

Flow of the debate
Ø As manycolumns as speeches up to yours.
Ø Twopages: one for each side
Ø Make yourcolumns wider
Ø Briefnotes about what they say, not too much
Ø Lots ofwriting in your column. Put arguments next to what they refute.
Ø Numberarguments on each major point, say them in the speech.
Ø Don’twrite it down unless you know you want to say it.
Ø Practiceword economy.
Ø Cross someout if you have too many, change numbers.

Your new argument/Whip summary
Ø Well-developedoutline
Ø Includeall components from paragraph model
Ø Payattention to inserting examples
Ø Considertime allocation

Your intro and conclusion
Ø Followrhetorical framing planned
Ø Do not taketheir rhetorical frame
Ø Write itout word for word, or at least in considerable detail
Ø Don’tmake it too long

Other ideas:
Ø Writedown their labels word for word, otherwise write down what you think they mean.
Ø Mark howlong on each piece of paper, have a timer
Ø Indicatewhere you would like to take a PoI
Ø Keep yourpages for later reference on similar motions

Points of Information

2011-10-05T07:39:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

POINTS OFINFORMATION

ALFRED C. SNIDER, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT

POINTS OF INFORMATION ARE IMPORTANT:

1. TO DEVELOPAND ADVANCE THE ARGUMENTS

2. TOESTABLISH YOU AS THE BEST DEBATER

3. TO STAYACTIVE IN THE DEBATE

MAKING A POINT – GENERAL GUIDELINES

1. SHORT ANDSWEET – SHOWS COMMAND

2. DIFFICULTTO ANSWER, NOT THE OBVIOUS.

3. STAYINGACTIVE

4. RISING NOMATTER WHAT

5. RISINGTOGETHER

6. LANGUAGEON RISING – CLEVER VS. DIRECT

7. PLANNINGFOR POINTS

8. TIMINGDURING SPEECH

9. LOOK ATTHE JUDGE

10. POINT NEED NOT BE A QUESTION – BETTER A STATEMENT

11. RARELY A REQUEST FOR EXPLANATIONS – UNLESS THEY DON’TKNOW

12. ANTICIPATE HOW THEY WILL ANSWER YOUR POINT

13. FOLLOW UP ON POINTS DURING SPEECHES

TYPES OF POINTS TO MAKE

1. ARGUMENTPREVIEW

2. ARGUMENTADVANCE

3. FACTUALERROR

4. CONTRADICTION

5. REVEALFLAW IN EVIDENCE/EXAMPLE

6. SET UP FORFUTURE ARGUMENT – GET THEM TO SAY SOMETHING YOU NEED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT

RESPONDING TO A POINT – GENERAL GUIDELINES

1. SHORT ANDSWEET

2. OFFENSIVEANSWERS.

3. DISMISSINGPOINTS – POLITE, BRUTAL, VERBAL, NON-VERBAL.

4. WHEN TOTAKE THEM – TIMING – FLOW OF SPEECH.

5. HOW MANYTO TAKE.

6. WHO TOTAKE THEM FROM – COURAGE OR COWARDICE.

7. NO FOLLOWUP.

8. NEVER ASKFOR A REPEAT.

9. LOOK ATTHE JUDGE.

10. FOLLOWING UP ON POINTS DURING A LATER SPEECH.

TYPES OF RESPONSES

1. SHORTANSWER – NO, YES

2. I AM GLADYOU ASKED THAT…WHILE YOU THINK

3. QUESTIONUNCLEAR, ANSWER A RELATED POINT

4. ALREADYANSWERED, SAY WHERE

5. COMMONKNOWLEDGE – LET ME INFORM YOU

6. ATTACKASSUMPTION OF POINT

7. I’M COMINGTO THAT, BUT THEN DO THAT

Using Your 15 Minutes of Prep

2011-09-28T08:54:00.000-07:00

PREP IN WUDC

FIRST TEAMS

2 minutes of thinking.

2-3 minutes Establishinterpretation & model, opp speculates abut this

2 minutes Grab three bestarguments, mention examples and forms of support

7-8 minutes: 1^stspeaker drafts case, 2^nd speaker drafts extension

1 minute breathe deeply.

SECOND TEAMS

2 minutes of thinking

6 minutes of thinking ofmajor arguments, lots of them

2 minutes prioritize majorarguments

4 minutes of brainstormingon examples and forms of support

During the debate: cross offarguments as first team uses them, then draft extension to present.

Start preparation of newargument after you know what 1^st team picked.

Start oprepping whip speechwhen partner is on new argument during their speech.

Change in Classroom

2011-09-23T07:16:00.000-07:00

From now on the class will meet at 475 Main Street, we call it Huber House, on the first floor in the main room.

This should make it easier to move from the end of class to regular debatr practice at 7 PM.

This should also make it easier for others who wish to attend.

Morion Analysis

2011-09-21T06:29:00.000-07:00

INTERPRETING THE MOTION

ALFRED SNIDER, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT

NO TRICKY INTERPRETATIONS, SHOULD CREATE GROUNDS FOR A GOOD DEBATE. THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD FOR INTERPRETATION.

NEVER TIME SET, PLACE SET. THE DEBATE IS ALWAYS IN THE NOW.

THREE KINDS OF MOTIONS – MOSTLY WILL BE POLICY OR QUASI POLICY

FACT – SOMETHING IS TRUE –LIKE A LEGAL ARGUMENT
- Causality, definition, conditions of the past, present, future
- This House believes that free trade harms the developing world.
- QUASI POLICY – IF IT IS BAD WE SHOULD NOT DO IT, OPP CAN ARGUE IF WE DO NOT HAVE FREE TRADE IT WILL BE BAD
- HARM GREATER THAN HELP?

FACT CASE:
Define
Present a standard for proof: preponderance of evidence, reasonable conclusion, concensus of experts, something.
Make strong factual points that support the factual conclusion.

VALUE – SOMETHING IS OF WORTH OR VALUE
- VALUES ARE OFTEN INHERENTLY ABSTRACT
- Types: in terms of x, y is better/worse than z; something is always right or wrong; in this case something is riht or wrong;
- VALUE TERM, AND THEN AN OBJECT
- OFTEN A COMPARISON: PRIVACY VS. RIGHT TO KNOW
- VALUE HIERARCHIES
- MUTUALLY ERODING VALUES

VALUE CASE:
Define the value term, this is incredibly important.
Think ahead about how this value interacts with other values. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Have strong reasons why the value is successfully applied to the object of the motion.
The importance of values is found in their application. Freedom is important, but not unlimited.

POLICY – SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE
- This House believes that Holocaust denial should be a crime
- This House believes that the United States should withdraw from its military bases in Asia
- This House would make the development of clean industry a condition for receiving non-emergency aid
Action should be done: international, national, regional, local, organizational, individual.

Problem, solution, advantages.

Adventures in Argumentation

2011-09-14T10:29:00.000-07:00

We will learn some basic things about argumentation this week and then do some drills. The drills will involve lots of sample arguments.

We will learn the basics of argument, about organizing an argument in a debate, about how to support an argument, review argument fallacies and then talk about how to refute an argument.

MAKING A GOOD ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT IS:

Claim one thing of another and have a reason.

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS AND ERRORS TO AVOID:

1. Induction: generalities gained from specifics.
a. Are the facts true?
b. Real examples only
c. Representative examples
d. Number of examples
e. Period of time
f. Negative examples
g. Conclusion improperly stated

2. Deduction: determine specifics with application of generalities
a. Categorical deduction
i. Not true of all in category
ii. Not in that category
iii. Conclusion improperly stated
b. Disjunctive deduction - or
i. Not just two choices
ii. Can do both
iii. Affirm the rejected
iv. Reject the affirmed
c. Hypothetical deduction – Causal reasoning
i. Does cause have the means or power
ii. Is cause significant or insignificant
iii. Other causes
iv. Original or contributing cause
v. Counteractive causes
vi. Coincidence and causality

HOW TO PRESENT ARGUMENTS

1. Basics of a single argument
a. Assertion
b. Reasoning
c. Evidence

2. Major arguments need more
a. Title
b. Thesis and explanation
c. Steps
d. Impact

3. Types of major arguments
a. Mechanical – causal reasoning - step by step until impact
b. Organic: principle
i. Name
ii. Explanation thesis
iii. Concept in general
iv. Concept as applied to this motion
v. Why it is important
c. Stakeholder
i. Title
ii. Thesis
iii. Stakeholders reviewed
iv. Impact

HOW TO SUPPORT ARGUMENTS

1. Current examples
2. Historical examples
3. Expert opinion
4. Quotation
5. Statistic
6. Empirical study
7. Analogy and comparison
8. Narrative
9. Personal testimony
10. Visualization

FALLACIES

List compiled by A.C. Snider

1. Hasty Generalization
2. Transfer fallacies:
-a. fallacy of composition: true of part is true of whole
-b- fallacy of division: true of whole is true of part
-c. fallacy of refutation : straw person
3. Irrelevant arguments - non sequiturs, does not follow.
4. Circular reasoning: conclusion is restatement of claim.
5. Avoiding the issue
-a. evasion
-b. attack the person
-c. shifts in ground
-d. seizing a trivial point - red herring
6. False dichotomy - bring lunch OR walk to school.
7. Appeal to ignorance - failure to disprove is not proof. UFOs.
8. Appeal to the crowd - bandwagon effect
9. Appeal to emotions - no substitute for reasoning
10. appeal to authority - no substitute for reasoning
11. Appeal to tradition - no substitute for reasoning
12. Appeal to humor - no substitute for reasoning
13. Ambiguity & equivocation - different use of words, change meaning.
14. Technical jargon.
15. Post hoc fallacy.
16. Damning the origin
17. Wishful thinking
18. Lip service
19. Personification
20. Cultural bias
21. Pointing to another wrong
22. Nothing but objections
23. Demand for perfection.
REFUTATION: ONLY REFUTE THEIR BEST ARGUMENTS, NOT THEIR WEAK ONES. REFUTING WEAK ARGUMENTS IS A WASTE OF TIME.

FOUR STEP REFUTATION PROCESS
1. YOU SAY
2. WE DISAGREE
3. BECAUSE
4. THEREFORE

DIFFERENT WAYS TO REFUTE:

HERE IS ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT PROVES THE OPPOSITE.
YOUR PROOF OF THE ARGUMENT IS INSUFFICIENT.
YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT SO IMPORTANT:

Outweighed by costs
Getting smaller all the time
People do not care
Small number
Each instance is small
Tiny part of greater whole
Voluntary risk
Can be reversed
Highly improbable

Schedule for Fall 2011

2011-08-16T08:25:00.001-07:00

SPCH 171 ADVANCED DEBATE

Fall 2011 – Alfred C. Snider, Instructor

Date	Topic	Resources	Debate	Due
8-31	Format	DRILL.pdf	Human Rights
9-7	Speaking 1	Speaking Video	Ecology
9-14	Argument 1	Argumentation Video	International Relations
9-21	Motions 1	Motion Analysis Video	Economics	Reports
9-28	Matter1	Matter Video	Animal Rights	Journal 1
10-5	Points of Information 1	PoI Video	Privacy	Reports
10-12	Refutation	Refutation Video	Internet
10-19	Speaking 2	Persuasion Video	Legal	Reports
10-26	Strategies	Strategy Video	International Relations	Journal 2
11-2	Argument 2	Argumentation 2 Video	Minority Rights	Reports
11-9	Motions 2		Ecology
11-16	Points of Information 2		Military
11-23	THANKSGIVING	---	---
11-30	Motions 3		Future	Journal 3 Reports
12-7	Special Event			Evals

Syllabus for Fall 2011

2011-08-16T08:20:00.000-07:00

SPCH 171: ADVANCED DEBATE

Alfred C. Snider, Instructor

4:05-7:05 PM Wednesdays

SCOPE OFTHE COURSE

This course is designed for students who are interested inadvanced competitive academic debate in the WUDC format. This course isdesigned to give these students opportunities to advance their debating skillsby competing against other college debaters. Students will work on theirspeaking, critical reasoning, and argumentation skills. The class serves as anintense laboratory for debating skills that can then be deployed in differentsettings and throughout life.

ASSIGNMENTS

Each student will complete the following assignments:

1. Attend class instruction sessions and engage in exercisesand curricular activities. Students will have readings and should viewvideotaped materials.

2. Students will give 2 short oral presentations in class. 20%of grade.

3. Compete in a debate each week or at least ten times. 60%of grade.

4. Students will complete a journal week by week during thesemester. 20% of grade.

CLASSPROCEDURES

The debating willtake place in our classroom or in other arranged spaces.

After trainingsessions and/or debates the instructor will meet with individual students or as teams to chart their progress and evaluate their performance in debate rounds.

Studentswill use the extensive instructional materials available at http://debate.uvm.edu/learndebate.html ; including videos at http://debate.uvm.edu/wudcvideo.htmland audio files at http://debate.uvm.edu/low.html

EVALUATION

Students will be evaluated on the basis of earned pointsonly. There will be no extra credit work available. Each assignment has a basicpoint value (adding up to 100) of which students will be awarded a portionbased on the quality of their work. Students should be aware of the Universitypolicies on academic honesty.

OUTSIDE OFCLASS

Students should feel free to meet with the instructor duringoffice hours or at times that can be mutually agreed on. Feel free to ask forexplanations of assignments, class material, grading, or anything else thatmight be of interest. The instructor's goal is to develop a friendly workingrelationship with each student in this class.

CONCLUSION

This is atentative syllabus and may be revised. A schedule will be provided.

Course Begins in Late August 2011

2011-06-04T10:13:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 4-7 PM, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
Stand by for a syllabus and schedule, coming soon.

Advanced Debating

Advanced Strategy Tips

Persuasion Research, Public Speaking and Debaters

Refutation

Speech Notes

WUDC SPEECH NOTES

Ø Yourprep page

Your intro and conclusion

Points of Information

POINTS OFINFORMATION

Using Your 15 Minutes of Prep

PREP IN WUDC

Change in Classroom

Morion Analysis

Adventures in Argumentation

Related articles

Schedule for Fall 2011

Syllabus for Fall 2011

Course Begins in Late August 2011