The debate tournament was awesome. I'm not going to ramble on too much here, but something that really hit me was the junior finals. The top 2 teams debate against each other, and I think that determines the first and second teams.
O. M. G. They were so good! I noticed that they were clear, but not blunt. Does that make sense?
You know how in speeches, you're supposed to start with a hook and "reel" your listeners in? If it's a boring speech, no one wants to listen.
In debate, however, I'd always thought you had to be crystal clear and present only your arguments. I thought you were only supposed to start out with "Good morning, honourable judges, moderator, timekeeper, and Mr./Mrs. Speakers. The proposition that stands before us today..." so on and so forth. The package that they gave us for the Juniors, showing you how to debate in CNDF, said that you could also start with an interesting hook or idea, but I thought that that might not be as clear or recommended. On the junior finals, however, I noticed that both teams and all 4 speakers began with a little hook to capture the audience's attention. That was really effective, and I learned something that day :)
I'd always thought of speeches and debates as separate things, but I guess they're not really so. I read somewhere that you could be the world's greatest speaker, and still lose a debate. The point of debate is to clash with the other team's points and tell the judge why your points still stand after being rebutted and disassembled by the other team, and you also have to say why the other team's points are not as strong as yours or are invalid.
(On a side note here, I realized recently that the concept and preparation of debate, if it's a prepared debate, seems simple. Create arguments, say arguments, refute arguments. But it's not actually easy--you have to do about a bajillion things at the same time--write down other team's points, listen to them, refute them, build up your own arguments, and then wrap it all up with why you won. *sighs* This is what they mean when they say "practice makes perfect".)
Anyway, I hadn't thought of this before, but in the junior finals, I realized that what made the debaters so good was how they presented. I think that I'd gotten much better in debate since last year, but after going to this tournament, I realize just how much I still have to improve. (In case you were wondering: A lot.) I noticed that the speakers kept their definitions/model short and sweet, and simple. I mean, it's instinct for a lot of us to come up with the most comprehensive, wordy lengthy definition possible, but the general rule is that if some random person on the street walked into your debate room, they would agree with the definitions. You can't make it impossible for opposition to win if you, as proposition, are responsible for definitions.
1. They were clear. Like, really, really clear. But not stupidly clear.
Let me elaborate.
The debaters were clear in their definitions: defining this house, and certain terms necessary to clarify a debate. Some terms I wouldn't have thought to define, but were important. Other terms I would have defined, but may have been unnecessary.
**I forgot to say the teams and resolution! The resolution was: This house believes that all internet users have a Right to be Forgotten. Right to be Forgotten (they had an info slide) meant the right to have irrelevant, outdated, or no longer relevant information removed from search engines. The teams were Proposition from Crofton House team 1, and Opposition was Port Moody team 1.**
Anyway, their definitions were clear. They then moved on to the arguments, and that was what really struck me.
2. Their arguments were solid, and made logical sense.
What do I mean? I mean that normally, what I would do would be to just launch into my argument. I wouldn't explain the premise behind it or lead the audience to what led me to that argument (sorry, that was kind of confusing). What all 4 speakers did was lead the audience to the conclusion. Their first argument was the infringement of privacy. Basically, they were saying that users have a right to privacy and have their photos, posts, etc. removed. I would have just left it there and maybe followed up with an example. But what they did was just so... like WOW. The 1st prop speaker started with the statement of the argument, and then said this: Why would one want their photos/posts/whatever removed from the internet? They started with a why, and that just made things so much easier to follow. By saying why, they led us to the conclusion that: Oh, it's not important anymore. If it's not important anymore, then it should be removed because if it was something bad, it's not necessarily indicating the person involved is bad. OMG! All of a sudden, this argument just became so much stronger. It was like, Yeah, they should be allowed to remove it because it's not relevant. It was just... WOW.
3. Their refutation/clash was awesome.
I noticed that their refutation was strong as well, because it was based on logic. I think one main problem with Margaret and my refutation of our opponents' arguments was that it was mainly based on examples. We would say something like, "that example doesn't work because it's not common", but that's a bad refutation. You never debate about the arguments or definitions in a debate, and you don't take it out of context. I think Margaret and I as a team, really have to work on refutation. Also, another thing was that both prop and opp teams were clear in their refutation, but their style was good. Mostly, the teams that Margaret and I debated against said things like, "That argument is invalid." That's accepted, because you're not insulting the other team, but it's better to say something like, "We don't see how that argument applies," because then your judges are like, "Oh, yeah, she's right, she doesn't see how it applies," and that causes them to think about it more too. If you just tell someone, that argument is invalid, it's not as powerful as if you invoke your own thinking processes.
4. Their reply speeches.
I think that by the end, they'd done most of their refutation within the speeches so both teams didn't really have to go too in-depth during their reply speeches (3 minute summary speeches, basically). That way, they just summed up their own speeches, and this is really important: they summarized what the debate came down to. This is something everyone tells you to do, but that most people don't do well (because I think it's more sophisticated). I think Margaret and I really have to work on those reply speeches, because the teams we faced mostly did refutation, so we did that, but that wasn't very effective. When you say what the debate came down to, you can point out why your arguments are fundamentally right in light of this debate (like the finals came down to basic human rights and which ones are more important). This way, you can prove that your arguments right, and this debate goes down to a deeper level.
5. Some smaller details.
I noticed (and Margaret did too) that all 4 speakers ended and began their speeches with "That is why we are so proud to propose ... (and then the proposition)." I think that is most likely just more sophisticated details in debate, but I thought that was pretty effective and I think I'll try that in the future. I also noticed that some of the teams we faced as well as both finalist teams used the word "contentions" in place of "arguments". This just sounds more sophisticated--I have to stop using sophisticated!!--seasoned, or practiced (yeah, see, there we go). And it sounds less aggressive. We were thinking about this as well (Margaret and I) because we realized that we weren't having enough clash in our debates (a fancy word for arguing/refuting) and that we'd forgotten to refute some of our oppositions points.
I learned a lot during this debate tournament, and I had so much fun. We got the tabs (like the scores) for each debater yesterday (me = 132/180 debates :'( ), and although I'm a little disappointed, this means there's always more room for improvement! :) I mean, this blog post is, what... like 1500 words and this is only the finals. We had 5 other debate rounds, 4 prepared, 1 impromptu... imagine how many words that is :O. Anyway, I really enjoyed this experience and I'll definitely do it again next year. Mr. Hauck emailed us and told us that UBC wants to host another debate in March, and I really want to go to that one as well.
Like, seriously. After seeing that one last, intense (it was really intense) final debate, I'm motivated to work harder than ever. I really like debate, and I realize that it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from speeches (I learned the phrase mutually exclusive during English... I think?) and that debating can help me improve my speech skills as well. We're also doing this speech thing in one of my extracurriculars, and it's pretty fun and applicable as well.
Actually what this all boils down to is me liking to talk. :P I'm super inspired to do more and practice more debate, speeches, everything, and I hope to be a better debater in future.
Oh yeah, Margaret told me the same thing after we watched the junior finals, that she was suddenly inspired to debate after watching them. :P I felt the same way.
