Download
1 / 18
180 likes | 309 Views
Style and rebuttal. How much does style matter?. Well the simple answer is a lot but not as much as it used to.
E N D
How much does style matter? • Well the simple answer is a lot but not as much as it used to. • It used to be the case that stylistic speeches were given points for being stylistic regardless of content, but in modern debating judges are far more concerned with analysis and burdens of proof. • It is still useful to be stylistic, and a lot of emphasis should be put on it. In modern debating the way you speak and the stylistic nature of your speech all add to the persuasiveness of your arguments. • Think about it like this: if two debaters gave the exact same speech, the one who made eye contact, didn’t walk around and cracked jokes is going to be more likely to persuade the judges over the one who didn’t.
What can you do to be stylistic? • First of all it is important to recognise that everyone has a different style, it is a lie to say that there is a specific way of speaking that will always be the best but there definitely are things you can do to be more persuasive. • I’m going to break them down into sections: • Voice. • Eye contact. • Facial expressions. • Hand movements. • Body movements. • Reactions to other debaters. • Humour.
Voice. • Here’s the facts, debaters talk quickly, very quickly. In fact if you were making an ordinary speech you would want to be as slow and considered as possible. In debating this is still true, if you can make your point slowly and carefully it is always the case that judges are more likely to understand you. • However, judges have heard tonnes of speeches and are usually used to people speaking at 10 miles per hour, because of this you can get away with speaking quickly as long as you are also understandable. • If you have an accent, then I would recommend speaking slower than most debaters, unfortunately you are cursed with a voice that wont be understood at speed.
Eye contact. • If you take anything away from today it should be this. • People are more likely to engage with what you are saying if you make eye contact with them, psychologically people believe the person who makes eye contact with them more (Nick Clegg). • So how does this translate to debates? • Well at every opportunity you should be talking TO THE CHAIR, if someone asks you a POI then give your answer to the chair. If you are asking a POI, ask it to the chair. If you are rebutting a previous speech then do so to the chair. • Think about it like this, the team across from you is never going to say “oh yeah I totally agree”, if they do, they lose. The only people in the room who will be convinced by what you say are the judges, so why bother saying it to anyone else.
Facial expressions. • You get 5/7 minutes, no more, in which to make your speech. But after and before you speak you still get an opportunity to influence the debate. • Whilst you are sat down if the speaker says something bat shit insane, then look confused, look shocked, look anything but happy that they just said that. • If they say something complicated then be careful, you don’t want to look confused by what they are saying.
Hand movements. • Okay, little and often is the way forward here, but don’t compromise your style of speaking just to conform to what I say here. • Use hand movements to emphasise parts of your speech. • Use hand movements to define your speech and keep tempo. • Use hand movements to express dichotomies. • At all other times, put your hands away, get them off your sodding chin, and put them on the podium. • Or if it’s preferable to you, use them to accentuate your style…
How to use your hands to the best of your ability. • There are a few ways of using your hands: • Not at all • In a relaxed way that suggests you know best. • In a way that emphasises what you’re saying. • All of them are useful, you should find a way to use or not use your hands and stick to it. • Whatever you decide, make sure you are aware of what you do with them.
Body movements. • Okay, I’ll keep it brief… Plant your feet on the floor and don’t move them, about half a meter apart, facing the judges. • It’s just a fact that if you wander off into the audience then you aren’t making eye contact or talking to the judges, that makes you less persuasive. • This is one area that you’re not allowed to use to “accentuate your style”, just keep still and stay within about half a meter of your notes.
Reactions to other debaters. • This is quite important, when debating you need to look as if you are in control of your speech, those 5/7 minutes are yours and you need it to look that way. • So when you are constantly asked POIs, just leave them standing or sit them down calmly. NEVER say “Just sit down”, “I’ve already taken one”, “Go away”, “I’m not taking any more” etcetera • Once you take a POI, don’t let them spend all day making it, and if they are spending all day make it obvious to the judges “Get to your point”. • Finally when answering a point you are welcome to ask for a repeat “Do you want to try that again”, but if what they said makes no sense it’s better to just try and answer it than waste time.
Humour. • Laughter works, if you can make your point in a funny way possibly by suggesting the judges are into bestiality then it will work in your favour. • The Irish are amazing at this, it’s what makes their top debaters so good. (Dara O’Brian) • People like to laugh, if you can make the judges feel like they were entertained by your speech then it can only ever work in your favour. • But having said that, don’t sacrifice content for jokes.
Rebuttal. • A lot of newer debaters don’t have a grasp on how to use rebuttal to its fullest, so I’ve made you a diagram showing its importance. • If we assume all 6 points are of equal quality then who wins? • Speaker 2, they have made 3 points and destroyed 1 of theirs, that means speaker 2 has more standing at the end of the debate. • Even if you got rid of point F, speaker 2 would still win because they have engaged with the debate. Speech 1 Point A Point B Point C Speech 2 Rebuttal of A Point D Point E Point F
How to have effective rebuttal. • First of all you have 4 choices: • Put the rebuttal at the start before your substantive. • Put the rebuttal at the end after your substantive. • Weave your rebuttal into your speech and flag it as you go. • Make one of your substantive points into rebuttal. • They are all valid, and all have advantages. • You can use a combination of them.
Before. • When putting rebuttal before your substantive material, make sure you choose the most important points. • To work out what is important, just ask yourself “what wont I cover in the rest of my speech”. • Putting rebuttal before your speech allows you to make it stand out, if you make sure you cover the most important parts of their speech then you’ll be certain that the judges will see your engagement and the holes you’ve just put in their substantive.
After. • Putting rebuttal after your substantive is basically the same as putting it before, it carries no real extra advantages and the one time I’ve seen it done it was literally made a mockery of. In a humorous way, which only helped the person who made the joke. • However, if you can come up with a good reason for doing this, or if it seems like it fits with your style of speaking then you’re welcome to give it a try.
Weaving it in. • If you have a piece of rebuttal that is going to be covered in your substantive then simply weave it in. • “blah blahblah… And this is really important because it shows the flaws in the previous speakers case for this reason…blah blahblah” • You can effectively rebut what previous speakers have said whilst making a substantive point, this is very useful because it grounds your rebuttal in an analysed part of your speech. This makes it more effective and more likely to stand.
Making a point out of rebuttal. • Some times you need to take a long time explaining why they are wrong, in these situations it is perfectly acceptable for you to make one of your points a rebuttal of their case. • For example if prop have just told you that it’s immoral to kill an innocent child during an abortion you might want to spend an entire point explaining why you don’t think it’s an innocent child. • This is totally acceptable and in most cases heavily encouraged.
The best case scenario. • The best case scenario is a combination of a bit before, weaving some of it in and points made out of rebuttal… Let me explain. • The difference between a speech and a debate is engagement, how much you get to rebut the opposition. Clearly then the best debates are those which are choc a block full of devastating attacks on the other side’s case. • For that reason the best speeches will start with some rebuttal of the opposition case that doesn’t fit anywhere else in their speech. • It will then continue with a devastating point about why their philosophical or practical premises are totally wrong. • And then on every subsequent substantive point the speaker will show how this point blows holes in their case. • If you can do all of that then 8 times out of 10 you will get the first or second, the other two times you’ll just have to know some stuff about the topic, but we’ll deal with that in other training sessions to come.
