By: Iris P. Concepcion
My hosts, my brother and sister-in-law, had introduced me to an environment of academic books in this abode. I wake up sometimes to requests that had sharpened my sense of reasoning and memory.
Recently, my brother requested me to help him devise some points in winning a debate. I readily assented since I might be prolonging my love affair with the Haier washing machine that had never failed me and could wash the clothes of people from Georgia to St. Tropez. It pays to use my mind sometimes over my working hands.
Here is the product of our collaboration which he had delivered to his own ministered children, our way of showing the world how dissents may be diffused in the face of apathy where words are our only ammunition to sensibility.
WINNING A DEBATE
The best way to expound on the query of “How To Win a Debate” is asking the reverse question, “How Not To Win a Debate.”
You do not win a debate by falsely assuming the weaknesses of your opponent. You do not win a debate by speaking slowly. You do not win a debate by a haphazard litany of facts for or against your arguments. You do not win a debate if your persuasive power is low. You do not win a debate by being unprepared. You do not win a debate without getting your facts straight.
Lastly, you do not win a debate by being ignorant. Evidentiary arguments always win versus the best-constructed ones that are nonetheless based on false assumptions.
Debates in ancient histories were used as forums for shaping public opinion that affect the progress and/or digression of political, religious, economic and social matters. Aristotle, Plato and Socrates are among the philosophical figures that are often cited in oral discourses due to their unique convincing powers in critiquing the state of their respective societies.
Their arguments do not hinge on other people’s observations; they had used and maximized their personal tools of first hand observation to prove their theses on a plethora of intellectual matters. They could parry the contrary views by articulating the “lived through” points of their arguments. Hence, you could never read in their papers citations of other works to make their stand stronger.
More than the strategy of refining a debater’s best points, it is prudent and it is always the rule of thumb, to respect the capabilities of your opponents in a verbal argument. Aggressiveness or bombastic speaking calisthenics whimper in the end when unaccompanied by tactful and factual substance.
I shall divide my lecture on two points: the substantive aspect of a debate and secondly, its technical aspect involving actual delivery.
The first thing to do in winning an argument is to believe honestly on the cause you are arguing for or against with. If you are not impassioned about your cause, most likely, the falsity shall peek through in the passages of your thoughts. It weakens your argument and could not be sustained for the long haul. Half-baked presentations always lose the flavor of their persuasive content in the long run.
Secondly, it is always a plus factor to have the debater cull the facts of his debate theme personally rather than entrusting the gathering of information from other sources. Familiarity with the topic based on one’s own personal comprehension and experience of the subject matter is an edge during verbal expositions. This way, no matter what types of questions are thrown at the debater which are not pre-prepared, he can readily rebut instantaneously by his own method of reasoning.
Thirdly, a strategic and understandable presentation of one’s facts must always be geared for the kill; meaning, each point must clearly lead to the main point of argument rather than heehawing on the details. The philosophical processes of both induction and deduction in arguments are useful when all the loopholes for contrary views are plugged out.
Fourthly, a debater must think like how a lawyer does in a cross-examination. Anticipate that the opponent could be as impassioned, savvy, well-researched and is erudite as you are. It is the fear of every lawyer to question an honest witness. A debater must think along this line too. He must be prepared for an opponent who is just as honestly passionate and diligent in winning the argument. A cocky behavior often leads to splattered responses. It never helps to strengthen an argument. Never assume superiority.
Fifth, and the most important of all, assume the possibilities of defeat even when you are winning. A good public debater never crosses out the possibility of failure. He is thus better conditioned to maintain his superior level of verbal persuasion in a consistently high gear. It prevents the debater from being lethargic with his argument approaches.
The thrust of the debate, simply, is proving that you have the better point of argument. Once the main substance is fastened and secured, the technicality of delivery follows.
The technical part of winning a debate is a pure act of disciplined theatrics. One could not afford to stall nor stammer in the middle of a coherently-crafted sentence. One could not speak slowly nor overdo elaborate bodily movements. One could not be insignificantly verbose nor be too curt. One could not likewise be staid that could bore even the most patient of opponents. Debates are not oratorical nor declamation contests. The focus should be on winning an idea to your favor.
A debater must never show fright nor project doubt when speaking. Prolonged silence never proves a point in oral arguments unless it is a visual debate you are entering in.
Proper syntax and grammar done within a conversational structure are always prime, handy clutches that could never be faulted in a debate environment. They are the built-in amulets of any oral debater. They are the first gauges to a debater’s mental preparedness and composition.
A charismatic, good voice helps a lot in winning an argument. Duffy Duck’s vocal chords may be a little underhanded when pitted against Shrek’s modulated tonal pipes. Shrills and improper shrieks are always out of the equation in oral debates as they diminish the seriousness of the debate topic.
Proper phrasings and choice of words are likewise paramount. Sentences must be brief and simple. They are valued in a good debater. There is a difference between textbook argument and a verbal argument done with a time limitation.
The debater must also look presentable. Good posture generates confidence to the refinery of word deliveries.
These being laid, I conclude my piece with this.
Winning a debate can only be achieved if the debater is prepared on these aspects: substantial arguments and an excellent grasp of proper delivery. In debate form, these require honed eloquence and a little bit of coached theatrics. Debate, after all, is a form of spoken art and it must be treated that way accordingly.