The easiest ways to lose a debate (Pt. 2)

March 29, 2018 by Ron Bratt

Preparing for a debate can be a stressful and nerve wracking experience — especially if you have never participated in one before — but the upside to that notion is that there are many ways to ensure victory over your opponent.

However, there are arguably just as many ways to lose a debate, and many of these mistakes are unfortunately common. I previously explored a few of these common pitfalls, but here are several more — along with tips for avoiding them.

Completely succumbing to proven faults

If an opponent succeeds in cornering you with proven faults on your record, you must act quickly and efficiently to maintain both your integrity as a rhetorician and your rhetoric’s integrity as a balancing force in the debate itself. If the assertions are irrefutable, the best approach is to find a middle ground between acceptance and fluidity. In other words, admit your faults, but work to bridge these sentiments back to your key message. For example, if the debate is part of a political race, discuss how a potentially tarnishing past mistake, such as a DUI, was used as a learning experience, and perhaps explore the ways you converted this mistake into positive productivity (such as community service or philanthropy). This path must be navigated delicately, but if traversed effectively, it can help establish you as unflappable in the eyes of your audience.

Using the “shill gambit”

Perhaps one the biggest temptations in debate — especially amongst newcomers — is to commit the “shill gambit,” or to accuse your opponent of being paid off by an external party to formulate their arguments against or in favor of an issue. An example would be one debater accusing his or her opponent of advocating for gun This tactic is basically an extension of the ad hominem concept explored in my previous blog, and therefore it should be avoided at all costs; a red herring fallacy will only put the burden of proof on your shoulders.

Ignoring non-verbal components

Debate is obviously an art rooted in strong oratory skills, but a debater’s rhetoric is not exclusively based on this aspect of his or her performance. In reality, many debates include a variety of non-verbal components that must be taken into consideration to ensure a strong presentation. In most cases, it is not enough to have your facts in a row and your speaking skills honed; you must also look the part to complete the image. Stand up straight, engage in regular eye contact with your audience and your opponent, and do your best to maintain your physical composure. Certain external habits, such as incessant sighing or visible trembling, can quickly undermine your credibility and set you up for failure.

Bouncing back from a poor debate performance

March 2, 2018 by Ron Bratt

Debate is a passionate art, and therefore it can be easy to feed into strong emotions when reflecting on a past performance. There are no hard and fast rules with which to determine a debate’s “winner,” but it is usually pretty obvious when a debater has underperformed, or if he or she has been outperformed by his or her opponent.

If you find yourself in this situation, you might feel down on yourself. After all, you likely poured your heart into your performance, straining every ounce of your rhetorical skill and reactionary ability in the process. However, tempting as it may be to spiral into self-doubt, it is imperative that you pick yourself up and regroup; otherwise, you cannot hope to do any better next time.

Here are some quick tips for bouncing back following a poor debate performance.

Analyze what went wrong, but not for too long

When rectifying a bad debate showing, the best and most obvious rule of thumb is to first identify what went wrong in your performance. Did you come on too strong, depleting yourself of all your tricks early? Perhaps you got caught off guard by too many arguments and ended up looking ill-prepared. Maybe you simply did not study the opposing viewpoint enough. Whatever the reason, take a moment to determine your tragic flaw(s), make record of it, and move on in a relatively timely fashion. A common mistake is to spend too much time focusing on these matters, which can quickly become a portal into more unconstructive self-doubt.

Change up your regimen

If you determine that your shortcomings stemmed from a lack of preparation, take a moment to reevaluate your current regimen. There are a variety of ways to effectively prepare for a debate, and there may be some you have yet to explore or tailor to your unique style. A shake up, in this regard, can actually bring a fair amount of stability when applied properly — just make sure to keep the parts of your approach that clearly worked in the past.

Leave the past behind

After you have revisited your poor performance, identified the reasons it went wrong, and made the changes necessary to your improvement, it is highly important to leave matters as they are. Do not wait too long to get back in the game, though a period of inactivity may be helpful in getting your head back on straight. Once you are ready to face down another opponent (or, perhaps, the same opponent), do your best to detach yourself from any insecurities lingering from your past performance. You should be a sharper, more seasoned orator now, and this time should yield better results.

The Best Rhetorical Techniques For Debate

January 29, 2018 by Ron Bratt

Throughout history and in modern times, the formal techniques taught to students for strengthening their public speaking skills have largely depended on a system developed in antiquity. Cicero, a famous philosopher and orator of the Roman Empire, first wrote down these principles around 50 BC.

According to the works of Cicero and, later on, Quintilian, the principles of a strong debate can be broken down into these important components, called the Five Canons of Rhetoric:

Invention. In this phase, consider the premise, the audience, the evidence and intention of the speech or debate.
Arrangement. This stage of development focuses on the context of the speech and how the details of the speech can be organized for the greatest impact.
Style. A speaker’s word choices and phrases can add color or paint a particular narrative picture that works in tandem with the literal elements of the speech.
Memory. Practicing a speech so that it can be spoken without referencing notes frequently strengthens the position taken, but this also refers to keeping relevant quotes or anecdotes at the ready.
Delivery. Vocal intonation and inflection play a huge role in pacing for a speech, but gestures and other body language can influence the strength of a delivery, too.

Within this framework are where many other rhetorical devices make an argument or position more effective. In fact, some of these are common in everyday usage, as well. Excessive exaggeration is known as hyperbole in formal debates, while metaphors and similes are better termed as analogies for speech purposes.

Natural language dynamics have been appropriated for debate, as well. As common as it may be to hear someone stop mid-sentence to prevent voicing a negative comment, the rhetorical device for this is called aposiopesis. Most often, it’s used so that the speaker can allow the audience to come to the conclusion themselves and thereby avoid responsibility for the negativity.

Other common practices have a proper name in the glossary of rhetorical terms. Repeating the same word several times is known as epizeuxis while quoting a well-known saying to support a point is called sententia.

These practices have survived for centuries because human nature responds to these patterns of speech not only intellectually, but instinctively. When a debate is solidly structured, powerfully worded and delivered with skill, the audience will be much more likely to believe or support the point being made.

Great debates in history: Buckley V. Vidal (1968)

January 8, 2018 by Ron Bratt

Throughout history, there have been countless high-profile debates that exemplify the innovation and mastery of discourse rhetoric. These iconic volleys encapsulate some of the most significant issues and conflicts in history, portraying a variety of views and interpretations that are thought-provoking and, at times, harrowing in their delivery.

Here is a summary of one such meeting, a turbulent debate between political authors Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.

Buckley V. Vidal

Today’s major political debates tend to toe a line between impassioned, yet constructive discourse and aggressive bloodsport. However, while the art of debate is argumentative and intense by nature, early televised political debates were mostly rooted in an orderly, respectful, and collected approach from all participating individuals. Political debate, at the time, held a fledgling presence on American television sets, and as a result, candidates generally kept themselves tame as they learned to navigate and leverage an uncharted national spotlight.

These traditions all but dissolved in the late 1960s, as political debate rhetoric found its comfort zone on television and subsequently became more venomous. Many point to a particularly nasty 1968 confrontation, between leftist author Gore Vidal and his conservative contemporary William F. Buckley Jr., as “the moment in which American political debate became inflamed with passion and bloody rhetoric.”

Buckley and Vidal met in ninth of 10 debates making up the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. The two men, clear ideological foes, already despised each other prior to their prime time meeting, and this notion was obvious from the beginning. The debate began with remarks from both commentators on violence between convention protesters and law enforcement. “There is very little that we can say after those pictures that would be any way adequate,” said Vidal. “It is like living under a Soviet regime here.”

Buckley, on the other hand, pointed out a possible lack of evidence with which to indict all law enforcement officials alleged to have committed violent acts, and in doing so he subtly attacked Vidal’s “regime” analogy. “Go after those cops who were guilty of unnecessary brutality … but don’t do what is happening here in Chicago tonight, which is to infer from individual and despicable acts of violence a case for implicit totalitarianism in the American system.”

As the debate moved to other topics, namely US policy in Vietnam, it became increasingly heated. When discussing American response to the Vietnam War — including the replacement of American flags with Viet Cong flags — Vidal referred to Buckley as a “crypto-nazi,” to which Buckley responded by calling Vidal a “queer.” He then threatened to punch Vidal in the face. Vial also claimed Buckley was an inspiration for Myra Breckinridge, a transgendered literary creation of Vidal’s. From this point, tensions never fully ceased as the debate reached a somewhat off-balance conclusion.

“I thank you very much for the discussion,” said moderator Howard K. Smith at the debate’s end. “It was a little more heat than light than usual, but it was still very worth hearing.”

Smith’s observation essentially sums of the significance of Buckley and Vidal’s debate. Many argue that the debate, while unprecedented in its ugliness, helped to “open the floodgates for today’s opinionated and conflict-driven coverage,” and was therefore an important moment in televised debate history.

The easiest ways to lose a debate

December 7, 2017 by Ron Bratt

However, there are arguably just as many ways to lose a debate, and many of these mistakes are unfortunately common. To help you identify these pitfalls and ultimately avoid them, here are a few of the easiest ways to lose a debate.

Using ad hominem attacks

One of the easiest ways to derail your debate performance is to retreat into ad hominem arguments, or irrelevant attacks on your opponent’s character that stray from the main debate topic. These attacks may seem like a potent form of mental warfare through which to knock your opponent off balance, but in reality they are usually interpreted as beacons of insecurity and poor preparation, and a strong opponent will exploit them and back you into a corner by simply staying on topic.

Falling back on tradition

It is not enough to present a strong argument or cross-analysis; in most cases, you must back up your claims with credible sources. Therefore, you should strive to cite arguments as efficiently and accurately as possible, and this means refraining from appealing to tradition. A traditional or cultural belief may be relevant in certain scenarios, and it may resonant particularly well with you personally, but it is crucial to prevent these factors from primarily influencing your arguments when they are inappropriate. Injecting potentially ambiguous or subjective claims into a debate will only leave you open to the inverse of such logic: that many other people, possibly even your opponent, do not identify with such traditions or beliefs, and therefore their place in the debate is probably invalid — unless of course you are content with a guaranteed ideological stalemate.

Being too self-deprecating

In certain debate situations, mainly those preceding a public vote, a small amount of self-deprecation can go a long way in winning over your audience. However, regardless of the debate at hand, be sure to keep this habit in check. Too much self-deprecation might make you appear uneasy and low on self-confidence, and it can quickly undermine your credibility as a rhetorician. You do not want to give your opponent this type of momentum, so maintain a strong balance of outward assertiveness and inward modesty.

Making up information

Making up information and/or creating conspiracies is never okay in a debate. This habit sometimes rears its head in moments of psychological desperation, when a debater is caught off-balance and without a quick comeback, but it can be hard to undo once it occurs (and most likely stains your entire performance). It is important to identify the signs of this impulse before they are able to break loose; the main one being a general feeling of irrational hostility toward an opposing argument, or in an entire community or concept fueling an opposing source (an entire scientific community, for instance). Assume that facts are facts and do your best to stay on topic — even when you feel hopelessly cornered. Do not give up, but remember that it is better to have your rhetoric outwitted than laughed at.

Great debates in history: “The Day After” Panel

November 9, 2017 by Ron Bratt

Here is a summary of one such meeting, a panel focusing on the 1983 televised film, “The Day After.”

“The Day After” Panel (1983)

In 1983, ABC aired a made-for-tv film titled “The Day After.” The film, which was watched by more than one million people in nearly 39 million households, depicts the events and aftereffects of a fictional nuclear conflict between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact. The film’s segments focus on various perspectives of the conflict, including those of of plot focuses on Americans living Kansas and Missouri. Generally, the film made a large impact on its viewers, including then president Ronald Reagan, who claimed to be “greatly depressed” by it.

Shortly after the film’s broadcast, a discussion panel was held to explore its subject matter and relevance to the current political climate, including building tensions between east and west. The panel was made up of experts including Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley Jr. Carl Sagan, Brent Scowcroft, Elie Wiesel, and Robert McNamara.

“There is good news,” said discussion moderator, Ted Koppel, “take a look outside — it’s all still there.” Koppel went on to compare the film to Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol,” pointing to its cautionary portrayal of a potential future created through poor choices.

Conversation was strictly intended to serve as discussion rather than discourse, but it featured variety of opinions on the possibility of nuclear warfare in the Cold War. Some panel members, for instance, dismissed the film as a contrived piece of political bias that used fear mongering to drive a certain point of view. Other commentators, such as Sagan, emphasized the “terrifying potential” of nuclear weapons and the ways in which they could “wipe out all life on Earth” if mishandled, arguing that the film depicted this notion effectively (and in some cases, even mildly compared to the full extent of potential damage and death).

Then Secretary of State George Shultz, on the other hand, took a somewhat middle ground stance on the film, saying that it was not a portrayal of the future, but a “vivid and dramatic portrayal of the fact that nuclear war is simply not acceptable.”

The panel was deemed a highly effective showcase of different viewpoints on nuclear weaponry — it served as a cathartic volley of anxieties, predictions, and interpretations that covered much of the country’s collective feelings towards the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse.

Today, it remains an influential moment in a much broader conversation on nuclear weapons and international relations.

Preparing for your first debate

October 11, 2017 by Ron Bratt

If you have never debated before, you are in a very bittersweet position. On one hand, the first debate is an irreplaceable experience that you will likely never forget, and this notion is exciting. On the other hand — and this is usually the hand favored by people in your position — there will likely be a significant amount of stage fright and general nervousness preceding your performance. Whether you are a skilled public speaker or an introvert venturing out of your comfort zone, the best way to deal with the latter notion is to be well prepared; preparation is a great leveraging point to summon up self-confidence and eliminate nerves stemming from the fear of looking poorly in front of your debate’s audience.

Here are a few tips to make the preparation process smoother and easier to approach.

Know your side

Regardless of the topic or setting, most debates can be boiled down to a single series of interactions: an argument followed by a counter-argument and subsequent cross-analysis. Therefore, you will need to make sure you are well-versed in your side of the argument in question. As a novice debater, one of the quickest and easiest ways to get into trouble is to exhibit a poor understanding of your topic or case. You cannot hope to make a convincing, passionate argument if you are clearly out of your element — this approach will technically make your case appear fabricated by default. If you think you have studied your material enough, study a little bit more.

Expect the unexpected

Being prepared for the unexpected may seem like a no-brainer in the debate world, but many new debaters still seem to overlook this variable as they brush up on their material; as noted in the previous section, studying your argument and knowing the case at hand is extremely important from a foundational standpoint, but you must also be fluid and adaptable in the heat of the debate. Otherwise, you are going to find yourself off-balance sooner than you can imagine. Debate is an art without much of a blueprint, and each interaction will be a little bit different depending on the topic, your opponent, the debate’s moderator(s), and the rhetorical direction of each presented argument. Be ready for anything.

Visualize counter-arguments

Visualization is a common and useful pre-competition technique — it is regularly adopted by everyone from professional athletes to competitive musicians — and it is a method that will serve you well in your first debate. Once you have developed a strong understanding of your opening arguments, visualize the potential ways in which your opponent will counter them. Take this vision a step further and imagine how you then might respond to this hypothetical counter. These mental exercises will train your brain to spring into action with minimal hesitation during the real event.

Great debates in history: Biafra V. Gore (1990)

September 13, 2017 by Ron Bratt

Here is a summary of one such meeting, a televised debate between musician Jello Biafra and social issues advocate and former US second lady Tipper Gore.

Biafra V. Gore

The censorship of popular music, namely rock and rap, has been a hot-button issue in pop culture for decades. However, one of this issue’s most captivating debates took place in an unlikely medium: afternoon talk show television. In 1990, an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show featured a panel between several musicians and commentators debating the morality of music lyrics. The panel included Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Juan Williams, Ice-T, and Nelson George, but its real stars were former Dead Kennedys frontman Jello Biafra and Tipper Gore, former US second lady and co-founder of the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC).

Biafra and Gore’s debate centered mainly on a court case encircling the Dead Kennedys’ album, “Frankenchrist.” Allegations against Biafra claimed he had distributed harmful material to minors (the album featured graphic lyrics and artwork that quickly became the center of controversy). Biafra was ultimately acquitted, but alleged that the trial had led to a series of subsequent hardships including the sudden invasion of his residence by police.

Biafra opened, “what we are seeing here is a false controversy. It’s rap music and rock music being cast as a Willie Horton poltergeist figure to advance the agenda of the religious right backers of the PMRC.” He then accused Gore and the PMRC of trying to destroy his career and ruin his right to make a living.

In response, Gore called Biafra’s analysis a “very bizarre rendition of what (the PMRC) is about,” focusing on the PMRC’s involvement with a variety of unmentioned organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics. “(We want to know) why? Why are parents and teachers and doctors concerned about graphic lyrics and young children?” Gore finally alleged that the PMRC had “nothing to do with the problems that (Biafra) had.”

Biafra responded by quickly producing a newspaper article containing a direct quote from Gore in which she allegedly took credit for Biafra’s trial. This moment ignited a strong response from the audience.

Gore asserted that she had been misquoted. “I am not for censorship,” she said, “I am for awareness. A (parental advisory) label helps a busy parent make a distinction.”

She continued, “I think music sets the tone for a generation. The issue is how we deal with graphic material when it is marketed to young children when many of them are at risk in our society?”

Other commentators, namely Ice-T and Cooper, occasionally interjected, backing the stances of Biafra and Gore respectively. Ice-T in particular called Gore’s claims a “fantasy.” Cooper on the other hand, pointed to a lack of musician advocacy on a broader range of issues, including those associated with blatant obscene or damaging material in music.

Biafra suggested that the issue boiled down to a lack of proper parental intervention. “If I was a father and my kid brought home something I really objected to, I would not call the PMRC and blame the music,” he said. “I would sit down with (my child) and ask why? Why do you like this? Is it the tune? The rhythm? Tell me why you like it and I’ll tell you why I don’t like it. I think the most evil part of the PMRC is they play on the fears of parents who are too chicken to talk to their own kids.”

Though this debate did not produce a clear “winner,” some may view Biafra as the victor due to his calm, yet ruthlessly thorough approach. Others might argue that Gore’s direct involvement in Biafra’s trial — and in the corrupt pursuit of music censorship in general — was unfounded and that she handled herself with poise.

Either way, Biafra and Gore embodied two sides of a major issue pertaining to music and to art in general, one that remains prevalent to this day.

Great debates in history: Carter V. Ford (1976)

August 14, 2017 by Ron Bratt

Here is a summary of one such meeting, a presidential debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Carter V. Ford

The 1960 opening debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon instantly became a relevant moment in debate history, as it was the first political debate of its kind to be broadcasted on national television. However, despite this debate’s significance, the Kennedy/Nixon debates would be the last of their kind for another 16 years, following FCC guidelines that deemed presidential debates to be “impractical because television stations were required to give equal time to all presidential candidates, not just those from the major parties.”

This approach was changed in 1975 after the FCC “ruled that live debates without sponsorship by a broadcaster were legitimate news events and could be carried by television stations without giving equal time to minor candidates.” Thus, televised presidential debates were solidified as standard practice henceforth.

The first debate to take place following the FCC’s change of methodology was a showdown between republican president Gerald Ford and his democratic challenger Jimmy Carter, the first in an intense election cycle that followed Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Ford and Carter debated several major political topics of the time, including the Soviet Union and its presence in Eastern Europe, but the debate was mired and ultimately defined by a series of awkward technical issues unprecedented in televised debate.

The problems began when, as Carter was giving an answer pertaining to “the post-Watergate decline in trust in the American government,” both candidates’ microphones suddenly shut off. This unexpected setback resulted in nearly 27 minutes of silence as both candidates stood awaiting their audio to be restored. This moment was particularly pressing, as both candidates were attempting to avoid the type of visible nervousness and discomfort exhibited by Nixon during the 1960 debate (which essentially led to his election loss).

Carter would go on to win the presidency in a narrow victory, a rare instance stemming from the southern United States, a “republican stronghold” during most of the country’s modern history.

Though the Carter/Ford debate was fairly cumbersome as a result of its technical difficulties, it provided a unique level of tension thanks to its captivating blend of the candidates’ almost paranoid self-awareness and the unpredictable environment in which they were debating. If anything, the debate helped to shape future broadcast debate protocol and still stands as a testament to both adaptability and calmness as standard debate necessities.

Great debates in history: Kennedy V. Nixon (1960)

July 17, 2017 by Ron Bratt

Here is a summary of one such meeting, a presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Kennedy V. Nixon

Broadcasted presidential debates are hard to miss in today’s social media-driven landscape — real-time reports of debate questions, contentions, quotes, and controversies are commonplace in their ability to quickly reach a large audience.

But before the internet, there was television alone, and in 1960 the United States experienced its very first televised presidential debate: a showdown between democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and republican candidate Richard Nixon. The debate, the first of several meetings during the 1960 US presidential election, single-handedly changed the face of American politics, as it was also the first time a pair of presidential candidates met face-to-face in such a manner.

Prior to the debate, political analysts favored Nixon to dominate the debate with 9-5 odds. However, Kennedy seemed to defy these odds from the very beginning of the debate, launching into a strong opening statement in which he observed, “the question is whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom — in the direction we are taking — or whether it will move in the direction of slavery. I think it will depend, in great measure, on what we do here in the United States.”

Kennedy proceeded to conduct himself in a “television-friendly” calm and collected demeanor, which boded well for him against an already visibly distraught Nixon (Nixon had recently suffered from the flu and had exacerbated a knee injury upon entering the debate venue).

The debate presented a new set of variables that would become standard for succeeding televised political events, including the ways in which the candidates addressed and acknowledged both a television audience and a physically-present group of reporters. With television still a fairly new medium for entertainment and broadcast journalism, both candidates were left to experiment with ways to properly utilize it in an interactive manner. Kennedy is said to have “nailed it” in this regard, looking directly into the camera (and into the eyes of the American public). Nixon, on the other hand, mostly shifted his gaze to the reporters at the side of the venue, giving himself a submissive, distracted appearance to those watching from home.

However, when it came to argument content and substance, both candidates were “remarkably similar” in approach, discussing issues including communism, national security, and the overall future of America. What had started as a predicted one-sided battle resulted in a mostly evenly-matched contest, with Kennedy’s presentation giving him a slight edge.

Nixon improved upon his shortcomings in later debates, but Kennedy ultimately secured the presidency — a victory many historians credit to momentum established during the first debate.