Hey guys, thanks a bunch for the help. I got in the debate because an acquaintence of mine, who was originally invited, could not go. He is involved in the "NOVO" a "classic liberal" political party that is in the last stages of the legalization process. I'm president of the "Instituto Liberal Pernambucano", which I founded with some long-time friends in the libertarian activism. I'm gonna give you guys a quick follow up on my performance. My lack of experience was a problem in the beggining. I thought the debate would be mediated and it took me a while to realize that it was more like free for all. If you take in consideration the fact that it was 2v1, it would be necessary for me to have 50% of the time and the others 25% each, or so... however, in the first 20min part I only spoke for 1minute and 56 seconds! Just the opening statement of the politian was more than 2minutes long. However I think I grew as the debate went on and finished on a high note. I could have been much better, but still, It wasn't a disaster, I would give myself a 7/10 given the circumstances. I had valuable help from friends who were listening and sent good questions. I was very polite through the whole process as I was concerned to preserve a good image of our institute. I opened up by saying that I wasn't there to defend UBER or any company, but the technology and the model of business. I tried not to focus on the legalistic aspects of the issue because I know I couldn't compete with the team of law advisers of them both. Even if I raised sound arguments in this area, they could come with some crazy bullshit that I wouldn't know how to address (even it was made up). So I said that the good thing of a democracy is that laws change and they must change to benefit the interest of the people and that a recent poll showed that 90% approve of UBER. Also, I tried to focus a significant part of my arguments on how UBER makes life better for drivers in general and are only bad for the owners of taxi licences (to avoid the polarization of libertarians as anti-workers and such). I didn't address much of the bullshit economics they were saying. It would take up too much time and clutter the debate. The politician was a woman who claims the be a representative of women's right and all that. I think I did a good job when I pointed out that her law makes life worse for women because it prohibits apps such as "shetaxi" and similar.
The debate is in portuguese, but if anyone can understand and is interest here it is.
By the way, I loved the banana hint!
Thanks for these hints I will certainly try to develop the "BLUF" thing. It will certainly help in the future. Also I was familiar with that crazy debate lol
Thanks a lot, I thought of citing some thinkers, it would certainly help, but I didn't have the time