How to prepare for a debate?

[TheHomeless]

Does anyone have any material on how to prepare for and how to behave in a debate?
I'm going up on a radio monday to defend UBER-like apps against an union leader and a local politician that wants to outlaw competition. It will be my first debate and I could use help!

Thanks!

[mlsv2f]

I would start and ask why he feels that he has the right to force people into jail if they decide to give people rides voluntarily.

 

He will probably squirm around but hes really not going to be able to get around it.

 

Look up common logical fallacies as well, and know how to recognize them. They are going to be lobbing them at you left and right

 

I would also look up articles on the subject and dissect the debates that writers have made against it. You will be prepared for the arguments they will make, as well as giving you practice for spotting fallacies.

[TheHomeless]

Thanks, man! I'm working on preparing the points and I'm also meeting up with friends to practice. 
If anyone else could help, I'm looking for these kinds of more practical and general tips.

 

I would start and ask why he feels that he has the right to force people into jail if they decide to give people rides voluntarily.

 

He will probably squirm around but hes really not going to be able to get around it.

 

Look up common logical fallacies as well, and know how to recognize them. They are going to be lobbing them at you left and right

 

I would also look up articles on the subject and dissect the debates that writers have made against it. You will be prepared for the arguments they will make, as well as giving you practice for spotting fallacies.

[SamuelS]

I'm curious how you "got roped into" this debate...I would think a politician and a union leader would both have a great deal of public speaking and debate experience...I smell a setup.

[Torero]

Hi TheHomeless,

 

In my personal experience (I've debated within a political party group, a lot live on less official occasions and have been debate leader on 2 occasions - once for 300 students with the leaders of 4 different religious education groups), I can recommend doing the following things:

 

- list your own arguments for your standpoint, write them down and rehearse them

- look for any counterargument you can find on the points you want to discuss and list counter arguments

- stay reasonable, like mlsv2f is stating; logical fallacies, look for them and pre-counter them

- stay quiet, do not get upset in any way

- look for reasonable sources on your own arguments and if possible to discard counter arguments

- study your opponents (if possible)

- try to use rational humour (Stefans videos give a lot of examples; comparisons, witty jokes, etc.)

- try to move yourself in the position of your opponents, acknowledging their viewpoints and come up with arguments exactly from those points (e.g. what are the benefits of Uber/free market apps like it from the viewpoint of a union leader or local politician)

- stay honest, don't brag about points you're not sure of

- be concise, don't spend too much time on every argument you have

- try to avoid jargon

- find and use relevant quotes by wise people in the past (Rand, other philosophers, etc.)

- avoid personal attacks and evade ones that are made to you

- if the situation appeals to it, try to involve the debate leader/the one who invited you all to debate the topic

 

Will your debate be publicly broadcasted? It would be nice to post it here in the topic either beforehand (can we listen in?) or afterwards.

 

Good luck, stay strong and defend the free market against closer-minded people.

[shirgall]

Practice arguing for and against the positions selected for the debate.

 

Avoid metaphors, they tend to confuse issues more than they illustrate them.

 

Learn to give 90-second "elevator pitches" and practice building up your examples to fit the model.

 

Learn BLUF (bottom-line up front) and the art of writing newspaper articles (lede up front, supporting facts next, details later) so that everything you spend time on it the most effective it can be.

 

This is not your role model:

[Troubador]

This is more of a general public speaking technique, but as you reasearch your material bullet point as economically as you can, simply as a reference aid. The objective here is you want the most of the data and information locked in your brain, but with a rough skeleton of what you want to cover to be sure you don't miss anything or get lost as you speak. If whilst someone else is speaking and they raise something make a brief note of it if it needs rebutting, to make sure you remember to tackle it.

 

Finally if this is new and at all nerve wracking eat a banana 20 mins before you go on air, the extra potassium helps the body combat stress and anxiety.

[luxfelix]

Practice arguing for and against the positions selected for the debate.

 

Avoid metaphors, they tend to confuse issues more than they illustrate them.

 

Learn to give 90-second "elevator pitches" and practice building up your examples to fit the model.

 

Learn BLUF (bottom-line up front) and the art of writing newspaper articles (lede up front, supporting facts next, details later) so that everything you spend time on it the most effective it can be.

 

This is not your role model:

 

http://www.komarketingassociates.com/images/2014/09/news_writing_inverted_pyramid.jpg

 

A.K.A. the inverted pyramid of hard news writing. 

 

Also... what's up with that debate format...   (Is this an "emperor's new clothes" situation?)

[cab21]

Also... what's up with that debate format...   (Is this an "emperor's new clothes" situation?)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY

this is the whole debate if you want to watch it in context.

 

here is a announcement from the prganization

[Nick900]

I would say argue with yourself ... usually when I'm debating people I've thought of most of the points that they are going to bring up beforehand and know the general rebuttals to their arguments.

 

I'll be keeping an eye on this post though, hopefully some more good resources pop up. 

[Marshall B]

I refuse to believe that debate video is real. If so thats more depressing than the 19 trillion debt hole.

[luxfelix]

I refuse to believe that debate video is real. If so thats more depressing than the 19 trillion debt hole.

 

The format I was taught was: 1) Moderator introduces topic and stances to be debated, followed by an initial anonymous poll to gauge where starting percentages fall (usually "for", "against", "undecided/neutral/other", etc.); 2) Teams take a side (coin toss, rock-paper-scissors, etc.); 3) Debate begins with alternating opening statements (thesis/antithesis), bodies of arguments (responses, evidence, etc.), and then ends with closing statements; 4) A follow-up poll indicates what affect the debate had on the audience (points tallied based on position changes); 5) A synthesis position is proposed.

[shirgall]

The format I recall had the subjects and selected which team each side of the issue a few weeks before the event.

[luxfelix]

The format I recall had the subjects and selected which team each side of the issue a few weeks before the event.

 

Oh yeah...   I forgot to mention that: the debaters conduct research beforehand.

 

The point of not knowing which side of a subject the teams will argue until the event is to keep an extemporaneous element and teach the value of studying an opposing viewpoint to prepare rebuttals and gain context (etc.).

 

In theory, this is supposed to allow for debaters to maintain an anonymity regarding what they actually agree with, as well as frame post-debate discussions on the quality of the arguments and communication of evidence rather than the topic itself.

[TheHomeless]

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! 

 

This is more of a general public speaking technique, but as you reasearch your material bullet point as economically as you can, simply as a reference aid. The objective here is you want the most of the data and information locked in your brain, but with a rough skeleton of what you want to cover to be sure you don't miss anything or get lost as you speak. If whilst someone else is speaking and they raise something make a brief note of it if it needs rebutting, to make sure you remember to tackle it.

Finally if this is new and at all nerve wracking eat a banana 20 mins before you go on air, the extra potassium helps the body combat stress and anxiety.

 

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

Practice arguing for and against the positions selected for the debate.

 

Avoid metaphors, they tend to confuse issues more than they illustrate them.

 

Learn to give 90-second "elevator pitches" and practice building up your examples to fit the model.

 

Learn BLUF (bottom-line up front) and the art of writing newspaper articles (lede up front, supporting facts next, details later) so that everything you spend time on it the most effective it can be.

 

This is not your role model:

 

Thanks a lot, I thought of citing some thinkers, it would certainly help, but I didn't have the time

Hi TheHomeless,

 

In my personal experience (I've debated within a political party group, a lot live on less official occasions and have been debate leader on 2 occasions - once for 300 students with the leaders of 4 different religious education groups), I can recommend doing the following things:

 

- list your own arguments for your standpoint, write them down and rehearse them

- look for any counterargument you can find on the points you want to discuss and list counter arguments

- stay reasonable, like mlsv2f is stating; logical fallacies, look for them and pre-counter them

- stay quiet, do not get upset in any way

- look for reasonable sources on your own arguments and if possible to discard counter arguments

- study your opponents (if possible)

- try to use rational humour (Stefans videos give a lot of examples; comparisons, witty jokes, etc.)

- try to move yourself in the position of your opponents, acknowledging their viewpoints and come up with arguments exactly from those points (e.g. what are the benefits of Uber/free market apps like it from the viewpoint of a union leader or local politician)

- stay honest, don't brag about points you're not sure of

- be concise, don't spend too much time on every argument you have

- try to avoid jargon

- find and use relevant quotes by wise people in the past (Rand, other philosophers, etc.)

- avoid personal attacks and evade ones that are made to you

- if the situation appeals to it, try to involve the debate leader/the one who invited you all to debate the topic

 

Will your debate be publicly broadcasted? It would be nice to post it here in the topic either beforehand (can we listen in?) or afterwards.

 

Good luck, stay strong and defend the free market against closer-minded people.

[SamuelS]

...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.

That reminds me of what Schiff was saying (FDR3059) about the mistake the R's make with regard to minimum wage -- they make it about business and play into the hand of the D's, when really it's about banning the sale of labor below a limit and labor is all most folks have to sell. Sounds like you did a good job illustrating who really wins/loses with regulation, thanks for following up

 

[shnugwa]

This is not your role model:

 

<CEDA Championship Debate Video>

 

I was astonished by this, unable to compose myself from laughter that the hysterical gasping, incessant cursing, and anti-white racist non-arguments were criteria for a "debate" victory.

 

Then, I saw this more recent video from the same organization, CEDA: (SEE BELOW)

 

It's another championship video. Skip to 1:16:15

 

The young man is literally employing the same awful tactics, as though he impressed his mind upon the task of studying the former victor so as to emulate her success. It's completely unfollowable gibberish, frantic gasping and pausing, erratic and irrational direction of thought, the ravings of a delusional racist madman! Has this become commonplace?! Am I to believe that these individuals are "winning the debate" on foreign policy, social issues, and matters concerning society? What are their arguments! I can't fathom this, and I find it terrifying. I would love to contest such debaters with reason and evidence supporting my contrary position, but obviously orthodox debate strategies (read: sane) aren't what takes the trophy in CEDA. Is this organization ran by a shadowy organization with an agenda to destroy public discourse, growing armies of fanatic anti-white debaters?!

 

I'm at a loss for words.

 

Skip to 1:16:15

[luxfelix]

Try watching the video at 0.5 and x2.0 speed.