-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Debating tips?
- Thread starter Bishman
- Start date
- Status
Always have your facts straight, and speak with a clear voice. Have a command of the issues, and try not to overpower your opponent or put them down because of their different opinions.
I think the last three presidential debates (+VP debate) prove that facts, command and posture make for a win or lose in a debate.
I think the last three presidential debates (+VP debate) prove that facts, command and posture make for a win or lose in a debate.
KarishBHR said:
Read the following essays in The Bedford Reader.
H.L. Menken "Penalty of Death" pg. 470
Micheal Kroll "The Unquiet Death of Robert Harris" pg. 476
Find two pieces of data to support both sides of the death penalty issue.
Be sure to credit the source
Know the background of any cases you use as well as professionals
Write a paragraph w/ commentary that agrees and another paragraph with commentary that disagrees.
Review your notes / outlines for creating arguments
Avoid logical fallacies
Rules
You won't know your group, so be prepared for either side
Each side will have 15 minutes to prepare an opening argument
Debate will be based on 1-2 minute rebuttals
10 minutes for closing arguments
Mr. Blonde
Member
Ask the other side confusing questions that aren't necessarly relevant but the other side won't be able to answer(I got this tip from Opa)
ProsBishman said:
-Follows the harsh-yet-fair code of Hamurabbi. The punishment fits the crime. Outweighs ALL cons.
-Induces fear in would-be criminals.
-Induces fear in the general public.
-Lethal injection isn't brutal in the least.
Cons
-It doesn't take much to kill a person, therefore not very much tax money should be used.
-If you're the type of person who doesn't believe in it, it's a waste of money. But I find no reason why it is.
-It's murder, two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. (I don't agree with that, though)
-Sometimes innocent people are executed.
-Although they deserve it, brutal methods, such as the gas chamber, hanging, the electric chair, and the firing squad are quite....brutal. Not all are still used today, though.
-jinx- said:
What's wrong with the 'sometimes innocents are executed' deal?
Cons:
The judicial system isn't flawless; innocent people have and will continue to be sentenced, even to something as severe as death.
Death sentence is unable to give an innocent person reprieve after they've been killed.
It costs alot; more than life imprisonment. That cost difference could be used on aiding law enforcement catch another killer and solve other crimes.
There's no proof of the death penalty been a deterrent on crimes.
Reduces the idea of punishment to an eye for an eye; when in fact it should be a measure taken to reduce the negative effects of crimes on the street.
Moreover, a person willing to commit the crimes worthy of a death sentence usually don't think the same way about death as you or I. It's fair to say that people like the unabomber or Timothy Mcveigh are a great deal more nihilistic than us and that a death sentence would only mark the completion of their lives for them rather than some kind of draconian punishment to be avoided at all costs. Hell... just look at suicide bombers. These people possess extreme mind frames. Death isn't a big negative for them it would seem.
Oh, that argument in some form might work. The advice was given because Catalyst is coming from a very singular point of view -- even his "con" arguments tend to back up his actual position, which is pro-death penalty. That kind of one-sidedness in considering the subject will get you destroyed against any even semi-competent debater.Zaptruder said:
With the caveat that I never signed up for formal debate class in school -- I had much better things to do -- I might offer this advice. First, the only way you will succeed is if you understand both sides equally well. If you can't get past your own personal beliefs to be able to see where a skilled opponent will probe your argument, then you will have no chance to respond. Second, be sure to find good supporting FACTUAL evidence for all of your possible positions...if appropriate for your subject. If you run into someone like Catalyst claiming that capital punishment is a deterrent to society at large, you need to be ready to put the smack down with a credible source countering his argument. Finally, as with any other kind of public speaking, a LARGE part of how your message is perceived has little to do with your actual words. Pay attention to tone, physical mannerisms, eye contact, dress, and all of the other non-verbal factors which can be incredibly important in influencing the judging panel.
I'll give you a tip for the pro-death penalty argument.
It *can* be an effective deterrent. But you'll have to look beyond america into say China or a country that is willing to enforce the death penalty equally rigidly. I don't have the numbers on hand, but if my suspicions are correct, you'll find that the swiftness and effectiveness of their capital punishment there has positive effects on crime.
That said, the traditional arguments for and against death penalty as practiced in the US is pretty stacked in favor of against. You'll also find that's why the majority of developed nations have eliminated the death penalty.
It *can* be an effective deterrent. But you'll have to look beyond america into say China or a country that is willing to enforce the death penalty equally rigidly. I don't have the numbers on hand, but if my suspicions are correct, you'll find that the swiftness and effectiveness of their capital punishment there has positive effects on crime.
That said, the traditional arguments for and against death penalty as practiced in the US is pretty stacked in favor of against. You'll also find that's why the majority of developed nations have eliminated the death penalty.
Jinx, just because you disagree with someone doesn't necessarily make this person one-sided, stupid, ignorant, wrong, bigoted, racist, blah blah blah, or (typical liberal-thinking label here). Don't get mad because someone thinks differently than you. That just makes you the one-sided individual, and any wise, intellectual person will laugh at you, no offense.-jinx- said:
I know both sides, but I also sided with one. That doesn't make me wrong, bub. So lay your smack down, make me look stupid, but you'll still be the one looking stupid trying so hard to convey your opinion as "right."
Saying someone's opinion is totally wrong, or one-sided just ruins the argument.
Capital punishment isn't something I see as wrong or right -- it's something that balances the equation.
EDIT: I also may be going all about this the wrong way, however, I find it baffling that people who agree with capital punishment aren't allowed to agree with it in these types of discussions. Why is that? It's kind of like discussing a different culture, and the first label or insult thrown is "racist," when that wasn't the idea in the first place. Then there are the homosexual discussions, whereas the people who disagree are called "homophobes" or "bigots." Why is that? Are people not allowed to have a stance, Jinx? I hate that type of thinking. It's disgusting.
Bishman, some more words of advice....make your opinion without being afraid of being flamed or labeled. Be honest, gung-ho, but carefully and concisely word your opinions, and don't do the messageboard thing, heh. Make sure you mean what you say and say what you mean.
EDIT #2: I'd also wish for this to stay civil, because in real life, these turns into fights, which turn into wars. These are things you guys preach against. So remember who you are. And remember, people are allowed to have opinions, so keep the flames on the downlow. You won't find me flaming anyone, so please use that example, men. I'm saying this because these normally turn into flame wars, and I normally find myself one of the only ones who doesn't need to flame to prove a point (in serious discussion, anyway, otherwise I'd be joking around, shits & giggles). It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, that's moot -- these are about educating yourselves and gaining insight, through the exchange of ideas....soooo Bishman can have an argument and feed his performance.
EDIT #3: Wow, I actually thought this'd be a 2390457384957-page thread, and I took this WAY too seriously. Excuse my seriousness sincerity
.First of all, read my tag more carefully before spouting off. It's there as a public service annoucement.Catalyst said:
Second, the original poster asked for tips to IMPROVE HIS PERFORMANCE in a debate, not for specific arguments. That's one reason to ignore what you said -- you didn't respond to his question. If he needed positional support, he/she would have asked for it.
Finally, you need to work on your reading comprehension. If you want to believe that the death penalty is a good idea, that's your problem. I was attacking two things: first, the fact that your list of pros and "cons" was biased heavily in the pro-death penalty direction (which is inappropriate for any debater who hopes to win, since he/she must be able to argue BOTH sides EQUALLY well) and second, the fact that many of your arguments are fairly weak.
The way you phrase your con arguments clearly betrays your bias: "Although they deserve it," some of the means of execution are brutal. And then, after appealing to a pseudo-economic argument about saving money (as far as I can tell, your wording is extremely unclear), you subvert the argument by saying "but I find no reason why it is." How the hell are either of those lines supposed to help someone debating on the anti-capital punishment side?
As for the validity of your arguments, I can only shake my head and laugh. Your allegedly "strongest" argument for the death penalty is appealing to the code of Hammurabi. At best, you are trying to make an ethical argument but avoiding the underlying philosophical principles. At worst, it's completely irrelevant. Do we live under the code of Hammurabi now? Fuck no. You seem to think that inducing fear in both the "would-be criminals" and "general public" segments of society is a good thing -- care to explain how those two groups differ? Or perhaps why a non-prospective criminal WOULD feel fear because of capital punishment, or why instilling fear in the general public is a beneficial thing?
So, one more time for your benefit: I don't care what you believe, but your stated rationale for believing it is pathetically flimsy, and you would be destroyed in a debate if you actually brought your list of bullet points to the table.
I had a novice debating tournament a couple of weeks ago (University Parliamentary Style Debating)...and my general style tips won't matter because of the format being a bit different.
Dude, in an entire class split into two, it really isn't much in the way of a debate...the most important thing is to have your own point, as well as maybe taking notes on some other points the other side brings up...and then crush them. You're making an argument; sound convincing, support your view, and then try to kick the crutch out from their feeble existence and, if you're feeling really courageous, flip over a desk. Always awesome.
Dude, in an entire class split into two, it really isn't much in the way of a debate...the most important thing is to have your own point, as well as maybe taking notes on some other points the other side brings up...and then crush them. You're making an argument; sound convincing, support your view, and then try to kick the crutch out from their feeble existence and, if you're feeling really courageous, flip over a desk. Always awesome.
StoOgE said:meh, its not a real debate, I wouldnt worry abou it too much..
Karish were you LD or CX? Strangely I got 5th in my state in LD my senior year
oh gosh. i wonder how many old NFLers are around.
i was pretty good in cx in high school. i should of kept on doing it in colleg.e
- punctuate rebuttals with "i know that! i know that!"
- remind your opponent that's he's forgotten things. poland may be such a thing.
- lengthy "uuuuhhhhhs" lend your statements gravitas
- speak in a texas accent.
- compress polysyllabic words to monosyllables, e.g. "terrorists" becomes "turrst"
- should you attempt a lighthearted remark, bug your eyes out weirdly and overenunciate
- wear a wire
- remind your opponent that's he's forgotten things. poland may be such a thing.
- lengthy "uuuuhhhhhs" lend your statements gravitas
- speak in a texas accent.
- compress polysyllabic words to monosyllables, e.g. "terrorists" becomes "turrst"
- should you attempt a lighthearted remark, bug your eyes out weirdly and overenunciate
- wear a wire
Exactly, and when there are discussions about driving in America, whenever I say to drive on the left I'm called things like "stupid" or "insane". Why can't I have an opinion too?
...and be completely unafraid of being wrong or inaccurate, because the truth of your statements is entirely derived from the conviction of which you make them, not the logical and factual support you base them on.
KilledByBill
Member
Don't scowl! If you catch yourself scowling make a joke about how your adversary's position is so absurd that it makes you want to scowl.
If you debate using a podium make sure you stand up straight and tall so that it doesn't look like you are hiding from the audience.
If you debate using a podium make sure you stand up straight and tall so that it doesn't look like you are hiding from the audience.
Hitokage said:
Well I was on the con side. So they started with their opening argument about serial killers breaking out of prison and killing again. We refuted with tighter security. Then they brought up Ted Bundy, that he killed so many. We counter back about Ted and other facts. Then one guy on the pro side said 'Capital Punishment is not to kill." Its funny because earlier when he was talking, he said the use of C. P. is to get rid of them and protect society. We got him saying "As you can see, [name] doesn't even understand what he is talking about. What will be the next thing he says? Cmon, stop flip flopping. Capital Punishment is to kill, not vice versa. (Funny, because our teacher started laughing when we used flip flopping.) Then we explained that C. P. does deter ppl from crime with that link linx gave me. They brought up a point that we should kill them right away, why let them enjoy jail with free food, free movies, free water, and an enjoyable environment. We obliterated it, saying "that is a complete utter lie" (note the MGS3 reference?); don't bring what you seen in movies into this, and said why should the victims torture seeing their love die in a gruesome way. After the first 3-4 rounds, the pro side brings Ted Bundy issue back. Every time, Ted Bundy! We would just not rebuttal and change the topic. Their rebuttal would be Ted Bundy. Pro team tried way too hard to get emotional appeal with Ted Bundy, it just became annoying. I should note at the beginning of the debate, we took notes of everything they said and used it against them. lol then they started to do the same.
Closing statements. rofl :lol
They picked the worst person to do it. When she was walking to her spot to do the closing statements, I eyed her like I wanted to kill her. I was doing it for fun, but she trembling in fear and paused way too much. The first thing that came out of her mouth was Ted Bundy and all the murders he committed. Cmon, you've said his name about 18 times already. Come up with a new issue. We had this girl, who is a very good speaker and passionate do, the closing statements. She ended with "an eye for an eye leaves both blind."
GG.
- Status