[Fat1Fared]

Ok, so the first thing I should say is that I am not the world’s top debater (I know this because I have debated against the world’s top debater – and lost… badly); however, I am still know a few tricks which you can take on board, or not, as you so feel is appropriate. (I know there is quite a bit to read through, so skip to the end if you do not care about feedback, but who knows, some of it may be interesting and helpful if you care to read it and like debating.)

The next thing I would wish to say is that when you are debating, always have your mind what the point of debating is: it is art of using persuasive reasoning to prove why your point is right on the balance of probabilities.

Two points come out of this: one debates are not just about the points you make, but also how well you analyse the reasons why they are valid (or not); and, two, debates are inherently comparative and should not be absolutist.

I will give some pointers are analyse in a moment, but first, on the absolutist point: if you debating in absolutist terms, your points become innately implausible because if the person writing the debate has done their job correctly, they should not be any inherently correct position. Both sides should have valid points they can make, but those points should have weaknesses, as well. If you are aware of this, you can make your points much stronger by:

One – identifying the weaknesses in your arguments and insolating them. (E.g. On side proposition, I accept that humans do cause harm to animals, and that humans should not act in a way which purposefully exacerbates that harm; however, we consider the rights of humans above (and will explain why in a moment), and so we say that at the point in which the actions human take to persuasive their own survival and lesson the high-level suffering of other humans, the animals harmed as a consequence of this are justified, even if such harm is driving them to the point of extinction.) By identifying that humans do indeed cause harm to animals, you instantaneously appear more reasonable and are then able to set the terms of how the debate around the harms animals cause to human should go. This means when you use examples such as humans killing whole species, such as the mammoth, your reason for doing so it much clearer and the rebuttal to such a point much less impactful.

Two – setting the terms of the terms of the debate (i.e. saying to what extent the duty of humans to preserve animals goes (on opposition, I do not state that humans have to persuade species which are dying out naturally, but there is a duty on human to protect the species dying out due to our actions).

Three – by engaging with the other side’s points, and showing why your side is more valid on the balance of probability (e.g. whilst we do accept that there are things humans cannot do to preserve some species due to their extinction being beyond our control, this does morally or practically justify us doing nothing, when the harm of doing nothing is so great because…) One of the best ways to do this is to review harms and benefits of both side’s points because clearly illustrates to the listener/reader why a world which follows your model is a better one.

That being said, in the round, it was not a bad debate by any means, but each speaker was hampered by three things:

- Lack of structure;
- Superficial analysis; and,
- Lack of prioritisation.

Some points:

In relation to structure: if you just set out at the start three things, it will make your points much clearer and easier to follow:

1=Set out in the first line what the key message you wish for the judge to take from your speech is.
2=Then give the judge headings for the 1 or 2 key points that you feel prove your key message.
3=Finally, tell the judge how these address the other speaker’s points, specifically (do not leave it to the judge to draw the links for you).

By doing this, the judge knows straight away: what you wish to prove; how you wish to prove it; and, how you are going to win on the balance of probability. This means you have put the judge on notice – and he or she will, therefore, be looking out for these things in speech. If you do not do this, then due to the obvious time constraints of debating, the judge is having to often guess what you mean and read-in the links between/nuance of your points. This is a bit like playing Russian roulette with 5 out of the 6 chambers of your gun loaded, as the judge will often get it wrong (and not for the better).

Doing this will also allow you to use signposting. I suspect you have heard of this technique before, but for the avoidance of doubt it is, basically, where you give headings at the start of a speech to show what you will talk about, and refer back to these headings throughout the speech to better enable your listeners/readers to follow your structure/meaning.

In relation analysis: I do find it amazing how debaters have turned such a simple concept into the most jargon filled word since Tony Blair decided to dabble in politics. However, the broad way I view analysis is this: I see it as the ‘why’ behind your speech. Think to yourself, why did I just write that, and then just tell the judge why you said it. The judge is only reviewing the debate based on what both sides said, not on their own knowledge, beliefs or emotions. This means that if you assert something is true, then even if it probably is true, the judge will not give you much credit because the judge cannot know if you actually do understand your point, or not. (Much like a marker for a test.)


This was a fundamental problem in both speeches (which were not bad speeches I hasten to add) is that you both fired 20 points at me without analysing them. This meant that I – as the judge – had to decide upon their relevance, impact and narrative for myself. I had to work out for myself how they linked to the debate and engaged with the other side, which (especially in the stronger debates) makes it much less persuasive. It is also very risky for you as a speaker because: 1 – many judges will not read that deeply into your speech; and, 2 – what do they do read in is likely to be superficial and wrong as they cannot give you credit for the deeper analysis within your point unless you say it.

If you wish to know how analyse points, then there is no right or wrong way to do it, but I do feel that there are two key ‘why questions’ you must answer for each of the key points you have told the judge you wish to prove to show why your key message is the one he or she should accept as right/better on the balance of probabilities.

1=why what you say is true; and,
2=why the judge should care that it is true.

To prove these, you can (but do not need to) use this structure:
(I am going to use Samaritan Laws as an example because it was a debate I judged last Wednesday evening.)

1=why it is true
- Point (what is the point/heading you wish to prove)
o We should introduce Samaritan laws because it will reduce crime
- Evidence (what evidence proves/illustrates/gives context to your point)
o In German, this was introduced and reporting rates went up
- Explain (say why your point is applicable to the wider context of the debate)
o Reporting goes up because people know if not act, then could harmed themselves (i.e. arrested), so people ensured to act to protect themselves. This meant that the police had more information, so they get to and deal with crimes quicker. As such, bad people felt harder to do crimes because riskier, as much likely to be reported and arrested. Therefore, people did fewer crimes.

2=Once proven why it is true that, then need to tell the judge why he/she should care by reviewing:
- How wide reaching the positive (or negatives of this are) in society (e.g. how people could benefit).
o Whole of society benefit as even people who much less likely to be victims of crime often fear they will be victims of crime (explain why – e.g. media panic). As such, act allows us to create positive narrative that society is saver as harder for criminal acts to occur, meaning fewer crimes occur – and by consequence, you have fewer victims of crime. This makes hard for people, such as the media, to create fear and panic (i.e. less bad statistics to abuse). Then explain why people feeling safe is a good thing for society (i.e. more able to contribute to economic growth as more likely to achieve self-actualisation (p.s. do not actually use the term self-actualisation, haha)).
- How deep/strong the impact can be (either positively, or negatively) in society (e.g. how much benefit can groups (or other stakeholders) within society gain).
o People in poorer areas (fewer in number, but more important to judge as more likely to suffer actual harm, as opposed to just perceived harm) will particularly benefit because:
1. They will feel safer for the reasons mentioned
2. They are more likely to be victims of harm (explain: live in poorer areas where crime statistically more likely to occur); as such, if there are fewer crimes, their chances of being a victim of a crime is also reduced (obviously a good thing as not suffer harm of being a victim e.g. beaten up).
o Say why good less likely to be victims
1. Aforementioned reasons of be able to more easily contribute.
2. We are heavily influenced by the culture around us (broken window theory); as such, if see crime often, more likely to see it as acceptable and do it ourselves. This creates a narrative crime not acceptable as criminals more likely to be caught and people more likely to act positively against criminal acts. This means fewer people sociologised into a criminal lifestyle (long-term benefit)
3. Furthermore, as police are able to be more effective can tackle the often prevalent narrative in these areas that police not care about them because police can now be more effective can catching criminals (for reasons mentioned). Gives overall positive that draws these people towards be able to more positively and easily contribute to society.
4. Moreover, if these people seen to be helping the police, then police’s own prejudices against them will be reduced as build relations and help one another reduce crime
• This all needs explanation, but hopefully makes sense.

- Finally, explain why – on the comparative – your point is more important than other sides (this ensures you engage with their points effective.
o Although we accept some people may get judge calls wrong, at the point in which someone takes decision not to get involved (because fear) they will get hurt, as well, as they also suffered a harm because they will no someone got injured because they failed act (psychological harm). We also say the problem of the whole of society living in constant fear of crime causes such wide reaching harm that it outweighs the potential of people occasiously getting things wrong. This is because at the point we incentive society to take a collective approach to tackling crime and reduce crime overall, we have people put in these situations less often (meaning less likely to have to make choice and possibly suffer harm of knowing failed to act) and the potential victims of crimes that live in constant fear of crime on their side of the house are now liberated as no only less perception of crime, but also actually much less likely to be a victim of crime (giving all the benefits to whole of society and actual victims of crime that are so great, they completely outweigh the rare occasions people get it wrong.)
o (Will need to explain why unlikely to get choice wrong (i.e. people are self-pervasuing, so more often than not get help before just rushing in, if danger to themselves / meched it so that not punished for not putting self in danger.)
1. Their side: have certain victims of crime and whole of society fearing crime, with people all harms outlined.
2. Our side: reduced fear of crime and fewer actual victims of crime, plus fewer people suffering from pain of making this horrific choice, with only marginal harm of people rarely getting it wrong.

If you do this sort of explanation, it becomes very clear what you are saying, why it is true and why it impacts upon the debate.

(On evidence, it does not need to be an example; it can be statistics, case studies, some of political/philosophical theory… etc. The key thing is that it clarifies and strengthens the weight behind what you wish to prove.)

Finally, on prioritisation. This is key because as you can hopefully see from the explanation above, there is actually quite a bit you can say about just one point, if you fully analyse it. You therefore must know what the best points you can make in the debate are. It felt like everyone in the debate was just trying make all the points they could as quickly as they could. However, in the words of one of history’s great debaters, Lloyd-George, ‘do not make 21 superficial points, but instead concentrate on 2 or 3 well made-points.’ (abbreviated for clarity’s sake). Even in this debate, where time is not an issue, picking the right points are fundamental because you only give your opposition free hits if you defend the indefensible or make your points less clear by having too much information (irony of this comment not intended).
My advice would be, when you are in your prep time, once you have decided which points you can realistically prove, rank those points in terms of how compelling they are – and ensure you run your strongest arguments tactically, so they are the key thing the judge concentrates and most deflect your opposition’s points. Really think to yourself, if I were the judge, what points would I care about; and if I were the opposition, which points would I run/want to take down the most.

All of this being said, it was not a bad debate, but these points strengthen both speakers.