This is a listing of the typical comments on debates made by adjudicators. If you can avoid generating these comments you will be well on the way to debating success.
Don't repeat the moot, especially if it has just been announced by the Chair, or you are the second (or third, or fourth, or...) speaker to start by announcing the moot.
Don't announce that you are the first speaker. Or you are on the affirmative team. We (should) know that. We don't care.
Don't anounce your name or your speaking position or the team you are on.
Interest us. Excite us. Astound us, the audience. Make a strong first impression. Have a powerful introduction.
Avoid the "menu style" definition. Instead of "compulsory means obligatory, required, compelling or coercive," choose the definition that best supports your case and simply state "we take compulsory to mean required." Your definition is clearer, more straight forward and you won't lose the audience.
Also, by avoiding presenting alternatives you lessen the risk of the opposition using them against you, or having to justify why you have chosen a favourable meaning over one less favourable.
Make a clear restatement of the definition to show what you mean.
Ensure your restated definition, or the terms you use, don't themselves require definition (or if they do, define them). For example, if you define a civilisation as where everyone lives above subsistence level, you then need to define what you mean by "living above subsistence level".
Spend sufficient time on your definition. Two minutes is quite reasonable and longer may sometimes be necessary. You are establishing the boundaries of the field of combat, and the foundations of your team case. It is critical that the audience has a sound understanding of the limits you are setting, and the meaning of the terms you will use.
If there is a "should" in the moot, always make sure you explain how the should is to be evaluated. If you are conceding that there are some bad points to the case you are presenting but that the good outweighs the bad, make that argument clear and work hard to justify the claim.
Spend time explaining comparatives (greater, lesser, better) and values (worth). The audience should clearly understand how you propose to measure and judge whether the moot is true.
There is no necessity to refer to a dictionary for a definition. Usually the "ordinary person in the street" definition will give you the best debate.
If in doubt over the meaning of a word, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is the recomended source. However, the affirmative may take any reasonable approach to defining that they choose and it is wrong to claim that your dictionary is better or more authoritative.
Make sure your team agrees on the definition. A second or third speaker should never redefine the moot.
Don't take too narrow an approach. It limits the arguments you can present and opens you up to a definitional challenge.
As a negative make sure you clearly tie your opposing line in with the moot.
Definitional Challenges
As first negative, only challenge a definition if the point is going to be relevant to the development of your case, or to the development of the opposing case. You must clearly justify your challenge using unreasonableness as the basis.
If you are going to challenge an affirmative definition, your challenge must be strong and you must spend time justifying it.
The negative, at some level, must deal with the moot as it is defined by the affirmative.
As negative you cannot simply choose to offer an alternative defintion of the moot.
Any rejection or challenge to the affirmative team definition must come from the first speaker for the negative.
The second affirmative needs to be alert to the need to defend or clarify the definition if the negative explicitly or implicitly challenges it. Make sure this is done thoroughly.
If you use therefore ask yourself what it is there for. This phrase, and similar ones, show that you are drawing a conclusion. You must ensure your conclusion is supported by the reasoning you have just offered.
Choose your examples with care. It is easier to win over an audience to the advantages of science by talking about cures for cancer rather than building atomic bombs.
Listen carefully to the opposition. Don't ask questions or engage in argument that has already been addressed by the opposition. In those cases rebuttal is required, not continuing on with your prepared argument.
An experiment is not proven to have failed because other people have not chosen to try it. Be very careful with the way you use the word proven.
Be careful using personal surveys. You can't get the numbers required for quantitative analysis, and the whole area is fraught with problems, such as fair questions. But it is a useful means of collecting some qualitative issues that can be discussed.
Your speech should show evidence of research.
The second speaker should have the bulk of the substantial argument. The first speaker is busy with team introductions and definitions. The third speaker spends most of their time on rebuttal (at least 50% and 75-80% is a realistic target - some debates will demand nearly 100%). This leaves the second speaker to make up the backbone of the team case.
Be careful that you don't become too repetitious of earlier speakers in your team.
Make sure you back up assertions and sweeping statements with at least a few pertinent examples.
Don't spend a lot of time on theory (of dubious validity) without addressing the issues of practice.
Use words correctly. Possums eat flora, not eat fauna. Don't use "literally" in the sense of "emphatically metaphorically", eg. "fisherman literally rape the sea", "the world literally united in grief"
Use topical references
Arguments
Make sure you offer enough argument to support the case you are trying to prove. Make sure your arguments are consistent with the definitions and assumptions your team has chosen. For example, if you are arguing for sitting a language paper at university, you should not support this by arguing that we could then do away with interpreters because you haven't addressed issues of fluency.
Hypothetical arguments are weak because they are not real and opposing hypothetical arguments can be raised. Actual examples are much more convincing.
Make sure your arguments relate to the moot and the case you are trying to prove.
Check that your arguments (or their underlying premises) don't contradict your own speech or your team's case. Especially consider the implications of any examples you may use.
Make sure you are presenting arguments and not just rhetoric.
Remember that proving X is good does not prove Y is bad.
Simpler, clear analogies can be useful.
Make sure some of your arguments are based in modern times.
As negative, stating "the moot is wrong" or simply negating the moot, is not an argument.
Rebuttal
Rebut more!
Try and focus on attacking the key arguments of the opposition. Make sure your rebuttal attacks the point they are trying to prove. You might successfully attack an example, but leave the argument still standing.
When you have identified a key point for rebuttal, spend some time on it. Make it clear how much the opposition relies on this point, and show the audience how it doesn't stand up.
You need to actively pursue, identify and damage the crucial arguments of the opposition.
It is good to tie in rebuttal to your own team case. If your team has done its job well, you can rebut the arguments of the opposition by reiterating the points your team has already made.
The straw man argument where you state the opposition argument as weakly as possible and then attack your version of it can be useful, but you must ensure that your restatement is not so weak as to be an obvious misrepresentation. You face the problem of the opposition identifying your approach and clearly discounting it. And you run the risk of leaving important opposition arguments unrebutted. You are almost always better
off fairly stating the opposition arguments and attacking those as best you can. Unless they are very very strong and you haven't prepared an adequate defence. Then sometimes trying to fudge and restate them is your best tack. That is very rare though.
Make sure you don't spend too much time summarising the opposition arguments rather than attacking. Don't do a better job at summarising and clarifying the opposition arguments than the opposition did. Unless the clarification of any unclear point is to the advantage of your team.
The third speaker should be aiming for 50% (minimum) to 75-80% rebuttal (in some cases up to 100%). More rebuttal is required from the third speaker negative.
The negative is perfectly entitled to make alternative suggestions in establishing a contrary case, even if the suggestions are not in the moot. For example, if the affirmative is arguing that Chinese should be taught at university, the negative can argue that it should be taught at primary school instead. This is true even if the moot refers to "university" and not "primary school"
Head-on rebuttal is usually best. Direct refutation and opposition to the arguments, examples and reasoning of the opposition team.
Be very careful using pre-rebuttal. By this is meant rebutting arguments that you think the opposition will raise. Occasionally this is a valid strategy, but usually you just give the opposition and the audience ideas. Focus on what the debate is about, and not what it might be going to be about.
Don't hold back on rebuttal. Be powerful and forceful. Focus on the weak areas.
Don't use sarcasm for extensive rebuttal. A sarcastic tone of voice can't be maintained and may confuse the audience.
Try and make full use of your time. Don't start gabbling or speed up too much when you hear the first bell.
Don't take too long to get started after the Chair has introduced you. 20-30s delay maximum.
Don't read from your notes and try not to rely on them too much.
Be careful to avoid causing offence through rudeness, blasphemy, swearing, tastelessness or bigotry.
If you should come to a complete stop don't panic. Take a deep breath. Pause. Get comfortable. And get started again. Your audience will be surprisingly supportive. And what seems an eternity at the front of an audience is a surprisingly short period of time.
Play up to the audience.
Your introduction is where you make your first impression. Start with enthusiasm.
Make sure you are ready to start speaking before you reach the audience. If you are going to fasten or unfasten a blazer or jacket, do so before you start speaking.
Presentation
Maintain eye contact with the audience.
Try and avoid distracting mannerisms such as swaying.
Never turn away from the audience, especially when talking. Never face the opposition.
Face the audience. Don't talk too fast. Don't hold a pen while you are speaking.
Make good use of hand gestures. Large notes interfere with your ability to make pertinent hand gestures. But don't be repetitive in your use of gesture.
Adopt a comfortable stance. Lean slightly forward with your feet slightly apart. You can move around but it should be for effect and not for pacing. Whatever helps persuade the audience is good. Whatever distracts the audience is bad.
Don't walk away from the audience before you have finished speaking. Finish on a strong point. Pause and let it sink in, and then stride away.
Use of Voice
Project your voice - aim your voice (not your eyes) above the heads of the people at the back of the audience.
Show some enthusiasm in your voice and manner. You should be excited. Passionate. But make sure your volume is appropriate to the room and that there is variation. Vary the tone and intensity of your voice. Don't talk too fast, especially in the prepared part of your speech. Slow down, make use of pause and repetition. But also maintain a fluid style.
Open your mouth unnaturally wide as you talk. This will slow you down and improve your diction. Watch newsreaders on TV.
Make sure your pauses are natural.
Don't yell. Adjust your volume to the room and audience.
Notes
Make sure you have blank cards the same size as your main notes, to use for rebuttal.
Don't hold your notes with both hands. That only encourages you to read from them, hold them up higher, and create a barrier between you and your audience. It also means you can't make pertinent hand gestures.
Your notes should sit comfortably in the palm of one hand, and you should be able to easily move a card from front to back without looking. Don't use over-sized or too small cards. Thin card is essential. Don't use paper.
Your cards should be a neutral colour.
Only use one side. It is more difficult to flip a card over, and you will forget whether you have flipped or not.
Number your cards so you can put them in order if you drop them.
Don't write out every word. Leave out "and" and "the". The penultimate aim (before no notes at all), is a few key trigger words that will launch a significant spiel down a line of thought. Work towards achieving this by cutting down the number of words.
Use a different colour (or put a bright marker stripe) on the last card, with your summary notes, so if you get into time trouble you can smoothly shuffle through to the last card.
Keep all your notes in your hand. Don't turn around and put them down as you finish with them (or the rebuttal section). It distracts the audience and emphasises the structure of the speech ("Oh, she has now finished her rebuttal")
You should be able to complete your introduction without referring to your notes.
Pratice reading through your prepared material aloud so you are comfortable with all the words.
The ideal is to speak without notes. Make sure your eyes don't roll to the top of your head as you try and remember your speech.
Don't read from the notes. Try not to reply on a prepared speech.
Try and have a creative, logical flow to your speech. Avoid the same cliched links to next segments saying and also...and also or and then there's...and then there's
Repetition and recapping important points can be a valuable technique.
If you introduce your speech with a powerful quote or example, you should refer back to it later in your speech and make it clear how it relates to the moot and helps prove your case. If it is so important that you start with it, make sure you make full use of it.
It can be valuable to offer a personal viewpoint or insight, especially if you can do so with passion or enthusiasm.
You should aim to have a summary of your speech and what you achieved and how it helped your team prove its case. If you have a clear structure to your speech it will be easier to summarise.
Don't spend time explaining how you decided on your approach to the debate, and discuss options you didn't take. Get on with the debate.
First speakers should make it clear what their teams will set out to achieve.
Make sure you make full use of the time available to you. Be aware of the time and be prepared to jettison or expand on material as required.
Aportion your time carefully. Don't spend significant amounts of time on insignificant arguments.
Don't play silly games with the opposition. For example, you can't expect to really prove a point if the opposing team fail to remove their clothes as a result of your challenge.
Try and have a natural flow between your rebuttal and the prepared part of your speech. The ideal is to integrate the two. Your arguments should simultaneously discredit the opposition's case while building your own.
Be careful when taking the grizzly bear approach to the opposition argument - trying to squeeze the life out of it by embracing it. If you accept all the arguments, but use them to come to a different conclusion you will need to work hard. You must make sure the distinctiveness of the two conclusions remains, and that you don't spend time attacking some of the arguments that you have already used to support your alternative conclusion.
As first affirmative don't spend large amounts of time explaining what the negative may have assumed about the debate and why that assumption is wrong. Let them make the mistake first. You have better things to do with your time.
Your speech should have some kind of structure and logical flow. It should progress and develop your team's argument and not just be a series of unrelated points with rebuttal scattered through it.
It is good to quote references for pertinent statistics.
It is a great strategy to use an example or authority back against the opposition after they have used it, if you do it well.
Avoid rhetorical questions. Avoid superlatives.
Use a very few, highly relevant, powerful quotations. Don't string them all together. They should be scattered through your speech like sparkling diamonds.
Have a strong ending. And then finish. If you feel yourself rising to a crescendo, finish on a high point, and not some small piece of rebuttal you've just remembered and you want to squeeze in.
Make sure you have a strong ending to your speech.
It is too late to speed up talking after the second bell. You must use the first bell as a guide to the speed you need to finish. But it is better to jettison irrelevant material, or to summarise the points, than to start gabbling.
You shouldn't be introducing significant new arguments after the first bell. You should be finishing your point and then moving on to your summary.
Don't steal material designated for a latter speaker. You may refer to the fact that your later speaker will address this issue.
Make sure there is a clear distinction between the material for each of the speakers.
If you identify an issue as important to the debate, don't have the third speaker deal with it. It should be brought out in the first or second speaker's speeches. Try and shift the focus of the debate to this key issue.
Be supportive of your team. For example, don't refer to "the point my second speaker was trying to make." Instead try "let me expand on the point my second speaker made so well, but which the opposition seem to have failed to grasp."
If your negative team allocation of subject material becomes inconsistent with the definition provided by the affirmative (and that usually indicates bad planning), change or rephrase it and adapt.
The leader of your team should clearly explain how your team will approach the case and the role that each speaker will play (team allocation)
As leader make sure you include your own contribution to the argument as you explain your team case. It makes sense to explain your approach to your team case in the order your team is speaking, so start with your own case first.
Make sure you spend enough time on your own case to clearly explain what your team has proven.
If the moot requires it (and it often does) make sure you compare and contrast the positions taken by the two teams.
Use all the time you have available. You should never speak short of time.
Make sure you spend a fair amount of time in both bolstering your own team's case and showing how you destroyed the opposition (somewhat more attacking the affirmative if you are negative, and somewhat more claiming the case you have made if you are affirmative).
Your (and the opposing team's) allocation of the case among your team may (and should) be a good guide as to how to structure your summary.
Start with your strongest point. Dont forget to summarise your own case. Have a strong ending.
Make sure you summarise what your speakers actually said, which may not be what you introduced them as saying.
Don't include any new material. Any major rebuttal points should have been in the main body of the debate. You can still introduce new rebuttal points, but it usually indicates a problem with technique and strategy. If it is a major point, make sure it is raised early in the debate.
Slow down, and concentrate on the major issues. The ones people will remember.
Jokes are only funny the first time. Don't repeat them. Be clear on what you have proven.
Be consistent with your teams approach to the moot. If it was literal, don't start down metaphorical pathways (except for rebuttal) and vice-versa. Don't be overly prepared; your reply should reflect what actually happened during the debate.
Make sure you spend sufficient time summarising the key points of the opposition and how your team dealt with them. This applies even if you are the affirmative.
Remember you are trying to convince the audience, not the opposing team.
Make a lot of key points. Develop the distinctive differences between your case and that of the opposition. Make sure the audience knows what you stand for and what you oppose.
In the affirmative reply don't use expressions such as "all we have heard from the negative so far..." We won't be hearing any more from the negative. It is up to you to summarise and round off the debate.
As an affirmative reply, finish by summarising your teams case and how you proved the moot. Your principal task is to prove the case. Finish on a high note and leave the audience thinking about your case.
Make sure you are familiar with the rules governing procedural points.
Tabling a document is only required if it is both a significant authority that the opposition could not be expected to be familiar with, and that presents unusual or unexpected information that an audience (or opposition) is unlikely to accept at face value.
So it is not necessary to table the Bible or a dictionary. You would not normally table a work of fiction such as 1984. When tabling a document you should either place it on a table in front of the Chair, or on the opposition's table. The intention is that the opposition has the right to check the document and that you have quoted it correctly and completely. It should be bookmarked for this purpose.
Don't refer to the "affirmative" or "negative" as you are bound to get them confused. This is unlikely to be a major issue, but can make the audience laugh at the wrong time and distract you and the audience. Try referring to "my team" and "the opposition" because you can always use those terms.
Refer to speakers by position rather than by name.
Resources Last updated: Wednesday, 22 March 2000 at 8:11am Copyright 2002 Wayne McDougall.
ADA, PO Box 3233, Auckland Central, New Zealand Ph +64-9-6252847 Fax +64-9-6252851 Mobile +64-21-962783 Email to president@ada.org.nz