The Three Rs of Debating: Reasoning, Refutation, Rebuttal

The Three Rs of Debating: Reasoning, Refutation, Rebuttal
by Jeanette Mason
While constructive arguments establish the foundation for debate, the heart and soul of a debate lies in the rebuttal. While technically refutation and rebuttal are two different processes, in practice they are interchangeable. Refutation is the process of finding flaws in the opponent뭩 arguments, reasoning and evidence. Rebuttal refers to the process of re-establishing your own arguments or case, responding to the opponents� arguments, or extending an argument already in play. Reasoning is the process by which we make logical connections between ideas and evidence. Skilled debaters learn to understand how these three processes interplay during a debate.

Click here to continue.

[from osi.hu)

Example of Debate Brief

Example of Debate Brief

How to Win Any Debate…

 Even if You’re Less Intelligent, Less Prepared, and Less Attractive than Your Opponent

Click here to read.

How to debate like a pro

HOW TO DEBATE LIKE A PRO

Debating is not just knowing the issues. Debating is not just arguing. It is an exchange of ideas in which both sides try to make the case for their position. It is knowing how the frame the issues in a palatable framework that matches your audience.

Both the ability to debate well, and knowledge of the points of argument are essential to your ability to convey our issues to your audience. The eight-second sound bite has replaced true debate in this country and created the illusion that important issues are one-dimensional.

To debate well, you must select relevant arguments from irrelevant content and rhetorical presentation. You must, most importantly, relate specific facts and data that directly combat point-by-point the cheap labor lobby propaganda. Remember that debates are not a zero sum game - there is no winner or loser. A constructive debate generates critical thought in the audience. A constructive debate does not merely offer an analysis of problems but offers real solutions and alternatives.

It is our duty, as citizens, to increase the awareness of the importance of rational debating. Constructive debating is an art.

Click here to continue.

[from forumgarden.com]

International Public Debate Association

The link below takes you to the International Public Debate Association website.  Click here.

How To Debate Tips

Conversational Debate Trickery and Common Courtesy Issues

Conversational Debate Trickery and Common Courtesy Issues
By Lance Winslow
When debating with someone else who begins using normal human conversational trickery, often they will demand common courtesy if the debate gets heated. Although in reality no one should not expect any common courtesy who uses such tactics, as they move to make the other party look foolish, eat their words or backtrack on a previous comment.
This is because as you disrespect the other party, they want revenge. And common courtesy simply goes out the window. Recently in debating a topic with a Poker Player who is involved in the online gambling business. He attempted to use such tactics, so I explained this to him;
You see, obviously if one is a decent poker card player they do understand all this, so indeed your questioning stating: “I don’t Understand” is also not common courtesy, because you pretend not to understand something that you think you know, that you really don’t know, in order to make a point. Thus hoping to bait the other person (me), which I do not appreciate, into burying themselves into proving your point. This is conversational trickery often used in debate.
Unfortunately, you are debating with someone who has now schooled you in reality of this subject matter and are now burying yourself. Further, these types of manipulations in conversation you are using really are not a very nice way to correspond, because you are trying belittle the next guy and yet all the while in this debate; You Demand Common Courtesy?
Therefore your tactics and demands are disrespectful and inadequate. So as long as one is Demanding Something from me without proper reciprocal response, well, I cannot give it too you, I do not feel common courtesy is owed from me, but you may find others, will in the future, after all you might be a of their customers or they might want something from you. Personally, I don’t gamble, the risk does not make sense mathematically. That is what I think. Perhaps you might consider all this in 2006.
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
http://EzineArticles.com/?Conversational-Debate-Trickery-and-Common-Courtesy-Issues&id=309017

How to Win Informal Arguments and Debates

from wikiHow - The How to Manual That You Can Edit
Skilled debating is an art. In order to win arguments and convince others of your views, you must understand the basic components of logic, psychology, and effective communication.

Steps

1. Decide on a position you would like to argue for, and become well-informed about that position. Ideally, this will be something you really believe in, because it is much easier to make convincing arguments for ideas you are enthusiastic about. Make sure you understand not only your own position, but the opposing position as well. This will allow you to anticipate objections and respond more effectively.
2. Find someone to debate with. Before proceeding, however, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of "impossible people." In order to have any chance of winning a debate or accomplishing anything productive, you need to be arguing with someone who is basically reasonable. Otherwise, save yourself the trouble and find someone more reasonable to debate with.
3. Begin by stating a thesis. This is just a brief statement of your position and your reasons for holding that position. Example: You might say "I believe the Moon was once of a part of the Earth for the following reasons," followed by a quick summary of why you believe that. Try to use evidence-based premises, if possible. For example, "Geological data shows that the Moon's rocks are quite similar to those found in Earth's early history" is much better than "The Moon being blasted out into space by a collision is just a really cool idea."
4. Respond to objections. In most cases, your opponent will respond to your thesis by objecting to one or more of your premises, which are the reasons you have given to support your position. If you are well-informed about your position, most of the objections should already be familiar to you. Use logic and evidence to show your opponent why his or her objections do not work. You can refute objections by two major routes: showing that the evidence does not support them, or exposing a logical flaw in the premise of the objection.
   • To refute the idea that refined white bread is healthy because it is processed, you might state that a study showed rats fed a diet of white bread alone all died. This would be an evidence-based response.
   • You might state that "The fact that white bread is processed does not mean it is healthy. There is no established link between highly processed food and better health, so your objection does not follow from your premises." This would be an logic-based response.
5. Build on your opponent's objections. If possible, don't stop at refuting them - turn them around and use them against your opponent's position.
   • Example: Your thesis might be that lab rats should not be used in painful experiments. Your opponent might object that rats cannot experience pain in the same way humans can. You might use evidence to refute this objection by referring to studies which show the same type of brain and nervous system function in rats and humans under stress. Instead of stopping there, show your opponent how his or her attempted objection actually supports your position. Continuing the example given here, you might say something like "since you have made the issue of the ability to feel pain the basis of your objection, doesn't the evidence I've shown you suggest that performing experiments on lab animals is unethical?"
6. Attempt to resolve each point before moving ahead to the next issue. If there are unresolved points about which you and your opponent cannot agree, it will be difficult to accomplish anything productive, because the unresolved points will continue to come up over and over again. Ultimately, this will lead to a situation where there is no choice but to "agree to disagree," which is usually not an ideal outcome.
7. Remain calm, rational, and reasonable at all times. You may feel that your opponent is totally failing to understand your position, but if you become too agitated, you opponent will take this as a sign of weakness and conclude that he has you on the ropes. Rather than helping to convince your opponent, shouting or insulting remarks will only serve to make him more confident in his position. Emotional behavior is no substitute for rational arguments.
8. Have patience. As long as both you and your opponent are debating in a reasonable manner, be willing to spend some time explaining your position and your premises. It is not easy to change someone else's mind. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most powerful among them is the simple fact that no one enjoys discovering that he is mistaken. It's not a particularly easy thing to accept, so be patient. You won't convince him with your very first point.
9. Use effective speech and grammar. You don't need to pretend you are a university professor, but if you want to be effective and convincing, you should use decent English. Don't try to use big words in order to sound more intelligent, because most people can see through such an act. On the other hand, don't be afraid to use the right word for the task. If a big word is called for, use it. Most importantly, try to speak (or write) clearly and confidently. Make your point using no more and no fewer words than you need.
10. Ask questions. Most people assume that the person with the most knowledge of a topic will win in a debate. This, however, is not true. If you are able to ask questions you can easily even any playing field. The idea behind this method goes back to Socrates. Socrates would ask the men, who thought of themselves as wise, question after question until they could no longer give a response without demonstrating a logical fallacy or proving his point. Remember that many people like to hear themselves talk, this can be used against them. Also, do not use questions that they can have multiple answers for, if they respond with an "um...(pause)" and contemplate the idea to make up their mind you will go nowhere because once you have completed the questioning period all they need to do to avoid your conclusion is to go back to that question and change their mind. Using the debate example previously mentioned (the pain-response of rats) a way to debate using the Socratic Method[1] would be to ask "How do humans feel pain." The logical answer would be through nervous-system impulses. You will most likely get an answer much simpler but with that basic idea. You then might ask if a nervous system is responsible for those impulses. They will answer yes, and then you ask if rats have a nervous system. The logical conclusion is yes. Therefore, if rats have a nervous system and a nervous system is responsible for pain, rats can feel pain.
    • Another method to argue that same point is to ask how you know someone else is feeling pain. They are likely to respond that the person will say ouch. You then ask them "Well, babies don't say ouch, does that mean that babies don't feel pain?" They'll most likely change their answer to be a bit broader (always try to get them to concede the broadest definition for an idea (i.e. murder, life, pain), this allows for you to make your point part of that definition). They will most likely retract their previous statement and say that if a person cries out then they are in pain. You then point out that rats squeal and try to escape when they are most likely in pain.
11. Be willing to lose. A skilled debater understands that sometimes, the other person's arguments will simply be stronger than one's own. If you find yourself cornered and unable to refute an opponent's points, be honest and reasonable enough to concede defeat. Do not become stubbornly determined to keep objecting even after you have been proven wrong. Anyone who has engaged in debate regularly has experienced a number of losses. Congratulate your opponent, learn from your mistakes, and move on. Every experience (win or lose) makes you better equipped for your next encounter. Just because you lose a debate doesn't mean you are obligated to change your opinion. Just learn from it, and move on.
12. Don't take too much pride in being right (or winning the debate). It makes it harder for your adversary to admit to being wrong which, in an informal clash of opinions, should be your primary goal.

Tips

• An argument and a debate are not the same thing. An argument is when you are demand that your opponent changes his opinion, while a debate is a responsible exchange of ideas.
• The rule of thumb to remember is that your own desire to believe something or your own opinion about how great the belief is will not convince anyone else. To do that, you need logic and evidence.
• Become familiar with how logic works. Being able to argue logically will make you very effective at pointing out the flaws and contradictions in your opponent's objections. You don't have to take a formal logic course or memorize logical notation, as long as you understand the basic principles of logic and the logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are arguments that have a logical flaw which makes them inconsistent or self-contradictory. An introduction to logical fallacies is linked below.
• On the other hand, if your opponent is an amateur, consider using logical fallacies of your own, like Straw Man arguments or non-sequiturs.
• Be a gracious loser. Never have bad sportsmanship.
• Increase your vocabulary to include great segue words and debate jargon to use in your argument, such as "moreover", "inasmuch", "per se" (by, of, for, or in itself)[2] and "vis-a-vis" (face to face with)[3].

Warnings

• Be careful how passionately you approach an issue. If you ostracize, offend, or insult your opponent they will rarely end up agreeing with you, no matter how convincing your point was.
• If you're in an informal argument, your opponent may resort to one-liners and may also attempt to threaten or shout at you. All of these things, however, are merely examples of people who have been defeated in an argument.

Related wikiHows

• How to Be Persuasive
• How to Become a Philosopher
• How to Deal With Impossible People
• How to Have a Great Conversation
• How to Avoid a Confrontation
• How to Lead a Discussion
• How to Exercise an Open Mind

Sources and Citations

• Wikipedia Logical Fallacy Category

1. ↑ http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
2. ↑ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/per+se
3. ↑ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vis-a-vis

Article provided by wikiHow, a wiki how-to manual. Please edit this article and find author credits at the original wikiHow article on How to Win Informal Arguments and Debates. All content on wikiHow can be shared under a Creative Commons license.

How to Deeply Influence Others and Yourself

James Van Fleet once said, “Always think in terms of what the other person wants.”

During my nearly 10 years of marriage, I’ve discovered that one of the keys to a successful relationship is thinking in terms of what my wife wants. For instance, there are times when my wife wants to watch a romantic movie when I’d prefer to watch an action movie. You might be saying,”Great! Let her watch her romantic movie and you go watch an action movie on another television.” Good idea, my rational thinking friend. However, if I were to act on that type of thinking my wife wouldn’t get what she really wanted it from the experience. Connectedness. Guess what? I want to feel that too.

Click here to continue.

[from immediateinfluenceblog.com]

Effective argument: Key to debate success

Debate success is predicated on effective argument. To be effective, one must be fair, honest and accepting. Using these simple rules, debaters can walk away from the table as friends every single time.

Click here to continue.

[from helium.com]

Adjudication Tips for Beginners

Learn to Adjudicate

Judigng a debate well is not an easy skill to learn, and requires you to work as hard than the students during the debate. You must be able to provide a substantiated and well-founded Reason For your Decision (RFD) to explain to the students who won and why.

Click here to continue.

[from debates.org]

THE ART OF DEBATE

A easy to follow presentation about debating.

Click here to go to the slides.

Persuasion and How to Influence Others

By Steve Bressert, Ph.D.

Human relationships are based upon a largely unconscious system of give and take. “I will do this for you even if I won’t get something in return right now, because you will ‘owe me one’ for future redemption.”
Robert B. Cialdini, professor in psychology at Arizona State University, has been studying the importance of persuasion in influencing our social and workplace relationships.
From his research in this area, Cialdini has identified six widely used and usually successful principles of influence:

Click here to continue.

[from psychcentral.com]

Propaganda and Debating Techniques

As you read the following pages, you will be exposed to quite a variety of deceptive propaganda techniques, logical fallacies, and lies (hopefully, none of them mine). You might as well learn a little about how the art and science of propaganda works, so that you can recognize the techniques as people try to fool your mind with them.
You probably already know a lot about this, whether you realize it or not, because politicians pull many of these standard stunts on you every election year, and you have grown immune to some of them. And modern advertising uses a lot of them, too, and you just tune them out. Nevertheless, let's just do a quick over-view of propaganda techniques. Bear in mind that "propaganda" is not inherently a dirty word — it just usually is. Any time you are trying to convince anyone of something, you are using some kind of persuasion, debating, or propaganda technique. Just telling the whole truth about something is one simple propaganda technique, and a highly effective one. But lying often works better, at least with some audiences... Master these propaganda techniques, and you too will be able to proselytize and promote cult religion and radical politics just like a battle-hardened old-timer.

Click here to continue.  This link provides a wealth of information.

[from orange-papers.org]

Debate Dos and Don'ts: From Bush and Kerry Debate

Here is a article from Fox News in 2004 for dos and donts for then Presidential candidates George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

Aside from these dos and donts being for them, there are some tips that all can learn from.

Click here to read.

Online Debates - Share Views, Opinions and Knowledge

Online Debates - Share Views, Opinions and Knowledge
By Si Anderson
Online debating platforms have emerged as the preferred destination for people wanting to have their say on issues affecting their daily lives. Whether it is to question current trends or share one's opinion on a burning national issue online debating platforms provide with the best debating stage.
Everyone sees life in their own way. People gather knowledge, experience and opinions as they move forward in their lives. When they come across a counter view, they want to question it, put their view forward, and in some cases are even curious enough to explore the others' side. A debate gives people the opportunity to do all this in the right manner. And when the World changed to the World Wide Web, the debate floor was transformed into an online debating platform.
Debating is a healthy way of expressing your thoughts while getting a glimpse of the bigger story too. For instance, the rising fuel prices concerns all of us. People would want to blame the ruling authorities, but on an online debate site, they may come across people giving them the other side of the story- the international pressures dictating fuel prices or the pressures on government to increase the prices. This way, people not only get to hear what others have to say about a situation affecting them, but can also put forward their side of the story in the best manner possible.
It is worth a mention here, that there are some prestigious debating websites out there which are frequented by option formers and thinkers. People that are instrumental in policy making and influencing government decisions also use the platform to express their views. If you get the opportunity to get on one such platform and have your say or get view across to the leading thinkers, then the purpose of debating is more than fulfilled. Your view/experience and opinion has reached people who have the power to do something about it.
Leaders, opinion formers and thinkers value public opinion. They are always interested in knowing the impact of their policies, decisions on the people. That is why when you comment on a view point expressed by an influencer, they make a note of it. They document how you feel about an issue and this is their way of gathering public opinion. You can never know if what you have to say on an issue can really help make things better. You have the knowledge and experience backing your views, and maybe the opinion formers may see the loophole you want to draw their attention too.
You have seen life at close quarters. You know about things and the ways of people. Do not hesitate to express your views. Get on an online debating platform and share your view on the issues being discussed their. Tell people your beliefs and show them the other side of things. You never know when an opinion former might convey your views/ideas to the policy makers who consult him.
You can make a change happen. All you have to do is be out there and open to sharing your views. Keep an eye out for interesting debate news where you can comment on an issue directly affecting you or your loved ones.
The writer recommends Leicester Exchanges, one of the leading online debate websites in the UK. The debating topics explored by the site are current, topical and have an impact on most people's existence.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Si_Anderson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Online-Debates---Share-Views,-Opinions-and-Knowledge&id=6885146

How to Debate a Point

Even if you are in an office job, debate skills are vital elements to climbing up any job market (corporate, medical, or educational). Some people are better debaters than others. Consequently, they go into fields such as law or sales. Still, debating points is integral to improving your professional situation. You will need to know how to debate a point to increase your salary, you will need to debate a point to get the best position you deserve, the best desk, the best hours, the best clients, and so on. Even if your work takes you to places that argumentative skills are extraneous, they will always help you in your job pursuits. Perhaps you will need to debate a point just to get the job. You must convince an employer that you are the best candidate for the job in order to secure it and move up in the corporation (or school or hospital).

Click here to read the rest.

[from bookrags.com]

Sample Debate Outline

Sample Debate Outline

Parenthetical references cite a works cited which is NOT provided here

Proposal: We propose a constitutional amendment overturning the Miranda
decision. Police are no longer required to read the Miranda warning, although
suspects retain the constitutional rights specified in the warning.

I. There is no constitutional basis for the Miranda warning.

a. There are many amendments involving the rights of criminal
suspects. These include:
1. The right against illegal searches and seizures
2. The right to remain silent
3. The right to life, liberty and property
4. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (7)
b. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to be informed of your
rights before you make a decision to confess. It is assumed that by
accepting the responsibility of being a citizen of the United States
that people will take it upon themselves to learn the rights and
freedoms granted to them.
c. The Miranda warning is similar to being told you have the right to
free speech every time that you open your mouth or set a pen to
paper.
d. The duty of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality
of laws and court decisions, not to make new codes of conduct
with no constitutional basis. The job of creating new legislation
lies in the hands of Congress. (Constitution, Article I)
1. In 1968, Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act, which attempted to overrule Miranda. It
established that for federal cases a suspect need not be
Mirandized before interrogation. This law was ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but under what
basis? Nowhere is the “Miranda” right stated in the
Constitution. (6)
2. Even Justice William Rehnquist conceded in his majority
decision of Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) that “it is judicial
overreaching for this court to hold Section 3501
unconstitutional unless we hold that Miranda warnings are
required by the Constitution.” (4)

II. As many as 28,000 felons go free each year as a result of not being properly
“Mirandized.” These technical violations are making the United States a
more dangerous place to live. (5)

a. In 1997, police interrogated arson-murder suspect Patrice Seibert
who confessed to covering up the death of her son by starting a
fire. After this first confession, she was read her Miranda rights
and the police obtained a second confession. The Missouri
Supreme Court threw out the second confession because they felt it
was coerced, and Seibert’s murder conviction was overturned. A
woman who murdered her own child now walks the streets a free
woman due to a technical error made by the police. (4)
b. In 2001 in Colorado, police did not read a full Miranda warning to
Samuel Patane when he was arrested on the suspicion of violating
a restraining order. Patane confessed to having a gun in his house,
which the police found with the aid of his confession. The gun was
used as evidence to convict Patane of a firearms violation. The
conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals because the gun
was discovered due to a violation of Patane’s Miranda rights. (4)
c. The most famous post-Miranda ruling was the case of Dickerson v.
United States (2000). In 1997, a suspected bank robber, Charles
Dickerson, voluntarily confessed to driving the getaway car in
recent bank robberies. The confession was disallowed as evidence
because Dickerson had not been given the Miranda warning before
he confessed.
As a result of these three similar technicalities made by police, a
murderer, a man with illegal firearms, and a bank robber were allowed
to go free. Due to the Constitutional right against double jeopardy, these
people will not be charged again for these crimes.

III. Precedent established by post-Miranda cases has weakened the efficiency
and power of the Miranda warning.

a. In the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990), undercover police informants
obtained incriminating evidence from Perkins. This information was used
at trial. Perkins was no read his Miranda rights before the statements were
obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that because the conversations were
not held in a “police-dominated atmosphere,” Miranda warnings were not
necessary. (3)
a. This ruling leaves a lot of gray area. What is considered a policedominated
environment? Does a plainclothes detective have to
read the warning to someone before questioning them?
b. The effect of this ruling is to leave the warning unclear. It is less
protective toward suspects and leaves police officers uncertain of
the rules.
b. Michigan v. Tucker (1974) established that the Miranda warning does not
need to be read in its entiretyl. In this case, the suspect was informed only
of his right against self-incrimination before giving his statement. This
statement gave the police a new potential witness. The suspect’s law
claimed the witness could not be used in court because the name was
found through a Miranda violation, but the court ruled that because the
suspect had been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights, his statements
could be used to gain information but could not be used in court. (3)
c. The biggest downfall in the Miranda warning was established by the
Miranda decision itself. If a person has not been arrested, the police can
use any answers obtained in questioning in court without first providing
the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning is only necessary if the person
being questioned has been arrested prior to the questioning. This gives the
police an obvious loophole.

Online Debate Forums and the Process of Change

Online Debate Forums and the Process of Change
By Si Anderson
Online debating forums have become a contributor to the process of change. Such forums encourage commoners to participate in debates, express themselves in rational manner and enrich themselves intellectually. Thanks to the advantages such forums offer, their popularity is on rise.
Old order changes yielding place to new. This famous line of Alfred Lord Tennyson holds as much truth now as it had when it was written. Everything changes with time. In fact, the change is essential to keep things in sync with the contemporary times. If the things do not change, the system will decay. So it is for our own betterment.
Any tradition or law, no matter how good or well-intentioned it is, loses its relevance over time. So, it is essential that the rules, legal or social, be updated to suit the current requirements. Outdated things will only cause problems. Hence, it is important that everything be analysed in terms of the current scenario and the required changes be introduced.
History is witness to events that have shaped its course, changing the way we live and view things. Wars, discoveries, uprisings, revolutions - all have been tools of the change. Every event, major or minor, contributed to the change. Some changes were forced and some spontaneous, but nevertheless, they did happen, contributing in some way to the making of history.
However, the time of forced changes is over now. We are living in democratic societies and the system intends to effect changes through debates and mutual discussion. Debates can be done at any level - parliament, state legislatures, city councils, courtrooms, public assemblies, room meetings or street side discussions. In fact, debate is an essential cog of democratic system. Debates enable people to consider matters of importance and come out with mutually acceptable changes.
Debates promote holistic approach to problems, something which is the base of a democratic society. Matters are discussed threadbare, which helps in looking at an issue from every aspect, factor in the pros and cons, and churn out the best possible decision. A healthy debate is essentially rational and gives every participant a fair chance to voice views. Ideas are exchanged and arguments weighed in according to their merit.
Online debate forums have emerged as a popular platform today for the commoners to discuss prevalent issues, come across diverse views about these and develop a broad-based viewpoint. You need not be an academic for debating issues online. Anyone who has the ability to see through the issues and contribute with a logical point of view can participate on such forums. There are online debating forums where you will find well-known academics giving in their point of view on various subjects. Joining such forums will help enriching your intellect.
Active participation in debates encourages the contributors cultivate the ability to construct arguments in your support and, in the process, fine-tune their analytical and presentation skills. You will be part of a community of intellectuals who are the harbinger of any change in a society. Easy access to Internet has made online debating forums a preferred platform for the people to express themselves. The number of people actively participating in these forums is consistently increasing. Online debates have been instrumental in getting the commoners participate enthusiastically to discuss the matters of importance and contribute to society.
This article has been written by an expert associated with Leicester Exchanges, a debate article website which conducts debates to discuss the issues prevalent in our society.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Si_Anderson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Online-Debate-Forums-and-the-Process-of-Change&id=6884796

Preparing For Debate - Debate Formats

Preparing For Debate - Debate Formats
By Rahul Shariff
There is often a misconception that debates are nothing but arguments with people who have an opposing view. Debates are actually persuading your opponent to accept your point of view through reasoning. There are strict rules of conduct that need to be followed by both sides.
Both sides will need to be given equal time to put forth their argument in a convincing manner. You will need to stick to logic and facts while opening and closing the debate and not indulge in any kind of slander against your opponent. This will help you distinguish yourself in the eyes of the audience.
6 Simple Ways to Prepare for Debate

1. It will be advisable to find a common ground and debate on the commonly shared viewpoints. You would be able to persuade the audience with your reasoning when you base it on beliefs that are commonly held.


2. You will need to start with an affirmative so that you are able to clearly specify what you believe in. Challenges will be made to the affirmation and you would need to search for something reasonable to continue with the debate.


3. Points will need to be presented in favor of the case. You would also need to rebut the points that have been raised by your opponent. Spot and pick the important points to show that they make sense or do not make any sense. It is one of the most challenging aspects of debating.


4. The substance of your speech can be divided into arguments and examples. You will need to make use of both arguments and examples while presenting your case or rebutting your opponent. You will need to logically move from one point to another in a seamless manner and know exactly what you would be saying. This will help you have a good perspective of the debate.


5. Listen to what your opponent is saying in an attentive way so that you are able to place your rebuttal in a convincing manner. There are various ways of presenting your argument and you will need to choose the most appropriate way of doing so depending on the topic that you are discussing. You would be able to influence the audience with a clever use of tone, volume, speed and style of the argument.


6. It would be advisable to keep the arguments simple so that others are able to understand what you are saying. Take your time to say what you want and this will help you express even the most complex issues in a clear manner.

Both of the sides would need to be given equal amount of time to debate the various points of the debate. The affirmative will need to give proof about the various points that they had raised and should be allowed to open and close the debate. The affirmative takes a stand on the topic of the debate and uses a constructive speech to express their views. The rebuttal speech responds to the points raised in the constructive speech and rebuts it.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Rahul_Shariff
http://EzineArticles.com/?Preparing-For-Debate---Debate-Formats&id=7139393