Being ‘Commanding’ as a debater
I’ve discussed previously the importance of public speaking in an NFA-LD debate round. As a self-described communication event the way you present an argument should matter. I think the best framework I’ve seen for how to apply your public speaking to debate is from Tuna Snider’s Code of the debater (old link apparently broken – see here)
One of those 5 C’s of public speaking is being ‘commanding.’ As I judged rounds this past weekend I was reminded of how important it is that before the debate starts, during the debate, and after the debate is over, how important it is to ‘act like you are winning.’ While I’m sure all judges try to base their arguments primarily on the flow sheet, there must be at least some subconscious influence on the way the debater carries themselves throughout the round.
Before the round you want to:
- Know what side you will be debating
- Have your files ready to go as soon as you walk in, rather than having a mess as you sit down and spending 5 minutes while everyone is watching you to organize your aff case. Spend a few minutes after each round organizing your files and putting everything back in the right place so you are ready to go.
- Being at the room on time. Lateness not only makes tournaments run late it shows that you were not on top of the schedule. Granted, if you are double/tripled entered there may be some reasons you are late but hopefully they are good!
During the round you want to:
- Always look like you are winning. When you watch really good debaters in rounds they are almost alway very calm and collected throughout the debate. If I, as a judge, look over to the other debater during a speech they are not worried about the arguments being presented – instead they are confident in their own case and know they will be able to answer the positions – they are making a good impression.
- Answer C-X questions without evasion – avoid the “I’ll have to get back to you” and just answer the question to the best of your ability. Defend what you say. Furthermore, try to alway reference the evidence and positions you just ran in answering your C-X questions.
After the round:
- Stay confident! Shake the other debater’s hand, say good round, and act like you’ve won! Pack up your stuff (note above) and be ready to head to your next round. Avoid saying too many wonderful things about your opponent while you are still within earshot of the judge – avoid looking like you’ve lost the round.
- Listen to any post-round judge feedback with respect to the judge. When I was competing this was very hard for me but ultimately was much more beneficial. When you view feedback constructively, as in, this will help me both in other rounds and when I have this judge again, hopefully you can remain commanding during post-round feedback. Getting defensive, angry, or continuing to debate with the judge will not usually help (perhaps some judges like this – I do not). If a judge ‘simply doesn’t get the position’ I would be wary of blaming the judge – remember, you are responsible for effectively communicating the position to the judge – if they didn’t get it you didn’t do your job. Try to think of different ways to present the material that would work better next time. Focus on future rounds as this one is already finished.
- walk out of the room with your head held high – avoid being upset at the decision and know that each round is an independent event. Many, many debaters will lose their first round and proceed to win the remaining debates. One loss will not keep you out of contention at most tournaments for elim rounds.
As I discuss in my classes, the important thing to remember with public speaking is that all the ultimately matters is how your audience perceives you. Even if you are really really really nervous during a debate round you can be commanding. Just follow some of the tips here and avoid telling us how nervous you are – you will usually be perceived as much more confident than you actually are.
Even if the decision of the debate would not be influenced by these factors speaker points certainly are. To improve your chances of breaking try to bump up your speaker points so you are at the top of the bracket and make your way into elims.
Any other ideas for improving your ability to command the room during a debate? Any techniques you employ for making a good impression on the judge?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
I agree with you Michael. LD is supposed to be the alternative for people who don’t like all the speed entailed by the other events. It’s supposed to be the one form of debate that is attractive to outsiders, and if at all possible I think we should definitely campaign, in every debate we partake in, to make it that way. Telling the other debater beforehand that you are not going to fly through your evidence and that you’d rather they didn’t might help as well.
As far as command goes, winning the prep time battle also looks good. If you only use a minute of preparation before the 1 NC, that definitely seems commanding. In the end, whoever has the most prep time left for their last speech definitely looks better than the other debater.
Also, on that note, doing all of your prep during prep time also looks good. Often debaters will take 20-30 seconds after “finishing” prep time to find a few last papers, find their timer, and slowly explain the roadmap. If you can transition smoothly and quickly from prep time to the actual speech, that is a great way to appear commanding.
Debaters can seem commanding if they actually do their own research on the topic instead of using recycled lab briefs. Having just judged at the “Champs” tournament, I was sad that students had no negative case evidence against mainstream plans such as lifting the embargo or increasing travel. The fact is that many of these cases have been around now since the Concordia tournament, Stockton, and even Fall Champs. Yet debaters read generic T and generic Disads (that don’t even make sense). A debater loses credibility and is not commanding when they do not know anything about the topic. For that matter, they don’t command the situation when they mix up the activity with Parli, refer to the Affirmative as the “Gov”, and make up theory as if they wrote a book on it.
Sydne is spot-on. And let me go a little further. I find the reading of generic canned briefs to be every bit as “antithetical to the purpose” of NFA-LD as “the spread” is.
In 1858, Lincoln didn’t read briefs. Douglas didn’t read briefs. They argued – spontaneously – against the specific points made by the other. They displayed ethos, logos, and pathos – commodities that don’t come in a can.
And can I suggest that contestants be called “debaters” instead of “teams?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have known Albert C. (Tuna) Snider since 1970.
I judged him when he debated in college. I worked with him three Summers in a row at the George University Debate Institute (“debate camp”), and I have read much of his work.
He is a first-rate intellectual, an excellent educator, and – most importantly – a wonderful human being. But, unless something has drastically changed, he is a “spread advocate.” Indeed, I think it is fair to say that Tuna has “made a living” off the spread.
As I read the NFA-LD Rues, “sounding like you’re winning” means advocating a position with logic, evidence, and academic research. As I read the Rules, the only difference between a good NFA-LD speech and a good Extemp speech and/or a good Persuasive speech is that Extempers and Orators do not directly confront one another, nor do they cross-examine one another.
Anyone who watched Open NFA-LD at Pt. Loma knows that the event is teetering on the brink of becoming one-person NDT/CEDA, and being assimilated into the world of the supersonic s***spread, the canned briefs, and debate-by-proxy.
Maybe resistance is futile. But I’m going to resist nevertheless. And I hope others will join with me in preserving traditional, AUDIENCE-FRIENDLY, evidence-based, policy debate.