I'd like to debunk a myth.
It is widely believed that debate consists of presenting facts, and whichever pile of facts is bigger gets the win. And yes, that is the myth I'm here to debunk.
Think of debate not in terms of a staged political debate among presidential candidates (that's a debate in the same sense that professional wrestling is a martial art), but as a criminal trial. The prosecuting and defense lawyers present evidence, call witnesses... but the verdict is not reached by tallying up the facts; it is reached by the deliberation of twelve specific individuals. Each lawyer's priority is not to prove the "factiness" (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert) of his or her case, but to convince the twelve jurors that their case is the stronger.
In short, debate is about persuasion. For those of us in the ED, this means that as we type our rebuttals and responses to others' comments, we are typing as much to the audience reading as to the person we're addressing. Among that audience are members who are on the fence, but may be swayed -- some of whom will themselves post responses, weighing in on one side or the other. They are the ones to persuade; don't expect your opponent to change position -- in fact, make it a point to respect his position even as you seek to weaken it.
Persuasive speaking, in short, is a form of acting... it is role-playing. You play the role of the proponent for your chosen position. Thus it is essential that you remain in character. Many of us debate in topics about which we feel very strongly, and that is a hazard. When debating, your own emotions and personal beliefs are essentially irrelevant. Again, think of a lawyer at a trial -- he may believe his client is guilty as hell, but his job -- his responsibility -- is to present his client's case. Just as a lawyer is his client's representative and mouthpiece, so too are you the spokesperson for the position you're arguing.
It is widely believed that debate consists of presenting facts, and whichever pile of facts is bigger gets the win. And yes, that is the myth I'm here to debunk.
Think of debate not in terms of a staged political debate among presidential candidates (that's a debate in the same sense that professional wrestling is a martial art), but as a criminal trial. The prosecuting and defense lawyers present evidence, call witnesses... but the verdict is not reached by tallying up the facts; it is reached by the deliberation of twelve specific individuals. Each lawyer's priority is not to prove the "factiness" (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert) of his or her case, but to convince the twelve jurors that their case is the stronger.
In short, debate is about persuasion. For those of us in the ED, this means that as we type our rebuttals and responses to others' comments, we are typing as much to the audience reading as to the person we're addressing. Among that audience are members who are on the fence, but may be swayed -- some of whom will themselves post responses, weighing in on one side or the other. They are the ones to persuade; don't expect your opponent to change position -- in fact, make it a point to respect his position even as you seek to weaken it.
Persuasive speaking, in short, is a form of acting... it is role-playing. You play the role of the proponent for your chosen position. Thus it is essential that you remain in character. Many of us debate in topics about which we feel very strongly, and that is a hazard. When debating, your own emotions and personal beliefs are essentially irrelevant. Again, think of a lawyer at a trial -- he may believe his client is guilty as hell, but his job -- his responsibility -- is to present his client's case. Just as a lawyer is his client's representative and mouthpiece, so too are you the spokesperson for the position you're arguing.
And since I'm on a borrowed computer right now, I'm going to break here and pick it back up later. ^_~
In the meantime, comments are welcome despite the ongoing construction work. Just keep your hard hats on for the time being. sweatdrop
