1. How to Win Debates
Chapter One

2. Introduction
How does a person win a debate… by convincing the audience that he or she has won!

3. Introduction
The aim of argument, according to Aristotle, is consensus. **Important Term** Consensus—An argument’s ‘grand prize’. It is more than simple agreement or compromise. Consensus represents the audience’s ‘common sense’ thinking. It equates to shared faith in a choice and the feeling of togetherness.

4. Introduction
Though we use rhetoric—the effective use of language—daily, debate is something more. In debating you are pitted against others whose exclusive goal is to prevent you from getting what you want.

5. Introduction
Moreover, someone listens to your persuasive efforts and ranks them relative to those with whom you’re engaged.

6. Introduction
-Consider…which is more effective, the use of pure logic or an appeal to the emotions? -Aristotle said that “emotion trumps logic”. -How can this be? Can you think of examples to illustrate this point? Is it just common sense?

7. Introduction
Emotion, above all else, galvanizes people to act. People support causes because they feel something, not because they think something. In fact, if you make people stop and think, they tend to do less good.

8. Introduction What are the takeaways for cause marketers?
1) First, focus on that fact that, above all, you are in the happiness business. Your primary job is to find the emotional core of your initiative and connect it to the consumers you wish to reach. Then give them the opportunity to feel great by doing good.
2) Don’t talk in numbers or statistics. A cerebral case for your cause is less effective than a heartfelt story.
3) Be inspiring. People don’t act because things are bad; they act to make things better. If you only paint a vivid picture of how bad things are, then how can consumers imagine—much less sign up for—a journey toward a better place? Project a brilliant image of what is possible so people can imagine how it will feel to be a part of your efforts.

9. Introduction
Debating remains one of the best ways to hone the skills of persuasion. Like any skill, you get better the more you do it; debating provides abundant opportunities to become a better persuader.

10. Chapter 1
When asked, most people would likely say they prefer to avoid arguments. Arguments, they would probably note, are the source of much pain and frustration in our interactions with others. Given most people’s understanding of arguments, this point of view is not surprising.

11. Chapter 1
The preeminent place given argument in Western educational traditions is grounded in a vision of argument not as an unpleasant consequence of human interaction but as the very foundation of human knowledge.

12. Chapter 1
Humans’ knowledge of the world around them is the product of interpretation of their experience. A significant difference between humans and other creatures is our ability to interpret experiences in a variety of ways. For humans, experience is not fixed but is the product of the choices we make.

13. Chapter 1
In order to interact with the world, human beings first construct the meaning of their experiences through the words they use to describe that world. In fact, because they attempt to assign meaning to the world around them, humans are largely removed from instinctive ways of knowing.

14. Chapter 1
Rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke explains people’s need to construct the meaning of their world by calling human beings “symbol using animals.”
…the distinguishing characteristic of humans is their use of symbols—language— to explain their experiences.

15. Chapter 1
…the freedom to construct the meaning of our world also means that there is not one, correct, absolute interpretation of that world.

16. Chapter 1
Humans are required to operate in a world of limited and imperfect information and, therefore, limited and imperfect perceptions.
Because we construct our world through the symbols we use, we know that our explanations are our own creations. Because we know that we created these explanations—and that others may create different explanations—we are constantly unsure of the meaning of our experiences.

17. Chapter 1
Uncertainty Reduction Theory explains that human beings communicate with each other to reduce uncertainty about the world around them that results from a lack of fixed meaning.

18. Chapter 1
Three observations may be made about the relationship between uncertainty and communication:

19. Chapter 1
1. Uncertainty is pervasive. Because human beings are separated from instinctive experiences of the world and create meaning through their use of symbols to describe their world, uncertainty is the hallmark of the human experience. In other words, until we interpret our experiences (and sometimes even after we arrive at an interpretation), we’re uncertain about what our experiences mean.

20. Chapter 1
2. We reduce our uncertainty through communication. While we are capable of assigning meaning to our own experiences, we become more certain about our own interpretations of the world when those interpretations are confirmed by others. When we share our interpretations of the world around us with others and they respond (by affirming, denying, or offering alternate interpretations), we are working to reduce the uncertainty of raw experience. We may also rely on others to interpret experiences for us, thereby reducing our uncertainty.

21. Chapter 1
3. The desire for certainty is compelling. Humans don’t like to experience uncertainty and will act to reduce their uncertainty about their world. The reduction of uncertainty is a strong motivating force. We are compelled, therefore, to communicate with others to reduce our own uncertainty.

22. Chapter 1
Furthermore …our collective understanding is created through the communication we share.

23. Chapter 1 Michel Foucault—
The process of communication—particularly among members of a society—not only creates the meaning of our experiences but also distributes power to those able to create and control the meaning of experience.

24. Chapter 1
According to Foucault, through our communication about our collective experience we create discursive formations. Discursive formations are systems of interpretation and meaning created through shared discourse that guide and constrain a culture’s interactions.
Foucault is saying that discourse never consist of one statement, one text, one action or one source. When different discursive events refer to the same object they belong to the same discursive formation. For example an divorce-case in court. In this discourse there are two sides. With both different arguments, actions, opinions and goals. Both sides participate in this discourse in a specific pattern and although their goals and actions are different, they both refer to the same object.

25. Discursive Formations--Explained
N8rEBd8
Discursive Formations--Explained

26. Chapter 1
Foucault’s interest in discursive formations grew mainly from his recognition that the power in a society—that is, the capacity to control others—is determined in large part by the ability to define and manipulate discursive formations.
Put simply, if you control the description of an experience, you control that experience and the people involved in it.

27. Chapter 1
How we choose to interpret our reality affects us. How, then, do these interpretations come into being? How are they created and spread? How does an entire society come to regard one attack as a crime and another as an act of war? If language choice does the work of initially describing these events, then arguments are responsible for convincing others to accept these descriptions.

28. Chapter 1
Reduced to its essential function, an argument is simply a proposed interpretation of some experience backed by reasons for that proposed interpretation. An argument presents a claim—about what something is, about what relationship exists between things, or what value something has—and then offers reasons others should accept that interpretation.

29. Chapter 1 Claim—an arguable statement
Generally speaking, there are three primary types of persuasive claims:
Claims of fact assert that something is true or not true.
Claims of value assert that something is good or bad, more or less desirable.
Claims of policy assert that one course of action is superior to another.

30. Chapter 1
We experience something and, because we desire certainty, we present an argument to others that establishes how we think that experience should be interpreted.

31. Chapter 1
While we’re making arguments for our perspective, we may encounter others who have different interpretations of the same events and, therefore, different arguments to justify their interpretations. Our arguments are then tested by others’ arguments: our audience is asked to choose (or decides to choose) between these competing descriptions. In the end, the interpretations our audiences find most compelling win out and are accepted as the standard interpretation of that experience.

32. Chapter 1
Regardless of whether our persuasive efforts are concluded formally or informally, in the end we realize that our perceptions are our own and that the others with whom we interact will have (and, despite our best efforts, may continue to have) their own. We realize that our interpretations are not fixed, absolute, or objectively verifiable; they are the product of our imagination and our ability to use language to convince others that our interpretations are valid.

33. The philosophical framework of debating
Chapter 1

34. Chapter 1
Premise 1: Debate is a contest of interpretations and, therefore, arguments.

35. Chapter 1
Debating requires participants to persuade an audience about the truth or falsity of the motion; it is a contest of the arguments used to prove or disprove that motion. The goal of both teams engaged in the debate is to offer an interpretation of certain events that leads an adjudicator to accept or reject the motion under consideration. In this way, the arguments used in a debate round are no different than those used outside of the round. Therefore, the same qualities that make a proposed interpretation of an experience compelling outside of a debate round should make an argument in a round compelling. We’ll spend a lot of time in the remainder of this book discussing those qualities and how to create arguments that display those qualities.

36. Premise 2: Evaluation of arguments is a subjective activity.
Chapter 1

37. Chapter 1
Like any effort to persuade, the success of the arguments in debates depends entirely on the perception of the audience: if the adjudicator prefers your argument to your opponents’ you will likely win. The complication, of course, is that what makes your arguments preferable to one adjudicator may not make them preferable to another. What one adjudicator may find a gripping explanation of some position another judge may believe strains credibility.

38. Conclusion: There is no “right” way to debate.
Chapter 1

39. Chapter 1
Unlike other contests, debating has few rules that are fixed. Speaker order and time limits are good examples of the rules that do exist in academic debating: the rules that do exist tend to be those that govern how each round will be administered.

40. Chapter 1
Substantive rules—that is, rules governing the content of debates—are virtually non-existent. On its face, this isn’t that earth shaking: because the topics of debates change regularly, it would be nearly impossible to define what may and what may not be said by the competitors. Moreover, the very nature of debate as an exercise in free expression recoils at the notion of restricting what may and may not be said in a round.

41. Chapter 1
If asked as inquiries about what is “permitted” in debate, these questions are fundamentally flawed. Rather than asking if something is allowed by some imagined rules, debaters should ask instead: “Is this approach strategically advantageous?” In more simple terms, if what you’re doing helps you convince the adjudicators, then the approach is appropriate.

42. Chapter 1
As a subjective, human activity, debating is an act of creation: the debater makes choices about what to say, how to say it, or what relevance that utterance is given in the round. These choices reveal (and construct) who that debater is; like any art created by any artist, they are the creative expression of that debater. What makes art and music wonderful is their diversity: the beauty of art lies in the unique interaction between artist and observer; the enchantment of music is in the uniqueness of expression of the composer or musician. Debate is no different.