Of the
two debates I participated in for the Intramural Debate competition on
Thursday, I found my negative position debate to be the more effective and
challenging of the two. The type of speaking that was being encouraged played
much into the style I feel most comfortable with, where quick thinking and
eloquence of opinion are more focused upon then research and fact (since few
had done much if any research prior to the debate). I also noticed a few
distinct advantages and disadvantages that speaking after the affirmative
debater would pose that had to be accounted for if my argument were to succeed.
First, by allowing the opponent to speak first, he was effectively setting the
attitude of the debate and influencing the judge before I could speak. Also, my
opponent was allowed three times to speak, getting not only the first but also
the last word. In my favor however, I noticed that my speaking blocks were
actually longer than my opponents, allowing me to fit more information into
each round.
These facts influenced my speech
in a couple ways. Because my opponent spoke first, I thought it was paramount
that I address and counter all of his points before I tried to develop any of
my own. By focusing the first minutes of my speaking on accomplishing this, I
assured that when I did reach my points the judge would no longer be thinking
about anything my opponent had mentioned, as I had already countered his. By
accomplishing this quickly, I allowed myself a large amount of time to raise
many points of my own (10 in all). By splitting up my argument into so many
separate claims, I raised the chance that my opponent would not be able to
address all of my points. I move quickly and confidently through each one,
laying down only the basic information and not allowing myself to become
sidetracked, as the quicker I introduced information the less likely my
opponent would have time to formulate responses. The plan worked: my opponent
was able to address only about half of my points before his time ran out,
preventing him from raising new points of his own. I repeated this pattern
again in my second round, addressing his arguments quickly and efficiently, and
then using my remaining time to expand and enhance the points I had already
mentioned, freshening them in the judge’s mind.
By
effectively “blasting” my opponent with a large quantity of information, I
ensured that I was on the offensive and he would spend most of his time
defending against my points rather than making points of his own. This strategy
both mitigated the amount of damage he could do with his last round (since he
spent the whole time talking about what I had said rather than speaking about
his own plan), and presented a bit of a psychological advantage: by speaking
confidently and quickly, showing no hesitation, I managed to throw him off
balance and feel threatened rather than in charge. There was a marked
difference between his first round, which was delivered coolly and eloquently,
and his second and third rounds, which were hesitant and ineffectual.
Both of our debates were utterly
lacking actual textual information or statistics, instead primarily relying on
the exchange of opinions and predictions, meaning that authority and believability
of our points was based entirely on a mixture of eloquence, confidence, and
logic. While I feel my opponent and I both had very logical arguments for and
against the resolution, I spoke more confidently, which in turn lowered his
confidence and eloquence significantly. In a speech where one cannot have the
luxury of hiding behind expert opinions or actual statistics, I feel that once
again confidence is one of a speaker’s major assets, as they must build
credibility for themselves. I emphasized the point that I was actually in the
class being debated, and used that to give myself an appearance of authority
even though it in truth made my opinions no better than my opponents. Even when
I was presenting rather tenuous rebuttals to my opponent’s arguments, I focused
intently on giving the appearance of strength and confidence, while speaking
from “personal experience”. With the amount of material I was covering, and the
hurried nature of the debate, attitude seemed to carry more weight than
relevance, as I noticed the judge nodding whenever I spoke loudest and clearest
with the least hesitation in my voice. Specifically, using definite “It is”
statements rather than “I think” seemed to make my points more authoritative
and difficult to assault, while my opponent’s frequent use of “I feel that…”
allowed me to attack his perception rather than his points, which made for an
easier target.
Overall, the two most important
parts of my argument were my structure and my poise. My structure ensured that
I would address more information than my opponent, while my poise contributed
to a perceptual advantage that left him uncertain and perhaps affected his
argument negatively. Content, as seems to be true in most public speaking,
brought up a distant third.