"Forensics" Intercollegiate Debate: Structure and my Experience

Translation missing: en.blog.article_metadata_html

Back in college I did several years of intercollegiate debate because I figured it would help prepare me better for a job in politics or government. It was a close to on the job training as I could get.

But then I got real life on the job training and realized I knew almost nothing about History. So I went to study history and history became the thing that was most important to me instead of arguing with everybody over everything.

There are some crucial skills I learned from my time in debate, but it is not anything that much different then what any average high school group of women haven’t figured out yet.

There are basically two kinds of feelings that people tend to have, one is a feeling of disconnection, a sense that we are not being our true selves and things are not working out the way they should be, and a feeling of connection of equinimity which is a feeling of being present and authentic, a feeling in which everything is going about the way it should be for the time and place it is.

Intercollegiate debate is kind of like a feeling of connection or equanimity, everybody is there trying to improve their communication skills, trying to get better, and trying to better prepare themselves for the real world.

The “Real World” can create plenty of instances of disconnection, stress, flight or fight response, depression, anxiety, and just a sense of becoming someone you are not.

I think these feelings and emotions are quite common for many people. My debate experience taught me not only about who I am, but also who I am not, because sometimes you have to force yourself to argue positions and arguments that you as an individual do not agree with, that are abhorrent to your psychology, but it is your job as a debater to do your best to win the round, so you do it.

That feeling of disconnection and anger of not being yourself is also a life lesson that I have learned from my experience that has become beneficial at times to my real life. It also has created situations where I accidentally slipped into a mode of being a disconnected inauthentic version of myself and has caused many problems.

However, I also have grown into a writer and someone who has a fascination with words and how they are put together to convey a point. My skills as a writer are directly linked to my experience as an intercollegiate debater and my life in the real world since. At the end of the day like with most things in college, you gotta take the good with the bad, and let go of the bad eventually at some point in life.

This structure by Chat GPT is pretty good, and it is a good reminder for anyone trying to write more persuasively.

Intercollegiate Debate Logic

1. Claim: This is your main point or assertion. It's what you're trying to prove.

• E.g., "School uniforms should be mandatory."

2. Evidence: These are the facts, statistics, quotes, and data that support your claim.

• E.g., "According to a study from the National Association of Secondary School Principals, schools with uniforms reported fewer instances of violence and theft."

3. Warrant: This explains how the evidence supports the claim. It's the logical connection between the claim and the evidence.

• E.g., "Uniforms reduce visible signs of economic disparity among students, which can lead to bullying or theft. By having everyone dress similarly, these superficial distinctions are minimized."

4. Backing: Additional support or reasoning for the warrant. It's not always necessary, but it can strengthen your warrant.

• E.g., "Studies have shown that economic disparity among students can contribute to social conflicts in schools."

5. Rebuttal/Refutation: Anticipate counterarguments and address them. By acknowledging and refuting opposing views, you demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

• E.g., "Some argue that uniforms suppress individuality. However, students can express their personalities through other means such as their backpacks, accessories, and extracurricular activities."

6. Qualifier: This is often a statement that indicates the degree of force or certainty you're putting behind your claim. Not all arguments will have this, but it can lend nuance to your assertion.

• E.g., "In most cases, school uniforms can lead to a safer learning environment."

7. Conclusion: Recap your main points and restate the importance of your claim. This solidifies your argument and leaves a lasting impression on the audience.

• E.g., "Given the potential for increased safety and reduced conflicts, making school uniforms mandatory offers numerous benefits."

Remember, while this structure provides a solid framework, the most effective arguments also employ strong rhetoric, ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical reasoning).

In intercollegiate debate, especially in policy debate formats (also known as "Cx" or "Cross-Examination" debate), the formulation and presentation of a policy case is rigorous and structured. Here's a breakdown of how a policy case is generally formed and argued:

1. Introduction: This usually entails a brief overview of the current problem or harms that exist in the status quo.
2. Inherency: This is where debaters demonstrate that there's a structural or attitudinal barrier preventing the problem from being solved in the current system (status quo).

• Structural inherency refers to a specific policy or law that's causing the problem.
• Attitudinal inherency refers to prevailing beliefs or attitudes that are the root cause of the problem.

3. Harms: Detail the negative impacts or problems of the status quo.

• This can include immediate harms and potential future harms.

4. Plan: Propose a specific policy action or change that aims to solve the identified problems.

• The plan should have clear "planks" or parts that detail who will implement the change, how it will be enforced, where and when it will happen, etc.

5. Solvency: Argue how your plan will effectively address and solve the harms you've identified.

• This often involves presenting evidence that the proposed solution has worked elsewhere or that experts endorse the proposed approach.

6. Advantages: Beyond just solving the harms, what are the additional benefits of the plan? These are the positive outcomes that come from implementing the plan.
7. Answering Counterarguments: A crucial part of policy debate is the ability to anticipate potential counterarguments and either preemptively address them in the initial presentation or be prepared to refute them when they're raised by the opposing team.

During the debate:

1. Constructive Speeches: Both teams (the Affirmative, which proposes a change to the status quo, and the Negative, which opposes the change or offers a counter-plan) have opportunities to present their cases and arguments in what are called constructive speeches.
2. Cross-Examination: After each constructive speech, there's a period where the opposing side can ask questions to clarify or challenge the arguments presented.
3. Rebuttal Speeches: These are shorter speeches where debaters address the arguments presented by the opposing team, defend their own case, and clarify any outstanding issues.
4. Preparation Time: Teams are allotted a certain amount of prep time they can use throughout the debate to prepare for speeches or cross-examinations.
5. Final Focus or Last Rebuttals: The debate often concludes with final speeches from each side that crystallize the debate's main points and make a last appeal to the judges.

Throughout the debate, research, evidence, and citation of credible sources are paramount. Judges evaluate debaters based on the strength of their arguments, their use of evidence, their rhetorical skills, and their ability to effectively refute the opposing side's points.

Why Intercollegiate Debate is the Perfect Prep for Law and Politics

For many, intercollegiate debate is not just an extracurricular activity; it’s a training ground. With its structured argumentation, rapid-fire exchanges, and rigorous research demands, this competitive forum simulates the real-world challenges faced by lawyers and politicians. Here's how the world of intercollegiate debate can serve as an invaluable stepping stone to the professions of law and politics.

1. Mastery of Argumentation:

Lawyers and politicians must present coherent, persuasive arguments to win cases or gain public support. Intercollegiate debate hones this skill, teaching participants to construct solid arguments from introduction to conclusion.

2. Research Skills:

To be effective in debate, one must amass evidence and anticipate counter-arguments. Similarly, lawyers spend considerable time gathering evidence to support their cases, while politicians must be well-informed about policy issues. The research skills refined in debate are directly transferable to these professions.

3. Critical Thinking:

Debaters must think on their feet, responding to unforeseen arguments and quickly identifying weaknesses in the opponent's case. This is much like a lawyer cross-examining a witness or a politician fielding unexpected questions from the press.

4. Eloquence and Rhetorical Flair:

The ability to convey ideas compellingly can sway a jury or inspire constituents. Debate offers practice in refining one’s rhetorical style and adapting it to different audiences, a crucial skill for both lawyers and politicians.

5. Grasping Complex Issues:

From international relations to intricate policy details, debaters tackle multifaceted topics. This ability to understand and communicate complex issues is a boon in the nuanced worlds of law and politics.

6. Ethics and Integrity:

Debate enforces strict rules about evidence and argumentation. Adhering to these rules instills a sense of ethics and honesty, virtues integral to legal and political practices.

7. Teamwork:

While debate might seem like an individual activity, it's often a team effort. Lawyers frequently collaborate with paralegals, clients, and other attorneys, and politicians work alongside aides, advisors, and fellow officeholders. The team dynamics of debate offer a preview of these collaborative environments.

8. Public Speaking:

For many, the prospect of public speaking is daunting. However, both lawyers, when addressing a court, and politicians, when giving speeches or interviews, must be comfortable in the spotlight. Regular participation in debates desensitizes one to the pressures of public speaking and bolsters confidence.

9. Handling Pressure:

The courtroom and the political arena are high-stakes, high-pressure environments. Surviving the intensity of competitive debate rounds, especially at national tournaments, helps inculcate resilience and grace under pressure.

10. Networking:

Intercollegiate debate events bring together students from various institutions and backgrounds. The relationships formed can later translate into professional connections, especially in the closely-knit worlds of law and politics.

In conclusion, intercollegiate debate is more than just an academic competition. It's a transformative experience that cultivates skills and virtues directly applicable to careers in law and politics. Those who excel in the debate arena are often well-equipped to navigate the challenges of the courtroom or the political stage, making them invaluable assets to their respective professions.