Experiencing the magic of the tools, or the tools of the magic…
By Pauline Brown, Club President
"Debate Night” at Silver Spring Toastmasters
on the eve of Thanksgiving 2012 was a huge success!
This was a
first for our club. So the first order
of business was to quickly and methodically demystify any debate angst. And alas, no more fears, no more tears. Then something magical took prominence—the
ability to think and speak spontaneously.
The man
behind the magic was Merlyn Kettering.
With scrupulous attention to detail he organized a modified debate similar
to Table Topics, with affirmative and negative arguments 2-3 minutes, and
rebuttals 1-2 minutes.
As an
important key to setting the tone and rules of conduct for the debate, Pauline
Brown presented a 5-minute overview that defined debate, and encouraged the use of complete and full arguments. Dave Zielinsky, in the article, “Disarm them
with debate skills”, simplified a full argument as one which includes:
1) An assertion--the major point of your argument
2) Reasoning--your reason for believing your argument is right
3) Evidence--support for your reasoning
From the
Toastmasters public speaking toolkit emerged other elements such as: listening
acumen, crafting quick responses, eye contact, gestures, vocal variety, and
effective use of speaking area.
Sign-posting,
a clear transition from one argument to another, proved to be a real a gem
among the must-have tools of a successful debate.
As the saying
goes, “To be forewarned is to be forearmed.”
Well, one useful forewarning prior to the start of the debate was that
one will often be in a position where one will have to argue the opposite of
what one believes. Yes indeed, this
forewarning really helped to take the sting out of some of the topics.
The meeting setting
was friendly and inclusive, with chairs and tables arranged in a semi-circular format,
looking more like a “C.” Opposite-facing
chairs, one at either end of the “C” functioned almost like a holding tank for
succeeding teams of two debaters, while at the same time, helped to create a
mildly competitive atmosphere.
Following the
drawing (from Merlyn’s real hat), for debate teams (A, B C, or D), and for the
position of either AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE, the two chairs were then
occupied.
The big
moment came when the first two debaters, Joan Phillips and visitor, Ken Roper, from
an Advanced Toastmasters Club in the District, took center stage. With sword (the TOPIC) in hand, and with a
clear definition of topic, the debaters charged. First up, the affirmative, giving point after
point facts in support of the propositional statement: “Election day should be a national holiday in years when
normally-scheduled elections are held for President, Senators and/or
Representatives.”
Somehow, the
idea of a debate provoked (at first), a nice balance between sophisticated fun
and heightened anticipation. That
changed slowly, perhaps with the realization that there were no cameras in the
room--none at all, not even Mike Nolan’s. And the fact checkers had the night off, presumably for an early start
to their Thanksgiving preparation.
This first
duel between Joan and Ken was
loaded with powerful arguments, counter-arguments, and rebuttal, and was as
thrilling as it was funny. In one of the
attacks in the friendly combat, Joan hurled the solid punch line, “election is
the American citizens’ inalienable right, according to the constitution, and
therefore a holiday should be instituted to allow everyone unimpeded
opportunity to vote.
Ken’s
offensive punch mitigated the impact, as he hurled back a crippling rhetoric, “Should
a holiday be established for all the many rights that we do have as citizens?” He was resolute.
The other
three debate teams were: Mike Nolan and
Ellen Segal; Assegid Habtewold and Pauline Brown, and Fiona Morrissey and
Shirley Jarvis.
Mike and
Ellen sparred over the ever-so-intriguing topic, “The United States should re-establish a national speed limit cap at 65
mph, as in the mid-1970’s, to promote energy efficiency and environmental
sustainability.” Mike really had the
luck of the drawing, because as many might recall, he has a real affinity to
transportation and traffic matters. Not
to be outdone, Ellen firmed her resolve, and stuck to her guns that the speed
limits should remain where they are, for the benefit of truckers, for example.
Pauline and
Assegid debated the topic: “All schools
should set limits for the use of computers and information technology and
strengthen emphasis on the use of textbooks and written assignments.” Assegid spared no argument in support of
setting limits—citing the negative impact of uncontrolled use of on kids’
overall development. His rebuttal set
the record straight, that while he is not advocating eradication of computers,
he believes that their use should be limited.
With a career
in teaching, dating back in the days of text books and hand-written
assignments, you bet, Pauline’s critical thinking and persuasive skills quickly
went into overdrive in order to argue the negative for this topic. Her punch line was a powerful juxtaposition
of the dark night giving way to a bright sunny day, and the overweight text
books and hand-written assignments giving way to the free reign of computers.
Fiona
attacked the provocative topic, “The
death penalty should be repealed in all states and revoked for all instances”
with her characteristic bold and direct speaking style. This brought a new wave of energy to the
debate, as she stated unequivocally the affirmative that there should be no
repeal of the death penalty, as criminals can be rehabilitated.
One of the
most profound rebuttal statements of the night came from Shirley. She was a natural. She planted her stance firmly in the negative
as said, “the Bible says, an eye for an eye, but I say, a life for a life!” This
was tantamount to a zinger in the
Presidential Debates.
And like any
competent leader, Merlyn left no one without a role. All attendees participated in one role or
another—some even did the balancing act with two hats.
Speaking of
two hats, Joan was Master Evaluator. She
came armed with the evaluation criteria which resembled regular speech
evaluation of Project #’s 9 and 10. The
focus was the effectiveness of the debate with respect to delivery, persuasion,
and audience impact.
Coming out of
the feedback from every one present was, “This was a great learning experience,
let’s do it again soon.” To crown it
all, Ken made a very valuable observation
that it is the audience we are trying to persuade, not our opponent, hence we should endeavor to make eye-contact
with the audience also, while delivering our arguments.
Desiree’s
primary hat bore the banner, “Grammarian/Aah Counter.” Yet, her report was quite brief as she
admitted that her focus got lost somewhere in the friendly cross-fire or while
she was being mesmerized by the debaters.
She redeemed herself later with a rather firm, but confident one-minute affirmative
on the topic, “Children should not be
encouraged to believe in Santa Claus.” She opined that, on the contrary, children
should know that gifts came from their parents’ hard-earned money, not from
Santa Claus.
As with any
properly run Toastmasters meeting, timing is everything. With his proven mastery of the timing lights,
Mel Bayo did not skip a beat, or a ray, for that matter. Almost as if a mini side show, Mel delivered
his report in a most efficient and stylish fashion. Sounds Mel-anian to you?
As the old
adage goes, If you are given lemon, make lemonade. Mel’s topic was kind of lemon-ish. It said,
“Barbie dolls negatively affect the self-images formed by children and youth.”
Fresh from his Table Topics competition the week prior, Mel quickly and
skillfully crafted and delivered a one-minute humorous argument against the
topic. If laughter is truly the best medicine, we each got a belly full.
Mahatma Ghandi was quoted as saying, "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." And progress we made.
Silver Spring Club 1314 has taken a bold new step in galvanizing the speaking and leadership tools available, in the effort to develop/improve the art of persuasive argument. That’s the magic.
