Debate Night!

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.

Let the next debate begin soon!