All Asians Debate Tournament: Part 2 ~Impressive Beginnings
Almost all the students in our group were new to Asian Parliamentary Debate, and as such needed to learn the tricks of the trade quickly in order to keep up with experienced debate teams from India to Thailand to Korea. With only a single day’s worth of training before entering the competition, our students were clearly at a disadvantage from the start. Most all of our students came from Public Speaking backgrounds (being winners of the CCTV speaking competition in 2007) where often form could trump matter so long as it proved eloquent, where perfect pronunciation could dazzle instead of a well reasoned argument. This is not to say our students were not logical, but it is to say that the level of knowledge and critical thinking skills many of them carried was not up to par in comparison.
Yet despite their inexperience, this group of young Chinese proved themselves quick and dynamic learners. Of the five FLTRP teams, Ashley and her team walked away with a respectable 4 win - 3 loss record and the highest point average of 1823. Many of other teams proved strong as well with similar records. Sadly, I had no chance to see Ashley debate because of my adjudication duties. I would have loved to see her go at it. She proved to be the best speaker on her team with point total of 525.15. So it would seem that although she only came in 10th at the CCTV finals, she certainly ranks as one of the best newcomers to debate in comparison to the other FLTRP contestants. She did it mostly on her own this time as well since I really had little time to do any coaching with her. I couldn’t be more proud =)
In the end, when placed in a new context, our students adapted, paid careful attention to adjudicator comments, and critically assessed their strengths and weaknesses to improve for the next round. This type of spirit is a good one, and I’m glad to have seen it in action.
I am proud of our students for their work, but at the same time I continue to expect more, because I know they are capable of more.
In this section I hope to lend a little insight and encouragement to all those students who will be participating in future debate competitions or are simply seeking to grow in their critical thinking abilities.
1 Teamwork: I stress this point as most important primarily because most of the teams entering the competition are composite teams, which means made up students from different schools who probably have never worked with one another before. In addition, as public speakers most are accustomed to working solo. This advice can be divided into two points...
the first is that debaters must know how to work as a team and communicate effectively with one another. There are no lone rangers in parliamentary debate. Your success depends highly on how you work together. During preparation time all members of the team should have a clear understanding of main arguments and the direction everyone wants to go in. During the debate itself, members of the team should feel free to communicate with one another respectfully in whispers or written notes to keep one another up to date on ideas and rebuttals. Basically, everyone should have some idea of what everyone else is thinking.
The second point is that each member of the team must know their roles. The leader, deputy, and whip each have unique roles with certain responsibilities. Judges pay careful attention to a team’s ability to fit these roles. The way I generally explain the goal of each role is the following:
The leader must set a strong, clear direction for the team to follow. The leader needs to make the motion and general arguments evident. The deputy does the bulk of the hard arguing, rebutting the opponents arguments while strengthening the pattern set by the leader with new information and arguments. The whip must bring a sense of closure and clarity back to the debate, usually by bringing attention to the clashes made by the leader and deputy and reiterating the strongest arguments made.
It will be tempting for members of the team to be independent; for example - the deputy may want to change the case set by the leader to a more effective stance, or the whip may want to offer a whole new set arguments to rebut their opponent. However, breaking from the roles will cause chaos and frustration for both the judges and your opponents.
2 Know the Motion: Whether you are the government or the opposition, a poor understanding of the motion will prove disastrous.
If you are the government, take the time to make your interpretation clear with reasonable definitions and a clear position. A poorly explained motion by the government almost guarantees a poor debate as the government must then re-clarify, or at times try and change their stance without appearing so. Here the role of the Prime Minister is vital. I have seen many a case when a Prime Minister’s inability to make clear a case disables his/her team.
If you are the opposition, one must not be too attached to their own case if it does not fit with the government. Remember, the government has the right to define the motion. This means the opposition MUST be willing to LET GO of their prepared case if they find the government has a different idea. I have also seen too many cases where an opposition stubbornly tries to argue their own case because it is what they have prepared even when it addresses very little in the government’s arguments.
The opposition is allowed to make comments about their problems or dislike of the government interpretation, but even so should do their best to argue. The opposition should feel free to ask several questions to clarify the government’s position through “Points of Information” or even in the rebuttal by the Leader. Seeking to better understand the government’s main argument is key to an opposition victory. If the government continues to be unclear, the opposition can win based on an unclear or under-developed government stance.
3 Communicate a clear “Criteria” or “Burden of Proof:” A good debate is characterized by “clashing.” This means that both sides are actually arguing something. Too often, debaters miss each others main arguments and end up providing arguments that build their own case while ignoring the other. This can (hopefully) be avoided by making clear statements of “criteria” or “burden of proof”
What this means is that a team should state explicitly what needs to be achieved or proved for them to win the debate. This gives the judges and the opponents a clear idea of what is being debated in the first place. I like the simple phrase, “If we can prove to you that ... then we should be awarded the victory.” What goes in the middle will be your primary argument concerning the motion. For example, “If we can prove that (children’s education will be improved by our proposed policy) then we should win.”
In addition, you may place a burden of proof on your opponent as well. The phrase would follow a structure similar to, “It is our opponent’s burden of proof to show you ... . If they cannot do this the victory should go to us.” This is a very effective way to draw pressure and point out weaknesses in your opponent. It also puts you on the offensive posture. For example, “It is my opponent’s burden of proof to show that their new education policy will be cost-efficient and self-sustainable.”
By using statements like the above, you frame a clear case for either side to clash on. If an opponent ignores your criteria statement, this can be pointed out as a weakness and inability to confront real issues. All in all, these rather obvious statements help make a debate more clear and intentional giving more room for real clash and argument.
4 Understanding New Accents: I understand one of the biggest problems facing Chinese students in entering an international English speaking space is accents. Especially when facing opponents of South Asian descent. Couple thick South Asian accents with the incredible fast paced speaking and you’ve got a recipe for miscommunication and confusion. I suspect that a good amount of our students’ weakness and frustration stem from this particular issue, and hence I feel it worthy to be mentioned here.
How to overcome this issue? It will take more intentionality and hard work than anything else. My suggestion is for students to pick up some Bollywood (Indian) movies to watch before hand paying careful attention to dialogue and training a sense of understanding.
If one desires to be successful, being able to decipher a variety of accents will be vital. During debates themselves, feel free to ask opponents to speak more slowly and clearly in a respectful manner. Such will not cause any troubles and probably progress the debate better than if you did not.
5 Logic and Critical Thinking over Passion: Everyone loves a good entertaining show, and debates often prove to be especially entertaining when emotions run high. Being speakers by trade, here I provide another obvious warning to CCTV contestants participating in the All Asians. You will have the talent to speak with passion and humor. However, I urge you to spend more time on your logical and critical thinking skills. This is the foundation of debate after all...
First, the heart of critical thinking skills is the ability to identify assumptions and perceptions. Everyone begins their reasoning process from just a few assumptions and the same goes for building a case in debate. If you can identify assumptions in your opponent and prove them to be flawed, then you have essentially conquered your enemy.
Second, If you cannot find a weakness in the base assumptions, the next step is to try and find a hole in the chain of arguments that come from the assumptions. Some links between one idea and another may be weak. If you can break the links with your own arguments and evidence
I find the two above ideas the most basic in argumentation.
Third, often the most powerful and emotional arguments are made in a spirit of fallacy. By fallacy I mean very poor logic. The most common one at work I see in debate is an unreasonable slippery slope where causal links are made between very different subjects. Take the time to understand different fallacies and be able to identify them. This will prove to be both a defense and and offense.
A list of fallacies and their definitions can be found here: http://www.coping.org/write/percept/fallacies/content.htm
All in all, logical and critical thinking can be best fostered as a part of life, not only for a specific goal like debate. The following is a list of characteristics found in the most successful critical thinkers based on the research of the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory.
---
Truth seeking: A courageous desire for the best knowledge, even if such knowledge fails to support or undermines one's preconceptions, beliefs or self interests.
Open-mindedness: Tolerance to divergent views, self-monitoring for possible bias.
Analyticity: Demanding the application of reason and evidence, alert to problematic situations, inclined to anticipate consequences.
Systematicity: Valuing organization, focus and diligence to approach problems of all levels of complexity.
Critical Thinking Self-Confidence: Trusting of one's own reasoning skills and seeing oneself as a good thinker.
Inquisitiveness: Curious and eager to acquire knowledge and learn explanations even when the applications of the knowledge are not immediately apparent.
Cognitive Maturity: Prudence in making, suspending, or revising judgment. An awareness that multiple solutions can be acceptable. An appreciation of the need to reach closure even in the absence of complete knowledge.
---
Foster the above traits, and you will naturally become a more critical thinker. Other tools to aid your growth in critical thinking can be found on this useful website: http://www.coping.org/write/percept/intro.htm
Time and time again throughout the competition, a good many politicians, bankers, and professors addressed us at dinners and ceremonies with their own orations. In almost all of them, there was a shared value and esteem held for the results of good debate participation. “Those who actively participated in debate in their youth prove to be the world’s most impacting people,” seemed to be the mantra. In fact, I agree with them whole-heartedly.
As such, I believe that the experience our students have gained with them in debate should not be overlooked or put away as a good memory. Instead, I hope and pray each continues to develop the skills they’ve practiced this week in Dhaka in other forms. Let the skills of critical thinking be exhibited in all of life, not only formal competitions. In doing so, they are preparing themselves to be people of influence and impact... hopefully for the betterment of China and the world.
posted by Unknown @ 9:31 PM
<< Home