Impulses
Point of order
A seminar on British Parliamentary debate was held last week, Nov. 9-10, at the UP Main Campus. Sponsored by the UP Debate Circle, the cool event was participated in by prime schools in Iloilo City: Ateneo de Iloilo, Colegio de San Jose, St. Joseph School, Westbridge School for the Boys and the UP High School.
What makes it more rewarding is the fact that the training tried to integrate into the Ilonggo psyche a peculiar system of argumentation that is alien to the Hiligaynon speakers but is so popular off Western Visayas--the Australasian form of debate.
As against Oregon-Oxford form of verbal joust, the British Parliament-inspired structure of debate is more civil and polite, but more intellectually challenging because of its 30-minute-or-less preparation format.
* * *
The debate is simple. It is composed of two debating teams, each having their leader, deputy and whip. They are either the Government, the one that defines the proposition, or the Opposition group, the one that accepts or proposes counter-definitions to the motion of the House.
Each team gets three alternating 7-minute constructive speeches with each speaker having a specific responsibility to construct their team argument and to destroy the line of reasoning of the other side. Every speech might be interrupted by a point of information that may be raised by the opposing member in a form of a question or a dissenting argument against the speaker concerned. The debate ends with the 4-minute reply speeches from both parties. The moderator or umpire of the intellectual contest is called the adjudicator.
Sounds vague, still? I understand. It took me two mock debates to get half of the whole idea of it.
* * *
In the end, here are few of the approaches or strategies that I have learned from the whole two-day Australasian parliamentary debate affair:
Dynamism makes all the difference.
Variation and change: Do not stay the same. Highlight specific parts of your speech. Make your piece sound like a fluctuating sound wave. Never do a boring flat-liner.
Emphasis: Underscore what you want your audience to remember.
Naturalness: You don't want to sound or appear insane, do not go outside your limit. Dramatics is good when used sparingly, though.
* * *
Public speaking, I have learned, has different components.
Voice: This must be maximized to emphasize s good point. Soft emphasis is used for emotional stuff.
Voice Pitch: Raised pitch shows you are angry, excited. Low pitch means you are relaxed.
* * *
Speed of Delivery: Change the speed of delivery according to content.
If you want judges and audience to remember something, slow down.
If you have things you have to say but audience doesn't necessarily have to remember it, talk faster.
* * *
Gestures: You have to use your hands and be dynamic. Everybody should have its own vocabulary of gestures. Pointing your finger is a threatening gesture. Touching your face while you are speaking has the same effect. If you are not confident, at least appear confident.
* * *
Eye Contact: Do not look at one person all the time, you should change your "target" to include as much of the audience as possible.
Facial Expression: Face should express the same things you are saying. Do not send contradictory messages by your face (e.g. talking about something sad and smiling at the same time).
Body Movement: If you move, you are more dynamic and you can make contact with audience easier.
Try to avoid verbal pauses or crutch words.
* * *
Language choices are also important.
Hence, use evocative, colorful and meaningful language, not the simplest term.
Develop slogans and rhetorical framing. Use powerful words and emphasis words.
Include poetic elements in your speech. However, these must not be overused at all.
* * *
The creation of victims (associated with your side) and villains (associated with the opponents' side) is very effective. The use of rhetorical comparisons is also powerful like say "we don't want this, but we do want that..."
Use analogies as rhetoric, but not necessarily an argument.
Never forget though that debaters must be cruel to the ideas, not to opponents.
* * *
There are also what we call verbal strategies in this kind of debate.
The following are some, as I see it:
Choose or Lose: Focus on winning issues, hence, one must choose his battles.
Winning Issue: These are issues that you can use to win. It can be characterized by the damage it does to the balance between the sides, something opponents didn't dealt with very much, or sometimes that opponents didn't mention at all (you don't have to be honest here, be opportunistic, figuratively speaking).
* * *
More offense strategies are:
Focus on your best defense and best offense. Just like the "Art of War" way.
* * *
As a contesting speaker, you must always know your worst enemy, the judge. Weigh your arguments then, for the judge. Stress always that your arguments are more important than theirs.
* * *
Another one that works in a debate is humor. When it works, it is magical; when it doesn't work it is an embarrassment.
Humor keeps audience interested and makes them to think critically. Wit is associated with intelligence. If you use humor, use in sparingly and effectively.
Most importantly, use humor about an argument or about yourself, do not make fun of an opponent (unless they are very good debaters or unless they deserve it).
* * *
Believe me or not. Heckling is also very effective sometimes in Australasian debates.
Some are simple ones like patting table for approval (Hear! Hear!), saying "Shame! Shame!" for disapproval. One may also take points (of information) and say something clever when asking. On the other hand, one may also ask points (of information) and say something clever when asking.
* * *
Saying something very short and pointed during speech is also good. Like someone talks about military action being good, you go "Just like Vietnam," or someone says that the administration policy makers make good decisions or are reasonable and intelligent, you go, "you mean like Sec. Raul Gonzalez?"
* * *
Well, that's all for today folks. I hope we can talk more about debates in the future. Perhaps next time we delve more on the matter part, which is more cerebrally exciting.
* * *
Kudos to the officers and members of the UP Debate Circle of Iloilo and the UP Debate Society of Miag-ao, specially to Ethel Fatima Regla Sia, Roy Antonio Betita, Ralph Oliver Layco, and Prof. Joseph Idemne.
* * *
To my auntie, Ms. Josephine Germia, and her son, Paul Germia, from Topeka, Kansas.
Welcome home to Iloilo!
* * *
Engr. Herman Lagon may be reached through h_lagon@yahoo.com.