1. The Paradoxes of Debate
Chapter Seven
The Paradoxes of Debate

2. The Paradoxes of Debating
Chapter Seven
The Paradoxes of Debating

3. Chapter Seven Paradox #1:
The Quality of a Debate Depends More on Agreement Than Disagreement

4. Chapter Seven
The best debates are those in which the arguments of the Proposition and the Opposition revolve around clearly defined points of stasis relevant to the larger question posed by the proposition.

5. Chapter Seven
Few tactics are more effective than agreeing with your opponent’s goal and then demonstrating how they fail to meet that goal while you do.

6. Chapter Seven
Successful debaters often find that they may agree with their opponents’ evidence but draw a different conclusion from it.

7. Chapter Seven Paradox #2:
Winning Arguments Benefit More from Simplicity Than Complexity

8. Chapter Seven
Unfortunately, many debaters believe that complex messages win debates. Seeking to demonstrate their mastery of a subject and their command of information relevant to the issues being debated, they attempt to construct intricate, nuanced arguments that overwhelm their opponents with their density. Without a simple structure and strategy underlying this complexity, such an approach often fails.

9. Chapter Seven
The most effective debaters recognize that simplicity is critical to effectively communicating a message in a public speaking setting. Simplicity refers, in part, to the structure and organization of a message: the use of structural devices such as previews, transitions, reviews, and redundancy is critical to creating a message that “sticks” with adjudicators.

10. Chapter Seven Paradox #3:
You’re More Likely to Persuade an Audience by Focusing on What They Believe Than What They Don’t Believe

11. Chapter Seven
“In deliberative argument, you need to convince your audience that the choice you offer is the most advantageous… …to the advantage of the audience, that is, not you. The advantageous is an outcome that gives the audience what it values.

12. Chapter Seven
Begin your preparation of a constructive position by asking, “What about the position does my audience already likely believe?” Do they accept that a problem exists and that some solution is required? Do they believe that any particular principle informs the controversy at hand? Do they believe that one approach (offering incentives, for example) is preferable to another (such as threatening sanctions)? From this starting point, you can begin to frame your general strategy.

13. Chapter Seven Paradox #4:
You’re More Likely to Win by Arguing from a Difficult Position

14. Chapter Seven
In most cases, regardless of your position in the debate, you will be more able to prove your competence as a debater by taking the tougher position and nearly making the mark than choosing the easier stance and easily proving its truth.

15. Chapter Seven Paradox #5:
Your Advocacy Is More Likely to Prevail if You Appear Disinterested in Winning

16. Chapter Seven
Successful debaters present arguments in a way that appears more objective than positional.

17. Chapter Seven
Winning debaters frequently benefit from adoption of a cool, detached style.
If you are certain of your position you may benefit more from a calm, rational, and objective tone in your presentation.

18. Chapter Seven
This is one of the most challenging paradoxes for debaters to accept. Though you’re required to vigorously defend your position, you’ll often benefit from approaching that charge from the position of analyst rather than advocate.

19. Chapter Seven
Paradox #6: The More We Strive to Reduce Uncertainty through Debate, the More Uncertain We Become

20. Chapter Seven
Bertrand Russell is credited with once saying that the trouble with the world is that the ignorant are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Nowhere is this more true than in the activity of debating.

21. Chapter Seven
Though debate is an exercise designed to reduce uncertainty, at its best it increases it. When we engage in debate, we typically do so with the belief that the best ideas will prevail. Underlying this assumption is the recognition that we really don’t know—at least going into a debate round—which side is “right.”

22. Chapter Seven
But in the best of debates—whether they happen in debating tournaments, legislative bodies, or between friends over a pint of beer—the outcome is decidedly less certain. In the face of criticism of our arguments, we should become more flexible and open to the possibility that what we believe is fallible and, perhaps more importantly, to the possibility that what our opponents believe is not wrong.

23. Chapter Seven
C.S. Lewis – The Reality of the Moral Law The Poison of Subjectivism—