Debate Terminology

Hello, it's your friendly neighbourhood Dictator, and I want to talk about Debating. Again. But this time, about something that is somewhat different: Terminology. The technical terms that you would have to scour the internet for? They'll all be in this one, easy to read, easy to use webpage.





Now, I could go into what a debate is, or how to do it well, but I can't. It's something you pick up naturally, when you start doing it, and listen to others doing it.

Many people have different ways to debate (I am a mathematical debator, I use obvious proofs, or blatant truths, to try and prove my case. Some people debate trying to win the position of sensibility: the opposition is putting forth such a claim with such ludicrous implications, that it is not rational to agree with them (Yes, it sounds like it is a form of Ad Hominem, but the form is criticizing the lunacy of the argument, rather than the person for believing it. British Politicians use this many times, especially recently when it comes to the economy), or other techniques), and watching people use these techniques is the best way to learn how to debate. I specifically reccomend the TOC finals debate here.

But, here and now, we are talking about debating terminology. So, let's get straight down to business, shall we?

(I have made the key words in bold so that you can understand what the key words are. If you do not understand what these words mean, comment in the comments, and I will edit this for a stronger explanation)

Firstly, and most importantly, there is the debate itself.

A debate consists of contentions, which are also known as points of contentions which are the points your opposition (or the honourable gentleman/lady if you are using a British Parliamentary format) has to refer to (usually) that are the major points of your opposition. If they do not refer to your contentions, then the debate is practically won in your favour. Just as when you play Chess, if you completely ignore your opponent's moves, you will not win against someone of intelligence.

The way to get your contentions across is with the most important part of your debate (for my style of debating, it is instrumental, but I cannot think of a debating form that this is not useful) is the framework. I cannot stress this enough. If you do not make a strong, coherent, and clear framework, you will lose track of your exact contentions, your framework will collapse, and you will have to follow your opponent's line of reasoning.

A specific type of framework is the following :

(This debate quotation comes from W.L.Craig vs Bart Ehrman on The Historicity of Jesus Christ's Ressurection)

In conclusion, then, I think that there is good historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Specifically, I've staked out two basic contentions for discussion tonight:

I. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

Jesus' burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the very origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection, and

II. The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

The framework by W.L.Craig was obvious: He is contending on the points of the historical facts, and the best explanation. Bart Ehrman's rebuttal was intelligent and coherent, but strictly defensive, and could not clearly make a rebuttal (except that it is not historically accurate to say a miracle then occurred, which would have had more weight if he made it more coherent. Ahh well, someone, someday, will debate W.L.Craig, and they'll have a knowledge of debating... I heard a rumour about Dawkins debating him soon, that'll be good. OK, back on topic).

Then, of near equal importance, is the team line. The team line is similar to the framework, but it is short and sweet: A one line explanation of the contention. Bart Ehrman gives a good one in the same debate:

Historical research cannot lead to theological claims about what God has done.

The team line is simply that Historians cannot use theological proof to historically prove something, as that is ridiculous (He uses a favourite analogy of mine, stating a mathematical proof for the anti-Semitic polemic of the Merchant of Venice cannot exist. It is to be repeated many times, as Bart Ehrman does, with a slight twist, and relevance. I hate people who debate using the team line lightly: It is a persuasive device. If you are going to rush it out, just don't bother (Someone, when debating the outer-biological relevance of evolution, kept repeating the line "I have my belief, what about yours?" So many times, I wanted to kill him). It just leaves you open to comical character degradation (where you point out ludicrousness in someone else, e.g. "not doing their homework", or "fanatical obsession with X bordering on sexual". A slight character attack, but the psychological impact makes it worth it. If you can pull it off.

A feature of British parliamentary debating is the point of information, which is an interruption by a speaker (The current person talking) during the speech of a member of the opposing team. As in the House of Commons, the speaker making the speech has "control of the Floor", and may accept or refuse to allow this interruption. Denying too many POIs is seen as ignorant, or obsessive, or "hiding something". Bringing up too many POIs is seen as uncivil, and should be avoided. Quality over Quantity, right?

You get a judge vote (where judges decide who win a debate), which usually includes the n-1 rule (where judges are equal to the number of sides -1). Or you get a house vote, sometimes known as a floor vote. This is when the spectators vote on who decides who won (usually on a tilt, which is where the shift is decided on who wins, rather than the actual majority. In an example, if 8 people are pro-life, and 2 are pro-choice, then after the debate, 6 are pro-life and 4 are pro-choice, then pro-choice gained 2 people, while pro-life lost 2 people, therefore pro-choice wins).

There are other things I can mention (and please, say things to add) but some things like rounds are simple (a debate in a tournament, where there is more than one debate), or things I shall go into depth later like a rebuttal (the second portion of someone's speech, to refute the opposition among other things).

So, simply, these are some terms that you should get to know before diving into a debate. I also plan on doing something about frameworks, how a debate runs, and other things like that. Also, my next post shall be another in the fallacy series.