Judging debate competitions (3 of 5)

BY EDISON MARTE SICAD

IN MY PREVIOUS articles, we have delved into some tips, suggestions, and insights about debate competitions. Such ideas can be summarized into three words: preparation, practice, and proactivity.

Preparation involves matter-loading, brainstorming, and case-building. Practice means delivering and polishing of speeches and engaging in mock debates. Proactivity deals with other factors that cannot be ascertained but are related in joining debate competitions. All three provide feedback integral for the growth of the debating teams.

To prepare for a debate match is very challenging. To prepare again and again for a debate match against other school debating teams for weeks on end is something else: awe-inspiring; an unprecedented feat; and made possible by The Supreme Debates 2024.

In this column, allow me to share, partly, two concepts: rhetoric and interpellation.

Rhetoric is defined as “the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people” (The Britannica Dictionary).

Interpellation, in debate parlance, is the time and opportunity given to the debater to destroy the opponent’s arguments by asking a series of questions or by defending one’s arguments from the opponent’s attacks. Also, this is the part of the debate match where the audience and the judges (and maybe even the debaters themselves) are clarified by the arguments of the debaters.

A debater who uses rhetoric effectively can actually be the deciding (winning/losing) factor in a match. However, it is in the Interpellation where the debater can brilliantly showcase the distinctive art of argumentation and debate.

Since debate is an adversarial process, the beauty of logic and the appreciation of reasoning skill are manifested in the asking and answering of questions.   

In relation to asking questions, take note of this old joke:

A young priest asked his bishop, “May I smoke while praying?”… The bishop answered an emphatic “No!”

Later, when he sees an older priest puffing on a cigarette while praying, the younger priest scolded him, “You shouldn’t be smoking while praying! I asked the bishop, and he said I couldn’t do it!”

“That’s odd,” the old priest replied. “I asked the bishop if I could pray while I’m smoking, and he told me that it was okay to pray at any time!”

Allow me to emphasize the questions:

Young priest: “May I smoke while praying?”

Old priest: “May I pray while smoking?”

This joke, despite being satirical, drives home the point that the art of convincing is not only based on the act of asking but on the motive of asking skillfully as well. “Same difference” as they say.  

How then can rhetoric and interpellation be effectively applied in academic debate?

Example Two: Interpellation

Effective interpellation is learned the hard way (from winnings and defeats). Besides the asking of questions, you have to study the demeanor or debate approach of your opponent.

Scenarios: (caveat, use with full discretion)

1. Do not abruptly stop the asking of questions. In one of the matches, the debater hesitantly remarked, “Never mind.”

Being the last speaker for the interpellation in a debate match, and having listened to all the other debaters, the third speaker of the Affirmative side has all the necessary information and the best opportunity to “destroy and build”.

2. Use counter evidence to control the momentum (based from experience).

Negative speaker: “What is the date of your newspaper?”

Affirmative speaker: “June 8.”

Negative speaker: “Mine is June 10.”

Take note that the Negative speaker made a terse and matter-of-factly response that eventually disarmed the opponent. For in that moment, there was no way that the Affirmative speaker can present a “more” current newspaper.

3. Calmness (based from experience).

When my opponent was (irritatingly) raising her voice while defending (convincingly) her arguments, I just remarked, “Calm down, just calm down…”

With this, I was able to regain control of the momentum and I was able to stop her valid explanation. From there on, I changed my approach.

Suggestion:

Spend time reading articles that defend or refute issues. Or read the news without taking sides, e.g., in reading about the South China Sea issue, do not immediately conclude that China is at fault. Ask a question: why would China do this? Then read articles favoring China’s behavior.

In short, develop a learning style based on clashing views by hearing first both (all) sides without the need to make a final conclusion. (To be continued)

***

The Supreme Debates is an annual interschool debate competition among student leaders in the Schools Division of Iloilo. This consists of a series of debates including Congressional level qualifying rounds and Division level elimination, semifinal, and final rounds. The Panlalawigang Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan ng Iloilo (PPSK) in partnership with Division Federated Supreme Secondary Learner Government Officers and Advisers organized The Supreme Debates 2024.

The Supreme Debates 2024 has set the standard in the art of argumentation and debate. This highly-commendable activity has raised the level of skills of the debaters and all parties involved. In my opinion, this is the benchmark in organizing debate competitions./PN