Training Variants 1: Different Types of Debate
For the best part of my first year in debating our clubs' training sessions were little more than lectures followed by debates. Needless to say this wasn't that effective and for 2013/14 we introduced a more varied training program with considerable success. Below are descriptions of a few of the less well know types of training sessions we run and what they're good for. Note that these are all variants on standard BP debates and training variants which do not resemble a debate will be covered in another post.
1.No-prep debates:
How it works:
Make teams as usual, after which there are three variants. Firstly, for novices or less experienced speakers tell them that this will be a no-prep debate, reveal the motion to OG and let the other teams take a break instead of prepping. Secondly, for more confident speakers give a random motion, start prep time and then approach OG (and OG only) 5 minutes into prep and give them the real motion. Finally for particularly experienced speakers consider using the aforementioned approach but making the fake and real motions somewhat similar. Whatever you I strongly recommend giving OG at least some time to prep the real motion unless you want to practice messy debates (which can be a good idea).
What it's good for.
Adaptability/responsiveness. Many novices prep a set of arguments and then go on to give those arguments irrespective of how a debate unfolds and weather those arguments are still relevant or novel enough. Even more experienced speakers can be wrong-footed when a creative prop or counter-prop moves a debate in an unexpected direction. Learning how to adapt to a changing debate, come up with a case on the fly and, for the advanced variant, accurately assess which of the arguments you prepped can still be salvaged is very useful.
2.Extra-prep debates:
How it works:
Just like a normal debate except with double the prep time.
What it's good for.
Analysis & Learning how to structure prep. Having a lot of prep time gives you the chance to flesh out arguments far more than you usually would, giving you an opportunity to dive into far deeper or more complex analysis. Beyond that having so much prep time really makes debaters think about what they actually spend prep doing and, after a few sessions, often leads to teams developing their own, structured ways of prepping. Finally having so much time to come up with arguments often means debaters end up having more material than they can possible put in their speeches
3.Reverse debates:
How it works:
Just like a normal debate except after prep reverse the positions of all teams (i.e: OG becomes OO). If you're feeling generous give the teams an additional 5 - 15 mins to prep after the reversal.
What it's good for.
Adaptability, engagement. Much like a debate without prep, a debate in which you're suddenly forced to argue for the other side forces you to improvise new arguments. More importantly this kind of debate ensures that debaters have tried to put themselves in their opponents shoes. For novices this makes it far easier to guess what the debate will be about. For more experienced debaters it should hammer home just how far knowing your opponents likely lines can help choosing the right strategy.
4.Second-Half debates
How it works:
Just like a normal debate except substitute a living first half for the first half from a YouTube video of a debate.
What it's good for.
Learning how to extend, Confidence, Giving you top debaters a challenge. If you do not have enough good debaters to fill a room a second half debate can be a good way to give your best debaters a challenge they otherwise wouldn't get if pro-aming or going up against novices. On the flipside many novices or even intermediate debaters tend to bee awed when coming up against good teams in competitions (In my experience this is especially pronounced for less experienced ESL speakers) and giving them some exposure in club can help acclimatize them before they go into the wild. Beyond that extending on a good first half is always difficult and practice extending on great first half teams never hurts. Finally seeing great debaters always helps build skill and actually being in the same debate, prepping and then comparing your lines and analysis to theirs is usually far more effective than just passively listening or judging.
5.Summary Training
How it works:
As above except the first 3 speakers of each side should come from a recording while 2 of your debaters do summaries.
What it's good for.
Learning how to listen, Learning how to sum.
6.Rebuttal Training
How it works:
Just like a normal debate except one team is the rebuttal team and is only allowed to bring destructive, everything constructive is ignored. How loosely or strictly you define destructive is up toy you (after all the distinction is ultimately more stylistic than logical) but generally the stronger the rebuttal team, both absolutely and comparatively, the stricter a definition you should to use. For examples:
- Strict:
- Must clearly state which exact argument they are attacking and go on to show why it is not true
- Loose
- Must clearly state which idea/consequence they are attacking and go on to show why it is not true. (anything beyond attacking the idea that the motion is good/bad is allowed)
What it's good for.
Teaching that constructive and destructive are the same, Analysis. Teaching newer debaters how to analyze arguments is always difficult and forcing them to focus on deconstructing an opponents argument, or see someone do it to theirs, shows exactly which logical links in an argument are missing/weak and hence in need of reinforcement.
Member discussion