Sometimes we get so drawn into analyzing our jobs as debaters, we forget how prevalent debating is in the real-world. From arguments on television to discussions at home, we are surrounded by debate. Because of this, we feel it is important for all debaters to extend their skills outside the traditional WSDC format. At its simplest, debating is about explaining your ideas, and the best way for you to master that skill is by exploring how it is done in different situations.
One of the most popular demonstrations of debating is in the US Presidential debates. In this article we will be dissecting a brief point of clash during the 2012 debates. Particularly, we will look at how Mitt Romney was able to use statistical evidence to form a point, and how Barack Obama efficiently conducted rebuttal.
Romney:
‘Our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917’ (4:12)
Mitt Romney presents a point as to why military spending should increase. He justifies it using a statistic which shows how the US military is the smallest it has been in almost a hundred years. Romney leads the audience to believe that ‘the smallest army’ also means ‘the weakest army’, and hence military spending needs to be increased. By using such a data point to substantiate his argument, Romney looks to convince the audience.
There’s plenty for you to learn from this. Firstly, what’s important to note is that Romney does a solid job in developing his argument using statistics. Remember that whilst the debate may be between two sides of the house, there is a third party involved: the judge. At the end of the day your job is to convince the judge, not your opponent, that you’ve won. Rarely will judges be as well prepped in the motion as you, therefore, it is vital that you use simple and clear statistics in order to help paint the picture that you wish to paint.
Though there is nothing wrong with making a bold jump, the issues begin to surface if you make a jump that’s too big. Romney made a point and delivered it well, but the premise was based on something that Obama would soon rebut.
‘That’s unacceptable to me’ (4:23)
By using the pronoun ‘me’, Romney looks to personalise his argument and present himself as a figure of authority. In this way, he tries to win some credibility and trust with the American audience.
It may seem like a minor thing, but the effect of pronouns can be very powerful. If we look back at some of the iconic political quotes in American history, and you will find that many of them feature a deliberate use of a pronoun e.g. ‘I have a dream (Martin Luther King Jr.)’, ‘We choose to go to the moon (John F. Kennedy).’ Language is a very powerful tool, so maximise it.
Obama:
‘Not something that I proposed…It will not happen’ (5:08)
Romney appeared to falsely quote Obama in his speech, and the then President took almost no time to correct his opponent and clarify his own stance.
Very often in debating, you will face situations where your opponents may misquote or manipulate your argument. The absolute worst mistake you could make here is to not comment and hope the judge sees their error. You must affirmatively and confidently address this and clarify your stance to the judge. It may end up being a critical point that wins or loses you the debate.
‘Governor we have fewer horses and bayonets…’ (5:28)
Romney took a bold risk by using a statistic based on history. What Obama did well was not just be quick on his feet and refute his opponent’s argument, but articulate it in a concise and accessible manner.
Frequently, debaters treat rebuttal as a short task to do before their speeches. If you truly want to conduct a strong and effective rebuttal, you need to nurture it and develop it just as you would any other point. Don’t be afraid to go into depth.
‘When I sit down with the secretary of the Navy and the joint chiefs of staffs,’ (5:49)
In the same way that Romney tried to reach out to the audience by using personal pronouns, Obama does so too. Whilst Romney tries to gain credibility by stating that the topic at hand is important to him, Obama states how he has worked on the matter. Thus he shows himself to have a more developed understanding of the situation. He frames it in a manner which presents him as the more experienced candidate.
‘It just doesn’t work. We visited the website quite a bit, and it still doesn’t work’ (6:14)
Here, Obama makes a call-back to an earlier moment in the debate, when Romney asked the audience to visit his website to check the further details of his plan. The purpose of this line from Obama is purely flair, much like his ‘horses and bayonets’ line previously.
Using style and charisma in your speeches can be a very tight rope to walk, however, if you learn to deliver those lines at the right time, you will end with very memorable and powerful moments.
Disclaimer: This purpose of this article is solely to analyse debating technique and not offer any views or stance on the content of the aforementioned debate.
Published by Nikola Pandurovic
DebatePro 