Effective Language and Manner

Explanation

Expressing your personality through your speaking style is welcome in debating—it’s actually refreshing for adjudicators to hear someone who sounds authentically like themselves, with their own expressive quirks—as long as their manner is basically conversational, and their ideas constructed logically. A genuine, personal manner of talking, including one where the speaker pauses to think and consider what they will say, is far more preferable than a robotic, rapid-fire, lecturing delivery.

In much the same way, the use of humour in debates is welcome and can valuably underscore personal style while adding an element of relief from relentless attempts to convince by straightforward argument. It should be remembered, though, that just as debating should not be a chance to berate or harangue your opposition, the use of humour shouldn’t go so far as to border on being a stand-up comedy routine or, importantly, on being personally insulting in an attempt to be funny.

By trying to be persuasive, there’s an unfortunate tendency for debaters to exaggerate the benefits of their arguments by surrounding them in hyperbolic language. Such a strategy only tends to obscure the real value of the argument, or even distract the speaker from proving it properly. In much the same way, an attempt is often made to minimise the ideas of the opposition by misrepresenting them in a weakened form in the mistaken belief that this will help your case. It is far better to take the best possible version of the other team’s arguments and then explain why they are still faulty—working hard to find weaknesses in a good idea is far more effective than easy shots that straw-man their case. Similarly, while high modality language can help explain complex ideas, it’s good to resist the temptation to show it off for its own sake. This is especially true for flamboyant, emotive or empty rhetoric. It may sound convincing, but such hollow devices should be avoided.

It’s also wise to avoid practised or rote expressions. Pat phrases like ‘proud to propose/or oppose’, ‘it is scientifically proven’, ‘there’s a massive problem’ and ‘now I’d like to point out some serious and obvious flaws in the opposition’s case’ do little except use up time or set up a response in an unhelpful way for the speaker themselves. Working to prove your ideas step by step, using simple, direct language is far better than trying to assert their value up front.

Exaggerated mannerisms are some of the strangest things debaters have been known to do. When they gesture assertively, hold onto the lapels of their blazer, or repeatedly flick back their hair, such behavioural quirks are, at best, distracting and at worst can be intimidating or rude.

Conclusion

The fundamental thing to remember is that while avoiding glib or extreme means of expression is important in debating, there is still plenty of room for a wide variety and subtlety of style in way you deliver your ideas. Speaking naturally doesn’t exclude the use of valuable tools such as irony, analogy, and the variation of stress, tone, and pace. Sophisticated word-use can be valuable, too, if it hits the mark by explaining things clearly rather than clouding them in a verbose smokescreen.

Being generous in your interpretation of the other team is a strength, not a failing. Recognising the truth of this will, in itself, go a long way to making you a reasonable speaker who is also engaging and enjoyable to hear.