Phrases to Avoid

Phrases to avoid in debating

Debating has existed for thousands of years as an art form and, like all things, it has gone through multiple evolutions. During that time, the language used for debating has changed as well.

At Consensus, we recognise the rhetorical values of the traditional Ethos, Pathos and Logos (ethical, emotional and logical credibility of argumentation), but we particularly support the shift towards conversational discussion rather than emotionally charged rhetoric.

This document identifies a few debating phrases that are common, particularly for younger debaters, and explains how, even with the best of intentions, your language can steer you astray.

Culprit Number 1: It is scientifically proven

This phrase is one of the biggest debating fallacies! Commonly used in persuasive writing scaffolds and exemplar scripts (see NAPLAN writing tasks), the ‘scientifically proven’ start to introduce an example often creates a false expectation for a debate.

Why is it a problem?

Use of the word ‘proven’ means that the speaker is more likely to assert the proof rather than actually explain the evidence for their argument. Because the speaker is unlikely to be able to cite or reference the scientific proof that they believe they have uncovered (assuming it exists at all!), the phrase amounts to a person saying ‘take my word for it – this is true’. As adjudicators respond to explanation rather than assertion during a debate, non-referenced scientific proof is more of a hindrance than an asset when making an argument.

What can be used instead?

Any phrase that invites further discussion or explanation would be a better substitute here. Phrases or words that are ‘closed’ or past tense (like proven) mean that a speaker is unlikely to use conjunctions such as ‘because’ to justify an idea. To amend this, simply change the phrase to This can be proven by... and then add the actual proof.

Culprit Number 2: There is a massive problem

This phrase has been popularised in debating as a way for junior debaters to start their speech. The aim of the phrase certainly has virtue – that is, it was an attempt to start speeches (particularly from the affirmative) by outlining and contextualising a problem in the world today, in order to introduce an imperative or need for change to a particular policy.

Why is it a problem?

The word massive sets up an issue on an unnecessarily catastrophic scale! A ‘massive’ problem sends a clear message to the audience and the adjudicator that aims to convey urgency and an overwhelming sense of danger that could come about from not taking action. The difficulty with this type of language is that not all (in fact, most) topics that are being discussed in a debating context are life or death situations,
indeed, most of the topics that you’ll come across end up being relatively small changes to a situation for the betterment of the majority of people affected. Topics like All classes should adopt a pet or That we should ban homework are not pressing issues for a society and, so often, the rhetorically strong introduction doesn’t match with the reasonable arguments that are presented by the team. Even topics that do have a more apparently urgent need for discussion such as That we should prioritise COVID vaccines for poorer nations, would still be best approached from a more reasonable, low modality lens.

What can be used instead?

A more neutral introduction, such as In the world today there is an
issue with... or At the moment the issue of..., still allows speakers to present their opening context and imperative with some flair, without ever requiring the debater to assert that the problem at hand is more dramatic than it really is. With a more low modality introduction, the debater can establish a reasonable basis for which to begin the argument, which then allows their arguments to develop in a more nuanced rather than catastrophic and assertive fashion.

Culprit Number 3: We don’t understand

Often used in rebuttal, this phrase is a real trap for debaters, particularly when they are responding to arguments that may not have been articulated well by an opposing team. The misconception behind its use is that by attempting to point out to the adjudicator that an argument hasn’t been proven well it will carry less weight in the debate.

Why is it a problem?

Being glibly dismissive is a mistake because debating is primarily about engaging with ideas, rather than making empty assertions or statements. When teams use phrases like We didn’t understand the argument that
the opposition used and we’d like them to clarify it, not only does it come across as a tad rude, it also runs the risk of illustrating to the adjudicator that your team is exhibiting poor listening skills, or worse, has failed to come up with a logical response and is falling back on ‘complaining’ rather than engaging.

What can be used instead?

Generally speaking, this phrase should be eliminated entirely in favour
of rhetoric that provides a more positive representation of the ideas that are used by an opposition (regardless of how well they were presented or articulated!). As coaches, we often refer to this idea as ‘Steel Manning’ an argument (taking what was presented in its best-case scenario), as opposed to ‘Straw Manning’, which tends to exaggerate and dismiss ideas (taking them at their worst).

Using phrases such as When the opposition talked about... We think the best idea that they came up with was... Here’s how we would respond to that..., means that at the very least, you are aiming to deal with the most persuasive material that the opposition presented, which allows you to focus on winning the debate, rather than policing it!

Culprit Number 4: That’s flat out wrong

This is another phrase used in rebuttal that ends up being less effective than it seems on the surface. Calling an idea ‘flat out wrong’ or even just ‘wrong’ seems a good way to approach rebuttal, particularly for younger students, but it does pose some significant problems when it comes to a debater actively responding to the ideas in a debate.

Why is it a problem?

Using an adjective like ‘wrong’ to describe a claim or an idea from an opposition tends to create a line of thinking that doesn’t allow for a nuanced response in rebuttal, and instead tends to be dismissive of the idea rather than engaging with it. Because debates are generally won and lost based on the quality of the engagement involved, suggesting that an idea is flat out wrong is a risky strategy with little upside—particularly in the case when the idea is valid and important.

What can be used instead?

Almost any word that doesn’t associate an idea with an outright
negative connotation could be considered as an option to replace ‘wrong’. If a speaker really feels the need to use an adjective to describe an idea, we would ultimately suggest that the best strategy is to actually use more neutral terms such as ‘interesting’ or even ‘reasonable’. These lower modality words to describe the ideas presented by an opposition, before countering them, tend to lead to a more generous interpretation of the idea at hand, rather than an uncharitable description that could lead to hollow dismissal.

Culprit Number 5: Imagine this

This is a phrase that is often in speeches from junior students that are looking to employ an example to illustrate their argument. This type of language is used mostly when debaters are attempting to characterise a situation or provide particular information that is aimed at depicting the impact or results of an idea on different people/stakeholders in the debate.

Why is it a problem?

The ‘imagine this’ phrase falls short in a lot of ways, but the key problem with it is that it often gives a license to students to be hyperbolic or exaggerated in their analysis rather than to provide concrete and realistic examples. A realistic example doesn’t require imagination or particular characters with made up names - it only really requires a sense of empathy and some description in order to be effective and rhetorically strong.

What can be used instead?

More simple phrasing such as Take for example... or even just In the situation where..., helps debaters jump straight to their description/ depiction of the scenario rather than to spend time on less engaging and persuasive parts of the analysis. For example, if you were trying to explain the effects of bullying on a year 6 student, instead of saying Imagine this, there is a boy called Jake in year 6 who experiences bullying. He feels bad because..., a more effective phrase could be In the situation where a child in primary school experiences bullying, they can be affected in particularly bad ways, such as.... The structure of the ‘imagine this’ introduction has created a single individual and, as a result, has minimised the potential impacts of the argument, whereas the more broad and direct introduction creates a more holistic and persuasive characterisation that can have broader impacts and thus, can make for a more effective and detailed argument.

Some Honourable Mentions

These are phrases and that, while they don’t actively harm a case, provide little to no value when it comes to creating arguments. The ‘honourable mentions’ section are more ‘pet peeves’ from adjudicators that have seen far too many debates!

Proud to propose/oppose—a phrase brought in from university debating, this is a typical ‘fancy’ way to end a speech. While it sounds strong rhetorically, any experienced adjudicator pays no attention to empty closing words in a speech, while a well-structured conclusion, that draws your ideas together, can have impact.

We agree/disagree with this topic—a phrase that was popularised by multiple beginner debating guides that suggest that reiterating the position of your team is an effective strategy, particularly during the introduction of a speech. In reality, it is already very clear what side of the topic that your team is advocating for, so this phrase is relatively meaningless.

Rhetorical questions—rhetorical questions can be strong devices in speeches generally, but they present some significant problems when they are used in a debate. This is because a rhetorical question is a prime example of ‘question begging’, that is, a logical fallacy that assumes a conclusion rather than proving a conclusion! If a speaker feels they must use a rhetorical question in a debate, it is far better to employ the device ‘hypophora’ (the asking and immediate answering of the question at hand.)

I’d now like to point out some obvious flaws in the oposition’s case (and other strange rebuttal introductions)—Rebuttal introductions are a strange concept! We absolutely agree that speakers should introduce (or at least signpost) their rebuttal in some way, though the best rule of thumb is to always keep structural tools such as signposts short and effective. Overly wordy rebuttal introductions seem to have become a fad in debating at some point and have, for some reason, never really disappeared. This seems particularly odd when speakers tend to want to maximise their effective speaking time. A rebuttal introduction such as There are 3 issues in the debate so far is far more effective in balancing an introduction to rebuttal as well as the need for effective signposting!

Summary

Speakers should always use the tools that help them get the best experience out of their debating. Phrases such as the ones mentioned above, tend to be more part of ‘rote learned’ scaffolds, rather than actually being the most effective ways to argue, and when there are easy alternatives, we would always suggest small changes to wording in order to better make an impact.