Limited Preparation Debate at IDEA Youth Forum Ho to use your thirty i utes ost effecti ely…… by Kenda Cunningham (kjc32@georgetown.edu), Sergei Naumoff (naumoff@peterlink.ru), Vivek Ramsaroop (vramsaroop@gmail.com), and Mark Woolsey (mark_woolsey@yc.edu) 1. What is limited preparation debate? Why is it so popular? Limited preparation debates require teams and individual speakers to think on their feet and come up with both the content and delivery aspects of constructive speeches on short notice. Students learn to analyze issues quickly, speak fluidly without much preparation time, and use whatever information that they already have stored away in their minds. Usually, at IDEA high school debate-related events we have a long time to prepare cases; topics are announced months before the tournament, so your team's preparation is really limited only by your teammates' diligence and enthusiasm. In limited prep debating, however, there are 'limits' to the time the debaters have to prepare. In addition to prep time between the speeches, there is another preparation time period (30 minutes) between the announcement of the topic and the first speech by the first affirmative speaker to review their notes, speak with their coaches and teammates, and take down notes or other information for use in the upcoming debate. This kind of debating is very popular throughout the world. For example, all debates at the Australian National Schools Debating Championships are in this limited preparation format, as are more than half of the debates at the World Schools Debating Championships. This is a common practice in the activities of the New Zealand Schools' Debating Council and The Middle School Public Debate Program in the United States, in addition to the style utilized by the National Parliamentary Debate Association. For high school students limited preparation debate is one of the most unique and challenging experiences. For some debaters and coaches it seems really intimidating and nearly impossible to prepare a case for only half an hour, but with the right preparation and knowledge you will be able to succeed and survive in this kind of debating. 2. How is debating a limited prep round different from a prepared topic round? At first sight it may seem that limited and prepared rounds have more differences than similarities. In actuality, this is not the case. The following shows the various differences and similarities: a. The amount and quality of evidence may be different (you just have no chances (or time!!!) to support every serious claim with facts, statistics, expert testimonies or other documented source material). IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org b. Depth of topic analysis and research - your interpretation and definitions may seem specious and as if they were done at the last-minute. In prepared debates students research topics and carefully prepare arguments on both sides of those topics well in advance. Therefore, major arguments on both sides are usually written in manuscript form and read to the judge. The focus of limited prep debate is on informed, reasoned argumentation more than on volume of research. c. Extemporaneous or Impromptu style and delivery - you may have some flows in terms of structure and persuasiveness, but most of limited prep debating is done extemporaneously. d. Team strategy and contradictions - it may be easier to contradict oneself when one gets caught up in direct refutation in limited prep because one does not have the time to plan a coordinated strategy, that is why listening and flowing skills are just as important in limited preparation debate. In fact, the most important point in moving from prepared debating to limited preparation debating is that nothing significantly changes! Sure, you have much less time to prepare, but this simply requires you and your team to be more efficient; the basic strategies in preparation do not change, nor do the underlying principles of debating (identification and use of key terms, organization and structure, burden of refutation) 3. How does a coach prepare students for limited preparation debate? Usually, you and your team will be familiar enough with the resolution (water or freedom of expression) to begin preparation in earnest after the motion is announced. How should you organize preparation? There are several ways to do this effectively. The wording of the resolution will influence how you prepare. Also, you will probably prepare differently depending on how much you know about the topic. Proper prep time management involves individual work and teamwork. Since 30 minutes is not a very long period of time, you and your team will need to develop a plan of action, lest you waste this time on unnecessary tasks and end up starting the debate unprepared and flustered. It is very important for the coach to avoid engaging in groupthink or tunnel vision when the debaters share an agenda set by only one person (coach or the most experienced debater). This means that you will produce fewer arguments during prep time and have unseen errors in case building. So it is very important to combine individual and group work. How can this be done effectively? There are several possi le strategies… NB: All the timeframes are ideal, and most teams run significantly 'late' in case development until they are quite experienced at doing limited preparation debates. For this reason, coaching teams for this kind of debating usually involves having the team do short preparations on many different topics with the goal of improving a team's efficiency and focus to be able to prepare a simple but high-quality case in a short period of time. Ultimately, this is a skill that can only be learned from experience, but there are definitely some important strategies worth discussing. IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org Strategy A: Think-Share-Discuss A sample 30-minute preparation time might look like the one below: Activity Individual work on the resolution Time 2 minutes 2 Shared discussion of the resolution 8 minutes 3 Individual preparation of speeches 10 minutes 1 Description First debaters and coaches are working individually. During this time, they should carefully analyze the resolution (is it value or policy) and think of several ideas for the case construction. Then, the debaters and coaches should work together and share their ideas on: - How they should interpret the topic - What kind of case they should make for the topic. - What examples and other evidence they can use to flesh out the case and subsequent speeches. It is very important to reach agreement on these issues. The first and second speaker for the proposition should immediately start preparing the opening speech. They should generate taglines and organize them for a coherent and entertaining address. The affirmative team's third speaker should anticipate the opposing side's likely strategy for the debate and prepare his or her arguments accordingly. This speaker should begin to analyze the debate from the negative team's perspective: - What are the potential weaknesses in our (AFF) case? - What are the general NEG arguments one might expect on this topic? - Finally, how we shall answer these arguments when they come up? 4 5 Shared discussion of speech preparation Final speech preparation 5 minutes 5 minutes Instead of collaborating with her teammates, third speaker with a coach should critically evaluate the logic of their case and expose those problems before the debate begins and to make changes or additions to the first AFF speech. All the speakers and coach join together and review plenty of new ideas o the ta le. It is ery i porta t to thi k a out the di isio of la or between first and second speakers in terms of splitting arguments and analysis. The final few minutes should be spent on completing the case outline or on how the second speaker should reply to opposition points (refutation). IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org 1 2 3 4 5 Strategy B: Hold together! A sample 30-minute preparation time using that strategy might look like the one below: Activity Time Description Brainstorming 5 minutes 'Brainstorming' here is not a process where people write down anything and everything that comes to mind, often in a very disorganized way. For that time each member of the team will separately prepare the entire case (find definitions and/or criteria (if necessary), arguments and evidences - anything that may be relevant). Brainstorming separately is a way to avoid domination by a coach or one team member where many valuable perspectives would be missed. Feeding back 4-5 minutes Everyone briefly feeds back from his or her brainstorming. Each speaker in turn tells everything that she had prepared, at least in brief. Speakers should not merely repeat what has already been said. It is vital at this stage to allow each speaker to have a full chance to present his or her case without immediate interruptions. The aim for each speaker is to succinctly allow every other team member to know his or her ideas, not to provide fine details that can be filled in later. It is also important here that all other team members write down what the speaker is saying. Case 10 At this stage the team should actually build the case. The usual approach development minutes is to start o er agai , ith a la k page. The elements of each team e er s rai stor ed ase ill hopefully e highly rele a t, a d a e of great assistance in building your case. However, the team case should be consistent and simple. Here it is important to construct the common case and each argument development instead of leaving it for individual speakers Individual speech 5 By this point, first and second speakers are able to go away and actually preparation minutes outline their speeches individually. This also involves developing introductions and conclusions where necessary. The third speaker should plan some outline for conclusion and, if necessary, write a summary. After doing so, s/he should brainstorm possible opposition arguments and effective responses to those points. These ideas should be shared with the team during final discussions. Final discussions 5 minutes Brief final discussions usually involve some or all of the following: - The first and second speakers briefly summarize their speeches for the team, to ensure that everyone understands all the details of the case. - The team discusses potential opposition arguments, and possible responses to those arguments (the third speaker explains the possible arguments and refutation points that she has just considered) - The team discusses potential opposition rebuttal against its arguments, or any potential weaknesses in the case generally. - The team identifies the key strategic goals in the debate. For instance, "We have to make this a debate about [A]" or, "Point [B] is very important - let's remember to keep emphasizing it in the rebuttal". IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org Strategy C: Simple thirds! A sample 30-minute preparation time using that strategy might look like the one below: Activity Time Description 1 Brainstorming 10 minutes At this stage all the speakers should individually write everything they know (that relates to the topic) down. The remainder of the time may be spent getting everyone's knowledge together on one piece of paper or a whiteboard. - Don't just record evidence, put down possible points and arguments as well. - Try not to censor one another at the early stages of this process. 2 Formulating a 10 From the material (arguments and evidence) you have from the Case minutes brainstorm it will be obvious what sort of definition is appropriate. - Once you have defined the resolution it should be a simple task to review what you know about it and decide on a good team line. This is usually best thought of as a "because" statement. e.g. "Water should not be considered as a commodity because it is one of the fundamental human rights". - Now review all the material on the whiteboard/common paper and divide it up into groups using aspects or headings. These groups will be the basis of your team arguments so aim for three broad groups. 3 Planning 10 At this stage the team should actually plan their speeches. Aim for three Speeches minutes or four really well made out points rather than a collection of facts and arguments you merely repeat from the brainstorm. Third speakers do have slightly less to do at this stage so they should offer to help the other speakers and make sure they understand the major issues that the debate is likely to raise. - Try to leave time (maybe three minutes) at the end of this time to get back together and check to make sure you're all on the same page and that everyone's speech follows the team line. 4. Ensuring success as a limited preparation coach or debater: Seven Magic Tips. 1. Keep your time! Debaters should have a digital timer as an aid for debate. The timer will help debaters track speech time during the debate, and also help with prep time management. It is too easy for debaters to become distracted during preparation time. A digital clock will keep you on task. 2. Your preparation should be comprehensive When preparing for debate, you should carefully consider all of the different issues on a topic. You should try to devote some prep time to all of the following:  Anticipate several of the major lines of argument from the opposing side. IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org  Preparing the introductions and conclusions for your speeches.  Speech structure and humor. 3. Prepare in advance Before a competition, you should prepare notes on many of issues that will be discussed. Generally, it is a good idea to prepare cases and other notes for debate before every competition. If you organize materials and information before the tournament, you will not have to "reinvent the wheel" before each debate round. 4. Resolving differences of opinion Disagreement is the essence of debating. Any good debating team will face frequent disagreements about the best way to argue a case - that is the inevitable consequence of team members brainstorming separately. Compromise is vital for any successful team situation. In debating, the most successful form of compromise is usually for one proposal to be rejected completely and the other proposal to be accepted completely. Generally, the worst form of compromise is to try to merge two arguments or approaches that are quite different. Sometimes, debates are won as much by what teams leave out of their case than by what teams manage to stuff into their case. 5. Hastening Slowly Debaters who face half an hour preparation for the first time inevitably rush - they feel that the only way to prepare their case in a short period is to do everything as fast as possible. The best way to work quickly in preparation is to focus on working efficiently, not on rushing. Perhaps the greatest waste of time in preparation is to follow one path, only to find that it hits a dead-end and that you need to change course. For this reason, it is worth taking the time to ensure that the fundamentals of your case are sound, even if this means running over time in the 'case development' part of the preparation. Of course, this may mean that you have less time to write speeches and to have 'final discussions'. Although this is certainly not ideal, it is much better to spend time clarifying and developing your team's case than to start the debate from a weak position. 6. Burden of leadership In limited prep, there is a much greater need for a team to continue moving forward – there is less time to mull over ideas, and greater need for efficient discussion and prompt decisions. The best way to ensure this is for one team member to be appointed to lead the preparation; collective leadership (where every team member interjects to tell other team members to hurry up!) usually serves only to increase the tension and strain in a preparation. Leadership in a limited preparation involves its own challenges that, like short preparation itself, can only really be mastered by experience. These challenges include: a. Watching the clock. It is the leader of the preparation who is responsible for ensuring that the preparation runs close to schedule. This means that the leader is responsible for politely interrupting other team e ers, if e essary, to e sure that they are ot asti g ti e y affli g . b. Clarifying team ideas and fearing silence! There are usually a number of outstanding issues – for example, there might be two different definitional suggestions, three ideas for a criterion, and seven suggested arguments. It is usually the role of the leader to identify these issues for the team, and to lead discussion about how to resolve them. Too often, teams reach an impasse because the way forward is unclear – a IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org deadly silence often descends, because nobody is willing or able to resolve the situation. In this situation, it is the leader s respo si ility to say so ethi g like, We ha e a disagree e t here et ee approa h [X] a d approa h [Y]. We eed to ake a de isio ! c. Making the tough decisions and being flexible and modest enough. Hopefully, most issues in a preparation can be decided by a consensus, because one approach will emerge as the most strategic. However, this is not always the case. Every team needs to understand in advance some 'rules' to resolve intractable disagreements. Making decisions by a vote rarely works effectively. The best approach is for the leader to have the absolute right to make any tough decision - even if he or she is the only person in the preparation who feels that way about the outcome because we do not have the opportunity for extensive discussion. 7. Negative teams should also be prepared in terms of their own strategies It is not acceptable for the NEG to claim they were not prepared for the AFF case. It is just as important for the negative team to use preparation time wisely. For example identification of key terms, determining the type of resolution and the logical affirmative burdens, and preparation of a flexible case that can be adapted to a variety of affirmative approaches are among the strategies negative teams can utilize during prep time. References: Li ited Prep Guideli es. 2006. The Ne Zeala d “ hools De ati g Cou il, http://www.debating.org.nz/files/Limited_Preparation_Guidelines.pdf Meany John, Shuster Kate. 2003. On That Point! (An Introduction to Parliamentary Debate) International Debate Education Association Quinn Simon. 2005. Debating. Available free at http://www.learndebating.com/DEBATING.pdf Trapp Robert. 1997. Parliamentary Debate http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/parliamentary.html IDEA NL, Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501, 1051 JL Amsterdam, T 020 6927299, W www.idebate.org/nl , E info.idea.nl@idebate.org