These tips are for debate competitions (not MUNs in particular), but the spirit behind these tips can even be used for stuff from physics exams to basketball tournaments. Take these lessons, and you'll see how it practically applies to your life. I'll pepper it with life stories, quotations, and a lot more. =)
#1: Don’t give more than 5 clashes per debate (all three speakers combined).
This is a controversial one, but it's true. There's a fable in which a lion and a rabbit were talking to each other. The rabbit had many children, but the lion only had one. The rabbit sniggered at the lion, mocking it for the fact that it only had 1 child, but the lion replied: 'My child is a lion.' Even though the lion only has one child, the fact that it is a lion proves that it's more valuable than a bunch of rabbits.
The same works for debates. WSDC judges aren't impressed by the fact that you whip up 15 arguments for/against a motion. They'd value 3 central arguments that are logically sound, cannot be shaken, and can sustain an entire debate without being dropped by the 3rd speaker. To run with the metaphor, they'd value 1 lion over 10 rabbits.
To prove my case, let me tell about the time I went for a national debate competition (we had teams from some of the best schools in India and the national debate team of the UAE participate in this tournament) with my former high school's team of 3.
We got knocked out in the prelims itself, scoring 1/3 rounds. The mistake we made was each of us developing almost 5+ arguments per speaker. It did defeat the low-ranked teams, but when we went up against the high school pros (the kind that goes for Harvard + Stanford invitationals), you can predict the result. We put up a great fight and ended up losing (257.5/260) which you might argue is a pretty close shave, but it's the win that matters.
Don't do what I did. Just prepare 2/3 solid clashes (arguments) that are logically robust, and you should be in a way better position that your opponent (and if you really need to, 2/3 minor clashes that accentuate your points or exploit a weakness in your opponents arguments). Syrup tastes best when concentrated, not when it's dilute.
#2: Prepare equally for both sides.
Self-explanatory (I know). Let me explain. There will some motions that heavily skew themselves to one side of the argument. Our human brains are hardwired to go for the easiest/most obvious solution, which is to prepare for the better side, cross our fingers, and hope that we land the side we prepared the best for. But what if you land the other side?
At the same competition which I was talking about, we were going into the second round which was the difference between qualification and not qualifying. If you won that round, you directly went for the quarter-finals without having to worry about the third round.
The second round happened to be the prepared round, and it was terribly skewed to one side of the argument. We prepared for the skewed side of the argument very well, and did very minimal prep for the other side. You can guess which side we drew.
We were objectively better than that team on almost all stats (ATSS, best speaker score, reply speeches - the lot). You name it, we did it better than them. In fact, they were the one of the worst teams when it came to raw performance (aside from the actual wins). All of our speakers were in the top 26 ranks, whilst their highest ranked speaker was 33rd. They were the last team to break into the quarters and got knocked out by the tournament champions (the national debate team). To top it off, they ChatGPTed their speeches, which is not a good look for any debate.
But, we still ended up losing a low-scoring debate simply because we did not prepare well enough for the other side of the argument. Don't do that mistake and lose to horrible teams simply because you were not cautious enough to prepare for both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment