Generic Debate Tips #1

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.

Generic Debate Tips #2

If you haven't read the first tips blogpost, go check that out first. This is a continuation of that.

#3: Don’t be too condescending or make the other team look dumb.

It's never a good look and can hurt your case more than helping it. Forget debates, in life you should never be condescending or make anybody look stupid. Nobody likes that because we all are humans, and nobody likes it when you disrespect others or make them look stupid. Prove them wrong (why else do we debate?) but there's no point in saying that they're unintelligible, sniggering at them behind your team table, giving haughty looks, or anything else the meanies try.

Also, if you start to treat them like idiots, it'll make you overconfident and you'll be less on your guard. Especially if the opposing team puts the strong guy as the last speaker (like the WSDC team of Pakistan in 2015), your entire case can be ripped through. Overall, not a good look. Don't try it.

#4: Always appeal to the senior-most judge. They swing debates.

Under-rated tip. When the committee is divided, usually senior judges step in and make the casting vote (ex: if the panel is 9, and the committee is split 4-4, the senior judge usually makes the final call). It's exactly like the Supreme Court. 

Always appeal to them + their logic (if you happen to know their previous judgements, any comments they've made during the competition, or even their facial expressions if they're not poker-faced) because they might be the difference between you going to the knock-outs or you going home empty-handed.

As a general rule of thumb, usually the senior judge(s) sit in the middle. There's always exceptions, but that's just a rough observation I've made.

#5: Don’t be too forceful or highly sentimental.

We are all homo-sapiens. We love jokes, feel like crying when emotionally appealed to, fear dangers and everything in between. Debates naturally contain all these elements, but always keep this at the back of your head: debates are logical battles. You first have to win the logical battle, and then only does aggression + ethos work. You might be able to scare the inexperienced, but you wouldn't ruffle champions in the slightest bit. 

If your arguments are purely based on sentimalism and appeal to emotion, you're trying to compete in a baking competition presenting a dish that's all cream and no cake. 

To bring a real-life example, I'll be referencing the tournament I was talking about in the first tips blogpost. We lost the third round and were preparing to go home after losing the prelims when we caught hold of our adjucator in the final round. We asked her what went wrong with our debate, and she told us that we argued well but our argument were based on environmental appeals, ethos, and generally a lack of a logically-sound train of thought. That was the issue which made the judges swing the debate in our opponent's favour. 


By all means, use all the tools in your grasp. Just know when to use a hammer and when to use a screwdriver. You always don't need to be hammering nails, sometimes it's just a simple screwdriver that does the trick.

Draft Resolution 3

Context: Ha! Tricked you into reading this. This is (admittedly) not a draft resolution, but it's a small piece of big-brother advice I'm giving you for crisis committees (this is mostly for advanced delegates).

I tried to pre-write an entire resolution for a historical crisis committee (for the advanced, crisis committees are alternately called Ad Hoc committees). Big mistake! Never, ever pre-write your resolutions for a crisis committee as the whole thing because (to use a cricket analogy) what if the ball spins right instead of left and you're bowled out? That's not a great situation, and my draft resolution should be a example of how NOT to delegate in a crisis committee. It's a good resolution though, and it can be helpful.

(P.S.: It was the genuinely one of the most toughest committees I've ever faced. I ended winning the last prize available and it was a pretty close shave. Another mistake I made: DON'T prepare for crisis committees. Obvious, but don't be fooled by the guide/document they send before hand. Read it once, don't dissect it too much (take it at face value) and go for the conference. You'll save yourself plenty of trouble.)