I do have a favourite debating stereotype. I remember during my undergraduate days I attended the university debating society. There was something remarkably odd about most of the participants; myself, of course, excluded. They all seemed at first glance fairly quiet. Irritantingly quiet. So quiet it was exhausting to keep a conversation going beyond 'so, have you debated before?' which everyone kept on spitting out at regular intervals.
Something strange, though, happened as soon as they stood up to speak. They were loud, they were brash, they were rude, they were impassioned, they were automatons, they were titans, they were lions. Yes, lions. They were confident to the point of, not so much arrogance but, rather, frightening delusions of grandeur.
The thing that most alarmed me was just how fast they talked. I didn't understand this. Five minutes of talking seemed, to me, a lot. I didn't understand how one might feel that they needed to speak faster in order to cram more in.
I suppose you might attribute their frenzied tempos to nervousness. But it can't have been. They seemed to genuinely believe that they were gifted orators. I couldn't understand a word they were saying.
The moral here is that one shouldn't feel intimated by undergraduates with delusions that they are capable of rhetorical grandeur. Regardless of how well versed an opponent might seem you must not allow that to bother you. The tactics by which the society's members, on the whole, seemed to pursue success were little more than clumsy bullying; they were rude- they attempted to laugh, rather than reason, their opposition out of the debate; the rate and volume at which they spoke served only to humiliate and intimidate their opponents.
You, I trust, on the other hand are a gifted orator. You do not need to resort to rudeness (for which you will get marked down), shouting (too loud and you will get marked down) or being an insufferable twit. What tends to intimidate/impress peers tends to irritate/amuse judges.
As far as the debating spheres are concerned being a nice guy pays off- it's survival.
Some good perceptions! At my sixth form all of the other people at debating talk ridiculously fast and try to cram in as much a possible into their arguments. I tend to go for a much slower performance, deliberating over the things I think are important. Although this does sometimes make it look like I'm taking the mick. Do you recommend steering clear of the debating society when I get to University, and if so, where else is there to practice the necessary skills?
ReplyDeleteThere is another way.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, what degree are you doing?
If it's Law, then moot. Mooting is supposed to be comparable to debating; essentially, both are about arguing. But, in my view, the two are diametrically opposed. Mooting is about mounting a legal argument. A legal problem is devised and given to two teams of two competitors, one team arguing for and the other arguing against. It's much more measured, calmer and more intellectually stimulating than debating. It is the closest thing to making submissions in court.
If not studying law, then debating is an alternative. Public speaking may be of some use. If you can't go for mooting as you're non-law then, you must try your hand at something, just to keep up speaking in public. But don't forget that debating is always going to be somewhat farcical and when you do begin mooting (for instance on the GDL/conversion course) lose all of the bad habits debating fosters; including, that is, speaking at a rate slower than- well, you know, I don't know.
If you have any further questions: just ask!