The emphasis on persuasive communication in Lincoln-Douglas debate varies greatly from debater to debater; however, how much variation is too much? In addition to argument, debate is a persuasive speaking activity, and many debaters need to be more conscious of speaking style and physical presentation. There are ways to practice constructing arguments that don’t require spoken public performance. However, individuals who choose LD should know that the way an argument is presented is just as important, if not more so, as the idea behind the argument. There are two general areas which contribute to overall presentation in rounds: physical delivery and organization.

I. Physical Delivery
Effective communication demands that the sender and receiver of a message be able to understand the same words in similar ways. The sender aims to encode a message that will be decoded by the receiver in the way it was intended. This process may seem simple, but there are lots of things which can get in the way, such as interference, language barriers, and word choice, the last of which is a serious problem in LD today. This means that respect must underlie successful communication. Respect for the receiver causes the sender to choose words that she believes the receiver will understand as intended. If the sender disrespectfully ignores the needs of the receiver, she may communicate in a way that is familiar to herself, but foreign or unclear to the receiver. The result? Miscommunication, frustration, or a sender who blames the receiver for not understanding what the sender meant to say.

While communication is indeed a two-way street and the receiver needs to do her own part to understand what the sender is saying, in the art of competitive persuasive communication, the sender bears more of this burden and should respect the receiver(s) by striving to convey her message in a universally accessible manner to ensure maximum accuracy in decoding. The most dangerous mentality for any communicator to adopt is that she should not have to adapt to her audience. This kind of thinking is a major contributor to the miscommunications between speakers and audiences. Beyond competitive high school debate, this mentality can cost more than the occasional ballot.

In addition to word choice, debaters need to be more conscious of their vocal quality. Few debaters treat their constructive cases like persuasive, prepared speeches. Instead of merely vocalizing the printed words in front of them, effective debaters will emphasize important words and phrases to bring them to the attention of the audience. Judges will record more of the important words on paper or in their memories when those words are properly emphasized each time they are spoken, because repetition and emphasis are key to getting folks to remember things. Repetition and emphasis are key to getting folks to remember things. Repetition and emphasis are key to getting folks to remember things…you get the picture. Varying inflection will help the debater seem as though she is a real person attempting to convey important ideas, as opposed to an automated message playing repeatedly. Articulating carefully will help prevent sentences from running together, making the debater easier to understand. By concentrating on the way in which she is presenting her words, the debater can hold the attention of her audience more easily and facilitate clearer understanding.

Debaters also need to be careful about volume, adjusting for the size of the room, number of audience members, and importance of the point. More volume for important points can add emphasis, and conversational volume facilitates ease of listening. Spoken too loudly, points can seem frantic and incoherent, while arguments spoken too softly lose all interest. Debaters should not shout at their audiences, but should be careful not to speak so softly as to lose clarity.

Some debaters have neglected vocal quality because of a perceived need to speak more quickly. Since the beginning of LD, debaters have gradually picked up speed, presumably in an attempt to “cover” more issues in the debate. While some judges and audiences can keep up with fast speaking, speed is normally unnecessary and excludes the many audiences who cannot follow it. Fast speeches exhaust the judges who can follow them and confuse the judges who cannot. The latter type of judge is often criticized as being “lay” or incapable. Instead of trying to speak more quickly to cram in as much information as possible, debaters should begin to adopt a more conversational speed to match articulation and emphasis. Speed is unnecessary when debaters pick and choose the most important arguments, weaving the evidence and details together to into a cohesive story with which they can beat or outweigh the arguments made by their opponents. It is not necessary to refute every sentence of every quoted author in order to attack a case successfully. Debaters need to slow down, think about the arguments they are making, and choose strategy over speed.

Every good speaker knows that it’s important to be conscious of body movement, which includes posture, gestures, and eye contact. Posture-wise, debaters should be standing, head up, paper in one hand off to the side, not blocking their faces from the judges or drawing their attention consistently downward. Sitting while speaking in this activity is unacceptable. Speakers who are seated carry less presence and seem far less engaged in the communication process than speakers who are standing; they are seen as passive and not taken as seriously.

Beyond posture, gestures help to emphasize points and add personality to the debater’s presentation. Instead of waving a timer or pumping an open palm repeatedly in the air, debaters need to take some lessons from orators and extempers. A few well-placed gestures for emphasis and attention will help engage the audience and make the speaker seem more human because she isn’t flailing about like Elaine’s dry-heave dancing from Seinfeld.

Finally, debaters need to make more eye contact with their judges instead of looking down at their flows, their timers, or the floor. In real life, we always look directly at people we are trying to convince. While difficult for some debaters, even looking at the eyebrows or nose of audience members will seem far more attentive and personable than staring awkwardly out the window. The judge and audience members will also tend to mirror a speaker’s facial expression if she makes more frequent eye contact, and at the very least, debaters will be better at adapting to their judges if they’re paying attention to the judges’ reactions.

II. Organization
In addition to presentation, debaters should work on structure and organization of arguments and speeches, beginning with real introductions in their constructive cases. “I affirm” and “I negate” are boring and unhelpful. While debaters do not necessarily need to have opening quotations, some attention-getter is essential to setting the purpose and tone of the case and drawing the audience into the following arguments. Even a clear thesis can help to give a case a unifying focus. Thesis- based cases provide the debate with a hub to which all of the case arguments are related. This helps to ensure links between the individual arguments and reduces the need to spread because of the central theme underlying all of the arguments. Audiences also follow the details of arguments better when the outlines of the position have been introduced first.

Next, debaters can substitute complete sentences in ordinary English for the elliptical dialect they have created. Jargon like “warrant” and “non-unique” seals off the activity from parents, community members, and those who do not devote 80% of their lives to debate tournaments. If debate is meant to be communicative and accessible, debaters need to stop relying on single words to represent a thought and be willing to take that extra half of a second to say clearly: “This is true because…” or “This is important because….” Framing warrants and impacts this way helps to keep the arguments clear, and there is a higher probability that the sentences which follow will actually be warrants or impacts instead of logically unrelated claims.

Speakers should begin and end their speeches in clear and intelligent ways. “Roadmaps” at the beginning of LD speeches are amusing and unnecessary. In most LD rounds, because a large number of judges only have one or two sheets of paper, it is a waste of time for the speaker to say “Let’s go standards, negative, affirmative, voting issues,” especially when the speaker then deviates from the previously established roadmap in favor of something more economical or logical. External roadmaps are also unprofessional; they may even appear foolish, given the small number of contentions in the typical LD round.

Instead, debaters should begin their speeches with an overview of the central conflict in the round, signpost carefully to call attention to each important issue in that conflict as it is discussed, and then signpost adequately throughout to ensure that the audience and judges are following. The overview has three functions: 1) to summarize both positions; 2) to explain the conflict between the two positions; 3) to highlight the important points which need to be addressed in order to resolve the conflict in favor of the speaker. Signposting would follow the overview with a time-saving transition such as, “First, by addressing the negative’s value premise….” This type of structure will help to limit the debate, force the opposite side to address it as well, and focus the rebuttal on these issues instead of initiating the guessing game that many rounds become.

Finally, debaters need to offer conclusions to cross-examination and to their speeches. Since cross-examination is arguably one of the more difficult parts of the debate, it is even more of a challenge (but as large a necessity) to conclude cross- examination with a solid, resounding question. Instead of allowing the opposition to peter out with a weak explanation to some question or giving up with thirty seconds left, debaters should have at least a single ending question prepared similar to the opening line of questions to bring the questioning period full circle and to give a definite conclusion to the questioning period.

Every persuasive speech must end with a clear conclusion. The purpose of a persuasive speech is to tell the audience what the speaker will tell them, then tell the audience, then tell the audience what they have been told, because...repetition is key to getting folks to remember things, right? A conclusion at the end of a speech gives the debater the opportunity not only to summarize her own position and how it relates to the position of her opponent, but to be sure that the judge and audience are on the same page and clearly understand where the debate has come and where it will be going. Conclusions also give debaters the opportunity to open doors for later rebuttals and to set themselves up for clear crystallization. Without a conclusion, it is often unclear what the judge and audience are supposed to take from the speech except for the armload of arguments they have just been handed. Debaters need to take time to draw a coherent picture for their audiences instead of merely throwing a bunch of stuff at them to see what sticks.

The purpose of debate is to convince an audience and judge of a specific conclusion either for or against a given resolution. With this in mind, debaters need to focus themselves more on the art of actually trying to persuade someone. Consider communicating more deliberately and effectively. Instead of allowing a piece of paper to dictate what arguments you have to answer, don’t be afraid to depart from “the line by line,” actually say something, and find a way to better relate to the audience. Make debate more than just what a small clique of high school students do on weekends; make it something a diverse populace may listen to, understand, and (gasp!) enjoy.

(Cyndy Woodhouse, a former LD debater, is Director of Forensics at Iowa City-West High School.)