Debating issues.

[BlackMason]

I'm starting this thread to get some help with some sticking points that I'm having with real debating. I've joined the debating league in my college and I realised that I'm better at countering than proposing. Today I was placed in the proposition side and I had trouble coming up with points for the motion.

The motion was "This house would charge men that abandon their girlfriends due to pregnancy". The only thing I could think of was why. So I eventually came up with the argument that girlfriend implies relationship. A relationship is a quid pro quo. Therefore a relationship can be seen as contractual in nature. Abandonment is a breach of contract and there should be penalties. THAT IS ALL I could come up with. Luckily this was just a practice round and wasn't official.

I did debating in high school buy that was a long time ago. Plus I've just recently become intellectually awake. What I learned in high school has been poorly retained. I noticed that a lot of debate topics are negatively biased against the proposition such as the above topic. It relies on morals and morals are relative. Can anyone with real debating experience help me see things from a broader perspective?

Also we don't know what topics we'll be given before hand. We only get 15 minutes to prepare on debate night. Then you gotta go speak.

[robvalue]

When you say men will be "charged", what exactly does that mean? Criminal proceedings?

[Dystopia]

I can see where you're coming from. I've had a course with a similar structure - 15 minutes to prepare and then debate any motion.

Basically, I think having knowledge on both sides position is helpful. I know the arguments for and against gay marriage, therefore I am able to debate against gay marriage even though I support it.

I've won a debate about sterilizing people with IQ's under 120. In my opinion, some propositions are biased but you need to work with what you've got.

In that case you could say:
- That children are the future and both parents ought to support the child, at least financially
- Single moms become poor, lose jobs, and become depressed, which in turn affects the child negatively.
- Consequentially speaking if you were capable and able to conceive a fetus you should support it by definition
- Growing up with just one parent can harm the development of the kid
- Men earn on average more than women so the man, by definition, has a higher obligation to support the child
- Appeal to the audience's emotion as much as you can! Tell them "imagine you were this kid and your dad abandoned your mom"
- Leaving someone because of a pregnancy is irresponsible and immoral because you are being unfaithful and evil to your partner

I repeat, having knowledge on subjects can help. Having good rhetorical skills and aptitude to form a coherent argument also helps. Don't be afraid to refute your opponent's argument - Sometimes refuting will result in your victory because of the lesser evil decision

[BlackMason]

When you say men will be "charged", what exactly does that mean? Criminal proceedings?

Charge in this case would mean sanction. In the context of the matter the relevant consideration would be civil liability rather than criminal. No crime has been committed. Restitution could be in the form of financial and/or emotional compensation. However this is largely irrelevant to what I was seeking help with. I think I didn't clearly articulate what it is I need help with.

@Dystopia: Thanks for your contribution. I actually got some good ideas after reading your post. What I was trying to communicate though was how to frame the overarching premise of the debate. For example if I were to define the context of the debate through justice, then it becomes easier to generate points for the prop. Justice being defined as giving each what he or she is due.

This is a solid place from which arguments can flow for both sides. So I guess it's important to not only define the specific terms of the motion, but also the valuation criteria from which we can assess if the arguments are achieving it. In this case justice would have been the valuation criteria.

Without a valuation criteria I get stuck with why. So what if a kid grows up without his father? Why must the father be responsible? Why this, why that? Usually debates are dealt with in the context of morality. Like I said morals are relative. If I'm a sociopath then I can fuck a chick and bail no problem. But justice is more objective than morals.

[Dystopia]

There's several arguments you can use in [competitive debate] and not all are moral. I am going to look in my notes from last semester but here's some:
- Arguments related to morality - In this case you need to define morality and appeal to the majority's presumed morality
- Arguments from cost/benefit - This is an argument from economics. For example, saying that even if the other side is right it's completely impossible to implement a measure or highly ineffective
- Argument from philosophy
- Argument from science + statistical studies - In this case, it's not about morality but facts. Not every debater knows equally all topics

I'm assuming this is the British parliament debate style, so there's the upper and lower house, two governments and two oppositions. If you are the first (to start the debate) you can define the motion strategically and it's important that you do that. For example, when I was asked to be pro-life I defined the motion as reaching out only women until 14 weeks pregnant.

[Angrboda]

I don't have any experience debating, but it reminds me of what was called "Table Topics" at Toastmasters meetings. The moderator would have a list of questions, and the person called upon for each question had to speak extemporaneously for two minutes in reply to the question.

In response to your request, I'd suggest three things. First and foremost, that what you are doing is intended to be a learning experience. Like any skill, you will likely start out horrible, and only get better with practice, so I would suggest lightening up a bit and just accepting your missteps as a learning experience.

Second, one thing I learned a lot from Table Topics is you can learn a lot by paying attention to what and how those who are good at it do what they do. I learned a lot just by doing that.

Third, Toastmasters emphasizes many of the same skills and is a great experience. If you have a Toastmasters that you can attend in your area, that might help you get a leg up as well.

I found this advice on Table Topics. It's rather short, but maybe you can spend some time with google searching the web for tips on extemporaneous speaking.
http://www.toastmasters46.org/ideas/tabl...opics.html