¶ … Communication
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Debates as a Communication Strategy
Debate has been used as a tool in education, politics and public discourse for many millennia because it is seen as an effective method of disseminating facts to an audience, either large or small, regarding the whole of a topic. The audience is then tasked with the decision about which "side" they agree with. A definitive structure has not been followed by all debaters because there are different topics, debaters and desired outcomes from the debate. However, debate as a form is a good way to communicate an idea, determine the different sides of the topic and to decide whether a position is relevant or not.
The debates which were conducted in the class had the advantage of being structured in a formal way. The idea was to present a topic logically and see what side won via strength of presentation. The proposition had to be understood and prepared for. It has to be understood that "controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate" (Freeley & Steinberg 2005: 43) and that the controversy must be minutely understood. Freeley & Steinberg also state that "To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined" (2005: 45), and that "the phrasing of the proposition must be clear, specific, devoid of ambiguous terms, and precise in the statement of desired decision" (2005: 47). So the preparation for a debate is that the person who holds an opinion must have...
Walking into a debate unprepared is an impossible task and will not convince anyone. Thus, for debate to be an effective
communication tool, there has to be preparation on the part of the debaters.
The preparation and delivery of the idea also entails an understanding of both sides of the proposition. Cioffi said, "such essays look not only for confirmatory evidence (that is, evidence to support a given position), but disconfirmatory evidence as well. And they end up using both kinds of evidence to develop their ideas. They aim not merely to persuade but to give as fair and honest and complete an
analysis as possible" (2005: 3). Of course, this
quote is specifically talking about argumentative essays, but the thought applies to verbal debate as well. The person who wishes to communicate via debate must understand that there are two positions. Without knowledge of the two positions it is impossible to successfully state the correctness of one's own side.
If a person does not understand the two different sides prior to beginning the debate they may have some difficulties convincing people that they are in the right. It is a fact that, "asserting something to be true is no guarantee that what is being asserted is true" (Holowchak 2004:22). Strength of debate lies not in loudness, but in making relevant points that will persuade people to the arguer's side. Since, as Govier says, "If an argument has a flaw of relevance, the added premises are likely to be unacceptable" (1997: 151). The debater, thus, needs to not only understand what the two sides are to a particular debate in order to maintain good communication, but they must see that there are no flaws in the argument that they present.
A debater not only needs to prepare and understand both sides of the topic, but they must understand the structure of the debate. As mentioned above, a formal structure does not have to be adopted, but some logical form, where both sides have a chance to air their views, is necessary. Sather explains that first the debater (or debating team has to "explain any ambiguous words, second, set any limits to the debate and third,…
