FAQ: Negotiation, Evidence v Stories, and Audience Engagement
This week marked the return of the Argument Clinic, a trilogy of workshops on the fundamentals of debating for an assortment of young and mature professionals with little or no prior debating experience.
After Monday’s workshop, I opened the ‘clinic’ for half an hour of questions in which I invited the class to ask me anything they wanted to know about debating and its applications. This week, they asked me about the difference between telling a story and making a case, how to prepare for a negotiation, and how to work out what questions their audience will need them to answer when preparing for a debate.
Glossary of debating terms
When you choose to specialise in a field, it can be all too easy to forget how it feels to be a newcomer learning this all for the first time. So, I greatly appreciated being asked to list a glossary of debating terms to make it easier for anyone and everyone reading this to understand what I’m going on about.
Debate: An exchange of opposing viewpoints on a specific topic with the aim of assessing their compatibility and, if necessary, making a choice between the two. Distinct from a negotiation, which aims to establish agreement or consensus, and a discussion, which facilitates the exchange of viewpoints without requiring a decision at the end of it.
Motion: A topic of debate expressed as a statement, so that the speakers must either argue in favour or against it — as opposed to a discussion topic, which is normally expressed as a question that the speakers can offer an opinion on without having to take a formal position.
Proposition: The team speaking in favour of the motion.
Opposition: The team speaking against the motion.
Summary speaker: The last person to speak for each side whose job it is to summarise the points the two sides agree on and analyse the points on which they disagree.
Policy debate: A debate over a course of action, normally a proposal for a new government policy, but can equally be applied to individuals, businesses, and communities. E.g. the government should legalise prostitution.
Analysis or Values debate: A debate over the virtue of a particular belief or principle that doesn’t specify a course of action, though may certainly have policy implications. E.g. selling your body for sex is a human right.
Argument: A set of verifiable assumptions combined in logical sequence to prove or disprove a specific conclusion. Distinct from an assertion, which is a claim with no basis in fact, and expertise, which are the demonstration of extensive knowledge with no link to a specific conclusion.
Premise: The assumption on which an argument is based.
Logical fallacy: A failure to demonstrate a logical connection between a piece of evidence and a specific conclusion. This can be because the evidence simply does not support the conclusion or because it can be used to support multiple conclusions and so fails to definitively prove any of them. Distinct from a factual inaccuracy or a lie.
Question #1: How can I work out what questions the audience will need me to answer when preparing for a debate?
The key is put yourself in the shoes of your audience and ask: ‘if I knew little or nothing about this, what would the speaker need to prove to win my vote?’
Asking this question will help you to define the terms of the debate and identify the assumptions that will need to be proved. The more these are left open to interpretation, the less control you have over how your audience processes your arguments — however strong they may be.
Below is an example of the steps you might take to achieve this, using the motion we discussed in Monday’s workshop.
Motion
The use of performance enhancing drugs already available to the general public should be legalised in sport as well.
Step 1 — identify ambiguous words or phrases that need to be clarified.
One word that stands out is “performance enhancing drugs”. Unless you are speaking to a room full of experts (and in a public debate, the odds are you won’t be), you will need to explain what they are and how they enhance performance.
Another is “sport”. Of course most people can give plenty of examples of activities that constitute a sport. But this is such a broad term that if you do not offer a more specific definition, it could be taken to mean almost anything. This is a problem because if you can’t specify exactly what is meant by sport, then you can’t analyse what the impact would be of treating it differently from any other industry or pastime. What you need, however, is not a dictionary definition, but an understanding of the context of this debate and who specifically is affected by it? A simple google search will bring up enough news sources that can tell you what you need to do know.
Step 2 — identify assumptions that need to be proved.
Virtually all debates are disagreements about changing the way things are now. This assumes that everyone already knows what the current state of affairs is, otherwise known as the ‘status quo’, and how it came into being.
But why should you expect your audience to automatically know this? More importantly, not knowing it could make them more hostile or more sympathetic to the motion regardless of what you say.
In this case, there are two assumptions made by the motion that need to be investigated.
The first is that there is a difference between the drugs that are banned for everyone and the drugs that are banned just for athletes. Why is this and how significant is it?
The second is that sport (however we decide to define that based on the context of the debate) is a ‘special case’ that warrants being treated separately from all other sections of society. But why?
Step 3 — list the questions you will need to answer for your audience.
Now you have identified the ambiguities and assumptions in the motion, you can list the top questions that most urgently need to be answered.
- What are performance enhancing drugs?
- What is meant by sport in the context of this debate?
- What is the difference between drugs that are banned for everyone and drugs that are banned just for athletes?
- Why is sport treated differently from all other industries?
Step 4 — use your answers to define the terms of the debate.
What you are left with after answering the questions above is a set of principles that will define the terms of the debate. These apply to both sides equally because whether you are arguing in favour or against, you can both agree that this is what the motion as it is currently worded means.
- Performance enhancing drugs are not banned for the same reasons as recreational drugs, which is why they are legal for everyone else.
- There are specific circumstances in which the laws that govern the general public do not apply to athletes and vice versa.
- The purpose of having one set of rules for athletes and another for everyone else is to protect that which makes sport special (which is…)
Step 5 — tell your audience what you plan to prove to them.
Steps 1–4 detail how to research and define the motion when preparing for a debate. This next step concerns what you will actually say to your audience.
If you are defending the motion, then the first thing you want to tell your audience is whether you intend to prove that legalising performance enhancing drugs in sport is compatible with the principles above, or that the principles themselves are not fit for purpose (a much bigger challenge since principles 2 and 3 are also the reason a footballer only gets a red card for elbowing an opponent in the face instead of being charged for assault).
Similarly, if you are opposing the motion, it is your job to make clear to your audience that this is what your opponent needs to prove to win the debate. If, for example, they try to argue that the same drug laws should apply to everyone equally because athletes are no different from anyone else, you can then invite them to apply that policy to all other areas where sport is treated differently and examine the consequences of doing so.
How do you go about constructing and analysing those arguments? You’re welcome to come along to next week’s Argument Clinic to find out.
Question #2: If you are better at telling a story than making a case, or vice versa, how can you tailor your presentation to get the best out of yourself?
This came up when we were discussing the difference between engagement and persuasion. It goes without saying that both are important to being a great speaker and debater, but leaving it there risks glossing over the difference between the two.
Engagement is about building a relationship with the audience and making them want to listen to you whatever you have to say. A good example of this can be found in the video below of the winning speech in this year’s Toastmasters International competition.
I have watched this speech eight times now and have been equally mesmerised each of those times. That said, I also find this speech incredibly frustrating because the case the speaker attempts to make is so weak and based almost entirely on empty assertions and personal anecdotes.
Persuasion, on the other hand, is about winning the support of the audience for a particular idea. In this case, while getting them to like and listen to you will certainly help, it doesn’t guarantee they’ll agree with you. First, you must prove that you have a good idea by making a case for it.
The greatest test of an idea is to see if the case for it is strong enough to persuade your audience even when it is delivered poorly with minimal engagement. A good example of this can be found in the video below of the winning pitch at the MIT Global Startup Workshop in 2010.
I find watching this video equally mesmerising and frustrating as the first, but for the opposite reason. The case for investing in this young man’s enterprise is both well defined and backed up by evidence. Very impressive. The presentation itself, though, is grating and even though the running time is only half that of the first speech, it feels twice as long.
So, to return to the original question, what do you do if you want to both engage and persuade your audience when you only excel at one of them?
The best way to do this is to ‘buddy up’ with someone whose strengths lie in whichever area you feel most vulnerable. If you are very clinical and data driven, team up with someone theatrical who tells great stories. If you’re a master of high rhetoric, but lack the research skills to substantiate your arguments, team up with someone at ease with facts and figures.
There are plenty of places to meet prospective speaking partners and practice together. London in particular is blessed with a plethora of speaker clubs and at least a few debating societies. You may even wish to start entering competitions to really put your skills to the test.
However, there is a little more to it than that. Simply teaming up and hoping for the best won’t automatically produce results. I once chaired a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where one of the teams was made up of two speakers who were polar opposites of each other. The result was not pretty.
They made completely different arguments from each other, one of which was informed and detailed, but cold and unappealing, while the other was impassioned and vivid, but poorly structured and inconclusive. Needless to say, they lost the debate.
This is because they didn’t give much thought to how their admittedly impressive skill sets could complement each other. So, what could they have done better?
I saw a good example at a debate I judged just last night on whether the use of frozen embryos for the purpose of medical research should be legal.
The first proposition speaker excellently presented the case in favour and rattled off a list of incurable diseases that could be treated using this controversial method. When it came to his partner’s turn to speak, she told a story of someone who had lost their life to one of these diseases and the impact it had on their loved ones.
This worked so well because they understood what the team from the previous example didn’t: the purpose of making a case is to explain to your audience why what you have to say is both true and important; the purpose of telling a story is to make your audience care that what you have to say is both true and important.
In other words, for a case to be both persuasive and engaging, it needs to be supported by evidence and illustrated by a compelling story that your audience can personally relate to.
So, if you excel at one skill, but not the other, team up with someone who does and over time you will learn from them — and they from you — how to become the consummate speaker who can both engage and persuade.
Question #3: What debate format would you use for managing a negotiation?
I like this question because it’s a refreshing reminder that a function of debate can also be to help rival sides bridge their differences and build consensus. At Debating London, we have experimented with several different formats for achieving this at our monthly ‘Make Your Case’ debates.
Before I go on, I feel it important to stress that even though I have ten years of professional experience in PR and sales, in which I have had to regularly practice my negotiation skills, I am not a professional negotiator. If an expert opinion (as opposed to a merely informed one) is what you’re looking for, then I would recommend talking to those who specialise in the field.
Two months ago, we staged a role play debate on the tube strike with four volunteers representing each of the key players in the dispute and taking questions from the audience on their respective positions.
In order to make it as authentic as possible, we issued the volunteers with a crib sheet detailing each side’s demands and the arguments used to defend their position, which you can view here.
Alas, we didn’t find a solution, but what the format did achieve was a consensus on the issues each side agreed on, which we were able to use as a yardstick for testing their arguments on the issues they disagreed on.
For example, all sides agreed that protecting the health and safety of tube workers should be Transport for London’s top priority. This meant that when it came to discussing their differences over the changes to tube workers’ contracts, the speaker representing the trade unions knew that if they could prove that the terms of these contracts presented an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of workers, the speaker representing Transport for London would be more inclined to modify their position.
Even adversarial debates are a good way of managing a negotiation as one of the most important responsibilities of the summary speaker is to explain to the audience what the two sides agree on in order to isolate the few issues on which they disagree, so the audience know what they’re voting on.
That’s all for this week, but the Argument Clinic returns on Monday 19th October at Regent’s University, where we will be discussing techniques for thinking on your feet, such as framing complex arguments and spotting logical fallacies.
You can find out more at www.debatinglondon.com
