Q&A: Partnering Problems?

Q: I’m having a bit of a partner crisis and was wondering if you had any thoughts/advice on the situation.

My incredible partner has just graduated. We did very well competitively in the past year and I’m looking to continue to have success on the national level in the coming years. I need a new partner and unfortunately, my school is very small. My options are limited to converting an LD kid or poaching a PFer from another partnership.

A:

Partnering is a complex thing. How people get paired works differently on every team, but here are the things you should consider as you move on.

1. Who usually pairs teams, debaters or your coach?

If your coach pairs teams, you should approach them to have a conversation. Ask who they are considering pairing you with and who you have considered for a partner. If your coach ultimately decides all conversations or thoughts should go through them.

If debaters decide partnerships, please consider the following questions:

2. Has anyone stepped forward that wants to be your partner?

Willingness to partner is a huge aspect of success. If there is someone who has shown interest and you think it could work, sit down and have a conversation about what kind of commitment you each have to debate. You want to have similar levels of commitment to work, competing, etc.

3. Is the LD person open to switching?

If someone is considering crossing over to PF, I would definitely consider this option. Again, willingness to partner is huge. Also LD skills can easily transfer into PF if the person is willing to learn and adapt.

4. Is the partnership you are considering breaking a successful one, both in round and partner dynamics wise?

The word “poach” is interesting because it has an inherently negative connotation. I think breaking up a partnership needs to be thought about long and hard. The reason for breaking cannot solely be your desire to succeed. Think about if the partnership is working and has been successful – if so, don’t touch it. If the team seems to be unsatisfied or unevenly matched, you should approach both of them with the idea. Remember, at the end of the day you will have to spend time with both partners.

I would suggest having your coach sit down with you and the partners to have the discussion. There should be an alternative partner readily available for the person who may soon be partnerless. Think about all the details before approaching this option.

5. Consider switching partners if things don’t work out.

When you find a new partner (unless you have broken another PF partnership), consider it a trial run. This should be discussed with the partner before you treat the partnership this way. You can always try and work things out, but if by about mid-year it feels like you are not moving in the same direction, consider trying a different partner. As a sophomore you do have some time to sort things out before you really need a committed partnership. I did not debate with my long term partner until junior year, and it was worth the wait.

 

In any partnering concern, remember that you are dealing with people- friends, peers, and teammates. Make sure you realize that partnering isn’t just a strategic game, but also that emotions and feelings will be involved. Tread carefully and think about the impact of your choices before making any moves. Always go to a trusted coach, varsity team member, or mentor to discuss your options.

Best Practices: Emphasizing good facts and arguments

Working on legal writing, I’ve run into some great and applicable advice for Public Forum debate. In a legal brief, it matters how you present the facts of the case – always truthful, but using persuasive tools to emphasize your arguments and shape the story of the arguments. The same goes for debate – you want to tell the truth, but emphasize the facts and arguments that help you most.

Techniques to Emphasize Good Facts and Arguments:

Use short & clear sentences.

• Easy to process, easy to remember.

Put good facts/arguments in 1st or last paragraphs.

• these are the most memorable for your judge.

Group facts and arguments together to make obvious inferences.

• bring your arguments together to build their strength.

Repeat Good Facts.

• always and throughout the round

Use lots of vivid detail.

• this helps the judge remember and relate to your case.

Be specific.

• giving specific examples, images, numbers, etc helps the judge ground a larger argument in a more tangible fact.

Use Emotional Words.

• for example, “police brutality” rather than “legal enforcement.”

State Good Facts Alone.

• Make your good facts/arguments stand out.

Generally the opposite logic applies to what to do with bad facts or arguments that will hurt your case in the round. You don’t ignore them, but you deal with them in a persuasive manner.

Techniques to De-Emphasize Bad Facts and Arguments:

Use longer & complex sentences.

Bury their facts by no repeating or emphasizing what your opponents drop throughout the round (but do refute everything – this applies more to later round speeches).

Don’t pile up your opponents arguments – separate them so the judge sees the individual flaws rather than the overall, cumulative strength.

Only state a bad fact once.

Use as little detail as possible.

Stay General and don’t give your opponent more evidence, logical reasoning, etc than they have provided you.

Use Clinical, dispassionate language.

Juxtapose a bad fact in same sentence with good fact. Pair your weaker arguments with your stronger to remind the judge of the big picture (good impact calculus).

Philosophy and Public Forum

While in the debate world Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Congress, Parliamentary, and Public Forum are separate entities, there is a lot of overlap. No, I am not going to promote the increased speeds being used in Public Forum. I am going to argue that learning from other debates will make you a better debater. Period.

One great way to improve your PF debating (especially in the Framework department) is to take some notes from your LD friends. In LD debaters have a working knowledge of political and social theory than underscores each topic. No surprise here, but those same theories apply to many PF topics.

A successful LD debater suggested the book, The Individual and The Political Order by Bowie and Simon, as an introduction and overview of important theories. While you may not want to spend $45 dollars on it, it is highly likely you can find it at a local library or university library. You can also sign up for a free trial of Questia research where you can access the book.

I have also uploaded a useful PDF from the NSDA titled SELECTED PHILOSOPHY TOPICS THAT ARISE FREQUENTLY IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE by David M. Shapiro. This would be a great place to start as you venture into LD land a pick up a few tips and tricks.

WHAT IS contrast?

 

Contrast (verb):

: to be different especially in a way that is very obvious

 

: to compare (two people or things) to show how they are different

I would add…

: the key to winning a debate.

Contrast can clean up the messiest round because it shows the judge how your side and your opponents’ side are DIFFERENT.

To truly win, you cannot simply win your own arguments or prove that your impacts are important.

You have to prove your arguments or impacts are BETTER than your opponents’, thus the need for contrast.

To create effective contrast, use the tools in your PF toolkit.

 

• Pre-emptive arguments: Embed pre-emptive arguments in your case in order to begin to draw comparisons with what your opponent is likely to say.
• Framework: this should set-up a structure that helps you compare the two sides of the debate in your case. Extend it to continue the contrast throughout the round.
• Pro/Con language: Make sure you tag arguments as yours and your opponents CLEARLY. You want to make sure the judge knows what belongs to what team.
• Models: Using models in the Summary and Final Focus can help build contrast with organizational structures. One such model is the Pro world vs. Con world separation of arguments.
• Impact Calculus: The tool to explicitly compare impacts based on components such as magnitude and probability.

Before you focus in on your goal of winning, aim for the goal of contrasting your case with your opponent’s case. You’ll be on your way to persuasion and a win.