Sample Debate Strategies
Strategies: Sample debates
Excerpted from: Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques, , by George McCoy Musgrave. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1957, p. 78-81)
When the Witness Doesn't Reply Setting a Trap for the Questioner Turning the Tables
When the Witness Doesn't Reply
If the witness says that he doesn't know the answer to the question, or if he just sits and doesn't say anything, the questioner has an opportunity to poke a little gentle fun. Here is one way:
Q. Mr. Frank, do you feel that the cost of this plan is important?
A. (Silence)
Q. Since Mr. Frank is unable to answer this question, we will go on to one much easier.
Another tack by which the same thing can be accomplished is this:
Q. Mr. Joessel, would you recommend that we continue to increase our storage facilities for farm surpluses?
A. (Silence)
Q. Has your team studied the question thoroughly enough to have an opinion, Mr. Joessel?
A. Well, yes, we have, but I think my partner should answer that question in his next speech.
Q. Are we to understand that your partner is informed on this phase of the problem but you are not?
Setting a Trap for the Questioner
The astute witness can set a trap for the questioner. One effective way is to hold back evidence until just the right moment. Brooks Quimby gives this example:
Q. Do you claim that advertising reduces the unit cost of production?
A. Yes.
Q. Since this must be generally true to be significant, can you give proof of your statement?
A. Arrow collars are an example.
Q. But you gave that one example already; have you any additional evidence to show that such an effect is general?
A. Certainly. Here is a book by Professor Starch of Harvard University, a well-known authority on advertising. On page 392 he has a long list of such cases. I shall be glad to read them to you. (Reads)
Q. All right, that is enough. Now –
A. I have a lot more if you want them.
Turning the Tables
Sometimes the questioner can turn the tables, showing that the proposed solutions aggravates the very problem it is supposed to solve. Needless to say, thorough analysis of the topic is needed before this can be done successfully. The following illustration is from a debate on the topic, "Resolved, that the federal government should adopt a permanent program of wage and price control."
Q. Miss Smith, what is the purpose of price controls?
A. To keep prices down, of course.
Q. What made them high?
A. Lots of money in people's hand, a great demand, and a limited supply of goods.
Q. All right, let's consider those points. Are controls intended to decrease the amount of money in people's hands?
A. No.
Q. Or to reduce demand?
A. No.
Q. Or are they intended to increase the supply of goods?
A. No. Controls control.
Q. That is, they don't deal with the causes of the situation at all, do they? They simply force buyers and sellers to accept prices lower than those prevailing on the free market?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, let's take an example to see what happens. If you were thinking about buying a car, but weren't sure whether you wanted to or not, would the price help you make your decision?
A. Of course.
Q. That is, if you found a second-hand Plymouth you liked for $500, you might decide to buy it; but if the same car were $1,000, you might decide to walk or ride the bus?
A. Yes, that's quite true.
Q. So the demand for goods is greater when they are low priced?
A. Certainly.
Q. Then price controls, by keeping prices fictitiously low and thus increasing demand, aggravate the very problem they are suppose to solve?
A. Well, I don't know if that would be true in every situation.
Q. But wouldn't it be true in the automobile situation?
A. Yes.
Q. Very good. Now let's consider a little different aspect of the problem. Miss Smith, why do people work?
A. There are lots of reasons, but one of the most important is to make money.
Q. Most people do not work just for their health?
A. They certainly do not.
Q. They work to make money?
A. Yes.
Q. And if they find they aren't making much money, they sometimes look for something else to do?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you feel that way too?
A. Surely. Money isn't everything, but it's certainly important.
Q. If you were a dressmaker, and the government set a price for your dresses that was below your cost, what would you do?
A. I'd quit making dresses.
Q. Unless you reluctantly accepted illegal prices for those dresses, forced upon you by women who disregarded the law?
A. Yes.
Q. Suppose the government let you make a little profit, but not as much as you could make as a secretary?
A. I'd be tempted to be a secretary.
Q. If you stopped making dresses, would there be more or fewer dresses on the market?
A. Fewer, of course.
Q. Can we agree, then, that price controls tend to reduce the supply of goods and therefore aggravate the very problem they are supposed to solve?
A. (Silence)
Q. All right, Miss Smith, I won't press for an answer. I realize it could be embarrassing. Miss Smith, are you familiar with the meat-packing industry?
A. In a general way.
Q. Is it true that just about every part of the animal is put to some use, even the hair and the blood?
A. Yes, so I've heard.
Q. Is it true that when a pig is slaughtered, there are literally hundreds of commercial transactions before the pork chop reaches your grocery store and the hide reaches your glove shop?
A. I wouldn't be surprised.
Q. Would you agree then, Miss Smith, that there would be quite a number of points at which prices would need to be fixed and surveillance maintained?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. When we were discussing the dressmaking situation a few moments ago, I think we agreed that both buyer and seller might be tempted to disregard the law?
A. Yes.
Q. So enforcement agents will be necessary?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be wrong to estimate that the number of government agents needed for rigid enforcement would come to at least a tenth of our population?
A. Well, that estimate sounds high.
Q. And, judging from some of the things that have come to light in FHA, the Internal Revenue Service, and other places, would you agree that someone is needed to watch the enforcement agents?
A. Yes, to some extent.
Q. Would the withdrawal of all these men from productive work increase or decrease the supply of good?
A. Well, it would tend to decrease production somewhat.
Q. So here again, price controls aggravate the very problem they are supposed to solve? This time by diverting men from productive work to non-productive government employment?
A. Perhaps to a limited extent.
Q. Can we agree, then, that price controls make the problem worse in three ways? First, they increase demand by keeping prices fictitiously low. Second, they decrease supply by reducing the profit incentive and encouraging people to go into other more profitable activities. Third, they further reduce supplies of goods by diverting people from productive work to nonproductive police work. Can we agree on those conclusions?
A. (Silence)
Q. Thanks. That's all. No more questions.