Keeping it short
Keeping it short

'To cut a long story short ...' is one of those phrases which, along with 'I shouldn't have said that', and 'It's probably time we were going', is usually uttered too late. Being able to say what you have to say in as few words as possible is, along with tact and punctuality, a valuable social skill. It's also an essential skill for a debater.

Someone who monopolises the conversation with a long monologue in a social situation may prompt people to discreetly look at their watches. In the case of a debate, it's the speaker that needs to look at their watch. You have a very precisely measured amount of time to make your case. You need to make every second count.

To give an example. The motion is This house would subsidise electric cars. The opening proposition speaker wants to make the case that, by making electric cars cheaper than petrol cars, subsidies will reduce purchase of petrol cars; this will be a good thing, as petrol cars cause pollution and contribute to climate change. The basic point is: intervene to disincentivise damaging behaviour.

Here's how one speaker does it.

'So, petrol cars are really bad. They give off lots of exhaust fumes, which are full of bad stuff. All those cars you see in traffic jams, they're all polluting away, and some of them are outside schools, where kids are breathing in the fumes. Which, like I said, is really bad. It's really bad because breathing in car fumes is really bad, especially for kids, especially if they've got something like asthma. I mean, there was one girl, I heard, she was really young, and she died from car pollution. Like a little girl in Year 4 or Year 5 or something like that. Imagine how her mum felt. And her friends. That's terrible, so we shouldn't allow it. Well, I say we shouldn't allow it, except we can't exactly make petrol cars against the law, because what are you going to do, send police cars chasing people who are driving petrol cars and putting them in prison? Obviously I get that. But we could say to people, hey, buy electric cars instead because they're like so much cheaper. That's if you've enacted the subsidies. Because at the moment they're actually more expensive. But if they were cheaper, because of the subsidies we're going to enact, they might buy them, because people usually like to save money, I mean my dad's always going on about the cost of living, so if we do enact the subsidies they'll choose electric cars because they're cheaper. And then there won't be so much pollution. Which would be good because little kids wouldn't have to breathe in all those dangerous fumes as they're walking to school. Like I said.

Oh, and another reason petrol cars are bad. Climate change. My grandma lives in Pakistan and last year there were these floods and she said ...'

And so on. You get the picture. The argument is there, but it's wrapped up in too many words and too much unnecessary repetition. Worst of all, the clock is ticking, and the speaker will be lucky if they manage to get even one argument completed in the allotted time, never mind three.

Here's another speaker, making the same argument about the use of subsidies to disincentivise damaging behaviour.

'Petrol cars are a menace to our health, and to our climate. They are a menace to our health because pollution from cars damages the air quality in our cities; poor air quality is a major cause of respiratory illnesses in children and vulnerable people. They are a menace to our climate, because emissions are a major cause of climate change. Emissions from electric cars are far lower, but people continue to buy petrol cars. Why? Because they are cheaper than electric cars. Our plan for subsidies would bring down prices of electric cars to a significantly lower level than that of petrol cars, thereby incentivising people to make a choice which would be better for our health and our planet. Yes, it would cost money - our money, from our taxes - but it would be an investment: in the health of our children, and in the health of our planet.'

Speaker two makes twice as many points in half the time. Therefore their speech will be more substantial, richer in content and more persuasive.

But how can you become more concise? Here's a simple exercise to build your concision muscle. Prepare a speech. Take one argument from it. Give that argument, while timing yourself. Then make exactly the same argument, reducing the time you use by 25%. Then do it again, reducing the time by another 33%. So if you take two minutes to make a point the first time around, repeat the same point but in 90 seconds. Then repeat the same point, but in 60 seconds. Keep practising this, and after a while brevity will be in your muscle memory, and you will find it easy to pack your speech with pithy points.

So, to cut a long story short ... concision wins debates.