
posted 24th November 2024

Speaking in public is scary. Speaking in a debate, when people might interrupt you at any moment and tell you why you're wrong, is even more scary. So it's only human to want some support, something to hold on to as you speak, something to keep you safe. For many debaters, the preparation notes they have made are what make them feel safe. But just how much, and in what way, should you be using your notes?
Actors talk about being 'off the book' when they get to the stage in rehearsals when they have learnt their lines. However, a debate is not like a play. Actors are not expected to improvise; they have to stick to the script. A debate has elements of drama - conflict, clashing interaction, performers acting in role - but it is definitely not scripted. It is dynamic, improvisational and unpredictable. So how far should you be 'on the book'? How far should you follow your own script?
Let's look at three examples of three different speaking styles.
Abdullah picks up his notebook and laboriously reads out everything he has written, in a low, monotonous, barely audible voice, never making eye contact with anyone, his head bowed down, the book six inches from his face. He takes points of information but doesn't respond to them. At the end of his speech he sits down and closes his book, satisfied that his carefully prepared arguments have been made.
Bella never looks at her notes once; she doesn't even seem to have any. She is charming, witty, engaging. She makes everyone laugh. But she forgets to rebut the last speech, and then spends the whole time on one argument, including a funny but irrelevant digression about Keir Starmer. She accepts a point of information and takes two minutes responding to it by saying the same thing five times, possibly because she can't think of anything else to say.
Chloe has four index cards in her hands, which she flips between, briefly glancing at them from time to time. Mostly she is making eye contact with the other team. She rebuts the last speech in her first thirty seconds. She introduces her three arguments at the start of her speech, then makes each of them briskly, thoroughly and separately, allocating one minute per argument. She takes a point of information and rebuts it swiftly but decisively, in fifteen seconds. Finally, she spends the last thirty seconds summing up her three arguments.
Neither Abdullah nor Bella are going to score highly; Chloe is heading for full marks. What's her secret? What's on those cards that keeps her speech on track and her timing tight while at the same time ensuring it is fresh, spontaneous and responsive?
Let's sneak a peek at Chloe's cards. The motion is This house would replace GCSEs with teacher assessments. Chloe is first opposition speaker.
Card One
Rebuttal
- Stressful? Life is stressful, need to get children used to it.
- Distorts teaching? Not with properly designed syllabuses.
Card Two
Argument One
Fairer than teacher assessment
- Everyone takes the same exam.
- No chance for teachers / parents to intervene.
- Assessed by impartial markers.
Card Three
Argument Two
Preparation for life
- Rewards perseverance and discipline.
- Gives experience of dealing with pressure.
- Gives experience of working towards a long term goal.
Card Four
Argument Three
Accurate info for unis / employers
- Trustworthy because objective.
- Covers key skills.
- Grades went up vastly when exams cancelled in Covid so teachers not reliable.
Chloe succeeds because she has the perfect balance between Abdullah's laborious plodding and Bella's chaotic busking. She can glance at her cards to prompt her points, but must then put them into her own words, ensuring spontaneity and freshness. And she has one more prop to help her: her phone, with the stopwatch running. She glances at that too, to ensure she is spending no more than one minute per point.
To sum up: when making notes, give yourself signposts that will keep you on track, not a script that will keep you tied down. And keep looking the opposition in the eye.