How to Research for a Debate

Debate Guide

Research is the cornerstone of a strong debate performance. It allows debaters to construct compelling arguments, anticipate counterarguments, and confidently respond to their opponents. To excel, you need a methodical approach to gathering and organizing information. Below is an in-depth guide to researching for debates

A Comprehensive Guide

Research is the cornerstone of a strong debate performance. It allows debaters to construct compelling arguments, anticipate counterarguments, and confidently respond to their opponents. To excel, you need a methodical approach to gathering and organizing information. Below is an in-depth guide to researching for debates.

Understand the Motion

Breaking Down the Motion

  • Identify Key Terms: Clarify ambiguous or technical terms in the motion.
    Example: For “This House Would Ban Animal Testing,” define ban (partial or complete prohibition) and animal testing (testing for medical, cosmetic, or other purposes).
  • Scope of the Debate: Determine whether the motion applies globally, regionally, or to specific sectors.
  • Underlying Assumptions: Consider implicit ideas the motion assumes, such as ethical considerations or feasibility.

Types of Motions and Research Needs

  • Policy Motions (e.g., THW): Focus on implementation, practicality, and potential outcomes.
  • Value Motions (e.g., THBT): Research ethical frameworks, philosophical principles, and societal implications.
  • Fact-Based Motions (e.g., THR): Look for historical data, trends, and expert analysis.

Core Themes to Explore

  1. Principles and Values: Understand the ethical or ideological underpinnings of the motion.
    Example: In debates on bans, research utilitarianism (maximizing overall well-being) or deontology (inherent rights and wrongs).
  2. Historical Context: Investigate past instances or precedents related to the motion.
    Example: Historical bans on harmful practices like asbestos or lead-based paints.
  3. Practicality and Feasibility: Assess how the motion can be implemented and its consequences.
    Example: Alternatives to animal testing and their reliability or cost-effectiveness.
  4. Comparative Analysis: Compare the motion’s proposal to the status quo or alternative scenarios.
    Example: Evaluate the benefits of regulated animal testing versus a complete ban.

Specialized Research for Actor Motions

Consider the unique priorities of the assigned actor, such as profit for corporations, public welfare for governments, or ideological goals for social movements.

Types of Sources

  1. Academic Articles: Use peer-reviewed journals for in-depth analysis and credible evidence.
  2. Government and NGO Reports: Access data from organizations like the UN, WHO, or Greenpeace.
  3. News Outlets: Choose reputable sources to find recent developments or public opinions.
  4. Think Tanks and Policy Papers: Look for insights from organizations like Brookings Institution or RAND.
  5. Primary Sources: Laws, treaties, or firsthand accounts are invaluable for actor motions or historical debates.

Evaluating Credibility

  • Cross-Verify Facts: Check multiple sources to ensure accuracy.
  • Avoid Bias: Be cautious of partisan or ideologically slanted material.
  • Use Diverse Perspectives: Incorporate views from different stakeholders to enrich your understanding.

Divide by Argument Types

  • Proposition: Collect arguments supporting the motion, backed by evidence.
  • Opposition: Gather counterarguments and potential rebuttals.

Use a Table or Mind Map

  • Example Table for “This House Would Ban Animal Testing:

 

CategoryProposition ArgumentsOpposition Arguments
EthicalAnimals have inherent rights.Human lives are more valuable.
EconomicAlternatives are cheaper in the long run.Testing bans increase R&D costs.
PracticalNew technologies make animal testing obsolete.Current alternatives are unreliable.

Prioritizing Key Arguments

  • Focus on 3–4 well-developed arguments rather than a long list of weak points.
  • Ensure each argument is supported by robust evidence, examples, and logical reasoning.

Incorporating Examples

  • Use real-world case studies, statistics, or expert opinions to illustrate your points.
  • Example: Cite specific studies where in vitro methods replaced animal testing successfully.

Preemptive Preparation

  • Identify Vulnerabilities: Consider weaknesses in your own arguments and address them proactively.
  • Example: If arguing that alternatives to animal testing are cheaper, prepare for rebuttals questioning their reliability.
  • Develop Rebuttals: Craft responses to expected opposition points to demonstrate preparedness.

Strengthening Arguments

  • Use analogies or comparative examples to reinforce your points.
  • Example: Compare the abolition of animal testing to historical bans on harmful practices like asbestos.

  • Track Current Events: Follow recent developments relevant to the motion.
  • Update Examples: Replace outdated data with the latest statistics or case studies to keep arguments relevant.

Mock Debates

  • Test your arguments with teammates to refine them and identify gaps.
  • Engage in role reversal by arguing for the opposition to strengthen your understanding.

Incorporating Feedback

  • Record practice sessions and review them to identify areas for improvement.
  • Seek constructive criticism from peers or mentors.

Presenting Evidence

  • Use data sparingly but effectively to avoid overwhelming the audience.
  • Example: Instead of listing multiple statistics, focus on one impactful figure.
  • Tie evidence to your argument’s broader narrative for greater resonance.

Tailoring Arguments

  • Adjust your framing based on the debate’s audience or adjudication criteria.
  • Example: In a debate judged by economists, emphasize financial implications.

  • Avoid Misinformation: Ensure all evidence is accurate and from credible sources.
  • Respect Opposing Views: Research and understand counterarguments with an open mind to engage respectfully.

Step-by-Step Practice

  1. Choose a Motion: “This House Believes That Social Media Does More Harm Than Good.”
  2. Research: Investigate studies on social media’s impact on mental health. Explore its economic benefits for businesses and role in activism.
  3. Organize: Create a table or outline categorizing arguments into ethical, social, economic, and practical dimensions.
  4. Test: Conduct a mock debate with a friend, switching sides after the first round.

Integrating Research Effectively

  • Use a blend of facts, stories, and logic to create a compelling narrative.
  • Respond dynamically during rebuttals by drawing on your research bank.

Adapting On the Fly

  • Stay flexible in case the debate takes an unexpected turn. Prioritize your strongest points and let go of weaker ones.

Guided Exercises for Debating Skills

Rebuttal Practice

Objective: Improve the ability to respond to opposing arguments effectively. Exercise: Rapid Rebuttal Choose a simple argument (e.g., “Social media is harmful to society.”). Write or say a counterpoint in 1 minute. Expand the counterpoint by adding examples or logic in 2 minutes. Repeat with a new argument.
Focus Areas: Address the logic or evidence of the original argument. Avoid rebutting a strawman (misrepresentation of the argument). Use concise and impactful language.

Emphasis Practice

Objective: Highlight key points in your arguments for clarity and impact.
Exercise: Key Phrase Drill Write down 2–3 key points of an argument. Practice delivering the argument aloud, pausing before and after the key points. Experiment with changes in tone, pitch, and volume to emphasize critical phrases. Record yourself and review to ensure the emphasis is clear and natural.
Focus Areas: Use strategic pauses. Stress important words without overdramatizing.

Engagement Practice

Objective: Build skills to connect with the audience or judges during a debate.
Exercise: Audience Focus Prepare a short 2-minute argument on any topic (e.g., “Homework should be banned.”). Deliver the speech, making eye contact with different sections of the room (or imaginary audience if practicing solo). Add rhetorical questions or humor to engage listeners. Ask a friend or coach for feedback on your connection with the audience.
Focus Areas: Maintain a conversational tone. Use gestures to draw attention to specific points

Building Analytical Arguments

Objective: Strengthen the logical foundation of your arguments.
Exercise: Why-How Drill Take a motion (e.g., “This House Would Ban Junk Food Advertisements for Children.”). For each argument, answer: Why is this important? How does it work in practice? Create a clear chain of reasoning that ties your claim to its impact.
Focus Areas: Ensure arguments are logical and well-structured. Use examples to clarify abstract points.

Impromptu Thinking

Objective: Improve the ability to think on your feet during debates.
Exercise: 30-Second Prep Pick a random motion (e.g., “This House Believes That Celebrities Should Stay Out of Politics.”). Spend 30 seconds brainstorming 1 argument for and 1 argument against. Deliver a 1-minute speech on either side.
Focus Areas: Prioritize clarity over depth in a short time. Stay calm under pressure.

Active Listening

Objective: Enhance the ability to listen to opponents and identify weaknesses.
Exercise: Argument Breakdown Listen to a recorded debate speech or a friend’s argument. Write down the main points and any assumptions or flaws. Practice responding directly to these points with counterarguments.
Focus Areas: Pay attention to implicit assumptions. Focus on rebutting the argument’s core, not its surface.

Persuasive Storytelling

Objective: Use stories to make arguments more relatable and impactful.
Exercise: Story Integration Take an argument (e.g., “We should invest in renewable energy.”). Find or create a short, compelling story or example (e.g., a community transformed by solar power). Integrate the story into your argument naturally.
Focus Areas: Keep the story brief and relevant. Link the story to the motion explicitly.

Crossfire Practice

Objective: Develop skills for direct questioning and quick responses.
Exercise: Question and Answer Drill Pair up with a partner or coach. One person makes an argument; the other asks rapid-fire questions to challenge it. Switch roles after 2–3 minutes.
Focus Areas: Stay calm under questioning. Respond directly and avoid tangents

Analysis for the PM Speech

The speech begins with fanciful rhetoric – bold statements that carry a clear and decisive value judgement. This is designed to pull in the audience and adjudicators, and ensure their attention is caught by the proposition. The usage of universally unpleasant cues – dictatorship, shackled, contrastrained, chained – serves to turn the audience to the side of proposition. The rationale behind why this works is because he does both – provide imagery to ensure the depth and gravity of the problem is perceived by the listener, and provide markers for the listener to ensure that they can keep track of the content within the speech. This ensures that the listener can relate to the rhetoric being espoused and keep track of the big picture.

The Prime Minister does what all good First Proposition speeches demand – defining the motion, and putting in context the actions being debated. With this, he sets in place parameters for the debate to operate. The idea, then, in opening government is that their case is not contingent on there being a successful revolution – but the discussion that such a revolution is worthy of pursuing. The manner in which this is done, however – is what turns Bo Seo’s speech from good to great – he turns the debate into a battleground, where despite the arguments the other side throws into the ring, the context of the debate itself orients his team for success. At the beginning of his speech he says that a lack of access to help is the same as being trapped, and the question he poses becomes – are people trapped in the status quo? One cannot escape his answer of yes.

Within its argumentation the speech follows through on the work done earlier. It addresses the foremost burden of the debate – the idea of the pursual of a revolution, the justification for the same, and the discussion on why this must exist. He follows a logical chain – people in modern society are trapped within the shackles of the system they live, there is no help coming, and so this must end in revolution. The analysis on private property, and how it is unjustly acquired, and a key feature of the status quo plugs directly into the established chain of thought and conclusion to the overarching goal of the speech.

The last part of the speech solidifies the idea of why people are worse off in the status quo, and why it must change. The trap is inescapable, and living within it is central to the opposition’s world. He quickly establishes that nothing changes in Side Opp – the world remains the same, and the only solution to this must be found outside this world. This limits opp’s ability to show their own side – by the time they come in with solutions, we’re already convinced they cannot exist.

Analysis for the Member of Opposition Speech

This speech relies on two central arguments:

  1. The creation of a new state would diminish opportunities for the Black community.
  2. The process of creating this state would exacerbate racism in the US, ultimately worsening conditions for the Black community.

The speech begins by addressing the reaction to the secessionist movement, emphasizing how it provokes volatile and intense backlash from existing racist rhetoric. This backlash amplifies systemic hostility and undermines the African American cause, resulting in harmful consequences that outweigh any potential benefits of secession.
This setup establishes the strategic foundation of the argument: the reaction to secession is likely to inflict greater harm than any good the proposition envisions. By pivoting the debate towards a counter-principle—focusing on the current obligations owed to the African American community—the speaker reframes the discussion. They argue that the community’s welfare should take precedence over abstract principles, grounding the debate in practical concerns while simultaneously challenging the opposition’s moral framework.
The first argument demonstrates how splitting the African American community through secession disrupts the accumulation of economic and social capital. Over time, the existing power structures, resources, and opportunities available to the community are fragmented, leaving those in the proposed state with diminished access to key economic and socio-political resources. This fragmentation undermines the community’s ability to secure better rights and opportunities, ultimately exacerbating the very issues secession aims to address.
The second argument explores how many Black individuals are deeply rooted in the United States due to their existing lives, relationships, and attachments. This analysis highlights that a significant portion of the community would likely choose to remain in the US rather than relocate to the new state. The result is a smaller, less unified population, reducing the collective influence and momentum necessary for societal progress. This dilution of numbers and power hampers the ability of the remaining community to drive meaningful change.
In conclusion, these two arguments collectively demonstrate that secession would harm the Black community both within the proposed state and in the US. It would restrict access to opportunities, hinder societal advancement, and worsen conditions for those seeking progress and equity.