Making Persuasive Arguments in BP Debate (Part 1)
Did you know that ants leave maps for other ants, so they can find their way to food sources and bring it back to the hive? There are many different paths leading back to the hive, but they’ll all get you there. Similarly, as a debater, you use your arguments to lead the judge to a specific conclusion - that your team should win the debate. You can use many different arguments in a debate to lead the judge toward this path. Therefore, in this article, you’ll learn how to make persuasive arguments in a parliamentary debate by focusing on clear claims, supporting analysis, and impacting.
There are many different ways to structure an argument. Some debaters like using C.R.E.I, which is the claim, reasoning, example, or evidence and impact. Others might prefer C.W.I, which refers to claim, warrant, and impact. You might even hear P.E.E.L, which is point, explanation, example, and link. All of these argument structures serve the same goal – to help you have an organized argument with the essential parts to convince the judge. That's why, as you might have already noticed, there are a lot of similarities between these methods. When it comes to advanced argumentation in parliamentary debate, either World Schools or British Parliamentary, it’s not important what you call your argumentation structure, as long as you effectively include each of the critical parts. Let's examine each part closer.
The first thing all argument structures have in common is that they start with a claim. You may have heard of it as an assertion, point, or statement. The claim should always come first because judges often do not credit arguments that are not properly tagged as it’s difficult to identify them. This is why signposting, and an organized structure is not just a nicety but a necessity. Clear claims should tell the judge exactly what you are trying to prove to persuade them to support your team and to give you the win in the debate. To make your claims clear, you should use proper nouns and not pronouns. Instead of, "they will be more effective," say, "teachers will teach more effectively." As much as possible, try using the specific words from the motion you are debating.
Next, you should refer to the side of the comparative you are focusing on. On the motion, "This House believes that teachers should be paid according to their students' performance," the Government team might argue that teachers will teach effectively with this incentive. The Opposition team might say that teachers teach effectively without this incentive. This will lead to a deadlock unless one of the teams explains why teachers will teach more or less effectively with this incentive, compared to how they teach without any incentive. This should also be reflected in your claim. So, don't just say, "Teachers will teach effectively," or, "Teachers won't teach effectively." Instead, say, "Teachers will be motivated to teach more effectively when their salary is tied to their students' performance."
The guidelines for clear and effective claims are also beneficial to improve your rebuttal. Instead of an unclear rebuttal like "I'm going to rebut their point about effectiveness," specify your rebuttal claim with something like this: "They said that teachers would be motivated to teach more effectively when their salary is tied to students' performance. Let me prove to you why it’s so much more likely that teachers will be so concerned with their livelihood being harmed, that they’ll make classes easier and discipline students less, thus teaching less effectively." Just remember that this is still the claim part of your argument. It should not include reasoning or explanations, though it can allude to the general idea.
Last, since you also want to prove to the judge that your case and your arguments are more probable and more likely to happen than your opponents' arguments, remember to use definitive language, and avoid phrases like might, may, maybe, and some in your claim. These phrases make your claim less persuasive as they inherently mitigate the scope and magnitude of the impacts you’re trying to prove.
The purpose of having clear claims is twofold: it helps judges to credit your arguments correctly, and it also holds you accountable. If you say your argument is about effectiveness, you will likely ramble about effectiveness for three minutes. Suppose you specifically claim that teachers will be more motivated and teach more effectively. In that case, you will be likelier to stay on track and prove with your reasoning and explanations why it's true.
Now that you know every good argument should start with a clear claim, strategies to make effective clear claims, and ways to improve your rebuttal with this same guideline, you’re ready to move on to your analysis. In the second part of this article, you’ll do precisely that.
Want to put your new persuasive skills to the test? Join LearningLeaders Debate Academy today to learn alongside debaters across Asia!
