Debate like a designer: why you should simplify your speeches

In design, there’s a saying that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. This is why Apple’s products are all freed of as much clutter as possible, and why they’re so easy to navigate.

Having done freelance graphic design for a while, I brought this mindset to debate. I think the same principle applies. The most dangerous speeches are the ones that are easiest to digest. They pull judges in, make them persuaded, and stay memorable until the end of the debate.

Unfortunately, for EFL speakers like me, we can be quite unconfident about our linguistic abilities. It’s easy to think, “If I try to explain it in one sentence, I might not come up with the best words, so I’m going to explain this analysis in two sentences. It’s okay if it’s a bit repetitive, I’ll talk fast and make sure the judge gets my point.”

But I think that’s not be the right way to go about it. You might be spending time trying to explain one thing when you could use it to explain more things. Or, you might sound uncertain or become unable to deliver your points with good emphasis.

Before I explain how you can learn this skill, I’m going to make a disclaimer that this is a personal style preference and me explaining why I have this preference. So you might not like every tip I’ll be providing here, and that’s fine! What I hope is for you to find at least part of this article reasonable and helpful to implement in your speech.

We’re going to talk about note taking a lot, so I’ll be using a Google Doc of mine as a reference.

Have a clear structure

My arguments or clashes are always divided into questions that are completed with answers. Why is this harm likely? How do you avoid it on our side? Why is it important? Each of these is answered with a few layers of analysis, but they all seek to prove the argument in a linear way.

Use an intuitive chain of logic. Usually, you want to prove some context first, then likelihood, then importance. This is to make sure they understand the context, then believe the argument, before you go to all the implications of that.

Make your notes easy to read, too. Messy notes make messy speeches. My notes would usually look almost like a proposal. It’s so that I make smooth transitions during my speech and so my teammates can navigate through it quickly if they need to.

Have as few layers as possible

Saying that you have five reasons to support your argument might sound cool, especially when it sounds like you have more substance than your opponent.

But you shouldn’t aim to generate just layers. You should aim to generate various supporting reasons, so that if some are taken down, the others still stand.

That means you want each to be well-explained. Because otherwise, they don’t stand strong. If you’ve got seven layers but they’re all one liners, they can just be dismissed for a lack of explanation.

So make sure your layers are actually different things. It’s quite hard to find a formula to determine this, but if you’re making likelihood layers, just make sure there are actually multiple sources of that likelihood. If you’re making impact layers, make sure they’re actually impacts for different areas of benefits/harms, different actors, or different contexts.

If you want to have a lot of points, don’t have too much just to prove the same thing. 3 points of likelihood is ideal, 5 points of likelihood is probably the maximum, any more than that is definitely an overkill.

Engaging in different scenarios is a better point of expansion. For example, you can answer the worst case on your side, analyse impacts for multiple stakeholders, etc.

Simple numbering

Don’t have too many different types of numbering!

Don’t say “firstly, one, a, b, c, two…”—it’s difficult to keep track of where each point starts and finishes. Not only does this make you easily overwhelmed, it also makes it harder for judges to note down your speech.

I strictly use a maximum of one indent in my notes to make sure that the only numbering judges will hear from me is “first, second, third” or “one, two, three”. I think the maximum is two, so “first, a, b, c, second, …” If you’re making any more than that, for goodness’ sake, that’s a thesis, not a debate speech.

Only separate points if they are separate points of likelihood or impact. If they’re a linear story going on, just let it have that linear flow and tell the story naturally. Don’t number it!

How it looks like in your notes is up to you, but make sure that you control what you say to the judges.

Title your subpoints

When making multiple layers of analysis, make helpful titles for your judge so they can get your point quickly! Make it so that all they have to do is write down these few words to summarise what you’re trying to say.

If your judge can easily point to your material, they’ll track it better and find it easy to defend your case during the deliberation. This simple hack does wonders!

Simple sentences

Your essay writing assignments might make you develop a habit to use compound sentences. In debate, however, it’s usually better to use simple sentences. Make your speech sound conversational and easy to absorb at one go, because unlike written materials, it can’t be rewound.

So for example (tiny adjustment on a couple sentences I wrote in the Doc) it’s better to say

On our side, the interests of different countries are represented fairly in the international body. Now they actually have jurisdiction there. This means they can deliberate and find a solution for the environmental crisis.

than to say

On our side, as a result of the jurisdiction these countries now have, the interests of different countries will be fairly represented in the international body, meaning that they can can deliberate and find a solution for the environmental crisis.

This is not to be confused with using sophisticated words, i.e. powerful adjectives and jargons, to enhance persuasion! It also doesn’t mean you should turn step-by-step analyses into assertions. Be simple, but don’t be simplistic.

Arrange your points

When arranging the order of my explanations, I usually have a fixed method of prioritisation.

For arguments, start from the most intuitive points to the least intuitive points. You should make the judge believe you’re sensible first, and then they’ll start to believe you when you explain more complex and unintuitive concepts.

For responses, start from the most uncharitable response to the most charitable response. You don’t want to give your opponent their best case right away, because that’ll make the judge believe that’s what’s going to happen most of the time.

You might have to think of different prioritisation methods sometimes though. Is it better to start with smaller impacts or bigger impacts? I don’t know, it probably depends on the debate. Whatever you choose, make sure that there’s a prioritisation method that you use, which scales up or down.

What this means for you

There are many benefits to having simple speeches. For one, you can focus on manner and delivery more. You can slow down and speed up at will for emphasis, because there’s not too little and not too much material you have in your speech. You don’t even have to worry about the you’ll spend answering POIs, because you’ll definitely have room for that.

This also ensures your judge writes down everything. When you use this style, judges in all levels will be able to score you high, because even those whose note-taking are not as good will still understand your points easily.

Sometimes less is more. Feel free to experiment with this style and leave comments or send me messages about how it goes!