Summary
Highlights
The session welcomes participants to advanced training, made accessible online due to COVID-19. Jacqueline introduces herself as an EODC breaking judge and speaker with competitive debating experience, now a science correspondent. Lucy, an ESL finalist and open PDQ finalist at the Euros, is studying a master's in sociology. They aim to share their fundamental skills and knowledge in debating over the next few weeks.
All sessions will be held on Zoom on Mondays at 6 PM. A Discord server will provide event updates, important links, resources, and sign-up forms for post-workshop debates. Participants are expected to have a foundational understanding of BP debating and to be serious about improving their competitive debating skills. Private feedback trackers are available for opting into.
The schedule includes weekly topics: Week 1 - Introduction & Self-Improvement; Week 2 - Structuring Arguments; and subsequent weeks covering various advanced debating skills. Attendees are encouraged to join sessions relevant to their perceived weaknesses. Questions are welcome at any time.
Debating progress is rarely linear, often involving plateaus followed by rapid improvement. Successful debaters identify specific weaknesses during plateaus and consciously work on them. The session will cover how to identify what you're bad at and techniques to improve, starting with self-reflection.
After each debate, reflect on underperformance. Ask yourself: 'What is the exact time when you realize you are going to be taking the fourth or third?' If it's right after the motion, it might be a content gap; if after your speech, it could be analytic skills; if after hearing other teams' rebuttals, it's often prep time issues; if only when the judge says it, it's a problem with following the debate or self-judging. This helps pinpoint specific areas for improvement.
Tracking performance quantitatively is highly recommended. A tracking spreadsheet (template provided) allows debaters to input speak scores from competitions. This helps visualize progress and identify specific areas of weakness, such as performance in certain motion types (e.g., IR vs. feminism) or speaker positions (e.g., DPM vs. whip speeches). It also helps debaters recognize when they are plateauing.
Always seek judge feedback, even if you disagree with the outcome. Judges can offer critical insights that lead to significant improvements. Ask concrete questions, such as 'What case should I run?' or 'Do you think my case was strategically sound?' Asking 'What was the worst thing I did in this round?' can encourage more straightforward feedback. Critical feedback often comes unexpectedly, so consistently seeking it is key.
Utilize prep time exercises by thinking about motions with unlimited time to develop deep analysis, improving quick thinking. Alternatively, practice with very limited or no notes to sharpen rapid case formulation. Conduct PM/ELO speeches with a partner, where one delivers a PM speech and the other an ELO. This helps identify missed arguments and experiment with new styles. Recording and listening back to speeches is crucial for self-correction and understanding how clearly you speak.
Sparring frequently, especially with diverse debaters online, helps identify and correct bad habits from your circuit and learn new strategies from international debaters. Recommended spar groups include 'Claudia's Spar Group' and 'North American Spar Groups'. For case filing, move beyond statistics and historical facts to understand the 'why' behind actors' motivations and restrictions (e.g., why China pursues certain projects). Focus on critical analysis from op-eds, feature pieces, and debate videos. Don't be afraid to 'steal' cases, styles, and structures from others as a learning tool.