- The Forensic Funnel
- Posts
- Top 5 Worst Debate Mistakes You're Making
Debate is an art form built on logic, rhetoric, strategic presentation of ideas and truth-seeking. Specific formats of debate each have their unique rules and emphases, but certain pitfalls are common across all high school and collegiate debate circuits. Recognizing these mistakes (and trust me, you want to notice them fast) is the first step toward mastering the craft.
Table of Contents
1. Debating in a Vacuum (Lack of Clash)
The Mistake: Many debaters treat their speeches like isolated monologues, failing to engage directly with their opponents' arguments. Instead of adapting their responses, they rehash pre-prepared content (typically stock cards) or restate their own case as an argument against their opponents.
Why It Hurts: Debate is fundamentally adversarial—judges reward clash. A speech that doesn't clash with the opposition's key claims is just disconnected or evasive, EVEN if it is eloquent.
How to Fix It: Train yourself to identify your opponent’s central warrants and impact calculus. A single, well-targeted rebuttal to a critical point is more persuasive than a scattershot response. Listen actively and adapt your arguments.
2. Over-Reliance on Speed (Spreading)
The Mistake: Particularly in competitive circuits like national circuits, debaters lean on rapid delivery ("spreading") and technical jargon to overwhelm.
Why It Hurts: Speed and vocabulary can show expertise in some cases, but they come at the expense of clarity. Speed and persuasiveness have an inverse relationship, believe it or not. You have to find the sweet spot. Judges, especially lay judges or those from other debate formats, will miss key arguments or dismiss a case as inaccessible. (Yes, this applies even if you add them to an email chain; your argument loses a lot of argumentative/rhetorical value when it’s simply read on paper.)
How to Fix It: Prioritize clarity. Practice concise phrasing and slow down for critical points. You don’t have to go too slow because you want to make as many arguments as you can coherently, but don’t forget that the number of arguments you have is not as big of a win condition compared to your persuasiveness. Good debating isn’t shown by how fast you speak but by how well your arguments land.
3. Dropped Arguments and Mishandled Extensions
The Mistake: Specifically for novices, when in round, they often forget to extend crucial arguments into later speeches or fail to properly respond to points that were dropped by the other side.
Why It Hurts: Dropped arguments are powerful, but only if you capitalize on them. Likewise, letting your key arguments fade out in later speeches tells the judge you don’t consider them important, and most judges won’t do your work for you and it won’t be considered in the ballot.
How to Fix It: Use prep time to track the flow rigorously. When it comes to dropped arguments and possible extensions, it all comes down to how well you are flowing the round. Ask: What arguments have gone unresponded to? Which of our arguments are winning the round, and how can I extend them with impact comparison and final weighing? Make these choices explicit for the judge.
4. Lack of Impact Framing and Comparative Weighing
The Mistake: Many debaters present strong arguments but fail to answer the ultimate question: Why does this argument matter more than the opponent’s?
Why It Hurts: Without impact calculus—magnitude, timeframe, probability—judges are left to weigh the round themselves, which weakens your strategic control, and you want to be as in control of the round as possible.
How to Fix It: Don’t just assert that something is important. Prove it’s the most important. Use phrases like “Even if…” to perform comparative weighing. Say things like, “Even if they win X, our argument outweighs it because it affects more people and occurs sooner.” You have to force the judge to see the round through your lens.
5. Not Grouping
The Mistake: Especially at higher levels, debaters can become so focused on winning the individual arguments of the round but don’t zoom out and look at the big picture. In reality, most arguments can be grouped together.
Why It Hurts: You’re wasting valuable time in the round when you are not grouping arguments together and being practical with how you respond to arguments. It also lets your opponent exercise more control with each individual argument
How to Fix It: Group arguments of similar content (consequentialism, fiat, impact claims, etc) and explain why they are weak as a group. This saves you time and gives you stronger ways to take your opponent’s arguments off the flow
Conclusion:
The best debaters aren’t those who never make mistakes, but they’re those who recognize these patterns, learn from them, and grow. By avoiding these five common errors, you’ll become not only a better competitor but a better thinker, communicator, and advocate.
Happy Debating,
The Forensic Funnel Team
Reply