Strategies:
Sample debates
Excerpted
from: Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques,
by
George McCoy Musgrave. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1957, p. 78-81)
When
the Witness Doesn't Reply
Setting a Trap for the Questioner
Turning
the Tables
When the Witness Doesn't Reply
If
the witness says that he doesn't know the answer to the question, or if he just
sits and doesn't say anything, the questioner has an opportunity to poke a little
gentle fun. Here is one way:
Q. Mr. Frank, do you feel that the cost of
this plan is important?
A. (Silence)
Q. Since Mr. Frank is unable to answer
this question, we will go on to one much easier.
Another
tack by which the same thing can be accomplished is this:
Q. Mr. Joessel,
would you recommend that we continue to increase our storage facilities for farm
surpluses?
A. (Silence)
Q. Has your team studied the question thoroughly
enough to have an opinion, Mr. Joessel?
A. Well, yes, we have, but I think
my partner should answer that question in his next speech.
Q. Are we to understand
that your partner is informed on this phase of the problem but you are not?
Setting
a Trap for the Questioner
The
astute witness can set a trap for the questioner. One effective way is to hold
back evidence until just the right moment. Brooks Quimby gives this example:
Q.
Do you claim that advertising reduces the unit cost of production?
A. Yes.
Q.
Since this must be generally true to be significant, can you give proof of your
statement?
A. Arrow collars are an example.
Q. But you gave that one example
already; have you any additional evidence to show that such an effect is general?
A.
Certainly. Here is a book by Professor Starch of Harvard University, a well-known
authority on advertising. On page 392 he has a long list of such cases. I shall
be glad to read them to you. (Reads)
Q. All right, that is enough. Now –
A.
I have a lot more if you want them.
Sometimes
the questioner can turn the tables, showing that the proposed solutions aggravates
the very problem it is supposed to solve. Needless to say, thorough analysis of
the topic is needed before this can be done successfully. The following illustration
is from a debate on the topic, "Resolved, that the federal government should
adopt a permanent program of wage and price control."
Q. Miss Smith,
what is the purpose of price controls?
A. To keep prices down, of course.
Q.
What made them high?
A. Lots of money in people's hand, a great demand, and
a limited supply of goods.
Q. All right, let's consider those points. Are controls
intended to decrease the amount of money in people's hands?
A. No.
Q. Or
to reduce demand?
A. No.
Q. Or are they intended to increase the supply
of goods?
A. No. Controls control.
Q. That is, they don't deal with the
causes of the situation at all, do they? They simply force buyers and sellers
to accept prices lower than those prevailing on the free market?
A. Yes.
Q.
All right, now, let's take an example to see what happens. If you were thinking
about buying a car, but weren't sure whether you wanted to or not, would the price
help you make your decision?
A. Of course.
Q. That is, if you found a second-hand
Plymouth you liked for $500, you might decide to buy it; but if the same car were
$1,000, you might decide to walk or ride the bus?
A. Yes, that's quite true.
Q.
So the demand for goods is greater when they are low priced?
A. Certainly.
Q.
Then price controls, by keeping prices fictitiously low and thus increasing demand,
aggravate the very problem they are suppose to solve?
A. Well, I don't know
if that would be true in every situation.
Q. But wouldn't it be true in the
automobile situation?
A. Yes.
Q. Very good. Now let's consider a little
different aspect of the problem. Miss Smith, why do people work?
A. There are
lots of reasons, but one of the most important is to make money.
Q. Most people
do not work just for their health?
A. They certainly do not.
Q. They work
to make money?
A. Yes.
Q. And if they find they aren't making much money,
they sometimes look for something else to do?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you feel that
way too?
A. Surely. Money isn't everything, but it's certainly important.
Q.
If you were a dressmaker, and the government set a price for your dresses that
was below your cost, what would you do?
A. I'd quit making dresses.
Q.
Unless you reluctantly accepted illegal prices for those dresses, forced upon
you by women who disregarded the law?
A. Yes.
Q. Suppose the government
let you make a little profit, but not as much as you could make as a secretary?
A. I'd be tempted to be a secretary.
Q. If you stopped making dresses,
would there be more or fewer dresses on the market?
A. Fewer, of course.
Q.
Can we agree, then, that price controls tend to reduce the supply of goods and
therefore aggravate the very problem they are supposed to solve?
A. (Silence)
Q.
All right, Miss Smith, I won't press for an answer. I realize it could be embarrassing.
Miss Smith, are you familiar with the meat-packing industry?
A. In a general
way.
Q. Is it true that just about every part of the animal is put to some
use, even the hair and the blood?
A. Yes, so I've heard.
Q. Is it true that
when a pig is slaughtered, there are literally hundreds of commercial transactions
before the pork chop reaches your grocery store and the hide reaches your glove
shop?
A. I wouldn't be surprised.
Q. Would you agree then, Miss Smith, that
there would be quite a number of points at which prices would need to be fixed
and surveillance maintained?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. When we were discussing the
dressmaking situation a few moments ago, I think we agreed that both buyer and
seller might be tempted to disregard the law?
A. Yes.
Q. So enforcement
agents will be necessary?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be wrong to estimate that
the number of government agents needed for rigid enforcement would come
to at least a tenth of our population?
A. Well, that estimate sounds high.
Q.
And, judging from some of the things that have come to light in FHA, the Internal
Revenue Service, and other places, would you agree that someone is needed to watch
the enforcement agents?
A. Yes, to some extent.
Q. Would the withdrawal
of all these men from productive work increase or decrease the supply of good?
A.
Well, it would tend to decrease production somewhat.
Q. So here again, price
controls aggravate the very problem they are supposed to solve? This time by diverting
men from productive work to non-productive government employment?
A. Perhaps
to a limited extent.
Q. Can we agree, then, that price controls make the problem
worse in three ways? First, they increase demand by keeping prices fictitiously
low. Second, they decrease supply by reducing the profit incentive and encouraging
people to go into other more profitable activities. Third, they further reduce
supplies of goods by diverting people from productive work to nonproductive police
work. Can we agree on those conclusions?
A. (Silence)
Q. Thanks. That's
all. No more questions.