TSR DECISIONS DROP IN Q and A NOW OPEN - GET FREE ADVICE HERE >>

How do you convincingly argue terrible points?

Hi,

I have an upcoming debate competition where our team's side of the motion is terrible. I can't put the actual motion here, but think something ridiculous like 'domestic abuse shouldn't be a crime' or 'murder shouldn't be a crime', etc.

I really do enjoy debating, but have never done something like this before. How do you persuade an audience when the point you are arguing is wholly against common sense? Usually, I do a lot of research to find the grey areas in the debate and capitalise on those grey areas - but this doesn't really have any of those. In arguments, I utilise case studies, but understandably, everything on the internet is against our side on this motion.

I am pretty lost, and so far have just been overloading on jargon, outdated data and dancing around semantics in my arguments. Didn't know where to put this - hoped the Law forum might be able to offer advice.

Reply 1

Stiffy Byng

It is almost impossible to argue a truly terrible point persuasively. Perhaps the most you could do is try to be funny. Could you try to pick holes in the opposing position even if you have no positive points for your side of the debate?

For example, if your case was that murder should not be unlawful (I know that's just an example), you could perhaps attack the ethical premise that killing another human is bad, or you could make a big deal about the idea that deliberate killing in a lawful act of war is accepted by most societies.

Could you, at least, argue that the other side hasn't proven its case, even if you don't have a plausible counter argument?

Reply 2

nwar

Study Forum Helper

Original post by Stiffy Byng

It is almost impossible to argue a truly terrible point persuasively. Perhaps the most you could do is try to be funny. Could you try to pick holes in the opposing position even if you have no positive points for your side of the debate?
For example, if your case was that murder should not be unlawful (I know that's just an example), you could perhaps attack the ethical premise that killing another human is bad, or you could make a big deal about the idea that deliberate killing in a lawful act of war is accepted by most societies.
Could you, at least, argue that the other side hasn't proven its case, even if you don't have a plausible counter argument?

Ooh these are excellent, thanks! I hadn't considered the last point especially. I think I definitely can argue that the opposition hasn't proven their points/pick holes in their arguments because rebuttal is something I really enjoy doing. Arguing from a very philosophical POV is also great. I don't think humour will work as I'm not quite sure if the judges are capable of feeling any positive emotions. Thank you!