Help! I have to be in a debate!

This clip shows PM Kevin Rudd trouncing his opposition leader Tony Abbott in a debate last May. K Rudd has now been ousted as Prime Minister but we don't know yet if Mr Abbott will be the winner. The commentary provides interesting insights into what works with an audience (and what doesn't). Given their recent role reversals, debaters everywhere might do well to watch and take notes.

In Part 1 of this post about debating and it's rising popularity as a format, I went through the basic game plan. Now we're onto the execution stage.

Process

Apart from Prime Ministers' and Presidential debates, debating is a team activity. The issues that apply to preparing group presentations are in play.

Decide who speaks first. That person should put forward the thesis or key message and expand on one or two of the most important ideas. The second and third speakers (if you have that many) must argue against the opposition, make a few more points and conclude your case.

Preparing will make a huge difference (duh). Talk to each other in advance and make the debate a story that you ‘co-present’. It has to make sense between you, i.e it's a double act, or a triple act - not discrete unconnected presentations. They must link. This is not usually done well in public debates so if you can pull it off it will work well.

Allow time to prepare properly. People usually underestimate how long it takes to figure out what to say and to co-ordinate the presentation with your team mates.


Being 'on'

In a previous post I've provided a rundown on handling lights, mikes and lecterns. Acting with aplomb as you step up and speak will work wonders with your audience. Remember to eyeball them, and to SMILE. Don't talk to your opponents (you're never going to convince them). Keep all your magnetism for the audience.

DO listen to the opposition - it's much more amusing to really get some crossfire going but it means throwing away the script and thinking on your feet.

Keep to time, it is really important.

Remember there will be tweeting and sms-ing going on around you. It's spooky because you can't know what they're saying, but you are the subject. There are many useful articles in the blogoshpere about handling this, but at least one action you can take to keep a feeling of inclusion and shared experience alive, is to make some reference to it. Like a teacher who knows there are notes being passed in class but doesn't know who is doing it, say something about the e-conversation, that way at least they'll know you understand them.

And finally - on all but the most sombre topics - leave 'em laughing.

How to make a persuasive speech

I've talked in a previous post about the terrible tendency to TMI (too much information) which afflicts many speakers. Each new workshop I do reminds me how prevalent this tendency is. Just about all speakers want to be able to speak in a way that leads people to change their minds and hearts, but what they come out with is facts facts and more facts.

Information reveals and clarifies options. Persuasion is about choosing among options. To be persuasive you have to convince and influence people – shape their idea of what they need and how you can give it to them.

There is a simple, widely used sequence of steps for persuading developed by John Monroe in the 1930s. Called ‘Monroe's Motivated Sequence ’ the steps are to be found in almost all books and courses about persuasion and the art of selling – whether it’s ‘selling’ ideas, products, policies or politics.

These five elements need to be included in a persuasive speech.

1. Attention-getter
Attention-grabbing arouses interest. In an oral presentation or conversation you can use a story, example, statistic, quotations, etc.

2. State the need – generate awareness
Show that a problem exists, that it is significant, and that it won't go away by itself. You need to demonstrate the harm that is occurring. Here is where facts - used judiciously - are important. Use statistics, examples, etc. Convince your audience that there is a need for action to be taken.

3. Satisfaction – provide a solution
Provide specific and viable solutions that they can implement. Show how your solution solves their problem. Promise them something. Match them as closely as possible to the harms you identified earlier. Try to preempt any objections before they are raised. Make it detailed and specific.

4. Visualize the change – see the benefits
Explain what will happen if your solution is implemented. Review the harm to show the consequences if it does not take place. This gives a sense of urgency. You need them to see that they can’t get along without your product or service. Be detailed. Use examples and scenarios. Let them see themselves in the new dimension.

5. Action – what they should do
You now need to prompt the person into action, implementing the solution that you both now know is the right thing to do. Tell them what action they can take personally to solve the problem. Show how. It needs to be relevant, immediate and doable.

Try it - it may not feel comfortable at first, but it's the way to build support for your cause.

Help! I have to be in a debate!

Part 1

Since JFK and Nixon got it started, TV debates are a political reality. They’re now featuring more and more in public and corporate life.

I’m a dedicated believer in debating as a life skill, and I am thrilled to see it happening so much, but if you’re over 35 (especially if you’re female) you may have shunned school debating in favour of sport. When your CEO, or the head of your industry association asks you to debate at the corporate retreat, or the next big conference, it might be your first time. So what are you going to do? This cry for help is a message I’ve received a few times lately.

Here is the first of two posts to get you started.

How the game is played

Just settle in and bear with me - it's not as complex as it sounds. It's basically a series of speeches where the Pro alternates with the Con.

The 1st speaker for the affirmative (sometimes called the government) opens with a speech. They are followed by the 1st negative (opposition), who is in turn rebutted by 2nd affirmative who is rebutted by 2nd negative, the 3rd speakers (if there are any) repeat this process and the final speaker summarises the debate overall.

Each speaker (except 1st Affirmative) should spend about one third of the speech refuting the person who spoke before them. The rest of the time is for putting forward your own case.


Once you know how debating works, my advice is to think about three things: content, process and being 'on'.

Content: Unless you’re a political candidate, in a public debate you are usually meant to be amusing yet also to make a point. So first figure out your main thesis or key message. Select themes on the basis of what your audience will be interested in.

Depending on time you can make up to three points - not more. People can't retain much – a few points will be plenty. The extent to which you elaborate on each point is at your discretion – you can be brief or go in-depth depending on whether you have ten minutes to fill or two.

Like any speech you need some good facts and information, and a conviction or point of view. It may sound obvious but you need to have something to say.

You need an arresting opening. Try telling them something they don't know - statistics and 'hey martha!' style tidbits are very impressive and will shock people into paying attention.

Use ‘PRE’ as a structure, that’s Point Reason Example. You make a point, give some reasons for it and discuss it, then exemplify it. Examples will really tell the story. People love them, so have plenty.

To attack your opposition takes skill - you have to listen and think on your feet. However, usually you can predict at least some of what they will say, so ‘pre-cook’ your arguments ahead of time and keep them up your sleeve, ready if needed.

Open your speech with a summary of what the previous speaker said but from an angle that shows they are wrong. Point our the flaws and the fallacies, and the awful consequences of what they want to do. The extent to which you are witty, or ridicule or make fun of them is entirely up to you, depending on the nature of the occasion.


In my next post I'll talk about how to get yourself and your team mates organised, and how to handle yourself up front or on stage.

Men are from Earth Woman are from Earth (deal with it)

Recently Virginia Trioli on ABC radio interviewed two cartoonists about the defining characteristics of Julia Gillard as PM. She wanted to know what her quirks are, which bits of her they intend to pick on. In the catalogue of possibilities Trioli named Gillard‘s ‘metronomic’ spoken delivery.

I think she was talking about the evenness of Gillard’s pitch and pace. But 'metronomic'? As in mechanical, inflexible, automatic? That’s not fair. And why raise it anyway? Why is it even an issue? Kristina Keneally, the NSW Premier, gets similar treatment. ‘They’re doing a good job with her’ people say sagely. I try to believe they might have said the same thing about Nathan Rees or Morris Iemma, but I just can’t. We never saw Kevin Rudd condemned for monotony of tone and thought, Tony Abbot’s piercing nasal twang is not newsworthy, and Malcolm Turnbull’s rich gift for oratory was rarely mentioned.

The truth? Gillard and Keneally’s voices are newsworthy because they’re female.

An ancient and enduring demarcation gave women their voice in the domestic sphere, while men had it in public. It's still shaping expectation about the roles we’ve all played for generations.

A recent article in the Washington Post wonders if Obama is a ‘female’ president.

‘We've come a long way gender-wise. Not so long ago, women would be censured for speaking or writing in public. But cultural expectations are stickier and sludgier than oil. Our enlightened human selves may want to eliminate gender norms, but our lizard brains have a different agenda.
Women, inarguably, still are punished for failing to adhere to gender norms by acting "too masculine" or "not feminine enough." In her fascinating study about "Hating Hillary," Karlyn Kohrs Campbell details the ways our former first lady was chastised for the sin of talking like a lawyer and, by extension, "like a man." ‘

Disconcertingly it’s justified these days by a view that women and men have different communication styles. Put simply, women supposedly talk to connect, men to establish their status. Women talk to strengthen bonds. Men to assert their independence.

These traits are used to explain the glass ceiling. They’re said to make it more difficult for women to succeed at work. They are used as proof of female unsuitability for power. We are less likely to speak out, and therefore easier to ignore. More likely to be modest, and therefore not get promoted, more likely avoid confrontation, and therefore not able to do the tough stuff. In Australia’s Federal Parliament, women MPs make up a third of the numbers but ask far fewer questions than men. In the British parliament, women call out and interrupt less frequently than men.

Some linguists have research that supports the idea that women’s language is distinct but I’m more persuaded by the ones who don’t. I think it’s as believable as Men being from Mars and women from Venus. It feels intuitively correct – because it’s playing to a stereotype we all recognise.

Deborah Cameron at Oxford says flatly it’s a myth – when there are differences they are statistically insignificant, and she cites studies to prove it depends on who you’re studying and what the context is. That’s the key. Female MPs don’t ask questions because the party whips don’t set them up for it. They don’t call out because (as women in male dominated industries like IT and engineering know), the men in the place can make you feel pretty unwelcome. You don’t want to stick your head up for it to be shot off.

Having the domestic sphere under our control, is it so surprising that girls and women learned to value connection, defuse conflict, and to create bonds through listening, empathy, interest and concern? Isn’t that sort of understanding you want at home? And doesn’t it make sense for their male partners go out into the dangerous world of breadwinning, profit making and governing, armed with combative and selfserving survival-speak ? All each gender did was develop a communication style that worked for the situation we’re in. Men are from earth and women are from earth. Deal with it .

Ingrained behaviours and beliefs are not overturned in an instant. Female heads of state are still rare. All Gillard and Keneally really have to do is the job. Their communication style should be judged only by how well it suits their office.

Here’s hoping.

Special Occasion Speaking

This week I’ve attended three personally significant events. The funeral of an old friend, and two coming of age parties - one in my family, and one for an organisation I'm involved with that's enriched thousands of lives through music. Needless to say, the speeches were central to both. The eulogies and the congratulations speeches I heard this week were wonderful. We heard things we didn't know, and got to share and remember some things we all knew. They were heart warming, illuminating, inspiring. The people who gave them had worked hard to make them so.

Whether casual or formal, speeches are pat of most ceremonies and rituals. These occasions mark a change in someone’s life, a celebration, or the beginning or end of something.

A ceremonial speech really is a big moment for a speaker. You can make (or break) the event. A memorable speaker will be the highlight of a special occasion whether it’s a happy or a sad one.

If you find yourself having to deliver a eulogy, or propose a toast or make valedictory remarks, make sure your speech emphasises the identities and values that unite the people in your audience. They want to feel they are part of one group. Your speech is a way of saying ‘we all belong to this community/group/family/profession and there are things that we share’.

The normal rules apply: work out what you want your audience to take away from your speech at the end. With one clear message in mind, you can then develop some points to lead you there. Memories of shared experiences, or your own reflections on the occasion are good material to use.

Your speech should include the different interests and viewpoints of people in the audience. Say something about what the person or the occasion means to you, but also look at what others will be feeling. What would a friend, family member or colleague, want to hear? An 18th birthday could be spoiled for the parents and grandparents if the speech was only from a young person’s point of view. If you’re speaking about your sister, make sure you say something about her in her other roles - as a school friend or daughter. If it’s your grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary you need to mention their old friends as well as family of all generations. A graduation speech should be relevant for the students, their parents, families and teachers. A eulogy needs to take account of the whole life of the person you are mourning. You will need to research these perspectives, and speak to others as part of your preparation.

You will certainly need personal anecdotes or stories. You are expected to be entertaining on these occasions, but take care - humour needs to be carefully crafted and well presented. Your jokes must be kindly. It is not the time for payback, or in-jokes, or reminiscences about ‘socially unacceptable’ experiences. Only joke about things that everyone in the room will understand. ‘No embarrassment, no surprises’ is a good rule for special occasion speeches.

Depending on the occasion you may be on a stage or at a microphone on the floor. Often the audience at a dinner or party will be at tables all around you, and you need to be specially careful to include everyone with your eyes as you speak. You musn’t speak with your back to anyone, so if the organisers haven’t thought of this, make sure you take a speaking position that gives you command over the whole room.

If your speech requires you to propose a toast, invite everyone to ‘charge their glasses’ and stand up. Raise your glass as you say a single sentence: “good luck” or “long life” or whatever suits the occasion. Allow the audience to repeat it, then everyone resumes their seats and you sit down too.

A great day for rhetoric

I don’t normally use this blog for opinion, but whatever your politics, the new Prime Minister should improve the rhetoric in Australia’s public life.

The tone of any enterprise comes from the top, and good government needs good language. Why? Because good expression takes clear thinking. If you are clear about what you say you must know what you’re doing. Speak up, speak well and people will follow you. The reverse is also true - don't speak well and somebody else may get your job.

The former PM's speaking record began to go south on Day 0, with his acceptance speech. As David Marr puts it – he claimed his victory and killed the party. Supporters wanted a rallying call, something to get behind. ‘Great days! Dawn of a new era!’ or at least Meryl-Streep-gets-an-Oscar... ‘Thank you thank you thank you!’ They were desperate to exult, but the joy just never came.

That night was prophetic. With Kevin Rudd there never would be a speech that sang, never a speech that even really held our attention. He spoke with no feeling. Never mind his policies, it was Kevin Rudd’s lecturing, his insipidity, his carefulness, the monotony of his voice and immobility of his expression that were the real turnoff. As a speaker, he was dull.

Rudd’s best effort was the apology to the stolen generations, and ironically, the speech he made announcing that he’d been ‘asked’ to hold a leadership ballot. On both occasions we sensed emotion. He was sorry, he was angry. We could relate.

Aristotle named 'Ethos, Pathos and Logos' as the three pillars of public speaking.
Modernize them and you have ‘credibility, connection and content’. In public life you need all three.

Kevin Rudd was short on ethos (credibility) because he lacked pathos (connection). As PM his credibility should have been assured, but his connection to us was false and this undermined him. Think of the pseudo-ocker sauce bottle, the ‘we’ve got to zip!’ exit line.…These remarks were inauthentic. They made us cringe. Rudd may have been long on content (logos) but that couldn’t save him because he didn’t rate well on the other two scales.

Contrast Rudd with Julia Gillard. Even in this honeymoon period her speechmaking has caused comment, not because of what she says but because of the voice she says it in. Her timbre is low and resonant, her pace is measured, her demeanour collected. It’s her accent some people are commenting on. True, it is not an accent we hear much in public life. True, her pronunciation of some vowels is pure Strine. But an accent is no indicator of the calibre of a person. It won’t undermine her, because Prime Minister Gillard is being herself.

Gillard is clear about what she stands for (ethos). Her ability to connect appears natural (pathos). People feel a real presence, she’s authentic. Aristotle said people are more likely to do what we want if they are well disposed towards us. Gillard’s Ethos and Pathos are a great head start for a public figure.

The 7.30 Report’s Kerry O’Brien had been challenging in his first night interview with her. He signed off saying ‘An historic day’, and she countered with ‘A great day for redheads’. He cracked up. It was funny because he has red hair too, deft because it deflected both the gender and the knife-in-the-back issue (implicit in his compliment), and smart because it showed she’s not afraid to have fun. In Aristotle’s terms she’d positioned herself perfectly. Everybody was feeling well disposed toward her.

For more on Aristotle see sixminutes.dlugan.com/ethos-pathos-logos/

Read a discussion of why language matters in government.

Watch Kerry laugh his red head off.

Strength training for Speakers.

Five steps to starting (or restarting) your speaking career

Like playing the piano or maintaining your golf handicap, it’s regular practice that keeps your speaking and presentation skills sharp. If you’re starting out, or you’ve had a break and you want to get back to it, here are a few steps to help you get going.

1. Play it safe. You need to gain confidence and get used to the self-exposure of presenting. At first, speak on occasions where the consequences of your talk are not vital to your career, your relationships, or your ego.

2. Keep it short. Begin with a ‘talkette’ or ‘mini-prez’. Maybe there’s a family event where a few words and a toast are needed. You could make an announcement or deliver a report at a team meeting. Or why not be a functionary? Offer to take the chair at a meeting, introduce a guest, or lead the Q&A at a conference.

3. Set specific goals. Any opportunity to speak is a chance to develop your skills. So make a plan. For example: ‘Today I will make a comment which shows I know my audience’s interests’, ‘ At this meeting I will make eye contact with five people‘, and - most important - ‘I will prepare my points in advance’. I tell my clients that one point is powerful, two create contrast, three give a feeling of well-rounded completeness.

When you’re ready for the real thing:

4. Rehearse in front of an audience. The idea is to simulate the pressure of a real event – much like the dress rehearsal of a play. You can do it for the folks – but family may be too easy on you (or too hard!), so invite the neighbours in. Many workplaces have ‘lunch and learn’, a semi-formal opportunity for a presentation and discussion. Do one. Use the response of your colleagues to refine your presentation for future use. I once rehearsed a presentation for a women’s education conference over lunch, and as a result of my colleagues comments I redid the whole thing - to much better effect. If you have a youth audience handy they’re always up for it. Teens and young people love the role reversal when an adult asks for their feedback – and they certainly give it to you straight!

5. Go public. If you’re the kind who does karaoke or theatre sports or improv – go for it! It’s a wonderful way of learning to command an audience’s attention. You could attend a public lecture or shareholders meeting, take the mike and ask that VIP a question. You could suggest a debate or speech competition to address a major issue at your next corporate retreat (I know of a company who got execs engaged in a discussion of a major corporate threat by formally debating it) - and put yourself on the bill of course. It’s invaluable ‘strength training’ for speakers.

Check out a whole bag of great suggestions at The Eloquent Woman (one of my favourite blogs, and thanks to Denise Graveline for including my post in her blog carnival).