Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 2.3
What you will learn
- Describe the parts of a typical formal debate and why rules of order help.
- Prepare an opening statement, a rebuttal and a closing statement within fixed time limits.
- Rebut an argument fairly by addressing its strongest point.
- Practice debate privately with a partner or alone, switching sides to learn the other view.
The big idea
A structured debate gives both sides equal time, fixed order and clear rules, so that arguments can be heard in full. These rules protect the quieter speaker from the louder one and protect the audience from confusion. For a student of apologetics, debate practice is a safe place to learn to organize an argument, to answer under time pressure and to listen. It is a training exercise and not a model for every conversation. Many important talks about faith should not be debates at all.
Key terms
- Resolution
- The statement a debate is about, which one side affirms and the other denies.
- Affirmative and negative
- The two sides of a debate: the first defends the resolution, the second opposes it.
- Constructive speech
- A speech in which a side presents its main arguments.
- Rebuttal
- A speech or part of a speech in which a side answers the other side’s arguments.
- Cross-examination
- A period in which one debater asks the other questions, to clarify and test claims.
- Dropped argument
- A point that one side made and the other did not answer.
- Moderator
- A neutral person who keeps time and enforces the rules.
- Flowing
- Taking organized notes of every argument and response in a debate so none is lost.
Background
Formal debate is very old. Greek and Roman schools trained students by assigning positions to defend. Medieval universities held disputations, in which a master or student defended a thesis against objections from others. These disputations shaped the writing of works such as the Summa Theologiae. Modern formats include parliamentary, policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate in schools, and public moderated debates between scholars on questions such as the existence of God or the reliability of the New Testament.
Christians have debated in many settings: the councils of the early church, public disputations at the time of the Reformation and the modern university. Some of these were conducted with great respect. Others were bitter. In the Book of Acts, Paul reasons in synagogues and in the marketplace (Acts 17:17), and the Bereans examine the Scriptures to see whether his claims are so (Acts 17:11). The apostle’s own advice to Timothy is that the Lord’s servant must not strive but be gentle to all men (2 Timothy 2:24).
There are real arguments against public debate on faith. A debate rewards speed, wit and confidence, which are not the same as truth. A person who knows a great deal may lose to a polished speaker. Audiences often decide by sympathy before the debate begins. For these reasons, this lesson treats debate as practice and not as the best way to settle a question of faith.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Learn a simple format
A basic format has these parts: an affirmative opening (for example six minutes), a negative opening (six minutes), cross-examination of each side (three minutes each), rebuttals (four minutes each) and closing statements (two minutes each). Times vary. What matters is that each side has the same time and that a timekeeper enforces it.
Agree on the resolution beforehand and phrase it so that it can be argued. ‘Christianity is true’ is too broad. ‘The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the rise of the early church’ is more precise, though still large.
Step 2: Build the opening
Open with a short statement of what you will argue. Give two or three main arguments, each in standard form with evidence. State your key terms. Say briefly what the other side may argue and why you disagree. Do not try to say everything. A dozen arguments in six minutes cannot be heard.
Put your best argument first, in plain words. Practice it aloud with a clock.
Step 3: Rebut fairly
In rebuttal, restate the opponent’s point briefly and accurately before you answer it. ‘My opponent argues that the Gospels were written too late to be reliable. Here is why I think that does not follow.’ This shows the audience you have understood, and it forces you to meet the actual claim.
Answer the strongest points first. Do not spend your time on side issues. If your opponent has made a good point, concede it and show why your case still stands (see the earlier lesson on intellectual honesty). Do not claim your opponent ‘dropped’ an argument unless they truly failed to answer it.
Step 4: Use cross-examination well
Cross-examination is for short, clear questions that clarify or test. It is not for speeches. Ask ‘Do you hold that...?’ and ‘What do you mean by...?’ Allow the other person to answer. When it is your turn to answer, answer the question that was asked and, if needed, add a sentence of explanation.
Avoid interrupting. A person who talks over an opponent loses the audience’s trust, even when they are right.
Step 5: Close, then review
A closing statement does not introduce new arguments. It summarizes the main points of agreement and disagreement and says why your case is better. Keep it brief and civil.
After a practice debate, review. Write what the other side said best. Identify the points you did not answer and consider how you might have. Debate is useful for learning only if you reflect afterward.
Step 6: Practice alone or with a friend
A friend can take the other side. Better yet, switch sides: argue for your own view and then for the opposite view. This is a way to practice steelmanning under time pressure. If no partner is available, write both sides of a debate in your notebook and time yourself.
Agree beforehand that the aim is learning. Keep the tone friendly and end with thanks.
- Is the resolution precise enough to be argued?
- Which two or three arguments are most important, and can I state them briefly?
- Have I restated my opponent’s point fairly before answering it?
- Am I answering the strongest point or the easiest one?
- Is this setting suitable for a debate, or would a conversation serve better?
- What did I learn from the other side’s best point?
Examples
A fair rebuttal
‘My opponent argues that evil is evidence against a good God. I agree that the problem is serious. Here are two responses that Christian philosophers have given, and here is why I find the second more persuasive.’ The speaker states the point, grants its weight and then answers it. (Constructed example.)
An unfair rebuttal
‘My opponent obviously does not care about truth.’ The speaker attacks motive and ignores the argument. The audience learns nothing and the opponent has an easy reply. (Constructed example.)
A well-formed resolution
‘Resolved: that belief in God is rationally justified without appeal to argument.’ The sentence names a clear question on which Christians and non-Christians both differ among themselves. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic thought
The medieval disputation was part of Catholic university life, and Aquinas’s works arose from it. Catholic teaching also warns that debate must serve truth and charity and not vanity.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox tradition more often resolves questions through councils and the lived tradition than through public debate. Many Orthodox writers are wary of debate formats as a place to speak about the divine, while some Orthodox apologists do take part in them.
Protestant thought
Public disputations were important at the Reformation, and modern evangelical apologists have taken part in many formal debates. Other Protestants worry that debates turn the gospel into a contest and prefer personal conversation and preaching.
Secular and scholarly view
Debate educators say that formats teach research, organization and listening. Critics note that debate rewards performance and can suggest that questions have only two sides when they have many.
Why it matters
Formal debate trains skills that serve all conversation: preparing thoroughly, answering under pressure and listening to the opponent’s strongest case. It can also teach humility, since the experience of failing to answer a point shows what remains to be learned. And knowing the limits of debate helps a Christian choose when not to debate.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The winner of a debate has the truth.
Correction: A debate measures performance in part. A skilled speaker may defend a weaker position and win with an audience. Truth is judged by reasons and evidence, which require time and reflection.
Misunderstanding: Debating faith in public is the main task of an apologist.
Correction: Most apologetics happens in ordinary conversation, teaching and writing. Debate is one specialized form, and many Christians do not take part in it.
Misunderstanding: Rebuttal means attacking the opponent’s character.
Correction: A fair rebuttal addresses arguments. Attacks on character are fallacies in most cases and lose the respect of audiences.
Misunderstanding: Practice debate is only for people with public ambitions.
Correction: Practice improves clarity and listening for anyone, in private study groups, in family conversation or in church discussion.
Knowledge check
What is a resolution, and why does it need to be precise?
A resolution is the statement a debate is about. It needs precision so that both sides argue the same question and the audience can follow. A vague resolution, such as ‘Religion is good’, lets each side define the terms differently and talk past the other.
What are the main parts of a typical formal debate?
Typically there are opening constructive speeches, in which each side presents its main arguments; cross-examination, in which they ask each other short questions; rebuttals, in which they answer one another; and closing statements. A timekeeper ensures equal time and fairness.
What does fair rebuttal require?
It requires restating the opponent’s point accurately, answering the strongest points first and conceding what is true. It avoids attacking character. A fair rebuttal also does not claim that an argument was dropped unless it truly was.
Why switch sides in practice?
Arguing the opposite view forces you to learn its best reasons and builds the habit of steelmanning under pressure. It also shows you how your own case looks to the other side. The aim is understanding, not a change of conviction.
What are two limits of debate as a way to find truth?
Debate rewards speed, confidence and wit, which are not the same as accuracy. It also presents questions as two-sided contests and leaves little time for reflection. Audiences may be decided in advance. For these reasons, many questions of faith are better explored in conversation.
Think it through
- Would you be comfortable arguing against your own deepest belief for ten minutes? What would you learn?
- When has a debate or argument changed your mind, and why?
- What kinds of conversations about faith should never be debates?
- How would you prepare for a debate against someone you respect?
Independent assignment
A timed two-sided debate
In your own notebook or on paper, write a pair of opening statements of about 500 words each on a precise resolution (for example, a question about the reliability of the Gospels or the problem of evil). Write one for the affirmative and one for the negative, and time each when read aloud at six minutes or less. Add a 150-word rebuttal for each side. Finish with a 150-word note on which side you found harder to write, and why. Keep this private, or practice with a trusted partner if you wish.
Further study
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae A model of structured disputation in written form.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics A model of the Christian side of formal argument. Read for method.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religious Diversity (Pluralism) A topic suitable for a practice resolution.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Review before preparing a rebuttal.
- Acts 17:17 Paul reasons in the synagogue and the marketplace.
- 2 Timothy 2:24 The servant of the Lord must not strive.
- Proverbs 18:13 Answering before hearing is folly.