By Nathan Chen
Have you ever had too much evidence? A brief that covers all your bases?
This can be overwhelming. Which argument do you choose? Well, Aristotle might have the answer.
The Key to the Rhetorical Triangle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 4th century, Aristotle and the Sophists taught four primary ideas: ethos, pathos, logos, and Kairos. We all know the first three: appeals to credibility, appeals to emotion, and appeals to reason, but few know Kairos.
The ancient Greek term Kairos roughly means the right time. The idea behind Kairos is that choosing the right argument and using it at the right time matters as much as the argument itself.
When choosing an argument, debaters should be mindful of context: the atmosphere of the room, your opponents, and most importantly, your judge.
So what?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever created an insanely cracked argument? An argument so good it just can't lose? And yet, when you present it to a judge, you lose (sometimes).
Why does this happen?
I think it often comes down to two issues.
Debaters appeal to themselves instead of their judges.
When we make arguments, we naturally prefer arguments that resonate with us. We appeal to ourselves. Here's the hard truth - the arguments that appeal to you are not universal.
Debaters have the curse of knowledge. Judges don't.
After countless hours of research, you’ve become a mini-expert. You have so much knowledge on a particular topic that it necessarily impacts your perspective. Judges won't be able to fully appreciate your argument because they aren't informed.
Kairos combats this. To understand why, we must understand the idea behind persuasion. Why do certain people agree while others disagree?
Generally, it boils down to our experiences and values. Both are inextricably related - our experiences may change our values, and our values govern our actions, which create our experiences.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are convinced when you present argumentation that appeals to those experiences or values (whether its credibility, logic, or emotions).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we all have different experiences, values, and perspectives. Thus, our approach to selecting arguments should be contextual.
For example:
- A grieving person is far more likely to resonate with emotional reasons than logical reasons.
- An engineer is more likely to resonate with empirically driven facts and logical justifications than appeals to ethos or pathos.
You get the idea.
How do I use it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundation of Kairos is understanding your audience. This is where it gets tricky.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no way to understand your judge definitively.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most interaction we're allowed with our judge is asking them for their background and judge philosophy.
Here's the problem:
- The responses are often not actionable
In my experience, many judges use the generic "I want a good debate," "I don't know," or even "I refuse to answer." This is normal—in conversational debate, we shouldn't expect the judge to have the same understanding that we do. It's our job to translate the lingo into conversation.
- The judge might not mean it
Sometimes, judges don't even know what you mean by judge philosophy. Other times, they're trained by their club to give you a particular answer. Some judges tell you they're logical but vote on emotional reasons - they're projecting an identity on themselves.
The bottom line is that we have very limited resources. How do we make the most of them?
Well, there might be more resources than you think. Here are some that I've found helpful.
Please take the following with a grain of salt. Some judges might be trolling you, or it might not reflect them at all.
- Body Language
Judges' facial expressions can reveal a lot. Pay attention to them! If they're really nodding with one point or their eyes start to glaze over with others, this can alter the course of the round.
This will clue you in based on the type of argument you present.
How the judge enters the room, walks, or even their posture can also clue you in. For example, a judge who confidently strides in and has perfect posture may indicate that they like ethos (since we associate confidence and posture with credibility).
- Your Opponents
Observing the type of arguments your opponents present and the judge’s reaction gives you hints without any opportunity cost.
For example, if they present rapid-fire emotional arguments and the judge is blank-faced, it might be a sign to slow down and use more logical reasoning.
- When applicable, judge philosophy
Sometimes, the judge's philosophy has really helpful information.
Their debate experience, occupation, and any other fact can help you analyze what kind of arguments they might like (or they might tell you directly, e.g., I don't like topicality).
For instance, parent judges probably want more emotional reasons and slower delivery.
- Stereotypes
As politically incorrect as this sounds, stereotypes exist for a reason (they tend to be true).
There are multiple potential clues: the judges clothing, what they put on the table, or whether they flow with their computer or a notebook.
- Past Ballots
It can be useful to review the reasons for decision of competitors who got a certain judge. In this method, they literally spell out why they voted.
However, there are so many factors in a round that may not be reflected in the ballot, so be careful of all the different perspectives.
One final note: keep it simple. Try not to overanalyze the situation, and keep whatever delivery is strongest for you. Judges would rather hear a powerful presentation instead of a weak-but-tailored-to-the-judge speech.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep it simple, stupid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding opportunity separates the good from the great. Good debaters can create good arguments, but great debaters know when to apply those arguments. Happy debating!