Smith’s Rules for Debates

For Proponents

• Choose a definitive formulation of the thesis you are proposing, and communicate this formulation to your opponents at least several days beforehand. (Proponents and opponents should be clear about the thesis that is being debated.)
• State this formulation of the thesis at the beginning and end of your presentation, and several times in the middle. (The audience should be clear about the thesis that is being defended or attacked.)
• Make it clear what the theoretical background of your argument is. (E.g., in ethics: utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, etc.)
• Attempt to trap your opponent, by anticipating his arguments beforehand and showing what is wrong with them.
• Do not be afraid to use visual aids (blackboard, handouts, overhead projector) to make your point.

For Proponents and Opponents

• Include a conclusion in which you demonstrate how you have established or refuted the thesis. 
• Avoid lengthy and repetitive presentations of facts or stories. Avoid mouthing a familiar party-line. Concentrate on arguments and on thinking through to basic presuppositions. 
• Use notes. If you attempt to write out every word of your presentation beforehand it will sound wooden.
• Speak loudly and clearly, and address your remarks to the audience.
• Speak confidently; always sound as if you believe absolutely in what you are saying, always maintain a consistent front.
• Always prepare more notes than you think you will need. If you think you have said enough, move directly to your conclusion. Do not leave the audience with the impression that you have not said enough.
• Leave your personal views and your personal experiences out of account; what is important is exclusively the quality of your arguments. 
• Never concede that you agree with the other side or suggest compromise positions. Preserve a clear opposition between the views of proponents and opponents throughout.
• Use radical and imaginative gambits to keep the attention and sympathy of your audience. For example: pretend to agree with almost everything the opposing side says, but then reveal how what your opponents say implies that they are in fact quite wrong. Or use the method of reductio ad absurdum (i.e. show that, if the opposing side were correct, then this would have absurd consequences)
• Do not use ad hominem arguments. Even perverts and criminals, even deconstructionists, can have good arguments. The qualities of the person presenting an argument are irrelevant to the quality of the argument he presents.