The structured battle of arguments – debating in Würzburg

Applause in sign language, the words "Hear, hear!" and hard-hitting argumentative clashes. Welcome to the midst of a debate!

Cicero once described reason and language as the bonds of society. In a debate, speakers combine both to convince through skilful deployment.

The open parliamentary debate, or OPD for short, is a form of debating that is particularly widespread in Germany. Developed in Tübingen, a contentious question is at its centre. The topic should be socially relevant in some respect; otherwise there are no restrictions on it. The procedure is strictly defined and thus always follows the same pattern. Nine people are present as speakers and two or more judges. After the topic is announced, there is a 15-minute preparation period. The debate then begins. There is always a pro and a contra side. Each is represented by three speakers. On the pro side is the government, which argues for the contentious question; on the contra side is the opposition, which argues against it. There are also three free speakers who have no predetermined opinion at the outset but must decide during the course of the debate. All normal speeches last 7 minutes, the free speakers have 3.5 minutes and the counter-speech to it may only take one minute. The debate begins with the government's opening speech. This is followed by the opposition's speech and then the government's supplementary speech, followed by the opposition's. After this comes the hour of the free speakers. They must take one of the two sides and ideally add arguments not yet mentioned. With a one-minute counter-speech following each of the three free speeches, the unchosen side may defend itself once more and attempt to convince. At the end come the closing speeches, with the opposition beginning and the government having the final word. This concludes the debate and the jury withdraws to discuss and evaluate. The evaluation criteria are five different points: linguistic power and presentation on one side, subject knowledge and judgement on the other. Between these stands the ability to make contact. The judges have an official evaluation form for this so that everything is as comprehensible and comparable as possible. Theoretically, between 0 and 100 points can be awarded per speech. 40 to 50 is, according to explanations, already balanced to good, and 60 is already rare. 100 thus seems rather like a scarcely attainable star in the sky of debating.

On the weekend of 16 to 18 April 2021, the German-language Debating Regional Championships Würzburg were held. At the same time, two further such championships took place throughout the German-speaking world. Teams from all parts of Germany, Austria and Switzerland met for this. Würzburg's debating club organised the tournament, which this year was unfortunately only possible virtually. In 2019, the Würzburg Debating Club had already staged the competition in person. But even online, they mastered the organisation brilliantly, which was particularly thanks to Chair Rebecca Hainich. Würzburg itself sent two teams of three speakers each into the competition. Mareike Albert, Daniel Koch and Stefan Winter formed one team and Simon Zschau, Ahn Tu Ngo and Johannes Klug formed the other. Both teams performed well in their debates. Unfortunately, they were nevertheless eliminated before the semi-final rounds. Whilst most of the tournament took place behind the scenes, the final between a Hanover team and one from Vienna was broadcast live on YouTube. In the end, Hanover won. Sven Bake skilfully moderated the broadcast of the Campus Debate and gave many experts a chance to speak in the supporting programme. Even for a layperson, the broadcast was extremely interesting; the recording is incidentally still available for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClyOSBrnTks5q7aLIsCNUnA.

In the following, I will describe my personal experiences with encountering the Würzburg Debating Club: Before the weekend, I was allowed to interview the Deputy Chair Stefan Winter as someone with "no debating knowledge". In doing so, I received a lot of helpful information about debating. After I had watched the final debate of the regional championship in a livestream on YouTube, I wanted to get to know the people behind the structured arguments. So I had sneaked into a club evening. This insight was fascinating and enlightening at the same time. It all began with people from Bonn and Würzburg meeting via Discord. At 8 p.m., the topic vote began. Three proposed topics were up for selection. In the end, "Do prejudices have an undeserved bad reputation?" won. Afterwards, everyone had 15 minutes to prepare their speeches. Opposition and Government met separately to discuss their rough approach. As an observer, I visited both sides. At both houses, I could observe a similar approach: each speaker chose one of the three debate-internal speeches, then arguments and examples were sought and the rough approach was planned and discussed. When the time was up, everyone met in a Zoom room. The debate began and the President, who was also the adjudicator, led the whole thing. Government – Opposition – Government – Opposition – free speeches – counter-speeches – closing speeches.

It was fascinating to observe how each person had their own, individual way of speaking. All speakers used their own facial expressions and gestures, their own structure, their own structure and their very own oratorical skill.

Following the debate, I got into conversation with the speakers. I was asked questions and just for me, they even set up a debate on why debating was better than sleep or eating. Spontaneously, a student threw around lots of sensible and logical arguments. She spoke about how no one would be judged, regardless of whether debating came easily to them at the beginning or not. Everyone starts small, was a very nice statement that stayed with me.

At the end, I was allowed to ask questions. I threw into the round what fascinated them all so much about debating. The answers were extremely interesting. A student spoke about how it was above all the people who knew more than she did. Those from whom she could still learn. For another student, who had not been involved for very long, there were three points: you grow from it, you seek civilised debate and you get to know interesting people with completely different views. Furthermore, there is the opportunity to quickly delve into deeper areas. Other students told me that they loved being polemical and that contact with other people was particularly good for them at the moment. Likewise, someone spoke about how nice it was in such a talkative group and that everyone loved each other. A student said that he was particularly fascinated by arguing about topics that one would never otherwise discuss. The right technique and planned approach alone would open up all possibilities for you. Furthermore, a student explained that in his view, one could talk about topics better through debating. Moreover, one learns to understand various people with their attitudes. The focus is on the core of the matter, around which interaction takes place. Various opinions meet, but one gradually develops the ability to understand and comprehend them. It is about, as an experienced student put it, always putting one's own topic in the best light and neutralising counter-arguments or turning them to one's advantage. With words or language, one can simply exchange thoughts. Furthermore, he was of the opinion that there was no other way in which one could exchange arguments and one's thoughts so quickly and so intuitively. The advantage of a debate over a free discussion lies in the fact that the former is a structured, uncompromising competition. In one's speaking time, one can say everything one considers important.

Overall, debating seems to be about both active listening and persuasive speaking. Only the skilful combination makes a speaker a good speaker.

After a debate concludes, reflection on the topic is usually not directly finished. I encountered it everywhere as an observer too: in the newspaper, on social media, in conversation with others and especially in my own thoughts.

What I would like to pass on to interested people: The Würzburg Debating Club told me that it is always pleased about new people and opinions. Currently, meetings take place twice a week. Debates take place on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 20:00 via Zoom. As a rule, one or two debates come about. All interested parties are welcome, and no one is belittled or judged.

Cicero once said: "One learns to speak by speaking." So if you want to speak, then do it. Nothing speaks against it.