Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

Debating 101

Debates are fun. They can be stimulating, challenging, and informative. No wonder many people find them the most exciting form of apologetics. 

I am often asked whether I have any debates scheduled. The usual answer is no, as far as formal debates are concerned. My schedule is packed, and doing a formal debate takes a lot of preparation. I still do a good number of informal radio and television debates (they take far less preparation), but these aren’t as apologetically interesting. They don’t bring the same focus to a subject as a formal debate.

Over time I have developed my own guidelines for when and how to do formal debates. I’ve shared these with individuals who have asked for them, but putting them in print could benefit individuals who haven’t yet ventured into the world of debating but are contemplating it.

Should I Debate?

A prospective debater should ask himself whether he should even engage in a formal debate. It isn’t easy. It requires skills and dispositions that are difficult to cultivate. One must have polished speaking skills, a calm and friendly manner, and the ability to think quickly under cross-examination. One must not become timid, over-conciliatory, belligerent, or arrogant with an opponent. 

You also must consider the effect debates will have on you. Some individuals seem to thrive on controversy. They risk becoming “debate junkies” who care about the thrill of competition to the point that debating becomes unhealthy spiritually. Such individuals are likely to want to debate, but they must not.

Pride is something everyone who puts himself forward as a public figure must fight, and pride coupled with love of controversy is a deadly combination. Paul offers a chilling description of a certain kind of contentious individual, saying “he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men” (1 Tim. 6:4–5). Every individual who wishes to debate even informally must check himself at regular times to make sure this description doesn’t apply.

The apologetics debater also must make a commitment to what I call “apologetic transparency.” This is the commitment to make the burden of accepting Catholic teaching neither heavier or lighter than the Church does. It means allowing liberty of opinion where the Church allows it and disallowing it where it does not. It means either not giving one’s own opinions or flagging them conspicuously as such. Because the purpose of an apologetics debate is to clear barriers to the faith, a commitment to apologetic transparency is a must.

Should I Do This Debate? 

The debater must ask whether he should do a particular debate. He needs to ask himself if he has sufficient grasp of the topic. An average or even above-average knowledge is not sufficient. For a formal debate, advanced knowledge is required.

The debater must look at his situation: Does he have the time needed to prepare? Does he have contrary family obligations? Could his time be better spent elsewhere? Does he have logistical support?

The debater must ask whether his opponent is worth debating. Does he have the knowledge and skill to make a good debate? If the opponent presents an inferior case for his position, the debate will lack credibility. People may even suggest that the debater is exploiting an inferior opponent.

Also, to what extent is the opponent to be trusted? Will he use cheap debaters’ tricks, such as what I call “buckshot apologetics”—firing off so many arguments that it overtaxes your ability to respond due to time constraints, making it appear that you are unable to respond. If an individual cannot be trusted to substantially avoid such tricks, he should not be debated.

A Single Topic

In pre-debate negotiations, you should ensure the debate has only one topic. Otherwise it will become confused. Further, the opponent may try to steer the discussion to whatever topic he thinks plays to his advantage. With only one topic there will be a more thorough and balanced discussion. A separate topic should require a separate debate.

In deciding the topic, do not mix pools of evidence. This fragments the topic. For instance, I would not want to debate “What Scripture and Tradition say about Peter.” Scripture and Tradition are two separate pools of evidence. Combining them in one debate muddies the waters, especially since the audience (if it contains Protestants) cares far less about one than the other. It would be better to do two debates: “What Scripture says about Peter” and “What the Church Fathers say about Peter.”

A Narrow Proposition

Even if the debate is advertised with a user-friendly title, it needs to focus on a single proposition. A general topic (Scripture, justification, the pope) is not sufficient. There needs to be a specific proposition (“Scripture teaches sola scriptura,” “Justification is a one-time event,” “Christ gave Peter a special office among the apostles”).

This proposition must be narrow so one can deal with the needed material in the time allotted. “There are no contradictions in the Bible” wouldn’t work because the material is too voluminous. Whole books are devoted to resolving alleged biblical discrepancies. That topic calls for a book format, not a debate, which would need a narrow focus (e.g., “Scripture teaches that Scripture is without error”).

Common Ground

In choosing a debate topic, one should not stray too far from what the two sides agree on. Restricting the scope of disagreement gives the debate more potential to change minds. The more disagreement built into the debate, the less likely anyone will be to re-think his position. There is no point debating a subject without enough common ground for one side to have the potential of convincing the other.

It would be useless to debate a Jehovah’s Witness on whether Christ has one or two wills. The JW doesn’t believe that Christ has complete divine and human natures, so he will not appreciate the argument that each nature has its own will.

Because of the common-ground principle, there should be a tendency toward debates on Scripture rather than other sources. Scripture tends to be what many sides have in common, making such debates more persuasive. In general, topics that can’t be proven from the literal sense of Scripture should not be debated unless broader theological principles have been addressed.

There is not much utility in debating the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption with Protestants. They have not accepted the theological principles that would let them see the basis for these doctrines. It would be more profitable to debate the role of Tradition or the authority of the Church, since only after these points are agreed on are you in a position to prove the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

A Decisive Win

Generally, one should agree only to debate topics that can be won decisively. Too often debaters go after topics where it is not possible to do this, resulting in an inconclusive debate that changes few minds.

If the evidence regarding a topic is ambiguous enough that it is reasonable to hold more than one position, the topic isn’t worth doing as an apologetics debate. (For debates on matters of opinion, this doesn’t apply. Two Catholics can debate whether a permitted opinion is correct; a decisive win isn’t needed since both positions are permitted.)

For example, while the overwhelming majority of Fathers held that Mary was a lifelong virgin—even before this was infallibly defined—and while there are hints of this in Scripture, the biblical evidence by itself is not sufficiently clear to allow a decisive win. I therefore would hesitate to accept a formal debate on Mary’s perpetual virginity.

That isn’t to say I would never do so. Even defensive, neutralize-the-opponent’s-arguments debates can be useful if positioned correctly. To ensure correct positioning, I would want such a debate paired with another debate where a decisive win is possible. I also would seek to put the opponent’s best evidence in focus by proposing to debate the proposition “Scripture teaches that Mary had other children.”

Tag Teams

Some may disagree, but I believe tag-team debates should be avoided. Some believe that the presence of more than one person on a side provides added excitement and expertise, but I find that in practice it weakens the debate due to problems with division of labor.

Those on a team often seem uncertain what they are responsible for covering. Or to present their points they feel they have to recap what their partners said, wasting precious time. Or they add things they think their partner forgot, making them seem disorganized.

During the debate, differences of style or skill are likely to appear, and the audience may begin to prefer one member of the tag team to the other. Attendees may find themselves thinking, “I wish these guys would be quiet. Why couldn’t the debate be between the other two guys?”

Worst of all, one side may discover and exploit a division of opinion among their opponents. Even if the division concerns a nonessential point, few arguments are more crushing rhetorically than “Why should we believe you if you can’t agree amongst yourselves?”

I don’t do tag-team debates. If a given debate seems to call for a tag-team approach so that people with different specialties can be involved, it seems likely that the topic is framed too broadly. Rather than going through the muddle of a tag team, it would be better to narrow the topic so it fits within one person’s expertise.

Equal Time

If one side gets more time than another, the debate is unfair and is a less useful test of an issue. Most opponents will agree to equal time, but there are pitfalls to watch out for.

Some exceed their time. To prevent this, one needs an experienced moderator who will be fair to and firm with both sides.

A subtler attempt to hog time occurs when an opponent asks for a long, unstructured cross-examination period in which the two sides may question each other without guarantees of getting an equal number of questions or having equal time to respond. If an opponent proposes this type of thing, usually it signals that he will try to monopolize the period and probably will use buckshot apologetics. The solution is to avoid unstructured periods. Any cross-examination must have equal questions and equal time.

Audience questions also can create an imbalance. If the audience is mostly Catholic or non-Catholic, then one debater will have his position challenged more than the other, resulting in an imbalance. One solution is to have the audience’s questions submitted in writing, screened, and posed by the moderator. Though this equalizes the number of questions, one must ensure that the screeners aren’t giving hardball questions to one debater and not the other.

A better solution is not having audience questions. Debaters are supposed to be more informed about the topic and should be able to cross-examine more effectively. Further, audience members who pose their questions orally may be rambling, difficult to hear, or interested primarily in speechmaking.

Debate Length

I’ve seen some debate events scheduled to last up to five or six hours with minor breaks. This may have been reasonable when Lincoln and Douglas were debating, but today it is not. Modern audiences are not prepared to sit that long, and, unlike in nineteenth-century audiences, it is impolite to move around, eat, drink, smoke, and chat during the debate.

From my experience, today’s audiences start losing their ability to concentrate after about forty-five minutes. Combined opening statements should last no longer than that. Following segments should be shorter, and break time must be included. My preference is for a single debate in an evening, the whole event lasting no more than two hours.

Do Your Homework

Preparing to debate, you must study your opponent’s arguments, write and time your remarks, and draft responses to possible objections. Unfortunately, some debaters don’t do these things.

Many times it’s clear a debater is relying on general background and has not studied his opponent. For example, if in a debate someone says something like, “The Protestant position is that infants shouldn’t be baptized” (it’s almost always a mistake to speak of “the” Protestant position), he may meet the response, “My opponent seems to think that I am a Baptist. I’m a Presbyterian, and we believe in baptizing infants.”

Sometimes it’s clear when listening to a debate, as the debater himself may admit, that he is winging it and hasn’t written out his remarks. This is always death, unless your opponent is hideously incompetent (in which case you shouldn’t be debating him). It also cheats the audience of the quality of debate they deserve. 

Preparing remarks includes timing them so they can be delivered—without racing through them!—in the allotted time. Too often one hears debates where the participants have not timed their remarks and, at the end of their opening statements, they say things like, “I have more to say, but it’ll have to wait until my next segment.” 

That’s bad. All essential points need to be made in the opening statement. Timing your remarks forces you to produce a better opening statement by getting rid of fluff.

Subsequent periods are for cross-examining the other’s position and defending one’s own, not making new essential points. Doing so results in time being taken away from what should be challenges and responses. You won’t be able to effectively challenge your opponent’s case or defend your own if you’re still trying to finish your main points.

Debaters’ Tricks

If you have a sterling opponent you will not encounter underhanded debaters’ tricks. If your opponent is less than sterling, you may.

We already mentioned one trick—”buckshot apologetics.” Another trick is springing a charge on your opponent when he has no opportunity to respond. This is easy for the person taking the negative because he speaks last. All he has to do is introduce a new charge in his closing statement and his opponent can’t respond. I’ll confess that I once used this trick but will not do so again. It’s dirty pool.

A trick often pulled by the debater taking the affirmative is to reject the burden of proof. Under standard debate rules, the person affirming the debate’s proposition has the burden of proving it true. It is arbitrary who ends up taking the affirmative, because you can always rephrase the proposition (e.g., by inserting the word not) so that the other party affirms. But whoever affirms is advancing a claim and needs to offer evidence why people should accept it. Sometimes, though, the affirming debater refuses to shoulder this burden and tries to shift it to his opponent.

Fundamentalist apologist James White is notorious for this. Once he was supposed to argue that the Bible teaches sola scriptura, but he refused to shoulder the burden of proof, saying that he was being asked to prove a universal negative (a statement of the form “There are no Xes”; in this case, something like “There are no other rules of faith besides Scripture”). He argued that to prove this he would have to do something impossible (i.e., scan the entire universe to see if there was another such rule), so instead he tried to put the Catholic understanding of Tradition on trial.

This was rhetorical sleight of hand. If it were true that he would have to do something impossible to prove the affirmative, this would amount to forfeiting the debate: admitting that the proposition cannotbe established. But White’s premise is false. He didn’t need to prove a universal negative but a particular positive: “Scripture teaches X”—X being sola scriptura. He needed to scan not the universe but only the Bible to see if it claims to be the sole rule.

Another trick is changing the subject. When a debater is not doing as well as he wants, he may introduce an irrelevant topic. A number of years ago I was debating whether the New Testament teaches a sacramental priesthood, and toward the end my opponent began raising issues other than the sacramentality of the priesthood, such as whether it should be all-male and celibate. This was an attempt to deflect the debate to subjects on which he felt he could score more points with the audience.

Most debaters’ tricks share a common solution: Don’t take the bait. Instead, point out to the audience what the opponent is trying to do. If you go down the path the opponent wants you to, you’ll weaken your case.

The Blame Game

After the debate is over, there is one more thing to do: Refuse to play the blame game.

Debating can arouse powerful emotions among the participants. That’s understandable. Unfortunately, after the actual debate a deutero-debate sometimes develops over who was more snarky than whom. After seeing this happen repeatedly—and even participating in it myself—my advice is to avoid it altogether.

Don’t charge that one’s opponent did something unfair. The right time to point that out was during the debate. One shouldn’t come back to add things one wishes one had said. Treat the debate as a finished work. It may not be perfect, but it’s done and there are more productive uses of time than getting into a new debate about the weaknesses of the first. Learn from the weaknesses and move on.

In particular, don’t take the bait if your opponent comes after you, wanting to start a deutero-debate. Simply be polite and say with Clark Gable, “I apologize again for all my shortcomings.”

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us