How to Debate Well

What you'll learn

• Prepare a debate case by analysing the resolution, the burden of proof and your opponent's arguments
• Deliver signposted openings, rebuttals and closings, and ask and answer cross-examination questions effectively
• Handle hostile audiences, online formats and questions you cannot answer with honesty, gentleness and respect

Prepare: know both cases

This mini lesson builds on the course's formal debate lesson with general skills for any debate, from a church hall to a livestream. Debates are won in preparation. You should know your own case well enough to give it in two minutes from memory, and your opponent's case well enough to give it as fairly as they would.

Start with the resolution, the exact statement being debated. Words matter. 'God exists' is a different debate from 'Christianity is true', and 'The Bible is reliable' needs definition: reliable in what sense? Agree definitions in advance where you can, and define any key term that could be stretched in your opening.

Then settle the burden of proof: who must prove what. Usually the affirmative (the side arguing for the resolution) carries the main burden. But anyone who makes a claim carries a burden for that claim. If a sceptic says 'the resurrection accounts are legends', that is a positive claim needing evidence, not merely a denial of yours.

Research your opponent. Watch or read their previous debates, books and articles. List their favourite arguments and the sources they cite, and write your answer to each on a single card. Read the primary sources yourself: if they cite a Quran verse, a Gospel passage or a scholar, check the context.

• The resolution and key definitions
• Who bears which burden
• My case in two minutes
• Their case in two minutes, fairly stated
• Answers to their top five arguments
• Three cross-examination questions

The opening statement

Your opening is the only time you speak without interruption on ground you chose. Use it to set the terms of the debate. Fewer arguments well defended beat many thinly stated: opponents usually attack your weakest point and imply the rest fall with it. A clear structure:

• Brief, genuine thanks to hosts, moderator and opponent.
• The question and definitions: what exactly are we deciding?
• Thesis and roadmap: 'Tonight I will give three reasons...'
• Two to four arguments, each stated as a claim, supported by evidence and tied to the resolution.
• A pre-emptive note on the burden of proof or the main objection, if time allows.
• Summary: each reason again in one sentence.

Signposting and rebuttal

Signposting means telling listeners where you are: 'My first argument...', 'Second...', 'Now to my opponent's claim about the canon...'. Number your arguments and give them short labels ('the empty tomb', 'the appearances'). Listeners cannot reread, so signposts let the audience follow you, and they make it obvious later when your opponent has not answered a point.

To rebut well you must first hear well: 'If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame' (Proverbs 18:13). Keep a flow: notes in columns, one column per speech, each argument on its own line, with arrows from their point to your answer. Use abbreviations and write only the claim, the evidence and your reply.

Answer the strongest point first. If you spend your time on minor slips and run out before their main argument, the audience will assume you had no answer. Group related points to save time: 'My opponent raised three objections about manuscripts; I'll take them together.'

Look for ways to turn an argument, showing that their point actually supports your side. If an atheist argues that evil disproves God, grant that evil is real, then ask what makes it objectively evil. On a purely material view, real moral outrage is hard to ground; the argument leans on a moral law that points to a Lawgiver. Turns must be honest; never twist what was said. Finally, note dropped arguments calmly: 'My second argument has not been answered, so it stands.' If they answered briefly, say so, and explain why the answer fails.

Cross-examination: asking

Cross-examination is a short period of direct questioning. It is not a second speech. Its purposes are to clarify your opponent's position, to secure concessions you will use later, and to expose a weakness the audience can see for themselves.

• Short questions: one idea per question. Compound questions let them answer the easy half.
• Closed questions where possible: 'Do you accept that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians?' rather than 'What do you think about Paul?'
• Purposeful sequences: plan three or four questions that walk toward a point, each answer locking in a premise.
• Know the likely answer: an old courtroom rule of thumb says never ask a question you don't know the answer to. In debate, at least make sure every likely answer helps you.
• Don't argue with the answer: take the concession, say 'Thank you', and use it in your next speech.
• Stay courteous: interrupt only when an answer is running down the clock, and do it politely.

Cross-examination: answering

When you are questioned, answer truthfully, clearly and briefly. Evasion looks worse than any honest concession. Greg Koukl's Tactics commends two questions for any conversation, 'What do you mean by that?' and 'How did you come to that conclusion?', and they help here too when a question hides a vague term or an assumption.

• Listen to the whole question and pause before answering.
• If a question is loaded or ambiguous, name the assumption: 'That depends what you mean by faith. If you mean belief without evidence, no.'
• Answer directly first, then qualify briefly: 'Yes, with one qualification...'
• Concede what is true. 'Yes, there are textual variants in the New Testament' costs little and earns trust; explain their significance in your next speech.
• Don't make a speech. Long answers look like dodging.
• Watch for a trap sequence of harmless questions building toward a conclusion you reject. Answer each honestly, then show which step does not carry the weight they put on it.

Closing, voice and time

The closing statement is no place for new arguments. Summarise the debate: the main points of clash and why your side wins each. 'There were three key questions tonight...' Then say what is at stake. In a Christian debate it is fitting to close by pointing briefly and sincerely to Christ.

Body language and voice carry much of your message. Sit or stand upright, keep your hands still unless gesturing with purpose, and look at the audience or camera, not your notes. Slow down; nerves speed most people up. Pause after key points and vary your pitch. Avoid sighs, eye-rolls and laughing at your opponent, which audiences read as contempt.

Time management takes practice. Rehearse your opening with a timer until it fits with seconds to spare. In rebuttals, decide in advance how long each part gets, and keep the last 30 seconds for a summary, because running out mid-argument leaves the audience with nothing. If time is short, drop your weakest point, not the summary.

Character under pressure

Scripture tells us how to debate as well as why. We are to be 'prepared to make a defense' for our hope, yet to 'do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience' (1 Peter 3:15-16). Our speech should be 'gracious, seasoned with salt' (Colossians 4:6), and the Lord's servant must be 'kind to everyone', correcting opponents 'with gentleness' (2 Timothy 2:24-25). Winning the room by misrepresenting or humiliating someone is losing.

Hostile audiences. Speak to the persuadable people, not the loudest. Don't take a heckler's bait; let the moderator handle interruptions. Keep your tone level and your humour gentle, never at your opponent's expense. Thank people for hard questions. A calm, kind answer under pressure is often what people remember.

When you don't know. Say so plainly: 'I don't know the answer to that. I'll look into it.' Then, if it is true, show that your case does not depend on it: 'Even if that point stands, it doesn't affect my argument from the appearances.' Never bluff, guess a statistic or invent a source. Then follow up afterwards.

Reformed Christians remember that only God can draw a person to Christ (John 6:44), which frees us from needing to win at all costs. Other evangelicals also affirm the Spirit's necessary work, though they describe the role of human choice differently.

Online debates and learning from recordings

Many debates now happen on YouTube, livestreams, Discord or video calls. Agree the topic, format and times in writing beforehand. Test your microphone and camera, use headphones to prevent echo, and look at the camera for key points. Expect lag: leave a beat before speaking. Ignore the live chat while you speak. If you share your screen, show the actual source text. If the other side becomes abusive, you may calmly end the conversation.

Recorded debates are free coaching if you watch actively. Good starting points include the 1985 debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein on the existence of God (a classic presuppositional example), William Lane Craig's many debates, and James White's debates with Muslim and Roman Catholic apologists. Watch for what to imitate and what to avoid.

• Flow the debate yourself as if you were in it.
• Pause before each rebuttal, plan your own answer, then compare.
• Note which arguments were dropped and who used time well.
• Record your own practice and review it for pace, filler words and missed answers.

Written task

Resolution: 'The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical evidence.' You are the affirmative. Submit three parts: (1) a 300-400 word opening statement with definitions, a thesis and roadmap, and two or three clearly signposted arguments; (2) a planned cross-examination of a sceptical opponent: four or five short questions, the answer you expect to each, and how you will use the answers in your rebuttal; (3) a two or three sentence reply you would give if asked a question you could not answer, such as a detailed question about a scholar you have not read.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

• The opening defines key terms, states the burden of proof fairly and gives a clear thesis and roadmap
• Arguments are numbered or labelled (signposted), each with a claim, evidence and a link to the resolution, and stay within the word limit
• Cross-examination questions are short, closed and in a purposeful sequence, with realistic expected answers and a clear plan for using them
• The 'I don't know' reply is honest, does not bluff, and shows why the main case still stands
• Tone throughout reflects 1 Peter 3:15-16 and Colossians 4:6, with opponents represented fairly and Scripture cited accurately

Further reading

• Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl: The source of the 'Columbo' approach of asking good questions; excellent for cross-examination and for staying calm and in control.
• Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft: A full introductory logic textbook in a Socratic style; use it to sharpen definitions, test arguments and spot fallacies.
• A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston: A brief, practical guide to constructing and assessing arguments; quick to read and useful for building tight cases.