Last night, it was ACLU member vs. one shmoozing Tennessee wannabe congressman. I looked forward to hearing the debate, as I've been wanting a chance to have the implications of the Patriot Act (which is what they were discussing) explained to me. While I did gain something of a broader perspective on the Act, I feel that the purposes of civil debate were not satisfied at this event. Both speakers were weak, in different ways, and the presentation was cut far too short. It was advertised to last an hour and a half, and then was forced to stay under 50 minutes, leaving precious little time for questions. Rather than critize the Patriot Act (which I generally oppose but am not yet informed enough to make comment on), I'd like to do a critique of public speaking styles.

The man who represented a less negative view of the Patriot Act admitted at the beginning that he knew relatively little about the document, that he had not done a thorough reading of it. While it was good and honest of him to admit this, it bothers me that he would participate in a political debate for which he was ill prepared. Several times he would ignore the topic of the moment to speak on something entirely separate. I saw this as rude and a waste of time. Once, after a student gave evidence contrary to one of the ACLU woman's earlier statements, he interrupted to comment on how remarkable such evidence was and to ask the student what his sources were. The student stated that he had found this evidence on politician dude's website. I'm sorry, but I have no patience for someone who is that snarky, that arrogant, and who is so clearly using this forum purely to increase his number of votes rather than to focus on the actual issue at hand.

Also, his attitude towards the woman from the ACLU was antagonistic, despite statements overtly feigning positive regard for her. He interrupted her at times, and made an obvious effort to ruffle her feathers. Sadly, he was very effective in doing so. Which brings me to my criticism of the ACLU woman (who's name I cannot remember either).

First off, she should have been better informed about evidence which contradicted her stance. The first rule of both fighting and of debate is: "know your enemy." If you don't know what they're going to throw at you, you will lose. Even if opposing evidence is brought up which surprises you, you should always have enough evidence of your own to contrast with that evidence. Say, "yes, that might be true, but what about this ..." You should NOT be mumbling something about how you did not know this and, gee, I guess that does really support my opponent after all. Simply put, acknowledge contrary evidence when it arises, but always have plenty of your own with which you can respond.

Secondly, her speech had a notable lack of examples which would make the issue more personal for the audience she was addressing. Particularly when it comes to the Patriot Act, many people are of the opinion that they are not in danger of being harmed. They are willing to give up private personal information because they feel they have nothing to hide, and do not see any negative repurcussions to their loss of privacy. If you want to convince people that changes need to be made, the easiest and most direct way to do this is to show them how the current situation hurts them personally. Since she was addressing college students, she should have provided an example of a college student who had done nothing wrong, whose private records had been examined by the government, and who'd had negative consequences from their privacy being violated. Even if such an example does not exist, she still could have made a statement like: "While this is not likely to directly affect most college students, it is nevertheless essential that this legislation be repealed in order to protect *these people.* Never forget that college students are not the only people in the country. We all have a responsibility to protect not only ourselves, but all of our fellow citizens, as well as the rights of those visiting the U.S. As a democratic society, we must protect everyone's freedoms, including *these people.* Therefore, let us repeal this unjust act."

Thirdly, (and this is a big one for me) do NOT allow your opponent to unnerve you. I don't care how immature or petty their tactics are. If you respond in like suit, it only makes you look weak and panicked, and it will make them look strong and witty since they did it first. If you stick to your guns and maintain your composure, YOU will be the one who looks mature and strong and your opponent will look like a weak-minded child.

People who debate matters in a public forum must have nerves of steel. They must, at all times, keep their confident and calm composure without resorting to bickering. They are expected to act like adults, not children. They are to undercut each other with evidence, not attitude. Just once I'd like to see a debate where ridicule of the opponent was absent, where the focus was on the facts rather than on peddling yourself to the populace, and where both opponents were thoroughly knowledgable about the issue.

I still fully intend to become one of the "card carrying members of the ACLU," as the right to freedom of speech is near and dear to my heart. But they have really got to do a better job of choosing speakers, or at least must learn to prepare them better and train them more effectively in debate style speaking.

In other news, my Brinkster pages appear on the brink of dying. I've e-mailed them asking why so many of my pages are down. I hope I don't have to switch services. :-(