On debating well

[andmed]

Hello.
I am foreigner and have quite decent English (written, at least), however, I am slow thinker and  bad ad lib speaker. I am going to take part on several conferences in the US soon -- a new experience for me. I am looking for a practical guidance: not for a textbook, but rather for a practical book on conference-style debates. Something very useful for a novice and a foreigner, a collection of unwritten American-style conference conventions and proper typical situational responses.   Very condensed and language-oriented.  Sometimes one needs to answer question when there is no direct answer and do it nicely, without spending  much time on "inventing" the stock-phrases, but rather thinking on substance of the answer. I am not interested in a theoretical book on rhetoric or methodology of conflict resolution (of which there is no shortage).  I need  a book just to learn best "stock-phrases" for "hard-case" debate scenarios, could not find anything suitable so far.

 

Thank you for any suggestions!

 

A

[TakeruK]

I am not sure what field you are in but I think most conferences in the US do not have debates at the conference. In fact, at least in my field, strong disagreement is frowned upon and considered rude or tactless. For example, sometimes you will be in a session where there will be person who is very aggressive with their questions and will "attack" the speakers who present research they do not agree with. When this happens, everyone is uncomfortable, and usually the "attacker" looks bad. So, I would say "debating" is really not appropriate at an American conference, unless I misunderstand what you mean by "debate".

 

Many big American conferences have websites which might also have information for first time attendees. For example, what to wear, how to talk to people, other "unwritten" rules etc.

 

But here is a few "unwritten rules" type of things that I have noticed from American conferences in my field:

 

1. Talks are very very short--usually only 5 minutes for the presentation and then 3 minutes of questions before moving on to the next person. So, be a gracious question asker. Do not use up all 3 minutes of the question time by asking one question after another. Also, unless no one else is asking questions, make sure other people have chances to ask questions too, don't be the person that asks a question every single talk.

 

2. The question period is not the right place to tell someone they are wrong or attack their research. Remember, it's only a 5 minute talk so some details are definitely omitted. Also, it might be hard for the presenter to think up a good defense on the spot. So, the right time to raise serious doubts or concerns is to do so privately during the breaks or some other time. This is not to say that you can ask more simple questions like "how did you know that assumption X is true?" etc. but you should not ask something like "Have you read the papers by A, B and C where they say this entire method is all wrong??"

 

3. The question period is also not the right time to "self-promote". This will happen and it's annoying but some people won't really ask questions but will raise their hands to say something like "Do you know about X?" where X is their own project that is only very loosely related to the topic at hand. Even worse, some "questioners" might raise their hand and then instead of addressing a question to the speaker, they will just address the audience and say something about their own work instead!

 

4. Something other than talks/questions: try not to corner anyone during the breaks or between sessions. It's great to meet new people by walking up to them and saying hi and talk about something relevant, but try to always make it easy/possible for the other person to end the conversation and move on to other people. This is mostly recognizing when a quick chat is over and it's time to continue to circulate the room to find more people to meet. 

[andmed]

TakeruK,

 

Thank you. You have given good overview of conference "conventions". I am not sure I know the bad meaning of "debate" -- the one I know is quite positive, that is "discussion" or "exchange of opinions". Yet it includes possibility of getting question one does not have direct answer to (or there is no direct answer at all), and because of this I am very much interested in relevant situational responses and "stock phrases". This is the reason I have mentioned that I am a foreigner in first place. Native speakers might not have this problem, but non-native speakers are really bad in quibbling.

 

Andrew

[andmed]

Oh, and yes, this is important: I am in social sciences. They are up to "debating"

[fuzzylogician]

Yet it includes possibility of getting question one does not have direct answer to (or there is no direct answer at all), and because of this I am very much interested in relevant situational responses and "stock phrases". 

 

I don't know if there are "stock phrases" really. It does happen to everyone that we get asked a question we hadn't considered before or that we just don't know the answer to. Often it's because the question is not exactly relevant (people will go to great lengths to mention their own work and try and connect it to what you are doing, even when the connection is rather flimsy) but occasionally it's a fair question that just hadn't come up yet in your research. Depending on the situation and how fast you think on your feet, you might be able to come up with something relevant to say, or you may just be out of ideas. It's legitimate to say that you don't know and not even try and guess, or to flag that this is a quick thought and that you'd need to think about it more.

 

"That is a very good question which I had not considered before. Off the top of my head, I think that .... but again, this is just off the top of my head. I will definitely need to give this issue some more thought, thank you for bringing this up."

"That is a very good question which I had not considered before. I don't know the answer right now but thank you, I will give this some thought."

"I don't know the answer and I hesitate to venture a guess. Thank you, I will be sure to look into this issue in more detail later."

"Hm, I'm not sure. I think that ...., (but I could be wrong). Thank you, that is a very good question."

(So, flag that your answer is partial and not fully thought-out, tell the audience any relevant thoughts that come to mind, and thank the person who asked the question, even if you actually think it's a silly question.)

 

For people who insist on not shutting up even after you try and answer their question: "I'd love to talk to you about this more after the talk." or "I'd love to get more information (or: the full details of that paper, etc.) after the talk."