[music playing]

TONY DAVEY: Hi there, Primary School Debaters. I hope you're staying safe out there. It's time for another weekly lesson in how to be a killer debater with fantastic arguments and brilliant rebuttal. The thing about that though is that you've probably heard just about everything I know about primary school debating, and also, you're probably intensely bored with me by now. So today, somebody else is going to help out by yelling at you about primary school debating.

So that person is Hugh Bartley. You might recognise him. He kind of drives around the country with me sometimes, helping to coach kids in primary school debating. He's a university debater and he's debated in Sweden and Malaysia and Indonesia, and at the moment he's actually the head coach at Sydney Boys High School here in Sydney. So I'm sure he's got some great tips for you. Here he is. Here's Hugh.

HUGH BARTLEY: Thank you, Tony. Great to be with you. I hope everyone's been having a good week.

Today we're going to be talking about characterisation. You might have heard this word before-- maybe in English class, when you're writing stories or reading them. The word 'characterisation' in that context means, thinking about a character in a story, description of them, how they speak, how they act, what they're thinking, and what that tells us about them. So who they are, what do they care about, what do they like and dislike.

The best stories are those with the best characterisation. So if I were writing and I said something like, 'oh no, Hugh said,' that doesn't tell you as much about Hugh as, if I wrote, 'oh, no, Hugh shouted, as he clenched his fists and stormed off.' So the best stories are those which are characterised, and the same thing happens in debates, too.

When you characterise the people involved in a debate, your argument gets stronger. So let's say we're doing a debate. The debate is, that kids should have to do more work at school, right? And if you were to prove that kids are lazy at school right now, you shouldn't just say, 'oh, most kids are lazy at school.' You should say, 'most kids stay up late on weeknights. They eat food which is really bad for their brain. They love getting distracted by talking to their friends in class, and they hate doing worksheets. They never do any work, because when the teacher comes around, they know that they're going to help them. And that's why kids are lazy at school.'

So that's a much more persuasive argument, isn't it? And so in debating, you should aim to use your descriptive language to paint a picture of how people behave, and that is what characterization is all about. So you might be thinking, where does characterisation fit in, in my speech? Well, remember how we learned about the structure of an argument-- P-E-E-L, two 'Es.'

The first E is Explain, and you might have learnt how to do this. Say 'right now,' and then you want to paint a couple of sentence picture summary of what things look like right now. The best way of doing this is just by characterising what the situation is and how people behave. So two or three sentences is good, four or five is even better. As above, kids are lazy at school. They stay up too late. They get distracted.

The next step of explaining is saying 'after the change,' and then painting a few more sentence pictures of what's likely to happen after you make that change. So for example, 'after kids had to do more work at school, they know that they're going to have to go to bed early. They know that they'll have to eat healthy and they won't have time to get distracted by talking to their friends in class. They're going to think and they're going to work a lot harder because the teacher now expects much more of them.' And then, of course, you would go on to say, 'and that's important, because we want kids to learn as much as possible at school.'

You can also introduce characterization in the second 'E' of your PEEL structure. So for example, 'when the kids are practicing spelling, they know that they're going to have to learn more words than before, and they're not going to get distracted by their friends around them because they'll also be working hard. So they're just going to go and find a dictionary, look up the words they need to know before a teacher has to come round and help them. And by the end of their lesson, they've learned doubly as many words as before.' So you can use characterisation really effectively in your examples.

You can also characterise when you're rebutting the other team. So, let's say the other team's idea was that teachers make kids work hard already. You could say, 'well, we've got two reasons why that's wrong. Firstly, teachers are the nicest, kindest people on earth. They want their kids to have fun at school and not to learn too much, because that's a bit too hard. As a result, kids aren't being pressured enough by their teachers and they're probably not learning enough.'

So those are all of the different ways you can introduce characterization into your arguments and rebuttal. But how do you prepare for this? Often, in prep time is a really good place to start. So when you're doing your case development section, which takes about 25 minutes normally, you want to go through a little checklist about who the people involved in this debate are.

So the first question should be, 'who are the people affected by the debate.' We call these stakeholders. So who are the stakeholders-- is that students, parents, teachers, or maybe subgroups of those, older and younger students, richer or poorer students? Who are the people affected by the debate?

Question two, for each of these people, what motivates them? What is important to them? Is it about learning, about having fun, about making money, helping others? What do these people care about in the debate?

And question three, how will they act? So, given what they care about, how are they likely to pursue it? Are they going to work harder or be lazier? Are they going to be nicer or stricter? How will these people act?

If you follow these steps when you're in prep, I guarantee your arguments and your rebuttal will look great and will be excellently characterised when you get into the debate.

A bit of extension work now. You don't just characterise the people affected by a debate. You can also characterise the place or the environment, or the situation where a debate happens. So remember we were talking about the students at that school? Rather than just say, 'these people do these things at school,' you could say, 'the school that they're working in, is overcrowded. The teacher has so many kids that they need to help, it's way too hot, the air conditioning doesn't work and their school uniform is uncomfortable. The classes are so noisy as well.' Obviously, when you explain it like that, it makes sense that kids aren't going to get much work done.

Alright, and so that's really what characterisation is all about. It's about describing the people who are affected by the debate, what they care about, and how they're likely to act when you make that change. And also the environment in which that debate takes place, and how that affects the way those people will act.

If you were a bit confused about this, don't worry. I have a great game that we can use to practise our new skills of characterization. This game is called 'Animal Weapon'. OK, I want you to go away and play with your friends after this.

So, step one, I want everyone in your class to get together to write a numbered list of animals. So, for example, I might write a list that includes a zebra, a dog, a whale, a caterpillar, a kangaroo and an eagle, let's say. That's my list.

Step number two, I want you to write a list of weapons. Now, here's a fun tip. Games often work better when the weapons you choose are not necessarily ordinarily used as weapons. So my list might include a car, a stick, a spoon, landmines, a net, or a helicopter.

Step three, as a class, I now want you to write a list of six environments. My list might include an office building, a desert, a school, a snowy mountain, a swimming pool or a treehouse.

And step number four, I want you to choose two students from your class to get a dice, or some coins or something, and basically I want you to determine, firstly which animal they're going to be, or secondly, which weapon they're going to use, so which weapon they're going to use in this battle.

So each student, somehow determine in your class what their animal or their weapon is. Don't let them choose though, that could be cheating. And I want someone from the audience to then determine where the battle will take place.

And so once you've done that, you should end up in a situation where you've got one student who is maybe a zebra with a sword, and another student who might be a dog with a stick. And they're having a battle in an environment-- maybe it's an office building, for example. And so I want those two students to go away and to each prepare arguments about why their animal and their weapon is likely to beat the other animal in a battle. And then they can come back to their class, they can give the arguments they've prepared, and then maybe they can even rebut each other as well. When the class listens to these arguments, they can then vote on which student or which animal they think is most likely to win the battle.

Let me give you an example of how this might work. Let's say I'm doing that example above. So I am the zebra with the sword who is facing a dog with a stick in an office building. I might give an argument that goes a little like this. Well, office buildings have white walls and black computer screens, so the zebra will be able to easily camouflage. And the dog, with their bad eyesight, won't be able to see the zebra at all. This means that when the dog comes even remotely close to the zebra, the zebra can cut off the dog's head with their sword. And even if that doesn't work, the dog will come at the zebra with a stick in its mouth. The zebra can use their powerful hooves to kick the stick out of the dog's mouth and then cut its head off with the sword, meaning that the zebra will definitely win this battle. And so that's how these animal weapon battles should go.

Why is this game important? Because it teaches you skills of characterization. You win this game, and you win debates as well, by characterising. So think about what is your animal like? Are they big, are they small, are they powerful, flexible, fast, or clever? What is your weapon like? Is it powerful or flexible? What can it do to the other animal? And then, what is the environment in which this fight takes place? How are the animals going to interact with the place they're in? And the student that answers those questions the best is likely to have their animal triumphant in this battle.

Alright, so I want you guys to go away and play that game, and then I want you to take the skills that you've learned from 'Animal Weapon' and from our little discussion today into your debates. So remember, characterization is all about, who were the people affected by the change in this debate. What do they care about, how are they likely to act, and in what situation is this all likely to happen in?

The better you characterise in your debates, the more debates you're going to win.

So thanks very much. Thanks for tuning in. I hope everyone enjoys their game and has a good week. See you later.

TONY DAVEY: Great stuff, Hugh. Some genuinely spectacular tips there for how to get better and better at characterising the people and places and things in your debates. That's going to make you an excellent debater.

Hugh, I think, thought that he was finished, and he was just going to slink off like a coward and go back to whatever it is he was doing. But instead, I'm going to make him play a game of animal weapon with me and hopefully crush and destroy him. You think you're up for that, Hugh, or are you just a little bit too scared?

HUGH BARTLEY: No, no, I'm not scared at all. You're going down.

TONY DAVEY: Sure. So we've had a look at Hugh's list that he listed off before, and it's ended up that I am a whale with a spoon. And what did you end up, Hugh?

HUGH BARTLEY: I am a caterpillar with a helicopter.

TONY DAVEY: Sure you are. Sure you are. So I'm a whale with a spoon, Hugh is a caterpillar flying a helicopter, and I think we're on a snowy mountain top.

HUGH BARTLEY: Yeah, that's correct.

TONY DAVEY: So we're going to give a 45 second opening speech and then we're going to give a 30 second reply speech-- that's kind of like our rebuttal. And then you guys can write in and let me know if I won. If you think Hugh won, don't bother to write in. Alright, are you ready to go?

HUGH BARTLEY: Yeah, let's do it. Ready when you are.

TONY DAVEY: Alright, alright, here I go, 45 seconds. Let me know when I've had my 45.

HUGH BARTLEY: Sure.

TONY DAVEY: So I think it's obvious that, I, the whale with the spoon, I'm going to easily defeat this caterpillar. First of all, a spoon is easily large enough to crush and destroy a caterpillar. It's a precision instrument tuned to crushing caterpillars, because it's about the right size-- not like a stupid caterpillar inside an enormous helicopter.

I'd also point out that on the top of snowy mountains, it's always really, really windy, and there is no chance that that caterpillar is able to get that helicopter off the ground. And even if he did, it would be blown around. He wouldn't be able to fly it with enough precision to kill me. Let's say he manages somehow to manage something, or whatever, and I can't get him with my spoon. I'll just fly in the air and crush the whole helicopter and him with my body, and then presumably use the spoon to eat his delicious corpse.

Lastly, if anything goes wrong, there are going to be mountain climbers around, and human beings love whales. When they see whales out of their natural habitat, they're like, oh, I love you. Let me get you water. Let me help you out. When they see caterpillars, they just crush them. So even if things go wrong, helpful mountain folk are going to help me to win this battle.

OK, is that like 45 seconds?

HUGH BARTLEY: Yeah, that's right.

TONY DAVEY: Alright, you ready to go? I'll get my timer.

HUGH BARTLEY: OK.

TONY DAVEY: Whenever you're ready.

HUGH BARTLEY: So, I thought it was very ignorant of Tony to say that the helicopter would not be able to fly around the mountains. In fact, helicopters are known for their rescuing capabilities, and they rescue people all the time in the mountains-- meaning a caterpillar could definitely operate it, despite the wind. In fact, the caterpillar will probably be an excellent operator of the helicopter. They've got, like, 40 arms and legs. They'll be able to control the steering wheel and the guns and the weapons, and they won't even have to touch the ground before they're launching an aerial assault against this whale, who's going to be stuck in one spot and just ready for the caterpillar to take him out.

Now, this whale obviously cannot move if they're not in water. So it's just stuck on the snow and on the rocks. They're going to be whirring back and forth a little bit, but they certainly won't be able to move or get out of the way as the caterpillar comes right in for the kill.

TONY DAVEY: OK, that's your 45 seconds. No cheating. Even if I went for longer. Alright, so now it's my turn. I get a 30 second reply, right?

HUGH BARTLEY: You do, that's right.

TONY DAVEY: Alright. OK, so first of all, it's not true that whales aren't nimble. We fling ourselves all over the place, even when we're not in water. We can launch into the air and attack this helicopter. We're not just going to be lying there.

Second of all, even if it's true that a caterpillar has 40 legs, it's going to get confused about which leg to put on which control, so it's going to have a lot of trouble controlling that helicopter. And finally, remember, caterpillars are really light. Any kind of wind, they're going to get sucked out the window of their helicopter and just lie there on the ground in the cold getting smushed by a whale. So there's no way they win.

OK, you're up, Hugh.

HUGH BARTLEY: Alright, look, I just simply don't believe that the enormous 400-500 kilogram whale is going to be able to jump up into the air against the helicopter. More likely, they're probably just going to slide slowly down to the bottom, probably crushing a few skiers on the way, making all of the people climbing and skiing on that mountain very upset at that whale, thus assisting in the killing of that whale anyway. Obviously, the caterpillar would be very nimble with their arms and legs and will have all of the windows in the helicopter shut as well so they won't fly out. They'll be able to control it and they'll be able to finish off the whale without any problems.

TONY DAVEY: Excellent work. Alright, that's the end of the 'Animal Weapon' battle, although of course it could go on for a lot longer. And when you do it, you should have lots and lots of kids have a turn. But remember, a quick speech followed by a quick bit of rebuttal and that's a great way to practise.

Well played, Hugh. I think probably both the caterpillar and the whale are dead. Is that fair?

HUGH BARTLEY: Yes. If not frozen to death, then they've just beaten each other to death.

TONY DAVEY: It's basically the end of 'Hamlet,' but with a whale and a caterpillar. It's very sad. Alright, thanks for that, Hugh, and thanks for all of the tips. We'll see you in another video soon. Stay safe out there.

HUGH BARTLEY: No worries. Thanks for getting in touch. See you, Tony. Have a good one.