Politics cannot exist without debates. Debating is a means to win people over to your point of view. During a campaign, especially in the last week, political leaders and other party members often engage in debates with opponents. Whether it is a TV or radio debate or a meeting in a country pub, a debate is always an exciting event requiring thorough preparation. The Olympic maxim that participating is more important than winning does not cut any mustard in an election debate. More pertinent is Dutch soccer idol Johan Cruijff’s observation that “if you don’t shoot, you can’t score”. If you want to score, one of the things you have to do is make sure you really get the central message into your system. Your task in the debate is to convey that central message, your party’s views and priorities. That is why you have to determine in advance what you want the journalists to report in their paper, which quotes you would like TV reporters to select for their news broadcast. Try to phrase your texts about the key issues in such a way that they really stick out. Try to think in terms of one-liners and quotes and use striking imagery, like “the strongest bodies have to shoulder the heaviest burden”.

A thorough preparation is key. Practice a debate in advance, try to act out the opposition’s point of view as faithfully as possible. Do not exceed your time limit: if you have been allotted 30 seconds for an opening statement, practice until you can actually deliver it within the allotted time. Enquire what the debate is going to look like: will you be standing or sitting? And if you are going to be standing, will it be behind a rostrum or on an open platform? Prepare replies to parry your opponent’s attacks, and also prepare your own attacks on his weak points. This requires a thorough grasp of the facts. Take care, however, not to appear priggish or to get bogged down in details and abstract figures. Also, do not try to sway the journalist leading the debate. The people you have to sway are in the audience: the voters. It is them you have to get to vote for your party.

General Tips

• You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Smile, be amiable, shake your opponent’s hand and wish them luck.

• Three-part lists are easier to remember – both for yourself and for the audience. If you want to briefly state your party’s goals, make sure it is a list of three items at the most.

• If a question is put to you, always give a clear answer first (“Yes, I am in favour of that” or “No, I am against that”) before you start to explain it. Make sure that the gist of your answer is not lost in the haze of a lengthy explanation.

• Facts tell, but stories sell. Politicians who speak from experience and illustrate their arguments with vivid anecdotes have a better chance of success. The experiences of real people are better illustrations of your views than figures and statistics.

So do not say: “25% of the citizens of Amsterdam live on benefit”, but rather: “This morning I paid a visit to the Smith family in the Dapper Street in Amsterdam. They live on benefit. Do you know how hard it is to make do on such a pittance? Their children cannot join a sports club, they are in debt, they cannot afford healthy food.”

• Make comparisons: “It is a crying shame that you are complaining about a tax raise on the purchase of expensive cars, while there are scores of people who are condemned to buy unhealthy kinds of food because they lack the money for anything better.”

• Do not protest against or try to change the rules of the game, usually laid out by the media. Do not attack the chairman of the discussion if you do not like the way the debate is going: “Mr Chairman, could you try and keep this discussion civil?” This will only alienate the audience.

• Try to manage expectations. In the 2004 us presidential elections, George Bush, a weak debater, had to participate in three debates against John Kerry, who was much more adept at it. According to the polls, Kerry won all of the debates, but because people had such low expectations of Bush’ debating skills to begin with, Kerry hardly profited from these victories.

• After the debate, the tug-of-war about the interpretation of the results begins. Assistants and supporters convey their view of the debate to journalists. “We are very pleased with his performance, especially the way he managed to spotlight his health-care plans.” The overall effect the debates will have is in the hands of the journalists: they select the fragments for news broadcasts, and they summarize and comment on the debate in the papers.

Non-verbal Behaviour

• Non-verbal behaviour is hugely important: a lot of your message is communicated non-verbally. So do not slouch in your chair, yawn or pick your nose. you have to look cheerful and positive. This means you have to be well rested and well fed. A debater in an election campaign has to prepare much the same way an athlete does. The 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon was won by Nixon according to the listeners who only heard it on the radio. But for those who saw the debate on TV, Kennedy won because he looked a lot fresher and more presidential.

• Keep looking at people. Do not look at the chairman but at the opponent you are addressing. Also keep looking at anyone who attacks you. If you look away it suggests that the attack hit a nerve. If you attack someone else, you also have to look at that person, otherwise it looks as though you do not really believe in what you are saying.

• Remember that cameras catch everything. They will be filming you even when you are not speaking, so always maintain an active posture. Do not glance at your watch, it will only create the impression that you are longing for the debate to be over. Stay active in a non-verbal way: stay alert, draw the cameras’ attention.

• Be decisive and stake out your priorities in the debate. You do not have to pounce on every single topic. If the serving tray with drinks has passed without your getting a glass, do not run after it but wait for the next time it comes round. Then you resolutely take the glass you want.

• Do not moan and groan when someone makes a point you disagree with. It makes a disagreeable impression.

• Do not touch your face with your hands. It makes you look nervous.
• Hand gestures: if you make any, make sure they are open and inviting.

Tone

• Your tone of voice is crucial. Keep it spirited and positive: you enjoy the campaign, you want to convince people, it’s a fun job. Always stay amiable.

• Use humour... if you are good at it! A good spontaneous joke is invaluable, but a rehearsed witticism that falls flat is lethal. When in doubt, refrain from joking.

• No personal attacks! Always say something positive (be courteous) before you attack someone’s position.

• Never be arrogant.

• Never be condescending or disparage other people’s points of view. Everyone has the right to their own views, no matter how silly (in your view). Always stay respectful, even when you disagree.

• Attack the opponents’ views, not their character. Do not belittle them. A good tactic is to start with a phrase like: “You make a number of valid points, but there is one thing I fundamentally disagree with...”

• Do not start swearing at your opponents and do not make comparisons with historical enormities like World War II, no matter how distasteful you think the other party’s views are.

• Beware of topics in which you have a personal stake. They make it difficult to control your emotions. Your opponent can exploit that by provoking an emotional reaction.

• Try to listen to alternatives and keep an open mind towards new ideas, be confident without being arrogant. Viewers/voters’ reactions will mirror your attitude. An aggressive attitude will evoke aggression. An open attitude will invite an open attitude on the part of the viewer/voter.

Tricks

• Spring an unexpected proposal on your opponents, and ask them to subscribe to this proposal on the spot: “If everyone here agrees that parents ought to pay less for their children’s education, I propose that we agree here and now to make textbooks freely available to everybody.” This has a number of advantages: you make clear what you stand for, you make a practical proposal, you challenge the opponents, and by referring to a common interest you create the impression of rising above party divides. Of course this is possible only with a credible and workable proposal.

• Put questions to your opponents about facts or figures they are not likely to have at hand: “Do you know how many schools we have in our country? And do you know how many pupils they have on average?” “You say you defend the interests of people with minimum benefit, but do you actually know how much money a family on benefit actually has to spend on food?” Of course you can only do this if you yourself know the answers, and the facts you inquire about are not irrelevant.

• Use the rhetorical device of three-part structures. In the 2006 Dutch elections the PvdA’s Wouter Bos asked his opponent: “Can you name three measures you have taken to increase the relative tax burden on people with high incomes? No? Give me at least two then! Can you name one single measure you have taken?”

• Rise above party divides. Experienced and reputable politicians often withdraw from the fray of political debates and try to make an impartial impression with conciliatory words. It is up to their opponents to try and draw them back into the tug-of-war of the debate.

• Take your opponents off guard by confronting them with statements they have made in the past. This requires that you have detailed knowledge of everything your opponent has ever said in the past. Even if it was twenty years ago, it still remains relevant. If you can catch your opponent contradicting himself during the debate, it can become an important weapon, and one that will haunt them during the rest of the election.

• Exaggeration: “Because you have done nothing to combat poverty, the fastest growing ‘supermarket chain’ in our country is that of food distribution charities.”

“This government has done nothing to help people with low incomes, but never before has our country seen such an increase in the number of millionaires with a swimming pool in their garden.” you have to beware not to stray too far from the truth with your exaggerations, and be prepared for lightning-speed counterattacks:

“You merely want to give those people more money, we want to give them jobs. Now that is what I call social responsibility.”

• Forcing your opponent to make an impossible choice by presenting them with an imaginary dilemma: “If you had to choose between cutbacks in health care or buying new fighter jets for the air force, what would you choose?”

• Presenting opinions as fact: “It is a simple fact that every single person in this country is in favour of investing in care for the elderly.”

• Quoting third-party sources: “Research has shown that the citizens of this town reject the council member’s plans to raise parking fees.”

• Generalizations: “All the renovations taking place in my street are being done by cheap Polish labourers. Everywhere in Holland Poles are stealing our jobs.”

• The pre-emptive strike. Countering an anticipated attack before it has even started is a possible way of neutralizing its threat. You can do this by cornering opponents on their own turf. In the 2006 Dutch elections, for instance, the PvdA had prepared a fierce attack on the Christian Democrats’ views about employment protection. What we were not prepared for, however, was that the Christian Democrats would actually launch their own attack on our views before we did. This made it impossible for us to “score points” on this issue. In soccer terms: take the defence to the opponents’ half of the field. Another way of cutting the ground from under the opponents’ feet is by saying something like: “I already know you are going to complain about our plans for a new highway, but so far I haven’t heard you offer a single alternative solution.” Be careful with this instrument, however, because it does highlight the weak points in your own case.