I Thought Big Words Made Me Better at Debating
I used complicated language in debates until a simple question exposed that I did not fully understand my own argument. I started breaking ideas into clear cause-and-effect steps and learned that clarity matters more than sounding sophisticated.
Where it started
For some reason, younger me had decided that good debaters had to sound complicated. So I tried very hard to sound complicated. “People will trust the government less” became something like “this fundamentally undermines institutional legitimacy.” You get the idea.
Where I got stuck
Then someone interrupted me during a debate and asked: “Okay, but what actually happens?” Simple question. I completely fumbled it. I spoke for maybe thirty seconds and eventually realised I had just repeated the same argument in three different ways. I knew the sentence. I didn't really know the logic underneath it. That was slightly painful to realise.
What changed
After that, I started preparing arguments in normal language first. Basically: Who does what? Why? Then what happens? Who does that affect? Then what? That last question became a habit. If I couldn't answer “then what?”, the argument probably wasn't finished.
After that
My speeches got shorter. They probably sounded less impressive too. But I could actually defend them. If someone challenged a link in the argument, I knew where that link came from instead of trying to hide behind another long sentence. I still catch myself occasionally writing something ridiculous. Usually I read it back and think, “Mate. Just say what you mean.”
What stayed with me
Complicated language can make weak thinking sound stronger than it is. Clear thinking usually sounds simpler.
