Attending a debate for the first time this Thursday afternoon, I had no notion of what to expect. Not only did I know nothing regarding the casino proposal itself, other than that it existed, but I genuinely felt no bias, for or against, the building of one in Maine. In a way, my predisposed neutral stance on the subject made me the ideal audience member for a debate; being both impartial and uneducated on the subject, I was therefore vulnerable to any and all forms of social influence the opposing sides could use to persuade me with. In the end, the Opposition, the side fighting against the introduction of a casino to Maine, received my "winning" vote. There were a number of contributing factors that led me to this conclusion, including: the information that was given by the speakers, the persuasiveness of the speeches, how well they kept my interest, and how passionate the team seemed to be on the matter.

      The debate was organized into two equal teams of three members apiece. There was a "Government" side, which was arguing in favor of building a casino in Maine, and the "Opposition" side, which was arguing against the casino proposal. The debate began with an introduction of the two teams, and the topic of the debate, which led into the first "constructive speech," given by a member of the Government. In total, each side was given an opportunity to make two "constructive speeches" and one final "rebuttal" speech at the culmination of the debate. Since the Government was given the first speech of the debate, the Opposition was granted the second rebuttal speech, the final speech of the debate. Ensuring that although the Government was given the first speech, vital for grasping you initially with their argument, which in this particular case worked on me. The final speech holds the potential to culminate the debate, and to argue away any last questioning factors regarding their cause, therefore leaving their argument freshest in the audience's mind for the vote.

      For me, it was those two speeches, the opening constructive speech of the Government, and the final, rebuttal speech by the Opposition that were the most powerful contributing factors in my decision of who "won." In my opinion these were the two "best" speeches of the debate, aside from one of the short audience member speeches, which was in support of the Opposition, and was given during the interlude preceding the final rebuttal speeches. It is possible that my lingering memory of these two speeches is due in part to the primacy/recency effect, causing me to retain the most memory of those beginning and ending arguments, but even so, that was the situation, and if the situation had been reversed, and the Government given the final speech, I can not say that my position would not have possibly differed. This fact could say something about my susceptibility to the speakers influence, as well as raise questions about the proceedings of a debate, and the advantages and disadvantages of speech order in a debate.

      The Government opened up with a powerful speech given by their most confident speaker, or so he seemed, in comparison to the others. He began by saying, "a fool and his money are easily separated." Followed by, "this is an incredible opportunity for Maine." Only two sentences into his speech, and we were already face to face with what Cialdini would classify as "time limit" Scarcity (Cialdini, Influence, 2001). In other words, when put in a situation such as this, although we may not be in support of a casino in Maine, by stating what an "incredible opportunity" it is, we feel as if its something we don't want to lose. Therefore, if we pass up our opportunity now, it will be gone for good, consequentially we are inclined to want it more.

      The first Government speaker continued not long after with a second attempt to draw us in, this time with the influence of Reciprocation. "Maine took land from the Penobscot Tribe," he stated, and continued by saying that because of this fact, the only way to "amend" our previous actions is by granting permission to the tribe to build their desired casino. This fact regarding the Penobscot Indians was news to me, as I knew nothing about the details and reasons behind the proposal, therefore I was immediately struck with the intended sense of guilt and obligation towards this Indian tribe. Justifying this with the thought that; if Maine stole their land for years, and now all they want is to build a casino, with their own money, that will benefit Maine's economy, how can they say no? The speech ended with the facts and figures of the plan, the profits Maine was subject to, and how a casino would be a "huge relief for Maine, as well as a huge benefit for Maine and the Penobscot Tribe."

      Following that initial speech, I began to feel that building a casino might in fact be a positive addition to Maine. However, the Opposition retorted this first Government speech well, in the following speech, by pointing out the negatives which could ensue, stating that it would: deteriorate the image of Maine, bring in crime and prostitution, push out small local businesses, and that there is no guarantee that it would be profitable for the state or the tribe. The Opposition also used the weapons of social influence to benefit their argument; "Isn't Maine's motto: the way life should be? Since when has gambling and crime become the way life should be?" The first speaker stated in the start of his speech, playing upon the idea of Commitment and Consistency. In other words, if Maine has always been known for its nature environment; blueberries, wildlife, lobsters, forests, than introducing a casino, and everything that comes along with it, would be inconsistent with the image of Maine. It would no longer be a place that draws tourists for its camping and nature, but for its bright lights and slot machines. The second weapon used was the influence of Social Proof, saying that if a casino promised so many potential benefits, then why weren't other states doing it as well? Therefore the negative consequences must outweigh the potential positive benefits, and with that argument, I was once again in a neutral state, torn half and half between the two sides opening arguments.

      Throughout the course of the debate, I went from neutral, to pro-Government, back to neutral, and finally to pro-Opposition. In the end, there was no quantitative way in which I judged the "winner," and have no real justification for my decision other than what felt right. In my mind, the argument had less to do with the numbers and concrete facts of the argument, such as; costs, profits, gains, losses, and more to do with how much more passionately the Opposition spoke in support for their cause, as opposed to the Government. Following the four constructive speeches, audience members were given a chance to voluntarily take the stand and to make a brief argument in support of their chosen side; both teams had two audience volunteer speeches. This is where my transition from neutral to pro-Opposition was initially sparked. The speech was given by a boy who said he had lived in Maine his whole life, and that he was appalled at the idea of a casino destroying hundreds of acres of forest, only to bring in commercialization, and cause the ruin of small local shops, restaurants, and hotels. Having the speech come from someone from Maine, who felt so strongly on the subject, made the Opposition's argument that much more convincing. Also, it made me, someone not from Maine; feel convinced that he must know what he is talking about, and know what's best for Maine, because of his close connections to, and strong feelings, regarding the future of the state.

      As it turned out, the Opposition "won" both in my eyes, and in the final vote. As I said before, their final speech was what gave me the last push to their side. There was nothing particularly standout in the last speech, no new major argument or facts, but his delivery of the speech was so natural and confident. Throughout the speech nearly the entire audience was laughing along with his humorous remarks, even those sitting on the Government side of the audience. He was funny and well spoken, not overly serious, but still expressive with his feelings against building a casino. His method of winning over the audience through jokes, while still keeping focused on the topic puts one under the influence of Liking, at least in my case, because we are more likely to like someone we find funny or interesting. I liked his speech, as well as his way of delivering it, far more than some of the others, because of his ability to keep my attention, more than those speakers whose speeches at times became repetitive and slow.

      In conclusion to this debate I learned not only about the Maine casino conflict, but about the proceedings of a debate, as well as how debaters, can and do, use the various weapons of social influence on their audiences, and saw first hand how effective they can be. In this debate I recognized the influences of Scarcity, Commitment and Consistency, Reciprocation, Social Proof, and Liking. And in a way, being without knowledge of anything regarding the debate topic, in my eyes, every speaker held the position of Authority over my knowledge of the subject, and thus my opinions regarding it. In the end, its hard to say what influenced me the most in my decision, if it was the information I was given, the order in which it was given, or the way it was spoken, it was not an easy decision, but I left with the belief that building a casino in Maine really is not the way life should be.