Inside USC Annenberg's classrooms, students are the ones typically tasked with answering the hard questions. "Five Minutes with..." turns the tables on faculty members by asking them the questions.

This fall Kiran Dhillon joined the faculty at USC Annenberg School of Communications as lecturer and associate director of debate and forensics for the USC Trojan Debate Squad.

A competitive debater since high school, Dhillon has won accolades competing at the college national level. She is also a veteran debate coach, with stints at the University of Northern Iowa, Milwaukee High School of the Arts and the New York City Debate League.

This semester at USC Annenberg she is teaching COMM 322: Argumentation and Advocacy, which introduces students to a core set of theories and practices related to the art of argumentation and debate. The course will help students learn fundamental skills needed to research, organize, develop, evaluate, refute, and critique arguments.

Dhillon shared a few thoughts with us about competitive debating, the presidential debates and whether or not she thinks argumentation theory at home.

When and how did you realize that you were skilled at debating and argumentation?

I was a very shy child. Debate was not something that came naturally to me, but as I pressed into the activity I began to understand theories that expanded my understanding of the world. We all are raised with a certain set of values and views of the world that are filtered from our parents/guardians, friends, and family members. Argumentation theory and debate taught me critical listening skills, critical thinking skills, research skills, and reasoning skills, which all became useful tools whenever I had a discussion with my inner circle and engaged my community. 

You've been involved with competitive debating for many years. For those who are unfamiliar, how would you describe that experience? 

USC members of the Trojan Debate Squad (TDS) participate in three different formats of debate: public, policy, and parliamentary. I am most familiar with competitive policy debate, which is a two-on-two format on a particular resolution that is selected each year and then debated on throughout the Fall and Spring semesters. Typically, each team in policy is scheduled to debate eight preliminary debates—four as affirmative team and four as the negative team. The idea is that debaters learn multiple sides to an overall issue or policy.

For instance, our top team of Hex Larson and Aron Berger most recently attended the University of Missouri-Kansas City Season Opener Debate Tournament. The duo had a tremendous performance of 3rd seed overall, 2nd and 3rd speaker, advancing to the finals to become the 2nd overall team at the tournament. I am excited to acknowledge not only Hex and Aron's hard work, but the overall efforts by the whole TDS. It was amazing to see the debaters staying up late on the weekend to send their teammates work to help them prepare for the next day of debates. We are preparing for our upcoming October trip to Arizona State University.

The presidential debates are on many people's minds right now. How did Trump and Clinton do in the first debate?

Clinton and Trump negotiated their rhetorical strengths and obstacles and both performed their leadership to demonstrate to the American public their visions of guiding the U.S. into the future. The first debate allowed voters to see the candidates side-by-side for the first time as they debated on the differences and similarities of each of their ideas to lead the country. Clinton remained composed throughout the debate demonstrating her ability to handle Trump's aggression. At the same time, Trump was strong during the first 20 minutes of the debate when he discussed the economy but demonstrated an inability to adapt to change when asked follow up questions by the moderator, Lester Holt from NBC Nightly News.

Would their debating skills have improved if they had taken your class? Were there any teachable moments in the debate?

When Clinton was discussing her economic policy, she stated how her independent experts said her plan was good and Trump's was bad. When Trump was discussing his policy issues, he had claims that appeared to be missing warrants. In my argumentation class, Clinton and Trump would learn to elaborate on why their policies are better as students learn claims need warrants, explanation and evidence. 

Recent televised debates have had real-time fact-checking done by media outlets. How have internet resources and the ease of fact-checking changed the way we gauge the success (or failure) of arguments during a debate?

The ease of fact-checking is one way for voters to gauge the strengths and limitations of each of the candidates policy proposals. I believe voters should not solely rely on media outlet fact-checking and should consider conducting their own fact-checking of the candidates issues while also evaluating additional evidence such scholarly articles, books, news articles, and/or their own lived experiences to determine which candidate is the best individual to lead the country. 

Do you think about argumentation theory when you have arguments at home?

As an argumentation scholar, I do think about argumentation theory in my personal and professional life. Sometimes there is a limit to the argumentation model in interpersonal relationships such as trying to have a discussion when someone is not ready or when emotion precedes logic. However, I find that most of the time the argumentation model is successful for evaluating the strengths and limitations of any given situation.