Connection: The Rhythm of Great Writing and Debate

In class lately, we've been talking about how English, when used to its fullest extent, has a certain rhythm.  It has a certain beat, a melody.  The proper placement of words in ways to make something more powerful, and more persuasive.  This is very similar to what happens in debate.  

The Rhythm of Great Writing and debate are connected in that they both entail persuasion.

Debate tends to follow a highly specialized type of language that is not accessible to the general public.  But this does not mean that it should discount persuasion.  The major difference between writing for the general public and giving arguments to a judge at high speed is that debate judges are persuaded by different things.  People are persuaded and brought in by strong language, good word choice, and tone.  Debaters are persuaded by good evidence, a strong cross-examination, logical arguments, technical framing of speeches, and so on.  This means that style is important in both debate and writing, even if those styles are radically independent.  

How can the lessons about great writing be applied to debating?  How can academite debaters take what they've learned about word choice, sentence structure, and tone, and then apply those concepts to a debate rebuttal?  

Maybe, when doing analysis on why stimulating the economy through jobs is okay, even when that stimulation will make Chinese investors angry, a debater could more carefully pick his words.  When describing the jobs that are created, he or she could use cheerier, happier, and brighter words than when describing the chinese investors.  They could drag judges down into the drudgery of the other team.