FIRST PRINCIPLES (PRINSIP PERTAMA)

- Understanding the logical flow of a debate without having to know much about the facts or matters surrounding the issue.Mengerti secara logis arus dari debat tanpa harus mengetahui lebih banyak fakta atau keadaan yang melingkupi suatu persoalan- Knowing where the clash should be- which side the Affirmative and Negative will be fighting for, consecutively.Mengatahui di mana perselisihan seharusnya berada- yang mana positif dan negative akan dibantah dengan teratur

5 COMMON FLAWS WITH ARGUMENTS (in exception of matters, this is just logic!)5 KEKURANGAN UMUM PADA ARGUMEN (pengecualian pada keadaan, ini hanya logika)

1. Assertion – the argument is in fact not an argument at all, it’s simply an assertion, and there is no logical reason given to believe that it is true.Pernyataan yang jelas (judul) – argument adalah fakta tidak hanya pendapat saja, pernyataan yang sederhana dan tidak ada alasan yang logis yang diberikan untuk dipercayai bahwa itu benar

2. Contradiction – the argument may be valid, but it is in contradiction with a previous argument. To be a real – or a full-blown contradiction – it must be that within the case there are two arguments which are impossible to be true simultaneously, e.g. cheap and expensive at the same time is just plain illogical. Penyangkalan – argument dimungkinkan sah/benar, tapi ini penyangkalan yang disertai dengan argument sebelumnya. Untuk menjadi atau penyangkalan sepenuhnya

3. Casual Causation – essentially a lack of analysis when someone tries to draw a link between two events, without showing how the former might cause the latter to happen.

4. False Dichotomy – a particular type of mischaracterization of a debate or a problem, this occurs when someone says there is a choice to be made where the only options are ‘A’ or ‘B’, while in fact they’re not the only choices available.

5. Straw Man – another type of mischaracterization where a team set up an argument (which you have not made, and you don’t intend too) then proceeds to rebut it.

SURGICAL STRIKE REBUTTAL: Minimal Fuss, Maximum Damage!

Anatomy of an argument is:IDEA --- ANALYSIS --- EVIDENCE

Attacking the EVIDENCE could easily be done, but then they’d just throw in another fact or evidence and it’s a stalemate… 1-2 out of 5 stars.

Attacking the ANALYSIS is more difficult, but also more effective. However, a smart opponent would find another way to prove the main idea, and weakens the rebuttal in an instant… 2-4 out of 5 stars.

Attacking the IDEA is the hardest of all, since ideas are more than often reasonable, but it’s a fatal blow to the opponent if you succeed. Effective, efficient, and deadly- gets 4-5 out of 5 stars.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9180034572637490182Christopher Halim: World Universities Peace Invitational Debate 2008, quarterfinals, THW bomb terrorist bases in PakistanChristopher Halim: Opening Gov Ateneo de Manila, Opening Opp University of Vermont, Closing Gov Monash University, Closing Opp Harvard UniversityChristopher Halim: That was one of the best videos I've ever seen, hands down