Debate Module

Learning How to Debate

The basics of debating

Edwardo R. Almazan

9/25/2013

Learning How to Debate 2013

2

Introduction

Figure 1http://debateable.org

Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially

the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly. Debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_assembly


3

is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of

argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a

consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't

the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion.

Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional

appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one

side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or

framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate

depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the

objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to

discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

In competitive debates teams compete, and one is judged the winner by some

criteria. There are many different styles of competitive debate, organizations and rules.

One purpose is to train young people who may in future be required to debate and

resolve matters.

Competitive debate is carried out at the local, national, and international level. In

schools and colleges competitive debate often takes the form of a contest with explicit

rules. It may be presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, following

the rules. Each side is either in favor of ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against,

'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution). The "for" side must argue

supporting the proposition; the "against" side must refute these arguments sufficiently to

warrant not adopting the proposition; they are not required to propose any alternative.

A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined

shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In

fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated

arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the

opposite of what you believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition


4

Practically, people have a lot of reasons why they participate in debates and on

of which are:

Ability to enunciate, you should be surprised at how many people just mumble.

Joining a debate team will unconsciously teach you to speak clearly and consequently

sound more intelligent.

Ability to defend a point with evidence, not emotion, righteous anger will only get

you so far in an argument; knowing how to defend your stance with evidence supporting

it is a life skill that will follow you, whether it's arguing with your parents or telling a

prospective employer why they should hire you.

Ability to speak in front of groups, this is huge--later on in life, you'll be speaking

in front of groups of people, be it in college, in business meetings, or the PTA.

Ability to research, remember that evidence I pointed out up there? The ability to

find that evidence is also a key to success.

Ability to spot falsehoods and straw men, you will know when someone is trying

to pull the wool over your eyes with meaningless statistics and heuristics. You'll know

who to pay attention to in important matters and who is spouting BS.

Competitive debate is a challenging and highly rewarding activity for most who

become involved in it. There are a full range of benefits associated with being on the

debate team.

• Fun: The vast majority of the tens of thousands of students who compete in debate

tournaments each year will tell you that it‟s fun. For every person, the experience is a

little different, but generally the thrill of competition, the camaraderie of teammates and

the travel opportunities make debate fun.


5

• Teammates: An additional benefit of getting involved is building friendships with

teammates who enjoy similar interests.

• Public Speaking Skills: Most people naturally avoid public speaking--debate provides

a non-threatening environment to practice these skills so that down the road when

you‟re called on to speak in college or on the job, you‟ll have the skills necessary to do a

great job. This increases your chances of doing well in

important interviews for jobs or scholarships.

• Analytical Skills: The ability to critically analyze a problem and propose workable

solutions is invaluable. This is a skill that debate best teaches and high-level business

people and professionals possess.

• Research Skills: From traditional library research to the Internet, debate teaches you

to become a world-class researcher. Ask any college student and they‟ll tell you how

valuable this is.

• Listening & Note taking Skills: Debate requires that you become a careful listener

and good note taker. This helps students get better grades and learn faster.

The aim of this module is to: introduce students to debating as a discourse mode;

develop skills in proposing and defending a line of argument; engage in critical

contemporary debates in society; manage learning via electronic portfolio (LOLIPOP).


6

Module Objectives:

To provide students with the necessary insight and analysis to engage with

current debates in social research and utilise them effectively in their individual

research process;

focus listeners on the main ideas of a speech with appropriate signposting;

understand the features of a structured speech;

Demonstrate ability to comprehend and identify main ideas in oral sources.

Develop familiarity and comfort speaking in public.

Demonstrate ability to adapt oral presentations to various audiences

Learning Outcomes:

Define and set out theoretical underpinnings of a motion

Use the skill of rebuttal, including the use of supporting evidenceDemonstrate

ability to work effectively in teams

Display knowledge of specialised vocabulary pertaining to a given topic or field

Self-assess oral language skills

Plan short-term goals for the development of debating skills

Duration:

One Semester


7

Chapter 1

Parliamentary Formats

Overview

Debate is the highest and most complex form of public speaking. It is an

exchange of ideas dealing from multifaceted issues of society to common things

happening around us. This area of word war promotes the discussion of academic

discourse among your audience.


This chapter would dwell on the specifics of each parliamentary procedure and

introduce to you the speaker roles. Aside from that you would also have a glimpse of

the differences and similarities within every procedure. The discussions within every

academic debate procedures would be useful to you to get oriented whenever you get

to be part of debates.


8

A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined

shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In

fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated

arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the

opposite of what you believe in.

Types of Parliamentary Formats

American parliamentary debate is a formal contest of reason, wit and rhetorical

skill which simulates debate in a theoretical House of Parliament. Two teams, the

Government and the Opposition, of two debaters each, consider a resolution proposed

to the House. A different resolution is proposed each round. The debate is moderated

by a Speaker of the House, who will also serve as judge for the round. In parliamentary

debate, emphasis is placed on quick thinking, logical argumentation and analysis, an

command of rhetoric over extensive research or collection of evidence. Accordingly, no

recorded evidence or other outside written material may be consulted during the round.

This Guide is designed to serve as a basic introduction to the format of American

parliamentary debate and a brief primer on some of the techniques and methods which

make an effective debater. Many of the suggestions outlined here are not written in

stone; they merely represent general guidelines and some conventional wisdom, which

should be adapted to meet the unique style of each individual debater. Rules will vary

subtly with each debating society; check with the host of the particular tournament for

any important variations.

Prime Minister Constructive (PMC) 7 minutes

Announce resolution and provide link.

Give clear and precise case statement.

Support case with several independent arguments

Leader of the Opposition Constructive (LOC) 7 minutes

Provide opposition philosophy

Announce opposition strategy/countercase


9

Introduce independent analysis

Rebut PMC arguments

Member of the Government Constructive (MG) 7 minutes

Provide overviews

Attack Opposition independent analysis

Rebuild/review Government case

Introduce new arguments

Member of the Opposition Constructive (MO) 7 minutes

Review Opposition philosophy

Introduce new points and analysis

Cover main issues

Counter Member of Government

Set Government burdens

British Parliamentary style debate is a common form of academic debate. It has

gained support in the United Kingdom, Ireland,Canada, India, Europe, Africa,

Philippines and United States, and has also been adopted as the official style of the

World Universities Debating Championship and European Universities Debating

Championship.

Because of the style's origins in British parliamentary procedure, the two sides

are called the Government (more commonly called "Proposition" in the United Kingdom)

and Opposition. The speakers are similarly titled:

1. Opening Government (first faction):

1. Prime Minister

2. Deputy Prime Minister

2. Opening Opposition (second faction):

1. Leader of the Opposition

2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition

3. Closing Government (third faction):

1. Member for the Government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure


10

2. Government Whip

4. Closing Opposition (fourth faction):

1. Member for the Opposition

2. Opposition Whip

Speaking alternates between the two sides and the order of the debate is therefore:

1. Prime Minister

2. Leader of the Opposition

3. Deputy Prime Minister

4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition

5. Member for the Government

6. Member for the Opposition

7. Government Whip

8. Opposition Whip

Opening factions

The first faction on each Government and Opposition team, known as the Opening

Factions, has four basic roles in a British Parliamentary debate. They must:

Define the motion of the debate.

Present their case.

Respond to arguments of the opposing first faction.

Maintain their relevance during the debate.

The Opening Government team has the semi-divine right of definition, preventing the

opposition from challenging their definition of the motion unless it is either a truism or

clearly unreasonable.

Closing factions

The role of the second two factions are to:

Introduce a case extension.

Establish and maintain their relevance early in the debate.

Respond to the arguments of the first factions.

Respond to the case extension of the opposing second faction.

In addition, the final two speakers of the debate (known as the Whips) take a similar role

to the third speakers in Australia-Asiandebating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate#Australia-Asia_debating


11

The opposition whip may not introduce new arguments for his faction, the

government's whip may add new positive material as long as it's "small" and does

not start a new line of argumentation. This is a relatively new standard that has

become the standard at the Worlds University Debating Championship, as well as

the European University Debating Championship;

They must respond to both opposing factions' arguments;

They should briefly sum up their Opening Faction's case;

They should offer a conclusion of their own faction's case extension.

Asian Parliamentary Debate consists of three debaters per team and composing two

teams, the Government and Opposition. The government has the Prime Minister,

Deputy Prime Minister and Government Whip, while Opposition has the Leader of the

Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Whip.

Figure 3EUTH Debate


12

Figure 4EUTH Debate

Speaker Roles:

Prime Minister:

• States Context

– Briefly explain background of the debate

• Sets the Definition

– Clearly define the motion

• Explain the Model (policy debate)

• Provides Team Stance

– The direction of the Government‟s case

• Presents Split


13

– State arguments of 1st and 2nd speaker

• Develop Argument

– Analyze and elaborate

Leader of the Opposition:

• Accept/ Reject the definition

• Rebut the Prime Minister‟s arguments

• Explain the Counter Model or Status Quo (policy debate)

• Provides Team Stance

– The direction of the Opposition case

• Presents Split

– State arguments for 1st and 2nd speaker

• Develop Argument


Deputy Prime Minister

• Rebut the Leader of Opposition‟s arguments and Defend your own case

• Presents own arguments (different from 1st speaker)

• Develop your Argument


Deputy Leader of the Opposition:

• Rebut the Deputy Prime Minister‟s arguments and Defend your own case

• Presents own arguments (different from 1st speaker)

• Develop your Argument


Government Whip:

• Rebut the Deputy Leader of Opposition‟s arguments

• Rebut the points of the Opposition

• Summarizes the debate, define the CLASHES and MAIN ISSUE of the debate

• Support and Defend the points of the Government side

• Summarizes the Government case

• Cannot Bring New Matter/ New Argument

Opposition Whip:


14

• Rebut the points of the Government

• Summarizes the debate, define the CLASHES and MAIN ISSUE of the debate

• Support and Defend the points of the Opposition side

• Summarizes the Opposition case

• Cannot Bring New Matter/ New Argument

Reply Speeches:

• Given by 1st or 2nd speaker, NOT the WHIP

• Summarizes the entire debate, looking at the arguments, role fulfillment, main

questions which need to be answered to win, higher moral benefit majority, etc

• The team‟s last opportunity to persuade their main points to be the adjudicator

and focus on the key issues of the debate

• Summarizes the Opposition case shortly

• No new Matter/ New Arguments, examples analysis


15

Exercises:

A.

1. How many speakers for both houses are there in an American Parliamentary

Debate?

2. In each parliamentary debate procedures, what is mainly the role of a Prime

Minister?

3. What is the role of the Whips?

4. How many minutes have each speaker in the debate?

5. Who sets the definition?

6. Who challenges a definition?

7. What competitions adopt the British Parliamentary Debate?

8. Who usually presents the split of arguments?

9. Who summarizes the arguments and discusses the clashes and per issues?

10. Who usually presents the mechanism in a case?

B.

1. Compare the three Parliamentary Procedures, how are they similar or differ from

each other?

2. Discuss the flow of speakers in the Asian Parliamentary Debate.

C.

1. Paint a picture of how a speaker flows in each parliamentary procedure.


16

Chapter Two

Setting of Definitions and Parameters in a Debate

Overview


According to Andrew Stockley, for a debate to proceed, both teams need a clear

understanding of what the motion means.This requires the motion to be „defined‟ so that

everyone (audience and adjudicators included)knows what is being debated. Problems

arise if the two teams present different understandingsof the meaning of the motion.

This can result in a „definition debate‟, where the focus of thedebate becomes the

meaning of the words in the motion, rather than the motion itself.Interaction and clash

between the two teams concentrates on whose definition is correct, ratherthan the

issues raised by the motion. Definition debates should be avoided wherever possible.

They make a mockery of what debating seeks to achieve.

A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the contention of

the debate, definitely not a definition that wins the debate, as that means no debate

occurs.How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion?

A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other teams in

the debate to question their approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the definition to


17

what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators should evaluate the effect

of the definition. If Government defines too narrowly and cannot develop matter to prove

their self-proving case, then they contribute little to the debate. If they define poorly and

creates too many holes, then defending their case will be difficult.

Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as long

as those parameters are fair. For example, in a debate about child labor, restricting it to

legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate and leads to a good debate

happening, the action of setting those parameters should be rewarded.However these

are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If the Government unfairly

restricts the parameters of the debate, it is fair for Opposition to expand the area of

debate. Thus Government cannot limit a child labor debate to discussing the right to

earn allowance by shoveling snow if the Opposition argues that is unfair and expands it.

On the other hand if the Opposition likes to discuss snow shoveling, that is also their

right and they should not be punished for not expanding the parameters.

This chapter shall dwell on teaching mechanics on how to set definition and

parameter in a debate and will teach you on the types of motion existing. This is a vital

par because definitions and parameters in a debate shall quantify on what quality of

round a debate will end.

The definition refers to the explanation and contextualization of the terms in the

motion so that the debaters, judges and audience members will understand what these

terms mean exactly. This is expected for all the key terms in the motion, even if these

terms appear to be self-explanatory. Debaters are usually not required to define every

single term in the motion. However, the key terms in the debate will have to be

explained and the motion as a whole will have to be explained by the First Proposition

Speaker.

There are 3 tiers of definition that can be used by debaters:

Literal


18

The dictionary definition, which is especially useful for issues not debated often.

To illustrate: To define the term “Social Network”, one will say: It is a website or internet

based program that is specifically tasked with easing the ability to connect and find

friends of similar interest groups.

Contextualized

Additional information on how this concept/entity/action applies in the real world.

Proposition may sometimes use this technique to portray these terms in a manner

which suits their case better (without making the definition unfair).

To illustrate: A contextualized definition could read: A “Social Network” functions as a

one-stop web location that simplifies the ability to rally groups of like minded individuals

for various grass root causes as well as spread information and news easily. It also

enables long lost friends to more easily reconnect with one another.

Examples

The use of some examples could be useful in the definitions as they will allow the

participants of a debate to grasp immediate the term in the motion are.

To illustrate: Such examples include but are not exclusive to Facebook & Twitter.

The Proposition has the power of definition. However, it cannot abuse this

position to render the definition of the motion such that the Opposition has been left with

no room to debate. Thus, an acceptable definition will need to fit the following criteria:

Obvious to the Layman

The definition should be obvious to the average person on the street, especially if

there is more than one acceptable dictionary definition of a certain word. If the

Proposition chooses to use the more obscure definition in order to render the

Opposition‟s case irrelevant, this is called “Squirreling” and is illegal in the WSDC

format.


19

Illustration: For the motion “This house would go nuclear,” the common

understanding of the motion is that it will be a debate on atomic technology. If the

Proposition decides to have a debate on “nuclear families,” they will be technically

correct but the definition will not be acceptable as it will be an obscure understanding of

the word "nuclear."

There could, however, be some motions where there is a less than obvious

understanding of what the terms in the motion may refer to. In these cases, as long as

the definition allows reasonable room for debate (see next section), it can be deemed

acceptable

Illustration: For the motion, “THW require stricter regulation on drugs,” the

Proposition could define drugs as “pharmaceuticals” while the Opposition defined drugs

as “narcotics.” In this instance, the Proposition‟s definition could still be acceptable as it

still provides sufficient room for the Opposition to debate.

Allow Room for Debate

The definition should allow both sides reasonable room for debate. If the

Proposition denies sufficient room for the Opposition to debate, the definition will not be

acceptable. Thus, the Proposition will have to avoid definitions of the following nature:

A Truism

A definition which is a truism means that it will not allow the Opposition team to

make any arguments as the Proposition‟s stance will be obviously true. For instance, for

the motion “THBT that this is the age of the nation state,” the Proposition chooses to

take the stance that “nation states exists in the world,” which is obviously true and


20

cannot be refuted by the Opposition. A more reasonable definition will be that the nation

state is “the predominant actor and driver in the world today.”

A Tautology

A tautology refers to a definition that is skewed or limited in order to make it true.

Again, this leaves the Opposition very little room to play with and makes the definition

unacceptable. For instance, for the motion “TH regrets terrorism,” if the Proposition

defines terrorists as “individuals who have committed a crime without just cause” this

does not leave the Opposition with much room to play with and forces it to defend a

restricted understanding of terrorists.

On Absolute Words

Some motions are worded in such a way that they sound absolute. For instance,

the motion could read “This house believes that all schools should abolish uniforms,” it

will not be possible for Proposition to prove that every single school in the world should

abolish school uniforms. Thus, it is acceptable for the Proposition to try to prove the

case in the majority of the circumstances. Likewise the Opposition cannot win this

debate by pointing out a single instance where schools should not abolish uniforms.

They will have to oppose by showing that there is a significant number of schools which

should not abolish them.

The job of defining a motion gets a little bit more complex when the motion calls

for a policy. The Proposition team should not be delivering a detailed blueprint but

should be outlining the core components of the policy they wish to introduce. Whenever

possible, the Proposition team should use policies which have already been enacted as

the basis for their policy in order to demonstrate that this policy will work. For instance,

for the motion “THW Ban handguns,” the Proposition can highlight the fact that the ban

will be similar to the Brady Bill in the US which banned automatic weapons.


21

For developing a policy it will be useful for Debaters to ask the following

questions so that every aspect of the policy may be considered: Who? What? When?

Where? How? Why? We will look into each question in relation to the motion “THW ban

handguns.”

Who are the groups of people involved and their clash of rights? The policy will have to

explain how to get handguns back from owners and how they can find substitute forms

of protection. The policy may also have to explain how people who own illegal

handguns now may be handled. What will also happen to handgun sellers and handgun

manufacturers? will there be exceptions – i.e., for law enforcement and military

personnel?

What exactly is being banned? will all handguns be banned? will certain models be

exempted from this ban?

When is this motion taking place? will debaters need a before and after analysis? Long

term & short term? will the ban take place immediately? Will there be a grace period?

Where does this motion take place? What are the characteristics of these

places? Where will the infrastructure required to run this policy be created? will this only

be in urban areas?

How will the policy work and be enforced? How will it be implemented across society?

How will violaters of the ban be punished?

Responding to Definitions

In an ideal debate, both set of debaters will agree on the definition and move

ahead to the arguments and rebuttals. However, in many cases, the Opposition may

find that the definition is not to their liking. In these cases, they could take the following

options:


22

Expanding the Definition

If the Opposition feels that Proposition‟s definition was generally acceptable

except for a few areas, it may expand the definition. This allows the Opposition to

modify the definitions slightly without needing to issue a challenge altogether. For

example, for the motion “This house would abolish the Monarchy,” the Proposition may

define Monarches as individuals who do not have any power in government. However,

the Opposition may wish to expand the definition by pointing out that the monarchs

usually have some powers, such as the ability to dissolve parliament and ot grant

pardons to convicted criminals.

Challenging the Definition

However, if the opposition feels that the definition is simple not acceptable, they

will have to challenge it.Be warned. Debates with definitional challenges are generally

messy affairs and judges do not look forward to sitting through such matches. Thus, a

definitional challenge should be issued only as a last resort. The challenge must be

issued at the first Opposition Speaker and no later. Once the challenge has been

issued, the Opposition team will have to following thorough with the following steps:

Explaining the Challenge

It is not good enough for the Opposition to say the Proposition‟s motion is

challenged. They must explain to the judges why the challenge was necessary and why

the Proposition‟s definition was not fair (i.e., truism, tautological, squirreling). They must

then explain why their definitions are fairer and offer more reasonable grounds for

debate.


23

Alternate Definition

The Opposition team also has the responsibility of providing an alternative

definition for the debate. This is why it is useful for the Opposition to prepare their own

acceptable definition during the case preparation to prepare for such eventualities.

Sustaining the Challenge

Once a challenge has been issued, the Opposition has the responsibility to

sustain the challenge down the line. This means that the Second, Third and Summary

speakers will have to sustain the challenge all the way. Failure to do so almost

automatically awards the win to the Proposition. Likewise, the Proposition will have to

defend its definition throughout all of its speakers or risk losing the match.

Even If

It is simply not enough for the Opposition to issue a challenge. In order to secure

content points and demonstrate the ability to rebut, the Opposition team will have to do

“Even if” debating. This means that the Opposition will continue to rebut the

Proposition‟s arguments on their own grounds and show that “even if” the Proposition‟s

definitions are correct, their arguments still do not stand. The Proposition, naturally, will

have to do the same thing in rebutting the Opposition team.

Note – One option that the Opposition may exercise if they feel that the Proposition‟s

definitions are reasonable but completely different from the Opposition‟s is to dump the

case. This will mean that the Opposition team makes the decision to switch to the

Proposition‟s definitions upon hearing the Proposition First Speaker. For instance, if the

Oppositions had defined “Drugs” as “Narcotics” while the Proposition gave the definition

as “pharmaceuticals,” the Opposition may decide to switch their case altogether to talk

about pharmaceuticals. Although the Opposition has this option, it is NOT

recommended. Developing a case on the fly will always be difficult and the material

from the Opposition team will usually be worse compared to a case produced after

proper preparation.


24

Parameters refer to the contextualization of the debate and deciding where the

debate is to take place. Thus, the Proposition team can note that a debate on having

compulsory voting can only take place in countries where people are allowed to vote

freely and limit the debate to First World Democracies. Again,Opposition teams may

disagree with that the parameters of the debate should be and expand them.

For instance, they may argue that compulsory voting matters especially in countries with

new democratic institutions and thus should include developing countries. In general,

once the parameter has been expanded, it is harder to contract it again as both teams

will have to grapple with the examples and ideas from the new expanded paramenters.

It is not permitted under WSDC rules to "time-set," i.e., to set limits on the time

frame for the debate. Thus, the Proposition team may not say that the debate will only apply

to the period before WWII.


25

Exercises

A.

Identify whether the errors are a Tautological or Truism definition.

1. TH regrets the RH Law.

RH Law or the Reproductive Health Law which mainly talks about Reproductive Health

2. TH believes that Terrorism should be used by environmentalist.

Terrorism is bad.

3. TH allows abortion.

Abortion is against the laws of God.

4. THW implement same sex marriage.

Man is created for a woman not to a fellow man.

5. THBT mobile phones should not be allowed in schools.

Schools are a place for learning.

B.

Practice setting a definition and parameter, use this motion to start:

(Note if you‟re not familiar with the motion you may research on the internet to guide

you.)

This house believes that the closure of the Kulo Exhibit is a form of suppression of

freedom of expression.


26

Chapter Three

Case Analysis/Creating Arguments in a debate

Overview

What is an argument? We know that arguments form the backbone of a Debater‟s stand

on a particular motion. We also know that the arguments are directed to the judges with the

intent of making them agree with a particular stance on the motion. Thus, arguments are

communications directed at judges with the intent of influencing them. An argument is best

opened with a label, which highlights what the argument is about. After that, the speakers will

have to give an explanation, using logical links, as to why their position is correct. Next, they will

have to use examples to prove that their explanation and links apply to real life. Finally, they will

link the argument back to the motion.



27

The flow of the arguments should look like this:

Label of Argument

Explanation and logic

Primary Example

(This is the most salient or obvious example to support your argument.)

Link example to logic

Secondary Example

(This is intended as a follow up to the primary example to show a trend or pattern

developing. This is also to avoid allowing the other team to say that you are using an

isolated example.)

Link to the Motion

The label should immediately identify what the argument is and how it relates to

the motion. It should encapsulate the argument to follow within a single sentence and

make it clear at the start of the argument what the speaker will elaborate on.

To ensure that a label is representative of the argument and addresses the motion, a

good tip is to connect the label to the motion using the word “because” and see if the


28

sentence still makes sense. For example, a speaker wishes to argue in favour of the

death penalty based on its value to the justice system in deterring crime and considers

the following three labels:

a. Justice

b. Value to Justice system

c. Deters crime.

An application of the test above readily shows which label is the best. “THW

support the death penalty because of justice” does not make too much sense. “THW

support the death penalty because of its value to the justice system” makes more

sense. However, it remains vague. “THW support the death penalty because it deters

crime” will be the best approach, since it clearly signals that the ensuring argument will

be.

Tip on Pre-labels

Some debaters use “pre-labels” for stylistic purposes. This will involve the use of

quotes or phrases with a flourish to introduce the argument. For instance, an argument

on the dangers of technology may be pre-labelled as the “Rage against the Machine”

point and an argument on nuclear disarmament could be pre-labelled as “Turning

Swords into Plowshares.” This technique is perfectly acceptable as long as the

speakers

a. do not waste time doing so, and

b. remember to use an actual label immediately after the pre-label.

The Explanation and Links:

The explanation is the most critical part of the argument, where the speaker

outlines the key reasons why the motion stands or falls. The most effective means of

convincing judges that a particular argument is valid is to demonstrate that the

argument is universal. This means that the explanation of the argument is usually


29

done in theory and in principle. The proof will then be applied to this theory later on in

the examples.

The best way to make the logic of the argument clear is to “walk” the audience

and the judges through the logic step by step. By showing the “links” in these steps

clearly, the debaters are able to establish that the argument stands. Within most

debates, debaters seek to show that the subject of the debate, such as globalization or

environmental protection, leads to a certain outcome, such as the developing world

growing more prosperous.

Furthermore, the debater will need to show that it is a certain aspect, trait or

characteristic of the subject, such as globalization‟s transfer of technology or

environmental protection‟s ability to protect agriculture, which leads to the predicted

outcome. To summarise this flow of events based on the example of capital

punishment, the debater shows that:

Link A Subject has a

particular trait

(causal factor)

Death penalty

involves death

Link B The trait leads

to a certain

outcome

Death scares

people

Link C The outcome

leads to the

desired effect

People deterred

from committing

crime through


30

fear

Motion is proved Death Penalty

thus should be

supported

It can be seen that Link C in fact also serves as the label of the argument. A

proper argument will always come back to the label already established. Some cases

may have more links in the argument set but will generally follow this framework.

The Examples

Arguments are only theories until they can be supported by examples. Examples

show that the argumentation applies to the real world and that there is precedence for

the case being made by the debaters. Without examples within a debate, it will be very

difficult for a Debater to score high on content.

4.1. Types of Examples

Prominent Case

This is the most common type of example used in debate and makes use of a

famous incident or case to support the argument. For instance, in arguing about the

dangers of nuclear power due to the high risks of meltdowns, the debaters will cite the

case of Chernobyl. These examples are easily recognized by the judges and audience

and readily help to make the argument appear more real and vivid.


31

Trends & Statistics

This technique involves the use of a series of cases or statistics to showcase a

trend. For instance, to showcase the dangers of nuclear power, debaters can cite how

many nuclear accidents had taken place over the last two decades. Debaters will have

to be precise with the statistics used here, as judges and opponents are well aware of

the possibility that the statistics may have been made up.

Proof by authority

This method resorts to the use of authority figures within a related field to support

the argument. For instance, to show that nuclear power is dangerous, debaters may cite

studies conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute or the International Atomic Energy

Agency. Using such examples could be problematic if the opponents are able to cast

doubt on the credibility of the “experts.” Furthermore, in most cases, only the opinions

and findings of these experts are reflected, and they may not be historically verifiable

facts.

Proof by analogy

This technique makes reference to another subject with similar traits in order to

support the argument. For instance, nuclear power could be compared to crude oil in

that both will damage the environment if released into the open. This approach is useful

when trying to explain a particularly diffcult argument and a simplication will help to get

the idea across better. However, this approach can always be attacked by an opponent

showing that these two examples are not the same and are not related. Thus, this

technique should only be used as a last resort.

Hypothetical examples

These refer to the use of possible scenarios to try to support the arguments. For

instance, the speaker outlines the dangers of nuclear technology by stating that it could

destroy all of humanity. However, since this is only a hypothesis, it is difficult to use it to

support an argument.


32

Do’s and Don’ts of Examples

Do Have Variety

Many debaters stick to a certain region or timeframe for examples during a

debate. They should avoid doing this. For instance, a team should not only cite

examples from the United States. They should give examples from various countries to

show that their argument is universal.

Do Use New Examples

Many debaters re-use examples that were already used by their teammates. This

should be avoided as they will not get high enough content scores based on their

inability to produce new examples.

Don't Use Examples as Logic

Some speakers go directly to the example when arguing without having the

principal logic point articulated first. This allows the opponents to just attack the

example easily in order to defeat the argument.

Don’t Lead with Examples

Some speakers begin the argument with examples and then try to follow them up

with the logic links. This method tends to be problematic as the lack of time at the end

sometimes forces the argumentative points to be dropped.

Do Explain Examples

Some debaters merely name the examples and then move on, assuming that the

judges will automatically know what the example refers to. This again will lead to a lack


33

of content scores because the Debaters have yet to demonstrate how the examples

actually work and if they actually support the argument.

Link to Motion

At the conclusion of each argument, Debaters should link the point back to the

motion. This will allow the Debaters to establish the relevance of the argument to the

motion and demonstrate that these are not being raised in a vacuum. Judges will thus

see that the speakers are able to show not only that the points raised are valid on their

own but that they support or oppose the motion as well.

For instance, in a debate about the censorship of the arts, a speaker cannot just deliver

an argument on the importance of free speech and leave it hanging. There is a need to

show that free speech is important and that censorship of the arts will lead to the

violation of this particular right. In debates where the link back to the motion had been

absent, it is often not surprising to find that the debaters are unable even to recall the

exact words of the motion.

Special Section on Different Analysis Paradigms in Constructive

What is a constructive/substantive?

It is an argument used to further your side‟s case during a debate. It is an idea

that is fully explained and elaborated to such an extent that it proves or disproves the

motion. A good substantive, is succinct, clear and utilises a depth of analysis.

This means you don‟t waste too much time with unnecessary words, your chain

of logic is straightforward and the usage of this logic is coupled together with an

analysis of the point in the context of the motion. For example, in a motion about

smoking, ideas with regards to its addictive nature will help you further a point about

how it is bad for long term health. This is analysis.

How to come up with a constructive/substantive?


34

1. Think about the issues related to the motion

2. Think about the individuals/societies/groups related to the motion

3. Think about the ramifications of the motion to individuals/societies/groups

4. Put your mind through the processes the motions entails

1. E.g. THBT terrorism is justified, put yourselves in the processes of

terrorism.

2. Why are you doing it?

3. Why is it necessary?

4. Why is it justifiable to you (you = a personification of the motion)?

5. Consider the possible impact in the following

spheres: Social, Political, Economics, Environment, Regional, Medical, etc.

DISCLAIMER: This is not the only way to categorize substantives. It shouldn‟t be a

textbook from which you memorize and apply to all situations. Rather use it as a way to

understand the basics so that more advance methods of analysis will come to you

quicker by means of experience and practice.

Types of Constructive/Substantive


35

Logical analysis


36

Policy analysis


37

Comparison analysis


38

Time analysis


39

Excercises

A.

Go to your friends or classmates, encourage in helping you to matter load on a

particular issue. Create arguments for Government, then approach a debater and

he/she will help you decide and critique your piece.

Motion:

This house would ban the use of fireworks.


40

Chapter Four

Rebuttals

Overview

Debate, without rebuttals, would merely be a series of speeches with no relation

to each other. Like ships passing in the night, there will be no clash, no conflict and

ultimately, no debate. Rebuttal, like argumentation, is one of the foundations of debate.

What is rebuttal then? It is a speaker saying that an opponent's argument is not valid

and showing why it is not valid. If argument is about building logic links in a case, then

rebuttal is about the breaking of these links.



41

When rebutting the opponent‟s arguments, Debaters need to decide which

particular area they wish to attack, rather than to just rush in to say, “You are wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.” The various attacks which can be used in rebuttal are as

follows:

Attacking Relevance

With this rebuttal, Debaters attack the relevance of their opponent‟s arguments

to the motion and show that these arugments do not support the opponent's stance.

This type of rebuttal can destroy the entire argument by showing that it does not even

support the opponent‟s stance. For instance, in a debate on the motion “This house

believes that the Internet is a dangerous force,” the Opposition delivers arguments

noting how useful the Internet has been in facilitating communication and education.

The Proposition merely rebutted that the benefits of the Internet here does not show

why the Internet was SAFE, which was what Opposition had to show.

Attacking Assumption

With this rebuttal, Debaters attack a particular way in which their opponents had

described an assumed trait of the subject. For instance, for the motion “This house

believes that China is Dangerous,‟‟ the Proposition argues that China is a Communist

country and that this leads to a conflict between Beijing and the Capitalist West.

However, the Opposition can rebut by counter-arguing that China is nominally

Communist but has wholeheartedly embraced Capitalism, thus having less reason to

find conflict with Capitalist countries.

Attacking the Impact

With this rebuttal, debaters attack the presumed impact of the subject's assumed

trait. For instance, for the motion “This house would dissolve the UN,” the Proposition

speaker points out that the veto system (trait) in the UN (subject) has caused


42

unhappiness between the P5 countries and the rest of the world. However, the

Opposition speaker can rebut this by saying that the veto system has actually facilitated

cooperation between the P5 countries and smaller states as the P5 countries often cast

their vetos to protect the smaller countries‟ interests.

Attacking Logic Leap

With this rebuttal, the debaters attack the lack of logical links between the

assumed traits of the subject and its presumed impact. For instance, for the motion,

“This house would ban prostitution,” the Proposition could argue that frequency sexual

activity is associated with STDs transmission and that the whole society is put at risk.

Here, the Opponents can rebut the lack of a link between the frequency of intercourse in

prostitution and having a public health risk involving the whole of society.

Hung Arguments

Hung arguments are arguments which are contingent on another argument to

survive. With this rebuttal, Debaters can take two arguments out with one attack. For

instance, for the motion, “THW censor the arts,” the Proposition first argues that

extremist messages are found in art. Next the Proposition argues that the viewers of art

should be protected from such extremist messages. The Opposition could rebut that

there are no extremist messages in art these days and that art itself was value-neutral.

With this argument taken down, the point about needing to protect viewers of art has

little impact, as it is a hung argument.

Attack Examples

In general, Debaters should attack the logic of an argument before moving on to

attack the examples. Attacking the example first is usually not advised, as it allows the

opponents to just refer to another example and the argument will remain standing. The

only time debaters should attack the example first is when the opponents had used the

example as the only basis for the argument. The First and Second speakers may

sometimes not have enough time to attack examples and will have to delegate this task


43

to the Third speakers. The Third Speakers must attack the opponent‟s key examples, if

not all of them.

Rebutting Rebuttal

Debaters prefer to have their arguments delivered without having to come back

to them. However, once these arguments have been rebutted, it may be necessary to

defend them and in essence, rebut the rebuttals. However, Debaters should take care

not to prioritise this over rebutting the opponent‟s arguments. Thus, the opponent‟s

arguments should always be rebutted first before taking a defensive stance on one‟s

own arguments.

Do's and Don'ts

Do Attack New Arguments First

Debaters should prioritise by rebutting the latest arguments from their opponents

FIRST. These arguments are fresh and attacking them quickly ensures that they will not

linger in the minds of the judges. Furthermore, these arguments are the only ones which

have not have been addressed thus far in the debate. So the debaters MUST attack

these points first. If these arguments are left for the later parts of the speech, they may

not be given sufficient time for proper rebuttal.

Do Complete the Attack

Some debaters tend to only point out the shortcomings of an argument without

actually attacking its logic in full. For instance, Debaters often describe an argument as

lacking examples or not having any strong links but fail to do anything more. Instead,

Debaters should always attack the logic of the argument in order to complete the attack.

Don’t Do One-Liners

Some Debaters also tend to use only a single line or two to make a rebuttal. This

is not considered a complete attack and will usually not be rewarded much content


44

score by the judges. In order to rebut effectively, Debaters will have to dedicate

sufficient time to properly explain why a particular argument falls.

Don’t Just List Rebuttals

Some Debaters, especially in the First and Second positions, also have a habit of

merely listing several “responses” to a particular argument. However, if these were

proper rebuttals, they will have taken way too much time to be articulated in full. Thus,

each “list” tends to consist of one-liner counter-arguments. This habit should be

avoided, as it signals to the judges that the Debater is unable to make a decision on

which rebuttal is is the strongest for the argument. It may also compromise the ability of

the Third Speakers to demonstrate their ability to generate new points.

Don’t Ask Rhetorical Questions

Debaters should also avoid using rhetorical questions as a substitute for

rebuttals. If these questions are to be used, they must at least be answered by the

Debaters themselves. Otherwise, the judges are left to answer the question for them

and they will not necessarily agree with Debaters. For instance, if Debaters merely ask

“but how will the opponent‟s policy work?” and leave it at that, the judges may well end

up thinking of several ways it could work. Further it merely provides an opening for the

opponents to answer the question later and show how the policy will work!!

Develop Rebuttals

In order to successfully attack an argument, it should be rebutted more than

once. Ideally, an Argument will be attacked at its core logic by the First (Opposition)

Speaker or Second Speakers and then attacked again from a different angle by the

Third Speakers. Speakers should avoid merely repeating the rebuttals that have already

been delivered by their teammates. In this case, they are wasting time while not really

adding value to the debate.


45

Push to Other End

Wherever possible, Debaters should try to rebut an argument by taking

the opposite stance. This will allow for the greatest degree of clash and the highest

degree of differentiation between the two teams. For instance, for the motion “This

house would ban handguns,” the Proposition can argue that handguns make

communities more dangerous by empowering criminals. The Opposition can make a

“neutralizing” rebuttal by saying that handguns do not make communities more

dangerous. However, it will be best if the Opposition can make an “attacking” rebuttal by

saying that handguns make communities less dangerous and safer since the citizens

are protected against criminals.


46

Exercise

A. Try to go back to your case build activity from the previous chapter, now use that and

create a case for Opposition.

Create Rebuttals and contradict their paradigm.


47

Chapter Five

Style

Overview

Style refers to the way debaters speak and deliver their speeches. To get higher

style marks, speakers will need to make their communication effective and impactful.

The following are a few tips which could be of use to speakers looking to improve the

stylistic aspects of their speeches.



48

Vocal Style

Speak Slowly

With a limited amount of time available for speeches, Debaters are often tempted

to speak as quickly as possible to get as much information out as possible. This is a

flawed approach and very few speakers speak effectively by speaking fast. Debaters

should instead try to speak as slowly as possible, speeding up only on occasions to add

some variety. Speaking slowly leads to the following benefits:

a. It allows Debaters to think before they speak, allowing for better word selection and

precision in delivery. Debaters speaking fast often use words without thinking and will

often use inappropriate terms. For instance, an Opposition Speaker may mistakenly say

that a policy was “impartial” instead of “impractical,” and be attacked by the Proposition

for this misrepresentation.

b. It allows the speakers to breathe easily and ensure a steady supply of oxygen. This

prevents the choking or coughing fits which usually occur to very fast speakers.

c. It makes the speakers appear calm and confident. However, the speakers will have to

ensure that the slow speed does not lead to a dip in energy. This can be attained with

the proper variations in pitch and volume.

d. Most importantly, speaking slowly gives the judge time not just to track the points

delivered but also to process and evaluative them. If the judges are unable to follow the

speaker because the speech was too fast, then the arguments and rebuttals, good as

they are, will not be receiving their highest possible scores.

Speak with Pauses


49

Debaters should also learn to put natural pauses into their speeches. These

pauses need not be long and will last up to 3 seconds at the most. However, they allow

the speakers to do the following:

a. Pauses allow the speakers to add emphasis to a certain idea or point. Put a pause

before a concept or idea and it is made clear, with dramatic effect, that this is a critical

point. For instance, the speaker could say, “the only way to fix this problem in society is

to implement… Affirmative Action.”

b. Pauses are good transition markers. Using these pauses at the end of each rebuttal

and argument lets the judges know that the speaker is moving to a new point. This

signals to the judges that the previous point is finished, so that they can make a quick

evaluation of it.

c. Pauses may be critical when using a microphone. Although it may not be evident to a

speaker on a stage, using a microphone often results in an echo, especially in large

halls and auditoriums. In these cases, pauses will have to be used even more often to

ensure that the speech does not become garbled by echoes.

Modulate Pitch

Debate speeches, even on the funniest of topics, could be rendered dry and

unpalatable by a speaker with a monotonous voice. As such, Debaters need to learn to

vary the pitch of their speeches so that they can make the aural quality of the speech

more interesting. Pitch variation also allows for emphasis to be made on the key

elements of the speech.

Control Volume


50

Volume control is critical in making debaters‟ speeches effective and well-received. The

following factors should be kept in mind with regards to volume.

a. Avoid high volumes: Some speakers appear to believe that the louder team will

always win. This is not the case! A debate featuring debaters yelling at the top of their

lungs will leave the judges‟ ears ringing and the audience in shock. This is especially

the case when the debate is taking place in a small enclosed room and the sound is

bouncing off the walls.

b. Avoid low volumes: Some speakers are naturally soft-spoken. However, these

speakers are often hard to hear and understand when they are speaking in large arenas

or when they have to compete with ambient noise (e.g., from fans and air-conditioning

units). One rule of thumb is that the speaker needs to be heard by the last member of

the audience seated furthest away.

c. Use variation for emphasis: Varying the volume is a fantastic way to put emphasis on

certain words. Lowered volume usually makes the audience edge forward in

anticipantion and the raised volume (without shouting) after that moment drives a critical

point home.

Use Shorter Sentences

Debaters should use shorter sentences whenever possible and avoid long run-on

sentences. Each sentence should convey a single point. This makes the sentences

easier to understand and also rerults in more natural pauses between the points.

Furthermore, since speeches are often interrupted by POIs, shorter sentences ensure

that there will be less “broken” sentences where the speaker stops in the middle of one

sentence and fails to complete it after the POI.

Avoid Filler Words


51

Debaters should not waste the precious time available for the speech on

unnecessary words. Many Debaters end up using many “crutch” and “filler” words such

as “Ladies and Gentlemen” and “like” and “erm” during their speeches. These tend to be

highly distracting for listeners and cause unnatural interruptions in the speeches. In

severe cases, these words tend to form the vast majority of the speech! Debaters

should remove these words from their speeches altogether and instead replace them

with pauses instead.

Accents

The rules for the World Schools Debating Championships state that speakers are

not to be penalised on the account of their accents. However, speakers should still work

to make sure that their accents do not lead to their words being misunderstood. Thus, if

speakers know that there are some words which present difficulties, they should seek to

replace them with easier to pronounce substitutes. This also does not mean that

speakers should adopt a British or an American accent just for debate. This could be

unnatural and in most cases, hard to maintain.

Avoid Cloning

Debaters should try to make themselves as stylistically distinct from their

teammates and opponents as possible. When three speake speak at the same pace,

with the same intensity and volume, it is very difficult to establish each speaker's

individuality. This is made worse if all six speakers were of the same ilk. 6 Clones

speakings does not lead to good stylistic variation. As such, even as the Debaters keep

in mind what their most comfortable style of debating is, they should also observe how

the other speakers have been and try to differentiate themselves where possible. If

most preceeding speakers were laid back, the ensuring Debaters can speak with

greater energy and fervour. If the speakers had been intense, the follow-up speakers

could adopt a calm and cool


52

Visual Style

Even though the bulk of the information in debates are conveyed by oral means,

human beings are still creatures who attain most of their information through visual

means. In this regard, Debaters have to make sure that their visual style does not

distract from their speeches and in fact augment their speeches whenever possible.

Eye Contact

Debaters must make sure that they make eye contact with the judges and the

audience as much as possible. Maintaining eye contact and not looking down at the

floor signals that the debaters believe in their own arguments. Locking eye contact also

means that the judges and audiences are locked into the speakers and are less likely to

be distracted by other factors. This does not mean that the Debaters should stare at

these people! However, establishing eye contact with the judges and audience

members and “panning” the room will do wonders in projecting the image of a confident

speaker.

Eye contact also means that the debaters should not be looking down at their

speeches or notes and simply reading them. Looking down automatically lowers the

volume of the speaker, as the speech is now likely to be directed to the floor rather than

to the audience and the judges. Reading also makes the Debaters look as if they are

not comfortable with their own material and in some severe cases, even makes it look

as if the Debaters were reading words written by someone else!

Standing Stance

One nervous gesture common in debaters is the tendency to shift their weight

from leg to leg. This has the effect of making their bodies sway back and forth or form

side to side. This is very distracting for the judges. Debaters should instead stand with

their feet at shoulder‟s width and lock their knees so that their stance will be absolutely


53

stable. This may look a little unnatural for some speakers, especially the ladies. In these

cases, the legs can be planted closer together but the knees should remain locked.

Movement

Walking around is something that has to be restricted within a debate. A moving

speaker often takes the attention of the judges and the audiences away from the

speech and towards the movement. Thus, if there is to be any movement at all, it should

be limited and employed only when the speaker is in between points and has a natural

pause. Otherwise, it is preferable to stand still and deliver the speech. Debaters should

avoid speaking while walking. This tends to direct the voice to the sides of the room

rather than to the judges and the audiences. The Debater‟s back should never be

shown to the judge as it is often seen as a rude gesture.

Gestures

The use of gestures can help to put emphasis on key points in the speech.

However, the excessive and repetitive use of gestures can also become very distracting

and annoying for the judges. Debaters should try to have the controlled use of gestures

as much as possible instead of letting the hands gesture on autopilot. Note: Debaters‟

hands should never be put into the pockets of jackets or trousers, as this leads to a very

uncouth appearance.

Attire

Debaters should always dress as formally as permissible by the rules.

Furthermore, they should ensure that they look at professional as possible and that their

appearance is neat and clean. For instance, this means:


54

a. Short and neat hair for the gentlemen and neatly tied up hair (if long) for the ladies,

b. Jackets, Trousers and Skirts which are well-fitted,

c. Shirts which are tucked in,

d. Appropriate footwear (black leather shoes for both genders), long socks (not ankle

socks) of the appropriate colour for the gentlemen and tights if applicable for the ladies.

Having the clean professional image demonstrates to the judges that the team is taking

the debate seriously and that the speakers take pride in their appearance. Judges, if

only at a subconscious level, are more likely to treat debaters with professional

appearances much more seriously compared to debaters who are unkempt and

dressed casually. Debaters should also take the chance to train at least once with full

competition attire in order to get used to the outfits.

Whenever possible, Debaters should also try to look older, rather than younger.

This makes the judges and the audience treats the Debaters their points more seriously.

This will mean that accessories should be chosen to make the debaters look older and

more serious as well. For instance, a judge is more likely to view Debaters as serious

when they wearing wire-frame spectacles than novelty style glasses.

Speech and Oratory Competitions

A very useful way for Debaters to improve their style is to attend speech and

oratory competitions. These events will allow the debaters to focus purely on their vocal

and visual presentation without the need to worry about argument and rebuttals. Some

events, such as the US National Forensic League‟s Extemporaneous Speaking event,

goes as far as to ask speakers to integrate argumentative skills into their speeches and

even requires the speakers to go without written notes!

Handling Props

Extra care should given to the handling of microphones and lecterns, since they

will restrict the movement of the Debaters. If Debaters see that they will be speaking


55

using these tools, they should always ask for an opportunity to have a dry-run to

mentally and physically adjust to these constraints.

Lecterns tend to block most of the speakers and are particularly disadvantageous

to vertically challenged debaters. Thus, if possible, avoid using lecterns. One option is

to stand next to the lectern.

Microphones are usually provided on an adjustable stand. In this case, the

Debater will have to be very careful to keep the head still so that the mouth will be at a

constant distance from the microphone. Turning the head, even slightly, could lead to a

sudden drop in volume.

Furthermore, the use of microphones on stands usually means that it may have

to be adjusted constantly during the debate to cater for the different heights of the

Debaters. If the adjustments are made by support staff, it is better to signal to them to

make the changes prior to approaching the microphone. Otherwise, having to stand

there while the change is being made can be distracting and distressing.

In some rare cases, the Debaters will be given hand-held microphones. These

are problematic as debaters usually need one hand to hold the books or cards and the

other to manipulate them. In these cases, it might necessary to use a table or lectern to

hold the cards and notes. All debaters should try to practice this during training sessions

as it is a complicated process.

In some cases, the debaters may be given lapel microphones with the

transmitters to be affixed to the belt or waist band. These tend not to give too much

trouble but debaters have to ensure that the mics are completely turned off after their

speeches are done lest they pick up intra-team communications.


56

Humor

The use of humor in debate often cuts both ways. If used effectively, humor can

make establish a strong rapport between the audience and the debaters and

demonstrate that the speakers are extremely confident and comfortable. If used badly, it

can create awkwardness and even hostility and anger against the speakers. Debaters

need to keep the following things in mind when considering the use of humor in

speeches.

a. Humor is not a necessity. Although it may appear that many good debaters are able

to make the audience guffaw or at least chuckle, it is important to remember that humor

is not a requirement for great speeches. Some of the best debaters around rarely use

humor in their speeches, instead preferring to use their vocal qualities and strength of

logic to keep the speeches interesting.

b. Humor is not argumentation. Although the use of humor can be used to indirectly

attack a point, it is NEVER a substitute for proper argumentation and rebuttal. A debater

may laugh at an opponent‟s point until the end of the match but that point will remain

standing until a proper rebuttal is made against it.

c. Humor is not for everyone. It is a sad reality that not all debaters will find the use of

Humor comfortable. Jokes and witty quips come more naturally to some people

compared to others. This should not be seen as a setback and those debaters without

much humor may instead prefer to work on the other elements of their speeches to

make sure they keep the audience interested.

d. Humor can be practiced. However, if debaters feel that they will like to try to integrate

some humor into their speeches, they can prepare accordingly through research and

planning. Debaters can research and note down short jokes and witty anecdotes and try

them out in training sessions to test their effects.


57

Exercise

A. Convene with your classmates and get a piece of paper.

Write any word that you wish your classmates to discuss. Now gather all the papers and

make sure everyone has a paper with a word to discuss for one minute, without fillers

and dead airs.


58

Chapter Six

Points of Information

Overview

Even with the most dynamic of speakers and the most interesting of motions, the

energy levels in a debate could still be quite low if the participants merely delivered their

speeches and sat back down. Thus, debate formats usually incorporate a more

interactive element in order to liven up the event.



59

For the WSDC format, this purpose is served by the use of the “Point of

Information” (POI).

A POI is a short interjection addressed to the Debater who is speaking by a

member of the opposing team. Opposing team members must first stand and indicate

that they wish to offer a POI. They may say “Point of Information”, “POI”, “On that

Point,” “Sir/Madam”, and a variety of short phrases to attract the attention of the Debater

speaking. The opposing team member may only continue to deliver the POI only when

the speaker has accepted the POI. In most WSDC style tournaments, the POI may not

be longer than 15 seconds and the speakers will usually cut the POI off if it stretches for

long. If the speaker declines to take a POI, the opposing team members must sit down

and wait for another opportunity.

Although it is called a “Point of Information,” the opposing team member may use

the interjection to raise any point. The POI is thus typically used to raise a quick

rebuttal, argument, a question or a clarification to the speaker. The speaker should

provide a response to POI straight away. There are no rules on how long the responses

to the POIs need to be. However, they should not be too long that they interfere with the

delivery of the rest of the speech. The beginning and the ends of speeches are usually

“protected time,” during which POIs may not be given. In the WSDC format, POIs are

not allowed given during the summary period.

2. Why take POIs?

Taking a POI is a good idea for the following reasons:

a. It’s in the rules! – All debaters are required to take POIs and they are expected to

take at least 2 per speech. Taking only 1 or none at all will be punished by the judges

through the docking of points.


60

b. It demonstrates quick wit – The POIs allow speakers to demonstrate their ability

to quickly think of an effective response. This opportunity to demonstrate mental agility

is especially appreciated by First Proposition Speakers, who would otherwise not have

the chance to show that they are capable to developing good rebuttals. Otherwise, it

could be difficult for the judges to know if the First Proposition Speakers were good

debaters or merely people who are able to deliver a script well.

c. It demonstrates good time management – Listening to 2 POIs and responding

to them takes up a fair amount of time. Being able to handle this without compromising

the substantive arguments and/or rebuttals shows good planning and time

management.

d. It provides early warning – Taking a POI can be useful in that it provides early

warning on the approach taken by the opposing team and the arguments and rebuttals

it may run.

e. It provides early counter-rebuttals – Taking a POI during the substantive

argument may allow the speaker to pre-emptively provide a counter rebuttal and

weaken the opponent‟s refutations.

3. Why give POIs?hat then is the value in giving POIs? The reasons are as follows:

a. It’s the rules! – Every team member is expected to offer a certain number of POIs

during every opponent‟s speech. Usually, the minimum to be offered is two per speech.

Again, the judges will penalize teams or team members who do not offer sufficient POIs.

b. Immediate highlighting of flaws – POIs provides opposing teams with an

opportunity to refute a point immediately without needing to wait for their turn to speak.

This early rebuttal, if used effectively, can cast doubt on the argument even as it

continues to be delivered by the speaker.


61

c. Demonstrate ability to hit quickly – POIs give opposing teams the opportunity to

show that they are able to deliver quick attacks on the speaker‟s points in an effective

manner. It is often difficult to craft a coherent response to a point within 15 seconds or

less. Thus, a well delivered POI will be seen by the judges as evidence of a quick and

ordered mind.

d. Put pressure on the Speaker – A well delivered POI can pressure the Speaker

into providing a suitably effective reply. This is better than letting the Speaker carry on

uninterrupted and gaining more and more confidence by the minute.

e. Demonstrate close tracking of the speaker – Consistent giving of POIs

demonstrate to the Judges that the opposing team is tracking the speaker carefully and

that they are fully engaged in the debate.

4. How to use it effectively?

For POI Givers:

Keep the POIs short and sharp.

The WSDC rules dictate that a Debater has 15 seconds to deliver a POI. In

reality, however, the Debater speaking may elect to cut off the POI giver in 5 to 10

seconds. As such, it is imperative for the POI to contain the main point in the very first

line. If the POI giver is not cut off, an elaboration or example may then be added to the

POI.

The POI should be driven by a core principle or argument rather than a small issue or

an example. The speaker will generally be able to deal with the latter quickly and move

back to the speech. In contrast, having a strong argument anchoring the POI will

generally require the POI taker to spend some time refuting it.

Prioritize POI Givers


62

Debaters will no doubt have been part of matches where two or even three of

opponents stand up simultaneously to give a POI. This is not good. Not only does this

allow the speaker to pick and choose whose POI will be taken, it also keeps everyone

standing and being unable to track the speech properly! Instead, a “POI order" should

be established so that it will be clear which Debater will immediate sit down in favour of

a teammate. This will also mean that the speaker will have no choice but to take it from

the most dangerous POI giver in that instance.

Illegal POIs

When raising a POI, it is permissible to interject and attract the speaker‟s

attention by saying “Point; Point of Information; or On that point.” It is also permissible to

have some variation and refer to a particular issue being talked about by the speaker,

such as “on globalization.” However, it is illegal to raise anything substantive without

having the POI being accepted by the speaker.

Thus, raising a POI during a speaker‟s point on the harms of a policy by saying

“on checks and balances” will be illegal as the POI giver‟s point would already have

been made even without the speaker accepting the POI. In general, Debaters should

avoid trying to be creative in raising POIs. Doing so may make it appear as if they were

cheating and some judges could well penalize such action by docking points. There is

also nothing to be gained through such POIs.

When giving POIs, Debaters have to ensure that they can be seen and heard by

the speaker. In a setting with the speaker may stand far ahead of the opponents during

a speech, it may be difficult for the speaker to hear the POIs being raised. Thus,

standing up, extending an arm and projecting the POI loudly are necessary steps in

ensuring that the speaker will be able to notice the POI giver.

When Should POIs Be Given?


63

POIs are to be given by every member of a debate team and judges will track the

number of POIs raised. Thus, complete inactivity on the part of Debaters will lead to the

judges penalizing them accordingly to the rules. It is imperative that every Debater

offers at least two POIs per speech and teammates ensure that everyone has met their

obligations.The following considerations need to be given to when the POIs should be

given:

Give POIs Early:

It is sometimes difficult for some Debaters to stand and offer POIs. Many often

end up waiting subconsciously for a teammate to offer them first, with the net effect

being that no POIs are offered until late in the speech! Thus, there should be an attempt

to give the POIs as early as possible in order to establish a rhythm. Giving POIs early

also means that the opponents can afford to listen more and track carefully when the

constructive arguments are being read out by the speaker. This is especially true for the

opponent who is scheduled to speak next. By getting the POIs offered early, this

opponent will be able to concentrate fully on the speaker for the reminder of the speech

while preparing the rebuttals.

Give During a Strong Argument:

When a speaker is delivering a very strong argument, it is often difficult to stand

up and offer POIs. It can also be difficult to interrupt when a speaker particularly fluid

and does not offer natural openings for a POI to be offered. It is even more critical that

the POIs are offered in these situations. The mere act of offering a POI registers a

protest and shows that the opponents do not agree with these points. If it is taken, it

offers the opponents to nip a potentially problematic argument in the bud. In contrast, if

no POIs are given, the speaker will be further emboldened while the judges will start to

feel that even the opponents agree with the speaker.


64

Although teams are generally encouraged to give POIs as this increases the

interactivity in the debater and raise energy levels, they should never offer POIs in a

frequency and manner so as to disallow the speaker to continue with the speech. This is

illegal and is in fact a sign of a team that does not have confidence in its own arguments

and has to resort to bullying tactics.

Keep in mind that the pace and the frequency of POIs will have to be especially

considered when debaters face teams which appear to be the underdog due to their

younger age, lack of experience or unfamilirarity with the English Language.

Tip: The sound of the chairs being pushed back when standing to give a POI can

be very distracting to the speakers. It is best for POI givers to keep the chair pushed

back so that they can stand without making a noise.

When Not to Give POIs

Giving a POI necessarily disrupt the flow of the speaker and accepting it will

make it even more disjointed. The POI giver is also distracted and will not be able to

track carefully. Therefore, Debaters may wish to avoid giving POIs when the speaker is

establishing a key definition or a policy. This will ensure that no misunderstanding arise

over the key definitions and clarifications of the debate. This does not mean however,

that the entire first halves of the First Speakers‟ speeches are protected. Rather, it

means that the POIs should be used judiciously during this period.

If it becomes apparent to a team that a particular opponent offers strong POIs, it

may decide to block this opponent out and not take those POIs. In this case, the

opponent should reduce the POI frequency and instead pass those POIs along to the

teammates to be raised.


65

Do not give a POI when the speaker is still answering a previous POI. It does not

look sporting. Furthermore, it has the effect of the opponents trying to DEFEND a

previous POI, which weakens their stance and strengthens the speaker‟s.

Do not give a POI during the protected zones. This appears straight forward but

a surprisingly large number of people fail to keep track of time properly, miss the bells

and offers POIs during these zones. To prevent this, the team leader need to warn them

once the bell rings, e.g., by saying to the rest “ no more POIs from now on.”

On some occasions, some speakers may end up not taking POIs until very late in

the speech. In these cases, the opponents may make a strategic decision to stop giving

POIs and have the speaker appear on record as having taken no POIs. However, the

opponents will need to ensure that they had already given plenty of POIs at the

beginning of the speaker‟s speech.

For POI Takers

For speakers, proper handling of POIs is an important skill to acquire. The POIs

being offered and answered come at the expense of the time allocated for the speaker‟s

own speech. As a result, the speaker will need to exercise tight control over how the

POIs are handled.

How Many to Take?

Take 2. The rules dictate that all speakers much take at least 2 POIs. Thus,

speakers should not get into the habit of taking only one POI. Debaters may take more

than 2 POIs but there is no strategic reason to do so. Taking more than 2 also signals to

the judges that the speaker has run out of things to say. (In some tournaments where

the speeches have been shortened from 8 minutes to 6 or 5minutes, it may be

acceptable to take 1 during the speeches.)


66

Finish Sentences Before Taking POIs

When taking a POI, debaters should always finish their sentences before letting

the opponent speak. Once the POI has been responded to, speakers should also

indicate to the judges that they were not returning to their speeches.

Always Respond

In some situations, the speakers may feel that the POI may be addressed by an

argument to be raised later in the speech and state “ I will deal with this later.” This is

risky, since that argument may not actually respond directly to the POI. Worse still, the

speakers could forget about the POI altogether. Thus, the speakers should always deal

with the POI quickly and then indicate that there will be a further elaboration on the POI

further in the speech.

Don’t Walk to the Giver

Some Debaters practice the bizarre habit of walking up to the POI giver while it is

being delivered. This can appear very aggressive and make the speakers look as if they

were trying to bully the POI giver. Furthermore, the time spent walking to and fro is time

not spent listening carefully to the POI and thinking of a response. The best way to deal

with the POI is to stand still, listen hard and respond quickly.

Respond to the Audience

Remember that both the POI and the response are not meant to private

communication between the speaker and the opponent. Both should be directed to the

judges and the audience.

When to Take POIs


67

Speakers should always go into a debate with a PLAN on when they wish to take

POIs. This way, they will not have to spend much effort trying to plan during the speech

proper. Here are some possible approaches and their respective pros and cons.

Option A – Take both early in the speech.

Pros – This approach allows speakers to quickly take care of the 2 POIs and then

ignore them for the rest of the speech.

Cons – Unless time is managed carefully, the speakers are likely to have delays in

starting their substantive arguments (1st and 2nd speakers) or later contentions

(3rd speakers).

Option B – Take both later in the speech

Pros – This can be an advantage, especially for the 1st and 2nd speakers, as the POIs

will come during the substantive arguments section, which will be a position of strength.

Cons – Opponents may have stopped giving POIs in the second half of the speech.

This may also lead to constructive arguments or examples being dropped due to a lack

of time.

Option C – Take one early and one later

Pros – This allows for a balanced use of time for the POIs during the speech and

demonstrate to the judges that the debaters are comfortable with POIs in either section.

Cons – May be harder to remember to take the 2nd POI.

Debaters should try out all these methods and their own permutations so that they will

have their own POI plans set before the start of the speech.


68

When Not to Take POIs

Keep in mind that Speakers should avoid taking the POIs when they are delivering a

point which they believe is not that strong and could be attacked easily by the

opponents.


69

Exercise

1. What is POI?

2. Is a POI effective to destroy your opponent‟s case?

3. When should you use a POI?

4. What are the basics in constructing a POI?

5. Discuss how the POI plays a role in a debate.


70

Chapter Seven

Debate Researches

Overview

Within the WSDC format, teams may be given months to prepare for a topic or as

little as one hour prior to the debate. The latter can prove to be a challenge for Debaters

and many frequently find that 60 minutes is woefully inadequate when trying to develop

a cohesive team stance, a range of arguments addressing the motion, anticipation of

the opponent‟s arguments, a range of examples to be applied, writing the arguments

and practicing their speeches.


Before Prep

Ensure that there is a “prep leader” who will be making the key decisions during

the prep. In order to make efficient use of the time given, the team will need to make

crucial decisions on the stance to be taken by the team, the arguments to be raised and

the definitions to be applied to the motion. In these circumstance, a prep leader (the


71

captain or otherwise) should be present to make these critical decisions. In the

absence of a prep leader, the team could end up waste time arguing matters without

resolution and consequently run poorly constructed arguments.

Appoint a timer to time the prep and to remind the rest of the time remaining

during the session. The timer will thus speed up the prep process if it is lagging and will

also remind the speakers of the remaining tasks. For instance, with 10 minutes

remaining in the prep, the timer may wish to remind the speakers that they should start

practicing the delivery of their speeches.

3. During Prep

The team may wish to take the following steps during the short prep session prior to the

debates.

a. Brainstorm

b. Download

c. Selection of Arguments

d. Definitions

e. Clarifications & Parameters

f. Writing of cases

g. Sharing of rebuttals

h. Delivery Practice

Let‟s look closer at what each of above steps will entail, together with a

recommendation on how much time each step should take within a prep session lasting

60 minutes.

a. Brainstorm (2-3 minutes): During this session, all team members should silently

and independently think of the various arguments the team canrun to address the

motion and list them down. Team members may also wish to note down major

examples which could be used in conjunction with the arguments. Team members


72

should try to think of as many different arguments from as many different angles as

possible to maximize the options for the team.

i. Tip: For a motion which appears straightforward, the teams may proceed to

brainstorm straightaway. For motions which are ambiguous, the prep leader should

clarify the issues prior to the brainstorm in order to avoid having all the speakers think in

different directions. For instance, for the motion “THW go green,” one speaker could be

thinking of environmental issues, another will be thinking of the green party in politics, a

third could be thinking of Islam and a fourth could be thinking of money and the

greenback. Thus, the prep leader should signal to the team on what the stance is, e.g.,

this will be an environmental debate, prior to the download.

b. Download (5 minutes): During the download, the speakers take turns to read out

the arguments and examples generated while the rest writes them down. The speaker

should at least explain the core argument behind each point without going into too much

detail. This will go around the table until everyone has contributed. Speakers should

take note of the following Dos and Don‟ts for this step.

i. Do take down every argument, no matter what you feel about it. If the point is

weak, it can be discarded during the selection process.

ii. Don’t start to rebut these arguments during the download. Avoid interjecting

with objections such as “what if the opponents say this?” Chances are, all of these

arguments can be rebutted. But if the speakers destroy these arguments during

download, the team will have no arguments left to run during the debate itself!

iii. Do add important details to a point already raised by a previous speaker if

needed. For instance, to the first downloader‟s argument that “we will go green to

ensure food supply security,” a second downloader could add key examples such as the

Green Revolution in India.


73

iv. Don’t repeat a point if it has already been raised. If previous speakers had

already raised a certain point, it wastes valuable time to raise it again. If the last speaker

in the download has nothing left to add, then so be it.

c. Selection (5 minutes): By now, the team should have a list of potential arguments

that could be used during the debate. The team should now make the decision on which

arguments will be used, which will be discarded and how the deployed arguments will

be assigned to the two substative speakers. The selection process may vary from team

to team. Some teams may prefer to let the First and Second speakers decide which

points they prefer. Other teams may have the captain or the prep leader make the

decision on how the points should be grouped and assigned.

d. Definitions, Clarifications and Parameters (15 min): In this step, the team will

need to develop the definitions for the key terms of the motion. Every team member

should also be on the same page for the key clarifications and the parameters for the

debate. Every team member should be involved in this process and so that they are

aware of the agreed set up for the debate. (Please see section on Definitions,

Clarifications and Parameters for more on this issue). Teams may wish to take note of

the following Dos and Don‟ts:

i. Do come up with the definitions even when the team is in opposition,

especially if motion appears ambiguous. This will allow the team to know straight

away if the proposition‟s own definition can be accepted or challenged. It will also make

it easier to provide the alternate set of definitions during a definitional challenge.

ii. Don’t leave the job of developing the definitions to just one speaker. This

could lead to the rest of the team not being on the same page and potentially leading to

contradictions during the debate.

iii. Do consider doing the definitions before the arguments if the situation calls

for it. For some ambiguous or complicated motions, it may help to establish the

definitions before the arguments are developed and selected. My personal preference is

http://debateable.org/debate-topics/the-set-up



74

to give priority to developing the arguments since these will be the back bone of the

case during the debate.

iv. Don’t blindly re-use definitions from previous debates. Small changes in

phrasing could lead to large differences in meaning and understanding.

e. Writing the arguments(15 minutes): During this step, the speakers should focus

on writing out the arguments onto the cards/books which will be used during the debate.

During this period, the Third Speaker may wish to consider the arguments and

examples which are likely to be used by the opponents and prepare some responses

which could be used accordingly. The reserve speakers can assist any of the floor

speakers who may need assistance.

f. Sharing of rebuttals (5 minutes): During this step, the Third Speaker can brief

the team on the key arguments likely to be raised by the opponents and ensure that all

three speakers are aware of the potential responses that could be provided.This step

will also prepare the Debaters for the opponents' POIs.

g. Delivery Practice (remaining time): All the speakers should practise the delivery

of their arguments within the prep session. Ideally, a teammate should be listening to

these deliveries and providing feedback on how the speeches could be improved. This

will allow the speakers to make the necessary adjustments to make the speeches

clearer and more effective. This session will also allow the rest of the team to know

exactly how the speech will be delivered, ensuring that they are not caught by surprise

later on. An added benefit is that the speaker will gain more confidence for the actual

debate since the speech has already been delivered in practice.

4. Tips


75

Tip 1 - Prep for Prep : The above steps are only meant to be a guide to the 60 minute

preparation session. Teams should exercise the flexibility to make the necessary

changes to their own preparation sessions to better suit their needs. For instance,

certain steps can be swiched around and the time allocated to each step can be altered.

To have the best prep sessions, teams should prep for prep! This means that the team

members should spend time developing their own prep procedure through discussion

and through trial and error in practice debates. This will allow speakers to give feedback

on the various steps and make adjustments accordingly. For instance, some speakers

may need more time for the practice delivery while others may need more time to be

given for the selection of the cases or for definitional issues. The best approach is for

the team members to share their concerns with each other and to adjust the steps

accordingly to make the best use of the 60 minutes.

Tip 2: The prep leader of the captain may also wish to keep a checklist of the steps to

be taken during the prep to keep track of the session and to ensure that nothing has

been left out.

Tip 3: The one hour prep session is also a useful tool even when teams have been

given a longer period of time (1 week or longer) to prepare for the motions. By using the

one hour prep session early, the teams can establish the key lines of argument for the

debate quickly. The rest of the time and days remaining can be spent on refining the

arguments and researching for better examples.


76

Chapter Eight

Debate Speeches

Overview

It is critical that Debaters make a good first impression on the judges within a

debate. Making a good impression straight away leads the judges to believe that the

debater is capable of making a good speech to follow and induces them to give higher

scores if the debater is able to fulfill this potential. Many debaters, however, will merely

launch into the speeches‟ contents, which makes the remarks appear more utilitarian. A

good introduction is thus essential in raising the expectations of the judges.



77

A good introduction also serves to differentiate the speaker from the other

debaters in the round and get more attention from the judges. Debaters can consider

using the following elements to create effective introductions to their speeches.

Debaters should allocated about 20-45 seconds for the introductions but this will

depend on the time available for the speech and the amount of substantive matter

which needs to be covered.

Contextualization

This technique is commonly used by the First speakers of both teams. The

speakers open their speeches by contextualizing the motion in real world events. This

shows the judges that the speakers understand the relevance of the motion and why the

motion is being debated. The contextualisation also provides the speakers with an

opportunity to make their stance as sympathetic as possible.

In a debate about the use of nuclear technology, the First Proposition Speaker can open

by citing the depletion of natural resources as well as the need to find sustainable and

cheap energy sources in the developing world. The speaker may also highlight the

increasing concerns over carbon emissions and global warming, factors which will

support Proposition‟s arguments in favour of nuclear technology. The First Opposition

Speaker, in contrast, will contextualize the debate by referring to nuclear accidents,

such as those in Japan, as well as the threat of nuclear weapon programmes in North

Korea and Iran.

Overview

The overview is a technique more commonly used from the Second Speaker

onwards, although the First Opposition Speaker may also use it. Here, the Debater

makes a critique of the approach being taken by the opposing team. This is an attack on

the opposing team which goes beyond a mere rebuttal of a point. Here, the debater

makes the assessment of how the debate is proceeding and why the opponent‟s


78

general approach is flawed. This assessment will also serve as a pre-cursor to the

evaluative component of the Summary Speeches and signals to the judges that the

Debater has the ability to look at the debate critically.

For instance, in a Debate about globalization, the Second Proposition Speaker

can note that the Opposition has focused mainly on social and political issues and

criticize this approach during the overview as globalization is primarily an economic

phenomenon. The Second Opposition Speaker, in response, can note during the

overview that the Proposition had primarily used examples from developed countries

and has ignored the impact on least developing countries in order to put globalisation in

a good light.

Prominent Example

Another interesting way to open the speech is to use a poignant example in

support of the team‟s stance. This has the effect of quickly grounding the debate in

reality and putting a clear metal image of the debate in the minds of the judges. This

technique differs from contextualization as the Debater is only using a single example

for its impact rather than the explanation of the broad circumstance. Thus, going back to

the motion on nuclear technology, the speaker can open with a detailed example on the

reactor meltdown at Chernobyl and the resultant radioactive fallout over Europe. While

all the speakers on the floor have the option of opening the speech with an example,

they will have to be aware that this will necessarily take away an example which could

have been used for an argument or rebuttal.

Personal Anecdote


79

This technique is especially useful in establishing a rapport with the judges and

the audience. This allows the debater to create some differentiation from the rest of the

speakers while making the topic a little more interesting. Ideally, the anecdote should be

related to the motion.

On some occasions, Debaters can get an additional benefit from this technique by

becoming authority figures. For instance, on a motion about the United Nations, a

Debater who has worked or interned at the UN will be able to speak with more authority.

Thus, the Debater can make reference to an incident or episode during the stint at the

UN. Since it will be clumsy and possibly counterproductive to say “I have worked at the

UN so I know more about this than anyone here,” a good way to claim authority will be

subtly working in the Debater's UN background into an anecdote or story.

Quotations

The use of famous quotes related to the topic can also be a good way to start a

speech. These are formulated well and are usually short and sharp, which allows the

debaters to proceed quickly into these speeches. Debaters should avoid the mere

recitation of the quote prior to proceeding to the case. Instead, they should explain how

the quote relates to the motion at hand.

Humor

The use of humor can be effective in easing the tension in the room and

establishing a rapport with the audience and the judges. Although the Debater is free to

use any type of jokes or quips, it will be best if there are related to the topic in some

way.


80

The use of humor always involves some risks. If the humor goes unappreciated,

the silence will be awkward and deafening and the Debater will be embarrassed.

Worse, the humor could backfire if it ends up offending the audience or the judges.

Finishing Strong

The conclusion to a speech is just as important as the introduction. The judges

will be close to making up their minds on the score to be given to the speakers and a

strong finish could assist in pushing the score a little higher. Thus, speakers should get

rid of bad habits such as panicked and rushed endings or incomplete conclusions

trailing off as they return to their seats. Instead, they should allocate some time at the

end of their speeches for a strong and effective conclusion.

Following the Theme

One technique to wrap up the speech to refer back to the introduction and finish

on the same theme. Thus, if an anecdote was used, the conclusion could refer to the

same story for a fitting conclusion. The speaker with the UN experience can sum up the

speech by referring to the lessons learnt at the end of the tenure.

Quotations

Quotations work even better at the end of speeches as they are short and can be

delivered with a flourish; useful when there will be little time left for the speaker.


81

Summation

Speakers who provide a summation of the key components of the speech just

delivered will be able to remind the judges of all the points covered. This will ensure that

the judges did not miss a single point. This also lets the judges know that the speaker

had complete control over and awareness of the speech.

The summation can also be expanded to cover the key points already delivered by the

preceding speakers. This ensures that these key components will remain fresh in the

minds of the judges. Third Speakers in particular, should summarise the substantive

arguments raised by their teammates at the end of their speeches.

4. Ease of tracking

4.1. Signposting

Signposting refers to the Debater signaling to the judges on what the various

components of the speech are. Specifically, this refers to the Debater declaring what

component is about to be delivered before the delivery itself.


82

For instance, instead of launching directly into a rebuttal, the debater should

signpost by saying “For my first rebuttal, let‟s address the opposition‟s first point on the

economic impact.” This allows the judges to know exactly what is happening within a

speech. In contrast, a speech without good signposting often leaves judges confused as

to which rebuttal was being directed at particular arguments and makes it hard for them

to award higher scores.

Transition Markers

Transition markers inform the judges that one particular argument or rebuttal has

been concluded and that the speaker has moved on to another component. This simple

step alerts the judges that a new argument or rebuttal is about to be delivered and

allows them to prepare accordingly. For instance, the speaker may simply say, “The

opposition‟s first argument has fallen. Let‟s see why their second argument is flawed” to

indicate that a new rebuttal is being brought in.

Without proper transition markers, Debaters run the risk of having their

arguments merge with each other, leaving the judges more confused. For instance,

some Debaters merely use“furthermore” as a transition maker to move from one

rebuttal to the next. However, because it is an indistinct marker, the judges are

uncertain if the speaker was providing multiple rebuttals to one argument or had

different responses to multiple arguments.

Tip: One easy way to make it easier for the judges to track the arguments is

to list the items to be delivered at the beginning of the speech. For instance, a Debater

can declare that the speech will respond to 3 of the Opposition‟s arguments to be

followed by 2 substantive arguments, it makes it easier for the judges to track the

speech. In contrast, if a Debater does not number the arguments, judges may

sometimes have difficulty deciding how many rebuttals there actually were and how

many arguments were actually raised.


83

(Note: One issue with this method is that Debaters may run out of time and fail to

deliver the promised number of arguments. However, the proper solution is to manage

the time allocation properly, rather than to make it easier to drop points through the lack

of numbering.”)

Word Choice

The words used by Debaters are the vehicles for the ideas that they wish to

convey. Debaters need to ensure that the words that they use are effective and that no

wasted words are used within that limited time frame. Debaters should keep the

following elements in mind when selecting the words they use for their speeches.

Necessity

Use only the words which are necessary and remove the “filler” words which

have no meaning. These “fillers” include terms such repeated “Ladies and Gentlemen,

like, you know, we see that, we say that, at the end of the day, etc.” These words use

up valuable time and add nothing to the debate. It is better to pause and breathe rather

to than use “filler” words during a speech.

Simplicity

Use simple words as much as possible. The best way to ensure Debaters are able to

get their points across is to ensure that every member of the judging panel and the

audience understand the words which are being used. Debaters should thus not use a

complicated word which could be misunderstood by the judges or opponents when a

simple word will do just as well.


84

For instance, some judges and opponents may well not know what “exacerbate”

means but they are all likely to know that the harms are “worse.” (Note - In some

debates, especially those with science and technology motions, it will not be possible for

debaters to avoid using scientific terms, which tend to be complex at times. However,

they should take care to explain these terms when necessary to ensure that everyone in

the debate can follow.)

Accuracy

Use words which are precise in conveying the message. This will ensure that the

opponents will not misunderstand or misrepresent the arguments being put forward. For

instance, they should avoid saying “eradicate the black market” if all they wanted to

claim was that the impact of the black market will be “reduced.” Inaccurate language

allows the opponents to pounce and attack these areas easily. In this case, the

opponents will merely have to point out the impossibility of completely removing an

entire black market industry.

Sophistication

Use words which are formal and sophisticated. Although the debate is to be conducted

in friendly tones, it is still a formal competition between two teams. As such, the

language used should also be sophisticated and casual words should be avoided. Thus,

a team should say that the opponents‟ arguments are “flawed” or “illogical” rather than

saying they “suck” or are “lousy.

1. Introduction

For a Debater, knowledge is power. No matter how eloquent or passionate a speech

may be, it will ultimately be toothless without key information and evidence to support

the argumentation. Thus, Debaters will have to be well-read and well-researched if they


85

are to improve in the debating arena. Diligent research will provide not only the

evidence for cases but also generate the argumentation which can be used in debates.

2. Open-Ended Research

Open-ended research refers to Debaters acquiring more information in general without

a specific set of areas or topics in mind. This type of research is especially valuable for

keeping up to date on current affairs and also on new areas of research.

Open-ended research is usually achieved by altering reading, listening and viewing

habits to include more current affairs and educational media. This could be as simple as

having access to the BBC and CNN and reading periodicals such as the Economist on

a regular basis.

During open-ended research, Debaters should try to develop a critical appreciation of

facts. Instead of just assimilating the information, Debaters should consider which

motions could be addressed by the information, if arguments could be developed from

the information and if strong examples could be extracted for further use.

3. Focused Research

Focused research refers to the active acquisition of information about a specific area.

Debaters should seek to know something of everything and everything of something.

This means that they should have a good understanding of most issues to be able to

handle themselves in different debates but be subject matter experts in one or two

fields.

Before proceeding to conduct focused research, Debaters should attempt to list the

areas in which they had good background knowledge and which areas were relatively

unknown. They should then fill the gaps in by doing more research on those missing

areas. Otherwise, these Debaters may find themselves unable to function in a debate

because they simply do not know enough about the topic.


86

Debaters should also try to specialise and research in-depth on some areas. This is

ideally done in consultation with teammates so that the areas of specialization will not

overlap. Since they will be spending a significant amount of time researching these

areas, Debaters should focus on areas they are already passionate about. If possible,

Debaters should try to become subject matter experts in a number of areas. For

instance, in a debate team or a debate club, each member could be instructed to be

subject matter experts on a different country, a different international organization, a

different technology, etc.

Debaters should also do focused research on areas which will help with their style. This

means that they can look up funny jokes, interesting anecdotes and memorable

quotations which could be used again in future debates.

4. Using research

The research gathered is of limited utility if it remains only in the minds of each

Debaters. Thus, Debaters should ensure that the research gathered is shared and

utilized in debates as much as possible.

Debaters should share the research they had unearthed as much as possible with their

teammates. The advent of the internet makes this an easy task, since the speakers may

use mailing lists, blogs or online document hosting sites to share their findings. When

sharing the information, Debaters should take note that the readers may not be subject

matter experts and may thus need some explanation for the researched material.

Debaters should also create reference sheets to be put into their own research files.

These reference sheets may list anything from key facts and examples to jokes and

witty quotations. Even if tournaments do not allow these sheets to be brought into the

preparation and/or the debate, the Debaters will still have handy reference material for

training sessions and other occasions.


87

References

http://lol-academy.blogspot.com/2011/09/debate-module.html

http://lunddebatesociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/module-2.pdf

http://www.britishcouncil.org/romania-debate-registration_form_spring_2013.pdf

http://ctl.utsc.utoronto.ca/twc/sites/default/files/Argument.pdf

http://idebate.org/training/resources/133

http://debateable.org/debate-topics/constructing-arguments

http://www.eduinitiatives.org/news/new-module-available-how-debate

http://www.debate.org/help/site-updates/2-1/

http://www.schoolsdebate.com/docs/definitions.asp

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wsdcdefiningandcases.pdf

http://www.eduinitiatives.org/sites/default/files/Skill%20development%20Workshop%20fi

les/How%20to%20Debate%20Unit.pdf

http://flynn.debating.net/mmuguide.htm

http://www.debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf

http://steiny.typepad.com/premise/2003/05/setting_definit.html


http://debateable.org/debate-topics/constructing-arguments#h1-introduction

http://debateable.org/debate-topics/rebuttals

https://www.debatingsa.com.au/Schools-Competition/Documents/Debating-An-

Introduction-For-Beginners.pdf

http://www.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/publicfile/Attachment/f1286262727102.pdf

http://debateable.org/debate-strategies/constructing-a-speech

http://debateable.org/debate-strategies/debate-research

http://lol-academy.blogspot.com/2011/09/debate-module.html

http://lunddebatesociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/module-2.pdf

http://www.britishcouncil.org/romania-debate-registration_form_spring_2013.pdf

http://ctl.utsc.utoronto.ca/twc/sites/default/files/Argument.pdf

http://idebate.org/training/resources/133

http://debateable.org/debate-topics/constructing-arguments

http://www.eduinitiatives.org/news/new-module-available-how-debate

http://www.debate.org/help/site-updates/2-1/

http://www.schoolsdebate.com/docs/definitions.asp

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wsdcdefiningandcases.pdf

http://www.eduinitiatives.org/sites/default/files/Skill%20development%20Workshop%20files/How%20to%20Debate%20Unit.pdf

http://www.eduinitiatives.org/sites/default/files/Skill%20development%20Workshop%20files/How%20to%20Debate%20Unit.pdf

http://flynn.debating.net/mmuguide.htm

http://www.debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf

http://steiny.typepad.com/premise/2003/05/setting_definit.html


http://debateable.org/debate-topics/constructing-arguments#h1-introduction

http://debateable.org/debate-topics/rebuttals

https://www.debatingsa.com.au/Schools-Competition/Documents/Debating-An-Introduction-For-Beginners.pdf

https://www.debatingsa.com.au/Schools-Competition/Documents/Debating-An-Introduction-For-Beginners.pdf

http://www.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/publicfile/Attachment/f1286262727102.pdf

http://debateable.org/debate-strategies/constructing-a-speech

http://debateable.org/debate-strategies/debate-research

Debate Module

Documents

Transcript of Debate Module