Debating On the Art of

Renz Homer E. Cerillo

What is a Debate?

a formal and structured discussion on a particular topic… in which

opposing arguments are put forward.

Debates’ Elements

Motions Arguments

Adjudicator Debaters

Why debate?

What are motions? Motions are essentially the topics being debated upon. They may

range from social issues to science, and economics to showbiz.

Ex: (1) This house believes that Justin Bieber is awesome.

Ex: (2) This house would ban One Direction in the Philippines.

Two types of motion 1. Value Judgment

2. Policy

Assesses whether a certain subject/person/event/act is good or bad, moral or immoral,

or true or false. AKA Principle Debate.

Calls for an action or something to be done and debated in such way that it solves a

problem in the present scenario.

examples 1. Value Judgment

2. Policy

(1) This house believes that academic performance is the best indicator of individual success in life. (2) This house celebrates hyper consumerism. (3) This house believes in marriage.

(1) This house would legalize prostitution. (2) This house would expel cheaters in

school examinations. (3) This house would arm journalists.

Value Judgment Policy

(1) This house prefers technocracy than democracy

(1) This house would shift to technocracy

(2) This house regrets joining Facebook

(2) This house would dissolve Facebook

(3) This house believes that belief in Santa Claus is good for children.

(3) This house would ban stories related to Santa Claus.

Value Judgment Policy

(4) This house believes that children should be raised without the concept of gender

(4) This house would raise children without the concept of gender

(5) This house believes that Alice has no obligation to obey the laws of Wonderland

(5) This house would mandate Alice to obey the laws of Wonderland

Parliamentary Debating General Guidelines: •  Speeches should be seven minutes long. (Until 7 minutes and 30 seconds)

•  A bell/clap will be sounded at the first minute to signal that POI’s (Point of Information) may now be taken.

•  Another bell/clap will be sounded at the end of the 6th minute to signal the end of POIs.

•  Successive bells/claps would be sounded at the end of the 7th minute to signal that the speech must be ended.

Parliamentary Debating

1st 2nd to 6th 7th

POI’s (Points of Information) may be entertained within

7.15

7.30

Ting Ting

Ting Ting Ting

1 Clap

2 Claps 1

Clap

Multiple Claps

General Guidelines:

Parliamentary Debating: • You may accept 1 or 2 POI’s.

• Madame/Mister Speaker or Madame/Mister Chair may be used to address the chief adjudicator.

• POI’s must only be 15 seconds long.

• Speakers must observe decorum. Foul language is not allowed.

• Rebuttals are crucial to your speech.

General Guidelines:

Parliamentary Debating: • Preparation Time (PrepTime) is 30 minutes

• Use of electronic devices is not allowed during prep time

• Only printed materials are permitted

• An odd number of adjudicators are to assess the debate

• Props (for crying out loud) will only make you look silly

General Guidelines:

Debate Formats

British Parliamentary Debate

Asian Parliamentary

Debate

Asian Parliamentary Debate

Asian Parliamentary Debate: General Guidelines • There are two (2) opposing teams.

• Government/Affirmative Side • Opposition/Negative Side

• Each team has three members.

• Prime Minister (PM) • Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) • Government Whip (GW)

• Leader of the Opposition (LO) • Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO) • Opposition Whip (OW)

Order of Speakers

(1) Prime Minister (PM)

(3) Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)

(5) Government Whip (GW)

(8) Government Whip

(2) Leader of the Opposition (LO)

(4) Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)

(6) Opposition Whip (OW)

(7) Opposition Reply

Speaker Roles • Informative backgrounder/ Definition

• Characterization of the problem

• Proposal (in policy debates) or value-judgment (in principle debates)

Prime Minister (PM)

• Components of the proposal/prongs • Standards • Goal

• Parameters • Discussion of the constructives/arguments (2-3)

Speaker Roles • Explicit statement of the clash

• General defense of the opposition

• Comments on the definition, standards, goal, and parameters

Leader of the Opposition (LO)

• Rebuttals

• Discussion of the constructives/arguments (2-3)

Speaker Roles • Furthering of team’s argumentation/ extension speech

• Rebuilding of team’s case

• More rebuttals

Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)

• Discussion of the constructives/arguments (2-3)

Speaker Roles • Furthering of team’s argumentation/ extension speech

• Rebuilding of team’s case

• More rebuttals

Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)

• Discussion of the constructives/arguments (2-3)

Speaker Roles • Sum up your team line

• Rebut the entire opposition bench

• Provide fresh analyses for your side of the house

Government Whip (GW)

• Fresh analyses are new points of view on how to defend a discussed argument or rebuttal in the debate

• F.A. is a technique to strengthen the argument, not to bring up new matter • Sort arguments into issues

Speaker Roles • Sum up your team line

• Rebut the entire government bench

• Provide fresh analyses for your side of the house

Opposition Whip (GW)

• Fresh analyses are new points of view on how to defend a discussed argument or rebuttal in the debate

• F.A. is a technique to strengthen the argument, not to bring up new matter

• Sort arguments into issues

Reply Speech • 4 minutes only (overtime of 15-30 seconds)

• May be given by the first two speakers of the benches.

• Comparison of two sides’ strengths and weaknesses.

Reply Speech

• Biased claim as to why the adjudicators go with your side.

• Reply speakers propose criteria e.g. clarity, depth of argumentation, as a means to convince that their side win the debate.

Reply Speech • No prescribed structure for reply speech

• Structure it depending on your preference

• R.S. is designed to be a simple and brief overview of the entire debate

Reply Speech

• Be direct/straightforward

Defining the motion

Definition • Explicit clarification on what the debate is going to be about

• Done by the first speaker of the affirmative

• 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

Definition

• Establishment of parameters or context

• May be challenged by the first speaker of the negative

Guidelines for defining • Define terms in the topic, not every

single word

E.G. This house would subsidize Twitter

• Do not make definitions too complicated

Definition

• Be direct/straightforward

E.G. THBT cosmetic products are empowering for women

Grounds: Definitional Challenge Limiting the debate in inappropriate time and place contexts

Time and Place Setting

Tautology

-An argument that is true by logic -Regardless of opinion, you cannot possibly argue against it

E.g. This house would legalize monogamy The affirmative sets it in the Philippines.

E.g. We limit this debate in the 1930’s.

Grounds: Definitional Challenge -An argument that you cannot be expected to oppose (as opposed to a tautology which is impossible to oppose)

Truism

Squirrel

-A definition from the side of the opening speaker that makes it too easy for his/her side

E.g. THBT Pnoy has failed the Philippines

-E.g. This house would dissolve the police Defined as the band.

Did not succeed in implementing all his platforms

Grounds: Definitional Challenge Ex. This house believes that big is good.

Open Motion

May be challenged once definition is too far-fetched

Definitional Challenge • State explicitly that you’re challenging your opponent’s definition

• Explain why their definition is wrong

• Replace their definition with your own definition

How to Mount a Definitional Challenge

• Explain how your definition avoids the problem of your opposition’s definition

The Clash

The Clash • The exact opposite of the government’s team line of argumentation

• Provided by the first speaker of the negative

• Always strive for the hard line clash

What is the Clash?

E.g. This house would assassinate present day dictators in office because blah blah

The clash: This house would not assassinate present day dictators in office. In fact, this side would provide complete protection etc.

What is an argument?

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading

others that an action or idea is right or wrong

Anatomy of an argument

A. Label

B. Premise

Basic structure:

C. Analysis

D. Examples

E. Tieback

Anatomy of an argument -Short simple statement on what your argument is about; for reference

Label

Premise

-Main basis for an argument -An assertion for a proposition

Analysis

-Theoretical or abstract explanation of how and why your argument is true and should stand; So what?

Anatomy of an argument -Simplest and most popular form of substantiation -Help to convince audience and adjudicators that your argument is actually true

Examples

Tieback

-Answers the question “What’s the main point of this argument?” -Important to indicate that you’re ending an argument

Weaknesses of an argument?

Weaknesses of an argument -Arguments must be consistent with one another and with your team’s line of defense. -Can damage team’s credibility

Inconsistency

Insignificance

-Arguments must be related to the topic (DUH), what’s their purpose if they don’t connect at all.

Weaknesses of an argument -Arguments must be tailored to the debate and your defense

Too Broad/General

Irrelevance

-Arguments must be related to the topic (DUH), what’s their purpose if they don’t connect at all.

Dependent Argument

-Too thin on its own; lacks analysis and examples

What is a Rebuttal?

a refutation or contradiction

Importance of rebuttals -Two contradicting arguments/ideas do not make a debate

Rebuttals

-Rebuttals allow for interaction between the two houses

-Rebuttals are as valuable as constructive arguments

-They are essentially pointing out the differences between your arguments and your opponents’

Grounds for Rebuttals Logical Irrelevance

Insignificance

Technique of Concession

Factual Inaccuracy

Underlying Assertions

Contradictions

Pointing out a

Misrepresentation

General rebuttal tips • Know how much rebuttal to do

• Listen carefully to opponents’ arguments, little details are crucial

• Save nothing for later, hit them as hard as you can

Rebuttals

• Combine accurate criticisms of your opponent, with references to your own team’s case

• Deny then what if

What is a POI?

Point of Information • 15-second long question, clarification, rebuttal coming from the other side of the house.

• May be entertained starting from the 2nd minute until the end of the 6th minute.

• Speaking debater may or may not entertain a POI raised by the other side.

Point of Information

• Should the debater raising the POI exceeds the 15-minute mark, he or she will be cut off (out of order) by the adjudicator/s.

Who wins?

The Adjudication • Basically the judges of the debate, • Assumes the view of a “disinterested average reasonable person”

Range

Adjudicators

Description

80-83 Really excellent speeches

77-79 More strong points that weak points

74-76 Average

71-73 More weak points than strong points

67-70 Bad/Messy speech

Criteria for Judging -Presence, diction, gestures etc.

Manner

Matter

-Evidences, depth of analysis, argumentation etc.

Method

-Structure, clarity

Other debating Tips -Structure is one essential key to an effective speech; signposts are labels e.g. I have three arguments for this debate e.g. Let me proceed to my last and second argument

Signposting

Matterload

-A jargon that means to acquire as much knowledge/information on anything under the sun; Read read read

Other debating Tips -There’s no better way to enhance your debating skills than though debating per se

-Ask for personal adjudication from the adjudicators after every debate round

-Be confident and engage your audience

-Record your speech to listen for loopholes and weak spots

Train

Other debating Tips

HAVE

FUN!!!

Case Building THW ban all procedures to alter

one’s appearance

Prime Minister

Background: existence procedures e.g. surgeries, that alter one’s physical form, people could opt to access such procedures

Problem: Dominance of the white culture, people conform to such culture

Solution: The government would ban all procedures (a) invasive eg. all surgeries and (b) non-invasive whitening products etc.

Case Building Goal: The goal of the debate is to address racism in the long term, where are people who will undergo such procedures better off

Argument 1: When does the government act?

Argument 2: Race based discrimination

Argument 3: The government has to send a message

We are very proud to propose!

Case Building Leader of the Opposition

Clash: Would not ban any procedure, we fully support, lower the cost and subsidize such procedures

Team Defense: The government has no right to impinge on your personal choice.

Rebuttal 1: Not everyone subscribe to the white culture

Rebuttal 2: There is no large group harm

Case Building Leader of the Opposition

Argument 1: You have the right to choose your racial features

Argument 2: The policy is not justified; the government has no right to deny you the right to a good life

Argument 3: Catering to the minorities. Racial dysphoria and psychologically depressed people.

The policy should fail!