BP Debate Primer 2013

1 British Parliamentary Debate Primer, 2013 Edition

British

Parliamentary

Debate

Primer

2013 Edition

Edited by: Nick Pilapil


Preface

Debating is both a skill and an art, and so it is attained through constant practice and

dedication. The ability to speak and argue has changed the course of history many times and

yet only a small percentage of the community appreciates its complexities, thus the necessity to

spread the culture. The culture of debating has become both an instrument of change and an

avenue of sportsmanship which has captivated the world through grueling matches, eloquent

speeches and intellectual discourse.

Many of our fellow debaters, both beginners and seasoned ones, know how debating

transformed their lives by touching their inner ideas and bringing a sense of fulfillment and

confidence to them. But such will not be attained without training in debate formats recognized

around the world.

British Parliamentary is the most preferred format in collegiate debating. That is why it

is necessary for any beginning debater not only to be familiar with its patterns but also skilled

to execute it satisfactorily. British Parliamentary Debate Primer will be your tool in achieving

that goal through comprehensive chapters detailing all the essentials in this particular format. It

is a product of numerous training guides of national and international debate organizations,

gathering as a knowledge-base for enthusiastic debaters. Aside from teaching the format, it

also reviews some integral elements in debating that are not just exclusive to British

Parliamentary, but to all formats. It may be simple to memorize and understand but applying it

is a totally different experience.

Hopefully this hand-out will enrich your mind and aid you in becoming a debater at par

with the best in country, but remember this is only a guide. Every debater has his or her style

that is unique and you will develop yours through the course of your training.

Goodluck and enjoy!

- Nick Pilapil, 2013


Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 1: Basic Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 2: Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part 1: What the Motion Calls For

Part 2: Kinds of Motions

Chapter 3: Roles and Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Part 1: Team Roles

Part 2: Speaker Roles

Chapter 4: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Part 1: Fair Definitions

Part 2: Definitional Challenge

Chapter 5: Case Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Part 1: Team Case

Part 2: Hard/Soft Line Model

Chapter 6: Point of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 7: Argumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Part 1: Anatomy of an Argument

Chapter 8: First Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 9: Rebuttals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Part 1: Thematic Rebuttals

Part 2: Surgical-Strike Rebuttals

Chapter 10: Extensions and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 11: Matter, Manner, Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 12: Adjudicator’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix A: Guide to First Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix B: Summary of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


Introduction

Currently, the most widely used debate format in the world is the British Parliament format.

In the world’s biggest and most prestigious debate tournament, the World Universities Debate Championship, it is the format of choice. It is distinct from other traditional debate formats such as Oregon Oxford, Cross-Examination, or Moot Court since debating is done on an impromptu basis. Debaters are given only 15 minutes to prepare for the debate, unlike other formats that usually entails days of preparation. As a result, speeches are more extemporaneous than prepared, and debates are more dynamic and lively. (Eleanor Uy, ADS)

British Parliamentary debating has its roots in the United Kingdom, where the system of

government allows its constituents to witness decision-making and policy deliberation at its most eloquent form – at Parliament, with the Prime Minister trading arguments with the MPs or the members of Parliament. Parliamentary debate is patterned after the discussion and procedures used in the British Parliament. Debaters are expected to possess breadth of knowledge, quick wit, clear and straight-to-point arguments, logical analysis and common sense. It involves a lot of rhetoric and humor. It also gives the debaters a lot of freedom to express themselves in any way they deem necessary. The system encourages the debaters to deliver their speeches in a conversational manner and put emphasis on speeches understandable to the average and reasonable person. In this format, every debater is expected to speak his/her mind and to do away with the formality in language, without, of course, sacrificing civility. (Malaya, Hit the Podium, UPDS)

Matter Loading

Be prepared. Have a broad general knowledge of events and issues. Watch the news, read

the paper, browse the almanac, etc. (ADS)

Matter loading is a term used in parliamentary debate for conducting research. Research

work for a parliamentary system should be exhaustive so as to cover all the possible topics that may come out in the debate tournament. In terms of research, the parliamentary format necessitates that the debater knows a lot about nearly everything. Parliamentary debaters do not have the luxury of time in terms of preparation that cross-ex debaters do. The topic of a parliamentary debate is given fifteen (15) before the actual debate. Debaters should therefore have not only basic, but a thorough understanding of every major contemporary and historical issue in the world. Parliamentary debates are marked by a great deal of dynamism. Responding to cases forwarded in a debate require a lot of quick thinking and even greater team cohesion. However, this is not to gloss over the enjoyment debaters experience with this format. Parliamentary debates involve a lot of fun and flexibility. (Malaya, Hit the Podium)


Chapter 1: Basic Format

FORMAT OF BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

In parliamentary debates, the House of Parliament is divided into the Government (the

proponent / Affirmative) and the Opposition (the expositor / Negative). The leader of the Government and the first speaker of the debate is called Prime Minister; the second speaker, Deputy Prime Minister; both of them is called the Opening Government. The Closing government and third speaker are called Member of the Government and the fourth speaker is known as Government Whip. While the Opening Opposition is headed by the Leader of the Opposition and the second speaker is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Closing Opposition is headed by the Member of the Opposition, the third speaker; and the last speaker will be the Opposition Whip.

Do the Basics

o 7 Min Speech use all of it but not longer than 7:30 o 1st & last min no Points of Information o Accept 1-3 POI no more no less o Stay in the debate. Offer lots of POI but don’t overdo it o No props, No bad language, No abusive behavior

In British Parliamentary debates:

1) The chair of the debate in normally the sole adjudicator or in case of a panel, the chief

adjudicator. He/she is usually addressed as the Chairperson. Most often the proper form of address is Mr. Chair/Madame Chair.

2) The “house”, which will often be referred to, is basically the chairperson, competitors, audience, etc.

3) The House of Parliament is divided into two benches; the Government (which pushes for the passage of a policy or in support of the motion) and the Opposition (who is not in favor of the motion, the policy or proposes a different policy)

4) Each side is divided further into two (2) teams;

A. Government a. Opening Government (OG)

i. Prime Minister (PM)

Prime Minister

Deputy Prime

Minister

Member of

Government

Government Whip

Leader of Opposition

Deputy Leader of

Opposition

Member of

Opposition

Opposition Whip


ii. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) b. Closing Government (CG)

i. Member of Government (MG) ii. Government Whip (GW)

B. Opposition

a. Opening Government (OO) i. Leader of the Opposition (LO)

ii. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO) b. Closing Government (CG)

i. Member of Opposition (MO) ii. Opposition Whip (OW)

5) Each Speaker is allowed to speak for seven (7) minutes. Before the first and sixth minute,

points of information are not allowed. 6) The duration of the speaker’s speech is seven (7) minutes. However, a grace period of thirty

(30) seconds is usually allowed for the speaker to summarize his/her speech. In general the

speaker must speak for at least 6:45 and generally no more than 7:20-7:30. Ideally stay on

your feet until you hear the 7th minute bell (or two claps) and then finish and be in your seat by 7:15. Your times will be recorded by the timekeeper and given to the adjudicators as they leave to make their decision. A bell will be rung (one clap) after the expiration of one minute and six minutes. The bell will be rung again (two claps) at seven minutes and on the 7:30 (three claps). After the 7th minute and 30 seconds (7:30), with a regular interval of 15 seconds, the timer will clap three times until the speaker finishes her speech. Take note

that normally there is no deduction if the speaker ends up in the 6th minute; however, it leaves a presumption that the speaker doesn’t have any more anything to say. Adjudicators normally give deductions if the score or grade of the speaker if the speech is less than 6 minutes and more than 7 minutes and 30 seconds.

7) Remember you do not necessarily have to believe the side of the motion you are on. You just have to make it appear as though you strongly believe in it for 7 minutes. In competitive debates you will have very little choice as to which side of the motion you get.

8) You don’t have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well in Parliamentary debating. If you can remember an example, or fact which you researched, to back up your argument use it. However if you get stuck and can’t remember the exact details of the fact you want to use don’t worry about it. If the underlying details of the report, research, etc. are correct then the chances are you will not be challenged and the point will be made. If an opposing member corrects you and gives you the correct name of the report, researcher, institute, etc. then he/she is an idiot for backing up your case.

9) If you can use humor it can be extremely effective in a debate in this format. You can ridicule and destroy an opponent’s whole speech with a one-line joke attacking it. But don’ go over the top, while humor helps, adjudicators may not be impressed by stand-up routine with little substance. Although humor can be an advantage don’t worry if you can’t crack a joke to save your life (or speech). You’ll be surprised at the number of speakers who have to really struggle to include humor in a speech while others do it with ease.

10) The debaters are mandated to have PROPER DECORUM. 11) Speakers must observe parliamentary language, i.e. bad language is not permitted. 12) Heckling is common in some debates. This involves members of the audience offering

good-humored abuse to the competitors. However, there is a fine line between heckling and barracking and members of the audience should remember to respect the speaker. Heckling can be scary at first but you will soon get used to it. It should be noted that anybody in the house may react by saying “Hear! Hear!” if they agree with the argument of the speaker and say “Shame! Shame” if they disagree.

13) Use of Props is not permitted. 14) Adjudicators/Judge of Debate: SINGLE OR PANEL


Chapter 2: Motion

A motion or proposition is the topic that constitutes the subject or issue of the debate. It is a general unambiguously-worded statement or proposition that is given to the debaters as an indication of what the topic of the debate is going to be about. Functionally, the motion is the topic stated in general terms which has to be defined in more specific terms by the Prime Minister (PM) of the Opening Government. A motion is a statement of topic to be disputed by the opposing teams. The affirmative side (government) must support/defend the motion while the negative side (Opposition) must oppose the motion. Motions may aim to propose a policy, or ascertain the veracity of statement.

PART 1: WHAT THE MOTION CALLS FOR

Motions are usually stated in one or two ways. First, they can be stated in the “would” or

“should” form. (i.e,. This house believes that election campaigns should be fully financed by the state). Motions stated this way call for the affirmative team to come up with a proposal or model. This leads to a policy debate. A model is a specific set of practical actions proposed by a team in a debate. So it means that the affirmative sets up a particular kind of system that they support for reasons that are linked to various parts of the model.

Second, a motion can be stated in the “is” form (i.e., this house believes that marriage is an

outdated institution. THBT conditional economic aid is futile. THBT we have more to fear from than hope for globalization). This type of motions calls for teams to argue for or against a particular idea. This usually leads to what people typically call an assessment or value judgment debate.

For example, the motion “This House Believes that Media is more powerful than the

government” does not immediately suggest a possible course of action. Rather, it urges you to argue in general terms about the relative power of the two institutions. This is an example of a value judgment debate. In such a debate, you have to be very careful when defining that exactly is meant by “powerful”, and also how you propose to assess it. An example might be that “more powerful” means they have more influence on what people think, as measured by how they vote, which issues they lobby about and what they say in opinion polls.

Note: Be careful in discerning what kind of debate the motion calls for. Many teams

mindlessly propose policies no matter how the motion is stated. The problem with defining a motion stated in the “is” form into a policy is that you run the risk of assuming the truth of the motion. For example, given the motion that the media is more powerful than the government, you’d be assuming the truth of the motion if you propose that the government curb the powers of media. In this instance, you assumed that, indeed, the media is more powerful than the government and therefore, its powers must be curbed. Many judges frown on this and construe this as a squirrel. (DLSU Handbook)

PART 2: KINDS OF MOTIONS

1) Open Motion - A motion that can be defined quite liberally. An example of this motion

is “This house should apologize.” It can be defined anywhere from personal apology from you to anyone you have wronged (although it is highly discouraged to define debates according to your personal experiences!.”), to the Japanese people issuing an apology to comfort women, to the Australian government issuing an apology for the aborigines of the Stolen Generation. Open motions are rarely given these days and it is probably a good idea, since it gives rise to a lot of confusion in debates.

2) Semi-Closed – A motion on the middle-ground to give more leeway to the PM in defining a motion. An example of a semi-closed motion is “This house would regulate free trade. “ With a motion such as this, there are still a lot of things that need to be defined, such as who should regulate free trade and what aspect of it. At the same time, it is “closed” to the idea. That what should be regulated is free trade – not prostitution, slavery etc.

3) Closed – A motion that is most limiting in terms of defining motions. An example of a


closed motion is “This house believes that the World Trade Organization should liberalize agricultural trade.” In this case, it leaves no doubt that the definition should be about how the WTO should proceed about liberalizing agricultural trade. (Eleanor Uy, ADS)

Chapter 3: Roles and Burdens

OBLIGATIONS AND RESPOSIBILITIES OF EACH SIDE (BURDENS)

The GOVERNMENT as an advocate of the motion and tasked to defend the proposal, has the

BURDEN OF PROOF. It must be able to prove to the “House” that the motion should be adopted. In doing so, the Government speakers basically aim to demonstrate the tenability and rationality of the proposal they seek to “pass”.

The OPPOSITION, as the opponent of the motion, has the BURDEN OF CLASH. It must be able to negate the motion and showing clear opposition to the proposal. Under the parliamentary format, they are NOT required to present a counter-proposal in order to persuade others to reject the policy. They are merely required to prove through refutation and argumentation that the policy does not merit passage in the House.

OPPOSITION: CLASH!!!

To have a good debate, the opposition must clash with the government side’s proposal and

arguments. It means that if the proposal, arguments and set-up of the government is acceptable, the opposition should attack the problem head on. However, when the government fails to make good with the set-up (meaning, it is the 1st speaker’s duty to give the problem of the debate, define the terms, give the parameters, standards and arguments), the opposition can steal the debate by explicitly revealing what are the flaws of the government.

PART 1: TEAM ROLES

The GOVERNMENT has the duty:

to give a reasonably debatable definition to the given motion understandable to the Average Reasonable Person

in giving the definition, the Government may not put the Opposition in a compromising position

to define the term in such a way that the Opposition is given ample space to promote a reasonable clash

to forward a case that would be faithful to the spirit of the motion

to rebut the case presented to the House by the Opposition

The OPPOSITION has the duty:

to clash with the case forwarded by the government

to present a substantial case that will discredit the Government’s arguments (but not to run parallel to the case of the Government)

to challenge the definition of the Government (It should explicitly say so and give the reason behind the challenge

to come up with an alternative definition if there is a challenge

to discredit the policy forwarded by the government

to rebut the case of the Government


PART 2: SPEAKER ROLES

Prime Minister - Introduction - Definition of Motion - Set the Parameters - Introduce Case - Introduce Team Split - Go to your Arguments - Summarize your speech

Leader of Opposition - Establish the clash - Rebut PM’s case - Introduce Team Split - Go your Arguments - Summarize your speech

Deputy Prime Minister - Rebut LO’s case - Rebuild your team case - Go to your Arguments - Summarize your speech

Deputy Leader of Opposition - Rebut DPM’s case - Rebuild your team case - Go to your Arguments - Summarize your speech

Member of Government - Rebut DLO’s case - Summarize the issues in the Opening half - Go to your Extension - Summarize your speech

Member of Opposition - Rebut MG’s case - Go to your Extension - Summarize your speech

Government Whip - Restate status quo in favor of your side - Assess whether burdens were fulfilled - Rebut whole case of Opposition - Summarize Government case - Compare and weight issues - Give fresh analysis to your team case - Summarize your speech

Opposition Whip - Restate status quo in favor of your side - Assess whether burdens were fulfilled - Rebut whole case of Government - Summarize Opposition case - Compare and weight issues - Give fresh analysis to your team case - Summarize your speech

A. Prime Minister (PM) – 7 minutes (First Affirmative)

Have an exordium or introduction but should be less than 15 seconds (optional) 0:00 – 0:15 Define the motion – provide clarity and precision on exactly what the subject of the debate 0:00

– 0:30

define the motion so as to make it debatable (themal definition is preferred than word for word)

Definition must flow from the motion

Relate the motion to something or sets up the issue for the debate

Lay down the framework for the debate by discussing the background of the policy,

Set -up your case – elaborate what your side or what you want (stance) and how you go about it. If necessary outline the case. 0:30-1:30

If you have a proposal (policy debate), elaborate on the parameters, mechanics and key objectives of your proposal

If you want to evaluate a claim (assessment debate), state your basis or criteria.

Provide an outline of the team’s case or go into your part of the split 1:30 2:00

General analysis of the motion


Theme (or central line of the argument)

Present and develop your arguments (maximum of 3) 2:00-6:30

argues the first half of the case in the first constructive speech of the debate

Make sure the arguments you forward prove and lead to your conclusion! Issues a short summary at the 6:30 minute: restates position on the motion and theme,

synthesizes arguments presented, and introduces the 2nd speaker’s case 6:30-7:00 NOTE: do not sign post to death!

B. Leader of the Opposition (LO) – 7 minutes (First Negative)

NOTE: the fate of the debate is in your hands - you will determine if the debate becomes interesting or boring henceforth

State your major areas of disagreement with the affirmative case and/or give the technical or

structural errors of your opponent (Prime Minister)

State your clash – what your team believes/stands for. 0:00-0:30 Examine the definition; accept or reject the definition

If you decide to challenge it, say so explicitly

Definitional challenges should be clear, beating around, beating around the bush is not advisable, and time consuming.

If you find the definition acceptable, forward a case opposing the policy or stand of the government

Rebut the major arguments that you disagree with. 0:30-2:30

Refutes the main arguments of the PM’s case by analyzing the logical flaws, errors of fact, and supposed misrepresentations.

Do not waste much time on examples of your opponent. Show the flaws in the arguments. Counter examples must be presented to impugn their strongest, most telling arguments and proof

Argues the first half of the Opposition case in the constructive speech

Introduce the theme

Provide an outline of the team’s case (team split) 2:30-3:00

Present and develop your arguments (max. 2) 3:00-6:30.

Issues a summary on the 6th minute: reiterates position, clash, main points of rebuttal, theme and main arguments 6:30-7:00

Briefly introduces the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s case

C. Deputy Prime Minister (7 minutes)

Provide an overview of where the debate is. (state of the debate)

Identify areas of agreement and areas of disagreements 0:00-0:30

Knowing what the next speakers are going to say, you can reasonably anticipate your points. Downplay the next points which the speaker may say

Tell the adjudicator why the debate is still going to go your way, despite of these unheard points (borders on being presumptuous, I know, but depending on the debate, it’s a useful strategy …)

Rebut the main points of the speaker before you 0:30-2:30

Identify the arguments raised by the LO and refute it using further analysis and examples- show possible flaws in reasoning

Then tell the House why the leader of Opposition is terribly mistaken with stand he takes

Defend your own case against the rebuttal by the previous speaker 2:30-3:30

Build your own point (hey, you’re expected to have cases, OK??)

Don’t get too carried away with rebutting

Present and develop your arguments 3:30-6:30

Argue the second half of the case in your speech.

Initially state the brief summary of the PM’s case before proceeding to own case

Issues a summary at the 6th minute 30 seconds: restate position on the motion and theme,, synthesize arguments presented by both PM and DPM


Sum up your case. Tell the house why it should accept or reject the proposal

give a run-down of arguments (do not say “my first speaker told you…?” instead say “again, hear the reasons for our stand. We support/dissent because #1,…#2…etc.)

crystallize rebuttals made by 1st two Government speakers on the Opposition’s case give the impression that everything substantial about the issue/policy has already been said

by your side, ergo, the House should support your stand

D. Deputy Leader of Opposition ( 7 minutes)

Provide an overview of where the debate is. (state of the debate)

Identify areas of agreement and areas of disagreements 0:00-0:30

Tell the adjudicator why the debate is still going to go your way, despite of these unheard points (borders on being presumptuous, I know, but depending on the debate, it’s a useful strategy …)

Rebut the main points of the speaker before you 0:30-2:30

Issue a direct rebuttal of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case…

If your OO, inform the House of the inherent flaws in the policy brought forth by the Government

Don’t get too carried away with rebutting

Defend your own case against the rebuttal by the previous speaker 2:30-3:30

Present and develop your arguments 3:30-6:30

Sum up your case. Tell the house why it should accept or reject the proposal

Summarize the LO’s rebuttal of the PM’s case and stipulate points left un-addressed by the Government

Give a run-down of arguments (do not say “my first speaker told you…?” instead say “again, here are the reasons for our stand. We support/dissent because #1,…#2…etc.)

Give the impression that everything substantial about the issue/policy has already been said by your side, ergo, the House should support your stand.

E. Member of the Government

Bear in mind that the house as already heard four speeches

What will make the House listen to you? Why should it even consider listening to what should you have to say?

Generally speaking, when you forward the extension, do not oppose the definition nor the parameters set by the opening government.

When can you abandon the opening government? When the definition is hopeless! When you can’t improve it and make your team look good at the same time … when you think that by sticking to your opening government, you actually shooting yourself in the foot … committing hara-kiri or are just being plain, valiant but terrible naïve debaters … or, you already have eight wins and you want to be normal and lose just that once!

Analyze the policy; tell the House what was lacking/amiss in the debate, which just ensued between the opening teams.

Extensions seek to improve the quality of the debate by bringing it into the heart of the matter

CG should improve the debate, to distinguish their team from the opening government

CG puts forth their own case, their own stand, and is expected to develop the case or majority of it

CG may mention the major arguments of the Opening Government. However, since your ultimate goal is to make your team stand out, you should clearly prove that your arguments are infinitely better than theirs. That your arguments are the main reason why the policy is going to be passed.

You can rebut the arguments by the Opening Opposition, which the Opening Government failed to answer. By doing so, you improve the government’s stand. The government’s stand will look better of your efforts, and you’ll probably earn points for this … (depending on the adjudicator…)


F. Member of Opposition

Whatever you do, do not challenge the definition! If the Opening Opposition didn’t challenge, then you cannot. Bad dynamics of debate if you do.

You should see if the Opening Government and the Closing Government have distinct cases. If they don’t, point it out (don’t overdo it…once enough if it’s done clearly and properly)

Attack the stand of the entire government, focusing more in the Closing Government (they’re your main opponent in this debate format)

Your case. Your responsibility: case building and case extension is the same as the member of government/ ACGL. You case must flow from the case line of the Opening Opposition. You must also address the points of contention of the Closing Government.

Piece of Advice: Since you have to cover a great deal here, attack the major arguments/ flaws or the entire Government rather than their examples or the arguments impugned earlier.

G. The Government Whip

Identify the essential issues – the major areas of contention/disagreement that emerged in the round 0:00-1:00

Your major duty is to RE-AFFIRM what your teammate just said. Tackle and resolve each issue in favor of your team. 1:00-6:30 If issue came from your opponent’s case – debunk the analysis of your opponent’s case If issue came from your own case – debunk your opponent’s rebuttals and attacks against your

case Refutes Opposition’s challenges to the Government’s case Refutes the Opposition’s Constructive case by demonstrating the un-tenability, illogical

nature, or invalidity of the arguments raised by the Opposition speakers in negating the motion by introducing fresh analysis or further examples to illustrate the weaknesses of the Opposition’s case

Identifies points of controversy raised by the opposition against the Government Issues a direct rebuttal, with reference to earlier refutations made by the Opposition team Analyzes the insufficiency or inadequacy of the Opposition’s claims/arguments in

attacking the motion propounded by the Government team. Your speech is marked by summary, rebuttal of previously unrefuted arguments and re-

affirmation of the case presented Re-affirmation’s purpose is to make the House remember why the debate is improved, why

the debate went away it did: because of the brilliant points forwarded by the member of the House. Why was the discussion/exchange of opinions salient/germane to the topic at hand?

May bring up new examples in the course of the analysis but not new arguments Summarize your own case 6:30-7:00

H. The Opposition Whip

Identify the essential issues – the major areas of contention/disagreement that emerged in the round 0:00-1:00

Your major duty is to RE-AFFIRM what your teammate just said.

Tackle and resolve each issue in favor of your team. 1:00-6:30

If issue came from your opponent’s case – debunk the analysis of your opponent’s case

If issue came from your own case – debunk your opponent’s rebuttals and attacks against your case

Refutes Government’s challenges to the Opposition’s case

Refutes the Government’s case by analyzing its merits, the quality and accuracy of substitution, possible inconsistencies made by the Government in terms of affirming it position and theme

Identifies points of controversy raised by the government against the Opposition

Issues a direct rebuttal, with reference to earlier refutations made by the Government team

Discusses points raised by the Government side concerning the Opposition case dealt with by the Opposition team and methodically demonstrates consistencies in reasoning

Your speech is marked by summary, rebuttal of previously unrefuted arguments and re-


affirmation of the case presented

Re-affirmation’s purpose is to make the House remember why the debate is improved, why the debate went away it did: because of the brilliant points forwarded by the member of the House. Why was the discussion/exchange of opinions salient/germane to the topic at hand?

Absolutely, no new matter is allowed for the Opposition Whip

Issues a summary on the 6th minute: Reaffirms clash from the Opposition,

synthesizes rebuttal of the Government case, reaffirms Opposition theme and case 6:30-7:00

Chapter 4: Definitions

Definitions

“Definitions must have a clear and logical link to the motion” – Eleanor Uy, ADS

There is a common saying among debaters that motions must be defined according to the

“spirit of the motion.” This means that while a motion may indicate a general idea, there is probably a specific topic that the motion is trying to pinpoint for debate – and this is the “expected” definition that most debaters will look for. We use the word “expected” loosely however, since defining really is in the discretion of the PM, subject to his point of view of what “the spirit of the motion” is. The only strict requirement that any PM must remember is that their definitions must be fair and debatable. (ADS Handbook)

The definition of the topic is central to debating because it identifies the issue(s) to be

debated and defines the parameters of the debate. The effects of definitional issues will be reflected principally in matter and to some extent method. (Australia-Asia Debating Handbook by Alan Swanwick)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO DEFINE A MOTION?

To define a motion is to:

Interpret the key terms of the motion

Interpret what the debate should be about (spirit of the motion) based on the wording

Clarify and crystallize what issue will be in dispute

Example # 1: Motion: This house would legalize gay marriage.

In this motion this house believes that marriage is an outdated institution: To say that

something is outdated is to say that it no longer serves the same important and necessary purpose it once did. In the case of marriage, when we say it is an outdated institution, it means that this institution is no longer necessary to perpetuate society – that we can survive without it. Marriage refers to the binding, legal commitment that a couple enters into. Marriage is not the same as family. Families can come without marriage. So the central question is this “Is marriage still necessary in society, such that we cannot survive without it?”

PART 1: FAIR DEFINITION

Most topics tend to be intuitive in their wording – there are few ways to misinterpret “that we should ban smoking”. But as you progress through your debating career, the topics you will receive will become more open to both creativity and misinterpretation. As such, it’s important to have a clear understanding of what adjudicators are looking for from your definitions.

Before dealing with the more complicated matter of selecting a correct definition, it’s worth briefly discussing when you’ll actually need a definition. It is not uncommon to watch young debaters spend as much as a minute of their speech carefully defining every term in a motion – that minute spent there is a minute not spent on addressing something controversial in their case. A common sense test is


appropriate – could there be confusion about my subject if I fail to define this term? Could a reasonable opposition misinterpret what I mean if I don’t? In the “ban smoking” example used above, for example, there should be no controversy as to what “smoking” is, but an Affirmative case would not be complete if the model did not set out precisely what “ban” would mean for the purposes of the debate.

Once you’ve identified whether a term in your motion requires a definition, the fairest and most effective way to define a debate is to apply two tests:

Most Reasonable Definition: (1) Context & (2) Spirit of the Motion

Context: simply put, what is happening in the world or a specific region that relates to the topic? It could be a new law or ruling being debated by a government/organization. It might be a conflict has flared up or been the subject of significant media attention. Maybe it’s that a long-standing problem has recently gotten worse, or a particularly bad example of an on-going problem has come to light. In any case, if a significant event has occurred that seems to be related to the topic, then it should be the focus of the debate – subject to the second test. Spirit of the Motion: the ‘spirit of the motion’ means “what sort of debate was envisioned when this topic was chosen?” This test relies on the assumption that topics are chosen for a reason – namely that a particular issue or conflict would make a good debate. Assessing the ‘spirit of the motion’ requires being sure that your definition will generate a good, reasonably balanced debate, with interesting/important issues that are complex or sophisticated enough to be sustained over the course of the debate. There is no point defining the debate to a very controversial issue if it is essentially a single issue that cannot be extended into a debate. So, if the context to the debate suggests that a certain issue or situation should be the focus of the debate and that would meet the spirit of the motion, then you should have a good definition for the debate. (Tim Sonnreich) Take the example topic “that we spend too much money on the stars”. Since ‘stars’ could relate to both astronomy/space-sciences and celebrities, you need to choose a definition. (1) Context: Has there just been a significant event relating to either field (e.g. the explosion of a space shuttle, or a controversially expensive film or contract)? Basically, has there been something in the media that seems to relate to this topic? If only one meaning of the term ‘stars’ has a strong contextual basis, then most likely the definition should go in that direction. In either case, apply the second test. (2) Spirit of the Motion: if there is a relevant context to the debate, then ask yourself which definition will yield the best debate? Which has the most interesting, controversial, debatable issues? Which has issues that both sides should be aware of?

If one answer stands out on both tests, then you have a winner. In the event of a tie (think carefully, make sure it really is) then either is a good definition, but make an extra effort to set the debate up clearly and explain the relevance of the definition. As part of a good definition, you should explain the context you used to form that definition (as well as the definition itself) in the first minute of your speech. As part of establishing the context you should always explain what the status quo9 is, because as you will see later, your understanding of the status quo might not be the same as other people in the room (for reasons of culture, religion, etc). This might sound like a minor point, but making sure both sides agree on what the status quo is can often be incredibly important. One reason is because the nature of the status quo defines how ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ line your case is (see Chapter 5). (Tim Sonnreich, Monash Association of Debaters Guide to

Debating: Tips, Tactics and First Principle)


Part 2: Definitional Challenge

How to Mount a Definitional Challenge by Cathy Rossouw, Monash Association of Debaters

On occasion, Opening Opposition will find themselves presented with a definition that they did not expect. Many young teams default to a definitional challenge in these debates, which usually results in a low-scoring and frustrating debate. Definitional challenges should not be mounted lightly, and should usually only be considered for the following reasons: 1. The debate as established by the Opening Government is genuinely truistic, or self-proving The often-used example of this is the interpretation of the motion “that we should eat, drink and be merry” as that we (literally) should eat and drink so that we do not die, and be happy because it is better than the alternative. A truistic case is one that there is no believable opposition to. 2. The debate as established by the Opening Government lacks any link to the motion (is a ‘squirrel’) A team that defines the motion “that we should tax fat” as a debate about punishing the fattest nation on earth and proceeds to argue for arms sales to China to “punish” America should not be surprised to be met with a definitional challenge. A definitional challenge can be mounted for either of the above reasons. The challenge must be made by the Opening Opposition as the first part of their speech. Challenges cannot be mounted by other speakers. The following steps are important to mounting a definitional challenge: 1. State why the definition is unreasonable This is as easy as saying “…the definition of the Olympics as the [Philippines’] obsession with sport is unreasonable because it has no logical link to the topic.” 2. Explain why the definition is unreasonable Usually the best way to do this is to show that the average, reasonable person would believe the topic to be about something else – e.g. the Olympics are a major international sporting competition. 3. The ‘Even If’ Just because you’re challenging their definition doesn’t mean you don’t have to rebut their arguments. This is done by saying “…but even if we accept their definition of the Olympics, their arguments are still flawed because…”

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF OTHER TEAMS WHEN A DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGED HAS BEEN ISSUED:

In the event of a definitional challenge, both the Closing Government and the Closing

Opposition have the option of assessing which definition is the more viable one. They can opt to support their opening teams or not, the only thing they have to remember is to stick to what they think is the correct definition. Opening teams must stick to their own definitions. The Deputy Prime Minister and/or Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not have the luxury of jumping ship in the event that they feel that their teammates provided erroneous definitions.


However, in the event that the LO issued a definitional challenge and provided another erroneous definition or provided the wrong basis for challenging, the Member of the Government (MG) has the option of issuing another definitional challenge. In the event that the MG’s new definition is also wrong, the Member of the Opposition has the option of providing another definition.. Cases wherein all teams provide their own definitions in one debate are fortunately quite rare. However, the rules as written by Ray d’ Cruz makes room for the unlikely event that everyone will keep giving wrong definitions. However, definitional challenges must occur in a chain reaction. If the LO never challenged, no one else my. If the LO issued a challenge but the MG never issued another one, the MO cannot challenge anymore. (Eleanor Uy, ADS)

Chapter 5: Case Building

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A GOOD CASE?

A good set-up and a “tight” set of arguments, strategize to be offensive or attacking.

HOW CAN WE COME UP WITH A GOOD SET-UP?

For a policy debate, a good set-up must:

1. Clearly establish the context of the proposal 2. Clearly detail the actions to be taken in proposal (mechanics), who will take those actions

(actors), and the purpose of those actions. 3. State the objective of your proposal against which its success will be measured, and the

overarching value/priority behind the objective,

Example: (Motion – This house would allow organ sale.) Definition: the government should allow people to sell their kidneys in a regulated environment. SET-UP: 1. We want to debate this policy in the context of the US. 2. We want the government to set-up a “market” for organs which will be managed by the

National Health Institute. 3. The market will consist of a registry where people willing to sell their organs register

themselves, and another registry for hospitals and clinics who will act as conduits for patients that need to purchase organs.

4. The market price for the organs will be set by the managing body based on supply and demand considerations, but will also ensure that prices do not skyrocket to guarantee fair and equitable access for poor patients.

5. The objective of this policy is to bridge the overwhelming shortage of organs to meet the ever increasing demand from patients. Our priority is to save lives.

For an assessment debate, a good set-up must:

1. Clearly establish the context or setting of the statement to be assessed; will it be assessed as a general principle or in the context of specific setting or situation?

2. Clearly state the scope of the assessment. 3. Clearly lay down the criterion for assessment.

Example: (Motion: This house believes that religion is the opium of the masses.) Definition: Opium – something which people get addicted or hooked to, to become dependent on, but which actually does them no good without them knowing it. Religion – organized religion such as Christianity, Islam, etc. So to say that religion is the opium of the masses, we mean to say, it is an institution that people have come to love and depend on but which actually does them more harm than good.


SET-UP 1. What is up for debate is whether it does more harm than good. Of course, there is no

sense to debate whether people love and depend on their religion because that is already an obvious fact.

2. So the question in this round is “Do religions do more harm than good?” 3. We want to debate this as a general principle and not in any one locality. 4. Lastly, we must assess and debate whether religion is more bad than good for both the

individual believer and for society at large. (DLSU Handbook)

PART 1: CONSTRUCTING YOUR TEAM CASE:

A team must always have a common goal or position – a team line. In debates which

deal with specific policies, you and your teammate must defend the exact same policy, complete with all its intricacies and nuances. Once the policy has been established, late speakers cannot arbitrarily modify the policy. In debates which call for more general assessments, the entire team must likewise take the same position – you should not shift from a hard line stand to a more conditioned stand or vice versa from one speaker to the next.

Once you have established a common goal, position or theme, you must then split your

case between the constructive speakers. Clearly, this does not apply for closing teams in a debate which features the British Parliamentary format. There are tried and tested ways to split cases: local and international, political, economic, social and cultural, principle and pragmatic, etc. Don’t be trapped in these templates. Various forms of team organization can work as long as both speakers have independent points which are linked to a common team line. (Benedicto, ADS)

HOW CAN WE STRATEGIZE OUR CASE SO IT COMES OUT AS ATTACKING AND OFFENSIVE?

Try to project what the opposition case will be about, and then build in preemptions in your set-up and arguments. Your arguments should also take into consideration what their most probable rebuttals will be.

Inject points of analysis that serve to pre-empt possible rebuttals from your opponent.

WHAT ABOUT OPPOSITION CASES?

In crafting the opposition case, go thru the following process:

1. Why do you oppose the government stance? Why do you disagree with it?

To be able to answer this during prep time, you would need to make a good prediction or guess how the government would most likely define the motion. Once you have a good idea for what they will probably do, think about why you should oppose.

The reason should be principled reasons, not just mere complaints or flimsy qualms or issues with the government stance.

Your answers to this question should form the first one or two arguments of the opposition case.

2. What do you want instead?

Since you disagree with the government, you need to decide what you want instead.

In policy debate where the government puts forward proposal, you need to decide if you are going to put forward a counter proposal to achieve your own objectives or if you are going to defend the status quo. Whether you do one or the other, the important thing is is that you defend something. You have to stand for something.

3. Why would it be better than what government wants?

After describing your alternative view of what should be, you now need to justify why that would be better than what government wants.

Your justifications for your alternative view will be your second batch of arguments


PART 2: HARD/SOFT LINE MODEL Soft The terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ in reference to a definition or model are an indication of how profound the change is that is being proposed. A very small modification to the status quo is ‘soft’, while a big change is ‘hard’. Once you have determined the ‘strength’ of your line, it should be relatively easy to create your model.

Generally speaking, these terms do not imply how difficult it is to argue for that level of change – since often it is easier to argue a ‘hard line’ rather than a ‘soft line’ – but we’ll get to that later.

Example: for the topic “that this house supports euthanasia”, these are different ‘lines’ you might choose. Moderate Line

A smart team will stay somewhere between the moderate and the hard line in every debate, because it’s both the fairest thing to do, and is the tactically sound choice too. Fairness: the problem with the soft line is that it will virtually always fail both tests of a good definition. It will rarely be a contextually-based definition or model, because a plan so close to the status quo would rarely be controversial enough to illicit serious media attention or public debate. In terms of the spirit of the motion, a soft line is highly unlikely to yield a good, complex debate with a range of important issues. It is by definition not particularly controversial, and therefore is a poor choice to debate. Tactically: A harder line is usually easier to defend because it is more philosophically consistent (coupled with the idea of ‘filters’ that I’ll discuss later, you should never again run an inconsistent case) and more closely bridges the gap between the scale of the problem and the scale of the solution. Also, a hard(ish) line pushes you further away from your opposition, which gives you more space to make arguments. The single biggest problem with running a soft line is that you will run out of (smart) arguments that can’t simply be conceded by an opposition stuck arguing for something very similar to your case. Just as with a truistic definition, a soft line might seem like the ‘easiest’ thing to argue, until you have to find three speeches worth of intelligent things to say about a model you selected because it was almost truistically obvious. So running a hard line means both teams will have a better debate, because they will both have the scope to make strong arguments, with sophisticated analysis. But don’t push this rule too far, or you’ll end up running ‘insane’ definitions.

Soft Line

•restricted to incredibly sick people, who are very close to death and who have no hope of a cure or decent standard of living

•patients need the consent of multiple doctors and psychologists

•passive euthanasia only - deny food and/or medicine

Moderate Line

•allowed to the terminally ill, who have a very low standard of living and little-to-no hope for a cure

•doctor and psychologist consent required

•doctor-assisted euthanasia allowed

Hard Line

•available to anyone diagnosed with a terminal or debilitating illness, whether physical or mental

•medical consent required

•doctor-assisted and self-administered euthanasia allowed


Chapter 6: Point of Information

A point of information (POI) is a question directed to the current speaker speaking, offered by any member from the opposing side. It must be no more than 15 seconds long, and can only be offered during a speaker’s unprotected minutes, which starts from the end of his first minute till the sixth minutes. POIs may not be offered during a speaker’s protected minutes, which is the first and last minute of his seven-minute speech. (ADS)

Points of information can usually be offered between the first and second time signals (i.e.

between the end of the first minute and the start of the last) by members of the opposite side only. You offer a point of information by standing and indicating this, usually by saying “point of information” or similar. You can offer as many as you like, but if you offer more than one within 30 seconds it may look as if you are trying to unsettle or harass and you may be penalized.

What to do when you are offering a POI

It is customary for the person who wishes to offer a POI to STAND UP, and EXTEND ONE HAND

towards the speaker speaking while placing one hand on his head. This gesture has its roots from the actual practice in Parliament, where the members of the Parliament would be wearing wigs. In a fit of energy, they usually stand up very quickly, causing their wigs to jostle. To remedy this, when they stand, they hold their wigs down with one hand. Nowadays, most debaters just STAND UP AND EXTEND THEIR HANDS TOWARDS THE SPEAKER.

It is important to remember that it is under the discretion of the speaker whether or not to

take you. You cannot demand to have your POI taken, it is a privilege granted by the speaker. There are several uses that POIs have in terms of strengthening your case or advancing your argument. Some POIs are merely clarificatory in nature, while other POIs directly rebut the argument of the speaker. Other times, POIs are used to introduce your argument at an early point in the debate, while at other times, it is also used to remind everyone of a previous argument you brought up. POIs are tactically useful for strengthening your case, and therefore must be offered judiciously. You can offer as many POIs as you want, but remember that the goal is to get called, therefore, one has to strategize a bit to figure out when the speaker is most likely going to call you, and grab the opportunity at that point.

The speaker may accept or decline the point in any manner they like, but most speakers will take either two or three during the seven minute speech. It is usually not wise to take a point very early in a speech as it may disrupt your structure before you have started. Taking more than two or three points usually leaves too little time to finish your material (unless you are running short of things to say) and fewer implies you are reluctant to engage the other side (it may be acceptable to take only one point if not many are offered.)

If your point is accepted you should address a short question, contradictory example or

other such gem designed to challenge what the speaker is saying. It must be short (about 15 seconds) and to the point. Many inexperienced debaters are afraid of taking points of information. Usually this is because they vastly over-estimate the intelligence of the people they are debating and are paranoid that they themselves are talking nonsense.

There are a number of ways to deal with points of information. You can dismiss them

briefly and then get on with your speech (if it was a bad or stupid point). You can answer them more fully and dovetail your answer into what you were going to say next, or answer them and dovetail the answer into a later part of your speech which you can then omit (or refer back to briefly) when you come to it again. Finally you can simply say that you are planning to deal with it that the point later on in your speech and carry on where you were. If you do later, you absolutely MUST make it utterly explicit when you refute the point later on. You must not use this as a ducking tactic since adjudicators will notice. Points of information have decided more than one Intervarsity final I been in. You must make them regularly (and you must accept a couple) or you will lose vital method


marks

What to do when you’re the Speaker speaking

It is a general and informal rule that one should take at least 2 POIs per speech. Any more

than 3 POIs is highly discouraged. If you take too few POIs, it will give the impression that you’re not ready to answer anyone’s questions and if you take too many POI’s, it will give the impression that you don’t have much to say during your speech. So to be on the safe side, it is advisable to take at least 2 POIs.

After taking a POI, you should always address it right away. If you think that your speech later on will address the point adequately, give at least a brief answer to satisfy the opposition and signpost that you will speak about it in greater depth later on. Never leave your opponents hanging, might take it as a sign of weakness, and adjudicators might have a difficult time figuring out whether or not you have addressed the points of the opposing side. The right time to take a POI is whenever you feel comfortable to do, generally after you have finished explaining an argument. (Eleanor UY, ADS Handbook)

Acceptance of a point of information is at the discretion of the competitor holding the floor. Once you have accepted a point of information you can’t ignore and carry on. You must deal with it or risk the adjudicator’s wrath. (Colm Flynn, Guide to Debating, World University Debating Championship)

Role of the Chair Adjudicator in a Point of Information

The Chairman may request a speaker to end a point of information at his/her discretion. If it

is beyond the 15 seconds allowable time, the Chair will automatically declare the speaker OUT OF ORDER! Adjudicators also frown upon BARRACKING (constantly interrupting the speaker by offering points) and the chair is expected to control this.

Chapter 7: Argumentation

Before anything else, you need to know the difference between an argument and an assertion. In simple terms, an assertion is something that is stated as true, without enough analysis to demonstrate that it is reasonable for a reasonable person to be convinced that the statement is likely to be true. It’s a statement of fact, without proof of its validity.

To avoid using assertions, you need to understand the anatomy of an argument.

PART 1: ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT

Whereas an assertion is simply a statement of fact (in slightly more sophisticated cases, an assertion can

include simplistic/superficial analysis) a proper ‘argument’ (in the sense of “one argument for X is…” not

“we had an argument the other day…”) has the following structure:

Argument

Analysis

Idea

Evidence


Different people will use different labels for the various sections of an argument, but this basic format is necessary to have a properly formed argument. Idea refers to the concept or proposition that you seek to prove – it might be a principle, such as “the government has an obligation to provide free education” or it might just be something that would be helpful to your side of the debate, such as “the death penalty is an effective deterrent for criminals”. Either way, it’s nothing on its own – it may be true, or it might not. The point is that you and your team want people to believe that it’s true. So how do you make them believe it? Well, you start with some analysis of why the idea is likely to be true – why it is logical and reasonable to believe it. This involves saying (out loud or in your head) “why?” and “because” a lot! But I’ll give you an example in a moment. Finally there is the evidence. I put it last for two reasons – first because it’s the least important, and second because it should be the last thing you worry about – focus first on having the right ideas about what your side needs to argue, and then spend your time coming up with smart analysis to make it sound reasonable. If after that you have time for thinking up evidence and examples, then that’s great. Evidence can be statistics (like the unemployment rate before and after a policy, or the percentage of people affected by a particular problem, or the costs of a proposal) or quotes (not direct quotes, but knowing what important people have said about an issue). But in advanced debates, evidence is most commonly presented by case study or analogy. Having an example of a similar situation or policy can be very handy if you can clearly draw the link back to the issue at hand. Note: it really should go without saying, but you should never invent evidence – firstly, it’s just poor form. You should have enough respect for your opponents not to try and cheat or cheapen the debate. Also, it’s unintelligent – the more experienced debaters/adjudicators get, the better they become at spotting lies. It’s pretty humiliating to have someone show that you were lying because they know the real details of a given situation. Don’t take the risk of it happening to you! (Tim Sonnreich, Monash Association

of Debaters Guide to Debating: Tips, Tactics and First Principle)

Chapter 8: First Principle

As a novice, or even intermediate debater, you will constantly feel like you don’t know enough to debate most topics to their full potential – and unfortunately that’s true. But how to you fix that lack of knowledge? You focus on First Principles. First Principles are key concepts that form the fundamental ‘clash’ in the majority of debates (see Appendix A for a basic list). Using those principles in combination with basic logic (i.e. knowing how to show that an argument is logically flawed without knowing any facts/matter about the issue) will allow you to run a reasonably good case for any topic. Simply put, you can't prep a good case without having good and consistent ideas about a topic, and short of being an expert on every issue; First Principles are the best way to generate those ideas in prep. Note: the language isn’t that important. Don’t worry about learning the labels/jargon used in Appendix B, it’s the ideas contained in those theories that are important. None of this is meant to suggest that you shouldn’t try to keep up with the news, and even go further than that and research issues that you think might be useful – of course you should do that. But that’s a process that will be ongoing throughout your debating career. At the start, you want to give yourself the best possible chance of building good cases on a wide range of issues – and First Principles is the best way to do that. There are few shortcuts to learning First Principles. The best ways are to read and to pay attention during debates/adjudications. All debates are built on a foundation of conflicting ideas and theories about how to solve problems – like how to best run the economy (Keynesian or neo-liberal?) or the best


principles for a political system (communitarian or liberal?). These ideas might sound complicated, but for the purposes of debating you just need to understand the key concepts in each theory. So what is an example of First Principles theories in action? Well, many of the First Principles theories relate to disputes over the ‘true’ role of the government – and you can learn the fundamentals of dozens of debates by mastering a few simple concepts. First Principle – Role of the Government

(Tim Sonnreich, Monash Association of Debaters Guide to Debating: Tips, Tactics and First Principle)

At some point everyone learns about liberalism (“small ‘l’ liberalism”, not the Liberal Party). Because most countries are ‘liberal-democracy’, the concept of liberalism must have a lot to do with how we conceive of the proper role and responsibilities of government. But what does it mean? Well, liberalism essentially means ‘small government’ – giving individuals as much freedom as possible (as long as that freedom wouldn’t be used to hurt other people). So true “small ‘l’ liberals” believe that when given the choice between banning something or regulating its use, governments should choose to regulate it, because banning something implies that the government is telling you what sort of behavior is acceptable or beneficial for you – and liberals think that wrong. So while it might save lives and money if we banned smoking and drinking, true liberals would argue that these things should be regulated (e.g. preventing children from using them) but otherwise if people want to choose to do something that will do them harm, that’s their choice. The key is informed choice – so long as adults fully understand the choice they are making, they should be free to make it. Everybody knows that smoking is dangerous – if they still want to smoke, the government shouldn’t stop them, because it’s an ‘informed choice’. Conversely, there are people who are sometimes called ‘communitarians’ or more broadly, ‘socialists’, who take the opposite view. They favor “big government”, a government that actively involves itself in shaping the choices that people can make, in an effort to create a society that promotes the ‘social good’. So it was ‘big government’ communitarians who decided that wearing a seatbelt or getting immunized for diseases should be compulsory. That’s the government telling you what’s best for you – it’s the government saying “we’re not going to take the chance that you’re stupid enough to ignore the obvious benefits of wearing a seatbelt, so we’re going to make it a law and then punish you if you don’t do it.” This clash between ‘big’ and ‘small’ government is a constant theme in world politics. In practice, people don’t usually support one philosophy consistently, but both sides are always represented in public debate. Regards of whether the topic is about gun control, gambling, pornography, drugs, smoking, (etc), the core of the debate is the same – big government versus small government. On top of that core clash, you would include any specific knowledge you might have the harms or benefits of the thing in question, but each debate would be a clash of the same principles. Once you learn a few First Principles ideas, you’ll start to see them underpinning every debate you do. Even if no-one mentions the names of the theories involved, you’ll see how the logic of those ideas permeates every argument made. It would be great if you were an expert on drugs, guns, gambling, (etc); but in the meantime, learning these First Principles ideas will help you build a strong case in any of the innumerable ‘role of government’ debates. It will also help you devise rebuttal.


Chapter 9: Rebuttals

Rebuttal is an essential element of debating – it provides the “clash of ideas” that makes debating different from public speaking. Rebuttal requires debaters to listen to what is being said by the other side and respond to their arguments. An audience member or more importantly, an adjudicator, might be listening to a point made by the other team and think “that a good argument” and find themselves convinced by the other side. In this sense, it’s important to deal with all the major points being made by the other team.

All constructive speeches, except of the Prime Minister, are expected to address the

arguments raised by the opposite side in addition to raising new points.

FOUR STEP REBUTTAL PROCESS

1. First, check and test the LOGIC of the argument. Does it make sense? If not, then

point out that the argument doesn’t make sense! 2. Second, check and test the RELEVANCE, IMPACT AND WEIGHT of the argument.

Does it directly prove the stance? (Relevance) If not, then point this out. Is it a hanging argument? If yes, expose it! Does it matter if the argument is true? Should we even care about it? (Impact & Weight) If not then explain why the argument has no bearing.

3. Third, check the CORRECTNESS of the argument. Is the key idea/concept and the accompanying analysis based on fact and reality? If the argument is based on something unreal, then expose it!

4. Fourth, SUBJECT THE KEY IDEA AND ANALYSIS TO AN INTELLECTUAL TEST. Does the key idea and analysis still work in light of other considerations, factors and realities? Are there reasons to believe that the key idea is…

A. inapplicable in the context you are debating

B. unlikely to happen given other factors and considerations (that your opponent probably never thought of)

C. counter-balanced, outweighed or overshadowed by other realities and considerations.

FOUR STEPS ON HOW TO DELIVER A REBUTTAL:

1. State the argument to be rebutted. 2. In one simple, concise sentence, state why the argument is wrong. 3. Explain why it is wrong (Using the output of the four-step rebuttal thought process 4. Link it back to their case. How does it weaken their case or boost yours.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IPORTANT SKILLS IN REBUTTALS?

Listening. Listening attentively and completely to your opponent’s speech.

Comprehension; fully understanding each argument and the accompanying analysis of your opponent.

DO I NEED TO REBUT EACH AND EVERY ARGUMENT THAT MY OPPONENT DELIVERED?

No. You need to rebut the arguments of the other team that you disagree with. Many times. You will hear your opponent bring up arguments that you have no beef with. Your disagreement could lie in other parts of the case or other arguments.

When you encounter arguments that you don’t disagree with, explicitly state that you have no

issue with those arguments but that your disagreement lies elsewhere. (DLSU Handbook)


TYPES OF REBUTTAL

There are numerous ways to rebut argument. Here we have to identify five common

forms: error in fact, irrelevant to the motion, illogical, unacceptable implications and little weight.

1. ERRORS IN FACT – The term is self-explanatory. In most cases, however,

challenging the factuality of an argument will result in a counter-challenge, and judges will have a difficult time judging which team to believe, especially if the adjudicator is not knowledgeable about the topic. As such, whenever you want to point an error in fact, be sure to provided sound reasoning and analysis which will make your take on the facts more reasonable.

2. IRRELEVANT TO THE MOTION – Some arguments may stand well in their own, nut have no place in the debate. Remember to look at the motion and the definition, and find out what needs to be proven in the debate. This will help you identify which arguments are relevant to the debate

3. ILLOGICAL – This refers to arguments where the conclusion does not follow the premises established. It may also be effective to challenge the premise used by another debated. Older debate formats use Latin fallacies and knowing such

terms as; argumentum ad hominim is not important rather what is more valuable is

your ability to explain the logical jumps or missteps in the analysis of the opposing teams.

4. UNACCEPTABLE IMPLICTIONS – This form of rebuttal allows you to concede that an opposing argument is logical, relevant, and factually correct, but it involves effects or implications which are unacceptable. It is important here to explain why the implications you point out are more important than the points raised by the opposing side.

5. LITTLE WEIGHT – Like rebuttal points which provide unacceptable implications, arguing that the opposing side’s points have little weight in the debate allows you to concede that those points are logical, relevant, and factually correct. Failure to explain why such arguments should be accorded little weight may lead to a dismissive form of rebuttal. This is not the same as ignoring the points of your opponent.

PART 1: THEMATIC REBUTTALS

Whips should be seeking in their speech to attack the main arguments raised by their opposition. Many third speakers do this by attacking each point in turn, which can often lead to a Whip giving a speech that contains about 10 separate rebuttals, each explained only very briefly. This is not the most effective way to rebut! Often a team case contains overlapping ideas, or arguments that can all be rebutted with the same counter- argument.

Thematic rebuttal allows you to place the arguments of the opposition into themes, which summarize the general approach taken by the other team. In general, there should be two to four themes in every debate.

Having identified the themes, you can now discuss the approach taken by the opposition and explain why it is wrong. This now gives you more time to deal with each argument because you have fewer points to discuss, so you can provide more detail and analysis of the themes. You can contrast the position taken by your opponents with your team’s approach in each theme.

Thematic rebuttal isn’t easy! It takes practice and experience to understand how to take an opposition case and condense in into three or four main themes. However we would encourage you to try to use thematic rebuttal as it is worth the effort! The best aspect of thematic rebuttal is that it allows you to deal with the main issues in the debate – it is easy to get sidetracked on less important arguments and miss the ones that are really hurting your team case.


PART 2: SURGICAL-STRIKE REBUTTALS In order to effectively evaluate the weakness in any given argument, you need to understand what a ‘good’ argument looks like. Each part of a well-constructed argument is open to rebuttal, but some attacks will usually be more effective than others. The argument chain is weakest at link three – evidence – since it’s always easy to dispute the evidence presented by your opposition. For example, you could criticize the examples used in the argument– perhaps they are isolated examples, or they are outweighed by counter examples you know. But attacking the argument here is a poor strategy. Because the opposition can repair the chain by providing more evidence (which you attack and they give more and it’s a stalemate) or by simply rebutting your criticisms. Attacking the argument a little higher, at the analysis, is more difficult but also more effective. If you can demonstrate that the analysis is illogical or based on assumptions that are not true (or are unlikely to be true) then you damage the credibility of the whole argument. This is the most common sort of rebuttal used by experienced speakers. However, it’s usually not a fatal blow. Unfortunately for you, a clever opposition can rebuild their analysis by giving other reasons, or explaining the logical links in a different way, which weakens your rebuttal. So finally we get to the top of the chain, the idea. This is usually very difficult to attack since usually it is a reasonable idea. But sometimes you can attack the idea and if you can do it effectively, it’s a fatal blow to that argument. If the adjudicator accepts that sort of argument (or any other attack on the idea) then the other links in the chain are irrelevant. Obviously, it’s not that simple - the opposition will defend their idea, and you need very good reasons to show that an entire idea and the argument that flows from it are irrelevant. But if you think the idea is vulnerable, you should attack it, because it’s effective and efficient. (Tim Sonnreich, Monash Association of Debaters Guide to Debating: Tips, Tactics and First

Principle)

Chapter 10: Extension and Summary

EXTENSION The principal function that both the Member of the Government and the Member of the

opposition must fulfill is by providing an extension to the case of their respective opening teams. An extension is also sometimes referred to as an elevation. The terms may sound intimidating, but all it really means is that closing teams should provide new perspectives or new arguments to distinguish themselves from their opening teams; emphasis on the newness of the argumentation. However, there is usually the expectation of a more in-depth analysis from closing teams. There is no fast rule on how to go about creating your extension. Some people try to think of the debate from another point of view and argue from there. (ADS Handbook)

REFERRING TO YOUR TEAMMATE:

It is important in a debate to refer to your teammate during your speech. If you are going

first, judges find it useful if you signpost the case which will be presented by your second speaker. If you are speaking after your teammate, bring back some of the points he raised and try to link your arguments to his. INTERACTING WITH YOUR TEAMMATE

Before and during debate, you and your teammate should have an open line of

communication. This means sharing points and ideas with each other, quietly if during the debate


proper. If you are rejected when offering a point of information, you may want to pass that point on to your partner.

Know what your partner is going to say before he gets up on the podium; a lot of speakers find themselves in trouble when their partner sys something which they did not discuss beforehand.

Remember this cardinal rule: do not compete with your teammate. If you try to take

points from one another or hide points from one another, the entire team will suffer. Teams, not individual speakers, win debates.

SUMMARY

If the extension is to the MG and MO, then the summary is to the Government Whip and Opposition Whip. As the last speakers of each side, they are tasked with the responsibility of summarizing the debate from their respective points of view. The common mistake first-time whips make is by offering a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the debate. Whips should summarize the debate by organizing speeches in the logical flow that details the pivotal issues in the debate and how each side argued to address it. Whipping requires skill of reiterating issues and arguments that make it glaringly clear why their respective sides should win the debate. (Eleanor Uy, ADS handbook)

Chapter 11: Matter, Manner, Method

Adjudicators assess your speech and performance as a team as a whole according to three criteria:

Matter, Manner, Method. MATTER

Simply, Matter refers to the raw material you use to construct your arguments – the facts or evidence upon which your case is based. Matter includes such things as quotes, statistics, facts and evidence that you may be able to put forward to prove or further your own team case.

The two cornerstones of matter are logic and relevance. Logic refers to whether one fact or piece of evidence makes another more likely. In a debate on whether or not the death penalty should be reintroduced, you might use statistics on the crime rates in various US states that do have the death penalty, to argue for the proposition that the existence of a death penalty provides a deterrent to potential criminals and vice versa. Relevance refers to whether your evidence and arguments can actually be applied to the topic at hand and are relevant to what you are actually debating about. When framing your arguments, check whether each argument is both logical and relevant by asking yourself: “Does this argument make our team case more likely to succeed?” Only if you can truly answer yes to this question “is the argument both logical or relevant?”.

Top Five Matter Hints:

1. Relevance! Make sure that you link each argument to your team line and the motion. 2. Make sure each point is backed up by relevant example. 3. Put yourself in the shoes of your opponents and try to think about what arguments they will

make. How will you respond to their main argument? 4. Keep yourself up-to-date with current events by regularly reading or subscribing to

newspapers, magazines and internet websites. Follow them up with in-depth research from the internet and the library. This is the only way you can blow your opponents out of the water.


MANNER

Manner is the way in which you deliver your speech. It includes everything that goes toward the presentation of your speech.

Use of voice – Try not to speak in a monotone, and remember to pause when appropriate.

Gesture – You should use some hand gestures, but try to avoid waving your arms about too much!

Eye contact – The more you look at the audience, the better. The best way to make this happen is to reduce your reliance to notes. For your first few speeches you might want the added security of having the entire speech written out on cards – but if you can reduce on cards as you do more debates then your eye contact with the audience will be better. Always face the audience – never turn around to address the opposition when making rebuttal.

Humor – When appropriate, humor works well as it relaxes the audience and makes them more willing to listen to you. Don’t try to use jokes and other gags unless they are also relevant to the debate (no telling elephant jokes, please). Humor may also detract from your speech if it is not appropriate, for example making jokes in a debate about life or death issues. Use your judgment on this matter, but if the joke is more likely to make the audience cringe rather than laugh then give joke a miss.

Manner is the most subjective aspect of debating, the only rule of which is that you must be persuasive. As a speaker you have to develop a style that works well for you, so that the audience views you as a persuasive speaker. Some people fast, some slow, some are loud, some quiet, some are animated, and others are calm and reasoned. None of these styles is inherently better than any other, but some hints for the beginner are that first timers probably speak too first more often than too slow, and often don’t use enough variation in their vocal tone to emphasize import points or to change the pace of the speech. Always be in mind that your objective is to persuade the audience, not the opposition or your team mates, so look at the audience, speak to them, evaluate their reaction to your speech and modify it accordingly. You can often tell if the audience does not seem to have absorbed your last point before you’ve started on your next or if they are bored and want to hear something else. Try to use them as the barometer of your speech, and don’t waste your time trying to “convert” your opponents.

Keep in mind that teams in a debate don’t choose which side you are on – so don’t get personal with the other team. Insults directed at your opponents only make you look rude and petty in the eyes of the audience. It could even lead to a breach of the Code of Conduct. Attack their arguments, but don’t attack them personally!

Top Five manner Hints

Smile at the audience.

Slow Down! Pause between ideas to let them sink in with the audience. Most speakers go too fast.

Vary your voice when you start a new point.

Use body language and gestures to liven up your speech.

A few helpful tips that apply to all speakers:

1) Take a deep breath before standing up. This helps you relax and clear your mind

before beginning your speech. Good speakers often have a good sense of perspective on the debate, and this is more easily achieved if you are relaxed.

2) Towards the end of the previous speaker’s speech, start thinking about how you will make your introduction.

3) Ask your team mates not to make suggestions about rebuttal etc. before you stand up. Often, their suggestion will not sink in, and may confuse and distract you.

4) Don’t be afraid to create a sense of theatre. Begin your speech as though you are in command of the stage – but don’t go over the top!

5) Don’t make clichéd (chestnut or old joke) remarks. Adjudicators have heard them all


before, and let’s face it; they are neither witty nor entertaining. 6) Prepare an introduction, but be flexible. Good introductions are ones that relate and

respond directly to what the opposition is saying.

METHOD

Method is the structure or organization of your speech, and how it fits into your team’s case as a whole. There are three major components of method: internal method, team method and how your speech reacts to the dynamics of the debate.

Internal Method is the way your own speech is structured. Every speech should have a recognizable beginning (introduction), middle and end (conclusion), and in that order. (This may sound obvious but you’ll be amazed at how often someone introduces their speech after they are already half way through it.) To succeed in this aspect of method, you must have a clear understanding at the start of your speech of what your speech should accomplish. Briefly make this obvious to your audience at the start of the speech, then follow that structure, concluding by highlighting what your speech has achieved in the overall scheme of your team’s case.

Team Method is the way your speech fits into the team case as a whole. Ideally your three speeches should be consistent with each other, but expansive opposed to repetitive. A second speaker who merely repeats what the first speaker has said (parrots) can do almost as much damage as a second speaker who contradicts what the first speaker said. This is an area with which new team often have trouble coming to grips, for it is a team problem, not an individual one. Always make sure you work out together how each speech fits into the overall plan.

Dynamics is an aspect of debating that makes a debate different from a collection of speeches. It is vital that the debater can react to the way that the debate has gone before his/her speech and make changes to that speech while the debate is going on. For example, if the speaker before you concedes one of your major points, then there is no point spending half of hour speech trying to make it, as it has already been conceded. A good debater can note this, and adjust their speech at the last minute to allocate that extra time to his/her remaining points. Similarly, it is important that each speaker can recognize at the start of their speech what is the crucial issue or issues in the debate at the point of time. Your speech (and especially your opening) should reflect this understanding – there is never a better opportunity to undermine the opposition’s most valuable argument than in the first sixty seconds of your speech. This is the aspect of debating that new debaters have the most trouble with, since it requires the ability to see the debate as a battle, and to make important strategic decisions on the run that can have important consequences for your team.

Top Five Method Hints

1) Outline what your main points will be for the audience. 2) Summarize what your arguments were at the end of your speech. 3) Make sure you give the tem split and stick to it! 4) Make sure everyone in the team understands your definition, and is prepared to defend it, if

necessary. 5) Be careful not to contradict the previous speaker (or speakers) from your team.


Chapter 12: Adjudicator’s Perspective

Viewing Debates from an Adjudicator’s Perspective I. Adjudicators always refer to their notes

Structure – The most basic and yet neglected part of an effective speech

Manner – Keep in mind: adjudicators very rarely enjoy their job, you must give them a reason to listen

Let us reiterate again the adjudicators criteria for analyzing debate and its priorities o Matter (37.5%) o Manner (37.5%) o Method (25%)

The Deductions o Speaker Roles o Direct Logic/Premise Logic (Clash) o Technicalities/Errors o Points of Information/Interjections o Rudeness/obscenity o Entering the Debate

II. Dynamics: How do you achieve it?

LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN

CLARIFY o Making sure you understand what they are saying o Making sure you are being construed properly

INTERACT - Never forget about your opponents III. The Shaft: A fundamental contradiction between opening and closing teams

When your team is forced to shaft the opening team

When the other side shafts IV. The Shift: A change in paradigm or standard

Three types:

Internal shift : Shift Within A Team o On your team: DO NOT SHIFT from your first speaker! A divided team rarely comes out on top. o If the opposing team does it—point it out then respond to both scenarios and

standards.

Same side shift - A Shift From the Opening to Closing Team o The Golden Rule: make it explicit o Its Function: stealing the debate from the opening team o Attacking Shifts

Opposition side shift - A Shift Made By The Other Side o If you are the one shifting, make it explicit o Responding to vague definitions and cases

o It is okay to challenge parameters and standards so long as you justify it! o If the other side is attempting to shift—bring it back to your side. o Key Concept: Debate is like basketball. You can’t win if the other side always has the ball.

V. Spinning: The ability to shape issues according to what is most beneficial to your side

Redirecting the attention of the adjudicator

Morphing mistakes made by the same side VI. Parroting: When the speaker copy and restate the arguments of the previous speakers

This is more often utilized by the closing teams when they repeat or say again the arguments of their respective opening teams


The duty or obligation of the closing teams is to extend it to a higher level

The Deputy Prime Minister should not repeat the arguments of the Prime Minister; The same with the Deputy Leader of Opposition to the LO

The obligation or duty of the Deputies is to support the arguments of their teammate

VII. The Unanalyzed Argument Is Not An Argument

VIII. Strategy

A. Strategy: Fundamentals of Setting Up:

a. Fair yet advantageous b. Determine the issue for the debate: make sure it is a relevant question which is acceptable to

all sides! c. The value judgment vs. the policy debate

B. Strategy: Extending A Debate

a. Is there something missing? b. Is there something confusing? c. Back to basics—adjudicators expect certain things d. The Meta Extension e. Steal the ball! Using words to take the debate

C. Strategy: Points of Information

a. Most effective uses: i. Clarification

ii. Bringing in/bringing back your case iii. orcing your opponents to contradict or answer questions previously ignored

b. Keep your POIs short! c. No No’s: the “Prove it” and the “Guarantee” d. The proper interjection

Taking the Adjudicators into account, the following should be avoided in debate: (Omar Salehuddin, Aticus International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

1. Flattery and Insult. It is often a feature in High School debating that speakers praise their

adjudication panel to the four winds before proceeding with their speeches. This might impress egotistical adjudicators at that level, but it runs a very strong risk at any level above this. If you indicate to the other team in any way that you know the adjudicators on your panel, that may also prejudiced them against you as they are forced to appear to be fair as possible to the other team, and that generally means that they’ll be harder on you than would otherwise be necessary. Some teams also adopt a strategy occasionally that seems to scorn their adjudicators. This is usually reflected in an attitude to the debate round they are involved in that is constructed around the arrogant notion that they will beat the other team “in spite of poor adjudication, under-qualified and even “foreign” adjudicators. The other characteristic is the deliberate omission of any kind of protocol. Even though debaters can usually get away with the minimum of introductory openings (Madam Speaker, members of this house…), the deliberate omission of such openings and closing betrays a complete lack of respect for any of the conventions of debating, leave alone these.

2. Lack of Concentration/ Application . This upsets adjudicators simply because it indicates a lack of focus on the debate, and perhaps even a lack of respect for either the other team, or the adjudicators themselves Actions that indicate this lack of attention are things like speakers forgetting the wording of the motion and having to turn and read it off the board behind them; speakers addressing their remarks to the opposing bench, rather than the ‘floor’; speaker who conscientiously avoid the issues pr questions critical to the actual debate; speakers who refer to their opponents in condescending terms, and so on. Arrogance (and its inherent lack of respect for anything) is something in a debater that can turn adjudicators off quicker than a switch can darken a light bulb.


3. Reading. Adjudicators are often put off by debaters who appear to have had so much to prepare that they are able to read large portions of their speech from notes. Inevitably, this is a large signal that the team or the debater concerned is running a pre-prepared case or speech. While this is not always a bad thing, particularly if the case/speech runs completely true to lines of argumentation demanded by the wording and spirit of the motion, it tends to be fairly ‘lifeless’ thing if it is read, rather than delivered.

4. Habitual Behavior Patterns. People that play with stray strands of hair, rocks backwards and forwards on their feet like someone dancing to a looped recording, use the same cliché phrases over and over again or say ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ fifteen times in the first minute alone are examples of people that have never had the benefit of someone (preferably a friend or teammate) critiquing their presentation style and pointing put their bad speaking habits. These things can really upset some adjudicators. It becomes their pet hate. So, if you are serious about debating at the highest competitive levels, it might be a good time to get a ‘debating bad habits’ makeover, in both physical and linguistic terms

5. Trashing. There are several different ways in which a speaker can ‘trash’ an element of the case on the other side, an individual speaker, or the opposition in general. The most common incidence of trashing is when a speaker, usually an attacking third, or Whip speaker, gets up and basically rubbishes some or all of what has been delivered by the opposition without actually constructing a reasoned (and therefore ‘reasonable’) basis for that form of attack. Phrases used as such as: “they have ignored this point entirely…’ ‘They have failed to prove…’ ‘There has been no evidence to support…’ ‘This is utter nonsense…’ and their like are relatively meaningless if their nature and impact on the debate itself is not demonstrated. Inexperienced thirds can often fall into this mode of approach to a debate if they have previously been accused of things like misrepresentation. They do so because they have not yet developed the analytical ability to be able to extract the important issues from the case on the opposing side, nor construct an effective response. It upsets adjudicators simply because it is bad debating, and it appears as if the debater employing the approach doesn’t think that they (the adjudicators) will actually recognize the lack of substantive material or read back through their notes before making a decision.

6. Hesitation. When lacking experience in competitive debating, debaters will sometimes

aggravate a situation in which they have delivered a weak speech by continuing to stand at the delivery position and doing fish impressions. This usually entails pleading looks at members of his/her own team, a mouth that opens and closes spasmodically without sound and the avoidance of any kind of eye contact with members of the opposing team. It may also feature the occasional repetitive false start, gasping noise and conclude with a mumbled ‘…and for these reasons…’ It is annoying because it wastes time and inevitable damages what might otherwise have been a fairly good speech. The key here is to sit down when you nothing left to say. This does not mean that you repeat your summary three times either!


Appendix A: Guide to First Principles BENEFICENCE dictates that when a persona has the capacity to do good to others, then he should, to help prevent or remove harms or improve situations. (ie. the USA’s military capacity outnumbers most countries, putting it in a principle to aid countries with weak defense mechanisms like the Philippines) COLLECTIVE SECURITY considers that a level of assurance and safety should be encompassing of all society and should not be limited for or non-available for others. Therefore if a certain action or object is proven unsafe in some instances, then it should be considered unsafe in general terms (ie. the safety of GMO products) COMMENSURABILITY, two items or values are considered commensurable if they share a common standard of measurement. In a debate, arguments that try to weight two or more stakeholders should be clear in there standards. If these values cannot be measured in the same way, then they are incomparable. (ie. Murder and theft are commensurable in the sense that they are both measured according to civil law, but economic benefit and health risks are incomparable for both are necessary for societal development and neither one can be lost.) COMMUNAL LIABILITY means that in actions and decision-making involving a certain organization, society or bureaucracy, liability or responsibility over future repercussions are shared by the group and cannot be considered as the soul doing of one person (ie. mass corruption can only be perpetrated through a system of accomplices in a certain government or company.) COOPERATIVE SECURITY In some cases, communal security cannot be achieved without the collaborative effort of society, which requires its members to be aware and at the same time vigilant. (ie. the government cannot totally ensure safety of children’s toys if parents and families will not be vigilant against toys with possible lead paint.) CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY is a standard amongst companies and industries to maintain good employer-employee relationships ensure community involvement and advocacies through responsibility and accountability. (ie. companies must secure proper wages and opportunities for leave for employees.) EGALITARIANISM postulates that justice only exists with the coordinates of equality and that the demand for equal opportunities and for equal outcomes is just. It believes that freedom and justice without equality is hollow and equality as the highest justice. FEASIBILITY, like necessity, gauges the policy as well. Feasibility means the quality of a proposal if it will be achievable and cost-efficient. Take into consideration the model, implementation and resources to be used in the policy. Will it be sustainable in the long run? Or will it abruptly end? FEMINISM is a long existing movement to improve societal situations to provide better opportunities and empowerment to women. It is founded on the ideals of equality among men and women. JUST COMPENSATION is accorded to personas who have, in one way or another, have been deprived of life, property, rights and ownership through unjustified means and part of the justice for the offended is to compensate a commensurable amount or value from the offender. (ie. the right of indigenous people to be compensated by the government after they were forcibly relocated.) JUSTICE is an expression of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law and equity/fairness. LEGAL MORALISM believes that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on whether or not society’s collective moral judgment is that it is immoral or moral. (ie. legalizing murder violates legal moralism as it is viewed by society as immoral and should not be made into a law). LIBERALISM is a political philosophy founded on liberty and equality. Liberty values individuals to have control over their own actions. It is characterized by advocating personal and economic freedom in ethical decision making, free and fair elections, civil rights, and press freedom, freedom of religion, free trade and private property. r/t Liberal Democracy. MARGINAL UTILITY postulates that the effects of a certain object or action are due to the fact it’s being used or done whether good or bad effects. It also states that to avert bad effects, the causative action should not be done in the first place. (ie. refusing cigarette smoking as it is known to cause lung cancer) NECESSITY is more of a standard measure for a policy in a debate. The line of argumentation all leads to point that there is a need to implement such policy as evidenced by the current situation which the teams try to resolve.


NON-MALIFECENCE is simply the “Do Not Do Harm” Principle. As it is the very basis of professional code of ethics stating that people must work on a level that will not harm their clients or people around them. (ie. medical professionals abide by their sworn oath not to do deleterious acts to patients as it poses a threat to their life) PATERNALISM allows the behavior of persons or state to limit some person’s actions or liberty and autonomy for their own sake. (ie. how the state can impose child custody to protect them from their abusive family.) PRAGMATICS or practicality is an important aspect in a policy. Aside from a principled perspective, it is important to measure whether a policy is worth implementing. Will the results value greater than risks? PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT establishes that though a certain action has both good and bad effects, it is imperative that these good affects out-weights the bad effects if the action be taken into consideration, deeming the bad effects as a necessary sacrifices to achieve a greater good. (ie. UN & NATO puts their decisions to intervene in the conflicts of the Arabian Spring as to put an end to dictatorial rulers in the long run, despite civilians’ and soldiers’ lives are at stake.) REPRESENTATION postulates that in any form of organization, government, society or institution, their lies an inherent responsibility that ALL members, class, gender, race or aspects of such group be well represented in policy determination, decision-making and in all affairs of the organization (ie. the issue whether the Student Regent should be given the right to vote during proceedings of the Board of Regents.) RULE ACCORDING TO HIGHER LAW states that no law may be enforced by the government that violates any certain universal principle of fairness, morality and justice. (ie. legalizing a state refusal of DNR cannot be easily enacted as it violates the Right to self-determination which is considered as a universal right.) SOCIAL CONTRACT is an agreement between two or more parties that requires each side to contribute in terms of mutual benefits. If one violates that contract, then trust and relationship between the parties are void. (ie. Politicians cannot expect reelection from the people it they were convicted of plunder or corruption) SOCIALISM is an economic system characterized by the social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy (ie. State ownership) SOVERIEGNITY is the quality of having independent authority over a certain geographical area and the ability of the State to guarantee the best interest of the citizens. Thus it is respected as authority of the country and violation of such by other forces is considered a form conquest or domination and is frowned upon by the UN. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT deems economic, industrial and societal development should be ensured to exist for a lengthy period of time as basis of policy-determination. Government’s responsibly is to make sure that their policies will create a diverse and stable source of progress, if not then the policy is not worth it. UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS is one form of higher law as it encompasses a global empowerment of basic human rights. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly after WWII which mandates the following;

- Children protection - Tolerance - Equality of gender - Racial equality - Freedom of speech - Freedom of religion - Right to education - Right to protest - Right to life - Right to privacy

UTILITARIANISM holds that the proper course of action is one that utility or use of a certain right, freedom, object, capabilities should be maximized thus maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. (ie. human rights should be exercised to its full extent so to achieve personal happiness) WELFARISM establishes that actions, policies, rules should be evaluated on the basis of consequences and that these actions should be upheld on the idea that the best results be achieved for the majority or main stakeholder. (ie. enacting reproductive laws due to benefits for the majority of the population while it is opposed by conservative religious officials, nonetheless legitimate on the basis of Welfarism)


Appendix B: Summary of Training It’s important to have a record of your training rounds so as to gauge your improvement and in what speaker role you perform well. Name: ______________________________________ Course/Year: ________________________

AVERAGE SCORE: ______________

1. Motion:

Date Speaker Role Speaker Score Team Ranking Adjudicator with Signature

2. Motion:


3. Motion:


4. Motion:


5. Motion:


6. Motion:


7.Motion:


8.Motion:


9.Motion:


10.Motion:



References

- Alan Swanwick, Australia-Asia Debating Handbook

- Ateneo Debate Society Handbook

- Bobby Benedicto, Ateneo Debate Society

- Cathy Rossouw, Monash Association of Debaters

- Colm Flynn, Guide to Debating

- Eleanor Uy, Ateneo Debate Society

- La Salle Debate Society Handbook for Fresher Debater

- Malaya, Hit the Podium, University of the Philippines Debate Society

- Meg O’Sullivan, World Universities Debate Championship 1999

- Omar Salehuddin, Aticus International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

- Oxford Union’s Rough Guide to Debating

- Tim Sonnreich, Monash Association of Debaters Guide to Debating: Tips, Tactics and First Principle, 2012

- Universidad de Sta. Isabel Debate Society, British Parliamentary Handout

- University of Sto. Tomas Debate Handout

BP Debate Primer 2013

Documents

Transcript of BP Debate Primer 2013