Please note that these guidelines are for British Parliamentary Style.
The aim of this page is to give you an idea of how to debate. It's not just a simple case of standing up and saying the first thing that comes into your head. There are certain rules and guidelines which have to be adhered to if you want to have any chance in a competitive debate. This is not the page with all the answers. It is only a rough set of guidelines to help get you started. Everyone should try to find their own strengths and failings.
1. Speeches should be SEVEN minutes in duration. Speakers exceeding this may be penalised but should never be substantially less than this. In general you should 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 min bell and then finish (i.e. Mr. Speaker sir, I beg to........) 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.
2. In general most debates are in English. The main competitions are all in English but occasionally there are other Language debates usually in conjunction with some other event/soc. Debating in Europe, Asia etc tends to be in the local language. At Worlds there is an English as a second language competition
3. A bell will be rung after the expiration of one minute and six minutes. The bell will be rung again at seven minutes and at regular intervals after that.
4. If the chair of the debate is the head of the host society he/she usually has a title e.g. Speaker, Auditor, etc. Most often the proper form of address is Mr Speaker/Madame Speaker. You must also acknowledge the adjudicators, if there are any. Some speakers will also acknowledge other members of the house, it is basically just a matter of personal preference as to how you begin your speech after acknowledging the chair and adjudicators. (e.g. "Mr Speaker, Madame Secretary, Adjudicators, Ladies & Gentlemen........................).
5. Points of information may only be offered after the expiration of one minute and may not be given after the expiration of six minutes. Points of information may only be given to opposing speakers and should generally be not more than 15 seconds in duration. The chairman may request a speaker to end a point of information at his/her discretion. Adjudicators also frown upon barracking (constantly interrupting the speaker by offering points) and the chair is expected to control this. Acceptance of points of information is at discretion of the competitor holding the floor. In competitive debates only the competitors may offer points of information however in non-competitive debates points will often be accepted from the audience. Once you have accepted a point of information you can't just ignore it and carry on. You must deal with it or risk the adjudicator's wrath.
6. In most societies Maiden speakers (i.e. speakers making a speech for the first time) have the protection of the chair. Other speakers may not offer them points of information unless they choose not to accept the protection of the chair. Even if they reject the protection of the chair most experienced speakers will not offer them a point unless they run into difficulty and it can help them. If you are good enough (or misfortunate enough depending on how you look at it) to be making your maiden speech in an intervarsity (rare but it has been known to happen) you do not have any special protection.
7. Points of order concerning the procedure of the debate must be addressed to the chair. These can be brought at any time and take priority over all other speeches. However these are only used in exceptional circumstances when the rules and standing orders are being abused and the speaker making the point must be certain that the point of order is appropriate. In British Parliamentary there is no such thing as Points of Personal Privilege (which are used in the US/Canada). At Worlds/Europeans it is made clear to the competitors in briefing that ONLY points of Information may be offered. Repeated attempts to offer any other sort of Point can be heavily penalized by the adjudicators.
8. Speakers must observe parliamentary language i.e. bad language is not permitted.
9. The use of Props is not permitted in a debate.
10. No amendment to the motion is permitted. You must debate the motion as presented and interpret it as best you can. You cannot define a motion in a Place/Time Specific sense (i.e. you cannot set the debate in Dublin 1916 and therefore attempt to limit the scope of the debate and information which the other teams can use)
11. The "house", which will often be referred to, is basically the chairperson competitors audience etc.
12. The speakers are evenly divided on both sides of the motion. Speakers for the motion are the "Proposition" or "Government", speakers against are the "Opposition".
13. The opening Prop speaker (sometimes called "Prime Minister") has to define or interpret the motion. If this definition is unreasonable or irrelevant then the opening opposition speaker may challenge the definition. But if the definition is relevant but just doesn't suit the opening opp. speaker attempting to redefine may not go down well with the adjudicators. If a definition is given and all the other speakers or teams completely ignore it then the defining speaker is effectively out of the debate. Definitions must also be fair and debatable "Truistic" or Self Proving arguments are not accepted. (e.g. The sea is full of water is pretty hard to reasonably argue against)For full guidelines as to who can redefine and when please refer to the Rules of British Parliamentary (e.g. the Sydney 2000 Rules).
14. The last speaker on each side is expected to sum up his/her side's argument and rebutt or refute the arguments of the other side. Generally this speaker will not add a great deal of new information to the debate.
15. Rebuttal is vital in any competitive speech. Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. The later you come in a debate the more rebuttal you must use. Rebuttal basically involves ripping the opposing side's argument apart and exposing its weak points. However don't forget to make your own argument and ideally use that to rebutt. It is important to also point out that unlike the style of debating in some countries you do not have to defeat every one of the opponents points (but of course all the Key ones must be knocked down). If the Government makes 19 points and you only manage to hammer 17 in the time allowed then you will win and any attempt by the Government to point out that 2 of their arguments are left standing is basically grasping at straws.
16. Be careful to avoid leaving statements hanging in mid-air. If you say something important back it up. Just because you know something is true and where it came from that doesn't mean the audience/adjudicators know where it came from and why it's true. To a certain degree the safest bet is to assume that the audience knows little or nothing about the subject.
17. Specialized Knowledge should not be used to unfairly define a motion. If you are a Legal, Scientific, Management, Computer etc student then you must remember that others in the debate may be "experts" in another field of study. Unfair definitions would include things like why the case of Smith versus Jones is more important to company law than Ryan versus Kelly. (These are just examples I have no idea if these cases even exist).
18. Just because you may not be competing this does not mean that you can take no part in the debate. All debates are usually opened up to the floor after the last speaker and once the adjudicators have retired. Often there is a prize for the best speaker here, but time allowed is usually no more than 3 min. to allow as many people take part as possible.
The aim of this page is to give you an idea of how to debate. It's not just a simple case of standing up and saying the first thing that comes into your head. There are certain rules and guidelines which have to be adhered to if you want to have any chance in a competitive debate. This is not the page with all the answers. It is only a rough set of guidelines to help get you started. Everyone should try to find their own strengths and failings.
1. Speeches should be SEVEN minutes in duration. Speakers exceeding this may be penalised but should never be substantially less than this. In general you should 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 min bell and then finish (i.e. Mr. Speaker sir, I beg to........) 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.
2. In general most debates are in English. The main competitions are all in English but occasionally there are other Language debates usually in conjunction with some other event/soc. Debating in Europe, Asia etc tends to be in the local language. At Worlds there is an English as a second language competition
3. A bell will be rung after the expiration of one minute and six minutes. The bell will be rung again at seven minutes and at regular intervals after that.
4. If the chair of the debate is the head of the host society he/she usually has a title e.g. Speaker, Auditor, etc. Most often the proper form of address is Mr Speaker/Madame Speaker. You must also acknowledge the adjudicators, if there are any. Some speakers will also acknowledge other members of the house, it is basically just a matter of personal preference as to how you begin your speech after acknowledging the chair and adjudicators. (e.g. "Mr Speaker, Madame Secretary, Adjudicators, Ladies & Gentlemen........................).
5. Points of information may only be offered after the expiration of one minute and may not be given after the expiration of six minutes. Points of information may only be given to opposing speakers and should generally be not more than 15 seconds in duration. The chairman may request a speaker to end a point of information at his/her discretion. Adjudicators also frown upon barracking (constantly interrupting the speaker by offering points) and the chair is expected to control this. Acceptance of points of information is at discretion of the competitor holding the floor. In competitive debates only the competitors may offer points of information however in non-competitive debates points will often be accepted from the audience. Once you have accepted a point of information you can't just ignore it and carry on. You must deal with it or risk the adjudicator's wrath.
6. In most societies Maiden speakers (i.e. speakers making a speech for the first time) have the protection of the chair. Other speakers may not offer them points of information unless they choose not to accept the protection of the chair. Even if they reject the protection of the chair most experienced speakers will not offer them a point unless they run into difficulty and it can help them. If you are good enough (or misfortunate enough depending on how you look at it) to be making your maiden speech in an intervarsity (rare but it has been known to happen) you do not have any special protection.
7. Points of order concerning the procedure of the debate must be addressed to the chair. These can be brought at any time and take priority over all other speeches. However these are only used in exceptional circumstances when the rules and standing orders are being abused and the speaker making the point must be certain that the point of order is appropriate. In British Parliamentary there is no such thing as Points of Personal Privilege (which are used in the US/Canada). At Worlds/Europeans it is made clear to the competitors in briefing that ONLY points of Information may be offered. Repeated attempts to offer any other sort of Point can be heavily penalized by the adjudicators.
8. Speakers must observe parliamentary language i.e. bad language is not permitted.
9. The use of Props is not permitted in a debate.
10. No amendment to the motion is permitted. You must debate the motion as presented and interpret it as best you can. You cannot define a motion in a Place/Time Specific sense (i.e. you cannot set the debate in Dublin 1916 and therefore attempt to limit the scope of the debate and information which the other teams can use)
11. The "house", which will often be referred to, is basically the chairperson competitors audience etc.
12. The speakers are evenly divided on both sides of the motion. Speakers for the motion are the "Proposition" or "Government", speakers against are the "Opposition".
13. The opening Prop speaker (sometimes called "Prime Minister") has to define or interpret the motion. If this definition is unreasonable or irrelevant then the opening opposition speaker may challenge the definition. But if the definition is relevant but just doesn't suit the opening opp. speaker attempting to redefine may not go down well with the adjudicators. If a definition is given and all the other speakers or teams completely ignore it then the defining speaker is effectively out of the debate. Definitions must also be fair and debatable "Truistic" or Self Proving arguments are not accepted. (e.g. The sea is full of water is pretty hard to reasonably argue against)For full guidelines as to who can redefine and when please refer to the Rules of British Parliamentary (e.g. the Sydney 2000 Rules).
14. The last speaker on each side is expected to sum up his/her side's argument and rebutt or refute the arguments of the other side. Generally this speaker will not add a great deal of new information to the debate.
15. Rebuttal is vital in any competitive speech. Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. The later you come in a debate the more rebuttal you must use. Rebuttal basically involves ripping the opposing side's argument apart and exposing its weak points. However don't forget to make your own argument and ideally use that to rebutt. It is important to also point out that unlike the style of debating in some countries you do not have to defeat every one of the opponents points (but of course all the Key ones must be knocked down). If the Government makes 19 points and you only manage to hammer 17 in the time allowed then you will win and any attempt by the Government to point out that 2 of their arguments are left standing is basically grasping at straws.
16. Be careful to avoid leaving statements hanging in mid-air. If you say something important back it up. Just because you know something is true and where it came from that doesn't mean the audience/adjudicators know where it came from and why it's true. To a certain degree the safest bet is to assume that the audience knows little or nothing about the subject.
17. Specialized Knowledge should not be used to unfairly define a motion. If you are a Legal, Scientific, Management, Computer etc student then you must remember that others in the debate may be "experts" in another field of study. Unfair definitions would include things like why the case of Smith versus Jones is more important to company law than Ryan versus Kelly. (These are just examples I have no idea if these cases even exist).
18. Just because you may not be competing this does not mean that you can take no part in the debate. All debates are usually opened up to the floor after the last speaker and once the adjudicators have retired. Often there is a prize for the best speaker here, but time allowed is usually no more than 3 min. to allow as many people take part as possible.
19. Heckling is also common in some debates. This involves members of the audience offering some good-humoured 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.
20. Private Members Time, PMT, is a period of time at the start of each debate where members may bring up a motion or issue that they wish to see debated. Speeches here are limited to 3 min. This is often a part of the debate, which is not only used to raise issues but also where many speakers show off their wit and humour.
21. 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 min. In competitive debates you will have very little choice as to which side of a motion you get.
22. No matter how bad you think your speech is try to stay up for the full seven minutes. If the audience is giving you a hard time just remember that they probably want you to walk off so don't give them the pleasure. If the chair doesn't control the audience ask him/her to and put him on the spot with the adjudicators. Of course you have to be able to handle a reasonable amount of heckling.
23. You don't have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well. 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 they are an idiot for backing up your case.
24. If you can use humour it can be extremely effective in a debate. You can ridicule and destroy an opponent's whole speech with a one-line joke attacking it. But don't go over the top, while humour helps, adjudicators may not be impressed by stand up routine with little substance. Although humour 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 humour in a speech while others do it with ease
Tips: Research
Research is vital and cannot be avoided if you want to make a winning speech.
Some people say that only a small portion of your research should appear in your speech and the majority will come into play later. I have yet to see the "later". This may be in the form of points of information but that is assuming that you can predict what information you will need to contradict what the speaker says. If you have good information don't keep it to yourself, USE IT.
Look for facts and examples more so than statistics. While statistics can very handy for filling up a few minutes, they are also boring. Your information should back up your argument and be memorable. If you find a little known fact that will surprise the audience and catch their attention use it strategically. Place it at a crucial stage of your speech in a way that everything falls in together and the audience becomes convinced of the truth of what you are saying. Remember that your argument is the most important part of your speech and your research should back it up, not the other way round.
Sources:
There are invaluable sources of information all around and you will very rarely come across a motion which you can find absolutely no information if you look hard enough.
Internet:
Type any subject into the Internet and you are likely to get back 100 sites with useful information and "Greater than 250,000" of utter rubbish. However there are a couple of good places to start. On the main page of this site you will find links to a couple of research webpages which give pros and cons about many topics. They are Debatabase.com and Youdebate.com
Some people say that only a small portion of your research should appear in your speech and the majority will come into play later. I have yet to see the "later". This may be in the form of points of information but that is assuming that you can predict what information you will need to contradict what the speaker says. If you have good information don't keep it to yourself, USE IT.
Look for facts and examples more so than statistics. While statistics can very handy for filling up a few minutes, they are also boring. Your information should back up your argument and be memorable. If you find a little known fact that will surprise the audience and catch their attention use it strategically. Place it at a crucial stage of your speech in a way that everything falls in together and the audience becomes convinced of the truth of what you are saying. Remember that your argument is the most important part of your speech and your research should back it up, not the other way round.
Sources:
There are invaluable sources of information all around and you will very rarely come across a motion which you can find absolutely no information if you look hard enough.
Internet:
Type any subject into the Internet and you are likely to get back 100 sites with useful information and "Greater than 250,000" of utter rubbish. However there are a couple of good places to start. On the main page of this site you will find links to a couple of research webpages which give pros and cons about many topics. They are Debatabase.com and Youdebate.com
One important thing to also remember is that if you are a student then it is probable that you will have access to many journals (economist, Time, etc) electronically through the website of your library. I certainly have access to these through my DIT account. There is no need to go out and buy these journals where half the pages will be ads. You can search through past editions to find articles you are interested in. You can also easily print good articles to help fill out your case book. Its free and all you need is a computer with internet access. If you don't have this then ask your library staff about it.
Library:
Although you may complain about your campus library (I think that's fairly universal among all students) it is still an invaluable source of information. Look around the sections which relate to your motion and flick through a few books that look relevant. If you don't know where to go for information take the keywords from the motion and type them into a nearby terminal. It should give you the book references you need.
Although you may complain about your campus library (I think that's fairly universal among all students) it is still an invaluable source of information. Look around the sections which relate to your motion and flick through a few books that look relevant. If you don't know where to go for information take the keywords from the motion and type them into a nearby terminal. It should give you the book references you need.
Journals Rooms: This is easily the best source of information on any campus library. If you have a motion dealing with a topical political, cultural, or scientific subject then the first thing you should do is look through the back issues of Time and Newsweek. These contain a huge amount of information and not only on current affairs. If you've never read them it is well worth spending a short time flicking through them so that you get a feel for the sort of information they carry and where to find it if you need it later. If you want more information then there is bound to be some information about it in other more specialised journals but it may be harder to find. You could also look up the past issues of newspapers on microfilm but you really would want to know exactly what you are looking for. Journals rooms may be increasingly replaced by on line tools as mentioned earlier but some articles aren't made available on line until the next edition is printed so sometimes you will have to do it the old fashioned way.
Books:
The problem with books is that by the time they are published they are more than likely out of date. However there are books available which give Pros and Cons of various topics. They should be used with caution and not a complete replacement for your own arguments and research but they are a good start point and particularly useful in the first 2-3 min of your 15 min prep at Worlds style events. Not surprisingly the best of these books is called Pros and ConsT.V. & Radio:
While it is unlikely that TV will oblige you by broadcasting a program dealing with the subject behind your motion while you are preparing for it you can still use them for information. If you know that there is a documentary, special report or debate on a topical issue why not watch, or listen to, it. You don't have to go out of your way or sit there taking notes like a lecture but if you have nothing better to do you might be surprised how much of it you will remember if it comes up later. Brainstorming:
This involves a group of people getting together to discuss a motion and come up with ideas. The group meets in a room and trash out the various issues involved from a definition and line to examples and the other sides possible strategy. One member writes down all the ideas and this is best done on a blackboard so a tutorial room is sometimes used. However these can also become side-tracked (one I was at lasted over three hours and only twenty minutes were spent discussing the motion). If used effectively they should work well and we may start doing them on a more regular and organised basis. Even if you don't want to hold a brainstorming session don't be afraid to ask other debaters for ideas, most will be glad to help and may even have debated the motion before. NOTE this is now banned at Worlds so you must have your brainstorming of possible topics done before Worlds.
This involves a group of people getting together to discuss a motion and come up with ideas. The group meets in a room and trash out the various issues involved from a definition and line to examples and the other sides possible strategy. One member writes down all the ideas and this is best done on a blackboard so a tutorial room is sometimes used. However these can also become side-tracked (one I was at lasted over three hours and only twenty minutes were spent discussing the motion). If used effectively they should work well and we may start doing them on a more regular and organised basis. Even if you don't want to hold a brainstorming session don't be afraid to ask other debaters for ideas, most will be glad to help and may even have debated the motion before. NOTE this is now banned at Worlds so you must have your brainstorming of possible topics done before Worlds.
Tips: Structure
You should try to have a structure to your speech. If you do then it is more likely to be a good speech. If you don't have some form of structure you may be penalised by adjudicators and you may ramble. You don't have to use a strict structure just have a mental layout of what you want to say and when. In fact if you have too rigid a structure then you will find it impossible to stick to it, when you have to rebutt and deal with points of information.
The following is a rough outline of how to structure your speech. In general just use these as guidelines and, ideally, develop a style and structure which you are comfortable with. 1st Minute (0:00-1:00):(Can't be given a point of information).Win the audience, perhaps with a joke.Don't rebutt another speakers speech.Define your speech, i.e. say what you will address and how. Ideally be able to state your argument in a single, short sentence.Define your team approach i.e. say, roughly, what your partner will say (or has said).
2nd Minute (1:00-2:00):
Don't take any Points of information until foundation has been laid i.e. until you have developed your speech a bit.Layout your argument.Usually best to propose/oppose on 3 points. (e.g. Political, Economic, Social).Begin your first point.
3rd-6th Minute (2:00-6:00):
Accept 2 to 3 points of information. Say outline political aspects and deal with them. Then take a P.O.I. on that. Do the same for the other aspects (i.e. Economics & Social).Use these four minutes to make all your points. Effectively this is your speech.Refer back to the single, short, core sentence one or two times.
7th Minute (6:00-7:00):
Once the sixth minute bell has gone you can't be offered any points of information.Finish the point you were on as quickly as possible.Don't introduce any new points or arguments.Sum up. Reiterate your main points and arguments (and those of your partner if you are the second team speaker.).Ideally, if possible, restate the single, core sentence as the last thing you say.
7:00 min:
7:00 min:
Stay on your feet until you hear the bell.Finish, immediately if possible, "Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to ...............".Be back in your seat by 7:15, if possible, and no later than 7:30.
Tips: Style
One thing you are bound to notice at any debate is the different speaking styles used by the competitors. Speaking style is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of debating to attempt to "teach" as the best style for someone is something that develops naturally over time. However there are a couple of things to be kept in mind.
1. You must speak clearly and loudly enough so that your voice can be heard by everyone. Remember the adjudicators will sit towards the rear of the hall so at the very least they must be able to hear what you are saying if you are to have any chance of winning. However you shouldn't shout as the halls have generally been designed so that your voice will carry towards the back.
2. Try to avoid monotone. If you are making an important point use your voice to stress it and make it stand out. Try to slowly increase the stress and force behind your voice as you go through your speech. Build up to a high point and make this the crucial point of your speech. However don't bring the audience on a rollercoaster ride. Don't start high, fall down, build-up and fall down again, it looks as though you are only convinced about the truth of half your speech. 3. Keep eye-contact with the audience and don't stare at the podium. It gets easier to do this after some experience and once you use fewer notes. Some people like to pick out individuals in the audience and look at them. Others just speak to the audience as a whole. However you do it make sure to scan the audience and move your gaze to different parts of the hall regularly. 4. Use your body language to back up your speech. If you stand rigidly and don't move then you will find it very difficult to have any real conviction in your voice. Use your arms and facial expressions to convey your emotions and back up your speech. However don't go overboard, you want the audience's attention to be focused on your speech not your arms. Try not to have anything in your hands. Some people like to carry a pen and end up waving it about like a baton which can distract the adjudicators. If you really need something use index cards. 5. You don't have to stand strictly behind the podium. Move around a bit and face different sections of the audience at different times. Apparently studies have shown that people tend to prefer to be able to see the whole person as this is supposed to indicate that you aren't hiding anything. However, once again, don't go overboard. It annoys people (and more importantly adjudicators) if you walk too far from the podium. Try not to go more than 1-2 meters away from the podium. One way to ensure this is to leave your notes on the podium, you'll find yourself reluctant to move too far from them. 6. Don't be too complicated. If your argument is too elaborate people may have difficulty following it. Don't use 15 syllable Latin words when a 2 syllable English word will do. Remember you are trying to convince the audience that your argument is the best and not that you consider your talent wasted on them (even if it is). 7 . Use humour to help win over the audience and make your speech stand out. If you have a natural talent for comedy or impersonations etc. then use it. If you don't then don't worry about it, even the most serious of us can be funny at times (often even without meaning it). You can work out a few put downs and one-liners in advance but be careful. If a joke sounds too prepared than it may bomb. Try to make it sound spontaneous and it's more likely to be successful. The best thing to do is watch other speakers and see how they combine the various elements. Experiment with different styles and try to find one that you are comfortable with. However the only real way to develop a good style is to try to speak on a regular basis and listen to the advice of adjudicators and the more experienced debaters.
Tips: Points of Info.
Points of Information are a vital part of any debate and should not be underestimated. Before and after your speech you can't just sit quietly and enjoy the other speeches. You must keep the adjudicators aware of your presence, ideas and argument. Also P.O.I. can be used as a weapon to undermine, and even destroy, an opponents speech. Also Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege which are used in some debating formats are not permitted at Worlds/BP
Presentation:
When giving a point of information you are expected to stand up, hold your left hand out (place your right hand on your head, honestly!) and say "On a point of information sir". Different people use slight variations on this but this is the basic one. Often speed is important to get in first, but that is no guarantee that you will be accepted. So you should make sure that you have enough space to stand up quickly and at a split second's notice (without sending your notes flying towards the podium). If you can do without a bench for writing, then a front row seat is ideal. If however you can't then use a seat at the end of a row so that you need only stand out to the side. Once you have been accepted stand facing the speaker at the podium but also try to half face the chair and audience, if possible.
Keep your P.O.I. short and to the point. The max. time allowed is 15sec but you should try for between 5 and 10 sec. Remember that many speakers like to take a P.O.I. and then use the time to check what they will say next while half listening to the person offering the point. Once they know what the next part of their speech is they work out an answer to your point. If your point is only about 5 sec. in duration it doesn't give them enough time and is more likely to catch them (especially if the point is weak and wouldn't work well if they had time to think about it). It looks bad if they have to stop to think what to say, especially if they have to ask you to repeat it.Timing is important. If a speaker is in full stride and knows exactly where they are going for the next few seconds, he/she is unlikely to accept a point. Wait for a pause, for breath etc. by the speaker and then offer the point. Obviously you have to be quick and good reflexes are needed to be on your feet literally within a split second. I've found that a point is more likely to be accepted in this type of case but you can't wait for too long as the point could then be out of place.
Styles:
Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers disqualified.
Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers disqualified.
Most speakers prefer to just wait and see how a speech develops. This involves leaving weak points go and use just one or two attacking the central core of the speech once it has developed a bit.
Accepting:
When you are speaking you should accept 2-3 points. Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every other speaker on your side be careful and don't assume that you can handle them. Points should not be longer than 15 sec. but you can cut that person off before this if they are making a very poor point and particularly if you have a good put-down to use on them.
Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up your argument. Always try to dismiss a point as incorrect or irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go against you in adjudication.
The Most common mistake I see as a judge is people accepting the first POI they are offered right on one minute. You haven't said anything yet. Don't take a point unless you have developed a point first.
The second most common mistake is taking two points back to back. This is like having a conversation and destroys your ability to properly develop your argument. Just because someone offers you a point you DON'T have to take it if you don't want to.
Tips: Roles in a debate
This is concerned with roles on a worlds style debate. For more guidance on speaking roles in other formats follow the links on this article
Prime Minister (Opening Speaker);
It is the duty of the “Prime Minister” to define the topic of the debate BUT it must be clearly linked to the Motion. In some cases the motion will be worded in such a way as to permit a wide variety of Definitions (e.g. “This house believes that the Glass is half full”, Worlds 98.) Others will be tighter motions, which allow little flexibility for Definition (e.g. “This house believes that Northern Nationalists have nothing to fear from a United Kingdom” Irish Times 96).
At Worlds motions will be fairly tight and "squirreling" the motion is harshly punished. The adjudication team have put a lot of thought into the motions so you should debate the motions they give you and not the motions you wish had actually been set.
Some IVs do have open or semi-open motions. When this happens as 1st Government you should look to specify the area of the debate where there is some openness in the motion. For example “This house would rebuild the Berlin Wall” (Worlds 96) is too often defined by inexperienced teams as repartitioning of Germany and a return to Communism. This is, in my experience, a very difficult line to win from as it is just too unrealistic and broad. Two more “successful” definitions which I have seen run are that the Berlin Wall represented a division between East and west and that (a) the EU should not allow Eastern Bloc countries membership until they have fulfilled certain Social and Economic Criteria. Or (b) that NATO should not expand membership eastward.
Open or closed when defining make sure that you have an argument. You have to propose something. Saying that something is wrong and this is how it should be is not enough. You must say that something is wrong and THIS is what you are going to do about it. “What you are going to do” is the debatable part of the definition.
Example “This house favours Positive Discrimination”. Poor Defn: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and they shouldn’t be in the future therefore we’ll use something called Positive Discrimination. Better Definition: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and to correct that we are going to take actions X, Y, and Z under the umbrella name of Positive Discrimination. You must then fully outline what actions X, Y, and Z are and how they will work.
Prime Minister (Opening Speaker);
It is the duty of the “Prime Minister” to define the topic of the debate BUT it must be clearly linked to the Motion. In some cases the motion will be worded in such a way as to permit a wide variety of Definitions (e.g. “This house believes that the Glass is half full”, Worlds 98.) Others will be tighter motions, which allow little flexibility for Definition (e.g. “This house believes that Northern Nationalists have nothing to fear from a United Kingdom” Irish Times 96).
At Worlds motions will be fairly tight and "squirreling" the motion is harshly punished. The adjudication team have put a lot of thought into the motions so you should debate the motions they give you and not the motions you wish had actually been set.
Some IVs do have open or semi-open motions. When this happens as 1st Government you should look to specify the area of the debate where there is some openness in the motion. For example “This house would rebuild the Berlin Wall” (Worlds 96) is too often defined by inexperienced teams as repartitioning of Germany and a return to Communism. This is, in my experience, a very difficult line to win from as it is just too unrealistic and broad. Two more “successful” definitions which I have seen run are that the Berlin Wall represented a division between East and west and that (a) the EU should not allow Eastern Bloc countries membership until they have fulfilled certain Social and Economic Criteria. Or (b) that NATO should not expand membership eastward.
Open or closed when defining make sure that you have an argument. You have to propose something. Saying that something is wrong and this is how it should be is not enough. You must say that something is wrong and THIS is what you are going to do about it. “What you are going to do” is the debatable part of the definition.
Example “This house favours Positive Discrimination”. Poor Defn: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and they shouldn’t be in the future therefore we’ll use something called Positive Discrimination. Better Definition: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and to correct that we are going to take actions X, Y, and Z under the umbrella name of Positive Discrimination. You must then fully outline what actions X, Y, and Z are and how they will work.
Opposition Leader;
It is your role to set out the opposition to the Governments case. You have only 7min (or less) to come up with your opposition case but provided that the Government have presented a debatable case you will be expected to handle the limited time for preparation. Outline and develop your case. Then deal with the points made by the government and link back the reason for them being flawed to whatever your team’s central case is. Remember the role of last Opp is to rebut all four Government speakers in his/her 7 min and sum up the entire opposition case. You have only seen one speaker so you can’t make a “Last Opp Speech” Look at it in terms of proportions. You’ve only seen a quarter of the Government therefore at most a quarter of your speech should be rebuttal. The rest should involve outlining a “substantive” opposition case.
It is also your duty to decide if the case is debatable. If it isn’t (and be very, very certain that it isn’t) then you must submit an alternative definition. You cannot simply say “That’s a Truistic/self proving” argument, spend seven minutes outlining why and sit down. If you do that then you will have failed to do your duty as 1st opposition. If you have the ability to spot a truistic argument then you should have the ability to redefine, or at least to modify the Governments case to make it debatable.
Deputy Prime Minister;
You must further develop your team’s argument. Rebut what the first opposition speaker has said but don’t spend all your time rebutting. Your team’s case can’t have been fully outlined and developed so to spend 7 min attacking one opposition speaker is no win tactic.
You must back up your teammate. If he/she has been torn apart then don’t jump ship. “CLARIFY” what your teammate said. Don’t abandon your case because you realise that it is flawed. Judges will look out for that and will penalise a “Dump” severely. You will gain more marks for bailing your teammate out than for jumping ship and engaging the opposition on their ground leaving your teammate behind.
Deputy Opposition Leader;
As with the second government speaker you must back up your teammate. Don’t abandon your case because you realise that it is flawed. Fix it but don’t get an entirely new one. A good guideline is that you should spend double the amount of time rebutting that your teammate and therefore the rest of your speech is reserved for YOUR team’s case.
Remember that your team’s case should be set up in such a way that it in itself rebuts the government case. Therefore simply by developing it you are rebutting the government. If you remember this it should help you avoid the trap that a lot of Opp speakers fall into of 100% point-by-point rebuttal. There is a misconception that the opposition just have to oppose and don’t have to lend any constructive argument or matter to the debate. People will get away with this from time to time but the recent trend in adjudication is to frown on that. It is an easy way out and doesn’t really lend anything to the debate. Constructive opposition always looks better than mere opposition for opposition’s sake. This applies in debating as well as most things in life.
Member for the Government (3rd Gov Speaker);
You are the first speaker in the second half of the debate. Now you have options to consider.
If there has been a redefinition, and IF it was a valid redefinition then you must decide if you are going to follow the Government line or switch to the definition which the Opposition as offered and take them on at that. Be careful. It is also possible to take a combination of both but you will have to be careful not to tangle your argument up in trying to tie the two definitions together.
If the Government presented a case, which was debatable but weak and has been thorn apart you cannot simply stab them in the back. You may however bring in an “extension” this allows you to bring in a new point of view while still roughly following the Government line. Again just, as with 1st government, you must present a debatable definition.
Your role is to develop your team line. As with all government speakers you cannot spend all you 7 min rebutting the opposition. Outline and fully develop YOUR team line, showing how it links to AND backs up the original government case. As you develop your case use it to rebut the opposition. Also remember that a sizable amount of your teammate’s speech will involve summing up the entire Government case and rebutting the opposition. He/She will have little time to further develop your team’s case so you must do a good job on your team line. You are almost in an individual debate against 3rd Opp speaker and your argument must be fully developed or he/she will destroy you, and there will be no come back from your teammate. If your teammate has to spend all his/her time bailing you out then you have failed and have dragged him/her down with you.
Member for the Opposition (3rd Opposition Speaker);
In my experience novice teams often find this a difficult position in terms of strategy. There is a perception that 2nd Opp team is just a position to turn and win from but many teams get the balance between the speakers very wrong. In this position you can’t give a 100% rebuttal speech and you also are limited in that your teammate will not be in a position to spend a lot of time developing your case (see Opposition Whip’s role). It is up to you to set out AND fully develop your team’s case. Remember you have to provide matter of your teams argument in such a way that it stands out from the other teams. You should concentrate on the third Government speaker in your rebuttal. You must rebut what the 1st Gov team said but it is primarily your duty to take on the extension provided by the 2nd Gov team. If first opposition have done their job then the time you spend rebutting the 1st Gov team will in effect be going over what they have done and impinging on your teammate’s role.
Government Whip; (last Gov speaker)
Both Whips will be penalised if you do not Sum up your side and rebut the opposition. You can develop your team line a little but the vast majority of your time must be spent summing up the ENTIRE government case (not just your own team) and rebutting the Opposition arguments. Remember as well that the 3rd opposition speaker has probably spent a sizable amount of time attacking your teammate so you should spend some time on your team line and counteracting the attack on it. In short you must do 3 distinct things: (1) Sum up your team line. (2) Sum up the first Government’s arguments (3) Rebut the Opposition. Remember that while you cannot stab the 1st government in the back you should really reinforce your team line and then sum up the rest of the Government argument.
Opposition Whip. (Last speaker of the debate)
Rebut, Rebut, Rebut, Rebut, oh and sum up. You are in pole position. You have had almost an hour to develop your speech and this is a huge advantage. You should not bring new information into the debate but remember that by new information we mean new core arguments and examples. In your rebuttal you may bring in new examples, which relate directly to the points you are rebutting but you cannot make them the central plank on which your entire argument is based. Some last Opp speakers will deal with the Government speakers almost one at a time and this generally works quite well and lends a structure to your speech.
A lot of last Opp speakers also make the mistake of just rebutting and not summing up. Ideally you should use a summary of what has been said by the opposition up to now as your rebuttal. However you should also try to have a clearly defined period of summation. Don’t get carried away with your rebuttal and leave your sum up for the last 30 seconds. Remember that there are a lot of inexperienced judges out there who may not recognise that you have mixed summation and rebuttal in your speech and will, unfairly, penalise you for only spending a few seconds on sum up. Ideally aim to start your sum up of the Opp case with about 1.5 to 2 minutes left. You can use your last protected minute to sum up the entire debate and not just your speech, it may go against the textbook structure of a speech but it is accepted practice.
Tips: One page Summary
This is a one page summary of the previous tips posts. It's also known as "I don't have time to read all that ****!!!!!!! What do I do?"
The Basics
The Basics
· 7 Min Speech use all of it but not longer than 7:30
· 1st & last min no Points of information allowed
· Accept 2-3 POI no more.
· Stay in the debate. Offer lots of POI but at the same time don't overdo it.
· No props, No bad language, No abusive behaviour
Be Prepared
Have a broad general knowledge of events issues (watch the news, read the paper) etc. If possible gather a "case book" of knowledge (must be on paper as the Worlds don't allow electronic aids). You can also prepare 3 or 4 cases in detail for when you are defining “Open” motions at IVs (not Worlds).
Have an argument.
Don’t base your case on loads of facts and try to work towards an argument. Think of the argument/Core-team-line first, then 3 main points to back it up and then the facts to back those up. This will help give more structure to your speech particularly if you are just starting out in Debating.
Have a broad general knowledge of events issues (watch the news, read the paper) etc. If possible gather a "case book" of knowledge (must be on paper as the Worlds don't allow electronic aids). You can also prepare 3 or 4 cases in detail for when you are defining “Open” motions at IVs (not Worlds).
Have an argument.
Don’t base your case on loads of facts and try to work towards an argument. Think of the argument/Core-team-line first, then 3 main points to back it up and then the facts to back those up. This will help give more structure to your speech particularly if you are just starting out in Debating.
Analyse yourself & others
This is one way to give structure to a government speech. It is also a highly effective method for the opposition to look at the Government case and say it falls down for any of the above four reasons.
This is one way to give structure to a government speech. It is also a highly effective method for the opposition to look at the Government case and say it falls down for any of the above four reasons.
Gov Case (4 Steps)
Problem: There is a problem
Cause: This is the Cause
Solution: Here is our solution
Effect: And this is it's effect
Problem: There is a problem
Cause: This is the Cause
Solution: Here is our solution
Effect: And this is it's effect
Opp Case (Pick one & Attack)
Problem: The problem doesn't exist
Cause: That's not the right cause
Solution: The Solution isn't workable
Effect: It won't have those effects
Know your role
4 team debate, 2 people in each team, 2 teams on each side
1st Gov: Define & Outline
1st Opp: Rebut, Alternative, (Re-Define)
2nd Gov: Defend, Explain & Rebut
2nd Opp: Rebut & Defend
3rd Gov: Backup, Extend, & Rebut
3rd Opp: Rebut, Backup &
4th Gov: Explain, Sum up & Rebut
4th Opp: Rebut, Rebut, sum up
Tips: Public Speaking
One thing you are bound to notice is the different speaking styles used by speakers. Speaking style is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of debating to attempt to "teach". You will have to develop your own style and preferably one that comes naturally to you. However there are a couple of things to be kept in mind.
- You must speak clearly and loudly enough so that your voice can be heard by everyone. Remember the adjudicators will sit towards the rear of the hall so at the very least they must be able to hear what you are saying if you are to have any chance of winning. However you shouldn't shout as the halls have generally been designed so that your voice will carry towards the back.
- Try to avoid monotone. If you are making an important point use your voice to stress it and make it stand out. Try to slowly increase the stress and force behind your voice as you go through your speech. Build up to a high point and make this the crucial point of your speech. However don't bring the audience on a rollercoaster ride. Don't start high, fall down, build-up and fall down again, it looks as though you are only convinced about the truth of half your speech
- Keep eye-contact with the audience and don't stare at the podium. It gets easier to do this after some experience and once you use fewer notes. Some people like to pick out individuals in the audience and look at them. Others just speak to the audience as a whole. However you do it make sure to scan the audience and move your gaze to different parts of the hall regularly.
- Use your body language to back up your speech. If you stand rigidly and don't move then you will find it very difficult to have any real conviction in your voice. Use your arms and facial expressions to convey your emotions and back up your speech. However don't go overboard, you want the audience's attention to be focused on your speech not your arms. Try not to have anything in your hands. Some people like to carry a pen and end up waving it about like a baton which can distract the adjudicators. If you really need something use index cards.
- You don't have to stand strictly behind the podium. Move around a bit and face different sections of the audience at different times. Apparently studies have shown that people tend to prefer to be able to see the whole person as this is supposed to indicate that you aren't hiding anything. However, once again, don't go overboard. It annoys people (and more importantly adjudicators) if you walk too far from the podium. Try not to go more than 1-2 meters away from the podium. One way to ensure this is to leave your notes on the podium, you'll find yourself reluctant to move too far from them.
- Don't be too complicated. If your argument is too elaborate people may have difficulty following it. Don't use 15 syllable Latin words when a 2 syllable English word will do. Remember you are trying to convince the audience that your argument is the best and not that you consider your talent wasted on them (even if it is).
- Use humour to help win over the audience and make your speech stand out. If you have a natural talent for comedy or impersonations etc. then use it. If you don't then don't worry about it, even the most serious of us can be funny at times (often even without meaning it). You can work out a few put downs and one-liners in advance but be careful. If a joke sounds too prepared than it may bomb. Try to make it sound spontaneous and it's more likely to be successful.
- The best thing to do is watch other speakers and see how they combine the various elements. Experiment with different styles and try to find one that you are comfortable with. However the only real way to develop a good style is to try to speak on a regular basis and listen to the advice of adjudicators and the more experienced debaters.
The assessment made of any debate is inherently a subjective exercise. The adjudicator forms a personal judgment regarding the argument, style, organization and impact of a debate, which in many cases, could differ from that of another adjudicator’s. The main objective in providing these guidelines is to ensure, as much as is possible, that the adjudicators make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines that direct attention to specific issues and thus help limit subjectivity.
The adjudicator’s role is crucial in the discipline of debating - with the divine responsibility of sitting in judgment upon the efforts of debaters. As in any other competitive activity, a thorough understanding of the rules is a prerequisite for the referee and ensuring that these rules are consistently interpreted and applied becomes a critical aspect of the competition.
In assessing debate, you have to adopt the role of an average reasonable person with an average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate but with expert knowledge of the rules of the debate. Debating is an exercise in the skills of persuasion, where the target audience is assumed to be an average cross-section of the community who is open to persuasion. In this context, it is important that the adjudicator’s judgment is not influenced by his or her personal likes and dislikes, prejudices or any other preconceived opinions on issues. There is no denying that each adjudicator carries into the debate an opinion baggage that could be based on personal experiences, expert knowledge of the subject matter, or a set of prejudices. An element of the real test of a debater is, of course, the ability to persuade the adjudicator of the validity of arguments advanced, which may be in contradiction with the adjudicator’s views and perspective on the matter under consideration. But you must be able to eliminate any special or exceptional attitudes which would not be shared by an average group of reasonable people.
The most important thing to realize is that you are sitting in judgment on the relative merits of the two cases that are proposed by the competing teams of the debate, and it is this ability of comparison that assumes importance in adjudication.
It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide whether his or her views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams. The adjudicator has artificial constraints that influence his decision - including the proportional worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and the weight of each individual speech to the overall case of the team. The adjudicator is assessing a process that consists of every single speech and his final judgment is a function of the contribution of each individual in the debate.
There are three important functions performed by adjudicators in any debate:
· To decide which team has won the debate,
· To provide an explanation of the reasons for that decision, and
· To provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters.
The function of deciding which team has won is, of course, the most important function that is played by the adjudicator. In this context, it is very important to note that the decision is made by the adjudicator and not by the marks awarded. In other words, the marks should reflect the adjudicator’s decision; they should not make that decision. It is not rare in close debates to find the total marks awarded reflect a different decision from the adjudicator’s impression of the debate and the relative merits and demerits of the two cases under consideration. In such circumstances, you should review the notes of the debate and attempt to identify the cause of this discrepancy. For example, you might realize that your final impression was too heavily dependent on a strong third speech, in which case your decision should be modified to reflect a correct weighing for that speaker’s contribution in the overall context of the debate. Or, you might realize that the marks awarded to a particular debater’s speech does not reflect his true contribution to the advancement of his case. What is important to note is that the marks and the adjudicator’s decision should be consistent and it is the final decision should be consistent and it is the final decision of the adjudicator that determines the outcome of the debate.
Debaters are entitled to know the basis of any judgment and you, as an adjudicator, have the obligation to explain your decision and offer constructive criticism. What should be highlighted in such discussion should be critical differences between the two teams and no attempt should be made to replay the whole debate. Adjudicators should also be careful of getting drawn into a further debate with the team members as to the merits of the judgment. While explaining the reasons for the decision, you should be specific in weighing the relative merits of the cases and the important elements of the cases that were crucial in determining your verdict. These issues will be handled in detail later when assessment of the debates are discussed in terms of matter, manner and method.
It should be remembered that the level of explanation provided should be tailored to the experience of the debaters. Very experienced speakers are likely to be concerned with the interaction of argument and the structure of team cases; novices are likely to wish to receive more detailed comment on speaking style, merging into the ‘constructive criticism’ discussed below.
Not every individual has the ability to inspire and motivate. But all adjudicators do have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring that their judgment and criticism and advice that they give perform an educational function in debating. Sound advice from good adjudicators make substantial differences to debating careers. As pointed out earlier, the nature of advice offered should vary with the experience of the debaters. Criticism should invariably be delivered in constructive terms. To a novice speaker for whom the debate itself may have been a traumatic event, there is a world of difference between "The things that you did badly were...." and "The ways in which to improve your debating are....". No adjudication should be scathing, sarcastic or derogatory. You have an obligation to be constructive, supportive and encouraging.
ASSESSING MATTER
One of the fundamental aspects in assessing matter is that the matter presented by a speaker must be logical and relevant to the topic under debate. Logic is the chain of reasoning used to prove an argument. This involves stating, explaining and illustrating the argument. Relevance is established by tying the argument in to the topic under debate.
An example that has been used at the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championship at Monash in 1995 illustrates the point about reasoning of arguments logically. The issue under consideration in the example is that cigarette advertising should be banned. The structure to a team’s case could be as follows:
1. State an argument in favor of the topic: Cigarette advertising should be banned because it entices young people to smoke by making cigarette smoking look like a glamorous activity.
1. Explain the argument: Young people see images of sports heroes and models endorsing smoking. They are insecure and in need of some affirmation, so they turn to cigarettes, assuming they will achieve the happiness they believe the sports heroes and models enjoy. This is how they will get addicted.
1. Use examples: Cigarette companies aggressively advertise in glamorous sports like Formula One. Marlboro spends $50m a year to ensure that McLaren team can have ‘Marlboro’ plastered all over its livery. Their product is seen on the drivers and models that parade around like advertising billboards trying to sell their products, often to kids who are impressionable.
1. Tie the argument back into the topic: So as you can see, cigarette advertising entices young people into smoking by giving them glamorous images to aspire to. Cigarette advertising is therefore dangerous and it should be banned.
Part of your function is to assess the quality of the argument. This requires you to distinguish a strong argument from a weak argument, from the viewpoint of an average reasonable person. A weak argument remains weak whether or not the opposing team points out its weakness. You should not wait to see whether the opposition attacks an argument before judging whether it is weak or strong. Taking on the role of an average reasonable person does not prevent you from being critical and intelligent in your analysis of the matter presented to you. Use of examples and references to experts
Properly used, examples are an important aspect of matter. Usually they will be most effective when used to illustrate or bolster an argument that has been constructed already, rather than as the foundation for making an argument. Similarly, authorities cited should only support the argument and not substitute the argument. The fact that an expert holds an opinion holds minor weight in the process of persuasion unless the reasons for that opinion are explained and independently assessed.
Invalid cases
An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required by the topic to prove. For instance, on the topic ‘That cigarette advertising should be banned’, if the affirmative team argues that smoking is harmful, they have not addressed the fundamental issue of the debate - cigarette advertising. Such an approach should be penalized heavily.
Hung cases
Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the first speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as the ‘hung’ case. It occurs when the first speaker doesn’t affirm or negate the topic in itself. The speech is left ‘hanging’ until the second speaker completes the case. It is neither convincing to rely on another speaker to prove the entire case nor fair to ask a first negative speaker to refute a case that is not complete yet. Therefore such an approach should be penalized in both matter and method. An Australasian example is, when on the topic That Capitalism will fail without religion, the first affirmative argued that capitalism will fail and the second speaker argued that capitalism will fail without religion. Here the second speaker was the only speaker to address the topic.
Distinguishing Matter from Manner and Method
In matter, you must assess the quality of the arguments irrespective of how well they were organized. In method, you must assess the quality of organization. When assessing matter, it is important to shed all the effects of manner, namely vocal style, use of gesture and quality of oratory. You should understand and maintain this distinction and prevent the same strength or weakness from being double-scored.
New Matter from third negative
New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been canvassed in the debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend an argument is not considered as new matter.
It is a firm rule of debating that the third opposition speaker in the debate may not introduce any new matter. The purpose of this rule is to prevent unfairness in the debate because an issue raised at this stage does not allow the opposing team to respond to it or comment on it sufficiently. Hence, the final speaker’s argument must be directed to issues that have already been raised in the debate. In general, new matter consists of entirely new issues that have not previously been canvassed in the debate. Introduction of new matter should result in penalties on both matter (as the speaker should be spending time on rebuttal) and method (as the team should have organized and prioritized its argument more effectively). The use of fresh examples to further illustrate an earlier argument or any argument directed to rebuttal of an opposing argument or to defense of the negative case is not new matter.
An example of new matter on a topic That UN is a waste of space is where the first five speakers have been arguing the effectiveness of the UN as a peace keeper and peacemaker and then the third negative decides to discuss at length the humanitarian arms of the organization.
In this context, the rule is not so clear about new matter from the third affirmative. It is a matter for discretion, where you should weigh the value of the matter as substantial material against the detriment suffered by the team in not introducing this earlier in the debate and possible time lost in rebuttal.
Humorous arguments
There are instances where one team adopts a humorous or ‘send-up’ approach and the other team delivers a perfectly serious debate. In the former, you must assess whether the ‘send-up’ has caused the audience to accept or reject the spirit of high farce which pervades such cases. You should assess the ‘send-up’ in the context of the ‘send-up’ reality. Then this is compared with the quality of argument presented by the opposing team in its own context. The adoption of a humorous line does not relieve the team of the necessity to structure its humorous line in the form of an argument.
ASSESSING METHOD
Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, of the team case as a whole and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate. Each of these three elements will be further elaborated in the following paragraphs.
Method of an individual speech
An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither compulsory nor exhaustive):
· an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or helps it to warm to the speaker
· a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the speech
· a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the speaker’s argument
· a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be accomplished
· a conclusion or summary of the major points made in the speech
Over-time and under-time speeches Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time limit and conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed. Matter delivered after the time limit does not attract matter marks. The speech will incur a severe penalty in method for continuing significantly after the time limit.
There usually is no penalty for finishing after the first bell but before the time limit (unless the speaker was clearly ‘padding’ the speech in an attempt to make time, without adding anything to the content of the speech). Finishing before the first bell indicates poor organization and usually attracts a method penalty. But this should be assessed with regard to the completeness or paucity of the argument and other aspects of the debate such as whether the opposing team ran a truism and prevented rebuttal.
Method of the team
In considering team method, you are assessing whether the team structured its overall approach to maximize its effectiveness and whether the individual speakers adequately fulfilled their part in the team presentation. In general, a ‘thematic’ team structure will be more effective than a structure consisting of a series of independent arguments. The former approach gives the appearance of being a total body of argument while the latter approach represents a series of isolated points without any link or consistent foundation.
The roles played by each speaker in a team presentation are summarized as follows:
First affirmative speaker
· define the affirmative’s interpretation of the topic and specify the essential issues in contention
· give an outline of the team structure, indicating the basic theme of the team’s case and the aspects to be dealt with by each speaker
· deal with those elements of the case allocated to him or her
First negative speaker · identify the major areas of initial disagreement (including definition issues if appropriate) with the affirmative case up to that time and engage in rebuttal
· give a clear outline of the negative’s team structure
· deal with those elements allocated to the first speaker
Second affirmative and negative speakers · rebutt opponents’ case and arguments
· argue in defense of one’s own case against rebuttal by previous speaker
· deal with those elements of the substantial case allocated to him or her
Third speakers on both sides · present an overview of the debate, rebutting the important aspects of the opposing team’s case and defending one’s own team’s case
· summarize his or her arguments
Reply speeches · provide an overview that compares and contrasts each team’s views of the central issues of contention in the debate
Response to the dynamics of the debate This element of method requires you to assess whether a speaker has reacted appropriately to the strategic requirements of the debate as they emerged. The following are examples of such dynamics:
When a negative team has a problem with the affirmative definition, it is important strategically to deal with this at the first negative speech (as well as the second and third) so that the definition does not proceed without dispute until much later.
A method failure results when a speaker argues a point that has already been conceded (thus failing to acknowledge the concession) or a point that is not being contested or relevant to the debate.
In administering a method penalty, you should be careful to note the distinction between matter and method. A speaker who commits a strategic error may be given full credit for the quality of the argument in matter, but a penalty will be imposed in method. On the other hand, if a speaker reacts appropriately to the dynamics of the debate, he or she may be rewarded in both method (for identifying the issue) and matter (for convincingly tackling it).
ASSESSING MANNER
Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the debating case. Good manner will enhance the argument; bad manner will distract or detract the audience from the argument. The most important thing to remember when you assess manner is to ask the question "Was it effective?".
The elements of manner:
Vocal style: Volume of delivery should be audible; enunciation should be clear and plain; pace of delivery should be neither too slow nor too fast; vocal style should have variety and appropriate pauses for relaxation and emphasis; delivery should be reasonably fluent, confident and authoritative (but not arrogant or hectoring)
Use of language: Speakers should not vary from normal conversational language; they should beware of the use of slang or jargon of some field of specialty unfamiliar to the audience.
Use of notes: Notes should be unobtrusive, small enough to be held in one hand and contain only key words or headlines.
Use of eyes: Debaters should attempt to make eye contact with the audience.
Gesture: Gestures should be natural and appropriate and not laborious or distracting; mannerisms should be avoided.
Stance: Speakers may move around or stand still and you should assess the effectiveness of the stance by whether it aided the argument or distracted you from the argument.
Dress: Dress may only be taken into account in the assessment of manner where it is so incongruous that it affects the credibility of the speaker.
Impression of sincerity: A more sincere approach will make the speaker more believable and effective.
Personal attacks on opponents: Derogatory comments will not be tolerated and will suffer manner penalty as such remarks distracts the audience from the argument and also make the speaker lose the sympathetic ear of the audience; speakers should also not refer to the personal convictions held by opposing debaters.
Humor: Humor should be appropriate and may even be used at a crucial time in a serious debate.
Adjudicators must note that manner is assessed as the total impact of all its various elements – not as some aggregation of fixed categories according to rigid weightings.
OTHER ISSUES
Definitions are an important aspect of a debate. They play a large role in determining whether a debate is focused and enjoyable, or waywardly meandering and unclear.
Definition rules
Definitions must be reasonable. There must be a clear and logical link between the definition and the topic. A negative team may only challenge a definition on the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable. Squirreling and time setting are absolutely prohibited.
Truistic, tautological and circular definitions are those that allow the affirmative team to use indisputable truths as evidence, thereby not allowing the negative team to dispute. For example, on the topic "That we should eat and drink and be merry", if an affirmative team defined this topic to mean that we should eat something because otherwise we will die of starvation, we should drink something because otherwise we will die of thirst, and we should be happy because being sad is not a good thing, it leaves the negative team with no grounds to debate on. Wholly unreasonable definitions are those which seek to make the negative’s argument scarce or weak. Squirreling is where there is a reasonably obvious issue to be debated and one team decides to define the debate in a less than obvious way. An example would be, if on the topic "That Elvis is alive and well", the affirmative defined Elvis to be Elvis Martini, an Italian hairdresser known for his sideburn trims. The obvious issue for debate here is of course Elvis Presley. When the debate is set into a particular time, it constitutes time setting. Debates should take place in contemporary society though evidence from the past may certainly be used in argument.
The correct approach to definition is the ‘issue-based’ approach, rather than the ‘individual words’ approach. Many inexperienced debaters will give a careful and detailed definition of each word in the topic, and then string those definitions together into a sentence. It is of course frequently necessary to concentrate on one or more keywords in a topic, but at least as frequently the topic may be defined as a whole by looking at the context. Even with topics in which it may be deemed necessary to consider the nature of an individual keyword, the ultimate objective of definition is to be able to state a clear issue arising out of the examination of the individual words.
You must not start with any preconceived notion of the meaning of the topic (except to the extent that the average reasonable person shares such a notion). Like all matter, you should not wait to see if the definition is attacked before deciding whether or not it is persuasive. The definition is assessed with its supporting arguments when it is delivered.
Competing definitions
When the negative challenges the definition put forth by the affirmative (on the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable), there is no rule that says that the proposition’s definition is automatically invalid. It is just that the affirmative faces the difficulty that an average reasonable person would regard such a proposition as being unreasonable and unlikely to be what was in the mind of the person who set the topic. But the onus is on the disagreeing team to show that the unreasonable definition is heavily biased against their case and cannot be argued against. It is not enough to utter protests that would become a copy of self-pity. The issue is to be resolved by argument. The speakers must argue the relative merits of the competing definitions, not merely assert the merits of their own.
The definition issue is not decisive of the outcome, and the team that loses the definition issue will still have its subsequent arguments assessed on their own merits. When there is a significant divergence of definitions, you should expect teams to engage in an 'even-if' argument. That is:
"Our definition is correct and theirs is incorrect for the following reasons. But even if their definition was correct (which it is not), their case does not stand scrutiny even under their own definition."
This should be followed by an attack on the merits of their opponent's case. In this way, a team is likely to score more matter marks, and the sterility of the definition debate is avoided. This issue is important enough for the absence of an 'even-if' to be penalized in method as a strategic error, if the competing definitions are widely divergent.
Rebuttal
Rebuttal is any argument that logically tends to the conclusion that the opposing team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:
· showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact
· showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
· showing that the opposing argument is illogical
· showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable implications
· showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little weight
Matter marks should be used to indicate whether or not the rebuttal was persuasive, irrespective of the structure of the rebuttal. On the other hand, whether or not a speaker has structured the rebuttal so as to make it appear that the entire opposing case, or at least the main issues, has been called into question is an issue of method marks. Sometimes, a more global and thematic rebuttal is adopted over a point-by-point rebuttal of the opposition’s arguments. It is a simple case of focusing on the forest as a whole rather than the trees. Reply speeches
You must understand the difference between the third speeches and the reply speeches. The replies are not merely tedious repetitions of the key parts of the third speeches. The third speakers should concentrate on detailed rebuttal and leave the summarizing to the reply speakers. The third negative should be especially cautious not to give anything more than a cursory summary at the end if his or her speech because a detailed summary is about to ensue from the reply. Third speakers who embark on extensive overviews and summaries (especially third negatives) should generally score lower marks in matter (for forgoing the opportunity to engage in detailed rebuttal of points) and method (for misunderstanding the role of the third speaker).
The ‘no new matter’ rule applies with a vengeance in reply speeches. To introduce new matter in a reply is a cardinal sin. It misconceives the role of a reply speech, which is a broad overview and not an examination of detail. New matter in a reply speech should be heavily penalized.
Misrepresentations
Misrepresentations are where one speaker inaccurately sets up an argument in order to attack it. This is a serious offense and should be penalized as it often happens during the third speeches and leaves the opposing team little chance to reply. Misrepresentation occurs when one speaker reiterates an opponent’s argument incorrectly or concentrates disproportionately on weaker aspects of the opposing argument, neglecting important issues. Be cautious when assessing misrepresentation to go through your notes and to rely less on memory. It is therefore essential that the information you record during each speech is comprehensive.
Team slides
A team slide is when a team starts off arguing a theme and then widens or narrows that theme under pressure from an opponent or in order to claim the matter being used by the opponents. This is unreasonable. You should pay extra attention during the first few minutes of the first speeches from both sides so that you are able to identify a team slide later in the debate. Team slides should be distinguished from concessions that, if not too substantial, will allow the debate to proceed on the contentious ground. For instance, it would not be an unreasonable concession for a negative team to concede, on the topic, That smoking should be banned, that there is a recognized link between smoking and disease. Such a concession would allow the debate to proceed upon the more contentious issues surrounding prohibition.
Ties
Ties must not be awarded in the tournament. There is no exception to this rule.
MARKING SCALE
Substantive speeches
Substantive speeches are marked out of 100
· the average mark is 75
· the lowest possible mark is 67 and the highest possible mark is 83
· most marks will be between 70 and 80
· matter and manner are marked out of 40, method out of 20
Reply speeches Exactly half of the substantive speeches
· the average mark is 37.5
· the lowest possible mark is 33.5 and the highest possible mark is 41.5
· most marks will be between 35 and 40
· matter and manner are marked out of 20, method out of 10
| Matter and Manner | Method | Meaning |
| 27 | 13 | Very poor |
| 28-29 | 14 | Below average - Poor |
| 30 | 15 | Average |
| 31-32 | 16 | Above average - Very Good |
| 33 | 17 | Excellent |
| Margin in points | Meaning |
| 1-4 | A very close debate with only minor differences separating both teams |
| 5-9 | A relatively clear decision with one team having an obvious advantage |
| 10-12 | A very clear win with the losing team probably having failed in one or more fundamental aspects of its argument or presentation |
CONCLUSION
You should give a clear and firm decision of who has won, the reasons for that decision, and constructive comments to each speaker. A summary of the decisive issues in the debate and how each team dealt with or used these issues to their advantage or disadvantage may be in order here. Constructive comments made to each speaker should be brief and positive, especially to those who have not debated much before. You have around 5-7 minutes to deliver your adjudication and comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment