TECHNICALITIES DEBATE BASICS TECHNICALITIES Types of Debate Formats 1. Asian Parliamentary (As-Par) 2. British Parliamentary (Brit-Par) TECHNICALITIES Types of Debate Formats 1. Asian Parliamentary (As-Par) 2. British Parliamentary (Brit-Par) TECHNICALITIES Asian Parliamentary (30 min) Two Groups: 1. Affirmative Side (Gov) a. Prime Minister (PM) b. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) c. Government Whip (GW) 2. Opposition Side (Opp) a. Leader of Opposition (LO) b. Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) c. Opposition Whip (OW) TECHNICALITIES Types of Debate Formats 1. Asian Parliamentary (As-Par) 2. British Parliamentary (Brit-Par) Asian Parliamentary Two Groups: 1. Affirmative Side a. Prime Minister (PM) b. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) c. Government Whip (GW) 2. Opposition Side a. Leader of Opposition (LO) b. Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) c. Opposition Whip (OW) TECHNICALITIES Role of 1st Speakers (PM and LO) - Set the Debate Proper a. Defining the Motion - Presenting the Niche of the Debate - What makes this debate different from other debate? - Ex. THS the total banning of firearms. b. Clarifying Terminologies (operational definition) - It’s not enough to just give a dictionary-definition - Operationalize it (In your own words and in context of the debate) c. Presenting the Status Quo (Painting a picture) - There are many ways to present the status quo: a. Identify the problem presented in the debate b. Create a sense of Urgency c. Present the General Goal in the Debate d. Contextualize the problem into a locality d. Open and Present the Case of the Government/Opposition - Usually you don’t hear the arguments just yet in the First Speaker TECHNICALITIES Types of Debate Formats 1. Asian Parliamentary (As-Par) 2. British Parliamentary (Brit-Par) Asian Parliamentary Two Groups: 1. Affirmative Side a. Prime Minister (PM) b. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) c. Government Whip (GW) 2. Opposition Side a. Leader of Opposition (LO) b. Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) c. Opposition Whip (OW) Role of 1st Speakers (PM and LO) a. Defining the Motion b. Clarifying Terminologies c. Presenting the Status Quo d. Open and Present the Case of the Government TECHNICALITIES Special Note: Defining the Motion - In the spirit of fairness, you are expected to give a reasonable definition of the motion in the debate - Unfair definitions like truism and tautology is undebatable and thus is unacceptable for the opposition. - Under such rare circumstances – a special role can be activated by the LO: Challenging the given definition of the motion. - When will we know if the definition is unfair? It is on the grounds of: 1. Truism - A truism is something that is obviously true. It would be a truism to define a motion ‘This House believes that the sun is rising in the East’ literally. 2. Tautology - A tautology is something that is true by definition. Example of a tautology would be defining the word ‘best’ in the motion ‘This House believes that government is best when it governs least’ to mean ‘least intrusive into the lives of ordinary people’. TECHNICALITIES Types of Debate Formats 1. Asian Parliamentary (As-Par) 2. British Parliamentary (Brit-Par) Asian Parliamentary Two Groups: 1. Affirmative Side a. Prime Minister (PM) b. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) c. Government Whip (GW) 2. Opposition Side a. Leader of Opposition (LO) b. Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) c. Opposition Whip (OW) Role of 1st Speakers (PM and LO) a. Defining the Motion b. Clarifying Terminologies c. Presenting the Status Quo d. Open and Present the Case of the Government TECHNICALITIES Role of 2nd Speakers (DPM and DLO) - Extend the Case of their side a. Rebuttals b. Rebuilding/Supporting the Points of PM/LO c. Extension of Case Building d. Mechanize the solution of their side TECHNICALITIES Types of Debate Formats 1. Asian Parliamentary (As-Par) 2. British Parliamentary (Brit-Par) Asian Parliamentary Two Groups: 1. Affirmative Side a. Prime Minister (PM) b. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) c. Government Whip (GW) 2. Opposition Side a. Leader of Opposition (LO) b. Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) c. Opposition Whip (OW) Role of 1st Speakers (PM and LO) a. Defining the Motion b. Clarifying Terminologies c. Presenting the Status Quo d. Open and Present the Case of the Government Role of 2nd Speakers (DPM and DLO) a. Rebuttals b. Rebuilding/Supporting the Points of PM c. Extension of Case Building d. Mechanize the solution of their side TECHNICALITIES Role of 3rd Speakers (GW and OW) - Summarize the Debate a. Mentioning important Points - Mention the notable points of the other side - Mention the notable points of your side - Convince the Adjudicator why your side is better than theirs b. Comparative Analysis - Further rebut the arguments of the other side - Try to explain why the policy of the other side is flawed - Best-case and Worst-case comparison. > What this means is that you take the best case of your side vs the best-case of the other side and explain why your side is better. > Similarly – argue to the adjudicator why your worst-case is the “lesser evil” than the worst-case of your opponent. c. Summarize and give the Adjudicator a run-down of what transpired in the debate. Adjudicators have their own standards when meting out decisive decisions as to which team proceeds to the next round and which team loses. Speaker Scores are based on three important standards: 1. Matter – What you say (40%) 2. Manner – How you say it (40%) 3. Method – How you organize it (20%) SPEAKER SCORES Matter is all about your material – what your arguments are. For matter to be accepted, it must pass two tests: I. Is it Logical? (Does it make sense?) II. Is it Relevant? (Can it be fully linked back to what your team should be arguing) Manner is how you deliver your speech. It will include anything that enhances your presentation and makes it more engaging: the tone and volume of your voice, how quickly you speak, hand gestures, eye contact, your stance etc. Method refers to how you structure your speeches, both individually and as a team. Have you split up your material appropriately between speakers? Does your speech have a beginning (introduction), middle and end (conclusion)? Ultimately it comes down to this: are you, and your team, ORGANISED? Lowest Speaker Score – 67 SPEAKER SCORES Below Average Speaker Score – (68-74) Average Speaker Score – 75 Above Average Speaker Score – (76-82) Highest Speaker Score – 83 An adjudicator is defined as an average reasonable individual. This is a must definition for a debate adjudicators for they are not allowed to step inside into the debate when they give their adjudications. ADJUDICATION STANDARDS To be an average reasonable individual means that we as an adjudicator are to an extent knowledgeable about the motion that we are judging. Both debating and adjudication is an art. There are no absolute standards as to what methods or techniques can be considered correct in debating and adjudicating. Personally, as an Adjudicator – This is how I adjudicate debates in a strict particular order: 1. Role Fulfillment 2. Rigor of Analysis 3. Clash or Contentions 4. Relevance or Meta-analysis DEBATE PROPER DEBATE BASICS WHAT IS DEBATE REALLY ALL ABOUT? Debate is all about “Clash” Practically Speaking: WHAT IS DEBATE REALLY ALL ABOUT? In a normal Debate – both sides agree that something is wrong (Status Quo) but do not agree as to what Principles, pragmatics, or approaches is more “efficient”, “relevant”, “humane” etc. This is the “clash” that is important for a proper debate to occur. Exempla Gratia: THBT Abortion should be legalized. Both sides understands that the situation is problematic for the affected actors (Women, Children and/or babies, Doctors, etc.) WHAT IS DEBATE REALLY ALL ABOUT? However, both sides also have a different stance with regards to the issue at hand. “We believe / We don’t believe that abortion should be legalized. Here are reasons why we think so…” AFFIRMATIVE SIDE OPPOSITION SIDE I. Principle of Bodily Autonomy - Women should have a final say about their bodies. II. Principle of Human Life - Doctors should allow options to terminate pregnancy should it poses danger to lives of women. III. Regulation that comes with Legalization - By legalizing abortion, it can be regulated to ensure that no one can conveniently ask for it. I. Concerns for Convenience - Abortion will allow individuals to become complacent about their responsibilities when given an easy way out. II. Principle of Human Life - Abortion is equated to murder which is a direct harm to the principle of life. Analysis AFFIRMATIVE SIDE WHAT IS DEBATE REALLY ALL ABOUT? I. Principle of Bodily Autonomy - Women should have a final say about their bodies. II. Principle of Human Life - Doctors should allow options to terminate pregnancy should it poses danger to lives of women. III. Regulation that comes with Legalization - By legalizing abortion, it can be regulated to ensure that no one can conveniently ask for it. OPPOSITION SIDE I. Concerns for Convenience - Abortion will allow individuals to become complacent about their responsibilities when given an easy way out. II. Principle of Human Life - Abortion is equated to murder which is a direct harm to the principle of life. If we only look at the first arguments on both the Affirmative and Opposition side – there is no clash, and I can only judge based on the rigor of analysis. However, if it happens that both sides present their second argument – then there is a clash happening. Since both are arguing about the Principle of Human life – a standard can be made: Which sides better promotes the Principle of Human Life? The debate is elevated into a higher level of adjudication standard: Clash or Contention. THREE TYPES OF DEBATE MOTIONS THREE TYPES OF DEBATE MOTIONS I. Value-Assessment Debates II. Policy-Making Debates III. Philosophical Debates Value-Assessment Debates - This type of debate calls for an “assessment” of principles. - The most basic type of debates. THREE TYPES OF DEBATE MOTIONS - Value debates concern itself about whether or not something is “good” or “bad” - You must properly define what do we mean or what standard or principle are we basing at when we say that something is “good” or “bad” - Usually identifiable in the motion as: i. This House Believes That… (THBT) ii. This House Supports/Regrets… (THS/THR) Policy-Crafting Debates - This type of debate asks debaters for solutions or proposals to the current problem at hand. - The intermediate level kind of Debates. THREE TYPES OF DEBATE MOTIONS - Policy debates concerns itself with the kind of policy (or counter-policy for the opposition) that you will propose. How you mechanize and propose safety nets and etc. - You still need to provide a value-assessment first before you proceed with policy proposal. Basically you have to establish/argue first why a “policy” is needed in the first place by means of principles. - Usually identifiable in the motion as: i. This House Will… (THW) Philosophical Debates - The black sheep of the debate motion family. THREE TYPES OF DEBATE MOTIONS - The highest difficulty of debate. Philosophical debates are rarely given and usually will only have one if not none in most debate tournaments. - A battle of abstract ideas. i. Liberalism vs. Conservatism ii. Utility vs. Deontology iii. Environmentalism vs. Economic progress iv. Freedom of Speech vs. Censorship v. Humans as “Ends” vs. Humans as “means” TWO TYPES OF MAINSTAY DEBATE ARGUMENTS TWO TYPES OF MAINSTAY DEBATE ARGUMENTS I. Principle Arguments II. Pragmatic Arguments PRINCIPLE ARGUMENTS Arguably the most important kind of arguments in debates. As an Adjudicator – I will always be on a look-out as to what kind of principles are you basing your argument. TWO TYPES OF MAINSTAY DEBATE ARGUMENTS Do you support feminism because of the principle of Human Equality? Or maybe you do not agree with abortion because you uphold to yourself the Principle of Human Rights to Life? Principle arguments provides the perspective of why your side thinks that something is morally or ethically or principally or pragmatically good or bad. This is strictly the first kind of arguments you should be presenting – principles establishes the legitimacy of your stance towards the motion. “It is principally right/wrong…” PRAGMATICS ARGUMENTS An argument that usually follows up the principle argument. TWO TYPES OF MAINSTAY DEBATE ARGUMENTS Pragmatics argument argues usually on a utilitarian convention – it concerns itself about cost-efficiency and cost-benefits analysis after which comparisons are made between the two sides. Our proposed policy is more efficient than the other side because there is a higher probability of success or that there is less cost and manpower needed or that it is less risky compared to the other side. “It is pragmatically beneficial/harmful…” ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT EXEMPLA GRATIA I. Premise - a statement that an argument claims will induce Mandatory or justify a conclusion. It is an assumption that supported. something is true. II. Grounds ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT ROTC must be Growing tensions in the Philippine Sea - the grounds are the facts making the case for the argument. This is the time you present your facts and Social Contract Principle statistics what have you. Internal conflicts such as Terrorism III. Examples The increasing aggression of - To make your argument look more realistic and China in laying claims in the West grounded on reality – give real-life and relevant Philippine Sea examples. NPA Rebels and ISIS extremist etc. IV. Conclusion leave our state vulnerable to - This will bring your argument into a complete We harmful elements if we do not circle. This is basically what you are trying to prove augment our ranks. by making the arguments above in the first place. V. Meta-analysis - Why is this argument important? What does it imply, placate, or establish? This argument was important because now our side finally has a solution to the problem in status quo. THE ART OF REBUTTING ARGUMENTS The effectiveness of a rebuttal is based upon which part of the argument are you trying to attack. If you are successful in rebutting arguments – it could potentially win you the debate. THE ART OF REBUTTING ARGUMENTS The most powerful types of rebuttal is listed below in a particular order: I. Meta-analysis (Attacking the Relevance) II. Conclusion (Attacking the Chain of Logic) III. Grounds (Questioning the Urgency or the Legitimacy of the Problem) IV. Premise (Arguing based on an assumption) V. Example (False or wrong examples) REBUTTALS: HOW TO DO IT PROPERLY ARGUMENT I. Premise - a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. It is an assumption that something is true. II. Grounds - the grounds are the facts making the case for the argument. This is the time you present your facts and statistics what have you. III. Examples - To make your argument look more realistic and grounded on reality – give real-life and relevant examples. Mandatory ROTC must be supported. Growing tensions in the Philippine Sea Internal conflicts such as Terrorism The increasing aggression of China in laying claims in West Philippine Sea V. Meta-analysis - Why is this argument important? What does it imply, placate, or establish? The premise presented assumes that mandatory ROTC is the only way to bolster our forces and strengthen our efforts against harmful elements against the state. Other options should be considered too. You can question if these grounds are really enough of a reason to mandate everyone into ROTC. It is also usually in grounds where fallacy is abundant. You can give a counter-narrative or counter example as rebuttal. NPA Rebels and ISIS extremist etc. IV. Conclusion - This will bring your argument into a complete circle. This is basically what you are trying to prove by making the arguments above in the first place. REBUTTAL We leave our state vulnerable to harmful elements if we do not augment our ranks. This argument was important because now our side finally has a solution to the problem in status quo. You can question if the conclusion really follows from the premise. You can argue that the conclusion does not follow the premise. Mandating ROTC does not immediately conclude into the idea that we will strengthen our military. While its difficult – if you can prove that your opponent's argument is irrelevant – you can probably immediately shut down their argument.
