English Debating
Lecturer: Li Lihua
CHAPTER 1 Welcome to Debate
CHAPTER 1 Welcome to Debate
Two teams agree
to disagree about
a specific topic.
--- Gary Rybold
CHAPTER 1 Welcome to Debate
Critical Thinking
Note Taking
Organizing
Researching
Writing & Listening
Teamwork & People Skills
…
CHAPTER 1 Welcome to Debate
CHAPTER 1 Welcome to Debate
Read the assignments before class
Take notes in class
Review the information
Ask questions
Practice
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
responsibility
that each
debater is given
a
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
“Those who assert
Points: significant,
outstanding, or
must prove.”
effective ideas, arguments or
suggestions that make up your case.
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
“Silence is
admission.”
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
“Answer the answer.”
CHAPTER 2 Debate Basics
Each team should be ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Provide 1-100
speaker points for each speaker.
Opening Proposition
Rank:
Opening Opposition Rank:
Leader Proposition
Points:
Leader Opposition
Points:
Deputy Leader
Proposition
Points:
Deputy Leader
Opposition
Points:
Closing Proposition
Rank:
Closing Opposition
Rank:
Member Proposition
Points:
Member Opposition
Points:
Proposition Whip
Points:
Opposition Whip
Points:
English Debating
THANK YOU
组织结构
English Debating
Lecturer: Li Lihua
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
Opening Proposition Team
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Closing Proposition Team
Member of the Proposition
Proposition Whip
Opening Opposition Team
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader of the
Opposition
Closing Opposition Team
Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
Opening Proposition Team Opening Opposition Team
1. PM
2. LO
3. DPM
4. DLO
Closing Proposition Team
5. MP
7. PW
Closing Opposition Team
6. MO
8. OW
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
3. Speech Timing: 7’ / debater
Timing
1:00
6:00
7:00
7:15
Signal
Single ring of a bell (POIs allowed)
Single ring of a bell (POIs no longer
allowed)
Double ring of a time (Conclusion of
speaking time)
Continuous ringing (Conclusion of grace
period)
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
1) Prime Minister (PM):
--- definition unnecessary
--- appropriately present a case supporting
the motion; narrowing down is not acceptable
--- not refute the opposing teams’ arguments
--- introduce new materials
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
Narrowing Down
Example-1: China Should Ban Smoking.
--- China should ban smoking in public places.
Example-2: This House Would Ban Capital
Punishment.
--- This House would ban capital punishment for
minors.
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Model: All UN members cease
immediately; convert to life
sentences
1.CP1 doesn’t deter crime
A. No empirical proof
B. c/n deter crimes of
passion
2.Errors irreversible
A. The system is fallible
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Proposition
Proposition Whip
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
2) Leader of the Opposition (LO):
--- counter PM’s case by providing substantive
arguments against the motion (Rebuttal)
--- present their arguments
--- introduce new materials
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
model: All UN members cease
immediately; convert to life
sentences
1.CP1 doesn’t deter crime
A. No empirical proof
B. c/n deter crimes of
passion
2. Errors irreversible
A. The system is fallible
Deterrence? Cannot measure effect
Errors? In application, not in CP
itself; fix system
Team Line: Preserve CP for crimes
against humanity
A: justice demands retribution
1. balance depends on payment
of debt
2. Provides closure
B. Need unambiguous moral
stance
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Proposition
Proposition Whip
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
English Debating
THANK YOU
组织结构
English Debating
Lecturer: Li Lihua
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
3) Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) &
4) Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO):
— refute the LO’s or the DPM’s speeches (Rebuttal)
— further develop the Opening Proposition team’s or the
Opening Opposition team’s cases either by furthering one
or two points mentioned by their partner or by offering
new points
— introduce new materials
— summarize the case of their half
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader Opposition
CAH? Should prohibit in all cases?
Justice? Moral authority
compromised by killing citizens
1.Practical concerns prevent justice
A. No deterrence: no evidence
of success
B. Errors rampant, compromise
justice
C. Racist application
Member of the Proposition
Proposition Whip
Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader Opposition
CAH? Should prohibit in all cases?
Justice? Moral authority
compromised by killing citizens
1.Practical concerns prevent justice
A. No deterrence: no evidence
of success
B. Errors rampant, compromise
justice
C. Racist application
Practical vs. Justice?
A.Justice is an ideal; strive
even if not perfect
B.System can be improved;
doesn’t prove CP unjust
Member of the Proposition
Proposition Whip
Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
Justice
A.Need balance & clarity
B.CP for CAH= improve the
human condition
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
5) Member of the Proposition (MP)
— rebut the LO’s or the MP’s arguments (Rebuttal)
—summarize the arguments of their opening half very
briefly
— introduce an extension to support the Opening
Proposition team or the Opening Opposition team
— introduce new materials
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Proposition
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Opposition
CAH? Will not be deterred
Justice? Not only about
retribution; healing
1. Moral objections to CP
A. Killing is killing
B. CP dehumanizes the state
C. Complicity in crimes
against humanity
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
English Debating
THANK YOU
组织结构
English Debating
Lecturer: Li Lihua
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
6) Member of the Opposition (MO):
— rebut the LO’s or the MP’s arguments (Rebuttal)
—summarize the arguments of their opening half very
briefly
— introduce an extension to support the Opening
Proposition team or the Opening Opposition team
— introduce new materials
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the
Proposition
CAH? Will not be deterred
Justice? Not only about
retribution; healing
1.Moral objections to CP
A. Killing is killing
B. CP dehumanizes the
state
C. Complicity in crimes
against humanity
Proposition Whip
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Opposition
Moral? Immoral to not provide
strongest sanction
Justice? Retribution, closure can be
healing
Case study: Ratko Mladic (Serbia)
A.Complicity in the massacre at
Srebrenica in 1995
B.Indictment by Int. crim. Trib. For
Yugoslavia
C.Mladic still at large, evaded capture
and trial
Opposition Whip
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
7) Proposition Whip (PW) &
8) Opposition Whip (OW):
— rebut the MO’s or the PW’s arguments by summarizing
the main issues of the clash between the Proposition side
and the Opposition side (Rebuttal)
— summarize the arguments of the Proposition side or the
Opposition side
— no longer new materials
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Proposition
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
1. Nature of justice: need moral
authority
2. Practical failings
A. No deterrence
B. Errors and racism
3. Moral failings
A. Dehumanizing and
complicity
B. Cannot object to what you
embrace
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Proposition
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
1. Nature of justice: need moral
authority
2. Practical failings
A. No deterrence
B. Errors and racism
3. Moral failings
A. Dehumanizing and
complicity
1. What is justice?
A. balance and closure
B. imperative beyond
deterrence
2. Can CP be administered fairly?
3. Do some crimes warrant
death?
A. generally: CAH shock the
B. Cannot object to what you conscious
B. specifically: Mladic
embrace
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
Attention:
— frequent use of data not encouraged
— not only repeating but more depth to the debate
— POIs: points of information
requested at any time after the first minute and
before the last minute of the speech
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
— take necessary notes for adjudicating
— note down key points of each speaker
— underline new contributions of each speaker
— count and evaluate POIs (offering, answering or
refusing)
* 辩手 : 至少接受 2 次质询 ;15 秒的时间回答质询；质
— discount those new materials offered by the last two
询时间将被计算在陈词时间内；
speakers
* 对方：至少 4 次提出质询；
* 反方如果没有抓住机会提出质询或者发言者没有接
受质询 , 评委可酌情扣分。
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
1. Standards of Adjudication;
2. Steps of Reaching a Decision.
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
1. Standards of Adjudication:
Opening Prop.: clear case & rebuttal
1) role fulfillment
Opening Oppo.: clear line & rebuttal
Member Speakers: extension
Whip Speakers: holistic summary
2) matter and manner
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
2) matter and manner:
Matter:
— Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a
debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the
audience.
— Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case
studies, facts and any other material that attempts to
further the case.
— Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and
rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the
arguments of the opposing teams). Matter includes POIs.
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
2) matter and manner:
Manner:
— Manner refers to the strategy and presentation of a team’s
arguments.
— Manner includes elements such as argument choice, speech
structure, vocal and physical delivery, use of POIs, and so
forth.
— Manner should enhance the team’s effort to prove the
motion and should be compelling.
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
2. Steps of Reaching a Decision:
1) identify the proposition;
2) identify the issues;
3) determine the winner of each issues;
4) determine the importance of each issue;
5) assess each team’s efforts relative to the issues;
6) report the decision.
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
•
Achieving consensus
– lead to consensus by the Chair
– report decisions first by Wing Judges
– achieve consensus on rankings and then assign
points for each speaker
– isolate the difficult decision
• Bench win?
• Top or bottom half debate?
• Agree on First? Fourth?
• Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd?
CHAPTER 3 Debate Format
•
Scale
– 1-100; 75 average
– Functional range: 60 – 90
•
Determining Points
– Points are based on consensus
– Start with agreement on highest or lowest for best
or worst speaker
– Individual points totaled for team points
– No low-point wins
Points
Meaning
90-100
Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech
you would expect to see from a speaker at the
Grand Final level of the tournament. This
speaker has many strengths and few, if any,
weaknesses.
80-89
Above average to very good. The standard you
would expect to see from a speaker at the semi
finals level or in contention to make to the
finals. This speaker has clear strengths and
some minor weaknesses.
70-79
Average. The speaker has strengths and
weaknesses and roughly equal proportions.
60-69
Poor to below average. The team has clear
problems and some minor strengths.
50-59
Very poor. This speaker has fundamental
weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.
English Debating
THANK YOU
组织结构
English Debating
Lecture One
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Teaching Objectives:
On the completion of this period of course, students will be able to:
1. figure out the concept of English debate;
2. grasp the main skills by learning English debating;
3. know the requirement of this training course;
4. get to know the teams of English debate;
5. master the burdens of debater;
6. learn briefly about the process of making a decision for English debate.
Teaching Steps:
Step 1: Chapter 1 Welcome to debate
1. What is debate?
Two teams agree to disagree about a specific topic.
— Gary Rybold
2. Debating Teaches Skills
1) Critical Thinking: Critical thinking helps you to ask better questions, evaluate answers, keep
an open mind, be honest about your own biases, and make better decisions.
2) Note taking: Debate will help you to become a better note taker. Since your debates may last
an hour or more, you will need to write down what the other team says, what your partner
says, and even what you want to say. You will be surprised how your memory will improve at
the same time.
3) Organizing: Debate will help you to improve your organizing ability. Because each motion
involves many ideas, you must try your best to organize them so that the audience understands
your arguments and how each fits into the debate.
4) Researching: Debate will help you become a better researcher. To be successful in debate, you
need to understand both sides of a motion and support your position with evidence. You will
learn how to use libraries and electronic resources to find the information you need as well as
how to evaluate material and organize it efficiently.
5) Listening and Writing: Good listening and writing skills are basic skills that contributing to
your success in debating competition. Firstly, once you complete your research, you must be
1
able to write speeches, or briefs, short organized arguments that help you to understand and
explain your viewpoint. Secondly, during the competition, when members of the other team
are speaking, you must listen carefully to catch what they say so that you can respond. In
many debates you will have a partner. You will also have to listen to him or her carefully in
order to advance your side.
6) Teamwork and People Skills: Debate will teach you teamwork and people skills because you
must work and think as a team in order to succeed. You will have to work with a partner,
coach, and other teammates, sharing information and developing strategies. As you develop
your speaking skills, you will also develop your people skills, so you will be able to talk to
others with ease. Sometimes debate partners become friends for life. Even competing debaters
from other schools can become your friends.
3. Making the Most of Your Training
1) Books and materials recommended:
(1) Johnson, Steven L. Winning Debates [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press, 2010.
(2) Rybold, Gary. Speaking, Listening and Understanding: Debate for Non-Native-English
Speakers [M]. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2006.
(3) Rybold, Gary. Debating in English: A Critical Thinking Approach to Effective Speaking
[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2013.
(4) Video collections of English debating competitions.
2) Requirements of this training course:
(1) Read your assignments before coming to class. This English Debating course will give you
materials and some background information before the class. You are advised to read and
understand the material ahead of time. Then the class will make more sense to you.
(2) Take notes in class. Chinese culture has a saying, “好记性不如烂笔头”. English culture
has the saying, “In one ear and out the other.” These sayings tell us the importance of taking
notes. In the class, you do not have to record every word you hear, but you should write
down the main ideas the teacher presents along with your thoughts on these ideas.
(3) Review the information. Be sure to read your notes as soon after class as possible. Read
them aloud and think about what they mean. Feel good about what you are learning. At the
end of every debate, listen to what the judge, your coach, or other debaters have to say. This
feedback provides an excellent opportunity to learn what you are doing well and where you
need improvement. Take notes on what they say. In the United States, these comments are
called constructive criticism. The comments are meant to improve your performance, not to
make you feel bad about what you just did. Sometimes the judge will write down the
comments. Be sure to review these with your coach and teammates so you can improve.
(4) Ask questions. As a debater you will learn how to ask questions. If you have any question,
2
write it down and ask your instructor to explain it further.
(5) Practice. Practice makes perfect. In this training course, you will have many opportunities
to practice the speeches.
Step 2: Chapter 2 Debate basics
1. The Teams
A team may consist of one to four debaters, although most debates have two debaters on each
side. A team must either be for the topic or against the topic. When you debate, you can call the other
team your opponent (regardless of what side you are debating). Depending on the type of the debate,
the teams are called different things:
For the topic
Against the topic
Affirmative
Negative
Pro
Con
The Government
The Opposition
Proposition
Opposition
Usually, the teams do not choose what side of the topic they will defend. The tournament
assigns the side. Because they do not make that choice,, teams do not need to believe in the side of
the topic they support. In some debate activities, when the same topic is used for the whole season,
the debaters switch sides.
Teams role-play to present the best arguments for their side in a process called perspective
taking. Like a lawyer who has to defend a guilty client, you may have to defend something that you
don’t believe. Perspective taking helps you keep an open mind while you search for the best
arguments for the side you must defend. Through perspective taking, you also learn how other people
think about their side of a topic.
Perspectives on Debate
Many debaters consider debate a game in which the participants sharpen their thinking and
speaking skills. Like sports, debate has rules, teams, officials, winners, and losers. Debate becomes
mental gymnastics, with teams matching wits against each other. Your job as a debater is to find the
best way to achieve victory. Many find the game of debate great fun.
Others debaters think of debate as a laboratory, where one team tests its arguments against the
arguments of another. Your job is to do the best job of debating so that the best arguments will
emerge. As you improve as a debater, you will become better at testing ideas.
In many cases, students think of debating as a way of finding truth. This means the winning
arguments should be the truest arguments.
These perspectives allow debaters to develop the best arguments for a position without injecting
their personal beliefs into the debate. To remind everyone that the debate is a contest in which the
3
teams could have been assigned the other side of the issue, the debaters traditionally shake hands at
the end of the event. This is a way of indicating that the debate was just a test of skills, not a
presentation of deeply held personal beliefs.
2. The Burdens
A burden is a responsibility that each debater is given. Audiences and judges evaluate debaters
based on how well they fulfill their burdens. Failure to meet the expectations of the burdens can
result in losing the debate. Debaters share three types of burdens:
1) The Burden of Proof. The saying debaters use for this burden is, “Those who assert must
prove.” Whoever wants to make a point (an assertion) must provide reasons and proof that their
point is right. Points, or assertions, are significant, outstanding, or effective ideas, arguments, or
suggestions that make up your case. Since most debaters are not experts about the topic they are
discussing, they must use sources of evidence that provide valid reasons for the audience to
believe the position they are asserting. When a debater asserts a point without providing
evidence, the other side may state the opposite (known as a counterpoint) without evidence, and
both sides will tie on that particular point. If neither side gives evidence, the point is not proved
and is considered moot, or still up for debate.
2) The Burden of Refutation. Refutation is the process of attacking and defending arguments. For
this type of burden, you could say, “Silence is admission.” This means that if you present an
argument in a debate and the other team doesn’t address it, you win that point automatically,
since by its silence the other side has admitted that you are right. The other team is not doing its
job, which is to debate your arguments. You win the argument because the other team failed its
burden of refutation. When you choose to answer each point or argument the other team
presents, you are using line-by-line refutation, because you are following your opponent’s
organization line by line in your notes and explaining to the judge why each point is wrong
(each line in your notes would be another argument). You may also answer several of the other
team’s arguments with only one or a few responses. This type of refutation is called grouping,
because you take several lines of argument in your notes and group them together for your
answers.
3) The Burden of Rejoinder. The saying for this burden is, “Answer the answer.” A good debate is
like a good table tennis match: when one team hits the ball, the other team returns it. The other
team refutes what you say. To refute means to prove something the other side said is wrong. You
then have the burden of refuting. You have to prove that the other team’s argument or response
is weak and your argument is stronger.
The better you handle the three burdens, the bigger your chances of winning the debate. When
the other team has not met its burdens, point this out to the judge. Alerting the judge to the other
team’s failure should help you win the debate.
3. The Decision
Debates may have one or more judges. Judges give a win to the team that did the better job in
that debate. They are not to consider a team’s previous record or vote for the side of the topic that
4
they support.
The judges will write their decision on a ballot and give reasons why they voted the way they
did. They will also write individual comments so each debater can improve for the next debate.
Sometimes a judge will provide an oral critique by specifically telling the debaters what she thought
about the debate.
In many debate contests or tournaments, the coaches from one team will judge the debaters
from other schools, but they cannot judge their own debaters. This is the only competitive activity in
which a coach from one team will give comments to another team on how it can improve. Education
is always the number-one goal of debate.
The ballot:
Step 3. Exercises:
1. List the goals you hope to achieve by learning to debate.
2. Start a vocabulary list. Write down in your notebook every new word you learn.
3. Read. Whether it is newspapers, periodicals, histories, biographies, philosophical works, or even
science fiction, nothing develops the mind like reading.
4. Watch. Watch the videos of English debating competition. They will help you to build your
understanding of debate and to accumulate experience.
5. Write about your favorite food/fruit/movie/book. Write three reasons why you think that food
fruit/movie/book is good. Say your arguments aloud, using three proofs or pieces of evidence.
6. Do you like traveling? State your reasons why you like it and why not, using three proofs or pieces
of evidence.
5
English Debating
Lecture Two Chapter 3 Debate format
Teaching Objectives:
On the completion of this period of course, students will be able to:
1. get familiar with the British Parliamentary format;
2. master the speakers’ role and their speeches;
1) the Prime Minister’s speech
2) the Leader of Opposition’s speech
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Teaching Steps:
I. The Teams
The British Parliamentary academic debating format is the official format of the World
Universities Debating Championships (WUDC). As the name suggests, the format has its roots in the
British House of Commons, which served as a model for academic debating in British universities.
Since its adoption by the WUDC, the format has spread around the world and is now the most widely
practiced format of intercollegiate debating.
Like other formats of academic debating, British Parliamentary (BP) debating involves four
independent teams per round that argue for or against a motion before a panel of expert adjudicators:
two who argue in favor of the motion (known as the Proposition teams) and two who argue against
the motion (known as the Opposition teams). The teams on each side in a BP round cooperate using a
very similar approach. Each of these teams is comprised of two debaters, each of whom has a unique
name in the debate. Rather than competing for a simple win or loss, each of the teams competes
against the others for a ranking at the end of the round.
Opening Proposition Team
Opening Opposition Team
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Closing Proposition Team
Closing Opposition Team
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
II. Speaker order
Each debater gives one 7-minutes speech in a BP round, beginning with the first speaker for the
Opening Proposition (the Prime Minister) and alternating between the Proposition and Opposition
until each debater has spoken.
1
Opening Proposition Team
1. PM
3. DPM
Opening Opposition Team
2. LO
4. DLO
Closing Proposition Team
5. MP
7. PW
Closing Opposition Team
6. MO
8. OW
III. Speech Timing
Each speech will be 7 minutes. Points of Information (POI) are allowed after the first minute
and before the last minute of all speeches.
Timing of the speech begins when the speaker begins speaking; all materials— including
acknowledgements, introduction, etc.— will be timed. A timekeeper will provide a series of signals
during each speech as follows:
Timing
Signal
1:00
Single ring of a bell (POIs allowed)
6:00
Single ring of a bell (POIs no longer allowed)
7:00
Double ring of a time (Conclusion of speaking time)
7:15
Continuous ringing (Conclusion of grace period)
Once the double ring has sounded, speakers have a 15-second “grace period”, during which they
should conclude their remarks. The grace period is not a time for new matter to be introduced, and
any new matter offered in the grace period may be discounted by the adjudicators. Speakers
continuing after this “grace period” may be penalized by the adjudication panel.
POI
During each speech, debaters from the opposite side may ask for the opportunity to interrupt the
speaker. Known as Points of Information (POI), these interruptions are short questions or statements
taken at the discretion of the debater holding the floor. A debater may request the opportunity to
present a POI (either verbally or by rising) from speaker on the opposite side of the motion at any
time after the first minute and before the last minute of any speech. The debater holding the floor
may accept or refuse POIs at her discretion. If accepted, the debater asking the POI has
approximately 15 seconds to make a statement or ask a question. During the POI, the speaking time
continues to run. Following the POI, the primary speaker resumes her speech and is expected to
integrate her response to the POI into her speech. Debaters are judged on their efforts (successfully
or not) to offer POIs and to respond to POIs.
IV. Speaker roles
Each speaker has a role and each speech has a specific purpose. The descriptions of speaker
roles listed below are suggestive and are not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive. For reasons that
vary from debate to debate, speakers may sometimes need to fulfill roles not mentioned here and
2
speeches may be constructed to serve other purposes as long as Proposition speakers affirm the
motion and Opposition speakers oppose it.
All speakers, except the final speakers for the Proposition and Opposition ( Proposition
Proposition Whip
and Opposition Whip), should introduce new material. All debaters should refute the opposing
teams’ arguments, except the Prime Minister.
Let’s track how a debate “This house would ban capital punishment” unfolded, to see how the
debaters fulfill their responsibilities to engage in constructing and deconstructing a motion.
1. Prime Minister (PM):
--- definition unnecessary
--- appropriately present a case supporting the motion; narrowing down is not acceptable
--- not refute the opposing teams’ arguments
--- introduce new materials
The PM’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Model: All UN members cease immediately;
convert to life sentences
1. CP1 doesn’t deter crime
A. No empirical proof
B. c/n deter crimes of passion
2. Errors irreversible
A. The system is fallible
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
2. Leader of the Opposition (LO):
--- counter PM’s case by providing substantive arguments against the motion (Rebuttal)
--- present their arguments
--- introduce new materials
3
The LO’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
model: All UN members cease immediately;
convert to life sentences
1. CP1 doesn’t deter crime
Deterrence? Cannot measure effect
A. No empirical proof
Errors? In application, not in CP itself;
fix system
Team Line: Preserve CP for crimes
against humanity
B. c/n deter crimes of passion
2. Errors irreversible
A: justice demands retribution
A. The system is fallible
1. balance depends on payment of
debt
2. Provides closure
B. Need unambiguous moral stance
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
4
English Debating
Lecture Three Chapter 3 Debate format
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Teaching Objectives:
On the completion of this period of course, students will be able to:
1. master the speakers’ role and their speeches;
1) the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech
2) the Deputy Leader of Opposition’s speech
3) the Member of the Proposition’s speech
Teaching Steps:
IV. Speaker roles:
3. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) &
4. Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO):
— refute the LO’s or the DPM’s speeches (Rebuttal)
— further develop the Opening Proposition team’s or the Opening Opposition team’s cases either by
furthering one or two points mentioned by their partner or by offering new points
— introduce new materials
— summarize the case of their half
The DPM’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
CAH? Should prohibit in all cases?
Justice? Moral authority compromised by killing citizens
1. Practical concerns prevent justice
A. No deterrence: no evidence of success
B. Errors rampant, compromise justice
C. Racist application
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
1
The DLO’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
CAH? Should prohibit in all cases?
Practical vs. Justice?
A. Justice is an ideal; strive even if not
perfect
B. System can be improved; doesn’t prove
CP unjust
Justice?? Moral authority compromised by
killing citizens
1. Practical concerns prevent justice
A. No deterrence: no evidence of success
Justice
A. Need balance & clarity
B. CP for CAH= improve the human
condition
B. Errors rampant, compromise justice
C. Racist application
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
5. Member of the Proposition (MP)
Coopertition
Coopertition implies that the closing team is simultaneously engaged in cooperation and
competition with their opening team.
Effective Extension
1) Add significant value to discussion
2) Be in the spirit of the opening team’s material
3) Memorable. Developing a singular identity is the primary concern for a closing team.
Types of Extension
1) New Line of Argument
2) In depth Real World Application
3) Complete an Argument of the Opening
4) Ask yourself: What is missing?
— rebut the LO’s or the MP’s arguments (Rebuttal)
— summarize the arguments of their opening half very briefly
— introduce an extension to support the Opening Proposition team or the Opening Opposition team
2
— introduce new materials
The MP’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
CAH? Will not be deterred
Justice? Not only about retribution; healing
1. Moral objections to CP
A. Killing is killing
B. CP dehumanizes the state
C. Complicity in crimes against humanity
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
3
English Debating
Lecture Four Chapter 3 Debate format
Teaching Objectives:
On the completion of this period of course, students will be able to:
1. master the speakers’ role and their speeches;
1) the Member of the Opposition’s speech
2) the Proposition Whip’s speech
3) the Opposition Whip’s speech
2. figure out the standards and steps of making an adjudication.
Time Allotment: 45 minutes
Teaching Steps:
IV. Speaker roles:
6. Member of the Opposition (MO):
--- rebut the LO’s or the MP’s arguments (Rebuttal)
--- summarize the arguments of their opening half very briefly
--- introduce an extension to support the Opening Proposition team or the Opening Opposition team
--- introduce new materials
The MO’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
CAH? Will not be deterred
Moral? Immoral to not provide strongest
sanction
Justice? Not only about retribution; healing
1. Moral objections to CP
Justice? Retribution, closure can be healing
A. Killing is killing
C. Complicity in crimes against humanity
Case study: Ratko Mladic (Serbia)
A. Complicity in the massacre at Srebrenica
in 1995
B. Indictment by Int. crim. Trib. For
Yugoslavia
C. Mladic still at large, evaded capture and
trial
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
B. CP dehumanizes the state
7. Proposition Whip (PW) &
8. Opposition Whip (OW):
--- rebut the MO’s or the PW’s arguments by summarizing the main issues of the clash between the
1
Proposition side and the Opposition side (Rebuttal)
--- summarize the arguments of the Proposition side or the Opposition side
--- no longer new materials
The PW’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
1. Nature of justice: need moral authority
2. Practical failings
A. No deterrence
B. Errors and racism
3. Moral failings
A. Dehumanizing and complicity
B. Cannot object to what you embrace
The OW’s speech in the capital punishment debate
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Leader Opposition
Member of the Proposition
Member of the Opposition
Proposition Whip
Opposition Whip
1. Nature of justice: need moral authority
1. What is justice?
2. Practical failings
A. balance and closure
A. No deterrence
B. imperative beyond deterrence
B. Errors and racism
2. Can CP be administered fairly?
3. Moral failings
3. Do some crimes warrant death?
A. Dehumanizing and complicity
A. generally: CAH shock the conscious
B. Cannot object to what you embrace
B. specifically: Mladic
V. Adjudication
1. Standards of Adjudication;
2
1) Role fulfillment
Opening Prop.: clear case & rebuttal
Opening Oppo.: clear line & rebuttal
Member Speakers: extension
Whip Speakers: holistic summary
2) Matter and manner
Matter:
--- Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and
persuade the audience.
--- Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that
attempts to further the case.
--- Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to
refute the arguments of the opposing teams). Matter includes POIs.
Manner:
--- Manner refers to the strategy and presentation of a team’s arguments.
--- Manner includes elements such as argument choice, speech structure, vocal and physical delivery,
use of POIs, and so forth.
--- Manner should enhance the team’s effort to prove the motion and should be compelling.
2. Steps of Reaching a Decision:
1) identify the proposition;
2) identify the issues;
3) determine the winner of each issue;
4) determine the importance of each issue;
5) assess each team’s efforts relative to the issues;
6) report the decision.
3. Panel Adjudication
• Achieving consensus
– led to consensus by the Chair
– report decisions first by Wing Judges
– achieve consensus on rankings and then assign points for each speaker
– Isolate the difficult decision
• Bench win?
• Top or bottom half debate?
• Agree on First? Fourth?
• Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd?
4. Assigning points
• Scale
– 1-100; 75 average
– Functional range: 60 – 90
• Determining Points
– Points are based on consensus
3
– Start with agreement on highest or lowest for best or worst speaker
– Individual points totaled for team points
– No low-point wins
–
Points
Meaning
90-100
Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech you would expect to see
from a speaker at the Grand Final level of the tournament. This
speaker has many strengths and few, if any, weaknesses.
80-89
Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see
from a speaker at the semi finals level or in contention to make to the
finals. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.
70-79
Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly
equal proportions.
60-69
Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor
strengths.
50-59
Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any,
strengths.
VI. Debating exercise
China should ban smoking.
4
Exercise
1. List the goals you hope to achieve by learning to debate.
2. Start a vocabulary list. Write down in your notebook every new word you learn.
3. Read. Whether it is newspapers, periodicals, histories, biographies, philosophical
works, or even science fiction, nothing develops the mind like reading.
4. Watch. Watch the videos of English debating competition. They will help you to
build your understanding of debate and to accumulate experience.
5. Write about your favorite food/fruit/movie/book. Write three reasons why you think
that food fruit/movie/book is good. Say your arguments aloud, using three proofs or
pieces of evidence.
6. Do you like traveling? State your reasons why you like it and why not, using three
proofs or pieces of evidence.
7. Debating exercise: China should ban smoking.
(答案见下页)
1
1. List the goals you hope to achieve by learning to debate.
(Possible answer: to improve critical thinking ability, to be a good debater, to be a
good listener and speaker, to enhance organizing skills, to develop all-round
understanding on issues…)
2. Start a vocabulary list. Write down in your notebook every new word you learn.
(Possible answer: motion, opposition, affirmative, proposition …)
3. Read. Whether it is newspapers, periodicals, histories, biographies, philosophical
works, or even science fiction, nothing develops the mind like reading.
(Materials Recommended: 21st Century, China Today, China daily, Economist, 外研社
斑斓阅读系列…)
4. Watch. Watch the videos of English debating competition. They will help you to
build your understanding of debate and to accumulate experience.
(Material Recommended: FLTRP cup English Debating Competition…)
5. Write about your favorite food/fruit/movie/book. Write three reasons why you think
that food fruit/movie/book is good. Say your arguments aloud, using three proofs or
pieces of evidence.
(Example: I like eating apple, because it is rich in nutrition, good in taste, and helpful
for health.)
6. Do you like traveling? State your reasons why you like it and why not, using three
proofs or pieces of evidence.
(Example: I like traveling. By traveling in different places, I can enjoy different
scenery, experience different customs, meet various people.)
7. Debating exercise: China should ban smoking.
(Hint: The issues that you’re going to argue are presented in the following picture )
2