__________________________________________________________
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES-BAGUIO
DEBATE SOCIETY
MODULE OUTLINE
I.
II.
III.
IV.
INTRODUCTION: WHY GET INTO DEBATING?
DEBATE FORMATS
A. ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY
B. BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATE MOTIONS
A. OPEN
B. SEMI-CLOSED/SEMI-OPEN
C. CLOSED
DEBATE TYPES
A. VALUE-JUDGMENT
B. POLICY
V.
SPEAKER ROLES
A. PRIME MINISTER
B. LEADER OF OPPOSITION
C. DEPUTIES
D. MEMBERS
E. WHIPS
F. REPLY SPEAKERS
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
POINTS OF INFORMATION
ARGUMENTATION AND SUBSTANTIATION
REBUTTALS
ADJUDICATION
_________________________________________________________
Basics
I. WHY GET INTO DEBATING IN THE FIRST PLACE?
1. Debate helps you think critically. When you debate, you don’t
rely on opinions. You ground points on arguments that are well
thought out and logically sound. This necessarily means a debater
thinks critically about issues, goes beyond surface analysis, and
roots out what is normally ignored. Of course, this comes with
training, so don’t give up if you weren’t able to weed out the
important points in your first debate.
2. Debate fosters issue awareness. The one thing debaters should
do, but are either too lazy or too confident to actually do, is
matter load, i.e. read up on both current events and recurrent
issues. When done rigorously, though, you not only enter debates
with the proper weapons, but are made aware of what goes on in
the world. Knowing the details of issues enables you to make
informed judgments of how these issues should be tackled.
3. Debate cultivates balance and fairness. Again, opinions don’t
matter in debate. You set them aside and open your mind to both
sides of an issue. That way, you arrive at a whole picture instead
of a half-baked judgment. Remember, you don’t get to be on one
side of a debate forever, so be open to debating both sides of an
issue.
4. Debate boosts self-confidence. There’s nothing like the feeling
of demolishing an opponent’s case with a well-phrased rebuttal,
standing behind a podium (or maybe in front of it) like you own
it, and speaking to the adjudicator like you’re the expert. Debate
is an exhilarating activity where the shy get to come out of their
shell and express themselves.
5. Debate is plain good fun! Bonding moments with fellow
debaters, memorable training wins (and losses), and other
unforgettable experiences make debate worthwhile.
__________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
1
__________________________________________________________
II. DEBATE FORMATS
There are several different formats for debate practiced in high school and
college debate leagues. Most of these formats share some general features.
Specifically, any debate will have two sides: a Government side and an
Opposition side. The job of the Government side is to advocate the
adoption of the motion, while the job of the Opposition side is to refute
the motion.
In recent years, parliamentary-style debates, patterned from actual
proceedings in Parliaments of different countries, have replaced the
monotonous and less dynamic Oregon-Oxford and Cross Examination
formats. Parliamentary debates (Asian and British Parliamentary formats)
are more dynamic, since speakers are only given minutes to prepare
speeches, as opposed to days in other formats.
A. Asian Parliamentary Debates
GOVERNMENT:
PRIME MINISTER
(7MINS, W/ POIs)
DEPUTY P.M.
(7MINS , W/ POIs)
GOVERNMENT WHIP
(7MINS , W/ POIs)
GOVERNMENT REPLY
(4MINS; PM OR DPM
ONLY; NO POIs)
OPPOSITION:
LEADER OF OPPOSITION
(7MINS , W/ POIs)
DEPUTY L.O.
(7MINS , W/ POIs)
OPPOSITION WHIP
(7MINS, W/POIs)
OPPOSITION REPLY
(4MINS; LO OR DLO
ONLY; NO POIs)
B. British Parliamentary Debates
OPENING GOVERNMENT:
PRIME MINISTER
DEPUTY P.M.
OPENING OPPOSITION:
LEADER OF OPPOSITION
DEPUTY L.O.
CLOSING GOVERNMENT:
GOVERNMENT MEMBER
GOVERNMENT WHIP
CLOSING OPPOSITION:
OPPOSITION MEMBER
OPPOSITION WHIP
*POIs ARE ALLOWED IN ALL THE SPEECHES, SEVEN
MINUTES FOR ALL SPEECHES.
III. MOTIONS
The topic for debate, which the affirmative side is supposed to defend, is
known as a motion. In parliamentary debates, motions are usually termed
as:
THBT (This House believes that)… (Ex. THBT animals have
rights), or
THW (This House would)… (Ex. THW legalize jueteng in the
Philippines)
There are many ways in which a motion can be termed. Some motions are
explicit in what they want debaters to debate about, while some need
interpretation. The distinctions between these two ends of the motion
spectrum give rise to what are called open, semi-closed, and closed
motions.
A. Open motions are motions that do not imply a relevant issue in
themselves and need definitions to sort out its vagueness.
“THBT the grass is greener on the other side”
2
is a perfect example of an open motion. Here, the Prime Minister,
who is tasked to define a motion for everyone in the debate,
should define what is meant by “the grass,” “greener,” and “the
other side.” This could very well be a debate about job
opportunities (the grass) being more fruitful (greener) abroad (the
other side) as opposed to remaining in our country to work.
Open motions really depend on what interpretations are made of
open motions. They are rarely given out in debate competitions
simply because the negative is at disadvantage, not knowing how
the affirmative side will define the motion.
B. Semi-closed (or semi-open) motions narrow down some details
of what is to be debated upon, but leave room for the Prime
Minister’s discretion to define. For instance,
“THW legalize prostitution”
is a semi-closed/semi-open motion. Although there is a need to
define where and how prostitution is to be legalized, it is clear
from the motion’s wording that the debate will be about
prostitution (as opposed to other issues).
B. On the other hand, value-judgment debates are assessments of
certain ideas or phenomena, whether something has done good or
bad, been beneficial or harmful, useful or not. Such motions are
usually termed using “THBT,” since such motions call for an
evaluation of certain things going on in status quo. Motions that
call for celebration or regret of something also call for valuejudgment debates.
More often than not, however, policy and value judgment aren’t necessarily
two opposite poles. Sometimes, you can’t judge the effectiveness of a
policy without looking at the merits or demerits of status quo. A valuejudgment debate may also call for a mechanism by which we can determine
if a phenomenon is good or bad. We see, then, that policy and value
judgment are ends of a continuum, and most debates lie in between these
two ends.
Case in point: Suppose you are faced with the motion “THW lay down the
death penalty on drug traffickers.”
Taking on a policy point of view, you would want capital punishment
executed on all drug traffickers caught by authorities.
C. Closed motions are the most self-explanatory of the three. When
faced with a closed motion, there is no doubt as to what is to be
debated upon and in what context it is to be tackled.
But you might think this motion calls for a value judgment with regards
killing drug traffickers as a deterrent to crime. You have a blend of policy
and value judgment here.
“THW create a separate sports league for homosexuals in the
United States” is an example of a closed motion.
Conversely, the motion “TH regrets US military presence in Iraq” may be
merely a value judgment as to how Iraq has benefited or been harmed by
the US invasion.
IV. POLICY VS. VALUE-JUDGMENT DEBATES
A. A policy debate usually ensues when a motion calls for a solution
to a problem, through a policy. The object of this type of debate is
answer whether or not the proposed policy solves the problem.
Usually, motions that begin with “THW” are policy debates, since
the motion calls for a plan of action.
However, you might want to specify “regret” as a definitive action, say,
driving out US soldiers from Iraq. Once again, policy and value judgment
are not mutually exclusive.
The point: know when a debate should focus on policy or value judgment,
or when interplay of both is appropriate.
3
V. SPEAKER ROLES
A. Prime Minister
It is the duty of the Prime Minister (PM) to provide a definition that clearly
captures the spirit of the motion. In addition to defining the motion, the
PM should make sure that he/she also has arguments to back up his/her
bench’s/side’s/team’s case.
In defining a motion, the affirmative side is usually tasked to capture what
is called the spirit of the motion. The spirit of the motion is what the
debate calls for with regards the motion, what relevant issue is most
evident and thus, what issue is most expected to be the topic of debate. In
capturing this essence, the affirmative side should ideally avoid straying
into topics not in line with the spirit of the motion.
Now, just because the affirmative side has the power to determine the
direction of the debate doesn’t mean it can define a motion any which way.
The affirmative side must provide a fair and debatable motion that has a
direct link to the motion (i.e. captures the spirit of the motion). Some nono’s in defining a motion are:
1. Truisms – Defining a motion as something already taken to be
true. For instance, the motion “THBT tomorrow is a new day,”
defined as the rising and setting of the sun as a basis for a new
day, is truistic. The negative side cannot claim that the
phenomenon of the sun isn’t a basis for a new day. Thus, there is
no room for debate.
2. Squirrels – Ever notice how squirrels scamper away from the
center of action? Squirreling, in debate, is likewise running away,
but from the spirit of the motion. Defining the motion “THW
legalize prostitution” as having to do with political prostitution,
wherein a candidate “sells him/herself” to the most viable political
party, is a squirreled definition. Obviously, this metaphorical
definition of prostitution is not what the motion calls for; a more
pressing issue, namely the sex trade, is what the debate requires.
3. Time/place sets – Placing the debate in unfair chronological or
geographical contexts is also bad, for two reasons: either no issue
exists in those contexts, or else the affirmative side has a
monopoly of matter on those instances. The motion “THBT
journalists should be armed” placed in the context of Brazil is a
place set, since no pressing issue of attacks on journalists is
present in Brazil.
Likewise, placing the context of the same motion during the
Martial Law years in the Philippines is a time set because past is
past; there is nothing to be gained by debating about something
that already happened. Make sure the context of the debate is fair
for both sides.
SETTING UP A VALUE-JUDGMENT DEBATE
1
BACKGROUNDER
a. DEFINITION
b. PARAMETER
Determine the background of the issue you are going to debate
upon. This can be done by stating the motion and saying why
there is this issue in the first place. This will help the adjudicators a
lot in understanding where the whole debate is directed to.
Second, this can already include the definition of key terms in the
motion, terms like legalize, celebrate, criminalize, etc. The
parameter or the context as to where the debate is going to
happen can already be established here.
2
PROBLEM
Because the background serves as the account of past/present
situations (i.e., what happens in status quo), the problem is about
what’s wrong with status quo. Debates happen because there are
existing problems to be addressed and clearly stating a wellpainted problem in every debate would offer a cause for changes.
3
STANDARDS
Next, to further streamline the debate, standards should be clearly
stated. The standards serve as measuring sticks of the debates.
4
They measure the effectiveness and validity of the arguments and
they measure whether or not a side is achieving their goal.
Standards are sometimes in the form of questions
(general/specific phrasing of questions to be answered by teams in
a debate), sometimes just clear statements like justification, social
implications, etc. This is one of the most important contents of a
set-up; it will be helpful not only to the adjudicator but equally to
your side to include them every time you will do the set – up.
4
ARGUMENTS
SETTING UP A POLICY DEBATE
BACKGROUNDER
a. DEFINITION
b. PARAMETER
Determine the background of the issue you are going to debate
upon. This can be done by stating the motion and saying why
there is this issue in the first place. This will help the adjudicators a
lot in understanding where the whole debate is directed to.
Second, this can already include the definition of key terms in the
motion, terms like legalize, celebrate, criminalize, etc. The
parameter or the context as to where the debate is going to
happen can already be established here.
2
PROBLEM
Because the background serves as the account of past/present
situations (i.e., what happens in status quo), the problem is about
what’s wrong with status quo. Debates happen because there are
existing problems to be addressed and clearly stating a wellpainted problem in every debate would offer a cause for changes.
3
STANDARDS
Next, to further streamline the debate, standards should be clearly
stated. The standards serve as measuring sticks of the debates.
They measure the effectiveness and validity of the arguments and
they measure whether or not a side is achieving their goal.
Standards are sometimes in the form of questions
(general/specific phrasing of questions to be answered by teams in
a debate), sometimes just clear statements like justification, social
implications, etc. This is one of the most important contents of a
set-up; it will be helpful not only to the adjudicator but equally to
your side to include them every time you will do the set – up.
4
POLICY
Then a policy and its concrete mechanisms should be clearly
stated (this is only for policy debates) in order to establish the
feasibility of the policy. To do this, first you have to determine the
problem in status quo, and then state the specific mechanisms of
your policy. Use the rule on what, who, when, and where in stating
HOW your policy solves the problem being addressed.
5
ARGUMENTS
The set-up should take a debater at most 3 minutes. This is in order for the
PM to still have room for arguments. The set-up is one of the
fundamentals of the debate, but the constructive contributions of the PM
are the ones that will most matter at the end of the debate. One of which is
the justification of a certain policy and why this is the best solution there is.
Set-ups can prove to be advantageous to those who can do them
efficiently. The only way to do that is to practice doing them. Also, a lot of
adjudicators give premium to speaker roles, this means that a significant
part of the merits given to the PM will come from the set-up. A lousy setup makes the whole debate a messy one, not only that, it can make a
Government team lose a debate.
B. Leader of the Opposition
It is the role of the Leader of the Opposition to provide the clash to the
Government’s case and provide arguments supporting his/her side’s case.
In addition, he/she is expected to rebut some points raised by the Prime
Minister. In cases when the Prime Minister presents a questionable
definition, it is also the duty of the LO to challenge the definition.
5
1
CLASH
A. STATUS QUO
B. COUNTER-PROPOSAL
2
GROUNDS FOR CLASH
A. STATUS QUO: BETTER OR EFFECTIVE
B. STATUS QUO: SELF-CORRECTING
C. COUNTER-PROPOSAL
3
4
REBUTTALS
ARGUMENTS
WHAT TO DO WITH A “QUESTIONABLE” DEFINITION,
A.K.A. TIPS ON DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES
As Opposition team, debaters have to be dynamic enough to answer to
Government side’s definition of the motion. This means being ready to
scrap your prepared case (scrap prep) if Government presents an
unexpected but viable definition. But what do you do when Government
offers you one of those unfair definitions discussed earlier (truisms,
squirrels, and time and place sets)? Let’s do an overview of each one first.
Truisms, by definition, are already accepted as truth. Therefore, there is
no point in debating one (try opposing the fact that the sun rises in the
east!). Squirrels are harder to detect, but look out for them when
Government strays from the spirit of the motion. An example is the
motion “This house will legalize prostitution” defined as political partyswitching instead of sex trade. Time and place sets bring the debate to
unfair contexts where issues are nonexistent or one-sided. An obvious
example is debating on an event in your high school history textbook,
which is over and done with, but there can be more subtle examples of
time and place sets.
IF AND ONLY IF DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES ARE
NECESSARY, here’s what to do as Opposition, specifically as the Leader
of the Opposition (the only speaker in every debate—whatever the
format—LICENSED to challenge the definition):
 EXPLICITLY STATE THAT YOU ARE CHALLENGING
THE DEFINITION.
 STATE THE GROUND/S FOR THE CHALLENGE
(TRUISM, SQUIRREL, ETC...)
 PROVIDE THE “RIGHT/CORRECT/SUPPOSEDLY
FAIR” DEFINITION.
 NEGATE THE DEFINITION YOU HAVE JUST
PROVIDED—PROVIDE THE CLASH FOR THE
DEFINITION YOU INTRODUCED AS YOU ARE STILL
THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.
Only the Leader of the Opposition is allowed to challenge the definition. If
he/she doesn’t challenge, NO ONE else in the debate may do so. In Brit
Parl, the Closing teams may choose which definition to support but closing
teams are not allowed to challenge the definition anymore. That’s why
definitional challenges are not advised, even if the Prime Minister’s
definition is a bit flawed.
A rule of thumb is that if you can debate the definition, don’t challenge it.
You would just cause confusion…and you just might impress the
adjudicators with your dynamism.
So here’s a disclaimer for Leader of the Opposition ready to challenge:
proceed with caution. Know what you’re doing and why. An empty
challenge is the last thing adjudicators want to hear. \
C. Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Leader of the
Opposition
It is the duty of each side’s second speakers to further develop their
respective side’s case. They are expected, as other speakers are, to rebut
points from the opposing side and rebuild their own side’s case if
necessary. Furthermore, they should provide arguments that are distinct
from those of their respective side’s first speakers.
DEPUTY P. M.
DEPUTY L. O
1 reiterate/clarify the stance
2 rebuttals
3 rebuild
4 delineate arguments from teammate
5 arguments
6
D. Member of the Government and Member of the
Opposition
In British Parliamentary debates, the members of both Closing
Government and Closing Opposition provide what is called an
EXTENSION. That is, each of the closing teams should forward a fresh
case defending their respective side or tackle the debate from a perspective
different from that of their opening teams. Of course, since their
teammates are whips, who are rebuttal speakers, members are tasked to
provide the constructive matter on these new perspectives.
•
1
2
3
•
1
2
3
MEMBER OF GOV’T
summarize OO’s case and rebut
delineate from opening teams and
arguments/contributions (extension)
arguments/contributions
MEMBER OF OPP
summarize CG’s case and rebut
delineate from opening teams and
arguments/contributions (extension)
arguments/contributions
introduce
own
GOV’T WHIP
&
OPP WHIP
“THEY SAY.........WE SAY.........WHY WE’RE BETTER”
-ENUMERATES CONCESSIONS (AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
BOTH SIDES, ACCEPTED POINTS BY BOTH TEAMS)
-IDENTIFIES ISSUES (CONTESTATIONS, POINTS WHERE BOTH
SIDES HAD SOMETHING TO SAY IN DISAGREEMENT WITH
EACH OTHER)
-DISCUSSES ISSUES TO THEIR TEAM’S ADVANTAGE (WHY
ISSUES ARE TO BE CREDITED TO THEIR TEAM’S CASE)
-ANSWERS THE QUESTION “WHY SHOULD WE WIN THIS
DEBATE” WITH THE ISSUES AS THE MAIN GUIDE AND FOCUS
TO ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
F. Reply Speakers
introduce
own
E. Government Whip and Opposition Whip
It is the duty of the bench whip to provide a 7-minute SYNTHESIS of the
issues discussed in the debate. The speech must not be constructive, as
whips are the last speakers in the debate and cannot be rebutted. In their
speeches whips should discuss how their respective sides addressed each
issue and how their side wins on those issues. This does not mean,
however, that they can just repeat what their teammates have already said;
they should also provide new analyses of the issues that were brought up in
the debate.
In Asian Parliamentary debates, reply speeches can be given only by either
the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister for the Government
bench, and the Leader of the Opposition or by the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition for the Opposition bench. Reply speeches are given for four
minutes, within which the speaker must give a biased adjudication for their
particular bench.
-REPLY SPEECHES FOCUS ON SUBSTANTIAL TEAM
CONTRIBUTIONS VIS-A-VIS TECHNICALITIES:
•
WHICH SIDE HAD MORE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE
DEBATE? MORE CONSISTENT AND SUBSTANTIATED?
•
WHICH
SIDE
HAD
MORE
RELEVANT
ARGUMENTATION AND STRONGER REBUTTALS?
• WHICH SIDE BETTER FULFILLED THEIR REASONABLE
BURDENS AND SPEAKER ROLES?
__________________________________________________________
7
VI. POINTS OF INFORMATION
POIs ARE TO BE RAISED ONLY AFTER THE FIRST MINUTE OF
THE SPEECH UP TO THE 6TH MINUTE.THE FIRST AND LAST
MINUTES OF EACH SPEECH ARE PROTECTED TO ALLOW THE
SPEAKER TO START AND WRAP UP THE SPEECH
UNINTERRUPTED. ONE CLAP AFTER THE FIRST MINUTE OF
THE SPEECH MEANS THAT POIs CAN ALREADY BE RAISED
AND ANOTHER CLAP AT THE 6TH MINUTE WILL SIGNAL THE
END OF POI-RAISING AND TAKING.
POIs ARE RAISED FOR PURPOSES OF STRATEGIC
QUESTIONING AND NECESSARY CLARIFYING. POIs ARE NOT
FOR BADGERING, HECKLING, AND PESTERING. RESPECT
FOR THE SPEAKER TO WHOM THE POI IS ADDRESSED
SHOULD STILL BE THE PRIMARY RULE.
AS THE SPEAKER TO WHOM THE POI IS ADDRESSED, ON THE
OTHER HAND, YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE AT LEAST
1-2 POIs. DYNAMISM AND FLEXIBILITY OF SPEAKERS CAN BE
SEEN THROUGH THE POIs THEY RAISE OR RESPOND TO.
PROVE YOUR DYNAMISM AND FLEXIBILITY BY ACCEPTING
POIs AND ANSWERING THEM WITH CONSIDERABLE DEGREE
OF RESPECT.
VII.
ARGUMENTATION AND SUBSTANTIATION
The most important skill that a debater should acquire is the skill to argue.
Although there are a lot of styles in arguing, the structure of an argument is
almost the same. It follows a simple pattern of logically linking the
premises to a conclusion. It takes a lot of practice and debate experiences
to acquire the skill. Here are some of the basics of argumentation for
beginners.
The first thing that we have to understand in arguing is that it is done in
order to persuade.
Before we can delve deeper into the details of argumentation, we first have
to look at what a case is or elements that more often precede the
argument/s. A case is the stand of a team in a debate. It is the basic point
or angle of attack of a specific team. For the Government of course, the
case is always a defense of the motion at hand, and for the Opposition, to
oppose. In order to even have a case, it is fundamental that we understand
the spirit of the motion and what it is calling for, especially the context
where it lies and the proper venue where it is supposed to be debated
upon.
After that, a side should make the case or theme or team line, a point of
attack where all the arguments are hinged upon. It is sort of the general
notion or idea of why a team supports a given side of the issue may it be
the affirmative or the negative.
Next is determining the standards that measure the debate, this is a bit
tricky for the Opposition because the Government has the privilege of
choosing the standards, but it is enough to have a some sort of foresight of
what the debate will be about. General ideas that can be derived from the
motion give usable hints. For example, debates about curfews mostly talk
about security, this can be a very good standard of a debate, and a side
should take this standard into consideration in making their arguments.
Next is the more specific part of determining exactly the arguments that
each of the speakers in your team is going to talk about. The usual number
of well analyzed arguments is around 2-3. With four or five arguments, it is
doubtful that all can be well explained in a span of 7 minutes. So if you
have 2 constructive speakers, maximum of three WELL-ANALYZED
AND DEVELOPED arguments would suffice.
First, let’s look at the label; the Tag or label or banner is a one
sentence/phrase that catches the whole of the argument in a nutshell (title
of the argument). For example, an argument for curfews can have this tag
“curfews provide a higher degree of security”.
Now the next step do is to explain how and why this will happen. This is
where the analysis part comes in. The bulk of the argument is found here.
In this part, the debater has to answer 3 fundamental questions. The how
and why, which will guide the audience through the logic of your
argument. The so what will lead the premises to conclusions in a logical
manner. How and why can sometimes be answered at the same time (as
they are interchangeable), often times they have to be treated as different
questions. And the question of so what is the tie back of the argument.
8
This means that you have to tell the importance of this argument to your
whole case. If you don’t do this, the argument will float in the air and will
not be given full merit.
Last is the example part of the analysis, it is not mandatory to have
examples, but if you can find a very good example of your argument, this
will strengthen it a lot. Qualification by example implies that in reality, your
analysis applies. The error commonly done by beginners is that they argue
by example, they think that examples can justify their claim. This is one
fundamental mistake.
At the end of a speech, it is also advised to summarize what the speaker
talked about. This is again for purposes of clarity and in order to refresh
the mind of the adjudicator of what the debater said in 7 minutes.
ARGUMENTATION:
1. LABEL OF THE ARGUMENT (TAG, TITLE, CATCH
PHRASE)
2. GIVING THE PREMISES OF THE ARGUMENT:
HOW AND WHY?
3. CONCLUDING THE ARGUMENT: SO WHAT?
4. QUALIFYING BY EXAMPLE.
•
•
•
•
•
WHAT (ARGUMENT LABEL/TAG/CATCH
PHRASE/TITLE)
HOW (PREMISES OF THE
ARGUMENT AND ARE
WHY
INTERCHANGEABLE WITH
EACH OTHER)
SO WHAT (TIE BACK/ CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION)
QUALIFICATION BY EXAMPLE
OR
EXAMPLE OF AN ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION “THIS HOUSE
WILL IMPOSE CURFEWS ON MINORS”:
1. LABEL: Curfews provide a higher degree of security
2. A. HOW: since there will be a curfew at around 11 pm in the
evening, people will be expected to be home already during that
time, otherwise they are going to be detained if caught still outside.
B. WHY: most crimes happen during this time of the night. The
absence of people will prevent them from being exposed to such
dangers.
3. SO WHAT: the importance of this argument is that it proves that
the security measure in the form of curfew becomes a way of
prevention for potential crimes that happen at night. This justifies the
policy and supports the principle behind it.
4. PROVIDE EXAMPLE.
Of course this is just a simple argument, in real debates, the analysis are
deeper and more persuading. The strength of an argument lies in the
logical linking of the premises to the conclusions. It is not enough to just
state the label and assume that the adjudicator will have the common sense
of asking and answering the how and why part of the question. This is
one of the most common mistakes of a beginner; this is also the reason
why they are always under timed.
VIII.
REBUTTALS
Rebuttals basically require you to do two things: 1. Attack your opponents’
case and 2. Uplift your own. How exactly do you go about doing this?
After hearing the previous speaker’s speech, you’re probably wondering
about the validity of their facts and the essentials of their argument. In the
course of their speech, have they mentioned any erroneous fact? For
example, if they incidentally mentioned that the Philippines allowed gay
marriage at any point in our country’s history, then it would best if you
quickly pointed out that this supposed detail is false. That would put a
rather large blow towards their case, especially if it was integral to their line
of argumentation (i.e. definition, parameters)
The next possible line of attack would be aimed towards their flow of
logic. Has the previous speaker proven anything at all? Does their
argumentation bear any trace of logic? We actually go back to the basics of
argumentation. Were there any how’s and why’s in their speech that would
helped in proving their case? If there was an obvious or not so obvious
lack, then be sure to promptly point this out. For example, if any speaker
were to argue that we must legalize prostitution because it has already
9
become rampant, there would be something clearly lacking in their claim.
First we have to question how they came about in their assertion. Next,
question the point in their assertion. So what if it’s rampant? Does it
necessarily mean that it is good or to be legalized (or bad, for that matter)?
Another possible attack to their argumentation would be to question their
point of attack. In their analysis of the motion, were their arguments in any
way assumptions, hypothetical, or in any way leading towards their actual
conclusion? If they were, then be sure to point this out but, be sure to
reinforce your allegations with good logic. For example, if they declare that
crime rate is solely determined by a lack of education, you may choose to
refute their claims by saying that poverty stands as a very salient reason for
the proliferation of crime—and not necessarily lack of education.
After attacking their case, you would want to proceed to an assessment of
their arguments and yours. The establishment of your case requires you to
do two things. First, reassert your case by stressing that your arguments are
stronger than theirs. Then stress that your arguments are much more
relevant to the issue at hand and would better solve the supposed problem.
In stressing the strength of your case, you may utilize a wide variety of
methods. You may utilize a cost-benefit model to either assert that your
paradigm has far more benefits than theirs or contend that your benefits
far outweigh the cost whereas their case has some troubling lack of safety
nets for any possible ensuing cost. Or you may go about it once more by
stressing the importance of your arguments and downsizing theirs.
Okay, suppose that both teams had effectively delivered a perfectly logical
assessment of the motion at hand. It is your task to direct the adjudicators’
attention to the aspects of the issue where you case bears more weight and
benefits, and of course, negate the opponent’s case (by possibly throwing
negative matter their way).
The next level of assessment must take note the issue of relevance. Is their
premise in any way relevant to the issue at hand? The issue of relevance is
very much important in determining the victor in any debate. At the onset
of their proposal, you must immediately ask yourself, “Is their proposal in
any way addressing the real issue at hand?” There are some debaters who
choose to pattern motions into specific experiences that they may have had
in the past. If ever they have done so, it is your team’s task to point out
whether their proposal is at all relevant to the problem, issues, and
conclusions that may be generated in the course of debate.
For example, if the motion set was “THW sacrifice the environment for
urbanization,” there are several essential questions that must be initially
asked: How did the Government define and delineate the concept of
environment and urbanization? By the set definition, would the proposal
entail the sacrifice as a prerequisite? Are there better alternatives in
addressing the problem?
To stress the importance of relevance, if the above motion was tackled as
“slash forestry in order to relocate slum dwellers in deforested areas”, there
are some needed questions of relevance. Is the problem of loss of space
the main problem? Why do the slum dwellers choose urban migration in
the first place? Is there an issue of urgency? If in the course of your
analysis you happened to come across the fact that slum dwellers chose to
relocate for purposes of livelihood, then you’ve necessarily displaced the
solution of the Government because it did not address the problem headon.
If in the end both teams had good premises, logic, and conclusions, then
you have to once again stress that your points are ultimately better. You
may choose to address issues of longevity, extensiveness, effectiveness, etc.
In the end, rebuttals are not enough. Constructive cases and positive
matter in the form of arguments are still the foundations
of every winning debate team.
-ATTACK THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT
(NOT BECAUSE WE WILL REINSTITUTE THE DEATH
PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES DOES IT MEAN THAT
CRIME RATES WILL SUDDENLY GO DOWN)
-ATTACK THE FACTUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT
(THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CORRELATION BETWEEN
POLL
AUTOMATION
AND
CORRUPTION-FREE
ELECTIONS)
10
-ATTACK THE RELEVANCE OF THEIR ARGUMENT
(IS THE ARGUMENT THAT “ERAP IS A CHARISMATIC
FILIPINO LEADER” RELEVANT IN A DEBATE THAT
ASSESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HIS REELECTION?)
THE REBUTTAL CASE
One of the things that we should be careful about if we are the Opposition
is the tendency to make a rebuttal case. A rebuttal case is a case full of
negative matter without making any contribution/solution to a problem or
to the discussion of the issue at hand.
For one, a rebuttal case (especially in policy debates) is an unfair point of
attack, because all the Opposition does is to say that the policy or the
solution of the Government is wrong. The worse part is that the
Opposition doesn’t offer any counter policy to solve a problem that exists
in status quo. Second it is unfair because it makes the job of the
Opposition relatively easier compared to the Government since the
Government had to devise a policy to solve a problem and all the
Opposition did is say that the policy is ineffective, leaving the problem
unsolved.
The way out of this is to limit the rebuttals in the rebuttal part of the
speech. Always think about an alternative answer for a problem in policy
debates, or an alternative perspective in value judgment debates. This will
be considered as your positive matter and your contribution to the
development of the debate. This way, you are not just saying that the
policy of the Government is wrong, at the same time you are also
proposing an answer to the problem as well.
TAKING THE ADJUDICATOR INTO ACCOUNT
In a parliamentary form of debating, the person/s we have to persuade
above all is/are the adjudicator/s. The essential thing to remember is that,
the adjudicator plays the role of an average reasonable person.
Simply put, he/she is a “reasonably average” person who:
1. IS WELL-VERSED WITH THE RULES OF DEBATE (AS
S/HE CAN RECOGNIZE AND APPLY THE RULES
HER/HIMSELF) AND
2. MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE ON THE
MATTER/MOTION AT HAND BUT CAN DECIDE ON
MATTERS THAT ARE OF RELEVANCE TO THE DEBATE
BY VIRTUE OF SENSE AND LOGIC. “LITTLE OR NO
KNOWLEDGE” PRESUPPOSES THAT AN ADJ HAS NO
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IN A SPECIAL FIELD. Ergo,
the PRIMARY AND MOST IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE
DEBATER is to then guide the “average reasonable person” in
the logic of the case.
The adjudicator is the authority in debate. He/she is to be addressed as
“Mr. Chair” or “Madam Chair” by debaters. Among the adjudicator’s
duties are determining the winner of the debate; giving the adjudication or
justification by highlighting strong points of the affirmative/negative
through issue-based analysis; give constructive criticisms for the debaters’
improvements in succeeding rounds.
Each person in the debate should observe proper decorum expected of
people in ParliamenT.
Mind you, debating is not all about persuading the masses to believe what
you want them to believe. What you intentionally need to do is make the
adjudicators believe that your case is plausible, logical, and that it stands.
Adjudicators are average, reasonable people who MAY HAVE LITTLE
OR NO knowledge about the issue but can completely understand logic
and are experts of the rules of the debate.
How are most debates judged?
There is no hard and fast rule as to how to judge a debate. But usually it
boils down to substantiation, structure, standards, speaker role
11
fulfillment, contribution, analysis and then some. Technically this can
all be classified to the manner, matter and method. And yes, there is no
easier and faster way to accomplish all of these than in training and
constant practice.
It is important that an argument or an issue is thoroughly discussed before
an adj (adjudicator) so that s/he can fairly judge what has been discussed.
As discussed in earlier sections on how to substantiate, it is important to
discuss the how, why, so what’s of an issue. Only when you do so can the
adjudicator get your point. It is important that the adjudicator thoroughly
gets what you are trying to say, so one has to substantiate really well. For
an argument to be considered “well substantiated,” it has to have a good
label, analysis and probably some examples. A good label may add some
oomph to an argument. The adjudicator usually takes note of the label/point
of the argument. And a good label makes the adj remember the argument.
But it does not stop there. A good label to an argument will not stand on
its own. You have to substantiate it with the how, why so what’s.
supposed to fill, not only will it make the debate a good debate if and when
the roles are sufficiently accomplished, but also it is really what is expected.
As discussed earlier in previous articles, the roles differ per speaker. As
said there is no faster way to learn and be able to fulfill the roles than in
training and constant practice.
Contribution is a hard aspect to be adjudicated. A side of the house is
expected to discuss the important issues in a debate and not only those
which are minor issues. A side of the house is expected to look at the
debate holistically and to not pick at just mere details of the issues of the
other side.
Analyzing an issue is a skill which can be developed through training and
practice. The adjudicators are average reasonable people; they could see a
good/brilliant analysis of an issue when presented to them. Surely there is
no hard and fast rule as to how to analyze an issue. All of this actually boils
down to manner, matter and method.
A good structured speech makes adjudicators happy. Well, apart from the
fact that a structured speech is incredibly easy to take down as notes,
structured speeches are easy to understand. A structured speech involves
coming up with good rebuttals, putting the best arguments first, and
discussing the arguments. Although there is no easier way to learn how to
structure a speech than constant training and practice, one is encouraged
to come up with clear and concise statements that takes the adjudicators
straight to the point or points and does not beat too much in the bush.
Manner is HOW one presents herself and her arguments in a debate
(DELIVERY). Diction, pronunciation, what type of shoes you wear
DOES NOT matter to adjudicators, even if you arrive on the podium with
unkempt hair, so as long as you presented your point well and got the
adjudicators understanding what it is you are trying to say, then it’s fine.
But also, some degree of respect to the podium, such as shying away from
cuss words, shouting at your opponent and badgering, is expected. But I’m
guessing you know general proper etiquette already.
Another thing that the adjudicators look at is how the case line of one
team is grounded on the standards of the debate. As discussed in earlier
articles, standards are the measuring sticks of a debate; they determine
what the debate is for. It is important that the teams discuss the debate in
line with the standards. If they do not, they might as well be arguing about
every aspect of the issue and the debate loses direction. For example, if the
standards of the debate are for social beneficiality, and government
responsibility, then the teams should, more or less, have their arguments in
line with these two standards. Not following and fulfilling the standards,
however, does not automatically translate to defeat or demerit.
Matter includes the issues presented in a debate. Matter is expected from
the debaters as the warranted, plausible knowledge of the issue. The
adjudicators may not completely know the issue but they have some
background on it. Matter is essentially the contribution/”substantives” in
the debate.
A debate, as we all know, is composed of speakers each with different
roles to fulfill. It is important that the debaters fulfill the role that they are
Method is fundamentally the organization of the matter. As opposed to
manner, is the proper observance of debate technicalities like speaker role
fulfillment, etc…
__________________________________________________________
12
13