Introduction to Debating
The basics
Preparing a case (team)
Preparing a speech (individual)
Rebuttals
Pre-Activity
The basics
• Every debate must have a topic
• 2 teams – Proposition and Opposition
• Proposition (or Affirmative) argues that the
topic is true.
• Opposition (or negative) argues that the
topic is not true.
2 Types of Arguments
• Debaters require 2 types of arguments:
• (1) Substantive Arguments
– Prepared arguments in favour of a team’s
stand.
– Shows why your team is right.
• (2) Rebuttals
– Your attack on your opposition’s arguments
– Shows why your opposition is wrong.
Speakers
• 3 speakers on each team, identified by
their speaking number (e.g. 1st
Proposition, 3rd Opposition)
• 1st and 2nd speakers on both teams are
expected to have substantives
• All speakers except the 1st Proposition are
expected to rebut
• The 3rd speeches are used for rebuttals
and summary
Protocol
• Debaters are expected to acknowledge
both the chairperson and the audience
when starting a debating speech
• E.g. “Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen”
Basic Layout
Order of Debate
• The 1st Proposition speaks first, and
participants speak with the sides
alternating:
Judging Categories
• Adjudicators use 3 categories to consider
debates:
– Style [ /40]: the way that a particular speech
is presented (i.e. how interesting, humorous,
sincere, fluent)
– Content [ /40]: the arguments presented (i.e.
support and elaboration provided, strength of
arguments)
– Strategy [ /20]: the structure and relevance of
your speech
Rules
• Refer to document for timing and roles of
speakers.
Preparing for the Debate
• Each debater first needs to work as a
team to prepare a case, which is
essentially your group of prepared ideas
about why your side of the motion is true.
• Teamwork is essential here because
should debaters choose to work
individually, the lack of a team stance will
be obvious during the debate.
Preparing a Case
•
To prepare a case, you need to do 5 things:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Find The Issue: Decide what the main issue of the motion is
about, especially if the motion is metaphorical or generic.
Find Your Definition: Decide what the words of the motion
mean for the purposes of the debate
Find Your team’s Case Approach: You need to think of
arguments about why your side of the motion is true. As
teammates, you join your arguments into a single case
approach
Find your team’s Arguments: Distinct points supporting your
side of the debate, supported by logical reasoning and
concrete examples.
Find The Split: Divide the arguments between the 1st and 2nd
speakers, so that each speaker knows what to present.
Preparing a case: Step 1
(Finding the Issue)
• The first step is to find the issue that
needs to be debated.
• If the motion has a clear issue, debate that
issue.
• E.g. “THBT the government should ban
smoking”.
• It is clear that most people would read this
motion as a reference to the issue of
tobacco smoking.
• Decide on the most commonsensical issue
to debate on.
• It is not okay to identify the issue as, e.g.
marijuana smoking, or smoking salmon, or
lying (i.e. throwing a smokebomb). It
wouldn’t be clever.
How about motions with relatively
vague issues?
• Find the issue that is most obvious and the
most debatable.
• E.g. “THBT the carrot is better than the
stick”.
• This is clearly non-literal (a metaphor).
• The most obvious issue would be whether
incentives are more effective than
punishments.
How about motions that do not
seem to have any clear issue?
• Where there is no clear issue, select an issue
that the motion could refer to.
• E.g. “THBT it’s not about winning or losing, but
how you play the game”.
• Is it about sports? Is it about politics? It is about
academics?
• The best approach would be to select the most
general philosophical issue, i.e. whether the
means justify the ends, and use sports and
politics as examples.
Preparing a case: Step 2
(Finding the Definition)
• Both teams need to find out what the motion
means, not in general, but for the purposes of
the debate.
• The 1st Prop presents the team’s definition of the
debate in the form of a clear statement.
• By defining the motion, the 1st Prop is essentially
saying that both teams should debate based on
his team’s understanding of the meaning of the
debate.
• The 1st Opp may disagree with the Prop’s
definition of the motion (especially if
they’ve prepared using a different
definition and slant).
How to define a motion
• Define terms in the motion and not every single
word.
• Don’t bother defining articles such as ‘a’ or ‘the’.
• Decide if words should be defined individually or
as a phrase, e.g. “political correctness”.
• Do not define metaphorical terms literally.
• Do not give dictionary definitions – this removes
the context of the debate from your definition.
• Limit the scope of the motion through your
definition
– E.g. “THBT we should abolish the GST”
• ‘We’ could be defined as the citizens of Singapore, acting
through the Parliament of Singapore.
– E.g. “THBT criminal sentences are not too harsh”
• It would be reasonable to limit the debate to the First World if
you are the Proposition. Without doing so, the Opposition can
argue that beheading of criminals in developing countries are
too harsh and it would be hard to rebut this later on.
– Note that limiting the scope of the debate must be
reasonable. E.g. you can’t limit the scope of the
debate to Developing Countries for the 2nd motion, or
limit the time scope of a particular debate to, say, the
15th Century.
Preparing a case: Step 3
(Finding your team’s Case Approach)
A caseline, spoken by the 1st speaker, is a
single, concise sentence that explains the
main idea behind your case, explaining 2
things:
• Why you say the motion is true (or not) true
• How this can be proven
Emphasis on Caseline
• Each speaker should mention the team’s
caseline at least once during their speech
(usually at the beginning for the sake of
clarity).
• Return to this caseline repeatedly to
reinforce team’s case.
Example of Caseline
Motion: THBT globalisation is doing more
harm than good.
Caseline: Globalisation’s emphasis on
private enterprise results in economic
competition that advantages a few
developed nations at the expense of other
developing nations, which form the
majortity of the world’s population.
Developing the Caseline
• The caseline should be further developed in
some detail to form the Team Stance.
• The Team Stance is essentially a proposed
model.
– E.g. THBT marijuana should be legalised
– Team Stance would propose a model for legalising
marijuana, e.g. introducing laws to ensure compulsory
health warnings are placed on marijuana products,
requiring licenses to sell marijuana products etc.
• The Opposition would also have to prepare an
alternative model.
• This will counter the rebuttal of “nothing being
proposed or done about the situation”.
• An alternative model is however not needed if
the situation requries simplifying, or the
alternative model presents more complex issues
compared to the status quo.
How many arguments?
• The 1st and 2nd speaker should have 1-2
arguments each. Any less – the content
would not be comprehensive. Any more –
there will not be sufficient time to develop
the arguments in detail.
• Hence, each team should prepare 2 - 4
substantive arguments as a team.
Preparing a case: Step 4
(Finding your team’s Arguments)
•
A complete and distinct argument consists of 4
components:
1) Main Point: Clear, short and simple statement of
what your argument is about.
2) Explanation: Logical explanation of why the
argument is sound and true. The audience should
ask: “yes, this sounds possible, but does it apply to
the real world?”
3) Examples: Concrete real-world examples (not
philosophical and abstract ones) that answer the
audience’s question above.
4) Tie-Back: Shows exactly how the argument
supports the team’s case approach presented
earlier.
Preparing a case: Step 5
(Finding your team’s Split)
The team’s got their arguments, but how
will the arguments be divided among the
1st 2 speakers?
(1) Group the arguments
• Identify which arguments belong together
• Identify common logical lines that unite the
arguments for each speaker.
• Both speakers must present why the case is
true. Assume the audience will only listen to
either the 1st or 2nd speaker.
• E.g. “THBT euthanasia should be legalised” –
Arguments can be grouped into 2 categories
“Patients” (1st speaker) and “Society in general”
(2nd speaker).
• Audience 1 that listens to Speaker 1 will be
convinced that euthanasia should be legalised
because of the benefits to patients.
• Audience 2 that listens to Speaker 2 will be
convinced that euthanasia should be legalised
because of the benefits to society in general.
• Assuming the split is done this way:
– Speaker 1 (background and history of
euthanasia)
– Speaker 2 (benefits to patients and society in
general)
• Audience 1 that listens only to Speaker 1
cannot be convinced that euthanasia
should be legalised simply by knowing
about the history of euthanasia.
• This split would then be invalid because
Speaker 1 is perceived to be
unpersuasive.
Common Splits
•
•
•
•
Society / Individual
International / Domestic
Political / Social or Economic
Short-term / long-term
Which arguments should the 1st
and 2nd speakers take up?
• Most important points (1st Speaker)
followed by less important points (2nd
Speaker)
• Primary group of people affected (1st
Speaker) followed by Secondary group
(2nd Speaker)
• Big Picture (1st Speaker) vs Specific
Domain (2nd Speaker)
Preparing Individual Speeches
1st Prop:
• Formal introduction
• Definitions
• Prop’s caseline
• Case split
• Outline of his arguments
• The arguments
• Summary of arguments
• Conclusion
1st Opp:
• Brief introduction
• Accept or challenge definitions
• Rebuttals
• Opp’s caseline
• Case split
• Outline of his arguments
• The arguments
• Summary of arguments
• Conclusion
2nd Speakers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rebuttals + definitional challenges if still in doubt
Brief link to case approach
Outline of arguments
The arguments
Summary of arguments
Conclusion
3rd Speakers:
• Rebuttals
• Summary
Reply Speakers:
• Either 1st or 2nd speaker
• Summarise opponent’s entire team case
• Respond to opponent’s entire team case
• Summarise own team’s case
Specific skills
Introducing the debate (1st Prop)
• Not simply greeting the chairperson /
audience, but introducing the issues of the
debate to the audience, including factual
or historical background
Brief link to team’s case (2nd Speakers)
• Provide a brief link to your case before
beginning on arguments.
• E.g. “Our team has showed you that [case]. My
first speaker discussed our case from a political
perspective, looking at the role of political parties
and the public service. I will continue our case
from a social point of view. Specifically, I will
have 2 arguments…”
Signposting (All speakers)
• Make sure the audience and adjudicators
are clear about where you are in the
debate
• E.g. “Firstly, Secondly, my first argument
relates to, Our case, in conclusion”.
Rebuttals
What to rebut:
• Arguments, assertions, examples, statistics,
underlying assumptions that may not be sound
or relevant to the debate
• Logical fallacies
• Opponent’s unreasonable definitions, illogical
caselines.
What NOT to rebut:
• Technicalities, e.g. opponent speaking beyond
time allocated, POIs not accepted, etc.
Good Resource
http://debateable.org/
Motions
• THBT governments should place limits in the areas
which scientists may research
• THW legalise all drugs
• THW force more organisations to place more women
in senior positions
• THBT students should be made to take part in
compulsory charity work
• THW ban the use of models who are below a healthy
weight
Motion 1
THBT governments should place limits
in the areas which scientists may
research
Prop: Tao Ran, Jeremy, Wei Wen
Opp: Eugene Pang, Benji, Chong Hon
Motion 2
THW legalise all drugs
Prop: Marc, Ryan, Kevin, Sean
Opp: Yi Yang, Yun Yang, Jarel, Shui
Herng
Motion 3
THW force more organisations to place
more women in senior positions
Prop: Colin, Cheng Jie, Eugene Toh
Opp: Yu Jia, Kim Yao, Mun Kit
Motion 4
THBT students should be made to take
part in compulsory charity work
Prop:
Opp:
Wei Xiang, Eagan, Nathaniel,
Mickey
Han Zhe, Zhang Cheng, Yi Jie,
Jones
Motion 5
THW ban the use of models who are
below a healthy weight
Prop:
Wei Jin, Shu Peng, Zhennan, Wei
Zheng
Opp:
Yi Shin, Evan, Ezra