RESOLVED:
The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond Earth’s Mesosphere.

• Never confuse debating with arguing
• It is an open-minded , intelligent way to explore diverse viewpoints
• Debate is a way to demonstrate your ability to change your opinions and gather new information

We debate all the time…
• In families
• In schools
• In sport team meetings
• At work places
• In town meetings
• In the courtroom
• In Congress

• Did you ever loose an argument with your parents?
• Did you ever not present good facts for your point of view with friends?
• Did you ever want to be more respected for your own ideas?

• Did you ever imagine yourself as a leader?
• Did you ever enjoy competition?
• Did you ever like being “right”?
If you answered yes then debate is for you!

• Debate is a discussion and exchange of two opposing points of view
• Teams engage in formal “arguments” in an attempt to convince the audience or judge that their point of view is best
• A debater uses effective oral delivery—speech—skills to support their position

• A debater’s goal is to persuade the audience that his/her position is the strongest
• A debater is able to refute, or argue, against the opposite view
• A debater provides researched evidence and reasoning to support their view

• Improves speaking skills
• Improves ability to “think on your feet”
• Develops points of view that can stand up under
“attack” from an opponent
• Develops critical thinking skills
• Develops reasoning skills

• Develops active listening skills
• Develops the ability to become informed on current issues
• Develops stronger research skills
• Impresses your teachers and friends

• Becoming a critical thinker
• Having thoughtful discussion
• Sharing informed comments
• Showing your flexible opinion
• Developing a written point of view

• Clearly identifying reasons for your point of view
• Exploring opposite opinions
• Gaining experience conducting research
• Gaining experience speaking

Keep this slide show handy as you learn the steps to become a championship debater.

• Should Olympic athletes be tested for drugs?
• Should schools have dress codes?
• Do teens have too many activities?
• Should students have to do volunteer work to graduate?
• Should kids learn riflery in schools?
• Should cell phones be allowed in class?
• Should student athletes have to get good grades to play sports?
• Do police belong in schools?

• Should students get paid for attending school?
• If you find $100, is it yours to keep?
• If you see someone cheating on a test, should you tell?
• Should you change the way you dress because of what other people might think?
• Is year-round school a good idea?
• Should laws be stricter for teenage drivers?
• Should male and female training in the military be separate?

The proposition is the topic
1) Constructive speeches
• The affirmative constructive argues for the proposition
• The negative constructive argues against the proposition
2) Rebuttal speeches
• The affirmative rebuttal explains previous arguments, responds, and defends their position
• The negative rebuttal does the same

RESOLVED:
The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond Earth’s
Mesosphere.

The actual topic or subject of the debate put in positive terms and clear language
• Begins with the word “resolved”
• 3 kinds of propositions
• Proposition of fact
• Proposition of value
• Proposition of policy

This statement suggests that a specific action or policy should be adopted. This proposition does not involve verification, but argues whether a policy should be adopted or abolished.

The point, matter or question to be disputed or decided
• The Pros: points or matter on which they base their argument for change
• Cons: the basis of why they do not wish to change

1. Is the problem inherent in the status quo?
2. Will the plan that we propose solve this problem?
3. Will there be more advantages because of the implementation of the plan than there will be disadvantages?
4.
Is there really a problem?

The debater makes a claim.
• On what basis is the claim?
• What evidence applies?
• Is the evidence acceptable?
• What are the logical conclusions?

Burden of proof: the requirement to prove a proposition, claim, or issue
• This is the primary job of the affirmative team
• Must prove the need for the adoption of the proposition

The affirmative constructive case is composed of 4 parts or areas of the debate
1) Definition of terms area
2) Problem or justification area
3) Solution or plan area
4) Advantages area

Definition of terms area
• Decide what are the key words in the proposition
• Find definitions from reliable sources; dictionaries encyclopedias, web sites, experts
• Apply their various meanings to the resolution
• Use examples
• Use negation: explain what a key word does not mean
• Use testimony: quote a qualified person

Problem or justification area
• Demonstrate a problem exists in the present policy and is widespread enough to cause concern
• Demonstrate the problem is significant enough to require a change; it is a serious problem
• Inherency: determine if the present system will solve the problem or make it worse
• Must show the problem exists because of the present system or status quo
• Must show there is need for a change
• Must include good evidence and reasoning

Solution or Plan area
• This is where you connect the solution to the problem in a clear and persuasive manner
• Must convince the judge or audience that you plan will it work
• Must show that your plan will solve the problem
• Must show that your plan will correct the weakness in the status quo

Advantages area
• Show additional advantages on a wider scope or elaborate about advantages
• Show how advantages outnumber or outweigh the disadvantages
• Minimize the disadvantages

Burden of rebuttal: the requirement to disprove a proposition, claim, or issue
• This is the primary job of the negative team
• Must attack the case for the adoption of the proposition

The negative constructive is composed of 4 parts or attack issue areas.
To be successful, you must refute or disprove at least one of these stock issues:
1) Attack the affirmative’s definition of terms
2) Attack the affirmative’s problem or justification
3) Attack the affirmative’s plan or solution
4) Attach the affirmative’s advantages

Definition of Terms
• It is unlikely that a definition will be a successful attack
• However, you may want to challenge a definition if it is unusual

Attacking the problem or justification
• Show that the affirmative team has not shown that a problem exists with the status quo
• Show that they have not shown inherency or significance with the problem
• Show the problem can be resolved without adopting the proposition
• May defend the current policy; it may not be perfect but it is superior to the proposal

Attacking the plan or solution
• Prove the affirmative has not presented a good remedy for the harm
• Show how the plan will not solve the problems
• Show that not enough evidence was presented; or perhaps, no evidence was presented
• Challenge the affirmative’s sources
• Show that the affirmative’s reasoning is faulty

Attacking the advantages
• Show that the advantages will not happen
• Point out the number of disadvantages that would result if the plan was adopted
• Attempt to prove there are more disadvantages than advantages for adopting the plan

Attacking your opponents arguments and defending or rebuilding your own arguments
• Challenge opponent’s points of view
• Show flaws or weaknesses in opponent’s arguments

Attacking your opponents arguments and defending or rebuilding your own arguments
• Challenge opponent’s points of view
• Show flaws or weaknesses in opponent’s arguments

Supporting materials used in a speech to prove or disprove something
• Examples to prove the case
• Includes an affirmative team
• Includes a negative team

4 examples of evidence
• Examples
• Comparison
• Statistics
• Testimony

The telling or retelling a story
• Given clearly and in an orderly fashion
• Use a variety of examples

An analogy is comparing two items, events, people
• Pointing out similarities applying to the proposition
• Similarities must outweigh the differences
• Comparisons must be similar is all respects

Use of numbers to prove or disprove a point
• Must be representative of a whole
• Must not be out of context
• Must come from a reliable source that is identified
• May need to be explained and interpret them
• Must identify the source
• Must not be overused

Quotations stating the opinions or conclusions of others
• Authors who have special knowledge or experience about the issue
• Must use authors who have knowledge and experience about the topic and are recognized as experts
• The person must be qualified by training and experience to speak on the topic
• Must quote the person accurately
• Must quote the overall meaning and intent
• Must identify the person
• Should read the testimonials from notecards for the judges
• It is unethical and dishonest to change the meaning of the quotation to fit your own purposes

Reasoning = the Argument
The process of drawing conclusions from evidence and connecting ideas, situations and events
• A part of critical thinking
• Connecting events to similar previous experience

3 types of reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Deductive reasoning
• Analogical reasoning

Reasoning from the specific to the general
• Based upon specific examples and specific evidence
• Always includes several exceptions
• Use backup evidence
• Quotations
• Statistics
• Do not use “sweeping terms” such as “all, only, never, always, and everyone” unless the evidence supports the statement
• Be careful with the conclusion

Reasoning from the general to the specific
• Opposite of inductive reasoning
• Uses 3 statements:
• Major premise: general statement of belief
• Minor premise: specific case of issue as it relates to the major premise
• Conclusion: connection between the major and minor premises
• Be certain that both premises are true
• Be careful of using sweeping terms
• Show a clear relationship between major and minor premises
• Be sure the conclusion draws it al together

Reasoning from analogy
• Comparing the similarities between two items, events, people
• If alike in some ways, they will be alike in others
• This is most effective when dealing with propositions of policy
• Show as many similarities as possible
• Most important is to make sure the two things being compared are actually similar
• If they are basically alike, they may be similar, if not, they will not be similar

Requires spontaneous thinking and responses
• It’s creative
• It’s challenging
• It has a question and answer period, “cross-x”; it’s a face to face questioning of your opponent

•
• 1 st Affirmative Constructive / 5 minutes *
Negative Cross Examination / 3 minutes
• 1 st Negative Constructive / 5 minutes
• Affirmative Cross Examination / 3minutes
• 1st Affirmative Rebuttal / 3 minutes
• 1st Negative Rebuttal / 6 minutes
• 2 nd Affirmative Rebuttal / 3 minutes
*3 minute total preparation time during the entire process after the first affirmative constructive; any additional time is subtracted from their remaining speeches

Use of Voice
• Pitch, volume, articulation, vocal fillers, rate
Animation
• Movement, facial expressions, eye contact
Language
• Grammatical correctness, exactness, appropriateness, originality

• Not practicing out loud
• Using poor visual aids; not rehearsing with visual aids
• Trying to cram everything in
• Not being prepared with technology needs
• Ignoring audience interest
• Looking at notes instead of the audience
• Trying to be something you are not
• Taking too much time
• Faking it

This slide show was created to assist MSBSD middle school debate coaches with teaching debate concepts.
Resources:
Davidson, Josephine . The Middle School Debater . The Right Book Co., Bellingham,
WA. 1997.
Kushner, Malcolm. Public Speaking for Dummies . Hungry Minds, Inc. New York.
1999.
Oberg, Rent C. Forensics: The Winner’s Guide to Speech Contests . Meriwether
Publishing Ltd., Colorado Springs, CO. 1995.
Paige, Robert W., Ph.D. Debate Skills . Mark Twain Media Inc. 2000.
Created February 2012
Annie Bill / TAG Program Coordinator