Rabu, 16 April 2008

Debating events websites

1.groups.yahoo.com/group/indodebaters/
in this site you will get all of info about (past, current, and up coming) high schools/universities debating competition events in all over Indonesia.

2.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCuD/
in this site you will get all of info about (past, current, and up coming) high schools/universities debating competition events in east java.

3.http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=debating+championship&sitesearch=
in this site you can download a lot of files of last schools/universities debating competition.
If you dun have much time to download all of'em, then just prioritizing to download the final, semi final or octo final round.U can download the file using www.keepvid.com dun forget to add flv after the name of file (example:NameOfFile.flv). To play the file u should use flv player, but if u dun have any flv player u should download it first, search it in google.Good luck ! :)

These sites would surely be very helpful ;)

Senin, 14 April 2008

THE SECRET ABOUT EFFECTIVE RESEARCH

KEEP UP WITH THE NEWS
Why?
- Gives you an idea of what topics are likely to come up at the tournaments.
- Gives you some background/context of current topics.
- Gives you some ideas of possible pro and cons arguments.
How?
- Read magazines and newspapers. Read several together to get different views!
- TV and radio. Especially shows like Today’s dialogue, etc.
- Discuss. People are a great source of ideas and information.

THE SECRET ABOUT EFFECTIVE RESEARCH
What to do before research?
- Ideally, you should already have some knowledge about the topic. This is why you need to keep up with the news!
- READ! Focus on understanding:
* The controversy (pro/cons)
* Theories/concepts related to the topic.
- Brainstorm for arguments.
- KNOW what data/facts/examples you need to support your arguments.
The secret
- Focus on getting supporting data/facts/examples that you need!
- Always update your data/facts!. Especially for on going political turmoil. The situation 3 days ago may be drasticallydifferent to the situation today.
- When coming across facts, think of how they can be used in a debate. Possibly add to your arguments.
- To observe a ‘trend’, read stuff published throughout a period of time.

What to do after research?
- Make a matter file for each topic!
- Compile your data/facts/arguments.
- Write down your arguments, and next to it, write down the relevant supporting data/facts/examples.
- Don’t just print out and highlight stuff. Not practical to use in a debate!

Sources
(these are just examples, plenty more great sources out there!)
- Know what you are looking for and where to get them!
- Always a good place to start: www.wikipedia.com
- Theories and concepts: books, journals, etc.
- Currents issue, national and international publications:
Kompas.com, MediaIndonesia.com, jawapos.com, detik.com, Jakartapost.com, the economist (www.economist.com), international herald tribune (www.iht.com), the guardian (www.guardian.co.uk), BBC (www.bbs.co.uk).

What a debater must have

1. Able to build crucial intellectual capacities
a. Critical thinking (Not accepting things for granted)
b. Logic
2. Effective communication
3. Fluency and articulateness
4. Confidence
5. Fast-thinking
6. Open-mindedness

Selasa, 01 April 2008

Tips in searching data and making argument before debating competition

Some useful sites that could help you in searching any information about a motion/topic:
1. http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!
2. www.procon.org
3. www.youdebate.com
4. and of course.In searching for data/news,dun forget to also open the website of: google,
BBC, CNN, NASA, National Geographic, JAKARTA POST, international herald tribune, etc. Those sites would surely be very helpful ;)

Tips in searching data:
Preparation before searching:
Usually debating competition committee releases 15 to 30 motions that you have to prepare in advance, thus you have to decide first the type of every motion, is it a proposal motion or a philosophical motion, by knowing the type of each motion, you'll be easier to decide what kind of information that you need to search in the internet.

For example:
If it is a proposal motion, you should search any information that can give you a very detail mechanism of solution to solve the problem that stated in the motion, of course with the information of its feasibility and future implication also.
If it is a philosophical debate, you have to figure out how many aspect in life that related to the motion that you can discuss for each speaker in your team, example 1st speaker will talk about the social and psychological aspect while 2nd speaker will talk about the law and security aspect.

1. Open above websites or google

2. If it is google, type: debatepedia kosovo independence (e.g. if the motion is: THBT kosovo shouldn't have declared its independence) or type: debatepedia global warming vs global cooling (e.g. if the motion is: THBT global warming is a myth)

3. Or type: procon global warming nature vs human (THBT U.S should be responsible the most for global warming)

4. Example of key words to be typed in google:
(This is the example for proposal motion)
- global warming main cause
- global warming solution
- kyoto protocol mechanism
- global warming future implication
- etc

5. Oftenly, by just typing key word like that is not enough, while searching the data, you also have to think for two side of government side and opposition side, predict and question it to yourself what gov/opp side would say if you say this/that, what argument should you say to make your team argument strong but also debatable.

6. The result? usually you would be end up opening a lot of websites that you think related to the motion (well it's normal). Now you have to save all of those websites and read them in your home or school in every free time that you have (remember, usually the committee only gives 3 weeks or even 1 week to look for data and make the argument, thus you have to manage the time that you have maximally)

7. Making an argument based on the information from those websites is actually like playing a puzzle, you have to find which one is the best information that could fit and strengthen your argument from the piles of websites that you have saved earlier from the internet. You really..really have to focus your thought and mind in this process. This whole process of searching the data from the internet and making the argument is not a one day process, hell no..!!, it takes days, and hours, you'll get a headache for sure, but it is better to have headache now than have headache in the competition when your opponent slaughtering your team, you don't want that, do you...

8. Makes sure every team member is involved in the whole process of data searching and argument making, because if there's only one person from your team that have lack of knowledge related to the motion, he/she could accidentally lead your team to loose by saying something about the motion wrongly.

p.s. Your team will surely loose if ignoring and underestimating this process before competition.

Types of Motion

*this is just draft, not a full argument*

TYPE 1 (Philosophical Motion)

NO PROPOSAL, NO SOLUTION, JUST IDEA

EXAMPLE 1:

+ THBT the World has learned nothing from 9/11

Definition

World= UN, United Nation as a world representative

9/11= Planes attack that destroyed WTC in New York, ¼ Pentagon and almost destroy White house

Parameter

UN incapability to be strict toward USA and Israel provocative action that keeps worsening the security of middle east while at the same time also growing collective hatred among middle east people toward west countries that ironically is the main purpose of terrorist to conduct 9/11 attack

Theme line

Because if UN still do nothing about it, the world condition will become more unstable, as we know that middle east is the biggest oil exporter in the world in which any instability in that region will also make instability of economic, politic, and security across the world

1^st split

Politic and diplomatic aspect

worse politic/diplomatic understanding & relationship between west countries and Middle East countries

the reason why 9/11 happened and sadly recent condition still proves that the world has learned nothing to increase

diplomatic understanding and relationship between west countries and Middle East countries

(ex: USA keeps invading Iraq, making enemy with Iran, defending Israel’s wrong deeds, ignoring Palestine’s suffering,

those are worsening the diplomatic relationship, but UN as world representative do nothing about USA action, it shows

that the world has learned nothing to fix diplomatic understanding and relationship. If UN/world had learned something

from 9/11, UN/world would have set a strict attitude toward USA and Israel provocative action in the middle east)

Religion understanding and relationship aspect

Worse religion understanding & relationship between west countries and Middle East countries

the reason why 9/11 happened and recent condition proves that the world has learned nothing to increase religion

understanding and relationship between west countries and Middle East countries

(ex: USA keeps invading Iraq, making enemy with Iran, defending Israel’s wrong deeds, ignoring Palestine’s suffering,

those are worsening the religion understanding and relationship, even though it’s a military action yet it makes Middle

East people hates west religion even more, most of Middle East people have this prejudice that the military action as west

crusade toward religion in the Middle East. but UN as world representative do nothing to stop USA action, it shows that

the world has learned nothing to fix religion understanding and relationship. If UN/world had learned something from

9/11, UN/world would have set a strict attitude toward USA and Israel provocative action in the middle east)

2^nd split

Security aspect

- Worse security in most of Middle East countries

1. several Bomb attacks that finally killed Benazir Butho (because of Butho’s support on USA war against “terrorist” in

Iraq and Afghanistan), 2. almost daily Bomb attacks in Iraq until now shows how deep the hatred of Middle East people

toward USA that has invaded Iraq for so called purpose to stop Saddam Hussein in making “weapon of mass

destruction” that has proved to be never exist and that in the end USA “noble “ intention to “help” Iraq people from

Saddam’s regime end up on sucking Iraq’s oil resources, 3. USA plan to invade Iran because of the reason that almost

the same like that in Iraq which is to produce nuclear “weapon”, and 4. Palestine growing hatred toward USA that

always sets double standard on Israel

- Worse security in most of west countries and even in Asia countries

Bomb attack in Spain (4 trains, thousand deaths), England (train station), Australia embassy in Jakarta, Bali bomb 1 & 2

Economic Aspect

Worse economic aspect

middle east is the biggest oil exporter region in the world in which any instability in that region will also make instability of economic, politic, and security across the world. The raising of recent world oil price is the effect of the instability of middle east region. The supply of oil from middle east to the whole world will be troubled by the instability of its region, this difficulty in exporting oil to the whole world will make the exporter countries in the middle east have to increase the price of their oil, we know that oil is very important, we use oil everyday, for cooking, for industry purpose, as fuel for vehicle like car, motorcycle, airplane and ship. The raising of oil price will make the industry should spend more money on the production in which in the end the price of the goods should be increased also. This will be worsening all aspect of life in the whole world. If UN didn’t see it coming, the world instability will be surely end up in chaos. UN should stop the source of all of these troubles, which is USA and Israel provocative actions in the middle east. but UN as world representative still do nothing to stop USA action, it shows that the world has learned nothing to fix these problems. If UN/world had learned something from 9/11, UN/world would have set a strict attitude toward USA and Israel provocative action in the middle east

- THBT the World has learned something from 9/11

1^st split

International relationship aspect

- Better diplomatic understanding & relationship between west countries and Middle East countries

West cooperation with Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Arab in fighting terrorism (Al-Qaeda)

- Better religion understanding & relationship between west countries and Middle East countries

The growing number of western who learn about the majority religion in the middle east, make western begin to understand and able to differentiate between middle east people who hold their religion peacefully and those who hold their religion in extreme way. Western has begun to learn to not do or say things that actually could create misunderstanding or provoke the anger of Moslem, they starting to know of how to socialize or to make relationship with moslem This growing understanding prevents western from being racialist toward Middle East people or toward Moslem who lives in the middle east region or in the west countries. It surely promotes better understanding and hence better relationship to live together side by side in peace, love and harmony.

2^nd split

Security aspect

- Better security system in all countries in the world

The enhancement of security system in the world, especially in the west countries, it proved by the strictness of security system that is running now in most of western countries. Example: security system in most of airport, train station, public facilities.

- Better focus and cooperation of all countries to catch terrorist in all over the world

International cooperation between Interpol, CIA, FBI, NSA, MOSAD, BIN, etc

The intense using of technologies to track and catch terrorist wherever they are hiding. Satellite, internet, GPS,

EXAMPLE 2 :

+ THBT word is more powerful than sword

1^st split

The powerful influence of word/media to all level of society (include government)

Aspect….

2^nd split

The acceptability of media in delivering idea in all level of society peacefully

Aspect….

- THBT word is not more powerful than sword

1^st split

If positive team’s definition and parameter still can be narrowed to help negative team’s argument, then do it.!

Ex: positive team only give general definition on the motion, like; word=is something that we use to communicate, sword= action. Negative team can narrow the definition into; word=media (TV, radio, magazine, newspaper, internet) as mean of communication that organized by journalist, sword= action=government power.

The power of sword/government that can influence all level of society

Aspect….

2^nd split

The power of government that can manipulate media to make citizen accept government idea

Aspect….

Aspect….

EXAMPLE 3:

+ THBT war in Iraq has made America saver

1^st split

Internal security ????????????

Very strict rules to enter America by ship and plane

Tighter security system in almost most of building and public places in America

Aspect….????

2^nd split

External security ????????????

Give deterrent effect to other country that want to sponsoring terrorism

Cut one of countries (Iraq) that potential to be a terrorism sponsor against America and international community

Widening preventive security into Middle East region

- THBT war in Iraq has not made America saver

1^st split

??????????????

Aspect….???

Aspect….????

Aspect….

2^nd split

??????????????????

Aspect….

TYPE 2 (Proposal Motion vs Status Quo)

ONLY ONE SIDE THAT PROPOSING SOMETHING NEW & OFFERING SOLUTION, WHILE

THE OTHER IS QUESTIONING / ATTACKING THE PROPOSAL AND ITS SOLUTION & DEFENDING STATUS QUO/RECENT CONDITION

+ THW agree with military education for civilian

1st split

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

what’s the problem

why would agree with military education for civilian / the importance of military education for civilian

aspect…

solution

mechanism in conducting military education for civilian

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

feasibility

the possibility of the solution mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if military education for civilian is conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if military education for civilian is not conducted

aspect…

- THW not agree with military education for civilian

1st split

rebuttal

attack positive team’s solution mechanism and proves that the solution is actually not visible to be conducted.

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

why would not agree with military education for civilian / why conducting military education for civilian is not important

aspect…

talk about the detail mechanism of recent military recruitment and education system that emphasize why we don’t need military education for civilian

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

Future implication

Good future implication if military education for civilian is not conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if military education for civilian is conducted

aspect…

Example 2

+ THBT legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more harm than good

Definition

Legislation= Law 25, year 2005.

criminalizing= to punish, to send to jail

domestic violence= fighting in a house between husband, wife, son, daughter that involves hurting each other, physically or verbally.

harm than good= family disharmony than family harmony

Parameter

Verbal violence, like insulting, scolding, etc

Theme line

Because the criminalizing itself will break the family apart, while there’s a hope for family reconciliation if they try to talk about it rather than report it to the police just because of verbal violence.

1st split

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

why believe that legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more harm than good

aspect…

solution

Domestic advisory foundation.

Mechanism:

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

feasibility

the possibility of the solution mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is not conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is conducted

aspect…

- THBT legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more good than harm

1st split

rebuttal

attack positive team’s solution mechanism and proves that the solution is actually not visible to be conducted

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

what’s the problem

why believe that legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more good than harm

Psychological aspect: the bad effect of verbal violence to someone personality

Verbal violence is as danger as physical violence

aspect…

* Solution (* Yup, actually there’s a solution for this, but if u run out of idea to fight positive team verbal violence idea, just attack positive team’s solution mechanism maximally)

Criminalizing domestic violence doer based on government legislation. Give emphasize on verbal violence.

Mechanism: By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

* feasibility

the possibility of the solution mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is not conducted

aspect…

* solution and feasibility can be set aside if negative team totally run out of idea to fight the positive team idea of verbal

violence

TYPE 3 (Proposal Motion vs Counter Proposal)

BOTH ARE PROPOSING SOMETHING NEW, &

BOTH ARE OFFERING & ATTACKING EACH OTHER’S SOLUTION

Example 1

+ THBT legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more harm than good

Definition

Legislation= Law 25, year 2005.

criminalizing= to punish, to send to jail

domestic violence= fighting in a house between husband, wife, son, daughter that involves hurting each other, physically or verbally.

harm than good= family disharmony than family harmony

Parameter (positive team should give parameter that in the future could ease the burden of positive team)

Domestic violence that victimize wife or children (this isn’t a good example of parameter, this will troubled + team)

Theme line

Because the criminalizing itself will break the family apart, while there’s a hope for family reconciliation if they try to talk about it rather than report it to the police.

1st split

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

why believe that legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more harm than good

aspect…

solution

Domestic advisory foundation.

Mechanism:

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

rebuttal

attack negative team’s solution mechanism and proves that the solution is actually not visible to be conducted

feasibility

the possibility of the solution mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is not conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is conducted

aspect…

- THBT legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more good than harm

1st split

rebuttal

attack positive team’s solution mechanism and proves that the solution is actually not visible to be conducted

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

what’s the problem

why believe that legislation that criminalizing domestic violence will bring more good than harm

aspect…

Solution

Criminalizing domestic violence doer based on government legislation. Emphasize on physical violence.

Mechanism:

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

feasibility

the possibility of the solution mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if legislation that criminalizing domestic violence is not conducted

aspect…

Example 2

+ THBT UAN is not necessary

1st split

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

what’s the problem

why believe that UAN is not necessary / the importance of erasing UAN

aspect…

solution: School independence evaluation

mechanism in conducting School independence evaluation

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

rebuttal

attack negative team’s solution mechanism and proves that the solution is actually not visible to be conducted

feasibility

the possibility of the solution mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if School independence evaluation is conducted

aspect…;

aspect…

Bad future implication if UAN still exist/ if School independence evaluation is not conducted

aspect…

- THBT UAN is necessary

1st split

rebuttal

attack positive team’s solution mechanism and proves that the solution is actually not visible to be conducted

The nature and the urgency of recent condition

what’s the problem

why believe that UAN is necessary / the importance of UAN

aspect…

solution: UAN

mechanism in conducting UAN

By who, for whom, how, where, when

2^nd split

feasibility

the possibility of the UAN mechanism to be conducted from the point of view of several aspects of life

aspect…

Future implication

Good future implication if UAN is conducted

aspect…

Bad future implication if UAN is not conducted

aspect…

GUIDELINES FOR ADJUDICATORS

English Debating Society

Universitas Indonesia

(EDS UI)

Guidelines for Adjudicators
(Australasian Parliamentary)

Universitas Indonesia

Depok

1998

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................ 1

Assessing Matter......................................................................................................... 2

Use of examples and references to experts

Invalid cases

Hung cases

Distinguishing Matter from Manner and Method

New Matter from third negative

Humorous arguments

Assessing Method........................................................................................................ 5

Method of an individual speech

Over-time and under-time speeches

Method of the team

Response to the dynamics of the debate

Assessing Manner........................................................................................................ 7

The elements of manner

Other Issues.................................................................................................................. 8

Definition rules

Competing definitions

Rebuttal

Reply speeches

Misrepresentations

Team slides

Ties

Marking Scale.............................................................................................................. 11

Substantive speeches

Reply speeches

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 11

Introduction

The assessment made of any debate is inherently a subjective exercise. The adjudicator forms a personal judgment regarding the argument, style, organization and impact of a debate, which in many cases, could differ from that of another adjudicator’s. The main objective in providing these guidelines is to ensure, as much as is possible, that the adjudicators make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines that direct attention to specific issues and thus help limit subjectivity.

The adjudicator’s role is crucial in the discipline of debating – with the divine responsibility of sitting in judgment upon the efforts of debaters. As in any other competitive activity, a thorough understanding of the rules is a prerequisite for the referee and ensuring that these rules are consistently interpreted and applied becomes a critical aspect of the competition.

In assessing debate, you have to adopt the role of an average reasonable person with an average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate but with expert knowledge of the rules of the debate. Debating is an exercise in the skills of persuasion, where the target audience is assumed to be an average cross-section of the community who is open to persuasion. In this context, it is important that the adjudicator’s judgment is not influenced by his or her personal likes and dislikes, prejudices or any other preconceived opinions on issues. There is no denying that each adjudicator carries into the debate an opinion baggage that could be based on personal experiences, expert knowledge of the subject matter, or a set of prejudices. An element of the real test of a debater is, of course, the ability to persuade the adjudicator of the validity of arguments advanced, which may be in contradiction with the adjudicator’s views and perspective on the matter under consideration. But you must be able to eliminate any special or exceptional attitudes which would not be shared by an average group of reasonable people.

The most important thing to realize is that you are sitting in judgment on the relative merits of the two cases that are proposed by the competing teams of the debate, and it is this ability of comparison that assumes importance in adjudication.

It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide whether his or her views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams. The adjudicator has artificial constraints that influence his decision – including the proportional worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and the weight of each individual speech to the overall case of the team. The adjudicator is assessing a process that consists of every single speech and his final judgment is a function of the contribution of each individual in the debate.

There are three important functions performed by adjudicators in any debate:

· To decide which team has won the debate,

· To provide an explanation of the reasons for that decision, and

· To provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters.

The function of deciding which team has won is, of course, the most important function that is played by the adjudicator. In this context, it is very important to note that the decision is made by the adjudicator and not by the marks awarded. In other words, the marks should reflect the adjudicator’s decision; they should not make that decision.

It is not rare in close debates to find the total marks awarded reflect a different decision from the adjudicator’s impression of the debate and the relative merits and demerits of the two cases under consideration. In such circumstances, you should review the notes of the debate and attempt to identify the cause of this discrepancy. For example, you might realize that your final impression was too heavily dependent on a strong third speech, in which case your decision should be modified to reflect a correct weighing for that speaker’s contribution in the overall context of the debate. Or, you might realize that the marks awarded to a particular debater’s speech does not reflect his true contribution to the advancement of his case. What is important to note is that the marks and the adjudicator’s decision should be consistent and it is the final decision should be consistent and it is the final decision of the adjudicator that determines the outcome of the debate.

Debaters are entitled to know the basis of any judgment and you, as an adjudicator, have the obligation to explain your decision and offer constructive criticism. What should be highlighted in such discussion should be critical differences between the two teams and no attempt should be made to replay the whole debate. Adjudicators should also be careful of getting drawn into a further debate with the team members as to the merits of the judgment. While explaining the reasons for the decision, you should be specific in weighing the relative merits of the cases and the important elements of the cases that were crucial in determining your verdict. These issues will be handled in detail later when assessment of the debates are discussed in terms of matter, manner and method.

It should be remembered that the level of explanation provided should be tailored to the experience of the debaters. Very experienced speakers are likely to be concerned with the interaction of argument and the structure of team cases; novices are likely to wish to receive more detailed comment on speaking style, merging into the ‘constructive criticism’ discussed below.

Not every individual has the ability to inspire and motivate. But all adjudicators do have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring that their judgment and criticism and advice that they give perform an educational function in debating. Sound advice from good adjudicators make substantial differences to debating careers. As pointed out earlier, the nature of advice offered should vary with the experience of the debaters. Criticism should invariably be delivered in constructive terms. To a novice speaker for whom the debate itself may have been a traumatic event, there is a world of difference between "The things that you did badly were..." and "The ways in which to improve your debating are...". No adjudication should be scathing, sarcastic or derogatory. You have an obligation to be constructive, supportive and encouraging.

Assessing Matter

One of the fundamental aspects in assessing matter is that the matter presented by a speaker must be logical and relevant to the topic under debate. Logic is the chain of reasoning used to prove an argument. This involves stating, explaining and illustrating the argument. Relevance is established by tying the argument in to the topic under debate.

An example that has been used at the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championship at Monash in 1995 illustrates the point about reasoning of arguments logically. The issue under consideration in the example is that cigarette advertising should be banned. The structure to a team’s case could be as follows:

1. State an argument in favor of the topic: Cigarette advertising should be banned because it entices young people to smoke by making cigarette smoking look like a glamorous activity.

2. Explain the argument: Young people see images of sports heroes and models endorsing smoking. They are insecure and in need of some affirmation, so they turn to cigarettes, assuming they will achieve the happiness they believe the sports heroes and models enjoy. This is how they will get addicted.

3. Use examples: Cigarette companies aggressively advertise in glamorous sports like Formula One. Marlboro spends $50m a year to ensure that McLaren team can have ‘Marlboro’ plastered all over its livery. Their product is seen on the drivers and models that parade around like advertising billboards trying to sell their products, often to kids who are impressionable.

4. Tie the argument back into the topic: So as you can see, cigarette advertising entices young people into smoking by giving them glamorous images to aspire to. Cigarette advertising is therefore dangerous and it should be banned.

Part of your function is to assess the quality of the argument. This requires you to distinguish a strong argument from a weak argument, from the viewpoint of an average reasonable person. A weak argument remains weak whether or not the opposing team points out its weakness. You should not wait to see whether the opposition attacks an argument before judging whether it is weak or strong. Taking on the role of an average reasonable person does not prevent you from being critical and intelligent in your analysis of the matter presented to you.

Use of examples and references to experts

Properly used, examples are an important aspect of matter. Usually they will be most effective when used to illustrate or bolster an argument that has been constructed already, rather than as the foundation for making an argument. Similarly, authorities cited should only support the argument and not substitute the argument. The fact that an expert holds an opinion holds minor weight in the process of persuasion unless the reasons for that opinion are explained and independently assessed.

Invalid cases

An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required by the topic to prove. For instance, on the topic ‘That cigarette advertising should be banned’, if the affirmative team argues that smoking is harmful, they have not addressed the fundamental issue of the debate – cigarette advertising. Such an approach should be penalized heavily.

Hung cases

Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the first speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as the ‘hung’ case. It occurs when the first speaker doesn’t affirm or negate the topic in itself. The speech is left ‘hanging’ until the second speaker completes the case. It is neither convincing to rely on another speaker to prove the entire case nor fair to ask a first negative speaker to refute a case that is not complete yet. Therefore such an approach should be penalized in both matter and method. An Australasian example is, when on the topic That Capitalism will fail without religion, the first affirmative argued that capitalism will fail and the second speaker argued that capitalism will fail without religion. Here the second speaker was the only speaker to address the topic.

Distinguishing Matter from Manner and Method

In matter, you must assess the quality of the arguments irrespective of how well they were organized. In method, you must assess the quality of organization. When assessing matter, it is important to shed all the effects of manner, namely vocal style, use of gesture and quality of oratory. You should understand and maintain this distinction and prevent the same strength or weakness from being double-scored.

New Matter from third negative

New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been canvassed in the debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend an argument is not considered as new matter.

It is a firm rule of debating that the third opposition speaker in the debate may not introduce any new matter. The purpose of this rule is to prevent unfairness in the debate because an issue raised at this stage does not allow the opposing team to respond to it or comment on it sufficiently. Hence, the final speaker’s argument must be directed to issues that have already been raised in the debate. In general, new matter consists of entirely new issues that have not previously been canvassed in the debate. Introduction of new matter should result in penalties on both matter (as the speaker should be spending time on rebuttal) and method (as the team should have organized and prioritized its argument more effectively). The use of fresh examples to further illustrate an earlier argument or any argument directed to rebuttal of an opposing argument or to defense of the negative case is not new matter.

An example of new matter on a topic That UN is a waste of space is where the first five speakers have been arguing the effectiveness of the UN as a peace keeper and peacemaker and then the third negative decides to discuss at length the humanitarian arms of the organization.

In this context, the rule is not so clear about new matter from the third affirmative. It is a matter for discretion, where you should weigh the value of the matter as substantial material against the detriment suffered by the team in not introducing this earlier in the debate and possible time lost in rebuttal.

Humorous arguments

There are instances where one team adopts a humorous or ‘send-up’ approach and the other team delivers a perfectly serious debate. In the former, you must assess whether the ‘send-up’ has caused the audience to accept or reject the spirit of high farce which pervades such cases. You should assess the ‘send-up’ in the context of the ‘send-up’ reality. Then this is compared with the quality of argument presented by the opposing team in its own context. The adoption of a humorous line does not relieve the team of the necessity to structure its humorous line in the form of an argument.

Assessing Method

Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, of the team case as a whole and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate. Each of these three elements will be further elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Method of an individual speech

An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither compulsory nor exhaustive):

· an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or helps it to warm to the speaker

· a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the speech

· a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the speaker’s argument

· a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be accomplished

· a conclusion or summary of the major points made in the speech

Over-time and under-time speeches

Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time limit and conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed. Matter delivered after the time limit does not attract matter marks. The speech will incur a severe penalty in method for continuing significantly after the time limit.

There usually is no penalty for finishing after the first bell but before the time limit (unless the speaker was clearly ‘padding’ the speech in an attempt to make time, without adding anything to the content of the speech). Finishing before the first bell indicates poor organization and usually attracts a method penalty. But this should be assessed with regard to the completeness or paucity of the argument and other aspects of the debate such as whether the opposing team ran a truism and prevented rebuttal.

Method of the team

In considering team method, you are assessing whether the team structured its overall approach to maximize its effectiveness and whether the individual speakers adequately fulfilled their part in the team presentation. In general, a ‘thematic’ team structure will be more effective than a structure consisting of a series of independent arguments. The former approach gives the appearance of being a total body of argument while the latter approach represents a series of isolated points without any link or consistent foundation.

The roles played by each speaker in a team presentation are summarized as follows:

First affirmative speaker

· define the affirmative’s interpretation of the topic and specify the essential issues in contention

· give an outline of the team structure, indicating the basic theme of the team’s case and the aspects to be dealt with by each speaker

· deal with those elements of the case allocated to him or her

First negative speaker

· identify the major areas of initial disagreement (including definition issues if appropriate) with the affirmative case up to that time and engage in rebuttal

· give a clear outline of the negative’s team structure

· deal with those elements allocated to the first speaker

Second affirmative and negative speakers

· rebutt opponents’ case and arguments

· argue in defense of one’s own case against rebuttal by previous speaker

· deal with those elements of the substantial case allocated to him or her

Third speakers on both sides

· present an overview of the debate, rebutting the important aspects of the opposing team’s case and defending one’s own team’s case

· summarize his or her arguments

Reply speeches

· provide an overview that compares and contrasts each team’s views of the central issues of contention in the debate

Response to the dynamics of the debate

This element of method requires you to assess whether a speaker has reacted appropriately to the strategic requirements of the debate as they emerged. The following are examples of such dynamics:

When a negative team has a problem with the affirmative definition, it is important strategically to deal with this at the first negative speech (as well as the second and third) so that the definition does not proceed without dispute until much later.

A method failure results when a speaker argues a point that has already been conceded (thus failing to acknowledge the concession) or a point that is not being contested or relevant to the debate.

In administering a method penalty, you should be careful to note the distinction between matter and method. A speaker who commits a strategic error may be given full credit for the quality of the argument in matter, but a penalty will be imposed in method. On the other hand, if a speaker reacts appropriately to the dynamics of the debate, he or she may be rewarded in both method (for identifying the issue) and matter (for convincingly tackling it).

Assessing Manner

Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the debating case. Good manner will enhance the argument; bad manner will distract or detract the audience from the argument. The most important thing to remember when you assess manner is to ask the question “Was it effective?”.

The elements of manner

Vocal style: Volume of delivery should be audible; enunciation should be clear and plain; pace of delivery should be neither too slow nor too fast; vocal style should have variety and appropriate pauses for relaxation and emphasis; delivery should be reasonably fluent, confident and authoritative (but not arrogant or hectoring)

Use of language: Speakers should not vary from normal conversational language; they should beware of the use of slang or jargon of some field of specialty unfamiliar to the audience.

Use of notes: Notes should be unobtrusive, small enough to be held in one hand and contain only key words or headlines.

Use of eyes: Debaters should attempt to make eye contact with the audience.

Gesture: Gestures should be natural and appropriate and not laborious or distracting; mannerisms should be avoided.

Stance: Speakers may move around or stand still and you should assess the effectiveness of the stance by whether it aided the argument or distracted you from the argument.

Dress: Dress may only be taken into account in the assessment of manner where it is so incongruous that it affects the credibility of the speaker.

Impression of sincerity: A more sincere approach will make the speaker more believable and effective.

Personal attacks on opponents: Derogatory comments will not be tolerated and will suffer manner penalty as such remarks distracts the audience from the argument and also make the speaker lose the sympathetic ear of the audience; speakers should also not refer to the personal convictions held by opposing debaters.

Humor: Humor should be appropriate and may even be used at a crucial time in a serious debate.

Adjudicators must note that manner is assessed as the total impact of all its various elements – not as some aggregation of fixed categories according to rigid weightings.

Other Issues

Definitions are an important aspect of a debate. They play a large role in determining whether a debate is focused and enjoyable, or waywardly meandering and unclear.

Definition rules

Definitions must be reasonable. There must be a clear and logical link between the definition and the topic. A negative team may only challenge a definition on the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable. Squirreling and time setting are absolutely prohibited.

Truistic, tautological and circular definitions are those that allow the affirmative team to use indisputable truths as evidence, thereby not allowing the negative team to dispute. For example, on the topic "That we should eat and drink and be merry", if an affirmative team defined this topic to mean that we should eat something because otherwise we will die of starvation, we should drink something because otherwise we will die of thirst, and we should be happy because being sad is not a good thing, it leaves the negative team with no grounds to debate on. Wholly unreasonable definitions are those which seek to make the negative’s argument scarce or weak. Squirreling is where there is a reasonably obvious issue to be debated and one team decides to define the debate in a less than obvious way. An example would be, if on the topic "That Elvis is alive and well", the affirmative defined Elvis to be Elvis Martini, an Italian hairdresser known for his sideburn trims. The obvious issue for debate here is of course Elvis Presley. When the debate is set into a particular time, it constitutes time setting. Debates should take place in contemporary society though evidence from the past may certainly be used in argument.

The correct approach to definition is the ‘issue-based’ approach, rather than the ‘individual words’ approach. Many inexperienced debaters will give a careful and detailed definition of each word in the topic, and then string those definitions together into a sentence. It is of course frequently necessary to concentrate on one or more keywords in a topic, but at least as frequently the topic may be defined as a whole by looking at the context. Even with topics in which it may be deemed necessary to consider the nature of an individual keyword, the ultimate objective of definition is to be able to state a clear issue arising out of the examination of the individual words.

You must not start with any preconceived notion of the meaning of the topic (except to the extent that the average reasonable person shares such a notion). Like all matter, you should not wait to see if the definition is attacked before deciding whether or not it is persuasive. The definition is assessed with its supporting arguments when it is delivered.

Competing definitions

When the negative challenges the definition put forth by the affirmative (on the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable), there is no rule that says that the proposition’s definition is automatically invalid. It is just that the affirmative faces the difficulty that an average reasonable person would regard such a proposition as being unreasonable and unlikely to be what was in the mind of the person who set the topic. But the onus is on the disagreeing team to show that the unreasonable definition is heavily biased against their case and cannot be argued against. It is not enough to utter protests that would become a copy of self-pity. The issue is to be resolved by argument. The speakers must argue the relative merits of the competing definitions, not merely assert the merits of their own.

The definition issue is not decisive of the outcome, and the team that loses the definition issue will still have its subsequent arguments assessed on their own merits. When there is a significant divergence of definitions, you should expect teams to engage in an 'even-if' argument. That is:

“Our definition is correct and theirs is incorrect for the following reasons. But even if their definition was correct (which it is not), their case does not stand scrutiny even under their own definition.”

This should be followed by an attack on the merits of their opponent's case. In this way, a team is likely to score more matter marks, and the sterility of the definition debate is avoided. This issue is important enough for the absence of an 'even-if' to be penalized in method as a strategic error, if the competing definitions are widely divergent.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal is any argument that logically tends to the conclusion that the opposing team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:

· showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact

· showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic

· showing that the opposing argument is illogical

· showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable implications

· showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little weight

Matter marks should be used to indicate whether or not the rebuttal was persuasive, irrespective of the structure of the rebuttal. On the other hand, whether or not a speaker has structured the rebuttal so as to make it appear that the entire opposing case, or at least the main issues, has been called into question is an issue of method marks. Sometimes, a more global and thematic rebuttal is adopted over a point-by-point rebuttal of the opposition’s arguments. It is a simple case of focusing on the forest as a whole rather than the trees.

Reply speeches

You must understand the difference between the third speeches and the reply speeches. The replies are not merely tedious repetitions of the key parts of the third speeches. The third speakers should concentrate on detailed rebuttal and leave the summarizing to the reply speakers. The third negative should be especially cautious not to give anything more than a cursory summary at the end if his or her speech because a detailed summary is about to ensue from the reply. Third speakers who embark on extensive overviews and summaries (especially third negatives) should generally score lower marks in matter (for forgoing the opportunity to engage in detailed rebuttal of points) and method (for misunderstanding the role of the third speaker).

The ‘no new matter’ rule applies with a vengeance in reply speeches. To introduce new matter in a reply is a cardinal sin. It misconceives the role of a reply speech, which is a broad overview and not an examination of detail. New matter in a reply speech should be heavily penalized.

Misrepresentations

Misrepresentations are where one speaker inaccurately sets up an argument in order to attack it. This is a serious offense and should be penalized as it often happens during the third speeches and leaves the opposing team little chance to reply. Misrepresentation occurs when one speaker reiterates an opponent’s argument incorrectly or concentrates disproportionately on weaker aspects of the opposing argument, neglecting important issues. Be cautious when assessing misrepresentation to go through your notes and to rely less on memory. It is therefore essential that the information you record during each speech is comprehensive.

Team slides

A team slide is when a team starts off arguing a theme and then widens or narrows that theme under pressure from an opponent or in order to claim the matter being used by the opponents. This is unreasonable. You should pay extra attention during the first few minutes of the first speeches from both sides so that you are able to identify a team slide later in the debate. Team slides should be distinguished from concessions that, if not too substantial, will allow the debate to proceed on the contentious ground. For instance, it would not be an unreasonable concession for a negative team to concede, on the topic, That smoking should be banned, that there is a recognized link between smoking and disease. Such a concession would allow the debate to proceed upon the more contentious issues surrounding prohibition.

Ties

Ties must not be awarded in the tournament. There is no exception to this rule.

Marking Scale

Substantive speeches

Substantive speeches are marked out of 100

· the average mark is 75

· the lowest possible mark is 67 and the highest possible mark is 83

· most marks will be between 70 and 80

· matter and manner are marked out of 40, method out of 20

Reply speeches

Exactly half of the substantive speeches

· the average mark is 37.5

· the lowest possible mark is 33.5 and the highest possible mark is 41.5

· most marks will be between 35 and 40

· matter and manner are marked out of 20, method out of 10

Matter and Manner	Method	Meaning
27	13	Very poor
28-29	14	Below average – Poor
30	15	Average
31-32	16	Above average – Very Good
33	17	Excellent

Margin	Meaning
1-4	A very close debate with only minor differences separating both teams
5-9	A relatively clear decision with one team having an obvious advantage
10-12	A very clear win with the losing team probably having failed in one or more fundamental aspects of its argument or presentation

Conclusion

You should give a clear and firm decision of who has won, the reasons for that decision, and constructive comments to each speaker. A summary of the decisive issues in the debate and how each team dealt with or used these issues to their advantage or disadvantage may be in order here. Constructive comments made to each speaker should be brief and positive, especially to those who have not debated much before. You have around 5-7 minutes to deliver your adjudication and comments.

Good luck adjudicating!

GUIDELINES FOR DEBATERS

English Debating Society

Universitas Indonesia

(EDS UI)

Guidelines for Debaters
(Australasian Parliamentary)

Universitas Indonesia

Depok

1998

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................ 1

The Basics of Debating.............................................................................................. 1

Motions.......................................................................................................................... 2

Definitions.................................................................................................................... 2

Theme Line.................................................................................................................... 4

Team Split...................................................................................................................... 4

Arguments..................................................................................................................... 5

What adjudicators look for in a good argument

Preparing a Reasonable Argument

Rebuttal........................................................................................................................ 6

Organization of rebuttal

Roles of the Speakers................................................................................................. 7

The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's cases

The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument

The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponent’s case

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication

Adjudication................................................................................................................. 9

Closing.......................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction

This document is an introduction to Australasian Parliamentary debates, the motions/topics, team structure, etc. It is meant to help institutions and universities who are new to the Parliamentary debating format and are interested in participating in a debating competition using the format, but are still unclear on the rules and regulations. This document is not intended to serve as a definitive guide to the rules of the tournament.

The Basics of Debating

Debating is about developing your communication skills. It is about assembling and organizing effective arguments, persuading and entertaining an audience, and using your voice and gestures to convince an adjudicator that your arguments outweigh your oppositions. Debating is not about personal abuse, irrational attacks or purely emotional appeals.

A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These two teams will be referred to as the Affirmative and the Negative. Members of each team are assigned positions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speakers. For each debate, a motion is given. After the motion is given, teams are given thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each debate.

Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of seven (7) minutes duration and either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides will deliver the reply speeches for their teams. Reply speeches will be five (5) minutes.

Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:

· 1st Affirmative – 7 minutes

· 1st Negative – 7 minutes

Substantial Speeches

2nd Affirmative – 7 minutes

· 2nd Negative – 7 minutes

· 3rd Affirmative – 7 minutes

· 3rd Negative – 7 minutes

Reply Speeches

Negative Reply – 5 minutes

· Affirmative Reply – 5 minutes

What must both sides do? In general:

· Affirmative (also known as “the Government”)

The Affirmative team must define the motion and support this by giving constructive arguments. The right to define first resides with the Affirmative team, who is expected to give a reasonable definition for the motion.

· Negative (also known as “the Opposition”)

The Negative team must oppose the motion as defined by the Affirmative, and build a counter-case against the Affirmative. In the event the Negative team feels that the definition is invalid, they may challenge the definition and propose an alternative definition. However, the Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition is more reasonable.

Motions

Motions, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate, the Affirmative team must argue to defend the propositional statement of the motion, and the Negative team must argue to oppose it.

Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about:

· That we should give President Habibie a chance

· That Indonesia should change its constitution

· That football is overvalued in today’s society

· That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the bad effects of smoking

· That American pop culture is a threat to civilization

· That long is better than short

Definitions

Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined by the Affirmative team. A definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a clear description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting what the debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the debate from turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments and different interpretations from both teams of what is actually being debated among them.

The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual words only if they have a key role. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in the debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on a word-by-word basis, it should define words or phrases by their common usage. Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning or a pithy explanation of a word, but they are not an absolute authority.

An example of a definition could be as follows: Given the motion “that what goes up, must come down”, the Affirmative is presented with many options on how to define the motion, because the nature of the motion itself is quite abstract. One way they could define it is as follows: they could define the object (the ‘what’) as being the president of the Republic of Indonesia. In essence, the motion would then state that anyone who “goes up” (takes power) as president of Indonesia, must undoubtedly one day “come down” (step down from power). This would give us the definition “that the Indonesian presidency should be limited to 2 terms”. The Affirmative team could then argue on the detriments of having unlimited presidential terms, citing proof such as the total control of the past regime under Soeharto, etc.

The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of the debate is unknown until the Affirmative delivers their definition of the motion. Only then does it become clear.

Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable. This is to say that:

· it must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and

· it must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.

This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.

The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the Affirmative, but the Negative shall have the right of challenging the definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set out above. However, a Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological, Squirreling, or Time and place setting (see below).

If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to say so, and it is unnecessary to restate it. If they challenge it, their justification for doing so must be clearly stated, and an alternative definition must be put forward. If the definition is accepted, then that definition must stand. The Negative must adjust their case to that definition, and the adjudicator's views on its reasonableness become irrelevant.

The following definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be challenged by the Negative team:

· Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic definition would be if the motion “that we should eat, drink, and be merry” were defined as “that we should eat, because otherwise we would starve to death; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst; and be merry because we are alive”.

· Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a definition is given in such a way that it is logically impossible to negate it. An example would be if the motion “that technology is killing our work ethic” were defined as follows: the Affirmative team decides to define the term ‘technology’ as meaning “all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic”. This would result in the whole definition “that all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic is killing our work ethic”. This cannot be logically proven false.

· Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the motion and do not have a proper logical link to the motion will constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion “that the USA is opening up to the PRC”, an Affirmative team could try and define USA as “Untidy Students of Asia”, and PRC as “Pretty Room Cleaners”. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree that the spirit of the motion is about the relationship between the United States and China!

· Time and Place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a particular time and place. For instance, trying to limit the subject matter to only the economic development of Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration.

A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about challenging definitions - only do so if you are absolutely certain that the Affirmative's definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump your prepared case in favor of tackling the Affirmative on their own terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By the same token, Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is fair.

Theme Line

The theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is the main instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a team’s stand on the motion. A theme line can be viewed as a ‘Case In A Nutshell’, because it concisely explains a team’s strategy in defending or negating the motion.

The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team member. It is the main idea that links together the first, second, and third speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.

In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: Why is the propositional statement given by the definition of the motion true (or false, for the Negative team)? Without further explanation, this propositional statement is a mere assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven to be true. The answer to this question must be an argument which proves the assertion given by the motion. This argument is the theme line.

A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all arguments brought forward should be based on this theme line.

Team Split

Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the arguments should be distributed among speakers. This is called the team split. Simply put, the team split is the distribution of arguments to the first, second, and third speaker.

Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion. You should not create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion.

For a more elaborate exposition on formulating theme lines and team splits, please consult the document entitled “Casebuilding Examples of Australasian Parliamentary Debates”. It contains thorough examples that give a very clear idea on how to construct theme lines and team splits from definitions.

Arguments

Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. examples, facts, statistics, quotations of expert/public opinion etc.) to back up each point you make in your argument. Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and how it advances your argument. Make a point, give the reason for that point, and supply evidence to back it up.

Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have yet to be proven to be logically true. On the other hand, arguments must have supporting logic and facts that can show its validity.

What adjudicators look for in a good argument

· Relevance

· Organization

· Consistency and internal logic - i.e. don't contradict yourself or your teammates

· Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience and adjudicator that you're right - so make sure they can understand what you're saying!)

· Effective use of evidence

Preparing a Reasonable Argument

One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and – especially important – to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises and whether those premises are true.

When developing your argument, consider the following factors:

· Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the "facts."

· Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all points of view.

· Arguments from authority carry little weight – "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

· Prepare more than one case. If there's something to be defined, think of all the different ways in which it could be defined. Then think of arguments by which you might systematically rebut each of the cases. What survives, the case that resists rebuttal in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working cases," has a much better chance of being the stronger case than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

· Try not to get overly attached to a idea just because it's yours. It's only a waystation in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

· Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to defend it against generalized rebuttal. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

· If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) – not just most of them.

· Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

· Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not in the spirit of debating. You run a good chance of losing a debate, especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your arguments cannot be rebutted.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal is the process of proving that the opposing team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:

· showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact

· showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic

· showing that the opposing argument is illogical

· showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable implications

· showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little weight

As with arguments, assertions do not equal rebuttals. Just as teams must show how and why their own arguments are valid, so they must show how and why the opposition's arguments are invalid.

· An argument may be wrong in fact or logic - if so, say how and why

· An argument may contradict their team line, or something else a speaker on that team has said – if so, point it out

· An argument may be true but completely irrelevant – these are often called “red herrings”.

Organization of rebuttal

It is not necessary to rebutt every single point and fact raised by the opposition. Single out their main arguments and attack those first. Savage their theme line and show how it falls down – and show why yours is better! You should rebutt by both destroying the opposition's arguments and by establishing a case that directly opposes theirs.

Roles of the Speakers

The six speakers in an Australasian Parliamentary debate each have different roles to play and adjudicators should take account of how well a speaker fulfills his/her obligations.

The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's cases

First Affirmative’s duties:

· Defines the motion of the debate. The 1^st Affirmative should ensure that no important points of definition are left out.

· Presents the Affirmative’s theme line. This is normally presented in one or several lines of analysis, explaining why the Affirmative’s case is logically correct.

· Outlines the Affirmative’s team split. This can be done by saying, for example: “I, as the first affirmative will deal with the philosophical base of our case, while my colleague, the second affirmative speaker, will examine its practical implications”.

· Delivers substantial arguments (“1^st Affirmative’s part of the split”). After establishing the definition, theme line, and team split, the 1^st Affirmative should then deal with the arguments/points that have been assigned to him/her in the team split.

· Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1^st Affirmative may spend some time on the definition and on establishing the theme line and showing how it is going to develop, but it is important to leave time to present some substantive arguments.

First Negative’s duties:

· Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the definition).

· Rebutts 1^st Affirmative, delivers a part of the negative's substantive case.

· Presents the Negative’s theme line.

· Outlines the Negative’s team split.

· Delivers substantial arguments (“1^st Negative’s part of the split”).

· Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1^st Negative’s role is similar to the role of the 1^st Affirmative’s, with the added responsibility of responding to the arguments brought up by the latter. The response to the 1^st Affirmative’s arguments can come before the 1^st Negative presents his/her own arguments to support the Negative’s case or vice-versa. However, the delivery of rebuttals first is recommended.

After the first speakers have spoken the main direction of each team’s case should be apparent.

The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument

Second Affirmative’s duties:

· Rebutts the 1^st Negative's major arguments.

· Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Affirmative’s team case.

· Delivers substantial arguments (“2^nd Affirmative’s part of the split”). Most of the 2^nd Affirmative's time should be spent dealing with new substantial material/arguments. He or she has the duty to present the bulk of the Affirmative's case in an attempt to further argue in favor of the Affirmative.

· Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2^nd Affirmative should be prepared to defend the definition if necessary. If it is attacked, it is vital for the 2^nd Affirmative to win back the initiative.

Second Negative’s duties:

· Rebuttal of the first two Affirmative speakers.

· Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Negative’s team case.

· Delivers substantial arguments (“2^nd Negative’s part of the split”).

· Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2^nd Negative has duties similar to the one performed by the 2^nd Affirmative.

Most of the teams' substantive argument should have emerged by the time both second speakers have spoken.

The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponent’s case

Third Affirmative’s duties:

· Rebutt the points raised by the first two Negative speakers. The 3^rd Affirmative is mainly entrusted with the duty of responding to the arguments of the Negative that were not previously dealt with by the first two Affirmative speakers. 3^rd Affirmative may also reinforce rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates.

· Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers’ arguments).

· Summarize the issues of the debate.

The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! Most of a third speaker's time must be spent rebutting the preceding speakers. Generally at least three quarters of a third speech should be rebuttal.

Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a global level (teamwise), a 3^rd speaker should attack the opposing team’s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic. On a more detailed level (speechwise), a 3^rd speaker should be able to point out the mistakes in fact and inconsistency of each individual speech.

Third Negative’s duties:

· Rebutt the points raised by all three Affirmative speakers.

· Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers’ arguments).

· Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate

· Summarize the issues of the debate

The 3^rd Negative has duties similar to the ones performed by the 3^rd Affirmative. However, the 3^rd Negative cannot introduce new matter, except for new examples to reinforce an argument that has previously been brought up. The logic behind this rule is that if a 3^rd Negative is allowed to introduce new matter, the Affirmative would be at a disadvantage as they would not have any opportunity to be able to respond to these new arguments.

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication

Reply speakers duties (both sides):

· Provide a summary or overview of the debate

· Identify the issues raised by both sides

· Provide a biased adjudication of the debate

Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply speech. The Negative team delivers the first reply speech.

A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both are effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits you best. However, the latter style is often more effective in light of the limited time frame.

The introduction of new material is absolutely prohibited and will be penalized. Any point brought up by the other side which had not been rebutted earlier in the substantial speeches may not be rebutted in the reply speeches. Therefore, this means that all substantive arguments presented in the debate must be dealt with by the opposing team in the substantial speeches.

Adjudication

Adjudication is the process of determining which team wins the debates. This is conducted by an adjudicator, or a panel consisting of an odd number of adjudicators.

There is always a winner in a debate. There are no ‘draws’ or ‘ties’. The speakers are assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is 40 points, Manner is 40, and Method is 20, making a total of 100 points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter and Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50 points.

Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples brought up during the course of the debate. Manner is concerned with the style of public-speaking – the use of voice, language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality as a medium for making the audience more receptive to the argument being delivered. There are no set rules which must be followed by debaters. Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, the effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.

Closing

This document is not intended to be the definitive set of rules that you must adhere to in debating. It serves as a source of information. For further information, please check out the Casebuilding Examples of Australasian Parliamentary Debate. It provides more in-depth explanation of cases, and gives examples to give a good idea of how one should construct cases.

Finally, it must be said that “practice makes perfect”. No one ever masters the art of swimming or riding a bicycle by thoroughly reading guidelines and handbooks. One must take that first plunge, and perhaps even fall down once or twice, before finally becoming skillful. The same applies to debating. These guidelines should be enough to get you started. But practice makes perfect.

Happy Debating!

Casebuilding Examples

English Debating Society

Universitas Indonesia

(EDS UI)

Casebuilding Examples
(Australasian Parliamentary)

Universitas Indonesia

Depok

1998

Introduction

This document tries to quickly explain the important aspects that debaters need to know in order to be able to casebuild for debating in a competition using Australasian Parliamentary format. This document should not be considered as a definitive guide to debating. Please use these examples to help you understand the idea of competitive debating, not to ruin your own wit and creativity! We will do two examples. Each example will be explained in parallel, coded [A] and [B].

Motions

After it is decided who is going to be the Affirmative team and who’s going to be the Negative, the two teams will then decide to pick one motion out of a choice of three motions. The motions will be in the form of complete propositional statements (not questions or phrases). Let’s say, for the sake of our example, the motions selected in example [A] and [B] are:

[A] That we should give President Habibie a chance.

[B] That the world is square.

After the motion is decided, the next thing both teams would do is casebuilding. There is a period of 30 minutes between the announcement of the motions and the start of the debate, so considering the time taken to choose the motion, going to your assigned room (in preliminary rounds), etc., both teams will have about 15 to 20 minutes on casebuilding. During casebuilding, each team is unallowed to confer with other people, including their team manager or coach.

Casebuilding

Casebuilding is the process of preparing a case to be debated. What is a case? As in the legal world, a case is an integrated collection of argumentation, logic, facts, examples, and statements that one uses to prove a point. Casebuilding includes:

deciding on how to define the motion—this is very important!
preparing the general strategy/approach to defend the case (theme line)
dividing the tasks of proving the motion to each speaker (team split)
finding and analyzing the arguments, facts, examples, etc. both for your side’s case and for the rebuttal of the other side's case
preparing the individual speeches

In competition, the time given for preparing a debate is usually only 15 minutes (this includes walking to the rooms, etc.). It is important that debaters are trained to do casebuilding in 15 minutes. Debaters should learn and practice to concentrate on bursting their mental energy in this short period of time.

Because of the short preparation time, time management is a crucial factor in casebuilding. A suggestion on the steps of casebuilding and its time allocation follows:

Brainstorm individually on the motion (1 to 2 minutes).
It is important that the debaters start the casebuilding process by brainstorming individually. This way we'll be more comfortable in discussing the issue with our partner.
Discuss the brainstorming (2 minutes).
Go through each persons' brainstorming and discuss the points.
Agree on a definition (5 to 6 minutes).
Come up with all the arguments (7 to 9 minutes)
Come up with the team split.
Prepare individual speech (5 minutes).
Prepare your notes by writing your points on the cue cards. Do not use this time to write the whole speech (you won't have enough time to do that). Do use this time to practice your speech (by speaking), for example practice on how are you going to open your speech, how are you going to deliver the definition and team split (so that it can be clarified within the first minute of the speech), etc.

There is no definitive guideline on how to casebuild. Some teams prefer to brainstorm all ideas that they can think of first, and then try to structure it into a solid case. Unfortunately, brainstorming can easily become time consuming. Another way would be to make the process of casebuilding itself structured from the very beginning.

Definition

Deciding on the definition is a very important part of casebuilding. To define a motion means giving clear boundaries to what the case will be about. Some motions are even meaningless without a proper definition! You usually can’t make good definitions by merely defining each word of the motion according to a dictionary (except for some key words or phrases). What is more important is the definition of the motion as a whole.

How to make a good definition? There are several points to remember in making a definition:

Look at individual words. When the motion is reasonably clear in direction, it is a good idea to look at individual key words or phrases and make sure that they are well-defined. Even when we think that a word or phrase is clear enough in scope, do think about the possibilities: how likely can the word or phrase be misunderstood? If we ourselves still find these key words to be ambiguous, you can almost be sure that the Opposition will also find them ambiguous. Remember the law: if you think you can be misunderstood, then someone will.
Look at issues. Think about what does this topic mean in the real world. Find issues in the real world that are strongly related with the motion. Real world issues have two sides: theoretical and empirical/practical. Use your definition as a means to reach these issues.

Try defining the motions in the following examples: Some hints are given to help you out, but you should try to define these examples on your own first.

Example 1: That smoking should be banned.

Look at keywords: What is "smoking"? What is "banned"? These may seem trivial, but when we think again, we'll see that "smoking" can, among other things, be interpreted as either "smoking cigarettes" or "smoking marijuana", and these two interpretations will make two different debates.

Look at the issues: This motion can be defined into public health issue (hence, banning smoking completely) or the effect of passive smoking issue (no smoking in public places). Note that with the latter, we might need to further define what constitutes a "public place".

Example 2: That high fences make good neighbours.

Firstly we have to think what does this proverb mean in the real world. Then, try to find issues which are strongly linked to this idea. For example, "high fences" could be interpreted as "strong national security". This interpretation can then be used to bring the debate into, for example, the issue of the use of nuclear weapons as weapons of deterrance (by the Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD]).

Another possible interpretation of "high fences" could be "strict regulations in trade". The Government may choose to argue about how strict regulations in trade between nations will avoid black markets and other detriments.

Example 3: That the bride should wear black.

This could be related to the issue of feminism and marriage: that in marriage, the bride has less power (as opposed to when she's unwed).

Example 4: That there is no case for terrorism.

In this example, the definition of "terrorism" is crucial. The Opening Government should define "terrorism" as the word is used by the average reasonable person, instead of loading the definition with attributes which have only negative connotations.

A definition should never be self-serving, i.e. an Opening Government should not seek to win the debate by providing tricky definitions.

There is no strict rules about how narrow or how wide a definition should be, so it can either be narrow or broad. Just remember that all teams will have a certain amount of time in presenting arguments, so a definition that is either too narrow or too broad will definitely bring difficulties later on.

How do we know that a definition (e.g. parameters) is enough? To answer this, try to play the other side. Try to question our own definition's clarity, comprehensiveness, and thoroughness. If we are not satisfied, then most definitely the other side won't be. A good definition is imperative to making good debates. Though definition is important, do remember that definition is only a tool. Use definitions to reach an issue.

Training tip: To train debaters to make good definitions, have them make definitions in a limited amount of time (for example, 5 minutes) and then have them do the first minute of First Speaker of Opening Government speech.

Rules on definition:

Definition must have clear and logical link to the topic.
Definition must not be time or place set.
Definition must not be truistic (self-proving).

On time and place setting: This rule is intended to prevent unreasonable time and place setting, i.e. the kind of time and place setting which would require specific knowledge to debate on the motion. However, if there is an issue that has been known worldwide, do not hesitate to set it into that issue. This rule is not intended to prevent debate on issues.

Example of worldwide issue: It would be acceptable to define "That we should trade land for peace." into the issue of Palestine - Israel conflicts.

On truism: A truism is something that cannot be debated because no reasonable opposition exists. By making a truistic definition, the Opening Government seeks to win the debate by virtue of their definition, not arguments.

Example of truism: When "That there is no such thing as a human right." is defined as "There is no such thing as a human right, because everywhere around the world there are always human right abuses." Therefore, the onus of proof is placed upon the other side to prove that until all human rights abuses are stopped, there can never be such thing as human rights. This places an unfair burden of proof on the opposition. There will never be a time when all human rights abuses will be stopped, but this does not deny the existence, or the possibility of the existence of human rights. This definition is self serving because it places an entirely unfair burden of proof on the opposition side.

Debate [A]: Affirmative

The motion is “that we should give President Habibie a chance”. You would probably decide to use a trivial definition for “President Habibie”, i.e. “the current president of Republic of Indonesia”. Next, the phrase “to give President Habibie a chance” may be defined as “to let him rule Indonesia until the end of his presidential term, i.e. the year 2003”. Now, don’t forget to define who “we” are! Here, it can be defined as “the Indonesian people, i.e. the citizens of Republic of Indonesia”, or “the Government side of the parliament (assuming an Australian form of a parliament)”. [Please note that this document was written in 1998]

The definition as a whole would then be “that the Indonesian people should let President Habibie rule Indonesia until the end of his presidential term”. You should consider whether this definition is clear and limited enough in scope. You should also check whether this definition is valid and therefore should be accepted by the Negative team. Remember that a definition can (and should) be challenged by the Negative team if it is either tautological or truistic, it is considered as squirreling, or it employs time and place setting. For a clearer explanation on these properties, please refer to the Guidelines for Debaters document.

Our definition is neither tautological nor truistic. It is highly debatable in nature. It is also closely related to the original motion, so we’re not squirreling in any way. There is also no place or time setting here, because the motion itself already implies an Indonesian setting (“President Habibie”) and a certain period of time (“to give a chance”).

Debate [A]: Negative

The Negative team would build a case based on the negation of the motion. The easiest way to do this is to add “that it is not true” in front of the motion. So in this case we have “that it is not true that we should give President Habibie a chance”, or in other words, “that we should not give President Habibie a chance”.

Although during casebuilding the Negative team has no idea of what the definition is going to be, they can make a calculated guess about the definition. In this case it is probably best for the Negative to simply make their own definition as if they were the Affirmative, since the two definitions would very likely be compatible.

Assuming that we take the trivial definition, the negation of such definition from the negative could be "that we should replace President Habibie as soon as possible". This could then be refined into "that we should let President Habibie rule only during the transitional period, that is, before the general election and the special session of the MPR, approximately until 1999". Your team can then build your case based on that definition.

Be prepared, though, that some teams can make surprising definitions even with the most obvious motions! For example, the affirmative team could have defined “to give President Habibie a chance” as “to let President Habibie rule until the end of 1998 only”. In that case, you’d have to change your definition of “not to give a chance” instantly during the debate into something else (e.g. “to replace immediately”). Or, you’d probably realize that the Affirmative is actually trying to jump into your side of the case, and decide to challenge the Affirmative’s definition due to squirreling: how can you logically think of "letting Habibie rule until 1998 only" as the same as “giving him a chance”? Beware, though, that launching the definitional challenge would result in two identical cases brought by the two different sides! Does all this sound complicated? Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it quickly.

Debate [B]: Affirmative

The motion is "that the world is square". There is no way you can define this trivially; common knowledge dictates that the statement is false if taken literally! This type of metaphorical motions (usually found in humor rounds) can be defined into many different cases (as long as they're debatable: no tautology/truism, no squirreling, no time/place setting). Here is one example that may seem a bit far-fetched at first.

We define the world as life in general, and since life has so many aspects, we are going to pick two interrelated aspects of life: religion and marriage institution. A square is a geometrical shape having four straight lines and four corners, which to us resembles and reflects rigidity. The same rigidity applies to religion: religion is a set of dogmatic values based on a belief in the existence of One Supreme God (hence refining the definition of religion into monotheistic religion). Religion has strict rules that must be adhered to by its believers, and its believers take it as a way of life. We are going to propose a definition of "that a person should not marry another person who has a different religion". This is directly connected with the rigidity of religions as mentioned above.

Let's examine this sample definition. It is pretty much debatable, no truism nor tautology is involved. There is no time/place setting (we define religion into monotheistic religion, but that is allowed since it is not place setting). Are we squirreling? Well, not if we can explain carefully the steps taken into arriving to our definition and make sure that there is no missing logical link between the original motion and our definition.

Note also the careful wording of "should not marry". We are not saying whether inter-religious marriages should be allowed or not. Saying that something should not be done is not the same as prohibiting that something by means of law. So the Affirmative here does not really take the role of a government, but just a group of average persons saying that people should not perform inter-religious marriages.

Debate [B]: Negative

Although the definition from the Affirmative is harder to guess in this case, it would be better for the Negative team to insist on casebuilding instead of waiting for the debate to begin and then build their team's case on the spot. Firstly, there is always this possibility that the Affirmative violates the rules about definition, so the Negative should prepare one definition to be brought forward in case the definition can (or must) be challenged. Secondly, you can always try to look into the spirit of the motion and then negate that, or in other words, try to negate the motion in a philosophical level. Thirdly, you can also try to enumerate several possibilities of what the affirmative's definition would be and how to negate it (e.g. by brainstorming).

Once again, as an example, we will add “that it is not true” in front of the motion, giving us the statement “that it is not true that the world is square”, or in other words, “that the world is not square”. Looking up the word ‘square’ in the dictionary, we find a slang meaning “old-fashioned, unsophisticated”. We could thendtefine the motion to be about how teenagers today are dictated by fashion and trend, resulting in the so-called “Generation X” culture.

A question may arise in your mind: what happens if the Negative team builds this “Generation X” case, and then goes up against an Affirmative team that has defined the motion as “that a person should not marry another person who has a different religion”? The answer is that the Negative team will probably have to dump the case that they have carefully built for 30 minutes and quickly try to formulate a new strategy and build a new counter-case after hearing the definition!

Theme Line and Arguments

A theme line is, simply put, the core argument of your case based on the motion as it is defined. It is the main idea that links together all speeches from the first, second, and third speakers. A theme line will ensure that all speeches will be consistent in proving the case.

A theme line is basically an abstract idea, and different teams might have different ways to convey it. A theme line should be kept short and simple, and it may take a form of one single sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all arguments brought forward would be based on this theme line.Here are theme lines that might appear in our examples. Please remember that these are only examples! We leave the actual arguments, facts, data, etc. as your exercise.

Debate [A]: Affirmative

Premise 1 : Indonesian people should prioritize handling the economic situation above all else.

Premise 2 : The economic situation can only be handled by a strong and stable government with a strong and stable leader; these criteria can only be fulfilled if we let the current president serve the presidential term fully.

Conclusion : Indonesian people should let President Habibie rule until the end of his presidential term.

Premise 1 seems pretty obvious and should be fairly easy to prove, but Premise 2 definitely needs a lot of arguments to support it. You might find it easier if Premise 2 is further broken up into smaller statements. In fact, if this particular theme line is to be formulated as a single sentence, we'd choose Premise 2 on its own (assuming that Premise 1 is a generally acceptable assumption).

Debate [A]: Negative

Premise 1 : Indonesian people need a government that is free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.

Premise 2 : For a government to be clean and free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism, its leader, the president, should also be free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.

Pre-Conclusion : Indonesian people need a president that is free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.

Premise 3 : President Habibie is not free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.

Conclusion : Indonesian people need a president other than President Habibie.

Premise 1 may not need too many arguments to prove, since it can be considered as something that everyone agrees to. However, you should prepare something to say about this in case the Negative brought up the question of why should we have a government that is free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism in the first place. Premise 2 may need some theories of political science or historical data to support it. The two premises prove the pre-conclusion. Premise 3 requires that your team provide evidence to your accusations. If all three premises are proven, then by logical syllogism the Conclusion is also proven, and this Conclusion is simply another way of saying that President Habibie should be replaced as soon as possible.

If this theme line is to be written in a form of a single sentence, try Premise 3 alone.

Debate [B]: Affirmative

Premise 1 : Religion is a set of dogmatic and fundamental values and rules that guide and direct people in living their lives; different religions have different rules about how one should live their lives.

Premise 2 : Marriage is a bonding of two individuals in holy matrimony; it is the closest form of juxtaposition possible between two persons, and any fundamental differences between them would be very likely to disturb a marriage.

Premise 3 : If a person marries another person with a different religion, there will be a fundamental difference between the two individuals that may be hazardous to the harmony of the marriage.

Conclusion : A person should not marry another person with a different religion.

If this theme line is to be written in a form of a single sentence, try Premise 3 alone.

Debate [B]: Negative

We leave this one as your exercise.

Team Split

Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on the team split. The team split is, simply put, the division (distribution) of arguments to the first, second, and probably, in the case of Affirmative, third speaker.

Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion. So, if you had been making theme lines using the syllogism strategy, you don't turn the theme line directly into a team split, i.e. by assigning Premise 1 to the first speaker and Premise 2 to the second speaker. Doing so would result in what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion. Adjudicators would give a low score on Method to teams with a hung case, because hung cases make it hard for the other side to rebutt your arguments.

A common way of splitting tasks is to divide them into several aspects (e.q. economic, social, political, cultural, etc.) and then give each speaker one or two aspects. Other divisions could be past to present, philosophical to practical, benefit of doing to detriments of not doing, etc.

Because the first speaker has to explain the definition, theme line, and team split (and rebutt the first Affirmative's speech if Negative) before launching into his/her part of the split, usually the split between the first and second speakers are not balanced but weighs more heavily to the second speaker, In making team splits, consider the time available for the speaker to develop the arguments. For example, a first speaker's split is usually smaller than that of the second speaker's, because the first speaker will also need time to present the outline of the case.. Indeed, the second speaker is often said to have to provide the ‘meat’ of the team's case, i.e. the strongest and most important arguments from the team. Also, it often happens that the first speaker (especially that of the Affirmative) has to deliver some introductory information to the issue of the debate (such as historical background, significance of discussing the issue, etc.).

The format of Australasian Parliamentary prohibits the third speaker of the Negative team from giving new matter (new examples, especially in rebuttal, are allowed). The third speaker from the Affirmative is also discouraged from giving new matter. Besides, the third speakers mainly have to rebutt the other side's case. The third speakers may give new examples, though, and indeed usually third speakers are not included in the team split.

Here are sample team splits from our example cases. Again, these are only examples, and they are by no means perfect!

Debate [A]: Affirmative

First Speaker : the benefit of keeping President Habibie in place until the end of his term: maintaining stability whilst keeping the opportunity of peaceful reformations, etc.

Second Speaker : the detriments of insisting on replacing President Habibie before the end of his presidential term: political instability à civil war; worsen economic condition à starvation, etc.

Debate [A]: Negative

We leave this one as your exercise.

Debate [B]: Affirmative

First Speaker : ideological aspect: the constraints from each religion itself (not allowing believers to marry people with different religion), etc.

Second Speaker : social aspect: difficulties in child education, inability to perform religious rituals together, pressure from family and society, etc.

Debate [B]: Negative

We leave this one as your exercise.

Just before the time allocated for casebuilding ends, try reiterating the main points of your case. Make sure that every team member thoroughly understands the definition, theme line, and team split. This can be done, for example, by each member starting from the first speaker briefly enumerate the points that their speech will contain.

Then, take your position, take a deep breath, relax and enjoy the debate.

Is joining debating club the right choice..?

Questioners (choose one)

Is joining debating club the right choice..?

Facing a very good and experienced debater in my first competition.

a. Is scary but also exciting and challenging, even though I can’t even speak in English fluently and even though I know there’s a very little chance for me to win. Because I believe I can learn some techniques on how to beat my opponent in my next competition from the way this very good and experienced debater beat me now.

b. Are you out of your mind..?!! It is useless, there’s no way on earth I can win against this guy, I’ll be slaughtered successfully. Hey I’m just a beginner debater, just to stand in front of a lot of people is enough to make me trembling, not to mention to talk in front of them..!!, it is just too scary you know..!!!.

Searching for the detail of all information (even the smallest one) in the internet related to the motion/topic for hours almost every day.

a. Is troublesome and boring, the topic is just way too difficult for me to be understood, I don’t even know how to use the internet, even though I know how to use it I’d just better open my friendster. Hey I’m just a first grade student, what do you expect..?! p.s I also very busy attending study course after school.

b. Is exciting and making me very curious, it is like playing detective investigation. Because it makes me know about a lot of things and information around the world that I didn’t know before, it also enriches my English vocabulary. Besides, where else I can get information about the topic if not from the internet, I could be slaughtered in the competition if I don’t have enough information about the topic. Actually I’m also very busy to do other things, so I think I have to carefully manage the time that I have to go to the internet cafe.

Letting my couch or the best student from my team do all the internet searching and the argument making for my debate competition

a. Is a very good idea, because the couch and the best student from my team is better in searching and making the argument, the information that they search in the internet and the argument that they make will lead my team to victory easily. I trusted all of the information and the argument on them.

b. Is pathetic, I’m the one who is going to face the competition and not my couch, it is suppose to be me that should know a lot of things about the topic, not my couch. Besides, it is a team competition, if only the best student from my team that know everything and I still don’t know anything about the topic, I could lead my team to loose in the competition by saying something about the topic wrongly.

Watching debating competition of other school, especially in the semi final and final round, even though the team from my school has already lost

a. Is very useful, I can learn a lot of things about debating technique from all of those debate teams’ performance. I can learn straight from the best teams, because only the best that can make it to the