280 likes | 291 Views
Rotary Invitational Debates. Modified Asian Parliamentary Format 4 Elimination R ounds Breaks to Quarterfinals. Tournament Rules. 25 Minutes P reparation T ime No V eto 7 Minute S peeches 4 Minute Reply S peeches 15 Second POI’s. Modified Asians. Speaker Positions.
E N D
Modified Asian Parliamentary Format • 4 Elimination Rounds • Breaks to Quarterfinals Tournament Rules
25 Minutes Preparation Time • No Veto • 7 Minute Speeches • 4 Minute Reply Speeches • 15 Second POI’s Modified Asians
PUTTING ARGUMENTS IN REAL ACTION Taken from the UPDS Basic Debate Seminar
7-minute speeches, with the first and last minute being uninterrupted (no points of information)
Prime Minister Leader of Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply Provide the set-up Advance positive argumentation for their side
Prime Minister Leader of Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply Provide the clash Respond to PM Advance positive argumentation for their side
Prime Minister Leader of Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply Respond to the previous speaker Support the 1st speaker Advance positive argumentation for their side
Prime Minister Leader of Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply Support the extension Synthesize the debate
Prime Minister Leader of Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply Provide a biased adjudication Only constructive speakers (PM, LO, DPM, DLO) can be reply speakers
The topic which the Government team must defend and the Opposition team must oppose • Must be defined by the Prime Minister Motion
Each definition must: • Have a clear link to the debate • Be fair and debatable • Identify the issues to be debated and the scope of the debate (standards) • Include parameters when necessary Defining the Motion
A definition should be challenged when it is one of the following: • Squirrel • Time/Place Set • Truism When Should A Definition Be Challenged?
If a definition provided by the Prime Minister is a squirrel, time/place set or truism, the LO can challenge the definition. • Only the LO can mount a challenge. If the LO does not challenge, no one else in the debate can do so. How Do You Mount A Definitional Challenge?
The LO must provide an alternative definition that (s)he must then oppose • Even-if arguments for both sides • There are no automatic wins/losses How Do You Mount A Definitional Challenge?
The content of the speech. It is the material the debater uses to persuade the audience • Includes arguments, reasoning and examples • Includes rebuttals • Includes Points of Information Matter
Read more • Read not just to gain examples, but to gain arguments and frames • Train more • Training is the best way to refine your skills • Listen more • Listen not just to the person you are rebutting, but also your teammates. Consistency is also important How Do You Improve Your Matter?
The style of the speech. It is the presentation a debater uses to persuade the audience • Comprised of many elements • Posture • Accent • Voice (pitch, loudness, etc) • Speed of Talking • Humor • Gestures Manner
There is no correct style of debating, as long as you make them listen to you and take you seriously • Many styles exist • The Statesman • The Showman • The Angry Man • TIP: ADJUST ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONALITY Is There A Correct Style of Manner?
The organization of the speech. It is the structure a debater uses to persuade the audience • Comprised of many elements • Time Management • Signposting • Rigor in Argumentation Method
Key Question: Where am I in my speech? • Signpost everything: “This is my argument”, “These are my rebuttals”, etc. • Manage time wisely. Look at your timer • Make better notes • Use simpler language How Do I Improve My Method?
67 – 68: No contributions, speech (or lack thereof) hurt the team case 69 – 71: Speech was incoherent and deeply flawed. Major technical violations were committed 71 – 73: Below Average. Ideas were underdeveloped, substantive matter was lacking, little to no responsiveness or dynamism. Minor technical violations were committed 74 – 76: Average. Material was equal parts good and flawed. The speech was largely only adequate in fulfilling role burdens and technical rules. ScoringRange
77 – 79: Above Average. Arguments were complete, clear and answered questions in the debate. Role positions were fulfilled well, including accepting at least one POI. Material was precise and true to the core of the debate. Meta-argument was also present. 80 – 81: Excellent. Completely brilliant and eye-opening. Showcased not only an understanding of the issues but also compelling insights into them. No complaints in terms of role fulfillment or substantiation. 82-83: Perfect. Speech was absolutely flawless, brilliant and belief-shattering. ScoringRange