The European Union Intervarsity Debate Championship 2011

1. The European Union Intervarsity Debate Championship 2011 Debating SeminarDelivered by Bryan Gunawan & Teddy TriatmojoOn That Point Debate & Public Speaking Institute

2. Tournament Guidelines • Phase 1: Elimination Rounds Top 20 – each one match based on draw – 10 winners from each debate will be sorted based on scores – top 8 advances • Phase 2: Knock Out Rounds Another draw to decide groups. Winner advances. (See 3.2. Tournament Bracket) • Motions: All prepared, see Chapter 4 • Match Up and Positions: See 3.3 Pairings • For audience rules, transport, and meals please refer to Chapter 9

3. Rules of Debate Team Format Debate Format The affirmative team must speak for the motion. The negative team must speak against the motion. • Each team has three speakers ,who each speak once. • Each of round of debate has two teams: • Affirmative team. • Negative team.

4. EU-IDC Format in Short FOR THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATING • Hybrid System of Parliamentary Formats • An Australasian Parliamentary Format, only: • Has NO 2nd speaker • Shorter duration of speech • Whip is 2nd and Reply is 3rd in EU-IDC Format • Aff Reply first, then Neg Reply

5. Order and Timing of Speech

6. Role of Speakers – 1st Speaker Affirmative Negative Challenges the definition (if it’s a problem) Outlines the opposing position (establish the “clash” in the debate) Rebuts the affirmative team’s arguments Delivers arguments and examples • Defines the motion • Outlines a position • Delivers arguments and examples.

7. Role of Speakers – 2nd Speaker Affirmative Negative Defends the negative team’s definition (if required) Rebuts the affirmative team’s arguments. Rebuild the negative team’s arguments. • Defend the affirmative team’s original definition (if a definitional challenge was made by the negative team) • Rebuts the negative team’s arguments. • Rebuild the affirmative team’s arguments.

8. Role of Speakers – 3rd Speaker Affirmative Negative Offers a summation of the debate. Explain why the negative team is better than the affirmative team. • Offers a summation of the debate. • Explain why the affirmative team is better than the negative team.

9. Rules of Debating Conduct • Rounds are to begin on time. It is mandatory that teams remain nearby the stage (seats are reserved for subsequent debaters) at the latest 15 minutest prior to their round. • Teams failing to turn up for the debate on time, and with no valid reason, will lose the debate. Its opposing team in such a case will be given the mean average score from all higher scores of each round. • A debater shall not begin to speak without first obtaining direction from the chairperson. • Debaters speaking shall confine themselves to the topic of debate and avoid personalities and indecorous language. • A debater shall stand during speech but debaters not ‘holding the floor’ may not rise during a round.

10. Rules of Debating Conduct (Cont’d) • During a round, interjections or ‘points of order’ or ‘points of information’ from the opposing team is prohibited. The debate also features no audience participation or intervention by adjudicators. In short, no speakers shall be interrupted. • Debaters may bring whatever printed materials into the debate but all kinds of electronic equipment (laptop, blackberry, etc) are not allowed. • Debaters may not use props of any kind. • Debaters are required to vacate the stage immediately upon completion of their debate, to allow the following round to begin. • Dress code: Batik with university jacket.

11. Adjudication • Each room will be adjudicated by a panel of three adjudicators • The adjudicator’s job is to assess the strength of the arguments (matter 40%). The presentation and delivery style of the speakers (manner 40%) and the structure and timing of the speeches (method 20%). • Score are awarded to the team as a whole (not to individual speakers). • Decision will be made on collective basis. There will be a short discussion assisted by debating resource assistants (revision to 5.6 bullet 6, NOT individual basis)

12. Thank You

13. Definition – a reasonable one • What is the issue that the two teams are expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person reading the motion think that it is about? • If the motion poses a clear issue for debate → define accordingly. • If there is no obvious meaning to the motion → the range of possible meanings is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate. • This does not mean that either team is required to define formally any term of the proposition. You can define the entire proposition by explaining the plan that you are supporting.

14. Problematic Definition Truism Tautologies Something that is true by definition The motion for the semi-finals of the 1995 World Schools Debating Championships in Cardiff was ‘This House believes that extremism is the catalyst for progress’. Defined ‘extremism’ in terms of positive change. The Proposition defined ‘extremism’ as radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society, so ended up arguing that radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society help cause the advancement of society (progress). • Something that is obviously true • ‘This House believes that the sun is rising in the East’ • Literal definition. • Metaphor for Asia (‘the East’) becoming much more important in the world (‘the sun is rising’) seems eminently sensible.

15. Argument • An argument is a reason or rationale why the team’s case is right. • What is wrong? To state the team case, but then descend into a series of examples, without trying to show how they are linked or the underlying reasons why they prove the team’s point. • The elements of an argument, at least, should consist of: • Assertion – statement of the idea • Reasoning – substantive explanation in proving the assertion (why and h0w it is true) • Example(s) – empower argument; can be illustrations, facts, parallel examples, or precedence. • Link - how and why it is relevant and important to the motion

16. Rebuttals • Showing that the opponent’s argument is: • Unlikely to happen in reality • Based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact • Irrelevant to the proof of the topic • Illogical • While itself correct, involves unacceptable implications • While itself correct, should be accorded little weight • Structure your rebuttals so it is distinct and clear from arguments and rebuilds

17. Rebuttals (cont’d)

18. Rebuilds • Showing that the opponent’s rebuttals to your argument is not making sense • Rebutting the rebuttals • Structure your rebuilds so it is distinct and clear from rebuttals

19. Summary • There are many ways to summarize the debate. • Some speakers like to label each team with a name describing their arguments • to identify questions that need to be answered at the end of the round, and say why your side / team brings the best resolution to those questions

20. Manner • Manner is the presentation of the speech, the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. • No correct way to do it; jokes are NOT compulsory. Make relevant jokes. • Will be assessed holistically with other elements (matter and method) and other speakers style in the team. • The elements of style include the following and any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member: • Eye contact • Voice modulation • Hand gestures • Language • The use of notes

21. Method • Method is the effectiveness of: • structure and organization of the speech of the members; • structure and organization of the team’s case; and • team’s responsiveness and ability to maintain and/or their theme line throughout the debate. • The team should: • Be consistent in their approach to the issue; and • Allocate positive matter to each member when their role calls for it; and • Include an introduction, conclusion and a series of arguments; and • Be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations and the need to prioritize and apportion time to matter.

22. Scoring • Important: breaking determinant • It will reflect: • 1) standard of debate. • 2) relative difference and holistic evaluation on each teams (as a whole, not based on individual speakers) • See Speaker Scale.