Introduction to Debating

Introduction to Debating The basics Preparing a case (team) Preparing a speech (individual) Rebuttals

Pre-Activity

The basics • Every debate must have a topic • 2 teams – Proposition and Opposition • Proposition (or Affirmative) argues that the topic is true. • Opposition (or negative) argues that the topic is not true.

2 Types of Arguments • Debaters require 2 types of arguments: • (1) Substantive Arguments • Prepared arguments in favour of a team’s stand. • Shows why your team is right. • (2) Rebuttals • Your attack on your opposition’s arguments • Shows why your opposition is wrong.

Speakers • 3 speakers on each team, identified by their speaking number (e.g. 1st Proposition, 3rd Opposition) • 1st and 2nd speakers on both teams are expected to have substantives • All speakers except the 1st Proposition are expected to rebut • The 3rd speeches are used for rebuttals and summary

Protocol • Debaters are expected to acknowledge both the chairperson and the audience when starting a debating speech • E.g. “Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen”

Basic Layout

Order of Debate • The 1st Proposition speaks first, and participants speak with the sides alternating:

Judging Categories • Adjudicators use 3 categories to consider debates: • Style [ /40]: the way that a particular speech is presented (i.e. how interesting, humorous, sincere, fluent) • Content [ /40]: the arguments presented (i.e. support and elaboration provided, strength of arguments) • Strategy [ /20]: the structure and relevance of your speech

Rules • Refer to document for timing and roles of speakers.

Preparing for the Debate • Each debater first needs to work as a team to prepare a case, which is essentially your group of prepared ideas about why your side of the motion is true. • Teamwork is essential here because should debaters choose to work individually, the lack of a team stance will be obvious during the debate.

Preparing a Case • To prepare a case, you need to do 5 things: • Find The Issue: Decide what the main issue of the motion is about, especially if the motion is metaphorical or generic. • Find Your Definition: Decide what the words of the motion mean for the purposes of the debate • Find Your team’s Case Approach: You need to think of arguments about why your side of the motion is true. As teammates, you join your arguments into a single case approach • Find your team’s Arguments: Distinct points supporting your side of the debate, supported by logical reasoning and concrete examples. • Find The Split: Divide the arguments between the 1st and 2nd speakers, so that each speaker knows what to present.

Preparing a case: Step 1 (Finding the Issue) • The first step is to find the issue that needs to be debated. • If the motion has a clear issue, debate that issue.

E.g. “THBT the government should ban smoking”. • It is clear that most people would read this motion as a reference to the issue of tobacco smoking. • Decide on the most commonsensical issue to debate on. • It is not okay to identify the issue as, e.g. marijuana smoking, or smoking salmon, or lying (i.e. throwing a smokebomb). It wouldn’t be clever.

How about motions with relatively vague issues? • Find the issue that is most obvious and the most debatable. • E.g. “THBT the carrot is better than the stick”. • This is clearly non-literal (a metaphor). • The most obvious issue would be whether incentives are more effective than punishments.

How about motions that do not seem to have any clear issue? • Where there is no clear issue, select an issue that the motion could refer to. • E.g. “THBT it’s not about winning or losing, but how you play the game”. • Is it about sports? Is it about politics? It is about academics? • The best approach would be to select the most general philosophical issue, i.e. whether the means justify the ends, and use sports and politics as examples.

Preparing a case: Step 2 (Finding the Definition) • Both teams need to find out what the motion means, not in general, but for the purposes of the debate. • The 1st Prop presents the team’s definition of the debate in the form of a clear statement. • By defining the motion, the 1st Prop is essentially saying that both teams should debate based on his team’s understanding of the meaning of the debate.

The 1st Opp may disagree with the Prop’s definition of the motion (especially if they’ve prepared using a different definition and slant).

How to define a motion • Define terms in the motion and not every single word. • Don’t bother defining articles such as ‘a’ or ‘the’. • Decide if words should be defined individually or as a phrase, e.g. “political correctness”. • Do not define metaphorical terms literally. • Do not give dictionary definitions – this removes the context of the debate from your definition.

Limit the scope of the motion through your definition • E.g. “THBT we should abolish the GST” • ‘We’ could be defined as the citizens of Singapore, acting through the Parliament of Singapore. • E.g. “THBT criminal sentences are not too harsh” • It would be reasonable to limit the debate to the First World if you are the Proposition. Without doing so, the Opposition can argue that beheading of criminals in developing countries are too harsh and it would be hard to rebut this later on. • Note that limiting the scope of the debate must be reasonable. E.g. you can’t limit the scope of the debate to Developing Countries for the 2nd motion, or limit the time scope of a particular debate to, say, the 15th Century.

Preparing a case: Step 3 (Finding your team’s Case Approach) A caseline, spoken by the 1st speaker, is a single, concise sentence that explains the main idea behind your case, explaining 2 things: • Why you say the motion is true (or not) true • How this can be proven

Emphasis on Caseline • Each speaker should mention the team’s caseline at least once during their speech (usually at the beginning for the sake of clarity). • Return to this caseline repeatedly to reinforce team’s case.

Example of Caseline Motion: THBT globalisation is doing more harm than good. Caseline: Globalisation’s emphasis on private enterprise results in economic competition that advantages a few developed nations at the expense of other developing nations, which form the majortity of the world’s population.

Developing the Caseline • The caseline should be further developed in some detail to form the Team Stance. • The Team Stance is essentially a proposed model. • E.g. THBT marijuana should be legalised • Team Stance would propose a model for legalising marijuana, e.g. introducing laws to ensure compulsory health warnings are placed on marijuana products, requiring licenses to sell marijuana products etc.

The Opposition would also have to prepare an alternative model. • This will counter the rebuttal of “nothing being proposed or done about the situation”. • An alternative model is however not needed if the situation requries simplifying, or the alternative model presents more complex issues compared to the status quo.

How many arguments? • The 1st and 2nd speaker should have 1-2 arguments each. Any less – the content would not be comprehensive. Any more – there will not be sufficient time to develop the arguments in detail. • Hence, each team should prepare 2 - 4 substantive arguments as a team.

Preparing a case: Step 4 (Finding your team’s Arguments) • A complete and distinct argument consists of 4 components: • Main Point: Clear, short and simple statement of what your argument is about. • Explanation: Logical explanation of why the argument is sound and true. The audience should ask: “yes, this sounds possible, but does it apply to the real world?” • Examples: Concrete real-world examples (not philosophical and abstract ones) that answer the audience’s question above. • Tie-Back: Shows exactly how the argument supports the team’s case approach presented earlier.

Preparing a case: Step 5 (Finding your team’s Split) The team’s got their arguments, but how will the arguments be divided among the 1st 2 speakers?

(1) Group the arguments • Identify which arguments belong together • Identify common logical lines that unite the arguments for each speaker.

Both speakers must present why the case is true. Assume the audience will only listen to either the 1st or 2nd speaker. • E.g. “THBT euthanasia should be legalised” – Arguments can be grouped into 2 categories “Patients” (1st speaker) and “Society in general” (2nd speaker). • Audience 1 that listens to Speaker 1 will be convinced that euthanasia should be legalised because of the benefits to patients. • Audience 2 that listens to Speaker 2 will be convinced that euthanasia should be legalised because of the benefits to society in general.

Assuming the split is done this way: • Speaker 1 (background and history of euthanasia) • Speaker 2 (benefits to patients and society in general) • Audience 1 that listens only to Speaker 1 cannot be convinced that euthanasia should be legalised simply by knowing about the history of euthanasia. • This split would then be invalid because Speaker 1 is perceived to be unpersuasive.

Common Splits • Society / Individual • International / Domestic • Political / Social or Economic • Short-term / long-term

Which arguments should the 1st and 2nd speakers take up? • Most important points (1st Speaker) followed by less important points (2nd Speaker) • Primary group of people affected (1st Speaker) followed by Secondary group (2nd Speaker) • Big Picture (1st Speaker) vs Specific Domain (2nd Speaker)

Preparing Individual Speeches 1st Prop: • Formal introduction • Definitions • Prop’s caseline • Case split • Outline of his arguments • The arguments • Summary of arguments • Conclusion

1st Opp: • Brief introduction • Accept or challenge definitions • Rebuttals • Opp’s caseline • Case split • Outline of his arguments • The arguments • Summary of arguments • Conclusion

2nd Speakers: • Rebuttals + definitional challenges if still in doubt • Brief link to case approach • Outline of arguments • The arguments • Summary of arguments • Conclusion

3rd Speakers: • Rebuttals • Summary Reply Speakers: • Either 1st or 2nd speaker • Summarise opponent’s entire team case • Respond to opponent’s entire team case • Summarise own team’s case

Specific skills Introducing the debate (1st Prop) • Not simply greeting the chairperson / audience, but introducing the issues of the debate to the audience, including factual or historical background

Brief link to team’s case (2nd Speakers) • Provide a brief link to your case before beginning on arguments. • E.g. “Our team has showed you that [case]. My first speaker discussed our case from a political perspective, looking at the role of political parties and the public service. I will continue our case from a social point of view. Specifically, I will have 2 arguments…”

Signposting (All speakers) • Make sure the audience and adjudicators are clear about where you are in the debate • E.g. “Firstly, Secondly, my first argument relates to, Our case, in conclusion”.

Rebuttals What to rebut: • Arguments, assertions, examples, statistics, underlying assumptions that may not be sound or relevant to the debate • Logical fallacies • Opponent’s unreasonable definitions, illogical caselines. What NOT to rebut: • Technicalities, e.g. opponent speaking beyond time allocated, POIs not accepted, etc.

Good Resource http://debateable.org/

Motions • THBT governments should place limits in the areas which scientists may research • THW legalise all drugs • THW force more organisations to place more women in senior positions • THBT students should be made to take part in compulsory charity work • THW ban the use of models who are below a healthy weight

Motion 1 THBT governments should place limits in the areas which scientists may research Prop: Tao Ran, Jeremy, Wei Wen Opp: Eugene Pang, Benji, Chong Hon

Motion 2 THW legalise all drugs Prop: Marc, Ryan, Kevin, Sean Opp: Yi Yang, Yun Yang, Jarel, Shui Herng

Motion 3 THW force more organisations to place more women in senior positions Prop: Colin, Cheng Jie, Eugene Toh Opp: Yu Jia, Kim Yao, Mun Kit

Motion 4 THBT students should be made to take part in compulsory charity work Prop: Wei Xiang, Eagan, Nathaniel, Mickey Opp: Han Zhe, Zhang Cheng, Yi Jie, Jones

Motion 5 THW ban the use of models who are below a healthy weight Prop: Wei Jin, Shu Peng, Zhennan, Wei Zheng Opp: Yi Shin, Evan, Ezra

Introduction to Debating