Post on 13-Dec-2015
description
transcript
Brief History of Debating
With the desire to interact with other humans, also came the need to voice out his views that, conceivably, may be opposed to another’s. Thus debate was born
Origin of educational debates can be traced to ancient Greece
Protagoras of Abdera (481-411 BC)“Father of Debate”
first to organize argumentative contests
among his pupils by inventing themes that
they could oppose or defend.
Brief History of Debating
During the Classical and Medieval Ages, Latin was the language used
Greek and Roman students were trained through dialectic (debate by question and answer
Dialectic was foremost among the seven liberal arts
Brief History of Debating
Early 1400s- first recorded intercollegiate argumentative contest was held between England’s Cambridge and Oxford
Oxford Union Society- oldest and most prestigious debate society in the world. Some members became Prime Minister of Great Britain and other countries
In 1892- Harvard-Yale match was first held which began intercollegiate debating in the United States
Early competitions lasted about two hours-with both sides delivering prepared and memorized speeches-but ended with no formal winner
Debating in the Philippines
The Philippines has its own colorful history of verbal argumentation
The ancient Balagtasan is by itself a unique form of debate with the speeches done on the spot in rhyming verse
During the American period, American teachers were said to have introduced Forensic Debating.
This would be later be known as Oregon-Oxford format after the two schools which popularized it
Debating in the Philippines
In 1928, UP sent a four-man debating team coached by Prof. Carlos P. Romulo (later Chairman of UN General Assembly) to tour US universities
Team won against every American school (14 in all including Stanford, Cornell, and Harvard)
Debating in the Philippines
National Collegiate Forensic League (NACFOL), formed in 1962, was the first national organization to foster inter-school debate tournaments in the country
During Martial Law, conducts of debates were curtailed
In 1986, NACFOL was revived and renamed National Collegiate Debate League (NCDL)
In 1994, NCDL sponsored National Collegiate Debate Finals which saw UP Diliman Debate Team winning the Fidel V Ramos Trophy. Championship round was televised on People’s Television Network
Debating in the Philippines
In the 1999s, several Philippine universities were invited to World Debate Council to participate in the World Debating Championships
UP Debate Society and Ateneo Debate Society jointly founded the Philippine Parliamentary Debate Union (PPDU) in 1994.
PPDU formally introduced Parliamentary format to Filipino debaters through a series of seminars
Debating in the Philippines
De La Salle University and University of Santo Tomas have hosted the All Asians and Australasians Debating Championships
Ateneo and University of Santo Tomas have won the All Asian Inter-Varsity Debating Championships
World Universities Debating Championships (aka the Worlds)
Held since 1977 and is considered the Mecca of debating world
Debating in the Philippines
In the past, four Philippine schools (UP, Ateneo, UST and La Salle) have qualified for ESL championship round
1998, UP hosted the first National Debate Master’s Classic to search for the country’s top debaters
Debating in the Philippines
In 1999, Worlds came to Manila as Ateneo won the bid to host. It was first Asian country to host the Worlds.
In 2012, Manila again hosted the Worlds with La Salle hosting
Nature of Debate
“The only noble excuse for debate is the search for the truth; for debate seeks the truth, the truth to move ourselves and our society”
-Claro M. Recto
Nature of Debate
Among the Greeks, the art of argumentation-called rhetorike (rhetoric)- was an essential part of liberal education. It has the power to persuade but also served society.
In authoritarian society, there is no need for debate since public policies are not open to discussion. Worse, those who insist on debating are sent to jail or shot.
Democratic societies such as ours need debate.
Nature of Debate
Walter Lippman said that we need debate, we need to hear the opinion of others because “freedom of discussion improve our own opinions.”
Debate is a means to an end; to find truth or arrive at the right policy.
In our Congress today, there is a long process of debate perhaps even too much debate- before any bill becomes a law (eg. RH Law, FOI bill etc).
In a free and democratic society, citizens prefer debate over killing. Through venting and confrontation of opinion-and the resolution of conflict through reasoning-we find no necessity to do violence on another.
Debating Defined
Formal, direct, oral contest in argumentation between two or more teams on a definite issue at a set time.
Argumentation- occurs in debate
the art of influencing others through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or to act as we wish them to act.” (O’Neill, Laycock, and Scales 1928).
Debating Defined
Jefrrey Auer (debate should have these elements):
A confrontation
In equal and adequate time
Of matched contestants
On a Stated proposition
To gain a decision
It may refer to any school debate or argument process (presidential debate, etc)
Based on main definition, a debate therefore should have a set of rules that govern its conduct (formal). Shall be face-to-face (direct),shall involve the use of speeches (oral), between two opposing sides (represented by the two or more teams), and shall involve only one issues on a scheduled time.
Debating Defined
Debate is essentially argumentation under specific rules (Wood and Goodnight, 1989). These rules have been constant since academic debate began:
Time limit are provided;
The debate is conducted under parliamentary rules;
To ensure fairness, each side has an equal numbers of speakers and an equal amount of time;
Both sides are allowed equal opportunity in rebuttal;
At the conclusion, decision is taken on the merits of the question.
Sometimes, due to advances in technology, debates no longer needed face-to-face interaction.
Functions of Debate
1)Debate as Means for ChangeCicero: The true aim of forensic oratory is threefold: to inform, to entertain, and to move.
Debate is a weapon to move armies, to crystallize public opinion, to influence development of society. It is a means to an end.
Functions of Debate
2) Debate as Advocacy
Forum for developing skills of advocacy
It is an opportunity to learn new ideas in the atmosphere of self and mutual respect
3) Debate as an Educational Tool
Debate has provided an excellent means of meeting these educational goals. Debates conducted within campuses have contributed to a better understanding of our society
Benefits of Debate
Important Skills Learned (National Inter-Varsity Handouts, 1995)
1) Leadership Skills
2) Analysis
3) Critical Thinking
4) Open-Mindedness
5) Thinking on Your Feet
6) Organization
7) Listening
8) Self-Confidence
9) Team-work and Cooperation
Formats of Debate
Two Major Format in the Philippines1) Cross-Examination (known as Oxford-Oregon)
2)Parliamentary Debating (with several strains)
A) British
B) American
C) Australasian
D) Asian
Formats of DebateOther Formats
1) Lincoln-Douglas DebateTwo-Man debates and usually used during US presidential elections (Kennedy and Nixon in 1960)
Named after two Americans Lincoln and Douglas
Formats of Debate Douglas-Lincoln
Order of SpeakersAffirmative Presentation Speech
Negative Presentation Speech
Affirmative Rebuttal Speech
Negative Rebuttal Speech
Affirmative Summary Speech
Negative Summary Speech
Formats of DebateRebuttal Debate
2) Rebuttal debateSimilar to Cross-Examination Debate
Provides 2-3 debaters per side.
Modified Oxford-Oregon
Formats of DebateRebuttal Debate
Order of SpeakersFirst Affirmative Constructive Speech
First Negative Constructive Speech
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech
Second Negative Constructive Speech
First Negative Rebuttal
First Affirmative Rebuttal
Second Negative Rebuttal
Second Affirmative Rebuttal
Formats of DebateMoot Court
3) Moot CourtAims to simulate court-room trial procedures
It uses witnesses and evidence to prove a case
Debaters are allowed to interact with each other through interpellation portion of the first round of speeches
Issuance of objections and motions to the direct/cross-examiner during second round of speeches
Formats of DebateMoot Court
There are three (3) speakers and one scribe for each team.
Duties:1st Affirmative Speaker- set the parameters of their case, forward the substantial arguments relevant to their case, destroy the 1st speaker of negatives side’s points through interpellation.
Formats of DebateMoot Court
Duties:1st Negative Speaker- rebut the case of 1st Affirmative speaker, prove their case, and destroy the 1st speakers points through interpellation.
Examiners for both teams- ask questions and solicit responses from the witness that will establish or prove team’s case during direct examination, and lay doubt on the witness’ credibility and/or testimony during cross-examination
Formats of DebateMoot Court
Duties:Rebuttal speakers- demolish the opposing team’s case, and rebuild team’s case
Scribe- provide the judges an abstract or a conceptual summary of team’s case
Formats of DebateMoot Court
List of common objections:1) Badgering the Witness- when the cross-examiner refuses to give witness time to respond questions; when cross-examiner harasses/discriminates the witness
2) Kilometric Questions- when the cross-examiner asks many questions without giving the witness ample time to reply
Formats of DebateMoot Court
List of common objections:3) Immaterial/Irrelevant- when the witness’ statement deemed unimportant, inconsequential by the opposing team
4) Hostile Witness- when the witness refuse to respond to a properly phrased questions; when the witness tries to pick a fight with the cross-examiner; when the witness shows unwarranted aggression towards the cross-examiner;
Formats of DebateMoot Court
List of common objections:5) Leading- when the direct examiner asks categorical questions leading to a desired answer (not coached out from witness)
6) Argumentative- cross-examiner argues with the witness
Formats of DebateMoot Court
Order of Speakers:Constructive speech by 1st Affirmative speaker- 7-8 minutes
Interpellation by 1st Negative speaker- 3-4 minutes
Constructive speech by 1st Negative speaker- 7-8 minutes
Interpellation by 1st Affirmative speaker- 3-4 minutes
Formats of DebateMoot Court
Order of Speakers:Direct Examination by 2nd Affirmative speaker- 3-4 minutes
Cross Examination by 2nd Negative speaker- 3-4 minutes
Direct Examination by 2nd Negative speaker- 3-4 minutes
Cross Examination by 2nd Affirmative speaker- 3-4 minutes
Formats of DebateMoot Court
Order of Speakers:Rebuttal Speech by 3rd Negative speaker- 7-8 minutes
Rebuttal Speech by 3rd Affirmative speaker - 7-8 minutes
Formats of DebateMoot Court
Moot Court or Mock Trials are really legal argumentation.
Examples are the Jessup Moot Court between UP-Ateneo Law where both sides employ written argumentation or briefs called memorials on a question of law.
Panel of jurists hear the cases and decide which side has legal merit.