The Burden of ProofThe Burden of Proof (BoP) is what your side must prove in order to win the debate. BothPROP and OPP will EACH have a BoP for every debate. Correctly identifying the BoP willmean that you choose the most appropriate arguments.When both PROP and OPP correctly identify the BoP then the debate has a proper ClashEXAMPLE: THW BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTYIf PROP decides that what they have to prove (BoP) is that the Death Penalty will help withSA’s crime problem then these are the arguments that they would choose: It is a deterrent to violent crime There is overcrowding in prisons It removes criminals clogging up the judicial system Keeping these criminals in jail unfairly costs the taxpayer money You cannot rehabilitate most violent criminals (many are repeat offenders) so thereis no point in trying.If PROP decides that that what they have to prove (BoP) is that it is right and fair to take thelife of a criminal, and that taking that life will help society, then these are the argumentsthey would choose: It is just to seek a life for a life in retribution for the grief of families/society Some crimes are such horrible rights infringements that the perpetrator shouldforfeit their life SA is majority in favour of the Death Penalty and as violent crime affects citizens,citizens should get to choose to bring it back.

Currently criminal elements in society see the lives of others as being worth verylittle, this will change if they know they will forfeit their own life if they harm others.i.e. It will raise the overall value of life in society.Which of these is the stronger Burden of Proof?In a debate such as this one, the last BoP tackles the real issue. After all, South Africaoutlawed the Death Penalty because the Government believed that it could not allow thestate to kill its own citizens. That means, in order to win the debate, PROP must prove why itwould be acceptable for the state to now do this. In essence, this motion expects a debateabout morals (is it right or wrong?) rather than policy (a cost-benefit analysis). 5OPP’s BoP would be to show that the principle of the Death Penalty is wrong and thatintroducing something so morally wrong would harm society. Argument examples wouldbe things like: The government would be engaging in the same action as violent criminals: killing.This would set a bad example for society. Killing criminals allows no chance for their rehabilitation The government and society should uphold the right to life even when others (likecriminals) do not. Etc. Etc.So essentially, in the prep preceding each debate, each team should work out the Burden ofProof BEFORE spending time working out arguments. That way the team ends up with

relevant arguments – each of which will help them win the debate. Remember, the Burdenof Proof is what must be proved or established in order to defend or attack the main issueof the debate.Here are a couple more examples:

THW LEGALISE UNLIMITED VIOLENCE BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTSPROP BoP: Rational adults should have freedom of choice to do what they like with theirown bodies – it is unfair of govt to limit this right when it harms no one else.OPP BoP: There are harms that govt should always protect both the individual and societyfrom. Unlimited violence is one of these harms.THW ENCOURAGE THE USE OF CHILD LABOURPROP BoP: The status quo is harmful to children. Allowing children to legally work willimprove their lives. This will have a positive knock-on effect in society.OPP BoP: Allowing children to legally work is more harmful to them than the status quo.These harms will have a knock-on effect in society.

Matter GenerationYou guys are clearly lacking here. This will also be an incredibly important aspect for S.A. selection. You want to generate all sorts of matter. Good, bad, weird. Everything! Then sort it out later. So I don’t want to hear in a prep: ‘Ok, so we have two points for the first, now let’s pull something out the air for the second.’ No! That is bad. If I hear it I will kick you very hard in the ovaries. What I want to hear, what will make me very happy and love you all

forever, is: ‘Oh crap! We’ve got so much matter we need to decide what we have to cut out.’ So we talked a bit about it on Saturday but here is the process: 1) Work out what the debate is: Harm/Change debate or Normative/evaluative debate. Harm/Change debate: 1) Prove a harm 2) Show that your change will affect the harm. 3) Show that that effect will be positive and prevent/mitigate/fix the harm. 4) Show that any spin-offs of the change won’t negatively impact on the original harm OR have a greater negative affect on any other situation. Evaluative/Normative debate: 1) Identify the issues at play 2) Create a value metric 3) Measure your side’s issues against that metric 4) Show that the metric is fulfilled 2) Establish the Burden of Proof. Write in big letters across the top of your page. Never forget…ever! 3) Individual Prep Here we said you follow four clear steps. 3.1. ) BOP generation: write down anything (even if it isn’t a clear point) of what needs to be done to achieve that BOP. Basically you’re establishing what is vital to prove your BOP. 3.2.) Run through the standard arguments list: Buy-in, Dignity, Morals/Ethics, Government Mandate, Supply and Demand, Rights Analysis, Perception

3.3.) Actor Analysis: Write a list of everyone who remotely involved with the topic in specific terms. So not just ‘people’ but rather ‘parents’, ‘siblings’, ‘child itself’ etc. Then next to each of those actors write down how they are affected by the topic/your plan/their actions etc. Basically, possible points concerning them. 3.4.) Opposition Potential points: Here it isn’t: let’s try and pre-empt the other team (that will be

another kick in the ovaries) rather it’s a: what might the opposition say? Is there any way we can twist it to be a point for our side. (This is actually possible in a number of situations) *Note: The final step here is a hidden step. Look at everything generated in 1, 3 and 4 and ask if they can’t be fitted into one of the arguments considered in step 2. It makes it easier to organise. THEREAFTER Then comes the job of dividing the points up. This is the part you seem to battle with. So we know a few things. We know that each speakers matter should be separate and individual from the others. We know that the same point should, ideally, not be split over two speeches. And we know that the first speaker needs to get the most important strategic issues out first. My suggestion is to look at the type of debate. If it’s a change/harm debate then the first speaker has to deal with the harm, the solution affecting the harm in a positive way. The second can deal with additional supporting benefits and showing that it won’t result in another harm being created. For an evaluative/normative debate the first speaker needs to identify the core issues, explain the metric and then start measuring the most important points/issues against the metric. The second then takes the supporting points and issues. Rule of thumb for matter splitting: Is the juice worth the squeeze. Ask yourself if the point you’re explaining is actually going to further your case at that point in time. If not then you either have to drop it or move it to another speech. A final thing to remember with your analysis is the need for actual examples. So we know that just giving a bunch of examples isn’t an argument BUT we

also have to realise that making a bunch of theoretical arguments (Rights represent the morals of society. They’re intrinsic to all etc.) is no good unless you can slip in an example to support it. It doesn’t have to be a long case study or anything like that. It can be as simple as a half a sentence or two. Rights are intrinsic to all. We can see this because most S.A.’s are so invested in the idea of the constitution and everything it espouses. So throw in a few examples to legitimise your case.

And the final final thing is that once you’ve analysed your different options in 1, 3 and 4 and are looking to slot them into an argument in 2 then sometimes those points in 1, 3 and 4 can be slotted into multiple standard arguments. So an analysis of a specific actor can be used in a perception argument and a buy-in argument. Consider, for example, a debate to do with economics and investment. You could analyse investors (as an actor) in such a way that the analysis can help you make a perception, buyin and supply and demand argument. So once you’ve started slotting the different points into standard arguments always check if they apply to more than one of those arguments. And if there is any analysis that doesn’t fit into a standard argument then just run it as a separate point.

Basic ArgumentsPlease note that these are not cases or motions. These are guidelines about how to approach some common areas. They often come up as arguments and, if handled well, help win the debate. Please read through them. Give

yourselves some time to make sense of them and to think about how you would use them in different debates. Some of these arguments/areas will be useful in motions set for both Junior and Senior trials and selectors are looking to see how you utilise them. Rights Analysis Rights are the fundamental rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people. It is believed that individual rights must be exercised without infringing on the rights of others. Set out the right to be discussed Establish the value of the right: Why is it considered important? (societal value, historical value etc.) How important is it? (All rights are value judgements; so how important is this right considered? Does it trump other rights? What limits do we place on it?) The value of the right will dictate what responsibilities come with the right. Why are these responsibilities important to ensure continued belief/support of the right in the society we live in? What does the right allow that would be harmful to society/the right/a group of people? If the debate is about limiting a specific right, show that the right needs to be limited for a legitimate reason (responsibility/harm caused/potential harm) and that the value of the right is such that the limitation is acceptable. The greater the value of the right the greater the harm/potential harm needs to be. If the debate is about trading off a right against another analyse each right (as above) and then show that the right you want to keep either has greater value or less harms (or both) than the other.

Buy-In Public/group commitment to, and involvement in, a social/political/economic issue. Identify the group/s that your policy/topic needs the support of to work successfully. Explain why the group (s) has the power to determine the success or failure of the policy/topic. This establishes the necessity of ensuring that they support the policy/topic. Analyse the group in relation to the proposed policy. Is the topic/policy important to them and their interests or to the people they represent? If so, in what way? This will shape their willingness to expend effort on it and is then tempered by limitations either they or others impose on them i.e. their desire to do so. Then move on; if the policy/topic is about implementation determine if the group has the necessary skills and resources to implement. If it’s about rights, do they believe in/support rights in general and this right in particular? Basically try and measure and then show the group’s skills, abilities and beliefs in the topic/policy. Weigh up the equation: desire and impediments. Are they willing and able to do what is necessary? Perception How groups of people and countries are perceived by other groups and countries. The view others hold of you can influence their policies and actions toward you. Identify the group (s) whose views/beliefs the policy or topic is going to effect. Show what view was before. Then explain why change happens and what it changes into. Show how perception is going to change how people view whatever the issue is. i.e. show how view/perception of the issue will be established or will change. Explain why this change is good/bad Explain why we should care

that the change has happened (e.g. value of reputation in this instance; obligations being fulfilled etc) 11

Government Mandate A Government Mandate is the obligation a government has to use the power granted to it by the electorate to deal with certain issues. Govt mandate assumes a legitimate government so establish that the govt is legitimate first. A legitimate govt has tacit (implied) obligations in different arenas like health, education etc. If the govt was elected on a specific ticket (policy or issue e.g. safety, health, education or economic reform) then the obligations in that area become explicit. There is greater need/importance to do them. Show that the obligation being discussed is legitimate and more necessary than other suggestions or solutions. Show that the policy or topic fulfils the obligation (that it actually works to deal with the issue) Just because there is a govt mandate, it doesn’t mean that the govt is solely responsible. Dependent on skills; resources, the nature of the problem or issue etc, the govt may need help from others like business, civil society etc. Morality Determining what is right or wrong. One cannot assume something is good or bad, right or wrong even if it is a commonly held view. Morals are determined when society makes value judgements about what is right/wrong. One has to show or prove good/bad, right/wrong based on 2 areas: o People’s beliefs o How important those beliefs are to a group/groups. People either believe that there is a universal set of morals that apply to everyone or that there are different sets of morals for different cultural

groups. Depending on which view they hold, (universal or culturally specific), it will influence/shape the value they give to certain morals. Universal morals are often felt to be too restrictive and limited whereas the diversity of cultural morals is often felt to create conflict (many other views are also held regarding these issues). You must show why the position for/against universal/cultural morals should be respected and/or supported.

Supply and Demand How the market fulfils needs. The price of a good is determined by the costs of making the good (resources, skills) and producers of the good adding a mark up for profit. Price decreases when the costs of production (costs of materials/labour etc) drop, when competition between producers of the god forces them to decrease their mark up or when the effects of specialising in producing a good on a large scale decreases price (either through efficiency, innovation or economies of scale). Prices may decrease but they cannot decrease below the cost of production. There also has to be a financial incentive for the producers of the good (unless they don’t care about profit/they are motivated by reasons other than profit). Demand is created and shaped by the things people need, believe they need or want and further shaped by price. If there is sufficient demand, people/producers will generally supply it if they can benefit.

POIS Firstly, you all need to offer more POIs. You need to aim for 5-10 in EVERY speech. Often you are almost non-existent until after you’ve

spoken. That’s an ovary kick worthy statistic. So ask more and if you’re worried, because you’re working on your own speech, then prewrite a few or get someone else to tell you some that you can get up and offer as well. There are three aspects to POIs: Accepting, Answering and Giving. Accepting Please stop saying “no thank you sir/ma’am” mid-speech. I’d prefer it if you just waved them down when you’re speaking. If you’re at a natural break in your speech (i.e. the end of a conclusion etc.) then you can say “no thank you‟. Don’t allow them to interrupt your flow especially because many of you struggle to reassert your head of steam when interrupted like that; and you’re at your best when you’ve got up a head of steam. If you are going to accept a POI and are mid-sentence than just hold a finger up as if to say “wait‟, finish your point clearly and then accept the POI. Often when you’ve told someone that you’ll be with them in a minute, you then rush through the rest of your matter as if you’re feeling bad about keeping them waiting. And the problem is that many of you tend to swallow the last sentence or two as you’re already turning; and those sentences are usually where you draw the conclusion. So: slow down. Finish your point calmly and audibly and then turn to take the POI. And highlight in your case the areas where you’re happiest to take POIs; usually the areas you are strategically or analytically strongest and then try and take POIs at those points. Answering If, in asking the POI, the person isn’t very clear, they battle to verbalise it correctly (as is the case with many development speakers) or because they’ve suddenly come over all nervous because of your steely look and

come-hither smile (remember we talked about this in the style guide) then don’t cut them off until you’re at least sure of what they’re trying to get at or if they’ve gone over the 15s limit. Then rephrase what they asked/challenged on for the adjudicators (i.e. so what you’re saying is…) and then answer the POI. And make sure to draw the conclusion/answer of the POI back to what it means for your BOP/case. If you want to respond to the POI later (when it clashes directly with your matter) do not just say that and then highlight it at the appropriate spot of substantive. You must do that AND also give a very brief answer to it. i.e. “That clashes directly with my matter sir and I’ll highlight it when I deal with it but in short the answer is no because of a lack of competition.” Then highlight it when your matter deals with it in greater detail.

Giving The attributes of a good POI is that it’s 1) clear, 2) strategic and 3) engaging. So, write the POI down before you say it or even once you’re standing and waiting for the speaker to finish and get to you. If you write it down it will come out clearly, far quicker and far more confidant. I don’t expect you to be able to do this every time but if you can its worth a go. Next, try and phrase the POI in strategic terms. Make it not just about pointing out a flaw in the argument they’re making but rather how their case doesn’t stand if you make the flaw. I.e. “The eradication of poverty issue only stands if you can prove that child labour will be absorbed by the market which it won’t because the jobs just don’t exist at the current minimum wage levels.” See? Hit the issue first and then the

actual point. Don’t worry that they’ll cut you down before you can finish. That will only count against them if you were going to be under the 15s cut-off. But always try and highlight the issue first and then the matter hit. If your POI is directed in response to a contentious point that’s been going back and forth between the two teams and they’re mangling it, not understanding it or straw-manning then address the POI to the chair i.e. “Master Chair, the opposition keeps straw-manning us today by saying X and what they need to do is deal with issue Y.” Impose clarity on the adjudicators and the other team. Also, it often throws the speaker off when you do that. Finally, don’t be afraid to bring up a POI about something that they’re not talking about at that moment. Just phrase it cleverly and never say, “Sorry sir, just going back to what you said earlier‟. That makes it feel like you shouldn’t be doing it. Rather go with something like, “That’s all very nice Sir, but what you need to deal with is the issue of…” Just make sure that the POI is strategically important. If it’s a tiny little cheap shot at their policy then you’ve just wasted the opportunity. Go for the big contentious issues of the debate that they maybe glossed over, avoided specifically or ignored completely.

Style It’s best to consider „Style‟ as being made up of five distinct pillars. While adjudicators won’t be basing your mark for style on an analysis of each of the individual pillars they will be viewing the package as a whole and basing your mark on that. The following is a breakdown of each pillar and then suggestions for ways to

improve your ability to fulfil that pillar. That’s not to say that these suggestions are the be all and end all of good style. They’re simply there to guide your thinking and to make available a few options that you can use when working on your style. The most important thing to remember is that you need to be comfortable to have good style. So by all means try the suggestions out and then decide what works best for you. The benefit to view each pillar as an individual piece of a puzzle means that you can isolate one pillar or two pillars to work on per training. The five pillars are: 1) Audibility: Is a speaker easily understood? Does the speaker speak too quickly or quietly (speaking too loudly is just as bad)? Does the speaker “swallow” their words? 2) Engagement: Does the speaker successfully use their body language, facial expressions and tone of voice (properly conveying emotion, avoiding monotone) in order to capture and retain the audience’s attention. 3) Conviction: Does the speaker look like they believe what they are saying? 4) Authority: Could one believe that the speaker is confident that they know what they are talking about and have mastered what they are saying? 5) Connection: Is the speaker aware of the audience and the need to win them over. This means avoiding alienating people with insults and offensive language or coming across as unlikeable in general. *Note: There can be an overlap of actions amongst the different pillars i.e. eye contact is important for Engagement, Connection and Authority. My stock standard answer when people ask me what they need to do to improve their style is to just tell them to be themselves. It’s easy to tell when people are

putting on a persona and adjudicators do not like it. Style basically comes down to the question of how confidant you are with yourself.

Audibility This is one of the key aspects in order for a speech to be received. Speak too softly and nobody will hear. Speak too loudly and you’ll be considered to abrasive. Too flabby and people won’t get everything you were meant to say. Unless you are specifically using a vocal trick to convey something, you want to pitch the volume of your speech at a conversational level. So think about how you normally talk. Yes, sometimes we get louder or softer depending on what point we’re trying to convey but usually we talk at a specific and comfortable volume. You want that volume. My suggestion is that you (if possible) test the venue out beforehand. So if you’re prepping in the venue then have a little test. Stand at the desk you’ll be using and deliver a few lines to one of your team members standing where the adjudicators will be sitting until you’re certain that you’re used to the volume that is needed. If you can’t do this test beforehand then get your non-speaking team members to sit either inline with the adjudicators OR near the back of the room and then indicate to you whether you need to turn the volume up or down a bit. Volume modulation is incredibly important to making sure that the adjudicators can actually hear the awesome speech that you’ve prepared so make sure you work on it. Flabby speaking is when your sentences don’t end crisply and clearly. A number of you often trail off some sentences near the end so that the last five or six words

become inaudible. The most annoying thing is that many of you do this when you’re wrapping up points/arguments. This usually happens because as you approach the end of your point you lean down to look at your page and round your shoulders. Now you’re talking to the desk and not to any people. Don’t do it or we are going to have issues. Alternatively you do it when you have asked a speaker to hold his POI until you’ve finished as if you’re trying to hurry because you’re embarrassed to have kept them waiting. Let them wait! Finish off your point while looking at the adjudicators and then turn to them. Make sure you don’t rush. That floor is yours during your speech and you don’t let anyone boss you about on it. Finally, some of you just need to slow down. You speak too fast and it doesn’t matter how audible you are, nobody will take a thing from you. Again, use prompters from your team members to indicate when you need to slow down or pick up speed. And breathe. Take deep breaths or sips of water after you finish making the conclusions of major points or while listening to POIs. It really is easy as long as you’re disciplined about it.

Engagement Here we’re looking at how successful you are at engaging the audience and opposition i.e. how do you interact with them during the debate. For the most part it’s about using body language, facial expressions, eye contact, tone and pitch of voice and deliberate hand actions to make it feel like you’re actively and purposefully interacting with all the different groups in the room. Hands The general idea here is that you need to relax. Most people tend to have an emotive hand, the hand they

point and gesture with. You need to try and get to a situation in which you use both hands relatively evenly. So you want to actively point at your team/your team’s side when referring to arguments you’ve either made or which you’re proving for your side to win. You want to point at the opposition (point is probably a bad word, gesture is better) when you’re referring to points they’ve made; point at specific speakers when referring to the points they made specifically. If you’re referring to yourself and points you have made or are going to make do the little double handed point at yourself (or use one if you’d like) or a little adjustment of your tie; as long as it’s something that brings the audience’s attention to you when you’re talking about yourself. Body position is important too. When you have the floor you want to full that space as much as possible so that the adjudicators have no choice but to focus on you. You do this with your presence and body position is just one aspect of presence. Generally you want to keep your chest exposed to the audience and the adjudicators in particular. The only time your chest should be obscured is when you’re making deliberate hand actions, like pointing at yourself, which would obscure their view and then it’s only a momentary action. To keep your chest exposed and broad you want to make sure that you’re keeping your shoulders straight and back. So no slouching, leaning down or keeping your arms crossed/folded in front of you which just rounds your shoulders inwards. My rule of thumb is to take a couple of deep breaths (the kind that lift your shoulders as you fill your lungs and where your torso lengthens

because it feels almost like your stomach is being sucked in) just before I start, at every conclusion/premise/pause (so where I asked you to highlight for the Denny Crane game) and during any breaks like POI‟s. This will not only realign your chest but also give you a bit more „oomph‟ when you launch into your next sentence. Arms I like to have my speech structured in such a way that I have points ranked by numbers, so: “There are three conclusions that can be drawn from this‟ or “there are two groups of people to consider‟. Doing this allows me to create work for my hands. So I can either highlight the point with one finger/two fingers as I go through them or do what you were doing two weeks ago where you counted the points off on one hand (using the other hand to point to each finger). If you’re doing the latter make sure that your hands aren’t too low or too high. They should be around about that area where that strip of abs is just above your belly button. When you’re not counting down things your arms should be at your side, one hand can be in a pocket (whatever you feel comfortable with) or both hands can be visible.

Rule of thumb here, if they’re just lazing about, is that you want your elbows slightly bent (right angle at the most) and your forearms should be angled out as if they were shaping a „V‟ with your body as the point. So they’re open slightly to make it seem like you’re open to the audience. Think of it this way: you want to show the adjudicators/audience the inside of your forearms and wrist; soft vulnerable spots which make them think that you’re comfortable

enough with them to allow them to see those points. Finally, when answering a POI you want to make sure that you face the askee but also the adjudicators. You want to put your body at an obtuse angle almost as if your body is the pinnacle of a triangle joining the adjudicators and opposition. Look at the askee. Make eye contact with them and hold it. In a conflict situation people don’t like making and sustaining eye contact; it’s unnerving. Best case scenario they fluff the POI, worst case you look like you’re engaging with them. If, as the POI goes along, and you don’t agree with it, shake your head. It’s unnerving and annoying for them. Then when you do answer the POI make sure that you share your attention with both the adjudicators/audience and the askee. Eye contact: Make sure you make eye contact (and hold it for a bit) with whichever adjudicator is looking up at the time, especially when you’re drawing conclusions. But spread it around amongst the adjudicators if you can. Focus on one your entire speech and they’re going to think you’re either weird or enamoured with them. At other times during the speech look at members of the audience. Not at the wall above their heads or at their feet; make eye contact with them. Also make eye contact with the opposition/specific speakers when you’re doing your rebuttal/telling them what they failed to do/what they need to do. Facial expressions and ticks: You’ll find that you’re more expressive when you’re making eye contact but the main idea here is that you want to reinforce your points with your face. So make little nods when you’re saying something that is good/drawing conclusions. Little shakes of the

head when you’re saying something is wrong/rebutting etc.

Conviction and Authority These two pillars share a lot in common and are heavily reliant upon one another. If people believe that you care about what you’re saying or that you believe in what you’re saying then they’re more likely to believe that you’re an authority on it within the context of the debate. These pillars are concerned with whether or not people listening to you believe that you genuinely care/believe in what you’re saying. Often these are the hardest pillars for debaters to fulfil because a lot of the topics you do you either won’t care about or are patently against and so it becomes hard to „fake‟. But it doesn’t have to be. Within these debates you will find areas that do matter to you; that you do have an opinion about whether it’s free speech or security or poverty. These become your marker areas. Highlight them in your speech and when you get to them show a little passion or emotion. Speak from the heart rather than the page. That conviction/belief will be easy to see and will then rub off on the other points you say whether or not you do actually believe in them. Alternatively the adjudicators will not your passion on those areas and they’ll then often subconsciously spread that passion over the rest of your speech. Bottom-line: you need to sell what you’re saying! Another way to sell what you’re saying is to drop in a few examples or statistics. You don’t need to do an entire case study but a few examples or statistics does wonders for making people believe that you actually know something about the topic.

Connection Even the best speakers can be undone here. At the end of the day the adjudicators will always be hesitant handing a debate to people they don’t like. That doesn’t mean they have to like you but it does mean that they can’t hate you or be irritated by you. You don’t want to offend people with poor jokes or particularly rude language even if they aren’t the butt of the joke/subject of the language. You don’t make fun of people because they have a funny accent or clearly don’t understand a concept. You don’t be rude to people (this is one of the reasons we tell you not to cut a person off in a POI unless they go over the 15s limit – and then when you do you always tell them nicely that you’re cutting them off because they’re over time). You don’t scream and shout at people, swear at them, flip them the bird or anything like that. You don’t roll your eyes or make it seem like you think they’re an idiot. You be polite. You can still be passionate and polite so don’t feel like you’re detrimenting yourself. The disclaimer here is that there is a difference between being rude and having banter. Sometimes you’ll go up against people you know fairly well and the debate will turn into one of those back and forth, give and take affairs. There is a little less decorum, jokes are made, people are teased. That’s fine provided both teams are into it. The adjudicators can plainly see when both sides are friends and are having a bit of fun.

But when one side is largely unresponsive to the jokes then it probably means that a line has been crossed. And if that happens in a debate, if you say something that is construed as an insult

then apologise immediately. It will make you seem less of a douche.

The Five Necessary Elements To Consider In A Debate

ANALYSIS: Identifying and arguing the major issues of the debate, with points also considered for effectiveness of cross-examination. REASONING: Effectively creating clash by arguing and presenting one side of the debate, extending an argument, turning the opponent's arguments against them, exposing faulty logic and extending an argument based on a major item of evidence.

EVIDENCE: Quality of sources, applying the evidence to a specific argument, using evidence to support major arguments, showing how well the evidence is understood. ORGANIZATION: Structure of the spoken presentation. For example, the introduction, the arguments and summary. How the tone followed the flow of the debate. Was the presentation coherent and how effectively was time utilized. REFUTATION: Effectively weakening the opponent's arguments, creating clash and addressing all arguments in the debate.

Delivery: Vocal clarity, correct pronunciation, poise, gestures, eye contact, projection of personality, sentence structure and grammar.

Elements of Debate - the Constructive SpeechesCompetitive high-school debate demands a resolution which creates opposing points of view and a neutral judge. The judge is like a balance scale. The weight of the debater's arguments will tip the balance arm of the scale to one side or the other and the weight which tips the scale is the force of the debater's persuasive skill. At the end of the round it doesn't matter what the truth may be with respect to the resolution nor does it matter what the opinions of the audience or debaters may be. All that matters is which side produced enough of an influence to tilt the balance of the judge's opinion. In fact, the judge doesn't have to agree with a side for it to win. The judge only needs to think the one side tilted the balance to their favor. Even if he thinks both sides were horrible debaters, all the matters is which side was the least horrible. It is important to realize, however, that even though the judge is a "clean slate" or neutral in opinion, the judge may still possess prior knowledge of the issue or data which support a given position. When opposing information is given which violates or challenges the judge's prior knowledge, the judge will resist and at worst, reject the claim until sufficient persuasive weight is applied. So while a judge may initially be devoid of opinion as to which side will prevail, there is nevertheless, a tendency to reject or accept arguments because of the judge's prior

experience and knowledge. It is very important to understand that reality.

The first chance debaters get to begin the process of tilting the balance is during the opening speeches, also called the constructive speeches. The constructives, as they are called, are pre-written and are supposed to supply the claims, grounds and reasons for why a particular point of view should be favored. Since the constructives are written in advance the persuasive power is supplied in the force of the language and how it's presented. Debaters who study persuasion learn of three mode of persuasion; ethos, pathos and logos and the format of persuasive speeches provide the means to employ each mode. Ethos encapsulates the credibility of both the speaker and his case. Pathos conditions the mental and emotional state of the listener. Logos defines the systematic series of arguments which drive the conclusion.

Ethos/CredibilityDebaters learn very early that claims are usually backed by data and data should be supplied by credible sources. The credibility of the data and evidence is essential to establishing the proper ethos of persuasion. One should also consider the ethos of the debater as well. A debater who knows what he or she is talking about is more persuasive than one who does not quite get the nuances or details of a topic. Therefore, its very important for debaters to present themselves as authorities by virtue of their

exhaustive study of the topic and preparation of the case. Much of this personal ethos will be projected in the delivery and presentation of the speech itself. Is it delivered with confidence and enthusiasm? Are the words and names pronounced properly? is the content of the speech well known? Personally, I see no problem explicitly making remarks which establish one's credibility, as long as its done subtly. For example, "...after an exhaustive search of the evidence, we have come to the conclusion..." This can invoke a submissive response in the judge as long as claims are not subsequently made which violates the judge's prior knowledge.

Pathos/State of the ListenerI have heard some say pathos is passion and it is reflected in the passionate way in which a speech is delivered. Others say that it is an appeal to the emotion of the judge. Debaters must be cautious about making appeals to emotion. They are expected to win on evidence, logic and sound reasoning. One would hardly think that because we feel sorry for a group all courses of action to alleviate the suffering of the group are justified. Pathos deals with the mental and emotional state of the listener and yes, I think it can involve direct appeals to emotion on a certain level. The most overt way to utilize pathos is through the use of impact claims. It is very common, in fact, often necessary to carry the claims in the speech to some sort of impact statement. An impact statement tells the judge why a claim is important. It takes the form of "if such and such

is done it leads to something bad" (a harm or negative impact) or "if such and such happens it results in something good" (an advantage or positive impact). These impacts are claimed consequences which evoke an emotional response in the experience of the judge. Positive impact statements can be very advantageous for the debater depending on how they are presented. For example, if the claim is made that a course of action can result in millions of people being saved from starvation, there is an implicit notion that millions of people must be on the verge of starvation in the status quo and so an emotional reaction, however subtle, may be triggered in the judge without the debater focusing on a direct emotional appeal of mass starvation. There are other, less common ways to utilize pathos including the use of metaphors or figurative language but care must be exercised in their application.

Logos/arguments leading to conclusionProbably for most debaters, the logos mode of persuasion is most understood since basically it describes the well-reasoned arguments which eventually lead one to the desired conclusion. Logos defines the collection of claims and their associated evidence presented in a cogent and logical way. The goal is to build the case in such a way that upon hearing the evidence or reasoning leads one to no other possible conclusion than the one desired. This mode will be developed more fully in future postings.

Regional Style

Acceptable argumentation and presentation style is dependent upon regional norms and influences. In some areas, debate is very much evidence-based, in other areas, more pragmatic orations are preferred and have greater influence on the local judges. The National Forensics League establishes procedural rules governing how debate rounds should be conducted but do not regulate elements of style. Additionally, local governing bodies may mandate particular rules which may establish stylistic elements. The Ohio High School Speech League, for example, has a constitution which defines how tournaments are conducted and provides instruction for debaters and judges but regional styles still exist. The role of evidence in debates often varies regionally. While I firmly believe that any debate which makes claims based on data which is not common knowledge, should be grounded on verifiable evidence, there are many stylistic considerations as to how that evidence is warranted and revealed in a speech. These conventions also vary region to region according to the debate category. For example; in some districts, public forum cases may include many direct quotations from sources, in effect letting the evidence do the persuading, while in other districts, evidence may be simply paraphrased and not directly quoted at all. In either case, the evidence exists and can be produced in the round if needed but styles used to present the evidence are entirely different according to the expectation of the regional judges. In Ohio, there are several regional styles, especially with regard to the presentation of debate evidence, that requires debaters who travel to other regions to adapt

their cases to the preferences of the host region. Since the goal of any case is to persuade a judge, it only makes sense to be sensitive to the regional style in which the competition is hosted. Policy debate avoids many of the regional differences in how evidence is presented since policy debate has evolved into a very evidence-driven form of debate. Nevertheless, regional styles may play a very big role in how the cases are presented, with some districts expecting a much slower oration in place of the more common speed reading techniques employed in other regions.

Word EconomyWhile the text of these essays may not be as concise as possible, I am not under time constraints. Debate speeches do have time constraints and so efficiency in the use of words is essential in order to convey as much information as possible in the allowed time. Whereas, policy debate in many regions relies on a very fast speaking style to deliver a huge volume of information, not every category of debate benefits by speed reading. In fact in some regions it weighs negatively against the debater. First and foremost I should mention that in most cases, a few quality arguments are more effective than many poor arguments. So the reason for writing efficient and concise speeches is not so more arguments can be made in the allowed time. Word economy provides time to insert more stylistic elements into a speech and to enrich the arguments to be made with additional data and/or warrants which provide the grounds for the claims. I

advocate spreading in all forms of debate. Not the spreading (SPeed READING) prevalent in policy debate rather spreading the foundations of claims in order to establish solid grounds backed by more than a single source of evidence. When one can make a claim and support it with several independent pieces of evidence, the claim has more weight in the minds of most judges. Concise wording affords the time to build the case foundation.

Presentation StyleReading a case is one thing, presenting a case is something else entirely. The presentation style conveys information to the judge and the opponents and so debaters need be very aware of what messages are being communicated in non-verbal ways. Posture, demeanor, eye contact and intonation are noticed and evoke subtle reactions in the observers. This kind of nonverbal communication has a direct impact upon the speaker's perceived ethos and upon the pathos of the audience or judge. A skilled orator can evoke emotional reactions simply by his intonation, delivery speed or facial expressions without making any direct, verbal appeal to emotions. Another key element of presentation style, involves the structure and flow of the case itself. It's very important to present a case which flows easily from point to point without requiring any mental gymnastics from the judge. In other words the judge should expend minimal mental energy trying to follow the logical progression of the case. A case which flows linearly or circularly is preferable to a case

which jumps back and forth between points or revisits points made previously.

ElocutionPoor elocution can destroy even the best cases. It should go without saying that unless a case is presented in clear and distinct language projected with correct volume, the speech may ultimately be a complete waste of breath. The object of the persuasive speech is to communicate ideas, but no communication takes place if the judge can not understand your words due to poor elocution or if the judge can not hear you. Policy debate is one area where proper enunciation and elocution is essential, especially when reading a case at 300 words a minute. If the judge has to spend a single second trying to interpret your words that is a moment in time when you have lost the judge. In districts where speed reading is the norm, elocution becomes all the more important for effective communication.

Presentation Style as a Voting IssueIn principle, the judge will probably not base a decision about who wins or loses based on stylistic issues unless the judge simply has difficulty hearing or understanding due to the style in which the speech was given. In most districts, I think judges are reluctant to vote on stylistic concerns. Nevertheless, they will definitely comment on the ballots when a debater's style, or volume, or methods violated the judge's norms. For example a judge comment on a ballot may read: "NVI - try to

speak louder - I had trouble hearing you over the air conditioner". The judge is careful to mark the criticism, NVI, non-voting issue, but the mere fact he has taken the time to comment indicates there was problem. And while that judge may say it did not weigh on the decision, it creates a reaction within the judge that may evoke a subconscious or extremely subtle bias against you. Who's to say whether or not that reaction meant the difference between winning or losing a round. Rarely are the cases so evenly matched that they come down to a very subtle stylistic difference, but if such problems can be avoided in the first place one need never wonder if it truly was a NVI.

Elements of Debate - Rebuttal Speeches (part 1)

During a rebuttal speech, the debater presents counter-arguments which refute the claims of the opponent. These arguments have two aims. First, to directly attack the basis or claims of the opponent's case as presented in the constructive speeches and second, to answer any attacks the opponent has made against your case. Part one of this topic will focus on attacking the opponent's case and part two on answering attacks against your own case.

Attacking the Opponent's CaseThe opponent's case is built upon a series of claims which should be backed by some kind of evidence. The claims will lead to the conclusion the opponent wants the judge to take. The claims will usually be built upon premises which serve as the logical basis for the claim. Some

claims may be impacts (advantages, benefits, disadvantages, harms, etc) which are the consequence of some action or condition. Attacking a case means, refuting the premises and claims, grounds or links. Effective attacks are comprised of pointing out failures of the logic leading to the conclusions, presenting evidence which directly refutes evidence in the opponent's case, turning the arguments by showing either the causation does not lead to the claimed impact or the claimed impacts actually lead to other impacts with are detrimental to the opponent's case.

Attacks in the ConstructiveI include here, the idea that the negative (or second speech) can attack the opponent's case directly and more or less spontaneously as part of the negative constructive speeches. This is done by reading disadvantages. Since new arguments are not allowed after the constructive speeches, these kinds of attacks (especially in Policy debate) are made immediately as part of the constructive. (For more on this topic, see Attacking With Disadvantages, below). Another form of attack embedded in the constructive is to include preemptive arguments against attacks that are likely to be brought up later by the opponent. These kinds of speeches blur the nice neat lines between what is a constructive and what is a rebuttal, but because they can be effective rebuttal strategies, I include them in the topic.

Attacking the Premises

Many times a claim is built upon premises which are presumed true either because we all agree they are true or because the evidence proves they are true. Once the truth of the premises are established the argument can be structured into a logical conclusion. For example: Premise 1 - All illegal immigrants should be deported. Premise 2 - Xavier is an illegal immigrant. Conclusion - Xavier should be deported. If one assumes premise 1 and premise 2 are universally true, there is no other conclusion for Xavier. Obviously, if you can refute the truth of the premises by either showing that NOT all illegal immigrants should be deported or Xavier is NOT an illegal immigrant, the opponent's claim that Xavier should be deported is inconclusive or not true. Often a universal premise is preceded by a statement like ALL, EVERY, EACH, etc. These should be red flags for the debater to attack the universality of the premise. For example, if you can show that most illegal immigrants should be deported but not ALL, one can no longer conclude, based on the premises supplied, that Xavier should be deported. Sometimes the logical conclusions drawn by the opponent are simply incorrect or inconsistent. For example: Premise 1 - the U.S. has always provided aid to poor nations. Premise 2 - Somalia is a poor nation. Conclusion - the U.S. should provide aid to Somalia. The first premise is assumed to be universal but it may possible to refute this if you can show examples of poor countries not being aided by the U.S. But there is another glaring problem with the first premise. It is an appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) because it assumes since something was true in

the past, it is also true now. This is a logical fallacy which is easily refuted.

Attacking the GroundsThe grounds for a claim are the proofs the claim is true. In debate this usually means the evidence and the warrants which link the evidence to the claims. There are three principle ways to attack the grounds:

Refute the evidence with more recent evidence which draws a different conclusion.Show the opponent's evidence does not link or apply to the conclusion.Refute the validity of the evidence by showing it is flawed in its methods (usually applicable to statistical evidence), or the source is biased or otherwise not credible.

It's quite common that certain evidence may be superceded by more recent evidence and most judges will usually conclude the more recent evidence is more valid. So if you have a more recent study or statistic which refutes a similar piece of evidence given by the opponent, then use it. Sometimes the opponent's evidence or warrants may not be applicable to the claim or premise trying to be proved. The opponent may simply be misinterpreting the evidence and so you should reveal these kinds of flaws to the judge. Finally, the source of the evidence should be considered even though in some types of debate, such as policy, the sources are rarely questioned. Sources can be biased or worse yet just plain wrong in how they have reached their

conclusions and so these flaws can also be attacked.

Attacking With DisadvantagesA good strategy of attack for a debater is to show how adoption of the opponent's position results in harms or undesirable consequences . In policy debate, these kinds of attacks are called disadvantages or D.A.s. An effective DA must be predicated on some aspect of the opponent's case. In other words, something the opponent's case advocates will result in the DA. There must be a link from the opponent's case to the DA you wish to promote. Next, the disadvantage must be result solely as a consequence of the action or condition advocated in the opponent's case. In other words, if the disadvantage will occur without adopting the opponent's position then there is no reason not to support the opponent's position. And finally, and this is most obvious, there must be an impact or consequence which is the thing that makes it a disadvantage in the first place. A properly constructed disadvantage, will answer the question, "why is it the harm will not happen in the status quo but only if the opponent's position is adopted?" and it will answer the question in the impact, "how bad will it be?".

Things to Avoid When AttackingBe sure to always attack the opponent's case and never the opponent's character, motives, intentions, or such. Always focus on attacking the elements of the case no matter how intense the round may become.

Try to attack the claims on the opponent's case in the same sequence in which they were presented. This is commonly referred to as line-by-line refutation. It makes it easier for you (and your partner) to enure you have attacked each point and it helps the judge to follow the flow of the attack and anything you can do to help the judge follow your claims works to your advantage.

Do not try to refute everything. Selectively drop some points if necessary. It is not always to your advantage to attack every claim on the opponents constructive. It is best to attack the most significant arguments letting the less important points flow through to later speeches. The opponent may claim you dropped these arguments but it may not matter if your own claims have more of an impact on the judge's decision than the few relatively minor things you may have dropped. Knowing what to drop and when to drop it depends on the dynamics of the round and but you should consider it a viable strategy to allow time to heavily refute the opponent's strongest arguments while defending your own.

Elements of Debate - Rebuttal Speeches (part 2)

Answering Attacks on Your CaseDuring your rebuttal speeches you will typically be forced to answer attacks made against your own case. These attacks will be the same kinds discussed in part 1 of this discussion of rebuttal

speeches; attacks against your premises and claims, grounds, and impacts. When attacked, you will be expected to answer in your next speech. If you fail to answer the attacks it will be perceived you have conceded the points and the judge and your opponents may look unfavorably on your case if you try to answer the attacks in a later speech. In some cases, you may choose to concede certain points especially if you think you are winning other points which outweigh any arguments of the opponent.

Extending Your ArgumentsGenerally, you should be prepared to reaffirm all of your points made in the constructive speech and you should continue to do so, during every speech you make except, perhaps, the summary speech. By reaffirming, speech after speech you extend your arguments from the constructive, all the way to the end of the debate. Anywhere along the line, if you fail to reaffirm one of your arguments it will be viewed as conceded by the opponents and most likely the judge. It is considered bad form in debate to drop a point and then try to pick it up again later in the round.

As a general rule, when you initially make your argument in the constructive speech, the opponent will attack it in the first rebuttal and then you will be forced to answer the attack. If the opponent fails to attack the argument, most debaters remind the judge, the opponent dropped the point and so extend the argument

by reaffirming the same argument and warrants as originally stated. Often, a debater will simply ask the judge to "extend the argument" and move on to the next point without further clarification. Asking the judge to "extend the argument" or saying "I extend such and such argument" is an instruction to the judge to simply draw an arrow on his flow sheet from the argument through the next column on the sheet, thereby, "extending" the same point. To be sure, debaters who claim to extend in this manner save time allowing more time to answer other points and many judges have no problem with it. Nevertheless, some judges do not like rote argument extension and in a category like Public Forum debate, citizen judges may not always know what is meant by the imperative, "extend the argument". If possible, and time allows, it is best to extend the arguments explicitly by reaffirming the point in a summary way. This means you do not have to reread the entire argument complete with evidence and warrants. It means briefly remind the judge why the argument is still valid and quickly move on.

Answering AttacksWhen the opponent has challenged some argument of your case, there are many ways to answer, depending on the how the opponent chose to attack. As noted in part 1, the opponent will challenge the premises and logic or your claims, he will challenge the validity of your grounds, or he will challenge the impacts, claiming they are not meaningful or his impacts are are more important. Many of the attacks

levied against your case should not come as a surprise. By the time you are in rounds facing opponents, you should have already researched and written affirmative and negative cases for the resolution. Experienced debaters anticipate the kinds of challenges they are likely to face and are prepared to provide answers to those challenges. Additionally, as you face opponents, through the weeks you will quickly understand where the vulnerabilities of your case exist and either revise the constructive to strengthen the case or research effective answers to likely challenges.

Counter-claims: Avoid the Rabbit-HoleMany times the the opponent challenges your arguments with counter-claims. Since a counter-claim is simply a claim. It can be counter-attacked in the same way one attacks any claim: challenge the premises, logic and grounds. But it is not a good strategy to make, yet another counter-claim as this tends to misdirect the debate away from the initial claims and soon you are running down the "rabbit-hole" of irrelevant arguments. For example: You claim with full warrants that the U.S. should rely more on coal as an alternative energy. The opponent's rebuttal counters with burning fossil-fuels is bad because it increases global warming. You answer, global warming is mitigated by planting more trees. Soon the debate spins off down a rabbit hole, debating global warming instead of the original point of alternative energy. Anytime you answer attacks, try to stay focused on the original claim and bring it back into the debate. Instead of

answering, global warming is mitigated by planting trees; direct attention to your claim by showing, with evidence, how coal burning technology is far more carbon friendly than in the past and so the use of coal as alternative energy is increasingly desirable. In this answer, coal as an alternative energy remains in focus and avoids the global warming rabbit-hole.

Answering by ReaffirmationIn debate, the constructive speeches are the only time your side is allowed to introduce arguments. During rebuttals and summary speeches it is considered abusive to bring up new arguments. Therefore, your constructive must present every argument you will uphold in support of the case. It is important to understand there is no prohibition to introducing new evidence in support of the arguments you have already presented. In fact, it is a very good strategy to be prepared to answer challenges to your claims by presenting additional evidence and warrants which reaffirm your arguments. Debaters should always have multiple sources of evidence in support of their arguments and bring those other sources into the debate in later speeches as a way of continually reaffirming by adding more and more evidence in support of the original claim. This strategy is effective because, while there is a very good chance, an opponent can provide a reasonable attack on an argument in your case, it will be increasingly difficult for the opponent to continue to pile on additional attacks if you are able to continuously reaffirm your position with new warrants. NOTE: If your

argument has been challenged by the opponent it is nearly always worthless to answer by repeating your original warrants.

Answering DisadvantagesQuite commonly, in policy debate, link turns and impact turns are used to refute the claims of the opponent, especially the DA. These kinds of attacks are not as common in Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas debate even though the idea of turns is still applicable. Impacts are the claimed results of a certain course or action or state of being and they are important to a case because they provide an answer to the question, "why is this important?" An impact is a claim which must be proven so it is possible to attack it in the same way as any other claim; by attacking the premises, logic or grounds. Claims identified as impacts are usually consequences arising from some cause. Some cause leads to some effect; some cause leads to some impact. Therefore, it is possible to disturb the cause-effect nature of the impact by proving the cause does not uniquely lead to the effect. For example: Let's say the affirmative makes a case that the U.S. needs to increase the size of its military. The negative can argue against this by claiming the increase will have a negative impact since it will increase the federal deficit. The negative's cause-effect is, increased military has the effect of increased deficit. Affirmative can turn the link between the cause and effect by challenging the uniqueness of negative's cause-effect relationship. For example, affirmative can show that if nothing is done, the deficit will still increase. The affirmative may

also show that increasing the size of the military does not lead to a bigger deficit but reduces it because the increase in defense spending puts more people to work thus increasing tax revenues. Both of these arguments serve as link turns because they break the uniqueness of the cause-effect relationship. The cause-effect relationship can also be undone, if affirmative can show that the cause does not always result in the DA. A good way to do this is show an example in history where the action did not result in the claimed disadvantage. Another way to overcome the negative's claimed disadvantage is to turn the impact. Basically this means, that if the impact occurs it is actually a good thing rather than a disadvantage. For example, affirmative could claim the increase in deficit is a good thing because such a deficit is justifiable and even desirable to offset a threat from terrorists or other enemies. In this case, the positive benefit outweighs the negative disadvantage.

Answering TurnsAs discussed in part one of this topic, a valid negative strategy is to attack the affirmative case by showing how adoption of the affirmative position results in harmful impacts. Affirmative will attempt to turn these arguments by showing how the claimed harms are actually desirable and they will attempt to control uniqueness by explaining how the disadvantages will still occur in the status-quo or affirmative can prove the disadvantage does

not always occur when the affirmative position is adopted. The best way to defend link turns is to structure them in such a way that affirmative can not turn the link without damaging their case, having a firmly unique causation claim, and relying on the strength of the argument to persuade the judge. Ultimately this means citing impacts which outweigh the advantages claimed by the affirmative. While the affirmative may be able to destroy the link which establishes a formal causation, it is still possible to defend the disadvantage. If the opponent claims the DA will happen in the status-quo, try to argue if the impact happens in the status-quo, it will reduce desire, need or resolve to enact or adopt the opponent's proposal. If the opponent shows that action does not always result in the disadvantage, argue that the probability is high and the magnitude of the impact is too high to risk adopting the opponent's proposal. Again, if the opponent tries to turn the impact, again look to the impact calculus and stress how bad the risks are of things turning out badly.

Asian Parliamentary FormatDebates are basically structured discussions. Each debate has a format and these rules are there to ensure fairness. I will talk about the Asian format and explain teams & order of speakers, timing, Points of Information and Replie Speeches.

In the Asian Parliamentary format there are 2 teams of 3 speakers each. The team that supports the topic is called the Government and the team that opposes the topic is called the

Opposition. Each speaker speaks for 7 minutes, in alternating order. First speaker from Governement, then first speaker from Opposition, then second speaker from Government, then second speaker from Opposition and so on. At the end of these 6 speeches, each team can make a shorter Reply speech, for minutes. Either the first or second speaker of each team will have the chance to make this speech. This time the Opposition will start, followed by the Government.

The final element if this format is called Points of Information. These are short interjections (questions, comments, statements etc) - usually less than 15 seconds long that the opposite team can offer the speaker who is speaking. So for example, during the first speaker on the Government's speech, any speaker on the Opposition can rise up and offer a question, by saying "Point of Information!". The Government speaker can then choose to accept or not accept the point (although he should accept at least 1 during his speech). This adds some interactivity to the debate.

Clarification on Points of Information

The team that is not speaking can offer as many POIs as they want. To offer a POI, they should stand up, raise an arm and if they want, say something short like "point of information". They cannot start presenting their POI until the person speaking gives them permission to speak. They should not be rude and try to distract or interrupt the speaker. The POI must

be short and if the speakers asks them to sit down and end their question, they must.The person who is speaking can choose when and from whom to accept a question. If you are offered a question and you don't want to accept it, just say "no thank you", "not at this time", "sit down please" and so on. You must take 1 POI and should try to take two.A POI can be a question, a comment, an argument, a rebuttal, an example - anything that you can say in 15 seconds that will help your team win the debate.POIs can only be offered between the 1st and 6th minute of the first 6 speeches of the debate (not in the reply speech)

Asian Parliamentary Format

Hello there! Today we are going to talk about the format of a debate. A debate is basically a structured discussion, so you have some debate formats that are more open, like a presidential debate or a town hall debate where groups of people debate against each other, or you have debate formats that a far more structured, that carefully tell you how much time each person has to speak and so on and so forth.

Every format has some kind of rules because those rules serve to preserve order and create some kind of balance. Those rules do not determine who wins or loses the debate. Debating isn't about the rules, the rules are there to create balance to tell people how much time they have to speak and so on and so forth. So in every debate format there will be some direction about the topics, about the timing,

about the speaking order and maybe a little bit of stuff about the judging criteria - ow do you decide which team wins and which team loses.

Today we are going to focus on the Asian parliamentary format. This is a format that is widely used in Asia among university and highschool students and I think a good format with which to learn how to debate.

I'm going to talk about the teams and order of speakers, timing, topic selection, Points of Information, which are the essential parts of this format. Firstly lets look at the teams and the speaking order. In the Asian Parliamentary debate format you have two teams. One team is called the Government Team and the other team is called the Opposition Team. Sometimes this is referred to the Affirmative and the Negative. The names don't really matter that much, but this is just so we understand the terminology.

The Government team must support the topic and the Opposition team must oppose the topic. You usually won't have a choice over whether you are the Goverment or Opposition on a topic. Each team will have 3 speakers. Three in Gov and three in Opp. They will speak in alternating order. So first you will have one speaker from the gov and then the opp and then the gov and then the gov and then the opp.

Each speaker will speak for 7 minutes. So an entire debate will take (7 + 7..) = 42 minutes. But hold on, at the end of those 42 minutes,

each team gets to make an extra speech - how exciting is that! It's a kinda of summation speech, where you are comparing the teams and you are trying to persuade the judge why my team wins over the other team. So it's not really a speech where you are making new arguments, but we'll get into those details later. Hold on, hold on, some patience. So at the end of those 6 speeches, the Gov and the Opp teams get to make a reply speech. This speech is shorter. Remember the earlier speeches were 7 minutes long. This speech will only be 4 minutes long. And remember earlier the Gov team started the debate by making the first speech, this time the opposition team will start by making the first reply speech. So in essence, the Gov team always starts the debate and they always end the debate by having reply speech.

So that's the two teams, the speaking order and the timing.

Now we come to the topic selection. Every debate needs a topic! In the Asian Parliamentary format what happens is you usually will be given 3 topics to choose from. So you and the other team can compare and choose the topic which you both like to debate the best. How this is done is teams will rank the topics. So the gov ranks the topics 1, 2, 3 and opp ranks 1, 2, 3 and the compare the rankings. The topics which you rank 3rd, will not be debated. They will cancel each other off. So if the gov ranked the 1st topic 3rd, the oppostion ranked the 2nd topic 3rd, then the 1st and 2nd topics are cancelld and you will debate the 3rd topic.

in the situation where teams rank the same topic third but reverse the other two rankings, then you will have to flip a coin to decide who gets their first choice. If both teams ranked the same topic first then you debate that topic.

The only other thing about the Asian Parliamentary format, the last part I'm going to talk about is called Points of Information. When speakers are speaking, between the first and the 6th minute of every speech, speakers from the other side have the opportunity to rise up and offer a question. So you can say, Point of Information, "can I ask a question" " on that point" or something to that effect. If I am speaking, I can choose whether or not to accept this interruption. So I can say "yes", "go ahead". You can ask a question, make a statement or a comment or say anything you want but it has to be short - it's about 15 second long and about 2 sentences.

So you can get up, ask your question, say your comment, and then I have to respond to it. I don't have to accept every question. But if I accept a question, I have to respond to the question. This adds a huge element of interactivity to the debate. Every speaker, gov and opp speaker, have the chance to be questioned by the other team, during their speech. You can ask questions and POIs to the other team and not to your own team. You should take at least one, preferably two POIs. There are no POIs in the reply speech. Only POIs in the first 6 speeches of the debate.

Those are the essential parts of the Asian Parliamentary Debate Format. You have the Speaker Order, the Teams Speaking Order, Timing, Topic Selection and Point of Information.

Teams wins a debate not by being better at the format but making a strong position on the topic, by giving strong arguments to support their position, by rebutting the arguments of the other team and by comparing each other's arguments and positions. The format is just a structure that ensures it happens in a fair and balanced way.

Prime MinisterBrief Notes on this Lecture

The Prime Minister is the first person to speak in the Asian Parlimentary format. This is a very important speech as it defines the entire debate. This speech should lay down the groundwork for the entire debate and deliver the most important ideas. There are 3 important parts to this speech

A) Define and Set-Up the debate

What do you define? How words will be understood in this debate. You don't have to define every word, but words that might be misunderstood or words that have multiple meanings. Pretend you are the opposition and ask yourself what might confuse you. Don't provide dictionary definitions, but tell everyone how the word will be understood in the debate. Tell them what you mean, what you Don't

mean, give them a similar meaning and give them an example.set-up – how, where this debate will happen. What is the context? This is important because this is how the arguments will be evaluated. You need to explain why this debate is important, give some limites to the debate and answer any questions the other team or audience or judge might have.B) Present Team Position and Case

What are you defending? What will you prove and not prove? Do you have a specific policy? Your position is your overall beliefs. Your case is a collection of your arguments, policy and theme.What will you talk about and what will your second speaker talk about?C) Make 1 or 2 Arguments

The first speaker must present the most important arguments. Do not save the best for last.

Role of the Prime MinisterNow we are going to talk about the roles and responsibilities of each speaker in the team. Debating and especially in the Asian Parliamentary format is a team sport. Teams compete against other teams. And just like in any other team persuasion activity like a team presentation, each speaker has a specific role and responsibility. It's important to realize at the start that these are guidelines, these are not rules. It doesn't mean that if you don't do one of these things you will automatically lose the debate. However these guidelines are created

in order to give you the most amount of efficiency when persuading. They will help you function as a team more effectively, and persuade more efficiently.

So the speakers in the teams all have a specific kind of name or notation, in order to I guess, role play a little bit and make it more interesting. So in the Government team, the first speaker is called the Prime Minister (PM). And his or her second speaker is the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) and then the Government Whip (GW). In the Opposition the first speaker is the Leader of Opposition, followed by the Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) and the Opposition whip. I'm sure you see a pattern forming here.

We're going to talk about these roles in the order in which they will speak in the debate. The first speaker of the government first, the PM, and then the LO and then the DPM, DLO and so on. Let's look at the PM.

Now, as the first speaker of the debate, you have three essential things that you must do. Firstly you must define and set-up the debate, secondly you need to present your team's position and the team's case and thirdly you must make 1 or 2 arguments. Let's look at those things in turn.

Defining and Setting Up the debate. Both teams have a topic, the first speaker's job is to tell them how we are going to - or tell everyone rather - how we are going to define the topic. How we are going to use this topic in this

debate. Now you should take the most literal and straight forward definition, but sometimes there can be words that need additional clarification, to help people know how they are going to be understood, in this debate. This does not mean you have to give the dictionary definition of every word. But you need to tell people how your team is going to understand and apply some of the words.

For example, if the topic is "that we would ban smoking in the university campus", teams perhaps don't need to explain what smoking is, if everyone knows what smoking is. Smoking cigarettes, whatever's legally defined as smoking. But they might need to say what they exactly mean by ban and how they are going regulate. They might need to say also where is the boundary of the university campus. Are they talking about buildings, surrounding area of the buildings or over the fence. Not clarifying these issues at the start could lead to confusion. So you have to define the debate in a way that does not lead to confusion. You cannot define the debate in a overly narrow or small way, in order to give yourself too much of an advantage, because there still needs to be a debate.

You also need to set-up the debate. Now setting-up the debate means, well just like setting up a stage, you are going to tell people what are the things they need to know in order for this debate to happen. That means giving them a context, why is this debate important? What is the background to this issue? Tell people how this debate is to be evaluated? So

in this same example, I might say that there is a big problem, there is a rise of younger problem smoking, it's been very difficult to clamp down, a problem with littering and second smoking and so on so forth and what we want to do is to address and solve this problems. So that is defining the debate, and setting-up the debate. These things are important to create clarity, to avoid confusion and to help people decide how to evaluate the debate.

The second thing you would do as Prime Minister is present your Position and your Team's Case. The Position is how we are going to approach this debate. What do we believe in, what are we going to prove? And what is my team going to do? So do we believe that people need to have rights limited? Are we trying regulate people? What is our position and you present your case. Case means the arguments of the entire team. This means having to present your team's split. So what am I going to talk about, and what my second speaker is going to talk about. This makes your entire case more easily understood by the other team and most importantly by the judges and the audience.

Sometimes teams will have a policy or a plan. The 3 things we are going to do, we are going to this, and going to do that and going to this. So you are going to explain in detail how you are going to implement your solution. That also needs to come out int his part, when you are presenting you position and case

The final thing the PM will do is present arguments, so the first reason and the second reason. And then you will summarize and close your speech, and emphasize what is important.

So brief recap - 3 things the PM must do - he or she must define and set up the debate, he or she must present a position, their team's position and their team's case - which could sometimes include a policy, and finally he or she must present one or two arguments.

Deputy SpeakersNotes on this Lecture

The Deputy Speakers enter the debate in the middle. They speak after the first speakers and before the 3rd speakers. They play an important role in maintaining the control and shaping the eventual clash points of the debate. To best achieve this, they should

A) Defend your case and position against the attacks of the other team

The speaker on the other side has just rebutted your teammate - you need to defend his or her arguments because that is your case. If the speaker DOESN'T rebut your teammate, draw attention their failure and re-emphasize why your team's points are important.B) Attack the other team's position, case and arguments

Rebut, similar to what the leader of opposition did towards the prime minister.C) Make 1 or 2 Arguments

Now we are going to talk about the second speakers in each team. We are going to talk about both of them together because their roles are very very similar. On the government team the second speaker is the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) and in the opposition team the second speaker is the Deputy Lead of Opposition (DLO). At this point in the debate, one of your teammates have already spoken and what they have said has been rebutted by one speaker, if you are the DPM. If you are the DLO, two speakers on the other side have already spoken. So at this points arguments have been made, and rebuttals have been made towards each other. So lets look at what your responsibilities and role will be as the deputy speakers position.

Deputy speakers essentially have 3 things that they must do. You must defend your case, you must attack the case on the other side, and then you must present new arguments. Let's look at those things in turn.

Firstly defending your case. The situation is your teammate has already presented arguments. If you're in the government (team) the PM has presented your position, the case and the setup, and the leader of opposition has attacked those arguments. He's presented rebuttals and said these arguments wrong and there's a problem with this argument. So if I am coming up in second, my first priority must be to defend my teammate. (It must be) to defend the integrity and the strength of my team and my speaker. The first thing I need to do is

defend. Identify the points of my speaker which have been attacked and tell you why those things are not true and why they are necessary and (then) I need to rebuild them.[More in the Question & Answer section]

Once I'm done with that, I need to respond to what the first speaker on the (other) side has (said), or if I'm in the opposition team I need to respond to what the second speaker on the other side has said. Maybe I can briefly summarize the previous speaker, (for example) "she said two things and I'm going to respond to those things. This is why this is wrong and this is why that is wrong". The rebuttals are similar to the rebuttals the LO makes to the PM. The DPM must rebut the LO and the DLO must rebut the DPM. The DLO can also continue rebuttals against the PM. Your rebuttals are not limited to just the speaker who spoke before you but you can rebut the entire team.

So I've defended my team, I've rebutted their team, the third thing I must do, is present new arguments. Arguments that are different from the arguments my teammate has already presented in the debate. This is important, (because) doing this means the debate grows. This adds new information and new argumentation that supports the case. I must connect these arguments to our position and tell you why those arguments are strong and why it makes our case even stronger.

That's the deputy speakers. You sit in the middle of the team, so your job is; you need to defend your teammate - my teammate said

some important things, and I'm telling you why those things are still important. Then I need to respond to the other team - this is what you said, and this is why what you said is wrong! And then I need to present my own arguments.

Both the DPM on the Government and the DLO on the Opposition will do these three things. Good luck at being an awesome Deputy Speaker!

Question and Answers - the Deputy Speakers1. Can I change the definition, the position or the policy of the PM or the LO?

- No you can't. Changing the policy means you will contradict your PM or LO and reduce the value of his or her speech. You can clarify and explain, but any additions that makes your teammate look like they didn't do their job well will hurt your team.

2. Do i have to do defense first then rebuttals, then new arguments?

- No, as long as you do all three. If you think it's better, you can present your arguments first, then rebut and then defend your teammate.

3. How much of time should I spend Defending, Rebutting and Developing new arguments? Which is the most important part of my job??

- This is a difficult question and there is no objective answer. It really depends on the debate. Some debates may require you to spend more time defending your first speaker

(if for example the attack from the other side was particularly strong) or if the other speaker spent more time building his own case and not really attacking yours, then there is more attacking to do than defending. So ask yourself what you need to do the most in this debate, but ensure you do a little bit of everything. The most common error deputy speakers make with time management is spending too much time rebutting, forgetting to do any defense and emphasis of their case and not leaving enough time to develop new arguments. If you must cut down on something, cut rebuttals. You have a third speaker who add rebuttals, but it's harder for the third speaker to clarify and defend the first speaker, and the third speaker shouldn't be developing new arguments.

Whip SpeakersBrief Notes on this Lecture

Whip speakers are the last constructive speakers in the Asian Parliamentary format. Constructive speakers are those who build up arguments and clash points in the debate. Although whip speakers don't usually present new arguments (the Opposition Whip speaker is forbidden from doing this and it's too late in the debate for any new arguments to make a huge impact anyway) they can present new rebuttals, examples, analysis and defense of arguments that have already been made. They do this by doing the following

A) Briefly summarize and defend your case

It's important at the start of the speech to spend a minute or less to emphasize the points made by your team. This reminds the audience what the contribution of your team is and gives you a context from which to make your rebutalls and analysis. It will be easier to compare the other team's arguments to yours if you briefly summarize them first.B) Summarize and prioritize the most important arguments or issues in the debate.

There will be many arguments and rebuttals flying around in the debate. You need to identify the main themes or major arguments that are dominating the debate or that you feel are important. This part is really important, you cannot talk about everything that has been said so you will have to choose. Choosing ideas that are not important will make the rest of your speech redundant. Be objective when deciding what the clash points are and be fair to the other team.C) Rebut and analyze the arguments or issues and say why your team has done better on all of them, most of them or on the most important ones

This is the largest part of your speech. Once you have identified the major issues, go through and rebut all of them. Compare them to arguments your team has made and show why yours are better. Don't present new arguments, but you can present new analysis, new examples, new rebuttals and give support for arguments that your teammates have already made in the debate

Hello hello, welcome back! It's time to talk about the 3rd speakers on both teams. And I'm also going to talk about these two guys, or girls together because their roles are very similar to each other. There are some differences, but they are very similar. So I'm gong to talk about the Government Whip (GW) and the Opposition Whip (OW) collectively.

It's important to realize (as whip) you are coming at the end of the debate, so at this part of the debate, 4 speakers or 5 speakers if you are opposition whip, would have already spoken before you. There are going to be many arguments and rebuttals and claims and counter claims and accusations and examples and analysis and all these different things. So your job in principle is to sort out this mess, is to balance these things and to tell the judges and the teams, why you have done better. More than tell them, show them why you have done better.

There are essentially 3 parts to your speech. Firstly, as a good whip you must briefly summarize and defend your case Secondly summarize and prioritize the issues and ideas in the debate, and then thirdly, analyze and rebut these issues. Let's look at them.

Firstly briefly summarize your case and your position. This helps give the judges or the audience a little bit of clarity. When you get up (to make your speech), this is the first thing (you should do) and you shouldn't take very long. If you are speaking for 7 minutes, this

should be about a minute or less. You (can) say "now this is what we have done, these are our 3 arguments (or) these are our 4 arguments and these arguments are still strong and still doing well". You are giving them a brief overview of what your team has presented in this debate.

The second thing you do and this is one of the most important things, you summarize and prioritize the issues and ideas in the debate. You identifying what you think are the most important points in the debate. These are things that maybe will be questions in the minds of the audience. Things on which the debate might turn, might hinge. For example on the topic that we would ban smoking in the university campus, one of the issues may be how much harm is there from people smoking on campus. Is the harm very very real? (This is) Because the government team will try to create a lot of harm to a lot of people and the opposition team will try to reduce this harm, and say that it's really not that much harm. Or an issue could be about rights - how do we balance the rights of smokers and the rights of non-smokers? So as a whip speaker, I want to identify these things. I want to say, or you want to say, there are two issues in this debate, or there are 3 issues in the debate. Firstly the issue of harm, secondly the issue of rights, and thirdly what is the role of a university. Sometimes these can be characterized based on the arguments of the other team. Perhaps the 3 arguments they have presented, those are going to be the important issues in the debate.

Sometimes these (issues) are also presented as questions. Do people have the right to smoke? Or which is more important? And so on and so forth - you get the idea. Basically what you have to do is identify what the most important issues in the debate are. This should also not take very long.

The third thing you should do is you should rebut and analyze those issues. Now (for example) "I've identified 3 important issues, I've said the first important issue in this debate is what is the harm of second hand smoke, secondly how do we balance the rights of smokers and non-smokers (and thirdly what is the role of universities)...and in the 3rd part of my speech i should rebut and analyze those things. So since I said what is harm, I will give you reasons why the harm is very real or the harm can be reduced..", and then secondly when I talk about the rights, I will show you why our argumentation on rights is better than their argumentation of rights.

To do these things I can provide new rebuttals to arguments, I can provide new examples, I can also provide new analysis to rebuttals. What i cannot do, what I should not do as a whip speaker is provide new arguments. A new argument is an idea that has not happened in the debate before and is not a rebuttal. So if no one on my team so far has talked about, let's say cost, the economic perspective has never come up in this debate before. Then as the whip speaker I shouldn't bring that idea up. The rules of Asian Parliamentary technically allow the government whip (to bring new arguments)

but specifically forbid the opposition whip from doing this. But I think it's good strategy for neither of the whip speakers to bring new arguments. You can bring a new rebuttal, so if you want to rebut the second speakers speech and third speakers speech by providing economic analysis, you can do that. A lot of it is how you make your points.

To recap, the whip speaker speaks at the end, so your job is to summarize and to clarify issues, to attract points that are still hanging, to show why your team is doing better. To that effect you should do three things; start by providing a brief summary of the arguments of your team and your case, and defend them. Then prioritize and analyze the issues of the debate - identify which you think are the most important issues in this debate. Thirdly - and this will be the bulk of your speech, analyze and rebut those issues. Tell the audience and the judges why your team did better, why the position of your team is much better for those issues, and rebut and analyze. Remember, no new arguments, but new examples and new rebuttals are okay.

Reply SpeakersNotes on This Lecture

Reply speeches speak once the debate is "over". This doesn't mean your speech is unimportant, it just means that technically you are not supposed to add new things to the debate. What your speech does is give the judges and audience a standard to measure success. Which team should win this debate and why? You can do this by

A) Summarize the debate – what is this debate about?

Be as objective as possible. What have been the major issues and questions in this debate? What are the most important impacts of this debate? Try to think like your judge.B) Briefly summarize the position of your team and your competitor

Now that you've told everyone what the debate is about, how did you approach the debate and how did your opponent approach the debate? What did you set out to prove and what were your major arguments? You don't have a lot of time, so don't go through in great detail. Just outline the main approach and most important ideas.C) Compare why your team's position and arguments are better.

Now that you've told everyone what the debate is about and how each of you approached the debate, who did a better job? Who had more relevant arguments, engaged better, developed ideas better, proved their burden, did not contradict etc etc. Provide standards to measure success. Remember, you don't have to beat the other team 100% to win a debate, you don't have to prove that you are perfect. You just have to win 51% of the debate, you just have to be better than the other team. This means it's okay to concede that at some points the other team did better than you, but ensure you show you did better at all the important points.

Don't make new arguments, new rebuttals or present new examples, but analyze and balance the arguments and position of both teams. Explain why your team did a better job of debating, why your position and arguments better answers the most important questions in the debate.

Hello! So we've talked about the first six speeches of the Asian Parliamentary format, the 3 speeches on the Government team and the 3 speeches on the Opposition team. Now we've come almost to the end of the debate. The opposition whip speaker has sat down, (and) it's time for the reply speeches.

The reply speeches as I've told you before, is 4 minutes in length and there will be no Points of Information. During the previous 6 speeches, while speakers are presenting the definition or making arguments or rebuttals, other speakers can stand up and offer a point. "Can I ask a question", "On that point",- they may say those things or make those funny gestures to get attention and speakers (the person who is currently speaking) can choose to reject or accept them. In the reply speech there is none of this. You get absolute peace and control over your speech.

So what should you do in the 4 minutes which you have to make your reply speech? You should do essentially 3 things. One - you need to summarize the debate. Two - you need to show your team's position and your case and thirdly, you need to compare (and show) why your position is better than the other team's.

Why your case is better than the other team. Why you should win this debate.

Before I talk about those things, it's helpful to think of the reply speech as a form of biased adjudication. The debate has ended and you are here giving a kind of review of the debate. "This has happened, we did this and they did this and now why do we win". Why were we the better team in this game, and how did we play this game better or how they didn't play this game better (than us). What they have not done or still have not done and what we have done and why we are better. It's kind of like a review after a game or a performance. The commentators get up and give up and give a review. (They might say) "oh I think this team did really well and they should win or she should be the best idol because of this and because of that". That's what you are doing. Now obviously you are a member of your team, so you are going to be a little bit biased. If you are the opposition reply speaker, you are not going to say I think the government team is going to win this debate. Don't do that! You are going to say "I think our team wins this debate!", but you are going to try to present that in an objective way, because that is persuasive.

Let's look at the 3 things you should do in your speech in order to best present this biased adjudication. Firstly, briefly summarize the debate. Not your team, but the debate as a whole. What was this debate about? What are some of the important issues in this debate? What happened in this debate? It's important here to be as objective as possible. You should

try to cover things which maybe even your team wasn't doing so well at, because if your summary is too biased,then the judges won't buy the rest of your analysis. they wont believe the rest of your analysis. so what was this debate about? this debate was about the balance between the right of smokers and non smokers. this debate was about what is the role of the university - is the university a place for education only, or is it also a place for transition, for change into society. so those are the two most important issues in this debate, perhaps.

Now after you've done that, present your teams position and your case. so these are the issues in the debate, now what we do and what did we present? What were our arguments and how did we argue them? Try to be brief, because what you are showing here is you are trying to show why your arguments and your case is relevant (to the main issues of the debate), is good, is strong. So this is what the debate is about, these are our arguments, our arguments are relevant to what this debate is about.

The third thing you should do is compare your position and their position. This means you may have to briefly summarize the other team's position and then compare them. That's the most important part. Saying what you've done and saying what they've done doesn't really win you a debate, and that isn't really debating. What debating is about is comparing, not just stating things. So "we made these arguments, and they made those arguments - why are our

arguments better than their arguments. Why are our examples better. Why is out position better. Why are our approaches or anylsis better, which ones do we win".

Now you don't have to show that you win all the arguments and every position and this is 100% destruction of the other team. no no no, that's not what debating is about. It's about objective comparison. So you can say, "I think we did really well here, the other team did really well here, we will give them credit, we think that was a good point and that was made well and we really don't have answer for this part, BUT we think we still did better (in this debate) because that one point which they did well at is not the the most important point of the debate. This point is more important than that point in the end. Furthermore we did this thing and that thing and this thing an this other thing, much much better than them!"

So it's really important at this point to be comparative. Compare your team against their team. You want to give the judge a standard with which to decide which team should win this debate.

So to recap, tell the judges and the audience what this debate is about. This debate is about this issue, it's about that issue. Present and summarize your case and your positon. Show how you were relevant to the debate. Thirdly compare the teams, tell the judges why you did better to solve the problems and the issue, or responded better to the issue. Give them a standard to decide which team should win the

debate. In debates that are very very close, reply speeches can make a huge difference. You have to think tactically, but believe your team has won the debate.

NOTE - in reply speeches you cannot make new arguments, new rebuttals or offer new examples. You can only compare and evaluate arguments, rebuttals and examples that have already been offered.

Leader of OppositionBrief Notes on this Lecture

The First Speaker on the Opposition Team, or the Leader of Opposition is the second person to speak in the Asian Parliamentary debate format (after the Prime Minister). The LO's speech is what defines where the opposition team will clash with the government team and what direction the opposition will be taking in the debate. He or she has 3 main responsibilities:

A) Respond to definition and Set-Up from Government Team

Explain which parts of the position you agree and disagree with. You should try to find some common ground so you can have a debate but also some things you principally disagree with B) Present Team Position and Case

Based on the common ground and your principles, what is your position and your case? What are you defending? What will you prove and not prove? Do you have a specific policy?

What will you talk about and what will your second speaker talk about?C) Rebut Government Arguments

Briefly outline the Prime Minister's arguments, then rebut each of themD) Make 1 or 2 Arguments

Like the PM, the LO must also develop new arguments.

The second speech in an Asian Parliamentary Debate after the Prime Minister's speech, is the first speaker of the opposition team and that is the Leader of Opposition (LO). Now the Leader of Opposition's job in many ways is very similar to the Prime Minister's job. There are some crucial differences, so let's look at what he or she must do.

Now as LO you have essentially 4 responsibilities. Firstly you must respond to the definition and setup, second present your case and your position, thirdly rebut the arguments of the Prime Minister (PM) and lastly present your own arguments.

Firstly, responding to the definition and the setup. Now in this part what you need to do is to address how you and the other team or the PM are approaching the problem (or approaching the debate, not every debate is about a problem). They've just told you how they define the debate, do you agree or disagree with the definition? Would you like to provide some additional clarity? Would you like

to explain some ideas that you feel the PM has not explained well enough?

It's essential for you to find some common ground. So you can agree or disagree with some things, but you must agree with some other things. For example if we are using the same debate about banning smoking in the university campus and the PM contextualizes debate and says universities are dirty and filthy and people (are) smoking everywhere and that's the problem, you can approach that and say you agree people are smoking in the university but you don't agree that the problem is as huge as and as dire as he makes it out to be. You disagree on the context or the issue on which the prime minister set-up the debate. That's the first thing, responding to the definition and the setup. Remember, as much as you want to disagree with some things, you must find something to agree (on). Without any kind of common ground, the debate will not happen.[More in Question 1 below]

The second thing you do is you present your position and your team case. This part is almost identical to what the PM does. If you have a policy, you should present a (your) policy. You should explain how you are going to approach the debate and what your essential agreements or disagreements are. What are you going to prove and what you are NOT going to prove. It's okay to make some concessions, but you cannot concede the main principle of the debate.[More in Question 2 below]

Thirdly you have to rebut and this part is completely new. Every speaker in the Asian Parliamentary format should respond to the speaker before them. Now the PM has no speaker before him so obviously he can't have any rebuttals but as LO you must respond to the PM. So you must say why the PM's arguments or the policy or the position is wrong or ineffective or what are the problems with what he or she wants to argue. Those are your rebuttals. [More in Question 3 Below]

Finally like the PM you must also present constructive argumentation. You must say, now these are my arguments. In your position part where you are presenting the team case, you would have said what you are going to talk about and what your second speaker is going to talk about, so at this point you should deliver those arguments. Now doing rebuttals and arguments can be a lot of things to do, so the LO needs to be responsive and be able to change and adapt to what is happening in the debate. Sometimes if your argument is also a rebuttal because it serves to rebut the other (side's)argument, you can tell people that. You can say, "I'm going to rebut his arguments when I talk about my argument" (example below) and then later, when you talk about your argument, you can say "This argument defeats their argument on the other side". You can watch an example and see how these things work, and how the LO structures his or her speech. [More in Question 4 Below]

Basically it's quite similar to a PM speech - you need to respond to the definition and set-up,

present your own position and case, how you are going to approach the debate and then you have rebuttals to engage the PM's arguments and finally provide your own arguments.

Question and Answers - the Leader of Opposition1. You said the first thing I have to do is respond to the definition and I should disagree with some things and agree with other things. Can you give me an example?

- Firstly, you don't ALWAYS have to disagree with the definition. If the PM defines the debate clearly and the problem is exactly as you think it should be, then you can just agree with everything. It's ALWAYS important to find something you can agree on.

- As for an example, here's one

a) The motion is "We should abolish the death penalty". The PM defines the debate as applying to every country in the world (this is the scope of the debate) and defines the death penalty as capital punishment for serious crimes, such as murder. In opposition, you can accept the general definition and scope of the debate, but you can focus it a little. You can say you are going to defend that some countries should have the death penalty if they think it helps them (not that ALL countries should have the death penalty, which is directly opposite of the PM's scope of the debate). Furthermore, you are only going to defend the death penalty for murder (since in the world today some countries will execute people for many other

reasons). So you agree that generally the debate should be about the death penalty, but you don't want to argue that all countries should have it and not for many different types of crimes, but just murder. This is a fair debate, both teams have a fair burden of proof. Now if instead you say that you only want to defend the death penalty in ONE country (South Korea) and for one very specific type of crime (serial killers) - the debate can still happen but it has become much more narrow and might not be as interesting (when the debate is narrow, you will also have less arguments - find out more about this strategy here).

2. In Opposition, what concessions are okay to make and what are not okay?

- You shouldn't concede too many main principles or your main burdens. If you do that, you will seem like you are avoiding responsibility. If in opposition I am supposed to defend the death penalty, then I need to do so in a way that is broad enough to create debate. You can concede one or two principles, especially if you think they are hard to defend and that most people agree with them. For example

a) The motion is "We should abolish the death penalty" and the PM says they are going to prove that every human being has basic human rights, which includes the right to life. Also he will show the death penalty does not reduce crime, is cruel and costs too much. As LO, you can concede that every human being has basic human rights, but BUT that does not include the

right to life. You can concede it does not reduce crime by deterring people BUT it is a form of punishment that people deserve. The BUTs are important because they ensure you have things to defend in opposition. If you completely concede the first two points, then you are only defending costs, and that creates a debate that is too narrow.

3. What are some strategies for rebuttals?

- Glad you asked! Briefly, you can disagree with the logic of the argument, challenge the argument by providing an example of the reverse situation in reality, concede the argument wholly or partially. More information here.

4. I don't understand how my arguments can be a rebuttal. Can you explain it again please?

- Of course I can explain it again, anything for you! Sometimes what you planned to argue (when you and your teammates built the case in your preparation time) is a natural response to the PM's argument. In that situation, you can just point to the point she made and say you will address that when you develop your arguments. And when you develop your argument, remind the judge/audience that you are rebutting the PM's argument. For example,

a) The motion is "We should abolish the death penalty" and the PM has 2 arguments; the Right to Life is Paramount and the Death Penalty doesn't Deter Crime. Now let's assume when you were planning your speech, you decided

you were going to argue 2 arguments in support of the death penalty; The Death Penalty can Discourage Criminals and that Punishments must Suit the Crime. Now your first argument (Death Penalty can Discourage Criminals) directly opposes the PM's second argument (Death Penalty doesn't Deter Crime), so when you get the point when you should rebut the PM's arguments, you can say you will rebut his second argument when you make your first argument. To make it clear to the judge/audience, you should state the labels/names of the PM's argument and of your argument.