EJVED 09

Getting to know debating

• Debating is a clash of argumentations among the Government team and Opposition team

• Everything starts from the word “motion”• Competitive debating aims to simulate a

living, breathing parliamentary debate• The soul of debating is to argue on policies,

or propositions of thought; good or bad, effective or not effective, useful or useless

Tournament format

Austral-asian parliamentary system 4 preliminary rounds 4 knock out rounds 7 minute substantive speech 5 minute reply speech 30 minute case building time

Map of chronology

Keywords to comprehend

Motion Definition Theme line Team split Argument rebuttal

motion

• Is the topic, a full propositional statement that states what the debate is/shall be about

• Usually proposes a policy, against the status quo, or affirming the virtue (goodness) of a state or condition

• A government team must defend the motion, and an opposition team must negate the motion

Definition

• Is a need to clarify what the debate is specifically about, per keyword of motion if necessary

• Scopes down a motion; to achieve a mutual agreement among both teams on the interpretation of the motion thus the entry point for a debate -> “room of debate”

• A Government team holds the right to determine and offer the definition of a debate, while the opposition can accept, broaden or challenge the provided definition

definition

A definition is ideal if it :• provides interpretation of a motion

that is logical and acceptable by common sense

• simply aimed to clarify the debate from the motion wording

• provides room for opposition to negate• Is not truistic, squirreling, tautological,

time and place set

Theme line

The main reason why a motion is defended or opposed

Core argument of a team Should be elaborated thoroughly Burden of proof

Team split

Division of argument in a team It helps to make a team organized It makes sure that the argument is

correctly sustained

argument• points of view that supports the team

stance (support/refute)• Logical and thoroughly explained• Structure (the AREL theory)

1. Assertion2. Reasoning3. Evidence/Example

Link Back Pool of arguments should be evenly and strategically spread between the 1st and 2nd speakers.

Arguments should be consistent within the team’s main stance (theme/team line).

rebuttals

• responses on your opponent’s arguments

• It’s not as simple as “accusing” things• Simply saying your opposition’s

arguments are inferior does not constitute a good rebuttal

• Rebuttals must logically explain and analyze the weaknesses of an argument

Role of speakers

• 1st : Lays out the basic fundaments of the team’s case, including elementary argumentations

• 2nd : Continues the case by responding, rebuild the case and provide continuity analysis of argumentations

• 3rd : Reviews the overall case of opponent and provide a more thorough ballistics of response to argument. No new matter!

• Reply : Provide an overview of the debate and why their team deserves the debate

Role of first speakers

affirmative negative

Defining the motion of the debate.

Presenting the affirmative’s theme line.

Outlining the affirmative’s team split.

Delivering substantial arguments.

Providing a brief summary/recap of the speech

Responding the definition given by the affirmative team (accept/challenge).

Rebutting the 1st affirmative speaker.

Presenting the negative’s theme line.

Outlining the negative’s team split.

Delivering the substantial argument.

Providing a brief summary/recap of the speech.

Role of second speakers

affirmative negative

Rebutting the 1st negative’s major arguments

Restating the affirmative’s team case briefly.

Delivering his substantial argument.

Providing a brief summary.

Rebutting the 2nd affirmative speaker.

Restating the negative's team case briefly.

Delivering his substantial arguments.

Providing a brief summary.

Role of third speakers

affirmative negative

mapping Rebutting the points

raised by the first two negative speakers.

Rebuilding the team’s case.

Summarizing the issues of the debate

mapping Rebutting the points

raised by all three affirmative speakers.

Rebuilding team’s case.

Summarizing the issue of the debate

Reply speaker

Providing the summary or the overview of the debate.

Identifying the issues raised by both sides.

Providing a bias adjudication of the debate.

Definitional challenge

Opposition may challenge the definition of government if it is included into prohibited definition (truism, tautological, squirreling, and time/place set unfairly).

When challenging definition, opposition must: Say that they challenge the definition Provide the reason Provide alternative definition Respond to the government case (using ‘even if’

rebuttal).

How will you be assessed? Matter 40% Manner 40% Method 20%