Debate is defined as a
formal, direct, oral contest
in argumentation between
two or more teams on a
definite issue on a definite
time.
VALUES: Leadership Skills, Analysis,
Critical Thinking, Open-
mindedness, Thinking on One’s
Feet, Organization, Listening,
Self-confidence, Teamwork and
Cooperation
VARIOUS NAMES: Oregon-Oxford Debate Format
Cross-Examination Debate
Forensic Debate
ALL THE SAME TYPE OF
DEBATE
Members per Team: 4
Role of Members: 4 speakers
Length of Constructives: 3 mins
Number of Constructives: 3
Length of Cross-Ex: 1 min
Rebuttals: 1 per side
Length of Rebuttals: 3 mins
Last Speech: Negative Rebuttal
Prep 3 minutes
1st Aff 3 minutes
Cross Ex of 1st Aff 1 minute
1st Neg 3 minutes
Cross Ex of 1st Neg 1 minute
2nd Aff and 2nd Neg 16 minutes
3rd Aff and 3rd Neg
Rebut by Aff 3 minutes
Rebut by Neg 3 minutes
Adj Prep 3 minutes
Adj 3 minutes
Speaker Responsibilities
1st Affirmative Speaker
•define the terms of the
proposition
Example: “cellphones are
electronic devices used for
communication”
Speaker Responsibilities
1st Affirmative Speaker •Lays out the policy created by the
team/values to be debated on
•give an outline of the team
structure/team split (signposting)
Speaker Responsibilities
1st Affirmative Speaker Example: I as the first speaker will
talk about the feasibility of
cellphone proposal, while the
second speaker will talk about the
benefits of having this policy.
No rehash!
Speaker Responsibilities
1st Affirmative Speaker •begin to present the affirmative’s
case
THE FIRST SPEAKER SHOULD TAKE THE
MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THE TEAM
SPLIT.
Speaker Responsibilities
1st Negative Speaker • cross-examine 1st Affirmative
• accept or reject the definition
• reasons: definition is against the spirit
of the proposition or altruistic
• States the clash
• rebut 1st Affirmative (0ffense)
Speaker Responsibilities
1st Negative Speaker • Clash: We do not want students to bring
cellphones to school. We want to
maintain status quo.
Speaker Responsibilities
CROSS-EXAMINATION •to clarify points
On ECA being required
Mr. Speaker, you conceded that
clubs promote holistic
development, didn’t you?
Speaker Responsibilities
CROSS-EXAMINATION •directing questions
On ECA being required Mr. Speaker, isn’t holistic development a
goal of Xavier School? Shouldn’t students
be required to do things that contribute to
their holistic development?
Speaker Responsibilities
CROSS-EXAMINATION •concluding questions
On ECA being required
Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t ECA,
contributing to holistic
development, then be required of
students?
Speaker Responsibilities
CROSS-EXAMINATION •Don’t make statements, do ask
questions.
•Don’t ask irrelevant questions.
•Try to ask yes-or-no questions.
•Do be courteous.
Speaker Responsibilities
2nd and 3rd Speakers •defend 1st speaker from attack
(defense)
•rebut previous speaker (offense)
•present portion of case
Speaker Responsibilities
Rebuttal Speakers
•summarize his side
THE REBUTTAL SPEAKER CAN
PRESENT NEW ARGUMENTS.
Speaker Responsibilities
Rebuttal Speakers
•summarize his side
THE REBUTTAL SPEAKER CAN
PRESENT NEW EXAMPLES.
Speaker Responsibilities
Rebuttal Speakers •select his side’s strongest issues
and explain why these are
sufficient for a win
•refute key issues of other side
•explain why other issues should
result in a loss for other side
Speaker Responsibilities
Rebuttal Speakers:
I’m going to answer two crucial
questions in my speech. First,
does the death penalty really
deter crime? Second, is justice
really served by an eye-for-an-
eye punishment?
Preparing Notes for the Debate
Motion:
Definition of Terms: Affirmative
Split: (three parts)
1st Speaker: (name)
- points within split
2nd Speaker: (name)
- points within split
3rd Speaker: (name)
- points within split
Negative
Split: (three parts)
1st Speaker: (name)
- points within split
2nd Speaker: (name)
- points within split
3rd Speaker: (name)
- points within split
That capital punishment should be implemented
Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.
Arguing Deductively
• Start with the conclusion
• Explanation of the conclusion through the providing evidence/support
Conclusion: The death penalty deters crime by threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and most dreaded punishment possible during their period of calculation.
Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before people commit these crimes, they plan the act and therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.
Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.
Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.
Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before people commit these crimes, they plan the act and therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.
Conclusion: Thus death penalty deters crime by threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and most dreaded punishment possible during their period of calculation.
Feasibility
• Will the policy work? • How will it work? • Is it the best policy to solve the
problem?
Beneficiality
• Will the policy be beneficial?
• How big of a benefit will it be?
• Who will benefit from the policy?