Debating especially in the British Parliamentary Format is much more an exercise of wit and strategy than of merely expressing

one s views. The format s dynamics are simple but the ways which to take advantage of this dynamics are infinite. In discussing strategies for the British Parliamentary Debate Format is would be sufficient to explore the basic and widely used strategies which are in fact the basis of many variations and combinations. Strategies in the British Parliamentary Debate Format may be divided into 4 classifications. First strategies used in terms of speech content, second in terms of presentation or manner, third in terms of debating technique or style, lastly those used during points of information or (POI). Strategies applied to the content of a speech involve means to make a person s speech more persuasive and more reasonable. Due to the fact that debate is all about reasoning and persuasion strategies in terms of speech content area lie at the very core of debating. Moreover Speech content is the main measurement of how well a debater performs. 1. Use of Questions or the Question Method

The use of questions is a common practice to get information or in inquiring into certain things. In debate a debater may use questions as a means to develop his or her speech and as a tool in disputing his or her opponents arguments.

In a debater s speech the use of questions improve the logic, organization as well as the development of ideas as compared to most if not all cases.

Essential in this strategy is the order the questions are raised and how the questions are addressed. Otherwise they would not make sense and worse cause more confusion in the debate. Example: In a debate about death penalty a debater may say: Death penalty deters future criminals from committing crimes which in turn reduce the incidence of crime in society. When questions are used the same discussion becomes more persuasive. What is the best way to reduce crime in society? This of course is to convince people that committing crime has a grave consequence. What is this grave consequence? It is death penalty. You might ask how does death penalty deter people from committing crimes? This happens when it serves as an assured grave consequence for doing crimes. And how does this reduces crime in society? It reduces crime by giving future criminals a reason to think twice and often decide not to commit crimes due to the consequence attached to it. As a means of disputing what your opponents say: They claimed that death penalty would reduce crime in society but they fail to show how death penalty attacks the root of crime. When questions are used the same discussion becomes more effective. What is the root of crime and criminality? This important in assessing if this cause of crime is society is directly and effectively addressed by death penalty. This leads us to the question what does death penalty does or address? Since if it does not clearly attack crime at its root then what good is it in solving the problem of crime effectively. 1. Use of Frameworks and Concepts

It is always a challenge for debaters to express their ideas and develop them into concise yet persuasive discussions. It is common for debaters to base their arguments and discussions on certain concepts and frameworks of discussion. This makes it easier for them to discuss their arguments and in most cases already provide a built in logical explanation.

This strategy however requires at the least sufficient knowledge about the concept or framework to be used. If a debater uses it without having a satisfactory grasp of the concept or framework he or she will be unable to effectively explain it.

Example: In a debate about death penalty a discussion may be:

Death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes. These are crimes that are so grave and horrific that the death of the person or person who committed them is necessary show that society does penalize those who harm the members of society in such barbaric ways.

This is better improved as follows:

Death penalty as a punishment is one which is commensurate to the crime committed. Commensurate penalties for crimes is the principle that civilized society adhere to where the criminal is punished according the gravity of his or her crime. This operates on the idea that the graver the crime the graver the punishment is.

(Here the concept used is the concept of Penalties Commensurate to the Crime which is a principle in the Justice system. 1. Use of Content Intensive Arguments

Facts or pieces of information though common when used as a basis of an argument in debate is perhaps the most difficult to dispute and in most cases most persuasive means to argue. This however requires the debater to have a sufficient knowledge about certain topics, issues, current and relevant events. After all the strength of the argument would depend on his knowledge of the information he or she will use. Furthermore it also serves as an effective means of rebuttal so that you can dispute the claim of your opponents. Example: In a debate as to whether the United Nations has serves its purpose a discussion could be as follows: The United Nations has provided an avenue in which countries settle disputes through diplomatic and non violent means. This shows that the United Nations through the course of its existence has served its purpose of preventing violent conflicts between members of the international community. This discussion is improved as follows: The United Nations has served its purpose time and again in providing an avenue for peaceful and diplomatic means to settle disputes between countries. We have seen how the U. N. negotiated the peace between Indonesia and East Timor. We have seen it settle the dispute between India and Pakistan. We in fact see its efforts in the present to settle the dispute between North and South Korea. In all this cases it is clear that it not only has but continue to serve its purpose. As rebuttal to the idea that the United Nations has met its purpose: The United Nations has not sustained peaceful interaction among countries. It merely initial allowed for talks initially but in most cases disputes still deteriorated into armed conflicts. It did not live up to its purpose of providing for an avenue in which countries settle disputes through diplomatic and non violent means.

The rebuttal becomes more effective as follows:

The Six day war that involved Israel and its neighbors, the conflict in the Balkans, the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the dispute of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland over Northern Ireland are some of the instances that show the United Nations has not effectively promoted settling of disputes through diplomatic and non violent means. In fact it still is trying to broker peace between North and South Korea to no avail and is failing to diplomatically settle the issue of Taiwan s statehood that China opposes. This goes to show that the United Nations has not substantially met its purpose of providing an avenue for peaceful and diplomatic means to settle disputes between countries. In debate it is also common practice of debaters to make use of language to make their speeches more persuasive. This is merely taking advantage of a debater s good command of the language. The underlying basis of the strategies under this category is simply sounding good or making a pleasing speech. This usually serves as the packaging of the idea a debater is conveying. And in debate there are times that packaging of the speech of a debater add to its persuasiveness or misleads his or her opponents as to the real idea of his or her speech. There are no definite strategies under this category but common in taking advantage of presentation in debate is using language and overall presentation to be more convincing and sounding as if you know a lot about the topic even if you do not. Examples:

In a debate about the World Trade Organization s role in fair trade a debater who does not know much about the WTO can say the following and sound as if he or she knows a lot about the WTO: In reviewing the economic agenda the is prevalent in trade policies of the WTO member countries it is clear that they tend to be less equitable and fair to developing countries. In fact most if not all WTO regulated trade policies are not the prime source for unfair trade relationships. Rather it is the non WTO bilateral trade agreements that are the prime source of the ruination of local industries in developing countries. In a debate about the conflict between Israel and Palestine a debater who does not know much about the issue can project that he or she knows enough by saying: The lack of political will on the part of the moderate members in both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to control the radical s and the hardliners is the fundamental cause as to the absence of a lasting understanding between the Israelis and the Palestinians have not been achieved.

Debate is not purely all about speaking, arguing and having a good command of the language but more of an activity which involves a great deal of wit, imagination, creativity and strategy. This said a good debater is easily differentiated from regular debaters by his or her skillful use of strategy. In debate the use of strategy involves taking advantage of the very rules and dynamics of the format itself. 1. Concessions or Concedin

It is shocking for a debater to hear his or her opponent concede to his or her likely stand in a debate. This works not only to that effect but also deprive a debater of what to say in the form of arguments. This shows that if you still argue about what has been already conceded then you no longer are able to effectively debate. Since in most cases when a debater concedes to a certain idea or fact he or she shifts the focus of the debate elsewhere and in most cases his or her opponents are unable to adjust in time. Example: In a debate about whether Child Labor should not be stopped a debater who is tasked to oppose this will likely argue about the detriments of child labor especially on children. A debater who is tasked to defend the continuance of child labor and not stop it may

say that he or she conceded that child labor is bad and in fact does cause harm to children but further says that the debate would not revolve around that but on the idea that child labor is necessary for impoverished and developing countries. With effectively takes away the case of the opposing team since now their idea that child labor is harmful to children is something already conceded to.

1.

Boxing and Framing

Boxing and framing is setting the debate in very limited scenario and forcing your opponents argue under those conditions. This either involves setting a context of a debate to a particular country or setting specific questions that the debate should resolve. This enables a team to control how the debate will progress and limit how their opponents are able to argue. Moreover in most cases a team that does this usually knows the context they will limit the debate to or how to resolve the questions the set for the debate. Example of Boxing and Framing using a context:

In a debate about whether UN peacekeepers should pull out of conflict areas a team would limit this to their advantage by talking about not just pulling out of Peacekeepers in general but limiting it to the pull out of peacekeepers from Sudan. Here the debate is now set in the context of Sudan. This makes it hard for the opposing team since now they need to have an idea of the situation in Sudan and adjust their speeches to match how the debate was set. Example of Boxing and Framing using Questions to be resolved In a debate about death penalty as the solution to reducing heinous crimes, the team that sets the debate to answer very specific questions such as: does the existence of death penalty change how people view heinous crimes? Does having death penalty create a climate of fear in society sufficient enough to deter people from doing heinous crimes? Is society left with no other working alternative to death penalty in reducing the incidence of heinous crimes? In most cases the team that sets the debate with these questions has already constructed their arguments to directly answer them. On the other hand the opposing team would have the challenge to address all the questions if not fail to effectively argue in the debate. * NOTE: For Nos. 1 and 2 under this section are strategies usually by the Opening teams in the British Parliamentary Debate Format.

1.

Comprehensive Extension

In the British Parliamentary Debate Format the 1st speaker of the Closing Team, the member is tasked to present a case of his own that is different from that presented by the opening teams at the same provides a new perspective to view the debate.

The best way to fulfill the role of a member is to provide a comprehensive discussion in favor of your side. This means that the thing that were not clear must be clarified, unexplored ideas must discussed and a comprehensive discussion of the how the debate progressed and how their side argued and ending with what was the main contribution of the closing team.

There is no definite example of the comprehensive extension since it varies depending on the debate. * NOTE: This only for the closing teams in the British Parliamentary Debate Format. A salient feature of parliamentary debate is the point of information or POI and like any part of this debate format they can be used as a tool for advantage. Thus there are strategies involving points of information.

Points of Information may be used to effective disprove or weaken argument presented by a debater or ruin his speech in its entirety. Points of Information may be raised to introduce concepts to debater while he or she is speaking. This concepts or ideas may not be obviously be relevant or not but by giving to a debater he or she has to tackle it in most cases which reduced his time to discuss his case and may even confuse him. Points of Information are usually raised to ask questions which the debater who is delivering his or her speech has to answer. In most cases these questions are trick questions or questions that when answered would make the debater inconsistent or reduce the reasonability of his arguments. This in general makes him or her less persuasive and thus less effective. General Tips in Debating:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Relax and Stay calm you will be less persuasive if you are anxious, tense and worrisome. Be Confident. You might not be sure of what you are saying but show to the adjudicator that you are and this would make you more persuasive. Good debaters are not born they are made. Debaters become good at what they do because of lots and lots or practice. When in doubt always give a simple and clear idea. In most cases the simplicity and clarity wins over voluminous knowledge. Read as much as you can. You do not know what will be the definite topic to debate so it is better to know a little about everything. Try to improve how you debate by building on previous mistakes and short comings. This is how you perfect the skills in debating. Have an open mind. Debating is all about flexibility and dynamism of your mind. Lastly have fun. Debating is supposed to be fun way to exercise you mind.

Good Luck!

The Motion The motion is the issue that is to be discussed. It is generally announced about fifteen minutes before the start of the debate. Teams therefore have fifteen minutes to prep , or prepare, their case. Motions are normally expressed as "THW" (This House Would...) or THBT (This House Believes That...). This House is the room as the whole. So if THW legalise incest then the government must propose a motion supporting the legalisation of incest, the opposition must oppose this and both sides are trying to convince the audience (who may be a room of people or just a judge) that they have the more persuasive arguments. If the proposition have run the motion in a way you didn t expect, you must run with what they have given you, not what you wanted them to give you. Roles Around The Tables Each speaker around the table has a very particular role which must be fulfilled. If this role is not fulfilled, it makes it very difficult for the judge to award a high position. It is similar to football. A footballer could have scored the most amazing goal in the world, but if the player is off-side, the goal does not count. Equally, a speaker may have a speech worthy of the sermon on the mount, but if the speaker does not fulfil his or her role, the speech will still score low points. Luckily, the rules for the positions are fairly easy. Before looking at the roles in detail, it is worth quickly observing that teams on the same side of the debate are still competing against each other. A good analogy is to coalition governments. The two political parties in a coalition government are seeking the same overall objective, but for different reasons. It is therefore important that they are consistent with each other and do not stab , ie contradict each other. The two teams must present

consistent arguments but the faction that wins will be the one that has presented the best positive arguments and rebuttal for their side.
1st Proposition

This job of the first speaker is to define the motion and to provide a model which will change the status quo. For example, if the motion is THW take action to stop Iran s nuclear programme, this speaker must explain who is doing the action (US, UK, EU, UN... It is conventional to choose an international organisation or a western country), what action is being taken (Sanctions? Invasion? Tactical strikes?) and why is it being take (nuclear weapons are bad etc). If this speaker does their job well, their definition will not need clarification and will set the tone for the whole of the debate. If it is done badly, the rest of the debate will be messy. It is usually useful in this position to structure your speech in a Now-Action-Then format or Problem-SolutionOutcome model. That is, you explain what the status quo is and why it is not ideal. You then explain what you wish to do and exactly how this improves the status quo. Finally, you will wish to discuss other benefits which come from solving the problem in the manner you have laid out.
1st Opposition

The job of first opposition is to oppose what the first speaker has just said. They may dispute that there is a problem (for example, maybe Iran having nukes just isn t a problem at all and has many positive benefits), they may concede that there is a problem, but that the model won t solve it (if 1st P have argued for sanctions, 1st Op may say Iran already has sanctions and sanctions will increase popular support within Iran for the nuclear programme as they create a shared sense of victimhood) or that if there is a problem and the solution will solve it, there are still a great many other problems created (if Iran having nukes is a problem, and 1st P have suggested invading with the UN, there may be long lasting instability in the region, sectarian violence, increased terrorism in the rest of the world and Iran may be the next Iraq).
2nd Proposition and Second Opposition

Whilst these two roles are on different sides of the table, they are similar in what the speaker have to do. In both instances, the speaker must rebutt the other side and continue the constructive case laid down by their side. If the first speakers have clashed on economic points, therefore, these speakers may well cover economics in their direct rebuttal, but may add constructive material looking at the case from a social aspect. As they have had fifteen minutes to prepare their case, both speakers should know what their partner is going to say and so a level of team work is expected. First proposition must not leave any of the model to be clarified by the second speaker. This is known as a hung case and is unfair on the first opposition. It is the duty of the prime minister to cover any and all necessary aspects of definition and model. It is traditional for all speakers (with the obvious exception of first proposition speaker) to start their speech with rebuttal before moving onto their constructive case.
The Extension Speeches

Both the 3rd speakers are known as extension speakers. They are the first speakers to speak for the second half of the debate. They must remain consistent with the first team on their side whilst trying to beat them by using superior arguments. It is one of the most interesting positions on the table. An extension is new argumentation or analysis which contributes something significantly new to the debate. Continuing the Iran example, if no one has yet discussed it, looking at the theory behind international relations and when countries may intervene with others would be worth discussing. If a point has been said by one of the teams in the first half but not dealt with at all, eg, "Iran will become a new Iraq...now, onto my economic point",

it is valid to create an extension which looks at the ways in which Iran is or is not similar to Iraq (depending which side of the debate you are on). Fundamentally, the judges are looking for added value. If the speaker added value to the debate, then it is probably a valid extension.
Summation Speeches

Until this point, all of the speakers have bee expected to bring new material or analysis to the table. The summation speeches, that is to say, the 4th speakers on each side, have a very different role. They must NOT bring in any significant new material or analysis. Instead, their job is to sum-up the debate for their side and say why their side has won. In a debate, a large number of arguments and areas of clash will have developed. The summation speaker should work out which of these are the most important and then present them in such a way to the judge that it shows why they have won. The summation speaker should pay particular attention to his or her partner s points as they aim to win as a team. An example would be to consider how, say, the Independent would cover a story about Iraq compared to how Fox News would cover the same event. The event is the same and the facts are the same but the conclusions drawn would be very, very different. Points of Information A speech is either five or seven minutes long. The first and last minutes are referred to as protected time as points of information (POI) may not be offered in this time. When a person from one side is speaking, a person from the other side may stand up and offer a point of information. To do this, the person stands up, places their hand in front of them and says On that point or on a point of information or Sir/Madam or something else similar. It is then entirely up to the person who is speaking whether they accept the point. In a five minute speech, it is good practice to accept two POIs. If the point is not accepted, the speaker either says no thank you or simply motions the person offering the point to sit down. If the point is accepted, the person offering it should keep it very brief (under ten seconds) and should the speaker wave them down whilst they are talking, they should sit down promptly. The main point to remember is that it is the speaker s time and therefore it is up to them what they do with it. Rebuttal Rebuttal is where the speaker directly attacks the material of the person who spoke just before them. There is no need to rebut every point when many points are often silly or irrelevant. The speaker should focus on what were the main points of the last speaker s speech and focus on those. It is often useful, if the previous speaker had an explicit structure, to use this when rebutting. If they talked about the nature of Israel, Iraq and international intervention then this should be the points you hit in your rebuttal. Rebuttal is bad if it only focuses on little mistakes and does not hit the heart of the debate. If it was argued that Iran was censored by the security council in 2007 and the speaker said 2006 then it just doesn t matter. As a fact, it is unlikely to be important to the debate. What would be important is if the speaker had said Iran had never been censored. That it has, repeatedly, by the full SC is pretty important. Attacking the weak arguments gets you less points than attacking the strong ones. The judge is already aware of which arguments are good and which aren t, you get more credit for attempting the more difficult task. Tips
1. Structure

Say what you re going to say. Say it. Say what you ve said. Judges do occasionally fail to pay attention the first two times you say something. If you ve said it and they haven t heard it or written it down, that s your fault and you need to make sure you say it again, maybe in a different way and make sure they are paying attention the next time round. It makes the lives of judges much easier if they know what the headlines for your points are. Judges like easy lives. If you make their lives easy, they will like you and you are therefore more likely to win.
2. Style

Good debaters will change their style many times during their speech. Changing pitch, speed, tone, eye contact, body language, alliteration etc all make your speech more interesting. Whatever you think is appropriate, you probably need to double it as people are naturally reserved when speaking in public. Appropriateness is important as well. Jokes in a fat kids at fat camp debate are probably highly appropriate in a lot of speeches. In a debate about rape, they will be less appropriate. Sarcasm is useful for rebuttal, it is less useful for explaining economic theory. Slow down. When you slow down, you also lower your voice. When you speak in a low voice, and lowly, you have authority so your points sound better. When you speak slowly, it also allows you time to consider the points you are making and will mean your analysis is better. For the first few debates, it ll also means you speak for longer which gives you confidence in regards to time. On that note....
3. Timing

Five minutes is a long time when you re speaking for the first time. After a few debates, it ll seem far too short. It is important to try and fill this time. If you do not speak for the full five minutes, it is a symbol that you do not have enough to say and so you have either missed point or have failed to analyse them in enough depth. If in doubt, repeat yourself in a new way, you may suddenly realise what is missing.
4. Content

The best way to get content is to read quality newspapers regularly. The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Economist, The New Statesman.... The Sun just doesn t cut it. However, in these debates, the motion has only been given fifteen minutes in advance so little specific knowledge is required. It is expected that a person debating would know where a country is, what her neighbours are an issues to do with it. If you didn t know Iran has issues with a nuclear weapons programme, you need to read more. Your knowledge should be that of a person who reads a quality newspaper several times a week, if not daily. A VERY general rule is the Economist four week rule . If it s been in the Economist in the last four weeks, you should know about it. That said, if you don t know where countries are etc, going back to first principles is also a useful trick. Virtually any debate with the word ban in it will have a discussion about personal freedom, the role of government, and the black market. Virtually any IR debate will discuss when countries are allowed to intervene in other countries. A broad grasp on what treaties such as the UN, NATO, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the European Union is useful. The wikipedia pages provide a detailed enough knowledge. Borrowing an UG textbook about basic political ideologies is very useful indeed as is an understanding of very basic legal concepts and terminology. If you are in a debate and stuck, it is worth running through three different ways of generating ideas;
o Economics, Politics, Social, Legal, Moral, Religious o Individual, National/Society, World o Stakeholders (who could possibly be effected by what is propsed...?) Analysis

5.

The REAL and Now-Action-Then models are useful. State the Reason you are doing something (invading Iran because it has nukes. Nukes are bad as they destabilise regions), give an Example (the build up in the cold war, for example), Analyse what you ve said (Now the region is unstable because of Iran s nukes. Our Action would be invasion. This would lead to greater stability as Iran would no longer have nukes so other countries in the Me would not feel the need to build up their own arsenals). The L are the links between REA and should be as strong as possible. It is no use stating that the reason is that nukes lead to destabilisation and then giving the example that Tesco takes 1p in every 8p spent. The example must be relevant to the reason, the analysis must also link together.
6. Just don t... o Read your speech o Stab your own side o Be rude on a personal level to the opposing side o Cry/Vomit/Run out/make Nazi salutes.... o Be offended when people say your points were silly. It s their job. o Swear. Unless you are absolutely sure your judge doesn t mind, it ll probably just harm your speech

more than anything.

Typical points of information Points of information can be used in a number of ways. Because they have greater importance in British Parliamentary debating, they must be used more strategically. Thus, in this style, points are more often used to preface a case extension (for second factions) or to reiterate a case (for first factions). Of course, points can still be used in a variety of other ways. For example: y y y y y y Clarification of the definition. Eg, Point of information: what sort of republic do you support? Counter-example. Eg, Point of information: you say that sanctions work but sanctions have been imposed on Cuba for more than 30 years. Drawing attention to a forgotten argument. Eg, Point of information: when will you respond to our argument that the media wont give the Greens favourable coverage because the Greens are too radical? Bad logic. Eg, Point of information: your first speaker said that we should be tough on dole bludgers but now youre saying that Work for the Dole is the best way to help them. Surely you cant have it both ways. Clarification of test. Eg, Point of information: do you have a test for determining whether the Greens have failed or are you just going to give us a shopping list of examples? Clarification of model. Eg, Point of information: are you saying that in your proposal for drug law reform, all drugs would be legal?

Case Building

One of the most difficult skills in debating is preparing cases (i.e. being First Proposition). Many teams find it difficult to come up with a good case statement and supporting arguments in the 15 minutes that most tournaments allot for preparation time. The key to success is to recognise your time constraints and live within them. Every other team in the tournament will have similar restrictions placed on them when they are in opening proposition.
Accept it and move on.

There are a number of ways to prepare and practise for the difficult task of case building in a restricted time period, and we have an information sheet on this that you can get by contacting the convenor of the Competition. Sometimes, the motion won t be very helpful in locating a case. For example: THW use the force. TH believes fish swim faster in cold water. These are known as Open Motions, and you will not encounter them at the Amsterdam Open, but may in others. When this happens, you can turn the resolution into a debate on anything you want. Some teams find it useful to have a few prepared cases to use in these situations, and spend the fifteen minutes working out how to link the motion to their prepared case! This

is only ever ok in a truly open motion. If you try to link a motion that is obviously asking you to deal with a specific problem to a case you have in your bag you will be penalised. This is known as a Squirrel. Usually however the subject for debate is obvious. For example: This House would legalise euthanasia. THW lift the sanctions on Iraq. These are known as Closed Motions. Here, you know exactly what you will be arguing, and will be penalised for any attempts to squirrel. You should identify your contention/case statement (even if it s just a rewording of the resolution) in one sentence. For Example: The proposition will argue that doctors in the UK should be allowed to administer lethal drugs to terminally ill patients. We believe that the US and its allies should lift all economic sanctions against Iraq now. Judges like succinct (one-sentence) case statements. A short case statement will help your own thought processes. It is not ok to run a case with no opposition to it at all. If your case is tautological (true by definition: the Sun rises in the morning), truistic (true by commonly accepted principles: Hitler is bad), or tight (there is just no opposition to the idea: We should adopt an opt out organ donation system in the UK) you will be penalised, and will probably lose the debate by default.Having now identified the case statement, all you need to doquestions: 1. How would we implement this resolution? (model) 2. Why should we implement this model? (arguments)

The Model
The proposition s model/plan should be introduced in the first minute of the first speaker s speech. In building the model, you want to work out how your proposition will be implemented. Judges hate first proposition teams that take forever to get to the point. Often, motions do not demand an answer to the question how ? The resulting debates are called philosophical debates and can be quite enjoyable. THB that the Roman Catholic Church should ordain female priests. This House would not use economic sanctions as a tool of diplomacy (this can be debated broadly or first prop could identify a specific country and suggested sanctions should be lifted; the former case does not require a model, the later does). In case the motion does demand an answer to the question how , it is up to you to define and explain exactly how your model will be implemented. Quite generally you will get quite far in defining your model if you take care to answer the following questions: Who is going to do something? Who is usually a governing body, like for example the state , the United Nations , or in some cases, even The Catholic Church . What is that actor going to do? Usually it suffices to define a general direction of the action you want your governing body to take. For example: in a debate where you propose to make alcohol illegal, you just need to say: we want the government to prohibit the possession, consumption and distribution of alcohol . You don t need to specify how many years of prison sentence you would like a possessor, consumer of distributer of alcohol to get, or if you re considering fines, how high the fine should be. Just give us the general idea. Under what conditions is the actor going to do what it is going to? This doesn t always apply, but is is useful to think of anyhow it might be that there is an important condition you would want to add to make the case better. For example, in a case where the motion is THW prohibit abortion , you would like to have a debate over whether abortion is morally a good choice and whether the state should allow women to have that choice. In that case it might be smart to state as part of your model: Unless, of course, for obvious medical reasons . This makes sure your opponents cannot use that easy argument, and makes sure your debate focuses more on the relevant situations you want to debate about.

What to argue?
This is the part what debating is mostly about: constructing, crafting and deconstructing arguments. Generally speaking, there are three types of arguments: 1. Constructive 2. Offensive 3. Defensive. The constructive arguments, for proposition, are basically answers to the question: Why should we implement the model that the proposition just defined? . You basically try to explain why the world will be a better place if we adopt your model. Obviously, opposition is not going to argue that! Still, opposition has constructive arguments, too: these are the arguments that answer the question why should we not implement the model that proposition just gave? . In opposition, you basically try to explain why the world will be a worse place if we adopt proposition s model. The offensive arguments engage directly with those constructive arguments. Offensive arguments are answers to these two questions: what is factually or logically wrong with the arguments the other side just gave? and why are the arguments the other side just gave irrelevant to the case at hand? . These kinds of arguments are used to pick apart the arguments on the other side. By devaluing these arguments, you re making the other side s case weaker but do keep in mind: you re not making your own case stronger! If you succeed, you re case may turn out to be stronger relative to the other sides case. But it might still be a weak case, and will still get you low points! The defensive arguments are reactions to the attacks delivered in the offensive arguments. So, when the other side has attacked your partner s arguments by claiming they were wrong or irrelevant, it is up to you to argue again that they are right or relevant all over again. How you do this is mostly a matter of experience and strategy. Obviously, defensive arguments only come into play after your partner s arguments have been attacked! Delivering defensive arguments in the first speech of opening proposition is called prebuttal . It usually comes in the form: our opponents will probably say that to this we say that . This is rather silly to do: either your opponents haven t thought of this argument yet, and in doing this, you re helping them, or they have thought of the argument already, but will be thankful you ve already identified this as a very valid and important counterargument. So: defensive arguments are usually done after the first two speeches. In British Parliamentary Debate both defensive and offensive arguments are usually grouped together and called rebuttal . Remember that there is a difference between making someone else s case weaker via rebuttal and making your own case stronger via constructive. Whether you as a second speaker of either first proposition or first opposition will have to deliver more constructive then rebuttal or vice versa, is a strategic decision which is up to you. Wise debaters remember, however, that there is also a second proposition and opposition team, whose main job is to extend the debate that means they will be giving more constructive arguments. To stay ahead of their game, many second speakers from the first half also try to deliver as much as constructive matter as possible.

How to argue?
Now you know what to argue about but how do you argue? What does an argument look like? Basically, an argument is a series of sentences you say coupled by words like because and therefore . The more sentences you couple in this way, the more developed your argument is. This means you re constantly answering the question why? . For example: suppose the motion is: THW allow the death penalty . On of the arguments could be that it is an effective means to deter future criminals. You can give this argument more or less fully developed: Less fully developed - death penalty will deter criminals - because criminals don t want to die More fully developed -death penalty will deter criminals

- because criminals weigh the costs and benefits of doing a crime - and whereas right now, the maximum cost of a serious crime is lifelong imprisonment - whereas in our model the maximum cost would then be death - and we can reasonably expect that criminals find dying a higher cost then lifelong imprisonment - because people in general value their life most highly - therefore the death penalty will deter criminals. As you can see, there s a lot more possible why? s answered in the second, more fully developed argument. That s why judges like fully developed arguments more: they truly hammer home the point you re making. But it would also be great if you can get somewhat more explicit and concrete than this. It would be great if you had an example! That s why most debaters use the so-called SEXI -model to help them develop their model. SEXI stands for State, Explain, Illustrate , and it sums up the basic stuff you need to do with an argument. State means that you state the central claim. It is the shortest description of the reason why we would or would not implement the model. In this example: Death penalty will deter criminals . Explain means that you answer all kinds of Why s that people can ask. Illustrate means that you deliver either a clear example of your reasoning: a real-world case in which your argument has proven true. In this case you would need to deliver an example where instating death penalty has resulted in lower crime rates. Another way of illustrating is using an analogy you might use the analogy that the harder you punish kids for steeling mom s cookies, the less likely they are to actually attempt to steal those cookies. Make sure, however, when you're introducing an analogy, that the analogy stands and makes sense in relation tothe motion.