BASIC COACHING

DEBATE 101

#NovelisaInstitute

“Debate is a game, a game we must WIN”

Compiled by:
Novelisa Wirid
IG: @novelisawirid
Phone: 081808423642
AGENDA :

To introduce the basic skill of making

affirmative and negative case (1st speaker)
for Asian, Australisian Parlimantary, British
Parliamentary, and WSDC debate format

To understand basic strategy of BP debate

PART 1 : INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE

Debate at a Glance
Formats
Motion
Roles of Speakers
DEBATE AT A GLANCE
debating: develops communication skills

assembling & organizing effective arguments

persuading & entertaining an audience

convincing audience that your arguments outweigh the opposition’s

arguments

not: personal abuse, irrational attacks, or purely emotional appeals

Parliamentary debate : Debate conducted with certain regulation derived

from parliamentary system

Debate requires sufficient knowledge and STRONG COMMITMENT

FORMATS

Asian parliamentary system

Australasian parliamentary system

British parliamentary system

WSDC
ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

Affirmative/Government vs. Negative/Opposition

led by a Chairperson; POIs are allowed during speech
speech duration and order:

1st Affirmative (7.20 min) 1st Negative (7.20 min)

2nd Affirmative (7.20 min) 2nd Negative (7.20 min)
3rd Affirmative (7.20 min) 3rd Negative (7.20 min)
Reply Affirmative (4.20 min) Reply Negative (4.20 min)
MOTION
Issue or topic that you will debate upon.

● full propositional statements, not questions or phrases

example of motions:

This house believes that there should be limitation towards media informing terrorism news
This house would legalize abortion
This house supports privatization of public hospital

Affirmative: defend the motion

Negative: oppose the motion (provide negation and proper engagement to the
opponent)

In most cases, a motion should be further defined

ROLES OF SPEAKERS FOR ASIAN, AUSTRAL, &
WSDC
Affirmative
Negative
st
1 speaker st
1 speaker
Creating set up / definition Giving negation, Theme Line and Team
Split
Presenting fundamental Provide major response to Aff
arguments Presenting fundamental arguments
nd
nd
2 speaker
2 speaker Clarifying Neg Case
Clarifying Aff Case Providing Response
Developing previous arguments
Providing Major Response to The 3rd speaker
Neg Clarifying The Whole Debate
Creating Clash
Developing previous arguments Attack Aff Case & Responses
3rd speaker
Clarifying The Whole Debate Note: 3rd speaker is not allowed to bring a
complete new matter
Creating clash
1ST AFFIRMATIVE CASE
case: set of arguments supported by evidences
anatomy of affirmative case:
Set up / definition
background: clarifies SQ and identifes the problem
Parameter: clarifies the motion/limits debate scope
room of debate: clarifies on what issue the debate will be about
stance: what the team wants and believes in regard of the ROD
theme line: core argumentation/basic idea
model: mechanism proposed to solve the problem
NOTE: Time allocation : max 1/3 from total speech duration.
arguments
SET UP (THINGS TO REMEMBER)

Set-up must be reasonable:

have clear and logical link to motion
debatable (a reasonable opposition exists)
Set-up should be stated clearly in 1st speaker
speech
Do not redefine the motion in later speaker
when attacked by the opposition
Negative usually accepts Affirmative’s Set-up
 MOTION
INFO SLIDE:
A school voucher, also called an education voucher, in a voucher
system, is a certificate of government funding for a student at a
school chosen by the student or the student's parents. The funding
is usually for a particular year, term or semester.

TH SUPPORTS SCHOOL VOUCHER

 BRAINSTORM
TH supports School Voucher

1.Student can pursue and choose their future

2.Stop DO from school. No fee burden
3.Private teach international curriculum
4.Compete in international league
5.Low income family from fisherman, farmers,
6.Choices of student
SET UP : ASSESSING THE MOTION
(BACKGROUND)
Assess the motion to establish the background of the case:
1. Pay attention where the debate happens, example:
“This debate happens in a country where government subsidizing education through public school
funding”
2. Describe briefly SQ condition. Notice that the settings elements is matter in the debate (ex: If
education funding only through public school then what happens to people who use the
facility?!). Use necessary facts and data but make sure ur data is not overlapping your
arguments.
“in status quo students who wants to enjoy free education must be enrolled in this public school ,
but today’s public school is failing due to poor facility and quality of resources”
3. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION : Portray problem/ controvercy sharply
Identify the strongest and the most relevant problem, by:
a. Identifying whom actor you want to protect in the debate and the harm they have in SQ, or
b. What value you want to defend strongly, or
c. What is SQ failure so the motion is worth to debate (and defend) upon
Remember: more problems, more BOP!! Jangan ada sindrom pengen bawa semua problem!
“ Problem occur when these student and parents have no choice but to put their children in
this failing school”
 BACKGROUND’S SPEECH
•BEGINNER’S SPEECH WOULD BE:
“This debate happens in a country where government subsidizing education
through public school funding. in status quo students who wants to enjoy
free education must be enrolled in this public school , but today’s public
school is failing due to poor facility and bad quality of resources. Problem
occur when these students and parents have NO CHOICE but to put their
children in this failing school”

BACKGROUND’S SPEECH
ADVANCE SPEECH WOULD BE:

“When you essentially force government funding only into public school
education, you curb these children the right to choose the best form of
education possible. With a math proficiency at 3% the East ST Louis Middle
School in Illinois, it is far from achieving the results projected. We should not
sacrifice the future of our children while waiting for public schools to reform, and
that is why we need to use school vouchers, to allow the freedom of choice for
these individuals to pursue the maximum education they can attain.
SET UP : CREATING PARAMETER

Motion should be defined as a whole

Definition must be in line with background and the
problem identified previously
Parameters may contain:
Parameter and boundary from the specific word, or
in other words, definition of key lexical units
(words/phrases)
Limit scope of the debate
Context from the specific term in the motion
SET UP : ARRANGING ROOM OF DEBATE AND
STANCE
( 1 ROUTE: THE EASY ONE)
Convert the already identified problem into an active question, using “whether
or not”
“ the room of the debate would be whether or not government should grand the
right of each student to have a choice of good education when public school
already failed them?”
ROD clarifies what should the government and opposition argue in the debate

Arrange a popular, yet still debatable ROD, otherwise opposition could sway it
to their advantage

Try to make a slightly un-debatable ROD to convince the judges

ROD will lead to your STANCE

Stance could be stated in any forms, even a YES answer to ROD is a stance
SET UP : THEME LINE
“Case In A Nutshell”
the underlying logic of a team’s case
explains team’s strategy
links together 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speakers
answers “why?” to the (defined/set-up) motion
Backbone of all your arguments
The prime reason why you agree or disagree upon the motion
theme line may be in the form of:
words/phrases
a complete sentence
a complete logical syllogism
Declare your theme line after you declare your stance
Some of popular theme lines:
Justifiable
Bring more harm than good
Urgent
Etc,
SET UP : STANCE AND THEME LINE ( 2ND ROUTE: ADVANCE
ONE)

Declare what is your position to the controversy

Your position has to be clear, do not give room
for multiple interpretation
How, who, and when
Sometimes you need to answer all those questions, but
sometimes you don’t have to answer them at all.
You can explain your position with simple
elaboration or with a complex set of mechanism
 ROD,STANCE, and THEMELINE (route 1: Beginner)

“The room of the debate would be whether or not government should grand the
right of each student to have a choice of good education when public school
already failed them? We say YES, because its urgent

ROD,STANCE, and THEMELINE (route 1: Beginner)

“This debate should not be about public versus private schools, because we do
recognize there are some good public schools. This debate should be about
empowering the choices of these marginalized children to attain the best possible
education”
SET UP : PROPOSE A MODEL /
MECHANISMS
Model is not always required in a debate, depends on what the
motion wants
Propose a model only if you think :
1. Problem exist and SQ fail to solve
2. A comprehensive mechanism needed to avoid collateral,
unnecessary or excessive damage to certain actor you
wish to protect
3. An effective model exist
Model must answer the problem addressed in SQ
Model must be CLEAR and COMPREHENSIVE, allocate more
time to explain it if necessary
Make sure model is feasible to be applied
Explain the aim of every parameter and limitation in the model
 TH Supports School Vouchers (MODELS)
1. We are only going to give the school vouchers to the middle to the lower class of the
society in order to enable them to have better opportunity to attain education.

2. The values of school voucher will be based on how much the state spends on each
student’s education in the SQ for example ($18000 for students residing in District of
Columbia, $19198 for students residing in New York)

3. We will establish information sources, such as website or information center, that allow
the public to access schools’ academic performance and quality, such as grades,
numbers of students per class, student to faculty ratio and graduation rates that will be
assessed yearly by the state.

4. The schools should meet the basic requirements that government have within the SQ,
such as adherence to national curriculum.

5. The allocation of funding to public schools will be determined by how many enrollments
do they have, so we are not stopping funding the public schools. Like in states such as
Arkansas in US, they divide the funding to both school vouchers and public schools and
still are able to maintain a relatively good public school system. But, even if we have a
worse public school system in our side of the house, that’s the trade off that we are
willing to make.
SET UP : IDENTIFIES BURDEN OF PROOF /
TEAM SPLIT
Burden of proofs are those issues entitled to the team, which must be
sufficiently proven in order to win a debate
Developed BOP in form of questions
- What kind of debate? Urgency or Justification, or Comparison?
- Actor that you want to defend
- Why by default this actor need to be defended?
- What is your objective?
Room of debate, stance and theme line are the guides to identify BOP
A team can claim and limit their BOP according to necessity
Show your opponent’s burden of proof
Frame the adjudicator that your opponent’s argument is not populist
You can also add disclaimers to dismiss possible unimportant or harmful
debates for your team
BUILDING ARGUMENT

a good argument should have A-R-E-:

a good argument should be linked back into the
motion/theme line
Mere evidence / example CANNOT be an
argument
adjudicators want: logic and relevance
CASEBUILDING – ARGUMENTS –
A-R-E-L
ASSERTION/IDEA:

A short and simple statement of what your

argument is about.

Example, on the motion:

THW ban organized religion

“Organized religion inherently harmful for

society”
REASONINGS/ANALYSIS:
‘Theoritical’ or ‘Logical” explanation of how and why your argument is generally
true. We can explain this by providing logical links or series of reasons.
Be as practical as possible in explaining your chain of reason.
Reasoning:
1. The first thing is that organized religion is premised on irrationality. We
think that democracy as a stance is about ensuring rational
understanding and retain peaceful making decision. Why we think it
purposes disturbed by irrationality?
Because we think at the end of the day the religious believer who
signed up to the doctrines of the organized religion must take the word
and interpretation of their pope and imam as being the true
interpretation that they stand for and the faith that they believe in.
And that’s extremely harmful because organized religion is actively
encouraging people not to question, actively encourage people
through the doctrine. Not to question the ruling that they had. And not
to think in the rational way.
EXAMPLES/EVIDENCES:
Some statistic/Data/study case /analogy to
give more credibility to your assertion and
reasonings, so the audience will be
convinced that your argument is likely true
in the real world.
Example should be real, general, and
significant
When it’s difficult to find a parallel example,
try tocatholic
“Most use a churches
‘logical’inscenario
Africa, doctrine people not to use
condom because it’s a sin while HIV AIDS is an epidemic
disease in this particular contingent”
LINK BACK:

A statement that show how your argument is

supporting your stance
Create a conclusion that sounds populist and
principal
Strategic Link back and conclusion used after
all elements in one argument already fulfilled
“Now we think the democratic concern is not making sure that people
made good or bad choice, but to see if the choice they make was
rational at the time it was made“
 THW ban organized religion
Assertion (rights) Organized religion inherently harmful for society
Reasonings 1. The first thing is that organized religion is premised on
irrationality. We think that democracy as a stance is
about ensuring rational understanding and retain
peaceful making decision. Why we think it purposes
disturbed by irrationality?
Because we think at the end of the day the religious
believer who signed up to the doctrines of the
organized religion must take the word and
interpretation of their pope and imam as being the
true interpretation that they stand for and the faith
that they believe in.
And that’s extremely harmful because organized
religion is actively encouraging people not to question,
actively encourage people through the doctrine. Not
to question the ruling that they had. And not to think in
the rational way.

Example Most catholic churches in Africa, doctrine people not to use

condom because it’s a sin while HIV AIDS is an epidemic disease
in this particular contingent

Link back Now we think the democratic concern is not making sure that
people made good or bad choice, but to see if the choice they
make was rational at the time it was made
NOTES ON ARGUMENTS

1. Identify your theme line correctly to create

necessary arguments to fulfill your BOP
2. Separate different ideas inside one argument
by creating layers in your arguments! Don’t
mix different idea and think that it was already
a chain or reasoning. Each layer has its own
AREL
3. Layers will improve your structure hence
improving manner
HOW TO CREATE LAYERS IN YOUR
ARGUMENT
When your argument is: URGENCY

1st layer:
WHAT problems and harms in status quo that need a quick respons
from goverment ? Portray harms with data if necessary and use
logical domino effects of harm to make the problem sounds urgent
to be solve immediately

2nd layer
Portray structurally WHY status quo is not enough to solve the
problem. Usually by identifying failing actors in the debate and why
most likely its their inherent nature.

3rd layer
Predict the kind of harm that might be brought by your opponent, then
proof why in principle your proposal is important to protect the
victim, or to avoid greater harms.
 ST
WHEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS URGENCY: 1
LAYER
1st argument : Why is it urgent to give school vouchers

1st layer:
WHAT problems and harms in status quo that need a quick respons from
goverment ? Portray harms with data if necessary and use logical domino
effects of harm to make the problem sounds urgent to be solve
immediately (the ultimate harms usually related to government incapability
to create best services to the society)
1st argument : Why is it urgent to give school vouchers
1st
We believe that the current public schools are failing. Look at Waukegan, a
high school in Illinois. 28 students share a single computer and band
students are forced to practice in the hallway. The trend of public schools
failing is prevalent in the SQ and shows no effort of changing. This will
harm poor and middle class society where they will always be trapped in
the bubble of poverty because bad education means less opportunity to
get good paying job, thus they will always be an economic burden for the
government even after graduation.
WHEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS URGENCY: 2ND
LAYER
1st argument : Why is it urgent to give school vouchers
2nd layer
Portray structurally WHY status quo is not enough to solve the
problem. Usually by identifying failing actors in the debate and why
most likely its their inherent nature. (Note: its ok to have another
layers in your layer of argument, but make sure to create different
type of sign posting)
1st argument : Why is it urgent to give school vouchers
2nd
3 reasons why SQ will never enough to solve the problem:
a. The public schools have no incentive to improve. 45% of state funds in the US are spent on public education,
these public schools feel no need to jump out of their way and improve them, because there will always be a need
for poor students to go to school, and the government’s money is concentrated solely on these public schools. The
incentive to change is very difficult, because these schools have sustained funding. Even with mechanisms such as
accreditation, they cannot improve. Hanover County High School, a public school with shoddy accreditation, never
improved despite their sustained funding.

b. Most of the time parents and students are not aware of the bad quality of public school because they live in a rural
district where they don’t have any comparison of what is a good quality of school, therefore there has never been a
significant demand or protest to change the system. But even if there is usually the issue get defeated by other
issue such as unemployment and healthcare
This is why government should provide freedom to society to choose what types of school they want to
WHEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS URGENCY: 2ND
LAYER
1st argument : Why is it urgent to give school vouchers
3rd layer
Predict the kind of harm that might be brought by your opponent, then analyze
why your model/proposal will prevent the harm, or proof why in principle
your proposal is important to protect the victim, and/or to avoid greater
harms.
1st argument : Why is it urgent to give school vouchers
3rd
layer
We do understand that students and parents might be an object of exploitation from private school, but why we think
school voucher still the best way to protect student:
a. Our model ensures that student will always be informed and we will still punish the conduct of false promises from
private school’s marketing strategy. At worst case scenario, the student still able to opt out from this bad private
school to the qualified one

b. Even If there is potency of harms our proposal is still justifiable because to fix these public schools, it
costs a lot of money. It is more effective to just transfer that choice to the children. We believe that waiting it to
improve means we sacrifice the current students that studying in bad public schools. We cannot just put these
students to wait and suffer being the victim of government failure. Sending them to private schools to remove that
waiting period is crucial in the development of the marginalized community.

So the trade of would be, at least in our proposal we ensure that each of them has a self defense mechanism when
he/she exposed by bad education while in your side of the house they are doomed to failure for the rest of their life
HOW TO CREATE LAYERS IN YOUR
ARGUMENT
When your argument is about PRINCIPLE (JUSTIFICATION)
1st layer:
WHAT is the inherent reason why your proposal is principally just, example:
a. Basic rights, explain in detail why certain actor deserve this right, or
b. Certain fundamental principle is violated when your proposal is not being
executed.

2nd layer
Place yourself as the government, why as a government you need to do this?
Some reason why:
a. Because it’s the main obligation, by portraying certain
character/pharameter of democratic government, or
b. It’s the govt compensation for the past mistake or failure of current system

3rd layer
Predict the actor that would be harmed by your proposal (opp’s best case) and
proof why:
a. There are still another way to protect the interest of that particular actor,
and
b. Even if it brings harm, your harm is greater than opp’s harm
TYPES OF ARGUMENT (IMPACTS)
Effectiveness
▪ What is you objectives? State it clearly
▪ How each of your mechanism can achieve each
objectives? Explain all necessary detail and process
▪ Compare ur effectiveness with status quo mechanism,
What elements that makes SQ failed and These
elements Exist in your mechanism
Benefit or Harm
▪ Explain problem in status quo in detail to related actor
(main or secondary actor that you want to protect) or
certain concept
▪ How ur proposal will bring betterment / harm in status
quo
1ST OPPOSITION: NEGATION
Negation 🡪 the direct clash given by the opposition to the
government’s stance
No negation = no debate
It shows the contesting issues (room of agreement and
disagreement) between opposition stance and the government
stance, hence creating the venue of the debate
Stance ( Proposal ) : a. Status-Quo Enough
b. Counter Proposal
It is the summary of opposition’s response and case
It is so important that it must be stated in the beginning of the 1st
speaker speech
Improper negation results in engagement failure
NEGATION:
TH SUPPORTS SCHOOL VOUCHER

Room of We agree that student deserve a good

agreement quality of education and some public
schools are failing

Room of But we don’t agree if the solution is by

disagreement replacing public school with school
voucher

We believe SQ is enough to ensure the

Stance
improvement of public education

Theme line and And school voucher is not urgent and

case summary giving choices will only harm student’s
education
BUILDING REBUTTAL

Argument attacking opposing team’s argument

Some important elements of rebuttals :
apply the principal of A-R-E + Link Back
cluster your rebuttals appropriately; provide sign
posting!
Make layers in your rebuttal
prioritize to attack the main argument
do not merely question; prove other wise!
REBUTTAL’S ANATOMY: STEP TO CREATE
REBUTTALS
Always start your rebuttal by stating clearly the strongest premise/idea
of the argument you want to rebut:
“1st rebuttal, they say bla..bla..bla..”

State clearly how many response (layers) you have to take down the
argument:
“Three responses for this.”

Make layers in rebutting your opponent’s argument, each layers may

contain:

1st layer: A – rebuttal 1

2nd layer: A- rebuttal 2

BUILDING REBUTTAL : A-
You need to assume that your opponent’s argument (or main
idea/premise) is an ‘A’
“They say religion doctrines people so they cannot choose rationally”

“A- rebuttal” is basically saying ‘NO” to every premise/argument brought by

your opponent, by several strategy:

1. Escape from your opponent’s parameter, don’t trust their characterization

of certain actor or system, define another way around
“ 1st in a fast majority of cases religious doctrine helps people to rationalize
their evil urges as a human being to be selfish by teaching them empathy,
and to give charity. That’s why rich people willing to give 10% of their
income to churches for charity purpose”

2. The harm is not exclusive in your opponent’s side of the house

BUILDING REBUTTAL : A-
You need to assume that your opponent’s argument (or main
idea/premise) is an ‘A’
“They say religion doctrines people so they cannot choose rationally”

“A- rebuttal” is basically saying ‘NO” to every premise/argument brought by

your opponent, by several strategy:

2. The harm is not exclusive in your opponent’s side of the house/”just

because” rebuttal

“ Irrational interpretation will also occur in your side of the house because
there will always be people who is insecure over the existence of heaven
and hell in SQ so they will always think that they will go to heaven if they
make more sacrifice to GOD. They will still sacrifice their life in terrorist
act to go to heaven”

For this type of rebuttal u must answer in your 1st speaker argument why the
condition will still better under your side of the house
BUILDING REBUTTAL : A-
You need to assume that your opponent’s argument (or main
idea/premise) is an ‘A’
“They say religion doctrines people so they cannot choose rationally”

“A- rebuttal” is basically saying ‘NO” to every premise/argument brought by

your opponent, by several strategy:

3. “To begin with” A - rebuttal

“ to begin with the job of religion is not to provide rational choices but to
provide spiritual fulfillment towards their followers and nothing about God
is irrational. As long as regulation exist to prevent religious teaching
harming other people, then its enough to control the harm of
interpretation”

For this type of rebuttal u must answer in your 1st speaker argument why the
condition will still better under your side of the house
BUILDING REBUTTAL : A-
You need to assume that your opponent’s argument (or main
idea/premise) is an ‘A’
“They say religion doctrines people so they cannot choose rationally”

“A- rebuttal” is basically saying ‘NO” to every premise/argument brought by

your opponent, by several strategy:

4. “Normalizing” A - rebuttal

“ there’s nothing wrong being irrational, we think that society are being
irrational all the time and its not the job of the government to ensure
rationality. People smokes and do free sex. As long as their irrationality
does not harm other individual and ensure their life fulfillment than its ok
to be irrational”

For this type of rebuttal u must answer in your 1st speaker argument why the
condition will still better under your side of the house
BUILDING EVEN IF REBUTTAL
“Even if rebuttal” is you take opponents case on their best case
scenario and proof that their proposal still wrong because:
Its violating certain principle and/or other actor you wish to
protect
There are principles more important to be uphold rather than your
opponent’s principle
It will further harm the objective your opponents and your team
have been agreeing upon
Opponent benefit is not outweighing further harm it cost (trade off
)

NOTES FOR EVEN IF REBUTTAL:

▪ For 1st speaker 3 on 3 usually the answer of even if rebuttal is your
positive arguments
▪ It is necessary for 2nd and 3rd speaker to bring even if rebuttal
▪ No even if rebuttal for effectiveness
REBUTTALS STRATEGY FOR EACH
SPEAKER
1st speaker:
If your stance is SQ, your 1st rebuttal must be SQ rebuttals
(proof why SQ is enough to solve the problem brought by PM,
or if there’s still a room for improvement)
If your stance is counter proposal then explain it in details the
way PM explain mechanism

2nd and 3rd speaker:

DO NOT DELIVER SIMILAR REBUTTALS AS YOUR PREVIOUS
SPEAKER/S!!
If your opponent don’t have any engagement or case
development, then assume it yourself then rebut it yourself
3RD SPEAKER: HOW TO CLASH BETTER

Identify the debate theme line and create clash based

on this theme line (or both sides of 1st speaker
arguments)
Have title in your clash in form of question ;
‘weather or not it is urgent for the government to give
school voucher”
Identify rebuttals falls under the same clash
Map the debate by identifying your opponent failure
to make engagement or failure to proof BOP
Make comparison
PART 3 : MANNER DRILLING
Common problems :
Ladies-and-gentlemen syndrome
Voice modulation
Limited vocabularies
Gestures
Pronunciation
Eye contact
Fluency and flow of speech