Debaters Briefing

Prepared by:

ADE YUNUS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
085693052125
085813646189

Structure of Speech
Start with Your Introduction
The introduction tells the
judges and the audience
what the speaker is going to
say during their speech.
The Main Arguments
After introducing the ideas, a
speaker should highlight two or
three main arguments.
Conclusion
After the substantive material,
speakers should conclude their
speech, briefly telling the
audience and judges what they
have said and why their side
wins the debate.

SIGNPOSTING
1) Say What You Are
Going To Say
2) Say It
3) Say What You Have
Said

Outline to Structure A Speech

1st Minute (0:00-1:00):
Win the audience, perhaps with a joke.
Don't rebutt another speakers speech.
Definition and Team Split
2nd Minute (1:00-2:00):
Layout your argument.
Usually best to propose/oppose on 3
points. (e.g. Political, Economic, Social).
Begin your first point.
3rd-6th Minute (2:00-6:00):
Use these four minutes to make all your points.
Effectively this is your speech.
Refer back to the single, short, core sentence one or
two times.

Outline to Structure A Speech (Cont.)

7th Minute (6:00-7:00):
Finish the point you were on as quickly as possible.
Don't introduce any new points or arguments.
Sum up. Reiterate your main points and arguments (and those of
your partner if you are the second team speaker.).
Ideally, if possible, restate the single, core sentence as the last thing
you say.
7:00 min:
Stay on your feet until you hear the bell.
Finish, immediately if possible, "Sir/Madam, I beg to ...............".
Be back in your seat by 7:15, if possible, and no later than 7:30.

Argument

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

Assertion - statement of the argument
Reasoning - explanation of the argument
Evidence - facts, statistics, etc.
Link Back - linked back into the

motion/theme line

a good argument should be linked back

into the motion/theme line
adjudicators want: logic and relevance

THBT We Should Abolish School Uniform

We are abolishing school uniform because we feel that it is unfair.

This is unfair because it forces poor families into buying expensive

but shoddily made uniforms. Often parents will need to replace the
uniform on a yearly basis due to general wear and tear or growth
spurts, and this problem is worsened if the family has numerous
children.

Uniforms can cost anywhere between 50 and 100 per pupil.

With this in mind, we think the fairest solution would be to

abolish uniform.

Rebuttal
Rebuttal, or refutation, is the attempt to argue against specific
arguments the opposing side have put forward during a speech. When
listening to an opponents speech, debaters should think about how
they can best rebut the opposing speakers arguments.

Example
One of the benefits of abolishing school uniform
would be that levels of bullying would go down.
A system where school pupils could wear their own clothes would lead to more
bullying, as people who could not afford designer labels might get bullied.

How To
Show that the reason behind the argument is not a good one:
The reason is not important.
The reason is not relevant.
The reason is not logical.
Show that there is no good evidence for what their opponent is arguing:
There is no evidence.
The evidence is not reliable.
There is other better evidence.
Show that there are other issues that need to be considered:
There is another solution to the problem.
The problem is unavoidable.
The solution put forward is unfair or immoral.

Basics of Debating

format: asian Parliamentary

Affirmative/Government vs. Negative/Opposition
led by a Chairperson; PoI allowed
speech duration and order:
1st Affirmative (7 min)

1st Negative (7 min)

2nd Affirmative (7 min)

2nd Negative (7 min)

3rd Affirmative (7 min)

3rd Negative (7 min)

Reply Affirmative (4

Reply Negative (4

min)

min)

Roles of Speakers

1st speakers:
Aff: define the motion
Neg: accept/reject

definition, rebutt
outline team structure
deliver 1st part of
case

2nd speakers:
rebutt opponent
deliver 2nd part of

case

3rd speakers:

rebutt opponent
summarize case
Reply speakers:

overview of the debate

Roles: 1st Affirmative

defines the motion

presents Affirmatives theme line
outlines Affirmatives team split
delivers first part of split
summarizes/recaps own speech

Roles: 1st Negative

responds to the definition

(accept/reject)
rebutts 1st Affirmative (briefly)
presents Negatives theme line
outlines Negatives team split
delivers first part of split
summarizes/recaps own speech

Role of Speaker (1 )
st

Give definition
2. Outline teams case
(TL & TS)
3. Explain his / her
split (deliver
argument)
4. Recap of the
speech
1.

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Respond to the
definition
Rebutt 1st
government
Outline teams case
(TL & TS)
Explain his / her
split (deliver
argument)
Recap of the
speech

Roles: 2nd speakers

rebutts previous speakers (briefly)
briefly reiterates teams case (in
general)
delivers 2nd part of split (bulk of case)
summarizes/recaps own speech

Roles: 3rd speakers

rebutts previous speakers - levels of

rebuttal:
teamwise/global (theme line)
speechwise/detailed (arguments)

summarizes teams case

3rd Neg may not give new matter

new examples in rebuttal is not new matter
3rd Aff is discouraged from giving new matter

Role of Speaker (3rd)

1.

2.
3.

Rebutt the
oppositions
argument
Rebuild the teams
case
Summarize the issue
of the debate

No new arguments
allowed!!!

1.

2.
3.

Rebutt the
governments
argument
Rebuild the teams
case
Summarize the issue
of the debate

No new arguments
allowed!!!

Role of Speaker (reply)

1.

2.
3.

Provide a summary
or overview of the
debate
Identify the issues
raised by both teams
Explain why the
governments case
and responses are
better than the
oppositions

No new arguments &

rebuttal allowed!!!

1.

2.
3.

Provide a summary or
overview of the
debate
Identify the issues
raised by both teams
Explain why the
oppositions case and
responses are better
than the governments

No new arguments &

rebuttal allowed!!!

Roles: Reply speakers

provides an overview of the debate

what is the clash/point of contention
what our side has given
what the other side has tried to give
why we should win (biased adjudication)

may be delivered by 1st or 2nd speaker

reply speakers may not bring new matter
reply speech is not rebuttal, either

Motion

full propositional statements

not questions or phrases

Affirmative: defend the motion

Negative: oppose the motion

example of motions:
That we would let human cloning research to go on.
That a referendum is not what the Acehnese realy need.
That Tarzan should go back to England.

Case

case: set of arguments supported by

evidences

anatomy of a case:
definition: clarifies the motion/limits debate

scope
theme line: core argumentation/basic idea
team split: distribution of arguments
arguments and rebuttals

Case: Team Split

distribution of arguments to speakers:

1st: smaller part (because 1st speaker also has

to explain definition, theme line, and team split)

2nd: larger part (bulk of case)
3rd: usually no part at all

each speaker must prove case, watch for:

invalid case (arguing besides the point, not

proving case)
hung case (case proven only after 1st & 2nd
combined)

Case: Summary
motion
clear and
logical
link

definition

answers
why?

theme line
1st

team split
2n
d

argumen
t
argumen
t
argumen
t
argumen
t
rebuttals

must be reasonable:
clear & logical link to motion
debatable (reasonable opp.
exists)
may contain:
def. of key lexical units
parameters
required: definition as a whole
proves motion as it is defined
may be in the form of:
words/phrases
complete sentence
complete logical syllogism
each speaker must prove case,
watch:
invalid case (arguing besides
the point, not proving the case)
hung case (case proven only
after 1st and 2nd speech
combined)

Deliver a point of
information

POI (Point of Information)

Basically is interuption of the current

speech by any member of the opposing
side to ask question concerning points
raised in that speech.
Can be used to undermine or even
destroy a speech.
Allowed at substantive speech (1-6)
Need to be delivered below 15

Definitional Challange

When??? There are cases where the

negative has the right not to accept the
definition provided by the affirmative.
How to challange definition:
1.
2.
3.
4.

State explicitly that they are challenging the

definition.
Prove that it is truistic, squireling, tautological
ot time or place setting.
Provide an alternative definition of the motion
(must also be reasonable).
Build a case based on that negotiation.

Definitional Challange

Basic to challange:
1.
2.
3.

4.

Truistic the definition is true by nature, thus make

unreasonable debate.
Tautological when a definition is given in such a
way that is logically impossible to negate it.
Squirelling when a definition is not tied down to
the spirit of the motion and does not have a proper
logical link to the motion.
Time and Place Setting happens when the debate
is confine in particular time in the past ot the future,
and when an ordinary intelligent person in the scope
of a tournament would know about the issue in there.

Adjudication

matter (content) - 40%

arguments (logic, use of evidences, relevance)

manner (delivery) - 40%

public-speaking skills: vocal style, use of

language, use of notes, eye contact, gesture,

stance, dress, impression of sincerity, and humor
personal attacks on opponents reduce manner
points

method (structure) - 20%

structure: of individual speech and of teams case

response to the dynamics of the debate

THANK YOU