Debating SeminarDelivered by Bryan Gunawan & Teddy TriatmojoOn That Point Debate & Public Speaking Institute

The European Union Intervarsity Debate Championship 2011

Tournament Guidelines Phase 1: Elimination RoundsTop 20 – each one match based on draw – 10

winners from each debate will be sorted based on scores – top 8 advances

Phase 2: Knock Out RoundsAnother draw to decide groups. Winner

advances. (See 3.2. Tournament Bracket) Motions: All prepared, see Chapter 4 Match Up and Positions: See 3.3 Pairings For audience rules, transport, and meals

please refer to Chapter 9

Rules of Debate

TEAM FORMAT

Each team has three speakers ,who each speak once.

Each of round of debate has two teams: Affirmative team. Negative team.

DEBATE FORMAT

The affirmative team must speak for the motion.

The negative team must speak against the motion.

EU-IDC Format in ShortFOR THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATING Hybrid System of Parliamentary Formats An Australasian Parliamentary Format, only:

Has NO 2nd speaker Shorter duration of speech Whip is 2nd and Reply is 3rd in EU-IDC Format Aff Reply first, then Neg Reply

Order and Timing of Speech

1st Speaker Affirmative

(5’)

1st Speaker Negative

(5’)

2nd Speaker Affirmative

(5’)

2nd Speaker Negative

(5’)

3rd Speaker Affirmative

(3’)

3rd Speaker Negative

(3’)

Role of Speakers – 1st SpeakerAFFIRMATIVE

Defines the motion Outlines a position Delivers arguments

and examples.

NEGATIVE

Challenges the definition (if it’s a problem)

Outlines the opposing position (establish the “clash” in the debate)

Rebuts the affirmative team’s arguments

Delivers arguments and examples

Role of Speakers – 2nd SpeakerAFFIRMATIVE

Defend the affirmative team’s original definition (if a definitional challenge was made by the negative team)

Rebuts the negative team’s arguments.

Rebuild the affirmative team’s arguments.

NEGATIVE

Defends the negative team’s definition (if required)

Rebuts the affirmative team’s arguments.

Rebuild the negative team’s arguments.

Role of Speakers – 3rd SpeakerAFFIRMATIVE

Offers a summation of the debate.

Explain why the affirmative team is better than the negative team.

NEGATIVE

Offers a summation of the debate.

Explain why the negative team is better than the affirmative team.

Rules of Debating Conduct Rounds are to begin on time. It is mandatory that teams

remain nearby the stage (seats are reserved for subsequent debaters) at the latest 15 minutest prior to their round.

Teams failing to turn up for the debate on time, and with no valid reason, will lose the debate. Its opposing team in such a case will be given the mean average score from all higher scores of each round.

A debater shall not begin to speak without first obtaining direction from the chairperson.

Debaters speaking shall confine themselves to the topic of debate and avoid personalities and indecorous language.

A debater shall stand during speech but debaters not ‘holding the floor’ may not rise during a round.

Rules of Debating Conduct (Cont’d) During a round, interjections or ‘points of order’ or

‘points of information’ from the opposing team is prohibited. The debate also features no audience participation or intervention by adjudicators. In short, no speakers shall be interrupted.

Debaters may bring whatever printed materials into the debate but all kinds of electronic equipment (laptop, blackberry, etc) are not allowed.

Debaters may not use props of any kind. Debaters are required to vacate the stage

immediately upon completion of their debate, to allow the following round to begin.

Dress code: Batik with university jacket.

Adjudication Each room will be adjudicated by a panel of three

adjudicators The adjudicator’s job is to assess the strength of the

arguments (matter 40%). The presentation and delivery style of the speakers (manner 40%) and the structure and timing of the speeches (method 20%).

Score are awarded to the team as a whole (not to individual speakers).

Decision will be made on collective basis. There will be a short discussion assisted by debating resource assistants (revision to 5.6 bullet 6, NOT individual basis)

Thank You

Definition – a reasonable one What is the issue that the two teams are

expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person reading the motion think that it is about?

If the motion poses a clear issue for debate → define accordingly.

If there is no obvious meaning to the motion → the range of possible meanings is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate.

This does not mean that either team is required to define formally any term of the proposition. You can define the entire proposition by explaining the plan that you are supporting.

Problematic Definition

TRUISM

Something that is obviously true

‘This House believes that the sun is rising in the East’

Literal definition. Metaphor for Asia

(‘the East’) becoming much more important in the world (‘the sun is rising’) seems eminently sensible.

TAUTOLOGIES Something that is true by definition The motion for the semi-finals of

the 1995 World Schools Debating Championships in Cardiff was ‘This House believes that extremism is the catalyst for progress’.

Defined ‘extremism’ in terms of positive change. The Proposition defined ‘extremism’ as radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society, so ended up arguing that radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society help cause the advancement of society (progress).

Argument An argument is a reason or rationale why the team’s case

is right. What is wrong? To state the team case, but then descend

into a series of examples, without trying to show how they are linked or the underlying reasons why they prove the team’s point.

The elements of an argument, at least, should consist of: Assertion – statement of the idea Reasoning – substantive explanation in proving the assertion

(why and h0w it is true) Example(s) – empower argument; can be illustrations, facts,

parallel examples, or precedence. Link - how and why it is relevant and important to the motion

Rebuttals Showing that the opponent’s argument is:

Unlikely to happen in reality Based on an error of fact or an erroneous

interpretation of fact Irrelevant to the proof of the topic Illogical While itself correct, involves unacceptable

implications While itself correct, should be accorded little

weight Structure your rebuttals so it is distinct and clear

from arguments and rebuilds

Rebuttals (cont’d)

Reason

Not true

Not true

Not always true

Not necessarily

true

True but not important

Not relevant

Not significant

Easy to solve

Rebuilds Showing that the opponent’s rebuttals to

your argument is not making sense Rebutting the rebuttals Structure your rebuilds so it is distinct and

clear from rebuttals

Summary

There are many ways to summarize the debate. Some speakers like to label each team

with a name describing their arguments to identify questions that need to be

answered at the end of the round, and say why your side / team brings the best resolution to those questions

Manner Manner is the presentation of the speech, the style

and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.

No correct way to do it; jokes are NOT compulsory. Make relevant jokes.

Will be assessed holistically with other elements (matter and method) and other speakers style in the team.

The elements of style include the following and any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member: Eye contact Voice modulation Hand gestures Language The use of notes

MethodMethod is the effectiveness of:

structure and organization of the speech of the members;

structure and organization of the team’s case; and team’s responsiveness and ability to maintain and/or their theme line throughout the debate.

The team should: Be consistent in their approach to the issue; and Allocate positive matter to each member when their role calls for it; and

Include an introduction, conclusion and a series of arguments; and

Be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations and the need to prioritize and apportion time to matter.

Scoring

Important: breaking determinant It will reflect: 1) standard of debate. 2) relative difference and holistic evaluation on each teams (as a whole, not based on individual speakers)

See Speaker Scale.