Sophia Ong
Debate Structure
Proposition
1st Prop.
Prime Minister or 1st Speaker 1st Prop.
Deputy Prime Minister or nd Speaker 1st Prop. 2
Opposition
1 3 2 4
Leader of the Opposition or 1st Speaker 1st Opp.
Deputy of the Opposition or nd Speaker 1st Opp. 2
1st Opp.
2nd Prop.
Member of Government or st Speaker 2nd Prop. 1 Government Chief Whip or nd Speaker 2nd Prop. 2
6
8
Member of the Opposition or st Speaker 2nd Opp. 1 Opposition Chief Whip or nd Speaker 2nd Opp. 2
2nd Opp.
Prime Minister
1
3 2
Role: Setup the Debate Present the Most Important Arguments (Normally 2) Structure: Definition / Introduction
Sign Post
5 7
6 8
Prime Minister
Definition:
1
3
Provide Sufficient Background Define Contentious Terminology Identify The Problem (Why is it a problem?) Provide Policy (Find a Solution)
Explain Who dose What and When, How does it solve the problem, Why is this a better situation than before Who is going to be affected by this and how is that better?
5 7
6 8
Prime Minister
1
3 2
5 7
6 8
Prime Minister
Substantive:
1
3
Title
5 7
6 8
2
4
Role:
Set the tone of the Opposition
5 7
6 8
1 3
2
4
Structure:
Sign Post Reiterate Clarify / Simplify Rebut -Why are they wrong: not going to win on rebuttal alone (negative matter) Present Substantive - New Counter Substantive: Why are we right (positive matter Conclusion
5 7
6 8
2
4
Rebut:
Time line: Now Action Then
Wont work / Impractical / cant be done Wont solve the problem
5 7
6 8
2
4
Clarify:
No Problem Exists / Factually inaccurate
Suggest Most Logical Conflict Rebut it as before
5 7
6 8
Not Relevant to the Debate eg THBT states should not fund scholarships to study abroad.(PM- states as in
state level government, state govt dont have enough $ to fund scholarships abroad so leave it to the federal level government to do it instead proceed to argue that fed govt has more $ to do so)
Must be logical criteria eg. THW ban cosmetic surgery (PM- ban only for children)
2
4
Definition Debate:
Challenge the Definition (Prop it) 2 debates running at the same time. The Right Definition wins the debate
(Not Necessarily the best arguments)
5 7
6 8
The Deputies
1 2
3
5 7
4
6 8
Structure:
Sign Post
Extensions
1 3 2 4
5
7
6
8
Structure:
Sign Post
Extensions
Deeper Analysis: 1 3 2 4
Who does it affect? What can / will they do about it? Who is going against them? Is this better or worse Why?
5
7
6
8
Global / National / Local National / Conservative / Labour / Liberal Communist / Socialist / Capitalist
Show a deeper understanding of the motion and its issues
Extensions
Additional (Better) Arguments:
1 3
2 4
PEESTLE:
Political Economical Environmental Social Technological Legal Ecological
5
7
6
8
Whips
Role:
1 3 2 4
Show Your side (Team) won the debate:
New Information:
Answer a rebuttal or P.O.I. Give a new analogy / example (to an existing issue / argument)
Judging Criteria
Manner 50 % Matter 50%
Manner Style:
Confidence, Confidence, Confidence Tone of Voice: Pace, Pitch & Pause Body Language: Stand Upright, Eye Contact, Hand Gestures Energy Level Timing Structure / Signposting P.O.I (Taken & Received) Teamwork
Matter Content:
Backup / Support to Argument Validity of Argument Level of Analysis / Understanding
QUESTIONS?
Values debates
Opposite of trade off debates involves two views on what the world should look like that are hostile to one another. Examples: THBT the media should show the full horrors of war THW privatise the National Health System (NHS) THW stop supporting HIV medications and focus on prevention of HI in Africa.
The important thing to remember is that you cant think both sides of the debate have a virtuous principle behind them, it is not a trade off, you have to hate the other sides principles.
the typical political spectrum, big government vs small government Left vs right They all typically run on the same principles Clashes can be identified from motion itself
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a ethical theory that suggests the outcomes of your actions are what determine the morality of them. It reduces morality down to a numbers game, and is used widely (/crudely) in debating because it is quick and easy to apply. explain why your side of the debate will lead to more social/economic/cultural/whatever utility, that is to say it has the best outcomes for the biggest number of people.
THBT we should force treatment upon the mentally ill. THBT every able-bodied man must serve for the military for a period of time THBT overpopulated countries should adopt a one-child per family policy.
Autonomy
The other widely used theory requires us to first understand a concept called autonomy. Autonomy is the word we give to a persons right to determine their future through the actions they carry out. Whenever I make a decision and I am not forced or coerced into that decision I am exercising my autonomy. (It is also important that I am rational and of sound mind) There is no reason I should not be able to use my body to do as I please, it is my property, it is my life, my body, and I know whats best for me. But how far does my autonomy stretch?
But do I have a right to wave my arm where you are standing? Doubtful, youll probably hit me right back. And the reason is I have caused you harm. Thats the harm principle.
I have the right to exercise my autonomy up until the point that it prevents you from exercising your autonomy. Motion: THW Ban smoking in public areas
Limits to autonomy 3
Lack of cognitive capacity and information
Lack of information
1) Do we have the information?( advertisement censorship, seatbelt, drugs
Application in debates
THW legalise consensual duelling to settle disputes THW completely ban smoking THW legalize marijuana THBT we should force treatment upon the mentally ill. THW allow the terminally ill access to untested drugs. THBT minors should not be allowed to access social networking sites. THW restrict the number of hours minors can have access to online gaming sites
Summary
Utilitarian calculus. Social contract theory and the state of nature The state and its role/right in curbing autonomy (The harm principle). They exist in most social themed debates and its highly likely that youll see all of the above within one debate. They would become your classic clashes of the debate