The Burden of Proof

The Burden of Proof (BoP) is what your

side must prove in order to win the
debate. Both
PROP and OPP will EACH have a BoP
for every debate. Correctly identifying
the BoP will
mean that you choose the most
appropriate arguments.
When both PROP and OPP correctly
identify the BoP then the debate has a
proper Clash
EXAMPLE: THW BRING BACK THE
DEATH PENALTY
If PROP decides that what they have to
prove (BoP) is that the Death Penalty
will help with
SAs crime problem then these are the
arguments that they would choose:
It is a deterrent to violent crime
There is overcrowding in prisons
It removes criminals clogging up
the judicial system
Keeping these criminals in jail
unfairly costs the taxpayer money
You cannot rehabilitate most violent
criminals (many are repeat offenders)
so there
is no point in trying.
If PROP decides that that what they
have to prove (BoP) is that it is right
and fair to take the
life of a criminal, and that taking that
life will help society, then these are
the arguments
they would choose:
It is just to seek a life for a life in
retribution
for
the
grief
of
families/society

Some crimes are such horrible

rights
infringements
that
the
perpetrator should
forfeit their life
SA is majority in favour of the Death
Penalty and as violent crime affects
citizens,
citizens should get to choose to bring
it back.
Currently criminal elements in
society see the lives of others as being
worth very
little, this will change if they know
they will forfeit their own life if they
harm others.
i.e. It will raise the overall value of life
in society.
Which of these is the stronger Burden
of Proof?
In a debate such as this one, the last
BoP tackles the real issue. After all,
South Africa
outlawed the Death Penalty because
the Government believed that it could
not allow the
state to kill its own citizens. That
means, in order to win the debate,
PROP must prove why it
would be acceptable for the state to
now do this. In essence, this motion
expects a debate
about morals (is it right or wrong?)
rather than policy (a cost-benefit
analysis).
5
OPPs BoP would be to show that the
principle of the Death Penalty is wrong
and that

introducing something so morally

wrong would harm society. Argument
examples would
be things like:
The government would be engaging
in the same action as violent
criminals: killing.
This would set a bad example for
society.
Killing criminals allows no chance
for their rehabilitation
The government and society should
uphold the right to life even when
others (like
criminals) do not. Etc. Etc.
So essentially, in the prep preceding
each debate, each team should work
out the Burden of
Proof BEFORE spending time working
out arguments. That way the team
ends up with
relevant arguments each of which
will help them win the debate.
Remember, the Burden
of Proof is what must be proved or
established in order to defend or
attack the main issue
of the debate.
Here are a couple more examples:
THW LEGALISE UNLIMITED VIOLENCE
BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS
PROP BoP: Rational adults should have
freedom of choice to do what they like
with their
own bodies it is unfair of govt to limit
this right when it harms no one else.

OPP BoP: There are harms that govt

should always protect both the
individual and society
from. Unlimited violence is one of
these harms.
THW ENCOURAGE THE USE OF CHILD
LABOUR
PROP BoP: The status quo is harmful
to children. Allowing children to legally
work will
improve their lives. This will have a
positive knock-on effect in society.
OPP BoP: Allowing children to legally
work is more harmful to them than the
status quo.
These harms will have a knock-on
effect in society.
Matter Generation
You guys are clearly lacking here. This
will also be an incredibly important
aspect for S.A. selection. You want to
generate all sorts of matter. Good,
bad, weird. Everything! Then sort it
out later. So I dont want to hear in a
prep: Ok, so we have two points for
the first, now lets pull something out
the air for the second. No! That is
bad. If I hear it I will kick you very hard
in the ovaries. What I want to hear,
what will make me very happy and
love you all forever, is: Oh crap!
Weve got so much matter we need to
decide what we have to cut out. So
we talked a bit about it on Saturday
but here is the process: 1) Work out
what the debate is: Harm/Change
debate
or
Normative/evaluative
debate. Harm/Change debate: 1)

Prove a harm 2) Show that your

change will affect the harm. 3) Show
that that effect will be positive and
prevent/mitigate/fix the harm. 4) Show
that any spin-offs of the change wont
negatively impact on the original harm
OR have a greater negative affect on
any
other
situation.
Evaluative/Normative
debate:
1)
Identify the issues at play 2) Create a
value metric 3) Measure your sides
issues against that metric 4) Show
that the metric is fulfilled 2) Establish
the Burden of Proof. Write in big letters
across the top of your page. Never
forgetever! 3) Individual Prep Here
we said you follow four clear steps.
3.1. ) BOP generation: write down
anything (even if it isnt a clear point)
of what needs to be done to achieve
that BOP. Basically youre establishing
what is vital to prove your BOP. 3.2.)
Run through the standard arguments
list: Buy-in, Dignity, Morals/Ethics,
Government Mandate, Supply and
Demand, Rights Analysis, Perception
3.3.) Actor Analysis: Write a list of
everyone who remotely involved with
the topic in specific terms. So not just
people but rather parents, siblings,
child itself etc. Then next to each of
those actors write down how they are
affected by the topic/your plan/their
actions etc. Basically, possible points
concerning them. 3.4.) Opposition
Potential points: Here it isnt: lets try
and pre-empt the other team (that will
be another kick in the ovaries) rather

its a: what might the opposition say?

Is there any way we can twist it to be
a point for our side. (This is actually
possible in a number of situations)
*Note: The final step here is a hidden
step. Look at everything generated in
1, 3 and 4 and ask if they cant be
fitted into one of the arguments
considered in step 2. It makes it easier
to organise. THEREAFTER Then comes
the job of dividing the points up. This
is the part you seem to battle with. So
we know a few things. We know that
each speakers matter should be
separate and individual from the
others. We know that the same point
should, ideally, not be split over two
speeches. And we know that the first
speaker needs to get the most
important strategic issues out first. My
suggestion is to look at the type of
debate. If its a change/harm debate
then the first speaker has to deal with
the harm, the solution affecting the
harm in a positive way. The second
can deal with additional supporting
benefits and showing that it wont
result in another harm being created.
For an evaluative/normative debate
the first speaker needs to identify the
core issues, explain the metric and
then start measuring the most
important points/issues against the
metric. The second then takes the
supporting points and issues. Rule of
thumb for matter splitting: Is the juice
worth the squeeze. Ask yourself if the
point youre explaining is actually
going to further your case at that point

in time. If not then you either have to

drop it or move it to another speech. A
final thing to remember with your
analysis is the need for actual
examples. So we know that just giving
a bunch of examples isnt an
argument BUT we also have to realise
that making a bunch of theoretical
arguments (Rights represent the
morals of society. Theyre intrinsic to
all etc.) is no good unless you can slip
in an example to support it. It doesnt
have to be a long case study or
anything like that. It can be as simple
as a half a sentence or two. Rights are
intrinsic to all. We can see this
because most S.A.s are so invested in
the idea of the constitution and
everything it espouses. So throw in a
few examples to legitimise your case.
And the final final thing is that once
youve analysed your different options
in 1, 3 and 4 and are looking to slot
them into an argument in 2 then
sometimes those points in 1, 3 and 4
can be slotted into multiple standard
arguments. So an analysis of a specific
actor can be used in a perception
argument and a buy-in argument.
Consider, for example, a debate to do
with economics and investment. You
could analyse investors (as an actor)
in such a way that the analysis can
help you make a perception, buyin and
supply and demand argument. So
once youve started slotting the
different
points
into
standard
arguments always check if they apply

to more than one of those arguments.

And if there is any analysis that
doesnt fit into a standard argument
then just run it as a separate point.
Basic Arguments
Please note that these are not cases or
motions. These are guidelines about
how to approach some common areas.
They often come up as arguments
and, if handled well, help win the
debate. Please read through them.
Give yourselves some time to make
sense of them and to think about how
you would use them in different
debates.
Some
of
these
arguments/areas will be useful in
motions set for both Junior and Senior
trials and selectors are looking to see
how you utilise them. Rights Analysis
Rights are the fundamental rules
about what is allowed of people or
owed to people. It is believed that
individual rights must be exercised
without infringing on the rights of
others. Set out the right to be
discussed Establish the value of the
right: Why is it considered important?
(societal value, historical value etc.)
How important is it? (All rights are
value judgements; so how important is
this right considered? Does it trump
other rights? What limits do we place
on it?) The value of the right will
dictate what responsibilities come with
the
right.
Why
are
these
responsibilities important to ensure
continued belief/support of the right in
the society we live in? What does the

right allow that would be harmful to

society/the right/a group of people? If
the debate is about limiting a specific
right, show that the right needs to be
limited for a legitimate reason
(responsibility/harm caused/potential
harm) and that the value of the right is
such that the limitation is acceptable.
The greater the value of the right the
greater the harm/potential harm needs
to be. If the debate is about trading off
a right against another analyse each
right (as above) and then show that
the right you want to keep either has
greater value or less harms (or both)
than the other.
Buy-In Public/group commitment to,
and
involvement
in,
a
social/political/economic issue. Identify
the group/s that your policy/topic
needs the support of to work
successfully. Explain why the group (s)
has the power to determine the
success or failure of the policy/topic.
This establishes the necessity of
ensuring that they support the
policy/topic. Analyse the group in
relation to the proposed policy. Is the
topic/policy important to them and
their interests or to the people they
represent? If so, in what way? This will
shape their willingness to expend
effort on it and is then tempered by
limitations either they or others
impose on them i.e. their desire to do
so. Then move on; if the policy/topic is
about implementation determine if the
group has the necessary skills and

resources to implement. If its about

rights, do they believe in/support
rights in general and this right in
particular? Basically try and measure
and then show the groups skills,
abilities and beliefs in the topic/policy.
Weigh up the equation: desire and
impediments. Are they willing and able
to do what is necessary? Perception
How groups of people and countries
are perceived by other groups and
countries. The view others hold of you
can influence their policies and actions
toward you. Identify the group (s)
whose views/beliefs the policy or topic
is going to effect. Show what view was
before. Then explain why change
happens and what it changes into.
Show how perception is going to
change how people view whatever the
issue is. i.e. show how view/perception
of the issue will be established or will
change. Explain why this change is
good/bad Explain why we should care
that the change has happened (e.g.
value of reputation in this instance;
obligations being fulfilled etc) 11
Government Mandate A Government
Mandate
is
the
obligation
a
government has to use the power
granted to it by the electorate to deal
with certain issues. Govt mandate
assumes a legitimate government so
establish that the govt is legitimate
first. A legitimate govt has tacit
(implied)
obligations
in
different
arenas like health, education etc. If the
govt was elected on a specific ticket

(policy or issue e.g. safety, health,

education or economic reform) then
the obligations in that area become
explicit.
There
is
greater
need/importance to do them. Show
that the obligation being discussed is
legitimate and more necessary than
other suggestions or solutions. Show
that the policy or topic fulfils the
obligation (that it actually works to
deal with the issue) Just because there
is a govt mandate, it doesnt mean
that the govt is solely responsible.
Dependent on skills; resources, the
nature of the problem or issue etc, the
govt may need help from others like
business, civil society etc. Morality
Determining what is right or wrong.
One cannot assume something is good
or bad, right or wrong even if it is a
commonly held view. Morals are
determined when society makes value
judgements about what is right/wrong.
One has to show or prove good/bad,
right/wrong based on 2 areas: o
Peoples beliefs o How important those
beliefs are to a group/groups. People
either believe that there is a universal
set of morals that apply to everyone or
that there are different sets of morals
for
different
cultural
groups.
Depending on which view they hold,
(universal or culturally specific), it will
influence/shape the value they give to
certain morals. Universal morals are
often felt to be too restrictive and
limited whereas the diversity of
cultural morals is often felt to create
conflict (many other views are also

held regarding these issues). You must

show why the position for/against
universal/cultural morals should be
respected and/or supported.
Supply and Demand How the market
fulfils needs. The price of a good is
determined by the costs of making the
good (resources, skills) and producers
of the good adding a mark up for
profit. Price decreases when the
costs
of
production
(costs
of
materials/labour etc) drop, when
competition between producers of the
god forces them to decrease their
mark up or when the effects of
specialising in producing a good on a
large scale decreases price (either
through efficiency, innovation or
economies of scale). Prices may
decrease but they cannot decrease
below the cost of production. There
also has to be a financial incentive for
the producers of the good (unless they
dont care about profit/they are
motivated by reasons other than
profit). Demand is created and shaped
by the things people need, believe
they need or want and further shaped
by price. If there is sufficient demand,
people/producers will generally supply
it if they can benefit.
POIS
Firstly, you all need to offer more POIs.
You need to aim for 5-10 in EVERY
speech. Often you are almost nonexistent until after youve spoken.
Thats an ovary kick worthy statistic.

So ask more and if youre worried,

because youre working on your own
speech, then prewrite a few or get
someone else to tell you some that
you can get up and offer as well. There
are three aspects to POIs: Accepting,
Answering and Giving. Accepting
Please stop saying no thank you
sir/maam mid-speech. Id prefer it if
you just waved them down when
youre speaking. If youre at a natural
break in your speech (i.e. the end of a
conclusion etc.) then you can say no
thank you. Dont allow them to
interrupt your flow especially because
many of you struggle to reassert your
head of steam when interrupted like
that; and youre at your best when
youve got up a head of steam. If you
are going to accept a POI and are midsentence than just hold a finger up as
if to say wait, finish your point
clearly and then accept the POI. Often
when youve told someone that youll
be with them in a minute, you then
rush through the rest of your matter
as if youre feeling bad about keeping
them waiting. And the problem is that
many of you tend to swallow the last
sentence or two as youre already
turning; and those sentences are
usually
where
you
draw
the
conclusion. So: slow down. Finish your
point calmly and audibly and then turn
to take the POI. And highlight in your
case the areas where youre happiest
to take POIs; usually the areas you are
strategically or analytically strongest
and then try and take POIs at those

points. Answering If, in asking the POI,

the person isnt very clear, they battle
to verbalise it correctly (as is the case
with many development speakers) or
because theyve suddenly come over
all nervous because of your steely look
and come-hither smile (remember we
talked about this in the style guide)
then dont cut them off until youre at
least sure of what theyre trying to get
at or if theyve gone over the 15s
limit. Then rephrase what they
asked/challenged
on
for
the
adjudicators (i.e. so what youre
saying is) and then answer the POI.
And
make
sure
to
draw
the
conclusion/answer of the POI back to
what it means for your BOP/case. If
you want to respond to the POI later
(when it clashes directly with your
matter) do not just say that and then
highlight it at the appropriate spot of
substantive. You must do that AND
also give a very brief answer to it. i.e.
That clashes directly with my matter
sir and Ill highlight it when I deal with
it but in short the answer is no
because of a lack of competition.
Then highlight it when your matter
deals with it in greater detail.
Giving The attributes of a good POI is
that its 1) clear, 2) strategic and 3)
engaging. So, write the POI down
before you say it or even once youre
standing and waiting for the speaker
to finish and get to you. If you write it
down it will come out clearly, far
quicker and far more confidant. I dont

expect you to be able to do this every

time but if you can its worth a go.
Next, try and phrase the POI in
strategic terms. Make it not just about
pointing out a flaw in the argument
theyre making but rather how their
case doesnt stand if you make the
flaw. I.e. The eradication of poverty
issue only stands if you can prove that
child labour will be absorbed by the
market which it wont because the
jobs just dont exist at the current
minimum wage levels. See? Hit the
issue first and then the actual point.
Dont worry that theyll cut you down
before you can finish. That will only
count against them if you were going
to be under the 15s cut-off. But always
try and highlight the issue first and
then the matter hit. If your POI is
directed in response to a contentious
point thats been going back and forth
between the two teams and theyre
mangling it, not understanding it or
straw-manning then address the POI
to the chair i.e. Master Chair, the
opposition keeps straw-manning us
today by saying X and what they need
to do is deal with issue Y. Impose
clarity on the adjudicators and the
other team. Also, it often throws the
speaker off when you do that. Finally,
dont be afraid to bring up a POI about
something that theyre not talking
about at that moment. Just phrase it
cleverly and never say, Sorry sir, just
going back to what you said earlier.
That makes it feel like you shouldnt
be doing it. Rather go with something

like, Thats all very nice Sir, but what

you need to deal with is the issue
of Just make sure that the POI is
strategically important. If its a tiny
little cheap shot at their policy then
youve just wasted the opportunity. Go
for the big contentious issues of the
debate that they maybe glossed over,
avoided
specifically
or
ignored
completely.
Style
Its best to consider Style as being
made up of five distinct pillars. While
adjudicators wont be basing your
mark for style on an analysis of each
of the individual pillars they will be
viewing the package as a whole and
basing your mark on that. The
following is a breakdown of each pillar
and then suggestions for ways to
improve your ability to fulfil that pillar.
Thats not to say that these
suggestions are the be all and end all
of good style. Theyre simply there to
guide your thinking and to make
available a few options that you can
use when working on your style. The
most important thing to remember is
that you need to be comfortable to
have good style. So by all means try
the suggestions out and then decide
what works best for you. The benefit
to view each pillar as an individual
piece of a puzzle means that you can
isolate one pillar or two pillars to work
on per training. The five pillars are: 1)
Audibility:
Is
a
speaker
easily
understood? Does the speaker speak

too quickly or quietly (speaking too

loudly is just as bad)? Does the
speaker swallow their words? 2)
Engagement:
Does
the
speaker
successfully use their body language,
facial expressions and tone of voice
(properly conveying emotion, avoiding
monotone) in order to capture and
retain the audiences attention. 3)
Conviction: Does the speaker look like
they believe what they are saying? 4)
Authority: Could one believe that the
speaker is confident that they know
what they are talking about and have
mastered what they are saying? 5)
Connection: Is the speaker aware of
the audience and the need to win
them over. This means avoiding
alienating people with insults and
offensive language or coming across
as unlikeable in general. *Note: There
can be an overlap of actions amongst
the different pillars i.e. eye contact is
important for Engagement, Connection
and Authority. My stock standard
answer when people ask me what they
need to do to improve their style is to
just tell them to be themselves. Its
easy to tell when people are putting
on a persona and adjudicators do not
like it. Style basically comes down to
the question of how confidant you are
with yourself.
Audibility This is one of the key
aspects in order for a speech to be
received. Speak too softly and nobody
will hear. Speak too loudly and youll
be considered to abrasive. Too flabby

and people wont get everything you

were meant to say. Unless you are
specifically using a vocal trick to
convey something, you want to pitch
the volume of your speech at a
conversational level. So think about
how you normally talk. Yes, sometimes
we get louder or softer depending on
what point were trying to convey but
usually we talk at a specific and
comfortable volume. You want that
volume. My suggestion is that you (if
possible)
test
the
venue
out
beforehand. So if youre prepping in
the venue then have a little test.
Stand at the desk youll be using and
deliver a few lines to one of your team
members
standing
where
the
adjudicators will be sitting until youre
certain that youre used to the volume
that is needed. If you cant do this test
beforehand then get your nonspeaking team members to sit either
inline with the adjudicators OR near
the back of the room and then indicate
to you whether you need to turn the
volume up or down a bit. Volume
modulation is incredibly important to
making sure that the adjudicators can
actually hear the awesome speech
that youve prepared so make sure
you work on it. Flabby speaking is
when your sentences dont end crisply
and clearly. A number of you often trail
off some sentences near the end so
that the last five or six words become
inaudible. The most annoying thing is
that many of you do this when youre
wrapping up points/arguments. This

usually happens because as you

approach the end of your point you
lean down to look at your page and
round your shoulders. Now youre
talking to the desk and not to any
people. Dont do it or we are going to
have issues. Alternatively you do it
when you have asked a speaker to
hold his POI until youve finished as if
youre trying to hurry because youre
embarrassed to have kept them
waiting. Let them wait! Finish off your
point while looking at the adjudicators
and then turn to them. Make sure you
dont rush. That floor is yours during
your speech and you dont let anyone
boss you about on it. Finally, some of
you just need to slow down. You speak
too fast and it doesnt matter how
audible you are, nobody will take a
thing from you. Again, use prompters
from your team members to indicate
when you need to slow down or pick
up speed. And breathe. Take deep
breaths or sips of water after you
finish making the conclusions of major
points or while listening to POIs. It
really is easy as long as youre
disciplined about it.
Engagement Here were looking at
how successful you are at engaging
the audience and opposition i.e. how
do you interact with them during the
debate. For the most part its about
using
body
language,
facial
expressions, eye contact, tone and
pitch of voice and deliberate hand
actions to make it feel like youre

actively and purposefully interacting

with all the different groups in the
room. Hands The general idea here is
that you need to relax. Most people
tend to have an emotive hand, the
hand they point and gesture with. You
need to try and get to a situation in
which you use both hands relatively
evenly. So you want to actively point
at your team/your teams side when
referring to arguments youve either
made or which youre proving for your
side to win. You want to point at the
opposition (point is probably a bad
word, gesture is better) when youre
referring to points theyve made; point
at specific speakers when referring to
the points they made specifically. If
youre referring to yourself and points
you have made or are going to make
do the little double handed point at
yourself (or use one if youd like) or a
little adjustment of your tie; as long as
its
something
that
brings
the
audiences attention to you when
youre talking about yourself. Body
position is important too. When you
have the floor you want to full that
space as much as possible so that the
adjudicators have no choice but to
focus on you. You do this with your
presence and body position is just one
aspect of presence. Generally you
want to keep your chest exposed to
the audience and the adjudicators in
particular. The only time your chest
should be obscured is when youre
making deliberate hand actions, like
pointing at yourself, which would

obscure their view and then its only a

momentary action. To keep your chest
exposed and broad you want to make
sure
that
youre
keeping
your
shoulders straight and back. So no
slouching, leaning down or keeping
your arms crossed/folded in front of
you which just rounds your shoulders
inwards. My rule of thumb is to take a
couple of deep breaths (the kind that
lift your shoulders as you fill your
lungs and where your torso lengthens
because it feels almost like your
stomach is being sucked in) just
before
I
start,
at
every
conclusion/premise/pause (so where I
asked you to highlight for the Denny
Crane game) and during any breaks
like POIs. This will not only realign
your chest but also give you a bit
more oomph when you launch into
your next sentence. Arms I like to have
my speech structured in such a way
that I have points ranked by numbers,
so: There are three conclusions that
can be drawn from this or there are
two groups of people to consider.
Doing this allows me to create work
for my hands. So I can either highlight
the point with one finger/two fingers
as I go through them or do what you
were doing two weeks ago where you
counted the points off on one hand
(using the other hand to point to each
finger). If youre doing the latter make
sure that your hands arent too low or
too high. They should be around about
that area where that strip of abs is just
above your belly button. When youre

not counting down things your arms

should be at your side, one hand can
be in a pocket (whatever you feel
comfortable with) or both hands can
be visible.
Rule of thumb here, if theyre just
lazing about, is that you want your
elbows slightly bent (right angle at the
most) and your forearms should be
angled out as if they were shaping a
V with your body as the point. So
theyre open slightly to make it seem
like youre open to the audience. Think
of it this way: you want to show the
adjudicators/audience the inside of
your
forearms
and
wrist;
soft
vulnerable spots which make them
think that youre comfortable enough
with them to allow them to see those
points. Finally, when answering a POI
you want to make sure that you face
the askee but also the adjudicators.
You want to put your body at an
obtuse angle almost as if your body is
the pinnacle of a triangle joining the
adjudicators and opposition. Look at
the askee. Make eye contact with
them and hold it. In a conflict situation
people
dont
like
making
and
sustaining eye contact; its unnerving.
Best case scenario they fluff the POI,
worst case you look like youre
engaging with them. If, as the POI
goes along, and you dont agree with
it, shake your head. Its unnerving and
annoying for them. Then when you do
answer the POI make sure that you
share your attention with both the

adjudicators/audience and the askee.

Eye contact: Make sure you make eye
contact (and hold it for a bit) with
whichever adjudicator is looking up at
the time, especially when youre
drawing conclusions. But spread it
around amongst the adjudicators if
you can. Focus on one your entire
speech and theyre going to think
youre either weird or enamoured with
them. At other times during the
speech look at members of the
audience. Not at the wall above their
heads or at their feet; make eye
contact with them. Also make eye
contact with the opposition/specific
speakers when youre doing your
rebuttal/telling them what they failed
to do/what they need to do. Facial
expressions and ticks: Youll find that
youre more expressive when youre
making eye contact but the main idea
here is that you want to reinforce your
points with your face. So make little
nods when youre saying something
that is good/drawing conclusions. Little
shakes of the head when youre saying
something is wrong/rebutting etc.
Conviction and Authority These two
pillars share a lot in common and are
heavily reliant upon one another. If
people believe that you care about
what youre saying or that you believe
in what youre saying then theyre
more likely to believe that youre an
authority on it within the context of
the
debate.
These
pillars
are
concerned with whether or not people

listening to you believe that you

genuinely care/believe in what youre
saying. Often these are the hardest
pillars for debaters to fulfil because a
lot of the topics you do you either
wont care about or are patently
against and so it becomes hard to
fake. But it doesnt have to be.
Within these debates you will find
areas that do matter to you; that you
do have an opinion about whether its
free speech or security or poverty.
These become your marker areas.
Highlight them in your speech and
when you get to them show a little
passion or emotion. Speak from the
heart rather than the page. That
conviction/belief will be easy to see
and will then rub off on the other
points you say whether or not you do
actually believe in them. Alternatively
the adjudicators will not your passion
on those areas and theyll then often
subconsciously spread that passion
over the rest of your speech. Bottomline: you need to sell what youre
saying! Another way to sell what
youre saying is to drop in a few
examples or statistics. You dont need
to do an entire case study but a few
examples or statistics does wonders
for making people believe that you
actually know something about the
topic. Connection Even the best
speakers can be undone here. At the
end of the day the adjudicators will
always be hesitant handing a debate
to people they dont like. That doesnt
mean they have to like you but it does

mean that they cant hate you or be

irritated by you. You dont want to
offend people with poor jokes or
particularly rude language even if they
arent the butt of the joke/subject of
the language. You dont make fun of
people because they have a funny
accent or clearly dont understand a
concept. You dont be rude to people
(this is one of the reasons we tell you
not to cut a person off in a POI unless
they go over the 15s limit and then
when you do you always tell them
nicely that youre cutting them off
because theyre over time). You dont
scream and shout at people, swear at
them, flip them the bird or anything
like that. You dont roll your eyes or
make it seem like you think theyre an
idiot. You be polite. You can still be
passionate and polite so dont feel like
youre detrimenting yourself. The
disclaimer here is that there is a
difference between being rude and
having banter. Sometimes youll go up
against people you know fairly well
and the debate will turn into one of
those back and forth, give and take
affairs. There is a little less decorum,
jokes are made, people are teased.
Thats fine provided both teams are
into it. The adjudicators can plainly
see when both sides are friends and
are having a bit of fun.
But when one side is largely
unresponsive to the jokes then it
probably means that a line has been
crossed. And if that happens in a

debate, if you say something that is

construed as an insult then apologise
immediately. It will make you seem
less of a douche.
The Five Necessary
Consider In A Debate

Elements

To

ANALYSIS: Identifying and arguing the

major issues of the debate, with points
also considered for effectiveness of
cross-examination.
REASONING: Effectively creating clash
by arguing and presenting one side of
the debate, extending an argument,
turning the opponent's arguments
against them, exposing faulty logic
and extending an argument based on
a major item of evidence.

EVIDENCE:
Quality
of
sources,
applying the evidence to a specific
argument, using evidence to support
major arguments, showing how well
the evidence is understood.
ORGANIZATION: Structure of the
spoken presentation. For example, the
introduction, the arguments and
summary. How the tone followed the
flow of the debate. Was the
presentation
coherent
and
how
effectively was time utilized.
REFUTATION: Effectively weakening
the opponent's arguments, creating

clash and addressing all arguments in

the debate.
Delivery:
Vocal
clarity,
correct
pronunciation, poise, gestures, eye
contact, projection of personality,
sentence structure and grammar.
Elements of Debate - the Constructive
Speeches
Competitive
high-school
debate
demands a resolution which creates
opposing points of view and a neutral
judge. The judge is like a balance
scale. The weight of the debater's
arguments will tip the balance arm of
the scale to one side or the other and
the weight which tips the scale is the
force of the debater's persuasive skill.
At the end of the round it doesn't
matter what the truth may be with
respect to the resolution nor does it
matter what the opinions of the
audience or debaters may be. All that
matters is which side produced
enough of an influence to tilt the
balance of the judge's opinion. In fact,
the judge doesn't have to agree with a
side for it to win. The judge only needs
to think the one side tilted the balance
to their favor. Even if he thinks both
sides were horrible debaters, all the
matters is which side was the least
horrible. It is important to realize,
however, that even though the judge
is a "clean slate" or neutral in opinion,
the judge may still possess prior
knowledge of the issue or data which
support a given position.
When

opposing information is given which

violates or challenges the judge's prior
knowledge, the judge will resist and at
worst, reject the claim until sufficient
persuasive weight is applied. So while
a judge may initially be devoid of
opinion as to which side will prevail,
there is nevertheless, a tendency to
reject or accept arguments because of
the judge's prior experience and
knowledge. It is very important to
understand that reality.

The first chance debaters get to begin

the process of tilting the balance is
during the opening speeches, also
called the constructive speeches. The
constructives, as they are called, are
pre-written and are supposed to
supply the claims, grounds and
reasons for why a particular point of
view should be favored. Since the
constructives are written in advance
the persuasive power is supplied in
the force of the language and how it's
presented.
Debaters
who
study
persuasion learn of three mode of
persuasion; ethos, pathos and logos
and the format of persuasive speeches
provide the means to employ each
mode.
Ethos
encapsulates
the
credibility of both the speaker and his
case. Pathos conditions the mental
and emotional state of the listener.
Logos defines the systematic series of
arguments which drive the conclusion.

Ethos/Credibility
Debaters learn very early that claims
are usually backed by data and data
should be supplied by credible
sources. The credibility of the data
and
evidence
is
essential
to
establishing the proper ethos of
persuasion. One should also consider
the ethos of the debater as well. A
debater who knows what he or she is
talking about is more persuasive than
one who does not quite get the
nuances or details of a topic.
Therefore, its very important for
debaters to present themselves as
authorities
by
virtue
of
their
exhaustive study of the topic and
preparation of the case. Much of this
personal ethos will be projected in the
delivery and presentation of the
speech itself. Is it delivered with
confidence and enthusiasm? Are the
words
and
names
pronounced
properly? is the content of the speech
well known?
Personally, I see no
problem explicitly making remarks
which establish one's credibility, as
long as its done subtly. For example,
"...after an exhaustive search of the
evidence, we have come to the
conclusion..." This can invoke a
submissive response in the judge as
long as claims are not subsequently
made which violates the judge's prior
knowledge.

Pathos/State of the Listener

I have heard some say pathos is

passion and it is reflected in the
passionate way in which a speech is
delivered. Others say that it is an
appeal to the emotion of the judge.
Debaters must be cautious about
making appeals to emotion. They are
expected to win on evidence, logic and
sound reasoning. One would hardly
think that because we feel sorry for a
group all courses of action to alleviate
the suffering of the group are justified.
Pathos deals with the mental and
emotional state of the listener and
yes, I think it can involve direct
appeals to emotion on a certain level.
The most overt way to utilize pathos is
through the use of impact claims. It is
very common, in fact, often necessary
to carry the claims in the speech to
some sort of impact statement. An
impact statement tells the judge why
a claim is important. It takes the form
of "if such and such is done it leads to
something bad" (a harm or negative
impact) or "if such and such happens
it results in something good" (an
advantage or positive impact). These
impacts are claimed consequences
which evoke an emotional response in
the experience of the judge. Positive
impact statements can be very
advantageous
for
the
debater
depending on how they are presented.
For example, if the claim is made that
a course of action can result in millions
of people being saved from starvation,
there is an implicit notion that millions
of people must be on the verge of

starvation in the status quo and so an

emotional reaction, however subtle,
may be triggered in the judge without
the debater focusing on a direct
emotional appeal of mass starvation.
There are other, less common ways to
utilize pathos including the use of
metaphors or figurative language but
care must be exercised in their
application.

Logos/arguments leading to conclusion

Probably for most debaters, the logos
mode
of
persuasion
is
most
understood since basically it describes
the well-reasoned arguments which
eventually lead one to the desired
conclusion.
Logos
defines
the
collection
of
claims
and
their
associated evidence presented in a
cogent and logical way. The goal is to
build the case in such a way that upon
hearing the evidence or reasoning
leads one to no other possible
conclusion than the one desired. This
mode will be developed more fully in
future postings.
Regional Style
Acceptable
argumentation
and
presentation style is dependent upon
regional norms and influences.
In
some areas, debate is very much
evidence-based, in other areas, more
pragmatic orations are preferred and
have greater influence on the local
judges. The National Forensics League
establishes procedural rules governing

how
debate
rounds
should
be
conducted but do not regulate
elements of style. Additionally, local
governing
bodies
may
mandate
particular rules which may establish
stylistic elements.
The Ohio High
School Speech League, for example,
has a constitution which defines how
tournaments are conducted and
provides instruction for debaters and
judges but regional styles still exist.
The role of evidence in debates often
varies regionally. While I firmly believe
that any debate which makes claims
based on data which is not common
knowledge, should be grounded on
verifiable evidence, there are many
stylistic considerations as to how that
evidence is warranted and revealed in
a speech. These conventions also vary
region to region according to the
debate category. For example; in some
districts, public forum cases may
include many direct quotations from
sources, in effect letting the evidence
do the persuading, while in other
districts, evidence may be simply
paraphrased and not directly quoted
at all. In either case, the evidence
exists and can be produced in the
round if needed but styles used to
present the evidence are entirely
different according to the expectation
of the regional judges. In Ohio, there
are several regional styles, especially
with regard to the presentation of
debate
evidence,
that
requires
debaters who travel to other regions
to adapt their cases to the preferences

of the host region. Since the goal of

any case is to persuade a judge, it
only makes sense to be sensitive to
the regional style in which the
competition is hosted. Policy debate
avoids
many
of
the
regional
differences in how evidence is
presented since policy debate has
evolved into a very evidence-driven
form of debate. Nevertheless, regional
styles may play a very big role in how
the cases are presented, with some
districts expecting a much slower
oration in place of the more common
speed reading techniques employed in
other regions.

Word Economy
While the text of these essays may not
be as concise as possible, I am not
under time constraints.
Debate
speeches do have time constraints
and so efficiency in the use of words is
essential in order to convey as much
information as possible in the allowed
time. Whereas, policy debate in many
regions relies on a very fast speaking
style to deliver a huge volume of
information, not every category of
debate benefits by speed reading. In
fact in some regions it weighs
negatively against the debater. First
and foremost I should mention that in
most cases, a few quality arguments
are more effective than many poor
arguments. So the reason for writing
efficient and concise speeches is not
so more arguments can be made in

the allowed time.

Word economy
provides time to insert more stylistic
elements into a speech and to enrich
the arguments to be made with
additional data and/or warrants which
provide the grounds for the claims. I
advocate spreading in all forms of
debate. Not the spreading (SPeed
READING) prevalent in policy debate
rather spreading the foundations of
claims in order to establish solid
grounds backed by more than a single
source of evidence. When one can
make a claim and support it with
several
independent
pieces
of
evidence, the claim has more weight
in the minds of most judges. Concise
wording affords the time to build the
case foundation.

Presentation Style
Reading a case is one thing,
presenting a case is something else
entirely.
The
presentation
style
conveys information to the judge and
the opponents and so debaters need
be very aware of what messages are
being communicated in non-verbal
ways. Posture, demeanor, eye contact
and intonation are noticed and evoke
subtle reactions in the observers. This
kind of nonverbal communication has
a direct impact upon the speaker's
perceived ethos and upon the pathos
of the audience or judge. A skilled
orator can evoke emotional reactions
simply by his intonation, delivery
speed or facial expressions without

making any direct, verbal appeal to

emotions. Another key element of
presentation
style,
involves
the
structure and flow of the case itself.
It's very important to present a case
which flows easily from point to point
without
requiring
any
mental
gymnastics from the judge. In other
words the judge should expend
minimal mental energy trying to follow
the logical progression of the case. A
case which flows linearly or circularly
is preferable to a case which jumps
back and forth between points or
revisits points made previously.

Elocution
Poor elocution can destroy even the
best cases.
It should go without
saying that unless a case is presented
in
clear
and
distinct
language
projected with correct volume, the
speech may ultimately be a complete
waste of breath. The object of the
persuasive speech is to communicate
ideas, but no communication takes
place if the judge can not understand
your words due to poor elocution or if
the judge can not hear you. Policy
debate is one area where proper
enunciation and elocution is essential,
especially when reading a case at 300
words a minute. If the judge has to
spend a single second trying to
interpret your words that is a moment
in time when you have lost the judge.
In districts where speed reading is the
norm, elocution becomes all the more

important
communication.

for

effective

Presentation Style as a Voting Issue

In principle, the judge will probably not
base a decision about who wins or
loses based on stylistic issues unless
the judge simply has difficulty hearing
or understanding due to the style in
which the speech was given. In most
districts, I think judges are reluctant to
vote
on
stylistic
concerns.
Nevertheless, they will definitely
comment on the ballots when a
debater's style, or volume, or methods
violated the judge's norms.
For
example a judge comment on a ballot
may read: "NVI - try to speak louder - I
had trouble hearing you over the air
conditioner". The judge is careful to
mark the criticism, NVI, non-voting
issue, but the mere fact he has taken
the time to comment indicates there
was problem. And while that judge
may say it did not weigh on the
decision, it creates a reaction within
the judge that may evoke a
subconscious or extremely subtle bias
against you. Who's to say whether or
not that reaction meant the difference
between winning or losing a round.
Rarely are the cases so evenly
matched that they come down to a
very subtle stylistic difference, but if
such problems can be avoided in the
first place one need never wonder if it
truly was a NVI.

Elements of Debate
Speeches (part 1)

Rebuttal

During a rebuttal speech, the debater

presents counter-arguments which
refute the claims of the opponent.
These arguments have two aims. First,
to directly attack the basis or claims of
the opponent's case as presented in
the constructive speeches and second,
to answer any attacks the opponent
has made against your case. Part one
of this topic will focus on attacking the
opponent's case and part two on
answering attacks against your own
case.

Attacking the Opponent's Case

The opponent's case is built upon a
series of claims which should be
backed by some kind of evidence. The
claims will lead to the conclusion the
opponent wants the judge to take.
The claims will usually be built upon
premises which serve as the logical
basis for the claim. Some claims may
be impacts (advantages, benefits,
disadvantages, harms, etc) which are
the consequence of some action or
condition. Attacking a case means,
refuting the premises and claims,
grounds or links. Effective attacks are
comprised of pointing out failures of
the logic leading to the conclusions,
presenting evidence which directly
refutes evidence in the opponent's
case, turning the arguments by
showing either the causation does not

lead to the claimed impact or the

claimed impacts actually lead to other
impacts with are detrimental to the
opponent's case.

Attacks in the Constructive

I include here, the idea that the
negative (or second speech) can
attack the opponent's case directly
and more or less spontaneously as
part of the negative constructive
speeches. This is done by reading
disadvantages. Since new arguments
are not allowed after the constructive
speeches, these kinds of attacks
(especially in Policy debate) are made
immediately
as
part
of
the
constructive. (For more on this topic,
see Attacking With Disadvantages,
below). Another form of attack
embedded in the constructive is to
include preemptive arguments against
attacks that are likely to be brought up
later by the opponent. These kinds of
speeches blur the nice neat lines
between what is a constructive and
what is a rebuttal, but because they
can be effective rebuttal strategies, I
include them in the topic.

Attacking the Premises

Many times a claim is built upon
premises which are presumed true
either because we all agree they are
true or because the evidence proves
they are true. Once the truth of the
premises
are
established
the

argument can be structured into a

logical conclusion.
For example:
Premise 1 - All illegal immigrants
should be deported. Premise 2 - Xavier
is an illegal immigrant. Conclusion Xavier should be deported. If one
assumes premise 1 and premise 2 are
universally true, there is no other
conclusion for Xavier. Obviously, if you
can refute the truth of the premises by
either showing that NOT all illegal
immigrants should be deported or
Xavier is NOT an illegal immigrant, the
opponent's claim that Xavier should
be deported is inconclusive or not
true. Often a universal premise is
preceded by a statement like ALL,
EVERY, EACH, etc. These should be red
flags for the debater to attack the
universality of the premise.
For
example, if you can show that most
illegal immigrants should be deported
but not ALL, one can no longer
conclude, based on the premises
supplied, that Xavier should be
deported.
Sometimes the logical
conclusions drawn by the opponent
are simply incorrect or inconsistent.
For example: Premise 1 - the U.S. has
always provided aid to poor nations.
Premise 2 - Somalia is a poor nation.
Conclusion - the U.S. should provide
aid to Somalia. The first premise is
assumed to be universal but it may
possible to refute this if you can show
examples of poor countries not being
aided by the U.S. But there is another
glaring problem with the first premise.
It
is
an
appeal
to
tradition

(argumentum
ad
antiquitatem)
because it assumes since something
was true in the past, it is also true
now. This is a logical fallacy which is
easily refuted.

Attacking the Grounds

The grounds for a claim are the proofs
the claim is true. In debate this usually
means the evidence and the warrants
which link the evidence to the claims.
There are three principle ways to
attack the grounds:
Refute the evidence with more recent
evidence which draws a different
conclusion.
Show the opponent's evidence does
not link or apply to the conclusion.
Refute the validity of the evidence by
showing it is flawed in its methods
(usually
applicable
to
statistical
evidence), or the source is biased or
otherwise not credible.
It's quite common that certain
evidence may be superceded by more
recent evidence and most judges will
usually conclude the more recent
evidence is more valid. So if you have
a more recent study or statistic which
refutes a similar piece of evidence
given by the opponent, then use it.
Sometimes the opponent's evidence
or warrants may not be applicable to
the claim or premise trying to be
proved. The opponent may simply be
misinterpreting the evidence and so

you should reveal these kinds of flaws

to the judge. Finally, the source of the
evidence should be considered even
though in some types of debate, such
as policy, the sources are rarely
questioned. Sources can be biased or
worse yet just plain wrong in how they
have reached their conclusions and so
these flaws can also be attacked.

Attacking With Disadvantages

A good strategy of attack for a debater
is to show how adoption of the
opponent's position results in harms or
undesirable consequences . In policy
debate, these kinds of attacks are
called disadvantages or D.A.s. An
effective DA must be predicated on
some aspect of the opponent's case.
In other words, something the
opponent's case advocates will result
in the DA. There must be a link from
the opponent's case to the DA you
wish
to
promote.
Next,
the
disadvantage must be result solely as
a consequence of the action or
condition advocated in the opponent's
case.
In
other
words,
if
the
disadvantage
will
occur
without
adopting the opponent's position then
there is no reason not to support the
opponent's position. And finally, and
this is most obvious, there must be an
impact or consequence which is the
thing that makes it a disadvantage in
the first place. A properly constructed
disadvantage,
will
answer
the
question, "why is it the harm will not

happen in the status quo but only if

the opponent's position is adopted?"
and it will answer the question in the
impact, "how bad will it be?".
Things to Avoid When Attacking
Be sure to always attack the
opponent's case and never the
opponent's
character,
motives,
intentions, or such. Always focus on
attacking the elements of the case no
matter how intense the round may
become.

Try to attack the claims on the

opponent's case in the same sequence
in which they were presented. This is
commonly referred to as line-by-line
refutation. It makes it easier for you
(and your partner) to enure you have
attacked each point and it helps the
judge to follow the flow of the attack
and anything you can do to help the
judge follow your claims works to your
advantage.

Do not try to refute everything.

Selectively drop some points if
necessary. It is not always to your
advantage to attack every claim on
the opponents constructive. It is best
to
attack
the
most
significant
arguments letting the less important
points flow through to later speeches.
The opponent may claim you dropped
these arguments but it may not
matter if your own claims have more

of an impact on the judge's decision

than the few relatively minor things
you may have dropped. Knowing what
to drop and when to drop it depends
on the dynamics of the round and but
you should consider it a viable
strategy to allow time to heavily refute
the opponent's strongest arguments
while defending your own.
Elements of Debate
Speeches (part 2)

Rebuttal

Answering Attacks on Your Case

During your rebuttal speeches you will
typically be forced to answer attacks
made against your own case. These
attacks will be the same kinds
discussed in part 1 of this discussion
of rebuttal speeches; attacks against
your premises and claims, grounds,
and impacts. When attacked, you will
be expected to answer in your next
speech. If you fail to answer the
attacks it will be perceived you have
conceded the points and the judge
and your opponents may look
unfavorably on your case if you try to
answer the attacks in a later speech.
In some cases, you may choose to
concede certain points especially if
you think you are winning other points
which outweigh any arguments of the
opponent.

Extending Your Arguments

Generally, you should be prepared to
reaffirm all of your points made in the

constructive speech and you should

continue to do so, during every speech
you make except, perhaps, the
summary speech.
By reaffirming,
speech after speech you extend your
arguments from the constructive, all
the way to the end of the debate.
Anywhere along the line, if you fail to
reaffirm one of your arguments it will
be viewed as conceded by the
opponents and most likely the judge.
It is considered bad form in debate to
drop a point and then try to pick it up
again later in the round.

As a general rule, when you initially

make
your
argument
in
the
constructive speech, the opponent will
attack it in the first rebuttal and then
you will be forced to answer the
attack. If the opponent fails to attack
the argument, most debaters remind
the judge, the opponent dropped the
point and so extend the argument by
reaffirming the same argument and
warrants as originally stated. Often, a
debater will simply ask the judge to
"extend the argument" and move on
to the next point without further
clarification.
Asking the judge to
"extend the argument" or saying "I
extend such and such argument" is an
instruction to the judge to simply draw
an arrow on his flow sheet from the
argument through the next column on
the sheet, thereby, "extending" the
same point. To be sure, debaters who
claim to extend in this manner save

time allowing more time to answer

other points and many judges have no
problem with it. Nevertheless, some
judges do not like rote argument
extension and in a category like Public
Forum debate, citizen judges may not
always know what is meant by the
imperative, "extend the argument". If
possible, and time allows, it is best to
extend the arguments explicitly by
reaffirming the point in a summary
way. This means you do not have to
reread the entire argument complete
with evidence and warrants. It means
briefly remind the judge why the
argument is still valid and quickly
move on.

Answering Attacks
When the opponent has challenged
some argument of your case, there are
many ways to answer, depending on
the how the opponent chose to attack.
As noted in part 1, the opponent will
challenge the premises and logic or
your claims, he will challenge the
validity of your grounds, or he will
challenge the impacts, claiming they
are not meaningful or his impacts are
are more important.
Many of the
attacks levied against your case
should not come as a surprise. By the
time you are in rounds facing
opponents, you should have already
researched and written affirmative and
negative cases for the resolution.
Experienced debaters anticipate the
kinds of challenges they are likely to

face and are prepared to provide

answers
to
those
challenges.
Additionally, as you face opponents,
through the weeks you will quickly
understand where the vulnerabilities
of your case exist and either revise the
constructive to strengthen the case or
research effective answers to likely
challenges.

Counter-claims: Avoid the Rabbit-Hole

Many
times
the
the
opponent
challenges your arguments with
counter-claims. Since a counter-claim
is simply a claim. It can be counterattacked in the same way one attacks
any claim: challenge the premises,
logic and grounds. But it is not a good
strategy to make, yet another counterclaim as this tends to misdirect the
debate away from the initial claims
and soon you are running down the
"rabbit-hole" of irrelevant arguments.
For example: You claim with full
warrants that the U.S. should rely
more on coal as an alternative energy.
The opponent's rebuttal counters with
burning fossil-fuels is bad because it
increases global warming. You answer,
global warming is mitigated by
planting more trees. Soon the debate
spins off down a rabbit hole, debating
global warming instead of the original
point of alternative energy. Anytime
you answer attacks, try to stay
focused on the original claim and bring
it back into the debate. Instead of
answering,
global
warming
is

mitigated by planting trees; direct

attention to your claim by showing,
with evidence, how coal burning
technology is far more carbon friendly
than in the past and so the use of coal
as alternative energy is increasingly
desirable. In this answer, coal as an
alternative energy remains in focus
and avoids the global warming rabbithole.

Answering by Reaffirmation
In debate, the constructive speeches
are the only time your side is allowed
to
introduce
arguments.
During
rebuttals and summary speeches it is
considered abusive to bring up new
arguments.
Therefore,
your
constructive must present every
argument you will uphold in support of
the case.
It is important to
understand there is no prohibition to
introducing new evidence in support of
the arguments you have already
presented. In fact, it is a very good
strategy to be prepared to answer
challenges
to
your
claims
by
presenting additional evidence and
warrants
which
reaffirm
your
arguments. Debaters should always
have multiple sources of evidence in
support of their arguments and bring
those other sources into the debate in
later speeches as a way of continually
reaffirming by adding more and more
evidence in support of the original
claim. This strategy is effective
because, while there is a very good

chance, an opponent can provide a

reasonable attack on an argument in
your case, it will be increasingly
difficult for the opponent to continue
to pile on additional attacks if you are
able to continuously reaffirm your
position with new warrants. NOTE: If
your argument has been challenged
by the opponent it is nearly always
worthless to answer by repeating your
original warrants.

Answering Disadvantages
Quite commonly, in policy debate, link
turns and impact turns are used to
refute the claims of the opponent,
especially the DA.
These kinds of
attacks are not as common in Public
Forum or Lincoln-Douglas debate even
though the idea of turns is still
applicable. Impacts are the claimed
results of a certain course or action or
state of being and they are important
to a case because they provide an
answer to the question, "why is this
important?" An impact is a claim which
must be proven so it is possible to
attack it in the same way as any other
claim; by attacking the premises, logic
or grounds.
Claims identified as
impacts are usually consequences
arising from some cause. Some cause
leads to some effect; some cause
leads to some impact. Therefore, it is
possible to disturb the cause-effect
nature of the impact by proving the
cause does not uniquely lead to the
effect.
For example: Let's say the

affirmative makes a case that the U.S.

needs to increase the size of its
military.
The negative can argue
against this by claiming the increase
will have a negative impact since it
will increase the federal deficit. The
negative's cause-effect is, increased
military has the effect of increased
deficit. Affirmative can turn the link
between the cause and effect by
challenging
the
uniqueness
of
negative's cause-effect relationship.
For example, affirmative can show that
if nothing is done, the deficit will still
increase. The affirmative may also
show that increasing the size of the
military does not lead to a bigger
deficit but reduces it because the
increase in defense spending puts
more people to work thus increasing
tax revenues. Both of these arguments
serve as link turns because they break
the uniqueness of the cause-effect
relationship.
The
cause-effect
relationship can also be undone, if
affirmative can show that the cause
does not always result in the DA. A
good way to do this is show an
example in history where the action
did not result in the claimed
disadvantage.
Another way to
overcome the negative's claimed
disadvantage is to turn the impact.
Basically this means, that if the impact
occurs it is actually a good thing
rather than a disadvantage. For
example, affirmative could claim the
increase in deficit is a good thing
because such a deficit is justifiable

and even desirable to offset a threat

from terrorists or other enemies. In
this
case,
the
positive
benefit
outweighs the negative disadvantage.

Answering Turns
As discussed in part one of this topic,
a valid negative strategy is to attack
the affirmative case by showing how
adoption of the affirmative position
results in harmful impacts. Affirmative
will attempt to turn these arguments
by showing how the claimed harms
are actually desirable and they will
attempt to control uniqueness by
explaining how the disadvantages will
still occur in the status-quo or
affirmative
can
prove
the
disadvantage does not always occur
when the affirmative position is
adopted. The best way to defend link
turns is to structure them in such a
way that affirmative can not turn the
link without damaging their case,
having a firmly unique causation
claim, and relying on the strength of
the argument to persuade the judge.
Ultimately this means citing impacts
which
outweigh
the
advantages
claimed by the affirmative. While the
affirmative may be able to destroy the
link which establishes a formal
causation, it is still possible to defend
the disadvantage. If the opponent
claims the DA will happen in the
status-quo, try to argue if the impact

happens in the status-quo, it will

reduce desire, need or resolve to
enact or adopt the opponent's
proposal. If the opponent shows that
action does not always result in the
disadvantage,
argue
that
the
probability is high and the magnitude
of the impact is too high to risk
adopting the opponent's proposal.
Again, if the opponent tries to turn the
impact, again look to the impact
calculus and stress how bad the risks
are of things turning out badly.
Asian Parliamentary Format
Debates are basically structured
discussions. Each debate has a format
and these rules are there to ensure
fairness. I will talk about the Asian
format and explain teams & order of
speakers, timing, Points of Information
and Replie Speeches.
In the Asian Parliamentary format
there are 2 teams of 3 speakers each.
The team that supports the topic is
called the Government and the team
that opposes the topic is called the
Opposition. Each speaker speaks for 7
minutes, in alternating order. First
speaker from Governement, then first
speaker from Opposition, then second
speaker
from
Government,
then
second speaker from Opposition and
so on. At the end of these 6 speeches,
each team can make a shorter Reply
speech, for minutes. Either the first or
second speaker of each team will have
the chance to make this speech. This

time the Opposition will start, followed

by the Government.
The final element if this format is
called Points of Information. These are
short
interjections
(questions,
comments, statements etc) - usually
less than 15 seconds long that the
opposite team can offer the speaker
who is speaking. So for example,
during the first speaker on the
Government's speech, any speaker on
the Opposition can rise up and offer a
question,
by
saying
"Point
of
Information!".
The
Government
speaker can then choose to accept or
not accept the point (although he
should accept at least 1 during his
speech). This adds some interactivity
to the debate.
Clarification on Points of Information
The team that is not speaking can
offer as many POIs as they want. To
offer a POI, they should stand up, raise
an arm and if they want, say
something
short
like
"point
of
information".
They
cannot
start
presenting their POI until the person
speaking gives them permission to
speak. They should not be rude and
try to distract or interrupt the speaker.
The POI must be short and if the
speakers asks them to sit down and
end their question, they must.
The person who is speaking can
choose when and from whom to
accept a question. If you are offered a

question and you don't want to accept

it, just say "no thank you", "not at this
time", "sit down please" and so on.
You must take 1 POI and should try to
take two.
A POI can be a question, a comment,
an argument, a rebuttal, an example anything that you can say in 15
seconds that will help your team win
the debate.
POIs can only be offered between the
1st and 6th minute of the first 6
speeches of the debate (not in the
reply speech)

every debate format there will be

some direction about the topics, about
the timing, about the speaking order
and maybe a little bit of stuff about
the judging criteria - ow do you decide
which team wins and which team
loses.

Asian Parliamentary Format

I'm going to talk about the teams and

order of speakers, timing, topic
selection, Points of Information, which
are the essential parts of this format.
Firstly lets look at the teams and the
speaking
order.
In
the
Asian
Parliamentary debate format you have
two teams. One team is called the
Government Team and the other team
is called the Opposition Team.
Sometimes this is referred to the
Affirmative and the Negative. The
names don't really matter that much,
but this is just so we understand the
terminology.

Hello there! Today we are going to talk

about the format of a debate. A
debate is basically a structured
discussion, so you have some debate
formats that are more open, like a
presidential debate or a town hall
debate where groups of people debate
against each other, or you have
debate formats that a far more
structured, that carefully tell you how
much time each person has to speak
and so on and so forth.
Every format has some kind of rules
because those rules serve to preserve
order and create some kind of
balance. Those rules do not determine
who wins or loses the debate.
Debating isn't about the rules, the
rules are there to create balance to tell
people how much time they have to
speak and so on and so forth. So in

Today we are going to focus on the

Asian parliamentary format. This is a
format that is widely used in Asia
among university and highschool
students and I think a good format
with which to learn how to debate.

The Government team must support

the topic and the Opposition team
must oppose the topic. You usually
won't have a choice over whether you
are the Goverment or Opposition on a
topic. Each team will have 3 speakers.
Three in Gov and three in Opp. They
will speak in alternating order. So first

you will have one speaker from the

gov and then the opp and then the
gov and then the gov and then the
opp.
Each speaker will speak for 7 minutes.
So an entire debate will take (7 + 7..)
= 42 minutes. But hold on, at the end
of those 42 minutes, each team gets
to make an extra speech - how
exciting is that! It's a kinda of
summation speech, where you are
comparing the teams and you are
trying to persuade the judge why my
team wins over the other team. So it's
not really a speech where you are
making new arguments, but we'll get
into those details later. Hold on, hold
on, some patience. So at the end of
those 6 speeches, the Gov and the
Opp teams get to make a reply
speech. This speech is shorter.
Remember the earlier speeches were
7 minutes long. This speech will only
be 4 minutes long. And remember
earlier the Gov team started the
debate by making the first speech,
this time the opposition team will start
by making the first reply speech. So in
essence, the Gov team always starts
the debate and they always end the
debate by having reply speech.
So that's the two teams, the speaking
order and the timing.
Now we come to the topic selection.
Every debate needs a topic! In the
Asian Parliamentary format what

happens is you usually will be given 3

topics to choose from. So you and the
other team can compare and choose
the topic which you both like to debate
the best. How this is done is teams will
rank the topics. So the gov ranks the
topics 1, 2, 3 and opp ranks 1, 2, 3
and the compare the rankings. The
topics which you rank 3rd, will not be
debated. They will cancel each other
off. So if the gov ranked the 1st topic
3rd, the oppostion ranked the 2nd
topic 3rd, then the 1st and 2nd topics
are cancelld and you will debate the
3rd topic.
in the situation where teams rank the
same topic third but reverse the other
two rankings, then you will have to flip
a coin to decide who gets their first
choice. If both teams ranked the same
topic first then you debate that topic.
The only other thing about the Asian
Parliamentary format, the last part I'm
going to talk about is called Points of
Information.
When
speakers
are
speaking, between the first and the
6th minute of every speech, speakers
from the other side have the
opportunity to rise up and offer a
question. So you can say, Point of
Information, "can I ask a question" "
on that point" or something to that
effect. If I am speaking, I can choose
whether or not to accept this
interruption. So I can say "yes", "go
ahead". You can ask a question, make
a statement or a comment or say

anything you want but it has to be

short - it's about 15 second long and
about 2 sentences.
So you can get up, ask your question,
say your comment, and then I have to
respond to it. I don't have to accept
every question. But if I accept a
question, I have to respond to the
question. This adds a huge element of
interactivity to the debate. Every
speaker, gov and opp speaker, have
the chance to be questioned by the
other team, during their speech. You
can ask questions and POIs to the
other team and not to your own team.
You should take at least one,
preferably two POIs. There are no POIs
in the reply speech. Only POIs in the
first 6 speeches of the debate.
Those are the essential parts of the
Asian Parliamentary Debate Format.
You have the Speaker Order, the
Teams Speaking Order, Timing, Topic
Selection and Point of Information.
Teams wins a debate not by being
better at the format but making a
strong position on the topic, by giving
strong arguments to support their
position, by rebutting the arguments
of the other team and by comparing
each other's arguments and positions.
The format is just a structure that
ensures it happens in a fair and
balanced way.
Prime Minister

Brief Notes on this Lecture

The Prime Minister is the first person
to speak in the Asian Parlimentary
format. This is a very important
speech as it defines the entire debate.
This speech should lay down the
groundwork for the entire debate and
deliver the most important ideas.
There are 3 important parts to this
speech

What are you defending? What will

you prove and not prove? Do you have
a specific policy? Your position is your
overall beliefs. Your case is a collection
of your arguments, policy and theme.
What will you talk about and what will
your second speaker talk about?
C) Make 1 or 2 Arguments
The first speaker must present the
most important arguments. Do not
save the best for last.

A) Define and Set-Up the debate

What do you define? How words will
be understood in this debate. You
don't have to define every word, but
words that might be misunderstood or
words that have multiple meanings.
Pretend you are the opposition and
ask yourself what might confuse you.
Don't provide dictionary definitions,
but tell everyone how the word will be
understood in the debate. Tell them
what you mean, what you Don't mean,
give them a similar meaning and give
them an example.
set-up how, where this debate will
happen. What is the context? This is
important because this is how the
arguments will be evaluated. You need
to explain why this debate is
important, give some limites to the
debate and answer any questions the
other team or audience or judge might
have.
B) Present Team Position and Case

Role of the Prime Minister

Now we are going to talk about the
roles and responsibilities of each
speaker in the team. Debating and
especially in the Asian Parliamentary
format is a team sport. Teams
compete against other teams. And just
like in any other team persuasion
activity like a team presentation, each
speaker has a specific role and
responsibility. It's important to realize
at the start that these are guidelines,
these are not rules. It doesn't mean
that if you don't do one of these things
you will automatically lose the debate.
However these guidelines are created
in order to give you the most amount
of efficiency when persuading. They
will help you function as a team more
effectively,
and
persuade
more
efficiently.
So the speakers in the teams all have
a specific kind of name or notation, in
order to I guess, role play a little bit
and make it more interesting. So in the

Government team, the first speaker is

called the Prime Minister (PM). And his
or her second speaker is the Deputy
Prime Minister (DPM) and then the
Government Whip (GW). In the
Opposition the first speaker is the
Leader of Opposition, followed by the
Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO)
and the Opposition whip. I'm sure you
see a pattern forming here.
We're going to talk about these roles
in the order in which they will speak in
the debate. The first speaker of the
government first, the PM, and then the
LO and then the DPM, DLO and so on.
Let's look at the PM.
Now, as the first speaker of the
debate, you have three essential
things that you must do. Firstly you
must define and set-up the debate,
secondly you need to present your
team's position and the team's case
and thirdly you must make 1 or 2
arguments. Let's look at those things
in turn.
Defining and Setting Up the debate.
Both teams have a topic, the first
speaker's job is to tell them how we
are going to - or tell everyone rather how we are going to define the topic.
How we are going to use this topic in
this debate. Now you should take the
most literal and straight forward
definition, but sometimes there can be
words
that
need
additional
clarification, to help people know how

they are going to be understood, in

this debate. This does not mean you
have to give the dictionary definition
of every word. But you need to tell
people how your team is going to
understand and apply some of the
words.
For example, if the topic is "that we
would ban smoking in the university
campus", teams perhaps don't need to
explain what smoking is, if everyone
knows what smoking is. Smoking
cigarettes, whatever's legally defined
as smoking. But they might need to
say what they exactly mean by ban
and how they are going regulate. They
might need to say also where is the
boundary of the university campus.
Are they talking about buildings,
surrounding area of the buildings or
over the fence. Not clarifying these
issues at the start could lead to
confusion. So you have to define the
debate in a way that does not lead to
confusion. You cannot define the
debate in a overly narrow or small
way, in order to give yourself too
much of an advantage, because there
still needs to be a debate.
You also need to set-up the debate.
Now setting-up the debate means,
well just like setting up a stage, you
are going to tell people what are the
things they need to know in order for
this debate to happen. That means
giving them a context, why is this
debate important? What is the

background to this issue? Tell people

how this debate is to be evaluated? So
in this same example, I might say that
there is a big problem, there is a rise
of younger problem smoking, it's been
very difficult to clamp down, a
problem with littering and second
smoking and so on so forth and what
we want to do is to address and solve
this problems. So that is defining the
debate, and setting-up the debate.
These things are important to create
clarity, to avoid confusion and to help
people decide how to evaluate the
debate.
The second thing you would do as
Prime Minister is present your Position
and your Team's Case. The Position is
how we are going to approach this
debate. What do we believe in, what
are we going to prove? And what is my
team going to do? So do we believe
that people need to have rights
limited? Are we trying regulate
people? What is our position and you
present your case. Case means the
arguments of the entire team. This
means having to present your team's
split. So what am I going to talk about,
and what my second speaker is going
to talk about. This makes your entire
case more easily understood by the
other team and most importantly by
the judges and the audience.
Sometimes teams will have a policy or
a plan. The 3 things we are going to
do, we are going to this, and going to

do that and going to this. So you are

going to explain in detail how you are
going to implement your solution. That
also needs to come out int his part,
when you are presenting you position
and case
The final thing the PM will do is
present arguments, so the first reason
and the second reason. And then you
will summarize and close your speech,
and emphasize what is important.
So brief recap - 3 things the PM must
do - he or she must define and set up
the debate, he or she must present a
position, their team's position and
their team's case - which could
sometimes include a policy, and finally
he or she must present one or two
arguments.
Deputy Speakers
Notes on this Lecture
The Deputy Speakers enter the debate
in the middle. They speak after the
first speakers and before the 3rd
speakers. They play an important role
in maintaining the control and shaping
the eventual clash points of the
debate. To best achieve this, they
should
A) Defend your case and position
against the attacks of the other team
The speaker on the other side has just
rebutted your teammate - you need to

defend his or her arguments because

that is your case. If the speaker
DOESN'T rebut your teammate, draw
attention
their
failure
and
reemphasize why your team's points are
important.
B) Attack the other team's position,
case and arguments
Rebut, similar to what the leader of
opposition did towards the prime
minister.
C) Make 1 or 2 Arguments
Now we are going to talk about the
second speakers in each team. We are
going to talk about both of them
together because their roles are very
very similar. On the government team
the second speaker is the Deputy
Prime Minister (DPM) and in the
opposition team the second speaker is
the Deputy Lead of Opposition (DLO).
At this point in the debate, one of your
teammates have already spoken and
what they have said has been
rebutted by one speaker, if you are the
DPM. If you are the DLO, two speakers
on the other side have already spoken.
So at this points arguments have been
made, and rebuttals have been made
towards each other. So lets look at
what your responsibilities and role will
be as the deputy speakers position.
Deputy speakers essentially have 3
things that they must do. You must
defend your case, you must attack the
case on the other side, and then you

must present new arguments. Let's

look at those things in turn.
Firstly defending your case. The
situation is your teammate has
already presented arguments. If you're
in the government (team) the PM has
presented your position, the case and
the setup, and the leader of opposition
has attacked those arguments. He's
presented rebuttals and said these
arguments wrong and there's a
problem with this argument. So if I am
coming up in second, my first priority
must be to defend my teammate. (It
must be) to defend the integrity and
the strength of my team and my
speaker. The first thing I need to do is
defend. Identify the points of my
speaker which have been attacked
and tell you why those things are not
true and why they are necessary and
(then) I need to rebuild them.[More in
the Question & Answer section]
Once I'm done with that, I need to
respond to what the first speaker on
the (other) side has (said), or if I'm in
the opposition team I need to respond
to what the second speaker on the
other side has said. Maybe I can
briefly
summarize
the
previous
speaker, (for example) "she said two
things and I'm going to respond to
those things. This is why this is wrong
and this is why that is wrong". The
rebuttals are similar to the rebuttals
the LO makes to the PM. The DPM
must rebut the LO and the DLO must

rebut the DPM. The DLO can also

continue rebuttals against the PM.
Your rebuttals are not limited to just
the speaker who spoke before you but
you can rebut the entire team.
So I've defended my team, I've
rebutted their team, the third thing I
must do, is present new arguments.
Arguments that are different from the
arguments my teammate has already
presented in the debate. This is
important, (because) doing this means
the debate grows. This adds new
information and new argumentation
that supports the case. I must connect
these arguments to our position and
tell you why those arguments are
strong and why it makes our case
even stronger.
That's the deputy speakers. You sit in
the middle of the team, so your job is;
you need to defend your teammate my teammate said some important
things, and I'm telling you why those
things are still important. Then I need
to respond to the other team - this is
what you said, and this is why what
you said is wrong! And then I need to
present my own arguments.
Both the DPM on the Government and
the DLO on the Opposition will do
these three things. Good luck at being
an awesome Deputy Speaker!
Question and Answers - the Deputy
Speakers

1. Can I change the definition, the

position or the policy of the PM or the
LO?
- No you can't. Changing the policy
means you will contradict your PM or
LO and reduce the value of his or her
speech. You can clarify and explain,
but any additions that makes your
teammate look like they didn't do their
job well will hurt your team.
2. Do i have to do defense first then
rebuttals, then new arguments?
- No, as long as you do all three. If you
think it's better, you can present your
arguments first, then rebut and then
defend your teammate.
3. How much of time should I spend
Defending, Rebutting and Developing
new arguments? Which is the most
important part of my job??
- This is a difficult question and there
is no objective answer. It really
depends on the debate. Some debates
may require you to spend more time
defending your first speaker (if for
example the attack from the other
side was particularly strong) or if the
other speaker spent more time
building his own case and not really
attacking yours, then there is more
attacking to do than defending. So ask
yourself what you need to do the most
in this debate, but ensure you do a
little bit of everything. The most

common error deputy speakers make

with time management is spending
too much time rebutting, forgetting to
do any defense and emphasis of their
case and not leaving enough time to
develop new arguments. If you must
cut down on something, cut rebuttals.
You have a third speaker who add
rebuttals, but it's harder for the third
speaker to clarify and defend the first
speaker, and the third speaker
shouldn't
be
developing
new
arguments.
Whip Speakers
Brief Notes on this Lecture
Whip
speakers
are
the
last
constructive speakers in the Asian
Parliamentary format. Constructive
speakers are those who build up
arguments and clash points in the
debate. Although whip speakers don't
usually present new arguments (the
Opposition Whip speaker is forbidden
from doing this and it's too late in the
debate for any new arguments to
make a huge impact anyway) they can
present new rebuttals, examples,
analysis and defense of arguments
that have already been made. They do
this by doing the following
A) Briefly summarize and defend your
case
It's important at the start of the
speech to spend a minute or less to
emphasize the points made by your

team. This reminds the audience what

the contribution of your team is and
gives you a context from which to
make your rebutalls and analysis. It
will be easier to compare the other
team's arguments to yours if you
briefly summarize them first.
B) Summarize and prioritize the most
important arguments or issues in the
debate.
There will be many arguments and
rebuttals flying around in the debate.
You need to identify the main themes
or
major
arguments
that
are
dominating the debate or that you feel
are important. This part is really
important, you cannot talk about
everything that has been said so you
will have to choose. Choosing ideas
that are not important will make the
rest of your speech redundant. Be
objective when deciding what the
clash points are and be fair to the
other team.
C) Rebut and analyze the arguments
or issues and say why your team has
done better on all of them, most of
them or on the most important ones
This is the largest part of your speech.
Once you have identified the major
issues, go through and rebut all of
them. Compare them to arguments
your team has made and show why
yours are better.
Don't present new arguments, but you
can present new analysis, new
examples, new rebuttals and give

support for arguments that your

teammates have already made in the
debate
Hello hello, welcome back! It's time to
talk about the 3rd speakers on both
teams. And I'm also going to talk
about these two guys, or girls together
because their roles are very similar to
each
other.
There
are
some
differences, but they are very similar.
So I'm gong to talk about the
Government Whip (GW) and the
Opposition Whip (OW) collectively.
It's important to realize (as whip) you
are coming at the end of the debate,
so at this part of the debate, 4
speakers or 5 speakers if you are
opposition whip, would have already
spoken before you. There are going to
be many arguments and rebuttals and
claims and counter claims and
accusations
and
examples
and
analysis and all these different things.
So your job in principle is to sort out
this mess, is to balance these things
and to tell the judges and the teams,
why you have done better. More than
tell them, show them why you have
done better.
There are essentially 3 parts to your
speech. Firstly, as a good whip you
must briefly summarize and defend
your case Secondly summarize and
prioritize the issues and ideas in the
debate, and then thirdly, analyze and
rebut these issues. Let's look at them.

Firstly briefly summarize your case

and your position. This helps give the
judges or the audience a little bit of
clarity. When you get up (to make your
speech), this is the first thing (you
should do) and you shouldn't take very
long. If you are speaking for 7
minutes, this should be about a
minute or less. You (can) say "now this
is what we have done, these are our 3
arguments (or) these are our 4
arguments and these arguments are
still strong and still doing well". You
are giving them a brief overview of
what your team has presented in this
debate.
The second thing you do and this is
one of the most important things, you
summarize and prioritize the issues
and ideas in the debate. You
identifying what you think are the
most important points in the debate.
These are things that maybe will be
questions in the minds of the
audience. Things on which the debate
might turn, might hinge. For example
on the topic that we would ban
smoking in the university campus, one
of the issues may be how much harm
is there from people smoking on
campus. Is the harm very very real?
(This is) Because the government
team will try to create a lot of harm to
a lot of people and the opposition
team will try to reduce this harm, and
say that it's really not that much harm.
Or an issue could be about rights -

how do we balance the rights of

smokers and the rights of nonsmokers? So as a whip speaker, I want
to identify these things. I want to say,
or you want to say, there are two
issues in this debate, or there are 3
issues in the debate. Firstly the issue
of harm, secondly the issue of rights,
and thirdly what is the role of a
university. Sometimes these can be
characterized based on the arguments
of the other team. Perhaps the 3
arguments they have presented, those
are going to be the important issues in
the debate.
Sometimes these (issues) are also
presented as questions. Do people
have the right to smoke? Or which is
more important? And so on and so
forth - you get the idea. Basically what
you have to do is identify what the
most important issues in the debate
are. This should also not take very
long.
The third thing you should do is you
should rebut and analyze those issues.
Now (for example) "I've identified 3
important issues, I've said the first
important issue in this debate is what
is the harm of second hand smoke,
secondly how do we balance the rights
of smokers and non-smokers (and
thirdly
what
is
the
role
of
universities)...and in the 3rd part of
my speech i should rebut and analyze
those things. So since I said what is
harm, I will give you reasons why the

harm is very real or the harm can be

reduced..", and then secondly when I
talk about the rights, I will show you
why our argumentation on rights is
better than their argumentation of
rights.
To do these things I can provide new
rebuttals to arguments, I can provide
new examples, I can also provide new
analysis to rebuttals. What i cannot
do, what I should not do as a whip
speaker is provide new arguments. A
new argument is an idea that has not
happened in the debate before and is
not a rebuttal. So if no one on my
team so far has talked about, let's say
cost, the economic perspective has
never come up in this debate before.
Then as the whip speaker I shouldn't
bring that idea up. The rules of Asian
Parliamentary technically allow the
government whip (to bring new
arguments) but specifically forbid the
opposition whip from doing this. But I
think it's good strategy for neither of
the whip speakers to bring new
arguments. You can bring a new
rebuttal, so if you want to rebut the
second speakers speech and third
speakers
speech
by
providing
economic analysis, you can do that. A
lot of it is how you make your points.
To recap, the whip speaker speaks at
the end, so your job is to summarize
and to clarify issues, to attract points
that are still hanging, to show why
your team is doing better. To that

effect you should do three things; start

by providing a brief summary of the
arguments of your team and your
case, and defend them. Then prioritize
and analyze the issues of the debate identify which you think are the most
important issues in this debate. Thirdly
- and this will be the bulk of your
speech, analyze and rebut those
issues. Tell the audience and the
judges why your team did better, why
the position of your team is much
better for those issues, and rebut and
analyze.
Remember,
no
new
arguments, but new examples and
new rebuttals are okay.
Reply Speakers
Notes on This Lecture
Reply speeches speak once the debate
is "over". This doesn't mean your
speech is unimportant, it just means
that technically you are not supposed
to add new things to the debate. What
your speech does is give the judges
and audience a standard to measure
success. Which team should win this
debate and why? You can do this by
A) Summarize the debate what is
this debate about?
Be as objective as possible. What have
been the major issues and questions
in this debate? What are the most
important impacts of this debate? Try
to think like your judge.

B) Briefly summarize the position of

your team and your competitor
Now that you've told everyone what
the debate is about, how did you
approach the debate and how did your
opponent approach the debate? What
did you set out to prove and what
were your major arguments? You don't
have a lot of time, so don't go through
in great detail. Just outline the main
approach and most important ideas.
C) Compare why your team's position
and arguments are better.
Now that you've told everyone what
the debate is about and how each of
you approached the debate, who did a
better job? Who had more relevant
arguments,
engaged
better,
developed ideas better, proved their
burden, did not contradict etc etc.
Provide standards to measure success.
Remember, you don't have to beat the
other team 100% to win a debate, you
don't have to prove that you are
perfect. You just have to win 51% of
the debate, you just have to be better
than the other team. This means it's
okay to concede that at some points
the other team did better than you,
but ensure you show you did better at
all the important points.
Don't make new arguments, new
rebuttals or present new examples,
but
analyze
and
balance
the
arguments and position of both teams.
Explain why your team did a better job
of debating, why your position and

arguments better answers the most

important questions in the debate.

is better than the other team. Why you

should win this debate.

Hello! So we've talked about the first

six
speeches
of
the
Asian
Parliamentary format, the 3 speeches
on the Government team and the 3
speeches on the Opposition team.
Now we've come almost to the end of
the debate. The opposition whip
speaker has sat down, (and) it's time
for the reply speeches.

Before I talk about those things, it's

helpful to think of the reply speech as
a form of biased adjudication. The
debate has ended and you are here
giving a kind of review of the debate.
"This has happened, we did this and
they did this and now why do we win".
Why were we the better team in this
game, and how did we play this game
better or how they didn't play this
game better (than us). What they
have not done or still have not done
and what we have done and why we
are better. It's kind of like a review
after a game or a performance. The
commentators get up and give up and
give a review. (They might say) "oh I
think this team did really well and they
should win or she should be the best
idol because of this and because of
that". That's what you are doing. Now
obviously you are a member of your
team, so you are going to be a little bit
biased. If you are the opposition reply
speaker, you are not going to say I
think the government team is going to
win this debate. Don't do that! You are
going to say "I think our team wins
this debate!", but you are going to try
to present that in an objective way,
because that is persuasive.

The reply speeches as I've told you

before, is 4 minutes in length and
there will be no Points of Information.
During the previous 6 speeches, while
speakers are presenting the definition
or making arguments or rebuttals,
other speakers can stand up and offer
a point. "Can I ask a question", "On
that point",- they may say those
things or make those funny gestures
to get attention and speakers (the
person who is currently speaking) can
choose to reject or accept them. In the
reply speech there is none of this. You
get absolute peace and control over
your speech.
So what should you do in the 4
minutes which you have to make your
reply
speech?
You
should
do
essentially 3 things. One - you need to
summarize the debate. Two - you need
to show your team's position and your
case and thirdly, you need to compare
(and show) why your position is better
than the other team's. Why your case

Let's look at the 3 things you should

do in your speech in order to best
present this biased adjudication.
Firstly, briefly summarize the debate.

Not your team, but the debate as a

whole. What was this debate about?
What are some of the important issues
in this debate? What happened in this
debate? It's important here to be as
objective as possible. You should try to
cover things which maybe even your
team wasn't doing so well at, because
if your summary is too biased,then the
judges won't buy the rest of your
analysis. they wont believe the rest of
your analysis. so what was this debate
about? this debate was about the
balance between the right of smokers
and non smokers. this debate was
about what is the role of the university
- is the university a place for education
only, or is it also a place for transition,
for change into society. so those are
the two most important issues in this
debate, perhaps.
Now after you've done that, present
your teams position and your case. so
these are the issues in the debate,
now what we do and what did we
present? What were our arguments
and how did we argue them? Try to be
brief, because what you are showing
here is you are trying to show why
your arguments and your case is
relevant (to the main issues of the
debate), is good, is strong. So this is
what the debate is about, these are
our arguments, our arguments are
relevant to what this debate is about.
The third thing you should do is
compare your position and their

position. This means you may have to

briefly summarize the other team's
position and then compare them.
That's the most important part. Saying
what you've done and saying what
they've done doesn't really win you a
debate, and that isn't really debating.
What debating is about is comparing,
not just stating things. So "we made
these arguments, and they made
those arguments - why are our
arguments
better
than
their
arguments. Why are our examples
better. Why is out position better. Why
are our approaches or anylsis better,
which ones do we win".
Now you don't have to show that you
win all the arguments and every
position and this is 100% destruction
of the other team. no no no, that's not
what debating is about. It's about
objective comparison. So you can say,
"I think we did really well here, the
other team did really well here, we will
give them credit, we think that was a
good point and that was made well
and we really don't have answer for
this part, BUT we think we still did
better (in this debate) because that
one point which they did well at is not
the the most important point of the
debate. This point is more important
than
that
point
in
the
end.
Furthermore we did this thing and that
thing and this thing an this other
thing, much much better than them!"

So it's really important at this point to

be comparative. Compare your team
against their team. You want to give
the judge a standard with which to
decide which team should win this
debate.
So to recap, tell the judges and the
audience what this debate is about.
This debate is about this issue, it's
about
that
issue.
Present
and
summarize your case and your
positon. Show how you were relevant
to the debate. Thirdly compare the
teams, tell the judges why you did
better to solve the problems and the
issue, or responded better to the
issue. Give them a standard to decide
which team should win the debate. In
debates that are very very close, reply
speeches can make a huge difference.
You have to think tactically, but
believe your team has won the
debate.
NOTE - in reply speeches you cannot
make new arguments, new rebuttals
or offer new examples. You can only
compare and evaluate arguments,
rebuttals and examples that have
already been offered.

(after the Prime Minister). The LO's

speech is what defines where the
opposition team will clash with the
government team and what direction
the opposition will be taking in the
debate. He or she has 3 main
responsibilities:
A) Respond to definition and Set-Up
from Government Team
Explain which parts of the position you
agree and disagree with. You should
try to find some common ground so
you can have a debate but also some
things you principally disagree with
B) Present Team Position and Case
Based on the common ground and
your principles, what is your position
and your case? What are you
defending? What will you prove and
not prove? Do you have a specific
policy?
What will you talk about and what will
your second speaker talk about?
C) Rebut Government Arguments
Briefly outline the Prime Minister's
arguments, then rebut each of them
D) Make 1 or 2 Arguments

Leader of Opposition
Brief Notes on this Lecture

Like the PM, the LO must also develop

new arguments.

The First Speaker on the Opposition

Team, or the Leader of Opposition is
the second person to speak in the
Asian Parliamentary debate format

The second speech in an Asian

Parliamentary Debate after the Prime
Minister's speech, is the first speaker
of the opposition team and that is the

Leader of Opposition (LO). Now the

Leader of Opposition's job in many
ways is very similar to the Prime
Minister's job. There are some crucial
differences, so let's look at what he or
she must do.
Now as LO you have essentially 4
responsibilities. Firstly you
must
respond to the definition and setup,
second present your case and your
position, thirdly rebut the arguments
of the Prime Minister (PM) and lastly
present your own arguments.
Firstly, responding to the definition
and the setup. Now in this part what
you need to do is to address how you
and the other team or the PM are
approaching
the
problem
(or
approaching the debate, not every
debate is about a problem). They've
just told you how they define the
debate, do you agree or disagree with
the definition? Would you like to
provide some additional clarity? Would
you like to explain some ideas that
you feel the PM has not explained well
enough?
It's essential for you to find some
common ground. So you can agree or
disagree with some things, but you
must agree with some other things.
For example if we are using the same
debate about banning smoking in the
university campus and the PM
contextualizes
debate
and
says
universities are dirty and filthy and

people (are) smoking everywhere and

that's the problem, you can approach
that and say you agree people are
smoking in the university but you
don't agree that the problem is as
huge as and as dire as he makes it out
to be. You disagree on the context or
the issue on which the prime minister
set-up the debate. That's the first
thing, responding to the definition and
the setup. Remember, as much as you
want to disagree with some things,
you must find something to agree
(on). Without any kind of common
ground, the debate will not happen.
[More in Question 1 below]
The second thing you do is you
present your position and your team
case. This part is almost identical to
what the PM does. If you have a policy,
you should present a (your) policy. You
should explain how you are going to
approach the debate and what your
essential
agreements
or
disagreements are. What are you
going to prove and what you are NOT
going to prove. It's okay to make some
concessions, but you cannot concede
the main principle of the debate.[More
in Question 2 below]
Thirdly you have to rebut and this part
is completely new. Every speaker in
the Asian Parliamentary format should
respond to the speaker before them.
Now the PM has no speaker before him
so obviously he can't have any
rebuttals but as LO you must respond

to the PM. So you must say why the

PM's arguments or the policy or the
position is wrong or ineffective or what
are the problems with what he or she
wants to argue. Those are your
rebuttals. [More in Question 3 Below]
Finally like the PM you must also
present constructive argumentation.
You must say, now these are my
arguments. In your position part where
you are presenting the team case, you
would have said what you are going to
talk about and what your second
speaker is going to talk about, so at
this point you should deliver those
arguments. Now doing rebuttals and
arguments can be a lot of things to do,
so the LO needs to be responsive and
be able to change and adapt to what
is
happening
in
the
debate.
Sometimes if your argument is also a
rebuttal because it serves to rebut the
other (side's)argument, you can tell
people that. You can say, "I'm going to
rebut his arguments when I talk about
my argument" (example below) and
then later, when you talk about your
argument, you can say "This argument
defeats their argument on the other
side". You can watch an example and
see how these things work, and how
the LO structures his or her speech.
[More in Question 4 Below]
Basically it's quite similar to a PM
speech - you need to respond to the
definition and set-up, present your
own position and case, how you are

going to approach the debate and

then you have rebuttals to engage the
PM's arguments and finally provide
your own arguments.
Question and Answers - the Leader of
Opposition
1. You said the first thing I have to do
is respond to the definition and I
should disagree with some things and
agree with other things. Can you give
me an example?
- Firstly, you don't ALWAYS have to
disagree with the definition. If the PM
defines the debate clearly and the
problem is exactly as you think it
should be, then you can just agree
with everything. It's ALWAYS important
to find something you can agree on.

Furthermore, you are only going to

defend the death penalty for murder
(since in the world today some
countries will execute people for many
other reasons). So you agree that
generally the debate should be about
the death penalty, but you don't want
to argue that all countries should have
it and not for many different types of
crimes, but just murder. This is a fair
debate, both teams have a fair burden
of proof. Now if instead you say that
you only want to defend the death
penalty in ONE country (South Korea)
and for one very specific type of crime
(serial killers) - the debate can still
happen but it has become much more
narrow and might not be as interesting
(when the debate is narrow, you will
also have less arguments - find out
more about this strategy here).

they are going to prove that every

human being has basic human rights,
which includes the right to life. Also he
will show the death penalty does not
reduce crime, is cruel and costs too
much. As LO, you can concede that
every human being has basic human
rights, but BUT that does not include
the right to life. You can concede it
does not reduce crime by deterring
people BUT it is a form of punishment
that people deserve. The BUTs are
important because they ensure you
have things to defend in opposition. If
you completely concede the first two
points, then you are only defending
costs, and that creates a debate that
is too narrow.

2. In Opposition, what concessions are

okay to make and what are not okay?

- Glad you asked! Briefly, you can

disagree with the logic of the
argument, challenge the argument by
providing an example of the reverse
situation in reality, concede the
argument wholly or partially. More
information here.

3. What are
rebuttals?

some

strategies

for

- As for an example, here's one

a) The motion is "We should abolish
the death penalty". The PM defines the
debate as applying to every country in
the world (this is the scope of the
debate) and defines the death penalty
as capital punishment for serious
crimes, such as murder. In opposition,
you can accept the general definition
and scope of the debate, but you can
focus it a little. You can say you are
going to defend that some countries
should have the death penalty if they
think it helps them (not that ALL
countries should have the death
penalty, which is directly opposite of
the PM's scope of the debate).

- You shouldn't concede too many

main principles or your main burdens.
If you do that, you will seem like you
are avoiding responsibility. If in
opposition I am supposed to defend
the death penalty, then I need to do so
in a way that is broad enough to
create debate. You can concede one or
two principles, especially if you think
they are hard to defend and that most
people agree with them. For example
a) The motion is "We should abolish
the death penalty" and the PM says

4. I don't understand how my

arguments can be a rebuttal. Can you
explain it again please?
- Of course I can explain it again,
anything for you! Sometimes what you
planned to argue (when you and your
teammates built the case in your
preparation time) is a natural response

to the PM's argument. In that

situation, you can just point to the
point she made and say you will
address that when you develop your
arguments. And when you develop
your
argument,
remind
the
judge/audience that you are rebutting
the PM's argument. For example,
a) The motion is "We should abolish
the death penalty" and the PM has 2
arguments; the Right to Life is

Paramount and the Death Penalty

doesn't Deter Crime. Now let's assume
when you were planning your speech,
you decided you were going to argue 2
arguments in support of the death
penalty; The Death Penalty can
Discourage
Criminals
and
that
Punishments must Suit the Crime. Now
your first argument (Death Penalty can
Discourage Criminals) directly opposes
the PM's second argument (Death
Penalty doesn't Deter Crime), so when

you get the point when you should

rebut the PM's arguments, you can say
you will rebut his second argument
when you make your first argument.
To make it clear to the judge/audience,
you should state the labels/names of
the PM's argument and of your
argument.