The Nature of Debate

Chapter 1
CA 120
Debate and Argumentation

Brief History of Debating

With the desire to interact with other humans, also
came the need to voice out his views that,
conceivably, may be opposed to anothers. Thus
debate was born
Origin of educational debates can be traced to
ancient Greece
Protagoras of Abdera (481-411 BC)
Father of Debate
first to organize argumentative contests
among his pupils by inventing themes that
they could oppose or defend.

Brief History of Debating

During the Classical and Medieval Ages, Latin was
the language used
Greek and Roman students were trained through
dialectic (debate by question and answer
Dialectic was foremost among the seven liberal
arts

Brief History of Debating

Early
1400sfirst
recorded
intercollegiate
argumentative contest was held between Englands
Cambridge and Oxford
Oxford Union Society- oldest and most prestigious
debate society in the world. Some members became
Prime Minister of Great Britain and other countries
In 1892- Harvard-Yale match was first held which
began intercollegiate debating in the United States
Early competitions lasted about two hours-with both
sides delivering prepared and memorized speechesbut ended with no formal winner

Debating in the Philippines

The Philippines has its own colorful
history of verbal argumentation
The ancient Balagtasan is by itself a
unique form of debate with the
speeches done on the spot in
rhyming verse
During
the
American
period,
American teachers were said to have
introduced Forensic Debating.
This would be later be known as
Oregon-Oxford format after the two
schools which popularized it

Debating in the Philippines

In 1928, UP sent a four-man debating team

coached by Prof. Carlos P. Romulo (later
Chairman of UN General Assembly) to tour US
universities
Team won against every American school (14 in all
including Stanford, Cornell, and Harvard)

Debating in the Philippines

National Collegiate Forensic League (NACFOL),
formed in 1962, was the first national organization to
foster inter-school debate tournaments in the country
During Martial Law, conducts of debates were
curtailed
In 1986, NACFOL was revived and renamed National
Collegiate Debate League (NCDL)
In 1994, NCDL sponsored National Collegiate
Debate Finals which saw UP Diliman Debate Team
winning the Fidel V Ramos Trophy. Championship
round was televised on Peoples Television Network

Debating in the Philippines

In the 1999s, several Philippine universities were
invited to World Debate Council to participate in
the World Debating Championships
UP Debate Society and Ateneo Debate Society
jointly founded the Philippine Parliamentary
Debate Union (PPDU) in 1994.
PPDU formally introduced Parliamentary format to
Filipino debaters through a series of seminars

Debating in the Philippines

De La Salle University and University of Santo
Tomas have hosted the All Asians and
Australasians Debating Championships
Ateneo and University of Santo Tomas have won
the All Asian Inter-Varsity Debating Championships
World Universities Debating Championships (aka
the Worlds)
Held since 1977 and is considered the Mecca of
debating world

Debating in the Philippines

In the past, four Philippine schools (UP, Ateneo,
UST and La Salle) have qualified for ESL
championship round
1998, UP hosted the first National Debate Masters
Classic to search for the countrys top debaters

Debating in the Philippines

In 1999, Worlds came to Manila as Ateneo won
the bid to host. It was first Asian country to host
the Worlds.
In 2012, Manila again hosted the Worlds with La
Salle hosting

Nature of Debate
The only noble excuse
for debate is the search
for the truth; for debate
seeks the truth, the
truth to move ourselves
and our society
-Claro M. Recto

Nature of Debate
Among the Greeks, the art of argumentationcalled rhetorike (rhetoric)- was an essential
part of liberal education. It has the power to
persuade but also served society.
In authoritarian society, there is no need for
debate since public policies are not open to
discussion. Worse, those who insist on
debating are sent to jail or shot.
Democratic societies such as ours need
debate.

Nature of Debate
Walter Lippman said that we need debate, we need to
hear the opinion of others because freedom of
discussion improve our own opinions.
Debate is a means to an end; to find truth or arrive at
the right policy.
In our Congress today, there is a long process of debate
perhaps even too much debate- before any bill becomes
a law (eg. RH Law, FOI bill etc).
In a free and democratic society, citizens prefer debate
over killing. Through venting and confrontation of
opinion-and the resolution of conflict through reasoningwe find no necessity to do violence on another.

Debating Defined
Formal, direct, oral contest in argumentation
between two or more teams on a definite issue
at a set time.
Argumentation- occurs in debate
the art of influencing others through the
medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or
to act as we wish them to act. (ONeill,
Laycock, and Scales 1928).

Debating Defined
Jefrrey Auer (debate should have these elements):
A confrontation
In equal and adequate time
Of matched contestants
On a Stated proposition
To gain a decision
It may refer to any school debate or argument process
(presidential debate, etc)
Based on main definition, a debate therefore should have a
set of rules that govern its conduct (formal). Shall be face-toface (direct),shall involve the use of speeches (oral), between
two opposing sides (represented by the two or more teams),
and shall involve only one issues on a scheduled time.

Debating Defined
Debate is essentially argumentation under specific rules
(Wood and Goodnight, 1989). These rules have been
constant since academic debate began:
Time limit are provided;
The debate is conducted under parliamentary rules;
To ensure fairness, each side has an equal numbers
of speakers and an equal amount of time;
Both sides are allowed equal opportunity in rebuttal;
At the conclusion, decision is taken on the merits of
the question.
Sometimes, due to advances in technology, debates no
longer needed face-to-face interaction.

Functions of Debate
1)Debate as Means for Change
Cicero: The true aim of forensic
oratory is threefold: to inform,
to entertain, and to move.
Debate is a weapon to move
armies, to crystallize public
opinion,
to
influence
development of society. It is a
means to an end.

Functions of Debate
2) Debate as Advocacy
Forum for developing skills of advocacy
It is an opportunity to learn new ideas in
the atmosphere of self and mutual respect
3) Debate as an Educational Tool
Debate has provided an excellent means
of meeting these educational
goals.
Debates conducted within campuses have
contributed to a better understanding of our
society

Benefits of Debate
Important Skills Learned (National InterVarsity Handouts, 1995)
1) Leadership Skills
2) Analysis
3) Critical Thinking
4) Open-Mindedness
5) Thinking on Your Feet
6) Organization
7) Listening
8) Self-Confidence
9) Team-work and Cooperation

Formats of Debate
Two Major Format in the Philippines
1) Cross-Examination (known as OxfordOregon)
2)Parliamentary Debating (with several
strains)
A) British
B) American
C) Australasian
D) Asian

Formats of Debate
Other Formats
1) Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Two-Man
debates
and
usually used during US
presidential
elections
(Kennedy and Nixon in
1960)
Named after two Americans
Lincoln and Douglas

Formats of Debate
Douglas-Lincoln
Nixon-Kennedy Debate (1960)

Formats of Debate
Douglas-Lincoln
Order of Speakers
Affirmative Presentation Speech
Negative Presentation Speech
Affirmative Rebuttal Speech
Negative Rebuttal Speech
Affirmative Summary Speech
Negative Summary Speech

Formats of Debate
Rebuttal Debate
2) Rebuttal debate
Similar to Cross-Examination Debate
Provides 2-3 debaters per side.
Modified Oxford-Oregon

Formats of Debate
Rebuttal Debate
Order of Speakers
First Affirmative Constructive Speech
First Negative Constructive Speech
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech
Second Negative Constructive Speech
First Negative Rebuttal
First Affirmative Rebuttal
Second Negative Rebuttal
Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
3) Moot Court
Aims to simulate court-room trial procedures
It uses witnesses and evidence to prove a
case
Debaters are allowed to interact with each
other through interpellation portion of the
first round of speeches
Issuance of objections and motions to the
direct/cross-examiner during second round
of speeches

Formats of Debate
Moot Court

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
There are three (3) speakers and one
scribe for each team.
Duties:
1st Affirmative Speaker- set the
parameters of their case, forward the
substantial arguments relevant to their
case, destroy the 1st speaker of
negatives sides points through
interpellation.

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
Duties:
1st Negative Speaker- rebut the case of 1 st
Affirmative speaker, prove their case, and
destroy the 1st speakers points through
interpellation.
Examiners for both teams- ask questions and
solicit responses from the witness that will
establish or prove teams case during direct
examination, and lay doubt on the witness
credibility and/or testimony during crossexamination

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
Duties:
Rebuttal speakers- demolish the
opposing teams case, and rebuild
teams case
Scribe- provide the judges an abstract or
a conceptual summary of teams case

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
List of common objections:
1) Badgering the Witness- when the
cross-examiner refuses to give witness
time to respond questions; when crossexaminer harasses/discriminates the
witness
2) Kilometric Questions- when the crossexaminer asks many questions without
giving the witness ample time to reply

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
List of common objections:
3) Immaterial/Irrelevant- when the
witness statement deemed unimportant,
inconsequential by the opposing team
4) Hostile Witness- when the witness
refuse to respond to a properly phrased
questions; when the witness tries to pick a
fight with the cross-examiner; when the
witness shows unwarranted aggression
towards the cross-examiner;

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
List of common objections:
5) Leading- when the direct examiner
asks categorical questions leading to a
desired answer (not coached out from
witness)
6) Argumentative- cross-examiner
argues with the witness

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
Order of Speakers:
Constructive speech by 1st Affirmative
speaker- 7-8 minutes
Interpellation by 1st Negative speaker- 34 minutes
Constructive speech by 1st Negative
speaker- 7-8 minutes
Interpellation by 1st Affirmative speaker3-4 minutes

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
Order of Speakers:
Direct Examination by
speaker- 3-4 minutes
Cross Examination by
speaker- 3-4 minutes
Direct Examination by
speaker- 3-4 minutes
Cross Examination by
speaker- 3-4 minutes

2nd Affirmative
2nd Negative
2nd Negative
2nd Affirmative

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
Order of Speakers:
Rebuttal Speech by 3rd Negative
speaker- 7-8 minutes
Rebuttal Speech by 3rd Affirmative
speaker - 7-8 minutes

Formats of Debate
Moot Court
Moot Court or Mock Trials are really
legal argumentation.
Examples are the Jessup Moot Court
between UP-Ateneo Law where both
sides employ written argumentation or
briefs called memorials on a question of
law.
Panel of jurists hear the cases and
decide which side has legal merit.