University of Surrey Debating Society

Transcription

1 University of Surrey Debating Society Beginner Competitive Debating Guide First Revision Assembled by Abdullah Al-Shakarchi, Competitions Officer 2014/15

2 University of Surrey Debating Society 2 Introduction The British Parliamentary Debate Format (hence referred to as BP debating) is a simulation based of the British Parliament. A proposition side (sometimes referred to as the government) proposes a motion and supports it with a model and argumentation. The opposition side refutes the proposition s stance through their own arguments and potentially an alternative model. This creates points of clash, arguments throughout a debate which both sides engage in. The team that successfully wins the most points of clash wins the debate. This is done through argumentation and refutation, but also the style and structure of the speeches. Teams There are two teams on each side, the top half and the bottom half. Each team consists of two speakers, meaning there are eight speakers in total. These speakers take it in turns to speak, starting with the first proposition speaker, then the first opposition speaker, and so on in a zigzag pattern: Top Half 1 Prop 2 Prop 1 Opp 2 Opp Bottom Half Speeches & Roles 3 Prop 4 Prop 3 Opp 4 Opp Most competitions are composed of five or seven minute speeches. The first and last minutes are protected time (refer to points of information). Suggested speech timings are included below and modelled for a seven minute speech. One minute is unallocated and left for introductions, signposting, conclusions and points of information. 1 st Proposition This speaker is sometimes referred to as the Prime Minister. It is their role to define what is meant by the motion for the remainder of the debate. This includes any ambiguous terms, the

3 University of Surrey Debating Society 3 location of the motion and any such relevant details. It is also their role to assert and explain the model which the proposition side will argue for. Team outline: list the main arguments that you and your teammate are going to present. (30 seconds) Definition: explicitly define the motion, your team s stance and assert and elaborate upon your model. (2:00) Argumentation: present two to three arguments or one to two in a five minute speech. (3:30) 1 st Opposition This speech is similar to first proposition. The main difference is that this speaker does not have to present a model, it is sufficient for the opposition team to demonstrate that the proposition s model is not viable. Furthermore, if the opposition team do not approve of the proposition s definition, this is their opportunity to state why and propose an alternative definition. However, this often leads to a parallel debate that s focused on the definition and not significant arguments, and is thus discouraged. Team outline: list the main arguments that you and your teammate are going to present. (30 seconds) Refutation: reply to the previous speaker, focusing on the faults of their model in relation to the motion. (1:30) Team stance: present your team s stance, present assert and elaborate upon your model should it exist. This is also the opportunity to present an alternative definition should one exist. (1:30) Argumentation: present one to three arguments. (2:30) 2 nd Proposition/Opposition The second speakers support their teammates, their primarily role is to refute the arguments of the opponents and rebuild arguments of their first speaker. They also present one or two new arguments. Their goal is to have all their team s arguments standing and therefore winning the points of clash. They should also aim to damage the opponents arguments as much as possible. Refutation: reply to the opponent speaker(s), focusing on damaging their argumentation in relation to the motion. (2:30) Rebuilding: restate and support your teammate s arguments, particularly focusing on any points that the opponents attacked. (1:00) Argumentation: present one to three arguments. (2:30)

4 University of Surrey Debating Society 4 3 rd Proposition/Opposition The third speakers focus on refutation. They should aim to rebut any of the opponents arguments that are left standing, winning those points of clash. They should then support the major arguments made by the top half, with new evidence or reasoning. They can also introduce new arguments if appropriate. It is important for third speakers to not attempt to change the definition, model or stance laid out by the top half. Refutation: reply to the opponent speaker(s), focusing on damaging their argumentation relation to the motion. (3:00) Argumentation: restate and support arguments made by the top half. Introduce new arguments if appropriate. (3:00) 4 th Proposition/Opposition These speakers are sometimes referred to as the summary speakers or the whips. They may not introduce any new pieces of information to the debate, and generally anything substantial that they add is disregarded by the adjudicators. Their role is to provide a summary of what happened during the debate and why they won it. The format for this focuses on points of clash. You should explain what both teams had to say about a point. For example, in a capital punishment debate a point of clash could be discussed as follows we started the debate by stating that the death penalty infringes on human rights, citing The Universal Human Rights Declaration. The opposition team merely suggested that this isn t true, without providing any evidence. My teammate (3rd speaker) further supported this by discussing the view of international law on murder. Therefore, we have clearly won this point of clash. Remember that debates are won by winning points of clash, if this speaker can convince the adjudicators that this is what happened then they have succeeded in their role. Finally, the whip should focus as much as possible on their teammate s arguments over the top half s. Motions Motions are usually either policy (this house would) or principle (this house believes) debates. In the first case, the proposition side is expected to produce and debate for a model on how to practically apply the debate. The opposition can then present a counter model or simply focus on rebutting the proposition s model. In a principle debate, neither benches discuss how to enforce a certain idea, only if the idea should be enforced. This is the difference between THW Ban the Capital Punishment and THB That the Capital Punishment is Wrong. This guide discusses aspects of debating in terms of the first, a classic technical motion. With more advanced debating, motions are further categorised and the methods of approaching them become more specific. One type of motion you ll always come across is a state vs. individual liberty debate. It discusses how much control a state should have in the freedom of

5 University of Surrey Debating Society 5 individuals, if it effects society. An example of this is THW Legalise the Consumption of Marijuana. Model, Burdens & Stance In a policy debate, a proposition team should always provide a model of how they propose to enforce the motion. This should define where the motion is to be enforced, how and if appropriate under what authority. For example, in a capital punishment debate, proposition can discuss this in terms of the United States where they will enact federal legislation to ban any state from administering the death penalty. Be careful when setting your model, a model too weak can be considered as ineffective, but a model too radical can be considered infeasible. In a principle debate, the focus lies on burdens, although they still apply in policy debates. A burden is something you have to prove in order to win the debate. For example, a proposition burden in the capital punishment debate is whether the government has the right to take away capital punishment. Proposition burdens often are showing that there is harm in the status quo, it is someone s responsibility and authority to take action and that said action is viable. Opposition burdens usually include demonstrating that there is good in the status quo, the motion does more harm than good and the state does not have the right or authority to enforce the motion. A combination of the motion, model and burdens form a bench s stance. It is a good idea to explicitly state what your stance or line of argumentation is at the beginning of the first speech, and what key burdens you have to prove in order to win the debate. Remember to not set models and burdens too difficult for you to prove, otherwise your stance will backfire. Finally, all of your arguments should relate directly to the motion, your model and burdens. Argumentation Argumentation is perhaps the most important skill in a debate. Arguments should follow the ARE structure: Assertion: clearly state your argument, in the capital punishment debate this could be as simple as saying Our first argument states that capital punishment is inhumane. Reasoning: elaborate on your argument by using a series of points. It is crucial to not just assert these points, but relate them back to the motion. This is the key difference between a good and great argument. Elaborating on the aforementioned argument could begin by stating that the capital punishment is an infringement of human rights. Your next step is to explain why that is the case, for example by discussing the right to life. Finally, you would relate this to the motion, if your model called for a legislative ban of capital punishment in the US, you could state that it is the government s role to uphold human rights, and therefore capital punishment should be banned as it is a clear infringement. This validates your argument, your model and provides opportunity for significant refutation, which leads to an interesting debate

6 University of Surrey Debating Society 6 Evidence: you should aim to provide some form of evidence for every point you assert. One form of evidence could be statistics, which is often prohibitive in competitions as you do not have the opportunity to research a motion ahead of time. Another form is an anecdote, to demonstrate your argument in a relatable context. Finally, citing legislation and charters may be appropriate. In this case, you could refer to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Style It is important to keep in mind not only your arguments but how you present them, many judging criteria will weight a debater s style as a third of their performance General Speaking: public speaking tips apply. Stand straight, do not spend too much time reading from notes and project a loud clear voice appropriate to the room you re in. In a moderated parliamentary debate, you are not directly speaking to the opponent team. You are speaking to the house through the chair, therefore you should always maintain eye contact with the chair, judges and audience. The exception to this could be when referring to speakers directly, for example quoting the third proposition speaker If you lose your train of thought, it is much better to confidentially pause and gather your thoughts than to fill the silence with umm or err. Language and Register: as you are speaking to the house and through the chair, you should refer to the opposition team in third person. You refers to the house and it is important to make this distinction. You can refer to your team in first person my second speaker. You should aim to be eloquent and fluid in your register and use specific vocabulary, avoiding words like things. It is also important to not repeatedly use phrases like ladies and gentlemen or mister/madam chair as these are irrelevant and suggest that you are using them as fillers because you do not have enough to say. Likewise, you don t need to introduce yourself as the second opposition speaker, the chair knows that Finally, rude, mild and inappropriate language is strictly not tolerated. In a close debate, any such uses are almost guaranteed to leave you with a loss. Attack Ideas: debaters attack ideas and not people. You should aim to assault your opponents arguments but not directly your opponents themselves. As part of that, you should be courteous in how you refer to your opponents and their arguments. Words like miserable or silly are frowned upon. Finally, equity is taken extremely seriously. Attacking an opponent based on their language, race or gender out of the context of the motion will land you in a lot of trouble It is also worth noting that this should not discourage you from directly quoting your opponents in refutation, so long as the attack is focused on the arguments. Timing: time management is a critical part of the speech. You should use a stopwatch and leave time to have a conclusion and close up your speech without being rushed. It is generally

7 University of Surrey Debating Society 7 acceptable to end your speech 15 seconds before or after your time limit (6:45 to 7:15 in a seven minute debate). However, longer or shorter speeches will be penalised. Hook: similar to writing an essay, it is considered good style to start your speech with a wider universal idea before closing in on your topic. This is called a hook. For example, you could start a capital punishment speech by firmly asserting there is no excuse for murder Signposting: at the beginning of your speech, you should always clearly signpost your structure, arguments and possibly your teammates arguments. For example, a first speaker would follow their hook and introduction with I shall begin by defining the motion, asserting our model and explaining our team stance. I will then present the two arguments of human rights and how the capital punishment is hypocritical. My second speaker will focus on one main argument, the death penalty teaches the condemned nothing. You should also explicitly state when transitioning between arguments this brings me to my next argument. This is much like a table of contents and headings, it makes the adjudicators lives much easier as they know what to look for. Conclusion: it is important to close your speech with a conclusion, where you restate what you ve accomplished I ve refuted all of the opponents arguments and presented one of my own, I demonstrated how the death penalty teaches the condemned nothing. This means that you have to leave enough time in your speech for a quick conclusion. Whatever you do, make sure you don t abruptly end your speech when you realise that you have run out of time. If you ve run over, stop seconds before the end of your allocated time and whip up a quick conclusion. Points of Information Points of information (POIs) are the only permitted form of interaction during speeches. Between the protected first and last minutes of a speech, any member of the opponent side may stand up saying point of information, sir/madam or on that point. The speaker can then accept a question. Keep the following in mind: The point of information must be worded as a question and cannot be a statement. One way to get around that is by asserting your statement, and then asking what do you have to say to that? If you do not ask a question, then the speaker can ask the chair to ask the opponent to rephrase their POI as a statement. The speaker cannot directly interact with the opponent posing a POI. If for example they did not understand the point then they should ask the chair can you please ask the speaker to restate their point louder. POIs are not a conversation, you must not reply with a direct question and the speaker asking the POI cannot follow it up. That is out of order and you will not get any favours with the judges. The speaker is in complete control of the floor during the speech. This means that it is up to them to choose when and if to accept points of information.

8 University of Surrey Debating Society 8 You should only accept one to two POIs in a five minute speech, and an absolute maximum of three in a seven minute speech. POIs take time, and accepting too many suggests that you do not have enough to say in your own speech. On the other hand, you should always accept at least one POI in your speech. You will not be penalised if you were not asked a point of information. Do not feel afraid to wave a speaker down using a no gesture, so long as you re not rude it demonstrates confidence. Furthermore, do not let a POI interrupt your train of thought. Finish your sentence or argument if appropriate before accepting a POI. You control the floor POIs should be no more than 15 seconds long. However, it is up to you to enforce this. Someone can ask a minute long POI and hijack your speech. You can and should ask the speaker to stop as soon as you understand their point. Judges will be recording who accepted POIs but also who asked them. You should try to put forward a point of information at least once in every speech. Frequent POIs can be used as an intimidation technique, especially with newer speakers. You should leave 15 seconds between each POI you ask, or the judge will ask you to stop. Preparation and Note Taking Most debate formats allow you and your teammates 20 minutes to prepare. You should use this time wisely. Important things to discuss are your team stance, model if applicable and burdens of the motion. You should also agree on the arguments you re going to put forward and discuss possible weak points in your case and how to support them. Finally, you can agree on a common slogan or gimmick to stick with. Make sure you leave enough time to write down notes. Speaking of notes, they are very personal and depend on a debater s style. You will develop your own note taking techniques during the debate and for your speeches. A good approach is to divide a piece of paper into two columns, with the opponent on the left and your side on the right, or prop on the left and opposition on the right. This way you can write down key points of each speech in their respective column. You can also use the space for your speech to write down direct refutation points. This is an easy way to follow how points of clash are developing. A debater is always seen taking notes. Even if you ve already completed your speech, you should have a pen and paper in hand to keep track of what s going on. This way, you could provide refutation points to other speakers on your team. A judge would be concerned if they see you stop taking notes and interest after your speech.