Mdfhdc.files.wordpress.com



Part 1Beginners and Asian Parliamentary Format1.1 What is Asian Parliamentary format?1.2 AP Rules1.3 Argumentation1.4 Rebuttals1.5 POIs1.6 Speaker Roles1.7 Definitions and Policy1.8 Note Taking1.9 Preparation Time1.10 Common Rookie Mistakes1.11 How to be Better at Debate1.1 What is Asian Parliamentary format?Just a heads-up before we begin: when we say “debate”, we’re not doing those TV debates where several different people all have different opinions. Nor are we doing 1 vs. 1, where each person is by himself or herself.But we do have several rules in order to facilitate debate in an orderly fashion, and also to make things fair. Those certain rules, including team size, speech time and requirements for each speaker, constitute what we call a format. Korean (and Northeast Asian) debating societies have to practice two debate formats – Asian Parliamentary (AP) in the spring-summer season, and British Parliamentary (BP) in the fall-winter season. You don’t need to know what BP is yet, but for now you’re probably reading this in the spring, so off to describing AP.The Asian Parliamentary format is modeled after some Asian parliaments, hence the quite obvious name. The purpose of a parliament, or any legislative branch, is to decide whether a certain legislative bill or government policy should be executed or not. Anything from allowing homosexuals to adopt children to eliminating unemployment benefits to giving conditional aid to Third World countries might be a government policy that has to be discussed.But how do you know whether any policy is justified or not? Good or bad? That’s where you have political parties. On one side you have the “Government” or “Affirmative” party, who supports the motion. In political terms, this would mean the political party current ruling the government, and is led by this parliament’s Prime Minister. On the other side you have “Opposition” or “Negative” party, who opposes the motion. In political terms, this is the party that’s not in power, but can still vote to oppose the ruling party’s legislation or policies.Speaking of policies, that’s what parliamentary debate is basically about. You have a motion, or the topic/policy that you will debate about. For instance, “This House Would legalize abortion.” (“This House” meaning this government, but you can define that a bit differently according to debate. More on that later). The Government side would support abortion or argue for passing it. The Opposition side would argue for banning abortion. Government (GOV) will have reasons to pass it, Opposition (OPP) will have reasons to oppose it. They’ll also try to bring down each other’s reasons, saying that they’re not valid. That’s the debating bit.The goal for each side is to try to convince a third party that their side argues about the motion better. This third party then decides which side won. This is called the adjudicator. The adjudicator is there to judge who did a better job about explaining about the motion and their arguments better.If there is one thing debate is different from politics, it’s that debate is about what direction we as a society should take. We’re not concerned with where the tax money will come from, or how the paperwork will be distributed. We are much more concerned with why we should be allowing or disallowing these motions in the first place.This usually means that you can’t oppose something simply because it’s too expensive or it’s too difficult to do. Let’s face it, parents find raising children expensive and difficult, but if by chance the child were mugged, the parents’ first reaction would not be “Oh good, we can save on food expenses.” They will go around screaming and calling the police, because they believe in values such as familial love and parental responsibility. Ultimately, we shouldn’t oppose something because it’s too expensive, but more because there is something fundamentally wrong with that something.The intention with the AP format is that you learn about the basics of debate –analyzing motions, making arguments, learning how to rebut others, and learning how to become a better speaker. Whatever format you will be debating in, this is a basic skill, and AP is great for this.Now that you should understand the mindset behind the Asian Parliamentary format, let us begin.1.2 AP RulesRemember how a debate format is basically the rules you follow in a debate? You’ll need to know them in order to debate properly.In AP, debaters argue over a topic called the motion. A motion may typically begin with the abbreviations “THBT (This House Believes That)”, “THW (This House Would)”, “THS (This House Supports)”, or simply “TH (This House)”. The teams must debate on that motion.Each team is divided into two sides – the Government or Affirmative (GOV) side, which supports a motion, and the Opposition or Negative (OPP) side, which opposes the motion. The Government team is composed of 3 members: the Prime Minister (PM), Deputy Prime Minister (DPM), and Government Whip (GW). Similarly, the Opposition team is composed of the Leader of the Opposition (LO), Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO), and Opposition Whip (GW).Each speaker makes one substantive speech each, lasting 7 minutes. This can be extended up to 7 minutes 30 seconds, at which the speaker will have to end his/her speech and sit down. After all six speeches, each team has to provide a reply speech, summarizing the debate. The reply speech is 4 minutes long, which can be extended up to 4 minutes 30 seconds. A reply speech cannot be done by a whip speaker. The speaker order goes as such:Prime MinisterLeader of the OppositionDeputy Prime MinisterDeputy Leader of the OppositionGovernment WhipOpposition WhipOpposition ReplyGovernment ReplyEach speaker also has distinctive roles:Prime Minister: Sets up the debateProvides definitions to clarify the motionProvides a policy/model to show what the GOV team would proposeProvides the team line/stance to show what the team wants to present in wholeProvides the case split to announce which arguments will be mentioned by whomProvides argumentation for the GOV teamLeader of the Opposition: Sets up the debateProvide a definition challenge if the GOV’s definition is deemed unfairProvide a policy/model if the OPP team has one to proposeRebutthe GOV’s argumentationProvides the case split to announce which arguments will be mentioned by whomProvides argumentation for the OPP teamDeputy Prime Minister, Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Defendshis/her own teamRebut the other team’s argumentationProvides argumentation for his/her own teamGovernment Whip, Opposition whip: Provide a summary for the debateRebut the other team’s argumentation if necessaryProvide clashes in which the two teams conflicted onOpposition Reply, Government Reply: State your team’s impact to the debateProvide issues within the debate, and why his/her own team won themDuring each speech, between 1:00 and 6:00, the speaker’s speech is open for Points of Information (POIs), in which the opposing team can request the speaker to answer a question at any time. The speaker may choose when to accept the POI. A POI should last up to 15 seconds, at which point the adjudicator stops by saying “Out of order.” POIs may not be given during reply speeches.After all 8 speeches, the debaters will “cross the floor” and shake hands. The adjudicator asks the debaters to wait outside while he/she judges which team won.Each team and speaker will be judged on these criteria:Matter: The actual content of your speeches, and the logic/depth/relevance of the argumentation providedManner: How you deliver the speech – this includes verbal and non-verbal elements, including but not limited to tone, volume, and hand gestures.Method: How well each speaker fulfills the role that he/she is supposed to do in the debate, and how well the speech is organized.Matter accounts for 40% of the speaker score, manner 40%, method 20%. The scores are usually between 70 and 80, with 75 being the score of an average speaker.There is a distinction we’d like to make: unlike public speaking, in which a speaker’s style is quite important, debate is a much more logical exercise. This is why in adjudicating, a debater will (and should) be judged primarily on their matter. Although we say matter and manner have equal weight, adjudicators will primarily judge the teams in the order of matter, then manner, then method. You do not win a debate only by being charismatic, although it does help.After the adjudicator decides the outcome, he/she will allot speaker scores to each speaker. Then the adjudicator calls the debaters back into the room, and gives them feedback.I understand there are a lot of concepts that you have no idea what they are. We’ll go through them one by one.1.3ArgumentationThe very first thing you need to learn in order to debate is how to make arguments.Argumentation is the set of your arguments in order to support or oppose a motion. You know, the reasons why you support or oppose something. All debaters have to master this in order to become better. It’s obviously crucial that your team provides argumentation to show why you support or oppose something.So what is an argument? What goes into it?1.3.1 Assertion-Reasoning-Example (ARE)Seung-hun and I have seen many different names and acronyms for the different components within an argument, but essentially any argument has these components – assertion, reasoning, and example.Assertion: The name of the argument. This should be a single phrase to call your argument.Reasoning: Your logic that supports the assertionExample: Any real-life cases that support your reasoningTake the motion, “THW use population control measures to combat global warming,” What would GOV say? One obvious and important argument is how population control actually lessens global warming, or how it is the most effective way of combating global warming. Let’s name this argument in a single phrase so that it’s easy to refer back to in later speeches.Assertion: Population control can effectively combat global warmingBut that’s not going to be enough. Why is population control necessary? Population control means that you put limitations on how much the population can grow – basically, how many children you can have (ex. China has the One Child Policy, liberal democracies provide contraceptive methods to prevent random pregnancies). So your reasoning here requires an explanation of how an increase in population leads to increase in pollution and global warming.You can probably think of this line of reasoning by now – if there are more people, they will require more resources, and they will consume more resources, such as oil, water, and coal. More resource consumption leads to more carbon dioxide emissions and other forms of pollution, which inevitably leads to the causes of global warming. So we have this line of reasoning:Reasoning: More people → More resources consumed → More pollutionAre there any examples that you can bring up? The United States and China both have high population (300 million and 1.4 billion respectively) and high population growth, and also they are the two biggest polluters on the planet.Example: United States, China: High population, high population growth → High pollutionNow you see the anatomy of an argument in action. This is the most elementary way you can devise and structure arguments. Our example has led to:Assertion: Population control can effectively combat global warmingReasoning: More people → More resources consumed → More pollutionExample: United States, China: High population, high population growth → High pollutionIn any argument, expect the ratio between assertion, reasoning and example to be around 10% - 80% - 10%. Reasoning should take the largest bulk of your argument and the time you allot to it.From my experience, you will always need an assertion and reasoning in order to clarify your speech for adjudicators. Examples are not always necessary, and don’t strain yourself too hard if you can’t think of one. But of course, real-life examples give much more credence to your argument.A typical rookie problem is to list a lot of examples and show that they prove something. This is a weak tactic at best, mainly because 1. You still don’t show why your argument works in the real world, and 2. It’s easy to provide a counterexample and bring down your argument. If the New Deal is an example of government intervention saving the economy, we also have the 1970s-80s Warsaw Pact as an example of government intervention harming the economy. But if you provide reasons why government intervention can help the economy, it makes your argument much more believable.1.3.2 LinkSo the motion is something about farming subsidies, and your argument is about astronauts. While your argument may be fantastic in a motion about space travel, it simply does not fit in a debate about farming subsidies. This of course is a wild example, but it does illustrate the need of a link – the importance of your argument to the motion. Why did you say this entire argument in the first place?Going back to our example from 1.3.1. Why did we need this argument for this motion? “We need population control because a rising population is the main reason behind global warming, and our policy solves that problem.” In this case you identified the main cause or problem behind the motion, and you showed that your policy solves that problem.For that example, the link was easy to find. For other arguments, it won’t be as obvious. So adjudicators will find it easier to follow your speech if you show the link between your argument and the motion.1.3.3 L-Ring (“Erfan Method”)This is something Seung-hun learned from an Indonesian debater named Erfan. According to him, this is a method that all Indonesian societies use to create arguments. He also would like to tell you that since he learned this the hard way, he really doesn’t want this secret to be leaked too easily. The L-Ring improves upon the traditional ARE structure, in that it strengthens the arguments’ reasoning. Basically, it explains the reason behind the first line of reasoning, and then the reason behind those reasons, and this continues as long as it’s necessary (this is the ‘L’ bit). You can even provide different reasons for that argument, which is what we call multiple levels of analysis. This makes your argument even stronger by supporting it with more reasons, because your opponent now has to rebut all those levels of analysis, leaving less time for his/her argumentation.After you finish explaining your reasoning and your example, then you remind the adjudicator of why you talked about this argument in the first place. You link all the reasoning and examples that you have back to the argument and the motion, to form a full cycle to the beginning once again (this is the ‘Ring’ bit). This is what it looks like in practice:As you see, the concept itself is not entirely new – we’ve already talked about assertion-reasoning-example and the link back to the motion. But sometimes rookie debaters don’t realize that their arguments need more substantiation, or forget to mention how their arguments even relate to the motion, leaving adjudicators puzzled. The L-Ring method is designed to remind debaters of those problems.Let’s use the example from 1.3.1 again to see how this works in practice.Assertion: Population control can effectively combat global warming.Reasoning A: Population growth is the main cause of global warming.Reasoning A.1: Population growth leads to more people.Reasoning A.2: More people leads to more resources consumed, for the consumption of each individual person.Reasoning A.3: If more resources such as coal and oil are consumed, there will be more pollution which leads to global warming.Example: The United States and China both have high population growth, and as a result they are the two largest polluters on the planet.Reasoning B: Population control stops global warming.Reasoning B.1: In order to combat global warming, we need to control the main cause behind it.Reasoning B.2: As we have seen above, global warming is mainly caused by population growth.Reasoning B.3: Population control measures can control population growth.Reasoning B.4: So population control can be used to combat global warming.Link: We need to solve the main problem of global warming in order to prevent it, and that is population growth. We can do this with population control measures.It is important to practice substantiating every step in your argument, even if it looks obvious. More often than not, debaters leave out important steps in their reasoning, making the argument less supported.1.3.4 Principle/Practical/Stakeholder AnalysisNow let’s talk about what types of arguments you can have.Principle: What guiding values are you using to support/oppose this claim? How are they values that we value in society and life? We must support something for the right reasons.For instance, one way of curbing school violence among students is to give every teacher a gun and tell them to use it as they see fit. Now that shuts students up, but of course there will be huge backlash, mainly in the form of “That’s not what a school should be about!” So what should be a school about? Normally we think schools should be safe environments, where students can focus on learning. Maybe we don’t want to give measures to escalate violence in schools. Those are some of the principles or values that we believe schools should be. Debates are about which values you use to support or oppose a motion.On a more serious note, let’s use the classic motion “THW support affirmative action in the workplace.” This is a beginner-level motion that still involves a lot of debating principles.On GOV side, you would argue for the principle of “positive equality”, where we help minorities reach to the same level of jobs or income as the majority of the population by giving them some sort of subsidy or favorable conditions in the workplace. You would argue that this is the only way that minorities can even start interacting with the population majority in the workplace.On OPP side, you would argue for the principle of “absolute equality”, that we should treat everyone equally no matter which status these citizens may be, minority or otherwise. We should judge people on the basis of merit, which should be applied to everyone equally.This is an example of how both teams can use principles to support or oppose a motion. Learning that there can be lots of different kinds of principles will determine your ability as a debater. Later on, you will learn these things called “First Principles”, which are the very basic concepts and arguments that you can use in many areas of debate, such as rights, democracies, environment, development, and so on.Practical (or “Benefits/Harms”): In easy terms, benefits and harms. What benefits does your side bring? How do these benefits materialize? Why are those benefits significant? If there are harms, why are the harms less significant comparedto the benefits? Surely we must enact something if it brings significant benefits over harms, so show me how.Using the motion from above as an example, GOV can say that there are benefits to giving minorities an advantage when selecting for jobs. Talented employees of minority status can succeed whereas before, they would not have been employed due to discrimination. GOV could also say that since minorities suffer in a vicious cycle between lack of education, lack of decent jobs and lack of a middle-class income (imagine Harlem, “people in the Bronx”), affirmative action can break that vicious cycle and get minorities work better in society.OPP can say that the GOV side brings harms in that there will be a backlash by the majority of the population. If, say, American white males learn that their potential jobs were taken by black people or women, they will discriminate against minorities further, harming these minorities even further. Or OPP could argue that their side brings benefits just as well; if even with meritocracy these minorities get jobs, the population majority will finally appreciate these minorities’ capabilities and truly respect people of minority status.Think of it this way: Any moral philosophy class will begin with two ways of judging whether an act is moral. One is utilitarianism, which states that an act is morally right if it benefits the most people or brings the most benefit. The other is Kantism, which states that an act is morally right if it is based from morally right reasons. What you attempt in debate is to show that you can win the debate on both philosophies.Stakeholder Analysis: Stakeholders are people who are related and are directly affected by the motion. Now, not everyone benefits equally – some people even receive harms for the sake of others! So who are involved in this motion? What kind of benefit do they get? Why are they an important group of people in this motion?Stakeholders involved in the motion above include the minority employees themselves, the employers/corporations, and the majority employees. We’ve talked much about these stakeholders already, but you see how each of those groups could be incorporated into an argument.1.3.5 What to do when stuck for argumentsBring in another principle.The first thing rookie debaters do when arguing for something is list out all the practical benefits and end there. So don’t. Think of other practical benefits.Which leads to…Think of more stakeholders. Sometimes a motion has more groups of people connected than you may think. This is where you have to start getting creative. More stakeholders means more principle or practical arguments based on those stakeholder groups.Link your argument back to the motion. Yeah, people forget this one a lot. Why does this argument have any relevance to the motion?Ask questions.Minjae Yoo (UU), Jisoo “Seth” Kang (KU) and countless other debaters will tell you that the best way to further substantiate your argument mainly boils down to asking yourself three questions: “Why?”, “How?”, and “So what?” Hyewon Rho (KU) advises asking this down to the third level for every argument. The idea is to start from very basic premises that everyone can agree, and then build your argument from there.1.4 Rebuttals1.4.1 Importance of Engagement and RebuttalsThe first big pillar of debate is argumentation, and how you make all your arguments. The second big pillar of debate is engagement, or how you respond to the other team as a whole. This includes the other team’s arguments, policy/model, analysis, and reasoning. A rebuttal is one part of your engagement, or how you responded to a particular point that the opposing team brings.A lot of people may think, doesn’t my argumentation necessarily clash with my opponent’s? Not quite. If both teams create very good argumentation but fail to engage with each other, you only have two very good sets of argumentation. There are debates when this lack of engagement happens, and is what’s frequently called a “parallel debate”. Like how two trains on parallel tracks never meet, neither side tries to engage with the other side.Ultimately, debate is a comparative exercise. I’m sure your solution to a motion is good, and I’m sure the other team’s solution is also good. But I still need to know who has the better solution. That’s where rebuttals come in.1.4.3 Rebutting TechniquesThere are many different methods in which you can say that any part of the opposing team’s arguments. We gathered a lot of these over the years, and we find that most rebuttals use one or more of these techniques.Factually WrongSome teams say factually wrong statements, either because they don’t know, or because they want to gain an unfair advantage by lying. In either case, you want to show that the other side is wrong in that aspect. If you don’t rebut that either, then the adjudicator will take that as both teams agreeing with the facts, and therefore the debate will be judged based on those facts.By the way, don’t lie in debates. Nobody looks at you nicely once they find out.Factually irrelevant/insignificantYou may argue that some teams bring facts that are irrelevant to the motion. The more you can show that the opposing team is irrelevant and not addressing the motion, the better your side may look. Some people call this “overweighing.” Every debate has two values clashing with each other, and the question is, which one should we prioritize? Show why your values or stakeholders need to be prioritized more.“Other side of the coin”Any phenomenon has two sides to it – one value might be preserved while another is violated, or one group of stakeholders loses something while another group gains.It is also great if you can talk about which benefit or harmExample: Any affirmative action may come up and say how affirmative action allows minorities (women, ethnic minorities, LGBT, disabled people) to reach top executive or government positions that otherwise they would never be able to reach, because of the majority’s dominance in business or government. It is because of the majority’s discrimination on the minority that they are not employed into jobs, or continue to get promotions. Affirmative action solves this problem.An oft-used response to this is called “reverse discrimination.” Reverse discrimination occurs when those in the majority (ex. In America, white, middle-class men) lose potential jobs because those jobs were taken by minorities who might not have the best qualifications.First of all, this is still discrimination, which is what we’re trying to get rid of. Secondly, the majority of the population begins to blame their failure on the minority, and discrimination outside of the workplace still continues. So just because you lessen discrimination in the workplace doesn’t mean it goes away outside of it.“Nothing New”Often the other team questions the solvency of your policy, simply because it looks like it hasn’t been tried before.It’s too new, as they would say. A useful rebuttal technique is to say that while your policy itself has not been tried yet, there are comparable real-life examples that have worked before, and that the same levels of success can be applied here. This makes your arguments sound much more realistic and persuasive.Example: “THW give conditional aid to Third World countries on the basis of passing pro-LGBT legislation.”Now it’s easy to say that forcing these countries to do something that they wish not to do is cruel when millions starve in those Third World countries every day. But it’s not new that international organizations offer monetary aid to certain rogue states on the basis of stopping wars or persecution against minorities. Offering aid to rogue states on the conditions of curbing their harmful behavior has been tried before. In fact, in 2011, UK Prime Minister David Cameron already started doing exactly this to the British Commonwealth nations. It is already happening.AssumptionWhile some debaters may try to look like they have stated every logical step, they occasionally drop a step or two in the middle. If that assumption is especially important Example: This occurs in a lot of motions about defamation.“THWreveal the true identity of users of Internet forums.”GOV: “We must reveal the identity of people who post slanderous posts on the Internet and cause celebrities to commit suicide.”There is the assumption that celebrities, upon reading slanderous posts of themselves, will suddenly be offended. So the first step is pointing that assumption out.OPP: “We don’t think that just because you read something bad about yourself, that automatically means I get offended. I could ignore it, I could agree with it, I could just treat it as a joke that someone put up and laugh with it.”But it’s not enough to just point out that there is an assumption. It’s even better if you can show that the missing step can be used into the favour of your argumentation.OPP: “But if the government judges something as offensive even when no actual offense has been done, we think this is unjustly punishing people who didn’t create any offense.”Even-ifThere are two things you can do with a premise of an argument from the opposing side. Most debaters go for directly disproving that premise. But another thing you can do, especially if disproving that premise is difficult, is to use an “even-if” case. Even if that premise were true, it still leads to other problems or consequences that cannot be solved by the other side.Example: “THW mandate Twitter to freeze accounts that promote terrorism on its servers.”GOV says that this policy will be beneficial because terrorists use Twitter all the time for spreading propaganda, recruitment, and plan coordination.OPP: “We think it is unlikely that terrorists meet online to discuss their next bombing site when they can be tracked on the Internet very easily. Most terrorist planning occurs offline.” This is the first step, of showing that the other side’s premise is false.But the motion is specifically asking what should be done once a terrorist organization uses Twitter to do such a thing. Just saying that it won’t happen isn’t enough.This is when you use an even-if case, to something like:“Even if terrorists do use Twitter to further their cause (which we think is very unlikely), we still think this isn’t an excuse to pass this policy, mainly because of the idea of free speech, and how Twitter posts that don’t promote terrorism can still be interpreted and therefore banned. It is the government’s ability to arbitrarily decide what constitutes as ‘terrorism’ under this policy that we oppose.” So even if GOV were true with that premise, there are still other harms.ReverseThis is one of the trickier forms of rebuttal, but when it helps it really helps.ContradictionA contradiction is where the premises and reasoning of the argument leads to opposite conclusions or implications that cannot be met (remember the“p and not p” stuff from any logic class). A contradiction is also one of the best ways of showing that the other side has a serious problem in their argumentation, as it weakens the premises that they stand for and also demonstrates that at least one of their premises or reasoning is wrong.But, as Jisoo“Seth” Kang (KU) says, don’t just say that there is a contradiction. Pull the contradiction to its logical conclusion – how does the contradiction ruin their entire case? Why is it that in capital punishment debates, that “life imprisonment is harsher than the death penalty” is a logical contradiction with the value of life?Among particularly bad teams you can notice contradictions even within one unprepared speaker’s speech. But contradictions are most likely to occur between two different speakers in the same team, if the team does not have sufficient communication among its team members. Keep track of previous speakers’ notes, then attack.Unverified CausationThis is a concept that sees much use, particularly in the social sciences. Suppose event A and event B tend to happen together a lot. In that case, those studying statistics say that “events A and B have a high correlation.” But that doesn’t automatically imply that A causes B. Maybe B causes A, or there is a third event C that causes both A and B.Internet meme example: Over the years, the StrawmanIt’s easy to knock a scarecrow or “straw man” down, but you can’t use that to prove that you can knock a man down. Similarly, in debates you may encounter the strawman argument or rebuttal, where the opposing team mischaracterizes or deliberately distorts your case in order to make it easier to rebut for themselves. If you think that the opposing side is doing that, and you don’t tackle it, the adjudicator may think that you’re not defending your position well enough or even that their rebuttal was fine. It’s your job to point out strawman fallacies if you want to protect your arguments.1.4.3 Structure of RebuttalsYou can structure your rebuttals much like arguments – after all, a rebuttal could be considered a mini-argument used to topple down an argument.Assertion-Reasoning-ExampleRemember how each argument has an assertion, reasoning and example? If you consider rebuttals as mini-arguments against the opposing side’s argumentation, a rebuttal should also have its own assertion, reasoning and example.ArgumentRebuttalAssertionCounter-assertionReasoningCounter-reasoningExampleCounter-exampleYour rebuttal would begin with a counter-assertion, a title of its own or the argument that it is referring to. Then it would have counter-reasoning, a sequence of logical steps that shows why the other side is wrong. Finally, if you have an example, you would ideally present a counter-example that goes against their example, or show why their example does not work.It is common practice to have one rebuttal for one argumentation.L-RingSimilar to how you can use the L-Ring structure in an argument, you can use the same in a rebuttal.Lots of beginning debaters stop at rebutting the opposing team’s arguments at the first level. Go deeper.On the other hand, if your rebuttals do overlap too much with your arguments, it would be tactically better to say that your argumentation rebuts their arguments.You can also rebut to multiple premises or lines of reasoning within the other side’s argumentation, or respond to a line of reasoning with multiple layers of analysis. This is where opening another branch of the L-Ring can be applied.“Rahman Method”DanialRahman (IIUM) taught us this rebuttal method. He’s now a court judge in Indonesia (debating does help in your future career too.).Restate opponent’s argument: You need to paraphrase what your opposing team saidQuestion: So why is their argument correct? Isn’t something weird here? Pose a simple question that will stick in the adjudicator’s mind.Principle: Rebut on a principle level –why is that value wrong, irrelevant or simply less important than your values?Practical: Rebut on a practical level – why will their policy not work? What other harms do they bring? What benefits do not occur?Example: Provide an example in which the opponent’s argument is proven wrong. Remember, examples are weak on their own but are great if you link them with reasoning.Even-If: Even if there is something true or important about the other team’s argument, you can still overweigh the values or benefits that they stand for your own.It’s not necessary to include all these at once, and in fact you can experiment with the structure later on as you get better. But for now, try to stick with one of these structures. It will be a lot easier for you to say them and adjudicators to follow them.1.4.4 Strategic RebuttingSeveral standards to see whether your rebuttals would be effective:Does it address the core of the other side’s argumentation?Stop quibbling in small details that the other side brings. Rebutting argumentation is not only responding to the premises and facts in the other side’s argumentation, but mostly why their reasoning, their examples, or their entire stance (or prioritization of values) is wrong, unpersuasive, or irrelevant. Attack that, and they cannot simply bring up new examples to support their case.Does it align with my team’s argumentation?A lot of rookie debaters tend to rebut without linking it back to their argumentation, hence making the rebuttal look like a lost child in the park. Stick to your argumentation and when rebutting, bring out the premises that you used in your or your teammate’s speech to rebut them, with new information if necessary (though not new information in the whip’s speech!).Does this rebuttal make me look stupid?The rebuttal should not be contradictory to your own case or make you stand for an unreasonable position. It’s fine to concede with the other team on certain facts or issues, but you can always disagree for other reasons.Does this rebuttal address an issue unique to our side?Debates can fall into the trap of mutual exclusivity, where issues or harms that are not resolved by either side are discussed ad infinitum. Take crime for example. Neither prison sentences nor education will evercompletely wipe out crime.The debate is about which method is more just and more effective.Are prison sentences more effective in stopping future crimes than education? In order to answer the question, there has to be something that prison sentences do that education simply does not (like punishing someone for bad behavior in a strict way).The role of rebuttals then is simple. Attack an issue that you claim your side resolves but their side does not.Example: TH regrets the sale of medicine in supermarkets. (2012 Spring KNC Rookie Semifinals)GOV: Doctors are the best agents to prescribe medicine to patients.OPP: Doctors are not perfect, therefore we should let doctors prescribe medicine.It is harder to argue that doctors with years of medical training are not as good as prescribing medicine as normal people without years of medical training than the other way around.1.5 POIs1.5.1 What are POIs?If rebuttals are the primary method of engagement with the other team, POIs are a much more different method of engaging with the other team. While some debaters question the importance of the POI, and hence some tournaments don’t even allow POIs at all, POIs do add one thing that you can’t do with rebuttals – they require the debater on the podium to be spontaneous, and keep the other team attentive to the speech. As POIs are another form of engagement like rebuttals, you can use the same techniques that you would use in rebuttals. To clarify the rules again: the speaker can accept POIs at any time between 1st minute and the 6th minute in his speech (1:00 – 6:00). Any time before or after that is considered “protected time”, and you’ll be called out of order.” The other side can as for as many POIs as they wish within this unprotected time, although debating etiquette is that you don’t ask for POIs until 15-20 seconds after the last request (otherwise it’s known as “barracking”). POIs are at maximum 15 seconds long, and a judge has the authority to stop the POI if it exceeds the time limit.A debater may ask for POIs to the current speaker by standing from his seat, raising one hand and saying “Point of Information”, “Sir/Madam”, or some other way of getting the speaker’s attention. Some even put their hand on their head as they raise the other one (This is a remnant from a parliamentary tradition centuries ago, when it was the fashion for politicians used to wear those long white wigs you see in old legal dramas. As they stood up, their wigs may fall down, which is why they held it with one hand. The wigs have gone, but the gesture remains).When you are on the podium, you can deal with a request for a POI in three ways.You can deny it, which then the opposing debater must sit down.You can ask the debater to hold onto the POI and answer it later.You can answer the POI.1.5.2 General Tips on Asking POIsAttack the weak points of the opposing team.Unlike in normal speech time, in which the opposing team can choose not to engage on a clash or argument that they might be losing, they will have to directly respond if you ask them a POI about it. So attack their reasoning in the hopes that the other team will squirm in their shoes.Don’t get stuck on details. The debater will only accept one to two POIs during his/her speech. In that case, you want your POIs to have maximum effect. Don’t tackle minor details that you can cover in rebuttals.Keep it short, stupid: A POI is at maximum 15 seconds long, which means it should be short enough to deliver your question. If it is too long, the adjudicator can stop you, and the speaker can refuse to answer your question (because your POI ultimately wasn’t a question). Also, don’t try to address too many questions in one POI. Remember, it’s a point of information, not points of information.Here’s a test; before asking your POI, try writing the question on a regular post-it note. If it doesn’t fit there, it’s probably too long.Be direct. Sometimes you will find a glaring error or contradiction in the opponents’argumentation. Obviously you want this to be known as directly as possible. And if you waste it by not getting to your question in 15 seconds, you lose that chance.If all else fails, put it in rebuttals. If you can’t fit the POI in 15 seconds or if the speaker refuses your request for a POI, put it in the next speaker’s rebuttals. This is why communication among your team members is important.1.5.3 General Tips on Answering POIsAccept POIs. Generally, in your speech, you should accept at least 1 POI to show that you are engaging with the other team. You should also not accept more than 2 POIs, or else it starts looking like you really didn’t prepare for this speech enough.Accept your POIs tactically. Please don’t accept POIs in the middle of a sentence – it makes it much more difficult to track down your argument. Tactically, the best place to accept one is after you have finished an argument or right after you finished all your rebuttals – that way, you can still try to answer the POI with the analysis you gave just before.Prepare in advance a solid team stance. In AP you have 30 minutes of preparation time and 2 other teammates. Whenever you think of something that the other side might ask, confer in advance how you might answer those POIs. With experience, you can even predict what the other side is going to ask.Some people mess up answering POIs by contradicting their teammates or even themselves. This doesn’t happen if your team has a consistent team stance, if all three members know what their arguments are.Don’t panic. A lot of debaters panic, especially when they hear a POI that they didn’t expect to hear. At least don’t look like you’re panicking. Instead, you may rephrase the question in a way that you can answer it, or say that this is something already covered in your argumentation. But for God’s sake, you need to think on the podium as well as in prep time. POIs are all about spontaneity.If all else fails, retreat and look for backup. If the other side simply cannot ask a coherent, understandable POI, or exceed 15 seconds, you can just refuse to answer the question. It’s their loss anyway, and judges may allow that. Meanwhile, your teammates should pick up what that POI meant, and respond to it in the next speaker’s speech.1.6 Speaker RolesNow that you know what every speaker is supposed to do, let’s look at what each speaker is supposed to do. You will remember that in AP, there are six debaters from two teams and eight speeches:Prime Minister (PM)Leader of Opposition (LO)Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO)Government Whip (GW)Opposition Whip (OW)Opposition Reply (OR)Government Reply (GR)Now of course all of these different speaker roles have different objectives, but all roles will still need the very basic skills of argumentation and rebuttals. That’s why when you are doing your very first debates, you shouldn’t automatically think that you should only excel in one role.1.6.1 PMThe first speaker in the debate needs to limit the debate to within a narrow enough and yet debatable enough ground. The first speaker from the GOV team should demonstrate how his/her side can solve the problem given in the motion.As the PM, you are both. So do both.For the sake of seeing this in practice, let’s take a motion: “THBT the Internet empowers democracy.” (2012 KNC Semifinals)Set-up the debate: As the very first speaker, the PM needs to say what the problem behind the motion is, and how and why the GOV team intends to solve it.Ex) “For too long, even democratic governments have been unaccountable to its own people given that there were no external checks and balances. The main problem was that the media, whether it’s newspapers or TV or radio, was incapable or unwilling to fully uphold the democratic principles that we all believe everyone should have – the freedom of expression, the freedom of organization, and the accountability of governments. The Internet solves all these problems, and we’re going to show you how.”Definition: This is where you narrow down the debate. We will talk about how to make definitions later on, but please remember – the definition is there to narrow down the debate, and it’s something that should be reasonable and debatable by both sides.Ex) Don’t go around defining the “Internet.” There is very little dissent on what that would mean. Instead, what do you mean by “democracy”? Do you mean fully developed democracies (e.g. Korea, US) or do you include nascent democracies (e.g. Egypt, Tunisia) as well? What do you mean by “empowers”? That’s what you should define.Policy/Model: Your “policy” or “model” is what actions your team would take to solve the problem. For instance, you might ban or legalize/regulate drugs through a specific government agency, or prevent deforestation by allowing Greenpeace to track down illegal deforesters in the Amazon. We’re also going to cover this when discussing about definitions.Please note that it is not always necessary to bring a policy. There are mostly two types of debate motions: policy motions, which propose that we should do something, and value motions, which don’t call for specific action but still asks what we as a society should believe in. The example above would count as a value motion. But if it looks like a policy motion (e.g. “THBT China should remove all restrictions on internal migration”) then you do need a policy.Team Stance: This is basically what your team wants to prove through this debate.Ex) Back to the Internet motion: “We will show you how the Internet empowers democracy by maximizing the freedom of speech and organization for each citizen, and also how it increases the accountability of government better than traditional media.”Case Split: “Case” is another word for your argumentation. Very simple, then: announce what arguments you will be bringing (assertions only) and who’ll be saying what.You don’t necessarily need to stick with your case split all the time. After all, debaters should be responsive to how the debate itself is flowing. Nevertheless, it helps to have an outline of your team’s arguments.Ex) “I as the Prime Minister will talk to you about [Argument 1] and [Argument 2]. My deputy will talk about [Argument 3].”Argumentation: You’re the first GOV speaker, so obviously you must bring argumentation. Traditionally (and for good reason) you put your principle arguments or just stronger arguments here.1.6.2 LOAs the first OPP speaker, the LO shares many of the same roles as the PM. But it’s worth differentiating between the two since LO has some other roles to fulfill.Set-up the debate: You as the LO need to say that the PM’s analysis of the motion is total [insert disgusting thing here]. You also show that OPP views the motion differently, and hence you oppose.In response to the PM’s analysis of the problem and the solution, you can take one of these three approaches:Deny the problem. The status quo is fine enough as it is.Accept the problem, but GOV’s solution leads to more harms than benefits. OPP is going to concede to GOV that there is a problem, but GOV’s solution violates many more principles in exchange for others, or brings larger harms than the benefits it intends to bring. Minimize the benefits, maximize the harms.Accept the problem, propose a different solution. OPP could argue that GOV’s solution is not the way to solve the problem, and therefore you’d like to propose a new solution.Policy: This is perhaps even more optional for OPP than for GOV. If you took approaches 1 or 2 when you set up the debate, you obviously don’t need a policy. If you took approach 3, then you obviously do. In doing so, do remember that you have just as much responsibility in providing a strong enough policy as PM.Team Stance: Same as PM.Case Split: Same as PM.Rebuttals: Obviously you should be rebutting the PM’s arguments. It’s even better if you rebut how the PM analyzed the problem, or what the PM thinks is the problem in the status quo.Note: You are not obligated by the rules to put rebuttals right before your arguments. Canadian debaters are known to put their rebuttals after they finished their arguments. However, we’d like to say that only Canadian debaters make their speeches in this way. The vast majority of the debating world will agree debaters may not be able to say all your rebuttals in time if they put all their rebuttals at the end of their speech. In a debate where engagement is vital, this is a risky strategy. Some very advanced debaters are known to incorporate their rebuttals into their arguments. If this can be pulled off then this saves a lot of time. If you can make sure your rebuttals stand out in the middle of your arguments, that is.Ultimately, the rebuttals don’t always have to be before the argumentation. If you are going to, however, notify that you will do so in your speech early on, and keep all your rebuttals together. Experimenting with new speech styles is no excuse for being unorganized.Argumentation: As the first OPP speaker, you should also bring principle arguments in your speech.1.6.3. Deputies (DPM/DLO)Contrary to popular belief, deputies have a surprisingly difficult job. Their job is to bringBring back the debate: In a good debate, the flow of the debate (or the adjudicator’s mind on who is winning) should be on the other side by now. So bring it back. Seung-hun’s technique is to ask questions about what the motion is supposed to be, what is the problem supposed to be (again), and then show why his team is answering those questions.Rebuttals: Try to primarily rebut the arguments from the very previous speaker. This especially applies to DLO, who should prioritize rebuttals for the DPM’s arguments.Argumentation: The DPM/DLO traditionally takes the stakeholder analysis or practical arguments.You could also extend the debate into new themes, or develop a wholly new argument. If you couldn’t prepare one in prep time, you can try to develop an argument from what you would otherwise have in rebuttals (very tricky though; we’ve only heard of a handful of cases where this succeeded).1.6.4 Whips (GW/OW)I find that rookie debaters have the most difficulty understanding what whips are supposed to do, because the whip’s role is very different from the other two speakers. Basically, the whip is supposed to summarize the debate, and then show that his/her team won in parts of the debate where the two teams’ arguments collided with each other, or “clashed” with each other. This is where we get the word “clash”.That being said, the role of the whip is not to bring even more arguments, but organizing what already happened the debate, and seeing why his/her team won. You may not bring new matter as a whip. By new matter, we mean new arguments, new examples, Technically, GW may still be allowed to make new examples or analyses on the basis that they need to respond to the DLO’s arguments in some way (or else nobody gets to rebut the DLO). OW is absolutely not allowed to make new examples or analyses, and will be punished for doing so.Summarize the debate: But not a chronological or complete summary. Clashes: At some point, your team clashed with the other team on arguments, rebuttals, or even the way you analyze the problem itself.If you want to:Rebuttals: If there are some rebuttals that you’d like to make Why are they called whips?Remember how the debate format we’re using is called Asian Parliamentary format? In parliaments you have ruling and opposition political parties, which is where the whole “Government”and“Opposition” concept comes from. Naturally, a party gets elected in on a set of policies that they ensure to everyone in the country that they are going to do.But not everyone in a political party wants to vote the same way. Many people go under the same party banner, but that doesn’t mean they all believe in the same political ideology. For instance, your typical “right-leaning” party would have free-market capitalists, religious or social conservatives, libertarians, and many others. Your typical “left-leaning” party has liberals, socialists, egalitarians, minority rights advocates, environmentalists, and many other groups. And there is no guarantee that they will all vote the same way given any issue.This is where the party whips come in. The primary purpose of a whip is to ensure party discipline, by making sure everybody in a party votes the same way for a legislative bill. If some members do not, they are supposed to “whip” those members until they vote the same way. Keep that in mind when debating as a whip in a debate team. You are here to show that all three members of your team said the same stance. Sure, you three all used different words, but everything they said supports your arguments, and there was no internal contradiction (at least make it sound like that). But you can apply the same reasoning during preparation time. Your other two speakers will be busy writing out their arguments, but the whip can’t really prepare anything in advance. Instead, keep asking questions to your first two speakers. “How will we respond to this POI?” “What is our stance on that?”“What would our policy do about this particular thing?”Keep making sure that all three members of the team have the same stance, understand each other’s arguments, and be prepared for any random POIs.1.6.5 Replies (OR/GR)While the first six speeches were “substantive”, as in they provided some sort of new matter or analyses, reply speeches are not substantive. You are not allowed to bring in any new concept whatsoever. It’s a little difficult to describe the exact difference between replies and whip speeches, but most debaters know the reply as a “biased adjudication”, or reasons why your team won over the other. Whips cannot do reply speeches (especially opposition reply after opposition whip!).1.7 Definitions and PolicyDefinitions and policy is one of the toughest areas for rookie debaters to learn. While it seems so insignificant, it also is important to know for the adjudicator what your team’s stance in the debate is and how narrowly you wish to limit the scope of the debate. With that in mind, a few pointers.1.7.1 How (Not) to Make DefinitionsThe reason why we have definitions is to define what is included in the scope of the debate. While we all know the words “social values” or “violent”, it is up to the government to define what are “social values” or what is “violent.”Take the motion “THW ban violent video games from children.” Here are a few definitions you should avoid:Dictionary definitions: Dictionary definitions do not narrow down the scope of the debate. We all know what video games are, but it does not narrow down what violent video games we are discussing. Are we including into this debate games that use guns even if they do not show blood or gore? The definition does not narrow this down.“Video games are a form of electronic interactive entertainment. Violence is a form of physical aggression committed against another human being.”Unfair definitions: Unfair definitionsdeny space for OPP to argue by means of the definition itself rather than through argumentation.While good definitions can sometimes preempt frivolous arguments from OPP and narrow the debate to more sensible clashes (such as the “we don’t have enough money” rebuttal), bad definitions of this kind deny the space for OPP to argue in the first place.“By children, we mean anyone below the age of 2. We believe that children age 2 or above can still play these violent video games, just not the children below the age of 2.”Time/Place-specific definitions: Time or place-specific definitions place the motion within a specific time or place that is unexpected or undebatable for the other side. Frequently these kinds of definitions occur in time or place settings in which not everyone would be expected to have information about. Take this example.“We would like to ban violent video games in Mauritius before 1980.”Squirreling definitions: There is a clear intention behind the motion (banning violent video games like Mortal Kombat for those who haven’t become full adults yet). Squirreling definitionsdistort the words of the motion into something that the OPP simply cannot predict or expect rationally from the motion alone. This is called squirreling. Squirreling usually is a sign that the debater does not know what the motion is actually about.“By violent video games we mean drinking games done by watching violent videos. We are here to stop children playing drinking games.”So what makes a good, debatable definition?Clearly define the boundaries of this debate: Consider the definition as an agreement between both teams to decide what should be debated within in this motion.Make sure the definition does not unfairly burden or favour any one team: Seriously, just ask yourself: “Is this a definition that if I were in OPP I would find acceptable/expectable?”An example of a fair and clear definition would be: “By violent video games, we mean games that overwhelmingly include physical violence (not limited to murder, rape, lots of punching) beyond the necessity as required by the gameplay or story (i.e. gratuitously violent). Examples include Mortal Kombat.”1.7.2 Definition Challenges– When (not) to, HowWhen OPP thinks that there is something wrong with the motion, the LO can challenge the definition and offer a newer definition that it thinks better reflects the motion and is more sensible. Obviously, it is imperative that the LO says this early in the speech. When the LO does not challenge the definition, the definition is considered de facto accepted by both sides.A more subtle way of challenging the definition is to say that the definition given is ridiculous, then “broaden” the scope of the debate and say that you would engage them anyway.But this is a frequent reason why definition challenges make the debate messier. The DPM has the choice of accepting the new definition given by OPP or refusing that and sticking with the first definition given by GOV. If DPM does not accept the definition challenge, the debate has to occur on two sets of definitions. So the DPM would now have to debate why the team wins on GOV’s definition as well as why they win on OPP’s definition as well.1.7.3 How to Make Policies (“models”)A policy or model is what you are going to do to solve the problem as mentioned in the motion. Many motions are “policy motions”, where both teams will have to discuss about how their respective policies change the status quo for the better. For example, “THW allow euthanasia” is a policy motion because GOV side would inevitably have to say that they wish to do legislative action to allow euthanasia. OPP would do legislative action to ban it. Some say “policy”, some say “model”. In this guide, both terms will be used interchangeably.It is not absolutely necessary for teams to have a policy for every motion. Some motions are value motions, in which there aren’t that much policy to discuss anyway. However, value motions still need definitions to narrow the scope of the debate and clarify a few terms (ex. what is “treason”? No seriously. Look it up).1.7.4 Types of Models – Hard, Soft, Status Quo, InsaneThe type of model you propose differs according to the amount of change in the status quo you wish to achieve. A hard model is one that would impose a lot of usually strict change to the society. A soft model would impose some but not significant changes. Imposing a status quo model would mean that the model does not really change anything.It is generally agreed that a hard or moderate model/stance is better than a soft model. Let us see why. A team with a soft model can usually fall into a problem-solution gap, where the solution that they provide is very small or insignificant in comparison to the magnitude of the problem. A team with a soft stance also has to defend its position by using and justifying more and more exceptions, which eats up precious speech time for other argumentation. A hard model generally does not suffer from these problems. However, debaters must be prepared to defend a hard model even if it means allowing or acknowledging definite harms.Let us continue with the “THW allow euthanasia” example from above.1.8 Note TakingLet’s face it. In AP format, you have up to 54 minutes of speeches. Even if you are not adjudicating the debate, there is no way you can keep track of all that just in your head. Also, you can analyze new debate motions on your previous experience in other debates, and in order to do that you are going to need notes from those previous debates. So as much as debate may be a verbal exercise, you will also need to practice your note taking skills. Good note taking skills will help you keep track during the debate, and store that information for future debates.Obviously there is no one set method of note taking. But debaters have found that some ways are more helpful than others. This is how we do it. If you find your own style, brilliant. Use that.1.8.1 Before the DebateI usually prepare about 3 pages before the debate – one for brainstorming and the next two for writing down my arguments for the debate. Also, I don’t write every single word of an argument. I do, however, write one sentence for each step of reasoning. I still understand all my arguments, why do I need every word of it?I still see middle-school or even high-school level debaters writing down every word of their 7-minute speeches. Apart from my amazement, I’d advise you not to do so. First, you don’t want to look like reading off your notes and avoiding eye contact. Second, if you lose your place, it is much harder to get back without losing precious time.Sung Ryul Park (UU) recommends this if you tend to get stuck on reading your notes during the speech itself –even if you have two or three arguments, write down only up to 10 words. Say, “harm principle.” Then you practice making speeches given that one word. The idea is not to rely on your notes but to hold that line of reasoning within your head in the first place. Then you limit it down to 5 words. 3 words. 2 words. With enough practice, you won’t even need substantial notes.1.8.2 During the DebateI tend to use one whole page for each speaker’s speech. That way, I have enough space to write down the details of each speaker’s speech and comments on those speeches.Also, abbreviate. It’s impossible to write down every single word the speaker has. Instead of United Nations, write UN. Instead of Third World Countries, TWCs. Instead of Affirmative Action, AA. I know they’re not even official acronyms, but they’re acronyms that I can keep track of. It saves time on writing immensely.If it helps you, try using one sheet per argument or clash for whips. Cecile Gotamco (Ateneo) jokes that she is an enemy of the environment when she prepares multiple sheets of paper during her whip speeches. Canadian debaters are known to use note cards during debates.1.8.3 After the DebateEvery debater should write notes from the adjudication. What did you/your team/debaters in the other team do well or poorly? It’s good to refer back to these notes and see what you need to improve for your next debate, but also to keep track on what you are improving on.1.8.4 Note Taking TipsFind a way of organizing all your debate notes. I put all my debate-related notes (debates, adjudications, lectures) into my debate notebooks (which is why as of December 2012, I have exceeded 2900 pages). Jiyoon Han (UU) puts all her debate notes in a binder, so that later when she wishes to review on a certain topic like law enforcement, she can refer to all the debates she did there, all the arguments that she used, as well as all the arguments that the other side has used. Remember, you never know which position you’ll argue for next time.Also, this is something I learned from Seung-hun (who has learned it from other people), and this has helped me substantially. Use a three-coloured pen. For instance, I use black for all substantive matter, blue for rebuttals and POIs, and red for my own comments. It really helps during adjudications when differentiating between rebuttals and argumentation. It’s good to have a system for differentiating different parts of a speech.1.9 Preparation TimeYou have 30 minutes of preparation time in AP. That may sound a lot, but in practice 30 minutes passes rather quickly. As you may have experienced in your first few debates, even after 30 minutes you may lack argumentation, or not prepare rebuttals for the other team.Since every team is given 30 minutes, it is vitally important that every member of the team spends the time to maximum efficiency.It is common tradition for the GOV team to prepare inside the debate room, while the OPP team prepares outside the debate room.1.9.1 How to use prep time efficientlyRefer back to 1.3 Argumentation and 1.6 Speaker Roles. Remember all the different types of arguments that you can have, and remember on what each speaker is supposed to do.Talk! Goodness, you’re a team. If anyone has a good idea, he/she should share it with the rest of the team. Hogging ideas won’t help you.Prepare a team stance. Prep time should be the time when all three speakers get together and prepare how to start Try helping the PM/LO first. It also gives a better impression for your team. If the first speaker has nothing to say, it really hurts your team’s case.But do prepare something for DPM/DLO. The woe of a DPM/DLO is that anything everything that he/she wishes to say gets absorbed into the PM/DLO’s argumentation. This is where you get creative and start thinking of other arguments.Do something, whips. As someone whose material solely comes after prep time, your team’s whip must be freer compared to your other two speakers. The whip’s job isn’t, then, just to sit around while the other two speakers are crazily preparing. At least think of what the other side might ask. Think of any possible rebuttals that the opposing team can come up with (“What do we say in response to this POI?”) and make sure everyone is saying the same stance (“Does this thing apply to our definition?”).1.9.2 Examples of Time AllocationThe MAD Training Handbook, as published by Monash Association of Debaters, says that this is how their debaters prepare:0:00-10:00: 10:00-20:00: 20:00-30:00: We’ve developed our own way of preparing, and it seems to work well:0:00-3:00: Decide on motion with other team, run to debate room3:00-7:00: Think about what important or relevant issues this motion has. This is done individually.7:00-15:00: As a team, decide which direction or stance the team wishes to have. For instance, if the motion is about government investment, are we arguing more about economic efficiency or political implications?15:00-25:00: First two speakers begin developing their argumentation based on the team stance, while whip continuously asks questions relating to the stance or possible rebuttals25:00-30:00: Finish argumentation, prepare to get into the debate room1.10 Common Rookie MistakesOf course, everyone has to start somewhere, even in debating. And that beginning is nowhere near pretty. You make all kinds of mistakes. I have made mistakes like these below, and I have seen so many rookie debaters (and even some experienced ones!) commit them as well. But that doesn’t mean you should as well, which is the point of this section.Most of these are mistakes concerning matter, but there are some on manner or method as well.1.10.1 Logical FallaciesAs much as debate is a logical exercise, debaters should avoid logical fallacies in their argumentation. Logical fallacies are common, flawed arguments that may seem plausible or “psychologically persuasive, though logically impotent.” (Not my words, but the words of Lewis Vaughn. See sources.) It’s not that the claims themselves are wrong to begin with, it’s just that the reasoning behind those claims would be logically invalid.Note these fallacies deal much with the premises being either irrelevant or unacceptable, or the reasoning itself being faulty.In your free time, try to find for these fallacies in political debates. You’ll be surprised.Genetic Fallacy:Judging a policy or value based on who supports it or opposes itIn the Internet, this is called “Reductio ad Hitlerum”. Basically it goes something like: eating sugar is bad, because at some point Hitler must have done it. Never mind that Hitler actively persecuted and executed 6 million Jews and other minorities, as well as maintain a totalitarian state that banned free speech and invaded the rest of Europe, kickstarting a war responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide.Now of course, most people would say that Hitler was an evil person, but not because he ate sugar. Similarly, we can argue for free public education, but not because someone said so (FYI, I have seen a team that supported the motion TH Supports Seoul Student Right Ordinance because Wonsoon Park, a mayor of Seoul supports it–which is 1. technically not true and 2. committing this exact fallacy).Appeal to the person (“ad hominem”):Rejecting an argument by criticizing the person who made itThis is rebutting an argument based on the person saying the argument (difference between this and genetic fallacy being that genetic fallacy is judging an action based on the person who did it).At most,bringing up an ad hominem should be a joke that you mention in a debate among close friends, with the clear implication that it is a joke and not part of any argument. In a debate with anyone less than friendly, this is an insult.Appeal to popularity (“ad populum”):An argument is valid because lots of people believe itThere’s a difference between popularity and validity or truthfulness. 500 years ago, lots of people thought that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Doesn’t mean they were right. In more debate-relevant terms, this could apply to social values. For centuries, white American males thought that discriminating their own citizens based on ethnicity (black people) or gender (women) was fine. But nobody believes in that today.You don’t support values because lots of people believe in them, but rather because even without majority consent, you can still justify them. This is the mindset behind justifying principles.Appeal to tradition: An argument is valid because it’s been that way for a long timeTradition doesn’t say anything about whether an action is moral or not. This usually occurs when rookie debaters are faced with changing old social beliefs, like lifelong monogamy or gay marriage. Yes, I get that gay marriage hasn’t been legal for hundreds of years. So what? That doesn’t say whether the tradition is wrong or right in the first place. If a tradition is morally wrong, then we should remove it anyway.Appeal to emotion/pity (“ad misericordiam”): Using emotions in an argumentA sure sign of a rookie adjudicator is one that gets swept by emotional speaking.Sure, emotions are important, and we all have gut reactions to any social phenomena, but that doesn’t mean we have to remain at our emotions and not provide any reason on whether something is right or wrong. Moral theories were developed in order to rationalize our emotional responses.Emotions should be limited to manner. Please don’t use emotions in place of your argumentation.False Dichotomy: Arguing that there are only two possibilities and then denying one when there could be other possibilitiesConsider this example. “Either you are patriotic to a nation by joining the army, or you are unpatriotic by not joining the army.” Does that mean only soldiers are patriotic? No, because I could be patriotic and not join the army (i.e. I believe a war that my nation is involved in is not the best course for this nation, hence I will not support it) or be unpatriotic and still join the army (i.e. I’m not French but I’m a member of the French Foreign Legion). But the above statement can be used in an argument on, say, “THW grant citizenship in exchange for military service.” So always think of whether there can be other possibilities or values concerned when your opponent tries to say that there are only two possibilities. Is the dichotomy that they present correct?Red herring: Talking about a completely unrelated topicThe origin of the “red herring” comes from hunting, when hunters would train young hounds to locate scent trails by dragging a red herring along the side of the path of a fox or a badger. A young hound would confuse the smell, but eventually it would learn to distinguish the stronger red herring scent from the weaker fox or badger scent.In debate terms, a red herring refers to talking about a completely irrelevant topic. For instance, if the motion is “THBT Hugo Chavez is a threat to Western democracies,” and the speaker talks about his fight against cancer or his domestic policies, that might be a red herring. His cancer condition has nothing to do with his foreign policy, and even if there were, a strong link between the two needs to be established. Find out when opponents are using a red herring, then show why they are completely unrelated to the motion.Strawman: Distortion of an argument just to make it easier to rebutThis is another fallacy that even intermediate debaters fall into. Debaters might twist, distort, or misrepresent an opponent’s argument simply so that it is easier to rebut. This can happen in POIs where the question isn’t very clearly worded (and therefore you should be asking clearer, shorter POIs), but this can happen in rebuttals.Still, you’re not rebutting the argument at its strongest, which is presumably what your opponents are intending to do. Rebutting their argument at their strongest will make their argument that much weaker.If your team experiences the strawman fallacy within a debate, the next speaker in your team has to immediately point out in his/her introduction. If that speaker doesn’t, it is presumed that both teams are content with the characterization, and obviously that’s not what you want.Begging the question (“petitionprincipi”): Using the conclusion as a premiseThis is trying to prove a claim by using that very claim as a premise. Obviously if you use your claim as a premise, you don’t need that reasoning to prove it. But if you are trying to prove something by assuming it, you still do not This is a classic example of begging the question in Sunday school:“Why does God exist? Because the Bible says so. Who wrote the Bible? God.”As you see, this proof of the existence of God assumes that God exists in the first place to write the Bible. But what if God doesn’t exist? Then the Bible isn’t written by God, and the Bible can’t guarantee that God exists.People may try to hide this fallacy with synonyms or different wording, but don’t be fooled by that. For instance, this was a line mentioned in a Master’s Round debate, or where expert debaters demonstrate what a debate should be:“We should engage with these oppressive regimes because otherwise there would be no interaction.”So we should engage with oppressive regimes because otherwise we wouldn’t be engaging. Hmm. It may be argued that this is not begging the question, but if you have to bring additional reasons why, there is something wrong with that statement to begin with.Slippery Slope:Arguing that a particular step will lead to further, undesirable steps without proper justificationThis is another common one that even intermediate debaters might make. Consider this line of reasoning: “Suppose we allow capital punishment. Then, stricter methods of punishment will be applied to all prisoners. Then, law enforcement will get tougher, and eventually citizens will lose all their civil liberties. Therefore, we must ban capital punishment to stop this from happening.”That is scary, if banning capital punishment does lead to that. But where is the guarantee that all these steps will happen? Even if stricter punishment is imposed on all prisoners, there is no justification that this will suddenly allow police officers to be tougher. This kind of fallacy is a slippery slope, where one particular step will lead to further steps, and eventually the effects will snowball into something undesirable.Tim Sonnerich (Monash) thinks that slippery slope arguments can work if one can justify every step in the middle. But he admits that this is still difficult and can take a lot of time. But it can be done. For instance, the slippery slope argument is very helpful in debates concerning the EU, and how Greece’s exit can lead to the collapse of the European Union (as of May 2012. And December 2012 in WUDC. And perhaps for a few more years?).Affirming the consequent: If p then q. q. Therefore p.There are two forms of valid arguments given two statements p and q.Affirming the Antecedent/Modus Ponens: “If p, then q. p. Therefore, q.”Denying the Consequent/Modus Tollens: “If p, then q. Not-q. Therefore, not-p.”For instance, consider two statements.p: “It’s hot outside.”q: “I buy ice cream.”Modus Ponens: “If it’s hot outside, I buy ice cream. It’s hot outside. Therefore, I will buy ice cream.”Modus Tollens: “If it’s hot outside, I buy ice cream. I’m not buying ice cream. Therefore, it’s not hot outside.”Denying the antecedent: If p then q. Not p. Therefore not q.“If we give aid to the Third World, then people in the Third World will survive. But their policy means that we will not give aid. Therefore, people in the Third World will starve.”Not quite, not if the other side is proposing local business schemes and investment rather than aid. But this tends to happen in debates because people think there is only a dichotomy of options – either you do this and something good happens, or you do not do this and something bad happens.1.10.2 Arguments That Don’t Quite Work In Parliamentary DebateA lot of people assume parliamentary debate is like politics. Not quite so. Politics is where real interests are involved, whereas debate is where real principles are involved. This means that some arguments that might work in real parliament don’t work in parliamentary debate. Here are some that are tried and true. Well, tried and not quite useful.“Too expensive”/”Not 100% perfect”The classic practicality rebut/complaint. “It’s too expensive.”“This can’t possibly work all the time.”Like anything we do these days isn’t expensive or infalliable. Doesn’t mean that we don’t do it though. Law enforcement isn’t cheap, neither does it keep all muggers or murderers off the streets. But that doesn’t mean we just sack all police officers and let criminals run wild. We still do things, regardless of how expensive or imperfect they are, because we still think this is the best remedy to a social problem.Put it this way; parliamentary debate is different from actual parliament. In actual parliament they can talk about the budget all they like. But parliamentary debate is about values. What values do we believe in as a society? How should those values be met? Is what is proposed by the motion something good for society or bad?“Will improve the economy”This happens in a lot of debates about allowing/banning population control, drugs, video games, or pornography. Let’s take pornography. A rookie opposition team usually comes up with “We shouldn’t ban pornography because that would decrease the economy.” “Allowing the trade of drugs increases the economy.”The economy argument doesn’t work for every debate. Well, it works for motions about economics, development, taxation, employment, motions that have a direct link to the economy. But it doesn’t work for, say, pornography. Let’s face it, how big is the porn industry, when compared to energy /agriculture/retail/electronics/pharmaceuticals/anything else? How much influence does the porn industry wield in the economy, and why should we use that as a standard for allowing porn or not?Before I go on, let me explain what normative and positive statements are, because there seems to be some confusion on how we should justify things or not. Normative statements are ones that simply explain what it is. “The drug market is large.” That’s a normative statement. Whereas, a positive statement is one that says what something should be, or how it should work. “The drug market should be legalized/banned.” That’s a positive statement, because ultimately you are trying to make value judgments on something, which might improve society for the better.Many teams which bring out the “economy” argument don’t put the difference between normative and positive statements into consideration. A classic one is about the law of supply and demand. “We must legalize the drug market because of supply and demand.” No, the law of supply and demand is not a positive statement. It predicts fantastically on how a market is going to work, but it does not say whether a good should be traded in the first place. So you can’t use that in a justification of a good. Many nations ban drug markets because they think the harm caused by drugs are much worse than any benefit that drugs can cause, either to the consumer or through tax revenue. Similarly, just because we allow tobacco and alcohol doesn’t mean that we let the free market rule. We still recognize the individual’s free choice to consume them, but because of the harms to the consumer and innocent bystanders (secondhand smoke, drunk driving), we put taxes on them. A team that brings this argument also brings the “black market” argument, that banning it will lead to a black market. This is again similar to the “supply and demand argument” that these teams bring. Well tell me why a black market is bad. Surely the black market argument was brought up as a harm, but unless I actually see people getting hurt or disenfranchised or unprotected by the law, you are not bringing any moral judgment on black markets. So what if a black market exists? Any opposing team can tell you that if the traded good brings that much harm, we should ban it anyway.“Capitalism/socialism/conservatism/progressivism is right/wrong”Technically this is an appeal to popularity again, but I put it separately because rookie debaters just think that they can argue for/against something just because a political ideology told them so. No, political ideologies aren’t like mathematical theorems in that they’re objectively true. It just depends on what you think society should prioritize.Take capitalism for example. If you think society should prioritize economic growth and prosperity, capitalism is perfect for that. But if you think society should prioritize equal distribution of resources and wealth, capitalism is dangerous. Vice versa for socialism. If you are going to say that capitalism has problems, then you should show in your reasoning that society should prioritize equal distribution of resources. After that, then show that the specific topic in the motion can be related to your reasoning that a political ideology is wrong.“So how does utilities relate to the idea of capitalism or socialism?” and etc.“Does not solve the root cause of the problem”You can use this sort of statement as rebuttal, at best. Even if doing so, you are making two mistakes. One, you are most likely running a negative case. This statement alone does not show any idea or value that you and your team want to propose. Second, even if you say this, you still have a burden to prove which approach is MUCH MORE CLOSER TO DEALING WITH THE ROOT CAUSE. If you don’t, you are only making an assumption that don’t help your team at all.And notice that I did not say “which approach can SOLVE THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.” Well, here is why: A policy does not have to solve the root cause to have a value. The policy still has a value when there is a “net benefit”. For instance, the New Deal policy during the Great Depression did not eradicate the problems that an economies face due to economic circulation-repressions and inflations still happen. Still, it did have a net benefit-by helping American and the world out of long economic mess.1.10.3 Missing ArgumentsSometimes a rookie mistake isn’t based on the argument he/she says, but rather the arguments that he/she neglects. This frequently happens in policy debates, so let’s Problem analysis/Solvency missingWhat rookie debaters sometimes do is that they describe the problem discussed in the motion. Then they mention the benefits of this program. What they don’t tell you is how their policy solves the problem that they described.This usually happens when the team doesn’t analyze the problem. They can tell you, for instance, that women not getting top executive jobs are a problem. Sure, I know that women not getting top executive jobs are a problem. But why does affirmative action solve that problem? Surely we are pursuing affirmative action because whatever cause is behind gender discrimination, affirmative action removes this cause.Lots of teams who do not analyze the problem in the motion usually do not think about solvency either, because . The problem is, if there is no proof that a certain policy actually will work in real life, then there is no proof that any of the benefits mentioned will follow anyway. Abolishing all militaries worldwide will promote world peace, but does this actually work? No. Then can you have world peace? Similarly, no.Principle arguments missingAll social problems have at least two ways of solving it. Mothers having to sacrifice their hopes of a family due to their job? Mandate maternity leave or let mothers choose anyway. Criminals recommitting crimes? National DNA database or typical law enforcement as usual. But in society we usually have one solution for these problems. So why pick that one? Are there any standards for picking one solution over another?I usually come up with this example as to why principles are just as important as any practical arguments. Consider school bullies and all the harm that they bring. One possible solution is to give all schoolteachers guns, plenty of ammunition, and deal as they see fit. Any possibility of bullying is now gone, because if there is a bully, that child shall experience Boom Headshot. But very few people would condone such a measure to fight against school bullying. Why? Well, it turns out we have some ideas on how to judge whether something is right or wrong. Like how schools should be a safe place, where children should be protected from any harm. Or how schools are supposed to be teaching students, and giving a second chance to any student is important. Or how students’ lives will be at risk with this policy. The list goes on.It turns out that after a while, people decided to gather all these moral reasons to justify anything as “principles.” Without principles, we can’t judge whether anything is moral or not, hence their importance. Even “benefits” and “harms” can be judged whether they are benefits or harms because we have principles to judge them.Practicality arguments missingNot practicality as in “we don’t have enough money” (although it works. But use sparingly). But practicality, as in how to incentivize people to do a certain act (“Why will drug addicts sign up to your welfare program?”) or how forces will work in your favour (“So why will minorities be more respected in society?”)is necessary. Remember, budgetary concerns may be temporary, but if say, nations don’t sign up to remove themselves of nuclear weapons to begin with (regardless of coercion), then there is a serious practicality issue going on here. You have to show out that there is no structural difficulty in passing your policy.Benefits/Harms arguments missingThis should be easy to spot. Obviously you don’t press for this in a value debate where a philosophical discussion of only values is taken place. But in a policy debate where you need to provide real policies to solve real problems and provide real improvements, a “cost-benefit analysis” is absolutely necessary.1.10.4 Inadequate DefinitionRookie debaters sometimes make the strangest definitions, and then The most likely reason is that you don’t know what something in a motion means. To solve this problem, read newspapers and books, and research concepts that you’re not sure of. For instance, if the motion is ‘THW remove Jewish settlements from the West Bank, ‘the “West Bank” isn’t a bank in the West. It’s one of the two regions of Palestine. Do not be the second team in history to define the motion as forcing Bank of America to terminate loan settlements that Jewish people need to pay. Why? Because we’re using the first team to do so as an example here.Alternatively, if you can’t provide an exact definition, try to compare it to real-life examples so that at least everybody in the room will have an idea of the definition.If you can’t provide an exact definition of ‘art’, say ‘Mona Lisa’ or ‘stuff that Vincent van Gogh painted’ to provide the gist of how you are trying to define a term. This is an example that Loke Wing Fatt, Singaporean WSDC team coach, uses in explaining how this can work:“So let’s say the motion is ‘THW ban pornography’ and you have to define pornography. You might not be able to define porn exactly, but at least you can provide some examples. So you can look at me and say, ‘Oh, no porn,’ but you can look at her [points to random female in room], and say, ‘Ooh, porn.’”1.10.5 Inadequate PolicyRookie OPP teams sometimes get confused on what they should propose as a team stance, and therefore policy and arguments. This is where they sometimes fall into a false dichotomy trap. For instance, what should OPP say as a stance for the motion “THBT child labour is a necessary evil”?When stuck, try to think of all possible stances that would negate the motion, then pick the easiest one to prove. In here, GOV is saying that despite how child labourers should be learning or playing, how child labourers are exposed to long hours, harsh working conditions and labour exploitation, nevertheless this is necessary to feed families in the Third World. So OPP’s best stance isn’t going to be “child labour is a necessary good,” unless you can really justify that long hours, harsh working conditions and exploitation of child labour are good.Instead, the most advisable OPP stance would be “child labour is an unnecessary evil.” Then you will argue that while child labour is evil, it’s not even morally justified unlike what GOV will say (By the way, this question was once given to supposedly advanced debaters back in ADI. It took a group of Japanese and Chinese debaters 12 minutes and 30 seconds to finally be persuaded that).Similarly, consider “TH regrets the social norm of lifelong monogamy.” This motion is a little interesting as it is GOV who decides what social norms we should allow instead, but the same idea applies. GOV could say that they condone norms such as divorce, remarriage, and non-lifelong monogamy. Or, GOV could say that they condone norms such as polygamy, polyandry, and lifelong non-monogamy. Or GOV could take both and say that they condone all sorts of consensual marital norms, including divorce, remarriage, polygamy and polyandry. It is important to know what your team is going to say as a team stance.1.10.6 Saying Things Unrelated to MotionFrom my experience, high school debaters make these mistakes more, but rookie college debaters do this too. In here I’m not talking about words that get unconsciously spoken between sentences in a speech (“Uh”, “Mr./Madam Speaker”, “At the end of the day”, “and what-not”, there are too many to list). I’m talking about words that debaters consciously put into their speeches that do not deal with the motion, their team’s arguments, or the other team’s arguments at all. These are the most common ones that rookies say:Stating your role: “Good afternoon, I am the Prime Minister, and I am here to discuss on the motion that ‘THW ban abortion.’ I will present to you our excellent definition, our policy, and I will give you my first two arguments. My superb deputy prime minister will also rebut to…”The adjudicator knows the rules of debate, and this does nothing to help argumentation, rebuttals, or anything related to the motion. Drop it.Telling, Not Showing: From adjudicating debates, I noticed how the ones who say they have an “excellent policy”, “logical arguments” or “superb deputy prime minister” don’t have an excellent policy, logical arguments or a superb deputy prime minister. Rather, debate should be like storytelling; don’t tell me that you’re a good debater, show me that you’re a good debater and I’ll believe you.Stating that the motion is an issue: “For more than a century, women’s rights have been a crucial issue. Starting from the suffragette movement in countries like the United States, women have fought and held demonstrations to enter…”Of course we know women’s rights are an issue. That’s why we are debating it. If you are going to provide a context for debating this motion, provide why it is an issue. What principles are being violated? Is somebody actually getting hurt?“Women’s rights are an issue because despite the fact that we in liberal democracies believe in equality regardless of gender and meritocracy, less than half of top executives or politicians are women. And compared with the values we hold dear in democracies, this is problem. The question is what we should do to solve the problem of gender inequality.” This opening can directly lead to your arguments or team stance.1.10.7 Degrading One’s Own CredibilityLet’s face it; rookie debaters are nervous, they don’t want to look boastful just in case the next speaker tears them apart. So instead they pretend to be humble by saying this:“I am a rookie speaker and I don’t know much about the environment, but I’ll begin my speech anyway.”In one sentence, they provide two reasons to not take their speech seriously, increase the credibility of the other team, and then expect them to persuade anybody. Right.There are three people on the other side whose job is to bring you down. Don’t have to bring yourself down. Look confident. And if you don’t know stuff, at least sound confident and bluff things.A funny thing happens when you keep the first half of the sentence but tweak the second half.“I am a rookie speaker and I don’t know much about the environment, but even I know you’re not supposed to give toxic waste to developing countries who will neither have the ability nor the motive to process it, and hope that depleted uranium just fades away.”1.10.7 Fixed VoiceSome rookie debaters speak very softly, while others shout out every sentence. This is a problem with some rookies who cannot control their volume yet, either because of nerves or because they don’t consciously realize that they are shouting. Shouting by itself makes adjudicators tired or intimidated. The problem is magnified when all three speakers shout.Emphasizing means that you are making the important parts of your speech stand out from the other parts. Good debaters know when to speak softly and when to give emphasis by raising their volume.But it is not shouting for 7 minutes so that adjudicators have a harder time of what you are trying to emphasize.I did it in text, but you get the idea.We’re going to discuss a lot about manner in later sections, but one strategy is to let PM or LO speak authoritatively and make grand gestures, while DPM or DLOsounds more reactive or dismissive.Whips could go either way.Ultimately, there is no single right way to make a good speech. But there is a way to make a bad speech.1.10.8 Time ManagementFor rookie debaters, this means not being able to fill 7 minutes. And it shows. Rookie debaters try to hide the fact that they have finished talking about their arguments by repeating their arguments again, and then providing a summary of their arguments, and then providing what they meant in their arguments again, and again, and again... until 7 minutes are up. This is not fooling the adjudicator.The best way to solve this problem is the same as solving many other rookie debating problems – prepare arguments with multiple layers of reasoning in prep time, by continually asking questions such as “What? How? So what?” Explain logical steps in the middle, because most rookies will probably be missing that reasoning anyway. With practice, soon 7 minutes just won’t be enough for you.Sources: The Power of Critical Thinking, 3rd Ed. Lewis Vaughn. Oxford University Press, 2010.A Rulebook for Arguments, 4th Ed. Anthony Weston. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 2009.1.11 How to be Better at DebateBy the end of the first semester, about half or more of all rookie debaters drop out because this wasn’t what they expected parliamentary debate to be about, they simply cannot handle the stress of speaking in public, lack of free time during the weekends, etc. Others just treat this as another extracurricular activity, laying back, not really minding how they improve.But you’re not one to be satisfied by just that, are you? You’re too young to end here. You finally see all the gobshite other debaters try to shovel towards your side. Experienced debaters say that you have a bright future. But more than that, you want to be better.Good attitude. As Elton John once sang, “I’m still standing.” So how do you become a better debater?PracticeAs the mathematician Euclid said to Ptolemy II, “Sire, there is no royal road to geometry.” The same applies to debate. You can read about debate all you like, but nothing helps you gain experience than debating itself. Don’t be obligated to practice just one speaker role though – try every role. A PM requires different skills from a whip, and good debaters eventually will have experience in every role. This also means that you should try everything in your first semester. In fact, don’t even think of winning or losing on your first semester as a debater – just try everything and learn what works and doesn’t work.ParticipateDon’t just be limited to practicing with your society members. Different societies prioritize different aspects of debating, have different areas of expertise, and have different attitudes towards debating. Meet them. Perhaps you might learn something that your society couldn’t think of.If there’s one thing Korea has over countries like Australia or the United States, it’s that since most of the societies are located in Seoul, it’s very easy for most societies to come together for a weekend (even people from Solbridge, Daejeon come by train to KIDA events). So whenever KIDA organizes a workshop or a rookie tournament, go there. Of course it’s going to take the weekend. The road to excellence ain’t short, kids.Seung-hun: In 2012, we organized KIDA Debate Monday, where many debating societies come to learn debating from experienced debaters from other societies (NC Kim, Eui Yun Kim, Jeesoo Kang, and much more) and debate. We helped with organization, judging, and sometimes debated as a swing team. Doing this a lot gave us a perspective of where we are and how far we need to go. This was/is/will be a valuable asset. Remember, you have this opportunity only when you participate in such events.Prepare matterMany times you may have panicked at a motion or lost a debate simply because you didn’t know what it was about. How do emissions trading systems work? What is the situation between Israel and Palestine? What are the Good Friday Accords? What is the difference between softcore porn and hardcore porn? None of these questions will be answered unless you actually research. Different sources are helpful in different ways. Refer to 6.3 Debate Resources for more details.Wikipedia is helpful if you need a quick idea of what a certain term or concept is.For current events, read credible, well-known news services like the New York Times/International Tribune, BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera, CNN (The Economist remains the “debaters’ bible” in many tournaments). News outlets from different nations or political affiliations will analyze the same event in different ways, so don’t just stick to one newspaper.Books are best for deeper analysis of social events and phenomena, such as financial crises, environmental organizations, Middle Eastern politics in the late 20th century, etc.Books are also good for a deeper understanding of ideologies or theories, especially political philosophy.This doesn’t mean that you should cram for debate tournaments. There are only so many topics that can be discussed in a debate tournament. One of the first things Minjae Yoo (UU) teaches novice debaters is how acquiring new matter should be a daily habit. With RSS feeds, accessing the news is easier than ever. At least read the headlines. Know that something is going on.As Logandran “Logan” Balavijendran (WUDC 2005/2010 Chief Adjudicator, First Asian to enter Australs Grand Finals and WUDC main break, Grand Champion in numerous Asian tournaments) once said, “I can be made aware of my ignorance on an issue, because I can't know everything. But once I know that, I don't have to stay ignorant. Let us choose not to live in ignorance.”Debate Anecdote: “Parliamentary Privilege”– Australs 2011, Chung-Ang, KoreaSeung-hun and I were in the same team when we picked the motion for Round 3. “THW end parliamentary privilege.” The problem was, we had no idea what parliamentary privilege meant (I’m still not sure how we got to pick that motion). We had to guess for 30 minutes what it meant. You probably don’t know this either, so let me explain.Parliamentary privilege is a form of legal immunity given to legislators, which means that politicians can get protection from being sued for an action which they had to do as a legislator. Say, a politician needed to wire-tap certain individuals to acquire information related to their bill. Parliamentary privilege says that this is still legal, because this was something he had to do as a legislator. In essence it’s a form of legal immunity given to legislators in the Westminster system, a parliamentary system in nations like the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Naturally, you don’t want to face an Australian team who might know this well.Our opponents? Australian National University. To date, this was still our biggest defeat. This would not have happened if we knew what parliamentary privilege meant. Same with so many other debates.Take notesIn debates or adjudications you obviously should be taking notes. But even afterwards, keep them around. Look back on what you did well, what the adjudicators said you were missing, and any arguments that may come useful in future debates.For the record (no pun intended), I save all my notes on everything – lectures, debates, adjudications – which means as of April 2012 I have written more than 1550 pages. This is my 13th month of debating.Seung-hun calls it a “UU??”(?? is where historians of former Korean dynasties like Chosun kept just about every record of events, policies, and daily lives of the monarchy). Of course, I’m the only one that I know who records everything to that level, but Seung-Hun also keeps his debating and adjudication notes. Still, it’s great to have personal reference to go back to. You can’t remember everything.Learn from adjudicators…Adjudicators are there to judge the debate, your team’s performance, and your individual performance. As such, if they find a problem with your speech, in matter, manner or method, it is their job to notice, critique, and then inform you about that fault. If they tell you that your speech lacks substantiation, write that down and try to fix that. You can even choose which debating skills you need to improve based on the feedback of multiple adjudicators. Good adjudicators also provide you alternative approaches – arguments, rebuttals, speaking styles, etc. – that you could have used in this debate.…and for the most part, don’t grovel at themNow we can’t guarantee that all the adjudicators you will meet are good (especially in tournaments!), but please don’t complain to them, or about them. As many advanced debaters told me, if the adjudicator was not convinced by my speech by the end of the debate, 90% of the time it was my fault. Ultimately, your speech is supposed to convince someone. If the speech isn’t convincing, something is wrong with the speech.Of course it’s not always your fault. In some cases, the adjudicator is just that stupid or the adjudicator just sleeps (happens, one judge slept at PM speech and woke up at the GOV Reply). If you have problems with your adjudicator in a tournament, there are “adjudication feedback forms” that debaters have to submit after they listened to adjudication. All complaints go there, in writing.Learn from better debatersDon’t be afraid to ask debaters better than you. Most of the time, they will be happy to give you advice on how to improve your debating. Plus, they are the ones who can analyze what went wrong better than fellow rookie debaters, who have more experience on how to improve or what to do in critical situations. You will only learn from them as much as you ask them.Learn from mistakesPerhaps the best debaters learned more from their losses than their victories. Losses mean that there is a problem as a debater or a team that needs to be improved. It also removes that unhelpful hubris and brings back the constantly learning attitude that all debaters need. So next time adjudicators or other debaters point out your faults, write them down. How can you improve if you don’t even remember what to improve?For God’s sakes, carry a stopwatch that is not also a phoneSung-Hun carries an actual stopwatch, I use my iPod, but neither of us uses the stopwatch function on a phone. It’s annoying during practices (or actual tournaments!) when the phone rings and everybody is distracted. Please.Seung-Hun: Foryour information, some stopwatches in phones stop working when somebody suddenly calls. I actually tested this with my iPhone. If this ever happens, you will definitely panic during speeches – not something that you want, right?And finally, you can do itSome of the greatest debaters in the world have been debating for years. But that doesn’t need to be true for all debaters.Take Ivan Ah Sam (Sydney). In his first year of university, he wasn't good enough to be in the ten novice teams (30 novice debaters!) that University of Sydney sent to a tournament for novices. But he didn't stop there. In 2005 Australs, he was Grand Champion and Best Speaker. In 2007 WUDC, he was 6th Best Speaker.Also consider Naomi Oreb (Sydney). In her first year of university, Naomi scored a 68, the lowest scoring speech of that tournament. For your information, it is physically impossible to receive below a 68. Later, in 2008 Australs, she was Best Speaker, Best Speaker in the Grand Finals and Grand Champion. She was also Best Speaker in 2009 WUDC.What we’re trying to say here is that you’re never too late to begin. Start practicing, and you can be the best. Like these people.These are the very basic tips we wanted to give to beginning debaters. For even more tips, there’s an article for beginner debaters in the Monash Debate Review 2009. It’s written by Naomi Oreb and Ivan Ah Sam. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download