EJVED 09

Getting to know debating Debating is a clash of argumentations among the Government team and Opposition team Everything starts from the word “motion” Competitive debating aims to simulate a living, breathing parliamentary debate The soul of debating is to argue on policies, or propositions of thought; good or bad, effective or not effective, useful or useless

Tournament format  Austral-asian parliamentary system  4 preliminary rounds  4 knock out rounds  7 minute substantive speech  5 minute reply speech  30 minute case building time

Map of chronology

Keywords to comprehend  Motion  Definition  Theme line  Team split  Argument  rebuttal

motion Is the topic, a full propositional statement that states what the debate is/shall be about Usually proposes a policy, against the status quo, or affirming the virtue (goodness) of a state or condition A government team must defend the motion, and an opposition team must negate the motion

Definition Is a need to clarify what the debate is specifically about, per keyword of motion if necessary Scopes down a motion; to achieve a mutual agreement among both teams on the interpretation of the motion thus the entry point for a debate -> “room of debate” A Government team holds the right to determine and offer the definition of a debate, while the opposition can accept, broaden or challenge the provided definition

definition A definition is ideal if it : provides interpretation of a motion that is logical and acceptable by common sense simply aimed to clarify the debate from the motion wording provides room for opposition to negate Is not truistic, squirreling, tautological, time and place set

Theme line  The main reason why a motion is defended or opposed  Core argument of a team  Should be elaborated thoroughly  Burden of proof

Team split  Division of argument in a team  It helps to make a team organized  It makes sure that the argument is correctly sustained

argument points of view that supports the team stance (support/refute) Logical and thoroughly explained Structure (the AREL theory) 1. Assertion 2. Reasoning 3. Evidence/Example  Link BackPool of arguments should be evenly and strategically spread between the 1 st and 2 nd speakers.  Arguments should be consistent within the team’s main stance (theme/team line).

rebuttals responses on your opponent’s arguments It’s not as simple as “accusing” things Simply saying your opposition’s arguments are inferior does not constitute a good rebuttal Rebuttals must logically explain and analyze the weaknesses of an argument

Role of speakers 1 st : Lays out the basic fundaments of the team’s case, including elementary argumentations 2 nd : Continues the case by responding, rebuild the case and provide continuity analysis of argumentations 3 rd : Reviews the overall case of opponent and provide a more thorough ballistics of response to argument. No new matter! Reply : Provide an overview of the debate and why their team deserves the debate

Role of first speakers affirmativenegative  Defining the motion of the debate.  Presenting the affirmative’s theme line.  Outlining the affirmative’s team split.  Delivering substantial arguments.  Providing a brief summary/recap of the speech  Responding the definition given by the affirmative team (accept/challenge).  Rebutting the 1 st affirmative speaker.  Presenting the negative’s theme line.  Outlining the negative’s team split.  Delivering the substantial argument.  Providing a brief summary/recap of the speech.

Role of second speakers affirmativenegative  Rebutting the 1 st negative’s major arguments  Restating the affirmative’s team case briefly.  Delivering his substantial argument.  Providing a brief summary.  Rebutting the 2 nd affirmative speaker.  Restating the negative's team case briefly.  Delivering his substantial arguments.  Providing a brief summary.

Role of third speakers affirmativenegative  mapping  Rebutting the points raised by the first two negative speakers.  Rebuilding the team’s case.  Summarizing the issues of the debate  mapping  Rebutting the points raised by all three affirmative speakers.  Rebuilding team’s case.  Summarizing the issue of the debate

Reply speaker  Providing the summary or the overview of the debate.  Identifying the issues raised by both sides.  Providing a bias adjudication of the debate.

Definitional challenge  Opposition may challenge the definition of government if it is included into prohibited definition (truism, tautological, squirreling, and time/place set unfairly).  When challenging definition, opposition must:  Say that they challenge the definition  Provide the reason  Provide alternative definition  Respond to the government case (using ‘even if’ rebuttal).

How will you be assessed?  Matter 40%  Manner40%  Method20%