The aim of this guidebook is to guide myself and for other debaters who are interested in

debating or coaches who tries to coach their juniors or simply anyone who are interested in
proliferating debating all across Indonesia. I try to write these guides as simple as possible so
that it can be used by everyone from various background. In the first part, I’m going to write
general tips on debating. But notice that this isn’t going to be general rules, speaker’s roles,
or other things you may find in a debating seminar. This will address simple question asked
by intermediate level debaters such as how to identify burden of proof? How to set up a
debate? How to construct arguments?
The second part is directed to coaches. This guidebook will include various motions ranging
from beginner level to advanced level. It is designed as such so that coaches can assess at
which level are their trainees at and will adjust which motions will be debated according to
their trainees’ level. I will also include general burden of proof, expected learning outcomes,
link that may be helpful in understanding the motions as well as specific principles/logic that
coaches needs to explain to debaters in each motion.
This guidebook has no copyright, feel free to distribute to as many debaters as possible.
Last update: 30 May 2018

Contributors:
Part I
Debating 101
1.1.Motion typology
What is a motion? In short, motion exist to create or support a change. It exists to create or
support a change or to prove when something is favorable or not. A motion might be a
proposal that a government would want to pass in parliament or court, but it can also be based
on a philosophical reasoning of how we want the world to be, Although motion wording is
flexible and can vary and very dynamics from time to time, it is still useful to categorize
motions into several categories based on some template. It is useful for beginners to use this
to identify what is the burden of proof of the motions.
Motions is created for a reason. A-Core wants to raise and solve a problem through a motion.
Finding key words to interpret their intention is an important step to understand the motion.
Here are some logical steps you can use:
a. What is the verb in the motion?
b. What is the would the motion like to tackle?
c. Who is TH? Who are the actors that have the power/ability to do the action?
Table 1, will provide several different types of motions and the burden of proof that it wants
you to tackle. This is only one method to approach motions. An alternate resource is available
in ​this link​.
What are burden of proofs? ​Burden of proof (BOPs) are commonly used term in a debating
community. In courts, burden of proofs are evidences that you would need to prove to your
juries to win your case. In competitive debating, BOPs are questions that occur in the your
head, your opponents, and adjudicators to understand the debate and lay out the discourse.
Similar to a court case, your ability to prove your claim will win you the case. A motion is a
claim that both side needs to prove, so there is a BOP to a motion and there is also a BOP to
the assertion of your arguments.

Table 1. ​Template Motions

No. Template Explanation & Burden of proof Example
1. Proposal Think about who has the power, if it’s a THW ban smoking
Motion policy debate the authority usually lies in THW legalize
THW _____ the government. prostitution
In a policy debate, the BOP is usually to
explain
1) What is the main problem that is
faced by the government, Will the
proposal solve the problem?
2) Is implementing the proposal
morally justified?
 3) What are the implications of the
proposal? How is the social
change important to the
government
The Opposition BOP is up to the stance
that opposition decides to take.
Opposition can choose between:
a) defending status quo or;
b) proposing a counter proposal.

If you chose (a), you believe that the

solution (affirmative stance) is not
exclusive to the efforts that’s
already done by the government.
Then you have to prove:
1) Is the problem as bad as what the
affirmative believe?
2) How can SQ can solve the
problem organically? Is the
condition improving?
3) Why choosing to implement the
motion worsen the condition of
SQ? or hamper progress
Or if you chose (b) In what way can your
counter-proposal can better solve the
mentioned problem? and why is it more
morally right? What rights are you
defending?
With either stance (a) or (b) the
opposition have to refute the government
case by proving:
1. Why implementing affirmative
stance is morally wrong?
2. Why implementing the motion
would create another harm?
2. Statement This type of motions can vary but THBT Sharing
motions basically the A-Core wants you to prove Economy brings more
THBT _____ why the statement is true/untrue. They harms than goods
want you to convey why we should THBT the poor is
believe in a certain idea. justified in pursuing a
complete Marxist
For these types of motions, you can revolution
approach it through bringing arguments
which relates to philosophy/first
 principles (Read ​Tim Sonrich Guide is a
good starting point) or how the motion
would relate to social context and analyze
if it’s a social trend that is good/not for
society.
3. THBT X Its BOP is usually to explain: THBT states should
should do Y, 1) Why is it good/bad if X do Y? allow single parents to
2) Is it morally correct for X to do raise their children in
Y? prison
THBT South Korea
This type of Notice that this type of motions uses the should advocate for the
lens of 3​rd party actor. This means that the
motion can also recognition of North
be phrased: argument is not only limited to why Korea as a nuclear
TH as X would doing Y would be good/bad for X but state
do Y. also cover how the action of X doing Y
will affect other actors.
TH as X would The important part of this kind of motion TH as the Republican
do Y is that you need to put yourself in X’s National Committee
shoe. That is to say, you need to identify would kick Donald
what is X’s interest. The arguments are Trump out of the
similar to those of proposal motions Republican Party
(except for using X’s TH as Western
interest/characteristic rather than Countries would stop
government’s) selling arms to Saudi
Its BOP is usually to explain: Arabia
1) Will the proposal achieve X’s
interest?
2) Is implementing the proposal
morally acceptable from X’s
perspective?
Similar to what have been stated
previously, the opposition BOP will
depend on the stance that opposition
decides to take. Opposition can choose
between: a) defending status quo and b)
propose a counter proposal/state that X
has a different interest thus it needs a
different proposal.. The main difference
is an additional layer of X interest and
perspective. So it would be:
If you choose stance (a):
1) you have to agree/disagree with X
interest and explain why SQ
proposal already achieve X
interest
2) How SQ can solve X problem
organically
 3) How proposal to Y will hamper X
interest.
Or if you chose (b) In what way can your
counter-proposal can better for X, or do
you disagree with the interest as a whole?
1) If you disagree why is your team
definition of X interest more relevant?
2) why is it your alternate proposal more
morally right based on X
principle/interest?
With either stance (a) or (b) the
opposition have to refute the government
case by proving:
Why implementing affirmative stance is
morally wrong in X perspective?
Why implementing the motion would
create another harm for X?

5. Evaluative This motions usually debate on certain TH regrets the rise of

motions phenomena/trends that are happening in sharing economy
TH regrets/TH the world. Unless specified, it uses the TH regrets the rise of
celebrate perspective of a 3​rd party actor. Its BOP is prosperity gospel
simple: churches
1) Why the trends are regrettable? TH celebrates the
And for opposition, vice versa, decline of EU
why the trends are worth
celebrating?
Notice that since the motions is not
talking about a specific actor’s interest,
the motion needs to analyze how the
trend affect various actors
positively/negatively.

*Important note for beginners, evaluative

motions aren’t about action. This type of
motion doesn’t require any model nor
proposal. It is simply evaluating the trend
that are happening.
6. Judgement Unless specified, this motion also uses TH supports the
motions the perspective of a 3​rd party actors. This inclusion of FARC as a
TH supports/ mean, as affirmative you have to define political party in
TH opposes who is “TH”. The main difference with Colombian elections
evaluative type of motion is that,
judgement motion , involves a TH supports the
 plan/policy/proposition. Its BOP is continued
generally similar, that is: remilitarization of Japan​.
1) Why the proposition is good/bad
in solving certain problems?
2) Why the proposition is morally
acceptable/unacceptable?

7. Direct If in any other motions opposition stance TH prefers Asian values

comparative could vary according to their strategy, to Western liberalism
motions this motions specifically set the TH prefers a Multipolar
TH prefer X comparative for opposition to defend, World to US hegemony
over/to Y resulting into a direct comparison for
both team. Its BOP is:
1) Why X is better than Y?
1.2. Case Construction and Strategies
1.2.1. Setting up a debate
A good set up is required in order to have a good debate. The main idea is to reach an
agreement of where the debate should lie or in other words, a good set up is to set up a
context of the problem. It is the responsibility of a prime minister to set up the debate. What
generally makes a good set up is when: (1) every ambiguous wording in the motion is well
defined, (2) the most important problem is stated, (3) the goal(s) that teams wanted to achieve
is clearly stated and (4) if a model is necessary, the model needs to be carefully explained.
A. Definition
Definition is important. The difference between good debate and a messy one is usually a
good and acceptable definition. Usually debaters tend to either overly explain
definitions while others tend to take definition for granted. What makes a good
definition? Let’s start with some tips of how to define motions:
(1) Know ​what should be defined​. You don’t need to define words per words but rather
only define ambiguous words stated in the motion. So, for example, in this motion:
THBT South Korea should advocate for the recognition of North Korea as a ​nuclear
state​, you don’t need to define what is South Korea and North Korea, a reasonable
person would already understand, but it is important for you to define what is a
nuclear state.
(2) An easy way to define things are by giving ​example​. Sharing economy is very
complex to define. But it’s easier to define by throwing example of what you consider
as sharing economy (i.e. Airbnb).
(3) Another way defining is, instead of defining what it is, try ​what it is not​. For
example, when you’re trying to define dictatorship, try listing what it is not. It has ​no
freedom of speech. It has ​no​ democratic election.
(4) Define the verb / action words that you would like to do as the government. For the
given example of THBT South Korea should advocate for the recognition of North
Korea as a nuclear state, both teams may have a different idea on what “advocate”
will extend as. Rather than letting everyone have their own definition, it’s better to
define this action clearly. We would like to define advocate as: actively support the
recognition in the UN and suppress any aggression by Western state due to North
Korea Nuclear development.

B. Problem Identification
Some speakers like to define the definition then go the problem, others like to start with
identifying the main problem then define the motion as part of their stance. This
is up to you’re preference. ​Although some motion presents a pretty straightforward
problem, some motions problem requires efforts to identify. Here are some tips on
identifying what problems the motion tries to present.
(1) Identify what the motions seek to change and what are its goal.
For example, in the motion THW privatize essential public services. You know that
privatization is aimed at improving efficiency and incentivizing innovation.
Therefore, the ​contras​t of it is your ‘problem’. That is inefficient management and
lack of innovation.
(2) Identify what are the interest of TH
In classic THW debate, unless specified, TH is the government. Therefore, identifying what
are the goals/interest of government will show you the problem. In specific TH as X
would debate, TH is X. Therefore, identifying X’s interest will show you what
problems are you supposed to solve.
(3) Identify the characterization of the object that you’re debating.
For example, THW allow corporations to buy the rights to govern economically failing cities.
Your object is ‘economically failing cities’. By characterizing the object, you’re able
to find what is the problem in which you’re supposed to be solving.
(4) Identify the characterization of the context you’re debating on
Some motions specifically tell you the context, i.e. In ____, THW ____. Characterizing the
context will expose what are the problems you’re supposed to solve. For example; In
newly democratized country, THW postpone election until most part of population
has received basic education. Characterizing newly democratized country will help
you understand the problem.

C. Model
Model is a tricky part in propping. Some tips on modelling that you need to remember:
(1) Know what to model. Some motions are pretty straightforward that you don’t need to
model. i.e. THW ban smoking. It’s pretty straightforward on how banning works.
Don’t spend time modelling such motions.
(2) The goal of a model or some would call it mechanisms is to clear out the debate of
unimportant discussions​. The goal is ​not to put yourself in an unfair advantage as it
will destroy the debate right from the start.
(3) Use advantage wisely to set the place context setting. As some motion is realistically
impossible to set in some context, it is important to limit the debate wisely in specific
context.
Do’s:
THW allow married gay couples to adopt children
You can limit the debate to progressive liberal countries (i.e. the US), where the countries
have legalized gay marriage, as the motion is realistically impossible to debate in a
very wide context (it is impossible to implement this motion in Indonesia)
Don’ts’s:
THW ban smoking
You can’t limit this debate to be applied in Ethiopia only as the motion actually can be
debated in a very wide context.
How do you create a model? To create a good model, you can start by thinking, how do you
think this proposal will be applicable in real life. Then think about the most intuitive nag that
is most likely used by your opponent to corrupt the debate into nitty gritty technicalities
instead of the bigger ideas of whether or not we should support the motion. Lastly, you can
also use examples of how the proposal will be implemented to make it clear for everyone.

D. Opposition Stance - ​Building negation

Unless you’re debating in a TH prefers X over Y motion, in which you have to defend the
explicit comparative, opposition can choose between (a) defending the SQ or (b)
accepting the problem and running a counter-proposal.
(1) Defending the SQ
Often times, it is unwise to reject the problem identification of the affirmative team.
Therefore, an opposition team needs to concede that it is problematic. However,
opposition could still defend the status-quo by two means; (a) status quo is
progressing or (b) the proposal will bring more harms than it already is in status
quo. For example, in a motion that proposes affirmative action for women in
parliament, opposition could choose (a) arguing that organic changes in
acceptance of women is progressive or (b) the backlash that would be caused by
proposing affirmative action would create more prejudices against women more
than it already exists in status-quo
(2) Running a counter-proposal
Notice that if you choose this stance, you also agree on the problem proposed by the
affirmative teams. How do you create counter-proposal? A counter-proposal needs
to be (1) requires the same amount of capital be it political capital or monetary
capital and (2) it has to be mutually exclusive to the proposal proposed by the
affirmative team.

E. ​A note on proposition-fiat
A proposition-fiat is the assumption that the motion will pass. For example, in the motion
THW ban smoking, you can’t argue that the motion will not pass because the congress will
not want it to pass. You can only argue on, assuming the motion will pass, what are its
impacts. In the motion THW invade North Korea, you can’t argue that you can’t invade
North Korea because there is no country willing to use its military to invade North Korea.
But rather, you argue on what are the impacts of invading North Korea. An opposition fiat on
the other hand, is the assumption that a reasonable counter-proposal from the opposition will
pass. What is a reasonable counter-proposal? As you may have known, opposition team can
choose either to (1) defend SQ or (2) present a counter-proposal. A reasonable
counter-proposal has to requires the same amount of capital (be it political capital or
economic). So, for example, in THW invade North Korea motion, opposition can choose to
counter-prop by proposing giving developmental aid to North Korea by utilizing the capital
that otherwise would be used for military invasion.
1.3. Constructing arguments
Characteristics of a good arguments are: (1) it has to be relevant to the motion (you can judge
relevance by asking yourselves, will my claim solve the problem I’ve propped? Does this
impact mainly correlates/ a causality from this proposal or are there other factors?), (2) it has
to be logical, (3) it has to be exclusive, (4) it has to be important. In an attempt to fulfil all of
these characteristic, I offer some structure of arguments:
A common way of constructing an argument is what people call: AREL (assertion, reasoning,
example, link back). But for me, in general AREL isn’t enough. In most cases, AREL are
only sufficient to construct premises, premises construct arguments.
A. A ​problem-solving​ argument should consist of these 3 premises. Each of the
premises contains its own AREL.
(1) What is the goal/interest of the actor? Why the goal is important?
The goal of this explanation is to prove why the argument you offer is ​important​.
This is particularly useful in 2 scenarios, (1) in motions where government and
opposition could offer different issues, therefore there will be a debate which issues
are more important and (2) in BP where the motions are generally more open, more
range of argumentation that teams can bring, therefore it’s important to prove the
importance of the arguments.
(2) Why the opponent’s stance (be it SQ or their possible counter-proposal) can’t achieve
the goal?
The goal of this explanation is to prove the ​exclusivity​ of your solvency so that
opposition can’t easily argues that there are other alternatives.
(3) Why our proposal will achieve the goal?
The goal of this explanation is to prove how ​likely​ that your proposal can solve the
problems that you’ve identified.
What do I mean by problem-solving? Although usually used in a proposal debate, such
argument is not exclusively for a proposal motion. A judgement motion such as TH supports
motions or TH prefers motions or even THBT X should do Y motions also can utilize the
same structure. The emphasis is on problem-solving. An argument that offers a solution to
ongoing problems.
How do you utilize such structure? Let’s take on a simple example: THW ban smoking.
(1) (A) The interest of government is so that its citizens are healthy. (R) It is important
because (1) government need its citizens to be productive and smoking causes various
health problem that makes people unproductive, (2) government bare the cost of
unhealthy lifestyle, (E) i.e. government needs to pay more in subsidizing healthcare
for its sick smoking population. (L) Therefore, it’s important for government to stop
its citizens from smoking.
(2) (A) The SQ methods of dealing with smoking such as banning advertisements and
putting labels on cigarettes boxes has failed. (R) Because generally people turn to
 smoking not because of its packaging and advertisement but rather because of peer
pressures. (E) <insert example here>. (L) Therefore, SQ is not enough to stop citizens
from smoking.
(3) <no need of explanation here because banning obviously stops smoking>
Let’s take on a harder motion: THW allow companies to buy the rights to govern
economically failing cities
(1) (A) The interest of government is to revive the economic activities in the city. (R) It is
important because (1) rising unemployment burdens government (2) massive
migration to other cities will causes overpopulation. (E) <insert Detroit reference
here>. (L) Therefore, it is important for government to revive failing cities’ economy.
(2) (A) Government is not enough. (R) because (1) government has lack of resources to
allocate to the cities and (2) lack of management experts to restructure the cities. (L)
Therefore, relying solely on government will not succeed.
(3) (A) If companies are allowed to buy, they will be capable on reviving the cities’
economic activities. (R) because (1) companies has a lot of capital and (2) companies
are experienced in managing crisis. (L) Therefore, allowing companies to govern will
lead into revived economic activities in the cities.

1.4. Responses
Responses can vary, a lot, and there are limitless angles that you can use to respond to arguments.
This part will only shed a light on what are the possible responses that you can use to
respond to arguments:
(1) Proving that the arguments are irrelevant (that it does not fulfil the motions BOPs)
(2) Proving that the outcomes of stated arguments are inexclusive
(3) Proving that the outcomes of stated arguments are unlikely
(4) Proving that the arguments are unimportant or less important than the arguments you
offered

It is not enough to response with only claim/assertion. A response needs to be as detailed as

an argument. A good rebuttal is when it is enough to challenge the logic & example
explained by your opponent team. For example:
Motion: TH as the ASEAN would create a joint military cooperation with the United States
to counter China’s expansion
An affirmative team tried to argues that creating such cooperation will deter China from
expanding its territories in South China Sea. The team characterized that China will be
afraid of the potential consequences if they decided to expand. They cite an example
where China’s expansion in East China Sea is slowing down because South Korea and
Japan has an alliance with United States.
A good response to the argument has to consist of (1) recharacterization of China and United
States power. i.e. arguing that China will not be afraid because its military power is more
 powerful than the US. (2) a precedence where China still expands despite presence of
United States allies i.e. China still expand towards the Philippines despite the fact that the
Philippines has alliance with the US.

1.5. Clashes
Clashes are basically groupings of issues where the idea of both teams clash with each other. The
goal of having clashes is to simplify/ to conclude the various issues presented in the
debate so that adjudicators can easily weigh the winning. Some tips on clashing is a
follow:
(1) Group the clash by the nature of the argument. Is it a practical argument or is it a
principled one?
(2) Group the clash by the end goal of the argument. Motions have various end goal. i.e.
in economic motion, usually the debate has several end goals which includes; (a)
economic productivity and (b) reducing inequality. Argument which ends goal are
similar should be grouped into one clash.
(3) Group the clash by which actor(s) that it affects. A motion may affect various actors.
i.e. THW ban sharing economy. It will not only affect consumers, but also its
platforms, or even its workers. Arguments which affects the same actor should be
grouped into one clash.
(4) Label the clash into questions (i.e. Which proposal better improve economic
productivity? Which proposal better protect workers?) So that adjudicators can better
assess the exchange of ideas within the clash.