What is a debate?

A debate is, basically, a for or against argument. You have to debate why your position is correct and why
your opponents are wrong. You are allocated a time to present your arguments and add rebuttals to the
opposing points. You need to support your ideas with evidence such as facts, figures, statistics and sources.

The topic                                                                                
The topic is often current issues of public importance (“Climate change should be taken more seriously”) or
about general philosophies or ideas (“beauty is better than brains”). The team that agrees with the topic is
called the AFFIRMATIVE and the team that disagrees with the topic is called the NEGATIVE (or the
`opposition’). 

The set up
Usually, the debate consist of two teams of three speakers. There should be a time-keeper and a judge(s)
(sometimes this is the audience). Each presenter has a specific time (4 minutes) to present ideas and their
rebuttals and after each presenter has spoken, the  judge(s) evaluate the debate on the basis of the content,
style and strategy of speeches.
             

Basic Debating Skills

1 Style

Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part of debating to
master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material in a confident and persuasive
way.
There are many elements to style which affect how you sound and look when debating and the important
aspects of these are detailed below. There is, however, no correct way to debate. Everyone must find a style
that suits him or her. Some very good debaters are aggressive, funny and loud, some are calm, logical and
restrained. The key things are to avoid any obvious errors and to sound natural.
1.1 Speed:
Talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to say what you want, but
slow enough to be easily understood. Be very sensitive to the reactions of others, if you are talking as
fast as you would in a normal conversation then that is too fast.
1.2 Tone:
Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Adjudicators and audiences can get used to a
particular tone and begin to adapt their hearing so it becomes background noise. Needless to say this is
rarely advantageous. Being aggressive throughout the entire speech tends to make it difficult to explain
anything complicated or even draw breath. Likewise calm monotony can be unintentionally soporific
and seem to lack punch. Often it is good to quite aggressively attack the opposite side's arguments, but
try to advance your own in a more logical, calm way.,
1.3 Volume:
Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is not necessary to shout through every debate
regardless of context. Shouting does not win debates but speaking too quietly is disastrous
1.4 Diction:
Clear enunciation is obviously vital
1.5 Language:
Whilst long words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible. A varied
vocabulary is easy on the ear, and more formal language gives a speaker more authority, but at all
times it is essential to remain within the boundaries of plain English.
1.6 Clarity:
The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. Short, clear
sentences are better and are easier to understand anyway.
 1.7 Fluency:
The key thing is to relax. Fluency comes more easily with practice and confidence, but is aided by
keeping all notes that you use simple and clear.
1.8 Humour:
Humour can be useful, but sometimes it can fall flat. The best way to use humour is as part of rebuttal,
pointing out any absurdities, mistakes, ironic references and so on in a humorous way can be very
effective and sounds more natural
1.9 Stance, gestures and expressions:
Stance must look confident and assertive. Don't walk around too much. Don't over gesticulate or else
clutch onto your notes.
1.10 Use of notes and eye contact:
Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organised to be effective. There is absolutely no
point in trying to speak without notes.
Notes should never become obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they
ever be read from verbatim. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes
under each. When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate
sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and then transfer a
rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using.  A clear structure (both in the speech and the
notes) is a great asset.

2. Content

Content is what you actually say in the debate, the arguments used to develop your own side's case and rebut
the opposite side's.

2.1 Definitions:
Whatever the motion is, the first speaker in the debate must define it. This means explaining what the
debate will be about. Sometimes the motion given is very clear (e.g. "This House Believes That We
Should Bomb Iraq" - this is a little out of date now, but it may not be for very long!) and sometimes it
is very vague (e.g. "This House Would Use the Force"). In the former case it is necessary only to
clarify the terms of the motion, in the example above it would be necessary to explain what exactly
was meant by the terms "we" and "bomb", whereas in the latter case the actual issue itself must be
decided and explained and a reasonable link must be made with the motion as given. Examples of
possible definitions for the two motions above are given below:
1. "This House Believes We Should Bomb Iraq... ...this means that the UK and the US alone should
start a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets right now." ...this means that if UN
diplomacy breaks down the UN as a whole should sanction a program of air strikes against Iraqi
military targets." ...this means that the UK should drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad as soon as
possible." and so on.

2. "This House Would use the Force ... ...the force in question here is the force of the law and we
would use it to make voting in General Elections in the UK compulsory." ...the force in question here
is the police force and we would use it to adopt a policy of zero tolerance on petty crime (as in New
York) throughout the UK." ...the force in question is the force of nature and we believe we should
harness this by investing more in renewable energy sources." and so on

2.2 Case - the parts:

Having defined the motion you must then begin to build a case. The best way to do this is to divide
your case into between two and four arguments. You can justify your arguments with basic logic,
worked examples, statistics, quotes and analogies. If you don't do this you can only assert rather than
argue. There are well-worn ways of dividing up cases according to groups of arguments (e.g.
political/economic/social or moral/practical or international/regional etc.) or just according to
individual arguments if you can't group any together. Under each of these basic headings you should
 then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it using the methods outlined above. It is
usually best to put the most important arguments first. Some examples of case outlines are shown
below: 1. "The UK and the US alone should start a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets
right now. This is true for four reasons: Firstly, morally - Iraq must not be allowed to stockpile
weapons of mass destruction that they are now doing. Secondly, internationally - the UN and its
constant threats to use force if diplomacy is not successful will be undermined permanently if no one
ever carries these threats through. Thirdly, regionally - it is important to maintain stability in the
Middle East that is a very volatile region and this is threatened if no one stands up to Saddam Hussein.
Finally, nationally - these strikes will weaken Saddam's grip on power and hasten the path for a more
benign successor."

2.3 Case - the whole:

The case must be outlined in the introduction. This involves stating your main arguments and
explaining the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is
to get on and actually argue it. Starting with the first argument you should then detail your justification
including sub-arguments, reasoning, examples, statistics, quotes and analogies. It is important to pace
your speech so you have time for all the arguments you have said you will deal with. At the end it is
useful to briefly summarise what you have said.

2.4 Rebuttal - the parts:

Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed, they may be misinterpretations and they may
also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks
they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting
in at least one of these respects. An example of each is given below: 1. "Murder rates are rising in the
UK, this is because we have got rid of Capital Punishment." Firstly you could argue that murder rates
aren't rising (a direct factual error), or if they are rising this is only because a greater proportion of
murders are now believed to be reported which masks the real trend (an indirect factual error).
Secondly you could dispute the causal link with Capital Punishment and argue that the evidence shows
that state sanctioned murder can appear to condone violent crime and leads to a rise in its incidence
rather than deterring against it (misinterpretation).

2.5 Rebuttal - the whole:

It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to identify what the key arguments
are. There are a number of things you should do to systematically break down a team's case: 1. Ask
yourself how the other side have approached the case, is their methodology flawed? 2. Consider what
tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these.       3.
Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes, try to refute these.
4. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not necessary to correct every example used.
You won't have time and your aim is to show the other side's case to be flawed in the key areas

3 Strategy

Strategy is the most technical part of debating. It is the observation of the basic elements of strategy that make
a debate what it is. Although strategy is worth fewer marks than style and content in a competition, it is often
what actually separates very good teams. Strategy encompasses fulfilling your role in the debate, structure,
timing, teamwork and participation in the whole debate.

3.1 Fulfilling the correct role:

Each speaker in a debate has a different role and these are summarised below. The summaries assume
that the format is for teams of two, with two teams on each side.

The First Proposer: The first speaker must define the motion and justify it if need be. Then he must
outline the case his team will put forward and explain which speaker will deal with which arguments.
He should then develop his own arguments and finish by summarising his main points. 

The First Opposer: The first speaker must respond to the definition mentioning whether it is fair and
makes a reasonable link to the motion. Then the speaker must rebut the first prop speech. 
 The second proposer should re-cap the team line and then rebut the response made by the first
opposer speaker to his partner's speech. He should then develop his own arguments and finish with a
summary of the whole prop case. 
The second opposer should very much follow the lead of the first opposer speaker and continue with
the same strategy as his partner.

The last opposer speaker must devote their whole speech to a summing up and should not introduce
new material.

 3.2 Teamwork: 
It is important to work as a team with your partner. Refer to each other's speeches as much as possible
and ensure that what you say links together well. Make sure you communicate well and you know
what the other is thinking, planning to say and so

                      

A basic debate [4 minutes per person]

 
First speaker Affirmative
Definition / keywords.
Introduces team’s argument.
[time keeper rings bell once at 3 minutes & twice at 4 minutes = time up]
                                                          
Second speaker Negative
Defines keywords / terms.
Introduces team’s argument.
Rebuttal.
[‘rebuttal’ means choose a point from the opposite team and prove why this is wrong]

Third speaker Affirmative / Fourth speaker Negative

Continue arguments and rebuttals.

Fifth speaker Affirmative / Sixth speaker Affirmative

Rebut opposition’s debate & summaries their key points.

The adjudicators / judges decide who won the debate.

 
The teams thank each other.

What is a debate. https://academic-englishuk.com/debates/

Approaches to Learning. baliis.net/approaches-to-learning/home/communication/debating-skills