BASICS OF A DEBATE

Note: A motion is something to be debated upon, either you are for it (government) or
against it (Opposition)
Types of motions:
THW means This House Would:
• Challenges the status quo
• What the world looks like if THW exists
• Fiat, assume it will happen
THBT/THR/THC/THS means This House Believes That, This House Regrets, This House
Celebrates, This House Supports
• Values/principles based debate
• Principle in motion
• Purposefully vague, first speakers must materialize what is in specifics
This House XYZ
• Focuses on key-players and defend specific people in the motion
• Explains why key players benefit or get harmed by the motion, depending on what side
you are on
This House Prefers
• Denies status quo
• Envisions a new world in motion
• New world vs status quo

BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY STYLE

Opening Factions
• The first two teams on each government and opposition are known as part of the Top
Half. Each has four basic roles, they must:

1. Establish clear definitions of terms in the motion that may be variously interpreted
2. Present their case
3. Respond to arguments raised by the opposing teams
4. Maintain their relevance during the debate by asking points of information

• The second two teams are known as the Bottom Half. They must:

1. Introduce a case extension where a new argument is presented that focuses on

an aspect of the debate not touched by the side’s opening faction
2. Establish and maintain their relevance early in the debate
3. Respond to the argument of the first factions
4. Respond to the case extension of the opposing second faction

BRIONES M.Y.D
 • The final two speakers of the debate (known as the Whips) :
1. The government whip and the opposition whip may not introduce new arguments
for the faction.
2. They must respond to both opposing factions’ arguments
3. They should briefly sum up their opening faction’s case
4. They should offer a conclusion of their own faction’s case extensions

BREAKOUT ROOM : RESPONDING

the Mindset
• Importance of listening beyond labels
• Does it really matter to listen to other speakers?
• Everything can be rebutted
• Is there really a perfect and flawless argument and substance?
The importance of responding:
1. Analysis
2. Relevance
3. Approach
4. Listening beyond labels
5. Question why it is important to the debate

Imagine a circuit
• A visual representation of how arguments look like
• How they operate, work, and be as far as believable and reasonable

Hierarchy of responses: (lowest to highest)

1. Example
• Rebutting examples= lowest form of responding
• If to be executed, one should deconstruct how and why the example is not analogous to
the motion situation
• “is it applicable in most cases”
• Construct by deconstructing the premise

2. Premise
• Do not rebut by saying the premise is not true or not in and of itself
• Rebut by proving why, even if their premise is reasonable alone
• Why is this not likely in the case of actors involved, calculus, mitigating circumstances
Ex:
Argument (gov): This is the only agency they have against a painful life

Premise: People do not consent to being and all that is inherent to his life- this is the only
agency they have against all that is uncontrollably excruciating to them

Rebuttal: in so far as it is true, (1) false dichotomy- the premise agency that a person
has, in most cases, is not dichotomous. Their premise only stands in only isolated cases

BRIONES M.Y.D
 in society. In a span of a person’s life, a lot of agencies are offered by institutions, friends,
family, etc.

3. Conclusion
• Call out logical lapses and insufficiency
• Does the premise and explanation really led to the conclusion they said?
• What have they missed?
• Spinning- co-opting, tell why their conclusion is not really the product of their premise, but
most likely valuable on your side
• Relevance- is the conclusion exactly important for the goal and stakeholders?
• *side note*- If option is valuable, tell why other options are invaluable

4. Importance
• Most efficient and effective strategy comparative
• Is this really the priority of x?
• Comparative metric: intensity of harms, net benefit/loss, etc. in the majority of cases- is
this relevant?
• Is this really the best choice?
• Directly attacks the argument

Implications of Conclusions

• What part of the argument does it target?

• How does this affect their whole case?
• Persuasiveness
• Most important: contradiction of conclusion and premise ( if you get to prove this, it will drastically
affect their case)
• Prove that there is a contradiction

EXAMPLE: THW grant individuals the option to vanish

ARGUMENT (gov): This is the only agency they have against a painful life

PREMISE: People do not consent to being born and all that is inherent to their lives (family,
status in life, house, etc.). This is the only agency they have against all that is uncontrollably
excruciating to them

CONCLUSION: So, dying is the only way they could choose, for once, the best option for them

REBUTTAL: Challenge why never being able to do x,y, x is suddenly the best option for them,
even when agency is constantly being given to people in society. Tackle why the said link of
stopping the life of endless possibilities just for pain does not necessarily lead to the best option.
They need to prove that all other possible option of future happiness and overcoming etc. is not
better than dying.
To co-opt, tell why their conclusion of getting the best option is better when a person continues to
live and experience the fullness of the cycle

Make sure to not be generic

• Nuance to the motion

• Grounded based on the opponents’ claims
• First assume how they explain it

BRIONES M.Y.D
Implications of missing analysis

• How much does it matter?

• Relevance and realistic application

How to improve on rebuttals

• Really listen to the speaker

• To question the opponents’ argument
• Through experience

BRIONES M.Y.D