Debate Guide 2013 Ed 1

Debate Guide
Vincent Joseph E. Cesista
First Edition
First Quarter 2013
Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 1 |

This humble work is solemnly dedicated to the one who loved debating more than I did and more
than I ever will. Rest in peace, dearest partner Samantha.

Table of Contents
Title Page
Dedication
Chapter I. Introduction and Role Fulfilment 4
Chapter II. Mitigating Debate Challenges 28
Chapter III. Acquiring, Developing and
Applying Matter and Principles 30
Chapter IV. Intermediate Tactics and
Tourney Preparation 34
Chapter V. Tips for Coaches 38
Exercises 41

Chapter I. Introduction and Role Fulfilment
Rule 1. Every debate has a motion and this is the topic of the discussion. No amendment to
the motion is permitted.
1. What may be included in a motion?
Motions may include anything under the sun (or anything beyond it if you would) – i.e.
TH Believes, THW Resurrect the dead, THW Sell the moon. A debater has to learn the trends
and new topics in different parts of the world. In other words, a debater has to be updated
especially before joining a debate tournament. The motion for NDC 2010 final round was
“THBT fraternity leaders should be held liable for the crimes done by their members.” This
motion was released as a response to the bombing during the bar exams immediately preceding
NDC Cordillera. We wouldn’t naturally matter-load about fraternities but because of that
specific event, debaters expected that the motion would come out. The trick is, read as much as
you can so you can fairly expect that one of the things you read will come of the debate
tournament. Remember, your logic may see you through the first few rounds but will never save
you during difficult rounds. VMDC Silliman 5th round motion was “TH believes that operators
of unmanned vehicles should be responsible under the rules of engagement”1 – try to use logic if
you can!
2. What is the spirit of the motion?
It is the essence of the motion; the message or the topic that the adj core wants the
debaters to talk about. To put it bluntly, whenever adj core members release motions, they
already talked about what SHOULD transpire during the round including all the issues, possible

1
It was in this round that I first gave a speech without notes. Sam and I were so problematic on what the topic was
about (we were OO and I wasn’t interested in warfare back then). OG was FSUU A, CG was ADDU (Emiko and
partner), CO was XU (Gian and partner). We won the round.

rebuttals and most especially, the contemporary topics related to it. It is our job as debaters to be
able to ascertain what the intention of the adjudication core is. This may be done through reading
the things that adj core members read (try stalking them in FB) or by analyzing their
backgrounds (Angelo Kalaw of UPD loves Economic motions, Giancarlo Garcia loves heavy
matter topics). But the best way to really know the spirit of the motion is by carefully
juxtaposing the motion with current events and using such motion as a solution to the real and
existing problem. To use the example in NDC 2010 final round, the adj core surely weren’t
thinking about crimes done by members of fraternity during hazing rituals or some random riots
between fraternity members; they were specifically thinking of crimes which affect the society in
general. In that particular case, they wanted the OG to talk about why frat heads should be
responsible even for crimes such as bombing using a grenade which severed the leg of one of the
law students and injured several others. It was a daunting task for OG to burden fraternity heads
for the criminal propensity of their members for you can always argue that these members have
their individual freewill independent from the intention of the group. All doubts were dismissed
when OG won the round.
3. What are absurd definitions?
These are definitions which only a fool would make. They are generally classified as:
a. Truism – “THW Go Green.” Gov sets up that all houses in the US must be painted
with shades of green.
b. Time-Place Set – “THW Pass the RH Bill.” Gov argues that RH Bill should be
applied in Lahug, Cebu City because of the continuously increasing population in the
area. Or “THW Violently fight extremism.” Gov sets up the debate in Normandy
France against the Nazis in year 1944 and discussed the possible alternatives to
Operation Overlord.
c. Squirreling – Literally means running away from the burden given by the motion.
“THW Allow prisoners to raise babies behind bars.” Gov argues that prisoners

should be allowed to raise their babies inside prison camps after they have served
their full sentence.
d. Tautology – redundancy in short.
4. What are the 3 Ms of debating?
Manner, matter and method. Manner refers to your ability to persuade the audience
through the words you say, no matter how smart or stupid they may be. This includes your stage
presence, the smoothness of your diction and even the way you look and dress. Manner consists
of 40% of the total score you get for a speech. Matter is the meat of your speech. It includes two
basic elements namely, the facts you say and the analysis you make out of those facts. Matter is
40% of the total score as well. Method consists only of 20% of your total score but I would say
that it is the most difficult to master. Method is the way you organize the ideas, analysis and
examples in your speech in a cohesive and easily digestible way. To gain that degree of
sophisticated methodology, you need years of experience and several tries as to what kind of
method fits you well. I remember talking to a girl from one of the prominent universities in the
south. She told me that in their team, she was the “matter person” and her partner, “the manner
person.” I was surprised that some debaters think that it is still okay to go to a debate tournament
with the notion that the 3Ms can be divided between team members. First of all, the 3Ms are
indispensable and a debater must learn and apply them as one collective concept. Secondly,
assuming that it is alright to divide the 3Ms, the judges will give you at best a grade of 60 if you
would only use Matter/Manner plus method. This is even under the assumption that it is possible
to perfect either manner or method. To put it simply, learn the 3Ms by heart for they will walk
you through the road to success. Strength, agility and instinct are to an athlete as the 3Ms to a
debater.

Rule 2. Teams in an Asians parliamentary debate can be classified into government and
opposition. Teams in a British parliamentary debate may be classified into three, to wit:
a. By order of speaking (opening houses and closing houses)
b. By side of the house (gov and opp)
c. By specific position (OG, OO, CG, and CO)
5. What is the difference between a rehash and a repackaged argument?
Rehash means copying an argument from previous speaker or speakers without justifiable
grounds or substantial distinctions. It is bad, it is wrong, it is not allowed. A repackaged
argument is one that is based from previous points of a speaker or speakers. They are generally
discouraged in a debate for if the adj will recognize that an argument is repackaged no matter
how good the repackaging is, that team usually gets penalized. If you realize that a team
committed rehash or has repackaged your team’s arguments, you can technically stand (as if to
give a POI) and directly accuse them through murmuring “rehash,” “repackaged,” etc – or
something to that effect. Just make sure not to badger.
6. What is the difference between a shift and a shaft?
Shifting is a recognized change in the line of argumentation usually done by closing

teams to make a remarkable difference from opening houses. It is allowed and in fact highly
recognized to properly elevate and extend the debate. On the other hand, shaft is a mortal crime
in parliamentary debating. It is generally understood as arguments which directly contradict the
themes and line of argumentation of the previous speaker or speakers on the same side of the
house. An example of shifting is when OG speaks of social ills of prostitution while CG talks of
economic harms of such activity. However, if in that same example CG talked about how
socially or economically beneficial prostitution is, then it (CG) has clearly shafted OG. Even if
OG defined the motion wrong or has understood it in a skewed manner, without a proper
definitional challenge from OO, CG is bound to be consistent with its opening house. Take note
that shaft may also happen between team members. VMDC 1 3rd round motion was “TH

Condones anti-drug vigilantes.” OG impliedly defined condone as celebrate while OO thought
that OG defined condone as condemn. In issuing a def chal, OO redefined the word condone to
mean celebrate and thereafter, argued for their side on why anti-drug vigilantes should be
arrested. While such definition and line of argumentation is correct, DLO abandoned his LO
when he argued why anti-drug vigilantes should be protected – which in effect argues for why
they should be celebrated - an argument supposedly for government side. 2
7. What should be done in cases of shaft?
Once you recognize that your team mate is arguing for the other side of the house,
support him and pretend that you believe he is right. Do not argue with him during the debate
and do not show that you are frustrated or disappointed. If in case your opening house (OG)
defined the motion incorrectly or did not issue a def chal (OO) against a clearly erroneous
definition, stick with your opening. Remember that a definition may only come from the Prime
Minister and no one else, and a definitional challenge should be raised only by the Leader of the
Opposition.
Rule 3. Generally, speeches should be SEVEN minutes in duration.
8. What are the other rules concerning lengths of speeches?
In general you should speak for at least 6:45 and generally no more than 7:20-7:30.
Ideally stay on your feet until you hear the 7th min bell and then finish (i.e. Mr. Speaker sir, I
beg to........) and be in your seat by 7:15. Your times will be recorded by the timekeeper and
given to the adjudicators as they leave to make their decision.3

2
VMDC 1, we were CG and my partner was Edyl Tolentino – we got 2 points in the round. OO obviously was
penalized for shafting.
3
http://flynn.debating.net/genguide.htm

9. How does the length of speech affect an adjudicator’s judgement?
It depends. If an adjudicator likes your speech, he or she wouldn’t mind even if you reach
7:45. There was a time when my speech reached 8:30 and nobody realized, not even the
adjudicator. The motion was just too difficult and the round was so intense for anyone to watch
the time. Of course the next question is: why didn’t I stop? It was a “bubble round” during NDC
Cagayan 2011 and since nobody was saying anything, I went on until I was done with all my
arguments. The 2 that we got in the round allowed us to break in NDC. Had it not for the extra
time, I’m sure CO would have won the debate. As a lesson, use this golden opportunity well. If
you think someone has noticed that you substantially exceeded the allocated time – be it the adj
or one of the debaters - end your speech. Otherwise, the adj might discredit some of your
arguments. On the other hand, if an adjudicator dislikes your speech, she would be bothered if
you will speak for more than the allotted time. Some new adjes may even use that against you
during the oral adj so it is always safer to stick with 7:15.
10. What are the rules regarding Points of Information (POI)?
a. Accept ONLY 2 POIs in your speech
b. Accept the first after your context and first argument and the second, prior to your last
argument.
c. When you are the one giving out POIs, please do not badger or make unnecessary or
rude behaviours.
d. Never let anyone badger you while you are speaking, such action will distract the adj.
Always ask whoever is attempting to give a POI to sit or the best way to stop your
opponents from giving POIs is to promise one of them that you will take a POI.

Rule 4. Arguments and rebuttals are the primary weapons of a debater in a round.
11. How is an argument formulated?
An argument has a basic idea-analysis-example (IAE) structure. All good cases4 start with an
idea, strengthened by analysis and supported by examples. It is highly necessary for an idea
(first element) to be directly related to the topic at hand otherwise, it would be deemed to be
unnecessary or irrelevant. Example: “THW give free aids medicine”5. Gov argued that it is
highly feasible for free aids medicine to be given since companies will think of it as part of their
corporate social responsibility. The argument is not meritorious. To argue about feasibility when
there are glaring issues to be tackled is abandoning one’s obligation in the debate. I am not
saying that the argument is bad; in fact it was fairly researched and reasonably supported by
conclusive data. However, the argument about CSR was not as effective as it could be since the
proper premises prior to the presentation of the case were not present. It might be a little difficult
to find premises for such argument juxtaposed to the motion, but assuming there were premises
presented, the argument would still have stood on thin ice. The second element of a good
argument is the analysis. What breaks a speech after a promising signposting is bad analysis
(second element). There’s no single way to teach how to analyze an idea but let me offer some
suggestions on how to develop an idea through analysis.
a. Make sure that the analysis supplements the idea to reach its goal. The assumption in
this step is that every idea has a certain goal, such as the idea of giving free aids medicine
aims to combat the increase of aids. The trick is, before you make an argument, be sure
what your goal is and be consistent to reach that goal. Taking the example above, the goal
of giving free aids medicine is to help people overcome the situation of being inflicted
with aids. However, the goal should not be how to induce companies to give away free
aids medicine but rather to teach people how to “overcome” aids psychologically.
Although CSR is initially a good reason to give aids medicine, such argument would not

4
Case can be interchanged with argument
5
Grand Final round, Visayas Universities Debate Championship, February 2010. We won the tournament.

stand in cases where almost a whole nation is afflicted with aids such as some countries
in Africa.
b. Free the analysis of assumptions. This is highly necessary especially for those who are
unskilled or too skilled debaters. The former are most of the time not aware of the
underlying premises, assumptions and presumptions before presenting a certain idea,
while the latter are just to experienced that they simply jump into conclusions without
walking the listeners through the whole analysis. This usually stems from misjudgement
of what “common knowledge” is. To put it simply, if you love Russian history, don’t
expect an average reasonable person (the adj) to know why China has abandoned the
Communist principles laid down by Vladimir Lenin!
c. One idea at a time. Debaters tend to mix up arguments when they get harassed, stressed
or when they panic in a debate. Keep calm and always focus on a single flow of analysis
for one idea. There are several ways to keep you from jumping from one idea to another.
You can use labels which are not related to each other at all or, you can use index cards.
One index card, one argument, it will keep you from attempting to snatch analysis from
your other arguments and force your brain to explain an idea as much as you can.
The third element of an argument is example. Some ideas stem out of examples and if you
think that an example you have in mind is too potent, turn it into an idea. There are two things
you must remember about examples:
1. What examples to give. Of course get the most relevant and the most “relatable.” One
flaw I had during quarters of VMDC 4 Dumaguete was that I gave an example which I
thought was very effective – the war in Congo (the debate was about artistic freedom.lol).
It turned out that a very few people were able to relate to the example I gave and in the
end, the Africa example was neither harmed nor discussed.
2. When to stop. You must know when to stop discussing an example otherwise, you
would unintentionally replace your whole case with the examples you have given. The
danger with this is that the adj might forget the analysis you have presented or in case the
example will be sufficiently and effectively rebutted, the adj might not be able to

differentiate between parts of your speech which have been paralyzed as a result of the
refuted example you gave and those which are still supposed to hold water despite the
fallen examples. Furthermore, too many examples will lead you to “matter-vomit.6” This
sickness is especially evident amongst those who have so much matter between their ears.
An example given by CO during Worlds Universities Debate Championship 2010 was a

perfect one. The motion was “THW fund Twitter to liberalize oppressed societies.”7 LO was
trying to argue that groups which hate America would see Twitter as an American-backed tool
and will distrust the liberalization movement altogether. DLO used BBC as a sweeping example
rebutting that BBC is exclusively funded by the United Kingdom government but is still the most
trusted news agency in the world.
You must remember that it is not necessary for examples to be real-world because some
debates are specifically made to presume impossibility (ie THW send prostitutes into space).
Needless to say, some idea-analysis structure doesn’t need an example to stand but it is your
obligation as a debater to find relevant examples as much as possible and as far as practicable.
Examples colour your case and they help you ground your analysis further especially historical
examples which have stood the test of time and are free from contests and controversies (ie. that
war is bad and that capitalism enriches the few at the expense of the poverty of many).
12. How is a good rebuttal formulated?
Rebuttal is as important as an argument. However, a case may be won by purely

constructive matter (all arguments) but never can a purely negative one (all rebuttals) win a
debate. Personally I believe that formulating a rebuttal is easier than formulating an argument.
But this is not to say that rebutting does not tax one’s matter and analysis for a debater can never
rebut without proofs to the contrary. Elementary is the rule that “no data, no right to speak.” The
motion “THW grant mothers voting rights equal to the number of their children”8serves as a

6
The act of spewing too much information or examples which may or may not be related to the topic
7
OG (Oxford A with my favourite debater ShengWu Li as PM) won the semis of WUDC 2010. Unfortunately, they
lost during the hair-‐raising final round on the motion “THW show the full horrors of war.”
8
VUDC 4 Iloilo quarterfinals, UP Iloilo A (gov) vs UP Cebu A (opp)

good example on how analysis even without data may still serve as a good rebuttal. Gov started
by saying that to empower poor women, it is necessary that the state pursues a policy that will
grant them more ability to elect those whom they believe will push for their rights. Opp argued
that rights may be fought for even without express grant of increased voting rights because
legislative power allows promulgation of laws of whatever nature. Furthermore, the benefits
which may be granted by increased voting rights of the poor can easily be offset by the possible
overwhelming harms such as the aggravating cases of vote-buying amongst the poor. It is of no
second thought that the middle class serves as the vanguard of the democracy and the extremes
of the social pyramid may either initiate corruption or support it by condoning vote-buying.
Experienced debaters are fully aware that to be able to rebut, it is vital to first “dissect”
the argument into its different elements namely: idea, analysis and example. Example is almost
always the weakest link of an argument for it can easily be disproven by a contrary claim from
the other side; and in case there will be contrasting explanation which vitiate the validity of an
example, the adjudicator may either give credit to the one who explained it better (irrespective of
the accuracy of the example given) or the adjudicator may dismiss the example altogether. This
is both dangerous and beneficial. Dangerous in a sense that if you are not able to support your
example well, your opponent may simply brush your matter aside by a more convincing contrary
claim. Beneficial in a sense that, simple and reasonable explanation of an example can
compensate for a debater’s lack of detailed information of an example. To properly attack an
example, you have to look into the element that binds the example with the idea and the analysis.
If the claim is that invasions can mitigate the atrocities in war by overwhelmingly defeating the
opposing forces by the use of advanced weapons and then your opponent supports this by citing
Iraq and/or Afghanistan, you can easily see that the validity of the example rests upon the simple
idea that “modern weapons if used in a war mitigates atrocities.” You can fairly rebut the
example of Iraq and Afghanistan by saying that “modern weapons” cannot at all times conclude
a war such as the case of Vietnam War which lasted for more than twenty years and has caused
the Americans and its allies thousands of young lives. Even if America poured its political,
military and economic resources to Vietnam (to the extent of conscripting young males), it was
still forced to pull out of Vietnam after more than two frustrating decades of futile attempts to
drive the Communists out. Despite the employment of modern weapons, atrocities were not

mitigated for the Viets proved that they are willing to kill and die for their ideology. And sure
they did.
Perhaps there is no single way to teach how to rebut analysis but let me give some
suggestions.
a. Watch out for blanket analysis –Simply put, general claims such as “The bombers all
over the world are all Muslim extremists” or that “all gays are pro gay marriage”
should be qualified and should not include everyone. Some terrorists are certainly not
Muslims and some gays are against gay marriage. Blanket analysis literally means
“blanketing” everyone without disregard to possible differences between members of
a class, religion or social groups.
b. Slippery slope – this one is particularly difficult to recognize. Slippery slope in debate
parlance means that an action although good at the start may have some inevitable
and unintended negative effects. Just imagine you sliding down a slope (such as the
side of the mountain), it may sound exciting but you are surely going to get hurt once
you hit the ground. Be vigilant on claims like “government should give free tertiary
education to all because it is a Constitutional right” – such a claim can easily be
rebutted by saying that no matter how noble the cause of education is, the ill effects
of allocating so much funds to the academe can range from a dependent citizenry to
economic downfall because of mismanagement of general appropriations.
When rebutting analysis, you must expressly say the analysis you are trying to rebut. If
you can say it in toto, then you should. This helps the adjudicator look up the analysis on her
notes and write the rebuttal beside or even directly above it (if you gave an astonishing rebuttal!).
Finally, idea is the most difficult to rebut; but just like all difficult tasks, it is really
rewarding. If you can disprove a debater’s idea, then in effect you are discrediting his analysis
and examples. There are two ways I rebut an idea:
a. Rebutting by disproving conclusion – Since all ideas have their own conclusions, it is
imperative upon a debater to prove that the idea will not reach its conclusion and

therefore, the idea itself is wrong. For example, if the conclusion is to solve the
problem in Mindanao and the idea proposed is “an all-out war,” you can surely argue
that it simply fuels another cycle of violence and thus, violates its own conclusion of
solving the problem of war.
b. Breaking its tie with the motion – You must have heard the line “tie it back to the
motion” – this line is easier said than done. This phrase recognizes the existence of a
goal in all motions and commands that all arguments must be directed to achieve such
goal. To tie it back means to establish relevance. Your duty as a debater is to show
that the idea veers away from the goal of the motion such as when the idea will lead
to a conclusion different from what the motion intends. Some ideas sound so strong
and in fact, intimidating but a closer look would show that they are irrelevant to the
goal of the motion and to a certain extent, to the debate as a whole. A good example
is the semi final round of PIDC 2010 on the motion “THW Resurrect the dead.”9 It
was pretty clear that opp was arguing that it is not beneficial for science and for
human development in general to allow dependence on those who passed away (in
case they can be resurrected) – these are beautiful arguments. However, opp (on a
lighter note) presented the idea that it is almost impossible to resurrect the dead for an
organic substance cannot be revived once it has ceased to exist. Such idea clearly
veers away from the goal of the opp which is to prove that resurrecting the dead is not
beneficial – opp should certainly not argue on why IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. That line of
argumentation only begs the question: if it proposal is possible, would your side
agree with us? The bond that kept the arguments of opp together certainly excluded
that idea and such idea has ultimately lost its tie and relevance to the motion. Opp lost
the round.

9
PIDC 2010 semi-‐final round between ADMU A (gov) vs UPD A (gov), UP School of Economics theatre.

Rule 5. It is the obligation of the prime minister to set-up the debate and for the leader of
the opposition to reframe it if necessary.
13. What is the importance of defining terms?
It is extremely necessary for all the members of the team to have a common understanding of the
words used in the motion and those words which logically might come out of the debate. Some
words might have different meanings if put in different contexts. This is especially evident on
semi-open and open motions, for example: “TH Condones Anti Drug Vigilantes.” 10 Debaters in
the tournament where this motion was used had different understanding for the words in the
motion thus, had different interpretations of the motion and that of course led to ridiculously
pathetic rounds. Some people thought the word “condone” was a synonym of the word
“condemn” but the word condone was the exact opposite of condemn. And as if that was not
enough, some teams even contextualized Anti-Drug Vigilantes as “superheroes” or those people
who sell herbs or medicinal plants in the country side. The damage could have been lessened if
people had dictionaries with them! But no, most debaters highly depend on their stored
knowledge which sometimes might not be enough. When I said “words which logically might
come out…,” I am trying to imply that when you prep, you should be able to discuss possible
words that might come out of the debate so the team will be a. prepared when they come out and
b. have a common understanding of them. You can fairly expect the terms sovereignty and state
institutions in a debate about politics and governance. Having this in mind, you must talk with
your team mates to settle actual confusion when it comes to words put in the motion or words
which you think will definitely be discussed. Most teams, especially trainees find it difficult to
open up with their partners regarding words or concepts which they find difficult to understand.
Remember that one of the greatest tests of human intellect is the humility to accept what you do
not know to open up yourself to the majestic wonders of reason.

10
Visayas Mindanao Debate Championship I, Cebu City, July 2007

14. How can terms be effectively defined?
The word “effective” is the most appropriate word in defining terms in debate motions.
The goal of definition is to get the spirit of the motion and strike a strategic balance to put OG in
a good position in the round. There are two levels of definition: first, that which comes from
dictionaries and second, that which comes from contextualization. Consider context. Context is
the combination of all the possible factors revolving around the motion; this will include time-
place set, political climate, and existing municipal laws and international covenants.11 Needless
to say, your definition must always be contingent upon the context in the motion; otherwise you
would unnecessarily constrict the debate which would lead to a bad round. A good example is
“THBT the sun rises in the East.” There would be a conflict between the literal meaning of the
words in the motion and the spirit the motion employs. A beginner would think that this motion
is semi-open to open while a dino would definitely judge this as a closed motion. Considering
the context in the world right now, China is recognized to be the one of the economic
powerhouses of the world and as HSBC analyzes it, it would be stronger than the US by 2050.12
Only fools will analyze this motion literally. When in doubt, remember the saying “interpret not
by the letters that killeth but by the spirit that giveth life.”
15. What is the difference between a model and a frame?
There’s a thin line between a model and a frame. Frame refers to the context which was
used to define the situation of the debate such as the existing problems related to the motion and
the like. A frame does not create an argument but presents the conditions necessary for an
argument to be appreciated. If you have attended the talks I have given before and have seen me
debate, you would realize that I use the word frame as a collective term for definition of terms,
context, parameters, team-split, etc. A model on the other hand is the manifestation of your ideal
solution vis a vis the frame presented. Simply put, frame is your set-up and context while model

11
The technical term for national laws is municipal laws. This is used to delineate laws which are of national
application and those which cover the international arena
12
http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/worlds-‐top-‐economies-‐in-‐2050-‐will-‐be/

is your general idea on how to solve the issues you have presented in your frame. Of course it is
necessary that you are able to frame the debate the way it would be beneficial for your side. As
mentioned above in the round “THW give free aids medicine”, Gov said that a lot of people have
aids and to combat it, companies must give away free aids medicine. It is pretty easy to pin-point
the frame and the model in the next preceding sentence. Frame: a lot of people have aids (so
obviously Gov presented this as a problem); Model: companies must give away free aids
medicine because the poor cannot afford to buy aids medicine (solution). Gov made a bad frame
– model correlation here since as already pointed above, the model should have been to let them
accept the situation psychologically. For further discussion about what a model is, please refer to
the question below.
16. How do I find the supermodel?
There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about what a model is, how to construct one and
what to do with it once you have it. Models are an extremely important and useful part of
debating, so let me try to clear up all those questions. The first question is what is a model? The
answer is simple. A model is a specific set of practical actions proposed by a team in a debate.
So it means that instead of just arguing that a certain idea is good, the team actually set up a
particular type of system that they support for reasons that are linked to various parts of the
model. For example, the "heroin trials" debate (i.e. “That we support safe heroin injecting
rooms”) is one where there is room for a range of models, because there are many important
questions about the practical application of the idea. For instance, teams should choose between
a model of government supplied heroin or a ‘user supplies’ system – i.e. a ‘no questions asked’
policy about where a user obtained their drugs as long they use them in the safe injecting rooms.
Both these models have strengths and weaknesses. The government supplied model will
generate criticism on the grounds that it turns the government into a drug dealer, as well as
questions of how long the government can afford to maintain such a system (especially if the
number of users grow as a result). However this system does effectively put many drug dealers
out of business and it also means that users will always get pure heroin and not the ‘dirty’
varieties often found on the street (which is a major cause of overdoses). So you see the choice

of model is extremely important, because it can change the focus of the debate, and bring in (or
cut out) various issues.13
Normally, there are two general ways to classify a model: hard and soft line. The
hardness or the softness of the model refers to the amount of change it wants to propose so much
so that soft lines are very close to the status quo while hard lines intend to change the status to as
much as a hundred and eighty degrees. The supermodel must come from between these lines.
You must be able to use strategic strengths of the two extremes of the spectrum (the hard and the
soft lines) and to balance them out to achieve favourable specifics for the model you would have.
Do not confuse yourself with the terms model, frame and set-up. I usually interchange the first
two, the last one I use to specifically describe the step-by-step process (the one with prongs) to
apply principles into practical use.
17. What are the three ways to build a working model?
As Sonnreich would put it, the best way to build a model is to steal someone else’s
model. This means you have to substantially know the model (proposals) out there and use that
model for your team. For example, “THW approve the RH Bill now.” Although the debate is
mostly about why or why not RH Bill should be passed, debaters in the room will inevitably
touch the issue of what kind of RH Bill proposal to pass. You should know by now that there are
different proposals regarding RH Bill and you don’t want to end up saying “any proposal as long
as it’s about RH Bill,” “the best proposal” or “all the proposals in Congress.” The best thing to
do is to reasonably know which version of RH Bill you want to copy. You may cite your source
if you want to but sometimes in debating, it is a necessary evil to claim something which did not
come from you. The danger is if your adj or opponents would expressly state you have
plagiarized.

13
Sonnreich, Tim. Training Guide for University Debating: Tips, Tactics and First Principles. Monash Association of
Debaters, 2010.

This leads us to the second way to build a working model: creating your own version.
Simply put, you borrow a model from an existing model out there and then you reinvent the
model to fit in the principles and the practical usage you want. This, for me is most efficient and
practical. By creating your own version of a model, you will be able to filter the weaknesses and
the strengths of a model and choose which ones you want to use. At the same time, your
opponents will not be able to easily debunk the model you will forward.14
Of course not all of us are wide readers that is why most debaters usually fall on the third
way to build a model: from scratch. You literally scratch your head and ask your team mate how
you guys are going to get out of the round with your dignity intact. Well, if you make your own
model, you could be either of two kinds of debaters: the one who knows so much about the topic
that you are able to make a model out of all the things you know about the motion, or you could
be that person who have only “heard about it” but does not necessarily know the underlying
issues in the motion but simply chooses to make your own model because “there’s no other
choice.” I have always asked my students to read as much as they can because the more you
read, the more you say. To know whether or not your model is effective, it must pass the “Test
for Valid Model” which has two standards.
1. The Completeness Test. The model must be complete in itself that the adj will not
ask for more. It needs to answer basic things such as “who will execute the plan,”
“where, when and how will this be applied.” Just like you, your adjes can be confused
so please walk them through your model by explaining all the necessary details to put
your goals into reality. At the end of the round, your opponents and adj must not ask
questions like “is it possible to fund the model?” “which international body will
execute the plan they have in mind?” These things must be pre-empted during your
set-up so as to prevent regrets in lack of procedure after your speech. To do this, you
must expressly make a step-by-step introduction of the elements of your model.

14
On the assumption that borrowed models can easily be predicted by your opponents

Example: THW allow the ownership of the moon
First prong: THW would allow the moon and other heavenly bodies which
are not directly necessary for the survival of the earth to be auctioned between
country-members of the United Nations
Second prong: To prevent the proliferation of nuclear wastes, UN would

allow countries to own parts and parcels of the moon and other heavenly
bodies so that they would have a place to deposit their nuclear wastes.
Third prong: To assure that the countries are neither abusing this privilege to
have a place for their nuclear wastes, nor would have a reason to proliferate
nuclear arms and other technologies, we would make sure that members who
will join the auction have ratified NNPT, IAEA and other relevant
international covenants.
Fourth prong: All the prongs stated above are to mitigate issues concerning
the threat that nuclear wastes pose therefore, if time comes that depositing of
nuclear wastes in the space would mean a direct harm for the inhabitants of
the planet earth, we would rethink of other measures to solve such conflict. Be
it noted however, that as of this moment, research shows that it is virtually
safe to put even the most toxic and dangerous chemicals in space without any
scientifically proven harm to human life.
Fifth and final prong: Upon concurrence of 3 out of 5 permanent members of

the UN Security Council and majority of members of UN, such ownership
may be taken away on grounds which prove to harm the human race and/or
different from that which have been agreed upon during the auction.
2. Principle Sufficiency Test. In most of my lectures, I have “attempted” to draw an

image of the globe with the lower half of it looking like a silhouette reflection of its
northern hemisphere. In explaining, I usually tell the audience that the upper half
represents the real world we live in and the lower, the “world of forms.” The world of

forms is a term given by Plato to make sense of our imperfection. He said that we
were all Gods but because of certain circumstances (sins, etc), we were condemned to
live here on earth without the perfection we used to have. Therefore, we know what
perfect is but we can neither attain it nor see it. All our attempts to perfection are
asymptotic in nature. The world of forms is where perfect concepts reside such as
justice, equality, fairness, love, etc. When we make a model, we should always think
of the greater principles it must embody; such as when we think of justice when we
talk about persecuting war criminals, or fairness and equality when we propose
legislation to forward women’s rights. Before you even start making the prongs15 of
your proposal, make sure you know which perfect principles you want your proposal
to represent and make your entire model hinge on such principles. Therefore, as much
as your model is complete in practical steps, it must also be sufficient in underlying
principles. However, take note that your principles must go against the principles of
the actions you are against. For example, THW run scientific tests on the terminally-
ill. In your attempt to advance science, you are expressly disregarding the inherent
right to life of people with lesser chance to live. You would inevitably make a
proposal to save other lives at the expense of others’ lives. There’s obviously a
contradiction between the practical application of the model and the principles it aims
to embody. In the words of Professor Espiritu, this is a “performative contradiction.”
18. What are first principles? (Requisites to know if it’s a first principle argument)
First principles are some of the most fundamental elements of an issue. They are the ones
that compose the core of a given topic and are reasonably expected to come out of the debate to
give way to deeper levels of discussion. First principles may easily be recognized, for example:
THW withdraw state funding for the arts. This is obviously a debate about the rights of people in
a democracy to choose academic disciplines they want versus the obligation of the state to
allocate its limited resources in a reasonable manner. First principles may also be very difficult to

15
Prongs = specific steps or elements of the proposal, usually numbered to show order and sequence.

point out such as in the motion: THW allow prisoners to raise their babies behind bars. An
average debater would spend a reasonable amount of time thinking of arguments for this motion,
more so, pin pointing which of these arguments are first principles. We could probably say that
the first principle for this motion is: civil impediment through penal sanction does not and should
not suspend parenthood or that parents’ capacity to raise their children in an environment
different from the normal neighbourhood does not impair the growth of these children. Of course
these ideas have to be worded in a brief manner to allow the judges to understand the principles
better. To translate: non-suspension of parental rights on the grounds of civil interdiction and
raising children behind bars do not necessarily mean negative social growth. I have formulated
tests to know whether or not an issue concerns first principles, to wit:
1. Prejudicial question. The issue in consideration must be needed to formulate or

support subsequent issues on the same topic. This means that it is highly impossible
to make further arguments without first raising the principle in question. Or if
arguments will be raised prior to the discussion of the principle in question, the
speaker would necessarily bypass premises needed for an argument to stand.
2. Fundamental clash point. This criterion is needed to judge whether or not the
principle in question is a vital point for both sides. This means that you will be able to
defend and rebut the same principles whichever side you may be.
3. Can be argued through logic. This suggests that if the principle in question can be
logically analyzed without heavy matter and examples support, then it’s an indication
that it is a first principle issue. This is not to say that anything which can be supported
by logic is a first principle issue. Take for example issues concerning the Great
Depression of 1929-1931. It is extremely difficult to simply use logic to support
arguments in said topic. Nevertheless, there are first principles which can be deduced
from it.
Do not forget that if it’s a first principle, it must be given to the first speaker.
If a principle in question passes all the criteria stated, then it must be a first principle. If it
looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it must be a dog.

Rule 6. The extension speaker must state his team’s claim in the debate by doing one of the
following: a. Extend the debate into a new area and b. Introduce a couple of new
arguments that make the case on his side more persuasive. 16
19. Who are the extension speakers?
In Brit Par they are the member of opposition and member of the government while in
Asians they are the second speakers. To a certain extent the deputies in Brit Par may be
considered extension speakers with respect to those who are able to totally elevate the debate. To
fix a certain standard, extension speakers are those who are able to put the debate in another
dimension different from the expected first principles arguments. This is the reason why even
first speakers may be said to have given arguments for the extension. Please be reminded that it
is advisable for a team to properly split arguments so that there would be no confusion between
arguments for first, second or third speakers. I have been to countless rounds in which the
adjudicators said that the round could have been better for us if we have properly allocated the
arguments. Try not to make the same mistake, it is really frustrating. The trick to avoid this?
Well, be honest with your team mate/s. You guys have to really share the arguments you have
formulated unless of course you are both pros.
20. What is the (Swiss) Knife technique?
A knife is a technique to solve the problem of most extension speakers: running out of
arguments. This problem comes out when you have prepared the wrong set of arguments, your
opening team has taken all your arguments away, you plainly do not know anything about the
topic or your opponents have pre-empted all your arguments. The knife or Swiss knife or debate
knife comes in different forms. When I say form, I simply mean the set of principles/suggested

16

http://www.oxfordschools.org.uk/debating_files/An%20introduction%20to%20British%20Parliamentary%20Debat
ing.pdf

arguments that comprise a knife. Let me share the first Swiss knife I have learned, the one from
Danielle De Castro.17
Dani: When you are running out of arguments, ask yourselves the following questions:
a. What’s the effect of the proposal/counter-proposal to the stakeholders?
b. What will be the long-term effect of arguments presented?
c. What are the (negative) messages sent by the opponents?
Of course this particular Swiss knife is basic. There are far more complicated ones such
as what I have formed throughout the years:
a. Social Battering Ram – a battering ram is a siege tool used in war during the ancient
times. This is the machine (usually made of hard wood or metal) used to bash the
gates of castles and fortresses. In debate parlance, this means that if you are
proposing something specifically an action to enforce intention of the government,
you have to consider the ones that will suffer as a result of said action. For example:
“THW conscript minors in times of war.” This is self-explanatory.
b. Hyperbolic Discounting – one of the complicated and difficult principles to apply in a

debate. Hyperbolic discounting pertains to the behaviour of people to ignore great
future payoffs for temporary smaller gains. For example, people would continuously
use animals in farming even if farmers would run the risk of being too dependent on
them instead of creating technologies which could substitute the use of cattle in
farming.
c. Ripple – effect - another complicated principle which can be applied to economics,

sociology and policy debates. This means that actions of individuals or governments
affect several actors exponentially and whoever started it might not be able to stop the
results. For example: The action of US not intervening in the political upheavals of
Rwanda and Kosova literally led to the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of

17
Dani won PIDC and AUDC, she told me about the swiss knife during VMDC 2010.

citizens. During that particular time, US did not intend to let those people die but it
was the ripple-effect of its denial of a military campaign against Rwanda and Kosovo.
d. Snowball Effect – you could imagine a snow ball getting bigger when you let it roll
on the snow right? It’s the same principle in debate. Initially, a situation results to
something not very significant until it builds upon itself and becomes so grave that
you could not control it anymore. The difference between snowball and ripple effect
is that the actor (in the case of snowball) was aware that there are consequences to
his/her actions but simply ignored it until it grew. For example: Gov grants tax breaks
to whoever is affected by the financial crisis. Without proper standards as to what
“effects” are contemplated by the proposal, everyone might just file for tax breaks.
The rest is self-explanatory.
Rule 7. The last speaker (whip) on each side is expected to sum up his/her side's argument
and rebut or refute the arguments of the other side. Generally this speaker will not add a
great deal of new information to the debate.18 However, the whip is expected to give a lot of
analysis and new perspectives in the debate.
21. What are not allowed for a whip to do?
Whips are not allowed to give new arguments (fresh, new points) and are discouraged to
repeat rebuttals given by his/her team mate/s.
22. What is the test to recognize a “new argument”?
If it has been discussed, regardless of the extent, by your team mates, then it is not a new
argument.
23. What are the three kinds of whipping?
1. Blow by blow – this is usually done by new debaters. This literally means picking
arguments from opponents’ speeches and rebutting them one by one.

18

2. Thematic –It is done by grouping arguments based on their “themes” such as economic,
social, etc and rebutting them as a whole.
3. Mixed – Arguments are grouped thematically but certain arguments are rebutted alone
because of their importance in the debate.
Of course whipping is not just about rebutting. Please take note that whenever you rebut, you
basically need to rebuild the points of your side. Otherwise, you are simply discrediting the
arguments of your opponents without presenting why your side has given better points.
Everything must be cleared out in a whip speech. You have to talk to your team mates to settle
what your stance is in issues which came out of the debate. This is because whips have a great
tendency of shafting.

Chapter II. Mitigating Debate Challenges
Rule 8. Remember you do not necessarily have to believe the side of the motion you are on.
You just have to make it appear as though you strongly believe in it for 7 min.19
24. How can a debater overcome biases?
Simple, do not think about them when you debate. If you are a die-hard catholic and you
are asked to debate about abolishment of the Vatican State, the debate is not asking you to
abandon your faith. It simply requests that you use your God-given reason to argue for your side.
Debating is an exercise of the mind, not a test of faith.
Rule 9. When you are an extension speaker and you do not have anything to say, use the
Swiss Knife technique.
See chapter 1, Rule 6, question 20.
Rule 10. If you are in a matter-intensive round and you are unfortunately the prime
minister, apply first principles.
25. What are the things to remember when in a tight situation?
I have been in rounds wherein I hoped I was not in the room. There is no sure way to help
you overcome such a tight situation but what you have to remember first and foremost is that you
do not necessarily have to win the round. You simply have to give a reasonably good speech to
avoid being publicly shamed and to get good speaker scores. Being in a high room would almost
assure you of a great experience and high scores! Here are some other tips I can give you.

19

1. Facing a dino is only scary when you know he is a dino. Get over his fame and believe in
yourself.
2. When your opponents use extremely complicated words, they are oftentimes just trying
to intimidate you. Attempt to simplify what they are saying by using synonyms in
your rebuttals to make the adjudicator understand what you are saying in a brief and
concise manner. If you have no idea what they are talking about, use context clues.
3. Every time you are in a difficult round, project confidence. This will help you and your
team overcome the round with your dignity intact. Most specially, adjudicator and
other members of the house will not bully or belittle you.

Chapter III. Acquiring, Developing and Applying Matter and Principles
Rule 11. The best ways to acquire matter are by habitual reading and active listening.
26. What are the two ways that a debater acquires matter?
You must read and listen. Reading also means making notes of the things that you have
read. I’m sure you’ve heard stories about people with rooms full of matter. If not, then you better
make chismis. Would I suggest you compile the same amount of matter? It highly depends on
you. Some people are good and their skills let them get away even in the most difficult
situations. However for most of us who are not gifted, there is really no substitute for hard work.
When I say listening, I mean you have to watch debate rounds and debate videos. You can fairly
get a list of world-class rounds in Youtube and some other debate channels, use Google wisely.
When I was starting out as a debater, I always try to make friends with the dinos. In preparation
for VMDC Dumaguete, I would sit for at least 3 hours in Starbucks with Henry Segovia and my
then girlfriend, Jamie. We would talk about anything we could think of and I noticed that I got
really good in responses. The little conversations you make with intelligent people develop your
reasoning reflexes. Drinking is also a great way to make debate friends. If you sit with Clyde
Gregorio and Aaron Pedrosa, you would realize that the sober mind speaks the words of an
honest heart.

Rule 12. Matter does not save a person from a difficult debate round, analysis of the matter
does.
27. What is the most effective way of presenting matter?
In the motion “THBT the US must fund Twitter to liberalize oppressed societies”20, OO
alleged that since the Middle East hates US, opposition forces would necessarily reject the
efforts pushed forward by the US through US-backed Twitter. DPM rebutted by giving BBC as
an example. BBC is exclusively funded by the United Kingdom government, yet it is the most
read news website in the world. Matter can be used as a simple example or it can be used to
prove that something has happened before, it will also happen in the current scenario we are
facing. This is the case of the second way of using matter.
Rule 13. Principles are “canned” or “ready-made” set of understandable ideas which can
be applied in almost all debates. Such knowledge is common to debaters and adjudicators
alike, use them wisely.
28. How can principles be used effectively?
Principles are practically ready-made set of rules and expected behaviours of individuals
and states in a given set of circumstances. For example, “backward shifting” is an economic
principles which explains that in case of sudden increase of tax, manufacturers would most likely
do either of two things: first, shoulder the increased tax so that their consumers would not resort
to substitute goods or withdraw from the market, second, that manufacturers would shift the
additional burden to their supply in a sense that they will bargain for cheaper raw materials. In
this example, the behaviour of manufacturers can be predicted and as such, we do not need to
think for possible scenarios when this principle is invoked. Anyhow, to use them effectively is to
make sure that the circumstances surrounding the desired result of a principle are the same as the

20
WUDC 2010, Quarterfinals

circumstances of the debate at hand. For example, if you want to use backward shifting, you
have to make sure that there indeed is an increased price in a commodity, and that the
government will not intervene to reduce the price of the commodity. Otherwise, government
regulation removes the need for backward shifting.
29. How can a principle be rebutted?
The primordial requisite for a principle to work is that there should be circumstances
allowing for the effective application of the principle. It is the obligation of the one using the
principle to prove that these circumstances are present. On the other hand, it is your duty to
prove that the circumstances of the debate (when I say debate, I mean the set-up in the real
world) do not allow for the principle to be applied.
A good example is “pride parades.” In most instances, pride parades would work
especially in liberal societies because they open-up more discussions and acceptance, etc.
However, if the set-up of the debate is in an extremely patriarchal and conservative society such
as Iraq, surely, no matter how much pride there is in a pride parade, it will not work. Pride
parades in these areas would only lead to abhorrence from families and societies of the
participants, not to mention life-threatening effects. In short, the activity will run counter against
the purpose of the movement which is acceptance.
Rule 14. It is not bad to borrow analysis from other people, it is actually a manifestation of
your comprehension and retention.
30. Does a person need to recognize the source of the analysis?
Generally, no. This is because you are simply reiterating what you believe is inherently
right. Surely, there are a lot of people who will be borrowing the same analysis under the precept
that the analysis has become “common knowledge.” For example, you do not have to discuss the

source of “laissez faire.” Also, you do not have to cite the source of the facts you will be
discussing in your speech.
31. What are the exceptions?
If the fact is not common knowledge, you have to cite a credible source. For example
“According to the US Defense Minister, there will be attacks against Al-Qaida forces stationed at
South Waziristan in the coming weeks.” The rule is, if it is not common knowledge, you have to
try to cite a source. However, if it is an analysis, no matter how complicated it might sounds, you
do not have to cite anyone; otherwise, it will be a failed attempt to impress.
Note: To be a champion material, you have to learn how to analyze matter through the aid of
principles and facts of the case.

Chapter IV. Intermediate Tactics and Tourney Preparation
Rule 15. Speakers must observe parliamentary language i.e. bad language is not
permitted.21
32. What is badgering and why is it bad?
Badgering is annoying a speaker in a disrespectful manner. Examples are as follows:

a. When you continuously offer to give a POI (you can prevent this by just standing,
most of the time, the speaker will not bother letting you sit down)
b. When you count to 15 (with fingers) while sitting then give a POI on the 16th
second
c. When you unnecessarily talk to other debaters during the debate
d. Anything which you think can annoy a speaker
33. How can a debater “safely” annoy a speaker?
I would not say that these are generally accepted, but in most instances, I use them. So
please, use them with caution.
a. I usually softly say shame when I disagree. The trick really is to make it look like
as if you believe that the argument is bad
b. You can annoy a speaker by giving a one-liner instead of saying “point or poi.”
For example, in RH debate, you can say “condom” instead of “point.”
c. I will not dwell much on this, I do not have the moral conviction to go further.
Haha.

21
ibid

34. What is amorphous debating?
Amorphous debating or liquid debating is a technique few of us can use. It is when
a debater presents his speech without distinguishing between arguments and rebuttals. As the
name would suggest, your speech takes no form, takes no shape, and practically takes no
method. I have used this technique only once in a tournament, it was during Octofinals of VUDC
Iloilo when we were almost about to lose the round. I practically had no arguments because my
arguments were the same as my rebuttals! I guess this happens to everyone, the best solution is to
use amorphous debating.
35. How can it be used?
Use it at your own risk. First, you have to determine the different main issues of the debate so
you can start there. It is as if you are preparing for a whip speech. Second, make rebuttals for
major arguments against your side then integrate them to each of the issues you have made.
Finally, present the speech in a way that it would not sound so bad that you have presented the
speech without differentiating between arguments and rebuttals. I did it this way: “let me show
you through four points of contention why the opposition has an upper hand in this debate. First,
they claim that X, we say that this is not so because of Y.”
Warning: this rarely works. You have to be really, really good to pull this off because the adj will
automatically doubt your speech! If you are a person with respected debate ability, instead of
being annoyed, the adj will be interested listening to rare amorphous speeches.
36. What happens when a debater dismisses an argument?

It depends. If the adj will be able to notice it, then it will be a credit against the debater.
If it happens to you, clearly point it our either as a POI or as a rebuttal.
37. How should a team prepare for a tournament?
See checklist below.

38. First question is, can you join the tournament?
I am referring to your financial resources. Do not prepare for a tournament you clearly
cannot join. Duh. Also, check if your schedule would allow it, time is as vital as any other
resources.
39. Are you eligible to join?
Be careful with this one. Some people will try their best to disqualify you. I know one.
The best way to prevent this? Read the Constitution of the tournament.
40. Are you compatible for each other?
It is seriously more difficult to find a good team mate than a romantic partner. Generally,
team members must be on the same wavelength unless if you are carrying a freshman. What do
you do when you are not compatible? Either work harder to make it work, or call it off. If you
are debating for fun, then work harder for it because if you fail, you will not prejudice the varsity
team. But if you are debating to compete, call it off as early as possible.
41. How prepared are you?
Have you read the newspapers for the past 30 days right before the tournament? Have
you read all the editions of Time and Newsweek for at least 2 months before the tournament?
Have you watched at least 15 debate videos before the tournament? Have you matter loaded on
at least 50 topics before the tournament? Have you built cases for at least 100 motions before the
tournament? Have you practiced debating for at least 50 motions before the tournament? If you
have answered yes in at least four of these questions, then you are prepared to break (assuming
you are also good enough). But if you have answered yes to all the questions above, and
assuming there is no skewed disparity between your skills and the other participants, you could
probably win the tournament.

42. What are the things you need to bring in an actual tournament?
Do not forget your debate notebooks, notes, pens, bond papers (folded in half) and water
container. Some teams also prepare what shirts they will wear for the duration of the tournament.
In tournaments with dress code, I suggest you follow the codes especially during the social
events.

Chapter V. Tips for Coaches
NOTE: IF YOU HAVE REACHED THIS FAR, IT MEANS YOU WANNA BE A DEBATE
COACH. THAT ASSUMES THAT YOU HAVE MASTERED EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS NOTE,
BUT IF NOT, DUDE, THINK ABOUT IT. YOU MIGHT RUIN THE DREAMS OF YOUR
TRAINEES!
43. What are the things a coach must remember?
If you want to be a debate coach, the first thing you have to do is to assess yourself if you
can really share knowledge with younger debaters. Think about it, you will probably be the best
debater they will find in at least the first few months of their debate education. In short, you will
be their standard. Coaching is different from lecturing. Coaching means consistent and continued
commitment with the kids to teach them, train them and hone them to be the best debaters they
can be. Sam and I taught some high schools way back and now, they making their own names
here and abroad. Winning a tournament is one thing, seeing your kids win tourneys is another.
Second, you must prepare a curriculum which you will apply. I am referring to a curriculum
which is basically the same with the curriculum we have in schools. It needs to have topics, and
duration of the coach-students relationship. You must prepare debate lectures to build their
foundations. There are several major topics in debate, here are some which I believe are vital, to
wit:
a. Politics and governance: this includes the basic understanding of presidential and
parliamentary governments, international organizations, UNSC, and the essential divide
of US and friends vs Russia, China and allies. The purpose of this one is to give the kids
a holistic understanding on how the world operates.
b. History: this includes European history especially French revolution, English monarchs
and German expansion. The world wars should be taught in this subject as well. Asian
history would mostly include how Hongkong began, the divide between South Korea and

North Korea, the war in Vietnam and the influence of China. The goal of this subject
should be to enable them to cite events which they can compare with their analysis.
c. Science and Morality: this is not really my cup of tea, whenever there are lectures about
this one, I would ask Sam to speak. But I guess this time, I have no choice. This topic
includes morality in using scientific and technological breakthroughs. Just because
something is possible, does not mean it should be done.
d. Economics: my favourite subject of all. This practically includes basic economic

principles and major economic events such as the Great Depression, the Asian Financial
Crisis, case of Iceland, Market bailout of 2008-2009, etc. The trick is to teach the
students how to apply economic principles in contemporary events.
e. Feminism and Homosexuality: feminism is a more relevant topic in debate than

philosophy. Feminism includes general violation of rights against women, movements to
emancipate women, etc. You also have to take note of laws already passed against and in
favour of women’s rights and homosexuality. Feminism and homosexuality debate is
always a debate of “paradigms.” In short, how can feminism and homosexuality be
enforced in the modern day society?
f. Religion: I suggest learn about the basic differences of religions around the world. Also,
know the basic history of major religions. Whenever there is a religion debate, the trick is
to discuss the limitations which should be imposed on religion both by the state and the
society.
g. Animal rights: get info on modern animal cruelty. Note: chicken McNuggets and Puppy
breeding.
There are a lot of other topics which you need to be aware of. You can always ask people to
teach you about these topics but it is your obligation to explain to them how these topics can be
applied in a debate scenario.

44. What do you do when you fall in love with your kid?
Oh fuck. That’s a difficult situation. As for me, I have never had any romantic feelings with my
kids. But well, you can probably continue the relationship for as long it is not plainly immoral
and your relationship is not negatively affecting your obligation to the other kids.
45. What do you do when your kids have issues with each other?
Never, ever take sides. Listen to them and always try to show that you are civil about the
situation. In short, wag ka magpaapekto. Just debate as usual, and do not talk about the issue.
You know, some kids are just attention-seekers.
Note: coaching would also mean being friends with your kids. Go out with them, go to their
parties, drink with them and talk about their lives. Try not to date your kids. J
I hope that the next edition of this handout will include more topics about coaching.

Exercises
I. First Principles Exercises

Describe the key features of the following philosophies/concepts.
Governance
1) Liberal democracy (some liberal democracies are more liberal than others)
2) Social democracy (see Scandinavia).
3) Guided democracy (see Singapore)
4) Dictatorship
5) Communism
6) Regionalism (pooled sovereignty)
Economics
1) Efficient Market Hypothesis (Neoliberal)
2) Keynesian
3) Behavioural economics
Environment
1) Humanist ecology (Sustainable development)
2) Technological ecology
3) Deep-green ecology
4) Tragedy of the Commons
Morality
1) Kantian (people as ends, not means)

2) Utilitarianism – (preference and hedonistic)
Legal

1) Social Contract theory
2) J.S.Mill‟s Harm principle
3) Aims of the Criminal Justice System
4) Zero Tolerance („broken windows‟)
5) Retributive Justice
6) Restorative Justice („harm minimisation‟)
Others
1) Game Theory
Science
1) Precautionary principle
Security
1) Collective & Cooperative Security
2) Just war theory
3) Pre-emptive and Preventative war
4) “Golden Arches” peace theory
5) “Democratic Peace” theory
Business (Corporate Social Responsibility)

1) Stakeholder model
2) Shareholders only
3) Industrial Democracy
Politics
1) Liberalism
2) Socialism/Communitarianism
3) Secularism

4) Federalism vs Unitary government
5) Party discipline (US vs Phil)
6) Mandates
7) Bi-cameral vs Uni-cameral
8) Subsidiarity vs Centralised power
Feminism
1) Liberal feminism
2) Radical feminism
3) Developing-world feminism
4) Power feminism
Development Theories
1) Dependency Theory
2) Liberalisation (free trade)
3) Export Promotion & Import Substitution
4) Capital Controls
5) “Development as Freedom” (Sen)
International Relations
1) Neoconservatism
2) Realism
3) Liberal Internationalism (multilaterialism)
4) “Soft Power” vs „Hard Power
5) “Constructive engagement” vs Sanctions

Debate Guide 2013 Ed 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Guide 2013 Ed 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Guide

Vincent Joseph E. Cesista

First Quarter 2013

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 1 |

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 2 |

Chapter I. Introduction and Role Fulfilment 4

Chapter II. Mitigating Debate Challenges 28

Chapter III. Acquiring, Developing and

Applying Matter and Principles 30

Chapter IV. Intermediate Tactics and

Chapter V. Tips for Coaches 38

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 3 |

1. What may be included in a motion?

2. What is the spirit of the motion?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 4 |

3. What are absurd definitions?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 5 |

d. Tautology – redundancy in short.

4. What are the 3 Ms of debating?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 6 |

5. What is the difference between a rehash and a repackaged argument?

6. What is the difference between a shift and a shaft?

Shifting is a recognized change in the line of argumentation usually done by closing

7. What should be done in cases of shaft?

Rule 3. Generally, speeches should be SEVEN minutes in duration.

8. What are the other rules concerning lengths of speeches?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 8 |

10. What are the rules regarding Points of Information (POI)?

a. Accept ONLY 2 POIs in your speech

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 9 |

11. How is an argument formulated?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 10 |

An example given by CO during Worlds Universities Debate Championship 2010 was a

12. How is a good rebuttal formulated?

Rebuttal is as important as an argument. However, a case may be won by purely

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 12 |

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 14 |

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 15 |

13. What is the importance of defining terms?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 16 |

15. What is the difference between a model and a frame?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 17 |

16. How do I find the supermodel?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 18 |

17. What are the three ways to build a working model?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 19 |

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 20 |

Second prong: To prevent the proliferation of nuclear wastes, UN would

Fifth and final prong: Upon concurrence of 3 out of 5 permanent members of

2. Principle Sufficiency Test. In most of my lectures, I have “attempted” to draw an

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 21 |

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 22 |

1. Prejudicial question. The issue in consideration must be needed to formulate or

19. Who are the extension speakers?

20. What is the (Swiss) Knife technique?

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 24 |

a. What’s the effect of the proposal/counter-proposal to the stakeholders?

b. What will be the long-term effect of arguments presented?

c. What are the (negative) messages sent by the opponents?

b. Hyperbolic Discounting – one of the complicated and difficult principles to apply in a

c. Ripple – effect - another complicated principle which can be applied to economics,

Cesista. Debate Guide. 2013. 25 |

21. What are not allowed for a whip to do?