Modulus Debatus

Learning How to Debate
The basics of debating
Edwardo R. Almazan
9/25/2013
Learning How to Debate 2013
Introduction
Figure 1http://debateable.org
Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially

the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly. Debate
2
is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of
argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a
consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't
the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion.
Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional

appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one
side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or
framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate
depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the
objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to
discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
In competitive debates teams compete, and one is judged the winner by some
criteria. There are many different styles of competitive debate, organizations and rules.
One purpose is to train young people who may in future be required to debate and
resolve matters.
Competitive debate is carried out at the local, national, and international level. In
schools and colleges competitive debate often takes the form of a contest with explicit
rules. It may be presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, following
the rules. Each side is either in favor of ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against,
'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution). The "for" side must argue
supporting the proposition; the "against" side must refute these arguments sufficiently to
warrant not adopting the proposition; they are not required to propose any alternative.
A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined

shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In
fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated
arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the
opposite of what you believe in.
3
Practically, people have a lot of reasons why they participate in debates and on
of which are:
Ability to enunciate, you should be surprised at how many people just mumble.
Joining a debate team will unconsciously teach you to speak clearly and consequently
sound more intelligent.
Ability to defend a point with evidence, not emotion, righteous anger will only get
you so far in an argument; knowing how to defend your stance with evidence supporting
it is a life skill that will follow you, whether it's arguing with your parents or telling a
prospective employer why they should hire you.
Ability to speak in front of groups, this is huge--later on in life, you'll be speaking

in front of groups of people, be it in college, in business meetings, or the PTA.
Ability to research, remember that evidence I pointed out up there? The ability to
find that evidence is also a key to success.
Ability to spot falsehoods and straw men, you will know when someone is trying
to pull the wool over your eyes with meaningless statistics and heuristics. You'll know
who to pay attention to in important matters and who is spouting BS.
Competitive debate is a challenging and highly rewarding activity for most who
become involved in it. There are a full range of benefits associated with being on the
debate team.
• Fun: The vast majority of the tens of thousands of students who compete in debate
tournaments each year will tell you that it‟s fun. For every person, the experience is a
little different, but generally the thrill of competition, the camaraderie of teammates and
the travel opportunities make debate fun.
4
• Teammates: An additional benefit of getting involved is building friendships with
teammates who enjoy similar interests.
• Public Speaking Skills: Most people naturally avoid public speaking--debate provides
a non-threatening environment to practice these skills so that down the road when
you‟re called on to speak in college or on the job, you‟ll have the skills necessary to do a
great job. This increases your chances of doing well in
important interviews for jobs or scholarships.
• Analytical Skills: The ability to critically analyze a problem and propose workable
solutions is invaluable. This is a skill that debate best teaches and high-level business
people and professionals possess.
• Research Skills: From traditional library research to the Internet, debate teaches you
to become a world-class researcher. Ask any college student and they‟ll tell you how
valuable this is.
• Listening & Note taking Skills: Debate requires that you become a careful listener
and good note taker. This helps students get better grades and learn faster.
The aim of this module is to: introduce students to debating as a discourse mode;
develop skills in proposing and defending a line of argument; engage in critical
contemporary debates in society; manage learning via electronic portfolio (LOLIPOP).
5
Module Objectives:
 To provide students with the necessary insight and analysis to engage with
current debates in social research and utilise them effectively in their individual
research process;
 focus listeners on the main ideas of a speech with appropriate signposting;
 understand the features of a structured speech;
 Demonstrate ability to comprehend and identify main ideas in oral sources.
 Develop familiarity and comfort speaking in public.
 Demonstrate ability to adapt oral presentations to various audiences
Learning Outcomes:
 Define and set out theoretical underpinnings of a motion

 Use the skill of rebuttal, including the use of supporting evidenceDemonstrate
ability to work effectively in teams
 Display knowledge of specialised vocabulary pertaining to a given topic or field
 Self-assess oral language skills
 Plan short-term goals for the development of debating skills
Duration:
One Semester
6
Chapter 1
Parliamentary Formats
Overview
Debate is the highest and most complex form of public speaking. It is an
exchange of ideas dealing from multifaceted issues of society to common things
happening around us. This area of word war promotes the discussion of academic
discourse among your audience.
This chapter would dwell on the specifics of each parliamentary procedure and
introduce to you the speaker roles. Aside from that you would also have a glimpse of
the differences and similarities within every procedure. The discussions within every
academic debate procedures would be useful to you to get oriented whenever you get
to be part of debates.
7
A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined
shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In
fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated
arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the
opposite of what you believe in.
Types of Parliamentary Formats
American parliamentary debate is a formal contest of reason, wit and rhetorical

skill which simulates debate in a theoretical House of Parliament. Two teams, the
Government and the Opposition, of two debaters each, consider a resolution proposed
to the House. A different resolution is proposed each round. The debate is moderated
by a Speaker of the House, who will also serve as judge for the round. In parliamentary
debate, emphasis is placed on quick thinking, logical argumentation and analysis, an
command of rhetoric over extensive research or collection of evidence. Accordingly, no
recorded evidence or other outside written material may be consulted during the round.
This Guide is designed to serve as a basic introduction to the format of American
parliamentary debate and a brief primer on some of the techniques and methods which
make an effective debater. Many of the suggestions outlined here are not written in
stone; they merely represent general guidelines and some conventional wisdom, which
should be adapted to meet the unique style of each individual debater. Rules will vary
subtly with each debating society; check with the host of the particular tournament for
any important variations.
Prime Minister Constructive (PMC) 7 minutes

Announce resolution and provide link.
Give clear and precise case statement.
Support case with several independent arguments
Leader of the Opposition Constructive (LOC) 7 minutes
Provide opposition philosophy
Announce opposition strategy/countercase
8
Introduce independent analysis
Rebut PMC arguments
Member of the Government Constructive (MG) 7 minutes
Provide overviews
Attack Opposition independent analysis
Rebuild/review Government case
Introduce new arguments
Member of the Opposition Constructive (MO) 7 minutes
Review Opposition philosophy
Introduce new points and analysis
Cover main issues
Counter Member of Government
Set Government burdens
British Parliamentary style debate is a common form of academic debate. It has

gained support in the United Kingdom, Ireland,Canada, India, Europe, Africa,
Philippines and United States, and has also been adopted as the official style of the
World Universities Debating Championship and European Universities Debating
Championship.
Because of the style's origins in British parliamentary procedure, the two sides
are called the Government (more commonly called "Proposition" in the United Kingdom)
and Opposition. The speakers are similarly titled:
1. Opening Government (first faction):
1. Prime Minister
2. Deputy Prime Minister
2. Opening Opposition (second faction):
1. Leader of the Opposition
2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
3. Closing Government (third faction):
1. Member for the Government
9
2. Government Whip
4. Closing Opposition (fourth faction):
1. Member for the Opposition
2. Opposition Whip
Speaking alternates between the two sides and the order of the debate is therefore:
1. Prime Minister
2. Leader of the Opposition
3. Deputy Prime Minister
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
5. Member for the Government
6. Member for the Opposition
7. Government Whip
8. Opposition Whip
Opening factions
The first faction on each Government and Opposition team, known as the Opening
Factions, has four basic roles in a British Parliamentary debate. They must:
 Define the motion of the debate.
 Present their case.
 Respond to arguments of the opposing first faction.
 Maintain their relevance during the debate.
The Opening Government team has the semi-divine right of definition, preventing the
opposition from challenging their definition of the motion unless it is either a truism or
clearly unreasonable.
Closing factions
The role of the second two factions are to:
 Introduce a case extension.
 Establish and maintain their relevance early in the debate.
 Respond to the arguments of the first factions.
 Respond to the case extension of the opposing second faction.
In addition, the final two speakers of the debate (known as the Whips) take a similar role
to the third speakers in Australia-Asiandebating:
10
 The opposition whip may not introduce new arguments for his faction, the
government's whip may add new positive material as long as it's "small" and does
not start a new line of argumentation. This is a relatively new standard that has
become the standard at the Worlds University Debating Championship, as well as
the European University Debating Championship;
 They must respond to both opposing factions' arguments;
 They should briefly sum up their Opening Faction's case;
 They should offer a conclusion of their own faction's case extension.
Asian Parliamentary Debate consists of three debaters per team and composing two
teams, the Government and Opposition. The government has the Prime Minister,
Deputy Prime Minister and Government Whip, while Opposition has the Leader of the
Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Whip.
Figure 3EUTH Debate
11
Figure 4EUTH Debate
Speaker Roles:
Prime Minister:
• States Context
– Briefly explain background of the debate
• Sets the Definition
– Clearly define the motion
• Explain the Model (policy debate)
• Provides Team Stance
– The direction of the Government‟s case
• Presents Split
12
– State arguments of 1st and 2nd speaker
• Develop Argument
– Analyze and elaborate
Leader of the Opposition:
• Accept/ Reject the definition
• Rebut the Prime Minister‟s arguments
• Explain the Counter Model or Status Quo (policy debate)
• Provides Team Stance
– The direction of the Opposition case
• Presents Split
– State arguments for 1st and 2nd speaker
• Develop Argument
Deputy Prime Minister
• Rebut the Leader of Opposition‟s arguments and Defend your own case
• Presents own arguments (different from 1st speaker)
• Develop your Argument
Deputy Leader of the Opposition:
• Rebut the Deputy Prime Minister‟s arguments and Defend your own case
• Presents own arguments (different from 1st speaker)
• Develop your Argument
Government Whip:
• Rebut the Deputy Leader of Opposition‟s arguments
• Rebut the points of the Opposition
• Summarizes the debate, define the CLASHES and MAIN ISSUE of the debate
• Support and Defend the points of the Government side
• Summarizes the Government case
• Cannot Bring New Matter/ New Argument
Opposition Whip:
13
• Rebut the points of the Government
• Summarizes the debate, define the CLASHES and MAIN ISSUE of the debate
• Support and Defend the points of the Opposition side
• Summarizes the Opposition case
• Cannot Bring New Matter/ New Argument
Reply Speeches:
• Given by 1st or 2nd speaker, NOT the WHIP
• Summarizes the entire debate, looking at the arguments, role fulfillment, main
questions which need to be answered to win, higher moral benefit majority, etc
• The team‟s last opportunity to persuade their main points to be the adjudicator
and focus on the key issues of the debate
• Summarizes the Opposition case shortly
• No new Matter/ New Arguments, examples analysis
14
Exercises:
A.
1. How many speakers for both houses are there in an American Parliamentary
Debate?
2. In each parliamentary debate procedures, what is mainly the role of a Prime
Minister?
3. What is the role of the Whips?
4. How many minutes have each speaker in the debate?
5. Who sets the definition?
6. Who challenges a definition?
7. What competitions adopt the British Parliamentary Debate?
8. Who usually presents the split of arguments?
9. Who summarizes the arguments and discusses the clashes and per issues?
10. Who usually presents the mechanism in a case?
B.
1. Compare the three Parliamentary Procedures, how are they similar or differ from
each other?
2. Discuss the flow of speakers in the Asian Parliamentary Debate.
C.
1. Paint a picture of how a speaker flows in each parliamentary procedure.
15
Chapter Two
Setting of Definitions and Parameters in a Debate
Overview
According to Andrew Stockley, for a debate to proceed, both teams need a clear
understanding of what the motion means.This requires the motion to be „defined‟ so that
everyone (audience and adjudicators included)knows what is being debated. Problems
arise if the two teams present different understandingsof the meaning of the motion.
This can result in a „definition debate‟, where the focus of thedebate becomes the
meaning of the words in the motion, rather than the motion itself.Interaction and clash
between the two teams concentrates on whose definition is correct, ratherthan the
issues raised by the motion. Definition debates should be avoided wherever possible.
They make a mockery of what debating seeks to achieve.
A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the contention of
the debate, definitely not a definition that wins the debate, as that means no debate
occurs.How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion?
A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other teams in
the debate to question their approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the definition to
16
what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators should evaluate the effect
of the definition. If Government defines too narrowly and cannot develop matter to prove
their self-proving case, then they contribute little to the debate. If they define poorly and
creates too many holes, then defending their case will be difficult.
Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as long
as those parameters are fair. For example, in a debate about child labor, restricting it to
legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate and leads to a good debate
happening, the action of setting those parameters should be rewarded.However these
are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If the Government unfairly
restricts the parameters of the debate, it is fair for Opposition to expand the area of
debate. Thus Government cannot limit a child labor debate to discussing the right to
earn allowance by shoveling snow if the Opposition argues that is unfair and expands it.
On the other hand if the Opposition likes to discuss snow shoveling, that is also their
right and they should not be punished for not expanding the parameters.
This chapter shall dwell on teaching mechanics on how to set definition and
parameter in a debate and will teach you on the types of motion existing. This is a vital
par because definitions and parameters in a debate shall quantify on what quality of
round a debate will end.
The definition refers to the explanation and contextualization of the terms in the
motion so that the debaters, judges and audience members will understand what these
terms mean exactly. This is expected for all the key terms in the motion, even if these
terms appear to be self-explanatory. Debaters are usually not required to define every
single term in the motion. However, the key terms in the debate will have to be
explained and the motion as a whole will have to be explained by the First Proposition
Speaker.
There are 3 tiers of definition that can be used by debaters:
Literal
17
The dictionary definition, which is especially useful for issues not debated often.
To illustrate: To define the term “Social Network”, one will say: It is a website or internet
based program that is specifically tasked with easing the ability to connect and find
friends of similar interest groups.
Contextualized
Additional information on how this concept/entity/action applies in the real world.
Proposition may sometimes use this technique to portray these terms in a manner
which suits their case better (without making the definition unfair).
To illustrate: A contextualized definition could read: A “Social Network” functions as a
one-stop web location that simplifies the ability to rally groups of like minded individuals
for various grass root causes as well as spread information and news easily. It also
enables long lost friends to more easily reconnect with one another.
Examples
The use of some examples could be useful in the definitions as they will allow the
participants of a debate to grasp immediate the term in the motion are.
To illustrate: Such examples include but are not exclusive to Facebook & Twitter.
The Proposition has the power of definition. However, it cannot abuse this
position to render the definition of the motion such that the Opposition has been left with
no room to debate. Thus, an acceptable definition will need to fit the following criteria:
Obvious to the Layman
The definition should be obvious to the average person on the street, especially if
there is more than one acceptable dictionary definition of a certain word. If the
Proposition chooses to use the more obscure definition in order to render the
Opposition‟s case irrelevant, this is called “Squirreling” and is illegal in the WSDC
format.
18
Illustration: For the motion “This house would go nuclear,” the common
understanding of the motion is that it will be a debate on atomic technology. If the
Proposition decides to have a debate on “nuclear families,” they will be technically
correct but the definition will not be acceptable as it will be an obscure understanding of
the word "nuclear."
There could, however, be some motions where there is a less than obvious
understanding of what the terms in the motion may refer to. In these cases, as long as
the definition allows reasonable room for debate (see next section), it can be deemed
acceptable
Illustration: For the motion, “THW require stricter regulation on drugs,” the
Proposition could define drugs as “pharmaceuticals” while the Opposition defined drugs
as “narcotics.” In this instance, the Proposition‟s definition could still be acceptable as it
still provides sufficient room for the Opposition to debate.
Allow Room for Debate
The definition should allow both sides reasonable room for debate. If the
Proposition denies sufficient room for the Opposition to debate, the definition will not be
acceptable. Thus, the Proposition will have to avoid definitions of the following nature:
A Truism
A definition which is a truism means that it will not allow the Opposition team to
make any arguments as the Proposition‟s stance will be obviously true. For instance, for
the motion “THBT that this is the age of the nation state,” the Proposition chooses to
take the stance that “nation states exists in the world,” which is obviously true and
19
cannot be refuted by the Opposition. A more reasonable definition will be that the nation
state is “the predominant actor and driver in the world today.”
A Tautology
A tautology refers to a definition that is skewed or limited in order to make it true.

Again, this leaves the Opposition very little room to play with and makes the definition
unacceptable. For instance, for the motion “TH regrets terrorism,” if the Proposition
defines terrorists as “individuals who have committed a crime without just cause” this
does not leave the Opposition with much room to play with and forces it to defend a
restricted understanding of terrorists.
On Absolute Words
Some motions are worded in such a way that they sound absolute. For instance,
the motion could read “This house believes that all schools should abolish uniforms,” it
will not be possible for Proposition to prove that every single school in the world should
abolish school uniforms. Thus, it is acceptable for the Proposition to try to prove the
case in the majority of the circumstances. Likewise the Opposition cannot win this
debate by pointing out a single instance where schools should not abolish uniforms.
They will have to oppose by showing that there is a significant number of schools which
should not abolish them.
The job of defining a motion gets a little bit more complex when the motion calls
for a policy. The Proposition team should not be delivering a detailed blueprint but
should be outlining the core components of the policy they wish to introduce. Whenever
possible, the Proposition team should use policies which have already been enacted as
the basis for their policy in order to demonstrate that this policy will work. For instance,
for the motion “THW Ban handguns,” the Proposition can highlight the fact that the ban
will be similar to the Brady Bill in the US which banned automatic weapons.
20
For developing a policy it will be useful for Debaters to ask the following
questions so that every aspect of the policy may be considered: Who? What? When?
Where? How? Why? We will look into each question in relation to the motion “THW ban
handguns.”
Who are the groups of people involved and their clash of rights? The policy will have to
explain how to get handguns back from owners and how they can find substitute forms
of protection. The policy may also have to explain how people who own illegal
handguns now may be handled. What will also happen to handgun sellers and handgun
manufacturers? will there be exceptions – i.e., for law enforcement and military
personnel?
What exactly is being banned? will all handguns be banned? will certain models be
exempted from this ban?
When is this motion taking place? will debaters need a before and after analysis? Long
term & short term? will the ban take place immediately? Will there be a grace period?
Where does this motion take place? What are the characteristics of these
places? Where will the infrastructure required to run this policy be created? will this only
be in urban areas?
How will the policy work and be enforced? How will it be implemented across society?
How will violaters of the ban be punished?
Responding to Definitions
In an ideal debate, both set of debaters will agree on the definition and move
ahead to the arguments and rebuttals. However, in many cases, the Opposition may
find that the definition is not to their liking. In these cases, they could take the following
options:
21
Expanding the Definition
If the Opposition feels that Proposition‟s definition was generally acceptable

except for a few areas, it may expand the definition. This allows the Opposition to
modify the definitions slightly without needing to issue a challenge altogether. For
example, for the motion “This house would abolish the Monarchy,” the Proposition may
define Monarches as individuals who do not have any power in government. However,
the Opposition may wish to expand the definition by pointing out that the monarchs
usually have some powers, such as the ability to dissolve parliament and ot grant
pardons to convicted criminals.
Challenging the Definition
However, if the opposition feels that the definition is simple not acceptable, they
will have to challenge it.Be warned. Debates with definitional challenges are generally
messy affairs and judges do not look forward to sitting through such matches. Thus, a
definitional challenge should be issued only as a last resort. The challenge must be
issued at the first Opposition Speaker and no later. Once the challenge has been
issued, the Opposition team will have to following thorough with the following steps:
Explaining the Challenge
It is not good enough for the Opposition to say the Proposition‟s motion is
challenged. They must explain to the judges why the challenge was necessary and why
the Proposition‟s definition was not fair (i.e., truism, tautological, squirreling). They must
then explain why their definitions are fairer and offer more reasonable grounds for
debate.
22
Alternate Definition
The Opposition team also has the responsibility of providing an alternative

definition for the debate. This is why it is useful for the Opposition to prepare their own
acceptable definition during the case preparation to prepare for such eventualities.
Sustaining the Challenge
Once a challenge has been issued, the Opposition has the responsibility to
sustain the challenge down the line. This means that the Second, Third and Summary
speakers will have to sustain the challenge all the way. Failure to do so almost
automatically awards the win to the Proposition. Likewise, the Proposition will have to
defend its definition throughout all of its speakers or risk losing the match.
Even If
It is simply not enough for the Opposition to issue a challenge. In order to secure
content points and demonstrate the ability to rebut, the Opposition team will have to do
“Even if” debating. This means that the Opposition will continue to rebut the
Proposition‟s arguments on their own grounds and show that “even if” the Proposition‟s
definitions are correct, their arguments still do not stand. The Proposition, naturally, will
have to do the same thing in rebutting the Opposition team.
Note – One option that the Opposition may exercise if they feel that the Proposition‟s
definitions are reasonable but completely different from the Opposition‟s is to dump the
case. This will mean that the Opposition team makes the decision to switch to the
Proposition‟s definitions upon hearing the Proposition First Speaker. For instance, if the
Oppositions had defined “Drugs” as “Narcotics” while the Proposition gave the definition
as “pharmaceuticals,” the Opposition may decide to switch their case altogether to talk
about pharmaceuticals. Although the Opposition has this option, it is NOT
recommended. Developing a case on the fly will always be difficult and the material
from the Opposition team will usually be worse compared to a case produced after
proper preparation.
23
Parameters refer to the contextualization of the debate and deciding where the
debate is to take place. Thus, the Proposition team can note that a debate on having
compulsory voting can only take place in countries where people are allowed to vote
freely and limit the debate to First World Democracies. Again,Opposition teams may
disagree with that the parameters of the debate should be and expand them.
For instance, they may argue that compulsory voting matters especially in countries with
new democratic institutions and thus should include developing countries. In general,
once the parameter has been expanded, it is harder to contract it again as both teams
will have to grapple with the examples and ideas from the new expanded paramenters.
It is not permitted under WSDC rules to "time-set," i.e., to set limits on the time
frame for the debate. Thus, the Proposition team may not say that the debate will only apply
to the period before WWII.
24
Exercises
A.
Identify whether the errors are a Tautological or Truism definition.
1. TH regrets the RH Law.
RH Law or the Reproductive Health Law which mainly talks about Reproductive Health
2. TH believes that Terrorism should be used by environmentalist.
Terrorism is bad.
3. TH allows abortion.
Abortion is against the laws of God.
4. THW implement same sex marriage.
Man is created for a woman not to a fellow man.
5. THBT mobile phones should not be allowed in schools.
Schools are a place for learning.
B.
Practice setting a definition and parameter, use this motion to start:
(Note if you‟re not familiar with the motion you may research on the internet to guide
you.)
This house believes that the closure of the Kulo Exhibit is a form of suppression of
freedom of expression.
25
Chapter Three
Case Analysis/Creating Arguments in a debate
Overview
What is an argument? We know that arguments form the backbone of a Debater‟s stand
on a particular motion. We also know that the arguments are directed to the judges with the
intent of making them agree with a particular stance on the motion. Thus, arguments are
communications directed at judges with the intent of influencing them. An argument is best
opened with a label, which highlights what the argument is about. After that, the speakers will
have to give an explanation, using logical links, as to why their position is correct. Next, they will
have to use examples to prove that their explanation and links apply to real life. Finally, they will
link the argument back to the motion.
26
The flow of the arguments should look like this:
Label of Argument
Explanation and logic
Primary Example
(This is the most salient or obvious example to support your argument.)
Link example to logic
Secondary Example
(This is intended as a follow up to the primary example to show a trend or pattern
developing. This is also to avoid allowing the other team to say that you are using an
isolated example.)
Link to the Motion

The label should immediately identify what the argument is and how it relates to
the motion. It should encapsulate the argument to follow within a single sentence and
make it clear at the start of the argument what the speaker will elaborate on.
To ensure that a label is representative of the argument and addresses the motion, a
good tip is to connect the label to the motion using the word “because” and see if the
27
sentence still makes sense. For example, a speaker wishes to argue in favour of the
death penalty based on its value to the justice system in deterring crime and considers
the following three labels:
a. Justice
b. Value to Justice system
c. Deters crime.
An application of the test above readily shows which label is the best. “THW
support the death penalty because of justice” does not make too much sense. “THW
support the death penalty because of its value to the justice system” makes more
sense. However, it remains vague. “THW support the death penalty because it deters
crime” will be the best approach, since it clearly signals that the ensuring argument will
be.
Tip on Pre-labels
Some debaters use “pre-labels” for stylistic purposes. This will involve the use of
quotes or phrases with a flourish to introduce the argument. For instance, an argument
on the dangers of technology may be pre-labelled as the “Rage against the Machine”
point and an argument on nuclear disarmament could be pre-labelled as “Turning
Swords into Plowshares.” This technique is perfectly acceptable as long as the
speakers
a. do not waste time doing so, and
b. remember to use an actual label immediately after the pre-label.
The Explanation and Links:
The explanation is the most critical part of the argument, where the speaker
outlines the key reasons why the motion stands or falls. The most effective means of
convincing judges that a particular argument is valid is to demonstrate that the
argument is universal. This means that the explanation of the argument is usually
28
done in theory and in principle. The proof will then be applied to this theory later on in
the examples.
The best way to make the logic of the argument clear is to “walk” the audience
and the judges through the logic step by step. By showing the “links” in these steps
clearly, the debaters are able to establish that the argument stands. Within most
debates, debaters seek to show that the subject of the debate, such as globalization or
environmental protection, leads to a certain outcome, such as the developing world
growing more prosperous.
Furthermore, the debater will need to show that it is a certain aspect, trait or
characteristic of the subject, such as globalization‟s transfer of technology or
environmental protection‟s ability to protect agriculture, which leads to the predicted
outcome. To summarise this flow of events based on the example of capital
punishment, the debater shows that:
Link A Subject has a Death penalty

particular trait involves death
(causal factor)
The trait leads Death scares

Link B
to a certain people
outcome
The outcome People deterred

Link C
leads to the from committing
desired effect crime through
29
fear
Motion is proved Death Penalty

thus should be
supported
It can be seen that Link C in fact also serves as the label of the argument. A
proper argument will always come back to the label already established. Some cases
may have more links in the argument set but will generally follow this framework.
The Examples
Arguments are only theories until they can be supported by examples. Examples
show that the argumentation applies to the real world and that there is precedence for
the case being made by the debaters. Without examples within a debate, it will be very
difficult for a Debater to score high on content.
4.1. Types of Examples
Prominent Case
This is the most common type of example used in debate and makes use of a
famous incident or case to support the argument. For instance, in arguing about the
dangers of nuclear power due to the high risks of meltdowns, the debaters will cite the
case of Chernobyl. These examples are easily recognized by the judges and audience
and readily help to make the argument appear more real and vivid.
30
Trends & Statistics
This technique involves the use of a series of cases or statistics to showcase a

trend. For instance, to showcase the dangers of nuclear power, debaters can cite how
many nuclear accidents had taken place over the last two decades. Debaters will have
to be precise with the statistics used here, as judges and opponents are well aware of
the possibility that the statistics may have been made up.
Proof by authority
This method resorts to the use of authority figures within a related field to support
the argument. For instance, to show that nuclear power is dangerous, debaters may cite
studies conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute or the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Using such examples could be problematic if the opponents are able to cast
doubt on the credibility of the “experts.” Furthermore, in most cases, only the opinions
and findings of these experts are reflected, and they may not be historically verifiable
facts.
Proof by analogy
This technique makes reference to another subject with similar traits in order to
support the argument. For instance, nuclear power could be compared to crude oil in
that both will damage the environment if released into the open. This approach is useful
when trying to explain a particularly diffcult argument and a simplication will help to get
the idea across better. However, this approach can always be attacked by an opponent
showing that these two examples are not the same and are not related. Thus, this
technique should only be used as a last resort.
Hypothetical examples
These refer to the use of possible scenarios to try to support the arguments. For
instance, the speaker outlines the dangers of nuclear technology by stating that it could
destroy all of humanity. However, since this is only a hypothesis, it is difficult to use it to
support an argument.
31
Do’s and Don’ts of Examples
Do Have Variety
Many debaters stick to a certain region or timeframe for examples during a

debate. They should avoid doing this. For instance, a team should not only cite
examples from the United States. They should give examples from various countries to
show that their argument is universal.
Do Use New Examples
Many debaters re-use examples that were already used by their teammates. This
should be avoided as they will not get high enough content scores based on their
inability to produce new examples.
Don't Use Examples as Logic
Some speakers go directly to the example when arguing without having the
principal logic point articulated first. This allows the opponents to just attack the
example easily in order to defeat the argument.
Don’t Lead with Examples
Some speakers begin the argument with examples and then try to follow them up
with the logic links. This method tends to be problematic as the lack of time at the end
sometimes forces the argumentative points to be dropped.
Do Explain Examples
Some debaters merely name the examples and then move on, assuming that the
judges will automatically know what the example refers to. This again will lead to a lack
32
of content scores because the Debaters have yet to demonstrate how the examples
actually work and if they actually support the argument.
Link to Motion
At the conclusion of each argument, Debaters should link the point back to the
motion. This will allow the Debaters to establish the relevance of the argument to the
motion and demonstrate that these are not being raised in a vacuum. Judges will thus
see that the speakers are able to show not only that the points raised are valid on their
own but that they support or oppose the motion as well.
For instance, in a debate about the censorship of the arts, a speaker cannot just deliver
an argument on the importance of free speech and leave it hanging. There is a need to
show that free speech is important and that censorship of the arts will lead to the
violation of this particular right. In debates where the link back to the motion had been
absent, it is often not surprising to find that the debaters are unable even to recall the
exact words of the motion.
Special Section on Different Analysis Paradigms in Constructive
What is a constructive/substantive?
It is an argument used to further your side‟s case during a debate. It is an idea
that is fully explained and elaborated to such an extent that it proves or disproves the
motion. A good substantive, is succinct, clear and utilises a depth of analysis.
This means you don‟t waste too much time with unnecessary words, your chain
of logic is straightforward and the usage of this logic is coupled together with an
analysis of the point in the context of the motion. For example, in a motion about
smoking, ideas with regards to its addictive nature will help you further a point about
how it is bad for long term health. This is analysis.
How to come up with a constructive/substantive?
33
1. Think about the issues related to the motion
2. Think about the individuals/societies/groups related to the motion
3. Think about the ramifications of the motion to individuals/societies/groups
4. Put your mind through the processes the motions entails
1. E.g. THBT terrorism is justified, put yourselves in the processes of
terrorism.
2. Why are you doing it?
3. Why is it necessary?
4. Why is it justifiable to you (you = a personification of the motion)?
5. Consider the possible impact in the following
spheres: Social, Political, Economics, Environment, Regional, Medical, etc.
DISCLAIMER: This is not the only way to categorize substantives. It shouldn‟t be a

textbook from which you memorize and apply to all situations. Rather use it as a way to
understand the basics so that more advance methods of analysis will come to you
quicker by means of experience and practice.
Types of Constructive/Substantive
34
Logical analysis
35
Policy analysis
36
Comparison analysis
37
Time analysis
38
Excercises
A.
Go to your friends or classmates, encourage in helping you to matter load on a
particular issue. Create arguments for Government, then approach a debater and
he/she will help you decide and critique your piece.
Motion:
This house would ban the use of fireworks.
39
Chapter Four
Rebuttals
Overview
Debate, without rebuttals, would merely be a series of speeches with no relation

to each other. Like ships passing in the night, there will be no clash, no conflict and
ultimately, no debate. Rebuttal, like argumentation, is one of the foundations of debate.
What is rebuttal then? It is a speaker saying that an opponent's argument is not valid
and showing why it is not valid. If argument is about building logic links in a case, then
rebuttal is about the breaking of these links.
40
When rebutting the opponent‟s arguments, Debaters need to decide which

particular area they wish to attack, rather than to just rush in to say, “You are wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.” The various attacks which can be used in rebuttal are as
follows:
Attacking Relevance
With this rebuttal, Debaters attack the relevance of their opponent‟s arguments
to the motion and show that these arugments do not support the opponent's stance.
This type of rebuttal can destroy the entire argument by showing that it does not even
support the opponent‟s stance. For instance, in a debate on the motion “This house
believes that the Internet is a dangerous force,” the Opposition delivers arguments
noting how useful the Internet has been in facilitating communication and education.
The Proposition merely rebutted that the benefits of the Internet here does not show
why the Internet was SAFE, which was what Opposition had to show.
Attacking Assumption
With this rebuttal, Debaters attack a particular way in which their opponents had
described an assumed trait of the subject. For instance, for the motion “This house
believes that China is Dangerous,‟‟ the Proposition argues that China is a Communist
country and that this leads to a conflict between Beijing and the Capitalist West.
However, the Opposition can rebut by counter-arguing that China is nominally
Communist but has wholeheartedly embraced Capitalism, thus having less reason to
find conflict with Capitalist countries.
Attacking the Impact
With this rebuttal, debaters attack the presumed impact of the subject's assumed
trait. For instance, for the motion “This house would dissolve the UN,” the Proposition
speaker points out that the veto system (trait) in the UN (subject) has caused
41
unhappiness between the P5 countries and the rest of the world. However, the
Opposition speaker can rebut this by saying that the veto system has actually facilitated
cooperation between the P5 countries and smaller states as the P5 countries often cast
their vetos to protect the smaller countries‟ interests.
Attacking Logic Leap

With this rebuttal, the debaters attack the lack of logical links between the
assumed traits of the subject and its presumed impact. For instance, for the motion,
“This house would ban prostitution,” the Proposition could argue that frequency sexual
activity is associated with STDs transmission and that the whole society is put at risk.
Here, the Opponents can rebut the lack of a link between the frequency of intercourse in
prostitution and having a public health risk involving the whole of society.
Hung Arguments
Hung arguments are arguments which are contingent on another argument to

survive. With this rebuttal, Debaters can take two arguments out with one attack. For
instance, for the motion, “THW censor the arts,” the Proposition first argues that
extremist messages are found in art. Next the Proposition argues that the viewers of art
should be protected from such extremist messages. The Opposition could rebut that
there are no extremist messages in art these days and that art itself was value-neutral.
With this argument taken down, the point about needing to protect viewers of art has
little impact, as it is a hung argument.
Attack Examples
In general, Debaters should attack the logic of an argument before moving on to

attack the examples. Attacking the example first is usually not advised, as it allows the
opponents to just refer to another example and the argument will remain standing. The
only time debaters should attack the example first is when the opponents had used the
example as the only basis for the argument. The First and Second speakers may
sometimes not have enough time to attack examples and will have to delegate this task
42
to the Third speakers. The Third Speakers must attack the opponent‟s key examples, if
not all of them.
Rebutting Rebuttal
Debaters prefer to have their arguments delivered without having to come back
to them. However, once these arguments have been rebutted, it may be necessary to
defend them and in essence, rebut the rebuttals. However, Debaters should take care
not to prioritise this over rebutting the opponent‟s arguments. Thus, the opponent‟s
arguments should always be rebutted first before taking a defensive stance on one‟s
own arguments.
Do's and Don'ts
Do Attack New Arguments First
Debaters should prioritise by rebutting the latest arguments from their opponents
FIRST. These arguments are fresh and attacking them quickly ensures that they will not
linger in the minds of the judges. Furthermore, these arguments are the only ones which
have not have been addressed thus far in the debate. So the debaters MUST attack
these points first. If these arguments are left for the later parts of the speech, they may
not be given sufficient time for proper rebuttal.
Do Complete the Attack
Some debaters tend to only point out the shortcomings of an argument without
actually attacking its logic in full. For instance, Debaters often describe an argument as
lacking examples or not having any strong links but fail to do anything more. Instead,
Debaters should always attack the logic of the argument in order to complete the attack.
Don’t Do One-Liners
Some Debaters also tend to use only a single line or two to make a rebuttal. This
is not considered a complete attack and will usually not be rewarded much content
43
score by the judges. In order to rebut effectively, Debaters will have to dedicate
sufficient time to properly explain why a particular argument falls.
Don’t Just List Rebuttals
Some Debaters, especially in the First and Second positions, also have a habit of
merely listing several “responses” to a particular argument. However, if these were
proper rebuttals, they will have taken way too much time to be articulated in full. Thus,
each “list” tends to consist of one-liner counter-arguments. This habit should be
avoided, as it signals to the judges that the Debater is unable to make a decision on
which rebuttal is is the strongest for the argument. It may also compromise the ability of
the Third Speakers to demonstrate their ability to generate new points.
Don’t Ask Rhetorical Questions
Debaters should also avoid using rhetorical questions as a substitute for

rebuttals. If these questions are to be used, they must at least be answered by the
Debaters themselves. Otherwise, the judges are left to answer the question for them
and they will not necessarily agree with Debaters. For instance, if Debaters merely ask
“but how will the opponent‟s policy work?” and leave it at that, the judges may well end
up thinking of several ways it could work. Further it merely provides an opening for the
opponents to answer the question later and show how the policy will work!!
Develop Rebuttals
In order to successfully attack an argument, it should be rebutted more than

once. Ideally, an Argument will be attacked at its core logic by the First (Opposition)
Speaker or Second Speakers and then attacked again from a different angle by the
Third Speakers. Speakers should avoid merely repeating the rebuttals that have already
been delivered by their teammates. In this case, they are wasting time while not really
adding value to the debate.
44
Push to Other End
Wherever possible, Debaters should try to rebut an argument by taking

the opposite stance. This will allow for the greatest degree of clash and the highest
degree of differentiation between the two teams. For instance, for the motion “This
house would ban handguns,” the Proposition can argue that handguns make
communities more dangerous by empowering criminals. The Opposition can make a
“neutralizing” rebuttal by saying that handguns do not make communities more
dangerous. However, it will be best if the Opposition can make an “attacking” rebuttal by
saying that handguns make communities less dangerous and safer since the citizens
are protected against criminals.
45
Exercise
A. Try to go back to your case build activity from the previous chapter, now use that and
create a case for Opposition.
Create Rebuttals and contradict their paradigm.
46
Chapter Five
Style
Overview
Style refers to the way debaters speak and deliver their speeches. To get higher
style marks, speakers will need to make their communication effective and impactful.
The following are a few tips which could be of use to speakers looking to improve the
stylistic aspects of their speeches.
47
Vocal Style
Speak Slowly
With a limited amount of time available for speeches, Debaters are often tempted
to speak as quickly as possible to get as much information out as possible. This is a
flawed approach and very few speakers speak effectively by speaking fast. Debaters
should instead try to speak as slowly as possible, speeding up only on occasions to add
some variety. Speaking slowly leads to the following benefits:
a. It allows Debaters to think before they speak, allowing for better word selection and
precision in delivery. Debaters speaking fast often use words without thinking and will
often use inappropriate terms. For instance, an Opposition Speaker may mistakenly say
that a policy was “impartial” instead of “impractical,” and be attacked by the Proposition
for this misrepresentation.
b. It allows the speakers to breathe easily and ensure a steady supply of oxygen. This
prevents the choking or coughing fits which usually occur to very fast speakers.
c. It makes the speakers appear calm and confident. However, the speakers will have to
ensure that the slow speed does not lead to a dip in energy. This can be attained with
the proper variations in pitch and volume.
d. Most importantly, speaking slowly gives the judge time not just to track the points
delivered but also to process and evaluative them. If the judges are unable to follow the
speaker because the speech was too fast, then the arguments and rebuttals, good as
they are, will not be receiving their highest possible scores.
Speak with Pauses
48
Debaters should also learn to put natural pauses into their speeches. These
pauses need not be long and will last up to 3 seconds at the most. However, they allow
the speakers to do the following:
a. Pauses allow the speakers to add emphasis to a certain idea or point. Put a pause
before a concept or idea and it is made clear, with dramatic effect, that this is a critical
point. For instance, the speaker could say, “the only way to fix this problem in society is
to implement… Affirmative Action.”
b. Pauses are good transition markers. Using these pauses at the end of each rebuttal
and argument lets the judges know that the speaker is moving to a new point. This
signals to the judges that the previous point is finished, so that they can make a quick
evaluation of it.
c. Pauses may be critical when using a microphone. Although it may not be evident to a
speaker on a stage, using a microphone often results in an echo, especially in large
halls and auditoriums. In these cases, pauses will have to be used even more often to
ensure that the speech does not become garbled by echoes.
Modulate Pitch
Debate speeches, even on the funniest of topics, could be rendered dry and
unpalatable by a speaker with a monotonous voice. As such, Debaters need to learn to
vary the pitch of their speeches so that they can make the aural quality of the speech
more interesting. Pitch variation also allows for emphasis to be made on the key
elements of the speech.
Control Volume
49
Volume control is critical in making debaters‟ speeches effective and well-received. The
following factors should be kept in mind with regards to volume.
a. Avoid high volumes: Some speakers appear to believe that the louder team will
always win. This is not the case! A debate featuring debaters yelling at the top of their
lungs will leave the judges‟ ears ringing and the audience in shock. This is especially
the case when the debate is taking place in a small enclosed room and the sound is
bouncing off the walls.
b. Avoid low volumes: Some speakers are naturally soft-spoken. However, these
speakers are often hard to hear and understand when they are speaking in large arenas
or when they have to compete with ambient noise (e.g., from fans and air-conditioning
units). One rule of thumb is that the speaker needs to be heard by the last member of
the audience seated furthest away.
c. Use variation for emphasis: Varying the volume is a fantastic way to put emphasis on
certain words. Lowered volume usually makes the audience edge forward in
anticipantion and the raised volume (without shouting) after that moment drives a critical
point home.
Use Shorter Sentences
Debaters should use shorter sentences whenever possible and avoid long run-on
sentences. Each sentence should convey a single point. This makes the sentences
easier to understand and also rerults in more natural pauses between the points.
Furthermore, since speeches are often interrupted by POIs, shorter sentences ensure
that there will be less “broken” sentences where the speaker stops in the middle of one
sentence and fails to complete it after the POI.
Avoid Filler Words

50
Debaters should not waste the precious time available for the speech on
unnecessary words. Many Debaters end up using many “crutch” and “filler” words such
as “Ladies and Gentlemen” and “like” and “erm” during their speeches. These tend to be
highly distracting for listeners and cause unnatural interruptions in the speeches. In
severe cases, these words tend to form the vast majority of the speech! Debaters
should remove these words from their speeches altogether and instead replace them
with pauses instead.
Accents
The rules for the World Schools Debating Championships state that speakers are
not to be penalised on the account of their accents. However, speakers should still work
to make sure that their accents do not lead to their words being misunderstood. Thus, if
speakers know that there are some words which present difficulties, they should seek to
replace them with easier to pronounce substitutes. This also does not mean that
speakers should adopt a British or an American accent just for debate. This could be
unnatural and in most cases, hard to maintain.
Avoid Cloning
Debaters should try to make themselves as stylistically distinct from their

teammates and opponents as possible. When three speake speak at the same pace,
with the same intensity and volume, it is very difficult to establish each speaker's
individuality. This is made worse if all six speakers were of the same ilk. 6 Clones
speakings does not lead to good stylistic variation. As such, even as the Debaters keep
in mind what their most comfortable style of debating is, they should also observe how
the other speakers have been and try to differentiate themselves where possible. If
most preceeding speakers were laid back, the ensuring Debaters can speak with
greater energy and fervour. If the speakers had been intense, the follow-up speakers
could adopt a calm and cool
51
Visual Style
Even though the bulk of the information in debates are conveyed by oral means,
human beings are still creatures who attain most of their information through visual
means. In this regard, Debaters have to make sure that their visual style does not
distract from their speeches and in fact augment their speeches whenever possible.
Eye Contact
Debaters must make sure that they make eye contact with the judges and the
audience as much as possible. Maintaining eye contact and not looking down at the
floor signals that the debaters believe in their own arguments. Locking eye contact also
means that the judges and audiences are locked into the speakers and are less likely to
be distracted by other factors. This does not mean that the Debaters should stare at
these people! However, establishing eye contact with the judges and audience
members and “panning” the room will do wonders in projecting the image of a confident
speaker.
Eye contact also means that the debaters should not be looking down at their
speeches or notes and simply reading them. Looking down automatically lowers the
volume of the speaker, as the speech is now likely to be directed to the floor rather than
to the audience and the judges. Reading also makes the Debaters look as if they are
not comfortable with their own material and in some severe cases, even makes it look
as if the Debaters were reading words written by someone else!
Standing Stance
One nervous gesture common in debaters is the tendency to shift their weight
from leg to leg. This has the effect of making their bodies sway back and forth or form
side to side. This is very distracting for the judges. Debaters should instead stand with
their feet at shoulder‟s width and lock their knees so that their stance will be absolutely
52
stable. This may look a little unnatural for some speakers, especially the ladies. In these
cases, the legs can be planted closer together but the knees should remain locked.
Movement
Walking around is something that has to be restricted within a debate. A moving

speaker often takes the attention of the judges and the audiences away from the
speech and towards the movement. Thus, if there is to be any movement at all, it should
be limited and employed only when the speaker is in between points and has a natural
pause. Otherwise, it is preferable to stand still and deliver the speech. Debaters should
avoid speaking while walking. This tends to direct the voice to the sides of the room
rather than to the judges and the audiences. The Debater‟s back should never be
shown to the judge as it is often seen as a rude gesture.
Gestures
The use of gestures can help to put emphasis on key points in the speech.
However, the excessive and repetitive use of gestures can also become very distracting
and annoying for the judges. Debaters should try to have the controlled use of gestures
as much as possible instead of letting the hands gesture on autopilot. Note: Debaters‟
hands should never be put into the pockets of jackets or trousers, as this leads to a very
uncouth appearance.
Attire
Debaters should always dress as formally as permissible by the rules.

Furthermore, they should ensure that they look at professional as possible and that their
appearance is neat and clean. For instance, this means:
53
a. Short and neat hair for the gentlemen and neatly tied up hair (if long) for the ladies,
b. Jackets, Trousers and Skirts which are well-fitted,
c. Shirts which are tucked in,
d. Appropriate footwear (black leather shoes for both genders), long socks (not ankle
socks) of the appropriate colour for the gentlemen and tights if applicable for the ladies.
Having the clean professional image demonstrates to the judges that the team is taking
the debate seriously and that the speakers take pride in their appearance. Judges, if
only at a subconscious level, are more likely to treat debaters with professional
appearances much more seriously compared to debaters who are unkempt and
dressed casually. Debaters should also take the chance to train at least once with full
competition attire in order to get used to the outfits.
Whenever possible, Debaters should also try to look older, rather than younger.
This makes the judges and the audience treats the Debaters their points more seriously.
This will mean that accessories should be chosen to make the debaters look older and
more serious as well. For instance, a judge is more likely to view Debaters as serious
when they wearing wire-frame spectacles than novelty style glasses.
Speech and Oratory Competitions
A very useful way for Debaters to improve their style is to attend speech and
oratory competitions. These events will allow the debaters to focus purely on their vocal
and visual presentation without the need to worry about argument and rebuttals. Some
events, such as the US National Forensic League‟s Extemporaneous Speaking event,
goes as far as to ask speakers to integrate argumentative skills into their speeches and
even requires the speakers to go without written notes!
Handling Props
Extra care should given to the handling of microphones and lecterns, since they
will restrict the movement of the Debaters. If Debaters see that they will be speaking
54
using these tools, they should always ask for an opportunity to have a dry-run to
mentally and physically adjust to these constraints.
Lecterns tend to block most of the speakers and are particularly disadvantageous
to vertically challenged debaters. Thus, if possible, avoid using lecterns. One option is
to stand next to the lectern.
Microphones are usually provided on an adjustable stand. In this case, the

Debater will have to be very careful to keep the head still so that the mouth will be at a
constant distance from the microphone. Turning the head, even slightly, could lead to a
sudden drop in volume.
Furthermore, the use of microphones on stands usually means that it may have
to be adjusted constantly during the debate to cater for the different heights of the
Debaters. If the adjustments are made by support staff, it is better to signal to them to
make the changes prior to approaching the microphone. Otherwise, having to stand
there while the change is being made can be distracting and distressing.
In some rare cases, the Debaters will be given hand-held microphones. These
are problematic as debaters usually need one hand to hold the books or cards and the
other to manipulate them. In these cases, it might necessary to use a table or lectern to
hold the cards and notes. All debaters should try to practice this during training sessions
as it is a complicated process.
In some cases, the debaters may be given lapel microphones with the
transmitters to be affixed to the belt or waist band. These tend not to give too much
trouble but debaters have to ensure that the mics are completely turned off after their
speeches are done lest they pick up intra-team communications.
55
Humor
The use of humor in debate often cuts both ways. If used effectively, humor can
make establish a strong rapport between the audience and the debaters and
demonstrate that the speakers are extremely confident and comfortable. If used badly, it
can create awkwardness and even hostility and anger against the speakers. Debaters
need to keep the following things in mind when considering the use of humor in
speeches.
a. Humor is not a necessity. Although it may appear that many good debaters are able
to make the audience guffaw or at least chuckle, it is important to remember that humor
is not a requirement for great speeches. Some of the best debaters around rarely use
humor in their speeches, instead preferring to use their vocal qualities and strength of
logic to keep the speeches interesting.
b. Humor is not argumentation. Although the use of humor can be used to indirectly
attack a point, it is NEVER a substitute for proper argumentation and rebuttal. A debater
may laugh at an opponent‟s point until the end of the match but that point will remain
standing until a proper rebuttal is made against it.
c. Humor is not for everyone. It is a sad reality that not all debaters will find the use of
Humor comfortable. Jokes and witty quips come more naturally to some people
compared to others. This should not be seen as a setback and those debaters without
much humor may instead prefer to work on the other elements of their speeches to
make sure they keep the audience interested.
d. Humor can be practiced. However, if debaters feel that they will like to try to integrate
some humor into their speeches, they can prepare accordingly through research and
planning. Debaters can research and note down short jokes and witty anecdotes and try
them out in training sessions to test their effects.
56
Exercise
A. Convene with your classmates and get a piece of paper.

Write any word that you wish your classmates to discuss. Now gather all the papers and
make sure everyone has a paper with a word to discuss for one minute, without fillers
and dead airs.
57
Chapter Six
Points of Information
Overview
Even with the most dynamic of speakers and the most interesting of motions, the
energy levels in a debate could still be quite low if the participants merely delivered their
speeches and sat back down. Thus, debate formats usually incorporate a more
interactive element in order to liven up the event.
58
For the WSDC format, this purpose is served by the use of the “Point of
Information” (POI).
A POI is a short interjection addressed to the Debater who is speaking by a

member of the opposing team. Opposing team members must first stand and indicate
that they wish to offer a POI. They may say “Point of Information”, “POI”, “On that
Point,” “Sir/Madam”, and a variety of short phrases to attract the attention of the Debater
speaking. The opposing team member may only continue to deliver the POI only when
the speaker has accepted the POI. In most WSDC style tournaments, the POI may not
be longer than 15 seconds and the speakers will usually cut the POI off if it stretches for
long. If the speaker declines to take a POI, the opposing team members must sit down
and wait for another opportunity.
Although it is called a “Point of Information,” the opposing team member may use
the interjection to raise any point. The POI is thus typically used to raise a quick
rebuttal, argument, a question or a clarification to the speaker. The speaker should
provide a response to POI straight away. There are no rules on how long the responses
to the POIs need to be. However, they should not be too long that they interfere with the
delivery of the rest of the speech. The beginning and the ends of speeches are usually
“protected time,” during which POIs may not be given. In the WSDC format, POIs are
not allowed given during the summary period.
2. Why take POIs?
Taking a POI is a good idea for the following reasons:
a. It’s in the rules! – All debaters are required to take POIs and they are expected to
take at least 2 per speech. Taking only 1 or none at all will be punished by the judges
through the docking of points.
59
b. It demonstrates quick wit – The POIs allow speakers to demonstrate their ability
to quickly think of an effective response. This opportunity to demonstrate mental agility
is especially appreciated by First Proposition Speakers, who would otherwise not have
the chance to show that they are capable to developing good rebuttals. Otherwise, it
could be difficult for the judges to know if the First Proposition Speakers were good
debaters or merely people who are able to deliver a script well.
c. It demonstrates good time management – Listening to 2 POIs and responding

to them takes up a fair amount of time. Being able to handle this without compromising
the substantive arguments and/or rebuttals shows good planning and time
management.
d. It provides early warning – Taking a POI can be useful in that it provides early
warning on the approach taken by the opposing team and the arguments and rebuttals
it may run.
e. It provides early counter-rebuttals – Taking a POI during the substantive

argument may allow the speaker to pre-emptively provide a counter rebuttal and
weaken the opponent‟s refutations.
3. Why give POIs?hat then is the value in giving POIs? The reasons are as follows:
a. It’s the rules! – Every team member is expected to offer a certain number of POIs
during every opponent‟s speech. Usually, the minimum to be offered is two per speech.
Again, the judges will penalize teams or team members who do not offer sufficient POIs.
b. Immediate highlighting of flaws – POIs provides opposing teams with an

opportunity to refute a point immediately without needing to wait for their turn to speak.
This early rebuttal, if used effectively, can cast doubt on the argument even as it
continues to be delivered by the speaker.
60
c. Demonstrate ability to hit quickly – POIs give opposing teams the opportunity to
show that they are able to deliver quick attacks on the speaker‟s points in an effective
manner. It is often difficult to craft a coherent response to a point within 15 seconds or
less. Thus, a well delivered POI will be seen by the judges as evidence of a quick and
ordered mind.
d. Put pressure on the Speaker – A well delivered POI can pressure the Speaker
into providing a suitably effective reply. This is better than letting the Speaker carry on
uninterrupted and gaining more and more confidence by the minute.
e. Demonstrate close tracking of the speaker – Consistent giving of POIs

demonstrate to the Judges that the opposing team is tracking the speaker carefully and
that they are fully engaged in the debate.
4. How to use it effectively?

For POI Givers:
Keep the POIs short and sharp.
The WSDC rules dictate that a Debater has 15 seconds to deliver a POI. In
reality, however, the Debater speaking may elect to cut off the POI giver in 5 to 10
seconds. As such, it is imperative for the POI to contain the main point in the very first
line. If the POI giver is not cut off, an elaboration or example may then be added to the
POI.
The POI should be driven by a core principle or argument rather than a small issue or
an example. The speaker will generally be able to deal with the latter quickly and move
back to the speech. In contrast, having a strong argument anchoring the POI will
generally require the POI taker to spend some time refuting it.
Prioritize POI Givers
61
Debaters will no doubt have been part of matches where two or even three of
opponents stand up simultaneously to give a POI. This is not good. Not only does this
allow the speaker to pick and choose whose POI will be taken, it also keeps everyone
standing and being unable to track the speech properly! Instead, a “POI order" should
be established so that it will be clear which Debater will immediate sit down in favour of
a teammate. This will also mean that the speaker will have no choice but to take it from
the most dangerous POI giver in that instance.
Illegal POIs
When raising a POI, it is permissible to interject and attract the speaker‟s

attention by saying “Point; Point of Information; or On that point.” It is also permissible to
have some variation and refer to a particular issue being talked about by the speaker,
such as “on globalization.” However, it is illegal to raise anything substantive without
having the POI being accepted by the speaker.
Thus, raising a POI during a speaker‟s point on the harms of a policy by saying
“on checks and balances” will be illegal as the POI giver‟s point would already have
been made even without the speaker accepting the POI. In general, Debaters should
avoid trying to be creative in raising POIs. Doing so may make it appear as if they were
cheating and some judges could well penalize such action by docking points. There is
also nothing to be gained through such POIs.
When giving POIs, Debaters have to ensure that they can be seen and heard by
the speaker. In a setting with the speaker may stand far ahead of the opponents during
a speech, it may be difficult for the speaker to hear the POIs being raised. Thus,
standing up, extending an arm and projecting the POI loudly are necessary steps in
ensuring that the speaker will be able to notice the POI giver.
When Should POIs Be Given?
62
POIs are to be given by every member of a debate team and judges will track the
number of POIs raised. Thus, complete inactivity on the part of Debaters will lead to the
judges penalizing them accordingly to the rules. It is imperative that every Debater
offers at least two POIs per speech and teammates ensure that everyone has met their
obligations.The following considerations need to be given to when the POIs should be
given:
Give POIs Early:
It is sometimes difficult for some Debaters to stand and offer POIs. Many often
end up waiting subconsciously for a teammate to offer them first, with the net effect
being that no POIs are offered until late in the speech! Thus, there should be an attempt
to give the POIs as early as possible in order to establish a rhythm. Giving POIs early
also means that the opponents can afford to listen more and track carefully when the
constructive arguments are being read out by the speaker. This is especially true for the
opponent who is scheduled to speak next. By getting the POIs offered early, this
opponent will be able to concentrate fully on the speaker for the reminder of the speech
while preparing the rebuttals.
Give During a Strong Argument:
When a speaker is delivering a very strong argument, it is often difficult to stand

up and offer POIs. It can also be difficult to interrupt when a speaker particularly fluid
and does not offer natural openings for a POI to be offered. It is even more critical that
the POIs are offered in these situations. The mere act of offering a POI registers a
protest and shows that the opponents do not agree with these points. If it is taken, it
offers the opponents to nip a potentially problematic argument in the bud. In contrast, if
no POIs are given, the speaker will be further emboldened while the judges will start to
feel that even the opponents agree with the speaker.
63
Although teams are generally encouraged to give POIs as this increases the
interactivity in the debater and raise energy levels, they should never offer POIs in a
frequency and manner so as to disallow the speaker to continue with the speech. This is
illegal and is in fact a sign of a team that does not have confidence in its own arguments
and has to resort to bullying tactics.
Keep in mind that the pace and the frequency of POIs will have to be especially
considered when debaters face teams which appear to be the underdog due to their
younger age, lack of experience or unfamilirarity with the English Language.
Tip: The sound of the chairs being pushed back when standing to give a POI can
be very distracting to the speakers. It is best for POI givers to keep the chair pushed
back so that they can stand without making a noise.
When Not to Give POIs
Giving a POI necessarily disrupt the flow of the speaker and accepting it will
make it even more disjointed. The POI giver is also distracted and will not be able to
track carefully. Therefore, Debaters may wish to avoid giving POIs when the speaker is
establishing a key definition or a policy. This will ensure that no misunderstanding arise
over the key definitions and clarifications of the debate. This does not mean however,
that the entire first halves of the First Speakers‟ speeches are protected. Rather, it
means that the POIs should be used judiciously during this period.
If it becomes apparent to a team that a particular opponent offers strong POIs, it

may decide to block this opponent out and not take those POIs. In this case, the
opponent should reduce the POI frequency and instead pass those POIs along to the
teammates to be raised.
64
Do not give a POI when the speaker is still answering a previous POI. It does not
look sporting. Furthermore, it has the effect of the opponents trying to DEFEND a
previous POI, which weakens their stance and strengthens the speaker‟s.
Do not give a POI during the protected zones. This appears straight forward but
a surprisingly large number of people fail to keep track of time properly, miss the bells
and offers POIs during these zones. To prevent this, the team leader need to warn them
once the bell rings, e.g., by saying to the rest “ no more POIs from now on.”
On some occasions, some speakers may end up not taking POIs until very late in
the speech. In these cases, the opponents may make a strategic decision to stop giving
POIs and have the speaker appear on record as having taken no POIs. However, the
opponents will need to ensure that they had already given plenty of POIs at the
beginning of the speaker‟s speech.
For POI Takers
For speakers, proper handling of POIs is an important skill to acquire. The POIs
being offered and answered come at the expense of the time allocated for the speaker‟s
own speech. As a result, the speaker will need to exercise tight control over how the
POIs are handled.
How Many to Take?
Take 2. The rules dictate that all speakers much take at least 2 POIs. Thus,
speakers should not get into the habit of taking only one POI. Debaters may take more
than 2 POIs but there is no strategic reason to do so. Taking more than 2 also signals to
the judges that the speaker has run out of things to say. (In some tournaments where
the speeches have been shortened from 8 minutes to 6 or 5minutes, it may be
acceptable to take 1 during the speeches.)
65
Finish Sentences Before Taking POIs
When taking a POI, debaters should always finish their sentences before letting
the opponent speak. Once the POI has been responded to, speakers should also
indicate to the judges that they were not returning to their speeches.
Always Respond
In some situations, the speakers may feel that the POI may be addressed by an
argument to be raised later in the speech and state “ I will deal with this later.” This is
risky, since that argument may not actually respond directly to the POI. Worse still, the
speakers could forget about the POI altogether. Thus, the speakers should always deal
with the POI quickly and then indicate that there will be a further elaboration on the POI
further in the speech.
Don’t Walk to the Giver
Some Debaters practice the bizarre habit of walking up to the POI giver while it is
being delivered. This can appear very aggressive and make the speakers look as if they
were trying to bully the POI giver. Furthermore, the time spent walking to and fro is time
not spent listening carefully to the POI and thinking of a response. The best way to deal
with the POI is to stand still, listen hard and respond quickly.
Respond to the Audience
Remember that both the POI and the response are not meant to private
communication between the speaker and the opponent. Both should be directed to the
judges and the audience.
When to Take POIs
66
Speakers should always go into a debate with a PLAN on when they wish to take
POIs. This way, they will not have to spend much effort trying to plan during the speech
proper. Here are some possible approaches and their respective pros and cons.
Option A – Take both early in the speech.
Pros – This approach allows speakers to quickly take care of the 2 POIs and then
ignore them for the rest of the speech.
Cons – Unless time is managed carefully, the speakers are likely to have delays in
starting their substantive arguments (1st and 2nd speakers) or later contentions
(3rd speakers).
Option B – Take both later in the speech

Pros – This can be an advantage, especially for the 1 st and 2nd speakers, as the POIs
will come during the substantive arguments section, which will be a position of strength.
Cons – Opponents may have stopped giving POIs in the second half of the speech.
This may also lead to constructive arguments or examples being dropped due to a lack
of time.
Option C – Take one early and one later
Pros – This allows for a balanced use of time for the POIs during the speech and
demonstrate to the judges that the debaters are comfortable with POIs in either section.
Cons – May be harder to remember to take the 2nd POI.

Debaters should try out all these methods and their own permutations so that they will
have their own POI plans set before the start of the speech.
67
When Not to Take POIs
Keep in mind that Speakers should avoid taking the POIs when they are delivering a
point which they believe is not that strong and could be attacked easily by the
opponents.
68
Exercise
1. What is POI?
2. Is a POI effective to destroy your opponent‟s case?
3. When should you use a POI?
4. What are the basics in constructing a POI?
5. Discuss how the POI plays a role in a debate.
69
Chapter Seven
Debate Researches
Overview
Within the WSDC format, teams may be given months to prepare for a topic or as
little as one hour prior to the debate. The latter can prove to be a challenge for Debaters
and many frequently find that 60 minutes is woefully inadequate when trying to develop
a cohesive team stance, a range of arguments addressing the motion, anticipation of
the opponent‟s arguments, a range of examples to be applied, writing the arguments
and practicing their speeches.
Before Prep
Ensure that there is a “prep leader” who will be making the key decisions during
the prep. In order to make efficient use of the time given, the team will need to make
crucial decisions on the stance to be taken by the team, the arguments to be raised and
the definitions to be applied to the motion. In these circumstance, a prep leader (the
70
captain or otherwise) should be present to make these critical decisions. In the
absence of a prep leader, the team could end up waste time arguing matters without
resolution and consequently run poorly constructed arguments.
Appoint a timer to time the prep and to remind the rest of the time remaining
during the session. The timer will thus speed up the prep process if it is lagging and will
also remind the speakers of the remaining tasks. For instance, with 10 minutes
remaining in the prep, the timer may wish to remind the speakers that they should start
practicing the delivery of their speeches.
3. During Prep
The team may wish to take the following steps during the short prep session prior to the
debates.
a. Brainstorm
b. Download
c. Selection of Arguments
d. Definitions
e. Clarifications & Parameters
f. Writing of cases
g. Sharing of rebuttals
h. Delivery Practice
Let‟s look closer at what each of above steps will entail, together with a
recommendation on how much time each step should take within a prep session lasting
60 minutes.
a. Brainstorm (2-3 minutes): During this session, all team members should silently
and independently think of the various arguments the team canrun to address the
motion and list them down. Team members may also wish to note down major
examples which could be used in conjunction with the arguments. Team members
71
should try to think of as many different arguments from as many different angles as
possible to maximize the options for the team.
i. Tip: For a motion which appears straightforward, the teams may proceed to
brainstorm straightaway. For motions which are ambiguous, the prep leader should
clarify the issues prior to the brainstorm in order to avoid having all the speakers think in
different directions. For instance, for the motion “THW go green,” one speaker could be
thinking of environmental issues, another will be thinking of the green party in politics, a
third could be thinking of Islam and a fourth could be thinking of money and the
greenback. Thus, the prep leader should signal to the team on what the stance is, e.g.,
this will be an environmental debate, prior to the download.
b. Download (5 minutes): During the download, the speakers take turns to read out
the arguments and examples generated while the rest writes them down. The speaker
should at least explain the core argument behind each point without going into too much
detail. This will go around the table until everyone has contributed. Speakers should
take note of the following Dos and Don‟ts for this step.
i. Do take down every argument, no matter what you feel about it. If the point is
weak, it can be discarded during the selection process.
ii. Don’t start to rebut these arguments during the download. Avoid interjecting
with objections such as “what if the opponents say this?” Chances are, all of these
arguments can be rebutted. But if the speakers destroy these arguments during
download, the team will have no arguments left to run during the debate itself!
iii. Do add important details to a point already raised by a previous speaker if

needed. For instance, to the first downloader‟s argument that “we will go green to
ensure food supply security,” a second downloader could add key examples such as the
Green Revolution in India.
72
iv. Don’t repeat a point if it has already been raised. If previous speakers had
already raised a certain point, it wastes valuable time to raise it again. If the last speaker
in the download has nothing left to add, then so be it.
c. Selection (5 minutes): By now, the team should have a list of potential arguments
that could be used during the debate. The team should now make the decision on which
arguments will be used, which will be discarded and how the deployed arguments will
be assigned to the two substative speakers. The selection process may vary from team
to team. Some teams may prefer to let the First and Second speakers decide which
points they prefer. Other teams may have the captain or the prep leader make the
decision on how the points should be grouped and assigned.
d. Definitions, Clarifications and Parameters (15 min): In this step, the team will
need to develop the definitions for the key terms of the motion. Every team member
should also be on the same page for the key clarifications and the parameters for the
debate. Every team member should be involved in this process and so that they are
aware of the agreed set up for the debate. (Please see section on Definitions,
Clarifications and Parameters for more on this issue). Teams may wish to take note of
the following Dos and Don‟ts:
i. Do come up with the definitions even when the team is in opposition,

especially if motion appears ambiguous. This will allow the team to know straight
away if the proposition‟s own definition can be accepted or challenged. It will also make
it easier to provide the alternate set of definitions during a definitional challenge.
ii. Don’t leave the job of developing the definitions to just one speaker. This
could lead to the rest of the team not being on the same page and potentially leading to
contradictions during the debate.
iii. Do consider doing the definitions before the arguments if the situation calls
for it. For some ambiguous or complicated motions, it may help to establish the
definitions before the arguments are developed and selected. My personal preference is
73
to give priority to developing the arguments since these will be the back bone of the
case during the debate.
iv. Don’t blindly re-use definitions from previous debates. Small changes in
phrasing could lead to large differences in meaning and understanding.
e. Writing the arguments(15 minutes): During this step, the speakers should focus
on writing out the arguments onto the cards/books which will be used during the debate.
During this period, the Third Speaker may wish to consider the arguments and
examples which are likely to be used by the opponents and prepare some responses
which could be used accordingly. The reserve speakers can assist any of the floor
speakers who may need assistance.
f. Sharing of rebuttals (5 minutes): During this step, the Third Speaker can brief
the team on the key arguments likely to be raised by the opponents and ensure that all
three speakers are aware of the potential responses that could be provided.This step
will also prepare the Debaters for the opponents' POIs.
g. Delivery Practice (remaining time): All the speakers should practise the delivery
of their arguments within the prep session. Ideally, a teammate should be listening to
these deliveries and providing feedback on how the speeches could be improved. This
will allow the speakers to make the necessary adjustments to make the speeches
clearer and more effective. This session will also allow the rest of the team to know
exactly how the speech will be delivered, ensuring that they are not caught by surprise
later on. An added benefit is that the speaker will gain more confidence for the actual
debate since the speech has already been delivered in practice.
4. Tips
74
Tip 1 - Prep for Prep : The above steps are only meant to be a guide to the 60 minute
preparation session. Teams should exercise the flexibility to make the necessary
changes to their own preparation sessions to better suit their needs. For instance,
certain steps can be swiched around and the time allocated to each step can be altered.
To have the best prep sessions, teams should prep for prep! This means that the team
members should spend time developing their own prep procedure through discussion
and through trial and error in practice debates. This will allow speakers to give feedback
on the various steps and make adjustments accordingly. For instance, some speakers
may need more time for the practice delivery while others may need more time to be
given for the selection of the cases or for definitional issues. The best approach is for
the team members to share their concerns with each other and to adjust the steps
accordingly to make the best use of the 60 minutes.
Tip 2: The prep leader of the captain may also wish to keep a checklist of the steps to
be taken during the prep to keep track of the session and to ensure that nothing has
been left out.
Tip 3: The one hour prep session is also a useful tool even when teams have been
given a longer period of time (1 week or longer) to prepare for the motions. By using the
one hour prep session early, the teams can establish the key lines of argument for the
debate quickly. The rest of the time and days remaining can be spent on refining the
arguments and researching for better examples.
75
Chapter Eight
Debate Speeches
Overview
It is critical that Debaters make a good first impression on the judges within a
debate. Making a good impression straight away leads the judges to believe that the
debater is capable of making a good speech to follow and induces them to give higher
scores if the debater is able to fulfill this potential. Many debaters, however, will merely
launch into the speeches‟ contents, which makes the remarks appear more utilitarian. A
good introduction is thus essential in raising the expectations of the judges.
76
A good introduction also serves to differentiate the speaker from the other
debaters in the round and get more attention from the judges. Debaters can consider
using the following elements to create effective introductions to their speeches.
Debaters should allocated about 20-45 seconds for the introductions but this will
depend on the time available for the speech and the amount of substantive matter
which needs to be covered.
Contextualization
This technique is commonly used by the First speakers of both teams. The
speakers open their speeches by contextualizing the motion in real world events. This
shows the judges that the speakers understand the relevance of the motion and why the
motion is being debated. The contextualisation also provides the speakers with an
opportunity to make their stance as sympathetic as possible.
In a debate about the use of nuclear technology, the First Proposition Speaker can open
by citing the depletion of natural resources as well as the need to find sustainable and
cheap energy sources in the developing world. The speaker may also highlight the
increasing concerns over carbon emissions and global warming, factors which will
support Proposition‟s arguments in favour of nuclear technology. The First Opposition
Speaker, in contrast, will contextualize the debate by referring to nuclear accidents,
such as those in Japan, as well as the threat of nuclear weapon programmes in North
Korea and Iran.
Overview
The overview is a technique more commonly used from the Second Speaker
onwards, although the First Opposition Speaker may also use it. Here, the Debater
makes a critique of the approach being taken by the opposing team. This is an attack on
the opposing team which goes beyond a mere rebuttal of a point. Here, the debater
makes the assessment of how the debate is proceeding and why the opponent‟s
77
general approach is flawed. This assessment will also serve as a pre-cursor to the
evaluative component of the Summary Speeches and signals to the judges that the
Debater has the ability to look at the debate critically.
For instance, in a Debate about globalization, the Second Proposition Speaker

can note that the Opposition has focused mainly on social and political issues and
criticize this approach during the overview as globalization is primarily an economic
phenomenon. The Second Opposition Speaker, in response, can note during the
overview that the Proposition had primarily used examples from developed countries
and has ignored the impact on least developing countries in order to put globalisation in
a good light.
Prominent Example
Another interesting way to open the speech is to use a poignant example in

support of the team‟s stance. This has the effect of quickly grounding the debate in
reality and putting a clear metal image of the debate in the minds of the judges. This
technique differs from contextualization as the Debater is only using a single example
for its impact rather than the explanation of the broad circumstance. Thus, going back to
the motion on nuclear technology, the speaker can open with a detailed example on the
reactor meltdown at Chernobyl and the resultant radioactive fallout over Europe. While
all the speakers on the floor have the option of opening the speech with an example,
they will have to be aware that this will necessarily take away an example which could
have been used for an argument or rebuttal.
Personal Anecdote
78
This technique is especially useful in establishing a rapport with the judges and
the audience. This allows the debater to create some differentiation from the rest of the
speakers while making the topic a little more interesting. Ideally, the anecdote should be
related to the motion.
On some occasions, Debaters can get an additional benefit from this technique by
becoming authority figures. For instance, on a motion about the United Nations, a
Debater who has worked or interned at the UN will be able to speak with more authority.
Thus, the Debater can make reference to an incident or episode during the stint at the
UN. Since it will be clumsy and possibly counterproductive to say “I have worked at the
UN so I know more about this than anyone here,” a good way to claim authority will be
subtly working in the Debater's UN background into an anecdote or story.
Quotations
The use of famous quotes related to the topic can also be a good way to start a
speech. These are formulated well and are usually short and sharp, which allows the
debaters to proceed quickly into these speeches. Debaters should avoid the mere
recitation of the quote prior to proceeding to the case. Instead, they should explain how
the quote relates to the motion at hand.
Humor
The use of humor can be effective in easing the tension in the room and
establishing a rapport with the audience and the judges. Although the Debater is free to
use any type of jokes or quips, it will be best if there are related to the topic in some
way.
79
The use of humor always involves some risks. If the humor goes unappreciated,
the silence will be awkward and deafening and the Debater will be embarrassed.
Worse, the humor could backfire if it ends up offending the audience or the judges.
Finishing Strong
The conclusion to a speech is just as important as the introduction. The judges

will be close to making up their minds on the score to be given to the speakers and a
strong finish could assist in pushing the score a little higher. Thus, speakers should get
rid of bad habits such as panicked and rushed endings or incomplete conclusions
trailing off as they return to their seats. Instead, they should allocate some time at the
end of their speeches for a strong and effective conclusion.
Following the Theme
One technique to wrap up the speech to refer back to the introduction and finish
on the same theme. Thus, if an anecdote was used, the conclusion could refer to the
same story for a fitting conclusion. The speaker with the UN experience can sum up the
speech by referring to the lessons learnt at the end of the tenure.
Quotations
Quotations work even better at the end of speeches as they are short and can be
delivered with a flourish; useful when there will be little time left for the speaker.
80
Summation
Speakers who provide a summation of the key components of the speech just
delivered will be able to remind the judges of all the points covered. This will ensure that
the judges did not miss a single point. This also lets the judges know that the speaker
had complete control over and awareness of the speech.
The summation can also be expanded to cover the key points already delivered by the
preceding speakers. This ensures that these key components will remain fresh in the
minds of the judges. Third Speakers in particular, should summarise the substantive
arguments raised by their teammates at the end of their speeches.
4. Ease of tracking
4.1. Signposting
Signposting refers to the Debater signaling to the judges on what the various
components of the speech are. Specifically, this refers to the Debater declaring what
component is about to be delivered before the delivery itself.
81
For instance, instead of launching directly into a rebuttal, the debater should
signpost by saying “For my first rebuttal, let‟s address the opposition‟s first point on the
economic impact.” This allows the judges to know exactly what is happening within a
speech. In contrast, a speech without good signposting often leaves judges confused as
to which rebuttal was being directed at particular arguments and makes it hard for them
to award higher scores.
Transition Markers
Transition markers inform the judges that one particular argument or rebuttal has
been concluded and that the speaker has moved on to another component. This simple
step alerts the judges that a new argument or rebuttal is about to be delivered and
allows them to prepare accordingly. For instance, the speaker may simply say, “The
opposition‟s first argument has fallen. Let‟s see why their second argument is flawed” to
indicate that a new rebuttal is being brought in.
Without proper transition markers, Debaters run the risk of having their
arguments merge with each other, leaving the judges more confused. For instance,
some Debaters merely use“furthermore” as a transition maker to move from one
rebuttal to the next. However, because it is an indistinct marker, the judges are
uncertain if the speaker was providing multiple rebuttals to one argument or had
different responses to multiple arguments.
Tip: One easy way to make it easier for the judges to track the arguments is
to list the items to be delivered at the beginning of the speech. For instance, a Debater
can declare that the speech will respond to 3 of the Opposition‟s arguments to be
followed by 2 substantive arguments, it makes it easier for the judges to track the
speech. In contrast, if a Debater does not number the arguments, judges may
sometimes have difficulty deciding how many rebuttals there actually were and how
many arguments were actually raised.
82
(Note: One issue with this method is that Debaters may run out of time and fail to
deliver the promised number of arguments. However, the proper solution is to manage
the time allocation properly, rather than to make it easier to drop points through the lack
of numbering.”)
Word Choice
The words used by Debaters are the vehicles for the ideas that they wish to
convey. Debaters need to ensure that the words that they use are effective and that no
wasted words are used within that limited time frame. Debaters should keep the
following elements in mind when selecting the words they use for their speeches.
Necessity
Use only the words which are necessary and remove the “filler” words which
have no meaning. These “fillers” include terms such repeated “Ladies and Gentlemen,
like, you know, we see that, we say that, at the end of the day, etc.” These words use
up valuable time and add nothing to the debate. It is better to pause and breathe rather
to than use “filler” words during a speech.
Simplicity
Use simple words as much as possible. The best way to ensure Debaters are able to
get their points across is to ensure that every member of the judging panel and the
audience understand the words which are being used. Debaters should thus not use a
complicated word which could be misunderstood by the judges or opponents when a
simple word will do just as well.
83
For instance, some judges and opponents may well not know what “exacerbate”
means but they are all likely to know that the harms are “worse.” (Note - In some
debates, especially those with science and technology motions, it will not be possible for
debaters to avoid using scientific terms, which tend to be complex at times. However,
they should take care to explain these terms when necessary to ensure that everyone in
the debate can follow.)
Accuracy
Use words which are precise in conveying the message. This will ensure that the
opponents will not misunderstand or misrepresent the arguments being put forward. For
instance, they should avoid saying “eradicate the black market” if all they wanted to
claim was that the impact of the black market will be “reduced.” Inaccurate language
allows the opponents to pounce and attack these areas easily. In this case, the
opponents will merely have to point out the impossibility of completely removing an
entire black market industry.
Sophistication
Use words which are formal and sophisticated. Although the debate is to be conducted
in friendly tones, it is still a formal competition between two teams. As such, the
language used should also be sophisticated and casual words should be avoided. Thus,
a team should say that the opponents‟ arguments are “flawed” or “illogical” rather than
saying they “suck” or are “lousy.
1. Introduction
For a Debater, knowledge is power. No matter how eloquent or passionate a speech

may be, it will ultimately be toothless without key information and evidence to support
the argumentation. Thus, Debaters will have to be well-read and well-researched if they
84
are to improve in the debating arena. Diligent research will provide not only the
evidence for cases but also generate the argumentation which can be used in debates.
2. Open-Ended Research
Open-ended research refers to Debaters acquiring more information in general without

a specific set of areas or topics in mind. This type of research is especially valuable for
keeping up to date on current affairs and also on new areas of research.
Open-ended research is usually achieved by altering reading, listening and viewing
habits to include more current affairs and educational media. This could be as simple as
having access to the BBC and CNN and reading periodicals such as the Economist on
a regular basis.
During open-ended research, Debaters should try to develop a critical appreciation of
facts. Instead of just assimilating the information, Debaters should consider which
motions could be addressed by the information, if arguments could be developed from
the information and if strong examples could be extracted for further use.
3. Focused Research
Focused research refers to the active acquisition of information about a specific area.
Debaters should seek to know something of everything and everything of something.
This means that they should have a good understanding of most issues to be able to
handle themselves in different debates but be subject matter experts in one or two
fields.
Before proceeding to conduct focused research, Debaters should attempt to list the
areas in which they had good background knowledge and which areas were relatively
unknown. They should then fill the gaps in by doing more research on those missing
areas. Otherwise, these Debaters may find themselves unable to function in a debate
because they simply do not know enough about the topic.
85
Debaters should also try to specialise and research in-depth on some areas. This is
ideally done in consultation with teammates so that the areas of specialization will not
overlap. Since they will be spending a significant amount of time researching these
areas, Debaters should focus on areas they are already passionate about. If possible,
Debaters should try to become subject matter experts in a number of areas. For
instance, in a debate team or a debate club, each member could be instructed to be
subject matter experts on a different country, a different international organization, a
different technology, etc.
Debaters should also do focused research on areas which will help with their style. This
means that they can look up funny jokes, interesting anecdotes and memorable
quotations which could be used again in future debates.
4. Using research
The research gathered is of limited utility if it remains only in the minds of each
Debaters. Thus, Debaters should ensure that the research gathered is shared and
utilized in debates as much as possible.
Debaters should share the research they had unearthed as much as possible with their
teammates. The advent of the internet makes this an easy task, since the speakers may
use mailing lists, blogs or online document hosting sites to share their findings. When
sharing the information, Debaters should take note that the readers may not be subject
matter experts and may thus need some explanation for the researched material.
Debaters should also create reference sheets to be put into their own research files.
These reference sheets may list anything from key facts and examples to jokes and
witty quotations. Even if tournaments do not allow these sheets to be brought into the
preparation and/or the debate, the Debaters will still have handy reference material for
training sessions and other occasions.
86
References
http://lol-academy.blogspot.com/2011/09/debate-module.html
http://lunddebatesociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/module-2.pdf
http://www.britishcouncil.org/romania-debate-registration_form_spring_2013.pdf
http://ctl.utsc.utoronto.ca/twc/sites/default/files/Argument.pdf
http://idebate.org/training/resources/133
http://debateable.org/debate-topics/constructing-arguments
http://www.eduinitiatives.org/news/new-module-available-how-debate
http://www.debate.org/help/site-updates/2-1/
http://www.schoolsdebate.com/docs/definitions.asp
http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wsdcdefiningandcases.pdf
http://www.eduinitiatives.org/sites/default/files/Skill%20development%20Workshop%20fi
les/How%20to%20Debate%20Unit.pdf
http://flynn.debating.net/mmuguide.htm
http://www.debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf
http://steiny.typepad.com/premise/2003/05/setting_definit.html
http://debateable.org/debate-topics/the-set-up
http://debateable.org/debate-topics/constructing-arguments#h1-introduction
http://debateable.org/debate-topics/rebuttals
https://www.debatingsa.com.au/Schools-Competition/Documents/Debating-An-
Introduction-For-Beginners.pdf
http://www.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/publicfile/Attachment/f1286262727102.pdf
http://debateable.org/debate-strategies/constructing-a-speech
http://debateable.org/debate-strategies/debate-research
87

Modulus Debatus

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

Modulus Debatus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning How to Debate

The basics of debating

Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially

Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional

A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined

Ability to speak in front of groups, this is huge--later on in life, you'll be speaking

 Define and set out theoretical underpinnings of a motion

Types of Parliamentary Formats

American parliamentary debate is a formal contest of reason, wit and rhetorical

Prime Minister Constructive (PMC) 7 minutes

British Parliamentary style debate is a common form of academic debate. It has

Figure 3EUTH Debate

Figure 4EUTH Debate

There are 3 tiers of definition that can be used by debaters:

Obvious to the Layman

Allow Room for Debate

A tautology refers to a definition that is skewed or limited in order to make it true.

If the Opposition feels that Proposition‟s definition was generally acceptable

Challenging the Definition

Explaining the Challenge

The Opposition team also has the responsibility of providing an alternative

Sustaining the Challenge

The flow of the arguments should look like this:

Explanation and logic

Link example to logic

Link to the Motion

The Explanation and Links:

Link A Subject has a Death penalty

The trait leads Death scares

The outcome People deterred

Motion is proved Death Penalty

4.1. Types of Examples

This technique involves the use of a series of cases or statistics to showcase a

Many debaters stick to a certain region or timeframe for examples during a

Do Use New Examples

Don't Use Examples as Logic

Don’t Lead with Examples

Special Section on Different Analysis Paradigms in Constructive

How to come up with a constructive/substantive?

DISCLAIMER: This is not the only way to categorize substantives. It shouldn‟t be a

Debate, without rebuttals, would merely be a series of speeches with no relation

When rebutting the opponent‟s arguments, Debaters need to decide which

Attacking the Impact

Attacking Logic Leap

Hung arguments are arguments which are contingent on another argument to

In general, Debaters should attack the logic of an argument before moving on to

Do's and Don'ts

Do Attack New Arguments First

Do Complete the Attack

Don’t Just List Rebuttals

Don’t Ask Rhetorical Questions

Debaters should also avoid using rhetorical questions as a substitute for

In order to successfully attack an argument, it should be rebutted more than

Wherever possible, Debaters should try to rebut an argument by taking

Speak with Pauses

Use Shorter Sentences

Avoid Filler Words

Debaters should try to make themselves as stylistically distinct from their

Walking around is something that has to be restricted within a debate. A moving

Debaters should always dress as formally as permissible by the rules.

Speech and Oratory Competitions

Microphones are usually provided on an adjustable stand. In this case, the

A. Convene with your classmates and get a piece of paper.