|
This booklet contains guidelines for competitors, coaches and adjudicators in the competition. Although some sections of the booklet are quite detailed, competitors should not feel unduly daunted by the information contained inside. To do well in the competition, you will not need to assimilate every word of the guidelines. Basically, if you argue your case strongly, and show flexibility in responding to the other side�s arguments, then you will probably be debating well. The most important criteria for the competition are summarised on pages 2-4 of the booklet, and those pages should be the first point of reference for competitors. Later sections are more detailed, and may be more suitable for competitors with some experience of debating, as well as teachers and coaches. For the sake of clarity, we�ve referred to them as �Notes for Coaches� Please remember that reading debating guidelines is not a particularly effective (or enjoyable) way of learning about debating. The best way of learning about debating is to speak in a debate.
1. Introduction and Contents p1 Notes for Coaches:
3. Content p5 4. Style p8
a) Pace 5. Strategy p10
a)
Structure 6. Guidelines for Adjudicators p19
DEBATING - BASIC GUIDELINES FOR COMPETITORS These three pages are intended to summarise the most important aspects of debating at this level. More extensive notes can be found in the �Notes for Coaches� pages that follow. Competition overview The Juniors� Competition uses what is known as �British Parliamentary� format. This means that all teams in a tie (normally four or six) are participating in the same debate on the same motion. Each team of two is drawn in a particular position on the proposition or opposition side of the motion, and is required to speak according to the requirements of that position. See section on Position in the debate at page 3 below. All speeches in the Competition will last for five minutes (except in the National Final, where this is increased to six minutes). The first and last minutes of each speech are �protected time�, during which points of information may not be offered. Teams entering the Competition are allocated to one of four geographical regions:
Northern
Scotland
At least
two preliminary rounds are held in each region, culminating in a
Regional Final. Two teams progress from each preliminary round tie to
the next round. One team only advances from each Regional Final to the
National Final. You�ll normally be given at least two weeks to prepare for each debate. Use this time to research the motion. Newspapers, reference books and websites are all likely to contain valuable information, and relevant examples, which can be used to strengthen your arguments. Remember, however, that a speech which only lists facts will not receive much credit from the judges. Examples and statistics should support, rather than replace, logical arguments. Structure of your speech You should pick your strongest arguments and use them in a clear and structured way. Rather than listing all the arguments you�ve been able to come up with, use just two or three - and try to make sure you have enough time for each one; five minutes can go by quicker than you might think! Remember to signpost what your team�s arguments will be (e. g. �I will talk about the economic benefits of independence, while my partner will talk about the cultural benefits�). This makes it easier for the audience and judges to understand how your individual arguments fit together, and it suggests that you and your partner are working as a team. Style There is no one �right� way of delivering a speech. Some people will find that they are good at using jokes and sarcasm to rebut the other side�s arguments; others will find that they are more persuasive if they speak in a more calm and measured manner. As long as your style allows you to say what you want to say, in as persuasive a manner as possible, then it doesn�t really matter.
There are
some things, though, that you should always bear in mind, whatever your
style as a speaker. Debating is all about being persuasive. If you�re confident and assured (or can fake it), then you will be successful in debates, whatever kind of style you have as a speaker. Positions in the debate This is a debating competition, rather than a public speaking competition. You must therefore show a willingness to listen to your opponents� arguments, and then refute those arguments. Speeches are a mixture of prepared arguments and rebuttal - answering the other side�s arguments. If you�re the first speaker on the proposition, then clearly you can�t rebut the opposition�s arguments, because you haven�t yet heard them! But from then on in the debate, you have to listen to what the other speakers are saying, and respond to those arguments. It is quite common (but in no way essential) for the first speaker on each side to develop two main points; for the second and third speakers on each side to develop one main point, and spend rather more time rebutting the opposing arguments; and for the last speakers to have no new material at all, and use their time to attack the opposition�s points while strengthening their own. Speakers are expected to fulfil a particular role, depending on where they are sitting on the table. This aspect of debating is looked at in far more detail in the �Notes for Coaches�, but a brief description is included here.
1st
proposition speaker: Points of Information Your speech isn�t the only opportunity to put your point across. During an opponent�s speech you are permitted to offer points of information. These are basically short interjections where you can ask questions or make points which you think your opponent may be avoiding. Offering points of information To offer a point of information, you should stand up and say, �Point of information�. It�s then up to the person making the speech whether or not they want to accept your point. If they do accept it, then make your point quickly (less than 15 seconds). But they don�t have to accept your point. If they don�t, you should sit down, and try again later. As a general rule, you should try to offer at least a couple of points of information during an opposing speech. It�s perfectly fine to offer more, if you like, providing you don�t start barracking the speaker. Note that points of information can not be offered in the first or last minute of the opponent�s speech. There will be a single bell or knock to mark those timings. Receiving points of information If you�re offered a point of information whilst in the middle of your speech, remember that it�s totally up to you whether or not you take it or not. If you don�t want to take a point at that moment, just say �no� - preferably politely. If you do, though, make sure you answer it! As a general rule you should take one or two points during your speech, assuming you get offered any. Importance of points of information It�s important that you get involved in offering points of information - it�s a way of making sure that your opponent talks about whatever you want him or her to talk about. Equally, don�t be shy about taking them. Judges will give you credit for facing a question or two. They also like to see good answers - so if someone asks you a question, you should try and answer it if you possibly can, and answer in a way which strengthens your case, if at all possible. Research You will normally have at least two weeks in which to research the motion. You should use this time to gather facts, statistics and examples which will support your case, and also to find out about the facts which the opposing teams may use to support their arguments. If the motion is a topical one, then it is a good idea to read a broadsheet newspaper every day, to see if there have been new developments in the issue which you will be speaking about. This should ensure that you are not caught out using information which is out of date. It might also be helpful to check in your school or local library, to see if there are books with helpful information on the topic. In addition, some magazines (The Economist, Newsweek etc) may contain useful information. Probably the best source of information, however, for many of the motions that you will be given in this competition, is the internet. In particular, the websites of many news organisations contain archives which allow you to read months, or years, of news stories about a topic, in a reasonably brief period of time. Three of the best websites are as follows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news All of these websites have search facilities which allow you to type in the phrase that you are looking for (�fox hunting�; �capital punishment�; �vivisection� etc) and read previous news stories about them. This is probably the most efficient way of researching the motion, and you may well find that it is worth asking for permission to use your school�s computer facilities, in order to visit one of these sites for as little as forty minutes. Research is a very useful way of obtaining evidence which can support your arguments. It can also help you to avoid two common pitfalls. Please bear in mind that examples drawn from your personal life are not likely to be persuasive. The fact that your uncle�s friend found it difficult to change money when he went on holiday last year does not necessarily prove that Britain should join the Euro. In addition, if it is at all possible, you should avoid using Nazi Germany as an example during your speech. The fact that the Weimar Republic used a form of proportional representation, or that Hitler was a vegetarian, does not necessarily do much to illuminate a contemporary debate on electoral reform or animal rights. Finally, remember that the facts and examples that you use will need to support an argument. A speech which merely recounts facts may show a high level of research, but it will not necessarily be persuasive. In order to construct your team�s case, you will need to decide upon the basic arguments you will be putting forward, in order to prove that your team is right.
You may find it helpful, when you start preparing for the debate, to list as many arguments as you can in support of your side of the motion. You should then think carefully about which are the strongest of these arguments. Remember that you are speaking for five minutes, and will be answering points of information during that time. There is a limit as to how many arguments you can adequately explain during the course of your speech. You should therefore select only your strongest arguments, and use them. Remember what your other ideas were, however- they might make useful points of information. It is important to ensure that your arguments do not contradict each other, and that your overall case is consistent. For example, you could argue that independence would be a good thing, because it would give Scotland the power to set its own interest rates. You could also argue that independence would be a good thing, because Scotland would then join the Euro. The same team cannot argue both of these things at the same time, however. There is no rule as to how many arguments your side should use, although most teams at the start of the debate will use two, three or four. If your side only has one argument, the second speaker will be adding nothing to the debate; if you use five arguments or more, however, then it will be difficult to spend enough time explaining each argument. Consequently, the first proposition and opposition teams sometimes find that it is easier if the first speaker uses two major arguments, and the second speaker (who needs to do more refutation) uses one. Ultimately, however, it depends upon the motion. In particular, if you feel that there is one argument on your side which is much more important than the others, it might be best if the first speaker spends all of their time explaining that argument fully. Although you will probably want to cover as many possible areas as possible, remember that it is much more persuasive to use a small number of strong arguments, and explain them fully, than to use a large number of weak arguments. Quite apart from anything else, if you outline thirteen different points during the course of your speech, then nobody (including the judges) is likely to remember what they were. Debaters are often tempted to spend a lot of time on �easy� arguments, in the belief that this will make their case sound convincing. Be very wary of doing this. If you are proposing to ban vivisection, the easiest, and most emotive, argument that you can use is to say that torturing animals is wrong. This is a valid point, but it will not in itself be sufficient to win the debate. You would also need to tackle the issue of whether vivisection aids medical research. This requires arguing either that vivisection is an ineffective research method, or that experimenting on animals is so wrong that it cannot be justified, even if the consequences may benefit humans. It is much more difficult to make these arguments, than simply to say that torturing animals is wrong. You will often find, however, that your speech is much more persuasive if you do deal with the difficult arguments, rather than spending your time making facile or easy points. There are numerous ways of dividing your case into different arguments. Once you have decided upon your case division, you should make sure that it is signposted clearly at the beginning of your team�s first speech (if you are first proposition, signpost immediately after you have defined). This ensures that the audience knows immediately what your case is, and how you are going to try to prove it. Some of the more cliched (although often useful) �labels� which are applied to arguments are as follows: national/international- �I will look at the domestic political situation in Israel, while my partner will analyse the international example which will be set if Israel is allowed to get away with breaking UN resolutions in its fight against the Palestinians�. economic/cultural/diplomatic- �I will talk about the economic benefits of independence, while my partner will examine its cultural impact, and also the diplomatic benefits which will arise from having independent representation on international bodies� . moral/practical- �I will examine the moral reasons for banning vivisection, while my partner will explain that there are practical alternatives which will allow scientists to continue medical research more effectively�. For the second proposition and opposition teams, there is less scope for preparing a case, although it is still essential to have researched the motion thoroughly, and to show that you are working as a team. Read the guidelines for third speakers and summation speakers on pages 13-15. Refutation Unless you are the first speaker for the first proposition team, it is essential that you spend some time refuting what your opponents have said. It is very important that you prioritise your refutation sensibly. It is always more persuasive to spend time on the other side�s major arguments (even if these are quite difficult to refute) rather than to pedantically pick holes in one of their minor points. During the course of researching your own side of the motion, you should have developed a good understanding of what the other side�s case might be. You can use this understanding to prepare your refutation of obvious points. You should always be prepared to be flexible, however. If a team uses an unexpected argument, you will have to think quickly in order to refute it. You must always rebut the points which the opposing speakers did make, rather than the points that you expected (or wanted!) them to make.
You can
refute arguments in many different ways: One important point to remember, particularly for opposition speakers, is that if the proposition are proposing a specific course of action, they need to prove that this action will be beneficial. Teams often assert the benefits of their actions (�Joining the Euro will bring economic benefits for Britain�) without then proving the causal link between the proposed action, and the supposed benefits. If you can demonstrate that the other side�s case is based upon an assertion, and that the policies they favour will not actually solve the problem that they have identified, then you stand a good chance of winning the debate. You should also remember that you do not necessarily need to dispute the points being made by the other side. You can instead state that their point is true, but is outweighed by other considerations. If you are arguing in favour of experimentation on animals, for example, you would probably be unwise to try to deny that some animals suffer as a result of experimentation. Instead, it would probably be better to argue that these disadvantages are outweighed by the benefits to humans arising from such experiments. There are two different ways of incorporating refutation into your speech. You can deal with all of your refutation in one segment at the beginning of your speech, and then move on to the substantive arguments that you wish to make. Alternatively, you can sort the rebuttal into your speech. For example, if you are going to be dealing with the economic and social arguments for an issue, you can rebut the other side�s economic and social arguments during the relevant parts of your speech. This approach often works very well. Peroration The last minute of your speech is protected time, which means that you cannot be interrupted by other speakers. It sounds impressive if you can use this time so that you end your speech on a high note. This often involves summarising your speech, or your team�s case, in a manner that makes a definite impact upon the audience. This concluding section of the speech is called a peroration. Some speakers prepare their perorations so that they are exactly a minute long - this means that when the bell goes at the end of the fourth minute, they can move immediately into their peroration, and guarantee that their speech will be exactly five minutes long. This can be a useful method of organising your speech, but it is not essential - if you speak with a stopwatch in front of you, you can organise your time effectively anyway. Furthermore, you should not stop yourself from completing a substantive point, so that you can perorate for exactly one minute. Be prepared, if necessary, to cut short your peroration, so that you can spend an extra ten or fifteen seconds on an issue. A strong conclusion to your speech will undoubtedly help you to persuade the audience that your arguments are right, but it does not really matter whether this conclusion lasts for thirty seconds or one minute. The important things are that you have presented your arguments persuasively, and that you have not had major timing problems.
There is no single correct way of delivering a speech. As long as your style allows you to say what you want to say, as persuasively as possible, then it doesn�t really matter. Some speakers will naturally be aggressive and funny, while others will be calm and measured. The most successful speaking style that you can employ will vary, depending upon the individual characteristics of your voice, personality, phrasing and argumentation skills. Pace It is important to ensure that you speak at a pace that ensures that everybody can comfortably understand what you say. A very slow speaking style can have a soporific effect on the audience- speaking too quickly, however, can make your points difficult to understand. It can be effective to vary your pace. In particular, pauses can help you to emphasise important points. Volume The appropriate volume to speak at will depend entirely upon the size of the room in which you are speaking. You do not need to speak any more loudly than the volume at which everybody in the room can comfortably hear you. Obviously, however, it is essential that everybody in the room can hear you. You should be especially aware of the fact that judges often sit at the back of a room. If they cannot hear what you are saying, then they will be unable to give you marks for either content or style. Varying volume can be effective, but obviously, you cannot ever become so quiet that you become inaudible. Tone Varying your tone can be a very important way of making yourself easier to listen to, and therefore more persuasive. In particular, if you are good at sarcasm, or have quite an �aggressive� style of debating, you should be aware of the fact that being relentlessly sarcastic or aggressive, throughout the whole of your speech, can sometimes be counter-productive. One approach can be to speak slightly more aggressively while refuting your opponents� arguments, and then to adopt a calmer and more measured tone when putting forward your own case. Your use of tone will, however, depend upon the natural characteristics of your speaking style. Humour Humour will be appreciated, and it can sometimes be a decisive factor in deciding between two teams. It needs to be used with some care, however. In particular, humour should be relevant to the debate, and should not be offensive. There is sometimes a temptation to insert a weak joke into an otherwise good speech, in the belief that judges will then tick a part of their score-sheet marked �humour�, and give the speaker additional credit. Please remember that judges are only likely to do this if the jokes that they hear are actually funny. If you cannot think of any good jokes for the prepared section of your speech, then do not use any jokes at all. The lack of prepared jokes need not mean that your speech has no humour. Humour often works best if it is spontaneous, and incorporated into your refutation so as to highlight some of the weaker or more absurd aspects of the other side�s case. It is important to be flexible in using humour. Some audiences will respond more positively to humour than others. If you have a very good joke at the beginning of your speech, and a weaker joke later on, then you should only use the weaker joke if the first joke has got a big response from the audience.
Clarity Clarity of expression is obviously extremely important. Taking a complex or interesting idea, and explaining it as clearly as possible, is one of the most important aspects of debating. One of the keys to speaking clearly, of course, is ensuring that you fully understand the arguments involved in a debate � including the other side�s! Often, when people become slightly hesitant, or �waffle� by talking verbosely without putting forward any arguments, it is because they have lost their chain of thought. This is one of the main reasons why (despite the evidence provided by the marking sheet for this competition, and virtually every debating competition in Britain) style and substance in debating are, to a certain extent, inseparable. The stronger and more logical your arguments are, the easier it is to communicate those arguments in a clear and persuasive manner. There is sometimes a preconception that debating well involves using verbose rhetorical flourishes at regular intervals. This is not true. Although slang expressions are unlikely to be appropriate, given the public nature of debating, you should not feel obliged to use traditional debating rhetoric - �worthy�, �honourable�, �eloquent� etc. It is usually far more persuasive to speak clearly, using your normal vocabulary, than it is to adopt a self-consciously verbose style. Gestures Gestures should not be over-used, since incessant gesticulations will probably distract the audience from the content of your speech. Gestures can, however, be a useful way of emphasising important points, and so it usually looks more persuasive if you do use some gestures, rather than just continually clasping the lectern. Eye contact Eye contact helps you to engage with the audience, and so makes you appear more persuasive. You should pick out individuals in the audience for long enough to get their attention, but not for so long as to disconcert them. This will usually mean looking at someone, while you are talking, for between two and fifteen seconds, shifting your gaze to somebody else, and then looking at them for a similar length of time. It might be wise to make eye contact with at least one of the judges, at least once during your speech, so that they are in no doubt that you are using eye contact. Use of notes You cannot make eye contact if you are reading your speech word for word. You will also find that it is more difficult to project your voice, and possibly also to vary your tone, if you are reading. For this reason, the reading out of pre-prepared speeches will be heavily penalised by adjudicators. You will probably find it easier to deliver the prepared parts of your speech if you write your speech in note form, emphasising only key words that illustrate the different parts of your speech. This should ensure that, if you forget what you are about to say, you can look down at your notes and easily work out what the next part of your speech is going to be about. It also guarantees, however, that you cannot read your speech. For refutation, you may well want to use a completely different sheet of paper, so that you can write your refutation down while the opposing speakers are making their speeches. If you are �sorting� your rebuttal into your speech, you may then need to note refutation arguments on the same piece of paper as your main speech. Different people will vary a great deal in their use of notes- basically, you should adopt any system with which you feel comfortable, and which allows you to say what you want to say, in the style in which you want to say it. Judges will not mark you according to the volume or nature of the notes that you take up to the lectern- they will judge you according to the effectiveness with which you then use those notes. It will probably be a bad idea to have the prepared part of your speech written out in full in front of you, however. You may well end up reading, even if you do know your arguments off by heart.
Structure The content of your speech is much easier to understand, and therefore more persuasive, if it is structured effectively. Structuring a speech is quite straightforward, but it is surprising how many teams do not do it. Basically, you should say what you are going to say; say it; and then say that you�ve said it. This ensures that the audience is constantly reminded of the fundamental arguments in your case. It is, of course, essential that you think about your team�s case, rather than just your individual speech, when you are outlining the arguments you will use. In particular, the first speaker in a team should always outline, at the start of their speech, what their partner is going to do, while the second speaker in a team should remind the audience, in their peroration, of what their partner has done. This is particularly important for the first proposition and opposition teams. Roles of the Speakers 1) First Proposition Speaker The most important job of the first proposition speaker is to define the motion. Good definitions will be: a) Clear and b) Fair Clarity There are two different types of debate, which are sometimes called policy debates and diagnostic debates. Diagnostic debates are those where the proposition sets out to prove that a state of affairs exists, but chooses not to suggest a course of action which will remedy that state of affairs. It would, for example, be possible to have a diagnostic debate on the motions �This House Believes That the Media is More Powerful than the Government� or �This House Believes That Today�s Heroes are Hollow�. Diagnostic debates can sometimes be difficult to define clearly, since their highly theoretical nature can make the �clash� between the opposing sides less obvious - if defined absolutely literally, the two motions above might be better suited to a radio discussion programme than to a debate. The debates in this competition will normally (although not always) be policy debates, in which the proposition puts forward a specific course of action (although in the USA, the term policy debate means something different). In defining the motion, therefore, the first proposition speaker should make it absolutely clear what they want to do. By doing this, they will explain what the debate is about. Some motions require very little definition. �This House Would Ban Fox Hunting�, for example, will be a debate about banning fox hunting. The first proposition speaker can spend about ten seconds confirming that they are interpreting the motion literally, and then get on with the rest of their speech. Other motions, however, are slightly more problematic. In mid 2004, for example, it would have been quite possible to debate the motion �This House Supports Military Intervention in the Sudan�. Here, it would have been necessary to explain what sort of intervention your side was proposing. You would need to state under what circumstances military intervention should start (the Sudanese government failing to quell the armed militias in Darfur; or in the event of talks breaking down); who should intervene (the African Union, the UN, the USA alone) and what kind of intervention you are proposing (humanitarian only, air strikes then land force, land force straight away). These sorts of issues should be clarified immediately, because they are very important to the principled arguments which will then be used later in the debate. The first speaker should be particularly careful not to define by providing synonyms for the individual words in a motion. For a motion such as �This House Supports Affirmative Action�, for example, it is not particularly helpful just to say �our definition of the motion is that positive discrimination brings benefits to society�- all you are doing is restating the motion in slightly different words. It is usually better to consider what you would actually do. (What form of positive discrimination do you support? Is it for ethnic minorities, or women, or other groups, or all of these? How would you set the quotas? How would the policy be enforced? In which institutions would the policy be enforced?) You should then state this as clearly and succinctly as possible. One possible definition would be that �we would set quotas for the proportion of entrants at university who come from ethnic minorities, and reduce state funding from universities which do not meet these quotas�. Another would be that �the government should introduce a policy whereby at least 35% of government employees, at every level of government, are women�. The wider ethical arguments involved in these two debates are very similar- the basis of the �clash� between proposition and opposition is clarified, however, by the fact that these ethical arguments are grounded upon a very clear course of action. As you will see from these examples, some narrowing of a broad motion can be acceptable, if the larger principles involved in the debate are still obvious, and clearly arguable on both sides. Fairness The basis of any debate is that there are strong arguments on both sides of an issue. You should not be worried, when planning your definition of a motion, if you realise that there are strong counter-arguments to your definition. If your own arguments are strong enough, and if you deliver them persuasively enough, then you should still be able to succeed. First proposition teams sometimes deliberately twist the wording of a motion so as to define in a manner which gives themselves an easier job than the opposing teams in the debate. This will be penalised by the judges, and if taken to an extreme, the tactic will usually mean that the first proposition team is placed last. Things to avoid include: a) �Squirrelling� Squirrelling involves twisting the words in the motion in such a way as to produce a definition which no reasonable person could possibly have foreseen. For �This House Supports Affirmative Action�, for example, the first proposition speaker would be squirrelling if they said We support action which affirms our sense of national identity. The only action which can truly affirm our sense of national identity is the creation of an independent Scotland. And therefore, Madam Speaker....
A team
which does this is being massively unfair, since they will have had two
weeks in which to research the issue of an independent Scotland, while
their competitors will have been looking at aspects of positive
discrimination policy. The motions in this competition will sometimes
leave scope for flexibility in the definition. They will always,
however, make the general topic which needs to be researched and debated
obvious to all of the competitors. Any teams which completely alter the
topic, by substantially twisting the meaning of the motion, will be
heavily penalised by the judges, and will almost invariably be placed
last. These are definitions which cannot reasonably be opposed, and so cannot form the basis for a debate. For example, a side proposing that �This House Supports Affirmative Action� could try to argue that �Affirmative Action was intended to combat racial discrimination, therefore, in supporting affirmative action, the main point that we have to prove is that racial discrimination is a bad thing�. This definition would leave the opposition with nothing to argue against. Again, it would be heavily penalised by the adjudicators, and would almost invariably lead to the first proposition team being placed last. c)Time-Setting Time-setting involves limiting your definition to a time other than the present (for example, arguing, in �This House Supports Affirmative Action�, that �This House� is the American Senate in 1964). It is forbidden in this competition, and would be very heavily penalised by the judges. d)Place-Setting Place-setting involves limiting your definition to a particular place, which your opponents could not reasonably be expected to know much about. Some motions, of course, such as �This House Supports Military Intervention in North Korea� are inevitably about specific regions, or about international affairs. Many others lend themselves naturally to the discussion of international examples, in order to illuminate domestic issues. If a motion can naturally be discussed in relation to contemporary Britain, however, then define it as being about contemporary Britain - advocating equal opportunities quotas in Brunei may perplex the opposition, but it will also mean that you almost automatically come last. Once you have defined the motion, you should outline the arguments that you and your partner are going to use in support of your case. You should then spend time on your particular argument(s) before concluding your speech. First Opposition Speaker Speaking first for the opposition is one of the most testing, and interesting, positions in debating. In this competition, the motions will clearly indicate the basic subject area of the debate. The precise nature of the proposition�s case, however, and the exact emphasis which the proposition will give to different arguments, is unknown until the first proposition speaker stands up. You therefore only have five minutes in which to hear the first proposition speech, and formulate your refutation of it. The first opposition speaker must always rebut the first proposition�s speech. Please note, however, that there is no requirement for the opposition to put forward a positive counter-case, which outlines an alternative course of action. The desirability of doing so will depend upon the motion. In a motion such as �This House Would Ban Fox Hunting�, for example, there is no real need for the opposition to do anything other than oppose the motion. In a motion such as �This House Supports Military Intervention in North Korea�, however, it might have been worthwhile advocating an alternative course of action (diplomacy; economic sanctions etc) which would have been preferable to military intervention. As a rough guideline, if the proposition are likely to sound persuasive rather than silly by asking �what would you do instead?� then it is probably best to think up a counter-case. You may well find that you spend approximately one minute rebutting the first proposition case, before developing the substantive arguments on your own side of the motion. If you are particularly good at refutation, however, you may wish to spend a longer time on rebuttal. Your refutation is important, because it is the first occasion on which anybody can attack the proposition case. You should therefore be especially careful that you prioritise your refutation appropriately - always attempt to refute the most important arguments that the proposition has made. You also need to be prepared for the possibility that the proposition will produce a slightly unexpected definition of the motion. If this happens, it is usually better to be flexible, and accept the proposition�s definition, rather than attempt to challenge the definition. Definitional debates are not usually good ones. Remember that the judges will take account of the difficulty of your position. Although the types of definition mentioned in the section about first proposition speakers should never feature in this competition, if they do arise, this is a brief outline as to how you should deal with them. Squirrelling Explain to the judges and audience why the definition is unfair, and then deal with it anyway. Remember that if the squirrel is a bad one (such as in the example mentioned above) the first proposition team will almost certainly be placed last. To progress to the next stage of the competition, therefore, it will only be necessary to be one of the best two of the remaining three teams. Any sort of attempt to cope with the definition will rescue the debate from being a definitional one, and that will be appreciated by judges. Truistic Definitions Truistic definitions should be challenged. Explain carefully why no reasonable person could oppose the proposition�s definition , and then explain what you think the debate should be about. You may sometimes encounter a partially truistic case, where the proposition spend a long time deploying facile arguments, but do have some rebuttable arguments. If this happens, then briefly criticise the parts of the case which are truistic (again, taking care to explain carefully why the arguments are truistic) before dealing with the arguable parts of the proposition�s case. Time-Setting and Place-Setting Point out to the audience that the definition is unfair, and then explain why. If possible, state that you are going to counter the proposition�s principled arguments by using more relevant examples. This means that rather than challenging the definition, you are broadening it, and so hopefully allowing an interesting debate to take place. Dealing with an unexpected definition is one of the most difficult aspects of debating. If you are ever in doubt about whether a definition should be challenged, then don�t challenge it - complain briefly, and then do the best job that you can. It is very unlikely, during the course of this competition, that you will have to challenge the definition of the motion. Second Proposition Speaker The second proposition speaker should develop at least one new argument during the course of their speech. You should also spend quite a lot of time (perhaps two minutes) rebutting the first opposition speech. This is an important task, since you are the only member of your team who is be able to do any refutation. The purpose of the refutation can be two-fold. First, you should be able to defend your partner�s arguments against any attacks made upon them by the first opposition speaker. Secondly, if the first opposition speaker has made new arguments, or outlined a counter-case, then you should argue against those. After you have finished your refutation, you should develop one or two substantive new arguments. In your peroration, it is a good idea to summarise your team�s overall case, rather than your individual speech. Second Opposition Speaker The role of the second opposition speaker is quite similar to that of the second proposition speaker, in that you are required to strike a similar balance between refutation and new arguments. The precise nature of this balance will depend a little bit upon what your partner has done. In some teams, if the first opposition speaker is particularly good at refutation, it might be sensible to allow the first speaker to spend quite a long time on refutation (maybe developing only one major argument), and then leave the second speaker to provide a larger number of substantive arguments. In general, however, you will probably find that you spend approximately two minutes on refutation, and two minutes on developing your new argument(s). Third Speakers The third speaker in the debate should add something new to the debate. Even if the two members of the first team on the same side of the table have given exemplary speeches, it is not normally advisable for the third speaker in the debate simply to repeat the arguments which the preceding speakers have made. This can be problematic, however, since until the debate has started, you cannot know which arguments will be �taken� by the earlier team. It is, therefore, difficult to pre-prepare the substantive content of the third speech. It is probably a good idea, therefore, to make sure that you have an extremely good knowledge of all of the issues of the debate. You may wish to select two or three areas which they would be capable of talking about (possibly two arguments, and one example, which can be analysed to give greater weight to earlier arguments). You should then be prepared to show flexibility in choosing which of these topics they will talk about. Your choice will depend upon what the major issues have been in the first part of the debate. The third speaker should also refute any major arguments which have been made by the speaker immediately preceding them, and any other important arguments which have not yet been adequately rebutted. It may well be the case that the third speaker will end up spending two minutes on constructive content, and two minutes on refutation (with a further minute spent answering points of information). There are, however, no firm rules as to how time should be divided between content and rebuttal. It is important to remember that the second teams on each side of the table are expected to agree with the arguments advanced by the first teams. As always, therefore, you must be flexible in your approach. If the first proposition team has defined in a slightly unexpected way, or if the first opposition team has launched an unexpected counter-case, then your arguments should still, ideally, be consistent with theirs. This can be problematic, however, if the first team on your side of the table has advanced a case which is either massively illogical; extremely woolly and unclear; or very unfair to the other side. If this happens, then it is normally best to pretend that you agree with the first team, rather than openly rejecting everything that they have said. If their definition has been woolly, it can be �focussed�; if it has been unfairly narrow, it can be broadened; and if it has been massively illogical, then you will still normally be able to extract one or two sensible statements or ideas from their case, and state how much you agree with them. You can then advance more reasonable ideas of your own, while maintaining the pretence that you agree with what the first team has said. Following a very poor first team can be difficult. If this happens, however, then judges will be aware of the problems presented by your position. Last Proposition/ Opposition Speaker (Summation Speaker) The position of summation speaker is, in theory, one of the easiest on the table. There is often no need to think up new material, and you have a lot of time in which to think about which arguments you should use in refuting the other side�s case. Nevertheless, it can be surprisingly difficult to sum a debate up well. One of the major reasons for this is the fact that summations can be very difficult to structure effectively. Structuring Summation Speeches There are basically two different ways in which you can attempt to organise a summation speech. You can use a �speaker by speaker� method, whereby you begin by assessing the first proposition�s speech, and then analyse the arguments used by every other speaker in turn. Alternatively, you can structure your speech thematically, and deal with the major issues raised throughout the debate as a whole. The �speaker by speaker� method is often easier to use. Almost invariably, however, thematic refutation is a more effective means of summarising the major arguments
|
||