Pah
Uber all member
The following is an adaptation of a debating guide that centered on debate as a school competion and involved speaking to a live audience and being formally judged on each side's effectiveness. It was taken from http://www.ctjaycees.org/English - Debating Guide 2000.htm
Here we will be debatting to convince a readership of the truth related to the question and not have the burden of being judged on techniques as an element of the debate.
ORGANIZE POINTS OF ARGUMENT:
Preparation is the essence of successful debating because an organized argument is necessary to win a debate. Your material and attitude, however, must be sufficiently flexible to prevent your argument from becoming too rigid in presentation. If this is not done, a surprise attack on an angle of the subject you had not anticipated can leave you floundering. Too often, both debaters present rigid, uncompromising oratory and never really debate the issue.
Remember, you have a dual responsibility to keep your argument intact and puncture the opposition argument.
Keep your sense of perspective. By all means, speak with fire and passion, but never indulge in personal attacks. Fiercely attack your opponents argument, not your opponent. Enthusiasm and eloquence are useful in delivering the logic of your argument, but they cannot replace logic. Over reliance on ones rhetorical skills will not suffice in a debate. Such tactics are transparently inefficient to any competent adjudicator and boring for the audience.
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE:
It is essential for you to understand clearly the issues at stake, to always keep those issues in mind, and to constantly guard against peripheral issues which draw the argument off the rails. The subtle use of red herrings, however, provided that they do not become an obvious part of your teams tactic or are the material on which you hang your teams case, can be used effectively.
A red herring, discovered and exposed as such by the opposing team, can have devastating effects for your team. If it becomes obvious that the other team has recognized the red herring for what it is, then leave it alone. Unless you stick to the core issues, you may find yourself attacking or defending issues that are irrelevant.
In presenting your interpretation of the essential issues, remember that it is not enough for you to understand what you mean; you must convey it clearly to the audience by relating each point back to the subject. Only then can you prove the relevancy of your material.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE POST
Define the subject:
Look at the subject realistically. The ideal definition combines dictionary, common sense and common usage meanings. Very often the dictionary will give a variety of meanings for a word. Carefully examine each avenue to ensure you have fully investigated all possible interpretations, then choose the one that most closely satisfies these three requirements and suits your case. Should you, however, wish to use authority without overdoing the issue, make the best use of that persons qualifications, i.e. Dr. Harold Smith, Professor of Political Science, Center University.
It is on this point that many debates will be won or lost. Having carefully, clearly and concisely defined the subject, explain why you chose this definition and state your authority (sometimes common usage is a better authority than a dictionary).
If understanding the subject requires historical background, this is a good place to use it as a lead-in to your teams case.
You must then outline your approach to the case, stating the case in summary form.
FIRST NEGATIVE POST
You have an immediate, considerable responsibility: either to accept or reject the affirmative definition. If you decide to reject the definition entirely or in part, you should clearly state why and give relevant authority to support your contention. Objection to the affirmative definition should be restricted to areas of substantial difference.
Bearing in mind that your third post has the freedom to cover the entire affirmative argument, the first negative should restrict his remarks, if possible, to issues vital to case structure. A brief argument that outlines areas of structural fault in your opponents argument, may establish a wedge that can be widened by successive negative speakers. This is of far more value to your team than criticizing a minor point or example given by your opponent. Such criticism can easily be left to your third post as it widens the breach you have created.
The first negative post must outline this case. This is treated in the same way as the first affirmative. It is an important part of the debate, for the first post sets the line of argument and lays the foundation for building an elaborate defense.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE POST
You have heard the basic structure of both arguments and must ask yourself two questions:
How has the con speaker weakened our argument?
What is our response to their remarks?
Depart from your prepared opening if it is no longer appropriate. To adhere to your original opening in these circumstances is foolish and violates the basic principles of debating.
Having found the answer to these two vital questions, your challenge should be fundamental in nature rather than a detailed criticism. Unless you are still playing with definition, this rebuttal will both restore and support the leader of the affirmatives remarks and cast doubts on the validity of the con teams case structure.
The development of this segment of the teams case is by far the most important in relation to the overall case. In dividing up the subject, the team may decide to present four points on which their case is built. The second speaker would present as many as three of these points. The person assuming this position could be classified as the anchor: a solid post that is logical in itsthinking and explicit in its conclusions.
SECOND NEGATIVE POST
This speaker has a similar role to the second affirmative, in that he must find some fundamental answers to the affirmative charges. He has an advantage because he has heard two speakers state the larger part of the affirmative case. If possible, he can build upon the breach opened by his first speaker and develop it more fully.
In the event of a head-on clash between the two teams over definition, this posts burden becomes even greater. Whereas the first and third con posts are concentrating on rebutting both the definition and the other teams points, this must address the reasons why the head-on clash has occurred.
AFFIRMATIVE POSTS PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION
It is imperative that these posts be able to see the opposing argument in its broadest sense, to determine the main issues and the theme adopted by the con side. The most effective rebuttal will develop this theme and incorporate the salient points.
Competently handled, such a rebuttal will undermine the opposition argument and simultaneously enhance your own. Interweaving rebuttal with further evidence for your case will be particularly effective, and the audience will appreciate it.
Summary of each post
The culmination of the argument should be a concise summary of the affirmative argument that will illustrate the superiority of both theme and point.
SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE POSTS
The duties of this post are simular to the third affirmative, but of course it has a much greater opportunity for rebuttal. These posts are in the fortunate position to assess the whole case of the affirmative team, to see the complete theme of their argument and to refute it.
CONCLUDING POST
The final reply is second only in importance to a clear definition and outline of the teams case. At this stage, no new material should be introduced and the post should only rebut material already presented. Care must be taken to ensure that new material is not introduced in the rebuttal. What the leader says now must be a reiteration of or response to something said at some other stage of the debate.
The post then reviews the case, point by point. It must highlight the major points that have been presented through the course of the debate, and it should draw the threads together and tie the knot that proves that his case is the logical conclusion one inevitably arrives at.
CONCLUSION TO TECHNIQUE
The importance of taking a logical common-sense stand on definition cannot be overemphasized. Shallowly-based interpretations by the affirmative team will only lead to an entire debate on definition, as will trifling objections by the con side. Such action is usually the error of inexperienced teams and is invariably followed by both teams tracing predetermined parallel paths, rebutting only definition. The issue is never really joined and the audience leaves disappointed.
If you want to get the most out of your preparation, decide the issues and the conclusion, and then get to work defending them.
Here we will be debatting to convince a readership of the truth related to the question and not have the burden of being judged on techniques as an element of the debate.
ORGANIZE POINTS OF ARGUMENT:
Preparation is the essence of successful debating because an organized argument is necessary to win a debate. Your material and attitude, however, must be sufficiently flexible to prevent your argument from becoming too rigid in presentation. If this is not done, a surprise attack on an angle of the subject you had not anticipated can leave you floundering. Too often, both debaters present rigid, uncompromising oratory and never really debate the issue.
Remember, you have a dual responsibility to keep your argument intact and puncture the opposition argument.
Keep your sense of perspective. By all means, speak with fire and passion, but never indulge in personal attacks. Fiercely attack your opponents argument, not your opponent. Enthusiasm and eloquence are useful in delivering the logic of your argument, but they cannot replace logic. Over reliance on ones rhetorical skills will not suffice in a debate. Such tactics are transparently inefficient to any competent adjudicator and boring for the audience.
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE:
It is essential for you to understand clearly the issues at stake, to always keep those issues in mind, and to constantly guard against peripheral issues which draw the argument off the rails. The subtle use of red herrings, however, provided that they do not become an obvious part of your teams tactic or are the material on which you hang your teams case, can be used effectively.
A red herring, discovered and exposed as such by the opposing team, can have devastating effects for your team. If it becomes obvious that the other team has recognized the red herring for what it is, then leave it alone. Unless you stick to the core issues, you may find yourself attacking or defending issues that are irrelevant.
In presenting your interpretation of the essential issues, remember that it is not enough for you to understand what you mean; you must convey it clearly to the audience by relating each point back to the subject. Only then can you prove the relevancy of your material.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE POST
Define the subject:
Look at the subject realistically. The ideal definition combines dictionary, common sense and common usage meanings. Very often the dictionary will give a variety of meanings for a word. Carefully examine each avenue to ensure you have fully investigated all possible interpretations, then choose the one that most closely satisfies these three requirements and suits your case. Should you, however, wish to use authority without overdoing the issue, make the best use of that persons qualifications, i.e. Dr. Harold Smith, Professor of Political Science, Center University.
It is on this point that many debates will be won or lost. Having carefully, clearly and concisely defined the subject, explain why you chose this definition and state your authority (sometimes common usage is a better authority than a dictionary).
If understanding the subject requires historical background, this is a good place to use it as a lead-in to your teams case.
You must then outline your approach to the case, stating the case in summary form.
FIRST NEGATIVE POST
You have an immediate, considerable responsibility: either to accept or reject the affirmative definition. If you decide to reject the definition entirely or in part, you should clearly state why and give relevant authority to support your contention. Objection to the affirmative definition should be restricted to areas of substantial difference.
Bearing in mind that your third post has the freedom to cover the entire affirmative argument, the first negative should restrict his remarks, if possible, to issues vital to case structure. A brief argument that outlines areas of structural fault in your opponents argument, may establish a wedge that can be widened by successive negative speakers. This is of far more value to your team than criticizing a minor point or example given by your opponent. Such criticism can easily be left to your third post as it widens the breach you have created.
The first negative post must outline this case. This is treated in the same way as the first affirmative. It is an important part of the debate, for the first post sets the line of argument and lays the foundation for building an elaborate defense.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE POST
You have heard the basic structure of both arguments and must ask yourself two questions:
How has the con speaker weakened our argument?
What is our response to their remarks?
Depart from your prepared opening if it is no longer appropriate. To adhere to your original opening in these circumstances is foolish and violates the basic principles of debating.
Having found the answer to these two vital questions, your challenge should be fundamental in nature rather than a detailed criticism. Unless you are still playing with definition, this rebuttal will both restore and support the leader of the affirmatives remarks and cast doubts on the validity of the con teams case structure.
The development of this segment of the teams case is by far the most important in relation to the overall case. In dividing up the subject, the team may decide to present four points on which their case is built. The second speaker would present as many as three of these points. The person assuming this position could be classified as the anchor: a solid post that is logical in itsthinking and explicit in its conclusions.
SECOND NEGATIVE POST
This speaker has a similar role to the second affirmative, in that he must find some fundamental answers to the affirmative charges. He has an advantage because he has heard two speakers state the larger part of the affirmative case. If possible, he can build upon the breach opened by his first speaker and develop it more fully.
In the event of a head-on clash between the two teams over definition, this posts burden becomes even greater. Whereas the first and third con posts are concentrating on rebutting both the definition and the other teams points, this must address the reasons why the head-on clash has occurred.
AFFIRMATIVE POSTS PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION
It is imperative that these posts be able to see the opposing argument in its broadest sense, to determine the main issues and the theme adopted by the con side. The most effective rebuttal will develop this theme and incorporate the salient points.
Competently handled, such a rebuttal will undermine the opposition argument and simultaneously enhance your own. Interweaving rebuttal with further evidence for your case will be particularly effective, and the audience will appreciate it.
Summary of each post
The culmination of the argument should be a concise summary of the affirmative argument that will illustrate the superiority of both theme and point.
SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE POSTS
The duties of this post are simular to the third affirmative, but of course it has a much greater opportunity for rebuttal. These posts are in the fortunate position to assess the whole case of the affirmative team, to see the complete theme of their argument and to refute it.
CONCLUDING POST
The final reply is second only in importance to a clear definition and outline of the teams case. At this stage, no new material should be introduced and the post should only rebut material already presented. Care must be taken to ensure that new material is not introduced in the rebuttal. What the leader says now must be a reiteration of or response to something said at some other stage of the debate.
The post then reviews the case, point by point. It must highlight the major points that have been presented through the course of the debate, and it should draw the threads together and tie the knot that proves that his case is the logical conclusion one inevitably arrives at.
CONCLUSION TO TECHNIQUE
The importance of taking a logical common-sense stand on definition cannot be overemphasized. Shallowly-based interpretations by the affirmative team will only lead to an entire debate on definition, as will trifling objections by the con side. Such action is usually the error of inexperienced teams and is invariably followed by both teams tracing predetermined parallel paths, rebutting only definition. The issue is never really joined and the audience leaves disappointed.
If you want to get the most out of your preparation, decide the issues and the conclusion, and then get to work defending them.