Guidelines for Debaters Table of Contents Introduction The Basics of Debating Motions Definitions Theme Line Team Split

Arguments Rebuttal Roles of the Speakers Speeches Listening Point of Informations Adjudication

INTRODUCTION This document is an introduction to Australasian Parliamentary debates, the motions/topics, team structure, etc. It is meant to help institutions and universities who are new to the Parliamentary debating format, and are interested in participating in the upcoming Indonesian Varsities English Debate (IVED) 1999, but are still unclear on the rules and regulations. This document is not intended to serve as a definitive guide to the rules of the tournament. THE BASIC OF DEBATING Debating is about developing your communication skills. It is about assembling and organizing effective arguments, persuading and entertaining an audience, and using your voice and gestures to convince an adjudicator that your arguments outweigh your oppositions. Debating is not about personal abuse, irrational attacks or purely emotional appeals. A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These two teams will be referred to as the Affirmative and the Negative. Members of each team are assigned positions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speakers. For each debate, a motion is given. After the motion is given, teams are given twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each debate. Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of seven (7) minutes duration and either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides will deliver the reply speeches for their teams. Reply speeches will be five (5) minutes. Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows: 1st Affirmative 7 minutes 1st Negative 7 minutes 2nd Affirmative 7 minutes 2nd Negative 7 minutes 3rd Affirmative 7 minutes 3rd Negative 7 minutes Negative Reply 5 minutes Affirmative Reply 5 minutes

What must both sides do? In general:

Affirmative (also known as "the Government") The Affirmative team must define the motion and support this by giving constructive arguments. The right to define first resides with the Affirmative team, who is expected to give a reasonable definition for the motion. Negative (also known as "the Opposition") The Negative team must oppose the motion as defined by the Affirmative, and build a counter-case against the Affirmative. In the event the Negative team feels that the definition is invalid, they may challenge the definition and propose an alternative definition. However, the Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition is more reasonable.

The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual words only if they have a key role. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in the debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on a word-by-word basis, it should define words or phrases by their common usage. Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning or a pithy explanation of a word, but they are not an absolute authority. An example of a definition could be as follows: Given the motion "that what goes up, must come down", the Affirmative is presented with many options on how to define the motion, because the nature of the motion itself is quite abstract. One way they could define it is as follows: they could define the object (the what) as being the president of the Republic of Indonesia. In essence, the motion would then state that anyone who "goes up" (takes power) as president of Indonesia, must undoubtedly one day "come down" (step down from power). This would give us the definition "that the Indonesian presidency should be limited to 2 terms". The Affirmative team could then argue on the detriments of having unlimited presidential terms, citing proof such as the total control of the past regime under Soeharto, etc. The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of the debate is unknown until the Affirmative delivers their definition of the motion. Only then does it become clear. Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable. This is to say that: it must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and it must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion. This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it. The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the Affirmative, but the Negative shall have the right of challenging the definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set out above. However, a Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological, Squirreling, or Time and place setting (see below). If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to say so, and it is unnecessary to restate it. If they challenge it, their justification for doing so

MOTIONS Motions, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate, the Affirmative team must argue to defend the propositional statement of the motion, and the Negative team must argue to oppose it. Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about: That we should give President Habibie a chance That Indonesia should change its constitution That football is overvalued in todays society That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the bad effects of smoking That American pop culture is a threat to civilization That long is better than short DEFINITIONS Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined by the Affirmative team. A definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a clear description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting what the debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the debate from turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments and different interpretations from both teams of what is actually being debated among them.

must be clearly stated, and an alternative definition must be put forward. If the definition is accepted, then that definition must stand. The Negative must adjust their case to that definition, and the adjudicator's views on its reasonableness become irrelevant. The following definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be challenged by the Negative team: Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are true by nature and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic definition would be if the motion "that we should eat, drink, and be merry" were defined as "that we should eat, because otherwise we would starve to death; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst; and be merry because we are alive". Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a definition is given in such a way that it is logically impossible to negate it. An example would be if the motion "that technology is killing our work ethic" were defined as follows: the Affirmative team decides to define the term technology as meaning "all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic". This would result in the whole definition "that all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic is killing our work ethic". This cannot be logically proven false. Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the motion and do not have a proper logical link to the motion will constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion "that the USA is opening up to the PRC", an Affirmative team could try and define USA as "Untidy Students of Asia", and PRC as "Pretty Room Cleaners". This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree that the spirit of the motion is about the relationship between the United States and China! Time and Place setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a particular time and place. For instance, trying to limit the subject matter to only the economic development of Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration. A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about challenging definitions - only do so if you are absolutely certain that the Affirmative's definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump your prepared case in

favor of tackling the Affirmative on their own terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By the same token, Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is fair. Definitional Challenge Debate When a Negative team decide to challenge a definition, the first speaker of the Negative must:

State explicitly that they are challenging the definition. Justify that challenge with one of the Conditions (i.e. the existence of the Condition must be proven). Provide an alternative definition of the motion (which must also be reasonable), and then negate it! Build a case based on that negation.

An Affirmative team cannot accept the alternative definition provided by the Negative; they must defend their definition from attacks by the Negative and stick to their case. Watching a definitional challenge debate is like watching two independent debates: the speakers do not clash each other. This presents a difficulty in rebuttal. Therefore, speakers are expected to engage in even-if rebuttal. Doing an even-if rebuttal is basically saying that even if the other definition is accepted, the case does not stand due to the rebuttals. However, if the definition is truistic, it might be difficult or impossible to do even-if rebuttals. In this case, the rebuttal speakers should concentrate on proving the truism. Doing a definitional challenge debate is relatively difficult, and the debate also tends to be confusing or even meaningless to the audience and to the adjudicators. Rules about definitional challenge are provided to ensure fairness of the debate; they are not meant to encourage definitional challenge debates! THEME LINE The theme line is the underlying logic of a teams case. It is the main instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a teams stand on the motion. A theme line can be viewed as a Case In A Nutshell, because it concisely explains a teams strategy in defending or negating the motion. The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team member. It is the main idea that links together the first, second, and third speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.

In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: Why is the propositional statement given by the definition of the motion true (or false, for the Negative team)? Without further explanation, this propositional statement is a mere assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven to be true. The answer to this question must be an argument which proves the assertion given by the motion. This argument is the theme line. A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all arguments brought forward should be based on this theme line.

Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have yet to be proven to be logically true. On the other hand, arguments must have supporting logic and facts that can show its validity. What adjudicators look for in a good argument Relevance Organization (structure your arguments) Consistency and internal logic. (don't contradict yourself or your teammates) Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience and adjudicator that you're right - so make sure they can understand what you're saying!) Effective use of evidence (evidence must be relevant, always prefer stronger evidence) One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises and whether those premises are true. Preparing a Reasonable Argument One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and especially important to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises and whether those premises are true. When developing your argument, consider the following factors: Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the "facts."

TEAM SPLIT Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the arguments should be distributed among speakers. This is called the team split. Simply put, the team split is the distribution of arguments to the first, second, and third speaker. Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion. You should not create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion. For a more elaborate exposition on formulating theme lines and team splits, please consult the document entitled "Casebuilding Examples of Australasian Parliamentary Debates". It contains thorough examples that give a very clear idea on how to construct theme lines and team splits from definitions.

ARGUMENTS Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. examples, facts, statistics, quotations of expert/public opinion etc.) to back up each point you make in your argument. Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and how it advances your argument. Make a point, give the reason for that point, and supply evidence to back it up.

Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all points of view. Arguments from authority carry little weight "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. Prepare more than one case. If there's something to be defined, think of all the different ways in which it could be defined. Then think of arguments

by which you might systematically rebut each of the cases. What survives, the case that resists rebuttal in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working cases," has a much better chance of being the stronger case than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. Try not to get overly attached to a idea just because it's yours. It's only a waystation in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to defend it against generalized rebuttal. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) not just most of them. Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not in the spirit of debating. You run a good chance of losing a debate, especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your arguments cannot be rebutted.

unacceptable implications showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little weight

As with arguments, assertions do not equal rebuttals. Just as teams must show how and why their own arguments are valid, so they must show how and why the opposition's arguments are invalid. An argument may be wrong in fact or logic - if so, say how and why An argument may contradict their team line, or something else a speaker on that team has said if so, point it out An argument may be true but completely irrelevant these are often called "red herrings".

Some points to remember when making rebuttals are:

Rebuttals should focus on the issue. Find out what is the key issue first, then deal with what backs up that argument (evidences). List (signpost) the points that you are going to rebutt, then do your rebuttals. Write down what they said, not what you are going to say. This is because we tend to forget what are the points that we are going to rebutt.

REBUTTAL Rebuttal is the process of proving that the opposing team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of: showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic showing that the opposing argument is illogical showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves

The key with rebuttal is to ask yourself this question: "What is the key issue in their case, and how do we attack that issue with our positive material in rebuttal to ensure that their line of logic does not stand?" It is not necessary to rebutt every single point and fact raised by the opposition. Single out their main arguments and attack those first. Savage their theme line and show how it falls down and show why yours is better! You should rebutt by both destroying the opposition's arguments and by establishing a case that directly opposes theirs.

ROLES OF THE SPEAKER The six speakers in an Australasian Parliamentary debate each have different roles to play and adjudicators should take account of how well a speaker fulfills his/her obligations. The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's cases First Affirmatives duties: Defines the motion of the debate. The 1st Affirmative should ensure that no important points of definition are left out. Presents the Affirmatives theme line. This is normally presented in one or several lines of analysis, explaining why the Affirmatives case is logically correct. Outlines the Affirmatives team split. This can be done by saying, for example: "I, as the first affirmative will deal with the philosophical base of our case, while my colleague, the second affirmative speaker, will examine its practical implications". Delivers substantial arguments ("1st Affirmatives part of the split"). After establishing the definition, theme line, and team split, the 1st Affirmative should then deal with the arguments/points that have been assigned to him/her in the team split. Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. The 1st Affirmative may spend some time on the definition and on establishing the theme line and showing how it is going to develop, but it is important to leave time to present some substantive arguments. First Negatives duties: Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the definition). Rebutts 1st Affirmative, delivers a part of the negative's substantive case. Presents the Negatives theme line. Outlines the Negatives team split. Delivers substantial arguments ("1st Negatives part of the split"). Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. The 1st Negatives role is similar to the role of the 1st Affirmatives, with the added responsibility of responding to the arguments brought up by the latter. The response to the 1st Affirmatives arguments can come before the 1st

Negative presents his/her own arguments to support the Negatives case or vice-versa. However, the delivery of rebuttals first is recommended. After the first speakers have spoken the main direction of each teams case should be apparent.

The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument Second Affirmatives duties: Rebutts the 1st Negative's major arguments. Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Affirmatives team case. Delivers substantial arguments ("2nd Affirmatives part of the split"). Most of the 2nd Affirmative's time should be spent dealing with new substantial material/arguments. He or she has the duty to present the bulk of the Affirmative's case in an attempt to further argue in favor of the Affirmative. Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. The 2nd Affirmative should be prepared to defend the definition if necessary. If it is attacked, it is vital for the 2 nd Affirmative to win back the initiative. Second Negatives duties: Rebuttal of the first two Affirmative speakers. Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Negatives team case. Delivers substantial arguments ("2nd Negatives part of the split"). Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. The 2nd Negative has duties similar to the one performed by the 2 nd Affirmative. Most of the teams' substantive argument should have emerged by the time both second speakers have spoken.

The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponents case Third Affirmatives duties:

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication Reply speakers duties (both sides):

Rebutt the points raised by the first two Negative speakers. The 3 Affirmative is mainly entrusted with the duty of responding to the arguments of the Negative that were not previously dealt with by the first two Affirmative speakers. 3rd Affirmative may also reinforce rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates. Rebuild teams case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers arguments). Summarize the issues of the debate. The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! Most of a third speaker's time must be spent rebutting the preceding speakers. Generally at least three quarters of a third speech should be rebuttal. Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a global level (teamwise), a 3rd speaker should attack the opposing teams whole case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic. On a more detailed level (speechwise), a 3rd speaker should be able to point out the mistakes in fact and inconsistency of each individual speech. Third Negatives duties: Rebutt the points raised by all three Affirmative speakers. Rebuild teams case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers arguments). Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate Summarize the issues of the debate The 3rd Negative has duties similar to the ones performed by the 3 rd Affirmative. However, the 3rd Negative cannot introduce new matter, except for new examples to reinforce an argument that has previously been brought up. The logic behind this rule is that if a 3 rd Negative is allowed to introduce new matter, the Affirmative would be at a disadvantage as they would not have any opportunity to be able to respond to these new arguments.

rd

Provide a summary or overview of the debate Identify the issues raised by both sides Provide a biased adjudication of the debate Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply speech. The Negative team delivers the first reply speech. A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both are effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits you best. However, the latter style is often more effective in light of the limited time frame. The introduction of new material is absolutely prohibited and will be penalized. Any point brought up by the other side which had not been rebutted earlier in the substantial speeches may not be rebutted in the reply speeches. Therefore, this means that all substantive arguments presented in the debate must be dealt with by the opposing team in the substantial speeches.

SPEECHES

Although good casebuilding is a prerequisite to a good debate, it is the speeches the adjudicators are going to mark. Since the aspects of Manner will be dealt with in a separate lecture, here we are going to concentrate on the Method of individual speeches as well as the team as a whole. Individual Speech Structure An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither compulsory nor exhaustive):

Contrary to popular beliefs, good debaters are good listeners. If debaters do not listen to the other side's speeches well, they will not be able to clash and rebutt the other side's case and arguments effectively, and they will not be able to respond to the dynamics of the debate. Failure to listen well may cause a debater to incorrectly reiterates the other side's arguments. This is called misrepresentations and is considered a cardinal sin in debating, because you're supposed to fairly oppose the other side by what they said, not by what you thought they said. Debaters should not make too much noise that may disturb the speaker having the floor. Violation of this rule is called heckling, and may incur penalty points (in Manner).

an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or helps it to warm to the speaker; a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the speech; a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the speakers argument; a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be accomplished; a conclusion or a summary of the major points made in the speech.

POINTS OF INFORMATION Points of Information (POI) is basically an interruption of the current speech by any member of the opposing side to ask questions concerning points raised in that speech. They are a vital part of a debate and should not be underestimated. Before and after your speech you can't just sit quietly and enjoy the other speeches. You must keep the adjudicators aware of your presence, ideas and argument. POI can be used as a weapon to undermine, and even destroy, a speech. POI exist in British Parliamentary and Asians Parliamentary formats. POI can only be given during a restricted time period of the speech (usually after the first one minute and before the last one minute). Presenting

A good paradigm on structuring individual speech is signposting. When you want to say something, first you say what are the points that you are going to present, then you deliver those points, then you close it by saying what were the points that you have just brought up. Time management is a crucial factor to a succesful presentation. Especially, avoid undertime and overtime speeches, because they will cost you points (in Method).

LISTENING While the spotlight of the debate is always on the speaker having the floor, it does not mean that the other debaters are free to take a break. Although you may use the time to further prepare your own case or speech, you should also make sure that you listen attentively to the speech being delivered. Apart from that, some format allows some kind of interruptions toward the speaker having the floor. Listening to Speeches

When giving a POI, you are expected to stand up, hold your left hand out, place your right hand on your head, and say "Point of Information, Sir/Mam!" (or something to that effect). You should make sure that you have enough space to stand up quickly and at a split second's notice. If you are rejected, sit down. If you are accepted, you have 15 seconds at the maximum to deliver your POI. Keep POI short and to the point: try making it in 5 to 10 seconds. Remember that many speakers like to take a POI and then use the time to check what they will say next while half listening to the person offering the point. Once they know what the next part of their speech is they work out an answer to your point. If your point is short, it doesn't give them enough time

and is more likely to catch them. It looks bad if they have to stop to think what to say, especially if they have to ask you to repeat it. Timing is important. If a speaker is in full stride and knows exactly where they are going for the next few seconds, he/she is unlikely to accept a point. Wait for a pause by the speaker and then offer the point. However, do not wait too long because then the point would probably be out of place. Different people have different styles when it comes to POI. Some people like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. Taking this too far might constitute barracking, which will cost you points. Most speakers prefer to just wait and see how a speech develops. This involves leaving some weak points go and use just one or two attacking the central core of the speech once it has developed. Accepting and Rejecting As for the speaker, you have to make the acceptance or rejection of POI explicit. Do not simply ignore someone who is standing up waiting to deliver a POI it's impolite and it might also be distracting to yourself. If you are rejecting the point, do so explicitly (either by saying "No, thank you!" or by using hand gestures). When you are speaking you should accept two to three points. Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every other speaker on your side be careful and don't assume that you can handle them. Try not to accept a POI when you are in the beginning of establishing an argument. Especially for 1st speakers, do not accept a POI before you're finished outlining the case (definition, theme line and team split). Also, if you can sense that your argument is somehow weak or controversial, try to reject POI at that point and accept one when you come to the stronger part of your case. Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up your argument. Always try to dismiss a point as incorrect or irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go against you in adjudication. Points of Information may be given after the first minute and before the sixth minute of the seven minutes speech.

For the speaker having the floor, you have three alternatives in dealing with POIs:

You may take the POI (which means that you must answer it). You may reject the POI (do this with either saying "No, thank you!" or something to that effect, or by hand gestures). You may take it later on (i.e. ask the person giving the POI to wait); however, you should not make the person wait for more than 20 seconds.

Keep the following points in mind when dealing with POIs:

You should take at least 2 and at most 3 POIs within your speech. You should never ignore POIs (i.e. either accept or reject, and once accepted, you must answer the POI). Use effective timing in accepting POIs. Accept POIs between arguments and when you are on confident ground (i.e. when you are explaining about something that you really know about). When you can't answer a POI (this shouldn't happen too often), you may try to go back to your strongest point.

There are several types of POIs (neither normative nor exhaustive):

Short, sharp, and direct question. Point of clarification: you may use POI to ask for clarification for something that you don't understand from the speaker. Drawing contradiction between the First and Second Speakers, or between the first and second teams.

The aim of giving Points of Information is to get the speaker off-balance. Though 15 seconds is allowed in giving POIs, try to use no more than 5 seconds only. This will ensure that the speaker will not have too much time in thinking for the answer (or even use the time to prepare his/her next point). What makes a good POI is a question that is short, sharp, and demanding answer. For example, start by questioning the issue raised, then give a counter-example, then demand an explanation for that counter-example. Training tip: The first step to train POIs is to get people to actually offer POIs. As a means of training, have debates where the two sides casebuild together so that both sides know what the other side is going to talk about. This way, offering POIs will become easier.

keywords as possible to narrow down your searches. There are also electronic versions of magazines, TV news, and scientific journals on the Net. RESEARCH In some competitions, you will get the motions to be debated before the event begins, while for some other, you get to know the motions only 30 minutes before the debate begins. In either case, the research that you do before the competition (or in your everyday life) plays a very important role to the success of your debating career. Sources of Information There are invaluable sources of information all around. You will very rarely come across a motion which you can find absolutely no information if you look hard enough. Books, Magazines, and Newspapers The library might not be your favourite place to hang out, but it surely has tons of information in it! Follow developments of current issues in news magazines and newspapers. Extract important facts, figures, quotations, etc. from them, either by writing them down on a factsheet/cue cards, or bookmarking/clipping/photocopying and highlighting. Books and journal magazines might be helpful in increasing your general knowledge about an issue. Reading skills are needed here so that you can filter out just the information that you really need. The Internet/World Wide Web It's the Information Superhighway! Do make time to ride on it every now and then, it'll get you somewhere for sure. Due to the enourmous amount of information it contains, you should perform directed search for information instead of just browsing through from one site to another without a clear purpose. Use directory services which classify World Wide Web sites according to subject matter, such as Yahoo! (http://www.yahoo.com). Or you can also perform searches using the numerous Internet search engines available, such as AltaVista (http://www.altavista.com). Be specific when searching; use as many Try not to print everything that you downloaded off the Internet, but rather read them first and make notes (maybe using cut and paste) of the relevant and important information. When referring to an evidence that you dig up from the Internet, do not simply mention that you got it from "The Internet". Be more specific, at least mention the organization or institution which provided the information. One thing about the Internet is that you can often get many different views of the story, including those which may be difficult or impossible to be found in other media. The problem is that not all information on the Net is reliable. Television and Radio Watch or listen to the news. Make a habit of it. If you know that there is a documentary, special report or debate on a topical issue why not watch, or listen to, it. Brainstorming and Discussions This involves a group of people getting together to discuss a motion and come up with ideas. The group meets in a room and trash out the various issues involved in the topic. If a brainstorming session is not feasible, do not hesitate to ask other debaters or someone who knows more about the issue for ideas. Just make sure that you don't end up being spoon-fed in building a case for a particular debate! Discussions are also important when you're doing your research as a team. This ensures coordination of knowledge between all team members. Making Effective Research Research is not a blind search for information. It should be directed and wellstructured. If the competition uses surprise motions, enlist both current and classical issues then based your research on those issues. If you are doing research as a team, you might like to distribute issues among team members so that each person perform a focused research.

10

There are some ways to structure a research. One alternative is to use the 4W1H paradigm: answer the questions What When Where Who How on the issues. Try not to mix research with casebuilding. When researching, focus on the issue being researched, not on how the information will be used in a debate. Usually, the objective of research is to increase your understanding about the issue, not merely searching for facts and examples.

The elements of structure would deal with both structure of individual speeches and structure of the team (such as fullfillment of roles of speakers). A well-structured individual speech should have the following elements in order (neither normative nor exhaustive):

context issue arguments examples summary

ADJUDICATION Adjudication is the process of determining which team wins the debates. This is conducted by an adjudicator, or a panel consisting of an odd number of adjudicators. There is always a winner in a debate. There are no draws or ties. The speakers are assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is 40 points, Manner is 40, and Method is 20, making a total of 100 points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter and Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50 points. Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples brought up during the course of the debate. Manner is concerned with the style of public-speaking the use of voice, language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality as a medium for making the audience more receptive to the argument being delivered. There are no set rules which must be followed by debaters. Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, the effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.

Researches show that an audience's attention is most intense during the beginning and the end of a speech. Signposting is therefore also important for individual speech: state first what you are going to say in the speech, and at the end give a summary by saying what you have said in the speech. The elements of delivery includes the public speaking skills, i.e. on how effective are such skills used in delivering the message. A thorough discussion on techniques in improving manner is beyond the scope of this lecture, but some of them will be described here. Eye contact is a crucial factor that every debater must get used to. Without eye contact, making a convincing speech is actually more difficult, because there would be no way for the debater to get feedback from the audience. Training tip: To train novices to maintain eye contact, have them maintain eye contact to clusters of people at first. Instead of trying to maintain eye contact to each individual in the audience, try to maintain eye contact to groups of people in the audience. Use of notes should also be effective. A cue card should be the only piece of notes you need in delivering your speech, which means you can only write pointers on your notes instead of the whole speech. Training tip: To train novices to make effective notes, start with a full-page notes (A4/letter), then have them redo the speech with half the notes, a quarter of the notes, and so on until they can do the speech with only one cue card. More training tips on Manner:

ADDITIONAL
MANNER Manner deals with both the structure and delivery of speeches (unlike in Australasian Parliamentary where structure is given a separate category of Method).

11

To assess vocal quality, speak with your eyes closed. This will make it easier to listen to your own voice. Another technique is to use a tape recorder. To assess gestures, stance, and manner in general, practising in front of a mirror does help. By looking at the mirror while speaking, you can see your own flaws and explore your own strengths in manner. If available, video analysis is even more powerful tool. Have your speech videotaped and then assess the speech later on. Practice speech by speaking. Speak to inanimate objects, speak to walls. This should also be done when you are preparing your individual speeches during casebuilding.

In giving criticism, there are several things that need to be kept in mind (not exhaustive):

1. Listen, totally listen, and take notes in what was said and how was
said. To try to be objective in giving criticism, we must give criticism based on what happened in the speech/debate. This means that we have to attentively listen and make notes about the speech/debate. Point out the positives always before pointing out the negatives. Criticism should be encouraging, and one way of doing this is by showing the positive points first and then the negative ones. Also, criticism should be constructive, i.e. do give advice on how to improve, instead of merely showing what was wrong. Bear in mind the level of experience of the speaker. The criticism given should be adjusted to the level of experience of the debater/speaker. It's no use talking about complex logical fallacies when the debater is still struggling with some basic structure and delivery problems. Remember that a person cannot improve all things at once; start with aspects that they can improve the first time. Keep in mind that there is more than one way of doing things. Do give advice, but never claim that our way is the best way. Do not jugde a speaker as bad on the basis that he/she "was not doing it my way". We do not want to stifle individuality and create clones. Honesty is the way. Maintain honesty and intellectual integrity when giving criticism.

2.

RESEARCH / MATTER Research is an important factor in being good debater. Research is not a onetime process, but rather it should be something that each debater perform as part of his/her routines.

3.

4.
However, lack of matter and the inability to think fast about a given topic can be a big hindrance for novice debater. In this case, do not hesitate to stray from the 15 minutes preparation time and have prepared debates. Give the motion a few days before the debate so that the debaters have time to perform research beforehand. Training tip: A technique that may help in researching for a particular topic is what is called a circle debate. Get the debaters to form a big circle, throw a (defined) motion and have everyone think of arguments for the Government and Opposition. Then, have everyone stand up in turns, giving one contribution to the case (either a reasoning only or with an evidence). Alternate the side, i.e. after a person give an argument for the Government, the next one must give an argument for Opposition.

5.

Happy Debating!

CRITICISM In every practice, we would of course need to assess the results of our practices. For example, after a speech practice, there need to be people giving criticism about the speech. Criticism is not the sole responsibility of coaches, but every participant should try to give criticism to each other. Even the one performing the speech should try to criticize oneself.

12