Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument.

Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. (Of course, this implies that facts are based on consensus, which is not factual.) Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies. The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. Debates are sometime organized for purely competitive purposes, particularly at the US highschool level, but also in other English-speaking countries.

Contents

1 Competitive debate 2 Forms of debate o 2.1 Parliamentary debate 2.1.1 British Parliamentary Debate 2.1.2 Canadian Parliamentary Debate 2.1.3 American Parliamentary Debate o 2.2 Oxford-Style Debate o 2.3 Mace Debate o 2.4 Lets Debate o 2.5 Public Debate o 2.6 Australasia debate o 2.7 World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID) o 2.8 Asian Universities Debating Championship o 2.9 Policy debate o 2.10 Classic debate o 2.11 Extemporaneous debate o 2.12 Lincoln-Douglas debate o 2.13 Karl Popper debate o 2.14 Simulated legislature o 2.15 Impromptu debate o 2.16 Moot court and mock trial

2.17 Public Forum Debate 2.18 Paris Style Debating 3 Other forms of debate o 3.1 Online debating o 3.2 U.S. presidential debates 4 Debate Strategies o 4.1 Moral High Ground o 4.2 Model Construction / Destruction 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

o o

[edit] Competitive debate

Competitive debate is an organized to argue with other teams, competing at the local, national, and international level.[1] It is popular in English-speaking universities and high schools around the world, most notably in South Africa, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Many different styles of debate occur under a variety of organizations and rules. In schools and colleges, often, it takes the form of a contest with explicit rules. It may be presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution) which if adopted would change something with the exception allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted. To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.

[edit] Forms of debate

[edit] Parliamentary debate
Main article: Parliamentary debate Parliamentary Debate (sometimes referred to as "parli" in the United States) is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary procedure. It features the competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows terms such as "government" and "opposition" from the British parliament (although the term "proposition" is sometimes used rather than "government" when debating in the United Kingdom). Throughout the world, parliamentary debate is what most countries know as "debating", and is the primary style practiced in the United Kingdom, India, Greece and most other nations. The

premier event in the world of parliamentary debate, the World Universities Debating Championship, is conducted in the British Parliamentary style. Even within the United Kingdom, however, British Parliamentary style is not used exclusively; the English-Speaking Union runs the national championships for schools in a unique format, known as the 'Mace' format after the name of the competition, while simultaneously using British Parliamentary format for the national universities championships[citation needed]. [edit] British Parliamentary Debate The British Parliamentary debating style involves 4 teams; two "government" or "proposition" teams support the motion, and two "opposition" teams oppose it. In a competitive round, the teams are ranked first through fourth with the first place team receiving 3 points, the second receiving 2, the third receiving 1 and the fourth place receiving no points. This is the style used by the World University Debating Championships, or WUDC. [edit] Canadian Parliamentary Debate The Canadian Parliamentary debating style involves one "government" team and one "opposition" team. In competition, the motion is traditionally "squirrelable". This means that the assigned motion is not intended to be debated, and may even be a quote from a film or a song. The government team then "squirrels" the motion into something debatable by making a series of logical links between the proposed motion and the one they propose to debate. This makes the debate similar to a prepared debate for the government team and an impromptu debate for the opposition team. [edit] American Parliamentary Debate In the United States the American Parliamentary Debate Association is the oldest national parliamentary debating organization, based on the East Coast and including all of the Ivy League[citation needed]. The more recently founded National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is now the largest collegiate sponsor[citation needed].

[edit] Oxford-Style Debate

Derived from the Oxford Union debating society of Oxford University, "Oxford-Style" debate is a formal, competitive debate format featuring a sharply-framed motion that is proposed by one side and opposed by another. A winner is declared in an Oxford-Style debate either by the majority or by which team has swayed more audience members between the two votes [2]. Oxford Style debates follow a formal structure which begins with audience members casting a pre-debate vote on the motion that is either for, against or undecided. Each panelist presents a seven minute opening statement, after which the moderator takes questions from the audience with inter-panel challenges [3]. Finally, each panelist delivers a two minute closing argument, and the audience delivers their second (and final) vote for comparison against the first. [4].

[edit] Mace Debate

This style of debate is prominent in Britain at schools level. Two teams of two debate an affirmative motion (e.g. "This house would give prisoners the right to vote,") which one team will propose and the other will oppose. Each speaker will make a seven minute speech in the order; 1st Proposition, 1st Opposition, 2nd Proposition, 2nd Opposition. After the first minute of each speech, members of the opposing team may request a 'point of information' (POI). If the speaker accepts they are permitted to ask a question. POI's are used to pull the speaker up on a weak point, or to argue against something the speaker has said. However after 6 minutes, no more POI's are permitted. After all four have spoken the debate will be opened to the floor, in which members of the audience will put questions to the teams. After the floor debate, one speaker from each team (traditionally the first speaker), will speak for 4 minutes. In these summary speeches it is typical for the speaker to answer the questions posed by the floor, answer any questions the opposition may have put forward, before summarising his or her own key points. In the Mace format, emphasis is typically on analytical skills, entertainment, style and strength of argument. The winning team will typically have excelled in all of these areas.

[edit] Lets Debate

This style of debate is particularly popular in Ireland at Secondary School level. Developed in Coliste Iognid (Galway) over the last ten years, the format has five speakers: two teams and a single 'sweep speaker' on each side. Speeches last 4:30 minutes with 30 seconds protected from POIs at either end of the debate. Adjudication will depend on BP marking, but with particular recognition of principled debating. A ten minute open house will also be adjudicated. Traditionally, the motion is always opposed in the final vote.[citation needed]

[edit] Public Debate

Main article: Public debate The International Public Debate Association (IPDA), inaugurated on February 15, 1997 at St. Mary's University (Texas) in San Antonio, Texas, is a national debate league currently active in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Florida, and Oklahoma. Among universities, IPDA is the fastest growing debate association within the United States.[citation needed] Although evidence is used, the central focus of IPDA is to promote a debate format that emphasizes public speaking and real-world persuasion skills over the predominate use of evidence and speed. To further this goal, IPDA predominantly uses lay judges in order to encourage an audience-centered debate style. Furthermore, although the main goal of the debater is to persuade the judge, IPDA also awards the best speakers within each tournament. IPDA offers both team debate where two teams of two debate and individual debate. In both team and individual debate a list of topics are given to the two sides thirty minutes before the start of the round. A striking negotiation ensues to pick a topic. The sides, one affirming the resolution and one negating the resolution, then prepare an opening speech, a cross-examination of the other side, and closing remarks for the round.

While most member programs the International Public Debate Association are associated with colleges or universities, participation in IPDA tournaments is open to anyone whose education level is equivalent to seventh-grade or higher.

[edit] Australasia debate

Main article: Australia-Asia debate Australasia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That", for example, "That cats are better than dogs," or "This House", for example, "This House would establish a world government." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the participants and their audiences. Each team has three members, each of whom is named according to their team and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the terminology used. Each of the speakers' positions is based around a specific role, the third speaker for example has the opportunity to make a rebuttal towards the opposing teams argument introducing new evidence to add to their position. The last speaker is called the "Team Advisor/Captain". Using this style, the debate is finished with a closing argument by each of the first speakers from each team and new evidence may not be introduced. Each of the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to each other beginning with the Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative. The context in which the Australasia style of debate is used varies, but in Australia and New Zealand is mostly used at the Primary and Secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year.

[edit] World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID)

WUPID is an invitational tournament that employs the BP or Worlds format of debating. It invites the top 30 debating institutions in accordance to the list provided by the World Debate Website administered by Colm Flynn. If any or some of the teams cannot participate than replacements would be called in from the top 60 teams or based on strong recommendations from senior members of the University Debating community. WUPID was first held in December 2007 with Sydney University being crowned champion. The second installation in 2008 saw Monash taking the trophy home. The third WUPID will be held in University Putra Malaysia (UPM) in December 2009. The first two tournaments were cohosted by Univerisiti Kuala Lumpur (UNIKL).

WUPID was the brainchild of Daniel Hasni Mustaffa, Saiful Amin Jalun and Muhammad Yunus Zakariah. They were all former debaters for UPM who took part at all possible levels of debating from the Malaysian nationals to the World Championship.

[edit] Asian Universities Debating Championship

United Asian Debating Championship is the biggest debating tournament in Asia, where teams from the Middle East to Japan[citation needed] come to debate. It is traditionally hosted in southeast Asia where participation is usually highest compared to other parts of Asia. Asian debates are largely an adaptation of the Australasian format. The only difference is that each speaker is given 7 minutes of speech time and there will be points of information (POI) offered by the opposing team between the 2nd to 6th minutes of the speech. This means that the 1st and 7th minute is considered the 'protected' period where no POIs can be offered to the speaker. The debate will commence with the Prime Minister's speech (first proposition) and will be continued by the first opposition. This alternating speech will go on until the third opposition. Following this, the opposition bench will give the reply speech. In the reply speech, the opposition goes first and then the proposition. The debate ends when the proposition ends the reply speech. 4 minutes is allocated for the reply speech and no POI's can be offered during this time.

[edit] Policy debate

Main article: Policy Debate

[edit] Classic debate

Classic debate is a relatively new debate format, first created and primarily practiced in the state of Minnesota. It was formed as an alternative to Policy debating. Certain judges and coaches felt that the development of Policy had led it to become an extremely specialized form of debate with heavy reliance on near-incomprehensible speed in speaking and less emphasis on real-world arguments in favor of "strategic" arguments that often bordered on the near-absurd. With a structure similar to that of Policy, Classic debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion. For this reason, it is often nicknamed "Policy Lite". As opposed to Policy, where each Affirmative proposes a new plan, Classic debate is simpler: one resolution is chosen at the beginning of the season, which the Affirmative affirms and Negative negates. The emphasis on depth instead of breadth provided by the restriction can make for interesting rounds that often come down to arguments that might otherwise pale in other formats. Conceptually Classic debate is intended to develop skills that transfer directly to "real world" debate settings. Classic has been accused as having an overt conservative bias and rejecting the tropes of policy to a point that is counter-intuitive.

[edit] Extemporaneous debate

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011) Extemporaneous debate is a style that involves no planning in advance, and two teams with a first and second speaker. While a majority of judges will allow debaters to cite current events and various statistics (of which opponents may question the credibility) the only research permitted are one or more articles given to the debaters along with the resolution shortly before the debate. It begins with an affirmative first-speaker constructive speech, followed by a negative; then an affirmative and negative second-speaker constructive speech respectively. Each of these speeches is six minutes in length, and is followed by two minutes of cross examination. There is then an affirmative and negative first-speaker rebuttal, and a negative and affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively. These speeches are each four minutes long. No new points can be brought into the debate during the rebuttals. This style of debate generally centers around three main contentions, although a team can occasionally use two or four. In order for the affirmative side to win, all of the negative contentions must be defeated, and all of the affirmative contentions must be left standing. Most of the information presented in the debate must be tied in to support one of these contentions, or "sign posted". Much of extemporaneous debate is similar to policy debate; one main difference, however, is that extemporaneous debate focuses less on the implementation of the resolution.

[edit] Lincoln-Douglas debate

Main article: Lincoln-Douglas debate Lincoln-Douglas debate is primarily a form of United States high school debate (though it also has a college form called NFA LD) named after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. It is a one-on-one event focused mainly on applying philosophical theories to real world issues. Debaters normally alternate sides from round to round as either the "affirmative", which upholds the resolution, or "negative", which attacks it. The resolution, which changes bimonthly, asks whether a certain policy or action conforms to a specific value. Though established as an alternative to policy debate, there has been a strong movement to embrace certain techniques that originated in policy debate (and, correspondingly, a strong backlash movement). Plans, counterplans, critical theory, postmodern theory, debate about the theoretical basis and rules of the activity itself, and kritiks have all reached more than occasional, if not yet universal, usage. Traditional L-D debate attempts to be free of policy debate "jargon". Lincoln-Douglas speeches can range from a conversational pace to well over 300 wpm (when trying to maximize the number of arguments and depth of each argument's development). This technique is known as spreading. There is also a growing emphasis on carded evidence, though still much less than in policy debate. These trends have created a serious rift within the activity

between the debaters, judges, and coaches who advocate or accept these changes, and those who vehemently oppose them. Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate tournaments are often held concurrently at the same school.

[edit] Karl Popper debate

Karl Popper debate, named after the famed philosopher, is a widely used debate format in Eastern European and Central Asian high schools. Originally created by the Open Society Institute as a more flexible team debate format, Karl Popper debate has risen greatly in popularity as the first format that many high school students learn. It focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Constructed similarly to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, each side is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing side. The first speakers of each side have 6 minutes to present their constructive cases, or in the negative's case a rebuttal. The other 4 speakers each have 5 minutes to deliver a speech supporting their team's main arguments. There is also an allotted 3 minutes after each of the first 4 speeches for cross-examination, during which the opposing team has a chance to clarify what was stated in the preceding speech. Each year, the International Debate Education Association (IDEA) hosts an annual Youth Forum, during which the Karl Popper World Championships are held. Nations from all around the world attend this Forum for the tournament, as well as the 2 week debate training camp.

[edit] Simulated legislature

High school debate events such as Congressional Debate, Model United Nations, European Youth Parliament, Junior State of America and the American Legion's [[

[edit] Impromptu debate

Main article: Impromptu debate Impromptu debate is a relatively informal style of debate, when compared to other highly structured formats. The topic for the debate is given to the participants between fifteen and twenty minutes before the debate starts. The debate format is relatively simple; each team member of each side speaks for five minutes, alternating sides. A ten-minute discussion period, similar to other formats' "open cross-examination" time follows, and then a five-minute break (comparable to other formats' preparation time). Following the break, each team gives a 4-minute rebuttal.

[edit] Moot court and mock trial

In the United Kingdom the national mooting championships are run by EFREN.

[edit] Public Forum Debate

Public Forum combines aspects of both Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate, with shorter speech lengths, but longer periods, called "cross-fires", of interaction between the debaters cessibility to both debaters and audiences through its simplistic emphasis on logical persuasion (supported by evidence as appropriate) and due to its ability to help develop real-world argumentation and speaking skills. The basis of this type of debate is to appeal for anyone who is eligible to become a jury member unlike Policy debate or Lincoln-Douglas debate which requires experience in debate to judge.

[edit] Paris Style Debating

This is a new, specifically French format. Two teams of five debate on a given motion. One side is supposed to defend the motion while the other must defeat it. The debate is judged on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the rhetoric, the charisma of the speaker, the quality of the humor, the ability to think on one's feet and, of course, the teamwork. The first speaker of the Proposition (Prime Minister) opens the debate, followed by the first speaker of the Opposition (Shadow Prime Minister), then the second speaker of the Proposition and so on. Every speaker speaks for 6 minutes. After the first minute and before the last minute, debaters from the opposite team may ask Points of Information, which the speaker may accept or reject as he wishes (although he is supposed to accept at least 2). The French Debating Association[5] organizes its National Debating Championship upon this style.

[edit] Other forms of debate

[edit] Online debating
With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet, differing opinions arise frequently. Though they are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, there do exist formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.).Forums are Moderated and welcome online debaters in a friendly format so all may speak their pros and cons. Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weaker opinions on things, many times for debate in formal debates (such as the ones listed above) or for fun arguments with friends. The ease-of-use and friendly environments make new debaters welcome to share their opinions in many communities. There have been two World Online Debating Championships, run by Debatewise and IDEA.

The Dubai-based website DubaiDebates.com describes itself an online debating forum.

[edit] U.S. presidential debates

Main article: United States presidential election debates Since the 1976 general election, debates between presidential candidates have been a part of U.S. presidential campaigns. Unlike debates sponsored at the high school or collegiate level, the participants, format, and rules are not independently defined. Nevertheless, in a campaign season heavily dominated by television advertisements, talk radio, sound bites, and spin, they still offer a rare opportunity for citizens to see and hear the major candidates side-by-side. The format of the presidential debates, though defined differently in every election, is typically more restrictive than many traditional formats, forbidding participants to ask each other questions and restricting discussion of particular topics to short time frames. The presidential debates were initially moderated in 1976, 1980, 1984 by the League of Women Voters, but The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. However, in announcing its withdrawal from sponsoring the debates, the League of Women Voters stated that it was withdrawing "because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission was formed in the hope of establishing an independent sponsor for presidential debates, with a more voter-centric role in the definition of the participants, format, and rules. See also: Leaders debate

[edit] Debate Strategies

While debating is a form of art, involving aspects from showmanship to critical thinking, there are certain strategies that are commonly used to shape the direction of a debate.

[edit] Moral High Ground

One such strategy is to adopt the Moral High Ground, consigning the other parties to appear weak, unethical. In this strategy, the party will try to illustrate the moral benefits that their side of the debates bring to the table. i.e. more environmentally aware, pro-human rights etc.

[edit] Model Construction / Destruction

Often, in the process of debates, each party will need to build a conceptual model of the topic on which to base the debate. Thus merits will be given to the team with the better model.

The model can be assessed on the following count.

completeness timeliness feasibility

A model can be attacked as well by highlighting undesirable effects. e.g. Floodgate effect that can follow a policy, the social backlash that could happen.

[edit] See also

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Debate

CreateDebate Debates Dialectics

International high-school debating

Harvard Model United Nations World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championships World Schools Debating Championships

International university debating Debate camp#Popular camps/institutes Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships American Parliamentary Debate Association Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate Harvard World Model United Nations International Public Debate Association

National Association of Urban Debate Leagues National Model United Nations North American Debating Championship North American Public Speaking Championship World Universities Debating Championship

[edit] References
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2009)
1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Inter-college-debatecontest/articleshow/6646692.cms

2. ^ http://www.britishdebate.com/universities/resources/ox_roughguide.asp Oxford Union Rough Guide To Debating 3. ^ http://www.oxford-union.org/members/rules/formsofthehouse Oxford Union Rules and Policies 4. ^ http://www.collegecompass.org/downloads/Debate_Forum_Guide.pdf Oxford Style Debate Guidelines 5. ^ FDA's Web Page - Pectus est quod disertos facit (Quintilien)

[edit] External links

Look up debate, debating, debation, debater, or discuss in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Bruschke's Fullerton.edu Less Wrong's list of Debate Tools UnitedIssues Debate Online Reference and Skills Flynn's Debating.net Hanes' NFLonline.org IDC Debate NTT.co.il iDebate.it iDebate.it Inoue's Kyushu-u.ac.jp Koshy & Halvorson's [LD] NFLonline.org Quinn's Learndebating.com Snider's UVM.edu Snowball's Fullerton.edu Muslim Christian Debate MCDebate.com The Unwritten Rules of Policy Debate [1] Online Debate and Discussion DefendingTheTruth.com Dictionary of Policy Debate Terms [2] Platform to start debates online Debate.fm Bad Arguments - argument analysis practice BadArguments.org

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debate&oldid=456761560" View page ratings

Rate this page

What's this? Trustworthy Objective Complete Well-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Submit ratings Saved successfully Your ratings have not been submitted yet Categories: Debating Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from January 2009 All articles needing additional references All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from October 2011 Articles with unsourced statements from May 2010 Articles with unsourced statements from September 2011 Articles needing additional references from January 2011 Articles lacking in-text citations from January 2009 All articles lacking in-text citations

What is debate? A debate is a contest, or, perhaps, like a game, where two or more speakers present their arguments intent on persuading one another. Men have been debating with one another since the beginning of time when the serpent first debated with Eve the benefits of eating certain fruits in the Garden. We shall limit ourselves here with discussing formal contest debating between educational institutions, or, in the

world of homeschooling, between families that choose to bypass educational institutions and educate their children at home.

Why debate? "He [the student debater] learns to use a library, and to find the exact information he needs in the shortest possible time. He learns to be thorough and accurate. He learns to analyze; to distinguish between the vital and the unimportant. He learns the need of proving his statements; of supporting every statement with valid evidence and sound reasoningand he learns to demand the same sort of proof for the statements of others. He learns to present ideas in a clear and effective manner, and in a way which wins others to his way of thinking. He learns to think under pressure, to "use his head" in a time of need, to make decisions quickly and accurately. In a word, the essential point in any debating situation is that of convincing the listener that your side of the proposition is desirable." (from How to Debate by Harrison Boyd Summers)

John Stuart Mill, in his Autobiography, said, "I have always dated from these conversations [in a discussion group similar to the ideal debate squad meeting] my own inauguration as an original and independent thinker."

"I think debating in high school and college is most valuable training whether for politics, the law, business, or for service on community committees such as the PTA and the League of Women Voters. A good debater must not only study material in support of his own case, but he must also, of course, thoroughly analyze the expected argument of his opponent. The give and take of debating, the testing of ideas, is essential to democracy. I wish we had a good deal more debating in our educational institutions than we do now." John F. Kennedy, August 22, 1960

"I truly believe I would have been as prepared for law school had I simply debated and not attended college at all. I have found that the practice of lawand I assume this is true of a large number of other jobsconsists basically of trying to solve problems in an organized manner.... Debate... placed a premium on the factors that I believe are essential to effective problem solving, including...breaking an argument down into its smallest components and then marshaling factual data...for each element;...talking a problem through with others over a period of time that a contention or issue becomes fully perceivable;...verbally articulating ideas rather than just having a mental conception of them;...and, finally, and perhaps most importantly, coming to appreciate the stresses and rewards of competition." Raoul D. Kennedy, Attorney in San Francisco

"Debate trained me to analyze and articulate the complex national issues that confront our country today. Too, it was a tremendous help in campaign debates for my House and Senate seats... My intercollegiate debate training was the most valuable experience that I had at Penn State. I derived benefits from it far beyond the normal extracurricular activity that it encompassed." Richard S. Schweiker, Former Pennsylvania Congressman and Senator, Former Secretary of Health and Human Services

"If it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodily way, it would be absurd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himself with reason in a speech." Aristotle from The Rhetoric

"The wisest advice I can give to persons considering debate as an activity is: "participate." In my opinion, hour- for-hour, the reward for time spent debating is greater than any other activity available to the typical student... In addition to the "academic" benefits, potential participants should be alerted to the life-long friendships they will develop, the opportunity to associate with competitive, creative and bright young people, as well as the favorable view of the activity taken by potential employers (particularly in the field of law)." Thomas F. Hozduk, Los Angeles Attorney

"I didn't make varsity cheerleader. I thought my life was over. I ended up joining the speech team instead. And within a year, I became real good. My event was Girls Extemporaneous Speaking. They would give you a topic, and a half-hour later you made a seven-minute speech on it...By my senior year, I was state champion. And I made it to the semifinals of the national competition. The six girls who were ranked ahead of me are probably all arguing cases before the Supreme Court...So I did find out my limitations. But in my smaller pond, I was a big fish. And I can't imagine better preparation for what I do today." (BTW, one of Jane Pauley's teammates is now a homeschooling mother) Jane Pauley, National TV News Anchor

"It was my experience with debating and public speaking in both high school and college that led me to become a lawyer, and ultimately, a member of Congress." Paul E. Kanjorski, Pennsylvania Congressional Representative

Debate is the ultimate mind exercise.

Four types of debate:

Parliamentary Debate. This is the debating that goes on in colleges and universities. For more information on this type of debate see the web pages we link to on our Trivium Pursuit Links. Lincoln-Douglas Debate (also called value debate) is modeled after the namesake for the activity. In an Illinois election of the mid-1800s, Abe Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debated the slavery issue before audiences in different towns around the state. In LD debate two contestants will debate topics centered around moral issues or propositions of value or preference. Here are some examples of topics appropriate for LD debate: capital punishment; abortion; or euthanasia. Typically, all public and private schools will debate the same topic. A new topic is chosen every two months (the topics are chosen by some public school debate organization). The public/private school topic for November and December of 1996 was: Resolved, when in conflict, a business' responsibility to itself ought to be valued above its responsibility to society. The topic for January and February of 1997 is: Resolved, In United State's policy, the principle of universal human rights ought to take precedence over conflicting national interest. See also our links to LD Debate. Cross Examination Debate (also called policy debate or team debate). In this type of debate two teams (two students each ), one representing the affirmative position and one representing the negative position, will debate topics of public or government policy. Here are some examples: Resolved, that chain stores are detrimental to the best interests of the American public (1931); Resolved, that all electric utilities should be governmentally owned and operated (1937); Resolved, that the federal government should own and operate the railroads (1940); and, Resolved, that a federal world government should be established (1943). Typically, all public and private schools will debate the same topic all year long (some public school debate organization picks a new topic each year). The public/private school topic for the 1996-1997 school year is: Resolved, that the federal government should establish a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States. See also our links to Cross Examination Debate. Academic Debate. These are debates of a purely academic nature. An example of this type of debate would be creation/evolution debates. How to Get Started in Debate There are two things you will have to study if you want to participate in debate:

The principles of debatelogic, evidence, case construction, proof, refuting arguments, rebuttal, the brief, etc. Pick 3 or 4 debate books out of the debate bibliography located elsewhere on this web page and study them thoroughly (I especially recommend An Introduction to Argumentation and Debate by Christy Farris). View the debate video put out by Home School Legal Defense (watch it several times). Observe as many debates as you can. This will be difficult for some, but you might look into attending some college debates or government high school debates or private school debates. The more you observe and study the more familiar you will become with the procedures and terminology of debate.

The current debate topic. Each year there will be a different topic. It is best if you can start studying in June the topic for the coming school year. Studying the current debate topic is the most important part and the most time consuming part of debating. You must study the subject thoroughly, to learn all that is to be known about it. The more time and effort you give to preparation, the more effective debating you will do. The following are a few ideas on how to approach the study of ANY debate topic. Some of this information is taken from How to Debate by Summers, Whan, and Rousse. We suggest that you follow these four steps:

Read for background information about the subject. Prepare a comprehensive bibliography. Collect as much material as you can find. Read and study the material discovered. We will discuss each of these four steps in detail.

1.Read for background information about the subject. First you want to get a good general knowledge of the proposition (topic) you are to debate. You need to study the historical background of the topic and why this topic is a matter of current interest. The reading order should be from the general to the specific, from background to present-day facts and figures, from books to magazines to newspapers. Naturally, in studying a question one will use all of these sources more or less concurrently, but for real understanding of the broader aspects one needs background material early in his research.

The Reference Department of your library would be a good place to start. There are several sources you can consult for general background material. We will just mention a few:

The Encyclopaedia Britannica The New International Encyclopedia The Social Science Encyclopedia (provides a broad coverage of the social sciences) The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Facts on File (a weekly world news digest with index)

Editorials on File (twice-monthly newspaper editorial survey with index) Chronicle of the 20th Century (a compilation of newspaper articles, headlines, captions, chronologies, pictures, and cartoons that tells the history of the 20th century in America) Current textbooks on your topic Dave Morgan, a homeschooling Dad in Fresno, California, suggests interviewing a college or university professor who specializes in the topic you are studying. Call the history, political science, chemistry, etc. departments at your local college or university and ask if there is anyone with an interest or specialty in your topic. It would be beneficial to interview several people in order to obtain a wide range of opinions and views on your topic.

We suggest you read one general book that would take the affirmative position on your topic and one general book that would take the negative position. In this way you will have a broad understanding of both sides.

We also suggest you subscribe to a good daily newspaper. Keeping up with current events is very important to good debaters.

2.Prepare a comprehensive bibliography. The second step in your study of topic will be that of preparing a general bibliography. A bibliography is a list of books, pamphlets, magazine articles, and other printed materials in which information may be found on a given subject. Excellent bibliographies on many subjects have already been compiled. If a bibliography on your topic is available you should try to obtain it. The major sources of published bibliographies are:

Bibliographies loaned to libraries: Library of Congress, Bibliographical Division, Washington, D.C. Bibliographies available for purchase: Bibliographies included in books prepared especially for debaters: You will also need to prepare your own bibliography to supplement these prepared bibliographies. Your bibliography will include:

Books and Pamphlets

To find books relevant to your topic you can do a keyword search at your library (consult Subject Headings for suggestions on keywords). Other sources are: Subject Guide to Books in Print (books from Books in Print are rearranged under subject headings),

Magazine Articles Search using the computer or use Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. Check the Alternative Press Index (periodicals from a certain side of the political spectrum), the Social Sciences Citation Index, Congressional Digest (each issue is devoted to a single important question currently before Congress and consists of pro and con materials), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (journal that covers several controversial topics)

Encyclopedias, Dictionaries and other reference works Who's Who in America

Statistical Abstract of the U. S.

Statesman's Yearbook

Court opinions Newspaper Articles Government Sources 1. One should write one's representative and senator early in the season requesting all available materials on the current topic.

2. Special agencies. Among the most useful of these are:

The Library of Congress, U.S. Office of Education, Government Printing Office

Internet Sources Debate Handbooks Private Sources and Personal Interviews Examples of this would be: American Medical Association, the AFL-CIO, The Foundation for Economic Education, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Many others are listed in the World Almanac.

We have found it useful to work on preparing your bibliography while at home using the internet. If possible log onto the card catalog of your local library (or a university or college library if possible) and do your research in the unhurried atmosphere of your own home. The WWW is also a valuable source for preparing your bibliography.

3.Collect as much material as you can find.

After you have listed all the references you can find on the topic, you must then get as much of the actual material as you can.

4.Read and study the material discovered. After you have secured all of the material available, you will then read and study carefully the books and articles you have found. Try to learn as much as you can about the subject and to get the points of view of as many different authorities as possible. Be on the lookout for new ideas and new suggestions for arguments, arguments on both sides of the topic. Look for specific items of evidence, which might be used as proof. Take careful notes as you read. We will discuss how to take notes next.

General Rules for Debate The following rules are taken from Competitive DebateRules and Techniques by George McCoy Musgrave (1957), from some of Chapter 1.

Keep in mind that some of these rules MAY NOT APPLY to modern debate.

Debate, like many competitive activities, has rules and customs with which participants and judges should be thoroughly familiar. Until 1945, the rules were largely unwritten; they passed by word of mouth from debater to debater and from school to school. It is not surprising, then, to find some disagreement as to what they actually are.

In the last few years considerable progress has been made in the development of standards and procedures generally acceptable on a national basis. Widespread intersectional competition and national debate publications have accelerated this trend...

The Teams The rules governing participants are these:

Rule 1. There are two teams. Each team consists of two or three speakers.

When the debate is arranged, agreement is reached as to whether two- or three-man teams will be employed. Two-man teams now predominate...

The Speeches Rule 2a. The speeches and speaking time are divided equally between the two teams.

The tournament rules or debate contract specifies the amount of time allocated to each speech. The total speaking time generally runs about one hour including questioning periods.

Rule 2b. Each team has two or three constructive speeches.

It is customary for each member of the team to be allowed one constructive speech. Thus, if two-man teams are employed, there are two constructive speeches per team. If three-man teams are employed, there are three constructive speeches per team.

Rule 2c. Each team has from one to three rebuttal speeches.

In standard debate, it is customary for each participant to speak in rebuttal. ... The number of rebuttal speeches is, of course, specified in the pre-debate correspondence or tournament rules.

Rule 2d. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the constructive speeches alternate: affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative.

Rule 2e. The negative gives the first rebuttal speech, and the rebuttals alternate; negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative.

Thus, the affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate. This arrangement is designed to compensate for the affirmative's burden of proof, explained later.

Rule 2f. In Oregon type debate, each team has one or more questioning periods, in addition to the constructive speeches and rebuttals.

There are several versions of cross-examination debate. The arrangement to be used is agreed upon when the debate is being planned.

The Topic When the topic is worded, whether by the national committed or by the local debaters, the following rule is applied:

Rule 3a. When worded as a proposition of policy, the topic requires the affirmative to support some specified action by some particular individual or group.

The proposition of policy takes the form, "Resolved, that the United States should grant statehood to Hawaii." Other wordings are possible and have been used in the past, but they have proved less

satisfactory. The national high school and the national college topics have been phrased in this manner for so many years that other wordings are now generally considered improper except for international debate. The material in this book is based on the presumption that the topic is worded as a proposition of policy.

Of course, there are other requirements for a good topic. It should be interesting, clear, have one central idea, and not be one-sided. But even if these requirements are not met, it can still be debated; such requirements must be considered matters of good technique rather than rules.

Occasionally a contest hinges on the definition of a word or phrase in the topic. The rule is this:

Rule 3b. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition.

A "reasonable" definition generally means the definition intended when the proposition was phrased, or the technical definition of the term as used by professionals in that field. If the affirmative's definition is not reasonable, the negative should challenge it at the earliest opportunity.

Rule 3c. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term.

The judge is not expected to exercise his own taste in the matter, but to listen to the evidence and logic of the teams and to support the definition shown to be more reasonable.

Rule 3d. Once the negative has accepted the affirmative's definitions, it may not later object to them, even though it later develops that they are unreasonable. Failure of the negative to object to the affirmative's definitions in the first constructive speech following the definitions is equivalent to acceptance of them by the negative.

If the negative wishes to quarrel with the affirmative's interpretation of the topic, it must do so at once. Otherwise the debate might literally be half over before the teams have decided what they are arguing

about. If the negative, through oversight, accepts or fails to object to an unreasonable definition by the affirmative, it should not later be heard objecting that the definition was unreasonable.

"Trick" definitions are not encouraged. Unusual definitions are sometimes employed successfully by getting the negative to agree that they are reasonable before it realizes that they are not, but since strategic cases are always possible without resorting to such definitions, it is better to avoid them. They lead only to bickering and quibbling.

One practice, which has much to commend it, is for the two teams to agree on the definitions of any controversial terms in their pre-debate correspondence. These definitions are then included in the debate contract or tournament rules, and are announced by the chairman at the start of the contest.

Of course, all this does not mean that either team is required to define formally any term of the proposition. High school debaters do seem to prefer formal definitions, picking out the terms one by one ("By federal government, we mean..."). College debaters, on the other hand, often prefer to define the entire proposition by explaining the plan they are supporting. Either method is, of course, appropriate in either high school or college work.

The old argument about the meaning of the word "should" in the proposition still arises. Here is the generally accepted definition:

Rule 3e. The phrase "should adopt" or its equivalent means that the affirmative must show that the plan, if adopted, would be desirable. It does not in any way obligate the affirmative to show that the necessary approvals could be obtained.

For example, the constitutionality of the proposal is irrelevant; it must be presumed that the Constitution could be so amended if necessary. Similarly, the claim that too many voters or too many members of Congress are opposed to the bill for it to pass is irrelevant; the only question to be settled is whether or not the plan would be desirable if adopted.

On the other hand, the negative may choose to claim that the plan is not practicablethat if it were put into effect it would not work, either immediately or at some future date. The plan certainly wouldn't be desirable if it didn't work, so this is a legitimate negative case which the affirmative must meet.

Rule 3f. The phrase "should adopt" or its equivalent obligates the affirmative to recommend that action be taken in the reasonably near future.

Ordinarily, no time limit is specified in the topic. Nevertheless, one is implied. The affirmative may allow a reasonable amount of time for working out the details and establishing the administrative functions, but delay until conditions have changed in some significant respect, or until (say) Great Britain tries the plan first, is not permissible.

If no such requirement as this existed, the affirmative might recommend that action be taken twenty years from now, when the plan could be adopted under highly favorable circumstances. The negative's position could be identical, and no debate would ensure. therefore, the affirmative must support reasonably prompt action.

Positions of the Teams Sometimes the right of a team to recommend certain action is challenged. The limitations are not severe, but they should be clearly understood.

Rule 4a. The affirmative must advocate everything required by the topic itself.

If the affirmative fails to meet all of the requirements of the proposition, it fails in its burden of proof and consequently must lose the debate.

Rule 4b. The affirmative may work out the details of its plan as it sees fit. It may take on the burden of proving anything else it desires.

Of course, the more the affirmative advocates, the more it must prove, so the usual technique is to recommend as little as possible. However, if the affirmative does wish to recommend and support more than is required of it by the topic, the negative has no right to object. The affirmative is assuming the burden of proof for the entire enlarged plan, and if it fails to meet this responsibility, the negative wins.

Rule 4c. The negative may offer any counterplan that would be in order in a legislative assembly discussing the proposition.

The ideal counterplan is one that offers some change in principle from the affirmative proposal, and gives sufficient grounds for rejecting the affirmative proposal. The counterplan actually offered, however, may be something less than ideal, and therefore it is important that each participant clearly understand what is permissible and what is not.

A counterplan which closely parallels the affirmative recommendation, differing only in minor respects, is adequate only if the negative shows that the difference between the two is so important that the affirmative plan should be rejected in favor of the negative proposal.

A counterplan based on surprise may, if successful, catch the affirmative unprepared. In the moment of anguish that comes when the affirmative realizes that it has no answer, there may be charges that the negative proposal is out of order. Actually, surprise in itself is perfectly legitimate. No proposal is ever out of order simply because it was not anticipated by the opposition.

Facetious and irrelevant counterplans are clearly out of order. Such plans would be useless in any event because they would not give logical grounds for rejecting the resolution.

Following legislative practice, disputed matter is admitted if there is doubt as to its admissibility.

Rule 4d. The affirmative must explain, upon demand by the negative, the major features and policies under which the proposed plan is to operate. If the negative recommends a counterplan, it has the same duty.

Neither team may leave its plan so vague as to prevent a reasonable attack by the opposition on grounds of practicability. For instance, when advocating a federal union of the nations of Europe, the affirmative, upon demand, must explain the basis for the selection of representatives from member countriesthat is, population, area, natural resources, literate population, or other method.

On the other hand, there is no obligation to explain minor details. The affirmative does not have to know how many representatives Luxembourg will have, so long as it explains the basis of Luxembourg's representation. If the negative can show that the decision of the affirmative about an apparently minor detail of the plan is vitally important, then the affirmative must explain how that part of its plan will work; but if the negative attack is of the "hit-and-run" variety, the affirmative is under no obligation to answer each of these minor objections.

Sometimes an affirmative team decides to leave as much as possible to a commission or legislative body to decide so that the negative will have limited grounds on which to attack. This is permissible with regard to minor details, but if the negative demands an explanation of the major features of the plan, the affirmative is obligated to provide it.

Once a team has made known its position on major or minor issues, or even on small details, it is governed by the following rule:

Rule 4e. No revision of position of a team is permitted during the debate.

This rule is designed to prevent teams from wriggling out of contradictions between speakers by simply saying that they had revised their attitude in the meantime, Furthermore, it simplifies the proceedings and enables everyone concerned to follow the debate more easily; one can readily visualize the difficulty in pinning anyone down if speakers were permitted to shift their position whenever they chose.

When a team shifts ground on some issue, the judge should consider the point won by the opposing team. The only exception would be made when the revision is relatively minor and when, except for the shift of ground, the team making the point has a clearcut superiority on that particular issue.

Proof A great deal has been written and said about the burden of proof, and certain misconceptions have arisen about the duty of the affirmative. The rule is simple:

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

This principle applies equally to the two teams. Of course, the affirmative must show that its plan is desirable, which means that it must show that some benefits will result; otherwise it has failed to give reason for adopting the plan, and has lost the debate. The commonly heard statement that "the affirmative has the burden of proof" means that and nothing more.

On the other hand, if the negative wants the judge and audience to accept the idea that there are certain defects which outweigh the plan's good points, then it must assume the burden of proving that such disadvantages actually will result.

If the negative introduces a counterplan, it has the burden of showing how it is better than the affirmative's proposal; the affirmative then has the duty of establishing any alleged objections to the counterplan. In every instance, he who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

The amount of proof required in debating is generally less than that required in law. In law, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order to convict him; in debating, an assertion is established if it is supported by the weight of evidence and logic, even though there still may be room for doubt.

One further distinction is this: In law the jury may disbelieve evidence, even though its accuracy is not disputed. In debating, the judge is measuring the relative skill of the two teams, not deciding the "bedrock merits" of the matter in question. Therefore he is required to accept as valid all arguments backed with reasonable proof (as defined above) until overthrown by the opposing team.

A debate coach once remarked, "The implications here are pretty strong. Does this mean that the judge cannot penalize a team which uses a bare-faced lie as proof? Why not manufacture your evidence?" His point is well taken. Manufactured evidence is so rare in debate as to be almost non-existent, but conceivably it might happen some time. In that event, the following rule would cover the situation:

Rule 5c. Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.

If the judge is certain that the evidence is deliberately falsified, he is justified in giving the decision to the other team on this point alone. More often, it is simply a matter of interpretation of evidence, and if some error in logic is present, it is up to the other team to find it and point it out.

Rule 5d. Any restatement or quotation of an opponent's argument must be accurate.

A word-for-word quotation, in context, is ideal. This is ordinarily possible when the quotation is short or when one of the members of the team knows shorthand. Under most circumstances, however, the debater finds it necessary to paraphrase his opponent's remarks; for this purpose he needs careful notes and an understanding of his opponent's intent.

Misquotation, whether deliberate or not, unfairly places the other team in a false position and should be studiously avoided.

Rule 5e. Visual aids are permissible in debate. Once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

On international questions, one team may desire to point out certain areas on a map. If this be done, the map may also be used by the opposing team. Consequently, it should be left in plain view of the audience, not rolled up and tucked under a table after the first speaker is through with it.

Rule 5f. One-sided visual aids must not be exhibited while an opponent is speaking, unless the opponent specifically requests that this be done.

Some teams prepare an outline of their case on a large poster, and exhibit this poster during the first constructive speech. If this be done, the poster should be removed at the end of the speech so that it does not distract from the attention given the next speaker.

If the next speaker feels that the constructive speech could be refuted more effectively with the poster in front of the audience, he may ask that it be put up again, in which case his request is, of course, granted.

Preferably, visual aids should be introduced in the constructive speeches, rather than held until the rebuttals.

Refutation and Rebuttal The rebuttal period is a time for refutation and summary; in fact, such emphasis has been placed on summary that some writers now refer to the "rebuttal-summary" period. Sometime one team believes that it has completely refuted the other team's arguments before the final speech starts, and then it may be devoted entirely to summary.

In all fairness to the opposing team, the constructive arguments of a team should be established in the constructive speeches, to allow time for the opposition to answer. Consequently, the following rule is well established:

Rule 8a. No new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period.

A constructive argument is generally an alleged advantage or disadvantage in one of the proposed plans. All such arguments must be brought out in the constructive speeches.

Constructive arguments introduced in the rebuttal must be disregarded by the judge, with only one exception:

Rule 8b. New constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period if the rebuttal is the first opportunity to answer a direct question and if these new arguments answer the question.

The long-standing policy against new constructive arguments in the rebuttal period exists to protect teams from the last-minute introduction of new arguments by their opponents. If a team lets down the bars by an indiscreet question, it no longer deserves this protection; accordingly, the opposition may, if

it desires, take advantage of the situation by introducing new constructive arguments in rebuttal. Such instances are rare because most teams find it desirable to introduce their constructive arguments early enough in the debate to support them with adequate evidence.

Rule 8c. Refutation may take place in any part of the debate and is not limited to the rebuttal period.

The above rule is so well understood that its mention would be unnecessary were it not that sometimes young debaters claim otherwise. "Refutation" includes the introduction of new evidence, when used to counter a point raised by the opposition.

Rule 8d. Either team, when advocating a plan of action, must explain that plan early enough in the debate so that the opposing team has a constructive speech in which to reply.

Advantages and disadvantages in a proposed plan of action are generally considered new constructive arguments; and new constructive arguments are not permitted in rebuttal (Rule 8a). Therefore, each team must give the other an opportunity to bring out new arguments of this kind before the rebuttals begin.

From the standpoint of the affirmative team, the rule is not particularly important. The affirmative can delay the explanation of its plan until the second constructive speech if it chooses, since the negative still has a constructive speech in which to bring out the defects of the plan before the rebuttals.

From the standpoint of the negative team, however, the rule is significant. Where there are only two constructive speeches per team, the negative must propose any counterplan in its first constructive speech. If the negative waits until the second constructive speech to introduce the counterplan, the affirmative is forced to ignore it or present new constructive arguments in rebuttal.

If the affirmative is on its toes when the negative violates this principle, it can refuse to discuss the matter, pointing out that the negative left it no constructive time in which to bring out the disadvantages. The judge then considers the counterplan irrelevant, out of the debate, and does not consider it in his decision. This, in effect, penalizes the negative.

If, on the other hand, the affirmative chooses to meet the counterplan in the short time remaining, it does so knowing full well that it will be working under a handicap. Therefore, if the affirmative elects this course it is not entitled to any special sympathy; the judge simply reaches his decision on the basis of the arguments presented.

The last affirmative rebuttal presents special problems of its own, since it is the last speech of the debate and the negative has no opportunity for reply. One such problem is covered by this principle:

Rule 8e. The affirmative must, if possible, reply to the major negative arguments before the last rebuttal.

Suppose this rule were not followed. Suppose, for instance, that the affirmative had opportunity to answer some important negative argument earlier in the debate, but failed to do so until the last speech. The negative, having no speech in which to reply, is unfairly handicapped.

If the negative rebuttalist anticipates this problem, he can make the affirmative look very bad by pointing out, as he summarizes, that the affirmative had opportunity to answer this argument earlier, and they did not do so, so any new defense dragged out at the last minute is under suspicion.

Suppose, however, that the negative does not anticipate the problem, and the affirmative does step out of bounds in that final speech. Suppose, for example, that the final speech contains a serious misquotation, or inaccurate facts that seem rather important, or new constructive arguments. What protection does the negative have? What can it do?

There are two methods for preventing unfairness of this kind. Either (1) the judge must be required to recognize and discard such material from the last rebuttal, or (2) some method must be developed to permit the negative to call the attention of the judge and audience to the situation. Since the negative team can recognize inaccurate quotations or facts more easily than the judge, the following rule seems to provide the preferable solution:

Rule 8f. If the negative believes that the affirmative is making unfair use of the last rebuttal, it may ask for the floor to point out the situation. The affirmative may then defend the statements in question or correct them and apologize.

If the judge determines that the negative charges are true, he penalizes the affirmative by throwing out the arguments in question. If he determines that the negative charges are unjustified, no action is necessary. It seems preferable for the judge to state, before the affirmative speaker resumes his remarks, whether the arguments are to be thrown out or not, for only in this way will the affirmative rebuttalist know whether to continue in the same vein.

The judge makes no distinction between the last rebuttal and any other speech unless the negative points out some unfairness.

The time consumed in appeals and their settlement is not counted.

Judging One basic principle underlies debate judging:

Rule 9a. The team doing the better debating is the winner.

Conceivably, more than one process might be employed to determine which team does the better debating. Indeed, since the beginning of intercollegiate debating a number of such methods have been proposed and utilized. Probably the most universally acceptable criterion would be this:

Rule 9b. The team doing what the proposition requires is the winner.

Debate topics are worded so that one team must succeed and one team must fail in meeting the requirements of the proposition. The successful team, having done the better debating, is declared victorious.

When the topic is expressed in the usual form as a proposition of policy, the judge's criterion for determining the winning team may be expressed in this form:

Rule 9c. The decision is given to the affirmative if it succeeds in showing that the proposed plan should be adopted. The decision is given to the negative if the affirmative fails to show that the proposal should be adopted.

The judge must remain strictly neutral and impartial with regard to the subject matter for debate. He cannot aid one team or the other by injecting his own personal opinions into the decision. This principle is applied in several ways:

Rule 9d. The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented, without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.

Arguments or evidence which occur to the judge, but which are not employed in the debate, have no place in the decision. However, if the judge happens to possess some significant facts not employed in the debate, it would be helpful for him to mention them after his decision, as a suggestion for future use.

Rule 9e. The judge is required to accept as true all arguments backed by reasonable proof (as defined above) until such arguments are overthrown by the opposing team.

The judge has no right to consider an argument weak unless the opposing team shows that it is, or unless the team making the argument badly asserts it and fails to support it with adequate evidence or reasoning.

Rule 9f. The judge must not accept ideas which are not backed by reasonable proof.

Unsupported assertions and purely emotional appeals must not be considered. The use of emotion is legitimate in driving home a point, and is to be encouraged in many instances, but the point must also be supported by evidence or logic if it is to be considered.

Impartiality also applies to the judgment of the debate techniques employed. Harlan puts it this way:

"The danger of using coaches for judges is that they have their own ideas about how best to prove each side, and, regardless of how good your proof might be, if you do not prove it as they would, there will be a tendency to discount your arguments."

Perhaps this does not apply to the majority of coaches who serve as judges. But in those instances where the coach-judge does swerve from impartiality, the criticism is valid. Each team has the right to make use of whatever arguments it desires, and the judge may not penalize a team for failing to make use of an argument or type of case he considers good. The entire decision must be based on what the teams accomplish, not on what the judge personally believes a good debate case on that subject to be.

Violations Rules of debate exist to define the procedure and the playing field. They are similar to rules of football in that violation means a penalty of some sort but not necessarily loss of the game. Of course, in a tight situation the penalty could, in either game, mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Rules of debate are designed so that the teams suffer the natural consequences of their actions. There is no parallel in debate to football's five-yard penalty, but there is a close parallel to an out-of-bounds run in football: If the runner goes out of bounds, the play is stopped at that point; any gain made off the playing field is disallowed. In debate, any gain made outside of the established procedure is disallowed.

Suppose, for example, that a team brings up new constructive arguments in rebuttal. Since there is a rule against it, the judge would be required to disregard such arguments. This means that the offending team has wasted some of its time, which is the natural penalty one would expect. No additional penalty is placed on top of this natural one.

Again, suppose that a team makes assertions without proof. Since there is a rule which says that he who asserts must prove, the judge will decline to accept unsupported assertions. This is the natural penalty for violation of the rule. No additional penalty is inflicted.