DEBATE 101

Back to Basic
Before Enter a Debate World

SETTING THE MINDSET OF DEBATER

Debate IS DYNAMIC.
• It’s not “hafalan”
• No formula about debate or case
• Maybe there are some framework, but it’s not
rigid – it’s flexible up to the motion
• Same motion, another debate (opponent,
time) will be different.
• BE ENGAGING
Debate IS LOGICAL THINKING
• IT’S ALL ABOUT LOGIC
– DO NOT only remember the argument, BUT TRY
TO understand the LOGIC an BASIC PRINCIPLES.
• Step by step explanation is important.
• Explain the process.
Debate IS BEING EXPLICIT AND CLEAR
• No jargons without explanations!
• Adjudicators cannot read your mind! They
judge based on what you say EXPLICITLY.
The Endless Learning

DEBATE TECHNIQUES
Approaching a Motion
• Observe carefully the motion
– Interpretation of motion is crucial for the development of the case
– What the motion wants, whom are you advocating for/on whose
behalf you are, the goal
• Find your Burden of Proof (BoP)
– The main reason why a motion is defended
– Core argument of a team
• Set your stance (as a team), Define the stance clearly
• Choose the most strategic approach
Building a Case
• Identify the correct problems
– Latest issues/problems
• Find major question you need to answer to
prove your stance and your case
• Find the suitable principles
– Example:
THW actively invest in renewable energy
1.Depleting fossil fuels
2.Increasing Demand
First Speaker GOVERNMENT (1)
1. Introduction (Background & definition)
a. Background: Problem & context (where it happens, depiction of
real and latest issues, case study)
A good problem:
• Gives a sense of urgency
• Gives clear picture to judges
• Using statistics of facts
• Using emotional paint
• Add level of analysis
Example: Motion “THW actively invest in renewable energy”
1. Depleting fossil fuels – geographical imbalance distribution - unsustainability
2. Increasing glass-house gas
3. Impartial power
First Speaker GOVERNMENT (2)
b. Definition:
• Definition is not wording per wording of the motion, but
the definition of what the whole motion wants/what are
gonna do with the motion
• interpretation of a motion that is logical and acceptable by
common sense
• aimed to clarify the debate from the motion wording
• provides room for opposition to negate (room of debate)
• Is not truism*), squirreling**), tautological***)
*) Truism
Truism means something that is obviously true. The Opposition would have nothing to say
(definition is one which cannot be rationally opposed).
Example:
• Motion "This House believes that fighting fire with fire is justified" defined as that there
is justification in one's killing of another person in self-defence when the latter is
threatening his/her life.
• In the motion “THW legalize abortion” defined as legalize abortion for pregnancies which
threaten the health safety of the mother.

**) Tautology
Tautology is something that is true by definition. Almost similar with truism, but this mostly
deal with too narrow limitation, in which limitation set by the team cannot be opposed.
Example:
• Motion "This House regrets “OSPEK” culture" defined as that proposition only regrets the
violent “OPSEK” (Limit the scope of “OSPEK”).

***) Squirrelling
Squirrelling means to propose a definition that is only remotely linked to the motion.
Example:
• Motion “THBT USA should… “ , USA defined as United Student of Asia
First Speaker GOVERNMENT (3)
2. Goal (of your case/of your team – as simple as “what you want”)
3. Theme line/Stance (BoP)
4. How you’ll achieve your goal
– Set a mechanism (set of ways/means to achieve your goal)
• Mechanisms are not always needed, but put it when it’s
necessary or when you can.
• When you don’t need one in principal or value judgement
debate, you can say “what you are okay with & what you
are not okay with” (we call it parameter – many types)
5. Points/Arguments
First Speaker OPPOSITION (1)
Does NOT have the burden to provide counterproposal, just stick on status
quo (prove that status quo is enough and working) and prove Gov’s
proposal is not working/making it worse. Counterprop is the last option
(since it gives you double burden). [We call this “Strategy of Opp”]
In details:
As Opposition you have option
a. Agree with problem brought by Gov, but don’t agree with their
proposal.
b. Don’t agree with the problem
– The problem is not that severe, status quo is still working
and it’s better that Gov’s proposal.
– The problem is not the most urgent/is not the core
problem, there’s another problem/things that are more
important
First Speaker OPPOSITION (2)
1. Negation or your “stance” as team opposition, what you want as
negative team. (Including the goal)
2. [Sometimes needed] Mechanism or “what you are okay with & what
you are not okay with” (same as previous explanation)
3. Rebuttals
4. Points/Arguments

NOTE:
Definitional Challenge (Highly Discouraged)
• Opposition may challenge the definition of government if it is included into
prohibited definition (truism, tautological, squirreling).
• When challenging definition, you must:
– Say that you challenge the definition
– Provide the reason
– Provide alternative definition
– Still, respond to the government case (using ‘even if’ rebuttal)
Second Speaker GOV & OPP
• Rebuttals
• 2-3 substantive points (extension)
– Providing new actor or topic analysis. Debaters are highly
discouraged to bring extensions on the last minutes, as
extension is also a role 2nd speaker needs to fulfill.
• DOES ADVANCING THE CASE
Third Speaker GOV & OPP
• Usually doesn’t have a new substantive point (New materials are
not allowed. New materials defined as ideas that are never been
mentioned at all by previous speakers)
• Clashes – mapping the debate on the basis of actors or topics,
providing rebuttals and comparison, defending teams’ case

• Focus on rebuttal, BUT…

• Don’t only read out a list of points and tell the adjudicator
they are not explaining this and that clearly (This is BAD)
Reply Speaker GOV & OPP
• Can be first or second speaker
• A bias analysis of the debate (using comparison, pointing
out failure to fulfill BoP, etc)
• Summarises the debate (don’t use the exact same words!)
• Outlines the main points
• Outlines the strongest arguments and show that your team
is upper hand
• Tells the adjudicator why your team won all the important
points
• RS are not allowed to bring new matters or rebuttals
Arguments and Rebbutals

SUBSTANTIVES SPEECH
Argument
• Idea that supports the team stance
• Logical and thoroughly explained
• Structure (the AREL theory)
1. A-ssertion (Important, put a good assertion to make adjudicator
interested to listen to your point. Make it catchy)
2. R-easoning (logical flow/step). FIND THE PRINCIPLE
3. E-vidence/Example/Analogy
4. L-ink Back (Relate your argument to your goal and the motion.
Often missed)
Pool of arguments should be evenly and strategically spread between the 1st
and 2nd speakers.
Arguments should be consistent within the team’s main stance
(theme/team line).
Rebuttal
• Responses on your opponent’s arguments
• It’s not as simple as “accusing” things
• Simply saying your opposition’s arguments are inferior
does not constitute a good rebuttal
• Simply saying your opposition’s arguments are not being
explained clearly does not constitute a good rebuttal
• Simply questioning your opposition’s arguments does
not constitute a good rebuttal
• Rebuttals must logically explain and analyze the
weaknesses of an argument
Rebuttal
• Response: Aff says A, Opp says A- (not A)
• Not a response: Aff says A, Opp says B (this is moreover)
• Example
– Aff says it fills the gap, Opp says it doesn’t fill the gap (Good)
– Aff says it fills the gap, Opp says it occupies land for food
plantation (not good, this is moreover)
• Structure of a good rebuttal
 A-
 Moreover (can be more than 1)
 Even if (can be more than 1)
How To Win A Debate

TIPS
Be The Best at Debating
• Have points
• Have a structure
• Have sign posting
• Have a clear introduction
• Have a clear conclusion
• Speak clearly
• Be engaging
• Be confident
• Respond to all their arguments
• Be consistent down your team line
• Reiterate points that the other team hasn’t responded to
• Make points stronger if they have been responded to
• Tell the adjudicator why your understanding/conception of reality is more
convincing & more important than the other teams
• TRY TO ALSO PROTECT ACTORS WHO ARE PROTECTED BY OPPONENTS
The Basic Idea You Need To Know

GUIDE TO A PRINCIPLES
Government Role
Is it justified? Will it work?
SMALL GOV POSITION BIG GOV POSITION
• Minimum and less • Government is the best
intervention to individual actor in rationality
autonomy
• Protecting what is more
• Maximize happiness and important
autonomy
• Irrationality, the thing that
people can consented to,
ex. pressure of economy
• Individual can make
mistakes
Debating on Consent
• It’s a spectrum, not a binary
• A lot of factor can and cannot affect consent,
explain it.
• Ex: economic and social pressure, moral
reason or religion reason.
Advancing Social Change,
Affirmative Action & Minority
• All minority groups are not all the same, be
specific and do characterize
• Acknowledge spectrum of subgroup and
individual member (ex. women)
• Don’t generalize!
• Impact of the policy
• Acknowledge individual and communal
differences (is it the same?/contingent or
not?)
Criminal Justice (1)
• Should the practice considered as crime? Is it
justified to be criminalized?
• Society create definition of action which can
be accepted or not > crime
• Particular behavior morality is wrong/not
wrong
• What is the inherent wrongness?
• Level of risk: accept high risk or low risk
Criminal Justice (2)
• How should criminal behavior should be
punished?
• Use severity (harm for example) and urgency to
inflict moral parameter
• Ask the benefit or solvency are worth or not?
• Individual criminal responsibility
• Focus on the aim of criminal justice system,
prioritize which one is the most important, why
particular punishment fulfill that aim
Criminal Justice (3)
• Things that are matter in CJS
– Retribution
– Protection (victims and perpetrators)
– Deterrence (perpetrators and common society)
– Rehabilitation

Sometimes you cannot champion all those things, so

defend which one(s) is(are) the most important in your
proposal, and compare with opponent’s proposal why is
that so.
Democracy
• Representation
• Participation
• Accountability
Debate on Philosophy
• Why it is true/wrong?
• And if it is true/wrong so what?
• Why should we care?
• Sophisticated explanation is a must!
International Relation Debates (1)
• Reading!
• Collect matter and keep it up to date!
International Relation Debates (2)
• Identify problem and solution
• Why does SQ suck
• Why does it need intervention?
• What is the intervention?
• Who will do the intervention?
• How will it work?
• Is it plausible?
• Is it beneficial?
• What will happen after the intervention?
International Relation Debates (3)
• Diplomacy
– Negotiation > you nee to prove both party are willing to
sit in the table
– Morally justified
• Just war theory
• Preemptive self defense strategy
• Sanctions
– Particular threat to other countries
– Harm to people in the state
Economics
• Basic economic principles
– Profit
– Stability
• Free market vs. intervention
• Global institutions (IMF, WTO, World Bank)
• Development
• Inequality, reducing gap
In Any Debate…
• What you consider as success (goal in your
proposal)?
• Does policy achieve the aim?
• Does your aim more important than
opponent’s?