Introduction to Debate

Lawrence Husick, Esq.Coach - VOICES

Conestoga High School Speech and DebateOctober 7, 2010

© 2009-10 L. Husick, Esq.

What is Debate?•Debate is a structured discussion to determine whether a change is needed and desirable.

•Debate happens in:

•Congress

•Business Meetings

•Family Discussions

Why Structured?•Set order of presentation encourages full and fair discussion

•Time limits focus arguments

•Division of responsibilities brings efficiency

•Separation of presentation, cross-examination and rebuttal brings about timely decisions

Benefits of Debate•Improved critical thinking skills

•Higher performance on standardized tests

•Improved graduation rates

•Improved research skills

•Higher information/media literacy

•Listening and speaking

•Organization

Types of Debate

•Policy (or cross-examination, or CX)

•Lincoln-Douglas

•Public forum

•Parliamentary

Formal

Informal

Policy Debate•Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

•Two-person team

•4 “constructive” speeches (each with cross-examination period) and 4 “rebuttals”

•8-3-5 timing

•Relies on extensive research, presentation of formal “evidence” and formal theories of argumentation

•All debaters must argue both sides

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

•Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. (Nov./Dec. Topic)

•One-person team

•2 “constructive” speeches (each with cross-examination period) and 2 “rebuttals”

•Relies on philosophical values, presentation of logical arguments, and fewer formal theories of argumentation

•All debaters must argue both sides

Public Forum Debate•Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. (Nov. Topic)

•Two-person team

•4 opening speeches (with 2 “crossfire” periods), 2 summaries, grand crossfire, 2 final focus

•Relies on general knowledge, clearly presented reasoning, and quality refutation with no formal theories of argumentation

•All debaters must argue both sides

Parliamentary Debate•Impromptu rounds use one of 6 resolutions.

Ex: That this house will presume consent for organ donation.

•Three-person team

•3 speeches for and against the motion, plus 2 reply speeches

•Points of information encouraged

•Relies on logical arguments, general knowledge and clear presentation

•All debaters must argue both sides

Round Structure

•Constructive Speeches

•Cross Examination

•Rebuttals

•Preparation Time

Policy Resolution

•Deals with a POLICY (duh!)

•Advocates a CHANGE in the STATUS QUO

•Must be supported by the AFFIRMATIVE through a CASE that argues for a PLAN

Stock Issues•Harms

•Inherency

•Solvency

•Significance

•Topicality (sometimes not considered stock)

Fiat•Literally, “let it be so” – means that

the Affirmative Plan is assumed to be put into effect. Only the actor specified in the resolution may be fiated.

•Means that the Negative may not argue about whether the Plan would be enacted, just whether it is a good idea.

How to Remember

•Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency = S.H.I.T.S.

Negative Case

•Stock Issues

•Take-outs, Turns, Defense

•Topicality

•Disadvantages

•Counterplans, Kritiks

Negation

•Proving part of the Affirmative case wrong is a “take-out”

•Proving that an opposite result or impact occurs is a “turn”

Burden of Proof

•The Affirmative must support the resolution over the status quo.

•The Negative may negate the resolution or merely support the status quo as the better alternative. In a counterplan, the Negative assumes the burden of proof for the CP.

Judging Paradigms• Stock Issues: Affirmative must win all of the stock issues. For

the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues.

• Policymaker: The judge pretends to be a Congressman. The judge compares the plan with either the counterplan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner.

• Tabula Rasa: ("blank slate") the judge comes to the round with no predispositions. They expect debaters to "debate it out", which includes setting a paradigm.

• Speaking Skills/Communications: This type of judge is concerned with good presentation and persuasion skills.

• Hypothesis Tester: For the affirmative to win, they convince the judge to support the resolution. Conversely, the negative must convince the judge to negate the resolution.

Flowing(Yes, you have to!)

• Step 1 - Develop your own shorthand. Nearly all debaters speak faster than a person can write. As you learn common debate tactics and terms, you will develop a form of abbreviations that works well for you. (T, DA, CP, Inh, Solv, Arrows, etc.)

• Step 2 - Draw columns on each sheet of paper. Make one column for each speech that will be made. Assign each team a color.

• Step 3 - One sheet is usually used for introductory material, such as restating the resolution, explaining what the status quo is regarding the topic, defining words in the resolution, and outlining what course of action the affirmative team proposes. Each subsequent sheet represents either an advantage of affirmative team's plan or a disadvantage of that plan (presented by the negative team).

• Step 4 - As each speech is given, write down the points made in that speaker's column. If a rebuttal immediately occurs to you, write that down in the column that represents your team's next speech.

• Step 5 - Align rebuttals horizontally on the paper with the arguments against which they're being made. If it's not possible to align the arguments horizontally, connect them with a line on the paper.

Judging Debate•Judge responsibilities:

• Initiate the round (differs by event)

•Time the round, giving signals to speakers

•FLOW the round (know the arguments and responses made)

•Decide the round (and rank the speakers)

•Give constructive critiques (oral and written on the official ballot form)

Judging Debate•Judge Do’s:

• Do act professionally and use appropriate language

• Do give brief constructive oral critiques without revealing who won or lost the round

• Do write constructive criticism on the ballot, fill it out completely, sign it and get it back to the tab table ASAP

• Do pay complete attention during the round, time carefully and flow the arguments

• Do judge based on the arguments presented in the round, and not your own knowledge or views

Tournaments• District 10 Tournaments are Thursdays, from about

3:30 - 6:00pm

• Come prepared to judge any event, but let us know your preferences - we will try to assign accordingly

• Bring paper, ball point pens, a timer (if you have an iPhone, download iDebate app for free)

• Arrive on time and make sure that “tab” knows who you are

• Start rounds on time, return ballots quickly

• Have fun!

Next Sessions

• 11-OCT-10@8:00-9:00pm - Parliamentary Debate

• 12-OCT-10@8:00-9:00pm - CX Affirmative Case Structure

• 14-OCT-10@8:00-9:00pm - CX Negative Case Structure

• TBD - L-D

• TBD - PFD

Thank you!

See you next time…