Debating Theory Notes
WSDC Round Format
- 8 preliminary rounds ( 4 impromptu, 4 prepared)
- Octofinals (round of 16 teams)
- Quarter final round
- Semi final round
- Finals
Speech Format
- 1st Proposition (PM) - Team line (speaker roles), Model,
Definitions/context, Case Division (argument titles), two arguments
presented.
- 1st Opposition (LO)- Stance (what is your position), Challenging
definitions (only if it’s absolutely necessary), Case, Team line, Premise,
Rebuttals
- 2nd Proposition (DPM)- Rebuttal and rebuilding own case, New argument
and elaboration on previous arguments
- 2nd Opposition (DLO)- Rebuttal and rebuilding own case, dealing with 2nd
Prop’s new argument, Own new argument.
- 3rd Prop and Opp (Whip)- Three questions (highlighting points of clash in
the debate), Present both cases in an organized manner and point out flaws
in the opposing sides debate.
- Reply Speaker Opp and Prop- Thematic analysis of the main arguments
and points of clash, showing that the motion falls to your side, Highlighting
Burden of Proof of both sides showing how your side has proven their
stance.
Speech Timings
1st PROP (PM)
- Context- 30 secs
- Model/definitions/case division/Burden of proof- 1 minute 30 secs
- Principle argument- 2 minutes
- POI- 20 secs
- 2nd argument and 2nd POI- 3 minutes 30 secs
- Closing- 10 secs
1st OPP (LO)
- Context- 20 seconds
- Stance and Case division- 1 minute
- Rebuttal- 2 minutes
- 1st argument- 2 minutes
- POI- 20 secs
- 2nd argument and 2nd POI- 2 minutes 10 secs
- Close- 10 seconds
3rd Speakers OPP and PROP
- Intro- 30 secs
- 1st question- 2 minutes 30 secs
- POI- 20 secs
- 2nd question- 2 minutes 10 secs
- POI- 20 secs
- 3rd question- 2 minutes
- Closing- 10 secs
Definition and Model
- Definition- What does the motion mean, clarifying any uncertain terms in
the motion.
- Model- Mechanism which the case will be regarding.
- Caveat- If the motion cannot happen in a particular situation.
- Example motion- :
- THBT the feminist movement should seek a ban on pornography.
- Feminist Movement- Against gender roles, promoting right and choice of
women
- Model- Prop- Method- campaigning (e.g. racial movements), OPP- Even if
some women benefit from porn it adversely affects the lives of the majority
of other women.
Burden of Proof
- Thing to prove to win the debate.
- Should encompass all aspects of the debate, without overlapping.
- Rule book for the debate.
- Stand before all arguments.
Example Motion
TH supports stronger unions, collective bargaining rights etc.
- Strengthening unions is an effective method of bettering lifestyle and raising
living conditions, wages and opportunities.
- Unions help balancing power between employer and employee.
- Legitimate way of prioritizing workers rights as it is the government’s duty
to protect rights.
- Proving these points is the BOP for PROP side of this motion.
Argument Generation
- How it has happened?
- Stakeholders
- Time effect
- Problem
- Comparative
- Burdens
- Themes
- What would a reasonable person do?
- Identifying Status Quo
- How is society likely to react?
- Short and long term aspects
`FORMAT
- Starting point 1 (SP1) and SP2 should lead to an end point (EP)
- E.g. THB developing countries should place limits on rural to urban
migration.
- SP1- Overcrowding would decrease: Growth rate decreases if there’s
constant inflow of migrants
- SP2- Predictability would increase: Government can plan better in both
urban and rural regions
- EP- Better quality of life for slum dwellers.
- Layers of analysis- 1) Predictability: - Having a cap causes better
management, No great influx 2) Overcrowding:- Unpredictable migration
causes mismanagement, Health compromised as more people equates to
more disease.
Argumentation
Logos-reasoning
Pathos-emotion
Ethos-credibility
Make an argument you can defend
Argument-notion
Structure – assertion reasoning evidence
Arg.title- should be a summary of what you are saying
reasoning- logic
inductive-generalization-examples
always test the arg. And the premises
check if your induction stands
check your examples
are there any big examples against your argument
are all the facts in your premise accurate
most common – proving facts in present
test your reasoning
- three rivers polluted- all rivers polluted
Deduction-general to particular
- EU introduces eco-friendly laws
- Austria part of EU – Austria needs to introduce these laws
Kinds
- Categorical- an assertion about a category of
persons/places
- Eg. Faculty of school have a degree- Mr X is a member of
faculty
- Team A is great- x is a member of team A- is great(might
not be true- have to prove)
Disjunctive-when you have options
- Always debate parallel
- Tell why option A is good and better then option B
- Also can try to find a midpoint
- You may have more than 2 options
- Don’t be radical-polar
- Give reason if you only use two options
Casual reasoning- one thing leads to another
- -eg. Alcoholism leads to domestic violence
- is our cause the most important?
- you can turn it around
- are there any statistical errors?
- -be careful that a causation exists
Evidence – shows that the arg. Flies in real lite
- Statistics-check for bias
- Show the connection between evidence and reasoning
- Conflicting statistics- reasoning important
- Be careful with the analogies-see how similar
- Examples,facts,data
Impact- explain how your arg. Is connected to the problem
- How it is solving the problem
- Why is your arg. Important and more important on
your side
- Why is your arg. Relevant to the motion
- How your arg. Is bringing something new
- Attach value to your argument- how it make the
motion work
Logical Fallacies
- Hasty generalization- generalizing a group/stereotype
- Appeal to emotion- use emotion for a reason
- Fallacy of composition-truth of a part is a truth of the
whole
- Fallacy of division- something that is true for the whole
might not be true for the part
- False dichotomy- only two options
- Appeal to authority- someone big does something means
that something is good
- Appeal to tradition- because it has always been like that
- Appeal to humour- no reasoning just humour
- Attacking the person- attacking the debaters
- Appeal to the crowd – trump speeches, stand to the
crowd’s beliefs
- Proving perfection- demand for perfection
- When two things happen one after the other- they are
connected
REFUTATION
Attacking the other’s arguments.
Reason why you disagree with the other’s arguments.
Defend your own.
TWO QUESTIONS TO EVERY ARGUMENT
Why is it true?
Why is it important?
WHY IS IT NOT TRUE?
Logical- may not work as the step exists (A----X-----Solution)
Emperically- works but doesn’t work in the real world.
Uncomparative- is already happening/ you will always do
Presumption- good way/ not a good way.
Why is it important?
No. of people affected.
Severity (how much it affects).
What kind of people (Some are valued more than others).
EXAMPLE MOTION
- TH will ban accounts of users repeatedly using hate speech on social
media
- Arguments- Freedom of speech (vent out anger/less extreme
means), Discrimination reduced, inciting other people (reduce
harm), Right to do this (private corporations cannot be restricted,
offer anonymity empirically).
REFUTATION-
- Problem will not go away
- Facebook would never do that
- Even if you do that, more will sprout.
- This won’t change anything.
- When you ban- you radicalize
- Echo Chambers
- Amount of discrimination increased.
- Censorship won’t help.
- Solve problem directly.
- It is not useful.
- Do we have the right.
Stakeholders/ Models/ Agents
START WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE
PROBLEM(Introduction)
- Prove the problem exists- necessary for action
- Why should anyone ‘care’ ? Why is it relevant?
- What are the consequences/ bad things due to the problem?
- What is the cause of the problem?- How do you recognize it?
- What is your goal- ideal world where the problem wouldn’t be there.
- Mechanism/ Solution:-
prove it will work- efficiently
Legitimacy- is it moral and who should do it/ Justification.
Collateral Damage.
- Prove why problem exists.
- Prove why the goal is the best.
- Prove why your mechanism will be effective.
BURDEN OF PROOF-
- Necessary- Have concrete arguments for all
- Efficiency
- Justification
Opposition needs to show that only one does not
stand.
VALUE STANDS-
- Argue for the criteria on which to judge- Set a criteria
- How it fails the criteria.
E.g. – Facebook is bad
- Criteria for bad- social integration, Emotional development.
STAKEHOLDERS-
- geopolitical
- What will happen in local level-nation-international relations-
Society-globally.
- Global impact with respect.
- Local level should be detailed.
- People- directly/ indirectly
- Four different levels of society- SPERM
SOCIAL
POLITICAL
ECONOMICAL
RELIGION
MORAL.
MOTION ANALYSES
- Policy Debates- THW disband NATO (An alternative with same function
needs to be proposed)
- Analytical debates- THBT Facebook has done more harm than good (
analysing both sides and presenting evaluation)
- Truth debates- THBT labour unions are becoming obsolete
FIRST PRINCIPLES (BASIC VALUES)
- Political compass- ideological position of a state.
LEFT---------------AUTOCRACY----------RIGHT
Communism libertarianism capitalism
collectivism dictatorship private property
socialism
State and Religion-
- Secular- no official state religion
- Theocratic- ruled by a specific religion
- Godly republic- support one, accept all
- Atheist- no religion
- Cosmopolitan- fund all religions
MANNER/STYLE
- Speed- Speak both slowly and fast throughout the speech. Slow
when you are trying to emphasize on a section of your speech
(something you want the judges/opposing team to clearly
understand. Speak fast when you are giving a lot of information
and detailing, for example in a policy. DON’T speak at the same
pace.
- Volume- Don’t shout and breathe during natural breaks in the
speech. Change volume when emphasis is required and to break
monotony in speech.
- Eye contact- Touch all areas of the audience makes you look
truthful and convincing. Make sure people understand you by
making eye contact and maintaining it. Answer all POI’s looking at
the judges.
- Silencing- Pausing for impact and drawing attention. Do not
overuse it as it again brings monotony and makes you seem under-
confident.
- Body Language- keep a balanced stance, not too tight and stiff
but not loose and sloppy either, do not move around and do not
slouch. Use hand gestures, but in moderation and keep variety in
the gestures you use. Reach out personally in gestures to break the
wall between the audience and the podium making it more
interactive (do not point).
- Tone- Vary it-lower pitch when emphasizing and higher when
providing information (arguments/model). Different emotions for
different parts- adds value to the speech and your teams
case(access sentiments).
- Phrasing- Use apt language that creates an impact. E.g. Baby vs
foetus, undocumented workers vs illegal aliens , inheritance tax vs
death tax. Use phrasing to your sides advantage to create the
desired impact on audience. Avoid ‘the gays’ or ‘poor’ kind of
words as they give a wrong impression. Don’t use ‘I’ either
prop/opp/our side/team india.
Facial expressions- Use laughter, smiling, raising eyebrows and check
muscles to get desired emotion or
