Learn+About+Debates

Learn all about Debating Here

 Thanks to Mrs Jeya, from whose wiki this information has come from. Thanks Mrs J :)

__**// 1. What does each side have to prove to win their case? //**__
 * It is the **proposition's job** to propose or p**ut forward a line of argument**.
 * It is the **opposition's job** to **demolish that line of argument**.


 * The proposition team does not have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but merely that **__its case is true in the majority of cases__** or as a general proposition.
 * The opposition team must prove __**more than a reasonable doubt**__ about the proposition case.
 * Where the topic is expressed as an absolute, the proposition must prove the topic __true in the significant majority of cases__, but not in every single conceivable instance.
 * Where the topic is expressed as an absolute, the opposition must do more than present a single instance where the topic is not true and **__prove that it is not true for at least a significant minority of cases__**.

__**// 2. Substantives and Tiers //**__

2.1. What are substantives?

 * They are the **main points** in your arguments. You could call them the main reasons backing your case or the **building blocks** to your case.

2.2. Who uses substantives?

 * The **first and second speaker** uses substantives.
 * Each speaker usually has only **one substantive** in their speech. Occasionally, they might have two substantives instead.
 * Usually, the **first speaker** deals with the **more important substantive**.
 * Each substantive usually has between **two to four tiers**. You could call these tiers, sub-headings or sub-topics.


 * T**hird speakers and reply speakers** do **not** use substantives in their speeches. This is because they play a **different role**.
 * The **third speaker's job** is to **rebut** the opposition's case, not to put forward new ideas for the team.
 * The **reply speaker's job** is to **summarise** the case, not to put forward new ideas for the team.

2.3. Examples of Substantives

 * In the motion, "THBT school examinations should be abolished" the substantives for the proposition might be:
 * The main function of schools
 * The nature of examinations
 * In the motion, "THBT cartoons are bad for children", the substantive for the proposition might be :
 * The nature of cartoon
 * The nature of the child

2.4. Examples of Substantives

 * If substantives are the main points of a speech, **tiers** can be considered **the sub-topic**s.
 * There are usually **2 to 3 tiers in each substantive**.

2.5. Examples of Tiers

 * In the motion, "THBT school examinations should be abolished", if the proposition's substantive is"
 * The main function of schools, the tiers might be:
 * Preparation for the future
 * Meeting the needs of the child
 * Focus on Learning not testing
 * The nature of examinations
 * Testing for memory
 * Harmful consequences
 * Alternatives to examinations

2.6. Structure of a Substantive and Tiers

 * **Name** your substantive.
 * **List** your tiers. (optional if you have too much to say.)
 * **Tier 1**:
 * Point
 * Explanation
 * Elaboration
 * Link
 * **Tier 2**:
 * Point
 * Explanation
 * Elaboration
 * Link
 * **Tier 3**:
 * Point
 * Explanation
 * Elaboration
 * Link

__**// 3. Messy Rebuttals //**__

3.1. What are rebuttals?

 * If substantives are the building blocks of arguments, rebuttals are the **wrecking balls**.
 * Rebuttals are meant to **destroy your opponents arguments** and show he is really not right after all.
 * Remember: It is important to **focus your rebuttals on the team's whole case.**
 * Do not major on the minor i.e. **don't** waste time attacking **minor details**.
 * **Identify** their **main ideas** (their substantives) and **attack** those.

3.2. How are Rebuttals Tricky?

 * Rebuttals and substantives are tricky because they can and should be **revieved and counter-argued**.
 * It is important that each time it is argued, **the argument evolves**. It **cannot remain at the same level**.

3.3. How does an argument evolve and why is it important to ensure it happens?

 * An argument **evolves** when it is taken to **the next level**.
 * An argument **fails to evolve** if we merely **repeat** what we have said before e.g. by reiterating "my first speaker has already said ..." and **not challenging the counter-argument** any further.
 * When this happens, you will **not be awarded points** as you are merely repeating your team's points.
 * Worse, it may mean that your **opponents have had the last say on that argument** and won the arguments.
 * We can **take an argument to the next leve**l in a number of **ways**:
 * By **responding to the counter-arguments** our opponents have brought up and **demolishing their counter-arguments with a new and relevant point**.
 * By citing **fresh evidence, analogies or examples**.

3.4. Example of an Evolving Argument

 * If the motion is "THW ban school uniforms":
 * Opposition: Substantive: Uniformity brings Equality;
 * Tier: School uniforms diminish the divide between rich and poor. (Because everybody wears the same clothes.)
 * Proposition: Rebuttal:
 * But school uniforms cost so much and the poor cannot afford them as easily as the rich.
 * Opposition: Counter-rebuttal:
 * But schools often make provisions to provide those who cannot with assistance.
 * Besides, school uniforms make it possible for younger siblings to wear the older siblings uniforms which they have outgrown, thus saving money.
 * Proposition: Counter-counter-rebuttal:
 * Even so, some might find it humiliating to ask for assistance.
 * And nobody likes wearing somebody else's cast-offs.
 * Opposition: Counter-counter-counter-rebuttal:
 * Aside from those involved, nobody need know about either the financial assistance or the hand-me-down uniforms.
 * Used school uniforms should be fine if they are taken care of because children outgrow their clothes before wearing them out.
 * Besides, some might consider it less embarassing to wear a school uniform that never changes, than to wear home clothes which can look unfashionable once the season is over.
 * Also, it is better to get financial assistance even if it is humiliating than to not even have money to buy clothes. If school uniforms were abolished, schools would not assist with money for clothes and students would be worse off.
 * // NOTE: The 'rebuttals' above are not complete rebuttals - these are just the main ideas for each rebuttal. //

3.5. Types of Rebuttal

 * **Contradiction**
 * When your opponents **contradict** themselves. Occurs when
 * the speaker contradicts himself/herself
 * the speaker contradicts a previous speaker
 * **Must** be dealt with i**mmediately**. Next speaker must
 * point it out and explain where it has occured.
 * challenge the next opponent speaker to clarify.
 * ** Inaccuracy **
 * When your opponents get their **facts wrong** e.g. "Bush is president of UK."
 * Must challenge
 * especially if their **case is built around this example**
 * Use the "**Not True**" Rebuttal Technique
 * Alternatively, you can use the sharp dagger - The POI (See next Section)
 * ** Assertions **
 * Assertions are **statements** that are either
 * without **logic**
 * without **proof**
 * **Challenge** your opponents by pointing out that
 * their assertion is **illogical** and **explain why**
 * they have **not given any proof** for what they have asserted. (So how can they be belived?)
 * ** Relevance **
 * **Challenge** if the point they have brought up is
 * lacking in relevance - **a red herring**
 * lacking **final LINKS**
 * ** Flaws in logic **
 * Flaws in logic occur in a number of ways
 * using an **exceptional case** as an example
 * e.g. "I wear black - therefore I am evil" (Similiar to illogical assertion.)

3.6. Rebuttal Techniques

 * **The Not-True Rebuttal Technique**
 * You must **say why this is not true**.
 * E.g. Smoking should not be banned because poor countries depend on the sale of tabacco.
 * Rebuttal: Not true! Tabacco only accounts for 0.0001% of world imports
 * **The True-But Rebuttal Technique**
 * **Agree** with your opponent's **facts**. Then **disagree** with their **logic**.
 * E.g. Smoking should not be banned because poor countries depend on the sale of tabacco.
 * Rebuttal: **True**. A few 3rd World countries might depend on the sale of tabacco, **but** if they were forced to stop selling tabacco, they could use their land to grow other equally viable products.
 * **The Compare-and-Contrast Rebuttal Technique**
 * Show **both sides** of the argument. Then **prove yours is better**.
 * E.g. Smoking should not be banned because poor countries depend on the sale of tabacco.
 * Rebuttal: If the people in the poor countries grew other products instead of tabacco, not only would they be reducing the number of tabacco-related illnesses and death, but they would also be helping to ease world hunger by growing more crops, or reduce the problems to the environment by growing more products for bio-fuels. This is the much healthier and responsible choice.
 * **The Even-If Rebuttal Technique**
 * Usually, this is the **2nd tier** in your rebuttal.
 * This is a **powerful** tier.
 * It shows that even if your opponent's attacks stands, they have **no case** and your side **still wins**.
 * E.g. Smoking should not be banned because poor countries depend on the sale of tabacco.
 * Rebuttal: Even if this were true, smoking causes diseases e.g. lung disease and death through cancer. Is money so important that some should pay with it with their lives?

3.7. Structure of a Rebuttal

 * Name the **main issue/contention/question**.
 * Refer back to what your **opponent** has said.
 * State **your stand.**
 * Say **why** you disagree:
 * **Tier 1**:
 * Usually uses one of the following rebuttals:
 * The Not-true Rebuttal
 * The True-But Rebuttal
 * The Compare-and-Contrast
 * Uses the **PEEL Structure**
 * Point
 * Explanation
 * Elaboration & Evidence
 * Link
 * **Tier 2**:
 * The **Even-If Rebuttal**
 * Usually begin with "**Even if..**."
 * Uses the **PEEL Structure**
 * Point
 * Explanation
 * Elaboration & Evidence
 * Link
 * **Tier 3**:
 * Usually begins with "**Furthermore..."**
 * May use
 * Compare-and-Contrast rebuttal
 * Further Analogy
 * Further Evidence
 * Uses the **PEEL Structure**
 * Point
 * Explanation
 * Elaboration & Evidence
 * Link
 * NOTE: Tier 2 and 3 may be switched if necessary.

3.8. Clash or Engagement
__**// 4. The Dagger -The POI //**__
 * **Clash** or **Engagement** is the back and forth rebuttals that occur between the two teams.
 * There are **two types** of clash
 * **Defensive Clash**
 * This is where you **defend your substantives** which your opponents have attacked.
 * Method:
 * **Defend** the **truth** in your point
 * **Attack** (Rebut) **their rebuttal**
 * **Offensive Clash**
 * This is where you **attack your opponents' substantive**
 * **Be prepared**
 * for your opponents to defend the attack
 * to bring the argument to the next level (**Evolution of Agrument**)
 * **Proposition:**
 * Generally the proposition focuses more on **defensive clashes**.
 * i.e. the onus is on the proposition to defend their case.
 * However, as the proposition must also demolish the opposition's case, they must also have some offensive clashes.
 * **Oppositon:**
 * Generally, the opposition focuses on **offensive clashes**.
 * i.e. the onus is on the opposition to demolish the proposition's case.
 * However, if the propostion attacks the opposition's case, the opposition will also have defensive clashes.
 * **Who wins?**
 * If both cases are **not rebutted**, the **proposition** will generally win.
 * If both cases **are demolished**, the **opposition** will generally win.
 * In the **second and third minutes** of a speaker's substantive speech, members of the other team may offer points of information.
 * The **purpose** of a point of information is to **make a short point** or **ask a short question** of the speaker.
 * A point of information should be brief, and **no longer than 15 seconds**.
 * Points of information are an **important part** of the clash between the teams, and **enable speakers to remain a part of the debate even when they are not making a speech**.
 * The speaker has the **absolute right to refuse to accept** a point of information, or **to accept it only at the end of the next sentence**.
 * However, a speaker is **must accept** some points of information, provided that they have been offered at reasonable times in the speaker's speech.
 * As a general rule a speaker should **__accept at least one__ point of information** in his or her speech.
 * A speaker who accepts a significantly greater number of points of information **risks losing control of his or her speech**.
 * Members of the opposing team **should not** offer an **excessive number of points of information** to the point that they are **barracking**. As a general rule e**ach team member should offer between 2 and 4 points of information per speech**, and **should not offer them within a short time of a previous point** of information having been offered.
 * The **speaker's response** to a point of information is **included in the mark** for that speaker's speech.
 * The **offering of points of information** is **included in the mark** for the speaker offering points.