Transcript DebateIntro1

Introduction to
Debate
Lawrence Husick, Esq.
Coach - VOICES
Conestoga High School Speech and Debate
October 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, crossexamination 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)
•
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)
Time the round, giving signals to
speakers
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…