Transcript Great Corporate Debate Training Session #2

8th Annual
Great Corporate Debate
Corporate Team
Training Session # 2
June 3 / June 5
Stephen Buchanan
Education Consulting
Outline of Session # 2
Persuasion Presentations
Great Corporate Debate Review
Contest, Rules, Judges Criteria, etc.
 Quick Review of previous session

Debate Format and Strategies
 Debate Format and Process
 Teamwork
 Judging Criteria
 Basic Strategies
– Affirmative - Negative
– Constructive - Rebuttal
Detailed Format, Timeline of Responsibilities
Homework – Selection of teams/topics for Session 3 debates
– Topic A
- Topic B
Training Sessions
Schedule
May 27
May 29
June 3
June 5
June 10
June 12
Persuasion Presentations
8 - 10 Individuals
2 – 3 minutes each
REVIEW
Contest, Rules, Judges Criteria, etc
See AMCHAM Participant Manual
and Training Materials
http://www.amchamchile.cl/
http://debate.uvm.edu/
REVIEW
Argument, Reasoning
Argument
– Definition
– Facts/premise + (assumption)  Conclusion
Reasoning
– Reasoning is the process of drawing
conclusions from facts or premises
REVIEW
What is debate?
– Debate is the process of presenting
arguments for or against a proposition
– Propositions of fact, value and policy
– We will argue propositions of policy in our
debates
– Policy propositions will propose a course of
action for the future
– The purpose of debate is to Persuade
REVIEW
Debating Propositions of Policy
GOAL: Understanding the elements
of a proposition allow debater
to better attack, argue, support
& defend it.
REVIEW
Debating Propositions of Policy
Propositions
How to analyze and address the
proposition:
What is the problem and how serious is it?
What are the various solutions, with the
advantages and disadvantages of each?
What is the best solution?
REVIEW
Debating Propositions of Policy
Main Issues in Propositions of Policy:
Are evils caused by the present system?
Are these evils great enough to demand a
change?
Are the evils inherent and impossible to
repair in the present system?
Will the proposed solution remove the evils?
Is the proposed solution free from
objections?
Is the proposed solution the best?
Research, Preparation and
Development of Evidence
Sources of Material
Yourself
Opinions and Knowledge of Others
Discussion
Personal Interviews
Letters and e-mail
Observation
Experiments and Research
Libraries
Internet Research
Research, Preparation and
Development of Evidence
Types of Evidence
–
–
–
–
–
Factual
Statistical
Opinions of Authorities
Testimony of Witnesses
Documents, legal papers
Research, Preparation and
Development of Evidence
Recording Data
– Computer (not permitted in the actual debate)
– Paper
– Index cards
Policy Debate
Format and Process
Debate Elements and Format
Format – Constructive and Rebuttal
(Affirmative and Negative)


Affirmative: for the motion, problem in the status quo,
solution or proposal to solve that problem: burden of
proof, prove the case.
Negative: against the motion, just denies, say no (and
why), rebuttals. Could present a case.
Team Order of Presentations
Responsibilities of Presenters
Flowing or Flow Sheeting
TIMELINE FOR A POLICY DEBATE
CONSTRUCTIVE
 First Affirmative Constructive
 First Negative Constructive
 Second Affirmative Constructive
 Second Negative Constructive
REBUTTAL
 First Negative Rebuttal
 First Affirmative Rebuttal
 Second Negative Rebuttal
 Second Affirmative Rebuttal
1AC – 3 min
1NC – 3 min
2AC – 6 min
2NC – 6 min
1NR – 6 min
1AR – 6 min
2NR – 3 min
2AR – 3 min
Debate Elements and Format
Debate Format
– 1st part: constructive speeches
1st Affirmative
3 minutes
Introduction
1st Negative
3 minutes
Introduction
2nd Affirmative
6 minutes
Constructive
Case: thesis,
definition of terms,
arguments
 Framework
 Decision
criterions
Clash
 Topicality
 Rebuttal 1A
 (Counterplan)
Close case
 Prepare
opposition block
 Rebuttal 1N
Ethos, Pathos,
Logos
Ethos, Pathos,
Logos
Logos



2nd Negative
6 minutes
Constructive

Rebuttal 1A and
2A
 Defensive
arguments
 (Close case)
Logos
Debate Elements and Format
Debate Format
– 2nd part: rebuttal speeches
3rd Negative
6 minutes
Rebuttal

No new arguments
 Defensive
arguments
 Refute all
Logos
3rd Affirmative
6 minutes
Rebuttal
4th Negative
3 minutes
Conclusion
4th Affirmative
3 minutes
Conclusion
No new
arguments
 Defensive
arguments
 Refute all
No new
arguments
 Summary
 Synthesis
No new
arguments
 Summary
 Synthesis
Logos
Logos, Pathos
Logos, Pathos



Debate Elements and Format
Flowing / Flow Sheeting
Taking notes properly ("flow sheeting“ or "flowing“ is
the debate term) is an essential entry level skill . . .
In order to answer arguments by your opponents,
you must be able to write them down so that you
can remember them and respond to them in order.
Likewise, your flow sheet becomes the text which
you use when you speak. . . it becomes the notes
from which you speak. . . More than any other skill
besides speaking itself, flow sheeting is important to
your debate experience....and important to winning.
Debate Teamwork
Team vs. Individuals
Each participant has a role
Everyone participates
and contributes
Everyone flows
Judging Criteria
Knowing the criteria by which you
are judged will be the first strategy
to effective and successful debating
Judging Criteria



Criteria from GCD Committee
See Handouts
Challenges
Judges’ Evaluations
Criteria for winning
 Formula for winning
 Strategy for winning

BE PREPARED
 BE PERSUASIVE

Judges’ Evaluations
Evaluation Format
Each speaker will be graded (1- 7) in the following criteria.
The scores will be added up by each judge to determine
his/her vote for winning team:
 Content:
– Argumentation
– Evidence/Information
Strategy
– Speaker’s role
– Team strategy
 Style
– Oral expression
– Body Language
English is not graded
Evaluation Format / Criteria
Content
Argumentation
Information/Evidence
1-7
Strategy
Individual Role
Team participation
1-7
Style
Body language
Oral expression
1-7
Three Judges evaluate for Content, Strategy and Style in Round
Robins and Semi-Finals Debates. Only Chief judge penalizes.
Challenges
Question / Answer Process
Process
– Only Speakers 2 and 3
– One to two “challenges “ to each speaker
Penalization
– Failure to challenge
– Failure to respond
– Poor questions / answers
Debating Strategy
The Affirmative and Negative Cases
Debate Format
Affirmative Case
 First Affirmative Constructive
 Second Affirmative Constructive
 First Affirmative Rebuttal
 Second Affirmative Rebuttal
Debate Format
Negative Case –
Attacking the Affirmative Case
First Negative Constructive
 Second Negative Constructive
 First Negative Rebuttal
 Second Negative Rebuttal

Debate Strategies –
The Affirmative Case
 The problem
Status Quo is “evil”
 Attention (solution) is needed, must be relevant
& important. Nothing has been done; nothing has
solved the problem.

 The solution / plan


Inherency: causal relationship with the problem
Solvency: solves the problem
Debate Strategies –
The Affirmative Cases
 The Stock Issue Case



Status Quo needs change
Plan will provide change
Proposed plan is better than Status Quo
and provides Advantages
 Chain of Reasoning Case
 Topical Case
 Disjunctive Case
 Residue Case
See the TM outline of Affirmative Case
Debate Strategies –
The Negative Case
Attacking the affirmative case :
 Basic Attack
 Disadvantages
 Counterplan
 Critiques (K)
 Topicality
The Negative Case
Basic Attack:
 Deny the problem

Attack Significance: no attention (solution) is needed; it’s
been attended, solution is on the way.
 Attack the solution/ plan



Attack Inherency: deny causal relation between the
problem and the plan.
Attack Solvency: deny that the plan solves the problem.
Beware of contradictions if you deny the problem.
The Negative Case
Disadvantages Attack:
 Disadvantage is that if we adopted the policy of the
other team (plan), something worse would result.
 Link: causal relation with the plan.
Internal links: causal relation within the disadvantage.
Beware of the “slippery slope”
 Impact: something bad /worse WILL happen.
 Uniqueness: only the affirmative plan will cause this.

 Affirmative choices:
Deny link with the plan.
 Prove slippery slope fallacy.
 Turn impact: is not bad, actually is good.
 Deny uniqueness: whatever we do, that will happen.

The Negative Case
Counterplan:
– Counterplan is alternative plan to solve the
problem
Inherency and solvency
 Competes with the affirmative; net benefits; better
to adopt this solution rather than both
 Mutually exclusive

– Affirmative responses:
Our own is better, adopt only one
 Permutation test = not competitive
 Solvency
 Disadvantages

The Negative Case
Critiques (“K”):
Critiques are a way to attack the critical assumptions
an affirmative makes or the language debaters use to
make their arguments.
What is an assumption? Is a part of an argument which
people think is true, but they never explicitly prove to be true
and serves as the major premise of the argument or the case.
 How does a negative attack the assumptions? First, the
negative must identify the assumption and how it is revealed.
Second, the negative must explain how the assumption links
to the critique. And, third, the negative must explain the
implications of the critique.

The Negative Case
Topicality :
– Topicality deals with arguments about what words
mean; arguing about definitions regarding the motion
or resolution: “be home at a reasonable hour”.
 Affirmative definition of terms must be topical;
both the problem and the plan must be within the
motion: LIMIT what the affirmative may talk about
so the negative can have a reasonable chance to
argue against the case
 Negative tasks: Define terms and give reasons to
prefer negative definitions
Detailed Format and
Timeline of
Responsibilities –
Some additional Tips
1AC - FIRST AFFIRMATIVE
CONSTRUCTIVE


Have your speech written out and well
organized. Time it in advance so that you
know how long it takes you to read it.
Practice it so that you sound good and know
how to correctly say all of the words in it.
Make sure you have covered all the
requirements -- read the topic, significance,
inherency, plan, solvency. Make sure each
of the major issues has evidence which
proves it.
1NC - FIRST NEGATIVE
CONSTRUCTIVE




Respond to the affirmative.
Your disadvantages need links and
impacts;
your topicality arguments need
definitions, violations, and voting
issue; and
your counterplan needs a counterplan
text, topicality, competitiveness,
advantage, and solvency.
2AC - SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
CONSTRUCTIVE



ANSWER EVERY NEGATIVE ISSUE:
You cannot win the debate if you fail to
answer an off-case argument like topicality,
a disadvantage, a counterplan, or a critique.
Have some good answers for each one.
Explaining their arguments is their duty, not
yours. Your duty is to answer them. Don't
waste time telling the judge what their
arguments are about.
2NC - SECOND NEGATIVE
CONSTRUCTIVE



2NC and 1NR occur back to back, so you
need to divide up the issues in the debate.
The 2NC should take some issues and the
1NR should take others.
You need to deal with each and every one
of the answers the 2AC makes to your
arguments.
Have your best evidence on the issues you
will be "going for“ out and ready to use
before you speak.
1NR - FIRST NEGATIVE
REBUTTAL


2NC and 1NR occur back to back, so
you need to divide up the issues in the
debate.
The 2NC should take some issues and
the 1NR should take others, BUT THEY
SHOULD NEVER COVER THE SAME
GROUND.
1AR - FIRST AFFIRMATIVE
REBUTTAL



The purpose of the 1AR is simple:
don't lose the debate.
The strategy is equally simple: don't
drop anything. Cover every important
argument.
You cannot answer each sub-point on
an argument, but you should answer
any argument which could potentially
win the debate for the negative.
2NR - SECOND NEGATIVE
REBUTTAL



Now is the time to “put all of your eggs in
one basket.”
The negative search for truth ends in the
2NR. Winning requires the 2NR to choose
the issues and approach to create a
persuasive bottom line negative position.
The 2NR cannot pursue everything in the
debate because the judge must be told
which arguments to consider.
There are two ways to win in the 2NR:
– "Win the Drop" or
– "Win the Position."
2AR - SECOND
AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL




The general strategy of the 2AR is to re-establish case
advantage(s) and to minimize or take out the impacts
of the negative arguments.
In order to minimize the impact of the negative
arguments, go to the best issue in the middle of your
speech. This trick tends to de-emphasize the
arguments that the 2NR claimed were critical in the
debate.
In order to re-establish your case advantage, begin
your speech with your own agenda or overview that
puts forth the most compelling reason to vote
affirmative.
Have a good conclusion.
Practice Debates
Topics assigned.
Which topics/side did you receive?
Setting up the teams:
What are your respective roles?
Do Research and Develop Arguments
Let’s debate (and evaluate) next week
A vs. B, C vs. D
Practice Debates

Each team will have four debaters
 We will follow same time limits
as in official debates
 Everyone flows
 All others not debating
will be judges
– BE PREPARED
– BE PERSUASIVE
Education Consulting
Asesoría Educacional en Chile
www.educonsul.cl
Av. Apoquindo 3600 - Piso 5 – Las Condes - Santiago – Chile
(56-2) 446-8453 - (56-2) 433-2226 fax
[email protected]