THE DEBATE: AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE

In a formal debate, the affirmative and negative sides have their respective duties and responsibilities. Briefly, the affirmative role is to present the necessity, beneficiality, and practicability of the given proposition. They have the burden of proof and must present and maintain a prima facie case. The affirmative side must persuade the judges that the sum total of their arguments is adequate to affirm the resolution, beyond the attempts of the negative side to destroy any of its essential elements. The negative role, on the other hand, is to cast a shadow of a doubt on the given proposition. The negative may choose to attack any or all of the three essential elements of the proposition. If they successfully convince the judges that the proposition is not necessary, beneficial, or practical, then they have won the match. There are numerous options available for the negative side to achieve this. They may propose a better alternative, defend the status quo, or convince the judges that the affirmatives proposal is unnecessary, unbeneficial, and/or impractical.

DEBATE CRITERIA

Debaters are judged according to their ability to persuade, on the soundness of the arguments that they present, and on their debating skills. For the purpose of this tournament, we have set three (3) elements as criteria for judging:

Analysis and Evidence

40% 30% 30%

Reasoning and Refutation Delivery -

For a total of 100%

To get the teams overall rating; the average of the two speakers shall be acquired. The judge shall then declare whether the affirmative or negative side won based on the respective judges scoring of the teams. The team that gets majority of the votes from the judges will be declared the winner of the match. The board of judges will be given time to deliberate before announcing the winner.

NOTE: Unlike other forms of debate, the Modified Oregon-Oxford format implemented in the Pi Sigma Fraternity Open Debate Tournament gives a premium place on thorough and in-depth knowledge of the given proposition. Thus, Analysis and Evidence is given the greatest weight in the criteria. The other elements of the criteria are definitely important, but cannot stand alone without the research, which the arguments and contentions must be based on.

GUIDE QUESTIONS REGARDING DEBATE CRITERIA

To further understand the debate criteria, we are laying hereunder a basic definition of the various elements and some guide questions. This should only serve as a general guide, and the judges may resort to their own interpretations of the criteria if they deem it necessary.

ANALYSIS Analysis refers to the breaking down of a subject into its constituent parts. In the case of the debate, it refers to the ability of the debaters to identify the major issues and arguments pertaining to the proposition.

Has the debater found the issues that are critical? Do these issues have the potency to decide whether one accepts or rejects the resolution? Does the debater know what he must do to destroy a case or establish one?

EVIDENCE Research plays an important role in the debate process as debaters try to find not only sufficient evidence but also the most potent and relevant evidence that would support their analysis and conclusions.

What is the quality of evidence? Is there too much reliance on opinion and not enough on fact? Is the evidence relevant and timely?

REASONING Reasoning refers to how logical, coherent and organized the debater is in presenting his or her arguments.

Does the debater use cogent thinking? How capable is he/she in drawing logical inferences from existing data? Does he/she show the capacity to reason for him/herself?

REFUTATION It is important for a debater to refute the arguments presented by the opposing side while at the same time expertly defend his/her own case. Refutation is defined as the process of weakening or destroying an opponents arguments.

Does the debater recognize the crucial areas of agreement and disagreement?

How effective is the debater in destroying or weakening an opponents argument? Does the debater know what to do to destroy a case or establish one?

DELIVERY Delivery refers to the debaters skill in speaking, persuasion, and practical argumentation.

Does the delivery enhance the argumentation? Is it intelligible, interesting and persuasive?

argumentation/oregon-oxford debate

ARGUMENTATION
- is generally defined as the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act. It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader, through spoken or written speech, by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings. - Is of fundamental importance to human relationships. It is an art that one creates belief.It is the belief of a person that determines his attitude towards men, institution and principles. The subject of an argumentation is what we referred as PROPOSITION. Forms of proposition: 1. in a club 2. in a parliamentary body 3. in a municipal council 4. in a court of law Characteristics of propositions good for debate 1. it must be in a form of an assertion 2. it must express only one of the judgment 3. must be susceptible to only one interpretation 4. must be unprejudiced 5. should avoid abstractions and generalizations 6. must be concise and simple 7. must be debatable 8. must be so worded that the burden of proof must be on affirmative side 9. must be interesting

OREGON OXFORD DEBATE The Oregon Oxford debate is a traditional debate format used in elementary, high schools and colleges all over the country. There are two (2) sides in this format: the Affirmative and the Negative. The Affirmative proves the validity of the issue or topic called the PROPOSITION while the Negative disproves it. Each team has two speakers and one scribe. A debate moderator enforces the rules to ensure the debates smooth conduct. Each speaker delivers one constructive speech, one Rebuttal-Summation speech and gets to crossexamine his opponent. This is the format of choice for topics requiring more than superficial research, this format involves the use of specific information in the form of evidence to support arguments. During interpellation, the debate takes the appearance of a courtroom trial where the advocate is subjected by his opponent to a series of questions with the aim of exposing fallacious arguments and clarifying issues. Propositions is the topic or issue under the consideration which the debater must establish or overthrow according to his side. Propositions are classified under (1) policy or (2) fact. Proposition of policy deals with the question Why should this be done?. Propositions of fact deal with the question Is this true? Phrasing the Proposition: The Proposition - should be debatable; - be stated in the affirmative; - concise and simple; - must state the proposed policy and not defend the status quo; - should embody only one act of judgment or central idea and - must not be too wordy and must be impartial Objectives of Interpellation: 1. To clarify points in the opposing teams position 2. To expose factual errors or unscrupulous assertions by the opposition 3. To obtain damaging admissions from the opposing team themselves 4. To set up arguments for the use in the subsequent speeches by the speaker or his teammates.
FIRST SPEAKER

Overview
It is the job of the first speaker to introduce their team's case, rebut (if negative), define the topic (if affirmative), outline the team split and to let the audience know what direction your case is going in.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE The job of first affirmative: Define topic - This is very important. In defining, you should clearly specify the important issue(s). The definition should define the whole phrase, not just individual words. Key words may have to be individually defined though. Show team split - The team split is the part of a first speaker's speech that says what all their team-mates are going to say. A team split would sound something like this: "I will be speaking about the excessive amounts of television that children watch today. Our second speaker, Mr Michael Smith, will be speaking about the rising rates of ADHD in children who watch television. Our third speaker, Mr Thomas Fennacelli, will summerise our team's case". Introduce team line - The team line is a section where many debaters slip up. Team lines like "Space exploration is not a sensation" will lose you points in interschool debates. The team line should summerise the arguments of your team. Line that rhyme or are hammy will not make you popular with adjudicators. Save it for class debates, intershool adjudicatorsHATE it!

FIRST NEGATIVE The job of first negative: Fix any problems with definition - If the negative team has any disagreements with the affirmative's definition, these problems must be resolved immediately. If the negative team wishes to challenge the definition, they must prove to the adjudicator that they has the most reasonable definition. According to the DAV (Debating Association of Victoria), these are the three steps for a definitional challenge:

1. Clearly state the alternative definition being proposed by the Negative. 2. Give arguments to show why their definition is the most reasonable definition. 3. Rebut the arguments presented by the Affirmative.
Show team split - See First Affirmative. Rebuttal - The First Negative should attack the core argument of the affirmative team, as well as the specific arguments.

Dos and Dont's for First Speakers: Do make your team line interesting and thought-provoking. Don't make your team line rhyme and childlike. Don't feel like you have to have one team line. Alter it slightly from speaker to speaker to make it less repetitive and boring! Do plan ahead with things like team splits. If two or your speakers talk about the same thing, you will look very silly and consequently be marked down by the adjudicator. Do give the split at the start of your speech, usually after team line and definition.

Second Speaker

SECOND SPEAKER

Overview
It is the job of the second speaker to present the bulk of the argument and to rebut the opposition.

Second Affirmative & Negative What the second speaker should do: Defend the definition (if neccesary) - If there are still issues with the definition, the second speaker must defend their team's defintion. Remember, you are trying to prove that your definition is the most reasonable. For more informtion, click here. Rebut Second Affirmative: The second affirmative should clearly identify the major areas of disagreement in their rebuttal, then attack the specific points of the first affirmative. Second Negative: The second negative should argue against the main points of the affirmative team, then attack the arguments of second affirmative. The second negative rebuttal should make up a third of their speech.

Rules on an Oxford-Oregon Debate: Format of Debate - Oxford-Oregon TypeThree Speakers from each sideFirst Affirmative - Constructive SpeechFirst Negative - Interpellation of the first affirmative SpeakerFirst Negative - Constructive SpeechFirst Affirmative Interpellation of the first negative speakerSecond Affirmative - Constructive SpeechSecond Negative - Interpellation of the second affirmativeSecond Negative - ConstructiveSecond Affirmative - Interpellation of the second negativeThird Affirmative - Constructive SpeechThird Negative - Interpellation of the third affirmativeThird Negative - Constructive SpeechThird Affirmative - Interpellation of the third negativeRebuttal of the Team Captain of the Negative SideRebuttal of the Team Captain of the Affirmative SideDurationConstructive Speech: Minimum of five (5) and maximum of seven (7) minutesInterpellation: Five (5) minutesRebuttal Speech: Three (3) minutesIssues for DebateA. Whether or not it is Necessary? (Necessity)B. Whether or not it is Beneficial? (Beneficiality)C. Whether or not it is practical? (Practicability)Criteria for JudgingA. Evidence - 25%B. Delivery - 30%C. Interpellation - 30%D. Rebuttal 15%The judges, based on their discretion, shall have the authority to determine who will be the Best Speaker and Best Debater. The winning team shall be determined by the majority decision of the Board of Judges.Guides for Constructive SpeechSpeech types of Constructive Speech may be:1. Reading Method2. Memory Method3. Extemporaneous4. Mix method of memory and conversational or dramaticPoise, gestures, audience contact and voice projection are highly recommended.Rules on Interpellation1. Questions should primarily focused on arguments developed in the speech of your opponent. However, matters relevant and material to the proposition are admissible.2. Questioner and opponent should treat each other with courtesy.3. Both speakers stand and face the audience during the question or Interpellation period.4. Once the questioning has begun, neither the questioner nor his opponent may consult a colleague. Consultation should be done before but as quietly as possible.5. Questioners should ask brief and easily understandable question. Answers should equally be brief. Categorical questions answerable by yes or no is allowed, however, opponent if he choose, may qualify his answer why yes or why no.6. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer, but he may cut off a vervous response with a statement such as a thank you that is enough information or your point is quite clear or Im satisfied.7. A questioner should not comment on the response of his opponent.8. Your opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by asking the questioner to rephrase or reform his question. Rules on Rebuttal SpeechA. Rebuttal speaker should point out clearly the fallacies committed by his opponent stating clearly what particularly statement or argument constitute said fallacy.B. If not familiar with the fallacies of logic, the debater may counter arguments directly by stating what arguments or statement is incorrect or false. Role of the ModeratorThe moderator of the debate has the following duties:1. To reveal the issue involve the debate;2. To rule on points of clarification about the issues or questions and answers made during the Interpellation; and3. To see to it that the debate is orderly and follows the rules of parliamentary procedures.Role of the Timer1. To time the speakers and debaters accurately;2. To give the speakers a one-minute warning with the ringing of the bell once before his/her time is up.3. To prevent the debaters from exceeding the time allotted to them by ringing the bell twice.Tips on Interpellation and RebuttalCROSS EXAMINATION The cross-examination period of a debate is a time when the person who is not going to speak next in the constructives questions the person who has just finished speaking. Consider cross examination an information exchange period - it is not the time to role play lawyer. Cross examination may serve six objectives: To clarify points

To expose errors To obtain admissions To setup arguments To save prep time To show the judge how cool you are so they WANT to vote for you. Most debaters tend to ignore the value of good cross-examination. Remember, 30% of the entire debate is spent in cross-examination -- it should be a meaningful and essential part of the debate. If nothing else, debaters tend to underestimate the importance that cross-examination may have on the judge. Cross-examination will indicate to the judge just how sharp and spontaneous the debaters are. Invisible bias will always occur in a debate round and judges would always like the sharpest team to win. Good, effective cross-examination of the opponents can play an important psychological role in winning the ballot of the judge. Be dynamic. Have questions and be ready to go, answer questions actively and with confidence whenever you can. The image you project will be very important to the audience/judge. This is the one opportunity the audience/judge has to compare you with opponents side-by-side. GUIDELINES FOR ASKING QUESTIONS: 1. Ask a short Q designed to get a short A2. Indicate the object of your Q3. Don't telegraph your argument, don't make it too obvious.4. Don't ask Q they won't answer properly."So, we win, right?"5. Make Q seem important, even if it is just an attempt to clarify.6. Politeness is a must -- emphasize the difference if they are rude.7. Approach things from a non-obvious direction. Then trap them.8. Mark your flow/notes as to what you want to question them about.9. Avoid open ended Qs unless you are sure they are clueless.10. Face the judge/audience, not your opponent.11. CX answers must be integrated into your arguments made during a speech. GUIDELINES FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS: 1. Concise A.2. Refer to something you have already said whenever possible. This is safe.3. Answer based on your position in the debate so far. Keep options open.4. Don't make promises of what you or your partner will do later.5. Qualify your answers.6. Be willing to exchange documents read into the debate.7. Answer only relevant questions.8. Address the judge.9. Try and not answer hypothetical Q. If they demand, say you will give a hypothetical A.10. Signal each other, don't tag-team.11. Don't say"I don't know,"say"I am not sure at this time...." REBUTTALS Most debaters, coaches, and judges would agree that rebuttals are the most difficult and yet the most important parts of the debate. Not only is there less time within each speech, but each debater has to sort through all of the issues to determine which ones are the most important ones! What a debater does or does not do in rebuttals will decide who wins the debate. Very few debaters (especially beginners) can hope to extend everything that happened in the constructive speeches. Debaters don't have to do that and just because a team may have dropped a point or an argument is not an automatic reason to vote against that team. What matters is the type of argument that is extended or dropped in rebuttals-this will determine the winner of the round. Think about these four issues when rebuttals happen: 1. Which arguments have more weight at the end of the round?2. Which outcomes (disads, counterplans) are more likely given lots of internal links?3. What about time frame-what happens first?4. What about the quality of evidence? Here are some other helpful hints: 1. Avoid repetition. Don't just repeat your constructive arguments. Beat the other team's arguments and tell the judge why your arguments are better. 2. Avoid passing ships. Don't avoid what the other team said. You must clash directly with their responses. 3. Avoid reading evidence only. You must be explaining and telling the judge why these issues win the debate. 4. Avoid rereading evidence that has already been read in constructives. You can make reference to it by referring to it, but don't re-read it. 5. Avoid"lumping and dumping."Don't try to go for everything. You can't make 12 responses to each argument in a few minutes. 6. Be organized. Don't jump from issue to issue at random. Be specific and logical about winning issues. 7. Don't be a blabbering motormouth. Speak quickly but not beyond your ability. If you speak too fast, you will stumble and not get through as much. 8. Don't whine to the judge about fairness or what the other team might have done that you think is unethical. Make responses and beat them. 9. Don't make new arguments. You can read new evidence but you can't run new disadvantages or topicality responses. You are limiting to extending the positions laid out in the constructive speeches. 10. Use signposting . Make sure the judge knows where you are on the flowsheet. This is not the time to lose the judge on the flow. 11. Use issue packages. Organize your arguments into issue packages. Choose arguments which you want to win. Don't go for everything. Extend those arguments that you need to win. 12. Cross-apply arguments. If you dropped an argument in a prior speech that you think was important don't act like your losing. Cross-apply arguments you made somewhere else in the debate to answer it.

Argumentation:

WHAT IS ARGUMENTATION?

We are constantly encountering people trying to persuade us to buy products and services, accept political judgments, change our behavior, vote for a candidate. As students you will have to write persuasively to influence your readers. When you graduate you will need to write a resume and persuasive cover letter. In your career you will have to motivate employees, justify expenses, influence clients, and suggest reforms to local politicians.Persuasion -- the attempt to influence readers' views and opinions -- is perhaps the most important writing you will attempt in freshman English. Sales representatives persuade, lawyers persuade, executives persuade. The ability to state an argument, influence others, and explain a point of view is critical in almost every business and profession.In developing a persuasion paper, consider your audience carefully, anticipating possible objections and addressing them in your paper. Consider which of the three appeals -- logic, emotion, ethics -- will be most effective.Logic -- which uses facts, statistics, evidence, surveys, interviews, or scientific tests to support a point of view. An extensive review of court proceedings, excerpts from trial transcripts, and expert analysis of evidence might persuade an appeal court to order a new trial for a criminal defendant.Advantages: provides evidence needed for major decisions, especially group decisions.Disadvantages: can be boring and require a high degree of attention on part of the reader.Emotion -- which uses images, sensations, or shock appeals to lead readers to react in a desired way. A television commercial featuring suffering children accompanied by an 800-number might persuade viewers to make donations.Advantages: often produces immediate resultsDisadvantages: has limited impact, can backfire, provides limited factual support for readers to share with others.Ethics -- which rests on appealing to shared values to motivate. A football coach might persuade players to see themselves as role models to children and not drink or swear in public.Advantages: can be very powerful because often the writer is addressing an audience who agrees with his or her values.Disadvantages: depends on readers sharing the values of the writer. An appeal by a Muslim cleric may have little effect on Catholics or Buddhists.To be effective, writers often use more than a single appeal. Essays frequently mix factual support with emotional appeal based on human interest. An article on homeless children might use the narrative of a single homeless boy to attract attention then provide statistics to illustrate the severity of the problem and outline possible solutions.ADDRESSING READER OBJECTIONSPerhaps most challenging is attempting to persuade a hostile audience, people you anticipate have negative attitudes toward you, the organization you might represent, or the ideas you will advocate. Although no technique will magically convert opponents into supporters, you can overcome a measure of hostility and influence those who may still be undecided with a few approaches:Openly admit differences -- instead of attempting to pretend there is no conflict, openly state that your view may differ from your readers. This honest admission can win a measure of respect.Responsibly summarize the opposing viewpoints -- by fairly restating your opponents' views, you force your readers to agree with you and demonstrate your fairness.Avoid making judgmental statements -- do not label your reader's ideas with negative language. Use neutral terms to make distinctions. If you label your ideas as being intelligent and your readers' as being naive, you will have difficulty getting people to accept your points because in the process they will have to accept your insults as being valid.Point to shared values, experiences, problems -- build common bridges with your audience by demonstrating past cooperation.Ask your readers to keep an open mind -- don' t demand or expect to convert readers. But almost everyone will agree to try to open minded and receptive to new ideas.Work to overcome negative stereotypes -- play the devil's advocate and determine what negative stereotypes your audience may have about you and your ideas. Then work to include examples, references, evidence in your presentation to counter these negative impressions. SELECTING TOPICS FOR PERSUASIONEffective persuasion depends on selecting workable topics. In general, avoid topics like gun control, abortion, and capital punishment -- unless you can develop a new angle. Avoid repeating arguments you have heard on television or read about in newspapers or magazines. censorship of the Internet why readers should monitor their cholesterol taxing Internet commerce why America should/should not restrict immigration sex education why consumers should protect their computer files need for stalking laws why America should/should not have national health television violence insurance drunk driving laws why Americans should donate organs welfare reform why companies should provide employee daycare

mandatory car insurance why America should/should not pay its UN dues school choice why NATO should/should not intervene in internal school prayer conflicts political campaign reform why smokers should/should not be able to sue legalizing marijuana tobacco companies GETTING STARTEDCONSIDER YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCERather than select a political or social controversy, review your personal experience. Have you had dealings with a college, employer, customer, neighbor, or government agency that revealed a problem or called for action? You may wish to argue for better daycare, a centralized financial aid office on campus, better security at a local mall, or more computers in the college library. These topics will force you conduct individual research rather than relying on items you have read in the press or seen on television.* Avoid topics that are so emotionally charged that you cannot be objectiveDO NOT MISTAKE PROPAGANDA FOR ARGUMENTEffective argument is based on reason. Don't assume you can convince readers by hurling accusations, statistics, and quotes taken out of context. Avoid insulting remarks. * Read your paper aloud or use peer review to examine your argument for unsupported claims or inappropriate statements.LIMIT THE SCOPE OF YOUR ARGUMENTA short paper may not allow you to fully address all aspects of a complex subject. You may make your task easier by clearly defining the scope of your paper:Apex Engineering should provide basic daycare for full time employees working first shift on weekdays.People who began smoking after cigarette packages and advertising were required to post the Surgeon General's warning against smoking should not be allowed to sue tobacco companies for smoking-related illnesses.CONSIDER YOUR READERS Address the needs, biases, and knowledge base of your readers. Consider their likely attitudes toward your argument and the type of evidence they will need to accept your point of view.STATE YOUR THESIS CLEARLYArgumentation requires a clearly worded thesis. Although your thesis may change as you work on your paper, a clear working thesis gives your first draft focus.STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ARGUMENTATIONUSE MORE THAN ONE APPEAL Because each appeal has advantages and disadvantages, it is better to use more than one. Blend logical, ethical, and emotional appeals in your essay.USE MODES SUCH AS NARRATION, COMPARISON, DIVISION AND CLASSIFICATION, OR CAUSE AND EFFECT TO ORGANIZE IDEASYou can compare pro and con statements using comparison and contrast or use narration to relate a case or incident.PLACE YOUR STRONGEST POINTS AT THE BEGINNING OR ENDINGRemember that reader attention is strongest at the beginning and end of a paper. Do not place your most important arguments or evidence in the middle of the essay where readers may overlook it.REVIEW YOUR PAPER FOR LAPSES IN CRITICAL THINKINGRead your paper carefully to determine if you maintained critical thinking. Look for evidence of logical fallacies or weaknesses:* Absolute statements. Although it is important to convince readers by making a strong impression, avoid making absolute claims that can be dismissed with a single exception.* False dilemma. Avoid overdramatizing your case by offering readers only two alternatives, such as stating. We must approve school choice or see an an entire generation of children condemned to illiteracy. Most readers will immediately recognize the weakness of such an unrealistic argument.* Basing arguments on personalities. Don't presume that readers will be impressed by citing endorsements by famous people. The fact that a celebrity or single expert supports your argument is not convincing evidence. Don't attack the personality of opposing authorities or reject an idea because someone controversial supports it. National health care, for example, were tenets of both Nazism and Communism.* False Analogy. Comparisons form weak arguments. Although they may useful to illustrate an idea, they rarely provide convincing evidence. The fact that an educational policy works in Japan does not mean it will work in the United States. The fact that Prohibition failed to curb alcohol consumption does not mean that crack should be legalized. * Hasty generalizations. Make sure that any conclusions are based on sufficient evidence and not coincidence or simple circumstance. The fact that you spot a fellow student walking into a liquor store on Monday, leaving a bar on Tuesday, and buying a six pack on Wednesday does not prove that the person has a drinking problem or even drinks alcohol at all.* Begging the question. Avoid assuming elements that must be proven. You cannot argue, "The outmoded computer systems must be replaced," until you prove that the system is indeed outdated. ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION CHECKLISTBEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR PAPER, REVIEW THESE POINTS1. Is your message clearly defined?2. Does your paper meet reader needs? Do you provide the support they need to accept your thesis?3. Do you support your views with adequate evidence?4. Do you anticipate reader objections and alternative points of view?5. Do you balance the strengths and weaknesses of logical, ethical, and emotional appeals?6. Do you avoid overstated, sentimental, or propagandist appeals?7. Do you avoid preaching to the converted? Will only those who already agree with you accept your arguments?8. Do you make it easy for undecided readers to accept your position without feeling manipulated or patronized?9. HAVE YOU TESTED YOUR ARGUMENT WITH PEER REVIEW?

Cross-Examination/Oregon-Oxford/Forensic Debate - traditional debate format used in elementary, governors debate, house debate rules, parliamentary debate rules, high school debate, youtube debate, presidential debate, colleges and all over the country. - There are 2 sides in this format : the Affirmative and the Negative. The Affirmative proves the validity of the issue or topic called the Proposition while the Negative disproves it. Each team has two speakers and one scribe. A Debate Moderator enforces the rules to

ensure the debates smooth conduct. Format of Debate - Oxford-Oregon Type Three Speakers from each side First Affirmative - Constructive Speech First Negative - Interpellation of the first affirmative Speaker First Negative - Constructive Speech First Affirmative - Interpellation of the first negative speaker Second Affirmative - Constructive Speech Second Negative - Interpellation of the second affirmative Second Negative - Constructive Second Affirmative - Interpellation of the second negative Third Affirmative - Constructive Speech Third Negative - Interpellation of the third affirmative Third Negative - Constructive Speech Third Affirmative - Interpellation of the third negative Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Negative Side Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Affirmative Side Duration Constructive Speech: Minimum of five (5) and maximum of seven (7) minutes Interpellation: Five (5) minutes Rebuttal Speech: Three (3) minutes Issues for Debate A. Whether or not it is Necessary? (Necessity) B. Whether or not it is Beneficial? (Beneficiality) C. Whether or not it is practical? (Practicability)

Criteria for Judging A. Evidence - 25% B. Delivery - 30% C. Interpellation - 30% D. Rebuttal - 15% The judges, based on their discretion, shall have the authority to determine who will be the Best Speaker and Best Debater. The winning team shall be determined by the majority decision of the Board of Judges. Guides for Constructive Speech Speech types of Constructive Speech may be: 1. Reading Method 2. Memory Method 3. Extemporaneous 4. Mix method of memory and conversational or dramatic Poise, gestures, audience contact and voice projection are highly recommended.

Rules on Interpellation 1. Questions should primarily focused on arguments developed in the speech of your opponent. However, matters relevant and material to the proposition are admissible. 2. Questioner and opponent should treat each other with courtesy. 3. Both speakers stand and face the audience during the question or Interpellation period. 4. Once the questioning has begun, neither the questioner nor his opponent may consult a colleague. Consultation should be done before but as quietly as possible. 5. Questioners should ask brief and easily understandable question. Answers should equally be brief. Categorical questions answerable by yes or no is allowed, however, opponent if he choose, may qualify his answer why yes or why no. 6. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer, but he may cut off a vervous response with a statement such as a thank you that is enough information or your point is quite clear or Im satisfied. 7. A questioner should not comment on the response of his opponent. 8. Your opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by asking the questioner to rephrase or reform his question.

Rules on Rebuttal Speech A. Rebuttal speaker should point out clearly the fallacies committed by his opponent stating clearly what particularly statement or argument constitute said fallacy. B. If not familiar with the fallacies of logic, the debater may counter arguments directly by stating what arguments or statement is incorrect or false.

Role of the Moderator The moderator of the debate has the following duties: 1. To reveal the issue involve the debate; 2. To rule on points of clarification about the issues or questions and answers made during the Interpellation; and 3. To see to it that the debate is orderly and follows the rules of parliamentary procedures.

Role of the Timer 1. To time the speakers and debaters accurately; 2. To give the speakers a one-minute warning with the ringing of the bell once before his/her time is up. 3. To prevent the debaters from exceeding the time allotted to them by ringing the bell twice.

Tips on Interpellation and Rebuttal CROSS EXAMINATION The cross-examination period of a debate is a time when the person who is not going to speak next in the constructives questions the person who has just finished speaking. Consider cross examination an information exchange period - it is not the time to role play lawyer. Cross examination may serve six objectives: 1. To clarify points 2. To expose errors 3. To obtain admissions 4. To setup arguments 5. To save prep time 6. To show the judge how cool you are so they WANT to vote for you.

Most debaters tend to ignore the value of good cross-examination. Remember, 30% of the entire debate is spent in cross-examination - it should be a meaningful and essential part of the debate. If nothing else, debaters tend to underestimate the importance that crossexamination may have on the judge. Cross-examination will indicate to the judge just how sharp and spontaneous the debaters are. Invisible bias will always occur in a debate round and judges would always like the sharpest team to win. Good, effective crossexamination of the opponents can play an important psychological role in winning the ballot of the judge.

Be dynamic. Have questions and be ready to go, answer questions actively and with confidence whenever you can. The image you project will be very important to the audience/judge. This is the one opportunity the audience/judge has to compare you with opponents side-by-side.

GUIDELINES FOR ASKING QUESTIONS: 1. Ask a short Q designed to get a short A 2. Indicate the object of your Q 3. Don't telegraph your argument, don't make it too obvious. 4. Don't ask Q they won't answer properly."So, we win, right?" 5. Make Q seem important, even if it is just an attempt to clarify. 6. Politeness is a must -- emphasize the difference if they are rude. 7. Approach things from a non-obvious direction. Then trap them. 8. Mark your flow/notes as to what you want to question them about. 9. Avoid open ended Qs unless you are sure they are clueless. 10. Face the judge/audience, not your opponent. 11. CX answers must be integrated into your arguments made during a speech.

GUIDELINES FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS:

1. Concise A. 2. Refer to something you have already said whenever possible. This is safe. 3. Answer based on your position in the debate so far. Keep options open. 4. Don't make promises of what you or your partner will do later. 5. Qualify your answers. 6. Be willing to exchange documents read into the debate. 7. Answer only relevant questions. 8. Address the judge. 9. Try and not answer hypothetical Q. If they demand, say you will give a hypothetical A. 10. Signal each other, don't tag-team. 11. Don't say"I don't know,"say"I am not sure at this time...."

REBUTTALS Most debaters, coaches, and judges would agree that rebuttals are the most difficult and yet the most important parts of the debate. Not only is there less time within each speech, but each debater has to sort through all of the issues to determine which ones are the most important ones! What a debater does or does not do in rebuttals will decide who wins the debate. Very few debaters (especially beginners) can hope to extend everything that happened in the constructive speeches. Debaters don't have to do that and just because a team may have dropped a point or an argument is not an automatic reason to vote against that team. What matters is the type of argument that is extended or dropped in rebuttals-this will determine the winner of the round. Think about these four issues when rebuttals happen: 1. Which arguments have more weight at the end of the round? 2. Which outcomes (disads, counterplans) are more likely given lots of internal links? 3. What about time frame-what happens first? 4. What about the quality of evidence? Here are some other helpful hints: 1. Avoid repetition. Don't just repeat your constructive arguments. Beat the other team's arguments and tell the judge why your arguments are better. 2. Avoid passing ships. Don't avoid what the other team said. You must clash directly with their responses. 3. Avoid reading evidence only. You must be explaining and telling the judge why these issues win the debate. 4. Avoid rereading evidence that has already been read in constructives. You can make reference to it by referring to it, but don't reread it. 5. Avoid"lumping and dumping."Don't try to go for everything. You can't make 12 responses to each argument in a few minutes. 6. Be organized. Don't jump from issue to issue at random. Be specific and logical about winning issues. 7. Don't be a blabbering motormouth. Speak quickly but not beyond your ability. If you speak too fast, you will stumble and not get through as much. 8. Don't whine to the judge about fairness or what the other team might have done that you think is unethical. Make responses and beat them. 9. Don't make new arguments. You can read new evidence but you can't run new disadvantages or topicality responses. You are limiting to extending the positions laid out in the constructive speeches. 10. Use signposting . Make sure the judge knows where you are on the flowsheet. This is not the time to lose the judge on the flow. 11. Use issue packages. Organize your arguments into issue packages. Choose arguments which you want to win. Don't go for everything. Extend those arguments that you need to win. 12. Cross-apply arguments. If you dropped an argument in a prior speech that you think was important don't act like your losing. Crossapply arguments you made somewhere else in the debate to answer it.

Oregon-Oxford debate Overview

Home Photos Photo Album Tourneys Sample Motions Reference sites Speeches Debate Basics it's all 'bout us Matterload tag it credits

Oregon-Oxford Debating

History of Debate Objectives The Resolution Research Case-building Parts of the Debate Speaker Roles The Constructive Speech

Debate during the Olden Days

It was in 5th Century B.C. in Syracuse a city from Ancient Greece has gone through war and revolution. People struggled for peace and order. A particular concern for them was land ownership for lands were claimed through memory.

What is Debate? Debate is basically a response to a problem. It is a competition using words and logic. It is to change peoples minds and actions through our words and power of conviction. Objectives of Debate

Main Objective * To resolve the issue intelligently at the end of the debate Specific Objectives * To have a comprehensive grasp of issues * To be able to prepare a case which tackles the P, N and B.

The Resolution

Stated as: Let it be resolved that (LIBRT):______________. Characteristics: * Usually about a policy. * Stated in a way that alters the status quo. * Positively-stated.

Research

Research first before case-building The team should research before building their case if the issue is new and is still developing. Case-building before research The team should build their case first before undergoing research when the issue has already been widely discussed and debated.

Case-building BURDEN OF EACH TEAM Affirmative Burden of Proof Must establish a prima facie case Must prove all aspects of their case to win

Can not win based on the inability of the negative to prove its case.

Negative Burden of Rebuttal Must destroy either the P, N, or b of the affirmatives case Can not discuss anything that the affirmative did not bring up ASPECTS OF THE CASE Practicability feasibility of a proposition, includes matter of: *law *clamor *finance Necessity need for the proposition, discusses the presence or absence of an inherent flaw in the status quo. Beneficiality advantages or disadvantages of adopting or rejecting the resolution, includes; * specific beneficiaries *specific benefits

Parts of the Debate

Constructive Speech The presentation of each team members arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case 5 minutes each Interpellation The opportunity for each debater to ask and answer questions regarding their speeches - 3 minutes Rebuttal The summary and defense of each teams arguments and evidence, to be delivered by either the scribe or the team captain 6 minutes

Speaker Roles 3 Speakers Practicability speaker Necessity Speaker Beneficiality 1 Scribe

1st Speaker (Affirmative Side) I. Introduction II. State the proposition A. Define the terms B. Give the status quo 1. What is the status quo? 2. What is wrong with it? C. State your stand

IV. V.

Team Split Caseline State all your arguments first Go back, then strengthen each one Always give transition. You could repeat the argument after your

A. B. C. explanation. VI. Conclusion

1st Speaker (Negative Side) I. Introduction II. State the proposition of the affirmative A. Negate/show the clash with the

given III. IV. V.

proposition Rebut the 1st speaker of the affirm.s arguments Caseline (same as the 1st spkr-aff) Conclusion (same as the 1st spkr-aff)

Rebuttal Speaker (Affirmative and Negative) I. Introduction II. State the proposition A. What has happened in this debate? B. Where was the clash?

I.
A. B. C.

Rebuttal of the Opposing team What have they said? Why is it wrong? Fallacies committed

A. 2.

Summary Restate all the arguments of each speaker 1. What have they said? Why is it right?

I.

B. Strengthen arguments by giving more examples or

C. Conclusion