1

FLORENTINO CAYCO DEBATE CUP 2016

Austral-Asians Parliamentary Debating Basics

Definition
Debate
a form of formalised argument where the
winner is the team that most effectively
persuades the adjudicator
a verbal judo: martial arts for the mind
a team sport; debate is won by team, not by
individuals
Dynamics
Affirmative:

1st Speaker
2nd Speaker
3rd Speaker
Reply Speaker

Negative:

1st Speaker

2nd Speaker

3rd Speaker

Reply
Speaker

Motions
Topic of the debate; what you are debating upon
Example: THBT the Reproductive Health Bill should be
adopted
Common acronyms:
TH-This House
THBT-This House Believes That
THW-This House Will
THR-This House Regrets
THC-This House Celebrates
Types

Open

Semi-closed/Semi-open

Closed
OPEN MOTIONS
Very vague motions
Highly open to different interpretations
Presents no clear issue to discuss,
thus, requires a good and clear
definition
Rarely given out in debates; unfair for
the opposition/negative side
Example: THBT the carrot is better
than the stick
SEMI-OPEN MOTIONS
Relatively more clear, more specific
Presents a specific issue and provides
a few details of what is to be debated
upon
Motion: THW ban guns
CLOSED MOTIONS
Highly specific motions, very clear as
to what it wants you to debate about
Leaves no room for doubt as to what
is to be discussed during the debate
Example: THW allow developed nations to
use the effectiveness of population control
mechanisms of a developing country as a
basis for giving foreign aid
Two Sides
Government

support the motion

Meaning: defining the motion
constructing a positive case in
favour of the
motion
providing substantive
materials and arguments in
support of the case
responding to any challenges
made to that case
by the
Opposition
Opposition
negate the motion
Meaning: responding to the Government's
definition
o constructing a case in
opposition to the motion
providing substantive
materials and arguments in
support of the case
o responding to the arguments
delivered by the
Government.
Form of Debates
Policy debate is a form of debate competition in
which teams of two advocate for and against a
resolution that typically calls for policy change by the
government.
Value Judgment Debate
assessment of ideas
*NOTE: Policy and value-judgment debates
are not mutually-exclusive.
Speaker Roles (Gov)
1st Speaker /Prime Minister (6-8 minutes)
Defines the topic.
Gives the case structure and theme.
Presents own arguments.
Provides a summary of his speech.
2nd Speaker (6-8minutes)
Rebuts.

Reiterates and defends his first

speakers arguments.
Presents own argument.

Provides a summary of his speech.

3rd Speaker (6-8minutes)

Rebuts substantially.
Reiterates and defends his own
team's case.
Provides a summary of his speech.
Reply Speaker (4 minutes)
Presents a comparative overview of
the clash points in the debate proving
why his teams case stands
POINTS OF INFORMATION (POIs)
A POI can be in a question or statement form
and should not take more than 15 seconds.
Each speaker should accept at least two POIs.

FLORENTINO CAYCO DEBATE CUP 2016

All three members of the team should try to

give POIs, but they must not be disruptive.

POIs are judged on the basis of:

the threat they pose to the strength of
the argument of the debater.
value of its wit and humour.
Responses to the POIs are judged on the `
basis of:
promptness and confidence in
answering
strength of the response.
value of wit and humour in the
response
Definitional Challenge
Truistic
Tautological/ Circular
Squirreling
Time & Place Setting
Specialized Knowledge
How to Give a DC:
You can only challenge a definition if it violates
any of the criteria stated earlier. Frequently
used terms in challenging definitions are:
wholly unreasonable, squirrel, time-place set,
truistic.
You cannot challenge a definition simply
because you have a more reasonable or better
definition.
The Power to Challenge
Challenge must come from the leader of the
opposition, not later.
Leader of the opposition must provide an
alternative definition.
In most of the cases, the teams must introduce
an 'even if argument.
An `Even if' argument is not possible in some
cases. (e.g. truistic definition & definition
running counter to the resolution i.e. where
govt. has taken the oppositions case).
In a definition debate, all the speakers except
the PM argue the following:
Why challenge?
Validity/ invalidity of the two
definitions.
Even if we are to accept the other
side's definition, these are the
weaknesses of their case.
Positive case under their own
definition
DEBATE WORKSHOP
TEAM TACTICS
AND FORMS OF ARGUMENTATION
The Adjudicator
The Adjudicating board will be seen and must act as
an average and rational individual all throughout the
debate. The Adjudicator must decide of who the winner
is based on what transpired during the debate, and not
on his opinion of what should or could have had

happened. The decision of the adjudicator is

irrevocable.
TEAM STRATEGIES DURING PREP
Time Allocation
Vetoing
Finding the Burden of the Motion
Stand/Policy
Identifying Issues and Constructing Arguments
Speech Writing
Spirit of the Motion
the essence of the motion
the message or the topic that the adj core
wants the debaters to talk about: what sort of
debate was envisioned when this motion was
chosen?
Case Construction (Soft-Hard Line Models)
A very small modification to the status quo is soft,
while a big change is hard.
Example: THW support euthanasia
Soft Line
Restricted to incredibly sick people, who are very close
to death, and who have no hope of cure or adecent
standard of living. Patients need the consent of
multiple doctors and psychologists. Passive
euthanasia only deny food/medicine
Moderate Line
Allowed to the terminally ill, who have very low
standard of living and little-to-no hope of a cure. Doctor
& psychologist consent. Doctor assisted euthanasia
allowed
Hard Line
Available to anyone diagnosed with a terminal or
debilitating or degenerative illness, whether physical or
mental. Need medical consent. Doctor assisted or selfadministered.
Insane lines:
Although hard lines are good, and usually there is a
positive relationship between the hardness of the
case and its moral and practical consistency, there is a
point at which this relationship breaks down. Past a
certain point a definition or model stops being hard
and becomes insane.
Ways to judge if your line is insane:
1. Laugh test - If the opposition (and audience)
laugh when you propose the case, its usually
a good sign that you have stepped across the
line (it may be the way you explained the
argument, but nevertheless its a good
indication).
2. If anyone in the team feels seriously
uncomfortable making the argument, then
thats a bad sign. Debaters should be flexible
and willing to argue counter-intuitive positions,

FLORENTINO CAYCO DEBATE CUP 2016

but if a reasonable person is offended or

disturbed by your case, then you have a
problem.
Team Split
As a team work out the logical progression of
the arguments and thus, which speakers will
be covering which material, (e.g. Macro &
Micro Analysis) then speakers can finalize
their notes for their own speeches in the final
few minutes.
Activity:
Finding the Spirit of the Motion and Constructing
the Case
THW pay children to get high grades in school
TH rejects the Earth Hour
THBT people should not get married

Thats the government telling you whats best for you

saying Were not going to take the chance that youre
foolish enough to ignore the obvious benefits of
wearing a seatbelt, so were going to make it a law and
then punish you if you dont do it.
Democracy
Democracy is a system of governance that seeks to
maximize:
Accountability
At every level there is some sort of oversight
and everyone is answerable to someone.
Basically it's what people mean when they talk
about 'checks and balances' (i.e. Separation of
Powers)

Representation
Refers to the fact that democracy is a system
where leaders derive their credibility, their
'mandate', directly from the people. It means
that all citizens and people have a right to be
heard in their political system.

Equality
The most basic and arguably the most
important principle of democracy. It means
that unless there is a very good reason,
everyone deserves a vote and all votes should
have equal weight.

Making Arguments From First Principles

The anatomy of the argument

Environmental Theory

First Principles have two key elements:

(1) A good understanding of the principles of logic (i.e
knowing how to show that an argument is logically
flawed without knowing any facts about the issue).
(2) A good understanding of the key concepts that form
the fundamental clash in the debate.
The Role of Government
Small government or liberalism giving
individuals as much freedom as possible (as long as
that freedom wouldnt be used to hurt other people)
When given the choice between banning something or
merely regulating its use, governments should choose
to regulate it, because banning something implies that
the government is telling you what sort of behavior is
acceptable or beneficial for you.
The key is informed choice so long as adults fully
understand the choice they are making, and then they
should be free to make it.
Big government - a government that actively
involves itself in shaping the choices that people can
make, in an effort to create a society that promotes the
social good.

DEEP GREEN
Environmental damage is caused by overconsumption. Only way to protect earth is to
cut consumption
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Development is crucially important, and
technology will provide the solutions, but it
needs to be guided and bad actions actively
regulated away.
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
The solution to environmental problems is ever
more rapid economic development.
Development leads to cleaner technology.
Tragedy of the Commons
It doesnt cost you anything to emit waste, or carbon
dioxide into the air. But doing so has a profoundly
negative impact on the world. But because its cheaper
to do it than to not (expensive systems to clean out
exhaust, or completely change industry) people do.
Solutions to this are to either charge for them or
restrict their use.
Rebuttal Tactics
Turning Governments Specifics to your advantage
A slippery slope argument is when you attempt to
prove that by doing one thing, you will also, as a byproduct, inevitably do something else worse.
Example: THW legalize abortion

FLORENTINO CAYCO DEBATE CUP 2016

Gov restricted it under very specific circumstances

(such as where the pregnancy presents a medical
danger to the mother), As Opp you can say, if we
legalize abortion even under very specific
circumstances we will unleash forces that will
eventually lead to abortion under any circumstances
(abortion on demand).
The Abortion Slippery Slope

4 common flaws that you need to spot

1.
Assertion -the argument is in fact not
an argument at all, its simply an assertion,
and as such there is no logical reason given to
believe that is it true.
2.
Contradiction - The argument may be
valid, but it is in contradiction with a previous
argument. To be a real or full blown
contradiction, it must be the case that it is
impossible for the two arguments in question
to both be true simultaneously.
3. False Dichotomy - This a particular type of
mischaracterization of a debate or problem. It
occurs when someone says that there is a choice
to be made, where the only options are A or B,
when in fact they are not the only choices
available.
4. Straw Man - another type of
misrepresentation or mischaracterization of an
argument. Basically the straw man is when a
team set up an argument (which you have not
made, and dont intend too) and then proceed
to rebut it.
Even if Rebuttals and Tactical Concessions
The simplest form of rebuttal is: Accept the premises,
deny the conclusion.

What would happen if the model was implemented

exactly as your opponents suggest?
Example: THBT the African Union should have a
standing army.
Tactical Concessions
Simply admitting that you happen to agree with a
proposition put forward by your opponents.
When should you concede an oppositions
argument?
(1) Concede if you would look stupid if you didnt
(2) Concede if it makes an argument you cant win go
away.
In 90% of debates both sides should agree with the
existence of a problem (you can still strongly disagree
with the proposed solution). In a debate about drugs, it
would seem churlish to deny that there is a drug
problem, or in a debate about rogue states like Iran or
North Korea, it would look silly to pretend that these
states are not dangerous but admitting that doesnt
mean that any particular course of action is
automatically the right response.
Laddering
1. Child Labor is the gateway to the future
2. Beauty Pageants in the concept of feminism is
self-defeating
3. Cannibalism is the true morality
4. True courage is demonstrated by passive
resistance
5. Abortion preserves life
6. Paying housewives disproves feminism
7. Joining school competitions is more harmful
than being beneficial
Competition Proper
Additional rules and regulations:
Use of the internet and electronic gadgets are
strictly forbidden.
The use of printed materials are allowed.
Be time-conscious.
Know the locations and venues for the debate
rounds beforehand so that you wont get lost.