https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=lREpbSgFd2Y

What is Debating?

A debate is a structured argument. Two sides speak alternately for and against a particular
contention usually based on a topical issue. Unlike the arguments you might have with your
family or friends however, each person is allocated a time they are allowed to speak for and
any interjections are carefully controlled. The subject of the dispute is often prearranged so
you may find yourself having to support opinions with which you do not normally agree.
You also have to argue as part of a team, being careful not to contradict what others on
your side have said.

Why debate?

It is an excellent way of improving speaking skills and is particularly helpful in providing

experience in developing a convincing argument. Those of you who are forced to argue
against your natural point of view realize that arguments, like coins, always have at least
two sides.

The Basic Debating Skills

Style

Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part
of debating to master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material
in a confident and persuasive way.

Speed

It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to
say what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood.

Tone

Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Listening to one tone for an entire
presentation is boring.

Volume

Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout

through every debate regardless of context. There is absolutely no need speak any more
loudly than the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting
does not win debates. Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since no one will be able to
hear you.

Clarity

The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about.
The main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the stream of
thought which is keeping them going. It is also important to keep it simple. While long
words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible.

Use of notes and eye contact

Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organized to be effective. There is
absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. Of course, notes should never become
obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they ever be read from
verbatim. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under
each.

When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate
sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and
then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using.

Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your gaze. No one likes to
be stared at.

Content

Content is what you actually say in the debate. The arguments used to develop your own
sides case and rebut the opposite sides. The information on content provided below is a
general overview of what will be expected when you debate. The final logistics of how
long you will be debating, how many people will be in your group, and how the
debate will unfold (ie: which team speaks first etc.), will all be decided by your
tutorial leader.

Case (argument)- the whole

Introduction - The case your group is making must be outlined in the introduction. This
involves stating your main arguments and explaining the general thrust of your case. This
must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. It is
also a good idea to indicate the aspects of the subject to be discussed by each of the team
members.
Conclusion - At the end, once everyone has spoken, it is useful to briefly summarize what
your group has said and why.

Case (argument)- the parts

Having outlined the whole of your argument, you must then begin to build a case (the
parts). The best way to do this is to divide your case into between two and four arguments
(or divide your case based on the number of people in your group). You must justify your
arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about
the strategy of proof. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it an
argument. There are a number of ways of dividing up cases according to groups of
arguments (eg political/economic/social or moral/practical or international/regional etc.) or
just according to individual arguments if you cant group any together. Under each of these
basic headings you should then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it
using the methods outlined above. It is usually best to put the most important arguments
first. Here is an example of a case outline:

The media exert more influence over what people think than the government does. This
is true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their votes on what they see and hear
in the media. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda between elections by
deciding what issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have
successfully demonized politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely
to believe journalists than politicians.

All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately you can see the
counter-arguments), but they give the case a wide range which cover all kinds of issues.
The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well argued one. Think: Can I
argue that?

Rebuttal the parts

Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. They may be misinterpretations or

they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict one another or fail
to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost
every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects. Here are a few
examples:

1. Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and
healthcare. This is true, but is morally flawed.

2. Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke
because it will make smoking more mysterious and taboo. This is logically flawed, the ban
would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem
attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking.

3. My partner will then look at the economic issues... Blah..blah..blah...(5 minutes later
and still no mention of the economic issues) This is a clear failure to explain a major part
of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with,
to win this debate there are three things I must do. If the speaker fails to do any of
those things you can then hang her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words by
his or her own admission he or she cannot have won the debate.

Rebuttal the whole:

It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to identify what the key
arguments are. It isnt enough to rebut a few random arguments here and there. Of
course the techniques used above are invaluable but they must be used appropriately.
There are a number of things you should do to systematically break down a teams case:

1. Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case. Is their methodology flawed?

2. Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact
addressed these.

3. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes. Try
to refute these.

4. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a point of
rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that
the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You
wont have time and your aim is to show the other sides case to be flawed in the key
areas.

Debate Formats

There are several different formats for debate practiced in high school and college
debate leagues. Most of these formats share some general features. Specifically, any
debate will have two sides: a proposition side, and an opposition side. The job of the
proposition side is to advocate the adoption of the resolution, while the job of the
opposition side is to refute the resolution.
The resolution can take many forms, depending on the format. But in most cases, the
resolution is simply a statement of policy or a statement of value. Some examples
include, "Be it resolved, that the federal government of the United States should
legalize marijuana"; "Be it resolved, that when in conflict, the right to a fair trial ought
to take precedence over freedom of speech"; "Be it resolved, that men should wear
boxers rather than briefs,"; etc. In many debate formats, there is a requirement that a
policy resolution (a resolution regarding the policies followed by some organization or
government) represent a change from current policy, so that the opposition team will
be defending the status quo.

Usually, there is also a judge present in the debate whose job is to decide the winner.

Below are descriptions of some of the most common debate formats:

High School formats

Team Policy Debate
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
College formats
NDT Debate
CEDA Debate
Parliamentary Debate

Team Policy Debate

Team policy debate is the oldest, and still probably the most
popular, format of debate practiced in American high schools. The
proposition side is called the Affirmative or Af, and the opposition
side is called the Negative or Neg. Each side is a team composed of
two debaters, so that there are four people participating in the
debate (not including the judge and audience).

Format. A round of team policy debate consists of eight speeches. The first four
speeches are called constructive speeches, because the teams are perceived as laying
out their most important arguments during these speeches. The last four speeches are
called rebuttals, because the teams are expected to extend and apply arguments that
have already been made, rather than make new arguments. Here is a table of the eight
speeches and their time limits:

Speech: 1AC 1NC 2AC 2NC 1NR 1AR 2NR 2AR

Time: 8 min. 8 min. 8 min. 8 min. 4 min. 4 min. 4 min. 4 min.

(A stands for Affirmative, N for Negative, C for Constructive, R for Rebuttal.)

Two things are of interest in this structure. First, the affirmative team both begins and
ends the debate. Second, the negative team has two speeches in a row: the first
negative rebuttal (1NR) immediately follows the second negative constructive (2NC).
(Why? Well, because it's always been done that way.)

In general, the members of each team alternate giving speeches, so that the same
person gives both the 1AC and the 1AR, the same person gives the 2NC and the 2NR,
etc. Occasionally, the rules will allow a change in this format. For example,
affirmative teams will sometimes go "inside-outside" so that one person (usually the
weaker member) gives the 1AC and the 2AR, while the other (stronger) debater gives
the 2AC and the 1AR.

Usually, there is a 3-minute cross-examination period after each of the first four
(constructive) speeches. The person who does the cross-examining is the person who
will not be giving the next speech for his side. For instance, the person who will give
the 2NC will cross-examine after the 1AC. (An exception to this rule is made when
the affirmative team goes "inside-outside.") When team policy debate is done without
cross-examination periods, the speech times are often extended to 10 minutes for
constructives and 5 minutes for rebuttals.

Resolutions. Resolutions in team policy debate are always of a policy nature, usually
governmental policy. The affirmative team almost always defends the resolution by
means of a particular example, known as a "case"; if they can show the example
(case) to be true, then the general proposition is also shown to be true. For instance,
the first resolution I ever encountered in team policy debate was, "The federal
government should adopt a comprehensive, long-term agricultural policy in the
United States." Some typical cases teams ran under this resolution were: that the
government should institute a program restricting the use of pesticides; that the
government should institute a program to insure genetic diversity of crops; that the
government should institute a program requiring farmers to switch from land-farming
to hydroponics (i.e., growing food in great big tanks of water); that the government
should abolish crop subsidies and price supports; etc.

Style. Team policy debate is focused on evidence gathering and organizational

ability. Persuasiveness is not considered important -- or at least, not as important as
covering ground and reading plenty of evidence. The best teams have huge fileboxes
packed to the gills with evidence on their own affirmative case and all the possible
cases they might have to oppose. If you ever walk into a high-level team debate
round, expect to see debaters talking at extremely high speeds, reading out the
contents of page after page of evidence, gasping for breath between points, and using
lots of jargon ("I cite Jorgenson, Jorgenson post-dates Bronstein, that kills PMR 4,
flow that Aff!"). There is very little discussion of values such as freedom, justice,
equality, etc.; usually, the ultimate criterion on any issue is how many dead bodies will
result from taking or not taking a particular action. This form of debate can be fun, it
encourages good research and organizational skills, and it is good for getting novice
debaters used to speaking in front of people. But if you want to learn how to
speak persuasively, this form of debate is not for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln-Douglas (or L-D) debate began as a reaction to the excesses

of team policy debate in high school. The idea was to have a debate
focused on discussing the merits of competing ethical values in a
persuasive manner. The famed debates between senatorial
candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in the 1850s
inspired the name and format for this style of debate. L-D is a one-
on-one debate, and as in team policy debate, the proposition and
opposition teams are called the Affirmative (or Af) and
the Negative (or Neg), respectively.Format. A round of L-D debate
consists of five speeches and two cross-examination periods. The
speeches and their times are as follows:
 Cross-
Cross- Negative
Speec Affirmative Ex of Affirmative Negative Affirmative
Ex of Af Constructiv
h: Constructive Neg by Rebuttal Rebuttal Rejoinder
by Neg e
Af

Time: 6 min. 3 min. 7 min. 3 min. 4 min. 6 min. 3 min.

Notice that the Affirmative has more speeches than the Negative, but both have the
same total speaking time (13 minutes).

Resolutions. Resolutions in L-D debate are usually stated as propositions of value.

Although the propositions are sometimes related to issues of policy, this is not always
the case. Typical resolutions include: "The spirit of the law ought to take precedence
over the letter of the law to enhance justice," "Cooperation is superior to competition,"
"Violent revolution is a just response to oppression," etc. Unlike in team debate, the
debaters are expected to debate the resolution as a whole, not just a particular
example.

Style. Back when I did L-D debate (more than ten years ago now), it was true to its
original mission of restoring persuasion and values to high school debate. Evidence
was considered important, but it was not the be-all-and-end-all that it is in team policy
debate. The emphasis was on speaking clearly, logically, and fluently. Unfortunately,
I have heard rumors that the bad habits of team policy debate have crept into L-D, and
that high-speed reading of large quantities of evidence is now the norm on some
debate circuits.

NDT Debate

NDT stands for National Debate Tournament. This is the oldest, and
probably most popular, form of debate at the college level. I never
did this kind of debate, so I will keep my description short: NDT is
just like the team policy debate of high school, except more so. My
understanding is that the format is exactly the same as in team
policy debate (4 constructive speeches, 4 rebuttals, 4 cross-
examination periods, etc.). And the style is also the same: huges
quantities of evidence read at high velocity, with little pretense of
persuasion.
 CEDA Debate

CEDA stands for Cross-Examination Debate Assocation. This is a

newer form of college-level debate than NDT, and it was born as a
reaction to NDT in the same way that Lincoln-Douglas debate was
born as a reaction to team policy debate. CEDA is a two-on-two
debate, with a structure very similar to that of NDT and team policy
debate. The diference is in the style of resolution; while NDT
resolutions are policy-oriented, this is not always the case in CEDA.
In addition, CEDA was intended to be a values-driven debate.

By the time I reached college, however, CEDA debate had already succumbed to the
pressure to be like NDT. The CEDA debates I observed involved high-speed
recitations of vast amounts of evidence -- although, to CEDA's credit, these
tendencies were not so extreme as in NDT. Still, it was bad enough to drive me away.

By the way, in case you've seen that movie "Listen to Me," starring Kirk Cameron:
CEDA is the form of debate they were doing in that movie. Of course, they were
doing it more persuasively in the movie than they do in real life. (Did I like the
movie? It was okay. I gave it two stars out of a possible four. The arrogant blowhard
attitude exhibited by some of the debaters was totally accurate. But the choice of
debate topic in the movie -- abortion -- was totally unrealistic, because the creators of
resolutions generally try to avoid issues that are so divisive that judges cannot be
expected to judge debate rounds objectively. And then there's the fact that they won
that final debate round on the basis of new arguments in rebuttals -- something
completely against the rules in all forms of debate.)

Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary debate is yet another form of debate that arose as a

reaction against the excesses of NDT and team policy debate. The
emphasis in this form of debate is on persuasiveness, logic, and wit.
Unlike in other forms of debate, where the resolution is established
well in advance of a tournament and is the same for every round in
the tournament, in Parliamentary debate the resolution is usually
not established until 10 minutes before the debate round begins,
and there is a new resolution for every round of debate. Since it
would be unreasonable to expect teams to research every topic they
could be possibly be asked to debate, parliamentary debate
requires no evidence whatsoever.

This form of debate is called "parliamentary" because of its vague resemblance to the
debates that take place in the British parliament. The proposition team is called the
"Government," and the opposition team is called (appropriately) the "Opposition."
The Government team consists of two debaters, the Prime Minister (PM) and the
Member of Government (MG). The Opposition team also consists of two debaters,
the Leader of the Opposition (LO) and the Member of the Opposition (MO).

Format. A round of parliamentary debate consists of six speeches: four constructive

speeches and two rebuttal speeches. The speeches and their times are as follows:

Prime Leader of Member of Member of Leader of Prime

Speec Minister Opposition Government Opposition Opposition Minister
h: Constructiv Constructive Constructive Constructive Rebuttal Rebuttal
e (PMC) (LOC) (MG) (MO) (LOR) (PMR)

Time: 7 min. 8 min. 8 min. 8 min. 4 min. 5 min.

Several things are notable about this structure. First, as in team policy and NDT
debate, the proposition (Government) team -- specifically, the Prime Minister -- both
begins and ends the debate. Second, again as in team policy and NDT, the Opposition
team has a block of two speeches in a row (the MO followed by the LOR). Third,
unlike in team policy and NDT, there are only two rebuttals instead of four.
Consequently, two people in the debate (the PM and the LO) have two speeches each,
while the other two (the MG and MO) have only one speech each.

There are no cross-examination periods in parliamentary debate. But there are various
motions on which the debaters can rise during others' speeches. These points are:

1. Point of Information. During one person's speech, another debater (presumably

from the opposite team) rises from his seat and says something like, "Point of
information, sir?" The speaker has the option of whether or not to accept the point of
information (it is usually good form to accept at least two points of information in a
speech). If he accepts the point, the person who rose may ask a question of the
speaker -- usually a rhetorical question designed to throw him off. The speaker then
answers the question (or ignores it if he can't come up with a good answer) and moves
on with his speech. There are two main rules for points of information: they may
only be asked in constructive speeches, not in rebuttals; and they may not be asked
during the first or last minute of any speech.

2. Point of Order. A debater rises on a point of order when he believes one of the
rules of debate is being broken. The most common use of the point of order is to say
that the speaker is bringing up a new argument in a rebuttal speech, which is not
allowed. (The rebuttals are reserved for extending and applying old arguments.) The
person making the point of order rises, says, "Point of order, argument X is a new
argument." The judge makes a judgment as to whether the point of order is valid. If
so, she says, "point well taken," and the speaker must quit making argument X. If not,
she says, "point not well taken," and the speaker may continue with that argument if
he wishes. The procedure is similar for other points of order.

3. Point of Personal Privilege. This rarely used motion has a couple of different
uses. The most common is to protest a gross misrepresentation of one's statements or
an attack on one's character. For example: "Mr. Jones says he likes lynching black
people." "Point of personal privilege! I merely said sometimes the death penalty is
justified." As with points of order, it is the job of the judge to rule the point well-
taken or not-well-taken. A point of personal privilege can also be used to ask for a
personal favor or exception from the judge; for example, "Point of personal privilege
-- gotta go potty, please?"

Resolutions. In parliamentary debate, the resolution is usually in the form of a

quotation or proverb provided to the debaters shortly before the round (say, about 10
minutes). Theoretically, the government team is supposed to come up with a specific
case that is an example of the resolution, or at least in the spirit of the resolution. In
practice, nobody really cares whether the case that the government team runs has
anything to do with the resolution, so long as the prime minister makes some small
pretense of linking the case to the resolution. For example, the resolution might be
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." A good case to link to this resolution might be
that "creation science" should not be taught in public schools. A mediocre link might
be something about the drug war, inspired by the word "opiate." A lousy link would
go something like this: "This resolution made us think about how people believe
things that aren't true. For example, some people think that rent control is a good
idea, but that's not true. So in this debate, the government will argue that rent control
should be abolished." At most parliamentary debate tournaments, nobody would even
blink an eye at that link.

The upshot is that the government team has broad latitude to run almost any case they
want. Although theoretically the government team is supposed to devise its case only
after hearing the resolution, most often a team already has an idea what case it wants
to run long before then.

There is also no requirement that the government run a public policy case. All that is
required is that the government team must establish a topic that has two (or more)
clashing sides and is debatable. Broadly speaking, there are only three types of cases
that the government team cannot run:

1. A tautology. A tautological case is one that is immediately and logically true by

construction. For example, "Bill Clinton is the best Democratic president since 1981"
would be a tautology, since Bill is the only Democrat to have attained the presidency
in the specified time period.

2. A truism. A truistic case is one that no moral person could possibly disagree with.
For example, "Infants should not be skinned alive for entertainment purposes" would
be a truism. Of course, the definition of truistic is contentious, because it is almost
always possible to find someone who disagrees with a proposition, and what is
considered moral is often culture-specific.

3. A specific-knowledge case. A specific-knowledge case is one that would require

the opposition to know more about a topic than it could reasonably be expected to
know. In general, debaters are expected to be familiar with current events and popular
culture. If the case requires more particularistic information, the government must
provide all necessary information in the first speech of the round. If the government
fails to do so, then the case is deemed specific-knowledge and hence against the
rules. An example of a specific-knowledge case would be, "The U.S. Air Force
should discontinue use of the V26 Osprey helicopter because of its low flight-to-thrust
ratio." Another would be, "My partner should dump his girlfriend." Unless the evils
and advantages of his girlfriend were well known, it would be unreasonable to expect
the opposition to refute the case.

Inasmuch as these are the only constraints on the government's choice of case, there is
an astounding variety of cases that may be run. One popular variety is the "time-
space" case, in which the government puts the judge in the shoes of a particular
person or entity at some point in time, and then argues that she should make a
particular decision. An example would be, "You are Abraham Lincoln in 1861. You
should let the South go in peace."

At some tournaments, those running the tournament will provide a "tight-link"

resolution (either in addition to or instead of the usual weak-link resolution). A tight-
link resolution must be defended literally and in its entirety. For instance, if the tight-
link resolution were, "The federal government should abolish the minimum wage," the
government would be expected to argue for (you guessed it) abolishing the minimum
wage. There are also some tournaments that provide "medium-link" resolutions, by
which they mean that judges will be strict about the requirement that government
cases be reasonably within the spirit of the quotation or proverb provided.

Style. Unlike CEDA, parliamentary debate has managed to preserve its emphasis on
persuasion, logic, and humor; this success is most likely a result of eschewing
excessive preparation and evidence. The spontaneity and openness of the format
makes parliamentary debate free-wheeling and exciting, whereas other styles of
debate can become boring because every debate round at a tournament revolves
around the same topic. The downside is that in the absence of any evidentiary burden,
debaters are free to spew utter nonsense, or even outright lies, without providing any
support for their assertions. (The prohibition against specific knowledge fortunately
helps to curb this problem.) All things considered, parliamentary is the most
entertaining of any debate style I've found, and also the most conducive to the
development of good rhetorical skills.

Variations. Parliamentary debate is actually a world-wide phenomenon, but the rules

differ greatly from country to country. In Canada, for instance, the format is just as in
the United States, with the following exceptions: the speeches are all one minute
shorter; the two back-to-back opposition (MO and LOR) speeches are combined into
one long speech delivered by the LO; and the Member of the Government (MG) is
called the Minister of the Crown (MC) instead. In the United Kingdom, there are
actually four teams in every debate round -- two proposition teams and two opposition
teams -- and each person speaks for only five minutes. I've heard rumors that some
country (I think it was either New Zealand or South Africa) has a version of
parliamentary debate in which there are there are threeteams in each round, or maybe
it was two teams of three people each; but such rumors may be apocryphal.

There are four types of debates that are commonly used. These debates are the Lincoln-Douglas debate
(the two men debate); the Rebuttal debate, the One-Rebuttal type of debate and the Oregon-Oxford
debate that is also called as the cross-question debate.

Formally or informally, debate happens in different scenarios. There are debates in the classrooms, in the
halls of the senate, congress and many other else. Whatever forms it may take; whatever occasions or in
what place, debate allows us to stand and reasoned with our arguments.

There are four types of debates that are commonly used. These debates are the Lincoln-Douglas
debate (the two men debate); the Rebuttal debate, the One-Rebuttal type of debate and the Oregon-
Oxford debate that is also called as the cross-question debate. Although there are some variations in
these debates with regards to time limits as well as in the sequence of the speakers, the debates primary
requisites remain intact.

The Lincoln-Douglas type of debate (also called as the two men debate) is a kind of debate where there
is only one speaker in the side of the affirmative as well as in the side of the negative. The speaker in the
affirmative side opens the debate then followed by the negative speech.

The Rebuttal Type of debate is a kind of debate where each team from the affirmative and the negative
side is composed of about two or three members. As the debate starts, the affirmative speaker opens the
constructive speech and the negative speaker starts the rebuttal. Every speaker is allowed to deliver a
rebuttal speech. The debate is closed with the affirmative side delivering the last rebuttal.

The One-Rebuttal type of debate is considered as a modified form of the Lincoln-Douglas type of debate.
However in this type of debate, there are about two to three members in both the affirmative and the
negative side. In this debate, all of the speakers have a chance to refute the argument of the opponent
with the exception of the first affirmative speaker who is given the opportunity to close the debate in his or
her rebuttal speech.

The Oregon-Oxford type of debate also allows two to three speakers in both the affirmative and the
negative side. In this kind of debate, the first speaker in the affirmative side delivers the entire affirmative
case. After the delivery, the first affirmative speaker will be interpellated by the first speaker of the
negative side. After this, the second speaker of the negative side will present the entire negative case;
then, the second negative speaker well be interpellated by the second or the first affirmative speaker.
After, the first speaker of the negative will deliver his or her rebuttal speech followed by the rebuttal of the
second affirmative speaker.

Types of Debates
By Lauren Treadwell
Many different types of debates are used at the high school and collegiate level, as well as
in the political arena. Every kind of debate has two sides, but there are two general types of
debates: problem debates, which are centered on philosophical questions, such as whether
something is right or wrong; and mechanism debates, which deal with practical problems,
such as how something should be done.

Types of Debates
By Lauren Treadwell
Many different types of debates are used at the high school and collegiate level, as well as
in the political arena. Every kind of debate has two sides, but there are two general types of
debates: problem debates, which are centered on philosophical questions, such as whether
something is right or wrong; and mechanism debates, which deal with practical problems,
such as how something should be done.