DEBATE: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

A debate is a discussion or structured contest about an issue or a resolution. A formal debate involves two sides:
one in favor of the resolution and one opposed to it. Such a debate is bound by previously agreed-upon rules. Debates
may be judged in order to determine a winner. Debates, in various forms, are commonly used in democratic societies to
investigate and resolve issues and problems. Discussion and debate are frequently used to reach decisions at a board
meeting, public hearing, legislative assembly, or local organization. Indeed, any resolution discussion is a form of
debate, which may or may not adhere to formal rules.

STRUCTURE FOR DEBATE

In a formal debate, one team supports a resolution (affirmative team) and one team opposes the resolution
(opposing team). The affirmative and opposing teams usually consist of three members each, while the judging may be
done by the teacher, a small group of students, or the class as a whole. In addition to the specific groups, there may be
an audience made up of class members not involved in the formal debate. A specific resolution is developed, and debate
rules are established.

TYPE OF DEBATE IN THE LOCAL SETTING

The modified Oregon-Oxford debate structure is the most common and has been used in an inter-school debate
competition in our local setting. Modified Oregon-Oxford Debate There are two sides in this type of debate, i.e., the
Affirmative and the Negative Side. The Affirmative proves the validity of the proposition, while the Negative disapproves
it. Each side shall be composed of three speakers.

BURDEN OF EACH TEAM

Affirmative: Burden of proof; must establish a prima facie case and must prove all the aspect of the case to win.
The objective is to set out convincing arguments and materials that support a response to the questions raised.

Negative: Burden of rebuttal; must destroy the points/ cases raised by the affirmative side. The objective is to
refute the points made by the Affirmative Team through the use of convincing arguments and materials.

ASPECTS OF THE CASE

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 proposition.
Practicability – feasibility of the proposition, which includes the matter of law, clamor and finance.

PARTS OF THE DEBATE

Proposition – the topic or issue for the debate.

Constructive Speech - the presentation of each member’s arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case.
Interpellation/Cross-Examination – the opportunity for each debater to ask and answer questions regarding
their speeches.
Rebuttal – the summary and defense of each team’s arguments and evidence to be delivered by any speaker (or
researcher) of the team.

ISSUES FOR THE DEBATE

1. Whether or not it is Necessary? (Necessity)

2. Whether or not it is Beneficial? (Beneficiality)
3. Whether or not it is Practicable/Feasible? (Practicability)
SPEECH TYPES:
1. Reading Method
2. Memory Method
3. Extemporaneous
4. Mix method of memory and conversational or dramatic

RULES ON INTERPELLATION/CROSS-EXAMINATION:

1. Questions should primarily be focused on arguments developed in the speech of the opponent. However, matters
relevant and material to the proposition are admissible.
2. Interpellator and opponent should treat each other with courtesy.
3. Once the questioning has begun, neither the Interpellator nor his opponent may consult a colleague. Consultation
should be done before.
4. Interpellator should ask brief and easily understandable questions. Answers should equally be brief. Categorical
questions answered by yes or no is allowed, however, opponent may qualify his answer why yes or why no.
5. Interpellator may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer.
6. The Interpellator should not comment on the response of his opponent.
7. The opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by asking the questioner to rephrase
or reform his question.
8. Interpellation is conducted for the following purposes: to clarify points, to express errors, to obtain admissions, to
setup arguments.

FLOW OF THE DEBATE

1st Speaker Affirmative Side – Constructive Speech (7 minutes)

1st Speaker Negative Side - Interpellation (3 minutes)
1st Speaker Negative Side – Constructive Speech (5 minutes)
1st Speaker Affirmative Side- Interpellation (3 minutes)
2nd Speaker Affirmative Side – Constructive Speech (5 minutes)
2nd Speaker Negative Side - Interpellation (3 minutes)
2nd Speaker Negative Side – Constructive Speech (5 minutes)
2nd Speaker Affirmative Side- Interpellation (3 minutes)
3rd Speaker Affirmative Side – Constructive Speech (5 minutes)
3rd Speaker Negative Side - Interpellation (3 minutes)
3rd Speaker Negative Side – Constructive Speech (5 minutes)
3rd Speaker Affirmative Side- Interpellation (3 minutes)

Notes:
1. The first speakers argue on the necessity (affirmative) or non-necessity (negative) of the motion. The second speakers
on beneficiality and the third speakers on practicability (feasibility) of the motion.
2. The first affirmative speaker must make the affirmative’s case crystal clear as well as define the terms agreed upon
within the allotted time of seven minutes. He must discuss the status quo (whether they seek to defend it or change it)
and why their proposal is necessary.
3. The first negative speaker will be given three minutes to interpellate the first affirmative. He must only ask categorical
questions (answerable by yes or no) and arrange these questions in a cross-examination style to establish the weakness
of the affirmative’s case and/or establish the negative’s case.
4. He then has five minutes to clash with the points just made by the first affirmative and to advance his argument that
the affirmative’s proposal is not necessary.
5. The first affirmative will then have 3 minutes to interpellate the first negative speaker (also asking only categorical
questions). He may use this opportunity to rebuild his case and/or destroy the negative’s case.
6. The second affirmative has 5 minutes to clash with the opposition case and to deliver his constructive speech on the
benefits of adopting their proposal. He will then be interpellated by the second negative speaker for 3 minutes.
7. The second negative speaker then has 5 minutes of his time to divide between clashing with the affirmative case and
delivering his constructive speech on the repercussions or harmful effects of adopting the affirmative’s proposal. He will
then be interpellated by the second affirmative speaker for 3 minutes.
8. The third affirmative has 5 minutes to clash with the opposition case and to deliver his constructive speech on the
feasibility of adopting their proposal. He will then be interpellated by the third negative speaker for 3 minutes.
9. The third negative speaker will then have 5 minutes of his time to clash with the affirmative case and to deliver his
constructive speech on the impracticability of adopting the affirmative’s proposal. He will then be interpellated by the
third affirmative speaker for 3 minutes.
10. Rebuttal speeches are for case re-building and final words. Though counter-arguments are permitted in rebuttal, no
new evidence or proof is allowed. Fallacies committed by the opponent must also be pointed out.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Logical fallacies are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological
persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. These mistakes in reasoning typically consist
of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion.

There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

Formal: Formal fallacies are arguments that have invalid structure, form, or context errors. Informal:
Informal fallacies are arguments that have irrelevant or incorrect premises.

Having an understanding of basic logical fallacies can help you more confidently parse the arguments and claims you
participate in and witness on a daily basis — separating fact from sharply dressed fiction.

COMMON LOGICAL FALLACIES

1. The Ad Hominem Fallacy - occurs when you attack someone personally rather than using logic to refute their
argument. Instead, they’ll attack physical appearance, personal traits, or other irrelevant characteristics to
criticize the other’s point of view. These attacks can also be leveled at institutions or groups." Example: You are
so stupid your argument couldn’t possibly be true.
2. Appeal to Force – telling the opponent that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the
argument. Example: If you don’t want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
3. Appeal to Pity – urging the opponent to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotion. Example: You
still owe me money, the least you can do is concede to my argument.
4. Appeal to the Popular – Urging the opponent to accept a position because a majority if people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people is are vaping. Therefore, vape is good.
5. Appeal to Tradition – trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a
long time. Example: I have been driving a motorcycle without a helmet since time immemorial. Therefore, the
use of helmet is not necessary.
6. Begging the Question – Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular. Example: I am a
good student because my classmate says so. How can we trust him? Simple: I will vouch for him.
7. Cause and Effect – Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together. Example:
The eruption of Taal volcano in December 2019 paved the way for Covid to enter the Philippines in January
2020.
8. Fallacy of Division – Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts. Example: Your family is
corrupt. Therefore, you are corrupt.
9. Fallacy of Equivocation – Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different
meaning. Example: Cotton is light. What is light is not dark. So, cotton cannot be dark.
10. False Dilemma – Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible. Example: Who did
you vote, BBM or Leni ? (There were 10 Presidential candidates).
11. Genetic Fallacy – Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the
claim. Example: Covid originated from China. You should not but any product made in China.
 12. Guilt by Association – Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is
disliked by another. Example: Hitler likes dogs. Therefore, dogs are bad.
13. Non-sequitur – Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
14. Poisoning the Well – Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the
person’s argument. Example: John is pompous, arrogant, and think he knows everything. So, let’s hear his
opinion.
15. Red Herring – Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand. Example: A couple are arguing. One couple
says “You never do the dishes!” The other says “What about you! You never take out the bins!

MARKING OF DEBATERS

1. There are four evaluation criteria: Constructive Speech or Matter (40 points), Persuasive Skills or Manner (30
points), Interpellation (30 points).
2. The MATTER mark is scored through a written submission to be submitted by the team speakers on each aspect
at least three (3) days prior to the debate competition. It has everything to do with logic, preparation,
arguments, evidence cited, jurisprudence cited and analytic skill. It has nothing to do with the presentation.
3. Teams are required to conduct research and prepare their speeches. An argument without citing evidence to
support the same is a mere assertion and does not merit any consideration.
4. Debaters are expected to use provisions of law and relevant jurisprudence in support of their arguments. Judges
should also consider the quality of each argument and the relevance of the cited authorities.
5. MANNER: Manner or Presentation is marked out of a possible 30 points and judged from a purely public
speaking perspective:
6. Clarity and organization. Judges should listen to the debate as an average reasonable person with an
understanding of the law. The ability of the debater to convey his/her ideas in a clear manner and with facility of
expression are to be considered.
7. The use of humor, the manner of delivery, eye contact, voice, posture, and the ability of the debater to convince
an audience, are some of the elements within the purview of the Manner criterion.
8. INTERPELLATION: This refers to the ability to cross-examine the opposing debater. This refers to the success the
debater has in clashing with the arguments of the opposing team. Has he thoroughly understood the presented
arguments and have they responded effectively, logically and comprehensively in refutation.
9. This also includes courtesy and compliance with the rules. Judges should take note of how a debater asks his
questions, the logical sequence of these questions, and their relevance. Debaters are advised to ask only
categorical questions (i.e., those answerable by yes or no); otherwise, broad questions (i.e., how or why
questions) will elicit long explanations and sordid answers.
10. The judges shall have the to determine who will be the best debater and best speaker. The winning team shall
be determined by the majority decision of the Board of Judges.

ROLE OF THE MODERATOR / ADJUDICATOR:

1. To reveal the issue involved in the debate.

2. To rule on points of clarification about the issue or questions and answers made during the interpellation.
3. To see to it that the debate is in order and follows the rules set forth.

STANDARDS FOR THE VERDICT

1. Organization and Clarity – main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way.
2. Uses of arguments – reasons are given to support the resolution.
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttals – identification of weakness of the opposition’s arguments and ability
to defend itself against attack.
4. Presentation style – tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping
audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case.
CONDUCTING THE DEBATE COMPETITION DEBATE PREPARATION

• Develop the resolution to be debated.

• Organize the teams.
• Establish the rules of the debate, including timelines.
• Research the topic and prepare logical arguments.
• Gather supporting evidence and examples for position taken.
• Anticipate counter arguments and prepare rebuttals.
• Team members plan order and content of speaking in debate.
• Prepare room for debate.
• Establish expectations, if any, for assessment of debate.

POST-DEBATE DISCUSSION AND ASSESSMENT

When the formal debate is finished, allow time for debriefing and discussion. Members of the audience should may be
given an opportunity to ask questions and to contribute their own thoughts and opinions on the arguments presented.
Members of the debate teams may also wish to reflect on their performance and seek feedback from the audience,
including the teacher. If some form of assessment was part of the debate plan, it would be conducted at this time.
Assessment could be conducted by the teacher, the judging team, or the entire class