What is Debating?

Debating is a foundational aspect of a democratic society and thus reflects the values of
Canadians.

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 be using.

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

Basic Elements of Academic Debate

Participants

A verbal debate is primarily conducted between two teams: the affirmative side to support the
topic and the negative side to oppose the topic. The speakers (debaters) from the two teams in
give explanations for and against the topic. The two teams are not only communicating with
each other but also with a third party - the audience. The affirmative and the negative teams are
trying their best to persuade the audience to believe their side. The audience may give a
decision at the end of the debate.

Content

Content is what you say in the debate. The arguments are used to develop your own side’s
case and rebut the opposite side’s. 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 determined later.

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, 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 several 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 can’t 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.”

Proposition (Resolution, Topic)

Topics in debate are called propositions. The proposition is customarily written as a declarative
sentence. The affirmative team assumes the burden of proof, i.e. to prove that the proposition is
probably true. The negative team assumes the burden of rejoinder, i.e. to attack the affirmative
team's arguments.

Listed below are 3 different types of propositions concerning facts, values, and policies.

Propositions of Fact:
These are factual questions about events in the past, in the present, or
predictions about future events, such as:

 UFOs are spaceships from another planet.

 The Hawks will win the Pacific League championship next year.

Propositions of Value:
These are value judgments. If the value is of purely personal choice, we
cannot really debate. We must decide the proposition so that the affirmative and the negative
teams can give some reasons for their side. Examples include:

 Private high schools are better than public high schools.

 Watching TV is a waste of time.

Propositions of Policy:
These are concerned with courses of action one can take. They are often
actions of governments. They are phrased as "X (agent) should do Y (action)" or
sometimes "Y (action) should be done." Propositions of this type are most often used in
academic debate:

 The U.S. should abolish the death penalty.

 The Canadian government should ban all genetically modified foods.

Criteria for Good Propositions

When we set up a proposition for debate, we must take care in phrasing it so that we can
maximize educational benefits of academic debate.
 The proposition must be focused on one single idea. A bad example may be "Canada
should abandon nuclear power plants and promote solar power generation." The two
actions in the proposition are not necessarily paired together in discussing energy
resources.
 The proposition must be expressed in an affirmative sentence so that the affirmative and
the negative positions may not be confused.
 The proposition must be controversial. In other words, the arguments for and against the
proposition must be more or less balanced.

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.

Common Logical Fallacies (a.k.a. "Errors in Thinking")

Cause/Effect: The assumption that because one event
occurs before another, that the first event
causes the second (Does the sun rise
because the rooster crows?).
False Selecting experts who don’t have
Authority: creditable knowledge or credentialed
expertise (e.g., a movie star is not an
expert on selecting the best toothpaste
brand no matter how white his/her teeth
are).
Part-to-Whole: Proving part of an argument wrong does
not necessarily discredit the entire list;
nor does proving part of an argument
 validate the entire argument

(from: http://onlinelearn.edschool.virginia.edu/debate/theninepop.html#)

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 worse 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 isn’t enough to rebut a few random arguments here and there. Of course the techniques used
above are invaluable but they must be used appropriately.

1. Address all the main argument points, try to refute these.

2. 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.

3. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You won’t have time and your aim is to
show the other side’s case to be flawed in the key areas.

Sources

The information included in the document “How to Debate” was adapted from:

Kidd, A. (2002). The oxford union rough guide to debating. The English Speaking Union.
Retrieved August 26, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.britishdebate.com/resources/hb_oxfordguide.htm

(from: http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/130d1/HOWTODEBATE.htm)