JDFHandbook Content 3

DEBATING IN GENERAL
Debating is a clash of arguments. For every issue, there are always different sides of a
story: why people support or disagree with that certain issue. Debating seeks to explore the
reasons behind each side. To make those reasons understandable and convincing, debaters
should deliver their arguments with good communication skills.
Competitive debating is debating using a specific format. With formats, people are regulated
to speak one at a time and each side is given the same amount of time and opportunity to
prove their point. This format rules out the possibility of who-speaks-loudest-or-fastest shall
win the debate. It encourages people not only to speak out but also to listen to the other side.
There are many formats of debates: Karl Popper format, British Parliamentary format,
Australasian Format, World Schools format, etc.
People debate for a number of reasons: to convince other people that his/her opinion is better,
to listen to what other people think of an issue, to find which solution is the best for a
problem, etc. Since competitive debating aims to convince judges that a team’s argument is
superior, it gives opportunities to use analytical-critical thinking and public speaking skills to
the fullest, skills which are very useful in everyday life.
But remember, debating is not a discussion. After each debate there is no compromised result
as in a discussion. The point of having a debate is to speak out and listen to different
kinds of opinions and at the end respecting those differences.
So, competitive debating is debating using a format. What format does Indonesians
use? How does it work?
The Indonesian Schools Debating Championships uses the World Schools format. This
format work as follows:
1. There are 2 teams debating, each consists of 3 (three) debaters who would be 1 st, 2nd
and 3rd speakers of the team.
DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 1

2. One team shall be the Government/Affirmative side – the side agreeing with the
motion, the other team shall be the Opposition/Negative side – the side disagreeing with
the motion.
3. Each speaker will deliver a substantial speech of 8 (eight) minutes in duration, with
the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1st or 2nd speaker on both sides will
deliver the reply speeches of 4 (four) minutes in duration, with the negative going first.
4. Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:
1st Aff 1st Neg 2nd Aff 2nd Neg 3rd Aff 3rd Neg Reply Neg Reply Aff
AFFIRMATIVE TEAM NEGATIVE TEAM
1st speaker 1st speaker
(8 min) (8 min)
2nd speaker 2nd speaker

(8 min) (8 min)
3rd speaker 3rd speaker
(8 min) (8 min)
Reply speaker Reply speaker

(1st/2nd speaker – 4 min) (1st/2nd speaker – 4 min)
5. In a substantive speech, members of the opposing team are allowed to give an
interruption, called Points of Information (POI), to the speaker delivering the speech.
POIs may be delivered between the 1st and 7th minute of the 8-minute-speech.
minutes 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
POI not allowed POIs allowed POI not allowed

No POIs are allowed in a reply speech.
The speaker has full authority to accept or reject a POI.
6. A time keeper shall signal the time. There will be one knock at the end of the 1st and
7th minutes, to signal the starting and ending times for POI. And two knocks at the 8th
minute to signal that delivery time for the speech has ended. Any debater speaking before
7 minutes shall be considered under-time and his/her points could be reduced. Any
debater speaking after 8 minutes 30 seconds shall be considered overtime and his/her
points could be reduced as well.

7. For reply speeches, there will be one knock at the 3rd minute, to signal that delivery
time is almost over, and two knocks at the 4th minute.
8. Every debate shall be judged by an odd number of judges and only the judges shall
decide who wins the debate (there is no draw in the result of a debate).
9. In Indonesians, every team is given 30 minutes preparation time after the motion is
released and before the debate begins. During this preparation time, teams are not
allowed to get help from anybody (be it coaches, teachers, parents or friends) or use
laptops, PDAs, or any other communication devices.
Huh? Motion? Definition? Argument? Rebuttal? POI?

What are those?
 MOTION
Motions, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a debate
shall be about. In the debate, the Government/Affirmative team must argue to defend the
motion while the Opposition/Negative team must argue to oppose it.
There are some types of motion that mostly use in debating. There are open and closed
motions, philosophical and proposal motion There are some examples of motions used in
various international and national debate tournaments:
- This House Believes That religious lesson should not be taught in school
- This House Believes That gambling of all forms should be made illegal
- This House Believes That politicians should only be allowed to serve in office for a
limited period of time

- This house would legalize abortion
- This house regrets Lisbon treaty
As you can see, motions in a debating competition cover various areas: politics, economy and
social issues.
 DEFINITION
For a debate to proceed, both teams need a clear understanding of what the motion means.
This requires the motion to be ‘defined’ so that everyone (audience and judges included)
knows what is being debated. Problems arise if the two teams present different
understandings of the meaning of the motion. This can result in a ‘definitional debate’, where
the focus of the debate becomes the meaning of the words in the motion, rather than the
motion itself. Interaction and clash between the two teams become concentrated on whose
definition is correct, rather than the issues raised by the motion. Definition debates should be
avoided wherever possible. They make a mockery of what debating seeks to achieve.

A definition scopes down or gives limitations on the motion to focus the debate. It
clarifies the motion. It prevents the debate from turning into a confusing exchange of ideas
because of different interpretations teams may have about what is actually being debated. Out
of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues talked about in the debate. A
definition must have a logical link to the motion.
The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team. The

affirmative team must provide a reasonable definition for the motion. Although the right to
define belongs to the Government/Affirmative team, the Opposition/Negative team has the
right to challenge or not accept it if it is unreasonable. Explanations on challenging the
motion will be explained at the end of this paper. Challenging a definition is highly
discouraged.
 ARGUMENTS
After agreeing with a definition, both the Government/Affirmative and the
Opposition/Negative team should give arguments on why they support or disapprove with the
topic. Arguments explain why a point of view should be accepted. Good arguments are
logical and relevant to the point being proven. They should also comprise of:
1. Assertion – the statement which should be proved
2. Reasoning – the reason why that statement is logical
3. Evidence – examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above
4. Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion
Given the duration of the debate, it is best to have 2 to 4 arguments to support your point of
view. These arguments should be divided between the 1 st and the 2nd speaker. So, some
arguments are explained by the 1st speaker and the rest are explained by the 2nd speaker. This
division is called a team split.
Each of these arguments should stand on their own. This means that each of the arguments
should be able to answer the definition with a “… because…” statement.
Having more than one argument means that teams should make sure that their arguments are
consistent or do not contradict each other. Contradiction and inconsistency makes a team’s
performance seem poor because it shows as if they’re not agreeing the points among
themselves. It is good to have a main idea that connects or becomes the foundation of the
arguments. This is one way of ensuring arguments don’t contradict with one another. This
main idea is usually named as a team line/theme line in a debate.
 REBUTTALS
Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments. Rebuttals should prove that
the other team’s arguments are not as important as they claim to be. As with arguments, mere
accusations do not equal good rebuttals. It is not enough to say that the other team’s
arguments are inferior, good rebuttals should also explain the reasoning and evidence of why
those arguments are inferior.
Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments. Rebuttals should
not only claim that those arguments are inferior, but rebuttals should also explain
why they are inferior and back it up with evidence. Rebuttals should prioritize
strong and important arguments.
Given limited time in a debate, it is not necessary for a team to rebut every single point and
fact raised by the other team. Better single out the opposing team’s main arguments and
attack those first. Teams should prioritize rebutting strong and important points first and leave
the weak ones for last priority.
 POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI)

As has been mentioned above, after the 1 st minute and before the 7th minute of a speech,
members of the opposing teams are allowed to briefly interrupt the current speaker. This
interruption is called a POI.
In order to offer a POI, a person must stand up, hold out his/her hand and say “On that point,
Sir/Ma'am” or “On that point of information”. POI should be offered politely, not used to
hackle the speaker. When offered a POI, the speaker having the floor has full authority to
either reject or accept the POI. If a person is rejected a POI, he/she should sit down again.
POI should be brief and expressed as a question so that the speaker is required to provide an
answer. Once accepted, the person offering POI has at most 15 seconds to deliver the POI.
The speaker then must answer or respond to that POI right after it is given and not wait until
later in his/her speech. It is advisable that the speaker does not answer a POI more than 30
seconds as it would make him/her lose track of his/her speech.
POI should be offered regularly and through out the course of the debate. Offering POI shows
that they understand the issues being discussed during the debate.
It is advisable to accept around 2 POI in a speech, and accept them between points of
arguments/rebuttals. Not accepting POI at all (especially when they are often offered) would

be bad strategy as the speaker is not involving the other team in his/her speech. But accepting
too much POI would risk the speaker of losing control of his/her speech.
Points Of Information are brief interruptions (preferable in a form of a

question) between the 1st and 7th minute of a speech. The speaker delivering
a speech has full authority to accept or reject a POI. Once accepted, a POI
should not exceed 15 minutes and the speaker must answer that POI right
after it is given.
Ok,
so basically, a team has to debate upon a motion defined by the affirmative side.
Then they have to provide arguments telling why they support or disagree with the
motion. And each side has to respond to the other side in the form of rebuttals. Is
that right?
Yup, for all questions. Oh, and one more thing: the word “CASE” would often be heard in a
debate. A “CASE” refers to the whole package of a team’s arguments. Imagine a debate to be
a physical battle. Then the definition would be the battlefield that both sides have chosen. The
CASE would be the fort that each team builds using arguments as bricks. The rebuttals would
be the weapons that they use to attack the other side. To make you understand more about
“CASE”, let us take a look at the Case Anatomy in the next page:
Motion
Clear and Logic
Definition
Answer Why?
Team Line
Argument
Argument
Team Split
Argument
Argument
Rebuttals
POI
The arrows indicate each link from the motion to definition, definition to your team line, and
how your arguments, rebuttals, and POI must be consistent with your case foundation.
But there are 3 speakers in each team. Does each speaker have the same job? If
not, what are the jobs of each speaker?
No, every speaker in a team has different jobs to fulfill. Here is the brief outline of the jobs or
roles of each speaker:
 The first speakers lay the foundation of the debate battlefield and The 1 st
Opposition has to lay negations.
 The second speakers attack the other side while continuing to build the case.
 The third speakers’ main duty is to attack/rebut the opponent’s case.
 The reply speakers sum up the debate.

DEFINITION
 What are the functions of definition?

 How do we make a good definition?
 Definitional challenge
A definition is an interpretation of the motion. The 1st speaker of the affirmative

team needs to provide this in the early minutes of his/her speech, in order to set a clear
parameter of the debate. In other words, a definition determines what the teams would be
debating about, and where the debate should go. It’s not exaggerating to say that definition is
the foundation of not just a team’s case, but the whole debate. For examples:
 Motion: That quota is not the answer for women
Definition:
- Quota = putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in the
parliament
- Not the answer = not the right solution to promote gender equality in society
Thus the whole definition is: “Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in parliament
is not the right solution to promote gender equality in society”
 Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for drug dealers
Definition:
- This house = the affirmative/the government
- Capital Punishment = a maximum punishment given to a criminal in
the form of death penalty
- Drug Dealers = people who sell, distribute, and committing illegal
drug trafficking in a certain amount according to the existing law.
Thus the whole definition is: “we support the death penalty for people who sell,
distribute, and commit illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount”
Novice debaters often think that if a motion contains terms which meanings are
commonsensical, they don’t need to define the motion. But actually, every motion can be
subjected to multiple interpretations. Thus, there is a big risk of a parallel debate – one where
arguments from opposite teams don’t clash each other – or a definitional challenge (more on
this next) as the result of a negative team having a different interpretation of the motion.
Example:
 THB in Pertamina.
Everybody knows that Pertamina is a company owned by government which deals with the
supply of fuel. But what does believing in Pertamina means? It could mean stopping the

import of fuel because we believe that Pertamina alone could secure national needs. But it
could also mean that Pertamina should be the one to decide the price of fuel.
It may seem unfair for the affirmative team to have such burden, but actually it’s also a big
advantage for them. Practically, with a definition, as long as it is still debatable, one can
construct a parameter (‘room of the debate’) to benefit his/her team or to disadvantage the
other. Example:
 TH prefers censorship over rating.
 Rather than generalizing censorship over rating for all kinds of media, the
affirmative team may want to limit the debate to television only, because they can
argue that nobody could control viewing activity, including children’s choices of TV
programs.
 However, if the motion says otherwise – TH prefers rating over censorship –
the affirmative team may want to constraint the parameter to movies only, because
they can argue that theaters could confirm people’s IDs to make sure whether they’re
age-appropriate to watch the movie.
Simple Guidelines to Make a Definition

1. Identify the keywords of the motion, and define each of them. No need to
define every single word in the motion. Keywords are, generally, words that raise
controversy or questions.
Example: THW adjust to transgender.
Keywords: transgender, adjust
2. Defining the motion does not mean giving the literal meaning of the words in
it or their synonyms. So, most of the times, taking definitions out of dictionaries won’t
help your case.
Example: THW adjust to transgender.
Adjusting means adapting, but what does it mean here? What is the
implication to your case?
3. Often, it’s not enough to define the words in the motion. To establish a solid
foundation of the case and boundaries for the room of the debate, we have to add time,
place, and sometimes situational setting. To do this, you must pay attention to the
spirit of the motion – can be easily recognized from the heading of the motion – and/or
the context of the motion (more on contextualization in later section).
Example : THW adjust to transgender.
Possible settings : in educational environment, public policy, etc.

4. Ultimately, a definition should be debatable. Means, it gives fair room of
debate to both teams. An unfair definition could lead to a definitional challenge done
by the negative team and/or a parallel debate.
Forms of unfair definition which could be put under a definitional challenge are:
a. Truistic definition, a definition which doesn’t allow any debate to happen.
For instance, basing the definition on certain religious value.
Example : THBT prostitution is not justifiable.
Definition : Prostitution is an act of selling one’s body for sexual pleasure, which
is a sin according to Christianity. So, because it is a sin, it’s not justifiable.
b. Squirreling definition, a definition which have no logical relation with the
actual meaning of the motion or the words in it.
Example : THBT smoking should be banned.
Definition : Smoking is an act of emitting residual gas waste from vehicles,
which causes lots of pollution.
The correct definition should mention smoking as an act of consuming cigarettes.
c. Tautological definition, a definition with circular logic. Also known as
self-proving definition.
Example : THBT UU ITE is necessary.
Definition : UU ITE is a necessary regulation.
If we substitute the phrase ‘UU ITE’ in the motion with its proposed definition, the
motion would become ‘THBT a necessary regulation is necessary’.
d. Unfair time and/or place setting, a definition which brings the debate to a
particular time or place with no significant issue. A definition which is based upon
controversies or conflicts that have been resolved is also unfair.
Example : THBT USA has failed.
Definition : USA has failed to achieve victory in Vietnam.
Not only Vietnam War happened decades ago, but the USA had actually lost the
war. Moreover, there is no significance in talking about such things now, because
there is no new issue regarding the Vietnam War.
 THE OPPOSITION’S OPTIONS

Presuming the Proposition’s definition is satisfactory, the First Speaker of the Opposition will
not argue the definition, but will proceed immediately to dealing with the Proposition’s
arguments. There is no need to say that the Opposition accepts the definition; this is
presumed unless the First Speaker of the Opposition challenges it.
If the Opposition is unhappy with the Proposition’s definition, it has several options:
(i) Accept and Debate
The first option is to accept it anyway. If the Proposition’s definition leads in
to the expected issue and allows the Opposition to put forward the arguments
and examples it was intending, there is no point to arguing over the precise
words the Proposition has used.
(ii) Challenge
The second option is to challenge the Proposition definition, arguing it is
unreasonable. Further discussion will be explained in particular chapter below.
(iii) Broaden
The third option is neither outright acceptance nor outright rejection, but
instead to supplement the definition. The Proposition’s definition may have
omitted to define a word in the motion that the Opposition considers pivotal.
In this case, the Opposition can offer a definition of this word, so long as it
meets the standards of reasonableness outlined above.
(iv) ‘Even-if’
The fourth option is to both reject and accept the definition. It involves:
a. Rejecting the Proposition definition as unreasonable and
explaining why;
b. Putting up an alternative (and reasonable) definition,
then proceeding to advance arguments and examples based on
this;
c. Rather than ignoring the Proposition’s arguments and
examples on the basis they derive from an unreasonable
definition, arguing that ‘even-if’ the Proposition’s definition
was reasonable, its arguments and examples do not prove what
is alleged.
DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE
A negative team can offer a definitional challenge if the affirmative team proposed an unfair
definition. Means, they have to try to change the definition. The easiest way to do it would be
to follow these simple steps:
1. The 1st negative speaker should immediately point that the definition brought by the
affirmative team is invalid, unfair, or not debatable.
2. Explain why it is invalid, unfair, or not debatable, by choosing the most suitable
explanation out of four unfair definitions in the previous section.
3. Provide the correct definition.
4. Offer ‘even-if’ rebuttals. Even though you believe that your opponent’s case is not
valid because it was built on an unfair definition, you still have to negate it to preserve
the dynamic of the debate. This is due to the fact that even though a team set an
unreasonable definition, their arguments may still have elements of logic. So, opposition

still has to work to breakdown the logic by attacking the arguments through even-if
rebuttals.
5. Present your own case, based on the newly-proposed definition.
Definitional challenge is a very risky move. Adjudicators would award you a lot while at the
same time penalize your opponent as much if you succeed. But vice-versa, you would suffer
a miserable loss too should you fail it. This is because once you decide to do a definitional
challenge, it means sacrificing the dynamic of the debate a lot, as the best strategy for both
teams – including the challenged affirmative – is to insist on their initial case. Giving in to
the new definition would be considered as ‘surrendering’.
However, even if the affirmative brought an unfair/invalid definition, the negative team
would not be lost automatically if they didn’t recognize it or were too scared to do it. But as
the consequence, the debate would be a low-scoring debate. It is entirely up to the negative
team to do it or not, but given the huge chance of winning big, the risk could be worthy to
take.
Here is an example of an unreasonable definition:

 Motion: That death penalty should never be justified
Definition: Killing people without any reason is wrong. Therefore we should not
approve of genocide/mass killings.
The definition above is out of the context or spirit of the motion (death penalty means
punishing criminals to die, not mass killing without reason). And it is unfair to expect the
Opposition/Negative to say that mass killings for no reason should be approved of.
The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team. The

affirmative team must provide a reasonable definition for the motion. This means:
1. On receiving the motion, both teams should ask: “What is the issue that the two teams
are expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person think the motion is
about?”
2. If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (it has an obvious meaning), the
Government/Affirmative team must define the motion accordingly. When the motion has
an obvious meaning (one which the ordinary person would realize), any other definition
would not be reasonable.

3. If there is no obvious meaning to the motion, the range of possible meaning is limited
to those that allow for a reasonable debate. Choosing the meaning that does not allow the
opposition a room for debate would not be a reasonable debate.
4. When defining the words in the motion so as (i) to allow the obvious meaning to be
debated or (ii) (when there is no obvious meaning) to give effect to possible meaning
which would allow for a reasonable debate, the affirmative must ensure that the
definition is one the ordinary intelligent person would accept.
5. In making a reasonable definition, sometimes parameters, models, or criteria is
needed. when suggesting parameters to the debate, or proposing particular models or
criteria to judge it by, the Proposition must ensure such parameters, models, or criteria
are themselves reasonable. They must be ones that the ordinary intelligent person would
accept as applicable to the debate.
ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS
ARGUMENTS
A. About Arguments
Arguments are reasons why you support or not support a certain motion. It is a
fundamental part of debates. The clashes between arguments brought by both sides of the
house will be weighed by the adjudicators at the end of the round to determine which
team wins. Therefore, your arguments need to be convincing.
Convincing people does not mean delivering the argument with perfect public speaking
skills – though it does help raising a certain speaker’s mark. Rather, the most important
thing is to prove your claims with logical explanation and examples.
Thus, arguments are delivered in the structure of AREL, which stands for:
 Assertion : state your claim. Your statement
of why you support/oppose the motion.

 Reasoning : logically explain why your claim
is true. The ‘because’ of your statement.
 Evidence : give supporting data to
strengthen your reasoning.
 Link-back : the conclusion of your whole
explanation, which is how your arguments prove the motion
true/false.
Example 1:
The motion is about beauty pageants. You are the negative team. One of your
arguments says that Miss Universe kind of contests should be opposed because it
degrades woman. Your speech should be more-or-less delivered in this manner:
 A : Miss Universe contest degrades women.
 R : because it puts a woman in a position as
an object and to be valued based on their appearance.
Furthermore, the contest is aimed to be a commercial business,
thus the contestants are positioned to be a commodity.
 E : The adjudication process are 80% based
on “beauty skill” while the “brain” session is only additional and
the questions can be answered by elementary school students,
like “what will you do if you are a president?” While during the
contest season, the event organizer open up many gamble sites to
bet on who is going to win and gain more than 2 billions US$
dollar in 2006 only.
 L : So, because it becomes an arena of
women objectification as well as a business commodity, the
contest degrades women.
Example 2:
The motion is about quota for women in the parliament. You are the negative team.
You want to say that quota would only strengthen the paradigm in society that women

have less capability than men, and undermines them in the end. Your speech should be
somewhat structured like:
 A : Quota will only strengthen the stigma in society
that undermines women.
 R : Nowadays there is still a strong stigma in society
believing that women are inferior to men and has less capability
than men. Reserved seats in the parliament will only strengthen
the paradigm that women can only sit in the parliament if they
are facilitated but not because they can equally compete with
men. Thus justifying the wrong perception that women could not
reach the same level as men unless given privilege.
 E : In Uganda, public opinion that does not go in
favor of women increased rapidly after the implementation of this
kind of quota (this was also supported by some polling).
 L : Quota for women in parliament will only
strengthen the negative perception that undermines women,
hindering the promotion of women being equal to men.
B. Types of arguments
There are many types of arguments to fulfill different purposes, such as:
1. Justification Arguments are arguments where we put certain assertions or
goals to the test of principles in judgmental manner. This requires knowledge on
principles related to the motion as well as its origin for better understanding and
delivery.
Example:
a. Rights to live is a right which no one may limit
b. Individual rights to the extent of privacy may be
breached for
collective rights of security
2. Effectiveness Arguments are arguments in which we claim one thing as the

proper solution to the problem identified from the motion. In the reasoning, we need to

explain what the problem requires to be solved, why our solution fulfills those
requirements, compare our claimed-solution to the system running in status quo
and/or other alternative solutions currently available (including the opponent’s, if
any), and imply that our solution is the most appropriate.
Example:
a. Death penalty will help deter crime rate
b. Intercepting emails will provide better source to hunt
terrorists
3. Implication Arguments are action-reaction arguments. It analyses the

consequences of the action proposed, be it benefit or harm. Requires creativity in
actors or stakeholders identification and how they are related, which are the people
involved around the issue. Who does what, what the impacts are, who gets the impact
(be it positive or negative).
Example:
a. Women Quota will degrade women
b. Not covering illegal immigrants with free health
insurance risks
the spreading of foreign disease
4. Hybrid Arguments, as the term implies, are hybrids of the previous types of
arguments – two, or maybe even three of them. Therefore, one argument doesn’t
always fall under only one criterion as mentioned above. Thus an argument could
have two or even three ways of analysis.
Example:
a. US method on terrorism hunt violates human rights
(principle),
thus it decreases international respect and cooperation
(implication) while international cooperation is necessary to hunt
terrorists who are multinational (effectiveness).
b. Subsidy helps alleviate poverty (effectiveness) which is
government responsibility (justification).

REBUTTALS
A. About Rebuttals
Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments. Rebuttals should prove that
the other team’s arguments are not as important as they claim to be.
As with arguments, mere accusations do not equal good rebuttals. It is not enough to say
that the other team’s arguments are inferior, good rebuttals should also explain the
reasoning and evidence of why those arguments are inferior. Therefore, AREL also plays
an important part in constructing and delivering rebuttals.
B. Types of Rebuttals
In terms of purpose, there are two types of responses:
 Offensive: It attacks the other team’s argument
 Defensive: it attacks the other team’s rebuttals towards your arguments
For some people, the term rebuttal only refers to offensive responses, while defensive
responses are referred to by the term refutations.
There are several reasons commonly used as the basis of offensive responses. They are,
but not limited to:
1. Irrelevant to the point being proven
Example:
Claim : Prostitution should be banned because prostitution creates
more porn sites in the Internet.
Rebuttal : The number of porn sites in the Internet has nothing to do
with whether prostitution is legalized or not. Fact is, porn
sites could be accessed in many countries, apart from whether
it legalizes prostitution or not.
2. Illogical
Example:

Claim : Students should be allowed to smoke at school because it
will create stronger resistance from passive smokers and
eventually reduce the number of smokers at school.
Rebuttal : That is logically flawed because allowing students to smoke
will create a permissive condition that would stimulate more
students to smoke. Fact is, most teenagers start smoking
because of peer influence. If school goes along with peer
influence, then the reality that smoking is bad would be
blurred and more students would think that smoking is ok and
take up smoking.
3. Morally flawed
Example:
Claim : The government should support death penalty because it
will help decrease the population of the country.
Rebuttal : Killing people simply to decrease population is morally
wrong. People have the right to live and the government
should not undermine that right only because they think they
have too many citizens to manage.
4. Over-Hyperbolizing
Example:
Claim : If the government legalizes Gay Marriage, the society will
reject it. They will overthrow the government in a revolution
which will cost a lot of victims
Rebuttal : Such small cause will not cause such great implication. Barely any
societies will be so barbaric when faced to a policy which does not
harm any of their basic interests
5. Correct, but not important or involve unacceptable implications
Example:
Claim : The government should ban MTV because there are some
programs that are not related to music.
Rebuttal : It is true that some MTV programs are not related to music,
but the government should not ban a TV station simply

because of that reason. Banning a TV station would lose the
government a significant amount of revenue and it is more
important to have this revenue rather than obliging TV
stations to have programs that are true to its name.
6. Based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact
Example:
Claim : Murder rates are rising in the US. This is because some
states have abolished capital punishment.
Possible Rebuttals :
a. Murder rates are not rising in the US. Evidence shows
that… (direct factual error) or;
b. If the number of murders seems to be rising, it is
because more murders are being reported compared to before.
So, in reality it’s not actually rising. (indirect factual error)
or;
c. Evidence shows that capital punishment – a state-
sanctioned murder – can appear to condone violent crime and
leads to a rise in numbers of violent crime rather than
reducing it. (erroneous interpretation of fact)
7. Pointing out an absence of analysis

Example 1:
Claim : Pornography increases sexual related crime. 80% Convicts
of sexual crime confessed to be frequent consumers of
pornography.
Rebuttal : Opponents simply gave a data, and a premise, but not
providing causal links between premise and fact. While
actually… (continue with rebuttal type number 5)
Example 2:
Claim : Government must tolerate religious differences because no
religion is better than the other. Hindus have their own belief,
so do Muslims, Christians, etc.

Rebuttal : Our opponents merely show how there are different
religions and believers of them. What they should have
shown is how none is better than the other, based on quality
comparison.
8. Pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies

a. Contradictions happen when there are two statements by the same
team which clash each other, for example:
Claim of 1st speaker of a team:
We would never legalize prostitution for any reason or any
condition because it is inherently wrong. Prostitution is a form of
exploitation and subordination towards women and therefore can
not ever be justified, not even on the grounds of protection for sex
workers because it will only legitimize the wrong perception that
sees women as objects.”
Claim of 2nd speaker of the same team:
A government should not make a decision that is against the
society’s norms and values because it is violating the essence of
good governance. Therefore, although prostitution is legal in
countries like the Netherlands or in some states in the United
States, it should not be legalized in Indonesia because it is against
the norms and values hold by our society.
Rebuttal:
There is a contradiction between the two speakers. The first
speaker explicitly said that prostitution can not be legalized in all
conditions, while the second speaker negated it by implying that if
it is not against the norms of Indonesia’s society prostitution can be
legalized.
b. Inconsistencies happen when a team wants two different things which
can not happen at the same time. For example:
Argument for the motion ‘This House Believes in Sex Education’:

Adolescence is a turbulent time, especially in terms of sexuality.
Junior high school is the time when someone is most curious about
changes happening in one’s body and the opposite sex’s. Hormonal
changes also cause high sexual urges at this time. Unfortunately,
there is only a very small number of information available to assist
and educate teenagers to face this because Indonesian society still
perceives sexual issues as taboo. This absence drives teenagers to
seek for information from their peers or the media, which are often
unreliable. The consequences are often severe and life-changing,
such as unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, or
HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we believe that an early introduction to sex
education is imperative to prevent further bad impacts. However,
we also believe that sex education is best received when it is
complimented with a sufficient degree of maturity as well as
support from parents. That is why we believe that implementing
sex education in high school will be the most appropriate manner
to deal with this issue, because high school students will already be
mature enough to absorb the material and will have sufficient
support from their parents.
Rebuttal:
The underlined parts are inconsistent.
PERSUASIVE VERBAL SKILLS: THE USE OF

STANDARD OF TRUTH
A. Introduction
This is an alternate method of analysis, to hopefully explain what an analysis should be
like. In the method of AREL which you all know, basically this is an expansion of the R
(reasoning).

But you must remember that this concept is not rigid in chronology and delivering, as it
may vary among different speaker’s preference. What matters are the elements which
included within, and this method guide provides these elements on the most basic level.
Arguments may have extreme complexity which may necessitate modifications to this
method.
The object of this method would be individual arguments or responses. It–hopefully–has

a twofold use:
1. as a tool of analysis
2. to persuade adjudicators and try sway their minds.
Before advancing to the steps and examples of the methods, I must warn you that the
explanations may seem hard and complicated to apprehend, especially because they are
broken down to many points. But it is necessary to break the process down in order to
make clear the flow of analysis. When you are a bit more experienced, you should be able
to deliver them with various ways of explanations, but the essences and the elements
should still apply the same.
B. The Method
To its best interest, it will be divided in steps.
1. Fragmenting Arguments
Go back to the basic AREL concept, and highlight the Assertion part. This is what we
will fragment. An argument always has a pattern of A is B. Or at least, could be made
so.
Example:
Corruptors deserve death penalty. It could be patterned as
Corruptors are among criminals who deserve death penalty.
A B
(Remember that ‘are’ is also an ‘is’ but in a non singular form)
We shall separate the A and the B. We will find out that A is a subject, or the source of
controversy within the sentence, and B is a long predicate without a subject, which serves

as the answer to the question ‘what’s up with A?’ I may be grammatically wrong, but this way
of perceiving phrases does have a purpose.
So, you can say that A is the keyword of the argument,

while B is your truth-claim of A.
Other examples of fragmentations:

 Governments have rights to take lives.
A : take lives
B : what the governments have rights to do.
 Privatizing vital sectors will harm Indonesian society economically.
A : privatization of vital sectors
B : cause of economic harm to Indonesian Society.
2. Creating a Standard of Truth (SoT)

The idea of SoT is to provide a neutral and commonly accepted barometer of truth
for the subject (A) of your argument, by presenting it as the predicate (B) of your
argument.
Your goal is then to construct explanations (reasoning) which are consistent with the
barometer. When your explanations are not in line with your standard of truth, means
your claims are false.
The SoT can play a big part in strengthening your argument and convincing the
audiences. Therefore, ideally you have to use a well-known and universal principle as
your barometer. However, it depends on you to make the principle sounds absolute
and unbeatable – thus proving that the whole assertion is true.
There are some steps in which to make a Standard of Truth:
a. Make an ‘agreement’ with everyone in the room,
of what every speaker has to prove in this debate in specific of your argument.
This will include identification of elements in which should be proven or the
burden of proof of each team.
Example 1
Governments have rights to take lives.

“The debate today should be about the extent of government authority to distribute
and regulate its citizens’ rights. Thus, it means that teams must elaborate the nature of
governments and their authority and how these are derived into rights and
responsibilities, right?”
Example 2
Privatizing vital sectors will harm Indonesian society economically.
“If one were to conclude economical harm to a society. It is at the utmost essence to
elaborate the nature and element requirements of society economical welfare, isn’t
it?”
b. Provide an elaborated concept, from which you
have mentioned as a burden on Step A. So that after you tell people what should
be explained, now you explain it with a claim that we have all agreed that this is
what we were supposed to explain. This does require you to have wide knowledge
on concepts, or at least have a knack on making one up.
Example 1
“Thus I am obliged to explain so. When we talk about nature of a democratic
government authority, it is not far from noting their origin. The society collectively
submit some part of their rights to the government, hence giving them mandates to
distribute these rights back to the society fairly, in the need of social welfare.
“Highlight ‘some part of their rights’, what of the portions then? This is where we
highlight the part that says ‘to distribute these rights back fairly’. And when we talk
about fairness in equal distribution of rights, we are talking about none other than the
sense of justice. For ‘social welfare’, the fulfillment of sense of justice is among its
elements.”
Example 2
“But then it is obvious, that the nature of economical welfare goes back to the basic
idea of human and its need. One may have a need, or demand. Thus necessitates a
fulfillment of such needs, or supply. Thus economical welfare is about whether or not
these demands have enough supply. Or in other words, are there enough access from
the demands to the supply?

Conclusion remains plain, then, that access to supply of need is the fundamental
element of economical welfare. There could be two understandings of access:
availability of the supply, and affordability towards the supply, in which both of them
must be present to ensure access.”
c. Derive a conclusion, in form of requirements of a subject (A) to
complete B. This is where you jump back to the debate, and bring another variable
in. Thus you need to introduce the characteristics of the missing variable (subject,
or A), in accord to the ‘agreement’ you have made with everyone in the room.
Example 1
“In conclusion of what I have explained. If I were to prove that rights are within
government power to take, it means that I have to prove that taking lives is sometimes
–if not always– necessary to fulfill the sense of justice within the society as one of
their rights of welfare, doesn’t it?”
Example 2
“In conclusion of what I have explained. If I were to prove that privatization will
harm economical welfare, thus I must explain whether or not privatization will hinder
access, obstructing affordability and/or perpetuating problems in availability,
right?”
3. Subject Association Towards SoT

The next step is by explaining what is A by means of description. And of course, for
argumentation purposes should subjectively tend to fit the SoT, precisely the
conclusion of it.
Example 1
“Some crimes are so heinous thus the only fate that the society perceives just towards
the perpetrator is death. Some evil are quite less that it justly deserves a certain degree
of punishment, and from which it may ascend proportionally. Many –if not all-
societies see that taking a life, or taking many lives, or even violating uncountable
lives are so atrocious that the only thing that could be thought of to be taken away

from the perpetrator is the most valuable of all owned: life. Thus, in this sense it is
shown that evilness to the maximum possible also justly deserves punishments to the
maximum possible, or else, justice has not fallen upon the perpetrator.”
Example 2
Privatizing vital sectors will harm the society economically.
“Private companies are built to provide supplies in exchange for profit, while
governments exist in interest to distribute supplies among the whole society. Talks
about affordability, is a talk about price. Private companies provide supply with its
cost needed to make it available, and seek profit from it. Thus private price constructs
from Production Cost +Profit. While governments will also provide supply with its
cost needed, and seeing that some or most people have lower buying power –while
they wanted it to be distributed to all-, they provide subsidies to adjust with society
capability. Thus government price constructs with the equations as follows
(Price=Production Cost – Subsidy). If government price is adjusted to society
capability, we see a two step increase from it shall these supplies be privatized:
achieving break even point, then achieving profit.
Then this price increase decreases the amount of market available from which to
distribute products. Private companies only get profit if people buy their product, so
they wont sell it in places where people can not buy it. Some countries have rich and
poor areas spread out in their territory. Thus it is obvious which areas will get supply
and which ones will not. Thus they also harm availability.”
4. Argument Conclusion
Now this is where you conclude why A fulfills the SoT. So then you remind everyone
of the ‘agreement’, and how you have fulfilled the agreement. The ideas are:
a. We have all agreed to the Standard of Truth
b. I have shown you how my argument works accordingly with the
Standard of Truth we have agreed upon.
c. So as consequence, we must all agree to my arguments.
Example 1

“We have agreed that life could be taken by governments if I can prove that it is
necessary to fulfill the sense of justice within the society, right? So since I have
managed to prove so in my previous explanations, thus we can agree that it is true that
governments have rights to take lives.”
Example 2
Privatizing vital sectors will harm the society economically.
“We have agreed that anything that will harm access of the public towards supply of
needs is also harm on economy. It may be on affordability, and/or availability. And I
have shown you all that privatization will result in obstacles on not one but all the two
aspects of access haven’t I? Thus it is only but the truth to proclaim that privatization
indeed harms the society economical welfare.
C. Matters of Delivery
This is an issue which is equally important. Remember that an adjudicator can’t “sleep
with one eye aware”. What I mean, is that they can’t always be aware of what we say, like
every single word. So, emphasis and style must be really paid attention upon. This is
probably a little tip on how to do it.
When you are explaining your SoT, change your speech style for the moment, as if you
were asking for everyone’s agreement. Just as convincing as how a magician would be
when he tries to convince people that his hat is empty.
Be more interactive in a demanding way towards the audience, as if you are expecting
them to answer (of course they won’t). And make it as if you are saying “This is the SoT,
and it’s a common agreement, right? And if an argument does not go along with this
SoT, it means that it is wrong, right?” as if they would respond.
To say “isn’t it?” or “doesn’t it?” for example, don’t forget to emphasize on the right
moment. Do not start on low tone and ascend. Make sure you pause a for a split second,
then nod your head convincingly as you put a push on the syllable “is-” or “doe-“ before
you continue the rest descending in tone. Hand gestures are also important. An indicator

of this tip’s success is when you make the adjudicators subconsciously nod every time
you demand.
Then after you finish explaining your SoT, you may revert to normal mode. And when
you go to step 4: Conclusion, change your speech style again with that interactive-
demanding style. As if saying “Everyone, we agreed already about something before,
right? And hey, look at my argument! Doesn’t it fit the agreement we made earlier? I
told you I would be right, right?”
And don’t forget to put the last sentence of your conclusions (as given in the conclusion
examples) which is naturally slower than any other parts of your explanation, and within
elegant finality.
Example 1
Thus [split pause] we can agree that it is true [split pause] that governments [split
pause] have rights [split pause] to take lives.”
Example 2
“Thus it is only but the truth [split pause] to proclaim that privatization indeed [split
pause] is harm [split pause] towards society economical welfare.
Bolded means that you give an extra push on it, and spell them out word per word instead
of flowing in one sentence.
It is very important for you not to talk monotonously and/or too fast. Make sure you know
when to pause and how long to make bombastic effects on certain phrases.
Imagine the magician thing before, or imagine how you would explain to your mom why
you need new shoes: “You want me to do my best in the football match, right? And of
course you know that playing with my toes popping out the shoe front would not help me
perform my best, right?”
This is why I say one of the purposes of this method is to sway an adjudicator’s mind.

D. Standard of Truth for Offensive Purposes
To respond, the idea of SoT is also quite useful. For example, it is a common thing for a
negative team in a motion of “THW give death penalty to corruptors” to say “people
have rights to live. Death penalty is against rights to live”. You can give a SoT, and then
complain how the negative is not using it.
This is an example of how:

“Governments take rights everyday, such as prison, fines, etc. Because
governments have the rights to take away rights from those individuals
when they do law disobedience, right?
In social contract, societies give their rights to their government to then
distribute them fairly and prevent violation (SoT). So if there is an
imbalance of rights (in form of someone violating the law), governments
take away rights of these violators to balance the scales. Which is why
government taking away rights, in form of punishments, is common,
right?”
“And the other team’s statement is just like how prison is a violation of
human rights because it takes away freedom and comfort so we don’t want
jails. What we want to hear is whether or not death penalty is a too-much
punishment for corruption, right? We need not to hear whether death
penalty is a violation or not.”
E. Sequence of Logic
Most of the times, the SoT can’t work by itself as a method of analysis. There are times
where we can’t justify our assertions just by borrowing universal, well-known principles
and connecting it to our arguments and context. Sometimes, we have to justify the
standard of truth brought as our basic premise.
Here’s when the sequence of logics come into play. We construct arguments within
arguments – or we can call it prerequisite logics – to help our standard of truth
establishing itself as a proper base for justifying our assertions.

1. Reversed Deductive Reasoning
By now, you should’ve realized that an argument is, more or less, a deductive process as well.
However, more complex arguments demand the explanation to be broken down into sequence
of premises – in order to make it more understandable.
But, instead of drawing a conclusion from several premises, we (1) determine the conclusion
first – which is the Assertion of the argument – and (2) find the corresponding premises that
validate this claim. Then, we (3) arrange those corresponding premises in a consequential
and/or causal order. That’s why it’s called Reversed Deductive Reasoning.
An argument of deductive reasoning is valid if and only if it is not

possible for the premises of the argument to be true while the
conclusion is false.
It means we have to find the premises after we decide what the conclusion is. And because
every debater assumes that their assertion (conclusion) is true, they have to make sure that the
premises are also true.
Note also that although evidence, as well as examples, is a substantial part of the argument, it
is NOT to be mistaken as a part of the reasoning. The purpose of giving evidence is to
strengthen your reasoning. That’s why it’s not included in the chart because it’s not main part
of the logic.
We believe that … (Assertion),

because…
… (1st Premise)
… (2nd Premise)
… (next Premises)
Conclusion
Therefore, because … (summary of
premises), we believe in …
(assertion).
2. Arranging the Supportive Premises

Earlier, we learned that sequence of logics consists of arguments within argument, which
serve as prerequisite logics for the reasoning process. To make things easier, I’ll refer to these
sub-arguments as ‘supportive premises’, because they are premises of arguments – which are
the premises of a team’s theme line.
The supportive premises can be anything, including secondary and even tertiary standard of
truths followed by the explanations. The method of Standard of Truth as mentioned above
will be at best if we can find every element of logics or supportive premises needed. That’s
why one must be very familiar with the theoretical concept of the particular matter presented
as SoT.
The problem is many speakers fall to the trap of jumping to conclusions right away before
explaining the premises needed. Not only the absence of these logical chains makes your case
vulnerable to the opponent’s attack, it would also raise a lot of questions in the adjudicators
mind. In the end, your arguments would seem assumptive.
For example, when your assertion says, ‘Governments may take lives’, and you’re using the
common general principle that, ‘Governments may take certain rights of citizen,’ as your
reasoning. But you can’t link this logic back to the assertion just yet by saying,
“We believe that governments may take lives (assertion), because we already
know that governments may take certain rights of citizen (reasoning).
Therefore, because they may take certain rights of citizen, they may also take
lives (conclusion).”

There would be too many questions like: ‘Why can we include ‘taking rights’ as part of
government’s authority?’ ‘Since when killing your own citizen became part of your
authority?’ and ‘Who gave this authority to the governments?’ etc. This is due to the apparent
missing links of the deduction process.
You need to provide logical steps, a sequence of supportive premises, to help the audience
understand and can link between your 1st premise – which is the main reasoning – with the
conclusion of the argument. In short, you have to provide smaller/supportive premises in
order to validate the 1st premise as the cause of the Conclusion.
Supportive premises establish the causalities between the 1 st

(main) premise and the conclusion.
To help do this, make a sequence of logic from what you have in starting concept as 1st
premise, then what you want to prove as conclusion. And later on you will fill the gaps with
any information necessary to the result in the output.
a. Decide 1st premise and the conclusion
The conclusion should be not much different or even the same as the argument’s
assertion, since that’s what you seek to prove. The 1 st premise is the main
reasoning – possibly the primary SoT.
1st Premise
Governments may take certain
rights
………
Conclusion
Governments may take lives
The blank part between the two is not to be filled with just one supportive premise
or two, but a long chain of them.

b. Fill in the blanks
1st Premise
rd
3 Premise
People
Governments may gave
take government
certain rightsthis power to give them welfare
2nd Premise
Because they have the authority to regulate and distribute rights
4th Premise
People give power through social contract, which is the society collectively submit some part of their rights to the government, hence giving the
5th Premise
Thus society right-taking and distribution is for the sake of welfare
6th Premise
Society rights of welfare include rights for sense of justice (this is a very
specific pointing out from such a general understanding of welfare. It is
because the motion will obviously suggest death penalty, seeing the
argument. Talks about punishment is talks about justice)
7th Premise
Sense of Justice is where deeds are repaid accordingly.
Good given praise, and evil given punishment.
8th Premise
Punishment is to take away as much as what has been taken.
Lesser evil deserves lesser punishment also. It is proportional.

9th Premise
There exist acts of unspeakable evil, which we can not think of greater
evil than that, OR maximum evil. Thus the perpetrator must be
punished by taking away of which we can not think any greater.
10th Premise
The greatest thing which could be taken away from an
individual is life, hence the only just retribution for such crime.
11th Premise
Thus there are cases where to achieve sense of justice,
lives have to be taken
13th Premise
If sense of justice is a part of welfare, then there are
cases where to achieve welfare lives must be taken
Conclusion
And if the government’s power to take rights is
governed by the responsibility to achieve welfare,
sometimes lives must be taken (assertion).
As we can see, we may have emerged certain issues that simple Standard of Truth
does not yet highlight.
The example above may not be perfect. But it is close. The methodology ensures better
attention to missing logical-links while case building. So that then, you can classify them in
accord with the Standard of Truth methodology.
Also, all these instructions about the Standard of Truth may seem very complicated and
overwhelming. But actually, it only looks like that because the arguments are presented in
written form. When spoken, an argument only spends no more than 3 minutes.

PERSUASIVE VERBAL SKILLS: THE USE OF
STANDARD OF TRUTH
When your opponent's substantive speaker is speaking in front, has passed his/her 1st minute
and has not entered his/her last minute, you may interrupt their speech. These interruptions
are called Points of Information (POI), and last at the maximum length of 15 seconds.
It is the privilege of the speaker in front, however, to accept or refuse POIs. And POIs may
only be given to opponents.
The manner of which to deliver POIs is explained in more details in the section on Manner.
The functions of offering POIs are as follows:

1. To ask for clarity on certain things. This may avoid misunderstanding on both
teams’ cases, which might lead to catastrophes.
Example:
"What do you mean by 'legalizing' prostitution? Is it okay to do anywhere, or are you making
localizations?"
2. To give a simple rebuttal towards the speaker.
Example:
"What you said is against the UN charter. How do you respond to that?"
They have to be as concise as possible, because you have only 15 seconds, and it’s best to be
in a form of question.
Offer as much as you can to show your activeness, but not too much that it disturbs the
debate.
For the speaker in front, try accepting POIs on the right time and right amount. You do not
want people to interrupt in the middle of a sentence or an explanation that it disturbs you, so

you can wait until you finish a sentence to accept (more explanations on Manner section), or
even refuse if you don’t feel like it.
And you do not want to be bothered by too many POIs, so try to accept just a reasonable
amount. Two is the generally acceptable amount. But accepting three is also okay if you think
you can handle it and not disturb your speech too much.
You must answer immediately and effectively, to show your mastery of your speech. And
don’t forget to look cool.
There is no single precise rule as how to handle POIs the best. But the following tips may
give basic strategic – not substantial – guidance for offering or answering POIs.
Tip #1:
If you seriously don’t understand the POI given by your opponent – like it seems as if they’re
speaking in alien language – admit it and apologize but then just continue your speech. Do
not ask them to repeat the point.
Example:
"I am sorry, but I seriously don’t understand that point. Let’s continue."
Tip #2:
Desperado way out. If the opponent asks you something you seriously can’t answer, stay cool
and confident. This is not recommended, but when you are at a corner, well, by all means.
Pretend you misunderstood. Pick a word from that POI which you can comprehend most,
then just say anything related to that word.
Example:
POI:
"But why are you proposing such thing in this age of postmodernist view of governance
and society?"
If you don’t know heck about postmodernism, just respond,
"Well, the idea of this proposal is to achieve... (re-explain your goal, forgetting the
'postmodernism' part)."

Tip #3:
You may cut off a POI if you have already understood their point but they have not finished
speaking.
Example:
"Thank you sir/ma’am, I got your point. So... (answer point)."
Tip #4:
For POI givers, due to Tip #3, you must be careful in picking your words and only use what
is necessary, or else the speaker might use it to their advantage.
Example:
Intended POI:
"I beg to differ. What you are proposing is considering that lives are expendable and
cheap!"
Fact POI:
"I beg to differ, ..."
Cut by speaker:
"Thank you, of course you should differ, it’s your job as my opponent (and continues
speech)."
You just lost a chance for a POI. While, by tens of offers from your whole team, only 2-3 will
be accepted. Might as well just go straight to:
“What you are proposing is considering that lives are expendable and cheap!"

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN
DEBATE
The aim of this chapter is to equip you with basic necessary information from which you can
then work your case. Starting from contextualization, setting up, and building arguments.
There are steps you need to take:
I. MOTION UNDERSTANDING
When you see a motion, the first thing you’ll need to do is identifying the important key
words. This has already been explained in the chapter on Definitions. After identifying the
keywords, find all the information necessary related to these keywords which would then
reveal the issues revolving around them. This will help you get a better understanding of what
the motion demands.
Example: THW Conduct Humanitarian Intervention to Zimbabwe
Keywords are “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Zimbabwe”. Now you know that
you need to find out what is going on in Zimbabwe, and what does it have to do with
Humanitarian issues. Or something like “what is ‘humanitarian intervention’?”. Then
more actors will appear such as UN Security Council and P-5 countries etc etc.
II.RESEARCH ON ISSUE
After you have identified these things to look up, its time to find out what is going on around
the topic. This is when you need to start finding reliable search engines and websites that can
provide information for you.
Google, wikipedia, BBC, New York Times, publicagenda.com, debatabase.org,
guardian.com, the economist.com, there are plenty of sites very useful in the internet from
which you can dig. Books also help. Each topic would have their own recommended must-
read list. It is important however for you to put in the right key words in the search engine.

From the motion example given above, indicators that you have done your researches right is
that you would at least know: origin of Zimbabwe Crisis, actors of conflicts and parties in
interest, chronology of events and current conditions, statistics and the stories behind them,
etc, but most importantly: problem identification.
III. RELATED PRINCIPLES
Every motion on every debate will then lead to a clash of basic principle, at least one but
mostly entangling many. These basic principles will be contested upon each other, or
arguments will compete to best fulfill better the same principle.
Thus it is very important to know the most commonly used principles in debating. Below are
some most used principles and a brief description of it. Remember that these are not the only
principles that might be used, those mentioned here are only explained briefly. Thus it is at
the utmost essence for you to research deeper on these principles.
 Human Rights
Wikipedia defines it as “basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled”.
Problems appear when rights clash each other to an extent that the legal protection of
one would sacrifice another. Many controversies lie on to what extent we compromise
rights, most commonly rights to live on death penalty debates or when rights to live
are conflicting with bodily autonomous rights in cases of abortion. Other conflicts lie
on the contention between individual rights and collective rights, like what would
usually happen in terrorism related debates.
Human rights is very commonly used in a debate as a universal standard from which
both teams must try to fulfill by either comparing rights or fighting for win-win
solutions, in a very wide array of topic possibilities. Thus one must master the types
of human rights, background from which these rights were given in the first place, and
background of society norms as well as today’s context. Holding a copy of the
International Declaration of Human Rights would really help.
See also : harm principle, utilitarianism
 Discrimination

Throughout history, discriminations happen: be it racial, gender, or sexual orientation.
While the ideas of fairness and equality are highly promoted in most countries, but
many parts of the society still has difficulties in tolerating these discriminative
differences. Many anti discrimination movements emerge and demand certain policies
to achieve fairness.
For gender equality, feminism rise on many issues that relate to woman. Feminism
topics range from issues regarding equal opportunities for women to participate in
various parts if society such as Women Quotas, until woman bargaining position in
the social structure such as polygamy and pornography. Along with sexual orientation,
feminism is the most discussed topic regarding discrimination. There are many
perspectives of feminism such as power feminists, eco-feminists, Islamic feminists,
ultra feminists, super feminism etc.
Regarding sexual orientation, homosexuals are the latest to get attention. Starting
from social outcast, they continue to get rights of marriage, rights to adopt, which are
all still in controversy. Gay rights movements also start to go as far as the
establishment of Harvey Milk School and enactment of Gay Day in California.
Debates cluster on effectiveness in socialization of tolerance.
Racial discrimination was the earliest discrimination issue dealt with, and is the least
discussed today. Anti Apartheid movements and US Marshal act were past attempts to
get rid of the discrimination, and debates about the latter sometimes still arise.
Debates about discrimination would usually include both teams being anti
discrimination, and argue upon how is best to fulfill equality. A big instrument is to
analyze the origins and nature of discrimination, and elements of social engineering in
regard to values.
see also : discriminative cultural practice, honor killing, feminism waves, affirmative
action.
 Religion, Customs, and Morality
The standard of right and wrong from the society are formed by many elements.
Religion, customs, and morality. These social constructions form values which are
highly diverse, but become standard of society judgment.
The understanding of social perspective construction is very essential in debates
which involve culture, discrimination, and any policy making which is lack in
popularity.
Debates usually happen because of contrasts in the diversity of values in the society,
but the government must act strict on it and pick which value to uphold better.
Debates about anti pornography bill or establishment of gambling sites are examples
of this kind.
 Social Contract and Democracy
Democracy is a government system which is ideally governed by the society in

representative manners. Elections would be a big indicator of democracy. Debates
range from election related issues: compulsory or not, independent candidates, etc, but
then they all would have to seek the best type of democracy, to the universality of
democracy.
Social Contract, is a theory which explains how mandates were transferred from the
society to their representatives, thus giving these representatives power to govern.
This answers questions on why governments have power to take and give rights such
as binding people in law and punishing offenders. Debates would then be the extent of
these controls
See also : Pillars of democracy
 Trias Politica
This is a theory from Rosseau and Montesqueu, to ensure that a democratic

government would run the way it should be so that there would be control.
There are three elements of governance. Legislative, which consists of representatives
to sound aspirations from which determines the way things are done. Then Executive,
who then will run the country based on the mandates and jobs given by the
Legislative. Finally, Judicative, who will supervise both parties and act passively shall
there be violations.
Dilemma comes when a pure separation is simply impossible, because they are three
different elements but need to cooperate. Debates usually are about to what extent are
these cooperation. For example, Executive Branch in Indonesia also legislates along
with the Legislative. While in USA, the Executive don’t legislate but can simply veto
a bill.

 Liberalism and Secularism
Liberalism is an ideology which puts individual freedom on a very high bargaining

power, as opposed to Socialism which puts collective rights as priority. The range of
liberalism application highly varies from moral, legal, to economy policies. But
controversies usually remain the same which is “lack of protection towards the weak”
versus “Survival of the fittest”
Secularism is a system of governance which is not influenced by theological
ideologies. It sees that religion is an individual aspect which can not be collectively
imposed. The problem of Secularism is that it tends to do more than neglecting
religion, to violating religious practices. For example, debates on the prohibition on
religious insignia
see also: socialism, Marxism, Authoritarianism,
 Principles of Law, Criminal Liability, and Justice
Making laws is the background of many motions, thus its nature must be well
understood in order not to naively perceive it. Find out the background and
implication of clashes between the law functions: manifestation of society interest
versus tool of social engineering, and different complementary and sometimes
clashing forms of law: written legislative law versus unwritten custom and indigenous
laws. Principles of legality and justice don’t always go in hand either, thus makes a
disparity between law in books and law in action. It is equally interesting to see why
and how then two major law systems: Continental and Anglo Saxon interpret some
key points differently.
Committing crime is not as simple as going against the law, but also must has an
element of fault. Going against the law would not be punished upon if fault is proven
inexistent. Two things that cancel out fault are reasons to justify: it is against the law
for a random guy to cut up another, but for a surgeon it is okay to do so to performing
a surgery; and reasons to forgive: murder but by a total schizophrenic person, which
will not be punished but taken away from the society. There are many philosophies
behind the fault concept, and why there are exceptions.
Debates regarding law, justice, and punishment highly appreciate theories on society
sense of justice, crime and evil, and how it is perceived and fulfilled. And furthermore

require analysis on functions of punishment: retribution, providing social sense of
justice, correction, and deterrence, which each of these will have their own concepts.
Motions will highly vary from arguing about proportionality, until discussing issues of
crime committed by minors.
see also: reverse burden of proof, vigilante justice, jurisprudence
 International Law
It is commonly mistaken with nation law, where a government has sovereign power
over the governed. Subjects of International law have their own sovereignty, thus have
equal positions before the law. Thus it is treaty-based and jurisdiction is determined
by ratification of these treaties. International customs, however, also exist. Examples
of it would be the principle of ergo ormes.
Then the debates would usually involve international issues under the platform of
International Organizations. Important organizations which are important to
understand its natures, origins, functions, jurisdictions, charters and statutes, current
and past hot issues, would be but not limited to: United Nations, United Nations
Security Council, International Criminal Court, World Trade Organization, World
Bank, International Monetary Funds, European and African Union, ASEAN, etc.
Other things that are equally important to search would be results of Geneva and
Vienna Convention, ICCPR, GATT, GATTS, Kyoto Protocol and other results of
UNFCCC.
Many debates about international law are about humanitarian issues. They try to
justify intervention, and/or find the best way to resolve conflicts or other issues.
see also: diplomatic immunities, humanitarian interventions, peace keeping troops,
extraordinary rendition
 Economy: Market Mechanism vs Government Protection
The most basic things one would need to understand about economy would be about
public goods, demand-supply-price theories, and ‘unlimited need’ versus ‘limited
supply’.
This would then create a market mechanism within the society, or between many
societies. Price, supply and many other things are formed by itself. But then for
certain interests, the Government steps in and controls a few elements. Then comes

the conflict where market mechanism highly is in favor of the survival of the fittest
(individuals), while governments try to protect the poor (collective).
Debates would not go far from free trade, subsidy, privatization, debt relief, or even
all of them at once. One must really carefully analyze the nature of these certain
policies and its cost and benefit analysis. Also, the setting in which the debate occurs:
is it in a developing or developed country, which country under what economical
condition. But for all, poverty is always the common enemy.
A pure black and white debate is rare, however. Thus more gray-area debates are
common.
see also: fair trade, bail-out, protectionism, incentive policy, G-20, BRIC
 Population, Migration, and Labor Market
An interesting dilemma is befalling the world. Many countries with high education
and welfare rate have close to zero or even minus population growth, and countries
with the contrary instead have very high population growth.
Migration is a phenomenon that has happened since quite a while ago. Many
countries, especially the advanced ones, are complaining about the large influx of
legal and illegal migrants to their countries and their social implications. There are
many motives of these migrations: seek for better welfare, or seek for refuge.
Debates usually are about population control mechanisms, domestic economy
especially labor policies, immigration policies, which are highly related to economy
and human rights aspects.
The same disparity in countries’ economy which becomes the background of
migration also causes other phenomena’s. Outsourcing becomes quite a problem
which is also a clash between economy principles and human rights. One must find
out why outsourcing and all that comes with it happens, also the conflict of interests,
and reasons of judgment from both pros and cons towards it.
See also : cultural assimilation, salad bowl society, zero-growth population
 Patents
Patents are protections towards intellectual properties, so that reproduction and sales
must profit the inventor. It represents ownership and gratitude towards these
inventors.

Problems happen when it clashes with certain interests. When patents also become a
component of price, it goes against some humanitarian issues when it comes to
patents for Anti-Retroviral Drugs or environmentally friendly technology. Patents met
with indigenous culture products question the very basic principle and understanding
of patents itself.
Patent related debates become individual versus collective rights debate, in which of
course the most ideal goal would be a win-win solution. But comparative analysis is
highly needed. And the utmost essence in patent debates would be the very
understanding of patents itself and the principles of what is contending with it.
 Environment
The greatest issue of environment today is global warming, thus knowing what it is
and its causes is highly essential. The general problem is that the cause for Global
Warming is apparently something that humans need. Emission is an excess of
production.
Debates about environment and global warming would not go far from Kyoto
protocol, REDD and other UNFCC results, green tax, emission trade, debt-for-nature
swap, etc. They would all argue upon a cost and benefit analysis, towards what is the
best solution –maybe not to stop, but- to help solve global warming.
Other issues regarding environment would include Eco-Terrorism: conflict between
human rights violations and environmental urgencies, animal rights and preservation,
Genetically Modified Products, and many more.
See also : tragedy of the common, carbon offset,
 Energy and Nuclear
Still highly relevant to the issue of Environment, an energy crisis is befalling the
world. Facts remain plain that we need energy, but the resource we rely on today has
many flaws: not renewable, pollution, high fluctuation in price, but yet it’s the most
effective we have today: fossil fuel.
Scientific debates still happen on whether or not fossil fuel is limited. But most
debates in competitions will argue about alternative energies, which include but not
limited to: biofuel, Coal Bed Methane, and of course nuclear. It is very important to
know the nature, effectiveness and efficiency as well as cost of these resources. Other

energy sources are worth knowing also: natural gas, coal, geothermal, solar cell, wind
etc.
Specifically about nuclear energy, more debates occur regarding its undeniably
harmful track-records but extremely efficient and powerful nature. Technology has
ensured that it can be safe, but humans always have error at the same time: percentage
of error rate?
Politics also revolve around this issue more than others. The tendencies of its use as
nuclear weapon pose a big threat also. Debates about nuclear weapons would be about
rights for its ownership, or disarmaments. Common mistakes are being too naïve in
imagining that countries will have a new hobby of tossing nukes to their neighbors,
though it is not fully an irrational possibility. Seeing what happened in the Cold War
could help.
 Education
As a very important element to society advancement, education has many

controversies.
One issue would be about values upheld by schools. Debates revolve around the
nature and function of schools, faced to a demand of value proliferation such as
morality, politics, lifestyle, anti discrimination promotion and such. Motions would
usually be about teaching religion at school, tobacco advertisements, sex education,
Harvey Milk Schools etc.
Other issues would be the mechanisms of teaching and evaluation. It is important to
have basic knowledge regarding human learning process from infancy to preteen,
preteen to teen, then adulthood, with all aspects of it (such as cognitive, psychomotor
and affective) which all would have their own controversies. Specific issues would be
about National Examinations of Indonesia, Acceleration Class, Corporal Punishment,
Existence of homework, Home Schooling etc. These are some mechanisms which one
would need to know of its nature.
See also : cross subsidies, school funding system by state
 Health

Health is among the basic need of a society, thus health-related policies are very
essential. Debates regarding health would include arguments of the most appropriate
way to approach a health issue.
Ethic debates of health usually involves whether tobacco companies must pay
compensation, priority of organ transplant to those who live a healthy lifestyle, etc.
This is where ethics is contended with the other coin side of freedom of choice:
responsibility and consequence.
General health policies of health would be regarding Universal Health Care, which
would require analysis on the extent of the government responsibility and citizen
rights of health.
There are more specific issues regarding health, which would be usually related to a
specific health problem. The most commonly discussed would be smoking and its
restrictions, and obesity: fat tax, fat camps etc.
see also : mercy killing (euthanasia), needle exchange program, universal health
care, insurance, genetic screening.
IV. USING FOR CASEBUILDING
After having an issue and identifying principles involved for the motion, case building will be
much easier. You may employ the information you gain to identify the issues or problems
generating the debate. From your research you also can prioritize which issues come primary
and which issues are just less crucial to be discussed. Once you decide the problems/ issues
you can develop the case by producing arguments. The layers of arguments can be enriched
by the inclusion of principles you have read before from your research materials. The same
system can also be employed when you are preparing your negation. Last but not least, you
can add facts and statistics to complete your arguments and claims. Regarding the use of
facts, you must bear in mind that the facts you use should be the most relevant one. You have
to also ensure that the sources of the facts are credible enough. This is important to prevent
you from delivering erroneous fact during your speech.
V. RESEARCHING AND COMPILING NOTES
You will find that a good bit of your club time will be taken up by researching and compiling
notes on topics for upcoming tournaments or club debates. Students can work on topics in

teams or small groups, and should be required to prepare notes or issue briefs to be shared
with the rest of the class. As the tournament approaches, these briefs can be photocopied for
everyone in the club and compiled in three-ring notebooks to bring to the tournament.
CONTEXTUALIZATION
What is contextualization?
It is basically the way your team set in what sphere or in what issue the case will be debated.
The intensity of contextualization usually depends on the type of the motion. When it is
closed motion, team would not have to work hard to contextualize the motion as the motion
explains it by itself. But the case is quite different when it comes to open motions. As the
motions tend to be general, the affirmative’s main role is to set the debate by contextualize
the floor of the debate first. There are some steps to contextualize the debate:
1. Identify the problems inflicted by the motion, you can ask this basic question: why are we
having the debate?
2. Explain what causes the problems
3. create your goal; what your team wants to achieve regarding the motion.
4. Set the stance : how you’re going to achieve the goal. This will include a model for you to
propose.
STANCE OF NEGATIVE TEAM:
 Problem doesn’t exist
 Defend the status quo.
 In most debates, this isn’t a good response, as debates usually occur when
there are problems to be solved.
 Example : school uniform.
 Different cause
 Argues that the problem has been identified correctly, however, the cause
behind it is not what the affirmative has identified.
 Usually entails that the solution won’t solve the problem.
 Example : affirmative action debates.
 Solution won’t work
 Argues that the problem and cause have been identified correctly, however, the
affirmative’s solution will not lead to the goal.
 Both teams have a common goal, but different ways to achieve it.
 Example : foreign aid debates.
 Solution has other harms
 Argues that the problem and cause have been identified correctly, however, the
affirmative’s solution will lead to other harms, either directly or indirectly.
 Both teams have a common goal, but different ways to achieve it.
 Example : foreign aid, affirmative action debates.
 Better solution
 The negative team provides an alternative solution.
More commonly called a ‘counter-proposal’.

 Combine!!
 Almost every opposition case should have some element of:
 The solution won’t work
 The solution has other harms
 Then, depending on the debate, you can add:
 Problem doesn’t exist

 Different cause
 Better solution
MODEL
 What is a model?
 A specific set of practical actions proposed by a team in a debate.
 Instead of just arguing that a certain idea is good, the team set up a particular
system that they support for reasons that are linked to various parts of the model.
 Purpose of a model
 Making clear what the debate is about.
 Allowing a clash to occur. Especially when both teams have a

common goal.
 Framework upon which your arguments are based.
 Hard line vs. Soft line
 ‘Hard’ or ‘soft’ refers to the change to the status quo – a soft line changes the
status quo very little, whilst a hard line changes it a lot more.
 Hard lines are, in general, better and easier to run than soft lines.
CASE STUDY
“THW introduce compulsory military service”
◦ Soft line: 3 months, 20% lottery for those aged 18, exceptions for
conscientious objectors

◦ Moderate line: 1 year, aged 18-27, can be deferred for study,
alternatives for objectors
◦ Hard line: 2 years, aged 18-30, exceptions only if medically unfit, jail
for objectors
◦ Insane line: 10 years, aged 10-65, no exceptions, objectors punished by

death
◦ As you go further away, harms may increase, but so do the benefits…
◦ Insane lines
◦ It’s pretty easy to avoid the insane line in the debate.
◦ The easiest check is the ‘laugh test’.
◦ All team members should agree.
◦ Think about the justification – if you’re spending too long, it’s

probably a bad idea.
Building a model :
◦ Steal an existing model.
◦ Existing model + modification.
◦ Create your model from scratch.
Another case study:

THW rescue failing home industries
Contexting
Def : government of Indonesia would provide capital loans
P : home industries are vital parts of Indonesia’s economy, but lack in capital to run the
first 5 years of their business making 90% companies bankrupt in this period
(Business Research fact) due to inability to withstand early market adjustment versus
high business establishment cost

G : helping these 90% companies to at least survive the danger zone (5 years) so that
they can run stable, thus become strong micro-component of the macro economy.
S : Provide them loans with no interest rate to add up to the capital they need to
continue business. They must already have a home industry and is failing because of
lack of capital. Applicants must propose to the government along with business plans
to ensure competence in actually organizing the business. The loans can be paid over
time as long as the deal goes.
Opposition Options
 Option A
• Stance: It is a problem which needs fixing indeed. But this loan system is a
wrong solution. It brings more harm than good.
• Maybe you can add an alternative proposal if you think is better. Then claim
that the core of the problem is not the need of more capital, but something else which
will be included in your proposal
 Option B
• Stance: These bankruptcies are not a problem. It is just natural, and is within
the natural selection to create better economy. Thus for a better economy, we want to
stick to the status quo and let it be.
 Which one is better? You judge. No absolute answer to this.
Note:
 1st Governments must master this, and try best to use max 30% of time to
explain this. Practice makes perfect.
 Oppositions must be highly alert to different possible stances that

Governments might bring, and be ready to adjust BEFORE 1 st Opposition starts
speech.

 Individual rebuttals are best to be all directed not just individually within the
targeted arguments, but also how these opponent arguments contribute towards their
stance.
 Team Government must be aware of the Opposition’s stance. Who knows it

doesn’t clash your stance, thus making them not negating.
SPEAKER‘S ROLE
Principally debate is a team-competition in which three speakers constitute a team and share
different roles to achieve the team’s goal: winning the battle. Hence, it is essential to
comprehend the role of each speaker as one’ substantive speech will determine the run and
the result of the debate. As an initial briefing, it is important to note that the simplest role of
each speaker is required to move forward to face the audience, recognise the Chairman and
then address the audience - speakers should avoid addressing the presentation to the opposing
team, it is the audience and adjudicators that they should be seeking to persuade.
The roles of the individual speakers are summarised as follows:

1. First Government
A. Explain the Background of the debate; What’s the Problem? What’s
happening in the Status Quo? Why did the motion appear in the first place?
B. Define the Government’s interpretation of the motion and specify the essential
issues in contention

C. Scope down the motion if necessary; bring the parameters of the debate and
explain why the team has decided to scope down the parameters
D. indicate the team’s stance
E. Outline the team’s structure; highlight the Burden of Proof of each
teams,basic theme (theme line) of the team’s case, and the aspects to be dealt with
by each speaker (team split). (Note: Speakers should NOT spend more than 2
minutes by the time they are done with this step)
F. Deliver substantial Arguments; if the debate is a Proposal Debate elaborate
the proposal/mechanisms first. Afterwards deliver the arguments relevant to the
nature of first speakers, which are Philosophical Arguments. (Note: Finish this
point one minute prior to the allocated time, so there is enough time to
summarise)
G. Summarise.
2. First Opposition
A. State the stance of the team as the construction of negation toward
government’ stance.
B. Rebut any major points put up by the leader of the Government which can be
effectively countered. (Note: Rebuttals should NOT take more than 3 minutes)
C. Outline the team’s structure; indicate the team’s stance, basic theme (theme
line) of the team’s case, and the aspects to be dealt with by each speaker (team
split)
D. Deliver substantial Arguments; if the debate is a Proposal Debate, then it is
necessary for Opposition teams to bring a counter-proposal. After the mechanism
has been thoroughly explained, deliver arguments relevant to the nature of first
speakers, which are Philosophical Arguments.
E. Summarise.
3. Second Government & Opposition

A. Clarify what happened in the debate so far. Use this to indicate what points
are going to be rebutted (Note: Clarifications are also useful to clarify points
which may have been misinterpreted by the opposition.) (Insider’s Tip: If there is
a point that your first speaker has missed, use this opportunity to explain that
point. However, act as though they HAVE explained it).
B. Rebut (offensive) and refute (defensive) any major points put up by the
leader of the Opposition that can be effectively countered.
C. Deliver the Extensions; as with the nature of second speakers, extensions are
arguments which have a Practical nature. (Insider’s Tip: An even more effective
way of bringing your extensions is to make it into a Comparison Analysis
between your case’s implications and your oppononent’s.)
D. Summarise
4. Third Government & Opposition

A. The third speakers are required to:
a) Provide an extended analysis in depicting general overview of debate.
b) Cluster the burden of proofs of both teams
c) Employ the clusters as an instrument to perform comparative analysis upon the
opponent’s case.
d) Use rebuttals and refuttals as instrument of comparative analysis.
B. Rebut! Rebut! Rebut! Most of a third speaker's time must be spent rebutting
the preceding speakers. Generally at least three quarters of a third speech should
be rebuttal. Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a macro-level
(Team-wise), and a micro-level (Speech-wise). A third speaker should be able to
attack the opposing team's whole case, pointing out the major flaws in
argumentation and logic. On a more detailed level a third speaker should be able
to point out the mistakes, contradictions and inconsistency of each individual
speech.
C. Rebuild the team's case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers'
arguments).
D. In Asian system, the third Opposition CANNOT introduce New Matter,
except for new examples to reinforce an argument that has previously been
brought up. The logic behind this rule is that if a third Opposition is allowed to
introduce new matter, the Government would be at a disadvantage as they would
not have any opportunity to be able to respond to these new arguments. On the
contrary, it is still legal for a third Government to introduce new matter although it
will be highly discouraged.
E. Summarise.
5. Government and Opposition Reply

A. Provide a summary or overview of the debate. (Note: Only the first and
second speakers are allowed to do reply speeches. Opposition teams deliver the
first reply speech. Reply speakers are NOT allowed to bring new materials.)
B. Identify the issues raised by both sides. Not only the contradicting issues, but
also – before that – the issues which both of the teams agreed upon. This includes
reinstating background, common goal, thus points of contention.

C. Provide a biased adjudication of the debate. (Insider’s Tip: Emphasize the
major points made by your own team and show how these contributed towards a
logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time
the flaws in your opponent's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-
by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both are effective
if well done, so find the summary style that suits you best. However, the latter
style is often more effective in light of the limited time frame).
Definitional Challenge:
In a perfect world, this section would not be necessary – both teams would agree on the same
definition, so there would be no need for definitional rebuttal. In fact, not even a perfect
world would be necessary – most definitional disputes would be avoided if both teams had
chosen an appropriate and even-handed definition.
However, avoidable or not, definitional disputes do happen. What’s more, when they happen,
your adjudicator will expect you to follow a relatively standard approach in dealing with the
situation. Of all the aspects of debate, this is one of the driest; however, it is also one of the
most technically demanding.
The roles of the individual speakers in a Definitional Challenge are as follows:

1. First Opposition
A. Challenge the Definition; Make it clear that you are challenging your
opponents’ definition. It is helpful to actually use the word ‘challenge’ – for
example, “First, we challenge our opposition’s definition.”
B. Explain WHY your opponent’s definition is wrong; use the criteria’s which
have been explained; truistic, squirreling, tautological, etc.
C. Bring your team’s definition; This is vital, because every debate needs a
definition – if your opponents’ definition is not good enough, you need something
to replace it.
D. Explain WHY your team’s definition is more reasonable.
E. Give Even-If Rebuttals; In a nutshell, even-if rebuttals are used to rebut the
fallacies in the opponent’s arguments, EVEN-IF their definition is correct.
E.g. “Even if their definition is correct, in which it is obviously not, their
arguments still cannot stand because of the following reasons….”
F. Outline the team’s structure; indicate the team’s stance, basic theme (theme
line) of the team’s case, and the aspects to be dealt with by each speaker (team
split)
G. Deliver substantial Arguments
H. Summarise.
2. Second Government
A. Defend the Government’s definition; explain WHY your team’s definition is
perfectly reasonable
B. Rebut the opposition’s definition; explain WHY their definition is incorrect
C. Give the Even-If Rebuttals towards the opposition’s case
D. Deliver the Extensions
E. Summarise
3. Second Opposition
A. Defend the Opposition’s definition; explain WHY your team’s definition is
B. Restate WHY the opposition’s definition is incorrect
D. Deliver the Extensions
E. Summarise
4. Third Government & Opposition

A. Defend the Government’s definition; explain WHY your team’s definition is
B. Rebut the opposition’s definition; explain WHY their definition is incorrect
D. Summarise
5. Government and Opposition Reply

A. Provide a summary or overview of the definition debate.
B. Identify the issues raised by both sides
C. Provide a biased adjudication of the debate.
STYLE

Style is the way speakers speak. It is the manner in which debaters communicate their
arguments. It works as the way you present your idea through your hand writing. It is not as
crucial as the idea, but without it people will not comprehend the message. In general
extremes, there are three kinds of style; extremely attractive, acceptable and comprehendible,
unattractive and incomprehendable. Style includes many aspects: speed of speech, tone,
volume, use of language, clarity, fluency, use of humor, stance, gestures and expressions, and
use of notes and eye contact.
Your style should be able to convince and persuade the judges that your arguments are
better than the other side. In order to do this it is best to:
1. Use eye contact
Remember that when you debate, you should face the judges and not your opponents, as
the judges are the ones you want to convince. You should also bear in mind when it comes
a case of panel adjudicators, you should make sure that you use your eye contact equally
to each of them. Do not also look at your notes all the time. Avoiding eye contact would
make you seem as if you don’t want to connect with the audience or the judges. Eye
contact makes you look confident and that is your initial path to win persuasion.
Tips 1: for those who don’t feel comfortable looking at another person’s eyes, try looking
at their forehead. This makes you more at ease and the audience still feel that you’re
talking to them.
Tips 2 : If you are a type of speaker who can get intimidated easily by adjudicators, try to
look at the most friendly adjudicator to ease your confidence. If none of them is friendly,
don’t forget their forehead !
2. Be clear in explaining your points

Being clear means using tone, volume and language that makes other people understand
your points. Choose simple language or words to make sure that other people know what
you are talking about. Do not force yourself to use sophisticated terms when you don’t
even know what they exactly means. It may lead to misplacement or even
misunderstanding for audience/ adjudicators. Good grammar would be nice but one or two
mistakes would not matter as long as people understand what you are talking about.
 Formation
 Speakers should bring important cases first.
 Teams should bring central arguments earlier in the case.
 Signpost
 How many points will you bring? State in the beginning of the speech.

 Flag every time you will start/end an argument
 Note –Taking
 In your notes, put a clear distinction/ chronology points that you want
to present.
 Write a headline or the important point of the logic to ease you
developing the speech.
 Making it neat and colorful may help. But if you are not an artistic
person, at least try!
 Popular tagline
Initially offer your arguments or rebuttals by using attractive taglines that may
intrigue people, especially judges to invest their time listening to your speech. For
instance, instead of saying “economic benefit” try to say “welfare”. Or you can also
bring some theoretical terms to introduce your argument, for example, mentioning
“tragedy of the common argument” will be more attractive than only saying
“environment destruction due to people’s economic effort “. But again, you must
avoid of being too sophisticated to prevent confusion from the audience.
3. Avoid being monotonous

Changes make people notice. So it’s good to have variations in your speech so that people
stay interested. It would be a pity if the judges miss a good point you made simply because
your speech was boring.
 Pace
 There’s no need to try to speak as FAST as possible.
 Voice
 Don’t be too LOUD, don’t be too quiet.
 Use intonation to make your speech more dynamic
 Raising and falling intonation
 Emphasizing your important point by either by a slower tempo
or low voice
 Effective usage of words. Go to the point, don’t spiral.
 Don’t say too many filler such as“Ladies and Gentlemen” and
“actually”.
 Rather than “emm”, you better to pause but still look confident.
 Don’t be FLAT and monotonous, don’t be too BOMBASTIC
either
 Use sincere expression and gestures

 Use the right expression and effective gesture to convince. Your speech would
lose its appeal if, for example, you giggle or use humor while talking about the
famine in Africa.
 No CURSING or foul language.
The use of humor is going to be judged accordingly. It is good to have jokes which will help
explain arguments, or little slapsticks just to cheer things up. But if it takes too much time
and not helping anything anyway, no matter how funny it is it will not contribute positive or
even it might contribute negatively to your speech.
If you are known not to be funny (not “not known to be funny”), maybe the wisest thing to do
is not to try. And a tip is that when you make a joke, say it fast and do not pause unless people
laugh. Because if you pause after the joke but before people laugh, the joke might not be
funny and the pause will only result in extreme awkwardness.
Different people have different styles and there are no absolute rules for style, except that:
1. the use of swear words is extremely prohibited
2. personal attacks or criticizing the person and not the arguments are also prohibited
(for example: “The fat stupid opponents don’t know what they’re talking about.”)
Violation of these two rules could get a debater heavy penalty or even zero in the score.
Good style is when you deliver your arguments in a confident and

persuasive manner.
It is strictly prohibited to:
1. use swear words
4. 2. give personal attacks Focus
As you
are
under the spot light during your speech, make sure that you don’t get distracted by anything.
Full concentration is the key. It’s not that we demand you to suddenly turn out to be a Yoga
master but you indeed need to concentrate no matter what happens in the room unless
something very critical is going on such as natural disaster. The main reason why it matters a
lot to stick on your focus is to confirm that you will not lose the track of your speech.
5. Be confident
Persuasiveness is a life and death matter in debate. It is actually the main goal of all the
fuss about the speech and the battle. But, this key element may be hard to achieve once
you cannot ensure your confidence comes in place. Thus, to achieve the goal of persuading
judges, you have to make sure your confidence reflected in every single word you utter
even when you personally are unsure about the matter you present in the room. So, the
skill of designing or pretending to be confident must be embraced by each debater. This
may come easy for some individuals when they master the topic or the issues that they talk
about, but when it comes to cases when you don’t understand the argument, the skill of
designing confidence comes as a must. So if there is any uncertainty let it dies within you
and not to be shared.
6. Timing of the speaker’s speech

An effective timing of a speech answers these questions:
a. Did you allocate appropriate time according to your role of speaker?
Each speaker has their own role and thus should allocate time according to those roles.
For example, if a 1st Opposition speaker spends 5 minutes of his/her speech rebutting
the 1st Government, then he/she is likely to get poor mark in strategy since he/she only
allocates 3 minutes to lay down the case of the Opposition and explain his/her points.
b. Did you allocate appropriate time in dealing with significant issues?

Strong arguments should be prioritized. Don’t waste too much time on one point and
forgets to bring other things. If a strong argument is explored in less than 1 minute,
while a weak argument is explored for 3 minutes, than the speaker did not allocate
appropriate time to deal with the important issues in the debate.
7. Points of Information
Offering and accepting POIs generally should be in the best of manner, although some
competitions may be more flexible.
The general manner of which POIs should be offered should be at least as follows:
 Standing up facing the speaker
 Proper interruption words, such as “Excuse me, Maam/Sir” or
“Interruption please” etc
 Wait silently until the speaker responds
 Sit down immediately when speaker refuses
 If accepted, go straight to the point and speak for a maximum
of 15 seconds, then sit down
 If rejected, do not bounce up and down like a basket ball on
dribble. At least wait for 15 seconds after one POI offer to another.
As for the speaker responses towards a POI, is generally as follows

 Pause as soon as possible, but not necessarily immediately

 To reject: use a common hand wave gesture to reject (or similar),
and/or with polite refusals words such as “No, thank you.” Or “Not yet”.
 To accept: face the person offering the POI, and express your
acceptance by saying “yes please”
 If you are in the middle of a paragraph when the POI is offered and
wish to accept later on after finishing the point, but keeping the person
offering POI standing will take too long, you can say that you wish to accept
but not now. This can be done with the same procedures as mentioned above,
but saying something like “I’ll accept you in a moment”. But make sure that
you do not forget, and keep your promise.
 After accepting, make sure you respond directly. If the answer lies
within explanations you are planning to deliver later, at least provide a brief
response and say that you will explain more lately.
HAPPY DEBATING

ABOUT TEAM 8
Fajri Matahati Muhammadin is the chair of Team 8. He is a student of Gajah Mada

University (UGM), School of Law. In adjudicating, he became Quarterfinal
Adjudicator for Indonesian Varsities English Debates (IVED) and Java
Overland Varsities English Debates (JOVED) 2007, Semifinal for Indonesian
Schools Debating Championship (ISDC) 2006 and National University English
Debating Competition (NUEDC) 2008, Finals for EDS UI Founders Trophy
2006 and NUEDC 2009, and Deputy Chief Adjudicator for Binus International Debating Day
(BIND) 2009. As coach, he has trained SMA Labschool Jakarta since 2003 until today, EDS
UGM (2006-2007), UNY (2009), head coach for DIY ISDC Delegation from 2006 to 2009,
and is coach for Team Indonesia in World Schools Debating Championship, Qatar 2010. He
was also 2nd Runner Up and 6th Best Speaker for Java Overland Varsities English Debates
(JOVED) 2006. Fajri is currently a member of the Advisory Council of Jogja Debating
Forum.
Vitri Sekarsari started debating in National Schools Debating Championship

2003, and felt a thin red line of hate and love for debating. The pain was so
addictive, so she decided to be voluntarily tormented in this world. Further
engulfed by the toxic air of debating, she became Champion in PIMNAS 2005,
and Runner Up for the same competition in 2006 and 2007. She went Octofinals
in IVED 2006, Finalist of EFL Category in Asian University Debating
Championship 2007, and delegate for Worlds University Debating Championship (WUDC)
2008 and 2009. In adjudicating, she broke through numerous competitions such as IVED and
JOVED 2007 and 2009, PIMNAS 2009, NUEDC 2008, Deputy Chief Adjudicator for BIND
2009, NUEDC 2009, IVED 2010 and JOVED 2010. She is also active as trainer for national
debate and adjudication trainings for highschool teachers. She is now wrestling with her
thesis finale to complete her studies in English Literature, Yogyakarta State University
(UNY), while becoming head coach of DIY ISDC Squad 2010. Vitri is currently a member of
JDF Advisory Council.
Mohammad Fikri Pido graduated from International Relations, University

Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta in 2008. He has participated in various national and
international tournaments includes his achievement as quarterfinalist of
Indonesian Varsities English Debate (IVED) 2006, Octo Finalist and 5 th Best
Speaker of IVED 2007, Runner Up and 4th Best Speaker of Asian Universities
Debate Championship (AUDC) for English as Foreign Language (EFL)
Category, IIU Malaysia, 2008. His adjudication experience includes quarterfinal adjudicator

of ALSA UI E-Comp 2006, Invited adjudicator at National University English Debating
Championship (NUEDC) 2007 and 2009. His debate experiences have benefited him when
he became the coach of SMAN 8 Yogyakarta and DIY delegation for Indonesian Schools
Debating Championship 2008. He is now persuading his master degree in Peace Studies,
International Relations Department at Gajah Mada University.
Keinesasih Hapsari Puteri or Inez had always had the tendency to start a quarrel with her
significant others due to the overly-critical nature of her way of thinking. That
only managed to loosen up when she joined the debating team of SMA 3
Yogyakarta, in which she had a mediocre career. However, as a Communication
Science student of Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta, majoring in Media
Studies, she now has several titles up her sleeves, such as 2 nd Runner-Up of
Indonesian Varsities English Debate (IVED) 2007, 10th Best Speaker of IVED
2008, and Runner-Up of Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED)
2008. She also adjudicated several local and national competitions, got “B” Grade
Adjudicator at IVED 2009 and “A” Grade adjudicator at JOVED 2009. She coached the Air
Force Academy’s debating team before she was put in charge of her alma mater high school’s
team, SMAN 3 Yogyakarta, until now. Inez is currently a member of JDF Advisory Council.
Rangga Dian Fadillah graduated from Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

in 2009. During his debating carrier, he became Runner Up in ALSA UI E-Comp
National Debates in 2006, Octofinalist of IVED 2007 and got in top 10 Best
Speakers, Runner Up and 3rd Best Speaker of ESL Category in AUDC, IIU
Malaysia 2008, Finalist of EDS UI Founders Trophy 2008, and Best Speaker of
Pekan Ilmiah Nasional (PIMNAS) 2009. As adjudicator Rangga has went to the final round
in ALSA UI E-Comp 2007, finals in NUEDC 2009 and broke in IVED 2008. Then he also
went as Deputy Chief Adjudicator for NEO National English Debating Competition 2009 and
became Chief Adjudicator for Indonesian Varsities English Debates 2009. He became head
coach for Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta debating squad from 2007 to 2008, and
SMAN 1 Kasihan Bantul from 2008-2009. Rangga is currently working for Jakarta Post as
reporter.
Karlina Denistia graduated from English Letters Department of Sanata

Dharma University in 2009 and now is working at Primagama as English
mentor and English teacher in vocational senior high school of Bopkri Satu.
She has been in the debating world since 2006, and became the runner up
for Jogja English Dormitory English Debate Championship in 2007. She
was the coach for English Debating Society at Sanata Dharma, which then
became finalist on British Parliamentary debate championship for kopertis
V region. In adjudicating, she started her carrier on JOVED 2008 and became the quarter
finalist adjudicator. Finally, here are the achievements: she was the grand finalist adjudicator
for IVED 2009 at UMY. She was also the grand finalist adjudicator on PIMNAS 2009 at

UNIBRAW Malang. She was the grand finalist adjudicator for PIKTAR 2009 at AKMIL
Magelang.
Muhammad Rifky Wicaksono is currently a student in grade 12 at SMA Negeri

8 Yogyakarta. He started his carrier in December 2007 and became champion
Jogja Debating Forum Cup 2007; After winning every local competition
afterwards, he captained team DIY into being the first team in the history of ISDC
to clean sweep all 10 rounds of the competition unanimously. After winning his
second national title in ALSA-UI, he went on to become the captain of team
Indonesia for the Asian Schools Debating Championship where he went Octofinals
of main category and 5th Best Speaker of Asia, and the upcoming WSDC in Qatar 2010. He is
also an A accredited adjudicator for both Australs/Asian parliamentary and British
Parliamentary. He was a breaking adjudicator in the Binus International National Debate
Competition, and grand final adjudicator of ALSA-UGM Crushbone Debates 2009.
Widya Adi Nugroho is currently the president of EDS UII. In debating he has
travels to several national and international competitions. Several achievements
he got lately are winning ALSA Crushbone 2009, National economic debate
2008 and 2009 in Bandung (UNPAD) and Jogjakarta (UGM) stole best speaker
in both competition. Participating in WUDC Turkey 2010 and he also had
broken to several JOVED and IVED. 9th best speaker in IVED 2010, beside those he was the
champion of KOPERTIS NUEDC 2009. In adjudication world he is an A accredited for
Asian/Australs parliamentary and British one. He also adjudicate in GRAND FINAL ALSA
UI 2009, He was the DCA of NEO 2010. In mentoring worlds he was one of coach for
training for trainers conducted by DIKNAS for the entire state. He is now leading SMA 1
Kasihan Bantul and SMAN 7 Yogyakarta.


JDFHandbook Content 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JDFHandbook Content 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEBATING IN GENERAL

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 1

2nd speaker 2nd speaker

Reply speaker Reply speaker

minutes 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

POI not allowed POIs allowed POI not allowed

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 2

Huh? Motion? Definition? Argument? Rebuttal? POI?

limited period of time

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 3

The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team. The

 POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI)

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 5

Points Of Information are brief interruptions (preferable in a form of a

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 7

 What are the functions of definition?

A definition is an interpretation of the motion. The 1st speaker of the affirmative

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 8

Simple Guidelines to Make a Definition

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 9

 THE OPPOSITION’S OPTIONS

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 11

Here is an example of an unreasonable definition:

The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team. The

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 12

ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 13

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 14

2. Effectiveness Arguments are arguments in which we claim one thing as the

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 15

3. Implication Arguments are action-reaction arguments. It analyses the

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 16

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 17

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 18

7. Pointing out an absence of analysis

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 19

8. Pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 20

PERSUASIVE VERBAL SKILLS: THE USE OF

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 21

The object of this method would be individual arguments or responses. It–hopefully–has

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 22

So, you can say that A is the keyword of the argument,

Other examples of fragmentations:

2. Creating a Standard of Truth (SoT)

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 23

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 24

3. Subject Association Towards SoT

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 25

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 26

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 27

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 28

This is an example of how:

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 29

An argument of deductive reasoning is valid if and only if it is not

We believe that … (Assertion),

2. Arranging the Supportive Premises

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 31

Supportive premises establish the causalities between the 1 st

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 32

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 33

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 34

The functions of offering POIs are as follows:

DEBATE GUIDELINE by Jogja Debating Forum Page 35