You are on page 1of 11

EEC - UMM

INTRODUCTION

This document is an introduction to Australasian Parliamentary debates, including the motions/topics,


team structure, etc. it is meant to help institutions who are new to the Parliamentary debating format
and are interested in participating in a debate competition using the format, but are still unclear on the
rules of the tournament.

THE BASIC OF DEBATING

Debating is about developing your communication skills. It is about assembling and organizing an
effective arguments, persuading and entertaining an audience, and using your voice and gesture to
convince the adjudicator(s) that your arguments outweigh the opponent. Debating is not about personal
abuse, irrational attacks, or emotional appeals.

A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These two teams will be referred to as the
affirmative and the negative. Members of each team are assigned position as 1st, 2nd and 3rd speakers.
For each debate, a motion is given. After the motion is given, teams are given thirty minutes to prepare
for each debate.

Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of seven minutes duration and either the 1st or
the 2nd on both sides will deliver the reply for their teams. Reply speeches will be five minutes.

Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows :

• 1st Affirmative – 7 minutes


• 1st Negative – 7 minutes
• 2nd Affirmative – 7 minutes
• 2nd Negative – 7 minutes
• 3rd Affirmative – 7 minutes
• 3rd Negative – 7 minutes
• Negative Reply – 5 minutes
• Affirmative Reply – 5 minutes

What must both sides do? In general :

• Affirmative (also known as “ the Government”)

1
EEC - UMM

The affirmative team must define the motion and support this by giving constructive arguments.
The right to define first resides with the Affirmative team, who expected to give a reasonable
definition for the motion.

• Negative (also known as “the Opposition”)

The negative team must oppose the motion as defined by the affirmative, and build a counter –
case against the Affirmative. In the event the Negative team feels that the definition in invalid,
they may challenge the definition and propose an alternative definition. However, the Negative
team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition is more reasonable.

MOTIONS

Motions, also known as an topics, are full proportional statement that determine what a debate shall

be about. The affirmative team must argue to defend the proportional statements of the motion, and

the Negative team must argue to oppose it.

Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about:

• This house believe that China will go better that United States.
• This house require independent candidates join Jakarta regional election

DEFINITIONS

Before a debate start, the motion is given must first defined by the Affirmative team. A definition
clarifies the motion. A definition gives a clear description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting
what the debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevent the debate from turning
into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments being debating among the debate.

2
EEC - UMM

The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual words only if they have a key-
role. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in
the debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on a word-by-word basis, it should define
words or phrases by their common usage. Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning or
explanation of a word, but they are not an absolute authority.

Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable. This in to say that:

• It must be debatable (i,e have two sides to it), and


• It must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.

This is not to say that as Affirmative team may not choose an unusual interpretation of the motion, but
they must prepared to justify it.

The negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the Affirmative. If a Negative accept the
definition, they only need to say so, and it is unnecessary to restate it. In some cases, the Negative have
the right to challenge the definition given by the Affirmative. But somehow, Negative can not raise a
challenge simply on the basic that their definition seems more reasonable.

The following definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be challenged by the
Negative team:

• Truistic definition : These are definition which are ‘true’ by nature and thus make the proposed
arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team defines the
debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their definition rather than by the
strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic definition would be
if the motion “that we should eat, drink and be marry” were defined as “ that we should eat,
because otherwise we would starve to deathv; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst and
be marry because we are alive “.
• Tautological or circular definition : this happens when a definition is given in such a way that it is
logically impossible to negate it because it belongs to certain believe. An example would be if the
motion “that technology is killing our work ethics” were defined as follows ; the affirmative team
decides t easier and therefore kill our work ethic. This would result in the whole definition “that
all scientific advancements that make leife easier and therefore kills our work ethic is killing our
work ethic”. This cannot be logically proven false.
• Squirreling : definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of motion and do not have a proper
logical link to the motion will constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion “that the
USA is opening up to the PRC”, an affirmative team could try and define USA as “untidy students
of asia”, and PRC as “Pretty Room Cleaners”. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree
that spirit of the motion is about the raltionship between the United states and China

3
EEC - UMM

• Time and place-setting : definitions which are limited the debate into a particular time and place.
For instance, trying to limit the subject mater to only the economics development of Japan during
the specific period of the Meiji restoration.

To challenge the definition; the Negative must state clearly and an alternative definition must be put
on forward. If the definition is accepted, then that definition must stand. The Negative must adjust their
case to that definition, and the adjudicator(s)’ views on its reasonableness become irrelevant. Be very
careful about challenging definition. Only do so if you are absolutely certainty that the Affirmative’s
definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump your prepared case in favor of tackling the
Affirmative on their own terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By the same token,
Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is fair, then do a two-way debate.

THEME LINE

The Theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is the main instrument of argumentation that
is used to prove a team’s stand on the motion. A theme line can be viewed as a ‘Case In a Nutshell’,
because it concisely explains a team’s strategy in defending or negating the motion.

The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team member.It is the main idea
that links together the first, second, and third speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.

In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: Why is the propositional statement
given by the definition of the motion true (or false, for the Negative team)? Without further
explanation, this propotional statement is a mere assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven
to be true. The answer to this question must be an argument which proves the assertion given by the
motion. This argument is the theme line.

A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single sentence, an arrangement of
several statement into a logical syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it
defined) and all arguments brought forward should be based on this theme line.

4
EEC - UMM

TEAM SPLIT

Debating is a team activity. One person can not take all arguments and become the sole defender of the
team’s case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the arguments should be distributed among
speakers. This called the team split. Simply put, the team split is distribution of arguments to the first,
second, and third speaker.

Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion. You should not
create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion
by itself, but instead requires coupling it with the other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion.

For a more elaborate exposition on formulating theme lines and team splits, please consult the
document entitled “Case building Examples of Australassian Parliamentary Debates”. It contains
thorough examples that give a very clear idea on how to construct theme lines and team splits from
definitions.

ARGUMENTS

Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted. It concerned the
logic and the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidences to back up each point you
make in argument. Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and how it advances your argument.
Make a point, give the reason for that point, and supply evidence to back it up. Arguments are not
assertions are statements that have yet to be proven to be logically true. On the other hand, arguments
must have supporting logic and facts that can show its validity.

What adjudicators look for in a good argument

• Relevance
• Organization
• Consistency and internal logic – i.e. don’t contradict yourself or your teammates

5
EEC - UMM

• Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience and adjudicator that you’re right
– so make sure they can understand what you’re saying!)
• Effective use of evidence

Preparing a Reasonable Arguments

One skill of good debating is being able to construcs, and to understand, a reasoned argument and –
especially important – to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we
like the coclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follow from the
premises and whether those premises are true.

When developing your argument, consider the following factor:

• Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the “facts.”


• Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight – “authorities” have made mistakes in the past.
They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better a way to say it is that there are no
authorities; at most, there are experts.
• Prepare more than one case. If there’s something to be defined, think of all the different ways in
which it could be defined.Then think of arguments by which you might systematically rebut
each of the cases. What survives, the case that resist rebuttal in this Darwinian selection among
“multiple working cases,” has a much better chance of being the stronger case than if you had
simple run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to an idea just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the
pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the
alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
• Quantity. If whatever it is you are explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity
attached to it, you will be much better able to defend it against generalized rebuttal. What is
vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there and thrust to be sought in
the man qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
• If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) – not
just most of them.
• Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule of thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that
explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
• Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are
unfalsifiable are called “truims” and are not in the spirit of debating. You run a good chance of
losing a debate, especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your arguments cannot be
rebutted.

REBUTTAL

Rebuttal is the process of proving that the opponent team’s arguments should be accorded les weight

6
EEC - UMM

than is claimed for them. It may consist of:

• Showing that the opponent’s argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of
fact.

• Showing that the opponent’s argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic

• Showing that the opponent’s argument is illogical

• Showing that the opponent’s argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable implication.

• Showing that the opponent’s argument, while itself correct, should be accorded less weight.

As with arguments, assertions, do not equal rebuttals. Just as teams must show how and why their main
arguments and attack those first. Savage their theme line and show how it falls down – and show why
yours is better! You should rebut by both destroying the oppotition’s arguments and by establishing a
case that directly opposes theirs.

ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS

THE six speakers in an Australasian Parliamentary debate each have different roles to play and
adjudicators should take account of how well a speaker fulfills his/her obligations.

The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team’s cases

First Affirmative’s duties:


• Defines the motion of the debate. The 1st Affirmative should ensure that no important points of
definition are left out.
• Presents the Affirmative’s theme line. This is normally presented in one or serval lines of
analysis, explaining why the Affirmative’s case is logically correct.
• Outlines the Affirmative’s team split.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“1st Affirmative’s part of the split”). After establishing the
definition, theme line, and team split, the 1st Affirmative should then deal with the
arguments/points that have been assigned to him/her in the team split.
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1st Affirmative may spend some time on the definition and establishing the theme line and showing
how it is going to develop, but it is important to leave time to present some substantive arguments.

First Negative’s duties:


• Provide a response to definition (accept or challenges the definition).
• Rebuts 1st Affirmative, delivers a part of negative’s substantive case.

7
EEC - UMM

• Presents the Negative’s theme line.


• Outlines the Negative’s team split.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“1st Negative’s part of the split”).
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1st Negative’s role is similar to the role of the 1 st Affirmative’s, with the added responsibility of
responding to the arguments brought up by the latter. The response to the 1st Affirmative’sarguments
can come before the 1st Negative presents his/her own arguments to support the Negative’s case or vice
– versa. However, the delivery of rebuttals first is recommended.

After the first speakers has spoken the main direction of each team’s case should be apparent.

The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument

Second Affirmative’s duties:


• Rebuts the 1st Negative’s major arguments.
• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Affirmative’s team case.
• Delivers substantial arguments(“2nd Affirmative’s part of split”). Most of the 2nd Affirmative’s
time should be spent dealing with new substantial material/arguments. He or She has duty to
present the bulk of the Affirmative’s case in an attempt to further argue in favor of the
Affirmative.
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2nd Affirmative should be prepare to defend the definition if nessesary. If it is attacked, it is vital
for the 2nd Affirmative to win back the initiative.

Second Negative’s duties:


• Rebuttal of the first two Affirmative speakers.
• Briefly restates/reinterates in general terms the Negative’s team case.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“2nd Negative’s part of split”).
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2nd Negative has duties similar to the one performed by the 2nd Affirmative.

Most of the teams substantive argument should have emerged by the time both second speakers have
spoken.

The third speakers main duty is to rebuts the opponent’s case

Third Affirmative’s duties:


• Rebuts the points raised by the first two Negative speakers. The 3rd Affirmative is mainly
entrusted with the duty of responding to the arguments of the Negative that were not previously
dealt with by the first two Affirmative speakers. The 3rd Affirmative may also reinforce
rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates.

8
EEC - UMM

• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers arguments).
• Summarize the issues of the debate.

The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! 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 global level (team wise), a 3rd speaker should
attack the opposing team’s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in the argumentation and logic. On
a more detailed level (speech wise), a 3rd speaker should be able to point out the mistakes in fact and
inconsistency of each individual speech.

Third Negative’s duties:


• Rebuts the points raised by all three Affirmative speakers.
• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers arguments).
• Identify the points of contention/the clash of the debate.
• Summarize the issues of the debate.

The 3rd Negative has duties similar to the ones performed by the 3rd Affirmative. However, the 3rd
Negative 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 3 rd Negative is allowed to introduce
new matter, the Affirmative would be at a disadvantages as they would not have any opportunity to be
able to respond to these new arguments.

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and convincing biased adjudication

Reply speakers duties (both sides):


• Provide a summary of overview of the debate.
• Identify the issues raised by both sides.
• Provide a biased adjudication of the debate.

Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply speech. The Negative team
delivers the first reply speech.

A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition’s case. It represents a chance for the
teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition’s case.
The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show these contributed to a
logical progression of argument must be outlined. This can be done pont – 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.

The introduction of new material is absolutely prohibited and will be penalized. Any point brought up
by the other side which had not been rebutted earlier in the substantial speeches may not be rebutted in
the reply speechs. Therefore, this means that all substantive arguments presented in the debate must be
dealt with by the opposing team in the substantial speeches.

9
EEC - UMM

ADJUDICATION

ADJUDICATION is the process of determining which team wins the debates. This is conducted by an
adjudicators, or a panel consisting of an odd number of adjudicators.

There is always a winner in a debate. There are no ‘draw’ or ‘ties’. The speakers are assessed on
Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is 40 points, Manner is 40, and Method is 20 making a total of
100 points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter and Manner are 20 points and
Method is 10, making a total of 50 points.

Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples brought up during the
course of the debate. Manner is concerned with the style of public – speaking – the use of voice,
language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality as a medium for making the
audience more receptive to the argument being delivered. There are no set rules which must be
followed by debaters. Method consist of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team
case as whole, and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.

CLOSING

THIS document is not intended to be the definitive set of rules that you must adhere to in debating. It
serves as a source of information. For further information, please check out the CASE BUILDING
EXAMPLES OF AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE. It provides more in – depth
explanation of cases, and gives examples to give a good idea of how one should construct cases.

Finally, it must be said that “practice makes perfect”. No one ever masters the art of swimming or
ridding a bicycle by thoroughly reading guidelines and handbooks. One must take that first plunge, and
perhaps even fall down once or twice, before finally becoming skillful. The same applies to debating.
This guidelines should be enough to get you started. But practice makes perfect.

Happy Debating!

10
EEC - UMM

11

You might also like