From: gordon manson [mansongordon@hotmail.com] Sent: 02 March 2004 21:17 To: becky_ratcliffe@hotmail.com; bsage@uoguelph.ca; bryan.cochrane@strath.ac.uk; christina.sasse@gmx.de; weebro18@yahoo.com; ross.harris@strath.ac.uk; scott.mclellan@strath.ac.uk; tahir.mahmood.100@strath.ac.uk Subject: Debating Explained Hi Guys, If you've got the time, it could be worthwhile for you to have a look through this general guide to debating written by Miranda from St Andrews. It would certainly give you a fairly clear understanding of how debating should function and may give you a clearer idea of your roles on the table. (It also contains a sample debate) See you on Thursday Cheers Gord Debates Training materials >Beginners Topics > > > >1.Basics > > >Outline > > > >British Parliamentary debate is focused on the art of public speaking >and persuasion. The intended audience is anyone off the street, and >consequently is missing much of the jargon and game - playing element >present in much of American style debating. BP differs from Canadian >debate in style due to having two teams on each side, and thus the >necessity of an extension from the latter half of the table. The debate >should take place without recourse to research and consists of a >knowledge level based on a resonably intelligent person from off the >street. Both specifics and general issues are considered open for >debate. The forum demonstrates that almost anything is debatable, and >open to discussion. It should be noted that in BP style morality, >although open for discussion, is never taken as an individuals personal >opinion and it is therefore possible to take what some might deem >morally questionable grounds on the basis of other arguements. > > > > > > > >Table Positions > > > >British Parliamentary debates consist of four (4) teams: two (2) >Proposition and two (2) Opposition. In some places you will hear the >teams referred to as Government and Opposition, the only difference is >in the name. Below is a diagram of the table set up. > > > > > > > >First Prop/ Prime Minister >First Opp/ Leader of the Opposition > > > > > > > >Second Prop/ Deputy P.M. >Second Opp/ Deputy L.O. > > > > > > > >Third Prop/ Member of Gov. >Third Opp/ Member of Opp > > > > > > > >Fourth Prop/ Gov. Whip >Fourth Opp/ Opp Whip > > > > > > > > > > > >Each team is made up of two speakers, on the diagram each team is >denoted by different types. The sides alternate speeches, first prop >and then opp all the way down the table. Each position has its own >unique role to fulfill and each differs from the others. > > > > > > > >1P: Define the proposition, propose something to be debated. (problem, >solution, mechanism) > > > >1O: Refute, rebut, offer alternatives (counter-case) > > > >2P: Refute, continue argumentation, summate team line > > > >2O: Refute, rebut, continue elucidation of alternatives (counter-case), >summate team line > > > >3P: Extend,- offer new argumentation support, refute > > > >3O: Rebut,- offer new argumentation/rebuttal, refute, support > > > >4P: Refute, Summate, summate team line > > > >4O: Summate debate, summate team line > > > > > > > >*For more detail see example debate at the end > > > > > > > >What you are trying to achieve > > > >In your speech you are trying to show why your interpretation is the >best and therefore why your answers to the questions posed by the >debate make the most sense. It is important to remember that the other >team will never agree with you, you are trying to convince the judges >and the audience. You really just want to show, quite clearly, that you >are right. > > > > > > > >Overview > > > >Each side is trying to win, but each team wants their points to be the >winning ones. You donıt have to do it alone, that is why you have a >partner. >It should reflect teamwork. Together you should try to prove your >solution. >Each has the answer to the others flaws. In the same way, you should >work with the team on you side, except in this instance you want just >slightly better answers. You want to complete their flaws, and not >have too many of your own. > > > > > > > >What judgesı criteria are > > > >Clarity: They want to be able to follow what you are saying. You may >have realized the panacea of the modern day world, but if you cannot >explain it concisely in 30 seconds, no one will buy it. > > > >Logic: They want to be able to see your point followed through, it >needs to make sense. (Privatizing the monarchy?) > > > >Confidence: Many judges have as little idea about the topic as you do, >if you seem like you know what you are talking about, they will usually >believe you (unless you are blatantly wrong- which can be embarrassing >;) > > > >Relevance: Make sure that what you are saying relates to the topic, and >they know how -cue Mıs embarrassing Triple Crown fiasco! > > > > > >Personal style cannot be imitated > >It is very important to develop your own personal style. You may see >very funny or very good speakers and think the best way to improve is >to imitate them. THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!! I cannot emphasize enough how >much this will impede your own development. You will be a good speaker >as much by being yourself as anything else. You may be very good in one >way and you may not be very good in another. I know many styles that >cannot translate to different venues. What does transfer is your >confidence in your own ability. >This cannot develop when you are trying to be someone else. > > > > > >Creating teams > > > >It is important that your partner compliments you. Many times guy/girl >teams are received better, but it really just depends. It is important >that you can communicate well, and that you trust each other without >judgment. If you are constantly competing with each other you wonıt >have time to compete with the other teams. It helps to have someone who >thinks similarly to you- not with the same views, but in the same way. >See how it goes with several people before settling on just one, and be >flexible because we may ask to see you with someone else. If you really >donıt think it will work with someone have a quiet word with us and we >will keep it in mind, but at this stage everyone needs to remain >flexible because teams will be changing. >Besides, you never know, it could be great! > > > > > > > >Example Debate > > > > > > > >First Prop: It is the job of the 1P to setup the entire debate. This >person must find a problem and then try to fix it. This is one of the >most difficult roles to fulfill and if it is not done properly the >entire debate suffers. For this reason we will focus on it in greater >detail in later sessions. For now the best thing to remember when >creating a 1P is to find a problem or dilemma, a solution and a plan to >carry out the solution. > > > >For an example: Should Prisoners have the Right to Vote? > > > >Problem: Prisoners are currently disenfranchised members of society. >Prisoners have a greater need than most to be represented > > > >Solution: Give prisoners a means to participate in the political >decision making process, gain experience of social responsibility, and >affect change on their personal situation. > > > >Mechanism: Give prisoners the right to vote as they are and continue to >be part of a society in which it is a right. The benefits of which are >manifold > > > > > > > >First Opp: The first oppıs job can be easy or difficult depending on >how well the first prop is done. > > > >The basic idea is to say why the problem is not a problem, why the >solution wonıt work, or why the plan doesnıt fulfill the solution. If >the 1P is badly done, this can be really difficult. Then it may be up >to the 1O to do one of two things: redefine (VERY VERY RARE), or >introduce wider issues relevant to the case. > > > >P: Voting is not a right but a privilege > > > >P: Prisoners have given up their ³right² to vote by violating the societal >contract > > > >R: They can be represented in other ways > > > > > > > >Second Prop: It is this persons job to refute the 1O, and continue the case >for the Prop, as well as summate the main thrust of this teamıs arguments. > > > >R: Voting is one of the first rights granted in any liberal democracy and >is >one of the tests as to how liberal a society is. > > > >R: Some prisoners are in remand without yet having been proved guilty- >therefore they havenıt violated the S.C. > > > >R: Direct election and representation is the most effective means of being >heard > > > >P: The bestowing of the responsibility will help them learn civic >responsibility which will help with rehabilitation > > > >SUM: Voting is a right, prisoners have as much right as anyone else and may >need it more, and a benefit is that is may help in their rehabilitation > > > > > > > >Second Opp: Similar to 2P, refute the First Prop team and continue the >arguments for the Opp, as well as summating this teams points. > > > >R: Prison is a punishment, the loss of privileges is in keeping with the >idea of criminal justice > > > >R; While they are incarcerated they are not a member of society, and >although there may be a possibility of innocence there is a reason they are >incarcerated. > > > >P: In any instance- when released the privilege will be returned, but while >they are in jail (for whatever reason) it is not a privilege they should be >able to wield > > > >P: Direct election is one of the most effective means of change and should >a >person who has not been able to be a functioning member of society have >that >amount of power > > > >SUM: Voting is a privilege and should remain in the possession of those who >are responsible enough to use it. Prisoners have shown they are not in the >group and therefore it should be restricted. It may have negative >consequences otherwise as it is a very powerful tool. > > > > > > > >Third Prop: It is the job of the 3P to continue the case for the >proposition. They do this in two ways, they must support the first prop >team, but it is also the role of 3P to add an extension; something new to >the debate. This can include a specific example if the debate has been >about >general issues, or a widening if it has been specific. It needs to be some >new aspect that has not been discussed, or sometimes it can be a >³clarification², or a cleanup of something earlier in the debate. It is >most >important to remember not to contradict the first prop team in the >extension. > > > >P: (Extension) Prison is meant to be rehabilitation as well as punishment, >by restricting rights that will later be granted, you impinge on the >rehabilitation process and when former prisoners are given the vote they >will not have learned to use it responsibly. This will have far worse >consequences than the opp has so far presented. > > > >In the past prisoners have not been functioning members of society, part of >the role of prisons is to teach them to be, giving them a vote will give >them a stake in society as well as helping them learn to function as a >member of society. > > > >R: Voting is considered a right in all Western Liberal ³Civilized² >Democracies > > > >R: By giving prisoners the trust implicit in the right to vote, you will be >giving them power, but that will only increase their desire to be a part of >society. > > > >R: Many prisoners do have financial/family/social interests outwith prison >and should retain the right to representation on these issues. > > > > > > > >Third Opp: Like 1O this position can be easy or hard depending on how well >the 3P is done. If the extension is clear, then the 3O has new information >to refute and can therefore add their own ³extension² to the debate. If the >3P is not clear things are much more difficult. Opinions are divided as to >the necessity of an extension in 3O. It is nice, but not as necessary as >for >the 3P. You must add some degree of new argumentation, however this can >simply be a rebuttal of new prop argumentation. > > > >However you decide to approach it the one thing you MUST remember is not to >knife the first Opp team. > > > >P: Prison is rehabilitation, but it is also punishment IE the removal of >certain privileges, which the opp holds voting to be. If the privilege of >freedom has been removed, there is no reason not to remove the freedom of >choice through voting. All the benefits elucidated by the 3P can be >achieved >through civics classes or similar, without the risk of impacting on those >not in the penal system. > > > >R: What have prisoners demonstrated to show they are ready for the trust >and >power of voting? On the contrary they have shown that it is a privilege >they >are not equipped to deal with. > > > >R: There are other methods to achieve the aims of the Prop without the >possible negative impacts. > > > > > > > >Fourth Prop: It is the job of the 4P to summate the case, or really the >debate and show why their side is right, and their extension was the >winning >piece. Summations can be done in a variety of ways, and we will be going >over them in more detail later. Basically they just want to find the main >points of clash and show why the arguments fall on their side. > > > > Voting is a right. Prisoners have as much right as any other member of >society, and in all likely hood more need. Voting can fulfill many roles >and >have many positive benefits the most obvious being the impact on the >rehabilitation process, in which prison plays a key role. Restricting >participation in society, especially in this way can have negative >consequences including the alienation of former prisoners upon return to >society. > > > > > > > >Fourth Opp: It is the job of 4O to summate the debate and show why the >opposition is right. Very similar to 4P. > > > >Voting is a privilege. Prisoners have given this up when they violated the >societal contract. Prison is punishment through the removal of rights and >voting is an important thing to include. All the benefits can be received >in >other ways, without the risk of negative impacts on society. Prisoners are >incarcerated for a reason, They are a danger to society in many ways, the >prime reason being that they cannot make responsible decisions. Prisoners >are not enfranchised members of society and should not be treated as such > > > > > > > >Beginners Topics > > > >2. Presence > > > > > >Outline >The way you speak in any environment can have a huge influence on how well >your arguments are received. To win over the audience and the adjudication >team, you must first get them to listen to you, and stylistic technique >plays a huge part in seizing their attention. Whatever your personal >beliefs, you must sound as if you believe yourself with confidence and >passion. Bad style can also be a source of annoyance, and irritating >habits >can only be killed off through practice. > >Command of ŒYour Spaceı >The layout of your room will vary ­ you may or may not have somewhere to >place your notes, you may or may not be facing the speakers and/or judges. >The time and space allocated to you is yours, and you can use it however >you >want. The following are some general doıs and donıts of debating: > >DO - Lay out your notes carefully. You donıt want to >have to shuffle through them > - Use a stop-watch if you have one. > - Bring a glass of water up with you if you think >youıll need it. > - Take as much time as you need to set >yourself up. There is no limit within reason, and itıs important to start >your speech when YOU are ready. > - Use the space behind the speakers >table >to full effect. Use your body to manipulate and fill that space while your >voice fills the room ­ this is presence. > - Develop a system that works for you. >Stick to it, but donıt be afraid to change. > - Be aware of the acoustics of the room. > >DONıT > - Stare down at your notes. >- Clutch the table / lecturn. It is not there to hold you up. >- Stay fixed to the spot. Move your feet occasionally, but >donıt >pace. >- Pace. Itıs annoying. >- Sway. The judges will get sea-sick. >- Feel confined to the space behind the table. Free yourself >from >your notes, but keep yourself close enough to see them ­ within about a >metre or so. >- Be intimidated because you feel youıre argument is weak, or >youıre wasting your time ­ it is your contribution, and it will receive >more >credit than a 5 minute silence. > >Stance and Body Language >Be ruthless in debates, and use every tool you have to communicate your >point ­ that includes your body. A lot of information can be communicated >by body language. Use it to your advantage. > > 1. POSTURE ­ Donıt slouch behind the table, stand up, stand back, >stand >tall. Youıll find it will help open your throat (for good voice >projection) >and keep eye-contact. > 2. ATTITUDE ­ Your stance can be a useful tool to project your mood. >Here are some common portrayals you are likely to see. Most speakers will >exhibit a combination of these styles: > i. PASSIVE ­ Leaning on the table, >hand in pocket. Slower gesticulations, with fewer, more pronounced paces. > ii. AGGRESSIVE ­ Make like John >Stewart. Aggressive forward paces towards the crowd and judges. >Pronounced, large hand movements again focused towards individuals. >Crouched forwards into a more tense pose. Diaphragmatic voice projection. > iii. INTELLECTUAL ­ Straight >backed, more confined to the table. Smaller, sharper hand movements but >less frequent. A more lecture-like projection of the speech to the whole >audience, rather than focusing on individuals. > 1. FACIAL EXPRESSION ­ Another powerful tool. Can be used to show >disgust at opposition arguments. Donıt be scared to smile at the judges, >or >to use your face to indicate that a comment is made in jest, or sarcasm. A >lot of comments taken out of context could be regarded as offensive or >ineffective. Use your face to put things in context for the audience. > 2. MOVEMENT ­ Infrequent movements catch the eye, and can be a >powerful >aid in attracting and holding attention. Generally two types of movement >are >employed: > i. GESTICULATION ­ Many people find >it >helps to use your hands to put across a point. It can also add direction >to >a point or question, and indicate a sense of urgency. However, try not to >look like a windmill. Donıt make repetitive hand gestures (e.g. ³the >finger², ³the claw²). > ii. PACING ­ Again, adds an >important sense of directionality, and focusing on particular groups of the >audience, or appealing to the adjudication table can be effective. Donıt >over do it though ­ youıre not on a treadmill. > >Props >No matter how tempted you are, leave them at home. Always frowned upon, >they detract attention from you and your arguments. > >Word Choice >Your vocabulary and sentence structure should be appropriate to the debate, >the audience, and to the impression you are trying to portray. > > · Simplicity - At times it is good to keep things simple, >and >use laymanıs terms. It gives the impression that you have explained your >topic well at an accessible level. > · Abbrev. - Do not use abbreviations unless they >are in common usage ­ so NATO, EU and NASA are alright, but WEU or TRIPs >would have to be explained before you could use them. Avoid jargon where >possible ­ this is specialist. > · Complexity - However, at other times, using longer and >more >unusual words can save you time, stamp authority on your speech, and >impress >the judges. So talk about ideaologies, and paradigmatic shifts as much as >you want. > · OTT - Unusual words can be used for >humorous >or sarcastic effect ­ why call an argument useless when frivolous is much >more cutting? Use over-the-top words occasionally as a form of >self-deprecating humour. > · Spacers - Avoid using words or phrases such as >³Mr Speaker Sir², ³Ladies and Gentlemen² or ³Um² repeatedly. Using them >can >give you a split second to think which is good at times, but donıt overdo >it >­ it can get very annoying. > >Grammatical Techniques >The use of simple grammatical tricks can help to spice up your speech and >add a sense of drama and forcefulness that engages the audience and makes >your point seem stronger. Some simple techniques: > > · RULE OF 3s ­ Group things into 3s for dramatic >effect >­ 3 arguments, 3 attributes, 3 sentences, 3 words. > · REPETITION ­ Simple repetition of a given sentence >with small changes adds emphasis and dramatic build up. > · SHORT SENCTENCES ­ Use after longer sentences, and >combine with dramatic pause. Succinct and straight to the point. > · BAD GRAMMAR ­ Again, a method of drawing attention >to >a particular point or sentence, with a touch of self-deprecating humour. > >Volume, Tone and Pace > > · Acoustics - Make sure that your volume is >adapted to fit the acoustics of the room you are speaking in. Carpets will >dampen the sound while wooden floors make a room more like an echo chamber. >Be prepared to speak anywhere - libraries, corridors, debating chambers, >bars, bedrooms, lecture theatres. > · Volume - Donıt shout at the judges, but >make sure you can be clearly heard. And make sure it is consistent with >your style - aggressive and quiet donıt go together very well, but >aggressive and loud may be over the top. > · Voice Projection - You donıt have to shout to be >heard at the other end of the room. Be aware that deep voices carry better >than high-pitched, which can make it easier for men to be heard. Even a >quiet voice can be made to project. > · Adaptability - Be aware that one quiet speaker in a >room with seven loud ones may seem timid. Make sure your style fits the >debate and allows you to take on the other speakers on a level playing >field. > · Perception - If you make it sound like you hammered >the oppositionıs arguments, people are more inclined to see it as a >resounding defeat, and the judges will perceive more of a gulf in quality >of >speaker than otherwise might be the case on argumentation alone. > · Variation - Varying the tone and pace of >your >speech is another technique to hold attention and make it interesting. If >you speak fast, consider slowing down and speaking up to punctuate a >particularly important point. > >NOTE ­ The adaption of your style to fit the debate is an advanced >technique, and you can only exercise it once you are comfortable and >familiar with your own natural speaking style. We will deal with that >later, once we have got to know your natural style well enough to work with >it. > >Humour >Humour can be a double-edged sword. Sporadic, topical, well-made jokes or >comments do much to maintain interest in a speaker and avoid the dreaded >³boring² label. HOWEVER ­ donıt overdo it. Itıs not a standup comedy >routine, and too much humour can detract from your argument. And if the >audience are busy laughing, theyıre not listening, and youıll lose time >waiting for it to die down before you can continue. >Also be aware that some jokes may be inappropriate or offensive. Some may >just not go down well ­ better not to make a joke than let it go to the >wall. There are many different types of humour, and not all are >appropriate >in every situation ­ so slapstick may not work in a serious debate. Donıt >feel pressured to be funny ­ itıs not essential, and most people can wield >humour, but in very different ways. Some are good at making jokes, some >make fun of themselves. Some people have very black or sarcastic wits. >Some >people are just not funny, and should never try. > >Etiquette > >DO Always address points through the chair. > · Stand up when offering POIs. > · Heckle, and support the speakers on >your side. > · Dress appropriately ­ some IVs have >black tie finals. > · Co-ordinate your dress as a team to >the >same level of formality. > >DONıT Interrupt the speaker unless offering a POI. > · Swear. EVER. One of the judges is >always uptight about it. > · Talk during a speech. If you need to >communicate to your partner, write it down or whisper it quietly. > · Pass notes to the other teams on the >table. > · Make personal comments about anyone >UNLESS you know them VERY well, and you are 100% SURE the judges appreciate >this. > · Make in-jokes that other people wonıt >understand. It will alienate them and/or the judges. > > > >Confidence >Your best attribute as a speaker will always be confidence. Whatever your >style, feel free to stand up infront of the judges and BE YOURSELF. They >are there to judge your arguments, not you as a person. >Have the confidence to deliver your arguments. Donıt be intimidated by the >other teams ­ they may be Oxford A, but you might well have the argument to >bring them down. Generally teams are paired through ability, so if youıre >in >the top room, youıre there because you deserve to be there. If youıre in >the break rooms, you have just as much chance as every other team to get >through. Approach every debate with the intention of winning it, and take >the other teams head-on. The judges will admire you for it, and even if >you >take a hammering, donıt let it get to you ­ weıve all been there at one >point! > > >Beginners Topics > > > >3. Individual Speeches/ Points of Information > > > > > > > >Outline > > > >Individual speechs are like the chapters of a book, each has to make >coherent points in a cogent way for the book to make any sense. The >difference between an audio book and a debate comes in the Points of >Information. These are what distingiush debate from eight people standing >up >and making speechs. They are the foundations on which to build >disagreement. >They are also the exciting part, learning to think on your feet and respond >immediately in a coherent manner. > > > > > > > >Internal structure > > > >The internal structure of a speech does resemble a good essay. There is an >introduction, a body which elaborates and analyses your points, and a >conclusion. The introduction should introduce your thesis and give an >overall idea of where your speech is going to go. Each point should in some >way contribute to your thesis, and your conclusion should draw the strands >together to form one coherent whole. > > > > > > > >A) Points- The number of points you will make varies from speech to speech. >The number is not usually important, but the rule of three is good to >remember. Each point should be able to do three things > > > >1) Contribute something new to the debate, or clarify something > > > >2) Stand by itself as a salient point > > > >3) Contribute to proving your thesis > > > > > > > >It is important to decide with your partner who will deal with which >points. >If you know what your partner will cover it shows good team work, and it >also cuts down on the amount of material each has to deal with. When >dividing it is important to remember that the order in which points are >made >can be crucial. for example, a second prop speaker should not be >explaioning >what the plan of the proposition is as the debate canıt really start until >the plan is explained. > > > > > > > >B) Order > > > >Each speech should make a coherent point and the individual points should >each contribute to that. A leads to B leads to C proves our point. The >simplest order is the best, as it is the easiest to follow. > > > > > > > >C) Thesis (Teamline?) Each speech should be like a good essay. There should >be a main point or theme you are trying to get across that you could boil >down to one or two sentances. Similarly your teamline (or team thesis) >should also be one coherent point that could be boiled down to a few >sentences. Each point you make should go to prove the theses of your own >speech, and your teamline. If you donıt have a main point your speech and >teamline very quickly become confused and can easily contradict yourself or >your partner. > > > > > > > >D) NO KNIFING > > > >DO NOT EVER contradict yourself, your partner, or your side. There is NO >REASON to full out contradict anyone on the same side of the table as you. > > > > > > > > > > > >Points of Information > > > >A) Giving > > > >Give points of information when you feel the other side has offered weak >analysis or examples, or if you disagree with their arguements. Be careful >not to offer to many, but try to make at least one in each speech. > > > > > > > >B) Receiving > > > >There is no specific way to recieve points, but remember that the speech is >your time. Do not stop abruptly in the middle of a sentance or a word. You >can say Œstay standingı or ŒIıll take you in a minuteı finish your thought >and accept. Be gracious, but if the speaker goes on too long feel free to >cut them off. > > > > > > > >C) Declining > > > >No, No thanks, not at this time, a simple hand wave down. Be polite but >firm. This is YOUR time. > > > > > > > >D) Timing- 2 Parts > > > >1. When you offer a point- usually you wonıt want to offer a point really >early in a 1P/1O speech as they havenıt said much yet. That said, sometimes >if someone has made a grevious error in their first minute, standing up as >the bell goes can be a good tactic. Try to space them out, you donıt want >to >use them all in the first two minutes and then know that you wonıt get >taken >later. > > > > > > > >2. The timing of your point- Each point should last no longer then 15 >seconds, max. If you canıt explain it in that time it is too complicated, >or >too much like a speech, save it for yours. You will also get cut off by the >chair or the speaker or both for cuttting in to the speakers time. > > > > > > > >E) Attitude > > > >The general atmosphere of the debate should be noted and the speakers >response adjusted to fit > > > > > > > >F) Ways to offer > > > >As a question of indisputable fact- > > > >As an arguement- taking issue with something > > > > > > > >G) Headlining- This is the practice of standing up and saying ³On >economics² >³On reality², you arenıt actually giving a point, yet you are letting the >speaker and the judges know what specifically you have issue with. This is >NOT a time to give a full point, simply to highlight the subject you wish >to >disagree with > > > > > > > >H) Badgering- This is when you are offering so many points, or the same >point, so many times it interferes with the speakerıs ability to give their >speech. This will earn you lots of negative points with the judge. >Sometimes >it is difficult if the speaker is so wrong, or lying, but be really careful >not to go overboard. > > > > > > > >I) Strategy- It is important to remember on both sides that it is only >likely that a few points will be offered. This means that for the offering >team wasting one by forgetting or making a flippant comment is an >opportunity lost, never to be regained. For the Speaker it is important to > > > > >Beginners Topics > > > >4. Teamwork & Summations > > > > >Outline >Debating is obviously a team activity, and they way you work with your >partner will reflect strongly on your performance. A good team is always >stronger than two good speakers. >Summations are one of the most specialised and technical roles in the >debate. It is the Whip speakers job to sum up the whole debate and prove >that your side won. > >Team Concerns > >Team Line >The team line is the overall net contribution that your team makes to the >debate during your two speeches (more for the first Opp/Prop teams). It >should be able to be summed up in a sentence or two. > > · Be aware of both what you are going to say, and what your >partner >is going to say. > · Explain how the complete set of arguments (i.e. team line) fits >the debate as a whole. > · Make your team line all-consuming ­ try not to leave any new >material for the extending speakers. > · Use both speeches to provide all the arguments and points >supporting your team line. > · Use a logical structure ­ A leads to B leads to C proves D for >the >first speakers, and E leads to F proves G for the second speaker. Your >team >line is therefore D+G. > >Teamworking Indications > >It is important in a debate not only to work as a team, but to make it >obvious to the judges that you have done so. There are several ways of >doing this, some subtle, some blunt, and the particular methods that you >use >will depend on the nature of your team. > >1. Leading Speaker > · Outline team line, state won points, and outline material to be >covered by partner. If you donıt do this, expect to be penalised. > · If you are the summating team, simply state that your partner >will >summate the Prop/Opp case. > · Donıt dodge POIs with ³My partner will deal with thisŠ² Cover >the >answer briefly, and then say ³My partner will cover it in more detailŠ² > · When concluding your own speech, remind us what your partner is >going to do and how this follows on from your own substansive case. >2. Following Speaker > · Must cover all the material outlined by preceding speaker. > · If the first speaker dropped any points, you should pick them >up. > · Give a very brief run down of your partnerıs points/material >before outlining your own points. > · When you conclude your speech, tell how both your and partnerıs >point have proved your team line, and how this wins you the debate. > · If you are the summating speaker, remember to emphasise your >partnerı. > >Speech Order Choice > > · Have a good appreciation of each otherıs strengths or >weaknesses, >and in which positions on table you are strongest/weakest.. > · Strategically, you can either play to your individual strengths, >or to avoid your individual weaknesses. > · The best teams have strengths and weaknesses that compliment >each >other. > · Be aware of each otherıs knowledge bases. This will affect >whether a speaker is suited to substantive (mid-table) or strategic roles >in >the debate. > >Cooperation > · Work together with your partner ­ not against them. > · Even if your team isnıt balanced, donıt feel intimidated by a >partner you believe is much better/worse than you. You can always learn >from each other. Remember ­ good speakers get good speaker points. Good >teams break. > · Donıt compete against your partner, or you wonıt compete against >the other teams. > · Pool your knowledge and expertise. Be prepared to give and take >advice from your partner. > · Get judges feedback together, as a team. > · If your partner messes up, laugh it off ­ these things happen. > · If you decide that you vehemently hate your partner and never >want >to be in the same room as them again, breathing the same air ­ for godıs >sake, tell us! > · After the IV, sit back with your partner and discuss your >performance over a nice, cold beer. > >Point Division > · Split the material evenly so you both have enough to make a good >speech. > · Split the material logically ­ it should develop your overall >line >smoothly across the two speeches. > · Split the material to fit your differing expertise ­ but will >this >entail a change of position? > >Trust and Communication > · You have to communicate with your partner. This includes using >your prep time to brainstorm, rather than running to the bar for 15 >minutes. > · You have to be able to trust your partner to cover you if you >mess >up. > · You have to be able to trust your partner to be in the right >place >at the right time. Stay with them during the prep time, and between rounds >if necessary. > · Use all the various methods of communication during a debate: > · WHISPER ­ But make sure it doesnıt disrupt the >speakers. > · PASS NOTES. > · FLASHCARDS > · HANDSIGNALS/TIMESIGNALS > > >SUMMATIONS > > > >IN YOUR SPEECH > >The last minute of your speech should be used to remind the judges of >exactly what you have contributed to the debate, and how it fits into the >grander strategy of your side/teamıs arguments. As a general guide, it >should be: > > · Brief ­ youıve already given the main body of your speech. > · Convincing ­ this is the climax of your speech. Make it >memorable. > · Conclusive ­ it should cut straight to the point, condensing all >your analysis into a sentence or two. > · Related back to your team line. > · Slightly more detailed than ³I had 3 points, X, Y and Z, amen². > >YOUR TEAM > >The second speaker should summarise in their last minute not only their own >case, but that of their partner and the team as a whole. They should remind >the judges of what St Andrews, as a team, have brought to the debate, and >why your contribution was the critical point that wins you the debate and >proves your case. > >WHIP POSITION > >Slightly more detailed. The Whip speaker is responsible for summating the >debate as a whole, obviously from the perspective of their side of the >table. It can be done in 2 ways: > >1. Speaker by Speaker - So amateurish it is never >used. Last resort. >2. Thematic - The preferred method. You have >to: > · Identify the main clash points of the >debate. > · Go through each clash point in turn. > · Cite all evidence/argumentation offered >by >your side in brief. > · You must cover all the arguments of your >own side (unless you tactically drop a bad point). > · Be aware of all the information offered, >in >substansive speeches, POIs and rebuttal. > · Credit the arguments to the appropriate >speaker. > · Give a bias towards your partnerıs >extension as the winning point. > >Good summations can be a bit of an art form, and is often a speciality. You >have to track the arguments as carefully as if you were judging, and tidy >up >often several ³points² into overall areas of clash. Of course, you have to >do this as well as preparing your speech and offering POIs. Also, it is >often the case that the main clash points only become evident half-way >through the debate, so stay switched on. > >Summation speeches should be thorough on the one hand, but not >over-detailed >on the other. You have to break down all the arguments and material to its >simplest manifestation, and restate it in a way that proves your case. BE >VERY CAREFUL NOT TO KNIFE THE PRECEDING TEAM. > > > >Beginners Topics >5. First Props and Clash > > > > > > > >Outline > > > >First Prop and Clash are the two main determinants of the type of debate >that will be had. If they are present and done well the debate will be >intersting, usually fast paced, and informative. If they are missing the >time goes on forever. > > > > > > > >First Prop > > > >First prop is the most important role in the debate. If first prop donıt do >their job, or if they donıt do it well there is nothing to debate. > > > > > > > >There are two schools of thought about the best way to prepare a first prop >case; problem, solution, mechanism, and mechanism based. > > > > > > > >NO MATTER WHAT THE PROP SHOULD CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO!!!!!! > > > > > > > >If you propose the status quo you take the easy way out, put the burden of >proof on the opp, and the debate will suffer. You will be penalised >heavily! > > > > > > > >The burden of proof > > > >It is important to remember that this is the Propositions responsibility. >The Opp doesnıt have to prove anything except that the Prop is wrong, and >that can reasonably be done by showing how the status quo is fine. The Prop >has to prove why their solution is better than the status quo, and merits >the change they are proposing. > > > > > > > >Problem, Solution, Mechanism > > > > > > > >I prefer this because it is simpler and more straightforward. I find it >easier to defend, and to clarify > > > > > > > >1. Find a problem defined by the motion > > > > > > > >For example: > > > >THS the right of the State to make the insane sane > > > > > > > >Problem: there are many people in the country who have and donıt realise, >or >know and wonıt treat a recognised mental illness that has negative >consequences for themselves and for others around them > > > > > > > > > > > >2. Find a solution to combat the problem > > > > > > > >Solution: Get these people treatment, either by identifying their illness >for them, or, in cases where they refuse to treat themselves by forcefully >treating them. > > > > > > > > > > > >3. And propose a mechanism (means) to institute this solution > > > > > > > >Mechanism: > > > >empower the state, in conjunction with the medical field and people close >to >those individuals to impose treatment on those with a recognised mental >illness by expanding the mental health act, as parliament is about to do. > > > >Family members or friends can recommend that someone may need help, two >doctors, independently must concur, once they do the state can then take >steps to begin treating them. > > > > > > > >4. Elucidate the benefits of this solution and this mechanism and youıre >golden. > > > > > > > > > > > >(Just Kidding- you really thought it was that easy?) > > > > > > > >Mechanism > > > > > > > >The other type of proposition is mechanism driven. Decide the mechanism you >want to propose and then the benefits it will have, as well as the possibly >negative aspects you must defend against. > > > > > > > >Ex: THS the right of the State to make the insane sane > > > > > > > >Mechanism: Introduce the parliamentary paper as law... > > > > > > > >Consequences: Wider access to mental health care > > > >Help for those who donıt know they are ill > > > >improved quality of life for all society members > > > >medical support for those with mental illness > > > > > > > >Possible negs- Slippery slope- regulation > > > >Erode rights of individual- the state already enforces regulation to keep >people safe from themselves- force feed anorectics, seat belts, etc. > > > >Abuse- Again regulation > > > >Definition of mental illness- already defined by law > > > > > > > >Either way the mechanism MUST be introduced in the first speakers speech. >This is where most of the clash will usually come and if it is reserved >until the second speech you will look foolish and ill-prepared. It seems >silly but instead of saying why, and then how, you must say how and then >why. It is easier if you think in terms of consequences instead of >justification. > > > > > > > >There are other elements that you must take into consideration when >proposing a motion. > > > > > > > >Context: You must take into account the reality of the existing situation, >and the ongoing themes or issues. > > > > > > > >Caveats: extras that may have much more impact then you realise. > > > >For example: A ICC jury trial made up of members of the same country as the >accused > > > >Much, much bigger impact than you realise. You set yourself up for trouble. >On the other hand there are times when exceptions need to be made, or >special circumstances taken into account. Forget this and you leave >yourself >open the other way. > > > > > > > >Parameters: What parameters are you setting? Do you need parameters? Where >is the limit of what you are debating? These are more important in some >cases than in others. If something left vague will cause problems with >creating clash, or even understanding the case- you as a prop will have a >problem and be penalised > > > > > > > >In the example, what constitutes a mental illness? How well do the people >recommending treatment need to know the person? What happens if a doctor >says no? What can be included in the treatment process. > > > > > > > >The more specific you are, the better. > > > > > > > > > > > >Clash > > > > > > > >Clash is the point in the debate when the two sides are mutually exclusive >and can not possibly compromise. This is when the two sides contradict what >the other is specifically saying. When the two sides intersect. This can be >hard to identify, especially if the debate begins to get off topic quickly. > > > > > > > >in PSM there are a few likely places this will happen > > > > > > > >Problem: the opposition may not agree that the problem identified by the >Prop is indeed a problem. > > > > > > > >Ex: It is the individuals choice to recognise a mental illness and a course >of treatment. If they do not recognise, or treat themselves it is no one >else's choice to impose it on them. If they are a danger to society that is >a separate issue, and will be dealt with as is anyone who is a threat to >society. If they are a threat or harm to themselves as an individual in our >society it is their choice to do so. > > > > > > > >The solution may not solve the problem, may not solve it in the best way, >or >have negative consequences that are worse than the original problem > > > > > > > >It is not possible to Œget someone treatmentı they must make that choice >themselves and be actively involved or any Œtreatmentı will be ineffective, >nigh impossible > > > >It is likewise difficult to identify for someone a mental illness, and even >if it is possible, it could be detrimental to that person in a variety of >ways. > > > > > > > >The mechanism may just not be realistic (in so many ways), it could be >unproportional, it could require too many resources. It may not implement >the solution in the best way. It could have negative consequences worse >then >original problem. There could be other ways to implement the benefits >without possibly negative consequences. > > > > > > > >This system could be open to many abuses. Regulation is difficult. >Identification of a mental illness is difficult, the state shouldnıt have >that power over individuals. This creates a two tier system and makes the >mentally ill second class citizens. > > > > > > > >In Mechanism debates the clash will be over whether or not the prop will >work, solve the problem, or bring more negative consequences then positive. > > > > > > > >(When opping a first prop it is also helpful to remember that the two types >of prop can be cross applied.) > > > > >The clash is often difficult to identify until the second half of the >debate, when you can see the arguments running down the table and how they >are being played out. It is most important for the summater to find them, >but if any position can identify them early on they can nail their own >points into the clash, be very relevant, and win the debate. > > > > > > > >>--^---------------------------------------------------------------- >This email was sent to: mansongordon@hotmail.com > >EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a2i311.a7OfGY.bWFuc29u >Or send an email to: scotmail-unsubscribe@topica.com > >TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! >http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html >--^---------------------------------------------------------------- > > _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005