Home
What is Debating?
A debate is a structured argument. Two sides speak alternately for
and against a particular contention usually based on a topical issue.
Unlike the arguments you might have with your family or friends however, each
person is allocated a time they are allowed to speak for and any interjections
are carefully controlled. The subject of the dispute is often prearranged
so you may find yourself having to support opinions with which you do not
normally agree. You also have to argue as part of a team, being careful
not to contradict what others on your side have said.
Why debate?
It is an excellent way of improving speaking skills and is particularly
helpful in providing experience in developing a convincing argument. Those of
you who are forced to argue against your natural point of view realize that
arguments, like coins, always have at least two sides.
Forms of debate
1. Parliamentary debate
Parliamentary Debate (sometimes referred to as "parli" in the
United States) is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary
procedure. It features the competition of
individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows terms such as
"government" and "opposition" from the British parliament
(although the term "proposition" is sometimes used rather than
"government" when debating in the United Kingdom).
Even within the United Kingdom, however, British Parliamentary style is not
used exclusively; the English-Speaking
Union runs the national championships for schools in a unique format, known as
the 'Mace' format after the name of the competition, while simultaneously using
British Parliamentary format for the national universities championships.
2. British Parliamentary debate
The British Parliamentary debating style involves 4 teams; two
"government" or "proposition" teams support the motion, and
two "opposition" teams oppose it. In a competitive round, the teams
are ranked first through fourth with the first place team receiving 3 points,
the second receiving 2, the third receiving 1 and the fourth place receiving no
points. This is the style used by the World University Debating Championships,
or WUDC.
3. Canadian Parliamentary debate
The Canadian Parliamentary debating style involves one
"government" team and one "opposition" team. In
competition, the motion is traditionally "squirrelable". This means
that the assigned motion is not intended to be debated, and may even be a quote
from a film or a song. The government team then "squirrels" the
motion into something debatable by making a series of logical links between the
proposed motion and the one they propose to debate. This makes the debate
similar to a prepared debate for the government team and an impromptu debate
for the opposition team.
4. Australasia debate
Australasia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue,
more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is
presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That",
for example, "That cats are better than dogs," or "This
House", for example, "This House would establish a world
government." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most
topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the
participants and their audiences.
Each team has three members, each of whom is named according to their team
and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of
the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative
Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the
terminology used. Each of the speakers' positions is based around a specific
role, the third speaker for example has the opportunity to make a rebuttal
towards the opposing teams argument introducing new evidence to add to their
position. The last speaker is called the "Team Advisor/Captain".
Using this style, the debate is finished with a closing argument by each of the
first speakers from each team and new evidence may not be introduced. Each of
the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to
each other beginning with the Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as
follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second
Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative.
The Basic Debating Skills
Style
Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is
the most basic part of debating to master. Content and strategy are worth
little unless you deliver your material in a confident and persuasive way.
Speed
It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and
allow you time to say what you want, but slow enough to be easily
understood.
Tone
Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Listening to one
tone for an entire presentation is boring.
Volume
Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means
necessary to shout through every debate regardless of context. There is
absolutely no need speak any more loudly than the volume at which everyone in
the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting does not win debates.
Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since no one will be able to hear
you.
Clarity
The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what
debating is all about. The main reason people begin to sound unclear is
usually because they lose the “stream of thought” which is keeping them going.
It is also important to keep it simple. While long words may make you sound
clever, they may also make you incomprehensible.
Use of notes and eye contact
Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organized to be
effective. There is absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes.
Of course, notes should never become obtrusive and damage your contact with the
audience, nor should they ever be read from verbatim. Most people sketch
out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under each.
When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to
use a separate sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the
other speakers have said and then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you
will actually be using.
Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your
gaze. No one likes to be stared at.
Content
Content is what you actually say in the debate. The arguments used to
develop your own side’s case and rebut the opposite side’s. The information on
content provided below is a general overview of what will be expected when you
debate. The final logistics of how long
you will be debating, how many people will be in your group, and how the debate
will unfold (ie: which team speaks first etc.), will all be decided by your
tutorial leader.
Case (argument)- the whole
Introduction - The case your group is making must be outlined in the
introduction. This involves stating your main arguments and explaining
the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most
important thing is to get on and actually argue it. It is also a good idea
to indicate the aspects of the subject to be discussed by each of the team
members.
Conclusion - At the end, once everyone has spoken, it is useful to briefly
summarize what your group has said and why.
Case (argument)- the parts
Having outlined the whole of your argument, you must then begin to build a
case (the parts). The best way to do this is to divide your case into
between two and four arguments (or divide your case based on the number of
people in your group). You must justify your arguments with basic logic,
worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the
strategy of “proof”. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what
makes it an argument. There are a number of ways of dividing up cases according
to groups of arguments (eg political/economic/social or moral/practical or
international/regional etc.) or just according to individual arguments if you
can’t group any together. Under each of these basic headings you should
then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it using the methods
outlined above. It is usually best to put the most important arguments
first. Here is an example of a case outline:
“The media exert more
influence over what people think than the government does. This is true for
three reasons. Firstly, most people base their votes on
what they see and hear in the media. Secondly, the media can set the
political agenda between elections by deciding what issues to report and in how
much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonized
politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to
believe journalists than politicians.”
All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately
you can see the counter-arguments), but they give the case a wide range which
cover all kinds of issues. The trick is not to come up with a watertight
case, but a well argued one. Think: “Can I argue that?”
Rebuttal – the parts
Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. They may be misinterpretations
or they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict
one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are
the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at
least one of these respects. Here are a few examples:
1.
“Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the
country money in pensions and healthcare.” This is true, but is morally
flawed.
2.
“Banning cigarette product placement in films will
cause more young people to smoke because it will make smoking more mysterious
and taboo.” This is logically flawed, the ban would be more
likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive
and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking.
3.
“My partner will then look at the economic
issues...” “Blah..blah..blah...(5 minutes later and still no mention of
the economic issues)” This is a clear failure to explain a major
part of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when
a speaker starts with, “to win this debate there are three things I must
do…”. If the speaker fails to do any of those things you can then hang
her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words – by his or her own
admission he or she cannot have won the debate.
Rebuttal – the whole:
It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to
identify what the key arguments are. It isn’t enough to rebut a few random
arguments here and there. Of course the techniques used above are
invaluable but they must be used appropriately. There are a number of
things you should do to systematically break down a team’s case:
1.
Ask yourself how the other side have approached the
case. Is their methodology flawed?
2.
Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if
any) and whether they have in fact addressed these.
3.
Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and
what assumptions it makes. Try to refute these.
4.
Take the main arguments and do the same thing.
It is not worth repeating a point of rebuttal that has been used by someone
else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood
up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You won’t
have time and your aim is to show the other side’s case to be flawed in the key
areas.
By : Nurfarhati
No comments:
Post a Comment