DEBATING

A Guide for Teachers and Schools

Schedule General

Types of Debates

Speaker Roles

Adjudicating Debates

Benefits of Debating

Mock Debate

Questions

General Style

Structure and Strategy

Rebuttal

Points of Information

To Be Avoided

Style How the content is presented Includes - Fluency and coherency when speaking- Use of gestures and eye content- Use of humour- Analytical vs. abstract/passionate Individual style of each speaker varies. Style very rarely determines the outcome

of the debate

Structure and Strategy Emphasis on very clear structure Individual structure- Introduction and outline- Use of Point-Reason-Example- Signposting- Conclusion and overview Team structure- Consistency - Ordering points- Logical and persuasive progression from

speaker to speaker

Rebuttal Counter argument Vital to engagement in a debate Ideally rebuttal should be- Logical rather than factual- Linked to a key issue in the debate- Interwoven with substantive- Structured and ordered Time spent on rebuttal increases with each

consecutive speaker

Points of Information Framed as a question, statement or comment offered

to speaker on floor by opposing team Purpose is to - Draw attention to a flaw in opposition’s argument- Throw or fluster speaker on floor- Gain clarification on a point Different from point of order, interjection or rebuttal Common in more advanced debates Typically rules and guidelines govern- When Points of Information are offered/accepted- How many Points of Information are offered/accepted

To Be Avoided

When defining the moot- Squirelling When arguing- Truisms- Personal attacks When offering Points of Information- Barracking

Types of Debates

Classification of debates as either a ‘model’ debate or a ‘judgment’ debate

Requirements and mechanisms for each type of debate

Judgment Debates - Overview

Requires teams to evaluate whether what is outlined in the moot

- Is right or wrong- Is successful or unsuccessful- Should be supported or condemned

Can often be identified by “is” or “support/condemn” in the moot

Examples: “This house believes that the United Nations is ineffective”“This house supports the use of corporal punishment in schools”

Judgment Debates - Mechanisms

Affirmative Set up a number of

criteria by which the moot is evaluated. Essential requirement of the affirmative.

Prove that the subject of the moot has fulfilled these criteria and is therefore right/successful/deserving of support

Negative Set up the criteria for

the debate if the affirmative has failed to do so.

Prove that the subject of the moot has not fulfilled these criteria and is therefore wrong/unsuccessful/deserving of condemnation

Model Debates - Overview Requires teams to identify a problem and

then propose a model that will solve the problem

Can often be identified by “should” or “would” in moot

Examples:‘This house believes that the UN should be reformed’‘This house believes that schools should increase disciplining of students’

Model Debates - MechanismsAffirmative Problem (Why?)

Identify that there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed.

Model (How?)Outline the process by which the problem will be solved.

Solution Explain how and to what extent the model will solve the identified problem.

ConsequencesWhat other effects/benefits the model and solution will have.

Model Debates - MechanismsNegative Two main strategies. Problem

The problem identified by the affirmative is not serious enough to merit the scale of action. As there is no (significant) problem, a model/solution is unnecessary.

ModelRequires the Negative to acknowledge the existence of a problem.The model proposed by the Affirmative is impractical, would be more harmful than beneficial, does not solve the problem.May involve the Negative proposing a counter model.

Speaker Roles

1st Speaker

2nd Speaker

3rd Speaker

Right of Reply

1st Speaker Define the moot Outline team argument/case split Set the context for the debate Model Debate

Argue existence and significance of problem.Outline model/counter model.

Judgment DebateIntroduce criteria.Expand upon most important criterion.

1st Negative must also rebut arguments from 1st Affirmative.

2nd Speaker Rebut preceding arguments from opposing

team.

Reinforce preceding arguments from own team.

Expand and develop new points in substantive.

3rd Speaker Rebut preceding arguments from opposing

team. Reinforce preceding arguments from own

team. Identify main areas of clash/key issues

within the debate and then argue in favour of team.

Further explain/analyse any important points raised in the debate that have not been sufficiently developed or are very contentious.

Minimal amount of new material.

Right of Reply Can be done by either the 1st or 2nd Speaker. Order: 3rd Negative -> Negative Right of Reply -

> Affirmative Right of Reply Summarise the debate in terms of key areas of

clash and overarching ideas or themes. Show how the Negative/Affirmative’s argument

in each area of clash is more effective. Purpose is to provide an overview of the debate

from each team’s perspective and to then reinforce why the moot should fall or stand.

No new material is to be introduced.

Adjudicating

Arriving at a decision

Allocating marks

Adjudication Speech

Arriving at a Decision Identify key issues in the debate- How has each team presented and argued

each key issue?- Which team is more persuasive for each

key issue? Level of engagement in debate Consistency of argument across team- Contradictions- United team argument/proposal

Allocation of Marks Speaker scores- Range of 60-80 points out of 100

Standard Overall (100)

Style (40)

Content (40)

Strategy (20)

Exceptional 80 32 32 16

Excellent 76-79 31 31 15-16

Extremely Good 74-75 30 30 15

Very Good 71-73 29 29 14-15

Good 70 28 28 14

Satisfactory 67-69 27 27 13-14

Competent 65-66 26 26 13

Pass 61-64 25 25 12-13

Improvement Needed 60 24 24 12

Allocation of Marks

Right of Reply scores- Range of 30-40 points out of 50

Standard Overall (50)

Style (20)

Content (20)

Strategy (10)

Exceptional 40 16 16 8

Very Good to Excellent 36-39 15 15 7.5

Good 35 14 14 7

Pass to Satisfactory 31-34 13 13 6.5

Improvement Needed 30 12 12 6

ROUND NO ……………. Auckland Schools Debating Competition

PLACE ……………………. Private Bag 109025, Newmarket, Auckland GRADE …………………. Email: info@aucklandschoolsdebating.org.nz Web: http://www.aucklandschoolsdebating.org.nz DATE …………………….. MOOT/MOTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

AFFIRMATIVE …………………………………………………….. NEGATIVE ………………………………………………………….

SPEAKERS

STYLE (/40)

CONTENT

(/40)

STRATEGY

(/20)

POIS (/2)

TOTAL

1

2

3

REPLY SPEAKER

STYLE (/20)

CONTENT

(/20)

STRATEGY

(/10)

TOTAL

AFFRMATIVE TEAM TOTAL

SPEAKERS

STYLE (/40)

CONTENT

(/40)

STRATEGY

(/20)

POIS (/2)

TOTAL

1

2

3

REPLY SPEAKER

STYLE (/20)

CONTENT

(/20)

STRATEGY

(/10)

TOTAL

NEGATIVE TEAM TOTAL

Best Speakers 1st …………………………………………………………………………………… Debate won by ……………………………………………………………… 2nd …………………………………………………………………………………… Adjudicator’s name ………………………………………………………… 3rd …………………………………………………………………………………… Adjudicator’s signature ……………………………………………………..

Please give this marksheet to the host school co-ordinator or duty officer after the debate, before leaving the venue. Speaker scores must be in the range of 60-80 points out of 100 and Reply Speaker scores in the range 30-40 out of 50.

The column for POIS is filled in for advanced debates only (unless POIS are used in senior debates).

Adjudication Speech Purpose is to- Explain result of the debate- Provide feedback for debaters Aim to be- Concise- Clear- Structured- Constructive- Authoritative Avoid- Personal praise or criticism- Vagueness

Benefits of Debating Public speaking and confidence Use of logic Analytical skills Ability to form and present arguments Time pressure and organisational skills Awareness of current events, national and

global issues Benefits extend to other subjects and

disciplines