Modified Oregorn-Oxford DebateLegal Writing . NEU College of Law.

Debate

• Formal type of Argumentation• Intelligent exchange of points between the

affirmative and negative side• Legal advocacy includes argumentation

and debate• A good training ground for trial practice

Objective of Debate

Main Objective

- To resolve the issue intelligently at the end of the debate

Specific Objectives

- To have a comprehensive grasp of issues

- To be able to prepare a case which tackles the P, N and B.

Modifed Oregorn-Oxford Debate

• There are different types of debate, but we will be adopting Modified Oregorn-Oxford type

• Also known Cross-Examination/Forensic Debate- traditional debate format used in elementary, governors debate, house debate rules, parliamentary debate rules, high school debate, youtube debate, presidential debate, colleges and all over the country.

Opposing Sides

Affirmativ

e

Negative

Opposing Sides

• The Affirmative proves the validity of the issue or topic called the Proposition while the Negative disproves it.

Resolution/Proposition

Stated as: Let it be resolved that (LIBRT):______________.

Characteristics:• Usually about a policy.• Stated in a way that alters the status quo.• Positively-stated.

Affirmative

BURDEN OF PROOF• Must establish a prima facie case• Must prove all aspects of their case to win• Can not win based on the inability of the

negative to prove its case.• Can set the parameter of the debate

Negative

BURDEN OF REBUTTAL• Must destroy either the P, N, or B of the

affirmative’s case• Must prove that there is no need to change

the status quo• Can not discuss anything that the

affirmative did not bring up

Aspects of the case

Practicability

• feasibility of a proposition

Necessity

need for the proposition,discusses the presence or absence of an inherent flaw in the status quo

Beneficiality

a

d

v

a

n

t

a

g

es

o

r

d

is

a

d

v

a

n

t

a

g

es

o

f

a

d

o

p

ti

n

g

o

r

rejecti

n

g

t

h

e

res

o

l

u

ti

o

n

Parts of the Debate

5 MINS •CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES•The presentation of each team member’s arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case (PNB)

3 MINS •INTERPELLATION•The opportunity for each debater to ask and answer questions regarding their speeches, also known as cross-examination

5 MINS •REBUTTAL•The summary and defense of each team’s arguments and evidence, to be delivered by either the scribe or the team captain

Speakers

Practicability speaker

Necessity speaker

Beneficiality Speaker

Rebuttal speaker

Format: Oregon-Oxford

First Affirmative - Constructive SpeechFirst Negative - Interpellation of the first affirmative SpeakerFirst Negative - Constructive SpeechFirst Affirmative - Interpellation of the first negative speakerSecond Affirmative - Constructive SpeechSecond Negative - Interpellation of the second affirmativeSecond Negative - ConstructiveSecond Affirmative - Interpellation of the second negativeThird Affirmative - Constructive SpeechThird Negative - Interpellation of the third affirmativeThird Negative - Constructive SpeechThird Affirmative - Interpellation of the third negative

Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Negative SideRebuttal of the Team Captain of the Affirmative Side

How to prepare for a debate

• Research (for both sides of the proposition)• Case building• Make an outline• Focus on your objective/role• Write your speech• Rehearse. Do not forget the time limit.• Prepare and anticipate possible interpellation questions

Sample Outline

1st Affirmative Speaker

I. Introduction

II. State the Proposition• Define important terms• Status quo, and what is wrong with it• Set the parameters of debate

III. State your team’s stand on issue

IV. Explain why your stand is feasible and practical, cite evidence

V. Conclusion• Enumerate arguments• Strengthen arguments

Sample Outline

Rebuttal Speaker

I. Introduction

II. State the Proposition• What has happened in the debate• Where was the clash

III. Rebuttal of the Opposing Team• What did they say? Why is it wrong?• FALLACIES COMMITTED

IV. Summary for Team • What have they said? Why is it right? Restate

Important arguments

V. Conclusion

Rules on Interpellation

1. Questions should primarily focused on arguments developed in the speech of your opponent. However, matters relevant and material to the proposition are admissible.

2. Questioner and opponent should treat each other with courtesy.

3. Both speakers stand and face the audience during the question or Interpellation period.

Rules on Interpellation

4. Once the questioning has begun, neither the questioner nor his opponent may consult a colleague. Consultation should be done before but as quietly as possible.

5. Questioners should ask brief and easily understandable question. Answers should equally be brief. Categorical questions answerable by yes or no is allowed, however, opponent if he choose, may qualify his answer why yes or why no.

Rules on Interpellation

6. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer, but he may cut off a verbose response with a statement such as a “thank you” “that is enough information” or “your point is quite clear” or “I’m satisfied.”

7. A questioner should not comment on the response of his opponent.

8. Your opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by asking the questioner to rephrase or reform his question.

Rules on Rebuttal

A. Rebuttal speaker should point out clearly the fallacies committed by his opponent stating clearly what particularly statement or argument constitute said fallacy.

B. If not familiar with the fallacies of logic, the debater may counter arguments directly by stating what arguments or statement is incorrect or false.

Fallacies

• Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

• Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false

• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Fallacies

• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.

• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole

• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts

Fallacies

• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Fallacies

• False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument• Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to

the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning

• False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

For Next Week

• Form groups of four with four members each.• Random picking of resolution and side• Prepare for debate• Wear corporate attire• Prepare speech. Hard copy of speech to be submitted.• Teacher acts as moderator, timer and judge• Winning Team to represent class in Espejo Cup• Graded, grade to depend on outcome of debate