DEBATE GHANA ASSOCIATION

ROAD WORKSHOP FOR

DEBATE ACADEMY PROJECT

CONTENTPART 1Philosophy and basics in debating British parliamentary debateImportant features of debateStasis and StructureExercise/ Student Breakout Teams &

Presentations:1. Audience AnalysisArgument, Evidence and Explanations

CONTENT cont.2. Mini DebateCONCLUSION.

Part 2Arguments and ArgumentationQuality of ArgumentsCriteria for logical AssessmentBasic fallacies Exercise/ Student Breakout Teams &

Presentations

Resolutional Analysis worksheetPost Debate AssessmentMini Debate

Conclusion, Important concepts

PHILOSOPHY AND BASICS IN DEBATING

Debating as the foundation of Human knowledge.Constructing the meaning of our world through communication with uncertainty.Relationship between communication and uncertainty; Uncertainty is pervasive Uncertainty is reduce through

communication The desire for uncertainty is compelling.

Debate a contest of interpretations , therefore argument.Evaluation of argument a subjective activity.No “right” way to debating.

BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATEThe British Parliamentary academic debating format is the official format of the World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC). As the name suggests, the format has its roots in the British House of Commons, which served as a model for academic debating in British universities. Since its adoption by the WUDC, the format has spread around the world and is now the most widely practiced format of intercollegiate debating.

BP FORMATBP involves four independent teams per round: two who argue in favor of the motion (known as the Proposition teams) and two who argue against the motion (known as the Opposition teams). Two teams, known as the Opening Proposition and Closing Proposition, are responsible for arguing on behalf of the topic, known as a motion in BP debating.

Two more teams—the Opening Opposition and Closing Opposition—are responsible for arguing against the motion. Each of these teams is comprised of two debaters, each of whom has a unique name in the debate.Opening Proposition (for) Opening Opposition (against) Prime Minister Opposition Leader Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Opposition Leader Closing Proposition (for) Closing Opposition (against) Member of Proposition Member of Opposition Proposition Whip Opposition Whip

ORDER

TEAM SPEAKER TIME

1 Opening Proposition Prime Minister (PM) 7 minutes

2 Opening Opposition Leader Opposition (LO) 7 minutes

3 Opening Proposition Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) 7 minutes

4 Opening Opposition Deputy

Deputy Leader Opposition (DLO)

7 minutes

5 Closing Proposition Member Proposition (MP) 5minutes

6 Closing Opposition Member Opposition (MO) 5 minutes

7 Closing Proposition Proposition Whip (PW) 5 minutes

8 Closing Opposition Opposition Whip (OP) 5 minutes

Debating Order, Speaker, and Timing

Point of Information(POIs)It is an interruption from opposite side during speech delivery. A debater may request the opportunity to present a Point of Information (either verbally or by rising) from a speaker on the opposite side of the motion at any time after the first minute and before the last minute of any speech. POI last for 15 seconds.

Prime Ministers SpeechIt is the first speech in the round and bears a special burden: It must lay out a case that not only offers an argument (or arguments) for the motion but also outlines the round in a way that makes the participation of the other teams feasible. FramingFraming refers to the couching of a debate for understanding. The PM’s most important obligation is to prospectively frame the debate so the other debaters and the adjudicators understand its context and focus. Generally, PM’s decision should be guided by consideration of how the adjudicators will evaluate the effort to define the proposition and “better debate” standard.

SPEECHES

Constructive ArgumentationPM’s time is dedicated to the development of the constructive arguments that offer reasons for the proposition he has developed in his framing. Typically, the PM will offer three to four arguments for the proposition. These points may be independent or logically progressive, but they will certainly comprise a complete, varied, and thorough set of proof for the proposition.

Deconstructive ArgumentationThe majority of PM speeches doesn’t focus on deconstructive argumentation for one simple reason: as the first speech in the round, there is not yet an opposing effort to deconstruct.

Leader of Oppositions SpeechThe leader of opposition has similar functions as the Prime Minister. As the first speaker for the Opposition, the LO is responsible for framing the focus of the Opposition teams as well as introducing the constructive and deconstructive positions of the Opening Opposition team.

FramingThe LO faces a decision about how to frame her opponent’s arguments. Principally, LOs decide whether they accept or challenge the PM’s interpretation of the motion. Like the PM, the LO is subject to the “better debate” standard. Once the LO is certain that objecting to the PM’s definition is the best strategy, LOs faces another decision. That is must decide whether to rehabilitate the PM’s interpretation or to abandon it. If she chooses to rehabilitate the interpretation, she would use what is known colloquially as the “surely” strategy.

Deconstructive Argumentation Deconstructive argumentation is a critical focus for the LO (and, indeed, for all subsequent speakers) as the engagement of opposing arguments is the defining characteristic of debating. It is one of the chief criteria adjudicators use in determining the ranking of teams.   Style for Deconstruction

Index arguments made by the PM. Respond to each of them in turn.

Deconstruction should take 2 to 3 minutes of the LO’s speech.

Constructive Argumentation LO is expected to develop positive matter in support of her position. This is strategically advantageous to the Opening Opposition team. A more judicious strategy is employ to offer both “arguments against” in the form of deconstructive argumentation and “arguments for” in the form of constructive arguments. Adjudicators are more likely to vote for a team who demonstrates proficiency in all skills rather than concentrating on one and evaluate each speaker by his/her efforts to introduce “positive matter” into the debate.

Deputy Speakers SpeechesThe primary focus of the two deputy speakers is to support the effort of their partner while contributing to the advancement of the arguments in the round.

FramingIf PM offers a reasonable interpretation of the motion and LO accepts that interpretation, the framing responsibilities of the Deputy speakers will be different than those of their opening partners. Their concern should not be determining the proposition for the round but directing which issues are paramount in the appraisal of that proposition and directing adjudicators’ attention toward particular issues while diminishing others.

Two general approaches can be used for framing: Explicitly compare and contrast the issues in play and emphasize on

their preferred issue. Group arguments in the round into issues that will address the

proposition in their favor.The explicit effort is preferable if the opening speakers have already defined very clear issues.

Deconstructive ArgumentationThere are two styles for deconstruction for deputy speakers. They are: 

Deputy speaker can group the various arguments in the round into broader issues for adjudicators’ consideration and then deconstruction of opponents’ arguments in each of the issues will occur while new frame for the round unfolds.Deputy speaker can choose to deal with the material presented by the preceding speaker independent of any effort to reframe those arguments into issues and that would have to deal with deconstruction in much the same way the earlier speakers did. It would start from deconstructive argumentation and move to constructive argumentation and would have to utilize the standard structure for refutation.

Constructive ArgumentationDeputy speakers have unique challenge in construction:

They are charge with sustaining their team’s position in the round.They are charge to fulfilling the mandate of the rules in other to offer unique positive matter.They are charge to reconstruct arguments offered by their partners that might have been compromised by their opponents’ deconstructive efforts.

IMPORTANT FEATURES OF DEBATEAudience

Audience refers to the people to whom the debaters seek to have their side or appeal to. Without an audience, debaters would have little reason to construct an argument, much less to participate in a debate.

Evidence

Evidence is the starting point of argument. It should starts with knowledge already available to the audience, then supplements that public knowledge with information gleaned from more technical or scientific sources.

Reason

It is the process through which evidence is connected to claims. It starts with selected evidence and then moves through the process of reasoning to connect it to the claim they support in an attempt to convince the audience to believe in the claim to the same degree they believe in the evidence.

Language

It is the medium through which most arguments are communicated to audience. Language used in debate must be generally understood by all or greater part of the audience and should be natural giving the role of insider rather than an outsider.

STASIS AND STRUCTUREArgument as Movement

When we are arguing, we: move audience, advance positions, sway opponents, redirect questioning, follow lines of argument, take logical leaps, retreat from claims, push issues, drive points home, come to conclusions, and so on. There are two important things that matter in here: Thinking of argumentation as dynamic, fluid, and transient. Imagining argumentation having a spatial dimension.

Stasis

Stasis refers to an imagined place where competing arguments meet. It is the place where the arguments we make meet the arguments our opponents make. Two point of stasis are relevant in debate and they are:

Points of stasis that function as propositions Points of stasis that are issues.

As Proposition In a debate round, a proposition is the most general point of stasis over which the opposing sides will disagree. A proposition serves two functions: The proposition serves as a boundary around the subjects

being debated. The proposition divides ground between those arguing for the

proposition and those arguing against it.

As Issue

Issues are similar to propositions but differ in scale and focus and are more narrow points of stasis.

Types of Issues and Their SubjectCultural: Arguments about the collective identity shared by people in a particular group.

Economic: Arguments concerning financial matters.

Educational: Arguments relevant to the effort to instruct citizens.

Environmental: Arguments about the natural world.

Legal: Arguments related to what is required or prohibited by a society’s rules.

Moral: Arguments concerning ethical consequences of a proposition.

Political: Arguments relevant to the acquisition and exercise of power.

Rights: Arguments about freedoms or privileges.

Security: Arguments that address the subject of a nation’s safety.

Social: Arguments regarding relationships between people.

Symbolic: Arguments concerning the interpreted meaning of phenomena.

Welfare: Arguments about public health and well-being.

Tag Lines

They are a one-sentence distillation of a complex argument intended to stick in the audience’s mind (or in the audience’s notes). Good tag lines have several common characteristics:

1. Tag lines should be simple.

2. Tag lines should express a single idea.

3. Tag lines should be declarative.

4. Tag lines should be phrased assertively.

GROUP WORK

DEBATE GHANA ON GJFL 2010/2011 26

GoalTo encourage students to begin the process of thinking about

where a resolution comes from, why it is important and how it is likely to be debated.

Method Using a resolution that students are likely to debate in the

future, ask students to complete the following statements on paper

The resolution is important because…The background of this resolution is important because…The resolution contains several key terms that are …These terms are defined as…This resolution contains several key issues, including….After completing the statements, students can work in small

groups to develop more comprehensive answers. Finally all of the answers can be shared and discussed by the class.

RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

PART 2/ DAY 2

ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATIONDefinitionAn argument is a collection of statements organized in a way that highlights connections between ideas.

Elements of ArgumentationArguments are composed of three elements: ClaimSupportInference.

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 29

Elements of argumentThe elements are central to debate and are

related to one another. These include: evidence, reasoning, claim and reservation.

The philosopher Stephen Toulmin introduced this in 1958 and was revised 30 years later.

Toulmin’s model identifies four basic elements of argument: claim, evidence, warrant and reservation.

cont’d

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 30

The travel analogyEvidence : [facts]. It is also argument’s

starting point.Claim: is the arguer’s destination. i.e.

controversial statement a debater intends to support using reasoned argument.

Warrant: is the means of travel. i.e. reasoning process.

Reservation: involves questions or concerns the arguer may have about the arrival at destination.

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 31

Structure of an argumentToulmin’s Model

Simple Argument: consist of a single claim leading from a single piece of evidence following along a single warrant and

accompanied by perhaps (but not always) a single reservation.

Evidence

Reservation

Claim

Warrant

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 32

Illustration with argument. E.g. Harry is a British citizen because he was

born in Bermuda. This is how Toulmin structured the argument on the model.

EvidenceHarry was

born in Bermuda

ClaimHarry is British citizen

ReservationUnless Harry’s parents were U.S citizens

WarrantPersons born in Bermuda

generally are British citizens

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 33

CLAIMS & PROPOSITIONSClaims and propositions (resolution / topic)

are controversial statements that debaters support using reasoned arguments.

The primary difference between claim and propositions is that claims are narrower statements used to support broader propositions.

QUALITY OF ARGUMENTSCriteria for Logical Assessment

1. Standard of Acceptability The standard of acceptability speaks to the quality of

evidence on which an argument is based.

2. Standard of Relevance

The second standard for testing the quality of an argument is relevance. This standard examines the quality of the connection between the support and the claim by asking whether the evidence offered is relevant to the claim made.

3. Standard of Sufficiency The standard of sufficiency asks whether the arguments

made produces a level of certainty adequate for the audience to accept the claim.

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 35

EVIDENCEEvidence is the starting point of an

argumentThe two broadest categories of evidence are

evidence based on Reality and evidence based on Preference.

Evidence based on reality includes facts, theories, and presumptions.

Facts are observed or potentially observable data.

Theories are statements that explain other facts or predict the occurrence of events.

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 36

WARRANTSA warrant is the means whereby debaters move from

starting point to destination. It is the reasoning process that allows debaters to connect evidence to claims.

Categories of warrantsArgument by example: this creates an association between

particular examples and more general rules. Argument by example is based on the probability that examples in a class share important characteristics.

For instance, a debater might want to describe certain features of the judges of the International Criminal Court by using characteristics of individual members as evidence. Similarly, a debater might use the actions by members of the Mantse Communist Party to argue that Communist Party members in general act in certain ways. Thus, an argument by example begins with evidence about specific cases and moves to a claim regarding the group as a whole.

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 37

Argument by Authority: this supports a claim by associating that claim with the opinions of experts in the fields.

An argument of principle connects a particular situation to a general principle/ rule, arguing that actions in each situation should conform to principles.

Argument by incompatibility: this evaluates something by showing how it is incompatible with another thing the audience accepts.

Argument by Dissociation: this creates new categories by dividing old categories into new ones.

Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 38

FALLACIESA fallacy is considered an error in

reasoning that negatively affects the judgement of an arguments quality. But the presence of a fallacy doesn’t mean that an argument is disqualified.

Three Basic types of FallaciesProblematic premise, Irrelevant reason,

and the Hasty conclusion.Fallacy of Problematic Premise– relates to

an argument that that fails to meet the acceptability criterion. This category of fallacies include:

BASIC FALLACIES IN ARGUMENTATION

Appeal to the Man (Argumentum Ad Hominem) - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum) - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.  Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam) - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy.

Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove.  It is circular.

Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.

Reductio Ad Absurdum- showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd conclusion.

Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.

Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.

Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.

Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.

Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.

Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.

Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind.  Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.

Euphemism- the use of words that sounds better.

Constructive Arguments for Claims of Value Claims or Propositions are controversial statements that debaters intend to support or oppose using reasoned arguments. There are two value claims. They are: 1. Simple value claims.2. Comparative value claims. 

Simple Value ClaimsIt is the most basic and elementary kind of evaluative claim. In

simple value claims values are attached to objects. Object’s in this sense is not limited to physical objects. The objects can be person, place, thing, institution, action, and concept.

Claims can be combined in support of a simple value Proposition. In doing so:1. Describe one or more features of the object of evaluation.2. Relate the feature to an effect.3. Evaluate the effect. 

Outline for Simple Value Proposition

I. Introduction A. Statement of the Proposition B. Definition of Terms

II. Arguments A. First Claim 1. Description 2. Relational 3. Evaluation B. Second Claim 1. Description 2. Relational 3. Evaluation

III. conclusion

Comparative Value Claims

Comparative value claims other than Simple Value Claims compares two or more objects according to their importance. In comparing it is assume that there is conflict between the object under consideration.

Claims are combined in support of comparative value proposition. In doing so:

1. Describe one or more features of each object to be evaluated.2. Relate these features to an effect.3. Evaluate the effect.

It has the same outline as the simple value claim but the claims are comparing claims (arguments)

REFUTATIONRefutation is the process of ‘tearing down’ or attacking and answering, an opponent’s arguments. It is tool which give debaters the opportunity of not presenting strong case but also criticizing their opponent’s case while defending their own.

Stages for A Successful Refutation1. Reference- State and identify the argument so everyone is clear

about what is about to be refuted.2. Response- Answer opponent’s argument, particularly by revealing

any fallacies, inconsistencies, or problems in the reasoning and evidence.

3. Support- If necessary, read, cite, or refer to evidence to justify, support, or prove the argument on this point.

4. Explanation- Summarise the overall position of reasoning and evidence and show how this reasoning and evidence overthrow the opposing team’s arguments.

5. Impacts- Show implication by contrasting the argument at hand against the opponents and then explain why one is stronger that the other.

REBUTTALSIt is the reservation not for new arguments or positions but rather for the summarizing, highlighting, and advocating of the crucial arguments that a side has presented during the debate. It is in this reservation period that refutation becomes more significant. It is the duty of rebuttal debaters to identify or recognize vital issues that have been raised in the debate.

Duties of Rebuttal Debaters1. Summarise- a rebuttal speech briefly summarises the key issues that

have been presented. In summarizing rebuttal debaters comments on debate that has already taken place, should review what has happened and draw judges attention to how the arguments end.

2. Identify vital issues- the rebuttal should address the overall points that matter in a debate rather than engaging in a discussion of minutiae.

Steps to Successful Identification of Vital IssuesI. Identify arguments that could cause your team to lose the

debate.II. Identify arguments that could win the debate for your team.III. Observe relationship between vital argumentsIV. Determine the overall impact of an argument.

3. Make critical choices- ideally, a rebuttal speaker wants to minimize critical positions advanced by the opponent while spending considerable time explaining the position he is advocating.

Factors to Consider in Making ChoiceI. Time constraintsII. Issue constraintsIII. Judge preferencesIV. Argument placement

4. Weigh Implication – a good rebuttal speaker will demonstrate that even if the opponent wins some arguments, those arguments are not enough to ‘outweigh’ the speaker’s arguments. Thus a debater can concede some arguments while still wining the debate, but the rebuttal speaker must decide which arguments are more important than others.

Components for Weigh Implication.I. Respond, don’t just repeatII. Compare and examineIII. Think strategicallyIV. Plan in advanceV. Use opponent’s choices

PUBLIC SPEAKINGSpeech Presentation (Marking: 40%) - First Day 1. Participants to deliver 7 minutes prepared speech.

2. English shall be the main language of delivery. The prepared speech should be themed around "Socially Responsible Corporate Governance". Any matter is allowed except race, religion, politics and sex.

3. Contestants must prepare their own speech, which must be substantially original.

4. Participants should prepare for submission the script of the speech (3 copies).

5. Script of the speech will be handed upon 'Briefing for Participants' (see. 7 June, 2012). The script is typed in A4 paper, using Arial font, 12pt, with double spacing. Cover should state the title, name of author, and institution.

6. Participants will then deliver the speech in front of an audience.

7. The speech will be marked based on the content of the speech (45%), and the delivery (55%).