Traditional debate format

There are 2 sides in this format :

the Affirmative and the Negative

Affirmative proves the validity of the issue.

Negative disproves.

Each team has two speakers and one scribe

Proposition – topic or issue for the debate

Moderator - enforces the rules to ensure the debate’s smooth conduct.

Three Speakers from each side

First Affirmative - Constructive Speech First Negative - Interpellation of the first affirmative Speaker First Negative - Constructive Speech First Affirmative - Interpellation of the first negative speaker Second Affirmative - Constructive Speech Second Negative - Interpellation of the second affirmative Second Negative - Constructive Second Affirmative - Interpellation of the second negative Third Affirmative - Constructive Speech Third Negative - Interpellation of the third affirmative Third Negative - Constructive Speech Third Affirmative - Interpellation of the third negative

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

Constructive Speech: Minimum of five (5) and maximum of seven (7) minutes

Interpellation: Five (5) minutes

Rebuttal Speech: Three (3) minutes

A. Whether or not it is Necessary? (Necessity)

B. Whether or not it is Beneficial? (Beneficiality)

C. Whether or not it is practical? (Practicability)

A. Evidence - 25%

B. Delivery - 30%

C. Interpellation - 30%

D. Rebuttal - 15%

The judges, shall have the authority to determine who will be the Best Speaker and Best Debater. The winning team shall be determined by the majority decision of the Board of Judges.

Speech types of Constructive Speech may be:

1. Reading Method

2. Memory Method

3. Extemporaneous

4. Mix method of memory and conversational or dramatic

Poise

gestures

audience contact

voice projection

1. Questions should focus on arguments developed in the speech of your opponent.

2. COURTESY.

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

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.

6. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer, but he may cut off a vervous 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.

CROSS EXAMINATION – free time

1. To clarify points

2. To expose errors

3. To obtain admissions

4. To setup arguments

5. To save prep time

6. To show the judge how cool you are so they WANT to vote for you.

Be dynamic. Have questions and be ready to go, answer questions actively and with confidence whenever you can.

1. Ask a short Q designed to get a short A 2. Indicate the object of your Q 3. Don't telegraph your argument, don't make it too obvious. 4. Don't ask Q they won't answer properly."So, we win, right?" 5. Make Q seem important, even if it is just an attempt to clarify. 6. Politeness is a must -- emphasize the difference if they are rude. 7. Approach things from a non-obvious direction. Then trap them. 8. Mark your flow/notes as to what you want to question them

about. 9. Avoid open ended Qs unless you are sure they are clueless. 10. Face the judge/audience, not your opponent.

1. Concise A. 2. Refer to something you have already said whenever possible.

This is safe. 3. Answer based on your position in the debate so far. Keep

options open. 4. Don't make promises of what you or your partner will do later. 5. Qualify your answers. 6. Be willing to exchange documents read into the debate. 7. Answer only relevant questions. 8. Address the judge. 9. Try and not answer hypothetical Q. If they demand, say you

will give a hypothetical A. 10. Signal each other, don't tag-team. 11. Don't say"I don't know,"say"I am not sure at this time...."

A. Rebuttal speaker should point out the fallacies committed by his opponent.

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.

1. Which arguments have more weight at the end of the round?

2. Which outcomes (disads, counterplans) are more likely given lots of internal links?

3. What about time frame-what happens first?

4. What about the quality of evidence?

1. Avoid repetition.

2. Avoid passing ships.

3. Avoid reading evidence only.

4. Avoid rereading evidence that has already been read in constructives.

5. Avoid"lumping and dumping.“

6. Be organized.

7. Don't be a blabbering motormouth.

8. Don't whine to the judge about fairness or what the other team might have done that you think is unethical. Make responses and beat them.

9. Don't make new arguments.

10. Use signposting .

11. Use issue packages.

12. Cross-apply arguments.

1. To reveal the issue involve the debate;

2. To rule on points of clarification about the issues or questions and answers made during the Interpellation; and

3. To see to it that the debate is orderly and follows the rules of parliamentary procedures.

1. To time the speakers and debaters accurately;

2. To give the speakers a one-minute warning with the ringing of the bell once before his/her time is up.

3. To prevent the debaters from exceeding the time allotted to them by ringing the bell twice.

Ad Hominem--Attacking the individual instead of the argument. Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your

comment.

Appeal to Force--Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument. Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I

say. Example: Convert or die.

Appeal to Pity--Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

Appeal to the Popular--Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to Tradition--Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right

way. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine

is true.

Begging the Question--Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is

inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust

Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

Cause and Effect--assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster

causes the sun to rise. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of

gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

Circular Argument--See Begging the Question Fallacy of Division--Assuming that what is true of

the whole is true for the parts. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are

weird, too.

Fallacy of Equivocation--Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the

bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.

Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

False Dilemma--Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible. Example: You either did knock the glass over, or you did

not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over).

Example: Do you still beat your wife?

Genetic Fallacy--Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen

Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.

Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

Guilt by Association--Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

Non Sequitur--Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more

bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

Poisoning the Well--Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows

everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

Red Herring--Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone

to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank

yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

Special Pleading (double standard)--Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

Straw Man Argument--Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax

specifically to support the poor. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

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.

Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter

didn't.