Coaching Tips for Senior Canterbury Debaters and Coaches

 Points of Information  The Debating Tree  First Principles  Thematic Rebuttal  Common mistakes being made i. “Meta-debating” ii. Practicalities  Impromptu Debating

 Each speaker needs to offer at least 2 POI during each of the opposing teams speeches- ideally aim for 5.  Write down your POIs that way if you’re not accepted you can pass it to another speaker- remember debating is a team ‘sport’  The best POI are phrased as a question.  The use of POI makes the debate more interesting for you the debaters, the adjudicator and the audience

Roots: Underlying Principle ie Big government v Little Government Trunk: Main Arguments Branches: Analysis Leaves: Examples

 Aim for the roots and the trunk: Attack the Principles and the Arguments  Time spent attacking examples is just pruning the tree of its leaves

 The roots of the Debating Tree  Don’t be overwhelmed by the number of issues, organisations, nations and topics there are to debate, there are only really a few –  They just have different actors. The issues stay the same.  Censoring the Internet, Media and Hate Speech are separate debates but the issue is still the role of government regulation and the merits of censorship.  For Kosovo, Kurds, Basques, and Tamil Tigers the debate is about granting independence to ethnic minorities.

 Don't be daunted and frightened by a motion on a specific topic you know little or nothing about. EVERY debate will have an underlining principle at its heart and the rest is packaging.  Look at the general principles expressed in the original motion. What is the basic argument here and ask yourself: What is this Debate really about? What is usually required to win this debate?

 This house supports domestic content quotas in broadcasting  This house would bail out failing industries.  This house would privatise ACC Basic Principle: Role of the government regulation & spending public money

 This house believes that civil liberties must be restricted in the interests of security  This house would force feed anorexics  We would legalise marijuana  Basic Principle: Rights of the individual versus responsibility of state/society

 This house believes that the west should treat state sponsored sexism as apartheid  That we should tie development aid to democracy Basic Principle: Western culture versus other cultures. “Western Imperialism”

 This house believes that making Yassar Arrafat a partner in peace was a mistake  We would lift sanctions on Hamas Basic Principle: Democracy and Negotiating with terrorists.

Generally all speakers need more rebuttal. It’s easy if you approach it in chunks rather than point by point

 Should be no new material at 3rds so what should they do?  Well lots and lots of rebuttal!!  Best way to do this is to organise your rebuttal under the major issues/themes of the debate.  REMEMBER TO ATTACK THE ARGUMENTS  Say what the opposing team said and then why that is wrong or unimportant to the debate and why what your team has said should win the debate.

 I find it good to have piece of paper with a line drawn down the middle.  At the top I write the issue (which are usually clear by the end of the 1 st neg/2 nd aff)  On one side I write what the opposing team has said and then I draw a line to why it’s wrong and what we have said to contradict the statements and arguments  I do the same for the 2-4 issues that the debate has focused on  Everybody has their own system so find out what works best for you

Meta-debating Focusing on practicalities

 These are things like pointing out that opposition team set up the debate as a ‘model’ when it is clearly a judgement debate.  An adjudicator will notice things like this and doesn’t want you to waste time on attacking it.  Focus on the real arguments and issues in the debate.  The ‘Model’ and ‘Judgement’ concepts are merely a way in which you should approach the debate in hand- you will not win or lose a debate on these alone

 Common for debates to focus on the details of the model set up by the affirmative.  This is usually done by the negative asking lots of questions of the model  This distracts from the real debate at hand  Better to ask: I. Is there a problem that needs solving in the first place? II. Will this model solve the problem? III. What harms will result from this model?

 Think back to first principles and what the debate is really about  The model is merely a vehicle to debate the issues

 2 teams of 2 speakers  A coin is tossed. The winners choose side or topic.  Whichever team is allocated topic is given a piece of paper with 2 topics on it. They have 1 minute to decide what topic to debate. At the end of the minute they read their chosen topic out aloud.  The other team then has 1 minute to decide whether they want to be aff or neg. At the end of the minute they are asked what side they want to be.

 The teams then have 5 minutes to prepare  At the end of 5 minutes the 1 st aff is welcomed to the floor and the debate begins followed by 1 st neg, 2 nd aff, 2 nd neg.  Speeches will be 4-5 minutes with no POIs  After the 2 nd neg the 1 st neg gives their leaders reply followed by the aff reply.  Reply speeches will be 2-3 minutes

 Impromptu Debating tournament  Sunday 10 th August Villa Maria College  Trophy gifted by the UC DebSoc  At this stage 2 teams per school but please indicate if you would like to send more and we will assess the numbers once the entries are all in.  Registration forms will be sent out next week and registration closes Monday 28 th July.

Wednesday 23 rd July If you can host this please me