| Introduction to 3-on-3 Debating Victor Finkel

| Outline 1.Why debate? 2.What is debate? 3.Matter/Manner/Method 4.How to prepare a case 5.Adjudication 6.Hot tips

| Why Debate? a.Because debate is fun b.Because debate is useful c.Because you get to travel the world, meet new people and kick their butts!

| Debate is structured argument

| Why do we do it? “US launches predator strikes in Pakistan” “US to sell Uranium to India” “Gay marriage bill vetoed” “Cap on CEO pay strives to end era of excess” “GLOBAL WARMING IS OVERRATED” “You should totally sleep with me for 3 reasons; First…”

| What is Debate? Ah hah

| Debate - an overview Assigned topic and side Understand context Identify problem Propose solution Convince everyone why it’s right! “I found the old format much more exciting”

| 3-on-3 Debate: the format 1st Aff 3rd Neg 2nd Neg 1st Neg 3rd Aff 2nd Aff AFFIRMATIVENEGATIVE 30 minute prep 6-8 minute speeches

| MATTER, MANNER and METHOD The elements that contribute to persuasiveness in debates

| What you say “Arguments” MATTER

| Elements of an argument Say it, Explain it, Illustrate it Or.. IDEA, ANALYSIS, EVIDENCE These are the elements of an argument Does it help you prove your case?

| LOGIC and RELEVANCE Why is it true?Who Cares?

| Rebuttal Same elements are true for building arguments and destroying them. Targeting the Idea > Analaysis > Evidence

| MANNER Fundamentals - Language - Vocal Style - Body Language Key is to be Credible > It’s OK to fake it Natural Style is GOOD

| Body Language Eye Contact Images of people

| METHOD How you present your case Enable Audience to understand, follow and REMEMBER what you have said Introduce, Analyse, Conclude Rule of 3s - 3 arguments, 3 questions, 3 times, etc

| Arg 1Arg 2Arg 3 Speech

| Speaker Roles 1st Affirmative Context Definition Team Line Team Split Arguments (5 - 6 minutes) 1st Negative Definition Issues Team Line (1 min) Rebut (3 mins) Team Split Arguments (4 mins) ROLE: Establish the grounds on which the debate will be fought

| 2nd Affirmative Summarise debate so far Rebut (3 mins) Personal Split Arguments (4 mins) 2nd Negative Summarise debate so far Rebut (3 mins) Personal Split Arguments (4 mins) ROLE: Move the debate forward by devoping analysis of existing arguments and introducing new lines of argument

| 3rd Affirmative Intro - biggest point Rebut (7 mins) Summarise and Conclude New Argument (Optional but not encouraged) 3rd Negative Intro - biggest point Rebut (7 mins) Summarise and Conclude ROLE: Organise the debate into clear questions/themes to make understanding it easier - then show why you won all of them! “Thematic Rebuttal”

| Secret Topic, 30 minutes ARGHH!  NO 1 Rule - DON’T PANIC!  You know more than you think  Key is to structure the time you have  Choice of 3 topics  Mutual Preference System

| Choice of Topics: Example That all you need is love That China should float the Yuan That trees should have the same legal rights as animals Team of Arts studentsTeam of Eco. students

| Timeline for Prep ActivityTimeWho Brainstorm arguments 10 minutesIndividually, then together Prioritise arguments, build case and split 10 minutestogether Flesh out arguments 10 minutesIndividually, with 3rd speaker help Brainstorm opposition case Walking to the debate! together

| My Rebuttal (at 1st or 2nd) Them Smoking kills –Studies show death rate My Response -> If people want to die, it’s their choice -> Studies flawed

| Constructive Arguments Giving arms to Afghani Tribal Militias will undermine Al Qaeda's power in the hills 1.Pashtun tribes have self-intereset at heart -> will follow whoever presents the most benefit. By providing weapons, we become the ally of choice. 1.E.g. Under Soviet Union, were very happy to engage with the most powerful 2.Without weapons to defend themselves they are blackmailed by Al Qaeda 1.E.g. Al Qaeda has taken sons of tribal leaders hostage 2.E.g. One tribe that resisted Al Qaeda initially was made an example of - Suicide bombers exploded in a family wedding killing dozens 3.By providing weapons, Militias will be both able to defend themselves and will be motivated to align with west

| Adjudication Winning team decided by one or panel of adjudicators, deciding independently Cannot award a draw Score range for a speech is Provide constructive feedback Adjudication is the best way to learn 80: phenomenal (me) 79: outstanding 78: excellent 77: very good 76: above average 75: average speech 74: almost there! (amit) 73: room to improve! 72: lots of room to improve! 71: lots and lots of room to improve!

| Tournaments SEMESTER 1 (3-on-3) Freshers (MAD) –For virgin IV debaters Easters (Brisbane) –The National novice comp President’s Cup (Melbourne) –Debate with fun people Sorensen (MAD) –Major 3-on-3 comp, novice rule ADAM (Melbourne) –Pre-Australs and great practice MONASH –MAD’s favourite IV SEMESTER 2 (British Parliamentary) Pro-Am Comp Open BP Comp Freehills Women’s (Sydney?) ANU Mini (Canberra) Sydney Mini (Sydney) Vic Mini (New Zealand) Melbourne Mini (Melbourne) WUPID (Malaysia) WORLDS (Turkey)

| Hot Tips Don’t write out Speeches word for word! –You’ll remember to say “Good Evening” without writing it for yourself Consider writing manner cues for yourself Try and keep a summary of feedback from your adjudicators - quickest way to learn Everyone will be learning; uni is a great equalizer Have fun!

|

| Definitions Interpreting the topic into a debate Define the meaning, not the words Show why the meaning is linked to the words In 3-on-3, definitions are usually clearly stated by the topic Context is the best way to go BE FAIR Winning by definition doesn’t work

| “That google has gone too far” Sometimes, topics are not clear

| Unreasonable Definitions No logical link Place/Time Set Truistic

| Definitional Challenges NEVER DO IT But if you have to, do it, and do it at the start of your first speech Explain Why –State why unreasonable - e.g. no link –Explain this - what the ARP would think –Propose an alternative, REASONABLE def –Rebut EVEN IF

| Models Sometimes a debate needs an explanation of how it will work Set up as part of the definition Details cannot emerge later E.g. Withdrawl from Iraq