A Guide for Teachers and Schools DEBATING A Guide for Teachers and Schools

Schedule General Types of Debates Speaker Roles Adjudicating Debates Benefits of Debating Mock Debate Questions

General Style Structure and Strategy Rebuttal Points of Information To Be Avoided

Style How the content is presented Includes Fluency and coherency when speaking Use of gestures and eye content Use of humour Analytical vs. abstract/passionate Individual style of each speaker varies. Style very rarely determines the outcome of the debate

Structure and Strategy Emphasis on very clear structure Individual structure Introduction and outline Use of Point-Reason-Example Signposting Conclusion and overview Team structure Consistency Ordering points Logical and persuasive progression from speaker to speaker

Rebuttal Counter argument Vital to engagement in a debate Ideally rebuttal should be Logical rather than factual Linked to a key issue in the debate Interwoven with substantive Structured and ordered Time spent on rebuttal increases with each consecutive speaker

Points of Information Framed as a question, statement or comment offered to speaker on floor by opposing team Purpose is to Draw attention to a flaw in opposition’s argument Throw or fluster speaker on floor Gain clarification on a point Different from point of order, interjection or rebuttal Common in more advanced debates Typically rules and guidelines govern When Points of Information are offered/accepted How many Points of Information are offered/accepted

To Be Avoided When defining the moot Squirelling When arguing Truisms Personal attacks When offering Points of Information Barracking

Types of Debates Classification of debates as either a ‘model’ debate or a ‘judgment’ debate Requirements and mechanisms for each type of debate

Judgment Debates - Overview Requires teams to evaluate whether what is outlined in the moot Is right or wrong Is successful or unsuccessful Should be supported or condemned Can often be identified by “is” or “support/condemn” in the moot Examples: “This house believes that the United Nations is ineffective” “This house supports the use of corporal punishment in schools”

Judgment Debates - Mechanisms Affirmative Set up a number of criteria by which the moot is evaluated. Essential requirement of the affirmative. Prove that the subject of the moot has fulfilled these criteria and is therefore right/successful/ deserving of support Negative Set up the criteria for the debate if the affirmative has failed to do so. Prove that the subject of the moot has not fulfilled these criteria and is therefore wrong/unsuccessful/ deserving of condemnation

Model Debates - Overview Requires teams to identify a problem and then propose a model that will solve the problem Can often be identified by “should” or “would” in moot Examples: ‘This house believes that the UN should be reformed’ ‘This house believes that schools should increase disciplining of students’

Model Debates - Mechanisms Affirmative Problem (Why?) Identify that there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. Model (How?) Outline the process by which the problem will be solved. Solution Explain how and to what extent the model will solve the identified problem. Consequences What other effects/benefits the model and solution will have.

Model Debates - Mechanisms Negative Two main strategies. Problem The problem identified by the affirmative is not serious enough to merit the scale of action. As there is no (significant) problem, a model/solution is unnecessary. Model Requires the Negative to acknowledge the existence of a problem. The model proposed by the Affirmative is impractical, would be more harmful than beneficial, does not solve the problem. May involve the Negative proposing a counter model.

Speaker Roles 1st Speaker 2nd Speaker 3rd Speaker Right of Reply

1st Speaker Define the moot Outline team argument/case split Set the context for the debate Model Debate Argue existence and significance of problem. Outline model/counter model. Judgment Debate Introduce criteria. Expand upon most important criterion. 1st Negative must also rebut arguments from 1st Affirmative.

2nd Speaker Rebut preceding arguments from opposing team. Reinforce preceding arguments from own team. Expand and develop new points in substantive.

3rd Speaker Rebut preceding arguments from opposing team. Reinforce preceding arguments from own team. Identify main areas of clash/key issues within the debate and then argue in favour of team. Further explain/analyse any important points raised in the debate that have not been sufficiently developed or are very contentious. Minimal amount of new material.

Right of Reply Can be done by either the 1st or 2nd Speaker. Order: 3rd Negative -> Negative Right of Reply -> Affirmative Right of Reply Summarise the debate in terms of key areas of clash and overarching ideas or themes. Show how the Negative/Affirmative’s argument in each area of clash is more effective. Purpose is to provide an overview of the debate from each team’s perspective and to then reinforce why the moot should fall or stand. No new material is to be introduced.

Adjudicating Arriving at a decision Allocating marks Adjudication Speech

Arriving at a Decision Identify key issues in the debate How has each team presented and argued each key issue? Which team is more persuasive for each key issue? Level of engagement in debate Consistency of argument across team Contradictions United team argument/proposal

Allocation of Marks Speaker scores Range of 60-80 points out of 100

Allocation of Marks Right of Reply scores - Range of 30-40 points out of 50

Adjudication Speech Purpose is to Explain result of the debate Provide feedback for debaters Aim to be Concise Clear Structured Constructive Authoritative Avoid Personal praise or criticism Vagueness

Benefits of Debating Public speaking and confidence Use of logic Analytical skills Ability to form and present arguments Time pressure and organisational skills Awareness of current events, national and global issues Benefits extend to other subjects and disciplines