This Blog has now moved to idebate.org/worlddebating - all future posts will be made there!

17 December 2005

Israeli Debating League

The Israeli Debating League had its first tournament - The English Cup.

Winners:
Interdisciplinary Center (Jacob Shvergold and Yaron Chayat)

Finalists:
Prop1 Haifa University (Anat Gelber and Shir Parsai-Barniv)
Opp1 Tel Aviv University (Noga Izekson and Noa)
Prop2 Haifa University (Karni Chagal and Reut Rubinstein)

Final Motion: "THBT every nation has the right to fight for its freedom".

Best Speaker: Anat Gelber of Haifa University.

16 December 2005

e-mail from Dublin

Hey guys,

Below you'll find a rather messy version of the list of people coming to worlds (note from Colm: I have not posted it here check the website below). You'll get a more readable one on www.pgcareerswudc.com, clicking on"Tournament" on the menu bar, and then "Who's Coming".

If there's a problem with this, you've really got to tell us. If you haven't given us the names of your delegates, do it.

Most importantly, IF YOU'RE NOT SENDING YOUR FULL COMPLEMENT OF DELEGATES, LETUS KNOW RIGHT AWAY!

There are plenty of people out there who'd give their rightarm for a space at the wonderful P&G Careers WUDC, and it wouldn't be fair on them if we had spare capacity and didn't call them in. Just let us know, please.

Kind regards,

John Harvey,

Deputy Convenor,

P&G Careers WUDC,

Hosted by the Literary & Historical Society,

University College Dublin.

Preparing for Worlds 9: Good & Bad

Preparing for Worlds Post 9: Good & Bad things in debating.
This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Good Things
i) Judges love teamwork. Work out a neat way to divide your content between the two of you. Then ensure the first speaker says what the second will do, and the second refers to what the first has said.
ii) Finish memorably - i.e. with a prepared peroration.
iii) Offer as many points of information as you can. Accept only two yourself
iv) Be aware of your position in the debate
v) Picking up contradictions in your opponents’ arguments

Bad things
Some great ways to lose marks are:
i) Reading from a prepared script
ii) Blatant contradictions with a previous speaker or yourself
iii) Use of ludicrously untrue ‘facts’
iv) Incomprehensible delivery
v) Ignore your partner completely
vi) Finish more than thirty seconds late or early
vii) Offer no points of information. Accept none at all, or every one that’s offered.
Judges should not take into account the relative difficulty of a team’s arguments. If the tournament organisers think the legalisation of assault weapons is a good debate then that’s their call - it’s not for judges to start creating a handicap system.

15 December 2005

Melbourne Mini Results

2005 Melbourne Mini Debating Championships

Winners:
University of Sydney (Phillip Senior and Bradley Lancken)

Finalists:
Melbourne/Monash Hybrid (Elizabeth Sheargold and Fiona Prowse)
Monash University (Kylie Lane and Jacob Clifton)
Monash University (Michael Smith and Seamus Coleman)

Final Motion: "THB the Evil Empire should strike back".

Best Speakers (Equal 1st)
Elizabeth Sheargold (Melbourne)
Phillip Senior (Sydney)

Public Speaking Champion: Matthew Kenneally.

Best Novice Speaker: Fiona Prowse (Monash).

MMU Open

MMU Open (Malaysian Pre-Worlds) Results

Winners
MMU 9 (Tate and MacGregor)
Finalists
MMU 1 (Sumi & Kandahar)
G.S.E (Azhan & Azrul)
IIU1 (Irma & Raihan).

Overall Best Speaker :
N.G. from MMU.

The Motions for the tournament were :
Final: THB That Torture is A Neccessary Evil
Semi : THB That Teenagers Do Not Require The Consent of Their Parents To Have Abortions
Rd4 : TTHW Give Drugs to Children With Behavioural Problems
Rd3 : TTHW Free Santa's Elves
Rd2 : TTHW Make Environmental Protection a Pre-Condition to Development Aid
Rd 1 : TTHW Ban Violent Video Games

Results in Excel and PDF formats can also be accessed at the following Yahoogroups sites. Check under the folder titled MMU Open.
- AllAsianDebate Yahoogroups filesection
(
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/allasiandebate/files/)
- Australs Yahoogroups filesection
(
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/australs/files/).

Euros 2006 update

The first newsletter from Euros 2006 which will bring you up to speed on the
latest developments regarding the Euros can now be downloaded at
http://www.euros2006.com/EUDC%20Newsletter%201.pdf

The registration deadline for the reduced fee of 165 Euros ends on January
15th.

Preparing for Worlds 8: Extensions

Preparing for Worlds Post 8: Extensions
This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Tomorrow: Good and bad things in debating


What are extensions?
The job of teams at the bottom of the table, simply put, is to be better than what has gone before, to find something new in the topic which allows them to make an invaluable - a more valuable - contribution to the debate, without being inconsistent with the definition provided by their colleagues.

Extensions are one way for the 2nd government team to distinguish itself from the 1st government team. Look at the government side as a coalition. 1st government is the senior government party and 2nd government as the junior government party, both supporting a particular piece of legislation. They both support the bill but for different yet complimentary reasons and the junior government party must make this difference clear in order to attract the public’s (i.e. the judges) attention and survive.

Extensions aren’t always necessary. The 2nd Government simply need to be better than 1st government. They can do that with or without a full blown extension but extensions are often seen as an easy way to achieve this. A 2nd Government who just repeats 1st government will struggle to win the debate.

Here is Neill Harvey Smith’s excellent review of extensions:
Don'ts
1) Do not add a more convenient definition (We would abolish hunting with hounds AND battery farming)
2) You do not have to say the word "extension" but you may if it pleases you.

Dos
1) You do have to provide new arguments for the proposal:
a) with a broad definition, these are usually additional or narrower arguments (disarming Iraq will also benefit the region)
b) sometimes, after a narrow definition, they are broader arguments (what general principles are at stake in the particular case of Iraqi disarmament?)
c) exceptionally, you can make the same arguments but better and win, looking at the consequences of the proposition in depth and developing a couple of Durham's 9 points from 1st Prop in depth.

2) If 1st Prop does not provide a definition, you can still win. Find a fair and debatable definition that emerges from the top half and argue it well (you cannot simply insert your own definition it has to come from somewhere in the top half), addressing 1st Opp's points. You will be rewarded for thinking on your feet and thanked for producing a debate.

In general, you will score higher for arguing new material well, addressing any new points from 3rd opposition and summarising the entire debate effectively, stressing the importance of your material.

One way of adding an “extension” that is not quite an extension but still differentiates you from 1st Government is to find an argument 1st government said they would make but didn’t. Make a note of the arguments they said they were going to cover and pick the ones they didn’t get around to (don’t rely completely on this as they may well cover all their points)
.

See also the presentations on Preparing for Worlds Post 1.

14 December 2005

Preparing for Worlds 7: Rebuttal

Preparing for Worlds Post 7: Rebuttal
This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Tomorrow: Extensions

Rebuttal

- Must be logical
- Must be relevant
- Must be prompt

Do not rebut the example, attack the very premise of the argument of the other side. Only then contrary examples can be supplemented.

It is advisable to provide multiple rebuttals to each argument of the other side.
Rebuttals should also be in conformity with your case.
Rebut the rebuttals of your case by the other side in order to defend your case.
Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed, they may be misinterpretations and they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves

1. Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case, is their methodology flawed (this will mainly be the case in the debates like example 3 in 5.2.2).
2. Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these.
3. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes, try to refute these.
4. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a piece of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You won’t have time and your aim is to show the other side’s case to be flawed in the key areas, not to be a smarty-pants. It may be useful to think about how you would start rebutting the cases outlined in 5.2.2
.

Oxford win Birmingham IV

Birmingham IV 2005 Winners

Winners:
Oxford C (Tom Shinner and Andy Goodman).

Finalists:
Sydney B (Tim Mooney and Jack Wright)
Goodenough College (Sam Collins and David Whelan)
Oxford A (Jonathan Bailey and Alex Just)

Best Speaker: Tom Shinner (Oxford C).

13 December 2005

Preparing for Worlds 6: Arguments

Preparing for Worlds Post 6: Arguments
This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

- Must be logical
- Must be relevant
- First, identify what you have to prove under the topic.
- Then, identify what helps you to prove it. Put them in the format of an argument or a set of arguments.
- Not everything that you know on the subject is relevant.
- Anticipate the questions that may be raised against your arguments and see if you have good answers to them.
- Block the opportunity for those questions to be raised by addressing them briefly as you explain the argument.
- Present the arguments in order of their strength.
- Avoid empty rhetoric and emotionalism - be rational
.

See also the Presentations in the first Preparing for Worlds post on Worlds Style

Preparing for Worlds 2: Topics

Preparing for Worlds Post 2: Topics for Worlds

Update 13th Dec: I have added some more topics to the list. I'm not going to add any more as time to research is running out. However I still recommend you read through the main topics news.bbc.co.uk daily if possible.

I have received a number of e-mails looking for motions and possible topics for Dublin Worlds. Before I give a list there are a couple of things to be clarified.

- The list is based primarily on topics that have already been debated at IVs in the last couple of months.
- I'm not involved in any way in UCD worlds (I won't even be there for more than a few hours at best). Anything I suggest is only a possibility and not a definitive list. Paul and the rest of the adjudication team could well up with nine topics that aren't suggested here.
- Remember that the basics of worlds debating and the ability to debate on first principles are important to doing well (see earlier post on Worlds Style).
- Different people like different motions. I like motions on current affairs this list reflects that.
- Don’t expect a motion on exclusively Irish issues. WUDC rules stipulate that the motions should reflect the international nature of the tournament.

And so some suggestions of things to research between now and December 27th:


Afghanistan (e.g. failed democracy and drug production)
AIDS prevention (e.g. condoms, drug patents)
Anti social behaviour orders (ASBOs in UK & Ireland)
Assassination of heads of state
Ban hunting (e.g. fox hunting in UK)
Burma (e.g. Aung San Suu Kyi)
CCTV (use of)
Child care (e.g. for working mothers or maternity/paternal leave)
China and Taiwan
Citizen initiated referenda
Citizenship exams
Class action lawsuits (banning them)
Compulsory ID Cards
Condoms in Pornography
Consensual Cannibalism
Cuba (e.g. sanctions against)
Darfue & Sudan
Death penalty (e.g. 1000th execution in US, concept of “redemption”)
Established Journalism vs blogs/podcasts
Egypt (e.g. rise of Islamist political parties)
EU Commission (e.g. lection of)
EU Constitution/Budget
EU working language
EU/US relations (e.g. trade, terror etc)
Euro (e.g. Italy should abandon)
Exploration of Space (e.g. Mars, ISS, China)
Extended alcohol drinking licences (e.g. 24 hour pubs)
Face transplants, ethics of
Fault divorces vs no fault divorces
Freedom of labour movement (e.g. migrant labour in EU)
Free Speech (e.g. Wikipeadia)
Trade Unions (e.g. future of)
Gay rights (marriage, priests etc)
Honour killings
Human genetics (cloning, stem cells etc)
Human Rights and sporting events (e.g. Olympics in China)
Hybrid energy (e.g. hybrid cars)
Illegal Immigration (e.g. Spanish enclaves in Africa)
International Adoption (e.g. Romanian orphans)
International ban on whaling
International Challenge in business (i.e. industry moving from west to east) AKA Outsourcing
International emergency response force (e.g. Tsunami, Earthquake, New Orleans)
International extradition of terrorists (CIA flights to Europe) Also International Rendition
International laws on intellectual property (copyright, patents etc).
Internet music/film Piracy (e.g. BitTorrent etc)
Internet Pornography (e.g. .xxx domain names, child prono)
Internet regulation (ICANN)
Iraq, future of
Judicial independence (e.g. removal of a judge)
Korea (North v South relations)
Lebanon & Syria
Limit Free speech (e.g. Holocaust denial/incitement of terror)
Limits to self defence (e.g. shoot burglars)
Mandatory minimum sentences
Maritime Law (e.g. flags of convince)
Martial Law (e.g. French Riots)
Medical "fashion" (e.g. Bird Flu vaccine)
National/individual carbon quotas
Nuclear Power (e.g. environmental benefits)
Nuclear proliferation/disarmament (e.g. Iran)
Obesity in Children
Outing gay public figures
Parental consent for medial treatment of under 16s (including seeking an Abortion, obesity, MMR)
Parental responsibility for crimes of children
Performance enhancing drugs (e.g. sport)
Pensions (e.g make them compulsory)
Palestine

Pre-emptive military action (e.g. Israel v Iran)
Privacy of the Catholic confessional
Prostitution

Public vs Private education
Public-Private partnerships in infrastructural development
Religious dress in school/work (e.g. Hijab in France)
Religious education (e.g. what should be taught in state funded schools)
Religious law Vs National Law (e.g. canon law)
Respect for national sovereignty (e.g. in war on terror)
Respecting Ethnic Diversity (Muslims in France, travellers in Ireland, race riots in Sydney)
Retirement Age (raising it)
Rights of minority to homeland (Sri-Lanka, Basque, Kurds etc)
Russian economy
Salary cap in sport
Shoot to kill policy in war on terror (e.g. tube in London)
Social partnership
Social welfare vouchers
State funding for charity
State funding for sports
Tax incentives for artists
Telephone records (e.g. state monitoring private calls)
Term limits for politicians (e.g. Tony Blair, Robert Mugabe)
Testing on Animals (e.g. at Oxford)
Torture (e.g. use of in war on terror)
Traffic problems (e.g. Congestion charges, toll roads, mandatory car pooling etc)
Treatment of addicts (e.g. cold turkey or access to further treatment e.g. George Best's liver transplant)
Truth & reconciliation commissions
Try Saddam Hussein in private
Turkish entry to EU (including Cyprus issue)
UN (e.g. reform of)
Uganda Elections
War Crimes Tribunals (e.g. Croatian general)
Women's rights (e.g. in the Church, workplace, education etc)
Women in politics (e.g. Germany Chile)
WTO Negotiations (e.g. Agricultural subsidies)
Zimbabwe (democracy, constitution, elections)

12 December 2005

Preparing for Worlds 5: Roles

Preparing for Worlds Post 5: Roles in a debate

This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Tomorrow: Arguments

Prime Minister (Opening Speaker);
· Defines the topic.
· Outlines his/her team’s case
· Develops positive matter in support of his/her case

Defining the motion
Be as tough on your opponents as possible, without ever being unfair. The test is: can you think of a way to oppose your definition of the motion? If you can’t, it’s an unfair definition.
i) Define onto home ground - so you are as comfortable as possible with the material.

ii) The proposition should avoid the status quo - proposing that Britain should not introduce capital punishment, for example, is deeply uninteresting. A proposition doing so is effectively shifting the burden of definition onto the opposition, who - in the previous example - would have to say under what circumstances capital punishment should be introduced.

iii) If any words in the motion are uncertain, define carefully how they fit into the debate. Bear in mind that you are merely defining the scope of debate - you cannot redefine the words themselves. For example, in a debate about feminism, it is unacceptable for the proposition to try to fix the definition of ‘feminism’ - this is clearly a matter of debate and not something that can be settled via definition.

iv) If you are worried about particular examples or arguments, see if you can exclude them from your definition. For example, a debate about the success (or not) of feminism could be fixed to feminism in the 90s.

It is the duty of the “Prime Minister” to define the topic of the debate BUT it must be clearly linked to the Motion. In some cases the motion will be worded in such a way as to permit a wide variety of Definitions (e.g. “This house believes that the Glass is half full”, Worlds 98.) Others will be tighter motions, which allow little flexibility for Definition (e.g. “This house believes that Northern Nationalists have nothing to fear from a United Kingdom” Irish Times 96). As 1st Government you should look for a twist to the motion. For example “This house would rebuild the Berlin Wall” (Worlds 96) is often defined as repartitioning of Germany and a return to Communism. This is, in my experience, a very difficult line to win from. Two more “successful” definitions which I have seen run are that the Berlin Wall represented a division between East and west and that (a) the EU should not allow Eastern Bloc countries membership until they have fulfilled certain Social and Economic Criteria. Or (b) that Nato should not expand membership eastward.


When Defining make sure that you have an argument. You have to propose something. Saying that something is wrong and this is how it should be is not enough. You must say that something is wrong and THIS is what you are going to do about it. “What you are going to do” is the debatable part of the definition.

Example “This house favours Positive Discrimination”. Poor Defn: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and they shouldn’t be in the future therefore we’ll use something called Positive Discrimination. Better Definition: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and to correct that we are going to take actions X, Y, and Z under the umbrella name of Positive Discrimination. You must then fully outline what actions X, Y, and Z are and how they will work.
The first speaker should take perhaps three quarters of the content. The second will then be largely free to rebut the opposition case.

Opposition Leader;
· Clarifies any definitional problems
· Rebuts the Prime Minister’s arguments
· Outlines his team’s case
· Develops positive matter in support of his case
Generally, the proposition’s definition must always be accepted. The following are generally accepted as being exceptions:


i) No definition offered
ii) Definition is a ‘squirrel’- ludicrously at odds with the wording of the motion
iii) Truistic or platitudinous definition
In these cases, the first opposition speaker only may reject the definition and supply his own. All subsequent opposition speakers must follow his lead.

During the first proposition speech, the first opposition team should allocate their case between them. A good first speaker should lay down the framework for the entire opposition case. It’s often useful for the first of the two to set out the general ideological opposition case, and the second to deal with specifics.

It is your role to set out the opposition to the Governments case. You have only 7min (or less) to come up with your opposition case but provided that the Government have presented a debatable case you will be expected to handle the limited time for preparation. Outline and develop your case. Then deal with the points made by the government and link back the reason for them being flawed to whatever your team’s central case is. Remember the role of last Opp is to rebut all four Government speakers in his/her 7 min and sum up the entire opposition case.

You have only seen one speaker so you can’t make a “Last Opp Speech” Look at it in terms of proportions. You’ve only seen a quarter of the Government therefore at most a quarter of your speech should be rebuttal. The rest should involve outlining a “substantive” opposition case.
It is also your duty to decide if the case is debatable. If it isn’t (and be very, very certain that it isn’t) then you must submit an alternative definition. You cannot simply say “That’s a Truistic/self proving” argument, spend seven minutes outlining why and sit down. If you do that then you will have failed to do your duty as 1st opposition. If you have the ability to spot a truistic argument then you should have the ability to redefine, or at least to modify the Governments case to make it debatable. If in the slightest doubt DO NOT re-define

Deputy Prime Minister;
· Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
· Develops positive matter in support of her case

You must further develop your team’s argument. Rebut what the first opposition speaker has said but don’t spend all your time rebutting. Your team’s case can’t have been fully outlined and developed so to spend 7 min attacking one opposition speaker is no win tactic.

You must back up your team-mate. If he/she has been torn apart then don’t jump ship. “CLARIFY” what your team-mate said. Don’t abandon your case because you realise that it is flawed. Judges will look out for that and will penalise a “Dump” severely. You will gain more marks for bailing your team-mate out than for jumping ship and engaging the opposition on their ground leaving your team-mate behind.

Deputy Opposition Leader;
· Rebuts the arguments of the Government
· Develops positive matter in support of his case

As with the second government speaker you must back up your teammate. Don’t abandon your case because you realise that it is flawed. Fix it but don’t get an entirely new one. A good guideline is that you should spend double the amount of time rebutting that your teammate and therefore the rest of your speech is reserved for YOUR team’s case.

Remember that your team’s case should be set up in such a way that it in itself rebuts the government case. Therefore simply by developing it you are rebutting the government. If you remember this it should help you avoid the trap that a lot of Opp speakers fall into of 100% point-by-point rebuttal. There is a misconception that the opposition just have to oppose and don’t have to lend any constructive argument or matter to the debate. People will get away with this from time to time but the recent trend in adjudication is to frown on that. It is an easy way out and doesn’t really lend anything to the debate. Constructive opposition always looks better than mere opposition for opposition’s sake. This applies in debating as well as most things in life.

Member for the Government (3rd Gov Speaker);
· Outlines her team’s case, including their new lines of argument
· Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
· Develops positive matter in support of her case

You are the first speaker in the second half of the debate. Now you have options to consider
If there has been a redefinition, and IF it was a valid redefinition then you must decide if you are going to follow the Government line or switch to the definition which the Opposition as offered and take them on at that. Be careful. It is also possible to take a combination of both but you will have to be careful not to tangle your argument up in trying to tie the two definitions together.

If the Government presented a case, which was debatable but weak and has been thorn apart you cannot simply stab them in the back. You may however bring in an “extension” this allows you to bring in a new point of view while still roughly following the Government line. Again just, as with 1st government, you must present a debatable definition.

Your role is to develop your team line. As with all government speakers you cannot spend all you 7 min rebutting the opposition. Outline and fully develop YOUR team line, showing how it links to AND backs up the original government case. As you develop your case use it to rebut the opposition. Also remember that a sizable amount of your teammate’s speech will involve summing up the entire Government case and rebutting the opposition. He/She will have little time to further develop your team’s case so you must do a good job on your team line. You are almost in an individual debate against 3rd Opp speaker and your argument must be fully developed or he/she will destroy you, and there will be no come back from your teammate. If your teammate has to spend all his/her time bailing you out then you have failed and have dragged him/her down with you.

Member for the Opposition (3rd Opposition Speaker);
· Outlines his team’s case, including their new lines of argument
· Rebuts the arguments of the Government
· Develops positive matter in support of his case


In my experience this is a difficult position in terms of strategy. You can’t give a 100% rebuttal speech and you also are limited in that your teammate will not be in a position to spend a lot of time developing your case (see Opposition Whip’s role). It is up to you to set out AND fully develop your team’s case. Remember you have to provide matter of your teams argument in such a way that it stands out from the other teams. You should concentrate on the third Government speaker in your rebuttal. You must rebut what the 1st Gov team said but it is primarily your duty to take on the extension provided by the 2nd Gov team. If first opposition have done their job then the time you spend rebutting the 1st Gov team will in effect be going over what they have done and impinging on your teammate’s role.

Government Whip; (last Gov speaker)
· Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
· Maydevelop positive matter in support of her case
· Summarises her team’s case and the debate as a whole

Both Whips will be penalised if you do not Sum up your side and rebut the opposition. You can develop your team line a little but the vast majority of your time must be spent summing up the ENTIRE government case and rebutting the Opposition arguments. Remember as well that the 3rd opposition speaker has probably spent a sizable amount of time attacking your teammate so you should spend some time on your team line and counteracting the attack on it. In short you must do 3 distinct things: (1) Sum up your team line. (2) Sum up the first Government’s arguments (3) Rebut the Opposition. Remember that while you cannot stab the 1st government in the back you should really reinforce your team line and then sum up the rest of the Government argument.

Opposition Whip. (Last speaker of the debate)
· Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
· Maydevelop positive matter in support of her case
· Summarises her team’s case and the debate as a whole

Rebut, Rebut, Rebut, Rebut, oh and sum up. You are in pole position. You have had almost an hour to develop your speech and this is a huge advantage. You should not bring new information into the debate but remember that by new information we mean new core arguments and examples. In your rebuttal you may bring in new examples, which relate directly to the points you are rebutting but you cannot make them the central plank on which your entire argument is based. A lot of last Opp speakers will deal with the Government speakers almost one at a time and this generally works quite well and lends a structure to your speech.

A lot of last Opp speakers make the mistake of just rebutting and not summing up. Ideally you should use a summary of what has been said by the opposition up to now as your rebuttal. However you should also try to have a clearly defined period of summation. Don’t get carried away with your rebuttal and leave your sum up for the last 30 seconds. Remember that there are a lot of inexperienced judges out there who may not recognise that you have mixed summation and rebuttal in your speech and will, unfairly, penalise you for only spending a few seconds on sum up. Ideally aim to start your sum up of the Opp case with about 1.5 to 2 minutes left. You can use your last protected minute to sum up the entire debate and not just your speech, it may go against the textbook structure of a speech but it is accepted practice
.

11 December 2005

Preparing for Worlds 4: POI

Preparing for Worlds: Post 4 Points of Information

This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Tomorrow: Roles in a debate

Receiving
Don't be afraid of Points of Info. They are an attempt to attack you but they are also an opportunity for you to deflect the attack back.

When to accept points
- Accept two or three in a seven minute speech. Never accept more or less than this.
- Don’t keep accepting points from the same speaker, particularly if they’re strong. On the other hand, don’t ‘cut out’ and ignore speakers you are worried about - it’s normally quite transparent when people do this.
- Obviously, if you think you’re on flimsy ground with an argument, then don’t accept any points until you’re back to safer territory.
- If your opponents are sitting quietly and you’ve got an argument for which you’re sure they can’t answer, a neat tactic is to say ‘And I’ll take a point of information from them now if they can explain why......’. Whether they choose to sit tight, evade or attempt to answer you should have the better of it. A bonus to this is that it safely ‘uses up’ one of the two points you’re obliged to take. It’s particularly useful in summations, where you can press for answers to points that have been ignored by all the previous opposing speakers.


Answering the point
- Don’t ignore a point. It won’t go away by itself. Lines like ‘I will get to that later’ irritate judges, even if they are true. ‘I have already dealt with that’ is similarly unsatisfactory. By all means say you have made, or will make the point - but at least summarise it in a short response.
- Don’t get distracted by a point. Spend a few lines responding, and revert to your structure.
- Ideally you will have a proper response to the point. Should words fail you, be prepared to fall back on a standard dodge such as:
i) Witty put downs. My most memorable and effective witty put downs come to me two days later in the shower. Some less scrupulous debaters come to competitions armed with lists of pre-prepared spontaneous quips.
ii) If confronted with an uncomfortable fact/statistic, damn its source (or the lack of one).
iii) Answer another (easier) point that’s close enough to the question for no-one to notice.
iv) Agree with the point, and say it either makes your argument or is completely irrelevant.
v) Be patronising (‘We’ve made this point half a dozen times by now. Let me make it slower and in words of fewer syllables.’) and hope you think of an answer before you get to the end of your spiel.


Giving
- Keep the flow of points of information constant - although always be careful not to descend into intimidation (‘badgering’).
- Never let a point become a speech - if it can’t be put into two short sentences, it’s not a point of information. Plan what you’re going to say, and hone it down to the shortest and most succinct form possible. That said, don’t gabble - pause for a couple of seconds to get everyone’s attention and then make the point slower than you would a normal speech. A controlled delivery will also help to break up a speaker’s momentum.
- Work with your partner - never compete against each other to make different points. As either of you thinks of a point, write it down so you have an agreed list of points you will both make. Don’t waste the few chances you will get. Resist the temptation to prioritise a spontaneous rebuttal (satisfying but better in a speech) above one of your pre-planned points.
- If you’ve got a superb argument that will be the centrepiece of your speech, never ‘flag’ it in a point of information. You may well lessen the impact of the point when you come to make it - and run the risk of giving your opponents advance warning of what you’re going to say.
- Carefully note down responses to your points. Often a speaker will say something unplanned that will contradict or hinder their case.


There are probably four types of points of information:

i) Genuine points - i.e. responses to a point the speaker makes. The general rule should be not to make points like this: the speaker has the last word, so your best result may be a stalemate. Rebuttals are best kept in speeches. Only make rebuttal points of information if you have a reply you think is unanswerable to a central point of your opponent’s speech.

ii) Repetition of points from your (previous) speech that the speaker is ignoring/misunderstanding. Be especially quick if you think you are being misrepresented - here it’s particularly effective if your partner corrects the speaker (as in ‘My partner never said X... his point was Y’.).

iii) Pre-prepared points and statistics you have designed in advance to throw a speaker.

iv) Killer facts (see below).

Killer facts
Much in fashion amongst spin-doctors, a killer fact or argument is one to which there is no rebuttal. In some debates, there may be points from either side that simply have no answer. If you can identify one, then use it in your speech and keep on pressing it - in as many different ways as you can.

The classic use is for the first speaker in a team to make the point, and challenge the opposition to answer it. The second speaker then slams the opposition for not answering it. Throughout each subsequent opposition speech, they are then regaled by points of information along the lines of ‘But you have still not said how...’.

Some common killer arguments are ‘no alternative’ where a team defends their proposed solution by demanding an alternative from the opposition (e.g. Northern Ireland, welfare reform) or ‘causal link’ where a proposition is repeatedly challenged to provide a causal link when it’s clear that the link is unprovable (e.g. movie violence and crime, pornography and violence, monetarism and growth).

Other link: http://www.debating.net/flynn/poi.htm