One thing you are bound to notice is the different speaking styles used by speakers. Speaking style is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of debating to attempt to "teach". You will have to develop your own style and preferably one that comes naturally to you. However there are a couple of things to be kept in mind.
1. You must speak clearly and loudly enough so that your voice can be heard by everyone. Remember the adjudicators will sit towards the rear of the hall so at the very least they must be able to hear what you are saying if you are to have any chance of winning. However you shouldn't shout as the halls have generally been designed so that your voice will carry towards the back.
2. Try to avoid monotone. If you are making an important point use your voice to stress it and make it stand out. Try to slowly increase the stress and force behind your voice as you go through your speech. Build up to a high point and make this the crucial point of your speech. However don't bring the audience on a rollercoaster ride. Don't start high, fall down, build-up and fall down again, it looks as though you are only convinced about the truth of half your speech
3. Keep eye-contact with the audience and don't stare at the podium. It gets easier to do this after some experience and once you use fewer notes. Some people like to pick out individuals in the audience and look at them. Others just speak to the audience as a whole. However you do it make sure to scan the audience and move your gaze to different parts of the hall regularly.
4. Use your body language to back up your speech. If you stand rigidly and don't move then you will find it very difficult to have any real conviction in your voice. Use your arms and facial expressions to convey your emotions and back up your speech. However don't go overboard, you want the audience's attention to be focused on your speech not your arms. Try not to have anything in your hands. Some people like to carry a pen and end up waving it about like a baton which can distract the adjudicators. If you really need something use index cards.
5. You don't have to stand strictly behind the podium. Move around a bit and face different sections of the audience at different times. Apparently studies have shown that people tend to prefer to be able to see the whole person as this is supposed to indicate that you aren't hiding anything. However, once again, don't go overboard. It annoys people (and more importantly adjudicators) if you walk too far from the podium. Try not to go more than 1-2 meters away from the podium. One way to ensure this is to leave your notes on the podium, you'll find yourself reluctant to move too far from them.
6. Don't be too complicated. If your argument is too elaborate people may have difficulty following it. Don't use 15 syllable Latin words when a 2 syllable English word will do. Remember you are trying to convince the audience that your argument is the best and not that you consider your talent wasted on them (even if it is).
7. Use humour to help win over the audience and make your speech stand out. If you have a natural talent for comedy or impersonations etc. then use it. If you don't then don't worry about it, even the most serious of us can be funny at times (often even without meaning it). You can work out a few put downs and one-liners in advance but be careful. If a joke sounds too prepared than it may bomb. Try to make it sound spontaneous and it's more likely to be successful.
8. The best thing to do is watch other speakers and see how they combine the various elements. Experiment with different styles and try to find one that you are comfortable with. However the only real way to develop a good style is to try to speak on a regular basis and listen to the advice of adjudicators and the more experienced debaters.
World Public Speaking Championships Rules
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Pubic Speaking Tips
Research
Research is vital and cannot be avoided if you want to make a winning speech. Some people say that only a small portion of your research should appear in your speech and the majority will come into play later. I have yet to see the "later". This may be in the form of points of information but that is assuming that you can predict what information you will need to contradict what the speaker says. If you have information don't keep it to yourself, USE IT.
Look for facts and examples more so than statistics. While statistics can very handy for filling up a few minutes, they are also boring. Your information should back up your argument and be memorable. If you find a little known fact that will surprise the audience and catch their attention use it strategically. Place it at a crucial stage of your speech in a way that everything falls in together and the audience becomes convinced of the truth of what you are saying. Remember that your argument is the most important part of your speech and your research should back it up, not the other way round.
Sources:
There are invaluable sources of information all around and you will very rarely come across a motion which you can find absolutely no information if you look hard enough.
Internet:
Type any subject into the Internet and you are likely to get back 100 sites with useful information and "Greater than 250,000" of utter rubbish. However there are a couple of good places to start. On the main page of this site you will find links to a couple of research webpages which give pros and cons about many topics. They are Debatabase.com and Youdebate.com
Library:
Although you may complain about your library it is still an invaluable source of information. Look around the sections which relate to your motion and flick through a few books that look relevant. A good source of historical information are the "Chronicle" style, black bound, journals in the history section of a good college library. These are updated monthly. If you don't know where to go for information take the keywords from the motion and type them into a nearby terminal. It should give you the book references you need.
Books:
Yes there are books available which give Pros and Cons of vatious topics. They should be used with caution and not a complete replacement for your own arguments and research but they are a good start point and particularly useful in the first 2-3 min of your 15 min prep at Worlds style events. Not surprisingly the best of these books is called Pros and Cons
Journals Rooms:
This is easily the best source of information on any campus. If you have a motion dealing with a topical political, cultural, or scientific subject then the first thing you should do is look through the back issues of Time and Newsweek. These contain a huge amount of information and not only on current affairs. If you've never read them it is well worth spending a short time flicking through them so that you get a feel for the sort of information they carry and where to find it if you need it later. If you want more information then there is bound to be some information about it in other more specialised journals but it may be harder to find. You could also look up the past issues of newspapers on microfilm but you really would want to know exactly what you are looking for.
T.V. & Radio:
While it is unlikely that TV will oblige you by broadcasting a program dealing with the subject behind your motion while you are preparing for it you can still use them for information. If you know that there is a documentary, special report or debate on a topical issue why not watch, or listen to, it. You don't have to go out of your way or sit there taking notes like a lecture but if you have nothing better to do you might be surprised how much of it you will remember if it comes up later.
Brainstorming:
This involves a group of people getting together to discuss a motion and come up with ideas. The group meets in a room and trash out the various issues involved from a definition and line to examples and the other sides possible strategy. One member writes down all the ideas and this is best done on a blackboard so a tutorial room is sometimes used. However these can also become side-tracked (one I was at lasted over three hours and only twenty minutes were spent discussing the motion). If used effectively they should work well and we may start doing them on a more regular and organised basis. Even if you don't want to hold a brainstorming session don't be afraid to ask other debaters for ideas, most will be glad to help and may even have debated the motion before. NOTE this is now banned at Worlds so you must have your brainstorming of possible topics done before Worlds.
Look for facts and examples more so than statistics. While statistics can very handy for filling up a few minutes, they are also boring. Your information should back up your argument and be memorable. If you find a little known fact that will surprise the audience and catch their attention use it strategically. Place it at a crucial stage of your speech in a way that everything falls in together and the audience becomes convinced of the truth of what you are saying. Remember that your argument is the most important part of your speech and your research should back it up, not the other way round.
Sources:
There are invaluable sources of information all around and you will very rarely come across a motion which you can find absolutely no information if you look hard enough.
Internet:
Type any subject into the Internet and you are likely to get back 100 sites with useful information and "Greater than 250,000" of utter rubbish. However there are a couple of good places to start. On the main page of this site you will find links to a couple of research webpages which give pros and cons about many topics. They are Debatabase.com and Youdebate.com
Library:
Although you may complain about your library it is still an invaluable source of information. Look around the sections which relate to your motion and flick through a few books that look relevant. A good source of historical information are the "Chronicle" style, black bound, journals in the history section of a good college library. These are updated monthly. If you don't know where to go for information take the keywords from the motion and type them into a nearby terminal. It should give you the book references you need.
Books:
Yes there are books available which give Pros and Cons of vatious topics. They should be used with caution and not a complete replacement for your own arguments and research but they are a good start point and particularly useful in the first 2-3 min of your 15 min prep at Worlds style events. Not surprisingly the best of these books is called Pros and Cons
Journals Rooms:
This is easily the best source of information on any campus. If you have a motion dealing with a topical political, cultural, or scientific subject then the first thing you should do is look through the back issues of Time and Newsweek. These contain a huge amount of information and not only on current affairs. If you've never read them it is well worth spending a short time flicking through them so that you get a feel for the sort of information they carry and where to find it if you need it later. If you want more information then there is bound to be some information about it in other more specialised journals but it may be harder to find. You could also look up the past issues of newspapers on microfilm but you really would want to know exactly what you are looking for.
T.V. & Radio:
While it is unlikely that TV will oblige you by broadcasting a program dealing with the subject behind your motion while you are preparing for it you can still use them for information. If you know that there is a documentary, special report or debate on a topical issue why not watch, or listen to, it. You don't have to go out of your way or sit there taking notes like a lecture but if you have nothing better to do you might be surprised how much of it you will remember if it comes up later.
Brainstorming:
This involves a group of people getting together to discuss a motion and come up with ideas. The group meets in a room and trash out the various issues involved from a definition and line to examples and the other sides possible strategy. One member writes down all the ideas and this is best done on a blackboard so a tutorial room is sometimes used. However these can also become side-tracked (one I was at lasted over three hours and only twenty minutes were spent discussing the motion). If used effectively they should work well and we may start doing them on a more regular and organised basis. Even if you don't want to hold a brainstorming session don't be afraid to ask other debaters for ideas, most will be glad to help and may even have debated the motion before. NOTE this is now banned at Worlds so you must have your brainstorming of possible topics done before Worlds.
Debate Formats and Speaking order
There are number of debate formats, allowing a different approach to debated subject and involving a different number of participants. The two most popular formats include a Karl Popper debate format And Parliamentary debate format (, American and British) others includes; Policy debate format, Lincoln Douglas debate format, The ‘Town Hall’ Format, A ‘Quick Debate’ Format, A Three-Way Debate and A Running format as well as the Nigerian format. In chosen a format, - Your format should promote the orderly development of argument. – Should include equal and alternating speaking time.- Should provide the first opportunity for the side supporting the proposition.- Your format should include variety . The first one involves two teams of three speakers each, while the second – two teams of two speakers (the British Parliamentary format has four teams of two speakers).
SAMPLES OF DIFFERENT DEBATE FORMATS
1. The Policy Format (team debate with two sides)
Currently associated in the U.S. with high school and collegiate policy debate, this format has the advantage of strict equality: every speaker gets exactly the same amount of speaking and questioning time as any other. On the other hand, at least if used with the
tournament time limits listed below, this format can make for a fairly long debate – as much as two hours if the standard allotment of preparation time is used.
9 min. First Affirmative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of first affirmative speaker (by second negative speaker)
9 min. First Negative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of first negative speaker (by first affirmative speaker)
9 min. Second Affirmative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of second affirmative speaker (by first negative speaker)
9 min. Second Negative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of second negative speaker (by second affirmative speaker)
6 min. First Negative Rebuttal
6 min. First Affirmative Rebuttal
6 min. Second Negative Rebuttal
6 min. Second Affirmative Rebuttal
Each speaker delivers a constructive as well as a rebuttal speech, e.g., the first speaker from the affirmative side delivers both the first affirmative constructive as well as the first affirmative rebuttal. The basic case for the proposition is laid out in the first affirmative constructive, and a case against the proposition, combined with a refutation of the affirmative’s case, is provided in the first negative constructive. The following two speeches develop and extend those arguments and continue the refutation of the other side. Questions follow each constructive speech and you’ll notice that the person doing the questioning is never the person who has to speak next; thus, the questioning time can also be used as last-minute preparation time for the upcoming speaker.
2. The Karl Popper Format (team debate with two sides)
Designed for members of the International Debate Education Association, this format is predominantly used in secondary school programs in Eastern and Central Europe and Central Asia. A simple design, this format accommodates three speakers per side and
provides just one speaking opportunity for each speaker (although four of the six speakers also conduct questioning). As such, its strengths are that it includes a greater number of speakers and provides a gentle introduction to debate for less-experienced speakers. (You’ll notice that the responsibilities are somewhat uneven: the first speakers on each team have a total of 12 minutes on stage; the second and third speakers on each
team has 8 minutes apiece.)
The Karl Popper Debate format focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Each team is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing team. Judges then offer constructive feedback, commenting on logical flaws, insufficient evidence, or arguments that debaters may have overlooked.
Karl Popper debate should: • focus on the core elements of controversial issues • emphasize tolerance for multiple points of view • emphasize the development of analytical thinking skills • instill in participants an appreciation for the value of teamwork • provide students with the opportunity to debate many kinds of resolutions
I. Karl Popper Rules The following rules, which define the goals and procedures of Karl Popper Debate, are intended to ensure that participants enter into the debate sharing a common set of expectations. Judges may not impose additional rules on debaters. The judge's decision in a debate round is final. Violations of these rules may merit (at the judges discretion) a reduction in points, or a loss in a given round. In the case of serious rule violations, a judge should consult with the Tournament Director before imposing sanctions on the debaters. The Tournament Director, or a committee designated by the Tournament Director, may impose penalties including reprimands and, in extreme cases, the removal of a debater or judge from the tournament. Penalties may affect future rounds, but cannot reverse judges decisions. Cases of intellectual dishonesty are the sole exception: in these cases, a Tournament Director may reverse a decision, provided that the reversal takes place prior to the scheduled start of the next round. Tournament Directors (with the approval of the IDEA Accreditation Committee) are permitted to make minor changes to these rules. To gain the committees approval, the changes must be submitted at least one month prior to the beginning of the tournament. The Accreditation Committee will then approve or reject the changes, and inform the Tournament Director of its decision. A. Resolution and Preparation 1. In Karl Popper Debate, many kinds of resolutions are appropriate. Resolutions should target the core elements of a controversial issue, and be carefully worded to provide fair ground for debate. 2. The duty of researching falls primarily to the debaters, not to their teachers and coaches. 3. In order to allow for adequate research and preparation time, students will be notified of the resolution in advance; ideally, the topic should be disclosed one month prior to a tournament. B. Interpretation of the Resolution 1. The affirmative team has the responsibility to define and interpret the resolution. The affirmative should interpret the topic as it would reasonably be interpreted in the public sphere. The affirmative need not necessarily provide a literal interpretation of the resolution; rather, the objective of the affirmative team is to make an adequate case for its interpretation of the resolution. To this end, the team must introduce one or more arguments in support of the resolution as they have interpreted it, and sustain that case throughout the debate. 2. The negative team argues against the affirmative position. The negative team may counter the affirmative team's interpretation of the resolution if they believe it is not reasonable. The negative team may challenge any aspect of the affirmative team's case, and may offer a case of its own. For example, it may challenge the interpretation of the resolution, the factual and analytical foundations of the case, or the underlying assumptions of the affirmative's claims.
C. Rules During Karl Popper Debate
1.No research is permitted.
Topic research must be completed prior to the beginning of a debate. Once the debate begins, the participants may not conduct research via the Internet, nor through electronic or other means. 2. No outside assistance is permitted. No outside person(s) may conduct research during the debate and provide information directly or indirectly to the debaters. Debaters, however, are allowed to consult whatever research materials they have brought with them to the debate. 3. Debaters should be able to provide sources for direct citations. When debaters refer to any public information, they should be prepared to provide, upon request, complete source documentation to the opposing team and to the judge. A team's documentation of cited material must be complete enough for the opposing team and the judge to locate the information on their own. Ordinarily, such documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and date of a publication (and a page number, if available), or the URL of a Web site. 4. Debaters should practice intellectual honesty. Students should cite arguments and statistics truthfully, and never fabricate sources or data. 5. Debate should be approached as a team activity. Each debate team is composed of three individuals who will speak in the roles they announce at the start of the debate. Debaters may change their role in the debate from round to round. The following is a breakdown of the Karl Popper debate format
6 min. First Affirmative (Constructive)
3 min. Questioning of first affirmative (by third negative)
6 min. First Negative (Constructive)
3 min. Questioning of first negative (by third affirmative)
5 min. Second Affirmative (Rebuttal)
3 min. Questioning of second affirmative (by the first negative)
5 min. Second Negative (Rebuttal)
3 min. Questioning of second negative (by the first affirmative)
5 min. Third Affirmative (Rebuttal)
5 min. Third Negative (Rebuttal)
Each debate also includes sixteen minutes of preparation time (eight minutes for each team). This time is not scheduled in any particular place in the speaking order, but is instead taken at the discretion of each team, in whatever amounts the team desires, prior to a cross examination or an upcoming speech. II. Each speech and each questioning period has a specific purpose. 1. Affirmative Constructive (1A) In this speech, the affirmative team is expected to offer its complete argument in favor of the resolution. Although later affirmative speakers may repeat points and expand on them later in the debate, the first affirmative speaker must present the entirety of his or her teams’ case, including whatever criteria or definitions the team views as instrumental. 2. First Negative Cross-Examination The two debaters are expected to face the audience (as opposed to each other). The negative debater is expected to ask questions rather than make speeches. The affirmative debater is expected to answer these questions; he or she should not make speeches or ask questions in return. The affirmative debater may make concessions during this cross-examination, but it is incumbent upon the negative team to capitalize on these concessions in the speech that immediately follows. Team members should not assist their teammates by offering suggestions or by answering questions on their behalf. During the cross-examination period, only the examiner may ask questions and only the speaker may answer them. No spoken communication between either the examiner, or the speaker and his or her teammates, is allowed.
3.Negative Constructive (1N) Like the affirmative team in its constructive, the negative team is expected to offer a complete argument against the affirmatives position. The affirmatives definition, if not challenged at this point, should stand. Similarly, if the negative does not offer competing criteria, it is assumed that the criteria articulated by the affirmative team will govern the round. Finally, the negative team must challenge the affirmative's arguments; otherwise, it will be assumed that these arguments are acceptable. 4. First Affirmative Cross-Examination The rules of procedure for the "First Negative Cross-Examination" also apply here. 5. First Affirmative Rebuttal (2A) The affirmative speaker has two tasks in this speech. First, he or she must outline their refutations of the negative arguments. Second, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the negative team (that is, the negative's objections to the affirmative case). If the affirmative speaker does not refute a given point in the negative case, then the point stands; if the affirmative speaker does not respond to a particular negative objection, then the objection is conceded. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented. 6. Second Negative Cross-Examination The rules of procedure outlined above, under "First Negative Cross-Examination" also apply here. 7. First Negative Rebuttal (2N) As with the affirmative rebuttal described above, the negative speaker has a dual task: first, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the affirmative, and second, he or she should continue to attack the affirmative case. At this point in the debate, the negative speaker may start to draw the judge's attention to points that have been dropped. That is, he or she will indicate items to which affirmative has not responded. Such a dropped point is treated as a concession made by the affirmative team. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented. 8. Second Affirmative Cross-Examination The rules of procedure outlined above, under "First Negative Cross-Examination," also apply here. 9. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (3A) The task of the affirmative speaker in this speech is reactive. He or she should renew refutations that have not been addressed adequately. Usually, this means pointing out flaws in the negative rebuttal. At this point, most good debaters will deliberately let some points drop and will focus the judge's attention on the key issues in the round. The speaker may or may not instruct the judge; that is, the speaker may or may not articulate a standard of judgment for the round. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented. 10. Second Negative Rebuttal (3N) In essence, the second negative rebuttal is similar to the second affirmative rebuttal. Judges should be especially wary of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the affirmative team has no chance to respond, so a new argument is especially unfair. The judge should ignore any new arguments that are introduced. III. The Role of the Judge For guidelines in judging any speech or debate event, please refer to Judge Accreditation Process and Standards. A. Prior to accepting a Karl Popper judging assignment, a judge must agree to: 1. conduct the debate on the basis of these standards 2. enforce all rules that fall within the judge's province 3. not add, enforce, or base a decision on any rules not included in these standards B. In Karl Popper Debate, the judge should consult with tournament administrators in order to be aware of tournament rules regarding oral critiques and the disclosure of decisions. C. Under no circumstances can the judge change his or her decision or points based on any discussions with the teams involved. D. Judges decision should be based on the content of the debate. The content of the debate includes the substantive arguments presented in a debate along with the supporting evidence used to support them. As long as the speakers communicate their ideas clearly, it does not matter if they used sheets of paper instead of note cards, or if they read parts of the speeches. Naturally, the style of speaking affects the ability to persuade. However, though it is more persuasive if speakers do not read their speeches, they should not be marked down heavily unless it impinges on the speakers ability to convey their arguments clearly and persuasively to the audience. Structure is generally more important than communication style, as it determines whether the speakers presented clear arguments. A good question for judges to ask themselves is: At the end of the debate, was the audience left with a clear impression of the team's arguments. D. Judges should make their decision on which team won or lost the debate based on the performance of the team as a whole. Some tournament directors may permit judges to award wins to teams that receive lower total speaker points
One challenge of this format is to maintain continuity between the speeches. The third speaker needs to defend the same arguments that were extended by the second speaker and introduced by the first speaker. This need for continuity is present in other formats as well, but when speakers make only one speech each, there is a correspondingly greater need to communicate among the partners. The first speech from the affirmative side has the goal of laying out the team’s main arguments. The first negative speaker follows, developing not only that team’s case but also their refutation of the affirmative’s arguments. The two speeches that follow are designed for extending the arguments and the refutation of each side, but not for introducing new arguments. A final speech from each side provides an opportunity to compare and summarize.
Worlds/Europeans/British Parliamentary:
(1.) 1st opening proposition.
(2.) 1st opening opposition.
(3.) 2nd opening proposition.
(4.) 2nd opening opposition.
(5.) 1st closing proposition.
(6.) 1st closing opposition.
(7.) 2nd closing proposition.
(8.) 2nd closing opposition.
Irish Times:
(1.) 1st speaker from opening prop.
(2.) 1st speaker from opening opp.
(3.) 1st speaker from 2nd prop team.
(4.) 1st speaker from 2nd opp team.
(5.) 2nd speaker from opening prop.
(6.) 2nd speaker from opening opp.
(7.) 2nd speaker from 2nd prop.
(8.) 2nd speaker from 2nd opp.
If there is a mixture of teams and individuals (e.g. in Times final) the Individual speakers are inserted in the middle of the debate i.e. after the first speaker for the last team and before the last speaker for the for the first team.
(1.) 1st speaker from opening prop.
(2.) 1st speaker from opening opp.
(3.) 1st speaker from 2nd prop.
(4.) 1st speaker from 2nd opp.
(5.) 1st proposing individual.
(6.) 1st opposing individual
(7.) 2nd proposing individual.
(8.) 2nd opposing individual.
(9.) 2nd speaker from opening prop.
and so on.
Naturally the actual order depends on the number of teams/individuals debating.
SAMPLES OF DIFFERENT DEBATE FORMATS
1. The Policy Format (team debate with two sides)
Currently associated in the U.S. with high school and collegiate policy debate, this format has the advantage of strict equality: every speaker gets exactly the same amount of speaking and questioning time as any other. On the other hand, at least if used with the
tournament time limits listed below, this format can make for a fairly long debate – as much as two hours if the standard allotment of preparation time is used.
9 min. First Affirmative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of first affirmative speaker (by second negative speaker)
9 min. First Negative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of first negative speaker (by first affirmative speaker)
9 min. Second Affirmative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of second affirmative speaker (by first negative speaker)
9 min. Second Negative Constructive
3 min. Questioning of second negative speaker (by second affirmative speaker)
6 min. First Negative Rebuttal
6 min. First Affirmative Rebuttal
6 min. Second Negative Rebuttal
6 min. Second Affirmative Rebuttal
Each speaker delivers a constructive as well as a rebuttal speech, e.g., the first speaker from the affirmative side delivers both the first affirmative constructive as well as the first affirmative rebuttal. The basic case for the proposition is laid out in the first affirmative constructive, and a case against the proposition, combined with a refutation of the affirmative’s case, is provided in the first negative constructive. The following two speeches develop and extend those arguments and continue the refutation of the other side. Questions follow each constructive speech and you’ll notice that the person doing the questioning is never the person who has to speak next; thus, the questioning time can also be used as last-minute preparation time for the upcoming speaker.
2. The Karl Popper Format (team debate with two sides)
Designed for members of the International Debate Education Association, this format is predominantly used in secondary school programs in Eastern and Central Europe and Central Asia. A simple design, this format accommodates three speakers per side and
provides just one speaking opportunity for each speaker (although four of the six speakers also conduct questioning). As such, its strengths are that it includes a greater number of speakers and provides a gentle introduction to debate for less-experienced speakers. (You’ll notice that the responsibilities are somewhat uneven: the first speakers on each team have a total of 12 minutes on stage; the second and third speakers on each
team has 8 minutes apiece.)
The Karl Popper Debate format focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Each team is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing team. Judges then offer constructive feedback, commenting on logical flaws, insufficient evidence, or arguments that debaters may have overlooked.
Karl Popper debate should: • focus on the core elements of controversial issues • emphasize tolerance for multiple points of view • emphasize the development of analytical thinking skills • instill in participants an appreciation for the value of teamwork • provide students with the opportunity to debate many kinds of resolutions
I. Karl Popper Rules The following rules, which define the goals and procedures of Karl Popper Debate, are intended to ensure that participants enter into the debate sharing a common set of expectations. Judges may not impose additional rules on debaters. The judge's decision in a debate round is final. Violations of these rules may merit (at the judges discretion) a reduction in points, or a loss in a given round. In the case of serious rule violations, a judge should consult with the Tournament Director before imposing sanctions on the debaters. The Tournament Director, or a committee designated by the Tournament Director, may impose penalties including reprimands and, in extreme cases, the removal of a debater or judge from the tournament. Penalties may affect future rounds, but cannot reverse judges decisions. Cases of intellectual dishonesty are the sole exception: in these cases, a Tournament Director may reverse a decision, provided that the reversal takes place prior to the scheduled start of the next round. Tournament Directors (with the approval of the IDEA Accreditation Committee) are permitted to make minor changes to these rules. To gain the committees approval, the changes must be submitted at least one month prior to the beginning of the tournament. The Accreditation Committee will then approve or reject the changes, and inform the Tournament Director of its decision. A. Resolution and Preparation 1. In Karl Popper Debate, many kinds of resolutions are appropriate. Resolutions should target the core elements of a controversial issue, and be carefully worded to provide fair ground for debate. 2. The duty of researching falls primarily to the debaters, not to their teachers and coaches. 3. In order to allow for adequate research and preparation time, students will be notified of the resolution in advance; ideally, the topic should be disclosed one month prior to a tournament. B. Interpretation of the Resolution 1. The affirmative team has the responsibility to define and interpret the resolution. The affirmative should interpret the topic as it would reasonably be interpreted in the public sphere. The affirmative need not necessarily provide a literal interpretation of the resolution; rather, the objective of the affirmative team is to make an adequate case for its interpretation of the resolution. To this end, the team must introduce one or more arguments in support of the resolution as they have interpreted it, and sustain that case throughout the debate. 2. The negative team argues against the affirmative position. The negative team may counter the affirmative team's interpretation of the resolution if they believe it is not reasonable. The negative team may challenge any aspect of the affirmative team's case, and may offer a case of its own. For example, it may challenge the interpretation of the resolution, the factual and analytical foundations of the case, or the underlying assumptions of the affirmative's claims.
C. Rules During Karl Popper Debate
1.No research is permitted.
Topic research must be completed prior to the beginning of a debate. Once the debate begins, the participants may not conduct research via the Internet, nor through electronic or other means. 2. No outside assistance is permitted. No outside person(s) may conduct research during the debate and provide information directly or indirectly to the debaters. Debaters, however, are allowed to consult whatever research materials they have brought with them to the debate. 3. Debaters should be able to provide sources for direct citations. When debaters refer to any public information, they should be prepared to provide, upon request, complete source documentation to the opposing team and to the judge. A team's documentation of cited material must be complete enough for the opposing team and the judge to locate the information on their own. Ordinarily, such documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and date of a publication (and a page number, if available), or the URL of a Web site. 4. Debaters should practice intellectual honesty. Students should cite arguments and statistics truthfully, and never fabricate sources or data. 5. Debate should be approached as a team activity. Each debate team is composed of three individuals who will speak in the roles they announce at the start of the debate. Debaters may change their role in the debate from round to round. The following is a breakdown of the Karl Popper debate format
6 min. First Affirmative (Constructive)
3 min. Questioning of first affirmative (by third negative)
6 min. First Negative (Constructive)
3 min. Questioning of first negative (by third affirmative)
5 min. Second Affirmative (Rebuttal)
3 min. Questioning of second affirmative (by the first negative)
5 min. Second Negative (Rebuttal)
3 min. Questioning of second negative (by the first affirmative)
5 min. Third Affirmative (Rebuttal)
5 min. Third Negative (Rebuttal)
Each debate also includes sixteen minutes of preparation time (eight minutes for each team). This time is not scheduled in any particular place in the speaking order, but is instead taken at the discretion of each team, in whatever amounts the team desires, prior to a cross examination or an upcoming speech. II. Each speech and each questioning period has a specific purpose. 1. Affirmative Constructive (1A) In this speech, the affirmative team is expected to offer its complete argument in favor of the resolution. Although later affirmative speakers may repeat points and expand on them later in the debate, the first affirmative speaker must present the entirety of his or her teams’ case, including whatever criteria or definitions the team views as instrumental. 2. First Negative Cross-Examination The two debaters are expected to face the audience (as opposed to each other). The negative debater is expected to ask questions rather than make speeches. The affirmative debater is expected to answer these questions; he or she should not make speeches or ask questions in return. The affirmative debater may make concessions during this cross-examination, but it is incumbent upon the negative team to capitalize on these concessions in the speech that immediately follows. Team members should not assist their teammates by offering suggestions or by answering questions on their behalf. During the cross-examination period, only the examiner may ask questions and only the speaker may answer them. No spoken communication between either the examiner, or the speaker and his or her teammates, is allowed.
3.Negative Constructive (1N) Like the affirmative team in its constructive, the negative team is expected to offer a complete argument against the affirmatives position. The affirmatives definition, if not challenged at this point, should stand. Similarly, if the negative does not offer competing criteria, it is assumed that the criteria articulated by the affirmative team will govern the round. Finally, the negative team must challenge the affirmative's arguments; otherwise, it will be assumed that these arguments are acceptable. 4. First Affirmative Cross-Examination The rules of procedure for the "First Negative Cross-Examination" also apply here. 5. First Affirmative Rebuttal (2A) The affirmative speaker has two tasks in this speech. First, he or she must outline their refutations of the negative arguments. Second, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the negative team (that is, the negative's objections to the affirmative case). If the affirmative speaker does not refute a given point in the negative case, then the point stands; if the affirmative speaker does not respond to a particular negative objection, then the objection is conceded. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented. 6. Second Negative Cross-Examination The rules of procedure outlined above, under "First Negative Cross-Examination" also apply here. 7. First Negative Rebuttal (2N) As with the affirmative rebuttal described above, the negative speaker has a dual task: first, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the affirmative, and second, he or she should continue to attack the affirmative case. At this point in the debate, the negative speaker may start to draw the judge's attention to points that have been dropped. That is, he or she will indicate items to which affirmative has not responded. Such a dropped point is treated as a concession made by the affirmative team. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented. 8. Second Affirmative Cross-Examination The rules of procedure outlined above, under "First Negative Cross-Examination," also apply here. 9. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (3A) The task of the affirmative speaker in this speech is reactive. He or she should renew refutations that have not been addressed adequately. Usually, this means pointing out flaws in the negative rebuttal. At this point, most good debaters will deliberately let some points drop and will focus the judge's attention on the key issues in the round. The speaker may or may not instruct the judge; that is, the speaker may or may not articulate a standard of judgment for the round. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented. 10. Second Negative Rebuttal (3N) In essence, the second negative rebuttal is similar to the second affirmative rebuttal. Judges should be especially wary of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the affirmative team has no chance to respond, so a new argument is especially unfair. The judge should ignore any new arguments that are introduced. III. The Role of the Judge For guidelines in judging any speech or debate event, please refer to Judge Accreditation Process and Standards. A. Prior to accepting a Karl Popper judging assignment, a judge must agree to: 1. conduct the debate on the basis of these standards 2. enforce all rules that fall within the judge's province 3. not add, enforce, or base a decision on any rules not included in these standards B. In Karl Popper Debate, the judge should consult with tournament administrators in order to be aware of tournament rules regarding oral critiques and the disclosure of decisions. C. Under no circumstances can the judge change his or her decision or points based on any discussions with the teams involved. D. Judges decision should be based on the content of the debate. The content of the debate includes the substantive arguments presented in a debate along with the supporting evidence used to support them. As long as the speakers communicate their ideas clearly, it does not matter if they used sheets of paper instead of note cards, or if they read parts of the speeches. Naturally, the style of speaking affects the ability to persuade. However, though it is more persuasive if speakers do not read their speeches, they should not be marked down heavily unless it impinges on the speakers ability to convey their arguments clearly and persuasively to the audience. Structure is generally more important than communication style, as it determines whether the speakers presented clear arguments. A good question for judges to ask themselves is: At the end of the debate, was the audience left with a clear impression of the team's arguments. D. Judges should make their decision on which team won or lost the debate based on the performance of the team as a whole. Some tournament directors may permit judges to award wins to teams that receive lower total speaker points
One challenge of this format is to maintain continuity between the speeches. The third speaker needs to defend the same arguments that were extended by the second speaker and introduced by the first speaker. This need for continuity is present in other formats as well, but when speakers make only one speech each, there is a correspondingly greater need to communicate among the partners. The first speech from the affirmative side has the goal of laying out the team’s main arguments. The first negative speaker follows, developing not only that team’s case but also their refutation of the affirmative’s arguments. The two speeches that follow are designed for extending the arguments and the refutation of each side, but not for introducing new arguments. A final speech from each side provides an opportunity to compare and summarize.
Worlds/Europeans/British Parliamentary:
(1.) 1st opening proposition.
(2.) 1st opening opposition.
(3.) 2nd opening proposition.
(4.) 2nd opening opposition.
(5.) 1st closing proposition.
(6.) 1st closing opposition.
(7.) 2nd closing proposition.
(8.) 2nd closing opposition.
Irish Times:
(1.) 1st speaker from opening prop.
(2.) 1st speaker from opening opp.
(3.) 1st speaker from 2nd prop team.
(4.) 1st speaker from 2nd opp team.
(5.) 2nd speaker from opening prop.
(6.) 2nd speaker from opening opp.
(7.) 2nd speaker from 2nd prop.
(8.) 2nd speaker from 2nd opp.
If there is a mixture of teams and individuals (e.g. in Times final) the Individual speakers are inserted in the middle of the debate i.e. after the first speaker for the last team and before the last speaker for the for the first team.
(1.) 1st speaker from opening prop.
(2.) 1st speaker from opening opp.
(3.) 1st speaker from 2nd prop.
(4.) 1st speaker from 2nd opp.
(5.) 1st proposing individual.
(6.) 1st opposing individual
(7.) 2nd proposing individual.
(8.) 2nd opposing individual.
(9.) 2nd speaker from opening prop.
and so on.
Naturally the actual order depends on the number of teams/individuals debating.
Online- Debating Tutorial
The aim of this page is to give you an idea of how to debate. It's not just a simple case of standing up and saying the first thing that comes into your head. There are certain rules and guidelines which have to be adhered to if you want to have any chance in a competitive debate. This is not the page with all the answers. It is only a rough set of guidelines to help get you started. Everyone should try to find their own strengths and failings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Speeches should be SEVEN minutes in duration. Speakers exceeding this may be penalised but should never be substantially less than this. In general you should speak for at least 6:45 and generally no more than 7:20-7:30. Ideally stay on your feet until you hear the 7th min bell and then finish (i.e. Mr. Speaker sir, I beg to........) and be in your seat by 7:15. Your times will be recorded by the timekeeper and given to the adjudicators as they leave to make their decision.
2. In general most debates are in English. The main competitions are all in English but occasionally there are other Language debates usually in conjunction with some other event/soc. Debating in Europe, Asia etc tends to be in the local language. At Worlds there is an English as a second language competition
3. A bell will be rung after the expiration of one minute and six minutes. The bell will be rung again at seven minutes and at regular intervals after that.
4. If the chair of the debate is the head of the host society he/she usually has a title e.g. Speaker, Auditor, etc. Most often the proper form of address is Mr Speaker/Madame Speaker. You must also acknowledge the adjudicators, if there are any. Some speakers will also acknowledge other members of the house, it is basically just a matter of personal preference as to how you begin your speech after acknowledging the chair and adjudicators. (e.g. "Mr Speaker, Madame Secretary, Adjudicators, Ladies & Gentlemen........................).
5. Points of information may only be offered after the expiration of one minute and may not be given after the expiration of six minutes. Points of information may only be given to opposing speakers and should generally be not more than 15 seconds in duration. The chairman may request a speaker to end a point of information at his/her discretion. Adjudicators also frown upon barracking (constantly interrupting the speaker by offering points) and the chair is expected to control this. Acceptance of points of information is at discretion of the competitor holding the floor. In competitive debates only the competitors may offer points of information however in non-competitive debates points will often be accepted from the audience. Once you have accepted a point of information you can't just ignore it and carry on. You must deal with it or risk the adjudicator's wrath.
6. In most societies Maiden speakers (i.e. speakers making a speech for the first time) have the protection of the chair. Other speakers may not offer them points of information unless they choose not to accept the protection of the chair. Even if they reject the protection of the chair most experienced speakers will not offer them a point unless they run into difficulty and it can help them. If you are good enough (or misfortunate enough depending on how you look at it) to be making your maiden speech in an intervarsity (rare but it has been known to happen) you do not have any special protection.
7. Points of order concerning the procedure of the debate must be addressed to the chair. These can be brought at any time and take priority over all other speeches. However these are only used in exceptional circumstances when the rules and standing orders are being abused and the speaker making the point must be certain that the point of order is appropriate. In British Parliamentary there is no such thing as Points of Personal Privilege (which are used in the US/Canada). At Worlds/Europeans it is made clear to the competitors in briefing that ONLY points of Information may be offered. Repeated attempts to offer any other sort of Point can be heavily penalised by the adjudicators.
8. Speakers must observe parliamentary language i.e. bad language is not permitted.
9. The use of Props is not permitted in a debate.
10. No amendment to the motion is permitted. You must debate the motion as presented and interpret it as best you can. You cannot define a motion in a Place/Time Specific sense (i.e. you cannot set the debate in Dublin 1916 and therefore attempt to limit the scope of the debate and information which the other teams can use)
11. The "house", which will often be referred to, is basically the chairperson competitors audience etc.
12. The speakers are evenly divided on both sides of the motion. Speakers for the motion are the "Proposition" or "Government", speakers against are the "Opposition".
13. The opening Prop speaker (sometimes called "Prime Minister") has to define or interpret the motion. If this definition is unreasonable or irrelevant then the opening opposition speaker may challenge the definition. But if the definition is relevant but just doesn't suit the opening opp. speaker attempting to redefine may not go down well with the adjudicators. If a definition is given and all the other speakers or teams completely ignore it then the defining speaker is effectively out of the debate. Definitions must also be fair and debatable "Truistic" or Self Proving arguments are not accepted. (e.g. The sea is full of water is pretty hard to reasonably argue against)For full guidelines as to who can redefine and when please refer to the Rules of British Parliamentary (e.g. the Sydney 2000 Rules).
14. The last speaker on each side is expected to sum up his/her side's argument and rebutt or refute the arguments of the other side. Generally this speaker will not add a great deal of new information to the debate.
15. Rebuttal is vital in any competitive speech. Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. The later you come in a debate the more rebuttal you must use. Rebuttal basically involves ripping the opposing side's argument apart and exposing its weak points. However don't forget to make your own argument and ideally use that to rebutt. It is important to also point out that unlike the style of debating in some countries you do not have to defeat every one of the opponents points (but of course all the Key ones must be knocked down). If the Government makes 19 points and you only manage to hammer 17 in the time allowed then you will win and any attempt by the Government to point out that 2 of their arguments are left standing is basically grasping at straws.
16. Be careful to avoid leaving statements hanging in mid-air. If you say something important back it up. Just because you know something is true and where it came from that doesn't mean the audience/adjudicators know where it came from and why it's true. To a certain degree the safest bet is to assume that the audience know little or nothing about the subject.
17. Specialised Knowledge should not be used to unfairly define a motion. If you are a Legal, Scientific, Management, Computer etc student then you must remember that others in the debate may be "experts" in another field of study. Unfair definitions would include things like why the case of Smith versus Jones is more important to company law than Ryan versus Kelly. (These are just examples I have no idea if these cases even exist).
18. Just because you may not be competing this does not mean that you can take no part in the debate. All debates are usually opened up to the floor after the last speaker and once the adjudicators have retired. Often there is a prize for the best speaker here, but time allowed is usually no more than 3 min. to allow as many people take part as possible.
19. Heckling is also common in some debates. This involves members of the audience offering some good-humoured abuse to the competitors. However there is a fine line between heckling and barracking and members of the audience should remember to respect the speaker. Heckling can be scary at first but you will soon get used to it.
20. Private Members Time, PMT, is a period of time at the start of each debate where members may bring up a motion or issue that they wish to see debated. Speeches here are limited to 3 min. This is often a part of the debate, which is not only used to raise issues but also where many speakers show off their wit and humour.
21. Remember you do not necessarily have to believe the side of the motion you are on. You just have to make it appear as though you strongly believe in it for 7 min. In competitive debates you will have very little choice as to which side of a motion you get.
22. No matter how bad you think your speech is try to stay up for the full seven minutes. If the audience is giving you a hard time just remember that they probably want you to walk off so don't give them the pleasure. If the chair doesn't control the audience ask him/her to and put him on the spot with the adjudicators. Of course you have to be able to handle a reasonable amount of heckling.
23. You don't have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well. If you can remember an example, or fact which you researched, to back up your argument use it. However if you get stuck and can’t remember the exact details of the fact you want to use don’t worry about it. If the underlying details of the report, research etc are correct then the chances are you will not be challenged and the point will be made. If an opposing member corrects you and gives you the correct name of the report, researcher, institute etc then they are an idiot for backing up your case.
23. You don't have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well. If you can remember an example, or fact which you researched, to back up your argument use it. However if you get stuck and think that a fact, figure or example is needed and you don't have one, try making one up. It can be risky if you get caught by a member of the opposing side who actually knows what they are talking about (it can be painful, believe me) but it can be very effective if you get away with it. This is not, however, a replacement for good research, only a fall back if you're in trouble.
24. If you can use humour it can be extremely effective in a debate. You can ridicule and destroy an opponent's whole speech with a one-line joke attacking it. But don't go over the top, while humour helps, adjudicators may not be impressed by stand up routine with little substance. Although humour can be an advantage don't worry if you can't crack a joke to save your life (or speech). You'll be surprised at the number of speakers who have to really struggle to include humour in a speech while others do it
with ease
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Speeches should be SEVEN minutes in duration. Speakers exceeding this may be penalised but should never be substantially less than this. In general you should speak for at least 6:45 and generally no more than 7:20-7:30. Ideally stay on your feet until you hear the 7th min bell and then finish (i.e. Mr. Speaker sir, I beg to........) and be in your seat by 7:15. Your times will be recorded by the timekeeper and given to the adjudicators as they leave to make their decision.
2. In general most debates are in English. The main competitions are all in English but occasionally there are other Language debates usually in conjunction with some other event/soc. Debating in Europe, Asia etc tends to be in the local language. At Worlds there is an English as a second language competition
3. A bell will be rung after the expiration of one minute and six minutes. The bell will be rung again at seven minutes and at regular intervals after that.
4. If the chair of the debate is the head of the host society he/she usually has a title e.g. Speaker, Auditor, etc. Most often the proper form of address is Mr Speaker/Madame Speaker. You must also acknowledge the adjudicators, if there are any. Some speakers will also acknowledge other members of the house, it is basically just a matter of personal preference as to how you begin your speech after acknowledging the chair and adjudicators. (e.g. "Mr Speaker, Madame Secretary, Adjudicators, Ladies & Gentlemen........................).
5. Points of information may only be offered after the expiration of one minute and may not be given after the expiration of six minutes. Points of information may only be given to opposing speakers and should generally be not more than 15 seconds in duration. The chairman may request a speaker to end a point of information at his/her discretion. Adjudicators also frown upon barracking (constantly interrupting the speaker by offering points) and the chair is expected to control this. Acceptance of points of information is at discretion of the competitor holding the floor. In competitive debates only the competitors may offer points of information however in non-competitive debates points will often be accepted from the audience. Once you have accepted a point of information you can't just ignore it and carry on. You must deal with it or risk the adjudicator's wrath.
6. In most societies Maiden speakers (i.e. speakers making a speech for the first time) have the protection of the chair. Other speakers may not offer them points of information unless they choose not to accept the protection of the chair. Even if they reject the protection of the chair most experienced speakers will not offer them a point unless they run into difficulty and it can help them. If you are good enough (or misfortunate enough depending on how you look at it) to be making your maiden speech in an intervarsity (rare but it has been known to happen) you do not have any special protection.
7. Points of order concerning the procedure of the debate must be addressed to the chair. These can be brought at any time and take priority over all other speeches. However these are only used in exceptional circumstances when the rules and standing orders are being abused and the speaker making the point must be certain that the point of order is appropriate. In British Parliamentary there is no such thing as Points of Personal Privilege (which are used in the US/Canada). At Worlds/Europeans it is made clear to the competitors in briefing that ONLY points of Information may be offered. Repeated attempts to offer any other sort of Point can be heavily penalised by the adjudicators.
8. Speakers must observe parliamentary language i.e. bad language is not permitted.
9. The use of Props is not permitted in a debate.
10. No amendment to the motion is permitted. You must debate the motion as presented and interpret it as best you can. You cannot define a motion in a Place/Time Specific sense (i.e. you cannot set the debate in Dublin 1916 and therefore attempt to limit the scope of the debate and information which the other teams can use)
11. The "house", which will often be referred to, is basically the chairperson competitors audience etc.
12. The speakers are evenly divided on both sides of the motion. Speakers for the motion are the "Proposition" or "Government", speakers against are the "Opposition".
13. The opening Prop speaker (sometimes called "Prime Minister") has to define or interpret the motion. If this definition is unreasonable or irrelevant then the opening opposition speaker may challenge the definition. But if the definition is relevant but just doesn't suit the opening opp. speaker attempting to redefine may not go down well with the adjudicators. If a definition is given and all the other speakers or teams completely ignore it then the defining speaker is effectively out of the debate. Definitions must also be fair and debatable "Truistic" or Self Proving arguments are not accepted. (e.g. The sea is full of water is pretty hard to reasonably argue against)For full guidelines as to who can redefine and when please refer to the Rules of British Parliamentary (e.g. the Sydney 2000 Rules).
14. The last speaker on each side is expected to sum up his/her side's argument and rebutt or refute the arguments of the other side. Generally this speaker will not add a great deal of new information to the debate.
15. Rebuttal is vital in any competitive speech. Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. The later you come in a debate the more rebuttal you must use. Rebuttal basically involves ripping the opposing side's argument apart and exposing its weak points. However don't forget to make your own argument and ideally use that to rebutt. It is important to also point out that unlike the style of debating in some countries you do not have to defeat every one of the opponents points (but of course all the Key ones must be knocked down). If the Government makes 19 points and you only manage to hammer 17 in the time allowed then you will win and any attempt by the Government to point out that 2 of their arguments are left standing is basically grasping at straws.
16. Be careful to avoid leaving statements hanging in mid-air. If you say something important back it up. Just because you know something is true and where it came from that doesn't mean the audience/adjudicators know where it came from and why it's true. To a certain degree the safest bet is to assume that the audience know little or nothing about the subject.
17. Specialised Knowledge should not be used to unfairly define a motion. If you are a Legal, Scientific, Management, Computer etc student then you must remember that others in the debate may be "experts" in another field of study. Unfair definitions would include things like why the case of Smith versus Jones is more important to company law than Ryan versus Kelly. (These are just examples I have no idea if these cases even exist).
18. Just because you may not be competing this does not mean that you can take no part in the debate. All debates are usually opened up to the floor after the last speaker and once the adjudicators have retired. Often there is a prize for the best speaker here, but time allowed is usually no more than 3 min. to allow as many people take part as possible.
19. Heckling is also common in some debates. This involves members of the audience offering some good-humoured abuse to the competitors. However there is a fine line between heckling and barracking and members of the audience should remember to respect the speaker. Heckling can be scary at first but you will soon get used to it.
20. Private Members Time, PMT, is a period of time at the start of each debate where members may bring up a motion or issue that they wish to see debated. Speeches here are limited to 3 min. This is often a part of the debate, which is not only used to raise issues but also where many speakers show off their wit and humour.
21. Remember you do not necessarily have to believe the side of the motion you are on. You just have to make it appear as though you strongly believe in it for 7 min. In competitive debates you will have very little choice as to which side of a motion you get.
22. No matter how bad you think your speech is try to stay up for the full seven minutes. If the audience is giving you a hard time just remember that they probably want you to walk off so don't give them the pleasure. If the chair doesn't control the audience ask him/her to and put him on the spot with the adjudicators. Of course you have to be able to handle a reasonable amount of heckling.
23. You don't have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well. If you can remember an example, or fact which you researched, to back up your argument use it. However if you get stuck and can’t remember the exact details of the fact you want to use don’t worry about it. If the underlying details of the report, research etc are correct then the chances are you will not be challenged and the point will be made. If an opposing member corrects you and gives you the correct name of the report, researcher, institute etc then they are an idiot for backing up your case.
23. You don't have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well. If you can remember an example, or fact which you researched, to back up your argument use it. However if you get stuck and think that a fact, figure or example is needed and you don't have one, try making one up. It can be risky if you get caught by a member of the opposing side who actually knows what they are talking about (it can be painful, believe me) but it can be very effective if you get away with it. This is not, however, a replacement for good research, only a fall back if you're in trouble.
24. If you can use humour it can be extremely effective in a debate. You can ridicule and destroy an opponent's whole speech with a one-line joke attacking it. But don't go over the top, while humour helps, adjudicators may not be impressed by stand up routine with little substance. Although humour can be an advantage don't worry if you can't crack a joke to save your life (or speech). You'll be surprised at the number of speakers who have to really struggle to include humour in a speech while others do it
with ease
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Two Weeks League
Students watching thier team in debate during debate championship
REPORT FOR TWO WEEKS DEBATE LEAGUE ORGANIZED BY DEBATE AND DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE CENTRE NIGERIA
6th-21st November 2007
The debate league started with one week orientation session for all the teachers and students from the participating schools. DEDERC trainers led by the Coordinator; Jerry Nwigwe, Franklin Ubi and Patrick Dodeye provided the participants with information on Karl Popper formats and role of speakers, Debate rules, Judging debates and other debate techniques and methodologies. This training was necessitated because so many schools don’t have debate clubs or they are not strong enough to participate in the tournament. Mock debates were later used to assess the readiness of the teachers and students to participate in the 2 weeks long exercise. The debate commenced with the preliminaries of which 16 schools were organized into groups of four each. And the topic for the first round was ‘Resolved that term limits for political office holders should be included in the Nigerian Constitution’. The winners and best runner –up progressed to the next round of eight. After the Second round draw was made, there were great excitement in the process because some strong debating schools were grouped against each other and they were set for battle royal; meaning one school will definitely go at the end of the day. Some schools like Hillcrest High School that had never lost debate contest in Cross River State were grouped with another powerful school; Unical International Secondary School. The debated on the topic Resolved that Immunity clause should be allowed in Nigeria constitution. All these topics tends to address local issues that is been debated by the general public looking at that moment. The winners of this knock out stage later went into another round, and this time on global debate topics/ issues. The first topics were on the best effective way to combat terrorism and also on global warming. On declaring the event open; the Coordinator of Debate And Development Resource Center Nigeria, Mr. Jerry Nwigwe welcomed all the participating schools and urged them to use this great opportunity to learn and interact with other students in a good atmosphere of debate. He later gave some insights on the benefits of debate to students, communities and the nation.
Following the debates there were several floor speeches when the motion was put to the floor;; the students’ audiences were allowed to discuss the topic and also to vote for the side that has done the best job. The students displayed an overwhelming enthusiasm for more events to be hosted in their school and also promised to carry on with the efforts to develop debating in their school. They also requested for education/ cultural exchange between Nigeria students and other students from all around the world.
The Finals of this debate has been shifted to next February, 2008 when the schools will resume. There was an imposition of one month vacation to students by Cross River State Government from 1st of December.
The Objectives for organizing this public debate are as follows:
· To strengthen debates in schools and public life
· To increase issue awareness on the minds of the youths
· To identify and prepare Nigerian representatives in International debate tournaments
· To strengthen existing teachers debate networks so as to recruit more teachers/members
· To introduce debates in schools that doesn’t have debate clubs
· To participate in the global debate on climatic changes
6th-21st November 2007
The debate league started with one week orientation session for all the teachers and students from the participating schools. DEDERC trainers led by the Coordinator; Jerry Nwigwe, Franklin Ubi and Patrick Dodeye provided the participants with information on Karl Popper formats and role of speakers, Debate rules, Judging debates and other debate techniques and methodologies. This training was necessitated because so many schools don’t have debate clubs or they are not strong enough to participate in the tournament. Mock debates were later used to assess the readiness of the teachers and students to participate in the 2 weeks long exercise. The debate commenced with the preliminaries of which 16 schools were organized into groups of four each. And the topic for the first round was ‘Resolved that term limits for political office holders should be included in the Nigerian Constitution’. The winners and best runner –up progressed to the next round of eight. After the Second round draw was made, there were great excitement in the process because some strong debating schools were grouped against each other and they were set for battle royal; meaning one school will definitely go at the end of the day. Some schools like Hillcrest High School that had never lost debate contest in Cross River State were grouped with another powerful school; Unical International Secondary School. The debated on the topic Resolved that Immunity clause should be allowed in Nigeria constitution. All these topics tends to address local issues that is been debated by the general public looking at that moment. The winners of this knock out stage later went into another round, and this time on global debate topics/ issues. The first topics were on the best effective way to combat terrorism and also on global warming. On declaring the event open; the Coordinator of Debate And Development Resource Center Nigeria, Mr. Jerry Nwigwe welcomed all the participating schools and urged them to use this great opportunity to learn and interact with other students in a good atmosphere of debate. He later gave some insights on the benefits of debate to students, communities and the nation.
Following the debates there were several floor speeches when the motion was put to the floor;; the students’ audiences were allowed to discuss the topic and also to vote for the side that has done the best job. The students displayed an overwhelming enthusiasm for more events to be hosted in their school and also promised to carry on with the efforts to develop debating in their school. They also requested for education/ cultural exchange between Nigeria students and other students from all around the world.
The Finals of this debate has been shifted to next February, 2008 when the schools will resume. There was an imposition of one month vacation to students by Cross River State Government from 1st of December.
The Objectives for organizing this public debate are as follows:
· To strengthen debates in schools and public life
· To increase issue awareness on the minds of the youths
· To identify and prepare Nigerian representatives in International debate tournaments
· To strengthen existing teachers debate networks so as to recruit more teachers/members
· To introduce debates in schools that doesn’t have debate clubs
· To participate in the global debate on climatic changes
2nd International Debate Workshop in Nigeria
The Debate And Development Resource Centre- Nigeria, which coordinates Nigeria Debate Movement, a network of debate clubs across Nigeria in collaboration with International Debate Education Association organized the 2ndedition of international debate workshop in Calabar- Nigeria from May 29th - 1st June 2006.
The event started with the arrival of the participant from several states of Nigeria on the 28th May, 2006
DAY 1:
On the 29th
May 2006 the training commenced with arrivals and registration of delegates, which was facilitated by a volunteer with DEDERC, Mr. Kunle Odeyemi. Followed closely was welcome address by the host organization. Mr. Jerry Nwigwe; the coordinator of DEDERC. He welcome all the participants to the workshop, he explained that the workshop was a follow up of the 1stworkshop, which was held in Lagos in May 2005. Speaking further he said DEDERC is a youth led not -for- profit voluntary association that operates through its Project Nigeria Debate Movement to allow student to participate in an education based activities that promotes communication, interpersonal and leadership skills through active engagement in discussion and participation in community development.
Speaking further, he introduced some of his partners present: Mr. Ayi Ita Ayi the Special Assistant to the Governor on Job Creation and Mr. Marcin Zaleski the facilitator of the workshop as well as the representative from IDEA The next address presented was by Ayi Ita Ayi, who explained that he has been following the activities of the organization with interest. He commended the organizers for their wonderful initiative and for the timely focus on Debating now that the standard of education is falling. He explained that the introduction of debates into schools would help increase the quality of graduates which the university system would produce because debating would help enhance the confidence of the students and this would in turn enhance their thinking and behavior and at the end there would be a better citizenry. Speaking further, he admonished the organizers to partner with secondary school board and the commissioner of Education in other that the initiative would be a sustainable one.
After his Address, Mr. Marcin Zaleski, the IDEA Director of Training talked on the history and mission of IDEA. He also discussed further the programs of IDEA.Marcin Zaleski later introduced the course and proposed the agenda followed by a discussion of the expectations of the participants.
The trainees were then introduced with a film on American parliamentary debate. After the film, the participants were asked to comment on their observation.. The facilitator later explained that the format is used by University student
in America and the student are only informed about the topic 15 minutes before a debate tournament. He went further to reveal the importance of the format, which enables students to move from shyness to boldness and the ability to think on their feet. He explained that the student exhibited skills, intelligence, critical thinking, analytical skills and public speaking.
The next session explored all the debate components, types of resolution, debate formats and roles of speakers. He said that resolution also known, as motion is a statement that reasonable people can argue and can disagree. Marcin Zaleski gave an illustrated PowerPoint introduction on types of resolution, which includes; Resolution of fact, Resolution of values, and resolution of policies. The facilitator also illustrated the components of Debate.
During the feedback session participants and trainers reviewed all the components. The participants were meant to understand the difference between rebuttal and rebuttal. The facilitator answered more questions that were asked by the participants.
After the lunch break, the facilitator introduced the next session, which were Debate formats and Affirmative strategies. He explained the elements that make up a format, which includes number of speakers, time per speaker, order of speaking, cross examination, intervals and preparation time. He explained that equal timing for affirmative and negative is used in developing a format to create a point for balance. He also introduced kinds of formats which includes Karl Popper, British parliamentary, and American parliamentary. He said that Karl popper formats is designed for secondary school student which is made up with two teams and six speakers,. He went further to highlight all the elements of Karl Popper. Mr. Marcin further explained that the strategies for the affirmative depends on the resolution, thus in dealing with different types of resolution, the following must be done; define terms of resolutions, set parameter for debate, present 3-4 argument in support of the resolution. He also went further to explain how to present a plan if it is a policy topic, and the strategies includes;
Present the status quo
Identify the problem
Outline the impact of the problem
Outline the impact of the problem
Introduce the policy designed to solve the problem
Provide some justification for implementation
Explain the benefit of success.
The participants were later divided into five groups to develop cases following affirmative strategies on the topic
’The Nigeria federal government would put an end to Niger Delta crises. Each group was asked to reconvene the next day for the review / presentation of their various task.
DAY 2
The session commenced the 2ndday with a continuation of the group work exercise. Participants were asked to brainstorm on possible negative strategies, which the negative side could use to attack the affirmative side. The responses rose where;
Validate the status quo.
Deal with every single argument.
Strike a balance.
Look out for a deficiency in the affirmative plan.
Address the case.
Use counter plan and criticize.
At 11am there was a tea break session, when participants reconvened at 11:15am .The facilitator elaborated on the strategies mentioned. He explained the need for participants to address a narrow issue, he also revealed that the choice of the issue or the problem is called significance .He unraveled that the strategies could become stalls which could be used in real life situations to solve the problems in business plan.
He explained the need for debaters to tell their audience what there would hear. He used examples of some resolutions to draw up analogies. The facilitator introduced the topic after the lunch break: Developing persuasive skills to the end, the group was divided into five groups to discuss on the essential elements of persuasive skill.
The responses which ensued from the second group work where as follows: Logical thinking, choice of language, style, clarity, targeted audience, use of wake up calls such as silence rhetorical questions, eye contact, innovative, cohesive development, tone of the person, mastery of the topic. Hereafter, the facilitator engaged participants in another group work to unravel how to make children participate and become good speakers. The responses were thus:
Use Motivation/ Correction, comic relieve, expose the students to good and bad models and have them criticize each model. Use Socrates dialogue by asking questions, make the students practice, make the children speak individually. At the end of the group work, the facilitator Mr. Marcin introduced the topic. On structure of Argument, he spoke on the model, which was propounded by Prof. Steven Toulmin and explained that the model fits communication rather than mathematics and that the Americans appreciated the model.The model he said was based on 3 element; Claim, Data, and Warrant. He later explained the relationships existing amongst t
he three elements. The facilitator also spoke on types of reasoning which includes; Reasoning by example, Analogy, Cause and effect, Reasoning from sign and from authority. He also spoke on the advantages and disadvantages of different types of reasoning.
He urged the debate coaches to ensure that their students take note of all these before attempting to use them. Assignments were later given to the teachers to cut an article from Newspapers and let the students criticize them.
DAY 3
The session started at 9.05am with brief recap of Day two training after which the facilitator,
Mr. Marcin introduced Debate program into three; competitive Debate, public Debate and outreach debate. He explained that each type has its own benefit. Furthermore, he divided the participant into 3 groups to Brainstorm on the following:
COMPONENTS
Desired outcome
Steps to be taken to achieve this outcome, their role to get this going after one hour group work deliberations. Participants came up with various responses and Marcin added value to each group
Competitive Debate. Under Competitive Debate, he explained the need to choose one format that has been tested. He listed the following to be taken note of. Which includes ;
Train judges
Develop a guide, which would be 10-20 pages for the students
Make room for proper logistics
Choose a topic
Sell a topic to a funder
Contact colleagues in different schools with a team of 6 students make the students excited and offer them assistance e.t.c.
He went further to explain the pubic debate. He stressed on the need to involve media and the audience during the debate physically or through phoning in programs. He explained the venue
of the debate must be constant to enhance public participation. After highlighting all about public debate; went ahead to talk about outreach debate here he explained the need for participants to take advantage of the following; the methodology, Format, Training content. Note for facilitators also go beyond debates and thus use the Debating skills to train people on communication and conflict management issues
The lunch Break lasted for an hour when participants reconvened, the facilitator introduced to them ways in which they could use to gain support.
He divided the participants into 3 session viz institution or policy issues, civil society or community group Grassroots or people. After this process the participants were divided into their regions to identify different stakeholders who might assist them in developing their programs. It is also worthy to reveal that the state Ministry of Education sent in delegate to observed the workshop and send recommendation to the commissioner for Education. The name of the observer from the ministry is Mr. Oyeyemi
.
At the end of the day session, participants were taken to a local internet café where they were introduced
to IDEA website http://www.idebate.org/ as part of the training activities.
DAY 4
The day four programme began with an introduction of the schools that will participate in the show debate. The facilitator started the days session with judging debate. The participants were asked to discuss qualities of a good debate judge. They responded as thus; a good judge should have the following qualities; objectivity , good listener, poise and calm, assertive, understand the rules, sense of humor, honesty, stay awake.
He stated that the quality of a debate topic results in the quality of judging. He then analyzed some sampled resolutions and how they affect what a judge would decide. He gave examples like: resolved that too much knowledge is harmful, resolved that child labour should be abolished
It was analyzed that resolutions such as these can really put debaters and judges in tight corners of trying to define too many issues and may end up not arguing constructively. He encouraged everyone to consider critically what sorts of resolutions are selected and how effective they can be judged.
After the break, there was a show debate between Hillcrest High School and International school University of Calabar. When the debate was over, the facilitator Marcin Zaleski analyzed the debate and later gives
adviceto the debaters on how to improve on their skills. The session ended with issuance of certificates and CD-ROMs to the participants by Jerry Nwigwe and Marcin Zaleski. The local Television station Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) also had an interview session with Marcin, which was later Broadcasted live during the evening news. Marcin had also granted an interview to another Television station, CRBC on the first day of the training which was broadcasted.
Evaluation forms were also administered to the participants at the end of the sessions
The event started with the arrival of the participant from several states of Nigeria on the 28th May, 2006
DAY 1:
On the 29th
May 2006 the training commenced with arrivals and registration of delegates, which was facilitated by a volunteer with DEDERC, Mr. Kunle Odeyemi. Followed closely was welcome address by the host organization. Mr. Jerry Nwigwe; the coordinator of DEDERC. He welcome all the participants to the workshop, he explained that the workshop was a follow up of the 1stworkshop, which was held in Lagos in May 2005. Speaking further he said DEDERC is a youth led not -for- profit voluntary association that operates through its Project Nigeria Debate Movement to allow student to participate in an education based activities that promotes communication, interpersonal and leadership skills through active engagement in discussion and participation in community development.
Speaking further, he introduced some of his partners present: Mr. Ayi Ita Ayi the Special Assistant to the Governor on Job Creation and Mr. Marcin Zaleski the facilitator of the workshop as well as the representative from IDEA The next address presented was by Ayi Ita Ayi, who explained that he has been following the activities of the organization with interest. He commended the organizers for their wonderful initiative and for the timely focus on Debating now that the standard of education is falling. He explained that the introduction of debates into schools would help increase the quality of graduates which the university system would produce because debating would help enhance the confidence of the students and this would in turn enhance their thinking and behavior and at the end there would be a better citizenry. Speaking further, he admonished the organizers to partner with secondary school board and the commissioner of Education in other that the initiative would be a sustainable one.
After his Address, Mr. Marcin Zaleski, the IDEA Director of Training talked on the history and mission of IDEA. He also discussed further the programs of IDEA.Marcin Zaleski later introduced the course and proposed the agenda followed by a discussion of the expectations of the participants.
The trainees were then introduced with a film on American parliamentary debate. After the film, the participants were asked to comment on their observation.. The facilitator later explained that the format is used by University student
in America and the student are only informed about the topic 15 minutes before a debate tournament. He went further to reveal the importance of the format, which enables students to move from shyness to boldness and the ability to think on their feet. He explained that the student exhibited skills, intelligence, critical thinking, analytical skills and public speaking.
The next session explored all the debate components, types of resolution, debate formats and roles of speakers. He said that resolution also known, as motion is a statement that reasonable people can argue and can disagree. Marcin Zaleski gave an illustrated PowerPoint introduction on types of resolution, which includes; Resolution of fact, Resolution of values, and resolution of policies. The facilitator also illustrated the components of Debate.
During the feedback session participants and trainers reviewed all the components. The participants were meant to understand the difference between rebuttal and rebuttal. The facilitator answered more questions that were asked by the participants.
After the lunch break, the facilitator introduced the next session, which were Debate formats and Affirmative strategies. He explained the elements that make up a format, which includes number of speakers, time per speaker, order of speaking, cross examination, intervals and preparation time. He explained that equal timing for affirmative and negative is used in developing a format to create a point for balance. He also introduced kinds of formats which includes Karl Popper, British parliamentary, and American parliamentary. He said that Karl popper formats is designed for secondary school student which is made up with two teams and six speakers,. He went further to highlight all the elements of Karl Popper. Mr. Marcin further explained that the strategies for the affirmative depends on the resolution, thus in dealing with different types of resolution, the following must be done; define terms of resolutions, set parameter for debate, present 3-4 argument in support of the resolution. He also went further to explain how to present a plan if it is a policy topic, and the strategies includes;
Present the status quo
Identify the problem
Outline the impact of the problem
Outline the impact of the problem
Introduce the policy designed to solve the problem
Provide some justification for implementation
Explain the benefit of success.
The participants were later divided into five groups to develop cases following affirmative strategies on the topic
’The Nigeria federal government would put an end to Niger Delta crises. Each group was asked to reconvene the next day for the review / presentation of their various task.
DAY 2
The session commenced the 2ndday with a continuation of the group work exercise. Participants were asked to brainstorm on possible negative strategies, which the negative side could use to attack the affirmative side. The responses rose where;
Validate the status quo.
Deal with every single argument.
Strike a balance.
Look out for a deficiency in the affirmative plan.
Address the case.
Use counter plan and criticize.
At 11am there was a tea break session, when participants reconvened at 11:15am .The facilitator elaborated on the strategies mentioned. He explained the need for participants to address a narrow issue, he also revealed that the choice of the issue or the problem is called significance .He unraveled that the strategies could become stalls which could be used in real life situations to solve the problems in business plan.
He explained the need for debaters to tell their audience what there would hear. He used examples of some resolutions to draw up analogies. The facilitator introduced the topic after the lunch break: Developing persuasive skills to the end, the group was divided into five groups to discuss on the essential elements of persuasive skill.
The responses which ensued from the second group work where as follows: Logical thinking, choice of language, style, clarity, targeted audience, use of wake up calls such as silence rhetorical questions, eye contact, innovative, cohesive development, tone of the person, mastery of the topic. Hereafter, the facilitator engaged participants in another group work to unravel how to make children participate and become good speakers. The responses were thus:
Use Motivation/ Correction, comic relieve, expose the students to good and bad models and have them criticize each model. Use Socrates dialogue by asking questions, make the students practice, make the children speak individually. At the end of the group work, the facilitator Mr. Marcin introduced the topic. On structure of Argument, he spoke on the model, which was propounded by Prof. Steven Toulmin and explained that the model fits communication rather than mathematics and that the Americans appreciated the model.The model he said was based on 3 element; Claim, Data, and Warrant. He later explained the relationships existing amongst t
he three elements. The facilitator also spoke on types of reasoning which includes; Reasoning by example, Analogy, Cause and effect, Reasoning from sign and from authority. He also spoke on the advantages and disadvantages of different types of reasoning.
He urged the debate coaches to ensure that their students take note of all these before attempting to use them. Assignments were later given to the teachers to cut an article from Newspapers and let the students criticize them.
DAY 3
The session started at 9.05am with brief recap of Day two training after which the facilitator,
Mr. Marcin introduced Debate program into three; competitive Debate, public Debate and outreach debate. He explained that each type has its own benefit. Furthermore, he divided the participant into 3 groups to Brainstorm on the following:
COMPONENTS
Desired outcome
Steps to be taken to achieve this outcome, their role to get this going after one hour group work deliberations. Participants came up with various responses and Marcin added value to each group
Competitive Debate. Under Competitive Debate, he explained the need to choose one format that has been tested. He listed the following to be taken note of. Which includes ;
Train judges
Develop a guide, which would be 10-20 pages for the students
Make room for proper logistics
Choose a topic
Sell a topic to a funder
Contact colleagues in different schools with a team of 6 students make the students excited and offer them assistance e.t.c.
He went further to explain the pubic debate. He stressed on the need to involve media and the audience during the debate physically or through phoning in programs. He explained the venue
of the debate must be constant to enhance public participation. After highlighting all about public debate; went ahead to talk about outreach debate here he explained the need for participants to take advantage of the following; the methodology, Format, Training content. Note for facilitators also go beyond debates and thus use the Debating skills to train people on communication and conflict management issues
The lunch Break lasted for an hour when participants reconvened, the facilitator introduced to them ways in which they could use to gain support.
He divided the participants into 3 session viz institution or policy issues, civil society or community group Grassroots or people. After this process the participants were divided into their regions to identify different stakeholders who might assist them in developing their programs. It is also worthy to reveal that the state Ministry of Education sent in delegate to observed the workshop and send recommendation to the commissioner for Education. The name of the observer from the ministry is Mr. Oyeyemi
.
At the end of the day session, participants were taken to a local internet café where they were introduced
to IDEA website http://www.idebate.org/ as part of the training activities.
DAY 4
The day four programme began with an introduction of the schools that will participate in the show debate. The facilitator started the days session with judging debate. The participants were asked to discuss qualities of a good debate judge. They responded as thus; a good judge should have the following qualities; objectivity , good listener, poise and calm, assertive, understand the rules, sense of humor, honesty, stay awake.
He stated that the quality of a debate topic results in the quality of judging. He then analyzed some sampled resolutions and how they affect what a judge would decide. He gave examples like: resolved that too much knowledge is harmful, resolved that child labour should be abolished
It was analyzed that resolutions such as these can really put debaters and judges in tight corners of trying to define too many issues and may end up not arguing constructively. He encouraged everyone to consider critically what sorts of resolutions are selected and how effective they can be judged.
After the break, there was a show debate between Hillcrest High School and International school University of Calabar. When the debate was over, the facilitator Marcin Zaleski analyzed the debate and later gives
adviceto the debaters on how to improve on their skills. The session ended with issuance of certificates and CD-ROMs to the participants by Jerry Nwigwe and Marcin Zaleski. The local Television station Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) also had an interview session with Marcin, which was later Broadcasted live during the evening news. Marcin had also granted an interview to another Television station, CRBC on the first day of the training which was broadcasted.
Evaluation forms were also administered to the participants at the end of the sessions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)