Monday, February 08, 2010
About Debate: Start a Debate Club
http://www.idebate.org/debate/start_debate_club.php
Debate clubs work best when there is a strong sense of group identity, when members feel that they are part of something. The individual debater should not feel that he or she is a soloist, meeting casually with other soloists for the sake of a competition, only to go off independently afterward. Rather, the debater should feel that the debate club is like a symphony orchestra, which exists as an ongoing corporate entity. When this feeling exists, the reward is a broad sense of well being. Everyone in the group shares the joys of victory; the disappointment of loss, when shared, is assuaged. A sense of group identity is not a mystical goal that can be achieved only through a lucky combination of people. Rather, it is something that can be created by concrete steps. These steps involve the management of space, the management of time, and the organization of the club structure.
Club SpaceIt is important for a debate club to have a home, a room that is largely devoted to the club and its activities. The club room should be a place where serious work can be done-where issues can be discussed and speeches written. It should provide resources for debaters: dictionaries, reference books, periodicals - whatever the club's funds allow. It should also function as the repository of the club's history. It is a place to keep tournament records, both formal and anecdotal; it is a place to store copies of cases and notes; it is a place to display trophies and pictures. Ideally, the resources should be directly available to the debaters, without the intercession of a coach or teacher.
The club room should also be a place that permits the casual interaction of students on the team. A sense of camaraderie can be built on the experience of collaborative work, but it also needs an infusion of fun. Friendships cannot be manufactured by decree. They can, however, be encouraged; providing students with a friendly place to meet is one simple step. When they go to the debate room, debaters should feel that they are entering a space that belongs to them, where they will find friends who share their enthusiasm for debating.
Club Meetings and Working Sessions
Needless to say, the club space is of little value if there are no activities to fill it. Debate clubs should meet regularly. One model is to have a mandatory weekly meeting for all club members. Even if members are not involved in an upcoming competition (or even if there is no competition in the immediate future), they join together with their partners on the team to find out what issues or events are affecting the team as a whole. But it should also go without saying that a significant amount of time must be devoted to regular working sessions. In the sporting world, there are varying practice to performance ratios. In some sports, teams practice very little but play constantly; in others, a week of practice will precede a single game. The routine of a good debate team is more like the latter model. Good cases cannot be thrown together at the last minute; they require thinking and discussion. Ideas must be mulled over and distilled; speeches must be drafted and revised. Of course, every school must operate within the constraints of its own schedule, but in some successful programs, debate clubs have daily working sessions involving at least some of the team members. Working sessions are devoted, in part, to preparation: that is, to constructing arguments and strategies for a particular competition. But they are also given, in part, to practice. Members of the team spend time debating each other, either with a pending resolution or with resolutions composed or selected for the occasion. We must emphasize that practice and preparation time are where most of the education involved in the activity of debate takes place. There is much to be learned in competition as well, but it is in the day-in and day-out business of practice and preparation that critical thinking and public speaking skills are developed and honed.
Club Leadership and Organization
In its infancy, a new debate club will depend heavily on the leadership and expertise of adults acting as teachers and coaches. But after programs become established and grow, a fair amount of leadership can devolve upon the students themselves. Some successful teams seem to be self-perpetuating, although this is only truly possible when they are multi-generational. That is, such teams include younger as well as older students. In well-established programs, the older students joined when they, too, were young. In the last year of their careers as debaters, these students have had three or four years of experience and have developed some wisdom and expertise with that experience. As 17- or 18-year-olds, they meet 14-year-old neophytes who are starting where they started and must learn what they learned. They are positioned to be effective and sympathetic teachers. In practical terms, this means they can act as judges when younger debaters are practicing; they can watch them compete in actual competitions and share notes with them afterward. During preparation sessions, they can work with younger debaters as they craft their cases. What is more, the reverse is also profitable: as they start their careers as debaters, novices can benefit from listening to more seasoned debaters argue. With this kind of organization, team members naturally feel more involved with the organization as a whole. Specifically, older members come to take pride in the accomplishments of their younger peers and feel a sense of responsibility for them, and younger members follow the careers of their mentors with enhanced interest.
The team broadly shares the leadership roles described above. In addition, many teams have more carefully defined roles for individuals. In other words, they have students who are elected president, secretary, treasurer, director of recruitment and orientation, and so forth. The students who fill these roles are not necessarily the most successful debaters in competition. They are students who have shown significant commitment to the well being of the team. In their various roles, they can be responsible for many of the administrative duties involved in running a team. For example, preparing tournament registrations, keeping club records, collecting dues or travel payments, etc.
Recruitment and Retention
The first task demanded in the recruitment of members for a debate club is education. Many students (and teachers) simply do not know what debate is. It is essential to inform them. Many people who don't really know about debate think that it is for students who are aggressive or naturally argumentative. They may associate it with slickness of style, rather than solidity of substance. They need to see that debate offers benefits to a broad range of personalities and draws its inspiration from political philosophers, not from smooth-talking politicians. One way to educate the public is to stage a debate demonstration. Students also need to know how the team operates and what opportunities are available for neophytes. Many students will be attracted by the thrill of competition, and they must be assured that competition is not limited to seasoned veterans. But students should also be educated about the broad intellectual benefits gained from involvement. At its best, a debate program provides an intellectual experience comparable to that offered by the finest academic courses. In keeping with the principle of inclusion, team leaders must work at retaining debaters rather than cutting the team roster. This means providing club members with meaningful activities. If teams rarely compete or rarely practice, students will quickly lose interest. Teams that rarely practice will rarely win. Students will be quick to desert a losing enterprise. It also means, in some cases, designing special leadership roles for some students. The student who is a perennial loser may become disheartened and think of quitting the club, but will be more likely to stay if given special responsibility for training a cadre of new debaters. Sponsoring non-debate events for club members will also help keep students committed to the team. Ping-Pong matches, basketball games, and entertainment outings can help to build the ties of a permanent community. Above all, students must understand that the only requirements for club membership are commitment and a willingness to work. Success in competition cannot, and will not, come to every member of the team. Debaters need to know that even if they fail, their places on the team are secure and their participation is valued.
The Role of Coaches and Teachers
Any adult who has an abiding concern for the creative education of young people can serve as a debate coach. Coaches do not need to be specialists with extensive training in oratory or logic (although training is certainly a plus). A debate coach is not expected to pass along a body of knowledge to his or her students the way that a chemistry teacher might. The rules and procedures of debate that must be taught are comparatively few. The coach's job, actually, is to foster the development of thinking skills. The coach is there to draw things out of the students rather than to pour things in. The coach must listen, question, and react. The coach may guide discussions and give them direction; she may help students focus on the appropriate issues, but she should not be regarded as the repository of ultimate truth. Indeed, students need to feel free to disagree with the coach and to engage with the coach in the same way they would with anyone else involved in the discussion. The coach must also provide moral leadership for the team. Team members must understand that debaters will behave honestly and ethically in competition. Moreover, the coach must set the moral tone for the regular activity of the team. Students will disagree in discussions. If they didn't, the discussions would not be terribly productive. But the coach must ensure that disagreements do not become personal and that comments do not become insulting or demeaning. Students need to be able to take risks and test ideas in discussions; they must feel that they can do so without being mocked or disregarded. The coach must create a climate of respect, not simply by offering a model in his or her personal behavior but by articulating and enforcing standards. In the classroom, the relationship between students and teachers is sometimes formal and impersonal. Coaching, however, requires a degree of personal involvement. Coaches must encourage and monitor the development of each debater individually. In effect, this means that coaches must act as judges for intramural debates and comment on the performance of participants. They must review and criticize written work. And inevitably, coaches become involved with students on a casual basis not only on the home turf of the debate room but also during debate tournaments. Many coaches have come to know their students well as they wait in hallways for a round to begin or for results to be posted. Coaches have more mundane responsibilities as well. The coach has the ultimate responsibility for managing the internal affairs of the team: its schedule, its membership roster, and its finances. Finances may involve raising money as well as managing a budget. The coach also must handle its operations on the road: the coach decides who will participate in a given tournament, makes travel arrangements, and handles all the administrative paperwork. Coaches must also recruit and provide the requisite number of judges when the tournament arrives. The coach also serves as a judge. It is standard practice that coaches never judge their own debaters, however.
The Role of Parents
Debate offers parents a unique opportunity for involvement in a school activity. Usually, parents are asked to perform the role of spectators at athletic events and artistic performances. In debate, they have the chance to become active participants by serving as judges. Judges do not need to have special expertise: they are meant to be the reasonable people of the political paradigm; they need simply to be good listeners and to say who offered them the best argument. Coaches inevitably recruit judges from a wide pool: family members, friends, former debaters, teachers, administrators, etc. It is, by the way, a good idea to involve teachers and administrators as a way to educate the school community. But in many programs, parents form the backbone of the judging pool. Parents who don't wish to serve as judges can be involved in other ways. They can provide transportation, meals, and even housing to team members when tournaments are underway. They can also serve as spectators and sources of moral support for their children and their friends. Often, parents value debate not simply because of the benefits it provides their children, but because of the opportunity it offers them to become personally involved, in a supportive way, with their children's education. And, sometimes, too, parents form their own communities around debate that parallel the communities formed by debaters. They, too, form lasting friendships as a result of the activity.
The Debate Club in the Community of the School and Beyond
Obviously, the benefits of debate are enjoyed most by the people who actually do it. And yet, there is much to be said for listening to debates as well: spectators often learn a new way of thinking about a problem or an issue. It makes sense, then, to fashion a strong public profile for the debate team. Spectators can be invited both from within the school community and from outside of it. (For the uninitiated, the team can provide materials that outline the rules and procedures of debate.) As a matter of habit, the debate club should publicize its competitions. It should announce debate resolutions to the community in advance of the debate. And certainly, the debate club should publicize its results. A team that does well deserves the recognition of the school community. Sometimes this means making use of the school newspaper or announcement system. Some clubs also publish their own newsletters.
Nigerian Nationals Debating Championship- Abuja 2010
INVITATION
Nigeria Debate Movement in partnership with the Presidential School Debate and partners are proud to organize the Inaugural edition of Nigeria Nationals Debating Championship (The Champion of Champions 2010 for Universities and Secondary Schools) to be held in Abuja, in April 17-23, 2010.
This year maiden edition promises to bring together the top debate teams and student public speakers from across the country and other West African neighbors like Ghana, Liberia, Sierraleone, Gambia and offer them all a unique chance to interact with each other and engage in fun and high intensity student tournament. This will also be a wonderful opportunity for all the teams to experience the new styles of international debating and explore the city of Abuja. We therefore invite university students as well as Secondary school students to apply for this one week debate talent hunt: There will be a parallel tournament so as to allow both students from the universities and high schools to benefit from this tournament so as to spread the culture of debating.
The event would also bring top trainers and adjudicators from South Africa, US and UK.
Programmes: Training, Debate, cultural exposition, public speaking, interpretive speech, interactive show with leaders in business, civil society and government. The Senate President of Nigeria; Hon. David Mark is expected to speak as the special guest of honor together with other important personalities across different facets of human endeavor. This debating championship will provide a forum in which Nigeria and West African students can be exposed to new ideas, discuss a range of topical issues and be challenged to think critically. This tournament will also be used to establish Nigeria Debating Board which will facilitate the dissemination of training materials, coordinate Nigeria Debating events and organize trainings, all to ensure sustainability and spread of debate across Nigeria.
Registration: $135 per person which will cover all the boarding & lodging arrangements, meals for 6 days, all competition venues and transportation, social events, opening and breaking night parties, cultural expo night/talent hunt and a visit to the National Assembly. It also includes a speaker and coach training workshop for 2 days and adjudication tests. Each school can only enter up to 5 participants with a coach. Students from Senior and Junior secondary schools who completed school in the last six months and are not yet registered at a tertiary institution are eligible to participate as representative of their former school
Prizes: The winner for both University and Secondary schools categories will win the maiden Nigerian Champion of Champions Cup and cash reward of $1, 000 each and a Cup.
The best Speaker- Public Speaker Cup and cash reward of $500 and the best judge will be sponsored to the any of the two international tournaments.
Debate Format: British Parliamentary and Karl Popper
Registration Deadline: March 26th, 2010
Registration procedures: Send an intent email to debatenigeria@gmail.com requesting for the application forms. Pay your registration fees with the account information
Send your application by email back to debatenigeria@gmail.com with your teller no.
This championship promises to be thrilling, exciting and adventurous
…. Don’t miss out
250 Debaters, 1 Champion
Contact Lanre on +234-8035216586, Jerry- +234-8036720776
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
100 school clubs to join Nigeria Debate Movement in Lagos State
This is to announce that preparation are on top gear for the 1st Hundred High schools to join NIDEM in Lagos State. This is a result of collaboration between DEDERC and Learning point International, a local organization that coordinates TV debates in Lagos. DEDERC would provide all the schools and thier teachers with technical assistance on debate techniques and debate organization. More news will come later.....
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
"Our stake in development"
The Millennium Development Goals are eight international development goals that the 189 United Nations member states (plus a broad range of international organizations) agreed in 2001 to achieve by the year 2015. They include cutting levels of extreme poverty in half, substantially reducing child mortality rates, fighting epidemic diseases, and promoting global socioeconomic development.
We want to use this blog to sample different people opinion about the performance of thier home government in the efforts to achieving these MDGs. We want to asks people from around the world to create and upload their stories or videos stating their name, their home country, and a specific request that their own government do more to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Our stake in development is a tracking system developed by DEDERC and partners to monitor progress at all levels and provide the needed push for our government to achieve more. If you also think that your home country is not doing enough, please state those areas of negelect and issues you wants us to address and recommend.
We want to use this blog to sample different people opinion about the performance of thier home government in the efforts to achieving these MDGs. We want to asks people from around the world to create and upload their stories or videos stating their name, their home country, and a specific request that their own government do more to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Our stake in development is a tracking system developed by DEDERC and partners to monitor progress at all levels and provide the needed push for our government to achieve more. If you also think that your home country is not doing enough, please state those areas of negelect and issues you wants us to address and recommend.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Call for Nigerian Universities to Bid for PAUDC, Nigeria 2010
Call for Nigerian Universities to Bid for Pan African University Debate Championship (PAUDC 2010)
On behalf of the Pan African Debate Championship (PAUDC) organizing committee, we would like to open up applications for tertiary institutions to bid for the hosting of the 3rd PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
This premier event would bring together African finest University students to discuss and debate issues affecting African and the world. This international forum would stimulate issue awareness, critical thinking and encourage learning of cultural differences among Africans.
The first championship in Botswana brought more than 10 countries to a one week debate extravaganza where the participants were treated with extraordinary fun fare and academic thrills. The 2nd Edition would be hosted again by Botswana this year, this to further their chances in hosting WSDC (World School Debate Championship) 2009.
In order to further develop debating across Africa, and most especially Nigeria. We have decided to open up the bid for the hosting of the event in Nigeria 2010.
The tournament will bring together teams representing 20 different African Nations to compete in the Worlds Schools Style of debating. The Tournament will include rounds of debating (including knock out rounds) with the eventual winner being crowned the African Debating Champion!
In addition to the competitive element the tournament will offer a very high level of Adjudication, personal analysis for the learners, remarkable guest speakers, interaction with leaders of industries and global players, vigorous training workshops, celebrity debates and various engaging forums.
Requirement from the Host
The school should have or would be willing to form a debate club like any other clubs in the institution,
· First class Accommodation facilities- Hostels- 2 person/room (International standard)
· Transportation provision-in and out of the campus for the participant
· Halls/ Auditorium/ Classroom
· A social nite locations close to the resident
Note: Let the organizers know in specifics in your bid documents, what your institution would be able to provide based on the above requirements. And also state why your institution should be awarded the hosting right of PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
Benefits
The organizing committee would facilitate the participation of the school in the upcoming Nigerian regional and national School debating championships, West African School Debating Championships, PAUDC in Botswana (PAUDC 2009), and WSDC.
The local organizing committee would be funded,
Students learn and understand political and social issues better,
Students learn how to think critically (ability to analyze, synthesize and articulate ideas),
Students learn how to think on their feet and express themselves clearly in front of an audience. This skill can serve them throughout their academic careers, also fundamental in a variety of professions such as teaching, law, and business management.
The hosting institution will participate free of charge and could register up to 4 different teams for the debate.
Students in the debate clubs will have the opportunity to travel round the world debating and winning laurels for their schools, thereby enhancing their international profiles and network.
The hosting institution would be recognized internationally as a premier university for learning and thereby raising their profile to some new levels of international collaboration.
For more information, please contact Mark Nwakaudu, on maxmark300@yahoo.com, 08033223915, Gab Aniabi, gabimages2000@yahoo.com, 08022448302 or DEDERC on debatenigeria@gmail.com, 08098672077
On behalf of the Pan African Debate Championship (PAUDC) organizing committee, we would like to open up applications for tertiary institutions to bid for the hosting of the 3rd PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
This premier event would bring together African finest University students to discuss and debate issues affecting African and the world. This international forum would stimulate issue awareness, critical thinking and encourage learning of cultural differences among Africans.
The first championship in Botswana brought more than 10 countries to a one week debate extravaganza where the participants were treated with extraordinary fun fare and academic thrills. The 2nd Edition would be hosted again by Botswana this year, this to further their chances in hosting WSDC (World School Debate Championship) 2009.
In order to further develop debating across Africa, and most especially Nigeria. We have decided to open up the bid for the hosting of the event in Nigeria 2010.
The tournament will bring together teams representing 20 different African Nations to compete in the Worlds Schools Style of debating. The Tournament will include rounds of debating (including knock out rounds) with the eventual winner being crowned the African Debating Champion!
In addition to the competitive element the tournament will offer a very high level of Adjudication, personal analysis for the learners, remarkable guest speakers, interaction with leaders of industries and global players, vigorous training workshops, celebrity debates and various engaging forums.
Requirement from the Host
The school should have or would be willing to form a debate club like any other clubs in the institution,
· First class Accommodation facilities- Hostels- 2 person/room (International standard)
· Transportation provision-in and out of the campus for the participant
· Halls/ Auditorium/ Classroom
· A social nite locations close to the resident
Note: Let the organizers know in specifics in your bid documents, what your institution would be able to provide based on the above requirements. And also state why your institution should be awarded the hosting right of PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
Benefits
The organizing committee would facilitate the participation of the school in the upcoming Nigerian regional and national School debating championships, West African School Debating Championships, PAUDC in Botswana (PAUDC 2009), and WSDC.
The local organizing committee would be funded,
Students learn and understand political and social issues better,
Students learn how to think critically (ability to analyze, synthesize and articulate ideas),
Students learn how to think on their feet and express themselves clearly in front of an audience. This skill can serve them throughout their academic careers, also fundamental in a variety of professions such as teaching, law, and business management.
The hosting institution will participate free of charge and could register up to 4 different teams for the debate.
Students in the debate clubs will have the opportunity to travel round the world debating and winning laurels for their schools, thereby enhancing their international profiles and network.
The hosting institution would be recognized internationally as a premier university for learning and thereby raising their profile to some new levels of international collaboration.
For more information, please contact Mark Nwakaudu, on maxmark300@yahoo.com, 08033223915, Gab Aniabi, gabimages2000@yahoo.com, 08022448302 or DEDERC on debatenigeria@gmail.com, 08098672077
Call for Nigerian Universities to Bid for PAUDC, Nigeria 2010
Call for Nigerian Universities to Bid for Pan African University Debate Championship (PAUDC 2010)
On behalf of the Pan African Debate Championship (PAUDC) organizing committee, we would like to open up applications for tertiary institutions to bid for the hosting of the 3rd PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
This premier event would bring together African finest University students to discuss and debate issues affecting African and the world. This international forum would stimulate issue awareness, critical thinking and encourage learning of cultural differences among Africans.
The first championship in Botswana brought more than 10 countries to a one week debate extravaganza where the participants were treated with extraordinary fun fare and academic thrills. The 2nd Edition would be hosted again by Botswana this year, this to further their chances in hosting WSDC (World School Debate Championship) 2009.
In order to further develop debating across Africa, and most especially Nigeria. We have decided to open up the bid for the hosting of the event in Nigeria 2010.
The tournament will bring together teams representing 20 different African Nations to compete in the Worlds Schools Style of debating. The Tournament will include rounds of debating (including knock out rounds) with the eventual winner being crowned the African Debating Champion!
In addition to the competitive element the tournament will offer a very high level of Adjudication, personal analysis for the learners, remarkable guest speakers, interaction with leaders of industries and global players, vigorous training workshops, celebrity debates and various engaging forums.
Requirement from the Host
The school should have or would be willing to form a debate club like any other clubs in the institution,
· First class Accommodation facilities- Hostels- 2 person/room (International standard)
· Transportation provision-in and out of the campus for the participant
· Halls/ Auditorium/ Classroom
· A social nite locations close to the resident
Note: Let the organizers know in specifics in your bid documents, what your institution would be able to provide based on the above requirements. And also state why your institution should be awarded the hosting right of PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
Benefits
The organizing committee would facilitate the participation of the school in the upcoming Nigerian regional and national School debating championships, West African School Debating Championships, PAUDC in Botswana (PAUDC 2009), and WSDC.
The local organizing committee would be funded,
Students learn and understand political and social issues better,
Students learn how to think critically (ability to analyze, synthesize and articulate ideas),
Students learn how to think on their feet and express themselves clearly in front of an audience. This skill can serve them throughout their academic careers, also fundamental in a variety of professions such as teaching, law, and business management.
The hosting institution will participate free of charge and could register up to 4 different teams for the debate.
Students in the debate clubs will have the opportunity to travel round the world debating and winning laurels for their schools, thereby enhancing their international profiles and network.
The hosting institution would be recognized internationally as a premier university for learning and thereby raising their profile to some new levels of international collaboration.
For more information, please contact Mark Nwakaudu, on maxmark300@yahoo.com, 08033223915, Gab Aniabi, gabimages2000@yahoo.com, 08022448302 or DEDERC on debatenigeria@gmail.com, 08098672077
On behalf of the Pan African Debate Championship (PAUDC) organizing committee, we would like to open up applications for tertiary institutions to bid for the hosting of the 3rd PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
This premier event would bring together African finest University students to discuss and debate issues affecting African and the world. This international forum would stimulate issue awareness, critical thinking and encourage learning of cultural differences among Africans.
The first championship in Botswana brought more than 10 countries to a one week debate extravaganza where the participants were treated with extraordinary fun fare and academic thrills. The 2nd Edition would be hosted again by Botswana this year, this to further their chances in hosting WSDC (World School Debate Championship) 2009.
In order to further develop debating across Africa, and most especially Nigeria. We have decided to open up the bid for the hosting of the event in Nigeria 2010.
The tournament will bring together teams representing 20 different African Nations to compete in the Worlds Schools Style of debating. The Tournament will include rounds of debating (including knock out rounds) with the eventual winner being crowned the African Debating Champion!
In addition to the competitive element the tournament will offer a very high level of Adjudication, personal analysis for the learners, remarkable guest speakers, interaction with leaders of industries and global players, vigorous training workshops, celebrity debates and various engaging forums.
Requirement from the Host
The school should have or would be willing to form a debate club like any other clubs in the institution,
· First class Accommodation facilities- Hostels- 2 person/room (International standard)
· Transportation provision-in and out of the campus for the participant
· Halls/ Auditorium/ Classroom
· A social nite locations close to the resident
Note: Let the organizers know in specifics in your bid documents, what your institution would be able to provide based on the above requirements. And also state why your institution should be awarded the hosting right of PAUDC Nigeria 2010.
Benefits
The organizing committee would facilitate the participation of the school in the upcoming Nigerian regional and national School debating championships, West African School Debating Championships, PAUDC in Botswana (PAUDC 2009), and WSDC.
The local organizing committee would be funded,
Students learn and understand political and social issues better,
Students learn how to think critically (ability to analyze, synthesize and articulate ideas),
Students learn how to think on their feet and express themselves clearly in front of an audience. This skill can serve them throughout their academic careers, also fundamental in a variety of professions such as teaching, law, and business management.
The hosting institution will participate free of charge and could register up to 4 different teams for the debate.
Students in the debate clubs will have the opportunity to travel round the world debating and winning laurels for their schools, thereby enhancing their international profiles and network.
The hosting institution would be recognized internationally as a premier university for learning and thereby raising their profile to some new levels of international collaboration.
For more information, please contact Mark Nwakaudu, on maxmark300@yahoo.com, 08033223915, Gab Aniabi, gabimages2000@yahoo.com, 08022448302 or DEDERC on debatenigeria@gmail.com, 08098672077
PAUDC Photos!!
Participants
At Jo'burg international Airport
1st Dinner Nite with the Ghananian team
Matt, Jerry and Justice
Jackson, Jerry
Pearl, Jerry, Logan
Rudo and team from Uganda
Jerry, Pearl
Nigerian Team
Nigerian Students participated in the 1st Pan African University Debate Championship in Botswana
Nigeria participated during the 1st PAUDC ( December 8-14, 2008) with representation from University of Calabar, Cross River State University, Federal University of TechnologY Owerri, Federal Polytechnic Nekede. Nigerian students at the end of the event gave a good account of themselves, learning new debate format (World schools styles of debating), and the motivation to go back home and revive debating which is half dead and doesn't have the flair any longer to attract young people in Nigeria.
The debate were divided into various thematic areas, and motion which includes:
Environment- This house would tie development aid to University in green technology.
Washing and Corruption- This house would punish Banks if their clients launder money through their bank account.
Conflict Resolution- This house would use public criticism rather than quiet diplomacy to settle disputes in Zimbabwe.
Economy- This house would nationalize all natural recourses.
Choice- This house would legalize prostitution in all mining facilities
Washing and Corruption- This house would punish Banks if their clients launder money through their bank account.
Conflict Resolution- This house would use public criticism rather than quiet diplomacy to settle disputes in Zimbabwe.
Economy- This house would nationalize all natural recourses.
Choice- This house would legalize prostitution in all mining facilities
The finals comprised:The University of the Free State: B - Opening GovernmentNational University of Lesotho: A - Closing GovernmentUniversity of Namibia: C - Opening OppositionUniversity of Namibia: A - Opening OppositionThe Best Adjudicator trophy was awarded to Carl Persat of NamibiaThe Best Speaker of the tournament was Ruth Mulenga of BotswanaThe participating countries were:Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia
The tournament also included debate IDEA trainers from the US, South Korea, South Africa and others from Botswana who trained the many virgin debaters from across the African continent. For more information, visit http://www.botsdebating.com/.
The tournament also included debate IDEA trainers from the US, South Korea, South Africa and others from Botswana who trained the many virgin debaters from across the African continent. For more information, visit http://www.botsdebating.com/.
The event was concluded by Nigeria bidding to host the event in 2010. We look forward to all your supports!!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Pubic Speaking Tips
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)