Introduction to University Debating - Chris Bisset
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•5,533 views
This document provides an introduction to university debating styles and practices. It discusses the main styles of Easters, Australs, and Worlds debates. It also covers topics for debates and strategies for topic selection. Additionally, it outlines expectations for arguments, rebuttals, and preparation of evidence for university debating.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Similar to Introduction to University Debating - Chris Bisset
Similar to Introduction to University Debating - Chris Bisset (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Introduction to University Debating - Chris Bisset
- 1. Introduction to University Debating
- 2. The ‘Styles’ of University Debating Easters Style: 3-3 (with 1st and 2nd speakers providing substantive material) Australs Style: 3-3 (with reply speeches) Worlds Style: British Parliamentary- 4 teams of 2 people with two government (affirmative) teams and two opposition (negative) teams
- 3. Thinking about Topics & Cases University topics know few limits: they are ambitious, universal and controversial Debaterland Topics Who Cares Topics Why Not Topics Focus on Principles: No cheap shots: efficacy arguments should seek to prove harm What does this mean for the role of a first affirmative? Definition: can be universal in application but can also issue set – ‘squirrling’ is dealt with harshly Models: used to clarify not complicate What does this mean for the role of a first negative? Rebuttal: set up a principled clash- don’t model bash Burden to neg the aff case
- 4. Topic Selection All Easters and Australs style tournaments will have topic selection. Rank topics 1-3 General Strategy for Selecting Topics 1. Look at debates with arguments for your side 2. Then look at topics you know the most about 3. Decide on your veto first 4. Don’t over-strategise
- 5. The University Style or Manner Liberal Conception of Debating: Formalities and debater’isms unnecessary Self-definition of method Perfecting a non-debating manner Individual responsibility for timing Use of Examples Humour and Swing
- 6. Argumentation and Rebuttal Common forms of argumentation at university: Not such a rigid divide between analysis and example Arguments chain of causation: Premise > Consequence > Value Judgement Principled Arguments: Principle > Analogy > Similarities > Value Common features of university rebuttal: 3 Layers of Rebuttal (in descending value): (1) Logic (2) Relevance (3) Facts Concessions are much more common and strategically important
- 7. Matter Prep’ing Use of written material and fact files Facts important but still not decisive: matter prep arguments More likely to be called on invented facts Need for Knowledge Easters – Australian newspapers and some of The Economist Australs – The Economist and some fact filing Good sources Long form and argumentative journalism
Editor's Notes
- Debating at Sydney is the best experience you can get: don’t be disheartened – the society is very successful, the standard is higher than anywhere else – best development opportunitiesDebating opportunities at Sydney universities are limited only to the place at which Worlds is designated to be held each year- not unattainable: novice quotas for Australs and WorldsSeminar not strictly how to debate – we will be going back to basics at some points but if we say something you don’t understand yell out or come and ask us later – questions at the end. Run seminar with the three of us – existential question of ‘what is debating’ provide as much colouring to this as possible some anecdotes along the way
- Different styles of debating at university (some of you may have heard off):Style at the moment is Easters Style – same as schools style. Two teams, and affiramtive and a negative, with three speakers each – the 1st and 2nd speakers present substantive material in the form usually of 2-3 arguments each and the 3rd speaker rebutts, reflects on the debate and is generally argumentative. Australs Style – slightly different because we add reply speeches, additional speech made by one of the 3 speakers already in the debate – biased adjudication – talk about this in the lead up to AustralsWorlds Style or BP – 2nd semester. 4 teams of 2 people with an Opening Government and Closing Government as the affirmative, and an Opening Opposition and Closing Opposition as the negative. Don’t need to stress about the other styles at the moment except to know that they are there and exciting so the debating year mixes it up. Dealing with Easters style at the moment, probably the style most familiar and comfortable with – structure is the same as many of you may have seen in school debates but there are a number of particularities and peculiarities about university debating in terms of how we approach debating within that structure – aim of seminar.
- Ambitious topics – This house would partition Sudan. This house would financially incentivise inter-racial and inter-faith marriages. Topics can be universal in their application –This house would ban all products used to alter one’s racial appearance. This house would ban all pornography – this is intentional because it is intended to make you deal with the broad ideas that justify something rather than carving out caveats to the debate. For instance, it would not be in the spirit of university debating to set up the topic ‘that this house would ban all pornography’ as all pornography involving violence towards women- or in a less trite example all print form pornography.Controversial topics – debating at university is intended to confront us with issues we haven’t thought about before. E.G. Round at Easters (Sex and Gender – Ban annonymous sperm donation, mandate the use of condoms in pornography and legalise child sex with avatars. Important things to remember is that being queezie shows and that not one assumes you believe what you are arguing – veto in topic selectionDebaterland Topics – topics that would only really happen in Debating and may be unworkable in the real world – these topics should be approached from the stand point that the premise that the motion is possible is evidenced by its setting as a topic. E.G. Open All BordersWho Cares Topics/ who’s calling for that – topics often become more of an intellectual exercise at university, you may never have heard of some topicsWhy Not Topics – important to recognise sometimes the aff will be defending that there is no reason not to do something, rather than an imperativeFocus on principles – sounds vague, application in debate is an importance on introductions and clear stances in debates – principles and analogies become very important. Cheap shots don’t get you very far with adjudicators – e.g. model bashing. Efficacy arguments only get you so far – must prove that there is a harm to a lack of efficacy not just that it wouldn’t happen e.g. intervention debate: don’t argue that the debate is void because it would never pass the security council but can argue that China would be pissed if their veto was over-ridden on the SC and an intervention went ahead anyway. Point is don’t challenge the premise of the debate or the possibility of the motion. What does this mean for the role of a 1staff speaker?IMPORTANT: NOT PROSCRIPTIONS FOR SETTING UP A DEBATE AT UNI – MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT YOU THINK THE DEBATE IS ABOUT AND HOW YOU WOULD DISCHARGE THE MOTION, SO LONG AS THAT’S CLEAR NO FORMALITIES OR DEBATERISMSDEFINITION – can be universal: can say that the world should do this or that the western world, can be an issue set due to matter preping and material – squirrling is not looked on kindlyMODELS – how you would go about doing the thing the topic asks you to: used to clarify not complicateEXAMPLE: ban all pornography – wouldn’t need to limit down the definition and perhaps say who was enforcing the banWhat does this mean for a 1st NEG?Rebuttal – set out the principled clash – don’t model bash, no cost nit-picking. If you think the model is flawed definitely argue that but even if rebuttal of their case is paramount.Burden is to neg the aff case and not the topic – must accept the definition- almost no exceptions: everything is debatable. EXAMPLE: ban all pornography- if the aff sets it to all pornography, you would receive more credit in university debating for proving that the internet cannot be regulated therefore a black market would emerge and that would be more harmful. Rather than just seeking to prove that the internet cannot be regulated therefore all pornography cannot be banned. The lack of effectiveness of the model needs to prove that we should not try to do something rather than that we can’t.
- Topic Selection – means you are given three topics. Rank them 1-3. 3 is an automatic veto for both sides – if you both have different 3s then you will debate the one left. If you have the same three but have ranked 1 and 2 differently, you flip a coin for the remaining two topics. If you have the exact same ranking, you debate both of your first preferences.General Strategy:(1) Think about arguments – you will know whether you are aff or neg. Arguments will often coincide with you knowing what the debate is about but it is important to consider them(2) Obviously don’t have much time so a fall back from knowing the arguments from both sides is knowing what the debate is about but this should come secondary to your awareness of the arguments involved(3) Decide on your veto first- then argue about 1st and 2nd preferences(4) Don’t over-strategise: Easters finals last year, back yourself to win the debate – go with your instinct
- Liberal conception of debating: Formalities and debaterisms are unnecessary e.g. repetitive segways or team linesSo long as a speaker is clear about their intended method there is no proscriptive formula to follow E.G. university speakers often mix their rebuttal and substantive – this does not phase adjudicators as long as the method chosen by speakers is described clearly and well from the outset (as opposed to being evidenced of a lack of organisation)Perfecting a non-debating manner: the most persuasive manner often comes from those who appear to not be debating at allTiming – with increased individual flexibility of time management there is also an increased expectation that time limits will be kept to – we give you freedom to manage your time, if you don’t manage it well that’s your fault – don’t go over timeUse of Examples: stemming from a greater focus on principles – it is not always necessary to use examples in university debatingHumour and Swing – both are encouraged but you should also be prepared for them as speakers – try not to be offended
- Arguments:No rigid P-E-A-L structure to arguments where your analysis is separate or immediately precedes the example: can structure arguments however you like but easiest to think of them as chains of causation:- Chain of causation – think about how you prove what you’re arguing. You start with a premise – with is the topic or your understanding of the what the topic will mean – extrapalate a consequence or what you think will happen as a result: prove why this is a logical consequence or will happen, then make an evaluative judgement on the reasons why that consequence is bad or good.- Principled Arguments – often university debates come down to principle and this can involve throwing analogies back and forth. The most persuasive way to make principled arguments is to (1) outline a principle (2) suggest an analogy/similar circumstance where the same principle holds (3) explain why the analogy is similar to the situation of your debate (4) explain the value of upholding that principle within the specifics of your situationE.G. That the government should continue to fund the medical services of smokersPrinciple: government services are not used punitively against certain lifestyle choicesAnalogy: funding of drug rehabilitaitonSimilarities: health care and both voluntary intake addictive substances Value of upholding is that more people get health care and health care doesn’t become a way of retrospectively moralising choicesRebuttal:Try first to rebut their logic, then their relevance and then their facts. Concessions – more common in university debating. Don’t maintain the attitude that you must never concede anything. If its true it may be more strategic for you to concede the premise and rebut the logical link to the consequence (e.g. we agree that X exists but we don’t think it will lead to the harms you outlined because). Or concede the consequence but rebut the value judgement (e.g. we know that X will happened but we think that the opposition exaggerated the harm) Concessions are used more because you don’t have to win every issue in the debate at university – it is not a tally system of who won what issues – you will be judged on whp won the most important issues so seeking to minimise the harm of an argument that seems to be true may be the best strategic move for your team.
- Written material can be taken into the prep room- coming from school this sounds liberating but (1) it requires you to predict the topics and (2) it can mean you become reliant on fact sheets and freak out if you don’t have a topic pre-preparedFacts are important but still not decisive – it is best to matter prep arguments not facts Fact files are not something to stress about because your required level of knowledge to complete a debate is really at the level of the common sense, reasonable person (a.k.a the adjudicator) but it does become important at uni because you are more likely to be called on making stuff up because generally more people will know what they’re talking about.Matter prep’ing is another aspect of debating that is what you make of it and you can take it however seriously as you want but for general advice: Don’t need anything for regionals Easters- to do really well you will need to read Australian newspapers and keep up to date with the main IR issues – the topics at Easters are not very different from those at Regionals but to win most of your debates some knowledge would be useful Australs – need to be quite across IR issues but fact filing is usually organised within and across teamsGood sources: Long form and argumentative journalism – reflective of the fact that you want arguments not facts