The winner in adebate is the betterspeaker of English.
A good debatermust, to a certainextent, be arrogant.
In a debate, one shouldspeak as loudly and asquickly as he or shecan.
The more content isdelivered, thestronger theargument.
VARIOUS NAMES:Oregon-Oxford Debate Format Cross-Examination Debate Forensic Debate ALL THE SAME TYPE OF DEBATE
IMPORTANT FEATURES:•Use of Proof and Evidence•Cross-Examination Part
Members per Team: 4Role of Members: 4 speakersLength of Constructives: 3 minsNumber of Constructives: 3Length of Cross-Ex: 1 minRebuttals: 1 per sideLength of Rebuttals: 3 minsLast Speech: Negative Rebuttal
Prep 3 minutes1st Aff 3 minutesCross Ex of 1st Aff 1 minute1st Neg 3 minutesCross Ex of 1st Neg 1 minute2nd Aff and 2nd Neg 16 minutes3rd Aff and 3rd NegRebut by Aff 3 minutesRebut by Neg 3 minutesAdj Prep 3 minutesAdj 3 minutes
Propositions must goagainst the status quoor what is theprevailingcircumstance.
That students shouldbe allowed to bringcellphones to school
Speaker Responsibilities1 st Affirmative Speaker•define the terms of the propositionExample: “cellphones are electronic devices used for communication”
Speaker Responsibilities1 st Affirmative Speaker•Lays out the policy created by the team/values to be debated on•give an outline of the team structure/team split (signposting)
Speaker Responsibilities1 st Affirmative SpeakerExample: I as the first speaker will talk about the feasibility of cellphone proposal, while the second speaker will talk about the benefits of having this policy. No rehash!
Speaker Responsibilities1 st Affirmative Speaker•begin to present the affirmative’s caseTHE FIRST SPEAKER SHOULD TAKE THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THE TEAM SPLIT.
Speaker Responsibilities1 st Negative Speaker•cross-examine 1st Affirmative•accept or reject the definition•reasons: definition is against the spirit of the proposition or altruistic•States the clash•rebut 1st Affirmative (0ffense)
Speaker Responsibilities1 st Negative Speaker•Clash: We do not want students to bring cellphones to school. We want to maintain status quo.
Speaker ResponsibilitiesCROSS-EXAMINATION•to clarify pointsOn ECA being requiredMr. Speaker, you conceded that clubs promote holistic development, didn’t you?
Speaker ResponsibilitiesCROSS-EXAMINATION•directing questionsOn ECA being requiredMr. Speaker, isn’t holistic development agoal of Xavier School? Shouldn’t studentsbe required to do things that contribute totheir holistic development?
Speaker ResponsibilitiesCROSS-EXAMINATION•concluding questionsOn ECA being requiredMr. Speaker, shouldn’t ECA,contributing to holisticdevelopment, then be required ofstudents?
Speaker ResponsibilitiesCROSS-EXAMINATION•Don’t make statements, do ask questions.•Don’t ask irrelevant questions.•Try to ask yes-or-no questions.•Do be courteous.
Speaker Responsibilities2nd and 3rd Speakers•defend 1st speaker from attack (defense)•rebut previous speaker (offense)•present portion of case
Speaker ResponsibilitiesRebuttal Speakers•summarize his side THE REBUTTAL SPEAKER CAN PRESENT NEW ARGUMENTS.
Speaker ResponsibilitiesRebuttal Speakers•summarize his side THE REBUTTAL SPEAKER CAN PRESENT NEW EXAMPLES.
Speaker ResponsibilitiesRebuttal Speakers•select his side’s strongest issues and explain why these are sufficient for a win•refute key issues of other side•explain why other issues should result in a loss for other side
Speaker ResponsibilitiesRebuttal Speakers•Issues: important contentions/clashes in the debate
Speaker ResponsibilitiesRebuttal Speakers: I’m going to answer two crucial questions in my speech. First, does the death penalty really deter crime? Second, is justice really served by an eye-for-an- eye punishment?
Speaker ResponsibilitiesAUDIENCE•objectively express agreement or disagreement•HEAR!•SHAME!
DIVISION INTO TEAMS4 people / teamother people tobe adjudicators
Preparing Notes for the DebateMotion:Definition of Terms:Affirmative NegativeSplit: (three parts) Split: (three parts)1st Speaker: (name) 1st Speaker: (name)- points within split - points within split2nd Speaker: (name) 2nd Speaker: (name)- points within split - points within split3rd Speaker: (name) 3rd Speaker: (name)- points within split - points within split
Arguing Deductively• Start with the conclusion• Explanation of the conclusion through the providing evidence/support
Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.Conclusion: The death penalty deters crime by threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and most dreaded punishment possible during their period of calculation.Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before people commit these crimes, they plan the act and therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.
Arguing Inductively • Start with specific pieces of evidence or support • Ends with a conclusion
Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before people commit these crimes, they plan the act and therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.Conclusion: Thus death penalty deters crime by threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and most dreaded punishment possible during their period of calculation.
You may add examples like:Statistics, news items, case studies, etc.
Feasibility• Will the policy work?• How will it work?• Is it the best policy to solve the problem?
Beneficiality• Will the policy be beneficial?• How big of a benefit will it be?• Who will benefit from the policy?