This document discusses different types of debates and their formats. It provides examples of historical debates that helped shape political landscapes. The document outlines six main types of debates: team policy debates, Cross-Examination debates, Lincoln-Douglas debates, spontaneous argumentation debates, parliamentary debates, and Oregon-Oxford debates. Each have different structures and focuses, such as presenting evidence quickly (team policy) or focusing on style without research (spontaneous). Historical examples of influential debates discussed include the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 and the Nixon-Kennedy presidential debates of 1960. These debates played roles in Lincoln's road to the presidency and Kennedy being viewed as the winner, helping him win the election.

2. Why People Debate?
“A man never tells you anything until you contradict
him”
• George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Irish playwright
“I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone
just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job”
• Margaret Thatcher (1925 - Present) British prime minister
“You will never understand your opponent’s
argument, unless you fully understand your own”
• Book: Political Spectrum

3. TYPES OF DEBATES
1. Team Policy Debate / National Debate Tournament
Team policy debates feature two teams of two debaters each. The format consists of eight speeches--four
constructive speeches and four rebuttals--and four periods of cross-examination. Emphasis is put on presenting
large amounts of evidence as quickly and as coherently as possible.
2. Cross-Examination Debate Association, or CEDA
Debates are a newer type of two-on-two collegiate debate. Unlike NDT debates, CEDA debates have resolutions
that are not related to policy. CEDA debates are intended to be based on values, but, like NDT, a lot of evidence
can be presented.
3. Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Inspired by the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas during a senatorial race in the
1850s. They are one-on-one debates that focus on arguing for or against competing moral and ethical values.
There traditionally has been a strong emphasis on speaking persuasively, logically and clearly in Lincoln-
Douglas debates.
4. Spontaneous argumentation, or SPAR
Debates feature two debaters who draw a topic at random (traditionally out of a hat). The debaters then spend a
few minutes preparing what they will say before engaging in a brief debate on the topic. It is often used
in college and university classrooms and helps decrease speaker anxiety and build confidence. Because the
debates do not require serious research, they focus more on presentation and style than on content.
5. Parliamentary Debate
Similar to SPAR debates, parliamentary debates require no prior research. Resolutions are established only 10
minutes or so before a round of debate begins, so wit, logic and persuasiveness are strongly emphasized. These
debates are referred to as "parliamentary" because of their resemblance to the debates that occur in British
Parliament. There are two teams of two debaters in parliamentary debates, and a round consists of six speeches:
four constructive speeches and two rebuttal speeches.
6. Oregon-Oxford Debate

4. Lincoln-Douglas Debates
In a series of seven
debates in 1858, Abraham
Lincoln challenged United
States Senator Stephen
Douglas’s support of a law
allowing slavery in free
territory
Lincoln lost his bid for
Douglas’s Senate seat, but
the debates helped pave
the road to the presidency

5. Nixon-Kennedy Debate
Democratic presidential
candidate John F. Kennedy
faced Republican candidate
Richard Nixon in four
nationally televised debates
during the 1960 United
States presidential
campaign
Kennedy was widely
regarded as the winner of
the debates, which helped
him win the presidency

6. COMPONENTS
1. History of Debate
2. Objectives
3. The Resolution
4. Research
5. Case-building
6. Parts of the Debate
7. Speaker Roles
8. The Constructive Speech

7. HISTORY OF DEBATE
Debate during the Olden Days
It was in 5th Century B.C.
in Syracuse a city from Ancient
Greece has gone through war and
revolution
People struggled for peace and
order
A particular concern for them was
land ownership for lands were
claimed through memory

8. WHAT IS DEBATE?
Debate is basically a response
to a problem
It is a competition using words
and logic
It is to change people’s minds
and actions through our words
and power of conviction.

9. OBJECTIVES OF DEBATE
MAIN OBJECTIVES SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
•To resolve
the issue
intelligently
at the end
of the
debate
To have a
comprehensive
grasp of issues
To be able to
prepare a case
which tackles
the P, N and B

10. THE RESOLUTION
the process of
resolving something
such as a problem or
dispute
CHARACTERISTICS
• Stated as:
Let it be
resolved that
(LIBRT)
:___________
___
1. Usually about a
policy
2. Stated in a way
that alters the
status quo
STATUS QUO:
the condition or
state of affairs
that currently
exists
3. Positively-stated

11. RESEARCH
BEFORE CASE-BUILDING AFTER CASE-BUILDING
Research first before
case-building
The team should
research before
building their case if
the issue is new and
is still developing
The team should
build their case
first before
undergoing
research when
the issue has
already been
widely discussed
and debated

12. CASE-BUILDING
BURDEN OF EACH TEAM
AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE
• Burden of Proof
 Must establish a prima
facie case
▫ PRIMA FACIE CASE
 Is a case believed to be
true unless otherwise
proven
 Must prove all aspects
of their case to win
 Can not win based on
the inability of the
negative to prove its
case
• Burden of Rebuttal
Must destroy
either of the P, N,
or B of the
affirmative’s case
Can not discuss
anything that the
affirmative did
not bring up

13. ASPECTS OF THE CASE
1. Practicability
Feasibility of a proposition, includes matter of:
a. Law
b. Clamor
c. Finance
2. Necessity
Need for the proposition, discusses the
presence or absence of an inherent flaw in the
status quo
3. Beneficiality
Advantages or disadvantages of adopting or
rejecting the resolution, includes:
a. Specific Beneficiaries
b. Specific Benefits

14. PARTS OF THE DEBATE
1. Constructive Speech
• The presentation of each team member’s arguments
and evidence for each aspect of the case
• 5 minutes each
2. Interpellation
• The opportunity for each debater to ask and answer
questions regarding their speeches
• 3 minutes
3. Rebuttal
• The summary and defense of each team’s arguments
and evidence, to be delivered by either the scribe or the
team captain
• 6 minutes

15. SPEAKERS’ ROLE
3 Speakers
• 1. Practicability Speaker
• 2. Necessity Speaker
• 3. Beneficiality Speaker
1 Scribe
• A copier or transcriber of
documents, especially somebody
who copied manuscripts in
medieval times

16. 1ST SPEAKER AFFIRMATIVE SIDE
I. Introduction
II. State the proposition
A. Define the terms
B. Give the status quo
1. What is the status quo?
2. What is wrong with it?
C. State your stand
III. Team Split
IV. Case Line
A. State all your arguments first
B. Go back, then strengthen each one
C. Always give transition. You could
repeat the argument after your
explanation
VI. Conclusion

17. 1ST SPEAKER NEGATIVE SIDE
I. Introduction
II. State the proposition of the affirmative
A. Negate or show the clash with the
given proposition
III. Rebut the 1st speaker of the
affirmative side’s arguments
IV. Caseline
A. Same as the 1st speaker of the
affirmative side
V. Conclusion
A. Same as the 1st speaker of the
affirmative side

18. REBUTTAL SPEAKER FROM
AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE SIDES
I. Introduction
II. State the proposition
A. What has happened in this
debate?
B. Where was the clash?
III. Rebuttal of the Opposing team
A. What have they said?
B. Why is it wrong?
C. Fallacies committed

19. SUMMARY
A. Restate all the arguments of
each speaker
1. What have they said?
2. Why is it right?
B. Strengthen arguments by
giving more examples or
elaboration
C. Conclusion

20. Issue: Death Penalty
Material Object: Life
3 Mental Operations:
1. Terms: Life is Precious
2. Proposition : Death Penalty Defies The Sanctity Of
Life As A Precious Gift From God
3. Arguments:
Syllogism
Major Premise: All human beings have the right to
enjoy the gift of life from God
regardless of their social status
Minor Premise: Criminals are human beings
Conclusion: Therefore, criminals have the right to
enjoy the gift of life from God
SEAT WORK
Construct your own argument applying the following concepts (25 Points)