The document provides information about debate and persuasive speaking. It discusses what debate is, including that it is a discussion of opposing viewpoints intended to persuade an audience. It outlines the structure of a formal debate, including the roles of the affirmative and negative sides and the types of arguments each makes. It also gives examples of debate topics and provides guidance on developing effective speaking and reasoning skills for debates.

2. POLICY PROPOSITION
STATEMENT
RESOLVED:
The United States Federal
Government should substantially
increase its exploration and/or
development of space beyond
Earth’s Mesosphere.

3. DEBATE…
…how to investigate new
ideas, help develop
critical thinking skills, and
open your mind to
different viewpoints

4. IT’S NOT JUST AN ARGUMENT
• Never confuse debating with arguing
• It is an open-minded, intelligent way to explore diverse
viewpoints
• Debate is a way to demonstrate your ability to change
your opinions and gather new information

5. IT IS ORAL COMMUNICATION
We debate all the time…
• In families
• In schools
• In sport team meetings
• At work places
• In town meetings
• In the courtroom
• In Congress

6. DID YOU EVER…
• Did you ever loose an argument with your parents?
• Did you ever not present good facts for your point
of view with friends?
• Did you ever want to be more respected for your
own ideas?

7. DID YOU EVER…
• Did you ever imagine yourself as a leader?
• Did you ever enjoy competition?
• Did you ever like being “right”?
If you answered yes then debate is for you!

8. DEBATE IS A DISCUSSION
• Debate is a discussion and exchange of two
opposing points of view
• Teams engage in formal “arguments” in an attempt
to convince the audience or judge that their point of
view is best
• A debater uses effective oral delivery—speech—
skills to support their position

9. THE GOAL IS TO PERSUADE
• A debater’s goal is to persuade the audience that
his/her position is the strongest
• A debater is able to refute, or argue, against the
opposite view
• A debater provides researched evidence and
reasoning to support their view

10. VALUE OF DEBATING
• Improves speaking skills
• Improves ability to “think on your feet”
• Develops points of view that can stand up under
“attack” from an opponent
• Develops critical thinking skills
• Develops reasoning skills

11. VALUE OF DEBATING
• Develops active listening skills
• Develops the ability to become informed on current
issues
• Develops stronger research skills
• Impresses your teachers and friends

12. JUST IMAGINE…
• Becoming a critical thinker
• Having thoughtful discussion
• Sharing informed comments
• Showing your flexible opinion
• Developing a written point of view

13. JUST IMAGINE…
SHARING YOUR OPINION LIKE
A PROFESSIONAL
• Clearly identifying reasons for your point of view
• Exploring opposite opinions
• Gaining experience conducting research
• Gaining experience speaking

14. SO YOU WANT TO DEBATE…
Keep this slide show handy as you
learn the steps to become a
championship debater.

15. EXAMPLES OF DEBATE TOPICS
• Should Olympic athletes be tested for drugs?
• Should schools have dress codes?
• Do teens have too many activities?
• Should students have to do volunteer work to
graduate?
• Should kids learn riflery in schools?
• Should cell phones be allowed in class?
• Should student athletes have to get good grades to
play sports?
• Do police belong in schools?

16. MORE DEBATE TOPICS
• Should students get paid for attending school?
• If you find $100, is it yours to keep?
• If you see someone cheating on a test, should you
tell?
• Should you change the way you dress because of
what other people might think?
• Is year-round school a good idea?
• Should laws be stricter for teenage drivers?
• Should male and female training in the military be
separate?

17. 2-PERSON DEBATE
The proposition is the topic
1) Constructive speeches
• The affirmative constructive argues for the
proposition
• The negative constructive argues against the
proposition
2) Rebuttal speeches
• The affirmative rebuttal explains previous
arguments, responds, and defends their position
• The negative rebuttal does the same

18. 2012 MSBSD DEBATE TOPIC
POLICY PROPOSITION
RESOLVED:
The United States Federal Government
should substantially increase its
exploration and/or development of space
beyond Earth’s Mesosphere.

19. THE PROPOSITION
The actual topic or subject of the debate
put in positive terms and clear language
• Begins with the word “resolved”
• 3 kinds of propositions
• Proposition of fact
• Proposition of value
• Proposition of policy

20. POLICY PROPOSITION
STATEMENT
This statement suggests that a specific action
or policy should be adopted. This
proposition does not involve verification, but
argues whether a policy should be adopted
or abolished.

21. THE ISSUES
The point, matter or question to be
disputed or decided
• The Pros: points or matter on which they base
their argument for change
• Cons: the basis of why they do not wish to change

22. THE 4 QUESTIONS
1. Is the problem inherent in the status
quo?
2. Will the plan that we propose solve
this problem?
3. Will there be more advantages
because of the implementation of the
plan than there will be disadvantages?
4. Is there really a problem?

23. THE ARGUMENT
The debater makes a claim.
• On what basis is the claim?
• What evidence applies?
• Is the evidence acceptable?
• What are the logical conclusions?

24. AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Burden of proof: the requirement to prove
a proposition, claim, or issue
• This is the primary job of the affirmative team
• Must prove the need for the adoption of the
proposition

25. AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
The affirmative constructive case is
composed of 4 parts or areas of the
debate
1) Definition of terms area
2) Problem or justification area
3) Solution or plan area
4) Advantages area

26. AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Definition of terms area
• Decide what are the key words in the proposition
• Find definitions from reliable sources; dictionaries
encyclopedias, web sites, experts
• Apply their various meanings to the resolution
• Use examples
• Use negation: explain what a key word does not
mean
• Use testimony: quote a qualified person

27. AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Problem or justification area
• Demonstrate a problem exists in the present policy
and is widespread enough to cause concern
• Demonstrate the problem is significant enough to
require a change; it is a serious problem
• Inherency: determine if the present system will solve
the problem or make it worse
• Must show the problem exists because of the
present system or status quo
• Must show there is need for a change
• Must include good evidence and reasoning

28. AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Solution or Plan area
• This is where you connect the solution to the
problem in a clear and persuasive manner
• Must convince the judge or audience that you plan
will it work
• Must show that your plan will solve the problem
• Must show that your plan will correct the weakness
in the status quo

29. AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Advantages area
• Show additional advantages on a wider scope or
elaborate about advantages
• Show how advantages outnumber or outweigh the
disadvantages
• Minimize the disadvantages

30. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Burden of rebuttal: the requirement to
disprove a proposition, claim, or issue
• This is the primary job of the negative team
• Must attack the case for the adoption of the
proposition

31. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
The negative constructive is composed of
4 parts or attack issue areas.
To be successful, you must refute or
disprove at least one of these stock
issues:
1) Attack the affirmative’s definition of terms
2) Attack the affirmative’s problem or justification
3) Attack the affirmative’s plan or solution
4) Attach the affirmative’s advantages

32. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Definition of Terms
• It is unlikely that a definition will be a successful
attack
• However, you may want to challenge a definition if
it is unusual

33. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Attacking the problem or justification
• Show that the affirmative team has not shown that
a problem exists with the status quo
• Show that they have not shown inherency or
significance with the problem
• Show the problem can be resolved without
adopting the proposition
• May defend the current policy; it may not be
perfect but it is superior to the proposal

34. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Attacking the plan or solution
• Prove the affirmative has not presented a good
remedy for the harm
• Show how the plan will not solve the problems
• Show that not enough evidence was presented; or
perhaps, no evidence was presented
• Challenge the affirmative’s sources
• Show that the affirmative’s reasoning is faulty

35. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Attacking the advantages
• Show that the advantages will not happen
• Point out the number of disadvantages that would
result if the plan was adopted
• Attempt to prove there are more disadvantages
than advantages for adopting the plan

36. AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL
Attacking your opponents arguments and
defending or rebuilding your own
arguments
• Challenge opponent’s points of view
• Show flaws or weaknesses in opponent’s
arguments

37. NEGATIVE REBUTTAL
Attacking your opponents arguments and
defending or rebuilding your own
arguments
• Challenge opponent’s points of view
• Show flaws or weaknesses in opponent’s
arguments

38. EVIDENCE
Supporting materials used in a speech to
prove or disprove something
• Examples to prove the case
• Includes an affirmative team
• Includes a negative team

39. EVIDENCE
4 examples of evidence
• Examples
• Comparison
• Statistics
• Testimony

40. EVIDENCE: EXAMPLES
The telling or retelling a story
• Given clearly and in an orderly fashion
• Use a variety of examples

41. EVIDENCE: COMPARISON
An analogy is comparing two items, events,
people
• Pointing out similarities applying to the proposition
• Similarities must outweigh the differences
• Comparisons must be similar is all respects

42. EVIDENCE: STATISTICS
Use of numbers to prove or disprove a
point
• Must be representative of a whole
• Must not be out of context
• Must come from a reliable source that is identified
• May need to be explained and interpret them
• Must identify the source
• Must not be overused

43. EVIDENCE: TESTIMONY
Quotations stating the opinions or conclusions
of others
• Authors who have special knowledge or experience
about the issue
• Must use authors who have knowledge and
experience about the topic and are recognized as
experts
• The person must be qualified by training and
experience to speak on the topic
• Must quote the person accurately
• Must quote the overall meaning and intent
• Must identify the person
• Should read the testimonials from notecards for the
judges
• It is unethical and dishonest to change the meaning
of the quotation to fit your own purposes

44. REASONING
Reasoning = the Argument
The process of drawing conclusions from
evidence and connecting ideas,
situations and events
• A part of critical thinking
• Connecting events to similar previous experience

45. TYPES OF REASONING
3 types of reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Deductive reasoning
• Analogical reasoning

46. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Reasoning from the specific to the general
• Based upon specific examples and specific
evidence
• Always includes several exceptions
• Use backup evidence
• Quotations
• Statistics
• Do not use “sweeping terms” such as “all, only,
never, always, and everyone” unless the evidence
supports the statement
• Be careful with the conclusion

47. DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Reasoning from the general to the specific
• Opposite of inductive reasoning
• Uses 3 statements:
• Major premise: general statement of belief
• Minor premise: specific case of issue as it relates
to the major premise
• Conclusion: connection between the major and
minor premises
• Be certain that both premises are true
• Be careful of using sweeping terms
• Show a clear relationship between major and minor
premises
• Be sure the conclusion draws it al together

48. ANALOGICAL REASONING
Reasoning from analogy
• Comparing the similarities between two items,
events, people
• If alike in some ways, they will be alike in others
• This is most effective when dealing with propositions
of policy
• Show as many similarities as possible
• Most important is to make sure the two things being
compared are actually similar
• If they are basically alike, they may be similar, if not,
they will not be similar

49. CROSS-EXAMINATION
Requires spontaneous thinking and responses
• It’s creative
• It’s challenging
• It has a question and answer period, “cross-x”; it’s a
face to face questioning of your opponent

50. CROSS-X FORMAT
• 1st Affirmative Constructive / 5 minutes *
• Negative Cross Examination / 3 minutes
• 1st Negative Constructive / 5 minutes
• Affirmative Cross Examination / 3minutes
• 1st Affirmative Rebuttal / 3 minutes
• 1st Negative Rebuttal / 6 minutes
• 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal / 3 minutes
*3 minute total preparation time during the entire process after the first affirmative
constructive; any additional time is subtracted from their remaining speeches

51. EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION &
SPEAKING SKILLS
Use of Voice
• Pitch, volume, articulation, vocal fillers, rate
Animation
• Movement, facial expressions, eye contact
Language
• Grammatical correctness, exactness,
appropriateness, originality

52. MISTAKES TO AVOID
• Not practicing out loud
• Using poor visual aids; not rehearsing with visual
aids
• Trying to cram everything in
• Not being prepared with technology needs
• Ignoring audience interest
• Looking at notes instead of the audience
• Trying to be something you are not
• Taking too much time
• Faking it

53. MSBSD
MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE
This slide show was created to assist MSBSD middle
school debate coaches with teaching debate
concepts.
Resources:
Davidson, Josephine . The Middle School Debater. The Right Book Co.,
Bellingham, WA. 1997.
Kushner, Malcolm. Public Speaking for Dummies. Hungry Minds, Inc. New York.
1999.
Oberg, Rent C. Forensics: The Winner’s Guide to Speech Contests. Meriwether
Publishing Ltd., Colorado Springs, CO. 1995.
Paige, Robert W., Ph.D. Debate Skills . Mark Twain Media Inc. 2000.
Created February 2012
Annie Bill / TAG Program Coordinator