Guidelines For Debaters

English Debating Society
STMIK AMIKOM YOGYAKARTA

(EDS AMIKOM)
GUIDELINES
FOR
DEBATERS
(AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY)
AMIKOM YOGYAKARTA
Sleman
2000
English Debating Society AMIKOM YOGYAKARTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
THE BASICS
OF
DEBATING.............................................................1
MOTIONS..................................................................................... 2
DEFINITIONS................................................................................2
THEME LINE................................................................................ 4
TEAM SPLIT................................................................................. 4
ARGUMENTS.................................................................................5
What adjudicators look for in a good argument
Preparing a Reasonable Argument
REBUTTAL.................................................................................... 6
Organization of rebuttal
ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS...............................................................7
The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's
cases
The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive
argument
The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponents case
Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing
biased adjudication
ADJUDICATION..............................................................................9
CLOSING.................................................................................... 10
Guidelines for Debaters
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
THIS document is an introduction to Australasian Parliamentary
debates, the motions/topics, team structure, etc. It is meant to help
institutions and universities who are new to the Parliamentary
debating format and are interested in participating in a debating
competition using the format, but are still unclear on the rules and
regulations. This document is not intended to serve as a definitive
guide to the rules of the tournament.
THE BASICS OF DEBATING

DEBATING is about developing your communication skills. It is about
assembling and organizing effective arguments, persuading and
entertaining an audience, and using your voice and gestures to
convince an adjudicator that your arguments outweigh your
oppositions. Debating is not about personal abuse, irrational attacks
or purely emotional appeals.
A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These
two teams will be referred to as the Affirmative and the Negative.
Members of each team are assigned positions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
speakers. For each debate, a motion is given. After the motion is
given, teams are given thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each
debate.
Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of seven (7)
minutes duration and either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides
will deliver the reply speeches for their teams. Reply speeches will
be five (5) minutes.
Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:
1st Affirmative 7 minutes
1st Negative 7 minutes
2nd Affirmative 7 minutes
Substantial Speeches
2nd Negative 7 minutes
3rd Affirmative 7 minutes
3rd Negative 7 minutes
Negative Reply 5 minutes
Reply Speeches
Affirmative Reply 5 minutes
What must both sides do? In general:
Affirmative (also known as the Government)
Page 1
The Affirmative team must define the motion and support this
by giving constructive arguments. The right to define first
resides with the Affirmative team, who is expected to give a
reasonable definition for the motion.
Negative (also known as the Opposition)
The Negative team must oppose the motion as defined by the
Affirmative, and build a counter-case against the Affirmative.
In the event the Negative team feels that the definition is
invalid, they may challenge the definition and propose an
alternative definition. However, the Negative team cannot
raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition is
more reasonable.
MOTIONS
MOTIONS, also known as topics, are full propositional statements
that determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate, the
Affirmative team must argue to defend the propositional statement of
the motion, and the Negative team must argue to oppose it.
Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about:
That we should give President Habibie a chance
That Indonesia should change its constitution
That football is overvalued in todays society
That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the
bad effects of smoking
That American pop culture is a threat to civilization
That long is better than short
DEFINITIONS
BEFORE a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be
defined by the Affirmative team. A definition clarifies the motion. A
definition gives a clear description of boundaries to the motion,
thereby limiting what the debate will be about into a focused area of
discussion. This prevents the debate from turning into a vague and
confusing show of unrelated arguments and different interpretations
from both teams of what is actually being debated among them.
The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual
words only if they have a key role. Out of the definition should come
a clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in the
debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on a word-byGuidelines for Debaters
Page 2
word basis, it should define words or phrases by their common

usage. Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning or a
pithy explanation of a word, but they are not an absolute authority.
An example of a definition could be as follows: Given the motion
that what goes up, must come down, the Affirmative is presented
with many options on how to define the motion, because the nature
of the motion itself is quite abstract. One way they could define it is
as follows: they could define the object (the what) as being the
president of the Republic of Indonesia. In essence, the motion would
then state that anyone who goes up (takes power) as president of
Indonesia, must undoubtedly one day come down (step down from
power). This would give us the definition that the Indonesian
presidency should be limited to 2 terms. The Affirmative team could
then argue on the detriments of having unlimited presidential terms,
citing proof such as the total control of the past regime under
Soeharto, etc.
The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of
the debate is unknown until the Affirmative delivers their definition
of the motion. Only then does it become clear.
Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable. This is to
say that:
it must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and
it must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.
This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual
interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.
The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the
Affirmative, but the Negative shall have the right of challenging the
definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set
out above. However, a Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply
on the basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can
only challenge a definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic,
Tautological, Squirreling, or Time and place setting (see below).
If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to say so,
and it is unnecessary to restate it. If they challenge it, their
justification for doing so must be clearly stated, and an alternative
definition must be put forward. If the definition is accepted, then that
definition must stand. The Negative must adjust their case to that
definition, and the adjudicator's views on its reasonableness become
irrelevant.
Page 3
The following definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament,

and should be challenged by the Negative team:
Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are true by
nature and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and
therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team
defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the
truth of their definition rather than by the strength of their
arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic
definition would be if the motion that we should eat, drink, and
be merry were defined as that we should eat, because otherwise
we would starve to death; drink, because otherwise we would die
of thirst; and be merry because we are alive.
Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a
definition is given in such a way that it is logically impossible to
negate it. An example would be if the motion that technology is
killing our work ethic were defined as follows: the Affirmative
team decides to define the term technology as meaning all
scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills
our work ethic. This would result in the whole definition that all
scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills
our work ethic is killing our work ethic. This cannot be logically
proven false.
Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the
motion and do not have a proper logical link to the motion will
constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion that
the USA is opening up to the PRC, an Affirmative team could try
and define USA as Untidy Students of Asia, and PRC as Pretty
Room Cleaners. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would
agree that the spirit of the motion is about the relationship
between the United States and China!
Time and Place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot
be confined to a particular time and place. For instance, trying to
limit the subject matter to only the economic development of
Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration.
A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about
challenging definitions - only do so if you are absolutely certain that
the Affirmative's definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump
your prepared case in favor of tackling the Affirmative on their own
terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By the same
token, Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is
fair.
Page 4
THEME LINE
THE theme line is the underlying logic of a teams case. It is the main
instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a teams stand on
the motion. A theme line can be viewed as a Case In A Nutshell,
because it concisely explains a teams strategy in defending or
negating the motion.
The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every
team member. It is the main idea that links together the first, second,
and third speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.
In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question:
Why is the propositional statement given by the definition of the
motion true (or false, for the Negative team)? Without further
explanation, this propositional statement is a mere assertion, or a
statement which is logically unproven to be true. The answer to this
question must be an argument which proves the assertion given by
the motion. This argument is the theme line.
A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single
sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical
syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it
is defined) and all arguments brought forward should be based on
this theme line.
TEAM SPLIT
DEBATING is a team activity. One person cannot take all the
arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case.
Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the arguments should be
distributed among speakers. This is called the team split. Simply put,
the team split is the distribution of arguments to the first, second,
and third speaker.
Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already
prove the motion. You should not create what is called a hung case. A
hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion by
itself, but instead requires coupling it with other speeches to be able
to finally prove the motion.
For a more elaborate exposition on formulating theme lines and team
splits, please consult the document entitled Casebuilding Examples
of Australasian Parliamentary Debates. It contains thorough
examples that give a very clear idea on how to construct theme lines
and team splits from definitions.
Page 5
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTATION is the process of explaining why a point of view
should be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence
supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. examples,
facts, statistics, quotations of expert/public opinion etc.) to back up
each point you make in your argument. Show how each piece of
evidence is relevant and how it advances your argument. Make a
point, give the reason for that point, and supply evidence to back it
up.
Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have
yet to be proven to be logically true. On the other hand, arguments
must have supporting logic and facts that can show its validity.
What adjudicators look for in a good argument
Relevance
Organization
Consistency and internal logic - i.e. don't contradict yourself or
your teammates
Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience
and adjudicator that you're right - so make sure they can
understand what you're saying!)
Effective use of evidence
Preparing a Reasonable Argument

One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to
understand, a reasoned argument and especially important to
recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not
whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of
reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises and
whether those premises are true.
When developing your argument, consider the following factors:
Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the "facts."
Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all
points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight "authorities" have
made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at
most, there are experts.
Prepare more than one case. If there's something to be defined,
think of all the different ways in which it could be defined. Then
Page 6
think of arguments by which you might systematically rebut each

of the cases. What survives, the case that resists rebuttal in this
Darwinian selection among "multiple working cases," has a much
better chance of being the stronger case than if you had simply
run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a idea just because it's yours. It's
only a waystation in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask
yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the
alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you
don't, others will.
Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure,
some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able
to defend it against generalized rebuttal. What is vague and
qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are
truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged
to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work
(including the premise) not just most of them.
Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when
faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to
choose the simpler.
Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified.
Propositions that are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not
in the spirit of debating. You run a good chance of losing a debate,
especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your
arguments cannot be rebutted.
REBUTTAL
REBUTTAL is the process of proving that the opposing team's
arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them.
It may consist of:
showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact
or an erroneous interpretation of fact
showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of
the topic
showing that the opposing argument is illogical
showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves
unacceptable implications
showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should
be accorded little weight
Page 7
As with arguments, assertions do not equal rebuttals. Just as teams

must show how and why their own arguments are valid, so they must
show how and why the opposition's arguments are invalid.
An argument may be wrong in fact or logic - if so, say how and
why
An argument may contradict their team line, or something else a
speaker on that team has said if so, point it out
An argument may be true but completely irrelevant these are
often called red herrings.
Organization of rebuttal
It is not necessary to rebutt every single point and fact raised by the
opposition. Single out their main arguments and attack those first.
Savage their theme line and show how it falls down and show why
yours is better! You should rebutt by both destroying the opposition's
arguments and by establishing a case that directly opposes theirs.
ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS

THE six speakers in an Australasian Parliamentary debate each have
different roles to play and adjudicators should take account of how
well a speaker fulfills his/her obligations.
The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their

team's cases
First Affirmatives duties:
Defines the motion of the debate. The 1 st Affirmative should
ensure that no important points of definition are left out.
Presents the Affirmatives theme line. This is normally presented
in one or several lines of analysis, explaining why the Affirmatives
case is logically correct.
Outlines the Affirmatives team split. This can be done by saying,
for example: I, as the first affirmative will deal with the
philosophical base of our case, while my colleague, the second
affirmative speaker, will examine its practical implications.
Delivers substantial arguments (1st Affirmatives part of the
split). After establishing the definition, theme line, and team
split, the 1st Affirmative should then deal with the
arguments/points that have been assigned to him/her in the team
split.
Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.
Page 8
The 1st Affirmative may spend some time on the definition and on
establishing the theme line and showing how it is going to develop,
but it is important to leave time to present some substantive
arguments.
First Negatives duties:
Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the
definition).
Rebutts 1st Affirmative, delivers a part of the negative's
substantive case.
Presents the Negatives theme line.
Outlines the Negatives team split.
Delivers substantial arguments (1st Negatives part of the split).
The 1st Negatives role is similar to the role of the 1 st Affirmatives,
with the added responsibility of responding to the arguments
brought up by the latter. The response to the 1 st Affirmatives
arguments can come before the 1st Negative presents his/her own
arguments to support the Negatives case or vice-versa. However,
the delivery of rebuttals first is recommended.
After the first speakers have spoken the main direction of each
teams case should be apparent.
The second speakers deal with the bulk of the

substantive argument
Second Affirmatives duties:
Rebutts the 1st Negative's major arguments.
Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Affirmatives team
case.
Delivers substantial arguments (2nd Affirmatives part of the
split). Most of the 2nd Affirmative's time should be spent dealing
with new substantial material/arguments. He or she has the duty
to present the bulk of the Affirmative's case in an attempt to
further argue in favor of the Affirmative.
The 2nd Affirmative should be prepared to defend the definition if
necessary. If it is attacked, it is vital for the 2 nd Affirmative to win
back the initiative.
Second Negatives duties:
Rebuttal of the first two Affirmative speakers.
Page 9
Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Negatives team

case.
Delivers substantial arguments (2nd Negatives part of the split).
The 2nd Negative has duties similar to the one performed by the 2 nd
Affirmative.
Most of the teams' substantive argument should have emerged by
the time both second speakers have spoken.
The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the

opponents case
Third Affirmatives duties:
Rebutt the points raised by the first two Negative speakers. The
3rd Affirmative is mainly entrusted with the duty of responding to
the arguments of the Negative that were not previously dealt with
by the first two Affirmative speakers. 3rd Affirmative may also
reinforce rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates.
Rebuild teams case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two
speakers arguments).
Summarize the issues of the debate.
The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! Most of a third
speaker's time must be spent rebutting the preceding speakers.
Generally at least three quarters of a third speech should be
rebuttal.
Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a global level
(teamwise), a 3rd speaker should attack the opposing teams whole
case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic. On a
more detailed level (speechwise), a 3rd speaker should be able to
point out the mistakes in fact and inconsistency of each individual
speech.
Third Negatives duties:
Rebutt the points raised by all three Affirmative speakers.
Rebuild teams case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two
speakers arguments).
Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate
Summarize the issues of the debate
The 3rd Negative has duties similar to the ones performed by the 3 rd
Affirmative. However, the 3rd Negative cannot introduce new matter,
Page 10
except for new examples to reinforce an argument that has

previously been brought up. The logic behind this rule is that if a 3 rd
Negative is allowed to introduce new matter, the Affirmative would
be at a disadvantage as they would not have any opportunity to be
able to respond to these new arguments.
Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a

convincing biased adjudication
Reply speakers duties (both sides):
Provide a summary or overview of the debate
Identify the issues raised by both sides
Provide a biased adjudication of the debate
Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the
reply speech. The Negative team delivers the first reply speech.
A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's
case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in
the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case.
The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team
and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of
argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws
in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done
point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the
arguments. Both are effective if well done, so find the summary style
that suits you best. However, the latter style is often more effective
in light of the limited time frame.
The introduction of new material is absolutely prohibited and will be
penalized. Any point brought up by the other side which had not
been rebutted earlier in the substantial speeches may not be
rebutted in the reply speeches. Therefore, this means that all
substantive arguments presented in the debate must be dealt with by
the opposing team in the substantial speeches.
ADJUDICATION
ADJUDICATION is the process of determining which team wins the
debates. This is conducted by an adjudicator, or a panel consisting of
an odd number of adjudicators.
There is always a winner in a debate. There are no draws or ties.
The speakers are assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is
40 points, Manner is 40, and Method is 20, making a total of 100
Page 11
points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter and
Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50 points.
Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and
examples brought up during the course of the debate. Manner is
concerned with the style of public-speaking the use of voice,
language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality
as a medium for making the audience more receptive to the
argument being delivered. There are no set rules which must be
followed by debaters. Method consists of the effectiveness of the
structure and organization of each individual speech, the
effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a
whole, and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the
dynamics of the debate.
CLOSING
THIS document is not intended to be the definitive set of rules that
you must adhere to in debating. It serves as a source of information.
For further information, please check out the Casebuilding
Examples of Australasian Parliamentary Debate. It provides
more in-depth explanation of cases, and gives examples to give a
good idea of how one should construct cases.
Finally, it must be said that practice makes perfect. No one ever
masters the art of swimming or riding a bicycle by thoroughly
reading guidelines and handbooks. One must take that first plunge,
and perhaps even fall down once or twice, before finally becoming
skillful. The same applies to debating. These guidelines should be
enough to get you started. But practice makes perfect.
Happy Debating!
Page 12

Guidelines For Debaters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines For Debaters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

English Debating Society

STMIK AMIKOM YOGYAKARTA

English Debating Society AMIKOM YOGYAKARTA