2011 IDEA Youth Forum in Istanbul

British Parliamentary Debate Track Participant Packet

July 16 August 1

Istanbul, Turkey

Prepared by Logan Balavijendran, Anna Karolin, Thomas Suthen

1

Introductions
Key Objectives to learn BP debate improve debate skills build a platform for future participation in Worlds To you be proactive ask questions, volunteer opinions. You are debaters with experience, so show your experience. Everyone has different knowledge levels, background etc, push it, help each other teach each other. Engage the trainers and challenge us to challenge you. And we can all be friends! Logandran Balavijendran (Logan) spent 4 years studying Electronics Engineering in Multimedia University Malaysia, where he learned all he possibly could about calculus and fell in love with debate. Logan has debated and adjudicated in 9 World Championships, breaking 24 th in 2003 and also achieving 16 th Best Speaker. He was Chief Adjudicator when MMU hosted in 2005, and judged every Worlds after that, judging semifinals in 2006 and 2008. He has also debated and adjudicated in 10 Australasian and 9 AllAsian Championships. In 2004 he was part of the first team from Asia that made the finals of the Australasian Championships and was 4 th Best speaker in 2005. He was Champion at the All-Asians in 2005 and 2006, and Best Speaker in 2005. He has coached debate in 12 different countries, and is currently teaching debate and business communication in Chung Ang University in Seoul, Korea. He will be Chief Adjudicator of Worlds again at Botswana 2011. He can be contacted at Loganimal@gmail.com Anna Karolin is a student of political science and law in Tartu University, Estonia. In addition to extensive debating and anything remotely related to it, Anna is very passionate about traveling, volunteering, singing and issues related to human rights and developing countries. She has attended the forum 5 times before and is looking forward to seeing all the old and new faces. She has judged and debated in a million tournaments in Europe, won some, topped the speaker tab at others but had fun at all of them. She can be contacted at karolin.anna@gmail.com Suthen Tate Thomas lives the dual-life of a code monkey and a debate aficionado. In the old days, he used to debate competitively in teams from the Multimedia University (MMU), the institution he now coaches. These days, he can usually be found at international debate tournaments judging debate rounds and giving unsolicited advice to debaters, both old and new, as well as telling them what it was like in the old days. Suthen was Asian Champion, Australs finalist, Worlds Octofinalist and Deputy Chief Adjudicator. He can be contacted at suthen@gmail.com.

Table of Contents
The British Parliamentary Format.................................................................................................5 Roles of Speakers in the BP Format ............................................................................................7 Speech and Argument Structure ..................................................................................................8 A Guide for Opening Teams .........................................................................................................9 Prime Minister ................................................................................................................... 9 Leader Of Opposition ....................................................................................................... 11 Deputies ........................................................................................................................... 12 Rebuttal............................................................................................................................ 14 Other Strategies ............................................................................................................... 14 Closing Teams Strategies ......................................................................................................16 Member of government ................................................................................................... 16 Government Whip ......................................................................................................... 16 Member of Opposition .................................................................................................... 16 Opposition Whip ............................................................................................................ 17 Extensions: Member Speeches ....................................................................................... 17 Summaries: The Whip speeches ...................................................................................... 19 Points of Information ..................................................................................................................20 Rebuttals ...................................................................................................................................20 The Role of Manner ...................................................................................................................21 References and Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................22

The British Parliamentary Format

The British Parliamentary academic debating format is the official format of the World Universities Debating Championships. As the name suggests, the format has its roots in the British House of Commons, an institution of government that served as a model for academic debating in British universities. Since its adoption by the WUDC, the format has spread around the world and is now the most widely practiced format of intercollegiate debating. Like other formats of academic debating, British Parliamentary (BP) debating involves teams who argue for or against a motion before a panel of expert adjudicators. The teams assignments (for or against the motion), like the motion itself, are provided to the teams by the tournament organizers. Most formats of academic debating involve only two teams: those arguing for the topic and those arguing against the topic. The outcome of this format of debating is binary: the team representing one side of the motion wins and the team representing the other side of the motion loses. Unlike binary formats of debating, BP involves four independent teams per round: two who argue in favor of the motion (known as the Proposition or Government teams) and two who argue against the motion (known as the Opposition teams). Rather than competing for a simple win or loss, each of the teams competes against the others for a ranking at the end of the round. Though the two teams on the Proposition are assigned the task of arguing the same side of the topic, they are actually in competition with each other for the higher rank in the round. Similarly, the first and second teams on the Opposition also compete against one another. This approach to debatingthat competing teams could share a position of advocacymay be initially confusing to those familiar with binary forms of academic debating. The explanation for this approach to competition may be found in a version of parliamentary government on which the BP format is modeled. Binary forms of debating (that is, typical two-team, affirmative/negative formats) are rooted in a judicial model of competing advocacy, with parties assigned the task of arguing for or against a proposition (as in a criminal court where the accused is argued to be guilty by the prosecution and not guilty by the defense). The BP format, on the other hand, employs a legislative model of advocacy, in which parties with various interests cooperate to advance the same proposition. This model is grounded in those parliamentary systems of government that utilize a proportionally representational electoral system, in which various parties must form coalitions to establish a governing majority. In these systems, a Green party may cooperate with a Labor party to form a government and pass legislation. The Green partys motives are concern for the environment and the Labor partys motives are concerns for the workers, but both cooperate to advocate for change. The teams in a BP round cooperate using a very similar approach. Two teams, known as the Opening Proposition and Closing Proposition are responsible for arguing on behalf of the topic, known as a motion in BP debating. Two more teamsthe Opening Opposition and Closing Oppositionare responsible for arguing against the motion.

Opening Proposition Opening Half 1. Prime Minister 3. Deputy Prime Minister

Opening Opposition 2. Leader Opposition 4. Deputy Leader Opposition

Closing Proposition Closing Half 5. Member Proposition 7. Proposition Whip Proposition bench

Closing Opposition 6. Member Opposition 8. Opposition Whip Opposition bench

Each of these teams is comprised of two debaters, each of whom will give one seven-minute speech beginning with the first speaker for the Opening Proposition (known as the Prime Minister) and alternating between the Proposition and Opposition until each debater has spoken. Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Team Opening Proposition Opening Opposition Opening Proposition Opening Opposition Closing Proposition Closing Opposition Closing Proposition Closing Opposition Speaker Prime Minister Leader Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader Opposition Member Proposition Member Opposition Proposition Whip Opposition Whip Speaking Time 7 minutes 7 minutes 7 minutes 7 minutes 7 minutes 7 minutes 7 minutes 7 minutes

During each of these speeches, debaters from the opposite side may ask for the opportunity to interrupt the speaker holding the floor. Known as Points of Information (or POIs), these interjections are short questions or statements taken at the discretion of the debater holding the floor. A debater may request the opportunity to present a Point of Information (either verbally or by rising) from a speaker on the opposite side of the motion at any time after the first minute, and before the last minute, of any speech. The debater holding the floor may accept or refuse POIs at his or her sole discretion. If accepted, the debater asking the POI has approximately fifteen seconds to make a statement or ask a question. During the Point of Information, the speaking time continues to run. Following the POI, the primary speaker resumes her speech and is expected to integrate her response to the POI into her speech material. Debaters are judged both on their efforts (successful or not) to offer POIs and to respond to POIs. Topics for each debate are announced 15 minutes prior to the round. The topics are varied in nature, but typically focus on some current policy issue of international significance. There will be one topic for each debate. At the World Universities Debating Championships, all teams debate a minimum of 9 rounds and during these rounds will rotate between all 4 positions as fairly as possible

Roles Of Speakers In The BP Format

Prime Minister (PM) Define and Set Up the Debate Provide Argumentation in Support of the Motion Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Defend the Prime Minister Rebut the Leader of Opposition Provide New Arguments Member of Government (MG) Provide Extension to Government Case Rebut Opening Opposition, with special attention to the the Deputy Leader of Opposition Government Whip (GW) Rebut Extension of Closing Opposition Defend your Extension Identify and Analyze Major Clashes in the debate and show why your team and bench wins Leader of Opposition (LO) Provide the Opposition Approach Rebut the Prime Ministers Case and Speech Provide Argumentation to Oppose the Motion Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) Defend the Leader of Opposition Rebut the Deputy Prime Minister Provide New Arguments Member of Opposition (MO) Provide Extension to Opposition Case Rebut Opening and Closing Proposition, with special attention to Extension of Closing Proposition Opposition Whip (OW) Defend your Extension Identify and Analyze Major Clashes in the debate and show why your team and bench wins

All Speakers should Offer Points of Information Take at least 1, but preferably 2 Points of Information (from the Opening and Closing Halves) Defend their teammates (or bench-mates) Engage the Previous Speaker(s) Note that the above are not Rules of BP debate, but rather what each speaker should do in order to be a responsible debater. This means (a) being as responsive as possible (b) working as a team and defend the integrity of your case (c) to contribute equally to the debate On New Matter The Government Whip speaker is technically allowed to bring new arguments into the debate but usually doesn't as arguments this late in the debate rarely has a strong impact on the debate. His or her time is better spent analyzing what happened in the debate. The Opposition Whip is not allowed to bring new arguments into the debate. This is called New Matter. New Matter is a wholly new line of argumentation and does not include new rebuttals, new evidence or development of previously mentioned arguments.
6

Speech And Argument Structure

How speakers organize their speech and arguments greatly affects how audiences understand them. The structure of speech and argument provided below is one that ensures speakers use their time most effectively and is reflective of trends at Worlds Simple Speech Structure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Opening attention grabbing, set the tone for your speech Outline a preview of your content, also called signposting Content the good stuff Summary highlight your contributions, useful in dynamic speeches Closing final impact, never end weak

Argument Structure 1. Assertion (or label of your argument) A strong statement of your argument (not a question, should not be descriptive) Should be memorably and catchy your goal is for judges to remember it and for other debaters to use your labels 2. Reasoning Logical explanation of your assertion. Strong reasoning is reasoning that is logically developed and especially relevant to your case 3. Evidence Real-World information to support your reasoning

A Guide For Opening Teams

Prime Minister Basic duty provide a clear and reasonable definition establish the issues and scope of the debate advance a substantive case Mindset Team members should focus on the PMs case for at least HALF of the total prep time because the important questions in the debate should ideally be present in the PM speech. As a PM, you will not be rebutting. Work on generating momentum during your speech and make sure to not sound lethargic and forgettable. Structure is very important. Before the third minute, you should be done setting up the debate and ready to move on to your part of the split. Definitions Each definition MUST: A. Have a direct link to the motion B. Be fair and debatable C. Qualify the key terms in the motion D. Identify the issues to be debated and the scope of the debate (criteria or standard) E. Include parameters when necessary Unfair definitions I. Truisims II. Squirrels III. Time/Place Sets IV. Tautologies Things to remember during prep/Important questions that should be answered in the PM speech Nature of the Debate There are no strictly proposal or value-judgment debates. All debates are a combination of both. However, some debates require you to discuss more extensively certain policy mechanisms compared to others (ex. THW grant citizenship to illegal immigrants vs. THBT cosmetic surgery hurts the womens movement). Therefore, it has to be clear whether you are proposing anything new in the debate, rejecting status quo, or assessing some broad, commonly understood policy. Note that the level of abstraction of the policy affects your case and adjust accordingly. Imagine if you insisted on debating THW grant affirmative action for women in parliament as a strictly value-judgment debate!

Framing the Debate 1. Set the tone of the debate AND preempt the other side 2. Debates are never about just the individual arguments dont forget the bigger picture! 3. Angling the debate (if applicable); ex. from whose POV is the debate taking place? THW intervene in Myanmar: Who is the house? 4. Setting a context and painting a picture of the world in which the debate is taking place 5. These backgrounds/views of the world are called frames. Of course, the frames change depending on what stance youre taking. Its all about marketing your view of the world. 6. Ex. If youre discussing Pakistans viability as a partner in the US War on Terror: 7. - pro: focus on the developments of human rights and (IMPORTANTLY) say why the trends of democratization are sustainable 8. - con: talk about why the developments are tokenistic (on the surface) and PROVE this by using examples Avoid Absolutes 9. What are ABSOLUTES? Basically, BLACK and WHITE debating. (i.e. President Bush youre with us or against us). Argumentation USUALLY operates on EXTENTS rather than absolutes. 10. Focus on sustainable trends that are favorable for your side. Include important details like recent events, agreements reached, etc. 11. Ex. THBT genetically modified food is safe 12. Extreme argumentation: Safe means no harm will come to all who eat it 13. Reasonably gray argumentation: Safe does not mean absolutely no harm, but that relatively very small proportion of those who eat GMOs will be NOT all right. This definition on Safe applies to things like extreme sports or seatbelts not 100% certain, but reasonably certain that precautions have been taken to inform people of all possible risks and that the risks have been mitigated 14. While absolutes are bad, troubleshoot contradictions too. A contradiction is when one of your arguments/premises refutes another one of your own arguments/premises. 15. Ex. In defending affirmative action for women in parliament: 16. First Speaker: argues there should be AA because women are talented enough, they just don't get what they deserve because they are cheated by the system 17. Second Speaker: You should have AA bec the most talented are men and, as such, women have no chance of getting in unless you impose a quota for women

Core of the Debate 1. Identifying the core debate and what the other side is expected to argue (if applicable). When you hear a motion or a topic to be discussed (for papers, projects, etc.) the first thing to ask is: WHAT IS THE CORE DEBATE? What is the meat of the conflict in the motion? 2. There can be many Core Debates an issue can have more than one crucial clashes (points of difference). However, it is important to isolate one or two of the biggest ones to start the thinking process 3. Ex. THBT abortion should be legalized 4. CD: Right of the Woman over her body vs. the childs right to life (or the Church/states right to protect the unborn childs life) EXERCISE: What is the core debate? THBT there should be a news blackout in times of war
9

THBT hate speech against racial minorities should be allowed THBT Outsourcing is good for first world economies THBT marijuana should be legalized

What is the debate about and what is it NOT about? Set the standards and/or the important goals in the debate. What do we mean by nationalism? Democracy? What are the interests of the parties involved? Constructing Policies 1. WHO, WHERE, HOW, WHEN? 2. Feasibility defense: are there resources and political will for the policy; regardless, SHOULD there be? 3. SOMETIMES: If its an extreme policy, frame it as a last resort: First, well ask for the following things if these arent met, then 4. Weve done many things in the past but they have not worked and the current situation is grave Workshop: Construct policies for the following motions: THBT the state should fund heroin-shooting centers for addicts THW legalize the sale of opium THW ban child models

10

Leader Of Opposition Basic Duty: 1) examine the definition of PM 2) reframe the debate 3) rebut the arguments of PM 4) advance a substantive case Mindset Team members should focus on anticipating the PMs case and preparing the LOs case for at least HALF of the total prep time. During prep, identify the arguments that have to be tweaked/changed depending on how the definition can vary. Structure and time management are crucial. Do not overrebut. Negative has a converse burden to prove their case as well. ALWAYS COMPARE. Reframing the Debate (a) What is the debate about and NOT about? (b) Do you accept that the debate is a VJ or a proposal? (c) Do you have questions/clarifications about the policy? Are you left to assume certain things? (d) Do you agree with governments standards and goals? (e) Do you agree with their characterization of the problem and the status quo? (f) What are you defending? (g) OUTLINE these things to forward a clear clash Model Diagnosis Step 1: Check for feasibility. Be wary of too-good-to-be-true models. Theres a catch somewhere. Step 2: Examine the parties that get affected. Step 3: Based on your assessment of the models strengths and weaknesses, formulate a line of CLASH. State the clash explicitly. Clashes Clash can either reject the Affs model and defend the status quo OR it can reject both the SQ and model - in which case, a counter proposal must be forwarded. Counter-proposals Setting up CPs requires the same rigor as setting up original props. CPs are not there for decoration. They must be defended. Question: How can someone set-up a CP, rebut, and construct fresh arguments in 7 minutes? Cop-out answer: use efficient language and time management Instant Cases (this applies to Deputies as well) Dont force prep into a debate if it doesnt match. Come up with something entirely new if needed. Just because youre making an instant case, doesnt mean you stop listening to the PM. Make sure youre able to rebut. Youll probably be able to turn it into constructive.

11

This is where teammates should be helping each other out and passing notes. Activities: The facilitator gives an open motion and encourages the Government team to set the motion to a specific context. Opposition will have to respond accordingly.

Workshop: Working on Opp Strategy: Small groups are presented with topics, and they explain what their options are when clashing and what the advantages and disadvantages are for each option.

PM-LO Exchanges A vague topic is provided. PM sets it up, LO is expected to clash properly. Eventually, more balanced and specific topics are given for PM-LO exchanges.

Deputies A good Deputy: Actively participates in helping his/her 1st speaker. Willingly gives up argument that he/she thought of. Has faith in the inexhaustibility of arguments for a given debate. Is responsive: Knows when and how to sacrifice his/her prepared case. Too many second speakers try to stick with their prepared arguments, regardless of their relevance to the discussion. It is always better to be spontaneous and responsive than prepared but irrelevant. If a previous speaker spent a great deal of time asking for something, GIVE IT TO THEM. Ex. They never proved political will.-previous speaker; THEN, prove political will Danger: make sure it doesnt look like youre covering for the deficiencies of your first speaker. Make it seem as if you are giving the next, natural part of the case.

12

Swiss Knife (if youre desperate, these might help): Draw out important themes. There are recurring themes in debates. They key is to identify these themes, then nuance them to the issues at hand: Are there rights that are being violated/upheld (usually, sovereignty, self-determination, right to religion, culture, information, expression, privacy, etc.)? Social contract How do we balance rights? Are there people/social groups that are being antagonized/marginalized? Are there risks of abuses? What messages are sent/precedents are set? What is the governments responsibility in the situation and how can it best be realized? What is a good mix of incentives and disincentives? Who are the liable actors in the situation, why do we say they are liable, and are the punishments we propose commensurate? What is the best interest of the actors involved (financial success? retribution? rehabilitation? security? catharsis?) and how do we achieve this image-building, reinforcement of messages, etc.? Proactive vs. reactive policies capitalize-on-the-transition/sway-the-moderates arguments Social battering rams argument Social backlash argument Long-term vs. short-term WORKSHOP: Analyze what second speakers ought to do in these situations: The Debate: This house would legalize prostitution Suppose the PM has already argued that a) legalizing prostitution will lead to safer sex and healthier sex workers, through regulations, health checks and contraceptive provisions, b) it is a viable taxable industry, following the Netherlands example. You, as the DPM, have prepared this case during prep: 1. Legalizing prostitution will lessen abuse against sex workers because they now have security and legal recourse against abusive pimps or customers, rather than being grouped together with all criminal elements when prostitution is illegal 2. It encourages tourism from countries where prostitution is illegal The LO then clashes against the PM by saying that instead of legalizing or banning prostitution, they want to simply decriminalize it! She further argues in her case that legalizing prostitution provides an easy cop-out to impoverished young people, especially girls, dissuading them from pursuing their education and more sustainable careers, and a decriminalization model provides all the health and legal protection benefits that legalization provides. What should the DPM do?

The Debate: This house would ban junk food advertisements from childrens TV shows. Suppose the PM has already argued the basic arguments such as how junk food ads prey on
13

childrens vulnerability and how the ads content encourages over-consumption. The DPM, on the other hand has prepared to answer the following issues in his own case: 1. Why business interest has to give way to government interest 2. Why children have to be protected from their own insatiable desires When the Leader of Opposition speaks, however, she argues that: 1. It is the parents responsibility to look over their childrens welfare, and not the governments 2. One can strike a balance between business and government interests, such as through placing surgeon general warnings at the end of ads. What should the DPM do?

Rebuttal Main goal of rebuttal is to prove that the other side is WRONG. Take into account net benefit. Do not use phrases like: They do not solve the root cause of the problem, which is The model does not consider ____ Why not? A) There is almost never a root cause for a problem. B) A model cant be expected to solve everything. C) Push debating/burden-pushing is never enough. In other words, proving that a model does not change particular things does not negate the NET BENEFIT that it can create. Furthermore, Dont be a hypocrite! Debates are all about comparison. When you launch a rebuttal, make sure it doesnt apply to you. Dont be afraid to concede certain arguments. If you cant rebut an argument, just weigh its value against those of your arguments. Ex. Giving money/dole-outs to IPs: Of course you dont say money doesnt make them richer. You say, thats true, but its not worth the trade-off. And the trade-off is reparations encourage right wing backlash; it makes it seem as if aborigines are being coddled. This backlash makes it harder for the government to create political will for more important reforms like, say, returning stolen land to aborigines.

14

Activities: (a) Rebuttal Chain: Topic Is Given. A Speaker Presents One Argument. Other Speakers Are Called Randomly To Present Different Levels Of Rebuttal To The Same Argument. The Goal Is To Build Depth And Sophistication In Rebuttals. Other Strategies a) Cover all bases explain key arguments and analyze key examples and actors (to make life harder for the closing teams) b) Activity: A motion is given and the facilitator randomly calls on members of the class to discuss an argument for two minutes (each). This carries on until the arguments have been exhausted. c) Take credit for what you do/sell your case explain why it is THE central issue in the debate d) Remain active throughout the debate through POIs to remind the judges of your contribution e) Be extra-responsive to the other side (dont wait for the Whips from the closing teams to refine and strengthen the rebuttals from your side).

15

A Guide For Closing Teams

General Overview The closing half of the debate, while requiring different strategy and structure from the opening half, is the continuation of one, fluid debate. As such, it is necessary to develop the closing half in a manner which fits in and is informed by the opening half. All too often, weaker teams generate new, interesting positive matter. However, their material is completely disjointed from the debate that occurred in the opening half. It is important in closing to listen carefully to the opening half, the types of arguments that were run, how the cases were structured and where the teams clashed. This will allow good closing teams to isolate and uncover the underlying issues of the debate and shift the focus if necessary. This part of the BP track shall provide you with an understanding of the concepts critical to good closing teams. The structure shall be as follows: 1. Overview of Closing Half o This will be a general description of the positions and role fulfillment

2. Member Speeches- Overview o o Member of Government Member of Opposition

3. Whip speeches-Overview o o Government Whip Opposition Whip

Member Of Government Roles

Offer extension (explained below) Outline and fully develop team line (explain how team line is different from extension) Show link with OG case, back up OG case Rebut the OO Rebut DLO

Key pointers to remember evaluate government definition and opposition response, based on the validity of the both definitions follow government line even if they have a weak case-dont stab gov in the back

16

present a debatable extension dont spend the bulk of time just on rebuttals as you may neglect your case

Government Whip Roles

Summarize the debate Sum up entire government case Defend team extension Rebut opposition arguments Knock down closing opposition extension

Key pointers to remember sum up team case and rebut opposition as well allocate more time to summing up government case do cover defense for MG Member Of Opposition Roles

Offer extension Set out and fully develop team case Rebut MG Rebut 1st Gov

Key pointers to remember present arguments in such a way that they stand out from the rest of the teams make it a point to rebut government extension Opposition Whip Roles

Sum up team line Sum up entire opposition case Rebut government case

Key pointers to remember do not bring new information into the debate you may bring in new examples do not make the mistake of just rebutting and not summing up

17

Extensions 1. What is an extension? The origin of the extension comes from the actual workings of a parliamentary government system. Often, when there are multiple parties forming a coalition government, there may be a particular piece of legislation that is supported by different parties, and for different reasons. Analogously, in BP debate, the extension is additional support for a particular bench (government or opposition) from a new perspective. IN BASIC TERMS: After the opening half of the debate, particular issues were well canvassed by both benches. As such, it would be superfluous for the closing teams to merely stand up and rehash the arguments that have already been contested thoroughly. If that were the case, it would be too easy and we dont like easy! As such, the job of the closing teams is to extend the debate to a new, uncontested issue or to substantially develop an issue which the opening half merely glanced over. IN PRACTICAL TERMS: In reality, the debate does not play out as described above. There is a tendency for good opening teams to matter steal. That is, they try and cover all the major issues in the debate (sometimes superficially) so that the closing teams are without any new matter. This is where the fun begins. Closing teams need to be flexible and creative. They need to look for common threads underlying the opening half, areas insufficiently developed and entirely new avenues of argument. 2. Types of extensions For the sake of completeness, I will review the two main types of extensions. a) Analytical extension - This is the only extension you ever realistically have to worry about. It is when you extend the debate by introducing new arguments or substantially better, thorough analysis of issues that were glossed over in the opening half. The general idea is to take the debate to a new level. A sign that you do not have a good extension is if you end up reciting verbatim the speeches of the opening half and resurrecting their arguments. b) Policy extensions - In your travels, you may come across policy extensions, so it is prudent to be aware of what it is so that you can destroy teams that use them in future. A policy extension is where you present additional policy or merely expand on the details of the policy already presented. DO NOT DO THIS. We are not in the business of policy debating. In BP, policy extensions tend to be the easiest to obliterate. That is, they are generally not based on any principled argumentation and add very little more to the debate itself. It is wiser not to take the road less travelled in this case, and stick to the tried and tested analytical extension. Structure of the speech: Begin the speech with the rebuttal and then move on to the extension. You need to find a method which works for you. Personally, I appreciate speakers who first introduce their extension, rebut and then develop the extension. I think it gives a greater sense of where the speech is going. Whichever way you choose to do it, just make sure you leave ample time for the extension.

18

Member Of Government Primary Duty: the most important duty of the MOG is to build a solid extension. This will largely determine the success of the speech. As such, the MOG must devote a significant amount of time to developing the extension. In this regard the following factors must be borne in mind: - Show the link to the 1st half of the debate. o This can literally be 30seconds worth of introducing the extension as being informed by the first half of the debate. You need to make sure that the extension that you develop is not completely generic and could have been used in any other debate. A good extension will build on the debate that has ACTUALLY preceded the closing half. - Differentiate your team from the OG o In a good debate, OG will often try to steal all the important matter in the debate. Here, closing teams must be very analytical and look for parts of the case of the OG that were never substantiated, or questions left open in the opening half of the debate. In these situations, it is vital to demonstrate that the material you present is PATENTLY DIFFERENT to the OG. o If you dont differentiate yourself, the extension will appear to be weak as it merely restates arguments of the OG - Shift the focus of the Debate o It is vital to emphasize the importance of your issues in the debate. You must remember that you are against the other bench as well as against your own opening government. As such, you need to demonstrate why your extension brought more to the debate than the OG - Focus the extension o When it comes to extensions, keep them succinct and focused on particular issues. There is a tendency by weaker teams to run a variety of arguments and place them under the banner of an extension. This is sloppy and terrible strategy. o Firstly, you dont want to open yourself up to attacks on too many fronts. It is better to thoroughly explore one issue, than to give ten flimsy arguments in support of the government bench. The more ground you try to cover and the more arguments you try to raise, the more vulnerable you are o Secondly, it is difficult to shift the focus of the debate if you are raising a variety of arguments. You have a greater chance of creating the faade that your extension is the crux of the debate if you limit its scope and make it tight. Secondary Duties: The MOG is also responsible for rebutting the opposition case. However, there are obviously time constraints. As such, a great deal of thought must go into deciding which issues to rebut and which to let be. Generally, you will find that the rebuttal will be directed at the DLO because they have been unopposed in the 1st half. However, debating is not mechanical and it very much depends on the actual debate. The following factors will guide you: Determine what parts of the opposition case are still standing Consider how the DLO has shifted the debate by rebutting the DPM Consider whether the LO was not rebutted by the DPM and whether the material they raised is vital to the opposition case.

19

Member Of Opposition Primary Duties: The MOO must present an extension. However, the nature of the extension is different. It does not need to be as substantive as the MOG. This is because, the MOO must also spend a significant time analyzing the MOG extension and defend the damage that they have done to the Opposition bench. This is not license to put forward a flimsy extension. In fulfilling the primary duties of this position, the following will be useful to take note of: - Make the extension short and sweet o As said before, the MOO has limited time to present the extension. As such, you should spend a great deal of time deciding which particular arguments to run. It is often best to run an extension which directly opposes the MOG extension. The reason for this is that it reduces the actual time you need to spend on direct rebuttal of the MOG extension. That is, you will be able to integrate much of the rebuttal into the counter-extension. o However, if the debate is such that the OO has left some important issue untouched, it can be equally strategic to raise it as an extension - Determine what the voting issues are at that stage in the debate o Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be the case (as it painfully often is) that the MOG presents a weak extension and that the OG did an incredible job. In this scenario, you must realize that simply pounding the MOG extension to infinity will not win you the debate. In this situation it must be borne in mind that the real threat is OG. o Hence, the extension should be focused on the REAL issues in the debate round and NOT merely on the issues that were most recently canvassed chronologically (MOG). - Be bold o DO NOT be shy in calling out the Closing Government for presenting a bad extension. You need to be gutsy in debating. If you think the CG extension has shafted the OG; is merely a rehash of the same issue or if the extension is not an important issue in the round- SAY IT LOUD AND PROUD. Obviously, be cautious before letting your bravado dig you into a hole. o This will allow you to focus on the important issues and also reduce the time your OW has to spend summating that particular issue. - Shift focus of debate o You must be critically aware that first and foremost you will be judged by how you handle the CG extension. As such, it is useful to try and minimize the impact of the extension on the round. o However, watch out for a debate where the first half was terrible. Here, it may be best to block out the OH from the debate and try and make it a CH debate. If the OH was actually terrible, you will probably find a friend in the GW who will also suggest that it is a CH debate Secondary duties: you need to fill up cracks in the OO case that were exploited by the MOG. However, here again, be clever. You dont need to polish up the OO case to the point where it overshadows your own case. You want to win, not come second! So, be careful which particular strands of rebuttal you present. You should if possible, defend the OO case by providing responses which link up with your own counter-extens

20

Whip Speeches Primary Duty: You must summarize the government case. However, the word summarize is used ambiguously. It does not merely mean listing the points on both side and showing why your side wins and it does not mean a methodical recounting of all the issues of the debate. Rather, it is a selective summary of the debate which does the following: - Identify the voting issues. o That is, the GW must distill the variety of arguments presented throughout both halves into a few key issues which will determine who wins the debate. This requires the GW to be extremely discerning. There is the temptation to include issues that have been given much airtime by the previous speakers or to be as comprehensive as possible. This wont win you a debate. Rather, you need to work out which issues the judge is weighing up and contrasting. If you focus on identifying the voting issues of the round, it will streamline your analysis. - Differentiate your team from those on your bench and the opposition o This is an incredibly difficult task and the strategy employed will depend on the actual debate that has transpired. However, it is important in Whip to be aware of this dynamic. It will prevent you from reigniting issues of the 1st half unnecessarily and will dictate your allocation of time. You obviously must defend your OG. However, try and do so in a manner that makes it seem as it was your team that filled the lacuna that was left open in the 1st half - Difference between new matter and new analysis o Often, you will hear that Whip speakers should not bring up new matter. This refers to new arguments OR an extension of the members case. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it reeks of bad strategy. It implies that the member did not complete his material in time and that the Whip is covering up. Further, it is a bad allocation of time because you cant focus on your primary duties. o New analysis is something completely different and is encouraged, in fact essential to a good Whip speech. This refers to presenting a new perspective of the issues of the debate, recatagorising them, shifting the emphasis and responding to the damage done by the members speech before you. It is vital to constantly present new analysis to prevent the debate from stagnating in the CH. o The line between new matter and new analysis can sometimes be blurry and different judges have slightly different perspectives as to what would constitute new matter. However, all good judges will be aware of the difference between these concepts and will reward new analysis. The trick is to frame the arguments such that it appears to be new analysis and NOT new matter. The longer you debate, the more youll learn to flirt safely with that line. - Structure o The structure of the speech is important in this position. Your speech must generally be issues-based. That is, you distill the debate into key issues and then deal with each in turn. In this ideal context, you must also be aware of the degree of airplay you give each issue. You obviously want to spend most of your time bolstering the case that you presented and damaging the key arguments of the opposition. However, dont get caught up. This is not a rebuttal speech. You will need to address both halves. However, exercise your discretion as to the ordering of the issues and what to focus on

21

Government Whip Primary Duties: - Destroy the MO extension o The CO are your direct opponents. You need to deal explicitly with their extension. You can discredit the extension in the same ways that have already been discussed - Defend your extension o A good MO would have spent a great deal of time damaging your extension. As such, you need to skillfully rebut their attacks. Ideally, you would be able to incorporate their attacks under an issue of the debate and deal with it in turn. o However, if they did severe damage, it may be worthwhile to deal with them explicitly - Summarize the debate o Here again, remember the general comments above about how to summarize o Importantly, you need to bring out the extension you presented as being an integral part of the debate. This will require prioritizing time around your extension as well as minimizing the importance of the OG issues. DONT SHAFT the OG. You still need to defend their line. However, you need to skillfully margininalize them while still showing why they trounced the opposition. This can be a little difficult to understand and more difficult to execute. However, with a bit of practice, you will get the gist of it. - Damage control o It is not ideal for the Whip to be doing extensive work on the extension. However, it may become necessary to fill holes left by your partner. It is important to listen carefully to the way they present the case and be critical about what more needs to be done. The more comfortable you become with your partner, the easier it will be to be frank and critical of the extension they present. Often, the extension discussed between you will be somewhat different from the one presented. So, LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN to your MG as they present the case. o More so, the CO may respond to the extension in unanticipated ways. So, you need to adapt and tweak it if necessary

22

Opposition Whip Primary Duties: - Summarize the debate o With great power, comes great responsibility!!! o It is much more important in OW to summarize the debate more comprehensively than GW. That is because you are the final speaker of the debate and you do not need to directly rebut the extension of the other side like GW and MO - Shift the focus of the debate o As final speaker, you can place the final framing of issues in the debate. You also have the power to resurrect OH issues, paint them as your own OR block out the OH and so forth.Suffice to say, there are many tricks in the OWs bag - Show the importance of CO in the round o It is important to explicitly show the contribution that your team made to the round. In this respect, your issue summaries should reflect your assessment of the importance of the issues. You obviously wouldnt spend 4 minutes defending the OO. Of course, you need to cement their position. However, do not go to the extent of marginalizing your own position - Deal with GW o Firstly, you need to respond to the GWs rebuttal of your counter extension. Secondly, you need to reframe the debate. The GW would have tried to convince the judges of a particular ordering of importance of issues in the round and would have emphasised their extension. You need to convincingly pull the debate back into your corner o DO NOT be afraid to call out the GW for misrepresenting the issues of the debate or for spinning stuff. Provided you are correct, judges reward strategic thinking of that nature

23

Points Of Information
General Overview Its important to realize right from the start that fundamentally the POI is an attacking tool. It is too short to develop an argument or really defend yourself. Use it to punch holes in the opposite team. A POI should be short two sentences or 15 seconds long. Some judges will time your POIs. If you have long drawn out POIs, the person speaking may cut you off (quite justifiably) and ask you to sit down, which leaves you embarassed and ineffective. A POI can be a question I believe this is the most effective use of a POI. Asking a question forces the speaker to respond with an answer. Not being able to respond is a sign of weakness. Often with the nicely crafted question you will get the speaker to say what you want them to say. Which is exactly what they dont want to say. an example or piece of evidence also very powerful. Not something the speaker can just ignore or assert away and must deal with. Ensure the example is clear and linked to an argument you delivered. a statement a short powerful statement can be very effective. Dont just reassert yourself though, as the speaker will just assert the opposite Not offering POIs indicates an implicit acceptance of what a speaker is saying or that your team is inactive or afraid. Not taking POIs indicates that you are afraid of something the speaker might have to say or are insecure about your arguments. So ask and take POIs they are not optional.

Asking POIs The Killer Point of Information There is a myth that a POI exists that is so powerful, it will stop a speakers speech. Make him quit debating. Stop global warming. Its not a myth, such a POI exists. But its incredible rare and not worth waiting for. POIs are as best used as a machine gun, rapidly picking holes in the opposition, rather than a bazooka that will blow them away. Ask POIs often and try to make every one of them difficult to deal with. Use them to force concessions, pick holes in logic, increasing pressure to defend the difficult arguments, shaping the direction of the direction, forcing speakers to deal with your arguments and more fun things! You should increase the damage of a POIs by referring to it in your speech. General Tips Ask POIs Often, but with respect. Stressed in the Killer POI point above, but worth mentioning again. Ask POIs as often as you can. However, respect the speaker and dont harass them. It makes you look bad and doesnt endear you to the judges. Its annoying for the person trying to listen to the speech if someone keep interjecting. Wait at least 20 second between each POIs and dont say anything except Point of Information.
24

 Write down your POI before asking it. This prevents asking a long, convoluted POI or forgetting the POI when you stand up to ask it. A written POI can also be shaped and shortened to be simple and clear. Short POIs are always better than long ones they are easier to understand and give the speaker less time to think of a suitable response. Lastly, a written POI is something you can share with your partner. Dont be Vague. The quality of the response is dependent on the quality of the question. If you ask a vague question, you will get a vague response. Statements that just re-assert your position (We clearly argued why this is wrong and you are not saying anything about it) or express your frustration (How can say such terrible things, dont you believe in Human Rights??) or are just vague (I dont understand your case, can you please explain what you mean?) are quite useless. Be specific refer to a specific argument or confusion, ask questions that lead to answers you want. Imagine you were the speaker what would you say in response to your question? Refers to good POIs in your speech. If a POI from your team does damage or is un-responded to, expand on it in your speech. Show the speakers lack of your engagement and your strong involvement in the debate. Of course for this works better for closing teams (and is also more important, in order to show that they were involved in the opening half of the debate) and only if you ask a POI. You may do this for another team on your bench, if you decide beating the opposite team is critical and you can afford to make your bench-mate look good. POI Strategies Forcing speakers to defend their logic Speakers often make throwaway statements and assert arguments. Dont let them get away with it. However, dont get up and just ask them to explain themselves. Maybe they dont see the error of their logic or are naturally confusing speakers asking them to repeat themselves would mean just more confusion and asserted logic. Refer to their argument and show that their logic does not apply by extending that logic or providing an example. In a debate about giving citizenship to prisoners at Guantanamo, the speaker argues one of the benefits is this will allow civilian trials which are better than military trials, and then proceeds to argue why civilian courts are awesome and military courts are evil. You dont have to defend military courts, but ask why citizenship is required before initiating civilian trials. Forcing speakers to defend examples Offer an example that contradicts the argument the speaker is making. You claim the right to free speech is absolute but why do many liberal governments ban hate speech? Also force speaker to defend their own examples. Once a team presents an example, they must defend it. If they drop it, its like dropping an argument they concede its not important. Attack details of examples if you think that will change the main principle of that example. Dont nitpick if a speaker says 500 Billion was too much to spend on bailing out AIG, dont correct him and say it was only 450 Billion. You still havent changed the fact that its a lot of money. Leading questions stuck between a slippery slope and a contradiction Ask speakers about a situation or a position that is not directly related but share many of the same principles. The speaker must be able to say why the situation you present is significantly different and thus his principle does not apply, or the speaker must include the situation under his principle, thereby expanding the case. Let me give you an example in a debate about legalizing torture, the government team argues terrorists should be tortured because they might have information that could save hundreds of lives. The basic principle here is that when someone has critical information, we will use any
25

means to extract it. Extend this principle to another situation that is less emotive than terrorism perhaps a hostage situation or kidnapping. Ask the speaker if we would also torture kidnappers they then either have to extend their principle (creating a slippery slope) or say kidnappers are different and try not to contradict themselves. Clarification questions When asking for clarification, dont ask the speaker to repeat themselves. Instead, give them options and force them to choose. Instead of So what do you want to do to Iran? You just keep saying they are bad please propose something!, say Sir, are you proposing to invade Iran, increase sanctions or do nothing?. Whatever his answers is, it will help your prepare your opposition case. The Double POI Some speakers try to ask two POIs in one. This is risky because it will make the POI long and confusing. A POI is not about how much you can squeeze in 15 seconds the speaker and the judge need to understand it for it to be effect. I would generally advise against this. If you are going to do this, you have to be very clever and minimalist. You can start with a quick reminder or reassertion of a previous attack and then ask your main question. For example You still havent addressed our extension, but tell me, if this program is so effective, why did it fail in China? Forcing contradictions between teams You force contradictions in logic by asking leading questions, but also use it to force contradictions between teams. Ask the closing team a question that extends a principle or idea from the opening teams case, or ask them explicitly to clarify something the opening team said. Closing teams sometimes try to ignore bad stuff the opening team said in the debate. They are not responsible for it, but are responsible to at least try and manage the bad PR. Team Specific Strategies POIs to Opening teams Push burdens, force them to defend as much as they can (or cannot). POIs to Closing teams Force them to deal with strong arguments presented earlier in the debate that they might be ignoring. Try to force contradictions Asking POIs as an Opening team Use POIs to pull attention back to your team. Refer to arguments you made that were still not addressed. Asking POIs as a Closing team Be careful to not leak your extension. A quick opening team will steal it and build into their case. The only time you may want to do this is when you think your opening team needs guidance. Ask leading questions to create an extension

Common Questions 1. When is a good time to ask POIs? Every time is a good time. The best time is when speakers are transitioning between
26

arguments or part in their speech, sometime when there could be a natural break in the speech. 2. What if I dont have a POI but havent stood up the entire debate? Ask your speaker for help Ask a stock question like asking for an example or making an assertive statement (its not a good POI, but a bad POI is better than no POI) Some speakers will pretend like they have a POI and stand up in the hope that it appears to judges that are participating in the debate, and hope the speaker doesnt accept them. They do this usually at the very end of the speakers speech which usually gives away their game anyway. 3. What is the speaker doesnt understand my POI? Tough luck, they have the power to re-phrase your ideas. This is why you have to write them down and make them clear. If a speakers asks you to repeat your POIs, then do. They are giving you a second shot. Dont immediately stand up at the speaker is starting to answer your question, its rude to not give him a chance to respond to you. Answering POIs Taking a POI can just as much as an attack as asking one. The risk in taking a POI is that you dont know what the other person is going to ask you and it could jeopardize your speech. The advantage you have though, is that the person asking the POI only has 15 seconds to the damage, while you have your entire speech to defend yourself AND attack his POIs (although, you shouldnt use your entire speech). Its general decorum to reject a speaker fairly quickly and not leave them standing them. You dont have to verbally reject them, you can waive them down. You can also ask a speaker to wait and then take their POI. Dont make them wait too long! General Tips Take POIs when you are comfortable. Never take a POI in the middle of an argument it makes your argument difficult to follow and indicates to judges that you think your argument less worthy than the POI. Transition points between arguments or stages in your speech is a good time to take POIs. Take POIs early in your speech. A POI asked early probably is less venomous since you havent said much and gives you the entire speech to deal with it. Dont wait until the end of your speech it puts more pressure on you and might cause you to forget to take one. Dont be too defensive. Its okay to react angrily to a point of information or disagree completely with whatever the speaker says. Most POIs are poor and easily beatable. Dont be afraid of the Killer POI! Take two POIs. Theres a trend of speakers just taking 1 POI (but themselves offering 20) and I think its a negative trend and often poor strategy. BP is a very fluid format and its difficult to compare teams when there are 4 teams who often dont directly engage each other. Taking a POI is the most direct form of engagement with both the teams on the opposite bench.

27

Strategies Buy time. You have to respond confidently and quickly to a POI. A good answer poorly delivered is often worse a bad answer delivered confidently. Think of an immediately response you can give to buy yourself some time to think of an answer. This can be a quick joke, a throwaway comment or even just re-phrasing the question. Directly answer the question The best thing you can do to a POI is directly answer it. Its even better if you can provide a structured response - there are two answers to that, first...... Trust yourself and believe that every argument is beatable (it has to be, else it would be truistic) Attack the POI relevance, assumption etc POIs can be attacked just like arguments are rebutted. Feel free to comment on the POI, but dont do this to cover it up. Dealing with the question in your development Speakers sometimes push answering a POI to a later part of their speech, perhaps their argument development. This is acceptable but the speaker should refer to the POI when dealing with it later. Dont use this simply as a delay tactic and hope the judge will forget. They dont. Choosing your speaker Taking questions from the strongest or most active speakers on the other side sends a message that you are not afraid and willing to deal with potentially the strongest arguments. Its also good because often the most active POI jack-in-the-box doesnt have the best questions. Choose your team Choose a team you think is ahead in the debate and take a POI to directly engage with them. This is especially important when the team you think is strongest is diagonal to you in the debate (OG and CO or OO and CG). This will help judges evaluate the direct engagement between the teams. More team specific strategy below. Ask the teams for a POI If POIs are far and few between you havent been able to get at the best time for you, ask them for one. It shows the judge you are cognizant of your responsibility to take a POI. Its also acceptable to tell a speaker to wait if they stand up to ask a question. Team/Position Specific Strategies Prime Minister Must take one from your opening opposition its important because they might need clarification. If they misunderstand your approach, it could lead to poor engagement from Opening Opp. A point from OO might also exposes their approach or arguments in the debate. This means youll already start clashing with them from PM, and it also gives information your DPM can use. Leader of Opp Would be excellent to take one from both opening and closing. Important to know what OG thinks of your case and also important to start engaging with closing half. Deputy Prime Minister A point from closing could be more important as they might risk exposing their extension. If your PM took only one POI, take one the team that was ignored Deputy Leader of Opposition If closing was hiding their extension, they will expose it now. Its important to start engaging the
28

closing team. A POI from opening would their last chance to defend themselves against you. If you want to comprehensively beat them, give them one last chance of defending themselves. Member of Government A question from Closing Opposition might expose their extension and start the engagement between the two closing teams. It will also give your whip speaker information about how to defend your extension. Engage opening teams if you can, give them a chance to defend themselves especially when you are rebutting them. Common Questions 1. What if I dont understand the POI? Listen very carefully and respond to what you think the speaker is asking you. Find the intention behind the question. Dont panic its possible the judge also did not understand the question and its just a poor question. Dont ask the speaker to repeat the question usually they will simple repeat the same confusing question except speak slower. This just eats up more of your time. 2. What is the speaker asks a really long rambling question? Cut them off. Politely interrupt the speaker and start answering the question. Dont cut speakers off too early in the POI, before they have actually asked their question make sure they at least get their 15 minutes. 3. What is speakers are barracking or harassing me? Tell them to stop. Sarcasm is very powerful here. Take one of their questions and smash it.

29

The Role Of Manner

Objectives Manner is scored as much as matter in BP (its 50 points for both) but is a criteria that is often ignored when deciding debates. Manner is nevertheless important because it has an implicit and hidden role that makes a big difference in the overall value or power of your arguments. Powerful manner can make mediocre arguments seem very powerful, increase the value moral value of a case or can effectively contrast your self with another team. in close debates manner can play a big and important role. It can make the difference between 1st and 2nd or 3rd and 4th it makes you harder to forget. You must try to make judges like you and remember you, because they will discuss and argue about you after the debate. Manner which annoys the judges or doesnt take into consideration the fact that they are human beings would make them less likely to argue for you good manner and strong public speaking skills is probably the easiest and most important skill you will take from debating into the real world. In the real world, you make never need to present 3 arguments about legalizing incest, but you will always need to make speech that will endear you to your audience. So what is good manner? Is it best to speak slowly or quickly? How fast is too fast? Do I need to gesture animatedly? Just like there is no such thing as a perfect argument, there is also no such thing as perfect manner. Manner varies and should be looked at as a tool. Something you shape and perfect, and vary according to the debate. Just like arguments, you can have you preferred manner, but every debater should try to develop flexible manner. Good manner is not bad manner. Do not shout, scream, speed through your speech or ignore the judges. manner which reflects your personality. Do not try to be someone else during your speech, you will sound insincere and fake. This will also make your arguments seem fake and insincere. Not good. flexible. Change your manner to suit the argument you are presenting, the team you are facing or the crowd in front of you. Be A Dynamic Speaker Change your speaking style during the speech modulate pace and volume, move, vary gestures Change for a reason change to increase attention or emphasize ideas Remain Natural have a range but ensure it is within your natural range. Some manner elements important in debating Humour Humour is a very effective tool. You can use it as a rebuttal, buy some time to respond to a POI, take the wind out a very passionate opposite argument, cut the tension, endear yourself
30

to judges and make yourself memorable. Not everyone is funny, but more importantly not everyone is funny in the same way. Just like we all have a different sense of humour, we all have a different style of humour. Some of them may not work for public speaking. Find your style of humour by experimenting and being bold. If a joke doesnt work move on with your speech. Your life doesnt end because people dont laugh at you when you want them to. Types of humour that works self deprecating humour, play on words, witty responses, exaggerating ideas and arguments. Debaters that know each other would also sometimes make fun of each other on the stage, although you should only every do this if you know the other person. Do not ever make fun of race, religion, gender or sexuality. Or peoples mothers. Debaters can be very liberal, but also very passionate and sensitive. Passion Not to be confused with shouting, being passionate is a great way to inspire your judges and increase the impact of your arguments. Dont be over passionate or insincere, then you will seem fake Rhetorical questions A great style element that helps people see the flow of your arguments and makes people think. These are not arguments though. How do you develop effective manner? Try new things. Give one speech in 3 or 4 different styles. Watch yourself speak its difficult to improve your presentation style if you yourself have never seen it. Free yourself. Enjoy your speeches on the stage, have fun. Believe in the things you are talking about and the people you are defending.

31

Extra Goodies
Zen debatinghow to knife without knifing Sometimes a team in a debate might take a stance so crazy, it is difficult to either respond to it or extend it. While in most cases the role of the second half of the debate is to support the team on their side (while secretly trying to be better than them), sometimes this might be mission impossible. This part will focus on tips about what do when this happens. Bear in mind that every debate is different and many different solutions are possible. 1. Lets not get all technical. When the team before has made a factual error, flawed mechanism or an error in explaining the status quo, say that the debate is not about the technicalities and focus on explaining the principles. You can also broaden the case by bringing another correct fact/example (re-establishing the principle). 2. We all know what were talking about. When the team before has failed thoroughly in providing the definition (in case it is really needed) either assume the right one was presented and clearly explain the case as if it was. You can also accept their error and explain what you mean by this motion. Avoid using words like model our definition, rather say we are clearly talking about 3. Polite ignorance is bliss. Even if your case conflicts with the previous team, present it in a way that it does notvery politely ignore the crazy case presented by them and give yours. Try to find commonalities between your cases and talk about them (the 1st half already explained, We would add to this) 4. What they were actually saying, was. When what they said was very shallow or a bit weird, translate this into a more reasonable argument. Re-explain what they actually meant and introduce your case. This is especially important if your opposing team has been weak and you do not have good rebuttal because of thatassume that they did a good job and then explain why you are still right. 5. Go both ways. When one of the teams squirrels or presents a very off-topic case, try finding common arguments or principles behind both cases and rebut both of them. This is especially true when you are 1st Opp and 2nd Prop is yet to come (who could still introduce a normal case and win the day). 6. If you have to choose, choose right. When the 1st Prop makes a squirrel and the 2nd prop introduces the right debate, choose the latter. 7. Create clash. When the 1st half has not created clash, move to principles and create it yourself. Exercise: present the students with specific situations on specific motions and ask what they should do.

32

Generating and developing arguments

Introduction Arguments are the means by which you convince the adjudicator to vote for your team. Arguing well requires that you have both quality and quantity with regard to your arguments. However, British Parliamentary puts an emphasis on the quality (i.e. the depth of analysis) in arguments, as opposed to the quantity (i.e. the number of arguments) that you present. Generating Arguments Argument generation is a continuous process that happens from the moment the motion is released to the point all substantive speakers in your team have spoken. We can separate argument generation between preparation time and what you do during the debate. Preparation time Position, Position, Position! Upon receiving the motion, it is tempting to do one of two things during your preparation time: Think about all the facts you know about the motion (based of what youve read recently). Think about all the arguments you can for the debate and just squeeze in as much as you can during your speech. Both these approaches are not effective in generating relevant arguments. Ideally, what you should attempt to do when you get a motion is determine your teams position in the debate. A teams position is, in part, whether theyre for or against a motion (this is out of your control since sides are assigned by the tab or in a random draw) but also their core reason or reasons for supporting it. The position is summarized and articulated during debate as your stance i.e. a single sentence that sums up why your team is making the arguments it is in the debate. Therefore, arguments that prove your position/stance as being valid are those that you should make and prioritise i.e. the position is the standard with which you evaluate your arguments. You can see examples of this in everyday life: political parties take positions on issue and then make arguments to support that position. For example, the Democrat party in the United States took the position to support the legalization of abortion primarily because they supported a womans right to choose.

33

Lets look at a motion and try to see what are the possible positions that a proposition (i.e. for the motion) team can take on it: This house believes that we should ban private prisons Here are possible positions for supporting the ban: 1. Punishing people or removing their rights can only be done by the state and not 'outsourced' to a third-party 2. The welfare of prisoners will not be protected if private entities run prisons Taking the first position doesnt mean that you cant argue the arguments for the second but it does tell you the arguments that are most important to argue first. Were in position Once you have got your team's position, you can now begin the process of argument generation. Again, the position should be your filter for determining what to argue and how much priority to give it. Build it and they will come The process of argument generation is something that is unique to each team but there are general strategies that are useful but before that... A quick review of the anatomy of an argument An argument comprises of the following (in order): 1. Label/Thesis statement: The short assertion that your argument is going to explain and justify. This should be a contentious statement e.g. Unjustified intrusion by the state not a neutral one e.g. Role of government. 2. Explanation/Elaboration: The justification for your thesis statement. How much do you need to justify? Assume that a curious (and annoying) child is asking you the question Why? and keep going. 3. Example: A real world example or parallel that shows your idea in practice. You should also explain how this example links to your idea. 4. Summary/Causal link: Show the link between the argument and your teams position (see above) in the debate. You and me, lets generate, baby! The first step to argument generation during preparation time is the brainstorming session. Since the preparation time for BP debate is very short (i.e. practically 10 minutes), this should be a quick process in which individually or as a team, you come up with as many arguments as possible. Remember, Go wide instead of deep: Generate labels (the nice contentious ones) only. You should have a rough idea about what the argument is about but there is no need to develop its full analysis. Write stuff down: The strongest memory is bested by the weakest ink. We invented writing to better remember things we think about - use this invention during prep so

34

those good ideas dont get lost. Take a positive approach: During the brainstorming stage, dont reject ideas or start rebutting them. First, the negativity can be toxic to your relationship with your teammate. You have teams to beat once in a debate, dont try to beat your team mate. Secondly, arguments that might be not good at first blush can be combined to others to make stronger arguments.

Starting points for brainstorming These are useful starting point for brainstorming: Rights analysis: Most debates operate on a spectrum of denying or providing rights to individuals. Identify what right youre giving or denying in the debate and draw a parallel to the existing right (or lack of) and the justification for why its given or denied. There is also the staple of the Harm Principal being used in debated as the litmus test on which rights are given. The Harm Principal that the basis for which society can deny an individual a right is for self-preservation i.e. if the act results in physical harm to others, they cant do it. Stake-holder analysis: Examine the individual stakeholders that will be affected by motions. Roleplay a bit and ask how you feel in their shoes in a world where the motion passed or did not. Brainstorming Guides Arguments have recurring themes. Ask yourself if any of themes are relevant in this debate. Dont force it, but it might help think of something you have missed. Rights analysis Stake holder analysis Backlash

Areas of interest Legal arguments Economic arguments Environment arguments

35

References And Acknowledgements 1. IDEA BP Track Training Manual 2008 by Steven Johnson, Logandran Balavijendran & Chris Richter 2. Contributors of past Training Manuals (2009, 2010) Sharmila Parmanand, Justice Mothalbani and Vivek Ramsaroop 3. WUDC Rules, edited by Ray D'Cruz 4. World Debating Website http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/

36