PARLIAMENTARY FORMAT: Building Ones Side of the Controversy A.

Structuring your speech Argument _____________________|_____________________ | | | Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 (e.g. 1 Problem & Cause) (e.g. 1 Solution) (e.g. 1 Effect) (e.g. 2 Political) (e.g. 2 Social) (e.g. 2 Economic) ____|____ ____|____ ____|____ | | | | | | Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact
B. Knowing the speech components To Consider Government Case Problem There is a problem. Cause This is the cause. Solution Here is our solution. Effect And this is its effect. C. Knowing your role Government Team 1st Define & outline 2nd Defend, explain & rebut 3rd Backup, extend & rebut 4th Explain, sum up & rebut 1.1 Definition Opposition Case The problem doesnt exist. Thats not the right cause. The solution isnt workable. It wont have those effects. Opposition Team Rebut, alternative, (re-define) Rebut & defend Rebut & backup Rebut, rebut, sum up

Refutation, Reply or Rebuttal

A. Definitions To refute is to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning by proving it to be false or erroneous. (academic debate) To rebut is to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning by introducing other evidence and reasoning that will destroy its effect. (applied debate) B. Suggested format: Case Outline Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3 Argument 1 Label Analysis Example Argument 2 Label Analysis Example Argument 3 Label Analysis Example Case Summary Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3 C. Suggested ways of dealing with difficult arguments Say that the argument is wrong Say that your proposal is better Say that the argument doensnt address the real issue

Pre-Practicum Supplemental Material

Speech 71 Argumentation & Debate
Atty. Archill Nia Faller-Capistrano

---- o0O0o ---Review on the Essentials of Public Speaking MATTER

OBJECTIVE SETTING o To inform or to persuade? o To blend or to stand out? o To express or to impress? KNOW THE TOPIC KNOW THE AUDIENCE ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS ANIMATE YOUR THOUGHTS 1.1

MANNER DICTION: Emphasis vs. Superfluity VOICE: Modulation & Dynamics BODY LANGUAGE: Gestures Facial expression Eye contact

AN EFFECTIVE SPEAKER MUST

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

WHAT is the proposal all about? policy is going to be implemented? are the issues in the debate? problem is the debate seeking to resolve? WHO is involved? will be implementing the policy? WHY is this proposal important? is the principle relevant?

Debate Formats, Rules & Guidelines

Gaining popular ground is the Parliamentary Debate Format with these quick guides: Prepare a 7-minute speech. Use all of it but not longer than 7:30. No Points of Information for the 1st and last minutes. Accept 2 3 POIs, no more no less. Stay in the debate. Offer lots of POIs but dont resort to barracking No props. No bad language. No abusive behaviour. F World/British Parliamentary Debate Format Speech / Interaction Prime minister / 1st Govt. member Opposition leader / 1st Opposition member Deputy prime minister / 2nd Govt. member Deputy opposition leader/2nd O. member Member for the Govt. / 3rd Govt. member Member for the opposition / 3rd Opposition member Govt. Whip / 4th Govt. member Opposition Whip / 4th Opposition member D 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 All-Asian Intervarsity Debate Format F Speech / Interaction Prime minister / 1st Affirmative Leader of opposition / 1st Negative Deputy prime minister / 2nd Affirmative Deputy opposition leader/2nd Negative Government Whip / 3rd Affirmative Opposition Whip / 3rd Negative Negative Reply (by 1st or 2nd Negative) Affirmative Reply (by 1st or 2nd Affirmative) D 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 4

Be seen Be heard Connect Impart Convince

1.1

Cross-Examination/Point(s) of Information

A. Definition: a formal interjection by a member of the opposing team. B. Purpose: To clarify previous statements To commit respondent to a particular position To refute opposing arguments To use as basis for constructive arguments To undermine the credibility of the opponent C. Points to remember: 1. When offering POIs POIs allow member of the opposing team to rise in their place and ask a question of the speaker. How? Offeror stands in his/her place, place one hand on the head and extend the other hand forward and state point of information. POIs should be brief (not more than 15 seconds) POIs should be expressed as a question. The speaker can accept or decline the POI Declining the POI means the offeror cannot even ask the question. Acceptance of a POI requires that the same be not ignored. It must be properly addressed. POIs cannot be asked in the first minute and last minute of the 7-minute speech (the protected minutes). D. Assessing POIs: Matter, Method, Manner

References:

KAF-Ateneo Debate Education Program Training Manual Freeley, Austin J. & Steinberg, David L. (2000). Argumentation and Debate Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making (10th ed.). USA: Wadsworth Ziegelmueller, George W. & Kay, Jack (1997). Argumentation Inquiry & Advocacy (3rd ed.). MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Testing evidence: C4R3 V I S2: Credibility: Clarity, Consistency, Competence Reliability, Relevancy, Recency Verifiability Impartiality (unprejudiced) Statistical soundness, Sufficiency Testing reasoning 1.1.1 Clarity (Fallacies of) 1.1.1.1 Evidence 1.1.1.2 Reasoning: Hasty Generalization False Analogy Non Sequitur Post hoc ergo propter hoc 1.1.1.3 Language: Ambiguity Verbalism Loaded language Grammatical Structure 1.1.1.4 Pseudoarguments: Irrelevancy Begging the Question / Arguing in circles (circulo in probando/petitioprincipii) Ignoring the Question/Issue Baiting the opponent / Ad Hominem Using popular appeal / Ad Populum Appealing to emotions / Special pleading / Ad Misericordiam Appealing to ignorance / Ad ignorantiam Appealing to tradition / Ad antiquitatem Offering a straw argument Complexpseudoquestions /Plurium Interrogationum Composition / Division

The Toulmin Model Ground(s) Backing Warrant(s) Claim

AFFIRMATIVE TEAM

Issue

NEGATIVE TEAM

Modality
Cogency Continuum

Rebuttal(s)

Absolute truth A scintilla of truth |____________________|__________________________|_____________________| Certainty Probability Plausibility Possibility.

DEGREE OF COGENCY the extent to which an argument is both sound and intellectually compelling because it is well founded in fact, logic, or rationality ORDERING ARGUMENTS Begin with the strongest argument/argument bloc (audience attention span consideration) or use the grouping technique especially in refutation e.g. if different arguments manifest the same technical flaw Pick up an ignored/insufficiently considered argument by the opponent (IF what was left out is/are VITAL and beware of the straw argument) If you feel the audience accept the opponents points, attack the issue or issues identified and dispose of them before moving to your own arguments While it is good to begin with logos (due to audience attention span) i.e. blame and cure issues, it is best to end with pathos i.e. ill and cost arguments OREGON-OXFORD FORMAT: Building Ones Side of the Controversy
AFFIRMATIVE TEAM Issue NEGATIVE TEAM

Third Speaker: Practicability vs. Non-Practicability

INTRODUCTION Amenities/greeting Show how arguments of 1st affirmatives points have not been destroyed Task: to establish benefit issue BODY OF SPEECH Present the benefit issue benefits are unattainable under the status quo benefits will solve the problems or eliminate the evils cited by the 1st affirmative speaker Support issue with evidence CONCLUSION Summarize of the benefits Appeal for the adoption of the proposal because such adoption is beneficial INTRODUCTION Amenities/greeting Destroy 2nd negatives arguments Task: to establish the plan issue BODY OF SPEECH Present the plan issue it is possible; it can operate it is not immoral, illegal or cost of the adoption of the

Second Speaker: Beneficiality vs. Non-Beneficiality

INTRODUCTION Amenities/greeting Attack affirmatives case: propositions consequences

BODY OF SPEECH why no benefit why proposal is more harmful than beneficial Support with evidence CONCLUSION Summarize attacks to other case Appeal for rejection of proposal

are not beneficial and downright dangerous proposals harmful consequences outweigh the beneficial aspects Task: prove no benefit issue

Support your position Relate to issue & show impact (demonstrate how it weakens or kills the opponents argument) How? Showcase inconsistent and/or irrelevant arguments Significance-reduction of opponents accurate conclusion/s Reveal importance of point/s reduced as insignificant by opponent Deny inherency & back up with granting arguendo phrase & the point on reparability Reduce opponents arguments into dilemmas Cost-benefit analysis including time frames Interpellation / Cross-Examination PURPOSE: 1) get info; 2) test inference; 3) verify sources; 4) clarify statements GUIDELINES: 1. Interpellator & answerer must stand well toward the front of the platform speak loudly and clearly. 2. Questions & answers must be brief or it becomes a series of speeches. 3. The interpellator is in charge but matters on questions relevance or procedural propriety can be referred to the moderator. 4. Questions must be related to the speech delivered by the speaker but may deal either with the opponents argument or those of the interpellator. 5. Questions dealing with the opponents argument may be designed to reveal: a) lack of evidence; b) weaknesses in the evidence; &/or c) weaknesses in the reasoning process. Those dealing with interpellators own argument may be used to force the opponent to admit the strength of his/her evidence or reasoning. 6. Arrange questions in series, starting with admitted matter and working toward alleged weakness or inconsistency of the opponents argument. 7. Interpellator may ask questions that seem irrelevant but deal with situations familiar to the audience then given favorable answers, s/he should point out the analogy between the seemingly irrelevant matter and the issue. 8. S/he should be careful to show significance of respondents answers, remembering that implications clear to him may not be clear to the other. 9. Silence or evasiveness may be an admission of weakness. As cross-examiner / interpellator: Anticipate major points/arguments to be raised by the opponent. Develop a repertoire of stock questions per anticipated point/argument. Establish your chief objective in cross-examination/interpellation as either or combination of: o Clarification of opponents previous statements (here, you could also undermine the opponents evidence) o Nail opponent to a particular position o Refute opposing arguments o Use cross-exam/interpellation answers as basis for constructive speech (i.e. in relation to the first 2 items in ORDERING ARGUMENTS) Pick your psychological method from the following: Control Approach Opponents Demeanor
Extreme to avoid Offending audience Method Aggressiveness Attitude Evasive To Expose Uncertainty

INTRODUCTION Amenities/greeting Destroy 3rd affirmatives arguments Task: to establish the nonpracticability issue BODY OF SPEECH Adopt or refute opponents case: attack workability of affirmative

unconstitutional

INTRODUCTION Amenities/greeting & exordium Statement of proposition Definition of terms Affirmative issues to be proved Tasks of the speakers BODY OF SPEECH Present the need issue status quo is intolerable status quo has evils w/c are: serious inherent status quo is essentially defective the need is significant quantifatively qualitatively Support issue with evidence CONCLUSION Summarize the main points Remind audience of why change is the option not the status quo

INTRODUCTION Amenities/greeting & exordium Negative issues to be proved Counter to definitions Tasks of the speakers BODY OF SPEECH Refute opponents case: attack evidence/reasoning Adopt with better alternatives defend status quo - nothing wrong status quo is basically sound and can be improved defects are remediable IF the status quo must be changed, present a counterproposal better than the proposition Support issue with evidence CONCLUSION Summarize the attacks to other case Affirmatives case shows nonexistence of the need

First Speaker: Necessity vs. Non-Necessity

Support issue with evidence CONCLUSION Summarize of the main points

affirmative proposal is not prohibitive give definite steps to ensure an effective implementation

plan e.g. it would worsen situation it seeks to remedy repair the status quo defend status quo; ignore the affirmative plan or contrast it with the status quo present a counter proposal
Support with evidence CONCLUSION Summarize attacks to other case

Tie up the 3 affirmative speeches and strongly appeal for the adoption of the proposal

Tie up the 3 negative speeches and advance undestroyed negative arguments & appeal for rejection of affirmative plan

Refutation & Rebuttal 1. Its presentation is highly extemporaneous. 2. It mainly summarizes the teams side of the proposition (i.e. how arguments withstood the attacks or enumerate arguments which have materially damaged the other side of the proposition). 3. It must also answer the arguments in the oppositions constructive speeches. 3. No new constructive arguments must be introduced. Concentrate on refutation and/or bring in additional evidence to support position. 4. Point out the fallacies committed by the opponents. More specifically: Identify the argument to be refuted State your position

Opponent dominates
Compromise stand

Indecisiveness
Polite

Cooperative
Open/honest

Skeletons in closet
Inconsistencies

Cut overly-long answers or avoid questions that require overly-long answers. Note opponents admissions for immediate use in constructive case.