THE BASICS

Topic

A debate is a structured argument between two teams of speakers. The most common style of debating
features three speakers on each team. Each speaker has a set time to discuss the topic. A topic is
provided for every debate. For example:

'That we should support a Heroin Trial in the ACT'

The affirmative team is required to defend the topic. In the above case they would argue in favor of a
heroin trial. The negative team then has to argue against a heroin trial..

Roles of The Speakers

Team members speak in the following order,

1st Affirmative: The first speaker is required to define the topic. An affirmative team cannot define the
topic however they like. Rather, the definition must be reasonable - the test for a reasonable definition is
how would the ordinary person on the street define a topic.

For example in the debate 'That we should support a Heroin Trial' the 1st affirmative speaker could
define the topic as, 'The establishment of safe injecting rooms for heroin addicts. As it is a trial only a
few rooms would be established where small amounts of heroin are distributed and after a period of time
the success of the program would be reviewed'. Having provided a definition the first affirmative speaker
should then discuss the arguments in favour of a Heroin Trial.

1st Negative: It is generally accepted that the first negative speaker should accept the affirmative's
definition, unless it is exceedingly unreasonable (how to and when to challenge a definition will be made
clear later). The speaker should then refute the affirmative's arguments (this is called rebuttal), and then
provide arguments of their own as to why they oppose a Heroin Trial.

2nd Affirmative: This speaker should start by rebutting their oppositions arguments, and should then
provide new arguments in favour of a Heroin Trial.

2nd Negative: Rebut the oppositions argument, and then provide new arguments against a Heroin trial.

3rd Affirmative: Should spend almost all of their speech rebutting the other teams argument, and then
conclude by summarizing their teams substantive arguments (see below).

3rd Negative: Same as 3rd Affirmative

Speaking times

Each speaker has 8 minutes to speak. They receive a bell at 1minute to allow Points of Information, and a
warning bell at 7 followed by two bells at 8 minutes.

Substantive arguments and Rebuttal

Debating requires speakers to both refute their opposition's argument and construct their own. A
substantive point is an argument your team has thought of in favour of your side of the topic. However,
an equally important part of debating is to be able to rebut the opposition's arguments. This involves
highlighting the opposition's key points and explaining why they are wrong.

Result
In each debate there is an adjudicator whose job is to decide who wins and by what margin. The winner
of the debate will be the team that best argues their case.

METHOD

How to organise a team's case

Caseline/approach

The three speakers on a team need to work together to organise a case. Teams should summarize their
overall argument in a case line. The case line should be introduced in the first speaker's speech and
referred to by all members of the team. An affirmative team's caseline in the heroin trial debate could be

"That we should support a heroin trial because it is the only way to save lives and reduce the costs to
society of drug use"

Remember, your caseline should be simple and explain your Team's approach to the topic.

The Split

The first two speakers on each team have to deliver constructive points to prove their team's case.
However, each speaker needs to provide a different angle on the subject. A 'case split' divides the
substantive points into two categories. For example,

The 1st Affirmative Speaker could discuss how a heroin trial would benefit drug users by saving lives and
bringing users into contact with social services. ("Benefits to the Individual")

The Second Speaker could discuss how in the long-term safe injecting rooms could reduce crime and
social problems that harm the whole society. ("Benefits to Society")

A split provides each speaker with a broad theme to cover. Common types of splits used in debates are
individual/society, social/economic, moral/practical. These examples are a guide to help you understand
how a split works, remember, the kind of split you use will depend on the debate.

How to improve teamwork

A team will work together better when:

* Each speaker makes an effort to refer back to the arguments made by their teammates.
* Each speaker makes an effort to be consistent with their teammates.
* Each speaker understands the caseline and split.

To improve your teamwork make sure all your team members help prepare the case.

How to organise a speech

A better organised speech helps speakers deliver ideas more clearly. If you're not yet fully confident
about speaking in public, a well-structured approach can help tremendously.

Each speech should begin with rebuttal (except 1st affirmative) and move onto substantive arguments.
The 1st negative speaker should limit rebuttal to 1/4 of their speech. 2nd Affirmative speakers, and 2nd
Negative speakers should make sure rebuttal constitutes less than 1/2 of their speech. Third speakers
should rebut for most of their speech and summarize their other speaker's arguments at the end of the
debate.

How to organise constructive arguments

"Signposting" is a simple way to organise a speech. Signposting is labeling each of your arguments in a
speech. When you get to each point you announce that you are concluding one idea and moving onto
another. A speech should usually not have more than three constructive points. Numbering your points as
you make them "my second point is…" is often useful but not essential.

For example the first affirmative speaker in the Heroin Trial Debate could use the following three points,

1. Why a heroin trial would save lives.

2. How a heroin trial would allow social workers to have more contact with the addicts.
3. How a heroin trial would reduce the social appeal of the drug to young people by making people
shoot-up in 'medical centres'

Rebuttal

When rebutting the opposition's arguments it's important not to try and deal with every argument they
raised. Instead try to select the key arguments in the opposition’s case. Once again it is vital that you
signpost your rebuttal points so that the adjudicator can identify the arguments you're dealing with.

For example, suppose that an affirmative team presented the following arguments for the topic 'That
physical education should be an elective'.
1. Students have a right to choose other subjects so why not physical education?
2. Students are exposed to unnecessary risk of physical injury.
3. Students can get sporting involvement outside the school in extra curricular activities.
4.There is poor funding within schools even for maths and science, let alone physical education.
These other subjects should have priority.
5. There is a shortage of qualified physical education teachers

Rather than rebutting these arguments one by one, it is better to group them into two themes:

- The interests of the students (arguments 1, 2 and 3)

- The concerns of the schools (arguments 4 and 5).

MATTER

Matter' refers to the arguments presented by the speaker. Good matter involves convincing, logical
arguments supported with clear, relevant facts and examples.

How to construct an argument

There's a simple formula that can be used to construct an individual argument/point within a speech,
Introduce, Explain, Example, Tie in (IEET).

Let us suppose that you are negative team arguing that instead of a heroin trial we need a tough stands on
heroin use.

Introduce your argument eg "tough drug laws reduce the amount of heroin in society."

Explain: Tough prison sentences for dealers would make it harder for addicts to obtain heroin. This is
because if the people dealing drugs risk going to prison for ten to fifteen years they will start to demand
higher prices. As well as this, the incentive to deal in heroin would be reduced because of the risk of
going to jail. So heroin would be harder to get, it's price would rise, and drug use would fall .

Example: In New York City tough drug laws have been shown to be effective at reducing the availability
and increasing the cost of drugs like cocaine.

Tie-in: This is one more reason our team believes that harsh sentencing rather than a heroin trial is the
best way to resolve the drug problem.

How to use examples

In debating, it is essential that you do not provide hundreds of examples in favor of your case. Instead,
debaters should explain an argument and then provide an example or statistic to support that argument
Remember - examples don't prove anything unless you explain their relevance.

How to improve the quality of your argument.

Often debaters merely assert that something will happen, cite an example, and pretend that their case is
proven. In a debate it is important that you prove your argument clearly. Let us suppose you are arguing
that 'the government should say sorry for the stolen generation because it will help reconciliation and
reconciliation is a good thing'. Merely making this statement does not prove how saying sorry will help
with reconciliation. Conversely, if you argued ' that saying sorry promotes reconciliation because it
shows the indigenous community that the government recognizes the suffering indigenous Australians
have endured and that the government was responsible for it. Such an apology could improve the
dialogue between indigenous Australians and the government'.

To make sure you have constructed a good argument ask yourself, 'have I really proven my argument or
have a I just told the audience what it is'.

MANNER

Manner is how you present what you say and there are various aspects of manner that you need to be
aware of. There is no one prescribed way of presenting your argument. The best advice you can get is to
develop a manner style that is natural to you. Here are some tips and pointers.

1. Cue cards: Debaters often write notes on palm cards to help them remember their speech. However it's
important that you do not write your whole speech on the cards. Try and write just your key points and
examples on accounts. Also make sure you do not read from your cards. Ensure that you look up often
and maintain eye contact with the audience.

2. Body: Avoid any nervous habits like rocking, hands in pockets, or standing on your head. Try and use
hand gestures while speaking.

3. Voice: Varying your tone of voice is an excellent way to keep the audience’s attention.

Dealing with nerves

Even the best speakers sometimes get nervous. The following tips won't necessarily cure the scaryness of
speaking, but they might help a bit. It does get better with time and practice, we promise!

1. Structure
Structure is the most amazing tool in debating, because it can both stop you rambling overtime, and
help to pad out a ‘matter light’ speech. If you’re new to speaking, and 8 minutes seems like eternity,
the easiest way to fill time is to signpost well, and prove all the links in your argument (see the
section on ‘constructing an argument’, above.) A well structured speech means you’ll never be stuck
for something to say, because if you run out of points you can always summarize, in a logical and
easy to follow order, the things you’ve already gone over. Adjudicators will love you.
2. Preparation
If you know stuff about a topic, chances are you’ll speak better. A little general knowledge goes a
very long way in debating. Preparation isn’t just about reading lots of stuff for prepared topics,
though, how you work with your team has a huge influence on how you speak. Make sure you
understand the case, and all the arguments you have to talk about. Talk with your team. Try and feel
ready to speak.
3. Attitude
Much more important than actual preparation work is attitude. If you feel confident, you’ll speak better.
It’s that simple. Don’t be put off by a scary opposition. Getting into a good mindset for a debate is
different for everyone, but it sometimes helps to not try to scribble down facts and examples right up to
the last minute of preparation time, give yourself a bit of mental breathing space just before you speak.
Write your opening line out in full if you feel nervous. Smile. You’ll probably be fine. And if you
occasionally deliver a shocking speech (again, it happens to everyone) don’t let it deter you. Keeping on
speaking is the only way to improve, and in all seriousness, you probably didn’t speak as badly as you
thought you did. And you’ll improve fast. Honestly.

POINTS OF INFORMATION

Points of Information (POIs) may be delivered any time between the 1 minute and 5 minute bells. A
debater may stand up in the middle of another debates speech and say 'point of information'. A speaker
may reject or accept a point of information. If it is accepted the debater can deliver a brief (10 seconds,
maximum) point.

POIs should be brief, and clear. They should last no longer than 10 seconds.

Points of information can be delivered in three basic ways, (note: this is not an exhaustive list nor are
these rules on POIs. These are just some basic guidelines).

1. An Argument (sometimes phrased as a question.)

This format is basically delivering an argument as a question. For example in the death penalty debate a
POI could be phrased as, "Don't you think that the death penalty actually deters murder by increasing the
consequences?" or " What do you say to the argument that the death penalty deters crime by increasing
the consequences of crime?" This type of POI is essentially an attack on the speaker's case.

2. A factual POI.
Often a team may be relying on a certain example or factual piece of information to support their
arguments. If you have information that would stop them in their tracks this is worth delivering. For
example if a speaker was arguing that "That most asylum seekers are possible terrorists and criminals
and thus we cannot open our borders" a POI stating that, '80% of asylum are genuine immigrants and
there is no statistical evidence that terrorists come to Australia via boats according to immigration stats'
would be devestating.

3. Exposing a weakness in their case.

POIs are useful to expose where a team's argument is lacking, where their arguments are contradictory, or
where they have failed to rebut a key argument. Suppose a team is debating that we should invade Iraq,
and they are talking about all the benefits of having the UN administering Iraq after the invasion. A POI
may point out that, "You're talking about all these benefits of having democracy in Iraq but have failed to
rebut our arguments about how invasion will not be possible."

Things not to do when delivering POIs:

• Do not use POIs to 'nitpick' minor examples, unless the example is very important to their case
and you have matter that will destroy them.
• Do not use POIs to clarify what you said. That is if you feel that someone is misrepresenting you
do not use a POI to defend yourself - the adjudicator already knows.
• Do not 'badger' a debater, by offering too many POIs or offering them one after they have said
something along the lines of "I'm not going to take one for a minute", it's rude.

How to Deal with Points of Information.

Firstly, you should only accept 2-3 points in your speech. Accept more if you can or if you are short on
time. However, remember it is important to keep control of your speech - don't waste valuable speaking
time by taking POIs.

Also don't let someone delivering a POI push you around. They have 10-15 seconds to deliver their point.
If they don't do it in that time tell them to sit down. Further, don't let them have a conversation with you,
once they've made their point they are not allowed to speak.

There are three techniques to deal with POIs once they've been made.
 1. Respond to it: - This is the best option. If you are confident in your case just refute the point and
move on. The quicker you can do this, the better.
2. Say I'll cover it later: - If you have a section in your speech that relates to the point tell them you
will cover it later.
3. Dodge: - Sometimes you are going to be stumped by a POI - it happens to everyone. If you are
stumped don't waffle for 30 seconds. You can, restate your caseline, provide token refutation, or
pretend you're going to cover it later. The most important point is that you shouldn't allow a POI to
make you lose your concentration.

TECHNICAL DEBATING ISSUES

This section covers some technical facets of debating. If you find these difficult to understand don't
worry them much easier to understand once you've done a few debates.

How to define the topic

It is up to the affirmative team to define the topic in a debate. The test for a reasonable definition is what
would the ordinary person on the street think the topic means. Further, when defining a topic an
affirmative should absolutely avoid defining 'words' in the topic, and instead that affirmative team should
merely explain what the topic means overall.

Example: On the topic 'That we should support a Heroin Trial' instead of defining individual words the
affirmative could define the topic clearly by saying, 'The Topic refers to the establishment of safe-
injecting rooms for Heroin'.

What to do with an unreasonable definition

It is up to the negative to agree or disagree with a definition. If a definition is unreasonable they may
challenge it. For example if an affirmative team defined the Heroin Trial debate as 'That we need to
have more female super heroes' the negative could challenge the definition. A 1st negative speaker
should challenge a definition by first stating why the definition is unreasonable and then say, 'Even
though your definition is wrong here is why your arguments are wrong.' However, PLEASE AVOID
CHALLENGING DEFINITIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES RUIN
DEBATES.

Models and Tests

Sometimes 1st affirmative speakers need to introduce a model or test. Below is a description of the topics
where this is relevant.

Models/Should debates

In a debate where you have to 'do' something you have to produce a model. These debates are usually
called should debates. The 1st speaker of the team needs to outline the model. For example in the debate
"That we should abolish Medicare", the Affirmative should produce a model that sets out how they will
abolish medicare. Similarly, the negative team would need an alternative model on which to base their
analysis (most likely the status quo).

Other debates where a model is required,

• That we should invade Iraq (Model of invasion + Model of how you would Rebuild the Nation).
• That we should institute an ICC (Model of what the ICC would do/be).

A model should be clear but not excessively detailed.

Is Debates/Tests

A different type of debate is what we call an "is" debate. For example, the topic 'That multiculturalism
has failed' requires the teams to discuss the current state of multiculturalism, without necessarily arguing
that multiculturalism is good or bad, or whether in the future things will be different. On paper this looks
obvious, but in a debate it is often easy to forget! "Is" topics often require the affirmative team to
produce a test. A test is effectively a yardstick to evaluate the topic. For instance when evaluating
whether multiculturalism has failed, the affirmative team test could state that multiculturalism will have
failed if,

* People of different races do not have equal opportunity.

* There is minimal integration between races.
* Racial resentment persists in Australia.

The affirmative would then need to prove that these circumstances actually exist.

Tests & models are one of the most difficult aspects of debating. If a topic that uses the word 'is' or 'has'
the affirmative will usually need a test. If a topic uses the word 'should' or requires you do something, the
affirmative team needs to explain what they're going to do, usually through a model. These are not rules,
it's up to you to decide whether an individual topic needs a test or a model. Remember some topics
require neither, eg

• We should say sorry for the stolen generation.

• America should leave the Middle-East alone.

In both these topics, and many others, the affirmative's model is built into the topic. It is perfectly
acceptable for the negative team to have a counter model.

ADJUDICATION

Adjudicators will award the debate to the team that better argues their case. Several criteria are used to
decide a debate:
- Method: How well organised was each team's case and individual speeches?
- Matter: How well did each team argue their points? Did they really prove their arguments? Did they
have relevant examples to support their argument? Did they successfully rebut the other teams
arguments.
- Manner: How well did the two teams speak.

Each speech is scored out of 100. An average score is 75, a score less than this indicates you could
improve a few things in your speech, an excellent score is 78/79. Adjudicators make their decision first,
then fiddle speaker scores to ensure that the total score for each team gives the right result. Thus scores
often don’t exactly reflect how well you spoke. If you want better feedback make sure you talk to the
adjudicator afterwards. Adjudicators love to be talked to. And they REALLY love being asked questions,
so if you are even the slightest bit confused, ask them to clarify things. It’s their job to make sure you
leave the room satisfied that you learned something that will help your debating. They don’t bite, we
promise.

WEBSITES

Debating is all about discussing public issues. Thus, it is worth keeping your general knowledge up to
date. Below are some websites that can help.

http://www.debatabase.org/debatabase/index.asp - Has lots of good summaries of debating Topics.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/hotissues.htm - The parliamentary library is an excellent source
of information. The E-briefs in particular are excellent.
http://www.smh.com.au/ - The Sydney Morning Herald.
CNN.com - Has excellent international news.
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/ - Good international news
www.economist.com - there’s excellent information here, but it’s fairly tough going.
www.guardian.co.uk - again, here’s great coverage of all kinds of current events, in depth.