The Basic Debating Skills

Style
Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part
of debating to master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material
in a confident and persuasive way.

Speed
It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to
say what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood.

Tone
Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Listening to one tone for an entire
presentation is boring.

Volume
Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout
through every debate regardless of context. There is absolutely no need speak any more
loudly than the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting
does not win debates. Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since no one will be able to
hear you.

Clarity
The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about.
The main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the stream of
thought which is keeping them going. It is also important to keep it simple. While long
words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible.

Use of notes and eye contact

Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organized to be effective. There is
absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. Of course, notes should never become
obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they ever be read from
verbatim. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under
each.
When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate
sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and
then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using.

Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your gaze. No one likes to
be stared at.
Before you begin writing your speech you should take the following points into
consideration.

Time yourself
Each speaker has four minutes and 30 seconds to speak this includes the captains
summation. Make sure you speak for no less than four minutes, or you will look like you
didnt prepare well. And, speak for no more than four minutes and 30 seconds, or youll lose
some of your hard-earned marks.

Clear information
Dont try to cram too much information into your speech. Adjudicators prefer to hear three
to four well-developed points, with clear information about each of the points. Make sure
your points flow together nicely. Points are awarded for clarity and logical thought.

Use facts
Find some good solid facts to strengthen your arguments, and make sure to quote your
source during your speech to back up your point.

Marking sheet
Look at the marking sheet before you debate so you know what the adjudicators are looking
for.

Preparation
Prepare your cue cards for the podium. Do not write your entire speech on them. Put key
points, facts and quotes on them, and use them to guide you on to your next point.

Practise makes perfect

Practise, practise, practise! In front of the mirror; using a video camera; in front of your
class or parents. The more comfortable and convinced you are of the points youre making,
the easier it will be to convince others especially the adjudicators.

Refutation and rebuttal

Leave time for refutation and rebuttal. When doing your research, try to predict what the
other team will say and keep some statistics that could be used to counteract their
arguments. Finally, remember to use your wit! Humour really livens up a debate.

Debate Roles: Teams of 6 or less

1)Coordinator
Announces team position (also Leadoff) Introduces team (roles) Feeds helpful notes and
suggestions to teammates during the debate Delivers attention grabbing opening argument,
gives overview outline

2)Challenger
Delivers main body of arguments, data, and quotes of support. Should refute anticipated
arguments of opponent.

3)Rebuttal
Delivers rebuttal to the opponent's Challenger (Rd. 1 for Pro, Rd. 2 for Con) Must be able to
anticipate what opponent will say yet be flexible enough to adjust to unanticipated
arguments

4)Cross Examiner
Will pose one or two challenging questions to attack the opponent's logic

5)Responder
Responds, after brief conference with teammates, to cross-examination question Must be
able to speak spontaneously but should research possible attack points to prepare

6)Closer
Delivers persuasive closing argument, sums up team's position

When rebutting the opponents arguments, Debaters need to decide which particular area
they wish to attack, rather than to just rush in to say, You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Wrong. The various attacks which can be used in rebuttal are as follows:

Attacking Relevance
With this rebuttal, Debaters attack the relevance of their opponents arguments to the
motion and show that these arugments do not support the opponent's stance. This type of
rebuttal can destroy the entire argument by showing that it does not even support the
opponents stance. For instance, in a debate on the motion This house believes that the
Internet is a dangerous force, the Opposition delivers arguments noting how useful the
Internet has been in facilitating communication and education. The Proposition merely
rebutted that the benefits of the Internet here does not show why the Internet was SAFE,
which was what Opposition had to show.

Attacking Assumption
With this rebuttal, Debaters attack a particular way in which their opponents had described
an assumed trait of the subject. For instance, for the motion This house believes that China
is Dangerous, the Proposition argues that China is a Communist country and that this leads
to a conflict between Beijing and the Capitalist West. However, the Opposition can rebut by
counter-arguing that China is nominally Communist but has wholeheartedly

embraced

Capitalism, thus having less reason to find conflict with Capitalist countries.

Attacking the Impact

With this rebuttal, debaters attack the presumed impact of the subject's assumed trait. For
instance, for the motion This house would dissolve the UN, the Proposition speaker points

out that the veto system (trait) in the UN (subject) has caused unhappiness between the P5
countries and the rest of the world. However, the Opposition speaker can rebut this by
saying that the veto system has actually facilitated cooperation between the P5 countries
and smaller states as the P5 countries often cast their vetos to protect the smaller countries
interests.

Attacking Logic Leap

With this rebuttal, the debaters attack the lack of logical links between the assumed traits of
the subject and its presumed impact. For instance, for the motion, This house would ban
prostitution, the Proposition could argue that frequency sexual activity is associated with
STDs transmission and that the whole society is put at risk. Here, the Opponents can rebut
the lack of a link between the frequency of intercourse in prostitution and having a public
health risk involving the whole of society.

Hung Arguments
Hung arguments are arguments which are contingent on another argument to survive. With
this rebuttal, Debaters can take two arguments out with one attack. For instance, for the
motion, THW censor the arts, the Proposition first argues that extremist messages are
found in art. Next the Proposition argues that the viewers of art should be protected from
such extremist messages. The Opposition could rebut that there are no extremist messages
in art these days and that art itself was value-neutral. With this argument taken down, the
point about needing to protect viewers of art has little impact, as it is a hung argument.

Attack Examples
In general, Debaters should attack the logic of an argument before moving on to attack the
examples. Attacking the example first is usually not advised, as it allows the opponents to
just refer to another example and the argument will remain standing. The only time
debaters should attack the example first is when the opponents had used the example as
the only basis for the argument. The First and Second speakers may sometimes not have
enough time to attack examples and will have to delegate this task to the Third speakers.
The Third Speakers must attack the opponents key examples, if not all of them.

Rebutting Rebuttal
Debaters prefer to have their arguments delivered without having to come back to them.
However, once these arguments have been rebutted, it may be necessary to defend them
and in essence, rebut the rebuttals. However, Debaters should take care not to prioritise this
over rebutting the opponents arguments. Thus, the opponents arguments should always be
rebutted first before taking a defensive stance on ones own arguments.

Points of Information (or POIs)

A feature of Parliamentary debate, allowing an opposing team member to offer a brief point
during the current speech. As in some debating styles, such as World Schools Style, they
often may not be offered in the first or last minute of any speech (known as protected
time), or during Reply Speeches. Points of Information may never be offered to a member
of the same team.
Points of Information are an important part of any debate that includes them, as they offer
a much greater degree of engagement between teams. In some styles of debate, such
as British Parliamentary Style, they take on an even greater importance as teams are forced
to use them in order to maintain their relevance during a debate. Furthermore, they allow
speakers to demonstrate greater wit and presence of thought than is generally possible in a
speech, as they are required to respond instantly to prepared points from their opposition in
a logical way.
A point of information is also a request for information from the current speaker, in Robert's
Rules of Order. The 11th edition of Robert's Rules, published in 2011, changes the name to
"Request for Information" to clarify its purpose.

Etiquette
In all competitions that allow Points of Information, their use is restricted by a number of
rules to allow the speaker to maintain control of their speech. Generally, the procedure for
offering a Point of Information is as follows:
1. The opposing team member stands, and offers the point.
2. The speaker then either accepts or declines the point, or else offers to accept it at
the end of their sentence.

3. If accepted, the debater that offered the point may then briefly interject a point,
question or statement. Generally, they must do this in fifteen seconds or less, and
the speaker may cut them off at any point.
4. The speaker must then immediately answer the Point of Information.
A rule of thumb for Points of Information is that each speaker should accept two during the
course of their speech, and offer two to every opposing speaker. Taking fewer Points may be
interpreted as cowardice when plenty were offered, while speakers that accept too many
risk losing control of their speech. Similarly, it is generally frowned upon for speakers to
offer excessive POIs, a practice known as badgering that usually results in the adjudicator
calling the debate to order.
Points of Information, as with any other debating technique, are subject to each speaker's
own personal style. For instance, while it is broadly accepted that a debater should stand
when offering a point of information, there is no set wording or format for the offer itself.
Examples of valid offers, that may be combined with any of several common handgestures,
are:

"On a point of information."

"May I have this point sir/miss"

"On [subject] (e.g., Political capital or Feasibility)"

"On that point, sir/miss"

Similarly, there is no set way of dealing with a Point of Information. While a speaker would
ideally refute or otherwise deal with it on the spot, it is also acceptable for them to refer the
opposing member to another part of their speech (i.e., "I will be dealing with this in greater
detail later in my speech."), or to refer the entire point to another of their speakers
(i.e., "This point is clearly incorrect, my second speaker will argue..."). While speakers are
not explicitly marked for the quality of their Points of Information or responses to them,
they often help to create the impression of skill and improve their overall mark.

Types of POI
Points of Information may be offered in several forms, depending on the style of debating
being used. The two most common of these are:

Points of Information, where a debater simply offers an argument or question to the

speaker.

Points of Misrepresentation, which allow the opposing team to point out that the
speaker is misrepresenting its argument or setting up a Straw man. This point does not
even require the speaker's acceptance, as the mere offer of a Point of Misrepresentation
highlights that the speaker is unfairly treating their opposition.

1)Questions or challenges should be professional. Insulting, condescending, or comments

involving personal language or attacks are unacceptable.
2)Critical analysis, synthesis, rhetorical skill, and wit are keys to debate success.
3)Focus on the opposing sides position or argument. Knowing the other side is critical for
preparing strategies to refute your opponents arguments.
4)Limit your arguments to three or less.
5)Use logic to make your arguments. Present these arguments clearly and concisely.
6)Know the common errors in thinking like logical fallacies and use them effectively in your
refutation.
7)Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view
and draw on support from authoritative sources.

8)Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also,
challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds
9)Your rebuttal (or conclusion) in a debate is your final summary position. Use it as an
opportunity to highlight important issues that indicate proof of your points or refute your
opponents argument.

How can I effectively present my argument?

Use an organizational structure that arranges the argument in a way that will make sense to
the reader. The Toulmin Method of logic is a common and easy to use formula for organizing
an argument.
The basic format for the Toulmin Method is as follows.
Claim: The overall thesis the writer will argue for.
Data: Evidence gathered to support the claim.
Warrant (also referred to as a bridge): Explanation of why or how the data supports the
claim, the underlying assumption that connects your data to your claim.
Backing (also referred to as the foundation): Additional logic or reasoning that may be
necessary to support the warrant.
Counterclaim: A claim that negates or disagrees with the thesis/claim.
Rebuttal: Evidence that negates or disagrees with the counterclaim.
Including a well-thought-out warrant or bridge is essential to writing a good argumentative
essay or paper. If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your
thesis your readers may not make a connection between the two or they may draw different
conclusions.
Don't avoid the opposing side of an argument. Instead, include the opposing side as a
counterclaim. Find out what the other side is saying and respond to it within your own
argument. This is important so that the audience is not swayed by weak, but unrefuted,

arguments. Including counterclaims allows you to find common ground with more of your
readers. It also makes you look more credible because you appear to be knowledgeable
about the entirety of the debate rather than just being biased or uninformed. You may want
to include several counterclaims to show that you have thoroughly researched the topic.
Example:
Claim: Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.
Data1: Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air polluting activity.
Warrant 1: Because cars are the largest source of private, as opposed to industry produced,
air pollution switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.
Data 2: Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years.
Warrant 2: Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that a decision to switch to a
hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels.
Data 3: Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.
Warrant 3: This combination of technologies means that less pollution is produced.
According to ineedtoknow.org "the hybrid engine of the Prius, made by Toyota, produces 90
percent fewer harmful emissions than a comparable gasoline engine."
Counterclaim: Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages a culture of driving even if
it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging use of mass
transit systems.
Rebuttal: While mass transit is an environmentally sound idea that should be encouraged, it
is not feasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work;
thus hybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population.

DEFINING A MOTION

Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined by the Affirmative team. A
definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a clear description of boundaries to the motion,
thereby limiting what the debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the
debate from turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments and different
interpretations from both teams of what is actually being debated among them.
The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual words only if they have a key
role. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in
the debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on a word-by-word basis, it should define

words or phrases by their common usage. Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning
or a pithy explanation of a word, but they are not an absolute authority.
An example of a definition could be as follows: Given the motion that what goes up, must come
down, the Affirmative is presented with many options on how to define the motion, because the
nature of the motion itself is quite abstract. One way they could define it is as follows: they could
define the object (the what) as being the president of the Republic of Indonesia. In essence, the
motion would then state that anyone who goes up (takes power) as president of Indonesia, must
undoubtedly one day come down (step down from power). This would give us the definition that the
Indonesian presidency should be limited to 2 terms. The Affirmative team could then argue on the
detriments of having unlimited presidential terms, citing proof such as the total control of the past
regime under Soeharto, etc.
The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of the debate is unknown until the
Affirmative delivers their definition of the motion. Only then does it become clear.
Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable. This is to say that:

it must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and

it must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.

This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual interpretation of the motion,
but they must be prepared to justify it.
The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the Affirmative, but the Negative shall
have the right of challenging the definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set
out above. However, a Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition
seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic,
Tautological, Squirreling, or Time and place setting (see below).
If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to say so, and it is unnecessary to restate it.
If they challenge it, their justification for doing so must be clearly stated, and an alternative definition
must be put forward. If the definition is accepted, then that definition must stand. The Negative must
adjust their case to that definition, and the adjudicators views on its reasonableness become
irrelevant.
The following definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be challenged by the
Negative team:

Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are true by nature and thus make the
proposed arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team
defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their definition rather than
by the strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic definition would
be if the motion that we should eat, drink, and be merry were defined as that we should eat,
because otherwise we would starve to death; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst; and be
merry because we are alive. ()

Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a definition is given in such a way that
it is logically impossible to negate it. An example would be if the motion that technology is killing our
work ethic were defined as follows: the Affirmative team decides to define the term technology as
meaning all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic. This
would result in the whole definition that all scientific advancements that make life easier and
therefore kills our work ethic is killing our work ethic. This cannot be logically proven false. (

)

Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the motion and do not have a
proper logical link to the motion will constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion that
the USA is opening up to the PRC, an Affirmative team could try and define USA as Untidy Students
of Asia, and PRC as Pretty Room Cleaners. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree that
the spirit of the motion is about the relationship between the United States and China! (

)

Time and Place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a particular
time and place. For instance, trying to limit the subject matter to only the economic development of
Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration. (

)
A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about challenging definitions only do so if you are
absolutely certain that the Affirmatives definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump your
prepared case in favor of tackling the Affirmative on their own terms than to issue an unjustified
definition challenge. By the same token, Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is
fair.

EUDC 2015 VIENNA MOTIONS

Round 1: This House pay all elected politicians the median wage in their country.
Round 2: This House believes that when multi-national corporations conduct any business in
Western states, these nations should enforce their environmental standards at all stages of
production.
Round 3: This House believes that Western states should not use private military contractors
in
combat.
Round 4: This House would ban any treatment, service or ritual from claiming a physical
healing effect until it is tested and proven more effective than a placebo by a national

regulator.
Round 5: This House believes that the European Union should lift its arms embargo on
China.
Round 6: This House would only allow the media and campagning organisations to depict or
publish information about the deceased in a tragedy with the explicit permission of the
family.
Round 7: TH believes that the West should stop all attempts to gather information or
intelligence
by
deception
and/or
coercion
of
foreign
citizens
Round 8: TH believes that it is legimitate for individuals to punish people they deem to have
committed
online
harassment
by
revealing
their
identity
online.
Round 9: THW introduce a 100% inheritance tax

WSDC 2015 Singapore All motions

Preliminary Round 1: This House would ban the use of zero-hour contracts
Preliminary Round 2: This House would require defendants in criminal trials to be
represented
exclusively
by
public
defenders
Preliminary Round 3: This House supports academic tracking in primary and secondary
education
Preliminary Round 4: THW not consume art created by people who have committed deeply
immoral
acts
Preliminary Round 5: This House believes that cities with significant immigrant populations
should
actively
break
up
ethnic
enclaves
Preliminary
Round
6.
This
house
would
ban
political
opinion
polls
Preliminary
Round
7:
This
house
supports
a
right
to
die
Preliminary Round 8: This house would forgive Greece's debt
Octa finals: This house would require members of the clergy to report all crimes to
authorities
including
those
made
in
confession.
SEMI FINAL 1: This house believes that the military struggle against ISIS should be
conducted
solely
by
Middle
East
nations
SEMI FINAL 2: This house regrets the media focus on the personal lives of politicians
Grand final motion: This house believes that governments should provide a guaranteed
universal basic income

Durham Open 2014

Durham Open tournament was held in Durham on the 8-9 November 2014. Here are the
motions that were debated in the 5 elimination rounds and the Semis, and finals:
Round 1: This house would ban religious organizations from providing rehabilitation services
to
drug
and
alcohol
addicts.

Round 2: This house believes that democracies should extend voting rights to migrant
workers.
Round 3: This house, as a feminist, would oppose products marketed to help women protect
themselves
from
date
rape.
[Info slide - Undercover Color are a company that are developing a nail-varnish that
changes colour in the presence of date-rape drugs such as GHB and Rohypnol. Many bars
provide bottle toppers such as 'the Spikey Bottle Topper' that encourage customers to
protect
their
drinks.]
Round 4: This house believes that Arab-Israelis who successfully seek election to the
Knesset should opt not to take up that seat. [Info slide - The Knesset has 120 seats. 12
seats are taken up by Arab-Israelis, who are divided into six parties.]
Round 5: This house believes that the state should construct false historical narratives that
promote
social
cohesion
(e.g.
racial
and
religious
tolerance)
Semi-Final: This house believes that true womens liberation is incompatible with the
existence
of
organized
religion.
Novice Final: There is a potion which can stop you falling in love. This house, as an 18 year
old,
would
take
the
potion.
Open Final: This house believes that FB should manipulate users newsfeeds in order to
promote progressive content. [Info slide - In the past few years Facebook has engaged in a
series of experiments manipulating the content that users are exposed to (e.g. skewing
news feeds to show more happy/sad posts, showing or hiding posts about having voted) to
determine whether this can have an effect on users actions/attitudes. In 2012, Facebook
modified newsfeeds to test the effect of exposure to news articles about the upcoming
elections, and whether it increased or decreased voter turnout. Research data suggests that
these methods are effective at increasing voter turnout.]Religion voting Durham

Oxford IV 2014
Here are the motions from the Oxford IV debate tournament, held on the 14-16 of
November 2014.
Round 1: This house believes that in order for a law to be enacted, it should have to be
passed by the legislature and then by a body chosen at random from eligible voters.
Round 2: This house believes that press agencies should not purchase or publish the work of
freelance
war
reporters.
Round 3: This house believes the EU should suspend Hungary's membership rights.
Round 4: This house, as the gay community, regrets the existence of Grindr
Round 5: This house would deny public funding to parties with explicitly ethnic-based
membership or platforms
Cambridge IV 2014
This is one of the best known tournaments, the Cambridge IV. It was held on 21/23
November 2014 in Cambridge, UK. The motions for the tournament were:

Round 1: This House Would not punish those who live below the poverty line for economic
crimes,
e.g.
theft
Round 2: This House, as a superhero, would agree to use their powers solely in service of
the
democratic
state
Round 3: This House Supports the objectification of men in popular culture.
Round 4: This House Would require that any houses or apartments left vacant for six
months
or
more
be
surrendered
to
the
State.
Round 5: This House Believes That Western foreign policy should abandon attempts to
universalise
liberal
values
ESL Semi: This House Believes That Google should inform the authorities about suicide
searches
ESL Final: Assuming the existence of a gay gene, This House Would disproportionately
favour
embryos
that
possess
it
in
IVF.
Open Quarter: This House Would prohibit all research aiming to create sentient artificial
intelligences.
Open
Semi:
This
House
Supports
the
New
Atheism
movement
Open Final: This House Believes That unpaid domestic workers should strike for state pay