DEBATE

Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion

of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. It is a broader form of

argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of
premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a
technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional
appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often
prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which
is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal
way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest,
there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining
how they will interact.

 SORT OF THINGS TO BE DEBATED

There are three types of statements that are suitable for argumentation:

1. Propositions of fact

Debates of this sort hinge on whether something is true or false; often they try to
establish a cause and effect relationship. Of course, some propositions of fact are so
simple that there are no grounds for argument among reasonable people: "The sun rose at
6:15 this morning" is such a statement; it would not require great persuasive skill to prove
this either true or false. Other propositions of fact are less easily determined, and thus are
more suitable for debate: "Lizzie Borden killed her parents," for example, or the statement
that "Rock music leads to devil worship." Evidence is available for both sides in these
matters. The chief places where propositions of fact are disputed are in courts of law.
 2. Proposition of value

It suggests the relative worth of one or more things. "Governmental funding for
abortion is immoral," is one example. Value debate is beyond the scope of this work, it’s
worthwhile to note that value propositions usually have factual propositions buried within
them.

3. Propositions of policy

Concern what we as a society ought to do. Propositions of this sort are often used in
academic debate. Policy debate questions always contain the word "should." This word
has a special sense in debate: it means "ought to, but not necessarily will." It’s enough if the
Affirmative team proves in the example above that increasing the military budget would be
beneficial; they don’t have to show that Congress is likely to do it.

 Forms of Debate

 Parliamentary debate

Parliamentary Debate is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary

procedure. It features the competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows
terms such as "government" and "opposition" from the British parliament. Throughout
the world, parliamentary debate is what most countries know as "debating", and is the
primary style practiced in the United Kingdom, India, Greece and most other nations.

 British Parliamentary debate

The British Parliamentary debating style involves 4 teams; two "government" or

"proposition" teams support the motion, and two "opposition" teams oppose it. In a
competitive round, the teams are ranked first through fourth with the first place team
receiving 3 points, the second receiving 2, the third receiving 1 and the fourth place
receiving no points. This is the style used by the World University Debating
Championships, or WUDC.
 Oxford-Style debate

Derived from the Oxford Union debating society of Oxford University, "Oxford-
Style" debate is a formal, competitive debate format featuring a sharply framed motion
that is proposed by one side and opposed by another. A winner is declared in an Oxford-
Style debate either by the majority or by which team has swayed more audience members
between the two votes. Oxford Style debates follow a formal structure which begins with
audience members casting a pre-debate vote on the motion that is either for, against or
undecided. Each panellist presents a seven-minute opening statement, after which
the moderator takes questions from the audience with inter-panel challenges. Finally,
each panellist delivers a two-minute closing argument, and the audience delivers their
second (and final) vote for comparison against the first.

 Mace debate

This style of debate is prominent in Britain at schools level. Two teams of two
debate an affirmative motion which one team will propose and the other will oppose.
Each speaker will make a seven-minute speech in the order; 1st Proposition, 1st
Opposition, 2nd Proposition, 2nd Opposition. After the first minute of each speech,
members of the opposing team may request a 'point of information' (POI). If the speaker
accepts they are permitted to ask a question. POI's are used to pull the speaker up on a
weak point, or to argue against something the speaker has said. However after 6 minutes,
no more POI's are permitted. After all four have spoken the debate will be opened to
the floor, in which members of the audience will put questions to the teams. After the
floor debate, one speaker from each teams (traditionally the first speaker), will speak for 4
minutes. In these summary speeches it is typical for the speaker to answer the questions
posed by the floor, answer any questions the opposition may have put forward, before
summarising his or her own key points. In the Mace format, emphasis is typically
on analytical skills, entertainment, style and strength of argument. The winning team will
typically have excelled in all of these areas.
 Policy debate

Policy debate is a form of speech competition in which teams of two advocate for
and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal
government or security discourse. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate
(sometimes shortened to Cross-X, CX, or C-X) because of the 3-minute questioning period
following each constructive speech and the physical examination proceeding the first
rebuttals. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for
implementation of the resolution. The negative will generally prove that it would be better
not to do the plan or that the opportunity costs to the plan are so great that it should
not be implemented.

 Extemporaneous debate

Extemporaneous debate is a style that involves no planning in advance, the two

teams with a first and second speaker. While a majority of judges will allow debaters to
cite current events and various statistics (of which opponents may question the
credibility) the only research permitted are one or more articles given to the debaters along
with the resolution shortly before the debate. It begins with an affirmative first-speaker
constructive speech, followed by a negative; then an affirmative and negative second-speaker
constructive speech respectively. Each of these speeches is six minutes in length, and is
followed by two minutes of cross examination. There is then an affirmative and negative
first-speaker rebuttal, and a negative and affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively.
These speeches are each four minutes long. No new points can be brought into the
debate during the rebuttals.

This style of debate generally centres around three main contentions, although a
team can occasionally use two or four. In order for the affirmative side to win, all of the
negative contentions must be defeated, and all of the affirmative contentions must be left
standing. Most of the information presented in the debate must be tied in to support one
of these contentions, or "signposted". Much of extemporaneous debate is similar to the
form known as policy debate. One main difference, however, is that extemporaneous
debate focuses less on the implementation of the resolution.
 Impromptu debate

Impromptu debate is a relatively informal style of debate, when compared to other

highly structured formats. The topic for the debate is given to the participants between
fifteen and twenty minutes before the debate starts. The debate format is relatively simple;
each team member of each side speaks for five minutes, alternating sides. A ten-minute
discussion period, similar to other formats' "open cross-examination" time follows, and
then a five-minute break (comparable to other formats' preparation time). Following the
break, each team gives a 4-minute rebuttal.

 Paris-style debating

This is a new, specifically French format. Two teams of five debate on a given
motion. One side is supposed to defend the motion while the other must defeat it. The
debate is judged on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the rhetoric, the charisma
of the speaker, the quality of the humour, the ability to think on one's feet and, of course,
the teamwork. The first speaker of the Proposition (Prime Minister) opens the debate,
followed by the first speaker of the Opposition (Shadow Prime Minister), then the second
speaker of the Proposition and so on. Every speaker speaks for 6 minutes. After the first
minute and before the last minute, debaters from the opposite team may ask Points of
Information, which the speaker may accept or reject as he wishes.
Argumentation and Debate
(Debate and its nature)

Frianeza, Diane Krisel A.

Sison, Yolanda C.
BA Political Science

Submitted to:
Prof. Leomar Galicia

I3P

03.19.13