Presentation & Debating Flashcards
Debating cases
Affirmative is for the topic/there is a problem that needs to be fixed
Negative is against it
Outline the problem, the plan and the points for it
Use PEEL
Or context mechanism impact
What is the context of the problem in the current world? Mechanism is PEEL and how will it work? Impact is how will it affect stakeholders?
Debating Rebuttals
Is responding to the other team
By proving their points wrong and why yours is correct
-what did the other side say summary
- why is it incorrect
-why is our case better
Debating First (PM/LO) Speakers
You contextualise your side of the world, you then frame the motion in said world and you show “live examples” as to what actions you’ll be taking to make that motion feasible
First affirmative speaker - introduces problem and how they will fix it (their plan model) e.g who is gonna be involved and what they gonna do, plan’s practical benefits. 2-3 points
First negative speaker
Introduces what negative team believes in and their primary points - position and stance and rebut points made by affirmative. Positions: There’s no problem, plan won’t fix it, plan will make it worse. Stance: do another plan or just reject or etc. and deliver team’s strongest argument and deliver 2-3 points
Debating second (DPM/DLO) speakers and third (whip) speakers
Second speakers rebut the other team, use it as a shield and sword. Prove why their argument is not true or not important. And need 2-3 new points to support case. They further the mechanisms/argument, add rebuttal to opposing team’s first speaker and add to world building
Third speakers reinforce and rebut. Before debate, brainstorm possible rebuttals. Have a summary of both cases. No talking about new arguments or new ideas as opposing cannot further it , however do not be repetitive and use new examples, rebuttals and new explanations to refine previous points. Can also merge rebuttals into themes or issues important to debates. Third rebuts and drives home why their ideas are accurate in context of rebuttal
Banning debates
One of the most common types of debate
Affirmative case is why it should be banned
Negative is why it shouldn’t
Is there nothing wrong? Etc
—-
Can the problem be solved without a ban?! Is it the most effective?
—-
Negative team needs to not only prove the ban won’t work but that it has harms
—
Can people make a rational choice about the harms?
Debating running prep
To keep your debating prep time on track
- silent brainstorm for 10 mins
- sharing our ideas for 10 mins of each brainstorm point and taking notes throughout discussion. Avoid tangents
- create team’s case and roles 15-20 mins. Strongest points to first speaker.
- write ur speeches 20 mins. Write the arguments. Have consistent detail for each.
- 5 mins pre emptive rebuttal , think what negative team could say and how to rebut in note form
Comparative debates
- what is the comparison
- what is the fuzzy word in the topic statement, e.g “x is better than y” the word is better and that becomes the criteria
- if both teams have different criteria’s u can
1. Prove ur team meets other team criteria
2. Other team criteria is not important as urs
Debating Reply rounds
Everyone minus whip can do it
It’s half the time of the individual rounds you get in the main stage
Burdens in debating
- what would a reasonable person think I need to prove?
- what is my position and stance in context?
- having a clear burden e.g proving the other plan won’t work makes your team’s case consistent
——
Intermediate burdens
Burdens: to prove their model is effective - will solve the problem, practical- benefits outweigh harms, principled - the right thing to do, is it justified principally
Negative has to prove the opposite of affirmative but need to get rid of the benefits and convert it into harms
Defining the right problem your debate team is tackling
How big is the problem?
The more important it is
- size of impact
- amount of people it affects
Is it necessary to fix the problem?
- u want the adjudicator to think the problem must be solved
- and prove only ur model is the best solution
Why can’t the stakeholders fix the problems themselves?
- government
- vulnerable group
- don’t know what is their best interests
Is the problem urgent?
- currently hurting people
- will harm people in the future
- build a sense of urgency
A good plan in debating
Thinking about the problems the topic presents and how ur team wants the world to look like when it is solved
Good plans:
- define unclear words in the topic In the context of the debate e.g if topic is schools, what schools?
- explain how the plan will work
- who is doing what in the plan
- who will benefit
Bad plans:
- try and outline the costs of the plan
- precise timelines
- specific location
- word for word definition of the topic
Debating Countermodel
Presented by first negative speaker to respond to affirmative model
- comes up with different solution to issue created by the topic
- must be very different to plan of affirmative team
- counter models should be used rarely as it creates additional work for the negative team. Usually u just support the status quo or it’s getting better on its own
- only be used when the negative agrees there is a issue but there’s a better way to fix it
- the model and countermodel should be mutually exclusive (cannot be done at the same time)
- best used when there is a clear problem negative cannot deny, model has reasonable chance of working, alternative solution the affirmative can’t steal
- covers the same as the plan e.g who is doing what; how the plan works, benefits who etc
- need to prove that it’s fixing the same problem but with fewer harms or more benefits
Winning principle debating
Principles are concerned with moral and ethical questions
Often based on core values in society e.g bodily autonomy, freedom of speech or choice
Principle arguments asks why something is morally good or acceptable
Practical arguments explain logically why it will or will not work.
Can be used so that even if there is practical benefits, moral objection may outweigh or vice versa
- explain what principle u will rely on for the argument eg this will be based on …
- why is it crucial
- why does it apply here usually by linking the stakeholder
- link back to topic
Analysing actors in debate
Actors are the stakeholders that interact heavily with the topic and has some ability to respond to the model that’s exposed
They are the people directly affected by the case but also will respond to the case
Predict how an actor will respond,
- Capacity, what actions are the actors able to take?
- incentives, what the actors want to stand to gain or avoid losing. What motivates an actor
- ideology (how u view the world) determine their political and personal ideology and effectively demonstrate they have acted in line so far
- prove ur characterisation of the actor is more important
Actors can be broken up into groups e.g ban smoking: casual and heavy smokers
Debating building a persuasive characterisation
How we describe a Stakeholder will react to a certain topic in a debate
- define the key stakeholders: impacted or affected
- characterisation is the picture you paint of how the world looks for the stakeholders involved
- how important is the stakeholders? Convince adjudicator that yours are more important than
Entire debate will have a back n forth argument about different characterisations of each stakeholder
- which is the most true for the most amount of people for the most time
- analysis: look at all the factors that play in stakeholders decision making
common type of biases: optimism bias, confirmation bias, ideology biases and own personal experiences
Debating mechanisms
A mechanism is a reason something will happen
Invokes how you change the world from what it is like now to what it will be at the end of ur argument
Your rebuttal should include these too
3 main types:
- Topic based mechanisms
E.g “we should ban junk food” mechanism is “ban”
- Incentive mechanisms: how ur stakeholders gonna respond to the change of what the model makes and why are they likely to respond that why
- Interference mechanisms change the way stakeholders act above (people aren’t acting in a rational way) the first two mechanisms assume people are acting in ways that are rational logical and to their best interests.
Mechanisms in prep
- constantly ask why?
- why is this true why will this happen why will this person act in this way and refer back to the mechanisms to answer
Debating rebuttals types
1st type: Truth and importance
What did they say?
Is it true?
Highlight why they are invalid
Why are they incorrect
Is it important?
Consider what the other raised
Maybe it’s not important or not relevant
——
Foundations to debating
Talk about the news - debates often relate to what is going about the world now
Have your own mini debates
Create a debating book: create interesting facts from the news under five main headings: education, environment, politics sport and general
And jump on the internet tổ the same
Hone your general knowledge
Rebuttal common techniques for debating
Principled
- focus on whether outcome is ethical. Even if point has benefits, if it violates human freedom of choice etch. Consider whether the method/process to get to the outcome is ethical too - will it hurt people in the process?
—-
Effectiveness
- practicality and is it effective
- will it make a difference and how much difference will it work?
- is there a logical explanation and chain
- rebuttal should break those chains one or more of the links
—
Mitigation
- critique the effectiveness if the party is guilty of overflatint the issue or claiming their solution is more effective than it is. Prove ur own case is stronger or more important
- don’t always have to prove opp points are not true, just that they’re less important
——-
Rebut the unrealistic
- every argument has a starting premise that the speaker believes to be a true fact about the world to build their case from.
- you attack this and refute if it’s reflective of the world or not
—
Rebut the illogical
All arguments rely on logic to get to the conclusion from the premise
Prove the other side doesn’t make logical sense and doesn’t flow and show what u think is the more logical conclusion
—-
Rebut the unreasonable
Team tries to get adjucator to care about the argument by talking about the impacts
You dispute if final impact is true or necessarily good
Regret and supports motions
Regret debates ask if the world would be better if something did not happen
Affirmative teams role: explain why we regret, explain what the world would look like. What had changed? What would be different if it hadn’t. World building and characterisation (no models)
- negative team: can contest if it’s actually regrettable, affirmative is wrong or doesn’t exist
——
Support debates
- you’re assessing if the subject of the topic is good
- affirmative supports
- negative opp. In the same way of a affirmative’s regret debate role
Debating advanced rebuttals: weighing arguments and thematic
Proving ur argument is true is not enough
U run the risk that both u and ur opposition prove ur arguments very well which leaves it up to the adjudicator.
That’s why u gotta prove to the judge that even if they believe the other team ur case is superior
- assess number of people impacted comparisons
- the intensity and scale of impact
- vulnerable stakeholders should weigh more heavily. Look whether if a group is owed a special obligation
——
Thematic
You have ur rebuttal and ur summary and bring those two together and break the debate into themes (clashes)
E.g
Affirm makes argument there is a issue in the status quo
Thematic: theme 1: is there a problem?
Method 1: commonalities - what are the common ideas between both teams and what they argued the most. Does each side have a principle? Do they have similar impacts? Are there common stakeholders?
Standard themes: is there a problem in the status quo? Does the model solve the problem? Other harms or benefits in the debate?
Debating tips
- teamwork so u need to be on the same wavelength. Help everyone out and allocate out so everyone has something to say
- take note of feedback
- listen to the other team as their talking as u gotta persuade the adjudicator why they wrong
