Leeds Union Debating

Leeds Debating

Union

Guide to Debating

p2

Leeds Debating Union Guide to Debating

Produced and Edited by Michael Burgess

Contributors from

Stefano Imbriano President

James Wood Director of Debate

Michael Burgess Director of Training

Cover Design by Stefano Imbriano.

Copyright © 2010. Some rights reserved.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK License.

To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/

Printing History

October 2010: First Edition

This book may be used freely for educational or business purposes. Online editions are

available at http://www.leedsdebatingunion.com.

For more information contact leedsdebatingunion@gmail.com.

Printed copies are available: black and white paper 50p; colour glossies £5.

Conventions

Section Headings appear in Green

Subtitles appear in Grey

Motion Titles appear in Blue

Underlined text indicates a signpost

Abbreviations & Terms

THBT This House Believes That

THW This House Would

Motion A proposition the government must advocate

Status Quo The Current (Legal) Situation

Knifing Contradicting the position of other speaks on your side

Barracking Offering POIs in a repetitive distracting manner

Wings Assistant Judges

p3

A Guide to Debating

Welcome to the wonderful world of debating. At first you may find the discipline

intimidating, the artful tirades of professionals instilling awe and confusion. This

guide, and the training at Leeds Debating Union is designed to reveal the elegant

forms of argument hidden beneath the bravado and bobbing of debaters as they

shout, ‘on that!’. This training is designed to provide you will the confidence to

speak on any topic with style and aplomb.

Through this process of self-education and self-development we will be helping

you at every step. The starting point for us is providing a friendly society with

approachable experts and useful material. We host training and debates every

week and we encourage you to come to as many as possible. Don’t worry if you

don't understand one aspect of a topic, or miss one or two sessions, we are al-

ways happy to get you up to speed—and that is the basic task of this booklet.

What is Debate?

Let’s begin by having a look at debate in general. A debate is a spoken clash of

opposing views. Debating requires speakers to cast aside their own opinions and

enjoy the process itself, positions in a debate are randomly drawn and have no

reflection on a speaker’s personal views. Like any other discipline, debating has a

structure and rules that allow us to speak in a competitive environment. The

British University Circuit uses the same structure as the World University De-

bating Championships, the British Parliamentary Format.

How British Parliamentary Works

British Parliamentary (BP) debate is structured in teams of two. Each debate is

made up of four teams, two on each side. Speakers get either five or seven

minutes to deliver a speech, to convince an adjudication panel that their side of

the argument is the correct one. The pair that does this most effectively wins.

Every pair is subsequently ranked by the order of how ably they convinced the

judge.

p4

What is Debating?

The rules of parliamentary debate are fairly simple. Firstly, positions on the ta-

ble are drawn randomly. A motion is then announced, for example, This House

Would ban cosmetic surgery. After this teams have 15 minutes each to come up

with different arguments for their side of the debate.

The debate consists of four teams, each with two members, as show in Figure

1. There is also a Speaker (a chairperson) who is almost always the main judge.

The judge will adjudicate the debate, potentially with a panel of wings, or

auxiliary judges.

Each team member will have either five or seven minutes to speak. During

speeches debaters from the opposing side will often stand to ask a question, or

Point of Information. The person speaking does not have to accept these and

will often wave the questioner down. Every speaker is charged with bringing

new arguments to the debate, additionally speakers two to eight are also en-

couraged to provide refutative counter-arguments or rebuttal.

Figure 1, A typical room layout. Teams colour coded.

Table

Speaker

1

Speaker

3

Speaker

5

Speaker

7

Speaker

2

Speaker

4

Speaker

6

Speaker

8

Judging Panel

Op

enin

g G

ove

rnm

ent

(Fir

st P

rop

osi

tio

n)

Clo

sin

g G

ove

rnm

ent

(Sec

on

d P

rop

osi

tio

n)

Op

enin

g Op

po

sitio

n

(First Op

po

sitio

n)

Clo

sing O

pp

ositi

on

(Secon

d O

pp

ositi

on

)

p5

The first and last positions differ slightly from this generic model.

The person speaking first, sometimes known as the Prime Minister, is required

to outline the terms under which the debate will occur. These may include the

precise meaning of words or specific actions the government will take if the

motion carries.

The last two debaters are known as the summary speakers, they are charged

with providing an overview of the debate largely from the point-of-view of their

own team. They may not bring new arguments into the debate however may

rephrase and repackage the material already aired.

Types of Debate

In BP there are two kinds of motions: policy debates (eg. THW Legalise Marijua-

na) or beliefs debates (eg. THBT All Killing is Immoral). In each circumstance

your role remains the same: you must still aim to convince the judges that your

side is right. However there are some slight differences.

a. In beliefs motions pragmatic arguments are held in less esteem.

Approach them with a philosophical attitude.

b. You don’t need to define specific steps for the government to take as

Prime Minister1, however it is a good idea to outline the standards of

judgment you’re using. For example, what you mean by immoral?

Motions may also be ‘open’ or ‘closed’ depending on their wording. An open

motion gives much more freedom to the opening government, allowing them

to entirely dictate the subject of the debate. For example, ‘THBT you need to

break a few eggs to make an omelette’: first prop may decide this means tor-

ture is sometimes necessary, or that the BNP should be silenced. Closed mo-

tions are the most common, and clearly state the topic of debate.

1Other PMs may set out a policy, just run with it if that happens.

p6

The First Half

The first half of the debate concerns the first four speakers. The first speaker

gets to define the debate, and the rest set its tone. The key thing to remember

here is you must be clear, you must be forceful and you must think tactically.

It’s very easy for second half to steal the debate away and depreciate what

you’ve said. Make sure you very clearly state what your arguments are, why

those arguments are the most important ones and why they trump everything

anyone else could say. The second half have a lot of time to think of arguments.

Therefore with the POIs you make you must hold your team line and seek to

rebuild any of your points that may have been refuted.

First Proposition

The first speaker for the proposition, the Prime Minister, must define the mo-

tion. It’s their responsibility to answer all of the questions on the workings of a

particular policy. If that doesn't happen opp may fill the lack of information

with assertions that can weaken the case. It’s a simple task but even the best

debaters in the world sometimes forget to do it. Essentially the PM is putting in

a mechanism for a motion to be carried out.

If a motion is THW legalise drugs, for example, the PM needs to answer several

questions:

a. Which drugs?

b. Is both consumption and selling legal?

c. How will this be regulated (age restrictions, licensing, locations etc.)?

You can bypass a lot of ‘answers’ sometimes by appealing to precedent, if it is

well-known enough: “Marijuana, regulated exactly as alcohol”.

Once you’ve outlined the finer details of the motion you can go onto your sup-

porting argumentation: why the government should do it.

p7

The second speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, will largely be concerned with

rebuttal and providing more supporting arguments. The DPM is essential for

minimising the effect of opp’s rebuttal, however in doing this the DPM should

clarify but try not to redefine or add much to the mechanism if possible.

Outline a Problem

As opening government you need to establish that a change in the law is need-

ed, rest assured that opposition will think of problems that your motion will

create, so it’s down to you to identify a cause that makes it worth it.

These problems can be both principled and practical. Principled arguments con-

cern rights and values, if you go down this alley then you must explain why the-

se things are important. Practical arguments often focus on harms: to individu-

als, society or even the economy (which will cause long term social problems).

“The problem with the illegality of drugs is the black market. The black

market is the cause of nearly all the harms that society and individuals

face. When an adult takes drugs they incur some minor physical cost.

When the government makes drugs illegal the black market makes socie-

ty suffer.”

Outline the solution

After identifying the problem and discussing the damage that problem causes,

you need to show how your motion solves that problem. It’s not good enough

to say that legalising drugs takes away the black market. You must go into de-

tail and constantly reference back to the problem you outlined.

“Legalisation allows state sanctioned vendors to sell and thus undercut

drug dealers. Dealers current prices incur heavy premiums for the risk

they take. People are unlikely to visit a black market dealer if they have

to pay more, they are also unlikely to want to deal with a criminal rather

than a sanctioned company. This would suffocate black market demand,

and thus will cause its death.”

p8

The First Half Proposition: Good Case Building

Discuss Precedent

When something similar to your proposition has been tried before and worked,

it can be persuasive to show that the current proposal is directly analogous. If it

isn't similar enough its just one example: illustrative but not convincing; who is

to say it will happen the same way?

“We should continue to enforce sanctions on Iraq. Sanctions work: they were a

major factor in removing the apartheid government in South Africa.”

It is usually inappropriate for the proposition to use enforceability arguments –

the fact that a proposal is enforceable should be part of the mechanism: just

because it can happen doesn't mean it should. If a current ban on something

seems incongruous with current law then that’s important to discuss too be-

cause law should be consistent, in order to give a reasonable expectation of

what is acceptable. By exploring similar laws you may also look at the good rea-

sons for why they exist and show how they correspond to your arguments.

The First Half Opposition

The opposition’s job is to prove the prop’s proposal is either useless, unneces-

sary or worse than the status quo.

Identifying Concrete Harms

Enforcing a law usually enables or restricts action. In each of these cases you

must consider the consequences of such a move. What will people do to get

round the law? What may happen as a result to the people the law affects?

Effective opposition arguments undermine the case the proposition set out by

using their principles against them. If prop is arguing that allowing people to

take drugs allows them to express their freedom of choice, you can turn this

argument around and focus on how the effects of drugs erodes the ability to

choose. This is not always possible, in these cases you need to set out strong

alternative principles in direct opposition to theirs.

p9

When making substantive criticisms of the proposition, it is (almost) always the

case you can argue that the law is worse than the status quo.

“Allowing mothers to abort babies allows them freedom to carry on

their own lives in the manner which they’ve become accustomed to,

however this law detracts from our protection of the ‘right to life’ from

which all other rights spring. We should prioritize the right to life over all

other rights because without it there are no rights.”

Efficacy

Sometimes a motion won’t even work. If you’re identifying lots of other harms

and the only good the prop has identified won’t even be realised, then your

case will look very strong. Using precedent is often a good way of establishing

how sometimes the goods hoped for don't materialise.

For example, you’re in a debate about criminalizing adultery and prop have

built a very strong case around the purpose of marriage and the necessary

strength of that contract. You could point out the centuries precedent of adul-

tery and make the case that this will be ‘as effective as the prohibi-

tion’ (completely ineffective). Then go on, for example, to make the case that

this is harmful to people who may be tied up in deeply unhappy relationships.

Don’t get too bogged down with the obvious failures of government’s case. If

prop have been silly and have set a UN Security Council Resolution against a

member which can veto this, point it out then move on. Trivial mechanistic

points such as, ‘this will cost Sweden more than its GDP’ may be amusing in an

off-hand way, and stylistically useful , but they aren't analytically substantive.

The most important thing for opposition to note is that they must always en-

gage with the debate laid out in the Prime Minister’s definition. Don’t change

the terms of the policy, unless the definition is trivially true such as “the sky is

blue”. If prop have misunderstood or outlined a motion contrary to the spirit of

the wording (called squirrelling), you just have to accept this and make new

arguments; the judge should make allowances however.

p10

The Second Half: Extension and Summation

Extension

Very simply, the job of the extension (5th and 6th) speakers in the debate is to

bring new material to the table. You must be of value to the debate, don't re-

peat the same points: provide new or novel analysis.

Extension is one of the best positions on the table to secure a first from, as you

have much more prep time than first half1 and less time for your ideas to be

torn down as the debate goes on: this is particularly true of closing opposition.

However, what it is even more important to realise is that you have an even

greater ability to finish second on the table. You only ever need to win one de-

bate (the final) to win a typical tournament, thus your target should be to never

take less than a second when speaking in the second half. Always aim for a first

however, regardless of position!

The main features of a good extension are listed below.

I. Material: New Analysis

II. Angle: New Direction

III. Clash: Perfect Engagement

I Material

The most obvious thing you must do when extending the debate is provide new

analysis. Repeat what first half said, or provide analysis that only reinforces up

their arguments and you’re at least behind them and probably lower. So it’s

vital that after a half-hour of debate you’ve got something new to say.

The most obvious way to do this is to write down many arguments on your side

of the debate and cross off the three that the speakers before you use. The

problem is that first half are going to take the good arguments, leaving you with

some not-so-good things to say.

p11

Therefore the most important thing to remember about extension is quality not

quantity.

An extension with two points of well analysed material is going to beat one

with five superficial points. So when you’re looking at your points, always ask

yourself why?

i. Why does executing paedophiles violate their rights?

ii. Why is it that paedophiles still have rights?

iii. Why is violating rights bad?

...and so on.

If you include rebuttal, a seven minute speech should give you about four

minutes to extend on. Including wrapping up time at the end, that’s possibly

two well-analysed points. However, don’t feel forced into using a set number of

arguments. If you have one thing that you feel is really important, have one

point and analyse the hell out of it. If you’ve got four, run with four.

Just be careful to make sure that your points are not all the same or the same

as the first half’s. Some quick and easy ways of finding material for extension

are listed below.

Stakeholder analysis: who are the groups affected by the policy?

THW not provide medical care to prisoners.

How does this affect the families of convicts?

Inverted rebuttal: proving the other side’s points wrong.

‘Gun laws protect people’ ‘More guns means more death...’.

Motion analysis: what is the debate really about?

THW approve the accession of Turkey to the European Union.

Are inclusive societies stronger than exclusive ones? Why?

Deepen analysis by repeatedly asking why? of everything.

1 Fifteen minutes prep plus the time passed during the speeches of other people.

p12

II Angle

One of the things that can define your extension, and determine your placing

on the table by the judges, is the angle you take on the debate. For instance,

THW introduce a maximum wage may be dealt with as an economics debate in

the first half, but it can just as legitimately be taken as a rights debate in the

second. In a lot of cases, you are moving the debate onto an almost entirely

new area by looking at the wider picture.

To find your angle, you may need to look at the premises the motion is built on.

Remember, it is usually enough to take out one of the major premises of a poli-

cy in order to defeat it. Consider the previous example analysed below.

THW introduce a maximum wage.

The proposition line may be based on the following premises.

i. Government has the right to restrict pay.

ii. Restricting high-end pay would be beneficial to society.

If the first half spend their time debating the benefits and harms of the policy,

then looking at the role of the government may fundamentally undermine their

case.

Also consider the proposition side, it is unlikely opposition would contend the

government has the right to introduce a minimum wage. A proposition may

extend in anticipation of this point, by outlining a strong governmental role

which compels the state to act here.

Changing angle can also be very useful when looking to distance yourself from

a bad first half. Consider the debate THW replace all human soldiers with

robots. Now you may find yourself in the unfortunate position of having an

opening government who think that creating an economy of total war is a

Good Thing. If so, you need to create a credible debate in second half without

directly contradicting the first half team (knifing).

p13

Looking at the premises of the case:

i. Humans dying is bad.

ii. Robots will be better able to carry out the duties of soldiers than humans.

By using the both premises, you can construct a case around the moral impera-

tive of governments to the safety of their own soldiers, that using humans

instrumentally as combatants is immoral.

III Clash

One of the basic features of all good debates is a clash between opposing prin-

ciples and arguments. It is imperative therefore, that you should try and engage

as much as possible with the teams across the table from you.

As another extension or summation will come after you, there’s already an op-

portunity for horizontal clash with the other second half team1. So when trying

to create clash, the team you need to engage with is the first half team oppo-

site you. The most obvious way to do this is to dedicate some of your rebuttal

to substantive critique of the first half. Make sure you know what the main

points of their arguments are, and try and knock these down before going into

your substantive.

However, it’s also important not to give the first half team too much of an op-

portunity to hit your material (from POIs), especially if you’ve knocked down a

lot of the analysis they’ve brought to the debate. Substantive rebuttal and a

Point of Information during that rebuttal will allow them to clash with you,

while preventing them from engaging with your substantive, effectively shutting

them out from the debate.

Always try to connect your substantive material to the debate as a whole, and

present a larger narrative of thematic clash, especially as summation.

1 Your partner’s rebuttal.

p14

Summation

The job of the summation speaker is to clarify all of the material that has been

brought into the debate, and to show why their bench has won. Summation

speeches must not contain new information. Doing so is unfair: there’s not

enough time for the opposing bench to critique you before the end of the de-

bate. During prep time, summaters should assist extension speakers with per-

fecting their material, as they do not have to produce any at this point. Try to

think about what the other side argue, this will make the job easier.

A fantastic extension with a reasonable summation should take a first in most

rooms. Do a brilliant summation of an extension that was just ok, and you’re

struggling. While a summation will often make the difference between two

close positions, it is rare for a summation to win a debate on its own. Therefore

it is vital you consistently flag your partners material during your speaking time.

There are two broad approaches to summation.

Defensive Summation

A defensive summation intends to shore up the arguments made by your

bench, as opposed to an attack on the other side. A defensive summation is

easier to do than an aggressive summation, so novices may consider this style.

Simply take two or three best arguments put forward by your side, with one

from the first half and the rest from extension. This makes your partner’s mate-

rial seem more important in the debate, while appreciating the first half.

Remember to include substantive rebuttal of the other side’s extension before

going into your summation. If you’re on opposition this should be less of a

problem, as your extension speaker should have done some rebuttal to prop’s

extension. However, if you’re summating for government, rebuttal is vital as

it’s the only chance you get to engage with the opp extension. Opposition ex-

tensions are the easiest place to win the debate from simply because there’s

not enough time for prop to engage.

p15

Aggressive Summation

Aggressive summation is different to defensive summation in that, instead of

saying ‘this is why we won’, you are saying ‘this is why they lost and we won’.

An aggressive summation is more difficult, as you need to be constructively en-

gaging with material all the way down the opposing bench so you can summate

their material, and reference it to your argumentation.

While a lot of the same rules apply to aggressive as well as defensive sums

(rebuttal, prep. time & referencing your partner), there are some significant

differences.

First of all, you need to be able to martial both side’s arguments in your notes.

While in a defensive sum, you only require a basic understanding of the opposi-

tion case, in aggressive sums you need to be able to deconstruct their material

with argumentation other speakers have brought up, remember: no new infor-

mation! To this end, you need to work a lot closer with your partner both in

prep time and during the debate, so you understand how your teams extension

relates to the other side’s argumentation, which points it takes down and which

it doesn’t.

Secondly, you need to develop the style to make an aggressive summation

work. All critical analysis of an argument needs to reference back to your own

sides material. For example, one might say ‘opposition said x, in response, first

prop. mentioned y and more importantly z, which extension proved. This col-

lapses the argument’.

Finally, finding tension (contradiction) between arguments requires a deep un-

derstanding of how they link together. Pointing out tension between speakers

or within cases can help knock a team out, or at least send the other side into

damage control. Going close to contradicting one another shows the other side

weren’t paying attention when writing their speech, and it undermines the

strength of their case as a whole: something you’ll get rewarded for noticing.

p16

Adjudication

Responsibilities

The adjudicator’s responsibility is to determine the pecking order of teams and

speakers. Adjudicators should confer with their wings (auxiliary judges) to reach

a consensus; though consensus is not essential it should be aimed at.

Teams are ranked one to four depending on where they came in the debate,

with First as the winner. Team rankings must also be consistent with speaker

points.

Speaker points are awarded to individual speakers and are out of 100, with 75

being a large competition average (intermediate skill). Novices often obtain

around 65 and professionals around 80. Deviation beyond 60 and 85 is very

rare and indicates some extremely disappointing or impressive performance.

The sum of team members points must be consistent with team rankings: a

team cannot have more speaker points than the First team if it Second, etc.

The adjudicator is required to explain the reasoning of the panel, however

some competitions have their later rounds ‘Closed Adjudication’ where this is

unavailable. Adjudicators may also provide constructive feedback when

explaining the panel’s reasoning; wings may be invited to comment, but not

always.

Before a debate an adjudicator might outline the rules briefly and what he or

she considers the roles of each speaker to be. Some adjudicators do not place

heavy consideration on all aspects of role fulfillment (eg. new information in

summary), while others place great importance on these duties. Therefore it

can be helpful to speakers to hear what will be required of them before they

speak.

During the debate adjudicators should act as chairpersons, keeping order but

not influencing or taking part in the debate. A chair might indicate a POI is run-

ning too long by a hand wave, and should call ‘Order’ if a POI is asked in pro-

tected time. ‘Order’ should also be called if speakers are chatting or otherwise

being distracting and taking focus from the person speaking.

p17

Adjudication

Reaching a Decision

The very first question to consider is how well each speaker fulfilled their role.

Did the Prime Minister outline a clear and effective policy? Were extensions

novel and interesting? Did summation bring in a lot of new information?

The most essential aspect of debate is engagement. An excellent extension may

find itself in an unusually low place if there was no rebuttal or indication of

‘being in a debate’, in other words it looked like a pre-prepared speech. Were

the arguments brought out relevant and tailored to the evolving debate? Was

there any consideration of the opposing side. Taking several POIs shores up a

team’s engagement, which is why everyone should be monitored for the POIs

they give and take.

Consideration of role fulfillment may quickly identify the fourth position and

even perhaps the third. However in good debates everyone will have met their

duties and adjudication analysis must look at the argumentation more deeply.

When weighing arguments against one another it is important to consider what

points are more fundamental. If prop made a principled case but opp managed

to effectively show that it doesn't solve the problem, then prop’s case has been

severely weakened. Solving the problem is the most essential aspect of a prop-

osition case, if that isn't established then the rest comes under question.

Always consider the interdependence of arguments, what has been taken down

in rebuttal and what still stands.

Quick or Tie-breaking Decision Making

If argument analysis isn't indicating a clear winner, or if a decision needs made

quickly, adjudicators may consider more broad methods of judgment. Who

made their case more effectively? “Prop extension was better than opp exten-

sion, but opp’s summation was excellent.” Which team brought the most es-

sential points, which team was the most convincing..

Quickly identifying the top two and bottom two teams is sometimes possible,

from there is it can be easier to make a call.

p18

A Sample Speech

Here is an outline of a typical speech, this should give you a concrete under-standing of the general approach taken in British Parliamentary debate. Lots of material has been left out indicated by (…), however the structure is generally correct. “Good evening Madame Speaker. Today I will demonstrate why war is neces-sary for peace. Firstly by providing an understanding of what peace is: a balanc-ing act. Then I will show that to maintain this balance in the long term, short term wars are needed. However before this I will rebut the previous speaker. (…). So Madame speaker, peace is a balancing act. States ultimately act to fulfill their interests: acquiring resources and power. However they also think strate-gically and realize that an overly aggressive power-grab may leave them weak-ened and cause domestic problems. Therefore the international “community”: systems like the UN and EU exist to allow countries to pair interests off and provide some give and take. (…). So Madame speaker I have show that since peace is a balancing act, wars are sometimes necessary to preserve a larger order in the long term.” Debating Etiquette Don’t... ... shout out over other speakers. If you need to talk to your partner, do

it quietly, preferably on paper. You may bang gently on the table to indi-cate support, but do not do so in an off-putting way which will prevent the judge from hearing what was said. Sometimes its better to nod vigor-ously.

... insult others; by all means jest, pick apart what they’ve said comedically. Point out silly things but never get personal. Debating is detached, speakers play the role of devil’s advocate, no one is speaker for or against a motion because it’s in line with their beliefs, they are doing it because that’s the position they were drawn into.

... POI too often, this is called ‘barracking’. If you’re rejected wait for a bit before standing up. A speaker isn’t going to be able to make any argu-ments if they spends their whole speech telling you to sit down.

... randomly use Nazi/Commie analogies or make the ’this is expensive argument’. This isn’t bad etiquette they are just bad arguments. The judge’s opinion will fall if they hear either of these.

p19

Structuring your Speech

There is no set rules for structure, but even most world champions essentially

follow the same formula. Assuming it’s a five minute speech you should struc-

ture it in general accordance with the outline below. Times are rough guides.

The first 15 seconds. Signpost (title) your arguments; tell the speaker ex-

actly what you are going to speak about by sub-grouping them into two

or three structured points. If you’ve signposted clearly it’s far more likely

a judge is going to remember exactly what you said and credit you for the

analysis. Titles should try to express your conclusions.

Eg., Hello Mr. Speaker. Today I am going to tell why we should legalise

possession of guns in two points. Firstly, Personal Liberty should Guaran-

tee this Right and secondly any meaningful right of Self-Defense requires

firearm possession.

The next minute. Spend this time offering rebuttal of the other side’s

arguments. Go through their signposts and counter those points.

Eg., The previous speaker told us selling and using drugs diminishes our

personal liberty and right to choice, however he assumes drug takers

have the ability to choose. He forgets that those suffering from addiction

have lost their ability to choose. The addiction forces them to take drugs

above almost everything else.

The next three minutes. Spend this time making your substantive argu-

ments. Here is where you win or lose the debate. Using the signposted

structure, tell the judge why a motion should or shouldn’t carry.

The remaining time. Like the first 15 seconds, summerise your points.

Potent conclusions, striking titles. You’ve won.

p20

How to give a Point of Information (POI)

Points of Information are questions or statements you can pose to an opponent

during their speech, you cannot offer them during their first or last minute.

POIs are a powerful tools in debating and can be used to push points of conten-

tion back onto your side when a speaker is trying to win them back.

‘On That!’, “I’ll take you”, ‘Faith Schools provide a better education than state

schools you said, but they have to abide by the national curriculum too!’

Offering a POI

Politely stand up when you want to make one and say ‘point of information’ or

‘on that’, if you are rejected sit down immediately and don’t offer one for an-

other ten seconds at least.

Taking a POI

If you don’t want to take a POI just say ‘no thank you’, wave your hand down

or if they are being annoying perhaps ‘sit down’. If you’re getting a lot of offers

just wave them away with your hand so you don’t have to break your flow.

When you do want to take one, finish the point your making first and then say

‘I’ll take you’ or ‘go’. Try to respond to them immediately; sometimes you may

be about to answer it in your speech, if this is so you must point this out when

you do. If you don't deal with a POI your position will look weak. During five

minute speeches you should take at least one and at most two, with the limits

one larger for seven minutes.

POI Tactics

Trying to bring points you have already mentioned back into the debate with a

POI (after your speech) will make your argument more important. Alternative-

ly, if you’ve yet to speak, try to get the good points out in your POIs so other

speakers wont get all of the credit. You are competing with the other team on

your side too.

p21

Training and Exercises

Taking part in a debate isn't necessarily the most efficient way to improve. You

get around twenty minutes to practice and everything is devoted to one mo-

tion. With this in mind, training exercises have been developed to improve spe-

cific aspects of parliamentary debating that individuals and groups can practice.

Style

Dramatic Reading & Over Acting. Select any piece of text and read it like it’s

the most important thing in the world. Speaking as though you mean it is es-

sential for persuasion. It’s easier to tone-it-down for real debate when you’ve

mastered over-acting.

Structure

Because Therefore. For several motions come up with three signposts, the

strongest principle/premise which supports it and a conclusion. Spend a mi-

nute just giving the outline of a speech in this manner. Indeed if you're speak-

ing after a person doing this you could give an outline of structured rebuttal!

Argumentation

Thinking on Your Feet. A group will give one minute speeches off-the-cuff. For

a given motion everyone must provide new arguments, no repetition. This be-

comes very difficult as more and more people speak. A little prep time may be

necessary for novices.

POIs

The POI Game. Present an argument for one minute then defend it from re-

peated POIs for up to ten (depending on time available).

Content Generation

The Why Game. After making a simple argument, continually respond to ques-

tions of ‘why’ from the audience.

Progress Monitoring

One, Three and Nine Minutes. Debate as usual with very short or long times.

This will improve your ability to be concise or well-analyzed. Choose a time that

highlights your weak points and record yourself or get feedback from others.

p22

Hints and Tips

1. If the argumentation you plan in prep time becomes irrelevant in the

context of the debate, drop it. You will get a lot more marks if you en-

gage with the debate. You may be able to save your speech by making

the pragmatic case more principled, or the converse: by illustrating your

ideas with detailed examples.

2. In principle, no premises are given. If your argument rests on the prem-

ise that policy X will mean more lives are saved but will sacrifice a level

of freedom, you may also have to make the argument for why life out-

weighs freedom. However, providing you make reasonable assumptions

which the other teams (and the judge) are likely to accept you may be

able to get going much faster: but be careful.

3. If the team speaking against you is good, countering their points is vital.

4. Make sure you are clear what the motion is about; if you miss the point

you may be in serious trouble during the debate.

5. Do not waste prep time writing your speech. Brainstorm ideas, make

notes and make a brief plan. The best points can come from thinking

about what those across the table will say, and ways to counter it.

6. You should aim to make two to three points during your speech. Try not

to repeat the material of any speaker before you but equally do not ar-

bitrarily add in tenuous argumentation.

7. If a debate centres around just a few arguments, your prep time would

be much better spent thinking of new ways to make those points

relevant and provide more nuanced analysis.

8. During prep attack the points your partner suggests. It’s good practice

for POI responses and often opens up good supporting analysis.

9. Try not to get flustered if you feel a debate isn't going your way. Reflect:

what can you do to turn the tide?

The most important thing is to remember that debating is supposed to be fun!

p23

Motions

Here are some motions you may like to consider, the questions supplied may help you launch into the topics. When faced with an unfamiliar motion try to identify similar questions that can be asked.

THBT art should never be censored. Why do we censor?

THW punish criminals. What is the purpose of the justice system?

THBT capitalism is self-justifying. Why do we have a capitalist economic system?

THW legalise prostitution. How does prostitution differ from other work, is it harmful?

THW give racists a platform. Why should the government protect free speech?

THB pre-emptive wars are necessary. Are some wars inevitable? Should we strike first?

THW not send humans into space. Why send humans when robots are more effective?

THBT faith is harmful. How does faith affect decision making?

THW arrest the pope. Is it more important to send a message or keep the peace?

THW give the ICC its own armed force. How important is international justice?

THB in a federal Europe. Are United States better than divided states?

THW ban labour unions. Is labour like any other commodity?

THW increase taxes. Is taxation theft? How important is society?

THW legalise euthanasia. Should we let anyone do what they want to their bodies?

THW abolish faith schools. Should parents decide what their children are taught?

THW abolish the house of lords. What is the purpose of an upper house?

THBT history is at an end. Will society and economics ever significantly change again?

THBT multiculturalism has failed. Is cultural intermixing beneficial?

THW privatise the police force. Why does the government exist? What should it do?

THW prioritise the healthcare of the young. What entitles you to healthcare?

THW cap population. Should individuals be free to harm society, or the planet?

THBT feminism has succeeded. Are men and women treated equally?

THW tax death. Are you entitled to what your parents paid for?

THBT might makes right. Is power the most important moral consideration?

THW invade Iran. Is Iran a threat to the west? Of what kind?

THBT American nationalism is a threat to world peace.

Does American pride undermine or help preserve world peace?

THBT the internet has shown communism is possible.

What do online communities say about the real world?

Leeds Union Debating