Debate

DEBATE
Ø “to engage in strife and combat”
Ø any oral controversy

v an informal dispute between individuals who examine some question and consider the arguments on both sides
v an open argument before the public between two opponents
v a formal, highly regulated discussion of a given proposition between two matched teams as a test of their forensic ability
v an argument in one’s mind over some decisions he/she must make

VALUES OF DEBATE
1. Research skills – help in finding information and evidence in doing research works.
2. Organizational skills – help in planning speeches or write papers especially those that require quick and clear amount of information using various organizational patterns.
3. Critical listening skills – help in learning to examine the quality of the evidence and reasoning.
4. Speaking skills – help in gaining confidence in presenting ideas and standing up for certain beliefs in front of a group.
TYPES OF DEBATE
1. Parliamentary debate
v Asian – 2 competing teams (government and opposition), with 3 speakers in each team
v British – 4 competing teams, with 2 speakers in each team
v Australian – 2 competing teams, with 4 speakers in each team
2. Douglas – Lincoln – one on one debate
3. Oxford – Oregon – 2 competing teams, with (affirmative and opposite), with 3 speakers in each team

PROPOSITION – a statement of a problem that is worded so that there are clearly two sides to the argument
Qualities of a Good Proposition
1. It must be debatable.
2. It must be affirmative.
3. It must be stated concisely.
4. It must be a statement, not a question.
5. It must raise one central idea only.
Types of Proposition
1. Proposition of Fact – a statement that something is or is not true
Example: Resolved: That schools with vocational programs have lower student dropouts.
2. Proposition of Value – a statement that something is good or bad, right or wrong, useful or useless
Example: Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all.
3. Proposition of Policy – a statement that says something should or should not be done
Example: Resolved: That students with a course grade of 1.00 should be excused from taking the final exam.

DYNAMICS OF DEBATE: ASIANS AND AUSTRALIAN FORMATS

Government
Opposition
1. Prime Minister (PM) (7 – 8 minutes)
Ø Defines motion
Ø Sets parameters
Ø Forwards government’s case and states split
Ø Signposts Deputy Prime Minister

3. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) (7 – 8 minutes)
Ø Rebuilds PM’s case
Ø Restates theme
Ø Builds own split
Ø Signposts
Ø Summarizes government’s case
5. Rebuttal Speaker (7 – 8 minutes)
Ø Rebuts point by point or thematically
Ø Rebuilds government’s case
8. Reply Speaker (4 minutes)
Ø Identifies issues in the debate
Ø Says why they did a better job in addressing issues
2. Leader of the Opposition (LO) (7 – 8 minutes)
Ø Negates the motion
Ø Sets own parameters
Ø Introduces case and states split
Ø Signposts Deputy Leader of the Opposition

4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO) (7 – 8 minutes)
Ø Rebuilds LO’s case
Ø Restates theme
Ø Builds own split
Ø Signposts
Ø Summarizes opposition’s case

6. Rebuttal Speaker (7 – 8 minutes)
Ø Rebuts point by point or thematically
Ø Rebuilds opposition case
7. Reply Speaker (4 minutes)
Ø Identifies issues in the debate
Ø Says why they did a better job in addressing issues



HOW TO PREPARE A SPEECH

1. Exordium - opening
2. Salutation – greetings
3. Definition
4. Team Split – assignment of issues
5. Argument 1
6. Argument 2
7. Argument 3
8. Closing

KINDS OF EVIDENCE
a. Facts
· Statements of actuality
· Established facts cannot be refuted , but you can offer opposing facts
b. Examples
· Specific instances, cases, illustrations, comparisons, situations, conditions, or occurrences which throw light on a problem
· Adequate and good examples can prove a point completely
c. Statistics
· Figures based on facts
· Powerful if extensive, up to date, and reliable
d. Quotations
· Citations of people’s statements
· May deal with facts or opinions
· Also called testimony or authority
· Be sure that the person you are quoting has prestige and that his authority is acceptable to your opponent and to your audience.
KINDS OF REASONING
1. Deductive reasoning – from the general to particular
Example: All citizens of the Philippines are guaranteed equal political rights under the constitution. I am a citizen of the Philippines. Therefore, I have the political rights as other citizens.

2. Inductive reasoning – drawing a general conclusion from many separate facts
Example: You examine the accident reports of a great number of agencies such as police departments, national automobile – insurance companies, and regional motor – vehicle departments. You find that majority of automobile accidents are caused by reckless driving or speeding.
General Conclusion: Excessive speed is a major factor in automobile accidents in the Philippines.

3. Analogy – conclusions based on comparisons
Example: You can argue that since your neighboring college has a successful speech choir, your own college, which is similar in size, student interests, teaching personnel, and community support, can succeed in Speech Club, too.

4. Causal relationship – based upon reasoning from a known fact to a related unknown fact
Example: The high increase in tuition may trigger unrest and demonstrations to the students.

FALLACIES IN REASONING
Ø Errors in reasoning which result in false, misleading, or inconsistent statements
Ø Caused by inadequate proof, drawing false conclusions, or violating in any ways the laws of valid argument
1. Hasty generalization – when facts do not justify the conclusion
Example: I went fishing three times in Laguna de Bay and did not catch any fish. Laguna is not a good bay to fish in.
Error: The fisherman has not considered weather, season, types of fishing limes, or even his own skill in fishing.
2. False analogy – comparisons made are not alike in their essential parts
Example: School X, which is a technical vocational college and Notre Dame of Dadiangas University are both educational institutions. They have the same size of faculty and students; both offer English; both engage in sports; both have good reputations. Therefore, a student could attend either one and receive the same education.
Error: The two schools are not alike in an essential part: their curriculum. One is a technical – vocational school, and the other offers a four – degree course.
3. Ignoring the Question
Example: A certain debater #1 tried to cloud the issue in her debates with another debater #2 by belittling #2’s background by attacking her relationship toward her family.
4. Irrelevant conclusion – violates the rules of logic and reach a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the evidence presented
Example: All authors have imaginative minds. Mae has a keen imagination. Therefore, she can write short stories.
Error: The possession of an imaginative mind does not in itself guarantee the ability to write short stories.
4. Begging the question – assuming the truth or falsity of something without proving it
Example: “The present dominance of athletics is bad for our school” begs the question. The word dominance assumes a truth which is not proved. You must prove that athletics do dominate, not assume it.

POINT OF INFORMATION (POI)
1. The debater who wishes to ask a POINT OF INFORMATION rises from his or her seat, places one hand on top of his or her head and extends his or her other arm to signal that he or she has a point.
2. The debater who is speaking may choose not to recognize the point, he or she simply says “No thank you”, or waves the questioner off. The questioner then sits down. A questioner may not simply interrupt if his or her point is not taken.
3. If the debater who is speaking recognizes the point, then he or she says “On that point” and allows the questioner to give his or her point. At any time, the debater whose speech it is may stop the POI and tell the questioner to sit down.



English 29
Miss Ersweetcel C. Camansi (ersweetcelc@yahoo.com)


References: Aquino, F. (2002). Effective Speech Oral
Communication. Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.

Galvin, K. and Cooper, P. (1999). The Basics of Speech:
Learning to Be a Competent Communicator.
Illinois: National Textbook Company.

Loose Handouts