The Basics of Debate - Roles and Rules

Some of you have expressed that you're still a bit in the dark about the basic rules of a debate, and my apologies for not covering them more diligently.  Thanks to Wayne for forwarding this information, which is used in GLPS.  Keep in mind that our in-class debates are much more informal, and we aren't as strict with time or mandatory POI's at this point in the course.  Though, as we become more comfortable, we should try to get more formal and structured, and perhaps try to debate some of the other classes if time can be found for it (evening? IR?).   

Those of you who want extra debate practice in a more competitive environment against other students other than those in your class, I propose a sign up sheet for a specified time.  We will discuss this and try to work something out after midterms.

So here are the rules and roles explained for formal tournaments (in this case GLPS).  They are different from tournament to tournament, so don't pay too much attention to scoring or time limits etc.    I've also deleted stuff that isn't relevant.

 

Parliamentary Debate Rules

DEBATE FORMAT

·         Each debate will consist of two teams with four students on each team (or three if numbers restrict)

·         One team will represent the government/proposition side and support the motion being debated

·         The other team will represent the opposition side and oppose the motion being debated

·         Speaking order

·         Proposition-Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         Proposition-Deputy Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Deputy Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         Proposition-Whip: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Whip: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Reply:  4 minutes

·         Government-Reply: 4 minutes

·         Speakers holding the floor will be expected to speak for 6 minutes, with an additional grace period of up to 30 additional seconds

·         Speakers will  be penalized points for speeches lasting less than 6 minutes or that go beyond the 6:30 grace period

·         Per the above bullet, two points will be deduced from a speakers strategy points for speeches that do not fall between 6 minutes to the 6:30 grace period

·         Per the above bullet, an additional point will be deduced from a speakers strategy points for every 15 seconds that his/her speech falls short or exceeds the 6 minute to 6:30 grace period

·         POI’s by the opposing team may be offered to the speaker holding the floor after the first minute of speech and up to the start of the fifth minute-the first and sixth minute are known as “Protected Times” for which no POI’s can be offered

·         It is the duty of each team to decide which team member will perform in each speaker role.

·         All speeches must be delivered from the podium

·         Speakers holding the floor are allowed to use a stopwatch as a means of timing their total speaking time.

ADJUDICATORS

·         Adjudicators will be in charge of what happens in the debate room, including calling the house to order and directing speakers to the podium.

·         All debate rounds will be judged by an odd number of adjudicators

·         Preliminary rounds will be judged by a single adjudicator

·         In debates with 3 or more adjudicators, 1 adjudicator will be designated as the chair for the debate

·         At least one adjudicator should offer constructive feedback to teams or speakers at the end of the round, preferably the chair when 3 or more adjudicators are present

·         Adjudicators should offer an explanation for why a team won/lost a round

·         Adjudicators should offer some constructive feedback to debaters, something which to improve upon in future rounds

·         In cases where there are 3 or more adjudicators present, adjudicators must not discuss the debate or the outcome/winner of the debate until all adjudicators present for the debate have completed their individual ballot

·         In the event that a silent round is announced, no adjudicator will provide any form of feedback

·         Should a dispute arise between teams, adjudicators will use their best judgment to reach a resolution

TIMEKEEPERS

·         All debate rounds should have a timekeeper present

·         Timekeepers will rap one time at 1 minute and one time at 5 minutes, to signify the start and end times for POI’s, respectively

·         In the event a POI is offered before or after the time allowed, the timekeeper will state “out of order”

·         At 6 minutes, the timekeeper will rap two times to signify the time limit

·         At 6’30’’, the timekeeper will continue to rap until the speaker ends his/her presentation

·         Following each speech, timekeepers will announce actual speech times for adjudicators

·         In the event that timekeepers are not available, adjudicators will take on the responsibilities of timekeepers

·         Timekeepers will be responsible for delivering completed adjudicator ballots to the tabbing room

·         Timekeepers are responsible for setting up the debate room for each round

·         Timekeepers should write the exact wording of the motion being debated on the board

·         Timekeepers should write the names of each speaker on the board as well as each speakers position

·         Timekeepers should arrange the desks so that, when facing the board, the proposition side is on the left and the opposition on the right

·         Timekeepers should place a  podium/desk between the proposition and opposition teams

·         Timekeepers should arrange 2 desks that face the teams debating

·         One desk is for the adjudicator and the other for the timekeeper

·         When there are 3 adjudicators, timekeepers should arrange 4 desks

BALLOT MARKING

·         Adjudicators must complete their ballots on an individual basis before any discussion with debaters or other adjudicators present

·         Each completed ballot must have a winning team-no draws are allowed

·         Adjudicators are responsible for totaling their ballots and verifying the winning team by writing the winning team’s name in the designated area on the ballot

·         The team with the highest combined points for its three speakers is the winning team for an individual adjudicator

·         The team with a lower combined total of points cannot win the debate

·         When 3 or more adjudicators are present, the wining team is the team that the majority of judges picked  as the winning team (i.e., 2-1, 3-0,) and is not determined by the total combined speaker points of all adjudicators

·         Half points are allowed but no quarter points

·         Each debater will be judged in three categories

·         Style (40%)

·         Style refers to the presentation and delivery of a speaker including, among others: mature language, conviction, pace and clarity of delivery, humor, the degree of reliance upon notes or other materials, eye contact, body language

·         The scoring criteria for style:

·         Approximately 40 points for the performance of a lifetime

·         Approximately 35 points for excellence

·         Approximately 30 points for average to above average

·         Approximately 25 points for below average

·         Content (40%)

·         Content refers to information being presented by the speaker, including appropriate, logical and well developed arguments, rebuttals and/or clashes, organization, effectiveness in addressing accepted POI’s

·         Adjudicators will weigh the merit of the debate on the content of the debate itself and not any personal opinion(s) on the motion being debated

·         The scoring criteria for content:

·         Approximately 40 points for a performance of a lifetime

·         Approximately 35 points for excellence

·         Approximately 30 points for average to above average

·         Approximately 25 points for below average

·         Strategy (20%)

·         Strategy refers to a debaters appreciation of the main issues surrounding the motion being debated and includes: how well a speaker completed his/her speaker duties, time management (inclusive of time invested on rebuttals and arguments, overall speaking time, opening remarks), offering relevant POI’s during the debate, effective organization with a road map offered and adhered to

·         The scoring criteria for strategy:

·         Approximately 20 points for a performance of a lifetime

·         Approximately 17-18  points for excellence

·         Approximately 15-16 points for average to above average

·         Approximately 12-14 points for below average

SPEAKER ROLES

·         Proposition-Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         The role of the first speaker for the proposition, the Prime Minister, is to define the motion, establish the issues for debate, outline the proposition case and explain how the case will be divided between the proposition speakers, which would include presenting a part of the case

·         The Prime Minister should define the motion in a way that a reasonable person would expect by offering a common sense explanation

·         Definitions should not be time or place set, nor is squirreling allowed

·         Squirreling is a deliberate attempt to define a motion in such a way that the opposition would not be able to anticipate it or distorting a definition so that it goes against spirit of the motion actually being debated

·         A good definition will allow both teams to actively debate and clash over the issues most relevant to the motion being debated

·         When a motion may not have a clear or obvious meaning, it remains the duty of the proposition to choose a reasonable definition which will leave room for the opposition to debate

·         Opposition-Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         The role of the first speaker of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, is to either accept or challenge the definition, respond to the proposition case, outline the opposition case, then explain how the case will be divided between the speakers, which would include presenting part of the case

·         If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge the definition, he/she must do it in the opening minute of his/her presentation, explain why the definition is being challenged, then offer a definition which he/she feels meets the spirit of the motion being debated

·         If the Leader of the Opposition does not challenge the definition, it will be assumed that the definition has been accepted

·         The opposition may either simply attack the case presented by the proposition side or they may offer a substantive case of their own

·         Providing a substantive case is generally considered more advantageous than merely attacking the opposition side

·         Proposition-Deputy Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         The role of the Deputy Prime Minister is to deal with the definition if it has been challenged

·         In the event the opposition has challenged the original definition provided by the Prime Minister and offered an explanation for the challenge a new definition, and the Deputy Prime Minister does not challenge that new definition, it is assumed the proposition side has accepted the definition and no further definition challenges can be made

·         The Deputy Prime Minister would then respond the case presented by the opposition, then to continue with the case outlined by the Prime Minister

·         Opposition-Deputy Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         The role of the Deputy Opposition Leader is to deal with the definition if it has been challenged, respond the case presented by the proposition side, then continue with the case outlined by the Leader of the Opposition

·         Proposition-Whip: 6 minutes

·         The role of the proposition Whip is to deal with the definition if it continues to be an issue, then respond to the oppositions case

·         The primary role of the proposition Whip is to respond to what has gone on in the debate, such as focusing on what the team feels are the major clashes of the debate and how his/her team effectively won those clashes

·         The proposition Whip may not introduce any new constructive content in his/her speech

·         If the proposition Whip is to present part of propositions case, then this must have been outlined by the Prime Minister’s speech

·         Opposition-whip: 6 minutes

·         The role of the opposition Whip is to deal with the definition if it continues to be an issue, then respond to the proposition teams case

·         The primary role of the opposition Whip is to respond to what has gone on in the debate, such as by focusing on what the team feels are the major clashes of the debate and how their team effectively won those clashes

·         The opposition Whip may not introduce any new constructive content in his/her speech

·         If the opposition Whip is to present part of oppositions case, then this must have been outlined by the Opposition Leader’s  speech

PROPOSITON/OPPOSITION DUTIES

·         The proposition side is not obliged to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, only that its case would hold true in the majority of cases

·         The opposition side must prove more than a reasonable doubt about the propositions case

·         If the topic is expressed as an absolute, the proposition side must prove the topic is true in a majority of cases but not necessarily in each and every situation

·         If the topic is expressed as an absolute, the opposition side must present more than a single instance where the topic is not true and prove that it is not true for a significant minority of cases

POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI’s)

• POI’s may be offered to the speaker holding the floor by  the opposing team after the first minute of speaking up until the start of the fifth minute of speaking
• Approximately 2 to 4 POI’s must be offered when a speaker of the  opposing team is holding the floor
• All members on a team should make the effort to offer POI’s to the opposing teams speaker holding the floor
• Speakers holding the floor must accept a minimum of one or two POI’s
• When offering a POI, a debater should stand and gesture to the opposing teams speaker holding the floor and say something along the lines of “on that point,” or” before you go on”
• The debater offering the POI must wait for the speaker holding the floor to accept the POI before delivering that POI
• The debater offering the POI must sit down if the speaker holding the floor declines or waves off the attempted POI
• If two or three speakers all rise at the same time and offer a POI to the speaker, the speaker may decline all three POI’s or accept whomever’s he/she wishes to address
• If a POI is accepted by the speaker holding the floor, the debater offering the POI should phrase it as a question, clarification or comment which takes no more than 15 seconds of time
• POI’s which last longer than 15 seconds will be “called to order” by the adjudicator
• The speaker holding the floor may accept a POI by informing the debater fielding the POI to wait a moment
• The speaker holding the floor does not need to wait for the debater fielding the POI to state it fully-once the speaker holding the floor understands the point, he/she can immediately begin to address it
• Barracking, or continuously offering POI’s in an attempt to excessively interrupt the debater holding the floor, is not allowed
• A POI cannot be offered within seconds of the speaker holding the floor declining a previous POI
• POI’s cannot be offered when the speaker holding the floor is responding to a POI
• Adjudicators will make the final decision as to whether POI’s begin to infringe upon the ability of the speaker holding the floor to present
• When a speaker holding the floor accepts a POI, he/she must respond within the context of his/her speech
• Debaters may never offer POI’s to members on their own team
  
  

 

11C - Tuesday - Debate Feedback and Critical Response #4 (UPDATED)

THW: Double the price of soju.

This was a decent debate, and I was more impressed with the quality of the GOV's arguments up until the "soju company profits" came into the fold.  I don't think we need to comment on this, as it's assumed that the Government of Korea would be the ones getting all the extra dough.  How would the soju companies react to doubling the price?  Not too favorably one would assume.  I give the GOV credit for taking on this argument, but ultimately, in my opinion, it sunk an otherwise buoyant ship.   Equally outside the mark were the "health benefits of soju."  Are there any?  According to 75 year old men in Namdaemun market perhaps.  And even if there are, is doubling the price going to rob the population of access to....medicine?  This almost negates the "soju companies" argument, but lucky for the OPP it didn't get as much attention.  In any case, debate isn't always about who is more right, it's more about how one team deals with another teams statements, and I think the OPP took more advantage of this, even though I didn't like their arguments as much.  It's almost impossible to have a real deal debate when one team has only two members, so credit is due to Joohyung for stepping up.

I will update this post with CR scores later on.  I'm juggling things I have to get done right now.   Next week, I think we will have an impromptu debate.

MOTION: THW: Double the price of soju.
Date: 3/29/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Joohyung		Youngil
Delivery	9.3 /10	Very swift exacted speech.  Good flow.  Nice arguments. Really improving.  Nice hand gestures.	9.0 /10	Getting better, but begin with more oomph. Try to speed up delivery.
Arguments	9.3 /10	Let’s talk about soju – 71.1 bottles per year! (nice statistical intro) Survey – dependent on social environment. Contributes to unemployment  and other social problems.  Too cheap.  Danger to the public.  If we double the price, consumption will go down.  1. Lower demand – lower drunk driving.  40% accidents caused by alcohol.  “regulate death rate”(is this possible?) Protect society.  Why soju? OPP will say “Substitute with other alcohol?” Not the right comparison.  Soju is the cheapest and most potent.  2. Even if we don’t lower consumption, we will gather more taxes for welfare and help the poor.  Conclusion – lower problems, assist problems with the extra funds. TIME: 6:10	9.1 /10	Rebuttals to reasons of GOV – “decreasing consumption and problems and earn taxes.”  These problems won’t change. Alcoholics won’t care – a dollar won’t make a difference. Taking money away from the average masses that don’t cause problems is not fair.  Reason 1: The Gov has no justification.  “For the people” – if it is harmful, regulate it.  Drugs, for instance, are lethal.  Yes – we should ban this.  “Marriage of teens” (Analogies with drugs and marriage – does they work? Am I hearing them properly?  Clarity/choice of material an issue). Soju gives most people joy, and is not harmful.  Policy is not relevant to the problem which can’t be solved. 2. Policy is ineffective – alcoholics are the concern, but this policy will not affect them.  These people need medical assistance – NOT financial burden.  Utilitarian – for the greater good – keep the price the way it is. POI -  TIME: 7:30
Notes	Tot 18.6 /20	Very strong start. Drunk driver argument a bit wonky, but generally good strategy.	Tot 18.1 /20	Focus on alcoholics a bit heavy.  Lack of clear intent with analogies.  Arguments have potential to develop.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Gyutae	Pts	Chaerim
Delivery	9.2 /10	Good volume and conversational tone, but a bit random and disorganized.  Need to structure clearly.	9.3 /10	Fast and effective.  Good emotional tone.  Decent flow, but loses steam towards finish line.  Less is more. Stronger finish needed.
Arguments	9.0 /10	The history of soju…interesting.  Price has always been low, and it still is.  Now is the time to raise it. RB 1 – re. drunk drivers.  INCOMPLETE?  Saving money due to gas prices – people walk to work instead. NICE.  STRUCTURE SPEECH TO BE MORE ORGANIZED. IM A BIT LOST.  Cigarettes – good example.  Social revenue used to help alcoholics.  Soju companies stand to benefit – they try to increase each year – but can’t due to public outcry.  Underground activity and crime results.  (I DON’T LIKE THIS ARGUMENT – SHOOTING YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT.  SEEMS ASSUMING AND IGNORES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL COLLECT THE REVENUE) HARM TO SOJU COMPANIES???  Jinro is in deficit – RELEVANT? THAT COULD BE FROM EMBEZZLEMENT FOR ALL WE KNOW.  A little price raise goes a long way.  (NO POI on this one – why not?)  TIME: 7:00	9.1 /10	Unfair and effective – a direct threat to society (A LOT OF HYPBERBOLE IN OPENING STATEMENTS).  Rebuttal 1 -100% increase is too much.  Too much for the poor (POI from GOV would be expected here – is a dollar more really that much? Gov missing out a bit here). Rebuttal 2 – Teen drinking.  (GOV wasn’t clear on this so this might be misplaced rebuttal to a weak argument.  Off track here?  GOV wasn’t clear enough, rebuttal isn’t either).  Death rate and drunks – unrelated to price.  Drunks will still drive.  Liver cancer – will it decline?  Has price of cigarettes cured things?  (Actually – yes, in Canada for certain it has made a difference.  In Korea the price is still too cheap, so you might have a point). 100% is way too much. Major Points – Threat to society culturally, economically, and medically (BIG CLAIMS here.  GOV should POI).  Soju industry is important – jobs will be lost.  Trigger too much harmful change.  JINRO would crumble.  (Good rebuttal here – twist the argument to fit their own needs which are actually more valid.)  Soju is only harmful if overly consumed, and is actually beneficial for certain conditions (REALLY??) Hwaeshik culture would be harmed – we need this for our system.     TIME: 7:00
Notes	Tot 18.2 /20	Some ridiculous arguments.  Some good ones.  Soju companies argument an unnecessary detour.	Tot 18.4 /20	Some ridiculous arguments.  Some good ones.  Soju is good for certain health conditions???  Good work with “soju companies.”
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Joo Hyung	Pts	Hyungseok
Delivery	9.3 /10	Really coming a long and showing talent for debate.	9.5 /10	As usual, potent speech.  Could tone things down and try new styles.
Arguments	9.2 /10	“Ineffective. Improper. Unjustified.”  Nice lead.  Stats: 100% is too big.  OPP is exaggerating.  1000 won isn’t a big deal.  Revenue is very beneficial TO the common people.  How can it harm them?  Medical assistance to the drunks – they are few, and this policy will help them.  1-Social problems reduced.  Death rates down.  Injuries and insurance related costs lowered.  We will fund the medical system. 2-Funds earned are helpful to everyone. 3-Soju firms experiencing losses.  Crime results. Higher prices will help them. TIME: 6:50	9.5 /10	Point out critical problem of your policy – GOV will have to impose a tax.  Revenues go to the government – how would companies benefit from that?  (GOOD point – I agree. Iced the cake with soju companies argument.  Nice rebuttal).  1st Clash – Is there a need for this policy?  No.  Only if the significant harm is very obvious (NO POI – I’d say the problem IS very obvious.  Gangnam on a weekend proves it).  Soju is no more harmful than beer or cigarettes.  Soju is consumed the most?  So what.  This won’t help.  Beer will get consumed instead.  (HOWEVER, beer is already expensive and a quarter the alcholol percentage – why doesn’t the GOV drive this home?).  Raise the price a bit – NOT 100%.  This nation is not a nation of boozers – the stats are not that bad (Actually – they are).  2. Alcoholics – small percentage.  Not enough for govermnet to intervene.  3.  Drunk driving – individual irresponsibility.  Food analogy – (Decent but does it really apply?).  4-Impractical – this policy is not feasible.  Alcoholics will still drink.  (BUT this is not really the debate – it’s about doubling the price – not stopping alcoholism necessarily).
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20	Was in control of the motion  up until “soju companies increase profit” argument.  Wording of motion might need to address this if used again.  Should it be assumed we are talking about taxes?	Tot 19 /20	Took the bull by the horns with soju companies argument.  Said alcoholism is not a big problem – but isn’t it?  Gov should have done more with this.

Class 11C-Tuesday	C.R.#4		Soju Debate
Scorsese	9.4/10		9.5/10
Spielberg	9.5/10		9.3/10
Hitchcock	9.5/10		9.1/10
Kubrick	9.3/10		9.1/10
Tarantino	9.3/10		9.2/10