Debate Structure

Yes, its boring to learn about, and Im about to write a lot. However, it IS vital (how can people judge the quality of your arguments if they cant follow them?) and basically expected to be down pat at a senior level. So, suck it up. Position/Case o First Aspect of Split Argument Topic Sentence Explanation Evidence Linking Argument Topic Sentence Explanation Evidence Linking Argument Topic Sentence Explanation Evidence Linking o Second Aspect of Split Argument Topic Sentence Explanation Evidence Linking Argument Topic Sentence Explanation Evidence Linking

Easy enough. Everybody sort of gets that the debate should flow like this, right down to the argument level. However, this is the important part: Everything cascades logically upwards. View it as a tree, perhaps, with your position being the trunk. The split is two thick roots supporting it in the soil. Those roots are supported by smaller roots (arguments) which are supported by smaller roots still (argument structure). Everything has to lead logically up to the trunk it cant float around: o o o Your argument structure proves your argument is correct. Your arguments prove your side of the split is correct. Your side of the split proves your position is correct.

Argument Structure
Your arguments themselves need to follow a structure. Im a fan of TEEL (youve probably seen/used it before) and it has served me very well. I suggest you use it too.

The TEEL format basically works as such (yes, read it even if you know it!): o o Introduce your argument. Explain the argument in greater detail. Dont just leap forward! Make sure the audience understands the proposition. Give evidence to support the argument. This will change from debate to debate in more factual debates, you might use statistics, case studies, testimonies, expert opinions, other observations, etc. In more theoretical debates, youll be more inclined to analogies, hypothetical examples, what-ifs and so on. Bear in mind that not all evidence is equal hard evidence (statistics, studies, direct correlations, etc) is better than anecdotal (my uncle didnt get paternity leave, and he was fine, therefore we dont need it!). Link back to the case. For the love of god, do this. Dont just leave the audience hanging tell them how this proves your argument correct, and therefore your split and therefore your case.

Your arguments are NOT the same as evidence. If the topic is nihilism is the most relevant ism in the 21st century, saying divorce rates are high proves nothing in itself. Youd have to have an argument that supports the topic, and uses that evidence to support it. For example, our social structures are nihilistic provides a neat barrier that sits in between the two. o Why is this so important? Well It makes it CLEAR to the audience. If you jumped into divorce is high, therefore nihilism!, youd confuse everybody. You need to explain the argument first. Its a link! More specific than a split, less specific than evidence. It broadens your argument a bit, which strengthens it. If your argument was that divorce rates are high and someone shot that down you lose it all. If your argument was that social structures are nihilistic, you might use marriage, government, laws, etc so you construct a safety net. On the same lines, it allows you to use more evidence! The more evidence in your case, the better plus it gives you more material to speak on.

Cases
Your case is integrated through your entire debate. This means the first speaker explains it, the second speaker references it, the third speaker reminds people of it and it is integrated with every single argument. That doesnt mean you have to be constantly saying and this fits with our split it just means that everything you say should be CONSIDERED in the context of your split.

An example: The position: We should accept more immigrants. The case: We should accept as many immigrants as our countrys infrastructure can handle. What would you argue? That its a moral duty to accept them? Sure, but be careful to note that its a duty to accept them as long as were not disadvantaging our own citizens. That it would benefit our country economically? Sure, but also consider the economic cost of integrating them and perhaps make a note that this is why youve formulated your case. You get the idea. Make sure your case is consistent with your arguments. Take a look through them, and look for any contradictions or places where the opposition will pick holes.

Cases are optional, and generally proposed by the affirmative team. You dont need one, but may consider introducing one where: You need a how-to (we should introduce a baby bonus how much? Who does it go to? How often? Is there a limit?) Youve been given a ridiculous side (everybody should receive $1000 from the government! to make it less ridiculous, lets take the money out of another sector say, the military, health, education, etc) You need to impose a limit (we should accept more immigrants right up until the point where) You want to contradict the other side in a manner that ISNT an inherent part of the debate (nihilism is the most relevant ism well, it isnt, because we have the case that, say, INDIVIDUALISM is!)

Just to break up the monotony

(Dont use anecdotal evidence its terribly unconvincing)

Rebuttal
Debate and argument structure is CRITICAL for your rebuttals. At a senior level, your rebuttals are expected to be extremely tactical. You must move away from the shotgun approach

Opposition said this. This is why its wrong. x50 until time. Youre hitting targets, not rebutting.

And instead move onto a more cohesive approach where you pick and choose your battles. Youll address fewer points, but theyll be more important, and youll attack them more cohesively. So, what do you do? You try to identify the most important aspects of their position, and shoot them down. What are the most important points? The thick roots. Their overlying case, their split and their arguments. Attacking the position is too broad for rebuttal thats the job of your speeches! Attacking evidence itself is pretty weak, and at best itll put you on equal footing. If they say 50% of apples are rotten, and you say only 10% are! okay, youve gotten rid of their evidence, but their BROAD ARGUMENT still remains. You have to take out the safety net. You have to really ask yourself what is this debate really about? and address that. Try to mentally construct a roadmap of their argument, or look at it as the trunk and roots then go after the trunk. Their position: Australia is changing significantly. o A split: Economic An argument: Our agriculture is declining. Evidence: Were selling 50% less apples!

What do you do? Dont even bother talking about the apple statistic (even to discount it!). Try to address the larger parts of the argument instead. You could argue that our agriculture isnt really declining, and thats decent. Much better is to talk about parts of our economy that arent changing, such as the mining sector. By doing so, youve identified what its really about! You can actually do this even if they havent been entirely clear themselves. Their position: Australia is changing significantly. o A split: Economic A bad argument: Were selling 50% less apples!

You could rebut in exactly the same way, and say theyre attempting to argue that our agriculture is declining. Its doing them a favour, only to shoot it down and leave them with no other avenues (such as arguing about carrots too, later). Hell, if you knew that carrot and melon sales were increasing, you could even try to steal their point and say agriculture is actually increasing. Whatever. Attack the thick roots.

Okay, so you know what to rebut. How do you do it? TEEL. Run through the same process again: Topic. The opposing team tried to argue that Australias economy is changing because the agricultural sector has declined. Explanation. This is patently untrue because they have failed to consider Australias economy as a whole. Theyve picked out one specific part of it, agriculture, and only considered that. In reality, Australias economy is much broader than the agricultural sector, and by and large it isnt changing. Evidence. Lets consider another part of Australias economy, mining. This is even larger than agriculture, and yet it is proceeding exactly as it always has been dig things up, export them to other countries. Green power has not yet taken a hold on Australia, and only one in ten thousand people do not rely on power generated by mining. In fact, the mining sector reported 8% annual growth this year, exactly as it always has for the past 3 decades. (optional inclusion of other sectors of Australias economy) (you could also rebut by saying the changes they mentioned about agriculture such as the 50% decline in apple sales werent significant. However, since this attacks evidence more than it does the trunk, its not as solid a rebuttal). Link. The fact that all these other sectors are absolutely constant show that Australias economy really isnt changing after all. While the opposition tries to show that agriculture is changing, that is in reality just one part of Australias economy, which overall isnt changing significantly.

Do you see the difference? Following this structure allows you to attack one point much more solidly, and if youve identified what the debate was really about, lets you spend a lot more time on it! Compare this to a standard rebuttal: The opposing team tried to argue that Australias economy is changing because the agricultural sector has declined. This is wrong because there are other sectors of the economy that havent changed much, such as mining. Not great. Follow the structure and bolster the explanation and evidence those, plus the addition of a link (which most people dont do) will provide you with quality content. Particularly valuable for third speakers, who need all the content they can get keep this structure in your head, and rambling will be a lot easier. As an aside, check out these three sentences again: This is patently untrue because they have failed to consider Australias economy as a whole. Theyve picked out one specific part of it, agriculture, and only considered that. In reality, Australias economy is much broader than the agricultural sector, and by and large it isnt changing.

Notice how I could combine these into one sentence? (This is untrue because Australias economy is much larger than agriculture, and overall isnt changing much.) If you focus on being completely clear, bolstering your point and even saying the same thing in multiple ways youll take up more time. If youre having trouble meeting rebuttal time (as a 2nd or 3rd speaker), thats invaluable.

Just to break up the monotony again

To be honest, I just thought this was funny, but I may as well make a note: Analogies, hypothetical examples, thought experiments etc are all AWESOME. The thing is, though, you have to make them easy to follow. The trick is to look for simple, everyday objects. I once had a debate that was The self is more important than the individual, and I was affirmative. To illustrate that, I used the analogy of a human body and a foot. The body (a mass of different limbs, etc) is clearly more important than the foot (just a small part). Sure, the foot is important, but it just makes up a part of the entire body which includes the foot, so its clearly more relevant! Look for simple things. Apples, doctors, octopi, shoes, toes, the sun, etc. Any simple imagery you can use, the easier it will be for your audience to grasp and the more time you can use illustrating your point!

POI
Point of Information is just a 10 second rebuttal phrased in a question. As such, debate structure applies here too. Try not to attack the minor stuff, such as the evidence or individual sentences. Go after the big guns, the roots. Identify what theyre trying to prove with it, then attack that. Teaching POI is pretty hard, since it will necessarily vary from debate to debate. As a whole, though, the general rule is: Try to stump them.

This is best accomplished by, again, hitting them in the largest parts of their argument. Most teams will make certain assumptions in their arguments that they arent even aware of. Try to identify these, and attack them, or highlight things they hadnt considered. Some examples below: They argue: We shouldnt accept more immigrants because they wouldnt get along with the rest of Australia! They assume that this is a problem not worth facing. So challenge it. Possible POI: Isnt this a xenophobic problem that will only be fixed by facing and accepting immigration, rather than stopping it? They argue: We should raise welfare payments for people struggling to feed their families! They assume that this is a good thing. Challenge it. Possible POI: Wont the availability of government help only encourage people to have families they cant sustain without welfare? You have to find a way to derail them, and stop them in their tracks. Since they are already steamrolling along a certain path, you cant just give them a sweet question that they can knock out of the path you have to fundamentally challenge the entire premise of their debate, or bring up something they havent considered. If they have a case, what would that case lead to? If they argue that something is good/bad, is it really so? Whatever the case attack the fundamental aspects of their debate, and their roots will become worthless. Any individual root isnt that important but without the trunk, what good is ANY root? (yes, yes, root has a sexual connotation, lets move on).

Improvisation
I covered this a little already, but its worth devoting an entire section to. The big question that 3rd speakers always ask (and 2nd speakers SHOULD, because half of your speech should be rebuttal) is how do I improvise? Its a huge part of your speech. In fact, as a third speaker, it will be ALL of your speech you should NOT be writing out anything in full. If youre writing out an entire rebuttal, you are wasting valuable listening time. It is more important to fully grasp the oppositions argument than it is to have a concrete rebuttal on a palm card, ready to go. So how do we do it? Ramble. Just keep speaking, just keep spitting out things, just keep rephrasing the same sentence Trust me, once you get the hang of it, it will not be a problem. You do just fine in conversations. The only real thing standing between you and a proper improvisation is the belief that you cant do it. So first off, relax, and just let words flow as they come. If a topic is truly dead, move on, but you can make them last a while. o Think about this when youre in a conversation, do you phrase a sentence in your head before saying it? Probably not. It just happens. While you must be formal and eloquent in a debate, to an extent, treat it like a conversation or an argument having with a teacher. Imagine your audience has suddenly transformed into Mr Dorrington whos given you ten minutes to convince him of something close to you. Youre no longer stuck in your head, thinking gotta make up time! Instead, youre just trying to convince him. Think that way. Stop focusing on time, and focus on convincing people. Its not how can I speak for longer? but how can I better convince the audience?

Follow structure. I suggested TEEL, which is a great way of inadvertently killing time go read the rebuttal section again, this time with an eye for just how much time I used to explain something very, very simple. By having that mental checklist of things to cover, you tend to say more than you would otherwise which helps you improvise! o For bonus marks, have a small link to your own position and case at the end of rebuttals! Remember, look for different types of evidence! You have a potential toolkit of analogies, thought experiences, hypothetical examples, etc all of which are GREAT at filling up time while convincing the audience. Eg: allocate 30 seconds to outlining an analogy and 30s to explaining what its analogous to and bam. One minute gone. Easier than you think.

Get used to it. Frankly, the absolute largest part of improvisation is to get used to doing it. If you want some practice on your own, give yourself a topic and just start speaking on it.

To conclude with the most important lessons Id like to convey:

You have a duty to understand the entire structure of the debate.

Everything must have a clear place in the structure. It should clearly support something else. Evidence/examples are NOT arguments. Not broad enough! Any case must be integrated with the entirety of your debate. Use TEEL for arguments and rebuttals. Dont forget to link back!

In rebuttals and POI, attack the MAIN structures of their debate (their arguments, split and case) rather than the extremities (overall position, evidence and examples). Following structure will help you improvise.

Stop thinking about filling up time. Start thinking about better convincing people.

***An important part that I left till last but is probably the most important thing here. Good writing Jack!***
In terms of brainstorming actual content, I suggest starting here, and working through to part three: http://coachingtospeak.com/wp/thinking-in-tiers-part-one/ Move up and down the tree trunk! If you have evidence, look for an argument that it supports. If you have an argument, look for a split it could fit into. If you have a split, look for possible arguments that might arise in it. If you have an argument, look for evidence that proves it. This is not a one-off process. Repeat this process again and again and again to come up with new content. Remember an argument is more specific than a split, but less specific than an example! Eg Australia is changing significantly is a position Australias economy is changing significantly is a split Australias agriculture is changing is an argument Australias farming land is dying is evidence.