DEBATE SEMINAR

MAY 12, 2012

INTERFACULTY ENGLISH DEBATE COMPETITION

RECTOR CUP
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE FORUM (ILF)
UNIVERSITY MUHAMMADIYAH OF MALANG

Debaters should know about:

Debate introduction Asian System Format Compose an arguments

Manage a rebuttal Role each speakers Closing

Motion Case

Debate introduction
debating is a way to express your idea
assembling & organizing effective arguments persuading & entertaining audience convincing audience that your idea is better than your opponent idea

no: personal abuse, irrational attacks, or purely emotional appeals

Asian System Format

Format: Asian Parliamentary
Affirmative/Government vs. Negative/Opposition led by a Chairperson; interruptions allowed speech duration and order:
1st Affirmative (8 min) 2nd Affirmative (8 min) 3rd Affirmative (8 min) Reply Affirmative (5 min) 1st Affirmative (8 min) 2nd Affirmative (8 min) 3rd Affirmative (8 min) Reply Affirmative (5 min)

Motion
Full propositional statements
not questions or phrases

Affirmative: defend the motion Negative: oppose the motion example of motions:
THBT religious caricature isnt ethical

THW say yes to NUs fatwa haram about infotainment

THBT china (would go) better than America

Case
Case is the collection of arguments (including facts, examples, and logical explanations) coherently based on a main idea. Anatomy of a case:
definition: clarifies the motion/limits debate scope theme line: core argumentation/basic idea (should be in one liner sentence) team split: distribution of each speakers arguments arguments and rebuttals

 motion should be analyze in to some key words and define it as a whole definition may contain:
definition of key lexical units (words/phrases) parameters

definition must be reasonable:

have clear and logical link to motion debatable (a reasonable opposition exists)

1. Truistic/True by Nature (not debatable) 2. tautological (not debatable) 3. squirreling (no logical link to spirit of the motion) 4. time and place setting (specific knowledge) 1. state that they are challenging the definition 2. justify their challenge (by one of the three reasons) 3. provide their own definition (which must also be reasonable) and build a case based on its negation

if definitional challenge debate happen to respond your opposition case do even-if rebuttals, exception truistic reason.

definitional challenge is discouraged so thats why the affirmative should give fair definition

 a Theme line should like Case In A Nutshell

the underlying logic of a teams case explains teams strategy links together 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speakers answers why? to the (defined) motion Should be stated in one liner only

theme line may be in the form of:

words/phrases a complete sentence a complete logical syllogism

 team split: distribution of each speakers arguments :

1st: smaller part (because 1st speaker also has to explain definition, theme line, and team split) 2nd: larger part (bulk of case/inner side of the whole case) 3rd: usually only a rebuttal so we dont have to mention it

each speaker must prove case but beware of :

invalid case (arguing besides the point, not proving case) hung case (case proven only after 1st & 2nd combined) swaying (only respond to other side case not develop their own case)

Compose an argument
a good argument should have the combination of A-R-E-L:
Assertion - statement of the argument (what) Reasoning - explanation of the argument (why) Evidence - facts, statistics, etc. (how) Link Back the logical link between an argument with a case (so)

adjudicators want: logic and relevance

Manage rebuttal
argument attacking the opposing teams argument, e.g. by showing that it:
is based on an error of fact is irrelevant to the proof of the topic is illogical involves unacceptable implications should be accorded little weight

doesnt have to be point-by-point

rebutt the theme line or main arguments

a rebuttal is constructed with A-R-E-L it consist of offensive rebuttal and defensive rebuttal

Role each speakers

1st speakers:
Aff: define the motion Neg: accept/reject definition, rebutt outline team structure deliver 1st part of case

3rd speakers:
rebutt opponent Aff : new case allowed but not suggested Neg: forbidden bring new case summarize case

Reply speakers:
overview of the debate no rebuttal or new case

2nd speakers:
rebutt opponent deliver 2nd part of case

Closing
This briefing is mostly not a definitive rule Read the documents provided

Good Luck and Happy Debating!