|
|
|
by Jim Hanson and Diana Thompson, 1998
updated by Jim Hanson Feb 8, 2008 |
What happens for each debate
BEFORE
THE TOPIC IS ANNOUNCED
The
tournament posts the round including who debate who, where, and with which
judge.
Schools
typically go to a room/area where they wait to hear what the topic is.
TOPIC
ANNOUNCEMENT
The
topic gets announced in a main meeting area and a student cell phones/text
messages it to the school.
You
get 20-25 minutes to prepare and get to your round after the topic is announced.
PREPARATION
The government
team prepares a case that supports the resolution (usually pretty closely
unless the government team is more kritik/performance oriented).
The
government case typically has inherency, plan, and advantages. It includes
warrants with references to experts, statistics, good reasons, impacts, etc. It
is a lot like a policy case in CX or NDT-CEDA debate but without direct
quotations.
The
MG prepares responses to expected disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks,
topicality arguments, and case responses.
The
opposition team prepares disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks, topicality
arguments, and case responses to the government cases they expect they will
debate.
Both
opposition debaters prepare these arguments. The Member of Opposition can focus
more on responding to responses to these arguments as he/she will be doing that
during the debate.
THE
DEBATE
Be
sure to arrive at your debate on time.
You
then debate; See the times below.
At the
end of the debate, you usually leave the room while the judge decides who won
and completes the ballot. The judge may or may not talk with you later about
the decision and provide comments for you.
At
some tournaments, there will be a room where results will be posted after each
round.
Speaking Order and Times
7
min _Prime Minister Constructive (PMC)
8
min _Leader of Opposition Constructive (LOC)
8
min _Member of Government Constructive (MG)
8
min _Member of Opposition Constructive (MOC)
4
min _Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR)
5
min _Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR)
The
judge, called the Speaker of the House (“Madame Speaker” for women; “Mister
Speaker” for men), usually times the speeches. You will receive oral time
signals (“Five” meaning five minutes left) or hand signals from the judge that
tell you how much time you have remaining in your speech (for example, if the
judge holds up two fingers, it means you have two minutes remaining in your
speech).
The
debaters can ask questions speeches after the first minute and before the last
minute of the constructive speeches. (These are called Points of Information)
The
debaters and audience members can pound the table to support arguments a
speaker makes and they can shame arguments to show they dislike the arguments
by quietly saying “shame.”
What each speaker should do during the
debate
Prime
Minister Constructive presents the government case in favor of the resolution
Leader
of the Opposition Constructive presents Disadvantages, Counterplan, Kritiks,
Topicality Arguments, and Case Responses.
Member
of the Government Constructive answers the Disadvantages, Counterplan, Kritiks,
Topicality Arguments, and defends the Case.
Member
of the Opposition Constructive kicks positions (there is almost never enough
time to go for everything), and then defends the Disadvantages, Counterplan,
Kritiks, Topicality Arguments, and Case Responses. The FOCUS IS THE LINE BY
LINE ARGUMENTS.
Leader
of the Opposition Rebuttal WEIGHS THE ARGUMENTS—TOUCHES ON THE KEY POINTS ON
THE KEY ISSUES IN THE DEBATE AND MAKES THE LARGER CASE FOR VOTING FOR THE
OPPOSITION. Note: avoid making new responses/arguments other than extensions of
arguments presented in the Member of Opposition constructive speech.
Prime
Minister Rebuttal presents THE REASONS THE GOV SHOULD WIN—RESPONDS TO THE
LEADER OF OPPOSITION REBUTTAL. Note: Unless the Member of the Opposition
constructive made new arguments, the PMR should not make new responses other
than extensions of what the Member of the Government constructive argued.
NOTE—As
of 2008, most Parli Judges believe that if the Leader
of Opposition Rebuttal did not extend an argument—the judge should not vote on
it and the Prime Minister Rebuttal does not need to respond to it (although it
is still a good idea for the PMR to respond). Most Parli
judges are not supportive of “splitting the block” where the MO and LOR cover
different issues.
Introductions to each speech
1. Before you start each speech, a speaker should recognize/thank
others. Keep it brief – with your own personal touch
2.
Example introductions to your speeches:
“Speaker of
the House, Members of Parliament, the government . . .”
“Speaker of the House, My Honorable Opposition and My Humble
Partner. We
have argued that . . .”
“Speaker of
the House, My Distinguished Opposition, thank you for an engaging debate, . . .”
Points of Information (POI) Questions
1.
Questions are allowed after the first minute and before the last minute of a
constructive speech. Judges usually knock on a desk to indicate questions may
begin/stop.
2.
Do not stand up during protected time (the first and last minute of a
constructive speech). If done purposely, it is considered rude.
3.
Asking a POI -
a.
Stand up (you can quietly say "Point of Information" if you wish)
b.
Wait to be recognized by the person speaking
c.
If told "no thank you" or “not at this time” promptly sit down.
d.
Use no more than 15 seconds.
4.
Tips for handling POIs during your speech
o
Most
speakers take up to three questions during their speeches.
o
Many
speakers will say “I will take your first of three questions” to put the other
team on notice of how many questions they are permitted.
o
Before
accepting your last question say, "I will take your last question."
o
When
refusing a POI, avoid using phrases like, "I
don’t have enough time" or "I need to move on," because you look
rushed and disorganized. Try saying, "No thank you" or “Not at this
time” or “I’ll take your question after I finish this point.” Keep these
refusals short as it saves time.
o
TAKE
QUESTIONS ONLY AT THE END OF POSITIONS AND ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE TIME (although
you really should take at least two questions during a constructive speech)
Points of Order - used when you believe a
rule is violated (usually in a rebuttal to point out new arguments).
IF
YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER
1.
Stand up and say "Point of Order" (loud enough so everyone in the
round but especially
the judge can hear you)
2. THE
DEBATER SPEAKING SHOULD SAY “Please stop the time” The judge is supposed to
stop the time and recognize you.
3.
Explain what rule has been violated (for example, “The PMR has made a new
argument in her rebuttal. The argument xxx was not presented in the constructives. It should be disregarded as we have no more
speeches to respond to it.”
SOMEONE
JUST MADE A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST YOU
1.
MAKE SURE you remind the judge to stop the time. Ask: “Have you stopped time
for the Point of Order?”
2.
Listen carefully to what the point of order is.
3.
IMMEDIATELY RESPOND “This is not new—my partner argued . . .” “This argument
responds to THEIR NEW argument—it is our first chance to respond to their point
. . .”
WHAT
THE JUDGE WILL DO
1.
The judge should say one of the following:
o
“Point
well taken” means that the judge agrees with the point of order. Discard the
arguments mooted by the point of order if this occurs and continue with the
debate.
o
“Point
will be taken under consideration” means that the judge will think about the
issue. Continue but you should make arguments that both assume that the judge
will and will not agree with the point of order.
o
“Point
not well taken” means the judge disagrees with the point of order. The debate should just continue knowing that
the point of order did not have an effect.
2.
Some judges may not know what they are supposed to do. Explain the above to
them.
3.
Some judges will do something else such as ask: “why are you interrupting the speaker?”
Handle these situations as best as you can.
Table pounding and
Heckling - verbal ways of agreeing and disagreeing with the speaker.
1.
If you like a point, you should “pound”
a. "pound" on a desk.
b. say "here, here."
2.
If you do not like a point, you should heckle
a.
Say: "Boo" or "Hiss" or “Shame, shame” (don’t
do this too loudly nor too often)
c. Say a witty, humorous comment (careful,
you do not want to appear rude).
d.
Avoid being too loud, you want to make a point without interrupting
the speaker.
3.
If you are heckled, then you need to think up a witty response. Ideas for
responding
a. Mock their heckling. For example, “boo,
hiss you” or “this is a sign I have made a good argument.”
b. Mock their arguments. For example, “No,
hiss your argument that said xxxx” (pointing out your
opponent’s argument’s flaw)
c. Provide a specific reply. For example, “As
I said, cars produce pollution, that is a fact, not something to be hissed at.”
Types of Resolutions you might debate.
·
Factual
Resolution - Fact resolutions ask you to prove the resolution true or false.
Example:
This house believes that federal welfare policies have increased poverty.
Government:
Show the resolution is probably true. Example: Federal welfare programs have
created dependency that entrenches poverty.
Opposition:
Show the resolution is probably false. Example: Federal welfare programs
provide food, housing, medical care, and job training that directly reduce
poverty.
·
Value
Resolutions - Value resolutions ask you to evaluate an idea/concept/theory.
Example:
This house believes even tough use of the law is justified.
Government:
Show the value is justified/is what the resolution says it is. Example:
Tough use of the law prevents crime so it is justified.
Opposition:
Show the value is not justified/is not what the resolution says it is. Example:
Tough use of the law treats people unfairly and does not stop crime.
·
Value
Comparison Resolutions - Value comparison resolutions ask you to compare two
values.
Example:
This house values liberty over community.
Governments:
Show the value is more important, better, more justified, etc. than the other
value. Example: Liberty is more important than community because it
emphasizes individual rights.
Oppositions:
Show that the other value is important, better, more justified, etc. than the value
that the government defends in their case. Example: Community is more
important people consideration of groupings of people is more important than
focusing on individuals.
·
Policy
Resolutions - Policy resolutions support a new policy action.
Example:
The United States should regulate the internet.
Governments:
Asks you to present a proposal; this proposal is usually defended by arguing
there is a problem (significance), the current policy isn’t solving or is
actually causing this problem (inherency), and here is a proposal that will
solve the problem (solvency). Often, the government will support a specific
example of the policy resolution. Example: Internet sales
of bad prescription drugs is increasing. Current policy permits this.
The federal government will regulate prescription drug sales over the internet.
This would stop sales of bad prescription drugs.
Oppositions:
Show the government proposal would be disadvantageous (disads),
that the problem isn’t so big (significance), that the current policy is
solving the problem (inherency) and that the affirmative proposal will not
solve the problem (solvency). Show that the government proposal does not
support the resolution. Show that another action would be superior to the
government proposal. Show that the assumptions of the government case are
harmful (kritiks). Example: Internet sales of bad prescription drugs are not
increasing. Current policy gives states the ability to stop such sales. Federal
action will not reduce prescription drug sales. Federal action will undermine
state and local solutions which are needed for ensuring innovative policies and
for good state-federal relations.
·
Metaphor
Resolutions - Resolutions that use vague or figurative language.
Example:
This house believes that an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
Let’s
you do anything you want on the government so long as you can explain how the
government case fits the idea behind the government. For example, you could
argue that preventive medicine should be promoted more. Explanation: Preventive
medicine is like “an apple a day” that prevents a need for curative medical
care from doctors.
The
opposition generally has to argue against whatever case the government presents
(unless it is an unreasonable interpretation of the metaphor). For example,
you could argue that preventive medicine should be promoted more. Explanation:
Preventive medicine is like “an apple a day” that prevents a need for curative
medical care from doctors.
Sample resolutions that
you might debate.
This
house supports the right to work.
This
house believes quality of life is more important than presence of life.
This
house would balance the books.
The
United States federal government should support unrestrained trade.
This
House believes the right to privacy is more important than the freedom of
press.