Debate Briefing Basic Structure • In THSDC, we use the Asian Parliamentary Format, “Asian” for short. • 2 teams • 3 members per team • 7 minutes speech • 30 minutes preparation time, with the Government team preparing in the room • Voting-based decision Room Setup Speakers (Gov.) Speakers (Opp) Order of Speech Adjudicators Speech Timing UNPROTECTED TIME: POIs ALLOWED 1 2 3 4 5 6 PROTECTED TIME: NO POIs ALLOWED 1 2 3 4 4.20 7 7.20 Some Rules To Remember • No use of electronic devices (e.g. phones, laptops) is allowed. Talking dictionary is acceptable, however do not connect to the internet! • Printed materials (print-outs of news article, matter file) is allowed during the preparation time, but not during the speech. (i.e. it cannot be brought up to the podium) Some Rules To Remember (2) • Debaters are on their own during preparation. – Teachers/coaches/trainers: please refrain from talking to your students. (aside from “Good luck!”) – Debaters: please talk only among your own team. DO NOT talk to other teams from your school. – If you have any question regarding the motions, please ask the Adjudication Core on the stage. We are here to help. Vetoing • In each round, there is a Theme. Under a Theme, there are 3 Motions. • Obviously you will debate only 1 motion. The method of selecting that motion is called Vetoing. • You will rank each motions from 1 to 3. 1 being most preferred, and 3 being least preferred. What you ranked 3 will NOT BE DEBATED. Vetoing (2) Gov. Ranking Opp. Ranking 3 Motion A 3 1 Motion B 2 2 Motion C 1 • This is the most problematic veto. (in other cases, just eliminate anything with 3, and debate what is left.) • Motion A will not be debated, but both teams disagrees with the “1 motion” – in this case they will do a coin toss, and the room will debate the motion that the winner chose. POIs • POIs stand for Point of Information • A question/statement directed at a speaker during his/her speech by the opposing team. • No longer than 15 seconds per POI • The speaker has the right to accept/decline the POI, though it is highly encouraged to accept at least 1 POI per speech. POIs (2) Motion • A motion is a clearly worded statement that announces the topic/issue to be debated. • Some abbreviations – THW = This House Would – THBT = This House Believes That – THS = This House Supports – THR = This House Regrets Motion (2) • Different types of motion implies certain types of “burden” to each teams – THW – implies that some kind of action needs to be taken – THBT – implies that certain value/principle is worth believing in – THS/THR – implies that existence of something is worth supporting/regrettable Definition • Specifically, definition of the motion. “A definition should specify the meanings of words in a motion in a way that accords with a common-sense reading of the motion.” (EUDC 2013 Adj. Core) • It is not a literal translation of those words, but what exactly those things are. – For example, on the motion “THW give lower punishments for crimes motivated by economic reasons,” a definition should clarify “crimes” to be theft, robbery, and economic reasons to be feeding hungry family. Definition (2) • Unfair Definitions have one of these characteristics: – Truism – something considered to be universally true – Tautology – something that is not considered to be true now, but will in the near future – Squirrel – a set of definition that has some logical link, but wholly unconnected to the spirit of the motion – Time/Place-set – unreasonably specifying the motion into a certain timeframe or location. * “Scoping the debate to …” is fine if it is a reasonable scope. Definition (3) • In the event that you face an unfair definition, you can challenge it. – Who: ONLY the Leader of Opposition – How: Explicitly state that “we would like to challenge the definition,” and state justifications for challenging it. – What then: the LO need to REDEFINE the motion to what it should be, and provide your team’s arguments for the debate under that motion. Definition (4) • After that, the LO (and the Opp.) still need to provide an “even if-case,” i.e. give arguments/rebuttals under the other definition. – Opp. does not need to this if the Gov. definition is truism. • Then the Deputy Prime Minister will either accept or reject the new definition. – Accept: continue debating under the Opp. Definition – Reject: DEFEND your definition, further the case, and provide even if-case. Definition (5) • Lastly, keep in mind that definition is a goodfaith attempt to create a debate (EUDC 2013 Adj. Core), not a strategic loophole to exploit. • In general, debating communities ABHOR unfair definition and the definitional challenge that happens afterwards. Please do your best to avoid it from happening in the tournament. Thank you! Speaker Role • Speaker Role is NOT a set of regulations that a speaker must follow. It is, however, a very effective method of structuring your speech. • There is no automatic penalty for not “giving a model” or “not giving a split.” The adjudicator will always still look at the reasoning of your team. Speaker Rold (2) • There are a number of RULES though. – Who speaks when – Speech time limit • 7 – 7.30 for substantives • 4 – 4.30 for replies • 15 seconds for POIs – What is fair/unfair definitions – Only the 1st Speakers from each team can provide the model/counter-model – No new arguments in Whips and Replies Speaker Role (3) • Prime Minister (PM) – Set-up • Explain context/background of the debate, or a problem that needs to be solved • Provide team stance • Provide definition – Model/Proposal/Mechanism (if necessary) • Model is what you are going to do to solve the problem • Most likely needed in a “THW” motions – Split • Briefly stating what the 1st and 2nd speakers’ arguments are – Arguments • Arguments are any logical reasoning/justification to support your team. Could be principle reasons, practical benefits. • They need to be analyzed and elaborated – not just giving some one-liner and statistics. Speaker Role (4) • Leader of Opposition (LO) – Set-up • Do you accept/reject the definition? • Provide team stance – Rebuttals • Attacks toward the PM’s model, arguments – Counter-model (if necessary) • An alternative way to solve the problem PM stated, or simply supporting the status quo – Split – Arguments Speaker Role (5) • Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) – Provide team stance – Rebuttals • Attacks towards LO’s arguments, counter-model • Perhaps defending PM’s arguments as well (i.e. rebutting LO’s rebuttals) – Arguments • Should be new arguments, different from PM Speaker Role (6) • Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) – Provide team stance – Rebuttals – Arguments Speaker Role (7) • Government/Opposition Whip (GW/OW) – Rebuttals (if necessary) – Clash point analysis • Summarizing the main issues that were debated in the debate, issue-by-issue, and prove why their respective teams have won those issues. – E.g. first clash point is “Who better protects human rights”, second clash point is “Who creates better economic benefits”. • There are many ways to do clash point analysis, but mostly they are further analysis that either attacks the opposing team, or defends their own team on those issues. – Whips CANNOT provide new arguments! Speaker Role (8) • Government/Opposition Reply (GR/OR) – Done by the 1st or 2nd speaker of each teams. – Cannot provide new arguments – There is no established way to do a reply speech, generally it is the team’s last chance to persuade the adjudicator. • Summary of the debate in a more broader view • The main questions of the debate that were answered by their respective team • Role fulfillment/technicality attacks Adjudicator Feedback • After you are done with the round, you will briefly leave the room, wait for the adjudicator to make decision. Socializing time. • The adjudicator will call you back, tell you the result, and justify why. Your job as a debater is to assess the quality of the adjudicator. Adjudicator Feedback (2) • You will then grade the adjudicator, based on this scale: – 5 = Excellent adjudicator. He/she should be adjudicating the Grand Final – 4 = Above average adjudicator. He/she will definitely break. He/she is definitely a chair. – 3 = Average adjudicator. He/she might break, and could be a chair. – 2 = Acceptable adjudicator. He/she at least understands the basics of Asian-style debate. He/she should be a panelist, or even a trainee. – 1 = Inexperienced adjudicator. For whatever reason, he/she should be a trainee. Adjudicator Feedback (3) • Please be fair/critical when assessing the adjudicator. – DO NOT give them a 5 because they gave you a win, or a 1 because they gave you a lost. • Assess adjudicator based on the feedback they give. – If they show understanding of the issues debated, and justifies the decision based on the arguments presented in the debate (not their personal opinion on the issue), then they are a decent adjudicator. – If they only comment on language use, technicalities, role fulfillment, without mentioning the issues, then they are probably bad adjudicators. – Just because their English is not fluent, it does not mean they are bad. Likewise, good English =/= good adjudicator. Q & A Session Thank you for your attention!