First Proposition |
First Opposition |
You need to introduce the resolution, define the terms of the resolution, signpost all three points and bring up 1 contention in depth and briefly touch on the 2nd contention of your debate. Also, make sure to present a model if it is a policy debate. In other words, how you would implement the resolution (To make sure that everyone would wear a uniform to school, we'd make it part of your mark. If you don't wear your uniform, you lose 1% of your grade and therefore, people would choose to wear their uniforms) Then, at the end, conclude your points by repeating them. While stating your points, remember to follow the 4 types of evidence (see "evidence" below)
|
You don't need to define, but you do need to do everything else, including rebut the points (see "rebuttal" below) that first proposition brought up with some type of evidence. Since you will be cross-examining (see "cross-examination" below) the first proposition, make sure to use quotes from the cross-examination to hemp prove your points, and disprove theirs. (You can set up a counter model if it's a policy debate, but I wouldn't suggest you do that at this point in your debating careers.) Then you introduce and elaborate on your points, and then you conclude your points.
|
Second Proposition |
Second Opposition |
Your job is to help rebuild your partner's points, rebut the 1st opposition's points, using quotes from the cross-examination (see "cross-examination" below) you complete with them, and talk about your points and include a lot of data to back it all up.
|
Your job is the same as the 2nd proposition. Additionally, keep in mind that your partner will be the first to conclude the debate in the summary speeches, so you really should say things that would help him/her do so effectively.
|
Summary Speeches
Summary speeches are important! Sometimes, they are the deciding factor between a debate win or loss. They bring the debate to a close and what they are is a biased summary of the entire debate. So, how exactly do you summarize? Simple, you think about what was said throughout the course of the entire debate and you bring it down to three main themes or questions. (For example, is the economy more important than the environment, is sacrifice necessary for change and is war necessary to our development) (Or, thematically you could say "This debate has come down to three main points, firstly economy, secondly environment and thirdly sacrifice") Basically, you bring up the three points that were argued over the most in the debate and you explain what was said about each point and why your side was right.
Cross-Examination
This should be done via question line. You never want to ask a person questions blatantly and directly because that gives them more space to wiggle out. You need to ask them leading questions, things that they cannot really deny like "Do you believe in our fundamental freedoms?" (They have to say yes to this) "Then do you believe that the government has a right to impose anything upon it's citizens in a democratic world?" (They should answer yes to this, but if they answer no, then you can let them elaborate on why they feel that way. If they say 'Yes, but....." and start rambling to try and escape from getting caught in a contradiction, you are welcome and encouraged to cut them off by saying something like "Thank you, I've heard enough") THEN YOU HIT THEM WITH IT: "So then isn't this resolution trying to do exaclty that?" (No matter what they say here, it's going to be hard to get themselves out of it). So you want to start with questions that you know the other side cannot say "no" to - really broad questions, getting narrower and narrower as the questioning progresses (you'll want to do that for each point).
Rebuttal
This is done during your constructive speech, before you bring up any contentions. You want to use quotes from the cross examination that would help you bring down the points of the opposing side and use their own words against them. When doing this, you want to remember the acronym I.C.E.:
I = Identify. This is where you identify the point brought up by the opposing side ("They said that implementing the resolution would be good for the economy")
C = Critique. This is where you critique their point and say it's wrong. ("This resolution actually wouldn't be good for the economy")
E = Evidence. This is where you explain why the point was wrong, using evidence. ("This point was wrong because more money would be spent implementing the resolution than would be gained, according to the Statistics Canada Website, which actually says… ______")
I = Identify. This is where you identify the point brought up by the opposing side ("They said that implementing the resolution would be good for the economy")
C = Critique. This is where you critique their point and say it's wrong. ("This resolution actually wouldn't be good for the economy")
E = Evidence. This is where you explain why the point was wrong, using evidence. ("This point was wrong because more money would be spent implementing the resolution than would be gained, according to the Statistics Canada Website, which actually says… ______")
Types of Evidence
You want to keep in mind the 4 types of evidence and try and steer clear of the 3rd and 4th types of evidence. So, what are the 4 types of evidence? In order of importance:
1. Statistics (numbers), judges will give you points for saying things like "In 2014, 1 in 5 BC children is thought to be living below the poverty line"
2. Expert opinion, judges believe this because it comes from someone reputable. For example, "In his book The Art of War, Chinese writer Sun Tzu says that 'While working on your weaknesses, you detiriorate in your strenghts."
3. Common Sense. This is an ok type of evidence, but if you bring it up, you better be sure that it is truly common sense for everyone, especially your judges. So, you don't want to say something like "My friend Lucy wears pants everyday - it's common sense" because that is not common sense to the judges, but you can say something like "The sun will rise tomorrow" or "Of course you don't want to be oppressed" because those are universally accepted statements.
4. Personal Reasoning. This is the worst type of evidence. It's the one where you bring up something that personally happened to you, and judges usually don't care too much or see much merit in your statement. This evidence is tricky, because it can sometimes really strike a cord, but it's best to veer away from it if you can. Things like "When I was little, my mom used to buy me candy everyday and I loved her for it, so therefore everyone will love their moms if they buy them candy everyday"
1. Statistics (numbers), judges will give you points for saying things like "In 2014, 1 in 5 BC children is thought to be living below the poverty line"
2. Expert opinion, judges believe this because it comes from someone reputable. For example, "In his book The Art of War, Chinese writer Sun Tzu says that 'While working on your weaknesses, you detiriorate in your strenghts."
3. Common Sense. This is an ok type of evidence, but if you bring it up, you better be sure that it is truly common sense for everyone, especially your judges. So, you don't want to say something like "My friend Lucy wears pants everyday - it's common sense" because that is not common sense to the judges, but you can say something like "The sun will rise tomorrow" or "Of course you don't want to be oppressed" because those are universally accepted statements.
4. Personal Reasoning. This is the worst type of evidence. It's the one where you bring up something that personally happened to you, and judges usually don't care too much or see much merit in your statement. This evidence is tricky, because it can sometimes really strike a cord, but it's best to veer away from it if you can. Things like "When I was little, my mom used to buy me candy everyday and I loved her for it, so therefore everyone will love their moms if they buy them candy everyday"
Copyright © 2014 Natasa Micovic. All Rights Reserved.