Table of Contents

Table of Contents .
I.

Debating in General

Why debate ..

World Style .. 2
Motion 3
Definition

Oppositions Option 5
Arguments 6
Rebuttals .. 8
Points of Information (POI) 10
Case Anatomy .11
Roles of Speakers

12

Definitional Challenge . 13
II.

Guidelines for Debaters . 14

C o n t e n t .. 14
Case building .. 14
Research . 16
S t y l e 17
S t r a t e g y 18

III.

Debaters Worksheet .
20
Session I ..

Session II .... 22
Reference ... 26
Annex
Diagram Affirmative Case
Diagram Negative Case

Debating Handbook

20

Debating Handbook

I.

Debating in General

Ok, lets start from the beginning. What is debating?

And why do people debate?
Debating is a clash of arguments. For every issue, there are always different sides of
a story: why people support or disagree with that certain issue. Debating seeks to explore
the reasons behind each side. To make those reasons understandable and convincing,
debaters should deliver their arguments with good communication skills.
Competitive debating is debating using a specific format. With formats, people are
regulated to speak one at a time and each side is given the same amount of time and
opportunity to prove their point. This format rules out the possibility of who-speaksloudest-or-fastest shall win the debate. It encourages people not only to speak out but
also to listen to the other side. There are many formats of debates: Karl Popper format,
British Parliamentary format, Australasian Format, World Schools format, etc.
People debate for a number of reasons: to convince other people that his/her opinion is
better, to listen to what other people think of an issue, to find which solution is the best
for a problem, etc. Since competitive debating aims to convince judges that a teams
argument is superior, it gives opportunities to use analytical-critical thinking and public
speaking skills to the fullest, skills which are very useful in everyday life.
But remember, debating is not a discussion. After each debate there is no compromised
result as in a discussion. The point of having a debate is to speak out and listen to
different kinds of opinions and at the end respecting those differences.

So, competitive debating is debating using a format. What format does

Indonesians use? How does it work?
The Indonesian Schools Debating Championships uses the World Schools format. This
format work as follows:
1. There are 2 teams debating, each consists of 3 (three) debaters who would be 1 st, 2nd
and 3rd speakers of the team.
2. One team shall be the Government/Affirmative side the side agreeing with the
motion, the other team shall be the Opposition/Negative side the side disagreeing
with the motion.
3. Each speaker will deliver a substantial speech of 8 (eight) minutes in duration, with
the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1st or 2nd speaker on both sides will
deliver the reply speeches of 4 (four) minutes in duration, with the negative going
first.
4. Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:
1st Aff 1st Neg 2nd Aff 2nd Neg 3rd Aff 3rd Neg Reply Neg Reply Aff

Debating Handbook

AFFIRMATIVE TEAM
1st speaker

NEGATIVE TEAM
1st speaker

(8 min)

(8 min)

2nd speaker

2nd speaker

(8 min)

(8 min)
rd

3rd speaker

3 speaker

(8 min)

(8 min)

Reply speaker
(1st/2nd speaker 4 min)
5.

Reply speaker
(1st/2nd speaker 4 min)

In a substantive speech, members of the opposing team are allowed to give an

interruption, called Points of Information (POI), to the speaker delivering the
speech. POIs may be delivered between the 1st and 7th minute of the 8-minutespeech.

minutes 0

1st

POI not allowed

2nd

3rd

POIs allowed

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

POI not allowed

No POIs are allowed in a reply speech.

The speaker has full authority to accept or reject a POI.
6.

A time keeper shall signal the time. There will be one knock at the end of the
1st and 7th minutes, to signal the starting and ending times for POI. And two knocks at
the 8th minute to signal that delivery time for the speech has ended. Any debater
speaking before 7 minutes shall be considered under-time and his/her points could
be reduced. Any debater speaking after 8 minutes 30 seconds shall be considered
overtime and his/her points could be reduced as well.

7.

For reply speeches, there will be one knock at the 3rd minute, to signal that
delivery time is almost over, and two knocks at the 4th minute.

8.

Every debate shall be judged by an odd number of judges and only the
judges shall decide who wins the debate (there is no draw in the result of a debate).

9.

In Indonesians, every team is given 30 minutes preparation time after the

motion is released and before the debate begins. During this preparation time, teams
are not allowed to get help from anybody (be it coaches, teachers, parents or
friends) or use laptops, PDAs, or any other communication devices.

Huh? Motion? Definition? Argument? Rebuttal? POI?

What are those?

MOTION

Motions, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a
debate shall be about. In the debate, the Government/Affirmative team must argue
to defend the motion while the Opposition/Negative team must argue to
oppose it.

Debating Handbook

Here are some examples of motions used in various international and national debate
tournaments:
- That religious lesson should not be taught in school
- That gambling of all forms should be made illegal
- That politicians should only be allowed to serve in office for a limited period of time
- That professionalism has ruined the Olympic Games
- This house disapproves of cloning
- This house supports the use of the death penalty
- That national security concerns justify the restriction of civil liberties
- That governments should never restrict freedom of speech
- This house supports General Election in Iraq
- This house regrets the influence of Hollywood
- This house would legalize performance-enhancing drugs
- This house would ban surrogate motherhood
- That the cost of Mars exploration is justified
As you can see, motions in a debating competition cover various areas: politics, economy
and social issues.

DEFINITION

For a debate to proceed, both teams need a clear understanding of what the motion
means. This requires the motion to be defined so that everyone (audience and judges
included) knows what is being debated. Problems arise if the two teams present different
understandings of the meaning of the motion. This can result in a definitional debate,
where the focus of the debate becomes the meaning of the words in the motion, rather
than the motion itself. Interaction and clash between the two teams become
concentrated on whose definition is correct, rather than the issues raised by the motion.
Definition debates should be avoided wherever possible. They make a mockery of what
debating seeks to achieve.
A definition scopes down or gives limitations on the motion to focus the
debate. It clarifies the motion. It prevents the debate from turning into a confusing
exchange of ideas because of different interpretations teams may have about what is
actually being debated. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the
issues talked about in the debate. A definition must have a logical link to the motion.
The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team. The
affirmative team must provide a reasonable definition for the motion. This means:
1.
On receiving the motion, both teams should ask: What
is the issue that the two teams are expected to debate? What would an ordinary
intelligent person think the motion is about?
2.
If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (it has an
obvious meaning), the Government/Affirmative team must define the motion
accordingly. When the motion has an obvious meaning (one which the ordinary
person would realize), any other definition would not be reasonable.
3.
If there is no obvious meaning to the motion, the range
of possible meaning is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate. Choosing
the meaning that does not allow the opposition a room for debate would not be a
reasonable debate.
4.
When defining the words in the motion so as (i) to allow
the obvious meaning to be debated or (ii) (when there is no obvious meaning) to give
effect to possible meaning which would allow for a reasonable debate, the
affirmative must ensure that the definition is one the ordinary intelligent person
would accept.
5.
in
making
a
reasonable
definition,
sometimes
parameters, models, or criteria is needed. when suggesting parameters to the

Debating Handbook

debate, or proposing particular models or criteria to judge it by, the Proposition must
ensure such parameters, models, or criteria are themselves reasonable. They must
be ones that the ordinary intelligent person would accept as applicable to the
debate.

A definition is simply to clarify the motion. The Government/Affirmative team

must give a definition that gives room for the Opposition/Negative team to
oppose it. On defining, always ask What debate is expected from this motion?
Are there any reasonable arguments to oppose the definition weve set up?

Here are some examples of definitions that allow for a reasonable debate:
Motion: That quota is not the answer for women
Definition:
- Quota
= putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in the
parliament
- Not the answer = not the right solution to promote gender equality in society
Thus the whole definition is: Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in
parliament is not the right solution to promote gender equality in society
Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for drug dealers
Definition:
- This house = the affirmative/the government
- Capital Punishment = a maximum punishment given to a criminal in the form of
death penalty
- Drug Dealers = people who sell, distribute, and committing illegal drug trafficking
in a certain amount according to the existing law.
thus the whole definition is: we support the death penalty for people who sell,
distribute, and commit illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount

Here is an example of an unreasonable definition:

Motion : That death penalty should never be justified
Definition: Killing people without any reason is wrong. Therefore we should not
approve of genocide/mass killings.
The definition above is out of the context or spirit of the motion (death penalty means
punishing criminals to die, not mass killing without reason). And it is unfair to expect the
Opposition/Negative to say that mass killings for no reason should be approved of.
Although the right to define belongs to the Government/Affirmative team, the
Opposition/Negative team has the right to challenge or not accept it if it is unreasonable.
Explanations on challenging the motion will be explained at the end of this paper.
Challenging a definition is highly discouraged.

THE OPPOSITIONS OPTIONS

Presuming the Propositions definition is satisfactory, the First Speaker of the Opposition
will not argue the definition, but will proceed immediately to dealing with the
Propositions arguments. There is no need to say that the Opposition accepts the
definition; this is presumed unless the First Speaker of the Opposition challenges it.

Debating Handbook

If the Opposition is unhappy with the Propositions definition, it has several options:
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Accept and Debate

The first option is to accept it anyway. If the Propositions definition leads in
to the expected issue and allows the Opposition to put forward the
arguments and examples it was intending, there is no point to arguing over
the precise words the Proposition has used.
Challenge
The second option is to challenge the Proposition definition, arguing it is
unreasonable. Further discussion will be explained in particular chapter
below.
Broaden
The third option is neither outright acceptance nor outright rejection, but
instead to supplement the definition. The Propositions definition may have
omitted to define a word in the motion that the Opposition considers
pivotal. In this case, the Opposition can offer a definition of this word, so
long as it meets the standards of reasonableness outlined above.
Even-if
The fourth option is to both reject and accept the definition. It involves:
a.
Rejecting the Proposition definition as unreasonable and
explaining why;
b.
Putting up an alternative (and reasonable) definition, then
proceeding to advance arguments and examples based on
this;
c.
Rather than ignoring the Propositions arguments and
examples on the basis they derive from an unreasonable
definition, arguing that even-if the Propositions definition
was reasonable, its arguments and examples do not prove
what is alleged.

ARGUMENTS

After agreeing with a definition, both the Government/Affirmative and the

Opposition/Negative team should give arguments on why they support or disapprove
with the topic.
Arguments explain why a point of view should be accepted. Good arguments are logical
and relevant to the point being proven. They should also comprise of:
1. Assertion the statement which should be proved
2. Reasoning the reason why that statement is logical
3. Evidence examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above
4. Link Back the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion
Given the duration of the debate, it is best to have 2 to 4 arguments to support your
point of view. These arguments should be divided between the 1 st and the 2nd speaker.
So, some arguments are explained by the 1 st speaker and the rest are explained by the
2nd speaker. This division is called a team split.
Each of these arguments should stand on their own. This means that each of the
arguments should be able to answer the definition with a because statement.
Arguments answer WHY a team supports/opposes the topic. Arguments should be
logical and relevant, backed up with reasoning and good evidence.
Here are examples of arguments given for the examples above:
1. Motion : That quota is not the answer for women

Debating Handbook

Definition : Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in parliament is not
the right solution to promote gender equality in society
Arguments:

2.

a.

Assertion: because this kind of privilege will only

strengthen the stigma in society that undermines women
Reasoning: Nowadays there is still a strong stigma in society believing that
women are inferior to men and has less capability than men. Reserved seats
in the parliament will only strengthen this paradigm: that women can only sit
in the parliament if they are facilitated but not because they can equally
compete with men. Thus justifying the wrong perception that women could
not reach the same level as men unless given privilege.
Evidence: In Uganda, public opinion that does not go in favor of women
increased rapidly after the implementation of this kind of quota (this was also
supported by some polling)
Link Back: Quota for women in parliament will only strengthen the negative
perception that undermines women, hindering the promotion of women being
equal to men.

b.

Assertion: because forced quota could reduce

the performance of these women and at the end impedes womens
movement for equality
Reasoning: Due to many social resistance, women are still reluctant to
involve themselves in politics. Women also lack the experience men have,
given the limited history of womens involvement in politics. Forcing women
to fulfill the 30% quota opens probabilities of putting hesitant women with
minimum experience in the parliament. This can reduce the working
performance of those women. When such a thing happens, society would
think that women are not as capable as their male counterparts while what
actually happens is that women politicians are not yet well armed with the
same motivation and experience as men.
Evidence: In India, women representatives with no political background are
less popular than their male counterparts
Link Back: It is clear that rushing instant ways like putting a quota for
women would harm the women movement for equality.

Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for

drug dealers
Definition: the affirmative supports death penalty for drug dealers
Arguments:
a. Assertion: because it violates human right of the criminals
Reasoning: every people have the right to life, even when he/she has done
some heinous crime. Giving them the death penalty will just show people how
government are not respecting its people human rights and justify killing for
another killing. By giving them death penalty we are not only take their life but
also eliminating their chance to do better.
Evidence:
- Death Penalty is considered by most civilized nations as a cruel and
inhuman punishment. It has been abolished de jure or de facto by 106
nations, 30 countries have abolished it since 1990.
Link Back: It clearly shows here that death penalty given to drug dealers is a
violation to human rights and no government has right to do such thing to its
people.
b. Assertion: because it will not serve as a deterrent
Reasoning: death penalty is aim to deter drug dealing from happen again. But
as we can see drug dealing is still flourishing. Why?

Debating Handbook

Because drug dealers always deal with risk of losing their lives thus death
penalty will not scare them to do this job, especially when they have no other
option to do. Other than that, drug dealers who was captured by police officers
usually only small distributors that easily replaced by others.
Evidence: even after imposing death penalty, the case of drug abuse still
increasing every year in Malaysia up until 4%.
Link Back: The above explanation shows that death penalty can not serve as a
deterrent to prevent drug dealers doing their job in the future.

Having more than one argument means that teams should make sure that their
arguments are consistent or do not contradict each other. Contradiction and
inconsistency makes a teams performance seem poor because it shows as if theyre not
agreeing the points among themselves. It is good to have a main idea that connects or
becomes the foundation of the arguments. This is one way of ensuring arguments dont
contradict with one another. This main idea is usually named as a team line/theme line
in a debate.
Looking at the example above, the team line could be:
Quota brings the wrong message to society that women are not as capable as
men
death penalty is only violates human rights and will not solve the problem of
drug dealing in our community.

REBUTTALS

Rebuttals are responses towards the other teams arguments. Rebuttals should
prove that the other teams arguments are not as important as they claim to be.
As with arguments, mere accusations do not equal good rebuttals. It is not enough to say
that the other teams arguments are inferior, good rebuttals should also explain the
reasoning and evidence of why those arguments are inferior.
In responding to the other teams arguments, rebuttals could show that those arguments
are:
1.
Irrelevant to the point being proven
For example:
Claim : Prostitution should be banned because prostitution creates more porn
sites in the Internet.
Rebuttal: The number of porn sites in the Internet has nothing to do with
whether prostitution is legalized or not. Fact is, porn sites could be
accessed in many countries, apart from whether it legalizes prostitution
or not
2.

Illogical
For example:
Claim : Students should be allowed to smoke at school because it will create
stronger resistance from passive smokers and eventually reduce the
number of smokers at school.
Rebuttal: That is logically flawed because allowing students to smoke will
create a permissive condition that would stimulate more students to
smoke. Fact is, most teenagers start smoking because of peer influence.
If school goes along with peer influence, then the reality that smoking is
bad would be blurred and more students would think that smoking is ok
and take up smoking.

Debating Handbook

3.

Morally flawed
For example:
Claim : The government should support death penalty because it will help
decrease the population of the country.
Rebuttal: Killing people simply to decrease population is morally wrong. People
have the right to live and the government should not undermine that
right only because they think they have too many citizens to manage.

4.

Correct, but not important or involve unacceptable implications

For example:
Claim : The government should ban MTV because there are some programs
that are not related to music.
Rebuttal: It is true that some MTV programs are not related to music, but the
government should not ban a TV station simply because of that reason.
Banning a TV station would lose the government a significant amount of
revenue and it is more important to have this revenue rather than
obliging TV stations to have programs that are true to its name.

5.

based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact

For example:
Claim: Murder rates are rising in the US. This is because some states have
abolished capital punishment.
Possible Rebuttals:
a.
Murder rates are not rising in the US. Evidence shows that .. (direct
factual error), or
b.
If the number of murders seems to be rising, it is because more
murders are being reported compared to before. So, in reality its not actually
rising. (indirect factual error), or
c.
Evidence shows that capital punishment a state-sanctioned murder
can appear to condone violent crime and leads to a rise in numbers of
violent crime rather than reducing it. (erroneous interpretation of fact)

Rebuttals are responses towards the other teams arguments. Rebuttals should not
only claim that those arguments are inferior, but rebuttals should also explain why
they are inferior and back it up with evidence. Rebuttals should prioritize strong and
important arguments.

Given limited time in a debate, it is not necessary for a team to rebut every single point
and fact raised by the other team. Better single out the opposing teams main arguments
and attack those first. Teams should prioritize rebutting strong and important points first
and leave the weak ones for last priority.

POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI)

As has been mentioned above, after the 1 st minute and before the 7 th minute of a speech,
members of the opposing teams are allowed to briefly interrupt the current speaker. This
interruption is called a POI.
In order to offer a POI, a person must stand up, hold out his/her hand and say On that
point, Sir/Ma'am or On that point of information. POI should be offered politely, not
used to hackle the speaker. When offered a POI, the speaker having the floor has full
authority to either reject or accept the POI. If a person is rejected a POI, he/she should sit
down again.

Debating Handbook

10

POI should be brief and expressed as a question so that the speaker is required to
provide an answer. Once accepted, the person offering POI has at most 15 seconds to
deliver the POI. The
speaker then must answer or respond to that POI right after it is given and not wait until
later in his/her speech. It is advisable that the speaker does not answer a POI more than
30 seconds as it would make him/her lose track of his/her speech.
POI should be offered regularly and through out the course of the debate. Offering POI
shows that they understand the issues being discussed during the debate.
It is advisable to accept around 2 POI in a speech, and accept them between points of
arguments/rebuttals. Not accepting POI at all (especially when they are often offered)
would be bad strategy as the speaker is not involving the other team in his/her speech.
But accepting too much POI would risk the speaker of losing control of his/her speech.

Points Of Information are brief interruptions (preferable in a form of a

question) between the 1st and 7th minute of a speech. The speaker delivering a
speech has full authority to accept or reject a POI. Once accepted, a POI should
not exceed 15 minutes and the speaker must answer that POI right after it is
given.

Ok, so basically, a team has to debate upon a motion defined by the

affirmative side. Then they have to provide arguments telling why they
support or disagree with the motion. And each side has to respond to
the other side in the form of rebuttals. Is that right?
Yup, for all questions. Oh, and one more thing: the word CASE would often be heard in
a debate. A CASE refers to the whole package of a teams arguments. Imagine a
debate to be a
physical battle. Then the definition would be the battlefield that both sides have chosen.
The CASE would be the fort that each team builds using arguments as bricks. The
rebuttals would be the weapons that they use to attack the other side.
To make you understand more about CASE, let us take a look at the Case Anatomy in
the next page:

Motion
Clear
and
Logic

Definition

Answer
Why?

Team
Line
Argument
Argument

Debating Handbook

11

Team
Split

Argument
Argument
Rebuttals
POI

The arrows indicate each link from the motion to definition, definition to your team line,
and how your arguments, rebuttals, and POI must be consistent with your case
foundation.

But there are 3 speakers in each team. Does each speaker have the
same job? If not, what are the jobs of each speaker?
No, every speaker in a team has different jobs to fulfill. Here is the outline of the jobs or
roles of each speaker:
Government/Affirmative
First Speaker:
1.
Give the definition of the
motion
2.
Outline the teams case:
Present the team line
Present the team split
3.
Explain the arguments that
are the 1st speakers split
4.
Give a brief summary/recap of
the speech

Opposition/Negative
First Speaker:
1.
Respond to the definition
2.
Rebut 1st Government speaker
3.
Outline the teams case:
Present the team line
Present the team split
4.
Explain the arguments that are
the 1st speakers split
5.
Give a brief summary/recap of
the speech

Second Speaker:
1.
Rebut the Oppositions main
arguments
2.
Briefly restate/reiterate in

Second Speaker:
1.
Rebut the Governments main
arguments
2.
Briefly restate/reiterate in

general the Governments team case

3.
Explain the arguments that are
the 2nd speakers split
4.
Give a brief summary/recap of
the speech

general the Oppositions team case

3.
Explain the arguments that are
the 2nd speakers split
4.
Give a brief summary/recap of
the speech

Third Speaker:
1.
Rebut Oppositions arguments,
prioritizing the strong/important ones
2.
Rebuild the teams case
3.
Summarize the issues of the
debate
Note:
It is not advisable for 3rd Government to
bring new arguments

Third Speaker:
1.
Rebut Governments arguments,
prioritizing the strong/important ones
2.
Rebuild the teams case
3.
Summarize the issues of the
debate
Note:
It is not advisable for 3rd Opposition to bring
new arguments

Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:

1.
Provide a summary or overview
of the debate
2.
Identify the issues raised by
both teams
3.
Explain why the Governments

Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:

1.
Provide a summary or overview
of the debate
2.
Identify the issues raised by both
teams
3.
Explain why the Oppositions

Debating Handbook

12

case and response are better than the

Oppositions
Note:
Reply speakers are not allowed to bring
new arguments and give rebuttals

case and response are better than the

Governments
Note:
Reply speakers are not allowed to bring new
arguments and give rebuttals

The first speakers lay the foundation of the debate battlefield. After the first
speakers speeches, the main direction of each teams case should be apparent. In
providing the definition, the 1st Government should ensure that no important points of
definition (limitations or parameters) are left out.
The 1st Opposition has three options in responding to the definition: accept it,
challenge it (which is highly discouraged) or accept it but disapprove or clarify
some of the parameters set up by the Government.
In outlining cases, both first speakers should state explicitly what the team split is. This
could be done by saying, for example As the first speaker I will examine how regional
autonomy worsens environmental degradation, while the second speaker will explain
about the impediment that regional autonomy brings to industrial sector.
The second speakers attack the other side while continuing to build the case.
The second speakers should rebut the main arguments brought up so far in the debate,
while continuing the explanation of why his/her team oppose/support the motion, taking
a different point of view from the 1st speaker.
The third speakers main duty is to attack/rebut the opponents case. Third
speakers are highly discouraged to bring new line of arguments. Logically, if an argument
is good then it should be delivered first not by the third speaker, as there wouldnt be
enough opportunity to examine that argument.
Rebuttals should ideally be carried in two levels:
1.
on a global level (team wise), this level attacks the
other teams whole case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic
2.
on a detailed level (speech wise), this level attacks the
mistakes and inconsistency of each individual speech

The reply speakers sum up the debate. They are not allowed to bring new
arguments and rebuttals at all. They should simply analyze what has happened in the
debate and explain why their teams case is better than the other team.

Last but not the least of questions: what if the negative or opposition
thinks that the definition is unfair, should they just accept it?
As has been mentioned briefly above, when the Opposition/Negative thinks that the
Government/Affirmatives definition is unfair, then they have the right to challenge that
definition.
But challenging a definition is highly discouraged, as Government/Affirmative
providing unfair definition is also highly disapproved of, because debates with definitional
challenge usually turn out to be bad debates.
How to challenge a definition? The first Opposition speaker should state explicitly
that their team challenges the definition. Then, he/she should provide the reason why
they challenge the definition. Then he/she should provide a new definition that they think
is fair.

Debating Handbook

13

An Opposition/Negative team should not challenge a debate simply because their team
seems to have a better definition. A definition may only be challenged if it is on of the
following:
1.

Truistic
Truistic means that the definition is true by nature and thus makes the proposed
arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a
team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their
definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An
example of a truistic definition would be if the motion That the sun is rising in the
east is defined literally. This makes the opposition impossible to say that the sun is
rising in the west, besides there is no clear issue to be debated there. On the other
hand, taking the east as a metaphor for Asia becoming much more important in the
world (the sun is rising) seems adequately sensible: this poses a real issue for both
sides
to
debate
(China/Asias
importance
in
the
world
militarily/economically/politically).

2.

Tautological or circular
Tautological or circular definition happens when a definition is given in such a way
that it is logically impossible to negate it. An example would be if the motion That
technology is killing our work ethic were defined as follows: the term technology
means all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work
ethic. This would result in the whole definition that all scientific advancements that
make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic are killing our work ethic. This
cannot be logically proven false.

3.

Squirreling
Squirreling happens when a definition is not tied down to the spirit of the motion and
does not have a proper logical link to the motion. For example, for the motion that
the USA is opening up to the PRC, the Affirmative team defined USA as Untidy
Students of Asia and PRC as Pretty Room Cleaners. This is definitely squirreling as
anyone would agree that the spirit of the motion is about the relationship between
United States and China.

4.

Time and Place Set unfairly

Time setting happens when the debate is confined to a particular time in the past or
the future. Place setting unfairly happens when the debate is confined to particular
place where an ordinary intelligent person in the scope of the tournament wouldnt
know about the issues in there. For instance, on the motion That we should have a
direct presidential election, the Affirmative defined we as the people in
Timbuktu. It is unfair to expect other participants to know about whats happening in
Timbuktu unless the election there has been in the headlines currently, therefore this
definition is place-setting unfairly. An example of time setting would be if the motion
is defined as Indonesia should have direct presidential election during the rule of the
New Order regime. Setting the time of the debate into the past or the future is not
allowed and it is clearly not an issue whether Indonesia should have had a direct
presidential election in the past.
Definitional challenge is highly discouraged. It usually results in an illfavored debate. It should only be done if the Government/Affirmative brings
up a definition that is truistic, tautological, squirreling or time/place setting.

II.

Debating Handbook

Guidelines for Debaters

14

There are 3 (three) main components that are judged from a debaters speech, they are:
1.
Content marked 40 out of 100
2.
Style marked 40 out of 100
3.
Strategy - marked 20 out of 100
This guideline will explain each of those components and provide tips on how to practice
them.

CONTENT
Content is the argument used by the speaker, divorced from the speaking style.
Content constitutes 40% out of the total score. In content, judges would determine
whether the speakers arguments and the teams case in a whole are strong or not.
There are two process that shape a content of speech: case building and research.

CASE BUILDING

Case building is the process of putting together the teams arguments and making
sure that they are solid and consistent.
Given 30 minutes preparation time, teams do not have plenty of time to case build.
Heres a little tips on the steps of case building:
1.

Brainstorm individually
First, debaters could write down and bring out anything that crosses their mind once
they hear the motion. Anything here could be an argument, example, parameters, or
other things related to the motion. This process shouldnt take too long, only 5
minutes at the most.
For the Negative team, debaters should
cases/definitions the Affirmative might bring.

2.

also

brainstorm

on

possible

Discuss the definition

Once all the ideas have come out, the Affirmative team should decide upon a
definition. There are two things to look at when defining a motion:
a. look at key words in the motion
Find the words that need to be defined in the motion, do these words need further
explanation or parameters or limitations?
For example:
Motion:
That smoking should be banned in public places
There are 2 key words here, smoking and public places. What smoking
should be banned here: smoking cigarette? Smoking marijuana? This should be
clarified. What does "public places" mean? Does "public places" include the
street, public transportation, malls, apartment buildings?
b. look at real issues in the real world
Motions usually take up issues that are debated in the real world. Looking at the
example above in the context of Indonesia, is the debate about smoking cigarette
or smoking marijuana? Its most likely about cigarette since there is no movement
to legalize marijuana in Indonesia.
Since the Negative team does not need to come up with a definition, what they could
do in case building is discuss possible definitions that might come up from the
motion. Pick one or two of the most possible definitions and make the negation. Also

Debating Handbook

15

put analysis on real issues in analyzing possible cases. Remember that your main
task as Opposition is not to create a definition but to respond and negate the
Affirmative. Here, you must agree on how to negate each possible definition.
3.

Pick relevant arguments

After discussing the definition, members of the team should decide upon arguments
that are relevant to the definition. Dont put in an argument only because it sounds
good although it is totally irrelevant to the debate that would proceed. Given the
duration of the debate, it is good for teams to have 2 4 arguments to prove their
point.

4.

Determine team line and team split

Having the definition and the arguments, to ensure the consistency of these
arguments, teams have the option of finding a main reason connecting these
arguments or having a team line. They should also divide the arguments among the
1st and 2nd speaker and come up with a team split.

5.

Recap the whole case

Having the definition, arguments and split, a member of the team should recap the
whole case to make sure that each members of the team has the same case in mind.

6.

Individual preparation
The last minutes of case building should be given for each speaker to prepare their
speech individually.

Steps
1.
2.
3.

for case building:

brainstorm individually
discuss the definition
choose relevant arguments to the
definition
4. determine team split and team line
5. recap the whole case
6. individual preparation

NOTE:
In debating as the Opposition/Negative team, you have to follow the dynamics of the
debate. When your prepared case is irrelevant to the case brought up by the
Affirmative/Government team (they bring a definition that you didnt think of), you have
to leave your prepared case and construct a new one on the spot during the debate.

Tips for Opposition/Negative teams on such conditions:

Listen to the 1st speaker of the
Affirmative until he/she delivers their team line and split or until you are clear about
the Affirmative case.
2.
Discuss briefly on how you will
negate it.
3.
After agreeing on that, the 1st
speaker Negative should concentrate on building his/her case. If necessary, he/she
need not hear the rest of the 1 st speakers speech and leave it to the 2 nd and 3rd
1.

Debating Handbook

16

speakers. The 2nd/3rd speakers should then provide the 1st speaker with rebuttals
before his/her speech.
4.
Remember that teamwork is the
key! Make sure the three of you have the same perception on the negation and the
case that you would bring.

RESEARCH

As you can read from the explanation about arguments, good arguments are not only
statements or assertions, but they also have reasoning and evidence. They should also
be logical and relevant to the point being proven.
Reasoning and evidence dont fall automatically from the sky. In order to know these
things, a debater must read a lot of books and keep up with current news. In
preparing for a tournament, it is good for debaters to do research especially when some
of the topics are given a few weeks before the tournament. If you look at the examples of
motions used in past tournaments, debating covers a broad range of topics. So it is also
good to know about current events happening in world.
What debaters could do for research:
1. Search the Internet
The Internet is one of the easiest places to start research. But be careful not to get
carried away, as the Internet is huge and you could easily get lost in it.
Here are some sites that might help you for a start:
a.
www.debatabase.com this
is a site aimed for debaters, it has a number of topics with arguments supporting
or opposing that topic. We dont suggest debaters to whip out arguments from
this site, you should analyze those arguments as well and decide whether its
good or not. But its a good place to start and there are also links to other writings
relevant to the topic.
b.
www.google.com this is a
search engine, just type the key words of the topic you want to research and it will
give you articles related to that topic
c.
www.bbc.co.uk
or
www.cnn.com these are sites for the 2 major news network. Check out the indepth section, they usually give comprehensive background and analysis on a
particular issue.
d.
www.yahoo.com besides a
search engine, this site also gives links to the current news.
2. Read newspapers and magazines and watch TV news
Besides reading hard news to know the development of current issues, it is also good
to read the Editorial or Opinion column. These columns usually give analysis on
certain issues. It would also be useful to watch the news talk shows in TV. But
remember not to believe or agree with whatever you read or watch, but analyze the
arguments as well. Oh, and theres also a program at TVRI, The Battle of Wits, every
Saturday 11.30 a.m., that could give you a clear picture about debating.
3. Dig the library
Start hanging out in the library and look for magazines, books or even encyclopedias
that could help your research.

4. Pay attention to your teachers at school

Believe it or not, but knowing basic stuff like: United Nations and the way they work;
ASEAN; the structure of our government and MPR/DPR; environment and how to

Debating Handbook

17

preserve them; and other things that you learn from class are essential in a debate.
So start listening to your teachers and take notes of what they say.

Style is the way speakers speak. It is the manner in which debaters communicate
their arguments. Style constitutes 40% of the total score.
Style includes many aspects: speed of speech, tone, volume, use of language, clarity,
fluency, use of humor, stance, gestures and expressions, and use of notes and eye
contact.
Your style should be able to convince and persuade the judges that your arguments
are better than the other side. In order to do this it is best to:
1.

Use eye contact

Remember that when you debate, you should face the judges and not your opponents,
as the judges are the ones you want to convince. Avoiding eye contact would make
you seem as if you dont want to connect with the audience or the judges. Eye contact
makes you look confident. Tips: for those who dont feel comfortable looking at
another persons eyes, try looking at their forehead. This makes you more at ease and
the audience still feel that youre talking to them.

2.

Be clear in explaining your points

Being clear means using tone, volume and language that makes other people
understand your points. Choose simple language or words to make sure that other
people know what you are talking about. Good grammar would be nice but one or two
mistakes would not matter so long as people understand what you are talking about.

3.

Avoid being monotonous

Changes make people notice. So its good to have variations in your speech so that
people stay interested. It would be a pity if the judges miss a good point you made
simply because your speech was boring.

4.

Use sincere expression and gestures

Use the right expression and gesture to convince. Your speech would lose its appeal if,
for example, you giggle or use humor while talking about the famine in Africa.

Different people have different styles and there are no absolute rules for style, except
that:
1.
the use of swear words is extremely prohibited
2.
personal attacks or criticizing the person and not the
arguments are also prohibited (for example: The fat stupid opponents dont know
what theyre talking about.)
Violation of these two rules could get a debater heavy penalty or even zero in the
score.
Good style is when you deliver your arguments in a confident and persuasive
manner.
It is strictly prohibited to:
1. use swear words
2. give personal attacks

Debating Handbook

18

Tips for practicing style:

1.
Make the mirror your best friend
The best person to help you out with your style is yourself. Make a speech in front of
a mirror and judge on your own what kind of expression and gestures works best for
you.
2.
Tape yourself while practicing
You could tape yourself while practicing/debating. This way you could analyze your
performance afterwards.
3.
Ask your friend to help you out
Make a speech in front of your friend and ask him/her to comment on your style.

STRATEGY
Strategy constitutes 20% of the total score. It covers these concepts:
1.
Whether the speaker understands
what are the issues of the debate
2.
Structure of the speakers speech
3.
Timing of the speakers speech
4.
Consistency
Below are the explanations of each concept:
1.

Understanding the issues of the debate

A debater should know what are the important issues raised up in the debate. If a
debater fails to recognize critical points, then he/she seems to be out of the debate.
For instance, a speaker who answers a critical issue with weak responses would get
poor marks for content but good marks for strategy.

2.

Structure of the speakers speech

Structure of a speech answers these vital questions:

a.

Did you fulfill your role as 1st/2nd/3rd/reply

speaker?
As has been mentioned above, each speaker has a role that they should fulfill.
Failing to fulfill these roles could reduce the speakers marks for strategy.

b.

Is your speech easy to follow?

Some speeches throw a bunch of ideas without any order, this kind of speeches are
difficult to follow because the speaker jumps from point to point. Speeches with
logical order of arguments, flowing naturally from one point to the other are easy to
follow.
One way to structure a speech is by sign posting. Sign posting is when you say
what you want to explain, then you explain them, then at the end you say what you
have just explained.
For example a 3rd speaker could open his speech by saying:
As the 3rd speaker I am going to rebut three main arguments of the
Opposition: One, on the argument that zoo protects animals. Two, on the point
that zoo is an educational venue. And three, on the assumption that it is
significant to the tourism industry.
Afterwards he explains the rebuttals of each point.
And at the end of his speech he concludes it by saying:
So I have explained that zoo exposes animals to bad condition and does not
protect them. I have also described the failure of zoo being an educational
venue and last I have showed that zoo do not give significant contribution to
the tourism industry.

Debating Handbook

19

3.

4.

Timing of the speakers speech

Timing of a speech answers these questions:
a.

Did you allocate appropriate time according

to your role of speaker?
Each speaker has their own role and thus should allocate time according to those
roles. For example, if a 1st Opposition speaker spends 5 minutes of his/her speech
rebutting the 1st Government, then he/she is likely to get poor mark in strategy
since he/she only allocates 3 minutes to lay down the case of the Opposition and
explain his/her points.

b.

Did you allocate appropriate time in dealing

with significant issues?
Strong arguments should be prioritized. If a strong argument is explored in less
than 1 minute, while a weak argument is explored for 3 minutes, than the speaker
did not allocate appropriate time to deal with the important issues in the debate.

Consistency
Consistency has to show in the following conditions:
a.
In the whole case
One speaker in a team shouldnt contradict or become inconsistent with the other
speakers. Team members usually becomes inconsistent after they think their case
is being rebutted well by the opposition.
b.

In an individual speech
When responding to a POI or the other teams arguments, make sure that your
responses dont contradict or is inconsistent with your own arguments.

An example of a contradiction would be:

This new national stadium will not cost the taxpayers any money because it will
be financed by the National Lottery. afterwards he/she explains that This
stadium will need funding from the taxpayers but its use is worth the cost.
This kind of contradiction would make a team seem unsure or confused of their own
case.
Good strategy is when a speaker:
1. understands the critical issues in the debate
2. fulfills his/her roles of speaker
3. delivers a speech that is easy to follow (preferably using sign
posting)
4. allocates appropriate time for his/her jobs and in dealing with
arguments
5. is consistent within his/her own speech and with his/her teammates

Debating Handbook

20

III.

DEBATERS WORKSHEET

SESSION 1
Time
90 minutes
Consists of 2 (two) sub sessions:
1. Identifying important concepts of debate (20 mins)
2. Theories of case building (30 mins)
3. Affirmative case building (40 mins)
SUBSESSION I

IDENTIFYING IMPORTANT CONCEPTS OF DEBATE (referring

to the exhibition debate)
Time
20 minutes
What was the debate about?

Please fill in the diagram found in Annex 1, which refers to the Exhibition Debate.

SUBSESSION II

THEORIES OF CASEBUILDING
Time
30 minutes
What is a case?
When people talk about a case in a debate, they are talking about the whole package of a teams arguments.
Imagine a debate as a physical battle. The definition draws the lines of the battlefield. The case would be the
fort that each team builds using arguments as bricks. The rebuttals would be the weapons they use to attack
their enemies, or in a debate, the other team.
Definition
A definition is not always a definition of the words in a motion.
It is supposed to clarify the motion by defining what the debate
will be about. This means that it makes limitations or
parameters to the motion to focus the debate.
A team can define the motion by:
a. looking at the key words in the motion.
Find the words that need to be defined. Is there something
that may have more than one meaning or interpretation?
What limitation is needed?

Example
Motion:
..
.

Definition:

b. looking at real issues in the real world.

Debating Handbook

21

Motions usually talk about issues that are debated in the real world. Ask yourself what is
happening in the world. What motion-related debate is happening in society?

A definition must be reasonable. The Government/Affirmative team must give a definition that gives
room for the Opposition/Negative team to oppose it. On defining, always ask What debate is expected from
this motion? Are there any reasonable arguments to oppose the definition weve set up?

Example
Argument 1:
A: .
....

Arguments
Good arguments are logical and relevant to the
point
you are trying to make. It should be made up of:
a.
b.

R: ..
.
..

c.
d.

....

E. ...

assertion is
llogical

Assertion what you are trying to prove

Reasoning the reason why that

Evidence examples/data that support

the
assertion and reasoning
Link back a brief explanation of how you
have
proven your point and that it is relevant

Looking at the amount of time you have, it is best

to have 2 to 4 arguments. These arguments should

..

be brought by the 1st and 2nd speakers. This means

that some arguments are explained by the

....

1st speaker while the rest are explained by the

2nd speaker. How you divide them is called a team
split. Each of these arguments should be

L.

....

independent. This means that each of the arguments

should be able to answer the definition with a
because sentence.

It is good to have a main idea that connects the

arguments. This is one way of making sure that
arguments are consistent with each other. This main idea is usually called a team line.
Case Building
Steps of case building (you can change the time if you want):
a.

Brainstorming (5 minutes)
First, debaters could write down anything that they think of when they hear the motion.
Brainstorming could get lists of arguments, examples, parameters, facts related to the motion,
etc.

b.

Discuss the definition (5 minutes)

When all the ideas have come out, the Affirmative team should decide what the definition
will be. Make sure that all of the parameters that are needed have been included.

c.

Pick relevant arguments (10 minutes)

After the team talks about the definition, you should decide what arguments are relevant
with this the definition. Dont put in an argument just because it sounds good.

d.

Determine team line and team split (3 minutes)

After making a definition and choosing arguments, teams should have a main reason
linking these arguments, or a team line, so they dont contradict each other.

Debating Handbook

22

They should also divide the arguments between the 1st and 2nd speakers, which is the
team split.
e.

Recap the whole case (2 minutes)

After you have these things decided, a member of the team should sum up the whole case
to make sure that everyone has the same thing in mind.

f.

Individual preparation (5 minutes)

Each speaker should spend some time to prepare their individual speech.

SUBSESSION III

AFFIRMATIVE CASE BUILDING

Time
40 minutes
Given 30 minutes, case build for the Affirmative side of the motion:
That this house supports maternity leave for pregnant students.
Steps of case building:
1.

Brainstorming

2.

Definition:
.

3.

Arguments (doesnt have to be four arguments; it could be more or less):

a.

....
....

b.

....
....

c.

.. .
....

d.

....
....

4.

Team Line:
......
......
Team Split:
1st Speaker (doesnt have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)

a.

....
....

Debating Handbook

23

b.

....
....

c.

.. .
....

2nd Speaker (doesnt have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)
a.

....
....

b.

....
....

c.

.. .
....

5.

Recap the Case

Definition:

1st Speaker

2nd Speaker

Argument 1:

Argument 1:

Argument 2:

Argument 2:

Argument 3:

Argument 3:

Team Line:

6.

Individual Preparation

SESSION 2
Time
2 hours
Consists of 3 (three) sub sessions:

Debating Handbook

24

1.
2.
3.

Brief Theory on Negative case building (20 mins)

Negative Case building (40 mins)
Q & A (30 mins)

SUBSESSION I

BRIEF THEORY OF NEGATIVE CASE BUILDING

Time
20 minutes
Basically, case building as a Negative team is the same as case building as the Affirmative. The difference is
that the Negative doesnt need to make a definition. They need to try to predict what definition is likely to
come up from the motion.
It is also important to know how to negate a motion:
Always add a NOT to the motion.
This seems very simple, but could easily be taken for granted.
Steps of case building for negative (time frame not fixed):
a. Brainstorm individually, the result could be arguments,
parameters, examples, etc. (5 min)
b. Discuss possible definitions that might come up from
the motion. Determine the teams stance or how you will
negate the motion.(5 min)
c. Pick relevant arguments to oppose the possible
definitions. (10 min)
d. Decide on the team line and team split. (3 min)
e. Recap the whole case. (2 min)
f. Prepare individual speeches. (5 min)

Example
Alcohol should be banned.
Negation
Alcohol should not be banned.
Common mistake
Drugs are more dangerous than
alcohol, so drugs should be banned
not alcohol.
This does not explain why alcohol
should not be banned.

SUBSESSION II

NEGATIVE CASE BUILDING

Time
40 minutes
Given 30 minutes, case build for the Affirmative side of the motion:
That this house supports maternity leave for pregnant students.

Steps of case building:

1.

Brainstorming

2.

Possible Definitions:

......
......
.
Stance:

Debating Handbook

25

......
......

3.

Arguments (doesnt have to be four arguments; it could be more or less):

a.

....
....

b.

....
....

c.

.. .
....

d.

....
....

4.

Team Line:
......
......
Team Split:
1st Speaker (doesnt have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)
a.

....
....

b.

....
....

c.

.. .
....

2nd Speaker (doesnt have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)
a.

....
....

b.

....
....

c.

.. .
....

Debating Handbook

26

5.

Recap the Case

Definition:

1st Speaker

2nd Speaker

Argument 1:

Argument 1:

Argument 2:

Argument 2:

Argument 3:

Argument 3:

Team Line:

6. Individual Preparation

SUBSESSION III

GENERAL Q & A
Time

30 minutes

......
......
......
......
......
......

Debating Handbook

27

References
1. Debating Handbook by Michael Birshan
2. The ESU Schools Mace Debating Handbook by Trevor Sather and Richard
Chambers
3. The World Schools Debating Championships Charter
4. WSDC Guidelines for Debaters and Adjudicators at www.schooldebate.com

Debating Handbook

28