The Official BCAJSA

Debating Reference
Guide
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. JSA Debates
2.1. Standard Debate
2.2. Thought Talk
2.3. Moderated Caucus
3. BCA Debates
3.1. Current Events Forum
3.2. JSA Trial
3.3. Philosophy debate
4. Research
4.1. Intro
4.2. How to research
4.3. Utilizing Resources
5. Debating Tips
5.1. Voice/Posture
5.2. Taking Notes
5.3. Using the Audience
5.4. Fallacy
6. Appendices

2
1. Introduction
“On high school campuses across the country, there are students concerned about what is
happening around them—students who are interested in politics and government, foreign
affairs, the law, the media, and education. The Junior State of America (also called Junior
Statesmen and JSA), is designed for these students.

“The Junior State of America is a non-partisan, non-profit, student-run organization which

was founded in 1934. It is sponsored jointly by high schools and The Junior Statesmen
Foundation as an extracurricular, social studies activity on high school campuses.

“The purpose of the organization is to teach high school students about government, to help
them develop and polish their leadership skills, to encourage critical thinking, and to
transmit the knowledge necessary for active, informed citizenship.

“Junior State chapters conduct student debates and student-moderated discussions,

candidate forums, speakers’ programs, and other non-partisan activities at their high schools
to increase political understanding and promote political awareness among their peers.

“Junior State chapter members participate in several regional and state conventions each
school year. Junior State conventions feature discussions, simulations, debates, and the
opportunity to question political leaders. Conventions often attract hundreds of student
delegates and last several days. These activities are open to all interested high school
students whether or not they are members.

“During Junior State activities, students meet with leaders in politics, government, law,
business, and education. The students discuss and debate contemporary issues
concerning their own lives, their country, and the world. The Junior State gives high
school students the chance to meet together for an intelligent and free exchange of
ideas. It provides this opportunity through a year-round schedule of events, including
weekend conventions, one-day conferences and summer programs. Through this
method, the Junior State enables student delegates to explore issues in-depth and
debate possible solutions to problems in a unique learning experience.”—JSA Handbook

Welcome to BCAJSA! This handbook is a guide to the world of debate and discussion within
the chapter of JSA, in which you will learn parliamentary procedure. In addition, this guide will cover
the various styles and strategies in debating, as well as pitfalls to avoid. Our style of governance
relies upon the tenets of debate, discussion, and dissent, so remember to speak up! Once again,
welcome to the world of debate!

3
2. JSA Debates
2.1. Standard Debate
2.1.1. Intro
The Standard Debate is the most common type of debate used by both the Junior State of
America and by the BCAJSA chapter, thus its title of Standard. This style pits two debaters, pro and
con, against each other, with some participation from the audience.

2.1.2. General Structure

Announce Topic, Commence Debate

Opening Speeches (12 min):

6 min Pro (Primary)

6 min Con (Primary)

Subsequent Speeches (6 min per cycle)

3 min Pro (Secondary)

3 min Con (Secondary)

Closing Speeches (8 min)

4 min Con (Primary)

4 min Pro (Primary)

Vote

2.1.3. Specifics
In the beginning, the moderator appoints the timekeeper, to keep the debate following the
correct schedule. The two Primary Speakers are chosen before the debate begins, and Secondary
Speaker(s) are chosen on the floor, at the appropriate time (see below). It is uncommon, but
possible, to be more than one speaker for a position, these are known as Tag Teams. Tag Teams
follow the same rules as regular Speakers must, with the same time limits. After a speaker has used
up whatever time they choose, they may either yield to questions or yield to chair. If they yield to
questions, the audience and the primary speaker of both sides may ask questions to the current
speaker. These questions have no time limit; however, if the moderator thinks the question is too
long, he/she may discard the question, or ask the questioner to summarize it. If there are no
questions from the audience, the primary speakers may ask. If there are no further questions, the
speaker may yield to chair, or give up remaining time.

During the Subsequent Speech phase, the moderator appoints one pair of audience
members, one pro and one con, to become secondary speakers. If the moderator feels there is still
time left after the Subsequent Speeches, he/she may appoint another pair to go up. During the at

4
the close of the Secondary Speaker’s speech, instead of yielding to the chair or to questions, they
may yield to the Primary Speaker, and force the Primary Speaker to speak in their stead.

At any time during questioning or a speech (except closing), an audience member can
provide a point of information or a point of clarification, which adds to the discussion an essential
piece of information or a clarification of a previously stated comment. These points are discussed in
the motion section.

During the vote, all members of the room except adults and the Moderator publicly vote on
whether the proposal passes (Pro), or fails (Con). They may also abstain, in which case they do not
support Pro nor Con. The majority wins, and in case of a tie, all abstentions become Con. In case of
further ties, the moderator casts the final vote. All members secretly cast a ballot of who the best
speaker was for this debate.

2.1.4. Motions
All motions (Appendix A) are in effect for this debate. Unless Parliamentary Procedures are
adjusted, no Primary Speaker can have their time extended.

2.1.5 Titles/Modifications
Every JSA Standard Debate has the keyword Resolved in the title of the debate (i.e.
Resolved, that Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) should be legalized). Sometimes the debate would be
a historical debate, where the keywords are Society through the eyes of in addition to the Resolved
(i.e. Society through the eyes of Glenn Beck and Kanye West: Resolved, that rap is detrimental to
American youth). The Primary Speakers of these debates could impersonate the character of their
side, or they can simply defend their side’s point of view via the character. A Master Debate is a less
serious version of the Standard Debate, and can be combined with any other style (i.e. Master
Debate: Resolved, Financial Aid or Kool Aid?). If combined with the Standard Debate, speakers in the
Master Debate will have one minute each to make their speech and argument, and no concluding
statements will be made.

Speed Chess is similar to the Standard Debate, with one major twist, the speaking time. In
Speed Chess, a Speaker can stop during their speaking time, to pass to their opponent. In this
format, there would be two timekeepers (one for each debater). After passing, the Speakers time
would be frozen. The two Speakers would continue to pass to each other, until both of the times
elapse. Subsequent Speeches follow this same pattern, but the Conclusions follow the Standard
Debate Rules. (Speed Chess: Resolved, Science is incompatible with religion).

2.2. Thought Talk

2.2.1. Intro
The purpose of the Thought Talk is to provide a uniform platform, for debaters of all skill
levels, to congregate and to discuss ideas. Thought Talks are primarily suited for beginning debaters,
to help them find their voice, but they are enjoyed by all JSA’ers. They are the easiest and most open
style of debate offered within JSA.

2.2.2. General Structure

Announce Topic, Commence Thought Talk

5
Thought Talk

Vote

2.2.3. Specifics
In the Thought Talk, no timekeeper is necessary. During the Thought Talk, the Moderator
calls on people to speak their opinion about the topic. Speaking times are not concrete, but are
customarily 30 seconds or less.

2.2.4. Motions
All motions are in order, except speaking time extensions.

2.2.5. Titles/Modifications.
Thought Talks are identified by the keyword Thought Talk (i.e. Thought Talk: Should parents
be allowed to genetically engineer their children?). There are no common modifications to the Basic
Thought Talk.

2.3 Moderated Caucus

2.3.1. Intro
The Moderated Caucus is a blend of the Standard Debate and the Thought Talk. It is one of
the most intuitive, informative, and welcoming style of debate offered by JSA

2.3.2. General Structure

Announce Topic, Commence Moderated Caucus

Opening Speeches (12 min)

6 min Pro

6 min Con

Thought Talk

Closing Speeches (8 min)

4 min Con

4 min Pro

Vote

2.3.3. Specifics
The Primary Speakers begin the debate with their opening speeches, and then the
Moderated Caucus transitions into a Thought Talk. All Thought Talk procedures and rules are
followed. When the Moderator decides there is not enough time left to continue the Thought Talk,
or the audience motion to move to previous question, then concluding speeches commence, starting
with con. After that, a normal vote is held.

2.3.4. Motions

6
 All motions are in effect

2.3.5. Titles/Modifications
The keyword Moderated Caucus (i.e. Moderated Caucus: Resolved, that the Tea Party will
be a sustainable and successful political party/movement). There are no standard common JSA
modifications to this.

7
3. BCA Debates
3.1 Current Events Forum
3.1.1 Intro
The Current Events Forum is a method of debate where student will discuss and debate
current events. It is very similar to the thought talk where there are no nominated speakers;
however it differs in that the large group of students breaks up into smaller groups to debate.

3.1.2 General Structure

Topic is announced, moderator is appointed, and media is loaded/distributed

The group as a whole watches the video/reads the article (5-10 min)

The moderator splits the group into 4 subgroups.

Participants discuss media/story in subgroups (10-20 min).

Participants recombine, and discuss media/story in large group, in a thought talk, regarding
what was previously discussed. (10-20 min).

Participants write thesis briefly outlining main points discussed (5 min).

3.1.3 Specifics
If the Current Event piece is in the form of a video, students will watch the video. If the piece
is in the form of an article, the moderator will appoint a reader or readers (depending upon how
long the article is). If there are less than 16 students, the moderator may decide how to divide the
students up. If all of the conversations reach a point where there is nothing to discuss, the
moderator may either consolidate into two groups, or Ask the groups to discuss the following
questions:
● How does this affect our everyday lives?
● Is it beneficial to our community? In what way?
● How will this affect the future of similar legislation or decisions?
● Does the source of news effect how the story was presented?
The thesis is to be decided unanimously, outlining the points of all opinions and not just favoring one
side (unless everyone agreed on everything - which in that case should be noted).

3.1.4 Motions
Students may motion to extend small group discussion time by no more than five minutes.
The same goes for large group discussion time.

3.1.5 Titles/Modifications
The keyword Current Events Forum with the title of the article or video being discussed
(Current Events Forum: Delegates walk out on Ahmadinejad).

8
3.2 JSA Trial
3.2.1 Intro
The JSA Trial debate format is a hybrid of standard mock trial form and standard JSA debate
form. Though Mock Trial is held only once at each convention and is overseen by a different member
of the cabinet, JSA Trial encourages greater student participation and involvement. In JSA Trial, there
are two opposing speakers much like the standard debate format, one acting as the lawyer for the
prosecution and one acting as the lawyer for the defense. The students in the audience serve as the
jury, and are permitted to ask questions following the opening statements from each side and the
cross-examinations. The judge serves as the moderator and the bailiff as the timekeeper. Another
important aspect of the JSA Trial is the cross examination, which allows the two lawyers (the primary
speakers), to critically attack each other’s arguments. The cross examination is an aspect of debate,
which is not included in the JSA standard debate format, that enhances the quality of debate. What
makes JSA Trial unique is that it incorporates the cross - examination to improve debate quality and
allows for greater student participation by rendering the audience as the jury. The debate lasts an
estimated 46 minutes, preventing the problem of extra time often seen during standard debates. JSA
Trial requires a bit more work on the part of the debate department. Due to the nature of the
format, JSA Trial blurbs tend to be longer and more comprehensive. Speakers serving as lawyers are
recommended to prepare for JSA Trial in advance.

3.2.2 Structure and Timing

1. Opening Statement (Prosecution): 5 Minutes
a. The primary speaker serving as the lawyer for the prosecution side delivers the introduction to
the case and the opening statement. Once the prosecution has concluded its opening statement,
the lawyer takes questions from the audience if there is additional time. If all 5 minutes have
elapsed, then the prosecution will not hear questions unless the rules are suspended and the
speaker’s time is extended.

2. Opening Statement (Defense): 5 Minutes

a. The primary speaker serving as the lawyer for the dense delivers an introduction his or her
opening statement. Once the defense has concluded its opening statement, the lawyer takes
questions from the audience if there is additional time. If all 5 minutes have elapsed, then the
defense will not hear questions unless the rules are suspended and the speaker’s time extended.

3. Presentation of Facts (Prosecution): 8 Minutes

a. The lawyer for the prosecution presents the evidence and argues his or her position on the
case. Once the speaker has finished presenting the facts, he or she is then cross-examined by the
lawyer for the defense.

4. Attorney Cross-Examination (Defense): 5 Minutes

a. The lawyer for the defense questions the opposing lawyer critically attacks his or her argument.
After each cross-examination, the jury can ask questions to either lawyer as long as time permits.

9
5. Presentation of Facts (Defense): 8 Minutes
a. The lawyer for the defense presents the evidence and argues his or her position on the
case. Once the speaker has finished presenting the facts, he or she is then cross-examined by the
lawyer for the prosecution.

6. Attorney Cross-Examination (Prosecution): 5 Minutes

a. The lawyer for the prosecution questions the opposing lawyer critically attacks his or her
argument. After each cross-examination, the jury can ask questions to either lawyer as long as time
permits.

7. Closing Statements (Defense): 5 Minutes

8. Closing Statements (Prosecution): 5 Minutes

3.2.3 Specifics
During the course of the trial, the participating attorney on both teams can object to the
statement or question of the opposing attorney for violating any of the following rules:

Irrelevant evidence: “I object, your Honor. This testimony is irrelevant to the facts of the case.”
Leading question: “Objection. Counsel is leading the defendant.” (During Cross-Examination)
Unfair extrapolation: “Objection. The argument is ‘unfair extrapolation’ in that it goes beyond the
witness’ statement/deposition or any reasonable inference to be drawn there from.”
Speculation: “Objection. The question calls for speculation on the part of the witness.”
Non-responsive answer: “Objection. The answer is not responsive.”
Compound question: “Objection. Counsel is asking the witness a compound question.”
Assuming facts not in evidence: “Objection. Counsel’s argument assumes facts which are not in
evidence.”
Argumentative: “Objection. Counsel’s argument/speech is argumentative.”

When an objection is made during Opening or Closing Statements, the attorney must wait until the
end of the speech to present all of the objections at once. The jury will be asked to disregard any
arguments brought up in the speech that is refuted by a sustained objection.

In other words, an objection can only be raised and answered by the attorneys directly involved in
that part of the trial (i.e., during Opening Statements, only the attorneys giving the Statements can
object). When an attorney raises an objection, the opposing attorney will always be granted a
response as to why the argument/speech is in accordance with the rules. The judge may grant
additional responses from the two attorneys as appropriate, but all responses and objections must be
directed towards the judge, not to the opposing attorney.

3.2.4 Motions
All standard motions are in effect.

10
3.2.5 Titles/Modifications
(JSA Trial: That illegal immigrants should be given amnesty) The bolded words are the
keywords, and multiple witnesses can participate.

Witnesses are entirely optional, a Trial can have multiple witnesses, or none at all. In
addition, any number of lawyers can be on each side. A JSA trial can have a true court case to be
debated (mock trial), or it can have an issue to be debated.

3.3 Philosophy Debate

3.3.1 Intro
The Philosophy debate provides a fairly informal forum for both advanced debaters and
philosophers, along with novices, to discuss quandaries in philosophy

3.3.2 General Structure

Meeting to discuss primary points (5-10 min)

Introduction of primary points (2 min per side)

Meeting to discuss rebuttal (5 min)

Rebuttal (2 min per side)

Crossfire (rest of time)

Moderator’s announcement of victor

3.3.3 Specifics
In every Philosophy Debate, there are two sides, which the group is divided into. Each group
meets for 5-10 minutes, and they compile 3 primary points to support their side. In addition, they
select one person from the group to introduce these points to the other group. They may also justify
these points, all within the two minute time limit. After both sides introduce their main points, each
side holds a meeting to determine what the content of the rebuttal will be, and they select a
(different) person to orate it. The rebuttal may only attack the other side’s main points, and the
score is deducted for that side if they attempt to defend themselves during the rebuttal. After, the
debate transitions into its final section, crossfire.

During the crossfire, each side may attack the other side, or defend their own points. The
moderator calls on a person to speak, and once they finish their comment, the other side has a
chance to respond. The person who delivers this response is chosen by the moderator. If a person
wants to respond, they raise their hand and raise from 1-3 fingers:

Fingers Meaning

1 Direct response to previous comment

2 Response to comment made earlier, on same topic

11
 3 Comment on a different/new topic

When the time limit that is set is reached, the moderator announces the victorious group. In
addition, a best speaker is selected.

3.3.4 Scoring
During the debate, the moderator takes notes on the various responses given by both sides.
Each group is trying to ‘win’ the main points given by both groups. If the moderator decides that one
group had a better argument for one of the points, or did better overall, he awards them a point.
Contradictions or other logical fallacies and errors in arguing a point for a group cause the
immediate loss of that point, if the fallacy is damaging enough. The moderator may also declare a
point to be a tie, and no group earns it. The group with the most points wins the debate. If a tie is
declared, the moderator selects which team wins, based on each team’s performance.

3.3.5 Motions
All standard procedures are in effect, except for the obvious (previous question)

3.3.6 Titles/Modification
There are no standard modifications to this debate structure. An example would be
(Philosophical Debate: human nature is inherently evil (neutral/good vs. evil)). The bolded words are
the keywords, and the italics are the two sides to the debate.

12
4. Research
4.1 Introduction
It is a double edged sword in JSA debates that sources do not have to be explicitly cited. In
this fashion, a debate made up of emotion or instinct may be presented, without the typical
challenging of sources. It is also possible, however, for an argument to be based off of invalid
premises to pass as a valid argument. In order to for one to back up their main points, it is
imperative that one research, to convey a position of correctness as well as authority. Although
research has a secondary role in JSA debates, it is still paramount towards the formation of an
argument, both a priori, far removed, and a posteriori.

4.2 How to Research

The first step of research is figuring out what needs to be researched. Be sure to determine
what you need to look up, what information you need, what bias it may contain, and how you will
proceed after finding the information. Determine what sources will be used, and weigh their
disadvantages and advantages. A newspaper or online article may be easy to come by, but is it
accurate? Can it prove its worth by its citations? If you are not confident in the source of a certain
piece of information, skip it and move on. After you have founded a couple core tenets for your
argument, cement them together, bind them using research, and go and expand your speech in
order to maximize the effectiveness of all your work. There can never be too many sources!

4.3 Utilizing Resources

At BCA, we have several resources that can and should be used to its fullest extent. Check
out the Online Reference Center, located at Students->Online Resources on bcts.bergen.org. Among
the more useful resources available are SIRS, which gives positions and perspectives on many hot-
button issues, Gale, and Facts on File. When using a newspaper, article, or report, make sure that
you are aware of any bias that went into the writing of this report (e.g. using the Wall Street Journal
vs. the New York Times for finance, or MSNBC vs. Fox for politics). Be sure to cite the bias in the
debate, or be able to counter opposing views on the topic at hand. Remember, never completely
trust a source.

13
5. Debating Tips
5.1 Voice/Posture
It is paramount to convey a position of authority while engaging in debate, so that the
audience is more likely to respect your opinion. Speak with a strong voice, in order to gain
confidence and authority from your listeners. By appearing strong, you may subconsciously make
the opposing side doubt their own arguments, and thus falter.

5.2 Taking Notes

While debating, it is imperative to know what your opponents have said earlier, and to be
able to respond to these comments. As it is nearly impossible to memorize every important point
and quote raised by both sides, the best way to record this information is to jot down notes. All JSA
formats allow the use of a notebook, or an electronic device that serves a similar function. Get into a
habit of writing notes so that you may be able to attack contradictions raised by the other side, and
find new viewpoints on the subject matter that you may be able to attack or defend.

5.3 Audience
Be sure to constantly engage he audience, as they will decide the victor of the debate and its
best speaker. If you are a primary speaker, structure your speech like Monroe’s Motivated sequence,
or a valley approach (climaxes in beginning and end) in order to engage your audience, and to make
sure that they will remember the high points of your speech. If you are a secondary speaker, it is less
likely, but still possible, that you will win the best speaker award. Try your hardest to swing the
audience over to your side, such that your side will win.

Another way to captivate the audience is by appealing to the audience using Ethos, Pathos
and Logos. Ethos is an appeal to the authority or honesty of the speaker. It convinces the audience
that the speaker is qualified to talk about the particular subject. This can be done by appealing to a
person’s ethics or character or using impressive Logos that shows the speaker is knowledgeable on a
topic. Pathos is an appeal to the emotions of the audience. It can be in the form of a metaphor or a
simile, or even in a very simple way by using a convicting tone of voice. Pathos can be particularly
powerful, but one should not rely solely on Pathos. Pathos is most effective when the author
connects with an underlying value of the audience. Finally, Logos is a logical appeal. It normally
means that the speaker uses facts and figures to support their argument, therefore making the
argument a logical one. Using Logos enhances Ethos because it makes the speaker look well-
informed and prepared. However, some data can be confusing or misleading, so it is best not to
overuse Ethos as the speaker should always want the audience to understand his or her argument.
By having a balance of Ethos, Pathos and Logos, one will be able to debate well and will have a
better chance of convincing the audience that their argument is more valid than the other side.

5.4 Fallacies
14
 Fallacies are perhaps the worst statement that a debater can make, and one it is imperative
to dodge these at all costs. A great way to win a debate is to find a fallacy or a contradiction in an
opponent’s argument, which will cause to the audience to doubt their infallibility and their authority.
An abridged table of fallacies can be found in Appendix B. It cannot be stressed enough that these
are to be avoided at all costs!

15
 6. Appendices
Appendix A —Parliamentary Procedure
Debates are to be run generally according to parliamentary procedure as stated in Robert's
Rules of Order, Revised. Included with this handbook is a chart on popular parliamentary procedure
and rules. After a general motion has been made, the rules are in effect. A motion is made by
raising your hand, being recognized by the moderator (chair), and telling the chair under what point
(or motion) you rise.

For example, if a member of the audience wanted to suspend the rules of the debate so that
speeches could be four minutes rather than the established three, he would:

1. Tell the moderator, "I move to suspend the rules";

2. State his objective, "to make speeches four minutes in length";
3. His motion would have to receive a second;
4. A vote would be taken and, if the motion received a two-thirds vote, it would pass.

A common motion is the point of personal privilege. You should rise to a point of personal
privilege if you are uncomfortable, unable to hear the speaker, need to leave the room, and so forth.
If you simply want to exit (for personal reasons), or want to open the window, you may not interrupt
the speaker. However, if something is seriously affecting the orderly progress of the debate, such as
your being unable to hear the speaker, then you may interrupt the speaker and ask the moderator
to rectify the situation. The procedure is the same as for extending time, but no second or vote is
needed. A subsequent speaker may have his time extended if a motion stating the amount of
additional time is made, seconded and passed with a vote of two-thirds or more.

Another important motion is the previous question. The procedure is exactly the same as
for extending time. If the motion passes, subsequent speeches are discontinued: the main speakers
present their closing speeches, and the vote is taken. The specific requirements for passage of the
motions along with all the pertinent details are contained on the chart below.

Name Purpose Can be made Second Debatable? Voting

if active needed structure
speaker?
Point of order Correct error in Yes No No Mod
Parliamentary Procedure decision
Personal Personal request during Yes No No Mod
privilege proceedings decision
Parliamentary Ask question about Yes No No Mod
Inquiry proceedings decision
To Adjourn To dismiss meeting No Yes No Majority
To To pause meeting No Yes Only length Majority
recess/caucus of time
2
To Suspend Take action contrary to No Yes No /3

16
rules any rule
2
To Extend To take action contrary to No Yes Only length /3
speaker’s time time limits of time
2
To Call the To stop debating No Yes No /3
previous resolution or amendment
question and jump to concluding
speeches
To amend Modify resolution No Yes Yes Majority
Main motion To introduce business or No Yes Yes Majority
resolution
--JSA Debate Handbook

Appendix B—Table of fallacies

Name Definition Example

Ad hominem Attacking the person, A: I believe that Universal Health Care should be
rather than the passed.
argument B: Don’t listen to him! He’s a firefighter!
Appeal to An authority says A: I heard from John Doe that abortion is immoral, and
authority something about a he is a PhD in psychology, therefore abortion is
subject, so he is immoral.
intrinsically right.
Appeal to belief A common belief is A: Most people in Europe believe that the Earth is the
held, so it that belief is center of the solar system (1600’s); therefore Earth is
true. the center of the solar system.
Appeal to Using an emotion to A: The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the
emotion justify the truth of a power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your
statement, rather than power. They will look up to you and wish they were
logically evaluating it. just like you. You will know the true joy of power.
TangerinePower.
Appeal to fear Use scare tactics to A: If you don’t agree with me, you will face the horrors
force a statement to be of hell!
true.
Appeal to An idea is better A: This is a better system of drug policing since it was
Novelty because it is new. just thought up, instead of the other methods.
Appeal to Use ridicule in order to Inigo Montoya: You are sure nobody’s follow’ us?
ridicule portray a true Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally,
statement as false. and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in Guilder
knows what we've done, and no one in Florin could
have gotten here so fast. - Out of curiosity, why do you
ask?
Appeal to Say that since a A: No Child Left Behind has worked so far, so why
tradition method has always change it?

17
 been used, it should
continue to be used.
Bandwagon Use peer pressure to A: I don’t know about you, but I love to listen to
discomfort audience Mozart. It’s so relaxing!
member with their B: Dude, only old people listen to Mozart. Anthrax is
opinion awesome!
A: Yeah, you’re right.
Begging the Using the assumption A: God exists!
Question of truth of the B: How do you know that?
conclusion in order to A: It’s in the bible!
justify the conclusion B: Who wrote the bible?
A: God did!
Biased sample Citing a statistic that is A: 90% of all Americans do not support Congress’s new
inherently biased, law!
which makes it B: Where did you get that from?
nullified. A: Fox News!
Correlation does Just because events X A: Ever since you started playing that new game, you
not imply and Y occur together attended church less! That game is making you
causation does not imply that irreverent!
one is the cause of the
other.
Hasty A biased conclusion is A: I hate dogs!
Generalization generated by only a B: Why?
few experiences. A: They’re vicious! I was playing with my friend’s dog,
and it bit me three times!
Poisoning the Discrediting anything A: As I close my speech, I remind the audience that my
well another person says opponent is a Communist, and should therefore his
later by a personal intentions should not be trusted.
attack.
Post Hoc Since event X occurs A: I used to fail every English test I took, until my
before event Y, X is the boyfriend gave me a silver bracelet. After that, I aced
cause of Y. all three of my finals! I’m never taking a test without
that bracelet ever again!
Red Herring An irrelevant topic is A: As I was saying, not passing this environmental
presented for the sole reform bill will be detrimental to our agricultural
purpose of diverting industries.
the discussion to this B: Look! A distraction!
new topic.
Slippery Slope Since an event has A: Tuition must stop rising! If it doesn’t, it’ll cost
occurred, all $60,000 to go to college per year!
extrapolations of that
event will also occur.
Straw Man A person attacks a A: The NFL should follow the NCAA in banning the use
weaker yet superficially of anabolic steroids among its players. Prolonged

18
 similar position instead steroid use has proven to be harmful with such side-
of the position at hand. effects as liver dysfunction, cancer, heart ailments, and
hormone imbalance. I hope that in the end the NFL will
realize that the health of its athletes is the most
important issue.
B: A is nothing more than a purist who would have us
go back to the days of leather helmets. Doesn't he
realize that this is the '80's? Sports technology has
given athletes a chance to develop themselves to their
maximum potential. He would deny them this
opportunity? An athlete owes it to himself to be the
best he can be. If he wants to compete, he'll have to
use steroids because every other athlete does.
Two wrongs Stating that two A: The death penalty should be generally accepted,
make a right negative actions cancel because the state only kills those who kill others.
each other out.
—The Nizkor Project, drury.edu

19
Written by:

Jared Miller-Director of Debate

Rebecca Raub-Director of Debate

Cabinet 2010-2011:

Josh Leifer-President

Sam Rosenblum-SAR

Grace Sullivan-SAR

Michael Mintz-Director of Communications

Olivia Iskaros-Director of Fundraising

Rebecca Raub-Director of Debate

Jared Miller-Director of Debate

Mr. Demeter-Chapter Advisor

20