Easters & Australs
Style (first semester)
>>Basics of Easters and Australs
Debating
>>Speaker Roles:
First Affirmative
Speakers
Definition.
You should explain what the key terms mean, this may require you to set the
debate if the definition has more than one meaning or is not clear. Be careful
not to define truistically which is where you leave the other team arguing the
unarguable like hunger is good. Your definition must be reasonable which means
it should not be obscure; it could relate to issues in the media at the time.
Team summary (case split).
Where you allocate the arguments between you and your second speaker; it is important
so that you can develop your case without being repetitive and so the audience
can see where your going
Case.
Now is the time to develop your argument. Divide this area into a couple of
points and carefully signpost your matter. Argue by issue, not example and at
the end, briefly recap and state how the next speaker will build.
First Negative
Speakers
Definitional issues. State whether you accept of reject your opponents’
definition. If you accept then move onto rebuttal. You may reject the
affirmative's definition if it is truistic (self-proving; irrebuttable).
Remember that if you accuse a team of a truism, you must not be able to rebut
them. You may also reject if you believe your definition is more reasonable you
must state the difference, why yours is better and why your opponents is not as
good. If your opponent gives a perfectly reasonable definition that you did not
anticipate then try not to challenge, as it is messy.
You must refute!
Critique you opponent's arguments. Do it in a structured way maybe dividing it
into two or three main themes and carefully signposting your way. Be careful
not to rebut the examples but the issues.
Team summary (case split).
Same as for the affirmative.
Case.
Develop like affirmative.
Affirmative
Speakers
Summarise.
Briefly summarise what has happened in the debate and how your speech will
build on the first speaker's speech in order to prove the team line. This
should be very brief.
You must refute! Rebut the main arguments of your opponents. Good
rebuttal should not come in the form of a list where the longest list wins.
Rather, good rebuttal should simplify your opponent's case into a few central
issues which you can then attack. When rebutting, you should first deal with
any definitional issues that may have arisen. Also remember to use examples to
support your counter arguments.
Case.
Once you have rebutted, you should then spend your time putting forward the
substantive arguments of your team, as this is your main role. These arguments
should be signposted and they should, in turn, be discussed in depth. The
concept of discussing in depth is not as daunting as it seems; it can be
likened to writing essays where you write in paragraphs, not sentences. So too
in debating, your matter should be 'in paragraphs' where you state your
premise, explain the premise and then support that premise with examples. After
that, a good essay writer and debater will summarise. Summarise.
Recap what you have said to make it clear that both you and your first speaker
have been building a case.
Negative Speakers
Summarise.
As stated before, make sure that you contrast the developments of each case and
briefly state how you plan to continue that development.
You must refute!
This should follow the structure of the second affirmative. However, remember
that since there have been two preceding affirmative speeches, you will have
considerably more to rebut and thus rebuttal will need to be more
comprehensive. Summarise your speech and the case of your team, trying to put
the speech into an overall context by looking also at the approach of your
opponents. However this contrast need only be brief, as you will have dealt
with the main issues of your opponent in rebuttal.
Case.
Now you must put forward your substantive material. Again, do all the good
matter and method things: keep relevant, structure logically (in paragraph form
as mentioned just to the left), carefully signpost all of your arguments and
support all of your arguments with examples, or at least whenever you can.
Summarise.
Summarise your speech and the case of your team, trying to put the speech into
an overall context by looking also at the approach of your opponents. However
this contrast need only be brief as you will have dealt with the main issues of
your opponent in rebuttal.
Third Affirmative
Speakers
Summarise.
Highlight the main themes of each side and show the contrast. Number these main
themes so you can substantively rebut your opponent next.
You must Refute!
You should spend 80-90 percent of your speech doing this. You should pick a few
main themes to rebut - your opponents may have already set these up in their
own split and allocation. This allows you to rebut thematically rather than
move from one inconclusive example to another. Just as you put forward your
arguments in paragraphs not sentences, do the same for your rebuttal. Keep
signposting! You should not really have time to worry about new material.
Summarise and conclude.
Recap the main themes of the debate, after your substantial rebuttal, you
should be able to contrast team lines confidently highlighting how your case is
superior.
Third Negative
Speakers
Summarise.
Highlight the main themes of each side and show the contrast. Number these main
themes so you can substantively rebut your opponent next.
You must refute!
You should spend 80-90 percent of your time rebutting. Again, like mentioned
for 3rd aff., you should highlight and rebut main themes as opposed to multiple
examples - remember that when the issue underlying the example falls, so does
the example but not necessarily vice-versa. Under no circumstances can a third
negative speaker introduce new material but if it is a new example to clarify a
previously put theory or rebuttal of material then this will NOT be considered
new material.
Summarise and conclude.
Again, go over the main themes, comparing and contrasting. Though you have last
say, you need not yell to be convincing. Be clear and concise and identify the
important issues.
Definitions
The 1st Affirmative speaker introduces the motion and defines the key terms in
the motion. This definition is intended to limit the scope of the debate to a
specific and focused area. The 1st Affirmative then goes on to state the stand
of the Affirmative, and presents the strategy, or theme line, that the team
will use in order to justify this stand. Definitions should be reasonable,
clear and true to the spirit of the motion. Truistic, tautological and circular
definitions are strictly prohibited. Squirreling (definitions that are in no
way related to the spirit of the motion) and time/place setting are also not
allowed.
The Negative team must not just oppose the motion, but also build a
counter-case against the Affirmative team. In the event that the Negative feels
that the definition is invalid, the 1st Negative speaker may challenge
the Affirmative’s definition and propose an alternative definition. However,
the Negative cannot raise a definitional challenge simply on the basis that
their definition is more reasonable.
This is a short phrase or sentence
that focuses the arguments of your team. It should be a uniting point that can
be repeated, not word for word, but the gist of it. This should underline the
approach your team is taking to the debate. Your team should use this team line
consistently.
Some of the best rebuttal you can do
is to directly attack the team line used by your opponents. Say something like:
"the basis of our opponents case has been... this is flawed because of
these reasons..."
Adjudication is the process of determining which team wins the debates.
There is always a winner in a debate. There are no ‘draws’ or ‘ties’. The
speakers are assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is 40 points, Manner is 40, and Method is 20, making
a total of 100 points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter
and Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50 points.
Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples
brought up during the course of the debate. Manner is concerned with the
style of public speaking – the use of voice, language, eye contact, notes,
gesture, stance, humor and personality as a medium for making the audience more
receptive to the argument being delivered. There are no set rules, which must
be followed by debaters. Method consists of the effectiveness of the
structure and organization of each individual speech, the effectiveness of the
structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and the extent to which
the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.
Disclaimer: Significant portions of this tutorial have been
reproduced from a guide to Australasians debating. Unfortunately, the
source remains unclear but we nonetheless thank the author.