Introduction About Debate MATTER 素材
1. ?Matter? relates to the issues in debate, the case being presented and the material used to substantiate argumentation.
2. The issues under debate should be correctly prioritized (by teams) and ordered (by individuals), dealing with the most important/pertinent first.
3. Matter should be logical and well reasoned.
4. Matter should be relevant, both to the issue in contention and the cases being advanced.
5. Matter should be persuasive. wNo ?new matter? is to be introduced during Reply Speeches. The Reply Speech presents teams with an opportunity to focus on the major issue(s) in the debate and the way in which both teams approach that ?point of Clash?. The Reply Speech should also give an ?optimistic overview? of the general approach to the debate by both sides and focus on the relative merits of the case by the side Replying, and the relative weaknesses in the case of the opposing team.
wAll speakers should develop ?positive matter? in advancing their respective cases. While an Opposition team may win by demonstrating that the Government has not proved the motion true, they should not rely purely on their rebuttal of the Government case and will likely benefit from presenting positive matter in opposition to the motion.
MANNER 辩论风格 a) Vocal Style: Volume, clarity, pronunciation, pace, intonation, fluency, confidence, and authority.
b) Language: Conversational.
c) Use of notes: Should not distract, should not be read. d) Eye Contact: With audience. e) Gesture: Natural, appropriate. f) Sincerity: Believability.
g) Personal Attacks: (derogatory comments are not to be tolerated).
h) Humor: Effectiveness, appropriateness.
METHOD 辩论方法
The major influence on an adjudicator must be: ?Is the speaker?s and team?s Method EFFECTIVE in advancing the case??
a) Organization: The structuring of individual arguments and
ordering of collective arguments in the speeches .
b) Issue Selection: The identification of relevant points of clash in the round.
c) Perspective: The ability to explain the relevance of individual arguments to the motion being argued.
d) Refutation: The willingness and ability to engage and critique the points offered by the opposing team.
e) Teamwork: The degree to which the members of a team work together to collectively advance a strategy.
How to Choose Motions?
Prioritization of 3 Motions Given Based on: a) Knowledge Resource of Team members How much do we know of this issue? b) Debating Positions of Your Team
What advantage will we have with this motion as Government/Opposition team?
c) Knowledge of Opposing Team?s status
What are the strengths/weaknesses of our Opponents in this debate?
Case Construction involves:
Defining the Motion & Creating Arguments that support it: Defining the Motion means
a) Clearly stating meanings of “key terms”
E.g. “This House believes that professional athletes are good role models for Chinese youth.”
b) Establish Team Line (Base Line) & Split: Motion
(THBT the world is a global village) Team Line/Base Line/Stance
Because of the existence of interdependence and common interest Spilt/Case Division
This is true in the a) social arena, b) geopolitical realm and c) economic sphere
c) Creating Arguments that support it
wPrioritize the Arguments with the strongest presented first to prove global interdependence and growing common interest:
wArgument 1 (1stSpeaker)
wSocial Arena --evidence, case studies, statistics, trend analysis, etc
wArgument 2 (1stSpeaker)
wGeopolitics --ditto
wArgument 3 (2ndSpeaker) wGlobal Economics --ditto
w3rd Speakers must not carry new arguments
Setting Opposition Case wProposing “Status Quo”
“Why change when things are fine now …” wOffering a “Counter Proposal”
“Our plan works better than yours ….? wProvide “Positive Objections”
“Yours does not work and will be harmful to…”
w** Oppn needs to have team line, split, prioritized arguments in 1stand 2ndSpeakers too!
Refutation Strategies
wWhat are Rebuttals?
Arguments raised in response to Oppn?s arguments. Comprises analysis of why Oppn is wrong, is consistent with own case, as well support/reinforce own team line
wHow to do it?
State what argument is rebutted, explain flaw(s) in argument, support it with evidence. examples, case studies, and finally linking it relevantly to your side of the topic.
Rebutting Parts of Arguments
w1. Factual Error: Your argument is factually wrong
“Your statistics/example/case studies are wrong because ….” w2. Your argument is not supported by any evidence
“You merely asserted that ... without providing any relevant examples…”
w3.The consequences of your argument are not acceptable (morally, socially, etc)
w“How could you ban smoking in pubs when it violates the right of the smoker and his friends to socialize together …”
w4.Not Important: Your argument is correct but has little weight in this debate
w“Your policy helps on the minority, the smokers, but what about the majority of the non-smokers who have to inhale second-hand smoke in pubs …”
w5.Your argument is illogical –the conclusions do not follow from
the premises
w“You claim that banning cigarette advertisements on TV will cause more young people to smoke as it makes smoking more mysterious and enticing, like a forbidden fruit, but I submit to you that the opposite is more likely to be true: banning a steady stream of advertisements depicting smoking as glamorous/attractive will REDUCEthe number of young people who smoke.”
w6. Not Relevant/Irrelevant:
w“The fact that smoking causes cancer is not relevant to this debate because the issue at hand is the right of individual citizens to make informed choices concerning their own personal health ….”
w7. Contradiction in Opponents? Arguments
wPoint out that the speakers/team are not clear about their own case. To be able to catch the opponents contradicting themselves requires good tracking skills, that is, skills in good note-taking and Active Listening.
w8. Failure to perform roles/responsibilities declared
wPM: “ To totally destroy the Opposition and win today?s debate, the Government will do the following 3 things:
wshow that women are stronger than men wshow that women are smarter than men
wshow that women are wiser leaders than men
wto prove that women are true heroes of the New Millennium.”
wTo damage the opponents, point out their failure to cover the areas they promised to go over in the PM?s speech.
Rebutting the Case as a Whole
wTo break down the case of the opponents, it is not enough to rebut each/all/random arguments put forth by them.
wWinning a debate will require you to systematically break down a team?s case.
Here are the questions/points to consider
w1 What is their approach to the case? Is it flawed? Why?
w2 What tasks did they set themselves? Did they address them? What problems are there in the way they address them?
w3 What is the general emphasis of the case? What assumptions are made? Can they be refuted?
w4 What are the key arguments of the other side? How can they be shown to be flawed?
w5.Focus on identifying the key issues/arguments which are used to support the case of the opponents and then systematically breaking
them down by showing that they cannot stand up to scrutiny.
w**Do not try to shoot down all examples/arguments as there will not be enough time, and is unsystematic.
Point of Information（POI）
wPOIs are comments made by members directed at the speech of wthe member holding the floor; POI should be brief, pertinent and wpreferably witty. Points of order and points of personal privilege ware prohibited.
Offering & Responding to Points of Information (POIs) wA POI can be a Question or a Statement/Clarification/Contradiction and should not take more than 15 seconds
wEach Speaker is strongly encourage toAccept at least 2POIs
wAll team members should try to give POIs without being disruptive
How POIs offered are judged
w1.The threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the debater,
w2.Value of its wit and humour How POIs taken are judged
w1.Promptness and Confidence in answering w2.Strength of the Response w3.Value of wit and humour
“please answer my question” “my dear friend”
wWe think this is tremendous waste of your words by always saying “my dear friends”, “please answer my questions” so bluntly.
考核要求及标准
w辩论技巧：辩手语言是否流畅，说理、分析是否透彻，反驳和应变能力是否强，说服力和逻辑性是否强。
w内容：论点和论据内容是否正确、充实，引用资料和实例是否恰当。 w风度和幽默感：辩手的表情、动作是否恰当，是否有风度及幽默感。
w自由辩论：各队在自由辩论中的识辩能力、说明能力和逻辑性是否强，接句是否合适，回答是否中肯，反驱是否有力、有理，反应是否机敏，用语是否得体。
w整体合作：全队各辩手的论点是否一致，结构是否完整，队员之间的配合、合作是否默契。
w个人表现：全队每个辩手的参与度如何，全队辩手的整体实力是否强。