Fundamentals of Debate

1. Fundamentals of Debate

2. Definitions Argumentation - The art and science of using primarily logical appeals to secure decisions. Debate - Discuss, engage in an argument for and against; dispute, reflect, consider. A controversy; a contest by argumentation. Affirmative (“Pro”) - Acts to accept the proposition given Negative (“Con”) - Acts to refute the affirmative

3. Elements of Effective Persuasion Logos - Rational appeal – facts, figures, theories, logical developments, inductive and deductive reasoning. Ethos - Credibility appeal – poise, professionalism, reliable and credible sources, power, “strength” of character. Pathos - Emotional appeal – stories, lessons, the human dimension.

4. Affirmative (“Pro”) Role Description - Establish a prima facie case; that is, a case that provides good and sufficient reason for adopting the proposition. - Design arguments to explain why adoption of proposition is good and why the status quo is inadequate. - Has the burden of proof. If Pro were to remain silent, Con should by default automatically win. - Given proposition is a hint to the objective of the Pro side.

5. Negative (“Con”) Role Description - Burden of rebuttal; refute the affirmative stance - In favor of the status quo; build arguments against adopting the proposition. - Defensive Role (vs. attack role of the affirmative) - Flexibility is a key to winning.

6. Simple Debate Format -15 minute preparation (both sides) -Pro side opening argument (3 minutes) -Con side opening argument (3 minutes) -Pro side rebuttal against con opening statement (2 minutes) -Con side rebuttal against pro opening and pro rebuttal (2 minutes) -Con side closing statement (1 minute) -Pro side closing statement (1 minute)

7. Affirmative Strategies One Need, Plan, Advantage Strategy - Need: Arguments to establish the need for changing the status quo because of its inherent disadvantages; establish a foundation - Plan: Establish the plan for improvement and supporting evidence for the usefulness of the plan - Advantage: Establish the advantages of the need and the plan over the status quo Types of Need, Plan, Advantage - Classical Needs: status quo is completely unacceptable - Modified Needs: status quo has some advantages but not enough - Moral Issue Needs: status quo is pragmatically ok, but certain moral injustices exist.

8. Affirmative Strategies Two Comparative Advantages - Used when there is a better way to obtain the goals of the status quo - Status quo has advantages but there is a better way to get them (comparative advantages) - Pro side IDs the “goals” and “ends” of the status quo. Con side is likely to agree. - Plan produced must be superior and significant to the one hinted at in the proposition. Plan’s advantages must outweigh the disadvantages. - Net gain!

9. Negative Strategies One Classical Negative: - Status Quo is acceptable. Main attack is upon the pro’s needs. - Subordinate attacks thrust towards the pro’s plan and advantages. - Any of the pro’s plans and advantages are considered worse than status quo or irrelevant. Repairs Negative: - Status quo is generally sound in principle; a few minor changes would make it acceptable and desirable - Used when forced to admit to some disadvantages to the status quo - Be careful not to “give away” to much to the pro side (audience, judges)

10. Negative Strategies Two Attack on the Need - Con side advocates that the needs as outlined by the pro are not needed thus no reason to change the status quo Attack on the Plan - Plan as given by the pro side will create greater/more serious disadvantages and weaknesses than currently existing - Used often when status quo is admitted to contain some disadvantages and often effective against the comparative advantages strategy Need-Plan Wedge - Pro side’s plan, even if it could do what is claimed will not solve the needs even if the needs existed. - If plan is incapable of addressing a need, who cares about advantages?

11. Negative Strategies Three Running Refutation - Strike at each stage fairly equally; counter evidence and argument at each stage - Requires very close coordination between the speakers. - Often used by a well prepared Con side. Can often bury a weaker pro side decisively Mix and Match - Mix of attack on plan, need-plan wedge, running refutation, attack on plan - Requires very close coordination between the speakers.

12. Negative Strategies Four Counter Plan - Con side believes the pro has misunderstood or misidentified the status quo needs or goals; a counter plan may be possible - Con side proposes a counter plan that ID’s the need or goal but the pro side’s plan is incapable of solving or obtaining it. - If the Con side’s plan is as good then that of the pro side, then the pro side has failed to meet the burden of proof - Con side’s counter plan must be inconsistent with the pro-side’s proposition otherwise it will be taken by the pro side with devastating effect - Plan and Counter plan are often mutually exclusive - Extreme caution is needed by the con side. This could appear, if care is not taken, to as a concession!

13. Rebuttal (both Pro and Con) Rebuttal Embraces the Following: - Overthrowing the opposition’s evidence by showing it to be invalid, erroneous, or irrelevant - Overthrowing the opposition’s evidence by introducing other evidence that contradicts it, casts doubt, or minimizes its effects - Overthrowing the opposition’s reasoning by turning it against the opposition, contradicts it, or minimizes its effect - Overthrowing the opposition’s reasoning by showing such reasoning is faulty - Rebuilding evidence by introducing new and additional evidence to substantiate it - Rebuilding reasoning by introducing new and additional reasoning to substantiate it - Presenting exploratory refutation for the purpose of probing, clarification, or force the opposition to clarify itself

14. Final Tips -Ideas must flow naturally -Need a balance of logos, ethos, and pathos and the topic and situation will guide the balance -Both speakers must speak but they do not have to alternate. -Practice all the elements of effective speaking -Keep to the time limits -No new ideas or information in the closing arguments -Watch out for logical fallacies (erroneous reasoning) -Watch for hot topics in the news and in the Jaycees