DEBATE HANDBOOK - Lagoon Toastmasters

1 DEBATEHANDBOOKDEBATEHANDBOOKPaulHunsinge r, SpeechDepartmentAlanPrice, DebateRoyWood, ForensicsPrintedwithpermissionof thecopyrightownersbyToastmastersInternat ional, , (714)542-6793 FAX;(714)543-7801(Appreciationis expressedto themanyToastmasterswhohaveassistedin makingthisbookletpossible.)CODE104 Revised1988 CONTENTSI ntroduction5 HowYouCanBenefitfromDebating5 Whatis DEBATE ?5 OrganizingtheDebate5 DebateFormats5 PresumptionandBurden"of Proof.. 6 Issues6 PreparationfortheDebate"6 Contentions.. 7 BuildingYourCase7 Typesof Cases.,..7 SpeakerResponsibilities8 JudgingA Debate9 Bibliography11 TellUsAboutYourDebateProgram12 DebateJudgingSheet13 INTRODUCTIONI ncreasingnumbersof Toastmastersclubsarediscoveringthemanybe nefitsof includingformaldebateas partof formaldebatewillstimulatea debateprogramsalsooffersToastmasterstheo pportunityto makea significantcontributionto ,theprogramcanthenbe expandedtoincludeinter-club,inter-area, thedebatersbecomemorecognizantandpolishe d,theycanthenbeginto inviteoutsidegroupsto selectinga topicthat'sof currentim-portancein yourlocalcommunity,theparticipantsandthe audiencewillhavethechanceto becomemoreknowledgeableaboutthesubjectan dmorereadilyableto forman stagea debateof thisnature,workup an announcementof thetopic,participants,time.

2 To thevariousnewsmediain surealsoto contacttheofficialsof otherorganizations,churchgroups,andschoo ls,invitingtheirmembersor copyof youran-nouncementso theymaypassit aroundor postiton a thebasicprinciplesof learningaboutthesubjectin moredetailshouldreferto thebookslistedon You Can Benefitfrom DebatingA formaldebateoffersto theToastmasteranoutstandingopportunityto developthethreebasicabilitiesthatarethef oundationof developsbetterlistening,thinking,andspea kingnotonlyfor participantsbutforspectatorsas a debatedevelopsyourabilitytomakea quickresponse,presentcoherentarguments,a ndmakea clearpresentationof Toastmasterfinda moreidealmethodfor learningcompetitivespeakingin a "head-on" debateis a speakingeventin whichtwosidesusereasoneddiscourseto argueabouta eachteamis to con-vincea panelof judgesandtheaudiencethatitsargumentson thesubjectare betterthanthoseof on logic,butemotionalappealsandlogicalargum entsthatalsocarryemo-tionalweightmaybe ,debategeneral-ly is characterizedby emphasison logical, DebateAnydebatemustbeginwiththepropositi on,orsubject,to be all casesit shouldbe adeclarativesentencewhichadvocatesa changefromthestatusquo(thewaythingsprese ntlyarebeingdone).

3 A debatepropositiongenerallywillbe oneof threegeneraltypes:it willdealwitha questionof policy,fact,or goodtopicwilllikelybeonebasedon policyratherthanfactor beliefbecausea factualpropositionallowstoolittleroomfor argu-ment,whilea propositionbasedon beliefor debatepropositionnormallyis statedin a for-malstyle,whichincludes,basically:"Re solved:Thatshould" Theword"should"is usedto conveythemeaning"oughtto"anddoesnotimply thepropositionindeedwillcometo providemoreinterestin thedebatefor bothpar-ticipantsandaudience,theproposit ionshoulddealwitha topicthat'sof takenwhenwordinga proposi-tion,thatit doesnotprovideunfairadvantageto defined, typicaldebatepropositionswouldbe:"Resolv ed:Thatthenationalgovernmentshouldguaran teetheopportuni-ty fora highereducationto allqualifiedhighschoolgraduates.

4 ""Resolved:Thatthecityshouldputacrosswal kin frontof thereasonsforstatingthepropositioninsuch a wayis thatit providesspeakerstheoppor-tunityto speakeror speakerswilltaketheaffirmativesideof theproposition(supportit),whiletheothers peakeror speakerswilltakethenegativeside(opposeit ).Eachteamthenis iden-tifiedmerelyas "theaffirmative"or "thenegative."Beforeproceedingwiththedeb ate,all participantsshouldagreeuponthewordingof theproposition,makingsureit' constructiveandrebuttalspeechesby controversialtermscontainedin its thewordingshouldbe broughtoutby ,variousformatsmaybe used;butsincenotallof themwillbeof generalinteresttoToastmasters, TraditionalDebate(FourSpeakers)Construct iveSpeechesAffirmative#1-10minutesNegati ve#1-10minutesAffirmative#2-10minutesNeg ative#2-10minutesRebuttalSpeechesNegativ e#1-5minutesAffirmative# 1-5minutesNegative#2-5minutesAffirmative #2-5minutesA specialtypeof workswellin clubprogramsbecauseit includespreparedspeechesanda (FourSpeakers)

5 ConstructiveSpeechesAffirmative# 1- 5 minutesNegative#1-5minutesAffirmative#2- 5minutesNegative#2-5minutesCross-examina tionandRefutationNegative# 1 cross-examinesAffirmative#1-3minutesAffi rmative#2 cross-examinesNegative#2-3minutesNegativ e# 1 refutationandsummary-3minutesAffirmative # 1 refutationandsummary-3minutesPresumption and Burdenof ProofThepresumptionin debateis thatthestatusquois satisfactoryuntilit proofthereforeis changefromthestatusquois a debateareimportantquestionsthatwillbe answeredyesby theaffirmativeandno by substantiatedby theissuesinherentin thewordingof thepro-positionandmustalsobe preparedto ,inquestionsof policy,theseissuesare:1. Is therea need(oris it desirable)for a change?2. Is therea planbywhichtheneedcanbesatisfied?3. Wouldthebenefitsof theplanoutweighthedisadvantages?

6 Issuesforthenegativewouldbe :1. Thepresentsystemis satisfactoryor Theproposedplanwouldbe Theproposedchangewillnotbe a practicalsolutionto is advisablewhenplanninga debateforaToastmastersprogramto limitthenumberof issuesinherentin thewordingof "crosswalk"propositionhasonlyonemajoriss uein its wording,whileourotherexamplecon-tainsmor eissuesandwouldtakelongerto the DebateIn theirpreparationfor a DEBATE ,debatersshouldanalyzethepropositi onandtheargumentsfor andagainstits ,thereshouldbeareviewof whatseemsto havecreatedtheproblemindicatedbythewordi ngof thepropositionthenshouldbe studiedto seethatthereis no inherentadvantageforoneteamor generallyis alsoa goodideato the questionto get an ideaof ,collectall the argumentsandevidenceyoucanfindwhichrelat eto magazinesandnewspaperswhichcarryin-forma tionon to narrowthequestionandputasideall thispointin yourpreparationit is helpfulif youcanmutuallyagreewiththeoppositionabou texclusionof ,it maybe agreedthattheconstitu-tionalityof a propositionshouldbe regardedas ir-relevantmaterialsincetheconstitutionh asbeenamendedmanytimesandcanbe muchevidenceas possible,keepingtrackof helpfulto organizeevidenceon cards,keep-ingthesecardsin a boxin frontof theplacewherethedebatewillbeheldandseewh erethetimekeeperis theactualpresentationof thedebatetheaffir-mativedoesnotneedto statethatit hastheburdenof proof,nordoeseitherteamneedto judgesshouldunderstandtheseconceptsin orderto understandtheresponsibilitiesof.

7 Theaffir-mativeteamneednotusetheterm"iss ues"norstatetheissuesin thedebateitself,butspeakersmustunderstan dtheissuesbeforehandso theymaycometo indirectlyfromtheanalysisof the propositionandtheargumentsandareusedto contention,however,is notproofnoris it tobe regardedas an issuein the DEBATE ~Theaffirmativecontentionsusuallyw illbe thatthereis a demandforan immediatechangefromthestatusquoandthatth ischangecanbe broughtaboutin sucha waythatit wouldnotonlysolvetheproblembutwouldbe a developingtheircontentions,theaffirmativ eusuallywillpointouthowtheirplanis , ,thenegativewouldcon-tendthatthe presentsystemis operatingsatisfactorilyandthatnecessarya djustmentsalreadyarebeingmadeforanyevils pointedoutby administrationof the planandits enact-ment,pointingouttherearecertainevi lshere, CaseEachteammustbuildits casein a ,buildinga caseis thefor-mal,methodicalpresentationofyourt eam' caseis builtuponthreetofivemajorcontentions,eac hbackedwithevidenceto supporttheissuesof allowedto standif it is notbackedwithevidence, caseswhichcanbe of CasesTypesof Casesfor the AffirmativeOneof themostcommontypesof casesis theSTOCKISSUECASE,in whichthe affirmativeusesthestockissuesto supportits ,theaffirmativemust:one,establishthatex- istingconditionsdemanda changefromthestatusquo;two,identifya planwhichwillprovidethechange;andthree,s howthattheproposedchangeWIllbe wonby isolatingtheissuesinherentin thepropositionandby presentinglogical,validevidencewhichsupp ortstheseissues.

8 ( builtby provingtheopposite.)_ Theconceptmaybe illustratedby comparingitwitha onestate,for ex-ample,is definedas "breakingandenteringabuildingwiththe intentto commita felonyor misde-meanortherein."Alltheitalicizedwor dsconstituteissues,andtheprosecutingatto rney(affirmative)wouldhaveto supporteachof themto winthecase(thedebate).If the prosecutorprovedthatthedefen-dantbrokein toandenteredthebuildingbutfailedto proveintent,thedefendantmightbe guiltyof alessercrimebutnotburglary.(Theaffirmati vedidnotsubstantiateall theissues.)A CHAINOFREASONINGCASEis a thestockissuecaseandemploysa seriesofsyllogismsrelatedlogicallyto ,if oneof theseriesis accepted,it is reasonableto onein whichtheaffir-mativeintroducestyvoor morecontentionsby us-ingthe methodsemployedin a stockissuecase,thenunitingthesecontentio nsin onein eithercontentionstandsin the DEBATE ,theaffirmativehas' basedupontheideathatthereasonfor acceptingthepropositionis thefailureof correcttheproblemandpointsoutthatnoneof Casesfor the NegativeOneof themosteffectivemethodsof buildingacaseforthenegativeis , in essence,an "adjustmentandrepairs"casebuiltupontheid eathatthestatusquois ,afterminimizingtheevils, thenegativecanrefutetheevilspointedoutby theaffirmativeandestablishthatadjustment sarebeingmade.

9 Theyhaveweakenedtheaffirmative's"need" caseusuallyinvolvespointingoutnewevilswh ichwouldemergefromthe"radicalchange"prop osedby ,too,thattheaffirmativeplanwouldbe impossibleto administrateandwouldnotreallymeettheneed sas establishedin thefirstpartof thenegative'sargumentsagainsttheaffirmat ive' onein whichthenegativegenerallywilladmitsomepa rtof theneedas presentedby alternateproposalthatis differentfromtheaffirmative'sandwillsolv etheproblemsmentionedby theaffirmativein theiranalysisof theirownplan, ,in a caseof thisnaturethenegativeassumestheburdenof theproofthatthecounterplanwillnotonlymee ttheneedbutwillbe a bettersolutionthantheaffirmative' essence,thenegative,by advocatinga counterplan,hastakenoverpartof therolenormallyas-sumedby the thusis essentialthattheirplanbe significantlydifferentfromtheplanof matterof ethicsis involvedin presentingacounterplan,andthenegativesho uldnotwaitun-til thesecondnegativeconstructivespeechto in-troduceit.

10 Rather,thefirstnegativespeakershouldexpl ainthata counterplanis beingused,andthespeakershoulddevelopthe counterplanas complete-ly as possiblein casefor thenegativeis calledtheEVENIF CASE,in whichthenegativerefutestheneedfora changeandthenproceedsto showthat"evenif' thestatusquowereunsatisfactory,theaf-fir mativepropositionwouldnotbe the"evenif'caseis theconten-tionthatthereis no needfor abandoningthestatusquoand,evenif conditionswereas badas theaffir-mativecontends,theaffirmativepr oposalwouldresultin casebythenegativeis DIRECTREFUTATION,in whicheveryargumentadvancedby theaffirmativeis dealtwith,counteredanddefeatedby the"shotgun"approachin oneof theweakestmethodsof bettermethodis thatof summarizingtheaffirmative' ,usinga rifleinsteadof #11. Givetheintroductiona.