@ BETTER DEBATE MANUAL
Thinking and Speaking a Better World
There are two types of debates in World Schools Debate Format – prepared and impromptu ones.
Debaters usually get the motions for prepared debates a few months in advance – can be from 6 months to 1 month. They usually need to prepare for both sides of the motions because the majority of the tournaments use power pairing system and you do not know in advance on which side of the motion will you debate at the tournament itself or there are tournaments were you do debate the prepared motion twice, once as proposition and once as opposition, so each team needs always to prepare for both sides. This is a regular practice at all regional high school tournaments in Slovenia and numerous tournament in other countries as well. The international tournaments which are organised in such a way are among others Bratislava Schools Debate Championship in Slovakia, Winter Debate Tournament in Zagreb, Croatia …
Think On Your Feet
Impromptu Debates
Preparation for Impromptu Debates
The most important point to remember about impromptu preparation is that it should be orderly and organised. There ought to be a structure to your discussion, and you should be aware at all times where in the process of case creation you are.
The second most important point to remember is that division of labour applies to preparation for debates as well. There is no reason why all members of your team should do the same thing at all times. To increase efficiency, sometimes you should do different things at the same time.
This is the recommended structure of impromptu preparation.
1. INDIVIDUAL BRAINSTORMING
Debaters prepare for prepared debates in their weekly debate clubs meetings, where they compare their research materials, share ideas, prepare cases, debate at practice debates. Preparing for prepared debates together with doing exercises for improving critical thinking and debate skills are the most common activities of the debate clubs. Debate coaches assist debaters in preparing the cases.
The motions for impromptu debates are released an hour before the debate starts. You always debate the motion for impromptu debate only once and you are on the side which the tabb program assign it. Debaters need to prepare for impromptu debates by themselves, coaches are not allowed to help them. The same is true also for other people – debaters prepare only within their own teams and they can use only one almanach/encyclopedia in printed version. No electronic toys – no computer, I-pad, telephone … are allowed. No material from previous or practice debates can be used as well. Debaters debating in foreign languages, like an Australian debater debating in Spanish or Chinese debater debating in Russian or Romanian debater debating in English they are allowed to also have the foreign language/mother tongue dictionary.
Usually the prepared motions are the ones which demand more research and preparation time and it is assumed that an average high school students will not have a lot of information, knowledge and understanding of the topics.
PROJECT VIDEO: Slovakian debate trainer Matej Kohar speaks on How to Prepare for Impromptu Debates at WSDA 2013
For the first 5 minutes of your preparation, think about the motion individually. Do not talk to each other at this time. The reason for this is to preclude one or two individuals on the team to completely dominate the discourse, which might result in good ideas or potential problems being ignored due to peer pressure. Think about all elements of the case, not just arguments. What is the issue on the table? What would you expect both sides to talk about? What are the different ways of interpreting the motion? Do you know any examples relevant to the motion?
2. COLLECTIVE BRAINSTORMING
Spend the next 10 to 15 minutes putting your ideas together. Talk about the motion, and develop a shared understanding of your task in the debate. Then write down in one place what you came up with during your individual brainstorming. Use a spreadsheet divided into six fields: Definitions and Models, Values, Examples, Stakeholders, Proposition arguments, and Opposition arguments to help you categorize your ideas and come up with more.
Each of the fields is important in its own way. Definitions and models help you to see diferent ways of understanding the motion and approaching the debate. This makes you less likely to be surprised by the other team’s view of the debate.
Values are unifying points in your case. They tie your arguments together, and lend them strength and consistency. If you brainstorm which values your team will be promoting in the debate, and which values you are likely to oppose, you will be better able to link arguments together.
Thinking of examples before the debate is crucial. There is little time to make one up during the debate, and even if it is possible, the result will often be under-analysed. Think about what the example is, which mechanism it demonstrates and how it relates to the motion.
Stakeholders are people, social groups, organisations, or any other entities that are impacted by the motion. Knowing who the stakeholders in the debate are helps you find new arguments, or make arguments more concrete. It also helps if you think about who gets better off and who loses if the motion is carried. That way you can also anticipate some arguments from the other side.
The last two fields are the meat of the debate: Proposition and Opposition arguments. You absolutely must brainstorm both, though it makes sense to prioritize your own side. You need to know what you will be saying in much more detail than what the other team will be saying. However, you must have some idea as to what the major arguments of the other side are, in order to be able to rebut them convincingly.
If you are struggling to find more arguments, you may want to use the SPLEE(E)M method. This amazing acronym stands for Social, Political, Legal, Economic, Environmental, Educational and Moral. Rather than focusing on who may be affected, as in the stakeholder analysis, now you are looking at different types of impact. A policy may have far reaching consequences permeating more than just one of these fields. Although not all will always apply, it is still good to check, if you are not missing something.
3. DECISION TIME
Once you have amassed enough material, but no later than halfway through your preparation time, you should stop trying to come up with more ideas and settle on a case you will be running in the debate. This is the time when you should also decide who will be debating and in which position. It is important that you focus on case consistency, and state what each argument claims clearly, as you will be working more or less individually in the next stage of your preparation. Talk
about the arguments in some detail to ensure that you not only say the same points but mean them in the same way as well.
Focus on consistency means that some arguments contain contradictory premises and so cannot be run at the same time. If for example, one of your arguments requires that you promote individual freedoms, while the other one restricts them to work, they probably do not belong in the same case.
You should also decide which arguments will be brought in which speech. Remember that each of the two speeches should on its own be sufficient to persuade an audience. It is no good if your „split argument“ lists oractical consequences of the theoretical arguments in your first speech. This is called hung argument and is really bad for you. The first argument does not work without any connection with reality, and the second argument depends on the first for its truth.None of them is enough on its own to persuade an audience, and so you need to think of another argument. Hopefully, you have some in store from your brainstorming.
4. DEVELOPING ARGUMENTS
This step takes place at the same time as the next one, which means you should divide your team into two groups. The first group will work on further developing the arguments which you have chosen to use. Logically, it should therefore include the first two speakers. The objctive is to deepen the analysis by answering questions about how causal relationships utilized by your arguments work, and why they produce such effects as you say they do. Do not forget to tie in the examples, draw impacts to the stakeholders and link to the values. The reason you have brainstormed these is precisely because they help you to deepen the analysis of arguments.
5. DEVELOPING REBUTTAL
Meanwhile the rest of the team works on rebuttal. You should already have some idea of the opposing case, since you brainstormed it at the same time as your own case. At this point you should develop counterarguments. It is important to note that no argument is perfect, and there will often be obvious avenues of attack against your case. You should strive to have an answer ready, but do not expect an argument to be perfect. If there was one, the motion would not be put to debate in the first place.
When working on rebuttal, keep in mind what the constructive part of your case is. Consistency is paramount to rebuttal in two respects. Firstly, there must be consistency in what your rebuttal is for a certain point throughout all your speeches. If different speakers answer the same point differently, it seems that they have not prepared for that argument, it discredits the rebuttal overall, and the later in the debate an effective rebuttal comes, the less will it be taken into account by the judges as the other team then has less time to answer the rebuttal. Secondly, there must be consistency between the rebuttal and the constructive arguments. If your rebuttal rejects a premise that your arguments must contain in order to work, at least one of them will not be believable. The judges will notice that, and the other team will be more than happy to point it out.
6. PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER
You should reserve some time at the end of your preparation for coming back together, and talking through the work the two groups have done. This is to bring everyone up to speed. The first two speakers need to know the rebuttal, the third speaker needs to know where the arguments progressed. Check for consistency once more.
