Free Classic Speeches Search! Enter Your Topic Below:

Chapter 12. Debate

Debate, like group discussion and parliamentary procedure, is a form of group speaking aimed at solving the problems of a democratic people. When a group is so large that it is not possible for all members to participate in the discussion of the problem, then selected individuals present the problem on behalf of the group, for the consideration of the group. Centuries of experience with debate in democratic nations have shown that people arrive at wiser decisions after they have heard opposing points of view.

1. The Nature of Debate

Debate is based on the assumption that, if a person can hear opposing points of view argued effectively, he can receive valuable help in choosing the point of view which he prefers. Competition and conflict are inherent in all debates. Each debater presents one point of view in competition with another speaker and attacks other points of view. The members of the listening group evaluate the resulting "clash of opinion" and arrive at their own decisions.

Debate training in school should be so designed to help you take your part in advocacy of a point of view, so as to insure that you can serve your country effectively. This chapter will help you gain debate experience using the conventional debate form. Although there are other forms that training debates may take, work here will be confined to the standard form.

The conventional debate form requires two teams with two persons on each team. One team argues that the proposition as stated be accepted; the other argues that it should not. The team upholding (affirming) the proposition is called the affirmative team; the team denying (negating) the proposition is called the negative team.

2. The Proposition in Debate

When conferences are held to discuss subjects, as we learned in an earlier chapter, these subjects are worded in the form of a question to be answered. An appropriately worded subject for conference might be: HOW CAN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE VOTING IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS BE INCREASED?

Conventional debate, however, is the presentation of pros and cons on a specific proposition or proposal. Thus, the proposition for debate must be a positive and concrete statement that suggests specific data or action. The subject of voting in national elections might be worded appropriately for debate as follows: RESOLVED: THAT ALL PERSONS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE BUT FAIL TO VOTE BE FINED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS.

TO VOTE BE FINED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS

THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM ANALYZES THE PROPOSITION BEING DEBATED AND SUGGESTS A PLAN TO PUT THE CHANGES INTO OPERATION

Selecting the Proposition

When practicing debate, you should select your own topic or proposition for debate. Select a subject that is worthwhile, so that the time and energy spent in study and preparation will be valuable to you. A subject for debate ought to be interesting to you, to your opposition, and to the audience (if you are to have one). This means, of course, that it must be timely. Avoid, if you can, topics that can only depend on rumors and hearsay for support. Real problems taken out of school or home life are usually excellent topics for debate. So are problems of state and national interest.

Wording the Proposition

When wording a proposition for debate, there are several qualities of a good proposition that should be kept in mind.

A proposition should be a positive, declarative statement proposing an answer or a solution to a question or a problem.

"WHAT SHALL WE DO ABOUT DRUNKEN DRIVING?" is not a good debate subject. It is an interrogatory sentence, and it does not propose a solution. A debate question would be: resolved: that THE MANDATORY SENTENCE FOR ANYONE CONVICTED OF DRUNKEN DRIVING SHOULD BE A FINE OF $500 AND ONE YEAR'S SUSPENSION OF THE PERMIT TO DRIVE.

The problem chosen should be a real problem, with specific enough goals to warrant discussion, resolved: that education should be improved, is neither controversial nor specific. Everyone would agree that education should be improved. The actual controversy that exists today is how we should go about making the necessary improvements. A far better wording of the subject would be: resolved: that all public schools in the United States should receive federal aid. It is possible and worth while to debate such a topic.

A proposition should contain one and only one idea in order to avoid confusion and to insure that the pros and the cons of a subject are presented. Propositions such as resolved: that THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM BE REVISED IN THE SOUTH AND THAT THE POLL TAX LAWS BE REPEALED, should be avoided. Each of these might provide a fine debate, but the subject as worded may result in the affirmative team arguing for the revival of the two party system and the negative arguing for the repeal of the poll tax laws. If this happens, then public speaking, not debate, is the type of speech activity taking place.

A proposition should be brief and simply worded in unambiguous terms. Consider the proposition: resolved: that PUBLIC SPEAKING IS BETTER TRAINING THAN PHYSICAL EDUCATION FOR students in public and private schools. The speech teacher and the football coach may be able to argue endlessly on this subject, but there is little opportunity for them to settle the question, resolved: that a one semester course in debating be ADDED TO THE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM, could be debated with profit.

The proposition for debate should suggest a change, resolved: THAT THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO SELL tickets for football games, does not suggest a change, resolved: THAT ALL STUDENTS BE ADMITTED TO FOOTBALL GAMES free of charge, probably does advocate a change at your school. Any question for debate which your class selects should meet these five requirements. If your question does not consider these points, you will have a fruitless debate.

3. The Form of Conventional Debate

As you have probably learned from your study of history, debate may vary widely in its form. Many or few speakers may be involved. The length of time each speaker is allowed can vary.

In this chapter on the "conventional debate" form, we shall use two sides; each side has two speakers, called a "team". The affirmative team argues for support, or upholds the proposition. The negative team opposes the proposition. The members of each team speak twice. The debater's first speech is called the constructive speech, his second the rebuttal. Speeches are presented in the following order:

CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES

1st Affirmative 10 minutes
1st Negative 10 minutes
2nd Affirmative 10 minutes
2nd Negative 10 minutes

REBUTTAL SPEECHES

1st Negative 5 minutes
1st Affirmative 5 minutes
2nd Negative 5 minutes
2nd Affirmative 5 minutes

Actually, all of the speeches, except the first affirmative speech, contain rebuttal material; that is, they attack the opposing speakers' viewpoints. But, all of the policy-making features of the debate must be made in these four constructive speeches. In the rebuttal period, it is too late for the affirmative to say, "We forgot to say that our plan will include . . . ," or for the negative to claim, "We forgot to mention that the status quo (the existing set-up) should be maintained for a fourth reason." Note in the arrangement of the speakers that the affirmative has the first constructive speech and the last rebuttal speech. This is because the affirmative has the burden-of-proof. It is the affirmative which is advocating the change, and people do not usually like to change. Therefore, the affirmative is given an advantage. It can speak both first and last.

4. The Duties of the Affirmative Team

In order for the affirmative team to carry out its burden-of-proof in advocating a change from what is now being practiced, it must accomplish several separate steps.

Analyze the Proposition

The first speaker for the affirmative must introduce the problem and make certain that everyone is clear on just what the problem means to the affirmative. This explanation is called an analysis. It may include the following:

An Exact Statement of the Problem: The first speaker for the affirmative should state the question for debate slowly and clearly, using the agreed upon language. He should repeat the question at least once, so there is no mistake about how it reads.

Define the Terms of the Problem: Words have the meanings we give to them. Some words have several meanings; other words have different meanings for different people. Take the words "religion", "socialist", "Republican", and "art". Note how widely the meanings of these words vary from person to person. What is "art" to one may be only "trash" to another.

To be sure that the debaters and the audience agree on the meanings of the words of the proposition, the first speaker for the affirmative must define the terms as his team will use them in the debate, by using any of the following ways:

a. Comparing or contrasting the term with a known term. In the question, RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ADOPT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, the affirmative could clarify the word "socialized" by comparing it to "state owned and operated" and contrasting it with "private medicine".

b. Pointing out an example of the term. Here the affirmative could say its concept of "socialized medicine" was similar to the form now in use in Great Britain.

c. Presenting a definition from the dictionary. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "socialized medicine" as, "Administration by an organized group, a state, or a nation of medical and hospital services to suit the needs of all members of a class, or classes, or all members of the population, deriving funds from assessments, philanthropy, taxation, or other sources. Often identified with one particular form, 'state medicine'." Usually a dictionary definition by itself is not enough. It should be accompanied by one other form of definition.

d. Describing the term vividly. The affirmative might say, "In other words, 'socialized medicine' means that each doctor would be required to spend part of his day working for the government, using state-owned facilities, and treating patients for a salary paid him by the government. The remainder of his day he would operate his own private practice."

A Statement of the Importance of the Problem

An audience often wishes to know why this problem is being debated at this time. The affirmative might say, "We of the affirmative are pleased to be debating this issue of socialized medicine at this time, because the recent increase in the cost of medical expenses has made the problem of paying for medical care a major one. According to a survey made by , the cost of medical care during the past ten years has risen %."

A Statement of the Major Issues of the Debate

The negative is entitled to know what the over-all strategy of the affirmative will be, so that the element of surprise can be minimized. Here are the points where the affirmative should offer a preview of the debate:

a. What are the needs for changing from the present system? Here the affirmative might say, "We think that the United States should change to a system of socialized medicine for three reasons: First, we need to lower the cost of medical care; second, we need to insure wider distribution of medical care; and third, we need to use the time of the doctor more efficiently.

b. What type of plan does the affirmative propose? The details of the plan need not be given here. Only a general statement is necessary. "We of the affirmative will propose a plan whereby doctors and hospitals may work both for the state and for themselves."

c. How will the affirmative plan solve the needs that the affirmative brought up? "We will show that our plan will lower the cost of medical care, will insure wider distribution of medical care, and will use the time of the doctor more efficiently."

The Need for a Change

Since the affirmative has the burden-of-proof, it must point out specific reasons why the status quo should be changed. These reasons should be numbered in order, and should be carefully mentioned in presentation. The affirmative speaker should say, "Now, the second reason why we believe that we should change from our present system to socialized medicine is because we need to insure a wider distribution of medical care." The affirmative should not just "assert" that a wider distribution of medical facilities is needed. It must support this assertion with the latest facts and figures. Unless the debaters happen to be doctors or experienced medical personnel, they should state the sources of their information. An illustration of the degree to which this needs to be done is found in the sample "Affirmative Brief" further below.

The Plan for Achieving the Change

The affirmative should put forth a concrete proposal by which the changes it recommends can be effected. Affirmatives must not try to be deceptive here. A negative team should quickly point out that it cannot understand how the affirmative plan will work. Needless details should always be omitted. For example, the affirmative might say, "In order to put our plan of socialized medicine into effect, we will require three changes: First, each doctor will be required to work one-half of his day for the government, for a salary to be stipulated by a government board; second, each hospital, laboratory, or clinic will be required to make 50% of its services available to the government, for a rental to be stipulated by a governing board; third, every citizen of the United States shall be authorized to receive free medical care at public expense, the cost to be supported by payroll deductions, similar to those now in force for social security."

How the Plan Meets the Needs of the Affirmative

It is not enough to point out that there is something wrong in the world. The world is full of problems and everyone knows this. Nor, is it enough to point out a plan which you think will solve the problem. Anyone can devise a plan. But when you show that your plan will meet the problem, then you have done something constructive. It is not enough to say that there are too many poor people in the world. Everyone knows this. Nor, is it enough to say that your plan for feeding the poor is to have the wealthy eat less. This all sounds fine, but you will have gotten nowhere, unless you show how you are going to encourage moderation on the part of the wealthy, and how this moderation will assist the poor.

Here the affirmative should say, "Now that we have pointed out our needs for changing the present system and have given you a plan to put this change into effect, it is necessary that we show how our plan will meet our needs. To begin with, how will the affirmative plan lower the cost of medical care? In order to prove this point, we would like to quote from. . . ."

Defending the Case against the Opposition

The affirmative team is also obligated to defend its case against the attack of the negative team. It can meet the negative in two ways:

1. It may present additional supporting materials to rein force the weaknesses brought out by the negative. Here it may say, "Now, our friends of the negative have claimed that there is no need to use the time of the doctor more efficiently. We would like to add to our former comments the statistics from a survey reported by . . ."

2. The affirmative may attack the negative rebuttal directly.

a. The negative argument is irrelevant and does not apply to the affirmative case. "The negative has pointed out that socialized medicine will destroy the doctor-patient relationship. We hold that this argument is irrelevant to the debate because we are going to allow for this doctor-patient relationship both within and without socialized medicine."

b. The negative argument is invalid. What seems to be true is not really true. "The negative has pointed out that 94% of all patients who seek free medical care under the present system actually receive it, and that, therefore, there is no need to extend the care. But, what the negative forgets is that there are many people who are too proud to ask for charity, and who would rather pay their own way."

c. The negative argument is true, but does not affect the affirmative case. "The negative has pointed out that hospital facilities are being rapidly improved and expanded. This is certainly true, and we agree. But, just because there are going to be more and better hospital facilities, does not mean that more people are going to be able to afford to use them."

If the affirmative analyzes the proposition, points out the needs for a change, gives a constructive plan, shows how the plan meets the needs, and defends its case against the opposition, it will have done its best to meet its burden-of-proof.

STRUCTURE OF THE AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF
with the first "need for a change" properly supported

A. Analysis of the Proposition

1. Statement of the Problem: RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ADOPT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

2. Definition of the Terms of the Problem:

a. "United States"

b. "should adopt"

c. "socialized medicine"

3. Statement of Importance of the Problem

4. Statement of the Major Issues of the Debate

a. Our three needs for a change will be ...

b. We will present a brief plan which will allow for both private practice and state medicine.

c. We will show how this dual system will allow us to meet our three needs for a change.

B. The Need for a Change

1. There is a need to lower the cost of medical care.

a. The affirmation agrees that from 1936-1956, the cost of medical care has risen proportionately to the prices of commodities (Elizabeth A. Langford, Monthly Labor Review, September, 1957).

b. This is an over-all picture. Inequalities in the system are common.

(1) "In GP, the official monthly organ of the American Academy of General Practice, the general practitioner complained of the high prices charged by surgeons." (America, August 13, 1955).
(2) "A surgeon who is widely known can set his prices so high that only the wealthy can afford to go to him." (U.S. News, July 5, 1957).
(3) "Hospital costs are up 39%, while the cost of living rose only 6%." (U.S. News, July 5, 1957).
(4) Specialists' fees are sometimes exorbitant-cite case of Benny Hooper, trapped in well in Manorville, N.Y., who received bill for $1,500 from physician.
(5) "Average self-employed physician was earning $15,150 net, and average self-employed dentist, $7,500 net (gross incomes higher)." (U.S. News, July 5, 1957).
(6) "Challenge of mounting expenses." E. Havetmann. (Life, Nov. 2, 1959).

c. An over-all plan for more efficient use of facilities and personnel would cut down the cost of medical care.

C. The Plan for Achieving the Change

1. The first point in our plan is ...

2. The second point in our plan is ...

3. The third point in our plan is ...

D. How the Affirmative Plan Meets Our Needs

1. You will recall that our first need for a change was that we needed to lower the cost of medical care. How will our affirmative plan allowing for both private and public medicine lower the cost of medical care? Well, here are three specific ways it would lower the cost of medical care: a ___, b ___, c ___.

2. Now, our second need for a change was ___

How will our plan meet that need?

3. ___________________________________ Our third need for a change was ___________________________________

Our plan will meet that need by ...

5. The Duties of the Negative Team

The duty of the negative team is to oppose the affirmative proposition. This means that the negative should do everything ethically possible to discourage the audience from accepting the recommendations of the affirmative team. In opposing the affirmative, the negative has certain obligations.

Response to the Affirmative Analysis of the Proposition

An exact restatement of the problem: The negative should repeat the question for debate.

A definition of terms: If the definitions of the terms as stated by the affirmative are acceptable to the negative, the negative should say so, in order to avoid any future misunderstanding.

THE DUTY OF THE NEGATIVE TEAM IS TO OPPOSE THE AFFIRMATIVE'S PLAN AND DISCOURAGE THE AUDIENCE FROM ACCEPTING IT

If the negative cannot accept the definition or definitions offered by the affirmative, it should say so, and furnish definitions which it finds acceptable. A negative might say, "In regard to the definition of the term 'socialized medicine', of the negative cannot agree that the term will allow private practice to continue, at least as we now know private practice. According to ______________________________, a system of socialized medicine is a system which __________________________

A Statement of the Importance of the Problem

The negative will do well to preface its remarks by saying what a crucial part of our American system the affirmative is considering changing, or how important it is that we take the right step at this time.

A Statement of the Major Issues of the Debate

The negative is obligated to let the affirmative know what its over-all strategy will be. The negative should clarify these questions:

a. Does the negative agree that there is a need to change our present system? Here the negative may say no, that the present system is fine; or yes, but the affirmative plan will not help; or yes, but the negative has a better solution, or any combination.

b. If the negative chooses: What are the advantages of the present system? "We of the negative think that the present system of private medicine should be continued for three reasons: (1) The present system is offering superior medical services; (2) the present system is democratic; (3) the present system maintains doctor-patient relationships."

c. If the negative chooses: Why is it that the affirmative plan will not help? "We of the negative agree that there are evils in the present system which do need to be remedied, but we do not think that the affirmative system will help. The affirmative system will not help be cause (1) it will not lower medical costs; (2) it will not insure wider distribution of medical services; and (3) it will not use the time of the doctor more efficiently." (Note that the negative has used the three needs for a change proposed by the affirmative and will propose to show how the affirmative plan will not meet these needs.)

d. If the negative chooses: Why is it that the negative plan will do a better job than the affirmative plan? "We intend to show that the negative proposal of compulsory health insurance is a much more effective remedy than the affirmative proposal of socialized medicine."

Combinations of these might include, "Yes, there are some evils, but they are exaggerated and can better be solved by some minor changes than by the affirmative proposition"; or "Yes, we should change, and whereas the affirmative plan will not help, the negative plan will help."

Constructive Argument of the Negative

Denying the need for a change: If the negative denies the need for a change, it must not only assert that the present system is effectively meeting the health problems of the nation, but it must also present authoritative materials to substantiate the assertion. The degree of this substantiation should be similar to that offered by the affirmative's asserted "need for a change", previously given in this chapter. Under this argument, the negative does not have to uphold everything about the existing system. It can allow some evils without fear. Indeed, it is only a foolish negative which claims perfection for the system.

Denying the affirmative plan: If the negative system agrees that there is a need for a change but holds that the affirmative plan will not meet these needs, it will do well to look for examples in the affirmative plan which have not solved the evils when the plan has been put into effect in the past. Great Britain's failures here would be highly persuasive. A negative might say, "Now the affirmative has claimed that there are certain evils in the present system, and we feel such evils do exist. But, will the affirmative proposal solve the evils? Let us turn to socialized medicine in Great Britain. Has socialized medicine in Great Britain solved the first affirmative need?"

Proposing a plan of the negative: If the negative agrees that there is a need for a change but holds that the negative has a better plan for meeting this need than does the affirmative, it will have to present its proposal and contrast it with the affirmative plan. Many negatives shy away from this approach, because it requires them to support something and, therefore, causes them to assume something of the burden-of-proof. However, the negative should remember that many audiences prefer to be for something, rather than against everything. Here, the negative might say, "Now, we have pointed out that we agree that there are certain evils in our present system. However, it is our proposal that these evils can be met much better by a system of compulsory health insurance, than by any system of socialized medicine. Let us see how compulsory health insurance will relieve the needs of the present system, and then let us see how socialized medicine will not solve these evils."

6. Techniques for Rebuttal

It is probably more difficult to make an effective rebuttal than it is to make an effective constructive speech. This is because in the rebuttal you must create a contrast-you must construct something new right there in front of the audience. Here are some techniques to help you with that task:

Take Organized Notes on What the Opposition Says

You cannot hope to refute what the opposition says unless you know what it has said. You must take down what the opposition says in an orderly manner. The sample note sheets further below will help you keep notes in an organized manner.

Learn to take down what the other side says in an abbreviated manner. Do not try to write complete sentences, unless there is a particular one that you want to record just as your opponents expressed it.

Learn to listen for numbering by the opposition to cue you on your note-taking. If the affirmative says it is going to have three needs for a change, the negative should listen carefully for these three needs. Take down the points when the affirmative is actually presenting them, not when it is only predicting, in the preview, what it will cover.

Be Concerned with Major Points Only

By the time the debate gets to the rebuttals, if it has been a good debate, both sides should have three to five major points on which there is conflict. Your rebuttal should concentrate on these points. Do not try to cover more than five things in a rebuttal, no matter how tempting it may be to add more. The good debater confines his remarks to the major issues, and lets the minor ones take care of themselves.

State the Points of Agreement with the Opposition

Make clear the points on which you feel there is no clash, so these can be disposed of quickly. Look for these points, rather than trying to shy away from them. The more points on which you can agree with the other side, the more time you will have to spend on the major points of disagreement. Do not waste your time on points where there is little or no disagreement with the other side.

The words, "Let Us Summarize the Debate at this Point," is a starting phrase which will help get you off on the correct path. It will force you to try to contrast your ideas with those of the opposition. Try it in your rebuttals. Follow it up by listing first the points of agreement, and then the major points of disagreement.

7. Preparing for the Debate

Our discussion above has presumed that you have prepared yourself for your debate in a manner similar to the ways this book has recommended for other speech activities. Here are some additional comments which are particularly appropriate for the debater.

First, effective debating requires wider and more thorough preparation than other speech activities. The debater must read and interview on all phases of his subject, because he can never tell beforehand exactly what points will come up during the debate. Because of this, he must attempt to be versed not only in what he plans to discuss, but also in whatever the other team may discuss.

Second, the effective debater should arrange and compile his material to have on the desk in front of him. He must be able to locate it on a moment's notice. This requires a file box and a filing system that permits immediate location of any particular piece of evidence. The 3x5 cards, with one idea on a card, is probably the most convenient method for the debater to preserve data he plans to use in a debate.

8. Presenting the Debate Speeches

Because debate is a worthwhile method of problem solving, certain things are expected of every debater.

A Debater Is Expected to Be Accurate, Honest, and Sincere

Because debates are held on important problems, the debater is obligated to be fair and truthful. The important outcome of a debate is that a wise decision be made. For this reason, the integrity of each debater must be beyond reproach. To deliberately misquote, to alter evidence, or to make up quotations to fit a need, defeats the very purpose of debate and reduces it to a vicious tool of the huckster.

A debater is performing a service for a large number of people. What he presents as fact, the audience takes as fact, and may act upon as fact. Because so many people depend upon him, he cannot afford to be inaccurate. He must be sure that he has the facts straight, that he quotes authorities accurately and in context, and that the statements of the opposition that he repeats are verbatim.

Although there are humorous debates, most debates concern serious subjects. The debater must demonstrate a quality of sincerity appropriate for his subject. Humor has its place in debate as a means of persuasion, as an interest factor, or as a temporary escape from the labor of reasoning; but humor should never be an end in itself. It should never replace reasoning and evidence, nor should it be used as ridicule.

DON'T BE A MECHANICAL OR ROUTINE DEBATER

Temporary escape from the labor of reasoning; but humor should never be an end in itself. It should never replace reasoning and evidence, nor should it be used as ridicule.

A Debater Is Expected to Be Conversational

There is no debate delivery as such, no debate vocabulary, and no debate stance. Debate is public speaking at its best. This means that the debater should be in intense conversation with members of the audience. In order to achieve a conversational quality, the speaker should carefully prepare his ideas ahead of time, should use notes to remind him of these ideas and to insure accuracy in the presentation of data, but should leave the selection of words in which he expresses these ideas for the exact moment of delivery.

All good qualities of speech, as suggested in the discussions of conversation, reporting, and conference, are appropriate for debate. Because debaters often develop methods of delivery that are not consistent with good public speaking, you would do well to avoid the following:

1. Talking too rapidly
2. Using words that will be understood only by other debaters or judges
3. Falling into a definite pattern of pitch, loudness, or tempo
4. Overusing particular words or phrases
5. Using any mechanical or routine handling of any phase of the debate presentation

A Debater Should Perform Certain Courtesies

Debaters are expected to show respect for each other personally and should confine their attacks to the ideas of the opposition, not the personalities. Such courtesies as response to the chairman, recognition of important personages in the audience, and appreciation for having met and debated the opposition, are expected of at least the first speaker. Friendliness rather than animosity should prevail.

While members of the opposition are speaking, common courtesy demands that you do nothing deliberately or accidentally to distract from the speaker's presentation. Do not fold your materials or talk to your colleague or cause a distraction.

If the debate is judged, the debaters ought to express their appreciation to the judge for his services. The losing team ought to congratulate the winners. These are simple rules of good manners that apply to all debating.

9. Decisions in Debate

Most debates in history and many debates we hear each day are decided one way or the other, either by direct vote or by public opinion. It seems consistent, then, that debates for training should be decided either in favor of the affirmative or the negative. This is actually the practice that has become customary in most inter-school and some intra-class debates.

There are several ways of arriving at a decision in a debate. The audience may be asked to vote for either team, or an expert in speech or debate may sit in the audience as a judge and decide which team he thinks exercised the greater intelligence and skill in debate.

The decision, however, is not the most important part of practice debating. It makes little difference which team wins. The important thing is that the teams get the needed experience for later debates.

Summary

Debating is an intellectual activity requiring research, reasoning, and speaking skill. The value of debate as a democratic process justifies the effort and skill required to do a good job. Training and practice debates in school can be great fun, but even more important than this fun is the experience you will get in meeting the problems of later life. Debate will give you poise, stimulate your capacity to think, provide qualifications for employment, and help you to become a better citizen.

Glossary of Terms for Debate

1. New Material

It is said that neither team can present new material in the rebuttals. By new material is meant new arguments which should have been presented in the constructive speeches. New evidence to support arguments given in constructive speeches can certainly be offered in the rebuttals.

2. Should

The term "should" usually means "ought to", but does not have to mean "would". An affirmative should be obliged to show that society "ought to" adopt its proposal, since the proposal would benefit society, but it does not have to show that society necessarily "would" adopt the proposal.

3. Burden-of-Proof

Anyone who asks for a change from the present system assumes the burden of proving that a change ought to be made. This burden rests largely on the affirmative, but if the negative asks for any substantial changes, it also assumes a burden of proving that these changes ought to be made.

4. Direct Questions

One team may ask another team direct questions in a debate. However, these should be asked clearly and stated slowly, so that the opposition can take them down. They should appear early enough in the speech so that the opposite side has a short period of time to consider the question.

5. Rhetorical Questions

A debater should avoid asking too many rhetorical questions in a debate. A rhetorical question is one which a debater raises; or to which he does not expect a specific response from his opposition. An example would be, "How can the affirmative show that its plan will meet its need? How can the affirmative prove that its plan will work?"

Exercises

1. Word a debate question on any one of the following:

a. high school athletics or college athletics
b. required courses in mathematics in high school
c. automobile insurance
d. open and closed dances
e. requirements for graduation from high school

2. Word a debate question, using a problem now under discussion in your high school or your community as a frame of reference.

3. Choose one of the debate questions listed at the end of this chapter and look up all four types of definitions (see below) for each term in the question.

4. Choose a partner and draw up an affirmative brief on one of the questions listed at the end of this chapter. Following the main steps for the brief, begin with (a) Analysis of the Question, (b) Need for a Change, (c) Plan for Achieving the Change, and (d) How the Plan Meets the Needs. Remember that in many instances your own assertions will not be enough. Get authoritative sources of information from your library or from interviews and letters.

5. Choose a partner and draw up a negative brief on one of the questions listed at the end of this chapter. Following the main steps for the brief, begin with (a) Response to the Affirmative Analysis of the Proposition, (b) Constructive Argument of Negative.

6. Design affirmative note cards for rebuttals similar to the one suggested further below, but remember that this time the affirmative side will be filled in, the negative side left blank.

7. Re-copy the diagram of a typical conventional debate given below. Be prepared to explain to the class the function of each negative and affirmative speech.

8. Stage an abbreviated debate before the class, choosing both a partner and an opposing team. Limit your constructive speeches to 6 minutes and your rebuttals to 3 minutes. Be prepared to submit briefs to the instructor after the debate.

9. Using the negative note sheet to help keep a rebuttal organized, take notes on a class debate, filling in both the negative and the affirmative side of the sheet. Do not list unimportant details. Save your time by writing only the major points.

10. Choosing both a partner and an opposing team, stage a conventional high school debate before the class. Be prepared to submit briefs to the instructor after the debate.

11. Divide the class into as many two-man teams as possible. Select a subject and word it into a debate proposition. Conduct a tournament in which each team debates at least four other teams. Ask other teachers in the school to judge the debates, using the AFA ballot given at the end of this chapter. At the end of the debate rounds, compute the results and recognize the winners. If two or more teams tie, let them debate until one team is victorious. You may wish to hold the final debate before the assembly program.

SUBJECTS FOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASS DEBATES

1. Resolved: That a high school education should be required of all elected officials in city government.
2. Resolved: That persons under eighteen years of age should be prohibited from driving motor vehicles.
3. Resolved: That the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be repealed.
4. Resolved: That final examinations should be abolished in high school.
5. Resolved: That four years of a foreign language should be required of all high school students.
6. Resolved: That secret societies in public high schools should be abolished.
7. Resolved: That the legal voting age in this state should be lowered to eighteen.
8. Resolved: That compulsory military training should be required of all men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two.
9. Resolved: That this city should adopt a curfew law for persons eighteen years of age and under.
10 Resolved: That censorship of the motion picture industry should be dropped.
11. Resolved: That the explosion of nuclear bombs should be prohibited.
12. Resolved: That capital punishment should be abolished.
13. Resolved: That the President of the United States should be elected by a direct vote of the people.
14. Resolved: That only high school students graduating in the upper fifty percent of their class should be permitted to enter state colleges and universities.
15. Resolved: That a course in driver education should be required of all high school students.
16. Resolved: That this community should fluoridate its drinking water.
17. Resolved: That a course in speech should be required of all high school students.
18. Resolved: That the United States should join the European "Common Market".
19. Resolved: That part of the school day should be set aside for religious education.
20. Resolved: That our high school should adopt the honor system.
21. Resolved: That professional boxing should be abolished.
22. Resolved: That our state should adopt the unicameral form of legislature.
23. Resolved: That toll roads should be prohibited by law.
24. Resolved: That mercy killing should be legalized in this state.
25. Resolved: That the marriage laws of this state should be strengthened.
26. Resolved: That jurors rendering the death penalty should be required to witness the execution.
27. Resolved: That social clubs in high school promote snobbery.
28. Resolved: That pay television should be adopted.
29. Resolved: That persons of different religious faiths should not marry each other.
30. Resolved: That women should make effective ministers.
31. Resolved: That comic books are harmful to children.
32. Resolved: That oleomargarine is as healthful as butter.
33. Resolved: That the United Nations should be given a substantial international police force.
34. Resolved: That postmasters should be elected by popular vote.
35. Resolved: That the term of office of the President of the United States should be extended to six years.
36. Resolved: That ex-Presidents should be senators-at-large for life.
37. Resolved: That labor should be given a share in the management of industry.
38. Resolved: That a Secretary of Peace should be added to the President's Cabinet.
39. Resolved: That the federal government should own and operate a national radio station.
40. Resolved: That our city should adopt the city manager form of government.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE 1ST AFF. CONST. 1ST NEG. CONST. I. Analysis of Question 1. Replies to Affirmative Analysis A. States Question A. Restates Question B. Defines Terms B. Clarifies Terms C. (History of Question) C. defend status quo D. Preview of Main Points or   II. States Need for Change 2. agree need, plan not answer or 3. agree need, neg. plan better. Choosing No. 1, Denies Need 2ND AFF. CONST. 2ND NEG. CONST. DEFENDS NEED FOR CHANGE CONTINUES TO DENY NEED III. Proposes Plan III. Attacks Plan IV. States Advantages of Plan IV. Denies Advantages of Plan 1ST AFF. REB. 1ST NEG. REB. DEFENDS NEED CONTINUES TO DENY NEED 2ND AFF. REB. 2ND NEG. REB. DEFENDS PLAN CONTINUES TO ATTACK PLAN DEFENDS ADVANTAGES OF PLAN CONTINUES TO ATTACK ADVANTAGES OF PLAN

NEGATIVE TEAM NOTES Analysis of Question Was question clearly stated? Affirmative term one __________________, _________________ Our term ___________________________ Affirmative term two _____________________ Our term ____________________ Affirmative Statement of Importance of Problem Negative Statement of Importance of Problem ________________________ Affirmative statement of major issues _______________________ Negative statement of major issues _______________________ ___________________________________________________________ Affirmative Need for Change Affirmative first need ________________________ Negative refutation __________________________ Affirmative second need _______________________ Negative refutation _________________________

Affirmative Plan Affirmative first point _________________________ Negative __________________________ Affirmative second point ________________________ Negative __________________________ Affirmative third point _________________________ Negative __________________________ Affirmative Plan Meets First Need ____________________ Negative Refutation _________________________________ Affirmative Plan Meets Second Need ___________________ Negative Refutation _________________________________ Affirmative Defense of Need _________________________ Negative Denial of Need _________________________ Affirmative Defense of Plan _______________________ Negative Attack of Plan __________________________

These cards are for a negative case* Modify the cards for debates in -which the negative agrees with the need and/or in which the negative proposes a counter-plan.

This ballot is published by the American Forensic Association and comes with two carbons attached so copies may be given to both teams. For a nominal-cost copies are available through the AFA

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...