TAKE A STAND!

1. TAKE A STAND! An Introduction to Debate and Argumentation

2. Who are We? • The UP Debate Society is the official representative of UP Diliman to national and international debate tournaments and fora. • We are committed to promote creative critical thinking & social concern through excellence in the art of debating.

3. The UPDS Debate Education Program • To extend its commitment to debate excellence, UPDS also sponsors debate education through its programs such as Take A Standand Fast Forwardaiming to spread the culture of debate in our country. • We take pride of our strong pool of member-debaters. Our most recent achievement is in PIDC 2009 where our Team A bagged home the national Asians championship.

4. MODULE CONTENTS An Introduction to Debate Basics The Art/Sport/Science of Debate what is it in the first place? Part 1 Analysis and Argumentation debate’s basic currency Part 2 Debate Rules and Formats putting arguments in real action Part 3 Rebuttals and POI’s negating isn’t everything

5. DEBATE IS… • a game! • a conversation with RULES • persuasiveness of arguments is qualified with clear standards and procedures of logic and judgments • like a sport, both skills and adherence to the rules matter. • an intellectual discourse Given an issue, it emphasizes: • reasoned & persuasive argumentation • tolerance for divergent points of view • rigorous self-examination • a discipline • a method of thinking • calls for a robust analysis of an issue at hand and from the many things we know, choose only the relevant and significant knowledge in explaining our stand.

6. Introduction to Debate We debate because: • “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.” – Joseph Joubert • It is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democratic and open societies • It is tool for personal development: self-confidence, critical-thinking, effective communication skills, wit and quick-mindedness • “I think, therefore I am.”

7. Analysis and Argumentation There’s always something to be said and explained.

8. What are arguments? • They are proofs derived from logical explanation and facts used to either support or oppose a topic/stand. THINGS TO NOTE: • There is something to be proven • It relies on clear logic • It becomes more persuasive when derived from/ supported by facts (matter)

9. Arguments are statements of analysis. Therefore, your basic weapon is the ability to ask questions. what? why? when? who? how? where? so what?

10. Basic Structure of an Argument BANNER PREMISE Grounding of the argument, a basic fact or a hard-to-contest notion ANALYSIS Logical extension, implication, links EVIDENCE AND EXAMPLE Matter to support and further prove the case CONCLUSION & TIEBACK

11. CONSTRUCTIVELY SPEAKING • Banner Statement/Label • Phrase or sentence that encapsulates the argument • Reminder: use simple words especially for complex arguments • Give more emphasis on analysis than on packaging • Note that banner statements provide the first impression to your argument, so your choice of words is paramount.

12. CONSTRUCTIVELY SPEAKING • Establishment of premises • Premises are facts or generally accepted notions that serve as the foundation of the case. • Two ways to use premises: • Give all the premises at the start of argumentation. • Ration off premises in different parts of the argument with logical explanations.

13. CONSTRUCTIVELY SPEAKING • Logical Implications and Extensions • Logical implications are semi-conclusions that you can derive from premises you already have. (SO WHAT?) • Logical extensions are causal or analysis links from one logical implication to another. (HOW?) • The chain of logical implications and extensions must link all the premises with the conclusion.

14. CONSTRUCTIVELYSPEAKING • Illustrative example • Concretization of general analysis • Illustrates the steps in the logical extension and presents a realistic bigger picture where your argument will be in. • Use your matter to make it more realistic • Previous experiences • Case studies • Street knowledge

15. CONSTRUCTIVELY SPEAKING • Conclusion and Tieback • What does all the things you say lead to? Conclusion summarizes your argument and then highlights its: • relevance to your stand • importance in assessing the issue • Conclusions must explain why the idea you presented answers your burden of proof.

16. Class Exercise: Concept Mapping ISSUE STAKEHOLDER C Why is C impt/ relevant? STAKEHOLDER B STAKEHOLDER A What will C most likely say? think? do? Why is B impt/ relevant? Why is A impt/ relevant? What will B most likely say? think? do? What will A most likely say? think? do?

17. CHARACTERIZATION and the BIGGER PICTURE Notes on Constructive Material: Why is A impt/ relevant? What will A most likely say? think? do? • But be careful! – EMBEDDING ARGUMENTS • Context • Standards • Model • Framework STAKEHOLDER A One strand of perspective may be equal to one argument!

18. The Asians Parliamentary Format The intersection of argumentation with technicalities to formalize the conversation.

19. DEBATE FLOW Prime Minister Leader of Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply

20. THE BASICS • 2 opposing teams: Government (Affirmative) versus Opposition (Negative) • Each team is given a motion and 30 minutes of “prep” time to build a case and get ready for the debate • Each speech takes 7 minutes long, with the first and last minute being uninterrupted (no points of information) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. Speaker Roles All for one, one for all – Three Muskeeters

22. SPEAKER ROLES • Prime Minister (PM) • Defines the motion • Outlines the team’s allocation of arguments according to speakers (split) • Delivers his part of the Government split • Leader of Opposition (LO) • Shows the difference of the Opposition stand vs. the Government stand (clash) • Rebuts the PM’s arguments

23. SPEAKER ROLES • Outlines the team’s allocation of arguments according to speakers (split) • Delivers the first portion of the split • Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) • Rebuts the LO’s arguments • Delivers the second portion of the split • Summarizes and rebuilds the Government case

24. SPEAKER ROLES • Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) • Rebuts the DPM’s arguments • Delivers second portion of the split • Summarizes and rebuilds the Opposition case • Government Whip (GW) • Rebuts the arguments of Government • Rebuild, defend and strengthen the arguments of the Government’s constructive speakers

25. SPEAKER ROLES • Opposition Whip (OW) • Rebut the arguments of the Government • Rebuild, defend and strengthen the arguments of the Opposition’s constructive speakers • Team Replies • Delivered either by 1st or 2nd Speaker • Biased explanation why you should win the debate

26. Speaker Roles are… • A matter of strategy – in order to win, there must be ways to persuade more (CONSTRUCT), respond to the other side (REBUT) and reiterate your side (REBUILD) • A way to allocate labor: the impossibility of a genius sent from heaven to explain everything in 7 minutes • Team camaraderie and consistency

27. Motions, Setups and Clashes

28. MOTIONS • A motion is a topic to be discussed in a given debate. • It is a complete statement that the Government bench is expected to affirm and the Opposition bench is expected to deny. • Examples: • THW require models to have a minimum body mass index. • TH supports the politicization of Hollywood.

29. SET-UPS • The way the motion is to be understood in the debate at hand is presented using a set-up. The set-up is a framework within which the entire debate occurs. • A set-up generally includes the following components: • Context – Where is this debate taking place? • Definition – What will the words or phrases in the motion mean for the purposes of this debate?

30. SET-UPS • Question – What is the main question of the debate? • Measure – What goal is both sides trying to achieve through their respective stances? What standards do we use for determining whether the motion, as understood in the debate, is true or false? Note: Each constructive speech must address ALL standards provided in the set-up

31. SET-UPS: Class Exercise! Construct a set-up. (until measure only) • Given: THBT political dynasties are the bane of democracy. • Context: Philippines • Definition: • Political dynasties – family groups that regularly field members to elections and whose members hold offices simultaneously or practically consecutively • Bane of democracy – detrimental to democracy • Question: Do political dynasties hurt Philippine democracy? • Measure: Goal – promotion of democratic development in the Philippines

32. SET-UPS • Notice that a motion and/or a set-up implies the nature of the debate. • Assessment or value judgment debate • The motion, as understood by the definition, is examined for its truth-value (true or false). • It does not necessarily present a course of action to be undertaken by a particular actor or consolidated group of actors. • e.g. The motion on political dynasties as set-up in the previous slide.

33. SET-UPS • Policy or proposal debate • It recommends a course of action that may be undertaken by a particular actor or consolidated group of actors. • The central issues are often what principles must be protected and how a policy attempts to fulfil those principles. • e.g. The motion above is set up in such a way that the question of the debate becomes: Should we ban family members from occupying elected government offices simultaneously and/or consecutively?

34. SET-UPS • Comparison debate • e.g. A debate about whether democracy or authoritarianism is the better political system for the Philippines. • Note: These three types of debates are NOT mutually exclusive categories. In fact, to some extent, all motions can be perceived as subspecies of assessment debates.

35. Workshop • Construct a Prime Minister Speech • THBT cream sections should be abolished.

36. CLASHES • The clash is the stance of the Opposition bench that: • Is mutually exclusive from the stance of the Government as provided by the motion and the stance they themselves took. • Responds to the burden of the Opposition bench required by the motion and the set-up. • This is the Opposition’s setup

37. CLASHES • Standard ways to clash in policy debates • The policy is ineffective/counterproductive in achieving its goal. (That’s why the status quo is still better.) • The policy sacrifices other goals equal or higher in value. (That’s why the status quo is still better.) • There are better alternatives to the policy—more effective or equally effective without sacrificing other important goals.

38. Debate Team Spirit ISSUE/PROBLEM What? STANCE The principle and the spirit where the whole team banks on How? Who? When? Where? WORKING MODEL The manifestation of the stance; explicit position of the team on the issue Why? So What? ARGUMENT Explanation and defense of the model

39. How will you be judged? • Speaker Assessment • Elements of Speech • MATTER • MANNER • METHOD • Speaker Roles • Debate Assessment • The adjudicator should look at what was said in the context of a bigger picture. • Envisioning the debate.

40. Rebuttals and POI’s Putting more action and dynamism in the debate

41. Why do we need to rebut? • To respond and engage • You analyze and digest what the other team said • You found a logical error/leap • You saw a false matter • You just think it is ridiculous • To be defensive • You want to persuade them back to your side. • There might be truth to what they are saying but yours is better.

42. 3 DEADLY SINS • Always be on the lookout for the following most common speaker mistakes: • Assertion – statement made without appropriate evidence • Deviation – straying from the topic • Insufficiency – missing links, tiebacks, and examples that give less weight to the potency of an argument

43. COUNTER-ARGUMENTS • Structure for Counter-Arguments • Restatement of banner or target argument/issue • Use the exact banner used by the opposing speaker • Simplify the banner if it’s too complicated • Brief explanation of target argument/issue’s logic • Explain or reiterate logical extensions/implications and conclusions raised by the argument • Criticize analysis

44. COUNTER-ARGUMENTS • Negation of Target Argument • Kill the argument! • Provide the lethal blow. • Conclusion • Pull the arguments to your side. • Provide further analysis/interpretation of facts with respect to the argument you just killed.

45. REBUTTALS • Before rebutting • Identify the banner statement, premise, logical implications, extensions and conclusions of an argument. • Examine any faults you see with regards to wrong premises, consistency and logical reasoning. • Proceed with debunking the argument.

46. Steps for Rebutting Identify the argument you wish to debunk Briefly explain the gist of the argument Explain why argument is wrong Explain how the wrongness of the argument means they do not achieve the goal of the debate Note: A wrong argument isn’t necessarily false. An argument can be true, but at the same time wrong in terms of resolving the issue of the debate. REBUTTALS

47. Techniques for Rebutting Negate the argument State the higher value Rebut the premise Concede but say that there’s a higher value at stake State that the argument is irrelevant Contextualise REBUTTALS

48. REBUTTALS • 2 Ways to Rebut an Argument • Over-all evaluation of argument • Irrelevant • Illogical - conclusion doesn’t follow premise • Unreasonable - argument not enough reason (too petty, too small, too minor an issue) to support a stance • False - argument is dead wrong, e.g. premise is dead wrong or characterization is inaccurate • Inconsistent - argument contradicts other arguments of the same side, or non-even-if rebuttals

49. REBUTTALS BANNER Surgical Rebuttal 2: Find the argument’s mother: its Assumptions PREMISE Grounding of the argument, a basic fact or a hard-to-contest notion Surgical Rebuttal 1: Kill the strongest part of the argument: Analysis ANALYSIS Logical extension, implication, links Meta-rebuttal: Respond to their goals, directions, standards and principles. EVIDENCE AND EXAMPLE Matter to support and further prove the case

50. REBUTTAL SPEECHES • Whip Speakers • Rebuttal, summation speakers • GW has the advantage over OW regarding the introduction of new matter. However, this advantage must be used sparingly. • Introduction of new matter gives adjudicators the impression that MG was insufficient in providing constructive material. So be careful. • May be justified if MO introduced a completely new issue that was unadressed in the debate.