W

WH T IISS C
HAAT COOM ET
MPPE VE
TIIV
TIIT ED
DEEBBAATTIIN
NGG?? During this preparation time, both teams will build their cases.
It is this casebuilding process that we would discuss here.
An Introductory Course on Competitive Debating Skills
Motion
INTRODUCTION Motion, also known as topic, is a full propositional statement
that determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate,
Debating is about developing your communication skills. It is the Affirmative team must argue to defend the propositional
about assembling and organizing effective arguments, statement of the motion, and the Negative team must argue
persuading and entertaining an audience, and using the to oppose it. Examples of motions are:
language to convince people that your arguments outweigh • That cigarette companies should not be held responsible
your opposition's. Debating is not about personal abuses, for the bad effects of smoking.
irrational attacks or purely emotional appeals. • That football is overvalued in today’s society.
A debate usually involves two sides talking about a topic • That American pop culture is a threat to civilization.
(often called a motion). As a competition, teams of debaters • That long is better than short.
attempt to show the adjudicators that they have the best Please note that a motion should always be in the form of a
debating skills. Being the best debater does not mean that the statement, not question or phrase. "That …" can also be read
debater's opinion has to coincide with that of the adjudicators. as "This House believes that …" or "Be it resolved that …".
After attending this course and the course on specific debating Motions are always for the Affirmative; the Negative would
formats, it is expected that the trainee would be able to negate the statement, as in "That it is not true that …".
conduct their first competitive debate properly.
Definition
Understanding Formats Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be
To ensure proper conduct of the debates in a competitive defined by the Affirmative team. A definition clarifies the
setting, competitions usually enforce what is called a format. motion. A definition gives a clear description of boundaries to
In collegiate level competitive debating, these formats are the motion, thereby limiting what the debate will be about into
usually based on the debates conducted in a parliament, such a focused area of discussion. This prevents the debate from
as Australian Parliamentary, British Parliamentary, and Asian turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated
Parliamentary. Aspects regulated by a format include: arguments and different interpretations from both teams of
• number of teams in each debate; what is actually being debated among them.
• number of debaters in each team; The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining
• duration of speeches individual words or phrases only if they have a key role. Out of
• order of speeches; the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues
• roles of speakers (what is expected from each speaker); that will be fought over in the debate.
• allowance/prohibition of interjections/interruptions; Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable:
• issues on making a definition of the motion;
• procedure, criteria, and marking scale for adjudication. • it must be debatable (i.e. a reasonable opposition exists);
• it must have a clear and logical link to the motion (i.e. it is
Explanation about the above aspects (especially concerning not a bizarre distortion of the motion).
roles of speakers) will be dealt with in lectures about each
format. This course emphasizes on elements that are common This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an
to competitive debating in any format. unusual interpretation of the motion, but they must be
prepared to justify it.

Elements of Debating Skills The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by
the Affirmative, but the Negative shall have the right of
The adjudication of a debate usually classifies the different challenging the definition if it does not conform to either of the
aspects of debating. One of the most common classification is two requirements set out above. However, a Negative team
the 3M: Matter (content), Manner (delivery), and Method cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their
(structure). This course is related to the Method and Matter definition seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a
part of a debate. definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological,
Squirreling, or Time and Place setting (see Advanced Issues).
Outline of This Course If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to
1. Cases say so, and it is unnecessary to restate it. If the definition is
2. Arguments accepted, then that definition must stand. The Negative must
3. Rebuttals adjust their case to that definition.
4. Speeches
5. Listening Theme Line
6. Research
The theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is
7. Advanced Issues
the main instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a
8. Group Activity
team’s stand on the motion. A theme line can be viewed as a
‘Case In A Nutshell’, because it concisely explains a team’s
CASES strategy in defending or negating the motion. The theme line
of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team
In competitive debating, it is not enough for a team to simply member. It is the main idea that links together all speakers,
deliver individual speeches without any structure. A team is ensuring consistency among speeches. All arguments brought
expected to bring what is called a case. As in the legal world, a forward in the case should be based on the theme line.
case is the collection of arguments (including facts, examples,
and logical explanations) coherently based on a main idea. A theme line is basically an abstract idea, but a formulation of
it would make life easier. A theme line should be kept short,
A case is constructed to propose (or oppose) the motion given and it may take form of words/phrases, a single sentence, or
in a debate. In collegiate level competitions, debaters are an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism.
usually given 15 to 30 minutes time to prepare their debates.

Written by Permata Harahap, September 1999 What is Competitive Debating?

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia Page 1 of 6
In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the Evidences support an argument, but they do not replace the
question: why is the propositional statement given by the argument itself. A logical explanation must still be provided in
definition of the motion true (or false)? Without further order for the argument to work. You cannot argue by
explanation, this propositional statement is a mere assertion, examples alone. Similarly, something that an expert once said
or a statement which is logically unproven to be true. The is not guaranteed to be true.
answer to this question must be an argument which proves Aspects that adjudicators look for in a good argument are:
the assertion given by the motion (as it is defined).
• relevance — link everything back to the topic;
In most Parliamentary debates, both the Affirmative and the • consistency and internal logic — don't contradict yourself
Negative team must have cases. This mean that the Negative or your teammates, avoid logical fallacies, etc.;
team should also have a theme line that opposes the motion • clarity — arguments should be easy to understand;
(as it is defined) and clashes the Affirmative's case. Usually, • effective use of evidence — evidence must be relevant,
the more apparent the clash is, the more interesting the always prefer stronger evidence, etc.;
debate is going to be. Failing to clash the Affirmative's case • organization — structure your arguments.
increases the risk of the Negative team losing the debate,
because it is the job of the Negative to oppose whatever the One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to
Affirmative is trying to say. understand, a reasoned argument and to recognize a fallacious
or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like
the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but
Team Split whether the conclusion follows from the premises and whether
Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the those premises are true.
arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case.
Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the arguments
should be distributed among speakers. This is called the team
REBUTTALS
split. For example, in an Australasian or Asians Parliamentary Rebuttal is the process of proving that the opposing team's
debate, the case is split between the 1st and 2nd speakers. arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for
There are many ways to make team splits: them. It may consist of:

• splitting by different aspects, e.g. philosophical vs. • showing that the opposing argument is based on an error
practical, political vs. economics, etc.; of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact;
• directly distributing the arguments to the speakers, e.g. • showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the
case has 5 arguments/points: 1st speaker will deliver point proof of the topic;
1 and 2 while 2nd speaker will deliver point 3, 4, and 5. • showing that the opposing argument is illogical, i.e. it
involves some form of logical fallacy;
In making team splits, consider the time available for the • showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct,
speaker to develop the arguments. For example, a first involves unacceptable implications;
speaker's split is usually smaller than that of the second • showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct,
speaker's, because the first speaker will also need time to should be accorded little weight;
present the outline of the case.
As with arguments, assertions do not equal rebuttals. Just as
Often there are issues not strongly related to the proof of the teams must show how and why their own arguments are valid,
case which need to be delivered, such as background so they must show how and why the opposition's arguments
information, historical analysis, or elaboration of a proposal. are invalid:
Explaining these issues will also take time, so consider them
when making your split. • an argument may be wrong in fact or logic — if so, say
how and why it is wrong;
You should make sure that each individual speech by itself • an argument may contradict their theme line, or
proves the motion. You should not create what is called a hung something else a speaker on that team has said — if so,
case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove point out where the contradiction lies;
the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other • an argument may be true but completely irrelevant — if
speeches to be able to finally prove the motion. so, point out how the argument is irrelevant (irrelevant
In British Parliamentary format, the first speakers of the arguments are often called red herrings).
Closing teams are expected to make what is called an It is not necessary to rebutt every single point and fact raised
extension of the case outlined by the Opening teams. Making by the other side. Single out their main arguments and attack
an extension is similar to making a different split (more those first. Savage their theme line and show how it falls down
information will be given in a special lecture for this format). — and show why yours is better! Apart from argument-by-
argument rebuttal, you should also try to provide a general
ARGUMENTS rebuttal for the whole case of the other team.

Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view

should be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence SPEECHES
supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. facts, Although good casebuilding is a prerequisite to a good debate,
examples, statistics, references to experts, etc.) to back up it is the speeches the adjudicators are going to mark. Since
each point you make in your argument. Show how each piece the aspects of Manner will be dealt with in a separate lecture,
of evidence is relevant and how it advances your argument. here we are going to concentrate on the Method of individual
A good paradigm for delivering good arguments is the A-R-E: speeches as well as the team as a whole.
Assertion - Reasoning - Evidence. First, state the argument.
Then, elaborate the logical reasoning of why the argument is Individual Speech Structure
true. Then, throw in relevant evidences to back up the
argument. Don't forget to link the argument to what you have An effectively structured speech will have the following
to prove (i.e. the motion/theme line). features (neither compulsory nor exhaustive):
Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that • an interesting opening which captures the attention of the
have yet to be proven to be logically true, while arguments audience or helps it to warm to the speaker;
must have supporting logic and evidences showing its validity. • a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general
direction of the speech;

Written by Permata Harahap, September 1999 What is Competitive Debating?

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia Page 2 of 6
• a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point,
development of the speaker’s argument; or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both
• a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a are effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits
whole, and to each major point, which enables the you best. However, the latter style is often more effective in
objective of the speech to be accomplished; light of the limited time frame.
• a conclusion or a summary of the major points made in
the speech.
LISTENING
A good paradigm on structuring individual speech is
signposting. When you want to say something, first you say While the spotlight of the debate is always on the speaker
what are the points that you are going to present, then you having the floor, it does not mean that the other debaters are
deliver those points, then you close it by saying what were the free to take a break. Although you may use the time to further
points that you have just brought up. prepare your own case or speech, you should also make sure
that you listen attentively to the speech being delivered. Apart
Time management is a crucial factor to a succesful
from that, some format allows some kind of interruptions
presentation. Especially, avoid undertime and overtime
toward the speaker having the floor.
speeches, because they will cost you points (in Method).

Role of Speakers Listening to Speeches

Contrary to popular beliefs, good debaters are good listeners.
Roles of speakers mostly depend on the format. However,
If debaters do not listen to the other side's speeches well, they
there are some common characteristics of certain roles of
will not be able to clash and rebutt the other side's case and
certain speakers which will be briefly discussed here. A more
arguments effectively, and they will not be able to respond to
comprehensive explanation of the roles of speakers will be
the dynamics of the debate.
given in separate lectures about the formats.
Failure to listen well may cause a debater to incorrectly
First Speakers reiterates the other side's arguments. This is called
misrepresentations and is considered a cardinal sin in
The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's debating, because you're supposed to fairly oppose the other
cases. This involves outlining the case, i.e. providing a side by what they said, not by what you thought they said.
definition (if Affirmative) or accepting/challenging the
Debaters should not make too much noise that may disturb
definition (if Negative), presenting the theme line and team
the speaker having the floor. Violation of this rule is called
split. After the first speakers have spoken, the main direction
heckling, and may incur penalty points (in Manner).
of each team’s case should be apparent.
However, it should be noted that 1st speakers also must
deliver substantive arguments supporting their case (i.e. the
Brief Interjections
1st speaker's split). The 1st Negative speaker must also present While a speaker has the floor, other debaters might like to
some rebuttal to the 1st Affirmative speaker. utter short phrases (interject) as a form of response to what
the speaker was saying (for example, saying "Hear! Hear!" or
Middle Speakers "Shame! Shame!" to show agreement or disagreement).

The middle speakers usually deal with substantive arguments, Brief and witty interjections are allowed in Australasian,
plus a little bit of rebuttal against the previous speaker. This British, and Asians Parliamentary. They are often effective to
really depends on the format, though, so it will be explained in make the debate more lively. However, abuse of this
separate lectures about each format. allowance (up to the point where the speaker having the floor
is severely distracted) is considered as heckling and may incur
penalty points (in Manner).
Rebuttal Speakers
Although rebuttals are also done by substantive speakers Points of Information
(except the 1st Affirmative), most formats provide a role of
rebuttal speaker (also called the whip), which usually falls on Points of Information (POI) is basically an interruption of the
the last speaker. current speech by any member of the opposing side to ask
questions concerning points raised in that speech. They are a
The role of the rebuttal speakers is simply this: Attack!
vital part of a debate and should not be underestimated.
Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a
Before and after your speech you can't just sit quietly and
global level (teamwise), a rebuttal speaker should attack the
enjoy the other speeches. You must keep the adjudicators
opposing team’s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in
aware of your presence, ideas and argument. POI can be used
argumentation and logic. On a more detailed level
as a weapon to undermine, and even destroy, a speech.
(speechwise), a rebuttal speaker should be able to point out
the mistakes of each individual speech. POI exist in British Parliamentary and Asians Parliamentary
formats. POI can only be given during a restricted time period
of the speech (usually after the first one minute and before
Reply Speakers
the last one minute).
The role of Reply Speaker is excusive to Australasian and
Asian Parliamentary debates. Either the first or the second Presenting
speaker of each side may deliver the reply speech. The
Negative team delivers the first reply speech. Reply speakers When giving a POI, you are expected to stand up, hold your
give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased left hand out, place your right hand on your head, and say
adjudication. "Point of Information, Sir/Mam!" (or something to that effect).
You should make sure that you have enough space to stand up
A reply speech is a review of both your own and the
quickly and at a split second's notice. If you are rejected, sit
opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to
down. If you are accepted, you have 15 seconds at the
show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the
maximum to deliver your POI.
flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the
major points made by your own team and to show how these Keep POI short and to the point: try making it in 5 to 10
contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of seconds. Remember that many speakers like to take a POI and
your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's then use the time to check what they will say next while half

Written by Permata Harahap, September 1999 What is Competitive Debating?

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia Page 3 of 6
listening to the person offering the point. Once they know from them, either by writing them down on a factsheet/cue
what the next part of their speech is they work out an answer cards, or bookmarking/clipping/photocopying and highlighting.
to your point. If your point is short, it doesn't give them
enough time and is more likely to catch them. It looks bad if Books and journal magazines might be helpful in increasing
they have to stop to think what to say, especially if they have your general knowledge about an issue. Reading skills are
to ask you to repeat it. needed here so that you can filter out just the information that
Timing is important. If a speaker is in full stride and knows you really need.
exactly where they are going for the next few seconds, he/she
is unlikely to accept a point. Wait for a pause by the speaker The Internet/World Wide Web
and then offer the point. However, do not wait too long
because then the point would probably be out of place. It's the Information Superhighway! Do make time to ride on it
Different people have different styles when it comes to POI. every now and then, it'll get you somewhere for sure.
Some people like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with
Due to the enourmous amount of information it contains, you
every point which pops into their head. This can be very
should perform directed search for information instead of just
difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick
browsing through from one site to another without a clear
is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you
purpose. Use directory services which classify World Wide Web
decide to use this type of style be very careful. Taking this too
sites according to subject matter, such as Yahoo!
far might constitute barracking, which will cost you points.
(http://www.yahoo.com). Or you can also perform searches
Most speakers prefer to just wait and see how a speech using the numerous Internet search engines available, such as
develops. This involves leaving some weak points go and use AltaVista (http://www.altavista.com). Be specific when
just one or two attacking the central core of the speech once it searching; use as many keywords as possible to narrow down
has developed. your searches. There are also electronic versions of
magazines, TV news, and scientific journals on the Net.
Accepting and Rejecting
Try not to print everything that you downloaded off the
As for the speaker, you have to make the acceptance or
Internet, but rather read them first and make notes (maybe
rejection of POI explicit. Do not simply ignore someone who is
using cut and paste) of the relevant and important
standing up waiting to deliver a POI — it's impolite and it
information. When referring to an evidence that you dig up
might also be distracting to yourself. If you are rejecting the
from the Internet, do not simply mention that you got it from
point, do so explicitly (either by saying "No, thank you!" or by
"The Internet". Be more specific, at least mention the
using hand gestures).
organization or institution which provided the information.
When you are speaking you should accept two to three points.
Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every One thing about the Internet is that you can often get many
other speaker on your side be careful and don't assume that different views of the story, including those which may be
you can handle them. Try not to accept a POI when you are in difficult or impossible to be found in other media. The problem
the beginning of establishing an argument. Especially for 1st is that not all information on the Net is reliable.
speakers, do not accept a POI before you're finished outlining
the case (definition, theme line and team split). Also, if you Television and Radio
can sense that your argument is somehow weak or
controversial, try to reject POI at that point and accept one Watch or listen to the news. Make a habit of it. If you know
when you come to the stronger part of your case. that there is a documentary, special report or debate on a
Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point topical issue why not watch, or listen to, it.
as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up
your argument. Always try to dismiss a point as incorrect or Brainstorming and Discussions
irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go
against you in adjudication. This involves a group of people getting together to discuss a
motion and come up with ideas. The group meets in a room
RESEARCH and trash out the various issues involved in the topic.

If a brainstorming session is not feasible, do not hesitate to

In some competitions, you will get the motions to be debated
ask other debaters or someone who knows more about the
before the event begins, while for some other, you get to
issue for ideas. Just make sure that you don't end up being
know the motions only 30 minutes before the debate begins.
spoon-fed in building a case for a particular debate!
In either case, the research that you do before the competition
(or in your everyday life) plays a very important role to the
Discussions are also important when you're doing your
success of your debating career.
research as a team. This ensures coordination of knowledge
between all team members.
Sources of Information
Making Effective Research
There are invaluable sources of information all around. You will
very rarely come across a motion which you can find
Research is not a blind search for information. It should be
absolutely no information if you look hard enough.
directed and well-structured. If the competition uses surprise
motions, enlist both current and classical issues then based
Books, Magazines, and Newspapers your research on those issues. If you are doing research as a
team, you might like to distribute issues among team
The library might not be your favourite place to hang out, but members so that each person perform a focused research.
it surely has tons of information in it!
There are some ways to structure a research. One alternative
Follow developments of current issues in news magazines and is to use the 4W1H paradigm: answer the questions What —
newspapers. Extract important facts, figures, quotations, etc. When — Where — Who — How on the issues.

Written by Permata Harahap, September 1999 What is Competitive Debating?

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia Page 4 of 6
Try not to mix research with casebuilding. When researching, • Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a
focus on the issue being researched, not on how the definition is given in such a way that it is logically
information will be used in a debate. Usually, the objective of impossible to negate it.
research is to increase your understanding about the issue, • Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit
not merely searching for facts and examples. of the motion and do not have a proper logical link to the
motion will constitute squirreling.
ƒ Time and Place-Setting: The subject matter of the debate
ADVANCED ISSUES cannot be confined to a particular time and place.
Be very careful about challenging definitions - only do so if you
Adjudication are absolutely certain that you can justify the challenge based
on the above conditions. It is better to be brave and dump
The following is a very brief discussion on adjudication — the your prepared case in favor of tackling the Affirmative on their
issue of adjudication makes up an entire subject on its own. own terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By
That is why competitions usually hold a separate Adjudication the same token, Affirmative teams should try to ensure that
Seminar for the adjudicators. their definition is fair.

Adjudication is the process of determining which team wins Definitional Challenge Debate
the debates. This is conducted by an adjudicator, or a panel
consisting of an odd number of adjudicators. There is always a
When a Negative team decide to challenge a definition, the
winner in a debate. There are no ‘draws’ or ‘ties’. The speakers
first speaker of the Negative must:
are assessed on different aspects of debating skills. The most
common classification is the 3M: Matter, Manner, and Method. 1. State explicitly that they are challenging the definition.
2. Justify that challenge with one of the Conditions (i.e. the
existence of the Condition must be proven).
Matter 3. Provide an alternative definition of the motion (which
must also be reasonable), and then negate it!
Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics,
4. Build a case based on that negation.
and examples brought up during the course of the debate.
An Affirmative team cannot accept the alternative definition
Manner provided by the Negative; they must defend their definition
from attacks by the Negative and stick to their case.
Manner is concerned with the style of public-speaking — the
use of voice, language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, Watching a definitional challenge debate is like watching two
humor and personality as a medium for making the audience independent debates: the speakers do not clash each other.
more receptive to the argument being delivered. This aspect This presents a difficulty in rebuttal. Therefore, speakers are
will be dealt with in a separate lecture. expected to engage in even-if rebuttal. Doing an even-if
rebuttal is basically saying that even if the other definition is
accepted, the case does not stand due to the rebuttals.
Method However, if the definition is truistic, it might be difficult or
impossible to do even-if rebuttals. In this case, the rebuttal
Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and
speakers should concentrate on proving the truism.
organization of each individual speech, the effectiveness of the
structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and Doing a definitional challenge debate is relatively difficult, and
the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the the debate also tends to be confusing or even meaningless to
dynamics of the debate. the audience and to the adjudicators. Rules about definitional
challenge are provided to ensure fairness of the debate; they
Definitional Challenges are not meant to encourage definitional challenge debates!
Usually, a debate has only one definition of the motion, that is
the definition provided by the Affirmative team. However, BIBLIOGRAPHY
there are cases where the Negative has the right not to accept
the definition provided by the Affirmative. Alan Swanwick and Christopher Erskine, 1993.
Australasian Debating Handbook. Australian Debating
Conditions for Definitional Challenge Foundation, Australia.
It is often said that the Affirmative has the right of definition.
Colm Flynn, 1998. Debating Tutorial Handout. University of
Though to some extent this is true, one must keep in mind
Limerick Debating Union, Ireland.
that the Affirmative also has a duty to provide a fair definition,
namely a definition that is 1) debatable (a reasonable
opposition exists) and 2) has a clear and logical link to the
(spirit of the) motion (not a bizarre distortion of the motion).
To ensure that the Affirmative follows the above rule about
definitions, there are certain conditions where the Negative
may challenge the definition provided by the Affirmative.
Conditions for challenging a definition may vary slightly
between tournaments/format, but usually they are:
• Truistic: These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature
and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and
therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a
team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the
debate by the truth of their definition rather than by the
strength of their arguments and supporting evidence.

Written by Permata Harahap, September 1999 What is Competitive Debating?

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia Page 5 of 6
 W
WH T IISS C
HAAT COOM ET
MPPE VE
TIIV
TIIT ED
DEEBBAATTIIN
NGG?? ASSESSMENT AND CLOSING
Group Activity Guidelines At the end of the 40 minutes, all groups should end their
activity and gather back in the main session room with the
Moderator. The Moderator may ask two or more groups to
O B J E C T IV E present their case again, this time to everyone. Questions and
problems during the session may also be asked to the
This group activity accompanies the lecture on "What is
Moderator at this point. The assessment session should last no
Competitive Debating?" in the form of a group casebuilding
longer than 10 minutes.
under a time constraint. It is meant to give a hands-on
experience to the trainees in making a case, therefore
enabling them to get a clearer picture about the theories
taught at the lecture.

PREPARATION
Grouping should be determined beforehand, each group
consisting of 3 to 7 persons with skill levels evenly distributed
among groups. One or two Group Leaders should be assigned
for each group, preferably with an advanced knowledge of
competitive debating skills.
The group activity is started by the Moderator (Lecturer)
giving the instructions and the motions to be casebuilt
(everyone casebuild for the Affirmative side). Group Leaders
then lead their group into their own space. The time to
casebuild is 30 minutes, plus 10 minutes for presentation, A
timekeeper should remind the groups when time reaches 10,
20,30 and 35 minutes.
The casebuilding assumes a debate of Australasian
Parliamentary format (3 speakers; 2 of them has a split). In
minimum, the case should be build in the outline level
(definition, theme line, and team split). If time permits,
groups should try to prepare the 1st and 2nd speeches.

ROLE OF GROUP LEADERS

Group Leaders shall act as facilitator; they should ensure that
the casebuilding process is done effectively without feeding
the trainees their own knowledge on the Matter.
Group Leaders should ensure that the discussion goes
smoothly with the group using their time effectively. When the
discussion stagnates, Group Leaders might take some
initiative to suggest what the group should be doing.
Group Leaders should try to ensure that the group casebuilds
in a structured way. However, at the discretion of the Group
Leaders, some form of brainstorming should be tolerated (e.g.
for the first few minutes of the casebuilding time).
Group Leaders should keep minimal participation in the
discussion, interfering only when really necessary. Especially,
Group Leaders should not use their knowledge regarding the
Matter. Group Leaders' expertise is only on Method.
Group Leaders should watch for fundamental yet common
errors, such as failure to distinguish between definition and
theme line, invalid and hung cases, etc. Do not hesitate to
give additional explanation about such issues.
When questions are asked regarding debating/casebuilding
methods, Group Leaders should answer it in a simple and
straightforward manner; remember that time is limited!
Group Leaders should take note on group members that might
require special attention, such as members being very
passive/uninvolved, too dominating, emotional, etc. and report
this confidentially during session evaluation to the Moderator.
After the casebuilding is finished, the Group Leaders become
adjudicators, assessing the case made by the group. Do not
hesitate to point out flaws in the case, such as flawed logic,
unbalanced splits, etc. However, Group Leaders should be
constructive and encouraging when assessing the case; try not
to make the session a traumatic experience for the trainees!

Written by Permata Harahap, September 1999 What is Competitive Debating?

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia Page 6 of 6