DEBATING IN THE CLASSROOM

							     DEBATING

A Guide for Teachers and Schools
                     Schedule
 General

 Types of Debates

 Speaker Roles

 Adjudicating Debates

 Benefits of Debating

 Mock Debate

 Questions
               General
 Style

 Structure and Strategy

 Rebuttal

 Points of Information

 To Be Avoided
                    Style
   How the content is presented
   Includes
-   Fluency and coherency when speaking
-   Use of gestures and eye content
-   Use of humour
-   Analytical vs. abstract/passionate
   Individual style of each speaker varies.
   Style very rarely determines the outcome
    of the debate
        Structure and Strategy
   Emphasis on very clear structure
   Individual structure
-   Introduction and outline
-   Use of Point-Reason-Example
-   Signposting
-   Conclusion and overview
   Team structure
-   Consistency
-   Ordering points
-   Logical and persuasive progression from
    speaker to speaker
                  Rebuttal
   Counter argument
   Vital to engagement in a debate
   Ideally rebuttal should be
-   Logical rather than factual
-   Linked to a key issue in the debate
-   Interwoven with substantive
-   Structured and ordered
   Time spent on rebuttal increases with each
    consecutive speaker
          Points of Information
 Framed as a question, statement or comment offered
  to speaker on floor by opposing team
 Purpose is to
- Draw attention to a flaw in opposition’s argument
-  Throw or fluster speaker on floor
- Gain clarification on a point
 Different from point of order, interjection or rebuttal
 Common in more advanced debates
 Typically rules and guidelines govern
- When Points of Information are offered/accepted
- How many Points of Information are offered/accepted
            To Be Avoided
   When defining the moot
-   Squirelling
   When arguing
-   Truisms
-   Personal attacks
   When offering Points of Information
-   Barracking
       Types of Debates

 Classification of debates as either a
  ‘model’ debate or a ‘judgment’ debate



 Requirements and mechanisms for
  each type of debate
 Judgment Debates - Overview
 Requires teams to evaluate whether what is outlined in
  the moot
- Is right or wrong
- Is successful or unsuccessful
- Should be supported or condemned

 Can often be identified by “is” or “support/condemn” in
  the moot

 Examples:
  “This house believes that the United Nations is
  ineffective”
  “This house supports the use of corporal punishment in
  schools”
  Judgment Debates - Mechanisms
Affirmative                   Negative
 Set up a number of           Set up the criteria for
   criteria by which the        the debate if the
   moot is evaluated.           affirmative has failed
   Essential requirement        to do so.
   of the affirmative.
 Prove that the subject       Prove that the subject
   of the moot has              of the moot has not
   fulfilled these criteria     fulfilled these criteria
   and is therefore             and is therefore
   right/successful/            wrong/unsuccessful/
   deserving of support         deserving of
                                condemnation
    Model Debates - Overview
 Requires teams to identify a problem and
  then propose a model that will solve the
  problem
 Can often be identified by “should” or
  “would” in moot
 Examples:
  ‘This house believes that the UN should be
  reformed’
  ‘This house believes that schools should
  increase disciplining of students’
  Model Debates - Mechanisms
Affirmative
 Problem (Why?)
  Identify that there is a significant problem that needs
  to be addressed.
 Model (How?)
  Outline the process by which the problem will be
  solved.
 Solution
  Explain how and to what extent the model will solve
  the identified problem.
 Consequences
  What other effects/benefits the model and solution
  will have.
  Model Debates - Mechanisms
Negative
 Two main strategies.
 Problem
  The problem identified by the affirmative is not
  serious enough to merit the scale of action.
  As there is no (significant) problem, a model/solution
  is unnecessary.
 Model
  Requires the Negative to acknowledge the existence
  of a problem.
  The model proposed by the Affirmative is impractical,
  would be more harmful than beneficial, does not solve
  the problem.
  May involve the Negative proposing a counter model.
        Speaker Roles
 1st Speaker

 2nd Speaker

 3rd Speaker

 Right of Reply
                1st Speaker
 Define the moot
 Outline team argument/case split
 Set the context for the debate
 Model Debate
  Argue existence and significance of problem.
  Outline model/counter model.
 Judgment Debate
  Introduce criteria.
  Expand upon most important criterion.
 1st Negative must also rebut arguments from 1st
  Affirmative.
               2nd Speaker
 Rebut preceding arguments from opposing
  team.

 Reinforce preceding arguments from own
  team.

 Expand and develop new points in substantive.
              3rd Speaker
 Rebut preceding arguments from opposing
  team.
 Reinforce preceding arguments from own
  team.
 Identify main areas of clash/key issues
  within the debate and then argue in favour
  of team.
 Further explain/analyse any important
  points raised in the debate that have not
  been sufficiently developed or are very
  contentious.
 Minimal amount of new material.
             Right of Reply
 Can be done by either the 1st or 2nd Speaker.
 Order: 3rd Negative -> Negative Right of Reply
  -> Affirmative Right of Reply
 Summarise the debate in terms of key areas of
  clash and overarching ideas or themes.
 Show how the Negative/Affirmative’s argument
  in each area of clash is more effective.
 Purpose is to provide an overview of the
  debate from each team’s perspective and to
  then reinforce why the moot should fall or
  stand.
 No new material is to be introduced.
         Adjudicating
 Arriving at a decision

 Allocating marks

 Adjudication Speech
       Arriving at a Decision
 Identify key issues in the debate
- How has each team presented and argued
  each key issue?
- Which team is more persuasive for each
  key issue?
 Level of engagement in debate
 Consistency of argument across team
- Contradictions
- United team argument/proposal
                 Allocation of Marks
 Speaker scores
- Range of 60-80 points out of 100
  Standard             Overall    Style   Content   Strategy
                       (100)      (40)     (40)       (20)

  Exceptional          80        32       32        16

  Excellent            76-79     31       31        15-16

  Extremely Good       74-75     30       30        15

  Very Good            71-73     29       29        14-15

  Good                 70        28       28        14

  Satisfactory         67-69     27       27        13-14

  Competent            65-66     26       26        13

  Pass                 61-64     25       25        12-13

  Improvement Needed   60        24       24        12
                Allocation of Marks
 Right of Reply scores
- Range of 30-40 points out of 50
Standard                 Overall    Style   Content   Strategy
                          (50)      (20)     (20)       (10)

Exceptional              40        16       16        8

Very Good to Excellent   36-39     15       15        7.5

Good                     35        14       14        7

Pass to Satisfactory     31-34     13       13        6.5

Improvement Needed       30        12       12        6
ROUND NO …………….                                        Auckland Schools Debating Competition
PLACE …………………….
                                                                        Private Bag 109025, Newmarket, Auckland
GRADE ………………….                                                  Email: info@aucklandschoolsdebating.org.nz    Web: http://www.aucklandschoolsdebating.org.nz

DATE ……………………..                                       MOOT/MOTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

AFFIRMATIVE ……………………………………………………..                                                             NEGATIVE ………………………………………………………….

                     SPEAKERS                STYLE    CONTENT      STRATEGY   POIS   TOTAL                      SPEAKERS         STYLE    CONTENT        STRATEGY   POIS   TOTAL
                                             (/40)      (/40)        (/20)    (/2)                                               (/40)      (/40)          (/20)    (/2)


1                                                                                             1



2                                                                                             2



3                                                                                             3




                  REPLY SPEAKER              STYLE    CONTENT      STRATEGY          TOTAL                    REPLY SPEAKER      STYLE    CONTENT        STRATEGY          TOTAL
                                             (/20)      (/20)        (/10)                                                       (/20)      (/20)          (/10)




     AFFRMATIVE TEAM TOTAL                                                                        NEGATIVE TEAM TOTAL




Best Speakers
 st
1 ……………………………………………………………………………………                                                            Debate won by ………………………………………………………………
nd
2 ……………………………………………………………………………………                                                            Adjudicator’s name …………………………………………………………
rd
3 ……………………………………………………………………………………                                                            Adjudicator’s signature ……………………………………………………..

                                Please give this marksheet to the host school co-ordinator or duty officer after the debate, before leaving the venue.
                                Speaker scores must be in the range of 60-80 points out of 100 and Reply Speaker scores in the range 30-40 out of 50.
                                          The column for POIS is filled in for advanced debates only (unless POIS are used in senior debates).
           Adjudication Speech
   Purpose is to
-   Explain result of the debate
-   Provide feedback for debaters
   Aim to be
-   Concise
-   Clear
-   Structured
-   Constructive
-   Authoritative
   Avoid
-   Personal praise or criticism
-   Vagueness
      Benefits of Debating
 Public speaking and confidence
 Use of logic
 Analytical skills
 Ability to form and present arguments
 Time pressure and organisational skills
 Awareness of current events, national and
  global issues
 Benefits extend to other subjects and
  disciplines