Debate traditions

**Task І Debate and democracy

Debate is an essential activity in democratic societies. More than two thou­sand years ago, when democracy first nourished in Athens, citizens met regularly in public assemblies, their votes determined the policy and the actions of their state. They decided whether Athens should go to war, how they should fight. They created new laws which directed the course of daily life for citizens. But their votes were always preceded by debate: citizens and leaders argued about what was right and wrong, what was legally or illegally, about the best way to achieve a desired outcome, they discussed and argued about what was possible, and what was prudent.

During Middle Ages being well educated meant to be able to speak in public and debate perfectly if one wanted to be a politician or a lawyer.

Today, debate is still essential to democracy. The democratic process has changed, since modern countries are so much larger, in population and in geographical size, than Athens — but debate continue. Today debate is very im­portant because it develops the fundamental skills needed for understanding of and successful participation in forensic activities: public presentations, confer­ences, project group work and debate. Some debates are conducted in legislative assemblies, some are presented in schools and universities, some may be read in the columns of magazines and newspapers, or heard on radio or TV. Like their predecessors from earlier centuries, citizens, members of governments and parliaments argue about what is best for their societies and shape the course of laws, policy and action.

We can understand this better, perhaps, by considering other models for political societies. In some societies, the course of the state is shaped by power. Those who have no power — and it doesn't matter whether that means that kings or emperors, or aristocrats, or military juntas, or totalitarian governments — di­rect the course of the state as they see fit. They have no power, that means they are able do what they want to do. Popular debate has no meaningful role in such a society.

In democracies, however, power belongs to the people. Governments derive their legitimate power from the "consent of the governed". Citizens direct the course of the state, but citizens do not always agree. They may have conflicting interests, they may have different ways of understanding a common problem. They may have different priorities, and different ideas about what is most important, they may have different understanding of what is right. In short, there are such thing as "debating propositions" — that is propositions about which reasonable people can disagree.

Debating is a powerful way to develop skills in critical thinking and expres­sion. The greater benefits, however, are enjoyed by those who learn to sense controversies in topics, construct defensible positions, but also listen carefully to counter-arguments, and think of responses to them. In other words, those benefits accrue to students who can think for themselves.

**Task ІІ Establishing Proof

In any forensic event, you must present your conclusions to others for their consideration. To do so, you make a claim. It is not enough simply to say, "You should believe what I say because I said it". If, however, you say, "This is the reason you should accept it..." and then you furnish some reason your claim should be accepted, you have given the other person a basis for considering your conclusion. Reasoning is the process of providing (обеспечения) support for a claim.

Proof is information which, when offered in support of a claim, presents sufficient reason to make a claim acceptable.

What constitutes the difference between good and poor reasons? The answer to this question is quite complex. To grasp the concept of proof fully, you must understand psychology and persuasion (what causes people to believe or to doubt a statement), and you must also understand the rules and standards applied to proof within various contexts.

You don't have to become an expert in special fields to prove your case in forensic events. You may use some widely shared principles of reasoning and proof. The primary rule in the events of forensics is that all arguments must be based on evidence. Evidence consists of those items of information discovered through research and offered as proof in support of your claim. The claims you make must be accompanied by a reference to evidence. Without evidence, a claim has no support and is called an assertion. (Без доказательства требование не имеет никакой поддержки и называется утверждением). This label is used because you assert a claim based on your own belief and nothing else. In debate, an unsupported assertion is not accepted as proof.

But a claim founded on evidence is always accepted as proof until it is refuted. You must also make clear the connection between your evidence and your claim. Go back to the question: "Why should I accept your claim?" Suppose your answer is, " Because I have this item of evidence". Now suppose you are asked, "How do you get your conclusion from that evidence?" This requests that you relate the evidence to your claim. If you fail to make the connection, your evidence will not serve as proof for claim, it will be considered irrelevant, or unrelated to the issue. So in the final analysis, proof might be represented as the question.

Proofs = Evidence + Reasoning

When research provides data relevant to the problem as you analyze it, your real task is to integrate your data and analysis into proof. This proof is necessary in order for you to support the conclusions you draw about problems and solu­tions. In all the events which we classify as forensics the reasoning skills hold the key to the belief of others.

**Task ІІІ Preparing constructive arguments

All of the brainstorming, defining and discussing should result in the composi­tion of two constructives: one that affirms the resolution, and one that negates it. Generally, teams work together to compose these arguments, revising and editing drafts collaboratively. The consructives are written in final form; most debaters read the constructives from a manuscript during the competition.

The affirmative constructive comes first when the debate round begins; debat­ers are free, therefore, to give the entire allotted time to prepared remarks. The negative constructive, however, comes third in the sequence of sections, after the affirmative constructive, and in initial section of cross-examination. Accordingly, the negative constructive is coupled with a rebuttal: That is, the negative debater will present his own case against the resolution, but will also respond to the argu­ments that have been offered by the affirmative side. The negative constructive, then, is shorter than the affirmative constructive: the negative debater does not use the full six minutes allotted to this section for the constructive; his prepared remarks may last only three minutes, leaving three minutes for rebuttal.

**Task ІV Anticipating objections

A good debater must be able to "think on her feet". The constructive argu­ments that are written out beforehand constitute only a small fraction of the debate; most of what is said during a debate round is spontaneous. The affirmative debater doesn't know what the negative case is going to be like until she hears it in the round (and the negative debater, of course, is equally ignorant of the affirmative case).

Of course, every debater has to argue both sides of the resolution during competition, so this kind of preparation must be done twice: the debater must think of possible objections to his affirmative case, and he must think of possible objections to his negative case. Finally, the debater should imagine cases that might be constructed by an opponent, and think of objections that he would be able to make.

**Task V Plotting strategies for Cross-examination

We will begin this chapter with some general remarks about the nature and function of cross-examination in competitive debate.

I n competitive debate, cross-examination performs three distinct functions. First, it is designed to clarify the position that has been taken by the opposing side. If a definition or an argument has been vague, cross-examination gives debat­ers the chance to demand precision and clarity. Second, the debater leading the cross-examination can use his questions to probe weaknesses in his opponent's argument. Specifically, he can try to highlight contradictions, and to suggest implications in his opponent's case. Finally, the debater can use the questions to again general concessions that will support his own case (this tactic was described in Chapter Four). Cross-examination is a set-up for what follows in the debate; in our model below, the points made in cross-examination will be incorporated into the negative constructive and refutation.

**Task VІ Team Format

Throughout this book, we will talk about the debate "team". That word has two different meanings. In the larger context, it means all of the students in a school who participate in competitive debate: they arc the debate team, or the debate club. In a smaller context, a team consists of the individuals who are competing together as a unit in a given competition. In the Popper format, this debate "team" is composed of three individuals; they stay together in every round throughout the course of the competition. (As discussed earlier, they will be switching sides as the competition goes on.. The competition consists of a series of debaters or rounds; in some rounds, they will be arguing in favor of the resolution, while in some rounds they will be arguing against it).

In each round, of course, there are teams that meet to compete. All in all, there are six debaters speaking in a round: three of them form the affirmative team, and three form the negative team. Later in this chapter, we will discuss how each team works together; right now, we will focus on the different asks they are assigned in the Popper format.

Each debater is designated by a number — e.g., as Affirmative I, Affirmative 2, etc. Traditionally, the designation of" I" is given to the debater who presents the team's constructive argument. For ease of reference, these positions are usually abbreviated as Al, A2, A3, N1, etc.

***Task VІІ Structural Sections

In the Popper format, there are ten individual sections. Each section has a specific character, and is allotted a certain amount of time. Moreover, each section is assigned to one or more members of the teams that are competing in the round.

Affirmative Constructive	6 minutes	Affirmative 1
First Negative Cross-examination	3 minutes	Affirmative 1 answers
		Negative 3 asks
Negative Constructive	6 minutes	Negative 1
First Affirmative Cross-examination	3 minutes	Affirmative 3 asks
		Negative 1 answers
First Affirmative Rebuttal	5 minutes	Affirmative 2
Second Negative Cross-examination	3 minutes	Affirmative 2 answers
		Negative 1 asks
First Negative Rebuttal	5 minutes	Negative 2
Second Affirmative Cross-examination	3 minutes	Affirmative 1 asks
		Negative 2 answers
Second Affirmative Rebuttal	5 minutes	Affirmative 3
Second Negative Rebuttal	5 minutes	Negative 3

All in all, these sections amount to 44 minutes, and they are evenly dis­tributed: each team controls 22 minutes of the debate. Those 22 minutes break down into 16 minutes of speaking (constructive and rebuttals) and 6 minutes of questioning (cross-examinations). Additionally, each round includes 16 minutes of preparation time — 8 minutes for each team. This time is not scheduled into any particular places in the sequence of sections; it is taken at the discretion of each team, in whatever amounts they desire. (The negative team, for example, might use 2 minutes before the first negative cross-examination, another 2 before their constructive, another 2 before their first rebuttal, and so on; or they might take only 1 minutes of prep time early in the round, and take longer prep time later on).

**Task VІІІ Basic Forensic Skills

Before exploring debate you need to become acquainted with some basic forensic skills: the skills of analysis, research, and reasoning. These form the basis for any work you will do in competitive forensic activities.

**Task ХІ The Skills of Analysis

Analysis is the process of separating a whole into its essential component parts. It is the opposite of synthesis, which means to combine separate elements into a complete whole. Analysis-is an active thought process. Generally speaking, you already analyze many different objects or concepts, using many different methods to break them down into essential elements. For example, in an English class, you analyze a piece of literature, observing its essential features of plot, character, and style. We recognize how complicated analysis can be when we look at many possible ways to divide concepts into parts, but our purpose here is to point to the essential elements of analysis used in forensics.

Consider three distinct levels that require analytical thinking.

**Task Х Analyzing the Problem Area

A problem area is a general question of some concern to a community. Prob­lem areas are usually broad umbrellas which encompass many particular resolu­tions. A clean environment may be a problem of area. Clean water, air, and good land use are specific problems to be discussed within the area. How can a problem area be analyzed? At a minimum, all the pertinent facts about the problem area must be discussed. Use the following questions to discover those facts:

1. What is the goal or ideal thwarted by a problem?

2. How short of attaining that goal are we?

3. What are the identifiable reasons we are short of the goal?

4. What possible solutions can overcome these causes?

5. Which of the possible solutions appears the best in comparison with the others?

The answers to these questions will show you two important things. They will first indicate where your knowledge of the problem area is strong and where it is weak. This then guide your research and further investigation. Secondly, the answers to these questions will pinpoint some of the issues which you must consider in your own presentation of opinion.

**Task ХІ Analyzing the Problem Statement

A problem statement narrows a general discussion area. The statement of the problem must be analyzed. The beginning point for analysis is a definition of the terms by which the problem is stated.

The logical beginning place for the first step is to consult dictionaries, text­books, and encyclopaedias. Your analytical action is to arrive at the best possible understanding of what these terms mean within the frame of reference represented by the total statement of the problem area.

**Task ХІІ Analyzing the Audience

Once the problem area is analyzed, you must adapt your ideas for the intended audience. You must know which pieces of information to select and present to your intended audience to achieve your purpose. Audience analysis should lead to the selection of information which wins group support for your position. In debate, you may use special forms of issue presentation to analysis apply to each of these events.

**Task ХІІІ Understanding the Types of Proposition

What is a proposition? A proposition is a statement offered for consideration, specifically a statement made to others for the purpose of gaining acceptance after due consideration. A proposition may require explanation, discussion, or proof. Some propositions are uncontroversial (беззаперечний), these are rarely debated. Others may be too vague to spark disagreement. When a proposition presents a clear and important choice, it is often the subject of debate.

The function of proposition is to provide focus for discussion and debate.

There are several types of propositions in forensics, each calling for its own unique levels of support, explanation, development, and proof. Propositions may be classified into three categories -— propositions of fact, propositions of value, or propositions of policy.

The simplest of propositions is the proposition of fact. A factual proposition may be about some object or event which can be experienced directly by the physical senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.

Statements of fact may be about the past as well as the present. A newspaper report and a story from history thus qualify as factual propositions.

Examples of propositions of fact are:

1. Federal intervention in state policies is unconstitutional.

2. Shakespeare was not the real author of the literature that bears his name.

3. America was first discovered by the Norse.

4. At current rates of use, the free world will run out of oil within thirty-five years.

Propositions of values express judgement about the qualities of some person, place, thing, idea, or event. When we make a statement about values, we move from the realm of senses and into the realm of opinions and attitudes. They con­cern a thing's qualities, rather than the thing itself. Judgements are important because they express opinions and attitudes about the underlying meanings of facts and events, whether we like or dislike them, whether they are good or bad, whether or not they should lead to action, and if so, what type of action. Value judgements may be of an artistic (express our attitude of being pleased or dis­pleased with something. Among our artistic values, we attach great importance to beauty, symmetry, good taste — and their opposites), moral and ethical (express judgements of right and wrong, just and unjust, good and bad), or political nature (express judgements as to what is expedient, that is, what should or should not be done for the common good. Political values include democracy, rights, justice, and many others).

Examples of proposition of value are:

1. Everybody must pay taxes.

2. The use of tax money to support athletics is wasteful.

3. The United Nations is not worth the money it costs the United States.

**Task ХІV Proposition of Policy

The origin of the term policy is the Greek word polis, or city, the same root word leading to related modern English words such as metropolis, police, and politics. Broadly speaking, a policy is a course of action or a set of rules, regula­tions, and laws designed to guide present and future government, and/ or private sector decisions. The spheres of policy formulation include all those problem areas deemed appropriate for government action.