 Debate
| is a series of formal spoken arguments for and against a
definite proposition. A proposition is a carefully worded
statement that makes clear the positions of both the affirmative
and negative sides. |
| Debate differs from discussion. Discussion is the
process by which a problem is recognized, defined, and
investigated, and then solutions are explored. Debate is
the process that evaluates a probable truth, a judgment, a
causal relationship, or a single solution. |
Formal debate
| In formal debating, the same number of people speak for each
side. They have the opportunity to reply directly to opposing
speakers. Affirmative and negative speakers usually alternate,
and all the speeches are limited in time. In informal (as in
conversation) and in legislative debating, though there is the
same opportunity to reply to opposing speakers, the speeches are
not necessarily limited in time. There may be no attempt to
alternate opposing speakers, and the number of speakers on each
side may be unequal. |
Propositions
| Subjects for debates are expressed in the form of
propositions. Propositions should be: |
| (1) Appropriate to the knowledge, experience, and interests
of both speakers and audience. |
| (2) Debatable--that is, not obviously true or false. The
statements should involve an honest difference of opinion, with
arguments and evidence on both sides. |
| (3) Phrased in the affirmative. Positive statements prevent
confusion by making the issue clear-cut. |
| (4) Restricted to set forth only one idea. This policy keeps
the debate within narrow limits. |
| (5) Worded clearly. The words should be ones that can be
defined exactly, so the debate does not become a mere quibble
over the meaning of words. |
| There are four kinds of propositions: (1) propositions of
fact, (2) propositions of value, (3) propositions of
explanation, and (4) propositions of policy. |
| A proposition of fact is a statement to be proven
true or false as the evidence is gathered. For example, the
proposition, "Resolved, that Main High School will defeat East
High School in varsity football next week," is neither true nor
false at the present time. After the game, the proposition is no
longer debatable. It is a fact that Main High School either won,
lost, or tied. Propositions of fact are usually resolved in
debate by awarding the decision to the team that presents the
best evidence and that establishes probable truth. A proposition
of fact is not a fact. Facts are truths proved only
through such means as experiment, testing, measurement, or
scientific observation. |
| A proposition of value contains a relative term that
makes a value judgment. For example, in the proposition,
"Resolved, that John Jones did a good job as student council
president," the word good cannot be precisely defined.
The meaning of good depends on the value that is given to
it. It may have several meanings: (1) John was kind to council
members, (2) John was politically successful, (3) John achieved
his agenda, or (4) John was moral. In order to debate a value
proposition, debaters must define the value term, convince the
audience that this definition is reasonable, and apply it to the
subject of the proposition (John). |
| A proposition of explanation attempts to determine
whether a cause and effect relationship exists between two
actions or events. For example, the proposition, "Resolved, that
oily rags left in the attic caused the fire," asks whether the
rags were a necessary and sufficient factor to produce the fire. |
| A proposition of policy evaluates potential courses
of action. It answers the question, "should we change?" A
proposition of policy may argue for a new program: "Resolved,
that the federal government should finance elementary and
secondary public education in the United States." A proposition
of policy may want to end a policy: "Resolved, that trial by
jury should be eliminated in civil cases." It may also want to
substitute one policy for another: "Resolved, that tackle
football should be replaced by touch football." |
Analysis
| After a subject has been selected and the proposition
carefully worded, the next step is analysis of the proposition
by both debating teams. Analysis of the proposition begins with
a broad understanding of it. As a team member, you should know
as much about your opponents' case as you know about your own
side. Good debaters study the origin and history of a
proposition, define its terms, and survey carefully all the
arguments and evidence for and against it. Policy analysis
usually follows one of two outlines:" Does a new condition exist
in the present system? Is that condition harmful
to people or nations?
Is the harm significant in scope and/or intensity? Is the present policy the cause of the harm? Can (or will) the
present policy solve the harm? Will the
proposition solve the harm? Will the proposition
produce new harms? " |
| or" Will the proposition create a new situation?
Is this new situation advantageous? Are the
advantages significant or widespread? Are the
advantages unique only to the proposition?
Will disadvantages result from adopting the proposition? " |
The
case
| Both affirmative and negative sides need to prepare a
case. A case is a group of arguments. Two common affirmative
cases are the need case and the comparative-advantages
case. The need case attempts to show that a significant harm
exists, that the present policy either has caused the harm or
cannot solve it, and that the action proposed will solve the
harm. The comparative-advantages case argues that there is an
opportunity for improvement. The affirmative side argues that
the action urged in the proposition will yield significant
advantages that the present policy cannot produce. The negative
approach to the affirmative case may defend the present policy
as being good. The negative side may also reject both the
present policy and the proposition, and present an alternative. |
The
plan
| The affirmative side needs to present a workable procedure
to put the proposition into effect. Such a procedure usually
focuses on four steps: (1) the goal, (2) administration, (3)
funding, and (4) enforcement. The negative side usually will
raise one or more objections to the plan. Examples are: "The
plan will not work." "The plan will not solve the harm." "The
plan will create new harms." |
The
issues
| The chief points of difference between the affirmative and
the negative are the main issues. These may have
divisions called subordinate issues. There must be a
clash of opinion on both the main and the subordinate issues. A
good way to help find the issues is to list the opposing
arguments in parallel columns. In the subject, "Resolved, that
the United States should abolish the Electoral College and adopt
a system that would provide for the election of the president by
direct popular vote," a listing of opposing arguments might lead
to the following two main issues and six subordinate issues:" I.
Would electing the president by direct popular vote correct
flaws in the present system? A. Would it be more
democratic and give each voter an equal voice in choosing the
winner? B. Would it assure that the candidate with
the most votes is elected? C. If no candidate
receives a majority of the votes, would this system reduce the
chances of political deals and an electoral crisis?
II. Would electing the president by direct popular vote have
disadvantages? A. Would it weaken the power of the
small states and threaten the federal system?
B. Would it encourage the formation of small political parties and
make it difficult for the winner to receive a majority of the
votes? C. Would it reduce the power of minority groups to influence an election? " |
The
evidence
| After the issues have been determined, the next step for the
debaters is to find the evidence that will prove the issue true
or false. Evidence can be in the form of factual evidence
or testimonial evidence. Factual evidence consists of
current and historical examples (true incidents), statistics,
physical evidence, and facts. Testimonial evidence consists of
opinions of experts on the subject being debated. To evaluate
testimonial evidence, the debater should ask: "Is this authority
an expert and, thus, in a position to know the truth?" and "Is
this authority biased, and, thus, in any position to tell the
truth?" |
Rebuttal
| Next, the debaters must select the arguments and evidence of
their opponents that they believe can be successfully attacked.
Finally, they must prepare their own arguments and evidence that
will be used in the attack. |
Format
| In the traditional form of debate, there are two
speakers on each side, each of whom makes both a constructive
speech and a rebuttal speech. The speaking order is:"
Constructive speeches (10 minutes each)
1. First affirmative 2. First negative 3. Second affirmative 4. Second negative Rebuttal
speeches (5 minutes each) 1. First negative
2. First affirmative 3. Second negative
4. Second affirmative" |
| Another type of debate is the cross-examination form,
which was developed at the University of Oregon. Each
constructive speaker is cross-examined by an opposing speaker.
The speaking order is:" Constructive speeches (8 minutes) and
Cross-examinations (3 minutes) 1. First
affirmative 2. Cross-examination by second
negative 3. First negative 4. Cross-examination by first affirmative
5. Second affirmative 6. Cross-examination by first
negative 7. Second negative 8.
Cross-examination by second affirmative Rebuttal
speeches (4 minutes) 1. First negative
2. First affirmative 3. Second negative
4. Second affirmative" |
The
decision
| If a decision is to be given, one or more judges listen to
all the speakers. Each judge decides which team made the most
convincing argument and votes for that team. The team with the
most votes wins. |
Competitive debate
| The National Forensic League sponsors debate competitions
for high school students. The Cross-Examination Debate
Association and the National Debate Tournament Committee of the
American Forensic Association sponsor college debate
tournaments. |
James M. Copeland M.A., Executive Secretary, National Forensic
League. |
