Make your own free website on

Welcome fellow debaters!!

NaSHDC debater's manual
Photo Album
Sample Motions
Reference sites
Debate Basics
it's all 'bout us
tag it

* 0:00 to 1:00
1. State of debate comments: Briefly summarize what has happened so far in the debate by recasting each side's case and stating the main issue of the debate is. State how your speech will buildon the first speaker's speech in order to prove the team line.
* 1:00 to 3;00
2. Rebuttal: (a) First, defend your first speaker from the attacks of the opposite side.
(b) Respond to the arguments of the previous speaker ONLY.
*3:00 to 6:00
3. Continue your case: Develop yor  ARGUMENT/S thoroghly
*last minute
4. Summarize by showing how our side has discharged its burden. Remind the adjudicator of what the other side failed to do.
0:00 to 1:00
1. Highlight and outline the main issues that cropped up in the debate. i.e. "There are four important issues that figured heavily in this debate. First, the alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty on crime. Second, the twisted notion of retributive justice. Third, the moral implications of death penalty. Lastly, the flaws an imperfections of our judicial system. You may want to state the themes/issues in the form of questions. For example: I'm going to answer four crucial questionsin my speech. First, does the death penalty really deter crime? Second, is justuce really servedby an eye-for-an-eye punishment? Third, are society's values strengthened or weakened by killing criminals? Lastly, would it be just ti take away the life of a criminal irreversibly given the flws and inequities of our judicial system?
1:00 to 7:00
2. Rebut, rebut, rebut. Use the outline you laid down and guide the audience through your outline.
3. Strengthen and reiterate your case. Again, use the outline above.
4. Conclude by highlighting how your case is superior.
- Reply speeches are commonly referred to as biased adjudication because that is basically the purpose of the reply speech: To help the adjudicator decide the debate in your favor. In other words, the reply speaker would give the most compelling reasons why his had won the debate.It is probably fair to say that most debates are decided by the time you get replies. however, in close debates, they count. If you are doing a reply, you should spend your time highlighting the main issues of the debate. If you find two or three critical issues, concentrate on these issues as well. try not to get bogged down with individual examples or peripheral issues. Hit the main issues and leave on that note with a good quick summary.

Points of information can usually be offered between the first and second time signals (i.e. between the end of the first minute and the start of the last) by members of the opposite side only.You offer a point of information by standing and indicating this, usually by saying "point of information" or similar. You can offer as many as you like, but if you offer more than one in a thirty second spell it may look as if you are trying to unsettle or harass the speaker and you may be penalized.
The speaker may accept or decline the point in any manner they like, but most speakers will take either 2 or 3 during a 7 minute speech. It is usually not wise to take a pint very early in a speech as it may disrupt your structure before you have started . taking more than two or three points usually leaves too little time to finish your material (unless you are running short of things to say) and fewer implies you are reluctant to engage the other side (it may be acceptable to take only one pint if not many are offered).
If your point is accepted you should address a short questuon, contradictory example or other such gem designed to challege what the speaker is saying. It must be short (about 10 seconds) and to the point. Many inexperienced debaters are afraid of taking points of information. Usually this is because they vastly over-estimate the intelligence of the people they are debating and are paranoid that they themselves are talking nonsense.
There are number of ways to deal with points of information. You candismiss them briefly and then get on with your speech (if it was a bad or stupid point). You can answer them more fully and dovetail your answer into what you were going to say next, or answer them and dovetail the answer into a later part of your speech which you can then omit (or refer back to briefly) when you come to it again. Finally you can simply say that you are planning to deal with that point later on in your speech and carry on whwere you were. If you do the latter, you absolutely MUST make it utterly explicitwhen you refute the point later on. You must not use this as a ducking tactic since adjudicators will notice. Points of information have decided more than one Intervarsuty final I have been in. You must make them regularly (and you must accept a couple) or you will lose vital method marks.
*  Taken from Oxford Union's Rough Guide to Debating. 
Elements of the Affirmative case:
- Values    -Urgency    *Stance/team line  
 *Parameters    * Arguments/Split     - Anticipated Arguments
*Absolutely required. Your case will suffer without it.
- Not required but would definitely strengthen your case
Values-  In every debate, there are always competing values. When you take a side in a debate, you implicitly prioritize one value over another. For example, in the debate about legalizing prostitution, the competing values are pragmatism and morality. In a debate about the death penalty, the competing values are retributive justice and public safety versus compassion.
Urgency- the urgency of the matter simply answers the question "Why are we even bothering to debate on this?" You don't want to waste people's time by debating "wouldn't -it-be-nice-if" topics.The world is full of bright ideas but only a few deserve to be acted upon immediately. You can deliver a sense of urgency by introducing your speech with a recent development, a brewing problem, a special event,etc. however, this should be very brief. And remember, it is the matter itself that must be urgent, not necessarily your deliver thereof.
Stance/caseline- The stance will give your team case overall consistency. The stance is simply the general statement of what your team is arguing in the debate. Often, it is as simple as saying , "Tonight, the affirmative team believes that.." or saying " the negative team will prove to you tonight that..." All of the arguments that you make should be consistent with the syance.
Some debaters think that a stance is a clever little one-liner that each speaker gives during their speech, using exactly the same words every time. This is not what a team line is meant to be! The different speakers may phrase the team line differently- this is probably advisable as it makes it less repetitive (and hence less boring for your adjudicator). 

Enter supporting content here