Part
One, Introduction

1.1
Format

The
debate will consist of four teams of two persons (persons will be
known as “members”), a chairperson (known as the “Speaker
of the House” or “Mister/Madame Speaker”) and an
adjudicator or panel of adjudicators.

1 The Structure of Debate

1. The topic shall be made known at least 14 days
   prior to the debate. A topic shall be offered by the proposition which is subject to the acceptance of the opposition. The organisers reserve power of veto over
   any potential topic to be debated.
2. Two teams shall participate in a debate, each team
   comprising of three competitors. Each speaker shall be assigned a particular
   function, namely opening speaker, second speaker and summator. The floor shall consist of the participants and the audience.
3. Competitors shall be called upon to post by the
   chairperson in the following order:
   1. opening proposition
   2. opening opposition
   3. second proposition
   4. second opposition
   5. speakers from the floor
   6. opposition summator
   7. proposition summator

   No competitor shall make more than one post in
   a debate. No competitor will edit his/her post once a reply has been made. If the “edited by” notice appears on a post, this has occurred and the competitor runs the risk of having his post deleted and zero points assigned.

Debating Handbook

Introduction

Introduction to Adjudication

The cardinal rule of adjudication is that each debater’s speech should be judges on how well it PERSUADES the audience to either support or reject the team’s stand. Therefore, as an adjudicator, the ultimate criterion is to determine how effective the debater was in persuading you of his case.

The burden of proof for this is upon the debater. Debaters should not expect adjudicators to notice every detail. The debater should make the adjudicator pay attention to his speech, make sure they see his good arguments and make them receptive. If the adjudicator misses something, chances are it was not put forward well enough to be noticed.

In order fairly judge a debater’s overall ability to persuade on this site, his technique is judged on two categories: matter and manner.

Matter is the substance of the speech, the factual arguments and supporting statements. How well did the debater prove his stance?

Manner is the way in which the matter is presented, including strategy, style, and charisma, among other qualities. Did the debater’s appeal make you want to believe his arguments? Was his style persuasive to you, did it capture your attention?

Both elements are essential. The best arguments in the world, if not presented properly to the audience, will win no ground. The most charismatic speaker in the world cannot win without an argument with some substance.

Judging Matter

Common sense is your best guide in determining what is a good argument. However, there are a couple of common pitfalls that you might look out for:

Appeals to authority
E.g. “I am a law student, I know about the constitution.”

Appeals to the status quo
E.g. “Marijuana is illegal so it must be bad.”

Attacking the opposition’s character and not their argument/Ad hominem
E.g. “Mr. Blue is just a white, private-school snob. How can he argue about helping the poor?”

Appeal to majority
E.g. “Most people think that smoking in public places is okay, so it must be okay.”

Note that arguments (i), (ii) and (iv) above can all be effectively employed as supportive material, but technically should not form the crux of an argument.

For an example of what is meant, an ineffective appeal to authority would sound something like: “The great economic thinker, John Maynard Keynes stated that increased government spending promotes economic growth, and so that is why the South African government should increase spending.” This is appealing to something arguable about Keynes’s ideas as a means of proving a point.

This is not to say that a member cannot refer to authority (or the status quo, or the majority), but rather that such reference should not form the foundation of an argument.

Red Herrings

Often a debater picks up on one of the opposition teams’ minor points, and speaks about it for a large part of his/her speech. Experienced debaters are taught to plant and to spot red-herrings. It is a skill one learns in order to purposely lead the opposition astray. An adjudicator’s job is to ensure that every argument is judged from within the context of the bearing that the argument has on the debate.

For example, the Prime Minister believes that significant disarmament should take place and that “the money be better spent — for example, on developing the teeming potential of the Ocean”. Other than this he makes little reference to the money being better spent. Rather, the rest of his arguments focus on why disarmament should take place. If an opposition member were to stand up and to focus on why the money should not be spent on exploring the Ocean (even if he has good arguments for it), he should be heavily penalised for not engaging on the dynamic issues of the debate. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is instrumental in determining what the dynamic issues of the debate are, so this member can only be penalised in extreme circumstances. It is a matter of experienced judgement to determine whether an argument is of sufficient importance to be dealt with significantly by the opposition.

Extensive name dropping

Often a debater will say something like “In the Hegelian sense…”, or “If one takes a neo-classical view of economics then…”, or “But you obviously haven’t read John Stuart Mill’s treatise on Libertarianism…”. Such statements should be regarded negatively by adjudicators, unless they are sufficiently explained. Thus it is the essence of the big name’s argument that is most important - if the debater doesn’t explain it, it probably means that they don’t understand it themselves.

Remember that debaters (and adjudicators!) are expected to be au fair with current issues and have a good general knowledge, but introducing specific knowledge into a debate without explaining it is poor debating practice.

Adjudicators should mark debates with `homo adjudicus’ in mind. Homo adjudicus is the reasonable, well-educated university student without any specialist knowledge or definite views. This applies equally well to name dropping as it does to the reasonableness of arguments, examples and facts.

Begging the question (Circular reasoning)

This occurs when the arguments used to prove the truth of a statement are dependent on the statement being true. Thus, a speaker who is using circular reasoning, or begging the question would make a claim such as, “X is true. The evidence to support this is that X is true.” e.g. “God exists because the Bible tells me so. How do I know the Bible is true? Because the Bible is the inspired word of God.”

Ad Hominem

This is an attack on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. e.g “X is obese, what could he possibly know about exercise and fitness?”

This argument would be fallacious because X’s obesity does not preclude the validity of his argument.

or for e.g. “Obviously you are against affirmative action, you are white”.

Fallacy

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Simply put, an argument is fallacious argument if the premises given to support the conclusion do no such thing!

The issue of fallacies is a complex one and involves a thorough look of the components of an argument, the different kinds of argument and a whole lot of Latin terms. This guide does not purport to provide a thorough look at fallacies, it will merely introduce you to common fallacies that occur in debates. Examples of fallacies are red herring, ad hominen etc.

Judging Manner

Style and Presentation

A persuasive speech will usually be given in a fluent manner, with various qualities of conviction, humour and tone. Charisma can also make a good argument even better. Many of these qualities are not objectively measurable. In fact many are difficult to address in a book, much less a paragraph. But remember that your job is not to itemise these qualities. It is to judge how effective they have been in persuading you.

Adopting the appropriate role

Of vital importance is that the speaker adopt the appropriate role for his/her position. Thus the first speaker must define an issue for debate effectively, the Opening
Opposition must clarify their opposing standpoint, the closing government must introduce something new to the debate, whips must summate etc. If this is not done properly, it will
affect the entire progress of the debate, and as such is regarded in a very serious light.

1. The debate will be presided over by a Chair.
2. The order of the debate will be as follows:
   1. The affirmative will post
   2. The negative will cross-examine.
   3. The negative will post
   4. The affirmative will cross-examine.
   5. The negative will post a rebuttal
   6. The affirmative will post a rebuttal
3. The debate will then be adjourned by the chair. Following the adjournment of the debate, there will be an opportunity for debaters to point out any major rules violations by their opponents.

1. The debate will be presided over by a Chair.
2. The order of the debate will be as follows:
   1. The first affirmative will post
   2. The second negative will cross-examine.
   3. The first negative will post
   4. The first affirmative will cros-examine.
   5. The second affirmative will post
   6. The first negative will cross-examine.
   7. The second negative will post
   8. The first affirmative will cross-examine.

Help! I need something to read. I just finished Dean Koontz’ "Brother Odd" and I am looking for something in the Mystery/Crime or Horror/Suspense genres that’s really good.

I won’t just pick up a new author that hasn’t been recommended because I tend to have violent thoughts about authors whose books suck. So I need for someone to say, "Yes, I read it, and it is good" etc.

Thanks!

Spastica
__________________________

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Can you feel the curtain coming down?

Is there a rising pain?

How much warning before

you never speak again?

Do the defeated senses stifle your screams?

Or does the loss of senses swaddle you in dreams?

Does weakness rob all gesture

from a half-life,of parts unread?

Do you see me when I summon your focused eyes?

Who was across the bed

to whom your final word was said?

OK, I’ll admit it, I like to argue. There’s an elegance in it when done properly, similar to the slice of cold steel in fencing, and you can take your opponent apart as many times as you wish, if he’s stubborn.

I thought I would share my latest rant from another site (just my post and the tiny quote I replied to, of course) as an example of the wanton acts of cruelty I’m addicted to. Does anyone else enjoy a vicious debate to the death? After all, rhetoric and well-written opinion are a literary art, I think. Of course sometimes it seems more like a bloodsport.

The following was posted on a political discussion site to break up the repetitive deadlock in a thread on abortion that never went anywhere and resulted only in name-calling. So I stepped into the middle to see what would happen. If you’re going to be offended by the topic, please don’t read it. The intention is to illustrate an argument, not declare war.

WARNING: CONTAINS PROVOCATIVE SUBJECT MATTER AND HARSH LANGUAGE

Quote:

Quote:

we cant be bothered feeding all the kids on earth today but if theyre white and christian we’ll go to hells gates to stop them removing clumps of cells from theyre wombs. unbeleivable.

And yet still the idea doesn’t sink in that just because we know women are going to get pregnant and then remove the "clumps of cells" (that would coincidentally grow into a human being with an identity, even though that apparently requires belief in the tooth fairy, since clumps of cells like tumours and warts don’t) from their wombs doesn’t make it right? That it doesn’t mean that a human organism isn’t being killed? That an entity with its own DNA has still been suctioned into a Cuisinart to be thrown out with the trash?

If you’re going to cry over one child’s death, you might as well mourn another’s. Life — death — life — death. Nope, there’s no middle ground. There’s no better life, more valuable life, worse life, bargain life, half-life (unless you think plutonium’s alive), no sign being held up by the god of the temple of Darwinism that says "It’s OKAY, they’re ONLY CLUMPS OF CELLS!" Nope. Still death.

But that’s the reality of things. We judge death as if it had some sort of gradation to it. "Well, it’s okay that he’s dead, at least he didn’t suffer. Hyuck-hyuck." Now let’s say you have a sophisticated neural net, instead of whatever you’re using currently , and someone shoves a pair of garden shears up your ass and proceeds to cut you in half. Are you going to suffer? Duh. Now if you don’t have the ability to scream or otherwise protest this agonizing invasion of your internal cavities by sharp metal, does that mean you’re not suffering? Here, put this duct tape over your mouth… Duh!

So now that we’ve cut through the bullshit rationalisation, we can arrive at the facts.

Fact: Yes, human beings are being killed. It is a scientific fact that the human species does not have larva.

Fact: Yes, despite the inability to scream, foetuses with developed nerve endings and clusters of ganglia do in fact feel pain. Reactions to stimuli have been measured in utero. Do I really need to put the duct tape over your mouth to prove this to you?

Fact: This is not the end of the world. In fact, the world has continued to spin throughout cataclysms that have killed entire species and large populations of humans.

Deduction: If a child suffers and dies unnecessarily for political reasons or economic reasons and this is considered to be wasting human life, THEN,
It follows that an unborn child suffering and dying unnecessarily for (a) the convenience of the mother, (b) the political reasons of pro-abortion activists and (c) the economic convenience of not having another unwanted child on the public dole IS ALSO WASTING HUMAN LIFE.

Both situations are killing, both situations are only "necessary" in certain people’s opinions, and both could be PREVENTED. So why don’t both sets of activists just kill each other and leave the responsible human beings to clean up the mess? Hmmm? Is it because we wonder if there would be anyone left? Is it because there are many forms of cruelty and deprivation in the world that if not caused by humans are at least preventible if we all sacrificed and gave up our conveniences? Or is it because we don’t want to admit that we don’t want to give up our conveniences, that hypocrisy is an inevitable ingredient somewhere in our lives?

In the meanwhile, I’ll be donating money to projects supplying birth control to any jackass who wants it, because in my opinion the population growth of jackasses cannot be supported by this planet’s ecosystem.

__________________________

By the time my grandmother reached the emergency room she was in a coma. She had always believed in a dignified death and hated the idea of ‘life support’, being hooked up to tubes and wires.
She was still breathing. Her lungs hadn’t filled with fluid yet, but they would. Make a decision. Ventilate or not to ventilate? And papers. Make a decision and sign them. I thought: Am I God? I love this person and have known them all my life. Do I know her well enough to know if she would live or die? And then the decision. My decision: I say live, I say die. But how? We have ventilated you for long enough. Enough? 3 days. 4 days. A week. A month. A year. Ten years. If she was going to come out of it, she’d come out of it by now. Really? People don’t come back after that much time. Don’t you have faith? No.