Introduction to 3on3 Debating

1
Introduction to 3-on-3 Debating

• Victor Finkel

2
Outline

• Why debate?
• What is debate?
• Matter/Manner/Method
• How to prepare a case
• Adjudication
• Hot tips

3
Why Debate?

• Because debate is fun
• Because debate is useful
• Because you get to travel the world, meet new
  people and kick their butts!

4
Debate is structured argument
5
Why do we do it?

• US launches predator strikes in Pakistan
• US to sell Uranium to India
• Gay marriage bill vetoed
• Cap on CEO pay strives to end era of excess
• GLOBAL WARMING IS OVERRATED
• You should totally sleep with me for 3 reasons
  First

6
What is Debate?

• Ah hah

7
Debate - an overview

• Assigned topic and side
• Understand context
• Identify problem
• Propose solution
• Convince everyone why
• its right!

I found the old format much more exciting
8
3-on-3 Debate the format
AFFIRMATIVE
NEGATIVE
30 minute prep
1st Aff
1st Neg
2nd Aff
6-8 minute speeches
2nd Neg
3rd Aff
3rd Neg
9
MATTER, MANNER and METHOD

• The elements that contribute to persuasiveness in
  debates

10
MATTER

• What you say
• Arguments

11
Elements of an argument

• Say it, Explain it, Illustrate it
• Or..
• IDEA, ANALYSIS, EVIDENCE
• These are the elements of an argument
• Does it help you prove your case?

12
LOGIC and RELEVANCE

• Why is it true?

• Who Cares?

13
Rebuttal

• Same elements are true for building arguments and
  destroying them.
• Targeting the Idea gt Analaysis gt Evidence

14
MANNER

• Fundamentals
• - Language
• - Vocal Style
• - Body Language
• Key is to be Credible
• gt Its OK to fake it
• Natural Style is GOOD

15
Body Language

• Eye Contact
• Images of people

16
METHOD

• How you present your case
• Enable Audience to understand, follow and
  REMEMBER what you have said
• Introduce, Analyse, Conclude
• Rule of 3s - 3 arguments, 3 questions, 3 times,
  etc

17
Speech
Arg 1
Arg 2
Arg 3
18
Speaker Roles

• 1st Affirmative
• Context
• Definition
• Team Line
• Team Split
• Arguments (5 - 6 minutes)

• 1st Negative
• Definition Issues
• Team Line (1 min)
• Rebut (3 mins)
• Team Split
• Arguments (4 mins)

ROLE Establish the grounds on which the debate
will be fought
19

• 2nd Affirmative
• Summarise debate so far
• Rebut (3 mins)
• Personal Split
• Arguments (4 mins)

• 2nd Negative
• Summarise debate so far
• Rebut (3 mins)
• Personal Split
• Arguments (4 mins)

ROLE Move the debate forward by devoping
analysis of existing arguments and introducing
new lines of argument
20

• 3rd Affirmative
• Intro - biggest point
• Rebut (7 mins)
• Summarise and Conclude
• New Argument (Optional but not encouraged)

• 3rd Negative
• Intro - biggest point
• Rebut (7 mins)
• Summarise and Conclude

ROLE Organise the debate into clear
questions/themes to make understanding it easier
- then show why you won all of them! Thematic
Rebuttal
21
Secret Topic, 30 minutes ARGHH!

• NO 1 Rule - DONT PANIC!
• You know more than you think
• Key is to structure the time you have
• Choice of 3 topics
• Mutual Preference System

22
Choice of Topics Example
Team of Arts students
Team of Eco. students

• That all you need is love
• That China should float the Yuan
• That trees should have the same legal rights as
  animals

1 3 2
3 2 1
23
Timeline for Prep
24
My Rebuttal (at 1st or 2nd)

• Them
• Smoking kills
• Studies show death rate

• My Response
• -gt If people want to die, its their choice
• -gt Studies flawed

25
Constructive Arguments

• Giving arms to Afghani Tribal Militias will
  undermine Al Qaeda's power in the hills
• Pashtun tribes have self-intereset at heart -gt
  will follow whoever presents the most benefit.
  By providing weapons, we become the ally of
  choice.
• E.g. Under Soviet Union, were very happy to
  engage with the most powerful
• Without weapons to defend themselves they are
  blackmailed by Al Qaeda
• E.g. Al Qaeda has taken sons of tribal leaders
  hostage
• E.g. One tribe that resisted Al Qaeda initially
  was made an example of - Suicide bombers exploded
  in a family wedding killing dozens
• By providing weapons, Militias will be both able
  to defend themselves and will be motivated to
  align with west

26
Adjudication

• Winning team decided by one or panel of
  adjudicators, deciding independently
• Cannot award a draw
• Score range for a speech is 70-80
• Provide constructive feedback
• Adjudication is the best way to learn

• 80 phenomenal (me)
• 79 outstanding
• 78 excellent
• 77 very good
• 76 above average
• 75 average speech
• 74 almost there! (amit)
• 73 room to improve!
• 72 lots of room to improve!
• 71 lots and lots of room to improve!

27
Tournaments

• SEMESTER 1 (3-on-3)
• Freshers (MAD)
• For virgin IV debaters
• Easters (Brisbane)
• The National novice comp
• Presidents Cup (Melbourne)
• Debate with fun people
• Sorensen (MAD)
• Major 3-on-3 comp, novice rule
• ADAM (Melbourne)
• Pre-Australs and great practice
• AUSTRALS _at_ MONASH
• MADs favourite IV

• SEMESTER 2 (British Parliamentary)
• Pro-Am Comp
• Open BP Comp
• Freehills
• Womens (Sydney?)
• ANU Mini (Canberra)
• Sydney Mini (Sydney)
• Vic Mini (New Zealand)
• Melbourne Mini (Melbourne)
• WUPID (Malaysia)
• WORLDS (Turkey)

28
Hot Tips

• Dont write out Speeches word for word!
• Youll remember to say Good Evening without
  writing it for yourself
• Consider writing manner cues for yourself
• Try and keep a summary of feedback from your
  adjudicators - quickest way to learn
• Everyone will be learning uni is a great
  equalizer
• Have fun!

29
(No Transcript)
30
Definitions

• Interpreting the topic into a debate
• Define the meaning, not the words
• Show why the meaning is linked to the words
• In 3-on-3, definitions are usually clearly stated
  by the topic
• Context is the best way to go
• BE FAIR
• Winning by definition doesnt work

31
That google has gone too far

• Sometimes, topics are not clear

32
Unreasonable Definitions

• No logical link
• Place/Time Set
• Truistic

33
Definitional Challenges

• NEVER DO IT
• But if you have to, do it, and do it at the start
  of your first speech
• Explain Why
• State why unreasonable - e.g. no link
• Explain this - what the ARP would think
• Propose an alternative, REASONABLE def
• Rebut EVEN IF

34
Models

• Sometimes a debate needs an explanation of how it
  will work
• Set up as part of the definition
• Details cannot emerge later
• E.g. Withdrawl from Iraq