English Debating Society

Universitas Indonesia

(EDS UI)

GUIDELINES FOR DEBATERS

(AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY)

Universitas Indonesia
Depok
1998
English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
THE BASICS OF DEBATING...............................................................................................1
MOTIONS...........................................................................................................................2
DEFINITIONS.....................................................................................................................2
THEME LINE.....................................................................................................................4
TEAM SPLIT......................................................................................................................4
ARGUMENTS......................................................................................................................5
What adjudicators look for in a good argument
Preparing a Reasonable Argument
REBUTTAL.........................................................................................................................6
Organization of rebuttal
ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS................................................................................................7
The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's cases
The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument
The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponent’s case
Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication
ADJUDICATION..................................................................................................................9
CLOSING..........................................................................................................................10

Guidelines for Debaters Table of Contents

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

INTRODUCTION
THIS document is an introduction to Australasian Parliamentary debates, the
motions/topics, team structure, etc. It is meant to help institutions and universities who
are new to the Parliamentary debating format and are interested in participating in a
debating competition using the format, but are still unclear on the rules and regulations.
This document is not intended to serve as a definitive guide to the rules of the
tournament.

THE BASICS OF DEBATING

DEBATING is about developing your communication skills. It is about assembling and
organizing effective arguments, persuading and entertaining an audience, and using
your voice and gestures to convince an adjudicator that your arguments outweigh your
oppositions. Debating is not about personal abuse, irrational attacks or purely emotional
appeals.

A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These two teams will be
referred to as the Affirmative and the Negative. Members of each team are assigned
positions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speakers. For each debate, a motion is given. After the
motion is given, teams are given thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each debate.

Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of seven (7) minutes duration and
either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides will deliver the reply speeches for their
teams. Reply speeches will be five (5) minutes.

Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:

 1st Affirmative – 7 minutes
 1st Negative – 7 minutes
 2nd Affirmative – 7 minutes
Substantial Speeches
 2nd Negative – 7 minutes
 3rd Affirmative – 7 minutes
 3rd Negative – 7 minutes
 Negative Reply – 5 minutes Reply Speeches
 Affirmative Reply – 5 minutes

What must both sides do? In general:

 Affirmative (also known as “the Government”)
The Affirmative team must define the motion and support this by giving
constructive arguments. The right to define first resides with the Affirmative
team, who is expected to give a reasonable definition for the motion.
 Negative (also known as “the Opposition”)
The Negative team must oppose the motion as defined by the Affirmative, and
build a counter-case against the Affirmative. In the event the Negative team
feels that the definition is invalid, they may challenge the definition and propose

Guidelines for Debaters Page 1

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

an alternative definition. However, the Negative team cannot raise a challenge

simply on the basis that their definition is more reasonable.

MOTIONS
MOTIONS, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a
debate shall be about. In the debate, the Affirmative team must argue to defend the
propositional statement of the motion, and the Negative team must argue to oppose it.

Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about:

 That we should give President Habibie a chance
 That Indonesia should change its constitution
 That football is overvalued in today’s society
 That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the bad effects of
smoking
 That American pop culture is a threat to civilization
 That long is better than short

DEFINITIONS
BEFORE a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined by the
Affirmative team. A definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a clear
description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting what the debate will be about
into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the debate from turning into a vague and
confusing show of unrelated arguments and different interpretations from both teams of
what is actually being debated among them.

The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual words only if they
have a key role. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues
that will be fought over in the debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on
a word-by-word basis, it should define words or phrases by their common usage.
Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning or a pithy explanation of a
word, but they are not an absolute authority.

An example of a definition could be as follows: Given the motion “that what goes up,
must come down”, the Affirmative is presented with many options on how to define the
motion, because the nature of the motion itself is quite abstract. One way they could
define it is as follows: they could define the object (the ‘what’) as being the president of
the Republic of Indonesia. In essence, the motion would then state that anyone who
“goes up” (takes power) as president of Indonesia, must undoubtedly one day “come
down” (step down from power). This would give us the definition “that the Indonesian
presidency should be limited to 2 terms”. The Affirmative team could then argue on the
detriments of having unlimited presidential terms, citing proof such as the total control
of the past regime under Soeharto, etc.

Guidelines for Debaters Page 2

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of the debate is
unknown until the Affirmative delivers their definition of the motion. Only then does it
become clear.

Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable. This is to say that:
 it must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and
 it must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.

This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual interpretation of
the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.

The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the Affirmative, but the
Negative shall have the right of challenging the definition if it does not conform to
either of the two requirements set out above. However, a Negative team cannot raise a
challenge simply on the basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can
only challenge a definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological,
Squirreling, or Time and place setting (see below).

If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to say so, and it is unnecessary
to restate it. If they challenge it, their justification for doing so must be clearly stated,
and an alternative definition must be put forward. If the definition is accepted, then that
definition must stand. The Negative must adjust their case to that definition, and the
adjudicator's views on its reasonableness become irrelevant.

The following definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be
challenged by the Negative team:
 Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature and thus make
the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the
debate. If a team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the
truth of their definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and supporting
evidence. An example of a truistic definition would be if the motion “that we should
eat, drink, and be merry” were defined as “that we should eat, because otherwise we
would starve to death; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst; and be merry
because we are alive”.
 Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a definition is given in such
a way that it is logically impossible to negate it. An example would be if the motion
“that technology is killing our work ethic” were defined as follows: the Affirmative
team decides to define the term ‘technology’ as meaning “all scientific
advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic”. This would
result in the whole definition “that all scientific advancements that make life easier
and therefore kills our work ethic is killing our work ethic”. This cannot be logically
proven false.
 Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the motion and do not
have a proper logical link to the motion will constitute squirreling. For instance,
when given the motion “that the USA is opening up to the PRC”, an Affirmative
team could try and define USA as “Untidy Students of Asia”, and PRC as “Pretty
Room Cleaners”. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree that the spirit
of the motion is about the relationship between the United States and China!

Guidelines for Debaters Page 3

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

 Time and Place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a
particular time and place. For instance, trying to limit the subject matter to only the
economic development of Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration.

A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about challenging definitions - only

do so if you are absolutely certain that the Affirmative's definition is unfair. It is better
to be brave and dump your prepared case in favor of tackling the Affirmative on their
own terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By the same token,
Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is fair.

THEME LINE
THE theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is the main instrument of
argumentation that is used to prove a team’s stand on the motion. A theme line can be
viewed as a ‘Case In A Nutshell’, because it concisely explains a team’s strategy in
defending or negating the motion.

The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team member. It is
the main idea that links together the first, second, and third speakers, ensuring
consistency among all speeches.

In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: Why is the
propositional statement given by the definition of the motion true (or false, for the
Negative team)? Without further explanation, this propositional statement is a mere
assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven to be true. The answer to this
question must be an argument which proves the assertion given by the motion. This
argument is the theme line.

A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single sentence, an
arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must
by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all arguments brought forward should be
based on this theme line.

TEAM SPLIT
DEBATING is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments and become the
sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the
arguments should be distributed among speakers. This is called the team split. Simply
put, the team split is the distribution of arguments to the first, second, and third speaker.

Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion.
You should not create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual
speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other
speeches to be able to finally prove the motion.

Guidelines for Debaters Page 4

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

For a more elaborate exposition on formulating theme lines and team splits, please
consult the document entitled “Casebuilding Examples of Australasian Parliamentary
Debates”. It contains thorough examples that give a very clear idea on how to construct
theme lines and team splits from definitions.

ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTATION is the process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted.
It concerns the logic and the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidence
(i.e. examples, facts, statistics, quotations of expert/public opinion etc.) to back up each
point you make in your argument. Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and
how it advances your argument. Make a point, give the reason for that point, and supply
evidence to back it up.

Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have yet to be proven to be
logically true. On the other hand, arguments must have supporting logic and facts that
can show its validity.

What adjudicators look for in a good argument

 Relevance
 Organization
 Consistency and internal logic - i.e. don't contradict yourself or your teammates
 Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience and adjudicator that
you're right - so make sure they can understand what you're saying!)
 Effective use of evidence

Preparing a Reasonable Argument

One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to understand, a reasoned
argument and – especially important – to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument.
The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of
reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises and whether those
premises are true.

When developing your argument, consider the following factors:

 Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the "facts."
 Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all points of view.
 Arguments from authority carry little weight – "authorities" have made mistakes in
the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that
there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
 Prepare more than one case. If there's something to be defined, think of all the
different ways in which it could be defined. Then think of arguments by which you
might systematically rebut each of the cases. What survives, the case that resists
rebuttal in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working cases," has a much

Guidelines for Debaters Page 5

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

better chance of being the stronger case than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
 Try not to get overly attached to a idea just because it's yours. It's only a waystation
in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare
it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you
don't, others will.
 Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical
quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to defend it against generalized
rebuttal. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course
there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to
confront, but finding them is more challenging.
 If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the
premise) – not just most of them.
 Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two
hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
 Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that
are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not in the spirit of debating. You run a
good chance of losing a debate, especially if the opposition correctly identifies that
your arguments cannot be rebutted.

REBUTTAL
REBUTTAL is the process of proving that the opposing team's arguments should be
accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:
 showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous
interpretation of fact
 showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
 showing that the opposing argument is illogical
 showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable
implications
 showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little
weight

As with arguments, assertions do not equal rebuttals. Just as teams must show how and
why their own arguments are valid, so they must show how and why the opposition's
arguments are invalid.
 An argument may be wrong in fact or logic - if so, say how and why
 An argument may contradict their team line, or something else a speaker on that
team has said – if so, point it out
 An argument may be true but completely irrelevant – these are often called “red
herrings”.

Guidelines for Debaters Page 6

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

Organization of rebuttal
It is not necessary to rebutt every single point and fact raised by the opposition. Single
out their main arguments and attack those first. Savage their theme line and show how it
falls down – and show why yours is better! You should rebutt by both destroying the
opposition's arguments and by establishing a case that directly opposes theirs.

ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS

THE six speakers in an Australasian Parliamentary debate each have different roles to
play and adjudicators should take account of how well a speaker fulfills his/her
obligations.

The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's cases

First Affirmative’s duties:
 Defines the motion of the debate. The 1 st Affirmative should ensure that no
important points of definition are left out.
 Presents the Affirmative’s theme line. This is normally presented in one or several
lines of analysis, explaining why the Affirmative’s case is logically correct.
 Outlines the Affirmative’s team split. This can be done by saying, for example: “I,
as the first affirmative will deal with the philosophical base of our case, while my
colleague, the second affirmative speaker, will examine its practical implications”.
 Delivers substantial arguments (“1st Affirmative’s part of the split”). After
establishing the definition, theme line, and team split, the 1st Affirmative should then
deal with the arguments/points that have been assigned to him/her in the team split.
 Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1st Affirmative may spend some time on the definition and on establishing the
theme line and showing how it is going to develop, but it is important to leave time to
present some substantive arguments.

First Negative’s duties:

 Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the definition).
 Rebutts 1st Affirmative, delivers a part of the negative's substantive case.
 Presents the Negative’s theme line.
 Outlines the Negative’s team split.
 Delivers substantial arguments (“1st Negative’s part of the split”).
 Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1st Negative’s role is similar to the role of the 1 st Affirmative’s, with the added
responsibility of responding to the arguments brought up by the latter. The response to
the 1st Affirmative’s arguments can come before the 1 st Negative presents his/her own
arguments to support the Negative’s case or vice-versa. However, the delivery of
rebuttals first is recommended.

Guidelines for Debaters Page 7

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

After the first speakers have spoken the main direction of each team’s case should be
apparent.

The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument
Second Affirmative’s duties:
 Rebutts the 1st Negative's major arguments.
 Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Affirmative’s team case.
 Delivers substantial arguments (“2nd Affirmative’s part of the split”). Most of the 2 nd
Affirmative's time should be spent dealing with new substantial material/arguments.
He or she has the duty to present the bulk of the Affirmative's case in an attempt to
further argue in favor of the Affirmative.
 Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2nd Affirmative should be prepared to defend the definition if necessary. If it is

attacked, it is vital for the 2nd Affirmative to win back the initiative.

Second Negative’s duties:

 Rebuttal of the first two Affirmative speakers.
 Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Negative’s team case.
 Delivers substantial arguments (“2nd Negative’s part of the split”).
 Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2nd Negative has duties similar to the one performed by the 2nd Affirmative.

Most of the teams' substantive argument should have emerged by the time both second
speakers have spoken.

The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponent’s case

Third Affirmative’s duties:
 Rebutt the points raised by the first two Negative speakers. The 3 rd Affirmative is
mainly entrusted with the duty of responding to the arguments of the Negative that
were not previously dealt with by the first two Affirmative speakers. 3 rd Affirmative
may also reinforce rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates.
 Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers’ arguments).
 Summarize the issues of the debate.

The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! Most of a third speaker's time must
be spent rebutting the preceding speakers. Generally at least three quarters of a third
speech should be rebuttal.

Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a global level (teamwise), a 3rd
speaker should attack the opposing team’s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in
argumentation and logic. On a more detailed level (speechwise), a 3rd speaker should be
able to point out the mistakes in fact and inconsistency of each individual speech.

Guidelines for Debaters Page 8

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

Third Negative’s duties:

 Rebutt the points raised by all three Affirmative speakers.
 Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two speakers’ arguments).
 Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate
 Summarize the issues of the debate

The 3rd Negative has duties similar to the ones performed by the 3 rd Affirmative.
However, the 3rd Negative cannot introduce new matter, except for new examples to
reinforce an argument that has previously been brought up. The logic behind this rule is
that if a 3rd Negative is allowed to introduce new matter, the Affirmative would be at a
disadvantage as they would not have any opportunity to be able to respond to these new
arguments.

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased

adjudication
Reply speakers duties (both sides):
 Provide a summary or overview of the debate
 Identify the issues raised by both sides
 Provide a biased adjudication of the debate

Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply speech. The
Negative team delivers the first reply speech.

A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a
chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the
flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your
own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in
support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument
must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach
to the arguments. Both are effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits
you best. However, the latter style is often more effective in light of the limited time
frame.

The introduction of new material is absolutely prohibited and will be penalized. Any
point brought up by the other side which had not been rebutted earlier in the substantial
speeches may not be rebutted in the reply speeches. Therefore, this means that all
substantive arguments presented in the debate must be dealt with by the opposing team
in the substantial speeches.

ADJUDICATION
ADJUDICATION is the process of determining which team wins the debates. This is
conducted by an adjudicator, or a panel consisting of an odd number of adjudicators.

Guidelines for Debaters Page 9

English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

There is always a winner in a debate. There are no ‘draws’ or ‘ties’. The speakers are
assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is 40 points, Manner is 40, and
Method is 20, making a total of 100 points for each substantial speech. For reply
speeches, Matter and Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50
points.

Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples brought up
during the course of the debate. Manner is concerned with the style of public-speaking –
the use of voice, language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality as
a medium for making the audience more receptive to the argument being delivered.
There are no set rules which must be followed by debaters. Method consists of the
effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, the
effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and the
extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.

CLOSING
THIS document is not intended to be the definitive set of rules that you must adhere to
in debating. It serves as a source of information. For further information, please check
out the Casebuilding Examples of Australasian Parliamentary Debate. It provides
more in-depth explanation of cases, and gives examples to give a good idea of how one
should construct cases.

Finally, it must be said that “practice makes perfect”. No one ever masters the art of
swimming or riding a bicycle by thoroughly reading guidelines and handbooks. One
must take that first plunge, and perhaps even fall down once or twice, before finally
becoming skillful. The same applies to debating. These guidelines should be enough to
get you started. But practice makes perfect.

Happy Debating!

Guidelines for Debaters Page 10