THE JUDGES

DEBATING TUTORIAL

CONTENT
GENERAL STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................. 3
LOGIC: ........................................................................................................................................... 3
DISGUISING NEW ARGUMENTS INTO EXAMPLES: ............................................................ 7
LABELLING .................................................................................................................................. 9
POSITION-WISE STRATEGIES..................................................................................................... 11
PRIME MINISTER:...................................................................................................................... 11
OPPOSITION LEADER: .............................................................................................................. 13
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: ..................................................................................................... 15
DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: ............................................................................................. 17
MEMBER OF THE CLOSING GOVERNMENT: ...................................................................... 18
MEMBER OF THE CLOSING OPPOSITION: ........................................................................... 19
GOVERNMENT WHIP:............................................................................................................... 21
OPPOSITION WHIP: ................................................................................................................... 23

GENERAL STRATEGIES
LOGIC:

Logic is a very powerful tool that debaters can use to find the flaws in and destroy the other side's
case. Let's begin by making a very simple, yet incredibly important, observation: Whenever
someone says something, we have to support the opposite in order to argue with that person.
Likewise, we do not have to disagree with everything the other person says, as long as we still
support an opposite view.
If someone claims that two statements A and B are both true, then it suffices to show that one of
these two statements is false. In doing so, we will have shown that not both of them are true,
therefore disproving what that person had said. Hence, any of "A is false, but B is true", "B is false,
but A is true", or "both A and B are false" will fulfil their role in opposing what had been initially
said.
Now, lets clarify what has just been said by way of an example. Imagine that Alice, also known as
the proposer, currently supports funding a new economic plan, a move to subsidise farm growth by
reducing the current budget allocation for industrial subsidies. Alice's proposal consists of two
parts, reducing industrial subsidies, and increasing farm subsidies. Bob on the other side, also
known as the spoiler, has a tradition of opposing everything the proposer says. He's considering the
three different approaches that would counter her case:
One would be to claim that "while increasing farm subsidies would be a good thing overall, we
cannot afford reducing industrial subsidies".
Another option would be that "while industry is indeed doing well and doesn't need so many
subsidies any more, subsidising farms would do no good to help them grow".
Finally, he could say that "we cannot afford cutting back on our vital industrial subsidies, moreover,
the farm sector would not be benefited by those funds".

Being smart, as well as blessed with the gift to always make the best choice, Bob decides not to
waste much time on an approach that is hard to prove. Instead, he allocates more of his time
towards the easier approach, which serves his cause of winning the argument equally as well.
Ideally, however, he'll be able to support III. That is, try to prove both that "we cannot afford
cutting back on our vital industrial subsidies" and that "the farm sector would not be benefited by
those funds". Even if the proposer later destroys one of his proofs, Bob's third approach will revert
to one of the two other approaches, still disproving Alice's case.
Now lets consider another case, where someone claims that at least one of two statements, either A
or B, is true. That person, would be at an advantage, whence only needing to prove one of: "even
though A is false, B is true", "even though B is false, A is true", or "both A and B are true". To
prove that person wrong, we'd have to show that all of these statements are false, hence showing
that neither of them can be true.

An example for this case is much simpler: Alice is proposing two alternatives to capital
punishment; she thinks it would be better if all such criminals were either imprisoned for life, or
lobotomised. In doing so, our beloved proposer doesn't want to limit herself in arguing one of these
alternatives. Instead, she argues that at least one of them would be viable. Alice will need to prove
one of: "while you may not consider lobotomy to be a good alternative to capital punishment, you
can't say the same thing about life imprisonment", "even if you don't think that capital punishment
could be viably substituted by life imprisonment, you could substitute it with lobotomy", or "both
life imprisonment and lobotomy are good alternatives to capital punishment". Ideally, she'll try to

prove the third option, by supporting both alternatives. If Bob later manages to disprove one of
them, the proposer's third option will revert to one of the other two that still supports the untouched
alternative. The spoiler pauses for a moment to think his options... but there aren't any! He has to
argue against both life imprisonment and lobotomy, as failing to disprove one would not suffice to
counter Alice's argument.
"The opposite of both A and B, is either the opposite of A or the opposite of B" (also written as:
"NOT (A and B) = (NOT A) or (NOT B)")
"The opposite of either A or B, is both the opposite of A and the opposite of B" (also written as:
"NOT (A or B) = (NOT A) and (NOT B)")
These two symmetric observations pretty much sum up what has been said so far. They constitute
what is known as Demorgan's Theorem. As you might have noticed, combining statements with an
"or" seems to benefit the proposer, Alice. Combining statements with an "and" on the other hand,
seems to benefit Bob, the spoiler. Such cases are referred to in relevant bibliography as "original" or
"land" cases respectively.
Ok, now that you know these things, you need to learn how to use them in debates. One obvious
use, if you're an opening government team, is to give an original definition. That way you'll ensure
that you're proposing an easy to defend case, giving your side of the house a competitive advantage.
If you're an opposition team on the other hand, make sure you take advantage of a land proposition
when you see one.
Another very neat trick you can use to disprove virtually every argument, is induction. You can
reduce a case, into easier to manage smaller statements, joined by and's and or's. After doing that,
take each of these statements by itself. Forget for a while that it was part of a larger case, treating it
as a separate entity. Now think of how you could split this statement into sub-statements. If it can't
happen without some other things happening at the same time, then all of these are actually joined
by and's. If it can happen in various different ways, then these are joined by or's. Continue splitting
all statements into sub-statements and all of these into even smaller statements. What you'll
eventually end up with, are the building blocks of the proposed case. If these atoms of
argumentation contradict with each other, then the way to destroy their union lies through
exploiting that contradiction. Even with no contradiction apparent, however, these particles are
bound to contain some assertions. Try to bring the other side in a position where they'd have to

prove these assertions. If your inductive descent was deep enough, it will be next to impossible for
the other side to back them up.

DISGUISING NEW ARGUMENTS INTO EXAMPLES:

The speaker has just called your name. It's your turn to speak and end this round by summing up
what has been said so far. Still, there's this one thing that troubles your mind. This thought that has
been dancing inside your head and won't leave unless you deal with it. You have a new argument, a
very good argument, maybe even a winning argument. You know it's too late to bring it in the
debate. You've done this mistake in the past and know the judges don't like it.
"New arguments are not allowed, new examples are always welcome."
You hear those words echoing in your ears, as your mind desperately tries to find a way out of this
dilemma. You can hear the argument talking to you, begging you... "Come on! I'm one of the
coolest things one could ever think. If you don't bring me up, you're a loser pal!" ...You shake your
head to fight it off...
"New examples are always welcome."
Of course! It's so simple. You'll bring in all the matter you want, but do it in a way that sounds like
an example. Now that's a relief... Relax, and go start your speech, no one will ever notice...
Let's see how this thing works. To do that, we first have to analyse the nature of an example. What
are its properties and characteristics? What does it look like? In order for your disguise to work
properly, it needs to look and feel like the real thing. Well, first of all, in order to be an example, it
has to be baptised as such. So call it an example, regardless of what it actually is. You can start by
saying something like "let me give you an example about..." (See instructions on labelling). This
should give you a good starting point, and prepare the judge's mind for the example to follow. (Did
I just say example? Great!)
Next, you must remember that examples are never complicated or abstract, whereas arguments tend
to be like that. Present your argument in the form of a story, as you would with an example. Instead
of saying that a decrease in the price of condoms would help reduce abortions (which sounds quite
argument like); tell them about John and Mary, how they had money to buy the reduced price pack
for Sunday, and how that saved Mary from an unwanted pregnancy. Then move on into saying that
John was pro abortion and blah, blah, you've got the entire argument in the form of a story. I know
it takes more time, but it's a price worth paying considering that you'll be doing something well
beyond the rules of debate. In any case, try to keep your stories short.

When someone uses an example, it's usually to clarify and better explain an argument that was
stated earlier. The same thing should apply for your argument; it should appear to be exemplifying
something previously stated. If you can link it, in some far-fetched way, to something your partner
mentioned earlier, then that's perfectly fine. If you can't do that however, pretend your partner had
said something like that. You may say, "As my partner most eloquently stated earlier..." blah, blah
and outline the basic premise of your argument... Be careful not to overdo it though!
Keeping these guidelines in mind, you'll have to watch out for the reaction of the judges. Maintain
constant eye contact, and watch for any minor disturbances in their attitude. If you see they're
uneasy with what you're saying, then it means you are not doing a good job of hiding your
argument. It's usually that you get forgetful and your argument starts sounding more technical than
it should. Maybe that's when you're trying to draw something from your story. Or maybe it happens
when you're explaining what's being exemplified by your "example". The rule of the thumb is that
such pitfalls are unavoidable if you stick to the same thing for too long. If you see any of the judges
catching on to your scheme, quickly move on to something else, and start talking emphatically
about it. The judges will stop thinking what they were, and concentrate on writing down that new
thing you're talking about, hence you'll be saved.
In conclusion, by following this method, you'll be able to bring new arguments into the debate
without anyone penalising you for doing so. You need to be careful when doing so, and need to
practice a lot before you can pull this off in front of a good judge. Since it wastes much of your
time, which you should be using summarising the round, only employ this tool when you've got a
really strong argument to make. Lastly, remember, this is an interactive process, you have to go
with the flow and adjust your method according to the feedback you get from the judges as you go
along.

LABELLING
This whole thing started a couple of months back. It was a peaceful Saturday morning, and I was
enjoying breakfast back home. I was just finishing a cup of freshly made orange juice when my eye
caught a bottle next to the kitchen sink. Its label read "Olive Oil", but there was something peculiar
about it. The liquid inside did not have that greenish colour olive oil is supposed to have; it was
white. "Something has to be wrong with this bottle of olive oil; olive oil is never white!", I thought
to myself. After pondering on that phrase for a while, I triumphantly concluded; "Well, someone
has obviously placed this olive oil inside the wrong bottle!". At the time, I was perfectly satisfied
with my explanation, and went on to finish my breakfast.
A couple of minutes later, I felt so embarrassed at the sheer stupidity of my thoughts. Well, as you
might have guessed, the liquid was obviously not olive oil! Someone had placed something other
than olive oil (evidently something white), inside the olive oil's bottle. But that single most
simplistic thought hadn't even crossed my mind up to that point. This was because the label said
"Olive Oil", and there's no way someone will ever challenge the credibility of a label.
As we grow up, our minds learn to trust labels. This happens because it is in our nature in life to
simplify our mental operations as much as we can. In order to be able to cope with the overflow of
external stimuli that are constantly being received, our minds subconsciously accept labels as preprocessed information. That way, we don't have to worry about finding what something is, we just
look at its label and save ourselves the thinking.
Ok, now let's apply all this in debating and see what we get. If I get up there to give my speech, and
label the things I'm saying, the judges will understand what I'm saying and write it down in their
piece of paper. This will happen because they'll trust my labels as they represent information in its
purest form and will save them from thinking. Yeah well :) That's the lame way of looking at it.
Let's have a better look... These judges will trust my labels so blindly, that I can use this to my
advantage. If I label something as an argument, they'll think it's an argument, even if it's nothing but
meaningless talk. If I tell them that "This is my sociological argument, which clearly refutes the
social problems presented by the opposite side", and then go about mumbling, they'll think I'm
bringing up a sociological argument which rebuts the argument presented... --you get the point!
...Similarly (whips, read this!), if I bring up a great new argument, and explicitly tell everyone it's
an example, I'll be able to sneak it into the debate without anyone noticing it's actually a new
argument.

Hmm... this is starting to get really interesting isn't it? The possibilities are endless. Labelling in
itself is a very powerful tool, which can work wonders in the hands of a sly debater. Think of things
like "What the opposite side needs to show to win this round is {blah, blah, ... an impossible label}
and unless they do that, they lose this round" ...or maybe label them so as to equate them with
something evil; "What they're proposing ladies and gentlemen is the equivalent of a dictatorship".
Now you see the potential of labelling, it's constrained solely by your imagination. Have fun and
use it wisely.

POSITION-WISE STRATEGIES
PRIME MINISTER:

Your job as a Prime Minister is to set the grounds for this debate. State the motion that you were
given and provide a logical link (i.e. via a definition) to your proposition (i.e. whatever it is your
case is proposing). That would be a seamless task if it weren't for the opposition, those evil people
on the opposite side of the house who are already planning on challenging your definition. Being
that you've already studied and know the rules pretty well, you don't want to give them the
satisfaction of providing any of the prohibited types of definitions. That being said, your team also
has another vital role to fulfil, "the burden of proof". You need to prove your case and why it should
stand before this house. Though this role will also be dealt with by your partner, you should spend
some time providing reasons to back up your case.
When defining the motion, you're in a very strategic position. The entire debate will (hopefully)
follow up on what you are about to say. You might just as well take advantage of that position to
give an edge, a competitive advantage to your side of the house. This should be done carefully and
with extreme caution, so that the opposition doesn't see through your plans. One way of going
about, is stretching the motion, to something more inclined to the government side. As long as it's
not absurdly removed from the originally intended discussion, and leaves room for the other side to
debate, no reasonable person would ever reject your definition. You need to make yourself sure you
cover thoroughly all aspects of your definition. Murphy's law applies here; "If there is some chance
that a detail arising out of your definition will destroy your case, then it will definitely come up".
Opposition speakers are more often than not involved in nit picking your case for holes, don't let
them find any!
Ok, so you've got yourself a definition, what's next? Well, if there is a very weak argument the
opposition could make against you, then make sure they think about it. That can be done by
addressing it briefly, or by mentioning something that hints in that direction. Luckily, they'll fall for
the trap, and their opposition will take that track. They will use a weak argument to oppose you and
your partner will have an advantage when responding to them.
Being a good opening team is probably one of the hardest roles in debating. Statistically, teams in
your position tend to get scores nearing both extremes of the spectrum. Keep these guidelines in
mind, practice them often and you'll sure be way ahead of the other team's thinking.

OPPOSITION LEADER:

Finally, that idiot's speech is over. The Prime Minister has given you one of the worst definitions of
all times to work with. How did she manage to pull that off? Is that all she could come up with
during her preparation time. Anyway, time is of essence here. Deciding to do your best with what's
been provided to you, you accept the definition and move on with your speech. Your next few steps
are critical, not just for the seven measly minutes of your speech, but for the course of the round as
a whole. A powerful speech can corner your opponent to the point that she loses the debate. Lets
examine some of the underpinnings of a strategic speech and see how clever maneuvering will give
you the edge in this round.
One of the first things a good Opposition Leader does, is to implement an "Opposition Philosophy".
An Opp. Philosophy, regardless of whether it's used consciously or not, decides which parts of the
Government's case will be attacked. This selective procedure inspects the enemy's force, finds flaws
in their defenses, and directs the weight of your speech to those areas where your opponents are
most vulnerable. More help on inspecting cases is given in our Logic tutorial.
While deciding upon your Opp. Philosophy, you might decide to keep in mind the Government
side's burden of proof. The proposing side has to prove their case in order to win this round. The
opposition, on the other hand, only needs to disprove the Government's case.
That being said, let's have a look at the tasks ahead, in no particular order. You have to refute all of
the arguments made by the previous speaker. That will leave the case construct with no positive
reinforcement. As long as there are no reasons for this motion to pass, you'll be standing on the
winning side of the debate. There are two ways of rebutting an argument. One is by showing that
the proposed motion will not have the beneficial effects described by the Government. The other
way is by showing that even though the proposition's case will have the effects they described,
those will not be beneficial at all.
Along with explaining why the arguments provided by the Prime Minister to support her case do
not stand, you should bring forth reasoning against the proposition itself; explaining why the
Government's motion should not pass. These independent points of analysis will deliver a harsh
wound to your opponents' case, while at the same time adding to the next speaker's burden.

Having done all these, you'll be seizing a tactical advantage that will help you time and time again
in this round. Your opponents will see their case crumble right before their very eyes, as your
rebuttals begin to pour in through the cracks

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:

What an amazing display of incompetence! Why is it that every time you and your partner come up
with a great case, some moron destroys it by not understanding its essence. It's becoming really
irritating, but you manage to control that anger. You restrain yourself, for you know that some day
the Lord will take out his fiery sword and strike down his foes with great vengeance. You know that
he will summon his angel of death and bring down his wrath and great anger to all those that didn't
believe in him in times of trouble.
As these thoughts race through your head, you realise that this is a debate. Such things have no
place here, at least not in this tutorial. You don't believe in those divine retribution mambo-jumbo
anyway, so you decide to banish those thoughts and concentrate on how to sway the debate back to
your side of the house.
You are the last person to speak from your team. Once your speech is over, there won't be much
you can do, sort of points of information, to change the outcome of this debate. This makes you
responsible of gaining favorable impressions for your team. You'll have to do all the dirty work, to
cover up on any of your partner's mistakes, and to make sure that your case is strong enough to
withstand all subsequent blows. One of the first things you can do, is to restate your partner's
definition. Clarify everything and make sure the case is crystal clear to everyone. After doing so,
you can move on to accuse the other side of trying to frappe the orange, to muddle the round, by
purposely misinterpreting your case.
It is crucial that you clash all of the points made so far by the opposition. This is your team's last
chance of easily responding to their arguments. One safe way of going about doing this, is to rebut
one by one all of the opposition's arguments. That will hinder the next speaker when he'll be
building up on his partner's arguments, and save you from the potentially hazardous situation where
a harmless argument develops to a huge thorn in your case's backbone. Along with effectively
nullifying all of the Opposition Leader's speech, you should give the next speaker a lot do deal with
in his speech. Though you can't do much about the second half of the debate, you can certainly
crush the Opening Opposition team by baffling their last speaker with some reasoning he can not
clash.
That's it! You can't do much more than that! When your team is offers a strong and clear case, fully
backed up by solid reasoning, while all along providing effective responses to all of the opposition's

arguments... You can't expect anything else but high marks. Your team will be fulfilling its role in
the debate.

DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER:

There we go again, I hate it when that happens. You know exactly what the government team is
trying to pull off. They messed things up during the Prime Minister's speech. They came forth with
a weak case; one they apparently hadn't thought much about. There are so many holes in that case it
might just as well be called a bitch in heat. (umm I meant Swiss cheese)
So... where was I? Ah, yes, cheese! Don't you hate it when you order a sandwich and then, as soon
as you start eating it, you notice it doesn't have enough cheese? But by that time, chances are you
won't be able to do anything about it. You'll probably have paid and walked away from the store.
Same thing happens with debating, only this time the odds are on your side. The Opening
Government team will speak no more, this is your chance to seize the floor.
All you have to do is stand up and trash their case. The best thing about this is they won't be able to
do anything about it! Sure, they could rise on points of information... but would you grant them
those points? Of course not! This is where you need to be merciless, strike back with the bulk of
your argumentation.
You don't have to worry about the next Government speaker, since you can't do anything about the
things she'll say. Chances are, she won't have as much time to spend on your speech anyway, since
she'll be building up her extension. Your biggest trouble is the speaker before you, and what she has
said about your partner. Make sure none of that is left intact by the end of your speech. They'll
probably be some clever points out there, waiting for you to pull them out of your hat. Well, don't
just sit there, this is when you're supposed to use them.
There you go; it wasn't so hard, was it? You won't have much of a competition if you did things
right. The Opening Government team doesn't even get a real chance to defend against the things
you said. This effectively qualifies you as the winner of the first half of this debate!

MEMBER OF THE CLOSING GOVERNMENT:

The first half of the debate is over, yet there is still a lot of work to be done. As you prepare to open
the closing half of this debate, you realise that you are supposed to transcend what has been said so
far. Now is the time to move forward and dwell in different aspects of the discussion. This is where
your extension comes into play. Much like the Prime Minister did before, you will have to lay down
some bricks, adding an extra floor to the construct she has started building.
If the opening teams have created a messy debate, this is your chance to clear it up. Filter out some
of the things they've said, possibly refocusing the discussion to something else. After doing that,
you can clarify some terms that still lack a proper definition. Be careful though, you do not want to
over do it. Make sure you come nowhere close to backstabing the other Government team. Your
extension should be exactly that, a step forward from the Opening Government's case, not a
completely different discussion.
Most of the flaws in the initial case construct will be obvious by now. The Opening Opposition
team has worked in showing what those are. What you need to do, is to polish your extension in a
way that excludes these flaws. In that sense, it seems like you have an easier task ahead of you than
what the Prime Minister had. On the other hand, you will also have to allocate some time
responding to the previous speaker's points. The entire debate will change its course after your
speech is over and it will be too late for your partner, the Opposition Whip, to respond to the
Deputy Opposition Leader's points. As if this were not enough, a portion of your speech will have
to be devoted to providing support for your extended case. You want it to be a sound case, a well
founded belief, by the time the next speaker comes up to the floor.
From what has been said so far, it seems obvious that your greatest concern will be the timekeeper.
Time is of essence here if you're ever to fulfil all of the tasks outlined above. So, basically it boils
down to this... There are a lot of easy things you'll be expected to do. Stay focused, away from all
possible distractions, in order to avoid repeating yourself. That way you won't have any problem
with time either.

MEMBER OF THE CLOSING OPPOSITION:

This is one of the simplest positions you would ever get in most debates. Note, that this does not
automatically make it an easy position, it's just simple in terms of fulfilling your role. One thing
you'll need to do, is to address the points made by the previous speaker. Make sure that you cripple
her support for the extended case. That way, she will not be satisfying her part of the burden of
proof. Since the previous speaker will have so many things to do in her round, she'll probably won't
load you with many arguments to clash. That aside, the only other thing you could and should do is
to formulate an Opp. Philosophy. An approach, around which your opposition to the extended case
will evolve. Explain to everyone how you are going to go about doing that, then move on to the
implementation phase by actually doing it.
This twofold approach of clashing the previous speaker's arguments, as well as strategically
attacking her extended case itself, is all you'll need for the round. Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, as
usual, there's a catch to it. It may all be simple in terms of role fulfilment, but you need to do these
two things really well. While this may be easy in terms of rebutting the government's arguments, it
turns out things can vary when attacking their case construct.
When you're bringing forth your independent points of analysis, you need to be aware of how to
make them as effective as possible, in order to maximize your chances to winning this debate. "The
more the merrier", is the basic rule of the thumb here. Try to generate a bulk of new points, as it
will be very hard for the next speaker to deal with it afterwards. Think of this, if it weren't for you,
your team would have no arguments at all. All of your team's arguments are your arguments. Your
partner will not have a chance of bringing new positive material, anyway, so lets just say that you're
responsible for twice the amount of normal argumentation.
Another thing you should do, is talk with your partner before you get up. He may have something
briliant to say, but he will not be allowed to bring new matter into the debate during his speech. If
you bring these arguments up, or if you even just mention them without analysing them fully, your
partner will be able to better elaborate on the wonderful job that "you did" when you brought up
argument so-and-so.
So... what else? Nothing, I guess that's it. I told you it's simple, just focus on your arguments, you'll
have enough time to do that anyway. Let the others remember you as the guy with all those
arguments!

GOVERNMENT WHIP:

Cool! Wasn't that fun or what? This debate is nearing its end and it's finally your turn to speak.
Your biggest concern, your number one priority, is to summarise what has been said so far. Since
you'll be doing this, you might just as well present things the way you want. This means that you
can describe this debate in a way that conveys victory to your side of the house. The Government
side, but most importantly your team, should emerge as the team that completely crushed all
opposition and successfully managed to prove your extended case.
Ok, so let's talk summary. Since it is such a vital part of your role, I guess I'll have to talk about how
you might go about doing it. There are two common approaches towards summarising debates. The
first one, usually referred to as a "chronological" summary, is basically a speaker-by-speaker
overview of what has happened in a debate. Someone employing this style would typically start
with the Prime minister, explain how she formulated her case and list her arguments. Then she
would move on to the Leader of the Opposition, his responses and his arguments, thus continuing to
move further down the line until the entire debate had been summarised. Comments would be added
here and there to emphasise the effectiveness of some points and to show why the Opposition has
failed in its task. While this approach might sound straightforward, it is also lengthy, and wastes a
lot of time going into the details of what was being discussed earlier on in this round. Always think
of the adjudicators. You do not care if they remember what the Opening Government team did...
right? Chances are they already have it all in their flow anyway, so you might just as well get to the
crux of the matter.
So, what other way is there? Well, it's called a "thematic" or "context-based" summary. You'll
probably have noticed how most of a debate's arguments circle around a few basic themes. First
you'll have to assemble all of these arguments into context-based groups. These would typically be
two to four, but it doesn't matter really as it depends totally on the preceding debate. All you have to
do next, is to present those themes, and explain what was said on each side of the house about them.
Needless to say, that while doing that, you are supposed to show how your team prevailed in each
of these themes. This approach is not concerned with individual speakers. Rather than that, it
addresses all of the arguments brought forward, in an intuitive and continuous manner. Like
everything, however, this method has its drawbacks as well. One of the most prominent being that it
is so short, it doesn't get to talk much about your team.

One is too long, the other one is too short... What's up with this thing? What are you supposed to
do? In most cases, it would be more appropriate if you used a mixture of both. (Everyone says that,
right?) Since you don't care as much about the Opening teams, you can use a thematic approach to
summarise what they've been saying. You won't even need to address the actual speaker who made
a specific point, just say which side it was from. After you're done with the first half of the debate,
you can start being more descriptive, focus on details to show how well your team has done.
Switching to a more or less chronological style, you can start commending on your partner's good
work. Then, you can move on to the third Opposition Speaker. Summarise his points in a rather
diminishing way. Show how he failed to properly attack your partner's case. Respond to his points
and make sure the judges understand why none of them hold. There will probably be a lot of points
to clash there, but hold tight, you can gain some time by drawing from conclusions you've reached
in your summary.
Lastly, if you happen to have some spare time, and have a really good winning argument that just
has to come out... say it! Though it shouldn't be your number one priority, you are allowed to bring
up new arguments.

OPPOSITION WHIP:

Almost there! The round is almost over and you'll be the last person to speak. This means noone
gets to respond to the things you say. The adjudicators will be left with your voice dancing in their
heads, as it is your voice they will hear last. Nice huh? Well, as usual, along with great power
comes great responsibility. People will be expecting a lot of you, most important of which will be a
summary!
Alright, summarising here is more or less the same as the Government Whip's. I won't reiterate my
self by describing all the different kinds of summaries again. Let me just get to the optimal one, and
change it slightly to fit this position's role. To start, quickly go through the opening half of this
debate. You can do that by grouping all of the arguments into big themes, then saying what the two
teams had to say on each of them. Once the first half of the debate is taken care of, you can begin to
talk about the second half in chronological order. First talk about the third government speaker;
crush her case and all of its supporting analysis. Then move on to your partner and the wonderful
job that he did. Lastly discuss the way the Government Whip interpreted this debate and all of the
nonsense she's been talking about in her speech. It shouldn't be hard, just make sure you present
your team as the winning one.
Though all of these may sound easy, there's a common pitfall you need to be aware of. What we all
commonly refer to as "new arguments" have come to be known as an Opposition Whip's worst
nightmare. The reason is quite simple; if you bring one up, you lose the debate. Let me rephrase
that, however, if you bring one up and the judges notice it, then you lose the debate. So, to alleviate
this unnecessary burden of you, we have prepared a wonderful tutorial on disguising new arguments
into examples. Trust me, this is a must-read for Opposition Whips. With it, you can sneak
arguments into your speech. These arguments will make you virtually invincible, as noone will ever
get a chance of actually responding to them.
Another thing that might help you, is our labelling tutorial. Use it in clever ways and it could infuse
the judges' subconscious with a tendency to give you higher scores. As long as you keep them
thinking that you're doing everything the way you're supposed to and that your partner has
obviously crushed the government's case, you'll win this round.