Table of Contents

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………. 1

I. Debating in General ………………………………………………………… 2

Why debate ……………………..……………………………………………………………… 2
World Style …………………………………………………………………………………..… 2
Motion …………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Definition ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Opposition’s Option …………………………………………………………………………… 5
Arguments ……………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Rebuttals ……………………………………………………………………………………..… 8
Points of Information (POI) …………………………………………………………………… 10
Case Anatomy ……………………………………………………………………………….… 11
Roles of Speakers ……………………………………………………………………………… 12
Definitional Challenge …………………………………………………………………….…… 13

II. Guidelines for Debaters ………………………………………………………….…… 14

C o n t e n t …………………………………………………………………………………..… 14
Case building ………………………………………………………………………..…… 14
Research …………………………………………………………………………….…… 16
S t y l e ………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
S t r a t e g y …………………………………………………………………………………… 18

III. Debaters’ Worksheet ….………………………………………………………………… 20

Session I …………………………………………………………………………………..…… 20
Session II …………………………………………………………………..………………..… 22
Reference ……………………………………………………………………………………...…… 26
Annex
Diagram Affirmative Case
Diagram Negative Case

Debating Handbook 1
 I. Debating in General

Ok, let’s start from the beginning. What is debating?

And why do people debate?

Debating is a clash of arguments. For every issue, there are always different sides of a story: why people
support or disagree with that certain issue. Debating seeks to explore the reasons behind each side. To make
those reasons understandable and convincing, debaters should deliver their arguments with good communication
skills.

Competitive debating is debating using a specific format. With formats, people are regulated to speak one at a
time and each side is given the same amount of time and opportunity to prove their point. This format rules out
the possibility of who-speaks-loudest-or-fastest shall win the debate. It encourages people not only to speak out
but also to listen to the other side. There are many formats of debates: Karl Popper format, British Parliamentary
format, Australasian Format, World Schools format, etc.

People debate for a number of reasons: to convince other people that his/her opinion is better, to listen to what
other people think of an issue, to find which solution is the best for a problem, etc. Since competitive debating
aims to convince judges that a team’s argument is superior, it gives opportunities to use analytical-critical
thinking and public speaking skills to the fullest, skills which are very useful in everyday life.

But remember, debating is not a discussion. After each debate there is no compromised result as in a discussion.
The point of having a debate is to speak out and listen to different kinds of opinions and at the end
respecting those differences.

So, competitive debating is debating using a format. What format does Indonesians use? How
does it work?

The Indonesian Schools Debating Championships uses the World Schools format. This format work as
follows:
1. There are 2 teams debating, each consists of 3 (three) debaters who would be 1 st, 2nd and 3rd speakers of the
team.

2. One team shall be the Government/Affirmative side – the side agreeing with the motion, the other team
shall be the Opposition/Negative side – the side disagreeing with the motion.

3. Each speaker will deliver a substantial speech of 8 (eight) minutes in duration, with the affirmative going
first. Afterwards, either the 1st or 2nd speaker on both sides will deliver the reply speeches of 4 (four)
minutes in duration, with the negative going first.

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

1st Aff  1st Neg  2nd Aff  2nd Neg  3rd Aff  3rd Neg  Reply Neg  Reply Aff

Debating Handbook 2
 AFFIRMATIVE TEAM NEGATIVE TEAM
1st speaker 1st speaker
(8 min) (8 min)
2nd speaker 2nd speaker
(8 min) (8 min)
3rd speaker 3rd speaker
(8 min) (8 min)

Reply speaker Reply speaker

(1st/2nd speaker – 4 min) (1st/2nd speaker – 4 min)

5. In a substantive speech, members of the opposing team are allowed to give an interruption, called
Points of Information (POI), to the speaker delivering the speech. POIs may be delivered between the 1st
and 7th minute of the 8-minute-speech.

minutes 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

POI not allowed POIs allowed POI not allowed

No POIs are allowed in a reply speech.

The speaker has full authority to accept or reject a POI.

6. A time keeper shall signal the time. There will be one knock at the end of the 1st and 7th minutes, to
signal the starting and ending times for POI. And two knocks at the 8th minute to signal that delivery time
for the speech has ended. Any debater speaking before 7 minutes shall be considered under-time and
his/her points could be reduced. Any debater speaking after 8 minutes 30 seconds shall be considered
overtime and his/her points could be reduced as well.

7. For reply speeches, there will be one knock at the 3rd minute, to signal that delivery time is almost
over, and two knocks at the 4th minute.

8. Every debate shall be judged by an odd number of judges and only the judges shall decide who
wins the debate (there is no draw in the result of a debate).

9. In Indonesians, every team is given 30 minutes preparation time after the motion is released and
before the debate begins. During this preparation time, teams are not allowed to get help from anybody (be
it coaches, teachers, parents or friends) or use laptops, PDAs, or any other communication devices.

Huh? Motion? Definition? Argument? Rebuttal? POI?

What are those?

 MOTION

Motions, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a debate shall be about. In
the debate, the Government/Affirmative team must argue to defend the motion while the
Opposition/Negative team must argue to oppose it.

Here are some examples of motions used in various international and national debate tournaments:
- That religious lesson should not be taught in school
- That gambling of all forms should be made illegal
- That politicians should only be allowed to serve in office for a limited period of time

Debating Handbook 3
- That professionalism has ruined the Olympic Games
- This house disapproves of cloning
- This house supports the use of the death penalty
- That national security concerns justify the restriction of civil liberties
- That governments should never restrict freedom of speech
- This house supports General Election in Iraq
- This house regrets the influence of Hollywood
- This house would legalize performance-enhancing drugs
- This house would ban surrogate motherhood
- That the cost of Mars exploration is justified

As you can see, motions in a debating competition cover various areas: politics, economy and social issues.

 DEFINITION

For a debate to proceed, both teams need a clear understanding of what the motion means. This requires the
motion to be ‘defined’ so that everyone (audience and judges included) knows what is being debated. Problems
arise if the two teams present different understandings of the meaning of the motion. This can result in a
‘definitional debate’, where the focus of the debate becomes the meaning of the words in the motion, rather than
the motion itself. Interaction and clash between the two teams become concentrated on whose definition is
correct, rather than the issues raised by the motion. Definition debates should be avoided wherever possible.
They make a mockery of what debating seeks to achieve.

A definition scopes down or gives limitations on the motion to focus the debate. It clarifies the motion. It
prevents the debate from turning into a confusing exchange of ideas because of different interpretations teams
may have about what is actually being debated. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the
issues talked about in the debate. A definition must have a logical link to the motion.

The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team. The affirmative team must
provide a reasonable definition for the motion. This means:
1. On receiving the motion, both teams should ask: “What is the issue that
the two teams are expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person think the motion is
about?”
2. If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (it has an obvious meaning),
the Government/Affirmative team must define the motion accordingly. When the motion has an obvious
meaning (one which the ordinary person would realize), any other definition would not be reasonable.
3. If there is no obvious meaning to the motion, the range of possible
meaning is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate. Choosing the meaning that does not allow
the opposition a room for debate would not be a reasonable debate.
4. When defining the words in the motion so as (i) to allow the obvious
meaning to be debated or (ii) (when there is no obvious meaning) to give effect to possible meaning which
would allow for a reasonable debate, the affirmative must ensure that the definition is one the ordinary
intelligent person would accept.
5. in making a reasonable definition, sometimes parameters, models, or
criteria is needed. when suggesting parameters to the debate, or proposing particular models or criteria to
judge it by, the Proposition must ensure such parameters, models, or criteria are themselves reasonable.
They must be ones that the ordinary intelligent person would accept as applicable to the debate.

§
A definition is simply to clarify the motion. The Government/Affirmative team must give a
definition that gives room for the Opposition/Negative team to oppose it. On defining, always ask
“What debate is expected from this motion? Are there any reasonable arguments to oppose the
definition we’ve set up?”

Debating Handbook 4
Here are some examples of definitions that allow for a reasonable debate:

Motion: That quota is not the answer for women

Definition:
- Quota = putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in the parliament
- Not the answer = not the right solution to promote gender equality in society
Thus the whole definition is: “Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in parliament is not the right
solution to promote gender equality in society”

Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for drug dealers
Definition:
- This house = the affirmative/the government
- Capital Punishment = a maximum punishment given to a criminal in the form of death penalty
- Drug Dealers = people who sell, distribute, and committing illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount
according to the existing law.

thus the whole definition is: “we support the death penalty for people who sell, distribute, and commit
illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount”

Here is an example of an unreasonable definition:

Motion : That death penalty should never be justified
Definition: Killing people without any reason is wrong. Therefore we should not approve of
genocide/mass killings.
The definition above is out of the context or spirit of the motion (death penalty means punishing criminals to
die, not mass killing without reason). And it is unfair to expect the Opposition/Negative to say that mass killings
for no reason should be approved of.

Although the right to define belongs to the Government/Affirmative team, the Opposition/Negative team has the
right to challenge or not accept it if it is unreasonable. Explanations on challenging the motion will be explained
at the end of this paper. Challenging a definition is highly discouraged.

 THE OPPOSITION’S OPTIONS

Presuming the Proposition’s definition is satisfactory, the First Speaker of the Opposition will not argue the
definition, but will proceed immediately to dealing with the Proposition’s arguments. There is no need to say
that the Opposition accepts the definition; this is presumed unless the First Speaker of the Opposition
challenges it.

If the Opposition is unhappy with the Proposition’s definition, it has several options:

(i) Accept and Debate

The first option is to accept it anyway. If the Proposition’s definition leads in to the expected
issue and allows the Opposition to put forward the arguments and examples it was intending,
there is no point to arguing over the precise words the Proposition has used.
(ii) Challenge
The second option is to challenge the Proposition definition, arguing it is unreasonable.
Further discussion will be explained in particular chapter below.
(iii) Broaden
The third option is neither outright acceptance nor outright rejection, but instead to
supplement the definition. The Proposition’s definition may have omitted to define a word in
the motion that the Opposition considers pivotal. In this case, the Opposition can offer a
definition of this word, so long as it meets the standards of reasonableness outlined above.
(iv) ‘Even-if’
The fourth option is to both reject and accept the definition. It involves:
a. Rejecting the Proposition definition as unreasonable and explaining why;

Debating Handbook 5
 b. Putting up an alternative (and reasonable) definition, then proceeding to
advance arguments and examples based on this;
c. Rather than ignoring the Proposition’s arguments and examples on the basis
they derive from an unreasonable definition, arguing that ‘even-if’ the
Proposition’s definition was reasonable, its arguments and examples do not
prove what is alleged.

 ARGUMENTS

After agreeing with a definition, both the Government/Affirmative and the Opposition/Negative team should
give arguments on why they support or disapprove with the topic.

Arguments explain why a point of view should be accepted. Good arguments are logical and relevant to the
point being proven. They should also comprise of:
1. Assertion – the statement which should be proved
2. Reasoning – the reason why that statement is logical
3. Evidence – examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above
4. Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion

Given the duration of the debate, it is best to have 2 to 4 arguments to support your point of view. These
arguments should be divided between the 1st and the 2nd speaker. So, some arguments are explained by the 1 st
speaker and the rest are explained by the 2nd speaker. This division is called a team split.

Each of these arguments should stand on their own. This means that each of the arguments should be able to
answer the definition with a “… because…” statement.
Arguments answer WHY a team supports/opposes the topic. Arguments should be logical and
relevant, backed up with reasoning and good evidence.

Here are examples of arguments given for the examples above:

1. Motion : That quota is not the answer for women

Definition : Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in parliament is not the right solution to
promote gender equality in society
Arguments:

a. Assertion: because this kind of privilege will only strengthen

the stigma in society that undermines women
Reasoning: Nowadays there is still a strong stigma in society believing that women are inferior to
men and has less capability than men. Reserved seats in the parliament will only strengthen this
paradigm: that women can only sit in the parliament if they are facilitated but not because they
can equally compete with men. Thus justifying the wrong perception that women could not reach
the same level as men unless given privilege.
Evidence: In Uganda, public opinion that does not go in favor of women increased rapidly after
the implementation of this kind of quota (this was also supported by some polling)
Link Back: Quota for women in parliament will only strengthen the negative perception that
undermines women, hindering the promotion of women being equal to men.

b. Assertion: because forced quota could reduce the performance

of these women and at the end impedes women’s movement for equality
Reasoning: Due to many social resistance, women are still reluctant to involve themselves in
politics. Women also lack the experience men have, given the limited history of women’s
involvement in politics. Forcing women to fulfill the 30% quota opens probabilities of putting
hesitant women with minimum experience in the parliament. This can reduce the working
performance of those women. When such a thing happens, society would think that women are
not as capable as their male counterparts while what actually happens is that women politicians
are not yet well armed with the same motivation and experience as men.
Evidence: In India, women representatives with no political background are less popular than
their male counterparts

Debating Handbook 6
 Link Back: It is clear that rushing instant ways like putting a quota for women would harm the
women movement for equality.

2. Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for drug dealers
Definition: “the affirmative supports death penalty for drug dealers”
Arguments:
a. Assertion: because it violates human right of the criminals
Reasoning: every people have the right to life, even when he/she has done some heinous crime.
Giving them the death penalty will just show people how government are not respecting its people
human rights and justify killing for another killing. By giving them death penalty we are not only
take their life but also eliminating their chance to do better.
Evidence:
- Death Penalty is considered by most civilized nations as a cruel and inhuman punishment. It
has been abolished de jure or de facto by 106 nations, 30 countries have abolished it since
1990.
Link Back: It clearly shows here that death penalty given to drug dealers is a violation to human
rights and no government has right to do such thing to its people.

b. Assertion: because it will not serve as a deterrent

Reasoning: death penalty is aim to deter drug dealing from happen again. But as we can see drug
dealing is still flourishing. Why?

Because drug dealers always deal with risk of losing their lives thus death penalty will not scare
them to do this job, especially when they have no other option to do. Other than that, drug dealers
who was captured by police officers usually only small distributors that easily replaced by others.
Evidence: even after imposing death penalty, the case of drug abuse still increasing every year in
Malaysia up until 4%.
Link Back: The above explanation shows that death penalty can not serve as a deterrent to prevent
drug dealers doing their job in the future.

Having more than one argument means that teams should make sure that their arguments are consistent or do
not contradict each other. Contradiction and inconsistency makes a team’s performance seem poor because it
shows as if they’re not agreeing the points among themselves. It is good to have a main idea that connects or
becomes the foundation of the arguments. This is one way of ensuring arguments don’t contradict with one
another. This main idea is usually named as a team line/theme line in a debate.
Looking at the example above, the team line could be:

“Quota brings the wrong message to society that women are not as capable as men”
“death penalty is only violates human rights and will not solve the problem of drug dealing in our
community.”

 REBUTTALS

Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments. Rebuttals should prove that the other team’s
arguments are not as important as they claim to be.

As with arguments, mere accusations do not equal good rebuttals. It is not enough to say that the other team’s
arguments are inferior, good rebuttals should also explain the reasoning and evidence of why those arguments
are inferior.

In responding to the other team’s arguments, rebuttals could show that those arguments are:
1. Irrelevant to the point being proven
For example:

Debating Handbook 7
 Claim : ”Prostitution should be banned because prostitution creates more porn sites in the
Internet.”
Rebuttal: “The number of porn sites in the Internet has nothing to do with whether prostitution is
legalized or not. Fact is, porn sites could be accessed in many countries, apart from
whether it legalizes prostitution or not”

2. Illogical
For example:
Claim : “Students should be allowed to smoke at school because it will create stronger resistance
from passive smokers and eventually reduce the number of smokers at school.”
Rebuttal: “That is logically flawed because allowing students to smoke will create a permissive
condition that would stimulate more students to smoke. Fact is, most teenagers start
smoking because of peer influence. If school goes along with peer influence, then the
reality that smoking is bad would be blurred and more students would think that smoking
is ok and take up smoking.”

3. Morally flawed
For example:
Claim : “The government should support death penalty because it will help decrease the
population of the country.”
Rebuttal: “Killing people simply to decrease population is morally wrong. People have the right to
live and the government should not undermine that right only because they think they have
too many citizens to manage.”

4. Correct, but not important or involve unacceptable implications

For example:
Claim : “The government should ban MTV because there are some programs that are not related
to music.”
Rebuttal: “It is true that some MTV programs are not related to music, but the government should not
ban a TV station simply because of that reason. Banning a TV station would lose the
government a significant amount of revenue and it is more important to have this revenue
rather than obliging TV stations to have programs that are true to its name.”

5. based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact

For example:
Claim: “Murder rates are rising in the US. This is because some states have abolished capital
punishment.”
Possible Rebuttals:
a. ” Murder rates are not rising in the US. Evidence shows that .. “ (direct factual error), or
b. “If the number of murders seems to be rising, it is because more murders are being
reported compared to before. So, in reality it’s not actually rising.” (indirect factual error), or
c. “Evidence shows that capital punishment – a state-sanctioned murder – can appear to
condone violent crime and leads to a rise in numbers of violent crime rather than reducing it.”
(erroneous interpretation of fact)

Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments. Rebuttals should not only claim that
those arguments are inferior, but rebuttals should also explain why they are inferior and back it up
with evidence. Rebuttals should prioritize strong and important arguments.

Given limited time in a debate, it is not necessary for a team to rebut every single point and fact raised by the
other team. Better single out the opposing team’s main arguments and attack those first. Teams should prioritize
rebutting strong and important points first and leave the weak ones for last priority.

 POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI)

Debating Handbook 8
As has been mentioned above, after the 1st minute and before the 7th minute of a speech, members of the
opposing teams are allowed to briefly interrupt the current speaker. This interruption is called a POI.

In order to offer a POI, a person must stand up, hold out his/her hand and say “On that point, Sir/Ma'am” or “On
that point of information”. POI should be offered politely, not used to hackle the speaker. When offered a POI,
the speaker having the floor has full authority to either reject or accept the POI. If a person is rejected a POI,
he/she should sit down again.

POI should be brief and expressed as a question so that the speaker is required to provide an answer. Once
accepted, the person offering POI has at most 15 seconds to deliver the POI. The

speaker then must answer or respond to that POI right after it is given and not wait until later in his/her speech.
It is advisable that the speaker does not answer a POI more than 30 seconds as it would make him/her lose track
of his/her speech.

POI should be offered regularly and through out the course of the debate. Offering POI shows that they
understand the issues being discussed during the debate.

It is advisable to accept around 2 POI in a speech, and accept them between points of arguments/rebuttals. Not
accepting POI at all (especially when they are often offered) would be bad strategy as the speaker is not
involving the other team in his/her speech. But accepting too much POI would risk the speaker of losing control
of his/her speech.

Points Of Information are brief interruptions (preferable in a form of a question) between the 1st
and 7th minute of a speech. The speaker delivering a speech has full authority to accept or reject a
POI. Once accepted, a POI should not exceed 15 minutes and the speaker must answer that POI
right after it is given.

Ok, so basically, a team has to debate upon a motion defined by the affirmative side. Then they
have to provide arguments telling why they support or disagree with the motion. And each side
has to respond to the other side in the form of rebuttals. Is that right?

Yup, for all questions. Oh, and one more thing: the word “CASE” would often be heard in a debate. A “CASE”
refers to the whole package of a team’s arguments. Imagine a debate to be a

physical battle. Then the definition would be the battlefield that both sides have chosen. The CASE would be the
fort that each team builds using arguments as bricks. The rebuttals would be the weapons that they use to attack
the other side.

To make you understand more about “CASE”, let us take a look at the Case Anatomy in the next
page:

Motion
Clear
and
Logic Definition

Answer
Why? Team Line

Debating Handbook 9
 Argument

Argument
Team
Split
Argument

Argument

Rebuttals
POI

The arrows indicate each link from the motion to definition, definition to your team line, and how your
arguments, rebuttals, and POI must be consistent with your case foundation.

But there are 3 speakers in each team. Does each speaker have the same job? If not, what
are the jobs of each speaker?

No, every speaker in a team has different jobs to fulfill. Here is the outline of the jobs or roles of each speaker:

Government/Affirmative Opposition/Negative
First Speaker: First Speaker:
1. Give the definition of the motion 1. Respond to the definition
2. Outline the team’s case: 2. Rebut 1st Government speaker
- Present the team line 3. Outline the team’s case:
- Present the team split - Present the team line
3. Explain the arguments that are the 1st - Present the team split
speaker’s split 4. Explain the arguments that are the 1st
4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speaker’s split
speech 5. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech

Second Speaker: Second Speaker:

1. Rebut the Opposition’s main 1. Rebut the Government’s main arguments
arguments 2. Briefly restate/reiterate in
2. Briefly restate/reiterate in
general the Opposition’s team case
general the Government’s team case 3. Explain the arguments that are the 2nd
3. Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split
speaker’s split 4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech
4. Give a brief summary/recap of the
speech
Third Speaker: Third Speaker:
1. Rebut Opposition’s arguments, 1. Rebut Government’s arguments,
prioritizing the strong/important ones prioritizing the strong/important ones
2. Rebuild the team’s case 2. Rebuild the team’s case
3. Summarize the issues of the debate 3. Summarize the issues of the debate
Note: Note:
It is not advisable for 3rd Government to bring new It is not advisable for 3rd Opposition to bring new
arguments arguments

Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker: Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:

1. Provide a summary or overview of the 1. Provide a summary or overview of the
debate debate
2. Identify the issues raised by both teams 2. Identify the issues raised by both teams
3. Explain why the Government’s case 3. Explain why the Opposition’s case and

Debating Handbook 10
 and response are better than the Opposition’s response are better than the Government’s
Note: Note:
Reply speakers are not allowed to bring new Reply speakers are not allowed to bring new arguments
arguments and give rebuttals and give rebuttals

The first speakers lay the foundation of the debate battlefield. After the first speakers’ speeches, the main
direction of each team’s case should be apparent. In providing the definition, the 1 st Government should ensure
that no important points of definition (limitations or parameters) are left out.
The 1st Opposition has three options in responding to the definition: accept it, challenge it (which is highly
discouraged) or accept it but disapprove or clarify some of the parameters set up by the Government.
In outlining cases, both first speakers should state explicitly what the team split is. This could be done by
saying, for example “As the first speaker I will examine how regional autonomy worsens environmental
degradation, while the second speaker will explain about the impediment that regional autonomy brings to
industrial sector.”

The second speakers attack the other side while continuing to build the case. The second speakers should
rebut the main arguments brought up so far in the debate, while continuing the explanation of why his/her team
oppose/support the motion, taking a different point of view from the 1st speaker.

The third speakers’ main duty is to attack/rebut the opponent’s case. Third speakers are highly discouraged
to bring new line of arguments. Logically, if an argument is good then it should be delivered first not by the
third speaker, as there wouldn’t be enough opportunity to examine that argument.
Rebuttals should ideally be carried in two levels:
1. on a global level (team wise), this level attacks the other team’s whole
case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic
2. on a detailed level (speech wise), this level attacks the mistakes and
inconsistency of each individual speech

The reply speakers sum up the debate. They are not allowed to bring new arguments and rebuttals at all.
They should simply analyze what has happened in the debate and explain why their team’s case is better than
the other team.

Last but not the least of questions: what if the negative or opposition thinks that the definition is
unfair, should they just accept it?

As has been mentioned briefly above, when the Opposition/Negative thinks that the Government/Affirmative’s
definition is unfair, then they have the right to challenge that definition.

But challenging a definition is highly discouraged, as Government/Affirmative providing unfair definition is

also highly disapproved of, because debates with definitional challenge usually turn out to be bad debates.

How to challenge a definition? The first Opposition speaker should state explicitly that their team challenges
the definition. Then, he/she should provide the reason why they challenge the definition. Then he/she should
provide a new definition that they think is fair.

An Opposition/Negative team should not challenge a debate simply because their team seems to have a better
definition. A definition may only be challenged if it is on of the following:

1. Truistic
Truistic means that the definition is ‘true’ by nature and thus makes 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 the sun is rising in the east” is
defined literally. This makes the opposition impossible to say that the sun is rising in the west, besides there

Debating Handbook 11
 is no clear issue to be debated there. On the other hand, taking “the east” as a metaphor for Asia becoming
much more important in the world (“the sun is rising”) seems adequately sensible: this poses a real issue for
both sides to debate (China/Asia’s importance in the world militarily/economically/politically).

2. Tautological or circular
Tautological or circular definition 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 term ‘technology’ means “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 are killing our work ethic”. This cannot be logically
proven false.

3. Squirreling
Squirreling happens when a definition is not tied down to the spirit of the motion and does not have a
proper logical link to the motion. For example, for the motion “that the USA is opening up to the PRC”, the
Affirmative team defined 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
United States and China.

4. Time and Place Set unfairly

Time setting happens when the debate is confined to a particular time in the past or the future. Place setting
unfairly happens when the debate is confined to particular place where an ordinary intelligent person in the
scope of the tournament wouldn’t know about the issues in there. For instance, on the motion “That we
should have a direct presidential election”, the Affirmative defined “we” as “the people in Timbuktu”. It is
unfair to expect other participants to know about what’s happening in Timbuktu unless the election there
has been in the headlines currently, therefore this definition is place-setting unfairly. An example of time
setting would be if the motion

is defined as “Indonesia should have direct presidential election during the rule of the New Order regime”.
Setting the time of the debate into the past or the future is not allowed and it is clearly not an issue whether
Indonesia should have had a direct presidential election in the past.

Definitional challenge is highly discouraged. It usually results in an ill-favored debate. It

should only be done if the Government/Affirmative brings up a definition that is truistic,
tautological, squirreling or time/place setting.

II. Guidelines for Debaters

There are 3 (three) main components that are judged from a debater’s speech, they are:
1. Content – marked 40 out of 100
2. Style – marked 40 out of 100
3. Strategy - marked 20 out of 100

This guideline will explain each of those components and provide tips on how to practice them.

CONTENT

Content is the argument used by the speaker, divorced from the speaking style. Content constitutes 40% out
of the total score. In content, judges would determine whether the speaker’s arguments and the team’s case in a
whole are strong or not.

There are two process that shape a content of speech: case building and research.

Debating Handbook 12
 CASE BUILDING

Case building is the process of putting together the team’s arguments and making sure that they are solid and
consistent.

Given 30 minutes preparation time, teams do not have plenty of time to case build. Here’s a little tips on the
steps of case building:
1. Brainstorm individually
First, debaters could write down and bring out anything that crosses their mind once they hear the motion.
Anything here could be an argument, example, parameters, or other things related to the motion. This
process shouldn’t take too long, only 5 minutes at the most.
For the Negative team, debaters should also brainstorm on possible cases/definitions the Affirmative
might bring.

2. Discuss the definition

Once all the ideas have come out, the Affirmative team should decide upon a definition. There are two
things to look at when defining a motion:
a. look at key words in the motion
Find the words that need to be defined in the motion, do these words need further explanation or
parameters or limitations?

For example:
Motion: That smoking should be banned in public places
There are 2 key words here, smoking and public places. What smoking should be banned here:
smoking cigarette? Smoking marijuana? This should be clarified. What does "public places" mean?
Does "public places" include the street, public transportation, malls, apartment buildings?

b. look at real issues in the real world

Motions usually take up issues that are debated in the real world. Looking at the example above in the
context of Indonesia, is the debate about smoking cigarette or smoking marijuana? It’s most likely about
cigarette since there is no movement to legalize marijuana in Indonesia.

Since the Negative team does not need to come up with a definition, what they could do in case building is
discuss possible definitions that might come up from the motion. Pick one or two of the most possible
definitions and make the negation. Also put analysis on real issues in analyzing possible cases. Remember
that your main task as Opposition is not to create a definition but to respond and negate the Affirmative.
Here, you must agree on how to negate each possible definition.

3. Pick relevant arguments

After discussing the definition, members of the team should decide upon arguments that are relevant to the
definition. Don’t put in an argument only because it sounds good although it is totally irrelevant to the
debate that would proceed. Given the duration of the debate, it is good for teams to have 2 – 4 arguments
to prove their point.

4. Determine team line and team split

Having the definition and the arguments, to ensure the consistency of these arguments, teams have the
option of finding a main reason connecting these arguments or having a team line. They should also divide
the arguments among the 1st and 2nd speaker and come up with a team split.

5. Recap the whole case

Having the definition, arguments and split, a member of the team should recap the whole case to make sure
that each members of the team has the same case in mind.

6. Individual preparation
The last minutes of case building should be given for each speaker to prepare their speech individually.

Debating Handbook 13
 Steps for case building:
1. brainstorm individually
2. discuss the definition
3. choose relevant arguments to the definition
4. determine team split and team line
5. recap the whole case
6. individual preparation

NOTE:
In debating as the Opposition/Negative team, you have to follow the dynamics of the debate. When your
prepared case is irrelevant to the case brought up by the Affirmative/Government team (they bring a definition
that you didn’t think of), you have to leave your prepared case and construct a new one on the spot during the
debate.

Tips for Opposition/Negative teams on such conditions:

1. Listen to the 1st speaker of the Affirmative

until he/she delivers their team line and split or until you are clear about the Affirmative case.
2. Discuss briefly on how you will negate it.
3. After agreeing on that, the 1st speaker
Negative should concentrate on building his/her case. If necessary, he/she need not hear the rest of the 1 st
speaker’s speech and leave it to the 2 nd and 3rd speakers. The 2nd/3rd speakers should then provide the 1 st
speaker with rebuttals before his/her speech.
4. Remember that teamwork is the key! Make
sure the three of you have the same perception on the negation and the case that you would bring.

 RESEARCH

As you can read from the explanation about arguments, good arguments are not only statements or assertions,
but they also have reasoning and evidence. They should also be logical and relevant to the point being proven.

Reasoning and evidence don’t fall automatically from the sky. In order to know these things, a debater must
read a lot of books and keep up with current news. In preparing for a tournament, it is good for debaters to do
research especially when some of the topics are given a few weeks before the tournament. If you look at the
examples of motions used in past tournaments, debating covers a broad range of topics. So it is also good to
know about current events happening in world.

What debaters could do for research:

1. Search the Internet
The Internet is one of the easiest places to start research. But be careful not to get carried away, as the
Internet is huge and you could easily get lost in it.
Here are some sites that might help you for a start:
a. www.debatabase.com – this is a site
aimed for debaters, it has a number of topics with arguments supporting or opposing that topic. We
don’t suggest debaters to whip out arguments from this site, you should analyze those arguments as
well and decide whether it’s good or not. But it’s a good place to start and there are also links to other
writings relevant to the topic.

Debating Handbook 14
 b. www.google.com – this is a search
engine, just type the key words of the topic you want to research and it will give you articles related to
that topic
c. www.bbc.co.uk or www.cnn.com –
these are sites for the 2 major news network. Check out the “in-depth” section, they usually give
comprehensive background and analysis on a particular issue.
d. www.yahoo.com – besides a search
engine, this site also gives links to the current news.

2. Read newspapers and magazines and watch TV news

Besides reading hard news to know the development of current issues, it is also good to read the Editorial
or Opinion column. These columns usually give analysis on certain issues. It would also be useful to watch
the news talk shows in TV. But remember not to believe or agree with whatever you read or watch, but
analyze the arguments as well. Oh, and there’s also a program at TVRI, The Battle of Wits, every Saturday
– 11.30 a.m., that could give you a clear picture about debating.

3. Dig the library

Start hanging out in the library and look for magazines, books or even encyclopedias that could help your
research.

4. Pay attention to your teachers at school

Believe it or not, but knowing basic stuff like: United Nations and the way they work; ASEAN; the
structure of our government and MPR/DPR; environment and how to preserve them; and other things that
you learn from class are essential in a debate. So start listening to your teachers and take notes of what they
say.

S T Y L E

Style is the way speakers speak. It is the manner in which debaters communicate their arguments. Style
constitutes 40% of the total score.

Style includes many aspects: speed of speech, tone, volume, use of language, clarity, fluency, use of humor,
stance, gestures and expressions, and use of notes and eye contact.

Your style should be able to convince and persuade the judges that your arguments are better than the other
side. In order to do this it is best to:
1. Use eye contact
Remember that when you debate, you should face the judges and not your opponents, as the judges are the
ones you want to convince. Avoiding eye contact would make you seem as if you don’t want to connect with
the audience or the judges. Eye contact makes you look confident. Tips: for those who don’t feel
comfortable looking at another person’s eyes, try looking at their forehead. This makes you more at ease
and the audience still feel that you’re talking to them.

2. Be clear in explaining your points

Being clear means using tone, volume and language that makes other people understand your points. Choose
simple language or words to make sure that other people know what you are talking about. Good grammar
would be nice but one or two mistakes would not matter so long as people understand what you are talking
about.

3. Avoid being monotonous

Changes make people notice. So it’s good to have variations in your speech so that people stay interested. It
would be a pity if the judges miss a good point you made simply because your speech was boring.

4. Use sincere expression and gestures

Debating Handbook 15
 Use the right expression and gesture to convince. Your speech would lose its appeal if, for example, you
giggle or use humor while talking about the famine in Africa.

Different people have different styles and there are no absolute rules for style, except that:
1. the use of swear words is extremely prohibited
2. personal attacks or criticizing the person and not the arguments are also
prohibited (for example: “The fat stupid opponents don’t know what they’re talking about.”)
Violation of these two rules could get a debater heavy penalty or even zero in the score.

Good style is when you deliver your arguments in a confident and persuasive manner.
It is strictly prohibited to:
1. use swear words
2. give personal attacks

Tips for practicing style:

1. Make the mirror your best friend
The best person to help you out with your style is yourself. Make a speech in front of a mirror and judge on
your own what kind of expression and gestures works best for you.
2. Tape yourself while practicing
You could tape yourself while practicing/debating. This way you could analyze your performance
afterwards.
3. Ask your friend to help you out
Make a speech in front of your friend and ask him/her to comment on your style.

STRATEGY

Strategy constitutes 20% of the total score. It covers these concepts:

1. Whether the speaker understands what are
the issues of the debate
2. Structure of the speaker’s speech
3. Timing of the speaker’s speech
4. Consistency

Below are the explanations of each concept:

1. Understanding the issues of the debate
A debater should know what are the important issues raised up in the debate. If a debater fails to recognize
critical points, then he/she seems to be out of the debate. For instance, a speaker who answers a critical issue
with weak responses would get poor marks for content but good marks for strategy.

2. Structure of the speaker’s speech

Structure of a speech answers these vital questions:
a. Did you fulfill your role as 1st/2nd/3rd/reply speaker?
As has been mentioned above, each speaker has a role that they should fulfill. Failing to fulfill these roles
could reduce the speaker’s marks for strategy.

b. Is your speech easy to follow?

Some speeches throw a bunch of ideas without any order, this kind of speeches are difficult to follow
because the speaker jumps from point to point. Speeches with logical order of arguments, flowing
naturally from one point to the other are easy to follow.

Debating Handbook 16
 One way to structure a speech is by sign posting. Sign posting is when you say what you want to
explain, then you explain them, then at the end you say what you have just explained.

For example a 3rd speaker could open his speech by saying:

“As the 3rd speaker I am going to rebut three main arguments of the Opposition: One, on the
argument that zoo protects animals. Two, on the point that zoo is an educational venue. And three,
on the assumption that it is significant to the tourism industry.”
Afterwards he explains the rebuttals of each point.
And at the end of his speech he concludes it by saying:
“So I have explained that zoo exposes animals to bad condition and does not protect them. I have
also described the failure of zoo being an educational venue and last I have showed that zoo do not
give significant contribution to the tourism industry.”

3. Timing of the speaker’s speech

Timing of a speech answers these questions:

a. Did you allocate appropriate time according to your role of

speaker?
Each speaker has their own role and thus should allocate time according to those roles. For example, if a
1st Opposition speaker spends 5 minutes of his/her speech rebutting the 1 st Government, then he/she is
likely to get poor mark in strategy since he/she only allocates 3 minutes to lay down the case of the
Opposition and explain his/her points.

b. Did you allocate appropriate time in dealing with

significant issues?
Strong arguments should be prioritized. If a strong argument is explored in less than 1 minute, while a
weak argument is explored for 3 minutes, than the speaker did not allocate appropriate time to deal with
the important issues in the debate.

4. Consistency
Consistency has to show in the following conditions:
a. In the whole case
One speaker in a team shouldn’t contradict or become inconsistent with the other speakers. Team
member’s usually becomes inconsistent after they think their case is being rebutted well by the
opposition.

b. In an individual speech
When responding to a POI or the other team’s arguments, make sure that your responses don’t contradict
or is inconsistent with your own arguments.

An example of a contradiction would be:

“This new national stadium will not cost the taxpayers any money because it will be financed by the
National Lottery.” … afterwards he/she explains that “This stadium will need funding from the
taxpayers but its use is worth the cost.”
This kind of contradiction would make a team seem unsure or confused of their own case.

Good strategy is when a speaker:

1. understands the critical issues in the debate
2. fulfills his/her roles of speaker
3. delivers a speech that is easy to follow (preferably using sign posting)
4. allocates appropriate time for his/her jobs and in dealing with arguments
5. is consistent within his/her own speech and with his/her teammates

Debating Handbook 17
 III. DEBATERS’ WORKSHEET

SESSION 1

Time
90 minutes

Consists of 2 (two) sub sessions:

1. Identifying important concepts of debate (20 mins)
2. Theories of case building (30 mins)
3. Affirmative case building (40 mins)

SUBSESSION I
IDENTIFYING IMPORTANT CONCEPTS OF DEBATE (referring to the
exhibition debate)

Time
20 minutes

What was the debate about?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Please fill in the diagram found in Annex 1, which refers to the Exhibition Debate.

SUBSESSION II
THEORIES OF CASEBUILDING

Time
30 minutes

What is a case?
When people talk about a “case” in a debate, they are talking about the whole package of a team’s
arguments. Imagine a debate as a physical battle. The definition draws the lines of the battlefield. The case
would be the fort that each team builds using arguments as bricks. The rebuttals would be the weapons they
use to attack their enemies, or in a debate, the other team.

Definition Example
A definition is not always a definition of the words in a motion.
It is supposed to clarify the motion by defining what the debate
will be about. This means that it makes limitations or Motion:
parameters to the motion to focus the debate. …………………………………..
…………….
A team can define the motion by:
a. looking at the key words in the motion. …………………………………………

Definition:
……………………………………………
Debating Handbook 18
……………………………………………
……………………………………………
 Find the words that need to be defined. Is there something that may have more than one meaning or
interpretation? What limitation is needed?

b. looking at real issues in the real world.

Motions usually talk about issues that are debated in the real world. Ask yourself what is
happening in the world. What motion-related debate is happening in society?
A definition must be reasonable. The Government/Affirmative team must give a definition that gives
room for the Opposition/Negative team to oppose it. On defining, always ask “What debate is expected from
this motion? Are there any reasonable arguments to oppose the definition we’ve set up?”

Example Arguments
Good arguments are logical and relevant to the
Argument 1: point
you are trying to make. It should be made up of:
A: ……………………………………….
a. Assertion – what you are trying to prove
……………....… b. Reasoning – the reason why that
assertion is
R: ….. llogical
c. Evidence – examples/data that support
………………………………………………. the
…..… assertion and reasoning
d. Link back – a brief explanation of how you
………………………………….……... have
proven your point and that it is relevant
………………
Looking at the amount of time you have, it is best
E. ……...
to have 2 to 4 arguments. These arguments should
……………………………………………….. be brought by the 1st and 2nd speakers. This means
… that some arguments are explained by the
………………………………….……... 1st speaker while the rest are explained by the

……………… 2nd speaker. How you divide them is called a team

L. split. Each of these arguments should be

independent. This means that each of the arguments
…………………………………………………
should be able to answer the definition with a
…....…
“…because…” sentence.
It is good to have a main idea that connects the
arguments. This is one way of making sure that
arguments are consistent with each other. This main idea is usually called a team line.

Case Building
Steps of case building (you can change the time if you want):
a. Brainstorming (5 minutes)
First, debaters could write down anything that they think of when they hear the motion.
Brainstorming could get lists of arguments, examples, parameters, facts related to the motion,
etc.
b. Discuss the definition (5 minutes)
When all the ideas have come out, the Affirmative team should decide what the definition
will be. Make sure that all of the parameters that are needed have been included.
c. Pick relevant arguments (10 minutes)

Debating Handbook 19
 After the team talks about the definition, you should decide what arguments are relevant
with this the definition. Don’t put in an argument just because it sounds good.
d. Determine team line and team split (3 minutes)
After making a definition and choosing arguments, teams should have a main reason

linking these arguments, or a team line, so they don’t contradict each other.
They should also divide the arguments between the 1 st and 2nd speakers, which is the

team split.
e. Recap the whole case (2 minutes)
After you have these things decided, a member of the team should sum up the whole case
to make sure that everyone has the same thing in mind.
f. Individual preparation (5 minutes)
Each speaker should spend some time to prepare their individual speech.

SUBSESSION III
AFFIRMATIVE CASE BUILDING

Time
40 minutes

Given 30 minutes, case build for the Affirmative side of the motion:
“That this house supports maternity leave for pregnant students.”
Steps of case building:

1. Brainstorming

2. Definition:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………

3. Arguments (doesn’t have to be four arguments; it could be more or less):

a. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

b. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

c. ..………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….…………

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

d. ………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………

…………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………

4. Team Line:

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

Team Split:

Debating Handbook 20
 1st Speaker (doesn’t have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)

a. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

b. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

c. ..………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….…………

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

2nd Speaker (doesn’t have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)

a. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

b. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

c. ..………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….…………

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

5. Recap the Case

Definition:

1st Speaker 2nd Speaker

Argument 1: Argument 1:

Argument 2: Argument 2:

Argument 3: Argument 3:

Team Line:

6. Individual Preparation

Debating Handbook 21
SESSION 2

Time
2 hours

Consists of 3 (three) sub sessions:

1. Brief Theory on Negative case building (20 mins)
2. Negative Case building (40 mins)
3. Q & A (30 mins)

SUBSESSION I
BRIEF THEORY OF NEGATIVE CASE BUILDING

Time
20 minutes

Basically, case building as a Negative team is the same as case building as the Affirmative. The difference is
that the Negative doesn’t need to make a definition. They need to try to predict what definition is likely to
come up from the motion.

It is also important to know how to negate a motion:

Always add a “NOT” to the motion.
Example
This seems very simple, but could easily be taken for granted.
Alcohol should be banned.
Steps of case building for negative (time frame not fixed): Negation
a. Brainstorm individually, the result could be arguments,
parameters, examples, etc. (5 min)
Alcohol should not be banned.
b. Discuss possible definitions that might come up from the Common mistake
motion. Determine the team’s stance or how you will
negate the motion.(5 min) Drugs are more dangerous than
c. Pick relevant arguments to oppose the possible alcohol, so drugs should be banned
definitions. (10 min) not alcohol.
d. Decide on the team line and team split. (3 min) This does not explain why alcohol
e. Recap the whole case. (2 min)
f. Prepare individual speeches. (5 min) should not be banned.

SUBSESSION II
NEGATIVE CASE BUILDING

Time
40 minutes

Given 30 minutes, case build for the Affirmative side of the motion:
“That this house supports maternity leave for pregnant students.”

Steps of case building:

1. Brainstorming

2. Possible Definitions:

Debating Handbook 22
 …………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………
Stance:

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

3. Arguments (doesn’t have to be four arguments; it could be more or less):

a. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

b. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

c. ..………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….…………

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

d. ………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………

…………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………

4. Team Line:

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

Team Split:

1st Speaker (doesn’t have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)

a. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

b. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

c. ..………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….…………

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

2nd Speaker (doesn’t have to be three arguments; it depends on how many you have)

a. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

b. …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…

Debating Handbook 23
 …………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

c. ..………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………….…………

…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

5. Recap the Case

Definition:

1st Speaker 2nd Speaker

Argument 1: Argument 1:

Argument 2: Argument 2:

Argument 3: Argument 3:

Team Line:

6. Individual Preparation

SUBSESSION III
GENERAL Q & A

Time
30 minutes

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..…

Debating Handbook 24
…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..………

References
1. Debating Handbook by Michael Birshan
2. The ESU Schools Mace Debating Handbook by Trevor Sather and Richard Chambers
3. The World Schools Debating Championships Charter
4. WSDC Guidelines for Debaters and Adjudicators at www.schooldebate.com

Debating Handbook 25