IIPM

NEP-I INSTRUCTIONS
PRESENTATION NORMS
• Each group should adhere to the time allotted to them for their presentation and
most crucially the time should be equally distributed among each group member.
For Groups < 6 members, time is 30 minutes minimum, for groups > 6 members,
number of member multiplied by 5 minutes.
• Members are not allowed to exceed the stipulated time period that is allotted to
them. Any violation of this particular norm will invite penalty.
• Members have to necessarily take care of the logistical requirements
(arrangement of computers, laptops, LCD projectors, OHP and other relevant
supplies) before the commencement of presentation. These should not turn into
irritants and thereby disturb the flow of the presentation and preconceived
arrangements.
REBUTTAL POLICY
• A Student (audience) is permitted to ask a maximum of two questions for each
member.
• A maximum of 5 questions can be addressed to a particular group, the in the
stipulated time. The faculty at his/her discretion can alter the time.
ATTENDANCE POLICY
• The students should necessarily attend all the presentations that are scheduled in
the time plan of their respective sections. Non-adherence of this policy will invite
disciplinary action.
• Please make sure that you have your exemptions signed and approved by
academics department in case you have low/less attendance. Any students
having low attendance would not be allowed to participate in the presentation.
MISCELLANEOUS
• In course of the preparation for presentations, students may require documents
that validate their identity, purpose behind the data/information collection,
confidentiality of collected information and other context specific claims. The
same (letters) can be procured from the academic department at I floor, after
furnishing the relevant particulars.
• The faculty and department can reschedule the presentations at a later point of
time and students need to watch the notice board on a continual basis
• Individual Certificate(s) would be given to the speakers who gets distinction and
displays an commendable work.
 • Make-up presentations and deferred presentations will not be considered
• Even in cases of documented illness, documented family emergency, or
documented religious observance, no extra weight will be given to the excuses.
• Should there be any queries or clarifications required please contact the faculty at
sray.agarwal@iipm.edu

NEP EXTERNAL GUIDES

1. Prof Angshuman Paul - paul.angshuman@gmail.com;
angshuman.paul@gmail.com
2. Prof Akram Hoque - hoqueakram@gmail.com
Pls take prior appointment before meeting them

88 RULES OF DEBATE
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
23. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team
must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but
previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the
 assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are
permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents'
use if desired.
24. In the questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear question
that has a direct bearing on the debate. The questioner may use the period
to build up any part of his own case, to tear down any part of his opposition's
case, or to ascertain facts, such as the opposition's position on a certain
issue, that can be used later in the debate. The questioner must confine
himself to questions and not make statements, comments, or ask rhetorical
questions.
25. Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different
readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we
can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that
we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who
substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different
interpretation on such words.
26. Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion
is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is
not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most
biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible
says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and
frequently have been.
27. Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to
produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate
words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad
hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual
bankruptcy.
28. Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the
popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because
some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that
event A was the cause of event B.
29. Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent
without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled
allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see
some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are,
unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to
capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements
which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.
30. Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a
newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been
"slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts
are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often
international publications will give you a different perspective than your
hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was
published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by
some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious
organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence
since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of
some political or religious view.
31. Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a
friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may
discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help
 you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the
right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.
32. Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. There are all
sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent and it is
almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you can't
vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or
behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous.
33. Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very
frequently is the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a
bit technical, but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or
psychological research which depends upon statistical surveys or even
experiments which involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general
statement of the principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as
the statement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used.
34. Apply the scientific method.
35. Cite relevant personal experience.
36. Be polite.
37. Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
38. Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also anti-
gun.)
39. Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
40. Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
41. Read the post you are responding to.
42. Stay open to learning.
43. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
44. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.
45. Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no
"authorities").
46. Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that
caught your fancy.
47. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
48. Quantify, wherever possible.
49. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
50. "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally
well choose the simpler.
51. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to
be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can
others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
52. Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where
the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control
subjects.
53. Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
54. Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
55. Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
56. Argument from "authority".
57. Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision
maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
58. Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
59. Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
60. Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
phrased).
61. Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
62. Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate
sample sizes).
63. Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing
astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have
below average intelligence!)
64. Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but
scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they
are not "proved").
65. Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
66. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" -
confusion of cause and effect.
67. Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an
immovable object?).
68. Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of
possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
69. Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
70. Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of
the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
71. Confusion of correlation and causation.
72. Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to
attack.
73. Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
74. Choose a definitive formulation of the thesis you are proposing, and
communicate this formulation to your opponents at least several days
beforehand. (Proponents and opponents should be clear about the thesis that
is being debated.)
75. State this formulation of the thesis at the beginning and end of your
presentation, and several times in the middle. (The audience should be clear
about the thesis that is being debated.)
76. Make it clear what the theoretical background of your argument is. (E.g., in
ethics: utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, etc.)
77. Attempt to trap your opponent, by anticipating his arguments beforehand
and showing what is wrong with them.
78. Do not be afraid to use visual aids (blackboard, handouts, overhead
projector) to make your point.
79. Include a conclusion in which you demonstrate how you have established or
refuted the thesis.
80. Avoid lengthy and repetitive presentations of facts or stories. Avoid
mouthing a familiar party-line. Concentrate on arguments and on thinking
through to basic presuppositions.
81. Use notes. If you attempt to write out every word of your presentation
beforehand it will sound wooden.
82. Speak loudly and clearly, and address your remarks to the audience.
83. Speak confidently; always sound as if you believe absolutely in what you are
saying, always maintain a consistent front.
84. Always prepare more notes than you think you will need. If you think you
have said enough, move directly to your conclusion. Do not leave the
audience with the impression that you have not said enough.
85. Leave your personal views and your personal experiences out of account;
what is important is exclusively the quality of your arguments.
86. Never concede that you agree with the other side or suggest compromise
positions. Preserve a clear opposition between the views of proponents and
opponents throughout.
87. Use radical and imaginative gambits to keep the attention and sympathy of
your audience. For example: pretend to agree with almost everything the
opposing side says, but then reveal how what your opponents say implies
that they are in fact quite wrong. Or use the method of reductio ad absurdum
(i.e. show that, if the opposing side were correct, then this would have absurd
consequences).
88. Do not use ad hominem arguments. Even perverts can have good
arguments. The qualities of the person presenting an argument are irrelevant
to the quality of the argument he presents.