NESTA
DEBATING COMPETITION
Debating
Handbook
16th Competition
September 16th 2014 DRAFT
GETTING STARTED
If you are new to our competition, a good way to start is to go along and watch a match.
You can make a request to other coaches by posting in our online forum, the Debating
Lounge. You can also find links to videos of previous matches there.
To access the Debating Lounge, first go to the NESTA website www.nesta.hk and register
as a guest. If you happen to be a NESTA member, you already have access to the
Debating Lounge.
OUR DEBATING STYLE
Australia-Asia Debating is the style used in NESTA Debating.
The essence of debating is persuasion. The elements include effective communication and
conflict of ideas and arguments. These elements are judged under three categories:
matter, manner and method.
The two teams are called the AFFIRMATIVE and the NEGATIVE. The affirmative side
argues for the motion and the negative side against.
The Affirmative team constructs a case supported with factual arguments and examples.
The Negative team must disprove the Affirmative team’s argument and present a valid
case to disprove the motion.
First speakers usually begin by defining what the motion means, stating their side's case as
a team line and allocating what the first and second speakers will talk about.
Apart from the first affirmative, all succeeding speakers should first disprove the opposing
team’s arguments with rebuttals before developing their own team’s case. Conflict and
engagement between sides is vital to effective debating. Refutation at the beginning of a
speech and construction of a case enables the initiative of the debate to be captured.
The third speakers, as well as rebutting the opposing side's arguments, are expected to
sum up what happened throughout the debate, demonstrating why the opposing side failed
to prove its case and how the speaker's own side effectively proved its case. Third
speakers are not allowed to introduce any new arguments unless they are referenced as
rebuttal.
MATTER
Matter refers to the content. Matter incorporates:
 the definition of key terms and meaning of the motion and its justification
 the team line, or statement and explanation of the team’s line of argument
 allocation of what the first and second speakers will talk about
 factual examples closely linked in support of the line of argument
 rebuttal of the opposing team’s case
DEFINITION
The definition, or interpretation of the motion and key terms, must be carefully considered
and linked to the team’s line. In practice, teams will decide on a team line first and then
construct a definition which supports the team line. On the floor, the definition is presented
by the first speakers first so that the team line will logically follow on.
The first negative and second affirmative may challenge the opposing team's definition.
Failure to challenge a broad (or narrow) definition may make it difficult to later argue a case.
Failure to reach some agreement on definition may lead to a debate on definition, lack of
engagement in other areas, or parallel debates.
Definitional ‘hair spiting’ and 'measurement' debates should be avoided as they limit
engagement and bore the audience.
Reasons should be given for definition which go beyond quoting a dictionary. It should be
recognised that terms may have both a specific meaning and a general, popularly
understood meaning.
Teams should also take care not to define in a way that seems unreasonable to the
average person as this may be to their disadvantage in persuading the adjudicators and
audience.
If not enough agreement has been reached on definition to consider the opposing team's
arguments, rebuttals can still be made by prefixing, “Even if their definition were correct
… .” This may be preferable to leaving arguments unchallenged.
TEAMS MUST ENGAGE!!
This situation does not automatically mean that both teams will or should employ the ‘Even
If’ strategy. The teams may simply assert that their interpretation of the subject is more
reasonable, practical and logical and move on to argue the merits of their case and refuse
the opposition’s case. This often happens in a debate where the definitional conflict is
minor and teams decide to concentrate on the arguments in the debate.
TEAM LINE
The Team Line is a memorable recurring phrase which unifies and sums up a teams case.
It may or may not parallel case division/allocation. E.g. Nuclear power - We can't afford it,
we can't trust it! Or The only viable option
The Team Line is the team's basis for why they should win the debate.
The team line should not be a simple restatement of the definition or the motion. It must
offer a reason explaining why the motion is true or false. It can contain more than one
reason. However the more reasons and complicated, the less memorable the team line
becomes.
ALLOCATION
Allocation is a simple statement by the first speaker of what areas the first and second
speakers will talk about.
WHY IS ALLOCATION NEEDED?
Allocation is an important structural device. While the Team Line provides the framework
for the case, the allocation is a framework for the team’s Matter. Matter is divided between
first and second speakers by a simple statement such as, “I'll explain why … and our
second speaker will show … and … . Allocation fits the parts into the whole and stops
repetition..
Allocation is included in the First Speaker’s speech so as to explain what is to follow. It is a
general classification of Matter, not a list of the examples to be discussed by each speaker
and not an outline of the roles of the speakers.
It is inappropriate to allocate to third speakers and to state that they will “sum up our case
and refute the arguments presented by our opponents”. This is a description of the third
speaker’s role in the debate, not the matter to be presented in their speech.
The Allocation should outline the general areas to be discussed by the first two speakers
and show the direction in which the case will develop. It should neither be too specific nor
too general and clichéd that it is almost meaningless.
HOW SHOULD A TEAM APPROACH ALLOCATION?
Matter should be carefully divided between first and second speakers ensuring that both
speakers have their share of strong examples and that these are organized carefully within
the individual speeches. It is wise to present the Allocation in order of speakers, allocating
to first and then to the second so no repetition occurs in a certain area.
Examples:
Motion: “students should wear uniforms”:
Team line: “Good for schools. Good for students”.
When outlining the case, the First Speaker describes the nature of responsibilities and
explains that “in today’s society there are two types of responsibilities, those that we accept
voluntarily and those that are forced upon us by society”. This break up of the types of
responsibilities provides an excellent basis on which to divide the case:
1st Speaker – Historical
-
Social
2nd Speaker – Political
CASE DEVELOPMENT
This is the most important component of Matter!
A case should be built with references and built into a coherent argument consistent with
the team line and allocation.
REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is countering or disproving an opponent’s argument. It can be referenced. E.g.
“The affirmative/negative tried to claim … but … .
Rebuttal is aimed at the argument and at the speaker. Speakers should refer to the point
expressed by the opposing team and then give the reasons that make it questionable, in a
clear, logical way. Rebuttal of isolated examples presented by the opposing team will do
little to destroy their case. Teams should always attack the line of argument of the
opposition and then their examples in their order of importance. Third speakers may
classify the opposing team’s examples into categories (e.g. politics, sport, environment) to
organize their rebuttal. In preparation for the match, debaters should anticipate the types of
argument which might be made and rate them in terms of convincibility so they have an
idea of which arguments to attack first.
Total proof is not required. The Affirmative is required to show that a subject is “generally
true” i.e. true in a significant number of cases. The Negative is required to show that the
subject is “generally false” i.e. false in a significant number of cases.
The quality of the Matter presented is more important than its quantity.
 Specific rebuttal is best rebuttal.
 Avoid fictitious examples e.g. “Little Johnny”, imaginary people or situations.
 Avoid invalid generalizations (dramatic inference) e.g. “A detective has been found
guilty of accepting bribes. This proves that the whole police force is corrupt.”
 Use specific statistics to prove an argument. Reserve personal examples and
experiences to demonstrate reality in people's live.
 Avoid basing an argument on assertion. Simply stating an argument is not proof.
 Avoid using irrational arguments because the more reasonable you are, the more
convincing you will be to the audience.
 Avoid false analogies.
Regardless of the quality of the Matter presented by a team, it will be allowed to stand
unless the opposing team exposes its weaknesses. When attempting to expose the
weaknesses in the opposing team’s case, a speaker must attack what has been said and
present an alternative argument.
MANNER
Manner relates to the way in which speakers deliver their speeches and use their
personality to communicate their ideas to the audience.
Speakers should present their speeches in a way which is convincing and sincere. It is the
overall impact of the speaker’s presentation on the audience which is important. The level
of language should be appropriate to the audience and to the subject of the debate.
Consideration should be given to tone, stress, strategic pauses, gesture and other speaking
devices.
MANNER EXPRESS BELIEVABILITY
MANNER MAKES THE MATTER CLEAR
Manner relates to:
 Visual presentation
 Vocal qualities
 Verbal skills
 Clarity
(how you look)
(how you sound)
(how you use language)
(ease of understanding)
Visual presentation should convey the emotion. Facial expression conveys sincerity.
This will hold the interest of the audience, make the speaker more convincing and
entertaining and above all, capture the audience with the speaker’s own personality.
METHOD
Method refers to how Matter is organized within an individual speech and throughout the
team’s argument. Parts make up the whole.
Method is the organization of a speech;
 within itself
 as part of the overall team case
 as part of the refutation of the opposing case
 the mechanics of the debate
It concerns itself not only with what is planned before the debate begins, (the prepared
material) but also with what has to be dealt with as the debate develops (the rebuttal).
STRUCTURE OF AN INDIVIUDAL SPEECH
A good introduction should capture the audience’s attention, assist the speaker to gain the
co-operation of the audience and prepare them for the discussion that is to follow.
Remember to address the Chairperson and audience before the speech begins.
“Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen” and “Chairperson, Members of the audience” are all
acceptable.
In case development each point should follow naturally and purposefully from the one
before.
The conclusion of the speech should focus the thoughts of the audience on the speaker’s
central theme and purpose, leave the audience in agreement with the speaker. It should
convey a sense of finality.
The use of time is very important. After 3 minutes a pithy summary is enough.
Speakers usually present their rebuttal at the beginning of their speech in order to capture
the initiative in the debate. The first Affirmative is the only speaker who should begin their
speech with their own material.
STRUCTURE OF A TEAM CASE
To organize a speech, each speaker needs to understand the specific duties of the
individual speakers in the debate.
 First Affirmative is concerned with definition and its justification, explanation and
development of a basic theme or line of argument, allocation of aspects of the team’s
case to first and second speakers, presentation of ideas and concrete examples
from within the allocated areas and reaffirmation of the team’s case.
 First Negative must accept or amend the Affirmative’s Definition, justify any
amendments, show why the Affirmative’s line is unacceptable and/or the structural,
logical, factual flaws within it, present the negative line of argument and then
proceed from Allocation to the development of an alternative case.
 Second Affirmative deals with any matters of dispute over the definition. The
speaker attacks the basic Negative case, showing why it is unacceptable and
highlighting its flaws, before developing the affirmative case.
 Second Negative renews and develops the attack on the affirmative line and
develops the negative's arguments. The aim is to recapture the initiative before
developing the negative’s argument.
Second speakers should beware of spending too much time on refutation at the expense of
case development. Case development should occupy the greater part of a second
speaker’s time.
 Third Affirmative rebuts and summarises their case.
 Third Negative rebuts and summarises their case.
INTRODUCING NEW MATERIAL
It is the responsibility of First and Second Speakers to introduce the points in the Team
Case.
Third Speakers
Third Speakers play a key role within the debate. They are responsible for overall summary
rebuttal of opponent’s team case and summary of own team case. Further case
development by the third Speaker is redundant.
Any ideas or examples raised by a third speaker, even if it has not been previously raised,
is not considered “new material” if it goes to disproving the argument of the opposition as
part of their rebuttals. New material is only in the form of examples of rebuttal.
HINTS FOR DEBATERS
1. Try to be relaxed. The more nervous you are, the less clearly your speech comes
across and the less impact you have.
2. Bring a little humour to the debate. It helps to relax the audience and makes the
debate more enjoyable. But it must be appropriate and relevant.
3. Do not be too repetitive.
4. Rebuttal for First Negative and Second Affirmative speakers should not be too
long, since their role is also to support and develop the team’s argument. Rebuttal for
Third Speakers is effective if it comes in a compare / contrast format.
5. The best Manner is not too dramatised but lets the personality of the speaker
shine.
6. Take a simple line and defend it rigorously. Do not try and win the debate on
definition to the exclusion of argument on the motion. Choose a definition which is
reasonable and balanced.
7. Don’t forget that you are speaking to an audience, so try to keep them interested.
8. Write down the definition and team line of your opponents, word for word, so you
can use it faithfully in rebuttals.
9. If you believe the opposition has altered its case line, say it! The adjudicator
cannot “infer” what they think you think or what you would like to say.
10. At least one team member should always be listening to the person speaking
while others are in discussion.
11. Don't misquote or exaggerate the opposition's examples.
12. Do not change your team line between speakers. Internal failure can lead a loss if it
is picked up by the opposition. They will gain marks for detecting loss of logic and you
will lose marks for the lack of internal consistency.
13. Do not to bombard the audience with too many examples. Select the more forceful
ones and use one or two to support the points that make up your Matter. Try to tie each
example back to the team line and show its relevance to your case.
14. As you become more experienced, aim to show a little more flair in your speech.
Particularly in your first debates, use the standard methodology of definition,
justification, team line, allocation and arguments, but try to present it in a
novel/interesting way to capture the attention of the audience.
15. Keep your signposting content related. Avoid cliché such as “The subject for today’s
debate is…” or “I shall now rebut the Negative…” This has the effect of capturing the
audience’s attention and interest immediately and will make them more receptive to your
arguments. Plan your introduction and conclusion!
16. The best Matter is interesting Matter. If you have particular knowledge, flaunt it!
The use of topical examples and good historical matter makes the whole debate more
enjoyable and more credible. Nothing is weaker than hypothetical examples, recounting
an example of “John down the road” or “I have a friend…,” “My father….”
17. Be confident and convincing!
18. Accept constructive criticism from your coach, the adjudicator and other members of
your team. Be ready to learn and talk to the adjudicator after the debate to seek advice
about how to improve.
19. Finally, enjoy yourself! Nothing is more monotonous than spending a couple of hours
doing something that is not fun. .
ADJUDICATING A DEBATE
THE ADJUDICATOR
The Adjudicator has three roles:
1. to decide which team won the debate;
2. to give reasons for the decision; and
3. to give constructive feedback to debaters.
The Adjudicator should take the role of an average reasonable person and should put aside
any expert knowledge or personal prejudices on the subject matter.
DECIDING WHICH TEAM WON
While the debate is in progress, the Adjudicator should ask:
 Who is gaining the initiative at this point in the debate after each speaker?
 Which arguments is emerging as the most convincing?
After the debate, the Adjudicator should ask:
 Which team better performed the process of persuasion, in accordance with the
rules of debate?
Adjudicators must declare a single winner. Ties are not acceptable because there is
always room to make distinction between what each side did and because ties might allow
Adjudicators to put off a difficult decision.
In close outcomes, the Adjudicator should first look at which team had the more convincing
and sustained argument. In the rare circumstance where the adjudicator (in one
adjudicator debates) still cannot make a decision, they can employ the less satisfactory
approach of looking at the matter scores or flip a coin.
Marks should be awarded to individual speakers only as a guide to the Adjudicator's
progressive assessment of the debate. If the marks add up to a result different from the
Adjudicator's overall impression of which side won, either the marks or the decision is
incorrect and the Adjudicator must ask his or herself why. Either the decision or the marks
must be adjusted. Marks are awarded in the proportions:
MATTER
MANNER
METHOD
40 marks
40 marks
20 marks
TOTAL = 100 marks per speaker
Since marks are relative to other speakers and not measured to an absolute standard, it is
often useful to award the first speaker an average mark (eg. 30, 30, 15) and award marks to
following speakers relative to the first.
Under no circumstances can Adjudicators resolve a split decision by adding up both
Adjudicators' marks and dividing by 2. This would be statistical nonsense. Reasons
for a win must always be given.
While the Matter introduced after the second bell should not be considered as contributing
further to the speaker’s argument, it should be noted by the adjudicator in case the
opposing team makes reference to it in subsequent speeches. Speech after the second bell
should be limited to finishing the current sentence and giving a summarising sentence.
It is not reasonable to award a close debate against a team on a minor Method point, such
as being slightly overtime or slightly under time or for not keeping voices down while others
are speaking.
If a speaker does not stop at the final bell, anything said past the time limit should be
ignored. Timing penalties are counted under “method” and should be proportionate with
the effect upon the speech. The Adjudicator should not impose time penalties which are
out of balance with what the speaker has actually achieved for method.
Adjudicators should not award a debate on a subjective point such as their personal dislike
of a team’s Case Line. A team’s Case Line and arguments must be judged in relation to
how they are handled by the opposing team.
If a debate is extremely close, it may be useful for adjudicators to keep in mind awarding
the win on the basis of which side has better produced and presented the most convincing
argument overall.
Reflection in the room.
 Don’t spend too much time discussing – concentrate on the actual performance not
the post discussion.
 Look at content up to 3 min.
 Reject padding.