Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Debating Well: A Guide To Debate On APDA
Debating Well: A Guide To Debate On APDA
Debating Well
A Guide to Debate on APDA
An Overview of Debate on the
American Parliamentary Debate Association
This document is nothing more than one Member of the Government MG 8 min.
particular opinion about how to debate well
Member of the Opposition MO 8 min.
on APDA. The best way to learn how to debate
Leader of the Opposition’s LOR 4 min.
well is to debate frequently, reflect on your
Rebuttal
rounds, and gradually find the rhetorical style
that fits you most aptly. Prime Minister’s Rebuttal PMR 5 min.
The defining feature of the American Parlia- Most teams on APDA tend to have one partner
mentary style is accessibility. If the rules be the PM on Gov and the MO on Opp and the
seem complex or obtuse, remember that they other partner be the MG on Gov and the LO on
are an attempt to approximate as closely Opp, which keeps the speaking time equal.
as possible a fair, conversational argument
Each position carries a personality stereotype:
between friends. The best debate rounds
the PM/MO is generally the more rhetorical,
on APDA are just that: the brightest college
big picture-oriented speaker while the LO/MG
students in the nation having a conversational
is the more analytical, detail-oriented speaker.
argument about pressing issues, moral quan-
Of course this stereotype is not true for many
daries, or just clever ideas.
individual cases. Some teams instead divide
the positions so that one person is the PM/LO
A Brief Overview of a Debate Round or “double leader” and the other is the MG/
MO or “double member.”
On APDA all rounds involve two teams, each of
two members. One team speaks first and pro-
An Average Tournament
poses a case as the Government (Gov) team;
their opponents are called the Opposition
At each tournament before every round all
(Opp) team. Gov’s two speakers are the Prime
present debaters come together in one room
Minister (PM) and the Member of Government
called the General Assembly (GA). The tourna-
(MG); Opp’s two speakers are the Leader of
ment staff then either reads or posts a list of
the Opposition (LO) and the Member of the
which team will debate (or, in APDA parlance,
Opposition (MO).
“is hitting”) which team, who will judge the
The PM and the LO each give two speeches, round, and where the round will take place.
one constructive and one rebuttal, per round.
A normal tournament consists of five “in-
The MG and the MO and each give one con-
rounds,” or rounds in which all teams partici-
structive speech per round. Constructive
pate. Usually each team will be Gov and Opp
speeches usually go through the list of argu-
two or three times each, although in some
ments presented by both sides (the “flow”)
rare cases a fourth Opp or Gov is possible.
and offer responses. Rebuttal speeches are
used to summarize and frame the round. After the inrounds usually the top eight teams
will make the break to outrounds, normally
The speaking order and times are as follows:
starting with quarterfinals (at a few large tourna-
ments there is a break to octafinals). Teams
Prime Minister’s Constructive PMC 7 min.
with a 5-0 record always make the break; teams
Leader of the Opposition’s LOC 8 min.
with a 4-1 record generally do; and, teams with
Constructive
a 3-2 or worse record generally do not.
2
An Overview of Debate on the
American Parliamentary Debate Association
At some tournaments the top few novice 24 beginning novice
teams (usually with 3-2 or 2-3 records) who do
23.5 unimpressive
not make the varsity break will make novice
23 or lower seriously flawed
outrounds, normally starting with novice semi-
finals. Speaker points and ranks are supposed to
measure overall debating performance and
Judging contribution to winning the round, but in prac-
tice most judges count rhetorical ability and
APDA rounds are decided based on which fluency more than making smart arguments
team argued their side of the case more per- or strategy choices. It is best to focus on
suasively, independently of whether or not in making persuasive arguments to win rounds
some objective sense that position is prefer- at first; getting high speaker points will come
able. Even though they generally do not know naturally later.
about the case before the start of the round,
Opposition teams win 60% of rounds and 80% Points of Information, Clarification, and
of outrounds. Order
The primary reason for this disparity is that
A normal APDA round will include several
the Gov has a burden to present a fair, acces-
breaks for questions and, sometimes, rules
sible case and convince the judge that despite
complaints. Points of information are generally
its flaws, it is better than Opp’s advocacy –
questions or short statements designed to re-
usually the status quo.
fute, render irrelevant, or mock the speaker’s
Judges must write out a “reason for decision” argument. They can be asked anytime other
(RFD) – a short explanation of why the win- than during rebuttal speeches or the first and
ning side prevailed. In addition to deciding last minute of any speech. The speaker always
who wins each round, the judge will also rank has the choice to accept or wave down points
each debater in the round in terms of their of information.
performance with the 1 going to the most im-
During most speeches, the opposing team will
pressive and the 4 to the least. Lastly, each
rise for questions about three to five times
debater is given speaker points, or “speaks,”
and will be accepted about two times. Accept-
to measure the performance against a more
ing less than one or two questions is frowned
objective scale. Most tournaments use a
upon; accepting more than two questions is
scale similar to this:
generally bad strategy. Following an odd relic
27 or higher excellent; a few given out per of practice in the British Parliament, APDA
tournament debaters will often put one hand to their head
(as though holding a wig) and stretch one
26.5 very good varsity speech
arm out to the side to ask a question. If this
26 good varsity speech
sounds awkward, rest assured that simply ris-
25.5 solid varsity, strong novice ing will usually suffice.
speech
25 average varsity, solid novice Points of clarification are questions asked to
speech better comprehend the case that Gov is pro-
24.5 average novice posing. They usually occur about 45 seconds
3
An Overview of Debate on the
American Parliamentary Debate Association
into the round, right after Gov has finished
explaining the case. Gov should always ac-
cept points of clarification unless Opp is using
them in an abusive way to stall time or smug-
gle in arguments.
4
The Speeches of an American Parliamentary
Debate Association Debate Round
Each speech in a debate round on APDA has Example 2. “Our side of the House believes
its own goals and rules. This section attempts that the United States should send troops
to summarize one way of giving each speech, to Darfur. This plan provides benefits to the
but is by no means an authoritative set of people of Darfur, to the region’s neighbors in
rules that must be followed. Sudan and the Middle East, and to our own
fellow citizens back home. We will discuss all
Prime Minister’s Constructive (PMC) three of these parties and what they stand to
gain from intervention, starting first with the
All a PMC must do is present a case state- people of Darfur.”
ment, briefly explain any facts necessary
It is also important to watch time closely.
for discussing the case, and then offer a
Experienced debaters often find that they feel
few arguments supporting the case state-
the least amount of time pressure in PMC
ment. PMCs should not be read like prepared
compared to other speeches, leaving out argu-
speeches, but the PM should have a bullet-
ments at the end can be a serious error since
point style outline to structure the speech.
new constructive arguments are not accepted
Strong PMCs are usually the result of strong
in MG. For this reason it is standard practice
cases.
to start PMC with the case’s strongest argu-
Other than the quality of the case, a PMC ment.
will excel if it has solid organization. At a
basic level, this means clearly delineating Leader of the Opposition’s Constructive
arguments and reminding the judge where (LOC)
the speech is on the flow, which APDA calls
“signposting.” It is acceptable to signpost The LOC is widely considered the most difficult
explicitly, saying, for example “the second speech to give, mostly because during PMC
argument we offer” or “the third point we want the LO must listen to and write responses to
to talk about,” etc. This can be taken too far; each of the PM’s arguments while coming up
referring to “Subpoint B under point 2” is too with independent arguments against the case.
much. A good LOC has three parts:
Uninspired PMCs will often read like a list of First, the LOC should start with an Opp Phi-
arguments. To avoid this, the PM should, im- losophy, a broad statement of why the case
mediately following case statement and any should be rejected. Here are three examples:
explanation of facts, offer an organizing struc-
ture. Here are two examples that may help: Example 1. “The government’s plan is ulti-
mately too idealistic: it ignores the perverse
Example 1. “We propose that noncitizen resi- incentives that this law would create and in
dents with children in the local public school practice it would undermine the goals it pur-
district should be able to vote in local school ports to achieve.”
board elections. We think the government
ought to allow them the vote because they de- Example 2. “This side of the house believes
serve as a right and because it is sound public that persons can never be mere means to an
policy. If we can prove either the rights issue end; because Gov would sacrifice individu-
or the policy issue, we should win this round.” als for the whim of the state, we oppose the
moral position that underlies their case.”
5
The Speeches of an American Parliamentary
Debate Association Debate Round
Example 3. “We agree that human rights must before moving caseside) and many smart
play a role in our foreign policy, but not at the responses rather than giving five arguments
expense of our national interest. We here on off-case and repeating them ad nauseam as
side Opp will defend a more nuanced position responses.
combining realism with respect for interna-
tional law.” Member of Government (MG) & Member of
Explaining opposition philosophy should take Opposition (MO)
no longer than a minute.
Standard member speeches follow the flow
The second step is to offer a few independent carefully: the first four minutes are spent on
arguments against the case. These argu- Opp’s arguments, and the back four minutes
ments are called “independent” because they are spent on case. Many member speeches
are not mere responses to Gov arguments of- start with an overview (or more rarely, multiple
fered in PMC. If no arguments come to mind “overviews”)—an observation about how the
immediately (but the case seems fair), asking round is progressing or how the opposing side
yourself these questions about the case will is making a mistake and why that favor’s the
help. Why do we not have this policy/hold this speaker’s side.
belief in the status quo? How would people
react to this change and what impact would A brief, clever overview can be powerful, but
their reactions have? Is there a better way to all too often overviews try to do too much.
achieve the goals Gov’s plan is designed to Putting all of a speech’s best arguments in
meet? the first two minutes and then saying “cross-
apply this” and “remember that” for the next
After giving all of the independent argu- six kills momentum.
ments—usually about 4-5 minutes into the
speech, the LO then “moves caseside” and A strong MG will, above all, not come off as
responds to the PMC’s arguments point-by- purely defensive. The MG should go after Op-
point; this is the third and final part of the position aggressively, attacking their position
LOC. Again it is important to signpost clearly; rather than just reformulating Gov’s. If LOC
tell the judge exactly which of Gov’s argu- only dealt with fringe cases, point out that Opp
ments you are addressing. has not challenged the basic assumptions of
the case. If Opp position seems vague and
If pressed for time, try to focus on Gov’s most shifting, ask the judge to demand Opp take an
persuasive arguments. Some APDA debaters actual stand on the issue. If Opp made a tim-
will repeat some of their independent argu- ing error and did not cover much of case, note
ments as responses to Gov points, often by the Gov arguments that they “dropped.”
asking the judge to “cross-apply” their earlier
analysis. This is better than wasting time Do not, however, fundamentally change Gov’s
reiterating the same arguments, but it usually position in MG; this is called a “case shift”
indicates that the “independent” arguments and is considered illegal.
were not so independent after all.
The MO has more flexibility in terms of or-
It is better to have only two arguments off- ganization. Since it is the last constructive
case (that is, independent arguments offered speech, it is not necessary to cover every
argument on the flow. Some experienced de-
6
The Speeches of an American Parliamentary
Debate Association Debate Round
baters choose not to follow the flow at all and grated into the overall structure of the speech.
instead create a new structure of their own. If Either way it is important to label these argu-
you choose this route, make sure you clearly ments as responses to new MO points.
articulate the structure you choose to employ
in the first minute of the speech. There are two pitfalls frequently made in
rebuttals. One is to act as if nothing occurred
Novice debaters will almost always do better in the member speeches and repeat PMC or
following the flow until they are comfortable LOC. A strong rebuttal will integrate content
with the style. It is acceptable to add one or from the member speeches and note any im-
two new Opp arguments in MO, but labeling portant drops that the member on the oppos-
them as “new” arguments is a controversial ing side made.
stratgegy. A safter and smoother tack is to fit
new material in along with points and respons- The other pitfall is to focus exclusively on
es that the LO made. Most importantly, avoid arguments your side seems to be winning.
contradicting or “knifing” the LO. It is important to attack any points that the
other side claims to be winning; ignoring them
makes it much easier for the judge to use the
Leader of the Opposition’s Rebuttal (LOR) & other side’s summary of the round as an RFD.
Prime Minister’s Rebuttal (PMR)
Try this exercise: if, after you walk out of
Rebuttal speeches are explanations to the the round, you can say to yourself, the only
judge of why the speaker’s side has won the way they can win is if X, then make sure you
round. Most APDA debaters organize rebut- address X prominently in your rebuttal and
tals around three “points of crystallization,” explain why it cannot be a decisive issue in
important issues in the round where the the round.
speaker and the speaker’s partner have won
convincingly. Often points of crystallization
will be posed as questions which the speaker
answers sequentially.
The first policy is to make tightness the only Then, “Having said that, we would prefer not
voting issue in the round. If this is the policy, to make this around about tightness, so we
Opp is required to call the case tight at the will oppose the case as best we can, given
beginning of LOC and then give reasons for this abusive burden.” After this, oppose the
why the case is tight and show why any possi- case as normal.
ble arguments against the case are weak. In
subsequent speeches Gov must demonstrate
8
Cases in the American Parliamentary
Debate Association
Andrew Wansley
Dartmouth ‘10
11