The Art of

Argumentation

By Apratim Shrivastav

2018
 Table of Contents

1. Basics of Worlds Schools Debating Championship format

2. The art of Argumentation

3. Debaters, Meet Motions

4. Welcome to the world of Arguments

5. Rebuttal

6. Burdens

7. Framing and structure

8. First Speakers

9. Second Speakers

10. Whip Speeches

11. Reply Speeches

To the debating community,

The dream to write this guide started way back when the year began. We
were anxious and worried about not knowing enough and no document
on the internet dealt with the basic ideas of debating. It was then when I
thought that if I get the chance, that’s when I’ll work to make this guide
available to everyone so that no one really would feel under prepared when
it comes to this beautiful sport. From when I started a few years ago,
debating has given me a lot. It gave me confidence, a platform and above
all a community who was always there for me whenever I needed them.
This guide is far from perfect but in my own little way, this is my gift to the
community which has given me so much.

Thank you everyone who has been an integral part of this amazing journey
so far and for every experience which taught me so much, not just about
the sport but also about life in general. A huge thanks to all coaches,
adjudicators, team mates and friends who directly or indirectly have
influenced this work of mine. And of course, all my friends in different
countries who have helped make this a reality with your time and effort,
forever grateful.

To my friends.
To my family.
To my community.

---------------------
Apratim Shrivastav
 World Schools Debating Format

World Schools Debating Championship is without question the most

important debating event in the world for high schoolers, which makes the
format this tournament is conducted in the most important one. WSDC is a
global competition for national high school debate teams. Teams from all over
the world gather in a battle of minds, discussing 13 different topics set by an
international panel of debate experts. With over 70 different countries
regularly participating in the tournament, its fair to say that WSDC is huge.

The championship is practiced in an iteration of the 3v3 format which houses

two teams in a room with 3 speakers each and a total of 4 speeches per team.

Prime Minister Leader of Opp.

Deputy PM Deputy LO

Gov Whip Opp. Whip

Gov Reply Opp. Reply

The basics- The first speakers in the debates are the prime minister and the
leader of opposition followed by the deputies, the whips and the reply
speakers. Each Single speaker has an individual role to fulfill which will be
dealt in depth in the later chapters but for reference:

- The Prime minister sets up the debate and the case for the gov bench.
- The Leader of Opp. refutes the PM and sets up the case the case for the
Opp.
- The Deputies refute the previous speakers and extend the cases for their
respective sides
- The Whips refute everyone and summarize the cases
- The reply speakers provide analysis to why their team win a debate.

WSDC provides every speaker with 8 minutes to make their cases while the
reply speakers get a total of 4 minutes for their speeches. Know that in this
manual when we say speeches, we mean the first three. Any knowledge that
relates to the reply speeches will be mentioned explicitly including them.

Points of Information- The first and the last minute of every speech is called
protected time and will be marked by a bell. This time is protected from Points
of information’s which are basically questions that can be asked in between a
speech to the speakers within 15 seconds. (More on points of information in
later chapters)

Finally, the important stuff – World Schools Adjudicators refer to debaters

as kids and at the end of the day, that is how the debaters are seen and how
their speeches are judged, which makes adjudication or judgement at WSDC
significantly different from any other debating format even in the high school
categories. Let’s dwell more into these differences and what makes a good
WSDC debater.
WSDC has a judging metric that consists of three Ms namely-

- Matter
o Matter consists of the actual arguments that are spoken in the
debate and is judged on the basis of the arguments brought
forward and the rebuttals made by the individual debaters.

- Manner
o Manner is basically the way a debater brings forward arguments.
Things like flag posting, fluency, the way an argument is
analyzed are all included in manner.

- Method
o Method is tricky one and most people confuse manner with
method but this couldn’t be further from the truth. While manner
focuses on how an individual did, method on the other hand
focuses on how well a team did with their arguments.
o Things like how well did they priorities it (Better arguments that
bring a lot to the debate need to come as soon as possible).
o How well did they do with POIs and were constant POIs asked
and things like that?
 The Art of Argumentation
“Wonder is the beginning of wisdom.”

― Socrates

Before we start understanding debating and its intricacies, we must essentially start
with questioning with what exactly is debating. This is important to do as even a lot
of experienced debaters lose track of this basic idea and start to forget what debating
really means and as a result get tied up in trivial ideas which prevents them from
going any further.

Always remember – DEBATING STEMS FROM QUESTIONING.

It stems from asking why does something happen or why are things the way they
are. The moment you answer these questions is when you start to debate well and
understand issues. The problem I see in a lot of school debaters or even university
debaters is that they want to make three claims that wins them the debate. The
problem with this is that even if you survive your own eight-minute speeches, If the
opposition starts off with great arguments or even comes up with rebuttals, it often
becomes really hard for you to pick things back up.

Remember to Ask questions for any particular debate and remember the answers to
those questions are your arguments. You don’t need only three arguments or only
four arguments, you can have as many as you want but remember to spend enough
time on explaining those ideas. We shall work with an example in this case for better
understanding.

This motion is from the High school finals of 2018 Ascension:

Motion: TH supports one-party democracies in developing countries

Info Slide: A one-party democracy has a dominant political party that consistently
wins elections. The system is democratic, allowing for the theoretical possibility of
challenge and political change. The government does not engage in overt violence
to repress opposition. Examples include Singapore, Rwanda, and South Africa.

The first thing that you need to do is to figure out what does the motion require you
to do and what is it about.

1. This motion is about one-party democracies.

2. To win this debate you need to show why it’s the best possible system
(government) and detrimental when compared to multi-party system
(opposition)
3. Imagine a developing country in your head and now envision a single party
system in place. This is true for all debates. You need to put yourself wherever
the motion takes you and then come up questions and answers.
4. Figure out key definitions to help you out with your process.
Status quo

Developing Country-A country struggling with basic problems like education,

healthcare, etc.

Questions

1. How do single parties sustain in this system?

a. Parties are not favored on the basis of their policies but much rather the
identity that has been associated with them. Example – African
National Congress with Apartheid in S.A or Peoples party in Singapore
with its formation.
i. How does this effect develop counties?
1. They have educational problems, problems with poverty,
hunger, etc. when these parties are complacent and not
based on policies. This is harmful.
ii. What are the major incentive for this party?
1. To maintain this identity. To have continuous
brainwashing or message of independence.
 a. What does this lead to?
i. People are robbed of their meaningful
choices that they could make.
ii. No informed decision takes place.
iii. People vote not for what is better for them but
just are pawns controlled by party
1. Illusion of democracy
iii. What does the society look like with this kind of party?
1. A society of compliant individuals who are brainwashed
and given one constant message to follow.
2. A government that has no meaningful challenge.
3. A society where the government becomes synonymous
with the political party and there can be no way to separate
the two.
a. What does this lead to?
i. Leaving people with no meaningful Choice
therefore violating the principle of
democracy in and of itself.
2. Why is having many parties better than just a single party?
a. It creates a sense of Accountability for the government wherein they know
that if they do not work then they will be kicked out of power.
i. What does this lead to?
1. If political parties have basically no accountability then the
system is as good as monarchy as the parties are no long for
the people but for their own existence.
b. It helps with representing multiple interests and ethnicities from across
the country in order to prove a government for all.
c. Governments compete on the basis of policies and hence what the people
need is often their priority. When it is just a single party in power then
the parties end up being complacent and therefore the interests of the
people aren’t reflected.
i. What does this lead to?
1. Since these parties are in power for so long, The power struggle
within the party functions on influence.
2. Therefore, the politicians that come in through the door are
focused on how to have as much influence and not necessarily
how to work for the people to the best of their abilities.
 3. Connecting it back to what developing countries need.
3. How does suppression of the opposition take place?
a. These political parties are synonymous with the government.
i. What does it lead to?
1. These parties are so big that it is very likely that the idea
that any other party coming to power is so farfetched that
no meaningful opposition can be there.
2. Its much easier for any young politician to join this party
that any other party especially considering that it’s a single
party democracy so they will never be in power any way.
b. Media would never play a meaningful Opposition.
i. Since these parties are the state, any media outlet that works to
inform people against the party would be seen as an outlet that it
against the state as a whole and since no meaningful change
would come from these parties. It’s more likely that media
outlets will just fall in line.
c. Even If We consider that individual member would vote in the
parliament.
i. More likely he will never vote against anything that the party
proposes in order to safeguard his/her position in the party and
the order of things.
4. How do people retaliate
a. The moment people realize, they are helpless.
i. The retaliation would be violent in nature, sending back the
country into complete turmoil and they lose the confidence in
themselves to make a change

Note – The case in the above page is in no manner the best case for the motion
but is there so that you realize how does this mechanism work.
Key Notes-

• As you can see above, any of the sub point in and of itself is an argument and
can be explained a lot further. Therefore, the idea that you need have limited
number of arguments is completely false.
• Note that the question themselves are not arguments and therefore they need
to be big and must encompass a lot of ideas within themselves.
o Provides you with a better understanding of the debate.
o Broadens your horizons by a lot when it comes to the kind of matter
you bring in.
• It is very important for you to spend a lot of time within ideas to make sure
they are broad and you do enough explanation when it comes to them.
• This isn’t what your final speech looks like but this is how you generate
ideas when it comes to making a good case.

Final Note –

The main point of debating is to ask questions and for you to generate enough
answers to those questions. The one who answers them better, wins the
debate.
 Debaters, Meet Motions.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it.”

― Aristotle

A motion, also known as a proposition or resolution in other formats, is a statement

that usually sets the topic for the given debate. A debate motion can encompass
several topics from around the world, ranging from economics to international
relations to fictional characters to social constructs, basically anything and
everything in short. So, for us to start debating we need to familiarize ourselves with
motions and the way they are framed. Here are some acronyms listed below that you
will see often in debate rounds along with their meaning and significance.

1. THW “Insert certain action” – ‘This house would’ motion

One of the two most common motion framing that takes place. ‘This
house would’ motions ask the debater to analyze the outcomes of a
given action and accordingly discuss whether the house should take that
action or not. Not to say that they cannot contain principles but
emphasis should be on the outcomes. In this debate

Example – THW invade Myanmar or THW ban animal testing.

2. TBHT “Insert certain action” – ‘This house believes that’ motions

The second most common motion framing is TBHT motions. These
motions are more about the moral and ethical question about should
something be done. The foundation of these motion is the idea that
should this house believe in a certain idea or not. These motions can
also have outcomes as their analysis but when it comes to prioritization
of arguments.
 Principle based arguments should be preferred, especially in WSDC
format. More on principle arguments later on in the chapter.

Example - THBT liberal democracies should constitutionally enshrine

the right of regions to unilaterally secede, THBT religious institutions
should to take custody of children in street situations, even without the
consent of their parents.

3. TH, as “some actor” would/should “Insert certain action” – ‘This house, as’
motions
This house as motions require you to look at a certain issue from a
particular perspective and weigh in on what’s most beneficial for the
actor in question. These motions are won or lost based on the idea that
in whose world is the actor actually better off and who would benefit
the actor the most.

Example - TH, as the LGBT+ Community Would Oppose

Pornography

4. TH, regrets “something” – This house regrets motions

These motions are often tricky to deal with in the sense that you are given an
idea and during your speeches you need to give the adjudicator enough
reasons to why would you regret it. This primarily focuses on the impact that
a particular subject has/will have. There are three kinds of regret motions-

a. Retrospective
These motions are often based on pre-existing ideas that are prevalent
in the society and you need analyse the effects of them to say whether
you regret their existence and prevalence or whether the proposition
doesn’t have enough grounds to regret that certain idea and you believe
that particular idea helped the society at large.

Example - This house regrets the use of the death penalty for crimes
against humanity.
 b. Preemptive

These motions are often based in a development that is recent and

analyses the impacts of it in the longer term. They categorically need
the debaters to create a world that would arise in the future, and provide
substantive reasons to why does the house have enough grounds to
reject the particular motion

Example- This house regrets the development of lethal autonomous

weapons.

c. Contemporary

These motions are a mixture of retrospective and preemptive motions.

And can encompass both past and future implications of a particular
idea. The primary motive of these motions is to support or regret a
particular idea in its entirety and not necessarily bound it to its
consequences.

Example- This house regrets the glorification of heroes.

5. TH, prefers a world where “certain action” takes place – This house prefers a
world motion

‘This house prefers a world’ motions are pretty self-explanatory. You are
given an idea and need to imagine what the world with that idea would look
like. For instance, this house prefers a world where fear is non-existent. When
you take this motion, you need to understand the value of fear in today’s
world. After you have assessed that. Imagine a world where all these
characteristics are absent, and then tell the house why would you prefer or not
prefer the world.
 Welcome to the World Of Arguments.

“That’s the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you’re never wrong.”
-Christopher Buckley

Now that we have discussed already about how to come up with different ideas for
a particular motion the second chapter (See – Chapter two: art of argumentation.)
This chapter will focus on how do you frame a chunk of ideas into an argument.

For a more beginner approach to arguments before you can move on to layered
analysis. The basic structure of an argument is –

Reasoning Impact

C R E I

CLAIM Evidence

Figure – Basic structure of an argument.

A Claim is an assertion which a debater makes in order to prove a point. Understand

that claims are not enough for you to win a debate. On their own, they’re just an
unproved idea. Therefore, since the debater doesn’t prove it, the adjudicator doesn’t
buy it - Simple. Example – If you say, “prostitution is bad for society.” If you do not
provide logic behind that assertion. Then the adjudicator won’t buy it in a debate.

The reasoning is basis and backbone for your case. It provides legitimacy for your
claims and a well-developed argument always has a lot of reasonings which go into
making the argument a robust structure. Always remember to keep asking “so what”
and “why” until it becomes crystal clear that the claim has been proved.

Evidence is using real-life examples or stats used to make your reasoning better.
But are often optional as debates tend to happen on logical links

Impact perhaps the most important part of an argument which talks about why are
you making this argument. Or, why is it important. A very quick example – if
you’re making an arg. about how economic fairness leads to happiness. The best
way to the argument would be why is happiness an important metric and why is it
useful.

Let’s try and understand this through an example:

Motion: THBT states should priorities economic growth over economic equality.

CLAIM: Economic growth doesn’t make people happier.

REASONING: we know this as people acquire more and more things. They can
become greedy and dissatisfied with what they have and hence become pressured to
work longer and harder to acquire more and more possession

EXAMPLE: We this to be true through countries such as Scandinavia who rely on

economic equality are shown to be happier.

IMPACT: Happiness is an important metric in this debate as it determines how a

society in a whole behaves. For instance, It makes sure that people are less likely to
be violent and hostile.
It is also very important to remember that good debaters have multiple layer of
reasonings to their claims. In order to make it difficult for their arguments to be
brought down easily. An example of this using the questioning example from
earlier would be –

In a single party system, no factor exists that holds the gov. accountable.

1. These parties are so big that it is very likely that the idea that any other party
coming to power is so farfetched that no meaningful opposition can be there.
a. EXPLAIN THIS FURTHER.

2. It’s much easier for any young politician to join this party that any other party
especially considering that it’s a single party democracy so they will never be
in power any way.
a. EXPLAIN THIS FURTHER.

3. Media would never play a meaningful Opposition.

a. EXPLAIN THIS FURTHER.

4. Individual members aren’t great as well.

a. EXPLAIN THIS FURTHER

5. When people have no other party to vote for, they have no power.

The argument in this figure is: In a single party system, no factor exists that
holds the gov. accountable. The numbered analysis is the reasoning behind that
particular claim.

As it is evident above, the aim of the entire argument was to prove the point
expressed on the top that was to provide reasoning to the claim that no accountability
exists. Now, this claim has multiple supporting reasons that all point to the singular
fact that accountability is non-existent here. But each of the given reasons are in
themselves sub arguments to support the central claim. So therefore, the argument
is much difficult to take down when you have layered analysis
 Types of arguments

Now that we have an understanding of how arguments are primarily made, we can
move on to other fundamental questions like what are the different types of
arguments. Given on the kind of reasonings arguments rely upon, they can be
divided into principle and practical arguments.

1. Principle Arguments.

Principled Arguments are some of the most important pieces of arguments that a
debater can run in a debate. These arguments are different from general practical
arguments as the reasoning that the debater uses to prove the claim does not depend
on consequences or pragmatics but much rather on moral and ethical grounds.

In order to give you a better understanding of these arguments, here is the first
argument made by Bo Seo in the 2016 Quarter finals on the motion, ‘TH supports
the establishment of a black secessionary state within the territory of the US’

Two arguments that I’m going to present:

First is on the principle of reparation.

We say, first of all, the most important thing when it comes to reparations for
historical injustice is that it be directly proportionate. It is a requirement of the
principle of fairness, that is to say justice, that when you have a violation of the
principle equality of individuals. That what is involved is the restoration of that past
equality. The reason that that’s precisely important in this instance is because any
other form of reparation would be totally inconmensurable to the kind harm inflicted
upon these people. So, you may apologize or you may give them more funding which
is what we suspect those guys are going to stand for, but that will never
systematically count for the kind of harms that we visited upon those. What are
precisely the harms that the United States government have systematically inflicted
on African Americans and why does that necessarily require statehood as the
measure and the mechanism of reparation.

Three things that we did:

First, we denied them nationhood. And most directly we denied them nationhood.
The black population of the United States begins on a fundamental act of
displacement. That is to say, white people going into Africa and rounding people
onto ships, taking them out of nations that they had already belonged to, nations they
could otherwise freely move out of. So it comes from displacement and it comes
from a refusal to allow people to immigrate. You couldn’t, as a black slave, move
out of your state let alone out of your country. The denial of that ability to choose
your nation for yourself is one that requires direct redress in the form of statehood.

The second thing that we did to African Americans is we disenfranchised them. That
is to say your democratic right to be heard, to be counted as a citizen among equals.
That requires directly, an engagement with a state that gives you precisely that
democratic right. We think that enhancement of citizenship is something that’s
required.

The third harm visited upon African Americans is plunder. We say that the harm of
US government policy, isn’t just that they did negative policies, but rather that they
stole money from African Americans. How did they do this. First, they taxed them
without giving them any representation. If you tax people with the promise that
you’ll get equal opportunities, education, and health, but don’t provide any of those
things, we say that that is theft. When you lock up individuals unjustly and deprive
them of their productive capacity to work or to earn a living wage for themselves,
that too is theft. We say that those three things require in principle statehood. The
importance of this argument is that it’s not premised on any hypothetical successes
or failures of that future state. That is to say it’s in those people’s right to exercise
for themselves and to form a system of government that they think will work for
them. Just the way we don’t deny any citizen the right to a nation just because we
don’t think it will work out for them, we think here the principle of reparation makes
it a requirement.

As you can see in the argument transcribed above. The argument focuses on the idea
that giving black people a state is a form of reparation- Claim. And moves on to why
is the claim true. Note that the entire argument stands on itself as pure principles and
does not depend on consequences.

2. Practical Arguments
A practical argument in a debate is an argument whose reasoning depends
upon consequences of a particular action. These actions are good or bad in
light of the consequences or real-life conditions that exist in the practical
world.

Since, we tried to learn understand principle arguments through the 2016

Quarter finals speech. It’s only fair to continue on the same.
Second. This makes it better for African Americans.

We’re going to explain, why the comparative they need to defend on their side is
delayed reform, and in many instances no reform at all. The reason why that’s the
case is because African Americans have limited democratic representation in the
United States as it presently stands. This is for a host of reasons:

It’s for zoning laws that have gerrymandering which have almost irreversibly meant
that black people are put into smaller ghettos rather than having a bigger say in
broader electorates. It’s for a history of disenfranchisement, which means that
African Americans are systemically less likely to turn out and to exercise their right
to vote. It’s because of the control of the media and organizations like Fox and more
importantly local media which is disproportionately owned by white people. It’s
because of schooling and the ability to find education which directly correlates with
you understanding voting issues and being able to turn out the vote and the systemic
failures of schools in African American districts and lastly, it’s for the existence of
a two party system, where the Democrats can by and large count on African
American votes and assume that because they don’t have Donald Trump on their
side, you’re going to be able to get their votes.

The second thing I’m going to talk about is what kind of change this leads to.

The first thing that this does is that it gives them more money. Where does that
money come from? First, it comes from resources that they get by controlling oil
mines, and we’re happy to give them – like if we do shale in Alaska for instance –
we’re happy to give them a cut of that as well. The reason why that money and those
resources rents don’t currently get to African Americans is because of really low tax
rates, which means that it goes into the pockets of executives at Enron instead of
African American communities.

Second. Internally, it means that African Americans for the first time have jobs on
all different levels of the corporate structure. That’s to say you’re not just a low-level
employee, which can happen presently, but your middle management and upper
management as well. The third thing is, within the state you don’t have to do silly
things that the US system does at the moment like spending a vast amount of their
GDP on military for instance or for farm subsidies for white farmers in Iowa. We
think that makes them do those things. That kind of money is going to go towards
productive things like the education and healthcare system which for far too long
has been disenfranchised.

We think it allows them to escape from a police state that has been oppressing them.
Reparations is a principled requirement. Statehood is the only way to deliver on that
promise.

As you can see in the aforementioned argument. The reasoning of the claim that ‘It
is good for African Americans’ is the based-on tangible, real-life consequential
reasons and hence is a perfect example to the argument.
 Rebuttals and Policies.

“Google didn’t give me an appropriate quote. So, yeah.”

-Apratim Shrivastav

The second most important thing after arguments are ways to destroy them. These
are known as rebuttals. The primary job of a rebuttal is to give your bench a win by
making sure that the oppositions arguments don’t stand in the debate. Even though
a lot of debaters manage rebuttals after practicing for some time. What they fail to
do is grasp fundamental concepts attached with it. This chapter is divided into four
section-

• What are rebuttals?

• How to rebut?
• What to rebut?

What are rebuttals?

The common misconception that’s been shared throughout debaters of all categories
is that anything that is said against an argument is a rebuttal. This couldn’t really be
further with the truth. Before we learn more about rebuttals. Something to clarify
here is the distinction between rebuttal and response.

For the sake of continuity, lets take the same motion from the previous chapter

Motion: THBT states should priorities economic growth over economic equality.

If the prop says: economic growth is imp as it makes people happy.

Response: No, fairness makes people happy. We know this because Scandinavia is
shown to be much happy.

Rebuttals: No, economic growth doesn’t make people happier, we know this as
people acquire more and more things. They can become greedy and dissatisfied with
what they have and hence become pressured to work longer and harder to acquire
more and more possession

Notice that the striking difference between response and rebuttal. The response here
primarily deals with the claim and negates it by providing a counter claim. But this
doesn’t disprove the earlier claim at all. To the contrary, the moment the deputy re-
affirms, the adjudicator has no reason to believe otherwise.

A rebuttal on the other hand attacks the underlying logic of the entire argument. So
that it in order to rebuild that argument back, the second speaker might need to re
spend a couple of minutes.

How to rebut?
In order to learn to rebut, let’s revisit the formation of an argument with an example

CLAIM: Economic growth doesn’t make people happier.

REASONING: we know this as people acquire more and more things. They can
become greedy and dissatisfied with what they have and hence become pressured to
work longer and harder to acquire more and more possession

EXAMPLE: We this to be true through countries such as Scandinavia who rely on

economic equality are shown to be happier.

IMPACT: Happiness is an important metric in this debate as it determines how a

society in a whole behaves. For instance, it makes sure that people are less likely to
be violent and hostile.
A rebuttal can be made directed at any particular point in the argument but it depends
on upon the relevance and strength of the argument made on which should you
employ. Rebutting Different parts of argument have different effects and vary in
strengths.

Claim – Refuting a claim is often seen as a response and maybe – just between you
and me - let’s just go a bit deeper.

Reasoning - This is the best possible sort of rebuttal that you should make as it deals
with the foundational base of an argument.

Example – Just, don’t. One example down – a thousand more can take its place.

Impact – This is the second most popular kind of rebuttal to make where you dispute
the significance of an augment in a debate. In line with the example, the debater
disputes the importance of happiness in the debate. This looks like most ‘even if’
arguments that debaters run.‘

In conclusion, four essential ways a debater can attack an argument-

1. Assumption
A rebuttal that attacks the basic assumption an argument or a case is based on
is often one of the most portent forms of attack as it attacks the foundation of
what makes up the argument.

2. Logical links
Often in debates the logic that makes up a certain impact is important to be
dealt with as it is the most essential part of the case. In many cases, debaters
list out the problem, give you a solution and then give you impacts without
any logic as to how that solution would lead to the impact. IDENTFY AND
DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM-SOLUTION GAP.
 3. Impacts
Show why a particular argument is not as important as the side claim it is.
Mitigate the impacts and show how the particular idea would necessarily not
bring in the desired impacts because of several other factors usually through
an ‘even if’ argument.

4. Examples
The least important of all. In the absolute worst case, deal with their examples,
doesn’t do much but might mitigate some ideas at least perception wise.

NOTE
Always end your rebuttal with a comparative, comparing on how their
reduced impact affects the world and, in the end, how their world looks now,
compared to when you started rebutting
What to rebut?

It may sound ridiculous but is perhaps the most important question, what do we rebut
in a debate. One mistake most debater make is try to refute everything. Two
problems with this –

1. In most international tournaments when the matchups take place through

power pairing, it’s highly unlikely that the debaters will be able to deal with
every single argument. Missing out on important arguments will cost you
points in engagement and cost you the debate altogether.

2. When debaters try to refute everything, they often do that on a cost of their
own constructive, this is a problem often with member of closing benches who
don’t contribute enough positive argumentation for their side to be considered
for an extension.

So, in order to avoid these problems, debaters often need to weigh arguments and
decide which arguments to priorities. So, that they get the most important arguments
out of the way first and are at a comfortable position to decide between contribution
and engagement.

This weighing can be done through several metrics-

1. Most relevant arguments

Every single motion provides the debater with certain questions that need
to answer, these are called burdens. Questions that are most relevant to the
core of the debate should be answered. Similarly, when rebutting makes
sure you recognize what burdens lie with the opposing side and rebut
arguments that are most relevant to the burden. (will be discussed in next
chapter)

a simple way of understanding this would be, if the motion is: THW ban
zoos
 And the prop brings up an argument about animal rights and how it actively
harms them and shapes human perception of them as mere beings for
entertainment, it’s a direct answer to the explicit burden, i.e. Why are is
bad that zoos exist in the status-quo?

In order to then win from the opposition, the opp needs to take this
argument down first to ensure that they deal with their primary argument.

2. Greater Impact
Arguments with greater impact should be prioritized right after the primary
arguments. Measuring impacts of different arguments are always tough,
but a few ways to get you started on weighing impacts would be-

• Size of an impact
One way to measure the impact of an argument would be to measure
the size of an impact. i.e. greatest change in society as per the
intended impact of it. Ignoring such an argument can often cost you
the debate if the debate comes down to the question of who provides
us with a better world.

• Most morally relevant impact.

While measuring impacts, it’s often important to see what
stakeholder would be impacted through a particular argument. For
instance, if we were to compare between punching a child and
punching an adult, we would say punching the child has a greater
moral impact. It’s because the impact to the most vulnerable
stakeholders have a greater value than the majority. Similarly, in
debate the impacts that affect the most vulnerable stakeholder are
often the most important ones to make.
 Burdens.

“The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.”
-Thomas Berger

In a debate, when a team receives a motion, it is important to understand that the

motion requires certain questions be to answered by a debater. Arguments that any
side makes are often just answer to these questions. Whether a debater knows it or
not, all the debate requires is good enough answers.
For example – THW invade Myanmar.
The first question that a debate asks themselves when they see the motion is what is
wrong in Myanmar and how will an invasion solve the problem or mitigate harms.
In order to win the debate, it is important that a debater from side proposition
answers this question and provide an analyzed answer to it.
A Burden of Proof is what you have to prove in order to win a specific debate. In
Schools’ Debating, it is often referred to as just the Burden. Adjudicators use
Burdens as a mechanism to determine who best fulfilled their duty and thus won the
debate. Burdens form a holistic way to evaluate the Debate and thus are very
important.

The two kinds of burdens in a debate are:

1. Explicit Burden

The Explicit Burden is the Burden which is the most obvious in a debate. It
generally deals with the outcome and whether the team’s case will have the
desired effect. For example, in the motion of banning Religion in Schools,
the Explicit Burden would be to prove that banning Religion in Schools
would make Schools provide better learning for the students. This is generally
 the most important issue and the problem which informed the topic of the
Debate. The explicit Burden is thus very important.

As a Team, it is important to listen to the Burdens your Opponents set for

themselves and impose on you. Sometimes teams place unreasonable burdens
to their Opponents and easy ones for themselves. Your aim as a Team is to
be reasonable and point out the flaws in.
what they think has to be proved. it is necessary to bring back what the
burdens were in the debate in order to have a holistic evaluation of why your
team won.

2. Implicit Burden

Implicit Burdens are Burdens that are not as obvious and intuitive in their
existence as explicit burdens in a Debate. They provide a holistic
framework of all the things a team generally needs to prove in order to win
a Debate.

• For instance, if you're doing a policy debate to change the way that
social welfare works in a certain state.
your explicit burden is to change the status quo into something
better
your implicit burden is to do it within the framework of the socio-
economic policy and ideology you subscribe to for that particular
debate
• or in a philosophical debate about crimes and sentencing, if you're
for rehab-oriented sentencing and incarceration
your explicit burden is to justify why essentially rehab orientated
sentencing is what is best for society in general and all of the
stakeholders involved in any crime
your implicit burden in that particular debate is to never concede to
anything anti rehab at al
 NOTE
Implicit Burdens in a debate change all the time, given the debate that is
happening in a room. Whereas, Explicit burdens remain universal for a given
motion.
 Framing cases.

“People who have no hold over their process of thinking are likely to be ruined by
their liberty of thought.”
-Md. Iqbal

Framing and structure are some of the most important parts of debating in general
and are not irrelevant in University debating, contrary to popular belief. This
chapter will be divided into four segments and would give you at least a beginner’s
perspective on:
• General importance of framing.
• Framing cases

1. General importance of framing in a debate.

The easiest way to understand why framing is relevant is to provide you with
an analogy of a painting within a frame. The frame encompasses everything
inside and makes sure you know where it starts, where it ends, where the edges
are and several other things.
Similarly, framing of your case gives you a perspective on what does your
case include, what are the major comparatives, what are the major arguments,
what are the major impacts, etc. contrary to the usual method of debating
which would be to shower you with a constant stream of matter and hope that
you pick something out of that.
Also, to base it in the real world, debaters might not always have the best of
adjudicators who would be excellent note takers that really peer into your
analysis of ideas and the details of your cases. Especially when you constantly
barrage them constant matters.
 Without a good framework, two things happen –
i. If you don’t frame your case, someone else in the debate
might do it for you. That person is probably going to be
your opposition and, let’s just say won’t be very fair to
you.
ii. It’s going to be done by an adjudicator who is probably
tired and wants to get the verdict done.

In both of these cases your arguments are going to lose their nuances and
details and will cost you the debate.

2. Framing your case

Framing of cases is pretty important for every member of a team to have a

concrete understanding of what is it that they are debating for and what is it
that they are trying to achieve. In order to have a well framed debate, cases
need to focus on the following checklist that’s provided below-

I. Context.
II. Primary arguments
III. Comparatives
IV. Impacts of a case.
V. Questions that form the backbone of a debate (Clashes)

Context
For every single debate, there is always some context that the debate takes place in.
No debate takes place in isolation and therefore, its important this context that the
debaters kept in mind while coming up with a case.
This context needs to be established in the first minutes of the prime ministers’ case
and would be a foundation of every argument to then build on.
It’s important to note, that the context should never be an assumption but much rather
be based in true unquestioned societal facts.
Primary arguments, Impacts and clashes.

In the previous chapters, we spoke about the importance of asking questions in a

debate and the kinds of questions we should ask. We have also discussed how to
frame an argument and what does its structure look like.
It’s important in your case framing that you know exactly what you are going to run
and what are its various sub-attributes.
• Know how many principle and consequential arguments make up your case.
• Know exactly what are they and decide the team split accordingly.
• Know their individual impacts.
o These impacts must be mentioned several times in the debate in order
to make sure that the adj knows exactly how are you planning to change
the statues-quo/ impact a social group/ legitimize an action, etc.
• These impacts will later become the metrics of the debate
For instance, if your impact is greater security to a woman.
Then the metric of the debate/ clash/ framework can be who provides greater
benefits to women.

Comparatives
Comparatives are often some of the most important parts of debating and are the
primary responsibility of the deputy for the simple reason, clarity. Comparatives
directly pit the worlds of the sides against each other giving a clearer view of which
ones better.
It is the job of the second speakers to provide comparatives at the end of their
speeches to make sure that after two constructive speeches, we finally have an idea
of what the two worlds look like and which ones better.
Comparatives should also be done after rebuttals to show that their world doesn’t
stand anymore.
 First Speaker.

Prime Minister

Often the most important role in the debate for one reason: others can get away with
screwing up in a debate. But if this person screws up, they end up screwing up the
entire room including the adjudicator’s day. Otherwise, no pressure.

There are four broad things the first speaker must do in his/her speech-

• Definition (or, more appropriately clarifications)

Definitions are often ridiculed by experienced debaters because of the image

-of a young debater reading out definitions- that comes to their mind. This,
however, couldn’t be further from the truth. Changing it to a more appropriate
word, clarifications should make it simpler to understand.

Clarifications are nothing more than the prime minister clarifying key words
and how should the house see them.

For instance, in a motion: THW ban smoking on educational premises

We all know what smoking is, so it needs no clarification. But for a proper
debate to take place, the debater needs to clarify what is their idea of ban and
what counts as educational premises.

• Context

The second job of the first speaker is to provide the house with context as to
the motion of the debate. The knowledge that is required to base this debate
upon. This encompasses three things-
 o Urgency of the motion
▪ Why is it important that this motion HAS to be acted upon?

o What is the relevancy of the actors in the motions?

o Major stakeholders
o Background to the information in the debate.

• Team stance
o It is important then that you clarify your team’s stance on the issue and
explicitly brief snapshot of why do you
o This part of your speech also includes your policy (if necessary)
o Flag posting – this is where you provide your team-split and tell the
adjudicators what are you going to bring in the debate and what is your
deputy going to say.

• Arguments
o It is important that then the PM moves on to their arguments and
explains them
o Keep in mind to keep at least two arguments for the PM.
o The WSDC practice is to make sure that the first arguments to be
brought into the debate are principled arguments.

Leader of Opposition

• The leader of opposition refutes the Prime minister’s case

• Brings in their own constructive arguments and stance to the motion
 Second Speaker (Deputies).

The second speakers in the debate, A.K.A- the deputy speakers who are charged
with three main duties-

• Destroy
• Rebuild
• Construct

Destroy
The first part of a deputy’s speech is to destroy. i.e. refute the entirety of the first
speakers’ case and make sure nothing stands and all their impacts are mitigated.

Also, essential here is to bring in comparatives and compare the two worlds to make
sure that they provide the adjudicators with a clear picture of how their world is so
much better than the opposition.

Rebuild
The Deputy is also charged with the responsibility to rebuild their first speaker’s
case which was refuted by the preceding speakers.

The simplest way to look at it is refuting the rebuttals or provide greater analysis to
the pre-existing case to make it stronger.

Again, Comparatives.

Construct
The final but extremely important job of the deputy is to provide their own unique
constructive for the debate. These are arguments that come exclusively from the
second speaker and count as new contribution to the debate.
 Whip Speaker.

Whip speakers in a debate have a pretty important job as they are usually the ones
that provide a team with the required winning edge. The whip speaker does five
things-

• Destroy everything.
• Tell us the contributions of their sides and what was un-responded.
• Give us short term and long-term consequences of their impacts.
• Clashes
• End with comparatives.
Destroy everything
The first part of a whip’s speech is to destroy everything that has been spoken so far.
i.e. refute the entirety of the first speakers’ case and make sure nothing stands and
all their impacts are mitigated.

Also, essential here is to bring in comparatives and compare the two worlds to make
sure that they provide the adjudicators with a clear picture of how their world is so
much better than the opposition. The whip needs to deal with their entire case as a
whole. And show why the opposing side makes no sense.

Contributions of their sides

The whip speakers need to then tell the house about what exactly did their side bring
into the debate along with summarizing impacts. Also, tell us what arguments were
left untouched by the opposition and how their impacts are pretty important

Comparatives
The primary job of a whip speaker is to provide the house with comparatives
comparing your entire case with their entire case and provide long term/short term
consequences of your own impacts with clashes
 Reply Speaker

The one role people are often confused about is the role of the reply speaker, so to
put it very simply its just biased adjudication. You’ve all heard verdicts before, give
a verdict on why you think you should win the debate.

• Metrics you think the debate should be judged on and how your team satisfies
them.
• What did they say vs what did you say?
• Why what you said is more important
• How none of their arguments stand at the end of the debate and etc.

All you have to do as a reply speaker is to provide a convincing enough case for your
side to win.

NOTE
The mentioned guideline for the roles isn’t concrete. No one loses a debate for
not following them. These are mere guidelines on what’s important to do for
the speeches.

In the end make sure you’re comfortable with your style for the role and have
fun debating.
 A Special Thanks to

1. Alex Harris, Framing – European Debate Training Platform. 2016

2. Phiwe Salukazana, Notes on Burdens.
3. Bo Seo, World University Debating Championship finals speech, 2016
4. Fanelesibonge S. Mashwama World University Debating Championship
finals speech, 2016
5. Owen Mooney, Effective rebuttals – European Debate Training Platform.
2018
6. Sreyan Kanungo, voice notes on Burdens
7. Saurav Bhatta and Avash Byanjankar, Random messenger questions, 2018
8. Pawan Adhikari, Telling me this guide was great, 2018
9. Myself- for spending countless hours reading, researching and transcribing.
Thanks!