AP Debate Introduction

Rules
• Limited preparation time: 30 minutes.
• Speech time: 7 minutes (7 minutes 30 seconds at most)
• Reply speech time: 4 minutes
• Prime Minister / Deputy Prime Minister / Government Whip/ Gov Reply

Role Fulfillment-Prime Minister

• Problem settings — Identify the problems in the Status Quo
• Set up the debate (Characterization 對事件的描繪)
• Set definition and policy (Context and Spirit of the Motion)
• Model setting
• Arguments (2 or 3)

Role Fulfillment-Leader of Opposition

• Agree with the problem? (Characterization Challenge)
• If yes — Alternatives
• (Prove the status quo is fine / Or shift government’s burden)
• If No — Negative Case
• Rebuttals (Attack the government’s case)
• Arguments

Argumentation
• ARE Model
• Assertion / Reasoning / Example
• 主張 (Assertion) + 原因 (Reason) + 證據 (Evidence) = 論述模式
(Argument=A+R+E)
• 5-STEP Model
• Title / Premise / Elaboration / Conclusion / Link

Reasoning/ Elaboration
• Why is the case?
• How it will happen?
• Why it matters?
• (Link your argument with the motion: Why your arguments are important? —
Burden of proof)
Role Fulfillment- Deputy Prime Minister / Deputy Leader of Opposition
• Rebuttals
• Defend your and your teammates’ case
• Arguments

Role Fulfillment- Government Whip / Opposition Whip

• Summarize the debate
• Rebuttals
• Identify the clashes (Focus more on your opponent’s flaws)
• No new materials and Arguments

Reply speech
• Comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of both
sides.
• The aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why the people should
support the team's claim.
• The speech is first delivered by the opposition side and followed by the
government side who will close the debate.
• Promote why you should win (Defending)

Clashes
• Summarize the debate
• What are we arguing in today’s debate?
• Comparative Analysis (Which case provides more benefits?)
• Whip – Focus More on Attacking (But still tell why you win)
• Reply Speech – Focus on why you win
 Argumentation
How to think of an argument?
1. Spirit of the motion: Why do we have this debate?
2. Stakeholders: Who will be affected by this motion?
3. principle v.s practical

Argument Structure
 Title
 what your argument is mainly about
 Premise
 the notion/ core value of the case
 all of your analysis is based on the premise
 Analysis
 Draw the linkage between premise and conclusion
 Why -- Why it is true
 What’s the SQ?
 Why in the SQ the problem will/won’t happen?
 How -- How it will happen
 think of other stakeholder’s action
 what is their mindset?
 So what -- Why it is important
 What’s the impact?
 Link back to your goal
 Evidence/Example
 Make the description more concrete
 if there is no real example -> think of a scenario
 the best way to talk about the severity of impact
 Conclusion
 conclude the whole statement
 remind your judge
 if you can’t think of one, repeat your title
This House believes that foreigners should not be allowed to own land
in developing countries.
 Title: Foreigner’s ownership of land is immoral.
 Premise: Developing countries are vulnerable.
 Analysis:
 Why?
 People are poor (easily be attracted by money)
 Lack of knowledge, don’t know that land is an important assets in the
long term
 Lack of experience (don’t know how to negotiate)
 How
 Foreigners come to developing to earn fortune. (maximize their
profits) -> Invest in lands -> Poor accepts the offer cuz the price is
higher than the average price -> poor sell, gain money (short-term
benefit) -> when they need, too late to regret -> land is expensive and
controlled by rich (long-term harm)
 So what
 Gap between rich and poor is enlarged. Land’s price goes up (rich
become richer) Poor needs to use higher price to buy back the land
that originally belong to them (become even poorer) -> This make it
hard for poor countries have enough resources to develop, people
can’t live better life.
 Evidence/Example
 When a poor farmer need lands to grow crops, they find that the price is
extremely high. Most of the land are controlled by investors (it’s profitable,
more rich buy more land), who view the lands as an earning tool (real
estate). Poor farmers are suffering -- afford the high price or no land to
feed their family.
 Conclusion
 Rich countries will use its power to exploit the chance of developing
countries. In order to protect our citizens from suffering, we shouldn’t give
them the access to buy lands.
THBT politicians have no right to privacy
 Title: Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them
 Premise: Politicians are representatives of citizens who elect them
 Analysis: Politicians want to possess power, have motivation to fake. Citizens
cannot make proper judgement when politicians are able to fake their
personalities during campaign seasons
 Example: Iceland’s Former Prime Minister: Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson
 Conclusion: Protecting the personal lives of politicians prevents citizens from
making good judgement when electing their leaders.

Build a good argument is not enough !!!

1. You need engagement -> by rebutting
2. You need comparison -> before you end your arg.
 Stakeholders
 What is Stakeholder
 people who is going to be affected by this motion
 Eg. This House Would restrict advertising aimed at children
 Stakeholder: children, parents, ads company, corporation whose
major customers are children

 Pick Up the Most Relevant Stakeholders

 Tell the judge why(prove the importance of that stakeholder in this debate)
 Compare
 why yours are more important (when 2 sides emphasize on different
stakeholder)
 why your way are better (when 2 sides emphasize on same
stakeholder)

 Order
 End goal -> Stakeholders -> SQ -> Argument -> (Compare)

 How to Build Arguments from the Selected Stakeholders

 THW grant prisoners the ability to vote
 Premise: prisoner will try to care about social incident when they are
granted with voting right
 Title: granting prisoners ability to vote help them relate to society
 Analysis:
 Evidence/Example
 Conclusion: prisoners can integrate better in society after they get out

 Characterization : draw the picture

 How do the stakeholders look like before having this motion?(SQ)
 How are they being influenced by motion?
 How do they make decision under the scenario?
 Why they do what they do?
 Therefore how will the world look like with/without motion