Mahendra Verdi S

P27228019134
DIV A OT

DEBATE

Debating is a clash of arguments. Debate is a process that involves formal

discussion on a particular topic. In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward
to argue for opposing viewpoints. Debate occurs in public meetings, academic
institutions, and legislative assemblies.
Basics of Argumentation
It is important to be able to argue rationally both in a debate championship or in a
real life. Second, knowledge often comes through argument. Third, argument is
about clarification as well as persuasion.. Fourth, argument can be enjoyable

There are three most common types of argument. :

1. Induction

Inductive reasoning is the process of citing a sufficient number of specific

examples to prove a generalization.

You must consider the following five principles when using induction:

a. The examples cited must be factual, not hypothetical.

b. The examples must be analogous; they must be of the same type,
species, or category.
c. The induction must be built on a sufficient number of factual
examples. The conclusion of induction is a generalization.
d. You can effectively undermine an inductive argument by
challenging the methodology or process used in collecting the data.
 2. Deduction

The essence of deduction is to take two ideas that we accept, find a

relationship between them, and then draw this relationship as a conclusion.
Deductive reasoning is that form of reasoning in which a conclusion is
drawn from premises. The following are examples of deductive reasoning:
(USA has good universities ; Therefore, USA has had good financing for
universities).

3. Causation/causal reasoning

Causal reasoning is the form of reasoning in which you can demonstrate

that an event that happens first has the means, power, facilities, and/or
desire to produce a second event.

You can then say that the causal relationship was proved. Here are two examples
of causal reasoning:

a. Statistics show that smokers have a higher incidence of lung disease. The
cause is that smoking damages the lungs.
b. Corruption in the current government will make it difficult for the party to
win the upcoming election. The cause is that voters will not vote for a
corrupt government.

Structure of Arguments in Debate

1. Assertion – the statement which should be proved.
2. Reasoning – the reason why that statement is logical.
3. Evidence – examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above.
4. Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the
motion.
 1. A claim.
2. An explanation of the claim.
It isn’t enough to state something. Explain then.It is equally
important to explain your statement.
3. Evidence to back up your claim and explanation
It isn’t enough to claim and explain something. Why the
adjudicators should believe you? It is important to back up your
claim and explanation with facts, statistics and experts’ opinions.
So bearing this point in mind our argument evolves
4. A conclusion
After you talk a lot explaining your argument and evidence, the
judges need to recall to what is the main idea of your case.

There are two ways to prove that a proposition is true.

1. You can look at every known instance and show that in each case
the proposition holds good.
2. You can analyse the proposition and show that it is supported by
other known principles.
In debating it is usually impossible to use the first type of reasoning,
because we debate generalisations with millions if not billions of known
instances. So, we have to use the second type of reasoning. However, an
amazing number of debaters don't seem to understand the difference.
Rules of Debate
(Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques, by George McCoy
Musgrave. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1957)

1. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers.

2. Each team has two or three constructive speeches, and two to three
rebuttal speeches. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and
the rebuttals alternate: negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative. The
affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate.

3. When worded as a proposition of policy, the topic requires the

affirmative to support some specified action by some particular individual
or group. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition
of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the
reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the
definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the
term.

4. The affirmative must advocate everything required by the topic itself.

No revision of position of a team is permitted during the debate.

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team

must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent
but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the
assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are
permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the
opponents' use if desired.
6. In the questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear
question that has a direct bearing on the debate. The questioner may use
the period to build up any part of his own case, to tear down any part of
his opposition's case, or to ascertain facts, such as the opposition's position
on a certain issue, that can be used later in the debate. The questioner must
confine himself to questions and not make statements, comments, or ask
rhetorical questions.

7. Each speaker is questioned as soon as he concludes his constructive

speech. The witness must answer the questions without consulting his
colleagues

8. No new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal

period. The affirmative must, if possible, reply to the major negative
arguments before the last rebuttal.

9. The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented,
without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.
10. Any gains made outside of the established procedure are disallowed.