3 on 3 Debating Template

1st Speaker
Setup:
- Definition of a certain verb, context, actor
- Mechanism:
o How the verb in the motion is carried out
OR Alternative of what you’ll do if it’s a “Regret/Abandon/Stop” Motion
o Additional processes to clarify what it looks like, covering your tracks
- Clarification/BoP:
o Clarify what is NOT part of the debate (Money FIAT, Actor analysis?)
o BoP: What do both teams need to prove? (Principle? Effectivity? Interest? Context?)
- Team Identity
o Stance : Main conclusions you’ll rely on
o Goal : Specific result you’re looking for in the debate
- Transitioning to your argument, Mention the argument titles in your speech
- Arguments
Argument Structure:
- Ideal condition:
o Principle that’s important => Justice? Retribution? Fairness? Inclusivity? Protecting the
Vulnerable?
o Condition that’s important => Better economy? More opportunities? Better
traction/attention? Progress in politics?
- Interest of an actor (OPTIONAL)
o Who the actor is, what they have or are going through, what is their level of resources,
etc.
o What they really care about/really need in the context of the debate
- Problem:
o How is this ideal/interest not fulfilled on opponents world?
 Portrayal A
 Example B
 Elaboration C
o What are other solutions that have failed?
 Solution A, fails because of…
 Solution B, fails because of…
- Comparative to your team
o How do we fulfill this ideal condition?
 Portrayal A
 Process B
 Elaboration C
- Conclusion/Linkback
o The argument proves how a certain principle is achieved
 o The argument proves the effectivity that is needed to reach the ideal condition
2nd Speaker
Optional Opening:
- Clarification: If you opponent misunderstood something about the motion/team case
Rebuttals:
- No (Kenapa argument lawan won’t happen)
o Opp argument is not true because the process is not correct
o Opp argument is not true because the resources needed aren’t available
- Not Important (Kenapa argument lawan biarpun true, tidak penting ke motion)
o Opp argument is not important because it is NOT exclusive, we can get it too
o Opp argument is not important because it is NOT something the actor in the debate
wants
- Flip (Bagaimana caranya goal lawan dalam argumentnya justru dipenuhi on your side)
o We can get Opp’s goal in our side because the pre-requisite (Syarat) for that goal is in
our side
o We can get Opp’s goal in our side because the process needed is in our side
- Concede (Mengaku kalau your side might lose some benefits and get some problems, tapi
jelaskan kenapa tetap hanya sedikit)
o Even if we don’t get opp’s goal, in the opp world, their benefit is small anyway
o There will still be problems, there will still be limitations, etc.
- Trade Off (Kenapa setelah lose some benefit dan get some problem, akhirnya benefit yang ada
di tim mu itu lebih bagus/worth it)
o Even if we don’t get opp’s goal, our goal is more important
Rebuilding your teammate’s case:
- Mention the conclusion of 1st speaker argument
o Opp didn’t respond to this, meaning that they concede to our “Principle, process, etc.”
o Opp’s responses were “A” => Then give your own response (Look at rebuttal structure)
- Transition into your extension with this rebuilding
o “I will add 2 more portrayals/elaborations to make you believe this is true”
o “I will add more context and actor analysis to explain why this is important”
o “This argument is important because the comparative world on Opp will have a new
harm”
Extension:
- Same structure as argument, but here’s a few pointers to find the extension
o New actor (More vulnerable, more important actor?)
o New scenario (Engage with opponent’s best cases?)
o New Context/Process
Conclusion:
- Compare the teams so far and how are you winning?
 o Our principle still stands… Our process already provides context…

3rd Speaker
Optional Openings:
- Clarification: If you opponent misunderstood something about the motion/team case
- Framing: What opponent argument should not count
o Not enough explanation given by opponent
o Their argument was contradictive, not consistent
Independent Rebuttals: (Rebuttals not in your clash)
- No (Kenapa argument lawan won’t happen)
o Opp argument is not true because the process is not correct
o Opp argument is not true because the resources needed aren’t available
- Not Important (Kenapa argument lawan biarpun true, tidak penting ke motion)
o Opp argument is not important because it is NOT exclusive, we can get it too
o Opp argument is not important because it is NOT something the actor in the debate
wants
- Flip (Bagaimana caranya goal lawan dalam argumentnya justru dipenuhi on your side)
o We can get Opp’s goal in our side because the pre-requisite (Syarat) for that goal is in
our side
o We can get Opp’s goal in our side because the process needed is in our side
- Concede (Mengaku kalau your side might lose some benefits and get some problems, tapi
jelaskan kenapa tetap hanya sedikit)
o Even if we don’t get opp’s goal, in the opp world, their benefit is small anyway
o There will still be problems, there will still be limitations, etc.
- Trade Off (Kenapa setelah lose some benefit dan get some problem, akhirnya benefit yang ada
di tim mu itu lebih bagus/worth it)
o Even if we don’t get opp’s goal, our goal is more important

Clashes (Titles based on your teammate’s main conclusions

- Mention the conclusion of your previous speaker arguments
o Opp didn’t respond to this, meaning that they concede to our “Principle, process, etc.”
o Opp’s responses were “A” => Then give your own response (Look at rebuttal structure)
- Mention the conclusion of opponent’s previous speaker arguments
o Rebuttal using the structure above
- Conclude what arguments are still standing in the clash
o My team’s idea on … and … still stand, our process/context was proven true
o Opponent’s idea on … and … fall because they didn’t give us the process/context

Reply Speaker
- Basically 3rd speaker without any rebuttals
- Mistakes on opponent’s team
o Contradiction
 o Arguments that shouldn’t count because they lack Process, context, elaboration, etc.
- Clashes