Debate Coaching Guide

Start off with 4 Quadrants of Competence

One word: Persuasion. With credibility and conviction.

The goal of an argument is to reach an agreement, not to express disagreement. But yeah,
it’s common wisdom that there’s no winner in an argument, you gain nothing but only lose
something.

There’s no correct, absolute truth to anything in the world. There’s never a 0-100 in any
interpretation, just perspectives. Truth does not equate to certainty and likewise. Persuasion
leads to certainty.
Focus less on winning but fighting your case. Winning is secondary. Chill the fuck out.
Keep it simple stupid.
Build on what people already believe in, appeal to the masses. People love listening to what
they want to listen, confirmation bias so work on it.

Matter (40%) – the logic and relevance of your arguments (Both substantive arguments and
rebuttals)
Manner (40%) – the style with which you present yourself (How fast you talk, how you
sentence your arguments, stay calm and composed, witty, not arrogant, humour)
Method (20%) – the structure and clarity of your speech

Arguments are made up of 3 components; claim, support and inference.

Causal effect: slippery slope fallacy, false equivalence, appeal to authority, see whether
impact big enough to produce the effect. Check credibility, enough similarity etc.

Come up with counter rebuttals/ counter arguments and formulate your arguments
accordingly. Close the loopholes beforehand, so if addressed go back to your argument.
Always be a step ahead.

Rebuttals tie back to arguments. There’s no I in team. Identification, Critique, Explanation,

Reiteration ICER

Accept the argument, deny the conclusion.

Even if, benefit of the doubt arguments
THEMATIC REBUTTALS- look for assumptions, contradictions, generalisations, fallacies
Ultimate Goal/Context-Why debate this motion now/Spirit of the motion/Purpose of debating
Stakeholders, parties involved, overt and covert, obvious and non-obvious

Consent + The Paternal State, HARM PRINCIPLE and INTERVENTION

Another option for where the state can justifiably intrude on human rights and freedoms is
where people don‟t/can‟t consent. Why can the state force children to go to school or
prevent them from getting tattoos or engaging in sex below a certain age? Because as a
society we‟ve decided that people who are young (or perhaps cognitively incapable) cannot
consent to certain activities and therefore do not have the freedom to engage in them.
That makes a lot of intuitive sense, and is particularly true if you believe that human rights
flow from our rational capacity. But what about cases where consent is just unclear. An adult
is judged to be able to consent to smoking a cigarette (or 1,000), despite the fact that the
actual risk of that person developing deadly cancer is real but unknown. What about the fact
that cigarettes (and other fun drugs) are addictive? If you are chemically addicted to
something, do you consent? What about those who argue (and I suspect they are correct)
that human beings are bad at judging long-term risks against short-term gains/pleasure?
This is similarly true of collective-action problems, where individuals do not have the
foresight or the ability to comprehend the full extent of consequences of their actions, but the
state does. This might, for example, justify seatbelt laws, or the regulation of CO2 emissions.
In fact, it could easily be said that it is in someone‟s long-term best interests to cede much of
their freedom to the state. But this makes for quite a fuzzy line about where the state can
and can‟t intrude into our lives.
Debates about euthanasia, medical testing, sexual freedom and, of course, drugs are all
classical discussions of when the state can step in and limit the freedoms of individuals
based on unclear conceptions of consent and consequence.

Justice (Criminal Justice System) Debates- Punishment, Protection, Deterrence,

Rehabilitation
Environmental- EKC, Kyoto Protocol
Psychology- Albert Bandura, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Economics- Trade-off, cost benefit analysis
Cognitive biases, psychological effects, eponymous laws, argumentative fallacies
UN SDG
Moral highground, practical highground
Short term long term
GOV/OPPO
Definitions, keywords and terms one by one, BID RED BALL MOTIONS, boundaries and
parameters, justify them! Parameters = field of play. State why the debate should lie within a
relevant territory and what dictates an irrelevant territory. Do Not DEFINE WORD BY
WORD, only necessary terms.
SCOPE-
Timeframe also important. Place setting. Status quo
Roles of debaters
Should vs Could Debates (Feasibility, Practicality, Moral Imperative)
TOO…FAILED…ALL (Absolute Motions)..words like this
BANNING etc….come up with a model, banning is a hard model, focus on regulation
(execution of the system)
Stand, stance or a ‘tag line’- cogent, simplistic and straight to the point. Reiterated and
repeated consistently by all speakers.
Your argument (SIGNPOST)
Stand

Rebuttal, Oppo definition rebuttal if unreasonable, counter model, alternative, stand

Roles
Argument 1
Stand

Rebuttal, settle definitional rebuttals

2nd 3rd Argument
Stand

Same

Rebuttals and Summary

Stand

Reply Speeches which is a biased adjudication, last resort. 3 Major clashes in the debate
and how y’all won. Conversational and simplistic. Analytical not confrontational.
Issues and subject:

Cultural Arguments about the collective identity shared by people in a particular

group.
Economic Arguments concerning financial matters.
Educational Arguments relevant to the effort to instruct citizens.
Environmental Arguments about the natural world.
Legal Arguments related to what is required or prohibited by a society’s rules.
Moral Arguments concerning ethical consequences of a proposition.
Political Arguments relevant to the acquisition and exercise of power.
Rights Arguments about freedoms or privileges.
Security Arguments that address the subject of a nation’s safety.
Social Arguments regarding relationships between people.
Symbolic Arguments concerning the interpreted meaning of phenomena.
Welfare Arguments about public health and well-being.

Bibliography
1. Tim Sonnereich’s Guide
2. Monash Association of Debating Handbook
3. Debating in WSDC