Perkenalan

Debat Parlementer

By :
Benny F
Outline

 Format
 Tugas Tim
 Tugas per Speaker
 Case
 Ketentuan
Format
 ASIAN Style
 Waktu berbicara: 3 menit (maks. 3’20”)
 POI (Interupsi): menit ke 1 sampai dengan menit ke 2; maks. 15
detik/ POI
 Aturan:
Affirmative Negative
1st Speaker (3’20”) -------------►1st Speaker (3’20”)

2nd Speaker (3’20”) -------------►2nd Speaker (3’20”)

3rd Speaker (3’20”) -------------►3rd Speaker (3’20”)

Format

 ASIAN style menekankan pada isi dari

pidato yang disampaikan serta elaborasi
mengenai argumen yang disampaikan
 Hindari pidato yang membosankan,
usahakan pidatonya menarik dan efektif
Tugas Tim

 Affirmative/ Pro
- menerjemahkan mosi dengan baik
- men- set dengan baik
(cth: apa yang sedang diperdebatkan)
- kalau ada beberapa proposal* yang
ingin diajukan, ajukan dengan jelas
- argument
Tugas Tim
 Opposition/ Contra
- menjelaskan stance/ pendirian tim
- proposal* yang berlawanan tidak diharuskan
- menegasi argumen/ masalah
- argumen
Tugas per speaker
1st Speaker of Pro
BG (issue, SQ, problem), Stance/ Solusi,
Mekanisme (jika diperlukan), Tujuan tim,
Justifikasi (Argumen), Kefektifan

1st Speaker of Contra

Negasi, Stance/ Solusi, Mekanisme (jika
diperlukan), Tujuan tim, Justifikasi (Argumen),
Kefektifan
Tugas per speaker
2nd Speaker of Pro
Menyanggah lawan
Menjelaskan efek jangka panjang, sudut pandang aktor
mosi (yang mendukung argumen)
Argumen baru

2nd Speaker of Contra

Menyanggah lawan
Menjelaskan efek jangka panjang, sudut pandang aktor
mosi (yang mendukung argumen)
Argumen baru
Tugas per speaker
3rd Speaker of Pro*
Menyanggah lawan
Argumen
Flashback kasus

2nd Speaker of Contra*

Menyanggah lawan
Argumen
Flasback kasus
Mosi

 Mosi adalah topik yang ingin

diperdebatkan, biasanya berbentuk satu
kalimat panjang
cth: Rumah ini akan melegalkan aborsi

 Tim Pro harus mendukung mosi,

sedangkan Tim kontra sebaliknya
Mendefinisikan mosi

 How to define a motion?

- key words
- issues related / context
- parameter/limitation of the debate
Definition (cont’d)
 Definition clarifies the motion
 Key words/phrases
 General stance taken by Proposition
 Good definition is reasonable
 Debatable, leaving room for Opposition
 Clearly and logically linked to original motion
(not stray too far from intended meaning)
 Bad definition: truistic (incl. tautological),
squirelling, too specific/too general
BackGround

 The issue of the motion

 The Status Quo
 The problem in Status quo
Background

 Theme Line : the goal, the main idea, big

reason!
 Team Split : distribution of arguments
 Stance/solution : what would you do in
this motion?
 Mechanism : how your stance/solution
will work?
 Justification : why?why?why?
Argument

2 type of argument :
 Philosophical : why?
 Practical : what will happen?
Argument

 a good argument should have A-R-E-W:

 Assertion - statement of the argument
 Reasoning - explanation of the argument
 Evidence - facts, statistics, etc.
 Wrap Up – summarize the whole argument
 a good argument should be linked back
into the motion/theme line
 adjudicators want: logic and relevance
Rebuttal
 argument attacking the opposing team’s
argument, e.g. by showing that it:
 is based on an error of fact
 is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
 is illogical
 involves unacceptable implications
 should be accorded little weight
 doesn’t have to be point-by-point
 rebutt the theme line or main arguments
Definitional
Challenge
Something you can ONLY do under
special circumstances…
What?

 challenging the definition brought by the

Government Team if it does not conform
the requirements:
- it must be debatable (i.e. have two
sides to it), and
- it must not be a bizarre distortion of the
motion.
Who?

 Definitional Challenge can ONLY be done

by the Negative Team

 Should be brought by the 1st Speaker of

Negative Team
When & How?
 a Negative team cannot raise a challenge
simply on the basis that their definition
seems more reasonable
 They can only challenge a definition if
they can prove it to be either:
- Truistic
- Tautological
- Squirreling
- or Time and place setting
When & How? - Truistic
 Truistic
These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature
and thus make the proposed arguments
unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the
context of the debate

If a team defines the debate truistically, they seek

to win the debate by the truth of their definition
rather than by the strength of their arguments
and supporting evidence
When & How? - Truistic
 Motion:
“THBT the sun rises from the east.”
Def brought by Aff:
“as it is…that the sun rises from the east.”
Real issue:
The growth of Asian countries, which often
called ‘the East world’ has increased rapidly,
for example China, India, etc. Thus the debate
should be weather or not the Asian countries’
power, esp in economy, has become a great
rival of West world economy.
When & How? – Tautological
(Circling)
 Tautological (Circling)

This happens when a definition is given

in such a way that it is logically
impossible to negate it.
When & How? – Tautological
(Circling)
 Motion:
THBT technology is killing our work ethic
Def:
Tech: “all scientific advancements that make
life easier and therefore kills our work ethic”
This would result in the whole definition “that all
scientific advancements that make life easier
and therefore kills our work ethic is killing our
work ethic”.
---This cannot be logically proven false---
When & How? –
Squirreling
 Squirreling

Definitions that are not tied down to the

spirit of the motion and do not have a
proper logical link to the motion.
When & How? –
Squirreling
 Motion:
THBT the USA is opening up to the PRC
Def:
USA as “Untidy Students of Asia”
PRC as “Pretty Room Cleaners”
This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would
agree that the spirit of the motion is about the
relationship between the United States (USA)
and People Republic of China (PRC)!
When & How? –Time & Place
Setting
 Time & Place Setting

The subject matter of the debate cannot

be confined to a particular time and
place.
When & How? –Time & Place
Setting

 For instance, trying to limit the subject

matter to only the economic
development of Japan during the
specific period of the Meiji restoration.
Remember:

 A definitional-challenge debate is BAD

 Adjudicators HATE it

 It usually get LOW SCORE debate

 So, try your best to provide a fair and

debatable definition…
Adjudication
 matter (content)
 arguments (logic, use of evidences, relevance)
 manner (delivery)
 public-speaking skills: vocal style, use of language,
use of notes, eye contact, gesture, stance, dress,
impression of sincerity, and humor
 personal attacks on opponents reduce manner
points
 method (structure)
 structure: of individual speech and of team’s case
 response to the dynamics of the debate
Closing

 Read the guideline provided

 Practice makes perfect!
 Any question, please feel free to ask
adjudicators after debate!
 Happy debating!!