Debate Briefing

Basic Structure
• In THSDC, we use the Asian Parliamentary For
mat, “Asian” for short.
• 2 teams
• 3 members per team
• 7 minutes speech
• 30 minutes preparation time, with the Govern
ment team preparing in the room
• Voting-based decision
Room Setup
Speakers (Gov.)
Speakers (Opp)
Order of Speech
Adjudicators
 Speech Timing
Substanti ves
UNPROTECTED TIME: POIs ALLOWED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.20

PROTECTED TIME: NO POIs ALLOWED

Reply Speeches
1 2 3 4 4.20
 Some Rules To Remember
• No use of electronic devices (e.g. phones, lapt
ops) is allowed. Talking dictionary is acceptabl
e, however do not connect to the internet!
• Printed materials (print-outs of news article,
matter file) is allowed during the preparation
time, but not during the speech. (i.e. it cannot
be brought up to the podium)
 Some Rules To Remember (2)
• Debaters are on their own during preparation.
– Teachers/coaches/trainers: please refrain from ta
lking to your students. (aside from “Good luck!”)
– Debaters: please talk only among your own team.
DO NOT talk to other teams from your school.
– If you have any question regarding the motions, p
lease ask the Adjudication Core on the stage. We
are here to help.
 Vetoing
• In each round, there is a Theme. Under a The
me, there are 3 Motions.
• Obviously you will debate only 1 motion. The
method of selecting that motion is called Veto
ing.
• You will rank each motions from 1 to 3. 1 bein
g most preferred, and 3 being least preferred.
What you ranked 3 will NOT BE DEBATED.
 Vetoing (2)
Gov. Ranking Opp. Ranking
3 Motion A3
1 Motion B2
2 Motion C1
• This is the most problematic veto. (in other cases, jus
t eliminate anything with 3, and debate what is left.)
• Motion A will not be debated, but both teams disagr
ees with the “1 motion” – in this case they will do a c
oin toss, and the room will debate the motion that th
e winner chose.
 POIs
• POIs stand for Point of Information
• A question/statement directed at a speaker du
ring his/her speech by the opposing team.
• No longer than 15 seconds per POI
• The speaker has the right to accept/decline th
e POI, though it is highly encouraged to accept
at least 1 POI per speech.
POIs (2)
 Motion
• A motion is a clearly worded statement that a
nnounces the topic/issue to be debated.
• Some abbreviations
– THW = This House Would
– THBT = This House Believes That
– THS = This House Supports
– THR = This House Regrets
 Motion (2)
• Different types of motion implies certain types
of “burden” to each teams
– THW – implies that some kind of action needs to b
e taken
– THBT – implies that certain value/principle is wort
h believing in
– THS/THR – implies that existence of something is
worth supporting/regrettable
 Definition
• Specifically, definition of the motion. “A definiti
on should specify the meanings of words in a m
otion in a way that accords with a common-sens
e reading of the motion.” (EUDC 2013 Adj. Core)
• It is not a literal translation of those words, but
what exactly those things are.
– For example, on the motion “THW give lower punish
ments for crimes motivated by economic reasons,” a
definition should clarify “crimes” to be theft, robbery
, and economic reasons to be feeding hungry family.
 Definition (2)
• Unfair Definitions have one of these characteristi
cs:
– Truism – something considered to be universally true
– Tautology – something that is not considered to be tr
ue now, but will in the near future
– Squirrel – a set of definition that has some logical link
, but wholly unconnected to the spirit of the motion
– Time/Place-set – unreasonably specifying the motion
into a certain timeframe or location.
* “Scoping the debate to …” is fine if it is a reasonable scope.
 Definition (3)
• In the event that you face an unfair definition,
you can challenge it.
– Who: ONLY the Leader of Opposition
– How: Explicitly state that “we would like to challe
nge the definition,” and state justifications for chal
lenging it.
– What then: the LO need to REDEFINE the motion
to what it should be, and provide your team’s argu
ments for the debate under that motion.
 Definition (4)
• After that, the LO (and the Opp.) still need to provi
de an “even if-case,” i.e. give arguments/rebuttals u
nder the other definition.
– Opp. does not need to this if the Gov. definition is truis
m.
• Then the Deputy Prime Minister will either accept
or reject the new definition.
– Accept: continue debating under the Opp. Definition
– Reject: DEFEND your definition, further the case, and pr
ovide even if-case.
 Definition (5)
• Lastly, keep in mind that definition is a good-fa
ith attempt to create a debate (EUDC 2013 Adj
. Core), not a strategic loophole to exploit.
• In general, debating communities ABHOR unfa
ir definition and the definitional challenge that
happens afterwards. Please do your best to av
oid it from happening in the tournament. Tha
nk you!
 Speaker Role
• Speaker Role is NOT a set of regulations that a
speaker must follow. It is, however, a very effe
ctive method of structuring your speech.
• There is no automatic penalty for not “giving a
model” or “not giving a split.” The adjudicator
will always still look at the reasoning of your te
am.
 Speaker Rold (2)
• There are a number of RULES though.
– Who speaks when
– Speech time limit
• 7 – 7.30 for substantives
• 4 – 4.30 for replies
• 15 seconds for POIs
– What is fair/unfair definitions
– Only the 1st Speakers from each team can provide the
model/counter-model
– No new arguments in Whips and Replies
 Speaker Role (3)
• Prime Minister (PM)
– Set-up
• Explain context/background of the debate, or a problem that needs to be sol
ved
• Provide team stance
• Provide definition
– Model/Proposal/Mechanism (if necessary)
• Model is what you are going to do to solve the problem
• Most likely needed in a “THW” motions
– Split
• Briefly stating what the 1st and 2nd speakers’ arguments are
– Arguments
• Arguments are any logical reasoning/justification to support your team. Coul
d be principle reasons, practical benefits.
• They need to be analyzed and elaborated – not just giving some one-liner an
d statistics.
 Speaker Role (4)
• Leader of Opposition (LO)
– Set-up
• Do you accept/reject the definition?
• Provide team stance
– Rebuttals
• Attacks toward the PM’s model, arguments
– Counter-model (if necessary)
• An alternative way to solve the problem PM stated, or simply sup
porting the status quo
– Split
– Arguments
 Speaker Role (5)
• Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)
– Provide team stance
– Rebuttals
• Attacks towards LO’s arguments, counter-model
• Perhaps defending PM’s arguments as well (i.e. rebuttin
g LO’s rebuttals)
– Arguments
• Should be new arguments, different from PM
 Speaker Role (6)
• Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO)
– Provide team stance
– Rebuttals
– Arguments
 Speaker Role (7)
• Government/Opposition Whip (GW/OW)
– Rebuttals (if necessary)
– Clash point analysis
• Summarizing the main issues that were debated in the
debate, issue-by-issue, and prove why their respective t
eams have won those issues.
– E.g. first clash point is “Who better protects human rights”, se
cond clash point is “Who creates better economic benefits”.
• There are many ways to do clash point analysis, but mo
stly they are further analysis that either attacks the opp
osing team, or defends their own team on those issues.
– Whips CANNOT provide new arguments!
 Speaker Role (8)
• Government/Opposition Reply (GR/OR)
– Done by the 1st or 2nd speaker of each teams.
– Cannot provide new arguments
– There is no established way to do a reply speech, g
enerally it is the team’s last chance to persuade th
e adjudicator.
• Summary of the debate in a more broader view
• The main questions of the debate that were answered
by their respective team
• Role fulfillment/technicality attacks
 Adjudicator Feedback
• After you are done with the round, you will bri
efly leave the room, wait for the adjudicator to
make decision. Socializing time. 
• The adjudicator will call you back, tell you the
result, and justify why. Your job as a debater is
to assess the quality of the adjudicator.
 Adjudicator Feedback (2)
• You will then grade the adjudicator, based on this scale:
– 5 = Excellent adjudicator. He/she should be adjudicating the Gra
nd Final
– 4 = Above average adjudicator. He/she will definitely break. He/s
he is definitely a chair.
– 3 = Average adjudicator. He/she might break, and could be a chai
r.
– 2 = Acceptable adjudicator. He/she at least understands the basi
cs of Asian-style debate. He/she should be a panelist, or even a t
rainee.
– 1 = Inexperienced adjudicator. For whatever reason, he/she shou
ld be a trainee.
 Adjudicator Feedback (3)
• Please be fair/critical when assessing the adjudicator.
– DO NOT give them a 5 because they gave you a win, or a 1 becaus
e they gave you a lost.
• Assess adjudicator based on the feedback they give.
– If they show understanding of the issues debated, and justifies the
decision based on the arguments presented in the debate (not th
eir personal opinion on the issue), then they are a decent adjudica
tor.
– If they only comment on language use, technicalities, role fulfillm
ent, without mentioning the issues, then they are probably bad ad
judicators.
– Just because their English is not fluent, it does not mean they are
bad. Likewise, good English =/= good adjudicator.
Q & A Session
Thank you for your attention!