Introduction to Debating

Titin Hajri
 What is Debate?
“Structured Argumentation”
 Develop critical thinking and logical reasoning
 Develop listening skills, understanding of

other ideas, and open mindedness

 Represent voiceless people in society
 Format of debate…
Asian parliamentary system
Australasian parliamentary system
British parliamentary system
American parliamentary system
Canadian parliamentary system

Indonesian parliamentary system

(Kusir)
 Asian Parliamentary (3 vs 3)
Affirmative Negative
Team Team

1st 1st
Speaker Speaker

2 nd 2nd
Speaker Speaker

3rd 3rd
Speaker Speaker

Reply Reply
Speaker Speaker
Role of Speakers
Affirmative
1st > Building Case for Affirmative
defining motions, bringing
model, setting philosophical
and Practical Argument
2nd > Extending Case
Rebutting, bringing extension
argument
3rd > Destroying Opponent Case
Mapping, Clashes, Rebutting,
and Rebuilding
Reply : Convince Judges why their
team deserves to win (comparison)
Opposition
1st > Building Case for Negative
response affirmative case,
setting counterargument or
defending status quo
2nd > Extending Case
Rebutting, bringing extension
argument
3rd > Destroying Opponent Case
Mapping, Clashes, Rebutting,
and Rebuilding
Reply : Convince Judges why their
team deserves to win (comparison)
 British Parliamentary
Affirmative Negative
Team Team

1st 1st
Opening

Speaker Speaker
Team

2nd 2nd
Speaker Speaker

1st 1st
Speaker Speaker
Closing
Team

2nd 2nd
Speaker Speaker
Role of Speakers
Goverment
PM> Building Case for Affirmative
defining motions, bringing
model, setting philosophical
and Practical Argument
DPM> Extending Case
Rebutting, extend the PM case
GM> act like the 1st in more
sophisticated way by bringing new
perspective of the debate and
clarify the opening.
GW: destroying opponent’s case by
selecting the strongest case and
rebuilding the case ; clash
Opposition
LO> Building Case for Negative
response affirmative case,
setting counterargument or
defending status quo
DLO > Extending Case
Rebutting, extend the LO case
OM> clear up the debate and bring
new perspective ; could be taking
new stakeholders or new context
OW : destroying opponent’s case by
selecting the strongest case and
rebuilding the case ; clash
Motion and Debate Set Up
 Motion Understanding
 THW = generally practical

 THBT = philosophical/practical

 THBT X should do Y = more practical

 THS = philosophical/practical

 TH, as X, would do Y = philosophical/practical

 THR = philosophical
 Note:

Unless specified, a debate motion

should generally be brought to
Western Liberal Democracy.
 Debate Setup
1. Status Quo (SQ): what is currently happening /
taking place, facts and contexts included
2. Problem Identification (PI): what is wrong,
things that can be solved if the motion passes.
3. Definition (Def): both per words and in general
4. Goal/Stance: objective, what you want to achieve
through the motion.
5. Model: details on how the motion works
 THW ban smoking
SQ no ban (people are free to smoke), people can access
cigarette, only cigarette sin tax is applied

PI deaths, decreasing level of people’s health, huge cost on

taxpayers’ money to cover the medication

Def disallow people to take cigarette

decreasing number of people who die/get sick due to

Goal smoking

1. Ban everywhere (or in specific places)

Mod 2. Fine for those violating the rule
3. etc…
THW pay beggars to leave big cities
SQ beggars are everywhere in cities, government subsidies
for them (food, shelter, etc)

PI no job (begging), part of drug’s syndicate and crimes,

the lost of aesthetic capital

Def pay and move them to move to better places

they become more independent, productive and are not

Goal affiliated to crimes

1. Pay them a certain amount of money for a period of time.

Mod 2. Move them to industry-based places, give them job.
3. Create a specific beggar community, etc...
 THW apply full 5 days school
SQ

PI

Def

Goal

Mod
 THW ban video games which actors
shows violent for children
SQ

PI

Def

Goal

Mod
 THW heavily sentence hoax news
authors/buzzers
SQ

PI

Def

Goal

Mod 1.
Argumentation Session
 2 categories of arguments
1. Intuitive arguments (easily predicted, fairly expected to
bring in a debate)

2. Counterintuitive arguments (not thought a lot, often

clashing intuitive arguments, more mind-blowing)
 Intuitive Arguments

THW ban smoking (government)

1. Smoking is dangerous, deadly.

2. Banning smoking save taxpayer’s money.

 Counterintuitive Arguments

THW ban smoking (government)

1. Government has right to ban smoking (tackles

opposition’s “Government has no authority to ban
people doing what they like”).
2. People don’t make rational choice (tackles opposition’s
“People make rational choice on smoking”)
 Classical A-R-E-L
A Assertion: An argument’s conclusion (in sentence)

R Answering why A is true. To do this, explain this, you

may need to frame a number of questions using:
“What?, Is it really?, and Why?”

E Relevant and tangible example, often precendence

L Restate your Assertion.

THW allow organ trading for profit
A People have a right to sell their organs
Doing something, even if it’s harmful, is our right.
R 1
Unless it harm others, it should be allowed.

E1 Smoking, overeat, boxing, etc.

But they sell it because of money.

R2 People do it to improve their quality of life. It should be

allowed even if it’s a bit dangerous.
Overwork as athlete, taking pills, working in
E2
undesirable, dangerous places, etc..

L People have a right to sell their organs

THW pay beggars to leave big cities
A Beggars have no job

R1 Have no skills, no job vacants, less education, lazy

E1 Mostly beggars dont get proper education

R2 They depends on gov subsidies and others money

E2 Raskin, BPJS, KIP, KIS, etc

L So, bbeggars should move from the capital

 THW ban video games which actors
shows violent for children
A

R1

E1

R2

E2

L
 THW heavily sentence hoax news
authors/buzzers
A

R1

E1

R2

E2

L
 3 types of arguments
1. Justification (philosopical background, usually based
on rights, duties, and moral)
>>> - why it is justified? - why they can do it?

2. Urgency (why it becomes so crucial to be solved)

>>> what whould happen if we dont do this?

3. Harms/benefits argument
(answer what will we get from the motion)
>>> - what are the benefits - what are the harms
 THW allow organ trading for profit
1. Justification
why people are allowed to sell their organs?
> because they have a right > right autonomy over their
body > right is used to improve their quality life, not
to harm other
2. Urgency (why it becomes so crucial to be solved)
>people are dying waiting for the organs > if we dont do
this, many people will die
3. Harms/benefits argument
Benefits : > we will not lack of organs’ stocks
> we would save many lives
> it will eliminate black market
> it triggers the feeling of helping others
> etc.
 THW pay beggars to leave big cities
1. Justification
why gov have right to move people?
> because gov has a duty > giving welfare > protect its
citizens, > under the guarantee of gov.
2. Urgency : (why it becomes so crucial to be solved)
>people are suffering because of having a bad quality of
life, including their children (live in a vile environment,
less nutrient of food, no education & skills, etc)
3. Harms/benefits argument
Harms : > tendency of doing crime to survive
> keep becoming parasites (begging)
> the city will lost its aesthetic
> their children will follow their parents’ path
> etc.
Rebuttals,
poi, Bop,
other terminolog
 Rebuttals

Responses on your opponent’s arguments

 It’s not as simple as “accusing” things
 Simply saying your opposition’s arguments are
inferior does not constitute a good rebuttal
 Rebuttals must logically explain and analyze the
weaknesses of an argument

 Do not assuming, questioning, and repeating arguments

 POI
(Poin of Information)
• The interruption within a speech.

• It is not allowed in the first and the last

minute of a substantive speech.

• It should be no longer than 15 seconds.

• Speaker should stand to offer POI.

• The current speaker has full authority to accept or

reject the POI.

 Manner

All about HOW you present your speech

➔ How engaging are you as a speaker?
➔ There are no hard rules over what is
considered good manner,
but instead it is valued by its main goal:
Are you able to deliver your arguments
convincingly?
➔ Everyone has a different style
 Manner tips
 Eye contact
 Body language – gestures,
 TONE of speech
 CONTROL of speech
 Clarity
 Diction
 Method
How you present your case
➔ Can the audience understand and
follow what you are saying?
➔ Also known as STRUCTURE
➔ Good structure helps adjudicators to digest your
speech, and also helps your manner
 Method tips

➔ Team split
➔ Signposting
➔ Introduce, Analyse, Conclude ->
Say what you are going to say, then say what you
want to say
7 Kesalahan umum argumentasi
 Pernyataan Sederhana
(Umum)

Pembicara hanya menyampaikan poin sederhana (1 atau

2 kalimat) yang bersifat umum dan tidak menjelaskan
lebih lanjut secara umum
Contoh: DPB pendidikan tinggi seharusnya
digratiskan
“PT harus digratiskan karena merupakan amanat UUD 1945
pasal 31 ayat 1 & 3 dimana setiap WNI berhak
mendapatkan pendidikan & pemerintah wajib
membiayainya)
 Bukan Argumen

Pernyataan yang terlihat seperti argumen tapi

nyatanya hanyalah syarat, batasan, atau
ketentuan yang diberikan oleh suatu tim.
Contoh: DA melegalkan poligami
“Poligami harus dilegalisasi asalkan suami mendapat izin
dari istri pertama, istri pertama tidak mampu melaksanakan
kewajiban, dan mampu bersikap adil”
 Hanya pernyataan /fakta

Memberikan pernyataan dan/atau fakta tanpa

analisis lanjutan
Contoh: Indonesia akan menerapkan hukuman
mati untuk koruptor
“Hukuman mati akan efektf sudah terbukti di China, dimana
angka IPK 2005 berada di 3,2 dan berubah menjadi 3,6 di
tahun 2009”.
 Berdasarkan Agama
(Tautologi)

Mendasarkan argumen pada kebenaran ajaran

agama
Contoh: Dewan Mendukung Upaya Pengakuan
HAM LGBT
“Kami menolak pengakuan ini karena ini sangat
bertentangan dengan isi dan perintah Al-Quran yang
melarang LGBT karena itu berdosa”
 Hanya mengutip pendapat
ahli

Upaya mendukung sebuah pernyataan dengan

hanya mendasarkan pada pendapat ahli
Contoh: DA melegalkan poligami
“Pendeta Mormon mengatakan bahwa poligami itu baik
untuk semua orang”
 Hanya
mempertanyakan

Upaya menyalahkan argumen lawan hanya

dengan mempertanyakan dampak atau justifikasi
argumen lawan
Contoh: Dewan Mendukung Upaya Pengakuan
HAM LGBT
“Bayangkan, apa yang terjadi dengan anak cucu kita
saudara-saudara sekalian jika LGBT diakui hak nya? Itu
sangat buruk.”
Is there any
Question???