OREGON-OXFORD DEBATE

FORMAT
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
• Oregon-Oxford Debate Format Defined
• Historical Background
• Overview
• Speaking Order and Time Allotment
• Proposition
• Rights and Burdens
• Debate Analysis
• Stock Issues Analysis
• N-B-P Analysis
• Speakers Role
• Case Structure
• Cross-Examination/ Interpellation
OREGON-OXFORD DEBATE FORMAT
DEFINED
• Also known as Cross-Examination Debate or Forensic Debate
• Consist of the following:
• Constructive Speeches
• Cross-Examination/ Interpellation
• Rebuttal-Summation Speeches
• Prepared speeches are discouraged.
• Requires more than superficial research of the proposition.
• Requires the use of specific information in the form of evidences.
OREGON-OXFORD DEBATE FORMAT
DEFINED
• Debaters in this format are expected to:
• Respond to the dynamics of the debate.
• Demonstrate fast critical thinking
• Logical analysis
• Wit
• Speak extemporaneously
• Incorporates legislative/ parliamentary and courtroom debate.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
• First used in Oregon University in 1930s.
• Introduced to the Philippines by American teachers.
• Official format used by the National Debate Tournament of
the American Forensic Association.
• Pre-debate conference (PreDeCon) is a Filipino innovation.
DEBATE OVERVIEW
Number of Debaters: 6

Number of Teams: 2

Number of Members per Team: 3

Topic to be Debated: Proposition

For the Proposition: Affirmative/ Proposition

1st Affirmative Speaker
2nd Affirmative Speaker
Affirmative Scribe
DEBATE OVERVIEW
Against the Proposition: Negative/ Opposition
1st Negative Speaker
2nd Negative Speaker
Negative Scribe
Topic Provided: 1 wees prior to actual debate
Arguments: Arguments
Judge/s: Adjudicators
Moderator: Moderator
Speaking Order and Time Allotment
1st Affirmative Constructive 7 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 1st Negative Speaker 3 Minutes
1st Negative Constructive 7 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 1st Affirmative Speaker 3 Minutes
2nd Affirmative Constructive 7 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 2nd Negative Speaker 3 Minutes
2nd Negative Constructive 7 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 2nd Affirmative Speaker 3 Minutes
B R E A K (3 Minutes)
1st Negative Rebuttal Summation 4 Minutes
1st Affirmative Rebuttal-Summation 4 Minutes
2nd Negative Rebuttal Summation 5 Minutes
2nd Affirmative Rebuttal-Summation 5 Minutes
Speaking Order and Time Allotment
1st Affirmative Constructive 7 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 1st Negative Speaker 2 Minutes
1st Negative Constructive 7 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 1st Affirmative Speaker 2 Minutes
2nd Affirmative Constructive 5 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 2nd Negative Speaker 2 Minutes
2nd Negative Constructive 5 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 2nd Affirmative Speaker 2 Minutes
3rd Affirmative Constructive 5 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 3rd Negative Speaker 2 Minutes
3rd Negative Constructive 5 Minutes
Cross Examination by the 3rd Affirmative Speaker 2 Minutes
B R E A K (3 Minutes)
Negative Rebuttal Summation 7 Minutes
Affirmative Rebuttal-Summation 7 Minutes
PROPOSITION
• Statement of the issue under consideration which the
debater must establish or overthrow, depending on his side
of the bench.
• Starts with the phrase “Resolved…” short for “Be it resolved
as it is hereby resolved…”
• Sometimes also called Resolutions.
• Usually propositions deals with soundness and workability
of a proposed policy. Or if the policy is already in existence,
the debate will discuss the wisdom behind the adoption of
the said policy.
PROPOSITION
• Stated in a direct fashion. Proposition is already clear and
the Affirmative is to only define the finer points/ details.

3 Classification of Propositions
• Proposition of Fact “Is this true?”
• Proposition of Policy “Why should this be done?”
• Proposition of Value “Why is important?/ right?”
PROPOSITION
Guidelines in Phrasing Propositions:
• Must be debatable
• Must de stated in the affirmative
• Must be concise and simple
• Must state the proposed policy and not defend the status
quo
• Must have only one central idea.
• Must be impartial
RIGHTS AND BURDENS
Affirmative Rights Negative Rights
• Right to Define • Right to Presumption of
Validity

Affirmative Burdens Negative Burdens

• Burden of Proof • Burden to Rebuttal

*Cannot win based on *Cannot discuss anything the

inability of the negative affirmative didn’t discuss
DEBATE ANALYSIS
Stock Issues Analysis
• Is there a need for change?
• What are the inherency/ barriers in the status quo?
• What is the Plan?
• Is the Plan desirable?

N-B-P Analysis
• Necessity
• Beneficially
• Practicability
STOCK ISSUES OF POLICY
Stock issues are hunting grounds for arguments. They provide the
general phrasing of potential issues that correspond to the inherent
obligations of the advocates of change.

Categories:
• Jurisdiction - Provide proposals consistent with the scope of the proposition.
• Ill - Show a significant past, present, or future problem or harm.
• Blame - The obligation of advocates to relate a particular ill causally to the basic
structure or philosophy of present policy.
• Cure - Outline a specific plan of action and demonstrate how it will solve the
problem of ill.
• Cost - How much will it cost in terms of material cost and/or social burden?
Respond to the disadvantages of your plan.
N-B-P Analysis

1. Necessity
Is there need for change?
Is the need for chance inherent in the status quo?
Will the proposed change solve the problem?
2. Beneficiality
Is the proposal desirable? Is there a clamor?
What are the benefits/ disadvantages of the proposal?
3. Practicability
Can it be done?
Will it work? How?
How much would it cost?
SPEAKERS ROLE
• 1st Affirmative
• Define Terms
• Set Parameters of debate
• Provide team structure
• Theme
• Team split
• Present Affirmative Plan
SPEAKERS ROLE
• 2nd Affirmative
• Clearly identify major areas of dispute as presented by 1st Negative
• Defend affirmative case
• Perform role in team split
• 3rd Affirmative
• Clearly identify major areas of dispute as presented by 2nd Negative
• Defend affirmative case
• Perform role in team split
• Rebuttal-Summation
• Summary of debate biased to the affirmative
SPEAKERS ROLE
• 1st Negative
• Clearly identify major areas of dispute as presented by 1st Affirmative
• State Negative position
• Provide team split
• Attack specific affirmative contentions.
• 2nd Negative
• Defend Negative Case
• Renew attack on affirmative case
• 3rd Negative *same
• Rebuttal-Summation *same
CASE STRUCTURE

Affirmative Case Plan

• Agent of change
• Means of change
• Enforcement
• Funding
CASE STRUCTURE
Affirmative Case Approaches

Necessity –Plan Case

1. There is a need for change

The need is compelling
The need is inherent in the problem
2. The plan will meet the need
The plan is workable
The plan is practical
3. The plan has extra benefits
CASE STRUCTURE
Affirmative Case Approaches

Comparative Benefits Case

1. The Status-Quo vis-à-vis the Affirmative Plan

2. Statement of benefits of the Affirmative Plan
*the plan will achieve the goals faster/ better/ cheaper than the
status quo)
3. The benefits are significant
4. The benefits are unique to the plan.
CASE STRUCTURE
Affirmative Case Approaches

Net Benefits Case

1. Net benefits of Status quo

Costs vs. Benefits
2. Net benefits of the Affirmative Plan
Cost vs. Benefits
3. The benefits are unique to the plan.
CASE STRUCTURE
Negative Case Approaches

Straight Refutation Case

- No enough proof to establish that a “need for change” exist.
- Problem may exist but not enough significant enough to change

Defense of the Status Quo/ with Minor Repairs

-The status quo offers mechanism for change within itself.

Workability/ Practicability Focus Case

-explore and focus on the practicability weakness of the affirmative
plan.
CASE STRUCTURE

Negative Case Approaches

Disadvantages Case
- Affirmative plan has unintended consequences and effects that can
be worst than the problem it is trying to solve.
CASE STRUCTURE
Negative Case Approaches

Counterplan Case
-used when the negative choose not to defend the status quo
-present another alternative plan.

1. Defend the status quo

Deny affirmative picture of the problem
Affirmative did not prove the harm
2. Deny advantages the affirmative claims the plan will bring
3. Plan will “not meet need.”
4. Plan will result to even greater disadvantages
5. Plan is not workable./ Offer counter plan.
CROSS-EXAMINATION/ INTERPELLATION

Part of debate where actual clash between debaters are

demonstrated.

Objective:

• Clarify points in the opposing team’s position.

• Expose factual errors or unscrupulous assertions made by
the opposing team.
• Obtain damaging admissions from opposing team
• Set-up arguments for use in subsequent speeches
CROSS-EXAMINATION/ INTERPELLATION

Types of Questions:

• Clarificatory Questions
• Objection Questions
• Concluding Question
• Question of Proof/ Evidence