This Is a True Statement About the Comprehensive Reading Approach:

There are several different formats for debate skillful in high school and college debate leagues.  Most of these formats share some general features.  Specifically, any argue will have 2 sides:  a proposition side, and an opposition side.  The job of the proposition side is to advocate the adoption of the resolution, while the job of the opposition side is to refute the resolution.

The resolution can have many forms, depending on the format.  But in most cases, the resolution is simply a statement of policy or a statement of value.  Some examples include, "Be it resolved, that the federal government of the United States should legalize marijuana"; "Be it resolved, that when in disharmonize, the right to a fair trial ought to take precedence over liberty of spoken communication"; "Be it resolved, that men should clothing boxers rather than briefs,"; etc.  In many argue formats, there is a requirement that a policy resolution (a resolution regarding the policies followed by some organisation or government) correspond a change from current policy, so that the opposition squad volition be defending the status quo.

Unremarkably, in that location is too a judge present in the fence whose job is to decide the winner.

    Loftier Schoolhouse formats
        Squad Policy Debate
        Lincoln-Douglas Debate
    College formats
        NDT Debate
        CEDA Debate
        Parliamentary Debate

Format.  A round of team policy argue consists of viii speeches.  The offset 4 speeches are called constructive speeches, because the teams are perceived as laying out their most important arguments during these speeches.  The last four speeches are called rebuttals, because the teams are expected to extend and apply arguments that take already been made, rather than brand new arguments.  Here is a table of the eight speeches and their fourth dimension limits:

Speech:	1AC	1NC	2AC	2NC	1NR	1AR	2NR	2AR
Fourth dimension:	8 min.	eight min.	viii min.	8 min.	4 min.	4 min.	4 min.	four min.

Two things are of interest in this structure.  First, the affirmative squad both begins and ends the fence.  2nd, the negative team has two speeches in a row:  the first negative rebuttal (1NR) immediately follows the second negative constructive (2NC).  (Why?  Well, because information technology's always been washed that style.)

In general, the members of each team alternate giving speeches, so that the same person gives both the 1AC and the 1AR, the same person gives the 2NC and the 2NR, etc.  Occasionally, the rules will permit a change in this format.  For example, affirmative teams will sometimes go "within-exterior" then that one person (commonly the weaker member) gives the 1AC and the 2AR, while the other (stronger) debater gives the 2AC and the 1AR.

Commonly, there is a three-minute cantankerous-examination menstruum subsequently each of the starting time four (constructive) speeches.  The person who does the cross-examining is the person who will non be giving the next speech communication for his side.  For example, the person who volition give the 2NC will cross-examine after the 1AC.  (An exception to this dominion is fabricated when the affirmative squad goes "inside-outside.")  When squad policy debate is done without cross-examination periods, the speech communication times are frequently extended to 10 minutes for constructives and 5 minutes for rebuttals.

Resolutions. Resolutions in team policy debate are always of a policy nature, usually governmental policy.  The affirmative team almost always defends the resolution by ways of a detail example, known every bit a "case"; if they can show the instance (case) to be true, then the general proposition is as well shown to exist true.  For instance, the first resolution I ever encountered in team policy fence was, "The federal government should adopt a comprehensive, long-term agricultural policy in the United States."  Some typical cases teams ran nether this resolution were:  that the regime should found a programme restricting the use of pesticides; that the government should plant a program to insure genetic diversity of crops; that the government should institute a program requiring farmers to switch from state-farming to hydroponics (i.e., growing nutrient in great big tanks of h2o); that the government should abolish ingather subsidies and price supports; etc.

Way.  Team policy debate is focused on evidence gathering and organizational ability.  Persuasiveness is non considered of import -- or at to the lowest degree, not as of import as roofing footing and reading enough of evidence.  The best teams have huge fileboxes packed to the gills with evidence on their own affirmative instance and all the possible cases they might accept to oppose.  If you lot ever walk into a high-level team contend round, wait to see debaters talking at extremely high speeds, reading out the contents of page subsequently page of evidence, gasping for jiff between points, and using lots of jargon ("I cite Jorgenson, Jorgenson postal service-dates Bronstein, that kills PMR 4, menstruation that Aff!").  There is very piffling discussion of values such every bit freedom, justice, equality, etc.; usually, the ultimate criterion on any issue is how many dead bodies will result from taking or not taking a particular action.  This form of argue can exist fun, it encourages good research and organizational skills, and it is skillful for getting novice debaters used to speaking in front of people.  But if you want to learn how to speak persuasively, this form of debate is not for you.

Format.  A circular of L-D argue consists of five speeches and ii cantankerous-examination periods.  The speeches and their times are every bit follows:

Oral communication:	Affirmative Constructive	Cantankerous-Ex of Aff by Neg	Negative Constructive	Cross-Ex of Neg by Aff	Affirmative Rebuttal	Negative Rebuttal	Affirmative Rejoinder
Time:	half dozen min.	iii min.	7 min.	three min.	iv min.	6 min.	3 min.

Notice that the Affirmative has more speeches than the Negative, but both have the same total speaking time (13 minutes).

Resolutions.  Resolutions in Fifty-D debate are usually stated equally propositions of value.  Although the propositions are sometimes related to issues of policy, this is non always the case.  Typical resolutions include:  "The spirit of the law ought to accept precedence over the letter of the alphabet of the law to raise justice," "Cooperation is superior to competition," "Violent revolution is a just response to oppression," etc.  Unlike in squad argue, the debaters are expected to contend the resolution as a whole, not just a item example.

Style.  Back when I did L-D debate (more than ten years ago at present), it was true to its original mission of restoring persuasion and values to high school debate.  Show was considered important, merely it was not the exist-all-and-end-all that it is in squad policy debate.  The emphasis was on speaking clearly, logically, and fluently.  Unfortunately, I take heard rumors that the bad habits of team policy contend take crept into L-D, and that high-speed reading of large quantities of evidence is at present the norm on some debate circuits.

NDT Debate

NDT stands for National Fence Tournament.  This is the oldest, and probably nigh popular, form of contend at the college level.  I never did this kind of debate, so I will keep my clarification brusk:  NDT is just like the team policy debate of loftier schoolhouse, except more so.  My understanding is that the format is exactly the same as in team policy debate (4 constructive speeches, 4 rebuttals, 4 cross-examination periods, etc.).  And the manner is also the aforementioned:  huges quantities of evidence read at high velocity, with fiddling pretense of persuasion.

CEDA Debate

CEDA stands for Cross-Test Debate Assocation.  This is a newer form of higher-level debate than NDT, and it was built-in equally a reaction to NDT in the aforementioned style that Lincoln-Douglas debate was built-in every bit a reaction to squad policy contend.  CEDA is a two-on-two debate, with a structure very similar to that of NDT and squad policy fence.  The divergence is in the fashion of resolution; while NDT resolutions are policy-oriented, this is non always the case in CEDA.  In addition, CEDA was intended to be a values-driven debate.

By the time I reached higher, however, CEDA debate had already succumbed to the pressure level to exist like NDT.  The CEDA debates I observed involved high-speed recitations of vast amounts of evidence -- although, to CEDA'due south credit, these tendencies were non and then extreme equally in NDT.  Still, it was bad enough to drive me away.

By the way, in instance you've seen that movie "Mind to Me," starring Kirk Cameron:  CEDA is the form of debate they were doing in that movie.  Of grade, they were doing information technology more persuasively in the movie than they practise in existent life.  (Did I like the movie?  Information technology was okay.  I gave information technology two stars out of a possible iv.  The arrogant blowhard attitude exhibited by some of the debaters was totally authentic.  But the pick of argue topic in the moving-picture show -- abortion -- was totally unrealistic, because the creators of resolutions more often than not endeavour to avoid issues that are so divisive that judges cannot exist expected to approximate debate rounds objectively.  And then at that place's the fact that they won that final debate round on the basis of new arguments in rebuttals -- something completely confronting the rules in all forms of fence.)

Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary argue is yet some other form of debate that arose every bit a reaction against the excesses of NDT and squad policy debate.  The accent in this course of debate is on persuasiveness, logic, and wit.  Unlike in other forms of debate, where the resolution is established well in advance of a tournament and is the aforementioned for every round in the tournament, in Parliamentary contend the resolution is usually not established until 10 minutes before the debate circular begins, and there is a new resolution for every round of debate.  Since it would exist unreasonable to wait teams to research every topic they could be possibly be asked to debate, parliamentary debate requires no evidence any.

This form of contend is called "parliamentary" because of its vague resemblance to the debates that take place in the British parliament.  The proposition team is called the "Government," and the opposition team is called (appropriately) the "Opposition."  The Authorities team consists of two debaters, the Prime Minister (PM) and the Fellow member of Government (MG).  The Opposition team also consists of two debaters, the Leader of the Opposition (LO) and the Fellow member of the Opposition (MO).

Format.  A round of  parliamentary fence consists of six speeches:  four constructive speeches and two rebuttal speeches.  The speeches and their times are equally follows:

Speech:	Prime Minister Constructive (PMC)	Leader of Opposition Constructive (LOC)	Member of Government Constructive (MG)	Fellow member of Opposition Effective (MO)	Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR)	Prime number Minister Rebuttal (PMR)
Time:	7 min.	8 min.	eight min.	8 min.	4 min.	5 min.

Several things are notable about this construction.  First, as in squad policy and NDT debate, the suggestion (Government) team -- specifically, the Prime number Minister -- both begins and ends the debate.  Second, over again as in team policy and NDT, the Opposition team has a block of two speeches in a row (the MO followed by the LOR).  Tertiary, unlike in team policy and NDT, at that place are only two rebuttals instead of four.  Consequently, two people in the fence (the PM and the LO) have 2 speeches each, while the other two (the MG and MO) have but one voice communication each.

There are no cross-test periods in parliamentary argue.  But there are various motions on which the debaters tin can ascension during others' speeches.  These points are:

1.  Indicate of Information.  During one person's spoken language, another debater (presumably from the contrary team) rises from his seat and says something similar, "Point of data, sir?"  The speaker has the selection of whether or non to accept the point of information (information technology is usually good class to accept at to the lowest degree 2 points of information in a speech).  If he accepts the point, the person who rose may enquire a question of the speaker -- unremarkably a rhetorical question designed to throw him off.  The speaker then answers the question (or ignores it if he can't come up with a skillful answer) and moves on with his speech.  In that location are two principal rules for points of information:  they may merely be asked in constructive speeches, not in rebuttals; and they may not be asked during the commencement or last minute of any speech.

two.  Point of Gild.  A debater rises on a point of lodge when he believes i of the rules of debate is beingness broken.  The most mutual use of the betoken of order is to say that the speaker is bringing up a new statement in a rebuttal speech, which is not allowed.  (The rebuttals are reserved for extending and applying sometime arguments.)  The person making the indicate of order rises, says, "Point of order, statement Ten is a new argument."  The judge makes a judgment every bit to whether the signal of social club is valid.  If so, she says, "betoken well taken," and the speaker must quit making argument Ten.  If not, she says, "point not well taken," and the speaker may go along with that argument if he wishes.  The procedure is similar for other points of club.

3.  Point of Personal Privilege.  This rarely used movement has a couple of different uses.  The most common is to protest a gross misrepresentation of one's statements or an set on on i's character.  For example:  "Mr. Jones says he likes lynching black people."  "Point of personal privilege!  I merely said sometimes the death penalty is justified."  As with points of order, information technology is the job of the judge to rule the signal well-taken or non-well-taken.  A betoken of personal privilege tin can also be used to ask for a personal favor or exception from the approximate; for instance, "Signal of personal privilege -- gotta get potty, please?"

Resolutions.  In parliamentary debate, the resolution is unremarkably in the grade of a quotation or maxim provided to the debaters before long earlier the round (say, most x minutes).  Theoretically, the government team is supposed to come up with a specific instance that is an example of the resolution, or at to the lowest degree in the spirit of the resolution.  In practice, nobody really cares whether the case that the government team runs has anything to do with the resolution, and so long as the prime number minister makes some pocket-sized pretense of linking the case to the resolution.  For example, the resolution might exist "Religion is the opiate of the masses."  A good example to link to this resolution might be that "creation scientific discipline" should not be taught in public schools.  A mediocre link might be something about the drug war, inspired by the give-and-take "opiate."  A lousy link would go something similar this:  "This resolution made u.s. recall about how people believe things that aren't true.  For example, some people call back that rent command is a expert idea, simply that's non true.  So in this argue, the government volition argue that rent control should be abolished."  At almost parliamentary debate tournaments, nobody would even blink an eye at that link.

The consequence is that the government team has broad latitude to run most any case they desire.  Although theoretically the regime team is supposed to devise its case only after hearing the resolution, most often a team already has an idea what example it wants to run long earlier so.

There is also no requirement that the government run a public policy case.  All that is required is that the government squad must establish a topic that has two (or more than) clashing sides and is debatable.  Broadly speaking, at that place are only 3 types of cases that the regime team cannot run:

i.  A tautology.  A tautological case is one that is immediately and logically truthful past construction.  For example, "Bill Clinton is the all-time Democratic president since 1981" would be a tautology, since Beak is the only Democrat to have attained the presidency in the specified fourth dimension menses.

2.  A truism.  A truistic case is i that no moral person could possibly disagree with.  For example, "Infants should non exist skinned alive for entertainment purposes" would exist a truism.  Of course, the definition of truistic is contentious, considering it is nigh always possible to observe someone who disagrees with a proposition, and what is considered moral is often culture-specific.

3.  A specific-cognition case.  A specific-knowledge example is one that would require the opposition to know more nigh a topic than it could reasonably be expected to know.  In full general, debaters are expected to exist familiar with current events and pop civilisation.  If the case requires more particularistic information, the government must provide all necessary information in the showtime speech of the circular.  If the government fails to exercise and so, then the case is accounted specific-knowledge and hence against the rules.  An case of a specific-noesis instance would be, "The U.S. Air Strength should discontinue use of the V26 Osprey helicopter because of its low flight-to-thrust ratio."  Another would be, "My partner should dump his girlfriend."  Unless the evils and advantages of his girlfriend were well known, it would exist unreasonable to expect the opposition to abnegate the example.

Inasmuch as these are the but constraints on the regime'southward choice of instance, in that location is an astounding diverseness of cases that may be run.  Ane popular diversity is the "fourth dimension-infinite" instance, in which the authorities puts the judge in the shoes of a particular person or entity at some indicate in fourth dimension, and and so argues that she should make a detail decision.  An case would exist, "Y'all are Abraham Lincoln in 1861.  You should let the South go in peace."

At some tournaments, those running the tournament will provide a "tight-link" resolution (either in addition to or instead of the usual weak-link resolution).  A tight-link resolution must exist defended literally and in its entirety.  For case, if the tight-link resolution were, "The federal government should abolish the minimum wage," the authorities would be expected to contend for (yous guessed information technology) abolishing the minimum wage.  There are as well some tournaments that provide "medium-link" resolutions, by which they mean that judges will exist strict about the requirement that government cases be reasonably within the spirit of the quotation or proverb provided.

Style.  Unlike CEDA, parliamentary debate has managed to preserve its accent on persuasion, logic, and sense of humor; this success is nearly probable a result of eschewing excessive preparation and prove.  The spontaneity and openness of the format makes parliamentary contend free-wheeling and exciting, whereas other styles of fence can become boring because every debate round at a tournament revolves around the same topic.  The downside is that in the absence of any evidentiary burden, debaters are free to spew utter nonsense, or even outright lies, without providing whatsoever support for their assertions.  (The prohibition confronting specific cognition fortunately helps to curb this trouble.)  All things considered, parliamentary is the most entertaining of whatsoever debate style I've found, and also the about conducive to the evolution of good rhetorical skills.

Variations.  Parliamentary argue is really a world-broad phenomenon, only the rules differ greatly from land to country.  In Canada, for example, the format is just every bit in the The states, with the following exceptions:  the speeches are all one infinitesimal shorter; the 2 back-to-back opposition (MO and LOR) speeches are combined into one long spoken language delivered past the LO; and the Member of the Government (MG) is chosen the Government minister of the Crown (MC) instead.  In the Britain, at that place are actually four teams in every debate round -- 2 proffer teams and two opposition teams -- and each person speaks for but five minutes.  I've heard rumors that some country (I call back it was either New Zealand or S Africa) has a version of parliamentary debate in which there are there are 3 teams in each circular, or mayhap it was two teams of three people each; but such rumors may be apocryphal.

Return to the main debate folio.
Return to my cover page.
This page was last modified on five September 2000.

newmancusid1996.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/debformats.html

Share this post