Must define the motion and establish grounds for debate.
May give the government's theme to cement caseline.
Must give the team split early enough to ensure fairness.
Must discuss and expound upon arguments prepared.
Must use effective examples to buttress arguments.
Must take one or two points of information from floor.
May give summary if time allows.
Must help Second Proposer by listening to First Opposer's speech and formulating rebuttals/counter-arguments.
Must defend the definition if challenged.
Must stick to the case, no matter what.
May skillfully clarify what the Prime Minister said.
Must rebutt arguments of the First Opposition Speaker.
May re-acquaint the floor with the Government theme.
Must go to arguments and examples assigned.
Must take one or two points of information from the floor.
Must sum up the case for the Proposition.
Must make perfectly clear immediately whether the team is accepting or rejecting the definition. Must follow the rules for doing so if the latter strategy is taken.
May set things out by introducing Opposition theme.
Must give Opposition team split.
Must rebutt arguments of Prime Minister.
Must bring out Opposition arguments and example. Must take one or two points of information. May give summary it time allows.
Must continue the definitional challenge, if one is given.
Must never stray from the Opposition case.
Must rebutt arguments of Deputy Prime Minister. Must rebutt entire case of Government in the absence of any summation speeches.
May bring out the Opposition theme to strengthen case.
Must discuss arguments assigned, along with examples.
Must take one or two points of information from the floor.
Must sum up the case for the Opposition.
You don't have to believe everything you say. Just look like you do. But also, it helps to remember that there must be a grain of validity to even the most ridiculous of positions. If you're stuck in an uncomfortable side, you just have to find it.
Don't panic if the joke falls. It sometimes works to make fun of yourself or the situation.
Remember - you control the situation.
It helps if you take one or two points to establish your credibility on the floor.
When giving points, remember not to do so when the speaker is floundering - let him or her look stupid. But when he or she is back on track, then come up and disrupt the rhythm.
Two points on generally the same argument may be construed as badgering - tread carefully.
You may, if you wish, use the nasty trick of getting up and saying "on that very point!" instead of the more conventional "point of information," and THEN proceed to bring up something else.
Avoid using insults - but be prepared to deflect any that come your way.
You generally get two types of motion: straight-down-the-line and interpretive ones. We strongly suggest narrowing interpretive motions down to a single issue so that the debate becomes clearer and your team less vulnerable.
A good definition is likely to include the following elements: a description of the status quo that you are proposing to change, set up in such a way that the floor is more easily convinced that they must pass the motion; and, some say more importantly, the parameters or scope of the debate - the mechanics of your proposal, if you will.
A good argument is composed of the following elements:
A blanket statement that is powerful enough to create interest in what is to follow.
An exposition in this statement - "The development of the argument" is what it's usually called. This can be done in many ways, amony them by showing the logical consequences, showing what would happen if it isn't put in place, doing cost-benefit, short run vs long run etc.
Effective examples to validate your assertions.
Any adjudicator will tell you that definitional debates are ugly and should be avoided. They are, however, a legitimate tool that you can use to seize initiative, if the opportunity presents itself. You just have to be VERY careful.
You can challenge a definition on the following grounds: that it is truistic, unreasonable, has no logical link to the motion, is a squirrel, is a hung case, or involved time-place setting.
To challenge it, you must make the intention explicit, give the grounds, give an even-if, construct your own definition, remembering to stay on the same side of the motion.
Likewise, a good rebuttal is made up of the following:
A statement to serve as handle for the rest.
The analysis of why the foregoing argument was wrong. That can be done by poining out factual or philosophical errors, downplaying the importance of it, saying it actually strengthens your case, that the causality implied is dubious, etc.
It helps to remember that you will be more successful rebutting arguments and not just examples.
Don't be afraid to start off slowly and give yourself time to think. It's sometimes better to speak more quickly toward the end, so that your arguments are better remembered. Obviously though, there are limits to this. You can be penalised if you bring major points in with less than a minute to go.
Use a stopwatch if it helps. And ask your partner to give you time signals so that you can develop your own rhythm.
It is fun to have to learn something. It helps if you have a regular partner so you can keep tabs on each other. Chemistry wins debates almost as many times as talent.
But Practice wins championships. You're free to construe this the way you wish - some teams keep notes from past debates, others subscribe to newsmagazines or read books.
The trick is not to take victory or defeat too seriously. Take the learning seriously.
Many thanks to Sarbjit Singh Bakhshi and Bombit Largoza