Resources
For a fun, entertaining, successful debate it is worth spending a little time in planning. This purpose of this article is to help you plan and organise a one-off debate. The following are the factors to consider:
Unless you have experienced debaters or are putting a specific issue to a group of people familiar with a topic, we recommend you steer clear of impromptu debating.
Within prepared debating the major types are British Parliamentary style with two speakers, and Australasian style with three speakers. We recommend following the Australasian style, as most people will be more familiar with the style. It is particularly useful for developing an argument as the second speaker in each team has the greatest opportunity for speaking on the argument. However if you are pressed for time or short of people willing to debate then feel free to go for a two-person team format.
Within these types you can take a variety of approaches. Celebrity style debates (as per The Great Debate) are not really debates and are only useful if you have a group of stand-up comics at your call. Roast style can be useful if a person (rather than a topic) is under scrutiny, but it is very difficult for novice speakers to keep on the right side of humour, and off the wrong side of abuse.
We recommend that you choose either a straightforward approach or a LifeBoat approach. The straightforward approach takes the debate seriously as in a debating competition or school debate, but it can (and should) be entertaining and humourous. A LifeBoat debate is similar but it is assumed that the debaters are arguing for the purposes of staying in a lifeboat. The scenario is that the lifeboat is overloaded and that some people must be thrown out to save the others. Within this scenario, you can take two lines. Firstly the debate can be about why your team should be saved (or conversely with the other team should be thrown overboard), and the teams will usually take some identity. For example, the topic might be "That we need politicians". The affirmative will be politicians; the negative will not. If the affirmative win, they stay in and the negative gets thrown out, and vice-versa. You can also take this approach with any arbitrary topic: the team that argues the best (wins the debate) earns the right to stay in the lifeboat. With a life boat debate you will usually have either a topic that lends itself to humour, or else a very controversial topic (e.g. abortion) that is a life or death issue. Often you will have the audience judge the life boat debate, and there may be a penalty for the losing team such as being thrown into a pool of water or having a bucket of water dumped on them.
The final part of a debate is the Right of Reply. After each member of the team has spoken, the leaders can have a short period to summarise the debate, what their team has achieved and why the opposition is wrong (or should be thrown overboard). We recommend that you have the replies, as it improves the quality of the debate. But it is not essential. The negative reply is first followed by the affirmative reply. That is right; the negative reply goes immediately after the last speaker for the negative team.
The first speaker of each team should normally deliver the reply. However any speaker, including the third speaker can give it. Yes, that means the third speaker negative may speak twice in a row. Sometimes this is done with a break, and sometimes they just have the two times added together and they speak twice as long.
The reply should not introduce any new material or arguments, except for the purpose of directly rebutting an argument of the opposition.
Moots can be concrete (That the Sky Tower is a bad idea) or philosophical (That a street is better than a meadow). That can be silly, irrelevant, interesting or of local, national or international importance. Don't choose a topic that will cause serious offence to a person (e.g. an abortion opponent arguing in favour of abortion). That doesn't mean a debater won't argue against a position they personally agree with. That is of benefit to the debater (wearing the other person's shoes) and also gives them an advantage; they often know the arguments that will be raised by the opposition.
Choose a moot that is relevant to the mood you want for the debate. If you get stuck, write down the requirements for your moot (humourous, philosophical, junior level) and then contact the ADA for a range of choices.
If you already know your teams, you might want to run your intended choice past them.
The team should get together to prepare for the debate. We suggest meeting at least two and ideally three times. The first meeting is to discuss the definition and likely lines to take, and to decide what each speaker will talk about. The second meeting is after each speaker has prepared a speech and the team gets together to resolve any issues that have been identified, and to make sure they are still presenting a consistent case. The third meeting continues on from the second and makes sure each speaker is clear on the tasks of the others.
For more details refer to the publication "Debating Guidelines" available from the ADA.
You should have a timekeeper with a digital or stopwatch and a bell or buzzer. This should be sounded firmly. There should be a warning bell 1 minute (for speeches 4 minutes or shorter) or 2 minutes (for speeches 5 minutes or longer) before the end of time and two sounds of the bell at the conclusion of time.
The speakers should aim to reach the first bell. They do not have to stop talking at the second bell, but should finish their point and conclude their speech within 20-30 seconds.
If a speaker goes 1 minute over time, the timekeeper should sound three bells, and after 90 seconds over time, should sound the bell continuously until the speaker takes their seat.
The adjudicator may want to know the speaking times; the timekeeper should keep a written record and present it to the adjudicator at the end of the debate.
We recommend that you don't have points of order. This is when the debate is interrupted by one of the team to identify a breach of the rules. The Chair should then upheld or deny the point. This places a large burden on the Chair. We recommend the adjudicator in the process of marking resolve any breaches.
We recommend that you don't have points of information. This is when the debate is interrupted by one of the speakers offering a factual piece of information to the speaker.
For a lifeboat debate the audience can serve as an adjudicator.
You can have a panel of adjudicators, and you should have an odd number. Avoid the temptation to declare a draw. If you have three judges, you might like to give the audience two votes. This means a unanimous judge decision may outvote the audience, but that the audience can sway a close decision.
We recommend you use the standard ADA marksheet. This is a common format throughout the world.
The adjudicator(s) should be seated (separated) at the back so they don't intimidate the speakers. They don't have to have a clear view (don't place them at the end of an aisle), but they shouldn't have the worst view either.
It isn't necessary for the speakers to be on a stage, unless the venue dictates that requirement. Avoid a venue that requires a sound system. If you must use one, give each of the speakers an opportunity to become familiar with the microphone before the debate.
Traditionally the affirmative sit on the right of the chair (left from the audience view).
|
|