Debate

Debate (North American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies.

Formal debate in education

In English speaking societies, rule-based competitive debate is often encouraged in high schools and colleges. This is a contest with explicit rules. It may be presided by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for"), or opposed to ("against"), a statement (proposition) which if adopted would change something. Some of the rules are broad and must be followed in a general way. For example, those in favor of the proposition are

required to show the need for it to be adopted as it is written, and yet are
allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted.

To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments, sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.

The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to destroy; to experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or destroyed after the same amount of preparation time, usually quite short. Lawyers argue forcefully on behalf of their client, even if the facts appear against them. However one large misconception about debate is that it is all about arguement, it is not. The word debate itself derives from the Latin word "Debatum" which means to reach an agreement, the concept of a resolution is to educate people on an issue so that they may learn and the world may reach an agreement on the issue.

Competitive Debate is an organized activity with teams competing at the local, national, and international level. It is popular in English-speaking universities and high schools around the world, most notably in South Africa, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Many different styles of debate occur under a variety of organizations and rules.

Parliamentary debate

Parliamentary debate (sometimes referred to as "parli" in the United States) is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary procedure. It features the competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows terms such as "government" and "opposition" from the British parliament (although the term "proposition" is used rather than "government" when debating in the United Kingdom).

Throughout the world, parliamentary debate is what most countries know as "debating", and is the primary style practiced in the United Kingdom, Australia, India and most other nations. The premier event in the world of parliamentary debate, the World Universities Debating Championship, is conducted in the British Parliamentary style.

Even within the United Kingdom, however, 'British Parliamentary' style is not used exclusively; the English-Speaking Union runs the national championships for schools in a unique format, known as the 'Mace' format after the name of the competition, while simultaneously using British Parliamentary format for the national universities championships.

In the U.S. the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) is the oldest national parliamentary debating organisation, based on the east coast and including all of the Ivy League, although the more recently founded National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is now the largest collegiate sponsor. The National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL) is the umbrella organisation for all parliamentary debating at the secondary school level in the United States. And in Canada, the Canadian Universities Society for Intercollegiate Debating (CUSID) is the umbrella organisation for all university-level debating.

Topics in parliamentary debate can either be set by the tournament or determined by the debaters as the "Government" side begin. In many forms of the activity, introduction of researched evidence is banned or discouraged, and rhetoric and style can play a significant role in determining the victor. Parliamentary debate is as closely related to theatre and performance arts as it is to logic or rhetoric. It has been widely labelled as the most democratic form of educational debate.

World Schools Style

World Schools Style is a combination of the British Parliamentary and Australian formats, which results in a debate comprising eight speeches delivered by two three-member teams (one on the Proposition and one on the Opposition). Each speaker delivers an eight-minute speech - the first two are substantive matter and the third a rebuttal speech; then both teams deliver a "reply speech" lasting four minutes, with the last word being reserved for the Proposition. In junior debates, these limits are changed to about 5 minutes, and in some local competitions, speeches are 7 minutes.

Other forms have eight speeches and three speakers on a team. The first speaker of the Proposition opens the debate, states the topic, defines it, and then argues his/her arguments. The first speaker of the Opposition has to state whether the opposition team agrees with the policy, if not they issue a definitional challenge (very rare) whereby the whole debate changes and each team only argues their points and does not counter their opponents' arguments. Otherwise, the first speaker then does a little rebuttal, states the "clash" and moves on to his/her points. If the Proposition does not offer a clear definition, the Opposition may make one; this makes for very weak debating on behalf of the Proposition.

The second speaker for the Proposition then further states the "clash", continues the rebuttal, and makes few new points. The second speaker for the Opposition then does similar. The third speaker (also known as the "whip") for both Prop and Opp they have to close off the debates; they are not allowed to introduce any new arguments, and their speech consists mainly of rebuttal and summation. Then either the first or second speaker of the Opposition closes their teams debate as the reply speaker; the Proposition does likewise. The reply speech is very difficult, since the reply speaker can not attack anything stated by the other team, so the general style of the reply speaker is similar to that of a biased reporter.

Between the end of the first and the beginning of the last minute of an eight-minute speech, the Opposing party may offer "points of information". The speaker may refuse these, but should take at least one or two points during his or her speech. No points of order or privilege are used.

Topics can be supplied long in advance, or may be given 45 minutes to an hour before the debate begins. There is not much room for re-definition, and squirreling (finding loopholes in the topic wording so as to change the framers' intent) is strictly prohibited. The World Schools Debating Championships is attended by many countries, and is in this format.

Australia-Asia debate

Australia-Asia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That", for example, "That cats are better than dogs." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the participants and their audiences.

Each team is comprised of three members, each of whom is named according to their team and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the terminology used. Each of the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to each other beginning with the Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative.

The context in which the Australia-Asia style of debate is used varies, but in Australia is mostly used at the Primary and Secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year.

Policy debate

Policy Debate is a style of debating where two teams of two debaters advocate or oppose a plan derived from a resolution that usually calls for a change in policy by a government. Teams normally alternate, and compete in rounds as either "affirmative" or "negative". In most forms of the activity, there is a fixed topic for an entire year or another set period. In comparison to parliamentary debate, policy debate relies more on researched evidence and tends to have a larger sphere of what is considered legitimate argument, including counterplans, critical theory, and debate about the theoretical standards of the activity itself. While rhetoric is important and reflected in the "speaker points" given to each debater, each round is usually decided based on who has "won" the argument according to the evidence and logic presented. Sometimes decisions can take a substantial amount of time with judges reviewing the textual evidence. Additionally, in certain segments of the activity, debaters may speak very rapidly, called "spreading," in order to present as much evidence and information as possible and counter the other side. If the opposing side is not able to respond to their arguments quickly enough, then they are said to have "lost" the argument.

Policy Debate is mostly practiced in the United States (where it is sometimes referred to as Cross-Examination, or CX debate), although it has been attempted in Europe and Japan and has certainly influenced other forms of debate. Its evolution has been towards what some see as a more esoteric, albeit sophisticated, style. This evolution has arguably challenged its domestic dominance and its international acceptance; in fact, portions of the Policy community, unhappy with newer changes brought by this evolution, have split off to form new types of debate, most notably Classical debate.

Classical debate

Classical debate is a relatively new debate format, first created and primarily practiced in the state of Minnesota. It was formed as an alternative to Policy debating. Certain judges and coaches felt that the development of Policy had led it to become an extremely specialized form of debate with heavy reliance on near-incomprehensible speed in speaking and less emphasis on real-world arguments in favor of "strategic" arguments that often bordered on the near-absurd. With a structure similar to that of Policy, Classical debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion. For this reason, it is often nicknamed "Policy Lite".

As opposed to Policy, where each Affirmative proposes a new plan, classical debate is simpler: a resolution, decided at the beginning of the season, is the de facto topic for each debate, where the Affirmative affirms and Negative negates it. The emphasis on depth instead of breadth provided by the restriction can make for interesting rounds that often come down to arguments that might otherwise pale in other formats.

Extemporaneous debate

Extemporaneous debate is a style involving no planning in advance, and two teams with a first and second speaker. While a majority of judges will allow debaters to cite current events and various statistics (which opponents may question the credibility of) the only research permitted is one or more articles given to the debaters along with the resolution shortly before the debate. It begins with an affirmative first-speaker constructive speech, followed by a negative; then an affirmative and negative second-speaker constructive speech respectively. Each of these speeches are six minutes in length, and are followed by two minutes of cross examination. There is then an affirmative and negative first-speaker rebuttal, and a negative and affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively. These speeches are each four minutes long. No new points can be brought into the debate during the rebuttals.

This style of debate generally centers around three main contentions, although a team can occasionally use two or four. In order for the affirmative to win, all of the negative contentions must be defeated, and all of the affirmative contentions must be left standing. Most of the information presented in the debate must be tied in to support one of these contentions, or "sign posted". Much of extemporaneous debate is similar to policy debate; one main difference, however, is that extemporaneous debate focuses less on the implementation of the resolution.

Lincoln-Douglas debate

Lincoln-Douglas debate, a form of United States high school debate named after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, has two participants who compete against each other over a set resolution focused on philosophical values. Most cases are centered on a core value and a value criterion, with the value representing the highest concept that can be achieved under a given resolution and the criterion being the best way to achieve or measure who better achieves the value.

Karl Popper debate

Karl Popper debate, named after the famed philosopher, is a widely used debate format in Eastern European and Central Asian high schools. Originally created by the Open Society Institute as a more flexible team debate format, Karl Popper debate has risen greatly in popularity as the first format that many high school students learn. It focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Constructed similarly to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, each side is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing side. The first speakers of each side have 6 minutes to present their constructive cases, on in the negative's case a rebuttal case. The other 4 speakers each have 5 minutes to deliver a speech supporting their team's main arguments. There is also an allotted 3 minutes after each of the first 4 speeches for cross-examination, during which the opposing team has a chance to clarify what was stated in the preceding speech.

Each year, the International Debate Education Association hosts an annual Youth Forum, during which the Karl Popper World Championships are held. Nations from all around the world attend this Forum for the tournament, as well as the 2 week debate training camp.

Simulated legislature

High school debate events such as Student Congress, Model United Nations, European Youth Parliament, Junior State of America and the American Legion's Boys State and Girls State events are activities which are based on the premise of the

Impromptu Debate

Impromptu debate is a relatively informal and comedic style of debate, when compared to other highly structured formats. The topic for the debate is given to the participants between fifteen and twenty minutes before the debate starts. The debate format is relatively simple; each team member of each side speaks for five minutes, alternating sides. A ten-minute discussion period, similar to other formats' "open cross-examination" time follows, and then a five-minute break (comparable to other formats' preparation time). Following the break, each team gives a 4-minute rebuttal.

Moot court

Moot court (simulating appellate advocacy) and Mock trial (usually simulating criminal trials) competitions for law school, undergraduate, and (in some regions) high school students are held throughout the United States and Australia. In the United Kingdom the national mooting championships are run by the English-Speaking Union.

Public Forum

Public Forum debate is relatively new, and such not well known. The concept of Public Forum is to, rather than convince an experianced debater, convince an average Joe(or Jane!) on an issue that is "ripped from the headlines." Public Forum is renown for combining aspects of the two other main debates Policy and Lincoln-Douglas into one flip of the coin debate. In Public Forum the resolution changes frequently, the exact time depending on your region, making it from becoming another Policy debate.

Other forms of debate

Online debating

With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet, differing opinions arise frequently. Though they are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, there do exist formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.). Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weaker opinions on things, many times for debate in formal debates (such as the ones listed above) or for fun arguments with friends. The ease-of-use and friendly environments make new debaters welcome to share their opinions in many communities. For examples, see the List of web-based debate associations.

U.S. presidential debates

File:FordCarter.jpg

The 1976 Ford-Carter Presidential election debate

Since the 1976 general election, debates between presidential candidates have been a part of U.S. presidential campaigns. Unlike debates sponsored at the high school or collegiate level, the participants, format, and rules are not independently defined. Nevertheless, in a campaign season heavily dominated by television advertisements, talk radio, sound bites, and spin, they still offer a rare opportunity for citizens to see and hear the two major candidates side-by-side. The format of the presidential debates, though defined differently in every election, is typically more restrictive than many traditional formats, forbidding participants to ask each other questions and restricting discussion of particular topics to short time frames.

The presidential debates were initially moderated in 1976, 1980, 1984 by the League of Women Voters, but The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Republicans and Democrats to "ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners." Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organisation, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004." However, in announcing its withdrawal from sponsoring the debates, the League of Women Voters stated that it was withdrawing "because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission was formed in the hope of establishing an independent sponsor for presidential debates, with a more voter-centric role in the definition of the participants, format, and rules.

Comedy debate

With the growing popularity of debate among the general public, comedy debates have developed as a form of entertainment with an often educational twist. While comedy debates are not generally mainstream events, they have gained significant popular support at occasions such as the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and are often popular fixtures among experienced debaters.

Debate and argumentation theory

All forms of debate, whether consciously or not, make certain assumptions about argumentation theory. The core concept of argumentation theory is the notion of advocacy. In most cases, at least one side in a debate needs to maintain the truth of some proposition or advocate some sort of personal or political change or action. A debate could also potentially be between two or more competing propositions or actions. Or debate could also be a purely performative exercise of charisma and emotion with no assumption of fixed advocacy, but it would possibly lose much of its coherence and educational tour.