Debate details

The last few weeks of the course will involve pairs of students debating policy questions with ethical implications; in each case the student will be arguing the opposite side of the same policy question they wrote their midterm paper on. Debate performance (see rubric below) will constitute 20% of the course grade.

The debates will be structured in modern “Lincoln-Douglas” format. We will cover (and practice) this format in detail before you’re expected to present, but in short, it lays out the debate in alternating turns for the two debaters, with specific time limits on each part that guarantees each debater has the same amount of time to make their case.

The format

In a Lincoln-Douglas debate, the opponents alternate speeches supporting (“affirming”) or opposing (“negating”) a proposed rule or policy. The affir- mative speaker speaks three times. The negative speaker speaks twice. The timing structure is as follows:

First affirmative constructive speech (1AC): 6 minutes

The affirmative speaker lays out their case for the proposal.

Cross-Examination: up to 2 minutes

The negative speaker asks questions about the case.

First negative constructive speech (1NC): 7 minutes

The negative speaker argues against the points made in the first affirmative constructive and describes possible disadvantages of the plan.

Cross-Examination: up to 2 minutes

The affirmative speaker asks questions about their opponent’s arguments.

First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR): 4 minutes

The affirmative speaker responds (very quickly) to all of the negative speaker’s points.

First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): 6 minutes

The negative speaker replies to the points made in the 1AR.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): 3 minutes

The affirmative speaker (very, very quickly) summarizes their points and tells why they should win.

Preparation Time: up to 2 minutes each

In between speeches, the speakers can use “prep time” to look through their evidence and decide what to say. Each speaker gets a total of 5 minutes of preparation time to use through the debate.

Summary: Each person gets 13 minutes to talk, plus 2 minutes of cross-examination, plus 2 minutes to prep. That’s 17 minutes each or 34 minutes total.

The parts

Some details about each section of the debate.

Constructive Speeches

In the constructive speeches, you give your thesis and some context, identify your main points, and provide some support for those points. Elements (for both the affirmative and negative) include:

• Thesis. What is the specific rule or policy you’re recommending?
• Context. Why would anyone care? Provide any required background on who/what the rule would affect or what policy it would be replacing.
• Main arguments. What are the reasons your policy should be adopted? There will probably be on the order of 3–6 core reasons, which may have various supports or sub-arguments as appropriate. For this as- signment, at least one of the core arguments should relate to a moral/ethical judgement and/or characteristics of good citizenship; another should delve in some way into technical background. It should be clear what the core arguments are (as opposed to the support), and at least some of the support should be cited facts that you researched yourself.

The main difference for the negative constructive is that some of their main points can be phrased to more explicitly be in opposition to the affirmative’s main points; but there will also be time for that in the rebuttals later.

Cross-examination

The cross-examination is the only part of the debate format where the de- baters directly address and respond to each other in a back-and-forth way. Its purpose is not to being rebutting the arguments, but to clarify them. Examples of useful question types include:

• Asking for clarification on a point you didn’t understand
• Asking if there are numbers to back up a particular point
• Asking a question that you think will cause them to contradict them- selves
• Asking how their argument would apply in a specific case you have in mind

Both the questions and the answers should be relatively short (don’t stretch them to fill time, or to stall). You are not required to take the entire time available for cross-examination.

Rebuttals

Rebuttals are your chance to take apart your opponent’s arguments. If you begin by assuming that each of your opponent’s main points was moderately persuasive to the audience, your job in rebutting that point is to make it less persuasive. That could be because their support was factually incorrect (especially if you can cite evidence to that effect); or because their proposal affects a larger or smaller group of stakeholders than they claim; or because there is some important mitigating circumstance they haven’t mentioned; or because their proposal causes some important harm they’ve not mentioned; or anything else along those lines.

Simply saying “no it isn’t” is not a sufficient rebuttal (Monty Python notwithstanding).

The end of your final rebuttal (1NR, 2AR) should end with a conclusion summing up your main points (especially if they were not successfully rebutted by your opponent).

Preparation time and flowing

You should be taking notes while your opponent is speaking, so you know what you’re going to have to respond to. One way to do that is to turn a sheet of paper sideways and draw five columns—one for each speech—which can help you line up point with point with rebuttal.

Whether or not you use that format to take notes, a good way to use your prep time is to put your planned arguments in order to most effectively respond to what your opponent has just said.

Rubric

The scoring for the debate is not based on who “wins”. In each category below (except “strikes”), there are requirements for checking the box, and then you get the points associated with the box. In some cases there is also a designated “check minus” for half credit. Especially good performance on a rubric item gets a “check plus”, which carries no extra credit for that item, but see the last line.

Constructive (18):

• Thesis and context 2/1/0
  • ✓: Clearly state the policy being advocated and why we might care: What is the relevance of this policy? What is the background? What policy does it replace? This should be brief but is important. Required for both affirmative and negative!
  • ✓−: State thesis without context, or give rambly introduction without identifying actual thesis
• Main points 6/3/0
  • ✓: Present a number of substantive arguments in support of your thesis.
  • ✓−: Present some arguments, but more as a disconnected "and then, and then, and then" laundry list of items
• Clearly delineated main points 2/0
  • ✓: Make it so the audience (and opponent) can clearly identify which are core arguments (vs support) and how many there are. The easiest way to get this is to explicitly number them (“My third argument is...”), but if you do that, do try to incorporate it in a way that isn’t choppy or abrupt. You can also clearly delineate with good use of pauses, body language, or other phrasing cues.
• Argument based on ethics and/or citizenship 4/2/0
  • ✓: At least one of your arguments should be a moral/ethical claim supported with one of the frameworks we’ve discussed, and/or a claim about good citizenship and the rights and obligations pertaining thereto.
  • ✓−: Attempted ethics/citizenship argument but without actually backing up the claim.
• Technical background info 2/0
  • ✓: In at least one of the main points, make use of some technical information. “Technical” is very broad here, and could come from computer science, but also could be legal or economic or psychological or some other thing. Probably this is something that you need to explain to the audience.
• Cited facts 2/0
  • ✓: You should use cited facts to support at least some of your arguments. You can verbally make the citation simply (e.g. “According to an article in The Atlantic, ...”), but that should be clearly listed in the citation list you post after the debate. (Otherwise you’ll lose this point later.)

Rebuttals (8):

• Valid rebuttals 4/2/0
  • ✓: Respond to all or nearly all of the opponent’s main points in a valid way (that makes them less persuasive to the audience).
  • ✓−: Mention and address most of the opponent’s main points and respond to at least some of them in a valid way (that makes them less persuasive to the audience).
• Clearly identified rebuttals 2/1/0
  • ✓: In all your rebuttals, clearly identify which of the opponent’s main points it is a response to. For instance: “As for [point], ...” or “My opponent said [point], but actually, ...”.
  • ✓−: Clearly ID some of the rebuttals
• State conclusion 2/1/0
  • ✓: In the last part of your rebuttal (1NR, 2AR), give a very brief summary reminding us of your main points (and especially if they went unrebutted) and what your thesis claim was. 20–30 seconds should be plenty for this.
  • ✓−: At the end of your last rebuttal, remind us what your thesis claim was.

Strikes (i.e. things not to do!):

Throughout all your speeches—constructive and rebuttal as well as the cross-examination answers—I expect your statements to be correct. If you say something that’s not true, or misrepresent an argument from an outside source, I’ll mark that as a strike, which is −1 on the rubric.

Relevance is also an issue for the rebuttals (and to some extent the cross-examination questions). If you rebut a point that your opponent didn’t even make (even if you were expecting them to!), that’s jarring for the audience and doesn’t really support your claim, so that’s also a strike. (If you worry this will cause you to miss some important support for your side, you should try phrasing it as a core argument, not waiting to make it as a rebuttal!)

Presentation/speaking skills (14):

• Prepared and on-task 2/0
  • ✓: Show up on time and be ready to argue your debate. (This should be a pretty easy 2 points!)
• Confident and fluent 2/0
  • ✓: Speak comfortably, confidently, fluidly, comprehensibly throughout the debate. Avoid too many “um”s and “uh”s (some are normal and natural, but don’t overdo it), or long pauses, or speaking too quickly.
• Good notes, no reading 4/2/0
  • ✓: Speak from notes (or memory, but probably notes), without simply reading them from the page. It’s a good idea to develop the constructive as a speech—even the 1NR should be able to prepare mostly in advance—but you should be able to deliver it without reading it word-for-word from the page. The rebuttals can also largely be planned in advance (if you have some idea what your opponent will argue) and save the prep time for rearranging your rebuttal plan. It’s perfectly okay (and good!) to refer to the page to make sure you aren’t missing any of your points, or to get a cited fact or quote exactly right.
• Time management (constructive) 2/1/0
  • ✓: You know in advance how much time you have and should plan what you have to say to fit that time fairly closely. Cleanly finish what you plan to say with 0–30 seconds remaining. Finishing the last few words of a sentence as time expires is also fine.
  • ✓−: Run short (30-60 seconds left) or require cutoff when time runs out.
• Time management (rebuttal(s)) 2/1/0
  • ✓ Affirmative: On both rebuttals, finish with 0–20 seconds remaining.
  • ✓− Affirmative: On both rebuttals, finish with 20–40 seconds remaining, or 40–60 seconds on one and on time on the other.
  • ✓ Negative: Finish with 0–30 seconds remaining.
  • ✓− Negative: Finish with 30–60 seconds remaining or require cutoff.
• At least one ✓+ 2/0
  • ✓: While getting a ✓+ in the other categories does not give you extra points in those categories, getting at least one of them somewhere gets you this point. A non-exhaustive list of ways to get ✓+s includes: a really clean list of main points; a particularly comprehensive list of main points; identifying an especially weak point (or an incorrect one) and rebutting it well; a well-developed ethical argument; a well- researched technical element.

What happens if my opponent doesn't show up? In general, the debate will run even if only one of the debaters is in attendance. If only one of the scheduled debaters is present, they will debate against me. If there is time in the schedule I might reschedule the debate instead, but don't assume in advance that I will do so.

Don Blaheta / blahetadp@blahedo.org