Waterloo Engineering Competition

SFF Debates

Guidelines for Debaters

The essence of debate is wit, in both the analytical and humourous senses of the word, and the best debate will involve a combination of both senses.Underlying the exercise of wit there must be a clash of ideas:a good debater should have the insight and creative talent to exploit every opportunity to make a telling point against the opponent, either by exposing a weakness in his/her argument, or by a humourous rejoinder that makes him or her seem ridiculous, dull or irrelevant.

1.The Purpose of Debating

Debate is the presentation of ideas in conflict.It is the method through which decisions are made in any democratic organization, whether it is a family household or the House of Commons.Debate is essential in life; the only alternatives are passive acceptance of decisions or the violent overthrow of the decision-makers.Both alternatives to debate are clearly unacceptable to civilized societies.The rules of debate vary from place to place; however, the essential basis of debating remains unchanged:each participant is given equal time and is expected to explain the advantages of his or her own point of view, and to show the flaws in the opponent's point of view.There is no mystery; it is merely a common-sense method of observing both sides of a dispute so that a reasonable choice can be made.As participants become more skilled, the interjection of humour is almost unavoidable.The result is a very enjoyable and useful form of entertainment.

2.Types of Debate

Below are two types of debates.The second (off-topic) has been recently instituted and debating should lean to this more "progressive" style.

(a)Traditional (on topic):With this type of debate, the debaters know the resolution, their position (affirmative or negative) and the general definition of the resolution, well in advance of the debate itself (typically 24-72 hours).This permits a thorough preparation of arguments, but excessive "boning up" is generally counter-productive and is to be discouraged.

(b)Off-Topic:In this case, the resolution itself is determined 5-10 minutes before the debate by a random selection (out of a "hat") by a neutral individual from a set (10-15) of possible topics.The set is published in advance and the debaters must be prepared to debate any one of them.Moreover, the side taken (affirmative or negative) is only then decided by a flip of a coin, after which the debaters are given 5-10 minutes to prepare their arguments.Then the debate begins.

Clearly, the traditional type of debate emphasizes thorough preparation, content and logic, although wit, spontaneous or otherwise, would still be rewarded.The focus of off-topic debating is on quickness or wit in its logical and comic aspects.

3.Preparing for a Debate

Preparation for a debate requires simply listing the arguments to be presented.The amount of preparation time available will determine how extensive this may be.In the SFF Debates, the time allowed will be brief, to avoid distracting students from their engineering studies.(In more leisurely debates, time for extensive research may be permitted.)It is expected that a short 'brain-storming' session should generate sufficient arguments.The list should be shortened by picking only the (3 to 6) key ideas which offer the best arguments.The debate then consists mainly of stating these ideas and the reasons (or evidence) that support them.For example, if the resolution were:"that engineering graduates of the University of Waterloo should be admitted to the PEO after only one year's experience", then the affirmative would probably plan to present a case as follows:

Definition:ensure that everyone knows what the PEO is and that we are talking only about engineering graduates.

Argument 1:The PEO requirement is based on the need for practical experience and UW graduates receive this experience on their co-op work terms ... (emphasize practical value).

Argument 2:The PEO requirement may also be based on the need for maturity which the extra year gives.However, UW co-op graduates require an extra year to graduate than other universities without coop ... (explain further).

Argument 3:The PEO requirement may also be based on the need for students to be familiar with Canadian business practices and procedures, such as hiring, firing, administration.Again, the UW co-op student has much more direct experience during his six work terms than other students not in the co-op scheme (illustrate with example).

Conclusion:In conclusion, the arguments which I have presented clearly show why the resolution should be adopted in the very near future ... (be modest).

4.Refuting your Opponent's Arguments

It is the duty of both sides to refute the arguments of their opponents; however, it is particularly important for the negative side.The negative must refute arguments by showing that they are illogical or fallacious, or by offering a counter-argument.For example, in the resolution used as an illustration above, the negative could argue that it is incorrect to assume that a student on a work term is receiving the same sort of experience as a graduate who, presumably, would be at a much higher and more responsible level in the company.This would be refutation by showing that the logic in the affirmative argument is faulty.There are many common errors in logic explained in the texts listed in the reference below.

On the other hand, the negative could agree with the affirmative arguments, but offer a different conclusion.This is called "presenting a counter-case".In the above example, the negative could agree that two year's experience is excessive for PEO membership, but that the time should be shortened to six months (not one year).This may be dangerous since the negative must now prove why six months is preferable to one year.If they can prove, with reasonable arguments, that six months is a logical time period, then they have won the debate, even though they agreed with part of the resolution and probably used affirmative arguments to do it.

Note that you must be consistent; if you present a counter-case, you can't abandon it later.Similarly, it is considered sporting to introduce the counter-case early in the debate so that the affirmative has some time to respond.

5.Style

The purpose of debating is to convince others of your point of view.Anything which improves communication of your point of view is acceptable; anything which detracts is discouraged.For example, a calm, clear voice is sufficient to convey ideas.Mannerisms, nervous movement, eccentric clothing or grossly exaggerated gesturing may tend to distract people.A good aid in conveying ideas and convincing people is the use of humour and wit.The creation of an emotional response will require a different tone of voice, gestures, etc.

Each debater should search for an individual style which best exploits his or her abilities.Often, each member of a debating team will try to develop different, but complementary styles.

Witty and pertinent heckling by the debaters is encouraged and rewarded, since heckling is an honourable contribution which livens the proceedings.Ideally, heckling should be brief and devastating; it should never degenerate into a lengthy monologue and if it does the heckler should be penalized.Quick and effective responses to heckling should also be rewarded.

6.The Resolution

Within the general definition agreed to, there will still be details that require further definition.It is the duty of the affirmative to define these in their first speech.In so doing, the affirmative must present the definitions in such a way that there is a clearly debatable resolution.In particular, the affirmative must not define terms that make the resolution into a truism (trivially or obviously true), or into a tautological statement (true by definition).

If the negative should disagree with the resolution as defined by the affirmative, then there are two possibilities.The first is that the negative feel that the affirmative have violated the general definition as agreed.In this case, they should simply point this out to the judges (who will have a copy of the original agreement) and continue with the debate, as originally agreed.

The second possibility is the incorrect definition of a term by the affirmative (and sometimes by the negative) in such a way that it yields a benefit, even though it does not make the resolution undebatable or violate the agreed definition.In this case, the opposing team must point out the incorrect definition and substitute the correct definition.This exchange will be evaluated by the judges, and no intervention by the chairman is required.

7.Duties of the Chair

When the debate begins, the debaters must be seated in the correct order (for the benefit of the judges).The chair enforces the time limits.He or she will respond to "points of order", but these are expected to be very rare.Only if a team exceeds the time limit would the chair normally intervene.Otherwise, he or she runs the risk of becoming involved in the debate.The best chair is the one whose presence is barely observed because of the smoothness of the proceedings.The chair will also respond to "points of privilege" which may arise if a participant should become personally abusive.This is expected to be very rare; in parliamentary procedures, a participant may be called almost anything -- except a liar.

8.Duties of the Judges

The judges must follow the debate closely.They must analyze the content, logic, refutation and personal style of the participants and judge the team which is the most convincing.They must not let their prior ideas, knowledge or prejudices influence their decision; it must be based totally on the arguments presented by the debaters.In order to assist in judging, the attached sheet should be used. The headings on the sheet are explained below.

9.Criteria for Judging Debates

Content/Refutation

Here the judge must decide if the given arguments, the content, and the delivery is sufficient to prove the affirmative's case, and if the affirmative has adequately rebutted the negative's attack on its case.Conversely, the judge must determine whether the negative's rebuttal is sufficient to refute the affirmative's case.Obviously, the affirmative's scoring should be more heavily weighted toward content, and the negative's scoring toward rebuttal, as can be seen on the evaluation sheet.

Analysis/Organization

Analysis consists of picking out and developing the important issues and sub-issues of the particularly proposition.The affirmative must analyze precisely what has to be proved to establish their case.The negative must also demonstrate a similar understanding, and will assert that the affirmative arguments are insufficient (to establish the case), inconsistent, or poorly substantiated.

The debater’s cases should be organized around the main issues and should create the impression of being a logical and coherent whole.A well-organized speech (especially from the negative) should always be rewarded.Speeches should not consist of disconnected, random arguments or attacks, but should be organized at least within a general framework.

Logic

This involves arriving at a logical conclusion based on the knowledge and evidence given.The conclusion should be imaginative and well thought out.Here the judge must consider whether or not the relationship between evidence and conclusion is sound, or whether or not the conclusion is justified by the evidence, and whether or not the conclusion is significant and relevant to the overall case.

Persuasiveness/Ingenuity

This is a subjective criterion which must be largely evaluated on the basis of personal impression.Does the debater appear to be "on his toes" trying to get a point across or is s/he merely presenting evidence or argument is a passive or mechanical manner?How ingenious is the affirmative/negative case?Were the arguments familiar or original?Equally important, did you find the arguments convincing?Is the speech inspired?

Delivery

The debater’s speech should be clear, precise and grammatically correct.Posture, voice inflections, force, rate of speaking, facial expression, hand and arm gestures, audience contact and general attitude should be considered.Obviously, the most forceful speech will elicit a variety of humourous, persuasive and emotive responses, and voice should effectively communicate these moods.Debaters should be penalized for discourtesy and objectionable clichés or verbal pauses.

10.Notes for Judges

1.The team with the highest point total must win.If necessary, you may adjust your point totals to reflect your decision as to the winning team.

2.In awarding points or deciding who has won the debate, please do not confer with your fellow judges.We are interested in your individual assessment of the debater’s performance.

3.Debaters are sometimes forced by the circumstances of the debate to defend statements that they do not believe.Try not to let your own opinions or personal feelings towards the debaters interfere with your judgment of the debate.

4.Do not be afraid to award perfect or high scores in one or several of the categories.Full or high marks indicate an exceptional or exemplary performance, not metaphysical perfection.Remember, you are judging students, not seasoned orators.

You may find the following guide helpful in awarding points:

Out of 20 / Out of 15 / Out of 10 / Out of 5
Excellent / 18-20 / 13-15 / 9-10 / 5
Good / 14-16 / 10-12 / 7-8 / 4
Fair / 6-8 / 4-6 / 3-4 / 2
Poor* / 2-4 / 1-3 / 1-2 / 1

*These scores should not be awarded unless the debater is thoroughly incomprehensible. Zero should not be awarded as a mark unless the debater refuses to speak at all.

Acknowledgements

This summary has been prepared by Gordon Andrews using contributions from John Shortreed and written material from the McGill Debating Union, the Western Debating Union and the Royal Military College.

This document was edited in some minor details in May 2009 by Chris Togeretz, WEC