Formal Debates
It would be nice if all arguments ended with everyone, participants and spectators, agreeing that the facts are clear, that one presentation is more reasonable than the other, and therefore that one side is right and the other side is wrong. But in life, most issues are complicated. High school students may earnestly debate — this is a real topic in a national debate —
415
Resolved: That education has failed its mission in the United States,
but it takes only a moment of reflection to see that neither the affirmative nor the negative can be true. Yes, education has failed its mission in many ways, but, No, it has succeeded in many ways. Its job now is (in the words of Samuel Beckett) to try again: “Fail. Fail again. Fail better.”
Debates of this sort, conducted before a judge and guided by strict rules concerning “Constructive Speeches,” “Rebuttal Speeches,” and “Cross-Examinations” are not attempts to get at the truth; like lawsuits, they are attempts to win a case. Each speaker seeks not to persuade the opponent but only to convince the judge. Although most of this section is devoted not to forensics in the strictest sense but more generally to the presentation of oral arguments, we begin with the standard format.
STANDARD DEBATE FORMAT
Formal debates occur within a structure that governs the number of speeches, their order, and the maximum time for each one. The format may vary from place to place, but there is always a structure. In most debates, a formal resolution states the reason for the debate (“Resolved: That capital punishment be abolished in juvenile cases”). The affirmative team supports the resolution; the negative team denies its legitimacy. The basic structure has three parts:
The constructive phase, in which the debaters construct their cases and develop their arguments (usually for ten minutes).
The rebuttal, in which debaters present their responses and also present their final summary (usually for five minutes).
The preparation, in which the debater prepares for presenting the next speech. (During the preparation — a sort of time-out — the debater is not addressing the opponent or audience. The total time allotted to a team is usually six or eight minutes, which the individual debaters divide as they wish.)
We give, very briefly, the usual structure of each part, though we should mention that another common format calls for a cross-examination of the First Affirmative Construction by the Second Negative, a cross-examination of the First Negative Construction by the First Affirmative, a cross-examination of the Second Affirmative by the First Negative, and a cross-examination of the Second Negative by the Second Affirmative:
416
A CHECKLIST FOR PREPARING FOR A DEBATE
Have I done adequate preparation in my research?
Are my notes legible, with accurate quotations and credible sources?
Am I prepared to take good notes during the debate?
Is my proposition clearly stated?
Do I have adequate evidence to support the thesis (main point)?
Do I have backup points in mind?
Have I given thought to issues my opponents might raise?
Does the opening properly address the instructor, the audience, the opponents? (Remember, you are addressing an audience, not merely the opponents.)
Are my visual aids focused on major points?
Is my demeanor professional, and is my dress appropriate?
First Affirmative Constructive Speech: Serves as introduction, giving summary overview, definitions, criteria for resolution, major claims and evidence, statement, and intention to support the resolution.
First Negative Constructive Speech: Responds by introducing the basic position, challenges the definitions and criteria, suggests the line of attack, emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative, rejects the resolution as unnecessary or dangerous, and supports the status quo.
Second Affirmative Constructive: Rebuilds the affirmative case; refutes chief attacks, especially concerning definitions, criteria, and rationale (philosophic framework); and further develops the affirmative case.
Second Negative Constructive: Completes the negative case, if possible advances it by rebuilding portions of the first negative construction, and contrasts the entire negative case with the entire affirmative case.
First Negative Rebuttal: Attacks the opponents’ arguments and defends the negative constructive arguments (but a rebuttal may not introduce new constructive arguments).
First Affirmative Rebuttal: Usually responds first to the second negative construction and then to the first negative rebuttal.
Second Negative Rebuttal: Constitutes final speech for the negative, summarizing the case and explaining to the judge why the negative should be declared the winner.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal: Summarizes the debate, responds to issues pressed by the second negative rebuttal, and suggests to the judge that the affirmative team should win.