The Team
Roster
Executive Board
Minutes
History
Constitution

Awards
Speaker Awards
Team Awards

Propaganda
Open Letter
Why Debate?
Propaganda Posters
Press

More Information
Nationals 2004
Debate Guide
Schedule
Movies
Links

The following guide to debate was written by Jeremy Schifeling '03, the Peaslee secretary in September 2001. Novice training for that year was run by Phil Hoefs '02 and Allan Friedman '02.

Speeches
Monday night, we resumed our study of the mechanics of debate, looking specifically into the format of the speeches. To summarize briefly (is it possible to summarize longly? Is "longly" even a word? But I digress...), here is the order of speeches, their lengths, and the pertinent content each should contain:

Prime Minister Constructive - 7 minutes
1) Thanks to judge, opposition, and partner (all speeches usually begin with this appreciative opening typically).
2) Link from given resolution to case statement.
3) Give any relevant background info.
4) Provide points (around 3-5) and sub-points.

Leader of Opposition Constructive - 8 minutes
1) Provide Opposition Philosophy (optional).
2) Lodge complaints about "spec knowledge" or "tightness" of the Gov case.
3) Take control of the round's language. Make assumptions where Gov failed to provide specific info.
4) Posit Opp independent points.
5) Rebut PM's points.

Member of Government Constructive - 8 minutes
1) Reconstruct Gov Philosophy/Regain control of language.
2) Put forth new GOV point(s), if any.
3) Answer LO's independent points.
4) Re-establish PM's original points.

Member of Opposition Constructive - 8 minutes
1) Renew Opp Philosophy.
2) Add Ind. Point (no more than 1!).
3) Counter MG's points.
4) Emphasize LO's points.
5) "Hit" PM's points.
6) Place Gov burdens.

Leader of Opposition Rebuttal - 4 minutes
1) Crystallize round with dichotomies, unmet burdens, etc.
2) Conclude.

Prime Minister Rebuttal - 5 minutes
1) Rebut MO's point, if any.
2) Crystallize (see above).
3) Conclude.

Similar summaries of the format can be found in your Guide to Debate, so please reference that for more information. By the way, a small Amazonian rain forest was clear-cut to make those guides, so show respect to the thousands of species that were exterminated by becoming a better debater...

WARNING: CASE CONSTRUCTION ZONE

We spent the majority of the evening discussing the Do's and Don't Do's of case construction. There are basically 5 types of cases that should not be run (and should certainly be pointed out to the judge if you are the Opposition team):

1) Spec Knowledge - The case hinges on technical knowledge of the subject that the average well-read college student could not be expected to bring into the round. If you are GOV and want to run an esoteric case, be prepared to provide plenty of background info! Ex: "Latvia should raise their prime rate by 2.5%"

2) Tight - The case leaves little room for the Opposition to argue against. This is usually accomplished by conditionalizing the situation to the point that there are few OPP points available. If OPP, you must still argue the case, even if you label it "Tight." Ex: "The government should do its best to insure the happiness of its citizens."

3) Tautology - A case statement that is essentially true and unarguable - an extreme extension of a tight case. Watch out for collapsing tautologies, where the case seems to be open initially, but becomes increasingly tight as the GOV presents more conditions later in the round that snuff out potential OPP argumentation. Ex: "Blue is a color."

4) Low-Impact - A case without any great significance, and therefore, it is usually very difficult to argue against. Ex: "Shoes should all have velcro, and not laces." (This is actually my case!)

5) Status Quo - A case whose statement is currently true. There are certain exceptions to this rule, including when the issue is uncertain enough to have sufficient argumentation on both sides ("The government should not build a missile defense shield."). However, status quo cases are definitely not acceptable in historic situations. Ex: "You are Thomas Jefferson. Buy the Louisiana Territories."

Here are some special kind of cases you can run:

1) Time-Space - This case places the judge in the role of a historic/fictional/hypothetic character, asking them to rule over two possible courses of action. If there is an existing precedent to the case (AKA, not a hypothetical situation), you must run an alternate option as the Government (see Status Quo above).

2) Opp-Choice - The GOV presents a scenario and allows the OPP to choose from two possible perspectives on that statement. The OPP must select a position within 10 seconds of the offer. This is generally the only way a GOV team can run a true status quo case (i.e., OPP chooses to attack the status quo).

Creating cases is not particularly difficult, if you know what to look for. In general, you want a case that veers away from any of the 5 Bad Case Criteria listed above, as well as one that is open for argumentation on both sides of the house. While you should never have a tight case, neither should you choose a case that puts the GOV at a distinct loss by virtue of its undesirable, hard-to-defend proposal (sometimes called "OPP-tight").

There are numerous sources of good debate topics. These include personal favorite issues, classes, books, TV shows, movies, newspapers - anything involving a change with both pros and cons. If you need more help, try consulting some of the following websites.

Finally, debate etiquette maintains that you not run cases used by other teams on the debate circuit, unless they are "stock" cases, with general topics that have already been debated endlessly in the public arena (i.e., Missile Defense Shield, Globalization, etc.). You can examine a short list of cases from other schools on the Peaslee Website.

Here are Phil's major suggestions/observations after this past weekend's In-House Tournament:

1) Be sure to talk directly to the judge. There is no way you're going to convince the other team (and certainly not an inanimate object, such as the lectern), so maintain eye-contact with your judge at all times.

2) Points of Information should be verbally labeled as such when you rise on them (i.e., Don't just stand up and wait). However, you may not begin your point until the speaker acknowledges you and allows your statement.

3) Organization of Speeches - Make sure that you always hit points from different speeches in reverse-order of how they were delivered. For example, if you are the Member of Opposition, you should answer the MG's points, then touch on the LO's, and finally hit those set forth by the PM.

4) Case Construction- Cases needn't always be deadly serious. Nevertheless, even a funny case has to have substantive, rational analysis to have any chance of winning. As such, prepare your cases with great caution and much thought. Additionally, as a general rule, the more specific a case, the less messy it will get. Therefore, instead of just proposing a general "should/should not" statement, try a time-space case with a specific context. This will focus the case and perhaps remove the murky moral element from the round.

5) You're doing great - keep it up! And even if you didn't do as well as you had hoped at In-House, you will no doubt improve if you stick with debate. As Phil spoke of, in his personal rags-to-riches story, he sucked at his In-House and is now the President of the team, so continue to attend meetings, participate in practice rounds, and work on your cases, and you'll be on your way!

AND AT LONG LAST...

After weeks of suspenseful waiting, the Debate High Command has finally deemed you worthy of knowledge of the FIVE DEADLY OPPS. Possession of these lethal opposition arguments is criminally prosecutable in 43 states and territitories (yes, including Guam, so don't even try it!), and as such, they should be wielded with great caution: like in every case you hit. Actually, don't feel obligated to use any of them, but keep them in mind for rounds where you need extra OPP points or feel they are applicable. That said, THE FIVE DEADLY OPPS, in a very particular order that even I am unaware of:

1) The GOV plan costs too much and the money/resources can be used better elsewhere.

2) Slippery Slope / Snowball Effect. The initial statement, while perhaps initially acceptable, will lead to further ramifications that cannot be tolerated.

3) There are better alternatives with fewer harms. This is not necessarily a full-fledged "counter-case" (See Guide to Debate), as it could just be a lisiting of alternate solutions that are more palatable than the GOV's proposal.

4) Not practical. This proposal, while possibly desireable, just can't be accomplished reasonably.

5) Doesn't solve the underlying problem. Yes, the problem exists and needs to be resolved. However, GOV's proposal does nothing to fix that problem.

And a special message from John Dolan '01:

These are so not the five deadly opps. you tell allan is sub-par leadership is making baby jesus die. ...

4) ****It violates ethical law X.***

5) Doesn't solve the underlying problem. Yes, the problem exists and needs to be resolved. However, GOV's proposal does nothing to fix that problem. ***In fact, this band-aid solution might impede real change***.