Bahan-bahan

Tujuh lembar daun sirih, satu genggam daun cemara, dan satu jari kunyit.

Cara membuat

Kunyit dikupas, dicuci, lalu diparut. Bahan-bahan lain dicuci bersih, lalu direbus bersama parutan kunyit. Air yang digunakan sebanyak sepuluh gelas air. Bahan-bahan tersebut dididihkan hingga air rebusan tersisa sekitar delapan gelas. Air rebusan tersebut dituangkan ke dalam panci.

Cara memakai

Kepala penderita diselubungi dengan handuk. Kepala ditempatkan tepat di atas panci, lalu uapnya dihirup. Lakukan pengobatan ini dua kali sehari pada pagi dan sore hari sampai penyakitnya benar-benar hilang.

Produk herbal guna mengobati Polip hidung secara alami:

1. Anfi

2. THM

3. Kapsul Srigunggu

DEBATERS

I.                             Debating in General

Ok, let’s start from the beginning. What is debating?

And why do people debate?

Debating is a clash of arguments. For every issue, there are always different sides of a story: why people support or disagree with that certain issue. Debating seeks to explore the reasons behind each side. To make those reasons understandable and convincing, debaters should deliver their arguments with good communication skills.

Competitive debating is debating using a specific format. With formats, people are regulated to speak one at a time and each side is given the same amount of time and opportunity to prove their point. This format rules out the possibility of who-speaks-loudest-or-fastest shall win the debate. It encourages people not only to speak out but also to listen to the other side. There are many formats of debates: Karl Popper format, British Parliamentary format, Australasian Format, World Schools format, etc.

People debate for a number of reasons: to convince other people that his/her opinion is better, to listen to what other people think of an issue, to find which solution is the best for a problem, etc. Since competitive debating aims to convince judges that a team’s argument is superior, it gives opportunities to use analytical-critical thinking and public speaking skills to the fullest, skills which are very useful in everyday life.

But remember, debating is not a discussion. After each debate there is no compromised result as in a discussion. The point of having a debate is to speak out and listen to different kinds of opinions and at the end respecting those differences.             

So, competitive debating is debating using a format. What format does Indonesians use? How does it work?

The Indonesian Schools Debating Championships uses the World Schools format. This format work as follows:

1.     There are 2 teams debating, each consists of 3 (three) debaters who would be 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd speakers of the team.

2.     One team shall be the Government/Affirmative side – the side agreeing with the motion, the other team shall be the Opposition/Negative side – the side disagreeing with the motion.

3.     Each speaker will deliver a substantial speech of 8 (eight) minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1^st or 2^nd speaker on both sides will deliver the reply speeches of 4 (four) minutes in duration, with the negative going first.

4.     Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:  

1^st Aff à 1^st Neg à 2^nd Aff à 2^nd Neg à 3^rd Aff à 3^rd Neg à Reply Neg à Reply Aff

 

AFFIRMATIVE TEAM                                                          NEGATIVE TEAM

1^st speaker                                                                          1^st speaker

                                           (8 min)                                                           (8 min)          

2^nd speaker                                                                         2^nd speaker

                                                         (8 min)                                                                                (8 min)

3^rd speaker                                                                          3^rd speaker

                                           (8 min)                                                           (8 min)

 

Reply speaker                                                                     Reply speaker

                (1^st/2^nd speaker – 4 min)                                                        (1^st/2^nd speaker – 4 min) 

5.     In a substantive speech, members of the opposing team are allowed to give an interruption, called Points of Information (POI), to the speaker delivering the speech. POIs may be delivered between the 1^st and 7^th minute of the 8-minute-speech.

 

minutes   0           1^st         2^nd        3^rd         4^th         5^th         6^th         7^th        8^th           

                POI not allowed                         POIs allowed                        POI not allowed

No POIs are allowed in a reply speech.

The speaker has full authority to accept or reject a POI.

6.     A time keeper shall signal the time. There will be one knock at the end of the 1^st and 7^th minutes, to signal the starting and ending times for POI. And two knocks at the 8^th minute to signal that delivery time for the speech has ended. Any debater speaking before 7 minutes shall be considered under-time and his/her points could be reduced. Any debater speaking after 8 minutes 30 seconds shall be considered overtime and his/her points could be reduced as well.

7.     For reply speeches, there will be one knock at the 3^rd minute, to signal that delivery time is almost over, and two knocks at the 4^th minute.

8.     Every debate shall be judged by an odd number of judges and only the judges shall decide who wins the debate (there is no draw in the result of a debate).

9.     In Indonesians, every team is given 30 minutes preparation time after the motion is released and before the debate begins. During this preparation time, teams are not allowed to get help from anybody (be it coaches, teachers, parents or friends) or use laptops, PDAs, or any other communication devices.

Huh? Motion? Definition? Argument? Rebuttal? POI?

What are those?

Ø  MOTION

Motions, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate, the Government/Affirmative team must argue to defend the motion while the Opposition/Negative team must argue to oppose it.

Here are some examples of motions used in various international and national debate tournaments:

-          That religious lesson should not be taught in school

-          That gambling of all forms should be made illegal

-          That politicians should only be allowed to serve in office for a limited period of time

-          That professionalism has ruined the Olympic Games

-          This house disapproves of cloning

-          This house supports the use of the death penalty

-          That national security concerns justify the restriction of civil liberties

-          That governments should never restrict freedom of speech

-          This house supports General Election in Iraq

-          This house regrets the influence of Hollywood

-          This house would legalize performance-enhancing drugs

-          This house would ban surrogate motherhood

-          That the cost of Mars exploration is justified

As you can see, motions in a debating competition cover various areas: politics, economy and social issues.

Ø  DEFINITION

For a debate to proceed, both teams need a clear understanding of what the motion means. This requires the motion to be ‘defined’ so that everyone (audience and judges included) knows what is being debated. Problems arise if the two teams present different understandings of the meaning of the motion. This can result in a ‘definitional debate’, where the focus of the debate becomes the meaning of the words in the motion, rather than the motion itself. Interaction and clash between the two teams become concentrated on whose definition is correct, rather than the issues raised by the motion. Definition debates should be avoided wherever possible. They make a mockery of what debating seeks to achieve. 

A definition scopes down or gives limitations on the motion to focus the debate. It clarifies the motion. It prevents the debate from turning into a confusing exchange of ideas because of different interpretations teams may have about what is actually being debated. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues talked about in the debate. A definition must have a logical link to the motion.

The right to give a definition belongs to the Government/Affirmative team.  The affirmative team must provide a reasonable definition for the motion. This means:

1.     On receiving the motion, both teams should ask: “What is the issue that the two teams are expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person think the motion is about?”

2.     If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (it has an obvious meaning), the Government/Affirmative team must define the motion accordingly. When the motion has an obvious meaning (one which the ordinary person would realize), any other definition would not be reasonable.

3.     If there is no obvious meaning to the motion, the range of possible meaning is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate. Choosing the meaning that does not allow the opposition a room for debate would not be a reasonable debate.

4.     When defining the words in the motion so as (i) to allow the obvious meaning to be debated or (ii) (when there is no obvious meaning) to give effect to possible meaning which would allow for a reasonable debate, the affirmative must ensure that the definition is one the ordinary intelligent person would accept.

5.     in making a reasonable definition, sometimes parameters, models, or criteria is needed. when suggesting parameters to the debate, or proposing particular models or criteria to judge it by, the Proposition must ensure such parameters, models, or criteria are themselves reasonable. They must be ones that the ordinary intelligent person would accept as applicable to the debate.

 

Here are some examples of definitions that allow for a reasonable debate:

Motion: That quota is not the answer for women

Definition:

-     Quota       = putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in the parliament

-     Not the answer = not the right solution to promote gender equality in society

Thus the whole definition is: “Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in parliament is not the right solution to promote gender equality in society”

Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for drug dealers

Definition:

-        This house = the affirmative/the government

-        Capital Punishment =  a maximum punishment given to a criminal in the form of death penalty

-        Drug Dealers = people who sell, distribute, and committing illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount according to the existing law.

thus the whole definition is: “we support the death penalty for people who sell, distribute, and commit illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount”

Here is an example of an unreasonable definition:

Motion    : That death penalty should never be justified

Definition: Killing people without any reason is wrong. Therefore we should not approve of genocide/mass killings.

The definition above is out of the context or spirit of the motion (death penalty means punishing criminals to die, not mass killing without reason). And it is unfair to expect the Opposition/Negative to say that mass killings for no reason should be approved of.

Although the right to define belongs to the Government/Affirmative team, the Opposition/Negative team has the right to challenge or not accept it if it is unreasonable. Explanations on challenging the motion will be explained at the end of this paper. Challenging a definition is highly discouraged.

Ø  THE OPPOSITION’S OPTIONS

Presuming the Proposition’s definition is satisfactory, the First Speaker of the Opposition will not argue the definition, but will proceed immediately to dealing with the Proposition’s arguments. There is no need to say that the Opposition  accepts the definition; this is presumed unless the First Speaker of the Opposition challenges it.

If the Opposition is unhappy with the Proposition’s definition, it has several options:

(i)            Accept and Debate

The first option is to accept it anyway. If the Proposition’s definition leads in to the expected issue and allows the Opposition to put forward the arguments and examples it was intending, there is no point to arguing over the precise words the Proposition has used.

(ii)           Challenge

The second option is to challenge the Proposition definition, arguing it is unreasonable. Further discussion will be explained in particular chapter below.

(iii)          Broaden

The third option is neither outright acceptance nor outright rejection, but instead to supplement the definition. The Proposition’s definition may have omitted to define a word in the motion that the Opposition considers pivotal. In this case, the Opposition can offer a definition of this word, so long as it meets the standards of reasonableness outlined above. 

(iv)          ‘Even-if’ 

The fourth option is to both reject and accept the definition. It involves:

a.         Rejecting the Proposition definition as unreasonable and explaining why;

b.        Putting up an alternative (and reasonable) definition, then proceeding to advance arguments and examples based on this;

c.         Rather than ignoring the Proposition’s arguments and examples on the basis they derive from an unreasonable definition, arguing that ‘even-if’  the Proposition’s definition was reasonable, its arguments and examples do not prove what is alleged.

Ø  ARGUMENTS

After agreeing with a definition, both the Government/Affirmative and the Opposition/Negative team should give arguments on why they support or disapprove with the topic.

Arguments explain why a point of view should be accepted. Good arguments are logical and relevant to the point being proven. They should also comprise of:

1.     Assertion – the statement which should be proved

2.     Reasoning – the reason why that statement is logical

3.     Evidence – examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above

4.     Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion

Given the duration of the debate, it is best to have 2 to 4 arguments to support your point of view. These arguments should be divided between the 1^st and the 2^nd speaker. So, some arguments are explained by the 1^st speaker and the rest are explained by the 2^nd speaker. This division is called a team split.

Each of these arguments should stand on their own. This means that each of the arguments should be able to answer the definition with a “… because…” statement.

Here are examples of arguments given for the examples above:

1.  Motion : That quota is not the answer for women

Definition  : Putting a minimum limit of 30% seats for women in parliament is not the right solution to promote gender equality in society

Arguments:

a.  Assertion: because this kind of privilege will only strengthen the stigma in society that undermines women

Reasoning: Nowadays there is still a strong stigma in society believing that women are inferior to men and has less capability than men. Reserved seats in the parliament will only strengthen this paradigm: that women can only sit in the parliament if they are facilitated but not because they can equally compete with men. Thus justifying the wrong perception that women could not reach the same level as men unless given privilege.

Evidence: In Uganda, public opinion that does not go in favor of women increased rapidly after the implementation of this kind of quota (this was also supported by some polling)

Link Back: Quota for women in parliament will only strengthen the negative perception that undermines women, hindering the promotion of women being equal to men.

b.  Assertion: because forced quota could reduce the performance of these women and at the end impedes women’s movement for equality

Reasoning: Due to many social resistance, women are still reluctant to involve themselves in politics. Women also lack the experience men have, given the limited history of women’s involvement in politics. Forcing women to fulfill the 30% quota opens probabilities of putting hesitant women with minimum experience in the parliament. This can reduce the working performance of those women. When such a thing happens, society would think that women are not as capable as their male counterparts while what actually happens is that women politicians are not yet well armed with the same motivation and experience as men.

Evidence: In India, women representatives with no political background are less popular than their male counterparts

Link Back: It is clear that rushing instant ways like putting a quota for women would harm the women movement for equality.

2.  Motion: That this house supports capital punishment for drug dealers

Definition: “the affirmative supports death penalty for drug dealers”

Arguments:

a.  Assertion: because it violates human right of the criminals

Reasoning: every  people have the right to life, even when he/she has done some heinous crime. Giving them the death penalty will just show people how government are not respecting its people human rights and justify killing for another killing. By giving them death penalty we are not only take their life but also eliminating their chance to do better.

Evidence:

-          Death Penalty is considered by most civilized nations as a cruel and inhuman punishment. It has been abolished de jure or de facto by 106 nations, 30 countries have abolished it since 1990.

Link Back: It clearly shows here that death penalty given to drug dealers is a violation to human rights and no government has right to do such thing to its people.  

              

b.  Assertion: because it will not serve as a deterrent

Reasoning: death penalty is aim to deter drug dealing from happen again. But as we can see drug dealing is still flourishing. Why?

Because drug dealers always deal with risk of losing their lives thus death penalty will not scare them to do this job, especially when they have no other option to do. Other than that, drug dealers who was captured by police officers usually only small distributors that easily replaced by others.

Evidence: even after imposing death penalty, the case of drug abuse still increasing every year in Malaysia up until 4%.

Link Back: The above explanation shows that death penalty can not serve as a deterrent to prevent drug dealers doing their job in the future.

Having more than one argument means that teams should make sure that their arguments are consistent or do not contradict each other. Contradiction and inconsistency makes a team’s performance seem poor because it shows as if they’re not agreeing the points among themselves. It is good to have a main idea that connects or becomes the foundation of the arguments. This is one way of ensuring arguments don’t contradict with one another. This main idea is usually named as a team line/theme line in a debate.

Looking at the example above, the team line could be:

“Quota brings the wrong message to society that women are not as capable as men”

“death penalty is only violate
s
human rights and will not solve the problem of drug dealing in our community.”

Ø  REBUTTALS

Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments. Rebuttals should prove that the other team’s arguments are not as important as they claim to be.

As with arguments, mere accusations do not equal good rebuttals. It is not enough to say that the other team’s arguments are inferior, good rebuttals should also explain the reasoning and evidence of why those arguments are inferior.

In responding to the other team’s arguments, rebuttals could show that those arguments are:

1.     Irrelevant to the point being proven

For example:

Claim     : ”Prostitution should be banned because prostitution creates more porn sites in the Internet.”

Rebuttal: “The number of porn sites in the Internet has nothing to do with whether prostitution is legalized or not. Fact is, porn sites could be accessed in many countries, apart from whether it legalizes prostitution or not”

2.     Illogical

For example:

Claim     : “Students should be allowed to smoke at school because it will create stronger resistance from passive smokers and eventually reduce the number of smokers at school.”

Rebuttal: “That is logically flawed because allowing students to smoke will create a permissive condition that would stimulate more students to smoke. Fact is, most teenagers start smoking because of peer influence. If school goes along with peer influence, then the reality that smoking is bad would be blurred and more students would think that smoking is ok and take up smoking.”

3.     Morally flawed

For example:

Claim     : “The government should support death penalty because it will help decrease the population of the country.”

Rebuttal: “Killing people simply to decrease population is morally wrong. People have the right to live and the government should not undermine that right only because they think they have too many citizens to manage.”

4.     Correct, but not important or involve unacceptable implications

For example:

Claim     : “The government should ban MTV because there are some programs that are not related to music.”

Rebuttal: “It is true that some MTV programs are not related to music, but the government should not ban a TV station simply because of that reason. Banning a TV station would lose the government a significant amount of revenue and it is more important to have this revenue rather than obliging TV stations to have programs that are true to its name.”

5.     based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact

For example:

Claim: “Murder rates are rising in the US. This is because some states have abolished capital punishment.”

Possible Rebuttals:

a.     ” Murder rates are not rising in the US. Evidence shows that .. “ (direct factual error), or

b.      “If the number of murders seems to be rising, it is because more murders are being reported compared to before. So, in reality it’s not actually rising.” (indirect factual error), or

c.     “Evidence shows that capital punishment – a state-sanctioned murder – can appear to condone violent crime and leads to a rise in numbers of violent crime rather than reducing it.”  (erroneous interpretation of fact)

Given limited time in a debate, it is not necessary for a team to rebut every single point and fact raised by the other team. Better single out the opposing team’s main arguments and attack those first. Teams should prioritize rebutting strong and important points first and leave the weak ones for last priority.

Ø  POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI)

As has been mentioned above, after the 1^st minute and before the 7^th minute of a speech, members of the opposing teams are allowed to briefly interrupt the current speaker. This interruption is called a POI.

In order to offer a POI, a person must stand up, hold out his/her hand and say “On that point, Sir/Ma
'a
m” or “On that point of information”. POI should be offered politely, not used to hackle the speaker. When offered a POI, the speaker having the floor has full authority to either reject or accept the POI. If a person is rejected a POI, he/she should sit down again.

POI should be brief and expressed as a question so that the speaker is required to provide an answer. Once accepted, the person offering POI has at most 15 seconds to deliver the POI. The

speaker then must answer or respond to that POI right after it is given and not wait until later in his/her speech. It is advisable that the speaker does not answer a POI more than 30 seconds as it would make him/her lose track of his/her speech.

POI should be offered regularly and through out the course of the debate. Offering POI shows that they understand the issues being discussed during the debate.

It is advisable to accept around 2 POI in a speech, and accept them between points of arguments/rebuttals. Not accepting POI at all (especially when they are often offered) would be bad strategy as the speaker is not involving the other team in his/her speech. But accepting too much POI would risk the speaker of losing control of his/her speech.

Ok, so basically, a team has to debate upon a motion defined by the affirmative side. Then they have to provide arguments telling why they support or disagree with the motion.  And each side has to respond to the other side in the form of rebuttals. Is that right?

Yup, for all questions. Oh, and one more thing: the word “CASE” would often be heard in a debate. A “CASE” refers to the whole package of a team’s arguments. Imagine a debate to be a

physical battle. Then the definition would be the battlefield that both sides have chosen. The CASE would be the fort that each team builds using arguments as bricks. The rebuttals would be the weapons that they use to attack the other side.

To make you understand more about “CASE”, let us take a look at the Case Anatomy in the next page:

	Motion

Definition

                                                     

Team Line

                               

                                                                     

Argument

                                      

The arrows indicate each link from the motion to definition, definition to your team line, and how your arguments, rebuttals, and POI must be consistent with your case foundation.

But there are 3 speakers in each team. Does each speaker have the same job? If not, what are the jobs of each speaker?

No, every speaker in a team has different jobs to fulfill. Here is the outline of the jobs or roles of each speaker:

Government/Affirmative	Opposition/Negative
First Speaker: 1. Give the definition of the motion 2. Outline the team’s case: -          Present the team line -          Present the team split 3.  Explain the arguments that are the 1st speaker’s split 4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech	First Speaker: 1. Respond to the definition 2. Rebut 1st Government speaker 3. Outline the team’s case: -          Present the team line -          Present the team split 4. Explain the arguments that are the 1st speaker’s split 5. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech
Second Speaker: 1. Rebut the Opposition’s main arguments 2. Briefly restate/reiterate in   general the Government’s team case 3. Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split 4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech	Second Speaker: 1. Rebut the Government’s main arguments 2. Briefly restate/reiterate in   general the Opposition’s team case 3. Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split 4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech
Third Speaker: 1. Rebut Opposition’s arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones 2. Rebuild the team’s case 3. Summarize the issues of the debate Note: It is not advisable for 3rd Government to bring new arguments	Third Speaker: 1. Rebut Government’s arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones 2. Rebuild the team’s case 3. Summarize the issues of the debate Note: It is not advisable for 3rd Opposition to bring new arguments
Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker: 1. Provide a summary or overview of the debate 2. Identify the issues raised by both teams 3. Explain why the Government’s case and response are better than the Opposition’s Note: Reply speakers are not allowed to bring new arguments and give rebuttals	Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker: 1. Provide a summary or overview of the debate 2. Identify the issues raised by both teams 3. Explain why the Opposition’s case and response are better than the Government’s Note: Reply speakers are not allowed to bring new arguments and give rebuttals

The first speakers lay the foundation of the debate battlefield. After the first speakers’ speeches, the main direction of each team’s case should be apparent. In providing the definition, the 1^st Government should ensure that no important points of definition (limitations or parameters) are left out.

The 1^st Opposition has three options in responding to the definition: accept it, challenge it (which is highly discouraged) or accept it but disapprove or clarify some of the parameters set up by the Government.

In outlining cases, both first speakers should state explicitly what the team split is. This could be done by saying, for example “As the first speaker I will examine how regional autonomy worsens environmental degradation, while the second speaker will explain about the impediment that regional autonomy brings to industrial sector.”

The second speakers attack the other side while continuing to build the case. The second speakers should rebut the main arguments brought up so far in the debate, while continuing the explanation of why his/her team oppose/support the motion, taking a different point of view from the 1^st speaker.

The third speakers’ main duty is to attack/rebut the opponent’s case. Third speakers are highly discouraged to bring new line of arguments. Logically, if an argument is good then it should be delivered first not by the third speaker, as there wouldn’t be enough opportunity to examine that argument.

Rebuttals should ideally be carried in two levels:

1.     on a global level (team wise), this level attacks the other team’s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic

2.     on a detailed level (speech wise), this level attacks the mistakes and inconsistency of each individual speech

The reply speakers sum up the debate. They are not allowed to bring new arguments and rebuttals at all. They should simply analyze what has happened in the debate and explain why their team’s case is better than the other team.

     

Last but not the least of questions: what if the negative or opposition thinks that the definition is unfair, should they just accept it?

As has been mentioned briefly above, when the Opposition/Negative thinks that the Government/Affirmative’s definition is unfair, then they have the right to challenge that definition.

But challenging a definition is highly discouraged, as Government/Affirmative providing unfair definition is also highly disapproved of, because debates with definitional challenge usually turn out to be bad debates.

How to challenge a definition? The first Opposition speaker should state explicitly that their team challenges the definition. Then, he/she should provide the reason why they challenge the definition. Then he/she should provide a new definition that they think is fair.

An Opposition/Negative team should not challenge a debate simply because their team seems to have a better definition. A definition may only be challenged if it is on of the following:

1.     Truistic

Truistic means that the definition is ‘true’ by nature and thus makes the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic definition would be if the motion “That the sun is rising in the east”  is defined literally. This makes the opposition impossible to say that the sun is rising in the west, besides there is no clear issue to be debated there. On the other hand, taking “the east” as a metaphor for Asia becoming much more important in the world (“the sun is rising”) seems adequately sensible: this poses a real issue for both sides to debate (China/Asia’s importance in the world militarily/economically/politically).

2.     Tautological or circular

Tautological or circular definition happens when a definition is given in such a way that it is logically impossible to negate it. An example would be if the motion “That technology is killing our work ethic” were defined as follows: the term ‘technology’ means “all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic”. This would result in the whole definition “that all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic are killing our work ethic”. This cannot be logically proven false.

3.     Squirreling

Squirreling happens when a definition is not tied down to the spirit of the motion and does not have a proper logical link to the motion. For example, for the motion “that the USA is opening up to the PRC”, the Affirmative team defined USA as “Untidy Students of Asia” and PRC as “Pretty Room Cleaners”. This is definitely squirreling as anyone would agree that the spirit of the motion is about the relationship between United States and China.

4.     Time and Place Set unfairly

Time setting happens when the debate is confined to a particular time in the past or the future. Place setting unfairly happens when the debate is confined to particular place where an ordinary intelligent person in the scope of the tournament wouldn’t know about the issues in there. For instance, on the motion “That we should have a direct presidential election”, the Affirmative defined “we” as “the people in Timbuktu”. It is unfair to expect other participants to know about what’s happening in Timbuktu unless the election there has been in the headlines currently, therefore this definition is place-setting unfairly. An example of time setting would be if the motion

is defined as “Indonesia should have direct presidential election during the rule of the New Order regime”. Setting the time of the debate into the past or the future is not allowed and it is clearly not an issue whether Indonesia should have had a direct presidential election in the past.

II.                 Guidelines for Debaters

There are 3 (three) main components that are judged from a debater’s speech, they are:

1.     Content – marked 40 out of 100

2.     Style – marked 40 out of 100

3.     Strategy -  marked 20 out of 100 

This guideline will explain each of those components and provide tips on how to practice them.

C O N T E N T

Content is the argument used by the speaker, divorced from the speaking style. Content constitutes 40% out of the total score. In content, judges would determine whether the speaker’s arguments and the team’s case in a whole are strong or not.

There are two process that shape a content of speech: case building and research.

Ø  CASE BUILDING

Case building is the process of putting together the team’s arguments and making sure that they are solid and consistent.

Given 30 minutes preparation time, teams do not have plenty of time to case build. Here’s a little tips on the steps of case building:

1.     Brainstorm individually

First, debaters could write down and bring out anything that crosses their mind once they hear the motion. Anything here could be an argument, example, parameters, or other things related to the motion. This process shouldn’t take too long, only 5 minutes at the most.

For the Negative team, debaters should also brainstorm on possible cases/definitions the Affirmative might bring.

2.     Discuss the definition

Once all the ideas have come out, the Affirmative team should decide upon a definition. There are two things to look at when defining a motion:

a. look at key words in the motion

 Find the words that need to be defined in the motion, do these words need further explanation or parameters or limitations?

 

For example:

Motion:         That smoking should be banned in public places

There are 2 key words here, smoking and public places. What smoking should be banned here: smoking cigarette? Smoking marijuana? This should be clarified. What does "public places" mean? Does "public places" include the street, public transportation, malls, apartment buildings?

           

b. look at real issues in the real world

Motions usually take up issues that are debated in the real world. Looking at the example above in the context of Indonesia, is the debate about smoking cigarette or smoking marijuana? It’s most likely about cigarette since there is no movement to legalize marijuana in Indonesia.

Since the Negative team does not need to come up with a definition, what they could do in case building is discuss possible definitions that might come up from the motion. Pick one or two of the most possible definitions and make the negation. Also put analysis on real issues in analyzing possible cases. Remember that your main task as Opposition is not to create a definition but to respond and negate the Affirmative. Here, you must agree on how to negate each possible definition.

3.     Pick relevant arguments

After discussing the definition, members of the team should decide upon arguments that are relevant to the definition. Don’t put in an argument only because it sounds good although it is totally irrelevant to the debate that would proceed. Given the duration of the debate, it is good for teams to have 2 – 4 arguments to prove their point.

4.     Determine team line and team split

Having the definition and the arguments, to ensure the consistency of these arguments, teams have the option of finding a main reason connecting these arguments or having a team line. They should also divide the arguments among the 1^st and 2^nd speaker and come up with a team split.

5.     Recap the whole case

Having the definition, arguments and split, a member of the team should recap the whole case to make sure that each members of the team has the same case in mind.

6.     Individual preparation

The last minutes of case building should be given for each speaker to prepare their speech individually.

NOTE:

In debating as the Opposition/Negative team, you have to follow the dynamics of the debate. When your prepared case is irrelevant to the case brought up by the Affirmative/Government team (they bring a definition that you didn’t think of), you have to leave your prepared case and construct a new one on the spot during the debate.

Tips for Opposition/Negative teams on such conditions:

1.     Listen to the 1^st speaker of the Affirmative until he/she delivers their team line and split or until you are clear about the Affirmative case.

2.     Discuss briefly on how you will negate it.

3.     After agreeing on that, the 1^st speaker Negative should concentrate on building his/her case. If necessary, he/she need not hear the rest of the 1^st speaker’s speech and leave it to the 2^nd and 3^rd speakers. The 2^nd/3^rd speakers should then provide the 1^st speaker with rebuttals before his/her speech.

4.     Remember that teamwork is the key! Make sure the three of you have the same perception on the negation and the case that you would bring.

Ø  RESEARCH

As you can read from the explanation about arguments, good arguments are not only statements or assertions, but they also have reasoning and evidence. They should also be logical and relevant to the point being proven.

Reasoning and evidence don’t fall automatically from the sky. In order to know these things, a debater must read a lot of books and keep up with current news. In preparing for a tournament, it is good for debaters to do research especially when some of the topics are given a few weeks before the tournament. If you look at the examples of motions used in past tournaments, debating covers a broad range of topics. So it is also good to know about current events happening in world.

What debaters could do for research:

1.     Search the Internet

The Internet is one of the easiest places to start research. But be careful not to get carried away, as the Internet is huge and you could easily get lost in it.

Here are some sites that might help you for a start:

a.     www.debatabase.com – this is a site aimed for debaters, it has a number of topics with arguments supporting or opposing that topic. We don’t suggest debaters to whip out arguments from this site, you should analyze those arguments as well and decide whether it’s good or not. But it’s a good place to start and there are also links to other writings relevant to the topic.

b.    www.google.com – this is a search engine, just type the key words of the topic you want to research and it will give you articles related to that topic