Post by shona on Dec 13, 2012 21:37:07 GMT
The Proposition’s Role:
A debating chamber is not a court of law. The Proposition is not required to show ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the motion is true. Instead, it should show that on balance – in the majority of cases, or as a general case – its arguments hold. The Proposition will often accept that there are examples where the motion is not true.
Let us look at the motion ‘This House Believes That Religion Does More Harm Than Good ’. A good Proposition team will not suggest that every religion is bad or that everything religion has ever achieved is negative but rather that, on the balance of things, religion causes more harm than good to our society. Thus the use of examples, although useful, cannot win the argument and the Proposition should try to prove a general fault in the work of religion whilst backing their case up with examples.
However, if the motion is written as an absolute ‘This House Would Never Discriminate Because Of Age’ then there is an onus on the Proposition to show that the principle is true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Such debates make the Proposition teams work much harder to prove its case.
Often teams will have to advocate a policy, for example, This House Would Ban Animal Testing. Teams should look at this sort of motion and think a) what is the problem (in this case, animal testing is cruel and unnecessary) b) how do we solve that problem (a complete ban on testing on animals) and c) what the end result of the solution would be (equally efficient medical testing procedures but without harming innocent animals).
It is essential for the second Proposition team to bring something new to the debate whatever has happened in the first half of the debate. This can be a new analysis, new substantive material, an extension or a depth of analysis that wasn’t given in the first half of the debate. They should not contradict the first Proposition team.
The Opposition’s Role:
The Opposition is not required to set out a case of its own – its role is primarily to refute the Proposition’s case. However, a positive case from the Opposition can be very effective, and a good Opposition will normally put forward a structured counter-case rather than simply rebutting the Proposition.
Using the example ‘This House Believes That Religion Does More Harm Than Good’, the Opposition could choose to rebut the central theme of the first Proposition team’s case; if it can show that there is more than a reasonable doubt in the Proposition’s case
For either of the Opposition teams to win, they must show that there is more than reasonable doubt in the Proposition team’s case. It could also come up with a counter-proposition or counter-case.
In all cases, the Opposition must show that there are either fundamental flaws that make the Proposition case unworkable or that there is more than reasonable doubt in the Proposition’s case.
For logistical reasons in some debates in the first round of the competition there may be three teams to a side. For advice on what do in a six team debate please see Appendix F.
A debating chamber is not a court of law. The Proposition is not required to show ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the motion is true. Instead, it should show that on balance – in the majority of cases, or as a general case – its arguments hold. The Proposition will often accept that there are examples where the motion is not true.
Let us look at the motion ‘This House Believes That Religion Does More Harm Than Good ’. A good Proposition team will not suggest that every religion is bad or that everything religion has ever achieved is negative but rather that, on the balance of things, religion causes more harm than good to our society. Thus the use of examples, although useful, cannot win the argument and the Proposition should try to prove a general fault in the work of religion whilst backing their case up with examples.
However, if the motion is written as an absolute ‘This House Would Never Discriminate Because Of Age’ then there is an onus on the Proposition to show that the principle is true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Such debates make the Proposition teams work much harder to prove its case.
Often teams will have to advocate a policy, for example, This House Would Ban Animal Testing. Teams should look at this sort of motion and think a) what is the problem (in this case, animal testing is cruel and unnecessary) b) how do we solve that problem (a complete ban on testing on animals) and c) what the end result of the solution would be (equally efficient medical testing procedures but without harming innocent animals).
It is essential for the second Proposition team to bring something new to the debate whatever has happened in the first half of the debate. This can be a new analysis, new substantive material, an extension or a depth of analysis that wasn’t given in the first half of the debate. They should not contradict the first Proposition team.
The Opposition’s Role:
The Opposition is not required to set out a case of its own – its role is primarily to refute the Proposition’s case. However, a positive case from the Opposition can be very effective, and a good Opposition will normally put forward a structured counter-case rather than simply rebutting the Proposition.
Using the example ‘This House Believes That Religion Does More Harm Than Good’, the Opposition could choose to rebut the central theme of the first Proposition team’s case; if it can show that there is more than a reasonable doubt in the Proposition’s case
For either of the Opposition teams to win, they must show that there is more than reasonable doubt in the Proposition team’s case. It could also come up with a counter-proposition or counter-case.
In all cases, the Opposition must show that there are either fundamental flaws that make the Proposition case unworkable or that there is more than reasonable doubt in the Proposition’s case.
For logistical reasons in some debates in the first round of the competition there may be three teams to a side. For advice on what do in a six team debate please see Appendix F.