Post by shona on Dec 13, 2012 21:39:42 GMT
The first thing that a team should do is to study the motion carefully, and try and develop a logical line of argument. It is crucial for the speakers to ensure that they understand the wording of the motion and the issues which will be central to the debate. When preparing the team case, whether on the Proposition or Opposition side, you should always be aware of what your opponents are likely to say and have answers ready – this will add to the quality of the debate and will enhance your chances of winning.
A strong team will develop a clear idea of what the motion means. This is called the definition of the motion. The First Proposition Speaker must define the motion at the start of his/her speech. This will tell the audience, the adjudicators and other teams what the basis of the debate will be.
For example, in the debate ‘This House Would Ban Animal Testing’’ the Proposition should define precisely what is meant by animal testing. The definitions may be as follows:
Ban: The UK government should introduce a law that prohibits testing on animals. People or companies that break the law could be fined or imprisoned.
Animal testing: The testing of products or materials on animals or general experimentation for research purposes on animals. The ban would cover both scientific research and experimentation for medical and cosmetic purposes.
This seems a fair definition of the motion. However, the Proposition could just as easily define ‘animal testing’ as just banning cosmetic testing and allowing medical research to continue to be conducted. It is generally accepted that the Proposition may define the motion in any way that it feels corresponds with the ‘spirit’ of the motion. The Opposition should accept the definition, unless it feels that the definition makes the debate meaningless, truistic or very limited. If this is the case, the Opposition must be prepared to challenge successfully the given definition.
The Proposition must not distort the motion away from its original spirit. This is sometimes known as ‘squirrelling’. A clear and simple line of argument, addressing the motion fully, is most likely to sway the audience and adjudicators. Consider what the ‘average person’ would expect to hear in the debate, and construct your arguments around this. You will not be rewarded for ‘clever’ twists of the motion. In fact, this is a very easy way in which you can lose the debate.
A strong team will develop a clear idea of what the motion means. This is called the definition of the motion. The First Proposition Speaker must define the motion at the start of his/her speech. This will tell the audience, the adjudicators and other teams what the basis of the debate will be.
For example, in the debate ‘This House Would Ban Animal Testing’’ the Proposition should define precisely what is meant by animal testing. The definitions may be as follows:
Ban: The UK government should introduce a law that prohibits testing on animals. People or companies that break the law could be fined or imprisoned.
Animal testing: The testing of products or materials on animals or general experimentation for research purposes on animals. The ban would cover both scientific research and experimentation for medical and cosmetic purposes.
This seems a fair definition of the motion. However, the Proposition could just as easily define ‘animal testing’ as just banning cosmetic testing and allowing medical research to continue to be conducted. It is generally accepted that the Proposition may define the motion in any way that it feels corresponds with the ‘spirit’ of the motion. The Opposition should accept the definition, unless it feels that the definition makes the debate meaningless, truistic or very limited. If this is the case, the Opposition must be prepared to challenge successfully the given definition.
The Proposition must not distort the motion away from its original spirit. This is sometimes known as ‘squirrelling’. A clear and simple line of argument, addressing the motion fully, is most likely to sway the audience and adjudicators. Consider what the ‘average person’ would expect to hear in the debate, and construct your arguments around this. You will not be rewarded for ‘clever’ twists of the motion. In fact, this is a very easy way in which you can lose the debate.