Why do we need rules in debates

Handout 1

Introduction part

Many speakers assume that because introduction is the first part of the speech to be heard by the audience, they should begin outlining with the introduction. But thinking about it you realize that it ‘s difficult to work on an introduction until you have considered the material to be introduced. At first it’s necessary to prepare a body of your speech, to write a thesis statement, select and state the main points, determine the best order, develop the examples, quotations.

A body

Begin writing a thesis statement based on the speech goal

When you have the potential main points select he ones you will use write them as complete sentences. Main points are embellished with supporting material. A useful process is to begin by mapping the potential material, then subordinating the material in a way that clarifies the relationship between and among subpoints and main points. Prepare transitions to be used between points.

Then outline the introduction.

Selecting an introduction

Introduction is used to gain attention, set the tone for the speech, create goodwill and then lead to the body of the speech. Finally, outline the conclusion.

A conclusion

A well designed speech conclusion ties the speech together and ends it on a high note.Types of conclusion include summaries stories, appeals to action and emotional impact.

A debate has to have 2 sides. It is absolutely central to the goals and structure of debating that a reasonable, informed and sensitive could advocate either side of the argument. Perhaps it is not their personal opinion, but either side of the motion should at least be a reasonable opinion. Young people are often competitive and those attracted of debating are no exception! However many of debaters are basing their understanding of debating entirely on rules. Some of them seem to have a deep understanding of the role that debate can play in society or the fact that the vast majority of rules are really little more than advice. They complain, for example, that they lost despite the fact that they introduced a “law project” when their opponents did not. They can not then explain what a law project is or why it is important, they just have a sense that you can win a debate by introducing one.

Why do we need rules in debates and how to teach those who never learnt debates

Day one would involve an introduction to the idea of advocating an opinion on an issue. Perhaps we could use some pieces of artwork that could be placed around the hall. Speakers then stand beside the one that they feel is most “beautiful”, than the one that is most “important”, then the one that is most “dangerous” for example. This makes people take a stand to show their opinion and we would introduce the idea of defending your opinion in a speech.

From this point we could move towards taking a stand on more complicated topics, like those that we use in debating. But it would stay very informal, and there would be no rules  or limits at all. Speakers would not simply be “for” or “against” an idea, they could be anywhere in between. This would develop to the point when those with similar opinions group together and make a group defense of a position. Then we would move towards debating, but no rules would have been introduced and almost no advice given by the trainers. Instead we would take opportunities to discuss together what we think made a speech clear, or convincing, or what showed that a team was working well together. Then there would be some time to discuss the strengths and limitations of this way of running debates, and how this format could be used in the classroom. Only now would we move anywhere near to mentioning the word “parliamentary” or the term “Karl Popper debates” , as two possible ways of organizing discussions, stated in the simplest possible terms.

Day two would involve a very simple series of debates with no complicated terms and no rules unless the speakers decide that they might help. This way people can see why a time limit is so important, why you need to control interruptions, and why it is important to decide what the words are using really mean. But at no point have the trainers told anybody any rules and asked them to just accept them. The idea is basically that people don’t understand things by being told them, they understand by experiencing them personally. So we should find a way to let our future trainers and debaters experience debate rather than sitting and just listening to us tell them our opinions about it. Then we would actually be doing debating. It would be non – competitive, non – judgemental, but involve  a lot of consideration about what the participants feel is making the debate successful. And now we could reveal that this is exactly what is known as Parliamentary or Popper debating. by the time we get to the day three, participants should be thoroughly interested in debating and communication .they should have an idea of why we do it, and should see that the rules are there to help the social discussion of important topics. Rules must never be seen as tools for winning with, but as a mutually accepted system for supporting intellectual investigation. With this understanding, by day three we should be ready to do some complete debates for trainers and participants to act as speakers, audience and judges to experience all aspects of the process.

English Lesson with the elements of Karl Popper debates at the10th form

Goal: development of oral speaking skills

Time: 45 min

Plan

1.      Brainstorming on a topic: “ Law and it’s role in our life”
2.      Group work ( argumentation)
3.      Game on a definite topic

1.      The teacher writes on a board a sentence that describes following

“Imagine that suddenly our class happened to be on an unhabited island and we’re trying to build a state there to regulate all society relations”

Discuss in your groups(5 – 6 persons) the main rules of your state and in 10 min explain to others the goal of making such rules.

2.      Method “Clastering” – 10 min

Then a teacher writes a word “law” and asks pupils to think about some associations that are connected with this word. Write them around this word. Each group should present and explain their work in 10 min.Group representatives start telling one by one about what they have learnt and how understood the information. For example,

Laws should protect interests of a certain party, class or group of people.

Laws should determine what is useful and forbid what is harmful.

3.     Debates – game – 20 min

Then a teacher asks students to formulate a topic concerning a law for discussion and divide into 2 groups for and against it.

He suggests a few topics:

“Civil disobedience is justified in a democracy”

“Education should be provided by the state only in it’s official language”

“Education should be free of charge”

Students prepare their speeches(arguments -reasons) for and against a topic. And then play a game. Each person will have 1 – 2 minutes for presentation.

Order of speeches:

1.      Affirmative team – A1 – 3 min
2.      Negative team – N1 – 3 min
3.      Aff2 – 2 min
4.      Neg2 - 2 min
5.      Aff3 3 min – conclusive speech
6.      Neg3 – 3 min – review of a whole game

After the game a teacher asks the following questions:

1.      What is law and why do we need it?
2.      Give me examples of violation the law in our country?
3.      What are your suggestions on the improvement of our legislative system?