DEBATE

DEBATE • Formal type of argumentation • Intelligent exchange of points between the affirmative and
negative sides

TYPES OF DEBATE There are four types of debates that are most commonly used. These are as follows: 
Lincoln- Douglas- is a kind of debate where there is only one speaker in the side of the affirmative as well as
in the side of the affirmative side opens the debate then followed by the negative speaker.

THE REBUTTAL DEBATE -is a kind of debate where each team from the affirmative and the negative side is
composed of about two or three members. As the debate starts, the affirmative speaker opens the constructive
speech and the negative speaker starts the rebuttal. Every speaker is allowed to deliver a rebuttal speech. The
debate is closed with the affirmative side delivering the last rebuttal.

ONE REBUTTAL TYPE OF DEBATE  is considered as a modified form of the Lincoln-Douglas type of
debate. However in this type of debate, there are about two to three members in both the affirmative and the
negative side. In this debate, all of the speakers have a chance to refute the argument of the opponent with the
exception of the first affirmative speaker who is given the opportunity to close the debate in his or her rebuttal
speech.

OREGON-OXFORD DEBATE  traditional debate format used in elementary, governors debate, house
debate rules, parliamentary debate rules, high school debate, youtube debate, presidential debate, colleges and
all over the country. There are 2 sides in this format : the Affirmative and the Negative. The Affirmative
proves the validity of the issue or topic called the Proposition while the Negative disproves it. Each team has
two speakers and one scribe. A Debate Moderator enforces the rules to ensure the debate’s smooth conduct.

FLOW OF OREGON OFXORD DEBATE THREE SPEAKERS FROM EACH SIDE

1st speaker affirmative side constructive speech 5 minutes

1st speaker negative side interpolation 3 minutes
1st speaker negative side constructive speech 5 minutes
1st speaker affirmative side interpolation 3 minutes
2nd speaker affirmative side constructive speech 5 minutes
2nd speaker negative side interpolation 3 minutes
2nd speaker negative side constructive speech 5 minute
2nd speaker affirmative side interpolation 3 minutes
3rd speaker affirmative side constructive speech 5 minutes
3rd speaker negative side interpolation 3 minutes
3rd speaker negative side constructive speech 5 minutes
3rd speaker affirmative side interpolation 3 minute
5-minute break
speaker negative side rebuttal 5 minutes
speaker affirmative side rebuttal 5 minutes

In debate Proposition

Proposition Topic or issue that is argued upon

In exploring Do some interview Utilize the library-it’s Do some ORGANIZED research! Take down Refer
to the notes! web the first sources

Parts of an argument
REMEMBER! You should arouse the attention of your audience.
How? Make them see that the topic is important.
How? Show them that the topic is timely.
How? Preserve a favorable attitude.
REMEMBER! Second aim of intro is to explain the proposition.
How? Define all important words. (1st A)
How? Set the parameters/ limit of the debate (1st A)
How? The whole idea must be clearly explained.
How? Present a short but lively history of the topic.
REMEMBER! Third aim of intro is to state the ISSUES.
UNDERSTAND ISSUES are the questions that when answered, may destroy a side.
UNDERSTAND ISSUES are the questions that when answered, may destroy a side.
TEST FOR ISSUES  Resolved that the K+12 be implemented in the Philippine Educational System .
(PROPOSITION) • How would the proposition affect the Philippine Educational System? The students?
TEST FOR ISSUES  Resolved that the K+12 be implemented in the Philippine Educational System.
(PROPOSITION) • Is there really a need to implement the proposition?
Parts of an argument
OPPOSING SIDES
AFFIRMATIVE
negative

Aspects of the debatE(+)

Aspects of the debatE(-)
NECESSITY
beneficiality
practicability

PARTS of the debatE(+)

Constructive speech  presentation of each team member’s arguments and evidence for each aspect of the
case
Interpellation  The opportunity for the opposing debater to ask questions regarding the speech of the
Rebuttal  The summary and defense of each team’s arguments and evidence, to be delivered by the team
captain
Speaker roles  1A speaker- NECESSITY  1N speaker-NON NECESSITY
Speaker roles  2A speaker- BENEFICIALITY  2N speaker-NON BENEFICIALITY
Speaker roles  3A speaker- PRACTICABILITY  3N speaker-NON PRACTICABILITY
FALLACIES IN DEBATE Fallacy refers to an incorrect argument which results in invalid or unsound
statements. There are different kinds of fallacies but below are the commonly encountered fallacies in any
argumentation.
FALLACIES IN DEBATE AD HOMINEM- is the fallacy committed when one party attacks the
character of the other party for the purpose of making the argument of that other party weak. EXAMPLE: I
cannot accept the argument of Capt. Juan Dela Cruz to implement zero alcohol policy on board since he
himself is an alcoholic.
POST HOC  Is the fallacy committed when one party considers the fact or situation that occurred before
as the cause of the occurence of another situation without significant basis. EXAMPLE: I believe that this
technical problem occured due to our newly-embarked master. I am certain, for this problem only occured
two days after his embarkmention. He is probably a bad luck.
AD POPULUM  is the fallacy committed when one party attempts to win an argument by citing that
most or a lot of people believe in a certain position, as in bandwagon fallacy. EXAMPLE: Everybody is
drinking on board. I should join them.
AD MISERICORDIAM • is the fallacy committed when one party uses an argument that appeals to pity or
related emotion in order to convince and thus influence the other party to give into will of the former.
AD MISERICORDIAM EXAMPLE: I believe we should give him a chance. I know the problem occurred
out of negligence. Yet we need to consider his goodness. He has been with us for several months and he
has been so good to us. He has been helpful to us somehow. What will happen to him if we will
recommend him for repatriation? Anyway, nobody was hurt in that incident.
AD BACULUM • is the fallacy committed when one party uses threat to invoke fear in the other party and
thus persuade the other party to accept the will of the former. However, the threatening argument used is
not directly related to the main issue at hand.
AD BACULUM • I know I violated our code of ethics. Yet you need to give me a chance. Otherwise, I
will inform the company about your anomalous activities here onboard.