3.6 Debate

“This house believes that the future of labs is remote.”

Teams

Proposing team (in favour of the proposition): Christof Jaeger and John Turner, Nottingham University.

Opposing team (against the proposition): Esther Perea Borobio and Peter Johnson, Imperial College London

Chairman (Referee): Stephen Beck, and someone to keep time!

We will follow a standard debate format:

1. Start with a vote.

2. 1^st Proposition (5 mins). This will set out the basic arguments in favour.

3. 1^st Opposition (5 mins). This will set out the basic arguments against.

4. 2^nd Proposition (3 mins). This will address the arguments against.

5. 2^nd Opposition (3 mins). This will address the arguments in favour.

6. Questions and points from the floor (15 mins, maximum of one min per speaker)

7. Concluding remarks (4 mins from one member of the proposing team)

8. Concluding remarks (4 mins from one member of the opposing team)

9. End with a vote.

And what of the audience?

They will be expected to provide a series of short speeches (1 min max), bringing up points for and against the motion. The concluding remarks from the teams are expected to deal with these.

From the floor, we always like "Points of order" and "Points of information" which take precedence over other points.

Categorising your opponents’ argument is always a good way towards defeating them. The Philosophers have developed various methods of unpicking arguments. These are generally described as fallacies.

An overview can be found at, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html. Further lists of fallacies can be found at, https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9131 (short, but effective) and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (longer).