Booklet

Welcome!

On behalf of the Literary and Historical Society of University College Dublin and the College Historical Society of Trinity College Dublin, welcome to the 2019/20 Leinster Schools Debating Competition!

Included in this handbook are tips for preparing your debate, how to rebut effectively, how to offer Points of Information, what exactly makes a good debate, common mistakes and more. Through the process of preparing for debates you will find yourself learning about politics, economics, philosophy and history without even realising it. Not only is this really useful for school but also life in general, as you end up getting a better sense of what’s going on in the world, you gain an ability to challenge ideas around you and get a handle on what you think of important issues. Don't worry though, we aim to make the competition as fun and interesting as possible, and we hope you find it really rewarding!

So, what is the Leinster Schools Debating Competition?

Leinster Schools Debating Competition was founded in 1983 and has quickly become one of the largest competitions of its kind in Europe. The competition consists of two normal rounds, a “repechage” or wildcard round which divides them, quarter finals, semi finals and a grand final. The winning team and individual from the grand final then go on to represent Leinster in the All-Ireland Schools Debating Competition.

So the competition looks like this…

In round 1, each room will consist of eight teams of two speakers, four on proposition (also called “government”) and four on opposition. From each room, two teams will go straight through to round 2.

Every team who doesn’t get through round 1 will then enter the “repechage round”(also called the wildcard round), which is effectively another opportunity to get into round 2. Each room in this round will have 6 teams of which 2 teams and 2 individuals will go through.

Through round 2, the quarterfinals, semis and grand final all rooms will have four teams and four individuals. In round 2 and the quarters, two teams and two individuals will go through. In each of the semis, only one team and one individual go through, as we hold eight quarters and four semis to maximise the number of teams who get to compete in the later stages of the competition.

How do the rounds work?

Order papers containing the teams, motions and speaking order for a particular round are sent out at least a week prior to the scheduled debate. e.g. For Round 1 Day 1 (scheduled for 8th October), order papers will be emailed to schools by 1st October; for Round 1 Day 2 (scheduled for 15th October), order papers will be emailed by 8th October, etc.

Roles and Speaking Order

On each order paper it will detail which team is in 1^st Proposition, 1^st Opposition, etc. but participants are free to choose in what order they would like to speak within the team. E.g. on a 1^st Proposition team, the first speaker on the team will be the first speaker in the debate and the second speaker on the team will be the 9^th speaker in the debate.

In round 1, the speaking order is relatively simple. The first speaker from the Proposition 1 team speaks. Then the first from Opposition 1. Then the first from Proposition 2, and so on until Opposition 4. Then the second speaker from each team speaks in the same order as the first, as shown below…

Repechage is almost exactly the same, just with six teams per room instead of eight. For all other rounds, after all the first speakers from the teams have spoken, the individuals speak. After they have finished, the second speakers from the teams speak.

1st Proposition Team (1st speaker and 9th speaker)

The first speaker in 1st proposition (1st speaker overall) must define what exactly is being proposed, generally with the use of a model (see ‘Models’). After that, it is their role to introduce their team’s points, and explain them.

The second speaker (9th speaker overall) should rebut arguments that have come before them, and in doing so defend their definition of the motion and their team-mate’s arguments. It's their job to look at the points where their team’s arguments have clashed with the other side and explain why they win. The second speaker may also, if they wish, add new material, usually one new point, to the debate.

2nd Proposition Team (3rd speaker and 11th speaker)

The first speaker for the 2nd Prop team (3rd speaker overall) is expected to add a new dimension to the debate. 2nd teams should generally assume that the more straightforward arguments will be covered by first teams and should try to move the debate onto broader arguments, or “deeper” arguments. If their arguments have already been discussed, they should attempt to take a different slant on them, such as looking at them from a different stakeholder’s point of view (more on this later)

Don't worry if you had a slightly different idea of the debate to first Prop, as second proposition also has a “right of definition”, meaning you can propose your own definition of the debate, even if it's slightly different to first Prop. You are not bound to follow their model or definition, if you want move the debate in a different direction – within reason- as the opposition must attempt to deal with all proposition’s definitions.

The second speaker (11th speaker overall) should attempt to sum up the Proposition’s arguments, and show how they, particularly the arguments brought by their teammate, beat oppositions points. This is known as ‘points of clash’.

It’s important to give a fair weight to the other sides’ arguments. To win, it is not necessary to show that they were entirely wrong, and it isn’t convincing to misrepresent the other side in an attempt to make them look weak. Rather, you should prove that your team's arguments were relevant to what mattered more in the debate, meaning that on balance, your side is the better one.

1st Opposition Team (2nd speaker and 10th speaker)

The first job for the 1st opposition team is to tackle 1st prop’s case. The first opposition speaker should begin by attacking proposition’s specific definition and model -if required- as well as rebutting the 1st Proposition speaker’s arguments, focusing not just on practicalities, but also the foundations and principles of the arguments. After this, their role is to introduce and explain their own team’s points in the debate.

The second speaker (10th speaker overall) should have a substantial amount to rebut however their main job, as with all second speakers is to compare the two sides through areas of clash and emphasise the significance of their teams input in winning the debate. Similarl to first proposition, they may introduce new material opposing the motion if they wish.

2nd Opposition Team (4th speaker and 12th speaker)

2nd opposition’s first speaker (4th speaker overall) should start by rebutting the arguments brought by proposition thus far. Rebuttal and response are crucial at this point in the debate and is often what sets very close teams apart. They should then introduce new arguments against the motion. Similar to second proposition, second opp should try to move the debate on from what first opposition spoke about to broader questions, or develop the discussion from a new angle, leaving your mark on the debate.

The second speaker (12th speaker overall) must not bring any new material to the table as there is no-one speaking afterwards to challenge it. Their role should deal exclusively looking at the areas where the two sides have clashed in the debate. Their job is to explain why their side, and more specifically their team has won the most important issues of contention in the debate.

Individuals (5th to 9th speakers, only after repechage)

The role of the individual speaker is to bring a new idea to the debate or a new way of looking at the debate. This is the same for Proposition and Opposition.

An individual should bring one self-contained idea which they can clearly express in their speech. You don’t have a partner to clarify your case so make sure that everything you say is clear. Focus on making one point well and distinct from what came before you in the debate, rather than saying lots of different points. Rebuttal is encouraged but do not feel you have to rebut everything that the other teams have said the other teams. Focus on developing your own points in a unique, entertaining manner, to stand out beside other speakers in the judge’s memories.

Speech Writing

The buzz words frequently used in debating can seem rather intimidating when you aren’t used to using them, but rest assured that after Round 1 they will seem like second nature. But until then, please refer to this glossary of commonly used jargon…

Analysis: The logical reasoning behind an argument.

Barracking: Offering points of information too quickly in succession and hence being disruptive.

Definition: The policy or interpretation of the motion created by the opening government team in the debate.

Motion: The statement of the debate.

Opposition: The side against the motion.

Point of Information: A short, quick point of rebuttal made during a speech by a speaker on the opposing side. Also known as a POI.

Proposition: The side in favour of the motion.

Protected Time: The first and last minute of a speech during which points of information cannot be offered.

Rebuttal: The explanation of why the arguments made by the other side is wrong.

Squirrel: An illegitimate and unreasonable attempt by opening government to restrict or shift a motion, e.g. “This House would allow the Gardaí to bear arms, by which we mean, they may wear t-shirts”

Preparation

You will receive your topic and the position you will be arguing a week before the debate takes place. A good first step is to brainstorm everything you already know about the topic. Try to think of the topic as a whole– don’t confine yourself to your side of the motion; it is important to understand the other side’s arguments as this will help you rebut pre-emptively and to be comparative in all of your arguments– you should be able to tell us why the other side are wrong before they’ve even spoken.

Once you have finished your initial brainstorm, group the thoughts you have and see what areas you want to research for the debate. Having done research into the topic is essential in understanding the points and examples that the other side of the debate could potentially draw on.

It is important to pick the arguments which you feel are most important to you winning the debate (we recommend two to three arguments per team). After this, it is crucial to keep thinking about the wording you use. Making judges remember your arguments and feel compelled to believe them is as important in making as being sure that they understand them. To this end, bounce your points off each other, your friends, family members, anyone who’ll listen! Do focus on finding the clearest, most compelling way of articulating your case.

When you are speaking later the debate, many of the more obvious points may already be taken. One way of avoiding this and coming up with novel points is by thinking about the different actors in the debate. What type of person or group of people does this motion affect the most? How does this motion affect how different groups interact with each other?

Motions from 2018/19 Competition

Below is a list of motions used across various rounds of Leinster Schools last year. These are provided in good faith to give an insight into the kinds of topics that students will be asked to debate. None of the motions from last year will be repeated for the 2019/20 competition.

Round 1:

THW Cut Government Funding for Arts

THW Make All Publicly Funded Institutions (e.g. schools, hospitals etc. ) Adopt a Secular Ethos

Repechage:

THW Ban Strikes by Those Working in Essential State Services

THW Allow the Sale of Organs

THW Allow Citizens to Donate Their Taxes to Charity Instead of Giving Them to the Government

Round 2:

TH, As the EU, Would Offer Britain a More Favourable Deal

THB the EU Should Form a Joint Standing Army

THB the West Should No Longer Deal Arms to Saudi Arabia

THR the Increasing US Isolationism

Quarter Final:

THW Require Irish Political Parties to Field 50% Female Candidates

THW Require Irish Political Parties to Field 50% Female Candidates

Assuming it was possible (that there were adequate resources and will), THW Create a State Exclusively for Women

Semi Final:

THR the Discovery of Nuclear Fission

Final:

TH, As the American Republican Party, Would Not Nominate Incumbent President Donald Trump As Their Candidate for the 2020 Presidential Election

Structure

Speeches for the first, second and repechage rounds will be five minutes in length, thereafter increasing to seven minutes for quarters, semis and the final. It is important to use your time wisely, while five minutes may sound like a lot, by the time you’ve introduced your speech, given some rebuttal, made your two/three points and taken a POI, you will find the time has flown by.

When trying to present a large amount of information convincingly, internal structure becomes very important. Laying out your speech and your points logically helps the judges listen to and follow what you are saying, and they are able to give you the maximum amount of credit for the clever ideas you have brought.

§ Start by introducing the debate as you see it. If you are first speaker, this will take a bit longer but for everyone else a sentence which summarises the state of the debate so far can be sufficient. A lot of people like to employ anecdotes and oratory at the start of their speech, which can be highly effective (see notes on style).

§ Flag your team points at the beginning of your speech – this goes for both speakers as teamwork looks great to judges

§ Include as much rebuttal as possible – be this at the start of your speech or within the points

§ Take a POI – at least one but no more than two

§ Within your points

o If you have a very clever point which has multiple reasons for being true/ relevant/ important then make sure to highlight each of them

o There is no harm in saying ‘this is true because a. and b. and c…’ as it makes it much easier for judges to follow your train of thought and credit your ideas

Models

Models may be used by first proposition to explain how they’re going to put the motion in place. Not every debate will require a model.

You should ask yourself, if this were to happen tomorrow, what would it actually look like and how would it happen? If the answer is not apparent from the motion, then a model may be helpful to clarify what exactly your case is.

In the case of This House would ban smoking, a model could look like this:

“We will criminalize the sale of tobacco cigarettes. Those who sell it will be prosecuted like we currently do with drug dealers. Those caught possessing or consuming tobacco will be required to attend anti-smoking classes geared to help users to quit.

We recommend using the simplest model that makes your policy clear.

It can help to base your model on a country where the policy has already been implemented e.g. mandatory voting in Australia. This makes it harder for the Opposition to argue that it’s impractical, because it’s already working as a system. In cases of banning or legalising a practice, look to similar laws as this will simplify your model.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal is a point that directly clashes with, or in some way damages a point made by a speaker on the other side of the debate. The aim of rebuttal is to weaken the case made by the other side of the debate. Rebuttal is an integral part of all speeches except for the 1st speech. It can be done in 2 ways:

• At the beginning of your speech, before you get onto your own material. Speakers often use a minute or so at the start of their speech to outline a few pieces of rebuttal that don’t quite fit into what they’re going to be talking about but still need to be addressed. “I will be discussing X, Y and Z, but before I move onto my points, I am going to deal with what the other team has already told you.......”
• Interwoven into your own points. This would mean taking the points of the opposing team and working them into your own points and rebutting them using your prepared material. Rebuttal is important for showing engagement in the debate and is an important factor in the distinction between debating and public speaking.

It might be helpful to think about rebuttal in these ways:

• Is their argument factually false?
• Is their argument logically false? Have they made assumptions that they shouldn’t have?
• Is their argument irrelevant?
• Is their argument true, but less important than your argument?

Dos & Don’ts

• Do highlight rebuttal - When you are rebutting something the other side said, make sure you say that you are responding to something from earlier in the debate. It helps judges see who is being responsive in their speeches.
• Do develop your rebuttal. A single sentence is rarely sufficient to rebut an argument conclusively.
• Do use humour and dramatic responses if you wish, but also fairly explain why they are wrong.
• Do give a reason. Don’t simply assert that they are wrong or irrelevant.
• Don’t attack the person instead of their point. Remember that you’ll get no credit for being mean, it’s just mean.
• Don’t rebut small points. If the point you’re rebutting is not crucial to their case then don’t spend time rebutting it. You only have a limited amount of time, so it’s important to hit the big issues, not just small mistakes they may have made.

What makes a good argument?

Debating is about being convincing. The usually used standard is that you could, with your arguments, convince an "average, reasonably well-informed voter" that your side is right. Basically, a person you met on the street should be swayed by what you have to say without having any kind of special knowledge about the subject. This doesn't mean you can't use this kind of knowledge, but make sure everything is explained clearly.

Your case should be

• logical - it actually makes sense and is consistent
• reasonable - it doesn't make any wild assumptions, it is something that would work out as you say it would in real life
• responsive - it deals with the things the other side have said, it responds to or avoids the problems they pointed out, and points out similar problems in their arguments
• persuasive - it is convincing, the "chain of logic" makes sense in that you have explained each new idea as you go and not skipped anything
• relevant - it is directly important to this debate
• comparative - it compares the arguments brought by your side and the other side, and explains why yours are more true or more important

A very important distinction to make is that between fact and argument, e.g. In THW Ban Fast Food, stating that eating fast food causes obesity is a fact. This does not win the debate You must explain why it is more important than the facts on the other side, e.g. that banning fast food reduces freedom of choice for consumers. Don't leave it up to the judge to decide what matters more, tell the judge what matters more and why. This is called analysis. A good argument needs fact and analysis.

You should divide your speech up into 2-3 distinct points or arguments. For each one:

• Explain what your point is
• Explain why what you say is true/is likely to actually happen
• Explain why this thing happening is important (this is called "impacting" your points)
• If possible, provide examples of similar things in the real world

To return to our fast food example, a point could be that banning fast food will improve people's health. This is true because there is a proven link between fast food consumption and obesity, because of its high fat content, and obesity is linked to higher death rates etc. If you ban it, people cannot eat it and will be forced to eat other, healthier food. This is important because while freedom of choice is a desirable thing, you cannot exercise it if you are dead. Also, people clearly aren't thinking much about their choice or they wouldn't be doing something that so severely damages their health, marketing and food additives interfere in this choice. An example in the real world would be how the partial smoking ban in Ireland has reduced rates of smoking since its introduction, and lung cancer rates have dropped similarly.

POIs

A point of information (POI) is a piece of information, a question or comment offered to the current speaker by a member of the opposite team.

The 1st and the last minute of a person's speech is 'protected', meaning no POIs can be offered within that time.

To offer one, a speaker should stand up from their seat during a speech by someone on the other side of the debate and say “Point of information”, “On that point” or something to that effect.

A good POI will point out a problem with the speaker’s case, a contradiction they’ve made, or can simply challenge the importance of their argument. For example, in a debate about the death penalty, when a team is claiming that it acts as a deterrent; a helpful POI could be “Texas has adopted the death penalty, and still has the same murder rates as surrounding states without it”, or a POI phrased in the form of a question, such as “Do you think deterrence is the only function of our prison system?”

A POI may be accepted or rejected at the speaker’s leisure. If rejected, the person who offered the POI must sit down again immediately and allow the speaker to continue. If accepted, a POI should last no more than 15 seconds. You must not engage in a conversation with the speaker– you cannot respond to their response to your POI. If accepted, give your POI and resume sitting down. A speaker should accept at least 1 POI during their speech, and offer many to opposing speakers, while respecting other speakers and their right to continue with their speech. Offering more than one POI every 15 seconds is called barracking and is very rude, as it doesn’t allow the speaker a chance to get their points across and if you do it, you will be told to stop by the chair judge.

Do’s & don’ts

• Do stand up when you offer a POI.
• Do offer a POI regardless of your position in the debate. POIs are an excellent way to show that you are immediately engaged in the debate, and that your case has an answer to the current speaker.
• Do use phrases such as “Point of information!”, “On that point”, “Sir/Madam!”.
• Do accept at least one POI, but no more than two
• Do take a POI during the part of your speech you feel most confident defending.
• Don’t speak longer than 15 seconds.
• Don’t accept a POI just because you’re flustered or have lost your place in your debate. Take a few moments to compose yourself and take a POI when you feel confident in your ability to engage with it.
• Don’t offer a POI in protected time, which consists of the first and last minute of a speech. The end and beginning of protected time will be signalled by a judge, generally by a clap.
• Don’t POI a member of the same side as you, or your team-mate.