What is Debate?

An introduction to Public Forum Debate

By Theodore Ganea, Gail Fair, Clement Dupuy, Elizabeth Raab
What is the purpose of debate?
● Debate asks 3 major questions
○ What are the facts?
○ Is it good or bad?
○ What action(s) should be taken?
● Each debate resolution will focus on 1 of these 3 questions
● Resolved: On balance, online schooling benefits students
● The topics can tackle any issue in the world; from education to taxes to international
conflict
● The goal is to use logic and evidence to prove your side of the resolution to the judge
Debate Formats
● There are a ton of debate formats
○ American Parliamentary Debate
○ British Parliamentary Debate
○ World Schools Debate
○ Policy Debate
○ Lincoln-Douglas Debate
○ International Parliamentary Debate
○ It goes on and on…
● The differences range from speaking times to research to judge quality
● We will be teaching Public Forum
○ When you learn one, learning others is pretty easy!
Why Public Forum?
● Public Forum helps you build several skills:
● Public speaking in English
● Persuasiveness and getting your point across
● Conciseness
○ Public Forum has time limits
○ Concise = more persuasive
● Impact
● Global style of debate
○ US is the birthplace of the format
○ Gulf States (Middle East)
○ East Asia (China, etc.)
PF
Public Forum

● 4 debaters (2 teams of 2)
● Each speaker gives two speeches
depending on their role; 7/6 minutes
total speaking time
● An emphasis on hard evidence and on
logical points
● Concise - speaking time is limited
● Requires evidence
Speaking Times
Speaker 1, Team A Constructive 4 min

Speaker 1, Team B Constructive 4 min

Speaker 1, both teams 1st Crossfire 3 min

Speaker 2, Team A Rebuttal 4 min

Speaker 2, Team B Rebuttal 4 min

Speaker 2, both teams 2nd Crossfire 3 min

Speaker 1, Team A Summary 3 min

Speaker 1, Team B Summary 3 min

All speakers Grand Crossfire 3 min

Speaker 2, Team A Final Focus 2 min

Speaker 2, Team B Final Focus 2 min

Recap
● Logic and evidence
● Round structure
 EAT,
MEET,
DEBATE,
REPEAT!
Toulmin Model - How to Argue
● Claim: The statement being argued
● Evidence/Example: The facts or evidence used to prove the argument
● Warrant (logic): The logical statement (often implied) that connects the claim to the
data
○ Example one:
■ Claim: Oranges taste good
■ Evidence: 7 Billion people eat oranges
■ Warrant: People eat things that taste good
○ Example two:
■ Claim: High taxes hurt small businesses
■ Evidence: Decrease in amount of small businesses operating after tax increase
■ Warrant: More small businesses = small businesses are doing well; vice versa
● You can attack any part of the Toulmin Model
● In practice, warrant and evidence lumped together as “warrant”
Claim
The main point of the argument; what the debater seeks to prove
true.
Evidence
The example/data you use to support your claim
Warrant
The underlying logic/assumption linking the evidence to the claim
Let’s Practice
● Argument 1:
○ Claim: Homework sucks
○ Evidence: Homework stresses students out
○ Warrant: Stress increases suckiness levels
● Argument 2:
○ Claim: Nuclear proliferation is bad
○ Evidence: More nuclear proliferation has led to more loose nuclear material
○ Warrant: Loose nuclear material causes nuclear war
● Argument 3:
○ Claim: Online school saves time
○ Evidence: Students don’t have to go to school on buses
○ Warrant: If you’re spending less time on buses, you’re saving time
One Step Further
● Claim
● Warrant - facts & logic
● Impact
○ Measured in 3 main ways (for now!)
■ Magnitude
■ Probability
■ Timeframe
○ All arguments should have a strong impact
○ Usually links to things like quality of life, saving lives, economic health, etc.
Let’s Practice
● Argument 1:
○ Claim: Homework sucks
○ Evidence: Homework stresses students out
○ Warrant: Stress increases suckiness levels
○ Impact: When homework sucks, it makes you depressed
● Argument 2:
○ Claim: Nuclear proliferation is bad
○ Evidence: More nuclear proliferation has led to more loose nuclear material
○ Warrant: Loose nuclear material causes nuclear war
○ Impact: Nuclear war could kill billions
● Argument 3:
○ Claim: Online school saves time
○ Evidence: Students don’t have to go to school on buses
○ Warrant: The time you spend on buses is wasted
○ Impact: Students will have more time for learning, so they will learn more
Your Turn!
● Argument A:
○ Claim:
○ Warrant:
○ Impact:
● Argument B:
○ Claim:
○ Warrant:
○ Impact:
Recap
● Toulmin Model
○ Claim
○ Warrant
■ Evidence
■ Logic
○ Impact
 EAT,
MEET,
DEBATE,
REPEAT!
Fallacies
● Merriam Webster: “an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference”
● In other words, bad logic
● Knowing different fallacies is useful for identifying arguments that can be attacked
easily and disproven
○ A logical fallacy can still lead to a good conclusion
○ However, bad logic disqualifies an argument in a debate round
○ Important to explain why the specific fallacy is wrong
● There are a lot of fallacies
Some Common Fallacies
● Ad Hominem: An argument who attacks the person instead of the argument
○ Ex. Pro’s argument is wrong because they’re ugly
● Appeal to Ignorance: Ignorance being evidence of something
○ Ex. We have no evidence that aliens don’t exist, so aliens must exist
● Appeal to Tradition: Using tradition to justify action
○ Ex. Slavery is not wrong because we’ve been using it for generations
● Argument from Authority: Using a position of authority to justify an argument
○ Ex. Vaccines cause autism because a doctor said so
● Bandwagon Fallacy: Concluding that an idea is correct because people believe it or
practice it
○ Ex. Everyone wants the new iPhone, therefore a new iPhone must be worth my money
● Loaded Question: an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement
○ Ex. “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Some Common Fallacies
● Straw Man: creating a false or made up argument out of your opponent’s
argument and attacking that instead
○ Ex.
■ Opponent: “Red Cross is ineffective, we should decrease funding to it”
■ Debater: “My opponent claims that the children in Africa are unimportant”
● Statistics of Small Numbers: Using a small sample size to create a conclusion
○ Ex. “0% of people are dying from Cholera”
■ Sample Size: this class
● Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: “it happened after X, so it was caused by …”
Correlation is not causation.
○ “The pencil dropped right before the light turned on, the pencil drop must have turned on the
light”
Recap
● Watch out for:
○ Straw man fallacy
○ Statistics of small numbers
○ Post hoc, ergo propter hoc