| Navigation Bar Placeholder |
presented by a speaker must be logical and relevant to the topic under debate.
Logic is the chain of reasoning used to prove an argument. This involves
stating, explaining and illustrating the argument. Relevance is established by
tying the argument to the topic under debate.
An example that has been used at the Australasian lntervarsity Debating
Championship at Monash in 1995 illustrates the point about reasoning of
arguments logically. The issue under consideration in the example is That
cigarette advertising should be banned. The structure to a team's case could be
as follows:
1. State an argument in favour of the topic:
Cigarette advertising should be banned because it entices young people
to smoke by making cigarette smoking seem like an attractive activity,
2. Explain the argument..
Young people see images of sports heroes and models endorsing
smoking. They are insecure and in need of some affirmation, so they turn
to cigarettes, assuming they will achieve the happiness they believe the
sports heroes and models enjoy. This is how they will get addicted.
3. Use examples:
Cigarette companies aggressively advertise in glamorous sports like
Formula One. Marlboro spend $50m a year to ensure that the McLaren
team ran have 'Marlboro' plastered all over its livery. Their product is seen
on the drivers and models who parade around like advertising billboards
trying to sell their products, often to kids who are impressionable.
4. Tie the argument back into the topic:
So as you can see, cigarette advertising entices young people into
smoking by giving them glamorous images to aspire to. The advertising is
therefore dangerous and it should be banned.
Part of your function is to assess the quality of argument. This requires you to
distinguish a strong argument from a weak argument, from the viewpoint of an
average reasonable person. A weak argument remains weak whether or not the
opposing team points out its weakness. You should not wait to see whether the
opposition attacks an argument before judging whether it is weak or strong.
Taking on the role of an average reasonable person does not prevent you from
being critical and intelligent in your analysis of the matter presented to you.
USE OF EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES TO EXPERTS
Properly used, examples are an important aspect of matter. Usually they will be
most effective when used to illustrate or bolster an argument that has been
constructed already, rather than as the foundation for making an argument.
Similarly, authorities cited should only support the argument and not substitute
the argument. The fact that an expert holds an opinion holds minor weight in the
process of persuasion unless the reasons for that opinion are explained and
independently assessed.
INVALID CASES
An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required by the
topic to prove. For instance, on the topic 'That cigarette advertising should be
banned', if the affirmative team argues that smoking is harmful, they have not
addressed the fundamental issue of the debate - cigarette advertising. Such an
approach should be penalised heavily.
HUNG CASES
Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the first
speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as the
'hung' case. It occurs when the first speaker does not affirm or negate the topic
in itself. The speech is left 'hanging' until the second speaker completes the
case. It is neither convincing to rely on another speaker to prove the entire case
nor fair to ask a first negative speaker to refute a case that is not complete yet.
Therefore such an approach should be penalised in both matter and method.
An Australasian example is, when on the topic That capitalism will fail without
religion, the first affirmative argued that capitalism will fail and the second
speaker argued that capitalism will fail without religion. Here the second speaker
was the only speaker to address the topic.
DISTINGUISHING MATTER FROM MANNER AND METHOD
In matter, you must assess the quality of the arguments irrespective of how well
they were organised. In method, you must assess the quality of organisation.
When assessing matter, it is important to shed all the effects of manner, namely
vocal style, use of gesture and quality of oratory. You should understand and
maintain this distinction and prevent the same strength or weakness from being
double-scored.
NEW MATTER FROM THIRD NEGATIVE
New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been canvassed
in the debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend an argument
is not considered as new matter.
It is a firm rule of debating that the third opposition speaker in the debate may
not introduce any new matter. The purpose of this rule is to prevent unfairness
in the debate because an issue raised at this stage does not allow the opposing
team to respond to it or comment on it sufficiently. Hence, the final speaker's
argument must be directed to issues which have already been raised in the
debate. In general, new matter consists of entirely new issues which have not
previously been canvassed in the debate. Introduction of new matter should
result in penalties on both matter (as the speaker should be spending time on
rebuttal) and method (as the team should have organised and prioritised its
arguments more effectively). The use of fresh examples to further illustrate an
earlier argument or any argument directed to rebuttal of an opposing argument
or to defence of the negative case is not new matter.
An example of new matter on a topic That UN is a waste of space is where the
first five speakers have been arguing the effectiveness of the UN as a peace
keeper and peacemaker and then the third negative decides to discuss at
length the humanitarian arms of the organisation.
In this context, the rule is not so clear about new matter from the third
affirmative. It is a matter for discretion, where you should weigh the value of the
new matter as substantial material against the detriment suffered by the team in
not introducing this earlier in the debate and possible time lost in rebuttal.
HUMOROUS ARGUMENTS
There are instances where one team adopts a humorous or 'send-up' approach
and the other team delivers a perfectly serious debate. In the former, you must
assess whether the 1send-up' has caused the audience to accept or reject the
spirit of high farce which pervades such cases. You should assess the 'send-up'
in the context of the 'send-up' reality. Then this is compared with the quality of
argument presented by the opposing team in its own context. The adoption of a
humorous line does not relieve the team of the necessity to structure its humour
in the form of an argument.
2. Assessing
Matter
3. Assessing
Method
4. Assessing
Manner
5. Other Issues
6. Marking Scale
7. Conclusion
