introduction to debate and the principles in argumentation. prepared by Debate Ghana Association

1. DEBATE GHANA ASSOCIATION
ROAD WORKSHOP
FOR
DEBATE ACADEMY PROJECT

2. CONTENT
 PART 1
 Philosophy and basics in debating
 British parliamentary debate
 Important features of debate
 Stasis and Structure
 Exercise/ Student Breakout Teams &
Presentations:
 1. Audience Analysis
 Argument, Evidence and Explanations

3. CONTENT cont.
 2. Mini Debate
 CONCLUSION.
 Part 2
 Arguments and Argumentation
 Quality of Arguments
 Criteria for logical Assessment
 Basic fallacies
 Exercise/ Student Breakout Teams &
Presentations

4.  Resolutional Analysis worksheet
 Post Debate Assessment
 Mini Debate
 Conclusion, Important concepts

5. PHILOSOPHY AND BASICS IN
DEBATING
Debating as the foundation of Human knowledge.
Constructing the meaning of our world through
communication with uncertainty.
Relationship between communication and
uncertainty;
 Uncertainty is pervasive
 Uncertainty is reduce through communication
 The desire for uncertainty is compelling.

6. Debate a contest of interpretations , therefore
argument.
Evaluation of argument a subjective activity.
No “right” way to debating.

7. BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
The British Parliamentary academic debating
format is the official format of the World
Universities Debating Championships (WUDC).
As the name suggests, the format has its roots in
the British House of Commons, which served as a
model for academic debating in British
universities. Since its adoption by the WUDC, the
format has spread around the world and is now
the most widely practiced format of intercollegiate
debating.

8. BP FORMAT
BP involves four independent teams per round:
two who argue in favor of the motion (known as
the Proposition teams) and two who argue
against the motion (known as the Opposition
teams).
Two teams, known as the Opening Proposition
and Closing Proposition, are responsible for
arguing on behalf of the topic, known as a
motion in BP debating.

9. Two more teams—the Opening Opposition and
Closing Opposition—are responsible for arguing
against the motion.
Each of these teams is comprised of two
debaters, each of whom has a unique name in
the debate.
Opening Proposition (for) Opening Opposition (against)
Prime Minister Opposition Leader
Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Opposition Leader
Closing Proposition (for) Closing Opposition (against)
Member of Proposition Member of Opposition
Proposition Whip Opposition Whip

10. Debating Order, Speaker, and Timing
ORDER TEAM SPEAKER TIME
1
Opening Proposition Prime Minister (PM) 7 minutes
2
Opening Opposition Leader Opposition (LO) 7 minutes
3
Opening Proposition Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) 7 minutes
4 Opening Opposition Deputy Deputy Leader Opposition (DLO) 7 minutes
5
Closing Proposition Member Proposition (MP) 5minutes
6
Closing Opposition Member Opposition (MO) 5 minutes
7
Closing Proposition Proposition Whip (PW) 5 minutes
8
Closing Opposition Opposition Whip (OP) 5 minutes

11. Point of Information(POIs)
It is an interruption from opposite side during speech delivery.
A debater may request the opportunity to present a Point of
Information (either verbally or by rising) from a speaker on the
opposite side of the motion at any time after the first minute
and before the last minute of any speech. POI last for 15
seconds.

12. SPEECHES
Prime Ministers Speech
It is the first speech in the round and bears a special burden: It must lay out a
case that not only offers an argument (or arguments) for the motion but also
outlines the round in a way that makes the participation of the other
teams feasible.
Framing
Framing refers to the couching of a debate for understanding. The PM’s most
important obligation is to prospectively frame the debate so the other debaters
and the adjudicators understand its context and focus.
Generally, PM’s decision should be guided by consideration of how the
adjudicators will evaluate the effort to define the proposition and “better
debate” standard.

13. Constructive Argumentation
PM’s time is dedicated to the development of the constructive arguments that
offer reasons for the proposition he has developed in his framing. Typically, the
PM will offer three to four arguments for the proposition. These points may be
independent or logically progressive, but they will certainly comprise a
complete, varied, and thorough set of proof for the proposition.
Deconstructive Argumentation
The majority of PM speeches doesn’t focus on deconstructive argumentation
for one simple reason: as the first speech in the round, there is not yet an
opposing effort to deconstruct.

14. Leader of Oppositions Speech
The leader of opposition has similar functions as the Prime Minister. As the first speaker
for the Opposition, the LO is responsible for framing the focus of the Opposition teams
as well as introducing the constructive and deconstructive positions of the Opening
Opposition team.
Framing
The LO faces a decision about how to frame her opponent’s arguments. Principally, LOs
decide whether they accept or challenge the PM’s interpretation of the motion.
Like the PM, the LO is subject to the “better debate” standard. Once the LO is certain
that objecting to the PM’s definition is the best strategy, LOs faces another decision.
That is must decide whether to rehabilitate the PM’s interpretation or to abandon it. If
she chooses to rehabilitate the interpretation, she would use what is known colloquially
as the “surely” strategy.

15. Deconstructive Argumentation
Deconstructive argumentation is a critical focus for the LO (and, indeed, for all
subsequent speakers) as the engagement of opposing arguments is the defining
characteristic of debating. It is one of the chief criteria adjudicators use in
determining the ranking of teams.
Style for Deconstruction
Index arguments made by the PM.
Respond to each of them in turn.
Deconstruction should take 2 to 3 minutes of the LO’s speech.
Constructive Argumentation
LO is expected to develop positive matter in support of her position. This is
strategically advantageous to the Opening Opposition team. A more judicious
strategy is employ to offer both “arguments against” in the form of deconstructive
argumentation and “arguments for” in the form of constructive arguments.
Adjudicators are more likely to vote for a team who demonstrates proficiency in all
skills rather than concentrating on one and evaluate each speaker by his/her efforts to
introduce “positive matter” into the debate.

16. Deputy Speakers Speeches
The primary focus of the two deputy speakers is to support the effort of their partner
while contributing to the advancement of the arguments in the round.
Framing
If PM offers a reasonable interpretation of the motion and LO accepts that
interpretation, the framing responsibilities of the Deputy speakers will be different
than those of their opening partners. Their concern should not be determining the
proposition for the round but directing which issues are paramount in the appraisal of
that proposition and directing adjudicators’ attention toward particular issues while
diminishing others.
Two general approaches can be used for framing:
 Explicitly compare and contrast the issues in play and emphasize on their preferred
issue.
 Group arguments in the round into issues that will address the proposition in their
favor.
The explicit effort is preferable if the opening speakers have already defined very clear
issues.

17. Deconstructive Argumentation
There are two styles for deconstruction for deputy speakers. They are:
Deputy speaker can group the various arguments in the round into broader issues
for adjudicators’ consideration and then deconstruction of opponents’ arguments
in each of the issues will occur while new frame for the round unfolds.
Deputy speaker can choose to deal with the material presented by the preceding
speaker independent of any effort to reframe those arguments into issues and that
would have to deal with deconstruction in much the same way the earlier speakers
did. It would start from deconstructive argumentation and move to constructive
argumentation and would have to utilize the standard structure for refutation.
Constructive Argumentation
Deputy speakers have unique challenge in construction:
They are charge with sustaining their team’s position in the round.
They are charge to fulfilling the mandate of the rules in other to offer unique
positive matter.
They are charge to reconstruct arguments offered by their partners that might have
been compromised by their opponents’ deconstructive efforts.

18. IMPORTANT FEATURES OF DEBATE
Audience
Audience refers to the people to whom the debaters seek to have their side or appeal to.
Without an audience, debaters would have little reason to construct an argument,
much less to participate in a debate.
Evidence
Evidence is the starting point of argument. It should starts with knowledge already
available to the audience, then supplements that public knowledge with information
gleaned from more technical or scientific sources.

19. Reason
It is the process through which evidence is connected to claims. It starts with selected
evidence and then moves through the process of reasoning to connect it to the claim
they support in an attempt to convince the audience to believe in the claim to the same
degree they believe in the evidence.
Language
It is the medium through which most arguments are communicated to audience.
Language used in debate must be generally understood by all or greater part of the
audience and should be natural giving the role of insider rather than an outsider.

20. STASIS AND STRUCTURE
Argument as Movement
When we are arguing, we: move audience, advance positions, sway opponents, redirect
questioning, follow lines of argument, take logical leaps, retreat from claims, push issues,
drive points home, come to conclusions, and so on. There are two important things that
matter in here:
 Thinking of argumentation as dynamic, fluid, and transient.
 Imagining argumentation having a spatial dimension.
Stasis
Stasis refers to an imagined place where competing arguments meet. It is the place where
the arguments we make meet the arguments our opponents make. Two point of stasis are
relevant in debate and they are:
 Points of stasis that function as propositions
 Points of stasis that are issues.

21. As Proposition
In a debate round, a proposition is the most general point of stasis over which the
opposing sides will disagree. A proposition serves two functions:
 The proposition serves as a boundary around the subjects being debated.
 The proposition divides ground between those arguing for the proposition
and those arguing against it.
As Issue
Issues are similar to propositions but differ in scale and focus and are more narrow
points of stasis.
Types of Issues and Their Subject
Cultural: Arguments about the collective identity shared by people in a particular
group.
Economic: Arguments concerning financial matters.
Educational: Arguments relevant to the effort to instruct citizens.

22. Environmental: Arguments about the natural world.
Legal: Arguments related to what is required or prohibited by a society’s rules.
Moral: Arguments concerning ethical consequences of a proposition.
Political: Arguments relevant to the acquisition and exercise of power.
Rights: Arguments about freedoms or privileges.
Security: Arguments that address the subject of a nation’s safety.
Social: Arguments regarding relationships between people.
Symbolic: Arguments concerning the interpreted meaning of phenomena.
Welfare: Arguments about public health and well-being.

23. Tag Lines
They are a one-sentence distillation of a complex argument intended to stick in the
audience’s mind (or in the audience’s notes). Good tag lines have several common
characteristics:
1. Tag lines should be simple.
2. Tag lines should express a single idea.
3. Tag lines should be declarative.
4. Tag lines should be phrased assertively.

25. GROUP WORK

26. RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS
WORKSHEET
 Goal
 To encourage students to begin the process of thinking about
where a resolution comes from, why it is important and how it is
likely to be debated.
 Method
 Using a resolution that students are likely to debate in the future,
ask students to complete the following statements on paper
 The resolution is important because…
 The background of this resolution is important because…
 The resolution contains several key terms that are …
 These terms are defined as…
 This resolution contains several key issues, including….
 After completing the statements, students can work in small
groups to develop more comprehensive answers. Finally all of the
answers can be shared and discussed by the class.
DEBATE GHANA ON GJFL 2010/2011 26

27. PART 2/ DAY 2

28. ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATION
Definition
An argument is a collection of statements organized in a
way that highlights connections between ideas.
Elements of Argumentation
Arguments are composed of three elements:
Claim
Support
Inference.

29. Elements of argument
 The elements are central to debate and are related to
one another. These include: evidence, reasoning, claim
and reservation.
 The philosopher Stephen Toulmin introduced this in
1958 and was revised 30 years later.
 Toulmin’s model identifies four basic elements of
argument: claim, evidence, warrant and reservation.
cont’d
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 29

30. The travel analogy
 Evidence : [facts]. It is also argument’s starting point.
 Claim: is the arguer’s destination. i.e. controversial
statement a debater intends to support using reasoned
argument.
 Warrant: is the means of travel. i.e. reasoning process.
 Reservation: involves questions or concerns the arguer
may have about the arrival at destination.
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 30

31. Structure of an argument
Toulmin’s Model
 Simple Argument: consist of a single claim leading from a
single piece of evidence following along a single warrant and
Warran
t
Evidenc
Claim
e
Reservatio
n
accompanied by perhaps (but not always) a single reservation.
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 31

32. Illustration with argument. E.g.
Harry is a British citizen because he was born in
Bermuda. This is how Toulmin structured the
argument on the model.
Warrant
Persons born in
Bermuda
generally are Claim
Evidence British citizens Harry is
Harry was British
born in citizen
Bermuda
Reservation
Unless Harry’s
parents were U.S
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011
citizens 32

33. CLAIMS & PROPOSITIONS
 Claims and propositions (resolution / topic) are
controversial statements that debaters support using
reasoned arguments.
 The primary difference between claim and
propositions is that claims are narrower statements
used to support broader propositions.
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 33

34. QUALITY OF ARGUMENTS
Criteria for Logical Assessment
1. Standard of Acceptability
The standard of acceptability speaks to the quality of evidence on which
an argument is based.
2. Standard of Relevance
The second standard for testing the quality of an argument is
relevance. This standard examines the quality of the connection between the
support and the claim by asking whether the evidence offered is relevant to the
claim made.
3. Standard of Sufficiency
The standard of sufficiency asks whether the arguments made
produces a level of certainty adequate for the audience to accept the claim.

35. EVIDENCE
 Evidence is the starting point of an argument
 The two broadest categories of evidence are
evidence based on Reality and evidence based on
Preference.
 Evidence based on reality includes facts, theories,
and presumptions.
 Facts are observed or potentially observable data.
 Theories are statements that explain other facts or
predict the occurrence of events.
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 35

36. WARRANTS
A warrant is the means whereby debaters move from starting
point to destination. It is the reasoning process that allows
debaters to connect evidence to claims.
Categories of warrants
Argument by example: this creates an association between
particular examples and more general rules. Argument by
example is based on the probability that examples in a class
share important characteristics.
For instance, a debater might want to describe certain features
of the judges of the International Criminal Court by using
characteristics of individual members as evidence. Similarly,
a debater might use the actions by members of the Mantse
Communist Party to argue that Communist Party members
in general act in certain ways. Thus, an argument by example
begins with evidence about specific cases and moves to a
claim regarding the group as a whole.
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 36

37.  Argument by Authority: this supports a claim by
associating that claim with the opinions of experts in
the fields.
 An argument of principle connects a particular
situation to a general principle/ rule, arguing that
actions in each situation should conform to principles.
 Argument by incompatibility: this evaluates
something by showing how it is incompatible with
another thing the audience accepts.
 Argument by Dissociation: this creates new categories
by dividing old categories into new ones.
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 37

38. FALLACIES
 A fallacy is considered an error in reasoning that
negatively affects the judgement of an arguments
quality. But the presence of a fallacy doesn’t mean
that an argument is disqualified.
 Three Basic types of Fallacies
 Problematic premise, Irrelevant reason, and the
Hasty conclusion.
 Fallacy of Problematic Premise– relates to an
argument that that fails to meet the acceptability
criterion. This category of fallacies include:
Debate Ghana Association on JFL 2010/2011 38

39. BASIC FALLACIES IN ARGUMENTATION
Appeal to the Man (Argumentum Ad Hominem) - Attacking the individual instead of
the argument.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum) - Telling the hearer that something bad
will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam) - Urging the hearer to accept the
argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy.
Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of
people hold to it.
Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been
done or believed for a long time.
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) - Assuming the thing to be true that you are
trying to prove. It is circular.

40. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events
occur together.
Reductio Ad Absurdum- showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd
conclusion.
Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but
the word has different meanings.
False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices
possible.
Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or
irrelevant history of the claim.
Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it
likes someone whom is disliked by another.

41. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise
or the conclusion.
Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she
speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different
from a standard applied to oneself.
Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the
truth and attacking it.
Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have
that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing
to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.
Euphemism- the use of words that sounds better.

42. Constructive Arguments for Claims of Value
Claims or Propositions are controversial statements that debaters intend to support or
oppose using reasoned arguments. There are two value claims. They are:
1. Simple value claims.
2. Comparative value claims.
Simple Value Claims
It is the most basic and elementary kind of evaluative claim. In simple value
claims values are attached to objects. Object’s in this sense is not limited to physical
objects. The objects can be person, place, thing, institution, action, and concept.
Claims can be combined in support of a simple value Proposition. In doing
so:
1. Describe one or more features of the object of evaluation.
2. Relate the feature to an effect.
3. Evaluate the effect.

43. Outline for Simple Value Proposition
I. Introduction
A. Statement of the Proposition
B. Definition of Terms
II. Arguments
A. First Claim
1. Description
2. Relational
3. Evaluation
B. Second Claim
1. Description
2. Relational
3. Evaluation
III. conclusion

44. Comparative Value Claims
Comparative value claims other than Simple Value Claims compares two or
more objects according to their importance. In comparing it is assume that there is
conflict between the object under consideration.
Claims are combined in support of comparative value proposition. In doing
so:
1. Describe one or more features of each object to be evaluated.
2. Relate these features to an effect.
3. Evaluate the effect.
It has the same outline as the simple value claim but the claims are comparing claims
(arguments)

45. REFUTATION
Refutation is the process of ‘tearing down’ or attacking and answering, an
opponent’s arguments. It is tool which give debaters the opportunity of not
presenting strong case but also criticizing their opponent’s case while defending
their own.
Stages for A Successful Refutation
1. Reference- State and identify the argument so everyone is clear about what is
about to be refuted.
2. Response- Answer opponent’s argument, particularly by revealing any fallacies,
inconsistencies, or problems in the reasoning and evidence.
3. Support- If necessary, read, cite, or refer to evidence to justify, support, or prove
the argument on this point.
4. Explanation- Summarise the overall position of reasoning and evidence and
show how this reasoning and evidence overthrow the opposing team’s
arguments.
5. Impacts- Show implication by contrasting the argument at hand against the
opponents and then explain why one is stronger that the other.

46. REBUTTALS
It is the reservation not for new arguments or positions but rather for the summarizing,
highlighting, and advocating of the crucial arguments that a side has presented during the
debate. It is in this reservation period that refutation becomes more significant. It is the
duty of rebuttal debaters to identify or recognize vital issues that have been raised in the
debate.
Duties of Rebuttal Debaters
1. Summarise- a rebuttal speech briefly summarises the key issues that have been
presented. In summarizing rebuttal debaters comments on debate that has already
taken place, should review what has happened and draw judges attention to how the
arguments end.
2. Identify vital issues- the rebuttal should address the overall points that matter in a
debate rather than engaging in a discussion of minutiae.
Steps to Successful Identification of Vital Issues
I. Identify arguments that could cause your team to lose the debate.
II. Identify arguments that could win the debate for your team.
III. Observe relationship between vital arguments
IV. Determine the overall impact of an argument.

47. 3. Make critical choices- ideally, a rebuttal speaker wants to minimize critical
positions advanced by the opponent while spending considerable time explaining
the position he is advocating.
Factors to Consider in Making Choice
I. Time constraints
II. Issue constraints
III. Judge preferences
IV. Argument placement
4. Weigh Implication – a good rebuttal speaker will demonstrate that even if the
opponent wins some arguments, those arguments are not enough to ‘outweigh’
the speaker’s arguments. Thus a debater can concede some arguments while still
wining the debate, but the rebuttal speaker must decide which arguments are
more important than others.
Components for Weigh Implication.
I. Respond, don’t just repeat
II. Compare and examine
III. Think strategically
IV. Plan in advance
V. Use opponent’s choices

48. PUBLIC SPEAKING
Speech Presentation (Marking: 40%) - First Day
1. Participants to deliver 7 minutes prepared speech.
2. English shall be the main language of delivery.
The prepared speech should be themed around "Socially Responsible Corporate
Governance". Any matter is allowed except race, religion, politics and sex.
3. Contestants must prepare their own speech, which must be substantially original.
4. Participants should prepare for submission the script of the speech (3 copies).
5. Script of the speech will be handed upon 'Briefing for Participants' (see. 7 June,
2012). The script is typed in A4 paper, using Arial font, 12pt, with double spacing.
Cover should state the title, name of author, and institution.
6. Participants will then deliver the speech in front of an audience.
7. The speech will be marked based on the content of the speech (45%),
and the delivery (55%).