Lesson seven: rebuttals
debating: a blood sport
7.1. Same procedure as last lesson, but a new element is introduced:
7.2. So far, debaters have been giving their speeches, and have been attacking the other side via points of information. Now they'll start to use their own speeches to attack what has been said in the other side's speeches. The further they get into the debate, the fewer new arguments will be introduced, and the more attacks will be made on the facts, arguments and logic of the other side. Basically, the winning team will be the one that has most successfully rebutted the other side.
7.3. To make rebuttals , debaters have to LISTEN to the other side's arguments, hold back on points of information (!), and spend up to half their speech attacking. The 2nd speaker will certainly do this and the 3rd might even do this exclusively (as long as, in the team-line, the first speaker has announced nothing else for him/her to do.) The first speaker for the opposition will also do some of this (but obviously the 1st speaker of the government has had no speech before him/her to attack.)
So now most speeches consist of:
(a) a non-prepared, spontaneous part rebutting the other side; plus team-work:
(b) a prepared part, giving arguments, in consultation with the other two speakers.
7.4. It helps speakers, floor and judges if the structure of each speech and the whole case for one side is made transparent. It is a good maxim to:
(a) tell us what you are going to say; then
(b) say it; and then
(c) tell us what you have just said.
Speakers can remind us what their previous speaker has just told us, and again what the following
speaker is going to tell us.
Gesamtes Dokument herunterladen [.doc][245 KB]