LITERATURE BOOKLET

DEBATE BOOKLET

Prof: Patricia Ambrosio

Year 9 / 3º ES

Nombre:
DEBATING
Debating helps students to acquire new ideas, helps them develop critical thinking skills, and opens their
minds to different points of view. A debate is not an argument. A debate can extend for weeks. It is about
defending what you think and providing supporting material for it.

5 steps to the debating process

1. GATHER information
2. EXPLORE all the sides of the issue
3. FORM an initial opinion
4. DEFEND your position in a debate
5. IMPROVE your opinion through knowledge gained in the debate.

Tips:
o Discuss your opinion with the members of your group.
o Write all your ideas down and identify your reasons for them.
o Consider other viewpoints.
o You don’t have to be excellent at English. You must be resourceful and express your ideas
clearly.
o Winning has to do with the way you present information, the research work you have done, how
persuasive you are rather than being perfect at English.

Rules:
● There will be two teams per debate:

o The Proposition (in favour- also called the positive team)

o The Opposition (against- also called the negative team)

● The order of speeches is as follows:

o First Proposition Speaker: They redefine the motion (to say the same thing using other words)
and introduce the team line (the point that the team will make) “This House believes………”. They are
allowed a ….. speech.
o First Opposition Speaker: They redefine the motion (to say the same thing using other words)
and introduce the team line (the point that the team will make) “This House believes………”
o They rebut (refute) the arguments of the Proposition by making emphasis on the weaknesses of
the points made by the other team. Remember you must be flexible and respond to the points of
information the other team makes. Don’t memorise things. (Language is unpredictable). They are
allowed a …. ‘ speech.

o Second Proposition Speaker: They reaffirm the proposition’s team line. They rebut (the main
points presented by the Opposition and present his part of the Proposition’s case. They are allowed a
….’ speech.
o Second Opposition Speaker: They reaffirm the Opposition’s team line. They rebut (some of the
main points presented by the Proposition and present his part of the negative’s (Proposition) case). They
are allowed a ….. speech.
1
o Third Proposition Speaker (summary) They reaffirm the proposition’s team line. They rebut (all
the remaining points of the Negative’s case and round off the debate for the affirmative “The reason why
the motion should stand is....”). They are allowed a … ’ speech.
o Third Opposition Speaker (summary) They reaffirms the Opposition’s team line. He rebut (all
the remaining points of the affirmative case and rounds off the debate for the negative). “The reason why
the motion should fall is....” He is allowed a 2’ speech.
o Neither third speaker may introduce any new parts of their team’s cases.
o The speakers can use sarcasm, irony.

● The Chairperson will be in charge of conducting the debate, presenting the motion and
introducing the members of each of the teams. “Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am ...... and I
will be the chairperson for this debate. We are here to discuss the motion today......... Now let me
introduce the members of each team. The Proposition is composed of first speaker, ...., second
speaker...... and third speaker...... and the reply speech will be delivered by ........ The members of the
Opposition are ...........”

● The reply speeches are made by the first or second speaker of each team.
o It is just to summarise and/ or to reinforce the team’s line.
o No points of information are accepted.
o No rebuttal is made.
o No new arguments are presented.

● The time keeper takes the time and makes sure that the speakers stick to the time limit. They are
chosen by the class.

● Points of information (POI) While the speakers are presenting their points members of the other
team can:
o Ask for a POI to disagree with what the speaker is saying and explain why. They must put up their
hands, say “POI” and wait to see whether they are accepted or denied.
o The speaker can accept or deny each point of information. However, it is advisable to accept at
least one.

● The points of information make a debate juicy. They are as brief as possible.

● The speakers and Chairman should address the other as Mr/ Madame Chairman or Mr/ Madame
Speaker. He explains if the team is against or for the motion and maintains order.

● Adjudicators (Teacher and students) give points for each criteria.

TIPS FOR DEBATERS

Judges will usually use four criteria to assess you:

Matter: what you say in your speech

o Have several arguments to support the team’s case.
o Make sure there is no contradiction between different lines of argument used by the team.
o Display some general knowledge about the topic area.

2
Method: your plan of action

Manner: the way you express yourself. (Persuasive, argumentative, etc).

o Modulate your speech

o Vary your tone of voice at important points, even changing your volume and speed or speak more
slowly than normal using pauses, especially before important points.
o Consider your body language, mannerisms that can irritate audiences and distract them from what
you are saying.
o Use gestures to emphasise what you are saying.
o Most important of all is eye contact with the audience.
o Think carefully about the rhetoric questions you will use

Team work: how the team works together

o Try to think about what the other team may say about your arguments and refuse points made by
the opponents continuing with your side of the argument.
o Make sure it has an introduction and a summary.
o Although you may have lots of different points to make, don’t forget they all refer to the motion you
are trying to prove or disprove so they must be connected.

The team that scores more points wins the debate

What is a debate?

A debate involves a discussion of the pros and cons of an issue. Debating successfully is all about using
argument and persuasion to convince other people that your views are right.

Online debating tips

· Research the subject, so that you have facts to back up your views.

· Use logic to develop your case and make your points.

· Think about what the counter arguments are likely to be, so that you can work out your case in
advance.

· Be open minded and prepared to change your opinion.

· Don't get drawn into personal attacks.

· Stick to the subject being debated.

· Pay attention to spelling and grammar, it will strengthen your case.

Keep it clean

This is your opportunity to debate the issues that matter to you with people from all corners of the world,
so do not spoil this opportunity by posting childish or abusive comments. Likewise, if you notice such
comments then please do not respond to them, as this can ruin a good debate. The yourdebate
administrator will remove them as soon as possible.

3
Have Your Say

Now put your debating skills into practice, and join in.

IMPORTANT NOTES

1 Introduction *

2 Overview: how adjudicators make their decisions and how they mark *

2.1 The decision *

2.2 Marking *

3 Speaker roles *

4 An Introduction to Manner, Matter and Method *

4.1 Matter *

4.2 Manner *

4.3 Method *

5 Conduct *

6 Common debating mistakes *

6.1 Definitions *

6.2 Summaries *

6.3 Points of information (for Murray and Douse) *

6.4 Case statements *

6.5 Palm cards *

6.6 Teamwork *

7 Guide for preparing for secret topic debates *

8 Rebuttal *

9 Points of Information (for the Murray, Douse and Crime Prevention competitions) *

9.1 Formalities *

9.2 Typical points of information: *

10 Recognising generic topics *

10.1 Is/ought (or normative/empirical) topics *

4
10.2 Big red ball topics *

10.3 Prohibition topics *

10.4 ‘X is a failure’ topics *

10.5 ‘That we should fear X’ topics *

1. Introduction
These notes are intended as a resource for school debaters. They identify a number of
specific areas of debating, like rebutting, preparing for secret topic debates and using palm
cards. The intention of most sections is to identify the basic principles of good debating that
students should be aiming for and, where possible, to suggest some practical ways of
addressing these principles. The first section, on how adjudicators make their decisions, has
a different role. It is a guide for people new to debating, so that they understand the process
an adjudicator is likely to follow in making a decision.

2. Overview: how adjudicators make their decisions and how

they mark
An standard adjudication will provide:

o feedback to debaters both on what they did well and where they could improve;
o an analysis of the important issues in the debate and/or the features of the debate that
were important in distinguishing the winner; and
o a result and reasons for the result.

The following discussion focuses on how adjudicators reach their decision and how they
mark. It should be emphasised that these notes are a guideonly and that adjudicators may
adopt different approaches at times if they feel this is appropriate.

o The decision

An adjudicator should take the standpoint of the ‘disinterested average reasonable person’ in
assessing the arguments and presentation in a debate. Thus, the adjudicator’s own opinions,
specialist knowledge or tastes should not influence how they view the debate. There will
usually be more than one feature distinguishing the two teams. Common distinguishing
features generally correspond to the components used for marking: matter, manner and
method. For example, one team may win because:

▪ on critical issues that team presents a superior case (matter); or

▪ whilst the two cases are of comparable strength, that team had stronger rebuttal and
points of information (matter); or
▪ the presentation of that team was more engaging and convincing (manner); or
▪ the structure and consistency of that team, either within each speech or throughout the
speeches, was superior (method).

5
By contrast, ‘technical’ faults are unlikely to be decisive in themselves although they may
contribute to decisive considerations. For example, poor timing is a technical fault but it is
usually associated with poor structure and prioritisation, which will have an impact on
method. Similarly, the absence of a case statement is a technical fault but it is usually
associated with looseness in the focus and clarity of arguments, which may affect matter and
method.

In making a decision, adjudicators attempt to weigh up the major substantive features

distinguishing the teams throughout the course of the debate. In particular, they will attempt
to avoid the ‘crescendo effect’ – the effect a good third speaker can have in making a team’s
argument seem much stronger than it previously appeared. Debating is a team effort and can
rarely be won or lost by one team member alone.

o Marking

The most important part of marking is the result, then the margin, then the speaker scores,
then the component scores (for matter, manner and method). Consequently, please do not
place too much weight on individual scores and particularly on component scores –
feedback from adjudicators is much more valuable.

Whilst a speaker receives a score out of 100 (40 for matter, 40 for manner and 20 for
method), the convention in debating is as follows:

80 = an outstanding speech, excellent in every respect;

75 = a good, average speech;

70 = a poor speech in every respect.

In the ACT, adjudicators are expected to award marks in the 70-80 range and
correspondingly, to mark the components in the range 28-32 (matter and manner) or 14-16
(method).

There is also a requirement about the margin of victory. Again, debating convention has set
certain interpretations for different margins:

1 = an extremely close win

2-3 = a close win

4-6 = a clear win

7-8 = an emphatic win

9-10 = the two teams were of entirely different standards

Margins of 9-10 and individual scores of 70 or 80 are very rare, reserved for exceptional
occasions. Where the individual scores suggest too large a margin (given the above
interpretations), adjudicators will always fudge the marks. Similarly, if component marks

6
suggest too large a total score, the component marks will be fudged. For this reason,
students and teachers should place more emphasis on qualitative feedback than speaker
scores.

2. Speaker roles
These points outline the bare bones of each speech. A speaker who covers all these points
will have fulfilled the basic requirements of a good debating speech.

o 1st Affirmative

1) Define the topic: explain the issue of the debate, briefly describing the argument that each
side must present.
2) Present affirmative case statement (also known as ‘case line’ or ‘team line’): this should
briefly summarise the main argument of the team.
3) Present case division: state the arguments to be presented by the first and second
speakers (third speakers need not be mentioned, as their role is rebuttal).
4) Present arguments: attempt to set out each argument separately and thematically, with the
most important coming first. The first speaker may need to introduce a ‘model’ or a ‘test’.
(See section 9.1 below for more on models and tests.)
5) Summarise: the speaker should briefly summarise the arguments raised in her/his speech,
reiterate the arguments that are to be presented by the second speaker and link these to the
case statement.

o 1st Negative

1) Where necessary, clarify the issue established by the affirmative definition.

2) Present affirmative case statement (also known as ‘case line’ or ‘team line’): this should
briefly summarise the main argument of the team.
3) Present rebuttal: this should be thematic and address the most important points raised by
the first affirmative speaker.
4) Present case division: state the arguments to be presented by the first and second
speakers (third speakers need not be mentioned, as their role is rebuttal).
5) Present arguments: attempt to set out each argument separately and thematically, with the
most important coming first. The first speaker may need to introduce a ‘counter model’. (See
section 9.1 below for more on models.)
6) Summarise: the speaker should briefly summarise the arguments raised in her/his speech,
reiterate the arguments that are to be presented by the second speaker and link these to the
case statement.

o 2nd Affirmative

1) Present rebuttal: the speaker rebuts the main points raised by the first negative speaker
and responds to criticisms of arguments made by the first affirmative speaker.
2) Present arguments.
3) Summarise: the speaker should summarise not only the points made in their own speech,
but the main points raised by their team as a whole.

7
o 2nd Negative

1) Present rebuttal: the speaker rebuts the main points raised by the first affirmative speaker
and responds to criticisms of arguments made by the first negative speaker.
2) Present arguments.
3) Summarise: the speaker should summarise not only the points made in their own speech,
but the main points raised by their team as a whole.

o 3rd Affirmative

1) Present rebuttal: thematic rebuttal should address the key issues of the debate, relating
the arguments and counter-arguments of the affirmative and negative.
2) Summarise: third speakers should allow time for a careful and convincing summary of their
team’s main arguments and the significant issues in the debate.

Note: third speakers are not allowed to introduce any new matter into the debate.

o 3rd Negative

1) Present rebuttal: thematic rebuttal should address the key issues of the debate, relating
the arguments and counter-arguments of the affirmative and negative.
2) Summarise: third speakers should allow time for a careful and convincing summary of their
team’s main arguments and the significant issues in the debate.

Note: third speakers are not allowed to introduce any new matter into the debate.

2. An Introduction to Manner, Matter and Method

This is a brief overview of the major elements within a debating speech, those being manner,
matter and method (for further information regarding the construction of speeches, please
refer to section three – Speaker Roles).

o Matter

Matter’ refers to the arguments presented by the speaker. Good matter involves convincing,
logical arguments supported with clear, relevant examples, analogies or statistics.

o Manner

‘Manner’ refers to the presentation of a speaker’s arguments. The key to good manner is that
a speaker engages the audience, thereby making their arguments more convincing. Different
speakers may successfully engage the audience in different ways – a variation of styles is
encouraged. However, there are some basic techniques that will usually assist the
presentation of a speech. Speakers should make eye contact with the audience and the
adjudicator. Speakers should speak clearly and should have some variation within their
speech. Variation might include changing the pace of delivery, changing the volume of
delivery or pausing for effect.

o Method
8
‘Method’ refers to the structure of arguments presented by a speaker. For each speaker,
good structure involves identifying the key issues, addressing them without repetition and
allocating the most time to the most important issues. For the team, good structure involves a
series of speeches that present a consistent and coherent set of arguments. Team structure
is assisted by a good ‘case statement’ and ‘case division’. Method varies within each of these
areas, but ultimately, relies on the principle of being ordered and clear in the way that you
present your arguments.

2. Conduct
It is important that people enjoy debating as much as possible. For this reason there are a
number of guidelines that debaters should be aware of regarding conduct within a debate

o Swearing in debating is strongly discouraged. If a debater accidentally swears,

adjudicators would be unlikely to deduct marks, however, if swearing is frequent or
deliberate, adjudicators would be justified in taking off Manner marks.
o Adjudicators are able to call for order. If debates become rowdy or heated, if points of
information continue for too long, if a speaker is being harassed by the other team or if there
are interjections then the adjudicator may call order. If this occurs, everyone except the
speaker should be quiet, in the case of points of information, they should not be offered for,
at the least, a few moments.

Running a case that is overtly sexist, racist or discriminatory is strongly discouraged. It is

acknowledged however, that sometimes it can be a fine distinction between running an
extreme case and an offensive case. We ask students and teachers to exercise careful
judgement in these matters. Furthermore, it must be noted, that if any person, whether a
debater, the adjudicator or a member of the audience, finds an argument to be offensive then
a complaint can be made to the duty officer which will then be reported to the ACTDU
committee.

3. Common debating mistakes

o Definitions

Debaters often define topics word-by-word, even using a dictionary. Occasionally a

discussion of key words in the topic may be useful but this should only occur to the extent
that it helps elucidate the issue for debate.

Example One. On the topic ‘That Australia should become a republic’, the affirmative might
elaborate on the key word ‘republic’ so that the issue of the debate is an argument where the
affirmative will support the replacement of the Queen and governor-general with a head of
state elected by two-thirds of parliament.

Example Two. On the topic ‘That we should swim against the tide’ the affirmative is likely to
identify the issue as non-conformity. They may then try to create the issue at a general level
– that is it better not to conform. Alternatively, they may choose to narrow the topic to a
topical issue of non-conformity, perhaps whether Australia conforms to international norms.
Thus, the issue would revolve around the affirmative argument that Australia should, in
several specific ways, ignore or reject various international norms whilst the negative would
9
argue that Australia should embrace those norms. (Note: this example is more sophisticated
than what we would expect from any school debater.)

o Summaries

Debaters often fail to summarise or summarise very briefly. A good summary can add
considerable cohesion to a speech and a debate.

o Points of information (for Murray and Douse)

Debaters new to points of information often fail to offer many points during the debate. They
should offer roughly two per opposing speaker. Whenever they hear a bad argument, they
should be encouraged to formulate a short response in their head and then jump up and say
‘point of information’. (See section 8 for more on points of information.)

o Case statements

Some debaters do not give a case statement, more often debaters give a case statement but
fail to use it as the focus for their arguments. The case statement should be an all-
encompassing reason for the team’s position which serves as a prop for all other arguments.
Used well, it provides valuable cohesion and clarity to a team.

Example Three: The affirmative case statement to ‘That the Greens have failed’ may be that
the Greens have failed because the Greens are too radical. The first half of the division might
be that the Greens are too radical to win media support and this has meant that they have
failed to fulfil their goals. The second half might be that the Greens are too radical to win
popular support, again causing them to fail to meet their goals.

o Palm cards

Young debaters frequently rely too heavily on palm cards, to the extent that some even type
the whole speech out. This should be strongly discouraged as it inhibits successful debating.
(See section 7 for techniques for teaching the use of notes.)

o Teamwork

Debaters may often present good individual speeches but not work well as a team. If joint
preparation time is limited, it should be concentrated on developing a case statement and
case division that team members will stick to and then team members should compare
speeches shortly before the debate so that they can summarise one another’s arguments
effectively.

4. Guide for preparing for secret topic debates

o Brainstorm definition (5 minutes): What is the issue to be debated? What will the
affirmative have to argue on this issue? What will the negative have to argue? Discuss this
together so that all team members have the same conception of what the debate is about.
o Brainstorm arguments (5 minutes): individually, think of any relevant arguments;
scribble them down; if possible, try to group them logically.

10
o Pool ideas, identify main arguments (10 minutes): Run through the arguments by each
speaker, trying to identify any similar or common arguments. Group similar arguments
together, try to find a natural division. Seek a foundational argument or reason that underpins
the other arguments – this will be the case statement. At this stage, the team should also
confirm the definition.
o Prepare speeches (20 minutes): first and second speakers should work on their
speeches, constructing main arguments and developing sub-arguments and examples or
analogies to support them. The third speaker should be ready to share ideas and otherwise
should be anticipating the possible arguments of the opposition.
o Compare (10 minutes): Make sure that each team member understands all the main
arguments and that the speeches are all relevant to each other. Prepare case summaries.
o Anticipate rebuttal (5 minutes): Discuss possible arguments of the opposition and
possible rebuttal.
o Fire up! Give yourself time to collect your thoughts and convince yourself of your case.
5. Rebuttal
Rebuttal is one of the most important parts of debating. It refers to the response that debaters
make to the arguments of the opposing team. Different speakers should handle rebuttals
slightly differently (for example, the rebuttal by a first negative should be brief enough to allow
the negative to develop their own case fully, see section three – Speaker Roles – for more
details). However there are some key aspects within effective rebuttal that can be identified
regardless of where a person speaks within a debate.

Firstly, ‘thematic rebuttal’ is always more effective than ‘point-by-point rebuttal’. Point-by-point
rebuttal refers to simply responding one by one to the arguments presented by the other side.
There are a number of problems associated with this type of rebuttal. Firstly, it is very easy to
miss an argument that may become important later on in the debate. Secondly, it can take a
very long time to get through all of the arguments presented by the opposition, and this takes
away valuable time from the team’s substantive Matter.

A much more effective, fast and comprehensive approach to rebuttal is thematic rebuttal.
That is, identify the major themes within the opposition’s case and attack those. In using
thematic rebuttal, a speaker can also much more readily identify and address the key issues
in the debate. A good analogy for rebuttal is that of a tree. The case statement and relevant
themes of a case are the trunk, the arguments are the branches and the examples used are
the twigs. If you wanted to knock the tree down, it makes a lot more sense to go straight for
the trunk, rather than breaking off the twigs and branches. Indeed, sometimes it is
appropriate to ignore the twigs and smaller branches (the examples) to give enough time for
attacking the trunk and main branches (the main arguments).

For example, suppose that an affirmative team presented the following arguments for the
topic ‘That physical education should be an elective’.

o Students have a right to choose other subjects so why not physical education?
o Students are exposed to unnecessary risk of physical injury.
o Students can get sporting involvement outside the school in extra curricular activities.
o There is poor funding within schools even for maths and science, let alone physical
education. These other subjects should have priority.
11
o There is a shortage of qualified physical education teachers

Rather than responding to these arguments one by one, it is better to group them into two
themes: for example the interests of the students (arguments 1, 2 and 3); and the concerns
of the schools (arguments 4 and 5).

6. Points of Information

o Formalities

Points of information are only offered to opposing speakers. To offer a point of information
the ‘offeror’ should stand in her/his place, say ‘point of information’ and wait. The speaker will
either:

▪ accept the point straight away;

▪ ask the offeror to wait, and then accept the point; or
▪ decline the point, in which case the offeror should sit down.

If a point is accepted, the offeror has roughly 10 seconds to make a point that is short,
pertinent and possibly witty. Most importantly, it should be short. Points of information afford
enough time for one or two sentences only so a significant skill is being able to get a powerful
point out briefly. This really is the same skill as the politician’s ten-second sound bite.

Speakers should usually accept 2 points of information during their speech (more than two
usually interfere with structure, timing and therefore method; less than two will usually look
cowardly and may affect Matter). Debaters should offer at least 2 points per opposing
speech. There is no maximum except for politeness – offering too many points too quickly will
be interpreted as badgering and may lose Manner marks.

o Typical points of information:

Clarification of the definition. Eg, ‘Point of information: what sort of republic do you support?’

Counter-example. Eg, ‘Point of information: you say that sanctions work but sanctions have
been imposed on Cuba for more than 30 years.’

Drawing attention to a forgotten argument. Eg, ‘Point of information: when will you respond to
our argument that the media won’t give the Greens favourable coverage because the Greens
are too radical?’

Bad logic. Eg, ‘Point of information: your first speaker said that we should be tough on dole
bludgers but now you’re saying that Work for the Dole is the best way to help them. Surely
you can’t have it both ways.’

Clarification of test. Eg, ‘Point of information: do you have a test for determining whether the
Greens have failed or are you just going to give us a shopping list of examples?’

Clarification of model. Eg, ‘Point of information: are you saying that in your proposal for drug
law reform, all drugs would be legal?’
12
7. Recognising generic topics
Many topics have a similar structure and therefore the same style of preparation and
argument can often be applied to them. The following list is merely illustrative of the way topic
types can be analysed.

o Is/ought (or normative/empirical) topics

Normative topics are topics about what should be the case, empirical topics are topics about
what is the case. Thus, ‘That we should reform the welfare state’ is normative whereas ‘That
the welfare state is alive and well’ is empirical (the issue in the latter topic involves an
analysis of what ‘the welfare state’ commonly refers to and whether current policies meet this
description). Empirical topics often contain a normative component. For example, ‘That
Australians watch too much sport’ requires an analysis of how much sport Australians watch
and whether this is too much.

Normative topics often require a ‘model’. A model is a specific proposal, usually to be

implemented by an organisation (eg, the Government, the church, the UN, the international
community) that provides more detail about the issue to be debated. Thus, in a debate about
the republic, it is necessary to introduce a model of what sort of republic is being supported.
A negative team should present a counter-model, although often that will just involve
supporting the status quo. For example, the affirmative in a drug law reform debate might
propose that, to address drug-related problems, marijuana be decriminalised. The negative
can just support the current system and say they support the current emphasis on policing.
Models are useful because they clarify the issue of the debate. Essentially, they are just an
extension of the definition.

Empirical topics often require a test (or burden of proof, or yardstick). A test is a measure
against which a claim can be established. For example, ‘That the Greens have failed’
requires a test of failure. This might hinge on electoral impact, it might hinge on popular
support and changes in attitudes, it might hinge on legislative change or it might be a
combination of all three. Another example, ‘That Australians watch too much sport’ requires a
test of ‘too much’. This might focus on the point where the personal effects of TV watching
are deleterious or circumstances where the societal effects of TV watching are deleterious, or
both.

o Big red ball topics

(eg That the United States is an evil empire)

To show that something is a big red ball, one must show that the thing is: big, red and a ball.
So, ‘big red ball topics’ refer to topics that require the affirmative to prove several points.
Often, only one of these points becomes an issue in the debate but the affirmative must
begin by arguing all points. Furthermore, the points should not be split between speakers,
that is, the team should not set the first speaker to prove the thing is a red ball and the
second speaker to prove it is big. This is a ‘hung argument’ and is strategically weak because
the case is not proven until the end of the second speech. Case divisions should identify two
arguments that independently prove the case.

13
o Prohibition topics

All of these topics involve banning something or lifting a ban. There are several standard
arguments in such debates.

Argument one. Lifting a ban usually allows regulation of a previously unregulated activity,
which could improve safety and allow for taxation (e.g. regulated prostitution means condoms
and information on STDs can be provided to sex workers).

Argument two. Bans don’t work, they just drive the problem into the black market. Typical
example is the prohibition on alcohol in the US in the 1920s.

Argument three. Bans send a strong moral message.

Argument four. We don’t legalise things just because bans aren’t totally effective – otherwise
we’d legalise murder!

o ‘X is a failure’ topics

(eg That the Greens have failed, That feminism has failed, That economic rationalism is a
failure)

These topics ask us what X has achieved (an empirical question) and what X ought to have
been able to achieve. The latter component is not really normative, although words like
‘failure’ and ‘success’ have normative overtones. What is important for discussing what X
ought to have been able to achieve is a ‘test’ or ‘standard’ of what is achievable for entities
like X. For example, on the topic ‘That feminism has failed’, the test of failure might be the
inability to achieve substantial legislative or societal change regarding women’s rights. This
still leaves the question of what constitutes ‘substantial change’ but the point of a test is to
give a guide for interpreting vague terms like failure. A test cannot turn a vague term into a
perfectly precise term.

o ‘That we should fear X’ topics

(eg That we should fear the collapse of Indonesia)

These topics ask us to speculate about what events X is likely to cause (which makes the
topic similar to an empirical topic) AND to argue that those events are bad (giving the topic a
normative component). Like ‘X is a failure’ topics, the normative component does not require
a model. For example, the topic on Pauline Hanson does not require a discussion of an
alternative to Hansonism. Instead, it requires an analysis of the merits of Hansonism.

Five Tips to Win Any Debate

Don't Debate the Player, Debate the Claim
14
Five tips to verbally own your opponent with respect, grace and heavily veiled contempt.

1) Always respect your opponent

You will never persuade your opponent to agree with your position. Logicians who happen to be
watching your debate could prove with absolute certainty that your opponent's position is completely
fallacious by every known rule of human logic, and your opponent won't budge. Like you, people are set
in their ways and have heard years of biassed opinions to cement their own worldview. They may
change their minds eventually (remember, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat and David Horowitz
was once an Afrocentric Communist), but it will certainly not happen during your debate.

Respect this reality. You can only hope to persuade your audience, and you should strive to do so.
Resist the urge to insult, disparage, or otherwise malign your opponent or any other person.

Both sides should seek to debate content, and not character. When your opponent uses ad
hominem arguments against you, however, it can work to your advantage. Oftentimes, it is a signal that
your arguments are so convincing that your adversary must launch personal assaults due to his inability
to rebut your message. We at PI know this very well, as we are subject to innumerable ad
hominem attacks. The fine members of fark, reddit, and other online news communities call us right-
wing, Ayn Rand-loving extremists. The fine members of FreeRepublic and other conservative news
forums call us lefty communists. Others say, "What can a bunch of twentysomethings know about
economics (or politics) anyway?”

The ad hominem argument proves that your opponent has already exhausted all logic and is resorting to
slander instead. It should be taken as a compliment. And it should most certainly not be reciprocated.

Your refusal to engage in mudslinging and name calling will likely provoke ire in your rival, and will
certainly further allow you to distinguish yourself in the eyes of your audience as the voice of reason.

2) Find common ground, and stake a claim on it

You should make every effort to base your arguments off of commonly-shared viewpoints. This not only persuades a greater number of your
audience, but also damages your opponents' arguments more severely.

This is one of the most under-utlized techniques in today's political scene. Socialists accuse free market supporters of hating poor people, and
affirmative action opponents of hating minorities. Likewise, conservatives accuse decriminalisation supporters of subsidising pothead losers, and
opponents of censorship as being pro-immorality. The list could go on.

Instead of becoming enraged, or disregarding your opponent as a crackpot idiot, you should make your opponent look foolish by showing yourself to
be aware of the same concerns that he is. Free-market proponents should make strides to explain how economic growth benefits the poor,
affirmative action opponents should explain how the discriminatory policy actually hurts minorities, and decriminalisation supporters should explain
how they support the rights of productive citizens, and not potheads.

Finding common ground enhances your persuasive power. Your audience is more likely to agree with your reasoning when it is based on
commonly-held beliefs, and your opponent will be categorically denied the ability to accuse you of not caring.

3) Concede well-reasoned points

There are generally two methods by which you can challenge an argument. First is by challenging its logical structure, either by its premises,
conclusions, or use of various logical fallacies. This is effective when you are debating people like your local college student who sputters nothing
but arguments dripping with fallacious reasoning. However, when you are debating more well-reasoned individuals, as you should be doing, you
may need to apply the second technique, which is to concede a point yet offer a stronger alternative.

An example can be provided by the work of this organisation. We have a policy position which is opposed to the inheritance tax, yet we recently
published a learned work arguing for the inheritance tax, because we believed that the argument itself was a good one. The argument was that
because heirs do nothing productive that directly warrants their wealth, taxation of their financial windfall is a relatively more productive exercise than
taxing the actual earned income of individuals, which is productively earned. It is a solid point, which we concede. Yet we believe a larger, more
persuasive principle is that the leaving of an inheritance is the free choice of the individual who earned it - no different than his choice to, say, blow it
on seven Bentleys - and that the usurpation of that free choice indeed violates the freedoms of those who actually did earn it.

Many issues in public policy have intelligent positions on both sides, and you will need to offer a compelling case why your position is more relevant
and beneficial than your opponent's. If your points are argued well enough, they should be able to stand down any of your opponent's points, even

15
without directly attacking his. Such concessions not only fail to hurt you, but they also improve your standing in the eyes of your audience. It is a
skilled debater who can graciously concede his opponent's point without skipping a beat.

It will be impossible to be prepared for every argument your opponent makes. He will surely cite some obscure statistic or random study, or even
make an a priori argument you've never heard. Rather than accuse him of being a liar, you can confidently reply, "Even if that were true, it still
doesn't change the reality that..."

4) Don't confuse passion with hatred

It is easy to agree with the first point about respecting one's opponent. The easiest way to respect someone's viewpoint that you disagree with is to
shut up and not say anything about it. But debating is necessary for the health of American democracy, and those in a debate might likewise find it
difficult to passionately advocate a position without seeming too harsh on its supporters.

Your denunciation of your opponent's position should be as passionate as necessary, as long as it doesn't denounce the person directly. There is
nothing wrong with pointing out the stupidity or ignorance of a policy, especially if you can prove it. Respecting your opponent does not mean
respecting what he believes or what he promotes.

No matter what the subject matter or contentiousness of the debate, remain positive in your speech and steer the conversation toward
commonalities and possible solutions.

5) Sometimes, the best debating technique is not to debate at all

The following settings are wholly inappropriate in which to engage in political discourse:

a) The workplace. Unless you work for the Prometheus Institute, the workplace is neither the time nor the place for political posturing. Your
coworkers should know very little, if anything about your political ideologies. It is impossible to maintain a professional relationship with your
coworkers when they think you are a conservative fascist or liberal hippie.

b) A date. Dates should be devoid of political discussion, at least for the first few dates. Dates should be fun and not boring. For the vast majority of
people, politics is excruciatingly boring. It also has the capability to cause deep personal divisions, convincing your date that you are a person with
whom she can form little ideological common ground. You can bore and/or enrage your girlfriend with your personal politics or philosophy after
you’ve been together for a while.

c) Weddings, funerals, and other public events. The nature of such events creates the cardinal rule that divisive and/or contentious topics should
not be discussed at them. No matter how respectful and reasonable your arguments, remember, some people will still hate your viewpoints, no
matter what. Save them for an arena where it is appropriate to discuss such things.

d) The classroom. If you sympathise with any conservative position, you will find yourself ideologically outnumbered on a college campus, and
often find yourself in a classroom with a professor who despises your opinion. Do not debate with them. Realise that if you truly challenge your
professors politically, you’re guaranteed no higher than a B+ in the class. Educate yourself on your own time so you know why they’re wrong, and
save that knowledge for someone who is going to care. Also realise that you gain more intellectually than the ass-kissing liberals in your class who
are being taught their own opinions – you get a free peek at the game plan of the opposition. It’s like being in your opponent’s huddle, if you use the
knowledge right.

Ways to open a debate

▪ As the proposition, we would like to begin with defining the following….
▪ To set the framework for our motion, we believe it is necessary to propose the following
definitions….
▪ We would like to introduce our stand by giving the following definitions. …
▪ In order to effectively debate this topic, we as the proposition, would like to propose….
▪ By giving this definition, a number of key issues arise from this problem which merit closer
examination.
▪ We, the proposition, will elaborate one of the most striking features of this problem, namely…
16

USEFUL DEBATING PHRASES

▪ In the first place we would like to make clear that….
▪ The main argument focuses on….

How to convince in a debate

▪ The opposition have tried to make some good points, however, they forgot to think about some
very important issues, namely….
▪ We hear what the opposition are saying but we do not agree. We will prove to you…
▪ That’s one way to think about it, however,….
▪ Not to play the Devil’s Advocate, but we will prove to you exactly the opposite.
▪ The proposition’s motion may seem plausible at first glance, however, we as the opposition, would
like to remind you of recent developments in this area. According to ….
▪ At first sight, the proposition’s argument seems to be true. But….
▪ We have thought about the proposition’s proposal, however, research findings strongly support
our motion of…..
▪ The proposition unfortunately failed to reveal the truth of the matter,….
▪ It is easy enough to make broad generalisations about...like the opposition just did, but in reality it
is a very complex issue.
▪ The arguments presented by the proposition are by no means sufficient enough to back up the
claim that….
▪ It is generally accepted these days that….
▪ It is only a matter of time until it will become evident that the opposition’s stand must fall due to the
following reasons….
▪ One must take into account that….

Claiming arguments and asserting points

● We define… as…
● Let me start with the argument/point about…
● The first thing we have to consider/ understand…
● One of the arguments in favour of/ against the resolution… is that…
● The affirmatives/ negatives are mistaken in saying that…
● As our 1st/2nd /3rd speaker explained in his/her speech,…
● On the very point about…
● I would like to add…
● The negatives/affirmatives are contradicting themselves by firstly claiming that… and secondly
agreeing with us during the X-Q that…
● The argument consists of three main issues: …
● Even if we agreed with the affirmatives/negatives. that… , there is still a problem of…
● The affirmatives/negatives may be right that … but their claims about… are based on false
evidence.
● I (dis)agree with X when he says that…
● There is no doubt that…
● I am convinced that…
● It is quite clear to me that…
● Anybody can see that…
● You can‘t deny that…
● There is little doubt that…
● In my opinion…
● I‘d like to support the points brought by X.

17
● I am in complete (dis)agreement with X.
● The example about… is irrelevant because…

Asking questions

● Could you specify what you mean by... ?

● Could you please define… for me?
● If it is not a personal question…
● Could you repeat/explain/ give reasoning for …
● Could you please quote your source?
● Begging your pardon, did you really mean that…
● Isn‘t this in contradiction to... ?
● Could you stick to the point/subject, please?
● Are you overlooking the fact that… ?
● If you could say a word about…

Answering

● You seem to be forgetting…

● That‘s absurd/ridiculous
● That‘s beside the point.
● It depends on what you mean/understand by…
● That‘s really interesting but I don‘t think it‘s really to the point.

Possible conclusions

▪ This motion must fall because….

▪ To conclude, we must emphasise our motion of…., hence the opposition’s point of view can no
longer be supported.
▪ To sum up, our motion must stand, simply because during the debate we have shown….
▪ This debate has made it obvious that the opposition’s motion cannot stand since…..
▪ The simple truth is…
▪ The proposed arguments lead us to the irrefutable conclusion that…
▪ To draw a line under this debate, …
▪ After careful consideration, we must conclude that….

“I’m listening to the other side.”

● I see your point, but I think…
● Yes, I understand, but my opinion is that…
● That’s all very interesting, but the problem is that…
● I’m afraid I can’t quite agree with your point.
● I think I’ve got your point, now let me respond to it.
● We can see what you’re saying. Here’s my reply…
“I need to say something now.”
● I’m sorry to interrupt, but you’ve misunderstood our point.
● Excuse me, but that’s not quite correct.
● Sorry, I just have to disagree with your point.
● Let me just respond to that, please.
● Forgive me for interrupting, but I must respond to that.

18
● Hold on a moment, that’s not correct.
● If you would allow me to add a comment here...
● If you don’t mind, I’d like to take issue with what you just said.
“You haven’t replied yet.”
● The other side will have to explain why.... otherwise we win that point.
● We said that… but the other side has not replied to our point.
● I’d like to focus on two points that the other side has failed to address.
● There are two points that we have succeeded in establishing…
● I want to call your attention to an important point that our opponents have not
addressed yet.
● I’d like to point out that there are two issues our opponents have failed to dispute,
namely…
● I must stress again that our point has not been refuted by the other side.
“Well, I think that…”
● The first point I would like to raise is this…
● Our position is the following…
● Here’s the main point I want to raise…
● I’d like to deal with two points here. The first is…
● Our opponents have still not addressed the question we raised a moment ago…
● The other side has failed to answer our point about…
● Notice that the affirmative side has not addressed our main point.
● Let me just restate my position.
● Just to be clear, here is what I mean…
“So finally, we…”
● To sum up, here are the main points our opponents have not addressed…
● We pointed out that…
● Our opponents have claimed that…
● To recap the main points…
● Let’s sum up where we stand in this debate.
● Let me summarise our position in this debate.
● In summary, we want to point out that…
● Let’s see which arguments are still standing.
● Let’s take stock of where we are in this debate.

Modes of Address

All references to other speakers should be in the third person, e.g. Points of Information should begin
with a phrase such as:

▪ Point of Information, Sir/Madam!

▪ Is the Speaker aware that...
▪ Mr / Madam Chairman...
▪ I request the floor...
▪ Are the Chair / the Speaker (not) aware that...
▪ I yield the floor to points of information / to the Chair / to another delegate.
▪ Does the Speaker (not) agree that...?
19
Resolution Introductory Phrases

Each clause should start with a verb in the following way (please note, this list is not exhaustive):

Pre-ambulatory Clauses

Affirming Emphasising Having denoted Realising

Alarmed by Expressing its attention Reaffirming
Approving appreciation Having examined Recalling
Believing Expressing its Having received Recognising
Bearing in mind satisfaction Having studied Referring
Contemplating Fully aware Keeping in mind Recalling
Convinced Fully believing Noting with approval Taking into account
Declaring Further deploring Noting with deep Taking into consideration
Deeply concerned Further recalling concern Taking note
Deeply conscious Guided by Noting with regret Viewing with appreciation
Deeply convinced Having adopted Noting with satisfaction Welcoming
Deeply disturbed Having considered
Deeply regretting further

Operative Clauses

Accepts Declares accordingly Expresses its Reminds

Affirms Deplores appreciation Requests
Approves Demands Further invites Solemnly affirms
Authorises Designates Further problems Strongly condemns
Calls for Draws the attention Have resolved Supports
Condemns Emphasises Notes Trusts
Congratulates Encourages Proclaims Takes note of
Confirms Endorses Reaffirms Transmits
Considers Expresses its hope Recommends Urges

How to Write a Debate Script

1
Research the issue. You must extensively research what your debate is about. Your research is the
foundation from which you make all of your arguments and rebuttals. If you do not know the facts, it will
be difficult to win the debate.

2
Find the main arguments on both sides of the issue (Reference 1). It is not sufficient to only address the main
arguments that support your stance. A well-rounded script will also feature some of your opponent's
arguments. Knowing the weaknesses in your opponent's arguments can help bolster your own arguments.

3
Develop an introduction that summarises what the issue is about (Reference 1). The introduction should
outline your approach and highlight some of the main points. It should also include a broader analysis of the
issue as a whole and how it affects the world.

20
4
Organize your script according to the strength of your arguments. You should mention your strongest
arguments first and your weakest arguments last. If you have an exhaustive set of arguments, some people
may not remember some of the arguments in the middle of your speech. People are typically more alert at the
beginning of a speech than at the middle or later parts of the speech.

5
Devote a section of your script to refuting your opponent's arguments. While you will not know for sure exactly
what arguments an opponent will make, your initial research should give you a hint of what he or she might
say. You should use this to your advantage in developing a refutation section. The refutation section should
not only highlight your opponent's potential arguments, but should also explain why those arguments fail and
offer solutions to the contrary.

6
Write a conclusion, similar to your introduction, that offers a wider analysis of the issue such as why it is
important, how it affects the environment or how it affects politics, for example. Also, remember to criticize the
arguments of your opponent in order to bolster your own

Sample Scripts
The following is a sample script for a debate. Your immigration script should follow the same format. It is
fine to accompany your words with images or other additions.

Note how the Opening catches the audience’s attention and lays out clearly what the team is going to do
and what each member will say. Similarly, the conclusion recaps what everyone said and appeals to the
audience to support the team’s position.

The arguments have statements backed up with facts and figures and quotes, so they are not just your
opinion.

The response to opposing arguments makes very clear what the opposition is saying and why the team
believes those arguments are incorrect or weak.

OPENING
My team is against the idea of eliminating the designated hitter in Major
League Baseball. My teammates and I will demonstrate to you that the
designated hitter should remain part of American League games. We even
think that the position should be added to the National League. Our first
main argument, which will be explained by our teammate Mary, is that the
the designated hitter adds excitement to baseball. I will discuss our second
argument, which is that fans get to see many great ball players who become
designated hitters late in their careers when they can no longer play defence.
Our teammate Bill will explain why the other team’s arguments are weak.
When we are done, we know you will agree with us that eliminating the
designated hitter is a bad idea.

ARGUMENT 1
What is so exciting about seeing a pitcher bunt? That is basically what the
designated hitter debate comes down to. Statistics tell us that American
League teams score an average of nearly two more runs per game over the
course of a season than National League teams that require their pitchers to
21
hit. While National League teams have the pitcher bunt to move a runner up
to second base, American League teams have the designated hitter to add punch to the lineup and
excitement for the fans. In the words of Charlie
Finley, a former owner of the Oakland A’s:

"The average fan comes to the park to see action, home runs. He doesn't
come to see a one-, two-, three- or four-hit game. I can't think of anything
more boring than to see a pitcher come up, when the average pitcher can't hit
my grandmother. Let's have a permanent pinch-hitter for the pitcher."

A designated hitter is usually one of the best hitters on the team. He is likely
to get more hits, drive in more runs, and more homeruns than a lot of other
players on the field. Just think about where the Yankees would have been
this year without having Hideki Matsui as their designated hitter in the
World Series! Without the designated hitter, the pitcher would have to bat
and we all know that pitchers are not good hitters.

Research after the 1995 season by Murray Chass of the New York Times
found that
“Of 51 pitchers who had 35 at-bats or more last season, 8 had averages that
began with a 0, 21 hit no higher than .111, 28 hit under .150 and 41 didn't
reach .200. Combined, the 51 pitchers had 407 hits and 990 strikeouts for a
.153 batting average and a .373 strikeout average.”

Chass compares these dreadful statistics to those of designated hitters in the

1995 season:
“The 180 players who served as designated hitters in the American League
batted .276 with 2,118 hits and struck out 1,540 times for a .020 strikeout
ratio.”

We believe that no one should take excitement away from baseball fans.
Baseball already suffers in the opinion of many sports fans for its lack of
action compared to basketball or football. A 2006 Harris Poll, for example ,
found that baseball was the favourite sport of only 14 % of fans, compared to
23 % of fans in 1985. Pro football, meanwhile, was the top choice for 29%
of fans in 2006 and college football was at the top of the list for 13% of fans,
showing that baseball is under pressure from fans who want to see more
action. Taking talented hitters out of the lineup in favour of pitchers who
generally strikeout or bunt is only going to make baseball less attractive to
fans.

ARGUMENT 2
Henry Aaron, Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Edgar
Martinez, Frank Thomas, and David Ortiz. These are some of the greatest
hitters in baseball history. Several of them are in the Hall of Fame or may be
one day. All of them have been designated hitters since the American
League created the position in 1973. Our second argument is that for 36
years, millions of fans have enjoyed watching these men hit home runs,
knock in runs, and lead their teams to the playoffs and World Series year
after year. If there was no designated hitter, many of them would not have
been on baseball teams or they would have been sitting on the bench hoping
to get one at-bat as a pinch hitter.
Frank Thomas is perhaps the best example, having played a 19-year career
in Chicago, Toronto, and Oakland. He was a first baseman for many of those
22
years, but started playing primarily at designated hitter in the second half of
his career – a time in which he had fantastic batting statistics including the
1997 season when he hit .347 with 35 homeruns and 125 runs batted in.
Similarly Reggie Jackson had a great career in the outfield for the Oakland
A’s and New York Yankees, but provided many more thrills after he moved
to Anaheim in 1982 and smashed another 140 homers in the final five years
of his career.
And who could forget what it meant to a young ball team named the
Milwaukee Brewers in 1975 when the top home run hitter of all time
sparked the club after leaving the Atlanta Braves of the National League
because he could no longer play the outfield. Aaron slammed 22 homers in
1975 and 1976, delighting the Milwaukee fans who had cried when their
Braves left town for Atlanta years earlier. Extending his career as a
designated hitter also enabled Aaron to play in front of millions of fans in
American League cities who had not seen him play in person since he had
been in the National League for so long.
What other great hitters of today will get to play longer because of the
designated hitter? Your guess is as good as mine. But we can imagine that
aging stars such as Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez are two who could keep
playing in that role for years after they stop being good fielders. This means
they could delighting fans who are currently too young to be aware of what
they are doing on the baseball field this year.

Response
The other team would have you believe that having the designated hitter is
ruining a baseball tradition. They also say that the rule is leading to a rise in
the number of batters being hit by pitches.
Our position is that adding the designated hitter has not ruined the traditions
of baseball. The DH rule, which began in 1973, has become its own tradition
so doing away with it will ruin the type of baseball that millions of people
have enjoyed in the last 36 years. Other traditions have gone away, such as
Sunday doubleheaders and chewing tobacco, so it does not make sense to
argue that pitchers have to bat because of tradition. As we said in one of our
arguments, baseball needs to find ways to increase excitement, not make the
game more boring because of some sense of tradition.
We also are not worried that the designated hitter position is causing more
batters to be hit by pitches. We recognize that pitchers may be more likely
now to pitch close to hitters because the pitchers know that they will not
have to bat and put themselves in harm’s way if the opposing pitcher
retaliates. But we also know that many of the pitchers in baseball history
who were least likely to hit a batter were American Leaguers protected from
having to hit, including Baltimore’s Mike Cuellar, Ron Guidry of the
Yankees, and Vida Blue of the A’s, according to Baseballreference.com. At
the same time, we believe that a few extra hit batsman is not a problem
compared with the added excitement that the designated hitter brings to the
game of baseball.

Closing
Our team has enjoyed showing you why efforts to get rid of the designated
hitter in Major League Baseball must fail! Mary, Bill, and I have
demonstrated to you that baseball is much more exciting with the designated
hitter than with a pitcher hitting. We also have shown how the designated
hitter position has made the careers of many great hitters even longer and
given millions of fans the opportunity to see them hit when these players
23
might have retired otherwise. We’ve also explained why arguments about
preserving traditions or reducing beanballs are weak. There is just no
denying that the designated hitter has been good for the game of baseball
and we think that you probably agree. Please join us in opposing any effort
to get rid of the DH.

Useful Motions

Should cameras be allowed in the courtroom?

Should teenagers get their driver's licence earlier?
Should people be able to start drinking at age 18?
Should High Schools offer alternate training for those who do not intend on going to college instead of
the same education?
Should religion be included in public schools? If we teach creationism, should we teach evolution and the
others?
Given our large population, should we consider a limit on the number of children that people in the U.S.
can have, like China?
Do video games and violent movies have a negative effect on children?
Should there be a cap on how much money presidential candidates spend on their campaigns? If so,
what?
Is the death penalty cruel or unusual punishment or the right punishment?
Should the U.S. government continue to aid other countries or help our own?
Should the U.S. continue to buy energy (oil and natural gas) from other countries or drill for our own?

The motions are grouped thematically and not by school subject (e.g. History,
Science, English etc).

School & Young People’s Issues

• This House would restrict advertising aimed at children
• This House would abolish school uniforms
• This House would make the teaching of Gaelic compulsory in all Scottish schools
• This House would abolish the school run
• This House would lower the voting age to 16
• This House would extend the school leaving age to 18
• This House would start school later
• This House supports random drugs testing in schools
• This House believes punishment exercises do not work
• This House believes schools should be mobile phone-free zones
• This House would impose a curfew on all teenagers under the age of 16
• This House would ban fatty foods in schools
• This House would make competitive sports compulsory in schools
• This House would replace teachers with computers
• This House would allow parents to smack children
• This House would abolish exams
• This House would abolish homework
• This House believes that single sex schools are better than mixed schools
• This House would rather go to boarding school
• This House would educate disabled children in special schools

Animal Rights
• This House would ban zoos
• This House would stop experimenting on animals
24
• This House would ban the wearing of fur
• This House would ban factory farming
• This House believes keeping animals as pets should be banned

Economics
• This House believes outsourcing is good for everyone involved
• This House believes Britain should give more money in aid to other countries

Environmental
• This House believes the Environment must come first
• This House calls for urgent action on Global Warming
• This House would tax goods and services proportionally to the amount of C02 that
they generate
• This House supports Government subsidies for non-petrol cars
• This House would make it compulsory for households to use government schemes
that collect recyclable rubbish
• This House would introduce road pricing in the UK
• This House believes nuclear power stations are the way forward
• This House would go on holiday in the UK
Health
• This House would make tobacco a Class A drug
• This House would ban smoking
• This House would move to an opt-out system of organ donation
• This House believes healthcare should be delivered entirely by private companies
Law & Order
• This House would put cameras in the courtroom
• This House supports the death penalty
• This House would arm the Police Media
• This House would censor racist views in the media
• This House believes that there is too much sex and violence on TV
Moral
• This House believes thin models are poor role models
• This House would outlaw rap music
• This House would ban Reality TV
• This House would ban beauty contests
• This House would ban violent video games
• This House would ban nuclear weapons
• This House would ban the consumption of alcohol outside the home
• This House would legalise cannabis
• This House would ban Holocaust denial
• This House believes the media should leave celebrities alone
• This House would be vegetarian
• This House believes magazines and newspapers should be forced to feature more
normal looking people
• This House would carry an ID card
Science
• This House would invest in the space race
• This House believes Science is a threat to humanity
• This House would clone Human Beings
• This House would allow stem cell research
• This House would allow the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside the theory of
Evolution in school Science lessons
• This House believes all farms should be organic
• This House would prohibit space tourism
25
Sport
• This House believes footballers are paid too much
• This House would ban boxing
• This House would ban fishing
• This House believes football clubs should be held responsible for the behaviour of
their fans
• This House would ban alcohol advertising in sport
• This House believes you should support your local football team not a famous
football team

26