Introduction
And The Motions are…
Let’s Casebuild!
How are We Going To Define This?
Debate [A]: Affirmative
Debate [A]: Negative
Debate [B]: Affirmative
Debate [B]: Negative
What is Our Theme Line? What are Our Arguments?
Debate [A]: Affirmative
Debate [A]: Negative
Debate [B]: Affirmative
Debate [B]: Negative
Who's Going to Say What?
Debate [A]: Affirmative
Debate [A]: Negative
Debate [B]: Affirmative
Debate [B]: Negative
Before Going Up There…
This document tries to quickly explain the important aspects that debaters need to know in order to be able to casebuild for debating in a competition using Australasian Parliamentary format. This document should not be considered as a definitive guide to debating. Please use these examples to help you understand the idea of competitive debating, not to ruin your own wit and creativity! We will do two examples. Each example will be explained in parallel, coded [A] and [B].
After it is decided who is going to be the Affirmative team and who’s going to be the Negative, the two teams will then decide to pick one motion out of a choice of three motions. The motions will be in the form of complete propositional statements (not questions or phrases). Let’s say, for the sake of our example, the motions selected in example [A] and [B] are:
[A] That we should give President Habibie a chance.
[B] That the world is square.
After the motion is decided, the next thing both teams would do is casebuilding. There is a period of 50-60 minutes between the announcement of the motions and the start of the debate, so considering the time taken to choose the motion, going to your assigned room (in preliminary rounds), etc., both teams will have about 20 to 30 minutes on casebuilding. During casebuilding, each team is unallowed to confer with other people, including their team manager or coach.
Casebuilding is the process of preparing a case to be debated. What is a case? As in the legal world, a case is an integrated collection of argumentation, logic, facts, examples, and statements that one uses to prove a point. Casebuilding includes:
 | deciding on how to define the motion—this is very important! |
| preparing the general strategy/approach to defend the case (theme line) |
| dividing the tasks of proving the motion to the first, second, and third speaker (team split) |
| finding and analyzing the arguments, facts, examples, etc. both for your side’s case and for the rebuttal of the other side's case |
| preparing the individual speeches |
There is no definitive guideline on how to casebuild. Some teams prefer to brainstorm all ideas that they can think of first, and then try to structure it into a solid case. Unfortunately, brainstorming can easily become time consuming. Another way would be to make the process of casebuilding itself structured from the very beginning.
How are We Going To Define This?
Deciding
on the definition is a very important part of casebuilding. To define a motion means giving clear boundaries to what the case will be about. Some motions are even meaningless without a proper definition! You usually can’t make good definitions by merely defining each word of the motion according to a dictionary (although this is possible to do for some motions). What is more important is the definition of the motion as a whole.Debate [A]: Affirmative
The motion is "that we should give President Habibie a chance". You would probably decide to use a trivial definition for "President Habibie", i.e. "the current president of Republic of Indonesia". Next, the phrase "to give President Habibie a chance" may be defined as "to let him rule Indonesia until the end of his presidential term, i.e. the year 2003". Now, don’t forget to define who "we" are! Here, it can be defined as "the Indonesian people, i.e. the citizens of Republic of Indonesia", or "the Government side of the parliament (assuming an Australian form of a parliament)".
The definition as a whole would then be "that the Indonesian people should let President Habibie rule Indonesia until the end of his presidential term". You should consider whether this definition is clear and limited enough in scope. You should also check whether this definition is valid and therefore should be accepted by the Negative team. Remember that a definition can (and should) be challenged by the Negative team if it is either tautological or truistic, it is considered as squirreling, or it employs time and place setting. For a clearer explanation on these properties, please refer to the Guidelines for Debaters.
Our definition is neither tautological nor truistic. It is highly debatable in nature. It is also closely related to the original motion, so we’re not squirreling in any way. There is also no place or time setting here, because the motion itself already implies an Indonesian setting ("President Habibie") and a certain period of time ("to give a chance").
Debate [A]: Negative
The Negative team would build a case based on the negation of the motion. The easiest way to do this is to add "that it is not true" in front of the motion. So in this case we have "that it is not true that we should give President Habibie a chance", or in other words, "that we should not give President Habibie a chance".
Although during casebuilding the Negative team has no idea of what the definition is going to be, they can make a calculated guess about the definition. In this case it is probably best for the Negative to simply make their own definition as if they were the Affirmative, since the two definitions would very likely be compatible.
Assuming that we take the trivial definition, the definition from the negative could be "that we should replace President Habibie as soon as possible". This could then be refined into "that we should let President Habibie rule only during the transitional period, that is, before the general election and the special session of the MPR, approximately until 1999". Your team can then build your case based on that definition.
Be prepared, though, that some teams can make surprising definitions even with the most obvious motions! For example, the affirmative team could have defined "to give President Habibie a chance" as "to let President Habibie rule until the end of 1998 only". In that case, you’d have to change your definition of "not to give a chance" instantly during the debate into something else (e.g. "to replace immediately"). Or, you’d probably realize that the Affirmative is actually trying to jump into your side of the case, and decide to challenge the Affirmative’s definition due to squirreling: how can you logically think of "letting Habibie rule until 1998 only" as the same as "giving him a chance"? Beware, though, that launching the definitional challenge would result in two identical cases brought by the two different sides! Does all this sound complicated? Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it quickly.
Debate [B]: Affirmative
The motion is "that the world is square". There is no way you can define this trivially; common knowledge dictates that the statement is false if taken literally! This type of metaphorical motions (usually found in humor rounds) can be defined into many different cases (as long as they're debatable: no tautology/truism, no squirreling, no time/place setting). Here is one example that may seem a bit far-fetched at first.
We define the world as life in general, and since life has so many aspects, we are going to pick two interrelated aspects of life: religion and marriage institution. A square is a geometrical shape having four straight lines and four corners, which to us resembles and reflects rigidity. The same rigidity applies to religion: religion is a set of dogmatic values based on a belief in the existence of One Supreme God (hence refining the definition of religion into monotheistic religion). Religion has strict rules that must be adhered to by its believers, and its believers take it as a way of life. We are going to propose a definition of "that a person should not marry another person who has a different religion". This is directly connected with the rigidity of religions as mentioned above.
Let's examine this sample definition. It is pretty much debatable, no truism nor tautology is involved. There is no time/place setting (we define religion into monotheistic religion, but that is allowed since it is not place setting). Are we squirreling? Well, not if we can explain carefully the steps taken into arriving to our definition and make sure that there is no missing logical link between the original motion and our definition.
Note also the careful wording of "should not marry". We are not saying whether inter-religious marriages should be allowed or not. Saying that something should not be done is not the same as prohibiting that something by means of law. So the Affirmative here does not really take the role of a government, but just a group of average persons saying that people should not perform inter-religious marriages.
Debate [B]: Negative
Although the definition from the Affirmative is harder to guess in this case, it would be better for the Negative team to insist on casebuilding instead of waiting for the debate to begin and then build their team's case on the spot. Firstly, there is always this possibility that the Affirmative violates the rules about definition, so the Negative should prepare one definition to be brought forward in case the definition can (or must) be challenged. Secondly, you can always try to look into the spirit of the motion and then negate that, or in other words, try to negate the motion in a philosophical level. Thirdly, you can also try to enumerate several possibilities of what the affirmative's definition would be and how to negate it (e.g. by brainstorming).
Once again, as an example, we will add "that it is not true" in front of the motion, giving us the statement "that it is not true that the world is square", or in other words, "that the world is not square". Looking up the word ‘square’ in the dictionary, we find a slang meaning "old-fashioned, unsophisticated". We could then try and define the motion to be about how teenagers today are dictated by fashion and trend, resulting in the so-called "Generation X" culture.
A question may arise in your mind: what happens if the Negative team builds this "Generation X" case, and then goes up against an Affirmative team that has defined the motion as "that a person should not marry another person who has a different religion"? The answer is that the Negative team will probably have to dump the case that they have carefully built for 30 minutes and quickly try to formulate a new strategy and build a new counter-case after hearing the definition!
What is Our Theme Line? What are Our Arguments?
A
theme line is, simply put, the core argument of your case based on the motion as it is defined. It is the main idea that links together all speeches from the first, second, and third speakers. Having a theme line will ensure that all speeches will be consistent in proving the case.A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of one single sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc. Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all arguments brought forward would be based on this theme line.
Here are theme lines that might appear in our examples. They have been written in a structured way, in a form of statements linked together into a syllogism. If you prefer, you might want to write it into one or several flowing sentences instead. Please remember that these are only examples! We leave the actual arguments, facts, data, etc. as your exercise.
Debate [A]: Affirmative
Premise 1 : Indonesian people should prioritize handling the economic situation above all else.
Premise 2 : The economic situation can only be handled by a strong and stable government with a strong and stable leader; these criteria can only be fulfilled if we let the current government and its president serve its presidential term fully.
Conclusion : Indonesian people should let President Habibie rule until the end of his presidential term.
Premise 1 seems pretty obvious and should be fairly easy to prove, but Premise 2 definitely needs a lot of arguments to support it. You might find it easier if Premise 2 is further broken up into smaller statements.
Debate [A]: Negative
Premise 1 : Indonesian people need a government that is free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.
Premise 2 : For a government to be clean and free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism, its leader, the president, should also be free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.
Pre-Conclusion : Indonesian people need a president that is free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.
Premise 3 : President Habibie is not free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism.
Conclusion : Indonesian people need a president other than President Habibie.
Premise 1 may not need too many arguments to prove, since it can be considered as something that everyone agrees to. However, you should prepare something to say about this in case the Negative brought up the question of why should we have a government that is free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism in the first place. Premise 2 may need some theories of political science or historical data to support it. The two premises prove the pre-conclusion. Premise 3 requires that your team provide evidence to your accusations. If all three premises are proven, then by logical syllogism the Conclusion is also proven, and this Conclusion is simply another way of saying that President Habibie should be replaced as soon as possible.
Debate [B]: Affirmative
Premise 1 : Religion is a set of dogmatic and fundamental values and rules that guide and direct people in living their lives; different religions have different rules about how one should live their lives.
Premise 2 : Marriage is a bonding of two individuals in holy matrimony; it is the closest form of juxtaposition possible between two persons, and any fundamental differences between them would be very likely to disturb a marriage.
Premise 3 : If a person marries another person with a different religion, there will be a fundamental difference between the two individuals that may be hazardous to the harmony of the marriage.
Conclusion : A person should not marry another person with a different religion.
Debate [B]: Negative
We leave this one as your exercise.
Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on the team split. The team split is, simply put, the division (distribution) of arguments to the first, second, and third speaker.
Be careful, though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion. So, if you had been making theme lines using the syllogism strategy, you don't turn the theme line directly into a team split, i.e. by assigning Premise 1 to the first speaker and Premise 2 to the second speaker. Doing so would result in what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion. Adjudicators would give a low score on Method to teams with a hung case, because hung cases make it hard for the other side to rebutt your arguments.
A common way of splitting tasks is to divide them into several aspects (e.q. economic, social, political, cultural, etc.) and then give each speaker one or two aspects. Other divisions could be past to present, philosophical to practical, benefit of doing to detriments of not doing, etc.
Because the first speaker has to explain the definition, theme line, and team split (and rebutt the first Affirmative's speech if Negative) before launching into his/her part of the split, usually the split between the first and second speakers are not balanced but weighs more heavily to the second speaker. Indeed, the second speaker is often said to have to provide the ‘meat’ of the team's case, i.e. the strongest and most important arguments from the team.
The format of Australasian Parliamentary prohibits the third speaker of the Negative team from giving new matter. The third speaker from the Affirmative is also discouraged from giving new matter. Besides, the third speakers mainly have to rebutt the other side's case. The third speakers may give new examples, though, and indeed usually third speakers are only assigned examples in a team split, not new arguments.
Here are sample team splits from our example cases. Again, these are only examples, and they are by no means perfect!
Debate [A]: Affirmative
First Speaker : the benefit of keeping President Habibie in place until the end of his term: maintaining stability whilst keeping the opportunity of peaceful reformations, etc.
Second Speaker : the detriments of insisting on replacing President Habibie before the end of his presidential term: political instability à civil war; worsen economic condition à starvation, etc.
Third Speaker : (maybe more examples about benefits/detriments)
Debate [A]: Negative
We leave this one as your exercise.
Debate [B]: Affirmative
First Speaker : ideological aspect: the constraints from each religion itself (not allowing its believers to marry people with different religion), etc.
Second Speaker : social aspect: difficulties in child education, inability to perform religious rituals together, pressure from family and society, etc.
Third Speaker : (maybe more examples about the social aspect)
Debate [B]: Negative
We leave this one as your exercise.
Just before the time allocated for casebuilding ends, try reiterating the main points of your case. Make sure that every team member thoroughly understands the definition, theme line, and team split. This can be done, for example, by each member starting from the first speaker briefly enumerate the points that their speech will contain.
Then, take your position, take a deep breath, relax and enjoy the debate.
Happy debating!