[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
295 views2 pages

Debate Structure

This document outlines the structure for a debate, including sections for the motion, definition, background, status quo, stance, arguments with assertions and evidence, rebuttals, elaboration to support arguments, and a reply section. It details what should be included in each section, such as presenting an analytical proof in the motion, defining keywords, explaining effects on stakeholders, and rebutting opposing arguments while reinforcing your team's stance. The overall goal is to build a clear and justifiable case through evidence and addressing counterarguments.

Uploaded by

Hera Bagio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
295 views2 pages

Debate Structure

This document outlines the structure for a debate, including sections for the motion, definition, background, status quo, stance, arguments with assertions and evidence, rebuttals, elaboration to support arguments, and a reply section. It details what should be included in each section, such as presenting an analytical proof in the motion, defining keywords, explaining effects on stakeholders, and rebutting opposing arguments while reinforcing your team's stance. The overall goal is to build a clear and justifiable case through evidence and addressing counterarguments.

Uploaded by

Hera Bagio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DEBATE STRUCTURE

By Hira Maryana, S.Pd


Motion :
1. THBT : agree or disagree, present supporting argument through analytical proof by
giving evident through example.
2. THW : Giving the best and justifiable solution through analyzing the benefit and
disadvantages of the solution and presenting the clear mechanism of the solution.
Definition :
Philosophical Describe the nature or the culture of the case through analyzing the
key words
Background 1. What is happening?
2. Why it happens?
3. What should be done?
Status Quo The nature of the society or the government that reject what should be
done.
Definition Analyzing the keywords and explaining the meaning according the
intended definition needed to be discussed
Limitation Guard the area of debate by limiting the discussion through
specifically define the intended keywords.
Stance Explain the objective of the team!
Analyzing the teams goal in discussing the matter
Team Split :
1. Point of View 1
2. Point of view 2
3. Point of view 3
Argument :
Assertion Statement that present the main argument that wanted to be discussed
It is in the form of well-structured sentence based on the Point of View
given
Reason 1. Analyze the stakeholder
2. Construct the sentence containing the effect of the case to the stake
holder
1. Stakeholder 1. Explain the effect for the
stakeholder
Evident 2. Give the example
2. Stakeholder 1. Explain the effect for the
stakeholder
2. Give the example
3. Stakeholder 1. Explain the effect for the
stakeholder
2. Give the example
Link back Explain the link between what have been explain with the motion and
goal of the team.
Explain why it is justifiable to do so based on the explanation of the
argument
Rebuttal :
1. Analyze the contradicting statement of the opposite team
2. Find the fact against the statement
3. Construct the rebuttal sentence by doing:
a. They stated that ______________________
b. Their statement is not true because_____________
c. Even if it is true, still _______________________
d. Moreover, ____________________________________
Elaboration :
Rebut before elaborate
To support the 1st speaker
1. Repeat the assertion from the 1st POV
2. Repeat the reasoning from the 1st POV
3. Analyze the stakeholder
4. Present the evidence through giving more example
To support the 2nd speaker
1. Repeat the assertion from the 2nd POV
2. Repeat the reasoning from the 2nd POV
3. Analyze the stakeholder
4. Present more evidence through giving more example
Reply :
1. Analyze the clash of the debate by:
a. Present the definition and limitation
b. Present the first argument from the affirmative
c. Present the first argument from the negative
d. Present the second argument from the affirmative
e. Present the second argument from the negative
f. So on..
2. Analyze the strength of your team
a. Present your case
b. Present your argument
c. Present your evidence
3. Present the weakness of the opponent team
a. Present their argument
b. Present your answer to their argument
c. State their lack of answer to your argument
4. Persuade the adjudicator through winning statement

You might also like