11. Members per Team: 4
Role of Members: 4 speakers
Length of Constructives: 3 mins
Number of Constructives: 3
Length of Cross-Ex: 1 min
Rebuttals: 1 per side
Length of Rebuttals: 3 mins
Last Speech: Negative Rebuttal
12. Prep 3 minutes
1st Aff 3 minutes
Cross Ex of 1st Aff 1 minute
1st Neg 3 minutes
Cross Ex of 1st Neg 1 minute
2nd Aff and 2nd Neg 16 minutes
3rd Aff and 3rd Neg
Rebut by Aff 3 minutes
Rebut by Neg 3 minutes
Adj Prep 3 minutes
Adj 3 minutes
16. Speaker Responsibilities
1 st Affirmative Speaker
•define the terms of the
proposition
Example: “cellphones are
electronic devices used for
communication”
17. Speaker Responsibilities
1 st Affirmative Speaker
•Lays out the policy created by the
team/values to be debated on
•give an outline of the team
structure/team split (signposting)
18. Speaker Responsibilities
1 st Affirmative Speaker
Example: I as the first speaker will
talk about the feasibility of
cellphone proposal, while the
second speaker will talk about the
benefits of having this policy.
No rehash!
19. Speaker Responsibilities
1 st Affirmative Speaker
•begin to present the affirmative’s
case
THE FIRST SPEAKER SHOULD TAKE THE
MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THE TEAM
SPLIT.
20. Speaker Responsibilities
1 st Negative Speaker
•cross-examine 1st Affirmative
•accept or reject the definition
•reasons: definition is against the spirit
of the proposition or altruistic
•States the clash
•rebut 1st Affirmative (0ffense)
21. Speaker Responsibilities
1 st Negative Speaker
•Clash: We do not want students to bring
cellphones to school. We want to
maintain status quo.
29. Speaker Responsibilities
Rebuttal Speakers
•select his side’s strongest issues
and explain why these are
sufficient for a win
•refute key issues of other side
•explain why other issues should
result in a loss for other side
32. Speaker Responsibilities
Rebuttal Speakers:
I’m going to answer two crucial
questions in my speech. First,
does the death penalty really
deter crime? Second, is justice
really served by an eye-for-an-
eye punishment?
43. Arguing Deductively
• Start with the
conclusion
• Explanation of the
conclusion through
the providing
evidence/support
44. Capital punishment protects society by
deterring heinous crimes.
Conclusion: The death penalty deters crime by
threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest
and most dreaded punishment possible during their
period of calculation.
Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually
deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that
before people commit these crimes, they plan the
act and therefore, have the benefit of rational
thought.
45. Arguing Inductively
• Start with
specific pieces
of evidence or
support
• Ends with a
conclusion
46. Capital punishment protects society by
deterring heinous crimes.
Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually
deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before
people commit these crimes, they plan the act and
therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.
Conclusion: Thus death penalty deters crime by
threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and
most dreaded punishment possible during their period
of calculation.
47. You may add examples like:
Statistics, news items,
case studies, etc.
48. Feasibility
• Will the policy work?
• How will it work?
• Is it the best policy to solve the
problem?
49. Beneficiality
• Will the policy be
beneficial?
• How big of a
benefit will it be?
• Who will benefit
from the policy?
53. With a partner, construct your own
argument given this motion:
That Xavier School should
abolish its haircut policy
You may choose to argue
deductively or inductively.
