/jsmmhandbook

THE JOHN SMITH MEMORIAL MACE 2010 -11

The English-Speaking Union

FOREWORD

Foreword_02 John Smith Memorial Mace International Final_03 Our Sponsors_04 Welcome_05 Opportunities with the ESU_06 Debating in the UK_08 Guide to Mace Format Debating_12 Government Strategy_17 Opposition Strategy_21 A Good Debate_23 General Tips_24 How Debates are Judged_30 Tournament Calendar_31

As I write this foreword, I am able to reflect on my win of the Mace back in 1982. It was a salutary feeling to know that what we, as a team, had achieved was down to something that, in its most basic form, is very simple – words. The importance of the choice of words used, their emphases, along with intonation, reasoning and arguing all contributed to the debating skills acquired.

It is a skill that has greatly assisted my political career – I debate regularly in the House of Commons and, from the start, taking part in debates improved my confidence and public speaking. It helped me to develop my ability to form my own judgement on different matters, which is invaluable, particularly when required to vote on matters of conscience in Parliament. It is an important tool which allows people to come together and talk about real issues in a serious and relevant way. The ability to communicate is essential in all walks of life, and is vital in the development of social and education policy in Britain.

I urge all of you to get as much as you can out of your debating experience, at whatever level you do it. Good luck for the upcoming competitive year; be confident, be clear, argue well, and enjoy yourselves!

Rt. Hon. Charles Kennedy MP

JOHN SMITH MEMORIAL MACE INTERNATIONAL FINAL The international final rotates between the four nations of the UK every year, and this year it is the turn of Ireland to host. The national competition winners will come to Dublin to battle it out for the John Smith Memorial Mace.

The John Smith Memorial Mace international final will take place in Dublin on Saturday 30 April.

The final will be free, but ticketed, so if you wish to attend, please get in touch either with your national convenor, details on page 5, or Steven Nolan directly (steven.nolan@esu.org).

We look forward to seeing you in Dublin.

3

FROM OUR SPONSORS

Baillie Gifford is delighted to be sponsoring the English-Speaking Union John Smith Memorial Mace. We are one of the leading privately owned investment management firms in the UK. We are active managers. Our aim is to achieve high returns for our clients and to beat their benchmarks. We have a highly analytical, research driven approach and build our portfolios from the bottom up.

Debating is an important part of business communication and decision making, especially in the investment management sector. Investment managers need to think laterally and broadly so opinions can be formed considering various options. A group of investment managers will often have a wide range of views and debating allows them to explore their differing opinions and enlighten each other’s perspectives. Recruiting and retaining talented people are fundamental factors in ensuring the continued success of our business.

We have three graduate recruitment programmes – investment, operations and information technology – and a summer internship programme.

Investment Training Programme We want individuals with consistently high academic achievement, a first/2.1 degree in any discipline. This is a qualitative rather than quantitative job and we encourage applications from students of all degree disciplines.

Application Deadline – 30 November 2010.

Operations Our aim is to provide the best possible service to our clients and the support functions in our firm provide a pivotal role in ensuring that we deliver. This rotational programme is designed to hire the future leaders in these departments.

Application Deadline – 31 December 2010.

Information Technology We depend heavily on our technology systems to provide the high quality service that our clients demand. We have an established IT graduate recruitment programme and offer careers in Application Development and Technical Infrastructure.

Application Deadline – 31 December 2010.

Summer Internship We offer students in their penultimate year of university one of the most comprehensive summer internship programmes in the UK investment management industry. Our structured programme of events provides an invaluable experience for anyone considering a career in fund management.

There are 6 places available and applications are welcome from university students of any discipline currently in their penultimate year of university.

Application Deadline – 31 January 2011.

Details can be found and applications made at our website www.bailliegifford.com We wish all participants in the John Smith Memorial Mace the very best of luck.

WELCOME TO THE ESU JOHN SMITH MEMORIAL MACE 2010-2011

Founded in 1954 by the Observer newspaper, and run by the ESU since 1995, the John Smith Memorial Mace (JSMM) is one of the cornerstones of debating in the British Isles. After national competitions, the champions from the Welsh, Scottish, English and Irish Mace competitions are pitted against each other in a gala international final, to be held in Ireland this year.

Each of the national competitions are run separately, with the English Mace run directly, the Scottish by ESU Scotland and the SSDC, the Welsh by the Welsh Debating Federation and the Irish by annually appointed convenors.

Named in honour of former Labour leader John Smith, one of the 1962 winners from Glasgow University, the International Final has an impressive list of former champions, including lawyers, journalists, politicians and academics, as well as names regarded by many as the very best debaters to ever compete.

You can find more details at www.esu.org/jsmm

National Contacts 2010-11

Irish Mace

Wales

Catherine Murphy and Doireann O’Byrne, irish.mace@gmail.com

The Wales Debate Federation www.walesdebate.org.uk info@walesdebate.org.uk.

Scotland England

ESU Scotland www.esuscotland.org.uk, debates@esuscotland.org.uk

ESU Speech and Debate, Steven Nolan steven.nolan@esu.org

5

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE ESU

National Mooting Competition The ESU-Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Competition is the largest and oldest of its kind in the country, receiving entries from teams of undergraduate students in law from across the UK. Founded in 1972 as the Observer Moot, it has a tradition of attracting the very best legal brains as its judges and producing the next generation of them from its competitors. The 2009-10 competition was won by the University of Oxford.

We are delighted that Essex Court Chambers are sponsoring the competition for the tenth year running. Essex Court Chambers is one of the country’s ‘magic circle’ commercial barristers’ chambers and their involvement with all areas of the competition is a great asset.

We are also pleased that Legal Week are the competition’s media partner again this year.

The winning team receives the prestigious Silver Mace, £1,000 each and £1,000 for their institution, while the runnersup receive the Scarman Shield, £750 each and £500 for their institution. The remaining semi-finalists will each receive £250. Prize money is generously provided

by Essex Court Chambers.

Entries are closed for this year’s competition, but check with your universities Law Faculty to see if they have registered, and if you can be part of the Moot team.

For more information contact visit www.essexcourt.net/mooting

Mentoring programme

English in Action

As we expand our schools outreach programmes this year, we’re recruiting new mentors.

English in Action is a volunteer led English language support programme aimed at helping non-native speakers improve their confidence and conversational ability. We run one hour one-to-one relaxed, informal sessions once a week with students who range in age and ability from a number of different countries. Each term consists of ten weeks.

ESU mentors are a vital part of delivering the vast number of debating and public speaking programmes the ESU Speech and Debate team run.

We look for enthusiastic and skilled tertiary students to assist us in going into schools and universities and providing high quality coaching and mentoring in speech and debate to help young people up and down the country discover their voice.

Volunteers needed!

Volunteering with the English in Action programme is a fun, rewarding experience.

You’ll learn about the culture of a new country and have a deeper understanding of British heritage. In exchange, your student will improve their conversational ability, which will help them adjust to life in the UK.

If you are interested in getting involved, or would like some more information, you can email Kallina Basli at kallina.basli@esu.org

We’re looking for enthusiastic volunteer tutors who can make a difference in students’ lives. All our adult students already have basic English so you won’t need any teaching experience; you’ll just need to be good at communicating and passionate about promoting international understanding. If you want to be a part of English in Action, get in touch with Jennifer Luk, jennifer.luk@esu.org

7

DEBATING IN THE UK NUDC

University Debating

The National Universities Debating Council (NUDC) is the representative body for debating in England. Set up by the ESU in 2007, the NUDC advises the ESU on the running of the John Smith Memorial Mace, decides what prospective hosts for the World Debating Championships and European Championships England will support, and generally works to promote debating at university level in England.

Full members are obliged to send teams and their best available judges to intervarsity competitions hosted by fellow members. To aid the development of nascent institutions, associate membership can be awarded, entitling to discounts at all NAMDA competitions.

Since their introduction 3 years ago, these arrangements have contributed to an increase in the average size of a NAMDA competition and to more NAMDA teams breaking at National and International competitions.

Comprising representatives from each English institution that participates in university debating, plus an elected Chair and Secretary, the NUDC meets at least twice a year. The Chair of NUDC also represents England on the World Universities Debating Council and European Universities Debating Council.

Any institution that is not a permanent member of the NUDC but that wishes to join can have their membership ratified at the AGM if they send a convenor to Council.

Any institutions/convenors who wish to table agenda items or votes should contact Fred Cowell at fascowell@gmail.com NAMDA Currently comprising 9 Debating Unions*, the Northern and Midlands Debating Alliance (NAMDA) aims to improve the quality and depth of debating within the region.

Schools Debating NAMDA members are increasingly involved at schools level; hosting competitions and providing judges for regional rounds of others. Schools wanting assistance in coaching or in the organisation of their own events are encouraged to contact their nearest NAMDA member.

How to get in touch?

The current President, Tom Jackson, can be reached at paxtjj@nottingham.ac.uk.

Members can be contacted individually via their websites. *Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Durham, Warwick and Liverpool.

THE NORTH AND SCOTLAND What is the SSDC?

Who is involved?

The Scottish Student’s Debating Council (SSDC) is the representative body for debating in Scotland and Northern England. SSDC’s role is to co-ordinate debating activities between its members and generally promote debating in Scotland and Northern England. SSDC also works with ESU Scotland on the running of the John Smith Memorial Mace and decides what prospective hosts for the World Debating Championships and European Championships Scotland will support.

SSDC comprises representatives from each Scottish institution that participates in university debating, plus an executive of President, Mace Convenor, Secretary and Judging Convenor. The President of SSDC also represents Scotland on the World Universities Debating Council and European Universities Debating Council.

The council meets several times a year to discuss relevant issues and where institutions seeking votes to host the World and European championships will make bids to win the Council’s support.

Maiden Speakers

New members

SSDC runs an annual “Pro-Am” championship where new debaters can take advantage of being partnered with a more experienced and skilled debater.

New Institutions are inducted at our AGM normally scheduled for late March/ April at a competition. Last year’s was held at Strathclyde University Union, where Heriott-Watt University became our newest member. Its representative Nathan Bremner was then elected to be Secretary at the same meeting. SSDC is welcoming to all new members and offers support through coaching and administrative help for the development of new debating societies and competitions.

New Debaters also have an opportunity to compete in Scotland’s historic “Bogwall” Maiden Speakers competition in which many of today’s most senior politicians and academics have participated “back in the day”.

Any presidents or conveners who wish to table agenda items or votes should contact John McKee (President 2010/11) on sweenys_lot@yahoo.co.uk

9

WALES The Wales Debating Federation (WDF) is a voluntary organisation that works to promote and support debating in schools, colleges and Universities in Wales. It was set up in 2001 and is run by an elected Executive Committee comprising of school and university students within Wales and WDF alumni.

The Wales Debating Federation works in partnership with other organisations to develop the University Debating Societies of Wales and to promote and support debating to students at schools and colleges across Wales.

The aims of the Wales Debating Federation are: To promote debating within the schools, colleges and Universities of Wales To provide debate training and material for schools, colleges and Universities of Wales To monitor and advise on the rules of Debating Championships To assist in the selection and preparation of a Wales team for the World Schools Debating Championships To support Welsh Universities in national and international debating competitions To investigate opportunities and develop links for international co-operation/ competition To promote opportunities for debate in Welsh and English To raise funds to assist the above.

The WDF facilitates the Welsh Novice IV and the Welsh leg of the John Smiths Memorial Mace, as well as providing training and funding opportunities to individuals and debating societies to attend international debating competitions. With WDF support there are currently four extremely active and successful university debating societies within Wales at Cardiff, Glamorgan, Aberystwyth and Swansea with a fledgling society developing at Lampeter University.

Getting involved: The participation in the Welsh JSMM and Novice IV is restricted to universities within Wales but the support and involvement of the wider debating community is welcome for all other competitions and training events, including the various schools and inter-varsity competitions convened by the main universities.

For more information please contact Beth James, WDF Chair at info@walesdebate.org.uk or visit www.walesdebate.org.uk

11

A GUIDE TO DEBATING IN MACE FORMAT

Most British Parliamentary (BP) debates take the format of policy debates, replicating the parliamentary format upon which the debate style is based. Policy debates require the government team to put forward a policy in order to address problems with the status-quo. Analysis debates, while less common, are also seen in British Parliamentary debating.

The difference is explained further into this guide.

The Format

BP consists of four teams on two benches; government and opposition. The four teams of two speakers are randomly assigned one of four positions: Opening government (first proposition) Opening opposition (first opposition) Closing government (second proposition) Closing opposition (second opposition)

First proposition

First opposition

Second proposition

Second opposition

The four teams debate a set motion. Motions always begin with ‘This House…’, for example: This House would invade Iran This House believes in a woman’s right to choose This House supports the Common Agricultural Policy Again, the language is representative of the British Parliamentary system on which the format is based, with the ‘House’ being the chamber which is debating a policy or statement.

Both teams on the government bench must agree with the motion, whether through a specific policy or a value judgment, while both opposition teams must object, in some way, to the policy or statement of the motion. Those on the closing half of each bench must agree with the stance of their opening team, whilst simultaneously differentiating themselves by the specific arguments they run.

13

The Debate

In most cases, BP debating is short-preparation, which means that you are given 15 minutes between the announcement of a motion and the start of the debate to prepare your arguments.

You cannot prepare with the other team on your side of the debate, or with any other people. Printed materials are allowed but you cannot use any electronic materials during preparation.

All speeches in the debate are the same length, usually five or seven minutes, depending on the competition. At Worlds and Euros competitions, speeches are seven minutes in duration.

Team Roles

All teams in a debate have to persuade. All speakers, barring the summary speakers, are expected to deliver new arguments in support of their team case. In addition to this, there are specific roles which each team, and individual, must fulfill.

The Opening Teams

Opening government and opening opposition comprise the top half of a BP debate. They are responsible for setting up the debate and establishing the key areas of disagreement.

The opening government team should set up the debate, outlining what they think it is about and what they feel the key issues at stake are. This involves defining the motion: explaining the way in which the terms in the motion are to be understood in the context of the debate. Some definitions will require specific policies, others will start from a clash of principles. The definition, in whatever form, must be made explicit and clear. A more detailed explanation of definitions can be found on later.

Opening Government

Opening government should seek to deliver principled, and possibly practical, arguments. The sum of a team’s arguments is referred to as their case. It is the first speaker’s responsibility to outline the definition and introduce the team’s case, before moving on to their arguments. The second speaker should rebut (disagree with) the arguments of the opening opposition speaker before moving onto their own material.

Opening Opposition

In opening opposition the team must listen carefully to the opening government speakers and respond to their arguments.

Debating in opening opposition requires quick thinking and versatility. It is vital speakers respond to the actual proposition presented, rather than the one they expected.

Oppositions often start by establishing the clash in the debate.

Where do the two benches disagree? It is possible to oppose the practicalities of a specific policy, the principles which underpin that policy, or both. In debates which require some form of policy implementation, point out practical problems with the suggested implementation of that policy. In debates which boil down to a clash of principles, demonstrate why the government’s principles are problematic, and establish principles in opposition to the motion. It is often possible to develop a case which outlines both practical and principled objections to government cases.

Oppositions can even suggest alternative courses of action to that which has been presented by the opening government team.

Both speakers ought to respond to the speech which precedes theirs. The first speaker should deal with any definitional problems, and establish the opposition case. The second speaker should then make any additional responses and deliver the remaining team arguments.

The Closing Teams

Closing government and closing opposition comprise the bottom half of a British Parliamentary debate. These teams must differentiate themselves from their opening teams, whilst being careful not to contradict or disagree with them.

Rather than examining the bottom half team-by-team, it is more useful to look at the distinctions between the two speakers, which apply to both closing government and closing opposition.

15

Extension Speakers

Extension is about differentiation. It is a way of separating the team from the top half of the debate. In this role they must take the debate further, to areas which have not yet been explored, through either new analysis or argument.

Teams in the bottom half are trying to beat not only the opposing teams, but the opening team on their half of the table. Closing teams must follow their first team’s basic principled stance, but also find a way to show that they are a more effective team in the context of the debate. This is a subtle art, and success can only be achieved through the introduction of some form of new argumentation into the debate. In addition, speakers must also attack the opposing bench, either as a whole, or as two individual teams.

Summary Speakers

Summary speakers should go into the debate with a blank piece of paper. Their task is to listen to both sides in the debate and deliver a biased summary of the debate that has occurred.

There are a number of different ways in which to frame this.

Most summaries take the form of a thematic overview of the debate, examining the major areas of clash or contention in a debate. This involves bringing together the various elements of the debate and concluding it. Good summaries will reflect the debate which occurred, whilst also suggesting that it was your side which had a better grasp and understanding of the key ideas in that debate.

Spend the debate noting the arguments delivered by both sides.

The summary speech is an opportunity to demonstrate why, in its key areas of clash, this bench (and team) advanced the most important arguments. In order to do this it is necessary to analyse existing arguments in new ways. Using new arguments, however, is unfair on teams who don’t have a chance to respond.

It is also irrelevant to a summary speech. New arguments aren’t a reflection on the debate that happened. New analysis of old material is an effective way of demonstrating the integrity of arguments that were presented.

GOVERNMENT STRATEGY The opening government team is responsible for setting up and establishing the parameters of the debate. In preparation time think about which issues will define the debate.

Preparation

Debates in the BP format are usually short-preparation (the motion for debate is announced 15 minutes prior to the start of the debate). There are five key things you should have achieved by the end of your preparation time: 1. W hat is the debate about? Adjudicators and judges set motions for a reason. There will nearly always be underlying, conflicting principles which lie at the heart of any debate. Your arguments should attempt to get to the crux of a debate.

2. W hat are you trying to prove in the context of the debate?

Knowing your objectives will make it much easier for you to deliver strategically effective speeches.

3. What are your arguments going to be?

4. Which of you will deliver which arguments?

5. W hat is the likely response to your arguments, and how can they be defended?

You won’t be able to write a perfect speech in 15 minutes.

Debaters do research into current affairs and areas of controversy before they go to a tournament.

17

Justification

You must justify why you want to do what you are proposing.

In any debate where a change to the status quo is being proposed, the government need to outline the problem with the status quo. A whole speech explaining that something can be done but without an explanation of why it is necessary will appear irrelevant and inappropriate.

Definition

Definition is an explanation of a motion’s key terms in the context of the debate you are going to have. It is not a dictionary definition of every word in the motion. In deciding what to define, it is useful for opening government to think in terms of central issues, rather than words.

Take, for example, the motion ‘This House supports further expansion of the European Union’. There is no need to define the European Union. Rather, an opening government team must outline what is meant by expansion; for example, would they include only Turkey, or incorporate several countries at once?

And why?

Other motions will require a government team to explain who would enact a policy. The motion ‘This House would invade Iran’ requires you as opening government to assume the identity of an actor or group of actors. Not only must you adopt an identity, you must justify that choice. Will it be a unilateral US invasion? Will it require UN authority? Will it be a multi-party coalition of the willing? You must decide who is going to enact a policy, and why.

In defining a motion it is often useful to think of real world proposals. Most motions are set in reference to a real world issue, and as such, proposals often already exist which can shape a debate. For example, in a debate on doing more for the environment you may propose adopting the Kyoto Protocol.

Leaving Room for Debate

Definitions must leave room for debate. One way to look at them is to consider a pyramid. Definitions considered as being far too broad would sit near the base of the pyramid. Conversely, those which have far too much detail and narrow the debate too far would be near the apex of the pyramid. The best definitions are those which sit somewhere near the middle of the pyramid, containing enough detail to be clear, without narrowing the debate unreasonably.

Example motion: ‘This House supports the death penalty’: Definition One: • Execute murderers who kill more than ten people.

• Only if aged between 25 and 45 • Only those who have stated that they will kill again if given the chance.

• Only in countries with an unbiased justice system and no racism or sexism in the society.

• Only if they are guaranteed a fair trial, and it is guaranteed they are guilty.

• Only if they are given five appeals.

• Only those who have been found to have absolutely no mental issues.

• Will be killed by lethal injection, administered by a team of five doctors, in private, but videoed for evaluation by the authorities.

• Bodies of criminal killed to be buried in the prison graveyard, or, if there is not one, to be buried in the nearest secular graveyard.

What is wrong with this definition?

Takes far too long to present, this is time that could be spending on presenting arguments. By restricting the debate so far the opening government risks alienating the judges by trying to be too clever. The more elements there are to your definition, the more things you will have to justify and defend as the debate goes on. When you have arbitrary levels in a definition (such as ‘more than ten people’), you will often have to justify them, which can be a hard thing to do: why is killing nine people not enough to get you killed, but ten is?

Definition Two: Condemn criminals to death.

What is wrong with this definition?

The lack of clarity is likely to result in a messy debate, which will not reflect well on you, or your team in the debate. Without any information about how the policy is to be applied, or to whom, you are open to severe attacks from the opposition.

19

Definition Three: Execute adults guilty of murder who would currently be given a sentence for the rest of their natural lives.

Why is this definition good?

An opening government definition should make a proposition realistic and arguable (this is similar to the status quo in many countries) whilst also leaving ample scope for debate.

Definitional Rules

There are a number of things you are not allowed to do in definition.

Opening government cannot frame the terms of the debate in a way that is unarguable. For example, take the motion, ‘This House believes that France is an irreligious country’.

If the proposition define ‘irreligious’ as having no state sponsored religion this is a truistic definition, as it a simple fact that France has no state sponsored religion. There may be other ways to analyse the level of religiosity in France that are arguable, and the definition must be open to those ideas.

Irrelevant definitions (also known, for reasons lost in the mists of time, as squirrels) try to set the debate on a different subject from that expected by the other teams taking part (and the audience). They most often appear when debaters exploit a technical ambiguity in the wording to twist the meaning away from the obvious intention of the motion setter. Turning the motion ‘This House would make voting compulsory’ into a debate about forcing everyone to vote on the X-Factor reality television show is a possible meaning of the words in the motion, but is not what you would expect the debate to be about.

Debates must not be unfairly located in a specific region or country, where the participants in the debate cannot be expected to have knowledge of that setting, or where the issues at stake are markedly different from the rest of the world. This does not mean that any geographical context is illegitimate. Opening government must decide whether place-setting is appropriate to the motion. ‘This House supports military intervention to prevent genocide’ could be fairly set in Darfur, but ‘This House would privatise state assests’ could not fairly be limited to just North Korea.

Debates must be set up in the present. They cannot be retrospective or set in the future.

OPPOSITION STRATEGY Being in opposition requires the same basic argumentative and stylistic skills as being on the government side, but also involves making strategic choices all of its own.

Opposing teams, like the government, must stand for something, whether it is an implicit support for the status quo, as they object to the implementation of a particular proposal, or an explicit counter-proposal. A stance which objects to both the status quo and the government’s proposed change to it, without offering any alternative, is one fraught with problems.

Attacking the proposition

Most opposition teams will combine a strong attack upon the government team, in the form of rebuttal, with the presentation of new arguments in favour of the stance they have chosen, be it a defence of the status quo or an alternative proposal.

Constructive arguments and rebuttal may contain much the same kind of content. In opposition you should, in general, try to separate your direct rebuttal from your constructive arguments, because your structure and the new ideas you are bringing to the debate will be clearer.

As well as attacking individual arguments through rebuttal you should have a general theme (or themes) on which to base your criticisms of the proposition. For example, in the debate ‘This House would invade Iran’, you may base your opposition case around the principle of sovereignty. From this principled standpoint you will build individual arguments and target rebuttal, giving the case a sense of unity.

21

Alternatively, you may choose a more practical line to take centring the case around, for example, the idea that invasion in any form will stifle the slowly developing democracy in Iran.

As an opposition it is useful to think of any proposal from the government within the structural framework of: NOW

ACTION

THEN

The proposition will establish a need for the proposal, which is their description of NOW; they will put forward a policy to deal with this problem (ACTION) and describe a world (even if implicitly) where that problem has been solved, or at least mitigated (THEN).

Opposing teams can use this model to attack any proposal.

Each of the assumptions behind the three elements of the structure may be attacked generically (for example, by claiming that NOW has been misrepresented and is actually not a problem, or THEN will eventually happen anyway without action); and the relationship between multiple elements can be challenged (for example claiming that the ACTION will not lead to the THEN that the government has described).

It is important to remember that not all theoretical attacks on the structure can be applied to every proposition, and that some even contradict each other, so the line (or lines) of attack must be chosen carefully.

Counter Proposals

It may be prudent in opposition to offer an alternative proposal.

In situations where a defence of the status quo is undesirable, it is possible to concede that there are indeed problems, but to argue that the government team’s policy is not the best one to solve the problem.

This can be done either by making a full counter-proposal, presented in the same way as a government policy is, or simply as a suggestion.

Hard Opposition

It is also possible to run what is commonly known as a ‘hard opp’. Hard opps rarely contain any arguments in support of anything; neither the status quo nor any other proposal. Rather, they simply oppose as many elements of the proposition as possible, without adding any constructive material. If you run a hard opp you must bear in mind that, while you may not actively defend it, you are still, by implication, supporting the status quo.

A GOOD DEBATE The jobs you have to do when in closing government or closing opposition are very different to those on the top half of the table. It is your responsibility to extend or conclude a debate.

The third speaker on either bench must bring either new analysis or new arguments to the debate. Regardless of how much already seems to have been said on a topic by the first four speakers, there is always scope for the bottom half teams to differentiate themselves from the opening team on the bench.

Extending a Debate

When preparing an extension speech, ask yourself both what areas of argument you can talk about that have not already been covered by the first team on your side, and what issues still need to be won by your side of the debate. Preparation time, when you’re a closing team, is not about writing out full speeches but rather thinking of as many areas of argument for your side as you can in the hope that some will have been left out by the first team on their side.

Only after the debate has started can you choose which areas of argument to run yourselves and which have already been sufficiently covered. A good rule of thumb is to narrow a broad debate and to broaden a narrow one. For example, if an opening team has spent their half of the debate focusing on the broad 23

principles which justify a policy, you may analyse case studies demonstrating the policy’s benefits. Conversely, if the opening team spends its time on specifics, you may emphasise the importance of broader principles.

Rebuttal Extension speakers also need to spend time on rebuttal.

On the government bench this is the first opportunity to tackle the second opening opposition speaker and their team case.

For closing opposition it means tackling the closing government extension speaker.

Contradictions

Contradicting your opening team is called knifing. Making arguments that cannot logically sit side-by-side with arguments presented by a first team will be heavily penalised by the judges.

Concluding a debate

Summary speeches must draw together the themes that dominated the debate. A summary speaker must listen carefully throughout and continue to prepare their speech up until the moment they start speaking. You should deliver no new arguments (though you can analyse existing arguments in a new way).

GENERAL TIPS Engagement

The need to actively engage with other participants in the debate is what separates debate from other forms of public speaking.

In addition to arguing that your team is correct, you must also expose the flaws in opponents’ argumentation. Speakers must also show that they can think on their feet and respond instantly to challenges set by opposing speakers. This engagement occurs in two ways in BP debating: through the rebuttal of opponents’ arguments, and through the giving and receiving of points of information.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal (or refutation) is a vital component of BP debating. It creates engagement between government and opposition teams.

The time limits on speeches mean that you can rarely rebut everything said by the opposing teams. Effective rebuttal is about selecting the right arguments to refute.

It can be tempting to attack the weakest arguments made by an opposing team or highlight something silly they said. However, rebuttal is your opportunity to engage with an opposing team’s key arguments and the crux of their case. When rebutting, you should be looking to dismantle the logic which holds those key arguments, and case, together.

You will always gain more credit for attempting to engage with an opposing team’s strongest and most important arguments than for demolishing their weakest, most irrelevant points.

How to do it There are no specific rules on how much rebuttal you should engage in. Many speakers tend to divide their speech between rebuttal and constructive material, beginning with direct attacks on the opposition before moving on to their own material. It is up to individual speakers to decide whether this separation is necessary. It can be effective to merge your rebuttal with the main section of the speech if your refutation fits into your main arguments, especially in summary. In response to a strong speech, you may need to dedicate more time to demonstrating its flaws. On other occasions, you may decide to keep your rebuttal brief and concentrate on your own case. The decisions you make should be based upon the context of individual debates.

Points of Information

Points of information (POIs) can be offered during a speech by any member of the opposing bench. A POI is a chance for a speaker to interrupt opposing speakers’ speeches and ask questions or make brief statements. They can be offered between the first and last minutes of an opposing speaker’s speech.

The opening and closing minutes of each speech are protected, and no POIs can be offered during this time.

25

A POI must be offered to, and then accepted by, the speaker before it can be asked. It is also important to note that Points of Information should be brief (no longer than 15 seconds).

They are not an additional speech, just a short interjection.

Giving POIs POIs can shape the flow of the debate, by directing a speaker to discuss those areas of the debate that you think are most advantageous to your team. Those areas may be where you feel you have performed particularly well, or ones which you feel have fallen out of the debate or been ignored by the opposition. POIs can also be used to flag your own arguments.

As a closing team you can force the opening team to spend time on their upcoming material by asking a relevant POI. As an opening team member, later in the debate you can use a POI to draw the judges’ attention to material you delivered earlier. POIs can either be positive (e.g. offering an example or argument for your side) or negative (e.g. highlighting inconsistencies in the speaker’s argument or offering a fact which contradicts a speaker’s argument). It is up to you to decide which is most effective in the context of any given debate.

Taking POIs In a five or seven minute speech you should take one or two POIs. You should also vary who you take POIs from. You will appear weak if you deliberately avoid POIs from the stronger speakers in the debate.

It is up to you whether you take a POI. The impact a point can have on your speech is determined as much by when you take one as it is by your answer to it. Don’t take POIs mid-sentence or half-way through a bit of detailed analysis. This will only confuse both you and the audience, and may result in your speech losing flow and impact. It is perfectly acceptable to ask someone offering a POI to stay standing and then accept their point when you have finished the section of the your speech you are on (provided you don’t make them wait too long).

Persuasion

Debate audiences and judges are not machines, and a speech is not a written essay. Persuasive speeches need to be structured clearly to help the audience to understand their complexities, and they need to be interesting to listeners.

Structure

Separating arguments and presenting them in an orderly manner makes it easier for listeners to appreciate a speech. Clarity of structure is more important in a speech than in a piece of writing because audiences, unlike readers, do not have the ability to go over what was said again if it was unclear.

You should tell the audience what you are going to say (signpost) at the beginning of your speech, and follow this structure, clearly separating each point as you go through them. Finally you should conclude by reminding the audience what you have said.

Prioritising Content

The most important arguments should be given the most time and come earliest in the speech. For example, when proposing a total ban on smoking you may have two arguments to deliver: • Smoking kills • Cigarette smoke smells bad.

While both are perfectly legitimate arguments, it is clear that the first argument is more important than the second. Most choices will not be quite this simple, but it is important to ask yourself in which order arguments should come during your preparation time.

Ordering your arguments

Some arguments will flow on naturally on from others. Take the example above, ‘This House would ban all smoking’, and the two arguments: • banning smoking will result in a black market • smoking is addictive and people will find it hard to give up.

The two arguments naturally belong together. If you is are trying to argue that a black market in cigarettes will develop, part of your proof of that argument might be to demonstrate the addictive nature of cigarettes. You should keep the arguments together, because having them in separate speeches, or interrupted by another point, would make it harder to appreciate the analytical connection between the two arguments.

27

Style

Style is about effective communication. In essence, a good style is one that enables you to engage the attention of your audience for the duration of your speech. There is, however, no definition of that ‘good’ style. Different speakers utilise different styles to equal effect. It is for you to develop a style which appears comfortable, natural and authoritative.

In developing this style, always be aware that your tone of voice, body language, speed, volume, diction, eye contact and use of notes all affect your ability to engage with the audience.

The speaker with their hands in pockets, speaking monotonously from a script will find it much harder to engage with their audience than the one who employs much more open body language and relies far less on notes, enabling them to look listeners in the eye.

There are, therefore, a number of variables which you control.

Make sure that you speak loudly enough in order to be heard; slowly enough so that your words can be clearly understood.

Employ the odd pause, perhaps at the end of a vital statistic, in order to allow the audience to digest its significance before you move on. Change your tone of voice at opportune moments: if you’re emotively describing the trauma somebody has been through, the calm, slow, empathetic manner will probably be better suited than the quick, combative tone you might adopt when refuting your opponent’s speech.

Build on the strengths of your own, natural style rather than attempting to imitate the strengths of others. Remember that a successful style relies upon appearing authentic and being engaging.

Policy or Analysis?

Individual debates differ from each other in terms of the emphasis placed upon policy and analysis. For example, the motion, ‘This House believes Africa’s problems are a legacy of its colonial past’ requires opening government to argue for the truth of the statement rather than to propose any specific policy. This, broadly speaking, is an analysis debate. On the other hand, ‘This House would invade Iran’ is a motion which demands a policy by which Iran should be invaded to be presented by opening government. This debate would likely focus upon the merits and demerits of a specific, status-quo altering policy.

It is important to avoid perceiving all debates as falling absolutely into the policy and analysis categories. Many debates will have elements of both. A motion, for example, supporting the remilitarization of Russia could see the presentation of a policy by which Russia would remilitarize as well an analysis of whether a remilitarized Russia was a good thing. The emphasis to be placed upon either policy or analysis can be decided by the team.

This guide has focused primarily upon policy debates, since they comprise the majority of motions set in BP debate. It is, however, worth considering a suitable approach to analysis motions.

An analysis debate asks if the motion is true or false, rather than if the suggestion contained within the motion is a good one or a bad one. Whereas policy motions will contain some kind of directive term, for example ‘would’ or ‘should’, analysis debate motions are worded as statements, for example: ‘This House believes that the United Nations has failed.’ A policy motion on the same issue may be something along the lines of ‘This House would abolish the United Nations.’

While government teams do not have to explain any kind of policy which they are supporting, they must be sure to define the parameters of the debate. In the example of the UN debate, the opening government team would have to attempt to explain what they mean by ‘failed’. Without such parameters being set, there is no field of reference within which the analysis can take place.

An analysis debate is essentially the juxtaposition of two things; they can be items, people, states, ideas, or even time periods.

Anything that can be compared can be debated about in an analysis debate. Examples of analysis debates include: • This House believes that the media is the West’s greatest weapon in the war on terror • This House believes that we were safer during the Cold War than we are today.

29

HOW DEBATES ARE JUDGED

Different tournaments use different marking schemes, but all are based on the same criteria. This section describes the skills judges look for at the national championships in Britain and Ireland at university level.

Assessment Criteria

Judges assess five areas in a debate. The first three look just at individual speeches and the last two concern the performance of the team as a whole. ontent – the key to a winning speech is powerful argumentation.

C Judges will look for clear, logical and structured analysis of the issues and the ability to support this analysis with relevant examples. The deeper the level of analysis the higher scoring the speech will be. trategy – judges reward speeches that are relevant to the motion S and to the arguments proposed by the other side. Arguments should be well–planned and consistent. Teams should provide a clear and sensible definition and model where required, follow a coherent team line, and offer well–chosen principled grounds from which to argue for their side. tyle – the purpose of debate is to persuade. Judges consider S delivery to the extent that it affects the persuasiveness of arguments. Ability to appeal to emotions or sense of humour will be rewarded if they render arguments more persuasive. ngagement – judges reward comprehensive rebuttal of the E arguments made by the other side, and teams that engage through the offering and acceptance of points of information.

Role Fulfilment – judges assess how well speeches perform their role in the context of the debate.

•O pening proposition teams must define the motion and present what they consider to be the most important arguments in the debate.

• Opening opposition teams may want to present their own principled reasons for disagreeing with the motion, but must also rebut the arguments presented by first proposition.

• The second teams on each side must extend the debate, either in the form of more sophisticated analysis, new argumentation or novel examples.

• The last speaker on each side must summarise the issues in the debate. They must not introduce anything new in their summary speeches.

31

TOURNAMENT CALENDAR TOURNAMENT / HOST

TYPE

START / END DATE

CONTACT / EMAIL

SOAS IV 2010 School of Oriental and African Studies

IV

Fri 15/10/2010 Sun 17/10/2010

SOAS Debating Society soasdebsoc@gmail.com

UCU Open 2010 UCU Debating Union

Open

Fri 22/10/2010 Sat 23/10/2010

Esther Drees ucuopen@gmail.com

Edinburgh IV Edinburgh University Debates Union

IV

Sat 23/10/2010

Stephanie Phillips stephanie.l.phillips@me.com

Imperial College Open, Imperial College London

Open

Sat 23/10/2010

Ed Middleton Dbat@imperial.ac.uk

NAMDA Novice Cup University of York

Novice

Sat 23/10/2010

Chris Woods debating@yusu.org

UCD Novice IV University College Dublin

IV

Thu 28/10/2010

Christine Simpson & Dearbhla O’Gorma novice.iv@literaryandhistorical.com

UCD Vice Presidents’ Cup University College Dublin

IV

Fri 29/10/2010 Sat 30/10/2010

Christine Simpson & Dearbhla O’Gorma vpc@literaryandhistorical.com

Lancaster University IV Lancaster University

IV

Sat 30/10/2010

Jake Armes (IV Convenor) jakearmes@googlemail.com

Durham & Newcastle IV Uni.s of Newcastle and Durham

IV

Sat 06/11/2010 Sat 07/11/2010

Oskar Avery / Peter Doughton durhamnewcastle@gmail.com

Oxford IV 2010 Oxford Union

IV

Thu 11/11/2010 Sat 13/11/2010

Scott Ralston convenor@oxfordiv.org

Cambridge IV 2010 Cambridge Union

IV

Fri 19/11/2010 Sat 20/11/2010

Julie Chan and Will Davis iv@cus.org

Centrale IV Ecole Centrale Paris

IV

Fri 19/11/2010 Sat 20/11/2010

Antoine Chatin antoine.chatin@student.ecp.fr

ESU John Smith Memorial Mace Eng Leg,

Nationals

Fri 26/11/2010 Sat 27/11/2010

Steven Nolan steven.nolan@esu.org

Novice

Sat 27/11/2010

James Wood (Convenor) leedsdebatingunion@googlemail.com

English-Speaking Union Yorkshire Novice Cup 2010 University of Leeds

TOURNAMENT / HOST

TYPE

START / END DATE

CONTACT / EMAIL

The Cork Invitational

Other

Thu 02/12/2010

Anne O’Donovan iv@uccphilosoph.com

The Cork IV Uni. College Cork

IV

Fri 03/12/2010 Sat 04/12/2010

Anne O’Donovan iv@uccphilosoph.com

KCL IV King’s College London

IV

Sat 04/12/2010

Matt Quinton matt.quinton@kcl.ac.uk

Sheffield IV 2010 Uni. of Sheffield

IV

Sat 04/12/2010

Rosie Geddes sheffielddebating@gmail.com

Bristol IV 2010 Bristol

IV

Fri 10/12/2010 Sat 11/12/2010

Sarah Merriam sm9918@bristol.ac.uk

SSE Riga IV SSE Riga

IV

Fri 10/12/2010 Sat 11/12/2010

Reinholds Pirags reinholds_p@inbox.lv

Birmingham IV University of Birmingham

IV

Fri 17/12/2010 Sat 18/12/2010

Amanda Moorghen debating@guild.bham.ac.uk

Nottingham Trent IV Nottingham Trent University

IV

Sat 15/01/2011

Rhianon Brooks ntu_debate@yahoo.co.uk

London IV LSE

IV

Sat 22/01/2011

Judith Jacob j.p.jacob@lse.ac.uk

Kingsmill Moore Invitational Trinity College, Dublin

IV

Thu 27/01/2011

Hannah Cogan dc@tcdphil.com

Trinity IV Trinity College Dublin

IV

Fri 28/01/2011 Sat 29/01/2011

Hannah Cogan dc@tcdphil.com

Exeter IV Exeter University Debate Society

IV

Sat 29/01/2011 Sun 30/12/2011

Eva Mariscotti etm201@ex.ac.uk

Scottish Weekend Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews

%

Fri 04/02/2011 Sun 06/02/2011

David Norris or Ed Noel s0817353@sms.ed.ac.uk

Warwick IV 2011 Warwick Debating Society

IV

Sat 05/02/2011

Andrew Ford su315@sunion.warwick.ac.uk

Galway Open: Irish National Laws Debates 2010 National University of Ireland, Galway

Open

Fri 11/02/2011 Sat 12/02/2011

Jackie Driscoll nationallawdebates@gmail.com

Uni. College Cork

33

TOURNAMENT / HOST

TYPE

START / END DATE

CONTACT / EMAIL

UCL IV 2011

IV

Sat 12/02/2011

Rupert Cabbell Manners rcabman@hotmail.com

York IV 2011 University of York

IV

Sat 12/02/2011

debating@yusu.org

LSE Open LSE

Open

Sat 19/02/2011 Sun 20/02/2011

Scott MacDonald lsedebate@gmail.com

Manchester IV Manchester Debating Union

IV

Fri 25/02/2011 Sun 27/02/2011

Fran Hall & Zoe Molyneux iv@mdu.manchester.ac.uk

Vienna IV Debattierklub Wien

IV

Fri 04/03/2011 Sun 06/03/2011

Leonhard Weese obmann@debattierklubwien.at

Nottingham Open University of Nottingham

Open

Sat 05/03/2011

University of Limerick Open 2011 University of Limerick Debating Union

Open

Fri 11/03/2011 Sat 12//03/2011

David Hartery

Leeds IV 2011 Leeds Debating Union

IV

Sat 12//03/2011 Sun 13//03/2011

James Wood leedsdebatingunion@googlemail.com

Cardiff IV Cardiff University

IV

Sat 19//03/2011 Sun 20//03/2011

Charlie Martin martinc7@cardiff.ac.uk

DCU Open Dublin City University

Open

Fri 25//03/2011 Sat 26//03/2011

Derwin Brennan derwinbrennan@gmail.com

Bath IV Univeristy of Bath

IV

Fri 25//03/2011 Sun 27//03/2011

David Cameron drc25@bath.ac.uk

University of Aberdeen Open University of Aberdeen

Open

Sat 26//03/2011

Sarah Beverstock debater@abdn.ac.uk

SOAS Open 2011 School of Oriental and African Studies

Open

Sat 23/07/2011

Sheraz Qureshi & Mark Eastham soasdebsoc@gmail.com

SOAS Invitational 2011 School of Oriental and African Studies

Open

Sun 24/07/2011

Sheraz Qureshi & Mark Eastham soasdebsoc@gmail.com

Oxford Women's Open The Oxford Union

IV

Fri 02/12/2011 Sun 13/02/2011

oxford.womens@googlemail.com

UCL

80%

of our investors don't have a numbers degree*

It’s a fact that many of our Investment Managers hold degrees in the arts or humanities, not in maths or finance as you might expect. But this is actually a good fit with the way we manage clients’ portfolios. Our long-term approach means that the ability to absorb large amounts of ‘real-world’ information, factoring in social and geopolitical issues as well as economic ones is invaluable.

Baillie Gifford is one of the UK’s leading independent investment companies and we firmly believe in the importance of growing our own talent. That’s why 75 per cent of our partners started out as graduate trainees.

We develop and train talented people and provide the benefits, career opportunities and environment that make them want to stay. *To find out more and to apply please visit bailliegifford.com 35

About the English-Speaking Union

The ESU is a charity using English as a common global language to nurture dialogue, the exchange of ideas and opinions. The ESU brings together and empowers people of different languages and cultures. By building skills and confidence we give young people the opportunity to realise their potential.

Worldwide, the members and alumni of the ESU support these objectives.

The ESU has a new home online, at www.esu.org. Here you will find details of all our programmes, from English in Action to Discover Your Voice, from Churchill Lectures to Concerts and Recitals at Dartmouth House.

It also has some important information for the debating community, with the Debate Calendar for University, Schools and Open tournaments, along with a debating directory, which lists up to date contact information for almost every UK and Irish institution, should you need to get in touch.

You will also find details of how to become an ESU mentor at www.esu.org/mentors.

We rely on debaters to help us run a lot of our activities, and in return, we pay you and give you unrivalled opportunities to travel overseas, along with making a real difference in the lives of kids up and down the country.

The English-Speaking Union Dartmouth House 37 Charles Street London W1J 5ED T 020 7529 1550 F 020 7495 6108 esu@esu.org www.esu.org

Registered Charity No. 273136