Introductory Classroom Debate by Seonghyun Sean Yoon

Introductory Classroom Debate August 2020, Version 1 Seonghyun (Sean) Yoon

Penguin Debate Association

Version 3 1 Written on 2020 J ne

Sea Y

A i f d ha ca deba i g c e

Ad dica

hei

ai e

ea i g i a

J dge Pa e

e ha

b e e ha i chief

adj dica i

ea i g diffe e

e adj dica

ib e f

i a

decidi g he i a d

a d he g

f h

e adj dica

d The e ca efe ed

a a

a e

i g fea ibi i

A h a e i c ded i

ha a

deba e

e ha a ce ai

ce a i i fea ib e

b a fia A

i g fea ibi i

Thi H

A iece f a e eake

i di id a f

ec d he adj dica

he g

e dic RFD ea

d fh

a i

deci i

c e

Ba ac i g Ve b T

ffe

fi f

Ve b T ad a ce

he k

ick

e di

B ea

B de N

ei i a i

Wha b h ide ha e

he deba e

f a ea

ge he

Ca e N

The e

Chai J dge

d a a deba e

a dag

a j dge

a d

The e

h c

ib e f

a deba e a d

f he di i c i e a

A de c i i

fea

The chai j dge i

af e he deba e

e hi g

fe f

e i a deba e

Chief Ad dica

ha i chief

The adj dica

a k

he adj dica i

de i e i g he e dic a d gi i g feedback

Cha ac e i a i a egic

a age

ch a c

ib e f

e i g e i g he

i g he

a e

hich i c de

a ki g he j dge

C a h N

Whe eake

eag

ae e

i gG

The ec

ib e f

d ea

ib e f

adic each

he Whi

he deba e

he g

e e

ide i a B i i h Pa ia e a ca e a d

e deba e The a e

a i g he deba e i fa

f he

d ea

e e di g he

ide i a B i i h Pa ia e a ca e a d

e deba e The a e

a i g he deba e i fa

f he

f ic

A i

a ce he a j dge ha

i j dgi g Deba e hich i dica e a

he j dge

a affi ia i

i ed

b i ac

f ic f

ha he

i h a deba e

a ea

bef e he

ha he

a e

begi

d ha

e fac a A de ic i

e ed

The ec

i g ide di ec

ide if i g ke c a he i

e e di g he g

i gO

d he e i e

A e a i e

e hi g ha ha ha

e ed i

he ea

A a e ai e

Defi i i N

f he defi i i

ca ed b

The i e

eai

c ea ed b

he fi

i g ea

EFL ESL E g i h a a f eig

a g age E g i h a a ec

B h a e ca eg ie

d a g age

e i

de e di g

a e gi e b

a e

E gage e N

A e

E e N

a e ia b

i g ea

ef a i

gh b

he c

i g ha f f a B i i h Pa ia e a

deba e

e The

f ac i

i g ea

The g

ca e

e a

f h

adi

I f S ide N

Addi i i

a i f

ece i a e addi i

a k

gi e b

he Adj dica i

C e

edge

IR Abb A abb e ia i

Mecha i

a ai

A e

I e ai

a Re a i

a ce ai

e ike

M de N

The ic A

M i N

e h d ha he affi de i

ece a

a i e ea i a a e deba e

The

ae e

ic f he deba e

e e

he idea

O e i gG N

The fi

ib e f

he g

defi i g he

e i g

The fi

ib e f

P N

ide i a B i i h Pa ia e a

e e i gag

i fa

e deba e The a e f he

a d eb

i g

e e i gag

ide i a B i i h Pa ia e a

agai

a d eb

e deba e The a e i g

e i gg

f C a ifica i e i

P i N

The ide agai

P i

O e i gO N

ffe ed b a deba e d i g

fI f

A h

ick

a e

eech i

c a if a ce ai

POI i

f eb

e Ma chi g P Whe

ade d i g a

eech b a

eake

i g ide

e Pai

i h i ia

a d

eake

a ched agai

each

he i a

P e Ti e N

Ti e gi e f

P N

ed acce

The fi

hei e ec

a d a

beca

e he e i a

e a e a ca e

ec ed Ti e U

Reb

deba e

B e

ic de ice d i g

a i e

deba e M

deba e

i e

ec ed Ti e i

e fa

eech d i g hich

fi f

be ffe ed

U a chi g dd

he a ea be

f ea

a ched agai i h a ce ai

a ea be

i h a highe f i

f i

A e

a ai

S ea e P i N

P i

O he

i ek

e he a g

ba ed

hei c

ca ed a

i di id a eak

eake

a eg a d

i e

Ve b T a e

gai a

e ha d i

he deba e b defi i g

i e

e i g he

be i

ed i

i a

hi b

i e

i egi i a e a

S a ce N

Whe e

A e he e a ce h

i i

bjec

a e

a ie

Thei i

ide f he c

igh be ke f

decidi g a

eed

f he

e e

d be efe e ced he e

S ea e

A e he e a ce h

a ie

Thei i

ide f he c

igh be ke f

decidi g a

eed

be i

f he

ed i

hi b e e

i e e

d be efe e ced he e

S i g Tea N

A e e e ea

i a A ia Pa ia e a

i ed f j dge

a e

e ha he

i e f 4 i a B i i h Pa ia e a

Tab N

The fi a a ki g f

eake

a d ea

i ac

eii

Ti e ee e N

A e

h kee

THBT Thi H

e Be ie e Tha

ec d f

eaki g i e a d c a

i g

f ea

i e e a e

THP Thi H

e P efe

THR Thi H

e Reg e

THS Thi H

THW Thi H

Refe e ce The Ca b idge U i

dic i

f deba i g e

A a Pa a

(AP)

Suggested number of people: 4-8 (2-4 people in each of government and opposition) G d b ca : 1. Eas It is easier to in if ou incorporate strateg in Asian Parliamentar debates, but it is not necessar . All ou have to do in an Asian Parliamentar debate--in essence--is agree or disagree! Hence, Asian Parliamentar is relativel eas compared to man other t pes of debates. 2. Well-kno n to students Along ith Model UN, the Asian Parliamentar format is ell-kno n to man students in Asian countries. The famous competition World Scholar s Cup is also done in the Asian Parliamentar format, suggesting that man students have some e perience about the format beforehand. 3. Suitable in man topics Almost ever topic can be applied to the Asian parliamentar format, and ou can change the topic to make our students focus on certain subtopics hile debating. For instance, in a geograph lesson about tariffs, ou could use the motion This House opposes tariffs. To focus the discussion to specific stakeholders, ou can also change the motion! In This house, as an average citi en in the UK, ould vote against tariffs, the debate ould require more research and anal sis about the econom of the UK. Bad b ca : 1. Has onl t o sides This can be an advantage in some cases, but in topics here ou ould reall ant to anal e the vie s of each stakeholder, AP st le ould not be the best to use. In an Asian parliamentar format, ou ould divide the group into pros and cons, and consistenc is ke to inning in an AP st le debate. Hence, it is hard to have nuanced opinions about a topic compared to MUN. 2. Has no moderator that sets the direction of a discussion Once an Asian Parliamentar debate starts, ou cannot interrupt to change the direction of the discussion unlike a MUN debate. This could mean that the debate could revolve around a subtopic that is relativel insignificant, here the debate ouldn t be the best learning e perience. R c d d :â&#x20AC;&#x2039; An group of students. (A group of 8 is recommended for ear 7, 8, and 9; a group of 6 is recommended for 10 and 11; a group of 4 is fine for 12 and 13 but 6 is generall the optimal number) But to students that are first to debating, preparing arguments in the best strategic direction could be challenging. Hence, it ould also be good to suggest reading materials or important questions to beginning debaters. H d ? 1. Team formation and speaking time A team ould be formed ith three to four speakers on each side. In a formal competition, elementar school students ould have 4 minutes of speaking time, middle school students ould have 6, and high school students ould have 8. Repl speeches in elementar school ould also have 4 minutes to speak, but for middle school and high school, replies ould have half the time of other speakers. Ho ever, it is standard practice that the are given 30

seconds to finali e their speeches even though the go over the time, and the judge (or timekeeper) ould clap t ice to alert that the have 30 seconds to finish off their speeches. After the additional 30 seconds finish, judges should not take into consideration an of the material that is introduced b the speaker. Instead, he or she should clap thrice to signal that speaking time has entirel ended. The judge ma also call order and tell the debater to go back to his/her seat hen the debater speaks for too long. 2. POIs and Clapping To facilitate discussion, Asian Parliamentar st le has something called a POI. A POI, or Point of information, is hen a debater stands up during the speech of an opponent debater and asks a question. Standard practice is to put one hand on his/her head and put the other in the air, and shout point of information. This originated from ho members of parliament in Britain put one hand on their head to stop their igs from falling do n and put the other in the air to sho that the ere unarmed hen asking questions. Ho ever, it reall doesn t matter even though debaters don t strictl adhere to this. Debaters ma shout sir, ma am, POI, Point, or hatever phrase that signals that the are asking a POI. Still, e ould not ant debaters to incessantl ask POIs and troll the speaker. Thus, e have a time here POIs are not allo ed, hich is called protected time. This is the first and final minute of each speech. The judge should signal this time b clapping once hen the protected time begins and ends. Also, there must be 15 seconds bet een each POI from a team, and a POI must finish in 15 seconds. The judge should sa out of order hen debaters ask POIs hen the shouldn t. So, in essence, a POI should be offered: - during unprotected time - Within 15 seconds in the form of a question - After 15 seconds pass from the last POI. Also, the clapping b the judge ould be: - Clap once after 1 minute to signal that POIs are open - Clap once hen there is 1 minute of speaking time left to signal that POIs are closed - Clap t ice hen speaking time elapses to signal that there are 30 seconds left to finali e the speech - Clap thrice hen additional 30 seconds also finish to signal that speaking time has ended 3. Speaker Roles The speakers in proposition, in speaking order, are called: - Prime Minister (PM) - Deput Prime Minister (DPM) - Government Whip (GW) - Government Repl (GR) In opposition, the speakers are called: - Leader of Opposition (LO) - Deput Leader of Opposition (DLO) - Opposition Whip (OW) - Opposition Repl (OR)

The speakers ould speak in order of PM (Prop 1), LO (Opp 1), DPM (Prop 2), DLO (Opp 2), GW (Prop 3), OW (Opp 3), OR (Opp4), GR (Gov 4). All speakers have different names because the have different roles in the debate. First speakers in both teams are called constructive speakers, and their roles are to define the motion, state their stance, and introduce their arguments. Thus, it is important that first speakers can deliver clear and concise e planations. Also, because the set the frame of the debate, the abilit to illustrate the outcomes in both sides using vivid language and a ide vocabular ould be crucial to in the debate. LO should also rebut the arguments of the PM. Second speakers do more rebuttals than state arguments. The ould refute an arguments made b the other side, and also retake the rebuttals of the other team. Second speakers hence must be good listeners and good supporters, because the should simultaneousl assist their first speaker and catch big points of their opponents. Third speakers are comparative speakers, meaning that the compare the content that came out from both sides, and e plain h the on. Also, if there are an clarifications or refutations that their previous speakers have missed, hips should engage ith such material. Hence, hip speakers should be anal ticall strong and possess the abilit to see the big picture of the debate. Final speakers, or replies, do not introduce an ne rebuttals or arguments. Ho ever, the use material that has alread been introduced, and compare them to convince the judge that their side has on. A difference ith hips is that hips are not allo ed to introduce arguments, but are elcome to provide ne e tensions or refutations. Replies should strictl use onl the content alread presented b previous speakers. It is the standard convention that the first speaker of a team also does the repl , but ou can introduce an variations depending on the e pertise of the students. 4. Variations An e ample of such a variation might be as the follo ing: In a double lesson ith 7 ear 10 students that are not familiar ith debating: - PM speech b proposition student 1 (4 mins) - LO speech b opposition student 1 (4 - Deput Prime Minister (DPM) - Government Whip (GW) - Government Repl (GR)

Pa a

(BP)

Suggested number of people: 8 (2 people in each of opening government, opening opposition, closing government, and closing opposition) Good because: 1. Man in-depth anal sis about the topic Because there are four teams, each team must compete b giving information to the judge that the other teams have not et given. Thus, in the process of tr ing to find ne matter, teams naturall see the topic in diverse perspectives, and find ne e tensions of content that other teams have alread provided. Bad because: 1. Hard for beginners and lo er ear groups

British parliamentar debates, b their ver nature, necessitate a ver high involvement of strateg . This is because e have t o propositions and t o opposition teams. The proposition teams compete not onl against the opposition, but also against themselves. Thus, there is a ver high e pectation of strategic debating, hich can be hard for even the most e perienced debaters. Recommended for: A group of ear 12 or 13 students ith a particularl high passion and kno ledge about the subject, or lots of e perience ith debating. (â&#x20AC;&#x2039;Why?â&#x20AC;&#x2039;) A British Parliamentar debate ould be suitable for a high ear group ith a particularl high passion and kno ledge about the subject, precisel because the debating format is more difficult than others. Also, since there are onl t o people in a team, British Parliamentar debates are harder to prepare than other debates such as the Asian Parliamentar format, here ou ould have three to four members in a team. Hence, it ould be good to use the British Parliamentar format of debating hen ou have man e perienced debaters, so that the could pair up ith the less e perienced debaters. Ho to do: Ho to judge: P b cF : Suggested number of People: 4 to 12 people (in a formal competition, there ould be t o on each team. Ho ever, Ho to do: - Constructive speech from Team A first speaker (4 min) - Constructive speech from Team B first speaker (4 min) - Crossfire from first speakers of both sides (3 min) - Rebuttal speech from Team A second speaker (4 min) - Rebuttal speech from Team B second speaker (4 min) - Crossfire from first speakers of both sides (3 min) - Summar speech from Team A first speaker (2 min) - Summar speech from Team B first speaker (2 min) - Grand Crossfire from all speakers of both sides (3 min) - Final focus from Team A second speaker (2 min) - Final focus from Team B second speaker (2 min) In a constructive speech, ou define the ke terms in the motion, state our stance, and state our (generall t o) arguments. In a crossfire, one speaker from each side comes to the podium and freel debates ith one another until the time duration ends. Speakers can ask questions or clarifications. In a rebuttal speech, the speaker responds to an questions or arguments the other side has made. The shouldn t be stating an ne arguments, and the judge must neglect those points. In a summar speech, the speakers sum up hat both sides have said, and h their side has done a better job in proving or disproving the topic. In a grand crossfire, all speakers from each team can ask questions to the opposing side. In a final focus, the speakers ill tr to persuade the judge h the think that their side has on at the end. This ould include some phrases like: We on because . If ou don t bu this argument ..

Their side dropped our argument about .. Judge, our argument about economic impacts are more important because . This is the most formal and standard a of a public forum debate. But as ou can reali e, the format onl involved t o people, and it is quite hard to perform all of those roles in limited time. Also, the speech times can be short or long depending on the ear group. Thus, ou can choose to modif the format. The e ample belo might be ho ou ould ant to change the format for a group of Eleven ear 11 students for a double lesson. - Preparation time (40 min) - Constructive speech from Team A first speaker (3 min) - Constructive speech from Team B first speaker (3 min) - Crossfire from second speakers of both sides (3 min) - Rebuttal speech from Team A third speaker (5 min) - Rebuttal speech from Team B third speaker (5 min) - Crossfire from second speakers of both sides (2 min) - Summar speech from Team A fourth speaker (5 min) - Summar speech from Team B fourth speaker (5 min) - Grand Crossfire from all speakers of both sides (5 min) - Final focus from Team A first speaker (2 min) - Final focus from Team B first speaker (2 min) - Three judges deliver their verdict and peer feedback (15 min) Ho to judge: Lincoln-Douglas: Mock Trial: Model UN:

Wha i a g d j dge? Judging at times can be a subjective process--in this section, I will outline some methods to make the process as much as impartial as possible. The following format is the judging format for Asian Parliamentary, World Schools, and British parliamentary formats, but the content can still be applied to different formats such as Public Forum as well. References include the judge manual for the World Schools Debating Championship, German Schools Debating League, etc. In essence, a good judge has the following seven characteristics: Im a ial: Personal bonds do not take place. U bia ed: Has no preconceived notions on who will win the round. Ob e a : Listens carefully to the debaters. K ledgeable: In debate, we assume the judge to be an average voter. That is, a good judge has above-average knowledge about current affairs and basic facts to comprehend the topic matter. E e : To possess a solid understanding of the rules, wording, and the judging process. Acc able: Can justify the beliefs and decisions. C c i e: Not only judges the round but provides constructive feedback on how to improve as debaters. Also, judges must maintain the order of the room, guaranteeing courtesy and respect for both teams and the audience.

J dgi g P ce When the debate starts, the judge would greet debaters and guests, and introduce the motion. He or she would also enumerate the names of the judges and thank relevant staff. Then, the judge would invite each speaker to the podium in the order specific to the debating format. When the debate ends, the judge would announce that the floor has been closed, and ask debaters to cross the floor and shake hands. Then, the judge would ask debaters to leave the debating chamber until the judge (or judges) make the final decision. After the verdict has been made, the judge(s) would invite the debaters back to the debating chamber, and announce the verdict and their feedback. The format for announcing this process is in the Appendix.

M i

I e

eai

M i Fia For a constructive and effective discussion, the motion takes for granted that the action specified in the motion will be taken. This assumption is called a fiat. For instance, on the motion This House Would reserve seats for women in the parliament, the opposition argument that male politicians will oppose this bill and will not be passed is not a valid rebuttal. Hence, it cannot be credited as it is not an argument against the action specified in the motion. Bia Some motions may seem biased towards one side. However, you must not give credit on your opinion of the motion. This is because whether one side is stronger or not is often subjective, and is shaky ground to judge the round upon. Even though the motion is not perfectly balanced, making arbitrary adjustments may lead to inconsistencies in judging. This is because each judge would vary in the extent of how teams are compensated for that biasedness of the motion, especially in a way that teams cannot know beforehand.

Defi i i Proposition is often required to set a definition of the motion so that both sides agree upon what they are debating about. However, unreasonable definitions should be discredited. There are mainly three ways to set an unfair definition: squirrelling, specific time and place setting, disallowing room for debate. The first way, squirreling, is when a team creates a distorted definition of a certain term that significantly deviates from the normative definition. For instance, in This House Would ban gambling, it would be unreasonable to define gambling as risky behaviours such as taking hard drugs, as in the phrase gamble with one s life. The second way, specific time and place setting, is when a team arbitrarily restricts the debate to a space or time that is not specified in the motion. In a motion with a regulation specific to, say, South Korea, This House can be defined as South Korea. However, in the motion This House Believes That citi ens should engage in civil disobedience to protest against unjust laws, it would be unfair to define This House as South Africa during 1945 to 1990. Third, disallowing room for debate is when a team restricts the definition to certain cases where it is obvious and undebatable. For instance, in a debate about banning cosmetic surgery, a team cannot confine cosmetic surgery to only surgery for burn patients. If the other side challenges the definition and you are convinced, this should be incorporated into your points for strategy. M del Proposition can present how they achieve their end goal, and opposition can also present their counter-model. However, it is not necessary for each team to have a model. J dgeme Based on the wording of the motion, some points may be considered invalid. For instance, in This House Regrets motions, the debate is retrospective. That is, what has happened or what could ve happened should only be taken into consideration. Also, This House Believes or This House Prefers do not require a specific course of action to be proposed. Rather, it is simply about which world is better.

Pe al k ledge bia Judges should not take their personal ideas into consideration. A judge should not discredit an example that was never rebutted based on his or her personal bias. Rather, examples must be judged by the amount of contribution the example makes to deciding the verdict of the debate. Reb al The part on personal knowledge and bias also means that if certain points are not rebutted, although the points may be weak and unimportant, they stand until the end of the debate. Hence, if a point remains unrebutted, the point would be automatically credited to the side that presented it. It is poor strategy to ignore arguments that are presented, and marks would be deducted from the strategy.

S eake R le a d Sc i g S eake Sc e Scores are in three categories: content, strategy, and manner. Content refers to the quality and contribution of the information that was presented by the speaker. These include information such as characteri ations of important actors that lay out the foundation for arguments, analysis of the status quo, examples that give deeper insight into the motion. Strategy is about focusing on areas that allow the team to win the debate. Setting priorities for different contents and addressing the major points of contention is necessary to score high in strategy. Manner is about the way in which the content is presented, such as voice projection, body language, non-verbal cues, and so on. However, this also includes how much the speaker was adhering to courtesy. Use of formal language is not necessary, but marks would be deducted if the speaker yells or uses foul language. But it is extremely important that speakers are not penali ed for immutable traits such as accent, voice pitch, format of organi ing the speech (using paper, palm cards, or what not), etc. Overall, the sum of the scores for the three areas represent the following: Sc e Ra ge

C i e ia

Speaker did not speak

61-64

Speaker spoke but failed to fulfil his/her roles

65-68

Speaker fulfilled all of his/her roles but content could be improved

69-74

Good content and some elaboration on strategy

75-78

Excellent content and elaboration on strategy

79-80

Exceptional content and strategy. Beyond expectations.

More specifically, the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) identifies each speaker score as the following. Ma k

S a da d

Content is not relevant to the motion and what the team needs to prove. All points made are claims, with no analysis, and are confusing. The speech is hard to follow throughout, so it is hard to give it any credit.

61-63

A few marginally relevant claims. No analysis provided in the claims, which are mainly lines without explanation. Parts of the speech are clear, but significant parts are still hard to follow.

64-66

Some of the points made are relevant to the debate. Arguments / rebuttals are made with some explanation and analysis, but with significant logical gaps in the explanation.

Sometimes the speech is difficult to follow. 67-69

Most of the points made are relevant to the debate. All arguments / rebuttals have some explanation, but it still has logical and analytical gaps in important parts of the argument and lacks evidence. Mostly easy to follow, but some sections may still be hard to understand.

No major shortfalls, nor any strong moments. Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, although may fail to address one or more core issues sufficiently. All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and some examples, but are simplistic and easy to attack. Easy to follow throughout which makes the speech understandable, though style does not necessarily serve to make the speech more persuasive.

71-72

Arguments are all relevant, and address the core issues in the debate. All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and most have credible evidence. Some points raised may have minor logical gaps or deficits in explanation. Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the speech more engaging and persuasive.

73-76

Arguments are relevant and engage with the most important issues. Arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps. Occasionally, the speaker provides more sophisticated and nuanced analysis, making their arguments hard to attack. Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the speech more engaging and persuasive.

77-79

Arguments are all relevant and well-illustrated, and address the core issues in the debate, with thorough explanations, no logical gaps, and credible examples, making them hard to attack Easy to follow throughout. The style serves to make the speech s content more engaging.

Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given in a schools competition. It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made. Flawless and compelling arguments, made with outstanding delivery.

Reply speeches have different ways of marking, which is identified as below by the official WSDC rulebook.

Ma k

S a da d

The speaker did not describe the debate as it happened. They misunderstood or misrepresented central arguments and responses.

31-34

Instead of actually identifying or analysing points of clash, speaker mostly just retold the debate as it happened or attempted to keep arguing for their side.

Speaker identified the major points of clash between two teams and was able to provide some basic justification for awarding the win to speaker s team.

36-39

Almost perfect overview of the debate. Particular interactions from the debate were analysed and used as evidence for awarding the win to the speaker s team.

Flawless analysis of the debate that just occurred. Speaker was able to accurately identify turning points in the debate (including the strongest arguments and rebuttal of their opponents) and why they their side wins on balance.

However, you must mark the scores after deciding the win and loss. This is because the scores is just a quantification of how well each speaker did. It is just a mathematical representation of your decision, and hence should be decided after your decision.

J dge A ian parliamen ar O e g e a : Tha fe dge , a d e ce e be , a d deba e f a e d g h deba e. J dg g h d ( dge a e ), a d e a e deba g de he ( ). W h f he d e, e e c e he e e , ( a e) he d , hea hea . Af e eech e d : S ea e e f ( eech e). Tha , ( a e) f (e ce e N I ca he ea e ( ea e Af e deba e e d : Tha b h ea The dge d c

he a

/ W de f / O a d g / e ce a) e) ( a e) he d , hea hea .

de f deba e. N b h de a c he f g he e e a d c e bac h he e d c .

De e g he e d c : O e a , I h gh a a (h gh a / ab e a e age / ed c e) deba e. B g e he de ( de), beca e ( ea a d feedbac ).

Deba er A ian Parliamen ar P eM e: He ad e a d ge e e , I a ___( a e)___, he e e f he deba e. T da , e a e deba g de he ___( )___. (E a a , def ,a d ) A e e ,I ee a g e ab ___(f a g e )___ a d ___( ec d a g e )___. The , ca ab e de e e ___( a e)___ ee h d a g e , ___( h d a g e )___. (E a a g e ) Tha f e g. Leade f O : He ad e a d ge e e , I a deba e. T da , e a e deba g (E a a ce) A Leade f O I a g e )___ a d ___( ec d a e e ___( a e)___ a g e )___. B bef e I g he e e. (E a eb a ) N , e e he a g

___( a e)___, he eade de he ___(

f )___.

ee a g e ab ___(f g e )___. The , ca ab e de ee h d a g e , ___( h d a g e , e e eb he c e

f he

eech!

a d ha e ha d .

a he e d, I had

(E a Tha

ag f

) e

De P eM e: He ad e a d ge e e , I a ___( a e)___, he de e T da , e a e deba g de he ___( )___. (E a a ce) A de e e , e ef e a e he eb a e e ed b h ab e e . (E a e a e ) N , e e ef e he c a f he eade f . (E a eb a ) W h a f he eb a e c ea , a e ee h d a g e ,___( h d a g e )___. (E a a g e ) Tha f e g.

De He

Leade f O : ad e a d ge e e , I a ___( a e)___, he de eade f . T da , e a e deba g de he ___( )___. (E a a ce) A de eade f , e ef e a e he eb a e e ed b h ab e e . (E a e a e ) N , e e ef e he c a f he de e e. (E a eb a ) W h a f he eb a e c ea , a e ee h d a g e ,___( h d a g e )___. (E a a g e ) Tha f e g.

Penguin Debate Association

Introductory Clasroom Debate, Created by Sean Seonghyun Yoon Version 1 https://penguindebatearchive.com shyoon22@pupils.nlcsjeju.kr