Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

English Debating Society 1

Meeting 2

Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System


Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc

I. Definition of the Australasian Parliamentary English Debate:


A formal method of interactive and representational argument.
Consist of two teams debating over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition.
Encouraged in high schools and colleges

II. The Advantages of the Australasian Parliamentary English Debate:


a. A means of encouraging critical thinking.
b. A means of personal expressions.
c. Tolerance of others' opinions.

III. Formation of the Australasian Parliamentary English Debate:

IV. Australasian Debating

V. Speech Delivery:
a. Substantive Speech: 5-8 minutes
b. Reply Speech:3-5 minutes

VI. Affirmative (The Government):


a. Has the right to define the motion.
b. Support it with constructive arguments.

VII. Negative (The Opposition):


a. Oppose the motion defined by the Affirmative.
b. Build a counter-case against the Affirmative.
c. Challenge the definition if invalid only.

VIII. Motion (Topic):


a. A prepositional statement that determines what a debate shall be about:
That we should give President SBY a chance.
That American pop culture is a threat to civilization
English Debating Society 2
Meeting 2

IX. Defining the Motion:


a. Must be debatable.
b. Must not a bizarre distortion of the motion.
c. Example:
i. That what goes up must come down.
what being the President of RI.
goes up takes power
come down step down from the power
That the Indonesian presidency should be limited to 2 terms

X. Challenging the Definition:


a. Truistic: It is true by nature thus make the arguments unarguable.
b. Tautological/ Circular: The given definition is circling to the motion.
c. Squirreling: It isnt tied down to the spirit of the motion & doesnt have a proper logical
link to the motion.
d. Time & Place Setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a very
particular time & place.

XI. Theme Line:


a. is the underlying logic of a teams case.
b. Used to prove a teams stand on the motion.
c. Key question: Why is it true?
d. Indonesias presidency should be limited to 2 terms in respect to democracy, balance of
power, and world changes.

XII. Team Split: Distribution of arguments to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd speaker.

XIII. Argumentation:
a. The process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted.
b. Valid by its supporting logic & facts.

XIV. Good argumentation: Relevance, Organization, Consistency & internal logic, Clarity, and
Effective use of evidence.

XV. Rebuttal:
a. The process of proving that the opposing teams arguments should be accorded less
weight than its claim.
b. Showing how & why the oppositions arguments are invalid.
XVI. Rebuttal: The arguments are
a. Based on a wrong of facts/ interpretation of facts.
b. Irrelevant to the topic.
c. Illogical.
d. Involving unacceptable implication.