Unit

ENGLISH DEBATE
3
I. The definition of debate
Have you ever had a debate? A debate is a serious discussion on a subject in which people taking
part. A debate involves two teams, the affirmative and negative teams with three speakers each. The
affirmative team defines the motion and then each defines the team line and team split. In a debate
you present your arguments, support your arguments, and then make a rebuttal.

World School Format Debate

A. Affirmative team
1. First speaker
2. Second speaker
3. Third speaker
B. Negative team
1. First speaker
2. Second speaker
3. Third speaker
C. Adjudicators
D. Moderator and Time keeper

1. How to Define a Motion

a. Decide which phrase/word need clarification.
b. Use imperative/question sentence to clarify the phrase/word.
c. Answer the question to make the definition more specific.
2. How to Present an Argument
a. Making a statement: We believe that …, we strongly believe that …, etc.
b. Give logic reasons: Because, it is …, Because of …, Since…, in any case … etc.
c. Provide supportive evidence.
d. Correlate the reasons with the motion: That’s why …, Therefore…, based on those evidence,
…,It’s clear that …, etc.
3. How to Support the Reason for Argument
a. Giving example: from your own experience or from what you heard or read.
b. Stating common sense: things that you believe everybody knows.
c. Quoting expert opinion: the opinions of experts -- this comes from research.
d. Providing statistics: numbers/data come from research.
4. How to Make Rebuttal
a. Step 1: “They say ...”. State the argument that you are about to refute so that the judges can
follow easily.
b. Step 2: “But I disagree...” Or “That may be true, but...”
c. Step 3: “Because ...”
d. Step 4: “Therefore...”
II. The Roles of Speakers During a Debate
Affirmative
First speaker:
1. Give the definition: Here is the definition
that we propose …
2. Outline the team’s case:
a. The team line: Our team line is …
b. The team split: The first speaker will
deal with …, the second speaker …,
and the third speaker …
3. Explain the argument
4. Give a brief summary: In conclusion …
Second speaker:
1. Rebut the 1st opposition speaker: Let
me tell you my rebuttal …
2. Explain the argument
3. Give a brief summary: In conclusion …
…
Third speaker:
1. Rebut the strong argument from the
opposition: Let me tell you my rebuttal …
2. Rebuild the team case
3. Give a brief summary: In conclusion …
Reply speaker:
1. Provide overview of the team’s case
2. Explain why the government’s case is
better
The example of debate “The House Believes That Smoking in Public Places Should Be Banned”
Affirmative
The first speaker from the affirmative team
Definition: people are not allowed to smoke
cigarettes in public places such as in bars, etc.
Team line: smoking in public places is harmful
not only for the smokers but also for people
nearby.
Team split: 1st speaker, the impact of smoking,
2nd speaker, smoking as a social activity, 3rd
more evidence to rebuild the case.
Argument:
Negative
First speaker:
1. Respond to the definition (if it is unfair)
2. Rebut the 1st government speaker:
Here’s my rebuttal …
3. Outline the team’s case:
a. The team line: Our team line is …
b. The team split: The first speaker will
deal with …, the second speaker …,
and the third speaker …
5. Explain the argument
6. Give a brief summary: In conclusion …
Second speaker:
1. Rebut the 2nd government speaker: Let
me tell you my rebuttal …
2. Explain the argument
3. Give a brief summary: In conclusion
Third speaker:
1. Rebut the strong argument from the
government: Let me tell you my rebuttal …
2. Rebuild the team case
3. Give a brief summary: In conclusion …
Reply speaker:
1. Provide overview of the team’s case
2. Explain why the opposition’s case is
better
Negative
The first speaker from the negative team
Team line: smoking in public places is not that
harmful as long as people are aware to take care
of themselves.
Team split: 1st speaker, adults’ accepted view of
smoking, 2nd speaker, the impact of banning
smoking for business, 3rd speaker, more
evidence to rebuild the case.
Rebuttal: Passive smokers do choose to breathe
in other people’s smoke. If not, why do they go
1) Smoking does not only harm the smoker; but
also people nearby (passive smokers).
2) Smokers choose to smoke, but people
nearby do not.
3) Some countries have already banned
smoking in public places, like Italy and New
Zealand. Therefore, it is urgent to ban
smoking in public places.
The second speaker from the affirmative team
Rebuttal: Safety standards do not allow workers
to be exposed to danger. They should not be
exposed to other people’s smoke, although they
don’t have any choice.
The argument:
1) A ban would encourage smokers to stop.
Thus, it would no longer be a social activity.
2) One third of smokers in Scotland said the
ban was helping them to cut down.
3) In many countries, governments pay some of
the cost of treating smoking-related
diseases. This means that governments
should have a right to discourage smoking.
. 127
The third speaker from the affirmative
Rebuttal: It is more important to protect
people’s health than businesses. Pubs and clubs
should adapt it by selling food or else.
More evidence:
1) Smokers have the right to smoke, but non-
smokers have the right to breathe in
unpolluted fresh air as well.
2) It is also unnecessary for people to work and
be exposed to danger like smoke.
3) That’s why it is important to soon ban
smoking from public.
The reply speech from the affirmative
Overview: The proposition that we should ban
smoking in public places is making any sense.
to places where smoking is allowed?
Argument:
1) Some people are quite happy to work in
smoky places.
2) In any case, workers should be allowed to
work in dangerous conditions; like mining
and the armed forces. It is better for people
than not having a job at all.
3) There is a risk of an exposed danger from
those kinds of works.
4) A ban is not necessary; ventilation fans can
remove most smoke.
The second speaker from the negative team
Rebuttal: It is legal to smoke, so governments
have no right to ban. Smokers fund their own
healthcare through the high taxes they pay on
cigarette.
The argument:
1) A ban would drive many bars or cafes out of
business.
2) Smokers would not go to these places.
These businesses would also earn less
money from selling tobacco.
3) In many places, pubs and clubs provide jobs
for people.
4) There is a 9%-drop reported in trade of
restaurants, after a ban introduced in
Australia.
The third speaker from the negative
Rebuttal: Bars will set up non-smoking bars, if
people want it. If not, this suggests that very few
people want them.
More evidence: In fact, some people don’t mind
to stay with smokers. They realize the smoke
may harm them, but it is acceptable for them. It
is also unfair to turn working men in bars into
jobless since no smokers will drop by. Therefore,
we should not ban smoking in public places.
The reply speech from the negative
Overview: Some people do not really mind to be
in smoky places. It is an accepted view among
adults to smoke although it is harmful to bodies
The reasons are smoking is harmful not only for
smokers but also people nearby and workers are
also not allowed to be exposed to unnecessary
danger such as smoke.
It is far more worthy to use the government’s
fund to other sectors than to treat smoking
related-diseases. That’s why the house should
ban smoking in public places.
to some extent. Banning people will turn out
some business and many workers will turn into
jobless. It is ridiculous for the government to
claim the right to discourage smoking for the
funds spent on treating smoking-related
diseases, since the smokers also pay for the high
taxes from cigarette.

Adapted from: http://www.idebate.or

Answer the following questions!
1. What is the motion of the debate?
2. What is the definition proposed by the first speaker of the affirmative team?
3. What is the government’s team line? Mention the team split.
4. What is the main point of the argument from first speaker of the affirmative team?
5. What is the opposition’s team line? Mention the team split.
6. What is the rebuttal from first speaker of the negative team? What is her argument?
7. What is the rebuttal from the second speaker of the affirmative team? What is his argument?
8. What is the rebuttal of the second speaker of the negative team? What is his argument?
9. What can you conclude from the affirmative team’s case?
10. What can you conclude from the negative team’s case?