Rules of Definition: 1.

Characteristics of a Proper Definition:

It It It It

must bear a close relation to the motion. must not be truistic. must not employ time or place setting. must not be based on overly specific knowledge

2. Kinds of Definitions:

Literal with key-words definition. Metaphorical definition. Issue based &/or specified definition (different from time-place setting).

Challenge of Definition: 1. Grounds for Challenge:

You can only challenge a definition if it violates any of the criteria stated earlier. Frequently used terms in challenging definitions are: wholly unreasonable, squirrel, time-place set, truistic. You cannot challenge a definition simply because you have a more reasonable or better definition. Challenge must come from the leader of the opposition, not later. Leader of the opposition must provide an alternative definition. In most of the cases, the teams must introduce an 'even if argument. An `Even if' argument is not possible in some cases. (e.g. truistic definition & definition running counter to the resolution i.e. where govt. has taken the oppositions case). In a definition debate, all the speakers except the Leader of Affirmative argue the following: -Why challenge? -Validity/ invalidity of the two definitions. -Even if we are to accept the other side's definition, these are the weaknesses of their case. -Positive case under their own definition.

Getting the Right Arguments:

First, identify what you have to prove under the topic. Then, identify what helps you to prove it. Put them in the format of an argument or a set of arguments. Not everything that you know on the subject is relevant. Anticipate the questions that may be raised against your arguments and see if you have good answers to them. Block the opportunity for those questions to be raised by addressing them briefly as you explain the argument. Present the arguments in order of their strength. Avoid empty rhetoric and emotionalism - be rational

Establishing an Argument: 1. 2. 3. 4. Basic Statement Logical explanations of why and how the basic statement stands Proofs/ evidences/ examples that factually establish your basic statement Conclusion/ how it proves your teams theme

Effective Rebuttals:

Do not rebut the example, attack the very premise of the argument of the other side. Only then contrary examples can be supplemented. It is advisable to provide multiple rebuttals to each argument of the other side. Rebuttals should also be in conformity with your case. Rebut the rebuttals of your case by the other side in order to defend your case.

Elements of Manners/Style:

Respectable attitude towards the judges and the other team. Vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc. Use of notes: not to read a written text. Eye contact. Body language: hand gestures, pacing, standing etc. Impression of sincerity. Humour, wit, appropriate and healthy sarcasm.

Elements of Method: 1. Team structure

Continuity of teams theme in all the speeches. Consistency among all the speakers (no contradictions) Reinforcement of team members' arguments Clear & logical separation between arguments. 2. Individual Structure

Attractive opening/ outline of the speech. Proper organisation & priority of the arguments. Organisation of rebuttals. Appropriate timing of the speech Summary of the speech. 3. Responses to the dynamics of the debate.

Right thing at the right time. Ability to follow the progression of and changes in the debate, and to re-act accordingly.

Model of Indivudual Speech: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Definitions/ theme of the team Rebuttals (attacks and defence) Reiteration and defence of your own teams case Presentation of your own arguments Conclusion (why your teams case stands and other teams case does not)

Source: Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM