Collection of Motion for Debating - Part 1

Motion for Debate:

1. THB that governments should never rescue failing private industry.
2. This House would assassinate Vladimir Putin.
3. THW subject foreign political contributions to greater restrictions than domestic contributions.
4. This House believes that every criminal defendant should be required to use a government provided defense lawyer.
5. This House believes that the European Union should only direct aid to nations that pursue environmentally sustainable development.
6. THW not allow local government to pay for the relocation of homeless people
7. This House believes that Taiwan should declare independence now
8. This House would allow the use of torture.
9. This House would require doctors to report all cases of suspected domestic violence.
10. This House believes that the Turkish military should stop enforcing the separation of church and state.
11. This House believes that governments in the developing world should invest in sex tourism.
12. This House would require people to work in return for welfare payments.
13. This House believes that sporting bodies should penalise teams when their players commit criminal acts off the field.
14. This House would use military force where necessary to deliver emergency aid.
15. This House would make fines relative to wealth
16. This house would ban the physical punishment of children by parents.
17. This House believes developed countries should not accept skilled migrants from developing countries.
18. This House would pay morbidly obese people to lose weight.
19. This House would ban the broadcast of recordings produced by terrorists
20. This House would require all schools to teach safe sex to children from age 10 regardless of parental consent
21. This House would abolish income tax
22. This House believes the European Union should declare that energy security is a legitimate reason for military action
23. This house would ban Nazi and Soviet symbols
24. This house would allow soldiers to opt out of individual conflict for personal reasons

Best Regards: Mercu Buana English Club (MBEC)'s Team

Read More

Prepared Motion for 7th English Fiesta

For the debaters, we can practice with this motions. For newbies, please ask and see our guidances for debates in what-to-do-on-case-building


International
1. THB in the French model of nuclear energy development
2. THW ban Muslim headscarves in schools and public buildings
3. THBT G20 is not reliable to solve the Global Crisis impact in Asia
4. THBT UN Should Support the Israel Tourism
5. THW Upgrade system of global environmental governance
in Developing Country

Social
1. THBT civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice in a democratic country
2. TH Would Legitimate Incest relationship
3. THW criminalize 'nikah siri'
4. THBT Morality isn’t luxury
5. THW revise Zimbabwe's prison service

Animal Planet
1. THBT Australia Should Cull the Kangaroos
2. THB in the Commitment of Pets Owner
3. THW curse the tradition of seal hunt in Norway
4. THW ban The Greatest American Dog Show on TV
5. THBT animal shows for charity are not justifiable


Children
1. THBT children with regular income should be taken under government care
2. THBT the Commissions of Child Protection has gone too far
3. THBT Indonesia should establish a Traumatic Center for Natural Disaster victim's
4. THW ban The Greatest American Dog’s Show on TV
5. THBT Parents should protect the rights of Teenage sexual orientation

National and Politics Campaign
1.THBT Candidates from low economic level should not sit in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
2. THBT SBY is worth winning for the next Presidential Election
3. 5. THBT the current election’s candidates are not reliable



Best Regards: Mercu Buana English Club (MBEC)'s Team

Read More

Debate Rules and Suggestions (Part 2)

Debate Ideas for Use in American English
This has been one of my most successful exercises to get students to free talk in English. It contains ten in a series of debates. To use this exercise, distribute one set the week before to the students. Explain that they will be required to argue or debate one side of the argument. They will not know in advance which side they will have to argue for or against. They, however, must come to class with a paper listing 5 arguments for and five against. Those papers will be picked up at the end of class. Those who do not have the papers will not be allowed to participate and will get a zero for that debate.

I choose up one side and give them for or against. Generally we have five to six on each side. I pick one student to start. They give a point on the side they are on and then they choose someone on the opposite side and they ask, "Do you agree with me?" They are to answer the person and then give a point of their own and ask someone if they agree and so on. I insist that you cannot disagree with everything. Argument For example if someone says that cigarettes cause disease and you are asked to agree, you should reply something like "You are correct to a point but", and then go on with your point. Students get really excited and go on for an hour debating.

I try to explain that the ideas are not always the true feeling of each students but just practice in talking and debating. It also lets them learn that no matter how strongly they feel about things others have equally opposite opinions. I give the argument for and against to the students the week before the debate. They do not know whether they will argue for or against. This has worked very well.




Some Debate Rules
How to Agree and Disagree
Advice on Debating with Others

Return to Clear English Choices Some Debate Series Argument Suggestions. 1. Television Plays a Positive Role in Society. Argument For Argument Against
2. Students should have a Part-time Job. Argument For Argument Against
3. The Younger Generation Knows Best. Argument For Argument Against
4. Smoking Should Prohibited. Argument For Argument Against
5. Money is the Most Important Thing in Life. Argument For Argument Against
6. Women Should be Treated the Same as Men. Argument For Argument Against
7. It is a Good Thing to Live in a Modern City. Argument For Argument Against
8. Housing Reform has become necessary. Argument For Argument Against
9. Cars do more Harm than Good. Argument For Argument Against
10. Fashion Contributes to Society. Argument For Argument Against






Debate Rules for Use in American English

Definition of Argument:

1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate.
2. To prove or attempt to prove by reasoning.
3. To give evidence of your reasoning.
4. To persuade or influence, as by presenting reasons.

Synonyms of Argument:

Argue, quarrel, wrangle, squabble, haggle, and bicker.



These verbs are compared as they mean to dispute.

Argue This implies intent to persuade an adversary in debate.
Quarrel This stresses animosity and estrangement.
Wrangle This refers to loud, contentious argument and squabble to minor argument over a petty or trivial matter.
Haggle This specifies verbal bargaining usually over a price, in a petty way.
Bicker This suggests sharp, recurrent exchange of remarks on a mean or petty level.

Note:
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
Best Regards: Mercu Buana English Club (MBEC)'s Team

Read More

Debate Rules and Suggestions (Part 1)

Advice on Debating with Others
Avoid the use of Never.
Avoid the use of Always.
Refrain from saying you are wrong.
You can say your idea is mistaken.
Don't disagree with obvious truths.
Attack the idea not the person.
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
The use of often allows for exceptions.
The use of generally allows for exceptions.
Quote sources and numbers.
If it is just an opinion, admit it.
Do not present opinion as facts.
Smile when disagreeing.
Stress the positive.
You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
Concede minor or trivial points.
Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
Watch your tone of voice.
Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
Keep your perspective - You're just debating.

You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.

Best Regards: Mercu Buana English Club (MBEC)'s Team

Read More

Examples of Debate Motion for Debating

1. Banking
THBT government should not bailout failing banks.
THBT Domestic bank acquisition by foreign companies is a threat.
THW support the Islamic bank.
THBT BI has failed.

2. Capital Market
THBT Indonesia should limit foreign trader in its capital market.
TH Supports the Islamic capital market in Indonesia.
TH would say no to government intervention.
TH Would ban the Short Selling.

3. SME
THBT SME is ready.
TH would finance its SME.
THBT SME should enter the capital market.
THW cut taxes for Small medium Enterprises.

4. Economic System
THBT command economic is the best system to be implemented in
developing countries.
THB in capitalism.
THW change its economic system.
THB in the invisible hand.


5. National
THBT inflation rate will decrease in 2009.
THW implement China's economic system.
THBT Bapepam has failed.
THW ban strikes by workers in essential state service.


6. Trade
THW would stop its trade with China.
TH should postpone the realization of AFTA.
THBT Government should focus on developing Export of ETM.
THBT Free Trade brings more harm than good to developing nations.

7. Economic Policy
THBT tight monetary policy in global crisis will deteriorate further.
TH should prioritize environment rather than economy.
THBT cash subsidy brings more harm than good.
THW take ownership of bad mortgages.

8. Marketing
THBT Advertisements do more harm than good.
TH believe in WOM.
THBT Visit Indonesia year 2008 has failed.
TH Would ban the sponsorship of cigarette.

9. Open Motions
TH would debit rather than credit.
TH regrets its decision.
TH believe in the theory of Darwin.
THBT Big is beautiful.


Best Regards: Mercu Buana English Club (MBEC)'s Team

Read More

Round Report in Debate Central #2

2008 Greenhill Fall Classic
Affirmative: Kinkaid
Negative: Westminster
1AC

The affirmative team argued that current energy production hurts minority and poor communities. Minorities are exposed to a dangerous environment because energy plants are located close to their homes. The plan funds incentives for renewable energy in low income and minority areas. They argued that we have an obligation to act to decrease the suffering of minority and low income people in the status quo. They note that renewable energy will create 40 million jobs and benefit poor communities economically.
Negative Strategy
Topicality: The negative argued that

the word "necessary" in the plan was too vague and made the affirmative a moving target. The affirmative responded that there is no resolutional basis for this argument. In addition, there are plenty of offensive arguments available for the negative.
ASPEC: The negative argued that the one key way to get change is to discuss the mechanisms and institutions that can affect change. They argued that the affirmative failed to do this. The affirmative said that this was an unpredictable burden. They also argued that it is infinitely regressive. The negative could always require them to be more specific. Debates about agents decrease education because we do not discuss the topic.
India Deal: The negative argued that the India Deal will pass in the status quo and that it is massively unpopular. If Bush passed the affirmative plan, he would not have enough political capital to pass the India Deal. The negative argued that the India Deal was key to United States-India relations. The affirmative read numerous cards that argued that the India Deal will not pass in the status quo.
Elections: The negative argued that Obama is currently ahead, but by a slim margin. The plan is popular and would allow McCain to capitalize on its success. Obama is key to a Middle East peace agreement. The affirmative read evidence that McCain will win in the November elections. They argued that their evidence is better because it is an aggregate of several polls. They also argued that Obama will not get a peace agreement in his term because of his other priorities.
Counterplan: The negative read a states counterplan. They argued that state policy making is good because it mobilizes people at a local level and increases democratic participation. Democratic participation is key to implementation and sustainability of the plan. They also argued that centralization of power in the federal government is harmful because it is too big. The affirmative made a plan flaw argument because the negative's plan used a comma instead of the word "and" between "low income" and "minority." They also argued that only congress can solve the problem. If the states implemented the plan, it would violate the commerce clause. Also, states would raise money by increasing the sales tax. Regressive taxes harm minorities.
The negative went for the counterplan.
The decision was a 3-0 for the affirmative.
The judges commented that they voted affirmative because the negative changed the text of their counterplan in the 2NC and became a moving target by clarifying that they would not raise sales taxes to pay for projects.

Best Regards: MBEC's Team

Read More

Round Report in Debate Central #1

Round Reports
Quarterfinals Round Coppell High School Tournament
Affirmative: Greenhill
Negative: Grapevine
1AC

Greenhill argued that the United States federal government should include algae in the list of renewable fuels that receive a tax incentive and include it in the Renewable Fuels Standards. This change would increase the types of fuels that could be used to meet the minimum amount of renewable energy in gasoline. Algae can become the fuel of the future if it gets off the ground. The affirmative argued that incentivizing algae will lead to a decrease in ethanol use. Relying too heavily on ethanol leads to a monocrop. Monocrops destroy biodiversity and can lead to decreased food security. The affirmative claimed that we are one monocrop away from starvation. Algae also produces phosphorous. When we grown food we deplete phosphorous and need to replenish it. It would be catastrophic if we depleted phosphorous; it is as critical as water.
Negative Strategy

Solvency: Grapevine argued that the plan would fail because algae would not become cost competitive. Also, because the plan does not stop ethanol use completely, phosphorous would still be depleted so the affirmative cannot solve for their advantage. The affirmative countered that the plan would give a tax incentive to algae to make it profitable. Algae will renew the phosphorous.

Topicality: The negative argued that the word increase in the resolution means that plans must increase an existing program. They argue that this interpretation creates a more stable literature base for the negative. The affirmative gives a counter definition that increase is to make greater in number and does not mean they have to increase an existing program. They argue that the negative's interpretation kills negative ground for disadvantages. They also argue that they do increase alternative energy within an existing program-the Renewable Fuels Standard.
Counterplan: Grapevine runs a counterplan that the United States should ban all ethanol. They do not go for this argument. The affirmative perms the argument and also argues that algae is not cost competitive in the status quo so without the plan algae would not take off. If algae does not increase the counterplan cannot solve for the phosphorous advantage.
Discourse Critique: Grapevine said that the affirmative used language that made them sound like nuclear experts. They said that taking the role of defense intellectuals distorts the truth and incites violence. The affirmative argued that the negative also talked about nuclear war in one of their impact cards. The negative responded that conditionality is good. It leads to a fair division of ground. The affirmative had tons of time to write the affirmative plan. Conditionality allows the negative to look for the best option. They also argued that the perm checks abuse because it allows the affirmative to advocates multiple worlds also.
Global -Local Critique: The negative argued that the language of nationalism and sovereignty makes the state paramount and leads to violence. They argue that we should instead act within our own communities. Stop thinking of UN peacekeeping and start thinking of the neighborhood watch. They argue that their advocacy solves the case, not in the traditional way, but they solve for the world in which the impacts can happen. They concede that they do not solve for peak phosphorous, but that dehumanization outweighs it. They argue that utility is the ultimate evil and must be rejected at any cost. It is dehumanizing because it makes everyone into numbers. Asking which option will save the most people led to Hiroshima. It allows people to be extendible. Also, no one can foresee the future. The plan may have unintended consequences. In addition, people aren't reasonable actors. They are only slaves of the state. The state tells us lies and trumps up certain problems to keep its power. They argued that allowing their framework in debate increases philosophical education and forces the affirmative to defend their assumptions. The affirmative argued that the power of the state to embrace utility is good. We can only work from within the system to achieve any results. The only way to stop global atrocities is to recognize them and enact policies to stop them. They read a card that said resource wars are the worst form of dehumanization. They argued that the alternative does not stop the phosphorous depletion. Phosphorous is key to keep people alive. Don't forget about a billion people suffering because the negative wants to embrace a certain philosophy. They also permed the argument. The negative argued that their perm is abusive because it is either intrinsic or severance. The affirmative argued that their perm is not abusive because they do not go for it. It does not make them a moving target. The judges should reject the argument, not the team.
The negative won on a 3-0 decision.


Best Regards: MBEC's Team

Read More

WHAT TO DO ON CASE BUILDING?

Well, the first thing to do on case building is knowing where your team mates are! I could not emphasise more on the importance of that. But assuming that you have had your team mates (not the imaginary one), motions verbatim, opponents (again, not the imaginary one), and knowledge on which room you will be debating in, this essay will elaborate on what are the necessary contents of affirmative’s and negative’s case.
In principle the affirmative’s role is to convince the adjudicator to support the motion and the negative’s role should convince the adjudicator to have the motion fall. As for what exactly the affirmative or the negative should prove in making their cases differs from the types of the motion.

There are 2 types of motions:
1. Value-judgement motions (e.g.: THBT that prostitution is degrading female).
In this kind of motion the debate is on proving the idea. It is not necessarily about taking particular action/policy.
In the example of the motion,
the debate should not be about whether prostitution should be legalised or not, but it should be about whether commercial sex trade is something that degrades women or not.
In proving an idea, usually the affirmative team needs to consider:
• How they will prove it (indicator of measurement)?
In the example of the motion, to prove that prostitution is degrading, the affirmative needs to explain what is/are the criteria(on) of 'degrading to women' before they can prove why prostitution fits to that/those criteria(on). For example, something is considered 'degrading to women' when it ‘does not treat women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion’.
In setting the criterion, the affirmative needs to explain the reasoning of why the criterion is valid. So, affirmative needs to explain why something that does 'not treat women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion' is indeed degrading.
• Provide the assertion, reasoning and examples to prove the criteria(on)
In the example of the motion, after setting and explaining the criterion of degrading as 'not treating women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion', the affirmative team then needs to prove why prostitution fits to that criterion. The affirmative can prove this in various ways. One example is to look at the way the individual sex workers are being treated by the clients. Another example is to look at how the sex worker as an occupation is seen by the society. These various angles are the team splits.
In negating the idea, usually the negative team can choose one of these 2 options:
• Reject the criteria set by affirmative, set a new criteria, then prove why the motion does not fit to negative's criteria
In the example of the motion, the negative disagrees to 'not treating women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion' means degrading. In disagreeing to the criteria, the negative should provide the reasoning or rebuttal to the affirmative's reasoning. Subsequently, the negative should set the new criteria(on). For example, something is considered degrading if it does 'not allowing women to have options'. Negative also need to provide reasoning why negative's criteria is a more suitable.
Then the negative should prove why prostitution does not fit to the negative's criterion - that prostitution is a form of option. Again, the negative can prove this in various angles, from the angle of ‘freedom to do control one's body’ or ‘freedom to define morality’, etc. Again, these various angles can be the team splits.
• Accept the criteria set by the affirmative but prove that the motion does not fit to that criteria
In the example of the motion, the negative can also agree that the criterion of degrading is 'not treating women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion'. In that case, the negative should prove that prostitution does not fit to that criterion - that prostitution still allows rooms for women to be seen with intelligence, will and emotion.
2. Proposal motions (e.g.: THW ban prostitution).
In the proposal motion, the arguments of both teams should not solely be in the idea level, but also about what action should be taken by a certain party
In the example of the motion, the action is banning prostitution by the government/state. It is not enough to prove the notion that prostitution is degrading female, but also to prove why the government should regulate something that degrades female.
In doing so, the affirmative team should:
• Present a problem - the context that makes affirmative wants to propose something
In the example of the motion, the problem can be the huge number of female that are being degraded as sex workers - that it is not acceptable for dignified countries to allow such practices to take place. In other motions, the problems can vary from environmental problem, poverty, violence, etc.
• Put forward a proposal
In the example of the motion, the proposal can be for the government of a particular country (that is currently legalizing prostitution) to ban prostitution. By banning, the affirmative needs to specify what form of banning: banning the street solicitation, or brothel house or all forms of sex trade.
Affirmative should also prove that the proposal is feasible - can be implemented
• Prove that the proposal will address the problem
In the example of the motion, the affirmative should prove that banning prostitution will significantly contribute in minimizing female degradation.
The affirmative does not necessarily have to prove that the proposal will eliminate the problem completely by arguing that their proposal will solve poverty or environmental destruction. But it is imperative to prove that the proposal does make a significant contribution in addressing the problem.
• Prove that the proposal will not create greater harm or that the harm created by the proposal is minor compare to the importance of the proposal’s benefit.
In the example of the motion, the affirmative will have to prove why the proposal will not create greater harm to female/society/freedom. Affirmative can argue that the proposal will not at all hurt the female sex workers livelihood, society’s economy, or the women’s freedom.
Alternatively, the affirmative can acknowledge that the proposal might mean no income for the sex workers (acknowledging harm). But in comparison, for these female not to be degraded and receive state’s protection will benefit them as a whole. Thus, affirmative acknowledging the harm, but argue that it is insignificant compare to the overall benefit
In negating the affirmative case, the negative team should
• Defend the current system or alternative proposal
In the example of the motion, the negative can either defend the current condition of legal prostitution. Or create an alternative proposal: not allowing prostitution freely but allowing it only on certain places (localization)
In defending current system/alternative proposal the negative can do one or more of the following strategy:
• Disagree that there is any problem in the first place
In the example of the motion, the negative can argue that there is no female degradation because the sex workers are living a life where they choose to do what they want to do. Thus, there is no need to have the proposal.
• Acknowledging that there is a problem but the proposal does not address the problem
Another way of negating in the example of the motion, the negative can agree that there is female degradation in the practice of prostitution. However, the proposal of banning prostitution will not stop prostitution from existing or significantly minimize it. The prostitution can still go underground. Hence, it does not address the problem.
• Prove that the proposal will create greater harm
Negative can also agree that there is a problem of female degradation and that the proposal addresses the problem. But banning prostitution will create more significant harm. It will cause underground prostitution that cannot be controlled by the government and makes the female degradation worse than it was when the prostitution was legal.
It is important to note that the team should make careful judgment in choosing which strategy to run with to avoid inconsistency in negative case. It is often the case that each speaker in the team runs different negating strategy that looks like self-contradiction. Another way of avoiding contradiction is to use the “even if” strategy.

Finally, this essay only serves as guidance. At the end of the day, how to case build? To try to develop a case that will make the adjudicators support or against the motion - as simple as that!

Best Regards: MBEC's Team

Read More

Debate Tips 1 By s-bend

"Ignorance is no argument' - Baruch Spinoza

DEBATE TIPS 1........
The first round of the QDU took place last week, and I am involved in a team (fortunately we won). Seeing that this is a world wide activity I felt that I should write some basic tips for debating, as I realize how hard it is when I first started. I have been debating for 5 years and hopefully I can pas my experience on to others.
I'm not sure if different countries have different types of debating, but Australia has a system where there are 3 people on each side who take it in turns to argue a point.
(1) - You are always right - no matter what you really believe, if you want to win then you have to know that what ever you say is correct and your opposition is always wrong.
(2) - Strong central argument - after you make each point link it back to your teams case. This makes the whole team look more prepared and gets big marks.
(3) - Rebut - if they have an incorrect fact, rebut it. If they do not link back to their teams case, rebut it. If they give an example that has no relevence, rebut it. Remember, the opposition is always wrong.
(4) - If you need more time, summarize - a good summary not only gets good points, it also increases your time. If you go under time you lost points and the same occurs if you go over. Try to find a balance.


(5) - Never insult the opposition - no matter how much you want to, don't! If you want to insult something, do it to their argument. Don't use personal attacks if you want to win.
(6) - Have passion - believe in what you are saying and you probably will win. Speak from the heart, but also use logic and academic research.
http://s-bend.blogspot.com

Best Regards: MBEC's Team

Read More