College of Business Administration

Extemporaneous Debate Rules:

This debate form challenges participants to apply analytical skills to present a well-reasoned viewpoint with a minimum amount of preparation. The purpose of the event is to evaluate the ability of the competitors to convey ideas and formulate arguments. The event is not intended to evaluate the competitors knowledge of Parliamentary procedure or understanding of formal debate rules. Hence, the rules normally utilized in debating competitions have been modified and relaxed to allow students without formal debating experience to participate.

The Teams

The debate is between two teams, each with two members. "The Proposition" will be given the task of presenting an initial set of ideas and arguing their validity. "The Opposition" will then proceed to show how these ideas are undesirable.

Before the resolution is revealed, a coin toss is held. The team that wins the toss gets to pick the side that they want to represent.

To add humour and individualism, competitors are encouraged to invent original personal and team names for themselves. Costumes and props may also be utilized to further accentuate this effect.

Teams are expected to act respectably at all times. Inappropriate language or offensiveness towards the other team, the officials or the audience is not acceptable. Teams are also expected to direct all of their speeches towards the audience.

The Resolutions

The resolutions will be assigned by the organizing committee. They will be related to an issue that the average student should have a defensible opinion on, without any preparation. The resolutions will not be truisms. Absolute words such as "all," "everyone" and "always" will also be avoided. (ie. "Be it resolved that (BIRT) all engineers are good at math." is not a good resolution since there are always exceptions.)

Once both teams are informed of the resolution, they are given ten minutes to prepare for the debate.

The Officials

The Chair of the debate ensures the rules of the debate are upheld. He or she grants the right to speak (introduces the debater) and enforces the time limits. Most importantly, the Chair makes rulings on the "points of procedure" put forward by the debaters. The decisions of the Chair are final and offensiveness towards him or her will not be tolerated.

The Timer will use hand signals to indicate the number of minutes a speaker has left. They will also give a 10 second final countdown. If a question is asked in the first or last minute of the speech, the Timer will indicate this to the Chair so that it can be stopped.

Speaking Times

The speaking order and times will be as follows:

1. First Speaker of the Proposition : 5 minutes
2. First Speaker of the Opposition : 5 minutes
3. Second Speaker of the Proposition : 5 minutes
4. Second Speaker of the Opposition : 5 minutes
5. Rebuttal by the First Speaker of the Opposition : 2 minutes
6. Rebuttal by the First Speaker of the Proposition : 2 minutes

If a debater is over the time limit, the Chair will allow a 15 second grace period. After that, the debater must be made to sit down. Loud pounding on tables will suffice.

Role of the Proposition

The proposition must narrow down the resolution so that the debate will be about one major topic. The resolutions must not be squirreled or converted into truisms. Squirreling is the act of redefining the resolution so that it has a meaning different than the one intended by the resolution. The proposition must also avoid specific knowledge debates where the average student has no familiarity with the topic.

The proposition can follow one of two different strategies in the debate:

The Principle Case

In a principle case, the proposition presents a principle and a contention. The principle is a general statement that is debatable based on facts, experience or morals. Examples include: "business managers need to be well rounded" and "free health care is abused by Canadians".

The contention is the application of the principle to a particular situation relating to the resolution. The contention must be about one major topic and may be a re-statement of the resolution. Example contentions for the above principles would be: "Business students should be required to take more liberal studies classes." and "People should be discouraged from going to the doctor unless necessary."

The Plan Case

In a plan case, the proposition still identifies a principle and a contention. Once this is done, they present a plan for implementing the contention and changing the status quo. They must identify the need for change and how the plan will induce this change. Example plans for the above contentions would be: "Business students should be required to take two years of general studies before entering an engineering program." and "Individuals should be charged a fee every time they visit the doctor."

The plan case is the most effective when the principle and contention are almost undebatable. For example, if the resolution is "BIRT waste management should become more stringent." the contention is almost unquestionable. However, the proposition can intensify the debate by adding, "Thus, we propose that any household which produces more than a certain quota of waste be fined severely."

In a plan case, it is important that the plan does not become too specific since preparation time is limited and the technical knowledge necessary to develop the plan is non-existent.

The First Speaker

The first speaker of the proposition must explain the translation of the resolution, clearly state the principle and contention, and clarify any definitions. If a plan case is introduced, the entire plan must be outlined in the first speaker's speech. Finally, the first speaker must initiate the argumentation for the contention or plan.

The Second Speaker

The second speaker of the proposition continues the argumentation of the first speaker and reaffirms concepts that have been attacked by the opposition. New parts of a plan may not be introduced and terms in the resolution may not be defined. However, new lines of argumentation and new evidence may be introduced.

Role of the Opposition

The opposition's task is to convince the judges that the proposition's views are fallacious. If the case presented by the proposition is a truism or requires specific knowledge to debate, the opposition can appeal to the judges with a "point of procedure" at the beginning of the first speech from the opposition. If the point is well taken, then the opposition must redefine the resolution in a debatable manner.

If the proposition presents a principle case, the opposition is left with little more to do than attack the principle.

If the proposition presents a plan case, the opposition can attack the principle, the contention or the arguments for the plan. The opposition can also show how the plan will not work or identify the undesirable side effects that it will create. Finally, the opposition may propose a counterplan that is more effective than the original plan. Counterplans must be introduced by the first speaker of the opposition.

Rebuttals

In the rebuttals, the most prevalent elements of the debate must be summarized in a concise and convincing manner. No new arguments or facts may be presented unless they are in direct refutation to what has already been discussed.

Questions

Questions are a secondary way of clashing with arguments. They can point out deficiencies in ideas as soon as they appear.

The debater who currently holds the floor has the authority to take or ignore questions.

The opponent who wishes to ask a question indicates his desire by simply standing up. If the debater does not want to take the question, he or she can indicate this by a wave of the hand or a simple "no thank you." If this occurs, the inquiring party must sit down. If the current debater wishes to entertain the question, it must be worded by the opponent in less than fifteen seconds. Both members of the team may participate in answering the question. Time used to ask and answer the question is at the expense of the current debater.

Each debater has to accept one question during their speech, if an honest attempt is made by the opponent to ask a question. Three attempts at asking a question constitutes an honest attempt.

Questions will not be allowed in the first or last minute of a speech, or in the rebuttals.

Heckling

Often times, the speaker will contradict himself/herself or make an absurd assumption. A heckle at this time will point out the error and add to the debate. Heckling is acceptable if it is short, to the point and preferable witty. If excess heckling becomes disturbing, the Chair may intervene.

Points of Procedure

If a team believes that one of the rules of the debate have been broken, they must immediately alert the Chair of the violation by standing up and saying, "Point of procedure." The Chair will then respond with, "Make your point." The team will then precede to explain how the debate rules have not been followed. Finally, the Chair will rule on the point by saying, "Point well taken." or "Point not taken." If it is obvious that the Chair is incorrect, the team should not argue with the Chair, but expect the judges to compensate for the Chair's shortcomings.

The time it takes to raise and rule on a point is not included in the speaking time of the team currently debating.

A list of some of the violations that would warrant a point of procedure are:

• unprofessional behaviour
• offensive behaviour
• presentation of a truistic case *
• presentation of a specific knowledge case *
• misquotations
• speaking to the opposition instead of the audience
• presenting new arguments in the rebuttal
• introduction of parts of a plan by the second speaker

* If the proposition has presented a truistic or specific knowledge case, the opposition must wait until the end of the first debater's speech to point this out.

As well, if the rules of the debate have not been followed by the officials (incorrect speaking order, too much speaking time allowed, etc.), this may be politely pointed out to them with a point of procedure.

Judging

An odd number of judges is required for each debate. Each judge will choose a winner for the debate and the team with the most votes will win the debate. The decision of the judges should not depend on personal biases or beliefs. The judges should focus only on what has been said, and how effectively it was presented. In the end, they should be able to answer the question, "Who convinced me the best?" Judges should also consider the abilities of the competitors to follow the debate rules. Judges should not come in contact with anyone until their decision is finalized.

Return to Professor Dunn's home page.