=== Official Guide to Debating and Tournaments ===
=========
INDEX
=========
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Common Terms . . . . . . . . . 3
III. Setting Up A Debate . . . . . . . . 11
IV. Debating . . . . . . . . . . 16
V. Designing Tournaments . . . . . . . . 30
VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 35
VII. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . 36
VIII. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . 37
Authors: Bsh1 and Zaradi
Contributing Reviewers: Sapphique, RoyLatham, Tejretics, TheProphett, Hayd, YYW
=========
I
INTRO
=========
Welcome to Online Debate and to this “How-to-Debate” guide. The purpose of this guide is threefold. Firstly, it seeks to help you learn the basics of debating on DDO. Secondly, it seeks to help new tournament mods learn how to design and run debating tournaments. And thirdly, it seeks to orient users to the site’s debating culture.
This guide, while not exhaustive, is an attempt to provide a fairly comprehensive, impartial, and understandable explanation of the basic mechanics of debate. If you feel overwhelmed, do not worry. All new users and debaters go through this, including Zaradi and I, despite the fact we came to DDO (Debate Dot Org) from debating backgrounds. This guide may give you some insight into how to navigate the chaos, though you are encouraged to find your own way. There is also no need to take this guide’s every recommendation or use every facet of it; use what you feel comfortable using, and perhaps use more and more of it as you start to grow your skills.
This guide will survey some key themes, including common terminology, how to write a case, how to rebut an argument, and the pros and cons of various tournament options. We hope that all of this information is helpful and relatively clear, and we hope that you stay on the site and continue to debate.
Good luck, and, again, welcome to DDO!
=========
II
COMMON TERMS
=========
Have you ever looked at an opponent’s argument and asked yourself “What the heck is this guy saying?”
One reason that might be is because their argument may be chocked full of debating jargon and specific terminology that has its own meanings within the debating world. Below you can find a list of common terms used by debaters in setting up their rounds and in writing their arguments. These are quick-reference definitions; some key terms may be explained more fully in the text of the guide.
It is also important to note that you do NOT need to use or be fluent in these terms in order to excel at debate. Sometimes, the most persuasive, understandable, and succinct language is without jargon. Voters themselves may get confused by jargon-laden cases, and so while having a grasp of these terms may be helpful, it is not strictly necessary to become a good debater here or elsewhere. There is no need to be a master of Debate Lingo to achieve highly.
Premise 1 (P1.) YYW is a human
Premise 2 (P2.) All humans are mortals
Conclusion (C1.) YYW is a mortal
=========
III
SETTING UP A DEBATE
=========
Selecting and Crafting Topics
Fairness/Balance/Ground
When it comes to choosing a topic, there are several key components to keep in mind. Fairness is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the selection process. If a topic is too heavily skewed in favor of one side, it is no longer “debatable.” To ensure a topic is fair, it should provide adequate ground to both debaters. Essentially what this means is that both debaters should be able to select from a variety of different possible, reasonable arguments to make their case. If the topic severely limits one person’s ground relative to the other, the topic is generally viewed as unfair and unbalanced.
Ground is used as the metric for fairness because it assures that debaters aren’t boxed into predetermined holes, and that there are possible, reasonable arguments that they can make. If, for instance, my opponent can only make argument Z, but I can make arguments A, B, C...Y, then I will know in advance what my opponent is arguing. That gives me an unfair advantage, since my opponent cannot know which of 25 possible arguments I may run; I can prepare and tailor my arguments to specifically rebut Z, whereas my opponent has a much harder time engaging in that kind of prep. A clearcut example of a resolution without ground is “Bachelors are Unmarried.” It is a truism; there is no reasonable argument to be made in opposition to that statement. And even if there were 1 reasonable response, the ground would still be unfairly skewed towards Pro.
To put this into perspective, here is an example of an unfair topic that appears fine upon first examination: “Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for the public.” This topic is heavily biased in favor of the Con position. The obvious Pro arguments include rights-based, libertarian, or free market stances. But, Pro cannot run any of these arguments. It is impossible to argue successfully for a libertarian position, because it naturally would turn in favor of Con. Consider, if a government cannot test for effectiveness, why should it be able to test for safety? (A) Safety and effectiveness are essentially synonymous (as a drug can cause harm through failure to treat); (B) indirect and direct harms have no significant difference as long as causality can be traced to the same actor; and (C) libertarians believe you should be free to make choices that harm yourself, so a libertarian would not support safety testing either; you buy at your own risk (caveat emptor). Same with a rights-based argument. If you choose to buy a medicine that was not tested (as long as it was labeled as not tested), your rights would not be violated, because your choice essentially waived whatever rights you had.
It is also not feasible to argue for a free market position, because if a company can do it better than the government, why should the government do safety testing? Surely, we should allow the best actor to do all the testing.
So, the fundamental problem of this resolution is that it requires Pro to defend the claim “X, but not Y.” The only options Pro has are “both X and Y,” and so there is no clear way for him or her to defend the “not Y” part of the resolution without having to concede X. Libertarianism would exclude both safety and effectiveness testing, so it cannot be used to argue against one but for the other. A fairer resolution would be: “Governments should not test drugs for safety or effectiveness before approving them for the public.” This would allow Pro to run arguments that are against both kinds of testing, because there is really no reasonable argument out there that is for one type of testing but not the other.
Now, I have used the word “reasonable” a few times in this discussion. By “reasonable” I do not mean a position you agree with. You can detest reasonable positions. Reasonable implies that an argument can be found in credible literature or intellectual circles, that it is not “fringe.” It also implies that the positions are not overly complex, impossible to understand, or too verbose to adequately defend in a debate. Furthermore, a reasonable argument should be something that can be easily researched and not be overly obscure. There are two caveats to this. Firstly, this is all relative. If you’re arguing a highly complex topic where both sides must be very technical, what is “too” complex has to be understood in relation to what the other side can argue. Both debaters should have roughly equal (i.e. balanced) options for arguments, in terms of complexity, researchability, credibility, etc. Secondly, debaters are free to run weird, obscure, or cooky arguments if they want. But, it is the job of the topic-writer to make sure that there are always a fair, balanced amount of reasonable arguments on both sides of a topic.
The following is an example of a reasonable topic: “Joe Montana is a better QB than Tom Brady.” There are lots of stats, analyses, and arguments to be made in favor of both of those football players, and while you may feel strongly one way or the other, it is clear that there is room for reasonable disagreement on the subject. The topic also isn’t overly restrictive towards any particular side, since both sides are free to offer up lots of points in favor of their positions, nor is it too complex or obscure. So, just applying standards of fairness and reasonableness, researchability, complexity, and credibility, we can see that this is a good topic to use.
Ultimately, while it is the job of the person writing the topic to create fair and balanced resolutions, it is also the job of the person accepting the topic to ask themselves whether they can successfully argue their position on that topic. It is always helpful, as a topic-writer, to ask yourself this: “would you be able to successfully, using mainstream arguments for that topic genre, be able to defend both sides of the topic?” If the answer is “no,” you probably need to tweak the topic. If the answer is “yes,” you’re probably on the right track.
Normative/Fact-Based Resolutions
There are two kind of topics that you could argue. The first is a “normative” topic. According to Oxford English Dictionary, “normative” means: “establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior.” This kind of topic poses a “should” or “ought” question. Some examples of normative topics include, “the U.S. Federal Government should repeal Obamacare,” and “Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.” The first topic is clearly normative because it is asking what should be done--it is more a matter of opinion than of fact. Regarding the second, it appears to be asking a fact question (what is required), but “moral facts” are really “shoulds” in disguise. Morals, and our interpretation of them, inform what we ought to do, and so when we ask whether justice requires the recognition of animal rights, we are asking what should happen according to justice. Moral and ethical question thus tend to be normative.
Contrary to normative topics, there are also fact-based questions. These attempt to resolve questions of fact, such as “Human activity is a main cause of Global Warming,” or “The B-Theory of Time is the most accurate Theory of Time.” In both cases, what is being debated is a factual dispute. Whether human actions are a main cause of global warming is entirely a fact-based question, as is whether one scientific proposition is more or less accurate than another.
Keep in mind that the BOP on normative topics is typically shared or (in questions of government policy) on the person arguing against the status quo. In fact-based resolutions, the BOP is usually on the person making the positive claim. A positive claim is a claim that asserts something is the case (X is true) and a negative claim asserts that something isn’t the case (X is not true).
Topics You Know & Researchability
Picking topics you know and picking topics that can be easily researched is important. While you might find a specific topic intriguing, if you know nothing about it, and a cursory check online turns up little or no useful data, then the topic is probably not something you want to debate. Even a skilled debater needs to have research at their fingertips sometimes, and rushing headlong into a debate that requires hard facts that you may be unable to furnish is foolhardy. Always ask yourself whether there is enough information out there for you to be successful with a given resolution and on the side you would be taking. But, also choose something that is interesting to you; if you get bored, your arguments will reflect your lack of enthusiasm.
Formatting/Making Rules for a Debate
Formatting
Debate formats, which are usually the first half of round one of a debate, should concisely provide all relevant information to debaters. “Relevant” information can change based on the debate, but there are a few key things that should always be included: the resolution, the rules, and debate structure. It is also often nice to include defined terms (if any), and a brief introduction explaining why you wanted to have this debate and to thank your opponent for participating. Below is an example of how I format debates, with a brief explanation of what is included in each section; also, for some debates that use the structure I am about to put forth, see appendix (1) and (2). And, while I am providing you with my formatting style as a guide, you are free to format your debates however you wish.
Preface
In this portion, I outline what prompted me to create the debate and why I am interested in the topic, and I include details about the layout of the debate, including character limits, voting ELO minimums, acceptance restrictions, and so on.
Full Topic
Here, I state the full topic up for debate. I usually make the title of the debate a shortened version of the resolution to make for a more catchy, readable headline, and then the full topic can be placed here.
Terms
I will offer definitions for key words here. Providing definitions is optional, but often encouraged. It makes sure that the debate is about what you want it to be about, but over-defining (defining too many terms) can be too restrictive to your opponent. Make sure to put forth fair definitions.
Rules
Place the rules here. Here is my standard list of rules:
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
Structure
Place the structure here. I will talk about structure momentarily.
Thank you…
Here I thank my opponent in advance for accepting and debating with me.
Rules
The rules that I included have several advantages, so I want to take a moment to explain them. First, these rules help you define for the judge what penalty should be issued for a forfeit. In a 7-point system, voters tend to just award conduct for a forfeit, but others don’t, so it is useful to have an agreed way to resolve forfeit issues. In a select winner system, there is no way a voter can penalize a forfeit except to give the offender a loss, but many judges can be reluctant to do that because they are not sure how strongly to let the forfeit factor into their decision. Again, this rule provides clarity.
The sources rule prevents people from plagiarizing and also requires them to cite their sources in the debate rather than somewhere else (the forums, the comments, etc.). Many debaters will try to avoid staying within the character space by posting their citations elsewhere, and this can be unfair for debaters who do cite in-round. This rule protects debaters against that kind of unfairness.
The “no new arguments” rule is also useful, because when new arguments are made in the last round, you may not have an opportunity to address those arguments. If I made a bunch of new points in the very last speech, giving you no chance to rebut those points, I would have a huge advantage because those arguments were not countered. Preventing new arguments at the end again promotes fairness.
Finally, I will discuss rules 6 and 8. Rule 6 I like because it prevents meta-discussions about debate, and forces people to actually argue the resolution. Rule 8 is helpful in that it ensures that debaters don’t come up with wild definitions for words that twist the topic unfairly. For an example of why rule 8 is important, see appendix (3).
Structure
Typically, Pro presents the first argument. This is more a matter of convention than necessity in some cases, but in cases where Pro has the BOP (usually, if only 1 person has the BOP, the BOP is on Pro) Pro should go first because it is their job to make a case and Con’s job to pick the case apart. Con cannot rebut a case that hasn’t yet been made. Suffice it to say though, that if any debater has the sole BOP, they are the ones who ought to go first. So, suppose you are Pro and are instigating the debate. Con should just accept the debate in round one so that Pro can make the first argument in round two, like this:
R1. Acceptance
R2. Pro’s Case, Con’s Case
In the event that you are instigating and you are taking the Con position, the structure would look like this:
R1. Pro’s Case
R2. Con’s Case, Pro’s Rebuttal
Note, if any debater presents arguments in round one, they must waive in round two in order to keep the number of speeches even. A structure might reflect something like this by saying:
R4. Con’s Rebuttal, Pro’s Rebuttal and Summary
R5. Con’s Rebuttal and Summary, Pro waives
If the BOP is solely Pro’s, round two should say “Con rebuts Pro’s Case” rather than “Con’s Case.” The opposite is true if the BOP is solely on Con, in which case Pro should also go first. The rest of the structure is just alternating back and forth, with each debater allowed to summarize/crystallize/review the debate in their final speech. Here is an example of a complete structure for a debate:
R1. Pro's Case
R2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case
R3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case
R4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case
R5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waives
=========
IV
DEBATING
=========
Ground and the BOP
Understanding your ground and your BOP is key to being a successful debater. Ground refers to what kinds of arguments are available to you, to your opponent, to neither you nor your opponent, and to either you or your opponent. Knowing what you can argue or what you can’t argue is important as you write your arguments, just as knowing what your opponent can and cannot say is important in rebuttals.
Suppose, for instance, that the topic you were debating was: “A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.” This resolution requires Pro to argue for a “presumed consent” system, which is a specific type of organ donation system. Con, on the other hand, is not required by the topic to argue for any one kind of system, or, in fact, to argue for any system at all. So, Con could simply argue that presumed consent was immoral and that would be sufficient for him to negate and meet his BOP. Con could also offer up alternatives if he so desired, including a mandated choice system, or a mandatory donation system, or for the status quo here in the U.S. This means that Con has a lot more flexibility in how he can address the topic, because he could do one of three options: (1) say presumed consent is bad and should not be used, (2) say another system is better and should be used instead, or (3) do both (1) and (2).
Similarly, if Con got up and argued for a presumed consent system, he would be supporting the Pro side of the topic. Presumed consent is Pro ground; only Pro can and must argue for presumed consent. If Con makes an argument that falls in Pro ground, he is failing to support his case, and often winds up supporting Pro’s position. This example demonstrates how to understand the differences between Pro and Con ground; just ask, “what does the resolution (not) require each debater to argue?”
There may be cases where an argument, due to resolutional ambiguity, could be made by either side. If that is the case, the argument is “non-unique.” What this means is that it is not unique to either position (Pro or Con), and since it is not unique to either side, it cancels out. Suppose argument X can be made on either side, and Pro makes argument X. Con can say, “well, I can do X too, so it cancels out; it doesn’t matter.” That is a perfectly reasonable thing for Con to say, and it renders X moot. In addition to arguments, advantages and disadvantages can be non-unique. Suppose your argument A leads to outcome B. If my argument C also leads to outcome B, the point is again moot. It is important, therefore, to make unique arguments with unique advantages or (in rebuttals) unique disadvantages, to prevent your opponent from pointing out their non-uniqueness. So, to be clear, if both sides can do the same thing or achieve the same goal, those things or those goals cancel out, and no side gets the offense coming from those things or goals.
Finally, there are arguments that are outside both Pro’s and Con’s ground. These arguments are usually described as not topical. Suppose that the resolution were: “Mace Windu is a more powerful Jedi than Agen Kolar.” Pro would have to argue for Windu, and Con would most likely have to argue for Kolar. If Con argued that, for instance, that Yoda was more powerful than Mace Windu, Con would not be negating, and would be off-topic. Since each side has clearly been assigned their ground (Windu for Pro, Kolar for Con), arguing outside of those grounds is irrelevant.
“Kritiks” may often be considered non-topical since they may fail to actually talk about the topic, though, this is by no means always the case. In debate, topicality is crucial, because it would be unfair to expect a debater who prepped for a topic to have to respond to things other than that topic, and because non-topical arguments fail to actually debate the resolution. However, there are cases where non-topical arguments may be effective. For example, some debaters win debates by critiquing not what their opponent says, but how they say it, noting their use of “gendered language” or some similar offense. While this may work from time to time, it is not the norm for this line of reasoning to be successful.
Use of Evidence
Types of Evidence
Generally, any time you make some kind of claim, regardless of what the claim is, you’ll want to provide some sort of evidence or argumentation to back it up. In terms of argument construction, there’s two types of evidence: empirical and analytical.
Empirical evidence is exactly what it sounds like: statistics and other raw, hard facts that support your argument. These can be anything from 80% of animals who go through testing receive unnecessary suffering to trickle-down economic theory has been shown to lead to a 40% increase in GDP growth.
Analytical evidence relies less on fact and more on logic and reasoning through conclusions. If I were to make the argument that animal testing should be banned because animals receive undue suffering from the tests, and suffering is something we should be striving to end, I would be using analytical evidence. Things that are also encompassed within analytical evidence is quotes from other texts/authors/sources that don’t rely on statistics or empirics.
Evidence typically refers to empirics or analysis coming from outside sources.
Using and Critiquing Evidence
While evidence is good and often very helpful, it is crucial to not just rely on evidence. Your own reasoning is important to include. Judges very often dislike debates that lack any reasoning other than those pulled from sources, and it is not really “debating” to engage in a source-war, it is more like trying to out-evidence someone. Sources and evidence are supplemental and important to include, but they’re are not the end-all-be-all of debate.
When you do use sources, you want to check them for a few things: recency, impartiality, sample sizes and statistical methodology, credibility, and availability. You want sources to be more recent to reflect current realities, impartial so that they are not skewing data, reliable in the sense that they use good statistical methodology and sufficient and random sample sizes (if a study), credible in the sense that they come from a respected and trustworthy publication or author, and available so that your opponent and judges’ can access them. Availability is important because, if no one but you can check a source, it is possible that you could be lying about what the source says. Similarly, you can use these points to test your opponent’s sources, and if their sources fail any test, it can be a means of critiquing their source(s).
Read your opponent’s sources--particularly ones they cite often or ones with which they are supporting key claims. If they’re misinterpreting their evidence, you need to point that out. Their sources may also have caveats or data that you can use to your advantage as well. Make sure to clearly cite sources; I talk about this later in the document.
Fallacies
Whenever crafting arguments and responses, as well as looking for places to attack your opponent’s arguments, fallacies are something to keep in mind. Logical fallacies are a good way to discredit arguments, as it shows that your opponent is relying on logic that actually isn’t correct. A list of basic logical fallacies can be found below, though this list certainly is not exhaustive:
1. Argument from Authority: Appealing to the fact that someone is either really smart or important as a reason why something is right. For example, the argument that “Because Barack Obama supports pro-choice, abortion ought to be permissible” is an appeal to authority.
2. Argument from Popularity: Appealing to the fact that something is well liked/received as a reason why is it’s true. For example, the argument that “Because 90% of people are okay with smoking marijuana, we ought to legalize marijuana.” is an appeal to popularity. Just because people want it, doesn’t mean they should have it; things that are popular may very well be the things we should least have.
3. Circular Reasoning: Appealing to a thing to justify itself. For example, “justice is giving each their due because when we act justly we give people what is owed to them.” This sentence says nothing, because it says the same thing twice in two different ways. It is basically saying “justice is X because justice is X.” Something cannot justify itself; external justification must be present.
4. Cherry-picking: Using a few examples to make broad generalizations. If I went outside a few times, and each time it rained, I might say, “It always rains when I go outside.” Clearly, this is false reasoning. 3 or 4 instances is not enough to substantiate a claim about what “always” happens. Similarly, if universal healthcare is effective in 4 countries, how can someone say it will work in all 200+ states?
5. Is/Ought Fallacy: Just because something “is” the case, that doesn’t mean it “ought” to be the case. The sentence, “grass is green because it ought to be” (many argue that things are as they are because that is how it ought to be and vice versa) is fallacious, because what is the case is not necessarily what is ethically best. It is the case in some countries that genocide is going on, but we wouldn’t say it ought to be going on just because it is going on.
6. Bare Assertion (Ipse Dixit Fallacy): When a fact is asserted without supporting reasoning or evidence. Obviously, the veracity of a claim cannot be trusted when it has nothing backing it up. It is a “bare” assertion.
7. Shifting the Goalposts: When someone lays out a position, and later changes it in order to avoid criticism. For example, if I said, “all oranges taste bad,” and you produce a delicious orange from Florida, you have refuted my original claim. Instead of admitting defeat, I amend my argument after the fact to be “all oranges not from Florida taste bad.” This allows me to dodge the evidence you brought forth, and it is highly unfair.
8. The Nirvana Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when you reject a partial solution because it is not perfect. Obamacare doesn’t cover all Americans, but it does get most insured. It would be a Nirvana Fallacy to say, “because it doesn’t cover all Americans, it should be rejected.” A partial fix is better than no fix; something is almost always better than nothing.
9. Red-Herring: Something that distracts or misdirects you so that you don’t focus on the arguments that matter. It is something unimportant said in the hopes of enticing an opponent to rebut it, and, in so doing, to waste the opponent’s character space.
10. Appeal to Nature: An argument that appeals to the naturalness of something to substantiate its goodness, e.g. “X is good because it is natural.” An example of this fallacy at play might be, “it is natural to fight over mates--you see it in the wild--so it must be okay to fight over mates.” It is an extension of the is/ought issue, where just because something is the case, doesn’t mean it should be the case. There are morally better alternatives to fighting such that you cannot really justifying fighting itself. We also see male animals kill the offspring of rival males in the wild...that doesn’t mean a human would be justified in doing it.
11. Non-sequitur: A conclusion that doesn’t follow from its premises. Take the following example:
P1. YYW is a mammal
P2. Humans are mammals
C1. Therefore, YYW is a human
This is a non-sequitur. While YYW is indeed a human, the logic that was used to reach the conclusion doesn’t follow. The problem lies in (P2), because, while humans are mammals, not all mammals are human. So, if all that was known was that YYW was a mammal, and some mammals are human, we could still not conclude that YYW was human, because other possibilities would exist (he could be a tiger, for instance). Thus, the syllogism above is a non-sequitur; the conclusion cannot be reached following the logic of the supporting claims.
12. Tu quoque: The argument that just because an argument or arguer is hypocritical, their idea is wrong. For example, if I said “eating meat is immoral,” but I happily eat meat, I could be said to be a hypocrite. However, just because my words and actions don’t match up, that doesn’t mean my words are wrong. I could be a hypocrite, and still be right that eating meat is immoral.
Developing Case Arguments: The Basics
Claim, Warrant, Impact
When you write a constructive case (i.e. a case that is not a direct rebuttal of your opponent and which advances primarily positive arguments), it is important to be aware of how to structure your arguments. One commonplace and effective format is to use the “claim, warrant, impact” model. A claim is your actual assertion, usually expressed in 1-2 short/medium sentences. A warrant is a reason to believe the assertion. Warrants can take one of two forms: logical analysis or cards/evidence. You can warrant an argument by providing your own logical reasoning as to why it’s true. You may also warrant an argument by providing evidence or a substantive quote from a reliable source that backs your claim up. Finally, an impact is a reason to care about the assertion. Usually, an impact explains why your argument supports your side of the topic and why your argument refutes or preempts an argument your opponent made or may make.
To put this into context, I’ll use an argument from an actual debate (see appendix (4)), which used the resolution: “Regarding criminal acts, justice can usually be obtained without the victim's forgiveness of the criminal.”
Failure to forgive represents a failure to relieve yourself of pain. Suppose I am the victim of a mugging and I harbor hatred and anger towards the person who attacked me. Holding onto those negative feelings means that I become a victim of those feelings. It is as if the mugging is un-ending, that the attacker’s ability to make me feel angry or scared or hurt has not diminished, and that my life is now worse off because of that anger. I am not due those negative feelings which were inflicted on me by the mugger, but failure to forgive means that those emotional wounds will stay with me for quite some time, possibly forever, meaning that the act of mugging (already undue) would leave me with long-term emotional pain that is also not my due.Forgiveness, in terms of releasing pain, has many benefits for a person. In fact, "[l]etting go of grudges and bitterness can make way for happiness, health and peace. Forgiveness can lead to: Healthier relationships, Greater spiritual and psychological well-being, Less anxiety, stress and hostility, Lower blood pressure, Fewer symptoms of depression, Stronger immune system, Improved heart health, [and] Higher self-esteem."
In this argument, the claim being made is that failing to forgive leaves you in a state of undue pain. The warrant is a combination of a logical explanation (talking about how failure to forgive keeps the pain in you) and card-based (providing evidence as to how forgiveness lets go of the pain). Since justice was defined as “giving each their due,” the impact is that forgiveness, by releasing undue pain, gives people the peace of mind they are due. Every argument should entail these three elements somewhere in it.
Framework
Also crucial to many cases is a framework. Framework particularly matters when the resolution is posing a philosophical, moral, or ethical question. Pragmatic or policy questions are typically evaluated using a cost-benefit paradigm, so a framework is already implicit in those cases, which makes constructing one from scratch less important.
A framework can easily be understood as a lens through which we should view a question. It is a theoretical model that underpins your arguments, suggests a way for the judge to view or interpret the round, and functions as a weighing mechanism. Suppose we were debating the morality of universal healthcare, and I was arguing from a utilitarian perspective as Pro, and you were debating from a libertarian perspective as Con. Utilitarianism is the moral theory that a person should do the most good for the greatest number. Libertarianism argues that people can only be required to not violate someone else’s rights; they cannot be required to actively do something, only to not do something. I show that universal healthcare has net benefits, and you show that it requires people to do things that they may not voluntarily wish to do (e.g. pay taxes) which is anti-libertarian.
These theories act as ways to impact arguments. If utilitarianism better represents morality, than the “net benefits” impact to morality more strongly than the risk of coercion. If libertarianism better represents morality, then the risks of coercion matter more than the “net benefits” of the action. In this sense, frameworks act as weighing tools. Imagine that utilitarianism is a scale, and the arguments presented by boths sides are the weights. On a utilitarian scale, cost-benefit arguments weigh more heavily than other arguments. Similarly, if the scale were libertarianism, violations of people’s negative rights would be heavier than cost-benefit arguments. So, depending on which scale a judge decides to use, they arrive at different decisions as to which side was heavier/more compelling. Suffice it to say, frameworks that give readers’ a lens to understand and impact your arguments are important.
When you use a framework, all of your arguments in your case should connect to your framework, and--throughout the debate--you should take care to not contradict your framework. If you run arguments that have nothing to do with your framework, you will encounter problems with impacting your arguments. For instance, if utilitarianism is your framework, but if you run libertarian arguments that have nothing to do with making a cost-benefit analysis, you might run into questions of how the two relate. If you’re saying that we should view morality in a utilitarian way, then why should we care about non-utilitarian arguments? The answer is: we shouldn’t, they’re completely irrelevant to morality. So, your libertarian argument would have no impact (it wouldn’t matter/it would be irrelevant) in regards to morality, and your opponent could defeat it simply by pointing that out.
Putting Together Arguments
When putting together a case, it is often tempting to come up with as many arguments as possible in order to prevent your opponent from effectively responding to them all. This is problematic for a few reasons. Typically, when you generate too many arguments, you also under-explain or under-warrant each of your own arguments, which make them less compelling to voters. It also risks having more internal contradictions in each of the arguments. Also, some judges disapprove of this tactic in debate, and it may alienate them. It is prudent to have a few different but complementary points and to not put all your eggs in one basket, but trying to generate as many arguments as possible for the sake of having as many arguments as possible is not always or usually prudent. Your arguments may also build one contention on another, leading to a concluding point, as if each argument were a premise in a syllogism.
It is important to emphasize here that your arguments should jive together. If you put forth arguments that contradict each other, you may either be forced to choose one over the other or they may cancel each other out entirely, at which point you’ve lost both. Additionally, contradicting yourself causes you to lose credibility in the eyes of readers. Make sure to look your case over for logical consistency and coherency before posting it.
Rebuttal Arguments and Flow Coverage
There are a variety of approaches to rebutting arguments, many of which are effective. Some excellent examples of good debates and rebuttals can be found in appendix A. For the purpose of elucidating the basics, I will focus on several common, effective, and simple ways to conduct a rebuttal: answering, turning, weighing/impacting, and extending. I make no claim that the following information is necessarily exhaustive, just that it is an excellent starting point and fairly detailed. I will also go over some general rules of thumb.
Answering Arguments
A debater can “answer” an argument. What this means is they can tackle the argument directly to try to defeat it and prove it wrong, moot, negligible, or irrelevant. “Answers” specifically refer to rebuttals that undermine the argument or the strength of the argument itself. Under the idea of “answering” an argument comes a variety of different tactics:
1. Exposing logical flaws is one way to answer an argument. For instance, if an argument uses a logical fallacy (see “fallacies” section), pointing this fallacy out undermines the argument.
2. Mentioning that an argument is non-topical (outside the scope of the resolution) or that it is irrelevant as regards the framework is another excellent strategy to answer an argument. It demonstrates that either an argument is irrelevant to the debate as a whole or to the weighing mechanism in question.
3. You can point out that an argument is non-unique, and thus moot.
4. You can critique the credibility of an argument or of a source/piece of evidence that supports and argument. For instance, if a study has a sample size of 50 but is making claims about trends for thousands of people, the results of the study probably are not reliable. Similarly, if a source might be biased, calling that into question is useful.
5. Analyzing the links between arguments is also essential. If my first argument on a debate about global warming is “man produces large amounts of CO2” and my second argument is “CO2 causes global warming” and I conclude that “man is the primary cause of global warming,” you can answer my case by rebutting the line of reasoning I use. Perhaps you might say, “just because man produces lots of CO2 does not mean he is the primary producer of CO2, therefore it’s a leap to say that man is the primary cause of global warming.” You might also say that “there are other types of greenhouse gases, so even if man makes lots of CO2, that doesn’t mean man is the primary cause of global warming.” In these examples, you would be picking at the links between the arguments. I say X+C=D, but you point out that X+C≠D, then you’ve disconnected the links and shown that one argument does not lead to the other or that one set of arguments doesn’t lead to a conclusion. This is pointing out a non-sequitur (a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premises). Arguments can be non-sequiturs just as much as conclusions can, particularly if those arguments are supposedly building off of other arguments.
6. Point out disadvantages to your opponent’s case. If your adversary wants to do X, say “X leads to Y, and Y is a bad outcome that we should avoid.”
7. Finally, you can counter something by offering alternative logic or evidence. Providing logic or data that contradicts what an argument is saying is often useful; however, it needs to be accompanied with a reason to prefer your logic or data over your opponents. If we have two studies that say two totally different things, how does a judge resolve this conflict? If you say, “my study reaches opposite conclusions and it is more recent,” you give your judge a reason to believe your study more than your opponent’s, i.e. recency. So, offering a reason to prefer your set of information is important to making the most out of your rebuttal.
Turning Arguments
A debater can “turn” an argument. To turn an argument means to flip an argument that your opponent makes so that it supports your side. Unlike an “answer,” which seeks to undermine an argument, a turn doesn’t have to undermine it because it takes the argument and turns it to your side. For example, in the debate “Had Anakin not intervened, Mace Windu would likely have defeated Darth Sidious,” (see appendix (16)) Con made the argument that the “Dun Möch” technique would be an advantage of Sidious’s, writing:
These quotes show characteristics of DM (2), said characteristics being the use of verbal attacks and, as we stated in R2, possibly mental attacks, to throw the opponent(s) off guard. Also note that Sidious is listed on the wiki as a “notable practitioner” and is described as “the greatest practitioner of all time”.
Among Pro’s counters to this point was a turn of the argument. As Pro noted:
“Finally, DM has a key flaw: ‘If not carefully applied, Dun Möch could backfire upon the user, spurring the intended target to anger instead of overwhelming him/her with fear.’ Vaapad, Windu’s preferred fighting style, allowed him to utilize that anger more effectively in combat. By allowing DM to spark anger in him, Windu could thus make himself even stronger. ‘Vaapad was explained as being a state of mind rather than just a fighting style, allowing the wielder to channel his own inner darkness into the duel, and accept the fury of the opponent.’” This turns Con’s DM arguments: DM would’ve strengthened Windu.
Weighing Analysis and Impacting Arguments
A debater can engage in weighing analysis (also called “impacting”). Essentially, this means comparing the relative strength of various arguments. Suppose we are debating a topic, and we’ve agreed on a utilitarian framework (cost-benefit analysis). If I save 100 lives, and you save 75 lives, then I should win under that framework. So, I could concede to your argument, but still point out that I save more lives comparatively, and so should win. Not all weighing analysis is so straightforward, however. Suppose we are debating euthanasia, and I am arguing that euthanasia violates medical ethics, and you argue that euthanasia promotes a patient’s freedom to make their own choices. How do we weigh these arguments against each other? Impacting arguments back to the framework is usually how weighing is done, but there isn’t always a clear framework. Explaining why your arguments have more weight (either in general or in the context of some framework) is important, because if you can persuade a judge that it is more important to increase patient freedom than it is to maintain current ethical standards in medicine, than the judge should vote for you, even if the believe both of our points.
Extending Arguments
A debater can point areas of non-clash or drops. Extending (or carrying through) these areas is a useful tactic. Suppose your opponent rebuts your argument X with argument Y, but argument Y doesn’t actually address what you were saying in argument X, argument Y is non-responsive. Your opponent is not clashing with this point. While your opponent didn’t “drop” Y by ignoring it completely, their argument still didn’t respond to Y. Also, if your opponent just ignores or doesn’t address a specific argument at all, that argument is said to be “dropped.” Drops are usually interpreted as agreements; if an adversary drops a point, judges assume they agree with that point. When your opponent drops or is non-responsive to an argument you make, point it out and “extend” it. Explain how the argument impacts the debate and supports your case. Judges then have a clear piece of argumentation that they can see is going in your favor. If your opponent concedes something, that is another time to extend it. Not all dropped or conceded points matter though, so be careful not to waste space extending unimportant points.
But, it is largely your duty as a debater to point it out extendable points (unless it’s after your last words in the debate). Point it out for your judge to show that it carries through.
General Rebuttal Issues
As far as general advice for rebuttals, keep your remarks concise. You may have a lot to address or a lot to say, and so keeping things brief will allow you to say more. Unnecessary repetition is your enemy. Occasionally, concepts may be difficult to grasp, in which case repeating may be helpful for your judges, but in most cases, saying things more than once in a speech is redundant and more harmful to you than beneficial.
Furthermore, having multiple arguments against a single argument is useful. If one of your points fails, you still have other rebuttals that you can uses. You don’t need to win every point you raise against a single argument, but you do need to win at least 1 point sufficient to defeat the original argument. Good examples of multiple counter-arguments per single argument can be found in appendix (5) and (6). As for structuring rebuttals, the claim-warrant-impact model is effective here too.
In debate, the ability to address all (or most) arguments is referred to as your ability to “cover the flow,” which is an expression derived from real-life debate. Covering all substantive issues raised in a debate is often challenging, but also often necessary.
Attempting to address as many of your opponent’s arguments as possible is definitely a good rule of thumb. As with most rules, however, it comes with caveats. Occasionally, an opponent’s case will rest entirely on 1 thing, in which case using your entire rebuttal to go after that 1 thing makes sense, but your opponent won’t usually do that, unfortunately. Putting your eggs in one basket, rather than having a rebuttal that covers several points, is a calculated risk. Also, it is okay to drop unimportant or small points in order to focus on bigger ones. Certainly, be careful to not under-rebut a key point so that you can address less vital ones.
If you find it hard in the space you have to rebut all the arguments raised by an adversary, you can “lump” arguments together. Lumping is actually a very useful technique. If your opponent’s C1 has 4 studies in it, and you don’t have the space to talk about each study individually, but they all say pretty much the same thing, you can address them as a group. Offer some generic critique that applies to all of them, for instance. This ensures you don’t drop anything, but it means you don’t have to waste space on all 4 studies. While useful, lumping does mean you give some points less attention than is desirable, so lump with prudence.
Formatting, Signposting, and Roadmapping
Just to quickly address some terms and concepts, roadmapping is giving your readers a preview of what you’re about to say. In many of the debates I’ve referenced in this guide, they begin by thanking their opponent and then saying something like, “I will now rebut my opponent’s case,” “I will now present my case,” and/or “I will now discuss my opponent’s round 2 remarks.” This tells the reader what your speech will cover, and so it gives them some useful context in understanding what you’re about to say. Furthermore, signposting is telling the reader what your rebutting when. For example: “my opponent said X, and my responses to X are A and B.” This tells the voter exactly which of your rebuttals correspond to which of your opponent’s arguments. Failure to clearly signpost may confuse you, your judge, and your opponent. If you rebutted argument X, but I don’t see which of your points were meant to rebut X, I may legitimately think that X was dropped. If I am a judge and I vote off of X being dropped, you, as a debater, may be in trouble. Signposting is one of the most fundamental and important elements of making an organized and comprehensible rebuttal. As I will explain, formatting and signposting go hand-in-hand.
Everyone has their own method of formatting cases and rebuttals, and many debaters will change how they format their debates based on what they perceive to be the most effective strategy on that particular occasion. While I encourage everyone to find their own method of formatting speeches, I will present 3 distinct methods here that can show you some different ways to do it.
Contention Format
The first is to subdivide arguments into clear chunks (often called contentions) that flow logically, and make it clear how many arguments are being made, and where 1 argument ends and another begins. It also makes things clearer visually for judges, and can aid in signposting. For example, see appendix (7). In this debate, each section (observations, arguments, etc.) is labeled clearly. Also each individual observation or argument heading is labeled with a “C#” and is presented in bold. Usually “C1” or “P1” or “A1” is used to denote a main argument, standing for “contention,” “premise,” and “argument,” respectively. Enumerating the arguments like this makes it easier for debaters to reference old points. Instead of saying, “remember where I said X, Y, and Z...their points apply here” a debater can just say, “my C1 applies here.” It saves character space. Finally, the sub-points are all presented in italics and marked with “SC#.” SC, SA, SP, or SB can be used to refer to these points, standing for sub-contention, sub-argument, sub-premise/sub-point, respectively, with “SB” being a shout out to “SuB.”
In this style of formatting, arguments in a case are usually presented in the following order: Intro, definitions, observations, arguments (and sub-points within those arguments), conclusion, and sources. Framework would go in-between observations and arguments if it is presented. Having definitions, observations, and framework first is useful, because all of these things are necessary for a reader to know so that they can probably frame and interpret what follows, namely, your arguments.
By placing headings in bold, italics, all-caps, etc. headings are easily differentiated from the text, which is useful for quick references back. It also looks more organized, clear, and professional. However, doing this kind of font stuff isn’t necessary to use this style of formatting. In fact, there are variety of riffs on this formatting that can be used. For some examples of these takes on the style, see the appendix (8), (9), and (10).
Rebuttals can also utilize this style. If your opponent has headings, use them or shortened versions of them, and match where you make your rebuttals to where your opponent made their points. This keeps things organized and un-confusing for your readers and functions as automatic signposting. Enumerating each counter-argument can also be useful; for an example, see appendix (6). Headings (also called tag lines) are designed not just to keep things organized for the judge, but to serve as metaphorical signposts in the journey of the debate. I can always look back and reference a sign, and know what sign corresponds to which argument. So, when I say, “in Con’s C1…” everyone knows what I am talking about and where to find it in the round. They don’t have to go looking for it.
Essay Format
Another style is more essay-like. While it is often less visually clear than the previous method, it lends itself more to rhetoric and oration than the previous method. It is more of a narrative explanation, and less of a staccato listing. It does away with headings, and tries to present things in a verbally persuasive and fluid fashion. The absence of heading, however, can make signposting more cumbersome. It is often considered less technical, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily less effective. Just as with the previous style, offering framework issues at the top of the speech is still important, because that information creates the context in which all the follows is understood. For examples of an effective use of this style, see appendix (11) and (12).
To use this essay method to signpost, you may reference your opponent’s headings, or you may simply say, “my opponent said X, Y, and Z, and here is my counter-argument…” If you choose to use this style, play up its strength: it allows for greater eloquence and flow than does the previous style. Being less technical and more communicative is often a wise move in this respect.
Quote-Rebuttal Format
Finally, the last method I will discuss is the quote-rebuttal method. This is used more to format rebuttals than cases. In it, you post a quote by your opponent (usually you italicise this quote to clearly differentiate it from your own text) and then beneath it you type your rebuttal. Examples can be found in appendix (13) and (17). The advantage of this format is that it is very, very clear what you’re rebutting. The signposting is fantastic. It also means that your judge can directly compare what your saying with what your adversary said, without having to scroll back-and-forth. However, quoting chunks of your opponent’s text eats up your character space very, very quickly. This means you have much less space to make your own arguments. It is usually more economical to just paraphrase, which is more like the other styles I mentioned.
Whatever style you choose, be it Contention format, Essay format, or Quote-Rebuttal format, you need to make it your own. Often, trying different styles to see what works best for you is a good thing. Though, while individuality is good, there are some constants. In all debates, and all styles, for instance, you still should have a claim or claims, have warrants for those claims, and have impacts for those claims. You must always clearly signpost, you must always be organized, and you must always clearly note which sources go with which claim (either by including links next to each claim, or by having numerical citations in the text that correspond to a number next to each link--see the appendix for numerous examples.)
Voting Issues and Crystallization
Crystallization is any method of summarizing the debate in a way that explains for your judge why they should vote for you. Crystallization includes voting issues but it can also include paragraph-style analysis and summary of the debate or merely persuasive appeals. Voting issues are succinct, usually enumerated, reasons why you think a judge should vote for you. Examples of all of these methods can be found in appendix (14), (15) and (16).
Usually, in a debate, you do not have the space to cover every single argument raised earlier in the Crystallization. The key is to select a few major arguments that you need to win or that you think you have won. Briefly recap the argument and the impact that argument has on the debate, i.e. why that argument should be a reason to vote for you.
Numbered voting issues make it very clear what the arguments the judge should vote on are. It’s visually direct. Voting issues are particularly beneficial in debates where a lot of the clash has been over specific contentions or arguments, because each one of these arguments can be a bullet. When the debate is more abstract or conceptual, voting issues may be a bit harder to do well. Analyzing in a paragraph format may be more suited to walking your judge through complex weighing analyses, burden analyses, or abstract concepts. But, it typically eats up more characters because it is more in-depth and explanatory and less succinct than merely bullet points with brief accompanying statements. The paragraph style also lends itself to good writers who can use rhetoric to their advantage, but it may be less direct for judges and may make it harder for judges to easily identify what specific issues you think you won and why they matter. Finally, persuasive appeals, also usually in paragraph form, are essentially pathos. They are attempts to use rhetoric and emotion to sway a judge. These can be useful in debates where issues play on judge’s emotional sympathies or where you think your arguments are already clear wins for you, and you are attempting to win the judge’s heart, not just his mind. Generally speaking, however, these kinds of appeals are less effective because they are not logic-based. Debate is primarily an exercise in logic, and so most crystallizations should employ logic.
Of course, all three of these methods can be combined to varying degrees, and finding your own formula for what works is a good thing.
Civility
As a general rule, unpleasantness within a debate isn’t a great idea. Insults, generalizations, racial/gender slurs, excessive profanity, derogatory terms, etc. aren’t the greatest debate tactics of all time. It doesn’t really win over the voters and makes you look like bad. So long story short, don’t insult your opponent or other people in your debates. It saves your opponent and your readers/voters a headache and saves you a potential dressing down from the mods.
=========
V
DESIGNING TOURNAMENTS
=========
Time Considerations
Whenever designing a tournament, you need to have a good idea of how long you expect the tournament to take. If it runs too long, debaters will get bored of the tournament or burn out and not want to participate as much, if at all. If it’s too short of a tournament, it won’t garner enough attention to make running it worthwhile. When determining how long your tournament will take, there’s a few things to consider:
Judging
Deciding how debates in a tournament will be judged is an important, and often hard, decision. This passage is designed to give you some tips on this matter, and to get you thinking about how you might go about doing this.
In my experience, having a set pool of judges reduces the likelihood that debates get voted on at all. If there are only 5 judges, and they all get busy or forget (which has happened), then the debaters may not receive any votes at all. There are benefits to having a set group of judges however, in that the host can vet them beforehand to ensure that they’re fair and decent voters.
Sometimes, in order to maintain voting integrity during the tournament, I may ask that (a) debaters not solicit votes via PM unless they've agreed on who they want to ask for votes, and (b) debaters set a minimum ELO of 2,500 to vote on their debates. The first point prevents people from just asking their friends to vote-bomb in their favor, since both debaters’ have agreed on who to ask. Furthermore, the second rule ensures that voters have a minimum amount of experience and familiarity with debate. Now, these two points can be mandated or can simply be “strongly advised.” I tend to strongly advise these points because I don’t want to over-regulate competitors; but, mandating these points will guarantee certain minimum standards in a tournament. If you don’t like these rules, but like the idea of having “set criteria for judges” rather than “set judge pool,” you can come up with your own rules. Just be careful not to be overly restrictive in your criteria, or you may face the same problem as the “set judge pool” has--too few eligible voters leading to too few votes.
The other option is to just let debaters work out what they want to do themselves. As long as they both agree to the arrangement, they can’t complain later. This also requires the least host-involvement in policing regulations. But, the downside is that votes may not be as good as desired.
Assigning Topics
Opposed to letting the debaters decide their own topics, moderators of tournament can elect to choose the topics for the debaters. There’s a few things to consider when deciding how you want to approach this.
Style of Tournament
There are four kinds of tournaments commonly found for debate: round robins, gauntlets, single elimination, and double elimination. I will briefly cover each of these styles, noting some positives and negatives of each.
To see examples of tournament brackets for either of the latter two kinds of tournaments, consult the excel document in appendix (G). The sheets on the documents provide ready-to-use brackets for tournaments of 4-16 competitors that you are free to use for your tournaments if you’d like. The double-elimination sheet is labeled “down-bracket sample,” and is towards the rear of the document. An alternative bracket system for odd-numbered tournaments is also included at the rear, in the event you don’t like the samples provided in the earlier sheets.
Also, just a quick tangent, in tournaments with odd numbers of debaters, someone will have to have a free round each round of the tournament. This free round is usually awarded to the highest ranked debater (if its power-ranked), randomly awarded, or awarded in turns (so each contestant gets a turn off). This “free” round is referred to as a “bye.”
Round Robin
These are tournaments in which every debater debates every other debater. Suppose there are 4 debaters in the tournament. The tournament would end up looking like this:
Debater 1 vs. Debater 2
Debater 1 vs. Debater 3
Debater 1 vs. Debater 4
Debater 2 vs. Debater 3
Debater 2 vs. Debater 4
Debater 3 vs. Debater 4
The winner of the round robin is the person with the best record at the end of the tournament. However, if there is a tie, tie-breaking rounds need to happen. If the tie is 2-way, then the two remaining debate, and the winner of that debate is the overall winner. In a 4-person round robin, a 3-way tie is possible (3 debaters can get 2-2 records...2 wins-2 losses). If that occurred, all 3 remaining debaters would debate each other like so:
Debater 2 vs. Debater 3
Debater 2 vs. Debater 4
Debater 3 vs. Debater 4
The person with the best cumulative record after these debates would win. If ties persist, keep debating until they don’t.
The advantage of a round robin is that it is the fairest and most accurate form of tournament out there. Because everyone debates everyone else, no one can be eliminated after one fluke loss, and the results will--more often than not--identify the best overall debater in the group. The downside is a major one, though: round robins take forever to complete. Because everyone has to debate everyone, there are more debates than in other tournaments. In a single-elimination tournament with 4 contestants, there would be 3 debates. In the round robin, there would be twice that. The more participants in the round robin, the longer it gets. Therefore, I would strongly recommend never hosting a round robin with more than 6 contestants--maybe 8 if you and the debaters have the time.
Gauntlet Tournaments
In a gauntlet tournament, a “challenger” runs a gauntlet of predetermined “defenders;” defenders may also be called “guards.” If the challenger loses to a defender, the tournament ends. The idea is that each defender is ranked based on their ELO from weakest to strongest. The defenders do not debate each other. The challenger starts by debating the weakest defender. If the challenger wins, they advance to the next defender. The challenger wins by defeating, in turn, every defender. The gauntlet (guards/defenders) win if the challenger loses to any one defender.
The advantage of this is that it can produce dramatic, fun, and high-quality debates. It is and difficult feat for a challenger, and impressive if they are victorious. The downsides, however, are significant. The challenger is the only one to do multiple debates in the tournament, so it doesn’t generate a lot of debate activity. Fewer people tend to participate in gauntlets, and, if the challenger gets knocked out early, the tournament can end almost as soon as it started. Still, it is a fun kind of tournament to run and to see unfold.
Single Elimination Tournaments
These are tournaments where one loss results in elimination from the tournament, hence the name “single” elimination. The ultimate winner will therefore have a perfect record in the tournament. These are by far the most common on DDO largely because they are the quickest to complete, yet even these take several weeks or months.
Single elimination tournaments are typically organized into brackets, but this is not always the case. A bracket system can be used, but a host could also randomize who hits who in each and every round, or power-pair based per round (meaning that the highest seed alive in the tournament always debates the lowest seed alive).
Double Elimination Tournaments
These are tournaments where two losses result in elimination from the tournament, hence the name “double” elimination. However, 1 loss will preclude you from winning the tournament, so the winner will still have a perfect record in the tournament.
The way the double elimination system works is that there is an “up” bracket and a “down” bracket. Everyone starts in the up-bracket, and once you get a loss, you are bumped to the down-bracket. If you get a loss in the down-bracket, you are bumped from the tournament; i.e. you are eliminated. The winner of the down-bracket is awarded 3rd place typically. The runner-up in the down-bracket is also usually awarded 4th place. The winner of the up-bracket is the champion, whereas the runner-up in the up-bracket gets 2nd place.
Pairing Tournaments
If you choose to utilize a bracket for your tournament, you need to decide how to “pair” contestants. “To pair” simply means to decide who is debating who. There are three ways to pair a tournament, with the first two mentioned being by far the most common.
The first way is to rank debaters based on their relative strength or power such that better debaters face weaker debaters. ELO is a common means of determining a debaters power, with higher ELOs indicating a stronger debater. For the sake of this article, I’ll refer this to “power-pairing/ranking,” though this term can also refer to the third system I am going to explicate. But--again--for simplicity’s sake, “power-pairing” here and in the excel document refers JUST to this system. The idea of a tournament is to have the best debaters win. It is to weed out the weaker debaters who may not “deserve” the win to allow the stronger debaters to advance. So, that means that the best debater starts out facing the weakest debater, and as the tournament progresses, the debates (theoretically) become harder for everyone remaining. While users with lower ELOs may dislike this method, it does achieve the primary purpose of a tournament more efficiently than other methods.
The second way to pair a tournament is to randomize seedings. A “seed” is the spot where a debater is initially placed in the bracket. Randomizing seedings can lead to a more balanced tournament in the sense that the best rounds are not always at the end, but it can also be advantageous to debaters who may not otherwise have advanced very far, by giving them weaker opponents. It may also disadvantage strong debaters by making them debater other strong debaters. If the two best debaters face off in an early round, it could be said that one of them will be unfairly denied a 2nd or 3rd place spot that they would’ve otherwise earned. Still, randomizing is easy for the tournament host, varies debate quality, and is fair in the sense that the mod is not biased in seeding the tournament.
The third choice is to do power-power seedings. What this means is to make the best ranked debater (by “power,” as with ELO) face the second best ranked debater, and the third best ranked debater face the fourth best ranked debater, and so forth. You put debaters against debaters who are closest in strength. This generally means that debates get easier as the tournament goes on, and that the best debaters are in the start of the tournament. The benefit here is that it gives new users or lower-ranked members a chance to shine, by keeping them in the tournament longer. However, it is generally seen as problematic, because the purpose of a tournament is widely regarded to reward the best debaters, whereas this system penalizes them by forcing them out early.
=========
VI
CONCLUSION
=========
Hopefully, this guide has elucidated, clarified, and introduced some concepts to you, and you are now better prepared to tackle the realm of online debate. With any luck, it has also stressed the need for you to develop your own methods and style of debate; you will be most successful once you find your own groove. Whether you want to keep things simple or to develop a more technical approach to the activity, find a way that works for you; don’t try to be all things to all people. Furthermore, keep in mind also that practice really is the best way to improve; this guide can give you an overview of the fundamentals, but it is no substitute for getting firsthand exposure to the activity.
Remember the claim-warrant-impact model, the 4-step rebuttal process (answer, turn, weigh/impact, and extend), and the importance of understanding your ground. These are key elements to being successful, and are perhaps some of the most important, basic structures this guide has attempted to impart. It is also important to debate in a way that you find understandable and with topics that you are genuinely motivated to discuss. Trying to be too complex or trying to debate topics that bore you will only confuse and disincentivize you.
Ultimately, Zaradi and I have worked hard to distill many key concepts for you into this “How-to-Debate” guide. We hope it has been helpful, and we truly wish you the best of luck moving forward in debate. Again, welcome to online debate, and have a fun time!
=========
VII
APPENDIX
=========
Sample Debates (1-17)
(1) http://www.debate.org/debates/My-101st-Debate-Universal-Health-Care/1/
(2) http://www.debate.org/debates/Zaradis-Prized-Tournament-Animal-Rights/1/
(3) http://www.debate.org/debates/Poop-has-DNA/1/
(4) http://www.debate.org/debates/Quickfire-Debate-Justice-Retribution-and-Forgiveness/1/
(5) http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-USFG-should-eliminate-its-nuclear-armed-ICBM-force/2/
(6) http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-should-Not-be-Permitted/1/
(7) http://www.debate.org/debates/Voluntary-Euthanasia/2/
(8) http://www.debate.org/debates/August-Tournament-United-States-should-ban-Affirmative-Action/1/
(9) http://www.debate.org/debates/This-house-believes-churches-should-not-involve-themselves-in-political-campaigns./1/
(10) http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-is-a-religion-of-terror/1/
(11) http://www.debate.org/debates/Adolescents-ought-to-have-the-right-to-make-autonomous-medical-choices./1/
(12) http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-should-decriminalize-prostitution/1/
(13) http://www.debate.org/debates/Japan-should-remove-Article-9-of-its-constitution/1/
(14) http://www.debate.org/debates/TT2-Expert-Final-U.S.-militia-groups-pose-a-greater-threat-to-our-national-security-than-do-FTOs/1/
(15) http://www.debate.org/debates/Classic-Robert-Gauntlet-Tournament-The-current-tax-system-should-be-replaced-by-the-fair-tax./1/
(16) http://www.debate.org/debates/Team-Debate-Mace-Windu-vs.-Darth-Sidious/1/
(17) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJQT_PS9k82QkgrsyTQMKaQ90uY9yubVT0KPMR9XFcc/edit
Other Helpful Links (A-G)
Some of these links, while not all cited in the above text, are very useful. Check them out!
(A) DDO Hall-of-Fame: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/20130/
(B) Guide to Writing A Debate, by YYW: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/68443/
(C) Guide to Judging, by YYW: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/68444/
(D) DDO Voting Guide, by Bluesteel: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/68208/
(E) Guide to Voting Using the 7-point System, by Bsh1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit
(F) NSDA (formerly, NFL): http://www.speechanddebate.org/
(G) Tournament Templates, by Bsh1: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WjxhPAX_NqxNcdZEYyjIUiFqIFu3wNzH4_OlWQOXX7o/edit?usp=sharing
(H) Ragnar’s New Users’ Guide, by Ragnar: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.4kvpfi7gum7o
(I) Official Guide to the Polls Section, by PetersSmith: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/69315
(J) Guide to Tabula Rasa Judging, by Bluesteel: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/62166/
=========
VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
=========
Credits
Primary Author: Bsh1
Secondary Author: Zaradi
Contributing Reviewers: Sapphique, RoyLatham, Tejretics, TheProphett, Hayd, YYW
Comments
Thanks to Zaradi for his help in writing this guide and to all of the Contributing Reviewers for giving their feedback on the draft version of this guide. Without their assistance and editing, this guide would not be the opus it is today. Also, I will give a shout out to Airmax1227 for being supportive of this endeavor. Thank you.