Academic Debate�How to
Angličtina pre anglistov
M. Bachledová (2023)
Team roles
Affirmative team = Pretends to agree with the statement | Negative team = Pretends to disagree with the statement |
Note that in academic debate, your personal opinion is completely irrelevant. The goal is to train fact checking, argument building, and self-control. | |
Speaker 1 – Opening speech (1 minute) | Speaker 1 – Opening speech (1 minute) |
Speaker 2 – Three main arguments (3 minutes) | Speaker 2 – Three main arguments (3 minutes) |
Speaker 3 – Conclusion (1 minute) | Speaker 3 – Conclusion (1 minute) |
Questioners (6) |
1 question after every speaker |
Example of a debate
TOPIC:
“Animal testing should be banned”
Before the debate starts:
Judges/questioners vote to express their default opinion on the topic.
Opening speech Affirmative
Speaker 1 Affirmative advocates the stance “Yes, animal testing should be banned.” They introduce the basic facts:
“26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing, which is a staggering number. Is it really necessary to sacrifice so many living beings for our welfare?”
Questioner 1: Pays attention and comes up with one relevant question:
“What is your source for the claim that 26 million animals are used for testing in the US annually?”
Speaker 1 Affirmative: Replies.
“I have found it in the study by Ben Goldacre of 2010 cited in the Guardian.”
Opening speech Negative
Speaker 1 Negative advocates the stance “No, animal testing should not be banned.”
“Animal testing has enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals and there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, moreover, strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.”
Questioner 2:
“What specific life-saving treatment has been developed thanks to animal testing?”
Speaker 1 Negative: Replies.
“Basically all cancer treatment used nowadays.”
Main arguments Affirmative
Speaker 2 Affirmative presents three main arguments why animal testing should indeed be banned:
“Firstly, testing on animals instead of on humans is a sign of speciesism – the practice is cruel. Secondly, in March 2013, the European Union banned the import and sale of cosmetic products that use ingredients tested on animals. Thirdly, animal testing is no longer necessary as most of the products use already tested substances – no one really has to buy animal-tested products nowadays.
Questioner 3:�“That may apply to cosmetics but what about medical research?”
Speaker 2 Affirmative replies:
“Medical research can be done on human subjects who can actually provide consent.”
Main arguments Negative
Speaker 2 Negative:
“Firstly, according to the Gallup poll of 2013, most Americans don’t mind animal testing, they consider it necessary to ensure safety. Secondly, certain substances for human use need to be tested and using humans as test subjects is problematic, using animals is the logical solution. Thirdly, China is still a major market where testing all cosmetics on animals is required by law, and foreign companies distributing their products to China must also have them tested on animals, so animal testing is important from the economic point of view as well.
Questioner 4:
“Why is it problematic to use humans as test subjects?”
Speaker 2 Negative replies:
“Because they could be harmed.”
Closing speech Affirmative
Speaker 3 Affirmative gives their closing speech:
“To conclude, animal testing is obsolete and cruel, if humans want to ensure the safety of newly developed substances, they should be willing to serve as test subjects themselves. The idea that human welfare is superior to animal welfare is a completely arbitrary construct, not a natural law.”
Questioner 5:
“If humans are not superior, how come they are on the top of the food chain?”
Speaker 3 Affirmative replies:
“They aren’t, viruses are.”
Closing speech Negative
Speaker 3 Negative gives their closing speech:
“To conclude, there are areas in which animals cannot be substituted. For example, medical research is developing rapidly, which would not be possible without sacrificing animals. Human testing is morally problematic.”
Questioner 6:
“Is it necessary for medical research to be developing SO rapidly?”
Speaker 3 Negative replies:
“From the viewpoint of, let’s say, cancer patients, yes, it is definitely necessary.
Evaluation
Judges/questioners vote to express their opinion on the topic after the debate.
The team that persuaded most judges to switch sides wins.
How to prepare�
You can bring notes to the class, but you are not allowed to READ your speech.