== Here are (scripts?) that you may/can use for presenting your argument in a debate (This' only an example, and I believe that you may have your own style, so just use this to help you to create your own speech) ==


An example opening for the 1st Affirmative speaker:

Assalaamu’alaikum, www
Ladies and gentlemen, our motion today is that:………………………………………………………………
What we mean by ……………………………. is that …………………… and …………………………………………… is that…………………., so as a whole definition of our motion today, we can say it as: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(Or alternatively we can scope the motion to be: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………)

Ladies and gentlemen, we believe that this motion exists because of a (some) cause/s. And the basic reason or cause for existence of this motion is because ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Because of that fact/the cases, ladies and gentlemen, our team stands on the motion today ………………………………………………… because of (….) reasons. The first reason, ……………………………………………., will be spoken by me, myself. The second (+the third), ………………………………….., will be delivered to you by……………… Our team’s last member, …………………………………….., will conclude our team’s arguments and …………………………………….. will deliver the reply speech at the end of our argument.
OK, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you the first argument from our team that is .............................. (Assertion, reasoning, evidence, link back--- to link back, you can say: so, …………. Or To sump up, …………………)


An example for the 1st Negative speaker:

Ladies and gentlemen, the 1st speaker from the affirmative team said that the cause of why their motion stands today is because of that ……………………………………………………………………………….. However, in our point of view, their reason is not logic because ……………………………………………………
Because of that, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to say that (motion in negative sentence).
We are from the negative team has …. reasons to against the motion from the affirmative team. The first reason is that ……………………….., and this argument will be spoken by me, my self. The second reason (+3rd), ………………………………………….., will be spoken by …………………….. Later …. (name of the last group member) will conclude our arguments, and …….. will give a reply speech as the final speech from our team.

Ladies and gentlemen, (motion in negative sentence) because …………………….. (Assertion, reasoning, evidence, link back---- to link back, you can say: so, …………. Or To sump up, ………………… ) === no more rebuttal after arguments

An example for the 2nd affirmative speaker:

Ladies and gentlemen, the first speaker from the negative team said that ……………………………. Unfortunately, she/he fails to convince us because ……………………………… (alternatively, Unfortunately, their arguments is not logic because ……………………………………) ==== you can choose the way you want to rebut. === or you can also use your 1st speaker argument to strengthen your rebut.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. (after finishing rebut, you then present your argument)

Well, ladies and gentlemen, come to our 2nd our argument now, (say the motion) because …………………….. (Assertion, reasoning, evidence, link back, to link back, you can say: so, …………. Or To sump up, …………………) === no more rebuttal after arguments

An example for the 2nd negative speaker:

Ladies and gentlemen, the positive team said that ………………………….. (Arguments from 1st and 2nd speaker from the affirmative that you want to rebut). But, their arguments are illogical because ………………………… (Do your rebuttal) ==== you can choose the way you want to rebut. === or you can also use your 1st speaker argument to strengthen your rebut.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. (after finishing your rebuttal, you then present your argument)
Well, ladies and gentlemen, come to our 2nd argument now, (say the motion in negative) because …………………….. (Assertion, reasoning, evidence, link back, to link back, you can say: so, …………. Or To sump up, …………………) === no more rebuttal after arguments


An example for the 3rd affirmative speaker:

Ladies and gentlemen, the 1st arguments from the negative team had been rebut by the 2nd speaker from our team, however, I would like to add some more points about the argument that is …………………………………………………….
And the 2nd speaker from the negative team said that …………………………………, however I’d like to rebut it because ……………………………………………………………………………. (here you rebut all arguments from the negative team and ‘serang balik terhadap rebut yang telah mereka lakukan terhadap pembicara pertama dan kedua dari you team’) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(then continue your speech by stressing your previous arguments)
As what the 1st and 2nd speaker from our team said before, we stands in this motion because ……………………………….. (You can strengthen your team arguments here)
To sump up, I’d like to say that ………………………… and we are from the affirmative team keep standing on our motion today that is …………………..

An example for the 3rd negative speaker:

Ladies and gentlemen, the 3rd speaker from the affirmative team said that ………………………. However, her/his points are irrelevant/illogical-not logic because ………………………………………
(you can totally rebut)
The 1st and 2nd speaker from our team said that we can’t stand on the motion given by the affirmative team because …………………………………………………………………………………………………
(You can strengthen the arguments from your team here)
So, ladies and gentlemen, we keep in the position to against the motion given by the affirmative team.

An example for reply speech from negative team:

Ladies and gentlemen, for the motion from the affirmative team today, ……………………………………………, the affirmative team comes with ………… reasons that are: ………………. and …………….. Unfortunately the affirmative team fails to convince us because their arguments are not logic as said by our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speaker. The 1st arguments from the affirmative was …………….., but this arguments was successfully rebut by our 1st speaker that ……………….. also, for the 2nd argument from the affirmative team, ……………….., was strongly rebut by our team that …………………………….. (You can emphasis ‘bagaimana your team telah sukses me-rebut semua arguments dari team positive, or you bisa sebutkan point2 you yang kuat sehingga argument mereka menjadi lemah’)

For the case of our team’s position, our team had strongly emphasized that the motion should not stand because of ….. reasons that are ……………………. and ……………. For these reasons the affirmative team fails to rebut our arguments. They talked about …………… to rebut our ….. reasons, but their rebut is not logic because …………………………………….. (you can say here ‘semua argument you gagal di-rebut oleh affirmative)
So, because the affirmative team fails to rebut our arguments while their arguments fails to convince us, we keep in our position to against the motion. We would like to keep saying that , ……………………………………………. (motion in negative form)

An example for reply speech from affirmative team:

Ladies and gentlemen, for the motion today, ……………………………………………, we, as the affirmative team come with ………… reasons that are: ………………. and …………….. And during our debate today, the negative team fails to against our motion because they could not present logic rebuts for our arguments (you can say here ‘semua kegagalan team negative dalam me-rebut your argument)
For the case of negative’s team arguments, our team had rebut their arguments suceesfully. For example, their … reason, that is, ………….. . however, this point has been rebut by our … speaker. …………………………….. (You can emphasis ‘bagaimana your team telah sukses me-rebut semua arguments dari team negative, or you bisa sebutkan point2 you yang kuat sehingga argument mereka menjadi lemah’)

So, until the end of our debate today, we are from the affirmative team, keep stand in the motion that …………………………….. because the negative team fails to against our motion and our arguments.

== Good luck ==

For the members of English Debate:

Some Notes about Debate

Principle

The debate is between teams, not individuals. Each team member has a specific part of the team case to present, and must also attack the other side and defend the team from attack. As the debate progresses, more and more time must be spent dealing with issues already raised in the debate, and less and less time must be spent on new argument and issues.

Each team must persuade the audience that its argument is superior. To do this it must present sound logical arguments, it must present them in an interesting and persuasive speaking style, and it must structure and prioritise its arguments. All three aspects of debate are given emphasis. This competition does not encourage just pure argument or pure rhetoric on their own, but an effective blend of both.

• Debating is a clash of argumentations among the Government team and Opposition team

• Everything starts from the word “motion”

• Competitive debating aims to simulate a living, breathing parliamentary debate

• The soul of debating is to argue on policies, or propositions of thought; good or bad, effective or not effective, useful or useless

• Who shouts the loudest does not win!

Logical Argument

Suppose that two teams are debating the motion that "this house believes that we are all feminists now". The government chooses to interpret the motion reasonably literally: How does it prove its case?

Obviously it cannot ask everybody in the world whether or not they are feminists. Nor can it rely upon opinion polls: if the motion was as simple to prove as that, it wouldn't have been set for debate. Instead, it is going to have to make some generalisations about the motion in order to present a coherent argument within the time allowed.

For example, it could look at the public attitudes of important institutions in society such as governments big businesses, schools, religions, the media and sport. Part of its reasoning process would be that when the major institutions change their attitudes they either reflect the views of' the general public or, perhaps, lead the general public towards new attitudes.

The first government speaker could outline a central thesis that went something like this: "In today's society the major institutions generally adopt feminist attitudes. These institutions either lead society (such as the media) or reflect the views of the majority in society (such as parliaments and big business).

The Reply Speech

A reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or individual examples. The speaker must deal with the two or three major issues in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the speaker's team and work against the opposition team. As a general rule, a reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with individual examples probably doesn't understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good argument.

The Roles of the Speakers

The debate begins with a speaker whose arguments are entirely new. As it goes on, more and more time is spent dealing with what has been said by previous speakers, and less and less comes in that is new. By the end of the debate there is no new argument, and the speakers deal only with what has gone before.

If you were to graph this, there would be a line dropping from 100% new matter at first government to almost O% at third opposition and replies, and a corresponding line rising from O% rebuttal at first government to almost 100% rebuttal at third opposition and replies.

The first government defines the motion, outlines the government case, announces the case division, and presents her or his part of the case.

The first opposition deals with the definition if it is a problem, explains the important differences between the two team cases, and either outlines the opposition case, announces the case division, and presents her or his part of the case, or outlines the opposition's rebuttal case (i.e. the broad themes the opposition will use throughout the debate to rebut the government case) and expands on it.

The difference between these two approaches depends on whether the opposition is content just to present a rebuttal case, or takes the stronger route and presents its own alternative case as well.

The second government defends the government definition (if required) and case from the opposition attacks, rebuts the opposition case, and proceeds with her or his part of the government case. Somewhere around 2 to 3 minutes into the speech the speaker will turn from attacking the opposition to presenting the new part of the argument.

The second opposition does much the same as the second government, If the opposition is presenting its own alternative case as well, this speaker will turn from attacking the government to presenting the new part of the argument somewhere around 3 to 4 minutes into the speech.

The third government is going to spend a large part of her or his time attacking the other side. However, she or he can have a small part of the government case to present - Perhaps 1 or 2 minutes at the most. This is not obligatory, although many teams do it.

The third opposition is going to spend most of her or his time attacking the other side, rather than presenting significant new arguments, She or he can have an even smaller part of the opposition case to present, but again this is not obligatory. Note that the opposition reply follows straight on from this speech, so it is better for the third opposition to deal with the detail of the government case and leave the broad overview to the reply speech. The reply speeches are not going to delve into fine detail, but will take a broad approach to the issues of the debate. They should also summarise their own case either as part the analysis of the issues or towards the end of the speech as a separate section. For obvious reasons the reply speeches cannot introduce new arguments. Not only is this unfair but a complete misunderstanding of the role of reply speeches The reply speech is a summing up of the whole debate, not a chance to introduce new ideas.

DEFINITION OF A MOTION

•Scop Down The Debate

•Clarifying The Motion In Order To Have Good Understanding The Issue In Debate

•Preventing Debate From Turning Into A Confusing Exchange Of Ideas

•Has Logical Link To The Motion

Example:

Motion : That regional autonomy is a failure

Definition:

Regional autonomy: Implementation of autonomy regions in Indonesia based on Act no.22 and 25 years 1999

Failure : does not lead Indonesia to a better condition

Whole definition: “The implementation of autonomy in regions does not lead Indonesia to a better condition

Arguments (A – R – E – L)

— Assertion: Miss Universe contest degrades women

— Reasoning: because it puts a women in a position as an object and to be valued based on their appearance. Furthermore, the contest is aimed to be a commercial business, thus the contestants are positioned to be a commodity.

— Evidence: The adjudication process are 80% based on “beauty skill” while the “brain” session is only additional and the questions can be answered by elementary school students, like “ what will you do if you are a president?” While during the contest season, the event organizer open up many gamble sites to bet on who is going to win and gain more than 2 billions US$ dollar in 2006 only.

— Link back: So, because it becomes an arena of women objectification as well as a business commodity, the contest degrades women.

Rebuttal or Clash

The use of generalised cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. The opposition team cannot concentrate on attacking the examples used by the government. The examples might be weak, but the central case might still be sound. Instead, it will have to concentrate on attacking that case, because that is where the debate actually lies.

In the feminist motion above, suppose that the government team used as an example the pro-feminist attitudes of one newspaper from a small country town. If the opposition team attacked just that example, it would show only that the government has chosen a particularly weak example to illustrate its argument. But the government case might still be sound. It might be true that the media generally had feminist attitudes, even if the example it chose to illustrate the point was a poor one.

Therefore, to succeed in this part of the debate, the opposition would have to show that the media generally did not have pro-feminist attitudes. Of course: It could ridicule the government: "Is such a trivial example the best that you can find to illustrate your case?". But this would merely be part of the process of attacking the general proposition that the media is pro-feminist rather than an end in itself.

There is another consequence for rebuttal. It may be that the government has used a number of examples to illustrate the same point. If they can all be disposed of with the same piece of rebuttal, the opposition does not have to attack each of the examples individually as well.

For example, suppose that the government in the feminist debate looked at the attitudes towards feminism in the major religions of the country. The opposition could respond in two ways to this argument. It could rebut the supposedly pro-feminist attitudes in each of those religions. Alternatively it could argue that religion plays such a minor role in society that the feminist attitudes of religions are largely irrelevant to the debate. Thus it would be unnecessary for it to deal with each example of a major religion dealt with by the government, because all of them are irrelevant according to its arguments.

Example:

Motion: “This House would make the development of clean industry a condition for receiving non-emergency aid”

Affirmative	Negative
1st clash: Is clean industry justified or not justified to be tied to aid?
arg. 1: condition is meant to ensure that development happens to the fullest arg. 2: environmental degradation hampers development	arg. 1: condition is meant to engage the government arg. 2: there will be no governmental buy in to clean industry as a condition
2nd clash: Is the recipient country able or incapable to fulfill such condition?
arg. 1: the recipient country is capable, what is lacking is the political willingness	arg. 1: recipient country is a 3rd world country, they don’t have the resources to fulfill the condition
3rd clash: Would it promote or discourage good governance in the recipient country?
arg. 1: there will be monitoring from the donor arg.2: there will be public pressure	arg. 1: because condition is hard to meet, government of recipient country tend to misuse the money

(From some sources)

For the team of DEBATE:

Some Notes about Debate

Principle

The debate is between teams, not individuals. Each team member has a specific part of the team case to present, and must also attack the other side and defend the team from attack. As the debate progresses, more and more time must be spent dealing with issues already raised in the debate, and less and less time must be spent on new argument and issues.

Each team must persuade the audience that its argument is superior. To do this it must present sound logical arguments, it must present them in an interesting and persuasive speaking style, and it must structure and prioritise its arguments. All three aspects of debate are given emphasis. This competition does not encourage just pure argument or pure rhetoric on their own, but an effective blend of both.

• Debating is a clash of argumentations among the Government team and Opposition team

• Everything starts from the word “motion”

• Competitive debating aims to simulate a living, breathing parliamentary debate

• The soul of debating is to argue on policies, or propositions of thought; good or bad, effective or not effective, useful or useless

• Who shouts the loudest does not win!

Logical Argument

Suppose that two teams are debating the motion that "this house believes that we are all feminists now". The government chooses to interpret the motion reasonably literally: How does it prove its case?

Obviously it cannot ask everybody in the world whether or not they are feminists. Nor can it rely upon opinion polls: if the motion was as simple to prove as that, it wouldn't have been set for debate. Instead, it is going to have to make some generalisations about the motion in order to present a coherent argument within the time allowed.

For example, it could look at the public attitudes of important institutions in society such as governments big businesses, schools, religions, the media and sport. Part of its reasoning process would be that when the major institutions change their attitudes they either reflect the views of' the general public or, perhaps, lead the general public towards new attitudes.

The first government speaker could outline a central thesis that went something like this: "In today's society the major institutions generally adopt feminist attitudes. These institutions either lead society (such as the media) or reflect the views of the majority in society (such as parliaments and big business).

The Reply Speech

A reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or individual examples. The speaker must deal with the two or three major issues in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the speaker's team and work against the opposition team. As a general rule, a reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with individual examples probably doesn't understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good argument.

The Roles of the Speakers

The debate begins with a speaker whose arguments are entirely new. As it goes on, more and more time is spent dealing with what has been said by previous speakers, and less and less comes in that is new. By the end of the debate there is no new argument, and the speakers deal only with what has gone before.

If you were to graph this, there would be a line dropping from 100% new matter at first government to almost O% at third opposition and replies, and a corresponding line rising from O% rebuttal at first government to almost 100% rebuttal at third opposition and replies.

The first government defines the motion, outlines the government case, announces the case division, and presents her or his part of the case.

The first opposition deals with the definition if it is a problem, explains the important differences between the two team cases, and either outlines the opposition case, announces the case division, and presents her or his part of the case, or outlines the opposition's rebuttal case (i.e. the broad themes the opposition will use throughout the debate to rebut the government case) and expands on it.

The difference between these two approaches depends on whether the opposition is content just to present a rebuttal case, or takes the stronger route and presents its own alternative case as well.

The second government defends the government definition (if required) and case from the opposition attacks, rebuts the opposition case, and proceeds with her or his part of the government case. Somewhere around 2 to 3 minutes into the speech the speaker will turn from attacking the opposition to presenting the new part of the argument.

The second opposition does much the same as the second government, If the opposition is presenting its own alternative case as well, this speaker will turn from attacking the government to presenting the new part of the argument somewhere around 3 to 4 minutes into the speech.

The third government is going to spend a large part of her or his time attacking the other side. However, she or he can have a small part of the government case to present - Perhaps 1 or 2 minutes at the most. This is not obligatory, although many teams do it.

The third opposition is going to spend most of her or his time attacking the other side, rather than presenting significant new arguments, She or he can have an even smaller part of the opposition case to present, but again this is not obligatory. Note that the opposition reply follows straight on from this speech, so it is better for the third opposition to deal with the detail of the government case and leave the broad overview to the reply speech. The reply speeches are not going to delve into fine detail, but will take a broad approach to the issues of the debate. They should also summarise their own case either as part the analysis of the issues or towards the end of the speech as a separate section. For obvious reasons the reply speeches cannot introduce new arguments. Not only is this unfair but a complete misunderstanding of the role of reply speeches The reply speech is a summing up of the whole debate, not a chance to introduce new ideas.

DEFINITION OF A MOTION

•SCOP DOWN THE DEBATE

•CLARIFYING THE MOTION IN ORDER TO HAVE GOOD UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE IN DEBATE

•PREVENTING DEBATE FROM TURNING INTO A CONFUSING EXCHANGE OF IDEAS

•HAS LOGICAL LINK TO THE MOTION

Example:

Motion : That regional autonomy is a failure

Definition:

Regional autonomy: Implementation of autonomy regions in Indonesia based on Act no.22 and 25 years 1999

Failure : does not lead Indonesia to a better condition

Whole definition: “The implementation of autonomy in regions does not lead Indonesia to a better condition

Arguments (A – R – E – L)

— Assertion: Miss Universe contest degrades women

— Reasoning: because it puts a women in a position as an object and to be valued based on their appearance. Furthermore, the contest is aimed to be a commercial business, thus the contestants are positioned to be a commodity.

— Evidence: The adjudication process are 80% based on “beauty skill” while the “brain” session is only additional and the questions can be answered by elementary school students, like “ what will you do if you are a president?” While during the contest season, the event organizer open up many gamble sites to bet on who is going to win and gain more than 2 billions US$ dollar in 2006 only.

— Link back: So, because it becomes an arena of women objectification as well as a business commodity, the contest degrades women.

Rebuttal or Clash

The use of generalised cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. The opposition team cannot concentrate on attacking the examples used by the government. The examples might be weak, but the central case might still be sound. Instead, it will have to concentrate on attacking that case, because that is where the debate actually lies.

In the feminist motion above, suppose that the government team used as an example the pro-feminist attitudes of one newspaper from a small country town. If the opposition team attacked just that example, it would show only that the government has chosen a particularly weak example to illustrate its argument. But the government case might still be sound. It might be true that the media generally had feminist attitudes, even if the example it chose to illustrate the point was a poor one.

Therefore, to succeed in this part of the debate, the opposition would have to show that the media generally did not have pro-feminist attitudes. Of course: It could ridicule the government: "Is such a trivial example the best that you can find to illustrate your case?". But this would merely be part of the process of attacking the general proposition that the media is pro-feminist rather than an end in itself.

There is another consequence for rebuttal. It may be that the government has used a number of examples to illustrate the same point. If they can all be disposed of with the same piece of rebuttal, the opposition does not have to attack each of the examples individually as well.

For example, suppose that the government in the feminist debate looked at the attitudes towards feminism in the major religions of the country. The opposition could respond in two ways to this argument. It could rebut the supposedly pro-feminist attitudes in each of those religions. Alternatively it could argue that religion plays such a minor role in society that the feminist attitudes of religions are largely irrelevant to the debate. Thus it would be unnecessary for it to deal with each example of a major religion dealt with by the government, because all of them are irrelevant according to its arguments.

Example:

Motion: “This House would make the development of clean industry a condition for receiving non-emergency aid”

Affirmative	Negative
1st clash: Is clean industry justified or not justified to be tied to aid?
arg. 1: condition is meant to ensure that development happens to the fullest arg. 2: environmental degradation hampers development	arg. 1: condition is meant to engage the government arg. 2: there will be no governmental buy in to clean industry as a condition
2nd clash: Is the recipient country able or incapable to fulfill such condition?
arg. 1: the recipient country is capable, what is lacking is the political willingness	arg. 1: recipient country is a 3rd world country, they don’t have the resources to fulfill the condition
3rd clash: Would it promote or discourage good governance in the recipient country?
arg. 1: there will be monitoring from the donor arg.2: there will be public pressure	arg. 1: because condition is hard to meet, government of recipient country tend to misuse the money