Australasian Debate

Australasian debate has three debaters on each team, and two teams in each debate, called the "affirmative" and the "negative." Each side gets three constructive speeches, one for each speaker, alternating between the two teams. Constructive speeches are usually seven minutes long, although the exact time can vary from tournament to tournament. Some, but not all, tournaments also give each team one rebuttal, called a reply speech, starting with the negative. There are no points of order, personal privilege or information.

In Australasian debate, more than in other formats, each speech has particular responsibilities, and adjudicators specifically examine if these responsibilities are met. This is called "method," and it is the deciding factor in many debates.

Method includes many things. In addition to the case, called the "definition" in Australia, each team must have a "theme line." The "team line" is a one-line summary of why the House should adopt or reject the case. Another important part of method is the "allocation." Each team must divide its argumentation into two parts, each of which independently proves why the definition should or should not be adopted. The first speaker for each side must explain, "I will speak about X, and our second speaker will speak about Y." The second speaker then must devote about half to two-thirds of his or her speech to "Y". The third speaker of each team must summarise the debate and refute the other side. Refutation takes up over four-fifths of the third affirmative and negative speeches. New arguments in support of the team's side are not permitted, and will be penalised by the judges.

The resolution or topic is always decided by the affirmative and negative together. For each round, the tournament organisers give three resolutions, often connected by a theme. Each team in the debate may then veto one, with the last becoming the resolution of the debate.

Basics of a debate

A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These two teams will be referred to as the Affirmative and the Negative. Members of each team are assigned positions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd speakers. Teams are given thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each debate.

Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of seven (7) minutes duration and either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides will deliver the reply speeches for their teams. Reply speeches will be five (5) minutes. Thus, the complete speaking order is as follows:

• 1st Affirmative – 7 min.

• 1st Negative – 7 min.

• 2nd Affirmative – 7 min.

• 2nd Negative – 7 min.

• 3rd Affirmative – 7 min.

• 3rd Negative – 7 min.

• Negative Reply – 5 min.

• Affirmative Reply – 5 min.

Each speech is given 20 seconds of time extension. The time is counted as the very first word uttered by the speaker. During the time given for speeches, no one else may interrupt/interject the speaker except the chairperson, and only if absolutely necessary.

A warning knock will be sounded at the end of the sixth minute for a substantive speech and at the end of the fourth minute for a reply speech. The speaker is expected to complete his speech in the allotted time. After 20 seconds, a continuous knock will be sounded and the speaker shall be penalized for any further continuance of the speech.

Motions and Motion Selection

Motions, sometimes also known as topics, are propositional statements that determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate, the Affirmative team must argue to defend the propositional statement, and the Negative team must argue to oppose the propositional statement.

Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about:

• That we should give President Habibie a chance.

• That Indonesia should change its constitution.

• That football is overvalued in today’s society.

• That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the bad effects of smoking.

• That American pop culture is a threat to civilization.

• That long is better than short.

Adjudication

Adjudication is the process of determining which team wins the debates. The debate shall be adjudicated by a panel of an odd number of adjudicators (1, 3, 5, or 7). There is always a winner in a debate. There are no ‘draws’ or ‘ties’. The speakers are assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is 40% (27-29 points), Manner is 40% (27-29 points), and Method is 20% (13-17 points), making a total of 100% for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter and Manner are 13-17 and Method is 6,5-8,5. Substantive speeches points are marked as follows:

Matter & Manner	Method	Meaning
27	13	Very poor
28 – 29	14	Below average – poor
30	15	Average
31 – 32	16	Above average – very good
33	17	Excellent

Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples brought up during the course of the debate. Manner is concerned with the style of public speaking – the use of voice, language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality as a medium for making the audience more receptive to the argument being delivered. There are no set rules, which must be followed by debaters. Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, the effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.

The gap shown in the debate is marked by margin in points. However, the winning decided by adjudicators is not by the points awarded. Instead, the points should reflect the adjudicators’ decision. Margins in points must be between 1 and 12. They have the following meaning:

Margin	Meaning
1-4	A very close debate with only minor differences separating both teams.
5-9	A relatively clear decision with one team having an obvious advantage.
10-12	A very clear win

Roles of Speakers

The 1st Affirmative speaker introduces the motion and defines the key terms in the motion. This definition is intended to limit the scope of the debate to a specific and focused area. The 1st Affirmative then goes on to state the stand of the Affirmative, and presents the strategy, or theme line, that the team will use in order to justify this stand.

Definitions should be reasonable, clear and true to the spirit of the motion. Truistic, tautological and circular definitions are strictly prohibited. Squirreling (definitions that are in no way related to the spirit of the motion) and time/place setting are also not allowed.

The Negative team must not just oppose the motion, but also build a counter-case against the Affirmative team. In the event that the Negative feels that the definition is invalid, the 1st Negative speaker may challenge the Affirmative’s definition and propose an alternative definition. However, the Negative cannot raise a definitional challenge simply on the basis that their definition is more reasonable.

The 2nd speakers from both teams must further their cases by building upon the framework that has been laid out by their 1st speakers, by giving arguments that prove their theme line, and supporting those arguments with facts.

The 3rd speakers from both teams have the main duty of rebutting the arguments and points brought up by their opposing team. The 3rd speaker on the Negative is not allowed to bring up new matter. However, new examples to support points introduced earlier are allowed.

First Speakers

AFFIRMATIVE

Definition.
You should explain what the key terms mean, this may require you to set the debate if the definition has more than one meaning or is not clear. Be careful not to define trusitically which is where you leave the other team arguing the unarguable like hunger is good. Your definition must be reasonable which means it should not be obscure; it could relate to issues in the media at the time.

Theme line.
This is a short phrase or sentence which focuses the arguments of your team. It should be a uniting point that can be repeated, not word for word, but the gist of it. This should underline the approach your team is taking to the debate.

Team summary (split).
Where you allocate the arguments between you and your second speaker; it is important so that you can develop your case without being repetitive and so the audience can see where you’re going

Case.
Now is the time to develop your argument. Divide this area into a couple of points and carefully signpost your matter. Argue by issue, not example and at the end, briefly recap and state how the next speaker will build.

NEGATIVE

Definitional issues.
State whether you accept of reject your opponent’s definition. If you accept then move onto rebuttal. You may reject the affirmative's definition if it is truistic (self-proving; irrebuttable). Remember that if you accuse a team of a truism, you must not be able to rebut them. You may also reject if you believe your definition is more reasonable you must state the difference, why yours is better and why your opponents is not as good. If your opponent gives a perfectly reasonable definition that you did not anticipate then try not to challenge, as it is messy.

Theme line.
State the alternate approach or view of the issue that your team holds.

Rebut.
Criticise your opponent's arguments. Do it in a structured way maybe dividing it into two or three main themes and carefully signposting your way. Be careful not to rebut the examples but the issues.

Team summary (split).
Same as for the affirmative.

Case.
Develop like affirmative.

Second Speakers

AFFIRMATIVE

Summarise.
Briefly summarise what has happened in the debate and how your speech will build on the first speaker's speech in order to prove the theme line. This should be very brief.

Rebut.
Rebut the main arguments of your opponents. Good rebuttal should not come in the form of a list where the longest list wins. Rather, good rebuttal should simplify your opponent’s case into a few central issues, which you can then attack. When rebutting, you should first deal with any definitional issues that may have arisen. Also remember to use examples to support your counter arguments.

Case.
Once you have rebutted, you should then spend your time putting forward the substantive arguments of your team, as this is your main role. These arguments should be signposted and they should, in turn, be discussed in depth. The concept of discussing in depth is not as daunting as it seems; it can be likened to writing essays where you write in paragraphs, not sentences. So too in debating, your matter should be 'in paragraphs' where you state your premise, explain the premise and then support that premise with examples. After that, a good essay writer and debater will summarise.

Summarise.
Recap what you have said to make it clear that both you and your first speaker have been building a case.

NEGATIVE

Summarise.
As stated before, make sure that you contrast the developments of each case and briefly state how you plan to continue that development.

Rebut.
This should follow the structure of the second affirmative. However, remember that since there have been two preceding affirmative speeches, you will have considerably more to rebut and thus rebuttal will need to be more comprehensive. Summarise your speech and the case of your team, trying to put the speech into an overall context by looking also at the approach of your opponents. However this contrast need only be brief, as you will have dealt with the main issues of your opponent in rebuttal.

Case.
Now you must put forward your substantive material. Again, do all the good matter and method things: keep relevant, structure logically (in paragraph form as mentioned just to the left), carefully signpost all of your arguments and support all of your arguments with examples, or at least whenever you can.

Summarise.
Summarise your speech and the case of your team, trying to put the speech into an overall context by looking also at the approach of your opponents. However this contrast need only be brief, as you will have dealt with the main issues of your opponent in rebuttal.

Third Speakers

AFFIRMATIVE

Summarise.
Highlight the main themes of each side and show the contrast. Number these main themes so you can substantively rebut your opponent next. Rebut.
You should spend 80-90 percent of your speech doing this. You should pick a few main themes to rebut - your opponents may have already set these up in their own split and allocation. This allows you to rebut thematically rather than move from one inconclusive example to another. Just as you put forward your arguments in paragraphs not sentences, do the same for your rebuttal. Keep signposting! You should not really have time to worry about new material.

Summarise and conclude.
Recap the main themes of the debate, after your substantial rebuttal, you should be able to contrast theme lines confidently highlighting how your case is superior.

NEGATIVE

Summarise.
Highlight the main themes of each side and show the contrast. Number these main themes so you can substantively rebut your opponent next.

Rebut.
You should spend 80-90 percent of your time rebutting. Again, like mentioned for 3rd aff, you should highlight and rebut main themes as opposed to multiple examples - remember that when the issue underlying the example falls, so does the example but not necessarily vice-versa. Under no circumstances can a third negative speaker introduce new material but if it is a new example to clarify a previously put theory or rebuttal of material then this will NOT be considered new material.

Summarise and conclude.
Again, go over the main themes, comparing and contrasting. Though you have last say, you need not yell to be convincing. Be clear and concise and identify the important issues.

Reply Speeches

Reply speeches are required in the Australasian format. Reply speeches are not nearly as daunting as they seem, and it is probably fair to say that most debates are decided by the time you get to replies. However, in close debates, they count. If you are doing a reply, you should spend you time (you get half the time of a normal speech / consequently half the marks) highlighting the main issues of the debate. If you find two or three critical issues, concentrate on these and why your team is correct and why your opponents have not dealt with these issues as well. Try not to get bogged down with individual examples or peripheral issues. Hit the main issues and leave on that note with a good quick summary.

http://www.clubs.mq.edu.au/muds/Australs/3on3debating.htm