Debate

Debate
What is Debate???

Monday, February 8

The Leaders' everyday use point

Wanna know a little secret?

If you pay attention closely in any debate, it's like as if your rewinding the same arguments over and over again, just in different words or something synonym with the base word.

So why is it like that? well to make things simple for you actually in this world there is only one sure road to solving everything. For We Muslims our solution would only be words from Allah (the Qur'an and the Sunnah), while other people would use a simple everyday phrase that could win any debate: Logics.

Ever heard the phrase:

"What's so many people think that Islam is an illogical religion is because it is build on the basis of logics"


But that's not what we will be discussing in this post, rather I will be telling the very frequent points you could use in any debate, no matter how dumb or how high class they are, because to put in a nutshell you always use it weather you realize it or not. (Ok, so maybe there are some debates you can't use this, but the majority stays with these 4 points)

For Peacemakers/First Speakers the simple point you could use in any debate is the point under the keyword : Objective.

Objective, Mission, Vision, Goal, Significance call it anything you want, the reality is that (great) first speakers use this phrase (or something synonym with it) in their substantive arguments.

And here's the backlash:
If you don't give a point like this such, then your not doing your role as a first speaker i.e to introduce your side of the debate. Because points like this introduce your case without much talk.

Why in the world would you as a first speaker (FYI your role is to introduce your case) and then you go on and jump into an "extension type point" (I'll tell this later on) and somehow tell a whole different point then your main case. (No wonder the judges are always laughing, LOL)

But don't get confused, this is not just the only argument a first speaker could give out. You can use more than one point, this is even encourage or maybe even a win loose situation if you don't give out this other second point: Significance.

Ok maybe I just repeated that, but just to explain that when you give out a point like "Objective" then this the introduction of your side of the motion (How you look at the motion), whilst the point about the "Significance" is more towards you burden of proof (How you are going to win the motion). Don't get it? Ok so here's a simple example:

"THBT academic qualification ensures success in life"

A simple stand alone motion. Now firstly about the " Objective" point. When introducing the motion, both Government and Opposition first speakers can give this point, but in a different way.

Our PM might say that the "objective" of an academic qualification is so that the students can learn first, learn as much as they want, then test them on the theoretical knowledge so it could become practical. The higher the theoretical knowledge of someone shows that he will eventually know how to do it practically. That's the government side of "Objective"

Now the OL will also say something about "objective", but in a different perspective. First and for most, the OL will surely say that the PM's "objective" isn't actually plausible or is just not happening. and in some way that"s their point about "objective". They say that if this is the objective of academic qualification, then that's just not happening simply because it's only theoretical and not practical, as many people learn they just can't practice it because they are stuck with a book on their heads (Ouch).

Lets try something else:
"THBT Donald Duck should put on a pair of pants"

Now the key is to be creative, you've gotta think outside the box. So the objective or in a better keyword "the reason" of the designers didn't put a pair of trousers for Donald Duck is so he could be "famous" (or in other words, if your not wearing a pair of pants people will think back of Donald Duck). So if you were the PM then you would say that the reason you want Donald to put on some pants is because he would be famous, like mickey (FYI he's wearing pants).

And if you were the OL then you would say that Donald's already famous in his own character (have you never seen Donald having his own TV show or base on him?).
So eventually that becomes the basis of the your arguments and most important: the Debate.

Now I'm really sorry because about the significance point I'm not able to post it right now as it goes under the "burden of proof" topic, which I'll post as soon as possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment