top of page

mechanics of debate

There are different types of Chinese debate formats.  Two that we have had first hand experience are Debate Asia's own format (4 to a team, with grand cross-fire added in before the final focus) and 奧瑞岡制 (3 to a team), which originated in Oregon back in the 1970s. 

Below is a video description of 奧瑞岡制, which we will use for most of our debates. 

So, there are two teams, with three debaters to a team.

正方:正一, 正二,正三

反方:反ㄧ,反二,反三

Each position is different. The speech for the first position (正ㄧ,反ㄧ) is 100% pre-written and states the overall contention of their side.  The first cross-examination by either side (反二 > 正ㄧ,正三>反ㄧ)is mainly for cross-examining team to clarify and delineate the overall position of the opposing team, so that the former knows where to "strike" in the following speeches.  In a sense, the first cross-examiner (反二 or 正三)sets up the "ball" for the next debater to launch the attack.  Since 正ㄧ and 反ㄧ mainly read out their pre-written speeches and answer basic question about their positions, it is less taxing for those two debaters.

The speech of the second and third position can not be 100% pre-written, especially the third position. So, the team/coaches need to write down the basic script for common scenario, sort of Question & Answer. The third position typically is more adept at thinking quickly on the spot and forming their own speeches, base on the Q&A sheet.  The third position typically would then make the final focus, the concluding remark to tell judge why his/her team should win the debate. 

Students need to read-aloud all these documents (1st speech + Q&A) repeatedly at home so that they can respond quickly when getting cross-examined and coming up with the second or third speech (for 正二、正三 and 反二、反三).

**********

After teams are matched for a debate, the rest of the training starts within class period, with the coach's guidance.  The teams are free to meet outside of class time for additional practice.  The task of the noncompeting students are to become loyal opposition team to help the competing students prepare.  More specifically, three noncompeting students serve as the loyal opposition team and work out who will be ㄧ辯,二辯,三辯, and prepare as such.  If there is an additional student, check with the coach as to his/her role.  

Unless the coach suggests otherwise, team members can decide among themselves the debate positions.  For those doing debates on both sides of the topic, the first position (ㄧ辯)is easier to do, since the script is 100% pre-written.  With shorter time frame for beginners at 2 minutes for speech and 2 minutes for cross-examination, there are only enough time for 2-3 contentions for 一辯. 二辯 can add one or two points but need to start fighting back, based on the what the opponent's ㄧ辯 said and what the first round of cross-examination turns up, poking holes at the opponent's contention. 三辯 tends to do more of the same and needs to think quick on the feet, and starts wrapping up the debate.  三辯 tends to do the 結辯 but it can be anyone, trying to convince the judge why your team should win.  A team needs to convince the judge, not the opponent, in debates.

 

Pay attention to the sequence of debaters.  We will post a script for the moderator student (主席), if any, to read to help guide the debaters during debate as to which debater is up next.  Otherwise, the coach will do it.  Sometimes one of my daughters will help out as the moderator.  We will set 30 seconds of times after each speech or cross-examination for the team to regroup.  Feel free to use an alternative video or audio conference software for the teams to communicate to each other during debate.  During the debate, debaters CANNOT ask or receive assistance from outside the team or via online resources.

As the students see improvement in their Chinese proficiency and understanding of the debate process, we will increase the speech and cross-examination time to 2:30 minutes, 3:00 minutes, and so forth.

These are some of general things I learned about debate.  If the coach has other plans, I defer to the coach.

Here is a fun Chinese TV series on college debate that my younger DD and I enjoyed watching recently, suitable for teenagers.

There are different types of debate resolution or topics.  From what I have read, one way to categorize them is to divide them into three major types.

1. Resolution of fact (事實辯題)

"是在探討與某種人事地物有關的某種客觀現象是否存在或發生的辯題,例如「這杯咖啡是苦的」、「吸菸會導致癌症」、「聯考是造成升學壓力的主因」、「昨天他殺了人」等"

2. Resolution of value (價值辯題)

"是探討與某種人事地物有關的某種主觀評價應屬正面或負面,或是為兩種人事地物排定優劣或重要順序的辯題。換句話說,價值辯題不是在評價一個對象,就是評價兩個對象,再根據評價結果排定其優劣高低。例如「吸菸是不良嗜好」、「儲蓄是良好習慣」、「經濟發展重於環境保護」等,都是價值辯題的例子。"

3. Resolution of policy (政策辯題)

"也可以稱為「行動辯題」(resolution of action),是探討某個個人或團體是否應該採取某種特定行動的辯題。從語言結構來分析,政策辯題包含「主詞」與「動詞」兩部份:主詞是採取行動的個人或團體,一般稱為主事者(ageet);動詞則代表主事者預備採取的「行動」(action)。主詞與動詞之間再由一個「助動詞」——「應該」或「應」字連結起來。例如「你應該唸醫學院」、「公共場所應全面禁菸」、「我國應繼續興建核能電廠」,都是政策辯題的例子。"

In a way, resolution of fact is about determining if a certain fact exists.  So, it is important to find evidence to support the fact.    A resolution of value is to about whether a certain phenomena is "good" or "bad" or which of two things is more important.  So, it is important to find standard or framework of comparison.  A resolution of policy is whether a certain action should be taken.  

An issue can be examined in different aspects to come up with different types of resolution.  An example would be: 1) Resolution of fact: Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. 2) Resolution of value: Smoking is a bad habit.  3) Resolution of policy: The government should ban smoking.

Well, I better stop before I get out of my depth!

The above is a document I found on the details of 奧瑞岡辯論 from 朝陽科技大學 in Taiwan.  Excerpts are as below:

1. 奧瑞岡辯論制度 (Oregon format)

  • 奧瑞岡辯論制是臺灣大學國際事務學會將其條規翻成中文,引進國內,繼而東吳大學的正言社整理出五十六條的中文奧瑞岡辯論規則。自民國六十三年正式引進來後,一直都是我國辯論界中常用的一種比賽制度。

 

  • 目前國內大都使用三人制,所以我們介紹重點擺在三人制為主。

 

  • 比賽程式:

(1)正一申論     (2)反二質詢正一

(3)反一申論     (4)正三質詢反一

(5)正二辯申論 (6)反三質詢正二

(7)反二申論     (8)正一質詢反二

(9)正三申論     (10)反一質詢正三

(11)反三申論    (12)正二質詢反三

(13)休息三分鐘,抽籤決定結辯順序

(14)先結辯方結辯   (15)後結辯方結辯

結辯後雙方領隊可提出抗議,同時請裁判講評。

 

  • 比賽時間采「三、三、三」制,即申論三分鐘、質詢三分鐘、結辯三分鐘

  • 於申論、結論中,二分三十秒按鈴一響,二分五十九、三分整各按鈴一響,三分二十八、二十九、三十秒各按一響,主席強制臺上辯士下臺

2. Rules

  • 申論 (constructive speeches)

1.申論者於申論時,不得對他方為任何質詢,否則視為違規

2.申論時間為三分鐘,不足二分三十秒者,每15秒為單位扣一分,由計分單

 

  • 質詢 (cross examination)

1.質詢者得提出任何與題目有關之合理而清晰的問題

2.質詢主得隨時控制停止被質詢者之回答

3.未經被質詢者承認之言詞,質詢者不得引述以為質詢

4.質詢者於屆滿三分三十秒後,主席強制其下臺(但不滿二分三十秒不扣分)

 

  • 回答 (responding to cross-examination)

1.被質詢者不得提出反質詢,否則視為違規

2.被質詢者答復應保持「切題」之原則

3.被質詢者得要求質詢者重述其質詢,但惡意要求重述者,視為違規

4.被質詢者故意否認己方陳述之言詞,視為違規

5.被質詢者經質詢者要求而不停止回答者,則稱為搶答,視為違規

 

  • 申論、質詢均告完畢後三分鐘,開始做結論。

  • 結論 (summary, final focus, etc.)

1.結論由各方與賽者中選一為之

2.為結論者,應就己方之論點,加以整理陳述,或對他人已提出之論點加以反駁,不得對他方為任何質詢或提出新論點,否則視為為違規。

3. Principles of debate

  • 正方立場

正方辯士的基本立場,就是要支持整個辯題。必須完整的支持整個辯題,不可違背辯題的任一部份。正方在支援其立場時,需要有建設性的論點,首先來介紹正方立論可以強調的兩個層次:

 

a. 強調有需要

一般來說正方是要改變現狀,既然要改變現狀就必須要提出充分的理由,強調有改變的需要。

 

b. 強調有利益

有時有些辯題本身,並不能指出特定需要,或是同時滿足需要的方法很多,此時訴求的重點,就在強調利益。如辯題為「我國應繼續興建核電」時,此時正方辯士除了應證明電力短缺外,更須表明核能發電有多大的利益,因為開發電源的代替方案蠻多的,此時唯有強調核電的強大利益來避免其他方案的干擾。

 

而利益本身無一定的標準,必須要比較才有意義,「兩害權其輕,兩利權其重」是相當重要的。比較利益在觀念的運用相當廣。辯士應將本身重要利益一 一舉證,並與其他方案切實加以比較。正方除了不能違背辯題外,就一些題目而言,正方必須提出相當完整的計畫,而計畫要多詳細就視題目而定。當辯論主題層次主要強調利益而不是需要時,計畫的重要性更顯著。否則僅空談不切實際的觀念,比較利益將無法落實。

  • 反方立場

一場比賽中反方的基本立場非常有彈性,只要能達到反對正方的目的就可以了,事實上,反方辯士可選擇正方的任何一環來攻擊,雖然立場可以有很多,但一確立了某一立場後也不可任意更改。基本上,反方辯士可有的基本立場有以下三類:

 

a. 維持現有狀況

一般命題總以和現狀相反的方式為主,反方自然可以提出以維持現狀為主,做為反對正方的立場。維持現狀的優點,反方可以省去思考代替方案,而可行性上也有相當的實證經驗可茲憑藉,而缺點是現行體制都無法彰效成果時,更難說服他人。

 

b. 適度修改現狀

在現狀對反方不利時,適度去修改現狀是極重要的。當然,其前提是建立在現狀仍然有競爭力,如果已經爛到不能再爛,建議提出代替方案有較大的勝算。修改現狀應避免與正方立場相混淆。

 

c. 提出與正方相抗衡的計畫

如果現況一踏糊塗時,不妨提出另一代替方案和正方抗衡,抗衡方案必須要考量到其可行性,如果其趨向烏托邦的理想境界,便不符合辯論的宗旨。抗衡計畫是具有出奇制勝的妙用,但其使用前必先要有慎重準備和考慮,這也正是常犯的錯誤之一,任何的一項論點和計畫都必先經審慎考慮後才使用。這只有在維持現狀及修改現狀都已經行不通才使用,反方一提出替代方案,就有責任去說明計畫的內容,接受正方質疑其可行性。

Then it goes on and on.......  You get all that?!  Download the document and see it for yourself.

Below is a table of the positions for a three-person team debate and some of the classic languages often used in Chinese debate, probably more for policy debate, with English equivalent as best as I can gather: 需要性 (justification - necessity),根屬性,可行性 (practicality, solvency),損益比 (advantages - beneficiality).  For 根屬性, I think it is about "inherency", which "refers to a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo", per Wikipedia. There are four main types of inherency: structural, gap, attitudinal, and existential.

Some of the things that I have heard or common languages used in Chinese debate that I found on the internet:

  1. 對方辯友, 我想跟你釐清(clarify) 你方的立場,根據你所說的, ........

  2. 請對方辯友不要改變今天的辯題,今天的辯題是..........  而不是.............

  3. 請對方辯友不要將概念混淆,按照對方辯友的邏輯 ......

  4. 請對方辯友不要迴避問題,你所說的......... 與我們所討論的題目有很大的差距

  5. 對方辯友以偏概全............

  6. 我們從剛才就一再強調,今天我們討論的A情況下會如何,而對方辯友總是舉B情況下的例子,是不是「紙糊的月亮當太陽,偷天換日呢?」

  7. 對方辯友搞錯了……恰恰是反映了……

  8. 既然對方辯友不喜歡談……那我們談談……

  9. 對方講的是……這一點我們並非反對,可問題是……

  10. 對方辯友既然說……就是……那麼我就請問……你們怎麼解釋呢?

  11. 請對方辯友不要跳出討論的論題之外

  12. 正如對方辯友所說的,你們的論點只有在……情況下才能成立,而我們要看好今天我們討論的是在……情況下的論點,對方辯友是不是有點含糊其辭?強詞奪理呢?

  13. 我們一再重申,只有……才會……什麼,而對方始終舉不出正面例子來證明……總是拿……說是,難道在你們眼中,只有……才是……嗎?

  14. 對方辯友非常狡猾,將……概念偷換成了……幸好我方獨具慧眼……

  15. 對反辯友不尊重字典的定義,是不是先給我們一個理由。

  16. 對方辯友的論述,我方實在是難以苟同。

  17. 對方辯友一廂情願……

  18. 對方辯友對……視而不見。

bottom of page