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 奥瑞冈制, 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 (事实辩题)

"是在探讨与某种人事地物有关的某种客观现象是否存在或發生的辩题,例如「这杯咖啡是苦的」、「吸菸会导致癌症」、「联考是造成升学压力的主因」、「昨天他杀了人」等"

2. Resolution of value (价值辩题

"是探讨与某种人事地物有关的某种主观评价应属正面或负面,或是为两种人事地物排定优劣或重要顺序的辩题。换句话说,价值辩题不是在评价一个对象,就是评价两个对象,再根据评价结果排定其优劣高低。例如「吸菸是不良嗜好」、「储蓄是良好习惯」、「经济發展重于环境保护」等,都是价值辩题的例子。"

3. Resolution of policy (政策辩题

"也可以称为「行动辩题」(resolution of action),是探讨某个个人或团体是否应该採取某种特定行动的辩题。从语言结构来分析,政策辩题包含「主词」与「动词」两部份:主词是採取行动的个人或团体,一般称为主事者(ageet);动词则代表主事者预备採取的「行动」(action)。主词与动词之间再由一个「助动词」——「应该」或「应」字连结起来。例如「你应该唸医学院」、「公共场所应全面禁菸」、「我国应继续兴建核能电厂」,都是政策辩题的例子。"

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 奥瑞冈辩论 from 朝陽科技大學 in Taiwan.  Excerpts are as below:

1. 奥瑞冈辩论制度 (Oregon format)

  • 奥瑞冈辩论制是臺湾大学国际事务学会将其条规翻成中文,引进国内,继而东吴大学的正言社整理出五十六条的中文奥瑞冈辩论规则。自民国六十三年正式引进来后,一直都是我国辩论界中常用的一种比赛制度。

 

  • 目前国内大都使用三人制,所以我们介绍重点摆在三人制为主。

 

  • 比赛程式

(1)正一申论     (2)反二质询正一

(3)反一申论     (4)正三质询反一

(5)正二辩申论 (6)反三质询正二

(7)反二申论     (8)正一质询反二

(9)正三申论     (10)反一质询正三

(11)反三申论    (12)正二质询反三

(13)休息三分钟,抽籤决定结辩顺序

(14)先结辩方结辩   (15)后结辩方结辩

结辩后双方领队可提出抗议,同时请裁判讲评。

 

  • 比赛时间采「三、三、三」制,即申论三分钟、质询三分钟、结辩三分钟

  • 于申论、结论中,二分三十秒按铃一响,二分五十九、三分整各按铃一响,三分二十八、二十九、三十秒各按一响,主席强制臺上辩士下臺

2. Rules

  • 申论 (constructive speeches)

1.申论者于申论时,不得对他方为任何质询,否则视为违规

2.申论时间为三分钟,不足二分三十秒者,每15秒为单位扣一分,由计分单

 

  • 质询 (cross examination)

1.质询者得提出任何与题目有关之合理而清晰的问题

2.质询主得随时控制停止被质询者之回答

3.未经被质询者承认之言词,质询者不得引述以为质询

4.质询者于届满三分三十秒后,主席强制其下臺(但不满二分三十秒不扣分)

 

  • 回答 (responding to cross-examination)

1.被质询者不得提出反质询,否则视为违规

2.被质询者答復应保持「切题」之原则

3.被质询者得要求质询者重述其质询,但恶意要求重述者,视为违规

4.被质询者故意否认己方陈述之言词,视为违规

5.被质询者经质询者要求而不停止回答者,则称为抢答,视为违规

 

  • 申论、质询均告完毕后三分钟,开始做结论。

  • 结论 (summary, final focus, etc.)

1.结论由各方与赛者中选一为之

2.为结论者,应就己方之论点,加以整理陈述,或对他人已提出之论点加以反驳,不得对他方为任何质询或提出新论点,否则视为为违规。

3. Principles of debate

  • 正方立场

正方辩士的基本立场,就是要支持整个辩题。必须完整的支持整个辩题,不可违背辩题的任一部份。正方在支援其立场时,需要有建设性的论点,首先来介绍正方立论可以强调的两个层次:

 

a. 强调有需要

一般来说正方是要改变现状,既然要改变现状就必须要提出充分的理由,强调有改变的需要。

 

b. 强调有利益

有时有些辩题本身,并不能指出特定需要,或是同时满足需要的方法很多,此时诉求的重点,就在强调利益。如辩题为「我国应继续兴建核电」时,此时正方辩士除了应证明电力短缺外,更须表明核能發电有多大的利益,因为开發电源的代替方案蛮多的,此时唯有强调核电的强大利益来避免其他方案的干扰。

 

而利益本身无一定的标准,必须要比较才有意义,「两害权其轻,两利权其重」是相当重要的。比较利益在观念的运用相当广。辩士应将本身重要利益一 一举证,并与其他方案切实加以比较。正方除了不能违背辩题外,就一些题目而言,正方必须提出相当完整的计画,而计画要多详细就视题目而定。当辩论主题层次主要强调利益而不是需要时,计画的重要性更显着。否则仅空谈不切实际的观念,比较利益将无法落实。

  • 反方立场

一场比赛中反方的基本立场非常有弹性,只要能达到反对正方的目的就可以了,事实上,反方辩士可选择正方的任何一环来攻击,虽然立场可以有很多,但一确立了某一立场后也不可任意更改。基本上,反方辩士可有的基本立场有以下三类:

 

a. 维持现有状况

一般命题总以和现状相反的方式为主,反方自然可以提出以维持现状为主,做为反对正方的立场。维持现状的优点,反方可以省去思考代替方案,而可行性上也有相当的实证经验可兹凭藉,而缺点是现行体制都无法彰效成果时,更难说服他人。

 

b. 适度修改现状

在现状对反方不利时,适度去修改现状是极重要的。当然,其前提是建立在现状仍然有竞争力,如果已经烂到不能再烂,建议提出代替方案有较大的胜算。修改现状应避免与正方立场相溷淆。

 

c. 提出与正方相抗衡的计

如果现况一踏煳涂时,不妨提出另一代替方案和正方抗衡,抗衡方案必须要考量到其可行性,如果其趋向乌托邦的理想境界,便不符合辩论的宗旨。抗衡计画是具有出奇制胜的妙用,但其使用前必先要有慎重准备和考虑,这也正是常犯的错误之一,任何的一项论点和计画都必先经审慎考虑后才使用。这只有在维持现状及修改现状都已经行不通才使用,反方一提出替代方案,就有责任去说明计画的内容,接受正方质疑其可行性。

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),根属性,可行性 (practicality, solvency),损益比 (advantages - beneficiality).  For 根属性, 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. 对方辩友, 我想跟你釐清(clarify) 你方的立场,根据你所说的, ........

  2. 请对方辩友不要改变今天的辩题,今天的辩题是..........  而不是.............

  3. 请对方辩友不要将概念溷淆,按照对方辩友的逻辑 ......

  4. 请对方辩友不要迴避问题,你所说的......... 与我们所讨论的题目有很大的差距

  5. 对方辩友以偏概全............

  6. 我们从刚才就一再强调,今天我们讨论的A情况下会如何,而对方辩友总是举B情况下的例子,是不是「纸煳的月亮当太阳,偷天换日呢?」

  7. 对方辩友搞错了……恰恰是反映了……

  8. 既然对方辩友不喜欢谈……那我们谈谈……

  9. 对方讲的是……这一点我们并非反对,可问题是……

  10. 对方辩友既然说……就是……那麽我就请问……你们怎麽解释呢?

  11. 请对方辩友不要跳出讨论的论题之外

  12. 正如对方辩友所说的,你们的论点只有在……情况下才能成立,而我们要看好今天我们讨论的是在……情况下的论点,对方辩友是不是有点含煳其辞?强词夺理呢?

  13. 我们一再重申,只有……才会……什麽,而对方始终举不出正面例子来证明……总是拿……说是,难道在你们眼中,只有……才是……吗?

  14. 对方辩友非常狡猾,将……概念偷换成了……幸好我方独具慧眼……

  15. 对反辩友不尊重字典的定义,是不是先给我们一个理由。

  16. 对方辩友的论述,我方实在是难以苟同。

  17. 对方辩友一厢情愿……

  18. 对方辩友对……视而不见。

bottom of page