Coaching Primer:

By Jeremy Farrell

This document is merely a guide for coaching students, which supplements the existing training
materials. It should not be considered exhaustive by any means.

Types of Debates that your teams will encounter

A conceptual understanding of debating theory is actually very important for students at all levels,
because the type of debate will determine how they approach it. There are 3 broad categories of
debates:
1) Normative debates (Model debates)
2) Empirical debates (Test debates)
3) Ideas debates

Normative Debates
A normative debate can typically be identified by the wording of the topic, which will usually contain
the word “should” or “would”, e.g. “That Australia should become a republic”. A normative debate
(as anyone who has looked up the word normative will realise) is about the way the world should
be, hence the common use of the word “should” in the topics. A normative debate requires a model
not because “thems the rules” but because logically it will be advantageous to have one. For
instance, consider the example topic “That Australia should become a republic”. While many of you
may not remember the Australian referendum on republicanism, the basis on which the vote for a
republic was defeated was due to the particular model of republic proposed. There seemed to be
clear evidence from poll data that a majority of Australians at the time favoured a republic in which
the President (replacing the Governor General) would be elected directly by the people, but not a
model which would see them elected by the Parliament. And so the model proposed was a decisive
factor.

Also, from a logical point of view, it is difficult to argue in favour of something without a grounded
idea of what you are arguing. If the motion you are in favour of is “That Education should be free”
then you are going to sound pretty silly if you try to argue the debate in the abstract. You need to
explain what your proposal (model) for making education free is. Will you be making University free
(read: Government subsidised)? Will you be making all secondary schools free (the logical extension
of which is to prevent private schools levying fees)? Will you be proposing another plan? A model
gives you a prism through which you will be able to focus and clarify your arguments, which in turn
makes it easier to win (More on this later).

Empirical Debates
An empirical debate can also typically be identified by reference to the wording of the topic, which
usually contains the word “is”, “has” or “are”, e.g. “That feminism has failed”. An empirical debate,
as science buffs will have guessed, is a debate about the way the world is, not about how is should
be, so a model for how you would change the status quo (the way things are presently) will be
unhelpful in an empirical debate. Much like a scientist, you need a test to act as a benchmark or
yardstick to prove the merit of your arguments. Much like a model, this gives focus, consistency and
clarity to your arguments.

Ideas Debates
An unusual and rare debate in which neither a model nor a test will be appropriate. It is highly
unlikely you will come across an ideas debate at a school level. It can be difficult to identify such a
debate, often it may appear to be a test or model debate in wording, but when one logically
considers the motion they realise that neither would be adequate tools for the debate. For example,
the motion “That Karl Marx would have approved of the internet” would be an ideas debate.
Despite the presence of the word “would” in the topic, it is clear that you are not being asked to
provide a model to show that a deceased individual will like the internet. It’s clearly not a debate
about how the world should be because Marx is dead; you can’t make him do anything via a positive
proposal. Likewise, the motion is poorly suited to a test, because it is not a debate about how the
world is as Marx is long dead, and it will be difficult and problematic to come up with a concise and
simple metric to show that Marx would approve of something so far outside of his experience (the
internet having not been invented or brought into mainstream use until over a century after his
death). Thus the debate requires neither, and is purely a clash of opposing ideas and arguments,
unbound by models and tests which try to narrow and quantify the scope of the debate, which to
many is the appeal of this form of debate. Similarly, the motion “That we regret the fall of the USSR”
would fall into the ideas category of debate, rather than a test or model debate. A test would be
more feasible in this debate than the former, but it would prove difficult to encompass the manifold
and entangled considerations at hand in such a debate.

Don’t always assume “should” means normative, and “is” means a test!
The wording is not always decisive though, sometimes topics will be worded in a deceptive way,
which when you consider logically is not actually helpful in determining the nature of the topic. For
example, the topic “That what happens in the Pacific is Australia’s problem” poses difficulties. The
topic would frankly be less messy and more easily debated as a normative debate despite the
presence of the word “is” in the topic. It proves difficult to debate what happens in the pacific
without proposing a) what Australia’s current position is, b) what Australia’s new position should be
(eg, a model), and thus to explain that (which one must in order to give the debate a firm and more
precise context) and then propose a test is to basically try and have a model and test debate at the
same time. Remember, some topics may not even have the word “is” or “should” in them, and
require you to think logically about what the topic is asking of you, e.g. “That Australia no longer
needs Unions”.

Test debates too messy?

Some debaters hold to the idea that tests ruin debating, and in most cases it is invariably better to
run a test debate as a normative/model debate. This is an issue with significantly differing views,
with the majority probably preferring to run prima facie empirical debates as test debates (while
assiduously weeding empirical motions out of tournaments). Why do tests ruin debates? Because
the Affirmative will want to put a low burden on themselves, and the negative will invariably want to
put a higher burden on them, and so much of the debate is consumed with each side arguing about
which test is more appropriate, at the expense of arguments. You’ll also probably find it much more
difficult to find a suitable test than a suitable model in your prep time. How can you run a test
debate as a model one? Pretty easily when you consider what has been noted above about the
fluidity of topic wording. Take the initial example of a test debate above; “That feminism has failed”.
Instead of proposing a test to determine if it has, you would merely open the debate by arguing it
has failed, and here is the model your team would implement to fix it (which will probably be some
sort of affirmative action program). The debate then becomes about your proposal, and the other
team usually runs with it by default anyway (even if they’re not clear on what is going on).

How to construct a good model

It is important to remember that there is no such thing as a ‘magic bullet’ or ‘ultimate model’ that
will win any debate. A model is only a tool you can use to improve your chances of winning,
debating is largely about arguments. Remember, what works as a model in one debate may not
work in another debate, like everything debating is context sensitive. There are some things you can
do to improve your use of models however:
  As you should know from other notes on structure, your set up and explanation at 1 st
speaker should usually be out of the way by the first minute. With that in mind, don’t make
your model overly complex. There is nothing wrong with having a multipronged model, but
if the model has 5 or more steps (or sub-steps), and is full of technical information that
everyone can’t remember then it’s not going to be a very effective tool. Generally you want
to keep your model fairly simple and concise.
 Obviously get the model cleared up at the start of your speech, don’t leave it till the end.
The entire model comes out at 1st speaker, not later in the debate.
 If a model necessarily needs to contain technical aspects, sometimes it is best to steal a real
life model for the solution. For example, in the debate “That we should create a Palestinian
State” the Affirmative might simplify their model by saying they support “the Geneva
accords” model, or “the Camp David peace deal” or another real life plan. Of course, you
still need to give audiences the gist of what your plan involves, but this lets you deal with
issues that may arise in relation to the plan which you would otherwise not have time to
explain in the set up (e.g. “who controls the water supply?”, to which you can refer them to
the relevant part of said plan, and shut them down quickly).
 Just as with definitions, keep in mind that if your model removes any clash in the debate it is
probably a bad model. For example, if the topic is “That the US should get out of the Middle
East” and we’re in 2006. If the affirmative proposes that the US suspend military aid to
Israel “until they pull out of Lebanon” then they’ve just broken the debate. Because a) what
they’ve proposed is a very small thing (so a soft model), which will do nothing; and b)
everyone knew Israel would pull out of Lebanon in a matters or weeks/months, and so the
Affirmative model would be a futile slap on the wrists. On the other hand, sometimes a
model can cleverly shift the expected clash in a debate legitimately, for instance in the
debate “That we should pay compensation to victims of terrorism”. Here the affirmative
could have a model the proposes funding the payments using only frozen terrorist funds,
thus shifting the issue from one of taxpayer compensation to an act of basic reparation.

How to forge a good test

Again, just remember there is no magic test you can apply to all debates. After that, it’s often a
matter of what not to do in a test. Just remember, that if your test is unreasonable (or even if it’s
not) the chances are the negative will have a test of their own which they want to assess the motion
in reference to (proposing a test on the negative is fine, it doesn’t have the same implications as
challenging the definition does), so you need to decide what sort of burden you’re willing to fight
for, and whether you can sell it as being a fair and credible test. For instance, a patently
unreasonable test, which the negative should never accept, would be as follows. In the debate
“That my pet rock has magical powers” the affirmative might define these magical powers as being
“the incredible ability to keep tigers away” and then suggest the test for this power is “I don’t see
any tigers around”. Obviously while amusing, this would be an unfair burden. There is nothing
wrong with trying to make your test multipronged though, but again be wary of making it too
complex. A basic (if uninventive) test for the topic “That feminism has failed” could be “if feminism
has done more harm than good” then it has failed. Alternatively the negative could suggest that “if
the position of women in society has improved since the feminist movement began” then it has
succeeded (though that test has problematic causality).

Hung Tests
When you propose your test, your test must all come out at the first speaker. If you try to address
one step/limb of the test at first, and another at 2 nd (or 3rd god forbid) your case is hung. The other
team has not had a fair chance to reply to your whole case, and you will be hard put to win. It also
gives you less time to line up your arguments in a logical way. All your arguments should feed into
the bar you are using for your test; your test (or steps of your test) should not be points in and of
themselves. An example is the debate “That the US is an evil empire”. The Aff may set up a two step
test, to prove that the two necessary criteria for their case (that the US is a) An empire, and b) Evil).
If the 1st speaker only discusses reasons for why the US is an empire, the case is hung. For those
wondering, the same test could be presented in a way that would not be hung. For instance, the
first speaker might discuss the foreign policy reasons why the US is a) an empire, and b) evil, while
the second speaker might discuss the environmental reasons why the US is a) an empire and b) evil.

Winning Debates
I will not regurgitate here the importance of rebuttal and having good arguments. This is covered in
a lot of other materials, and you should understand the importance of winning the arguments in
order to win the debate. However, there are many minor techniques and factors that contribute a
surprising amount to winning debates, especially against school level opponents.

Something that most school teams and coaches rarely even notice happening is when the other
team establishes an underlying reality early on in the debate, which they present as being a fact,
when it is merely a point of view. The underlying reality is then rarely challenged by the other team,
and is taken as being true for the duration of the debate, usually to the considerable detriment of
the opposing team. Underlying realities in a debate are many and varied. One team may assert that
“underage drinking is a serious problem” and/or that “we must act now to stop it” before it spirals
out of control. A report or study (the contents of which are probably long and complex, and which
may have limited terms of reference) is usually wheeled out to justify this claim. Alternatively, the
team may try to establish that “binge drinking is not a problem in countries where the drinking age is
lower”. The opposing team should contradict such claims as quickly as possible (provided it is
strategically sound), as the longer they wait the less effective their refutation is. Teams usually just
accept such assertions without thinking, and so let the other team set the tone and scope of the
debate, which may not be at all accurate.

Another commonly used technique is “push debating”, the practise of trying to push a burden onto
the other team, which you claim they must satisfy to win the debate e.g. “To win this debate, the
negative must prove that not a single person will benefit from our policy” (rather than a more
nuanced analysis of the effects of the policy). Push debating is not as effective as commonly
believed, because the adjudicator is not stupid and knows what the other team is doing. However if
the other team has not refuted their supposed burden as being invalid, or responded to it, they
allow the team to assert that they have accepted/failed their burden. There is also a school of
adjudicating that seems to unduly reward claims of this sort, so for that reason it is also important to
clearly and concisely reject such false burdens.

Teams sometimes do not create enough clash in the debate; perhaps both teams run too soft, and
are arguing almost the same thing, or don’t consider the full spectrum of possible arguments.
Sometimes it can be highly beneficial to run a more extreme argument in a debate, creating more
clash between the teams. In a debate “That Workchoices is fair to workers” why hamper yourself
trying to argue that the Howard Government’s Workchoices policy helps protect workers current
rights and entitlements? The more logically sustainable case would be that it is fair because workers
shouldn’t have rights like the minimum wage, etc, and that these rights hurt the poorest workers
anyway (a standard Hayek or Friedman style case).

Teams also assume too often that certain rights must exist in a debate “just because” they seem
right. It sounds obvious to most people when you say “torture is wrong”, and nobody ever asks you
for a further explanation on the matter. But when you are in a debate this may not always be the
case. You need to substantiate and justify rights that your opposition does not concede, and on
which the debate hinges. In most debates both teams will concede torture is bad, making further
discussion moot. However, in a debate on torture, especially a debate that presumes the efficacy of
torture, rights arguments are crucial, e.g. “That we should support rendition of terrorist suspects”.
It’s silly and implausible to argue rendition won’t lead to abuse or torture of terrorists, so why argue
against it? The more logically sustainable and consistent case is one that advocates torture as an
effective way of producing intelligence. In a debate on legalising duelling, you should not assume
that both teams will put the same value on human life.

Even in a seemingly normal debate, your opposition may decide to take an especially “tough line” on
the motion. Example: That we should get tough on Iran; while most debates will be run along
standard geo-political lines, a particularly crazy team might argue that we should begin a nuclear
war, and Iran should be the first target, because life is not very valuable and it is time we ended it
(cue lengthy philosophical arguments about value of life). Now, a case like this is running against the
grain to some degree, in 3 on 3 style in the eyes of some judges it would border on an a prima facie
unreasonable case, but if the negative wants to win they must engage on the grounds set by the
affirmative, and cannot simply assert in a few sentences that “obviously life is important” before
returning to the case they had already prepared about geopolitical considerations. The affirmative
in such a motion has no easy task either. They have set themselves a high, counter intuitive burden.
But if they meet it, and you do not engage with it, you are likely to lose.

Concluding Thoughts
Debating can seem at times like a series of technical skills and tricks, such as having polished
structure or producing a “tricky” test or model. However, as a student grows more skilled they
eventually realise the opposite is true. Skills like flawless structure and timing are used to give
beginners a way to focus their arguments when they are working their way up, just as in English
fundamental principles of grammar are beaten into students. When a student has mastered
structure, they find that the next step is being able to learn to abandon it as necessary. Sometimes a
truly great speech will have rebuttal and substantive matter seamlessly woven together. As a
speaker debates at a higher level of competition, models and definitions often require less emphasis
or explanation. Ultimately, debating is about a clash of conflicting ideas and arguments, and not
technical rules, which are merely a tool for students to develop their ability to speak. If rules of
grammar always had to be followed to produce great work then James Joyce would never have
developed stream of consciousness for Ulysses. If the rules of storytelling such as “show, don’t tell”
were always adhered to, then Jane Austen would never have written acclaimed novels like Pride and
Prejudice. Of course, the chances are your students are not the next Austen & Joyce (at least not
yet), so for now it is a very good idea to stick to basic structure. But it should not be forgotten that
debating is about an exchange of ideas, not flaccid box ticking and formulae.