英文辩论稿

■ 2. Presenting the motion and case

<Motion>

<Background information to the motion>

<Defining the motion/Casing> (Note: of course, this is mainly the task of the Prime Minister)

■ 3. Showing the (government / opposition) “stance” (or “team line”) for the round.

■ 4. Presenting your speech outline and team allocation.

■ 5. Refutation

<Transition to refutation part>

<Basics of refutation>

■ 6. Explaining points.

■ 7. Conclusion

<Summary> Spend approximately 30 seconds to summarize your speech.

<Indication the end of your speech>

Refutation

Refutation, which is to point out the weakness of the other side’s arguments, can be formulated into six basic types as below:

① Not relevant: “What you said is not relevant with what you are trying to prove. “

e.g. [GOV] Korean government should abolish death penalty because Canada abolished.

[OPP] It is not relevant because we are debating on Korea not on Canada.

② Not true: “You are a liar!”

e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because it deters crimes.

[GOV] It is not true because crime rate is increasing even though we have death penalty.

③ Not always true: “What you said is not always true.”

e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because of the victim families’ feeling.

[GOV] It is not always true because peoples’ feelings are case by case.

④ Not significant: “What you said is not important at all.”

e.g. [OPP] Korean government should have death penalty because life in prison costs much more money.

[GOV] It is not significant because those who are sentenced death penalty are put into jail long years before they are actually being executed.

⑤ Alternative plan: “There is a better plan to solve the problem”

e.g. [GOV] Korean government should abolish death penalty because of the possibility of misjudgments.

[OPP] There is a better solution to the problem, which is to have three trial systems and introduce new technology for investigation. ⑥

⑥ Flip: ”What you said is the opposite. It is actually our point”

e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because Koran government should protect its citizens as government role.

[GOV]

Outline: Reply Speech

The purpose of reply speech is quite different from the constructive speeches (e.g. PM speech). In reply speech, you assume the role of adjudicators; to be more precise, you are to explain the reason why your side has won the round.

You are expected to do:

a. explain the criteria to judge the round

b. summarize the round focusing on issues (or “crash point”).

c. Provide new illustrations to emphasize your arguments.

1. Greetings

2. Showing the outline.

3. Pointing out the failures of the other side.

4. Comparing arguments focusing on issues (crash points).

5. Conclusion.