Proposed JFK Assassination Debates

[John Simkin]

I would like to propose two-people debates on the forum about various aspects of the JFK assassination. I think it would be better if we restrict it to two people as so often others join threads and the debate goes off the subject. I think online debates work better if the two participants deal with each other’s points. These debates would be very useful to researchers. I believe it is possible to make these debates the standard work on these subjects. I will then link the discussion to the appropriate pages on my website. I will also include passages from the debates to the sources section of the page.

If you are interested in this idea, please post the subject you wish to discuss.

[Karl Kinaski]

I do not think, that this is a good idea, because other persons often add things which the two debaters are not aware of...

BTW: "Restriction" always sound bad regarding to any forum..."

It would be a step backwards...

KK

[John Dolva]

It's an idea with merit, imo, but how to ''enforce'' it?

It will inevitably spawn numerous exchanges and even the ''view 40 topics on one page'' (enabled in personal settings) options, advantage would be compromised giving voice to fewer and fewer still.

How about opening the ''jfk debate'' topic on page one (ed research) for this particular sole purpose? The restrictions could then be easily understood and policed.

[William Kelly]

I would pay a HBO Friday Night Fights Special rates for a debate between Professors Fetzer and Ken Rahn on the subject of critical thinking and the JFK Assassination.

BK

[Karl Kinaski]

How about opening the ''jfk debate'' topic on page one (ed research) for this particular sole purpose? The restrictions could then be easily understood and policed.

Yeah, this is a good idea...

Kk

[William Kelly]

I would pay a HBO Friday Night Fights Special rates for a debate between Professors Fetzer and Ken Rahn on the subject of critical thinking and the JFK Assassination.

BK

Okay, I'll stop trying to be funny.

I think the ideas expressed by JD and KK can make it interesting if the paramators are arranged so it will be a learning experience for everybody and take the research - what is known - further, and not just agree to disagree in the best possible words.

John McAdams says he used an alias to go to a COPA conference because he was afraid of being asaulted. And I think that same fear of CTs has kept many LNs away, though now they seem to be crawing aboard. And I've found a friendly welcome at McAdam's forum when I wandered over there.

The rules of debating forensics are well established and I think they shoud be referred to, or should the Marquis of Queensbury Rules apply?

BK

[John Simkin]

I do not think, that this is a good idea, because other persons often add things which the two debaters are not aware of...

BTW: "Restriction" always sound bad regarding to any forum..."

It would be a step backwards...

KK

There would be nothing to stop people sending PMs or emails to one of the debaters. There would be nothing to stop them putting this information on another thread.

[William Kelly]

I do not think, that this is a good idea, because other persons often add things which the two debaters are not aware of...

BTW: "Restriction" always sound bad regarding to any forum..."

It would be a step backwards...

KK

There would be nothing to stop people sending PMs or emails to one of the debaters. There would be nothing to stop them putting this information on another thread.

I think it would work if certain rules and principles are agreed on, as well as the questions being debated.

The Vermont Rules of American forensics are based on British Parlementary Rules that allow for a wide variety of participants, including teams, judges and evaluations of evidence and even audience participation.

The Queensbury Rules only allows for two and the best man always wins.

http://iml.jou.ufl.e...ntura/rules.htm

Queensbury Rules

1. To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a twenty-four foot ring or as near that size as practicable.

2. No wrestling or hugging allowed.

3. The rounds to be of three minutes duration and one minute time between rounds.

4. If either man fall through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, ten seconds be allowed to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner; and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his awart in favour of the other man.

5. A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.

6. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.

7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee (is) to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest, to that the match can be won and lost, unless the backers of the men agree to draw the stakes.

8. The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.

9. Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction.

10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes.

11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed.

12. The contest in all other respects to be governed by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring.

Edited July 22, 2010 by William Kelly

[Ian Kingsbury]

I do not think, that this is a good idea, because other persons often add things which the two debaters are not aware of...

BTW: "Restriction" always sound bad regarding to any forum..."

It would be a step backwards...

KK

There would be nothing to stop people sending PMs or emails to one of the debaters. There would be nothing to stop them putting this information on another thread.

I think it would work if certain rules and principles are agreed on, as well as the questions being debated.

The Vermont Rules of American forensics are based on British Parlementary Rules that allow for a wide variety of participants, including teams, judges and evaluations of evidence and even audience participation.

The Queensbury Rules only allows for two and the best man always wins.

http://iml.jou.ufl.e...ntura/rules.htm

Queensbury Rules

1. To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a twenty-four foot ring or as near that size as practicable.

2. No wrestling or hugging allowed.

3. The rounds to be of three minutes duration and one minute time between rounds.

4. If either man fall through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, ten seconds be allowed to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner; and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his awart in favour of the other man.

5. A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.

6. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.

7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee (is) to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest, to that the match can be won and lost, unless the backers of the men agree to draw the stakes.

8. The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.

9. Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction.

10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes.

11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed.

12. The contest in all other respects to be governed by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring.

Bill

Its a great idea but I fear some of them would need aid getting INTO the ring let alone being carried out .But yes I would love to see the Heavyweights square up to each other ,Perhaps a call to Mr.Don King would help proceedings?.

ps.Please do not stop being funny it gives you an edge.

Ian

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ian Kingsbury

[John Dolva]

Couldn't just a little bit of hugging be allowed?

Does airgel nikies count as spring boots?

Wouldn't it alter this forum section so much that already existing problems would increase?

A shift to another section devoted to this suggestion could just possibly ameliorate said issues.

[John Simkin]

I would like to propose two-people debates on the forum about various aspects of the JFK assassination. I think it would be better if we restrict it to two people as so often others join threads and the debate goes off the subject. I think online debates work better if the two participants deal with each other’s points. These debates would be very useful to researchers. I believe it is possible to make these debates the standard work on these subjects. I will then link the discussion to the appropriate pages on my website. I will also include passages from the debates to the sources section of the page.

If you are interested in this idea, please post the subject you wish to discuss.

Some of the posters on this thread have made this point for me. Could you please keep on topic. I would prefer it if you started your own thread if you want to make silly jokes.

[William Kelly]

Not being funny. If you think that you can sponsor a serious debate between John McAdams, DVP, Dave Reitze, Dale Myers and other Lone Nutters, and those who disagree with them on this forum, then you better figure out how to manage such a debate. After giving the idea some thought, I think that it could work if you utilize the standard Parlementary Style using the Vermont Rules. In order to get serious they have to agree with you over what the format and rules are going to be, as well as the questions or propositions debated, which can't be silly either. Something like Oswald : Assassin or Fall Guy? Or The JFK Assassination, Coincidence or Conspiracy? Or Oswald: Psycho or Agent? - BK

Code Duello: The Rules of Dueling

http://www.pbs.org/w...sofdueling.html

The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

by Robert Branham Professor of Rhetoric & Director of Debate Bates College and John Meany Director of Forensics Claremont McKenna College

Spring, 1998

Debating has long been a vital part of American education. Training in debate improves valuable analytical and speaking skills, and enables the discussion of important issues, whether scientific, historical, religious or political. It contributes to the intellectual and ethical development of its participants by challenging them to make defensible judgments in which they must critically investigate complex issues, question given assumptions, evaluate the reliability of data and consider alternative perspectives. Debate stimulates and refines communication skills that empower individuals to speak for themselves, to discover and use their own voices. But most students debate because it is also fun. Debating provides a unique intellectual challenge and excitement, as Malcolm X reflected in his Autobiography:

Standing up there, the faces looking up at me, the things in my head coming out of my mouth, while my brain searched for the next best thing to follow what I was saying, and if I could sway them to my side by handling it right, then I had won the debate--once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating.1

Academic debate takes many forms, some highly specialized and others less formal, some that emphasize research and prepared arguments, and others that stress extemporaneous speaking and analytical skills. Parliamentary debate has long been the predominant form of competitive academic debating in most English-speaking nations. It is now the most widely practiced type of intercollegiate debate in the United States and many American secondary and middle schools have also begun to develop parliamentary debating programs. This guide explains the formats and procedures of parliamentary debate for use in classes, public debates, and competitive tournaments.

Based loosely on the deliberative discussions of the British House of Commons, parliamentary debate is lively and audience-oriented. The House of Commons, unlike the U.S. Congress, permits no written speeches from its members. Similarly, no speeches, briefs, or quotations are read in parliamentary debates. The debaters speak extemporaneously in parliamentary competition, using only the notes they have made during the debate and preparation period.

Parliamentary debate differs from other forms of competitive debate in several additional ways. Parliamentary debates are more oratorical, witty, and accessible to general audiences. They are shorter than traditional policy debates, making them well-suited to classroom use. Parliamentary debates have relatively few rules; they feature less jargon and fewer theoretical arguments. The rules of parliamentary debating are primarily designed to ensure that debates are evenly matched and enjoyable. Because parliamentary debating is less technical than other forms of debate and easier to learn, most students are able to begin debating in this format almost immediately.

Formats

The specific formats, rules and conventions of parliamentary debating vary in different nations and leagues.2 One of the virtues of parliamentary debate is its flexibility. Speaking times. numbers of speakers, judging and other elements of the debate format may be altered to accommodate particular needs and purposes.

In competitive parliamentary debating, each round of debate has a different topic announced just before the debate begins. The amount of preparation time varies, allowing from ten minutes to (in British secondary school tournaments) one hour of preparation between the announcement of the topic and the beginning of debate. 3 Fifteen minutes is the most common allotment.

During preparation time, the participants analyze the proposition and outline their major arguments. They ask themselves: What does this proposition mean? What important issues are raised by it? How may it be affirmed or denied? What examples and events are relevant to its discussion? The answers to these and other questions will serve as the foundation for the government case and prepare the opposition for its refutation. Some tournaments and competitive leagues permit the use of dictionaries, texts and other prepared materials during preparation time. Others limit or even prohibit coaching and use of prepared materials prior to the debates.

The first speaker for the proposition must use some of the preparation time to organize the main issues of the case into a logically complete and persuasive form to convey the best possible impression of the their case. The first speaker therefore uses preparation time to arrange the essential elements of the case into a brief outline. The argument outline should clearly bring the major elements of the case into relation with each other and constitute a complete case on behalf of the motion.

A standard American tournament format for parliamentary debate consists of six speeches:

First proposition constructive speech 7 minutes

First opposition constructive speech 8 minutes

Second proposition constructive speech 8 minutes

Second opposition constructive speech 8 minutes

Opposition rebuttal 4 minutes

Proposition rebuttal 5 minutes

The speakers for the proposition (sometimes called the government), open and close the debate in defense of the motion. Unlike other forms of American team debate, parliamentary debate features just one rebuttal per side. The rebuttal is given by the first constructive speaker for each team.

The presiding officer of each debate is the Chair, or Speaker of the House (usually a judge or moderator). The Speaker of the House manages the debate, recognizes the speakers, and rules upon any disputes that arise in the course of the round.4 The Speaker introduces each debater in turn. There is no preparation time between speeches. After one speech is finished, the Speaker of the House calls upon the next debater to proceed.

In most American tournament debating, there are two persons on a team, with one person on each team speaking twice. Public debates often feature three-person teams, with a different person giving each speech in the debate. Three-person teams allow more people to participate and provide more variety for audiences.

Topics

Parliamentary debates may either have set topics, known days or weeks in advance of the debate, or be conducted extemporaneously. In American parliamentary debating, set topics are used primarily for one-on-one debates between two schools and for public debates, so that the topic can be announced and publicized. Set topics permit advance research, brainstorming and practice debates. In the debates themselves, however, minimal notes are used and no speeches or briefs are read. Written quotations are used sparingly or not at all. Parliamentary tournament debating is generally extemporaneous., with a different topic announced a few minutes before each round. 5

Each speaker position in parliamentary debate also involves specific responsibilities for the discussion of the motion.

First speaker, proposition

The opening speaker establishes the framework for the debate and establishes a logically complete case for the proposition. This involves an expository presentation in which the speaker may define any ambiguous terms of the motion, interpret the motion through a clear case statement, offer a history of the issue in controversy, and disclose any limitations for the discussion. After such preliminaries, the first speaker should state and support the main arguments of the case.

Interpretation of the motion. The motion should mean the same thing to all participants in the debate. To that end, the proposition team has the responsibility to clarify the ground for debate by defining any distinguishing, technical or ambiguous terms of the resolution. Debates in which ambiguous terms are not clearly defined in the opening speech often go astray, lacking clash and clarity. A debate on welfare reform, for example, in which the opening speaker failed to explain what the government meant by '~welfare" (food stamps or farm subsidies?) and 'reform" (abolish, reduce or expand?), for example, would probably be a waste of time. Clear definitions permit clear debate.8

In addition to defining any unclear terms of the motion, the first speaker should offer a concise case statement. The case statement should plainly express the government's interpretation of the motion in one sentence, such as "federal income tax should be set at a flat rate" or "high schools should not conduct warrantless searches of student lockers." The wording of the case statement is very important; it will frame the discussion and determine the relevance of arguments. It should be carefully transcribed by ail participants in the debate. Once presented, the case statement may not be changed.

The case statement should clearly advance a controversial claim, capable of affirmation and denial, susceptible to proof and disproof. The case statement can be based on a narrow construction of the motion or an understanding that is creative,...

...The first proposition speaker must provide a case against which there are strong and principled arguments. Some interpretations of a motion do not provide for effective debate. The government's interpretation must not constitute a truism, a claim (e.g., "Murder is reprehensible") that no reasonable person would oppose. In parliamentary debate, the opposition may argue that a given case is not sufficiently debatable. The second proposition speaker is then expected in the next speech to demonstrate that strong opposition arguments do exist, or else lose the decision....

Burden of proof

In most debates, the first proposition speaker supports the motion by advocating something new, challenging established ideas, or attempting to settle an issue in public controversy. It is the obligation of the person who affirms the motion to prove the case. In a criminal court case, the defense may file a motion for dismissal if the prosecutor has failed to provide a well-substantiated case for conviction. Similarly, the first speaker for the proposition has the burden of establishing a case for the motion. As Raymond Alden explained in his 1900 treatise on The Art of Debate, there is an "obligation resting upon one or other parties to a controversy to establish by proofs a given proposition, before being entitled to receive an answer from the other side." This responsibility rests, he concluded, "upon the side that would be assumed to be defeated if no progress at all were made in the consideration of the case."9 The government's burden of proof is met through the presentation and support of its major arguments, or case.

The case.

The first proposition speaker should establish interest in the motion and case through an introduction. The introduction should demonstrate the timeliness of the case, perhaps by recounting a recent story or contemporary context for the controversy....

After providing necessary definitions and a clear case statement, the first proposition speaker should outline from two to four major points in support of the case statement. Each of these points should be signposted as clearly and concisely as possible. Each point should be fully explained and supported by examples, complete in itself and distinct from the other main issues....

The first speaker should offer a complete and compelling case for the motion. The opening speech should be concluded by a restatement or summary of the main points of the case.

First speaker, opposition

The duty of the opposition is to provide clash, promoting a choice between the proposal advanced by the proposition team and some other course of action or position. The Opposition should make clear why the motion before the house should be defeated.

The job of the Opposition in extemporaneous debate is very challenging. When a linkable resolution is used, the opposition will often have no idea of what the proposition team 5 case will be until the first speaker begins. But the Opposition's job is made easier by the requirement that the proposition team advance a case that provides strong and principled ground for the opposition. If the proposition team has met its burden, the opposition should be able to discover good arguments on first hearing the case.

The Opposition speaker may choose to contest the definitions or case statement that the government has established for the debate. If these are not disputed in the first Opposition speech, they are presumed to be tacitly accepted for the remainder of the debate. Definitions should only be disputed when the fairness and debatability of the proposition are at stake. Debates that center on definitional disputes are almost always less enjoyable than those that center on the issues of the

case.

The first opposition speaker attempts to weaken or nullify the case for the proposition, usually by refuting the main points of the case. This is called direct refutation. The Opposition analyzes the first proposition speaker's arguments, pointing out logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the main lines of proof. The first Opposition speaker should also identify any of the common errors of case construction that the proposition team has committed, including ignored exceptions to case examples, the improper combination of arguments, and overdrawn conclusions.

The opposition is not obliged to dispute or disagree with every argument, or even every main point, of the proposition team's case. In fact, many debaters miss important Opportunities for winning arguments because they feel compelled to negate each of the ideas their Opponents introduce. It may be to the advantage of the opposition to agree with or concede one or more elements of the proposition team's case. An opposition speaker may choose to agree with an argument by the team defending the proposition in order to simplify or focus the discussion on more salient issues, to reveal a contradiction or inconsistency, or to use an argument from the proposition side to support the opposition's position. A speaker should, however, address the vital issues of the other side, whether by strategically agreeing with them or contesting them.

Although the Opposition often defends existing policies against the proposition team~s proposal for change, the first Opposition speaker may choose to present a countercase, defending a new course of action mutually exclusive with that presented by the proposition.10 The countercase is often designed to address a problem area identified in the case. For example, on the topic, 'This House believes in pacifism," the proposition team might support a position of complete military nonintervention. Rather than defending current patterns of military intervention, the Opposition might instead defend a position of limited or conditional intervention -- supporting intervention only against overt acts of territorial aggression or only in cooperation with multilateral Organizations, for example. The countercase is not a defense of current national security policy, nor is it compatible with the proposition team's complete prohibition of military intervention. The proposition team's case maintains a universal principle of nonintervention, while the opposition case allows selected use of military intervention. The countercase is designed to resolve many of the examples of bad military intervention cited in the proposition case and to provide the Opposition's own worthy exceptions to the motion.

Second speakers, proposition and opposition

The second (also called 'member") constructive speeches for each side have similar responsibilities. They should effectively refute the important arguments of the opposing side and amplify the strong arguments initiated by their colleagues. The member speeches are the last for each side in the debate in which new arguments and issues may be introduced.

The member speakers should concentrate on sustaining the core arguments for their side. The second speaker for the proposition should advance the main lines of the case presented in the opening speech so that they cannot be convincingly disputed in the remaining speeches. To this end. the second proposition speaker should refute all important objections presented by the preceding opposition speaker and provide new examples or other forms of additional support for the main points of the proposition team's case.

The second speaker for the opposition may support the objections of the first Opposition speaker, present additional objections, defend and expand the opposition's countercase if one has been presented, and evaluate inconsistencies between the arguments of the first and second proposition speakers. For both second speakers, the primary duties are extension and amplification--ensuring that all major issues for both sides have been covered and that the important arguments for their side have been expanded with additional support.

Rebuttals

Most good debates are won or lost in the rebuttals. The rebuttals are the summary speeches for each side of the debate, the last opportunity each side will have to explain why they should win. Rebuttals are a final opportunity to contrast the major positions and philosophies of the proposition and opposition. Skilled rebuttalists in parliamentary debate do not attempt to cover every minute issue that has been discussed in the debate, but rather to deal in depth with those issues that will have a substantial bearing on the decision to uphold or defeat the motion. The shorter time of rebuttal speeches necessitates selectivity. Rebuttalists should paint the "big picture" of the round, sorting out the decisive issues from those that are less important.

New arguments may not be introduced in the rebuttal. Arguments presented in the rebuttal must have a foundation in the constructive speeches. The proposition rebuttalist is entitled to answer new arguments made in the second opposition speech, because the final rebuttal is the first Opportunity that the proposition team has to refute these issues.

The opposition has the first rebuttal speech. This speech should offer an effective summation of the main issues of the debate, demonstrating how important points for the opposition undermine support for the motion. The opposition rebuttalist should carry through important issues from the constructive speeches, illustrating the significant dimension of each issue in qualitative or quantitative terms. The opposition should generally avoid "putting all its eggs in one basket" by offering several independent reasons to reject the motion.

The proposition has the final speech in the debate. This speech should summarize the entire debate from the perspective of the proposition, focusing the discussion on a group of powerfully unified ideas. The final rebuttalist should extend the important arguments from the constructives, offer multiple, independent proofs of the motion, and contrast the main arguments of the Opposition with those in favor of the motion.

Points

In parliamentary debate, a debater may rise to make a point while another person is speaking. There are three types of points that may be made: points of order, points of personal privilege, and points of information. Points of order and points of personal privilege are rarely used and should be reserved for important violations of debate protocol. Points of information are a regular part of most parliamentary debates and are much more common than the other two.

Points of order.

One may rise to a point of order when a member of the other team has violated the rules for debating. There are few rules in parliamentary debate, so a point of order is usually called only when (1) an opponent has introduced a new argument in rebuttals or (2) an Opponent has gone significantly Overtime.

A point of order is addressed to the Speaker of the House. The person making the point rises from his or her seat, interrupts the person speaking, saying, "Madame/Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order," and then states the violation. The clock is stopped while the point of order is under consideration. In most parliamentary competition, a point of order is not debatable; the Opposing team is not permitted to comment upon it. 11 The Speaker of the House rules immediately upon the completion of the point and says, "Point well taken," "point not well taken," or "point taken under consideration," if no immediate ruling is possible. The Speaker of the House may take the results of the point of order into account in their deliberations, penalizing the team or speaker that has committed the violation.

Points of personal privilege.

A debater may rise to a point of personal privilege during an opponent's speech when his or her position or argument has been seriously misstated by the Opposing speaker. A point of personal privilege is addressed to the Speaker of the House, who then rules upon it. A point of personal privilege is not debatable.

Points of information.

Points of information are a dynamic and enjoyable part of parliamentary debate. They take the place of the cross-examination periods used in other American debating formats. Unlike cross-examination, however, points of information are raised during the speech of the person questioned. The point of information is a brief rejoinder (fifteen seconds or less) to the point then being made by the person speaking. It may be a concise statement or a pointed question. A point of information is also sometimes used for purposes of clarification. Unlike the point of order or personal privilege, the point of information is directed to the person speaking rather than to the Speaker of the House...

Each constructive speaker in the debate should both offer and accept points of information. A speaker who declines to accept any points may seem to fear the opponent s arguments. On the other hand, a speaker who accepts too many points of information loses control of his or her speech. Usually, a constructive speaker will accept two or three points of information. Points of information are an integral part of parliamentary debating. The English-Speaking Union's guidebook explains that "offering points of information, even if they are not accepted, shows that you are active and interested in the debate. Accepting them when offered shows that you are confident of your arguments and prepared to defend them. A team that does neither of these is not debating."12

Types of Cases

There are several distinct types of cases in parliamentary debate. Some are similar to those used in other forms of debate, others are quite different. Because the proposition team is given great latitude in its selection of cases, debaters have the opportunity to discuss issues of particular interest for them, whether drawn from current events, sports, popular culture, literature, science, history or ethics, for example. So long as the case provides the basis for a good debate, the proposition team on a linkable motion may talk about virtually anything. The most common forms types of cases used with linkable motions are these:

Current national or international policy controversies

Russia should be admitted to N.A.T.O…

Local controversies of broader interest

Dade County, Florida should permit concerts by Cuban musicians.

Time-space cases

Time-space cases stipulate an alternative identity for the adjudicator (as a specific person, group, or Organization) and an alternate time and/or place at which the debate is conducted.

Floor Speeches

In public parliamentary debates and in the final rounds of tournaments, floor speeches by members of the audience are sometimes permitted between the constructives and rebuttals. ,,

Public Debates

In an increasingly polarized and fragmented society, more individuals need the opportunity to engage each other and contest ideas about the common good. By participating in public debates, students may promote community discussion of controversial issues and encourage democratic participation and expressions of difference in the public sphere.

Public debates may be held in schools, primarily for audiences of students and teachers, or at non-academic sites in the community for wider audiences.

Parliamentary debate, with its combination of issue analysis, rhetorical skill, humor, and lively interaction, is enjoyable for general audiences. The debate format helps frame the discussion of current controversies and educates audiences in different ways of approaching social and political concerns.

A good public debate will promote the desire of those attending it to speak for themselves about the issues raised. The standard parliamentary debate format is easily modified to include public participation in the discussion. Public parliamentary debates often provide an opportunity for floor speeches from the audience between the constructives and rebuttals. Some public debates feature questions from the audience or open discussion after the debate.

Public debates can become an important forum for communities with few existing opportunities for public expression. They also encourage student participants to consider community perspectives on issues and to adapt their own persuasive appeals to community interests and concerns.

Rules of Forensics

VERMONT RULES OF DEBATE

ORDER OF SPEECHES:

First affirmative constructive speech 8 minutes

Cross-examination of first affirmative by either negative speaker 3 minutes

First negative constructive speech 8 minutes

Cross-examination of first negative by either affirmative speaker 3 minutes

Second affirmative constructive speech 8 minutes

Cross-examination of second affirmative by other negative speaker 3 minutes

Second negative constructive speech 8 minutes

Cross-examination of second negative by the other affirmative speaker 3 minutes

First negative rebuttal 4 minutes (novice) or 5 minutes (varsity)

First affirmative rebuttal 4 minutes (novice) or 5 minutes (varsity)

Second negative rebuttal 4 minutes (novice) or 5 minutes (varsity)

Second affirmative rebuttal 4 minutes (novice) or 5 minutes (varsity)

Preparation time during the rounds shall be 8 minutes total for each team to be used in portions as needed before a team's next speech, but not before a cross examination.

CROSS EXAMINATION RESPONSIBILITIES

Each debater is responsible for two cross-examinations - one cross-examination as the questioner and one cross-examination as the respondent. When a team has one debater serving as the questioner for more than one cross examination period or serving as the responder for more than one cross examination period, that debater's team will forfeit the round of debate. (This is known as the Closed Cross-X rule.)

A debater may waive his or her cross-examination period. If a debater plans to waive his or her examination period, the individual must notify the judge and the timekeeper in order to ensure accurate timing procedures. The waiver of cross-examination time does not allow the three-minute period to become additional preparation or presentation time for the team that exercises the waiver.

SPEAKING ORDER

Teams are permitted to switch speaking order in the rebuttal speeches. The other team and the judge(s) must be notified before the debate of the switch in speaking order. Failure to notify, before the debate, the opposition and the judge(s) of the switch in speaking order will result in a forfeiture loss for the team switching speaking order.

USE OF CHARTS

No non-verbal communication will be acceptable in a round of debate. Charts or pictures will not have any weight as evidence in a round.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TEAM MEMBERS

The oral direction or prompting of a speaker's presentation by his or her partner during constructive speeches, rebuttal speeches, or cross-examination is prohibited. The intent of the prompting rule is to prohibit any exchange of information which will substantively alter or direct a speaker's argument, questions, or answers. Prompting may be either verbal or written, which does include the exchange of notes during a constructive or rebuttal speech or the cross-examination period by either the team of the questioner or the team of the respondent. Examples of prompting include, but may not be limited to: answers provided by a speaker's partner during his or her cross-examination and the verbal or non-verbal interruption of a partner's speech to edit or direct his or her argumentation. Examples of acceptable conduct by debaters that is not to be considered as prompting include: calling out the time when anyone in the room, including the judge, is visually impaired; handing a partner a piece of evidence already presented in a round; handing a partner a pen or requesting a pen; making a comment to a partner before speaking time has begun. Because there may be other practices which might be justifiably interpreted as prompting, the debater is advised to exercise caution regarding inappropriate intrusions into the debate process.

RULES OF EVIDENCE

In debate, complete source citations of evidence must be presented on request by the opposing team or judge in a round for each source used. A complete evidence citation must include the following as identified by the original source: author's name and qualifications, publication title, complete date (and date of access for a web site), and page number (or complete http address). In the event of a violation of this rule, the judge should void the effect of the evidence in question when making the decision.

The author, qualifications, and date of the source should be given the first time each citation is read in a speech. A complete source citation, as specified above, need not be read during a speech.

Rules of Evidence Authenticity

1. Judges are prohibited from requesting and reading any piece of evidence at the end of a round unless the issue of authenticity was raised during the debate or unless the judge has substantial reason to suspect the authenticity of the evidence.

Authenticity refers to:

1. Fabrication: falsely representing a cited fact or statement of opinion as evidence; or intentional omission/addition of information within quoted material.

2. Distortion: misrepresentation of evidence or of citation which significantly alters meaning or content.

2. Debaters are responsible for the authenticity of evidence they present in rounds and shall allow the opposing team/debater to examine evidence introduced in the round. Any challenges to the authenticity of evidence must be made by the debaters during the round or at the conclusion of the second affirmative rebuttal....

Edited July 22, 2010 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

This point has been made over and over many times. Such a blanket change as proposed will not change this, rather it will restrict discussion to that which is deemed approved by those making the approvals and will be entirely within the control and agenda of those. Therefore a separate section like that of the seminar section will avoid any such control. There will be people who are authorised to participate in these two-way chats who will not be available through PM's (which are monitored anyway) or emails (ditto unless through offsite services). IOW the productivity of the forum will be degraded.

Setting aside an already existing section just for this proposal will avoid that as well as drawing attention to the full spectrum of the forums educational potential which lies on the first page.

A new point has certainly been made but it has nothing to do with the humour...

[Dean Hagerman]

I want Francios!

I want Francios!

[François Carlier]

Mister Simkin,

I think it is a good idea.

I would love a topic on the Zapruder film.

I would destroy Jim Fetzer once and for all.

/F.C./