Proposed JFK Assassination Debates

[John Simkin]

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./

Is Jim Fetzer willing to take up the challenge?

[William Kelly]

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./

Is Jim Fetzer willing to take up the challenge?

I don't think Francois is up to the challenge.

Both LNs and CTs think Fetzer is a Klutz, but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,

and his language skills would stime him.

For the real debate idea to be successful, a proven forumla like the Parlmentary procedures style must be adopted,

the Vermont rules applied, everyone must agree on the question or proposition to be addressed, and some heavyweights must be involved, including John McAdams, DVP (if he would be permitted back in to the Ed Forum) and Dave Reitze on one side, Jimmy D, and his team on the other.

I still think its a good idea, but have no qualms about them bothering to do something like this.

BK

[Guest Tom Scully]

Recent differences of opinion convince me that a debate as to whether Bush is a legitimate suspect in the plot to

assassinate JFK, or a merely victim of a series of unlikely coincidences, including some of his own making, would be an interesting topic. I would like to argue that Bush was involved.

A broader topic of debate revolves around what has to happen before a series of coincidences is treated as so unlikley to happen that they can only be explained as evidence of participation in the assassination or in the cover up, or both. An example is the IB Hale family...son marries and is involved in the shooting death of Connally's daughter, and is later involved in a break in of Judith Exner's apartment, father is former FBI, acquainted with Director Hoover, is given a pass as far as the Exner break in, manages security at General Dynamics, is said to be riding two cars back from JFK in Dealey Plaza, mother is subject of a WC witness exhibit as she worked at state employment office, met Oswald and sent him on Leslie Welding job interview. Hoover and FBI disclose none of these "coincidences" to WC. They

submit Mrs. Hale's contact with Oswald and her knowledge of who gave Max Clark's contact info to Oswald as an isolated and routine witness interview. If he is aware of her interview existing in the WC Report, Gov. Connally does not comment on it in any known record. Connally certainly knew Mrs. Hale because his daughter was shot four years before Connally was shot.

Another interesting topic that does not seem to get enough attention is, Should the Torbitt Documents be taken more seriously by assassination researchers, if not, what inaccuracies rule out the reliability of the investigative leads contained in them?

[Jack White]

Recent differences of opinion convince me that a debate as to whether Bush is a legitimate suspect in the plot to

assassinate JFK, or a merely victim of a series of unlikely coincidences, including some of his own making, would be an interesting topic. I would like to argue that Bush was involved.

A broader topic of debate revolves around what has to happen before a series of coincidences is treated as so unlikley to happen that they can only be explained as evidence of participation in the assassination or in the cover up, or both. An example is the IB Hale family...son marries and is involved in the shooting death of Connally's daughter, and is later involved in a break in of Judith Exner's apartment, father is former FBI, acquainted with Director Hoover, is given a pass as far as the Exner break in, manages security at General Dynamics, is said to be riding two cars back from JFK in Dealey Plaza, mother is subject of a WC witness exhibit as she worked at state employment office, met Oswald and sent him on Leslie Welding job interview. Hoover and FBI disclose none of these "coincidences" to WC. They

submit Mrs. Hale's contact with Oswald and her knowledge of who gave Max Clark's contact info to Oswald as an isolated and routine witness interview. If he is aware of her interview existing in the WC Report, Gov. Connally does not comment on it in any known record. Connally certainly knew Mrs. Hale because his daughter was shot four years before Connally was shot.

Another interesting topic that does not seem to get enough attention is, Should the Torbitt Documents be taken more seriously by assassination researchers, if not, what inaccuracies rule out the reliability of the investigative leads contained in them?

Tom...I am on your side of the debate. But I never heard of I.B. Hale being in the motorcade. What is your source?

Jack

[François Carlier]

Mister Kelly,

I see you have written : "but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,", which is a completely false and stupid statement.

It only proves your bad faith and your dishonesty. It also shows that you are afraid, since you realize that I may be right after all when it comes to the Kennedy assassination.

In any case, it shows what kind of person you are. So, while it's clear that I have never had any interest in debating you, I still challenge Jim Fetzer or Jack White to a debate on the Zapruder film, and it would be very easy for me to "destroy" them, as they are as wrong as can be.

/François Carlier/

[William Kelly]

Mister Kelly,

I see you have written : "but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,", which is a completely false and stupid statement.

It only proves your bad faith and your dishonesty. It also shows that you are afraid, since you realize that I may be right after all when it comes to the Kennedy assassination.

In any case, it shows what kind of person you are. So, while it's clear that I have never had any interest in debating you, I still challenge Jim Fetzer or Jack White to a debate on the Zapruder film, and it would be very easy for me to "destroy" them, as they are as wrong as can be.

/François Carlier/

Hello Francois,

I'm sorry I have not read your book on the Kennedy assassination as I have tried to keep up with all the latest publications. Is it availabe in English or only in French?

I am willing to retract my statement that you have failed to answer my simple questions - when did Oswald decide to kill Kennedy and was he a psycho jerk or a covert jackal, but you have successfully avoided the question posed to you on two separate threads, so why is it me who is being dishonest and acting in bad faith?

And why would I be afraid if anyone convinced me that Oswald did indeed do all the things attributed to him, including the murder of the President, when in fact, I have been trying to figure that out for a long time. I am open to persuasion, but whoever persuades me must first answer those two questions - when did he decide to kill the President and was he a jerk or jackal?

And I would hope that it does reflect on what type of person I am and I too have no desire to debate you because I don't think you know what you are talking about, at least until I read your book and/or you answer my questions, and then the type of person you are will emerge, though you are good at keeping this hidden, more so than Oswald.

As for Jack White and Fetzer and the Z-film, you would have to ask them but I doubt they will want to bother responding, though the debate over the Z-film will not even begin until the FOIA requests are properly responded to and it is determined what happened to the Z-film while at Life Mag, at the Hawkeyeworks and the NPIC.

The more it is talked about, the less enthusiasm I have for the forensic debate, as I would rather just go the real forensic route, and see everybody in court at a JFK Grand Jury, where the real forensic evidence should be properly evaluated and those suspected of committing crimes related to the assassination can be indicted.

Bill Kelly

[John Dolva]

... ''I would rather just go the real forensic route, and see everybody in court at a JFK Grand Jury, where the real forensic evidence should be properly evaluated and those suspected of committing crimes related to the assassination can be indicted.''

Bill Kelly

(imo) Ultimately this is what all should be aiming for. Forget about differences of who what when. Gather and coordinate, as I understand BK & others are doing, any resources that can lead to this and support the effort irrespectivee of differences.

[Guest Tom Scully]

...Tom...I am on your side of the debate. But I never heard of I.B. Hale being in the motorcade. What is your source?

Jack

I just came across this info last week, Jack, and I thought it was interesting, if accurate. Since the SS car was directly behind the limo, either the Hale version was exaggerated in the telling or in the handing down to the grandchildren, or Hale was riding several cars back of the limo.

Bobby's twin brother is a veterinarian (Jim, I think...) in Ft. Worth...maybe he has more knowledge of this, and some info about his mother, Virginia, like her maiden name and a copy of her obit. I also read that IB Hale and his wife Virginia traveled to the inquest of their daughter-in-law in Florida. Both John Connally and IB Hale gave testimony, and IB Hale wept openly during the proceedings. 12 years later, apparently divorced, in 1971, he died suddenly of a reported heart attack while attending a country club dance.

I have located articles in google news that report on SA IB Hale of the FBI visiting local law enforcement locales in the 1940's to give instruction in weapons and, if I recall, ordinance like hand grenades.

http://www.mccarthy-kennicott.com/ND2005/index.html

...Pilgrim grew up in Dallas, the son of I.B. Hale, a two-time All-American tackle who was ranked among the very best of many great players during Texas Christian University’s most triumphant football era. (He was inducted into the Texas Sports Hall of Fame in 1985.)

A first-round draft pick for the Washington Redskins in 1939, the elder Hale instead chose a career in law enforcement. He became a top agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Fort Worth and a close associate of FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover.

Later he became chief of security for General Dynamics, the giant military contractor. He was chairman of ASIS International, a professional association of private security firms, when he died of a heart attack in 1971.

The Pilgrim children speak of Grandpa Hale in almost reverent terms, telling of his football accomplishments and of his expertise in training other FBI agents in the use of firearms.

In 1958, at age 17, Robert eloped to Florida with the teenage daughter of John Connally, the future governor of Texas who rose to national attention when he was wounded by gunfire when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. According to family members, Grandpa Hale was riding in the car behind Kennedy and Connally on that tragic day.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Duke Lane]

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.

I'll get back to you on the latter, but some comments first:

I agree that it is best to restrict the venue to the invited participants only: looking at what's happened to a thread about having such debates, one can only speculate how far afield an actual debate would go in the course of just one page! I presume that the forum has the capability to do this? If not, I think the idea is a complete waste of time. I mean, isn't it what's already supposedly happening throughout this forum?

If more than two debaters can participate, I see no real purpose in limiting such a debate to two people only, provided that it's not a free-for-all, i.e., it is "by invitation only." That invitation should be able to be rescinded or "turned back in" at any point in time (except possibly for the "original" debaters?). Sometimes additional expertise can be useful to round out a topic. This isn't, after all, a university debate where the teams only became familiar with the topic of choice a few weeks beforehand and have merely to "bone up" and form a position to champion.

To that end, I think all but the broadest "debate rules" cannot be applied unless the debate is to be of a limited duration after which no other points may be made, just like a college debate.

I don't think anyone could agree on either what a "standard" position on anything is, much less who the appropriate spokesperson for that supposed standard might be. Who among many would be most appropriate to debate Dale Myers about the Tippit murder? If Dale isn't interested in any such debate, who's the "next-best" to invite?

I use the Tippit murder as an example simply because the field is more limited than, say, experts on the medical evidence or the Z-film. More broadly, do you want to get into "endorsing" any kind of "standard" view as espoused by, say, Gerald Posner vs. Vincent Bugliosi for any LN side of the argument? If one, why not the other, or someone else? Must they have published books to be a "standard," and is their perspective allowed to change a la Posner, or vaccillate a la Palamara?

My thinking is that you'd want to avoid arrogating a "standard" of any sort, even if only to keep its "endorsement" - by dint of selection and publishing - from becoming "your" position.

The value to researchers is dubious, but it can certainly be useful to students of the the topic who want to get quick immersion into a topic they're exploring.

There may be few takers since you're not offering a favorable circumstance to either side, a level playing field seldom being desired: someone HAS to have an advantage!

[Bernie Laverick]

Mister Kelly,

I see you have written : "but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,", which is a completely false and stupid statement.

It only proves your bad faith and your dishonesty. It also shows that you are afraid, since you realize that I may be right after all when it comes to the Kennedy assassination.

In any case, it shows what kind of person you are. So, while it's clear that I have never had any interest in debating you, I still challenge Jim Fetzer or Jack White to a debate on the Zapruder film, and it would be very easy for me to "destroy" them, as they are as wrong as can be.

/François Carlier/

"but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,", which is a completely false and stupid statement.

No it isn't. You have been asked at on at least five occasions now to answer a simple straightforward question: When did Oswald first decide to kill Kennedy? And you have chickened out on every one of them!

If Francoise is involved in any way in this debate then the forum is effectively finished as a vehicle for education.

[William Kelly]

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.

I'll get back to you on the latter, but some comments first:

I agree that it is best to restrict the venue to the invited participants only: looking at what's happened to a thread about having such debates, one can only speculate how far afield an actual debate would go in the course of just one page! I presume that the forum has the capability to do this? If not, I think the idea is a complete waste of time. I mean, isn't it what's already supposedly happening throughout this forum?

If more than two debaters can participate, I see no real purpose in limiting such a debate to two people only, provided that it's not a free-for-all, i.e., it is "by invitation only." That invitation should be able to be rescinded or "turned back in" at any point in time (except possibly for the "original" debaters?). Sometimes additional expertise can be useful to round out a topic. This isn't, after all, a university debate where the teams only became familiar with the topic of choice a few weeks beforehand and have merely to "bone up" and form a position to champion.

To that end, I think all but the broadest "debate rules" cannot be applied unless the debate is to be of a limited duration after which no other points may be made, just like a college debate.

I don't think anyone could agree on either what a "standard" position on anything is, much less who the appropriate spokesperson for that supposed standard might be. Who among many would be most appropriate to debate Dale Myers about the Tippit murder? If Dale isn't interested in any such debate, who's the "next-best" to invite?

I use the Tippit murder as an example simply because the field is more limited than, say, experts on the medical evidence or the Z-film. More broadly, do you want to get into "endorsing" any kind of "standard" view as espoused by, say, Gerald Posner vs. Vincent Bugliosi for any LN side of the argument? If one, why not the other, or someone else? Must they have published books to be a "standard," and is their perspective allowed to change a la Posner, or vaccillate a la Palamara?

My thinking is that you'd want to avoid arrogating a "standard" of any sort, even if only to keep its "endorsement" - by dint of selection and publishing - from becoming "your" position.

The value to researchers is dubious, but it can certainly be useful to students of the the topic who want to get quick immersion into a topic they're exploring.

There may be few takers since you're not offering a favorable circumstance to either side, a level playing field seldom being desired: someone HAS to have an advantage!

I think a few organized debates could be interesting and usefull, especially in determing how solid our core beliefs are.

Debates between two people have been going on here for a long time, and some have been interesting and some pretty ugly.

In any case, I am starting a new Forensic Team Debate thread over at the JFK Seminars section, where I think it might fit in better so not to divert too much from the main JFK Assassination Debate forum.

I've suggested to John McAdams that this is the best place to hold such a debate and I think that I can promise him that it can and will be fair on all counts.

The Hardest part will be agreeing on the proposition to be discussed, and I think that it should be one of these:

JFK Assassination - Coincidence or Conspiracy?

Lee Harvey Oswald - Assassin or Patsy?

Lee Harvey Oswald - Lone Nut or Covert Operator?

JD Tippit - Spree Killer Victim or Key to JFK Conspiracy?

Jack Ruby - Lone Avenger or Mob Hitman?

JFK Act Records - Do they support the WC or Conspiracy?

Or if anyone has a better idea I'd like to hear it.

Here's the basic idea - as explained by John Meany, and the abridged Vermont rules that can be narrowed down even more.

Where they say speech - just consider that a statement that will be typed out on the forum thread.

Each person would have a turn to state their case and we take turns until everyone has had their say.

What do you say?

Bill Kelly

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

by Robert Branham Professor of Rhetoric & Director of Debate Bates College and John Meany Director of Forensics Claremont McKenna College, 1998 http://debate.uvm.edu/meanyparli.html

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…

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….

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

First opposition constructive speech

Second proposition constructive speech

Second opposition constructive speech

Opposition rebuttal

Proposition rebuttal

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. …

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...

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….

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, …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 all 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….

Burden of proof

In most debates, the first proposition speaker supports the motion by …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....<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

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....<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

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.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

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….

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. ,,.

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

[/url]http://rutlandhs.k12...ebate/rules.htm

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....