Debate from scratch ugwumsinachi chukwuemeka

This introductory class familiarizes the judge with the British parliamentary debate format and helps the listener know from scratch the basic nitty gritty of competitive debate and public speaking

People never really realize that the tournaments they so crave to attend was thought up and executed by a mind like theirs. In this episode, we look into the setup for hosting a debate tournament with or without a budget.

This episode evaluates principled stances in a debate, it synthesizes philosophical questions and contemplations to explain how debates evolve and the possibilities that can accrue by way of criticism of certain school of thoughts. No debater should have a career without comprehending these principles.

How do I judge a debate?
One of the many quirks of BP debating is that all those who speak are also expected to be able to judge. This might initially seem odd, but speaking and judging are two separate but interrelated skillsets that complement each other extremely well. By judging, not only do you get the opportunity to watch a debate from a detached perspective and often learn new things, but you also gain a number of vital skills in being able to understand how arguments weigh up against each other, how to put your views across in a succinct manner, and how to avoid the common mistakes that debaters make when giving their speeches and constructing cases.

The skill of judging is in being able to accurately weigh what was actually said by one team in a round against what was actually said by another team. Inexperienced judges will often read their own biases and preconceptions into what teams said, reading into the meanings of their words and filling in analysis for them when it’s not there. Similarly, they’re likely to fill in rebuttal, saying that they “just don’t really buy it” when they don’t like an argument, even if it’s not knocked down within the context of the debate.
Judging, like speaking, needs to be done comparatively. This means that when you are judging a debate, you are always trying to consider not just the arguments that a team made, but how they stack up against the arguments made by other teams. This involves keeping track of what different teams have said so that you can have an accurate and informed discussion after the debate. It also involves trying to weigh up who is winning against whom as the debate is going on and keeping track of this in your mind.
One way of keeping track of this is to keep a couple of pages of notes.

Definitive scope
A point of information is a question or comment made by a debater to a speaker on the other side of the motion. A debater may offer a point of information by rising while a speaker for the other side is speaking.
BP debate like most competitions do not allow speakers to offer points of information during the first and last minutes of a speaker’s speech and instruct judges to give time signals to indicate when POIs are allowed. Social Contract Theory, John Locke (inalienable rights) , Thomas Hobbes
(self-preservation), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (General Will), Quiz and answers and lots more

Structure of a Speech: Ideally you should try to have a structure to your speech. If you do then it is more likely to be a good speech. If you don't have some form of structure you may be penalized by adjudicators and you may ramble. You don't have to use a strict structure just have a mental layout of what you want to say and when.
Role of Prime Minister (Opening Speaker) and definitions, role of Opposition Leader. Defensive speech

To prevail in a debate where the adjudicators may be inclined to see the legitimacy of both sides’ positions, you need to convince the adjudicators that your position best accommodates the various (legitimate) interests of all parties involved in the controversy. To do so, you develop a position in three steps. Components of an argument

Arguments are traditionally divided into 4 parts namely
1. Assertion
2. Reason
3. Evidence
4. Link. Q&A and lots more