Debate and how does it differ from other forms of direct communication

How to build arguments correctly?

It is the arguments that are the basis of any debate. By following the rules of the game and playing your roles correctly, your main task is to highlight your position in the form of independent arguments. How to do this properly?

Arguments answer the question "why should this point of view be supported? ». In terms of content, a good argument should have the following characteristics (examples of arguments that do not have these characteristics are given for clarity)

1. Relevance - there must be a direct and clear causal link between the argument and your position in the debate. "Drug use should be banned because the Church is against it" - this argument will not be credited, as it is not clear why the parliament of a secular state should follow the opinion of religious communities when choosing a policy.
2. Importance (significance) - this argument alone should be enough to get your point across. There are a number of criteria for determining the importance of individual arguments: (1) the magnitude of the interest group directly affected by the bill being discussed in the debate. (2) the extent to which the bill affects the interest groups. In general, the debaters themselves must prove that their arguments were important and their opponents' arguments were not. Analysis speeches are precisely designed to make this comparison. If a comparison of arguments in terms of importance has not been made by the players, then it will be made by the judges on the basis of common sense during the parsing of the game.
3. Internal consistency. Individual parts of the argument should not contradict each other. "There should be a ban on people with criminal records because no one will vote for former criminals anyway" - the argument makes no sense. If the Speaker argues that no one will vote for former criminals anyway, what would change introducing a ban?
4. External validity (must not contradict your other arguments or those of your colleagues on one side of the House) - two arguments made in support of one side of the House must not contradict each other. Suppose a member of the Opening Government says: "The death penalty should be allowed because the death penalty is more humane to convicts than torturous life imprisonment". The member of the Closing Government said: "The death penalty should be allowed because those who have committed particularly serious crimes deserve the maximum cruel punishment, which is the death penalty. Clearly, these two arguments directly contradict each other.
5. Complete clarity - each of the causal relationships within the argument must be explained.
6.Correct reasoning - each part of the argument which is disputable must be proved. "We should not impose duties on the import of foreign cars, because it prevents free competition, while free competition promotes economic prosperity" - the last thesis (about the benefits of free competition) is disputable and must be proved separately, otherwise the whole argument will not be credited.

An argument should be good not only in terms of content, but also in terms of form. Ideally it should consist of 4 parts: statement, explanation, evidence and conclusion. Alternatively: proclamation, explanation, support, corollary.

5.What are the themes?

All topics are divided into open, semi-open, and closed topics. The type of topic determines the mechanism for proving the argument.