This is for those who don't check their email often enough or have not received it. Yingchen will be sending out a debrief for every session we attend. This is with reference to the motions:

THW trade pollution permits
THW legalise euthanasia

_____________________________
Hey guys, Yingchen here.

Based on what I've assessed from our two debates the other day, here's a list of things you guys need to work on. I don't expect improvementsto come immediately, but I will be constantly referring to this list to gauge how much you have improved over the course of our sessions. It is still subject to revision over time.

1. Substantives are too offensive.

I suppose this applies more so to the first debate than the second, and quite understandably because you guys had trouble understanding the key issues in the first debate. However, as a general rule of thumb, your substantives should not be direct hits on the opponent'scase, and should ALWAYS forward a case of your own. This is because it will result in you taking a stance that I would henceforth like to dubthe Denise Syndrome, whereby you focus on only slamming the otherside, but forget to talk about why your side is better is comparisonto theirs in any way at all, some times with very disastrousconsequences like that of the trading permits debate where you end uphaving no case whatsoever to speak of.

Also, another problem with offensive substantives is that they arecontingent on what your opponents say. For all you know, if youropponents come up with a very sneaky, unintuitive approach that youdid not pre-empt, then your whole case goes kaput.

To avoid this, always try to think about how you can forward your sidewithout taking into consideration what the opponents will say first,before you start to modify your points to pre-emptively defend againsttheir attacks.

2. Speeches are too short.

Another problem that becomes clear with offensive substantives, since they now start to overlap with your rebuttals and as a result there is not enough content going around in the debate.

Short speeches ARE a problem, considering how you guys actually type them out so it's not like you didn't think it through and a forced to come up with something on the spot. (By the way, I dislike speeches that are typed out word for word, but more on that later.)

For the first speaker, I would like to divide the time such that youhave 1 minute for the definitions, 2 minutes for each substantive and 1 minute for wrapping up/POIs. So do make sure your substantive is long enough to be able to hit 2 minutes! We will practice substantive construction during our next training session, but if your substantive isn't hitting 2 minutes, then you need to think it through. Chances are that you did not flesh out your points in enough detail, or you made some logic leaps.

Of course, I think this is a problem that will easily be solved with experience though, so don't fret too much about it.

3. No evolution of rebuttals.

You cannot be saying the exact same thing as your previous speaker said. It's a good idea to show awareness of what your previous speakersaid so that there is a sense of continuity of logic down thespeakers, but do not say the exact same thing and leave it at that.

Evolution of rebuttals is subtly different from tiering yourrebuttals, by the way. After all, when you rebut someone, and theydefend against your rebuttals, the next speaker is expected to respondto what they said about what you said. If you do not evolve yourrebuttals, then you show no awareness that there has been an opponentspeaker between you and your previous speaker.

4. Not responding to that opponents say.

Which leads me on nicely to this. If there is no evolution of rebuttal action, chances are that you're also not responding to what your opponents say. Strawman fallacy, anyone?

This applies to every single part of the debate, from substantiveconstruction to rebuttal action.

You NEED to respond to what your opponents say, and not what you hopethey will say. This was especially evident in the first debate, whichyou guys prepared for the most, when you promptly avoided mydefinitions and rebutted what I did not say.

Always expect (especially in prepared motions) that your opponent isgoing to think up of a shrewd policy that will shield themselves fromall the most basic attacks you can launch at them. And if you don'tlisten to their modifications and rebut the simplest way they couldargue their case, then chances are that you are going to make yourselves look stupid.

In substantive construction for side opposition, and this is why I'mquite against writing speeches out word for word, it's always a to fashion your speech to match what the opponents say. If it is in direct contrast to another of their substantives, then you want touse the same terminology that they use to show the contrast. For example, in a euthanasia debate, if the proposition says freedom ofchoice, then I want to say freedom of choice in my speech. If theproposition says bodily autonomy, then I want to say bodily autonomyin my speech.

5. Not enough POIs

Guys...POI me. I am not feeling the pressure at all. Yes, I know the confidence to POI comes with experience, but you are always going to face off against opponents who will intimidate you and you must learnto POI them even so.

Two tips to help increase POI volume:

1. If you have a rebuttal in mind and POI the speaker but he rejects you, keep POI-ing him until he moves on to another point. Don't barrack, however, Pass the point to your team mates if they aren't POI-ing enough.

2. Once the speaker has accepted one POI, he is unlikely to accept another. If the speaker has accepted TWO POIs, he's got some serious timing issues and is very very unlikely to accept any more, or you will severely screw up his timing. So POI with impunity.