Karl Popper Debate Rules

Karl Popper Debate Rules

1. Karl Popper Debate Format

   • Two teams participate in each debate. One team is given the role of the affirmative party, the other one the negative. Each team consists of three to five debaters, three of whom actively participate in the debate. The team at the beginning of the debate shall announce names and the order of the three active debaters.
   • Roles of Individual Speakers
     • A1
       • A1 S/he starts the debate. S/he has the right to define the resolution. Then, s/he outlines the structure and organization of the defence of the resolution. After A1 finishes his/her speech, s/he is cross-questioned by the third speaker of the negative party (N3). Cross-questioning lasts 3 minutes. The main A1 speech lasts 6 minutes.
     • N1
       • The first speaker of the negative party (N1) must accept the given definition, unless it contradicts the rules of the competition. Her/his primary task is to deal with the arguments and proofs of the affirmative party (i.e. to refute or accept them). The first negative speaker attacks some or all points of the affirmative line in the policy resolution. After finishing his/her speech, N1 is cross-questioned by the third speaker of the affirmative party (A3). Cross-questioning lasts 3 minutes. The main N1 speech lasts 6 minutes.
     • A2
       • The second speaker of the affirmative party (A2) primarily supports the arguments of A1, which have been challenged/refuted by N1. S/he refutes the refutation (i.e. rebuts). If the negative party presented their own case, s/he shall refute it. After finishing his/her speech, A2 is cross-questioned by the first speaker of the negative party (N1). Cross-questioning lasts 3 minutes. The main A2 speech lasts 6 minutes.
     • N2
       • The primary task of the second speaker of the negative party (N2) is to deal with the argumentation of the affirmative party mainly in a way, how it was rebutted and supported by the A2 speaker, i.e. challenges/refutes the rehabilitation of arguments presented by A1 and new arguments brought by A2, eventually informs about the absence of affirmative rehabilitation. S/he deepens the analysis, but does not bring a totally new approach to the rebuttal. After finishing his/her speech, N2 is cross-questioned by the first speaker of the affirmative party (A1). Cross-questioning lasts 3 minutes. The main N2 speech lasts 6 minutes.
     • A3
       • A3 is the last speaker of the affirmative party and his/her goal is to conclude the argumentation of his/her party. S/he determines and analyses main/key clash points in the debate from the affirmative point of view and shows, how the affirmative party managed to prove the resolution by means of its argumentation. A3 challenges statements of N2, who challenged affirmative arguments. S/he does not bring any new arguments or pieces of evidence, except for the reaction to the new ways of rebuttal potentially presented in N2. The speech lasts 5 minutes.
     • N3
       • N3 concludes the debate from the negative point of view and the debate as such. His/her goal is to finish clashing/challenging resolution defence and reconstruct own. S/he determines and analyses main/key clash points in the debate and shows why the negative party managed to clash or significantly challenge affirmative argumentation during the debate. S/he does not bring in any new arguments or pieces of evidence. If there was a clash of two criteria in the debate, s/he shows why the negative criterion was in the context of the resolution more important and what role it played in the motion’s defence. The speech lasts 5 minutes.
   • During the course of the debate, the affirmative team has the right to take 5 minutes and the negative team 7 minutes for preparation between individual presentations. The debaters of one team can speak together only in the time allocated for the preparation of any of the two teams. However, they are not allowed to speak to each other during the course of the debate.
   • Resolution Types
     • The proposal resolution proposes to take an action, change the current state of affairs. Most often, but not necessarily always, there is an expression “we should” or, “we should not”.
     • Policy resolution proposes a change of the current state of affairs. It requires a proposal of a specific procedure (plan) in order to solve the problem, which results from its wording. It is distinguished from the proposal resolution by stating the note “(policy)“.
     • The factual resolution tries to classify and define a certain sequence of things, actions or opinions. Examples: “UFO exists.” “Criminal behaviour is genetically predetermined.“
     • The Value resolution states qualitative judgments about value in a given topic. The character of these topics may be esthetical, procedural or ethical.

2. The objective of the debate program is to aid in developing the skills, capabilities and knowledge of participants in an attractive way. The academic debate should in a balanced way educate, form but also include competitiveness and social aspects.

3. Rules

   • Criterion
     • The purpose of the criterion in the debate is to delimitate and shelter the argumentation line in the debate. It is an obligation of the affirmative or negative party to state the criterion of their constructive line when debating a proposal or value motion. Criterion can be understood as a goal, sense or purpose of change, which is proposed by the party, which is debating a proposal resolution. Criterion in the sense of a goal clarifies which values the affirmative/negative party is debating and what is the party going to achieve during the debate.
   • Definitions
     • The purpose of the definition is to explain how the affirmative party understands the resolution and what they want to discuss. The negative party is allowed to challenge the definition only if the definition in question does not conform to the above-mentioned rules. If the negative party challenges the definition, this must be done by N1, who will explain why the definition does not conform to the rules and will offer a revised definition. Negative strategy is considered fallacious if the team challenges the definition without explaining the necessity of doing so during the course of the debate (purposeless challenge for challenge only). The clash in a competitive debate should be over arguments, not over the definition.
   • Burden of Proof
     • Where the resolution is expressed as a factual one, the affirmative party must prove that resolution holds true in a decisive/persuasive number of cases, which has been specified by the definition (criterion) and accepted by the negative party.
   • Who wins the debate
     • The debate is won by the affirmative party if, on the basis of its argumentation, it upheld the resolution debated. The debate is won by the negative team if, on the basis of its argumentation, it disproved the affirmative case or put it into serious doubt. When the debate is evaluated, the “strength” of the arguments is taken into consideration.
   • Argumentation
     • Teams should concern themselves with using logical arguments supported by relevant evidence.
   • Refutation
     • The task of the negative party is to refute or put into a serious doubt the affirmative case as a whole. If the affirmative party has used a number of pieces of evidence to support one argument, and the negative party is able to refute that main point with one counterargument, the negative team can this way refute the whole group of pieces of evidence together. However, to disprove a piece of evidence does not necessarily mean disproving the argument.