Karl Popper Format

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Karl Popper Format by Mind Map: Karl Popper Format

1. Two teams participate in each debate. One team is given the role of the affirmative party, the other one the negative.

2. A1

2.1. The first member of the affirmative party (A1) starts the debate. S/he has the right to define the resolution.

2.2. S/he introduces the criterion if the motion is proposal or value motion. Then, s/he outlines the structure and organization of the defence of the resolution. S/he presents the focus of argumentation and then basic arguments of his /her party.

3. N1

3.1. The first speaker of the negative party (N1) must accept the given definition, unless it contradicts the rules of the competition

3.2. Her/his primary task is to deal with the arguments and proofs of the affirmative party

4. A2

4.1. 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 s/he thinks s/he has managed his/her task, s/he shall continue in the argumentation of the affirmative party i.e. presents new arguments to support the motion and supports existing arguments with other pieces of evidence.

5. N2

5.1. 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.

6. A3

6.1. 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.

7. N3

7.1. 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 argumentation

8. Resolutions

8.1. Policy

8.1.1. 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)“.

8.2. Proposal resolution

8.2.1. The proposal resolution proposes to take an action, change the current state of affairs. There is obviously included some sort of procedure in the formulation of these resolutions, which is most commonly, represented as a general idea without concrete details of this procedure.

8.3. Factual

8.3.1. The factual resolution tries to classify and define a certain sequence of things, actions or opinions. Examples: “UFO exists.” “Criminal behaviour is genetically predetermined.“

8.4. Value

8.4.1. The Value resolution states qualitative judgments about value in a given topic. The character of these topics may be esthetical, procedural or ethical. Resolution itself includes some sort of evaluation expression, whose meaning is subjective and about whose explanation may be argued in the debate.

9. Rules

9.1. Criterion

9.1.1. Criterion can be understood as a goal, sense or purpose of change, which is proposed by the party, which is debating a proposal resolution

9.2. Definitions

9.2.1. The purpose of the definition is to explain how the affirmative party understands the resolution and what they want to discuss.

9.3. Burden of proof

9.3.1. 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.

9.4. Who wins the debate

9.4.1. 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

9.5. Negative case

9.5.1. The negative party does not have to present its own case in the debate. It should concentrate on attacking the affirmative party’s case. However, if the negative party does decide to present their own case, it is still their task to prove that the affirmative case is not valid and, at the same time, to prove that their own case is valid. If the negative team fails to prove validity of its own negative line, it still has a change to win the debate, if they prove invalidity of affirmative line

9.6. Argumentation

9.6.1. Teams should concern themselves with using logical arguments supported by relevant evidence.

9.7. Refutation

9.7.1. 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.

9.8. Generally known and surprising realities

9.8.1. If the evidence is considered to be a generally known fact, it is not necessary for individual speakers to explicitly prove its reliability.

9.9. Impromptu debate

9.9.1. The teams are not allowed to communicate with their trainers, coaches, adjudicators, etc. during the preparation in the impromptu round, only the members of the team, which are assigned to the team in the tournament can take part in the preparation. Names and order of the three active debaters of each team shall be announced after the preparation finishes.

10. Evaluation

10.1. Content

10.1.1. Content means the arguments that are used, and it is separate from style. Thus, the “strength” of the arguments should be measured without reference to the quality of the oratory and presentation.

10.2. Style

10.2.1. Language usage

10.2.2. Manner of speaking

10.2.3. Fluency and persuasiveness

10.2.4. Dress code

10.3. Strategy

10.3.1. Structure

10.3.2. Speaker's understanding

11. Sebastian Rivera V A #15