5 tips to help you win every debate round:

1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself.  Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours!  A common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well.  Take into account the judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point.  This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, shaking her head) that she understands you.

2. Always think comparatively.  Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said.  If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].  For both sides, the most effective way to do this is through impact calculus.  You should always be weighing the relative importance of arguments, especially ultimate impact claims against each other.  A nuclear attack by terrorists because of the collapse of the Pakistani state is undoubtedly extremely bad, but is the spread of nuclear weapons to many more states even worse?  If you make comparative claims about why your arguments matter more than the other teams,  you can win the debate round even if the other team wins their arguments! A good flow will help you keep track of the arguments. Always act like you’re winning, even if you’re not.  Composure, poise, ethos, whatever you want to call it is an essential skill in public speaking and in life in general.  This does not mean be arrogant!  Rather, it means that you should always display confidence in the arguments that your team is making.  Think about it this way – if the judge doesn’t think you believe in your own arguments, why should he be inclined believe them himself?

3. Refer to your evidence whenever possible.  Even though your own arguments are the most important, far too many debaters discount the importance of referring to evidence, especially that read in the early speeches.  The 1AC isn’t just a way to fill up 8 minutes, it contains valuable warrants by qualified authors that supports the arguments that you will be making in the 2AR.  If you are making a point that one of your authors makes in one of your cards, saying so will give your argument credence over

that of your opponents.  If you’re not planning to refer to a piece of evidence in a later speech, why would you be reading it in the first place.

4. Remember that debate is a team activity.  Even if you are stronger than your partner, you shouldn’t take over their speech or answer all of their questions in cross-examination.  When that happens, your judge is more inclined to give both of the members lower speaker points, and one debater doesn’t learn the skills necessary to get better.  Instead, make sure that you and your partner are going over arguments together so that you can teach each other the best arguments to make.

OPINIONS FROM THE PUBLIC/OPINYON MULA SA PUBLIKO

Catholic Bishops of the Philippines:

“Failed marriages cannot be used as an argument to pass a divorce law, saying divorce only encourages a married couple to no longer work out their differences.” - President

“Wrong doesn’t become right just because many are supportive of it. “Even if 99 percent (of those surveyed expressed support for that), what is wrong is wrong,” - Retired Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales

“The church will never agree to divorce as this is against Christ’s teaching. “The Bible says what God has joined together let no man put asunder,” - Retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz

Senate:

“The government should find ways to strengthen and empower the Filipino families instead of legalizing divorce in the country.”

“Besides, there is already legal remedy, which is annulment, for couples who have problems,” – Senator Nancy Binay

Our Advocacy on Divorce Bill

Our stand on this bill is that we would be against the divorce bill being passed. We are not in favor of legalizing divorce in the Philippines because it contradicts everything that our religion has established in our country.

Philippines is a Christian culture country and we are the largest Christian culture of all asia. We are a country of Catholic faith which can be traced back from the 15th century. A change in our beliefs in marriage may change the country either in a big way, or small way. But either way, that change might just be the difference that'll worsen our country's development.

We believe that most young adults dont see the importance of marriage. Our advocacy would focus on young adults, aged around 23 - 35 years old since it is in these ages ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-Divorce Bill PH (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=479792395425143&id=479724018765314)

People who say No to divorce law:Jun Magsaysay: "There have been divorce bills filed in each Congress but they never passed. We don't need a divorce law because we already have civil annulment. It protects the two parties and the children. Divorce law is not necessary. It would further divide the country." (statement at UPLB's 'Ang Pagsusuri' debate)

Antonio Trillanes IV: "I am against divorce bill. We're pushing our society into an issue that's very divisive." (statement at UPLB's 'Ang Pagsusuri' debate)

Gringo Honasan: "Responsible parenthood is important. Parents should know where their kids at, who they're with, and what they're doing. We must preserve sanctity of marriage and family life." (statement at the YouthVote2013 debate)

Mitos Magsaysay: "Everyone should have been prepared prior to marriage. We have legal separation and annulment, anyway. We dont need divorce." (statement at UP's 'The Rundown' debate)

Rizalito David: "Look at the U.S. Has America benefited from divorce? There are more negative impacts on American families. A lot of teachings in the church are based on empirical evidence." (statement at UP's 'The Rundown' debate)

JC delos Reyes: "I am against divorce. People change. Divorce closes doors on hope that there will be change of heart, mind." (statement at the YouthVote2013 debate)

JV Ejercito: "Maybe the reason why we're not ready for a divorce bill is because we might be like America, where people keep on marrying and eventually end up divorcing. In our case, the family is something sacred. That's why it's difficult for couples here to separate. They're given the chance to fix their problems and keep their families complete until the end." (statement in a radio interview)

Nancy Binay: "I think the government should strengthen the family, not break it up. Besides, we already have annulment and then there's legal separation." (statement in an interview with ANC)

Bam Aquino: "I am against divorce. We have provisions, anyway, for annulment, although that's a difficult process." (statement in an interview with Bandera)

Sonny Angara: "Let us just strengthen the Family Code, declaring marriages void." (statement in an interview with ANC)

Koko Pimentel: "Inspite of what happened to me I am still not in favor of divorce. I’m playing with the idea kung merong Philippine-style na divorce. As of now I’m still against the American concept ng divorce." (statement in an interview with Bandera)

Miguel Zubiri: "Not in favor. But we should loosen the rules of annulment. My sister got her marriage and it was very expensive. The problem with divorce is I don’t want the type of divorce that can create dysfunctional family." (statement in an interview with Bandera)

Ernie Maceda: "I'm not in favor of divorce because I see more couple will divorce when such law is passed. We should also respect the Catholic Church's teachings against it." (statement at GMA's 'Hiritan 2013')

Alan Peter Cayetano: "I'm against divorce... I think annulment is enough. We should improve the parameter for citing 'psychological incapacity'. I think we should fix that system rather than allowing a 'no-fault' divorce. (statement at the Kapihan forum)