<p> General Rules during Formal debate</p><p>The following are Robert’s Rules of Order adopted for use at MUN:</p><p>1. The decisions of the Chair are final. So, do not argue with the Chair. Ever. Keep in mind that the Chair has the power to remove anyone from the assembly. If the Chair suspends note passing, do not ask for that order to be changed more than once and never ask verbally. Instead, write a note to the chair with a good reason and be polite.</p><p>2. Only the Chair, a member of the house recognized by the Chair for a point, or a speaker holding the floor has the right to speak.</p><p>3. All speakers, including those rising to points, must stand while addressing the Chair.</p><p>4. The Chair may extend or reduce debate time or speaking time and limit the number of points of information, if circumstances warrant it. The Chair also has the right to suspend note passing.</p><p>5. There will be no suspension of the rules or changes in the order of debate unless stated by the Chair.</p><p>6. Eating, drinking and laughing are all out of order</p><p>7. Remember that debating requires formality. The use of slang and completely irrelevant contributions will not be tolerated and proper adherence to the rules of parliamentary procedure is expected.</p><p>8. Always address he Chair and your fellow delegates with respect. Before beginning a speech, say something to the affect of, “Honorable Chair, fellow delegates…” and then proceed.</p><p>9. Refrain from using personal pronouns such as ‘I’ when speaking. Always refer to yourself and others by the country being represented. However, ‘we’ is permissible since you are speaking for your country and not yourself.</p><p>Lobbying</p><p>This occurs primarily in any MUN conference in which time is designated to allow you meet with other delegates from your commission and find out who (as in which country) supports the resolution that you country has written up. You can either MERGE with them or ask them to support your resolution by SIGNING ON.</p><p>Materials needed: Thumbdrive, 10-12 copies of your resolution, computer</p><p>What is MERGE? To merge means to join. Specifically in MUN, it means to join more than on resolution together in order to come up with an even stronger one. Delegates will be expected and encouraged to merge their resolutions with other delegates that have similar interests. To become a co-submitter you ordinarily must contribute a change in the resolution that will allow you to completely argue for it during the conference. Co-submitters are not required to read the resolution or even speak for it, but ordinarily it is both encouraged and appropriate. However, you can also be the main submitter of a resolution by having other countries, or country, merge with your resolution, This you will be expected to read the resolution in the conference and speak for it. (More details and tips on merging can be found on the bottom portion of the page)</p><p>What is SIGNING ON? When you sign on to a resolution, this means that you support its clauses and fully agree with it. You may only sign on to one resolution of each of the topics covered in you commission. PLEASE remember what resolution you have signed on to and make the right choice. It is embarrassing to sign onto a resolution then go up and speak against it in the conference. You will be called out of order, however, you will be VERY VERY humiliated if someone points it out. If this happens to you, then the only thing that you can argue then is that since the time you sign on to it, the resolution has changed in ways that no longer appeal to your country. Even then though, you will still look bad.</p><p>What happens if I want to merge my resolution? This is where the a thumbdrive/Bluetooth comes in. You must bring a e-copy of your resolution so that you are able to cut and paste with other delegates and create a final and powerful copy. After this happens, you or another submitter must hand it in to the Approval Panel, and hopefully it will be read in your committee the next.</p><p>LAST TIP Organize your time wisely! Your first priority should be to MERGE or SIGN ON to an issue you have written a resolution on. You can then concentrate your time on looking at other issues in your committee.</p><p>Here is a checklist that can help set a game plan when getting ready to lobby:</p><p>- 1. The beginning and end is the most important part 2. Be friendly but efficient 3. Be reasonable, courteous, and respectable. 4. Don’t show to much interest at first – play hard to get. 5. Never give away your signature without something in return a. Trading your signature for support b. Only give your signature to strong delegates; this forms an alliance for your own resolution 6. Leadership must start from the very beginning 7. Use your resolution as the bases of merged resolution 8. Always show confidence in what you say. This leads others into thinking that you really do know what you are talking about. 9. Never let your guard down. Three hours of masterly skillful negotiating can all be lost to a few minutes of relaxation. The other delegates may be waiting for such an opportunity. 10. Be aware that of the eventual discussion/fight about main submitter. 11. Group meeting a. Try to develop a group this gives signatures and support in the committee b. Divide up the needed tasks to save time (gathering signatures, editing) c. Sit at the head of the table in the meeting d. Control the computer e.</p><p>Speeches:</p><p>Defending your resolutions 1. Remember the PEE a. Point – what is the problem b. Example – give story to that is an example of the problem c. Explain – what does your resolution do to meet this problem 2. Identify specific clauses that meet specific problems. “One of the main issues on this topic is the lack of education for women. This resolution address this problem in clause 4a” 3. Be confident. Show the other delegates that you know your topic well. 4. Maintain professionalism. The more professional you are the more serious people will take you. 5. Slow down while speaking. Project your voice and annunciate every word. If you sound confident and strong, people will pay extra attention to you. 6. Don’t read off paper when speaking for/against a resolution. Have a few key points written down and then discuss the topic. 7. Be friendly. Thank the delegate for their question. Remember you are trying to make allies, not enemies.. 8. If you are the main submitter of a resolution, try to be the last speaker in open debate. The final thing you want other delegates to hear is positive information about your resolution.</p><p>Critiquing resolutions</p><p>9. Mark every clause as bad or not sure. This will give you a game plan on what you want to point out, ask questions on or what clauses you wish to amend (change). Analyze and point out the flaws or benefits of every resolution.</p><p>10. General questions to ask (Remember the general problem-solution -outcome a. Is this resolution realistic? b. Does it have strong clauses that actually solve something or is it just a resolution full of ‘fluff’(one that sounds good but says nothing at all)? c. Does this resolution comply with the moral ideas of my country? d. How will this resolution benefit my country should it pass? e. Have these actions already been implemented? f. Are there any actions that are in violation of the UN charter? g. How will this impact the national sovereignty of my country? h. Abstain from voting if you feel you can’t support a resolution in its entirety.</p><p>Modes of address</p><p>1. Modes of Address First we’ll start with the obvious: don’t use slang when speaking in a conference, all speeches should begin with: “Mr. (or Ms.) Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the house….” and not: “ Yo wutup?! People of the house say HEYYY!!!” remember you’re trying to solve a world issue not have the bangiest party of the century.</p><p>Here’s perhaps the most important aspect of parliamentary etiquette: NEVER REFER TO YOURSELF IN THE FIRST PERSON. That also goes for your peers. When talking use the name of your delegation: eg “The delegation of China does not understand” or “Will the (honorable) delegate of Russia please clarify…”.</p><p>The following are some phrases that can be used by delegates: - Mr. (Ms., Madam, Honorable) Chair….. - The delegation of ______has a point of ______(you’ll learn about the different types of points later on) - Is the delegate of ______not aware…. - Does the speaker not realize that….. - We yield the floor to the chair (to the delegate of ______)</p><p>Definition of debating terms:</p><p>Chair: The chairperson whose main purpose is to conduct the debate and to maintain order while remaining totally impartial.</p><p>House: All members of the class/ general assembly/ gathering etc.</p><p>Submitter: The person who proposes a motion in the form of a resolution or amendment for debate before the house.</p><p>Motion: The proposal for debate, which will eventually be voted upon.</p><p>Have the floor: To be given the right to speak in debate. Yield the floor: To give up ones’ right to the floor.</p><p>Order of the Day: This may be stated if the speaker goes off topic. It is stated as follows, “Is it an order for the delegate to speak about X when the topic being covered is Y?”</p><p>Point of Personal Privilege: A point stated when the audience is having difficulty understanding the speaker. This motion may interrupt the speaker if the speaker cannot be understood (if he/she is speaking too softly, too fast or not clearly). When interrupting the speaker to state a point of personal privilege, do so politely. The chair will then recognize your point and ask the speaker to talk clearly.</p><p>Point of Information: This can only be stated after the speaker finishes speaking and the chair asks for points of information. This point cannot interrupt the speaker at any time. A Point of Information is an argument, which should always be stated in the form of a question, not a comment.</p><p>Point of Order: A question directed to the chair by a member of the house who feels that a mistake has been made in the order of the debate. It may not interrupt the speaker and your must raise your placard in order to be recognized by the chair.</p><p>Point of Parliamentary Inquiry: This is a point of information directed towards the chair regarding any of the rules on parliamentary procedure. Again, a delegate stating this point may interrupt the speaker. For instance: “Honorable Chair, is it in order for the speaker of the failed amendment to retain the floor at this time?” Analogies</p><p>Interesting that _____ supports this resolution. _____ speaks with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.</p><p>This resolution grew on me. The resolution was a colony of E. coli, and the country of ___ is room-temperature Canadian beef.</p><p>This resolution is like a steel trap, only one who ideas have been left out so long, it had rusted shut.</p><p>The ideas in this resolution are simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.</p><p>This resolution is lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either,but a real duck that was actually lame, maybe from stepping on a land mine or something. How good is this resolution? This resolution is so good when the country of _____ read it we thought we heard bells, like a garbage truck backing up.</p><p>This resolution is like a rear-view mirrors. It can give you the illusion that you are driving. But just like a rear-view mirror doesn’t drive the car, the engine does;. This resolution needs an engine </p><p>Solving this problem is like boiling an egg. You don't wake up one day and suddenly do it different.</p><p>Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments</p><p>Peace: In ____Palestine_____, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.</p><p>This resolution is the great example of the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.</p><p>This resolution is a great example of the principle of give and take. It gives one to ( ) and takes ten from ( )</p><p>This resolution is like walking off a very high cliff: it may be fun at first but at some point it is really going to hurt.</p><p>A good resolution is vast like the sky, with room for many teachings, many insights, many meditations. But the mind of an legalistic narrowly defined resolution is limited, tight, and narrow like a vase that can only hold so much. It is difficult for such a resolution to be very successful because of its self-imposed limitations. The difference between this resolution and others is like that between the vastness of space and the narrowness of a vase.</p><p>This resolution is like rain in a cloud. You can't force a cloud to give up its rain. But, you can seed a cloud and create the right conditions for rain to occur</p><p>A good resolution is like an antibiotic, a bad resolution is like rubbing salt in the wound.</p><p>This resolution is like love, impatient both of delays and rivals.</p><p>This resolution is like a fisherman's hook. It is very important for us to ensure that we are not caught by it.</p><p>This resolution is like chewing gum...you can enjoy it for short time but you shouldn’t swallow it!</p><p>The solutions in this resolution are like burning down your house to get rid of a rat</p><p>This resolution is like music. It's contagious and uplifting. This resolution is like an onion, layers of misunderstanding, misperceptions and misleading which can be overwhelming and so difficult that it makes you cry.</p><p>The solutions in this resolution is like a hair across your cheek. You can't see it, you can't find it with your fingers, but you keep brushing at it because the feel of it is irritating.</p><p>This resolution is like junk food. It has no real nourishment. The emptiness comes back very quickly. And nothing gets accomplished in the meantime. Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate</p><p>1. Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). </p><p>This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy. For example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy</p><p>2. Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). </p><p>This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man". For example: “You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children.” This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.</p><p>A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."</p><p>A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example: "Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes." This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example: "Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white." This particular form of argumentum ad hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well." </p><p>3. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true. 4. Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.</p><p>5. Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs). </p><p>6. Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments. </p><p>Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the Assembly will remember it. </p><p>7. Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong! </p><p>8. Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. </p><p>9. Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. </p><p>In general, speakers should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. </p><p>10. Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!" </p><p>The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true." </p><p>11. Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established. </p><p>Complex questions are a well established and time-honored practice in debate. Complex questions usually appear in points of information when the questioner wants the speaker to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. For instance, one might say, "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" Of course, the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true (in fact, it is false), but an unwary speaker might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable.. But be careful -- if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you'll look stupid. "The assumption behind your question is simply false. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again!" </p><p>12. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e.g., the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing). </p><p>It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. It is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident. </p><p>13. Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average). </p><p>Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct). </p><p>14. Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit. </p><p>The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival. </p><p>15. Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.). </p><p>16. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most racists read comic when they were teenagers; obviously, comics causes violence toward minorities." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. </p><p>17. Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. </p><p>The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every speaker should be familiar. </p><p>18. Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal. </p><p>19. Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong. </p><p>In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made. 24. Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!" </p>