How to use APES

Hi, guys. It's Jules here again with another video about a really important basic aspect of debating. This is a tool, a structural tool for helping you make your arguments and your battle. So this is called APES. And today I'm going to explain to you how it works for you. So it could improve your ability to do those very important things in debating.

So as I say, APES is a fundamental structure for making arguments and rebuttal. It's a particularly valuable tool for new debaters, but its structure can be relevant for every debater.

Now, guys, just to go over this a little bit, a debate involves each speaker organizing their part in the team's case. In a structured speech. Speeches have two main aspects of making your arguments. The first is the direct creation of your arguments. The second is answering the arguments of your opposing team, and that's called rebuttal. We'll have some more aspects about explaining these things in other videos, but today we want to look at the special tool APES.

So—making arguments. For new debaters, a very clear structure for argumentation is really important. It's difficult to establish the proof for any idea that you're trying to explain. So learning to step through the process in a consistent way is very helpful for developing your focus, the effectiveness of your arguments and your confidence in making them. APES is a tool designed specifically for creating effective arguments, particularly in policy debates, which in most of the debates you guys do.

Apes teaches debating in a way that states your argument first offers proof that is real, provides a description of the resultant effects. And finally, why that is valuable for our society. There are these are all key steps in the creation of persuasive arguments for debating.

So let's go over that again. Apes teaches you to:

1. State your argument. “A” is for argument.

2. Offer proof that is real. “P” is for proof.

3. Provide a description of the resultant effects. “E” is for effects.

4. And finally, explain why that standard is valuable for our society. “S” is for standards.

So let's look at how to create an argument first. So “A” for argument—you need to give a clear, simple heading for a single argument, either for change under the topic policy, if you're affirmative, or for the existing status quo policy, if you're negative. And the way you do that is to start aligned queue in something like, “My team's first argument or next argument will show that...” And then you go into explaining that simple heading.

The proof stage, the “P” stage, is you give proof for your argument, why it's realistic and is likely to happen. You try to give at least two kinds of proof, factual and behavioural proof if possible, and this is showing reasons why your policy will work. I'll come back to factual and behavioural proof in a moment, but let's just go through how you do that. So you might say, “I have two or more ways that my argument can be proved. Firstly,” you explain it, “Secondly,” and then you explain it.

I'll just explain a little bit about factual and behavioural proof. Okay. Factual proof is straightforward evidence or information from the real world. This kind of proof is commonly found in current affairs and the news. It is powerful because it shows direct examples to back your argument. Okay. Behavioural proof is evidence found by thinking about what you know about the way people act. Another word for this is characterisation. This kind of proof is powerful because it creates an effective picture of how people react and respond to change. So we'll have more about factual and behavioural proof in another video. But I just want to give you a little bit of an idea of that.

So let's move onto the “E” stage now. So there you explained the worthwhile effects or outcomes specific to the argument you've just tried to prove. So you might introduce that by saying something like, “This means that our change” for affirmative “will have a positive effect, because...” If it was negative, you might say, “This shows that sticking with the status quo will have a positive effect because...”, okay? Then you go, “We think this is particularly good for a particular key stakeholder group because...” Now that's a useful addition you can add to identify someone that that that the effect is biggest for. Okay.

And then your fourth stage is standards and that's where you explain why you are, how your outcomes matter as a societal standard or principle that we should live by. And this is why your policy is a good idea. And you might start that by saying something like, “That's valuable for our world because...”

Okay, guys, let's look at rebuttal now. So doing rebuttal is answering the other team's case. It's what makes debating work. Otherwise, too bad it would just make statements without interacting with each other, which wouldn't be good at all. So rebuttal involves listening as well as possible to the opposition's arguments and responding using a process that's very similar to how you make your arguments.

Okay, so we can see that APES also works for rebuttal, but there is a bit of a difference. You use the four stages of APES, but in rebuttal, the first two are the same steps as in making an argument. But step three, effects, is replaced by a stage we call “even if” and step four, standards, is replaced by a summary of what you've proved wrong in the opposition's argument. So it's still uses the same letters. Yes, but the last two stages stand do something different.

So let's go over that so you can see. APES teaches you in rebuttal to:

1. State the opposition's argument you're going to rebut. “A” is for argument again.

2. Offer real proof of why their argument is unrealistic. “P” is still for proof.

3. Explain why, even if their argument is realistic, the opposition has exaggerated the benefits of it. “E” is for even if.

4. Summarise how you've seen their argument has failed. “S” is for summary.

So “A” for argument—give a clear simple heading for a single argument used by the opposition. “The opposition has argued that...” would be the way you'd begin that.

So the “P” for proof stage gives proofs for why the argument is unrealistic or unlikely to happen. Try to give at least again, two reasons, factual and behavioural, if you can, and always try to respond to any proof the opposition has given. So again, you go, “I have two reasons,” they might be more, but at least two reasons, “why this argument is unrealistic. Firstly, secondly...” Now, sometimes, guys, you might only have one reason. That's fine. With rebuttal you have to think quite quickly, but we encourage you to do two if you can.

So the third stage, even if—you need to show to deal with any possible benefit, however unlikely, that might remain from the argument. So you begin with saying something like, “Even if their claim was realistic, we think they've had exaggerated its effect because...”

And then finally, the summary stage, how you have proven the argument wrong and how that affects their whole case. And you say something like, “Overall, this shows that...” and then you go into it.

Okay, guys. So that's a brief rundown of how APES works. In another video, we'll give you an example, more than one example of how to do this with real topics. But today's video was just trying to introduce the structure of apes so you start seeing what you need to try to do.

Okay, guys, I hope that's useful and we'll talk to you again soon. Bye.