Preliminary Munazara Engagement Model

Preliminary Munāẓara Engagement Model protocol

1. MEM outlines three main roles: the proponent, the opponent, and the judge. The proponent defends the motion while the opponent questions it. 

   1. For a more robust dialogue, the parties are required to face and address each other, rather than performing on a podium or addressing the judges. 
   2. Allocation of the roles of proponent and opponent is arbitrary, meaning that the debaters do not necessarily hold personal beliefs aligning with the stance they represent. This practice encourages intellectual flexibility and the ability to empathize with multiple perspectives, an essential facet of intellectual honesty.

1. There are two types of motions: practical and epistemic. 

   1. The first motion type focuses on practical matters, addressing questions about what actions should be taken or the best course of action in a specific situation. The questions should in principle be relevant to important societal issues, contemporary events and developments. These motions should be in the form of policy proposals, such as “We should do…” or “In such circumstances, one should do….”. 
   2. The second motion type deals with epistemic issues, which are largely theoretical, philosophical, or conceptual. These motions aim at gaining a deeper understanding of a clearly delimited and particular subject in a way to clarify the knowledge available on that subject. These motions should pertain to abstract concepts, academic theories, or complex philosophical questions, and should be in the form of “We believe that…” or “It is reasonable to believe that…”.

3. In the run-up to a Munāẓara tournament, a list of possible motions is announced in a way to offer the participants some time for initial preparations. The specific motion to be debated in each round is revealed 15 minutes before the round, giving parties time to prepare. 

4. A Munāẓara unfolds over three distinct stages, each contributing towards the cultivation of targeted virtues:

5. Opening Stage: should take a maximum of 10-minutes and aim to achieve consensus on the resolution that will provide the basis for the argumentation stage.

   1. The proponent lays the ground for the debate by defining the terms and delineating the specific context of the motion. And what if she takes 9 minutes to do that?
   2. The opponent engages by asking for clarification or offering corrections, with each discussion move not exceeding 1 minute.
   3. Both parties then have a 3-minute consultation with each other before jointly presenting their resolution within 1 minute. Clarity and respect are the cornerstones of ādāb in this stage. 

6. The Argumentation Stage: serves as a minutely designed space for developing and engaging with arguments, specifically designed to promote intellectual rigor and precision in analysis, and respectful engagement with the opposing party.

   1. A maximum of 20 minutes is allotted to this stage, and each individual move—be it presenting an argument, raising an objection, or charging a refutation—has an absolute limit of one minute. 

   2. The participants are encouraged to see their turns not as short speeches, but as a space for a move required at the specific juncture of the unfolding debate. They are expected to practice 'ijāz – the virtue of succinctness – in managing their time, and act according to the requirements of the argumentative encounter. 

The stage is initiated by the proponent, who presents an argument for the motion with premises leading to a well-defined conclusion.

The opponent critically questions the proponent's argument. This critical testing may take three main forms: (a) raising an objection to individual premises, (b) charging the overall argument with a deficiency-charge, or (c) introducing a counter-argument to the motion. 

Responding to the opponent's moves, the proponent defends their position. If objections are raised, they either (d) uphold their premise against the objection or (e) formulate a new argument for the same motion that is void of the objection. Should an inconsistency-charge be levied against their argument, (f) they present new arguments for the motion that avoid the stated inconsistency. If faced with a counter-argument, the proponent now assumes the role of the opponent, critically testing the offered counter-argument with objections, refutations, and eventually, counter-arguments.

Throughout this stage, the primary goal is manifesting the ādāb through the argumentative conduct. To this primary end, the Munazir is expected to remain focused on understanding (fahm) the motion and contributing towards a mutual understanding (tafhim), rather than on 'winning' or ‘exposing’ the opposing side.

7. Concluding Stage: In this final 4-minute stage, both the proponent and the opponent reflect on the outcomes of the argumentation stage, assessing the strengths of their arguments. Each side is allowed 2 minutes of discussion, during which intellectual honesty, humility and fair-mindedness are of utmost importance as the participants engage in ilzām (by the proponent) or ifhām (by the proponent), offering a sincere meta-reflection on the argumentation stage. In this stage, participants are neither supposed to offer new arguments nor make a case for why their side of the motion has better arguments. Instead, they are supposed to assess the entire engagement that took place in the Argumentation Stage. Participants can offer their assessment and justify why they think their own engagement, or that of their opponent, is better. Alternatively, they could simply admit defeat or register any change of mind or position.

8. The role of the judge is to oversee the debate to ensure that it adheres to the outlined structure and principles, and to assess the overall Munāẓara in its three stages.