World Schools Debate Format

The World School Debate Format was specifically created for the Worlds Schools Debating Championship which was established 26 year ago. The first Worlds Schools Debate Championship happened in Australia with just a few countries competing. This year Worlds Schools Debate Championship in Thailand was attended by 45 countries from all over the world. The format is mainly debated at high school level and the last years of middle school. Through the years the Worlds Schools Debate Format has been gaining on popularity and more and more countries have adopted it. Worlds School Debate Format has become one of the most common debate format in high schools in countries like Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Israel, South Korea, Qatar, Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, China, Argentina, Peru and a lot of others.

At the national level the languages of debating are national languages and/or English. At international level the most common language is English, however, there are international tournaments organised also in Spanish, Arabic, Russian …

Each debate has two teams. One team is proposing, can be called proposition, affirmative or government. The other team so - called opposition is against the motion. Each team has three debaters, who each speak once, these speeches last for 8 minutes and they alternate from proposition to oposition. After each speaker has spoken once, each team has one 4 minutes reply speech. The reply speech is firstly presented by opposition team, than the government’s reply speech comes. The reply speeches can be given by the first or second speaker on the team. The reply speech is half the length of the main speeches. During the main speeches the opposing team can offer points of information. Points of information can not be offered in the first and the last minute of the speech. Furthermore, no points may be offered during the reply speeches.

The length of the speeches presented are the ones being debated at Worlds Schools Debate Championship. Debate communities might decide to shorten the speeches according to the needs of their debaters, like for very young or not so experienced speakers speaking for 8 minute is a lot. For example: in Slovenia we shortened the constructive speeches to 7 minutes.

The motions that the teams debate are general issues rather than specific programs or proposals. The debate is between teams, not individuals. Each team member has a specific part of the team case to present, and must also attack the other side and defend the team from attack. As the debate progresses, more and more time must be spent dealing with issues already raised in the debate, and less and less time must be spent on new argument and issues.

Each team must persuade the audience that its arguments are superior. To do this it must present sound logical arguments, it must present them in an interesting and persuasive speaking style, and it must structure and prioritise its arguments. All three aspects of debate are given emphasis.

Role of Speakers

An Overview:

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the WSDC Format

David Moskovici from ARGO (Romania) explaining the WSDC debate format

The Roles of the Speakers

The first government speaker defines the motion, outlines the government case, announces the case division, and presents her or his part of the case.

The first opposition deals with the definition if it is a problem, explains the important differences between the two team cases, reffute the major arguments of the proposition case presented in the first speech and outlines the opposition case, announces the case division, and presents her or his part of the case.

The second government defends the government definition (if required) and case from the opposition attacks, rebuts the opposition case, and proceeds with her or his part of the government case. Somewhere around 2 to 3 minutes into the speech the speaker will turn from attacking the opposition to presenting the new part of the argument.

The second opposition does much the same as the second government. The speaker will turn from attacking the government to presenting the new part of the argument somewhere around 3 to 4 minutes into the speech.

The third proposition speaker is going to spend a large part of her or his time attacking the other side and rebuild the most important arguments of their side. The speakers do not need to do line by line refutation, but they should focus on the most important arguments and underlying principles. The third proposition speaker can have a small part of the government case to present, however, this new argument needs to be announced in the first speech. This is a possibility, but majority of teams do not go for it.

The third opposition is going to spend most of her or his time attacking the other side and rebuild their own arguments. They should not have any new arguments presented in this speech. Note that the opposition reply follows straight on from this speech, so it is better for the third opposition to deal with the detail of the government case and leave the broad overview to the reply speech.

The reply speeches are not going to delve into fine detail, but will take a broad approach to the issues of the debate. They should also summarise their own case either as part the analysis of the issues or towards the end of the speech as a separate section. For obvious reasons the reply speeches cannot introduce new arguments. Not only is this unfair but a complete misunderstanding of the role of reply speeches The reply speech is a summing up of the whole debate, not a chance to introduce new ideas.

The debate begins with a speaker whose arguments are entirely new. As it goes on, more and more time is spent dealing with what has been said by previous speakers, and less and less comes in that is new. By the end of the debate there is no new argument, and the speakers deal only with what has gone before.

If you were to graph this, there would be a line dropping from 100% new matter at first government to almost O% at third opposition and replies, and a corresponding line rising from O% rebuttal at first government to almost 100% rebuttal at third opposition and replies.

Points of Information

A point of information is offered in the course of a speech by a member of the opposing team. The speaker may either accept the point or decline it. If accepted, the opponent may make a short point or ask a short question that deals with some issue in the debate (preferably one just made by the speaker). It is, if you like, a formal interjection.

Points of information bring about a major change in the role of speakers in a debate. In this style each speaker must take part in the debate from beginning to end, not just during their own speech. A first speaker for the government continues to play an active role in the debate even when the third speaker for the opposition is speaking. Equally, the third speaker for the opposition must play an active role in the debate when the first speaker for the government is speaking.

The speakers play this role by offering points of information. Even if the points are not accepted, they must still demonstrate that they are involved in the debate by at least offering. A speaker who takes no part in the debate other than by making a speech should lose marks for content and strategy - content for failing to take advantage of opportunities, strategy for failing to understand the role of a speaker under this style.

Equally, speakers must ensure that they accept at least some points of information during their speech. In an 8 minute speech, taking at least 2 would be expected (depending, of course, on how many are offered). A speaker who fails to accept any points of information must lose marks for content (failing to allow the other side to make points, thus reducing the amount of direct clash between the two teams) and particularly strategy (for not understanding the role of the speakers in this style). Of course, a speaker who takes too many will almost certainly lose control of the speech and thus lose marks for style and probably also for strategy (poor speech structure) and content as well.

The Etiquette of

Points of Information

A point of information is offered by standing and saying "Point of information'. The speaker on the floor is not obliged to accept every point. She or he may - ask the interrupter to sit down finish the sentence and then accept the point, or accept the point then and there.

More than one member of the opposing team may rise simultaneously. The speaker on the floor may decline all or some, and may choose which one to take. The others then sit down. Opposing speakers must sometimes tread a fine line between the legitimate offering of points of information on the one hand, and barracking on the other.

The fact that points must be offered makes the style more aggressive and more prone to interruptions. However, continuous offering by a team really amounts to excessive interruption and is barracking. This should incur penalties in style for the team members involved.

It is impossible to put a figure on how many points of information a team may offer before its behaviour constitutes barracking. Judges should determine when the offering of points of information, far from adding to the debate, begins to infringe on the right and/or ability of the speaker to address the audience. This determination requires sensitivity to the context of the particular debate: two well-matched and highly-skilled teams may offer each other many points of information without disrupting the debate or unsettling the speaker on the floor, but points offered at this same high rate to a speaker who is less confident may constitute barracking. In general, speakers should not offer points of information only a few seconds after a previous offer has been declined or while the speaker on the floor is clearly in the early stages of answering a point of information she just accepted: frequent violations of these principles might reasonably be penalized.

The point of information may be in the form of a question to the person making a speech, or it may be a remark addressed through the person chairing the debate. Some teams tend to use the latter format, while most teams tend to ask a question. Let it be clear that either format is perfectly acceptable.

The point of information must be brief. 10 to 15 seconds is the norm, and over that the interrupter should be told to sit down by the speaker. As well, when the person making the speech understands the point, she or he can tell the interrupter to sit down - the speaker does not have to let the point get right through to the end in all cases. Always remember that the speaker who is making the speech has complete control of points of information - when to accept them, whether to accept them and how long they should go on for.

Judges

Debates are judged by one or more judges. Each judge makes decision by her or himself. After the debate is over, judges give an oral critique revealing the decision, explaining why one team wins and the other loses. Judges make the decision on the basis of three elements: content, style and strategy.

Content/Arguments

Content covers the arguments that are used, divorced from the speaking style. It is as if you are seeing the arguments written down rather than spoken. The judge must assess the weight of the arguments without being influenced by the magnificence of the orator that presented them.

Content will also include an assessment of the weight of rebuttal or clash. This assessment must be done from the standpoint of the average reasonable person.The adjudicator's job is to assess the strength of an argument regardless of whether the other team is able to knock it down. If a team introduces a weak argument, it will not score highly in content even if the other team doesn't t refute it. First, if a major team argument is plainly weak, an opposing team which doesn't refute it may well have committed a greater sin than the team which introduced it. In effect the team has let the other team get away with a weak argument. This is not an automatic rule, but is true in many cases. Of course, it must be a major argument, not a minor example which the opposing team correctly chooses to ignore in favour of attacking more significant points.Second, adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their own beliefs and prejudices, nor by their own specialised knowledge.

Style

Style covers the way the speakers speak. As has already been noted, this can be done in many ways, in different accents and with the use of terminology which is not so familiar to you. However, there is not just one, the best speaking style, there are different good speaking styles!

Strategy

Strategy covers two main concepts: the structure and timing of the speech, andwhether the speaker understood the issues of the debate.These matters are sufficiently important to justify taking them separately.

PROJECT VIDEO: Teams from Romania and Croatia debate on the motion 'This House Believes That Drinking Water Shoud Be a Human Right'

(Zagreb, December 2013)

PROJECT VIDEO: Teams from Germany and Romania debate on the motion 'Workers Should Be Involved in Profit Sharing in Companies They Work For'

(Zagreb, December 2013)

Structure and timing

A good speech has a clear beginning, middle and end. Along the way there are signposts to help us see where the speaker is going. The sequence of arguments is logical and flows naturally from point to point. This is as true of a first speaker outlining the government case as it is of the third speaker rebutting the government case. Good speech structure, therefore is one component of strategy.

Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There are two aspects to timing: speaking within the allowed time limit, and giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech.

As to the first, a speaker who goes significantly over time (for example, 9 minutes in an 8 minute speech) ought to get a penalty . Equally, a speaker who goes significantly under time (for example, 7 minutes in an 8 minute speech) in most cases would get a similar penalty. Bear in mind, however, that timing is only one element of strategy. A speaker whose only sin is to go over time might still get a reasonable strategy mark if every other aspect of strategy was quite outstanding. It would not be a brilliant mark - there would still be a penalty - but it would not automatically be a very low mark either. It all depends how good the rest of the elements of strategy were.

As to the second, a speaker ought to give priority to important issues and leave unimportant ones to later. For example it is generally a good idea for a rebuttal speaker ( i.e. anyone other than the first speaker for the government) to begin with the attack on the other side before going on to the speaker's positive case This is because it is more logical to get rid of the opposing argument first before trying to put something in its place.

A speaker should also give more time to important issues. If there is a critical point that buttresses the whole of that team's case, it ought to get a fair amount of time so that it can be properly established. But if there is a point that is fairly trivial, it doesn't deserve more than a trivial amount of time.

So the adjudicator must weigh up not only the strength of the arguments in the content category, but also the proper time and priority that was given to them in the strategy category.

Understanding the issues

Closely related to the last point is that debaters should understand what the important issues were in the debate. It is a waste of time for a rebuttal speaker to deal with trivial points if crucial arguments are left unanswered. Such a speaker would not understand the important issues of the debate, and should not score well in strategy. By contrast, a speaker who understood what the important issues were and dealt with them thoroughly should score well in strategy.

It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between strategy and content. Imagine a debate where a speaker answers the critical issues with some weak rebuttal. This speaker should get poor marks for content, because the rebuttal was weak. But the speaker should get reasonable marks for strategy, because the right arguments were being addressed.

The Reply Speech

The thematic approach to argument outlined above becomes critical in the reply speeches. These have been described as "an adjudication from our side" and really amount to an overview of the major issues in the debate.

A reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or individual examples. The speaker must deal with the two or three major issues in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the speaker's team and work against the opposition team. As a general rule, a reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with individual examples probably doesn't understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good argument.

The Case Division

With three speakers on a team, the affirmative arguments has to be divided between the first two (and perhaps the third government as well). The same is true for the opposition team, however the third speaker of the oposition should not present new opposition constructive arguments, because their main role is to refute the proposition’s arguments. The first proposition speaker is obliged to present the proposition time line and division of the case. This needs to be done before the first speaker starts to explain their part of the case. The same is true for the first opposition speaker. ainers. She funded and run two international training programs IDAS – International Debate

Adopted by Bojana Skrt from the World Schools Debate Format at www.schoolsdebate.com

@ BETTER DEBATE MANUAL

Thinking and Speaking a Better World

An Overview:

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the WSDC Format

Bojana Skrt

ZIP Director and project coordinator