World Schools Style debate

Last updated January 04, 2025

World Schools Style debate (or WSS) is a debate format combining the British Parliamentary and Australia-Asian debating formats. Designed in 1988 to meet the needs of the World Schools Debating Championships tournament, it has become popular internationally as one of the main English high school debate formats.

Each debate comprises eight speeches delivered by two teams of three members, representing the Proposition and Opposition sides. The first six speeches are eight minutes in duration, with each team then finishing up by giving a four-minute concluding reply speech. In Impromptu debates, teams of three to five debaters are given 30 to 60 minutes to prepare for their speeches; in prepared debates, the motion is announced days to months before the debate to allow for research and preparation.^[1]

Speaking order

First speaker of the Proposition
First speaker of the Opposition
Second speaker of the Proposition
Second speaker of the Opposition
Third speaker of the Proposition
Third speaker of the Opposition
Reply speaker of the Opposition
Reply speaker of the Proposition

Role of each speaker

First speaker of the Proposition

The role of the first speaker is to open up the case of the proposition. This involves:

Presenting their side's opinion, or stance, and main arguments.
Defining the motion in order to prevent any confusion caused by the motion, especially when the motion may lack clarity. This involves clarifying the comparatives, i.e. two specific worlds the motion proposes which both sides each defend. In the case of a ''TH Would'' motion, they must explain the Proposition model, i.e. policy which the motion suggests, who implements it and how it will work. In some motions, especially those based on societal narratives, the counterfactual, i.e. the society a side believes is likely to be the comparative on their side due to a certain societal narrative, the Proposition is defending and that which the Opposition is defending is characterised.
The first speaker also sometimes gives a status quo analysis, i.e. an analysis of the current situation regarding that issue, (mostly in policy-debates) to show the problem the side Proposition wants to solve, or the situation the side wants to improve et cetera. Through presenting facts about the world relevant to the motion, the speaker strengthens their arguments, the impacts of those arguments and may even preemptively deal with arguments the Opposition may want to mention. All of this is categorised as framing.
The first speaker presents their main arguments. This involves giving the argument's burdens of proof, i.e. logical links an argument has to prove in order to be credited by a judge, the mechanisms, i.e. reasons by which these burdens are true, and the impacts, i.e. practical effects of that argument. The arguments must show why certain outcomes are comparative, i.e. likely to occur on one side while not occurring or only occurring to a lesser extent on the other side. The analysis is supplemented by examples and evidence, especially in prepared debates where debaters may use resources such as books and the Internet to find evidence. The arguments are often divided into principle, i.e. moral arguments based on ethical principles such as utilitarianism, dignity or freedom, and practical, i.e. arguments based on practical outcomes which ought to be seen as desirable, arguments.

First speaker of the Opposition

Their duty is to respond to the definition and arguments given by the Proposition while typically presenting a counter-case. This involves:

Rebutting the arguments given by the Proposition, meaning to show why it isn't or can't be true what the other side claimed.
If they disagree with the definition of the motion the Proposition gives, they must give a counter-definition and argue why it is fairer or more likely to occur in reality. If the Proposition gives a model, they may present a counter-model which involves a different policy the Opposition would like to have enacted. This counter-model must be feasible using the same political, financial, social etc. resources the Proposition is using for their model. The ability and extent to which models may be assumed as part of the debate based on the motion is known as fiat. If the Opposition does not defend a specific counter-model or counterfactual, they defend the status quo.
They can either give a counter-case regarding that motion or just decide to try to argue against the motion. When arguing against the motion, it is optional to give own arguments, as it would be sufficient to just rebut the arguments or the case well enough; however, giving own arguments is by far the more common choice. These arguments may be negative, i.e. presenting harms which occur in the world Proposition is defending, or positive, i.e. presenting benefits which occur in the world Opposition is defending.

Second speaker (Opposition or Proposition)

Their role is to rebut the arguments given by the other side and respond to the rebuttal given by the other side, ensuring that their arguments still stand. They are allowed to introduce weighing, i.e. metrics such as the scale, intensity, likelihood, consent, or moral importance of the impacts of an argument, by which that argument should be credited more by a judge than another argument. Eventually, they can continue with their team's case and must give new arguments.

Third Speaker (Opposition or Proposition)

The third speaker has to re-structure the whole debate, often along the lines of clashes or themes around which the debate has revolved, filter the key issues of the debate and prove that the other side's case does not stand while proving that their case does, convincing the judges to vote for their side. This involves:

Responding to the new arguments from the other side's Second Speaker. This is especially important for the Third Speaker of Proposition as there is no other constructive speech for Proposition to respond to any arguments coming out of Second Speaker of Opposition's speech.
Adding and deepening the analysis of the rebuttal of the other side's case. While completely new responses are not always credited as the other side will not have a chance to respond other than the Reply speech, adding explanations and illustration to existing responses to disprove the other side's case is welcomed.
Good third speakers also point out strategic mistakes such as inconsistencies and contradictions on the other side.
A good third speaker also does case rebuild in the end, making sure their arguments stand. There they go into the rebuttal of the other side and show why the rebuttal was wrong or didn't touch their own arguments.
Finally, the third speaker may try to be charitable towards the other side's arguments, giving reasons why their case is superior even if parts of the case of the other side are left standing. This involves presenting or expanding on weighing metrics.
The third speaker is not allowed to present completely new constructive arguments.

Reply speeches

World Schools Style debates include an additional speech from each team, called the reply speech. This is a short, four-minute speech given by either the first or second speaker from the team, and presented in the opposite speaking order to the rest of the debate (i.e. the Opposition deliver the first reply speech, followed by the Proposition). The functions of the reply speech are to:

Outline the points of contention that the debate has centred on;
Evaluate the course of the debate;
Declare the reasoning of their team's victory based on their analysis and weighing.

The reply speech is sometimes referred to as being a "biased adjudication" of the debate, because its format is similar to that of an adjudicator's oral feedback on the debate, but with the purpose of convincing the audience that the speaker's team was victorious. The retrospective nature of the reply speech means that no new material may be introduced in this speech.

Points of information

During any speech except the reply speeches, and not during the first and last minutes of the first six speeches, speaking members of the opposing team may offer points of information to briefly interject a point that the speaker must immediately respond to. The speaker holding the Floor is not obliged to accept all the points of information offered to them, but is likely to be marked down by adjudicators if they do not accept any. Speakers delivering points of information are expected to keep them to 15 seconds or less. Although a speaker's points of information do not have a direct effect on their mark, a mechanism named the "POI Adjuster" has been introduced in recent years: when the quality of a speaker's POIs is significantly different (better or worse) from the quality of their speech, the judge may add or subtract one or two marks from their overall speaker score.

The first and last minute of each main speech, as well as the entire duration of reply speeches, are "protected time", meaning that no Points of information may be offered.

Adjudication

World Schools Style debates are adjudicated based on three metrics: Content, Style and Strategy, of which the former two each make up 40% of the judge's decision and the final 20%. The judging is silent and non-conferral, i.e. judges first vote on the team they believe won the debate independently before then discussing the oral adjudication, or OA, which the chair judge, who is assigned the role before the round based on their experience in debating and judging, delivers to both teams to justify their decision.

When submitting their ballots, judges decide on the amount of speaker points they wish to give to each speaker, rating their speech based on the three categories mentioned above. The scale for speaker points for constructive speeches ranges from 60 to 80, with 70 points representing an average speech. Reply speeches range from 30 to 40 points, typically averaging at 35. The full range of speaker points is rarely, if ever used; for example, no best speaker at the World Schools Debating Championships in the past 5 years has averaged more than 75 speaker points for constructive 8-minute speeches. The winning team must have more total speaker points than the other team.

Split decisions may occur when judges come to different conclusions on the winner of the debate. The team with the most ballots wins the debate whilst every team receives a number of ballots based on the amount of judges which voted for them. In tournaments, this is used to further rank teams of equal amounts of wins in the inrounds of tournaments, determining which teams may progress to the outrounds. If both sides receive an equal amount of votes, the chair judge's ballot breaks the tie to decide the winning team.

Variations

The World Schools Style of debating is used not only at the World Schools Debating Championships, but also at a number of national and regional high school-level debating competitions around the world. At some of these tournaments, the format is varied slightly. For example, at some competitions, the length of speeches is reduced to five or six minutes for main speeches and three minutes for reply speeches. Some tournaments intended for novice-level debaters also do not allow Points of Information.

In the early years of the World Schools Debating Championships, there was a two-minute break between the main speeches and the reply speeches to allow the team members to confer, though this is no longer the case. However, some national or regional World Schools Style tournaments still have this two-minute break, and in some cases members of the team's squad for the competition who do not speak in the debate are allowed to come out of the audience to confer with the speakers during these two minutes.

Related Research Articles

The Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate is the national organization which governs all English language competitive university debating and public speaking in Canada. It sanctions several official annual tournaments and represents Canadian debating domestically and abroad. Its membership consists of student debating unions, sanctioned by their respective universities, from across Canada. CUSID has been described as "a student-run, parliamentary debate league with close ties to the American Parliamentary Debate Association".

Debate is a process that involves formal discourse, discussion, and oral addresses on a particular topic or collection of topics, often with a moderator and an audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for opposing viewpoints. Historically, debates have occurred in public meetings, academic institutions, debate halls, coffeehouses, competitions, and legislative assemblies. Debates have also been conducted for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. These debates emphasize logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience. Modern competitive debate also includes rules for participants to discuss and decide upon the framework of the debate.

Lincoln–Douglas debate is a type of one-on-one competitive debate practiced mainly in the United States at the high school level. It is sometimes also called values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy. The Lincoln–Douglas debate format is named for the 1858 Lincoln–Douglas debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, because their debates focused on slavery and the morals, values, and logic behind it. LD debates are used by the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) competitions, and also widely used in related debate leagues such as the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, the National Catholic Forensic League, the National Educational Debate Association, the Texas University Interscholastic League, Texas Forensic Association, Stoa USA and their affiliated regional organizations.

Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries to rebut the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.

Congressional Debate is a competitive interscholastic high school debate event in the United States. The National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), National Catholic Forensic League (NCFL) and many state associations and national invitational tournaments offer Congressional Debate as an event. Each organization and tournament offers its own rules, although the National Speech and Debate Association has championed standardization since 2007, when it began to ask its districts to use one of a number of procedures for qualification to its National Tournament.

The American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) is the oldest intercollegiate parliamentary debating association in the United States. APDA sponsors over 50 tournaments a year, all in a parliamentary format, as well as a national championship in late April. It also administers the North American Debating Championship with the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate (CUSID) every year in January. Although it is mainly funded by its member universities, APDA is an entirely student-run organization.

The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is one of the two national intercollegiate parliamentary debate organizations in the United States. The other is the American Parliamentary Debate Association. Its membership is national with participating schools throughout the country. In 2015, NPDA was the largest debating organization in the United States with around 200-250 participating schools in any given year.

Public forum debate is a form of competitive debate where debaters use their evidence and impacts to outweigh the benefits and harms of the opposing side. The topics for public forum have to do with current-day events relating to public policy. Debaters work in pairs of two, and speakers alternate for every speech. It is primarily competed by middle and high school students, but college teams exist as well. Invented in the US, public forum is one of the most prominent American debate events, alongside Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate; it is also practiced in China and India, and has been recently introduced to Romania. Individuals give short speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "Crossfire" sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters. The winner is determined by a judge who also serves as a referee. The debate centers on advocating or rejecting a position, "resolve", or "resolution", which is usually a proposal of a potential solution to a current events issue. Public Forum is designed to be accessible to the average citizen.

The World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) is an annual English-language debating tournament for high school-level teams representing different nations.

Parliamentary style debate, colloquially oftentimes just Parliamentary debate, is a formal framework for debate used in debating societies, academic debate events and competitive debate. It has its roots in parliamentary procedure and develops differently in different countries as a result.

In all forms of policy debate, the order of speeches is as follows:

Inter-collegiate policy debate is a form of speech competition involving two teams of two debaters from different colleges or universities based on a resolution phrased as something the United States federal government "should" do. Policy debate also exists as a high school activity, with a very similar format, but different leagues, tournaments, speech times, resolutions, and styles.

British Parliamentary style is a major form of academic debate that originated in Liverpool in the mid 1800s. It has gained wide support globally and is the official format of the World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC).

In competitive debate, most commonly in the World Schools, Karl Popper, and British Parliamentary debate styles, a point of information (POI) is when a member of the team opposing that of the current speaker gets to briefly interrupt the current speaker, offering a POI in the form of a question or a statement. This may be as a correction, asking for clarity, or just a plain question. As in some debating styles, such as World Schools Style, they often may not be offered in the first or last minute of any speech, or during reply speeches. Points of information may never be offered to a member of the same team.

Australia–Asia Debate, sometimes referred to as Australasian Debating or Australs Style, is a form of academic debate. In the past few years, this style of debating has increased in usage dramatically throughout Australia and New Zealand as well as the broader Asian region, but in the case of Asian countries including Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines, the format is also used alongside the British Parliamentary Format. The context in which the Australia-Asia style of debate is used varies, but it is commonly used in Australia at the primary and secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year. It is also commonly used at university level.

The Arena is a debate-style television show produced by Mediacorp Channel 5 in Singapore. Two seasons of the show were broadcast, with Season one held on January–March 2007, and season two on March–May 2008. The show involves teams of students from secondary schools in Singapore debating against each other on issues of topical interest. The show is hosted by Adrian Pang in the first season, before replaced with Jason Chan in Season two.

Public debate may mean simply debating by the public, or in public. The term is also used for a particular formal style of debate in a competitive or educational context. Two teams of two compete through six rounds of argument, giving persuasive speeches on a particular topic.

Square Off is a television debate program broadcast on the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC). It broadcasts every Friday at 6:00 pm PST, with replays throughout the week. The show is hosted by Maiki Oreta and is primarily sponsored by the Philippine Graphic.

The Heart of Europe International Debating Tournament (HOE DT) is an annual debating tournament for high school-level teams which is held in English.

This is a glossary of policy debate terms.

References

↑ WSDC Tournament Committee (September 2024). "WSDC Debate Rules" (PDF). Retrieved 31 December 2024.

External links

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] WSDC Tournament Committee (September 2024). "WSDC Debate Rules" (PDF). Retrieved 31 December 2024.

[1]