Key Links:

Curriculum to Teach Worlds Debate - By Andy Stubbs (Houston Urban Debate League)

NSDA World Schools Debate Guide

What is World Schools Debate (WSD)?

Simulation of real public (political) discussion with the main focus on argumentation. Main goal of both teams is to prove the motion - their “vision of the world”. In WSD the judge is a regular intelligent person who is looking to be convinced about which vision of the world is strongest. LOGIC is more important than EVIDENCES or EXAMPLES. Students are encouraged to speak clearly and at a normal pace to allow judges time to absorb an analyze the arguments presented.

Speech Organization

  • First Two Speakers (Proposition/Opposition) - 8 min each

    1) Introduce the motion,

    2) define (prop) or redefine (opp - optional) reasonable key terms of the debate,

    3) establish (prop) or engage with or accept (opp) reasonable burdens of the debate for each side,

    4) (optional) establish a mechanism by which the resolution will be implemented.

    4) both sides should establish typically 2 substantives or main claims of their side of the debate along with internal warrants (arguments and examples) which reinforce the substantive.

    5) opposition should also clash with the substantives of the proposition as part of their speech

  • Second Two Speakers - 8 min each

    1) Address any unresolved burdens, definitions or mechanisms. Teams should come to reasonable agreement on definitions and on burdens that are not too narrow for one or other side.

    2) Clash with the other team’s substantive arguments. Engage with the other sides arguments on a pragmatic and reasonable level.

    3) Deliver remaining (typically 3rd) substantive to extend the case.

    4) Defend first speaker previous arguments to show team cohesion and common strategy.

  • Third Two Speakers - 8 min each

    1) Do not introduce new arguments, but may add new examples and information to bolster arguments that were already introduced.

    Choose one of the 2 methods:

    2) Method 1 - Point by Point Clash - a) address an definition or burden debate, b) address individual substantive arguments of opponent show problem with other team arguments, c) move to main arguments of their side of debate. Reference all burdens of the debate and explain why their side meets burdens more effectively.

    3) Method 2 (more common) - Three Points of Crystallization - Define 3 main areas of clash to prove their arguments are superior on a pragmatic and practical level. Make sure to tie the arguments back to the burdens.

  • Reply Two Speeches - 4 minutes each

    1) Opposition speaks first (meaning judge will here 2 back to back opposition speeches).

    2) Speech only be delivered by 1st or 2nd speaker.

    3) Method 1 - Establish the two worlds comparing the two worlds presented by either side.

    4) Method 2 - Use guideposts of burdens to explain how 2 areas of clash have address the burdens.

    5) Method 3 - Identify 2 key areas of clash.

    6) Give the judge a new perspective on the issues without replicating 3rd speech.

Point of Information (Questions)

Unlike typical debate, students may rise and ask for points of information during the constructive speech of their opponent. A few guidelines to consider for Points of Information:

  • No questions may be asked ONLY during the first 6 speeches of the debate and not during the Reply speech.

  • Questions may not be asked during the first and last minute of each constructive speech (protected time).

  • Teams must wait for at least 20 seconds between requests for Points of Information. Barracking is using excessive Points of Information.

  • Speakers may accept or reject the Points of Information.

  • It is recommended the each speaker take two Points of Information a the appropriate time.

  • Points of Information maybe statement, not just a question, but should be limited to 15 seconds.

Judging

Judging Worlds School Debate is somewhat easier than standard debate as WSD has a predefined points system. However, since there are no breaks during the one hour debate, judges are encouraged to score their points during the speeches in order not to forget the content, style and strategy of each speaker. Judge may go back after the round and adjust their points.

1) Burden of proof is on the Proposition so a tie will always go to the Opposition

2) Judges must rank each speaker on a point system based on 3 criteria, it is recommended that judges start each speaker at the average score and either go up or down based on their analysis:

  • Content (24 - 32 points, with average speaker being 28) - The quality of the analysis presented– it covers both the speaker’s own arguments and the rebuttals to the opposing team’s arguments. The judge should independently assess the strength of the arguments, regardless of whether (or how well) they were refuted.

    • Arguments– development, soundness, relevance, importance.

    • Examples– applicability, credibility.

    • Analysis– are assumptions explained? Are the logical links explained?

    • Rebuttal– were the other team’s major ideas addressed? Did they interpret the other team’s arguments correctly?

  • Style (24 - 32 points, with average speaker being 28) - The way in which the content was presented. There are plenty of good styles and not one superior kind of style. Was the debater effective, persuasiveness and communicativeness while presenting their speech?

    ***NOTE: Judges are not evaluating the debaters’ command of the English language. Points should not be deducted for pronunciation or vocabulary***

  • Strategy (12 - 16 points, with average speaker being 14) -The way the speech works with the other speeches from the team and whether it addresses why the content was presented. This may include: Includes:

    • Understanding– do they have a reasonable interpretation of the motion; a good understanding of the motion?

    • Prioritization– did they spend the most time on the arguments that matter the most in the round?

    • Time management– did they allocate their time well?

    • Structure– was the speech easy to follow?

    • Consistency– were the arguments and speeches consistent in their understanding of the motion, prioritization of important clashes, etc?

    • Engagement– did the speech clash with the important ideas from the other team?

  • NOTE: Reply speeches are half the points of constructive speeches.

3) Judges may add or deduct up to 2 points based on Points of Information.

4) Judges may not award a win to a team with lower overall points.