1. Who are we representing?

We are debating as the “Western Democracies” (In general: Israel, North America, Europe).

Students should not get bogged down in specific examples. They should be able to generalize
correctly. They should NOT use specific examples like: “Well, this would not work in Estonia!”
or “Well, it worked in Norway so of course it would work everywhere.”

Of course, using an example to explain a process or how something that worked/didn’t work,
might/might not work somewhere else in the argument is fine and even strengthens an
argument. But this only works when explaining why the example would indeed work/not work
in other places.

For example, "In England, this happened. We think that this is representative of all of
Western Democracies for the following reasons: …"

The students should be focused more on the ideas themselves in the motions and not so much
about where those ideas are being used, where they have been used or where there is already
a plan to use them.

Students may add other relevant material they have researched from reliable sources to
support their arguments. They must be careful to stay on clash and not to give explanations
and specific examples that do not connect with the thread of their argument.

Students should not just memorize the material in the topic guides!

2. Do the students need to address the judges, audience,,, before their

speeches?
No, no need.

3. Can you explain in more details what the goal of the whip is? Is there a whip
on both sides? Can you go through the order of what the whip is presenting?

This information is in addition to the Teachers' Guide

The last speakers on both the proposition and opposition are called the whips. The role of the
whips is to show the engagement of their arguments with the other teams' arguments, and to
compare the advantages of their own argument versus the disadvantages of the opposite
team’s argument. Each whip must show how their team won the debate.

The whips should:

1. briefly summarize and defend the points their team has made
 2. summarize and prioritize the most important clashes, arguments or issues in the debate
3. use refutation, analysis and illustration\evidence\and/or examples to show how their
team has done better in proving these clashes, arguments and\or issues.
4. include answers to the questions asked during the debate-to show how their answers
strengthened their team's case.

The whips should not add new arguments to their team’s cases. However, they can (and
should!) present new analysis, new examples, new rebuttals and give support for arguments
their teammates have already made, thus showing how their team was more persuasive.

The order of the whip’s speech can be as follows:

1. speak in the order of the main clashes or questions in the debate
2. address each clash or question in turn
3. show how their team was more persuasive for their side in each clash

Chronologically their speech would be much like the first two speakers with the clashes\main
issues\big questions taking the place of arguments.

For example:
“There were two main clashes in this debate, The effects of school uniforms on learning
and discipline in the school. These clashes are the significant clashes in the debate
because [explain the significance of this clash]

“For the first clash, my team gave this argument [give a very brief summary of the
argument – one sentence.] The opposing team answered by saying [give a very brief
summary of their argument – one sentence.] Comparing these two cases, please notice
that on our side [give analysis, evidence\illustrations, explanation of why your side is
more persuasive.]”

“For the second clash, my team gave this argument [give a very brief summary of the
argument – one sentence.] The opposing team answered by saying [give a very brief
summary of their argument – one sentence.] Comparing these two cases, please notice
that on our side [give analysis, evidence\illustrations, explanation of why your side is
more persuasive.]”

What happens when both teams are off clash?

When both teams are off clash (arguing for points not very important to the debate),
then the team that is more on clash is probably going to win. The best strategy at this
point would be for one of the teams to explain why the other team is less relevant to
the debate than them - this can be done best in the whip speech or during the team
questions part. if the two teams are going head-to-head in the same clash, the team
that argues it better would win the clash.