Conducting a Debate

There are two teams opposing each other in a debate competition. The topic of debate is called the motion. The team in favor of the motion is called the proposition or
affirmative, and the team arguing against the motion is called the opposition or negative. The burden of proof lies on the proposition, which is why the proposition team both
opens and closes the debate. The proposition is charged with the responsibility of proving that the motion is more true than it is false, which makes the proposition’s position
more challenging because building a strong case for something is harder than looking for holes in the case, which is the responsibility of the opposition.
Debate opens with the affirmative team (the team that supports the resolution) presenting their arguments followed by a member of the opposing team. This pattern is repeated
for the second speaker in each team. Finally, each team gets an opportunity for rebutting the arguments of the opponent.
While the amount of time allotted to each speaking turn varies according to the debate format, the order in which debaters speak is an important part of the debate rules. The
first four/ six speeches (two/ three speakers from each side) are also known as constructive speeches because each speaker is constructing or building an argument. Any points
or ideas that each side wants the judge or mediator to consider must be presented during the constructive speeches.
The final two speeches are known as the rebuttal speeches, which are designed to summarize the main points for each side while simultaneously trying to poke holes in
opposing arguments. If the rebuttal speeches contain any new arguments that have no foundation in the constructive speeches, judges are expected to disregard those
arguments when weighing the merits of each side’s case.
The debate begins with the first speaker for the proposition making a case for the motion and proceeds with the first speaker for the opposition refuting the proposition’s case
and introducing new ideas. Each side takes turns presenting their speeches. The speakers in the constructive speeches are responsible for refuting their opponent’s case while
using evidence and arguments to strengthen their own ideas. The speakers in the rebuttal speeches are charged with summarizing and making sense of the debate in a way that
will persuade the judge to vote for their side.
 Speakers should speak slowly and clearly.
 The judges and members of the audience should be taking notes as the debate proceeds.
 True debate is more than people reading from a script. It is the expression of ideas and information in an authentic manner, which is why prepared speeches have no
place in a formal debate.
A typical sequence for debate, with suggested timelines, is as follows:
 The first speaker on the affirmative team presents arguments in support of the resolution. (2 minutes)
 The first speaker on the opposing team presents arguments opposing the resolution. (2 minutes)
 The second speaker on the affirmative team presents further arguments in support of the resolution, identifies areas of conflict, and answers questions that may have
been raised by the previous affirmative speaker. (2 minutes)
 The second speaker on the opposing team presents further arguments against the resolution, identifies further areas of conflict, and answers questions that may have
been raised by the previous affirmative speaker. (2 minutes)
 The opposing team begins with the rebuttal, attempting to defend the opposing arguments and to defeat the supporting arguments without adding any new
information. (2 minutes)
 First rebuttal of the affirmative team. (2 minutes)
  Each team gets a second rebuttal for closing statements with the affirmative team having the last opportunity to speak. (2 minutes each)
Note: There cannot be any interruptions. Speakers must wait their turns. The teacher may need to enforce the rules.

Levels of Performance for AFFIRMATIVE Team

Criteria 4 3 2 1

1. Organization & Clarity: Completely clear and Mostly clear and orderly in Clear in some parts but not Unclear and disorganized
orderly presentation all parts overall throughout
Main arguments and responses are
outlined in a clear and orderly way.

2. Use of Argument: Very strong and persuasive Many good arguments Some decent arguments, but Few or no real arguments given,
arguments given throughout given, with only minor some significant problems or all arguments given had
Reasons are given to support the
problems significant problems
resolution

3. Use of cross-examination and
rebuttal:
Identification of weakness in Negative
team’s arguments and ability to defend
itself against attack.
Excellent cross-exam and
defense against Negative
team’s objections
Good cross-exam and
rebuttals, with only minor
slip-ups
Decent cross-exam and/or
rebuttals, but with some
significant problems
Poor cross-exam or rebuttals,
failure to point out problems in
Negative team’s position or
failure to defend itself against
attack.

4. Presentation Style: All style features were used Most style features were Few style features were used Very few style features were
convincingly used convincingly convincingly used, none of them convincingly
Tone of voice, clarity of expression,
precision of arguments all contribute to
keeping audience’s attention and
persuading them of the team’s case.
Levels of Performance for NEGATIVE Team

Criteria 4 3 2 1

1. Organization & Clarity: Completely clear and Mostly clear and orderly in Clear in some parts but not Unclear and disorganized
orderly presentation all parts overall throughout
Main arguments and responses are
outlined in a clear and orderly way.

2. Use of Argument: Very strong and persuasive Many good arguments Some decent arguments, but Few or no real arguments given,
arguments given throughout given, with only minor some significant problems or all arguments given had
Reasons are given against the resolution
problems significant problems

3. Use of cross-examination and
rebuttal:
Identification of weakness in Affirmative
team’s arguments and ability to defend
itself against attack.
Excellent cross-exam and
defense against Affirmative
team’s objections
Good cross-exam and
rebuttal, with only minor
slip-ups
Decent cross-exam and/or
rebuttal, but with some
significant problems
Poor cross-exam or rebuttal,
failure to point out problems in
Affirmative team’s position or
failure to defend itself against
attack.

4. Presentation Style: All style features were used Most style features were Few style features were used Very few style features were
convincingly used convincingly convincingly used, none of them convincingly
Tone of voice, clarity of expression,
precision of arguments all contribute to
keeping audience’s attention and
persuading them of the team’s case.