Team SA WSDC 2023 Training Guide

TEAM SOUTH AFRICA WSDC
2023
TRAINING GUIDE
Witten & Compiled by: Eric Kazadi
With Contributions from:
Marcus Cordeiro, Amaar Jeyasothy, Tshepo Mofokeng & Phiwe Salukazana
Special Thanks to the Online Dutch WSDC 2022 Chief Adjudication Panel
(CAs – Luka Petrovic & Amrithavarshini Venkatesh. DCAs – Shudipto Ahmed, Alice
Bertoni, Maurice Coutiel, Shruti Deb, Eric Kazadi, Wairimu Manyara, Chansol Park &
Daniel Wiyarta Tenggara)
22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org
National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

FOREWORD:
This is a training guide produced to aid speakers in preparation for the Team SA WSDC 2023
Trials. It serves the purpose of standardising the level with which speakers grasp both the
theoretical and practical aspects of World Schools Style debating. This is aimed at
intermediate and advanced level debaters and as such will either gloss over some basics or
not cover them at all, under the assumption that at this level individuals are meant to be
well-versed with the WSDC Format.
It also serves to aid in the Head Coaches endeavour to ensure that there is a consistent and
nationally applied metric for what constitutes the foundational skillsets required to be a part
of the South African WSDC Team – we lament that in recent years there has been a circuit-
wide tendency to deviate from the global standards and norms surrounding debating good
practice as this harms our ability to have grassroots development of speakers who are
competitive at the World Schools Debating Championships.
We strongly urge anyone with debating aspirations to read through this pack, internalise the
concepts thought and try their level best to complete the drills and exercises contained
within. We also urge adjudicators to familiarise themselves with the concepts contained
within and to make genuine efforts to align their judging with international norms. We
welcome future endeavours to build upon and improve this guide from future coaches and
all those concerned with the competitive success of the South African WSDC Team.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. Case Setup
a. Understanding Motions
b. Case Level Framing
c. Case Setup Template
d. PRACTICE: Case Setup Drills
2. Argumentation
a. Principle vs. Practical Arguments
b. Argument Level Framing
c. Argument Template
d. PRACTICE: Argumentation Drills
3. Rebuttal/Refutation/Responses
a. Direct vs. Indirect
b. Response Level Framing
c. PRACTICE: Response Drills
4. Comparatives & Weighing

a. Clear Comparatives
b. Weighing Metrics
c. Weighing Principle vs. Principle
d. Weighing Pragmatic vs. Pragmatic
e. Weighing Principle vs. Pragmatic
f. PRACTICE: Comparing & Weighing Arguments/Responses
5. Notes on Style
6. Debater Mindset
7. Further Resources

1. Case Setup
The term ‘case’ can be understood as the overall line of reasoning a team sets out to prove as
being true, legitimate, most likely, or most desirable etc., so as to win the debate from the
side of the contention they are assigned. Often intuitive – the first thought which comes to
your head once a motion is read out, thus your debating intuitions need to be honed through
exposure to as many motions and debates as possible.
A complete case is generally comprised of 2 parts:

1. Case Setup
2. 3 Arguments
a. Ideally 2 in the 1st speech
i. Principled argument
ii. Practical Argument (immediate outcomes of motion standing or falling)
b. An independent argument in the 2nd speech
i. Most commonly long-term, speculative benefits or harms, an
exploration of a different context and/or stakeholder etc.
This section focuses on effective and efficient case setup – done well, this makes the first
two-three minutes of a Prop 1 or Opp 1 speech very compelling. The first aspect to setting up
your case for success requires that you read the motion carefully and understand the
technical burdens it places on teams depending on how the motion is phrased.
This is critical – debating is not merely about coming up with good ideas, but rather is also
about ensuring that you understand the meta of the round. Motion setting is an artform, a
good AdjCore or motions committee dedicate at least weeks to exploring motions and
ensuring that it is phrased in the manner that is most balanced for either side.
a) Understanding Motions:
To understand what each different motion type requires of teams, go through the following
material:
MANDATORY:
1. WSDC 2022 Debater & Judge Briefing (Section 2, Part 2 on Interpreting Motions &
Setting Up Debates), Slides 13-25. *Strongly recommended to read it entirely*

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TpGaeDPoEm_k8SMYaN1UDOxjKZ54nK1j
TTl5VjkInPk/edit?usp=sharing
STRONGLY RECOMMENDED:
2. WSDC 2022 - Debating "This house believes that..." motions. By Shruti Deb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcpC6K2iH-o&t=233s
3. WSDC 2022 - Debating "This house would...." and other policy motions. By Shudipto
Ahmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ9H94xMXa4
4. WSDC 2022 - Debating "This house supports/ opposes/ regrets..." motions. By Alice
Bertoni.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvCC4LqUip4
5. WSDC 2022 - Debating "This house prefers..." motions. By Amrithavarshini

Venkatesh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gi_NahFaEA
b) Case Level Framing
Framing is a vast concept however at its core, it refers to the strategic value of what a speaker
says in their speech and how it helps further their case relative to the other side. There is no
one-size-fits-all approach to framing as it is highly motion and round dependent (hence the
need to hone your debating intuitions once again), however speakers who excel at framing
make the job of judges easier and are more likely to have panels call in their favour.
Framing has become an increasingly valuable tool in advancing the strategy of your side.
Understanding the motion as explored above is a necessary, but insufficient step to ensure
victory in the round – framing is what makes the difference. At a case level, framing
enhances your case' robustness by outlining why what you and your team are about to say is
important in the debate and should be credited above other, competing material presented.
To do this successfully, speakers are required to explicitly do the following in their case
setup: attach context to the case and each individual speech i.e., “painting the picture”,

explain why the issues you're discussing are significant to the debate, specifying burdens and
what is and isn’t pertinent in the round and provide a justification for selecting specific
arguments.
This includes an exploration of both context and burdens:
1) Context
a) Where does this debate take place, & are there parts of the world that are
affected more by this?
b) What recent events change things?
c) Do recent events make this motion important?
d) What are the limitations of the motion, based on the real world?
2) Burdens
a) What do we have to prove in this debate?
b) What are we not responsible for – i.e., “lines in the sand”
i) These are just as important in order to prevent teams taking on
unnecessary burdens or opponents overburdening teams.
c) How do we prove these burdens?
d) What is reasonable to expect in this debate?
i) Can we actually solve all ethnic conflicts on the continent? Will we create
complete equality with this model?
ii) If not, what is your goal then? Why is it worthwhile and comparatively
better to the status quo?
e) Do not shy away from making strategic concessions in order to have principle
consistency.
Case level framing is developed during preparation time, ideally as close to the beginning of
prep as possible and during silent brainstorming, before discussing with your teammates
and consolidating your framing. It is best practice to consolidate your framing before you
begin prepping individual arguments.

In order to develop your framing, consider the following:
1) What fiat do we have in this round?

a. Fiat is essentially the power of implementation and teams are constrained by
it – otherwise, teams can run cases which are flights of fancy. For example, we
could theoretically tax all wealth beyond a particular ceiling and redistribute
that, however even countries with the most progressive tax rates do not set
hard ceilings on personal wealth.
b. Why? Doing so would be politically unfavourable, people would backlash, etc.
– all these are limitations to fiat that governments face and similarly, debates
also impose limitations on the fiat of teams.
c. Note, opposition also has limitations on fiat. Thus, when running counter-
policies, you have to ensure that it requires a symmetric amount of fiat as, if
not less than, the proposition.
2) What trade-offs do we need to make?

a. Motions are balanced and this means that there is theoretically an equal
chance for teams on either side to win the round. Thus, there is logically an
easier path to victory for one team.
b. Running an absolutist case that refuses to concede any harms and claims to
have all the benefits for all stakeholders in every scenario is thus unlikely to be
true or persuasive.
c. Teams are NOT tasked to win every clash and protect everyone in the debate,
but rather have to pick strategic impacts and stakeholders, and explain why
these are most important. As such, use framing to trade-off big shortcomings
of your side, certain stakeholders and potentially even lose some clashes (at
the expense of winning others and weighing why these matter more).
c) Case Setup Template
Ideally, case setup should take the first two and half minutes of a First Speech. There are 5
key components to an effective case setup:
a. Compelling Introduction – use this as an opportunity to problematise the

status quo, posit your framing or explain the main thrust of your side etc.

b. Team Strategy – here, introduce your model/stance/counterfactual etc., as
the motion requires of you.
c. Trade-off – quickly acknowledge the harmful kickbacks of your side of the

motion. Think about how clashes will likely play out in the round.
d. Weighing – towards the top of your speech, mitigate the strongest push
against your side and justify your trade-off.
e. Case Split – List the three arguments in your case.
d) PRACTICE: Case Setup Drills
For the following motions, prepare case setups incorporating all that has been discussed in
this section. Do this for both Proposition and Opposition and try to spend no more than 10
minutes per side, per motion.
• THW prohibit countries with poor human rights track records from hosting major
international sporting events.
• THR the dominance of left/liberal views at universities.
• When they are not part of that religion, THBT feminists should refrain from
critiquing widespread religious practices that have different rules based on gender
(e.g. wearing of veils, separate prayer spaces, women on their period being forbidden
from fasting, Iddah (waiting) period after divorce/death of a husband, etc.)

2. Argumentation
Arguments are essentially the claims posited by teams to further their case. These come in
the form of multi-layered, logically sound and well-grouped individual points, also known
as layers of analysis. Important things to bear are in mind are a) separate arguments need
to be distinct yet complementary such that they can co-exist within your overall case, b)
claims need to be well-justified in order to considered arguments – the “rule of threes” is
important here i.e., having three different levels to prove a single claim is generally ideal and
c) always double-check that you are not splitting an impact of an argument and branding it
as its own argument.
A) Principles vs. Practical Arguments
Principles (or moral claims) are just as important as practical arguments (or pragmatic
claims) yet are often neglected by teams. There is a deeper meta-debating split on whether
or not the principle/practical binary actually exists to the extent that is often portrayed in
debates, but that is a broader philosophical conversation beyond the scope of this guide.
Suffice to say, that most debaters and judges generally understand the difference to be that
principles are moral judgements on the inherent legitimacy of an action or stance etc.,
whereas practical claims are focused on the outcomes of an action or stance etc.
For example, mass, prolonged incarceration of individuals, even for petty crimes of
acquisition, may result in decreased crime rates (practical), but it is hard to justify given that
the threshold of justification for a policy that will significantly restrict freedoms such as
choice and movement for extended periods of time is likely to be deemed dehumanising,
disproportionate and thus, immoral (principle).
Seems clear enough, so why is it that speakers tend to struggle with crafting principles more
than pragmatic claims? In the author’s experience, it boils down not to a lack of
understanding of what principles are but rather to a lack of craftsmanship in developing and
sustaining arguments that are non-consequentialist.
To develop principled arguments, you first need to identify the underlying principled clash
in the motion. Debates are often weigh-ups of two or more competing “moral” norms in
society – identify the one which your side is tasked with defending, and this becomes the
premise of your principled claim. Some common and recurring principles include:

• Choice – any debate about bodily autonomy (e.g., consensual cannibalism, cosmetic
surgery, designer babies, banning or allowing controlled substances such as alcohol
etc.)
• Democracy – debates about the pillars of democracy and the separation of powers
(e.g., granting votes proportional to age/gender/class, democratic systems such as
first past the post or proportional representation, disallowing political parties etc.)
• Human Dignity – debates about the right of a person to be valued and respected
for their own sake, and to be treated ethically (e.g., disregarding any medical or
scientific advancements achieved through unethical studies, the preservation of
historic or religious sites, the use of torture on suspected criminals or terrorists etc.)
• Just War – debates about what type of conduct is allowed during warfare (e.g., use
of cyber or drone warfare, decapitation tactics, targeting areas with civilians to aid in
military efforts etc.)
• Justice – debates about criminal law, the judiciary and the maintaining of law and
order in society (e.g., abolishing prison sentences for non-violent crimes, considering
victim-impact statements in sentencing, judicial activism etc.)
• Reparations – debates about whether or not a stakeholder is deserving of some

compensation for a historic harm (e.g., former colonisers returning art and artefacts,
the creation of a Black secessionist state, decreasing the income tax rate of minorities
etc.)
• Responsibility (or Fairness) – debates about making holding any stakeholder

accountable or liable for some outcome in society (e.g., making executives liable for
environmental degradation or human rights abuses across the production chain,
allies and members of social movements, parenthood etc.)
Debates often pit these common principles against each other and as such you need to
consider your principle relative to a contrasting, competing principle. For example, liberties
such as choice, human dignity and privacy often clash with security (should people be able
to exercise the choice to own firearms even though a society with more guns is generally

more unsafe and violent than one with less guns? Alternatively, are surveillance states
justified in pursuing lower crime rates at the expense of human dignity and privacy?)
Thus, you can then generate a non-consequential argument by developing the following:
1) Identify the principle you’re defending.
2) Provide an analogy or intuition pump to illustrate instances in which we enshrine

this right in society.
a. This is easiest way to exemplify a principle given principles are often quite
hard to accurately measure. This is both good at illustrating, but also it is
often easier to think of WHY that more common intuition pump is okay/is
not okay than the thing in the actual debate.
b. You can also obviously DO THE OPPOSITE. Argue for how something
‘does not fulfil the following principles of responsibility, therefore they
should not be held responsible’.
c. An intuition pump is basically any broadly accepted, unchangeable moral

in society that is analogous to the principle you are defending. For example,
pointing out that safety briefings in airplanes always teach to secure one’s
own oxygen mask during a crisis before attempting to help children or the
elderly is a good intuition pump to argue why individuals are justified in
self-preservation or moral proximity, even at the expense of the more
vulnerable in society.
3) Explain how the intuition pump/analogy is actually analogous.
4) Explain why the principle is important.
For example, consider the motion “THBT sporting clubs should be held responsible for the
actions of their fans”. A good Proposition principle might be analysed as follows:
• It is justified to hold the sports clubs responsible for these actions
• We generally hold people responsible on 3 grounds:
o When they directly cause or contribute to the causing of harm
o When they’ve failed in their duty, job or role to prevent harm
o When they benefit or profit from the harm

▪ On all three grounds, sporting clubs are responsible because
• a) they sell cheap alcohol which contributes to fans being more
likely to chant slurs or engage in violence (i.e., they cause the
harm),
• b) clubs have a job to keep people in their premises safe, which
includes safe from abuse and violence (they’ve failed in their
duty), and
• c) clubs often fan the fires of rivalries and create toxic
competition amongst fans for club superiority in order to sell
more tickets or merchandise e.g., Glasgow Rangers and their
rivalry with the Celtics (i.e., they benefit from the harm)
• This is analogous to wealthy executives blatantly ignoring environmental and human

rights abuses along the production, transportation, sale, and consumption chain of
their products. For principle consistency, we would also support holding them liable
because they are similarly responsible as these clubs are.
• This principle is important because justice should happen regardless of outcomes –

we put people in jail not just because it “stops crime” but also because it is fair given
that criminals are responsible for the harm they cause.
Principles can also be incredibly rhetorical in debates, and it is really useful to make use of
stylistic emoting and make the judge ‘feel’ them. For a deeper understanding on the
construction of principles, refer to the following:
MANDATORY:
1. Principle Arguments Brief by Phiwe Salukazana
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dc4dKbc1CqBiOj-GX594Cij-
i3IdCuS5/view?usp=sharing

b) Argument Level Framing
A common inefficiency in speeches is that they have a massive chunk of context and actor
analysis listed out at the top of the speech. The problem with this is that it is often unclear
where you are weaponizing the context as pertinent and relevant and secondly, speakers
often do a poor job of linking a piece of context provided in the first minute of their speech
to the argument they are beginning at the sixth minute mark of their speech.
You should have observed in the previous section that the case setup template omits any
explicit portion dedicated to context. This common form of ‘context-dumping’ rarely serves
speakers well as judges often struggle to link it to anything else the speaker is saying to
advance their case. Rather, this guide posits that speakers deliver context within arguments
– this way, any argument specific context is contained within the argument it is relevant in
and logically, this context can serve as both the framing and premise of an argument.
Thus, for Argument Level Framing, introduce the framing prior to delivering the layers of
analysis to prove your claim. This explains why this particular argument is relevant given
the round that is taking place most importantly for any speaker who is not the 1st Prop, you
can justify the argument in response to other speeches.
How to deliver framing within an argument:
• Present it within the argument – after positing the claim and before delving into
layers of analysis
• Establish the argument-specific context
• Explain burdens and why teams fail or succeed at meeting them
• Explain why your framing is true – list reasons, ideally 3.
• Explain why your framing is important – list reasons, 1-2.
From there, you may proceed to giving your individual layers of analysis for your claim.
c) Argument Template
Ideally, an individual argument should take around three minutes to be analysed in the 1st
Speeches and the arguments in a second speech can range anywhere from between 3-5
minutes in the 2nd Speeches, depending on how much refutation the speech has.
There are 5 key components to an effective argument:

• Claim
o This is merely the title of your argument
• Framing
o Establishing the context and premises of the argument. Can also be used to
place an argument in the debate relative to what the has already transpired or
is likely to transpire in the debate.
• Analysis
o Providing logically-sound structural reasons why your claim is true.
• Comparative
o Explain the mutual exclusivity or uniqueness of your point. Purpose of this
section is to do further strategic work to explain why the other team, even at
their best, cannot co-opt your benefit/mitigate your harm.
• Impacts
o Not merely a reiteration of your claim, but rather you push the envelope even
further by explaining the real-world manifestations of your point and the
significance of your argument (which you have by now framed, proven to be
true as well as unique) to how the judge should adjudicate the round and credit
your team.
o Real World Impacting - An impact on the real world details the effect the
response will have on some element of society. It should explain in detail what
will happen, good or bad, as a result of the argument.
o Debate Impacting - An impact on the debate details the effect the argument
has on the opponent’s case . It connects the argument that is being made to the
ballot and decision that the judge ultimately must make.
▪ A good argument will contain BOTH a real-world impact and an impact

on the debate round, e.g.. “Because the policy will not stifle, but rather
stimulate, the private sector, millions of jobs will be created, and
millions of families will be better off. This argument proves why we are

better for the stakeholders both sides have conceded are the most
important, therefore it’s clear that we are winning.”
D) PRACTICE – Argumentation Drills
For the motions below, generate two arguments on either side (1 principled claim and 1
practical claim) that align with the argument structure outlined above.
• THW actively incentivize migration from urban to rural areas
• In progressive countries, THBT politicians from ethnic minorities should opt for
creating their own political party, as opposed to joining pre-existing established
political parties.
• THS the use of economic warfare tactics (tariffs, targeted sanctions etc.) in order to
force compliance with rules of the global neoliberal economic order (opening up of
national markets, protecting intellectual property, not engaging in currency
manipulation etc.)

3. Rebuttal/Refutation/Responses
Anything said to counter the claims and analysis, or minimise the impact, posited by the
other side is a response. Responses are usually presented in a portion of the speech titled
‘rebuttal’ or ‘refutation’, however it is worth noting that a response does not necessarily have
to be branded as rebuttal in order to be credited (e.g., when claims inherently compete, a
speaker might opt to prioritise discharging their side’s contention and this would still be
considered responding to the other side; flagging is recommended). Furthermore, a
response need not necessarily disprove the argument of the other side in order to be a valid
– responses which minimise the significance of an opponents’ contention are still crucial.
Given the level this is pitched at, this guide shall not endeavour to provide a template for
responses as that is largely motion and round specific. It is, however, interesting to note that
responses can be thought of as arguments themselves (the only difference is that they are
arguments to DISPROVE a claim) – so the earlier argument structure can also be employed
when in doubt about how to structure responses.
a. Direct & Indirect

At this level, debaters ought to be well-versed in the differences between the two types of
responses – direct responses aim to disprove the logic and truth of a claim, whereas indirect
responses provide counter-considerations by positing either equally plausible claims or
attempting to minimise the significance of a claim in the round (weighing is covered more
in-depth in a later section). The below only serves as a brief review and segue into the
framing and weighing sections later on. Should you not be familiar with this, kindly please
consult any introductory level guide, peruse the additional resources linked at the end of this
guide or approach your coaches etc.,
i) Direct Responses – these are analytical criticisms. When providing direct

responses, you ought to explicitly state on what basis the argument is
untrue, and then provide the truth as your team views it (multi-layered is
best, rule of threes). Below are some grounds for an argument being
illogical

(1) No, or insufficient, analysis to prove the claim
(2) The analysis provided does not reach the conclusion/impact intended
(3) The analysis is logically fallacious
(a) Ad Hominem
(b) Appeals to authority
(c) Circular logic
(d) False dichotomy
(e) Perfectionist fallacy
(f) Strawman
(g) Sunk Cost fallacy
(h) Etc…
ii) Indirect Responses – these posit equally or more compelling alternative

interpretations, principles, or outcomes. Useful in engaging with the best-
case scenario of opponents if you can prove that even if their claims are
true, they are less important. Some useful indirect responses are below:
(1) Principles
(a) Their principled claim has a secondary effect of legitimising other
immoral acts (or delegitimises other moral acts)
(b) Their principled good can be achieved through other mechanisms
(2) Outcomes
(a) Their impact is insignificant when compared to something else
(mitigation)
(b) Only an insignificant fraction of stakeholders benefit/are harmed
(c) Their outcome can be achieved through our policy and/or other, less
harmful mechanism
(d) Their benefit/harm is undone in the long-term
(3) Strategic
(a) This argument contradicts or is in tension with some other part of
their case/characterisation.
(b) The claim concedes something which is not helpful for their case
(c) The claim is uncomparative or engages with a false comparative
(d) The claim does not fulfil the burden of their side

b. Response Level Framing
Framing helps explain why what you’re doing makes sense in the round, and a common
mistake speakers make is merely running through responses without connecting those
responses to any high-level meta debating. Without framing responses, your refutation
merely comes across as a checklist being run through in your speech as opposed to really
advancing anything specific or valuable for your team in the debate.
In order to maximise the impact of your responses, it is critical that speakers go about
framing their responses by ‘commenting’ on the debate – how the arguments of the teams
have evolved, the way in which this engages (or does not) with the underlying principles and
burdens on either side and why the opponents failing to fulfil some burden or provide
adequate responses etc., is critical and round losing for them. Essentially, prior to positing
responses, you need to frame them within the debate, comment on why the response you
will provide is key in helping your team win and tell the judge how you believe they should
be crediting and prioritising material within the debate in favour of your team.
Providing framing in responses:
• Comment on the round thus far → Here’s what’s been said, the context stands as…
etc.
• Reframe: Debate has been misguided, the real (problem, impact, stakeholder, etc.) is
X. You should care more about what we are about to say!
• Why is this framing true?

o Reasons 1, 2, 3
• Why does this framing matter?

o Shows X argument isn’t relevant or prioritises the wrong stakeholder
o Shows X impact isn’t likely or isn’t the primary outcome of the debate
o Shows X clash is a wash* or lacks mutual exclusivity (a clash is a wash, or
washes out, in the debate when both sides provide equally plausible material,
often without structural reasons or weighing, such that it is impossible to
weigh one side over the other without the judge inserting themselves or using

some other metric which is not within the debate or explicitly stated by
speakers. Common in principle clashes).
• What does this mean?

o The responses we will present will win the debate
o also means that only the material we posited under this clash are the only
arguments that will be left standing
• Explain relevance at the beginning of each portion and why you outweigh
c. PRACTICE: Response Drills

For the arguments you had created at the end of the Argumentation Section above, construct
responses against them.
Ensure to incorporate:
- Both direct and indirect responses
- Framing within your responses
- Commentary on why the arguments are inherently flawed as well as why the
responses are round-winning.
Secondly, watch any debate online. Pause after every speech and construct responses against
the material presented. Resume playing the debate, compare and contrast the responses you
generated to the ones the speaker in the debate actually gave. Ask yourself:
- Which responses were better?
- Why were they better?
- What did the speaker do that I did not? Vice versa?
- Be as honest, introspective and self-critical as possible – otherwise, defeats the entire
purpose.

4. Comparatives & Weighing
Motions, and therefore debates, are always one big comparative – teams are always tasked
to compare some alternate reality, belief, or policy to either the status quo or some other
alternate reality, belief structure or policy. Thus, setting up clear comparatives and providing
weighing is crucial – it is insufficient to merely introduce arguments or points in favour of
your assigned side, without making it relative to the points of the other side.
Again, motions being balanced means that there is obviously an easier path to victory for
either side so logically the job for debaters is not to merely explore this path of least
resistance to the win, but to also showcase why it is better than that of the other side.
Comparatives and weighing help us to this by preventing messy debates and clashes which
wash out of the round.
a. Clear Comparatives
Even if you have the best argument prepared, it is of no use if it is not presented in an
understandable manner. Prep is an hour long in WSDC, so you've been talking about your
own case for all that time; things that seem clear and obvious to you could be completely
incomprehensible to someone else. Explicit clarity saves you time because you won't have to
explain yourself again later.
Setting up clear comparatives, using the Proposition of the motion ‘THR the ongoing
reliance on traditional policing intelligence in contexts where more modern methods (i.e.,
AI/facial recognition) exist’ as an illustration:
* This illustrates how to imbed clear comparatives in your setup, but remember all parts of a speech,
including arguments and responses, must be comparative. *
• In your case setup, make sure you give clear boundaries for vague words.
o E.g., mention that “reliance” means a higher degree of dependence – so on
Proposition, we lament the status quo where humans working in law
enforcement are the central stakeholders in fighting crime and would rather a
counterfactual wherein that dependency was towards technology-driven crime
fighting mechanisms such as the predictive policing algorithms used in places
like Chicago. On Prop, we are not for the complete removal of human law
enforcement officers, but they will play a minimal role – this largely looks like
limiting them to only making the arrests but not actually steering the direction
of the investigations.

o The above both characterises what “reliance” and “more modern methods”
mean in a fair manner, but also sets up an explicit and clear comparative.
o Be sure to talk about edge or extreme cases e.g., is a surveillance state such as
Singapore the kind of thing that you would focus on in this motion?
• When defining vague terms, give two or three examples of what you mean, and at
least one example of what you DON’T mean.
o By “reliance” on more modern methods, we mean

▪ i) allocating more funds and resources to the development of crime
fighting AI and removing biases from databases that feed into the AI,
▪ ii) prioritising the use of more surveillance, thus potentially
encroaching more on people’s privacy by monitoring them and keeping
facial records of them in public spaces, and
▪ iii) having AI play a more significant role in investigations such as
determining who are suspects, what evidence gathering techniques to
use and what questions to ask in interrogations.
o But we’re not removing humans entirely from the justice system – officers will
still patrol, and arrest people, judges and juries will still be present at trials.
• When you mention a harm caused by the other side, explain how your side disrupts
the causal chain of that harm, thus eliminating it. A comparative should be used in
every part of your speech, not just at the beginning.
• Say MORE than "that's not what the debate is about" or "our setup solves this" when
an Opp argument doesn't work because of your case setup or is based on a different
definition. Specify which part of your setup eliminates their argument.
o “They say that minorities, in our counterfactual, will be disproportionately

targeted by AI. While we recognise that in their current state, biases exist
within AI, they misunderstood the extremity of our case.

▪ We will still have humans conducting arrests and trials; thus, we can
check against this.
▪ We would have also seen more money invested into the development of
AI, improving it’s coding to prevent racial profiling. This is a
retrospective motion, and with the pace that machine learning is
growing, this is likely to only have only been a short-term problem at
best. This is because on our side all the millions spent on broken
window policing in places like New York and the enforcement of the
three-strikes rule, which opp must defend, would have been redirected
to improving crime-fighting AI.”
• FRAMING - Within your setup, specify what debate you want and don't want to
occur. This will make low level policy snipes and setup disagreements from the other
side reflect poorly on them as they appear to be running away from actual clashes that
are actually important.
o “This is a regrets motion, so we are not implementing a policy but rather

looking retrospectively and weighing whether our counterfactual would have
been preferable to the status quo that opp must defend. This means:
▪ We don’t want to have a debate about the transition from human
reliance to AI reliance being difficult, as on our side AI reliance would
have always been the norm.
▪ Secondly, this debate is not about discriminatory coding because that is

symmetric to discriminatory law enforcement officers in the status quo
that opp must defend. They cannot take us at our worst because the
same fiat that they have to do things such as train biases out of officers
is the same fiat we have to code AI better on our counterfactual. If
anything, we would argue it is significantly harder to undo decades of
racist socialisation in grown adults through sensitivity training than it
is to insert a line of code to check against racial targeting.
▪ Instead, this debate is about what form of law enforcement is best at

upholding the pillars of justice such as community protection and
whether the violation of some privacy is justified in the quest for
security.”

b. Weighing Metrics
Weighing essentially seeks to show why your case, arguments and responses are round
winning, even if it is assumed that both side’s points within an area of contention stand. In
order to weigh up pros and cons on either side, you need to evaluate the material within the
framework of some metric.
Common weighing metrics are:
• Analytically Prior – our benefit is a necessary prerequisite to unlocking the benefit
claimed by the other side.
• Externalities – which side has the least unintended, secondary spill-over harms (or
the most spill-over benefit)?
• Likelihood – which side is most probable?
• Perception – which side is better perceived by the average reasonable individual, and
thus benefits from more acceptability in society?
• Quality – which side has the better quality of outcome?
• Utilitarianism – which side has the most benefit for the greater quantity of
stakeholders?
• Vulnerability – which side is better for the most vulnerable stakeholders?
c. Weighing Principles vs. Principles

Either side of a motion has a strong underlying principle which they can claim. It is therefore
often necessary to weigh the non-consequentialist arguments from either side against each
other. This is generally more difficult as if both teams have good principles, they will be
premised upon universally accepted morals or rights.

Before weighing principles, it is necessary to first attempt to argue against the logic of the
principle. This can be done by:
• first conceding that “yes, X is a general principle” but,
• then attempting to show that it is not “analogous to this certain issue, thus in
this circumstance it does not apply”
A really good illustration of this can be found in the debate below:
MANDATORY:
WUDC 2010 Quarterfinals: THW ban all procedures to alter one’s racial appearance.
• Leader of Opposition, Shengwu Li (speech starts around the 07:45 minute mark, but
the response at the 09:04 is when the exact response is given)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZmwpvTerxM#t=09m04s
Here the speaker is arguing that someone altering their appearance and that influencing
other people and further entrenching social stereotypes of beauty is not sufficient grounds
to restrict their freedom of choice. Note how the speaker responds to that by going yes, this
is a principle that exists (limiting people’s choices for a greater societal good), but under this
situation it does not apply, as we only limit people under certain circumstances and THIS IS
NOT IT.
After arguing against the logic of a principle, then you should weigh. Here you give analysis
as to why ‘Principle X’ is more important that ‘Principle Y’.
For example: THW legalise the sale of human organs
• Prop argues for bodily autonomy and the maximization of choice.

• Opp contends (on a principle level) that the inability to consent and the uniqueness
of human organs as an extension of yourself make them unsuitable for sale.
• WEIGHING (in favour of prop): There will always be people who can and cannot
consent, people who agree that organs are somehow magical and special, and people
who see it as just as selling hair - the important thing is that the state is not allowed
to make that decision for you. Similar to abortion, some people may be pro-life, while
others are pro-choice, but the state should not unilaterally decide for you, but rather
allow people to make a choice. When you do this, you can also implement measures

to try to ensure consent and respect people's choice to enshrine organs as special or
to use their bodily autonomy and sell them, which is WHY we value choice above all
else.
• The above weighing utilises the metric that CHOICE is analytically prior to
CONSENT.
Other principle vs. principle weigh-ups:
• Precedent - our principle is more reflective of society’s stance on the issue.

• Mutual Exclusivity – their principle is not exclusive and can also be achieved on our
side with other mechanisms i.e., we don’t forego our principle as well and the other
mechanism is more legitimate.
d. Weighing Pragmatic vs. Pragmatic
This is far more straightforward than principle vs. principle weigh-ups. If both sides concede
the same harm/problem, the debate becomes about weighing up the ease with which their
different mechanisms can address the problem. If teams disagree on the harm/problem,
then the weighing is about which side results in a more societally optimum outcome.
In either scenario, consider:
• Which side has the better solvency – perhaps one team only mitigates the harm or its
symptoms, rather than outright solve it?
• Which side has the greater probability of implementation – what extent of fiat or
economic/political/social capital does either side require for their case to stand?
• Which side has the grander scale of change?
e. Weighing Principle vs. Pragmatic
This is often not as complicated as it might sound or is made out to seem – and a lot of the
confusion stems from a myth that ought to be dispelled that has led people to believe that
practical considerations are more important than principles. It is very possible that a team
wins a debate on principles by outweighing an opponent that is more pragmatic-cantered.

Here it is worth noting once again that, in reality, the distinction between principles and
pragmatics in reality is not as great as it is assumed to be for simplicity in debates. Thus, to
weigh principles against pragmatics, remember that those too are principled in nature and
your job is then to highlight why in this instance, we shouldn’t prioritise utilitarian
outcomes. For example, freedom is a far less tangible good than security, but most people
would agree that we shouldn’t lock every person in the world in prison to completely
eradicate crime.
Similarly, another way to weigh principles over pragmatics is by doing the exact same thing
you would do for pragmatics vs. pragmatics. For example, it is often the case that freedom
to choose is the prerequisite to utility and utilitarian outcomes because it's not clear that all
individuals gain utility from the same things or in the same ways.
The caveat here is to be careful when attempting this – this weighing might not work as well
for basic things like the right to life or basic food unless you nuance where it is likely many
individuals choose something else over life (for example, religion) or maybe would use
money differently instead of on excessive food for some reason, which is perhaps why giving
money is better than just giving good to poor people, for example. This is also why we give
individuals the right to vote and try to follow their suggestions, even if it may be more
inefficient or even have worse decisions than a technocracy.
To do the converse and weigh a pragmatic over a principle, you must either:
• show that the outcomes are worth the loss of some principle benefit, or
• show that the principle of the other side is contingent on outcomes anyways
and then just outweigh your pragmatic against theirs.

f. PRACTICE: Comparing & Weighing Arguments/Responses
In this Google Drive folder, there are three files. The first two are Prop and Opp Cases for
the motion ‘THR the rise of the sympathetic villain in film and television” and the third file
contains two different Prop cases on the motion “THBT former human rights activists
under dictatorial regimes should not seek elected office after the transition to democracy”.
There are two parts to this exercise:
1) For the sympathetic villains’ motion, develop a) at least two reasons why the Prop
case is better than the Opp and b) at least two reasons why the Opp case is better
than Prop.
2) Then, for the human rights activists’ motion, imagine you are a judge in a BP
debate and the Prop 1 arguments are presented by the Opening Government
whilst the Prop 2 arguments are presented by the Closing Government. Similarly.
your task is to come up with a) at least two reasons why OG's case is better than
CG's and b) at least two reasons why CG's case is better than OG's.
Be sure to utilise as many weighing metrics as possible and to weigh principles vs. principles,
pragmatics vs. pragmatics and principles vs. pragmatics.

5. Notes on Style
The above has explored important debating skillsets and strategies for success. This part
looks at another important aspect at competitive success at WSDC: that is STYLE.
Often undervalued within the local circuit and resulting in people only being aware about
the factors that contribute to good style (volume, tone, eye contact etc.) and the factors which
are not assessed under style (accents, English fluency, a stutter etc.), but not really an
emphasis on how to weaponize style to add to the persuasiveness of your speech.
Some common habits which detract from the stylistic impact of speakers include:
• A tendency to speak in long paragraphs which ramble on like a great stream of
consciousness
o Strongly encourage that speakers move away from delivering their speech in
huge bulky chunks towards more concise, bullet points. This means, as much
as possible, deliver the contents of your speech like a concise set of points that
you count off or list rather than as a messy paragraph.
o This makes you sound more persuasive to judges but also ensures maximum
clarity and retention of your points.
• Inefficient and uneconomical use of words

o Often speakers use a lot of words without really saying much. A symptom of
speaking in paragraphs as speakers use a lot of filler and transitionary words.
o Trim your speeches – cut out unnecessary fluff and be more economical with
your words. Rather than saying “at the point at which” just say “when”.
o Where possible, use a single word rather than a phrase
▪ Rather than saying “this strips people of their humanity”, merely say
“this is dehumanising”.
▪ More economical use of words allows for:
• A greater ability to get through more material without sacrificing
depth of analysis due to time constraints.
• More stylistic impacting as you are able to emote better
• Lack of visceral language and thoughtful diction

o Speakers often time do not think about the words they are going to use ahead
of time. To their detriment as words have meanings and using the wrong word
can sabotage your own case

• For instance, saying the word “obligation” when you are not
running an argument that intends to prove a moral duty could
be quite devasting to your case as subsequent speakers will have
to backtrack.
• Granted, English fluency is not a factor judges should decide
debates upon and human error such as a slip of the tongue occurs
and you do not get penalised for this, the problem in the circuit
is far more serious and endemic and lies in the lack of planning
of word usage in speeches.
o Secondly, make use of visceral language – this refers to language that can
‘paint the picture’ in the minds eye of the judge and have them almost picture
what you are arguing as if it were playing out before their eyes. This kind of
language facilitates your ability to emote and use rhetoric positively and
appear more confident to judges.
• Undervaluing of a clinical style

o There is no one ‘good’ style as style is deeply personal and depends quite a lot
on personality traits.
o However, there has been a trend of speakers gravitating towards a more
abrasive, loud, and sassy speaking style. Often filled with rhetorical fluff or ad
hominem attack which do not actual have any analytical value.
▪ This is in large part fuelled by a problem with judges who underscore
more calm and clinical speakers, pressuring them to mimic what is
often an unnatural speaking style for them.
o Experiment with different speaking styles before settling on one which works
best for you, but also for the motion and the speech you need to present.
Training and working to improve on your style of speaking is just as important as improving
on your content and strategy and this is something which speakers, and honestly the entire
circuit, are currently neglecting.

6. Debater Mindset
Debating is a wonderful activity for achieving a whole array of personal goals. This is what
makes it one of the most fulfilling activities – and to be clear, there is no ‘single’ good
debating goal. This is because there is often a lot of background work that goes into the
speech – overcoming stage fright and the fear of public speaking, overcoming structural
barriers to access etc. None of these can be summed up in a single ballot, debate or
tournament and therefore if debating is an activity for you enjoy the sense of community
and intellectual rigour or overcome the fear of speaking in front of a crowd, those are all
worthwhile goals to chase.
On the other hand, if debating for you is about the competitive success, speakers have to be
prepared to put the work in and give it the time and commitment it deserves. Unfortunately,
there is a circuit-wide lack of personal accountability, introspection, and work ethic
necessary for achieving competitive debate success. For perspective, individuals with
aspirations for competitive success in sports such as football or rugby must put in a lot more
work than someone who merely wants to play the sport occasionally for the fun of it.
Thus, it is important to recognise that the WSDC team is both a massive accomplishment
and a privilege which is deserving of your time, effort and personal sacrifice like many other
competitive activities or skills. Honing of debating instincts requires going beyond a 2 hour
long, coach facilitated session per week, and for those with competitive aspirations in
debating it is necessary to put in the work. It is also the expectation of the coaches at this
level. Mental health and strain remain important considerations and every attempt is taken
to balance that with the competitive interests of the team – coaches are generally
approachable and willing to listen, as well as establishing supporting structures around the
team.
Therefore, this section obviously does not intend that debaters do not partake in anything
outside of debating or that a toxic culture is encouraged. Competitive debating is fun, and
competitiveness is not inherently toxic – the intellectual rigour, the wonderment at seeing a
thoroughly well-analysed speech are all ways in which individuals find enjoyment at the top-
flight tier of competitive debating. Due to some admittedly unfortunate occurrences in the
past, the response of the circuit has been an over-correction which has in many instances
dampened the competitive spirits. Increasing accessibility to the activity need not come at a
trade-off of competitiveness, and a top-down approach to remedying issues with access is
not the ideal approach.

Speakers with aspirations for representing the country at WSDC have to be mindful that it
will require that debating be a significant part of your life. Not the sole consideration, but a
significant one and the work does not end after Trials. Being aware of this from the get-go is
crucial so that you have more information to calibrate your expectations and goals. A
significant structural reason why Team SA in particular requires a lot of work is because our
school calendar does not align with Global North.
This means whilst we are picking trialists mid-end December at SANSDC and waiting for
public schools to reopen in order to hold trials, other teams have already been selected about
two months ago. WSDC is typically held in July/August of the year, the summer holidays of
the Global North before the start of the school year, but for us this means the team only gets
about five months of training together and playing catchup to other teams, most which often
have multiple returning WSDC speakers whereas ours has not had more than one returning
speaker since 2017.
To conclude, the reason for hardwork is clear – nobody is born a ‘good debater’, it takes a
willingness to put in work, make sacrifices, be deeply introspective and hold oneself
accountable. WSDC is a team sport, and it requires all members of the team to be doing their
upmost best to perform at their own peak. The ideal WSDC debater embodies this mindset.
An easy litmus test to see where you are on the spectrum of work ethic is to introspect on
how much effort you put in going over this guide – did you attempt to internalise the
concepts and materials? Did you peruse the material linked (both the mandatory and
strongly recommended ones) and will you go over the further resources below?
All the best in your debating endeavours, and hope that this training guide is a useful
resource in aiding your preparation for applications, trials and beyond.

7. Additional Resources
• Dutch WSDC 2022 Debater & Judge Briefing

o https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TpGaeDPoEm_k8SMYaN1UD
OxjKZ54nK1jTTl5VjkInPk/edit?usp=sharing
• A Brief Overview of Framing by Clara-Marie Macheke

o https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZiBZVHEHsDVPmg65UJYitPp
SO_GdRSpf/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=113752939310229553325&rtpof=tr
ue&sd=true
• Framing in Debates by Amaar Jeyasothy

o https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1c_Dm7I0CPDaoorUFbbBSgO
GczIY8VdCneqHNwy0QdLU/edit?usp=sharing
• WSDC 2022 Tracking and Scoring Speeches

o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYZ3dz49-lE&t=3735s
• Advanced Principles by Tin Puljic

o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H78E2BoQ_s&t=891s
• Counterfactual Debates by Chris Mentis

o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oFOqEF_u88
• Identifying and Analysing Clashes by David Africa

o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f7kAYAJDZ0
• Digital Matter File – YouTube Channel

o https://www.youtube.com/@DigitalMatterFiles/featured
• Rebuttal Template for all Arguments Ever by Tshepo Mofokeng

o https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2CRkjLVmw1HOxYDd1UKLYyQMEw
bzwC6/view?usp=share_link

• Meta-Debating Skills by Eric Kazadi
o https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xJlYvYQ5XnGgHLhn0dl1dZhcZf9ycF7J
/view?usp=share_link
• Argumentation: Beginner & Intermediate (Lesson Plan) by Eric Kazadi

o https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebG9zwbTSziZqRWD7iXNJvNaej9Hew
vb/view?usp=share_link
• Argumentation: Beginner & Intermediate (Slides) by Eric Kazadi

o https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cBlFtNaAS7JitboU0rFFCINQhJMxRrcq
/view?usp=share_link

Team SA WSDC 2023 Training Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team SA WSDC 2023 Training Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM SOUTH AFRICA WSDC

Witten & Compiled by: Eric Kazadi

With Contributions from:

Marcus Cordeiro, Amaar Jeyasothy, Tshepo Mofokeng & Phiwe Salukazana

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

4. Comparatives & Weighing

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

A complete case is generally comprised of 2 parts:

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

5. WSDC 2022 - Debating "This house prefers..." motions. By Amrithavarshini

b) Case Level Framing

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

This includes an exploration of both context and burdens:

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

1) What fiat do we have in this round?

2) What trade-offs do we need to make?

c) Case Setup Template

a. Compelling Introduction – use this as an opportunity to problematise the

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

c. Trade-off – quickly acknowledge the harmful kickbacks of your side of the

e. Case Split – List the three arguments in your case.

d) PRACTICE: Case Setup Drills

• THR the dominance of left/liberal views at universities.

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

A) Principles vs. Practical Arguments

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

• Reparations – debates about whether or not a stakeholder is deserving of some

• Responsibility (or Fairness) – debates about making holding any stakeholder

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

1) Identify the principle you’re defending.

2) Provide an analogy or intuition pump to illustrate instances in which we enshrine

c. An intuition pump is basically any broadly accepted, unchangeable moral

3) Explain how the intuition pump/analogy is actually analogous.

4) Explain why the principle is important.

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

• This is analogous to wealthy executives blatantly ignoring environmental and human

• This principle is important because justice should happen regardless of outcomes –

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

There are 5 key components to an effective argument:

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

▪ A good argument will contain BOTH a real-world impact and an impact

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

D) PRACTICE – Argumentation Drills

• THW actively incentivize migration from urban to rural areas

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org

National Executive Committee: T. Mashitisho, R. Chemaly, M. Ho, I. Mpofu

a. Direct & Indirect

i) Direct Responses – these are analytical criticisms. When providing direct

22 Fredman Drive, Sandton | Registration Number: 138 - 467 - NPO | sadebating.org