Main Page >> Debating >> Rough Guide to Debating

A Rough Guide to Debating

The Oxford Union 1999-2000: by Andy Kidd (adapted by Philip Whittington)

Content modified from original form with kind permission of English-Speaking Union.

1. Introduction
1.1 What is debating?
1.2 How to use this Guide

2. How Intervarsity Debating Works
2.1 An Intervarsity Debate
2.2 Tournament Format
2.3 Practicalities

3. The Basic Debating Skills
3.1 Style
3.2 Content
3.3 Strategy

A debate is a structured argument. Two sides speak alternately for and against a particular contention usually based on a topical issue. Unlike the arguments you might have with your family or friends however, each person is allocated a time they are allowed to speak for and any interjections are carefully controlled. The subject of the dispute is often prescribed so you may find yourself having to support opinions with which you do not normally agree. You also have to argue as part of a team, being careful not to contradict what others on your side have said.

Not very much like a proper argument then? Well, yes and no. The artificial atmosphere removes as far as possible all the peripheral variables which can affect a normal, everyday argument except for the actual persuasive skills of the speakers. Shouting the loudest, refusing to listen, taking sides according to personal knowledge/experience, pulling rank or even threatening violence all have little place in a formal debate. The core skills you will need to argue your corner in real life can therefore be practised and improved far more effectively. More than that though, debating is an intellectual exercise, a way of analysing issues and ideas. Arguments which are not rational are soon exposed and the logical basis of any opinions you have is quickly tested when you start debating. By being forced to argue against your natural point of view you realise that arguments, like coins, always have two sides.

1.2 How to use this Guide

If have never debated before, you should read it from start to finish. Everything you need to know about how to start debating is in here somewhere.

If you have debated before, hopefully this will be a useful guide to what to expect here at Oxford as well as a reminder of some of the basics and an introduction to the debating styles used at University level

Back to top

2. How Intervarsity Debating Works

2.1 An Intervarsity Debate

Speakers usually compete in pairs. Most debates involve four pairs/teams speaking at First Proposition, Second Proposition, First Opposition and Second Opposition. Speeches are usually 5, occasionally 7 minutes long, alternating as usual between Prop and Opp. Points of information can be offered between the first and last minutes of any speech by members of the opposite team. Teams are given 15 minutes from hearing the motion announced to starting the debate. The debates are adjudicated by a panel of judges (usually three) who place the teams from 1-4 and award marks to each individual speaker. Most tournaments now insist that the team who wins receives the highest individual scores (but this is not always the case!). Usually marks are awarded for style, content and strategy (or manner, matter and method if you like alliteration). It is of course quite hard to divorce the three since all affect how persuasively your team comes across (and it is this which usually determines the outcome of a debate). Chapter five deals with each of them in more detail. Usually speeches are rated out of 100 (40 style, 40 content and 20 strategy marks), but this is not always the case.

2.2 Tournament Format

Intervarsity debating competitions can involve almost any number of teams from about a dozen to almost a hundred (e.g. Oxford IV). The basic format remains the same. There are always two stages to the competition.

The first stage is run like a league. All the teams take part in the same number of debates (anywhere from two to six in a British IV). After each debate they are ranked on the basis of how well they have done. Ranking is done according to team performance, and in the event of teams being level the individual speaker points the team has scored are taken into account. These rankings affect who you will debate in the next round. Sometimes the top teams are deliberately matched against each other in order to weed out the very top teams. Other times the draw is spread throughout the league table (tab') to stop lots of good teams coming up against each other too early on. This is the most complex and boring part of debating so I won't say any more about it, except that you can often second guess how well you are doing by looking at who you are debating. After all these preliminary rounds a certain number of teams then go through to the second stage. This is a bit like making the "cut" at a golf tournament and is called "breaking". The team which comes top is said to "break first" and so on. Usually the tab' from the preliminary rounds is published, along with a separate individual tab' based on individual marks.

Sometimes the top four teams break straight to a final, sometimes the top eight break to semis with two teams from each semi going through to the final. The semis and the final are usually a little different to the previous rounds because there is an audience (made up of those who didn't get through to the second stage) and sometimes the speeches are longer (7 minutes rather than 5).

The winner of an IV is whoever wins the final, the position a team breaks in is usually not considered very important. Most larger IVs recognize the top individual speaker as the one who accrued the most individual speaker marks during the league stage of the tournament, although some also/instead reward the top speaker in the final.

The World Championships are like a much larger version of a normal IV. There are usually 200-400 teams and nine preliminary rounds in the league stage. The whole tournament is ruthlessly power paired, the top four teams after every round have to debate each other in the next, which makes it more and more grueling the better you are doing. In addition all speeches are 7 minutes long and the top 32 teams break to eight octo- finals from which point the tournament is knockout in the usual way.

2.3 Practicalities

As well as the debating itself there are some practical matters to consider:

Dress: In theory you can wear what you like. Some people wear t-shirts, some wear three-piece suits. It makes little difference, except to how you feel - so wear what feels appropriate. Some IV finals are black-tie. If you think there's a reasonable chance you'll get there then take a dinner suit with you (if you have one). If not, don't bother. You'll have to carry it around all day and if you do get to the final and are under-dressed no one will mind very much anyway.
Partner: Who are you debating with? Do you know them? As with any relationship it is important to talk - liaise over travel arrangements, discuss who prefers speaking where, try to ensure your dress is vaguely compatible (ie go for about the same degree of formality whatever that is).
Travel Arrangements: Check who else is going with you, how you are getting there and what time you are leaving. All this info should be available from and co-ordinated by a member of DSC. Also check where you will be staying if relevant. It is vital to get there on time! It isn't good to feel rushed at the last minute and it is a major headache for the organisers who are wondering which teams are coming.
What to take: Take paper, pens, any articles, magazines, books you find useful, suitcase for prize-money et cetera. All IVs are short-preparation (15 minutes) and so some reasonably easy to carry references are a good idea. A good "idiots guide to world affairs" is handy and there are many available in bookshops. Make sure you know your way around it though as 15 minutes is not long! Also useful might be a couple of Economists (the magazine, not actual economists) or some photocopied articles if you're keen. In my experience the best reference by far is the much loved "Pears' Cyclopaedia". It has short chapters on World Affairs and also on British Domestic Affairs and the information is very compact, easy to locate and surprisingly detailed (more than most whole books!). In addition it has chapters on hundreds of other things in case you get a motion about something unusual or some poncey arts student thinks up a motion like "This House Believes that Modernity is dead" and you have no idea what they are talking about (or why).

Finally....remember, a debating tournament is a social occasion too, so don't go with too sober an attitude. It's nice to win, but it's nicer to have fun and win.

Back to top

3. The Basic Debating Skills

3.1 Style

Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part of debating to master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material in a confident and persuasive way.

There are many elements to style which affect how you sound and look when debating and the important aspects of these are detailed below. There is, however, no correct way to debate. Everyone must find a style which suits them. Some very good debaters are aggressive, funny and loud, some are calm, logical and restrained. The key things are to avoid any obvious errors and to sound natural.

3.1.1 Speed:

It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to say what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood. Be very sensitive to the reactions of others, if you are talking as fast as you would in a normal conversation then that is too fast. Variation in speed can allow you to emphasise particular points, but the variation should be subtle or you will sound contrived (for an example of this see any speech by Tony Blair).

3.1.2 Tone:

Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Adjudicators and audiences can get used to a particular tone and begin to adapt their hearing so it becomes background noise. Needless to say this is rarely advantageous. Whilst some speakers are relentlessly aggressive throughout their entire speech this tends to make it difficult to explain anything complicated or even draw breath. It also may sound strange to get very "worked up" about a relatively trivial issue (for an example of this see any speech by John "two jags, one brain cell" Prescott).

Likewise calm monotony can be unintentionally soporific and seem to lack punch. Often it is good to quite aggressively attack the opposite side's arguments, but try to advance your own in a more logical, calm way. As with many things, it is better to work towards a climax than to gradually tail off. A reasonably aggressive ending can sound very challenging and persuasive. Sarcasm in debating can work well, but should be used sparingly. Remember it may be more obvious to you than to the audience why something is worth mocking and it may end up backfiring.

3.1.3 Volume:

Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout through every debate regardless of context. Whilst no-one will hear you at the back of the Oxford chamber if you whisper, most people will be ill disposed to you if you bellow at them in a small room. There is absolutely no need speak any more loudly than the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting does not win debates. Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since adjudicators and audiences cannot judge what they cannot hear. Variation of volume (particularly speaking more quietly at certain points) can give useful emphasis to important material, but it must obviously be within the audible range.

3.1.4 Diction:

Clear enunciation is obviously vital. If you have a strong accent, be aware that your audience may not be used to it and it may be necessary to take more care than usual with pronunciation. All of this is especially important if your natural style is to speak quite fast.

3.1.5 Language:

Whilst long words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible. A varied vocabulary is easy on the ear, and more formal language gives a speaker more authority, but at all times it is essential to remain within the boundaries of plain English. Scientific or technical jargon is just as out of place as slang and swearing. I heard a speaker (during the top round) at a World Championships say: "Point of information - Mister Chairman, the speaker is talking out of his arse, we all know....." Most adjudicators are unlikely to reward such remarks!

3.1.6 Clarity:

The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. At the top level this is the most important element of style. The key to clarity is for your brain to always be about two seconds ahead of your voice. Evidently people vary in their capacity to do this, even with practice. The main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the "stream of thought" which is keeping them going. This may because they have made bad notes (see later) or else because they have attempted a sentence with so many sub-clauses they can't remember what point they were making at the start of it. They then resort to rambling or use the wrong words or grammar to finish their point. For examples of this (even in very short sentences) watch Match of the Day. Short, clear sentences therefore work much better and are easier to understand anyway. Don't be afraid of simplicity. I have seen debates where speech after speech from accomplished debaters has been packed full of complex examples, little known facts and impressive statistics, but not one has been clearly expressed. The best speeches in such debates are usually the ones with the simplest approach.

3.1.7 Fluency:

This is similar to clarity in that the key to achieving it lies with your brain being ahead of your voice. Losing clarity in what you are saying can often end with a loss of fluency and the dreaded "er...um...". A generally good level of fluency can be achieved by most people with some practice, however, since we can all talk fairly fluently in normal conversation. The key things are to relax and to talk reasonably extemporaneously. Whilst it is important to know very clearly the sense of what you are going to say, it is never a good idea to write it down verbatim and attempt to stick to it. When you do that you shut off the part of your brain that is good at thinking of what to say and you end up reading, losing your way and stuttering. Fluency comes more easily with practice and confidence, but is aided by keeping all notes that you use simple and clear. You don't need the safety net of word-for-word notes, in fact you are less likely to trip up if you don't have them.

3.1.8 Humour:

Humour can be a useful, but difficult ally. Sometimes it can fall flat, sometimes it can detract form the substance of your speech and sometimes it can sound like a cheap cop-out. The best way to use humour is as part of rebuttal, pointing out any absurdities, mistakes, ironic references and so on in a humourous way can be very effective and sounds more natural. Sometimes a set-piece joke at the start of a speech can wake the audience up, especially if it is in the middle of a dull debate. There is no doubt, a good and funny speech is much better than a simply good one and in the right setting humour can win debates. Learning how to be funny is difficult, but most people have some comic potential, the key is to have the confidence to find it.

3.1.9 Stance, gestures and expressions:

Stance must look confident and assertive. Don't walk around too much, though sometimes this can be effective if (as in the Oxford Chamber) the audience are all around you and you can't face all of them at once in any one position. Don't over gesticulate, but some expressive gestures work much better than keeping your hands fastened to the lectern/dispatch box (which incidentally is widely done in the House of Commons and at political rallies and is an absolute no-no!) or else clutching onto your notes. Occasionally facial expressions are a useful aid - rolling the eyes, raising the eyebrows, smiling at the right moment and so on.

3.1.10 Use of notes and eye contact:

Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organised to be effective. There is absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. That would be like running the Olympic hundred metre final backwards - although it would be very impressive in theory, it puts you at a disadvantage and you get no extra credit for it. Of course, notes should never become obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they ever be read from verbatim. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under each. When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using.

People vary greatly in their technique here and it makes absolutely no difference so long as the resulting notes enable you to say what you want to say in the style that you want to say it. Some people use cards, some A4 paper, I have even seen someone using the back of an A2 sized calendar (given out as a freebie at a World Championships). Most debaters in the UK use pads of A4 paper and will usually use a number of sheets. The best thing is to order these and put them on the lectern or dispatch box, since carrying them around is unsightly and impedes any gesticulation. Notes should be glanced at occasionally, to remind you of what you should say next. A clear structure (both in the speech and the notes) is a great asset. Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your gaze, no one likes to be stared at. In a World Championship round where I was the senior adjudicator a speaker from Ottawa stared me directly and intently in the eyes for all seven minutes of his speech. The only effect was to make me want to burst out laughing and in repressing the urge to do so, I could hardly concentrate on what he was saying. Maybe that was for the best, but all the same it is not to be advised.

3.1.11 Dress and appearance:

This ought to make no difference to the outcome of the debate (see chapter 2.4). It probably aids the subconscious assessment of teamwork if both members of a team attire themselves to the same level of formality (whatever that is).

Back to top

3.2 Content

Content is what you actually say in the debate, the arguments used to develop your own side's case and rebut the opposite side's. This is the bread and butter of debating, the concepts are simple, but often a lot of practice is needed before speakers master the skills of defining the motion, developing a case and rebutting the opposition.

3.2.1 Definitions:

Whatever the motion is, the first speaker in the debate must define it. This means explaining what the debate will be about. Sometimes the motion given is very clear (eg "This House Believes That We Should Bomb Iraq" - this is a little out of date now, but it may not be for very long!) and sometimes it is very vague (eg "This House Would Use the Force"). In the former case it is necessary only to clarify the terms of the motion, in the example above it would be necessary to explain what exactly was meant by the terms "we" and "bomb", whereas in the latter case the actual issue itself must be decided and explained and a reasonable link must be made with the motion as given. Examples of possible definitions for the two motions above are given below:

"This House Believes We Should Bomb Iraq... ...this means that the UK and the US alone should start a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets right now." ...this means that if UN diplomacy breaks down the UN as a whole should sanction a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets." ...this means that the UK should drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad as soon as possible." and so on.
"This House Would use the Force ... ...the force in question here is the force of the law and we would use it to make voting in General Elections in the UK compulsory." ...the force in question here is the police force and we would use it to adopt a policy of zero tolerance on petty crime (as in New York) throughout the UK." ...the force in question is the force of nature and we believe we should harness this by investing more in renewable energy sources." and so on.

As you can see, even a quite specific motion can still apply to a wide range of possible cases, and a vague one can apply to almost anything at all. The two most important things are that the resulting debate is fair and two-sided and that the subject you have chosen links satisfactorily with the motion. Unlike in schools debating the definition you have given cannot be challenged by any other speakers unless it is unfair.

A fair definition must be set in the present, it must not be a self- proving or truistic assertion (eg that education is a good thing - though even this is probably debatable if you are from Cambridge) and it must not be too obscure. This latter point means firstly that specialist knowledge should not be required to understand and argue it (a good rule of thumb is to ask, could a student who regularly reads a quality newspaper be expected to know about this) and secondly that if you decide to tie yourself down to a particular geographical area, this should be because the issue is of wider relevance (eg East Timor), not because no one else will know about it (eg traffic laws in Burkina Faso). The easiest way to define a motion is to come up with a proposal or policy and argue in favour of it. This is, however, not strictly necessary. It is possible to simply argue for or against a particular notion or idea. Sometimes the motion is phrased so as to encourage this. For example, the motion "This House Believes that the Media is more powerful than the Government" does not immediately suggest a possible course of action, more urges you to argue in general terms about the relative power of the two institutions. The problem here is that you have to very careful when defining what exactly is meant by "powerful", and also how you propose to assess it. An example might be that "more powerful" means they have more influence on what and how people think, as measured by how they vote, which issues they lobby about and what they say in opinion polls. In general, it is much harder to debate this type of motion because it is more suited to an academic paper or essay than to a verbal argument. The only solution is to define very carefully and make sure your argument is well structured.

3.2.2 Case - the parts:

Having defined the motion you must then begin to build a case. The best way to do this is to divide your case into between two and four arguments. You can justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, quotes and analogies. If you don't do this you can only assert rather than argue. There are well worn ways of dividing up cases according to groups of arguments (eg political/economic/social or moral/ practical or international/regional etc.) or just according to individual arguments if you can't group any together. Under each of these basic headings you should then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it using the methods outlined above. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first. Some examples of case outlines are shown below:

"The UK and the US alone should start a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets right now. This is true for four reasons: Firstly, morally - Iraq must not be allowed to stockpile weapons of mass destruction which they are now doing. Secondly, internationally - the UN and its constant threats to use force if diplomacy is not successful will be undermined permanently if no one ever carries these threats through. Thirdly, regionally - it is important to maintain stability in the Middle East which is a very volatile region and this is threatened if no one stands up to Saddam Hussein. Finally, nationally - these strikes will weaken Saddam's grip on power and hasten the path for a more benign successor."
"The force in question here is the force of the law and we would use it to make voting in General Elections in the UK compulsory. This would be a good thing for three reasons: Firstly, morally - we all have a duty to uphold democracy and not voting impairs and undermines the democratic process, it should therefore be a punishable offence. Secondly, socially - groups which are currently isolated and on the margins of society would now be included in the democratic process which will benefit them and society as a whole. Thirdly, politically - political parties would be forced to modernise their political agendas to lure the disenfranchised and apathetic who currently don't vote to support them, this would greatly improve the ideologically stagnant world of present day politics.
"The media exert more influence over what people think than the government do. This is true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their opinions on what they see and hear in the media and the media have great freedom to put forward biased and one- sided views. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda by deciding what issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonised politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to believe journalists than politicians who are seen as power-hungry and hypocritical. All of the arguments in these case outlines are eminently debatable (almost immediately you can see the counter-arguments), but they give the cases a wide range which cover all kinds of issues. The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well argued one. Think: "Can I argue that?" Don't worry about: "Is that really true?"

3.2.3 Case - the whole:

The case must be outlined in the introduction. This involves stating your main arguments and explaining the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. Starting with the first argument you should then detail your justification including sub-arguments, reasoning, examples, statistics, quotes and analogies. It is important to pace your speech so you have time for all the arguments you have said you will deal with. At the end it is useful to briefly summarise what you have said.

3.2.4 Rebuttal - the parts:

Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed, they may be misinterpretations and they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects. An example of each is given below:

"Murder rates are rising in the UK, this is because we have got rid of Capital Punishment." Firstly you could argue that murder rates aren't rising (a direct factual error), or if they are rising this is only because a greater proportion of murders are now believed to be reported which masks the real trend (an indirect factual error). Secondly you could dispute the causal link with Capital Punishment and argue that the evidence shows that state sanctioned murder can appear to condone violent crime and leads to a rise in its incidence rather than deterring against it (misinterpretation).
"Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and healthcare." This is true, but is morally flawed.
"Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke because it will make smoking more mysterious and taboo." This is logically flawed, the ban would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking.
"Free entry to public museums in a country would boost its international tourist industry." This is simply not important, the waiving of an entry fee will not entice very many people from abroad to spend hundreds of pounds on flights and hotels who would not otherwise have done so.
"We should not join the Euro because I don't want to share a currency with the likes of the French, who eat too much garlic." The dietary preferences of the French are not relevant to a debate about the economic advantages or otherwise of joining the Euro.
"Although this would cost the taxpayer a lot of money it will be worth it in the end..." "This will not cost the taxpayer a penny as all the funding should come from the National Lottery." Regardless of the truth of either of these remarks, they contradict each other and a lot of mileage can be got from the fact that the speaker or team in question are not clear about their case.
"My partner will then look at the economic issues..." "Blah.. blah..blah...(5 minutes later and still no mention of the economic issues)" This is a clear failure to explain a major part of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with, "to win this debate there are three things I must do...". If the speaker fails to do any of those things you can then hang him in his own noose by repeating his words to him - by his own admission he cannot have won the debate.

3.2.5 Rebuttal - the whole:

It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to identify what the key arguments are. It isn't enough to rebut a few random arguments here and there. Of course the techniques used above are invaluable but they must be used appropriately. There are a number of things you should do to systematically break down a team's case:

Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case, is their methodology flawed (this will mainly be the case in the debates like example 3 in 3.2.2).
Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these.
Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes, try to refute these.
Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a piece of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You won't have time and your aim is to show the other side's case to be flawed in the key areas, not to be a smarty- pants. It may be useful to think about how you would start rebutting the cases outlined in 3.2.2.

Back to top

3.3 Strategy

Strategy is the most technical part of debating. It is the observation of the basic elements of strategy that make a debate what it is. Although strategy is worth fewer marks than style and content in a competition, it is often what actually separates very good teams. Strategy encompasses fulfilling your role in the debate, structure, timing, teamwork and participation in the whole debate.

3.3.1 Fulfilling the correct role:

Each speaker in a debate has a different role and these are summarised below. The summaries assume that the format is for teams of two, with two teams on each side. If instead there are four individuals on each side then the roles of the first and last speakers remain broadly the same, but the second and third speakers must both advance their side's case in some way, and rebut what the opposition have said (the second speaker should spend about 3 minutes on the case and 2 on rebuttal, and the third about 2 minutes on case and 3 minutes on rebuttal). At no point should a speaker seriously try to allocate material to anyone else on his side because the four speeches must not be overtly collaborative (although they must be consistent with each other). A good way to think about it is that you give your own individual spin on the same consistent team line.

The First Prop Team: The first speaker must define the motion and justify it if need be. Then he must outline the case his team will put forward and explain which speaker will deal with which arguments. He should then develop his own arguments and finish by summarising his main points. The second speaker should re-cap the team line and then rebut the response made by the first opp speaker to his partner's speech. He should then develop his own arguments and finish with a summary of the whole prop case.

The First Opp Team: The first speaker must respond to the definition mentioning whether it is fair and makes a reasonable link to the motion. If it does not or is unfair he can re-define (offer an alternative interpretation of the motion). This can be risky and should only be done when the definition is not debatable. Usually it is better to complain a little and hope the adjudicator gives you credit. Then the speaker must rebut the first prop speech. He can do this and nothing else, or he can do this and then develop a counter case (ie an alternative proposal) or he can structure his rebuttal into a counter case. What to do depends on the debate. Going back to 3.2.2 : In response to the first case it might be best to rebut and then develop a counter case (this protects you from the "what would you do instead" argument which would arise if you did nothing but rebut). In response to the second case it would almost certainly be better to simply rebut the case and do nothing else (on the grounds that doing nothing would be better). In response to the third case it would be easy to develop a "mirror image" counter case which rebuts the points made and constructively argues the opposite point of view.

The second opp speaker should very much follow this lead and continue with the same strategy as his partner. If a counter case has been developed he should summarise this at the end of his speech.

The Second Prop Team: The first speaker must stake his team's claim in the debate. He may extend the debate into a new area, introduce a couple of new arguments which make the case on his side more persuasive, or simply tidy up what has gone before into a more organised case and show how that rebuts what the opp side have said. Again, it depends on the scenario. This is quite a complex part of debating to master, but it is very important to add something constructive to the debate or you will be penalised.

The second speaker may briefly add to what his partner has said, but should fairly quickly get round to summing up the debate for his side. This involves going through the whole debate to show why the prop side has won. Either you can go through the debate chronologically (this is not very advanced and usually not very persuasive either), go through one side's case and then the other (if the clash between the two has not been intensive) or go through the debate according to the main points of contention (this is the most persuasive way, but it is vital you have understood the debate and prioritise the issues accordingly). It is often a good idea to finish by summarising the main reason why your side has won.

The Second Opp Team: This is very similar to the second prop team's role, except that what the first speaker does depends on whether the opp have a counter case. The last opp speaker must devote their whole speech to a summing up and should not introduce new material.

3.3.2 Rebuttal v Case:

The amount of time you spend on case development versus rebuttal changes as the debate progresses. The second first prop speaker should aim for about 3 minutes case and 2 minutes rebuttal, the first second prop speaker for 2-3 minutes case (depending on what they are aiming to do) and the rest rebuttal. Opp speakers should do roughly the same, though probably with more emphasis on rebuttal (depending on the scale of their counter case). This is not to imply that the two must be separate, it is quite possible to combine the two and often works very well. If you decide to address rebuttal and case separately you must deal with the rebuttal first. The idea is to "clear the decks" so you can get on with your case, and also to ensure your rebuttal follows on directly from the previous speech from the opposite side.

3.3.3 Timing and structure:

It goes without saying that a speech which is too long or too short exhibits poor strategy. Not only that but a short speech will also score poorly on content, since there is less of it! Most inexperienced debaters occasionally run out of things to say. The best strategy is to summarise or repeat what you have already said, at the best you will then think of what to say or someone will offer you a point of information and at the worst you will eat up some more time. Many more experienced debaters have the opposite problem. Five minutes really isn't long and it is important not to get carried away on one point and not leave enough time to deal fully with the rest. When it is time to finish, just finish. Many debaters go thirty seconds over time as they try to find a strongly worded ending. If you have difficulties doing this then write one down before you stand up. It is vital to structure your speech. Say what you are going to say, say it and then say what you said - so the saying goes! Do it. It can transform a speech and makes it much easier to adjudicate. Outlining the structure of your speech at the start in this way is called flagging. It is vital that once an argument has been flagged, it does actually appear in the debate. Always be aware how much you have to get through and pace your speech accordingly. Aim for about 15 seconds at the end when you can conclude and summarise. With experience you can judge times quite well in your head (you are given a time signal after the first minute, at the start of the last and at the end), but a digital stopwatch can help, as can signals from your partner (so long as they remember to give them).

3.3.4 Teamwork:

It is important to work as a team with your partner. Refer to each other's speeches as much as possible and ensure that what you say links together well. Try to have a strong team line to which you can both refer (though this does not have to alliterate, I once heard a speaker describe his team line which was arguing in favour of internet regulation as "we're going to put a curfew on cruelty in cyberspace", by the twentieth repetition the only thing anyone wanted to put a curfew on was him). Make sure you communicate well and you know what the other is thinking, planning to say and so on. I once debated with someone who would only respond to written communications during a debate and would wave his hand at me if I attempted to talk to him. Such behavior may be necessary (he claimed he couldn't concentrate if someone talked to him), but it is a shortcoming and talking (very quietly of course) during the debate is a vital part of teamwork. Discuss what your strategy and main arguments will be and pass on any rebuttal points or examples which you think will help your partner with his speech. The most vital area of teamwork is an appreciation that you are in the same boat and that no one benefits if you don't perform as a team. In other words you have the same goal - to win the debate. Scoring points off each other while you are preparing, for example, will not make your case any stronger - so don't bother.

3.3.5 Participation in the whole debate:

A key part of strategy is to maintain your involvement in the debate all the way through. This obviously precludes leaving the room or falling asleep, but usually it means offering points of information regularly throughout all of the opposition speeches. I haven't said very much about points of information so far because they really encompass all of the elements of debating. How they are made is a part of style, what you say during them is a part of content and when and how often you make them is a part of strategy. Rather than split this rather specialised subject up I will deal with it all at once, now. Points of information can usually be offered between the first and second time signals (ie between the end of the first minute and the start of the last) by members of the opposite side only. You offer a point of information by standing and indicating this, usually by saying "point of information" or similar. You can offer as many as you like, but if you offer more than one in a thirty second spell it may look as if you are trying to unsettle or harass the speaker and you may be penalised. The speaker may accept or decline the point in any manner they like, but most speakers will take two points during a five minute speech and either two or three during a seven minute speech. It is usually not wise to take a point very early in a speech as it may disrupt your structure before you have started. Taking more than two or three points usually leaves too little time to finish your material (unless you are running short of things to say) and fewer implies you are reluctant to engage the other side (it may be acceptable to take only one point if not many are offered).

If your point is accepted you should address a short question, contradictory example or other such gem designed to challenge what the speaker is saying. It must be short (about 10 seconds) and to the point. Many inexperienced debaters are afraid of taking points of information. Usually this is because they vastly over- estimate the intelligence of the people they are debating and are paranoid that they themselves are talking nonsense. There are a number of ways to deal with points of information. You can dismiss them briefly and then get on with your speech (if it was a bad or a stupid point). You can answer them more fully and dovetail your answer into what you were going to say next, or answer them and dovetail the answer into a later part of your speech which you can then omit (or refer back to briefly) when you come to it again. Finally you can simply say that you are planning to deal with that point later on in your speech and carry on where you were. If you do the latter, you absolutely MUST make it utterly explicit when you refute the point later on. You must not use this as a ducking tactic since adjudicators will notice. Points of information have decided more than one Intervarsity final I have been in. You must make them regularly (and you must accept a couple) or you will lose vital strategy marks.

Back to top

Main Page >> Debating >> Rough Guide to Debating

Table of Contents