World Schools Style debate

This article possibly contains original research. Multiple sections provide niche information and are unsourced. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "World Schools Style debate" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2025)

World Schools Style debate (or WSS) is a debate format combining the British Parliamentary and Australia-Asian debating formats. Designed in 1988 to meet the needs of the World Schools Debating Championships tournament, it has become popular internationally as one of the main English high school debate formats.

Each debate comprises eight speeches delivered by two teams of three members, representing the Proposition and Opposition sides. The first six speeches are eight minutes in duration, with each team then finishing up by giving a four-minute concluding reply speech. In Impromptu debates, teams of three to five debaters are given 30 to 60 minutes to prepare for their speeches; in prepared debates, the motion is announced days to months before the debate to allow for research and preparation.^[1]

1. First speaker of the Proposition
2. First speaker of the Opposition
3. Second speaker of the Proposition
4. Second speaker of the Opposition
5. Third speaker of the Proposition
6. Third speaker of the Opposition
7. Reply speaker of the Opposition
8. Reply speaker of the Proposition

First speaker of the Proposition

The role of the first speaker is to open up the case of the proposition. This involves:

• Presenting their side's opinion, or stance, and main arguments.
• Defining the motion in order to prevent any confusion caused by the motion, especially when the motion may lack clarity. This involves clarifying the comparatives, i.e. two specific worlds the motion proposes which both sides each defend. In the case of a ''TH Would'' motion, they must explain the Proposition model, i.e. policy which the motion suggests, who implements it and how it will work. In some motions, especially those based on societal narratives, the counterfactual, i.e. the society a side believes is likely to be the comparative on their side due to a certain societal narrative, the Proposition is defending and that which the Opposition is defending is characterised.
• The first speaker also sometimes gives a status quo analysis, i.e. an analysis of the current situation regarding that issue, (mostly in policy-debates) to show the problem the side Proposition wants to solve, or the situation the side wants to improve et cetera. Through presenting facts about the world relevant to the motion, the speaker strengthens their arguments, the impacts of those arguments and may even preemptively deal with arguments the Opposition may want to mention. All of this is categorised as framing.
• The first speaker presents their main arguments. This involves giving the argument's burdens of proof, i.e. logical links an argument has to prove in order to be credited by a judge, the mechanisms, i.e. reasons by which these burdens are true, and the impacts, i.e. practical effects of that argument. The arguments must show why certain outcomes are comparative, i.e. likely to occur on one side while not occurring or only occurring to a lesser extent on the other side. The analysis is supplemented by examples and evidence, especially in prepared debates where debaters may use resources such as books and the Internet to find evidence. The arguments are often divided into principle, i.e. moral arguments based on ethical principles such as utilitarianism, dignity or freedom, and practical, i.e. arguments based on practical outcomes which ought to be seen as desirable, arguments.

First speaker of the Opposition

Their duty is to respond to the definition and arguments given by the Proposition while typically presenting a counter-case. This involves:

• Rebutting the arguments given by the Proposition, meaning to show why it isn't or can't be true what the other side claimed.
• If they disagree with the definition of the motion the Proposition gives, they must give a counter-definition and argue why it is fairer or more likely to occur in reality. If the Proposition gives a model, they may present a counter-model which involves a different policy the Opposition would like to have enacted. This counter-model must be feasible using the same political, financial, social etc. resources the Proposition is using for their model. The ability and extent to which models may be assumed as part of the debate based on the motion is known as fiat. If the Opposition does not defend a specific counter-model or counterfactual, they defend the status quo.
• They can either give a counter-case regarding that motion or just decide to try to argue against the motion. When arguing against the motion, it is optional to give own arguments, as it would be sufficient to just rebut the arguments or the case well enough; however, giving own arguments is by far the more common choice. These arguments may be negative, i.e. presenting harms which occur in the world Proposition is defending, or positive, i.e. presenting benefits which occur in the world Opposition is defending.

Second speaker (Opposition or Proposition)

Their role is to rebut the arguments given by the other side and respond to the rebuttal given by the other side, ensuring that their arguments still stand. They are allowed to introduce weighing, i.e. metrics such as the scale, intensity, likelihood, consent, or moral importance of the impacts of an argument, by which that argument should be credited more by a judge than another argument. Eventually, they can continue with their team's case and must give new arguments.

Third Speaker (Opposition or Proposition)

The third speaker has to re-structure the whole debate, often along the lines of clashes or themes around which the debate has revolved, filter the key issues of the debate and prove that the other side's case does not stand while proving that their case does, convincing the judges to vote for their side. This involves:

• Responding to the new arguments from the other side's Second Speaker. This is especially important for the Third Speaker of Proposition as there is no other constructive speech for Proposition to respond to any arguments coming out of Second Speaker of Opposition's speech.
• Adding and deepening the analysis of the rebuttal of the other side's case. While completely new responses are not always credited as the other side will not have a chance to respond other than the Reply speech, adding explanations and illustration to existing responses to disprove the other side's case is welcomed.
• Good third speakers also point out strategic mistakes such as inconsistencies and contradictions on the other side.
• A good third speaker also does case rebuild in the end, making sure their arguments stand. There they go into the rebuttal of the other side and show why the rebuttal was wrong or didn't touch their own arguments.
• Finally, the third speaker may try to be charitable towards the other side's arguments, giving reasons why their case is superior even if parts of the case of the other side are left standing. This involves presenting or expanding on weighing metrics.
• The third speaker is not allowed to present completely new constructive arguments.

Reply speeches

World Schools Style debates include an additional speech from each team, called the reply speech. This is a short, four-minute speech given by either the first or second speaker from the team, and presented in the opposite speaking order to the rest of the debate (i.e. the Opposition deliver the first reply speech, followed by the Proposition). The functions of the reply speech are to:

• Outline the points of contention that the debate has centred on;
• Evaluate the course of the debate;
• Declare the reasoning of their team's victory based on their analysis and weighing.

The reply speech is sometimes referred to as being a "biased adjudication" of the debate, because its format is similar to that of an adjudicator's oral feedback on the debate, but with the purpose of convincing the audience that the speaker's team was victorious. The retrospective nature of the reply speech means that no new material may be introduced in this speech.

During any speech except the reply speeches, and not during the first and last minutes of the first six speeches, speaking members of the opposing team may offer points of information to briefly interject a point that the speaker must immediately respond to. The speaker holding the Floor is not obliged to accept all the points of information offered to them, but is likely to be marked down by adjudicators if they do not accept any. Speakers delivering points of information are expected to keep them to 15 seconds or less. Although a speaker's points of information do not have a direct effect on their mark, a mechanism named the "POI Adjuster" has been introduced in recent years: when the quality of a speaker's POIs is significantly different (better or worse) from the quality of their speech, the judge may add or subtract one or two marks from their overall speaker score.

The first and last minute of each main speech, as well as the entire duration of reply speeches, are "protected time", meaning that no Points of information may be offered.

World Schools Style debates are adjudicated based on three metrics: Content, Style and Strategy, of which the former two each make up 40% of the judge's decision and the final 20%. The judging is silent and non-conferral, i.e. judges first vote on the team they believe won the debate independently before then discussing the oral adjudication, or OA, which the chair judge, who is assigned the role before the round based on their experience in debating and judging, delivers to both teams to justify their decision.

When submitting their ballots, judges decide on the amount of speaker points they wish to give to each speaker, rating their speech based on the three categories mentioned above. The scale for speaker points for constructive speeches ranges from 60 to 80, with 70 points representing an average speech. Reply speeches range from 30 to 40 points, typically averaging at 35. The full range of speaker points is rarely, if ever used; for example, no best speaker at the World Schools Debating Championships in the past 5 years has averaged more than 75 speaker points for constructive 8-minute speeches. The winning team must have more total speaker points than the other team.

Split decisions may occur when judges come to different conclusions on the winner of the debate. The team with the most ballots wins the debate whilst every team receives a number of ballots based on the amount of judges which voted for them. In tournaments, this is used to further rank teams of equal amounts of wins in the inrounds of tournaments, determining which teams may progress to the outrounds. If both sides receive an equal amount of votes, the chair judge's ballot breaks the tie to decide the winning team.

The World Schools Style of debating is used not only at the World Schools Debating Championships, but also at a number of national and regional high school-level debating competitions around the world. At some of these tournaments, the format is varied slightly. For example, at some competitions, the length of speeches is reduced to five or six minutes for main speeches and three minutes for reply speeches. Some tournaments intended for novice-level debaters also do not allow Points of Information.

In the early years of the World Schools Debating Championships, there was a two-minute break between the main speeches and the reply speeches to allow the team members to confer, though this is no longer the case. However, some national or regional World Schools Style tournaments still have this two-minute break, and in some cases members of the team's squad for the competition who do not speak in the debate are allowed to come out of the audience to confer with the speakers during these two minutes.

• Debate
• Eurasian Schools Debating Championship (ESDC)
• Heart of Europe Debating Tournament
• Parliamentary debate
• World Schools Debating Championships
• World School Resources

• Eurasian Schools Debating Championship website
• Heart of Europe International Debating Tournament website
• World Schools Debating Championships website