Competitive debating Debate

1 competitive debating

1.1 forms of competitive debating

1.1.1 australasia debating
1.1.2 european square debating
1.1.3 extemporaneous speaking
1.1.4 impromptu debating
1.1.5 jes debating
1.1.6 lincoln–douglas debating
1.1.7 mace debating
1.1.8 mock trial
1.1.9 moot court
1.1.10 offene parlamentarische debatte (opd)
1.1.11 oxford-style debating
1.1.12 paris-style debating
1.1.13 parliamentary debating

1.1.13.1 emergency debating
1.1.13.2 british parliamentary debating
1.1.13.3 canadian parliamentary debating
1.1.13.4 american parliamentary debating
1.1.13.5 brazilian parliamentary debating


1.1.14 policy debating
1.1.15 public debating
1.1.16 public forum debating
1.1.17 simulated legislature
1.1.18 tibetan buddhist debating
1.1.19 turncoat debating


1.2 international groups , events

1.2.1 asian universities debating championship
1.2.2 international public debate association
1.2.3 world universities peace invitational debate (wupid)

competitive debating

in competitive debates, teams compete against each other , judged winner list of criteria based around concepts of content, style , strategy . there many different styles of competitive debating, organizations , rules.

competitive debating carried out @ local, national, , international level.

in schools , colleges, competitive debating takes form of contest explicit rules. may presided on 1 or more judges or adjudicators. both sides seek win against other while following rules. 1 side typically in favor of (also known , affirmative , or pro ) or opposed (also known against , negative , con ) statement, proposition, moot or resolution. side must state points support proposition; against side must refute these arguments sufficiently falsify other side. against side not required propose alternative must substantiate own negation if no other position possible. example, let s value of x boolean. if side says x = true, against side must x = false. against side cannot not convinced x = true if both want debate. both sides required embrace , defend own positions. otherwise, not debate discussion of controversy 1 side solely attempts convince other side or other listeners position.

forms of competitive debating
australasia debating

the australasian style debate consists of 2 teams, consisting of 3 people, debate on issue commonly called topic or proposition. issue, convention, presented in form of affirmative statement beginning , example, cats better dogs , or house , example, house establish world government . topic subject may vary region region. topics however, region specific facilitate interest both participants , audiences.

each team has 3 members, each of whom named according team , speaking position within his/her team. instance second speaker of affirmative team speak called second affirmative speaker or second proposition speaker , depending on terminology used. each of speakers positions based around specific role. example, third speaker has opportunity make rebuttal towards opposing team s argument introducing new evidence add position. last speaker called team advisor/captain . using style, debate finished closing argument each of first speakers each team , new evidence may not introduced. each of 6 speakers (three affirmative , 3 negative) speak in succession each other beginning affirmative team. speaking order follows: first affirmative, first negative, second affirmative, second negative, third affirmative, , third negative.

the context in australasia style of debate used varies, in australia , new zealand used @ primary , secondary school level, ranging small informal one-off intra-school debates larger more formal inter-school competitions several rounds , finals series occur on year.

european square debating

this paris-style inspired format, suited council of europe simulation.{according whom|date=september 2015} 4 teams representing 4 major european nations (for instance france, united kingdom, germany, , russia) confront each other on policy debate including 2 broad coalitions (online examples sustainable energy , defence). each team composed of 2 speakers (the prime minister , foreign secretary). debate starts first speaker france, followed first speaker of germany (the opposite side), followed second speaker of france , second speaker of germany. debate continues first speaker of united kingdom, followed first speaker of russia , goes on respective second speakers. each debater speaks 5 minutes. first , last minutes protected time: no points of information may asked. during rest of speech, speaker may interrupted points of information (pois) opposite countries (debaters france , uk may ask pois debaters representing germany , russia , vice versa, respectively). format forces each debater develop winning strategy while respecting coalition. format commonly developed franco-british comparative project , declan mccavanna, chairman of fda , featuring france, uk, germany, russia , italy.

extemporaneous speaking

extemporaneous speaking style involves no planning in advance, , 2 teams first , second speaker. while majority of judges allow debaters cite current events , various statistics (of opponents may question credibility) research permitted 1 or more articles given debaters along resolution shortly before debate. begins affirmative first-speaker constructive speech, followed negative; affirmative , negative second-speaker constructive speech respectively. each of these speeches 6 minutes in length, , followed 2 minutes of cross examination. there affirmative , negative first-speaker rebuttal, , negative , affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively. these speeches each 4 minutes long. no new points can brought debate during rebuttals.

this style of debate centers on 3 main contentions, although team can use 2 or four. in order affirmative side win, of negative contentions must defeated, , of affirmative contentions must left standing. of information presented in debate must tied in support 1 of these contentions, or signposted . of extemporaneous speaking similar forms known policy debate , student congress debate. 1 main difference both of them, however, extemporaneous speech focuses less on implementation of resolution. also, extemporaneous speech considered in more areas, in united states, form of speech, considered separate debate, or form of debate several types of events.

impromptu debating

impromptu debating relatively informal style of debating, when compared other highly structured formats. topic debate given participants between fifteen , twenty minutes before debate starts. debate format relatively simple; each team member of each side speaks 5 minutes, alternating sides. ten-minute discussion period, similar other formats open cross-examination time follows, , five-minute break (comparable other formats preparation time). following break, each team gives 4-minute rebuttal.

jes debating

this style of debate particularly popular in ireland @ secondary school level. developed in coláiste iognáid (galway) on last ten years, format has 5 speakers: 2 teams , single sweep speaker on each side. speeches last 4:30 minutes 30 seconds protected pois @ either end of debate. adjudication depend on bp marking, particular recognition of principled debating. ten-minute open house adjudicated. traditionally, motion opposed in final vote.

lincoln–douglas debating

lincoln-douglas debating form of united states high school debate (though has college form called nfa ld) named after 1858 lincoln-douglas debates. one-on-one event focused on applying philosophical theories real world issues. debaters alternate sides round round either affirmative , upholds resolution, or negative , attacks it. resolution, changes bimonthly, asks whether policy or action conforms specific value.

though established alternative policy debate, there has been strong movement embrace techniques originated in policy debate (and, correspondingly, strong backlash movement). plans, counterplans, critical theory, postmodern theory, debate theoretical basis , rules of activity itself, , critics have reached more occasional, if not yet universal, usage. traditional l-d debate attempts free of policy debate jargon . lincoln-douglas speeches can range conversational pace on 300 words per minute (when trying maximize number of arguments , depth of each argument s development). technique known spreading. there growing emphasis on carded evidence, though still less in policy debate. these trends have created serious rift within activity between debaters, judges, , coaches advocate or accept these changes, , vehemently oppose them.

policy , lincoln-douglas debate tournaments held concurrently @ same school or organization. 1 organization offers lincoln-douglas debate ncfca.

mace debating

the mace debating style prominent in britain @ school level. 2 opposing teams, consisting of 2 people, debate affirmative motion (e.g. house give prisoners right vote ,) 1 team propose , other oppose. each speaker make seven-minute speech in order; 1st proposition, 1st opposition, 2nd proposition, 2nd opposition. after first minute of each speech, members of opposing team may request point of information (poi). if speaker accepts permitted ask question. poi s used pull speaker on weak point, or argue against speaker has said. however, after 6 minutes, no more pois permitted. after 4 debaters have spoken, debate opened floor, in members of audience put questions teams. after floor debate, 1 speaker each team (traditionally first speaker), speak 4 minutes. in these summary speeches typical speaker answer questions posed floor, questions opposition may have put forward, before summarising or own key points. in mace format, emphasis typically on analytical skills, entertainment, style , strength of argument. winning team typically have excelled in most, if not all, of these areas.

mock trial

moot court

offene parlamentarische debatte (opd)

the offene parliamentarische debatte (open parliamentary debate, opd) german competitive debating format. developed debate club streitkultur tübingen , used first time in tournament in 2001. aims combine advantages of parliamentary debates , public audience debates: each of 2 teams has 3 speakers, , in addition debate includes 3 independent free speakers . clubs using opd exist in germany, austria, switzerland, , italy.

oxford-style debating

derived oxford union debating society of oxford university, oxford-style debating competitive debate format featuring sharply framed motion proposed 1 side , opposed another. winner declared in oxford-style debate either majority or team has swayed more audience members between 2 votes. oxford-style debates follow formal structure begins audience members casting pre-debate vote on motion either for, against or undecided. each panelist presents seven-minute opening statement, after moderator takes questions audience inter-panel challenges. finally, each panelist delivers two-minute closing argument, , audience delivers second (and final) vote comparison against first.

paris-style debating

this format used in france (though debates commonly held in english). 2 teams of 5 debate on given motion. 1 side supposed defend motion while other must defeat it. debate judged on quality of arguments, strength of rhetoric, charisma of speaker, quality of humor, ability think on 1 s feet, , teamwork.

the first speaker of proposition (prime minister) opens debate, followed first speaker of opposition (shadow prime minister), second speaker of proposition , on.

every speaker speaks 6 minutes. after first minute , before last minute, debaters opposite team may ask points of information, speaker may accept or reject wishes (although supposed accept @ least two).

the french debating association organizes national debating championship upon style.

parliamentary debating

parliamentary debate (sometimes referred parli in united states, or bp in rest of world) conducted under rules derived british parliamentary procedure, though parliamentary debate has several variations including british, canadian , american. features competition of individuals in multi-person setting. borrows terms such government , opposition british parliament (although term proposition used rather government when debating in united kingdom).

throughout world, parliamentary debate countries know debating , , primary style practiced in united kingdom, india, greece , other nations. premier event in world of parliamentary debate, world universities debating championship, conducted in british parliamentary style.

emergency debating

in countries (e.g., canada , uk) members of parliament may request debates on urgent matters of national importance. if speaker grants such request, emergency debate held before end of next sitting day.

british parliamentary debating

the british parliamentary (bp) debating style involves 4 teams: government or proposition (one opening, 1 closing) teams support motion, , 2 opposition teams (one opening, 1 closing) oppose it. closing team of each side must either introduce new substantive point (outward extension) or expand on previous point made opening team (inward extension), whilst agreeing opening team yet one-upping them, speak. in competitive round, teams ranked first fourth first place team receiving 3 points, second receiving 2, third receiving 1 , fourth place receiving no points. style used world universities debating championship (wudc).

however, within united kingdom, british parliamentary style not used exclusively; english-speaking union (esu) runs national championships both universities (john smith memorial mace) , schools (esu schools mace), (including representation ireland) in unique mace format named after competition, while there numerous standalone bp competitions hosted universities , schools across uk , ireland throughout year.

canadian parliamentary debating

the canadian parliamentary debating style involves 1 government team , 1 opposition team. on government side, there prime minister , minister of crown . on opposition side, there leader of opposition , shadow minister . in competitive situations, clear motion entails , must addressed directly. debate structured each party speaking in particular order , define length of time. however, unlike cross-examination style debate – dominant debate style in canada – parliamentary debate involves parliamentary rules , allows interruptions points of order.

in few cases, motion may squirrelable . means assigned motion not intended debated, , may quote film or song. government team squirrels motion debatable making series of logical links between proposed motion , 1 propose debate. makes debate similar prepared debate government team , impromptu debate opposition team.

in canada, debating tournaments may involve mix of parliamentary , cross-examination-style debate, or entirely 1 style or other. competitive debating takes place in english, french, or bilingual style – in approximately 50% of content must in each language.

american parliamentary debating

in united states american parliamentary debate association oldest national parliamentary debating organization, based on east coast , including ivy league. more founded national parliamentary debate association (npda) largest collegiate sponsor.

brazilian parliamentary debating

the brazilian parliamentary debate, known parli brasil , involves proposition team , support motion, , opposition team , oppose motion.

it based on british parliamentary style, primary difference proposition s members not called government , since not political government congressmen of country can introduce new parliamentary topics. in other words, government can support or oppose topic in session on congress. way, using government synonym proposition teams create confusion how speakers going position on debate.

therefore, speakers @ debate called first member of proposition , first member of opposition , second member of proposition , , on.

it used competitive debating style used in brazil; used @ official competitions of instituto brasileiro de debates (brazilian institute of debates).

at parli brasil, every speaker speaks 7 minutes, 15 seconds of tolerance after that. after first minute , before last minute, debaters opposite team may ask points of information, speaker may accept or reject wishes (although supposed accept @ least one).

however, there no unique model in brazil because many clubs debates created before creation of parli brazil , not modified rules. case, example, of ufc debate society in fortaleza ( sociedade de debates da ufc ) established in 2010. in 2013, ufrn debate society created ( sociedade de debates da ufrn ) made changes based on old clube de debates de natal (debate club in natal, rio grande norte).

the model parli brazil started activities in 2014 realization of brazilian championship of debates in city of belo horizonte, making second edition in city of fortaleza , third scheduled take place in city of florianópolis. since then, created ufsc debate society ( sociedade de debates da ufsc ) in 2014 , ufrj debate society ( sociedade de debates da ufrj ) on june 25, 2015, , others.

policy debating

policy debate form of speech competition in teams of 2 advocate , against resolution typically calls policy change united states federal government. called cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened cross-x, cx, or c-x) because of 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. affirmative teams present plan proposal implement resolution. negative try prove better not plan or opportunity costs plan great should not implemented.

public debating

public debate may mean debating public, or in public. term used particular formal style of debate in competitive or educational context. 2 teams of 2 compete through 6 rounds of argument, giving persuasive speeches on particular topic.

public forum debating

public forum debating combines aspects of both policy debate , lincoln-douglas debate, makes them understood general public having shorter speech lengths, , long questioning periods, called cross-fires , debaters interact. basis of type of debate appeal eligible become jury member unlike policy debate or lincoln-douglas debate requires more experience in debate judge.

simulated legislature

high school debate events such congressional debate, model united nations, european youth parliament, junior state of america , american legion s boys/girls state attempt stimulate debating environment of legislatures.

tibetan buddhist debating

this traditional buddhist form of debating influenced earlier indian forms. debating style brought , evolved within tibet. style includes 2 individuals, 1 functioning challenger (questioner) , other defender (answerer). debaters must depend on memorization of points of doctrine, definitions, illustrations, , whole text, own measure of understanding gained instruction , study.

at opening of session of debate, standing challenger claps hands , recites seed syllable of manjushri, dhih . manjushri manifestation of wisdom of buddhas and, such, special deity of debate. in debate, 1 must have motivation, best of establish beings in liberation.

a characteristic of tibetan buddhist style of debating hand gestures used debaters. when challenger first puts question sitting defender, right hand held above shoulder @ level of head , left hand stretched forward palm turned upward. @ end of statement, challenger punctuates loudly clapping hands , simultaneously stomping left foot. draw right hand palm held upward , @ same time, hold forth left hand palm turned downward. motion of drawing , clapping done flow of dancer’s movements. holding forth left hand after clapping symbolizes closing door rebirth in helpless state of cyclic existence. drawing , upraising of right hand symbolizes one’s raise sentient beings out of cyclic existence , establish them in omniscience of buddhahood. left hand represents wisdom — antidote cyclic existence. right hand represents method — altruistic intention become enlightened, motivated great love , compassion sentient beings. clap represents union of method , wisdom. in dependence on union of method , wisdom, 1 able attain buddhahood.

turncoat debating

in style of debating, popular in india @ school level, same speaker shifts allegiance between , against motion. solo contest, unlike other debating forms. here, speaker required speak 2 minutes motion , 2 minutes against motion , draw 1-minute conclusion in speaker balances debate. @ end of fifth minute debate opened house, in members of audience put questions candidate have answer. in turncoat format, emphasis on strength of argument , balancing of opinions. winner have excel in providing clear understanding of topic.

international groups , events
asian universities debating championship

united asian debating championship biggest university debating tournament in asia, teams middle east japan come debate. traditionally hosted in southeast asia participation highest compared other parts of asia.

asian debates largely adaptation of australasian format. difference each speaker given 7 minutes of speech time , there points of information (poi) offered opposing team between 2nd 6th minutes of speech. means 1st , 7th minute considered protected period no pois can offered speaker.

the debate commence prime minister s speech (first proposition) , continued first opposition. alternating speech go on until third opposition. following this, opposition bench give reply speech.

in reply speech, opposition goes first , proposition. debate ends when proposition ends reply speech. 4 minutes allocated reply speech , no poi s can offered during time.

international public debate association

the international public debate association (ipda), inaugurated on february 15, 1997 @ st. mary s university (texas) in san antonio, texas, national debate league active in united states. among universities, unlikely ipda fastest growing debate association within united states. although evidence-based arguments used, central focus of ipda promote debate format emphasizes public speaking , real-world persuasion skills on predominate use of evidence , speed. further goal, ipda predominantly uses lay judges in order encourage audience-centered debate style. furthermore, although main goal of debater persuade judge, ipda awards best speakers within each tournament.

ipda offers both team debating 2 teams, consisting of 2 people, debate , individual debate. in both team , individual debate list of topics given 2 sides thirty minutes before start of round. negotiation ensues pick topic. sides, 1 affirming resolution , 1 negating resolution, prepare opening speech, cross-examination of other side, , closing remarks round.

while member programs of international public debate association associated colleges or universities, participation in ipda tournaments open education level equivalent high school graduate or higher.

world universities peace invitational debate (wupid)

wupid invitational tournament employs bp or worlds format of debating. invites top 30 debating institutions in accordance list provided world debate website administered colm flynn. if or of teams cannot participate replacements called in top 60 teams or based on strong recommendations senior members of university debating community.

wupid first held in december 2007 sydney university being crowned champion. second installation in 2008 saw monash taking trophy home. third wupid held in university putra malaysia (upm) in december 2009. first 2 tournaments co-hosted universiti kuala lumpur (unikl).

wupid brainchild of daniel hasni mustaffa, saiful amin jalun , muhammad yunus zakariah. former debaters upm took part @ possible levels of debating malaysian nationals world championship.