A Basic Guide To Worlds Style

 

By Andy Hume

This page is designed to be used both by debaters and adjudicators, particularly those with little previous experience of the Worlds format of debating. It doesn't pretend to be exhaustive, but should clarify the crucial aspects of Worlds style.

How do Worlds debates work?

Worlds debates are conducted in a format based closely on British Parliamentary Style. In this style there are four teams of two speakers each. The format is set out below, as are the names of each team and each speaker within those teams. The numbers signify the order in which the speakers, erm, speak. (See Rule 1.1)

Opening Government

1. Prime Minister

3. Deputy Prime Minister

  

Opening Opposition

2. Leader of the Opposition

4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
   
Closing Government

5. Member of Government

7. Government Whip

  

Closing Opposition

6. Member of Opposition

8. Opposition Whip

Speeches are of 7 minutes in duration, with a single bell (or gavel knock) at 1 minute, and another single bell at 6 minutes. (Rule 1.5) At the end of the 7 minutes there is a double bell.

Between the two single bells, debaters on the opposing side of the debate (but not on the other team on the same side) may offer Points of Information. Speakers have control over the floor at all times, and have the absolute right to accept or decline each point offered; as a general guide, however, they should look to take around two during their speech. (Rule 1.4)

These may in theory take any form the offering debater wishes, including questions ("Why do you never see baby pigeons?"), challenges ("Have you any evidence that pigeons have babies?"), facts ("In a study from the National Pigeon Institute of Paraguay, it was found that…"), reiterations of their own constructive arguments ("My partner clearly demonstrated in her speech that pigeons do not reproduce"), rebuttal ("Pigeons don’t have babies, and you know it!") or even jokes ("Why did the pigeon cross the road?…"). (Rule 1.4)

In any given situation, of course, some forms of POI will work better than others. They should be assessed in terms of their effect on the persuasiveness of the cases of both of the person offering and also of the speaker accepting the point. (Rule 3.3.4)

What does each speaker have to do?

What follows is a brief, and necessarily somewhat crude, outline of the various roles speakers should fulfil in the debate.

Prime Minister
  •  
  • Defines the topic (Rule 2.1)
  • Outlines her team’s case
  • Develops positive matter in support of her case (Rules Part.3)
Leader of the Opposition
  •  
  • Clarifies any definitional problems (Rule 2.2-2.3)
  • Rebuts the Prime Minister’s arguments
  • Outlines his team’s case
  • Develops positive matter in support of his case
Deputy Prime Minister
  •  
  • Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
  • Develops positive matter in support of her case
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
  •  
  • Rebuts the arguments of the Government
  • Develops positive matter in support of his case
Member of Government
  •  
  • Outlines her team’s case, including their new lines of argument
  • Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
  • Develops positive matter in support of her case
Member of Opposition
  •  
  • Outlines his team’s case, including their new lines of argument
  • Rebuts the arguments of the Government
  • Develops positive matter in support of his case
Government Whip
  •  
  • Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
  • Maydevelop positive matter in support of her case
  • Summarises her team’s case and the debate as a whole
Opposition Whip
  •  
  • Rebuts the arguments of the Government
  • May notdevelop positive matter in support of his case
  • Summarises his team’s case and the debate as a whole

I have tried to avoid using the word "extension" to describe the job of the teams in the second half of the debate; it isn’t used in the rules, and I find it a little misleading. The job of teams at the bottom of the table, simply put, is to be better than what has gone before, to find something new in the topic which allows them to make an invaluable - a morevaluable - contribution to the debate, without being inconsistent with the definition provided by their colleagues. The analogy can be made with partners in a coalition government, who seek to remind voters of their ideological and practical similarities whilst always trying to find ways of making themselves stand out and seem fresh and different, but without straying from the philosophical umbrella which allows their parties to coexist and make common cause against the opposition.

This may well involve extending the case given by 1st Govt - so if, for example, they have proposed a case promoting, say, affirmative action to reduce gender imbalances, 2nd Govt could suggest extending that principle to combat racial imbalances. But 2nd Govt need not go this far. They may choose to introduce and develop new justifications for what has already been proposed, lines of argument which have not properly been discussed, or just plain ignored. If the case hitherto has been a vague and philosophical one, they could instead simply put down some practical proposals to enforce the principle espoused by 1st Govt - for example, by putting forward the idea of quota systems in education and political representation.

What is important to note in all this is that 2nd Govt are perfectly within their rights to operate within the case given by 1st Govt if they choose, so long as they don’t simply repeat what their predecessors have said. An argument touched upon by the PM, but never subsequently developed, can form a perfectly adequate basis for 2nd Govt to "move the debate on" to their ground and win. As for adjudicators, you shouldn’t get hung up on whether or not a team’s 'extension' is "valid"; if 2nd Govt are persuasive, interesting and cast the debate in a fresh light, they are doing their job well.

Notes for adjudicators

Adjudication involves the application of your judgement to a debate. As such, it is necessarily a subjective art. That said, there are some rules that must be abided by, and more generally some broader guidelines on how to assess Worlds style debates. The purpose of this section is to try and give you an idea of the sorts of qualities you should be looking for in a team’s performance.

Aspects of the debate for the adjudicator to consider include:

  • "Matter", as defined in the rules, means content, both positive and rebuttal, and is assessed in terms of its persuasiveness. It also includes Points of Information ("POIs").

    Credit should be given to debaters for having clearly reasoned, logical and relevant matter consistent with what has gone before them. Arguments should be justified by reference to factual knowledge where it’s appropriate or reasonable to expect this, and by clear reasoning at all times.

    POIs are assessed in terms of their effectiveness, as outlined previously. (Rule 3.3.4)

    •
  • "Manner" can be roughly divided into style (Rule 4.2) and structure (Rule 4.3). There are many different ways of approaching both of these aspects. As ever, the key test is a subjective one: does the speaker’s style and structure aid the presentation of their case, or distract from it?

    Speakers from different styles of debate will tend towards different speaking styles: they may be slow and deliberate or rather quicker. Use of humour will vary, and you may well find it necessary to concentrate to understand some of the speakers. Bear in mind especially Rule 4.4.2 - there are many styles of debate at a World Championships, and you must try to overcome any prejudices or biases you may have, however unwitting.

    The way debaters structure their speeches will also vary. Some, for example, will "signpost" their various arguments very clearly ("My second argument is the social one…"), whilst others will seek to link one argument to another rather more subtly. Some speakers may adopt a policy of rebutting every opposing point one by one and in order (common, for example, in the North American style), whilst others may choose to adopt a thematic approach. Once again, none of these is necessarily any better than the others.

    Ultimately, however, these guidelines are merely organising principles designed to aid the adjudicator in their decision. There are very few "golden rules" in Worlds style debating, very few technical requirements which must be fulfilled. Most of the Worlds rules use the word "should" rather than "must" for this very reason, and as such your final decision should be based on a "macro" or holistic view of the debate, rather than starting from the rules and working up. What matters is not specific adherence to one rule or another, but the effectiveness with which a team communicates their case.

    •