The World Schools Style Debating Speech Guide

NO PART OF THE MATERIAL HEREIN MAY BE DISSEMINATED OR SHARED WITHOUT EXPRESS

PERMISSION FROM MIND EVOLUTION (SINGAPORE)
Proposition Opposition
Speaker 1 Speaker 1

Opening/Context: Opening/Context:

1. Greet the house before proceeding – it is 1. Greet the house before proceeding – it is
basic courtesy basic courtesy

2. How did we get here today? – Provide a 2. How did we get here today? – Provide a
canvas or a backdrop to the motion or canvas or a backdrop to the motion or
the key subject matter or issue at the the key subject matter or issue at the
heart of the motion by answering this heart of the motion by answering this
question question – from an Opposition lens or
perspective – give a sense to the
3. Identify the key or major issue(s) that adjudicator of what Opposition is seeing
justify the motion for the day, that trigger today, which the Proposition is either
the motion for the debate to begin with, missing, not acknowledging or not
and explain the need therefore/thereof optimally addressing by supporting the
to debate the given motion which the motion
Proposition team bears the task/onus of
proposing – in other words, why are we 3. Identify and explain to the adjudicators
debating this? what both the Proposition and
Opposition have in common in terms of
4. The opening as such (encompassing 1. intended or sought outcomes/benefits –
And 2.) is sharp, precise, concise, i.e., in a refugee management debate,
succinct, clear and simplified enough any both sides agree that they want the
general lay person to easily comprehend, overall safety and well-being of the most
within the first 20-25 seconds (preferably vulnerable, etc – set the tone and
in much lesser time than that, as far as expectations in the mind of the
may be possible, such as within the first adjudicator, as to what the adjudicator
10 seconds) of the speaker starting the should expect to hear
speech debated/contended, and what not to?

Introduction of the Motion & Definition: 4. The opening as such (encompassing 1.

And 2.) is sharp, precise, concise,
1. As “Prime Minister” of The House, clearly succinct, clear and simplified enough any
state the motion word for word as has general lay person to easily comprehend,
been given to you for the debate within the first 20-25 seconds (preferably
in much lesser time than that, as far as
2. Address one key word, key phrase or key may be possible, such as within the first
term, that determines the overall

Page 1 of 13
 interpretation of the motion, and thereof 10 seconds) of the speaker starting the
the direction of the debate, one at a time speech

3. In words as simple, as clear and in as Respond to Proposition’s Definition of the

much detail as necessary, explain the Motion & Case Setup:
meaning that Proposition team interprets
from each of the key word, key phrase or 5. As “Opposition Leader” of The House,
key term in the motion clearly state the motion word for word as
has been given to you for the debate –
4. So, what does the motion overall (as the remind the adjudicator what the motion
whole sentence, as worded as it is) is again, repeating what the “Prime
mean? – answer this question, and Minister” would have expectedly done
explain what exactly the Proposition
Team should be expected to Propose to 6. Without repeating, acknowledge the
the house and convince the adjudicators definition(s) articulated by Proposition
of/about for the debate, as implied by through the “Prime Minister”
the explained meaning of the motion
according to Proposition’s definition(s), 7. Sharply and clearly tell the house,
and where necessary, explain/clarify whether the Opposition “Accepts” or
what the Proposition is not proposing by “Rejects” the definition of the Motion as
way of the motion, what the Proposition interpreted and established by the
is not required to be debating in the “Prime Minister” – once the definition of
particular debate, or in other words, the motion is accepted unchallenged,
what the motion does not mean, does both teams are then bound and expected
not imply, or does not require the to abide by it and adhere to it, where
Proposition to represent – as you do this, neither is to retract, backtrack or deviate
unpack and explain clearly, with from it subsequently
systematic simplification, all of the issues
tied to and associated with the motion, 8. In the event where the definition is
as long as the matter in the specific “rejected”, effectively immediately at
debate, without omitting any that point, the Opposition Leader must
issue a “Definition Challenge” where a
Proposition Case (Speaker 1 sets up the Case): new alternative definition is issued, upon
which the Opposition Leader
1. Proposition Stand/Stance: Start your recommences the debate with a new
case setup with - what do you aim to setup, leading into an “Even If” exchange
prove or convince the house about at/by for the rest of the debate – this is usually
the end of the debate with team avoided as far as is possible, for as long
Opposition? – This is usually a quick and as the motion is defined in a logical and
short one-liner that sharply identifies reasonable manner by the Proposition. A
what you expect the main crux of the motion’s definition as set by the
whole debate ahead to be, and which will Proposition is only rejected by an
probably be the main (most important Opposition team in rare and extreme
and biggest) clash that an adjudicator circumstances where the Proposition has
should expect to reasonably come out of

Page 2 of 13
 the constructive/substantive exchange in wholly and entirely misconstrued the
at least the Proposition 3rd Speech/Reply entire meaning of the debate
Speech, which Prop is expecting to win
on – this serves as Proposition’s reason 9. Acknowledge, address and respond to
for being in the debate (“we are debating the policies, caveats, exclusions and
this motion today, to prove this” – parameters of the debate as spelt out by
without using the words in this quote) the Proposition Team as necessary - are
they reasonable? Is Proposition
2. After stating the above, provide/describe attempting to “squirrel” the debate? Is
the over-arching rationale, solution to Proposition unreasonably narrowing the
problem in the motion, your debate or attempting to impose unfair
mechanism/model for implementing the burdens upon the Opposition?
solution perhaps that the Motion
suggests/implies/proposes/requires – 10. If Opposition wishes to raise any
Your Team case can mean any, any objection to any technicality, anything
combination of, or all, of these things unreasonable in terms of setting up or
contextualisation, or definition, arising
3. The team case demonstrates to the from the 1st Proposition Speech, it must
adjudicator the viability, validity and be done at this point (the start of 1st
reliability of the motion, and the proposal Opposition Speech) – thereafter which,
of it the entire Opposition Team (including 1st
Opposition Speaker) must “hold their
4. The team case forwards the idea, that peace”, and debate along the terms and
the proposed Motion will lead to the best conditions created/setup by the
possible outcome or greatest good for all, Proposition Team – for example, the 2nd
most or majority, of the stakeholders of or 3rd Opposition speaker may not
the main issue(s) at the heart of the challenge the definition of the motion,
motion nor call Proposition’s parameters or
contextualisation a “squirrel”
5. State the caveats, the exclusions, the
contexts, the burdens of proof – basically 11. In event any objection is raised,
the parameters of the debate – such as in Opposition must state what is reasonably
a capital punishment debate, you will acceptable – i.e., “Opposition does not
only debate in the context of democratic want this debate to be limited to the
countries and you will not be debating time and place as imposed by the Prime
capital punishment in contexts such as Minister” (objective reasons must then
military offences, war crimes, treason or be stated clearly for this), and then
terrorism, etc – You must provide subsequently Opposition must proceed
justifications for all with debating according to conditions it
parameters/exclusions, such as if you set declares as fair, without backtracking
a debate in the context of Singapore, you
must explain why the Opposition should 12. If there are insufficient grounds to raise
engage you in the debate within that an objection on any technical condition,
specific context and the boundary of the Opposition Team is expected not to
Singapore

Page 3 of 13
 Rebuttals
6. The length/duration of stating,
explaining, building the Team Case varies 1. Tell the adjudicator how many rebuttals
widely depending on the motion – there you have – just state the number of
cannot be a generalisation on how much main/overarching
time one should afford to the Case Setup
– however, in most cases 2. Start with Proposition’s Case – Question
(predominantly), if the Case Division (see the Model/Mechanism, the inadequacies
below) of a Proposition 1st Speaker is not of the stance, the loopholes in the
completed and the delivery of the 1st solution offered or flaws in perspective.
argument has not commenced by 3 Where you raise or ask a question,
minutes and 30 seconds into the speech, answer the question from an Opposition
it could mean that the speaker is too perspective showing weakness in
slow, too wordy, explaining more than is Proposition’s Stance/Case/Policy
necessary, is being repetitive, has a poor
organisation or construction or structure 3. Move on to points in the 1st Proposition
of content, or is not managing time well, Speaker’s Constructive/Substantive
etc – however, none of this may be the Arguments – 1 Argument at a time
case with certain types of motions which
may warrant or demand a substantial 4. Identify and state clearly, what exactly is
amount of setting up for a fruitful the specific point from the opponent
debate, where at the very latest, the speaker’s speech that you are referring to
Proposition 1st speaker should commence and addressing in your rebuttal – remind
the 1st Argument at least before the 4 the adjudicator in which context and in
minutes and 30 seconds mark. While on which part of the speech the speaker had
the converse, any Proposition 1st Speaker stated the point
who begins delivery of the 1st substantive
argument before the 60 seconds mark 5. Clearly specify what the problem is that
into the speech, in general, as self- Team Opposition sees with that
explanatory and simple as the given particular point – explain the what, why,
motion may be, the speaker has probably how
understated, underdeveloped or
underdelivered the Proposition Case (It is 6. Explain the gravity of the problem or
too thin, too weak, too poorly setup, inadequacy in the point, for which the
parameters are missing, etc) adjudicator should discredit or omit from
consideration that particular point, or
7. Note that debate motions that read why the adjudicator should favour it less
“prefers”, “regrets”, “more harm than
good”, “more good than harm”, generally 7. Provide illustrative real-world example(s)
do not require implementation models or to demonstrate how the opponent’s
mechanisms, or solutions (it is not a point is inadequate or problematic
debate to solve a problem necessarily)
8. Provide factual evidence where possible
to validate your negative argument
against the particular point

Page 4 of 13
Case Division:
9. Demonstrate in conclusion how you have
1. List the arguments that your Team will negated the point effectively in one brief
present to the house to prove/support its line, and then move on to the next
case, and therefore the motion rebuttal, or, to your own Case

2. The arguments are listed with “tags” or 10. Generally, a reasonable Opposition 1st
“labels” that are clearly explanatory of Speaker should conclude all rebuttals and
their themes, tones, subject-matter (i.e., move on to presenting the Opposition
economic, social, technological Case (the alternative in the debate) at
perspective, etc) which are not longer the very latest by the 3 minute mark of
than a single line each on an average que the speech – although this really depends
card on the debate, but in most
circumstances, if an Opposition 1st
3. The arguments listed to the adjudicator speaker is still delivering rebuttals past 3
are clearly assigned, delegated to the minutes into the speech, it is indication
respective 1st or 2nd speaker of the team that the rebuttals are going on for too
long or that the time is not being
4. The 2nd speaker may have an equal managed well or that the speaker is too
number or lesser number of arguments slow
than those carried by the 1st, but never
more Do not leave any key point or any entire
argument of the Proposition unaddressed. If you
5. The arguments are listed and delivered in don’t see the need to negate something, at least
order of importance in/to the debate, explain to the adjudicator how and why you do
and in order of the priority in which the not need to disagree with an argument tabled
adjudicator should consider them, so as by the other team, because it does not
to objectively weigh the debate – so the contribute to the main contention or debate
most important argument 1st by Speaker pertaining to the debate. If you leave anything
1, and the least important argument on standing, unaddressed, it leads to that point
Proposition side as the final substantive being held against you, by which you may
argument to be delivered by Speaker 2 technically be conceding the debate.

6. In your case division, you do not provide Where there is direct overlap or clash with the
a summary or description in detail about planned substantives in your speech, it is
what any of the arguments is going to be prudent to incorporate the rebuttals into your
about, nor do you mention if they are substantives – in which case it needs to be
going to be “tiered” or what “tiers” those clearly indicated to the adjudicator, that you will
arguments will be delivered in and so on. be incorporating your rebuttals into your
You simply state the labels and who will substantive arguments (All? Some? Which ones
deliver the arguments and you move on if not all?). Follow-up on your indication to the
adjudicator, by ensuring that you do deliver the
promised rebuttals within your constructive
arguments. Use clear sign posting when

Page 5 of 13
Delivering Substantive Arguments: delivering your argument to indicate where you
are rebutting a point made by your opponent.
1. State the “label” or “tag” to identify the
argument you are starting – as worded Opposition Case:
earlier during the Case Division
1. Opposition Stand/Stance: Start your case
2. Explain what the argument is and what it setup with - what do you aim to prove or
is about convince the house about at/by the end
of the debate with team Proposition? –
3. Explain the relevance or connection of This is usually a quick and short one-liner
the argument to the main topic, subject that sharply identifies what you expect
matter or the motion of the debate the main crux of the whole debate ahead
overall (“linking back”) to be, and which will probably be the
main (most important and biggest) clash
4. Explain how and why the argument that an adjudicator should expect to
supports your team’s Stance/Case in reasonably come out of the
particular – highlight and emphasise how constructive/substantive exchange in at
it supports or benefits your team’s case least the Opposition 3rd Speech/Reply
exclusively over the opponents’ Speech, which Opp is expecting to win on
– this serves as Opposition’s reason for
5. Explain the importance (what, why, how being in the debate (“we are debating
and for whom?) and the extent gravity of this motion today, to prove this” –
the particular argument in the particular without using the words in this quote)
debate in favour of your team– here you
are systematically and logically explaining 2. After stating the above, provide/describe
to the adjudicators why they should be the over-arching rationale to oppose the
convinced, given the gravity of the motion, counter-solution to problem in
argument in the debate, to hand the win the motion, your counter-
to your team – highlight/demonstrate mechanism/counter-model for
the key benefits (or harms in the case of implementing the solution, or
the argument being presented for the justification to maintain status quo
purposes of pointing out harms of not
doing something, or harms of an 3. The Opposition Case is the main
alternative) that the argument points at, justification in itself, for the Motion to fall
for which the adjudicators would want to – explaining that there is a better
let the motion to stand at the end of the outcome that can be achieved for the key
debate stakeholders of the issue(s) at the heart
of the motion by way of rejecting the
6. Draw a comparative to the alternative motion
scenario – what is alternative to the
specific argument, what the opponents 4. Generally, the Opposition 1st Speaker is
may offer to support their case or expected to complete the introduction of
alternative, or if the argument were not the Opposition Case as well as the Case
there to be considered – weigh the Division at the very latest by the 5
alternatives by comparison, and minutes mark (in fact, it is very rare for it

Page 6 of 13
 demonstrate to the adjudicators to be justifiable that an Opposition 1st
why/how the argument weighs better or Speaker does not commence the 1st
is more important than the possible Substantive Argument for Opposition by
alternatives to consider, in deciding on the 4 minutes and 30 seconds mark), by
the motion/debate which the speaker should have
commenced the delivery of the 1st
7. Illustrate the practical aspects of your Opposition Substantive argument
argument, with the use of real-world
examples as far as possible, and if none Case Division:
as such may be drawn, then by objective
hypothetical scenarios (not personal or (See Case Division Section in Proposition
fantasy examples) Speaker 1 column)

8. Support your argument with relevant real Delivering Substantive Arguments:

world factual evidence to validate the key
point(s) within the argument and to (See the Delivering Substantive Arguments
prove its credence Section in Proposition Speaker 1 column)

9. Summarise succinctly each argument, Conclusion/Summary:

highlighting the key merits for
adjudicators’ consideration in the debate, (See the Conclusion/Summary Section in
before sign-posting that with that Proposition Speaker 1 column)
summary you are ending the particular
argument and moving on either to the
next argument or to the conclusion of the
entire speech

10. If an argument is extensive in addressing

a cluster of issues, or it presents multiple
benefits (or harms) or is basically serving
multiple different purposes in the
debate, tier the argument for neat
organisation and clarity, so that it is easy
to follow in the flow of explanation – in
which case, present the overarching
argument first, linking it back to the
motion, its relevance to Proposition case,
and then state the tiers (usually 2 or
three, not more), such as, “there are 3
tiers to this argument”

11. In tiered arguments, when you start each

tier, indicate it in sign-posting, i.e., “on
the first tier”, then, describe the tier
before proceeding to deliver it with a

Page 7 of 13
 short tag, heading or label, usually a
short phrase or a very short sentence,
which is indicative or descriptive of what
the tier is about

12. For a tiered argument, structure each tier

as you would a whole non-tiered
argument (as described up to Point 9 in
the section herein) – where for each tier
you have relevant examples and
evidence, and you provide a summary
before moving on to the next tier, or to
summarising the entire argument as a
whole, where you briefly highlight and
reiterate the key points across all the
tiers, before moving on

13. If you are introducing any concept,

theory, jargon, unique term or a subject
matter specific descriptor, in any part of
the argument, you need to define it,
clearly and in as simple words as possible

14. If the argument does not prove anything

mutually exclusive in favour of your
team, then your team should not include
it in your case division

15. If something is not important in the

context of the debate, as in towards the
shaping of the outcome of the main
clashes in the debate, you should not
waste your time bringing it up

Conclusion/Summary:

1. Don’t just abruptly end your speech with

your final argument

2. Provide the adjudicator with a quick and

concise summary of what you have done
overall with your speech (25 to 30
seconds)

Page 8 of 13
 3. Highlight, emphasise and reiterate key
points you have tabled before the house
which your opponents must effectively
take down or address, to stand a chance
at winning the debate

4. Conclude with a closing remark

emphasising the importance of why the
adjudicators should favour your team’s
position

5. Thank the house for listening to you,

before you return to your seat – it is basic
courtesy

Speaker 2 Speaker 2

Opening/Clarifications: Opening/Clarifications:

1. Please greet the house before proceeding 1. Please greet the house before proceeding

2. Clarify anything that Opposition Speaker 2. Clarify anything that Proposition Speaker
1 may have misinterpreted, 2 may have misinterpreted,
misconstrued, misunderstood or misconstrued, misunderstood or
misrepresented misrepresented

3. Answer any clarification question 3. Answer any clarification question

Opposition 1st Speaker may have raised Proposition 2nd Speaker may have raised

Rebuttals: Rebuttals:

1. See Rebuttals Section in Opposition 1. See Rebuttals Section in Opposition

Speaker 1 column Speaker 1 column

2. Always start with counter-rebuttals – the 2. Always start with counter-rebuttals – the
format is no different from that format is no different from that
described for all rebuttals above in the described for all rebuttals above in the
Opposition Speaker 1 column Opposition Speaker 1 column

3. Always start with Opposition Rebuttals 3. Always start counter-rebuttals with

against Proposition Case, then progress Proposition counter-rebuttals against
to addressing Opposition Rebuttals Opposition 1st Speaker’s rebuttals –
against Proposition 1st Speaker’s address each counter-rebuttal in order, 1
Substantive Arguments at a time

Page 9 of 13
 4. Deliver rebuttals against Opposition’s 4. Next, deliver counter-rebuttals against
Counter-Case first as the Opposition Proposition’s rebuttals to Opposition’s
Leader is expected to against Case
Proposition’s Case
5. Next, deliver counter-rebuttals against
st
5. Deliver rebuttals against Opposition 1 Proposition’s rebuttals against
Speaker’s substantive arguments Opposition 1st Speaker’s substantive
arguments
Delivering Substantive Arguments:
6. Deliver rebuttals against Proposition 2nd
(See the Delivering Substantive Arguments Speaker’s substantive arguments
Section in Proposition Speaker 1 column)
Delivering Substantive Arguments:
Before commencing the first substantive
argument delegated to Speaker 2, remind the (See the Delivering Substantive Arguments
adjudicator which arguments were delegated to Section in Proposition Speaker 1 column)
you in the Case Division by Speaker 1, and then
initiate the first constructive argument in your Before commencing the first substantive
speech argument delegated to Speaker 2, remind the
adjudicator which arguments were delegated to
Conclusion/Summary: you in the Case Division by Speaker 1, and then
initiate the first constructive argument in your
(See the Conclusion/Summary Section in speech
Proposition Speaker 1 column)
Conclusion/Summary:

(See the Conclusion/Summary Section in

Proposition Speaker 1 column)

Speaker 3 Speaker 3

Opening/Clarifications: Opening/Clarifications:

1. Please greet the house before proceeding 1. Please greet the house before proceeding

2. Clarify anything that the Opposition 2. Clarify anything that the Proposition
Team may have misinterpreted, Team may have misinterpreted,
misconstrued, misunderstood or misconstrued, misunderstood or
misrepresented misrepresented

3. Answer any clarification question 3. Answer any clarification question

Opposition 2nd Speaker may have raised Proposition 3rd Speaker may have raised

Page 10 of 13
Initial Rebuttals: Initial Rebuttals:

1. See Rebuttals Section in Opposition (See Initial Rebuttals Section in Proposition

Speaker 1 column Speaker 3 column)

2. While the format of delivering initial Clashes:

rebuttals in 3rd speeches do not differ
from that in all the preceding speeches, (See Clashes Section in Proposition Speaker 3
the number of rebuttals offered upfront, column)
and their extent is comparatively limited
– the 3rd Speaker Speech on either side of Conclusion/Summary:
the House is inherently and primarily a
“Whip” speech meant to “take down” (See Conclusion/Summary Section in Proposition
and negate the role of the entire Speaker 3 column)
opponent team and it’s case, and hence,
the bulk of the “rebuttal” function needs
to be fulfilled by way of analysing the
main clash(es) arising from the
constructive exchange in favour of one’s
own team’s victory

3. Identify 2-4 (usually no more than 3)

main points to immediately and directly
counter at the start of the 3rd Speech,
from the speech of the immediately
preceding speaker on the other side
(whether the points came in the form of
rebuttals, counter-rebuttals or
constructive arguments) – then rebut
these in the same format as described in
the Rebuttals Section in Opposition
Speaker 1 column

Clashes:

1. Move on to the Main Clash(es) – this is

the primary and crucial function of the 3rd
Speaker – start with telling the
adjudicators how many clashes there are
in the debate, and then naming the
clash(es) (a kind of case division of/on its
own)

Page 11 of 13
2. Start with the first clash – reiterate or
restate the name of the clash, for
adjudicator to track

3. Explain what the clash is about and why it

happened

4. Iterate and highlight the key

contributions to the clash by each
opposing side of the house, and compare
the merits and demerits of each

5. The point of presenting the clash is to

demonstrate that your own team’s
points/arguments/case outweigh those
of the other team’s, in terms of merits
and demerits – you have to analytically
weigh those merits and demerits key
point by key point

6. The ideal scenario in the “weighing”

analysis is to be able to tell the
adjudicator, that in this clash, even our
“worst case scenario” results in better
outcomes than their “best case
scenario”, where their “best case
scenario” is no where close to delivering
the quality outcome of our “best case
scenario” – on top of which their “worst
case scenario” is that detrimental by that
much

7. At the end of the analysis to weigh the

merits and demerits, explain to the
adjudicator how you “therefore” took the
clash overall, and why that is important
in meaning that you have won the whole
debate overall

8. To drive home the point of the clash (that

you win the debate on it), provide a brief
summary of what you did in the
presentation of your analysis, the
demonstrate that your arguments
outweigh those of the other team’s (10-

Page 12 of 13
 15 seconds) before moving on to the next
clash or to the end of the speech

Conclusion/Summary:

(See the Conclusion/Summary Section in

Proposition Speaker 1 column)

As the Final Constructive Speaker of your Team,

focus your summary and conclusion on “the
how & why” aspect of your Team having taken
all the clashes which you have presented and
therefore having conclusively won the debate

Replies

The reply speech is strictly a summary speech. The debate is over. There is nothing to respond to and
there is no exchange to be made. No new material is to be introduced.

The reply speaker of each team is expected to take the respective team’s clash(es) as presented by
the team’s 3rd Speaker and summarise the entire debate along the lines of that.

Rather than being an extension of the 3rd speech, in a reply, on should highlight the key priorities and
objectives that both sides represent and are contesting to serve, at a principle, ethical or
philosophical level.

As the reply speech progresses, the Speaker is expected to convince the adjudicators why a
reasonable third party, with the power to judge the debate, should favour the priorities or objectives
sought by the Speaker’s own team over those sought by the other, for the gravity, for the trade off
benefits, for the greater good the Speaker’s team seeks, or the lesser harm that the Speaker’s Team
Stance does at a holistic level.

The reply speech is concluded with an emphasis over why “it is clear” that “what we have sought
throughout” this debate is “more important” or “more crucial” than what “they seek”. In way, the
reply speech is a “call to rally” for the neutral adjudicators in the room to take one’s team’s side.

Overall, from start to finish, the reply speech is a “biased adjudication” favouring one’s own team,
aiming to convince the neutral adjudicators that the principles, intentions, pragmatism and logic
underlying the team’s stand, case and sum of arguments are comparatively sounder than those that
have come from the other side of the house along “which world would you rather have or live in?”
(Where the presumed answer would be: even if the other side is right about everything that they
have said across 24 minutes of their constructive speeches, you’d rather live in the sort of world we
seek to promise/deliver).

Page 13 of 13