The Various Debate Formats
ONE WAY TO CLASSIFY DEBATES is to categorize them as either ‘debates for decision-making’ or ‘educational debates.’ Under these two categories, there are various debate formats.
Debating for decision making
Some debates are done to formally decide on things or issues such as those concerning legislation, sanctioning of a resolution, approving an ordinance, passing a bill, or selecting a candidate for a position. The following are the common formats under this debate category:
1. Parliamentary format
Debates for decision-making usually take the Parliamentary format. Under this debate form, members of the parliament or any legislative bodies, using parliamentary rules and procedures, formally discuss a resolution or bill and eventually cast their vote for or against it.
2. Leaders Debate
Another format under debating for decision-making is the so-called Leaders debate or debate between candidates for high office. In some nations, candidates for president or prime minister customarily debate in public, typically during election campaigns.
One popular example of Leaders debate is the U. S. presidential debates. Unlike educational debates, the debate rules and procedures in U. S. presidential debates are not independently defined, that is, they considerably depend on the institution sponsoring the debate. Noticeably however, some recent formats no longer forbid participants to ask each other questions. Though the rules still limit the discussion of specific topics to short time frames, the formats are now more voter-centric as they even allow entertaining questions from audiences.
Educational debating
Also called academic or competitive debates, educational debates usually happen in academic institutions as they are basically held as co-curricular exercises. Here, debate teams compete and one is judged the winner by some criteria set by the organizers in accordance with the official guidelines of the debate format used. Various academic debates are carried out at the local, national, and international levels.
The following are the most common forms of debate employed in educational debate contests:
1. Parliamentary debate
Essentially adopting many features of the British parliamentary procedure, this debate form is procedurally similar, though not perfectly identical, to the Parliamentary format used in debating for decision-making.
As an educational debate format, it features the competition of debate members (usually students) in a multi-person setting. One of its distinctive features is the employment of “Point of Information (POI)” (thoroughly discussed in the later lecture, “Doing Well in Parliamentary Debate”).
This so-called Parliamentary debate format has some variants basically depending on the country using the debating style. The following are the most common variations of Parliamentary format:
1.1. British Parliamentary debate
This debating style is the one used by the World University Debating Championships (WUDC). It involves four (4) teams: Two (2) “government” teams (one opening and one closing) and two (2) “opposition” teams (opening and closing). The “government” (also called “proposition”) teams support the motion while the two “opposition” counterparts oppose it.
By doing their respective roles in the debate, the four (4) teams compete against each other. The closing team of each side has the duty to either offer a new essential point relevant to the motion (called “outward extension”) or expand on a point made by their opening counterpart (called “inward extension”). While agreeing with their respective opening counterpart as far as the motion is concerned, the closing teams have to “one-up” them to win the contest.
The judges rank the teams first through fourth. During the elimination rounds, the first place team obtains 3 points, the second receives 2, the third earns 1, and the fourth place gets no points.
1.2. Canadian Parliamentary debate
Like many debating styles, the Canadian Parliamentary debate involves one “government” and one “opposition” team. Distinctly however, the motion in this format is customarily “squirrelable,” that is, the given motion is not really a debatable proposition as it may be just a quote from a song, poem, book, or film. It is thus the duty of the government team to “squirrel” the motion or turn it into something debatable by creating some logical links between the assigned motion and the one the team proposes to debate. This makes the debate similar to a prepared debate for the government team and an impromptu debate for the opposition team.
1.3. American Parliamentary debate
American Parliamentary Debate was roughly modeled on the procedures and decorum of the UK Parliament. Typically parliamentary, this debate format puts premium on argumentation and rhetoric and not much on research and specific factual knowledge.
This debating style involves two opposing teams of two debaters each: the (1) government team comprises the Prime Minister and the Member of Government, whereas the (2) Opposition team consists of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member of the Opposition.
The debate is adjudicated by a judge or panel of judges. The adjudicators are usually debaters themselves, though non-debater judges (lay judges) are sometimes employed.
Comparatively, the American Parliamentary debate is seen as somewhat rule-oriented, structured, and giving emphasis on detailed analysis as point-by-point argumentation and careful structure are deemed necessary. Moreover, this format is relatively less theoretical and demands less use of technical debate formalisms.
(More on Parliamentary debate format are discussed in a separate succeeding lecture, “Doing Well in Parliamentary Debate.” Among other things, discussed there in detail is the popular Parliamentary debate variant called World Schools Style debate used in many international debate contests.)
2. Oxford-Oregon debate
Another famous educational debating style, especially in academic institutions in the Philippines, is the Oregon-Oxford debate. This type of debate involves three (some variants use four) speakers in both the affirmative and the negative side.
Unlike in the Parliamentary Debate, the debaters in Oxford-Oregon are not to be interrupted while delivering the constructive speech. Instead, a debater and his match in the opposing team have to interpellate each other at the end of their respective constructive speeches. This interpellation is also called “cross-examination,” hence Oregon-Oxford debate is also referred to as ‘Cross-Examination debate.’
The Oxford-Oregon debates comprise three basic parts: the Constructive Speeches, Interpellations, and Rebuttals. (These parts, plus many other aspects of Oxford-Oregon debate, are thoroughly discussed in the subsequent lecture, “Mastering the Oxford-Oregon Debate”).
As you would notice, many other debate formats discussed below resemble these two already tackled debate forms. With slight and distinctive modifications, they evidently adopt either some features of the Parliamentary debate (especially its “Point of Information”) or those of Oxford-Oregon style (especially its “Cross-Examination”)
3. Oxford-Style debate
This debating style features a well framed motion that is proposed by one side and opposed by the opposing team.
Oxford-Style debate adopted its format from the Oxford Union debating society of Oxford University. The debate procedure begins with audience casting a ‘for,’ ‘against,’ or ‘undecided’ pre-debate vote on the motion. Each panel member (debater) then presents a seven-minute opening statement, after which the moderator administers the taking of questions from the audience with inter-panel challenges. Afterward, each debater delivers a two-minute closing argument.
After the closing speeches, the audience casts their second (and last) vote for comparison against the first. The winner is decided either by the majority vote or by which side has swayed more audience members between the first and second votes.
4. Mace debate
The Mace debate format underscores reasoning skills, weight and organization of arguments, and even entertainment. To win in this debate is basically to have excelled in all of these aspects.
Usually utilized in Britain at schools level, Mace debate is considered by some as a variant of Parliamentary debate. Adopting many features and terminologies of Parliamentary debate, Mace debate however adds an element used also in Oxford-Style, that is, opening the debate to the floor in which audience members pose questions to the debating teams.
In Mace format, two teams (proposition and opposition) of two members debate on a motion. Each speaker makes a seven-minute speech in this order: 1st proposition, 1st opposition, 2nd proposition, and 2nd opposition. Like Parliamentary debate, Mace features the so-called “Point of Information (POI)” (discussed in detail in the subsequent lecture, “Doing Well in Parliamentary Debate”).
The audience members are then allowed to ask questions to the debaters after the seven-minute speeches by all four speakers. Afterward, a debater from each team (usually the first speaker) delivers a four-minute summary speech. In these final speeches, the speakers answer the questions posed by the floor and by the opponents and ultimately summarize their respective team’s main points.
5. Public debate
As a particular formal style of debate, Public debate refers to a competitive or educational debate format featuring two teams of two members each competing by delivering persuasive speeches on a particular topic.
This format is primarily used by the International Public Debate Association (IPDA) which was inaugurated in 1997 at St. Mary’s University (San Antonio, Texas). The IPDA places higher value on public speaking and persuasion skills over the use of evidence and speed. To promote a public-centered debate style, the IPDA even employs lay judges.
During the pre-debate stage, the teams are assigned as either the Affirmative or the Negative and are given three (3) topics from which to select. Through the process called “strike,” the Affirmative removes one of the topics from the list. Left with two topics to choose from, the Negative, also using its “strike” privilege, ultimately chooses the topic it wishes to argue about by eliminating a topic from the remaining options. Afterward, the two teams formulate their respective cases for about 15 minutes before the actual debate begins.
Each team has a Leader (who speaks twice in a round) and a Member (who speaks once). The speaking order (with the typical time allotments) is as follows: Leader Affirmative (7 minutes), Leader Negation (8 minutes), Member Affirmative (8 minutes), Member Negation (8 minutes), Leader Negation Rebuttal (4 minutes), and Leader Affirmative Rebuttal (5 minutes).
Public debate allows the giving of “procedural information,” that is,asking a question to a member of the opposing team who is speaking. This is done by standing up and waiting for the speaker to take one’s question. The principle and procedures of Public Debate’s “procedural information” are fundamentally similar to those of Parliamentary debate’s “point of information or POI” (discussed in detail in the subsequent lecture, “Doing Well in Parliamentary Debate).
ALSO CHECK OUT:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog
6. Australasia debate
The term “Australasia” stands for “Australia-Asia.” The so-called Australasia debating style features two teams who debate over a topic or proposition that conventionally begins with “That” (e.g. “That mixed martial arts is better than boxing) or “This house” (e.g. “This house would establish an international police agency”). The debate topics are typically ‘region-specific’ to become interesting to both the participants and their audiences.
The opposing teams in Australia–Asia debate are called the “Affirmative” (also called “Proposition” or “Government”) and the “Negative” (also called “Opposition”). The Affirmative agrees with and proves the topic, whereas the Negative disagrees with and thus refutes the topic.
Each team consists of three members. The debaters are named according to their side in the proposition and speaking position within their respective team. Thus, the first to speak in the affirmative team is called the “First Affirmative Speaker.” But since Australasia basically adopts the principles of Parliamentary debate, the members of the Affirmative team are alternatively referred to as “Prime Minister,” “Deputy Prime Minister,” and “Government Whip” respectively, while the speakers in the negative team may be addressed as “Opposition Leader,” “Deputy Opposition Leader,” and “Opposition Whip.”
In Australasia debate, the speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative. Each speaker has a set speaking time based on the procedures determined by the organizer or agreed to by the debating teams. The Parliamentary debate’s “Point of Information” may also be utilized in Australasia.
After all debaters have spoken, a “reply speech,” under some rules, is made by one of the speakers in both teams (often the first or second speaker of each team). The negative team makes its reply speech first followed by that of the affirmative.
7. Policy debate
This debate format features a resolution that usually calls for policy change by the United States federal government.
The affirmative team has to present a plan as its proposal to implement the resolution. To become victorious, the team must win some so-called “stock issues” such as the significance (how significant is the plan), harms (the presence of problems in the status quo which need solution), solvency (the plan’s ability to solve the actual harms), inherency (the presence or absence of the plan in the status quo), and topicality (the proposed policy’s compliance with the accepted resolution).
On the other hand, the negative team has to prove that it is better not to do the affirmative’s plan or proposed policy. The negative could refute the proposal using principles like topicality (that the affirmative’s plan does not fall under the rubric of the resolution), disadvantages (that the plan has adverse effects which outweigh the alleged advantages), counterplan (that the negative has a counter solution to the affirmative plan’s problem or shortcoming), kritik (that the affirmative is guilty of a mindset or assumption that must be grounds for rejection), and theory (that the affirmative case will create an unfair or uneven playing field from the start).
Policy debate fundamentally adopts the main parts (Constructive Speech, Cross Examination, and Rebuttal) and the sequence of Oxford-Oregon style. Like Oxford-Oregon, it is thus also called “Cross-Examination debate” because of the questioning period (Interpellation/Cross-Examination) following each Constructive Speech. However, Policy Debate features only two members for each team. And unlike Oxford-Oregon which allows only one rebuttal speech for each team, Policy debate permits two rebuttal speeches for each side. Meaning, all speakers deliver their respective rebuttal speech.
Many Policy debaters practice “spreading” or speed reading to mention as much evidence and create as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. But when judges can no longer understand the speech because the delivery has become too fast or the debater is enunciating poorly, they may prompt the debater like by yelling “Clear!”
8. Extemporaneous debate
Principally featuring extemporaneous speaking, this Extemporaneous debate is one that does not involve planning or preparation in advance. Though citing of current events and some statistics (from one’s stock knowledge) may not be banned, the only evidence fundamentally allowed are the few articles given to the teams (along with the resolution) shortly before the debate proper.
Because of limited evidence and time to prepare, extemporaneous debate usually centers on two to four key contentions only. To conceptually guide the judges and audience, debaters normally have to “signpost” or link up the submitted information to these main contentions.
Featuring two opposing teams with a first and second speaker each, Extemporaneous debate adopts the form, parts, and sequence of Policy debate, hence, is also deemed a “Cross-Examination Debate” (like Oxford-Oregon). Compared to Policy debate, Extemporaneous debate, however, does not focus on and is not limited to the implementation of the resolution.
The debate typically follows the 6-2-4 time allotment. Meaning, each of the Constructive Speeches is six minutes in length, each Interpellation is two-minute long, and each Rebuttal lasts for four minutes.
9. Karl Popper debate
Named after the late Austrian-British philosopher, Karl Popper debate aims to develop the participants’ logical skills, mastery on relevant issues, teamwork among team mates, and even tolerance for differing views.
To fare well in this debate, each of the two opposing teams of three members has to research both sides of the debate issue usually given a couple of weeks or a month before the contest. This thus allows both teams to have a better understanding of an opposing side and permits each contention to be understood from every viewpoint.
As both sides are given the chance to present arguments and direct interpellation questions to the opposing side, Karl popper debate is very much similar to Oregon-Oxford debate format. Distinctively though, questions during the three-minute cross-examination in Karl Popper debate are usually asked in an “if” format and replies are ought to be short and direct.
Normally, each of the three team members in Karl Popper debate is assigned a number (1 to 3) and the debate proceeds in this sequence:
a. Affirmative Speech by Student #1 (6mins.)
b. Negative Cross-Examination by Student #3 (3 mins.)
c. Negative Speech by Student #1 (6 mins.)
d. Affirmative Cross-Examination by Student #3 (3 mins.)
e. Affirmative Speech by Student #2 (5 mins.)
f. Negative Cross-Examination by Student #1 (3 mins.)
g. Negative Speech by Student #2 (5 mins.)
h. Affirmative Cross-Examination by Student #1(3 mins.)
i. Affirmative Speech and Closing Remarks by Student #3 (5 mins.)
j. Negative Speech and Closing Remarks by Student #3 (5 mins.)
For each round, each team has four-minute preparation time which cannot be rolled over to the next round. During a team’s “prep time, “members can assist and coach a team mate as they can communicate with each other. How a team divides its allotted “prep time” during the round (either before a member delivers a speech or before one cross-examines an opponent) is its own determination. No “prep time” however is allowed once speaking has resumed.
Many consider this debate style as an ideal format for beginner debaters. Indeed, judges in this format may even offer constructive feedbacks after the debate, giving helpful remarks on the quality of arguments, pieces of evidence, and presentations utilized in the round.
10. Lincoln-Douglas debate
Named after the Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debates of 1858, the Lincoln-Douglas debate (usually abbreviated as “LD debate,” or simply “LD”) is a one-on-one contest centered on applying philosophical theories to real world issues.
Because the historic 1858 debates focused on slavery which is an ethical issue, the LD debate has become known also as “values debate.” Traditionally, the LD type of debate does put a premium on philosophy, logic, axiology (study of values), and ethics. The debate’s resolution basically asks whether a particular policy or decision conforms to a certain value or moral system.
Format-wise, each debater in LD debate gets thirteen minutes of speaking time and three minutes to cross examine the opponent. Customarily, the debate follows the basic time schedule 6 (AC)-3 (CXN)-7 (NC&1NR)-3 (CXA)-4 (1AR)-6 (2NR)-3(2AR). To wit, the debate proceeds in this manner:
a. Affirmative Constructive (6 mins.):
The Affirmative reads or presents his prepared case.
b. Cross Examination by the Negative (3 mins.):
The Negative asks the Affirmative questions about the Affirmative case.
c. Negative Constructive and First Negative Rebuttal (7 mins.):
The Negative reads or presents his prepared case and moves on to address the opponent’s case.
d. Cross Examination by the Affirmative (3 mins.):
The Affirmative asks the Negative questions about Negative’s speech.
e. First Affirmative Rebuttal (4 mins.):
The Affirmative addresses both the Negative case and his own.
f. Second Negative Rebuttal (6 mins.):
The Negative addresses the arguments in the previous speech and make a summary of the round.
g. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (3 mins.):
The Affirmative deals with the arguments in the previous speech and summarizes the debate for the judge.
Involving series of debate, LD debate features debaters who usually alternate sides from round to round as either the Affirmative (supporting the resolution) or the Negative (negating the proposition).
Held as a year-round event, the LD debate competition has a resolution which is customarily changed every two months. For the first two months of a certain year, for instance, the resolution may be “Resolved: Juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.” For the third and fourth month, the resolution may be changed to something different like, “Resolved: Countries ought not to possess nuclear weapons.”
11. Paris-style debating
The Paris-style debating, a relatively new debate format which the French Debating Association employs in its National Debating Championship, basically follows the Parliamentary debate format. Paris-style debate adopts Parliamentary’s concept of “Point of Information” (and even “Point of Order”). Uniquely though, it features five speakers from the Government and five speakers from the Opposition team who speak consecutively for 6 minutes each, starting with the Government’s first speaker.
Each participating team in Paris-style debate is composed of at least one coach and no more than eight debaters (though, as mentioned, only five debaters per team speak per debate). Moreover, this debate type implements peculiar regulations on team composition such as “at least two (2) team members must be French native speakers (regardless of nationality),” “maximum of two (2) English native speakers per team (1 per debate),” and “no more than two (2) bilingual speakers (English and French) is allowed per team (1 per debate).”
Terminology-wise, the first speaker of the Government is expectedly called “Prime Minister” but the Opposition’s first speaker is distinctly addressed as “Shadow Prime Minister.” The one acting as the Moderator (or Speaker of the House) is called the “Chairman” and the timer is referred to as the “Bell person.”
The judges, who also provide feedbacks to each debater after the debate proper, decides the winner based (among other usual criteria) on the force of the rhetoric, the charisma of the debaters, and even the quality of the humor.
ALSO CHECK OUT:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog
Other formats
We mentioned above that many other debate forms essentially follow the style of Oxford-Oregon debate (especially its “Cross-Examination”) if not the format of Parliamentary debate. Other debating styles just have certain deviating features which make them somewhat different.
For instance, the so-called Public Forum debate is basically patterned after Oxford-Oregon debate style. Compared to Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate however, Public Forum debate has shorter speech lengths but longer periods of cross-examination or direct argumentation between debaters uniquely called “Cross-fires.”
Impromptu debate, on the other hand, adopts Oxford-Oregon’s Cross-Examination but with a twist. After every team member of both sides in alternating fashion speaks for five minutes each, a ten-minute discussion period follows. This debate part is called “Open Cross-Examination” which is roughly a blend between Interpellation and “opening the debate to the floor” in which audience members can pose questions to the debaters. Afterward, a five-minute break (comparable to Karl Popper debate’s “prep time”) is given before each side delivers a four-minute rebuttal. This debate is called “impromptu” basically because the debate topic is given to the participants around 15 or 20 minutes before the contest proper begins.
Moot Court and Mock Trial
A moot court is an educational activity patterned after a court of appeal or Supreme Court hearing. A co-curricular or extracurricular exercise basically for law students, a moot court, comprising a panel of judges, is asked to rule on a lower court’s decision.
Competitors in “mooting” are first oriented to a particular case and its pertinent evidentiary assumptions. Afterward, participants prepare and offer arguments on the fairness of previous court procedures, the application of a law, or even the constitutionality of some cited laws.
A mock trial, on the other hand, is an act or simulated court trial. As an academic activity, mock trial is a program in which students take part in planned out trials basically to be familiar with the legal system in a competitive way. Usually taught in conjunction with some major subjects, mock trial is used by some lawyers, employing volunteers as role players, to train and test arguments and theories as a preparation for real trials.
As a comparison, mock trial simulates lower-court trials (jury trial or bench trial) whereas moot court replicates arbitral or appellate court hearings. Unlike mock trial, moot court involves no actual testimony by witnesses, presentation of evidence, and disputation of the case’s basic facts. Similarly though, moot court and mock trial both familiarize participants with court proceedings and provide them a greater understanding of the legal system and the issue being talked about.
As each side in these activities presents arguments for the judges’ consideration, mock trial and moot court hearings, in many ways, are like a debate. The exercises may also require the students to draft briefs (or memorials) and engage in oral argument. Regardless though, many debate experts, technically speaking, still do not consider moot court and mock trial as other formats of competitive debate.
Online debating
Of late, the remarkable increasing fame and accessibility of the Internet offers a fresh venue for people anywhere in the world to exchange differing opinions and arguments on any stimulating issue. Hence, the so-called online debating has come to existence.
The so-called online debates are normally in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. An administration of an online site or social networking page, or a visitor, may post a question or an issue (comparable to a debate proposition) and may couple it with background information as context. Various visitors may then take side by writing a comment, stating their stand on the issue and the supporting reasons or arguments. Content-wise, the debate type is noteworthy as well thought out viewpoints and arguments and well researched supporting data and evidence are possible because of the lack of time restraints.
The student-centered educational site www.OurHappySchool.com, for instance, has notable debate-oriented posts under the subject “Debate” (clickable in the left section of the site). Typically, each article tackles an interesting debate issue, provides a brief background, and even supplies equal number of reasons for and against the issue. Visitors, mostly students and educators, join the discussion by writing in the comment section below the article. Notably, a visitor may also directly comment on or counter another user’s written remark by clicking its “reply” button and leaving a remark.
On the other hand, the site’s corresponding Facebook fan page (www.OurHappySchool.com) is typically used by students for fun arguments. As an interesting activity, some teachers basically direct their students to read and accomplish the instructions in the FB page “note” titled “How to start a cool discussion in OurHappySchool.com.”
Of course, the word “debate” in the term “online debate” is loosely used. Unlike the normal debate, the usual online debate is seldom, if not never at all, face to face discussion. Technically speaking, online debating also does not possess all the necessary elements for a discourse to be considered a real debate (e.g. equal number of debaters on both sides, timed speeches, moderator, and proper adjudication).
There are nonetheless attempts from some organizers and sponsors to formalize certain online debates by defining regulations, rules, and procedures to somewhat simulate face to face debate. For example, some platforms use programmed or personal online moderator and implement practical time restraints (e.g. no more than 5 days between posts). Probably, it is interesting to organize regulated online debate (along with classroom debate) as the ease-of-use and at hand setting may encourage even the shy class members to participate. (© 2014 by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com)
ALSO CHECK OUT:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog