National University of Science and Technology (Zimbabwe)

NuSpace Institutional Repository

Library and Information Science

http://ir.nust.ac.zw
Library and Information Science Publications

2014

Debating and Speaking In Public: A Handbook.

Nsikani, Mlungele
National University of Science and Technology Debating Society (NUSTDES)
Nsikani M. and Shaw D. (2014). Debating and Speaking In Public: A Handbook. National
University of Science and Technology Debating Society (NUSTDES)
http://ir.nust.ac.zw/xmlui/handle/123456789/397
This article was downloaded from NUST Institutional repository, and is made available under
the terms and conditions as set out in the Institutional Repository Policy.
Downloaded from NuSpace Institutional Repository, NUST, Zimbabwe

DEBATING AND SPEAKING IN PUBLIC:

A HANDBOOK
A guide to debating and public speaking,
also including notes on adjudication and training activities
for Zimbabwean schools and universities

Mlungele Nsikani and Drew Shaw

1

DEBATING AND SPEAKING IN PUBLIC:

A HANDBOOK
A guide to debating and public speaking,
also including notes on adjudication and training activities
for Zimbabwean schools and universities

Mlungele Nsikani and Drew Shaw

ISBN: 978-0-7974-9461-9
EAN: 9780797494619
Copyright 2014 Mlungele Nsikani and Drew Shaw
First published in 2014
Also available as ebook:
ISBN: 978-0-7974-9464-0
EAN: 9780797494640
Photographs 2011 Drew Shaw
Distributed by
National University of Science and Technology Debating Society (NUSTDES)
PO Box AC 939, Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
www.nust.ac.zw

CONTENTS
i. About the authors
ii. Acknowledgements and recommendations
1. Introduction to debating & notes on public speaking
2. Good analysis for effective arguments
3. Debate preparation
4. Formats: a) British Parliamentary & b) World Schools
5. Argument structure
6. How to present your speech
7. Using Points of Information effectively
8. Successful rebuttals
9. The importance of teamwork
10.After the debate
11.Training activities
12.BP debate adjudication
13.English as a Second Language (ESL) debating
14.Things to always remember about debating
15.Popular debate motions
16.Preparing for public speaking
17.Glossary of terms

i. ABOUT THE AUTHORS

As President of the NUST Debating Society (NUSTDES) for 2011-2012,
Mlungele Nsikane identified the need for a one-stop source of information on
debating, easily understood and accessible, for students and teachers at
universities and high schools. This booklet is his brainchild.
Mlungele Nsikani began debating at Mpopoma High School and continued at
the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) in Bulawayo,
where he is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Forest Resources and Wildlife
Management. After winning the One World High Schools Debate Tournament
in 2009, he represented NUST at the World Universities Debating
Championships at the University of Botswana in January 2011. There, his
team reached Round Nine.
Mlungele Nsikani was a founding member of NUSTDES, helping to craft its
constitution in 2010 and becoming its first President in early 2011. He was
also part of the winning NUSTDES team at the Zimbabwe National Debating
Championships in 2011, while at the Pan African Universities Debating
Championships (PAUDC) held later that year at Falcon College, he was Best
Zimbabwean Speaker and his team was ranked 13th best in Africa.
With a dedicated team of NUSTDES members in 2011, Mlungele Nsikani
founded the annual NUST-Webb Debating Championships for Matabeleland
High Schools (now the NUST-Webb Summer Invitational). This is currently
the largest debating and public speaking tournament for high school students
in Zimbabwe; and Mlungele Nsikani will be Deputy Chief Adjudicator in 2014.
Dr Drew Shaw became a patron and advisor to NUSTDES in September
2011, taking over from Ms Lauren Schroff, Visiting American lecturer and
Fulbright Scholar, who coached the NUST team to its early successes.
Born in Gweru, Zimbabwe and educated at Falcon College, Dr Shaw holds
degrees from the University of Toronto, the University of Cape Town and the
University of London. A lecturer in communication theory and practice at
NUST, he also coached and adjudicated at PAUDC 2011. Debating and
speaking in public form an integral part of his Communication Skills courses.
Trained in teaching English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL), Dr Shaw also
advises NUST ESL debaters in competitions against native English speakers.
He promotes critical thinking, debate and public speaking skills; and supports
initiatives to develop these in Zimbabwean schools and universities.
4

ii. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The authors thank NUSTDES members and patrons who have contributed
with advice from 2011 to 2014; and Pan African Universities Debating
Championships (PAUDC) for invaluable guidelines in their Speakers and
Adjudicators Training Manuals. Likewise, they thank World Universities
Debating Championships (WUDC) and World Schools Debating
Championships (WSDC) websites for a wealth of information. Reprinted here
are the WUDC Official Speaker Scoring Range sheet and some of the Top
100 Debate Motions from IDEA (International Debate Education Association).
Online sources and other guidebooks are listed below for further reference
and readers are encouraged to explore these for themselves. Every effort has
been made to acknowledge sources and contributors; and the authors
apologise for anyone mistakenly overlooked.
WUDC:
http://idebate.org
http://www.wudc.info
http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
PAUDC:
http://www.africandebating.org/paudc/index.php/paudc/
WSDC:
http://www.schoolsdebate.com
NUSTDES:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174402099279382/?fref=ts
http://nustdebatesociety.blogspot.com
http://bigafricandebate.blogspot.com
DEBATE GUIDE BOOKS:
- Alexander Deane, The Debating Handbook: A guide to British Parliamentary
Debating and the World Universities Debating Championships
5

- Neill Harvey-Smith (2011) The Practical Guide to Debating (Worlds Style/

British Parliamentary Style). New York, London & Amsterdam: International
Debate Education Association.

ESTABLISHING DEBATE CLUBS & SOCIETIES:

For those wanting to set up debate clubs at schools, do a google search
for tips. We recommend, for example:
http://www.esu.org/programmes/schools/secondary-schools/e-classroom/
resources-for-students-and-teachers/ten-tips-for-setting-up-a-debating-club
h t t p : / / w w w . d e b a t i n g m a t t e r s . c o m / d o c u m e n t s /
RESOURCE_PACK_FOR_BEGINNERS_LARGE.pdf

http://www.europe.idebate.org/about/debate/startclub
Also try to send a school team to compete at the annual NUST-Webb High
Schools Debating Summer Invitational.
For those wanting to set up debate societies at universities, see for
example:
http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/HT%20Start%20A%20Debate
%20Society_final.pdf
You may also wish to contact PAUDC for guidelines or you could establish
links with NUSTDES and ask them for tips.
You should aim to gather regularly as a motivated group and have your own
BP-style debates on topical motions. Crafting and agreeing on a constitution
in line with the PAUDC and WUDC visions is another important step; then
gaining recognition from your Students Union and University is also a must.
They could help with funding for international tournaments such as SAUDC
(held in South Africa in July and usually the most affordable and feasible),
PAUDC (held somewhere in Africa in mid-December) or WUDC (held at a
different world destination every December-January). Apply for a WUDC
scholarship if your team is brilliant. Alternatively, think of ways to raise your
own funds and settle for smaller, cheaper tournaments to start with. In
Zimbabwe there are now several inter-university debate and public speaking
tournaments, including the NUST Winter Invitational.
6

1) INTRODUCTION TO DEBATING
Debating is a form of discussion where people express different opinions
about a particular subject. We witness it in our private and public lives.
Families debate household or financial issues; companies search for
agreement on contracts; opposing sides negotiate in labour disputes or sociopolitical conflicts; and legislators debate critical national issues in parliament.
In its most positive sense, debating creates space for dialogue in our lives.
This can lead to conflict transformation, fostering better relations between
different groups and solutions to problems. In a world that has become
complex because of advances in science, economics and new technologies,
we are daily faced with many choices. One must critically analyse all options
to arrive at sensible decisions, and this is where debating skills help. These
can equip us with knowledge of different situations and critical tools to make
sense of them, so that we can strive towards the best possible solutions.
In high schools and universities, todays finest debaters and public speakers
will likely become tomorrows most influential leaders. This underscores the
need for well organised debating societies to nurture our future leaders,
ideally producing articulate individuals, well versed in current affairs and able
to recognise and make good arguments.
You may have a vision of one day becoming a leader in your field. To realise
this vision, you need to make good choices; and using the skill of critical
analysis, which comes with debating, is the only way to go about it. The skills
of speech and debate allow you to communicate effectively with an audience.
Believe it or not, most people are afraid to address large groups and hence
fear being future leaders. If you are one such person do not despair: this
debating manual is written with you in mind. The handbook sets out to
prepare you for the major debating styles used in Zimbabwe, but what is
written here can also be applied in other countries. Those who do not intend
pursuing a tertiary education or even debating at high school may think what
is written here does not apply to them, but that is not exactly true. This
manual shows anyone how to be a successful speaker in any situation that
life may bring to that person.
You will discover an entire chapter dedicated to effective arguing; and this is
useful because on a day to day basis we are constantly needing to make
7

choices and convince others of good decisions. This section teaches critical
analysis of any issue or situation in order to present your own effective
argument.
Another chapter has been dedicated to English-as-a-second-language
speakers. In Zimbabwe, English is a second or even third language for many
and they worry about expressing themselves effectively. Speaker anxiety
affects nearly everyone but second language speakers may especially
struggle to find appropriate words. One cause may be thinking in ones native
language, mentally translating, then trying to say it in English. There are
strategies to deal with this problem, and help is at hand!
The primary focus of the handbook, however, is preparation for debating and
public speaking tournaments, which are an exciting platform for debaters, and
which lead to a rapid development of skills.
Of course competitive debates require audiences to decide the winners, and
the panel of adjudicators is your most important audience. As a debater you
need to convince them that you deserve to win and you should do this
through persuasive speech and carefully reasoned arguments. The manual
will give you some important advice to bear in mind.
There are also tips on training activities and links with popular debate motions
from IDEA (International Debate Education Association). Additionally,
adjudicators can familiarise with judging criteria and procedures at PAUDC
and Worlds standards.

NOTES ON SPEAKING IN PUBLIC

If you feel nervous about speaking in public, the section on debate
preparation will help you gain the confidence you desire before going into a
competition. Proper preparation can dramatically reduce feelings of speaker
anxiety.
There are also basic pointers for everyone on achieving their potential. Most
suffer from speaker anxiety when facing large crowds in formal settings.
Some of the symptoms are a racing heart, butterflies in the stomach, wobbly
knees, sweating palms, sweaty forehead, and a faltering voice. If you have
8

any of these symptoms you are quite normal! This is a predictable

physiological response which indicates that your body is simply doing its job.
One consolation is that many famous world speakers have also suffered from
speaker anxiety but overcome it admirably: Oprah Winfrey and John F
Kennedy just to name two.
The important thing is to calm yourself down. To slow a racing heart, take a
few slow breaths. Inhale deeply and exhale calmly. Also loosen your
shoulders and relax your muscles. Have confidence (repeating to yourself
Yes, I can do it! I can do it!), visualise success and practise one or two
rehearsed phrases. Then stay alert and focused during the debate, think on
your feet, and try to enjoy it. Your speaker anxiety will quickly vanish. Also,
the more you speak in public, the more confident you will get.
Try to maintain good posture, continue breathing slowly and calmly, and
project your voice from your waist, not your throat: this will give you volume
without having to shout. Wait for your turn to take the floor, then speak as
clearly as possible for maximum comprehension. Try to vary your tone, speed
and volume as appropriate, but keep calm and avoid shouting.
Look mostly at the audience rather than at other debaters (although you can
glance at them of course). You are appealing especially to the adjudicators
(who you are trying to convince), even though you may be answering other
speakers. Make sure you stick to the allocated time.
Above all, enjoy yourself! Debating and public speaking are meant to be
pleasurable activities at schools and universities, so dont lose your sense of
humour and fun. There is a danger in taking yourself too seriously at these
events (and the same applies to overly-earnest debaters). You can always
spot speakers who are far too serious: they have a distant look and are a bit
stiff and self-absorbed, to the extent that they never laugh at themselves. You
need to lighten up a little!
Tournaments are charged with an exciting competitive spirit but they are also
great social events where you can meet other people and engage with a
whole range of ideas, which you may agree or disagree with. You are there to
benefit from the entire experience so make the most of it! We hope this
manual, which has beginners in mind, will at least get you started and guide
you through the fundamentals.
9

2) GOOD ANALYSIS FOR EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS

Speakers want to provide strong, effective arguments during debates but not
all achieve this and hence they fail to win. Always keep in mind that the road
to success in debate involves the ability to critically analyse situations in order
to provide good arguments. Good analysis applies to both positive matter and
rebuttal. To put it in simple terms, it means to provide clear, logical arguments
and rebuttals. (A rebuttal is a counter-argument and a response to ones
opponents). Good analysis of subjects is the core of exceptional debating.
When you are given a motion do not be in a rush to start thinking about the
points for your side because this usually boxes your thoughts and limits your
analysis skills. The correct thing to do is to first understand the motion. Ask
yourself what the motion is all about. You should ask yourself why are we
now debating this subject, and particularly what has happened that has
necessitated this debate? Asking that question will help you understand the
background of the motion.
You will realise that many motions are created in such a way that they seek a
solution to a particular problem that the world is faced with. It is important to
identify that problem. An example is the motion: This house believes that all
maternity fees in hospitals should be removed. The problem may be the fact
that the maternity fees are expensive and many people cannot afford them.
Identifying the problem that has prompted the debate puts you at an
advantage. After you have done so the next step is to ask yourself whether
the motions proposed solution is the real solution to the problem. If you are in
government or the affirmative side it is now your duty to support it. If you are
in the opposition or non-affirmative side you would oppose the proposed
solution.
Another important step of analysis is to look at the effects or the
consequences of what you are proposing. This can be in the form of harms or
benefits. If you are equipped with such analysis it becomes easy to propose
or oppose. When you look at the consequences, try to broaden your
thoughts. A lot of people could be affected by a single decision or a change in
the status quo. These groups could be individuals, communities, the entire
population of a country, the government of that country, allies of the country in
question and the world as a whole.
10

To do a good analysis of any issue, always spend time on proving each step
of an argument. You should also work out the weakest point in your argument
and then
spend most of your time defending it. If your opposition is
presenting their arguments, you should find out the weakest point of their
argument and spend most of your time rebutting this aspect. Always cut
through generalisations by mentioning specific groups or unique cases that
have to be treated differently. With the example of This house believes
maternity fees should be removed, a generalisation that can be made by
someone in government is that (all) women cannot afford maternity fees in a
poor country (below poverty datum line).
This generalisation can be countered by the opposition by them saying even
if a woman is living on less than a dollar a day, they can save 10c per day for
the duration of the pregnancy and then have enough after eight or nine
months.
Also, there may be some women who can afford the fees. So the
generalisation does not hold and can be rebutted.
In debate, whatever you say there will always be a WHY? This is the most
important question to answer. The key to winning the debate is for you to
successfully answer the entire WHY questions.
Remember that when you look at a motion you should think beyond the
obvious. To be successful at analysing motions you should think outside the
box, think broadly: do not confine your thoughts. Have a sharp eye and a
clear mind: with good analysis you are on your way to exceptional debating.

11

3) DEBATE PREPARATION
Debate preparation is a very crucial step for you to succeed as a speaker. No
matter what style you are using, you cannot neglect this. For the world
schools debating style, speakers debate pre-prepared motions. They have
had a lot of time before the debate to prepare for their motion. Nevertheless,
they should wisely use this time to do the expected research and practise
their speaking roles. This may require library or internet searches to establish
facts and figures and to familiarise with issues. Debaters should seek
credible sources of information in order to make their arguments more
persuasive. They should also acknowledge their sources and be prepared for
cross-examination by the opposing team who will likely challenge them. Many
will appreciate the amount of time given for preparation in the World Schools
Debating Style.
On the other hand, British Parliamentary speakers get only 15 minutes to
prepare for the debate, which can be a great challenge. Let us consider how
one can wisely prepare for a BP debate, given this short space of time. You
will soon realise that this skill also applies to many life situations where one is
asked to say something without having had much time to prepare.
Time is of essence when you are preparing for British Parliamentary
debating. Adjudicators will announce the motion and say you have 15
minutes to prepare. In actual fact you have less time because they start the
stop watch from the moment they read out the motion, which means you
already lose a few seconds off your allocated time. It also takes a while to find
your debating venue, especially in the case of a huge tournament, and this
further subtracts from your 15 minutes. So always keep in your mind that you
have slightly less than 15 minutes.
Before the motion is announced make sure you are seated or standing close
to the screen where the motion is projected, or close enough to hear clearly if
the motion is being called out. This prevents wasting time trying to find out
what the motion is because you did not hear or see it the first time. Also make
sure your team mate is close to you so that you dont waste time looking for
each other. Start your preparation as you are walking to your debating venue.
The first three minutes can be used to brainstorm with your team mate what
the central issues in the debate are. You can be finding answers to questions
12

like, what are the main areas that will be contested in the debate? Which
question does each side need to answer in order to win? What exactly is the
debate about? This is the stage where good critical analysis needs to be
applied.
The next six minutes can be used to develop your teams arguments. These
arguments should directly answer the main questions in the debate. These
are the questions that you came up with during the first three minutes. In
order to develop your reasoning fully, at each stage you should be asking
yourself - why? This will greatly help you to construct well developed
arguments. Adjudicators like arguments with good explanations as to why
they are true. You can use the CRE system which is outlined in Section 6 of
this manual. When you are writing these arguments down, jot down just a few
words. Never make the mistake of writing full sentences, as this puts you at a
risk of wanting to read your material during your speech rather than
presenting it in a persuasive way.
The next two minutes can be used to come up with relevant examples that
can be used in the debate. These can be in the form of statistics or particular
case studies. The next two minutes can be used to guess what your
opponents would say. Anticipating what they can say allows you the pleasure
of preparing your rebuttals before they even present their matter, so that
when they do you will be in a better position to defend your case.
The last two minutes can be used to recap your arguments: do a case split
between you and your team mate. This means to divide the points amongst
you. Decide who will make which points, and think carefully about which
points need to come first. This may change in the debate but you should get a
clear idea what your possible arguments are.
Following this simple method of debate preparation can help you win debates
and the same method can be applied to pre-prepared motions, although more
research is usually expected with these. The advantage with pre-prepared
motions is that you have more time to get ready for the debate but the way
you plan can remain the same as outlined above.

13

4a) STRUCTURE OF BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY(BP) DEBATING

British parliamentary style is considered the international style of debating as
it is used in many countries and for many tournaments around the world. In
Zimbabwe it is used by all tertiary institutions and is quickly gaining popularity
even in high schools. One can actually can foresee a future where it shall be
the only debating style used in the country.
It is a style of debating that really makes speakers work hard in order to win a
debate. In reality this style brings out a scenario when a government of a
country has been formed by a coalition government and the opposition has
formed its own coalition. It is a style that involves eight debaters in one
debate, divided into four teams. Two teams make up the affirmative side
which is given the name government (or proposition). The other two teams
make up the opposition which is non-affirmative. These two sides are made
up of the opening halves and closing halves. This means that one team forms
one half of each side.
The four teams are assigned their positions at random. The opening halves
are made up of the opening government and opening opposition. The closing
halves are made up of the closing government and closing opposition. Each
debater is given seven minutes to speak and assumes a certain position in
either the opposition or government in that particular debate. Opening
government is made up of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Opening opposition is made up of Leader of opposition and Deputy Leader of
opposition. Closing government is made up of the Member of Government
and the Government Whip. Closing opposition is made up of the Member of
Opposition and the Chief (Opposition) Whip.
The correct order of speakers is Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Deputy
Prime Minister, Deputy Leader of opposition and this would mark the first half
of the debate. The second half starts with the Member of Government, then
Member of Opposition, Government Whip and finally the Chief Whip.
The two sides sit separately during the debate: the two government teams sit
opposite the two opposition teams. Usually government (or proposition) sits
on the right of the adjudicators and the opposition on the left. This is
assuming they are on a stage with the adjudicators in the middle to the rear.
The closing teams sit closest to the adjudicators and the opening teams sit on
14

the right of the closing teams. All the debaters have specific roles to fulfil, as
is indicated below.

SUMMARY OF THE VARIOUS SPEAKER ROLES

Opening
Government

Prime Minister
(PM)
(1st Speaker)
Definition
Policy (not
always
necessary)
Case split
Positive matter
Deputy PM
(3rd Speaker)
repair team
case
rebut the LO
positive matter

Opening
Opposition

Leader of Opposition
(LO)
(2nd Speaker)
Accept or reject a
definition
Clash
Rebut PM
Case split
Positive matter
Deputy LO
(4th Speaker)
repair the team
case
rebut opening
government team
positive matter

Closing
Government

Member of
Government
(5th Speaker)
evaluate first
half
rebut opening
opposition
case split
extension

Closing
Member of Opposition
Opposition
(6th Speaker)
evaluate opening
government
if necessary rebut
opening govt
rebut closing
govt extension
opposition
extension
Opposition Whip
(8th Speaker)
defend extension
rebut closing
government
extension if
necessary
summarise whole
debate based on
major issues of
contention

Government Whip
(7th Speaker)
defend
extension
rebut closing
opposition
extension
summarise the
debate based
on major issues
of contention
15

A definition is an explanation of the key words in the motion. It clearly

explains the proposed motion and sets the parameters for the debate. In
simple terms the definition plays an important role of establishing the issue
for the debate. Debaters usually define topics word for word and some even
use the dictionary. This should not be done unless to absolutely clarify the
issue of the debate.
A definition can be challenged by the Leader of Opposition (and only this
person!) provided the definition provided by the Prime Minister falls within
these categories:

time/place set - confining a debate to an inappropriate time or place.

E.g. In This house believes democracy is not a necessary or desirable
form of governance, we set this debate in the Kingdom of Bhutan in the
1980s. This goes against the spirit of the debate and is not allowed.

squirrel - a definition that is clearly not what the motion is about. E.g.
This house would dissolve the police. The opening government
defines The Police as the British musical band by that name. This
might be funny but it is not allowed.

truism - a definition that cannot be argued by the opposition because it

is very obvious and self proving. E.g. Ecosystems are healthier when
they contain more species of plants. This is so obvious that it is not
allowed.

It is up to the Prime Minister to provide a clear and satisfactory definition of

the motion for the debate. The Opening Government will be marked down by
adjudicators if they do not do so. If you are on any other team, try to avoid
definitional challenges, and only offer them as a last resort. Remember only
the Leader of the Opposition can introduce a definitional challenge, but he/
she should only do so if the motion is not debatable as defined by the
Opening Government. You will have a higher chance of winning if you dont
introduce definitional challenges. Find a way to create a reasonable debate
out of a bad definition.
A policy is a clear plan of action which shows how the proposed motion
should be implemented. Policies are not always necessary. They are only
necessary if the motion requires the government to advocate for a specific
change in how the world currently works.
16

A clash, highlighted by the Leader of Opposition, is an explanation of why the

opposition is challenging the motion being debated.
Case splits are given by all first speakers of each team. They outline the
arguments a team will present and say which speakers will argue them.
Rebuttals are direct responses to an opposing teams positive matter. They
aim to discredit your opponents arguments. Usually it is wise to start with
rebuttals before you present your own positive matter.
Extensions are done by all the first speakers of closing teams. They can be
new arguments that havent been raised in the debate or a deeper analysis of
issues arising in the opening half of the debate. A team can take an
undeveloped point presented by the opening half, and develop it more
insightfully and persuasively as their extension.
Motions are the topics given to the speakers 15 minutes prior to the debate.
Motions always start with This house... and then they continue. The topics
covered are all current affairs and range from political to social, economic and
environmental matters. To be a better speaker, one should be up to date with
current affairs, so it is wise to find reliable news sources, such as online news
bulletins. You can also go to the WUDC or PAUDC websites to peruse
motions that have been debated at previous tournaments. Also see Chapter
15 of this booklet on the Top 100 debate motions taken from IDEA.
Speeches presented in BP style are seven minutes, the first and last minutes
being protected time. Points of Information cannot be asked during protected
time. The use of props and aids is not allowed in this debating style.
After the debate the adjudicators deliberate and decide on the winner of the
debate, ranking the teams 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th and later giving percentage
marks to each (to each team and each speaker).
Later on in the tournament you will find out whether or not you have broken
to the next round. This is often announced at a formal social event where thre
is great excitement and anticipation. If you dont break dont get worry: use
this as an opportunity to watch all the remaining debates, to listen and learn
from the best speakers at the tournament.

17

4b) STRUCTURE OF WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATING (WSD)

This is a combination of BP and the Australian-Asian debating styles. The
World Schools Debating Championships were first held in Australia in 1988
and have grown from strength to strength. However, not all high school
tournaments are committed to this particular style. For example, the largest
annual high schools competition in Zimbabwe - the NUST-Webb Summer
Invitational - simply uses the BP debate style. There is a growing sense in the
wider debating community that although the BP style is significantly more
complex and challenging, it is nevertheless easily learnt by high school
students if they are given proper training. It moreover prepares them for what
is soon to come at universities.
Be that as it may, it is important to know the World Schools Style in case you
are selected to participate in the championships, held in a different place
every year. In this style there are just two sides, the Proposition and
Opposition. Each have three debaters who must each deliver eight minute
speeches. Then the reply or rebuttal speakers have four minutes to
complete their job. The format is as follows:
1. First speaker of the Government
2. First speaker of the Opposition
3. Second speaker of the Government
4. Second speaker of the Opposition
5. Third speaker of the Government
6. Third speaker of the Opposition
7. Reply speaker of the Opposition
8. Reply speaker of the Government

18

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE ROLES

First speaker of the Proposition - 8 mins
- define the motion
- give context of the debate
- present main arguments
First speaker of the Opposition - 8 mins
- rebut the Propositions arguments (important)
- argue against the motion giving own arguments (optional)
Second speaker of the Proposition - 8 mins
- rebut the arguments just given
- continue with team's case
- give more arguments.
Second speaker of the Opposition - 8 mins
As above
Third Rebuttal Speaker for Proposition - 8 mins
- restructure the debate, highlighting just the key issues
- deepen analysis
- give rebuttals
Third Rebuttal Speaker for Opposition - 8 mins
As above
Reply speeches - 4 mins each
Lastly, there is an additional speech from each team, often called the right of
reply, a four-minute speech by either the first or second speaker from the
respective teams, starting this time with the Opposition. Reply speakers must:
- summarise the main clash
19

- evaluate the debate without adding any new material

- say why their team should win
The reply speeches are often described as biased adjudication because they
resemble the oral feedback of judges. Nevertheless, proper objective
adjudication occurs shortly after the completion of the debate.
Points of Information
As with BP, all participants are entitled to raise points of information (POIs)
but they are expected to keep them short and to the point. Speakers are
entitled to reject POIs but get marked down if they accept none. The first and
last minute of a speech are protected time when POIs may not be raised.
World Schools Adjudication
Usually three judges are assigned to adjudicate each debate and they give
individual scores. As with BP debating tournaments, there are awards for best
teams and best speakers also in ESL (English-as-a-Second-Language)
teams.

20

5) ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
Arguments are the points that you make during your speech to support your
case. Usually speakers argue three well reasoned and evidenced points at
most. The key to success in debates is to have strong points, but one may
ask: how do I come up with strong points? The answer lies the structuring
process which we call CRE This stands for claim, reasoning and evidence.
When presenting any argument all these three steps should be followed to
properly shape and strengthen it. The first step is to claim. A claim is simply
the point that you want to say. It is kept short and direct like a newspaper
headline. Few words should be used to present your claim. As an example to
consider is the motion that This house would use Facebook to inform
students of all university gatherings. One point in support of this is that
Facebook is affordable to the students because of the usually low internet
charges. As much as that is true, those words cannot qualify as a claim
because the sentence is too long. It can be simply put as Facebook is
affordable. Remember to keep the claim short.
The next step is to provide the reasoning to your claim. The reasoning is
when you answer why. It is when you justify why you are making that claim.
Using the same motion, the reasoning for the claim is that, Internet charges
of all service providers in Zimbabwe are low for Facebook. The reasoning
can be longer because it needs to be thorough, but care should be taken not
to overdo it and end up contradicting yourself.
The final step is for you to provide evidence to support both your claim and
reasoning. Evidence can take many forms but usually statistics, figures and
case studies are the most used. Take care to make sure that your evidence
ties in with your point. To provide evidence for the motion we have been
considering, one could say,The proof that internet charges are affordable is
that it costs two cents for someone to send a message on Facebook. This is
an example of the use of figures as evidence.
It is wise to use the CRE system of argumentation because it has order and it
is very effective at the same time as being simple.

21

Here is another example: This house would force all nations to use
environmentally-friendly fuels. Your challenge is to quickly come up with a
CRE argument.
Claim:

Reasoning:

Evidence:

Did you substantiate your claim with good reasoning and evidence? Here is
our answer as an example. The point in support of this is that most fuels
currently used are destroying our environment as they produce a lot of
carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. Hence the only way to stop this is to use
friendly fuels.
As a claim, you could say, destruction of the environment is caused by
overuse of non-renewable fossil fuels and the solution is to use
environmentally-friendly fuels.
For reasoning, you could say fuels like coal and oil and methane gas, when
burnt, produce a lot of carbon dioxide which creates a greenhouse effect in
the atmosphere and global warming.
As evidence, you could say in recent years carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has doubled at the same time as the discovery and exploitation of more and
more oil reserves. This constitutes your CRE (Claim, Reasoning, Evidence).
Now try it with another motion:
This house believes alcohol should be banned.
Pretend you are the Opening Government and come up with a CRE.

22

Claim:

Reasoning:

Evidence:

For the same motion, pretend you are the Opening Opposition and come up
with a CRE.
Claim:

Reasoning:

Evidence:

Learn to do this quickly for any motion you are presented with - for or against.
Practice makes perfect.

23

6) HOW TO PRESENT YOUR SPEECH

During preparation time, you would have prepared you arguments properly
and got ready to start debating. When you enter that debating room all the
prepared arguments will be in vain unless they are presented to the
adjudicators in an effective way. In debate, no matter how good an argument
is on paper, its effectiveness is dependent on how well it is presented by the
speaker. You should present your speech impressively so that the good
arguments you have prepared can be persuasive and win you the debate at
the end of the day. The truth is there are many ways to present ones speech
but certain aspects apply in any situation.
The adjudicators call on you to present your case. You stand up with your
heart beating very fast. You stand in front of the podium and everyone is
looking at you. Take a few deep breaths to slow your heartbeat and calm
yourself down. You may be afraid of all those eyes. The first thing you should
know is if you are afraid of eye contact with your audience, you can look just
above their eyes at forehead level. To someone who is sitting in the audience
it will appear as if you are making eye contact with all. Nevertheless, you
should read the signals you are being given by peoples eyes. The
importance of eye contact is that it allows you to constantly evaluate the
audience, to ascertain whether they follow what you are saying. You can
judge the impact your speech is having on them. I know that adjudicators
often do not want to show their reaction towards a speech, that they try to be
unreadable - but you can still tell what impact your speech is having on them
by the facial expressions they make. Also, eye contact shows people you are
engaged and you know what you are saying. If you are looking away from the
audience, it creates an impression of lack of knowledge on a particular
subject, lack of concentration and lack of confidence. You want to avoid
giving off such signals.
Your voice should constantly be changing as you present different sections of
your speech. (This is called vocalics: aspects such as pitch, tone, volume,
pause and use of silence.) Avoid monotony: do not speak using one dull pitch
throughout the entire speech but instead vary your voice so as to add a touch
of variety and intrigue to your speech. Your voice should show a little
emotion, depending of course on the subject you are talking about. Adding
some emotion to your voice may help with persuasion. Imagine if you are
24

talking about the death of 100,000 people due to genocide. You cannot use a
jovial voice because the subject is sombre. Instead you should allow your
voice to express the sadness, which would be a natural emotion in that
circumstance. This will be more appropriate and probably more persuasive.
Beware not to overdo it though, as you may look like a drama queen! Try to
strike a reasonable balance when regulating the expressive quality of your
voice
Another important tool to use during your speech is gestures. A very high
percentage of what we communicate happens nonverbally (through
appearance, gestures and other forms of nonverbal communication). Many
speakers, particularly in Zimbabwe, have a problem of overdoing gestures.
They use so many that the audience focuses on hand movements instead of
arguments. Gestures can spice up your presentation but you should use
them wisely. Make sure that when you move your hands during a speech you
are doing so to emphasize a certain point. Your gestures should tally with the
words you are saying. You cant say they went up whilst pointing
downwards. This takes away the effect your arguments are having. Gestures
should be as natural as possible.
Always make sure that your volume is appropriate for the debating venue
being used. Many Zimbabwean speakers suffer from the habit of debating in
high-pitched and very loud voices. The cause is perhaps a belief that they
can better convince the adjudicators in this manner, but the opposite is
usually true. High-pitched voices can be irritating and mostly they put off
adjudicators. Also, you dont have to shout to be heard. You should only raise
your voice if the room is very large and you need to reach audience members
far away at the back. You also should not speak too softly, or in such a low
voice that people have to strain their ears. They might end up missing
important points. So do strike a balance concerning your voice. In this regard,
you should learn how to speak from your waist, not your throat - as all good
actors and singers do. This is called rooting the voice. With proper posture
and breathing, we can all achieve good voice projection without having to
resort to shouting.
Another problem with speakers is when they talk too quickly. The cause is
usually entering the debate with too much material and too little time to
present it. In this case the debater speaks fast enough to get through all the
25

material, but probably too fast for the audience to comprehend. Another
cause of rapid speech is when one spends too much time on rebuttals and
ends up having to speed up in order to finish the whole speech. If you speak
too fast there is a danger that most of your presentation will be lost into thin
air. Remember adjudicators are not superhuman: they can only write their
notes at a reasonable pace. Successful speakers need to present at a
reasonable pace so that all their arguments can be understood and none
missed.
Some tips are to structure your speech in an effective way. Number your
arguments and when you are making them, tell the adjudicators that now you
are moving to argument 2, 3, etc. Choose your words carefully. Pick words
that give insight to your debate and keep them short and simple. Avoid long
and confusing words. If you use simple words it is easier for adjudicators to
follow you and they wont miss any of your arguments because of vocabulary
issues.
Some speakers use humour in their speeches. This is also a good debating
tool, but it needs to be regulated because first and foremost you want to
retain your reputation as a sharp debater: you dont want to become a standup comedian or a clown! If you can incorporate a few jokes do so, but if jokes
are not your style then dont worry. You can still be a good speaker without
being funny.

26

DOs AND DONTs OF PRESENTING A SPEECH

DOs

DONTs

Do calmly take a few deep

breaths

Dont panic

Do project your voice from

your waist

Dont speak from your throat

Do vary the tone of your

voice

Dont be monotonous

Do maintain eye contact

with the judges

Dont look down at your

shoes

Do use confident body

language

Dont overdo the gestures

Do speak clearly and

audibly

Dont mumble

Do speak at an appropriate
pace

Dont speak too fast

Do include a little humour

Dont turn into a standup

comedienne

Do say it once and clearly

Dont repeat what youve

already said

Do keep your summary to

the main points

Dont repeat your whole

speech

27

7) USING POINTS OF INFORMATION EFFECTIVELY

Points of information are known in short as POIs. These are questions or
clarifications that can be directed to a speaker holding the floor by the
opposing bench. They are very useful to the opposing teams as they enable
them to expose the flaws of the speakers arguments whilst the speaker is
still holding the floor. Points of information can only be offered to your
opposition and can never be offered to members of your bench. There are
two aspects to POIs - asking them and answering them.
ASKING A POI
In order to ask a POI you should wait up until the adjudicators signal that it is
time to ask. After this has happened you should stand up and say Point of
information. You wait for the speaker to accept or decline. If the speaker
declines you should take your seat and avoid badgering. In Zimbabwean high
school tournaments there has been a problem of speakers rudely declining
POIs: some may say Warm your seat to the person asking or make another
rude statement. The truth is that adjudicators cannot penalize you for such
comments, but in debate we do not condone being rude, so care should be
taken by all debaters to be polite. Some debaters, once they have been
denied the chance to ask a POI, badger the speaker and continuously say
Be brave, etc. This can be construed as rude, however, and you should
avoid such behaviour.
When you have been given the chance to ask a POI you should remember to
keep it very short and straight to the point. Do not use very long sentences as
they waste the speakers time. To ask good POIs, always raise questions that
concern the speakers main points. Do not waste your chance by questioning
trivial things. Remember that proving the flaws of the speakers main
arguments will help you win the debate. It doesnt help you, for example, in a
situation where the speaker says Zimbabwes population is rising; it is
increasing by 5% per annum and you then dispute this by saying, No, its
rising by3%. The main point still stands that the population is rising. If you
want to raise a POI it helps if you write it down. This can structure it and keep
it short.

28

ANSWERING A POI
When you are asked a POI, the way you answer is vital as it can help your
case or destroy it. A well answered POI will boost your confidence. As a
speaker it is within your rights to regulate the amount of POIs asked to you. If
you realise the person is taking too much time to raise the POI you can cut
them off and say, Thats enough. This is done to prevent people asking long
POIs. It is important for you to answer the POI in the best way possible: you
should never leave any point unanswered. Take note that if you want to reject
a POI it is wise to just waive the person down. Do not spend a long time
trying talk to them, maybe by saying Rejected because doing this could
disrupt your chain of thinking.
All POIs you accept should be properly answered, even though they may be
difficult. Make sure you understand the question. If it is a tough one dont rush
to answer it. Take a few seconds to properly think. If you feel fear creeping
into you, take a breath, keep your calm and never panic. Then just try to
answer as best you can. Many speakers rush to give answers that end up
hurting their cases just because they fear looking stupid if they take time to
answer. Dont be like that! What is important is to give good answers and win
the debate. You should only take about two points of information because
more than that may suggest you dont have much matter to say yourself, and
the POIs could open your case up for your opponents to expose its many
flaws (according to them).
Be strategic when asking and answering Points of Information. Remember to
use POIs wisely and effectively.
Now, try this exercise. With the motion, This house will force all nations to
use environmentally-friendly fuels, your opponents have just claimed:
Fuels currently being used are destroying our environment: hence, use of
environmentally-friendly fuels is the only way to stop this destruction. What
POI could you ask?

29

DOs and DONTs of ASKING and ANSWERING POIs

WHEN ASKING, DO...
First allow the speaker a
chance to present their
matter

WHEN ASKING, DONT..

Dont get up every two
seconds to ask a POI

Stick to the allocated time Dont ask outside POI

slot for POIs in the debate allocated time
Ask POIs to weaken your
opponents main points

Dont ask just for the fun of it

Keep it quick, pointed and

precise

Dont waste time beating

about the bush

Ask POIs to better your

case

Dont contradict yourself

WHEN ANSWERING,
DO...

WHEN ANSWERING, DONT

Choose which POIs to

answer

Dont answer every POI

Try to answer two POIs

per debate

Dont avoid them altogether

because you will be marked
down

Decline a POI by
gesturing the speaker to
sit down

Dont waste time engaging,

staring or saying POI
rejected because..

Take time to listen,

Dont panic and rush and give
understand, think and
a silly answer which may
answer properly to defend undermine your case
your case
Remain composed and in
control

Dont get ruffled and

sidetracked
30

8) SUCCESSFUL REBUTTALS
By definition a rebuttal is when you prove that something is false or
contradictory by using arguments or evidence. You can refute both arguments
and evidence. (These constitute the positive matter of the opposing team).
Rebuttals are a key part of debating because they give you the chance to
prove your opponents arguments are flawed or false. It is very important to
do this. If you dont, their arguments will stand at the end of the day. As much
as you have to present your own good arguments, you also need to present
good rebuttals in order to win.
Many speakers suffer from a habit of rebutting things that dont matter, things
that wont sway the debate to your side. What we mean by this can be
exemplified by a situation when your opponent raises a point that the
population of Zimbabwe is increasing as evidenced by a 3% per annum.
Then in your rebuttal you say thats not true because it is only increasing by
2%. Yes, it is a rebuttal but the truth is that it will not be effective because the
fact that the population is increasing still stands, whether by 3% or 2%. Even
you yourself would be agreeing that the population is increasing, which is
your opponents main argument. In order to be successful you need to focus
on rebutting your oppositions main points. Target these and prove they are
false. To do so, you need to listen carefully during the debate: discern the
actual arguments they are making and take notes so you can later rebut
them.
For successful rebuttals you need to carefully analyse the arguments being
made by your opponents. Search for their weaknesses or flaws and the task
becomes straightforward. As already mentioned, dont waste time on minor
inaccuracies which are not their major arguments. Doing so will not help your
case that much. Rebuttals can be done in two ways: the first is to provide
counter arguments and the second is to provide counter evidence.
Here is a simple but effective way of rebutting. You can follow these steps:

They say... You then state the argument they made

We say... You then state your counter argument

Therefore.... You then state your conclusion and what people

should now believe.
31

Keep in mind that your rebuttals should be short and straight to the point. You
should not waste a lot of time on them or continuously repeat what you have
already said.
Successful rebuttals weaken the other sides case and strengthen your own.
Hence you should recognise their importance and regularly practise them.
Success is guaranteed if you follow this advice!

Here is an example of a structured rebuttal for the following motion:

This house would use Facebook to mobilise students for
University gatherings.
The Government present a case where their main argument is that Facebook
is affordable. You are the Opposition and now wish to rebut this. This is how
you would proceed:
They say Facebook is affordable. But we say it is not necessarily
affordable for everyone. A very significant number of students do not
have cellular phones which can access the internet. These students first
need to buy phones to access the internet, as well as air time. For many,
this is totally unaffordable. So it is not true that Facebook is always easily
accessible. This is false reasoning in the case of many students.
The weakness of the Governments argument is the assumption that
everyone can afford to access Facebook. Hence, we are targeting that
weakness in our rebuttal to show that their main argument does not hold
water.
However...
If the Government was to continue arguing that these students can simply
use the universitys computers and internet facilities, how would you rebut
that argument? What is its main weakness?
Over to you... Work on your rebuttals. Practice makes perfect.

32

9) THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAMWORK

Debating is a team sport where no man is an island. This means you cant
do it alone: you are part of a partnership and you need to work as a team. In
order to win a debate all members of the team have to achieve good results.
In BP, this means partners should be roughly as good as each other, and they
should complement each other with their respective skills. If one person does
not do well then chances of the pair or the team winning are slim: hence the
need to develop teamwork skills.
Teamwork is something that one cultivates. You have to learn to be a team
player. Teamwork begins during debate preparation and continues until after
the debate. When you get your motion, all the team members should be
involved in the preparation.
The problem with some teams is what we would call the dominance
syndrome. This is when one person dominates the preparation, everything
they say is considered gospel, and nothing is challenged. This means only
the arguments developed by one person are used. Even though this person
may be talented and experienced, others may also have excellent arguments.
A problem occurs when they do not share their opinions because they are
afraid they are not good enough. This is the wrong sort of environment.
A good team should create a supportive environment of equal partnership
where everyone feels free to share their views and where the best arguments
can come to the surface to be debated by the team - regardless of who
thought of them first! Everyone should be given a chance to speak during
brainstorming and other preparation because you do not want to neglect a
good argument that might win you the day.
Teamwork is also important during the actual debate. It is possible to write
notes to each other during the debate, though only when you are both seated
and also listening carefully to other Speakers.
A clear and orderly case split is a good example of cooperation: it shows a
team has worked together to divide their points amongst themselves to
effectively speak as a team. If you are a second speaker and a case split has
already been presented by your first speaker, it is wise to acknowledge that
you are now going to talk about the points allotted to you by your partner. This
shows you are working as a unit. You are more likely to win as a unit.
33

After the first speaker presents your case, some of the material is usually
rebutted and this is where your case is tested. In order to take your team to
final victory, the next speaker should get there to repair the case if necessary.
This is the essence of teamwork. If you dont help to repair the case, it will
remain damaged and you will probably lose the debate.
When you are listening to an opposition speech, all team members should
carefully analyse what is being said and formulate rebuttals together. This is
where you can pass written notes to each other or whisper something very,
very quietly. Dont just leave the task to Second Speaker: he or she may not
catch some important points that need to be rebutted. Speakers can and
should refer back to important points or examples that have been previously
raised by their teammates.
Since all speeches have a time limit, you can help your teammate by
signalling (nonverbally) how long they have been speaking, how long they
have left and to hurry up if necessary.
Much like other team sports, debates will always be won on the basis of good
teamwork. Adjudicators can instantly spot good or bad teamwork. Hence,
dont make the mistake of trying to go it alone, of not working as a team!

34

DOs and DONTs of TEAMWORK

DOs

DONTs

Work together as a team

Dont work in isolation

Treat each other fairly

and equally

Dont let one person dominate

and have the upper hand

Involve all team members Dont let just one person

in preparation
prepare
Organise a good, clear
case split

Dont just do whatever,

whenever!

Develop your own nondisruptive signals to

communicate amongst
yourselves during
debates

Dont shout out your plans for

everyone to hear

Work cooperatively on
rebuttals, writing notes to
each other

Dont just assume your partner

will do the case repair all alone

Help your partner, with

Dont just leave your partner to
signals, to keep time & on amble aimlessly when they
track when speaking
need prompting!
Support your
teammate(s)

Dont blame each other if you

lose

Offer helpful feedback on

your partners stronger
and weaker points

Dont demoralise your partner

with harsh criticism

35

10)AFTER THE DEBATE

After a period of deliberation (usually 15 minutes) he Chairperson of the
adjudicating panel will announce the results of your debate. Teams will be
ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th and awarded points accordingly (which you will
be able to view at a later stage). The average mark for a speaker in a BP
debate at Worlds is 75%. If you are hitting this mark then you are doing okay.
These results go straight to the Tab room so that the debate tournament can
proceed in a punctual manner. (Please show respect to the Tab people
because theirs is a tough job.) A successful Tab depends very much on
timeous cooperation of all involved in the tournament.
The judges decisions are final and you cannot challenge the actual result,
even though you may feel you deserved to win and you didnt. At a major
tournament you will be given feedback forms after each debate where you
are invited to assess the quality of judging in your opinion. Judges,
meanwhile, also assess each other in a secret ballot and these forms must
also quickly go to the Tab room. Thus, every effort is made in a professional
tournament to ensure fairness and objectivity.
Although you cannot challenge the results of a debate (and it is not wise to
waste time being emotional about something done and dusted) you should
listen carefully to the adjudicators feedback. Your objective is to improve the
quality of your debating for the next round, to recognise weaknesses and
learn from your mistakes. You are also entitled to approach the judges
immediately after the debate for advice on what went wrong and what to work
on for next time.
The most useful postmortem, however, will be done by yourself and your
partner(s). You will have a good idea, yourselves, about what went well and
what didnt in your debate strategy. You should do this immediately after the
results and feedback. Talk about strong and weak points. Continue to build on
strengths and address weaknesses, eliminate bad habits, etc. You could also
ask for feedback from others who witnessed the debate.
Try not to dwell on disappointing results for too long. Dont beat yourselves
up! Encouragement is key: continue to work as a supportive team. Play to
each others positive points as much as possible. There will always be
winners and losers in any competition. The best you can do is remember
36

what you need to work on for the next debate. Stay positive, and spend some
time brushing up on current affairs. Then relax, go out and meet new people,
chat to the other participants and enjoy the energy of the tournament!

37

11) TRAINING ACTIVITIES

In order to develop your debating skills you need a lot of practice. Try to
arrange regular training sessions with your debating society, or simply get
together with likeminded debating friends. These exercises should be greatly
entertaining as well as educational. Teachers could try at least the
Parachuting and Balloon Debate games with students as a way of developing
a general skill set (the basics of presenting an argument, critical analysis, and
persuasion). The exercises can also be used also to develop nonverbal
communication skills (including confident posture, eye contact and body
language) as well as effective vocalics (i.e. regulating the speed, pitch and
volume of ones voice). Here are a few exercises:
a) PARACHUTING
For this exercise people stand in two lines facing each other. They choose
certain famous people and pretend to be them. Examples could be Stevie
Wonder, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Usain Bolt, or any other well known
celebrity. After they have chosen who they want to be, they then pretend to be
in a plane that is about to crash and there is only one parachute. Each has
justify why he/she should get the only parachute available.
This exercise should be done fast and all the participants should be quick to
answer. If they take too long, or if there is too much hesitation or repetition,
then they should be knocked out of the competition. This continues until only
one person is left standing. At least one fair adjudicator is needed for the
activity.
b) POLICY CREATION
In this exercise you select four teams. They sit in pairs, as in a usual BP
debate format, and a motion is selected that requires a policy.
One chief adjudicator can oversee this exercise, but he or she can be flanked
by two other judges as in a BP debate. Debaters are then assigned positions
in either opposition or government. The two government sides have to create
policies and the opposition teams have to oppose them in their speeches.
Next, it is the oppositions turn to create counter policies and this time the
government sides have to oppose them. The chief adjudicator gives
feedback.
38

For example, with This house will abolish bride price, the Government is
challenged to say how.
They could say they will do so via an act of parliament, which shall be
enforced by an implementation committee comprising of members of
parliament as well as local law-enforcement agents.
In response, the Opposition could then say this policy is unworkable because
there are a lot of weddings every day, and the law-enforcement is already
overstretched: there would never be enough manpower, not to mention that
the parliamentarians would rather doze off in parliament than travel to all four
corners of the country supervising every wedding negotiation!
c) HOT POIs
Several speakers are selected. At least one fair and decisive adjudicator is
needed. The BP format is used. A motion is chosen and each speaker is
given a side in either government or opposition. They then present their
speeches, during which a lot of POIs should be asked. The speakers should
answer as many as possible whilst still presenting their positive matter. The
speakers should not stop delivering their matter and not be unnecessarily
distracted when they answer POIs. If they show signs of faltering, they get
knocked out. The one who answers the most POIs, having presented the
most matter in support of their side, is the winner.
d) TWO MINUTE DEBATES
In order to learn how not to waste time and be straight to the point, the NUST
Debating Society developed what they call Two Minute Debates. This is when
you debate in the normal BP way but each speaker is only given two minutes.
The one who delivers the most reasoned matter and presents the most
effective rebuttals in their strictly enforced time slot is the one who wins. At
least one fair adjudicator is needed. He or she can be flanked by other judges
also wanting to hone their adjudication skills.
e) REBUTTALS
In this exercise you choose something we know is obvious, for example, The
absence of light is darkness, and you have to rebut it. You think of all
possible rebuttals and present them. The one who presents the most
39

persuasive rebuttals wins.

needed.

At least one fair and decisive adjudicator is

f) BALLOON DEBATE
This is similar to PARACHUTING. Participants all pretend to be various well
known celebrities. All are being carried by a Hot Air Balloon but are too heavy
as a group and the balloon is going down fast. All will perish unless one
person is ejected. There is no time to waste. Each participant has exactly
one minute to say who they are and why they should remain. Then all must
vote on who to evict. Its a version of the TV quiz, The Weakest Link. In
Round Two, the balloon is still going down and one more celebrity must be
ejected. Again, they have one minute to make another argument as to why
they should remain. Again all vote on the weakest link - the least persuasive
person, who is then ejected. And so on - until just one person remains in the
balloon. That person is declared the winner.

40

12) BP DEBATE ADJUDICATION

Are you thinking of being an adjudicator? Dont be daunted! Anyone can learn
the skills, and the experience can be highly rewarding. Adjudicators play a
vital role. Without judges a competition cannot happen. Good adjudication
raises the standard of a tournament and sees the best team winning. Bad
adjudication puts a damper on a tournament, and may dent your institutions
reputation.
Here we will give guidelines based on the advice also given to adjudicators in
the Pan African University Debate Championships (PAUDC) and the World
University Debate Championships (WUDC). The guidelines are applicable to
the British Parliamentary (BP) system. However, the principles can be
adapted to any type of debate adjudication.
If you are judging for the first time in a tournament you will probably start off
as a Trainee, which means you will be guided by the other panellists and the
Chair. Adjudicators, like debaters, are continuously judged or ranked in a
tournament. After a debate, you will usually be asked to rate the performance
of your fellow judges (by secret ballot). You are asked to be as honest as
possible in your assessments, and the aim is to put forward the best judges
to the final rounds. Later, as your adjudication skills improve, you may be
promoted to Panellist or even Chair of a debate. In this manner, like the
debaters, you become part of the Tab. Your duty is always to guide it to the
correct outcome.
As an Adjudicator you will discover you are an integral part of a competition
and it can be exciting. Yes, there is a prize for the best judge! If you manage
to break to the next round, it is a great achievement. If you are assessed by
your peers and the debaters as an excellent judge, you may break to octos,
quarters, semis or even the final! This is a great honour.
At a tournament you will be assigned, usually with two others, to a debate.
You should arrive on time at the correct venue and introduce yourself. If you
are the Chair, you will have to make sure that all are present, and you should
ask someone on the panel to be a time keeper. This is essential: adjudicators
should always carry a stopwatch.
As the debaters enter the room and arrange themselves, make a note of who
is who and where they are seated. This mental picture will help you when you
are making notes during the debate and after.
41

The Chair must call the house to order, call upon speakers to present and
manage the debate. She or he should give fellow judges enough time to
complete notes, if necessary asking speakers to wait for a short moment.
NOTE TAKING
Note taking is vital. You need to remember what is being said and should
develop your own efficient style. You can take an A4 sheet of paper and
divide it into quadrants, Opening Government - top left, Opening Opposition top right, Closing Government - bottom left, Closing Opposition - top right. If
you have large handwriting and want more space, divide the page into two,
put the Opening and Closing Governments on one side of the A4 sheet, and
the Opening and Closing Oppositions on the other side of the A4. Do
whatever works best for you. Notes should capture the most important points
made in any speech. Bullet points or spidergrams are better than full
sentences, which you wont have time for.
REACHING A DECISION
The most important thing is to decide, in your own mind, is which team should
come 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Sometimes it may be obvious. Usually, you will
have to refer back to your notes. At the end of the debate, the Chair will give
you just a few minutes to do this.
The next stage is deliberation, which must be facilitated by the Chair. There is
usually a large amount of agreement, which is what you are ideally aiming for,
but dont worry if there is not. The Chair can start deliberations by quickly
summarising the debate, speaker by speaker, getting panellists to recall main
points, strengths and weaknesses (if you think you have enough time!)
Agreements or disagreements will emerge. Try to understand the key issues
of the debate and the best arguments.Then evaluate the teams
comparatively, stating your rankings. In this process there is no problem
with changing your mind and modifying your initial rankings.
Alternatively, the Chair may simply start deliberations by asking all panellists
to declare their initial rankings, ascertaining points of agreement, and trying to
resolve points of disagreement.
If one judge disagrees with all others, he or she should be invited to explain
the point of view while other judges listen attentively. The Chair should then
highlight consensus and try to break deadlock. If the Chair is out of sync with
all the other adjudicators (rare but possible!) he or she can be rolled, which
42

means outvoted. In this case, feedback duties are given to another judge
with the vote of the majority. Consensus is ideal but there is no shame in
being rolled as a judge. You are entitled to your informed opinion. Judges
should continue to rank each other fairly, despite such disagreements.
RANKING
The rankings are your first priority and you should decide first on which team
was best, not which speaker. Mark holistically but consider the following
criteria from PAUDC and WUDC tournaments:
1.Argumentation: how compelling were the arguments?
2.Responsiveness: how did a team respond to opposition arguments and
how well did they rebut their own positive matter?
3.Strategy: were the most important points raised first, and how well were
POIs used?
4.Style: how persuasive were the speakers? and how well were their
speeches structured?
Come up with an overall percentage mark for each team, the first, second,
third and fourth.
SCORING
After ranking comes individual scoring. Each Speaker must be given a score.
This is where you have to do some arithmetic. A teams total score must
correlate with the ranking given to them. That means the winning team must
get the highest combined score. The total team score is used to place teams
on the tab. It is possible for a speaker from a losing team to score higher than
one of the speakers from the winning team. What matters most is the
combined score.
75% is the average score in a PAUDC or WUDC debate. 80% to 85% is
exceedingly good. 90% is almost unheard of. By the same token, scores of
less than 60% are rare. Refer to the grid to make sure you are marking fairly
and in line with the tournaments guidelines.
NB. It is the Chairs responsibility to call the house to order. Rude behaviour
is discouraged and offenders, including speakers, can be reprimanded, but
you CANNOT deduct marks from a team for rudeness. Your focus as a judge
is purely and simply on the quality of the debate.

43

Official WUDC Speaker Scoring Range

Score
100-95

94-90

89-85

84-80

79-75

74-70

69-65

64-60

59-55
54-50

Explanation
Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given, flawless and
astonishingly compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up
satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made.
Brilliant arguments successfully engage with the main issues in the round.
Arguments are very well explained, always central to the case being
advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is
very clear and incredibly compelling. Structure and role fulfilment are
executed flawlessly.
Very good, central arguments engage well with the most important issues
on the table and are highly compelling; sophisticated responses would be
required to refute them. Delivery is clear and manner very persuasive. Role
fulfilment and structure probably flawless.
Relevant and pertinent arguments address key issues in the round with
sufficient explanation. The speech is clear in almost its entirety, and holds
ones attention persuasively. Role is well-fulfilled and structure is unlikely to
be problematic. Perhaps slight issues with balancing argumentation and
refutation and/or engagement in the debate.
Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive.
Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may slip into:
deficits in explanation,
simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent responses or Peripheral
or irrelevant arguments.
The speaker holds ones attention, provides clear structure and
successfully fulfils their on the table.
Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but
there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or irrelevant
material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the
audiences attention and is usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may
sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to
fulfil ones role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.
Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary
explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority
of the time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure poor; poor
attempt to fulfil role.
The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently
unclear and confusing; really problematic structure/lack thereof; some
awareness of role.
The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as
arguments. Hard to follow, little/no structure; no evident awareness of role.
Content is almost never relevant, and is both confusing and confused. No
structure or fulfilment of role is, in any meaningful sense, provided.

44

SOME FINAL REMINDERS

Duties of the Chair
Maintain order during the debate
Facilitate deliberation
Present oral feedback to the debaters
Remember to:
Ask panellists to disclose rankings at the start of deliberations
Analyse the decision even if there is consensus
Reach a decision about 12 minutes into discussion
Take a decision to vote if consensus cannot be reached
Facilitate scoring: start with either the winning or the losing team
Duties of a Panellist
Take notes during the debate
Decide on rankings
Participate in deliberation
You can challenge others opinions but justify
Dont be antagonistic: the deliberation is a discussion, not a debate
Be open to listening, persuading and being persuaded
Oral Adjudication
Give results first
Summarise main issues and how each team engaged with them
Explain how teams performed compared to each other
Be objective. Dont personalise failings
Be comprehensive about the main ideas and how they were weighted
Limit feedback to 5 minutes
Be prepared to give individual feedback afterwards
Scoring
Mark holistically but consider content, style and strategy
There is no particular percentage for each
Before scoring decide whether the debate was average, below average or
above average to identify the correct scoring range
Content
Arguments and rebuttals: were they substantive and logical?
Were the examples relevant and to the point?
Fewer good arguments are often better than many poor ones
45

Style
In what manner was the speech presented?
Were the speakers persuasive?
Irritating mannerisms should only be marked down if they badly affected the
quality of the speech or an opponents speech
Strategy
Did the speaker disprove the opponents case?
Was there good use of Points of Information, prioritisation of matter and
evidence of structure in the speeches?
Look out for unfair tactics (in defining motions, badgering opponents, setting
up straw-man arguments, etc.)
Award or penalise teams for good or bad use of strategic tools
DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES
These should be avoided if at all possible
Only the Leader of the Opposition can launch a definitional challenge
In this case an alternative definition and justification must be given
Judges should consider definitional challenges and justifications as
substantive issues
Judges should consider whether definitional challenges are properly justified
and substantiated
The most convincing definition should stand in the debate, and the relevant
team should win that substantive point

(Our thanks to PAUDC and WUDC for much of the advice cited above.
Readers are invited to consult their Adjudicator and Speaker Manuals which
are made available before tournaments.)

46

DOs & DONTs in ADJUDICATING

DO

DONT

Be fair-minded and levelheaded

Dont allow personal prejudice

to skew your judgement

Take a stopwatch for timekeeping

Dont lose track of time

Give credit for relevant

arguments

Dont be sidetracked by redherrings

Listen carefully to each speaker Dont daydream or look out the

window
Take notes on each speech

Dont forget who said what

Deliberate with fellow judges

sensibly and cooperatively

Dont compete as if trying to win

your own mini-debate

Evaluate teams against each

other - fairly and objectively

Dont concentrate on individuals

until you have a team score

Stick to PAUDC/WUDC
standards and decide if teams
were above, below or average

Dont deviate from the marking

grid to be either too harsh or too
generous

Mark holistically considering all

elements

Dont give separate marks for

content, style and strategy

Give results before oral

feedback

Dont keep debaters on

tenterhooks

Summarise key debate issues

Dont personalise any failings
and explain how teams
performed relative to each other
Evaluate fellow judges honestly
and fairly, and expect the same
of them

Dont try to spite fellow judges

with unfair evaluations

47

13) ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE (ESL) V.

ENGLISH-AS-A-FIRST-LANGUAGE FOR DEBATING
English is a lingua franca, a global language, both in academia and in
business. It is also the language of WUDC and PAUDC and many other major
debating tournaments. However, for most debaters, English is a second (or
third or fourth) language; and it is thought that English-as-a-first-language
debaters would always, inevitably, have an unfair advantage over ESL
(English-as-a-Second-Language) debaters. Hence the need for ESL debates.
We now witness these as the norm in tournaments such as SA Nationals,
PAUDC and WUDC.
Choosing ESL or EFL
Because English is widely spoken in Zimbabwe and is the predominant
medium of instruction at Zimbabwean schools and universities, Zimbabwean
debaters can qualify as EFL debaters even though they may be ESL.
It is wise to assess your standard of English and weigh up your options
before a tournament. Native English speakers will usually have the edge with
their range of vocabulary and ability to draw on English proverbs, idioms and
expressions, as well as to be clever with the language (punning, etc.)
This is what you would be up against at WUDC if you had to compete against
Oxford, Monash, Stanford, or those such teams. The same could apply to
SAUDC or PAUDC if you had to compete against UCT, Rhodes, Wits, UKZN
or other such English-speaking universities. Unless you are very good at
English and have mastered its vocabulary and subtler elements (did you get
As at O-Level and A-Level?), it is best to opt for ESL debates - which are also
highly competitive and a great deal of fun.
Whichever route you choose, you will need to brush up on your English to
give yourself that edge that you need to win debates. Judges are impressed
by effective use of language to advance arguments.
Keep it Short and Simple
KISS stands for Keep It Short and Simple. Try to say what you have to say
simply and succinctly. There is never any need to show off with long, fancy
words which very few people understand: this will not impress the judges.
48

You should be able to say what you need to say without reaching for a
dictionary. You dont have time for that and neither do your judges!
Read!
To improve your English language versatility as well as general knowledge,
read as much as you can. Read novels, biographies, science books,
newspapers, magazines and academic journals. Read national and
international newspapers. Read for example The Economist for global news
and analysis (its comprehensive yet succinct). Or read the Mail and Guardian
for a weekly digest of southern African news and views. These are
intelligently written publications with higher standards of English than most.
Unfortunately our local and national newspapers cannot be considered
paragons of error-free English. Writing and editing standards leave much to
be desired and you are likely to find faulty phrasing, mixed metaphors,
confused idioms, poor punctuation and sloppy spelling - so please avoid
picking up bad habits! Nevertheless, do consult the local press and opinion
columns to identify key national issues for debate. Also, most Zimbabwean
papers now have websites and archives and there are several online news
digests which give daily summaries: e.g. http://www.zimbabwesituation.com
To keep abreast, you should really read various sources - online, offline, and
often. Take your English up a notch by reading The New York Times, The
Times or The Guardian (American or British newspapers). You can gain free
access online. This vocabulary will be challenging, yet it will famiiarise you
with the type of language you should master if you wish to compete in the
English-as-a-first-language category at Worlds! You dont always have to
agree with what you read, but there is no harm in challenging yourself.
Oral practice
Find native English speaker friends to practise your speaking with. (In
exchange, you could offer to teach them some Shona, Ndebele or another
language). Ask them to correct your errors (with grammar, pronunciation or
inaccurate expressions). For example, you might say, All work and no play is
boring, but it is handy to know the exact expression, All work and no play
makes Jack a dull boy! You may wish to say, Act now to prevent problems in
the future! but it is handy to know, A stitch in time saves nine! (particularly
for English-as-first-language competitions).
49

14) THINGS TO ALWAYS REMEMBER AS A DEBATER

Debate is a team sport, you win as a team and you lose as a

team
You should always practise to become a better speaker
You should always critically analyse situations in order to come

up with good arguments

Do not confine your thoughts but think widely
Be a well read individual. Know the current affairs of the world
Good arguments are the key to winning a debate
Dont just have good arguments but also have good rebuttals
Dont lose hope even if you lose the debate
Be a good listener during debates in order to be a better

speaker
Always take the advice you are given by other people on what

you need to do to be a better speaker. It is probably good

advice
Remember not to be afraid. If you allow fear to enter you

before you present your speech it wont be as good as it was

supposed to be.
Use the time you have been given to speak wisely. It is the

only time you have

Put maximum effort into presenting your speech

50

15) POPULAR DEBATE MOTIONS

See http://idebate.org/view/top_100_debates
If you follow the online links you can access prepared arguments (for and
against) for all of the motions below. This could be helpful for training.
This House would ban animal testing
This House believes single-sex schools are good for education
This House believes reality television does more harm than good
This house would raise the legal driving age to 18
This House supports the death penalty
This House would ban homework
This house Would Ban School Uniforms - Junior
This House believes the internet brings more harm than good
This House believes university education should be free
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile
phones.
This House Believes that assisted suicide should be legalized
This house would ban cosmetic surgery
This house believes that capitalism is better than socialism
This House would ban junk food from schools.
This House believes wild animals should not be kept in captivity
This House would Censor the Internet

51

This House believes mothers should stay at home and look after their
children.
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised
This House believes science is a threat to humanity
This House believes that advertising is harmful
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.
This House would permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in
professional sports
This House would ban boxing.
This House would legalize the sale of human organs
This house would make physical education compulsory
This house would allow gay couples to marry
This House would ban beauty contests
This House would limit the right to bear arms
This house Would reintroduce Corporal Punishment in Schools
This house would ban smoking in public spaces
This House Would Lower The Drinking Age
This house would allow prisoners to vote
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.
This house would make voting compulsory
This House would ban gambling
This House Would Ban Human Cloning.

52

This House supports random drug-testing in schools

This House believes that the United Nations has failed
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution
This House would restrict advertising aimed at children
This house believes that hosting the Olympics is a good investment
This House would introduce child curfews
This House Believes Terrorism can be justified
This house believes that housewives should be paid for their work
This House believes all nations have a right to nuclear weapons
Homework is a waste of time. (Junior)
This house believes that animals have rights.
This House would go vegetarian
This House would legalise Prostitution
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good
This House Would Distribute Condoms in Schools (Junior)
This house believes in the woman's right to choose
This house believes that developed countries have a higher obligation to
combat climate change than developing countries
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict
freedom of speech
This House would ban music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal
lifestyles
This House would ban alcohol
53

This house Believes People Should Not Keep Pets

This House would make all parents attend parenting classes
This House would make sex education mandatory in schools
This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa
This House believes that endangered species should be protected
This house believes that newspapers are a thing of the past
This House believes that music that glorifies violence against women should
be banned.
This House Would Promote Safe Sex through Education at Schools
This House would ban smacking
This House believes social deprivation causes crime.
This house believes the internet encourages democracy
This House would explore the universe
This House believes that downloading music without permission is morally
equivalent to theft
This House believes that bribery is sometimes acceptable
This House Would Abolish nuclear weapons
This House believes we're too late on global climate change
This House would introduce a system of universal healthcare
This House would impose democracy

54

16) PREPARING FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING

Awards to aim for
At WUDC or PAUDC public speaking competitions there are usually three
prizes: best speaker, first runner up speaker, and best adjudicator. The
competition is presided over by a Head of Public Speaking, and panellists
rank each other in a secret ballot after each session (as happens in the
parallel debating competition) so as to ensure the highest ranked adjudicators
get to the finals.
Scoring
Adjudicators rank speakers after each presentation. In PAUDC, marks are
usually awarded for manner (including delivery, projection, articulation, and
fluidity); composition (including structure, logic and creativity); and matter
(which should be somehow valid and engaging).
Very poor scores are 50 to 59 %, below average are 60 to 69%, average and
above average are 70 to 79%, very good are 80 to 89%, and flawlessly
excellent scores are 90 to 100%.
Judging Criteria
Manner refers to style, delivery and overall presentation - confidence,
persuasion, sincerity, rapport, etc. It includes eye contact, vocalics (variation
of the voice), gestures and appropriate use of humour.
Structure is the selection and arrangement of ideas and arguments and time
management. To indicate structure, speeches should include an introduction,
a development of ideas and a summary.
Matter refers to the content of a speech, ideas, arguments, observations,
facts, opinions, quotations and examples.
Objectivity in Judging
Adjudicators must not allow personal biases to influence them. Worlds and
PAUDC tournaments stipulate that speakers should not be discriminated
against for a particular style, religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, linguistic
group, sexual orientation, age, social status or disability. Ideally, judges
should be perfectly fair and objective.
55

Speakers are allowed to use props, provided they are not obstructive.
Four Different Rounds
1) There is usually an Impromptu topic round where speakers are given
topics just before the preceding speech.
2) Then there is an On-the-spot round with no time for preparation.
3) Then there is a Prepared round where all are given the same topic to
prepare for, twenty-four hours in advance.
4) Finally, there is the fully prepared Speakers choice of topic round.
Sometimes the order of the rounds is mixed up at the discretion of the Head
of Public Speaking and Chief Adjudicator. The above format may be modified
significantly, so speakers are encouraged to be on their toes and prepared for
variations.
Timekeeping
In the preliminary rounds, speeches are usually three minutes; and in the
grand final the speeches are usually four minutes. Credit is given for
managing time effectively. Competitors are clapped once after the first minute
of their speech and once at the start of the last minute. They are not
permitted to speak once their time is finished and will be clapped
continuously to show it is time to leave the podium or exit the stage.

56

Some General Advice to Public Speakers

Breathe deeply, beforehand, to calm your nerves
Project your voice, speaking from your waist, not your throat
Dont shout
Connect with your audience; establish a rapport
Stay cool, calm and collected: believe in yourself
Communicate with body language, eye contact, etc.
Choose an engaging topic, or somehow make it interesting
If you cant be funny, be personable and interesting
Dont try to be a standup comedian (not in this competition)
Dont do a Jerry Springer-type drama (not in this competition)
Always introduce, develop and summarise what you speak about
Keep to time
Avoid monotony: dont bore your audience
Vary the pace of your speech and intonation
Rehearse in front of a mirror to see what you look like
Record your speech to hear what you sound like
Get feedback from friends, family or communication experts
Enjoy the thrill of public speaking
Watch, listen and learn as a spectator of other speakers
Practice makes perfect

57

15) GLOSSARY OF DEBATING JARGON

BP - British Parliamentary (Debate System)
CW - Chief Whip (also known as OW - Opposition Whip)
DLO - Deputy Leader of the Opposition
DPM - Deputy Prime Minister
GW - Government Whip
LO - Leader of the Opposition
MG - Member of Government
MO - Member of the Opposition
PAUDC - Pan African Universities Debate Championship
POI - Points of Information
PM - Prime Minister
SAUDC - South African Universities Debating Championship
THB - This House Believes...
THW - This House Would...
WUDC - World Universities Debating Championship
Case split - an outline of the all the arguments your team will raise and how
they will be divided between the two speakers in your team.
Chief Adjudicator (CA) - Person responsible for the Tab, induction of new
adjudicators, enforcing rules, and guiding the competition.
Clash - something emphasised by the Leader of the Opposition (how and
why the opposition contests the motion being debated)
Council - Elected body of representatives from university debating societies,
which decides on e.g. location of the next tournament, rules of the
tournament, and which addresses other issues
Definition - an explanation of key words in the motion, giving the parameters
of the debate and stating what exactly is being debated.
Definitional Challenge - can only be made by the LO if the PMs definition is
a 1) a truism; 2) a squirrel; or 3) an unfair Time/Place setting
Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) - second in command, after CA,
responsible for the smooth functioning of the Tab and the tournament
Extension - Must be done by the first speakers of both closing teams. Could
be 1) a new argument that hasnt yet been raised OR 2) deeper analysis of
58

arguments and issues already made in the opening half. NB: You are not
allowed to do a policy extension or change the parameters of the debate.
Generalisation - assumes people, groups or cases are all the same. Cut
through generalisations to enhance the quality of debate.
Oral Adjudication - after a debate, where results are given, then feedback
Organising Committee - organisers of a tournament. All serious complaints
and should be taken to them.
Panellist - adjudicator on the panel of judges
Policy - a clear plan of action, showing how the proposed motion should be
implemented
Positive matter - the substantive arguments that you make
Rebuttal - a direct response to an opposing teams positive matter
Rolling - where other judges outvote the Chair of the adjudicating panel
Squirrel - a definition which is not what the motion is about. e.g. For THW
ban alcohol to make the debate about only about criminalising those who sell
alcohol to minors
Structure - the way that you arrange your speech: I will argue three main
points: 1st... 2nd... 3rd.... etc. Good signposting helps listeners to follow you.
Style - the way you deliver your content: the way you speak, order your
points, choose your words, entertain the audience, etc.
Time/Place Set - to place the debate at an inappropriate time in the past or in
an obscure location
Trainee - a new adjudicator, assigned to a panel of judges
Truism - This is a definition so obvious and self-evident that there can be no
challenge or meaningful debate
Yaka - A special drink for debaters. Beware!

59

This manual comes at a good time in Zimbabwe when we should all be

busy debating issues of importance in the country. For years we have been
in decline, and where are the robust debates (and debaters) to help
reverse the trend? The manual is written in an engaging style and offers
many points of advice to would-be debaters. A key aspect which it
emphasises is practice and more practice, as with most things in life. I wish
the manual and readers a success in the debating sphere.
- Prof. P. J. Mundy - world renowned ornithologist and author of The
Vultures of Africa
[This handbook] is a first of its kind which explores the different styles of
debate chiefly used in Zimbabwe that are also applicable in any other
country. The manual equips any one of us with effective communication and
negotiating skills one might need in any situation one faces in life. Anyone
who participates, trains or adjudicates in debates and public speaking
activities should obtain a copy of this manual.
- Mr. M. Mawanza - H.O.D. Forest Resources and Wildlife Management
Department, NUST, Zimbabwe

Distributed by NUST Debating Society (NUSTDES)

National University of Science and Technology
PO Box AC 939, Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
www.nust.ac.zw
ISBN: 978-0-7974-9461-9
EAN: 9780797494619
ebook
ISBN: 978-0-7974-9494-0
EAN: 9780797494640
60