TOURNAMENT GUIDE

Contents
Tournament format

Debate format and rules

Motions and speaker roles

How debates are evaluated

Tournament Format
Tournament timeline

Prelim Knockout
Grand Final
Rounds Rounds

November 16-17 November 30 December 26

Online, over Zoom Online, over Zoom Chennai
Tournament format
All teams participate in 6 preliminary rounds of debate
• 3 preliminary rounds (Rounds 1, 3, and 5) are prepared – topics are released in advance, and students can
access external support
• 3 preliminary rounds (Rounds 2, 4, and 6) are impromptu – topics are released 45 minutes before the debate
starts, and teams prepare together in Zoom breakout rooms with no external help
• Debates consist of 6 minute constructive speeches with 3 minute replies
• Teams receive results, justifications, and feedback from adjudicators after each round of debate

Qualifying teams participate in a series of knockout rounds

• Top 16* teams participate in a series of knockout rounds
• Knockout rounds are impromptu – topics are released 1 hour before the debate starts, and teams prepare with
no external help
• Debates consist of 8 minute constructive speeches with 4 minute replies

*The final number of teams qualifying to the knockout rounds is subject to the total number of teams participating at ISDC 2024
Debate Format
The preliminary rounds at ISDC will follow a modified WSDC format
1 2

1st Proposition 1st Opposition

6 minutes 6 minutes
3 4
Constructive

2nd Proposition 2nd Opposition Points of Information (PoIs) can be

6 minutes 6 minutes offered by the other team during
constructive speeches
5 6
rd rd
Reply speeches can only be
3 Proposition 3 Opposition delivered by the first and second
6 minutes 6 minutes speaker

8 7
Reply

Proposition Reply Opposition Reply

3 minutes 3 minutes
The knockout rounds at ISDC will follow the WSDC format
1 2

1st Proposition 1st Opposition

8 minutes 8 minutes
3 4
Constructive

2nd Proposition 2nd Opposition Points of Information (PoIs) can be

8 minutes 8 minutes offered by the other team during
constructive speeches
5 6
rd rd
Reply speeches can only be
3 Proposition 3 Opposition delivered by the first and second
8 minutes 8 minutes speaker

8 7
Reply

Proposition Reply Opposition Reply

4 minutes 4 minutes
Points of Information

Points of Information can be asked

0:00 1:00 5:00 6:00

PROTECTED: PROTECTED:
No Points of Information No Points of Information

Points of Information can be asked

0:00 1:00 7:00 8:00

PROTECTED: PROTECTED:
No Points of Information No Points of Information

A POI is a short interjection (usually a question) from a member of the

other team to the person of your team who is currently speaking
Preparation Time
Motion release and preparation time
• Topics will be released 45 minutes in advance of the debate for the preliminary rounds, and 1 hour in
advance of the debates for the knockout rounds – teams will prepare in their individual Zoom breakout rooms.
Information slides and clarifications
• The Chief Adjudicators may provide additional clarity and knowledge about the motion through an ‘Information Slide.’
All information provided here is assumed to be true for the debate, and this slide is released alongside the motion
• If you have questions about the phrasing of the motion, you can ask the Chief Adjudicators for a clarification within 5
minutes of motion release in the Zoom main hall
Motion and Speaker Roles
Each motion starts with This House (TH)

This House Would

This usually refers to a government in Ban alcohol
general, and not a specific country or place.
It is important to be reasonable here - TH is
not likely inclusive of dictatorships like North
Korea, Russia, etc. but certainly includes
developed countries like USA, UK, etc. and
developing countries like India, Malaysia,
etc.).
Each motion starts with This House (TH)

This House Believes That

Parents should not allow their
In this type of debate, This House is read as
"As a society, we”; meaning as a society, we
children to access social media
believe that parents should not allow their
children access to social media.
The first Proposition speaker should define the topic, set up the
debate, and provide two arguments (1/2)
Definitions clarify key words in the topic in the context of the debate
• Definitions are contextual, and not dictionary based – e.g., in ‘This House would ban alcohol,’ the debate
should be defined as making the production, sale, and purchase of alcohol for recreation illegal . The definition of
alcohol cannot be a chemical compound produced in labs and factories.
• Definitions must be done in the spirit of the motion – this debate is not about banning alcohol in medicines,
but about addiction that is a result of overconsumption of recreational alcohol, and the harms that stem from it. To
arrive at a fair definition within the spirit of the motion, think about why the debate may be occurring.
Set ups are short explanations of what a policy outlines and what the other team’s world looks like
• Set ups are required to envision how a debate is enforced – there may be multiple methods or actions a
government can take to implement a policy; setting up debates allows you to identify what you are and are not willing
to do to execute the policy. E.g., banning alcohol would involve – (i) giving bars a window of time for them to shut
down, (ii) placing fines on alcohol sellers post the shut down period, and (iii) setting up rehabilitation centers for
individuals addicted to alcohol
The first Proposition speaker should define the topic, set up the
debate, and provide two arguments (2/2)
The first Proposition speaker provides two constructive arguments in favour of the motion
• A constructive argument is a well-explained reason why the topic is true. E.g., if you are arguing in favor of
banning alcohol, a argument might be that “banning alcohol improves public health.”
• An argument has three parts – claims, explanations, and impacts. A claim is a single sentence that acts as a
title for the whole argument. Explanations answer the question “why is the claim true?” and usually involve outlining
multiple reasons. Impacts answer the question “why does the claim matter?”
• Everything that you say in an argument needs to be proven true – you cannot merely state something
without proving it logically.
• A good first proposition speech to watch: First proposition on ‘This house would ban free-to-play games':
The first Opposition speaker should set up the opp case, rebut
Prop’s arguments, and push arguments of their own
The Opposition stance is a statement of what they support
• Opposition set up can be status quo, or an alternative proposal – ‘status quo’ refers to the current world or
situation, wheras an alternative proposal includes implementing new actions that are different from the policy
mentioned in the motion. Both status quo and alternative proposals have to be described in the speech. E.g., on ‘This
house would ban alcohol,’ opposition has to advocate for alcohol remaining legal, but can implement a set of
restrictions and policies to tackle its harms, such as placing quantitative limits, opening rehab centres, etc.
The first Opposition speaker needs to rebut the two arguments provided by first proposition
• Rebuttal is when a speaker responds to the arguments from another team – in a first Opposition speech,
you should structure your rebuttal by addressing the broad claims coming from first Proposition and disproving them.
E.g., ‘Proposition’s first claim is X, here are two responses to the same. Their second claim is Y, here is my rebuttal.’
The first Opposition speaker also provides two constructive arguments against the motion
• Each argument must have a claim, explanation, and impact
• The two most important opposition arguments should come out in the first speech – while rebuttal comes
first in the speech, a large portion of the speech should be spent explaining the constructive arguments
• A good first Opposition speech to watch is the first Opposition speech on 'This house will allow ex-convicts to
apply to join the police force'
Second speakers should rebut the other team’s arguments,
defend their arguments, and provide a new argument
Second speakers should rebut the other team’s material and defend their own
• All debates are comparative, and therefore require both dismantling the other team’s case, as well as
rebuilding your own – second speakers must rebut the constructive material that comes from a first speech, and in
the case of second opposition also rebut the new constructive material that comes from second proposition. In
addition, second speakers must defend their own arguments, which involves rebutting the other team’s rebuttal of
their material, and providing additional explanations for existing constructive arguments.
Second speakers should provide at least one additional constructive argument
• A second speaker argument expands the scope of the debate – Second speaker arguments can identify new
justifications to pass the policy, or can be specific to an important target group that the debate is trying to solve for
• A good second proposition speech to watch is the second proposition on ‘This House believes that charities and
humanitarian aid organizations should not use graphic images of suffering in their advertising campaigns’
• A good second Opposition speech to watch is the second opposition on ‘This House supports academic tracking in
primary and secondary education’
Third speakers’ should exclusively rebut the other speakers,
and defend their team’s existing arguments
Third speakers should summarise their own side and provide rebuttal to the other team’s case
• Material from previous speeches should be organised into themes – a theme is a category of an idea that has
been discussed in the debate. Organising the speech into themes clarifies what a team’s priorities within the debate
are, and the explanation of each theme includes a recount of what has occurred in the debate on that particular issue.
E.g., in ‘This House would ban alcohol,’ the arguments within the debate deal with health and financial impacts of
addiction; these can be separated into themes or issues.
• New rebuttal should be provided towards the other side’s case – Rebuttal must constantly evolve throughout
the debate, and third speakers are required to provide rebuttal that has previously not existed in the debate. They
should rebut both unique constructive material that comes from the previous opposing speaker, but also provide new
forms of rebuttal to material that has already been responded to.
• Third speakers may not bring in new arguments – New pieces of context, new examples, and unique impacts
are allowed to be brought in by third speakers, but they cannot introduce any new claims in the debate.
• A good third Proposition speech to watch is third proposition on ‘This house would require professional sports
teams to be owned by their local communities, rather than by individuals or corporations’
• A good third Opposition speech to watch is third opposition on ‘This house would impose additional taxes on
employers who use automation to replace human workers’
Reply speeches provide a biased summary of the debate from
the team’s viewpoint
Good reply speeches contribute to the team’s overall strategy and approach in the debate
• Reply speeches should be structured in order of priority – A reply speech cannot cover every single thing that
occurred in the debate; instead it must compliment the third speech in identifying case priorities (your team’s
strongest argument) and explaining why that is debate winning.
• No new material – A reply speaker may raise new examples or context that illustrate or dismantle an argument, but
cannot introduce a new part of the team case
• Reply speeches can swing the result of a debate
• Only first or second speakers can give replies
Debate Evaluation
Based on the speeches of either side, Judges track the
important issues in the debate and decide the winner
Judges track all speeches and decide on the major issues that both teams are pointing out in the debate
• Evaluation of issues – All contributions brought by two teams on a given issue (arguments + rebuttal + PoIs) and
their interactions with each other are compared. Judges then decide who won the issue – was there important
material that stood at the end that was unresponded to by the other side? Did the existing responses adequately take
down the core of a point a team made?
• Deciding the importance of issues – Judges will defer to using metrics (explicit identifications) that teams provide
in the debate to decide which issues are more important than the others. In the absence of this, judges use implicit
metrics, e.g., strength of argumentation, weighing, etc. to decide the importance of a claim
• Determining the winner – The team that wins the majority of the most important issues in the round is declared
the winner. Teams do not have to numerically win more arguments in a round to win the debate, but must win on the
most important issues.
Speaker Scores
Judges award each speaker with a score for every speech, including replies
• Speaker scores range – 60-80 for constructive speeches and 30-40 for reply speeches
• Scores calculated based on evaluation of the speech under 3 categories – Content, Style, and Strategy
Content is scored from a range of 24-32 and contributes to 40% of the overall speaker score
• Good content in an argument – Using a diverse range of arguments about different stakeholders, using rigorous
logic, using relevant examples to support your arguments, and explaining why your arguments are important
• Good content in a rebuttal – Well explained responses to arguments, not misrepresenting the other side’s claims
Style is scored from a range of 24-32 and contributes to 40% of the overall speaker score
• Good style ensures speakers are easy to follow – well paced, clear signposting, words are enunciated
• Good style makes speakers more engaging – using powerful illustrations to convey context, inducing emotions
Strategy is scored from a range of 12-16 and contributes to 20% of the overall speaker score
• Good strategy includes conscious prioritisation of material – identify debate winning and relevant arguments
• Good strategy includes time management – Not underusing or overshooting time, not repeating content
• Good strategy involves role fulfilment – Speakers not fulfilling their roles leads to a collapsing effect on the
following speeches (e.g., if a first speaker does not bring a model, the second speaker must do so which reduces time
they would spend on rebuttal
Speaker score ranges

Overall Content Strategy

Standard Style (/40)
(/100) (/40) (/20)
Exceptional 80 32 32 16
Excellent 76-79 31 31 15-16
Extremely Good 74-75 30 30 15
Very Good 71-73 29 29 14-15
Good 70 28 28 14
Satisfactory 67-69 27 27 13-14
Competent 65-66 26 26 13
Pass 61-64 25 25 12-13
Improvement Needed 60 24 24 12
Explanation of the speaker scale (2/2)
Mark Standard
• Content is not relevant to the motion and what the team needs to prove.
60 • All points made are claims, with no analysis, and are confusing.
• The speech is hard to follow throughout, so it is hard to give it any credit.

• A few marginally relevant claims.

61-63 • No analysis provided in the claims, which are mainly lines without explanation.
• Parts of the speech are clear, but significant parts are still hard to follow.

• Some of the points made are relevant to the debate.

64 - 66 • Arguments / rebuttals are made with some explanation and analysis, but with significant logical gaps in the explanation.
• Sometimes the speech is difficult to follow.

• Most of the points made are relevant to the debate.

• All arguments / rebuttals have some explanation, but it still has logical and analytical gaps in important parts of the
67 - 69
argument and lacks evidence.
• Mostly easy to follow, but some sections may still be hard to understand.

• No major shortfalls, nor any strong moments.

• Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, although may fail to address one or more core issues sufficiently.
70 • All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and examples, but are simplistic and easy to attack.
• Easy to follow throughout which makes the speech understandable, though style does not necessarily serve to make the
speech more persuasive.
Explanation of the speaker scale (2/2)
Mark Standard

• Arguments are all relevant, and address the core issues in the debate.
• All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and most have credible evidence. Some points raised
71 - 72
may have minor logical gaps or deficits in explanation.
• Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the speech more engaging and persuasive.

• Arguments are relevant and engage with the most important issues. Arguments have sufficient explanation without major
logical gaps.
73 - 76
• Occasionally, the speaker provides more sophisticated and nuanced analysis, making their arguments hard to attack.
• Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the speech more engaging and persuasive.

• Arguments are all relevant and well-illustrated, and address the core issues in the debate, with thorough explanations, no
77 - 79 logical gaps, and credible examples, making them hard to attack
• Easy to follow throughout. The style serves to make the speech’s content more engaging.

• Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given in a schools competition.
80 • It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made.
• Flawless and compelling arguments, made with outstanding delivery.
 Website:
www.indianschoolsdebatingsociety.com

Instagram/Twitter:
@TeamIndiaWSDC

Facebook:
ISDS: Indian Schools Debating Society

Email:
2 [email protected]
6
[email protected]