Order of Operations
Formalities of Debate
(Adapted from debateable.org)
The Order:
Round 1-First Proposition Speaker: PRO- Argument introduced (what is the topic up for debate
and what is your team’s position?) and outline of case presented.
Round 1- First Opposition Speaker: NEG- Argument introduced and outline of case presented.
Rebuttal.
Round 2- Second Proposition Speaker: PRO- Case presented and rebuttal.
Round 2- Second Opposition Speaker: NEG- Case presented and rebuttal.
Round 3- Third Proposition Speaker: PRO- Rebuttal/Attack.
Round 3- Third Opposition Speaker: NEG- Rebuttal/Attack.
Round 4- Reply/Summary Speaker: PRO Evaluate & Conclusion
Round 4- Reply/Summary Speaker: NEG Evaluate & Conclusion
Case: The topic being debated, your team’s main points supporting the position taken, and the
evidence supporting your position.
Rebuttal/Attack: In an argument or debate, the presentation of evidence and reasoning meant to
weaken or undermine an opponent’s claim.
Substantive Argument: One that can be backed up with research and that is based on real facts.
Evaluate: Speaker will review and sum up key moments of clash and use this information to
determine and state WHY his or her team has won the debate.
What role does each person play in the group?
Round One- First Proposition Speaker:
 Provides the team’s position and main points that will be addressed.
 Outlines how the case will be broken up by proposition teammates.
 Delivers 2-3 substantive arguments in support of team’s position
The first speakers of the debate are critical because they establish the tone and outline the
direction for the debate. This action creates the foundation for a good debate to build upon. The
First Proposition Speaker then has the responsibility to provide a fair and reasonable outline of
the debate and for the First Opposition Speaker. Without this foundation, arguments tend to be
delivered in a vacuum and poor debates general ensue.
 The First Proposition Speaker has an additional challenge: He or she must inject the
necessary energy into the audience and the room in order to bring the debate to life.
This speaker should be fairly assertive in his or her delivery.
 First Proposition Speakers usually take advantage of the ability to open the debate
by delivering the strongest arguments for the Proposition’s side. These speakers also
use the opportunity provided by not needing to rebut to put forward strongly
developed substantive arguments with multiple examples to win the audience and the
judges over as soon as possible.
First Opposition Speaker:
 Accepts/challenges/expands the proposition’s points, as necessary
 Rebuts First Proposition’s substantive arguments
 Outlines case for Opposition
 Delivers 2-3 substantive arguments opposing the issue
The First Opposition position can be challenging as this speaker has the least amount of
time to prepare to respond to two major components, i.e., the Proposition’s position and the First
Proposition’s substantive arguments. However, if teams have done their jobs, each will be
anticipating the position of the other and be ready accordingly.
 The First Opposition Speaker will have to be ready to prove why the
Proposition’s position and points are wrong and how they are to be challenged.
 The First Opposition Speaker will also have the responsibility of delivering the
Opposition’s strongest arguments against the issue.
 These speakers will also be responsible for providing the first attack on the
Proposition’s strongest arguments within the debate.
Round Two-Second Speakers:
Second Proposition:
 Rebuts First Opposition’s substantive arguments
 Defends First Proposition’s substantive arguments (if necessary)
 Delivers 2 new substantive arguments in support of the issue
Second Opposition:
 Rebuts Second Proposition’s substantive arguments
 Rebuts First Proposition’s substantive arguments (if necessary)
 Defends First Opposition’s substantive arguments (if necessary)
 Delivers 2 new substantive arguments opposing the issue
The Second Speaker’s position is special as it provides an ideal opportunity to evaluate
the overall stance taken by the opposing team and provide critique on the general approach
taken by the opponents. This evaluative process is especially useful for the Third Speakers in
framing their rebuttals and for the Summary Speakers to frame their Reply speeches.
 Second Speakers are in good position to add new dimensions to the debate by
developing their argumentation further.
 This allows their team to broaden the scope of the debate and demonstrate that its
approach does not rest on a single line of argumentation or logic.
Round Three- Third Speakers:
Third Proposition:
 Rebuts the Opposition’s substantive arguments
 Defends the Proposition’s substantive arguments (if necessary)
 Provides a quick summary of the Proposition’s case

Has the option to deliver another substantive argument (if necessary), but the focus
should be on attacking the Opposition.
Third Opposition:
 Rebuts the Proposition’s substantive arguments
 Defends Opposition’s substantive arguments (if necessary)
 Provides a quick summary of the Opposition’s case
The Third Speaker’s primary role is to attack the substantive arguments raised by the
opposing team. Although the Third Proposition Speaker has the option of delivering a new
substantive argument, it is more useful to devote the time allocated to attacking the Opposition’s
case.
 The Third Opposition speaker is not allowed to bring up new arguments as the
Proposition will no longer have an opportunity to rebut these points.
 Third Speakers should focus primarily on rebutting their opponent’s substantive
arguments.
 Although some of these substantive points may already have been rebutted by the Second
Speakers or the First Opposition Speaker, the Third Speaker can add value to the debate
by developing the rebuttals further.
 Third Speakers should also address the key examples in their opponents’ cases while
adding more examples in their own rebuttals.
 This does not mean that the Third Speaker should hoard examples. The best examples
should be given to the First and Second Speakers. Third Speakers should be able to
generate new examples and not appear as though they are only regurgitating the points
rather than adding value to the debate.
 Third Speakers should avoid merely listing the arguments in chronological order. They
should re-organize the points into logical sets.
Round Four- Reply/Summary Speakers:
 Summarize the key points raised by both teams
 Focus on the key areas of clash between the two teams
 Analyze and evaluate why the debate was won by their team
 (Usually only given by the First or Second Speaker on each team. We’re changing
this for this project)
Although this is commonly known as the “Summary” Speech, students should not take
the view that it will be enough to merely list the arguments and rebuttals presented in the debate.
Given the short amount of time available, it will not be possible to do this.
Reply/Summary Speakers will add value to the debate in the following two ways:
 First, they demonstrate their understanding of the core issues of the debate by
summarizing and grouping the arguments into logical sets. In other words, this is not a
“roll-call” of points.
 Second, Reply/Summary Speakers bring the biggest value to the debate with evaluative
analysis. This means that these speakers look at the debate with a critical eye and
describe HOW the debate was won by their team. They will have to highlight the flaws
in their opponents’ approach, arguments, and rebuttals while pointing out the strength of
their own case and refutations.
 One trick Reply/Summary Speakers use is to imagine that they are describing the debate
to someone who has just walked into the room and missed all of the previous speeches.
The Reply/Summary Speaker will describe what happened in the debate and how victory
was attained.
 Reply/Summary Speakers should know that no new arguments or refutations may be
brought up during their speeches.
Sample Debate Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hndQb2VU8UU&feature=player_embedded
WSDC 2007 Rd 6 Ireland vs Korea (Legalize all drugs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATnHr8JwXd4&feature=player_embedded#!
WSDC 2002 SF vs AUS (Civil Lib vs Sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZn_AwIdBdE&feature=player_embedded
WSDC 2010 Prelim Round 6 Canada vs Korea (short version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngPv3kfPDck&feature=youtube_gdata_player
High School Debate Championship Ohio 2011