English-Speaking Union
Scotland
Juniors’ Debating Competition
Handbook
1
Contents
Page
Welcome
3
Competition rules
4
Guidelines for hosts
5
Guidance for speakers
7
Team roles
7
Proposition strategy
8
Opposition strategy
10
Extending a debate
11
General tips:
12
Rebuttal
12
POIs
12
Prioritising
13
Policy or analysis?
13
Expression and delivery
14
Guidance for adjudicators
16
Adjudicator’s Score Sheet
19
2
WELCOME FROM
ENGLISH-SPEAKING UNION SCOTLAND
The English-Speaking Union (ESU) was
founded by Sir Evelyn Wrench in 1918. Today,
the ESU is a dynamic educational charity with
a presence in more than 50 countries
worldwide; ESU Scotland celebrated its
sixtieth anniversary in 2012.
Any questions about this year’s competition
or the other activities of ESU Scotland should
be sent via e-mail to:
debates@esuscotland.org.uk
or by post to:
The aims of the ESU have remained the same
– to promote the value of effective
communication around the globe and to help
people realise their potential.
English-Speaking Union Scotland
23 Atholl Crescent
Edinburgh
EH3 8HQ
The importance of effective spoken
communication skills cannot be
underestimated. Even in a global village
where communication is dominated by
Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (the
list goes on), the ability to speak confidently in
public remains invaluable for people in all
walks of life. World leaders in politics, law,
religion, business, science and technology all
have an important skill in common. They
speak with confidence.
or by phone on:
0131 229 1528
Today, ESU Scotland runs a myriad of
competitions, workshops and other
programmes for people of all ages and
backgrounds, which focus on persuasive
spoken English.
The Juniors’ Competition provides students
with an opportunity to develop the vital skills
that enable them to speak with confidence in
public. Not only does the competition
enhance these public speaking and critical
thinking skills; it also gives students the
opportunity to showcase them in a national
competitive arena, which makes the practice
of public speaking even more engaging and
exciting for everyone involved.
3
COMPETITION RULES
Eligibility
Conduct of Rounds
The ESU Scotland’s Juniors’ Competition is
open to schools in Scotland only, unless by
specific agreement between a non-Scottish
school and ESU Scotland.
The use of props or visual aids is not
permitted. Amplifying microphones are also
not permitted. Microphones may be used for
the purpose of recording the debate only.
Teams consist of two pupils, both of whom
must be in full-time education at the same
school, at the time of the competition.
The format of the debate, including the role of
the chair, the order of speaking and the length
of speeches are outlined in this handbook and
form part of the competition rules.
Entrants into the Juniors’ should be pupils
between S1 and S3 inclusive.
Speakers may be substituted between rounds,
though teachers are advised not to do this
unless absolutely necessary.
Disqualification
Participants who breach the rules relating to
registration, eligibility, motions or the conduct
of rounds may be disqualified.
Should a team containing a substitute speaker
progress then in subsequent rounds it must
continue in that form and not revert to the
original speaker
Participants who, in the opinion of the Speech
and Debate Officer, act in a manner which
would bring themselves or ESU Scotland into
disrepute may be disqualified
Motions
Throughout the competition ESU Scotland will
be responsible for setting motions and
allocating positions to each school in each
debating tie. We will aim to give at least two
weeks’ notice to each school in each tie, to
ensure that students and teachers have as
much time as possible to prepare for the
debate.
4
GUIDELINES FOR HOSTS
The adjudicators should have an unobstructed
view of the speakers.
Organising a Round
Hosting rounds is not a prerequisite to entry.
The competition relies on schools’ hosting so
if no school offers to host in a particular area,
a school may be asked to host by the
competition organisers.
Jugs of water, glasses, pens and paper should
be placed on all tables.
Chair
Host schools are responsible for supplying
available dates to ESU Scotland, who, in turn,
will then send a choice of dates to the other
schools in each heat, until a mutually
convenient date is set.
Debates are usually chaired by a teacher of
the host school. The Chair is expected to
remain impartial. The Chair is responsible for
inviting speakers to deliver their speech and
thanking them once they have delivered their
speech and maintaining order generally.
ESU Scotland will provide the host school with
a schedule detailing the list of the
participating schools together with a teacher
contact point and the team positions in each
debating tie
Timekeeper
A teacher or pupil of the host school usually
acts as timekeeper. The timekeeper assists
the Chair with the running of the debate and
has two functions.
ESU Scotland will also be responsible for
finding qualified adjudicators for the
individual heats.
First, the timekeeper is responsible for giving
audible signals (usually using a bell or a gavel
or by clapping or tapping a glass or the table)
indicating when the speaker is in protected or
unprotected time and indicating when the
speaker’s time is up.
Setting up the Room
There are number of ways that the room can
be prepared for a Juniors’ debate.
One option is that three tables should be set
up at the front of the room: the centre table is
for the chair and the timekeeper, the table on
the left (as the adjudicators look at it) is for
the proposition teams and the table on the
right (as the adjudicators look at it) is for the
opposition teams. The first speaker on each
team should sit closest to the centre. The
adjudicators’ table should be placed at the
back of the room or half-way down if the
room is large.
For all speeches, a single audible signal should
be given at the end of protected time (after 1
minute) and at the end of unprotected time
(after 4 minutes)
At the end of protected time until the end of
unprotected time, Points of Information
(POI’s) may be offered to the speaker by the
opposing side although these do not have to
be accepted by the speaker.
At the end of the allotted time for the speech
(after 5 minutes), a double signal should be
given. If the speaker is still speaking at 5
minutes 15 seconds, the timekeeper should
give a triple signal and again at 5 minutes 30
seconds, at which point the chair should ask
the speaker to conclude their remarks.
The layout above is an example; if a more
suitable table arrangement fits your available
space (and is not creating a bias) please do
arrange the tables how you see fit.
5
The timekeeper is also responsible for
recording the length of each speech and
giving the timings to the judges after the
debate. The timekeeper should make a
highlighted note of any speaker whose speech
was significantly under or over the allotted
time.
Results
The number of regions, the number of heats
in each region, the number of schools
competing in each heat and the number of
schools progressing will change from year to
year (depending on the overall number of
schools that have entered the competition
and their location).
Adjudicators
ESU Scotland will be responsible for finding
adjudicators for the individual heats.
ESU Scotland is responsible for ensuring that
the adjudicators know how many teams they
need to select to progress to the next round.
Adjudicators must have experience of school
or university debating or some experience of
debating, argumentation, mediation, dispute
resolution or advocacy from their professional
lives.
The chair of the judging panel is responsible
for informing ESU Scotland which team(s)
have been selected to progress to the next
round.
Ideally, each heat should be judged by three
adjudicators. However, it is entirely
acceptable and not uncommon for heats to be
judged by one or two suitably qualified
adjudicators. These must not be connected
with any team that is participating in the
round. This includes parents, relatives,
teachers, coaches, students and other
employees of the school.
Adjudicators are not required to disclose the
individual marks awarded to any team or
speaker, but adjudicators should endeavour
to give some constructive feedback to all
schools and make themselves available to give
individual feedback to teams/speakers, if
requested.
Where there is a tenuous connection which
may give rise to bias or the perception of bias
(eg an ex-student or ex-teacher), the
connection must be disclosed to all teams
before the competition and all teams must
agree to be adjudicated by the person in
question.
It is the responsibility of the adjudicator and
the host teacher (if they have knowledge of
the connection) to ensure that this disclosure
is made.
At all stages of the competition, the
adjudicators’ decision is final.
6
GUIDANCE FOR SPEAKERS
Team roles
All teams in a debate have to persuade. All
speakers, barring the summary speakers, are
expected to deliver new arguments in support
of their team case. In addition to this, there
are specific roles which each team, and
individual, must fulfil.
Oppositions often start by establishing the
clash in the debate. Where do the two
benches disagree? It is possible to oppose the
practicalities of a specific policy, the principles
which underpin that policy, or both. In
debates which require some form of policy
implementation, point out practical problems
with the suggested implementation of that
policy. In debates which boil down to a clash
of principles, demonstrate why the
proposition’s principles are problematic, and
establish principles in opposition to the
motion.
The opening teams
The opening proposition team should set up
the debate, outlining what they think it is
about and what they feel the key issues at
stake are. This involves defining the motion:
explaining the way in which the terms in the
motion are to be understood in the context of
the debate. Some definitions will require
specific policies; others will start from a clash
of principles. The definition, in whatever form,
must be made explicit and clear. A more
detailed explanation of definitions may be
found later on.
It is often possible to develop a case which
outlines both practical and principled
objections to proposition cases. Oppositions
can even suggest alternative courses of action
to that which has been presented by the
opening proposition team.
Both speakers ought to respond to the speech
which precedes theirs. The first speaker
should deal with any definitional problems,
and establish the opposition case. The second
speaker should then make any additional
responses and deliver the remaining team
arguments.
The opening proposition
Opening proposition should seek to deliver
principled, and possibly practical, arguments.
The sum of a team’s arguments is referred to
as their case. It is the first speaker’s
responsibility to outline the definition and
introduce the team’s case, before moving on
to their arguments. The second speaker
should rebut (disagree with) the arguments of
the opening opposition speaker as well as
bringing in their own material.
The closing teams
Closing proposition and closing opposition
comprise the bottom half of a British
Parliamentary debate. These teams must
differentiate themselves from their opening
teams, whilst being careful not to contradict
or disagree with them.
The opening opposition
In opening opposition the team must listen
carefully to the opening proposition speakers
and respond to their arguments. Debating in
opening opposition requires quick thinking
and versatility. It is vital that speakers respond
to the actual proposition presented, rather
than the one they expected.
Rather than examining the bottom half teamby-team, it is more useful to look at the
distinctions between the two speakers, which
apply to both closing proposition and closing
opposition.
7
new ways. Using new arguments, however, is
unfair on teams who don’t have a chance to
respond. It is also irrelevant to a summary
speech. New arguments are not a reflection
on the debate that happened. New analysis of
old material is an effective way of
demonstrating the integrity of arguments that
were presented.
Extension speakers
Extension is about differentiation. It is a way
of separating the team from the top half of
the debate. In this role the speaker must take
the debate further, to areas which have not
yet been explored, through either new
analysis or argument.
Proposition strategy
Teams in the bottom half are trying to beat
not only the opposing teams, but the opening
team on their half of the table. Closing teams
must follow their opening team’s basic
principled stance, but also find a way to show
that they are a more effective team in the
context of the debate. This is a subtle art, and
success can only be achieved through the
introduction of some form of new
argumentation into the debate. In addition,
speakers must also attack the opposing
bench, either as a whole, or as two individual
teams.
Preparation
Once the speaker has decided on a topic for
the speech and has taken the time to think
about all the possible angles or arguments,
they should begin researching in more depth.
Even where the speaker has prior knowledge
of the topic, it is important for them to
broaden their perspective as much as
possible, and to ensure that the evidence and
information they use in their speech is reliable
and up-to-date.
Summary speakers
Speakers should bear the following points in
mind when researching their topic:
Summary speakers should go into the debate
with a blank piece of paper. Their task is to
listen to both sides in the debate and deliver a
biased summary of the debate that has
occurred.
Different types of sources
Speakers should aim to utilise fact-based
resources (e.g. encyclopaedias), academic
resources (e.g. journals or reports) and
opinion-based resources (e.g. newspapers or
news websites).
There are a number of different ways in which
to frame this. Most summaries take the form
of a thematic overview of the debate, looking
at the major areas of clash or contention in a
debate.
This involves bringing together the various
elements of the debate and concluding it.
Good summaries will reflect the debate which
occurred, whilst also suggesting that it was
the speaker’s side which had a better grasp
and understanding of the key ideas in that
debate.
Up-to-date information
Speakers should ensure that the information
they are relying on to support their arguments
is up-to-date. The internet is invaluable for
checking that the information already
obtained (e.g. a journal or newspaper article)
is the most up-to-date information available.
The summary speakers should spend the
debate noting the arguments delivered by
both sides. Their speech is an opportunity to
demonstrate why, in its key areas of clash,
this bench (and team) advanced the most
important arguments. In order to do this it is
necessary to analyse existing arguments in
Multiple sources
Speakers should aim, where possible, to have
more than one source of evidence,
particularly where statistics are involved. It is
generally unwise for a speaker to allow one
8
piece of evidence, from one source, to
underpin an entire argument in their speech.
an identity, you must justify that choice. Will
it be a unilateral US invasion? Will it require
UN authority? Will it be a multi-party coalition
of the willing? You must decide who is going
to enact a policy, and why.
In defining a motion it is often useful to think
of real world proposals. Most motions are set
in reference to a real world issue, and as such,
proposals often already exist which can shape
a debate. For example, in a debate on doing
more for the environment you may propose
adopting the Kyoto Protocol.
Anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence (personal stories, myths,
memories etc.) is generally unpersuasive, as it
usually lacks clarity, certainty and universal
applicability. However, depending on the
nature of the speech and the style of the
speaker, anecdotal evidence can sometimes
be used to great effect (particularly if the
speaker’s primary goal is to entertain or
inspire empathy in the audience; anecdotal
evidence can be used to demonstrate the
human dimension of an issue).
Leaving room for debate
Definitions must leave room for debate. One
way to look at them is to consider a pyramid.
Definitions considered as being far too broad
would sit near the base of the pyramid.
Conversely, those which have far too much
detail and narrow the debate too far would be
near the apex of the pyramid. The best
definitions are those which sit somewhere
near the middle of the pyramid, containing
enough detail to be clear, without narrowing
the debate unreasonably.
Justification
You must justify why you want to do what you
are proposing. In any debate where a change
to the status quo is being proposed, the
proposition needs to outline the problem with
the status quo. A whole speech may appear
irrelevant and inappropriate, if it explains that
something can be done without an
explanation of why it is necessary.
Definitional rules
Definition
There are a number of things you are not
allowed to do in definition.
Definition is an explanation of a motion’s key
terms in the context of the debate you are
going to have. It is not a dictionary definition
of every word in the motion. In deciding what
to define, it is useful for opening proposition
to think in terms of central issues, rather than
words.
Opening proposition cannot frame the terms
of the debate in a way that is unarguable. For
example, take the motion, ‘This House
believes that France is an irreligious country’.
If the proposition define ‘irreligious’ as having
no state-sponsored religion this is a truistic
definition, as it a simple fact that France has
no state-sponsored religion. There may be
other ways to analyse the level of religiosity in
France that are arguable, and the definition
must be open to those ideas.
Take, for example, the motion ‘This House
supports further expansion of the European
Union’. There is no need to define the
European Union. Rather, an opening
proposition team must outline what is meant
by expansion; for example, would they
include only Turkey, or incorporate several
countries at once? And why? Other motions
will require a proposition team to explain who
would enact a policy. The motion ‘This House
would invade Iran’ requires you as opening
proposition to assume the identity of an actor
or group of actors. Not only must you adopt
Irrelevant definitions (also known, for reasons
lost in the mists of time, as squirrels) try to set
the debate on a subject different from that
expected by the other teams taking part (and
the audience).
9
They most often appear when debaters
exploit a technical ambiguity in the wording to
twist the meaning away from the obvious
intention of the motion setter. Turning the
motion ‘This House would make voting
compulsory’ into a debate about forcing
everyone to vote on the X-Factor reality
television show is a possible meaning of the
words in the motion, but is not what you
would expect the debate to be about.
structure and the new ideas you are bringing
to the debate will be clearer.
As well as attacking individual arguments
through rebuttal you should have a general
theme (or themes) on which to base your
criticisms of the proposition. For example, in
the debate ‘This House would invade Iran’,
you may base your opposition case around
the principle of sovereignty. From this
principled standpoint you will build individual
arguments and target rebuttal, giving the case
a sense of unity.
Debates must not be unfairly located in a
specific region or country, where the
participants in the debate cannot be expected
to have knowledge of that setting, or where
the issues at stake are markedly different
from the rest of the world.
Alternatively, you may choose a more
practical line to take, centring the case
around, for example, the idea that invasion in
any form will stifle the slowly developing
democracy in Iran.
Debates must be set up in the present. They
cannot be retrospective or set in the future.
As an opposition it is useful to think of any
proposal from the proposition within the
structural framework of:
Opposition strategy
Being in opposition requires the same basic
argumentative and stylistic skills as being on
the proposition side, but also involves making
strategic choices all of its own.
NOW  ACTION  THEN
The proposition will establish a need for the
proposal, which is their description of NOW;
they will put forward a policy to deal with this
problem (ACTION) and describe a world (even
if implicitly) where that problem has been
solved, or at least mitigated (THEN).
Opposing teams, like the proposition, must
stand for something, whether it is an implicit
support for the status quo, as they object to
the implementation of a particular proposal,
or an explicit counter-proposal. A stance
which objects to both the status quo and the
proposition’s proposed change to it, without
offering any alternative, is one fraught with
problems.
Opposing teams can use this model to attack
any proposal. Each of the assumptions behind
the three elements of the structure may be
attacked generically (for example, by claiming
that NOW has been misrepresented and is
actually not a problem, or THEN will
eventually happen anyway without action);
and the relationship between multiple
elements can be challenged (for example
claiming that the ACTION will not lead to the
THEN that the proposition has described).
Attacking the proposition
Most opposition teams will combine a strong
attack upon the proposition team, in the form
of rebuttal, with the presentation of new
arguments in favour of the stance they have
chosen, be it a defence of the status quo or an
alternative proposal.
Constructive arguments and rebuttal may
contain much the same kind of content. In
opposition you should, in general, try to
separate your direct rebuttal from your
constructive arguments, because your
It is important to remember that not all
theoretical attacks on the structure can be
applied to every proposition, and that some
even contradict each other, so the line (or
lines) of attack must be chosen carefully.
10
of argument for your side as you can in the
hope that some will have been left out by the
first team on their side.
Counter-proposals
It may be prudent in opposition to offer an
alternative proposal. In situations where a
defence of the status quo is undesirable, it is
possible to concede that there are indeed
problems, but to argue that the proposition
team’s policy is not the best one to solve the
problem.
Only after the debate has started can you
choose which areas of argument to run
yourselves and which have already been
sufficiently covered. A good rule of thumb is
to narrow a broad debate and to broaden a
narrow one. For example, if an opening team
has spent their half of the debate focusing on
the broad principles which justify a policy, you
may analyse case studies demonstrating the
policy’s benefits. Conversely, if the opening
team spends its time on specifics, you may
emphasise the importance of broader
principles.
This can be done either by making a full
counter-proposal, presented in the same way
as a proposition policy is, or simply as a
suggestion.
Hard opposition
It is also possible to run what is commonly
known as a ‘hard opp’. Hard opps rarely
contain any arguments in support of anything;
neither the status quo nor any other proposal.
Rather, they simply oppose as many elements
of the proposition as possible, without adding
any constructive material. If you run a hard
opp you must bear in mind that, while you
may not actively defend it, you are still, by
implication, supporting the status quo.
Rebuttal
Extension speakers also need to spend time
on rebuttal. On the proposition bench this is
the first opportunity to tackle the second
opening opposition speaker and their team
case. For closing opposition it means tackling
the closing proposition extension speaker.
Contradictions
Extending a debate
Contradicting your opening team is called
knifing. Making arguments that cannot
logically sit side-by-side with arguments
presented by a first team will be heavily
penalised by the judges.
The jobs you have to do when in closing
proposition or closing opposition are very
different to those on the top half of the table.
It is your responsibility to extend or conclude
a debate.
Concluding a debate
The third speaker on either bench must bring
either new analysis or new arguments to the
debate. Regardless of how much already
seems to have been said on a topic by the first
four speakers, there is always scope for the
bottom half teams to differentiate themselves
from the opening team on the bench. When
preparing an extension speech, ask yourself
both what areas of argument you can talk
about that have not already been covered by
the first team on your side, and what issues
still need to be won by your side of the
debate. Preparation time, when you are a
closing team, is not about writing out full
speeches but rather thinking of as many areas
Summary speeches must draw together the
themes that dominated the debate. A
summary speaker must listen carefully
throughout and continue to prepare their
speech up until the moment they start
speaking. You should deliver no new
arguments (though you can analyse existing
arguments in a new way).
11
the speech if your refutation fits into your
main arguments, especially in summary. In
response to a strong speech, you may need to
dedicate more time to demonstrating its
flaws. On other occasions, you may decide to
keep your rebuttal brief and concentrate on
your own case. The decisions you make
should be based upon the context of
individual debates.
General Tips
Engagement
The need to actively engage with other
participants in the debate is what separates
debate from other forms of public speaking.
In addition to arguing that your team is
correct, you must also expose the flaws in
opponents’ argumentation. Speakers must
also show that they can think on their feet
and respond instantly to challenges set by
opposing speakers. This engagement occurs in
two ways in BP debating: through the rebuttal
of opponents’ arguments, and through the
giving and receiving of points of information.
Points of information
Points of information (POIs) can be offered
during a speech by any member of the
opposing bench. A POI is a chance for a
speaker to interrupt opposing speakers’
speeches and ask questions or make brief
statements. They can be offered between the
first and last minutes of an opposing speaker’s
speech. The opening and closing minutes of
each speech are protected, and no POIs can
be offered during this time.
Rebuttal
Rebuttal (or refutation) is a vital component
of BP debating. It creates engagement
between proposition and opposition teams.
The time limits on speeches mean that you
can rarely rebut everything said by the
opposing teams. Effective rebuttal is about
selecting the right arguments to refute.
It can be tempting to attack the weakest
arguments made by an opposing team or
highlight something silly they said. However,
rebuttal is your opportunity to engage with an
opposing team’s key arguments and the crux
of their case. When rebutting, you should be
looking to dismantle the logic which holds
those key arguments, and case, together.
You will always gain more credit for
attempting to engage with an opposing
team’s strongest and most important
arguments than for demolishing their
weakest, most irrelevant points.
A POI must be offered to, and then accepted
by, the speaker before it can be asked. It is
also important to note that Points of
Information should be brief (no longer than
15 seconds). They are not an additional
speech, just a short interjection.
Giving POIs
POIs can shape the flow of the debate, by
directing a speaker to discuss those areas of
the debate that you think are most
advantageous to your team. Those areas may
be where you feel you have performed
particularly well, or ones which you feel have
fallen out of the debate or been ignored by
the opposition. POIs can also be used to flag
your own arguments.
How to do it
As a closing team you can force the opening
team to spend time on their upcoming
material by asking a relevant POI. As an
opening team member, later in the debate
you can use a POI to draw the judges’
attention to material you delivered earlier.
POIs can either be positive (e.g. offering an
example or argument for your side) or
negative (e.g. highlighting inconsistencies in
There are no specific rules on how much
rebuttal you should engage in. Many speakers
tend to divide their speech between rebuttal
and constructive material, beginning with
direct attacks on the opposition before
moving on to their own material. It is up to
individual speakers to decide whether this
separation is necessary. It can be effective to
merge your rebuttal with the main section of
12
the speaker’s argument or offering a fact
which contradicts a speaker’s argument). It is
up to you to decide which is most effective in
the context of any given debate.
them. Finally you should conclude by
reminding the audience what you have said.
Taking POIs
The most important arguments should be
given the most time and come earliest in the
speech. For example, when proposing a total
ban on smoking you may have two arguments
to deliver:
Prioritising content
In a five minute speech you should take one
or two POIs. You should also vary who you
take POIs from. You will appear weak if you
deliberately avoid POIs from the stronger
speakers in the debate.
•
•
It is up to you whether you take a POI. The
impact a point can have on your speech is
determined as much by when you take one as
it is by your answer to it. Don’t take POIs midsentence or half-way through a bit of detailed
analysis. This will only confuse both you and
the audience, and may result in your speech
losing flow and impact. It is perfectly
acceptable to ask someone offering a POI to
stay standing and then accept their point
when you have finished the section of the
speech you are on (provided you don’t make
them wait too long).
Smoking kills
Cigarette smoke smells bad.
While both are perfectly legitimate
arguments, it is clear that the first argument is
more important than the second. Most
choices will not be quite this simple, but it is
important to ask yourself in which order
arguments should come during your
preparation time.
Ordering your arguments
Some arguments will flow on naturally on
from others. Take the example above, ‘This
House would ban all smoking’, and the two
arguments:
Persuasion
Debate audiences and judges are not
machines, and a speech is not a written essay.
Persuasive speeches need to be structured
clearly to help the audience to understand
their complexities, and they need to be
interesting to listeners.
•
Banning smoking will result in a black
market
•
Smoking is addictive and people will
find it hard to give up.
The two arguments naturally belong together.
If you are trying to argue that a black market
in cigarettes will develop, part of your proof
of that argument might be to demonstrate
the addictive nature of cigarettes. You should
keep the arguments together, because having
them in separate speeches, or interrupted by
another point, would make it harder to
appreciate the analytical connection between
the two arguments.
Structure
Separating arguments and presenting them in
an orderly manner makes it easier for
listeners to appreciate a speech. Clarity of
structure is more important in a speech than
in a piece of writing because audiences, unlike
readers, do not have the ability to go over
what was said again if it was unclear.
Policy or analysis?
You should tell the audience what you are
going to say (signpost) at the beginning of
your speech, and follow this structure, clearly
separating each point as you go through
Individual debates differ from each other in
terms of the emphasis placed upon policy and
analysis. For example, the motion, ‘This House
believes Africa’s problems are a legacy of its
13
colonial past’ requires opening proposition to
argue for the truth of the statement rather
than to propose any specific policy. This,
broadly speaking, is an analysis debate. On
the other hand, ‘This House would invade
Iran’ is a motion which demands a policy by
which Iran should be invaded to be presented
by opening proposition. This debate would
likely focus upon the merits and demerits of a
specific, status-quo-altering policy.
An analysis debate is essentially the
juxtaposition of two things; they can be items,
people, states, ideas, or even time periods.
Anything that can be compared can be
debated about in an analysis debate.
Examples of analysis debates include:
•
This House believes that the media is
the West’s greatest weapon in the
war on terror
•
This House believes that we were
safer during the Cold War than we are
today.
It is important to avoid perceiving all debates
as falling absolutely into the policy and
analysis categories. Many debates will have
elements of both. A motion, for example,
supporting the remilitarization of Russia could
see the presentation of a policy by which
Russia would remilitarize as well an analysis of
whether a remilitarized Russia was a good
thing. The emphasis to be placed upon either
policy or analysis can be decided by the team.
Expression and delivery
Verbal skills
Speakers should remember that delivering a
speech is not like reading an essay. If the
reader of an essay misses a line or
misunderstands a phrase, they can go back
and re-read it. If a person listening to a speech
misses a line or a phrase, they don’t get an
opportunity to hear it a second time. It is
therefore imperative that speakers speak
slowly, clearly and audibly. This will help to
ensure that their opponents and the
adjudicators hear every word, and can
comprehend what is being said.
This guide has focused primarily upon policy
debates, since they comprise the majority of
motions set in BP debate. It is, however,
worth considering a suitable approach to
analysis motions.
An analysis debate asks if the motion is true
or false, rather than if the suggestion
contained within the motion is a good one or
a bad one. Whereas policy motions will
contain some kind of directive term, for
example ‘would’ or ‘should’, analysis debate
motions are worded as statements, for
example: ‘This House believes that the
United Nations has failed.’ A policy motion on
the same issue may be something along the
lines of ‘This House would abolish the United
Nations.’
Speakers should also attempt to vary their
pitch and tone of voice, as well as the pace of
their speech (where appropriate). These
variations help to keep their listeners alert,
and help the speaker to maintain their
attention for the full five minutes of the
speech.
Pauses can also be extremely effective and
can be used to emphasise an important point
or signal the transition from one section of
the speech to another.
While proposition teams do not have to
explain any kind of policy which they are
supporting, they must be sure to define the
parameters of the debate. In the example of
the UN debate, the opening proposition team
would have to attempt to explain what they
mean by ‘failed’. Without such parameters
being set, there is no field of reference within
which the analysis can take place.
Non-verbal skills
Much of a speaker’s communication is nonverbal. For that reason, public speakers must
be conscious of their body language if they
are to engage the audience and the
adjudicators.
14
‘Open’ gestures (which help to engage the
audience) include facing the audience, and
using hands and arms freely to demonstrate,
emphasise or otherwise support the words
being spoken. By contrast, ‘closed’ gestures
(which often disengage the audience) include
the speaker folding their arms, facing away
from the audience or hanging their head.
Linguistic skills
Speakers should ensure that their use of
vocabulary is consistent (i.e. avoid using
multiple words interchangeably to convey the
same meaning, as this may lead to confusion).
Speakers who have spent a lot of time
researching for their speech will probably be
very familiar with the surrounding issues, as
well as background or ancillary subject
matter. However, speakers should bear in
mind that many of their listeners will not have
their level of specialist knowledge on the issue
and should therefore avoid the use of
technical, specialist or abbreviated jargon or
other unfamiliar terminology (without
explanation).
15
GUIDANCE FOR ADJUDICATORS

Overview
Participants and spectators must be confident
in the competence of the adjudicators if they
are to accept their decisions and take their
advice on board. For that reason, adjudication
should be as professional as possible at all
stages of the competition.
show how their reasons are relevant
and link back to their point of view.
*The higher mark for the first proposition
speaker reflects the particular importance of
good content in setting up the basis for a
good debate. It should also reward those
giving a sensible definition of the motion.
Organisation and prioritisation
The adjudication panels are normally made up
of university students who have competed in
public speaking and debating competitions at
school and university level, ESU debating
competition alumni, accomplished public
speakers and communications experts, many
of whom use their oratorical and persuasive
skills as part of their professional lives.
10 marks for all speeches
The speaker should:
 choose the most important reasons to
support their point of view
 spend more time on the most
important reasons, and less time on
less important ones.
 quickly summarise the main reasons
to support their view.
 present their reasons in a clear wellstructured order, with similar reasons
grouped together
 prove easy to follow because they
explain the structure of their speech.
Marking
All speeches receive 40 marks, with the mark
distribution for the first proposition* speech
being slightly different.
10 marks are awarded for each of the
following:
 Reasoning and evidence
 Organisation and prioritisation
 Listening and responding
 Expression and delivery
Listening and responding
5 marks for the first proposition*
10 marks for other speeches
The speaker should:
 listen carefully to other people’s
points of view
 respond to opposing points of view by
showing how they disagree
 ask challenging questions.
 work with people who share their
point of view, by supporting what
they have said
 identify the main disagreements
between different speakers and
explain who the audience and judges
listening should agree with.
Reasoning and evidence
15 marks for first proposition*
10 marks for other speeches
The speaker should:
 justify their point of view with several
reasons
 present their reasons simply and
clearly in a way the people listening
can understand
 back up their reasons with evidence
of different types, including facts,
examples and comparisons
 explain how their evidence supports
their reasons
*The lower mark for the first proposition
speaker is because they have not yet heard an
opposing speech and therefore have nothing
16
to rebut. They should, however, show some
listening ability through taking and making
points of information.
flexibility and spontaneity, where this
is relevant to their position. A flawed
attempt to debate should be marked
much more highly than a polished
public speech.
3. Teams should be very heavily
penalised, and so should not normally
progress through to the next stage of
the competition, if they:
i. offer no points of information
ii. accept no points of information
(assuming that several were
offered to them)
iii. make no attempt at rebuttal or
refutation, despite the fact that
their position at the table
makes it important that they do
so
iv. define the motion in a manner
which is very unfair to the
opposition teams
v. read their speeches
vi. are unacceptably abusive
towards their opponents
vii. have major issues with timing
(i.e. out by more than 45
seconds)
viii. fail to summarise properly in
their summary speech.
4. The judges should know how many
teams are due to progress to the next
stage of the competition. If there is
any doubt about this, the competition
organiser should be contacted
immediately.
5. One of the adjudicators (normally the
presiding judge) should speak briefly
before announcing the adjudicators’
decision. The purpose of this speech is
to explain the judges’ decision to the
audience. With this in mind, this
should usually be done by making
general remarks about the debate as
a whole, rather than offering
individual assessments of each
speaker. If it is at all possible, the
judges are asked please to make
themselves available at the end for
individual feedback.
Expression and delivery
10 marks for all speeches
The speaker should:
 be confident in what they have to say,
and not read from notes
 speak clearly, audibly and slowly
 be interesting to listen to because
they vary the tone and volume of
their voice and use pauses
 use their whole body to support their
points through gestures and their
facial expression
 choose their words and the structure
of their sentences carefully.
Feedback
Adjudicators play an integral part in the
educational process, by providing constructive
feedback to speakers after the competition.
Even though adjudication is to a certain
extent subjective and intuitive, decisions are
more likely to be understood by speakers and
coaches if they are justifiable by reference to
the objective criteria laid out in this
handbook. This also allows speakers to focus
on the specific area(s) where there is room for
improvement.
Adjudicating is also a valuable learning
experience for public speaking and debating
coaches in particular. It gives them an insight
into how their own speakers can be successful
from an adjudicator’s point of view. It also
hones their skills as coaches and enhances
their ability to deconstruct and critique a
speech, and give constructive feedback.
1. Judges are not required to fill in the
score sheets which are provided. They
should, however, be aware of the
marking scheme for the Juniors’.
2. Judges should be aware of the role
which the speakers were asked to
carry out on the table. In particular,
reward speakers for showing
17
Adjudicator’s Score Sheet
Reasoning /
Evidence
Organisation /
Prioritisation
Listening /
Responding
Expression /
Delivery
Total
1st Prop Team
1st Prop
/15
/10
/5
/10
/40
2nd Prop
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
Team Total
/25
/20
/15
/20
/80
1st Opp
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
2nd Opp
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
Team Total
/20
/20
/20
/20
/80
3rd Prop
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
4th Prop
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
Team Total
/20
/20
/20
/20
/80
3rd Opp
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
4th Opp
/10
/10
/10
/10
/40
Team Total
/20
/20
/20
/20
/80
1st Opp Team
2nd Prop Team
2nd Opp Team
GLOSSARY
Speech: A short oral presentation given on a
particular motion or resolution.
Motion: The subject or issue to be debated,
usually beginning with “This House Believes,”
“This House Would,” or “This House Supports.”
Debate: A formal contest in which the affirmative
and negative sides of a motion or resolution are
advocated by speakers on opposing sides.
Adjudicator/Judge: An observer of a debate who
is responsible for deciding which team has won.
Where there is more than one adjudicator, they
sit as an adjudication panel.
Chair: The person who is responsible for
introducing speakers, inviting them to the
podium to give their speech, inviting them to
resume their seat at the end of their speech,
ensuring that the rules of the competition are
observed and keeping order generally.
Timekeeper: The timekeeper assists the
chairperson in the running of the debate by
timing each speech and providing signals to the
speakers indicating how much of their time has
elapsed.
House: The chamber or auditorium where the
debate takes place.
Floor: The members of the audience.
Proposition/Government/Affirmative: The team
that argues in favour of the motion or resolution.
Opposition/Negative: The team that argues
against the motion or resolution.
Point of Information (POI): A formal interjection
which may be made during an opposing speaker’s
speech. A POI is offered when a speaker stands
up and addresses the current speaker saying “on
a point of information” or “on that point.” POIs
may be accepted or declined by the current
speaker. If declined, the speaker offering the POI
must resume their seat. If accepted, the speaker
offering the POI may make a brief point, after
which they must resume their seat and the
current speaker continues with their speech.
Protected Time: The period of time during which
POIs may not be offered, usually the first and last
minute of the speech.
Unprotected Time: The period of time during
which POIs may be offered.
Rebuttal/Refutation: The term given to an
argument made in direct response to a contrary
argument put forward by an opposing speaker.
Case: A set of arguments supporting one side of
the motion or resolution.
Model: The framework of a proposition. Where a
motion or resolution requires a proposition team
to propose a policy which is contrary to the status
quo, the first proposition speaker must specify
the parameters within which that policy change
will operate. For example, a team proposing the
motion “This House Would ban the teaching of
religion in schools” would need to specify the
jurisdiction within which the ban is proposed to
operate, as well as any exclusions or exceptions
to the ban.
Summary Speech: The final speeches on each
side of the debate. Summary speeches should
summarise the debate including any floor debate
or questions from the audience and should not
contain any new material. POIs cannot be offered
during summary speeches.
Status Quo: The state of affairs which currently
exists, the course of action currently pursued or
the present system.
Manner/Style: The collective term for a range of
mechanisms employed by a speaker in the course
of a speech including but not limited to emotion,
humour, vocabulary, tone of voice and body
language.
Matter/Content: The substance of a speaker’s
case, including the strength of the individual
arguments and the extent to which those
arguments are supported by empirical evidence,
logical analogies and reasoned analysis.
Truism: Something which is so obvious or self
evidently true that it does not require proof or
argument. To define a motion in a truistic way is
to effectively make it self-serving and
undebatable.
Squirrel: Defining a motion in a manner contrary
to the spirit of the motion and the intended
debate. Both a verb (“he squirrelled that
motion”) and a noun (“that definition was a
squirrel”), an example of a squirrel would be
taking the motion “This House Believes that
China should go green” and proposing that China
should give the green light and grant
independence to Taiwan (thus turning a debate
which should have been about environmentalism
into a debate about Taiwanese independence).