BC HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Debating Calendar
2. Running Meetings
3. Games
4. Support Organizations
5. Style Guides
i. British Parliamentary
ii. Canadian National Debate Format
iii. Cross Examination
DEBATING CALENDAR
For a complete list of the year’s tournaments, refer to the DSABC Website
(see Support Organizations); included here are the major tournaments and
styles to be practiced at certain times of the year. For details as to what each
style entails, see Style Guides.
UBC High School Tournament – BP/Cross X style: With skill levels
ranging from beginners to the best in Western Canada, this tournament,
which takes place from late October to early November, is the largest High
School tournament in Western Canada.
Law Foundation Cup – CNDF/Cross X style: This is BC’s provincial
debating championship; to compete in the February tournament, you must
do well in regional qualifiers, which usually take place in late January or
early February.
RUNNING MEETINGS To help your meetings run as smoothly as possible, we’ve included a
couple of tips to make it easy for you. We’ve also included some games
(below) which we’ve found fun.
• Hold a debate every meeting! A game can be fun to break things up,
but you should be holding a debate as often as possible.
• Get everyone to debate, especially those new to the club; it is
beneficial to everyone to have a large pool of competitive members to
practice with.
• Make sure you’re practicing the proper style; you will often find that
you will enjoy one style more than another, but you won’t be
competitive at tournaments if you’re unable to engage properly in the
style specific to that tournament.
• Go to as many tournaments as you can; its great experience for all
members to meet new challenges, and you get to meet and engage
with numerous like-minded, interesting people.
• Find a coach; if your school has a long tradition of debate, you may
be able to receive skilled judging from your senior students.
However, for those new to debate, a UBC coach (if you need one, see
below how to contact us) or otherwise can go a long way to
providing the necessary experience.
• Take it easy! Debate should be a fun and engaging way to exchange
ideas, and unfortunately, some clubs lose sight of that in the drive to
compete. Some competition is absolutely essential, but forgetting the
big picture can lead to a stressful, unhealthy club atmosphere.
GAMES There are a number of situations in which you might need a good game to
liven up a meeting. While we encourage you to come up with your own
games, (and share them with us!) here are a few that we’ve found fun
and/or helpful. If you have any you’d like to add, send them our way, and
we’ll be sure to include them on next year’s list.
Icebreakers
1. Sombrero/Top Hat Debates
• Start with a list of topics. They should be broad, interesting,
and probably silly, though they can surround any topic you
like. You should have 20 or so.
• One debater, chosen at random, draws a topic from a
Sombrero/Top Hat, and must give a 1 minute speech in
support of topic. Creativity is encouraged.
• The next debater gives a speech in opposition to the topic for 1
minute.
• Repeat, with a new debater and new topic.
• The goal of the game is to encourage new debaters to become
comfortable with public speaking in a fun environment.
2. Triple Speech
• 3 minute speeches
• Participants pick a topic from a hat and speak for one minute
about it.
• Then, they pick a new topic and speak for the 2nd minute about
that, then repeat for a 3rd topic and minute.
• Must transition between topics
• Aids public speaking, impromptu idea development
Skill Development
1. Backwards Debate
• Begins with the judge giving the RFD, and telling each of the
debaters how their speeches went.
• Debate begins in reverse speaker order, starting with the whip.
The debaters use the criticism of the judge as areas to focus on
doing well, and stick exclusively to the content the judges told
them that they had provided.
• They also rebut the statements of the next speech (already
knowing the content the judge provides).
2. POI Round
• Set up two teams; one person on the 1st, and 3-4 on the 2nd.
• 1st team begins a speech in support of a resolution (little/no
model); after 2-3 minutes, the 2nd team begins POIing. They
take turns offering POI’s, and the speaker must take one every
30 seconds.
• Round ends when speaker is stumped by a POI.
• Goal is encourage creative, deadly POI’s and quick, coolheaded responses.
3. (Subject) only Round
• Normal debate round, except only points concerning a certain
subject may be considered, such as Econ or (tougher)
Ethics/Morality.
• Encourages the creative development of points, as well as a
deeper understanding of the application of certain subjects.
4. “You must be joking”
• Partners are given a high burden case, such as “Legalizing all
Narcotics.”
• One argues for each side, or it’s combined with a POI Round.
• Goal is to develop arguments from First Principles.
• Creative arguments are also encouraged.
SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS Debate and Speech Association of British Columbia (DSABC)
http://www.bcdebate.org/
UBC Debate Society (UBCDS)
http://ubcdebate.com/highschool/
ubcdebate.highschool@gmail.com
STYLE GUIDES British Parliamentary (BP)
Introduction:
This guide is aimed primarily at those of you who have little to no British
Parliamentary experience. It is intended to illustrate the mechanics and
basic tactics of BP. Sometimes beginners can be discouraged by BP because
of various factors in the round. But BP done well can be an incredibly
rewarding experience, and trying BP can improve the way you debate in
other styles.
The Basics:
In BP there are 4 teams in each round. Two teams represent the
Government, and two teams represent the Opposition. The Government
supports the resolution, and the Opposition opposes the resolution. The
teams are also divided into the Opening and Closing halves of the debate.
The teams are organized like this in the room:
|
Opening Government (OG) |
Opening Opposition (OO)
______|______
|
Closing Government (CG) |
Closing Opposition (CO)
|
There are two speakers on each team. Each speaker has a title. The titles
are:
OG: Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
CG: Member of the Government
Government Whip
OO: Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
CO: Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
The speaking order is as follows:
1. Prime Minister
First Speaker, OG
2. Leader of the Opposition
First Speaker, OO
3. Deputy Prime Minister
Second Speaker, OG
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Second Speaker, OO
5. Member of the Government
First Speaker, CG
6. Member of the Opposition
First Speaker, CO
7. Government Whip
Second Speaker, CG
8. Opposition Whip
Second Speaker, CO
Debates are presided over by a Speaker, who is often the Chair of the
adjudicator panel. The Speaker keeps time and calls debaters to the floor.
Each debater has 7 minutes to speak. The first and last minutes are
protected time. This means that no POIs may be offered during this time.
The Speaker will give a signal at the end and the beginning of protected
time, at the seven-minute mark, and at the end of grace. The Speaker will
probably not give time signals otherwise, so it is recommended that
debaters bring a stopwatch to time themselves or their partner.
There are no Points of Order, or Points of Personal Privilege.
At the end of each debate, the teams will be ranked from first place to
fourth place. Each ranking has a point value associated with it. The
common point values used are as follows:
First Place
=
3 points
Second Place
=
2 points
Third Place
=
1 point
Fourth Place
=
0 points
Your points are added over the course of the tournament. The break is
determined by point total, and speaker points if some teams have the same
point total.
Matter and Manner
In BP there are two categories that you are judged on as a speaker. Matter
is the content of your speech, and manner is how you present that content.
Matter and manner are weighted equally. The lists include some of the
more common elements of matter and manner, but are not exhaustive.
Matter Includes:
• Substantive arguments for your side
• Rebuttal arguments
• Case Studies / Facts
• POIs
Manner Includes:
• Humor
• Appropriate language
• Engaging the audience
Roles of the Teams and Speakers
You’ll hear a lot about the “roles” of teams and speakers in BP. In order for
a round to be able to develop properly, the teams participating in the
round must fulfill certain criteria. When they succeed they will have
fulfilled their role and they will be developing the debate. If they fail then
the debate will suffer in quality because of it, and this will absolutely be
considered in the adjudication.
Roles of the Teams (Overview)
Opening Government:
• Defines the terms of the debate
• Opens the case for the Government
• Opposes the case of the Opening Opposition when it is presented
Opening Opposition:
• Opposes the case of the Opening Government
• Opens the case for the Opposition
Closing Government:
• Extends the Government case
• Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams
• Summarizes the debate
Closing Opposition:
• Extends the Opposition case
• Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams
• Summarizes the debate
Roles of the Speakers (Overview)
Prime Minister (Opening Government):
• Defines the resolution
• Introduces the Government case
Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition):
• Rebuts what PM said
• Introduces Opening Opposition case
• If there’s going to be a definitional challenge, the LO must
mention it in their speech, otherwise all the other teams in the
round must accept the original definition (See: Challenging the
Definition)
Deputy Prime Minister (Opening Government):
• Rebuts what LO said
• Continues Opening Government case
Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition):
• Rebuts what DPM said
• Continues Opening Opposition case
Member of the Government (Closing Government):
• Extends the Government case
• Rebuts what DLO said
Member of the Opposition (Closing Opposition):
• Extends the Opposition case
• Rebuts what MG said
Government Whip (Closing Government):
• May introduce new contentions, but it’s not generally
recommended
• Rebuts what the MO said
• Summarizes the debate
Opposition Whip (Closing Government):
• Absolutely no new contentions may be introduced, but new
evidence in support of existing contentions may be introduced
• Rebuts what the GW said
• Summarizes the debate
Role of the Opening Government
The first goal of an OG team is to present a clear, coherent, and above all,
contentious case. Remember that the OG case must be contentious enough
to last for eight speeches, and 56 minutes of debate. One of the most
important things OG teams should keep in mind is that bold cases are
generally better to run than squirreled cases that run out of steam within
the first few speeches. It is debate, after all. This doesn’t mean that you
should propose that humans eat their young. But it does mean that you
shouldn’t be afraid of proposing controversial models or cases. The major
point: Propose bold, but not suicidal cases.
The next thing that you must remember as OG is that your case must be
within the spirit of the resolution. At most BP tournaments the resolutions
are directed. This means that the resolution will hint at the topic that
should be discussed. However, the wording will usually be such that the
OG will have a degree of flexibility in how they frame their case. However,
a degree of flexibility does not mean that the OG can ignore the resolution
(like we do at most CUSID tournaments).
An example of an acceptable and unacceptable interpretation of a
resolution:
Resolution: THW Sell its Children
Acceptable: THW Legalize Surrogacy for Profit
Unacceptable: THBT Developing Nations Should Prioritize Economic
Development over Environmental Protection
The reason why the second interpretation is abusive is because the original
resolution clearly hints at a topic involving the exchange of children for
some benefit. This could be a myriad of things, from surrogacy for profit,
to foreign adoption limits. So the OG has a degree of flexibility in choosing
a topic relating to the selling of children. With this in mind, the second
interpretation clearly goes against the spirit of the resolution.
The Role of the Opening Opposition
The Opening Opposition role is probably the one that debaters new to BP
will have the least amount of trouble with. It’s fairly similar to the
standard CP Opposition, but with different timings. However, there are
some extremely important differences between the two.
As the OO team, your role is twofold. You must refute what the OG team
has said, but it is not enough to simply poke holes in the OG case. You
must also bring in constructive arguments of your own. It is not enough
to go into a BP round as an OO team and do a rebuttal-only opposition. A
good OO case would make sense if the wording of the resolution were
reversed, and OO became the OG. You have to bring your own
constructive analysis to the round.
Good OO teams will often tie in some of their rebuttal with their
constructive points as well. This allows the judges to see that you’re
engaging with the other team’s arguments as well as using them to build
up your own. Using this style will also help you stay under the time limit,
which is often a difficult thing to do if you’re faced with a lot of rebutting
and summarizing.
So remember: It’s not enough to say why their ideas are stupid, you have
to say why your ideas are smart.
The Role of the Closing Teams
The closing positions of the debate are where we see the most significant
difference between BP and CP debating. Both closing teams are expected to
offer an extension for their opening team’s case. What is an extension? An
extension can take many forms:
• Switching the focus of the debate from practical to philosophical
arguments, or vice versa
• Bringing in new practical/philosophical arguments
• Focusing on a specific case study
• Focusing on an already mentioned argument and expanding on it
significantly
This is an incredibly short list of acceptable extensions. The main goal for a
closing team is to differentiate yourself from the opening team, but still
support them. It is very important that you support the opening team. But
at the same time it’s still important for your arguments to be better than
theirs. So you have to make sure that your case has an over-arching theme
that the judges can easily identify, that makes your team distinct from the
opening team, and still supports the opening team. This doesn't have to be
difficult. Many teams stress themselves out about the closing positions
because of the extension, but being on the closing half of the debate has
distinct advantages. The closing teams have the ability not only to
introduce their own constructive matter and rebut what the other team has
said, but also to summarize the debate in their own words.
The summary is to be done by the second speaker on each closing team.
This is an integral part of the role of each closing team. There are many
ways to summarize the debate. Some speakers like to identify the main
themes that were analyzed during the round. Some speakers like to label
each team with a name describing their arguments. One of the easiest ways
for debaters new to BP to go through their summary speech is to identify
three questions that need to be answered at the end of the round, and say
why your side, and particularly your team, bring the best resolution to
those questions. Any style you choose is fine so long as it gives a
substantive summary of the arguments in the round, and why you won
those arguments. As a reminder: The Opposition Whip is not allowed
any new arguments in their speech, and it is highly recommended that
the Government Whip focus entirely on summery, as well.
Basic Tactics and Pitfalls:
POIs:
• Give two POIs, and take two POIs
• POIs shouldn't be given for the sole purpose of destroying the other
team's case. POIs should build your case up as well.
• If you're in the opening half of the debate your priority in the second
half should be to remain involved. Make sure your arguments aren't
lost among the second half of the debate. POIs are the best way to
accomplish this.
• If you're in the second half of the debate then you should be extremely
careful about the POIs that you give to first half teams. Sometimes your
opening team may try and steal your extension if you give too much
away in your POIs.
• Try to remain involved in the debate by standing on POIs, but do not
harass the speaker by continually standing on POIs and saying things
like "On Liberty", "On the Geneva Convention", etc.
• It is always better to get in one or two excellent POIs than four or five
mediocre ones. One of the best ways to accomplish this is for you and
your partner to put a sheet a paper between you with your best POI
written down. Then, when the speaker takes either of you you're certain
to have an excellent POI.
• Just because everyone else is standing up on a POI doesn't mean you
have to, Sometimes when a speaker says something monumentally
stupid everyone on opposite benches will stand up. Usually the speaker
won't take a POI at that time, but if there's someone who stood up late,
they just might let them ask a question. Often, the debater giving the
POI will be caught off-guard by this. So don't stand up on a POI just
because everyone else is. But if you do, make sure you have a
question.
• Let people finish their question before you wave them down, but if they
start to make a speech, or refuse to sit down, start waving them down
immediately. If they still won't sit down then the speaker will deal with
them.
• Finish your thought before you accept a question. It is very easy to
forget where you were if you allow someone to interrupt you.
• If you want to get your question taken it is often better to stand at the
end of the speaker's point. They'll be more likely to take you.
• If you are in a round with teams of very disparate skills, it may at first
seem like a good idea to take POIs from the weakest team. And that can
work. But the judges will be more impressed if you give a good
answer to a difficult POI than if you smack down a weak POI. So you
might want to choose to take POIs from the better team. This will show
the judges that you're willing to engage the better team in the round.
Organization:
• At the beginning of your speech tell the judges what you're going to be
speaking about.
• More advanced debaters may feel comfortable speaking without
numbering their points or signposting where they're going with their
speech. But the majority of beginning BP debaters will probably find it
helpful to number their points and to make very clear to the judges
what they're speaking about. This helps the judges keep track of your
most important points, and it helps you cover everything you need to.
• Pay attention to your timing. If you say that you're going to introduce
three constructive points and then you run out of time, that will reflect
poorly on you.
• Always fill your time.
Speaking Style:
• The most important thing is to keep the audience engaged. You don't
want them drifting off and thinking you're boring.
• There are many ways to keep the audience and judges engaged. These
include humor, intelligent analysis, and delivery.
• Not everyone can be a funny speaker, and that's ok. Most people aren't.
But it will help if you can use a few funny quips, or open with a joke.
• Avoid being monotonous. Vary your tone and pace of delivery.
• Never insult another debater's race, gender, sexual orientation, or
religion. Anything offensive will be penalized. Err on the side of
caution.
Analysis:
• Try to introduce facts, case studies, and philosophical analysis instead
of statistics.
• Statistics are boring, they can be easily dismissed by the opposition,
they generally fall into "specific knowledge", and they're easily falsified.
• Focus on examples. Appropriate examples and case studies will make a
case better for the beginning BP debater than any pretty rhetoric can.
• Stay focused. Remember what you are trying to communicate to the
audience, and then communicate it. Don't go off on tangents.
Definitional Challenges:
• Definitional challenges are exceedingly rare.
• Do not object to a definition of a resolution if it is merely stupid or
generally bad.
• The only time you should object to the definition is if it is a truism or
tautology.
• The only speaker who can object to the OG definition is the LO. If the
LO doesn't object, no one else can.
• If the LO objects to the definition then they must substitute their own.
• The remaining debaters then have to decide which definition to use.
• If the remaining debaters use the LOs definition then the debate can
continue on like normal.
• If there is still disagreement about the definition then the closing teams
must decide which definition to support, or whether to substitute their
own.
• This is why it is usually an exceptionally bad idea to challenge a
definition that isn't a truism or tautology. It's very messy.
Knifing:
• Knifing is when a closing team, or even a partner on the same team,
blatantly disagrees with a fundamental part of the substantive case that
they're supposed to be supporting. (Effectively knifing someone in the
back).
• In the vast majority of situations you should not knife your opening
team. It will be a negative factor for you in the adjudication as
supporting your opening team is a fundamental part of your role.
• However, occasionally your opening team will be so shrill and off the
mark that you'll have to basically ignore what they said in order to
salvage your side of the round. You may have to twist what they said in
order to make sense of their case. Be careful with this strategy. You
probably won't take a first, but you may be able to salvage a point or
two out of the round.
Tactics for High Bracket Rounds:
• While it is always a good thing to take a first place in a BP round, once
you get into the high bracket rounds the most important thing is to
avoid taking the fourth..
• When you get into high rooms you'll find that the competition between
the teams becomes that much closer. So it's important not to give the
judges an excuse to drop you. Watch the small things as well as the big
ones. Be careful with timings, signposting, and rebutting what your
opponents have said.
• Do not stress out about your position in the round, or whether other
teams are really good. Concentrate only on staying involved in the
round, and demonstrating good analysis and argumentation. A lack of
confidence will show through.
Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF)
Style
This is the new style of debate to be used at the National Debating
Championships. Individual provinces are strongly encouraged, but not
required, to implement this style at their qualifying events. It is in some
ways a cross between Parliamentary Debating and World’s Style Debating.
Teams
Each team consists of two people, and the teams are called the
“Proposition” and “Opposition”.
Individual speakers are referred to as its First and Second Speakers.
Topics
Topics are to be on substantive issues. All motions will start with “This
House ...” No squirreling is permitted.
The speaking order:
First Proposition Speaker - Constructive Speech 8 minutes
First Opposition Speaker - Constructive Speech 8 minutes
Second Proposition Speaker - Constructive Speech 8 minutes
Second Opposition Speaker - Constructive Speech 8 minutes
First Opposition Speaker - Summary/Rebuttal 4 minutes
First Proposition Speaker - Summary/Rebuttal 4 minutes
Description of Constructive Speeches
(a) The first proposition speaker has to define the terms, establish the
caseline and give the case division (who covers what points). This speaker
will normally have two or three constructive arguments. The first speaker
must make the team’s approach crystal clear.
(b) The first opposition speaker must clash with the points just made by the
first proposition and advance the caseline, case division and normally the
first two arguments of the opposition side. In World’s Style, this division is
usually 2 minutes and 6 minutes, although for our purposes these are just
guidelines. The debater should be evaluated on the overall effectiveness of
the speech. Constructive argumentation or refutation may be done first,
and once again, the judges will consider the effectiveness of the strategy
chosen.
(c) The second proposition speaker has to clash with the case presented by
the first opposition speaker, and should advance one or two more
constructive arguments for the proposition. The speaker should also take
time to rebuild the proposition case. The arguments must have been
announced in the first proposition speech.
(d) The second opposition speaker should also introduce one or two
constructive arguments. These new arguments must have been announced
in the first opposition speech. This speaker should also take time to clash
with the new constructive matter presented by the second proposition, and
summarize the opposition case presented. He/she should NOT engage in
an overall summary / rebuttal of the debate.
Summary / Rebuttal Speeches
The first speaker on each side, starting with the Opposition, will deliver a
four minute summary/rebuttal speech. It was decided that there would be
no set format for this speech, given the variety of valid strategies and
techniques used. In general, speakers should attempt to summarize the key
themes or ideas that have taken place in the debate. This speech tries to put
the debate in context and explain the ‘crux’, or the internal logic of both
cases and explains why, on this basis, his/her team has to win. It can
examine and summarize the arguments presented, but should focus on the
major areas of contention that evolved during the round. This is the final
opportunity for a team to convince the judge why his/her team has won
the round. During those speeches no new constructive arguments may be
introduced except by the proposition debater who is exercising his/her
right to reply to new arguments tendered during the final Opposition
constructive speech. he/she can not introduce new lines of reasoning. The
counter argumentation and counter example (or even counter illustration)
must be in 'close and direct' opposition to the opposition points.
Points of Information
Points of Information, also known as POIs for short, are used in Worlds
Style, plus a variety of other debating forums. Essentially, a POI is a
question or statement that one makes while someone is giving a speech as a
means of gaining a tactical advantage.
It is expected that every speaker offer and accept POIs during the round.
POIs are only allowed during the constructive speeches, but not during the
first and last minutes of these speeches ( called “protected time” ). During
the round, the moderator will bang the desk after one minute has elapsed
to signal that POIs are now allowed, and again with one minute remaining
in a speech, to signal that time is once again protected. Points of
information should be short and to the point.
To offer a Point of Information, a debater may stand silently, possibly
extending an arm. A debater may also simply say “on a point of
information”, or “on that point”. The speaker has control over whether to
accept the point. One may not continue with their point of information
unless the floor is yielded by the speaker. The speaker may do one of
several things:
a) Reject the point briefly, perhaps by saying something like “no thank
you” or “not at this time”. The debater who stood on the point will sit
down. It is also acceptable for a debater to politely wave down the speaker
without verbally rejecting it and disrupting his/her speech.
b) Accept the point, allow the point of information to be asked, and then
proceed to address the point. A speaker may address the point briefly and
move on, choose to merge an answer into what they were going to say, or
state that they will deal with this later on (in which case be sure you do!)
c) Say something like “just a second”, or “when I finish this point”, and
then yield the floor when they have finished their sentence or thought.
It is expected that each debater will accept at least two POI’s during
his/her remarks. Each debater on the opposing team should offer, at least,
two POI's to the debater delivering the speech. Adjudicators are instructed
to penalize teams if the lower limits are not attained! How well a debater
handles themselves in the rough and tumble of offering and accepting
POI’s is key in this style of debate.
Evaluation
The ballot for this style of debate contains the following criteria: Content,
Style & Strategy. While points of information do not get marks on their
own, they are weighted, perhaps significantly, in a judge’s decision. Judges
are encouraged to score holistically and award a final score that makes
sense in both absolute and relative terms. The win-loss is critical, and
judges must weigh this very carefully in their adjudication. For more
details, see the adjudicator guide.
Other Points
Points of clarification, order, points of personal privilege and heckling are
all prohibited.
Cross Examination Style (Cross X)
Introduction
Cross-examination debate has a flavour all its own. Debating of every type
rewards those who can think on their feet, speak well and prepare
thoroughly; but Cross-examination debate puts special emphasis on these
qualities. Debaters must answer questions immediately - without
destroying their own case or aiding their opponent’s. They must conceal
their own damaging admissions behind a facade of indifference. And they
must know their case sufficiently well that they can pull the most telling
facts together to answer an unexpected query. In short, this style of debate
highlights three vital characteristics possessed by a good debater.
How it differs from other styles
Cross-examination debating was developed in the 1920’s, probably in the
Pacific northwest, to accentuate the clash in debating. It differs from
Parliamentary debate in two senses: no formal interruptions (Points of
Order or Privilege) or heckling are permitted; and there is a period at the
end of each debater’s speech when he or she is questioned by an opponent.
In a sense, then, Cross-examination debate is more a copy of the court room
than of Parliament, but this comparison is misleading. The content or
substance of each debate is introduced through a debater’s constructive
remarks, and the cross-examination period is chiefly a way of identifying
differences in the two cases rather than a means of introducing
information. The fact that no interruptions are permitted allows a debater
to have better control over the timing of his or her remarks - a telling point
will not be interrupted at the climax by a Point of Privilege. But the crossexamination portion of the debate forces a debater to respond to
opponent’s arguments, pins him or her down to particular views, and
exposes his or her own argument to a fairly searching analysis.
The rules of Cross-examination debate differ from other debate styles only
slightly:
1. No formal interruptions are permitted during the course of the
debate, although at the end of the debate, an opportunity will be
afforded to debaters to complain of any rule violations and
misrepresentations by their opponents.
2. At the end of each debater’s initial remarks (but not after the
rebuttals, if separate rebuttals are permitted), he or she will be
questioned by an opponent, usually for up to two or three minutes or
so.
3. While being questioned, a “witness” may only answer questions; the
only questions permitted in reply are to have a confusing query
answered. Witnesses must answer the questions themselves – neither
the witness nor the “examiner” may seek help from a colleague,
although both may rely on source materials and books during the
examination. The witness must answer all questions directly and
honestly.
4. While asking questions, an examiner may not make statements or
argue with the witness; he or she may only ask questions of the
witness. Judges are instructed to disregard information introduced
by an examiner while questioning, and to penalize examiners for
breaking the rules.
5. There are no formal rules of evidence which govern the sort of
question which may be asked, though common sense dictates that the
examination should be limited to fair questions on relevant subjects;
these need not arise out of the preceding speech. Moreover, there
must be no brow-beating or attempts to belittle an opponent, and
debaters must treat one another with courtesy. Many of the
conventions of Parliamentary debate are also absent - there is no
proscription which prohibits calling another debater by name, and it
is common practice to address opponents by their first names,
especially during the course of cross-examination. They may also be
addressed as “witness” and “examiner”, as the case may be, but
pejorative references should be avoided. Except when questioning or
answering questions, one’s opponents should always be referred to
in the third person rather than directly. (For example, “he told you
that ...”, “the witness said ...” or “my friend thinks ...”, but not “you
told us ...” or “you said.”) The moderator and any other members of
the audience may be addressed either directly or generally and it is
common to refer to “Ladies and Gentlemen”. “My point, ladies and
gentlemen, is simply that ...” correspondingly, teams are not the
“Government” and the “Opposition” but rather the “affirmative” and
the “negative” (or occasionally the “proposers” and the “opposers”).
Of course, individual members of a team may be referred to as noted
above, but as there is no “House”, they are not “Honourable
Members” but at best, “Honourable Friends”. The procedures that
prevail at a cross-examination debate are much the same as those
present in a Parliamentary House, with a chairman moderating and
introducing each debater at the beginning of his remarks (but not
introducing the debater conducting a cross-examination: that follows
directly on the conclusion of a constructive speech, without
interruption or further introduction).
Speaking Times (two person teams)
1st Affirmative (constructive speech) 4 minutes
Cross-examination by 1st Negative 2 minutes
1st Negative (constructive speech) 4 minutes
Cross-examination by 2nd Affirmative 2 minutes
2nd Affirmative (constructive speech) 7 minutes
Cross-examination by 2nd Negative 2 minutes
2nd Negative (constructive speech) 7 minutes
Cross Examination by 1st Affirmative 2 minutes
1st Negative (rebuttal-defence-summary speech) 3 minutes
1st Affirmative (rebuttal-defence-summary speech) 3 minutes