A student delivering a speech to a full classroom at a competition

The beginner’s guide

How to debate: a complete beginner’s guide

Everything a new debater needs in one place: what a debate is, how a round runs, what each speaker does, how to build an argument and take one apart, how judges decide, a full model debate with the judge’s reasons, and a four-week plan to your first real round. Written by coaches who teach this every week, for students from about age nine upward and the parents and teachers helping them.

By Peregrine Beckett with the WSDC Prep coaching team

3rd Best APDA Debater · TOC Semifinalist · Columbia Debate Society Coach

October 11, 2026

1 motion

A statement to argue for or against. You do not choose your side.

2 teams

Proposition and Opposition, three speakers each in World Schools.

3 skills

Build an argument, take one apart, show the judge which matters more.

4 weeks

Enough to have your first real debate, with the plan at the end of this page.

Start here

What is a debate?

A debate is a structured contest of reasoning. Two sides are given a statement, called the motion, and assigned to argue for or against it. They speak in turn for a fixed time, respond to what the other side has said, and a judge decides which side was more persuasive, based only on what was said in the room.

Three things separate it from an ordinary argument. First, you do not choose your side, so the question is never “what do you believe?” but “what is the best case for this position?” Second, you must answer the other side: a speech that ignores what the opponents said loses even if every sentence in it is true. Third, there is a judge, and the judge is not persuaded by volume, confidence or clever words. They are persuaded by reasons they can follow and repeat back.

That last point is why debate is learnable. Underneath every polished speaker is the same small set of moves: state a claim, explain why it is true, show why it matters, take apart what the other side claimed, and tell the judge how to compare what is left. This guide teaches those moves in the order they build on one another, using World Schools debate, the international three-a-side school format, as the worked example. Almost everything transfers to the other formats, and the table below shows where they differ.

Who this guide is for

Beginners of any age, and the adults helping them. What a good beginner looks like changes with age, so here is the honest version.

Age	What to expect	What “good” looks like
Younger juniors8 to 11	Short speeches of 2 to 4 minutes, friendly motions about school, animals, screens and sport, lots of games. Formal roles are introduced slowly.	Stating a clear opinion, giving one reason that is actually a reason, and listening to the other side long enough to disagree with something they said.
Juniors11 to 14	The real format arrives: speaker roles, 4- to 5-minute speeches, points of information, a judge who explains the decision. Junior World Schools divisions and school clubs live here.	Two developed arguments with a mechanism and an impact, a rebuttal that names the point it is answering, and a speech that finishes on time.
Seniors14 to 18	Full-length speeches, impromptu motions on politics, economics and ethics, tournaments with elimination rounds. Most students who start here compete within a term.	A case the whole team shares, rebuttal aimed at the best version of the opposing argument, and weighing that tells the judge how to decide.
Adult beginnersUniversity and beyond	University societies run British Parliamentary almost everywhere, with 15 minutes of prep and four teams in the room. Novice-only rounds and tournaments exist and are worth seeking out.	Comfort speaking for seven minutes from a one-page plan, and the habit of asking what the other side is really claiming before you answer it.

The map

Which debate format will you meet first?

Every format is the same game with different settings: how many speakers, how long they speak, how much preparation time, whether you can interrupt, and how the judge scores. The one you will meet first depends on where you live. In the United States, school debate usually means Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas or Policy, with World Schools growing fast through the NSDA. In the UK, schools debate in the ESU Mace and in British Parliamentary at the university-run schools competitions. Australia, New Zealand and much of Asia use a three-a-side format with no interruptions. Internationally, World Schools is the common language.

Format	Teams	Speeches	Preparation	Interruptions	Closing speech	Judged on	Where
World Schools (WSDC)	2 teams of 3	8 min each; juniors often 4–5 min	Prepared motions weeks ahead; impromptu motions get 1 hour	Yes, between minutes 1 and 7	4-min reply speech, no POIs, no new arguments	Style 40 / Content 40 / Strategy 20	World Schools Debating Championships, NSDA Nationals, TOC, US state divisions, international opens
British Parliamentary (BP)	4 teams of 2	7 min (5 min at many school events)	15 minutes	Yes, outside the first and last minute	None; the two whip speeches close	Teams ranked 1st to 4th by persuasiveness	World and European university championships, Oxford and Cambridge Schools, most UK and European competitions
ESU Schools’ Mace (UK)	2 teams of 2	7 min each	Motion set in advance	Yes, about 10 seconds each, not in the first or last minute	5-min summary speech, fully protected	Four Key Skill Sets, 40 marks per speaker	UK secondary schools, ages 11 to 18
Australian schools 3v3	2 teams of 3	6–8 min depending on age	Prepared, or about 1 hour for short-prep topics	No	Reply speeches in some competitions	Matter, Manner, Method	Australia, New Zealand, much of Asia
Public Forum (US)	2 teams of 2	4-min constructives and rebuttals, 3-min summaries, 2-min final focus	Topic changes monthly or bimonthly; 3 min prep time per team	No; three crossfire periods instead	2-min final focus	Lay or flow judge; ballot for the more persuasive team	US high schools; the largest US format
Lincoln-Douglas (US)	1 v 1	6–7 min constructives, 3-min cross-examination, 3–6 min rebuttals	Topic changes every two months; about 4 min prep time per side	No; cross-examination instead	3-min affirmative rebuttal	Value and criterion framework; judge votes affirmative or negative	US high schools
Policy (US)	2 teams of 2	8-min constructives, 3-min cross-examination, 5-min rebuttals	One resolution for the whole year; 5–10 min prep time per team	No; cross-examination instead	5-min second affirmative rebuttal	Flow judge; evidence-heavy, fast delivery common	US high schools and universities

Times are the standard adult or senior settings; junior divisions shorten them. We coach World Schools, and we think it is the best first format because every speaker has a defined job, there are no evidence cards or speed, and the judging criteria are published. If you are deciding between World Schools and the big American format, our comparison of World Schools and Public Forum goes through every difference.

The shape

How does a debate round work?

Here is a World Schools round from the moment the motion is read. Two teams, Proposition and Opposition. Six substantive speeches, alternating sides, then two short reply speeches in which the opposition goes first so that proposition closes the debate. The other formats rearrange the pieces; the pieces are the same.

Order	Speech	Time	Job in one line
1	First Proposition	8 min	Frame the debate, define, set the stance and the split, deliver the first arguments
2	First Opposition	8 min	State the opposition’s position, answer the proposition case, deliver the first opposition arguments
3	Second Proposition	8 min	Rebut, rebuild, add one new argument
4	Second Opposition	8 min	Rebut, rebuild, add one new argument
5	Third Proposition	8 min	Reorganise the round into two or three clashes and win them; no new arguments
6	Third Opposition	8 min	The same, for the opposition
7	Opposition Reply	4 min	A biased summary of why the opposition already won; first or second speaker
8	Proposition Reply	4 min	The same, and the last word in the debate

Junior divisions typically run 4- or 5-minute speeches and 2-minute replies. The third speaker never gives the reply; otherwise one person would speak twice in a row.

Before the first speech, for a prepared motion, the teams arrive with a researched case. For an impromptu motion they get one hour, in a room with their own printed notes, no internet, no phones and no coach. How to spend that hour is covered below.

During the speeches, between the first and last minute of each substantive one, the other side may stand and offer a point of information: a question or short statement, about fifteen seconds, which the speaker can accept or wave down. Reply speeches are protected; nobody may interrupt them.

After the last speech the judge, or a panel of three, decides the result and then explains it to both teams out loud, usually in five to ten minutes: result first, then the two or three questions the round turned on, what each side established, and what the losing team needed. In World Schools each speech also gets a score out of 100 against three criteria (Style 40, Content 40, Strategy 20), with a 70 as the honest average. The section on how judges decide explains what those numbers reward.

The jobs

What does each speaker do?

Roles exist so that the debate builds. Without them, both teams would read out everything they had in the first speech and nothing could be saved, answered or compared. Learn the first speaker role first, even if you expect to speak second or third: it is where you learn what a debate is.

Sets up the debate

First speaker, each side

Frame the motion: what is the problem, what are the two worlds the judge is choosing between
Define any unclear term, briefly, and say what your side is committed to (your model or stance)
State the split: which arguments you will give, which your second speaker will give
Deliver one or two fully built arguments
Opposition first speaker also answers the proposition case before building

Avoid: Spending three minutes on definitions and background, then rushing the arguments.

Rebuts, rebuilds, extends

Second speaker, each side

Answer the strongest version of the other side’s arguments, grouped by idea rather than in the order they were said
Rebuild your first speaker’s arguments where they were attacked
Add one new, fully built argument (the extension)
Keep repeating the caseline so the judge hears one team, not three individuals

Avoid: Answering every sentence the other side said. Pick the points that would decide the round if left standing.

Decides the debate

Third speaker, each side

Reorganise the whole round into two or three clashes (the questions the judge must answer)
For each clash: what they said, why it fails, what we said, why it stands
Weigh: show why your side wins each clash, or why the clash you win matters more than the one you lose
No new arguments; new examples and new responses are fine

Avoid: Giving a third constructive speech. The judge wants a verdict with reasons, not more material.

A biased judge’s summary

Reply speaker (first or second speaker returns)

Four minutes (two for juniors), opposition first, then proposition closes the debate
Tell the story of the round from your side: the one or two things it turned on
Name the single comparison that wins it for you
No POIs may be offered during a reply, and nothing new may be added

Avoid: Re-running the third speech at speed, or answering points for the first time.

Each role has a full essay on this site: the first speaker, the second speaker, the third speaker and the reply speech. For rounds, our printable speaker cheat sheets turn each role into a fill-in checklist you can take to the table.

Before you speak

How do you read a motion and prepare a case?

Most debates are won or lost before the first speech, in how the team reads the motion and spends its preparation time. Four habits matter.

Know what kind of motion it is

Policy motions(“This House would ban homework”) ask the proposition to describe a change and show it works. Proposition should prove there is a problem, say how the policy works, show the policy fixes the problem, and name any extra benefits. Opposition can deny the problem, defend the world as it is, offer a better alternative, or show the policy does more harm than good. Value motions(“This House believes that homework does more harm than good”) have no policy to defend; they turn on which side’s standard the judge accepts, so say early what the debate should be measured by. Actor motions(“This House, as a parent, would refuse to help with homework”) are decided by what that actor wants and can do. Regret motions ask whether the world would be better had something never happened. Our motion types reference has examples of each with the burdens spelled out.

Assume the policy happens

On a “would” motion both sides assume the policy is put in place. Debaters call this fiat. The question is never “could this pass?” but “should it?”. One coach we like puts it this way: if the motion is to move every dog in the country abroad, the answer is “don’t take my dog”, not “that’s impossible”. Fiat lets you assume the policy happens; it does not let you assume it is done well.

Define only what is disputed

Beginners spend three minutes defining words everyone understands. Define a term only when the debate changes depending on what it means, and pick the meaning an ordinary intelligent person would expect from the motion. If the motion is about banning homework, nobody needs “school” defined; they do need to know whether reading for pleasure counts.

Spend the hour in this order

The World Schools impromptu hour, as the strongest teams run it. The numbers scale down: for a fifteen-minute British Parliamentary prep, think three minutes alone, seven together, five writing.

Minutes	What happens
0–10	Silence. Each speaker works alone: what does every word mean, why was this motion set, what is the single biggest difference between the two worlds, what must each side prove, what are the two or three likely clashes. Write one-line arguments, not themes. Teams that talk from minute one get steered by the loudest voice.
10–30	Team discussion, led by one pre-agreed person. Compare readings of the motion. Choose two or three arguments and the model or stance. Agree the caseline: one sentence every speaker will repeat. Assign the split.
30–45	Write by role. The first speaker writes the whole speech. The second writes their new argument and lists the attacks they expect to answer. The third lists the opposition’s likely case and the responses to each line.
45–55	Pre-empt. The second and third speakers brief the first on the obvious objections and the first-layer answers, so the first speech is not blindsided by a point of information. Plan which POIs the team wants to ask.
55–60	Read the case back aloud. Everyone should be able to state the caseline, the arguments and their taglines, why each matters, and the team’s position on the two or three questions the other side will raise.

Our printable prep-hour planner lays this out as a single sheet. Practice motions at every level are in our debate topics lists, and the full motion bank has more than twelve thousand real tournament motions when you want volume.

Skill one

How do you build a debate argument?

An argument is not an opinion said confidently. It has four parts, and judges are trained to check for each one.

1
Claim
A complete sentence that could be true or false. "Homework teaches less than people assume." Not "education", not "the economic argument".
2
Mechanism
Why the claim is true, step by step: who does what, and what follows. "A child who did not understand fractions in class does not understand them better alone at nine at night with nobody to correct them."
3
Impact
Why it matters: who is affected, how badly, how many. End on a concrete person, not an abstraction.
4
Comparison
Why this impact beats what the other side will offer. One sentence now saves the third speaker a minute later.

Coaches teach the same skeleton under different names: assertion, reasoning, evidence, impact; or idea, analysis, example, so-what. The two tests behind all of them are the ones a judge applies: is this true, and is this important? Keep asking “why is that true?” of your own argument until the answer is something nobody would dispute, because the other side will attack your weakest link, and so will the judge in their head.

A weak argument and a strong one, same motion

Weak

“Our first argument is stress. Homework is really stressful for students. Studies show that students are more stressed than ever. Stress is bad for mental health. Therefore we should ban homework.”

A label, an assertion, an unnamed study, a generic harm. No mechanism connecting homework to the stress, no reason the stress outweighs any benefit, nothing the judge can picture.

Strong

“Our first argument: homework eats the lesson it was meant to support. A twelve-year-old who gets home at four, eats, and starts an hour of maths at seven is doing the hardest thinking of the day when they are most tired and nobody is there to catch the mistake. They finish late, sleep less, and arrive at tomorrow’s lesson worse at learning than if they had done nothing. So the cost goes beyond a bad evening: it is a worse school day, every day, for the children who most need the school day to work. Whatever practice the opposition claims homework gives, it has to outweigh a child who is less able to learn in the one place a teacher is present.”

A claim that could be false, a mechanism the judge can follow with a real child in it, an impact compared with the alternative, and a line that tells the judge what the other side must beat.

Talk about people, not policies

The fastest way to make a mechanism believable is to describe how a specific person behaves: what the tired twelve-year-old does, what the teacher does when half the class has not done the work, what the parent who works evenings does. Coaches call this characterisation. Do not jump from “people will be unhappy” to “riots”; narrate the steps. And split groups: not every student is harmed by homework, but a large group plainly is, and a large group is enough.

How much evidence do you need?

It depends on the format, and most online guides get this wrong. In World Schools and British Parliamentary, judges cannot check your statistics and are told not to use their own expertise, so a precise number you half-remember is worth less than a mechanism they can follow and one well-chosen example. Give trends and ranges (“roughly a fifth”), never invented decimals, and never make anything up: a judge who catches one fabricated figure stops believing the rest. In American Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas and Policy, the opposite rules apply: judges expect quoted evidence with sources, and an argument without a card is an assertion. Learn which world you are in before your first tournament. The full method, with a second worked example, is in how to build a debate argument.

Skill two

How do you rebut in a debate?

Rebuttal is where beginners separate from everyone else, because most people have never been taught to answer an argument rather than just disagree with it. A rebuttal has three possible moves, and a good one uses two of them.

1
Not true
Show the claim or its mechanism fails. "Homework does not teach responsibility to the child who never starts it; there is nobody there to teach them how."
2
Even if
Concede it for the sake of argument and show you still win. "Even if homework builds some responsibility, so do chores, sport and getting to school on time, none of which costs a child sleep."
3
So what
Tell the judge what the response does to the round. "So the benefit is unproven and available elsewhere, which means it cannot outweigh the sleep cost we showed you."

The same rebuttal, three ways

The argument to answer: “Homework teaches responsibility, because students learn to manage a task with a deadline on their own.”

Weak

“That’s not true. Homework is just stressful and students hate it, so it doesn’t teach anything.”

A denial with no reason, followed by a different argument. The judge has no reason to prefer it to what they just heard.

Acceptable

“They say homework teaches responsibility. But most students do it the night before or on the bus, so what it teaches is cramming, not planning.”

Names the point, gives a reason. It attacks the mechanism (the planning never happens). It stops short of saying what this does to the round.

Strong

“They say homework teaches responsibility. Two answers. First, it is not true for the students they most need it to be true for: the child who never starts has nobody there to teach them to start, so homework records irresponsibility rather than building it. Second, even if it did, so do chores, sport, a part-time job and getting to school on time, none of which costs a child their sleep. So the benefit is both unproven and available elsewhere, and it cannot outweigh the sleep cost we showed you.”

Not true, even if, so what. Each step is explained, and the last sentence tells the judge how the round now looks.

Four rules coaches repeat

Answer the strongest version of what they said. Say “even in their best case” and mean it. The judge has notes of what was said; a response to a caricature loses credibility and leaves the real argument standing.

Aim high. Arguments cascade from context to mechanism to impact, so knock out the mechanism and everything below it falls; quibbling with an example or a date changes nothing. If the fact they state is true, say so and attack the link: “if the sky is blue, accept it.”

Answer what matters rather than everything. Two decisive responses beat ten denials. Find the point that would decide the round if left standing and spend your time there. A one-line aside made at seven minutes forty can be ignored.

When you can, climb the ladder. A response can mitigate (their point is smaller than they said), neutralise (it does not happen), or flip (it helps your side: a smoking ban is also freedom from cancer). Deliver the strongest you honestly have first. Do not force a flip; a flip with no mechanism is just a slogan. The four-step response structure and where to aim it are in our rebuttal guide.

Skill three

How do you weigh arguments?

At the end of a close round both teams have arguments standing. The side that wins is usually the one that told the judge how to compare them. Coaches say it plainly: it is unreliable to expect the judge to do the direct comparison for you. You do not have to prove their case is worth nothing and yours is worth everything; you have to prove yours is better.

Four questions do most of the work for beginners. How many people are affected? How much does it change each life? How long does it last, and can it be undone? How likely is it to happen at all? A small group suffering something acute can outweigh a large group mildly inconvenienced, and an impact with a one-in-twenty chance is usually not worth the judge’s time. Pick the two comparisons that favour you and say them out loud in every speech, including the early ones.

The sentence every third speaker needs

“Even if you believe everything they said, our worst case beats their best case, because...” It concedes nothing real, it tells the judge how to decide if they are torn, and it forces you to name the comparison. The full method, including how a first speaker sets the metric the round is decided on, is in our essay on weighing in debate.

Live interruptions

How do points of information work?

In World Schools, British Parliamentary and the Mace, the other side may stand during your speech and say “point of information” or “on that point”. You decide: take it (“yes, go ahead”) or wave it down (“no thank you”). They have about fifteen seconds; your clock keeps running; the first and last minute are protected and reply speeches cannot be interrupted at all.

Take one or two. Take none and the judge marks you down for ducking; take four and you have given your speech away. Take them at transitions, between arguments, never in the middle of a mechanism. If nobody has offered one by minute six, invite one, so the judge sees you were willing.

Answer in about fifteen seconds: yes or no, one reason, back to your speech. If the question contains a premise that already fits your case, agree with it and claim it: “Yes, we want diversity in politics, and we are the side that delivers it.” Never say “I will come back to that” unless you will.

When you offer one, ask a question rather than making a statement: one short challenge, aimed at their strongest argument and at what they are saying right now. After a refusal, wait twenty to thirty seconds before anyone on your team stands again; constant standing is penalised as barracking. How to hunt as a team and how to plan the concessions you want is in our essay on points of information.

Notes that win rounds

How do you take notes during a debate?

Debaters call it flowing: one landscape sheet per side’s case, folded into columns, one column per speech, so the debate reads left to right and a blank cell is a visible concession you can point to. Write the other side’s taglines, not their sentences, and write more about what you are going to say than about what they said. Here is the first clash of the model debate below, flowed the way a third speaker would keep it.

Prop 1	Opp 1	Prop 2	Opp 2	For my 3rd
A1 hw teaches little. No teacher @ 9pm → mistakes repeated. Meta-analyses: ~0 primary, small secondary.	NT: research = clear benefit secondary, maths/lang. Ban covers to 16 → uses 7yo data on 15yo. A1: practice = retrieval w/o teacher → permanent.	Agree practice matters. EI: best when short + corrected fast = 10-min quiz in class, not 1hr alone. Their mech survives, conclusion doesn't.	Class time FIXED. 50 min / 30 kids. Quiz = 1 topic. Behind kid needs more reps → only tutor. Equal time ≠ equal outcome.	CLASH 1: where + how much practice. They never answered FIXED TIME. [Prop 3 must hit this] Weigh: supervised>unsupervised vs more>less.
A2 cost real: tired → worse next day; family fights; sport/music lost.	Quantity not existence. 30 min reading ≠ ruined childhood. Limit, not ban. [limits exist already]	Limits tried 20 yrs, never worked; teacher incentive = set more. Only a ban changes behaviour.	Why is ban enforced better than limit? Honest teacher loses 20 useful min, dishonest one carries on.	Enforcement Q unanswered by us ✗. Concede or answer: a ban is checkable by parents; a limit is not.

Shorthand teams use: NT (not true), EI (even if), SW (so what), arrows for cause, a circle around anything the other side dropped. Learn it in steps: flow a friend reading a menu, then one recorded speech, then a whole round on video, then live. Keep the sheets in speaking order and move each to the back as you finish it, so the paper left in your hand tells you the conclusion is still to come.

Style

How do you speak well in a debate?

Style is forty percent of a World Schools score, and in every format a judge can only credit what they heard and understood. The beginner’s version of style has five parts, and none of them is “be a natural”.

Signpost rigidly first

“Two things to set up, then two arguments. First...” “Moving to my second argument, which is...” “Responding to their point about sleep...” It sounds mechanical for a month. It is what lets a judge, who cannot re-read you like a book, write your speech down. Conversational flow comes later and only works on top of it.

Clarity is the whole job

Pace, volume, pauses, pronunciation. Rushing causes stumbles and restarts, so by going fast you go slower. Pauses are the spoken form of commas and full stops, and a pause after a strong line gives the judge time to write it. Drop filler words by replacing each one with silence. Ban “obviously”: if it were obvious you would not need to spend time on it.

Cards, not sheets

A page written sitting down is twice as far from your eyes once you stand, so you talk to the table. Index cards, few words, large writing, numbered. Speak from an outline, never a script. Set the cards down, look at the judge, start your timer, then speak. Nothing in your hands.

Manage the clock

Write a time beside each section of your notes (set-up to 1:00, first argument to 3:30) and move on when you pass it. Have your last sentence ready so that when time is called you say it, look up and sit. Going well over is penalised; finishing a four-minute speech at two minutes is also a fault.

Nerves are normal, and they shrink with reps

Breathe out slowly before you stand. If you freeze, pause, go back to your last confident sentence and restart; the judge barely notices. Treat a hard point of information as one exam question, answer it, and return to your structure. Students who speak every day for four weeks stop noticing the nerves by week three, which is the point of the practice plan below. For the shape of a speech from first word to last, see how to write a debate speech and how to start one.

The target

How do judges decide who won?

Beginners imagine judging is a vibe. It is a procedure, and knowing it changes how you speak. Every trained judge in every format does roughly the same five things.

The judge is an ordinary intelligent voter

Someone who reads the news and knows the broad facts, with no specialist knowledge and no willingness to use what they personally know. They decide on what was said in the round, not on what should have been said, and not on their own opinion of the motion.

The judge fills no gaps

A title is not credited for what it might have contained. If you said “homework causes stress” and never explained how, the judge writes down an assertion and gives it almost no weight, however true it is. Show your work as if it were a maths proof.

Proven beats asserted, and rebuttal weakens rather than erases

In a close round the judge strips out every unproven claim on both sides and decides on what is left, even if it is small. A good rebuttal shrinks an argument; it rarely deletes it, so rebuilding what survived still matters. And an unanswered argument is not automatically strong: the judge can discount nonsense nobody bothered to answer.

Clashes first, then weighing

The judge splits the round into two or three questions, follows each exchange (argument, response, rebuild, what remains), decides who won each question, and then compares the wins: first using the weighing the teams gave, then by whether a clear win beats a marginal one. If you did not weigh, they weigh for you, by their own lights.

Judges decline to credit; they do not punish

A new argument in the third speech is ignored, not penalised. Going over time loses the material said after the bell. A contradiction between teammates usually means the first version stands and both are weakened.

What the scores mean

In World Schools each substantive speech is scored 60 to 80 against three published criteria: Style (how it was argued, 40), Content (what was argued, 40) and Strategy (why it was argued: structure, timing, issue choice, handling of POIs, 20). A 70 is a good speech, not a failure; a 75 is a speech the judge will still be talking about next week. Replies score 30 to 40. The ESU Mace scores each speaker out of 40 across four skill sets (organisation and prioritisation, listening and response, expression and delivery, reasoning and evidence), with written behaviours under each. British Parliamentary ranks the four teams instead of scoring criteria. In every case the judge then explains the decision out loud, result first.

We wrote a full guide to the World Schools criteria and how to train for each: how World Schools judging works. If you want to see the decision from the judge’s chair, our printable judging ballot is the sheet our coaches use in practice rounds, and judging a friend’s round is one of the fastest ways to improve your own.

Put it together

A complete model debate, annotated

No online guide we could find shows a beginner a whole debate with the judge’s reasons, so here is one. The motion is real; it was set at the Korean national championships in 2022. The speeches are written to a junior length (a little under three minutes spoken) so the whole round fits on one page. Every move a senior round would make is here; a senior round would simply make each one at greater length. Read the speech, then the notes beside it.

The motion

This House would ban schools from giving homework to students.

Policy motion. Info slide given: homework is a set of tasks assigned by teachers to be completed outside the classroom and school hours.

Speech 1 · Proposition

First Proposition: Framing, model, two arguments

Every evening, millions of children sit at a kitchen table doing work that the research says teaches them very little, while the thing that would actually help them, sleep, play and time with their families, gets squeezed out. We are proud to propose.

Our model is simple. Schools up to age sixteen may not set compulsory work to be completed at home. Reading for pleasure and optional practice material remain available. Teachers keep every minute of class time; they lose only the right to extend the school day into the home.

The debate comes down to one question: does homework produce enough learning to justify what it costs children and families? Our first speaker will show that the learning is small; I will also show that the cost is real. Our second speaker will show that homework widens the gap between rich and poor children.

First, homework teaches less than people assume. A child who has not understood fractions in class does not understand them better alone at nine at night with no teacher in the room. They either guess, copy, or have a parent do it. Meta-analyses of homework studies find little or no benefit for primary-age children, and only a modest effect for teenagers, most of which comes from short, well-designed tasks that are the exception rather than the rule. Because the benefit is small, even a modest cost outweighs it.

Second, the cost is not modest. Children who are tired learn worse the next day, so homework eats the lesson it was meant to support. Families fight about it. Sport, music and friendships lose hours every week. These are the years in which children learn how to be people, and we are spending them on worksheets.

So the question for the judge is simple: a small learning gain, against a large cost to sleep, family life and childhood itself. We say ban it. Proud to propose.

Speech 2 · Opposition

First Opposition: Counter-stance, rebuttal, two arguments

The proposition has described bad homework and asked you to ban all homework. We will defend something different: schools should set less, better homework, and we will show you why a ban is the wrong tool.

Two responses to their case. They told you the research shows little benefit for young children. True, and almost irrelevant, because the same research shows a clear benefit for secondary students, especially in maths and languages where practice is the whole point. Their ban covers everyone up to sixteen. They are using a finding about seven-year-olds to take practice away from fifteen-year-olds sitting exams. Then they said homework costs sleep and family time. The problem there is quantity, not existence. Thirty minutes of reading does not destroy a childhood. If the harm is too much homework, the answer is a limit, which schools and governments already set, not a ban.

Our first argument is that practice is how learning becomes permanent. A lesson introduces an idea; it only sticks when the student retrieves it later, on their own, without the teacher there. That is exactly what homework is. Take it away and the same material has to be re-taught, which means less new content, which means every child learns less in the same number of school years.

Our second argument is about who a ban actually protects. Wealthy families will replace homework with tutors, apps and structured activities within a week. Families who cannot afford that lose the one free, teacher-designed way their children could keep up outside school. The gap the proposition worries about gets wider under their own policy.

So we have a counter-stance that keeps the learning and fixes the quantity. Proud to oppose.

Speech 3 · Proposition

Second Proposition: Rebut, rebuild, extend

The opposition has quietly changed the debate. They are no longer defending homework; they are defending a world where homework is limited and well designed. We would love to live in that world too. The problem is that it does not exist, and twenty years of limits and guidelines have not produced it, because the incentive on every individual teacher is to set more. A ban is the only rule that changes behaviour.

On their first argument, that practice makes learning permanent: we agree practice matters. We disagree that it has to happen at home. Retrieval practice works best when it is short, spaced and corrected quickly, which describes a ten-minute quiz at the start of a lesson far better than an hour of unsupervised worksheets. Under our model, practice moves into the classroom, where a teacher can see the mistake. So their mechanism survives; their conclusion does not.

On their second argument, that rich families will replace homework with tutors: they already do, with homework in place. What homework adds for the poorer child is not a tutor but a task they must do alone, often without a quiet room, a laptop, or a parent who has time to help. That child then arrives at school marked down for work they had no fair chance to complete.

That takes me to our new argument: homework is the mechanism through which schools punish children for their home circumstances. The same assignment is easy in a house with a desk, a printer and a graduate parent and impossible in a crowded flat where the student is looking after siblings. Teachers then grade the result as if it measured effort. Under our model, every child does the work in the same room, with the same resources, in front of the same teacher. That is the fairest possible world, and it is only available on our side.

Small learning gain, large cost, and now a fairness cost the opposition has made worse rather than better. Proud to propose.

Speech 4 · Opposition

Second Opposition: Rebut, rebuild, extend

The proposition keeps telling you that limits have never worked, so a ban is the only option. Notice that they offered no reason why a ban would be enforced any better than a limit. If a teacher can quietly set extra work under a limit, they can quietly "suggest" it under a ban. The difference is that under a ban the honest teacher is forbidden from setting the twenty useful minutes while the dishonest one carries on.

On their fairness argument: moving all practice into the classroom sounds equal, but it means less of it. A teacher has fifty minutes and thirty students. Their ten-minute quiz covers one topic. The child who is behind still needs more repetitions than the child who is ahead, and under the proposition’s world, the only place to get them is a paid tutor. Equal time in class is not equal outcome, and it is the struggling student who pays for the tidiness of the model.

Our extension is about independence. Homework is the first place in a young person’s life where they are responsible for a task with a deadline and nobody watching. Planning the evening, starting without being told, asking for help when stuck: these habits are learned by doing them, and they are needed long before university or a first job. A child who reaches sixteen having never managed a single task outside supervision has been failed by the adults who thought they were protecting them.

So this debate is now a comparison between two worlds. In theirs, children have their evenings back, and the ones who most needed practice and independence get neither. In ours, homework is shorter and better designed, and every child keeps a free way to practise and a safe place to learn responsibility. Proud to oppose.

Speech 5 · Proposition

Third Proposition: Clashes and weighing

Three questions decide this debate. Does homework teach? Who does a ban help? And whose world is actually on offer?

First, does homework teach? Both sides now agree that practice matters and that it works best when it is short and corrected quickly. The only disagreement is where it happens. We say the classroom, where mistakes get caught. They say the kitchen table, where they get repeated. They have never answered why unsupervised practice is better than supervised practice; they have only said there is more of it. More of the wrong practice is not a gain.

Second, who does a ban help? The opposition says the struggling child loses repetitions. But that child was never getting useful repetitions from homework, because the whole problem is that they do it alone, wrong, or not at all. What they lose under our model is the daily experience of failing in private. What they gain is practice in front of a teacher who can intervene. On independence: children learn responsibility from chores, sport, clubs and jobs. Homework is not the only teacher of independence; it is simply the one that happens to be measured.

Third, whose world is on offer? The opposition has spent the whole debate defending "less, better homework". We agree that would be nice. But they have given you no mechanism for producing it, only the hope that this time the guidelines work. We have given you a clear rule and explained why rules change behaviour where guidelines do not. When one side defends a world that exists and the other defends a world they wish existed, you vote for the real one.

Even if homework teaches a little, even if it builds a little independence, those gains are small and available elsewhere, and the costs to sleep, family life and fairness are large and available nowhere else. Our worst case beats their best case. Proud to propose.

Speech 6 · Opposition

Third Opposition: Clashes and weighing

The proposition’s third speaker says vote for the world that exists. Let us do that. The world that exists is one where homework is already limited in most school systems, where the question is quantity, and where the proposition wants to remove the whole tool because some teachers misuse it. Two clashes decide this debate.

First, where does practice happen and how much of it is there? The proposition says supervised classroom practice beats unsupervised home practice. We have never disagreed. We have said that classroom time is fixed and already full, so moving practice into it means less of it and less new teaching. They never answered that. Their ten-minute quiz is good; it is also all the practice a struggling child will ever get under their model. Our world has the quiz and the twenty minutes at home. More good practice beats less good practice, and that is the comparison the judge is making.

Second, who is protected? Both sides care about the child in the crowded flat. The proposition says homework punishes that child. We say the ban abandons them. Under their model, the wealthy child gets tutors and the poor child gets nothing after three o’clock. Under ours, the poor child gets a free, teacher-designed task and the school gets a signal when it does not come back, which is often the first sign a family needs help. The proposition has turned a problem of too much homework into a policy of no support, and called it fairness.

On independence they said chores and sport do the same job. Some children have those; many do not. Homework is the only form of independent responsibility every child is guaranteed, which is exactly why it matters for the children with the least.

Judge, both teams agree homework can be done badly. Only one team keeps the benefits while fixing the harm. Proud to oppose.

Speech 7 · Opposition

Opposition Reply: A biased summary

This debate was never about whether homework can be bad. It was about what to do when it is. The proposition offered a ban and asked you to trust that it would be enforced where limits were not, without ever saying why. We offered less, better homework, and showed you that classroom practice alone leaves the struggling child with ten minutes a day and nothing after the bell.

The child both teams talked about, the one in the flat without a desk, is the reason to vote opposition. In the proposition’s world they lose practice, lose independence and lose the one signal that tells the school they need help. In ours they keep all three. Proud to oppose.

Speech 8 · Proposition

Proposition Reply: A biased summary

Strip away the labels and the two teams agree on more than they admit. Practice matters. Supervised practice is better. Too much homework harms children. Where we part is what follows. The opposition says: keep homework and hope it improves. We say: the hope has been tried, and the only policy that has ever changed what happens at the kitchen table is a rule.

They ended on the child in the flat. So will we. That child does not need a worksheet they cannot finish and a grade that records their postcode. They need a teacher in the room when they get it wrong, and an evening that belongs to them. Only one side offers that. Proud to propose.

The judge’s oral adjudication

Opposition wins, narrowly. Speaker scores (World Schools scale, 60 to 80 for substantive speeches): Proposition 71, 72, 72; Opposition 72, 73, 73. Replies: Proposition 36, Opposition 36.

Both teams built real arguments with mechanisms, and both rebutted the best version of what they heard rather than a caricature. That alone puts this above most beginner rounds.

The round turned on the first clash: where practice happens and how much of it there is. Proposition won the point that supervised practice is better. Opposition won the point that class time is fixed, so a ban means less practice overall, and proposition never answered it. Because opposition explained the mechanism (fifty minutes, thirty students, one quiz) and proposition only asserted that classroom practice would be enough, the judge was left believing the opposition’s picture of the classroom.

The second clash, the disadvantaged child, was close to even. Proposition’s "grades that record your postcode" was the most memorable line in the round. Opposition’s "a signal when the work does not come back" was a new reason the judge had not considered, delivered in the third speech where it was most needed.

Proposition lost ground on enforcement. Second and third proposition asserted that bans change behaviour where limits do not, but the opposition’s question (why would a ban be enforced any better?) went unanswered for three speeches.

Advice for proposition: the case was clear and the caseline was repeated well. Spend the second speech answering the strongest opposition point (fixed class time) rather than the weakest (tutors). Advice for opposition: the counter-stance was the right call, but say in the first speech what "less, better homework" means in practice (a time limit, a type of task) so the proposition cannot call it a wish.

Notice what decided it. Not delivery, not the number of points, not who sounded more confident: one unanswered mechanism (class time is fixed) in the clash both teams agreed mattered most. That is what a judge means by “the round turned on” something, and learning to spot it mid-round is the whole job of the third speaker. For hundreds more motions at this level, see the beginner lists in our debate topics and the archive of every World Championships motion.

What goes wrong

The mistakes every beginner makes, and the drill that fixes each

Coaches see the same ten faults in every first-year class. Each has a fix you can apply in your next speech and a drill that makes the fix permanent.

Mistake	What it sounds like	The fix	The drill
Labels instead of arguments	"Our first point is economic reasons."	Write every claim as a full sentence that could be true or false, then say "because".	The because test: say "This House would ban homework because..." and finish the sentence aloud. If it sounds silly, it is not an argument yet.
The parallel debate	Both teams read out prepared points and never touch what the other side said.	From the second speech onward, respond before you build. Name the point you are answering.	Pause a recorded first speech after each argument, write a one-line response, then compare it with what the real second speaker said.
Answering everything	Ten quick denials, none of them explained.	Pick the two points that would decide the round if left standing. Answer those fully.	Shrinking rebuttal: answer one argument in 30 seconds, then 20, then 10. The last version is the link that mattered.
Catastrophising impacts	"This will destroy the economy and end childhood."	End on a concrete, believable consequence for a specific person, compared with the world as it is now.	Zoom the lens: take "students will be stressed" and rewrite it three times, each time closer to one child’s evening.
Reading a script	Head down, monotone, lost when the page runs out.	Speak from an outline on cards: a title, three or four cues per argument, large writing.	Build one argument in ten minutes on a single index card, then deliver it in two minutes without reading.
Running out of time, or far under	A rushed third argument, or a two-minute speech that stops at fifty-five seconds.	Write a time stamp beside each section of your notes and move on when you pass it. Have your last sentence ready.	Give the same four-minute speech three times with a visible clock. Aim to land the final sentence within ten seconds of time.
New arguments in the last speech	The third speaker introduces a point nobody has heard before.	Third speeches answer and compare. New responses and examples are fine; new arguments are not credited.	Practise the template: "We said this. They said this. We are still right because..."
Arguing that the policy could never happen	"Parliament would never pass this, so we should not ban it."	Assume the policy happens (debaters call this fiat) and argue that it is a bad idea, not an impossible one.	For any "This House would" motion, list three things that go wrong once the policy is in place. Never "it will not pass".
Freezing on a point of information	A long pause, then "I will come back to that" and never does.	Say yes or no, give one reason, return to your speech. Fifteen seconds.	POI firing line: speak for 90 seconds while a partner offers a question every 20 seconds. Answer each in one sentence.
Speaking too fast	Stumbles, restarts, a judge who has stopped writing.	Pauses are spoken punctuation. A pause after a strong point gives the judge time to write it down.	Record a two-minute speech on your phone and watch it back once a week. Count the fillers; next week, replace each with a pause.

Fix one or two habits at a time. A full drill menu with a weekly routine is in our debate practice guide, and when the early gains flatten out, how to get better at debate is about breaking the plateau.

Do this

A four-week plan to your first debate

Twenty to thirty minutes a day, five days a week, no club required. A parent or friend with no debate background can run every step: they hold the timer, offer the points of information, and judge with the printable ballot. If you already have a club or class, run this alongside it; the rounds you get there are the thing the plan is building towards.

Week 1

Understand the round

1Read the speech-order table on this page until you can recite it. Then read our three speaker-role essays (first, second, third speaker).
2Watch one full World Schools round. Keep the speech table beside you and tick off each job as the speaker does it.
3Start flowing: draw four columns on a landscape page and take notes on a recorded speech, key claims and taglines only.
4Daily, 10 minutes: pick a motion from our beginner topic lists and build one argument on an index card (claim, why it is true, example, so what).
5Deliver that one argument out loud to your phone camera in two minutes. Watch it once. Pick one thing to fix tomorrow.

Watch this week: A recent WSDC final on the championship’s official channel. Watch the first speakers twice: once for content, once for how they signpost.

Week 2

Build and rebut

1Each day, build one argument, then spend one minute refuting your own argument. Which link did you attack? That is where your argument was weak.
2Rewrite one rebuttal three times: a weak version (deny), an acceptable version (they say / but / because), a strong version (not true, even if, so what).
3Flip, neutralise, mitigate: take one opposing argument and write all three responses. Deliver them in that order with a why-it-matters at the end.
4Weigh: take two impacts from any motion and compare them on number, depth, likelihood and duration in sixty seconds.
5Watch a recorded first speech, pause after each argument, write your response, then listen to the real second speaker.

Watch this week: Any second speech from a championship round. Count how many of the other side’s points the speaker answers and how many they ignore. Good speakers ignore a lot on purpose.

Week 3

Full speeches, under time

1Give a complete four-minute first speech from cards: hook, stance, split, two arguments, caseline. Record it.
2Give a four-minute second speech against a recorded first speech: two rebuttals, one rebuild, one new argument.
3POI firing line with a partner or parent: 90 seconds of speech, a question every 20 seconds, one-sentence answers.
4Flow a full recorded round, then give a three-minute third speech from your flow: two clashes, a verdict on each, a weighing line.
5Watch your Week 1 recording beside your Week 3 recording. Write down the two biggest differences.

Watch this week: A third speech and both reply speeches from the same round. Notice how the third speaker reorganises the debate into questions, and how the reply tells a story.

Week 4

A real round

1Set up a mini-debate: one against one or two against two, three- or four-minute speeches, a friend, sibling or parent as judge with our printable ballot.
2Debate it. Take at least one point of information. Finish on time.
3Get the decision and the reasons out loud, result first. If the judge says "I just found you more persuasive", ask them which argument did it.
4Write one lesson in a debate journal, win or lose. One, not ten.
5Find structure: a school club, a local league, or a coached class with judged rounds. Solo work gets you to the first debate; other people get you past it.

Watch this week: Nothing new. Re-watch your own round if you recorded it, and watch the judge’s reasons more closely than the speeches.

For parents running this at home

You do not need to know debate to judge it. Time the speech on your phone. Offer a point of information once per speech by standing up and asking one honest question. Afterwards, answer three questions out loud, in this order: was it clear to you as a non-expert, was the main argument both true and important, and what did they not say that you were waiting for. Give the result first, then the reasons, then one thing to keep doing. Students only hear the criticism after they have heard the praise.

When the four weeks are done, the thing that moves students fastest is a judged round every week with written feedback. That is what a coached program is, and our online debate classes for kids and teens run exactly this loop in small groups, with the Foundation class built for students starting from this page.

The words

Debate terms every beginner meets

Forty-two terms you will hear in your first month, each in one sentence. Every entry has its own link, so a coach or teammate can send you straight to one.

Motion: The statement being debated, usually phrased "This House would..." or "This House believes that...". In US formats it is called the resolution or the topic.
This House: The imaginary parliament the motion is addressed to. "This House would ban homework" means "we, the assembly, should ban homework".
Proposition: The side arguing for the motion. Also called Government (BP), Affirmative (US and Australia) or Pro (Public Forum).
Opposition: The side arguing against the motion. Also Negative or Con.
Burden: What a side must prove to win. Proposition usually has to show the motion is a good idea; opposition has to show it is not, or that the alternative is better.
Model: The proposition’s description of how the policy would work in practice: who does what, from when, with what exceptions.
Counter-model: An alternative policy the opposition defends instead of the status quo, to solve the same problem a different way.
Status quo: The world as it is now. Opposition often defends it; proposition argues to change it.
Caseline: The one-sentence summary of your side’s position that every speaker repeats. Sometimes called the team line or thesis.
Split: How a team divides its arguments between speakers, announced by the first speaker.
Argument: A claim plus the reasoning that makes it true and the impact that makes it matter. An opinion with no reasoning is an assertion, not an argument.
Mechanism: The step-by-step explanation of how a cause produces an effect. The "because" part of an argument.
Impact: The consequence an argument ends on: who is affected, how badly, and how many of them.
Characterisation: Describing how the people or institutions in the debate behave in practice, so the judge believes your mechanism (how do students, teachers and parents really respond to homework?).
Analysis: The explanation of why something is true, as opposed to just saying that it is. Judges reward analysis far above lists of examples.
Rebuttal: Responding to the other side’s arguments to show they are untrue, unimportant or outweighed.
Rebuild: Defending your own side’s arguments after they have been attacked.
Extension: A new argument introduced by a second speaker (or by the back half in BP).
Clash: A point where the two sides directly disagree. Third speakers organise the round into clashes.
Weighing: Explaining why your arguments matter more than theirs: bigger, more likely, sooner, affecting more vulnerable people.
Even if: A rebuttal that concedes a point for the sake of argument and shows you still win: "Even if homework builds discipline, so does sport, without the cost to sleep."
Steel-manning: Answering the strongest reasonable version of the other side’s argument instead of a weak caricature of it.
Point of information (POI): A short question or statement offered by the other side during a speech. The speaker may accept or decline it.
Protected time: The parts of a speech (usually the first and last minute) when POIs may not be offered.
Barracking: Offering so many POIs that the speaker cannot speak. Penalised.
Signposting: Telling the audience where you are in your speech: "My second argument is...", "Responding to their point about sleep...".
Flowing: Taking structured notes of every speech in columns, so you can see which arguments have been answered and which have not.
Whip: The last speaker on each side in BP and WSDC; the third speaker in World Schools.
Reply speech: The short closing speech in World Schools and Australian formats, given by the first or second speaker, with no new arguments.
Summary speech: The ESU Mace equivalent of a reply: a five-minute closing speech reviewing the whole debate.
Prepared motion: A motion released days or weeks before the round, so teams can research and rehearse.
Impromptu motion: A motion released shortly before the round (one hour in World Schools, fifteen minutes in BP), prepared without internet or coaches.
Info slide: A short paragraph released with the motion that explains a term or gives essential context.
Framework: The lens the judge is asked to use: in Lincoln-Douglas a value and criterion, in World Schools the metric a first speaker proposes.
Style: How you speak: clarity, pace, tone, eye contact, engagement with the room. 40 percent of a World Schools score.
Content: What you say: the quality of arguments, analysis and evidence. 40 percent of a World Schools score.
Strategy: Whether you spent your time on the issues that mattered, structured your speech sensibly and handled POIs well. 20 percent of a World Schools score.
Matter, Manner, Method: The Australian judging categories: roughly content, style and structure.
Ordinary intelligent voter: The persona a judge adopts: well read, open minded, no specialist knowledge, not fooled by jargon or rhetoric.
Speaker points: The individual score given to each speech. In World Schools, 60 to 80 for a substantive speech, with 70 as the average.
Oral adjudication: The judge’s spoken explanation of the result after the round, with reasons and advice for both teams.
Break: Qualifying for the elimination rounds of a tournament after the preliminary rounds.

The longer World Schools glossary in our resource library covers the competitive vocabulary too.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions about learning to debate

How do I start debating with no experience?

Pick one motion, take fifteen minutes to prepare one side, and argue it out loud for three minutes to a phone camera. That single rep teaches more than an afternoon of videos. Then follow the four-week plan on this page: learn the shape of a round, build one argument a day, learn to rebut, then have a real mini-debate with someone judging. After that, join something: a school club, a local league or a coached class, because the fastest improvement comes from debating real opponents and hearing a judge explain the result.

What is the difference between a debate and an argument?

A debate has a set motion, assigned sides, timed speeches in a fixed order, and a judge who decides on what was said rather than on their own views. An argument has none of those. The other difference is that in a debate you must respond to the other side: Debating SA puts it simply, debating is public speaking plus rebuttal.

How long does it take to get good at debate?

Most students can give a structured speech on an assigned side within two or three sessions. Rebutting the best version of the other side, weighing the round and working as a team take a season or more. The honest marker is the judge’s feedback: when the reasons you lose change from "no response to their case" to "close on the second clash", you are getting good.

Which debate format is best for beginners?

The one your school or local circuit runs, because you need opponents. If you have a free choice, World Schools is the easiest to learn: three speakers with clearly defined jobs, no evidence cards, no speed, and judging criteria that are published. British Parliamentary is the standard at universities. In the United States, Public Forum is the most common school format and the easiest to find a partner for.

What age can children start debating?

Structured debate with speaker roles works from about age nine or ten, with speeches of two to four minutes and motions about school, animals, screens and sport. Junior World Schools divisions start at under-12. Younger children can play the games (argue a silly motion for one minute, then switch sides) long before they can hold a format.

Do I have to argue for things I disagree with?

Yes, roughly half the time, and it is the most useful part. You are not stating your beliefs; you are showing the judge the best case for a position, like an actor playing a character or a lawyer taking a brief. Students who can build the strongest version of a view they dislike understand their own views far better afterwards.

How many arguments should I have in a speech?

One or two, fully built. A four-minute junior speech holds one argument done properly. An eight-minute World Schools speech holds two. Three is almost always too many: each one ends up as a label with no mechanism, and the judge credits none of them.

Can I use notes in a debate?

Yes, in every format on this page. Use an outline on index cards with large writing, not a full script on an A4 sheet: once you stand up the page is twice as far from your eyes, so you end up talking to the table. Judges in World Schools and the ESU Mace mark down speeches that are read, so write cues, not sentences.

How do you win a debate?

By making the judge believe your arguments more than the other side’s, then telling them why yours matter more. In practice that means two or three well-explained arguments rather than many, rebuttal aimed at the strongest version of the opposing case, and a closing comparison the judge can repeat back: "even in their best case, our worst case is better because..." Volume, speed and confidence on their own do not move a trained judge.

How do I handle nerves before a debate?

Prepare more than you think you need, then trust the preparation. Breathe out slowly before you stand. Set your notes down, look at the judge, start your timer and only then speak. If you freeze, pause, go back to the last confident sentence and restart; judges barely notice a two-second pause. Treat a hard point of information as one exam question, answer it, and return to your structure. Nerves fade with repetitions, which is why the practice plan has you speaking every day.

Is debate good for shy students?

Usually, yes, because the structure removes the hardest part of speaking: deciding what to say. A shy student with an assigned side, a speaker role and a card of cues knows exactly what their job is for four minutes. Good coaches start them small (one argument, one minute, from the back of the room) and move forward from there. Many of the best third speakers started as the quietest person in the club.

How do I practise debate alone?

Build one argument a day on an index card and deliver it to your phone. Refute your own argument in one minute. Rebut recorded speeches: pause after each argument, respond, then compare with the real speaker. Flow full rounds. Rewrite one weak rebuttal into a strong one. The four-week plan above sequences these. Solo work builds the skills; you still need real rounds to learn to use them under pressure.

What should I watch to learn debate?

Full rounds with the judge’s decision, not highlight clips. World Schools finals and the World Universities championship finals are the best filmed. Watch with a job: track one speaker role, count rebuttals, or flow the round and then give your own third speech before hearing the real one. Skip videos about "destroying" people in arguments; they teach the opposite of what judges reward.

Keep going

Where to go next

Printables from this site

The speaker cheat sheets (one per role), the prep-hour planner, the judging ballot and the format quick reference are all free and designed to be printed and taken to the table. The whole library is at our resources page.

Guides worth reading after this one

The Oxford Union’s Debating at Oxford Schools (January 2025) is the clearest short explanation of argument quality and of how judges think, written for British Parliamentary. The ESU Schools’ Mace handbook publishes a full mark scheme with the behaviours judges look for under each criterion. The Monash Association of Debaters’ training guide is university-level and long, but its appendix on preparing an unseen topic is the best written procedure we know. The official World Schools Debating Championships site carries the rules and the results back to 1988; our list of champions by year is drawn from it.

What to watch

Full rounds with the decision, not clips. Recent World Schools finals and the World Universities championship finals are the best filmed. Watch with a job each time: follow one speaker role, count the rebuttals, or flow the round and give your own third speech before you hear the real one. Skip anything titled “how to destroy anyone in an argument”; it teaches the opposite of what a judge rewards.

Who wrote this

This guide was written by Peregrine Beckett, our program director, with the WSDC Prep coaching team, from the way we teach the first weeks of our Foundation class and from a library of several hundred recorded coaching lectures from World Schools, British Parliamentary and Australian programs. Where coaches disagree (how many points of information to take, whether to rebut before or after your own arguments in a first opposition speech), we have given the beginner-safe answer and said so. If something here is unclear, tell us and we will fix it.

Learn it in a judged round, not a lecture.

Our beginner Foundation class teaches exactly this stack, in order, with a real practice debate, oral adjudication and written feedback every week. Small groups for ages 9 to 16, taught live online.

Book a consultation About the Foundation class