The World Schools glossary

Burden

What a team must prove to win its side of the motion. Identifying both teams’ burdens is the first job of prep. Arguments that don’t serve a burden don’t score.

Caseline

One sentence that captures a team’s entire case, repeated by every speaker. It is the connective tissue that makes three speeches sound like one argument.

Case file

The printed materials a team brings into the prep room: topic briefs, example banks, framing notes. Legal in prep, where devices and internet are not.

Clash

A point of direct disagreement between the two cases: a question the judge must answer to decide the round. Third speakers organize their speeches around 2–3 clashes.

Content

One of the three judging criteria (40%), covering the substance of the speech: logic, evidence, completeness of arguments, and quality of rebuttal.

Countermodel

In a policy debate, an alternative policy proposed by the opposition to solve the same problem, which shifts the round from “policy vs. status quo” to “your policy vs. ours.”

Definition

The first speaker’s clarification of ambiguous terms in the motion. Definitions must be reasonable. Squirrelly definitions that dodge the debate are penalized.

Deputy

The second speaker. Rebuts the opposing case, rebuilds their own, and delivers the team’s final new argument (the extension).

Extension

The new substantive argument delivered by the second speaker. It is the team’s last new material, since third speakers may not introduce new arguments.

External weighing

Comparing your impacts against the other team’s: even if both cases stand, why does your worst case beat their best case?

Framing

Presenting the debate so the judge sees it through your lens: what the round is “really about,” whose stakeholders matter, what is at stake.

Impact

The end consequence of an argument: who is affected, how deeply, and at what scale. An argument without an impact is a fact, not a reason to vote.

Impromptu motion

A motion released one hour before the round. Teams prepare with no internet or devices, using printed case files only.

Internal weighing

Comparing how the arguments themselves survived the round: why your case is still standing after their rebuttal while theirs is not.

Mechanism

A distinct causal pathway that makes an argument true: the “because” layer. Strong arguments run two or three mechanisms, each with reasoning and an example.

Metric

The standard a team asks the judge to decide the round on (e.g. “vote for the side that protects the most vulnerable”). Set it early, win on it late.

Model

The proposition’s concrete plan for implementing a policy motion: who does what, when, and how. The more specific the model, the harder it is to strawman.

Motion

The statement being debated, phrased from the proposition’s perspective (e.g. “This House would ban private education”). See the four motion types.

Opposition

The team arguing against the motion.

Ordinary intelligent voter

The judge’s required mindset: informed about the world and open to persuasion, but unmoved by jargon, specialist knowledge, or empty rhetoric.

Point of information (POI)

A short interjection offered by the opposing team during a substantive speech. The speaker chooses whether to accept; the first and last minute are protected.

Prepared motion

A motion released weeks before the tournament, allowing researched cases. Tournaments typically mix prepared and impromptu rounds.

Proposition

The team arguing for the motion. Called “government” in some other formats.

Rebuilding

Repairing your own case after it has been rebutted, to show why your arguments still stand. The second speaker’s job alongside rebuttal.

Rebuttal

Directly attacking the other side’s arguments, ideally the strongest version of them. Structured as “they say… / however… / this shows their argument fails because…”

Reply speech

The short final speech (half the length of a substantive), delivered by the first or second speaker: a “biased judge’s summary” of the round in your side’s favor. No new arguments, no POIs.

Split

The allocation of arguments across speakers, announced by the first speaker: typically 1–2 arguments for speaker one and one new argument for speaker two.

Stance

The team’s clear position on the motion, stated in the first speech. Everything the team says must be consistent with it.

Strategy

One of the three judging criteria (20%), covering the quality of a speaker’s choices: issue prioritization, structure, timing, POI handling, and role fulfillment.

Style

One of the three judging criteria (40%), covering delivery: clarity, vocal variety, presence, and persuasiveness. The category American converts most often undertrain.

Substantive speech

The main eight-minute speeches (speakers one through three of each team), as opposed to the shorter reply speeches.

Tagline

The short, memorable title of an argument (“Brain drain breaks the ladder”). It is what the judge writes at the top of their flow.

Trade-off

The core tension of the debate: what each side gains and gives up. Naming the trade-off honestly, then winning it, is stronger than pretending your side is costless.

Whip

The third speaker. Reorganizes the debate into clashes, wins each one, and weighs the round, without introducing new arguments.

See these terms in action: the speaker cheat sheets turn them into speech structure, and the judging guide explains how Style, Content, and Strategy are actually scored.