Third Speaker / Whip

World Schools Debate · clarify the clashes, win each one, weigh the round

Introductionone rhetorical device: historical example · emotional appeal · logical link

Opening frame: what has this debate really been about?

Clash 1name the clash as a question the judge must answer

The clash (e.g. “Does the policy actually reduce harm?”)

Their side

Their strongest remaining material: what do they say?

Why it does not stand

Our side

Internal weighing: why is our case still standing while theirs is not?

External weighing: why does our worst case beat their best case?

Clash 2name the clash as a question the judge must answer

The clash (e.g. “Does the policy actually reduce harm?”)

Their side

Their strongest remaining material: what do they say?

Why it does not stand

Our side

Internal weighing: why is our case still standing while theirs is not?

External weighing: why does our worst case beat their best case?

Clash 3name the clash as a question the judge must answer

The clash (e.g. “Does the policy actually reduce harm?”)

Their side

Their strongest remaining material: what do they say?

Why it does not stand

Our side

Internal weighing: why is our case still standing while theirs is not?

External weighing: why does our worst case beat their best case?

Metrics

Why should the judge decide the round on our metric?

Conclusion

Summary of the round as we have won it

Final framing / caseline