LTDO Debate Format -- Simplified World Schools Format

Format and Schedule:

•           Competition Structure:

◦           Organized as team debates: 3 vs. 3 format.

◦           Pilot trial includes a total cap of 8 rooms accommodating 48 students.

◦           Engagement of 12 judges from international locations for scoring and feedback.

Competition Details:

◦           Motion Preparation:

▪           Topics/motions released 2 weeks in advance.

◦           Pre-Round and Round Mechanics:

▪           15 minutes of preparation time immediately prior to each round.

▪           Each round includes:

▪           A 30‑minute debate session.

▪           Followed by a 5‑minute break.

▪           Concluding with a 10‑minute OA (Open Analysis) period.

◦           Team Dynamics:

▪           Teams remain the same across the two rounds (one round on the Affirmative side and one round on the Opposition side).

Performance and Metrics:

◦           Scoring System:

▪           Accumulate total wins and speaker scores on a monthly basis.

▪           Scrogin on a 50-100 Scale

◦           Leaderboards and Badges:

▪           Real-time public leaderboard available for all participants.

▪           Badge systems implemented for both debaters and judges to recognize performance and milestones.

◦           Registration & Participation:

▪           Debaters register individually.

▪           Entry fee required to participate.

▪           A rotational cycle is proposed: one month of active competition, followed by a one-month break for processing and awarding certificates.

Rules

◦           No draws

▪           If at the end of a 3 vs. 3 match, the total speaker scores for both sides are equal, judges will adjust ±1 point on a borderline speech.

◦           Ironperson rules

▪           If a team is missing a speaker (e.g., an emergency or no-show), they can proceed under an “Ironperson” approach:

●      A single speaker may deliver two speeches, or the 1st and 2nd speaker might cover the 3rd.

●      The event organizers decide if there’s any penalty or if it’s fully allowed.

Scope of content

The content of a debate speech will cover the (1) arguments and (2) rebuttals and clashes. You will need to judge the persuasiveness of what is being presented through its logic, evidence and relevance to the motion. Points should be clear with logical consistency.

Good content

Higher marks should be given to students who have an in-depth analysis of their assertion by arguing why and how their outcome is likely, and why it is important to be considered in this world or in this debate.  A more in-depth argument, such as discussing the impacts of climate change by analyzing scientific observations, economic implications, and policy options, contrasts with a less in-depth argument that might simply state, "Climate change is bad," without further explanation or support.

Relevant examples and evidence should also be further explained rather than being merely stated. Strong rebuttals should effectively counter the opposition's points. Remember to note whether the debaters are directly addressing the main points of contention in the debate.

Judge= average reasonable person?

As a judge, it is important to note that we are an average reasonable person. We cannot use extremely specific knowledge of the topics to judge the content. Moreover, we can only judge the content that is being presented and not content that is missing but could have been made. For example, you cannot discredit a team’s argument, which has not been refuted by the other team,  just because you can think of strong rebuttals to refute their points.Scope of content

The content of a debate speech will cover the (1) arguments and (2) rebuttals and clashes. You will need to judge the persuasiveness of what is being presented through its logic, evidence and relevance to the motion. Points should be clear with logical consistency.

Good content

Higher marks should be given to students who have an in-depth analysis of their assertion by arguing why and how their outcome is likely, and why it is important to be considered in this world or in this debate.  A more in-depth argument, such as discussing the impacts of climate change by analyzing scientific observations, economic implications, and policy options, contrasts with a less in-depth argument that might simply state, "Climate change is bad," without further explanation or support.

Relevant examples and evidence should also be further explained rather than being merely stated. Strong rebuttals should effectively counter the opposition's points. Remember to note whether the debaters are directly addressing the main points of contention in the debate.

Judge= average reasonable person?

As a judge, it is important to note that we are an average reasonable person. We cannot use extremely specific knowledge of the topics to judge the content. Moreover, we can only judge the content that is being presented and not content that is missing but could have been made. For example, you cannot discredit a team’s argument, which has not been refuted by the other team,  just because you can think of strong rebuttals to refute their points.

Importance of style

A good style while debating is important because it ensures that the debaters’ words are being understood and are engaging the audience, which makes it easier for them to follow the flow of the speech. It also adds to the persuasiveness of the argument.

Good style

In judging style, we deal with how the content is presented. A good style of a debater would include the following:

(1)   Body language, facial expressions and hand gestures without being stiff

(2)   A consistent and normal pace of speech

(3)   Volume and tonal variations for emphasis

(4)   Emotive vocabulary that are not too technical and not too lay

(5)   Eye contact maintained with audience engagement

(6)   Being loud (without shouting)

(7)   Clarity and coherence in speech flow with pauses and signposting for clear transitions

(8)   Rhetorical devices that enhance the persuasiveness of the arguments

Accents

A speakers’ accent or vocal pitch and tone should not be taken into account when judging their style. These form a part of one’s linguistic background and cannot be changed over a short time to conform to a standard one.

Good strategy

Good strategy is independent of good content. A good strategy in debating would consist of the following:

(1)  Arguments aligning with the motion

(2)  Prioritising stronger and more impactful arguments

(3)  Being consistent throughout the debate

(4)  Good time allocation for rebuttals and arguments, particularly for the main issues

(5)  Staying within the time limit for the whole speech

(6)  Being able to identify and deal with the main clashes of the debate

(7)  Each speaker being able to fulfill their roles

Second Speaker

The second speaker of the team can either make a new and independent argument or make an extension to the first speaker’s arguments. If they decide to make a new argument, they should dedicate enough time to the argument to properly and fully analyse it.

On the other hand, when giving extensions, they should introduce new materials which could be:

(1)  New examples;

(2)  Advanced stakeholder analysis;

(3)  Additional logical links;

(4)  New impacts;

a.    The importance of the argument

b.    How minority groups will be impacted

(5)  New mechanism (reasoning);

(6)  New weighing; or

a.    Size of group impacted

b.    Extent of impact

c.     Long term versus short term harms

(7)  New framing of the argument

a.    By highlighting or downplaying certain aspects of the argument

Third Speaker

Third speakers should not introduce independent and entirely new concepts or arguments in the debate that didn’t exist earlier.

For third speakers, new material can only be introduced while responding to the opposition in the form of:

(1)  Some additional lines of analysis;

(2)  New examples;

(3)  New logic;

(4)  New lines of rebuttals  or

(5)  New ways of balancing and weighing arguments.

Late responses

Purpose of Oral Adjudication

Oral adjudication is a crucial part of the debate. It helps to provide feedback and evaluation to the debaters.

Delivering Oral Adjudication

When delivering the oral adjudication, announce the decision first, followed by the explanation of that decision.

Keep the oral adjudication within 8 minutes, without revealing any speaker scores. You may follow the following structure for the oral adjudication:

1. Opening remarks
1. Thank the participants for their efforts and acknowledge the hard work they have put into the debate
2. Content 
1. Which issues were more important in the debate and why?
2. Which teams tackled the specific issues better?
3. Strength and weaknesses of each team
1. Compare the points of argumentation, style and strategy between both sides and explain which was more persuasive
2. Explain the strengths and weaknesses of both teams
4. (If time allows) Closing
1. Allow debaters to ask questions about your adjudication and seek clarification

Make sure to give specific points of references when giving comments instead of only using very general phrases such as ‘this team provided more analysis’ or ‘majority of this team’s arguments were more persuasiveness’  without referring to words and examples used by the speakers.

Try to spend an equal amount of time giving feedback, both positive and constructive,  to each team while being clear, concise and comparative. Do not make any offensive comments and do not make fun of the speakers. It is crucial to remain respectful throughout the competition.

Now you are all set to judge our debate competitions! Here are some final tips for judging :)

1. Pay attention in rounds

Make sure you do not miss any parts of the debaters’ speeches because you could easily miss strong arguments and rebuttals that are being presented and fail to credit the teams on them. Do not check your phone or social media during the debate. Instead, you should jot down notes while the speakers are speaking.

2. Be courteous and respectful to the teams and coaches

As a judge, you may have way more experience debating than the participants. They still have a long way to go so it is crucial that they do not get discouraged by the judges. Providing constructive feedback would be great for their improvement, but you should not be disrespectful or make fun of their speeches, no matter how out of touch they are.

3. Set aside your personal opinions about the motion or specific arguments.

Remember that you are a hypothetical ordinary intelligent voter and an unbiased average reasonable person. It is all about judging the debate that is happening in front of you instead of judging a debate that happened before using your prior knowledge. You will need to be open-minded so that you can let one of the teams convince you in making your decision solely based on who presents the more compelling case. You will need to be accountable for your decision and make sure you can justify it with sound arguments.

4. Know the rules of LumiTalk Debate Open very well

Our Judges’ handbook will prove to be a very helpful tool for you as it will lay out the instructions and rules of LTDO. You should go through it a couple of times to fully understand the debate format and the speaker roles so that you are ready to judge according to our guidelines.Now you are all set to judge our debate competitions! Here are some final tips for judging :)

1. Pay attention in rounds

Make sure you do not miss any parts of the debaters’ speeches because you could easily miss strong arguments and rebuttals that are being presented and fail to credit the teams on them. Do not check your phone or social media during the debate. Instead, you should jot down notes while the speakers are speaking.

2. Be courteous and respectful to the teams and coaches

As a judge, you may have way more experience debating than the participants. They still have a long way to go so it is crucial that they do not get discouraged by the judges. Providing constructive feedback would be great for their improvement, but you should not be disrespectful or make fun of their speeches, no matter how out of touch they are.

3. Set aside your personal opinions about the motion or specific arguments.

Remember that you are a hypothetical ordinary intelligent voter and an unbiased average reasonable person. It is all about judging the debate that is happening in front of you instead of judging a debate that happened before using your prior knowledge. You will need to be open-minded so that you can let one of the teams convince you in making your decision solely based on who presents the more compelling case. You will need to be accountable for your decision and make sure you can justify it with sound arguments.

4. Know the rules of LumiTalk Debate Open very well

Our Judges’ handbook will prove to be a very helpful tool for you as it will lay out the instructions and rules of LTDO. You should go through it a couple of times to fully understand the debate format and the speaker roles so that you are ready to judge according to our guidelines.

1. How do I choose the winning team if both teams have equal accumulated speaker scores?

The team that wins a majority of the important issues in the round wins the debate. Individual scores often reflect the quality of the debate and speakers but the winners should be determined by the issues they won rather than the aggregate of individual speaker scores. Thus, a holistic approach needs to be adopted. However, since the speaker scores are the mathematical expression of your decision, you would need to adjust your scoring so that eventually the winning team gets a higher total score.

2. How should I take into account any technological problems during the debate competition?

It is common for there to be short periods of lag or frozen audio streams where some of the speech may not be transmitted. Speakers should not be penalised for such instances as this is not an example of bad style.

3. What should I record down during the debate?

You should jot down the following items:

1)    Name and speaker position

2)    Arguments provided

3)    Comments on the content, style and strategy

4)    Tentative score

4. How do I weigh which issue is most crucial for a team to win?

You should decide the importance of each issue in comparison with all the others. First you would need to rank the issues by considering:

1)    What did teams explicitly agree on as important?

2)    If that is not clear, then what did they implicitly agree on as important?

3)    If that is also not clear, then the reasons given by teams on why a particular issue matters more than other issues

4)    If there is no explicit weighing, then decide the ranking of issues yourself as an average reasonable person