An example of Oxford Style Debating

Other links to online repositories of recorded debates (especially the latter two have very interesting recent debates, the former is most relevant for management/strategy/innovation scholars):

https://druid.dk/druid-debates/

https://www.oxford-union.org/past_debates

https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/about-iq2

Link to the Amsterdam Student Debate Association (thanks to Philippe for sharing): https://www.asdvbonaparte.nl/en/about/

An example of debate rules.
Especially the instructions to the different speakers can be further adapted depending on the course and content.

Set-up of the debate

There are two debate teams. One team will argue in favor of the debate statement (see separate document for the statement). This is the proposition team. Another team will argue in opposition of the former statement. This team is the opposition team.

Each team will speak four times. It is suggested that each team divides the speaking task among four speakers. If there are more team members than four, the remaining members can be in charge of making points of information (see further below) and taking notes of the other team’s arguments during the debate. All team members should contribute during the preparation of the debate.

There is an audience (the students not part of any debate team). The audience will evaluate the debate. The audience should prepare by reading the same materials as the debate teams.

There is a debate chair (Siri).

 

Debate rules

The speakers will speak in the following order: first proposition, first opposition, second proposition, second opposition, third proposition, third opposition, fourth proposition, fourth opposition.

All speeches shall last maximum three (3) minutes. A speaker who fails to draw their remarks to a close within 15 seconds of the end of their allotted time will be stopped immediately by the debate chair. A single audible signal shall be given when there is 30 seconds left of the allotted speaking time. A double audible signal shall be given when the time allotted to the speaker has elapsed.

A point of information may be offered during a speech by standing and saying “point of information” or “on that point”. Points of information may only be made by members of the side opposing the speaker. Points of information cannot be made when 30 seconds or less is left of the speaking time.

A speaker has the absolute right to accept or reject any points of information. Until a point is accepted, the speaker offering a point may say nothing more than “point of information” or “on that point”. If a point is declined, the speaker offering it must resume his or her seat immediately without comment.

The debate chair can choose to extend the speaking time to make up for time spent on an accepted point-of-information. This will be decided on an ad-hoc basis depending on the quality of the debate.

 

Speaker roles and debate procedure

1. The first proposition speaker should start out by defining what the debate is about. This can be done, if necessary, by specifying some core assumptions and definitions (for example, what competitive advantage means). The speaker should then present the overall argument of his/her team and proceed to develop two or three points. It is important that the proposition team has a case established at the end of this first speech. The first speaker cannot simply do “preparatory work” but must get going with presenting arguments.

2. The first opposition speaker should challenge the definition of the debate only if it is unreasonable. If it is reasonable, it is better to move on. The speaker should present the overall argument of his/her team and then focus on rebutting the points of the first proposition speaker. S/he should ideally develop two or three of his/her team’s points.

3. The second proposition speaker can defend the definition of the debate if it has been challenged. More importantly, s/he should focus on rebutting the arguments of the first opposition speaker and develop two or three points of the proposition case.

4. The second opposition speaker should support his/her partner’s stance on the definition of the debate, if this has been an issue. More importantly, s/he should rebut proposition arguments, particularly those of the second proposition speaker. S/he should develop two or three points of the opposition case.

5. The third proposition speaker should extend the proposition argument, introducing substantial new analysis. S/he should also rebut the opposition’s arguments, particularly those of the second opposition speaker.

6. The third opposition speaker should extend the opposition argument, introducing substantial new analysis. S/he should also rebut the proposition’s arguments, particularly those of the third proposition speaker.

7. The fourth proposition speaker should summarize the debate as a whole, explaining why the proposition has won. S/he should not introduce new arguments. S/he should address the third opposition’s extension at some point.

8. The fourth opposition speaker should summarize the debate as a whole, explaining why the opposition has won. S/he must not introduce new arguments.

The rules have predominantly been compiled based on the following source: https://outspokenela.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/the-oxford-union-guide-to-schools-debating-copy.pdf