WSC Team Debate Guide

(from long-time debaters)

Basics:
Team Debate is World Scholar’s Cup’s Argument-extravaganza. In my opinion, it is the
second-most-important event after the Scholar’s Bowl in order to score well and earn the
highest rank. While I believe 12,000 points are allocated to Debate and 10,000 to Scholars’
Bowl per team, the uncertainties of Team Debate, as will be discussed, means that the true
scoring threshold for Team Debate is lower than Scholars’ Bowl, hence it still earns the
distinction of the second-most-important event. In terms of individual scoring, Team Debate
happens to be slightly more important than Challenge and Collaborative writing, clocking in at
4,000 points instead of 3,000 for the other two, however, the uncertainties of Team Debate
mean that it is, once again, comparable to the Challenge as the most important event for
individual scoring and rank.
While my teammate (hi Maria) may be getting frustrated at me for presenting Collaborative
Writing as the least important for scoring in both of these comparisons, its combination of fewer
points with uncertainties does make it the least important in my opinion. However, within this
hierarchy, Team Debate and Collaborative writing are the events where while the curriculum is
relevant but there is much more than just knowing the syllabus. In Team Bowl and Scholars’
Challenge, knowing the syllabus will get you a long way, however, strategies are extremely
important in Team Debate.
One important factor to consider in Team Debate is the many uncertainties. Firstly, your
adjudicator, no matter who they are, will have certain personal biases and biases relating to the
motion. This will influence the scores, no matter how much they try to minimize them.
Nevertheless, there are ways to reduce the effect of biases and score a lot of points. (I have
pretty consistently gotten golds for example) One important rule to remember is that if your
adjudicator is from your school/delegation, they cannot adjudicate your debate and must
adjudicate another. Please keep your adjudicators informed about this and switch adjudicators
when needed. Adjudicators are usually happy to comply with this policy. Furthermore, follow
the Debate tree, as it will make sure you end up in the right rooms for your Debates. These
instructions are repeated by the staff but are essential to mention in a guide.
This guide will discuss Team Debate for all 3 scholars. This will be done using the division of
roles. I tend to be rather plain in my names for each debater. The names are:
● Affirmative 1st Speaker
● Negative 1st Speaker
● Affirmative 2nd Speaker
● Negative 2nd Speaker
● Affirmative 3rd Speaker
● Negative 3rd Speaker
Each speaker has 4 minutes, with 1-minute gaps in between each speaker and 15
minutes to research and prepare. If you are skeptical of my knowledge about the other roles,
fret not, because at some point or the other, I have debated in each of these roles in the WSC,
thus I can provide a comprehensive guide of how to approach each role. We will be also
covering general strategies on how to develop points and rebuttals. However, first:
What not to do in Team Debate:
The first part of any good Debate guide is what NOT to do. Here is a list of things you MUST
avoid in your debate (The bolded ones are especially important):
● Using laptops, large tablets, large notebooks, or any large clunky device during
your speech
● Writing down your speech word-to-word and reciting it off your device, notebook,
scratchpad, etc.
● Constantly pay eye contact with your device, notebook, scratchpad, etc.
● Not paying adequate attention and eye contact with the adjudicator
● Not paying adequate attention and eye contact with the opposition
● NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THE OPPOSITION (The opposition’s speech is not
something you can just ignore)
● DISTRACT THE OPPOSITION SPEAKER (this will result in a lot of deducted points for
your team, an opposition team of mine has learned this the hard way)
● Being loud during the Opposition’s speech (You can discuss points and rebuttals with
your team softly as well)
● USING PERSONAL INSULTS (this will always result in point deductions as I learned the
hard way)
● PREPARING YOUR SPEECHES SEPARATELY IN A TEAM (its called team debate for
a reason)
● JUST WRITING YOUR OWN SPEECH DURING PREPARATION TIME
● LISTING YOUR POINTS WITHOUT ELABORATION (Your adjudicator will not
appreciate your not understanding your arguments)
● HAVING NO EVIDENCE IN YOUR DEBATE (“Evidence” makes an argument)
● Speak extremely softly (the adjudicator and opposition have to hear you)
● Hop and scotch around the room randomly (learned this the hard way)
● Not move at all (opposite to the last point but still bad)
● Keep both your hands stiff (they are there for a reason)
● Speak in a monotone voice with no modulation (no one likes listening to a monotone
voice unless it's an actual robot)
● Speak without confidence (confidence is essential to debate)

What to do in Team Debate:

Here are some things you should do in Team Debate instead of the things you should NOT do
(again, the most important ones are bolded):
● Note down only the key essential points using chits, note cards, small journals, or
small devices such as Mini Tablets or Phones
● Elaborate upon the key essential points rather than listing them down
● Only look towards your device, chits, note cards, etc. to refer to points
● Divide your eye contact between the adjudicator and opposition when mentioning
points and rebuttals in a slightly unequal manner (more towards the adjudicator)
● PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR OPPOSITION’S SPEECH (you need it for rebuttals)
 ● DISCUSS REBUTTALS WITH YOUR TEAM SOFTLY DURING THE OPPOSITION’S
SPEECH (Otherwise you only have 1 minute to prepare. Also be soft)
● BREAK DOWN AND DESTROY THE OPPOSITION’S POINTS WITHOUT PERSONAL
INSULTS (Will be discussed in more detail)
● DISCUSS THE MAIN ARGUMENTS WITH YOUR TEAM DURING PREPARATION
TIME (How to divide the arguments amongst the speakers will be discussed later)
● HELP STRENGTHEN EACH OTHER’S ARGUMENTS (always helps)
● ALWAYS USE EVIDENCE (Research evidence for your arguments during preparation
time)
● If you are the affirmative team, PREPARE PREBUTTALS during preparation time
● Modulate your voice in a natural manner, with an ebb and flow between more
important info (louder) and less important info (softer)
● SPEAK LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD
● Add snarky or sarcastic comments WITHOUT PERSONAL INSULTS
● Try using natural movements throughout your speech
● Accentuate important points with accents and dramatic pauses (although don’t go too
far, that is why this is not listed in bold)
● Speak with a lot of confidence (it can take you a long way, but don’t go too far or you will
appear overconfident, and it won’t help)
● Use your free hand to go along with your speech and help your arguments (hands really
help in body language in a speech during Team Debate)

Scoring:
Each WSC Debate is marked on 5 Criteria:
● Content (7 Points per Speaker)
● Presentation (7 Points per Speaker)
● Strategy (7 Points per Speaker)
● Teamwork (7 Points per Team)
● Feedback (7 Points per Team)
The judges also give awards for Best Speaker and a Wow! Award for any speaker that
impressed them. These speakers will have a chance at the Debate Showcase, as the
adjudicator believes them to be exceptional speakers.
The maximum score per team is 77, with the maximum number of points per speaker being 21.
The points are then scaled according to a complex system of up to 4000 points per individual.
Here are ways to maximize each metric:
Content:
Presentation:
Strategy:
Teamwork:

Speaker Roles:
An important point to address first is how to assign roles within your team. Typically, I would
suggest that the teammate who is very good at presenting information but is not generally a
very strong speaker should be the second speaker. The role of the second speaker is also the
least taxing in terms of presentation and impact. However, it is also the most information-dense
role. Thus, the second speaker should ideally be the most formal speaker, who is very good at
presenting the information.

Your first speaker has to be confident and bold, but also very respectful and courteous. This
speaker should ideally not be extremely argumentative, and better at establishing the other
speakers. They should also have good speaking and presentation skills as the first speakers,
especially affirmative first speakers leave the first impression on the adjudicator for your whole
team. One very important note is that they should also be strong enough to be prepared for the
role of the negative first speaker, which is the toughest role for the negative team.

Your third speaker has to be extremely bold and preferably have a shade of argumentativeness.
A sense of aggression and loudness is also typically characteristic of the third speaker, and they
should be very effective at using persuasion. They should also be very comfortable with
breaking down arguments and tearing them to pieces. Rebuttals are the main role of the third
speaker, and thus you should be very comfortable with them if you are the third speaker.
Additionally, affirmative third speakers have to be especially impactful and conclude the
affirmative side’s argument in a manner that leaves no holes. This is because the negative third
speaker has the last say, and the final impression on the adjudicator, so you want to make sure
that they have very literal room to impact your team. Thus, the affirmative third speaker is the
toughest role for the affirmative team.
Note: All the information about the number of points each speaker should have is more
elaborated in the points division section, and this is just a general overview for those.
However, the other roles are pretty clear.

Affirmative Speaker 1:
● Introduce the Motion
● Set the definitions for the key terms of the motion
● Try to manipulate the terms of the motion to the Affirmative team’s advantage
● Introduce the debate structure of the affirmative team, including the points of the second
and third affirmative speakers
● Give prebuttals to weaken the opposition’s argument before they even start debating.
Your prebuttals are the affirmative team’s biggest advantage, thus make sure to have
strong prebuttals that truly ruin the opposition’s arguments and make it difficult for them
to establish their arguments
● Introduce 1-3 important points for the debate.
● Make sure to not lay out all the information for the debate, solidification of the argument
is the second speaker’s job, and you don’t want the opposition to have 3 opportunities to
counter your arguments
Negative Speaker 1 (Hardest Role on the Negative Side):
● Change the definitions for the key terms of the motion if needed. If your team agrees
with the definitions, do not mention or alter them, or you will waste time
● Introduce the debate structure of the negative team, including the points of the second
and third speaker
 ● Address the prebuttals introduced by the affirmative side if any. Leaving holes in your
arguments will only give the affirmative side more chances to win
● Additionally, try to use the prebuttals to your advantage and establish them as points for
your own arguments. Try to repackage the prebuttals of the affirmative side as actually
being arguments against the motion. If you can do this, you can completely nullify the
opposition’s biggest advantage
● Follow the same strategy, and try not to lay out all the cards. Only lay out the first 1-3
points that truly establish the debate
● If you can try predicting the opposition’s next points using their current arguments, try to
use that information to give prebuttals. This is a very risky but successful strategy if you
get the prebuttal predictions correct.
Affirmative Speaker 2:
● Addressing a few (but not all) rebuttals for the Negative first speaker
● Elaborating upon the points with extreme detail
● Introducing lots of facts and figures, information, and case studies
● Introducing new perspectives into the debate, and expanding the scope of the debate
● Address 3-4 solid arguments that have a lot of detail (refer back to facts, figures,
information, and case studies). Make sure your arguments leave little room for flaws that
can be exploited by the negative team.
● CASE STUDIES AGAIN. Case studies are your best friend as a second speaker as they
offer great examples, lots of content, and a lot of detail, that is difficult for the opposition
to address. It is very difficult to refute case studies within the one minute you have to
prepare as an opposition.
● I would suggest not to reveal the ethical and moral perspectives with your first, but rather
your second speaker, as that gives a lot more leeway to your third speaker and less time
to form a response for the negative side
Negative Speaker 2:
● Mostly the same
● Addressing a few (but not all) rebuttals for the Affirmative second speaker
● Elaborating upon the points with extreme detail
● Introducing lots of facts and figures, information, and case studies
● Introducing new perspectives into the debate, and expanding the scope of the debate
● Address 3-4 solid arguments that have a lot of detail (refer back to facts, figures,
information, and case studies). Make sure your arguments leave little room for flaws that
can be exploited by the negative team.
● CASE STUDIES AGAIN. Case studies are your best friend as a second speaker as they
offer great examples, lots of content, and a lot of detail, that is difficult for the opposition
to address. It is very difficult to refute case studies within the one minute you have to
prepare as an opposition.
● I would suggest not revealing the ethical and moral perspectives with your first, but
rather your second speaker, as that gives a lot more leeway to your third speaker and
less time to form a response for the affirmative side. This is especially true in your case,
as new perspectives through a negative second speaker really make rebuttals difficult for
the affirmative third speaker, and may ruin their debate.
Affirmative Speaker 3 (Hardest Role on the Affirmative Side):
● Start by concluding your team’s argument up until this point (similar to the first speaker
but in the opposite direction)
● If possible, have ONE OR TWO OVERARCHING POINTS for your rebuttals and
arguments. As an affirmative third speaker, you don’t have the final say or impression,
thus an overarching point can really tip the scales in your favor
● REBUTTALS. REBUTTALS. REBUTTALS. This is your main job as a third speaker.
Make sure to take as many points from the negative side as you possibly can, and rebut
as many as possible within your allotted time. Create an order of priority and address the
most important rebuttals first. HOWEVER!
● As an affirmative third speaker, your last 30 seconds to a minute should be utilized to
FIX ANY HOLES IN YOUR TEAM’S ARGUMENT. As your team does not have the final
say in the motion, it is crucial that you fix any holes in your argument before the negative
third speaker has an opportunity to completely ruin your team using those flaws. This
can be very difficult or easy depending on your strategy up until this point, and the flow
of the debate, but MAKE SURE you do this before you end your debate
Negative Speaker 3:
● Start by concluding your team’s argument up until this point (similar to the first speaker
but in the opposite direction)
● As a negative third speaker, Overarching points are optional but very helpful. As
mentioned, overarching points create impact, however, they are not necessary for your
debate. Your debate can just be all conclusions and rebuttals, however, overarching
points always help.
● REBUTTALS. REBUTTALS. REBUTTALS. This is your main job as a third speaker.
Make sure to take as many points from the negative side as you possibly can, and rebut
as many as possible within your allotted time. Create an order of priority and address the
most important rebuttals first. Take as much time as you want for rebuttals as NO ONE
IS THERE TO COUNTER YOU. This makes you the Negative team’s BIGGEST
ADVANTAGE and the negative team’s strongest tool
● If possible, have an EXTREMELY IMPACTFUL POINT be the final concluding point for
your team’s debate. This will leave a huge impact on the adjudicator, and crucially, THE
AFFIRMATIVE SIDE WON’T BE ABLE TO REBUTT IT. This is extremely advantageous
and tips the scales massively in your team’s favor.

How to give Feedback:

Finally, a relatively simpler section, but nonetheless an important one. Feedback accounts for 7
points in each debate for your team, so you want to do it well.
Here are a few general frameworks to give Feedback:
● DO NOT DISCUSS THE MOTION, Feedback is about improvement and not about
continuing to argue the motion
● Give Feedback about the Opposition’s Presentation, this is one area that can always be
improved for any Opposition
● Provide Feedback for each speaker, you can do it speaker to speaker (1st to 1st, 2nd to
2nd, 3rd to 3rd), or have one member of your team provide feedback for all
 ● If you thought the opposition's points lacked evidence, you could give them suggestions
about where to research from
● One that is almost always relevant is informing your opposition that they can use the
WSC Resources for their debate
● Provide feedback about Strategy if you think that is relevant

The REE, Case Study, Appeals, and Rhetorical Approaches to Points:

There are many approaches to coming up with points. However, some of the most effective is
the REE, Case Study, and Rhetorical Approaches.
In my opinion, the first two to focus on are always the REE and Rhetorical approaches, and as
mentioned, the second speaker should focus on Case Studies. If the other two speakers have
time for Case Studies, then only should they delve into them, otherwise they should follow the
REE and Rhetorical point approaches. Rhetorical Appeals, especially Pathos, is an approach
that can be taken by any speaker and is generally applicable, however with a certain degree of
caution, as will be discussed in this section.
The REE Approach (Realistic, Ethical, Effective):
One of the most creative and simplest approaches to forming points. We were taught this
approach by a WSC Senior, and it stands for discussing whether something is Realistic, Ethical,
and Effective. This is a good general framework for making points. A lot of your WSC Motions
will be very interesting motions. For example, a new invention, how to deal with an alien
invasion, or whether we should care about the history of words. In these debates, REE is a very
good strategy to create your points about.
If you are the affirmative team, you want to talk about how:
● The motion is Realistic
● The motion is Ethical
● The motion is Effective
If you are in the negative team, you want to talk about how:
● The motion is Unrealistic
● The motion is Unethical
● The motion is Uneffective
This is the general gist of it. Of course, you will have to align your points accordingly, but this is
an interesting framework for making your points. If you are following this framework, I would also
suggest this order of talking:
● 1st Speaker: Talks about Realistic Points, introduces Effective points
● 2nd Speaker: Elaborates on Effective points and talks about Ethical points
● 3rd Speaker: Generally uses all 3 for Rebuttals but also uses Ethical points in case of a
larger overarching point (go back to 3rd speaker roles)

Rhetorical Appeals (Ethos Pathos Logos):

Another useful strategy for building points is to use Rhetorical Appeals. This can be especially
useful when COMBINED with the REE Strategy. It can help in improving your REE and doubling
it up. If you weren’t introduced to Rhetorical Appeals, here is a summary:
● Ethos: Appeal to Authority/Credibility
● Pathos: Appeal to Emotion
 ● Logos: Appeal to Logic
Now, Ethos and Logos are fairly useful tools and can be used almost everywhere. They can
help you elaborate upon any of your REE points. On the other hand, Pathos is particularly
useful in two departments. One department is Rebuttals, through Ethics which will be
elaborated upon in the Rebuttals section. Another method is to couple Pathos with Ethical
points in your REE Strategy. Adding an element of Pathos always helps in this way. Put the
opposition in the shoes of someone, for example, to explain the Ethics of your point. Ethos is
largely reliant upon the evidence you use throughout the course of your Debate. The more
evidence you have, the more credible your debate is. Make sure to use (or fake) Credible
sources of information. Never say something is from Wikipedia. Either get it from a credible
source like a Harvard Study, find the source that Wikipedia is using (these are those little
annoying numbers on Wikipedia), or fake a credible source. (risky but sometimes it works) If you
have statements from famous figures, even better. Logos is largely built upon your logic, and
Logos is largely coupled with the Rhetorical Approach, which we will be discussing after this.

The Rhetorical Approach (framing Logic-based points):

The Case Study Approach (exploring Case Studies):

One of the easiest point-building strategies, and is particularly relevant for 2nd speakers.
While 1st speakers can talk about Case studies if they have time or if it supports their
arguments, in which case they should, and 3rd speakers can pair up rebuttals with case studies,
it is most important for 2nd speakers. Unlike 1st or 3rd speakers, who would mention specific
aspects of Case studies relevant to their point, a 2nd speaker can build a whole point upon a
Case study. This is about taking 2-3 case studies related to your motion and going deep into
them. These case studies are even better if they are from the WSC Curriculum. How you go
in depth is as such:
● Discussing the relevance of the Case Study with the Point
● Mention the details of the Case Study
● Explain the Case Study
● Link it back to the Point
The more details you mention, the more likely you are to trip up the opposition, and the more
reliable sources you use, the better. This is a simple tactic you can use to make multiple points
and strengthen your team’s argument as a second speaker.

Point Division among Speakers:

Important PS: The point division is about how many points each speaker presents FOR THEIR
SIDE. Prebuttals and Rebuttals DO NOT COUNT IN THIS POINT DIVISION.
131:
This division is simple. 1 Point for the First Speaker, 3 Points for Second Speaker, and 1 Point
for Third Speaker.
This division is for when:
1. You are on the affirmative side, and thus, the first speaker has to address a lot of
prebuttals
2. Your first speaker has 2 points that can be combined into one larger point
 3. Your second speaker is very good at delivering a lot of points but does not want to spend
as much time on rebuttals
4. Your third speaker can address a lot of rebuttals while also having the time to introduce
one final overarching point
231:
This division is the traditional division. 2 Points for the First Speaker, 3 Points for Second
Speaker, and 1 Point for Third Speaker.
This division is for when:
1. You are on the affirmative side, and thus, the first speaker has to address some
prebuttals OR
2. You are on the negative side, and your first speaker wants to start bringing up rebuttals
5. Your second speaker is very good at delivering a lot of points but does not want to spend
as much time on rebuttals
6. Your third speaker can address a lot of rebuttals while also having the time to introduce
one final overarching point
331:
This division is the point-heavy division. 3 Points for the First Speaker, 3 Points for Second
Speaker, and 1 Point for Third Speaker.
This division is for when:
1. Your debate has a lot of points to address
2. Your first and second speakers are very good at presenting points but do not want to
mention many rebuttals or prebuttals
3. If you are affirmative, perhaps your first speaker does not have many prerebuttals
4. Your third speaker can address many rebuttals while also having the time to introduce
one final overarching point
330:
This division is the first third-speaker-run-wild division. However, this also gives equal weightage
to your first and second speakers. 3 Points for the First Speaker, 3 Points for Second Speaker,
and 0 Points for the Third Speaker.
This division is for when:
1. Your first and second speakers are very good at presenting points but do not want to
mention many rebuttals or prebuttals
2. If you are affirmative, perhaps your first speaker does not have many rebuttals
3. Perhaps your first two speakers do not have the time for rebuttals or prebuttals due to
the depth of their points
4. Your third speaker can address numerous rebuttals and construct their debate based on
rebuttals
5. This is particularly effective for the negative, as since the negative third speaker cannot
be argued against, it gives them free reign to rebut
240:
This division is the second third-speaker-run-wild division. However, this division also takes into
account rebuttals or prebuttals for the first speaker. 2 Points for the First Speaker, 4 Points for
Second Speaker, and 0 Points for the Third Speaker.
This division is for when:
 1. Your first speaker wants to present multiple points, but also has prebuttals or rebuttals
they would like to address
2. Your second speaker is very good at presenting multiple points but is not very strong
with rebuttals, and wishes to leave that to the third speaker
3. Perhaps your second speaker does not have the time for rebuttals or prebuttals due to
the depth of their points
6. Your third speaker can address numerous rebuttals and construct their debate based on
rebuttals
7. This is particularly effective for the negative, as since the negative third speaker cannot
be argued against, it gives them free reign to rebut

How to Rebutt - Evidence, Ethics, Logical Fallacies, and Razors:

Rebuttals are a key part of any debate and knocking your opposition down is a peg. Rebuttals
will allow your team to prove that the opposition’s content is weaker than yours, and break down
their strategies and plans. However, for that ideal case scenario, you must know how to Rebutt.
Otherwise, your rebuttals can easily be countered by the opposition. Here are 3 strategies that
you can use to frame rebuttals in increasing complexity.
Evidence (Simplest Strategy, Applicable to facts and figures):
One of the simplest ways to rebut a particular point by the opposition is to present evidence.
There are 2 ways you can achieve this. You can either counter a particular fact or figure
provided by the opposition with your own statistics or case studies. You can also use similar
evidence to counter an opponent’s point.
Here’s an example for both:
1)
Let us say the opposition says: “The US Economy was having a much stronger economic year
in 2008 than in 2012 due to [Insert Factor Here]”
You can say: “The other team’s 2nd speaker mentioned that the US Economy had a much
stronger economic year in 2008 than in 2012 due to [Insert Factor Here]. However, if you look at
the statistics, the US economy fell by 4.3% in 2008 and grew by 2.28% in 2012. Thus, the
evidence clearly disproves the point made by the opposition”
2)
Maybe the opposition says that “Technological progress always causes harm to the world. For
example, the discovery of nuclear fission led to the development of Nuclear Bombs used in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
You can counter by saying: “The other team’s 3rd speaker mentioned that Technological
progress always causes harm to the world, and gave the example of Nuclear Fission and
Nuclear Bombs. However, do we forget that the same technology is now being used to power
the homes of millions, and may be one of the most crucial tools for fighting climate change?
Technology can be a force for good, but the other team chooses to ignore that”
Ethics (Point their ethical compromises):
Logical Fallacies (Difficult Strategy, Applicable to most scenarios):
A great tool in order to rebut your opposition, but also ensure that your own points are very
strong to pose rebuttals against is to evaluate them using Logical Fallacies. Basically, do not
commit Logical Fallacies yourself, and point out all the Logical Fallacies you can that the
opposition commits within the time you have to provide rebuttals.
Here are the logical fallacies:
These are taken from the website
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
● Strawman: Whenever you misrepresent, exaggerate, or fabricate someone’s argument
in order to help your attack, you are committing the strawman fallacy
● False Cause: When you conflate correlation with causation. Just because two variables
have a correlation, and a relationship does not mean one causes the other. That is a
false cause fallacy
● Appeal to Emotion: When you manipulate someone to get an emotional response rather
than providing a valid or compelling argument, its an appeal to emotion fallacy
● The Fallacy Fallacy; When you presume that just because someone poorly argues a
claim or makes a fallacy, the claims must be wrong. This is particularly useful for
providing counter-rebuttals when someone rebuts your points but does it with tact
● Slippery Slope: When you say that if some event A happens, Z will eventually happen so
A should not happen, it is hypothetical. Without any form of proof, there is no evidence,
and thus there is a Slipper Slope Fallacy
● Ad Hominem: When you attack your opponent personally (personal insults remember) to
try to undermine their argument. This is the Ad Hominem Fallacy
● Tu Quoque: When you avoid criticism by turning it on the accuser. If you answer criticism
with more criticism, you have just committed the Tu Quoque Fallacy
● Personal Incredulity: When you say just because you found something difficult to
understand, it is likely, not true, you are committing the Personal Incredulity Fallacy
● Special Pleading: When you make a special exception for something if your claim is
shown to be false, it is the Special Pleading Fallacy
● Loaded Question: When you ask a question in a manner that there is a presumption
such that the question cannot be answered without the opposition appearing guilty, you
have just committed the Loaded Question Fallacy
● Burden of Proof: When you say that the burden of proof is not for the person making the
claim, but instead for the opposition to disprove, you commit the Burden of Proof Fallacy
● Ambiguity: When you use double meaning or ambiguous language to mislead your
audience or misrepresent the truth, you are committing the Ambiguity Fallacy
● The Gambler’s Fallacy: When you say that certain “runs”, such as a series of heads
occur for phenomena that are statistically independent, like the coin flip, you are
committing The Gambler’s Fallacy
● Bandwagon: When you appeal to something just because it is popular, or people do it for
validation, you are committing the Bandwagon Fallacy
● Appeal to Authority: When you say that because an authority thinks, it has to be true,
you are committing the Appeal to Authority Fallacy
● Composition/Division: When you assume one part of something applies to all or other
parts, or that the whole must apply to all of the whole’s parts, you are committing the
Composition/Division Fallacy
 ● No True Scotsman: When you appeal to purity, in order to dismiss the criticisms or flaws
of your argument, you commit the No True Scotsman Fallacy
● Genetic: When you judge something as good or bad on the basis of where it is from, or
from whom it is from, you are committing the Genetic Fallacy
● Black-or-White: When you present two alternatives as the only possibilities when there
are more solutions, you are committing the Black-or-White Fallacy
● Begging the Question: When you present a circular argument, where the conclusion is
present in the premise itself, you are committing the Begging the Question Fallacy
● Appeal to Nature: When you say that just because something is “natural”, it is valid,
justified, inevitable, good, or ideal, you are committing an Appeal to Nature Fallacy
● Anecdotal: If you use just a personal experience or isolated example instead of making
an argument with compelling evidence, that is the Anecdotal Fallacy
● The Texas Sharpshooter: When you cherrypick one data cluster that fits your argument,
or one pattern to fit a presumption, you committed the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
● Middle Ground: When you claim that a compromise or the middle ground of two
extremes must be the truth, you committed the Middle Ground Fallacy
By claiming that any of these logical fallacies have been committed by your opposition, you
have a solid ground for a logical rebuttal.

Philosophical Razors (Complex Strategy, Applicable to select types of scenarios):

We just talked about the Logical Fallacies, however, another way to catch your opposition’s
arguments and create rebuttals is through using the philosophical razors. However, with these
statements, it is very important to remain careful, as they are philosophical, not always
applicable and can damage your debate more than benefit it under the wrong circumstances.
Under the wrong circumstances, it can create opportunities for the opposition to have more
rebuttals and points. Thus, it is essential that you have mastered the other rebuttals first, and
that you practice this technique in each practice debate if you do intend to use it. There are
many razors you can use, but I picked 9 of them that I use very often from this particular
website. Here are the Razors:
1. Occam’s Razor: “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.” This is a basic
principle that says that if there are multiple competing hypotheses or explanations for an
event, you should choose the simplest and most likely one that makes the least
assumptions. This is because when there are more assumptions, there is more room for
error, and thus the simplest explanation is usually, but not always, the correct one
2. Occam’s Duct Tape: The opposite of Occam’s Razor, it is when someone creates a
ridiculously large number of assumptions when solving a problem. When that is done, it
is very likely, but not always true, that their explanations are incorrect.
3. Sagan Standard: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” - Carl Sagan. If
someone makes a simple claim, let us say that their notebook is for Maths, that is a
simple claim, and it is reasonable to assume it's true. However, if someone claims they
can walk on water, you need extraordinary evidence, such as a demonstration to prove
it. Extraordinary claims are not enough and require extraordinary evidence as well.
4. Hitchen’s Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence” - Christopher Hitchens. This is very well connected with the Sagan Standard,
 and you can use the two in conjunction. If someone will assert something without
evidence, especially if it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, it
is reasonable to dismiss it without evidence. This is because the Burden of Proof lies on
the person making the claim, not the one verifying it. This ties in with the Logical
Fallacies as well.
5. Hume’s Razor: “If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we
must either reject that cause or add to it such qualities that it will give a just proposition
to the effect” - David Hume. This Razor is rather complicated, so just take the first part till
the “reject that cause” for your rebuttals. The simple idea is that if you attribute a cause
to an effect, but the cause cannot fully explain the effect, it either has to be rejected or
modified. So if you say that the increase in cases of disease causes a decrease in
Bananas consumed, but the disease cannot fully explain the drop in Bananas
consumed, it is the incorrect cause and must be rejected or modified.
6. Duck test: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is
probably a duck.” This is about abductive reasoning. It is about drawing the most likely
conclusion from the evidence, and not just denying the obvious because it is obvious.
When we say something or someone isn’t what it appears to be, this test can often be
used to counter that. Generally speaking, what is seen is also true.
7. Popper’s Falsifiability Principle: “It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for
nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations. Every genuine test of a theory is an
attempt to falsify it or refute it” - Karl Pooper. This statement says that any theory has to
be falsifiable, meaning it is possible to disprove or refute it if it is to be considered
scientific. In the case of debate, this principle can be used for the sake of refuting cherry
picking and your opposition cherry picking a few particular examples, or data for
generating patterns. This ties nicely into some of the logical fallacies such as the Texas
Sharpshooter Fallacy.
8. Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword: “That which cannot be settled by experiment is not
worth debating” - Mike Alder. This term was created by Mike Alder in an article. This
basically means that if a problem cannot be solved using experimentation and
reasoning, and instead just relies on argumentation, it is not worth a debate. An example
is “What would happen if an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?” In this
case, this principle can be used when the opposition makes statements that are
important to determine right or wrong using experimentation, data, or reasoning. This
can invalidate their point.
9. Grice’s Razor: “Conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for
linguistic explanations” - Paul Grice. In this case, this razor means that when in an
argument, conversation, or debate, it is important to address what the speaker actually
means, and not the literal meaning. This is a great way to refute the rebuttals of the
opposition if they focus on the semantics of your words, and not their meaning. Another
way this can be used is when the opposition denies your rebuttal and emphasizes their
literal world, in which case you can bring up what the implication actually was. In this
case, this negates any kind of ultra-semantic rebuttal or point the opposition can make.

Debate Strategies: How to Pick Them

The Build-Up Approach
The first approach is what I like to call the build-up approach. In this approach, your first speaker
introduces the points, and your second and third speakers build upon those points while forming
a single coherent argument. This type of approach follows one central idea, just approached in
different ways, and relies on the fact that the single idea will not be broken down. However, this
approach is risky, and there is another approach that can minimize the risk. However, this
approach is great if:
1. Your first speaker can establish a solid base
2. Your second speaker can support it with many examples
3. Your third speaker is good at addressing the opponent’s criticisms of the point
An example is if the debate is based on whether an alien invasion would be beneficial for earth
(this is similar to a prompt I got once). The first speaker can bring up the basic points about why
an alien invasion could be beneficial, like the ecological benefit for example. Second, the
speaker now can come in and elaborate upon that. They can provide data on the degrading
nature of human actions to the environment, and how an alien invasion would erase that. They
can also give examples, including ones from the WSC Syllabus. Finally, the third speaker comes
in and summarizes the argument, and addresses the criticisms levied by the opposition. This is
the first approach. However, it is not very trust-worthy, thus while possible, it is not an approved
approach, like the next 3. However, a better way to do that same approach is

The Multi-Angle Approach

This approach occurs when all 3 of your speakers, but especially the first 2, center your
arguments on the same premise but attack it from different angles and perspectives. This can
tie in really well with the REE Approach. For example,
1. First Speaker Addresses Realistic points
2. Second Speaker Addresses Efficient Points
3. The third Speaker focuses on Rebuttals and Ethics
This is also reliant upon building up on each other’s points, but the multi-angled nature makes it
much harder for your opposition to easily argue against your points. This makes it an approved
debate strategy, and an upgraded version of the Build-Up Approach. This is the best strategy
in the majority of debates, and it is very rare that you would want to use the Build-Up
Approach, especially Attack Mode. However, in the same cases, especially as a negative team,
you can indeed use

Attack Mode
This strategy is exclusively for if you are the negative team, and it is not even appropriate for
every single debate as the negative side. This is a very situational approach and relies on ALL
3 speakers being very competent with rebuttals. Furthermore, unlike the last 2 approaches,
which don’t necessarily require REE, this approach DEMANDS THE USE OF REE AND CASE
STUDIES. This approach is very good for debates centered around whether a particular
invention or field is useful for example. An example of a debate where this approach could work
is “Should we care about the history of words?” If you are the negative team here, you can use
the attack mode strategy.
This strategy is simple:
 1. The First Speaker addresses some strong points and also makes multiple rebuttals
based on the points and facts mentioned by the Affirmative First Speaker while making a
lot of Realistic based points and rebuttals. However, a few rebuttals are left out for
strategic purposes.
2. The Second Speaker brings up multiple case studies and addresses multiple rebuttals
on the points and facts mentioned by the Affirmative Second speaker while talking about
a lot of Efficiency and Ethics based points and rebuttals. However, a few rebuttals are
left out for strategic purposes.
3. The third speaker rebutts ALMOST EVERY SINGLE POINT of the opposition, in
particular the points LEFT OUT BY THE FIRST TWO SPEAKERS, while also bringing
up points about ethics if they are relevant.
This approach is risky, and you have to be careful. However, in the right situation and with the
right team, it can work brilliantly. Thus, this is a situational approved debate strategy.

1, 2, 3 (also thanks Avan)

This strategy is where the first, second and third speaker independently make their debates.
DON’T DO THIS. This heavily reduces your marks on teamwork and strategy, while also not
allowing you to think of how you can improve your arguments as you are solely focused on your
own debates. It also makes it difficult to come up with rebuttals, as your team is not helping you.
This is a disapproved debate strategy and whatever strategy you choose to use, DO NOT
USE THIS ONE.