• In what order does the debate  moderator...?

  • Ask questions which may be explored by debaters to generate interest

  • Introduce debaters

  • Introduce Topic and give context

  • Facilitate Pre-debate Votes

• Take initial votes

• Does the existence of billionaires represent economic policy failure, increasing economic inequalities and reducing growth?
  • Does it signify economies becoming saturated with wealth-extracting individuals contributing nothing to communities?
  • Does the saturation of wealth at the top hinder the ability of the majority to experience social mobility and achieve financial success?
  • Isn't it just true that the poor simply need to understand how to manage their money, how to cook instead of eat fast food, etc., and then maybe they might find themselves in better financial situations?
• Do billionaires inspire and incentivise you to be innovative, think creatively and improve productivity?
  • Do you agree poor people are lazy, less ambitious and don't work as hard, and that's why they earn less money?
• Are billionaire “vanity projects” (e.g. going to space) a waste of resources?
• Do you believe governments should put a limit on how much an individual could earn, and redistribute the difference?
• Should Billionaire CEOs be subject to taxation in each country of their company’s activity?

• 18 minutes per debate

• (1) Moderator introduces the topic / interest / teams
   
• (1) Audience Pre-debate vote  [for/ against]
   
• (3) The "For" case: opening arguments (rehearsed)
• (3) The "Against" case: opening arguments (rehearsed)
  
  --- Moderator transitions ---
   
• (3) For: rebuttal (on-the-spot)
• (3) Against: rebuttal (on-the-spot)
  
  --- Moderator transitions ---
   
• (4) Floor open to audience for questions for teams
   
• (1) Audience votes [for / against + most persuasive]

1. Matt AM1- 4 GROUPS
2. SARAH AM1 - 3 GROUPS
3. ADAM AM1 - 3 GROUPS
   
   Also, one moderator per class.

1. Matt AM2 - 4 GROUPS
2. SARAH AM2 - 3 GROUPS
3. ADAM AM2 - 3 GROUPS
   
   Also, one moderator per class.

• The abolition of the current financial system would only result in chaos and economic instability.
  Matt Against | Sarah For
   

• World governments should urgently prioritise the implementation of Universal Basic Income (UBI)
  Matt For | Adam Against
   

• Society would benefit from a 3-day work week.
  Adam For | Sarah Against
   

• Additive manufacturing (3D Printing) promises a bright future.
  Sarah For | Matt Against
   

• Humanity should embrace the potential of genetic engineering.
  Adam Against | Matt For

You need to be familiar with the entire range of arguments on both sides. What will your opponents main weapons of opposition be and what facts could they possibly throw at you?

Consider the potential rebuttals from your opponent and prepare responses in advance. This demonstrates foresight and strengthens your position.

There will be elements of the oppositions argument that you will probably agree with and vice versa, but you've got to find the ONE element that is particularly strong and relevant to your own side.

Make sure you have a thorough understanding of the subject matter. Research and gather relevant information, statistics, and examples to support your points.

Regardless of whether you are “for” or “against”, you will express your side of the argument according to your logical bias based on the researched material - it’s important to state exactly how localised your viewpoint is.

Most people’s arguments are exceptionally shallow when they are only based on temperamental bias.

So start with a compelling opening statement or argument. Capture attention, set the tone, and establish credibility.

Back up your arguments with credible evidence, real-life examples, or expert opinions. This strengthens your stance and makes your points more convincing.

Organise your points logically. Use a clear structure with an introduction, main points, and a conclusion.

Present the information concisely and coherently.

Conclude Strongly: Summarise your main points and reiterate your strongest arguments in your conclusion. Leave a lasting impression on your audience.

A dodger is someone who dodges the argument - for example someone might say “We need to reduce fossil fuels because of climate change” and the dodger will say “Well then why do you drive a big 4x4?”

It's kind of answering the question but it's turned the question on its head and is going down a different path. When up against a dodger, you need to keep reverting them back onto your path so YOU remain in control.

So Stay Focused: avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant points. Keep the discussion focused on the key issues at hand.

A twister’s objective is to twist the point that you're making. For example, if you were opposed to increasing taxes, the twister might say “Does that mean you have no concern for Social Security?”.
​​​​​​​

It's not the argument that you are raising, it is the one that they are thrusting upon you. You must respond clearly by saying something along the lines of “No that is not what I'm saying… (and clarify your point)”.

A fibber generally doesn’t tell one falsehood, they tell many during their discourse. They try to sensationalise their story. So what you need to do is to focus on one or two of their untruths, and then replace the lie with the truth - this way the argument that they are putting forward or fall over.

For a wrangler, nothing is ever good enough. They are very good at coming up with critiques against everything that you are saying but they have no strong argument of their own. So you should interrupt them and break their flow by asking them precisely what they believe in.