5.3 Team Debating
LD debate was designed for one-on-one debate, but its basic structure can also be adapted to team debate. This chapter explains how this can best be done with two-person teams, and then how the format can be expanded to three-person teams. The chapter ends with an explanation of how the LD debate format can be used in a parliamentary format.
A. Two-person debate
This format gives students the opportunity to work in teams, which provides several advantages. First, students can discuss ideas with their partner, which often refines their arguments. This extends the intellectual interchange that makes debate valuable to the preparation stage. Second, it gives them someone they can practice with. Third, it gives them an opportunity to work together on a project. Finally, if course assessment also involves written debate cases, it allows them to collaborate on a written work in a way that generally improves the final product. In teaching my Debating Justice course, I found that students enjoy team debating more than individual debating and scheduled two team debates in all my classes. I usually mix the teams for the second team debate, but in one class the teams so enjoyed working together that they insisted on staying together for the second team debate.
In explaining how team debate works, here are some helpful abbreviations: 1A = first affirmative, 2A = second affirmative, 1N = first negative, 2N = second negative, C/X = cross-examines. Here is the basic format for debate between two-person teams, with C/X details included:
1A: 6 minutes
2N C/X 1A: 3 minutes
1N: 8 minutes
1A C/X 1N: 3 minutes
2A: 8 minutes
1N C/X 2A: 3 minutes
2N: 8 minutes
2A C/X 2N: 3 minutes
1A rebuttal: 4 minutes
I usually give each side a total of 5 minutes prep time during the debate, which makes the debate approximately 50 minutes long.
The cross-examination is structured so that for each speech after the first, the previous speaker on one team cross-examines the person from the opposing team who responded to their arguments. The only exception is for the first speaker, who is cross-examined by the second negative. While the format may look confusing, it is intuitive and students generally understand it by the time of their second team debate in the class.
Note that the first affirmative also has more speaking time than the other speakers, ten as opposed to eight minutes. This is so that the first affirmative has an opportunity to engage in some extemporaneous debate and rebuttal. Otherwise, after responding to cross-examination, this speaker would have nothing to do for the rest of the debate. This also allows the same rubric to be used for all debaters. While it violates the basic principle that each side has the same amount of time to present its arguments, the small deviation in time (18 v. 16 minutes) generally does not give the affirmative much of an advantage.
In preparing for team debates, I usually devote one class period to discussing arguments separately with each side. The affirmative debaters attend the first half of the class, the negative debaters the second. They practice debating and cross-examining each other to simulate how their opponents might approach their case. I also do some practice cross-examination of each side to make sure they face some tough practice questions.
This format creates problems if class periods are short since the debate itself occupies at least 50 minutes. If that is the length of the class, any critique or discussion of the issues will have to wait until the next class, which is less than optimal. Where I teach, the basic class periods are 75 minutes in length, which I find makes discussion/critique rushed. The best scenario is to have at least 90 minutes for each team debate.
B. Three-person debate
Here is the format that I have used for LD debate with three-person teams:
1A: 6 minutes
3N C/X 1A: 3 minutes
1N: 8 minutes
1A C/X 1N: 3 minutes
2A: 8 minutes
1N C/X 2A: 3 minutes
2N: 8 minutes
2A C/X 2N: 3 minutes
3A: 8 minutes
2N C/X 3A: 3 minutes
3N: 8 minutes
3A C/X 3N: 3 minutes
1A rebuttal: 4 minutes
With 6 minutes of prep time per side, this makes the debate 80 minutes long, for which a two-hour class period is essential. To fit the debate into a shorter period, one minute could be cut from each speech, leaving 5/7/7/7/7/3 as the basic structure of the debate, or C/X could be eliminated, which would cut the length by 18 minutes. The three-person format permits extended arguments on the contentions and facilitates greater teamwork. Adding a fourth debater to each team would cause difficulties, both because of the overall length and because after three rounds of argument on contentions the last debaters may struggle to find new things to say. Instructors can experiment with shorter speaking times if the number of students in the class necessitates four-person teams.
C. Parliamentary Format
In large classes, there is another alternative for conducting debates: divide the class into two teams and assign a committee from each team (or the entire team!) to draft a case to begin the debate. In this format, it is probably too difficult to include debate over values, so it might be best to stipulate the value or have the class agree on a value that will govern debate. Then the first debater from the affirmative team will present the prepared affirmative case for 6 minutes, followed by the first debater from the negative team, who will present the negative case for 6 minutes. Then another member of the negative team will respond to the affirmative case, setting the stage for subsequent debaters on alternate sides to address both the affirmative and negative cases. Unlike in regular debate format, there is no need to worry about each debater addressing all issues, so it might be best to have each debater focus on one contention from the opponent’s case. In a 75-minute class you could realistically include 10 or even 12 debate speeches, although that wouldn’t leave time for instructor comments. It might be best to limit the number of speeches to leave time for students to see how the instructor evaluated the speeches in the debate.
