Formats

Because we are a site for experimentation and innovation there is a lot of variability and discretion for event runners to craft their own approaches and formats, but all Civic Debate Consortium events share one important characteristic: Researched arguments are presented to expert/stakeholder judges using audience-friendly speaking styles.

Our events prepare advocates to present ideas to expert stakeholders in civic and professional environments. Field experts and practitioners are brought in as judges and respondents for our events so we avoid the jargon and esoteric speaking norms associated with traditional tournament circuit debating. This is the most significant and consistent distinguishing characteristic of Civic Debate Consortium events: Our students engage the sort of audiences they will engage in their careers upon graduation.

While there’s no one singular approach to a Civic Debate Conference event, some formats are more commonly used. The three most commonly used formats are described below. To learn about other formats, please reach out to us.

Debate

A riff on traditional CEDA/NDT policy debate using a traditional pro-con structure without the emphasis on spreading or critique. Students compete in teams of two or three each. Each speech will be assigned speaker points, however, if an individual speaks twice only one speech will count for purposes of determining speaker awards.

Teams will be assigned to affirm or negate the topic.

On teams of two, each speaker will give one 6 minute speech, be cross examined for 4 minutes, and cross examine an opposing debater for 4 minutes. In addition, one speaker on each team will also give a 6 minute closing rebuttal. Over the course of the four preliminary rounds, each speaker on teams of two must give two closing rebuttals for their team and their partner must give two closing rebuttals for their team.

Procedure

  • 1st Affirmative 6 Minutes, cross examination by 2nd Negative 4 minutes

  • 1st Negative 6 minutes, cross examination by 1st Affirmative 4 minutes

  • 2nd Affirmative 6 minutes, cross examination by 1st Negative 4 minutes

  • 2nd Negative 6 minutes, cross examination by 2nd Affirmative 4 minutes

  • 2 minutes of preparation time

  • Affirmative Rebuttal 6 minutes

  • 2 minutes of preparation time

  • Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes

The Social Justice Debates and The Lafayette Debates have used this format.

Dialogue

This is a non-dichotomous, collaborative approach to argumentation. There are three teams per round composed of two or three members each. All speeches will be 6 minutes in duration. Teams will be assigned to be the A set, B set, or C set. A set will be the opening team – individual speakers will be designated as A1, A2, A3. B set will be the second team – B1, B2, B3. C set will be the third team – C1, C2, C3

Speakers A3, B3 and C3 will conduct two cross examinations but will not be subject to cross examinations after their speeches. These speakers are permitted, but not required to accept Points of Information.

Each team will set their own arguments in response to the topic and respond to each of the opponents sets of arguments. Each team member will fulfill one role:

  • The first speaker of each team will fulfill the role of Constructive Speaker.

  • The second speaker of each team will fulfill the role of Extension Speaker.

  • The third speaker of each team will fulfill the role of Rebuttal Speaker.

 Procedure

Students will speak in the following order:

  • A1; followed by 60 second cross examinations by B2, then C3.

  • B1; followed by 60 second cross examinations by C2, then A3.

  • C1- followed by 60 second cross examinations by A1, then B3

  • A2; followed by 60 second cross examinations by B1, then C3.

  • B2; followed by 60 second cross examinations by C1, then A2.

  • C2; followed by 60 second cross examinations by A3, then B3

  • B3; may take points of information after the first and before the last minute

  • C3; may take points of information after the first and before the last minute

  • A3; may take points of information after the first and before the last minute

The St. Ignatius Dialogues and Social Justice Debates Season Opener have used this format.

Present - Defend

Also colloquially as the JoPat format, teams composed of 2 students develop and present policy proposals related to the topic under discussion. A panel of judges composed of local officials with decision-making power question the students about their proposals. Teams then incorporate an idea from another team and forward arguments about why incorporating that idea makes their proposal the best among the teams.

Procedure

Competition Phase 1, Case Presentation

  • 8-10 university speech and debate teams present their substantive case to the panel and their peers in an open present-and-defend forum

  • Each team is allotted a maximum of 8 minutes to present their case.

  • Teams may yield their time if they do not reach 8 minutes.

  • Teams are cut off by a time keeper if they exceed 8 minutes

  • Judges are allotted 6 minutes to question each team at their discretion. Judges are not required to use the whole 6 minutes.

Competition Phase 2, Case Updates

  • After the last team presents, teams are allowed 10 minutes prep time to identify one main idea from another team’s presentation to incorporate into their own presentation for the purposes of improving their case.

  • In a closed forum each team is allotted up to 5 minutes to present their case alterations to the panel explaining which idea they incorporated into their presentation and why doing so makes their proposal the best among those presented.

Competition Phase 3, Adjudication

  • Judges Deliberate, content and presentation skills are assessed. Judges should not penalize teams for not speaking the full 8 minutes, however, a team that doesn’t have enough content to fill 8 minutes may be less persuasive than those that do by virtue of being able to offer more supporting arguments or to deepen their supporting arguments. The panel chooses a winners based on clarity and quality of content, overall improvement achieved in the updated case, organization, and presentation skills. The team that is chosen places first, and the team whose point was incorporated into the winning team’s presentation places second.

  • While judges deliberate, students are invited to record reflections on how the experience of researching, composing, and delivering their proposals changed both their knowledge of the world and them as people.

  • After awards are announced observers are invited to share what they felt was valuable about the participants’ presentations and their reactions to the judges’ decision.

The Sierra Sustainability Summit and Legados have used this format.