EVEREST INTERNATIONAL

WSDC 2025
Fundraiser for Provincial Debate Outreach in Nepal

Register Now
4 - 6 July, 2025 | Online Tournament
Thank you EIWSDC 2024 CAP, for preparing
CAs:AhmadTousif Jami, Alec Becky, Bea
Legaspi, Klaudia Maciejewska, Pragyan
Acharya

DCAs: Larisha Lamichhane, Nishan Sah

This briefing is being used as same of EIWSDC 2024.

 Acknowledgements

This guide draws largely from the training materials developed by CAP of ESDC 2023, the
CAP of WSDC 2024 and previous WSDCs (especially those of Mexico 2020, Macau 2021, and
Netherlands 2022), building on their accumulated work. It also attempts to provide
additional clarification on issues raised by judges and coaches in recent years.

Everest International WSDC 2024

THE WSDC FORMAT
 THE WSDC FORMAT
Roles Proposition Opposition

● Define the motion clearly in a way that is fair to both teams ● Must oppose the motion
● Present their characterisation of the status quo ● May set up their case purely on rebuttal of Proposition, though
Teams ● Advance constructive arguments in favour of their case this is strategically risky
● Where appropriate, identify what the problem is and present a ● May have substantive arguments of its own, including proposing
solution to the identified problems a counter-model

● Define the motion, relevant burden(s) and the metric(s) by which to ●

●
● Challenge
Clarify the definition,
relevant if necessary
burden(s)/metric(s) for the debate, if necessary
evaluate the debate ●
●
●
Provide
Introduce
Bring
rebuttals
theirtheir
own ownto the 1st Proposition
stance (detailed
constructive under
arguments “Team Roles”)
(advisable)
1st speakers ● Introduce an action plan (model), if the team chooses to tackle the ● Flag therebuttals
case division division between the 3 Opp speakers
● Extend and further develop the constructive arguments, if the
Provide to the 2nd Proposition extension
motion with one
Opposition has any
● Advance and develop constructive arguments
● Flag the case division between the 3 Proposition speakers
● Deal with definitional challenges, if necessary
2nd Speakers
● Provide rebuttals to the 1st Opposition
● Extend and further develop constructive arguments
3rd Speakers ● Small substantive arguments, if flagged in the 1st Proposition ●
● Small
Providesubstantive arguments,
rebuttals to if flagged
the Proposition casein the 1st Opposition
● Provide rebuttals to the Opposition’s case
Reply ● Bring a holistic overview of the debate
Speeches ● Compare both teams’ contributions to the debate
● Explain why they think their side won the debate, without adding non-derivative arguments for their side
 Third Speeches
3rd speeches in WSDC style may include a small part of their team’s substantive case, IF flagged in the case division
announced by the 1st speaker. However, they are not required to include new arguments in their case
The role of the 3rd speaker is to respond to the other team’s case. Both 3rd speakers should respond to what has
happened in the debate before their speech. “Responding” is a broad term covering:
Direct rebuttal to an argument that the other team has made, which means providing a critique of the logic in the
argument or providing new explanations for why the conclusion reached in the other side’s argument s wrong
Weighing of arguments by providing analysis of the relative importance of arguments or impacts
Indirect comments or analysis about an existing clash point: providing new conclusions or impacts which can be
weighed against the conclusions reached by the other team
New contextual or characterisation analysis which broaden the understanding of conclusions reached by either team
New examples which provide deeper understanding of the arguments being made or existing rebuttal
“Newness” in a 3rd speech is not sufficient justification to discredit material at 3rd. We encourage judges to think more
critically about whether the material meets the definition of “responsiveness”.
However, teams should be aware of strategic trade offs made when best responses come at third, even if the material
not discredited for “newness” backloading responses would count as poor strategy.
 Reply Speeches
The reply speaker may be either the first or second speaker of the team, but not the third.
The reply speakers are in reverse order, with the Opposition reply first and the Proposition reply last.
Neither reply speaker may introduce a new part of the team case.
The role of the reply speeches is to sum up the debate from the team's viewpoint, including a response to
the other team's overall case and a summary of the speaker's own team’s case.
A reply speaker may respond to an existing argument by raising a new example that illustrates that
argument but may not otherwise introduce a new argument.
Good reply speeches do not just report on the debate that happened, but contribute to the team’s overall
strategy and approach in the debate, in order to shape how the debate has evolved and panned out
 THE MODEL JUDGE

Hypothetical ‘ordinary intelligent voter’ (‘average reasonable person’) Impartial: Doesn’t judge teams they have a personal
bond with (nation of affiliation, teams they have coached, etc.). Unbiased: Has no prior idea who is going to win the
debate. They set aside their personal opinion about the motion or specific arguments. They don’t expect teams to argue
their preferred arguments or discount arguments they don’t like. They judge the debate that happened before them.
Open-minded and concerned to decide how to vote – they are thus willing to be convinced by the debaters who provide
the most compelling case for or against a certain policy. Observant and diligent: Listens carefully to what debaters say
and doesn’t construct ideas that haven’t been explained well. They look for substantiation and evidence equally from both
teams. They track arguments, responses, and POIs – and are able to fairly and accurately summarize the debate (not
necessarily to the debaters, even just to themselves) before evaluating it. Possessing general knowledge: Take on the role
of an average, intelligent listener and is aware of current affairs and basic facts without letting specialist knowledge
interfere with the debate. Expert on the rules: Knows WSDC debating rules well and understands the words in the motion
and the roles of teams/speakers. Accountable & Constructive: Can justify their decision based on a sound understanding
of issues in the debate and the criteria for judging & gives debaters constructive and concrete feedback after the result of
the debate is announced
 Judges Should
Be courteous and respectful to the teams and coaches
MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE FOR FEEDBACK AT REASONABLE TIMES
Pay attention in rounds:
Not checking their phones
Giving commentaries on your debate to other judges elsewhere!
Taking good notes
 JUDGES SHOULD NOT

Use extremely specific knowledge on a certain topic.

Assess the content in the debate based on the arguments a team could have made.
Assess the content based on refutation the judge is able to think of against an argument.
Fill in the gaps in analysis or rebuttal that a team has themselves.
 DECIDING THE WIN

Judges should determine which team did the best to persuade them, by reasoned argument, within the
constraints set by the rules of debating, that the motion ought to be adopted or rejected. The judges do
so as the ordinary intelligent voter, and their assessments are always holistic and comparative
Role fulfilment can be considered, but should not be the sole or primary criterion for judging a debate.
The WSDC Judging Criteria
EVALUATING ANALYSIS
 Points of Information

Speeches are 8 minutes!, POIs after 1st and before the last minute.
Judges should track how many POIs were accepted and the content of POIs and responses to POIs
We ask judges to be mindful of the impact of POIs in the round, and to assess POIs as part of individual
Strategy.
Track them: how many offered and how many accepted and what was said.
 WHAT ARE ‘ISSUES’ IN A DEBATE?

Issues (or contentions, questions) are often questions that help you decide whether a particular motion
should pass or fall.
There could be many issues such as the clashes/issues most discussed. Not all issues are of equal
importance, and you have to identify which issues are more crucial to winning the debate than
others.
How do you identify the main issues in a debate?
Preferably, the debaters do it for you by explicitly identifying them.
If the debaters do not, you will have to track and evaluate arguments and engagement. It is
important to identify issues as they emerged in the debate, and NOT enter and decide what issues
should have emerged.
Possible Metrics include:
What were/became the most important issues raised in the debate?
Who won those issues effectively, through the arguments and evidence provided?
 Weighing Issues

After deciding on the issues in the debate, you will need to decide the relative importance of each issue
vis-à-vis each other.

HOW CAN WE ‘RANK’ OR ’WEIGH’ OUT ISSUES IN A DEBATE?

What did teams explicitly agree on as important?
If unclear, what did teams agree to be important implicitly?
If it is also unclear, what reasons were given by each team to explain why a particular issue matters
more (weighing)?
IF, AND ONLY IF, no weighing was attempted, then you may REASONABLY enter the debate as an
average reasonable person (see earlier) to decide how they would weigh it – e.g. quantity impacted,
extent of impact.

EVALUATE WHO WON THE ISSUE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEBATE.

Compare the contribution of both teams on a given issue (rebuttal and argument)
Decide which team ultimately won the issue – was there important material that stood at the end
that was left un-responded? Dis existing responses adequately take down the core of a point that
was made?
 Conferral Judging

THIS MEANS:
During the debate, judges will judge the debate as per normal. At the conclusion of the debate,
judges first come to an initial / preliminary decision. They will then discuss their decision and the
debate with the other judge(s) on the panel before individually coming to their final decision. The
purpose of the discussion is not to reach a ‘consensus’ but rather to allow judges to make the most
informed decision possible by taking into account as much information as possible. Judges may
change their initial decision at any point of the conferral process. Judges will submit a separate ballot,
i.e. each room will have the same number of panels and ballots submitted e.g., 2 panels means 2
ballots from that room.
 The Deliberation / Discussion

The Panel Chair will lead the discussion. Deliberation should take between 15-20 minutes, including
submission of ballots. Intention of the deliberation is NOT to convince other members of the panel to
change their decision. Rather, it is meant for the judges on the panel to make the most informed decision
by taking into account as much information as possible. It is perfectly acceptable if judges change their
verdict after the discussion. Similarly, it is also perfectly acceptable if judges do not change their verdict
after the discussion. Judges submit their own ballot at the end of the deliberation. In the event of a split on
an even panel, the Chair gets the casting vote (i.e. they have 2 votes).
 GUIDE ON FACILITATING
CONFERRAL

Have all judges announce who they preliminarily thought won the debate Panel Chair is to inform the panel that the
discussion is not meant for the panel to reach a consensus, but is instead aimed at allowing judges to make the most
informed decision possible by taking into account as much information as possible. Hence, if judges wish to change
their decisions as a result of the discussion, they can. Panel Chair provides a few metrics / clashes / issues /
questions
contentionsthey
/ had considered to be important in judging the debate and opens the floor for the panel to provide more
metrics. Panel deliberates on each metric / clash / issue / contention / question using the categories of Style, Content
and Strategy, discussing what material (both positive and negative) that was provided by each team and evaluating
how the metrics / clash / issues / contentions / questions played out in the round, and why the debate went the way it
did. In the event of a split, the chair should ask the dissenting judge(s) to highlight key areas of difference from the rest
of the panel. The Panel Chair should ask the panel if they had any extraneous thoughts on the debate that they would
like to highlight to the panel/debaters. Each member of the panel submits their own individual ballot, separately from
the other judges. Upon which, the Panel Chair should ask all panelists to announce their final decision. This decision will
be the one announced to teams. If necessary (e.g. if the Chair is now out-voted by their panelist), the panel may have an
additional 5 minutes to further discuss the verdict. This would usually involve the Chair asking one member of the
majority to deliver the Oral Adjudication. Panel returns, and one member of the Panel (usually the Panel Chair) will
deliver the oral adjudication.
 WSDC SCORING CRITERIA

We use a tripartite scoring system consisting of Style: 40% (40 points) Content: 40% (40 points) Strategy:
20% (20 points) Rather than rigidly seeing these three parts as discrete elements when determining speaker
scores, these three parts should help a judge understand what team did the best job during the debate
overall. The speaker scores are a mathematical expression of your decision and they help you evaluate the
individual performance of a speaker.
SPEAKER SCALE
SCORING SUBSTANTIVE
SPEECHES
SCORING SUBSTANTIVE
SPEECHES
SCORING REPLY SPEECHES
 Top Ten Speaker Average Scores at
Previous WSDCs (For Reference)

Past average scores:

WSDC 2019 (Bangkok): 73.4 to 74.23
WSDC 2020 (Online, Mexico): Maya Division: 72.63 to 73.11 & Aztec Division: 72.78 to 73.67
WSDC 2021 (Online, Macau): 72.33 to 73.17
WSDC 2022 (Online, Netherlands): 72.5 to 72.96
WSDC 2023 (Vietnam): 74.17 to 73.60
What this means:
If you give a speech a 73 and above, you are suggesting that the speech would be a speech given by a Top
Ten speaker at WSDC.
If you give someone a 75. You are suggesting that this speaker could be the Top Speaker at WSDC.
We would note to not shy away from using full-scale IF and when applicable.
 ORAL ADJUDICATION (OA)/
REASON FOR DECISION (RFD)

Judges need to decide a winner between the 2 teams.

Judges announce the results first (and whether it was a split/unanimous decision).
Judges deliver their RFD based on Content, Style and Strategy.
When discussing content, judges should focus on the issues in the debate – which issues were
important, which team won each issue and why. Be specific, making close reference to the
relevant speeches.
Judges should be comparative when discussing content, style and strategy, and the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each team.
Judges should try to spend an equal amount of time on both teams, and balance positive and critical
comments.
Keep it succinct – don’t spend longer than 5-10 minutes.
Tell teams they may approach the panel for individual feedback (with a responsible adult around) after.
 EFFECTIVE OA / RFD

CONTENT STRATEGY STYLE

 OA / RFD V.
INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK
 Important Reminders

Judges should always be in the General Auditorium AT LEAST 15 minutes before the start of each round.
Please make sure that you have the debaters’ names and speaking positions.
The panel will have 15-20 minutes to decide, discuss and submit their ballots.
DON’T BE LATE!
 THANK YOU
See you at the event. Good Luck!

Everest International WSDC 2025