Debate sequence

The order of events in our debates will be like so:

In a 3 vs 3 debate:

1. First pro speaker speaks 5 minutes and presents the debate proposition from the Pro POV, and supports it as well as possible.

2. Cross-Examination -- One speaker from the con side stands with the first pro speaker and asks questions, and only asks questions. The pro speaker only answers questions. Typically, the questioner's strategy is to attempt to pin the speaker down to specific statements that can later be attacked. The speaker, of course, whats to be sure to properly qualify his or her opinion.

3. First Con Speech -- the first con speaker states the con disagreement with the pro position and supports that, rebutting the pro arguments, and adding whatever other arguments the con side may find useful.

4. A pro speaker cross-examines the con speaker just as a con speaker cross-examined the first pro speaker.

5. The second pro speaker defends the first pro speaker's positions insofar as they have been attacked, attacks the first con speaker's arguments insofar as that may be done, points out where the con team has failed to answer or adequately answer the pro argument, and introduces any new arguments that the first speakers may have failed to mention.

6. Cross examination.

7. The second con speaker rebutts the second pro speaker, defending the first con argument and attacking the pro arguments.

8. Another cross examination.

9. The third pro speaker gives the concluding pro speech, hopefully wrapping up all arguments into a convincing conclusion for the pro side.

10. The third con speaker gives the concluding speech, hopefully wrapping up all arguments into a convincign conclusion for the con side.

As you can probably tell by the format, it makes no sense to try to divide a topic into various aspects in order to have individual speakers specialize in different aspects of the topic. For instance, an abortion debate may have moral, social, and medical aspects, to name only a few; a speaker who prepares to deal with only moral issues may be poorly prepared to defend the arguments of a first speaker who presented social or medical issues. Likewise, a speaker who opens the debate by addressing only one small part of the overall question has probably not made a very effective argument, since any informed decision regarding the topics you have decided to debate would involve the weighing of many factors.