A SHORT GUIDE TO COMPETITIVE DEBATE FORMATS

There are a lot of different competitive debating formats in the world. This can be confusing as one encounters an alphabet soup of names. I hope that this very short introduction can assist you in locating the format that is relevant to you.

University level competition:
 WUDC/BP World Universities Debating Championship
 NPDA/APDA American Parliamentary Debate, USA only
 Policy Debate CEDA, NDT, USA only
 Asians Format AUDC, NEAO, Asia only
 Australs Australasian format, Australasian only
 CUSID Canada only
 NFA Lincoln Douglas, USA only High school level competition:
 WSDC World Schools Debating Championship
 Karl Popper Debate IDEA
 Policy Debate, USA only
 Lincoln-Douglas Debate, USA only
 Public Forum Debate, USA only

UNIVERSITY LEVEL COMPETITION: WUDC/BP
 Topics: New topic for each debate. '
 Teams: Teams of 2, 4 teams in one debate, 2 proposition, 2 opposition, judges rank teams 1-4.
 Length: 60 minutes
 Preparation: 15 minutes before the debate, no electronic access, only talk to partner.
 Interaction: Points of information from one side to the other.
 Content: No quoted material, usually. Very few procedural or definitional arguments.
 Style: Faster than normal conversation, but accessible to all people.
 Events: Worlds, Euros, Asians, Pan Africans, US, etc. NPDA/APDA
 Topics: New topic for each debate. Topic more binding for NPDA than APDA.
 Teams: Teams of 2, 2 teams, proposition and opposition.
 Length: 45 minutes
 Preparation: 20-30 minutes open preparation.
 Interaction: Points of information.
 Content: No quoted material.
 Style: Some jargon, some procedural arguments,
 Events: NPDA tournaments, NPTE, APDA tournaments.

POLICY DEBATE
 Topics: One topic for entire academic year.
 Teams: Teams of 2, 2 teams, affirmative and negative.
 Length: 2-2.5 hours.
 Preparation: Intense preparation during the entire year, extensive research. Ten minutes preparation time to be used by each team during the debate.
 Interaction: Cross examination
 Content: Lots of quoted material, lots of jargon, many procedural arguments, but very open to innovation if you can defend it.
 Style: Usually very rapid speaking.
 Events: NDT, CEDA tournaments. ASIAN
 Topics: Three topics before each debate, teams determine which to debate.
 Teams: Teams of 3, 2 teams, government and opposition.
 Length: About one hour.
 Preparation: 30 minutes.
 Interaction: Points of information.
 Content: No quoted material, usually.
 Style: A little faster than conversational, but understandable by all.

Can a circle be square?

Hy debaters.... I'm not a debater but I know how to debate. So I just want to share with you what is the topic, content, and so on. Debate is one of the ways that can built our self confidence. I have try to debate but I afraid and at last I was Failed. Hehe. Don't be like me ok? Ok,now let's talk about "Can circle be square?"

To its supporters, the honours system is an important, traditional feature of the British way of life and a fitting way of acknowledging the achievements of people of all backgrounds. For its critics, it has for centuries provided a disreputable means of inducing, sustaining or rewarding service, first to monarchs and more recently to politicians. In recent years, efforts have been made both to democratise the system and to protect it from abuse. Anyone can now nominate a fellow citizen for an award and the Cabinet Office describes its primary purpose as being to recognise people who will "usually have made life better for other people or be outstanding at what they do". In 2011, in the wake of a series of scandals about the award of peerages in return for donations to political parties, checks were introduced in an attempt to break the link. But in August 2012, the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee called for a wholesale review, claiming that the Government's "lack of willingness to clarify and open up the process" was damaging public confidence. Does twenty-first century Britain needs an honours system? If so, should we devise a new set of awards which reflects contemporary society rather than our imperial past? Who should receive them and who should decide? Do we need an effective system for withdrawing honours from those who are subsequently disgraced? Or, does the old system remain fit for purpose? Two seasoned campaigners debate the issues.