- 0 -

友情提示：Please go to page16 for the Chinese version.

中文版请见第 16 页

Round Structure

A NHSDLC public forum debate round has heavy similarities with its US counterpart. There are only two
differences. The first is that each constructive speech is five minutes instead of four. The second is that
each team has four minutes of preparation time instead of two. Both changes were made to decrease the
difficulty of debating in a second language.

The Coin Flip

Every Public Forum debate begins with a coin flip. A volunteer or judge will flip a coin. One team will
predict the result of the coin flip. For example, if using a one yuan coin one team would say “number” or
“flower.” The winning team gets to choose their side or their speaking order. The other team will choose
the remaining option.

- 1 -
Choosing the side decides which team is pro and which team is con. The pro team will agree with the
resolution while the con team will oppose it.

Choosing the speaking order decides which team speaks first and which team speaks second. The team
that speaks first is Team A. The team that speaks second is Team B. Team A gets the first question in
each crossfire.

Since every team can debate on either side it is important to bring cases for both the pro and the con to the
tournament.

Speaking Roles
Each debater gives two speeches in a Public Forum debate round. There are two speaking roles. Speaker
one gives the constructive speech and the summary speech. Speaker two gives the rebuttal speech and the
final focus speech.

Each partnership should decide which debater is speaker one and which one is speaker two. Generally,
debaters choose one speaker role and keep it throughout the tournament. However, some teams decide to
switch speaker roles depending on their side. It is entirely up to the team.

The Constructive
The constructive speeches are the first speeches in the debate. They are five minutes long. The
constructive speech is usually written out before the debate and then read during the debate. These written
out speeches are referred to as “cases.”

The constructive speech lays out the foundational arguments for why one’s side of the debate is true.
There are three main parts to a constructive speech.

The first part is the definition. The definition section defines key words and/or phrases in the resolution.
The definition usually comes from a dictionary but may also come from experts on the subject such as
professors, policy experts, and philosophers.

The second part is the framework. The framework provides a way for the judge to evaluate what is most
important and why. A debater’s arguments should connect to their framework so the judge understands
why they are important. The framework operates as a standard or criterion that arguments must “meet” or
be encompassed by in order to weigh under that framework.

Frameworks often offer a broad value statement about subjects like morality, the role and obligations of a
government, the importance of some impacts over others or something similar. Frameworks that are made
well do not just list a team’s contentions and say they are important. Instead, a framework should explain
the overall reason that explains why those contentions are important.

The third part is the contentions. The contentions are the arguments that support one’s side of the
resolution. Contentions often include three parts – the claim, warrant and impact.

- 2 -
The claim is the statement that is being defended. It is the thing that will be shown to be true if it is
properly supported. For example, “dogs are better than cats” and “global trade greatly reduces the risk of
large wars” are both claims.

The warrant is the justification for why the claim is true. The warrant can be logical analysis, a piece of
evidence, or a combination of the two.

The impact explains why the argument matters. Impacts may explain how many people it affects, how
likely it is, and/or how soon it happens. Overall, the impact explains how severe the consequences of the
argument are.

A constructive case will usually have two to three contentions in it.

Crossfire
Every crossfire is three minutes long. The first crossfire happens after both constructive speeches. The
first speakers from each team will participate in this crossfire.

Crossfire is the question and answer part of a debate. Both teams ask and answer questions during
crossfire. The primary purposes of crossfire are to get information, provide information to the judge and
to dismantle an opponent’s arguments. Crossfire is not speech time, so it is important to provide concise
questions and answers. Crossfire is most productive when both teams prepare precise questions and have
a strategy for what they want to accomplish.

There are very few rules in crossfire. The only rules are which debaters are participating, the time limit,
and that Team A gets the first question. In the first crossfire only the first speakers from each team
participate. The debaters that are not participating should use this time as preparation time for their
rebuttal speeches.

Partners may help each other during crossfire, but only the words of the assigned speaker will be
evaluated by the judge. Helping a partner often may result in worse speaker points.

Since there are not many rules governing crossfire almost all behavior is allowed even if it not
encouraged. Interrupting an opponent, talking over an opponent, talking for long periods of time,
answering a question in a misleading way and other behavior is allowed. However, if a judge thinks the
behavior is rude they may penalize speaker points. It is ultimately the responsibility of the debaters to
effectively navigate crossfire by asserting themselves. A judge will not intervene except in rare and
extreme circumstances or to notify debaters that time is up.

In the first crossfire both teams should focus on challenging each other’s constructive speeches. The first
crossfire should also try to set up the rebuttal speeches by focusing on similar ideas.

The Rebuttal
The rebuttal speeches happen after the first crossfire. They are four minutes long.

- 3 -
The rebuttal focuses on attacking the opposing team’s case. A strong rebuttal will effectively answer the
opposing team’s framework and every contention. If the definition is also important for the debate it
should be answered.

A strong rebuttal will include both contextual and comparative responses. Contextual responses answer
the specific argument being made instead of a more general version of that argument. Comparative
arguments compare arguments against each other and explain why one is more accurate or important.

The second crossfire occurs after the rebuttal. The second speakers from each team participate.

The primary goal of the second crossfire is to set up the summary speech. Partners should discuss strategy
to decide which arguments they want to focus on during the summary speech. The second crossfire
should focus on building up these arguments.

The Summary
The summary speeches happen after the second crossfire. They are two minutes long.

The summary is a balancing act. It must cover both cases effectively. A debater should focus on the most
important arguments to accomplish this during a two minute speech. Generally, this requires focusing on
one or two contentions from one’s own case and then adequately answering the opponent’s arguments.

A strong summary speech will include “weighing” between arguments. Weighing compares the
importance of arguments. Both teams are often winning arguments at the end of a debate. Weighing is the
tie-breaker that determines which arguments are more important.

Grand Crossfire
The grand crossfire occurs after the summary speeches. It is three minutes long and includes all four
debaters.

The grand crossfire should focus on the most important arguments in the debate. Partners should decide
which parts of the debate they will focus on together. This is because the grand crossfire helps establish
the key arguments for the final focus.

The Final Focus

The final focus speeches are the last two speeches in the debate. They are two minutes long.

The final focus should “crystallize” the debate. Crystallizing clearly explains the debate for the judge. A
strong final focus will conclude major arguments, weigh arguments, and highlight voting issues. “Voting
issues,” or voters, tell a judge that they should vote for a team because of these arguments. They are
usually at the end of a speech and are part of a numbered list. There are usually three or less voting issues
per team.

The final focus is too late to make new arguments. New arguments are distinct claims or responses that
are not restatements of ideas already mentioned in the debate. Examples of new arguments include, but
are not limited to, new contentions and refuting an argument that was not already refuted. Judges are
instructed to not evaluate new arguments in the final focus.

- 4 -
The prohibition of new arguments does not mean that debaters are required to only repeat what was said
before in the final focus. Debaters are encouraged to provide new analysis by telling the judge things like
who is winning on each issue and why based on analyzing arguments made previously in the debate,
which issues are the most important, etc.

- 5 -
 Basics of Tournament Structure

Preliminary & Elimination Rounds

A public forum tournament is structured as follows. There are a certain number of preliminary
debates followed by elimination debates (also known as out-rounds) depending on how many
teams have entered the tournament.

A preliminary debate, abbreviated “prelim,” is like the regular season in a sport before the
playoffs. Every team in the tournament debates every preliminary debate unless they receive a
bye, which will be explained in the next section. Preliminary debates will have one judge. At a
typical NHSDLC tournament there are four preliminary rounds, which means every team will
debate four times.

The elimination debates occur after every preliminary debate has finished. If a team advances to
the elimination debates this is referred to informally as “breaking” or “clearing.” Elimination
debates are single-elimination. This means that once a team loses an elimination debate they are
eliminated from the tournament.

The amount of elimination debates also depends on how many teams have entered the
tournament. Usually, the first elimination debate will include the top 32, top 16, or top 8 teams.
The appropriate names for different sizes of elimination debates are as follows:

Top 64 teams – Triple Octofinals

Top 32 teams – Double Octofinals
Top 16 teams – Octofinals
Top 8 teams – Quarterfinals
Top 4 teams – Semifinals
Top 2 teams – Finals

Unlike in preliminary debates some elimination debates may have more than one judge. These
are referred to as “panels.” Panels are usually composed of 3 judges. Panels always have an odd
number of judges to ensure there cannot be ties. They do not collaborate on their decisions.

- 6 -
In the NHSDLC the only exception to judges on panels not collaborating is the final round
debate. The panel for the final round will include at least one NHSDLC colleague as a judge.
They will discuss the debate with the other judges and then announce the winner of the debate
and the reason for the decision. Awards are given to every team that participates in the
elimination debates.

- 7 -
 Flights

The amount of available rooms and judges is often limited. Therefore, many tournaments break
down debate rounds into flights. Flights break down a debate round into two groups, Flight A
and Flight B. Each team is randomly assigned to either flight each round. Flight A debates occur
immediately. Flight B debates occur after Flight A debates are over.

For example, if a tournament has 60 teams there would be 30 debates during each round.
Without flights this would require 30 different rooms and judges. With flights, 15 of those
debates would happen in Flight A and 15 would happen in Flight B. Therefore, flights lower the
requirements for rooms and judges and also provides students a break time between debates,
which they can use to prepare for their next debates.
At a typical NHSDLC tournament all four preliminary rounds are flighted, which means each
round has two flights. This means eight debates occur within the span of four rounds. Each team
is assigned either Flight A or flight B during each round, and overall participates in four
preliminary debates.

- 8 -
 The Basics of Pairing

This section will cover the basic rules and guidelines of pairing. Pairing is the decision making
process that determines who faces who in a debate tournament.

The tournament staff that tabulate these pairings are called the “tab” or “tabbing staff.” They
will be in the “tab room” for the majority of the tournament. The tabbing staff use software to
assist them in pairing the tournament because making the decisions requires a lot of data and
there is a large amount of possible decisions.
Here are some of the basic guidelines that explain how pairing works.

In the first two preliminary debates pairings are randomized. This means any team has an equal
chance of facing any of the other team in the tournament. For example, if there are 100 teams in
a tournament a team has about a 1% chance to face any of the other teams. They are equally as
likely to face the 84th team, the 32nd team, the 55th team, etc.

There are two constraints on the randomization. The first is that teams cannot face teams that
they have already debated. The second is that teams cannot face teams from the same school.
However, in the NHSDLC, if a school composes more than 1/3 of the competition then teams
from the same school can face each other. This is to prevent a large amount of pull ups in the
powered rounds. Both of these concepts will be explained next.

Every debate after the first two debates are “powered.” A powered round is one where teams
with similar win-loss records face each other. For example, for the third debate in a tournament
teams that have won two debates would face other teams that won two debates, teams that have
won one debate would face other teams that have won one debate, and teams that have won no
debates would face other teams that have not won yet. The purpose of powered rounds is to
match teams with similar skill levels against each other. This leads to more even and better
debates.

Sometimes there will not be an even amount of teams that have the same win-loss record. For
example, there may be an uneven amount of teams that have won two debates. In that case, a
team that has won one debate will face a team that has won two debates. This is called a “pull
up.” Pull ups will only affect a small amount of teams in a tournament and are necessary to make
the tournament possible.

Similarly, if there is an uneven amount of teams in the entire tournament one team will receive a
“bye” each round. If a team receives a bye they do not have an opponent for the round and
receive a win. For example, if there are 101 teams at a tournament 50 debates would happen each
round. This leaves one team leftover who does not have an available opponent. They would
receive the bye.

- 9 -
In summary, the fundamentals of pairing a debate tournament are as follows: the first two
preliminary rounds are randomized, meaning any team has an equal chance to face any other
team in the field. Every round after the first two are powered, meaning teams with equal win-loss
records will face each other.

- 10 -
 Speaker Points

At the end of a debate judges don’t only decide the winner and loser. Judges also decide speaker
points. Speaker points are the points awarded to a debater based off of a combination of their
argument quality, persuasion and overall presentation. So in contrast to wins, which are given to
debaters solely based off of their arguments, speaker points evaluate a debater’s performance
more holistically.

In theory, the speaker point scale goes from 1 to 30. However, in practice speaker points are
assigned within the range of about 22 to 30, with 30 being the best. Half-point intervals are
commonly utilized, such as 27.5, 28.5 and so on.
Quantifying persuasion and style is not a precise science. It is informed by loose guidelines that
can change depending on each debate region’s community norms. NHSDLC tournaments use
the scale below as a loose guideline when assigning speaker points.

Speaker points are assigned in a relative way. A debater that is an average speaker at one
tournament may be below average at a more competitive tournament, but then be an above
average speaker at an easier tournament. This means that if a debater goes to a highly
competitive tournament and receives lower speaker points it isn’t necessarily because they
debated worse than they regularly do. More likely it is because the competition they are being
compared to is stronger.

Since speaker points are rewarded holistically instead of solely based off of argument quality,
low point wins are possible. Low point wins occur when a team that receives higher speaker
points loses the debate. Even if a team is overall stronger at speaking, persuasion, organization
and other important debate skills, they may still lose the debate versus an opposing team because
of strategic errors. Low point wins provide judges the flexibility of rewarding a team for being
better speakers even if they lose the debate.

- 11 -
- 12 -
 Ranks

Along with speaker points judges will also assign speaker ranks. Ranks are assigned to each
debater to evaluate how well they spoke relative to each other. Ranks are assigned from 1 to 4,
where 1 is the highest and 4 is the lowest. Ranks must correspond with speaker points, where the
highest rank goes to the debater that got the highest speaker points.
For example, if the speaker points assigned in a debate are 24.5, 25, 25 and 26, the debater that
received the 24.5 would be ranked a “4” and the debater that received a 26 would be ranked a
“1.” The judge would decide which debater out of the two that received a 25 was better, and
assign one debater a “2” and one of debater a “3.” While debaters can receive the same speaker
points they cannot receive the same ranks. Therefore, ranks can differentiate debaters who
receive the same speaker points.

- 13 -
 Speaker Awards

Speaker awards are given to the students who have received the best speaker points during
preliminary debates. The number of awards depends on how many teams have competed in the
tournament division. Most leagues, including the NHSDLC, will award at least the top 5
speakers in the tournament with awards. If the division is bigger the top 10 may be rewarded. At
particularly large tournaments the top 20 may receive awards.
Speaker rankings are calculated for NHSDLC tournaments by looking at:

1. High/Low points – The high/low, which can be abbreviated as H/L, plays the most important
role in determining speaker awards. The high/low is the score obtained by subtracting the highest
and lowest speaker points assigned to a debater over the duration of a tournament from the
competitor’s total points.

If a debater had four rounds with a 25.5, 27, 27.5, and 28 their total score would be 108. Their
high/low would be calculated by subtracting the highest score (28) and lowest score (25.5). 108 –
28 – 25.5 equals 54.5. Therefore, this hypothetical debater‘s high/low is 54.5.

The high/low mitigates the effect of outlier speaks when determining awards. This means
consistency is rewarded. Having one bad debate does not, by itself, prevent a debater from
getting a speaker award. Therefore, a single judge cannot affect results too heavily.

Once the debaters are ranked in high/low points, there might be some ties. In order to break these
ties, the next statistic is used.

2. Total Speaker Points – The total speaker points are the second most important thing in
determining speaker awards. The total speaker points are the second best way to evaluate an
individual debater’s speaking ability.

In the previous example, the debater received a 25.5, 27, 27.5 and 28 over four rounds, leading to
a high/low of a 54.5 and a total score of 108. If another debater received a 26.5, 27, 27.5 and 29
their high/low would also be 54.5, but their total score would be 110.

Both debaters in this example have a high/low of 54.5. Therefore, when calculating speaker
rankings their total scores would then be compared. Since the total score of 110 is higher than a
total score of 108, the second debate would be ranked above the first debater in the speaker point
results.

After this step most ties will be broken and speaker rankings will be mostly completed.
However, if there are still ties another statistic is used.

- 14 -
3. Total Ranks – The purpose of ranks is to help break ties in speaker points. After a debate, the
judge will give each speaker in a room a rank with the highest speaker as a "1" and the lowest
speaker as "4." The judge must also break ties through ranks. So if all four debaters in a round
were to get 28.5s, the judge must still rank them 1, 2, 3, and 4 to break the tie.

On average, those with a lower number in total rank will be the best in their room. This means
that unlike all other tiebreakers, a lower rank indicates a better performance. It is better to be
ranked 1st than it is to be ranked 4th. In other situations, a higher score indicates a better
performance.
If there is still a tie in the speaker rankings, the next statistic is used.

4. Opposition Wins – The opposition win is calculated by adding together the number of wins
of all opponents a team has faced. If two debaters have tied high-low points, total speaker points
and ranks, the tie is broken with the opposition win score.

For example, if one debater faced three teams that won three rounds and a team that won four
rounds, their opposition win score would be 13 (3 + 3 + 3 + 4). If a second debater faced two
teams that won two debates, a team that won one debate, and a team that won no debates, their
opposition win score would be 5 (2 + 2 + 1 + 0). The first debater will be ranked higher in
speaker ranks because they faced tougher teams while receiving the same scores. This indicates
that the first debater is a better speaker overall because they performed similarly despite facing
better teams.
There are rarely ties at this point, but there are a few more statistics.

5. Judge Controlled Variance – Judge variance, abbreviated Jvar (pronounced Jay-var),

measures how much higher or lower a debater’s received speaker points are from a judge
compared to other debaters the judge judged during the tournament. If a judge consistently gives
low speaker points but gives a debater high speaker points, their judge variance score will be
positive. If a debater receives lower speaker points than average from a judge, their judge
variance score will be negative.

As the high/low points, total speaker points, total ranks and opposition wins are all better
measurements of a debater’s speaking skill, judge variance is one of the last scores that breaks a
tie.
If there is still a tie there is another statistic.

6. Opposition Points – Opposition points is the total speaker points for all opponents a debater
faced. Similar to the opposition win measurement, opposition points rewards debaters who faced
tougher opponents. However, it is rarely used to break ties.
If there is still a tie there is one more number.

- 15 -
7. Random Number – The random number is generated randomly by the computer and assigned
to each debater at the beginning of the tournament. No two debaters receive the same random
number.

It is statistically incredibly unlikely that two debaters would be tied in the other 6 measurements,
but if they are the random number is the last tie breaker.

- 16 -
 Team Ranks

After all preliminary debates are done every team is ranked in order. Team ranks are calculated
for NHSDLC tournaments by looking at:

1. Wins - Wins play the most important role in determining team rank, and therefore play the
most important role in determining who breaks to elimination rounds. Wins are the best
measurement for the skill level of a team. Therefore, a team with four wins will always be
ranked higher than a team with three wins, who will always be ranked higher than a team with
two wins, and so on.

2. High/Low points – Speaker points play the second most important role in determining who
breaks. If teams are tied in wins, their high/low points act as a tie breaker when deciding team
ranks. For example, if two teams have three wins, the team with the higher high-low points will
have the higher team rank.

3. Total speaker points – Total speaker points of both partners act as the third tie breaker. Just
like in speaker ranks, the high/low points come before total speaker points to mitigate the impact
of having one bad debate or having a judge that gives really high or really low speaker points.

Ties rarely exist after this step, but there are several other tie breakers. Each of these tie breakers
have been explained in the Speaker Awards section.

4. Total ranks
5. Opposition wins
6. Judge controlled variance
7. Opposition points
8. Random number

- 17 -
 Breaking to Elimination Rounds & Bracket Basics

Once team ranks are calculated the teams that advance to elimination rounds has been
determined. If a tournament breaks to double-octofinals, the top 32 teams advance to elimination
rounds. If the tournament breaks to octofinals, the top 16 teams advance, and so on.

Team ranks also determine the seed of each team. The seed is the team’s position in the
elimination rounds bracket. The team with the team rank of “1” will be first seed, the team with
the team rank of “16” will be sixteenth seed, and so on.
Seeds determine which teams face each other during outrounds. The top seed will face the lowest
seed, the second seed will face the second lowest seed, the third seed will face the third lowest
seed, and so on. However, if a lower seed beats a higher seed they will occupy the higher seed’s
position in the bracket. For example, in the example bracket the 20th seed defeats the 13th seed in
the double octofinals debate and therefore occupies their position for outround pairings. This is
shown in about the middle of the column on the left side of the example bracket.
Here is an example double-octofinals bracket:

- 18 -
联赛指南

- 0 -
 轮次结构

NHSDLC 公开论坛制辩论和美国公开论坛制辩论大体相似，只有两个区别。第一是每个开篇立论发言
长 5 分钟而不是 4 分钟。第二是每队准备时间长 4 分钟而不是 2 分钟。这两个变化都考虑到 NHSDLC
的辩手在用第二语言辩论，降低了辩论的难度。

掷硬币

每轮辩论开始都需要掷硬币。志愿者或裁判负责掷硬币，并请其中一队猜测掷硬币的结果。如果使用
的是一元硬币，队伍将猜测硬币朝上的一面是“字”还是“花”。如果猜对了，就可以率先选择持方
或发言顺序，另一支队伍就从剩下的选项中选择。如果猜错了，则另一支队伍有权先选持持方或发言
顺序。

选择持方就是选择正方还是反方。正方支持辩题中的陈述，反方反对辩题中的陈述。

选择发言顺序就是选择哪队先发言，哪队后发言。先发言的队伍是 A 队，后发言的队伍是 B 队。A 队在

交叉质询中有权问第一个问题。

因为每轮辩论中队伍可能是正方也可能是反方，因此辩手在地区赛开始前要把正反双方的案例都准备
好。

- 1 -
辩位

公开论坛制辩论中，每位辩手发言两次。总共有两个辩位，第一位辩手将进行开篇立论和总结发言，
第二位辩手将进行反驳发言和最后陈述。

队友应该提前决定谁做一辩，谁做二辩。一般来说，辩手选择一个辩位，在整场地区赛中就都在这个
辩位发言。然而，也有些队伍根据持方转换辩位。这完全是队伍自己的决定。

开篇立论

在一场辩论中最开始的发言就是开篇立论，时长 5 分钟。立论稿通常是赛前准备好的，在比赛中辩手
可以直接读稿。立论稿也被称为“案例”。

开篇立论中包含几个基础论点，用于证明每队的持方为什么是正确的。开篇立论中主要有三部分。

第一部分是“定义”。“定义”部分用于明确辩题中重点字或重点词的含义。“定义”的来源通常是
字典里的解释，但也可以是辩题相关领域的专家，如教授、政策专家和哲学家等。

第二部分是“框架”。“框架”可以帮助裁判评析一场辩论中最重要的内容是什么以及为什么。辩手
需要将他们的论点和框架联系起来，方便裁判理解论点的重要性。“框架”作为一个标准或一个准
则，解释了在满足什么样的要求，或者包含什么样的内容时，论点才是有重要意义的。

“框架”通常提供了一个广泛应用的价值陈述，这个价值陈述通常有关道德、政府的职责和责任，或
者是一些影响比另一些更重要。好的“框架”不只是将队伍的论点陈列出来，并声称这些论点是重要
的。恰恰相反，好的“框架”应该给出一个总体的原因，解释这些论点为什么是重要的。

第三部分是论点。论点是支持队伍持方的论证。论点通常包括三部分——主张、论据和影响。

“主张”是一句陈述句，队伍需要为这句话辩护。如果有充分的论证支持，“主张”就能被证明是正
确的。例如，“狗比猫好”和“贸易全球化降低了大型战争的风险”都是主张。

论据用来证明为什么主张是正确的。论据可以是逻辑分析，也可以是证据，也可以是这二者的结合。

“影响”解释了论点的重要性。“影响”可以包括有多少人受到了影响，这种影响的可能性有多大，
这种影响什么时候会发生。总的来说，“影响”解释了如果论点成立，会造成多么严重的后果。

开篇立论稿中通常包含两到三个论点。

交叉质询

每个交叉质询时长三分钟。在两方都完成开篇立论后，由双方一辩完成第一个交叉质询。

交叉质询是辩论中的问答环节。辩论双方在交叉质询中都有提问和回答的机会。交叉质询的目的是获
取信息，提供裁判更多信息，和拆解对手论点。交叉质询不是个人发言时间，所以提问问题和回答问
题应该简洁。在双方都准备好要问的问题，并且已经想出达成目标的策略时，交叉质询才是最有效率
的。

- 2 -
交叉质询中没有太多规则。唯一的规定是完成这个环节的辩手、这个环节的市场，以及 A 队应该问第
一个问题。在第一个交叉质询中，只有每队的一辩参加。不参加第一个交叉质询的辩手应当利用这段
时间，准备反驳发言。

队友在交叉质询中可以互相帮助，但是裁判只会考虑指定辩手的发言，换言之，队友的帮助不会被计
入评分；相反，一直帮队友说话可能会降低自己的辩手分。

交叉质询中没有太多规则，比赛中大多数行为都是被允许的，但有一些行为是组委会不鼓励的，
比如：打断对方辩手发言，声音过高，盖过对方辩手的声音，发言时间过长，把问题的回答带到
错误的方向等等。裁判如果认为辩手有无礼的行为，会相应扣除辩手分。然而，引导交叉质询环节有
效进行，维护自己的主张，是辩手自己的责任。除非是在非常少见的极端案例中，或者是提醒辩手时
间到了，裁判是不会干预辩手发言的。

第一次交叉质询中，双方都应该注重对对方的开篇立论提出质疑。第一次交叉质询也可以讨论反驳发
言中会提到的观点，尽量为反驳发言做下铺垫。

反驳发言

反驳发言在第一个交叉质询之后进行，时长四分钟。反驳发言注重攻击对方的案例。强有力的反驳发
言能够有效地回应对方的框架和每一个论点。如果这场辩论中定义也很重要，辩手也应该对对方的定
义做出回应。

强有力的反驳发言包含正面回应和侧面回应。正面回应具体讨论了这个论点中的主张、论据和影响，
而不是直接总结这个论点，提出一句反驳。侧面回应（也称为比较论点）将不同论点进行比较，并说
明为什么己方论点更准确或者更重要。

第二次交叉质询发生在反驳发言之后。由双方二辩完成第二次交叉质询。第二次交叉质询的主要目的
是为总结发言做铺垫。队友应该讨论策略，决定总结发言中应该重视哪些论点，同时在第二次交叉质
询中，双方应该准备好这些论点。

总结发言

总结发言发生在第二次交叉质询之后，时长两分钟。总结发言需要辩手在发言中平衡、有效地谈及双
方的案例。想在仅有两分钟的发言中达到这个目的，辩手应该侧重最重要的论点。总的来说，这要求
辩手从双方的案例中各选出一到两个论点着重讨论，然后对对方的论点进行充分的回应。

强有力的总结发言应该能够对不同论点进行权衡。权衡是比较不同论点的重要性。在辩论最后，双方
通常都有某个获胜的论点，权衡就是打破这个平局，评判哪个论点是更重要的。

大型交叉质询

大型交叉质询发生在总结发言之后，时长三分钟。需要四位辩手同时参与。大型交叉质询应该注重整
场辩论中最重要的论点。队友应共同商讨辩论中的哪个论点是需要着重进行讨论的，因为大型交叉质
询能为最后陈述中的重要论点做下铺垫。

- 3 -
最后陈述
最后陈述是一场辩论中的最后两个发言，每个长两分钟。最后陈述应该总结升华整场辩论。“总结升
华”明确地为裁判解释了这场辩论中的重要论点。强有力的最后陈述应该包括辩论中的主要论点的解
释，论点的权衡，和对己方决胜论点的强调。“决胜论点”，或投票原因，用来告诉裁判队伍获胜的
论点，以及为什么裁判应该因为这些论点给队伍投票。“决胜论点”通常在发言的最后，并通过编号
列出若干论点。每队的“决胜论点”通常不会多过三个。

在最后陈述中提出新的论述就太晚了。区别于重述之前辩论中提到过的论点，新提出的不同的主张或
是回应都属于新的论述。新的论述包括但不限于新的论点、对于对方论点的新的反驳。裁判不会将最
后陈述中提到的新的论述内容纳入考虑。

虽然在最后陈述环节，辩手不能重新提出新的论点，但并不是说辩手只能重复之前所提到的内容。相
反，辩手应该通过一些新的分析（比如通过分析之前提到的论点，以及哪一方的论点是最重要的等内
容）说服裁判哪一方应该赢得该场辩论。

- 4 -
 地区赛的基本结构

小组赛 & 淘汰赛

一场地区赛包含两大部分：小组赛与淘汰赛。所有队伍将会参加相同数量的小组赛；之后根据地区赛
人数，一定数量的队伍会晋级淘汰赛。

小组赛就像是体育比赛中的常规赛（在季后赛之前），简写作“prelim”。队伍需要参加每轮小组
赛，除非有轮空的情况（后面一节将会进一步解释轮空的情况）。小组赛中，每轮只有一位裁判。
NHSDLC 地区赛中通常有四轮小组赛，也就是说每支队伍都需要在小组赛中参加四轮辩论。

当所有队伍均完成小组赛，地区赛就进入淘汰赛阶段。晋级到淘汰赛的队伍通常被称为“Breaking”
队伍或者“Clearing”队伍。在淘汰赛中，如果一方输掉一场比赛，此队伍就将被“淘汰”，失去继续
比赛的资格。

淘汰赛的轮次数取决于参加地区赛的队伍的数目。通常情况下，第一轮淘汰赛是 32 强淘汰赛、16 强
淘汰赛、或 8 强淘汰赛。以下是淘汰赛轮次的名称：

前 64 名队伍－Triple Octofinals

前 32 名队伍－Double Octofinals

前 16 名队伍－Octofinals

前 8 名队伍－Quarterfinals

前 4 名队伍－Semifinals

前 2 名队伍－Finals

与小组赛不同的是，部分淘汰赛将会有不止一位裁判，这称为“panel（裁判组）”。一个裁判组中通
常有 3 名裁判。裁判组中的裁判数目总是奇数，以避免出现平分。每个裁判都独立投票，裁判不会讨
论结果。

在 NHSDLC 地区赛中，决赛是唯一需要裁判经过讨论决定比赛结果的情况。至少一名 NHSDLC 组委

会辩论导师将作为决赛裁判组成员，带领裁判组进行讨论，之后宣布决赛胜方并且给出评判理由。

组委会将为所有晋级淘汰赛的队伍颁发奖项。

- 5 -
 组

由于在 NHSDLC 的地区赛中，裁判数量以及可用比赛场地是有限的。因此许多地区赛都会将每一轮的

比赛分成不同的“组”；由此以来，每一轮将会有两组，A 组和 B 组。每一轮，每支队伍将会被随机分
配到不同的组中进行辩论。被分到 A 组的队伍在组委会宣布对阵后马上开始比赛，B 组队伍在 A 组结束
后开始比赛。

举个例子，假如一场地区赛中有 60 个队伍参赛，那么一轮将有 30 场辩论赛。如果不进行分组的话，

组委会将需要安排 30 个比赛教室以及 30 名裁判。但是因为组委会进行了分组，因此在每一轮的 A 组
就只有 15 场比赛进行，A 组结束后 B 组也只有 15 场比赛进行。这样一来，地区赛就不需要众多比赛场
地以及裁判，选手也会有更多的休息准备时间。

在 NHSDLC 的地区赛中，通常情况下小组赛会有四轮，每一轮分成 A, B 两组；因此四轮小组赛中实

际总共有 8 场比赛。小组赛每一轮，每支队伍会被分到 A 组或者 B 组进行比赛，每支队伍在小组赛中
需要参加四轮辩论。

- 6 -
 对阵的基本规则

这一部分将介绍对阵的基本规则和参考原则。对阵分配决定了在地区赛中哪一队和哪一队比赛。

在地区赛中，负责队伍对阵的工作人员称为“tab”或者“计分工作人员”。地区赛大部分时间里，他
们都会在计分室工作。由于分配对阵需要大量数据运算，计分工作人员将使用软件分配对阵。

接下来的部分将会解释对阵分配是如何产生的。

在小组赛前两轮中，队伍的配对是完全随机的。举个例子，假如一场地区赛中有 100 支参赛队伍，那

么每支队伍都有 1%的机率在比赛中遇到其他任一队伍（比如 84 号队伍，或者 32 号队伍，或者 55 号队
伍等等）。

但是在完全随机的配对过程中会有两项限制。第一，任何队伍不能与同一队伍比赛两次。第二，任何
队伍不能与来自同一学校的队伍比赛。但是如果一场地区赛中超过 1/3 的学生都来自一个学校，那么
他们可以与同学校的队伍进行比赛。这样做是为了尽量将实力相当的队伍配对。后文将会进一步解释
相关名词。

前两轮辩论结束之后的每一场比赛都是“实力匹配”对阵。在“实力匹配”对阵中，相同胜负成绩的
队伍将会被分到一组进行比赛。举个例子，在第三轮比赛中，获得之前两场胜利的队伍将会与另一支
赢得之前两场胜利的队伍进行比赛；获得一场胜利的队伍将会与另一支获得一场胜利的队伍进行比
赛；没有获胜的队伍将与另一个同样战绩的队伍比赛。我们这样做的目的就是为了让同样实力的队伍
可以互相切磋，以保证比赛的公正性和比赛体验。

有时候，组委会不能保证每支队伍都可以匹配到胜负记录相同的对手。举例来说，也许会有奇数数量
的队伍赢得两场胜利，在这种情况下，其中一支队伍就需要与另一支获得一场胜利的队伍进行比赛；
这种情况就叫“pull up”。“pull up” 不会对参赛队伍产生比较明显的影响，然而对于地区赛的正常
有序进行，“pull up”是十分有必要的。

同样的，如果在一场地区赛中， 总共参赛队伍的数目是奇数，那么在每一轮中随机一支队伍将会得到
一个“bye（轮空）”。如果一支队伍被轮空，那么该队伍在本轮将不需要进行辩论并自动被判获胜。
举个例子，如果一个地区赛中有 101 个参赛队伍，那么每一轮将会有 50 场比赛进行，这样一来就剩下
一支队伍不能分配到对手，那么这个队伍将被轮空。

总结一下，NHSDLC 地区赛对阵分配的基本规则是：小组赛前两轮随机配对；前两轮之后的比赛进行
“实力匹配”对阵，有相同胜负记录的队伍进行比赛。

- 7 -
 辩手分

在辩论结束后，裁判不仅需要评判辩论的输赢，还要给出辩手分。裁判将综合考量辩手的论点质量，
说服力以及发言风格等，为辩手打分。跟比赛胜负不同的是，辩手分更多考量的是辩手个人的综合实
力。

理论上，辩手分的区间是从 1 到 30 分。但在真正比赛中，辩手分大多是在 22 分到 30 分之间不等（30

分是最高分）。辩手分出现“.5”也很正常，比如 27.5 分，28.5 分等。

对于辩手的说服力和发言风格的考量是无法完全标准化的。在不同国家、不同母语的辩论群体中，这
种考量有着不同的标准。NHSDLC 组委会使用以下“评分指南”作为给辩手打分的大致标准。

辩手分是相对的。一个实力中游的辩手在竞争比较激烈的地区赛中，辩手分可能会稍微低一些；在竞
争不算激烈的地区赛中，辩手分可能会稍微高一些。因此，如果一位辩手参加了一场竞争激烈的地区
赛，并发现自己辩手分比以往低，并不一定说明他退步了。相反，更可能是因为该场地区赛竞争比较
激烈，选手整体实力要更高。

因为辩手分受多重因素影响，而不是只与论点质量相关，低辩手分队伍赢得辩论的情况是存在的。
“Low Point Wins（低辩手分获胜）”指的是辩手分较高的队伍输掉本轮辩论。即便一支队伍的演讲技
巧、说服力、组织性等均略胜一筹，如果他们的辩论策略采取不当，也仍会输掉本轮辩论。“低辩手
分获胜”的情况给了裁判灵活发挥的空间，让裁判公正裁决的同时，还可以通过打出更高的辩手分，
鼓励个人能力更强的辩手。

- 8 -
- 9 -
 排名

裁判除了为每一位辩手打分，还需要为辩手排名；裁判将会通过比较每一位辩手在比赛中的表现进行
排名（第 1 名到第 4 名）；“1”是第一名，“4”是最后一名。辩手的排名必须与其辩手分情况相吻
合，辩手分最高者排名最高。

举例来说，如果在一轮比赛中，裁判给出的辩手分是 24.5 分，25 分，25 分和 26 分，那么获得 26 分

的辩手排名第一，获得 24.5 分的辩手排名第四。因为出现了两个 25 分，因此裁判需要决定哪一个 25
分的辩手表现相对更好一些，从而决定第二名和第三名。从以上例子可以看出，辩手可以获得相同的
辩手分，但是绝不会有相同排名存在。因此，组委会使用辩手排名来区分解决辩手分相同的情况。

- 10 -
 辩手奖项

在小组赛中辩手分总分最高的学生将获得辩手个人奖项。具体获奖人数视参赛总人数而定。大多数情
况下，至少会有前 5 名优秀辩手可以获得辩手个人奖项。如果地区赛规模较大的话，也许前 10 名优秀
辩手可以获得该奖项；有的更大的地区赛中，前 20 名优秀辩手可以获得该奖项。

在 NHSDLC 地区赛中，辩手是否可以获得个人奖项由以下几个要素决定：

1. 高／低分－对于决定辩手是否获奖起最关键作用。在地区赛中，组委会将去掉辩手小组赛中辩手分
的最低分和最高分，再将其辩手分相加。

举个例子，如果一名辩手在四轮小组赛中的辩手分分别是 25.5 分，27 分，27.5 分和 28 分，那么该辩

手的总分是 108 分。计算该辩手的高／低分，需要用总分减去其最高分（28）和最低分（25.5），等
于 54.5 分。因此，该辩手最终的高／低分是 54.5 分。

高／低分帮助剔除了学生发挥超常或失常对总成绩带来的影响，保证辩手排名与其正常实力一致。辩
手在某一轮辩论中发挥失常，并不会影响其在整个地区赛中的成绩，也不会影响其赢得辩手个人奖
项。

如果辩手在高／低分上与其他辩手出现平分，组委会将引入以下评分机制打破平局。

2.总辩手分－这是高／低分之后第二重要的评分机制；是用来评价辩手个人表现的第二选择。

在之前的例子中，该辩手在四轮小组赛中的辩手分分别是 25.5 分，27 分，27.5 分和 28 分，高／低分

是 54.5 分，总辩手分是 108 分。如果另一位辩手四轮比赛的分数是 26.5 分，27 分，27.5 分，29 分，
高／低分同样为 54.5，但是总辩手分是 110 分。

在这个情况下，两位辩手的高／低分都是 54.5 分。因此，两名辩手的总辩手分将决定其相应辩手排

名。由于总辩手分高者排名靠前，总分 110 分的辩手排名会比总分 108 的辩手的排名靠前。

到这一步，一般就不会存在平分现象。如果仍然有平分问题，组委会将引入以下评分机制。

3.排名加和－辩手排名就是为了解决辩手分相同的问题。在辩论后，裁判要为所有辩手排名，‘1’代
表第一名，‘4’代表最后一名。一轮辩论中可以出现相同的辩手分，但不可以出现相同的辩手排名。
因此，即便四名辩手都得到了 28.5 分，裁判也需要给出第一名到第四名。

一般来说，排名加和越低的队伍表现越好。与其他的评分机制不同，数字越小，队伍的表现越好。排
名第一是优于排名第四的。而在其他评分机制中，分数越高，表现越好。

如果辩手排名仍有平分，组委会将引入以下评分机制。

4．对手获胜场数－计算队伍所遇到所有对手获胜场数的总和。如果两名辩手有同样的高/低分，总辩
手分和排名加和，对手获胜场数的数据将用来打破平局。

- 11 -
举个例子，如果一名辩手在四轮比赛中，遇到了三个赢下 3 场比赛的队伍，还有一个赢下 4 场比赛的
队伍，那么该辩手的对手获胜场数分数便是 13 分（3+3+3+4）。如果另一名辩手在四轮比赛中遇到了
两个赢下 2 场比赛的队伍，一个赢下 1 场比赛的队伍，还有一个输掉全部比赛的队伍，那么该辩手的
对手获胜场数分数便是 5 分（2+2+1+0）。在这种情况下，第一名辩手的排名会高于第二名辩手，因为
第一名辩手所遇到的对手实力更强，因此第一名辩手表现应该相对更好。

到这一步，几乎不会存在平分现象。但保险起见，组委会还会统计以下几个数据。

5.裁判评分方差－比较裁判在整体小组赛中，给该辩手打分与给其他辩手打分之间的差异。如果裁判
一直给出相对较低的辩手分，却给出该辩手较高的辩手分，该辩手所得裁判评分方差即为正。如果该
辩手辩手分低于裁判给出辩手分的平均值，该辩手所得裁判评分方差即为负。

请注意，在出现平分的时候，组委会会优先使用之前所提到的机制进行排名，“裁判评分方差”是打
破平局的最后手段之一。

如果仍存在平局情况，请继续参考以下数据。

6.对手总辩手分－队伍所面对的所有对手的总辩手分之和。该评分机制与之前提到的计算对手获胜场
数的评分机制相似。当有平分现象发生时，遇见对手实力较强的辩手将获得更高排名。然而，这个数
据很少被用到。

如果仍存在平局情况，请继续参考以下数据。

7.随机数字－在地区赛正式开始时，系统将会自动为每一位辩手分配一个数字（数字分配是完全随机
的）。不同辩手分配到的数字不同。

在衡量以上几个要素后依旧平分的情况，辩论赛数据库中几乎从来没有过。但是假如平分仍然存在，
这将是最后打破平局的数据。

- 12 -
 队伍排名

在所有小组赛结束后，每支队伍都会有相应的排名。NHSDLC 地区赛中，计算队伍的排名需要依据以
下几个要素：

1.获胜场数－这是决定队伍排名最重要的依据，也是直接关乎队伍是否可以晋级淘汰赛的重要依据。
获胜场数可以直接反应队伍的辩论实力。因此，赢下四场辩论的队伍排名会高于赢下三场的队伍，而
赢下三场的队伍排名会高于赢下两场的队伍，以此类推。

2.高／低分－决定哪支队伍晋级的第二重要的依据就是辩手分。如果队伍在获胜场数上打成平手，那
么他们各自的高／低分将用来决定他们的队伍排名。举个例子，如果两支队伍都赢下三场比赛，那么
‘高／低分’较高的队伍将有更高的排名。

3.总辩手分－队伍两位辩手总辩手分之和是决定晋级的第三个依据。就像辩手分一样，组委会在计算
队伍总辩手分之前，会剔除一个最高分、一个最低分以保证合理性。

到这一步，几乎就不会存在平分现象。但是保险起见，还有其他一些数据来打破平局。详情请参考
“辩手奖项”一部分内容。

4.总排名

5.对手获胜场数

6.裁判评分方差

7.对手总辩手分

8.随机数字

- 13 -
 晋级淘汰赛的基本规则

在地区赛中，组委会需要将所有队伍的比赛分数计算好之后才能决定晋级淘汰赛的队伍。如果一场地
区赛的手册中写到“double－octofinals”的队伍进入淘汰赛，也就是说前 32 名队伍可以晋级淘汰赛；
如果手册中写的“octofinals”队伍进入淘汰赛，那就意味着前 16 名队伍可以晋级淘汰赛，以此类推。

队伍的排名也称为队伍的“种子位置”。“种子位置”决定了队伍在淘汰赛中的对阵分配。排名第一
的队伍是“第一种子”，排名 16 的队伍是“第 16 种子”，以此类推。

排名决定了队伍在淘汰赛中将面对那个对手。排名第一的队伍将面对排名最后的队伍，排名第二的队
伍将面对排名倒数第二的队伍，排名第三的队伍将面对排名倒数第三的队伍，以此类推。然而，如果
低排名的队伍战胜了高排名的队伍，他们就将取代高排名队伍在对阵分布中的“种子位置”。如以下
图例所示，在三十二强中，排名 20 的队伍战胜了排名 13 的队伍，因此排名 20 的队伍会代替排名 13
的队伍，在十六强中对战排名排名第四的队伍。请参见图例第一列中间位置。

以下是三十二强对阵分配图例：

- 14 -