[Rivalry]

Yes, I did write all of this. I think some people may find it interesting or useful, so here's how debating actually works in real life!

1. Format
The format that I will be basing this thread around is British Parliamentary, which is the style I'm most familiar with and the most popular and well-recognised format. Speeches can run for any length. I've seen anything from 3 minutes at junior level to 10 minutes at senior level. Usually, the first and last minute is 'Protected Time'. During this time, nobody can offer a point of information (this will be explained later).

1.1 The Table
The table in British Parliamentary consists of two sides, Proposition and Opposition. Each of these sides is then split into 2 teams of 2 people each; First Proposition, First Opposition, Second Proposition, and Second Opposition. Each speaker on the table has a defined role to play in their team and side as a whole. It should be noted that just because they're on the same side, it doesn't mean that the Proposition or Opposition teams are working together; rather, there can only be one winner from the 4 teams- one side as a whole DOES NOT win.
Finally, there's always one or more chairpersons who oversee the debate and decide the eventual winning team at the end.
Here's a quick picture I threw together to explain it:


1.2 The Motion
Every debate needs a motion. On these forums, that is typically the thread title. Motions always come with a prefix of either 'THW' (This House Would) or 'THB' (This House Believes), for example 'THW legalise marijuana'. In competitions, the teams do not know the motion until around 15 minutes before the debate starts, which is the time that they have to prepare their speeches.

1.3 The Definition
The motion is static. It cannot be changed, and doing so is called 'squirelling' the motion, which results in an insta-loss for the guilty party. For example, if the First Proposition were to decide to change the motion 'THW legalise marijuana' to 'THW not legalise marijuana' then they would immediately lose.
However, the definition allows an element of change into the motion. The definition, which is undertaken by Opening Proposition, states any small practicalities which need to be added to the basic motion. For instance, they may decide that the 'THW legalise marijuana' motion needs to be defined as 'THW legalise marijuana for those who don't have a criminal record' or any other such stipulation. Clever definitions are one of the key ways to win a debate, as you can force out the other side's main points by including certain details, and thus claim victory.

1.4 The Roles of the Sides
Proposition's job is to propose the motion. This means that they need to agree with the motion, and convince everyone else to agree too.
Opposition's job is to oppose the motion. This means that they need to disagree with the motion, and convince everyone else to agree too.

1.5 The Roles of the Speakers
2 sides, 4 teams, 8 speakers.
The first to speak is Opening Proposition. Their job is to define the motion, as stated above, and introduce maybe one or two points. These should be First Proposition's strongest points. As a rule of thumb, always lead with your strongest point, regardless of where you sit on the table.
After Opening Prop, Opening Opposition speaks. Their job is twofold. Unlike Opening Prop, they don't need to define the motion, because they're opposing it. Rather their job is to (a) Rebut Opening Prop's points (I will explain this later) and attempt to knock down the definition by pointing out any flaws and (b) Make a few points of their own. Again, they should lead with their strongest.
Following Opening Opp, Second Prop speaks. Their job is to rebut Opening Opp's points and make 2 points of their own (depending on the time allowed). They have one of the traditionally 'easy' roles on the table.
After Second Prop, Second Opp speaks. Again, they need to rebut Second Prop's points and make a couple of their own. This is also a traditionally 'easy' role to play.
Then we move into the second half of the table, where the other two teams are. First to speak is Third Proposition. This is typically seen as the most difficult seat on the table. Their job is more complex than usual; not only do they have to rebut Second Opp's points, but they have to make an Extension Point. An extension point is expanding on an idea raised by someone on your side earlier, but introducing a new aspect to the idea, or looking at it from another point of view. For example, if, earlier in the debate, someone had raised the point that legalising marijuana would reduce the black-market and thus stop money from getting to criminals, then a good extension point could be that not only would removing the black market reduce the amount of money criminals have to spend on other illegal activities, but also it would stop poor quality marijuana from being used by consumers, as the contents of underground marijuana are not regulated, they can sometimes be dangerous. The 3rd Proposition cannot make any new points.
The Third Opposition is also a very difficult seat. They must do the same job as the Third Proposition, by rebutting 3rd Prop's points and by introducing an Extension Point of their own.
Finally, the last two speakers. Closing Proposition speaks next. Unlike other seats on the table, Closing Prop cannot introduce any new points, nor have a standalone section for rebuttal. They must weave their rebuttal into their speech. Their speech is basically a summary of their side's points in the debate, but because the Proposition side is split into two teams, and only one can win, the job of the closing speaker is to ensure that his team, closing prop, wins. He does this by firstly knocking down all of the Opposition's arguments, and trying to make their case look invalid. Secondly, he must make his partner (3rd Prop's) case look bulletproof and majestic. It is a role often misconstrued as easy, which it is not, and the best summary speakers are highly prized and have often 'trained' solely to be summary speakers.
Closing Opposition does the same in reverse, knocking down Prop's case and making 3rd Opposition look amazing.

2. Points of Information & Rebuttal
2.1 Points of Information
Points of information are an integral part of any debate. Done well, they can swing an entire debate in your favour. Done badly, they make you look like an idiot.
As stated at the beginning, each speaker is usually entitled to a minute of protected time at the start and end of their speech. During this time, no one can make any POIs. A point of information (POI) is a form of gentlemanly interruption of someone's speech to offer a counter-argument to what they're talking about. If the speaker is not under protected time, any member of the other team can stand up and politely say 'Sir?' or something to that effect.
The speaker can then choose whether or not to accept this POI, by either waving them down (decline) or pausing their speech and accepting the POI with a gracious 'Yes sir/madam'. POIs should not go on for longer than 10 seconds, so make your point quickly, and then sit down. You cannot then stand back up or proceed to argue with the speaker about their response.
Answering a POI can often be daunting, as it requires quickly thinking of a response, but with some practise it becomes very easy. Judges will typically look for you to accept and answer one POI in your speech to show you're not afraid of them. Any more than two will look like you have little to say and are filling the time by accepting POIs.

2.1.1 Barracking
Barracking refers to a malicious tactic which is illegal in debates. It involves a team, or sometimes the whole side, deliberately standing up and interrupting the speaker constantly by offering dozens of POIs. Even if the speaker declines, it will use up valuable time and disrupt their train of thought. For this reason, barracking is not allowed, and will get you immediately disqualified.

2.2 Rebuttal
A key and vital part of any debate. Failure to offer any rebuttal means that your entire speech is classed as void, because you have allowed the other team's points to stand unrefuted.
Essentially, rebuttal is a form of 'Yeah, but...'. It's a counter-argument. Most places on the table are required to provide rebuttal, usually towards the person who just spoke from the other side, but it's not uncommon to see 3rd speakers rebutting points made by 1st speakers. Rebuttal is where you knock down every point made by the person who spoke before you. As stated, if you fail to do this, and leave a point standing, you lose automatically.
Rebuttal is almost always the first thing you do when starting your speech; aside from signposting of course (I'll go over this later). In a 5 minute speech, it's usual to spend around 1 and a half minutes rebutting points.
Finally, do not get dragged down into the endless mire of rebuttal. This happens so much, and ruins whole debates. Remember what the motion is about, and stay on topic. Rebut someone's point, yes, but, if someone then chooses to (unwisely) rebut your rebuttal, do not carry on the chain. It's stupid and bogs the debate down in irrelevant arguing.

2.2.1 Concessional Rebuttal
This is 'Yeah, but...'. Concessional rebuttal is a form of rebuttal where you first appear to accept the other speaker's point with a phrase such as: 'I see where you're coming from here...' and then proceed to offer an alternative or demolish it.

2.2.2 Prebuttal
An advanced form of rebuttal usually undertaken by speakers at the beginning of the table. Basically, it involves a speaker trying to guess what the other side will talk about and use as points, and then knock down these points before they've even been made, giving them little credibility when they are made. Often used as a tactic by Opening Proposition, I have seen entire debates won in the first 30 seconds of their speech using well placed prebuttal.

3. Speech Structure and Timing
3.1 Speech Structure
An important aspect of any speech is how you go about structuring it, and there's an accepted order for debate speeches. Firstly, you should, preferably, have a witty opening. Use strong language and biased accusations to make out the other side as 'evil' or misguided, before launching into your speech.
Secondly, signpost. This is a must, and refers to the art of telling the audience/judges what you will talk about today. Name your points, so that the judges know what to listen out for later. This is the single most common error in debating; people not signposting properly.
Thirdly, rebuttal. Launch into your rebuttal, sprinkling plenty of strong adjectives like 'preposterous' or 'ridiculous' to lend the opposing side's argument no credibility.
Fourth, go into your point(s). In a 5 minute speech, I usually make 2 points but if you're new to debating, it's not unheard of to make 4 or 5; I know I did! You should analyse each point thoroughly, and if you have any stats, quote those too. I'll talk about analysis later. Remember to signpost your points; you named them earlier, but use of discursive markers like 'Secondly, onto my point about _____' will help the judges no end and assist you in your objective of winning.
Finally, the summary. This need only take 10 seconds at the end. All you need to do is say that you have 'demolished' the opposing team's points, and list again the points which you made, to remind the judges of all the great stuff that you undoubtedly said. Say 'Thank You' and then sit down.
Also, remember to link between you and your team-mate. This is very easy, and gets you kudos from the judges (I actually have no idea why, but it does). Simple phrases like 'John, my team-mate, will go on to explore this point in more depth' can impress judges, so do it!

3.2 Timing
A factor of extreme importance in competitions. Most speeches at intermediate level are 5 minutes in length, but this does vary, so check before you start. If your speech is 3 minutes long, you can expect around 30 seconds of protected time at the start and end, if it's longer, you can expect a minute. Say anything wildly contentious within this protected time, so that the other team cannot offer POIs to deal with it.
Some pointers regarding timing: do not spend over 2 minutes on rebuttal in a 5 minute speech; your opening need only be 20-30 seconds long; your summary should only be a maximum of 15 seconds; and try to take a phone or stopwatch up with you when you go to speak, so that you know how long you have left and can gauge the amount of time to lavish on your current point accordingly.

---

4. Analysis
Analysis of points is such a token part of debating that I almost forgot to include it. Analysing your points means going beyond simply listing them. It means explaining the reasoning behind each of your points, why this point proves that the motion is/isn't valid, and drawing the debate into other contexts. For example, if you were making a point about banning marijuana having an adverse affect on the black market, this point is clearly subdivided into at least 3 sectors of economic impacts on the criminal underworld, social impacts, and, perhaps, political impacts. Master debaters would exploit all 3 of these areas in detail, rather than focussing simply on 1.
Remember to keep an eye on the time though; it's happened to me in the past that I've become so enthralled with my own analysis that I've run out of time, and haven't managed to get around to the rest of my speech. Derp.

4.1 Straw Man
A straw man is something which crops up all the time in debating. It's where someone essentially uses hyperbole to such a point that it becomes ridiculous. For instance, the statement: 'If we were to invade Syria, some of our soldiers would die.' would be turned into the straw man: 'If we invade Syria, we would become embroiled in an unending conflict which would result in the deaths of everyone involved and anarchy in Britain.' It's totally baseless exaggeration. Don't do it! They're very easy to knock down, obviously.

4.2 Baiting via Analogies
Baiting is a technique which I sometimes use when I'm feeling risky, or I'm making a weak point and need to prop it up. It essentially revolves around the premise of 'if the other teams leave just one of your points standing, you win by default'. I have won several tournament level debates this way, by using 10 seconds of my speech. The way it works is to weave a relevant but unnecessary and poorly thought out analogy into your point. For instance, in my most recent debate about Syria, I made a point about the fact that if we do not intervene, then the region may be destabilised as other dictators see what Assad is getting away with. I then included an almost entirely unnecessary analogy about Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, and made this relevant to the point I was making in that Hitler destabilized Europe by doing that, so the logic follows that Assad is doing the same unless we stop him. This is clearly utter nonsense.
It works because the other team will hear your stupid analogy about Hitler or whatever, and then rub their hands with glee as they repeatedly knock down and then kick your analogy to death, stating that it doesn't add anything to the debate, and is pointless and illogical. This is brilliant. They have focussed entirely on knocking down your analogy, and left your point totally intact, because they've forgotten about it.
Since your point is left standing, all you need do at the end is point out to the judge that the other teams have failed to knock down your point, and you should be awarded the default victory. It's a fine line though; don't make a totally irrelevant analogy as that will make you look like an idiot, but also don't make it too relevant as that risks them knocking your point down along with the analogy. It's regarded as a 'scumbag' manoeuvre by some, but it's totally legal and does take skill to pull off.

5. Using your prep time
Before most debates in competitions, you'll get around 15 minutes of preparation time. Use it.
DO NOT
-Attempt to look up points or facts on the internet. You will be disqualified. Everything should come from your own head.
-Write out a speech. Speeches should (and, often, must) be in note form only. It's easier for you, faster for you, and won't get you disqualified. That rule varies in some contests, but debating is not public speaking. You shouldn't have a fully written out speech.
-Confer with others on your side. This is illegal. Trying to structure a team-wide argument prior to the debate's start is not allowed. Remember, you are against the other team on your side, so don't give them your points!

DO
-Confer with your partner. Team-mates can work together, of course! Share points and link between yourselves often in your speech (see Structure, earlier).
-Write down more points than you will have time for if on the second half of the table. Chances are, the first half (because they're inevitably going to be greedy and incompetent) will take all of your points. Therefore, keep writing down points so that you always have some in reserve if the worst comes to the worst and your best ones are taken.
-Consider prebuttal, if on the first half of the table.

Okay, well, that about clears everything up. I've left things out, I know, and I've probably forgotten things, but this was just supposed to be a clear and basic introduction into what debating's like irl.
This did take me a rather long time, so if you found it useful, leave a friendly comment, perhaps.
I hope some of you do choose to take part in debating in real life; it's very rewarding. It looks great on job/university applications, is not actually as daunting as it probably looks in this thread, and allows you to beat almost anyone in an argument.

Have a great day!
-Rivalry

[Illuminati]

Good guide, I was considering joining my school's debate team. Thanks for this guide!