Each team has three speakers and this is the order in which they speak: First speaker of the Proposition (speaks for 6 minutes, presents the case of the Proposition, defines the motion, gives 2/3 of the arguments of the Proposition) First speaker of the Opposition (speaks for 6 minutes, may accept the definitions or contest them and give an alternative, rebuts Proposition arguments, presents the case of the Opposition, gives 2/3 of the arguments of the Opposition). Second speaker of the Proposition (speaks for 6 minutes, further develops the case of the Proposition, rebuts the arguments of the first speaker of the Opposition, gives 1/3 of the arguments of the Proposition) Second speaker of the Opposition (speaks for 6 minutes, further develops the case of the Opposition, rebuts the arguments given by the second speaker of the Proposition, gives 1/3 of the arguments of the Opposition) Third speaker of the Proposition (speaks for 6 minutes, rebuilds the case of the Proposition, rebuts the arguments of the second speaker of the Opposition, concludes case) Third speaker of the Opposition (speaks for 6 minutes, rebuilds the case of the Opposition, rebuts the arguments of the second speaker of the Opposition - may not introduce a new argument!) Reply speaker of the Opposition (speaks for 3 minutes, outlines clash point, evaluates debate, gives the final appeal) - either the first or the second speaker of the Opposition, usually the first. It is not the third as there is not enough time for the third speaker to write a new speech Reply speaker of the Proposition (speaks for 3 minutes, outlines clash point, evaluates debate, has the last word in protected time!) - either the first or the second speaker of the Opposition, usually the first. It is not the third as there is not enough time for the third speaker to write a new speech''

During main speeches, members of the opposing team may offer Points of Information to express a question or brief remark, these shall not exceed 23 seconds or three sentences. First and last minutes of main speeches as well as the entire duration of reply speeches are protected, that means, no Points of Information may be offered. There is no cross examination. The Proposition has to prove the motion for a reasonable majority of cases, while it is not enough for the Opposition to present reasonable doubt.

Policy Debate
Policy is a style of debating where two teams of two students advocate or oppose a resolution calling for a change in policy by the government. Switching sides every round, the affirmative team must propose a policy (plan), while the negative must explain why the policy won’t solve the problems that it intends to, or will cause more problems than good things.

In the US, high school Policy Debate is overseen by the NFL and the NCFL. Inter-Collegiate policy debate is overseen by the [http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/ National Debate Tournament (NDT)], the [http://cedadebate.org/ Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA)], the National Educational Debate Association, and the Great Plains Forensic Conference.

The debate consists of eight speeches, four affirmative and four negative, with each debater giving two speeches, one constructive (eight or nine minutes) in which new arguments may be raised and one rebuttal (four, five, or six minutes) in which new evidence, but no new arguments, may be raised. Any issue which goes unaddressed by the opposite side is generally considered to be conceded. The negative team represents the status quo, and so has presumption: in theory, if neither side won the round, the negative team would win. In practical terms, presumption seldom has a role in the debate, but the sequence of speeches reflects the role of presumption.

One member of each two member team is designated as the first or the second speaker. Generally, the first speaker is concise, a quick thinker, and a quick speaker, and the second speaker is more rhetorical, and able to frame the debate in the big picture.

The sequence of speeches is as follows:

1AC: First affirmative constructive: sets out the affirmative team's plan to address the issue in the resolution. The 1A is cross-examined for 3 minutes by the 2N while the 1N prepares for hir speech.

1NC: First negative constructive: sets out the negative team's case against the affirmative plan. Cross examination is by the 1A.

2AC: Second affirmative constructive: addresses the negative team's arguments. Cross examination is by the 1N

2NC: second negative constructive: develops half of the arguments from the 1NC. While new arguments are allowed in the 2NC, introducing them at this point is considered to be sneaky or a sign of a bad initial strategy. Cross-examination is by the 2A.

1NR: first negative rebuttal: strategically, this speech can be used to develop substantially one of the arguments from 1NC.

1AR: first affirmative rebuttal. This speech may be extremely fast, as each minute must address about 3 minutes of negative time. Any argument which goes unaddressed in this speech may be considered to have been conceded.

2NR: second negative rebuttal: wraps up the negative case.

2AR: second affirmative rebuttal: wraps up the affirmative case. The affirmative team speaks last because presumption rests with the status quo, as represented by the negative team.

Lincoln-Douglas debate
Lincoln-Douglas debate, is a US format of debating named after the famous series of Senate debates between the two candidates, has two participants who compete against each other. The arguments center around philosophy or abstract values, and thus it is also called a value debate. Lincoln-Douglas debate tends to require less evidence than policy debate, and thus emphasizes logic and reasoning. Most LD cases center around a core value and a value criterion, with the value representing the highest concept that can be achieved under a given resolution and the criterion being the best way to achieve or measure the value. While there are regional variations, most good LD debates occur when both sides agree on a set value, and then must argue their criteria on the best way to achieve or measure that core value. Lincoln-Douglas debate differs markedly on the national circuit from the local circuit. The national circuit is based more on the argumentation itself (known as "the flow") and hard evidence (called "cards"), while local circuits usually focus on rhetoric and encourage a more holistic approach to the topic.

Simulated legislature
High school debate events such as Student Congress, Model United Nations, European Youth Parliament, Junior State of America and the American Legion's Boys State and Girls State events are activities which are based on the premise of the contestants acting as representatives in a mock legislative body.

Moot court
Moot court (simulating appellate advocacy) and Mock trial (usually simulating criminal trials) competitions for law school, undergraduate, and (in some regions) high school students are held throughout the United States.

Other forms of debate

Online Debating
With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet to people, different opinions arise frequently. This paved the way for more formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.). Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weaker opinions on things, many times for debate in formalized debates (such as the ones listed above) or for fun arguments with friends. The ease-of-use and friendly environments make new debaters welcome to share their opinions in many communities. Examples of online debating websites are shown in the external links.

U.S. presidential debates
Since the 1976 general election, debates between presidential candidates have been a part of U.S. presidential campaigns. Unlike debates sponsored at the high school or collegiate level, the participants, format, and rules are not independently defined. Nevertheless, in a campaign season heavily dominated by television advertisements, talk radio, sound bites, and spin, they still offer a rare opportunity for citizens to see and hear the two major candidates side-by-side. The format of the presidential debates, though defined differently in every election, is typically more restrictive than many traditional formats, forbidding participants to ask each other questions and restricting discussion of particular topics to short time frames.

The presidential debates were initially sponsored by the League of Women Voters, though since 1988 the two major political parties have taken over the process. In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission was formed in the hope of establishing an independent sponsor for presidential debates, with a more voter-centric role in the definition of the participants, format, and rules.

Debate and Argumentation Theory

All forms of debate, whether consciously or not, make certain assumptions about argumentation theory. The core concept of argumentation theory is the notion of advocacy. In most cases, at least one side in a debate needs to maintain the 'truth' of some proposition or advocate some sort of personal or political change or action. A debate could also potentially be between two or more competing propositions or actions. Or debate could also be a purely performative exercise of charisma and emotion with no assumption of fixed advocacy, but it would possibly lose much of its coherence and educational value. On the other hand, evolving and changing advocacies or no advocacies at all might be liberating and permit true advancement and understanding through debate. The variety of different debate forms and activities have different understandings about the nature and limits of advocacy, and different activities have different expectations about whether argumentation theory in relation to advocacy can be challenged within a competitive debate.