In one sentence, describe what the following article is about:

While rules will vary situation to situation, many standards are common to most debates. Come dressed to play the part of a serious debater, and bring an attitude to match. For important formal debates—really for any debate you want to win—wear a suit or equally formal wear. Dress like a politician or like you are going to a funeral. Keep your suit jacket on at all times, and your tie if you are wearing it.  Don't wear anything tight or revealing. Face the judge when you speak, and speak standing. Read full citations when you are quoting. If you're not sure if what you are doing is professional, ask the judge's permission. For instance, if you want to leave the room for water, ask. In team debates, avoid prompting your partner unless they are immediately jeopardizing your chances of winning. Try not to do it at all. Keep your cell phone off. Do not curse. Limit jokes to those that would be appropriate in a professional setting. Don't tell jokes that are off-color or that rely on insensitive stereotypes. In British Parliamentary, for instance, one team must debate the "affirmative" stance, and the other must debate the "negative" stance. The team that agrees with the topic is called the affirmative, while the team that disagrees is called the negative.  For Policy Debate, the affirmative team proposes a plan and the negative team argues that it should not be enacted.  Both teams will be seated near the front of the room they are to speak in — affirmative team (Government) on the left, negative team (Opposition) on the right. The chairperson or adjudicator will start the debate, and the first speaker will present their speech. The order of the speakers is generally affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative, and so on. Debating "That the death penalty is a just and effective punishment" is probably already pretty clear, but what if you're given a topic like "That happiness is a nobler trait than wisdom?" You might need to offer a definition of the topic before you proceed.  The affirmative always gets the first and best opportunity to define the topic. To define well, try to mirror the way an average person on the street might define the topic. If your interpretation is too creative, the other team might attack it. The negative team is given an opportunity to refute the definition (otherwise known as challenging the definition) and offer their own, but only if the affirmative's definition is unreasonable or it renders the negative's position obsolete. The first negative speaker must refute the affirmative's definition if s/he wishes to challenge it. Keep your eye on your watch, and set a timer for a minute before your time is up so that you can look over your argument before you are done. Your allotted writing time will depend on the style of debate. For British Parliamentary, for instance, seven minutes is likely. To write efficiently, get your main points down first, then fill in evidence, additional refutations, and any examples or anecdotes you are choosing to include. Depending on what position you argue, you must follow certain protocol such as defining the topic or presenting a main argument. If you say "I think the death penalty should be abolished," be ready to prove why this is the best course of action. Provide supporting arguments, and give evidence for each. Make sure your supporting arguments and evidence truly relate to your stance, or your opposition may co-opt them or ask for them to be thrown out.  Your opposing arguments might be "The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison," "the death penalty provides no opportunity for redemption," or "the death penalty makes us look bad in the international community." Evidence can include statistics and expert opinions. If you don't know it, don't debate it unless you have no other choice. If you don't know much about the topic, try to at least come up with some vague, ambiguous information so that your opponents will have a hard time refuting your contentions.  If they don't understand it, they can't refute it. Keep in mind that the judge probably won't understand you so well either, but trying is probably better than saying, "I know nothing. I give the case to my opponents." Don't use rhetorical questions. Always give a clear answer to every question you ask. Leaving a question open-ended gives your opponents room to refute. Use religion only when appropriate. Things that are written in the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc, are not usually sound resources to use to prove your argument, as not everyone takes these sources to be the truth. Be passionate in your speech—a monotone voice will cause people to drift off, and they may miss the point of what you're trying to say. Speak clearly, slowly, and loudly.  Make eye contact with whomever decides the winners of the debate. While it's okay to look at your opponents every once in a while, try to direct your argument at the judge. Give a layout of your argument before you make it. That way, your audience will know what to expect and your judge won't cut you off unless you run way overtime. Since teams take turns debating, it's always possible to offer rebuttals unless you are the first affirmative speaker. For British Parliamentary, for example, both teams might organize their debate strategy thus:   1st affirmative:  Define the topic (optional) and present the team's main line. Outline, in brief, what each affirmative speaker will talk about. Present the first half of the affirmative's argument.    1st negative:  Accept or reject the definition (optional) and present the team's main line. Outline, in brief, what each negative speaker will talk about. Offer a rebuttal of a few of the points presented by the first affirmative. Present the first half of the negative's argument.   This will continue into second and third affirmative and negative arguments. When rebutting a team's argument, remember:  Offer evidence for your rebuttal. Do not rely on vigorous assertion alone. Show the chairperson why the other team's argument is fundamentally flawed; don't just tell. Attack the most important parts of their argument. It's not very effective if you pick bones with an obscure part of the opponent's argument. Go for the crux of their argument and pick it apart with the ruthless efficiency of a surgeon. For instance, if they are arguing for an increase in the military budget, but they also make a casual assertion about citizens being ungrateful for what the military does, you can dismiss the latter with a calm "I beg to disagree" and focus on the problems with increasing the actual budget. No ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is when you criticize another person instead of their ideas. Attack the idea, not the person. The more you talk, the more you'll convince the judge. Note that this means you should come up with many examples, not that you should ramble. The more the judge hears about why you are correct, the more inclined s/he will be to believe you. For the most part, debates are judged on three main areas: matter, manner, and method.   Matter is amount and relevancy of evidence. How much evidence does the speaker marshall to support his/her claims? How strongly does the evidence used support the argument?  Manner is eye contact and engagement with audience. Don't stare at your cue cards! Speak clearly. Accentuate your arguments with volume, pitch and speed to highlight important parts. Use your body to emphasize your arguments: stand straight and gesture confidently. Avoid stammering, fidgeting, or pacing.  Method is team cohesion. How well does the entire team organize their arguments and rebuttals? How well do the individual arguments mesh together, as well as the rebuttals? How clear and consistent is the team line?

Summary:
Adhere to all rules and professional standards. Be ready to receive a topic. Define the topic simply when necessary. Write your speech in the time allotted. Support your argument. Choose what to include carefully. Present your argument with feeling. Strike a balance between presenting your team's point(s) and rebutting the opponent's point. Rebut the main points of your opponents' argument. Use up all your time (or most of it). Know what aspects of the debate you will be judged on, if appropriate.