What is Debate?

• Debating is a clash of arguments. For every issue, there are always different sides of a

story: why people support or disagree with that certain issue.

• Debating is about exploring the reasons behind each side.

• To make those reasons understandable and convincing, debaters should deliver their

arguments with good communication skills.

• Since competitive debating aims to convince judges that a team’s argument is superior, it

gives opportunities to use analytical-critical thinking and public speaking skill to the fullest, skills

which are very useful in everyday life.

• The point of having a debate is to speak out and listen to different kinds of opinions

Debating Format

1. There are 4 teams debating, each consists of 2 debaters who would be 1st and 2nd speaker.
2. Two teams shall be the Government/Affirmative side the side agreeing with motion, the other 2
teams shall be the Opposition/Negative side the side disagreeing with the motion.

3. Each speaker will deliver a substantial speech of 5 minutes duration, with the affirmative going
first. Here is the scheme:

Opening Government: Opening Opposition:

(1) Prime Minister; (2) Opposition Leader;
(3) Deputy Prime Minister; (4) Deputy Opposition Leader;

Closing Government: Closing opposition:

(5) Member for the Government; (6) Member for the Opposition;
(7) Government Whip; (8) Opposition Whip.

4. In a substantive speech, members of the opposing team are allowed to give interruption, called
Point of Information (POI), to the speaker delivering the speech. POIs may be delivered between

the 1st and 4th minute of the 5 minutes speech.

5. A time keeper shall signal the time. There will be one knock at the 1 st and 4th minute, to signal time
for POI. And two nocks at the 5 th minute to signal that delivery time for the speech almost ends

and that is the time to sum up or to give conclusion. After 5 minutes and 20 seconds, time keeper

will knock continuously to show that the time has been up.

6. Any debater speaking before 5 minutes 20 seconds shall be considered undertime and his/her
points could be reduced. Any debater speaking after 5 minutes 20 seconds shall be considered

overtime and his/her points could be reduced as well. Be good in your time management.

7. Every debate shall be judged an odd number of judges and only the judges shall decide who wins

the debate (there is no draw in the result of a debate).

8. Every team is given 15 minutes preparation time after the motion is released and before the
debate begin. During this preparation time, teams are not allowed to get help from anybody.

Motion

Motion is current issue that emerges from all aspects in our life. Each motion will not be weighted more to

affirmative or opposition. Basically it is neutral and debatable. Below are some motions for you to debate:
 - That free trade is a way forward

- This house supports the use of dead penalty for corruptor

- This regrets the influence of Hollywood

- This house would ban surrogate mother

- This house would not allow local government to pay for the relocation of homeless people

Definition

A definition is how you understand the motion. It scopes down or gives limitations on the motion to

focus the debate. It clarifies the motion. The right to give a definition belongs to the

Government/Affirmative team. The affirmative team must provide a reasonable definition for the motion.

This means:

1. On receiving the motion, both teams should ask: “What is the issue that the two teams are

expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person thinks the motion about?

2. If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (i.e. it has an obvious meaning), the Proposition must

define the motion accordingly. When the motion has an obvious meaning (one which the ordinary

intelligent person would realise), any other definition would not be reasonable.

3. The negative team may challenge the Proposition’s definition, arguing it is unreasonable. The
Opposition will have to explain exactly why it is unreasonable, then put up an alternative (and

reasonable) definition, before proceeding to advance arguments and examples based on its own

definition. It will meanwhile ignore the arguments and examples the Proposition has put forward

(based, as they are, on an unreasonable definition).

a. Truisms

A truism is something that is obviously true. It would be a truism to define the motion

‘This House believes that the sun is rising in the East’ literally. The Opposition would have

nothing to say to three speeches that discussed the manner in which the earth revolved

around the sun. In terms of the questions posed above, the Opposition should be asking

whether there is a clear issue to be debated. There is no issue as to whether the sun

actually rises in the East.

b. Tautologies

A tautology is something that is true by definition. A tautology becomes a circular

argument and leaves the Opposition nothing to debate. In this case, the Opposition first

speaker pointed out that the definition was tautological, and her team won the debate

unanimously. Another example of a tautology would be defining the word ‘best’ in the

motion ‘This House believes that government is best when it governs least’ to mean ‘least

intrusive into the lives of ordinary people’. Truistic and tautological definitions are clearly

unreasonable. They leave the Opposition no room for debate.

c. Squirreling

Squirreling happens when a definition is not tied down to the spirit of the motion and

doesn’t have a proper logical link to the motion. For example: for the motion ”That USA is

opening up to the PRC” the affirmative team defined USA as “Untidy Student of Asia” and
 PRC as “Pretty Room Cleaners” this is definitely squirreling as anyone would agree that the

spirit of the motion is about the relationship between United States and China.

d. Time and place setting

Time setting happens when the debate is confined to a particular time in the past or

the future. Place setting unfairly happens when the debate is confined to particular place

where an ordinary intelligent person in the scope of the tournament wouldn’t know about

the issues in there.

CONSTRUCTING CASES

The definition settled, each team has to present a case, arguments and examples. Each team presents a

single case. The team’s case is supported by several arguments. Each argument is backed up by one or

more examples.

(a) Case

The team’s case is sometimes called the team line or team theme. This is the essence of what the team is

arguing. Every individual argument made must help prove the case, which in turn must prove the team’s

side of the motion. During preparation, the team should always try to work out the key point it wants to

make. Does this prove its side of the motion? Does each individual argument derive from this?

(b) Arguments

The team will need to ensure that it provides arguments in support of its case and that these arguments

are divided among the three speakers, the most important arguments being made first.

An argument is a reason or rationale why the team’s case is right. Inexperienced debaters sometimes

state the team case, but then descend into a series of examples, without trying to show how they are

linked or the underlying reasons why they prove the team’s point.

Examples alone can never win a debate. There will always be examples for and against the motion. The

strength of the arguments that seek to explain the examples will therefore be more important.

(c) Examples

Arguments require logic and reason, and need to be supported by examples. Without proof, arguments are

reduced to assertions and generalisations. The best examples are those that the ordinary intelligent

person (hopefully most audience members!) will have heard of. When presenting an example, it is important

that it be fully explained. It is better to mention a few examples well, linking them carefully to arguments

just made, and explaining why they are relevant and significant to the debate, than merely to list a series

of examples without proper clarification.

 ADJUDICATOR’S TO DO LIST

1. Observing the debate (which includes chairing and time-keeping if necessary),

2. Giving the oral adjudication ( announce decision, provide reasons for decision and offer advice to
debaters).

o Matter and Manner contribution of each team should be discussed (along with Points of

Information- as in the quality of the questions and the responses to them, which possesses

both manner and matter elements)

o Oral adjudication is presented by the chair of the panel, or a member of the majority, if

the chair is dissenting.

o Announce the rankings before explaining the verdict (encouraged), if not the explanation

would ambiguous and not constructive.

o Explain to the debaters, why the panel/majority decided the team ranking in that order, so

debaters can understand how the adjudicators distinguished the teams in terms of

contribution and delivery.

o Provide constructive advice (drawn collectively from the panel) for the debaters.

Ranking teams

Teams should be ranked from first place to last place.

First placed teams should be awarded 3 points,
second placed teams should be awarded 2 points,
third placed teams should be awarded 1 point and
fourth placed teams should be awarded 0 points.

Marking the teams:

Mark
Meaning
s

Excellent to flawless.
The standard you would expect to see from a team at the Semi Final / Grand Final
74-75
level of the tournament. The team has much strength and few, if any,
weaknesses.

Above average to very good.

The standard you would expect to see from a team at the finals level or in
73
contention to make to the finals. The team has clear strengths and some minor
weaknesses.

Average.
72
The team has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions.

Poor to below average.

71
The team has clear problems and some minor strength.

Very poor.
70
The team has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.
 Individual members’ marks:

Mark
Meaning
s

Excellent to flawless.
The standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the Semi
74-75
Final / Grand Final level of the tournament. This speaker has much strength and
few, if any, weaknesses.

Above average to very good.

The standard you would expect to see from a speaker at the finals level or in
73
contention to make to the finals. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor
weaknesses.

Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly equal
72
proportions.

71 Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor strength.

70 Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

Adjudication Sheet

Round : _______________________ Date : _____________ Venue : ________________

Motion : _______________________________________________________________________

Individual Members’ Marks

Team's Team's
Team's ( 70 – 75)
Member's Name Mark Rank
Position Matter Manner Average
( 70 – 75) (3–0)
( 70 – 75 ) ( 70 – 75 ) (70 – 75)

1st Best Team : ____________________________

2nd Best Team : ____________________________

1st Best Speaker : ____________________________

2nd Best Speaker : ____________________________

Adjudicators Name : ____________________________ Signature : ______________

Chairsperson : ____________________________ Signature : ______________

Time Keeper: : ____________________________ Signature : ______________