Debate and Debate Adjudication: an introduction to adjudicating in

National Polytechnics English Olympics

Rachmat Nurcahyo, M.A
DEBATE
A. What is Debate
Debating is a clash of arguments.What is challenging in debating is that you will find
strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques and you will often be in a
position where you will have to argue the opposite of what you believe in. or any issue,
there are always different sides of perspectives! different story of why do people support or
disagree with certain issues. Debating see"s to e#plore the reasons behind each side. $o ma"e
those reasons understandable and convincing, you should deliver your arguments with good
communication s"ills.
%nieder &'(()* believes that debating is about change. +n debating, you are constantly
engaged in a struggle to better our lives, our community, and our future. ,ou should never be
satisfied with the status quo since something in our lives needs improving. Debate is the
process that determines how change should occur. Debate occurs on the floor of the -ouse of
Representatives, during .residential /andidates campaigns, during government meetings, and
at your corners of schools. Debating could be formal such as when the 0eneral Assembly of
the 1nited Nations debates whether to sanction %uriah for crimes againts civilians. Debating
shall be less formal when you are spea"ing againts your classmates2 conviction about rules in
school. Debating could also be informal, such as a debate with your parents about when you
can begin having a boyfriend or a girlfriend.
Research on debating evidences by 3raa" Andre &'((4* advances that debate can be
described as a formal discussion where two opposing sides follow a set of agreed rules to
engage in an oral e#change of different points of view on an issue. ormal debates are
commonly seen in public meetings or legislative assemblies, where individuals freely choose
which side of an issue to support, and also in schools or university competitions, where the
participants are often assigned a particular side for which to advocate.
B. Why Debate
+n Debate, you always need to hear both sides of an opinion. -ear all of the
information involved. %omeone on the other side may ma"e you rethin" your own opinion.
.ersuade you to change your mind. +n any case, it always stimulates your brain and causes
you to form a stronger opinion. 5ven when you change your mind and believe what the other
side thin"s. $he more information you can gather, the better. +t is important to see two sides
of an argument. Also debate is essentially about persuasion as most have an audience, so you
need to be able to show that you have thought enough about what you are saying to be able to
defend that position from someone of an alternative view.
6elieving that debate is a challenging and highly rewarding activity for most who
become involved in it, there are a full range of benefits associated with being on the debate
team. .eople debate for couple of reasons. %ome thin" that debate is fun. $he vast ma7ority
of the tens of thousands of students who compete in debate tournaments each year will tell
you that debate is fun. $he e#perience is a little different from one to another, but generally
the thrill of competition, the teamwor",and the travel opportunities ma"e debate fun. Debate
is also about a teamwor". An additional benefit of getting involved is building friendships
with teammates who en7oy similar interests. Debate also trigger public spea"ing s"ills. Most
people naturally avoiding public spea"ing provides a non8threatening environment to practice
these s"ills so that you will have the s"ills necessary to do a great 7ob before public. $his
increases your chances of doing well in important events such as interviews for 7obs or
scholarships. Debate arms you with analytical s"ills defined as the ability to critically analy9e
a problem and propose wor"able solutions. $his is a s"ill that debate best teaches and high8
level leaders and business people possess. Research s"ills would be an invaluable s"ill you
will gain in debate. $his covers traditional library research to the internet8based research. :ne
of e#cellences in debate is listening and note ta"ing s"ills. Debate requires that you become a
careful listener and good note ta"er. $his helps you get and learn faster and understand
better.
Many of succesful people li"e reputable lawyers, business e#ecutives, and elected
leaders were involved in debate, and for good reason. %imply put, debate8related s"ills help
you get ahead and stay there. $he power to persuade is highly respected and there is no better
way to master this art than through debate.
!. Basics o" Argumentation
Why is argument important in debate; +n many ways, the answers seem obvious! +t is
as important as air for our life. +t is important to be able to argue rationally both in a debate
championship or in a real life. %econd, "nowledge often comes through argument. :nce a
case is proved! a dispute is opened up and then solved! a new hypothesis is posited! you are
as"ed to loo" at an old problem in a new way. $hird, argument is about clarification as well
as persuasion. Well8argued speeches contain a sharp sense of meaning to an issue. ourth,
argument can be en7oyable < and students are spaces in which argument is encouraged and
where it can flourish. $he foregoing reasons may seem obvious, since argument cannot be
separated from debate. .art of this chapter is to help you learn better about how to bring the
best from you with regard to argument. .laying arguments is li"e playing your gadgets= +f
you understand how they wor", you are li"ely to get more service out of them, understand
what went wrong when they brea" down, and fi# the problem before your ne#t outing. What
matters most about argument to the debater is in differentiating bad argument from a good
argument. +n debate, this, in many ways, remainss problematic.$here is no such thing as a
total bad argument! rather, you should 7udge arguments based on the effectiveness. arguments
shouldmust be 7udged on the basis of their effectiveness.
$here are three most common types of argument. $hey are induction# deduction# and
causation. $hese include the vast ma7ority of possible logical relationships used in debates.
$. %nduction
+nductive reasoning is the process of citing a sufficient number of specific e#amples to prove
a generali9ation. ,ou may characteri9e the process as >from the specific to the general.2 ,ou
cite e#ample ?, e#ample ', and so on, and then draw the conclusion, a generali9ed statement
about those factual e#amples. ,ou can also reverse the process. ,ou may state the
generali9ation that you intend to prove and then cite e#amples to support it. Debaters utili9e
the later technique most frequently when using induction.
,ou must consider the following five principles when using induction=
?. $he e#amples cited must be factual, not hypothetical.
'. $he e#amples must be analogous! they must be of the same type, species, or category.
@. $he induction must be built on a sufficient number of factual e#amples. What
constitutes a sufficient number depends on the nature of your sub7ect and your
audience. +f you are tal"ing about nuclear power, for instance, you cannot not use
e#amples from +ran alone. An audience that has "nowledge of your sub7ect will
usually require more e#amples than one that has none. An audience that does not want
to believe your conclusion will demand more e#amples than an audience that wants to
believe it.
A. $he conclusion of induction is a generali9ation.
B. ,ou can effectively undermine an inductive argument by challenging the
methodology or process used in collecting the data. Whenever you tal" in terms of
percentages, ratios, indices, the ma7ority of cases, and the minority, you are referring
to terms statistical in nature. ,et in most sub7ects for which we are apt to become
advocates and use such statistical terms, the probabilities are great that the actual
statistics have been gathered by a sampling process &an inductive process* rather than
the complete counting.
+nduction is a powerful weapon in influencing people2s beliefs. %pea"ers use it to
defend or challenge the system of status quo, to demonstrate historical trends, to estimate
public opinion, to show that certain courses of action are advantageous, and to establish
universal truths. +nduction is used widely in all areas of endeavor to uncover "nowledge and
verify findings.$herefore, you who wishes to become an effective debater will learn how to
use it to strengthen your arguments and to refute the arguments of others.
&. Deduction
Deduction is one of the most common forms of reasoning found in debate. $he
essence of deduction is to ta"e two ideas that we accept, find a relationship between them,
and then draw this relationship as a conclusion. $hose investigating crimes often use such
reasoning. or e#ample, if a murder was committed in one city on %aturday night, and if the
enemy of the victim was seen in another city at the same time, then the enemy cannot be the
murderer because of the accepted generali9ation that a person cannot be in two places at
once. :ften a deductive argument will ta"e some accepted generali9ation and apply it to a
specific situation. +f one accepts the generali9ation, then it seems reasonable to accept the
specific conclusion.
Deductive reasoning is that form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from
premises. $he following are e#amples of deductive reasoning=
Any nation that has good univesrities has good financing for them.
1%A has good universities.
$herefore, 1%A has had good financing for universities.
Any person who has a record of honesty in the past can be relied upon to be honest in
the future.
Dr. Agus has a record of honesty in the past.
$herefore, Dr. Agus can be relied upon to be honest in the future.
Note that the proposition to be proved in each case is the concluding statement of the
deduction. +n each of the above e#amples the conclusion is drawn from the two statements
that precede it. $he first two statements are the premises upon which the conclusion is based.
'. !ausation(causal reasoning
/ausal reasoning is the form of reasoning in which you can demonstrate that an event
that happens first has the means, power, facilities, andCor desire to produce a second event.
$eachers often suggest to a student, D,ou2ll fail because you are cheating.E +n this case, + am
suggesting a certain conclusion, namely, you will fail. $his is our proposition to be proved.
:ur support or proof for the proposition is the statement that you are cheating. $he actual
process of causal reasoning in its simplest form involves the statement of either a cause or an
event as sufficient support for the whole reasoning process. $his is what you did when you
cited cheating as the obvious reason why you would fail. +n most of your spea"ing, however,
your causal reasoning will ta"e the form of e#plaining why the cause produces the effect.
,ou can substantiate causal relationships and strengthen your arguments by citing
e#perts who attest to the relationship or by using induction. or e#ample, to prove that
vitamin A in a food supply would reduce blindness, you could present evidence that
thousands of people used it in three different cities, with the same results. ,ou can then say
that the causal relationship was proved. -ere are two e#amples of causal reasoning=
%tatistics show that smo"ers have a higher incidence of lung disease. $he cause is that
smo"ing damages the lungs.
/orruption in the current government will ma"e it difficult for the party to win the
upcoming election. $he cause is that voters will not vote for a corrupt government.
D. )tructure o" Arguments in Debate
$here are various ways to e#plain the structure of an argument.
/onsidering the structure of arguments, good arguments should also comprise of A*E+=
?. Assertion < the statement which should be proved.
$his a statement encapsulated in ONE sentence, which answers the following
question= Why the 7udges should support your proposition; +f you don2t manage to
formulate your assertion in one sentence, you2d better drop this argument. +n most of
the cases it will be a failure.
'. *easoning < the reason why that statement is logical. +t isn2t enough to state
something. +t is equally important to e#plain your statement. %o if you ma"e a
statement youu should e#plain to the ad7udicators= Why your assetion is true and
logical;
@. E,idence < e#amplesCdata that support the assertion and reasoning above. +t isn2t
enough to claim and e#plain something. Why the 7udges should believe you; +t is
important to substantiate your claim and e#planation with "acts# statistics and
e-perts. opinions &we call this staff < evidence*.
A. +in/ Bac/ < the e#planation of the relevance of this argument to the motion. As you
have tal"ed a lot e#plaining the argument and substantiating it with evidence.$he
7udges might have forgotten what the whole staff is about. %o it is worth to remind
them your assertion for the second time thus ma"ing a conclusion.
Another simple way to understand a good argument is by understanding how to create
a good set of argument. $o create a good argument, similar to the AR5F principle, 7ust do not
forget the following A parts= a claim, an e#planation of the claim, evidence and conclusion. +
will e#plain how to ma"e a good argument on the following motion= D$his -ouse would 6an
Gun" ood from schoolsE.
$. A claim.
A claim is a statement encapsulated in ONE sentence, which answers the following
question= Why the ad7udicators should support your proposition; +f you don2t manage to
formulate your claim in one sentence, you2d better drop this argument. +n most of the cases it
will be a failure.
%o, a good claim regarding the above mentioned motion can be=
0We would ban Gun" ood from schools in order to maintain the good academic
achievement of the students1.
&. An e-planation o" the claim.
+t isn2t enough to state something. 5#plain then.+t is equally important to e#plain your
statement. +t is not self8evident that the banning 7un" food will bring benefit to the students2
health. %o if you ma"e a statement of such a "ind you should e#plain to the ad7udicators=
Why the banning of 7un" food could be beneficial in health; A possible e#planation can be=
02.currently the eating habit o" the students determines the physical
condition o" the students. )cholars belie,e that jun/ "ood does not contribute at
all to the 3uality o" human health. %n addition# it is belie,ed that jun/ "ood
causes ,arious health problems. By eliminating jun/ "ood "rom schools# the
go,ernment has automatically protected the students "rom easy access to jun/
"ood. Then# jun/ "ood 4ill be absent in the students. eating habit and the
students 4ill stay healthy. )o# 4ith good physical per"ormance# the students 4ill
be better in their academic per"ormance.1
'. E,idence to bac/ up your claim and e-planation.
+t isn2t enough to claim and e#plain something. Why the ad7udicators should believe
you; +t is important to bac/ upyour claim and e#planation with "acts# statistics and e-perts.
opinions. %o bearing this point in mind our argument evolves into=
02.this is pro,ed by the rising number o" students 4ho are addicted to
jun/ "ood. These students "ind problems o" health and many times they cannot
attend classes and e-ams. %n !hina# numbers o" students missing classes because
o" getting sic/ is getting higher. The reason is simply they are addicted to jun/
"ood. Those students cannot impro,e their academic 3uality.1
5. A conclusion.
After you tal" a lot e#plaining your argument and evidence, the 7udges need to recall
to what is the main idea of your case. $he 7udges might have forgotten what the whole staff is
about. %o it is worth to remind them your claim for the second time thus ma"ing a
conclusion=
0)ince jun/ "ood contributes much in the decrease 3uality o" students.
per"ormance# you should support our proposition to ban jun/ "ood "rom schools.1
$here are two ways to prove that a proposition is true.
?. ,ou can loo" at every "nown instance and show that in each case the proposition holds
good.
'. ,ou can analyse the proposition and show that it is supported by other "nown principles.
+n debating it is usually impossible to use the first type of reasoning, because we debate
generalisations with millions if not billions of "nown instances. %o, we have to use the
second type of reasoning. -owever, an ama9ing number of debaters donHt seem to understand
the difference.
E. A 6ypothetical E-ample
%uppose that two teams are debating the motion that Ithis house believes that people
in the 1% are all feminist nowI. $he government chooses to interpret the motion reasonably
literally= -ow does it prove its case; :bviously it cannot as" everybody in the 1% whether or
not they are feminists. Nor can it rely upon opinion polls= if the motion was as simple to
prove as that, it wouldnHt have been set for debate. +nstead, it is going to have to ma"e some
generalisations about the motion in order to present a coherent argument within the time
allowed.
or e#ample, it could loo" at the public attitudes of important institutions in society
such as governments big businesses, schools, religions, the media and sport. .art of its
reasoning process would be that when the ma7or institutions change their attitudes they either
reflect the views ofH the general public or, perhaps, lead the general public towards new
attitudes.
$he opening government spea"er could outline a central thesis that went something
li"e this= I+n todayHs society the ma7or institutions generally adopt feminist attitudes. $hese
institutions either lead society &such as the media* or reflect the views of the ma7ority in
society &such as parliaments and big business*.
rom that point onwards we "now what the government team is going to prove. When
it discusses the role and attitudes of each ma7or institution in society we can see why it is
doing it and where the argument is going. + donHt want to get side8trac"ed into an argument
whether this is a winning case or not. Rather, + want to illustrate the point that the government
team has to present a generalised case and prove it logically, rather than relying upon large
numbers of e#amples in the hope that these will do the 7ob instead.
One !ase or )e,eral
+f we accept that a case has to be a central thesis supported by each spea"er, it is
obvious that a team cannot be internally contradictory in its team case, it is a debate between
teams, not a discussion between ) individuals. All spea"ers on a team must be contributing to
the same case, not to different ones.
1sing the feminist e#ample above, suppose that the first government spea"er had
outlined the case set out above,the second spea"er could not present an argument that said
that we were all hypocrites who merely gave lip8service to feminism. While this is a valid
government case it is quite inconsistent with the case presented by the first spea"er, if we
were all hypocrites, then the ma7or institutions in society would not be reflecting any general
attitude in support of feminism.
*ebuttal or !lash
$he use of generalised cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. $he opposition
team cannot concentrate on attac"ing the e#amples used by the government. $he e#amples
might be wea", but the central case might still be sound. +nstead, it will have to concentrate
on attac"ing that case, because that is where the debate actually lies.
+n the feminist motion above, suppose that the government team used as an e#ample
the pro8feminist attitudes of one newspaper from a small country town. +f the opposition team
attac"ed 7ust that e#ample, it would show only that the government has chosen a particularly
wea" e#ample to illustrate its argument. 6ut the government case might still be sound. +t
might be true that the media generally had feminist attitudes, even if the e#ample it chose to
illustrate the point was a poor one.
$herefore, to succeed in this part of the debate, the opposition would have to show
that the media generally did not have pro8feminist attitudes. :f course= +t could ridicule the
government= I+s such a trivial e#ample the best that you can find to illustrate your case;E 6ut
this would merely be part of the process of attac"ing the general proposition that the media is
pro8feminist rather than an end in itself.
$here is another consequence for rebuttal. +t may be that the government has used a
number of e#amples to illustrate the same point. +f they can all be disposed of with the same
piece of rebuttal, the opposition does not have to attac" each of the e#amples individually as
well. or e#ample, suppose that the government in the feminist debate loo"ed at the attitudes
towards feminism in the ma7or religions of the country. $he opposition could respond in two
ways to this argument. +t could rebut the supposedly pro8feminist attitudes in each of those
religions. Alternatively, it could argue that religion plays such a minor role in society that the
feminist attitudes of religions are largely irrelevant to the debate. $hus, it would be
unnecessary for it to deal with each e#ample of a ma7or religion dealt with by the
government, because all of them are irrelevant according to its arguments.
AD78D%!AT%ON
A. %ntroduction to Adjudicating !ompetiti,e Debates
$here are many competitive debating championships following different formatsCstyle
of debating around the world and in the region. Among these formats, the Australasian, the
Asian .arliamentary and the 6ritish .arliamentary formats are the most well "nown in the
region. Although these formats differ in some areas, the s"ills to ad7udicate these debates are
very similar. Assessments of teams2 strengths and wea"nesses, arguments, manner etc.
follows more or less the same rules. When ad7udicating competitions in different formats, the
ad7udicators need a good understanding of the rules of the different formats in addition to the
general rules of assessment of a debate.
$. *ole o" Adjudicators# the !hair and the Panel in
Asian(Australasian Debate
$he three main roles of an ad7udicator is to decide the winner, reason out the decision
and provide constructive criticism for the teams. A single ad7udicator or a panel ad7udicates
debates. +n the case of a panel at the AsianCAustralasian debates, the ad7udicators decide the
winner individually and fill up the score sheets and pass them to the chair. $he chair opens all
the score sheets only after he has filled up his. $he winner is decided based on ma7ority. After
the winner has been decided, the chair generally conducts a discussion among the
ad7udicators regarding the strengths and wea"nesses of the teams. No change of decision is
allowed upon the discussion. $he chair delivers the verdict, and in case the chair is in the
minority, it is advisable that a member of the ma7ority does so.
&. There is no right or 4rong# is there
Many of us will say, in debate ad7udication there is no right or wrong decision. $his is
only partially right. ,es, there is no right or wrong when it comes to assessing the sub7ective
elements of a close debate. 6ut there are clear8cut rights and wrongs when it comes to the
process of ad7udication. +t is obviously wrong if an ad7udicator fails to listen to an idea of a
team no matter how ill developed it may be. Nothing is right about not noting that a team has
developed most of its substance in the last few minutes of the debate. $he most important
aspect of being right is to consider every single issue and remain methodologically correct in
comparing the faults and strengths of the teams.
'. Ta/ing Notes: *e4inding the Tape
Ad7udicators should maintain detailed notes during the debate. Notes should be ta"en
in such a way that a glance over the notes reminds the ad7udicators as how every speech and
the whole debate progressed. 6y loo"ing at the notes, one should be able to rerun the debate
in hisCher mind. + call it visuali9ing the debate once again after it is over. $his is not to say
that the ad7udicators should ta"e tens of pages of notes only to find that they never have the
time to loo" at them before they have to decide, or never have the time to appreciate the
beauty of the speech by loo"ing at the debater and en7oy hisCher presentation. 6ut as + said, it
should be enough to rerun the debate in your mind.
+ found one practice very helpful and that is to ma"e my own remar"s at the end of
every speech regarding the debater2s performance. Remar"s li"e >reads too much from notes2,
>did an e#cellent 7ob in dealing with a particular issue e.g. fairness2, or >fails to address a
particular issue e.g. fairness which is the main argument of the other team2 >the questions
he Cshe raised that + e#pect the ne#t debater to answer2, >the questions heCshe failed to answer
that were raised by the previous debater2. 6efore a speech, one may note down the issues or
questions that one e#pects the debater to address. $hese are not issues that + thin" are
important, rather these are issues that the previous debater has raised. $hese methods are
every person2s own. + have seen lot of ad7udicators using pens of different colours to ta"e a
special note of things they want to remember. $hese remar"s, colouring etc provide an
e#planation behind the interim mar"s and help ad7udicators rerun the debate when needed.
5. Adjudicating Debates as the A,erage *easonable Person
$he ad7udicator enters the debate chamber as an >average reasonable person. An
average reasonable person is a fairly well8informed citi9en of the globe with an average
understanding of global and regional issues, and a basic understanding of popular disciplines
and logic. $he ad7udicator must set aside hisCher e#ceptional personal preferences,
e#periences, opinions or e#pert "nowledge, which will not be shared by an average
reasonable person. An ad7udicator is supposed to be a 7ac"8of8all8trades and master of none.
-owever the ad7udicator is an e#pert in terms of the rules of debate. Ad7udicators
&often being e# debaters* tend to analyse the argument by pin pointing the possible
wea"nesses of it, as the opposing team would do it. $his sometimes will be seen as >entering
into the debate2 &discussed afterwards*. Ad7udicators must strictly avoid this. $he ad7udicators
should merely determine whether the arguments are convincing in the eyes of an average
reasonable person. An interesting observation in this respect is that an average reasonable
person is more easily convinced than a debater, because he is open to be convinced.
0enerally an average reasonable person is equally easily convinced otherwise when the
merits of the opposing side are pointed out. Ad7udicators should avoid coming in between
this process of the teams trying to convince the average reasonable person by bringing their
own views of what is wea" or what is strong unless it is obviously so.
9. Assessing the )trength o" an Argument ,s. Entering into the Debate
$he most obvious instance of ad7udicators entering into the debates is when
ad7udicators bring in their e#pert "nowledge or preferences into the debate. $hey also enter
into the debate if they build the arguments for the teams. Ad7udicators should not supplement
an unclear or ill developed argument with their additional e#planation. -owever, the
ad7udicators2 tas" is to assess the argument2s strength. -e should point out the wea"nesses
that an average reasonable person will observe. -e should not go beyond that and assume the
duty of finding faults on behalf of the opposing teams. +n this case he can be seen as entering
into the debate.
$a"e a very tric"y e#ample &real*. $he debate is about genetic engineering of crops.
$he government team argued that the third world does not have proper bodies that can
regulate the growth of genetically engineered crops. $he opposition team ignored the
argument. $he ad7udicator in the verdict stated that he finds the argument not convincing
because as an average reasonable person he would "now that in third world countries there is
the ministry of agriculture that can regulate. +f this was to be raised by the opposing team,
then the government team could have responded with the issue of ineffectiveness of and
corruption in third world ministries. + also ponder whether the average reasonable person
"nows how efficientC corrupt the third world ministries are. At the end, + concluded that in
this debate the ad7udicator has either entered the debate or has only considered half of the
average reasonable person2s "nowledge &that there is the ministry of agriculture, since the
ad7udicator ignored the fact of ineffectiveness of the third world ministries*. +n any case the
ad7udicator was methodologically wrong. $he best practice in these cases will be to let the
teams fight out what is right or more convincing and for the ad7udicators not to bring issues
unless the teams themselves pic" it up. As + said the average reasonable person will not loo"
for faults, but will mar" one when it is made obvious.
B. Basics o" Adjudication: :atter# :anner ; :ethod
Debates are generally 7udged on the basis of matter &A(*, manner &A(* and method
&'(*. +n Worlds the categories are matter and manner while method is included within the
two.
$. Assessing :atter
Matter includes Definition &set up of the case, burden of proof etc.*, arguments &"ey
statement, e#planation, analogy, e#amples, evidences etc.*, rebuttals &"ey statement,
e#planation, analogy, e#amples, evidences etc.*
$he ad7udicators should loo" at all these aspects of matter and give the appropriate score to
the debater.
a. <irst# De"inition
A summary of the rules of definition for is as follows=
i. The de"inition should be reasonable: $he definition should be reasonable and should
state the issue or issues arising out of the motion to be debated, meaning of any terms in
the motion requiring clarification and display clear and logical lin"s to the wording and
spirit of the motion. $hus a definition is unreasonable when it displays no clear lin"
with the topic or it involves a misinterpretation of the words or the spirit of the motion.
A definition is also unreasonable if it employs overly specific "nowledge or runs
counter to the resolution.
$here must be a clear and logical lin" between the motion and the definition. or
e#ample, consider the motion D$his house supports affirmative actionE. $he
0overnment defines affirmative action to mean supporting a IdisadvantagedI group.
$his group, according to the 0overnment, should not be limited to 7ust humans. $he
0overnment then argues that in the animal world, some species are endangered and
therefore can be considered IdisadvantagedI because of their low numbers. A prime
e#ample of this are the whales which are hunted and "illed by Gapanese whalers. $hen
the conte#t in which the 0overnment set the debate is Dthat the 1N should impose
economic sanctions on Gapan for its whaling activityI. $o propose a definition that is
only remotely lin"ed to the motion such as this is called =s3uirelling=. $his is strictly
prohibited, and such definitions can be challenged by the :pposition.
$he definition should not incorporate overly specific "nowledge.+t is unreasonable if
the 0overnment proposes a definition that includes topics which are outside that of
the range of a typical well8read university student. +n other words, the definition must
be limited to topics which the :pposition can be reasonably e#pected to debate and
must not depend on a detailed understanding of specific facts which may not be
available to the general public.
$he definition should not run counter to resolution. At times, due to lac" of
understanding of the topic or even intentionally, 0overnment teams end up ta"ing the
:pposition2s case. An e#ample of such a definition is the motion that D-uman rights
is but a song and danceE where the 0overnment defined the word DbutE to mean DnotE
and started arguing that human rights is a serious thing and not a song and dance. $he
:pposition also argued in the same way that human rights are important. $his
definition is certainly against the spirit of the motion.
$here could be other instances of unreasonableness of a definition. $hus the
0overnment teams should not stretch the definition to an e#tent that a good ma7ority
of ad7udicators find in unreasonable to some degree. 6y doing so the 0overnment
ta"es the ris" of being challenged by the opposition and ad7udicators giving low score
to them for a bad definition.
ii. The de"inition must not be truistic or tautological. A truistic definition is one which
cannot be rationally opposed. +f the 0overnment were to define the motion I$his
-ouse believes that fighting fire with fire is 7ustifiedI to mean that there is
7ustification in oneHs "illing of another person in self8defence when the latter is
threatening hisCher life, the :pposition may successfully challenge the case as truistic.
$his is because no reasonable person can or should be e#pected to advocate otherwise.
A tautological definition is one that proves itself by the very meaning and set up given
to the topic.
iii. The de"inition must not employ time(place setting. $he 0overnment may not set
the time or place of the debate unfairly. -owever the 0overnment can bring the
debate to a well "nown issue which, in effect, narrows the debate down to a region or
country to be the centre of the debate. +n this case it will not be seen as an
unreasonable place setting. or e#ample if the 0overnment defines the motion I$his
-ouse believes that fighting fire with fire is 7ustifiedI as military intervention in the
Middle85ast /onflict, the definition is fine. $he criterion to 7udge a timeCplace set
definition is that of an >average reasonable person2. $he government can not narrow
down the scope of the debate in terms of time and place in such a way that an >average
reasonable person2 is not e#pected to "now or be able to debate the motion as defined.
A good definition e#plains the "ey words of the topic, irons out the issuesCcontentions of the
debate and identifies the burden of proof following the rules stated above.
b. )econd# Arguments
An argument has a basic statement. $hen it is followed by logical analysis and
e#planations as to why the basic statement stands. 5vidences are adduced to substantiate the
analysis. An argument is often concluded by lin"ing bac" to the burden of proof or the basic
contention under the topic.
$he ad7udicators should assess whether the arguments were developed sufficiently to
meet the above requirements. Juestions that ad7udicators generally as" are= did the debater
discharge his burden of proof, did the arguments logically prove his contention, did he
demonstrate good understanding of the ma7or issues and relate smaller points to them, etc;
$he ad7udicators should assess the strength of an argument regardless of whether the
opposing team addresses it or not. A wea" argument is a wea" argument irrespective of
whether the other team points it out or not. -owever, if an important argument of a team is
plainly wea", an opposing team is equally guilty, if not more, if they do not address it. $o me
the opposing team is even more to be blamed for letting the team get away with a wea"
argument. +f the opposing team points out that an argument is wea", the team has an
opportunity to defend, but if the ad7udicator says so, they have no chance to defend.
$herefore, the ad7udicators should treat an argument as wea" only when it is plainly wea" to
an average reasonable person. $he ad7udicators, at the same time, should equally fault the
opposing team on at least method &may include matter as well* for not addressing it.
c. Third# *ebuttals
$he rebuttals are similar to arguments. Arguments are to prove a claim whereas rebuttals
are to disprove the validity of that argument or claim. $hus good rebuttals will also,
generally, have a basic statement, e#planation, analysis and supporting evidences. A team
does not have to rebut each and every e#ample introduced by the other team. +nstead they
should rebut the fundamental logic of the argument or the case and raise possible ob7ections
to the proposal &if any*.
&. Assessing :anner
ollowing are elements of manner= respectable attitude towards the 7udges and the
other team, vocal style= volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc, appropriate use of notes, eye
contact, body language, hand gestures, impression of sincerity, humour, wit, appropriate
sarcasm.
Assessing manner is very sub7ective. %ome ad7udicators li"e aggressive debaters,
while many others li"e the calm ones. :ne important thing that ad7udicators should remember
is that there is no one best way to debate! there is no difference between an aggressive and
forceful debater and one who is calm and understated if both are able to demonstrate the
ability to persuade and hold the attention of the ad7udicators. Notwithstanding this, there is
however a limit to the degree of acceptable ImannerI 8 neither an overly aggressive nor a too
understated debater will score many points. Dress is not part of manner &to the surprise of the
many traditional ad7udicatorsK*. $he debaters should not be racist, se#ist or plainly offensive
to person, or ma"e derogatory remar"s about other debaters in the debate. $hese are also
instances of bad manner.
$he fundamental questions that decide the manner score, generally, are= >is the speech
persuasive2, >is heCshe able to maintain the audience2s attention2, >is hisCher speech clear2 and
perhaps many others.
'. Assessing :ethod
Method consists of three elements= a* organisation of the team2s case, b* organisation of
individual speeches, c* responses of the team to the dynamics of the debate.
i. <irst# Organisation o" the Team.s !ase
$o assess team method the ad7udicators consider whether the team2s overall
organi9ation of arguments is effective to prove the case in contention. $he ad7udicators
should also loo" at the continuity of the team2s theme in all speeches, consistency among all
debaters &no contradictions*, reinforcement of team membersH arguments, clear L logical
separation between arguments.
+ have seen many teams, even good ones, developing the substantial materials late in the
debate. $hese materials are sometimes introduced only by passing in earlier speeches and
then the third spea"er develops so substantially that it sounds li"e a very strong argument at
the end. %ome teams do it as a strategy &K*. +t is a snea"y way of trying to win a debate. $he
ad7udicators must be careful about these instances. +t also happens that many of the
substantial arguments of the government team are only rebutted in the @
rd
negative speech. +t
is completely unacceptable. $he team should not only suffer considerably in method mar"s,
but earlier speeches of this team should also suffer matter mar"s as they did not address
substantial matter introduced in the debate during their speeches.
$he best team strategy is to put the best arguments on the table at the very beginning of
the debate and not even leave them to the '
nd
spea"er. %imilarly the opposition team should
start addressing them head on from the very first speech. A debate should have strong clashes
right from the first speech of the opposition.
ii. )econd# Organisation o" the %ndi,idual )peeches
A model individual speech will have the following elements= a* %tatements regarding
definitionC themeC burden of proof C quic" overview, b* Rebuttals= rebuttals of the arguments
as well as rebuttals of the rebuttals, c* .resentation of arguments, and c* concluding summary.
$hese elements in general should be present in all the speeches. -owever, some specific
speeches will have some differing elements. or e#ample, the .rime Minister will spend
substantial amount of time &' to @ minutes* setting up the definition which no other spea"er
will do unless the definition is challenged. %imilarly the whip spea"ers, i.e. third spea"ers in
AsiansCAustrals will not present any new argument and will spend substantial amount of time
on rebuttals. Reply spea"ers will bring an overall comparison showing the strength of the
arguments of one team over the other.
+ndividual structure should be assessed in terms of whether the spea"er performs the role
e#pected of himCher effectively. Ad7udicators will also loo" at time management in the
speech.
iii. Third# *esponses to the Dynamics
Debates do not always progress the way teams thought it would before they entered the
debate. At every point in the debate, some issues become of prime focus and the core of the
debate and some other issues initially thought of being contentious become irrelevant or out
of contention. %ometimes teams concede to some of the issues and thus it does not ma"e
sense for the other team to spend time developing them. Debaters should understand these
progresses and dynamics and respond accordingly and not 7ust go ahead and spea" as they
planned during their preparation time.
+f a debater ignores the most important arguments of the earlier spea"er and does not
rebut them he lac"s dynamics and should thus score low in method, even though he rebuts the
minor arguments of the other side. +t is possible that the debater understands the issues well
and addresses them but hisCher responses are wea". +n this case he gets good score for method
for understanding the dynamics of the debate but scores low in matter for unconvincing
responses or arguments.
!. 7udging a De"inition Debate: %t is :erely a Technical !omple-ity
A definition debate is not necessarily difficult to decide, if you are aware of the
definitional rules. +n a definition debate the ad7udicators should first consider whether the
definition provided by the government passes the rules. +f it does, the conclusion is that the
challenge made by the opposition is un7ustified. +f the opposition leader cannot 7ustify the
challenge he has already lost the debate on one count. 6ut this alone will not settle the whole
debate! the ad7udicators still have to loo" at the developments that ta"e place after that.
Ad7udicators have to consider how both teams argue out the case under each definition, or
argue out the validity or otherwise of the definitions. Ad7udicators will also consider the
>even ifs2 introduced by both teams when required and matter, manner method of teams as a
whole. $hus it is not merely who wins the issue of definitional challenge that automatically
decides the debate. Ad7udicating a definition debate requires a careful analysis of the
definitional rule and the technical roles performed by all debaters of both the teams.
D. :ar/ing Points o" %n"ormation
$he debaters are advised to ta"e at least two .:+s during their speeches. All debaters
are advised to attempt to give .:+s but they should not do so in a manner disruptive to the
debater holding the floor. What amounts to be disruptive is sub7ective. -owever two clear
e#amples are when a debater uses long and loud sentences 7ust to get the attention towards
hisCher attempt to give .:+s &+ have seen it happen* or say if a debater stands up on a .:+
within few seconds after he has been re7ected. A '( seconds waiting period before one stands
up again is the rule of the thumb. .:+s are assessed on the basis of the threat they pose to the
strength of the argument of the debater and the value of its wit and humour. 6ut the responses
to the .:+s are 7udged on the basis of its logical and intellectual strength, promptness and
confidence in answering, and value of its wit and humour.
Mar"s for the .:+s and responses to .:+s should be incorporated within the mar"s of
the speech in various categories. or e#ample if a debater is inactive in giving .:+s he may
score less in method. Again if a debater gives a brilliant .:+ that "ills an argument instantly,
he could be given additional matter mar"s for that. +t is relatively easy to mar" the responses
to .:+s as the responses are made within the speech and when it is being mar"ed, whereas it
is rather difficult to mar" the .:+s. 6ecause .:+s are offered before or after the speech is
mar"ed. +t is advisable that the ad7udicators loo" at the separate note they "eep regarding
.:+s and add into or deduct from their speech score as appropriate to reflect their offerings of
.:+s. or e#ample if a debater offers very good .:+s after hisCher speech is already mar"ed,
hisCher mar" can be increased to reflect hisCher activism in .:+s. :n the other hand if a
debater does not offer .:+s or offers bad ones mar"s can be deducted from hisCher speech
score. At the end, all the debaters2 score will not only reflect how they performed in their
speeches but also their .:+s throughout the debate.
E. Asian(Australasian )tyle *eply )peeches
Reply speeches are mar"ed out of B( &matter '(, manner '(, method ?(*. +t is easy to
score a reply out of ?(( and then divide by '. A good reply speech is often a biased
ad7udication. A good reply speech is the one that summarises the ma7or contentions of both
the teams and provides a summary of argumentation that too" place during the course of the
debate proving that one team has substantial edge over the other. +t incorporates the
arguments and rebuttals of both the teams in deducing a conclusive position.
Ad7udicators should be careful regarding reply speeches as obviously a team, which is
losing the debate in some areas of contention, may and will choose to down play or not even
mention that those areas of contention e#ist. $his is why one reply speech on its own is only
half the truth. Ad7udicators should not be too naMve into believing that those were the only
contentions, even though the other team fails to point out areas of contentions where they
have an advantage. -owever, two reply speeches properly done should bring about the whole
truth to the ad7udicators.
<. :ar/ing )cheme in the !onte-t o" Asian(Australasian Debate
5ach substantive speech is mar"ed out of ?(( according to a detailed division as follows and
the reply speech is mar"ed proportionately out of B(.
Total Min8
Ma#
A,.
Matter A( 'N8@@ @(
Manner A( 'N8@@ @(
Method '( ?@8?N ?B
:ver all ?(( 4N8)@ NB
$he score for an average speech is NB. $he minimum for a debater is 4N and the
ma#imum is )@. $hese ranges of average, minimum and ma#imum vary depending on the
competition in conte#t &:f course, mar"ing scheme for Worlds is entirely different*. What is
an average speech is very difficult to state. 6ut + will safely say it is a speech that fulfils the
technical role of the debater, addresses the ma7or issues at hand to the satisfaction of an
average reasonable person and is delivered with a clear style of presentation. +t may help the
ad7udicators if + mention here that during the last few Asians the score of the $op $en
debaters of the tournaments have been around N4.B to N). +f we agree to ta"e that as a
standard to be followed giving a debater NN inevitably means that that speech is among the
ten best speeches in that round. :ther information from the table above are clear. A speech
should never go above )@ or below 4N. + have rarely seen a debater in Asians scoring )( or
above &Not that these tournaments do not have great debaters, rather they have strictly
regulated ad7udication standards*. $hus when + give a spea"er N), + e#pect to see him in the
0rand inal. A score N4 or NN will mean a quarter or semi finalist2s quality of speech.
>. The :argin in the !onte-t o" Asian(Australasian Debate
Margin is the difference of the total score of the two teams. All Asians categorises the
winCloss of teams into three categories= close, clear and thrashing. A description of these
categories and the range of points within these categories are as follows=
!ategory Points Description
/loseC
Marginal
(.B8A A very close debate! only minor differences separating the
two teams.
/lear B8) A relatively clear decision, with one team having an
obvious advantage.
$hrashing O8?' A very clear win, with the losing team failing on one or
more fundamental aspects of the debate.
Margin reflects a comparison of the two teams in the debate. Whereas the spea"ers2
score reflect both a relative comparison of the team2s spea"ers as well as an absolute
assessment of the spea"ers vis8P8vis e#pected standard in the competition.
+t is perfectly possible to come up with a margin of lot more than ?' despite mar"ing
the speeches within the range of 4N8)@. At the end of the debate the ad7udicator should decide
how much margin is suitable for the debate then ad7ust the spea"er2s score accordingly. $o
ad7ust margin it is advisable that the ad7udicators bring the low scoring team up instead of
bringing the high scoring team down. $his avoids victimising the e#cellent debaters meeting
a wea" team. 6ut of course a compromise can be drawn when appropriate.
*e""erences
-uber, Robert and Alfred %nider. Influencing Through Argument, '
nd
ed. New ,or"=
+nternational Debate 5ducation Association, '((B.
3raa", Andre. Debating High skills. /ape $own= -R%/ .ress, '((4
Nurcahyo, Rachmat. Introduction to BP Debate. 1npublished.'(??
%neider, Alfred. Code of Debaters. New ,or"= +nternational Debate 5ducation
Association,'(()
<urther *eadings
reely, Austin and David F %teinberg. Argumentation and Debate. 13= Wardswords,'(?(
-uber, Robert and Alfred %nider. Influencing Through Argument, '
nd
ed. New ,or"=
+nternational Debate 5ducation Association, '((B.
Rybold, 0ary. peaking! listening! "nderstanding. New ,or" +nternational Debate 5ducation
Association,'((4
$rapp, Robert &5d*. The Debatabase #rd ed. New ,or"= +nternational Debate 5ducation
Association,'((N