PUP-SOD BIBLE

I. Introduction of SOD
The School of Debaters is a non- profit, non- partisan student organization
dedicated to the promotion of debate as an educational and worthwhile
endeavor.
The School of Debaters mandate and goals are as follows:
A. To provide a structure and a friendly atmosphere for competitive debate
at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines
B. To educate members in the art of debating.
C. To promote debate among the student body of the Polytechnic University
of the Philippines.
D. To represent the Polytechnic University of the Philippines at off- campus
debate tournaments and activities.
E. To facilitate intellectual discourse and discussion on campus, while
maintaining a non- partisan stance.

II. What is Debate?

"I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer
the truth."
- Karl Popper

Debate is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or

individuals. More broadly, and more importantly, debate is an essential tool for
developing and maintaining democracy and open societies. More than a mere
verbal or performance skill, debate embodies the ideals of reasoned argument,
tolerance for divergent points of view and rigorous self-examination. Debate is,
above all, a way for those who hold opposing views to discuss controversial
issues without descending to insult, emotional appeals or personal bias. A key
trademark of debate is that it rarely ends in agreement, but rather allows for a
robust analysis of the question at hand. Perhaps this is what French philosopher
Joseph Joubert meant when he said: “It is better to debate a question without
settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.”
Debate is not a forum for asserting absolute truths, but rather a means of
making and evaluating arguments that allows debaters to better understand
their own and others’ positions. This sense of a shared journey toward the truth
brings debaters closer together, even when they represent opposing sides of an
issue or come from vastly different cultures or social classes. In so doing, debate
fosters the essential democratic values of free and open discussion.

III. Why debate?

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."
- Mahatma Ghandi

The process of debate offers profound and lasting benefits for individuals, for
societies and for the global community as a whole. With its emphasis on critical
thinking, effective communication, independent research and teamwork,
debate teaches skills that serve individuals well in school, in the workplace, in
 political life and in fulfilling their responsibilities as citizens of democratic societies.
Once students have learned how to debate, they are better able to critically
examine the pronouncements of their political representatives and to make
informed judgments about crucial issues.
The individual skills learned through debate have a broader impact on
society as well. Debate can help fledgling democracies heal from the wounds
inflicted by oppressive dictatorships and ethnic violence by providing a forum
where these volatile issues can be openly discussed. Newly enfranchised citizens
engaged in such debates learn first-hand how democracy works. Additionally,
because it teaches the principles of tolerance, nonviolence and respect for
different points of view, debate can close the gap between minority and
majority cultures, and other groups divided by long-standing animosities.

IV. Motion
A. Different Kinds of Motion
1. A MOTION CAN BE PHRASED AND INTERPRETTED DIFFERENTLY
2. 1 MOTION PER ROUND

a. OPEN MOTIONS
e.g. “THBT the glass is half full”
b. SEMI-CLOSED MOTIONS
e.g. “THW alter its genetic code”
c. CLOSED MOTIONS
e.g. “THW bomb Iraq”

3. SPIRIT OF THE MOTION

-This is what the debate calls for.
4. ABBREVIATIONS
a. THW = THIS HOUSE WOULD
b. THS = THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS
c. THC = THIS HOUSE CELEBRATES
d. THR = THIS HOUSE REGRETS
e. THBT = THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT

B. Motion Digestion
1. Policy Debate vs. Value-Judgment Debate
a. POLICY DEBATE
 Implies the need to institute a policy, program, law, or any
other type of action
 To understand how a program would work requires that you
lay down the mechanisms of that program

b. VALUE JUDGMENT
 Comparison of values and standards

c. ALLOWANCE FOR INTERPRETATION

 A value judgment debate may need a policy in order to be
assessed whether it would truly work
 (The adjudicator is still an average reasonable person)

V. Definition
Be as tough on your opponents as possible, without ever being unfair. The
test is: can you think of a way to oppose your definition of the motion? If you
can’t, it’s an unfair definition.

A. Define onto home ground - so you are as comfortable as possible with the
material.

B. The proposition should avoid the status quo - proposing that Britain should not
introduce capital punishment, for example, is deeply uninteresting. A proposition
doing so is effectively shifting the burden of definition onto the opposition, who -
in the previous example - would have to say under what circumstances capital
punishment should be introduced.

C. If any words in the motion are uncertain, define carefully how they fit into the
debate. Bear in mind that you are merely defining the scope of debate - you
cannot redefine the words themselves. For example, in a debate about
feminism, it is unacceptable for the proposition to try to fix the definition of
‘feminism’ - this is clearly a matter of debate and not something that can be
settled via definition.

D. If you are worried about particular examples or arguments, see if you can
exclude them from your definition. For example, a debate about the success (or
not) of feminism could be fixed to feminism in the 90s.

It is the duty of the “Prime Minister” to define the topic of the debate BUT it
must be clearly linked to the Motion. In some cases the motion will be worded in
such a way as to permit a wide variety of Definitions (e.g. “This house believes
that the Glass is half full”, Worlds 98.) Others will be tighter motions, which allow
little flexibility for Definition (e.g. “This house believes that Northern Nationalists
have nothing to fear from a United Kingdom” Irish Times 96). As 1st Government
you should look for a twist to the motion. For example “This house would rebuild
the Berlin Wall” (Worlds 96) is often defined as repartitioning of Germany and a
return to Communism. This is, in my experience, a very difficult line to win from.
Two more “successful” definitions which I have seen run are that the Berlin Wall
represented a division between East and west and that (a) the EU should not
allow Eastern Bloc countries membership until they have fulfilled certain Social
and Economic Criteria. Or (b) that Nato should not expand membership
eastward.
When Defining make sure that you have an argument. You have to
propose something. Saying that something is wrong and this is how it should be is
not enough. You must say that something is wrong and THIS is what you are
going to do about it. “What you are going to do” is the debatable part of the
definition.
 Example “This house favours Positive Discrimination”. Poor Defn: People
have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and they
shouldn’t be in the future therefore we’ll use something called Positive
Discrimination. Better Definition: People have been discriminated against
because of their sex/race/etc and to correct that we are going to take actions
X, Y, and Z under the umbrella name of Positive Discrimination. You must then
fully outline what actions X, Y, and Z are and how they will work.
The first speaker should take perhaps three quarters of the content. The second
will then be largely free to rebut the opposition case.

VI. Debate Rudiments

VII. Definitional Challenge

A. METHOD MUST BE FOLLOWED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
1. EXPRESSLY STATE THAT YOU ARE CHALLENGING THE DEFINITION
2. STATE THE GROUNDS OF YOUR CHALLENGE
3. STATE YOUR NEW DEFINITION
4. OPPOSE YOUR OWN DEFINITION

B. GROUNDS FOR DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE

1. TIME-PLACE SET
Specialized knowledge is highly discouraged. Setting up the debate in
Paraguay, or where else that is not that known is not advisable. Also, setting it up
in the past and somewhere else that a certain event happened is again not
allowed.

2. TRUISM
Simply, is debating about a fact that cannot be debated upon. Example of
this is: THBT the sun rises on the east.

3. SQUIRREL
In a Squirreled motion, if ever there is room for debate then try to engage the
government out of the spirit of dynamism

*Only the Leader of the Opposition may impose a definitional challenge

VIII. Point of Information

A. 1:00 – 1 CLAP (POIs may now be taken)
B. 6:00 - 1 CLAP (No more POIs)

*A POI last for up to 15 seconds. The speaker in front must accept it in order for
the 15 second period to run. After an accepted or rejected POI, the giver may
raise another only after 8 seconds.
1. Receiving
Don't be afraid of Points of Info. They are an attempt to attack you but
they are also an opportunity for you to deflect the attack back.

2. When to accept points

a. Accept two or three in a seven minute speech. Never accept more or less
than this.
b. Don’t keep accepting points from the same speaker, particularly if they’re
strong. On the other hand, don’t ‘cut out’ and ignore speakers you are
worried about - it’s normally quite transparent when people do this.
c. Obviously, if you think you’re on flimsy ground with an argument, then
don’t accept any points until you’re back to safer territory.
d. If your opponents are sitting quietly and you’ve got an argument for
which you’re sure they can’t answer, a neat tactic is to say ‘And I’ll take a
point of information from them now if they can explain why......’. Whether
they choose to sit tight, evade or attempt to answer you should have the
better of it. A bonus to this is that it safely ‘uses up’ one of the two points
you’re obliged to take. It’s particularly useful in summations, where you
can press for answers to points that have been ignored by all the previous
opposing speakers.

3. Answering the point

a. Don’t ignore a point. It won’t go away by itself. Lines like ‘I will get to that
later’ irritate judges, even if they are true. ‘I have already dealt with that’
is similarly unsatisfactory. By all means say you have made, or will make
the point - but at least summarize it in a short response.
b. Don’t get distracted by a point. Spend a few lines responding, and revert
to your structure.
c. Ideally you will have a proper response to the point. Should words fail you,
be prepared to fall back on a standard dodge such as:
 Witty put downs. My most memorable and effective witty put downs
come to me two days later in the shower. Some less scrupulous
debaters come to competitions armed with lists of pre-prepared
spontaneous quips.
 If confronted with an uncomfortable fact/statistic, damn its source (or
the lack of one).
 Answer another (easier) point that’s close enough to the question for
no-one to notice.
 Agree with the point, and say it either makes your argument or is
completely irrelevant.
 Be patronizing (‘We’ve made this point half a dozen times by now. Let
me make it slower and in words of fewer syllables.’) and hope you
think of an answer before you get to the end of your spiel.

4. Giving
a. Keep the flow of points of information constant - although always be
careful not to descend into intimidation (‘badgering’).
 b. Never let a point become a speech - if it can’t be put into two short
sentences, it’s not a point of information. Plan what you’re going to say,
and hone it down to the shortest and most succinct form possible. That
said, don’t gabble - pause for a couple of seconds to get everyone’s
attention and then make the point slower than you would a normal
speech. A controlled delivery will also help to break up a speaker’s
momentum.
c. Work with your partner - never compete against each other to make
different points. As either of you thinks of a point, write it down so you
have an agreed list of points you will both make. Don’t waste the few
chances you will get. Resist the temptation to prioritize a spontaneous
rebuttal (satisfying but better in a speech) above one of your pre-planned
points.
d. If you’ve got a superb argument that will be the centerpiece of your
speech, never ‘flag’ it in a point of information. You may well lessen the
impact of the point when you come to make it - and run the risk of giving
your opponents advance warning of what you’re going to say.
e. Carefully note down responses to your points. Often a speaker will say
something unplanned that will contradict or hinder their case.

5. There are probably four types of points of information:

a. Genuine points - i.e. responses to a point the speaker makes. The general
rule should be not to make points like this: the speaker has the last word,
so your best result may be a stalemate. Rebuttals are best kept in
speeches. Only make rebuttal points of information if you have a reply
you think is unanswerable to a central point of your opponent’s speech.

b. Repetition of points from your (previous) speech that the speaker is

ignoring/misunderstanding. Be especially quick if you think you are being
misrepresented - here it’s particularly effective if your partner corrects the
speaker (as in ‘My partner never said X... his point was Y’.).

c. Pre-prepared points and statistics you have designed in advance to throw

a speaker.

d. Killer facts (see below).

6. Killer facts
Much in fashion amongst spin-doctors, a killer fact or argument is one to
which there is no rebuttal. In some debates, there may be points from either side
that simply have no answer. If you can identify one, then use it in your speech
and keep on pressing it - in as many different ways as you can.
The classic use is for the first speaker in a team to make the point, and
challenge the opposition to answer it. The second speaker then slams the
opposition for not answering it. Throughout each subsequent opposition speech,
they are then regaled by points of information along the lines of ‘But you have
still not said how...’.
 Some common killer arguments are ‘no alternative’ where a team
defends their proposed solution by demanding an alternative from the
opposition (e.g. Northern Ireland, welfare reform) or ‘causal link’ where a
proposition is repeatedly challenged to provide a causal link when it’s clear that
the link is unprovable (e.g. movie violence and crime, pornography and
violence, monetarism and growth).

IX. Rebuttal
A. Must be logical
B. Must be relevant
C. Must be prompt

Do not rebut the example; attack the very premise of the argument of the
other side. Only then contrary examples can be supplemented.
It is advisable to provide multiple rebuttals to each argument of the other
side.
Rebuttals should also be in conformity with your case.
Rebut the rebuttals of your case by the other side in order to defend your
case.
Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed, they may be
misinterpretations and they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may
also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves

1. Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case, is their
methodology flawed
2. Consider what tasks the other side has set, themselves (if any) and whether
they have in fact addressed these.
3. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it
makes, try to refute these.
4. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a
piece of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can
refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to
correct every example used. You won’t have time and your aim is to show
the other side’s case to be flawed in the key areas, not to be a smarty-pants

X. Two Kinds of Debate

A. Asian's Parliamentary
1. Case Preparations
a. Matchups and venues are to be announced before the motions are
revealed.
b. Three motions are to be announced to the teams.
c. The motion to be debated by the teams matched therein is to be chosen
in the following manner:

 The teams must discuss preferred choices separately (less than two
minutes) and rank the motions in order of preference (1most preferred,
3least preferred).
 Third choice motions are automatically vetoed
  If team's first choice motion is the same, they will debate that motion
 If team's first choice motions are different but the third is the same,
they will toss coin.
d. The teams will identify which of the house they are going to be through a
toss coin. The winner will decide their side preference.
e. 30 minutes will be given to teams for their case preparations.

2. Format and Composition

a. The debate will consist of two teams (The Government and the Opposition
Side)
b. The debate shall be run under the auspices of a "speaker".
c. The debate shall be decided by an adjudicator or panel of adjudicators.
d. The debate shall be timed by a timekeeper.
e. Debaters will speak in the following order:

 Prime Minister (7mins)

 Leader of the Opposition (7mins)
 Deputy Prime Minister (7mins)
 Deputy Leader of the Opposition (7mins)
 Government Whip (7mins)
 Opposition Whip (7mins)
 Opposition Reply (given by the 1st/2nd speaker within 4mins)
 Government Reply (given by the 1st/2nd speaker within 4mins)

*Speakers not holding the floor may not ride during speeches unless it
offered a "Point of Information". Speakers doing so, or considered to be
 heckling, barracking or whose behavior is interfering with the
acceptable course of the debate will be declared "out of order" by
the Chairperson.

3. Speaker Roles
a. Government
 Prime Minister
Provides the definition of the motion and sets up the issue and the
parameter of the debate. Lays down the framework for the debate by
discussing the background of the policy, the general analysis of the
motion, the theme (or central line of argumentation), and the team split.
Argues the first half of the case in the first constructive speech of
the debate. Issues a summary at the 6th minute: restates position on the
motion and theme, synthesizes arguments presented, and introduces the
2nd speaker's case.

 Deputy Prime Minister

Provides Rebuttal of the Leader of the Opposition's (LO)
constructive speech by clarifying points raised by the LO concerning the
PM's speech. Identifies arguments raised by LO and refutes using further
analysis and examples shows possible flaws in reasoning.
Argues the second half of the case in the second constructive
speech of the debate. Initially states a brief summary of the PM's case
before proceeding to own case.
Issues a summary at the 6th minute: restates position on the motion
and theme, synthesizes arguments presented by both PM and DPM,
crystallizes rebuttals made by 1st two Government speakers on the
Opposition case.

 Government Whip
Refutes Opposition's challenges to the Government's case.
Identifies points of controversy raised by the Opposition against the
Government constructive case and issues direct rebuttal, with reference
to earlier refutations made by the Government team, may bring up new
examples in the course of analysis but NOT new arguments.
Refutes the Opposition's constructive case by demonstrating the
untenability, illogical nature, or invalidity of the arguments raised by the
Opposition speakers in negating the motion by introducing fresh analysis
or further examples to illustrate the weakness of the Opposition case.
Analyzes the insufficiency or inadequacy of the Opposition's
claims/arguments in attacking the motion propounded by the
Government Team.
Issues a summary at 6th minute: indicates how Government
responded to the Opposition challenges substantively and accurately.
Reaffirms the Governments case and reiterates inability of the Opposition
case to disprove merits of the motion.
b. Opposition
 Leader of the Opposition
 Accepts or rejects the Government definition. If the Opposition
rejects the definition, it must of necessity issue a DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE.
Issues the Opposition's negation of/clash against the motion.
Refutes the main arguments of the PM's case by analyzing possible
logical flaws, error facts, and supposed misrepresentations.
Argues the 1st half of the Opposition case in a constructive speech.
Introduces the theme, the team split, and a possible framework (only if
necessary) in forwarding the Opposition case.

 Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Issues a direct rebuttal of the Deputy Prime Minister's case.
Summarizes the LO case and stipulates points left unaddressed by the
Government.
Argues the 2nd half of the Opposition case in a constructive
speech. Summarizes LO's case, reiterates theme, discusses main
arguments and provides salient examples.
Issues summary at the 6th minute: reiterates position, main points of
rebuttal of the Opposition, theme, main arguments.

 Opposition Whip
Refutes the Government's case by analyzing its merits, the quality
and accuracy of substantiation, possible inconsistencies made by the
Government in terms of affirming its position and theme. Exposes possible
contradictions made by the Government team.
Refutes challenges made by the Government to the Opposition's
constructive case. Discusses points raised by the Government side
concerning the opposition's case as dealt with by the Opposition and
methodologically demonstrates consistency in reasoning.
Issues a summary at 6th minute: reaffirm clash from the Opposition,
synthesizes rebuttal of the Government case, and reaffirms Opposition's
theme and case.

4. Speaker Scores Commented [A1]: NOT YET FILLED

XI. British Parliamentary

A. Case Preparations
B. Format and Composition
C. Speaker Roles
D. Ranking and Speaker Scores Commented [A2]: TO BE FILLED BY AGNES SANA

XII. Adjudication
A lot of training is focused on developing debate skills, but we often forget
the adjudicator is the most important. If everyone wants to debate and no one
adjudicates, then debates will never end! Good adjudicators are also key to
developing good debaters and strong debate societies.

A. The Role of An Adjudicator: Who are you, what should you do, who is the
Average Reasonable Person?
 The adjudicator has 3 important roles. He or she must
1. Decide the debate
2. Manage the debate
3. Justify the decision

The adjudicator must do this while having the least impact possible on the
debate - nothing the adjudicator does should affect the outcome of the
debate. The adjudicator is also not a coach - while good adjudicators are
encouraging and should be concerned about the educational impact of the
activity, their primary role is to decide who won and lost the debate in the fairest
and most comprehensive manner, and relay that information to the teams.

B. Adjudicators also have a management role. This includes

1. inviting speakers to the podium
2. ensuring speakers are provided with clear time signals
3. ensuring the ballots are filled in accurately and reach the adjudication team
4. in extreme situations, adjudicators may need to step in and protect speakers
from abuse - for example if a speaker is being heckled. This is intervening in
the debate and should be done rarely. If possible warn speakers in between
speeches, before intervening. Intervene only when the speaker is clearly
being prevented from making his/her speech and the actions of the other
teams stray beyond what is reasonable (for example, repeatedly offering
Points of Information immediately after being rejected, repeatedly verbalizing
Points of Information)

Adjudicators must be able to clearly and comprehensively justify their

decision. This is different from giving speakers feedback on how to improve. First
evaluate what happened - what were the key issues in the debate, how those
issues were weighted, how did that lead to your conclusion. Once that is done,
the offer feedback on how teams may improve for the future. Providing
feedback before justification can lead to the impression that you are judging the
debate based on what you want to see, rather than what you did see.

C. Average Reasonable People

Some suggest that adjudicators should be blank slates, tabula rasa. That
everything a speaker tells them should be assumed to be true, unless another
speaker contends it. In parliamentary debate, that is not the approach we take.
Adjudicators are supposed to be Average Reasonable People. You are the man
on the street, not a child. You have general information, knowledge, the ability
to reason, to think - and you should.
The tricky part here is, how much should you know? How much should you
think? Judges shouldn't "get into the debate", to complete arguments for
speakers. Should you correct factual mistakes speakers make? Should you mark
and argument down because you KNOW it won't work, even though the other
team hasn't pointed it out?
It's a tricky situation and the answer is balance. It's not simple, but debate is
not simple. Debate is complex, subjective, gray, fluid, and so should judging be.
 If judges refuse to think and accept everything a debater says, then judges don't
need to be clever, don't need to be trained.

D. So how do we strike the balance?

You are expected to know as much as any well read person should. Debaters
are persuading their peers, people who know as much as them. You should have
a base of general knowledge and be up to date with current issues. If
information a debater presents contradicts this general information base, then
you can use the information you have to evaluate that statement. For example,
if a debater claims Russia is part of the WTO and you know Russia is not part of
the WTO, you don't have to accept what this debater says as true. Does this
mean the debaters lose the debate? No. Does this mean his argument is
weaker? Maybe - it depends on how much of the argument depended on
Russia being part of the WTO.
You shouldn't bring specialized knowledge into the debate. If you are writing
a thesis on Russia, then you will have vast amounts of knowledge not existent in
the general sphere, hence not general knowledge. Do not use this knowledge to
evaluate arguments.
Use common sense. Common sense is not common, but as adjudicators, we
are supposed to develop it. Apply common sense to arguments and ideas that
debaters are making, but apply it in equal amounts to all speakers.

E. Bias
Something adjudicators need to watch out for is bias. Bias is a preference for
one thing or another. It's very subtle, but we all have biases. Good adjudicators
are careful, conscientious, always checking their biases.
Bias for issues: When adjudicators walk into a debate room, they can bring
their knowledge, but must leave their opinions outside the room. Even if you
disagree with the death penalty, you need to give the team a fair chance of
persuading you. Force yourself to take a neutral position, or concede that if your
position cannot be neutral, which team has moved you the most from your initial
position. Don't simply vote for the team that defends the side you agree with -
that's unfair to the team.
Bias for teams: Sometimes we expect a little more or a little less from teams, or
rate some teams higher than the other. Some teams are "favorites" or "under-
dogs", there is the defending champion and the school that are at their first
tournament. These feelings may lead us to give more credit to one team over
the other (you might feel reluctant to give the win to the under-dog over the
favorite) or you might expect more from an established team.
Bias for performance: I've often heard judges say, "there were not as good as
they were in their previous round, when I gave them the win". So, did this team
lose because they were poorer than the other team, or because they did not
meet the expectations of the judge? Each debate should be judged based only
on what happens in that debate. Do not punish or reward teams for past
behavior that is irrelevant.
Bias for personal attributes: Debating is a human sport, and humans have likes
or dislikes for other humans. Do not give more or less credit because of
someone's race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, physical appearance -
 anything they are born with which they cannot change, that is part of who they
are. That is NOT relevant to the debate.

F. Expectations

The last thing judges must do is place fair expectations on teams. It's fine to
place expectations - we expect teams to debate the motion, we expect
speakers to fulfill their roles, we expect teams to engage each other. But ensure
that
1. These expectations are reasonable. Don't expect things teams cannot
provide - how much of detail can you expect from 30 minute prep? How
many facts should be presented? Remember it's not a research project or a
speech in parliament that has been researched for a month. It's an
impromptu debate.
2. These expectations are applied equally. What you expect from one team,
you should expect from the other. Both teams need to do the SAME amount
of work. Not the same work, but the same amount. Thus if the Govt team
provides a model, the opposition doesn't need to provide a counter model.
But the opposition need to stand for something and stand on something (for
example defend the status quo). Place similar standards and burdens on
both teams, in terms of how far they need to go to prove an argument, how
much a case needs to be developed, how extensive the refutations should
be.

Managing expectations: Everyone has them, judges must have them. But we
need to have fair and reasonable expectations that are applied fairly and
consistently.
We discussed placing expectations briefly in the previous section, but it's
important enough to deserve its own section. Judges should recognize that there
are expectations - debaters train to meet the expectations of judges, the
challenge is to create expectations that are fair (equally placed and
achievable), broad enough to reflect the most important components but not
stifle creativity, and apply it consistently by all judges across all teams.

G. What burdens to place upon teams and speakers?

1. Basic roles of speakers

2. Taking POIs
3. Take at least one, preferably two
4. Headlining or verbalizing the POI before it is offered. This is generally not
permitted, speakers are only allowed to flag their intention to make a point,
not the point itself (so saying "point of information" or "on that point" or any
other variant is acceptable, but saying "on China" or "but the backlash" is
not). One or two short remarks are usually acceptable, but if speakers do it
too often, call for order and warn them in between speeches.
5. Point should be short – 15 seconds or two sentences, not a long rant or
dialogue.
H. What standards to use when evaluating the persuasiveness?
Not an absolute standard, nor based on your personal knowledge or
experience: judges should not determine an absolute objective standard of
proof for an argument ("if you prove until this point, then I'll accept") - this does
not work for every argument, nor every debate. Do not base this on another
debate you saw ("this other team said this and won, therefore this team also
should") or your own experience ("I KNOW this the truth, therefore they need to
say this").
Must be comparative – compare the arguments and contributions of
each speaker relative to other speakers in the debate. Measure standards
against each other. The winning team is not the team that has proved the truth,
but has proved better than the other team. It's okay if neither of them have
discovered the truth (this will often be the case), what important is how they
compare to each other.
How much is enough? Often teams will be pressed by other teams (or the
motion) to prove their arguments to a certain level of absoluteness. Compare
this standard with the status quo (what sort of change are they trying to effect)
and which how much the opposite team in that debate is trying to do.
You must ensure your assessment
• Is Comparative – compare contributions among teams and don’t hold teams
to absolute standards.
• is Based on the position and role teams and speakers are expected to play –
here you implicitly evaluate role fulfillment
• includes dynamism and engagement – are teams evolving to changes in the
debate and responding appropriately to important ideas
• To properly evaluate the quality of a team’s contribution to the debate we
must identify what this debate is about. What are the key issues in the debate
and the burden of each team/side, determine this based on what the teams
say, based on the burdens they place upon each other (don't go into the
debate with an expectation of what this debate should be about). Based on
how they approach the debate, what they clash on, what they say they
want to prove - determine the main focus of the debate. Then use that to
determine what relevant or irrelevant arguments are and which teams most
effectively argued their side of the case.

I. Manner, Matter, Method: The sacred 3 Ms that provide balance to the debate
universe.
Even though adjudication (and debate) is a subjective activity, we create
objective categories of these subjective ideas – these help ensure you are
comprehensive and balanced in your evaluation. It's also a guide for good
debating - good debaters should have good matter (what they say), manner
(how they say it) and method (how they organize their speech).
In the Asian and Australs Parliamentary format, evaluation is divided
among Matter (40%), Manner (40%) and Method (20%). Similar categories are
used at the World Schools Championships, but they are instead referred to as
Content (40%), Style (40%) and Strategy (20%). In British Parliamentary or Worlds
Style, it's only Manner (50%) and Matter (50%)
1. Evaluating Matter
Matter is what a debater says. This is arguments, examples, models,
summaries, analysis. Anything that is relevant and logical, is good matter.
Should be dependent on the role of the speaker - good matter can't only be
good arguments, else then whip speakers won't have any good matter (since
they don't make new arguments). It includes rebuttals, analysis, models. Good
matter is anything that helps forward the case at the point of that speaker. So a
good definition and setup is good matter for the Prime Minister, but not good
matter for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Distinguish between statements and arguments - an argument needs to be
developed. A statement that is interesting is not an argument - arguments need
to be explained and preferably evidenced. Avoid giving credit to statements.
Ensure you evaluate dynamic engagement as well - matter is not just positive
case development and support. It's the role of speakers to respond to the case in
front of them, good responses is good matter, poor responses mean matter
lacking.
How to determine what is logical? How to determine what is relevant? - go
back to the main focus of the debate. Matter that is proves the case, is closely
linked to the objective of the team and the role of the speaker is good matter.
Matter that is logically developed is matter that is well explained, well reasoned,
structured, and evidenced.

2. Evaluating manner
Manner is important to ensure debates are relevant to the public at large.
Debate is essentially a public activity, one that involves persuading the man on
the street. If you cannot speak to an audience and keep them engaged, you
cannot persuade them. Manner is a very important aspect of persuasion - very
few boring people become great leaders!
Don’t look for perfect manner – there are varying styles and all are
acceptable. Ask yourself if you have a preference for a certain style of speaking,
and try to be more open. Instead assess how the speaker used his or her manner
to advance their arguments. Remember, manner is context sensitive.
Rather than asking what good manner is, it's easier to identify poor manner –
speaking too loud, fast, without modulation, no sincerity, sounds dead.

3. Evaluating Method
Static vs. Dynamic method - static method is how a speech/case is
organized; dynamic method is how a speech/case changes to respond to the
debate and remains organized.
Individual vs. Team method - measure how speakers use their time.
Organization is not just having an order, the purpose of being organized is to
maximize limited resources (in this case the speech time) and be effective. Team
method refers to how teams organize their ideas, for example prioritization of
arguments, defense of previous speakers etc.
You don’t have to signpost every argument to have good method - this is a
common mistake made by some judges. Good method can be explicit (I state
every argument and every sub-argument at the start and end of the speech) or
implicit (I don't clearly state or signpost, yet my speech is still clearly organized an
 easy to understand). A good test is how organized your notes are - if they're
clear, then the speaker probably clear too. A speaker with a signpost can be
messy (doesn't follow the signpost) and one without the signpost can be clear.

J. However:
To highlight some key general points of the adjudication process:
1. Take time to review your notes if you wish so that you are able to participate
in the discussion. Some people can go straight into a discussion. However in a
tight debate it is well worth taking a few minutes to go over your notes. If your
chair wants to push straight into a discussion don't be afraid to ask for a
couple of minutes to review what was said especially by the early speakers
who you saw almost an hour ago.

2. Panels come to a consensus (not necessarily unanimous) decision. If it is clear

that a majority of the judges are firm on one result then there is nothing wrong
on returning a split decision. There is no need to hold up the entire
competition trying to come to a unanimous decision. However that does not
mean you can simply vote at the start and accept that as the decision. There
should be adequate time given to discussing and evaluating the debate as a
whole.

3. All members of the panel have the right to have their opinion considered.
Chair judges cannot override their panel. Panels are constructed with more
than one judge because people will put different strengths on different
arguments. It is only fair that all those opinions are considered.

There have been cases where chair judges have overruled their panels. This
has even happened in some high profile cases at Worlds. The judges in
question were generally severely dealt with and did not chair again.

It is trusted that the chair judge will have the ability to win their panel over
their way of thinking or if not then they can explain to the adjudication team
that they were out voted and why they think it was wrong thus potentially
impacting on the ranking of judges that made the incorrect call. However
that is not to say that chair judges should be vindictive. The chair should be
mature enough to know the difference between a valid result which they
can understand but disagree with and a completely incorrect result. I have
been out voted (it doesn't happen often as generally I can talk the judges
over to my side) however in these cases I can see the reasons behind the
result even if I found other arguments more believable.

4. The Chair of the panel has to fill in ONE speed ballot and ONE detailed form.

XIII. Issue Analysis Commented [A3]: NOT YET FILLED

XIV. Additional Tips and Guidelines

 One thing you are bound to notice is the different speaking styles used by
speakers. Speaking style is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of debating
to attempt to "teach". You will have to develop your own style and preferably
one that comes naturally to you. However there are a couple of things to be
kept in mind.
You must speak clearly and loudly enough so that your voice can be heard
by everyone. Remember the adjudicators will sit towards the rear of the hall so at
the very least they must be able to hear what you are saying if you are to have
any chance of winning. However you shouldn't shout as the halls have generally
been designed so that your voice will carry towards the back.
Try to avoid monotone. If you are making an important point use your voice
to stress it and make it stand out. Try to slowly increase the stress and force
behind your voice as you go through your speech. Build up to a high point and
make this the crucial point of your speech. However don't bring the audience on
a rollercoaster ride. Don't start high, fall down, build-up and fall down again, it
looks as though you are only convinced about the truth of half your speech
Keep eye-contact with the audience and don't stare at the podium. It gets
easier to do this after some experience and once you use fewer notes. Some
people like to pick out individuals in the audience and look at them. Others just
speak to the audience as a whole. However you do it make sure to scan the
audience and move your gaze to different parts of the hall regularly.
Use your body language to back up your speech. If you stand rigidly and
don't move then you will find it very difficult to have any real conviction in your
voice. Use your arms and facial expressions to convey your emotions and back
up your speech. However don't go overboard, you want the audience's
attention to be focused on your speech not your arms. Try not to have anything
in your hands. Some people like to carry a pen and end up waving it about like
a baton which can distract the adjudicators. If you really need something use
index cards.
You don't have to stand strictly behind the podium. Move around a bit and
face different sections of the audience at different times. Apparently studies
have shown that people tend to prefer to be able to see the whole person as
this is supposed to indicate that you aren't hiding anything. However, once
again, don't go overboard. It annoys people (and more importantly
adjudicators) if you walk too far from the podium. Try not to go more than 1-2
meters away from the podium. One way to ensure this is to leave your notes on
the podium; you'll find yourself reluctant to move too far from them.
Don't be too complicated. If your argument is too elaborate people may
have difficulty following it. Don't use 15 syllable Latin words when a 2 syllable
English word will do. Remember you are trying to convince the audience that
your argument is the best and not that you consider your talent wasted on them
(even if it is).
Use humor to help win over the audience and make your speech stand out. If
you have a natural talent for comedy or impersonations etc. then use it. If you
don't then don't worry about it, even the most serious of us can be funny at times
(often even without meaning it). You can work out a few put downs and one-
liners in advance but be careful. If a joke sounds too prepared than it may
bomb. Try to make it sound spontaneous and it's more likely to be successful.
 The best thing to do is watch other speakers and see how they combine the
various elements. Experiment with different styles and try to find one that you are
comfortable with. However the only real way to develop a good style is to try to
speak on a regular basis and listen to the advice of adjudicators and the more
experienced debaters.

Note:
Some of the contents of this debate bible were acquired from different
reference books, web sites and forums.

Last modified on 30 June 2013 at 10:07PM.