RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE 15th INTER FACULTY DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP

I. GENERAL

1. These set of rules and regulations govern The 15th Inter Faculty Debating

Championship (The 15th IFDC) to be hosted by Student English Forum

Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.

2. The 15th IFDC committee has full authority to interpret and modify, if

necessary of these rules. The decision of the committee with respect to

these rules will be final and binding.

3. All debates will be conducted in English

II. ELIGIBILITY

1. Each faculty may only send maximally five teams (team caps 40 teams).

With N1 Adjudicators; N is the total of the team, so each team should

send 1 adjudicator.

2. All students of Unsoed are eligible to participate in the 15th IFDC that

proven by student card.

3. Students who ever join national and international competition (e.g.

JOVED, IVED, NNDC, AEO, ALSA E-Comp, ALSA 8.0 UGM, ALSA E-

Challenge, ATMA IV, English Parade, UADC, NUDC, HBD, MDO) are not

allowed to join The 15th IFDC.

4. Each team in The 15th IFDC consists of three members. With the

requirement:

- All members of a team must be enrolled in the same faculty.

- The 15th IFDC committee would not permit the competitors from

different faculty to participate, even in preliminary round.

- If one member can’t join on the preliminary round, the team can’t be

eligible to break. If one member can’t join on the eliminary round, the

team is counted as Walk Out and automatically loose.

5. N1 Adjudicator is from the same faculty with the team.

6. The Chief of Adjudicator reserves the right to investigate the legitimacy

of any person participating in the 15th IFDC and reserves the right to

expel any team or person who cannot be established to this satisfaction.

If there’s any question shall contact the CA (085624231191)

III. FORMAT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP

1. The 15th IFDC uses Asian Parliamentary System. The system will be

conducted in two phases:

- The Preliminary Phase

- The Elimination Phase

2. In the preliminary phase of The 15th IFDC, there will be (4) four rounds of

debates and it will be adjusted with the team caps. This phase will adopt

“the break and slide system” and for the elimination phase will adopt

“true power matching”.

3. All teams will start on an equal placing with the pairing for the first round

being done randomly by lottery. For the subsequent rounds, the teams

will be graded on the basis of the results of all the preceding rounds of

the phase. The following grading criteria will be considered in decreasing

order of priority.

- Victory Points (Win-Loss Record; 1 point for a win 0 for a loss).

- Cumulative Total Team Score.

- Cumulative Margin (Difference of cumulative marks in favor of and

against the team)

4. The break and slide is a system in debating competition which is at the

end of the grading for each round, the teams that have same VPs will be

gathered and they will meet each other.

For Example:

The Standing Team:

No. Team VP Total Team

Score

Margin

1. A 1 262 3

2. B 1 261 4

3. C 1 260 3

4. D 1 259 1

5 E 1 258 1

6. F 1 257 2

The Matches would be:

1. A VS 4. D

2. B VS 5. E

3. C VS 6. F

The rest teams that have same VPs will gather on the next group and

they will meet each other.

5. The top of sixteen teams at the end of rounds of the preliminary phase

will qualify for the elimination phase of The 15th IFDC.

6. Four elimination rounds namely the Octo Final, Quarter Final, the Semi

Final and the Grand Final, will decide the winner of The 15th IFDC. True

power matching is the highest rank meets the lowest one, based on the

result of all preliminary rounds. For example: team who get the 1st rank

will meet team who get the 16th rank, 2nd rank meet 15th rank and so on.

The winner of each round proceeds to the next round.

7. There would be no additional time for motion preference and case

building for those who are late.

8. No electronic devices which can be used by debater during the case

building and debate session, example: cell phone, electronic dictionary, I-

Pad, Tab, and laptop.

9. Each debater will deliver a substantive speech of seven (7) minutes

duration. After three of them have come forward, reply speaker of both

sides will deliver their reply speech for four (4) minutes. The first or the

second speaker from both sides can be the position of reply speaker.

10. There would be no replacement of debater in case one member of a

team can not join the match. The uncompleted team may only compete

in preliminary round and automatically not eligible to join the elimination

round.

11. A team will get walked out (WO) for the absence in maximally 15 minutes

lateness after debate session opened.

12. Debater is not allowed to leave debate room during the match.

13. N1 Adjudicator should join all preliminary rounds, unless the team is not

eligible to break.

14. N1 Adjudicator should join the accreditation test.

15. Every participant should wear formal and polite outfit with no t-shirt and

slipper.

16. The 15th IFDC will use half motion release. Half of motions will be

launched at April 30th 2014 on 00.00 am. Visit on

http://sef.unsoed.ac.id/?p=947. The rest would be impromptu motion.

IV. REGISTRATION METHOD

1. Registration will be started on April 24th 2014 until May 20th 2014.

Registration fee is Rp. 130.000,- per person

(debater/adjudicator/manager/observer).

The registration fee includes facilities, such as: meals, certificate,

merchandise, and best services from committee.

2. Payment should reach directly to treasurer of the 15th IFDC Rara Ayu

Rengganis at House of Student English Forum (HOS). Mention name of

the faculty and fill registration form consisting:

3 x 4 size color photographs

Photocopy of a valid student card

Position (debater/adjudicator/manager/observer)

Contact person

3. At the first day, all participants (debaters/ adjudicators/ managers) are

required to bring the original of valid student card and original of

payment slip.

4. The quota of participant is only 40 teams. If the quota is fulfilled, the

registration will be closed.

5. This year there is trading system. Trading system is if the maximum slot

of one faculty do not fulfilled yet, other faculty that willing to send more

than maximum slot is eligible to fill the slots. The trading team will in

waiting list first until the time of registration is closed. The

announcement of the eligibility of the trading team is right after the

registration is closed.

6. The changing of position (debaters/ managers) should be confirmed to

the committee of the 15th IFDC before May 15th 2014.

7. The registered team that do not come on the day without any

confirmation, will be counted as Walk Out team and deserve to get

punishment:

- The faculty is not eligible to join IFDC in the next year.

8. For those who are not legally registered, they will not get the facilities.

9. The update of main list and waiting list team will be announced once in

three days in the 15th IFDC website.

V. BOOKING METHOD

1. Booking participants can be accepted if they have fulfilled 50% of total

payment. When participants do not pay 50% of total payment, they are

considered as waiting list participant and possible to be rejected.

2. When the quota has been fulfilled, the registration will be closed.

Booking participants who haven’t paid the rest of 50% yet are directly

rejected and booking payment will not be returned.

3. If the quota has not been fulfilled, the registration will be prolonged 3

days after

VI. INFORMATION

For further information can be reached by contacting:

- Project Officer of the 15th IFDC

Ira Fitria 0857 1533 9939

- Public Relation

Baynuri Ikhya 0878 2888 0955

Student English Forum Soemardjito Area, Purwokerto 53122 Phone number 0281-635 292 ext 231 E-mail: ifdc_unsoed@yahoo.com Web site: www.sefunsoed.org

GUIDELINE FOR DEBATERS

OF THE 15th INTER FACULTY DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP

- INTRODUCTION -

Debating is all about:

1. Developing your communication skills

2. Assembling and organizing effective arguments

3. Persuading and entertaining the adjudicator and audience

4. Using your voice and gestures to convince an adjudicator that your

arguments are upper hand than your oppositions. Debating is not

about personal abuse, irrational attacks or pure emotional appeals.

- THE BASICS OF DEBATING –

I. The Format of the Debate

A debate is held between two teams of three members each. They are:

1. Government, the members of Government side are:

a) Prime Minister

b) Deputy Prime Minister

c) Government Whip

2. Opposition, the members of Opposition side are:

a) Leader of Opposition

b) Deputy Leader of Opposition

c) Opposition Whip

What must both sides do? In general:

• Government

The Government team must define the motion and support this by

giving constructive arguments. The right to define first resides with the

Government team, who is expected to give a reasonable definition for

the motion.

• Opposition

The Opposition team must oppose the motion as defined by the

Government, and build a counter-case against the Government. In the

event the Opposition team feels that the definition is invalid, they may

challenge the definition and propose an alternative definition. However,

the Opposition team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that

their definition is more reasonable.

II. Preparation

1. The debate should commence 30 minutes after the motion is

announced.

2. Members are permitted to use printed or written material during

preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books,

journal, newspapers and other similar materials. The use of electronic

is prohibited during preparation and in the debate.

III. Points of Information (POI)

1. Questions or arguments directed to the member speaking may be

asked between 1st minute and 6th minute of each member’s

substantive speeches.

2. To ask Point of Interruption, a member should stand and raise one

hand towards the member speaking. The member may announce

that they would like to ask a “Point of Interruption” or use other

polite words to this effect.

3. The member who is speaking may accept or decline the Point of

Interruption.

4. Point of Interruption should not exceed 15 seconds in length.

5. Members should attempt to answer at least two Points of

Interruption during their speech. Members should also offer Points

of Interruption.

6. Points of order and points of personal privilege are not permitted.

IV. Timing of the Speeches

1. Each of the speakers will deliver a substantive speech for seven (7)

minutes duration and either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides

will deliver the reply speeches for their teams. Reply speeches will

spend four (4) minutes.

2.

2. Points of Interruption allowed between 1st minute and 6th minute

(this period should be signaled by one knock at the first minute and

at the sixth minute).

- MOTION -

1. Known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine

what a debate shall be about.

2. For each debate, motions are given.

3. The affirmative team has to support the motion and the negative

team has to oppose it.

4. Here are some examples of motions that can be debated:

• THW human organ selling

• THBT internet brings more harm than good

• THS pedofille love

These motions lead us to combine philosophical and policy debate:

1. Philosophical debate

In this debate we have to emphasize that we will bring the motion into

philosophical basic, so there would be no obligation related to the mechanism,

feasibility, and urgency. Example: “THBT underage women should not need

parental consent to undergo abortion” In this debate, the opposition has to

justify how the abortion should not involve parental agreement.

2. Policy Debate

In this debate we will make a proposal and we will convince the

adjudicators that our proposal is effective. Example: “THBT underage women

should not need parental consent to undergo abortion” Things that we have to

remember in proposal debate are:

• Urgency: The main reason why we have to implement the proposal

and the recent issue that becomes the background of problem.

• Mechanism: How we will implement this proposal

• Feasibility: Is the mechanism of the proposal feasible enough to be

implemented?

• Solvency: this will answer if the proposal can solve the problem. We

will say that the proposal would be effective to control the gambling

activity in our society.

In the whole debate, Government and Opposition must justify the

debate and add the policy to give solution to particular problem being

debated.

Remember! The first speaker both team should early and clearly

explain these. Most debate using Asian parliamentary system are

emphasizing on philosophical ground and explain the policy in clear-brief

way.

- BACKGROUND -

When you are debating, as an affirmative, do not just go straight toward

the definition of the motion. Use the background as a brainstorming of your

case. Background is very important to know what actually the recent issue is or

the urgency that we would bring, so that w e agree/ disagree with the motion.

- DEFINITION -

Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined

by the Government team. A definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a

clear description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting what the

debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the

debate from turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments

and different interpretations from both teams of what is actually being

debated among them.

The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of

the debate is unknown until the Government delivers their definition of the

motion. Only then does it become clear. Always keep in mind that a definition

must be reasonable. This is to say that:

• It must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and

• It must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.

This is not to say that a Government team may not choose an unusual

interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.

The Opposition in general, must accept the definition made by the

Government, but the Opposition shall have the right of challenging the

definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set out

above. However, an Opposition team cannot raise a challenge simply on the

basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a

definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological, Squirreling, or

Time and place setting (see below).

If an Opposition team accepts the definition, they only need to say so,

and it is unnecessary to restate it. If they challenge it, their justification for

doing so must be clearly stated, and an alternative definition must be put

forward. The Opposition must adjust their case to that definition, and the

adjudicator's views on its reasonableness become irrelevant. The following

definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be challenged

by the Opposition team:

• Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature

and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore

unreasonable in the content of the debate. If a team defines the

debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their

definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and

supporting evidence.

• Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a definition is

given in such a way that it is logically impossible to negate it. An

example would be if the motion “that technology is killing our work

ethic” were defined as follows: the Government team decides to

define the term ‘technology’ as meaning “all scientific advancements

that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic”. This would

result in the whole definition “that all scientific advancements that

make life easier and therefore kill our work ethic”. This cannot be

logically proven false.

• Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the

motion and do not have a proper logical link to the motion will

constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion “that

Kyoto is moving nowhere”, an Government team could try and define

Kyoto as a city in Japan, and moving nowhere is keep stay in that

place. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree that the

spirit of the motion is about the Kyoto Protocol that doesn’t bring

betterment in solving the global warming.

• Time and Place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be

confined to a particular time and place. For instance, trying to limit

the subject matter to only the economic development of Japan

during the specific period of the Meiji restoration or other example,

the motion is "that smoking is prohibited". The Government team

defines the motion "that healing cigarettes in a flammable place is

not allowed". This definition is called an invalid definition because the

Opposition will not be able to debate upon the definition given (or

we can say that the Government team asks the Opposition team to

blow themselves).

A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about challenging

definitions -only do so if you are absolutely certain that the Government's

definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump your prepared case in

favor of tackling the Government on their own terms than to issue an

unjustified definition challenge. By the same token, Government teams should

try to ensure that their definition is fair.

- STANCE -

Stance is best defined as what a debate should argue about. For

instance, upon the motion “THW ban advertisement aimed to children”. The

stance of the debate is going to revolve around whether we will forbid any kind

of junk food advertisement in TV dedicated to children less than 13 ages or not.

In case that the proposition just talks over how bad junk food advertisements

for children, without clarifying why we should blame any junk food, this is

when the adjudicators will point out that the Proposition team doesn’t stand

on the debate’s stance.

- THEME LINE -

The theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is the main

instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a team’s stand on the

motion. A theme line can be viewed as a ‘Case In A Nutshell’, because it

concisely explains a team’s strategy in defending or negating the

motion.

The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team

member. It is the main idea that links together the first, second, and third

speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.

In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: Why

is the propositional statement given by the definition of the motion true (or

false, for the Opposition team)? Without further explanation, this propositional

statement is a mere assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven to be

true. The answer to this question must be an argument which proves the

assertion given by the motion. This argument is the theme line.

A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single

sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc.

Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all

arguments brought forward should be based on this theme line.

Example:

“This House believes that saving the planet begins at home”

Theme line : Why do we agree with the motion?

The reason is: because it is justifiable and brings benefit for

environment

- THEME SPLIT -

Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments

and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to

decide on how the arguments should be distributed among speakers. This is

called the team split. Simply put, the team split is the distribution of arguments

to the first, second, and third speaker. Consequently, the third Opposition will

not have any part of the case due to his major task of rebuttal and the

prohibition of new matters from the third Opposition. But the third Proposition

may bring on new matter; he or she is entitled a share of case. Be careful,

though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion.

You should not create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an

individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires

coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion.

Example:

“This House believes that saving the planet begins at home”

Theme line : because it is justifiable and brings benefit for environment

Theme Split :

1. saving the planet begins at home is justifiable

2. Further impact for the environment if saving planet for family first

- ARGUMENTS -

Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view should

be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence supporting a particular

conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. examples, facts, statistics, quotations of

expert/public opinion etc.) to back up each point you make in your argument.

Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and how it advances your

argument. Make a point, give the reason for that point, and supply evidence to

back it up.

Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have yet

to be proven to be logically true. On the other hand, arguments must have

supporting logic and facts that can show its validity. What adjudicators look for

in a good argument?

• Relevance

• Organization

• Consistency and internal logic -i.e. don't contradict yourself or your

teammates

• Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience and

adjudicator that you're right -so make sure they can understand what

you're saying!)

• Effective use of evidence

- Preparing a Reasonable Argument -

One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to

understand, a reasoned argument and – especially important – to recognize a

fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the

conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the

conclusion follows from the premises and whether those premises are true.

When developing your argument, consider the following factors:

• Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the "facts."

• Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all

points of view.

• Arguments from authority carry little weight – "authorities" have

made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at

most, there are experts.

• Prepare more than one case. If there's something to be defined, think

of all the different ways in which it could be defined. Then think of

arguments by which you might systematically rebut each of the

cases.

• Try not to get overly attached to an idea just because it's yours. It's

only a way station in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself

why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if

you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

• Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some

numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to

defend it against generalized rebuttal. What is vague and qualitative

is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought

in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding

them is more challenging.

• If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work

(including the premise) – not just most of them.

• Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced

with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the

simpler.

• Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified.

Propositions that are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not in

the spirit of debating. You run a good chance of losing a debate,

especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your arguments

cannot be rebutted.

- REBUTTAL -

Rebuttal is the process of proving that the opposing team's arguments

should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:

• showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of factor an

erroneous interpretation of fact

• showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the

topic

• showing that the opposing argument is illogical

• showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves

unacceptable implications

• showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be

accorded little weight. As with arguments, assertions do not equal

rebuttals. Just as teams must show how and why their own

arguments are valid, so they must show how and why the

opposition's arguments are invalid.

• An argument may be wrong in fact or logic -if so, say how and why

• An argument may contradict their team line, or something else a

speaker on that team has said – if so, point it out

• An argument may be true but completely irrelevant – these are often

called “red herrings”.

- ROLES OF SPEAKER -

The six speakers in an Asian Parliamentary debate each have different

roles to play and adjudicators should take account of how well a speaker fulfills

his/her obligations. The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their

team's cases

Prime Minister’s duties:

• Defines the motion of the debate. The Prime Minister should ensure

that no important points of definition are left out.

• Presents the Government’s theme line. This is normally presented in

one or several lines of analysis, explaining why the Government’s

case is logically correct.

• Outlines the Government’s team split.

• Delivers substantial arguments (“Prime Minister’s part of the split”).

After establishing the definition, theme line, and team split, the Prime

Minister should then deal with the arguments/points that have been

assigned to him/her in the team split.

• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. The Prime Minister may

spend some time on the definition and on establishing the theme line

and showing how it is going to develop, but it is important to leave

time to present some substantive arguments.

Leader of Opposition’s duties:

• Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the

definition).

• Rebuts Prime Minister, delivers a part of the Opposition's substantive

case.

• Presents the Opposition’s theme line and team split.

• Delivers substantial arguments (“Leader of Opposition’s part of the

split”).

• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. After the first speakers

have spoken the main direction of each team’s case should be

apparent.

The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument.

Deputy Prime Minister’s duties:

• Rebutting the Leader of Opposition’s major arguments.

• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Government’s team

case.

• Delivers substantial arguments (“Deputy Prime Minister’s part of the

split”). Most of 2nd the Government's time should be spent dealing

with new substantial material/arguments. He or she has the duty to

present the bulk of the Government's case in an attempt to further

argue in favor of the Government.

• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

Deputy Leader of Opposition’s duties:

• Rebuttal of the Deputy Prime Minister speakers.

• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Opposition’s team

case.

• Delivers substantial arguments (“Deputy Leader of opposition’s part

of the split”).

• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

Government Whip’s duties:

• Rebutting the points raised by the Leader of Opposition and Deputy

Leader of Opposition speakers. The Government Whip is mainly

entrusted with the duty of responding to the arguments of the

Opposition that were not previously dealt with by the first two

Government speakers. The Government Whip may also reinforce

rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates.

• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two

speakers’ arguments).

• Summarize the issues of the debate.

Opposition Whip’s duties:

• Rebutting the points raised by all three Government speakers.

• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and Prime Minister

and Deputy Prime Minister speakers’ arguments).

• Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate

• Summarize the issues of the debate.

The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! Most of a third

speaker's time must be spent rebutting the preceding speakers.

Generally at least three quarters of a third speech should be rebuttal.

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased

adjudication.

Reply speakers duties (both sides):

• Provide a summary or overview of the debate

• Identify the issues raised by both sides

• Provide a biased adjudication of the debate

Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply

speech. The Opposition team delivers the first reply speech.

A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case.

It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light

and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize

the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed

to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same

time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done

point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both are

effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits you best. However,

the latter style is often more effective in light of the limited time frame.

GUIDELINE FOR ADJUDICATORS OF THE 15th INTER FACULTY DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP

- Introduction -

Adjudicating debates is inherently a subjective exercise. Unlike many

sports, in debates there is no clear method of proving a team’s score.

Adjudicators, quite often, are equally divided as to the winner of a debate,

particularly in very close ones. The adjudicator forms a personal judgment

regarding the argument, style, organization and impact of a debate, which in

many cases, could differ from that of another adjudicator’s. The main objective

in providing these guidelines is to ensure, as much as is possible, that the

adjudicators make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and

guidelines that direct attention to specific issues and thus help limit

subjectivity.

The adjudicator enters the debate chamber as an ‘average reasonable

person’ with an average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate,

but with expert knowledge of the rules of debating. An average reasonable

person is a fairly well-informed citizen of the globe with an average

understanding of global and regional issues, and a basic understanding of

popular disciplines and logic. The adjudicator must set aside his/her exceptional

personal preferences, experiences, opinions or expert knowledge, which will

not be shared by an average reasonable person.

It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide

whether his or her views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams.

The adjudicator has artificial constraints that influence his decision – including

the proportional worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and

the weight of each individual speech to the overall case of the team. The

adjudicator is assessing a process that consists of every single speech and his

final judgment is a function of the contribution of each individual in the debate.

There are three important functions of adjudicator:

To decide which team has won the debate,

To provide an explanation of the reasons for that decision, and

To provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters

- FRAMEWORKS TO ASSES A DEBATE -

Clash

What is clash?

A clash is literally the point of contention in a debate. It can be easily spotted

by identifying issues that both benches argue in opposition in one another. So

for example in the debate with the motion “This house would let homosexual

to get married” one of the clashes would be the impact for children,

affirmative argues that by getting homosexual marriage, it can show that

marriage is individual’s right without forcing for everyone to life as

heterosexual as they have different sex orientation, because they will reach

their happiness. And negative team argues that live in marriage institution will

crumble the nature of marriage institution down, because the core of marriage

institution is uniting men and women and fostering new generation.

Affirmative argues that marriage should as individual right, while negative

argues it should goes to institutional, and that is we call as ‘clash’.

To make it easier, you can write down a clash in a form of a question.

In the case of the above example the clash can also be written as “would

homosexual couple should get marriage to persue their happiness? “With

this form, we can see clearly where the clash is.

Clashes are rather smaller than a stance but they can be bigger than

an argument. In another word, clashes are rather like a summary of the

debate, those several points in which the debate boils down to.

Let us take another motion for example:

This house would criminalize littering

The clashes in that debate may look somewhat like this:

Government Opposition

1st clash: does criminalize littering action is justifiable or not

Arg 1: littering is violate another

people rights.

Littering action contribute to

make the environment in bad

condition, can make society will

feel unsafe because the impact

of littering, so this is the failure

of advertisement that exist in

statusquo.

Arg 1: government have already

provide advertisement,

socialization and trash to solve

the problem of littering, means

they still in progressing to make

condition of environment

better.

2nd clash: does criminalize littering action will give advantages or

not?

Arg 1: decrasing awareness from

society to keep clan their

environment will bring more

harm than good.

Arg 1: society who have

awareness is come from

theirselves, not forcing by

government because everyone

have responsibility to ther

action in environment.

How to use clashes in determining a winning

First of all, adjudicator need to identify the clashes that exist in a

debate, somewhat like presented in the example above. Then, each clash

should be weighed, whether it is affirmative or the opposition that better

argued that particular point. With that, adjudicator can see clearer which

side has upper hand in that debate. Yet, simply weighing the clash is not

enough. Adjudicator also needs to prioritize those clashes. Somehow some

clashes are more important than others. In criminalize littering example

above for instance, the 1st clash certainly weigh more value than the 2nd , for

that 1st one is what the debate is all about, the core of the debate. So a

bench that better argued the 1st class (based on the priority). Ideally,

adjudicator minimally has 2 classes in a debate.

Summary

Therefore in using clash to determine the winning of a debate, adjudicator

needs to do two things:

(1) weigh each clash to know which sides has the upper hand in that

clash

(2) consider the value of the clashes at hand, which clash is more

important

Notice that one clash can contain several arguments. So in a way, that clash

is something that the arguments under it is trying to prove. Adjudicators are

only given maximally 5 MINUTES for their tributary comments and no

additional time.

MATTER

How to assess matter

In assessing matter, adjudicators must see on what happen to the

debate and matter presented by a speaker is logical and relevant to the topic

under debate or not. Logic is the chain of reasoning used to prove an

argument; this involves stating, explaining and illustrating the argument (A-R-E-

L: Assertion, Reasoning, Evidence, and Link back). Relevance is established by

tying the argument into the topic under debate.

Many arguments will rise up in order to defense and support each case.

Therefore, the adjudicator need to distinguish a strong argument from a weak

argument, and don’t forget to classify and prioritize the argument. You should

not wait to see whether the opposition attacks an argument before judging

whether it is weak or strong. Taking on the role of an average reasonable

person does not prevent you from being critical and intelligent in your analysis

of the matter presented to you.

Assessing matter can be seen also from the example given. But the

things that should be noted, the example can’t substitute the argument itself;

it’s just supporting the arguments.

Invalid case

An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required

by the topic to prove. For instance, on the topic ‘That littering action should be

criminalize’, if the affirmative team argues that littering is harmful, they have

not addressed the fundamental issue of the debate – criminalize littering. Such

an approach should be penalized heavily.

Hung case

Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the

first speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as

the ‘hung’ case. It occurs when the first speaker doesn’t affirm or negate the

topic in itself. The speech is left ‘hanging’ until the second speaker completes

the case (1st and 2nd speech are combined).

New matter

New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been

canvassed in the debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend

an argument is not considered as new matter. It is a firm rule of debating that

the third opposition speaker in the debate may not introduce any new matter.

It is to prevent unfairness because an issue raised at this stage does not allow

the opposing team to respond to it or comment on it sufficiently.

The other important thing is link back. Tie the argument back into the

topic. Adjudicator may see the link back from the presented debate, it used to

see whether the presented argument is suitable or not.

METHOD

Method of an individual speech

An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither

compulsory nor exhaustive):

1. an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or

helps it to warm to the speaker

2. a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the

speech

3. a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the

speaker’s argument

4. a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each

major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be

accomplished

5. a conclusion or summary of the major points made in the speech

Over-time and under-time speeches

Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time limit

and conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed.

Matter delivered after the time limit does not attract matter marks. The speech

will incur a severe penalty in method for continuing significantly after the time

limit.

MANNER

Manner is concerning with the mechanics of public speaking and

presentation of the debating case. Good manner will enhance the argument;

bad manner will distract or detract the audience from the argument. The most

important thing to remember when you assess manner is to ask the question

“Was it effective?”

The elements of manner

1. Vocal style: Volume of delivery should be audible; enunciation should be

clear and plain; pace of delivery should be neither too slow nor fast, etc.

2. Use of language: Speakers should not vary from normal conversational

language; they should beware of the use of slang or jargon of some field

of specialty unfamiliar to the audience.

3. Use of notes: Notes should be unobtrusive, small enough to be held in

one hand and contain only key words or headlines.

4. Use of eyes: Debaters should attempt to make eye contact with the

audience.

5. Gesture: Gestures should be natural and appropriate and not laborious or

distracting; mannerisms should be avoided.

6. Stance: Speakers may move around or stand still and you should assess

the effectiveness of the stance by whether it aided the argument or

distracted you from the argument.

7. Dress: Dress may only be taken into account in the assessment of

manner where it is so incongruous that it affects the credibility of the

speaker.

8. Impression of sincerity: A more sincere approach will make the speaker

more believable and effective.

9. Personal attacks on opponents: Derogatory comments will not be

tolerated and will suffer manner penalty as such remarks distracts the

audience from the argument and also make the speaker lose the

sympathetic ear of the audience.

10. Humor: may even be used at a crucial time in a serious debate and it’s

suitable.

Adjudicators must note that manner is assessed as the total impact of all its

various elements – not as some aggregation of fixed categories according to

rigid weightings

Burden of proof

What is burden of proof? One of the most crucial aspects is given

debate is about what and where burden of proof lies. Which side needs to

prove their point, and does the other side simply get to argue against that

point, or do they have to prove their own position?

The burden of proof always rest on those making an assertion about

the world. The justification for this burden is that statements about reality

must be based on reason and evidence. This is not simply a requirement in

debates; it’s actually an epistemological requirement for correct reasoning.

Response and Dynamic of the debate

Responding to the other’s team case, both teams are expected to

respond appropriately to each other’s case on every single major issue brought

up in the debate(refer back to “points of clash).

a rebuttal (negative argument) countering the other team’s

argument(s) on a particular issue

1. other team’s case (or model, or status quo) would not reach the

desired objectives and perhaps make even things worse, or

2. other team’s case (or model, or status quo) would indeed reach

the objectives as alleged, but said objectives are irrelevant to the

debate or are not desired objectives of the debate(the team is

then of course expected to show what the desired objectives of

the debate really are)

a positive argument showing that on that particular issue, the team’s

case stands

1. team’s case (or model, or status quo) would reach the agreed

goals more effectively, or

2. team’s case (or model, or status quo) would lead to a more

desirable outcome.

POI (Point of Information)

POIs: give POI and take POI! (1-2)

1. Has he/she accepted and attempted sufficient number of POIs?

2. Note down the POI, it helps.

3. POIs are judged on the basis of:

the threat they pose to

the strength of the argument of the debater

value of its wit and humor.

4. Responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of:

promptness and confidence in answering.

strength of the response.

value of wit and humor in the response.

Content of POI

Generally the content of POI is divided into some points: question to

opponent’s case and clarifying statement. Specifically it can be positive

or negative statement. Positive: offering new argument or example for

your opponent, highlighting an argument already delivered by your team

that your opponent has ignored. Negative: Displaying inconsistency

between speeches, giving fact or precedent that stand against their

argument, pointing out something that they have got wrong.

Bad responses:

not responding at all

only questioning the other team’s argument but do not necessarily

elaborate why it should fall

rebut the other team’s argument but do not necessarily show why own

team’s case(or model, or the status quo) stands

Following the Dynamics of the debate

The term” following the dynamics of the debate” is heard and said often but

quite seldom explained very clearly.

In general, debaters are expected to always take into account every argument,

every concession, and every rebuttal from the other team and either counter it

or to revise the team’s strategy, if necessary

FAIRNESS

The idea of debate is have two teams engaging with each others and

debating rules are in place to ensure that. Therefore, if a team tries to beat its

opponent by preventing it from properly engaging with the team, a good

adjudicator should take that into consideration, there are two most common

strategic stunts that debaters in Indonesia pull to put their opponents at an

unfair disadvantage.

In defining a motion

The proposition is expected to define a motion in such a way that

there would actually be a debate. The proposition is meant to define the

motion to clarify the debate, and not to win the debate. Some proposition

teams have been known to make their cases foolproof to the extent of virtually

non-debatable.

In delivering arguments

Aside from delivering arguments, teams are expected to also give

time for their opponents to respond to those arguments. The debating rules

that discourage the government whip and completely forbid the opposition

whip from delivering new matter are meant to ensure that both teams have

the opportunity to respond to each other’s arguments. An adjudicator is also

expected to take into account if a team revises or put some adds-on to their

proposal during the second speaker’s speech; this is, of course, unfair for the

other team and may make the debate confusing.

INCONSISTENCY AND CONTRADICTION

Inconsistency and contradiction are both errors in a team dynamic

when a speaker is not in the line with the team’s case, whether it is a point

made by previous speaker, the team’s problem acknowledgement or premise,

or even the speaker’s own argument.

Contradiction is a direct negotiation to a previous argument in a

team’s case or problem acknowledgement, but does not necessarily negate it

directly.

A word of caution, though: do not get trapped in confusion of distinguishing

between inconsistency and contradiction! What is important is that you know

these two errors, understand why they are errors, are able to spot them in a

debate, and know how to asses them in your adjudication.

These are the questions you should consider when you want to deduct or add

a margin or speaker score due to an inconsistency/ contradiction:

- How severe was the contradiction/ inconsistency for team’s case?

- Was it addressed or responded by the opponent?

- Did the opposing team acknowledge that it is a contradiction/

inconsistency?

- how well it was responded

- did they explain why it is inconsistent/ contradictory? Did they

elaborate on why the inconsistency / contradiction is detrimental for

the team’s case? Or did they only mention that there is an

consistency/ contradiction without further explanation?

- who responded to it?

- Was it responded by the immediate speaker after the contradiction/

inconsistency was made? Was it made by a late speaker?

- how did the contradictory/ inconsistent team respond to the

accusation?

- Did they respond at all? Was it responded immediately by the next

speaker? Did they merely deny the accusation? Did they explain why it

- is not a contradiction/ inconsistency? Did they admit that it is a

contradiction/ inconsistency?

The above questions also apply when a team accuses its opponent of

making a contradiction/ inconsistency. The only difference is that you need to

ask this question first: was it really a contradiction or inconsistency? Go back to

your notes and verify this. Many false accusations on contradiction/

inconsistency are made because the team don’t fully grasp the argument of

their opponent and only take a portion of the speech to make it sound like the

two errors. If you scrutinize your notes, you may find that the accusations are

not true at all!

Marking Scale

Assigned score

Meaning

69 Greeting only

70-73 Weak analysis, minimal to no elaboration, and/or hardly understandable, and/or hardly structured

74-76 Arguments that make sense with attempts to elaborate, and/or pretty clear, and/or adequately structured

77-80 Relevant arguments with successful to compelling elaboration, and/or very clear, and/or very neat

81 Divine intervention

reply speeches are scored exactly half of a substantive speech

margin in points between teams must be between 1 and 12:

Margin Meaning

1-4 A very close debate with only minor differences separating both

teams

5-9 A relatively clear decision with one team having an obvious

advantage

10-12 A very clear win with the losing team probably having failed in one

or more fundamental aspects of its argument or presentation

Adjudication commission of the 15th IFDC

REGISTRATION FORM

Name : …………………………………………………….

Gender : …………………………………………………….

Faculty/Majoring : …………………………………………………….

Batch : …………………………………………………….

Student Number : …………………………………………………….

E-mail/twitter/ FB : …………………………………………………….

Phone Number : ……………………………………………………..

Date of Birth : ……………………………………………………..

Allergic Food : ……………………………………………………..

Disease : ……………………………………………………..

Position : (Debater, Adjudicator, Observer, Manager). Circle one

Debate Experience : ……………………………………………………..

3x4