UKM-U English Society

The University of Lampung

(ESo Unila)

GUIDELINES FOR DEBATERS

(ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY)

Kristian Adi Putra

Lampung
2008
UKM-U ENGLISH SOCIETY OF LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION............................................................................1
THE BASICS OF DEBATING...............................................................1
MOTIONS.................................................................................2
DEFINITIONS..............................................................................2
THEME LINE..............................................................................4
TEAM SPLIT..............................................................................5
ARGUMENTS..............................................................................5
What adjudicators look for in a good argument
Preparing a Reasonable Argument
REBUTTAL................................................................................7
Organization of rebuttal
ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS................................................................8
The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's
cases
The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive
argument
The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the opponent’s case
Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing
biased adjudication
ADJUDICATION..........................................................................11
CLOSING................................................................................12

Guidelines for Debaters Table of Contents

 INTRODUCTION

THIS document is an introduction to Asian Parliamentary debates, the

motions/topics, team structure, etc. It is meant to help institutions
and universities who are new to the Parliamentary debating format
and are interested in participating in a debating competition using the
format, but are still unclear on the rules and regulations. This
document is not intended to serve as a definitive guide to the rules of
the tournament.

THE BASICS OF DEBATING

DEBATING is about developing your communication skills. It is about

assembling and organizing effective arguments, persuading and
entertaining an audience, and using your voice and gestures to
convince an adjudicator that your arguments outweigh your
oppositions. Debating is not about personal abuse, irrational attacks
or purely emotional appeals.

A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These

two teams will be referred to as the Affirmative and the Negative.
Members of each team are assigned positions as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
speakers. For each debate, a motion is given. After the motion is
given, teams are given thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each debate.

Each of the speakers will deliver a substantial speech of 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 be
five (5) minutes.

Thus, the complete order of speaking during a debate is as follows:

• 1st Affirmative – 7 minutes
• 1st Negative – 7 minutes
• 2nd Affirmative – 7 minutesSubstantial Speeches
• 2nd Negative – 7 minutes
• 3rd Affirmative – 7 minutes
• 3rd Negative – 7 minutes
• Negative Reply – 5 minutes Reply Speeches
• Affirmative Reply – 5 minutes

What must both sides do? In general:

• Affirmative (also known as “the Government”)
The Affirmative team must define the motion and support this
by giving constructive arguments. The right to define first
 resides with the Affirmative team, who is expected to give a
reasonable definition for the motion.
• Negative (also known as “the Opposition”)
The Negative team must oppose the motion as defined by the
Affirmative, and build a counter-case against the Affirmative. In
the event the Negative team feels that the definition is invalid,
they may challenge the definition and propose an alternative
definition. However, the Negative team cannot raise a
challenge simply on the basis that their definition is more
reasonable.

MOTIONS

MOTIONS, also known as topics, are full propositional statements that

determine what a debate shall be about. In the debate, the
Affirmative team must argue to defend the propositional statement of
the motion, and the Negative team must argue to oppose it.

Here are some examples of motions that can be debated about:

• That we should give President Habibie a chance
• That Indonesia should change its constitution
• That football is overvalued in today’s society
• That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the
bad effects of smoking
• That American pop culture is a threat to civilization
• That long is better than short

DEFINITIONS

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

defined by the Affirmative 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 definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual

words only if they have a key role. Out of the definition should come a
clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in the
debate. If the Affirmative chooses to define the motion on a word-by-
word basis, it should define words or phrases by their common usage.
Dictionaries may be useful for finding a common meaning or a pithy
explanation of a word, but they are not an absolute authority.
An example of a definition could be as follows: Given the motion “that
what goes up, must come down”, the Affirmative is presented with
many options on how to define the motion, because the nature of the
motion itself is quite abstract. One way they could define it is as
follows: they could define the object (the ‘what’) as being the
president of the Republic of Indonesia. In essence, the motion would
then state that anyone who “goes up” (takes power) as president of
Indonesia, must undoubtedly one day “come down” (step down from
power). This would give us the definition “that the Indonesian
presidency should be limited to 2 terms”. The Affirmative team could
then argue on the detriments of having unlimited presidential terms,
citing proof such as the total control of the past regime under
Soeharto, etc.

The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of
the debate is unknown until the Affirmative 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 an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual
interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.

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

Affirmative, but the Negative shall have the right of challenging the
definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set
out above. However, a Negative 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 a Negative 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. If the definition is accepted, then that
definition must stand. The Negative 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 Negative team:
• Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature
and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore
unreasonable in the context 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. An example of a truistic definition would be if
the motion “that we should eat, drink, and be merry” were defined
as “that we should eat, because otherwise we would starve to
death; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst; and be
merry because we are alive”.
• 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 Affirmative 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 kills our work
ethic is killing 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
the USA is opening up to the PRC”, an Affirmative team could try
and define USA as “Untidy Students of Asia”, and PRC as “Pretty
Room Cleaners”. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would
agree that the spirit of the motion is about the relationship
between the United States and China!
• 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.

A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about

challenging definitions - only do so if you are absolutely certain that
the Affirmative's definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump
your prepared case in favor of tackling the Affirmative on their own
terms than to issue an unjustified definition challenge. By the same
token, Affirmative teams should try to ensure that their definition is
fair.

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 Negative 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.

TEAM 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.

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.

For a more elaborate exposition on formulating theme lines and team

splits, please consult the document entitled “Casebuilding Examples
of Asian Parliamentary Debates”. It contains thorough examples that
give a very clear idea on how to construct theme lines and team splits
from definitions.

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. What survives, the case that resists rebuttal in this
Darwinian selection among "multiple working cases," has a much
better chance of being the stronger case than if you had simply
run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to a idea just because it's yours. It's
only a waystation 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 fact or
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”.
Organization of rebuttal
It is not necessary to rebutt every single point and fact raised by the
opposition. Single out their main arguments and attack those first.
Savage their theme line and show how it falls down – and show why
yours is better! You should rebutt by both destroying the opposition's
arguments and by establishing a case that directly opposes theirs.

ROLES OF THE SPEAKERS

THE six speakers in an Australasian 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
First Affirmative’s duties:
• Defines the motion of the debate. The 1st Affirmative should ensure
that no important points of definition are left out.
• Presents the Affirmative’s theme line. This is normally presented in
one or several lines of analysis, explaining why the Affirmative’s
case is logically correct.
• Outlines the Affirmative’s team split. This can be done by saying,
for example: “I, as the first affirmative will deal with the
philosophical base of our case, while my colleague, the second
affirmative speaker, will examine its practical implications”.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“1st Affirmative’s part of the
split”). After establishing the definition, theme line, and team split,
the 1st Affirmative 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 1st Affirmative 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.

First Negative’s duties:

• Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the
definition).
• Rebutts 1st Affirmative, delivers a part of the negative's
substantive case.
• Presents the Negative’s theme line.
• Outlines the Negative’s team split.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“1st Negative’s part of the split”).
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 1st Negative’s role is similar to the role of the 1st Affirmative’s,
with the added responsibility of responding to the arguments brought
up by the latter. The response to the 1 st Affirmative’s arguments can
come before the 1st Negative presents his/her own arguments to
support the Negative’s case or vice-versa. However, the delivery of
rebuttals first is recommended.

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
Second Affirmative’s duties:
• Rebutts the 1st Negative's major arguments.
• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Affirmative’s team
case.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“2nd Affirmative’s part of the
split”). Most of the 2nd Affirmative's time should be spent dealing
with new substantial material/arguments. He or she has the duty
to present the bulk of the Affirmative's case in an attempt to
further argue in favor of the Affirmative.
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2nd Affirmative should be prepared to defend the definition if

necessary. If it is attacked, it is vital for the 2nd Affirmative to win back
the initiative.

Second Negative’s duties:

• Rebuttal of the first two Affirmative speakers.
• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Negative’s team
case.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“2nd Negative’s part of the split”).
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.

The 2nd Negative has duties similar to the one performed by the 2nd
Affirmative.

Most of the teams' substantive argument should have emerged by the

time both second speakers have spoken.
The third speakers main duty is to rebutt the
opponent’s case
Third Affirmative’s duties:
• Rebutt the points raised by the first two Negative speakers. The 3rd
Affirmative is mainly entrusted with the duty of responding to the
arguments of the Negative that were not previously dealt with by
the first two Affirmative speakers. 3rd Affirmative 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.

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.

Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a global level

(teamwise), a 3rd speaker should attack the opposing team’s whole
case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic. On a
more detailed level (speechwise), a 3rd speaker should be able to
point out the mistakes in fact and inconsistency of each individual
speech.

Third Negative’s duties:

• Rebutt the points raised by all three Affirmative speakers.
• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two
speakers’ arguments).
• Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate
• Summarize the issues of the debate

The 3rd Negative has duties similar to the ones performed by the 3rd
Affirmative. However, the 3rd Negative cannot introduce new matter,
except for new examples to reinforce an argument that has
previously been brought up. The logic behind this rule is that if a 3 rd
Negative is allowed to introduce new matter, the Affirmative would be
at a disadvantage as they would not have any opportunity to be able
to respond to these new arguments.

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 Negative 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.

The introduction of new material is absolutely prohibited and will be

penalized. Any point brought up by the other side which had not been
rebutted earlier in the substantial speeches may not be rebutted in
the reply speeches. Therefore, this means that all substantive
arguments presented in the debate must be dealt with by the
opposing team in the substantial speeches.

ADJUDICATION

ADJUDICATION is the process of determining which team wins the

debates. This is conducted by an adjudicator, or a panel consisting of
an odd number of adjudicators.

There is always a winner in a debate. There are no ‘draws’ or ‘ties’.

The speakers are assessed on Matter, Manner, and Method. Matter is
40 points, Manner is 40, and Method is 20, making a total of 100
points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, Matter and
Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50 points.

Matter refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and

examples brought up during the course of the debate. Manner is
concerned with the style of public-speaking – the use of voice,
language, eye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humor and personality
as a medium for making the audience more receptive to the
argument being delivered. There are no set rules which must be
followed by debaters. Method consists of the effectiveness of the
structure and organization of each individual speech, the
effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a
whole, and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the
dynamics of the debate.
 CLOSING

THIS document is not intended to be the definitive set of rules that you
must adhere to in debating. It serves as a source of information. For
further information, please check out the Casebuilding Examples of
Asian Parliamentary Debate. It provides more in-depth explanation
of cases, and gives examples to give a good idea of how one should
construct cases.

Finally, it must be said that “practice makes perfect”. No one ever

masters the art of swimming or riding a bicycle by thoroughly reading
guidelines and handbooks. One must take that first plunge, and
perhaps even fall down once or twice, before finally becoming skillful.
The same applies to debating. These guidelines should be enough to
get you started. But practice makes perfect.

Happy Debating!
 Asian Parliamentary Debating Rules
Part 1— Introduction
1.1 The format of the debate
1.1.1 The debate will consist of two teams of three persons (persons will be known as
"members"), a chairperson (known as the "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame
Speaker" and an adjudicator or panel of adjudicators.
1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:
Affirmative Team or Government:
First Speaker of Affirmative Team
Second Speaker of Affirmative Team
Third Speaker of Affirmative Team
Reply Speaker of Affirmative team (Taken from 1st or 2nd speaker)
Negative Team or Opposition:
First Speaker of Negative Team
Second Speaker of Negative Team
Third Speaker of Negative Team
Reply Speaker of Negative Team (Taken from 1st or 2nd speaker)
1.1.3 Members will deliver substantive speeches in the following order:
(1) First Speaker of Affirmative Team;
(2) First Speaker of Negative Team;
(3) Second Speaker of Affirmative Team;
(4) Second Speaker of Negative Team;
(5) Third Speaker of Affirmative Team;
(6) Third Speaker of Negative Team;
(7) Reply Speaker of Negative Team;
(8) Reply Speaker of Affirmative team.
1.1.4 Members will deliver a substantive speech of seven minutes duration, a reply
speech of five minutes duration and should offer points of information while members
of the opposing teams are speaking in substantive speeches.
1.2 The motion
1.2.1 The motion should be unambiguously worded and all of them are impromptu
motion. The heading only that is announced before.
1.2.2 The motion should reflect that this competition is a national debate competition.
1.2.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the
tournament.
1.3 Preparation
1.3.1 The debate should commence 30 minutes after the motion is announced and
decided by using motion preference in assembling point inside of debate room.
1.3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting
time for that debate. If at the end of case building time, the member of the team is not
complete, the team will be lost with an average margin at that round, and the complete
one will be won with an average margin at the same round, VP 1, and score 0 for both
team.
1.3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and
during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers and other
similar materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and
in the debate.
1.4 Points of Information
1.4.1 Points of Information (questions directed to the member speaking) may be asked
between first minute mark and the six minute mark of the members’ speeches (speeches
are of seven minutes duration). It is only allowed in substantive speeches.
1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand, place one hand on his or
her head and extend the other towards the member speaking. The member may
announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this
effect.
1.4.3 The member who is speaking may accept or decline to answer the Point of
Information.
1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.
1.4.5 The member who is speaking may ask the person offering the Point of Information
to sit down where the offer has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and
understood.
1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two Points of Information during their
speech. Members should also offer Points of Information.
1.4.7 Points of Information should be assessed in accordance with clause 3.3 of these
rules.
1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.
1.5 Timing of the speeches
1.5.1 Speeches should be seven minutes in duration for substantive speeches and five
minutes for reply speech (this should be signalled by three strikes of the gavel).
Speeches over seven minutes and 20 seconds in substantive speech and 5 minutes and
20 seconds in reply speech may be penalised.
1.5.2 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House and Time Keeper to time speeches.
1.5.3 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the duty of the Chair of the
Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.
1.5 The adjudication
1.5.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where
this is possible.
1.5.2 At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators should decide the winner and the
best speaker of the debate which is reflected by the mark given to the team.
1.5.3 There will be verbal adjudications of the debate after each round of the
tournament. The verbal adjudication should be delivered in accordance with clause 5.5
of these rules.

Part 2 — Definitions
2.1 The definition
2.1.1 The definition should state the issue (or issues) for debate arising out of the
motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation.
2.1.2 The First Speaker of Affirmative Team should provide the definition at the
beginning of his or her speech.
2.1.3 The definition must:
(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion - this means that an average reasonable
person would accept the link made by the member between the motion and the
definition (where there is no such link the definition is sometimes referred to as a
"squirrel");
(b) Not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving when the case is that something
should or should not be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A definition is may
also be self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists or does not
exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are sometimes referred to as
"truisms").
(c) not be time set - this means that the debate must take place in the present and that the
definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and
(d) Not be place set unfairly - this means that the definition cannot restrict the debate so
narrowly to a particular geographical or political location that a participant of the
tournament could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the place.
2.2 Challenging the definition
2.2.1 The First Speaker of the Negative Team may challenge the definition if it violates
clause 2.1.3 of these rules. He or She should clearly state that he or she is challenging
the definition.
2.2.2 The first Speaker of Negative Team should substitute an alternative definition
after challenging the definition of the first Speaker of Affirmative Team.
2.3 Assessing the definitional challenge
2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be ‘unreasonable’ where it
violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules.
2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members
asserting that the definition is unreasonable.
2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an
alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not
unreasonable.
2.3.4 Where the definition of the Affirmative Team is unreasonable and an alternative
definition is substituted by the Negative Team, the Affirmative team may introduce
matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Negative Team and
consistent with the definition of their team, in a word, the affirmative and the negative
must be able to show that their definition is the best.
Part 3 — Matter
3.1 The definition of matter
3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his
or her case and persuade the audience.
3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any
other material that attempts to further the case.
3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments
specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)).
3.2 The elements of matter
3.2.1 Matter should be relevant, logical and consistent.
3.2.2 Matter should be relevant. It should relate to the issues of the debate: positive
material should support the case being presented and rebuttal should refute the material
being presented by the opposing team(s). The Member should appropriately prioritise
and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.
3.2.3 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be
clear and well-reasoned and therefore plausible. The conclusion of all arguments should
support the member’s case.
3.2.4 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is
consistent within their speech, their team and the remainder of the members on their
side of the debate (subject to clauses 2.3.4, 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 of these rules).
3.2.5 All Members should present positive matter (except the negative team in the
debate) and all members should present rebuttal (except the first speaker of the
affirmative team in the debate).
3.3 Assessing matter
3.3.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. ‘The elements of matter’ should assist
an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness and credibility of the matter presented.
3.3.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person.
Adjudicators should analyse the matter presented and assess its persuasiveness, while
disregarding any specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.
3.3.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should
not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality,
sexual preference, age, social status or disability.
Part 4 — Manner
4.1 The definition of manner
4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member
uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.
4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Some, but not all, of these
elements are listed below.
4.2 The elements of style
4.2.1 The elements of style include eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures,
language, the use of notes and any other element which may affect the effectiveness of
the presentation of the member.
4.2.2 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it allows the
member to appear more sincere.
4.2.3 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the
debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience.
This includes the pitch, tone, and volume of the member’s voice and the use of pauses.
4.2.4 Hand gestures will generally assist a member to emphasise important arguments.
Excessive hand movements may however be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of
the audience to the arguments.
4.2.5 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language which is too
verbose or confusing may detract from the argument if they lose the attention of the
audience.
4.2.6 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely
on their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.
4.3 The elements of structure
4.3.1 The elements of structure include the structure of the speech of the member and
the structure of the speech of the team.
4.3.2 The matter of the speech of each member must be structured. The member should
organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation. The
substantive speech of each members should:
(a) include an introduction, conclusion and a series of arguments; and
(b) Be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations and the need to prioritise and
apportion time to matter.
4.3.3 The matter of the team must be structured. The team should organise their matter
to improve the effectiveness of their presentation. The team should:
(a) contain a consistent approach to the issues being debated; and
(b) allocate positive matter to each member where both members of the team are
introducing positive matter; and
4.4 Assessing manner
4.4.1 Adjudicators should assess the elements of manner together in order to determine
the overall effectiveness of the member’s presentation. Adjudicators should assess
whether the member’s presentation is assisted or diminished by their manner.
4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a Regional Championship, there are many
styles which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member
simply because the manner would be deemed ‘inappropriate Parliamentary debating’ in
their own country.
4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should
not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality,
language (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preference, age, social status or disability.
Part 5 — The Adjudication
5.1 The role of the adjudicator
5.1.1 The adjudicator must:
(a) Confer upon and discuss the debate with the other adjudicators;
(b) Determine the winner;
(c) Determine the margin;
(d) Determine the speaker marks;
(e) Provide a verbal adjudication to the members; and
(f) Complete any documentation required by the tournament.
5.1.2 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the adjudication of the debate.
Adjudicators should therefore confer in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect
5.1.3 Adjudicators should acknowledge that adjudicators on a panel may form different
or opposite views of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore attempt to base their
conclusions on these rules in order to limit subjectivity and to provide a consistent
approach to the assessment of debates.
5.2 Winning teams
5.2.1 Teams should be ranked from first place to second place. First placed teams
should be awarded one point; second placed teams should be awarded zero point.
5.2.2 Teams may also receive zero points where they (the three members) fail to arrive
at the debate hall more than ten minutes after the scheduled time for debate or motion
launch, if there is only one member, the team will be waited until the case building time
over with the same consequences.
5.2.3 Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the
Member has (or Members have) harassed another debater on the basis of religion, sex,
race, colour, nationality, sexual preference or disability.
5.2.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings based on the decision given by
each of them whether it is split or anonymous decision.
5.3 Marking the teams
5.3.1 The adjudicators must be able to decide whether the debate is a very close debate,
a relatively clear decision or a very clear win first, therefore by considering the standard
score for the first speaker of affirmative and negative team, they can fulfil the
adjudication sheet.
5.3.2. The margin is only between 1– 12. The range for each speaker’s score should be
only 3 for margin 10-12, 2 for margin 5-9, and 1 for margin 1-4, so that there won’t be
any margin more than 12.
5.3.2 Margin should be given the following interpretation:
 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.

5.4 Marking the members

5.4.1 Marking the individual is based on their own performance concerning on the three
criteria, e.g. matter, manner, method. The adjudicators must nominate a speaker to be the
standard score of the whole debate, decide the margin, and then fulfil the data of each
speaker by adjusting each individual score and the margin given.
5.4.2 Individual members’ marks should be given the following interpretation:

Matter/Manner Method Meaning

27 13 Very Poor

28-29 14 Below average - poor

30 15 Average

31-32 16 Above average – Very good

33 17 Excellent

5.5 Verbal adjudications

5.5.1 At the conclusion of the conferral, the adjudication panel should provide a verbal
adjudication of the debate.
5.5.2 The verbal adjudication should be delivered by each adjudicator at the
preliminary, quarter, semi, and grand final round, even though there will be no winner’s
announcement at quarter, semi, and grand final round.
5.5.3 The verbal adjudication should:
(a) Identify which teams has won the debate.
(b) Explain the reasons for the decision, ensuring that each team is referred to in this
explanation; and
(c) provide constructive comments to individual members where the adjudication panel
believes this is necessary.
5.5.4 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 4 minutes.

5.5.5 The members must not harass the adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.

5.5.6 The members may approach an adjudicator for further clarification following the
verbal adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite and non-confrontational.
 ADJUDICATION SHEET

Round : ______________________________________ Room : ____________

Chairperson : ______________________ Time Keeper : ______________________
Motion : __________________________________________________________
Adjudicator : _________________________________
Affirmative : _________________________________
Speakers Name Matter Manner Method Total Time
(27-33) (27-33) (13-17) (67-83) (7 minutes)
1st
2nd
3rd
Reply speeches are scored exactly Matter Manner Method Total Time
half of substantive speeches.
(13,5-16,5) (13,5-16,5) (6,5-8,5) (33,5-41,5) (5 minutes)
Reply
Final Score

Negative : __________________________________
Speakers Name Matter Manner Method Total Time
(27-33) (27-33) (13-17) (67-83) (7 minutes)
1st
2nd
3rd
Reply speeches are scored exactly Matter Manner Method Total Time
half of substantive speeches.
(13,5-16,5) (13,5-16,5) (6,5-8,5) (33,5-41,5) (5 minutes)
Reply
Final Score

Winner : Affirmative / Negative Bandar Lampung,………

Margin : __________________ (between 1-12)
Best Speaker : _______________________________
( ___________________ )