Debating Guide

Junior Chamber International

Worldwide Federation of Young Leaders and Entrepreneurs

INDEX
DEBATE TECHNIQUE 1. Prepare to Win 2. Team Preparation 3. General Procedure a. First Meeting b. Second Meeting c. Third Meeting PLAN YOUR ARGUMENT 1. Organize Points of Argument 2. Understand the Issue MANNER 1. Stance 2. Voice 3. Notes 4. Words 5. Humor 6. Audience Contact METHOD 1. First Speaker 2. Second Speaker 3. Third Speaker 4. Replies 5. Timing 6. Introduction and Conclusion TEAMWORK TEAM MEMBERS RESPONSIBILITY 1. First Affirmative 2. First Negative 3. Second Affirmative 4. Second Negative 5. Third Affirmative 6. Third Negative 7. Reply 8. Conclusion IMPROMPTU DEBATING Golden Rules CHAIRING A DEBATE 1. Preparation 2. Opening and Introduction 3. Conclusion 4. Acknowledgments ADJUDICATION OF DEBATES 1. Marking Sheet DEBATE ADJUDICATION SHEET 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 19 2

Note: The use of he or his in this guide implies both genders.

DEBATING GUIDE
2004 Edition

INTRODUCTION

Debating is both a joy and an education. A certain proposition is made or assumed, and its truth and correctness are determined by a process of logical conclusion. A good debater must marshal his evidence, condense his remarks, express himself clearly, and deliver his case with the conviction born of confidence. The fact that the subject of a debate has been stated presupposes that the subject is debatable, and statements to the contrary should not be made. The statement of the subject also presupposes that the terms of the subject are capable of definition and must be defined to the best of ones ability. The purpose of a debate is not to decide the validity of the original proposition, but to determine which of the two teams can make the best case in the light of the information available to them. The JCI Debating Guide is one of several publications prepared by the Junior Chamber International World Headquarters. We hope this publication will provide the basis for the success of your debating contest. We welcome your comments, criticisms, and suggestions so that we may continually improve our services to you. Let us know your chapters needs, and our professional staff will be happy to assist you. Please be specific in your requests so that we can provide you with pertinent suggestions, publications, and advice. We are here to help you in whatever way we can.

Secretary General Junior Chamber International (JCI), Inc. 4

Copyright 2004 by Junior Chamber International. All rights reserved.

DEBATE TECHNIQUE
1. PREPARE TO WIN: These three words are more important to the debater than any other single idea or piece of advice that could be given. If a team prepares to win, rather than to simply make a good showing, then each member will achieve maximum personal benefit by way of: a. Knowledge (through research) b. Personal development (through the desire to improve and win) c. Enjoyment (through team spirit and team research) d. Success Preparing to win requires a certain inspiration: a desire to search for knowledge, truth and understanding, and the ability to separate fact from opinion, to balance argument and counter argument and to recognize ones own areas of ignorance. 2. TEAM PREPARATION: The ideal technique for the gathering of information is the Three-meeting System, used to prepare for a debate by a three-person team. This entails three planning meetings by the team before the actual debate takes place. Ideally meetings should be scheduled approximately a week apart to enable the necessary research to be completed before the next meeting. It is obvious when one listens to many debates, that the research is far too superficial, extracted from general sources such as a Year Book and press clippings. Although these are not to be belittled as sources of information, a visit to the reference section of the nearest public library will reveal far richer resources. If you are debating an issue in which large public companies have a vested interest, do not hesitate to contact a company, for they can usually supply material for your debate. It is not necessary to inform them which side you are debating. 3. GENERAL PROCEDURE: a. First meeting: I. Discussion of the subject of the debate The discussion of the subject must address the teams side of the case, the known facts, potentially useful reference material, and the use of an accepted dictionary to obtain a clear definition of the subject. II. Interpretation of the subject 6

The interpretation of the subject can be decided at this meeting, if possible, through the use of a dictionary. But at all times, common sense should be your guide when defining the subject. An authoritative reference work can be used to help arrive at a better understanding. Remember that every subject interpretation must be based on common sense and sound logic. III. Recognition of areas of ignorance At this meeting, members must identify any areas of ignorance, and the obligation is with each member to share in the search for knowledge and understanding during the next week. b. Second meeting: I. Informed general discussion of the subject An informed general discussion of the subject will automatically flow from of each members research findings since the previous meeting. Consider the major arguments, as you share the reference materials and facts you have collected. II. Selection of the theme or line of attack By now, the theme of your teams argument will be evident as your salient points emerge. Decide now on the major arguments the team will use. Do not choose too many, as it is far better to win three major points by developing them fully than to lose eight because they were not fully explored. III. Divide the subject and assign sections to speakers so that each speaker will jell with the others Divide up the team and order these main points in a logical sequence so that they will be easily understood by the team members, opposition and audience alike. Now each debater can prepare fully, aware of his individual responsibilities in the debate. Consider the points your opposition will most likely make. This will assist in determining which arguments need to be emphasized and which statistics are most likely to be of the greatest importance. Relevant statistics are important to a teams case; however, too often speeches have been reduced to tedium by the repetition of figures and percentages. If statistics are to have meaning, they must be understood and digested by an audience who has not previously considered the subject. For example, it is difficult for most people to think in terms of millions. Reduce it to one in ten or a percentage, figures that are easier to assimilate. c. Third meeting: I. Refinement of arguments At the completion of each address, constructive criticism must follow, and any questionable or superfluous material deleted. All facets of the case and its presentation should be analyzed and approved. 7

II. Discussion on rebuttal The critical analysis of the team case will lead to a discussion of argument and counter argument. The team must consider the other teams probable plan of attack. Discuss the oppositions strongest arguments, pinpointing rebuttal points, and, if possible, seek out authoritative support for the contrary view. No debater who prepares to win, will treat rebuttal as an off-the-cuff part of his speech. Sometimes an effective rebuttal from the opposition can be thwarted by introducing appropriate arguments that anticipate and refute rebuttal arguments. III. Teamwork Debating is a team effort, and no person can win a debate single-handedly. Share with the other members quotations, references, and your ideas for the introduction of humor, so that your team spirit will be obvious to all. Do not be over concerned about reusing or reemphasizing material used by your previous speaker. Rather, in order to promote the teams cause, refer to what other members of your team have said and reaffirm any argument which appears shaky or weak after being scrutinized by the previous opposing speaker. When alluding to a point someone on your team has made, do not refer to your teammate by name, but rather as our second speaker, or our leader. When referring to your opponents, avoid using the term, our opposition, or the other team. This can suggest, in fact, that you have an opposition, or that they are working as a team. Your suggestion should be that they do not offer you any real opposition and that their teamwork is definitely suspect. The term normally used is the members of the other side. Better still, use we and they. When forming the team, consider individual traits and abilities. If a member is precise and methodical by nature and possesses a pleasant manner, his position in the team should be leader, or preferably, second speaker. The position of third speaker is best suited to experienced debaters, who can rely heavily on quick thinking and wit. The most important consideration, however, is not personal preference, but how the team will best be served. Discuss the order of team members with someone who is qualified to give an opinion and who has had the opportunity to listen to each member speak. Poor positioning can hurt a well-prepared case and give the impression of a lack of teamwork, because the subject and debate do not flow evenly and cohesively. Remember, the third speaker often secures the victory for his team.

PLAN YOUR ARGUMENT

Success hinges on thorough research, intelligent use of that research, a carefully-planned strategy, and an interesting presentation; however, you cannot hope to develop your skill merely by awaiting your turn to recite a prepared address. Learn to listen to your opponents remarks with an open mind, strive to understand both the argument and the theme of the opposition case, and then weave relevant rebuttal material into your own case. 1. ORGANIZE POINTS OF ARGUMENT: Preparation is the essence of successful debating because an organized argument is necessary to win a debate. Your material and attitude, however, must be sufficiently flexible to prevent your argument from becoming too rigid in presentation. If this is not done, a surprise attack on an angle of the subject you had not anticipated can leave you floundering. Too often, both teams present rigid, uncompromising oratory and never really debate the issue. Remember, you have a dual responsibility to keep your argument intact and puncture the opposition argument. Keep your sense of perspective. By all means, speak with fire and passion, but never indulge in personal attacks. Fiercely attack your opponents argument, not your opponent. Enthusiasm and eloquence are useful in delivering the logic of your argument, but they cannot replace logic. Over reliance on ones rhetorical skills will not suffice in a debate. Such tactics are transparently inefficient to any competent adjudicator and boring for the audience. 2. UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE: It is essential for you to understand clearly the issues at stake, to always keep those issues in mind, and to constantly guard against peripheral issues which draw the argument off the rails. The subtle use of red herrings, however, provided that they do not become an obvious part of your teams tactic or are the material on which you hang your teams case, can be used effectively. A red herring, discovered and exposed as such by the opposing team, can have devastating effects for your team. If it becomes obvious that the other team has recognized the red herring for what it is, then leave it alone. Unless you stick to the core issues, you may find yourself attacking or defending issues that are irrelevant. In presenting your interpretation of the essential issues, remember that it is not enough for you to understand what you mean; you must convey it clearly to the audience by relating each point back to the subject. Only then can you prove the relevancy of your material.

MANNER
A debate address is similar to public speaking, except for three fundamental differences that will affect your presentation. Firstly, you may not actually believe in the side that you are arguing. Despite your personal outlook, as a speaker, you must convey complete sincerity. This, coupled with your skill in debating, will result in a competent performance. Remember that although debating is an exercise in organized argument, your presentation is of immense importance. Secondly, you are involved in what could become a heated contest, trying to convince the audience that there is only one right point of viewyours. Accordingly, your choice of words will be strong and assertive; your manner, positive and confident. Thirdly, unlike most public addresses where the audience is either friendly or passive, the debate audience is more likely to be critical, and even hostile on occasions. An adjudicator will be watching your every move and listening critically to your every word. You are truly under the microscope, aware that every aspect of your presentation must be finely honed so that it is as near perfect as possible. With this charged atmosphere in mind, consider the major facets of presentation or manner. 1. STANCE: The most common situation that a debater finds upon taking his position on the dais is that the chairman and timekeeper are behind him, fellow team members and opponents are on either side and the audience is grouped in a semicircle before him. Upon rising, position yourself in front of any tables placed between you and the audience, and midway between the chairman and your fellow team members. Positioned thus, you will not unconsciously lean upon the table or place notes upon it. You can then simply half turn your body to the chairman and say Mr. Chairman, turn back, and continue, Ladies and Gentlemen, . . . After the salutations, you can concentrate all of your attention on the audience, addressing all sections of them in turn. Reference to your own team members or your opponents can be accomplished by an outward hand gesture only. This stance will also assist you in resisting the temptation to direct a remark at your opponents and perhaps becoming involved in an argument with them. 2. VOICE: You are arguing and trying to convince; therefore, your words will have great earnestness and will be more aggressive than a normal speech. Because of this need, greater emphasis must be placed on variation of meter, pitch and volume to avoid the monotonous repetition that can so easily result. A monotonous voice will quickly alienate an audience.

10

Your vocal character may also determine the order in which you speak for your team. While a clear, measured style may be appropriate for the first or second speaker, the third speaker is often characterized by a more aggressive and assertive style. 3. NOTES: In most debating competitions, notes are permitted; therefore, there need not be any concern about this. No attempt should be made to hide the notes, which should measure no more than 7 x 15cm, held in the palm of the hand for quick reference. Do not read your notes. Provided you have thoroughly prepared your material, two or three key words representing a facet of your argument should be enough reference to bring forth a spontaneous flow of words and phrases suited to your argument. Although the debater who uses no notes appears to the vast majority to be quite exceptional, it is better to be a good debater with notes, than an ineffective one without them. Reference books and other material are also usually permitted, but in most instances are of dubious value. The time spent reading from a volume is time lost in audience contact, and the thread of your argument is sometimes lost. Overuse of reference material is positively damaging, so perhaps the best rule is to avoid it, unless it is essential to your case. 4. WORDS: As in all speech-making, the debater must beware of certain pitfalls. Firstly, are the ums, ers and ahs which can slip out when the mind is racing ahead to crystallize the next thought. Most of us are prone to do this, but in place of uttering these sounds, pause. Another danger is the word that you mispronounce. Make sure you know your words. If you invariably stammer over a certain word, find a substitute. Use simple, everyday, conversational words. 5. HUMOR: Not everyone has a flair for introducing humor into a speech. Nevertheless, you should look for the opportunity to introduce relevant humor, particularly as rebuttal material. Humor or satire, introduced to undercut your opponents argument, can be powerful weapons. It can have the advantage of supplementing your argument while endearing the audience to you at the same time. In addition, humor may brighten an otherwise dull time for the audience. 6. AUDIENCE CONTACT: Audience contact appears an intangible, and yet it is the embodiment of most of the preceding comments. Many otherwise competent debaters never seem to establish common ground with their audience and thereby lose a great deal of satisfaction, failing in a no technical way to reach their goals. Perfection in matter and method are not enough. Your argument should be presented with skill and care. Nervousness inhibits a natural presentation, and sometimes even comes off as arrogance. Condescension irritates the audience and adjudicators. 11

Dont be afraid to smile. Let your face reflect a vital, confident personality. Talk to themnot at themand invite their understanding.

12

METHOD
Method is simply the way in which you arrange your material. The arrangement of your material into an acceptable pattern is not an encumbrance, but an aid; particularly, in those tension-packed moments of delivery when the mind of an untrained speaker may refuse to think clearly and the predetermined pattern of presentation can prevent the dreaded black-out. 1. FIRST SPEAKER: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Introduction Definition Team plan and allocation Own segment Segment summary Peroration Negative also has rebuttal between team plan and own segment Dont forget, you are responsible for drawing the battle lines with a logical, intelligent interpretation of the subject. If your team agrees with the substance of the argument, dont waste time with trifling objectionsjoin the battle.

Affirmative: Negative:

2. SECOND SPEAKER: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Introduction Rebuttal Own segments Segment summary Peroration Responsible for major portion of team case

3. THIRD SPEAKER: I. II. III. IV. Introduction Rebuttal Own segment Peroration

4. REPLIES: I. II. III. Rebuttal Case summary Peroration

5. TIMING: 13

It would be folly to state how much time should be allocated to each function because this can vary according to the subject and the teams plan of attack; however, to give a broad indication of what is normally required in a debate with ten-minute speaking limits, the following comments are made: A. The introduction should be brief, used merely to establish a theme (1 minute). B. Definitions will vary according to the difficulty and variety of possible meanings of the subject (1-3 minutes). C. Team plans are best kept to a minimum. Use summarized headings, accompanied by a short explanation, if necessary (1 minute). D. Each speakers argument segment will vary according to his individual responsibility and necessary rebuttal. E. Rebuttal varies in direct proportion to the content of case argument assigned to each speaker. F. Case summary for the first four speakers will be brief, as they only have their own arguments to summarize (1 minute). The final two speakers are summarizing the argument put forward for their team and therefore must develop the case theme more fully (3 minutes). G. The peroration should flow from (or as part of) the summary, enabling the address to finish on a strong, resolute note (1 minute). The above time suggestions should be used as general guidelines. They are given solely to indicate a rough, proportional breakdown. Dividing the address into these various segments must not result in a stilted, fragmented presentation. The entire delivery must flow smoothly as one argument. A speaker may wish to develop case and rebuttal material concurrently. If handled with care, this is quite acceptable. The case material itself should be similarly subdivided into three possible main points. This enables members of the audience to clearly follow the argument. 6. INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION: How often have we heard the following type of introduction or conclusion: The subject for todays debate is . . . and . . . and we have proven that the . . . Your introduction and conclusion provide excellent opportunities, first, to set the stage with a stimulating backdrop, and later, to bring down the curtain by exciting and moving your audience. Dont squander your chance with trite repetition of the subject. The use of quotations is often an effective way of beginning, but this is so easily overdone. Be guided by the relevance of the quotation and dont be afraid to rely on your own choice of words.

14

Insufficient attention is paid to these two vital areas of the address. They have great impact potential, so dont ignore them.

15

TEAMWORK
The final matter of note regards each speakers contribution to the overall team case. You will, of course, spend considerable time on the preparation of your argument. Much of its impact will be lost if the sum total of the argument reaches the audiences ears as rambling babble. If your argument is well-organized, and adhered to by each speaker, the team case will flow as if from one source. The theme will be evident throughout and the argument all the more difficult to refute. The logical development of the argument by team members is their prime responsibility and the foundation of their addresses. TEAM MEMBERS RESPONSIBILITIES Just as you are judged on debating techniques as an individual, so you are bound to accept certain responsibilities towards your teams combined presentation. These responsibilities are listed here. 1. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE Define the subject: Look at the subject realistically. The ideal definition combines dictionary, common sense and common usage meanings. Very often the dictionary will give a variety of meanings for a word. Carefully examine each avenue to ensure you have fully investigated all possible interpretations, then choose the one that most closely satisfies these three requirements and suits your case. Should you, however, wish to use authority without overdoing the issue, make the best use of that persons qualifications, i.e. Dr. Harold Smith, Professor of Political Science, Center University. It is on this point that many debates will be won or lost. Having carefully, clearly and concisely defined the subject, explain why you chose this definition and state your authority (sometimes common usage is a better authority than a dictionary). Subject history: If understanding the subject requires historical background, this is a good place to use it as a lead-in to your teams case. Team case: You must then outline your teams approach to the case, stating the case in summary form. The assignment of each segment to appropriate team members should be concise and clear. Refer to a teammate as My second speaker. Never refer to them by name. Case segment: The first speaker will develop that portion of the team case assigned to him. Lucid arguments, simply stated and with reference to independent authority will earn good marks and begin to sway the 16

audience. The speaker should conclude the speech with a well-rehearsed and memorable peroration just before the time limit expires. 2. FIRST NEGATIVE Definition: You have an immediate, considerable responsibility: either to accept or reject the affirmative definition. If you decide to reject the definition entirely or in part, you must clearly state why and give relevant authority to support your contention. Objection to the affirmative definition should be restricted to areas of substantial difference. The decision to challenge definition is a team responsibility, because obviously the result of this encounter will affect the arguments of the succeeding speakers. Remember, it is the obligation of the con side to meet or destroy their opponents arguments. Unless your definition is substantially different and vital to your case and unless you are confident you can make your contention more convincing, dont waste your efforts on semantics; get on with the debate. Rebuttal: Bearing in mind that your third speaker has the freedom to cover the entire affirmative argument, the first negative should restrict his remarks, if possible, to issues vital to case structure. A brief argument that outlines areas of structural fault in your opponents argument, may establish a wedge that can be widened by successive negative speakers. This is of far more value to your team than criticizing a minor point or example given by your opponent. Such criticism can easily be left to your third speaker as he widens the breach you have created. To rebut in this manner requires a clear head and close attention to the first affirmative address; it seldom, if ever, comes directly from prepared rebuttal material. A warning: Dont get carried away with your rebuttal. It should be relatively brief, as your more important function is the teams case. Team case: The first negative speaker must outline his teams case, designating a segment of the argument for each team member, using the same technique as suggested for the leader of the affirmative. This is treated in the same way as the first affirmative. It is an important part of the teams case, for the first speaker sets the line of argument and lays the foundation for building an elaborate defense. 3. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE Rebuttal: You have heard the basic structure of both arguments and must ask yourself two questions: 17

How has the con speaker weakened our argument? What is our response to their remarks?

Depart from your prepared opening if it is no longer appropriate. To adhere to your original opening in these circumstances is foolish and violates the basic principles of debating. Having found the answer to these two vital questions, your challenge should be fundamental in nature rather than a detailed criticism. Unless you are still playing with definition, this rebuttal will both restore and support the leader of the affirmatives remarks and cast doubts on the validity of the con teams case structure. Case segment: The development of this segment of the teams case is by far the most important in relation to the overall case. In dividing up the subject, the team may decide to present four points on which their case is built. The second speaker would present as many as three of these points. The person assuming this position could be classified as the anchor: a solid public speaker who is logical in his thinking and explicit in his conclusions. 4. SECOND NEGATIVE Rebuttal: This speaker has a similar role to the second affirmative, in that he must find some fundamental answers to the affirmative charges. He has an advantage because he has heard two speakers state the larger part of the affirmative case. If possible, he can build upon the breach opened by his first speaker and develop it more fully. Case segment: In the event of a head-on clash between the two teams over definition, this persons burden becomes even greater. Whereas the first and third con speakers are concentrating on rebutting both the definition and the other teams points, this speaker must address the reasons why the head-on clash has occurred. 5. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE This speaker will develop a smaller segment of his teams case. This segment must be limited in terms of time, but it is the last chance that the affirmative team has to introduce new evidence to the audience. Rebuttal: It is imperative that the third affirmative speaker be able to see the opposing argument in its broadest sense, to determine the main issues and the theme adopted by the con side. The most effective rebuttal will develop this theme and incorporate the salient points.

18

Competently handled, such a rebuttal will undermine the opposition argument and simultaneously enhance your own. Interweaving rebuttal with further evidence for your case will be particularly effective, and the audience will appreciate it. Summary: The culmination of the argument should be a concise summary of the affirmative argument that will illustrate the superiority of both theme and point. 6. THIRD NEGATIVE The duties of this speaker are similar to the third affirmative, but of course he has a much greater opportunity for rebuttal. He is in the fortunate position to assess the whole case of the affirmative team, to see the complete theme of their argument and to refute it. Case segment: Again, this speaker will develop a segment of his teams case; however, it is essential that he manage his time effectively. It is easy to use up the allotted time on pointed, effective rebuttal, only to find that he is then not able to develop his own case segment. 7. REPLY The leaders reply is second only in importance to a clear definition and outline of the teams case. At this stage, no new material may be introduced and the leader may only rebut material already presented. Care must be taken to ensure that new material is not introduced in the rebuttal. What the leader says now must be a reiteration of or response to something said at some other stage of the debate. The leader then reviews his teams case, point by point. He must highlight the major points that he and his members have presented through the course of the debate, and he must draw the threads together and tie the knot that proves that his case is the logical conclusion one inevitably arrives at. The time allotted for the reply is normally half that of a speakers time. Assuming the speakers time was ten minutes, the leaders reply would be four to five minutes. He must divide this time up carefully. He should not get carried away with rebuttaltwo to two and a half minutes maximum. The culmination of the reply should be a concise summary of the teams argument that will illustrate the superiority of both theme and point. The timing of this speech is of paramount importance. The leader does not have time to waste; therefore, s/he must go the full distance in time. Any time spent beyond the allotted time is wasted, as an adjudicator then ignores the speakers remarks and may even penalize the speaker because s/he did not finish the address neatly and with flourish. 8. CONCLUSION

19

The importance of taking a logical common-sense stand on definition cannot be overemphasized. Shallowly-based interpretations by the affirmative team will only lead to an entire debate on definition, as will trifling objections by the con side. Such action is usually the error of inexperienced teams and is invariably followed by both teams tracing predetermined parallel paths, rebutting only definition. The issue is never really joined and the audience leaves disappointed. If you want to get the most out of your preparation, decide the issues and the conclusion, and then get to work defending them.

20

IMPROMPTU DEBATING
Impromptu debating is an interesting and stimulating exercise, as it provides a challenge to any would-be debater or public speaker, as well as being entertaining for the audience. Teams should have two or three members, depending on the time available, and can be judged using normal debate rules or by an audience vote. There are no set rules for informal debating, but the following times are offered as a suggestion: 1. Leader 2. Subsequent speaker 3. Leaders reply 5 minutes 4 minutes 3 minutes

If the speaking times are too short, little time is available to develop an argument and the purpose of the exercise is lost. GOLDEN RULES 1. When you are selected as a member of a team, dont panic. You may lose your ability to think clearly and logically. Relax and prepare your material. The rules and techniques for impromptu debating are similar to set debating, and the guidelines for impromptu speaking should also be followed. 2. After hearing the subject, select sides and team leaders. It is advisable that team members volunteer for speaking order positions as delayed decisions can waste valuable preparation time. 3. Assign the case segments to each team member and make full use of your preparation time. Only five minutes is usually allowed, so clear and decisive thinking is important. Dont try to present too many facts. A few well-presented points will help the team score well. Remember these basic questions: who, what where, when, why, and how. They may help to outline ideas for case segments.

21

CHAIRING A DEBATE
1. PREPARATION: Have the hall or room set out so that the two teams are placed at tables on either side of the chairmans table. Make sure that the adjudicator has his table placed where he requires it. The adjudicator should be provided with writing paper and the adjudicators report form. Ensure that the names of the speakers are entered on the form. A jug of water and glasses should be placed on each of the tables. The timekeeper may sit with the chairman. 2. OPENING AND INTRODUCTION: Declare the meeting open, welcome the visitors and the adjudicator and introduce the members of both teams. Announce the subject of the debate and the length of time each speaker has to present his case. State that a warning bell (or signal) will sound one minute before the total elapsed time and a final bell (or signal) at full time. Have the timekeeper sound the bell (or show the signal) before the speakers commence so that they will know what to expect. Check first that the adjudicator is ready, and, after repeating the title of the debate, call on the first speaker for the affirmative team, announcing his name clearly. At the conclusion of each speech, wait for the adjudicator to indicate that he has completed his notes before introducing the next speaker. 3. CONCLUSION: After the final speech in reply, the adjudicator may take a little time to finish his report. During this period, the chairman should thank the two teams, the audience, the timekeeper and the adjudicator. Comments regarding the debate and any views which the chairman may hold should not be expressed, as they may be at variance with those of the adjudicator. It is essential that you check the mark sheet carefully before announcing the result, as adjudicators can make mistakes which can be embarrassing if they are found after the result is announced. Make sure you check the additions to ensure that marks have been properly placed in each section and that they are correctly collated. Reintroduce the adjudicator. Invite him to announce the results after making your final comments. As the chairman, you may announce the results yourself. 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The leader of the winning team should be called upon to thank the adjudicator. He should also express his teams gratitude to the opposing side for their participation in the debate. It is not this speakers prerogative to thank the timekeeper and other people who have assisted in the running of the debate. His thank-you remarks should be kept to a minimum. The chairman is the one who makes all thank-you.

22

The leaders of debating teams should observe the above; otherwise, words of thanks are duplicated, and the adjudicator becomes one of a list of names instead of receiving the earnest appreciation which s/he deserves. Remember, the adjudicator has given up his time and passed on his knowledge in an endeavor to assist each debater, and without him, there could not have been a debate.

23

ADJUDICATION OF DEBATES
In an attempt to provide prospective adjudicators with constructive assistance, these notes are offered as possible guidelines when adjudicating debates: MARKING SHEET: The rules for a debate are geared to a particular marking proportion and for good purpose. Within the framework provided, marks can be made as each speaker concludes. Swift decisions will be required, as you should aim to have as little delay as possible between speakers. Score your first speaker (leader for affirmative team) in a middle-of -the-road way. Subsequent speakers should then be measured against this first speech, gaining more, less or the same points, depending on skill, effectiveness, etc. When the last speaker has concluded, complete the remainder of the sheet and ask the chairman to check your additions.

24

Junior Chamber International DEBATE ADJUDICATION SHEET

Subject: Pro Team: SPEAKERS NAMES SUBJECT MATTER a. Introduction and definition b. Constructive argument and coverage c. Peroration REASONING a. Arrangement, development and logic b. Rebuttal ELOQUENCE a. Expression, grammar and persuasiveness DEVELOPMENT a. Use of notes, stance, etc. TOTAL LEADERS REPLY Summary of teams argument Rebuttal of opposing teams argument Persuasiveness Effectiveness TOTAL (10) (15) (10) (15) (50) Max. points (20) (30) (5) Max. points (10) Max. points (20) Max. points (15) (100) Max. points (5) (30) (5) Max. points (10) (15) Max. points (20) Max. points (15) (100) Pro Max. points (5) (15) (5) Max. points (10) (30) Max. points (20) Max. points (15) (100) Con (10) (15) (10) (15) (50) Max. points (15) (30) (5) Max. points (10) (5) Max. points (20) Max. points (15) (100) Max. points (5) (30) (5) Max. points (10) (15) Max. points (20) Max. points (15) (100) Max. points (5) (15) (5) Max. points (10) (30) Max. points (20) Max. points (15) (100) 1st Pro 2nd Pro Date and place: Con Team: 3rd Pro 1st Con 2nd Con 3rd Con

SUMMARY 1st. Speaker 2nd. Speaker 3rd. Speaker Leaders reply Teamwork TOTAL

Affirmative Team Max. points (100) Max. points (100) Max. points (100) Max. points (50) Max. points (50) Max. points (400)

Negative Team Max. points (100) Max. points (100) Max. points (100) Max. points (50) Max. points (50) Max. points (400)

25

Winner of the debate: Adjudicators signature

Chairmans signature

26

27

Junior Chamber International

15645 Olive Boulevard, Chesterfield, MO 63017, U.S.A. Tel.: +1 (636) To 3100 Fax: +1 to the advancement 449 contribute (636) 449 3107

JCI Mission:

of the global community by providing the opportunity for young people to develop the leadership skills, social responsibility, entrepreneurship and fellowship necessary to create

JCI Declaration of Principles: "We believe: That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life; That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations; That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise; That government should be of laws rather than of men; That earth's great treasure lies in human personality; And that service to humanity is the best work of life."

2005

28