1ST DACET-INTERSCHOOL DEBATE RULES

MODIFIED OXFORD-OREGON FORMAT

(for reference use only)
1.

DEFINITIONS

The following terms have the corresponding meanings:

"Tournament Director" means the person appointed to administer the motions, predebate conferences, and assist the teams in defining the terms of the motions and set
the parameters of the debate.
"Proposition"or Motion means the topic for the debate, subject to the definition of
terms to be agreed upon by the parties.
Coach means an individual who at any time during the competition has responsibility
for organizing or training a Team.
Faculty Advisor means a faculty member of a participant school who at any time
during the competition advises a Team.
"Official Schedule" means the official timetable of the Competition, setting forth all
relevant events and deadlines associated with the Competition.
"Rules" means these Official Rules of the Competition and any applicable Rules
prescribed by the Tournament Director.
"Team" means a team of students recognized by the DACET Committee which
competes in the Competition.
2.

PARTICIPATION AND ELIGIBILITY

2.1 Team Eligibility

(a) Students whose schools are member of DACET are eligible to participate in the
Competition. All determinations of eligibility are in the discretion of the
Makabayan core committee.
(b) Each school may enter only one Team.
(c) Any Team which utilizes an ineligible Team Member will be disqualified from the
Competition.
2.2 Team Composition and Selection.
A Team is composed of three (3) debaters.

3.

DEBATE MECHANICS

(3.1) There are two sides (called Affirmative and Negative) and three debaters per side.
The motion is announced a week before the debate. The teams agree on the definition
of terms and the parameters of the debate on the same date the sides are chosen and
the motion is given.
(3.2) The burden of proof, while real, is much less significant in this debate format.
Because here, there are two cases on the floor The most compelling case wins. The
affirmative does not carry a significant burden. Each debater is given two minutes to
interpellate (cross-examine) the opposing debater. Each judge is also allowed to ask
one question of each debater.
(3.3) There are three (3) arguments on both sides Necessity, Beneficiality,
Practicability. Each debater has four (4) minutes to deliver a constructive speech, rebut
the speaker before him (except the First speaker of the Affirmative) and discuss his
assigned argument.
(3.4) The first speakers argue on the necessity (affirmative) or non-necessity (negative)
of the motion. The second speakers on beneficiality and the third speakers on
practicability (feasibility) of the motion.
(3.5) The first affirmative speaker must make the affirmatives case crystal clear. He
must discuss the status quo (whether they seek to defend it or change it) and why their
proposal is necessary.
(3.6) The first negative speaker will be given two minutes to interpellate the first
affirmative. He must only ask categorical questions (answerable by yes or no) and
arrange these questions in a cross-examination style to establish the weakness of the
affirmatives case and/or establish the negatives case. He then has four minutes to
clash with the points just made by the first affirmative and to advance his argument
that the affirmatives proposal is not necessary.
(3.7) The first affirmative will then have two minutes to interpellate the first negative
speaker (also asking only categorical questions). He may use this opportunity to rebuild
his case and/or destroy the negatives case.
(3.8) The second affirmative has four minutes to clash with the opposition case and to
deliver his constructive speech on the benefits of adopting their proposal. He will then
be interpellated by the second negative speaker for two minutes.
(3.9) The second negative speaker then has four minutes of his time to divide between
clashing with the affirmative case and delivering his constructive speech on the
repercussions or harmful effects of adopting the affirmatives proposal. He will then be
interpellated by the second affirmative speaker for two minutes.
(3.10) The third affirmative has four minutes to clash with the opposition case and to
deliver his constructive speech on the feasibility of adopting their proposal. He will then
be interpellated by the third negative speaker for two minutes.
(3.11) The third negative speaker will then have two minutes of his time to clash with
the affirmative case and to deliver his constructive speech on the impracticability of
adopting the affirmatives proposal. He will then be interpellated by the third affirmative
speaker for two minutes.

4.
4.1

JUDGES
There are three adjudicators per debate.

4.2
Students may not act as judges, except LL.M. and other post-graduate degree
candidates who are not directly affiliated with any Team participating in the debate at
which they are judging.
4.3. Team faculty advisors or coaches, or other persons directly affiliated with a
Team, may not act as judges in any debate until the Team has been eliminated from
the Competition.
4.4
No judge should sit on a panel of any debate round involving a Team from a
school with which the judge has an affiliation, acquaintance or other role which would
create an appearance of impropriety, except in situations disclosed to and approved by
the Tournament Director. Merely being an alumnus of a participating school does not
constitute a violation.
4.5. Judges should disqualify themselves from judging a Team if they have a personal
or professional relationship with the school or someone affiliated with that Team, and if
that relationship might jeopardize their impartiality or create an appearance of
impropriety. However, judges should not disqualify themselves from judging a round
merely because they have an acquaintance with a Team Member or other affiliation or
relationship with the school.
4.6.
If a Team competing in a debate round wishes to inform the Tournament
Director that a judge assigned to that Round might be disqualified under this Rules, it
must inform the Tournament Director prior to the beginning of that debate round. The
fact that a Team Member recognizes a judge is not itself sufficient to disqualify the
judge.
4.7
Each judge is allowed to ask ONE categorical question (no follow-ups) of each
debater, either during his speech or as he is being interpellated. The question and
response must fall within the time limits of the speech delivery or interpellation period.
4.8
A Chief Adjudicator will be selected in each panel, whose special function is to
rule on any conflicts that may arise during the debate (e.g. whether or not to allow a
disputed line of questioning). The Chief Adjudicator is also charged with announcing the
winner of the debate at the end of the show. Otherwise, the Chief Adjudicators role
and the weight of his scores are equal to those of the other judges. In the event of a
tie, the Chief Adjudicator must confer with his co-adjudicators to break the tie.
5.

COMPETITION COMMUNICATIONS

5.1. Only oral communications described in this Rules are permitted. In particular, no
written communication or exhibits may be delivered by any Team Member to any judge.
5.2.
Written communication during the debate round shall be limited to written
communication among Team Members seated at the table. No other written
communication may take place among the debaters, spectators or Team Members not
present at the table.

5.3. During a debate round, debaters at the podium and those seated at the table
may not operate laptop, cell phones, handheld or desktop computers or any other
computing device for any purpose.
6.

MARKING OF DEBATERS

6.1. The total score for each debater should be within the range of 61 to 85 points. It
is extremely rare for a good debater to score a perfect 85, and just as rare for a poor
debater to score the minimum 61.
6.2. An average debater will usually get a passing score, i.e. 71. Any grade higher or
lower than the passing score is your discretion; provided it does not go beyond 85 or
lower than 67.
6.3. There are four evaluation criteria: Constructive Speech or Matter (40 points),
Persuasive Skills or Manner (30 points), Interpellation (30 points).
6.4. MATTER:
Content is marked out of a possible 40 points. The Matter mark is
scored as if the speech was submitted in essay form. It has everything to do with logic,
preparation, arguments, evidence cited, and analytic skill. It has nothing to do with the
presentation. A mark of 28 is indicative of very little success and a mark of 35 is
outstanding. A mark of 31-32 is average.
6.5. Teams are required to conduct research and prepare their speeches. The formula
is ARGUMENT + EVIDENCE = PROOF. An argument without citing an evidence to
support the same is a mere assertion and does not merit any consideration.
6.6. As law students, the debaters are expected to use provisions of law and relevant
jurisprudence in support of their arguments. Judges should also consider the quality of
each argument and the relevance of the cited authorities.
6.7. MANNER:
Manner or Presentation is marked out of a possible 30 points and
judged from a purely public speaking perspective: How did the debater actually deliver
the speech? Was the tone correct? The rate of speech? The pitch? The pauses? The eye
contact? The confidence? Etc. The range is between 17 and 25 with a score of 17 being
very weak and a mark of 25 being spectacular. A mark of 20-21 is average.
6.8.
Clarity and organization. Judges should listen to the debate as an average
reasonable person with an understanding of the law. The ability of the debater to
convey his/her ideas in a clear manner and with facility of expression are to be
considered.
6.9. The use of humor, the manner of delivery, eye contact, voice, posture, and the
ability of the debater to convince an audience, are some of the elements within the
purview of the Manner criterion.
6.10. INTERPELLATION:
This refers to the ability to cross-examine the
opposing debater. This is marked on 30 points with the range being between 17 and
25. This refers to the success the debater has in clashing with the arguments of the
opposing team. Has he thoroughly understood the presented arguments and have they
responded effectively, logically and comprehensively in refutation.

6.11. This also includes courtesy and compliance with the rules. Judges should take
note of how a debater asks his questions, the logical sequence of these questions, and
their relevance. Debaters are advised to ask only categorical questions (i.e., those
answerable by yes or no); otherwise broad questions (i.e., how or why questions) will
elicit long explanations and sordid answers. Each debater is allowed two (2) minutes
each to conduct his/her interpellation.
END