JABATAN PENDIDIKAN NEGERI JOHOR

JOHOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
INTER CLASS DEBATE
COMPETITION
2016

FOR
PRIMARY SCHOOLS (YEAR 4-6)

RULES AND GUIDELINES

Copyright of:
 JOHOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTER CLASS DEBATE COMPETITION

RULES AND GUIDELINES

PART 1

1.0 Name & Background

1.1 The competition shall be known as Johor English Language Inter

Class Debate Competition.

1.2 The competition serves as a platform for students in Johor to compete

in a debating competition that is based on the international standard of
the World Schools Debating Championship with some adjustments.

2.0 Format

2.1 A team must consist of 3 main debaters and 1 reserve.

2.2 The proposing team is known as the Government while the opposing
team is known as the Opposition.

2.3 Allocation of time and speaking order:

TURN GOVERNMENT TUR OPPOSITION TIME

N

1 1st Debater 2 1st Debater 2 minutes

3 2nd Debater 4 2nd Debater 2 minutes

5 3rd Debater 6 3rd Debater 2 minutes

8 Reply Speech 7 Reply Speech 1 minutes

1st / 2nd Government 1st / 2nd Opposition

2.4 Third debaters from both teams shall not introduce any new
arguments. Their role is to rebut the opponent and to defend the
position of the team.

2
 2.5 While a debater is speaking, the opposing team can offer Point(s) of
Information (formal interjections). The debater may accept or decline
it/them.

2.6 After all debaters have spoken once, the 1 st or 2nd debater of each team
gives a reply speech with the Opposition reply speech being delivered
first followed by the Government.

2.7 The debate shall be judged according to the Guidelines for

Adjudicators provided in Part 2 of this paper.

3.0 Eligibility

3.1 The competition is open to all students from Year 4-6 in Johor

3.2 A class must have 2 teams.The winner moves to the inter class
competition.Only 21st Century schools in Johor will participate in the
inter school and inter District competitions .For the inter school
competition A school is allowed to send only one team to participate in
the competition.

3.3 The active speaking members from each team should consist of more
than one race from the same school / district. For district level,
exceptions should be made if the student population consists of a
particular ethnic group as the demographic in that school.

3.3.1 If there is evidence prior to, during or after the competition

contrary to the declared status, the team will be disqualified.

3.4 Every member of a participating team should come from the same
school at district level only.

3.4.1 Representatives to the state level come from the same school.

4.0 Adjudication

4.1 A panel of 3 adjudicators will be appointed for all the rounds at all
levels except for the class level competition.The English teacher will be
the only adjudicator.

4.2 All adjudicators must undergo a pre-tournament briefing / training

programme.

4.3 All appointed adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their
own class /schools / districts .

3
 4.4 All adjudicators should be briefed on the rules of adjudication before
the competition.

4.5 Points will be allocated according to the scoresheet.

4.6 Each debate will be won by the team which scores a majority of votes
from the adjudicators in the panel. Scores awarded by adjudicators
are not to be added together to decide the winner. Adjudicators shall
decide the winner of the debate independently.

4.7 The Speaker of the House will collect the scoresheets and the result
slip from the Chief Adjudicator to be submitted to the tab master.

4.8 Once the scoresheets have been handed in, the adjudicators shall
meet and confer on the Best Debater and to brief the Chief Adjudicator
on the oral adjudication.

4.9 The oral adjudication should be constructive, short and explain the
result to the debaters and audience. In particular, it should outline the
key reasons why the winning team won, and comment on significant
matters of the debate.

4.10. At the end of the competition, all the participating teams will receive the
full results.

4.11 Certificates of achievement and participation will be awarded to

respective teams.

5.0 Procedure of Debate

5.1 Debate Process

5.1.1 Wherever possible, all competitions should run according to the

process given below:
5.1.1.1 District level organisers should conduct a two-day
competition involving an impromptu round. The Grand
Final should be an impromtu round.
5.1.1.2 In cases where there are 8 teams or more, it is
advisable to conduct at least three preliminary rounds.
5.1.1.3 The competition should be conducted by having 2 or 3
preliminary rounds on the first day and knockout rounds
on the second day.
5.1.1.4 The rounds shall be decided based on;
i. First round shall be done by a random draw.
ii. Second round onwards shall be conducted using a
power-matching system.

4
 iii. Power-matching is drawing winners of the first
round to be matched against other winners and
vice-versa.
iv. The match-ups shall be decided after ranking each
team immediately after a round.
v. Teams shall be ranked first by the number of wins,
then by the number of ballots, then by the total team
scores.
vi. Ballots are the votes of the adjudicators where
winning by a unanimous decision is better than
winning by a split decision.
vii. On the contrary, losing by a split decision is better
than losing by a unanimous decision.
viii. After the first round, a team with the highest
number of wins, followed by the number of ballots
gathered, then by the total team score shall be
ranked 1st.
ix. After teams have been ranked, team ranked
number 1 shall meet team ranked number 2 for the
second round in competitions involving four teams.
x. In competitions involving 6 teams, team ranked 1 st
shall meet team ranked 3rd, team ranked 2nd shall
meet the team ranked 4th, and the team ranked 5th
shall meet team ranked 6th.
xi. In competitions involving 8 teams, the team ranked
1st after round one shall be matched against team
ranked 3rd, team ranked 2nd shall meet team ranked
4th, team ranked 5rd shall meet team ranked 7th and
team ranked 6th shall meet team ranked 8 th, and so
on.
xii. The ranking continues and match-ups are drawn
until all preliminary rounds are over.
xiii. After preliminary rounds are over, teams shall be
ranked to decide qualifying into the knockout stage.

5.1.2 The knockout stage shall be conducted as follows.

5.1.2.1 For competitions involving 4 teams, a Grand Final shall
be conducted with team ranked 1st meeting team ranked
2nd after two preliminary rounds.
5.1.2.2 For competitions involving at least 6 teams, impromptu
semi-finals shall be conducted with team ranked 1 st
meeting team ranked 4th and team ranked 2nd meeting
team ranked 3rd.
5.1.2.3 For competitions involving at least 10 teams, an
impromptu quarter-final shall be conducted with team
ranked 1st meeting team ranked 8th, team ranked 2nd
meeting team ranked 7th, team ranked 3rd meeting team
ranked 6th, and team ranked 4th meeting team ranked
5th.

5
 5.1.2.4 After the quarter-finals, the winner of the first quarter-
final shall meet the winner of the fourth quarter-final
(winner of 1st vs 8th meets winner of 4th vs 5th) in an
impromptu semi-finals.
5.1.2.5 The Grand Final shall also be an impromptu round.

5.1.3 Debates Using the Impromptu Motions

5.1.3.1 The motions for the impromptu debates will be given
and sides are drawn at the start of the quarantine
session.
5.1.3.2 Teams will then be quarantined in their quarantine
rooms for ONE hour to prepare for the debate (only
Inter School level). A school teacher is allowed to be
with their pupils during quarantine.The quarantine
officers must be in the room with the team.
5.1.3.3 Only team members competing (3 main debaters and 1
reserve) will be allowed in the quarantine room. The
team members should not be in contact with any
unauthorised personnel.
5.1.3.4 Teams are allowed to use their own printed reference
materials in the quarantine room. No electronic gadgets
are allowed. Teams found using electronic gadgets will
be DISQUALIFIED from the competition.

5.1.5 Teams are required to be seated at the debate venue(s) 5

minutes before the debate commences.

5.1.6 If any one team fails to show up 5 minutes after the scheduled
time, without any valid reason, the team will be DISQUALIFIED.
A walk-over will be awarded to the team that is present.

5.1.7 If there is prompting / help / assistance / communication from

any individual other than the debaters during the quarantine time
and debate competition, the team will be DISQUALIFIED.

5.1.8 Clarification of the motion should be provided for the impromptu

motions.

5.2 The Role of the Speaker of the House

5.2.1 Each debate will be chaired by a Speaker of the House who will
be addressed as Mister or Madam Speaker.

5.2.2 The Speaker of the House is responsible for the smooth running
of the debate and inviting the respective debaters to present
their speeches in order of their roles.

6
 5.2.3 Before inviting debaters to present their speeches, The Speaker
of the House will read out the rules of the debate and then
proceed to introduce the timekeeper, adjudicators and debaters.

5.2.4 The Speaker of the House MUST refrain from making any
comment concerning the debate or debaters during the debate.

5.2.5 The Speaker of the House must ensure that the adjudicators be
given enough time to fill in their marks and wait for the signal
from the Chief Adjudicator before the next debater is called.

5.3 The Role of the Timekeeper.

5.3.1 The Timekeeper must ensure that each debater is given 4

minutes to deliver his or her speech.(Inter School level only )
.For the inter class and class level each debater is given 2
minutes.

5.3.2 The Timekeeper will ring the bell once after the 1 st minute and at
the end of the 3th minute to signal the time allocated for Point(s)
of Information. At the end of the 8 th minute, the bell will be rung
twice. Placards must be used by the timekeeper to indicate the
remaining time left, at intervals of one minute.

5.3.3 A maximum time of 1 minute will be given to both teams to

prepare for the Reply Speech.

5.3.4 During the Reply Speech, the Timekeeper will ring the bell once
at the end of the 1st minute.

5.3.5 After each speech, the Timekeeper will announce the time taken
by each debater.

5.4 The Speaker of the House and Timekeeper should be students.

7
PART 2

Guidelines for Adjudicators

A. Marking Standard

1.0 Marks

1.1 Each debater's substantive speech is marked out of 100, with 40 for
Content, 40 for Style (20 for Language and 20 for Manner) and 20 for
Strategy.

1.2 The reply speech is marked out of 50, with 20 for Content, 20 for Style
(10 for Language and 10 for Manner) and 10 for Strategy.

1.3 In order to encourage consistency of marks, speeches are marked

within the accepted range and adjudicators must not go outside that
range. (See the Marking Standard - Annex 1).

1.4 If a debater declares is unable to make his/her speech after a debate

has begun, another member of the team who was announced by the
speaker of the house as being an active speaker in that debate may
speak in his/her place. In such a situation, adjudicators shall award the
speech the lowest possible score within the Marking Standard,
regardless of the quality of the speech.

1.5 Adjudicators must not use any other marking standard or categories of
marks.

2.0 Content

2.1 Content is the argument used by a debater, divorced from the speaking
style.

2.2 If an argument is weak, it should be marked accordingly, even if the

other team does not expose its weakness.

2.3 In deciding the strength or weakness of an argument, adjudicators

should not be influenced by their own personal beliefs or specialised
knowledge.

3.0 Style
Style comprises Language and Manner.

3.1 Language

3.1.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing

correct sentence structures and grammar.

8
 3.1.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and
clarity of speech. English being a second language here,
adjudicators should not be looking for Queens English in our
debaters, but any expression which is not clearly understood
should not merit high marks in the Language section.

3.1.3 On the other hand, any good language expression, including the
use of figures of speech, idioms, etc., appropriate and apt to the
occasion, may merit positive marks for Language.

3.2 Manner

3.2.1 Manner is the way a debater speaks. This can be noted in many
ways; accent, body language (movement, poise, meaningful
gestures and eye contact) and with the use of specific
terminology. Be tolerant of different ways in presenting
arguments.

3.2.2 In general, the use of palm-cards, lecterns, folders, notepads or

other forms of debaters notes should not affect the mark a
debater is given.

3.2.3 However, debaters should not read their speeches, but should
use notes that they refer to only from time to time.

4.0 Strategy

4.1 Strategy covers two concepts:

4.1.1 Whether a debater understands what the issues of the debate

are.

4.1.2 The structure and timing of a debaters speech.

4.2 A debater who answers the critical issues with weak responses should
get poor marks for Content but good marks for Strategy.

B. Definitions and Cases

9
1.0 The Government must present a reasonable definition of a motion.
This means:

1.1 On receiving a motion, both teams should ask: What is the issue that
the two teams are expected to debate? What would an average
reasonable person reading the motion think that it is
about?

1.2 If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (i.e. it has an obvious
meaning), the Government must define the motion accordingly. When
the motion has an obvious meaning (one which the average reasonable
person would realise), any other definition would not be
reasonable.

1.3 If there is no obvious meaning to the motion, the range of possible

meanings is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate.
Choosing a meaning that does not allow the Opposition room for
debate would not be a reasonable definition. Truisms and tautologies
leave the Opposition no room for debate and are clearly illegitimate.

1.4 When defining words in the motion so as

(i) to allow the obvious meaning to be debated or
(ii) when there is no obvious meaning
to give effect to a possible meaning which would allow for a reasonable
debate, the Government must ensure that the definition is one the
average reasonable person would accept.

2.0 The definition must match the level of abstraction (or specificity) of the motion,
so that the debate is as specific or general as the motion itself. Specific
motions should be defined specifically and general motions generally.

3.0 Motions expressed as general principles must be proven true as general

principles. A single example will neither prove nor disprove a general principle.
Finding arguments that explain the majority of relevant examples will be more
important.

4.0 When suggesting parameters to the debate, or proposing particular models or

criteria to adjudicate it by, the Government must ensure such parameters,
models or criteria are themselves reasonable. They must be ones that the
average reasonable person would accept as applicable to the debate.

4.1 The Government ability to set reasonable parameters to a debate does

not provide a license to restrict the motion arbitrarily.

4.2 When the motion requires the Government to propose a solution to a

problem and the Government has to set out the details of its proposed
solution to prove its effectiveness, the Government must ensure that
the detailed solution given (the Government model or plan) is a

10
 reasonable one, such that the average reasonable person would
accept it is applicable to the debate.

5.0 If the Government definition is unreasonable, the Opposition may:

5.1 Accept it anyway (and debate the Government case regardless);

5.2 Challenge it (argue that the definition is unreasonable, put up an

alternative, reasonable definition and a case based on this);

5.3 Broaden the debate back to the words in the motion (if the Government
has unreasonably restricted the motion and is arguing a narrower
version of it);

5.4 Challenge the definition (as in 5.2), but argue that even if it is
reasonable, the Government case is flawed (as in 5.1).

6.0 Once the definition is settled, each team has to present a case, supported by
arguments and examples. Therefore debates shall not be evaluated based on
their definitions alone.

6.1 A case sums up the team arguments and states why its side of the
motion is correct.

6.2 Arguments are reasons or rationales why the team case is correct.

6.3 Examples are facts, events, occurrences and the like that show the
team arguments are correct.

7.0 Whereas an unduly restrictive definition (such as limiting a general motion to a

single example) is illegitimate and can be challenged or broadened, a
Government that runs a restrictive case (such as limiting itself to a single
argument) acts legitimately and cannot be challenged for doing so, but runs
the risk of the Opposition being able to more easily counter that case (by
disproving that one argument and/ or by raising other arguments that disprove
the motion, as defined).

8.0 In all cases, the team that manages to provide reasons as to why their
definition and cases are the most reasonable, practical and beneficial shall
win the debate. If a debater claims that a definition or a case is unreasonable,
then they should state reasons to support that claim. Adjudicators should
balance reasons and rebuttals in determining which team wins.

C. The Roles of Debaters

11
1.0 The role of the first debater of a Government is to define the topic, establish
the issues for the debate, outline the Government case, announce the case
division between the debaters, and present his or her part of the Government
case. The first speaker may introduce as many points that he/she feels can be
adequately explained given the time limitations.

2.0 The Government may define the topic in any way provided that the definition:

2.1 Is reasonably close to the plain meaning of the topic,

2.2 Allows the opposition team reasonable room to debate,

2.3 Is not tautological or truistic, and

2.4 Is otherwise a reasonable definition.

3.0 Squirrelling, place-setting and time-setting are not permitted.

3.1 Squirrelling is the distortion of the definition to enable a team to argue a

pre-prepared argument that it wishes to debate regardless of the
motion actually set;

3.2 Place-setting is the setting of a debate of general application in a

particular place.

3.3 Time-setting is the setting of a debate of general application in a

particular time, past or future.

4.0 The role of the first debater of an opposition side is to respond to the
Government case, outline the Opposition case, announce the case division,
and present his or her part of the Opposition case.

5.0 The first opposition may challenge the definition only if it does not
conform to 2.0 or 3.0 (B) above. If it challenges the definition, the first
opposition must propose a new definition that conforms to 2.0 and 3.0 (B) and
oppose that new definition.

6.0 If the first opposition does not challenge the definition, the Opposition is taken
to have accepted the definition and the Opposition may not challenge the
definition in any other speech unless the Government significantly alters the
definition in their subsequent speeches.

7.0 In responding to the Government case, the Opposition may produce a positive
choice of its own, or merely attack the case presented by the Government. If it
chooses to produce a positive case of its own, it must in fact produce that
case through its speeches, and not concentrate solely on attacking the case
presented by the Government.

12
8.0 The role of the second debater of a Government is to deal with the
definition if it has been challenged, respond to the opposition case, and
continue with the Government case as outlined by the first debater.

9.0 If the second government does not challenge a redefinition of the debate
made by the first opposition, the Government is taken to have accepted the
Opposition redefinition and no further challenges to the definition may be
made.

10.0 The role of the second debater of an Opposition is to deal with the definition if
it is still in issue, respond to the Government case, and continue with the
Opposition case as outlined by the first debater.

11.0 The role of both third debaters is to deal with the definition if it is still in issue,
and respond to the other team case.

12.0 The third debater of either team may have a small part of the team case to
present, but his is not obligatory as the third debaters primary role is to
respond to what has gone before in the debate.

13.0 Third debaters should not bring new arguments; new examples to explain
points that were made previously or to explain a rebuttal is not considered a
new argument.

14.0 The more a debate progresses, the more each debater must spend time
dealing with what has been said by previous debaters.

15.0 Hence the more a debate progresses, the less time will be spent by each
debater in presenting a new part of the team case and the more time will be
spent responding to the other team arguments.

16.0 The role of reply speeches is to sum up the debate from the team viewpoint,
including a response to the other team overall case and a summary of the
debaters own team case.

17.0 A reply debater may be either the first or second debater of the team, not the
third.

18.0 The reply debaters are in reverse order, with the Opposition reply first and the
Government reply last.

19.0 Neither reply debater may introduce a new part of the team case.

20.0 A reply debater may respond to an existing argument by raising a new

example that illustrates that argument, but may not otherwise introduce a new
argument.

21.0 A Government does not have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but
merely that its case is true in the majority of cases or as a general
government.

13
22.0 An Opposition does not have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but
merely that its case is true in the majority of cases or as a general.

23.0 Where the topic is expressed as an absolute, a Government must prove the
topic true in the significant majority of cases, but not in every single
conceivable instance.

24.0 Where the topic is expressed as an absolute, an Opposition must do more

than present a single instance where the topic is not true and prove that it is
not true for at least a majority of cases.

25.0 An Opposition, beyond disproving that the Government arguments are flawed
as rebuttals must present a case that proves harms on the Government case
or more benefits on their case.

26.0 An Opposition cannot merely rebut a Government without having a position or

case that is supported by arguments to fulfil their role.

D. Point of Information

1.0 Between the first and seventh minutes of a debaters substantive speech,
members of the other team may offer points of information.

2.0 The purpose of a point of information is to make a short point or ask a short
question of the debater.

3.0 Point of information need not be addressed through the person chairing the
debate, and may be in the form of a question.

4.0 A point of information should be brief, and no longer than 15 seconds.

4.1 Point of information is an important part of the clash between the

teams, and enable debaters to remain a part of the debate even when
they are not making a speech;

4.2 Hence a debater should offer points of information both before and
after he or she has given his or her substantive speech.

5.0 A debater has the absolute right to refuse to accept a point of information, or
to accept it only at the end of the next sentence.

6.0 However, a debater is obliged to accept some points of information, provided

that they have been offered at reasonable times in the debaters speech.

7.0 As a general rule, a debater should accept at least 2 points of information in

his or her speech. However, a debater who accepts a significantly greater
number of points of information risks losing control of his or her speech.

14
8.0 Members of the opposing team should not offer an excessive number of
points of information to the point that they are barracking. As a general
rule, each team member should offer between 2 and 4 points of information
per speech, and should not offer them within a short time of a previous point
of information having been offered.

9.0 The response by a debater to a point of information should be included in the

mark for that debaters speech.

10.0 The offering of points of information should be included in the mark for the
debater offering points.

Annex One : The Marking Standard

1. Substantive Speeches (out of 100)

15
 STANDARD OVERALL CONTENT STYLE STRATEGY
(100) (40) (40) (20)

LANGUAGE MANNER
(20) (20)

Excellent 76-80 31-32 15-16 15-16 15-16

Good 71-75 29-30 14-15 14-15 14-15

Average 70 28 14 14 14

Satisfactory 65-69 26-27 13-14 13-14 13-14

Weak 60-64 24-25 12-13 12-13 12-13

2. Reply Speeches (out of 50)

STANDARD OVERALL CONTENT STYLE STRATEGY

(50) (20) (20) (10)

LANGUAGE MANNER
(10) (10)

Excellent 38-40 15-16 8 8 8

Good 36-37 14-15 7.5 7.5 7.5

Average 35 14 7 7 7

Satisfactory 33-34 13-14 6.5 6.5 6.5

Weak 30-32 12-13 6 6 6

In marking reply speeches it might be easier to mark them out of 100 and then
halve each mark. That will leave you with half-mark steps, but that is not a
problem. Thus a reply speech could be given, say, 13.5 for content, 14.5 for style
and 7.5 for strategy, for a total of 35.5.

16
Annex Two : Adjudicator Accreditation And Qualification Guidelines

Adjudicator Accreditation And Grading

The Division of Co-Curriculum and Arts, Ministry of Education together with The
Malaysian Institute of Debate and Public Speaking (MIDP) and the National Debate
Experts Panel shall oversee the accreditation process and ensure that the quality of
training and series of questions have been set to improve the skills of
Adjudicators based on the Tan Sri Datuk Wira Abdul Rahman Arshad Challenge
Trophy English Language Debate Competition Format.

This shall be conducted using the best practices based on the World Schools
Debating Championship Standard.

Adjudicator will be graded and given a certificate from MIDP which will then serve as
an indicator of qualification to judge any debate competition, high school as well as
varsity level.

a. Distribution of Marks

Adjudications Test 1 Adjudications Test 2

30% 70%
Objective Questions on the Rules Written/Oral adjudication of a video
or live debate

0.
b. Grade Indicators

Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D Grade E

>80% >70% >60% >50% 49% <

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description:

Qualified to Qualified to Qualified to Qualified to be a Not qualified
Judge an be Chief be Chief panel adjudicator
International Adjudicator Adjudicator for a district/ local
Tournament. in National in State level Tournament
Qualified to Level Tournament
be Chief Tournament
Adjudicators

0.

17
Qualification
The qualification of Adjudicators with Grade A and Grade B will expire within 2
years if they do not adjudicate in at least one tournament. If adjudicators who are in
grade A or B do not adjudicate in at least one tournament in a year, their qualification
will be downgraded by one grade. For adjudicators who are in Grade C and below,
their qualification will expire within a year if they do not adjudicate in at least one
tournament a year.

Accredited adjudicators may adjudicate in any tournament that is of an international

national or regional level but it must follow an internationally recognised format. This
includes The World Schools Debating Championship and Asian Schools Debating
Championship.

JABATAN PENDIDIKAN NEGERI JOHOR

18
 JOHOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTER CLASS
DEBATE COMPETITION

FOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ADJUDICATION FORMS

19
 JOHOR INTER CLASS ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
SCORING SHEET
Round: _____ Room: ______
Name of Adjudicator: __________________________
Motion:___________________________________________________________
STYLE (40) STYLE (40)
CONTEN SPEAKER CONTEN SPEAKER
STRATEGY STRATEGY
GOVERNMENT TIME T SCORE OPPOSITION TIME T LANGUAG SCORE
LANGUAGE MANNER (20) MANNER (20)
(40) (100) (40) E (100)
(20) (20) (20)
(20)

First Debater First Debater

Second Debater Second Debater

Third Debater Third Debater

STYLE (20) STYLE (20)

CONTEN
CONTEN SPEAKER SPEAKER
STRATEGY T STRATEGY
GOVERNMENT TIME T SCORE OPPOSITION TIME LANGUAG SCORE
LANGUAGE MANNER (10) MANNER (10)
(20) (50) E (50)
(10) (10) (20) (10)
(10)

GOV. REPLY: OPP. REPLY:

TOTAL TEAM SCORES TOTAL TEAM SCORES

Winner: __________________________ Please circle the winning side (Government/Opposition)

Margin(Winning Team Losing Team)___________________________

Adjudicators Signature:_____________________________________

20
 JOHOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTER CLASS DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

TIMING

ROLE TIME

First Government
First Opposition
Second Government
Second Opposition
Third Government
Third Opposition
Reply Opposition
Reply - Government

Timekeepers Name
Timekeepers Signature
Date

21
 JABATAN PENDIDIKAN NEGERI JOHOR

RESULTS

JOHOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTER CLASS DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

YEAR : __________

22
 RESULT (Adjudicators vote)

WINNING TEAM

TEAM: GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION

Chief Adjudicators Signature :

_____________________________
( )

23