MODIFIED OXFORD-OREGON DEBATE

MECHANICS
PREMISE: Death Penalty should be implemented in the Philippines
Positive: Utilitarians
Negative: Deontologist

I. Structure of the Debate

The structure of this debate is a modified Oxford-Oregon format.

There are two sides in this format, i.e., the Affirmative and the Negative Side. The
Affirmative proves the validity of the proposition, while the Negative disapproves it.
Each side shall be composed of three speakers.

II. Burden of each team

Affirmative: Burden of proof; must establish a prima facie case and must prove all
the aspect of the case to win. Objective: to set out convincing arguments and
materials that support a response to the questions raised.

Negative: burden of rebuttal; must destroy the points/ cases raised by the affirmative
side. Objective: to refute the points made by the Affirmative Team through the use of
convincing arguments and materials.

III. Aspects of the Case

Necessity - need for the proposition, discusses the presence or absence of an inherent
flaw in the status quo.

Beneficiality - advantages or disadvantages of adopting or rejecting the proposition.

Practicability – feasibility of the proposition, which includes the matter of law,

clamour and finance.

IV. Parts of the Debate

Constructive Speech - the presentation of each member’s arguments and evidence
for each aspect of the case. (6 minutes)

Interpellation/Cross-Examination – the opportunity for each debater to ask and

answer questions regarding their speeches. (4 minutes)

*Rules on Interpellation/Cross-Examination:
1. Questions should primarily be focused on arguments developed in the speech of the
opponent. However, matters relevant and material to the proposition are admissible.
2. Questioner and opponent should treat each other with courtesy.
3. Once the questioning has begun, neither the questioner nor his opponent may
consult a colleague. Consultation should be done before.
4. Questions should ask brief and easily understandable questions. Answers should
equally be brief. Categorical questions answered by yes or no is allowed, however,
opponent may qualify his answer why yes or why no.
5. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer.
6. A questioner should not comment on the response of his opponent.
7. The opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by
asking the questioner to rephrase or reform his question.
8. Interpellation is conducted for the following purposes: to clarify points, to express
errors, to obtain admissions, to setup arguments.
 V. Flow of the Debate

1st Speaker Affirmative Side (Beneficial) – Constructive Speech (6 minutes)

1st Speaker Negative Side - Interpellation (4 minutes)
1st Speaker Negative Side – Constructive Speech (6 minutes)
1st Speaker Affirmative Side- Interpellation (4 minutes)
2nd Speaker Affirmative Side – Constructive Speech (6 minutes)
2nd Speaker Negative Side - Interpellation (4minutes)
2nd Speaker Negative Side – Constructive Speech (6 minutes)
2nd Speaker Affirmative Side- Interpellation (4minutes)
3rd Speaker Affirmative Side – Constructive Speech (6 minutes)
3rd Speaker Negative Side - Interpellation (4minutes)
3rd Speaker Negative Side – Constructive Speech (6 minutes)
3rd Speaker Affirmative Side- Interpellation (4 minutes)

Notes:
1. The first speakers argue on the necessity (affirmative) or non-necessity (negative) of the
motion. The second speakers on beneficially and the third speakers on practicability
(feasibility) of the motion.

2. The first affirmative speaker must make the affirmative’s 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. The first negative speaker will be given 4 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 affirmative’s case
and/or establish the negative’s case.

4. He then has seven minutes to clash with the points just made by the first affirmative and
to advance his argument that the affirmative’s proposal is not necessary.

5. The first affirmative will then have 4 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 negative’s case.

6. The second affirmative has 6 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 4 minutes.

7. The second negative speaker then has 6 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 affirmative’s proposal. He will then be interpellated by
the second affirmative speaker for 4 minutes.

8. The third affirmative has 6 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 4 minutes.

9. The third negative speaker will then have 6 minutes of his time to clash with the
affirmative case and to deliver his constructive speech on the impracticability of adopting
the affirmative’s proposal. He will then be interpellated by the third affirmative speaker
for 4 minutes.
 10. Rebuttal speeches are for case re-building and final words. Though counter-arguments
are permitted in rebuttal, no new evidence or proof is allowed.

Marking of Debaters
1. There are four evaluation criteria: Constructive Speech or Matter (40 points), Persuasive
Skills or Manner (30 points), Interpellation (30 points).
2. The MATTER mark is scored through a written submission to be submitted by the team
speakers on each aspect at least three (3) days prior to the debate competition (in pdf form,
to the Debate Cup Committee Chairman). It has everything to do with logic, preparation,
arguments, evidence cited, jurisprudence cited and analytic skill. It has nothing to do with the
presentation.
3. Teams are required to conduct research and prepare their speeches. An argument without
citing an evidence to support the same is a mere assertion and does not merit any consideration.
4. 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.
5. MANNER: Manner or Presentation is marked out of a possible 30 points and judged from a
purely public speaking perspective:
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. INTERPELLATION: This refers to the ability to cross-examine the opposing debater. 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.
9. 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 four (4) minutes each to conduct his/her interpellation.

Role of the Adjudicators:

1. To reveal the issue, involve in the debate.
2. To rule on points of clarification about the issue or questions and answers made during
the interpellation.
3. To see to it that the debate is in order and follows the rules set forth.
4. To rate each debate separately to identify the Best Debater. The debater who acquired the
highest point must be the Best Debater.
*The adjudicators have the authority to choose the Best Speaker.
* An adjudicator is allowed to ask at most TWO (2) questions ONLY 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.
Standards for the Verdict
1. Organization and Clarity – main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and
orderly way.
2. Uses of arguments – reasons are given to support the resolution.
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttals – identification of weakness of the opposition’s
arguments and ability to defend itself against attack.
4. Presentation style – tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all
contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case.