FOR

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

RULES AND GUIDELINES

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
MALAYSIA
1
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION

RULES AND GUIDELINES

1.0 Name

Datuk Wira Dr. Abdul Rahman Arshad Challenge Trophy English Language
Debate Competition

2.0 Format

2.1 A team representing a school consists of 3 main debaters and 2

reserves.

2.2 The proposition team is known as the Affirmative or the Government

while the opposition team is known as the Negative or Opposition.

2.3 Allocation of time and speaking order:

TURN AFFIRMATIVE TURN NEGATIVE TIME

1 1st Speaker 2 1st Speaker 8 minutes

3 2nd Speaker 4 2nd Speaker 8 minutes

5 3rd Speaker 6 3rd Speaker 8 minutes

8 Reply Speech 7 Reply Speech 4 minutes

1st / 2nd Affirmative 1st / 2nd Negative

2.4 The third debater from both teams shall not introduce any new
arguments. Their role is mainly to rebut.

2.5 While the debater is speaking, the opposition team can offer ‘Point(s)
of Information’ (formal interjections). The debater may accept or
decline it.

2.6 After all the debaters have spoken once, the 1 st or 2nd debater of each
side gives a reply speech with the Negative’s Reply Speech being
delivered first followed by the Affirmative.

3.0 Eligibility

2
 3.1 The competition is open to all students from Form 1 to 5 from all
government-aided secondary schools under the purview of the Ministry
of Education, Malaysia except residential schools.

3.2 A school is allowed to send only one team to participate in the

competition.

3.3 Each team should comprise of at least one Bumiputera student

(according to Article 153, The Malaysian Constitution) who is a
speaking member of the team. 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. (Failure in doing so will result in disqualification)

4.0 Adjudication

4.1 A panel of at least 3 or 5 adjudicators will be appointed for all the

rounds at all levels. The final debate at the national level will be
adjudicated by a panel of 5 adjudicators, appointed by the Division of
Extracurricular Activities and Arts, Ministry of Education.

4.2 Experienced adjudicators should be appointed and briefed on the

rules of adjudication at least an hour before the debate.

4.3 Adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own schools /
districts / states unless there are no adjudicators available.

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

4.5 Immediately after a debate, the Speaker will collect the result slip from
the Chief Adjudicator. There should be no discussions among the
adjudicators when deciding the winner of the debate.

4.6 Once the score sheets have been handed in, the adjudicators shall
meet and confer to decide on the Best Debater. They shall refer to the
adjudicators’ comment sheets to decide on the winner.

4.7 Individual marks will not be disclosed.

4.8 Prizes

3
 4.9.1 Plaques and certificates of achievement will be awarded to the
winning teams.

4.9.2 Certificates of participation will be awarded to all participating

teams.

5.0 Procedure of Debate

5.1 The Debate Process

5.1.1 The debate topics will be given to the competing teams 2 weeks
before the competition.

5.1.2 The teams will draw the stand ONE hour before a debate
commences.

5.1.3 The draw should take place as scheduled.

5.1.4 Any team that is late would have to inform the organisers within
5 minutes of the scheduled time, failure of which, the team
already present will be allowed to draw and quarantine time will
commence. A grace period of not more than 30 minutes will be
given to the team that is late after which quarantine time
commences.

5.1.5 A team which is late (more than 5 minutes without information

on their whereabouts) would automatically take on the other
position contrary to what the team already present has drawn.
The time for quarantine commences.

5.1.6 The team will then be quarantined in their quarantine rooms for
ONE hour to prepare for the debate. The quarantine officers
must be in the room with the team.

5.1.7 Only the team members competing (3 main debaters and 2

reserves) will be allowed in the quarantine room. The team
members should not be in contact with any unauthorized
personnel.

5.1.8 The team is allowed to use their own printed reference materials
in the quarantine room. No electronic gadgets are allowed.

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

minutes before the debate commences.

5.1.10 If any one team fails to show up 5 minutes after the quarantine
time, the team will be disqualified. A walk over will be awarded
to the team that is present.

4
 5.1.11 Marks will be deducted under strategy if there is prompting
from any individual other than the debaters during the
quarantine time and the debate competition.

5.2 The Role of the Chairperson / Speaker

5.2.1 Each team will be chaired by a Chairperson who will be

addressed as Mr. Speaker or Madam Speaker.

5.2.2 The Speaker is responsible for the smooth running of the

debate.

5.2.3 The Speaker will read out the rules of the debate and then
proceed to introduce the timekeeper, adjudicators and debaters.

5.2.4 The Speaker must refrain from making any comments

concerning the debate or debaters during the debate.

5.2.5 The Speaker 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 8

minutes to deliver his or her speech.

5.3.2 The Timekeeper will ring the bell once after the 1 st minute and at
the end of the 7th minute to signal the time allocated for Points of
Information. At the end of the 8th minute, the bell will be rung
twice. (Placards may be used by the timekeeper to indicate the
remaining time left, at intervals of one minute).

5.3.3 A maximum time of 3 minutes 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 3rd minute to signal that the debater has 1 minute left. At
the end of the 4th minute, the bell will be rung twice to signal the
end of the debate.

6.0 Points of Information

6.1 A Point of Information is a formal interjection. It can be:

i. a question
ii. a remark
iii. a clarification
iv. a correction of word(s) or statement(s).

5
6.2 A Point of Information may be offered by a member of the opposing
team from the 2nd minute to the 7th minute of the time allocated to the
debater. Points of Information are not allowed during the 1 st and final
minutes of the speech. A bell will be rung to signal the beginning and
the end of the time allocated for Points of Information.

6.3 A time limit of 15 seconds is allowed for each Point of Information.

Therefore, the Points of Information put forth must be concise.

6.4 No heckling or harassment or barracking is allowed at any time during

the debate.

6.5 Giving and taking Points of Information should be done politely. A

debater is required to raise his or her hand and to stand when putting
forth a Point of Information. Rude, abusive or aggressive behaviour in
both instances will lead to a reduction of marks from the STYLE
section.

6.6 A debater may either accept the Point of Information or decline it. If
accepted, the opponent may make a short point or ask a question that
deals with some issues of the debate (preferably one just made by the
debater).

6.7 A debater MUST give or take at least 2 Points of Information during the
course of the debate.

6.7.1 A debater who does not offer the minimum number of Points of
Information will be marked down for SUBSTANCE and
STRATEGY.

6.7.1.1 Substance for failing to take advantage of

opportunities
6.7.1.2 Strategy for failing to understand the role of the
debater under this style

6.7.2 A debater who fails to accept any Points of Information would be

marked down for SUBSTANCE AND STRATEGY.

6.7.2.1 Substance for failing to allow the other side to make

their point
6.7.2.2 Strategy for not understanding the role of the debater
under this style or cowardice in not accepting a
challenge

6.8 No Points of Information may be offered during the Reply Speeches.

6.9 The Etiquette of presenting Points of Information (POI)

6
 6.9.1 A Point of Information is offered by standing and saying “Point of
Information” or something similar. The debater on the floor is not
obliged to accept every point. He or she may

6.9.1.1 Ask the interrupter to sit down

6.9.1.2 Finish the sentence and then accept the point
6.9.1.3 Accept the point there and then

REFERENCE FOR THE SCORE SHEET

1.0 Marks are awarded to each debater according to:

SUBSTANCE
LANGUAGE
STRATEGY
STYLE

1.1 SUBSTANCE

1.1.1 Substance covers the arguments that are used and are divorced from
the speaking style. It is as if you are seeing the arguments written
down rather than spoken. You must assess the weight of the
arguments without being influenced by the magnificence of the orator
that presented them.

1.1.2 Substance also includes an assessment of the weight of the rebuttal or

clash. This assessment must be done from the standpoint of the
average reasonable person.

1.1.3 The adjudicator’s job is to assess the strength of an argument

regardless of whether the other team is able to knock it down. If a team
introduces weak arguments, it will not score highly in substance, even
if the other team does not refute. Two consequences flow from these.

1.1.4 First, if a major argument is plainly weak, an opposing team which

does not refute may well have committed greater sin than the team
which introduced it. In effect, the team has led the other team to get
away with a weak argument. This is not an automatic rule but it is true
in many cases. Of course, it must be a major argument, not a minor
example which the opposing team correctly chooses to ignore in favour
of attacking more significant points.

1.1.5 Second, adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their

own beliefs or their own specialized knowledge. For example, if you are
a lawyer and you know that a team’s argument was debunked by the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week, you should probably not

7
 take into account this special knowledge unless the ICJ’s decision was
a matter of extreme public notoriety.

1.2 LANGUAGE

1.2.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct

sentence structures and grammar.

1.2.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of

speech. Of course, English being a foreign language here, adjudicators
should not be looking for Queen’s English in our debaters. But any
expression which is mumbled or not clearly understood should not
merit high marks in the Language section.

1.2.3 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.

1.3 STRATEGY

1.3.1 Strategy requires some attention. It covers two concepts:

1.3.1.1 the structure and timing of the speech and

1.3.1.2 whether the debater understood the issues of the debate.

1.3.2 Structure

A good speech has a clear beginning, middle and end. Along the way,
there are signposts to help us see where the debater is going. The
sequence of arguments is logical and flows naturally from point to
point. This is true of the first debater outlining the Government’s case
as it is of the third debater rebutting the Government’s case. Good
speech structure, therefore, is one component of the strategy.

1.3.3 Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There
are two aspects of timing:

1.3.3.1 speaking within the allowed time limit and

1.3.3.2 giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the
speech

1.3.4 A debater ought to give priority to important issues and leave

unimportant ones to later. It is generally a good idea to rebut or begin
with an attack on the other side by subsequent debaters before going
on to the debater’s own case. This is because it is more logical to get
rid of the opposing arguments first before trying to put something in its
place.

8
 1.3.5 So, the adjudicator must weigh not only the strength of the arguments
in the SUBSTANCE category, but also the proper time and priority
given in the STRATEGY category.

1.3.6 Understanding the Issues

Closely related to the last point is that the debater should understand
what the important issues were in the debate. It is a waste of time for a
rebuttal speaker to deal with points if crucial arguments are left
unanswered. Such a speaker would not understand the important
issues of the debate and should not score well in Strategy. By contrast,
a speaker who understood what the issues were and dealt with them
thoroughly should score well in Strategy.

1.3.7 It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between

Strategy and Substance. Imagine a debate where a debater answers
critical issues with some weak rebuttal. This debater should get poor
marks for Substance because the rebuttal was weak. But the debater
should get reasonable marks for Strategy because the right arguments
were being addressed.

1.4 STYLE

1.4.1 The term is rather misleading. Adjudicators are not looking for debaters
who are stylish.

1.4.2 Style covers the way the debaters’ speak. This can be noted in many
ways, in funny accents, body language (movement, poise, meaningful
gestures and eye contact) and with the use of specific terminology. Be
tolerant of different ways of presenting arguments.

1.4.3 Use of palm cards and notes are allowed and should not be penalised,
unless a debater is reading from them heavily.

1.4.4 Be tolerant of speaking styles and speed of delivery. Penalise only

when a debater’s style has gone beyond what everyone would expect.

2.0 REBUTTAL

2.1 The use of general cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. The
Opposition team cannot concentrate on attacking the examples used by the
Government. The examples might be weak, but the central case might still be
sound. Instead, the team will have to concentrate on that case because that is
where the debate actually is.

2.2 There is another consequence for rebuttal. It may be that a team has used a
number of examples to illustrate the same point. If they can all be disposed off

9
 by the same piece of rebuttal, the rebutting team does not have to attack each
of the examples individually as well.

3.0 THE REPLY SPEECH

3.1 The thematic approach to argument outlined above becomes critical in the
Reply Speeches. These have been described as an ‘adjudication from our
side’ and really amount to an overview of the major issues in the debate.

3.2 A Reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or
individual examples. The debater must deal with the two or three major issues
in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the debater’s team
and work against the opposition team. As a general rule, a Reply speaker who
descends to the level of dealing with individual examples probably doesn’t
understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good
arguments.

4.0 POINTS OF INFORMATION

4.1 A ‘Point of Information’ is offered in the course of speech by a member of the

opposing team. The debater may either accept or decline. If accepted, the
opponent may make a short point or ask a question that deals with some
issues in the debate (preferably one just made by the debater). It is a formal
interjection.

4.2 Points of Information bring about a major change in the role of the debaters in
a debate. In this style, each debater must take part from beginning to end, not
just during their own speech.

4.3 The debaters play this role by offering Points of Information. Even if the points
are not accepted, they must still demonstrate that they are involved in the
debate by at least offering. A debater who takes no part in the debate other
than by making a speech would be marked down for Substance and Strategy.

Note:
 The winning teams from the previous year may participate in the current year
but the text and presentation must not be an exact replica.

 This concept paper is valid until further notification or revision from the
Ministry of Education and can be used at all levels for competitions organized
by the Ministry.

10
Division of Co-curriculum and Arts
Ministry of Education, Malaysia

LIST OF EXPRESSIONS TO REQUEST, ACCEPT OR DECLINE POINTS OF

INFORMATION

TO REQUEST
i. Point of Information, please.
ii. Point of Information.
iii. P.O.I. please.
iv. P.O.I
v. Point.

TO ACCEPT
i. Yes.
ii. Yes, please.
iii. Yes, Sir / Miss.
iv. Please.
v. Please go ahead.
vi. Yes, accepted.

TO DECLINE
i. No, thank you.
ii. No, thanks.
iii. Denied.
iv. Sorry, Sir / Miss.
v. Sorry.

If the opponent (during his / her Point (s) of information) is taking too much of your
time, you can ask him / her to sit down if he / she has exceeded the 15 seconds’ time
limit.

You may use these expressions:

i. Please sit down, Sir / Miss. You are taking too much of my time.
ii. You are taking too much of my time. Please sit down.
iii. Kindly sit down. You have exceeded the time limit for POI.
iv. Your time limit is up.

*** Please note that it is of utmost importance that debaters be polite at all times

11
 during the course of the debate especially when accepting or declining Point(s) of
Information.

GLOSSARY

1. adjudicator - a person called to judge a debate to determine the winner

2. barracking - to criticize loudly, shout or jeer against a team or debater

3. case line - please refer to Stand

4. clarification - to seek further information or explanation on matters

5. comment sheet- a sheet where the adjudicators write his / her comments
during the proceedings of the debate

6. confer - to discuss and come to a consensus decision

7. electronic gadgets- electrical items such as computers, handphones, radios,

MP3, digital media players etc.

8. harassment - to trouble, torment or confuse by continual persistent

attacks, questions, etc.

9. heckling - to interrupt by taunts

10. majority vote - the winner is determined by the number of votes given to
the winning team

11. marked down - please refer to the reduction of marks

12. point(s) of - a formal interjection where the opposing team can ask
information questions, clarify, make a remark or correct a word or
statement

13. rebuttal - to refute or disprove the opponent’s arguments by

offering contrary contentions or arguments

14. reply speech - an arena where a debater will sum up the team’s
arguments and then rebut the opposition’s major
arguments brought up during the debate

15. reduction of marks- in Parliamentary Style Debate marks are not deducted
from a team’s or individual’s marks but are reduced

16. Speaker - a person who chairs a debate and ensures the smooth
running of the proceedings

12
17. stand - from which angle the team is going to argue the case

18. strategy - how each team member work together to argue the case

19. substance - the arguments presented during the debate

FOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ADJUDICATION FORMS

13
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
MALAYSIA

14
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION TEAM : GOVERNMENT
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR’S SCORE SHEET

SCHOOL/STATE: TOPIC :

ROLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2
NAME

NAME
FIRST GOVERNMENT SECOND GOVERNMENT THIRD GOVERNMENT REPLY SPEECH
MARKS 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 14-15 12-13 10-11 8-9 6-7

SUBSTANCE
(30)

STRATEGY
(30)

MARKS 18-20 15-17 12-14 9-11 6-8 18-20 15-17 12-14 9-11 6-8 18-20 15-17 12-14 9-11 6-8 9-10 7-8 5-6 4 3

LANGUAGE
(20)

STYLE
(20)
TOTAL (100) 86-100 70-85 56-69 40-55 24-39 86-100 70-85 56-69 40-55 24-39 86-100 70-85 56-69 40-55 24-39 45-50 36-44 30-35 24-29 18-23

GRAND TOTAL : /350 WINNING TEAM : GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION

ADJUDICATOR’S NAME :
ADJUDICATOR’S SIGNATURE : DATE :

15
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION TEAM : OPPOSITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR’S SCORE SHEET

SCHOOL/STATE: TOPIC :

ROLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
NAME

NAME
FIRST GOVERNMENT SECOND GOVERNMENT THIRD GOVERNMENT REPLY SPEECH
MARKS 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 14-15 12-13 10-11 8-9 6-7

SUBSTANCE
(30)

STRATEGY
(30)

MARKS 18-20 15-17 12-14 9-11 6-8 18-20 15-17 12-14 9-11 6-8 18-20 15-17 12-14 9-11 6-8 9-10 7-8 5-6 4 3

LANGUAGE
(20)

STYLE
(20)
TOTAL (100) 86-100 70-85 56-69 40-55 24-39 86-100 70-85 56-69 40-55 24-39 86-100 70-85 56-69 40-55 24-39 45-50 36-44 30-35 24-29 18-23

GRAND TOTAL : /350 WINNING TEAM : GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION

ADJUDICATOR’S NAME :
ADJUDICATOR’S SIGNATURE : DATE :
16
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

REPLY SPEECH

OPPOSITION GOVERNMENT
REBUTTAL REBUTTAL

SUMMARY SUMMARY

17
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

ADJUDICATOR’S NOTES
1ST GOVERNMENT 1ST OPPOSITION 2ND GOVERNMENT 2ND OPPOSITION 3RD GOVERNMENT 3RD OPPOSITION
NAME : NAME : NAME : NAME : NAME : NAME :

POI (INTERJECTED) POI (INTERJECTED) POI (INTERJECTED) POI (INTERJECTED) POI (INTERJECTED) POI(INTERJECTED)

POI (ANSWERED) POI (ANSWERED) POI (ANSWERED) POI (ANSWERED) POI (ANSWERED) POI(ANSWERED)

Definition: Defn – Agree/Refute Defn – Agree/Refute Rebut 2nd Government : Rebut 2nd Opposition : Rebut 3rd Government :
New Definition : Redefine :

Rebut 1st Government

Specify Stand : Specify Stand : Rebut 1st Opposition : Rebut 1st Government : Rebut 1st Opposition : Rebut 2nd Government :

Specify Role : Specify Role : Argument 2 : Argument 2 : Rebut 1st Government :

Argument 1 : Argument 1 : Argument 3 : Argument 3 : Reaffirm Case : Reaffirm Case :

Reaffirm case : Reaffirm case :

Reaffirm case : Reaffirm case :

POI POI POI POI POI IP

18
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
ELABORATIONS ON ASPECTS OF ADJUDICATION

1. SUBSTANCE

 Arguments divorced from speaking style

 Assess weight of rebuttal
 Assess points of argument
 Assess weight of argument without influence of oratory

2. STRATEGY

 Covers structure and time

 Good speech has beginning, middle and ending
 Speaking within the time limit
 Appropriate amount of time given to issues in the speech
 Focus of rebuttal mainly on main issues presented in the debate
 Critical issues with weak rebuttal would mean lower score for SUBSTANCE but reasonable marks may be
awarded for STRATEGY because the right arguments were addressed

3. LANGUAGE

 Appropriate expression
 Correct sentence structure and grammar
 Pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity
 Good language and expression appropriately used e.g. idioms and figures of speech

4. STYLE

 Presentation on the way the debaters speak include body language, eye contact and voice modulation. (Be tolerant of
speaking style and speed of delivery)

19
 FOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

RESULTS

20
 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
MALAYSIA

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

RESULT (Adjudicator’s vote)

WINNING TEAM

TEAM : GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION

21
 Adjudicator’s Signature : 1/2/3/4/5

_____________________________
( )

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

VOTING

BEST DEBATER

22
 DEBATER Adjudicator Adjudicator Adjudicator Adjudicator Adjudicator
1 2 3 4 5

Name Signature

Chief Adjudicator : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 1 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 2 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

23
Adjudicator 3 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 4 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Date : ……………………………………………..

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

RESULT

BEST DEBATER

TEAM : GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION

NAME : _________________________

SCHOOL/STATE: _________________________

CHIEF ADJUDICATOR

24
SIGNATURE : ________________________
( )

25
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

RESULT

PRELIMINARY / QUARTER FINAL / SEMI FINAL / FINAL

TEAM
School / State

WINNING TEAM

BEST DEBATER

26
 DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

RESULT

WINNING TEAM

TEAM : GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION

Name Signature

Chief Adjudicator : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 1 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 2 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 3 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Adjudicator 4 : …………………………………………….. ……………………..

Date : ……………………………………………..

27