Seminar on Debating

NHPEO 2021

Rachmat Nurcahyo
Intro
 Only 1 motion is announced for each round.
 All teams have 15 minutes to casebuild started right
after the Motion Launch
 The government must propose the motion.
 The opposition must negate the motion and present an
alternative (ie. the status quo or counter model).
 Each speaker has 7 minutes to speak.
 Points of Information (POI) are allowed between the
2nd and 6th minute.
 Debate Structure
Proposition Opposition
Prime Minister Leader of the Opposition
or
1 2 or
1st 1 Speaker 1st Prop.
st
1 Speaker 1st Opp.
st
1st
Prop. Deputy Prime Minister Deputy of the Opposition Opp.
or 3 4 or
2 Speaker 1st Prop.
nd
2 Speaker 1st Opp.
nd

Member for Government Member for the

2nd
or
1st Speaker 2nd Prop.
5 6 Opposition
or 2nd
1 Speaker 2nd Opp.
st

Prop. Government Whip Opposition Whip

Opp.
or 7 8 or
2nd Speaker 2nd Prop. 2 Speaker 2nd Opp.
nd

Points of Information – P.O.I

Tournament Format
 3 Preliminary rounds
 round 1 is randomly drawn
 rounds 2-3 are power matched
 Top 16 teams break through to Master knockout
rounds
 Teams 17-24 break through to Novice knockout rounds
Rules
 points of information
 definitions
 matter – the content of a speech
 manner – the structure and style of a speech
 the role of different teams in the debate
 marking scheme
Basic Format
 15 minutes preparation time
 printed or written material permitted
 electronic equipment prohibited
 7 minute speeches
Points of Information
 first and last minutes of speech are protected

 time signal to indicate these points

 member offering POI should stand

 speaker may accept or decline

points of information
 POIs should not exceed 15 seconds
 the speaker may ask the offering member to sit

where the offeror has had a reasonable chance to

be understood
 members should attempt to answer at least 2 POIs

in their speech
 there are no “points of order” or “points of

personal privilege”
Points of Information

 may take any form the offeror wishes

 questions, clarification, facts, challenges, rebuttal,

even jokes

 POIs assessed as “matter” – see later

How points of information are assessed

 effectiveness and persuasiveness

 member offering point of information

 speaker answering point of information

 participation in debate as a whole

Definitions
 the definition should state the issue(s) for debate
arising from the motion, stating the meaning of
any terms in the motion which require
interpretation
 PM should provide the definition at the beginning
of his/her speech
definitions
 the definition must:
(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion
(b) not be self-proving /truistic
(c) not be time-set
(d) not be place-set unfairly
Definitional challenges
 the leader of the opposition may challenge the
definition if it violates one of the four criteria
above, and he should clearly state that he’s doing
so.
 only the leader of the opposition may challenge the

definition – no-one else

 the leader of the opposition should substitute an

alternative definition
Definitional challenges
 the ones to establish that the definition is
unreasonable is on the members challenging it.
 where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition

should substitute an alternative definition that

should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is
not also unreasonable.
Matter
 matter is the content of a speech
 matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples,
case studies, facts and any other material that
attempts to further the case
 matter includes points of information
The elements of matter
 matter should be:

relevant to the debate

logical
consistent – within your speech, with your partner,
and also with the other team on your side of the
debate
The elements of matter
 all members (except the last two in the debate)
should present positive matter

 the govt whip may choose to do so

 the opp whip may not do so

 all members (except the prime minister) should

present rebuttal
Manner
 manner is the presentation of the speech

 style

 structure
style
 any element which affects the overall effectiveness
of your presentation
 eye contact
 voice modulation
 hand gestures
 clarity of language and expression
 use of notes
structure
 structure of the speech should:
 include an introduction, conclusion, and a series of
arguments
 use the allotted time properly

 teamwork
The role of teams in the debate
 1st govt:
◦ definition
◦ justification of case
◦ rebuttal of 1st opp (deputy prime minister)

 1st opposition:
◦ rebuttal
◦ alternative where appropriate
The role of teams in the debate
 2nd govt
◦ anything which makes you stand out from the debate

◦ job is simply to “be better” than 1st govt

◦ how does a team do this?

The role of teams in the debate
 2nd govt

◦ introduce new material consistent with 1 st govt

◦ e.g. new lines of argument
◦ e.g. different focus to the case
◦ e.g. widening / narrowing of debate
◦ repetition of 1st govt isn’t enough
Summary speeches
 summarise debate as a whole, with particular
emphasis on your own team
 responsive to dynamics of debate -spend more time
on the more important issues
 none correct way of doing this
◦ speaker by speaker
◦ issue by issue
◦ thematic
ranking teams
◦ 3 points for 1st place
◦ 2 points for 2nd place
◦ 1 point for 3rd place
◦ 0 points for 4th place
(Note: judges will fill out their ballots 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the
tab system will convert into points)
 teams may receive 0 points where they fail to
arrive more than 5 minutes after the
scheduled time for the debate
Being rude and abusive
 ...don’t!

 teams may receive 0 points where the adjudicators

unanimously agree that the member has harassed
another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race,
colour, nationality, sexual preference or disability
marking scheme

A 90-100 excellent to flawless

the standard of speech you would expect to see
from a speaker at the semifinal / grand final
level of the tournament. this speaker has few, if
any, weaknesses.
B 80-89 above average to very good
the standard you would expect to see from a
speaker in contention to make the break. this
speaker has clear strengths and some minor
weaknesses.
marking scheme

C 70-79 average
the speaker has strengths and weaknesses in
roughly equal proportions.
D 60-69 poor to below average
the speaker has clear problems and some minor
strengths.
E 50-59 very poor
the speaker has fundamental weaknesses and
few, if any, strengths.
Feedback and Complaints

 oral adjudication
 queries and clarification
◦ “polite and non-confrontational”

 adjudicator evaluation form

 adjudication team
 all complaints will be followed up
Adjudication

Golden Rule:

“Which team
contributes the most
to the debate?”
 What to look for from each team?
 OG (Opening Government: Prime Minister + Deputy PM)
◦ Problem – clear? is the scope realistic?
◦ Definition – debatable? reasonable?
◦ Solution/Model – sufficient to solve the problem?
◦ Arguments
◦ Rebuttals

 OO (Opening Opposition: )
◦ Response – clear?
◦ Solution/Counter model (if any) – sufficient to solve the
problem?
◦ Arguments
◦ Rebuttals
 What to look for from ... ? (cont’d)

 CG/CO
◦ Extension – distinct? new? relevant?
◦ How they present the extension
 Flag with POI?
 Mention as ‘important’/ ‘key issue’ at the start of the
speech?
 Incorporate in rebuttals?
◦ Rebuttals
 Strong?
 Supporting extension?
◦ Are they successful in making their materials the most
important and relevant in the debate?
 Assessing Arguments (cont’d)
 Relevant v. Irrelevant
◦ Focus on contribution and consistency!
 Does the argument contribute to achieve the goal in the
debate?
 Is the argument consistent with how the debate is
characterized (problem/actors/etc.)?

 Strong v. Weak
◦ AREL
◦ Focus on the reasoning!
 Deductive  all premises must be proven conclusively.
 Inductive  credibility/persuasiveness of examples must be
proven.
◦ Use of compelling supporting data/facts.
 Assessing Arguments (cont’d)
 Significant v. Insignificant
◦ Focus on importance!
◦ Is the argument substantially discussed by teams in the
debate?
◦ Did the argument manage to stay in the debate 
‘airtime’ is usually a good indicator.
 Assessing Rebuttals
 Does it attack the reasoning?
◦ Deductive
 Should not target the conclusion.
 Target the premises, prove them false – ie. through
argumentations, not mere statements.
◦ Inductive
 Attack the credibility of the examples – ie. by arguing that
the examples given are false/don’t apply, not merely
giving counter examples.
 Attack the relationship between examples and conclusion
– ie. by showing there are other factors at play.
 Handy to keep in mind…
 LISTEN!!!

 Don’t think for the debaters!

◦ Awareness  what happens in the debate v.
what happens in your head.
◦ Don’t finish their arguments for them.
◦ Don’t rebut their arguments.
◦ Handy tips: in your note, make a box for your
thoughts.
 Handy to keep in mind… (cont’d)
 Judging is not coaching!
◦ Don’t expect arguments.
◦ Don’t try to think of better arguments the
debaters could have presented.

 Manner – Matter
◦ Don’t automatically buy arguments just
because of good manner.
◦ If the manner is bad, don’t strain yourself to
understand the matter.
 Duties of an adjudicator…
◦ Confer and discuss the debate with the other
adjudicators.
 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the
adjudication of the debate. Therefore, confer in a spirit
of cooperation and mutual respect.
◦ Determine the ranking of the teams.
◦ Determine the teams’ grades.
◦ Determine the speakers’ scores.
◦ Provide a verbal adjudication.
◦ Complete documentation required by the
tournament.
 Ranking
 Teams should be ranked from first place to fourth
place.
◦ 1st – 3 points
◦ 2nd – 2 points
◦ 3rd – 1 points
◦ 4th – 0 point.
 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings.
◦ When a unanimous decision cannot be reached after
conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the
rankings.
◦ When a majority decision cannot be reached, the chair of the
panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.
 Grading and Marking (cont’d)
 The panel of adjudicators should agree
upon the grade awarded to each team.
Each adjudicator marks each team at their
own discretion, but the marks should fall
within the agreed grade for the team.
REMEMBER : The Higher the Rank, the higher the
score, but the grade is not necessarily the
Best.
 Grading and Marking (cont’d)
 Grades are interpreted as:
◦ A = 180 – 200.
Excellent to flawless. The standard you would expect to see from a team at the
Semi Final/Grand Final of the tournament. The team has many strengths and
few, if any, weaknesses.
◦ B = 160 – 179
Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a
team at the finals level or in contention to make to the finals. The team has
clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.
◦ C = 140 – 159
Average. The team has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal
proportions.
◦ D = 120 – 139
Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor
strengths.
◦ E = 100 – 119
Very poor. The team has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.
 Grading and Marking (cont’d)
 Each adjudicator marks individual speakers at
their discretion, but must ensure that the
aggregate points of the team members is
within the agreed grade for that team.
 Individual marks are interpreted as:
◦ A = 90 –100. Excellent to flawless, standard of a speaker in the
final of the tournament.
◦ B = 80 – 89. Above average to very good, standard of a speaker in
contention to make to the finals.
◦ C = 70 – 79. Average, weaknesses and strengths in equal
proportion.
◦ D = 60 – 69. Poor to below average, clear problem.
◦ E = 50 – 59. Poor, fundamental flaws.
 Verbal
 Announce ranking.
 Provide general assessment of the debate.
 Explain the determinant considerations for the
ranking.
 Go team per team:
◦ Explain the reasons behind their ranking (in
comparison to how other teams rank).
◦ Explain what they did well and what they lacked.
◦ Provide suggestions of what they can improve in
next debates.
 Keep it concise!
 Offer personal assessment outside the room.