9th visayas universities

debating championship

Lets start with the

Debate basics

GOVERNMEN
TPrime Minister
Defines the debate
Introduces own
teams case
Can pre-empt
opposing team

OPPOSITION
Leader of Opposition
Presents Clash
Rebut the Opposing
team
Develop own teams
case

GOVERNMEN
TDeputy Prime
Minister

Rebut opposing
team
Develop own
teams case

OPPOSITION

Deputy Leader of
Opposition
Rebut the opposing
team
Develop own teams
case

GOVERNMEN
TGovt Whip
Rebut opposing
team
Defend teams
arguments
Summarize the
Debate

OPPOSITION
Opp whip
Rebut opposing
team
Defend teams
arguments
Summarize the
Debate

GOVERNMEN
TGovt Reply
Provide biased
adjudication

OPPOSITION
Opp Reply
Provide biased
adjudication

DEFINITION / CLASHES
STANDARD FOR GOVERNMENT:
Is the definition a reasonable interpretation of the
motion?
STANDARD FOR OPPOSITION:
Can the clash reasonably be expected by
Government?

WHAT TO DO WITH
UNREASONABLE DEFINTIONS?
FOR JUDGES:
-Do not penalize Government beyond the problems
their definition creates
-Do give Opposition the benefit of the doubt
-Do not consider the definition invalid unless the
teams do

WHAT TO DO WITH
UNREASONABLE DEFINTIONS?
FOR DEBATERS:
Do remember the debate should be about the
motion as defined. If the definition is not what you
expected but otherwise debatable, you are free to
point it out but you should debate it nonetheless . If
the debate has an unreasonable definition, you may
challenge the motion

DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES
Speakers can only challenge the definition up
until the time the definition is implicitly accepted
by both sides
In a definition challenge, the LO must:
a. Explicitly challenge the PM definition
b. Explain why the definition is invalid
c. Provide a legitimate alternative definition
d. Launch Even-If arguments

DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES
Do not penalize teams who justifiably challenge
the definition for creating a definitional debate
Do judge which definition carried the most
weight
Not just a clear-cut matter of which definition did
most teams talk about, but also which definition
made the most sense

Now, we go to

Adjudication basics

Average reasonable voter

Is open-minded and unbiased
Is an informed citizen who reads the news
every day, but not a specialist
Can be taught about concepts if explained
well

Scoring range
67 68:
No contributions, speech (or lack thereof) hurt the
team case
69 71:
Speech was incoherent and deeply flawed. Major
technical
violations were committed
71 73:
Below Average. Ideas were underdeveloped,
substantive
matter was lacking, little to no
responsiveness or dynamism.
Minor technical
violations were committed
74 76:
Average. Material was equal parts good and
flawed. The
speech was largely only adequate
in fulfilling role burdens
and technical rules.

Scoring range
77 79:
Above Average. Arguments were complete, clear
and
answered questions in the debate. Role
positions were
fulfilled well, including
accepting at least one POI. Material
was precise
and true to the core of the debate. Metaargument was also present.
80 81:
Excellent. Completely brilliant and eye-opening.
Showcased
not only an understanding of the issues
but also compelling
insights into them. No
complaints in terms of role fulfilment
or
substantiation.
82-83: Perfect. Speech was absolutely flawless, brilliant and

Scoring replies
Score the speech on the 67-83
scale
Divide the score by two
Add that score to the total

Scoring range
Low-point wins, i.e. a winning team
having a lower speaker score total than
the losing team, are not allowed
Always compute and re-compute scores
USE A CALCULATOR!

burdens
Teams have equal and opposite burdens.
What you give to one should be given to all
others.
Stances should be mutually exclusive.
In a policy debate, Opposition must say
something is better or less harmful than the
policy.

consistency
Teams must be consistent not only with respect to
their bench, but more importantly to their own
case
Glaring inconsistencies should be taken into
account by both teams and adjudicators
If a good part of the material is based on the
inconsistency, the material deserves diminished to
no credit
Contradictory material should be discounted if the

POIs
Speakers are strongly advised to take at least
one POI in their speech.
POIs should be treated as material

MANNER
Like structure and the use of examples,
manner is a mechanism for persuasion rather
than persuasive content in itself
Standard: Is the material presented clearly
and effectively?
Be careful not to over privilege specific styles
of manner; be open to different styles

CONCLUSION
Judges: Be fair and be
reasonable
Debaters: Do not what you do
not want done unto you

Lets talk about

Tournament issues

Conflict Policies
Declare conflict to the Adj Core if:
1. You belong to the same institution
2. You are substantially involved with the
speakers debating society/career growth
3. You have (or have had) a (mutual) physical or
romantic relationship
4. There are circumstances disallowing you from
judging the speaker fairly, or disallowing a
presumption of fairness

Missing Rounds
Judges are allowed to miss one round of the
preliminaries, including the Adjudication Test
The Adjudication Test will be used for allocation
purpose (diminishing value)
Missing the Adjudication Test means forfeiting
one round and beginning Round 1 as a trainee

Missing Rounds
Debaters are not allowed to miss any
round of the tournament
If a team is incomplete during a round,
the points they earned will be subtracted
from their total at the end of preliminary
rounds
Speakers that miss a round will earn the
floor score for the round

After Motion Release

Do not speak to anyone except for your
partner
Do not consult any electronic resources,
apart from your timer
If you have questions about the motion, ask
the Adjudication Core
Locate your rooms quickly; if you cant,
approach OrgComm

Adjudication
Judges will have 10 minutes to come up with
a decision
Debaters score chair and members of the
panel; each will have 5 mins to deliver his/her
decision (members of panel , then chair)

When the chair dissents, he/she shall

appoint a new chair
Debaters score new chair, new chair scores
old chair and panelist

Trainees
Trainees should be treated with
respect
For all intents and purposes, the
trainee is part of the panel ( the can
convince members of the panel!). They
should discuss their decision, but their
vote will not be counted

Feedback
5 Can chair the Final or Semifinal of the
tournament
4 Can chair the Quarter Final or the Octo Final
of the tournament and/or chair a high level round
3 Can only chair a middle level round and be a
wing judge for a high level round. May or may not
break
2 Only fit to judge a low level round
1 Not fit to judge the tournament. Use sparingly

Objective test

 1) Manner can win debates.

2) In the event of an unfair definition, judges have the
right to penalize Government even beyond the
problems created by their definition.
3) A judge is an average reasonable person who can
be taught concepts if explained well.
4) Teams have equal and opposite burdens. What you
give to one should be given to all others.
5) POIs can win debates.

6) Opposition can provide a clash that Government may not reasonably expect.
7) Whips ABSOLUTELY cannot raise new matter.
8) Squirrels, Truisms, Tautologies and Time Sets are not reasonable definitions of a
motion.
9) If Government defines the debate wrong, but Opposition does not challenge it,
you should judge the debate for what it was SUPPOSED TO be defined as.
10) 74 76: Above Average. Arguments were complete, clear and answered
questions in the debate. Role positions were fulfilled well, including accepting at
least one POI. Material was precise and true to the core of the debate. Metaargument was also present.