TAN SRI DATUK WIRA

ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD

CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
COMPETITION

FOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

RULES AND GUIDELINES

Copyright of:

1
Copyright of:

TAN SRI DATUK WIRA ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE

TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
RULES AND GUIDELINES
PART 1
1.0

Name & Background

2.0

1.1

The competition shall be known as the Tan Sri Datuk Wira Abdul Rahman
Arshad Challenge Trophy English Language Debate Competition.

1.2

The competition serves as a platform for students nationwide to compete in

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

Format
2.1

A team must consist of 3 main debaters and 2 reserves.

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
N

OPPOSITION

TIME

1st Debater

1st Debater

8 minutes

2nd Debater

2nd Debater

8 minutes

3rd Debater

3rd Debater

8 minutes

Reply Speech

Reply Speech

4 minutes

1st / 2nd Government

1st / 2nd Opposition

3.0

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.

2.5

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.

Eligibility
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 / state is allowed to send only one team to participate in the

competition. Number of participations at other levels shall be at the
discretion of the respective organisers.

3.3

The active speaking members from each team should consist of more than
one race from the same school / state. 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

4.0

Representatives to the state and national level can be chosen from

different schools.

Adjudication
4.1

A panel of 3 or more odd-numbered adjudicators will be appointed for all the

rounds at all levels. The Grand Final at the national level will be adjudicated
by a panel appointed by the Division of Co-curriculum and Arts, Ministry of
Education.

4.2

All adjudicators must undergo a pre-tournament training programme and be

accredited in order to be an adjudicator for this competition (Please refer to
Annex 2; Adjudicator Accreditation). Exceptions could be made for
individuals who have been recognised and/or appointed by the Division of
Co-curriculum and Arts, Ministry of Education and/or respective State
Education Departments. Exceptions are made for the sole purpose of
ensuring the smooth running of the competition.

4.3

All appointed adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own
schools / districts / states unless there are no qualified adjudicators
available.

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

5.0

Certificates of achievement and participation will be awarded to respective

teams.

Procedure of Debate
4

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 a minimum of two preliminary rounds
with at least one prepared round and one impromptu round.
The Grand Final should be a prepared 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.
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 5 th shall meet team
ranked 6th.
xi. In competitions involving 8 teams, the team ranked 1 st
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 8th, 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

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 1 st meeting team ranked 2nd
after two preliminary rounds.
5.1.2.2 For competitions involving at least 6 teams, impromptu semifinals 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 1 st 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.
5.1.2.4 After the quarter-finals, the winner of the first quarter-final
shall meet the winner of the fourth quarter-final (winner of 1 st
vs 8th meets winner of 4th vs 5th) in an impromptu semi-finals.
5.1.2.5 The Grand Final shall be a prepared round.
5.1.3 Debates Using the Prepared Motions
5.1.3.1 The motions and sides for the prepared debates will be given
to the competing teams at least 2 weeks before the
competition; except for the Grand Final where only the
motion is provided and sides will be drawn after the semifinals.
5.1.3.2 No quarantine time will be given for the debate but teams will
be seated in the debate room 10 minutes before the debate
begins to organise their notes.
5.1.3.3 Any team that is late would have to inform the organisers
within 5 minutes of the scheduled time.
5.1.3.4 The organisers shall only allow a maximum waiting time of
15 minutes before the team forfeits the debate and the team
present will be awarded a walk-over.
5.1.3.5 In a walk-over, the losing team will be awarded the minimum
score of 60 for each speaker and 30 for reply with a -3 ballot
score. The winning team shall receive a winning total of 70
for each debater and 35 for reply with a +3 ballot score.
5.1.3.6 The scores shall be entered and the teams shall be ranked
according to their overall performance in the preliminary
rounds.

5.1.4 Debates Using the Impromptu Motions

5.1.4.1 The motions for the impromptu debates will be given and
sides are drawn at the start of the quarantine session.
6

5.1.4.2 Teams 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.
5.1.4.3 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 their side 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.
5.1.4.4 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.
5.1.4.5 Only 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 unauthorised
personnel.
5.1.4.6 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 walkover 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.
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.
7

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 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 Point(s) of
Information. At the end of the 8th 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 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.
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.

PART 2
Guidelines for Adjudicators
A. Marking Standard
1.0

2.0

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.

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

3.0

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.

Style
Style comprises Language and Manner.
3.1

Language
3.1.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct
sentence structures and grammar.
9

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

10

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 reasonable
11

one, such that the average reasonable person would accept it is applicable
to the debate.
5.0

6.0

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).

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

12

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:

3.0

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.

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 preprepared 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
13

through its speeches, and not concentrate solely on attacking the case presented
by the Government.
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.

14

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.

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.
15

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.

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.

Revised:
6 September 2015
The Division of Co-Curriculum and Arts, Ministry of Education,
The Malaysian Institute of Debate and Public Speaking (MIDP),
National School Debate Council.

Annex One : The Marking Standard

1. Substantive Speeches (out of 100)
16

STANDARD

OVERALL
(100)

CONTENT
(40)

STYLE
(40)

STRATEGY
(20)

LANGUAGE
(20)

MANNER
(20)

Excellent

76-80

31-32

15-16

15-16

15-16

Good

71-75

29-30

14-15

14-15

14-15

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

Average

2. Reply Speeches (out of 50)

STANDARD

OVERALL
(50)

CONTENT
(20)

STYLE
(20)

STRATEGY
(10)

LANGUAGE
(10)

MANNER
(10)

Excellent

38-40

15-16

Good

36-37

14-15

7.5

7.5

7.5

35

14

Satisfactory

33-34

13-14

6.5

6.5

6.5

Weak

30-32

12-13

Average

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.

Annex Two : Adjudicator Accreditation And Qualification Guidelines

Adjudicator Accreditation And Grading
17

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
Judge an
International
Tournament.
Qualified to
be Chief
Adjudicators

Qualified to
be Chief
Adjudicator
in National
Level
Tournament

Qualified to
be Chief
Adjudicator
in State level
Tournament

Qualified to be a Not qualified

panel adjudicator
for a district/ local
Tournament

0.

Qualification
18

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.

19

TAN SRI DATUK WIRA ABDUL

RAHMAN ARSHAD
CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
COMPETITION
FOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ADJUDICATION
FORMS
Copyright of:

20

TAN SRI DATUK WIRA ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
SCORING SHEET
Round: _____

Room: ______

Name of Adjudicator: __________________________

Motion:___________________________________________________________
GOVERNME
NT

TIME

CONTE
NT
(40)

STYLE (40)
LANGUA
GE
(20)

MANN
ER
(20)

STRATE
GY
(20)

SPEAK
ER
SCORE

OPPOSITION

(100)

First
Debater

First
Debater

Second
Debater

Second
Debater

Third
Debater

Third
Debater

GOVERNME
NT

TIME

CONTE
NT
(20)

STYLE (20)
LANGUA
GE
(10)

MANN
ER
(10)

GOV. REPLY:

TIME

CONTE
NT
(40)

STRATE
GY
(10)

SPEAK
ER
SCORE
(50)

OPPOSITION

TIME

CONTE
NT
(20)

STYLE (40)
LANGU
AGE
(20)

MANN
ER
(20)

STYLE (20)
LANGU
AGE
(10)

MANN
ER
(10)

STRATE
GY
(20)

SPEAK
ER
SCORE
(100)

STRATE
GY
(10)

SPEAK
ER
SCORE
(50)

OPP. REPLY:

TOTAL TEAM SCORES

Winner: __________________________

TOTAL TEAM SCORES

Please circle the winning side (Government/Opposition)

Margin(Winning Team Losing Team)___________________________

Adjudicators Signature:_____________________________________

21

TAN SRI DATUK WIRA ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD

CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE 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

RESULTS
22

TAN SRI DATUK WIRA ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE

TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

RESULT (Adjudicators vote)

23

WINNING TEAM

TEAM: GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION

Chief Adjudicators Signature

_____________________________
(

24