Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
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
Format
2.1
2.2
The proposing team is known as the Government while the opposing team is
known as the Opposition.
2.3
TURN
GOVERNMENT
TURN
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
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
3.0
2.6
After all debaters have spoken once, the 1st or 2nd debater of each team gives
a reply speech with the Opposition reply speech being delivered first followed
by the Government.
2.7
Eligibility
3.1
The competition is open to all students from Form 1 to 5 from all governmentaided secondary schools under the purview of the Ministry of Education,
Malaysia except residential schools.
3.2
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
Adjudication
4.1
4.2
All appointed adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own
schools / districts / states unless there are no qualified adjudicators available.
4.4
4.5
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
Procedure of Debate
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.
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 1st 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.
5.3
5.3.2 The Timekeeper will ring the bell once after the 1st 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
PART 2
Guidelines for Adjudicators
A. Marking Standard
1.0
2.0
3.0
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
1.4
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.
2.2
2.3
Style
Style comprises Language and Manner.
3.1
Language
3.1.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct
sentence structures and grammar.
3.1.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of
speech. English being a second language here, adjudicators should not
9
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
4.2
A debater who answers the critical issues with weak responses should get
poor marks for Content but good marks for Strategy.
10
1.0
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
1.4
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
4.0
4.2
5.0
6.0
5.2
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
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
6.3
Examples are facts, events, occurrences and the like that show the team
arguments are correct.
7.0
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.
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
2.2
2.3
2.4
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
3.3
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 through its
speeches, and not concentrate solely on attacking the case presented by the
Government.
13
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.
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.
14
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
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
6.0
7.0
15
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
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.
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
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.
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 Seri Panglima Dr. 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
40%
60%
.
b. Grade Indicators
Grade A
Grade B
Grade C
Grade D
Grade E
>80%
>60%
>50%
>40%
<40%
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
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
ADJUDICATION
FORMS
Copyright of:
20
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
SCORING SHEET
Round: _____
Room: ______
TIME
CONTENT
(40)
LANGUAGE
(20)
MANNER
(20)
STRATEGY
(20)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(100)
STYLE (40)
OPPOSITION
First Debater
First Debater
Second Debater
Second Debater
Third Debater
Third Debater
STYLE (20)
GOVERNMENT
TIME
CONTENT
(20)
LANGUAGE
(10)
MANNER
(10)
GOV. REPLY:
STRATEGY
(10)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(50)
TIME
CONTENT
(40)
CONTENT
OPPOSITION
TIME
(20)
LANGUAGE
(20)
MANNER
(20)
STRATEGY
(20)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(100)
STRATEGY
(10)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(50)
STYLE (20)
LANGUAGE
(10)
MANNER
(10)
OPP. REPLY:
Winner: __________________________
Adjudicators Signature:_____________________________________
21
ROLE
TIME
First Government
First Opposition
Second Government
Second Opposition
Third Government
Third Opposition
Reply Opposition
Reply - Government
Timekeepers Name
Timekeepers Signature
Date
22
RESULTS
23
WINNING TEAM
_____________________________
(
24