Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20






Copyright of:



1.0 Name & Background

1.1 The competition shall be known as Johor English Language Inter Class Debate

1.2 The competition serves as a platform for students in Johor to compete in a debating
competition that is based on the international standard of the World Schools
Debating Championship with some adjustments.

2.0 Format

2.1 A team must consist of 3 main debaters and 1 reserve.

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:



1 1st Debater 2 1st Debater 4 minutes

3 2nd Debater 4 2nd Debater 4 minutes

5 3rd Debater 6 3rd Debater 4 minutes

8 Reply Speech 7 Reply Speech 2 minutes

1st / 2nd Government 1st / 2nd Opposition

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

2.7 The debate shall be judged according to the Guidelines for Adjudicators provided
in Part 2 of this paper.

3.0 Eligibility

3.1 The competition is open to all students from Form 1 to 3 in Johor

3.2 A class must have 2 teams.The winner moves to the inter class competition.Only 21st
Century schools in Johor will participate in the inter school and inter District
competitions .For the inter school competition A school is allowed to send only one
team to participate in the competition.

3.3 The active speaking members from each team should consist of more than one
race from the same school / district. 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 Representatives to the state level come from the same school.

4.0 Adjudication

4.1 A panel of 3 adjudicators will be appointed for all the rounds at all levels except for
the class level competition.The English teacher can be the only adjudicator.

4.2 All adjudicators must undergo a pre-tournament briefing / training programme.

4.3 All appointed adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own class
/schools / districts .

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

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 Certificates of achievement and participation will be awarded to respective teams.

5.0 Procedure of Debate

5.1 Debate Process

5.1.1 Wherever possible, all competitions should run according to the process given
below: District level organisers should conduct a two-day competition
involving an impromptu round. The Grand Final should be an
impromtu round. In cases where there are 8 teams or more, it is advisable to conduct
at least three preliminary rounds. The competition should be conducted by having 2 or 3 preliminary
rounds on the first day and knockout rounds on the second day. 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 5th 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 3 rd, 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
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.

5.1.2 The knockout stage shall be conducted as follows. For competitions involving 4 teams, a Grand Final shall be conducted
with team ranked 1st meeting team ranked 2nd after two preliminary
rounds. For competitions involving at least 6 teams, impromptu semi-finals
shall be conducted with team ranked 1 st meeting team ranked 4th and
team ranked 2nd meeting team ranked 3rd. 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. 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. The Grand Final shall also be an impromptu round.

5.1.3 Debates Using the Impromptu Motions The motions for the impromptu debates will be given and sides are
drawn at the start of the quarantine session. Teams will then be quarantined in their quarantine rooms for ONE
hour to prepare for the debate (only Inter School level). The
quarantine officers must be in the room with the team. Only team members competing (3 main debaters and 1 reserve) will
be allowed in the quarantine room. The team members should not be
in contact with any unauthorised personnel. 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 walk-over 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

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.

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.(Inter School level only ) .For the inter class and class level
each debater is given 4 minutes.

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 3 rd
minute to signal that the debater has 1 minute left. At the end of the 4 th 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

5.4 The Speaker of the House and Timekeeper should be students.


Guidelines for Adjudicators

A. Marking Standard

1.0 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.

2.0 Content

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

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.

3.0 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 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

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

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

5.0 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).

6.0 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

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

2.0 The Government may define the topic in any way provided that the definition:

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.

3.0 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 pre-prepared
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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Annex One : The Marking Standard

1. Substantive Speeches (out of 100)

(100) (40) (40) (20)

(20) (20)

Excellent 76-80 31-32 15-16 15-16 15-16

Good 71-75 29-30 14-15 14-15 14-15

Average 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

2. Reply Speeches (out of 50)


(50) (20) (20) (10)

(10) (10)

Excellent 38-40 15-16 8 8 8

Good 36-37 14-15 7.5 7.5 7.5

Average 35 14 7 7 7

Satisfactory 33-34 13-14 6.5 6.5 6.5

Weak 30-32 12-13 6 6 6

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

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

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 Qualified to Qualified to Qualified to be a Not qualified
Judge an be Chief be Chief panel adjudicator
International Adjudicator Adjudicator for a district/ local
Tournament. in National in State level Tournament
Qualified to Level Tournament
be Chief Tournament


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.





Round: _____ Room: ______
Name of Adjudicator: __________________________
(40) GE ER (20) (40) AGE ER (20)
(20) (20) (100) (20) (20) (100)

First First
Debater Debater

Second Second
Debater Debater

Third Third
Debater Debater

STYLE (20) STYLE (20)

(20) GE ER (10) AGE ER (10)
(50) (20) (50)
(10) (10) (10) (10)



Winner: __________________________ Please circle the winning side (Government/Opposition)

Margin(Winning Team Losing Team)___________________________

Adjudicators Signature:_____________________________________




First Government
First Opposition
Second Government
Second Opposition
Third Government
Third Opposition
Reply Opposition
Reply - Government

Timekeepers Name
Timekeepers Signature




YEAR : __________

RESULT (Adjudicators vote)



Chief Adjudicators Signature :

( )