Parliamentary Debate Chapter 3

Speakers Role and Judging

First Affirmative Constructive

1) Define the terms and set the parameters of the debate by clarifying the Affirmative interpretation of the topic/issues in contention.

2) Give an Outline of the team structure-the “theme” of their case and the levels to be dealt with by each speaker, also called the “team split”.

3) Present the Affirmative Plan.

4) Begin discussion of his part of the split.

First Negative Constructive

1) Clearly define the major areas of disagreement (especially the definition, if any).

2) State Negative position.

3) Give an outline of their own team split.

4) Attack specific Affirmative contentions.

Second Affirmative Constructive

1) Clearly identify major areas of dispute, most importantly, rearguing any definitional issues with the Negative.

2) Defend Affirmative case against attack by previous speaker.

3) Proceed with his portion of the case; construct additional advantages

Second Negative Constructive

1) Defend Negative case against rebuttal by previous speaker.

2) Renew the attack on the Affirmative’s case.

First Negative Rebuttal

1) Rebuild parts of the Negative case attacked by opposing team.

2) Renew the attack on Affirmative case.

First Affirmative Rebuttal

1) Refute new material presented by the second Negative constructive speaker.

2) Select the important issues presented in the first Negative rebuttal

3) Refute key issues against Negative case.

Second Negative Rebuttal

1) Provide an overview of the whole debate and where you stand.

2) Select the Negative’s strongest issues.

3) Explain why these are sufficient to merit a win by the Negative.

4) Explain why other issues merit a loss by the Affirmative.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal

1) Provide an overview of the whole debate and where you stand.

2) Respond to the remaining Negative objections against Affirmative Plan

3) Respond against objections to Affirmative case.

4) Explain why these issues merit a win by the Affirmative.

Judging Cross-Examination Debates

Cross-examination debates require an adjudication panel composed of three (3) judges.

During championship rounds, however, this number may be increased to five (5).

It is necessary that judges have a working knowledge of the methods of analysis used in debate, and if possible, of the debate at hand.

Judging Cross-Examination Debates

A crucial matter is the judge’s understanding of the element’s debate theory (Burden of Proof, Right of Presumption etc)

Debate organizers are advised to give a minimum of twenty (20) minutes worth of briefing on debate theory to neophyte judges before start of debate.

Judging Cross-Examination Debates

Majority of judges should preferably have a background in debate, are public speaking teachers or practitioners, or are lawyers or legislators.

Judges are expected to follow and conform to the criteria and rules set for the debate.

The scores should reflect the judge’s decision, not the other way around

Duty of Judges

1) Decide which team has won and name the best debater/speaker, if any;

2) Provide the reasons for their decisions; and

3) Provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters

4) Which team presented a more coherent and sound case, with emphasis on arguments and support; and

5) Which team performed the process of persuasion more effectively.

Criteria for Judging

Based from National Collegiate Debate League (1994)

Argumentation and Evidence 50%

Interpellation-Attack 10%

Interpellation-Support 10%

Rebuttal 30%

TOTAL 100%

Criteria for Judging

Judges should deduct points from speakers who exceed the time limit for individual speeches and for those who commit violations of the rules of debate

Best Debater Award is given to the debater who ranks first based on the individual scores of the competition.

Usually based on a simple majority vote of judges present.

Debate Moderators

Debate master who ensures the smooth conduct of the debate.

His duties and powers are:

1) To enforce the rules of debate

2) To give a brief background of the Proposition for the benefit of the audience without necessarily going to the process of definition

3) To rule on points of clarification about issues raised in the debate

Debate Moderators

His duties and powers are:4) To rule on question of relevancy;

5) To require debaters under cross-examination to answer all relevant questions;

6) To ensure that the order in speaking is followed;

7) To prevent debaters from exceeding the time limits provided in the debate rules; and

8) To rule on whatever question of parliamentary procedure or of debate rules is raised during the conduct of the debate

Debate Moderators

During the conduct of debate, Moderator should allow the debate to proceed with the least intervention possible.

Moderator, as a matter of policy, should only intervene if there is a clear violation of or deviation from the Rules or if his intervention is called by a debater.

He shall also refrain from giving any comment or suggestion on an answer or question raised by a debater.