Guiding for Practising Debate

Debating Outline Debating is an exercise in the art of persuasion and different people react quite differently in terms of what they find persuasive. Assessing a debate is therefore an inherently subjective task. However although adjudicators will be making subjective judgments as to the impact of argument, style and structure, they do so within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines which channel and limit this subjectivity. This outline is for debaters and adjudicators. It sets out the criteria for the marking of debates, tips on case preparation and the rules for senior debates. 1. Role of the Adjudicator The adjudicator must adopt the role of an average person who only has an average person's knowledge of the subject under debate - but who has an expert knowledge of the rules of debate. He or she must:- (a) eliminate from consideration any preconceived ideas as to the merits of issue of debate and any specialist knowledge of the subject matter; (b) ensure that personal likes and dislikes in terms of speaking style are only relevant to the extent which they are likely to be shared by a cross section of the audience; (c) ensure that although they may be an experienced debater and successful in identifying weaknesses in argument and recognising possible lines of rebuttal, they must avoid adjudicating the debate from this expert stance. They must ask themself  "How convincing would this argument be to the average, reasonable person?"; (d) remember that the average person role does not extend to ignoring the rules of debate and in this regard they must adopt an independent stance of expertise. 2. Function of the Adjudicator First, the adjudicator must decide which team has won. Debates can not be tied. The decision should be made by an evaluation of the debate according to the adjudicator's notes and impressions. Second, the adjudicator must deliver an adjudication. The remarks should be appropriate to the age and standard of the debaters. The adjudicator should:- (a) deliver the adjudication on a team rather than a speaker by speaker basis; (b) be positive and criticize speakers in a constructive manner. Give the teams some comments as to how they can improve their performance.; (c) succinctly state the definition, tests and models presented; (d) discuss the manner and method of each team; (e) discuss the matter of each team, referring only to the key arguments presented. The adjudicator should point out the main strengths and weaknesses of each case and the extent to which these were identified by the opposing team. Conclude which team won on matter; (f) explain clearly and succinctly why the successful team won the debate; The official adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes. The adjudicator should make it clear that he or she will be available briefly to discuss the debate and the performance of individual speakers informally at the close of the debate. 3. The Marking System The marking scheme adopted by WADL and by the Australian Debating Federation allows a maximum of 100 marks to be awarded for substantive speeches (50 for reply speeches): 40 marks for matter, 40 marks for manner and 20 marks for method (20, 20 and 10 for reply speeches). A debater whose overall performance was of a standard to be expected at that level will score 75 marks (30, 30 and 15) Marks can vary within these categories as follows: (a) Matter and manner: 26 (substantially lower than the expected standard) - 34 (exceptional); (b) Method: 13 - 17. The adjudicator must mark within these limits 4. Assessing Matter (a) Logic, relevance and proof are the cornerstones of matter; (b) The topic must be debated. In the case of negative teams the words 'It is not the case that...' should be the basis to the argument; (c) Hung cases are not acceptable; (d) Cases cannot be comprised solely of examples. Examples should be used to reinforce a substantive case, not used as the case; (e) References to experts, while they may be cited to support a case, can not used as a substitute for an argument. Just because Einstein believed something does not prove that it is true. The speaker should explain why what he or she said was valid; (f) Watch out for the following invalid authorities: fictional characters, the status quo, metaphorical or hypothetical examples, religious authority; (g) No new material at third negative. For reasons of fairness the third negative speaker cannot introduce new matter (even in Senior debates with reply speeches);      The third negative speaker may:-      (i) use fresh examples to illustrate an earlier argument;      (ii) argue in rebuttal of an opposing argument; or      (iii) defend the negative case. (h) Don't attach too much weight to statistics; (i) Humorous or mocking arguments. The test of the effectiveness of these arguments is persuasiveness. In particular:-    (i) does the use of humour make the argument more persuasive;    (ii) does the audience accepts the spirit and material of the humorous case;    (iii) is the speaker insincere. 5. Assessing Manner The test is persuasiveness. There are no hard and fast rules to good manner, but there are some factors that may influence an adjudicator's assessment of the persuasive abilities of the speaker, in particular:- (a) Vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, variety in style, fluency and a confident and authoritative speaking style; (b) Use of language: should not vary markedly from normal speech. The language used should be appropriate given the audience (ie not unnecessarily complex or "loose" and colloquial). Obscene language must be heavily penalized; (c) Use of palmcards: encourage the use of palmcards with abbreviated notes, not full sentence speeches written on them; (d) Eye contact with the audience should be maintained, not with the back wall or only the adjudicator. Speakers should not rebut while facing the opposing team; (e) Gestures where appropriate, as long as they are not neurotic or distracting; (f) Stance: speakers may stand or walk, as long as they are not neurotic or distracting; (g) Impression of sincerity: debaters should convey an impression of conviction for their argument, whether or not they really believe it; (h) Personal attacks: derogatory personal references are firmly discouraged - speakers should play the ball not the person. (i) Humour is an important debating tool and should be encouraged as long as it is appropriate and enhances the persuasiveness of the argument. Please note that manner is an impression as to how persuasive a speaker is to the audience. Therefore the above are only a guide and should not be used as a checklist for good manner (ie if a debater was persuasive but stood really still and did not gesture marks should not be deducted). The test is whether the speaker was persuasive. 6. Assessing Method Method is a critical element of debating. There are three distinct elements of method:- (a) the structure and organisation of each individual speech (internal method); (b) the structure and organisation of the team case (team method); and (c) the ability of the team to react to the dynamics of the debate. Internal Method Good internal method consists of:- (a) an interesting or engaging opening; (b) a clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the speech; (c) a logical sequence of ideas, making it easy to follow the development of the argument; (d) arguments which are consistent (e) rebuttal of key opposition arguments; (f) appropriate acceptance of, and answers to, points of information; (g) proper timing of the speech (see below); and (h) an effective conclusion. Team Method Good team method consists of:- (a) an appropriate theme, test, model and split; (b) each speaker properly fulfilling his or her individual speaker role . The speaker roles are as follows:- First Speaker Affirmative: define the topic; give outline of the team's overall argument (theme); give the team split; establish the test or model (if any); present matter; summarise. Negative: challenge the definition (if appropriate); rebuttal; as above. Second Speaker Both: deal with definitional issues; clarify test or model (if appropriate); rebuttal; present matter; summarise. Third Speaker Affirmative: deal with definitional issues; confirm test or model; confirm theme; rebuttal of key opposition arguments; short summary of team case (60-90 seconds) New matter allowed but not recommended. Negative: no new matter allowed.; otherwise as above Dynamics of the Debate / Rebuttal Adjudicators will consider the extent to which debates understand and react to the dynamics of the debate. This is demonstrated through a structured examination of the most contentious issue in the debate and through the effective use of points of information. Rebuttal distinguishes debating from public speaking. This may consist of showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact, is irrelevant, is illogical or that while true, should be accorded little weight. Effective rebuttal is:- (a) best delivered at the beginning of the speech, however more sophisticated speakers may integrate rebuttal and substantive material; and (b) focused upon the key issues in the debate, not a "shopping list" of points made by the opposing team. Timing Timing is primarily a method issue. Speakers must not lose method marks on this basis if they make itto the warning bell or finish soon after the bell. Speakers may lose a mark if they are considerably under time or overtime. Although timing is primarily a method issue it can affect matter marks. Matter delivered after the final bell must be ignored and does not attract matter marks. Further, if someone is drastically under time itmay affect his or her matter marks (he or she may not have delivered as much matter as he or she should have). Timing is also important from an internal structure point, of view. If a speaker spends 2 minutes answering a trivial point of information or spends a disproportionate period of time on rebuttal this will affect the speaker's method (and possibly matter) marks. 7. Points of Information POIs promote dynamic debate and should not be feared. They can be used to point out factual inaccuracies, for clarification or to highlight a contradiction or inconsistency. (a) POIs can be offered between the first and sixth minute. If they are offered outside that time the adjudicator must immediately declare the POI "out of order"; (b) each speaker must accept at least 2 POIs during his or her speech (unless, of course, they are not offered); (c) All speakers must offer at least 2 POIs to each opposing speaker during the course of the debate; (d) Each POI may be of a maximum of 15 seconds duration. The adjudicator must call "time" after the 15 seconds has elapsed and order the speaker delivering the POI to sit down; (e) The speaker is always in control. The speaker may elect politely to accept or refuse a point; (f) The adjudicator will look not only to the quality of the point of information, but also to the reaction of the speaker; (g) The method of marking POIs is as follows:-       Starting Point: No. of POIs: 0 = 2+ per speaker                                              -1 = 4-5 per debate                                              -2 = 1-3 per debate       Variation from Starting Point: +2 = 2+ excellent points, 1 killer                                                  +1 = 2+ good points, 1 excellent point                                                    0 = average points, not taken                                                   -1 = 1+ poor points (overtime, confused, irrelevant, great reply)                                                   -2 = 1+ very poor points, grossly contradict own case (h) A speaker's method marks can be reduced if the speaker accepts too many POIs, accepts them at a bad time (ie in the middle of a point) or allows his or her speech to be unnecessarily disrupted. 8. Reply Speeches Reply speeches should be a broad brush summary of the debate. It should be thematic and not rebuttal. It can be described as an 'adjudication from our side', an analysis of the issues of the debate and why the speaker's team has won. A good reply speech:- (a) is an overview of the whole debate and identifies the key test or model; (b) contains an analysis of the 2-3 key issues in the debate; (c) sets out in summary why the speaker's team should win the debate. The method of marking reply speeches is identical to marking a substantive speech except that the marking ranges are as follows (exactly half):- (a) Matter/ Manner: 13 - 17 (b) Method: 6.5 - 8.5 Reply speeches must not contain new matter. POIs can not be given to reply speakers. The third speaker on a team cannot be the reply speaker. Adjudicators must remember that reply speeches are worth only half marks and are accordingly should not be regarded as significant as the main speeches. However, this does not mean that an otherwise even or reasonably even debate cannot be swung decisively by a convincing reply speech. If reply speeches could not have an impact on the result of the debate, there would be little point having them. 9. Case preparation When you get a topic: (a) Work out what the issue is. (b) Brain storm for ideas independently. (c) Discuss the possible case lines. Possible examples to substantiate the case. (d) Define the topic. The definition must be reasonable. What would an average person on the street think that the topic means? Avoid unreasonable definitions. Don't block out the opposition. There has to be an issue to debate (no truisms!) (e) Develop a theme, an idea which will be underlining all three speeches. (f)  Develop a split, on argument not example. (g) Work on individual speeches. The third speaker should think of possible lines of rebuttal. (h) Before the end of the preparation session, come together again and go over definition, theme and arguments so that everyone is comfortable with the case. 10. Read the Rules Make sure that you read the rules for the WADL competition!

 source 

Australia-Asia English Debate Rules Part2