Basics

What is debate?
1. Debate is an intellectual discourse
Given an issue, it emphasizes:
a. reasoned & persuasive argumentation
b. synthesis and engagement for divergent points of view
c. rigorous self-examination
2. Debate is a discipline
a. a method of thinking
b. calls for a robust analysis of an issue at hand and from the many
things we know, choose only the relevant and significant knowledge
in explaining our stand.
3. Debate is a game
a. a conversation with RULES
b. persuasiveness of arguments is qualified with clear standards and
procedures of logic and judgments
c. like a sport, both skills and adherence to the rules matter.

Why do we debate?
We debate because:
● “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question
without debating it.” – Joseph Joubert
● It is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democratic and open
societies.
● It is a tool for personal development: self-confidence, critical-thinking,
effective communication skills, wit and quick-mindedness.
● “I think, therefore I am.”

Analysis and argumentation

There’s always something to be said and explained

What are arguments?

They are proofs derived from logical explanation and facts used to either support
or oppose a topic/stand.
Things to note:
● There is something to be proven.
● An argument relies on logic.
● It becomes more persuasive when derived from or supported by
facts (“matter”).
● Arguments are statements of analysis.

Basic structure of an argument

BBanner Statement/Label
• Phrase or sentence that encapsulates the argument
• Reminder: use simple words especially for complex arguments
• Give more emphasis on analysis than on packaging
Note that banner statements provide the first impression to your argument,
so your choice of words is paramount.

Establishment of premises
– Premises are facts or generally accepted notions that serve as the
foundation of the case.
– Two ways to use premises:
• Give all the premises at the start of argumentation.
• Ration off premises in different parts of the argument with
logical explanations.
Logical Implications and Extensions
– Logical implications are semi-conclusions that you can derive from
premises you already have. (SO WHAT?)
– Logical extensions are causal or analysis links from one logical
implication to another. (HOW?)

Illustrative example
– Concretization of general analysis
– Illustrates the steps in the logical extension and presents a realistic
bigger picture where your argument will be in.
– Use your matter to make it more realistic
– Previous experiences
– Case studies
– Street knowledge

Conclusion and Tieback

– What does all the things you say lead to? Conclusion summarizes
your argument and then highlights its:
– relevance to your stand
– importance in assessing the issue
– Conclusions must explain why the idea you presented answers your
burden of proof.

The British Parliamentary Format

Debate Flow
The Basics of BP
• Four teams: Opening Government (OG), Closing Government (CG),
Opening Opposition (OO), Closing Opposition (CO)
• Teams can be classified according to their side (Government or Opposition)
and/or according to their halves (Opening or Closing)
• 15 minutes of “prep” time to build a case and get ready for the debate
• 7-minute speeches, with the first and last minute being uninterrupted (no
points of information)

Speaker Roles

SPEAKER TASKS
POSITION
Prime Minister Provide the set-up.
Advance positive argumentation for their side.
Leader of the Provide the clash.
Opposition Respond to the PM.
Advance positive argumentation for their side.

Deputies Respond to the previous speaker.

Support 1st speaker.
Advance new positive argumentation for their side.

Members Respond to previous speaker.

Provide an extension.

Whips Support the extension.

Synthesize the debate.

Speaker Roles are…

● A matter of strategy – in order to win, there must be ways to persuade
more (CONSTRUCT), respond to the other side (REBUT) and reiterate your
side (REBUILD)
● A way to allocate labor: the impossibility of a genius sent from heaven to
explain everything in 7 minutes
o Team camaraderie and consistency

Motions, Setups and Clashes

Motions
• A motion is a topic to be discussed in a given debate.
• It is a complete statement that the Government bench is expected to
affirm and the Opposition bench is expected to deny.

Examples:
THW audit and publish the financial records of the Catholic Church.
TH celebrates student activism in public universities.

Set-ups
• The way the motion is to be understood in the debate at hand is presented
using a set-up. The set-up is a framework within which the entire debate
occurs.
 • A set-up generally includes the following components:
▪ Context – Where is this debate taking place?
▪ Definition – What will the words or phrases in the motion mean for
the purposes of this debate?
▪ Question – What is the main question of the debate?
▪ Measure – What goal is both sides trying to achieve through their
respective stances? What standards do we use for determining
whether the motion, as understood in the debate, is true or false?
Note: Each constructive speech must address ALL standards provided in the
set-up
• Notice that a motion and/or a set-up implies the nature of the debate.
1. Assessment or value judgment debate
• The motion, as understood by the definition, is examined for
its truth-value (true or false).
• It does not necessarily present a course of action to be
undertaken by a particular actor or consolidated group of
actors.
• e.g. The motion on political dynasties as set-up in the previous
slide.
2. Policy or proposal debate
• It recommends a course of action that may be undertaken by a
particular actor or consolidated group of actors.
• The central issues are often what principles must be protected
and how a policy attempts to fulfil those principles.
• e.g. The motion above is set up in such a way that the question
of the debate becomes: Should we ban family members from
occupying elected government offices simultaneously and/or
consecutively?
3. Comparison debate
• e.g. A debate about whether democracy or authoritarianism is
the better political system for the Philippines.
Clashes
The clash is the stance of the Opposition bench that:
– Is mutually exclusive from the stance of the Government as provided
by the motion and the stance they themselves took.
– Responds to the burden of the Opposition bench required by the
motion and the set-up.
 – This is the Opposition’s “set-up”
Standard ways to clash in policy debates
1. The policy is ineffective and/or counterproductive in achieving its goal.
(That’s why the status quo is still better.)
2. The policy sacrifices other goals equal or higher in value. (That’s why the
status quo is still better.)
3. There are better alternatives to the policy—more effective or equally
effective without sacrificing other important goals.

On Closing Teams’ Extensions

• Extensions must not be rehashed from opening side
arguments. A rehashed extension is almost a guaranteed loss
for a closing team.
• Finding a good extension means looking at the various
perspectives of the debate, such as those of the different
players/stakeholders

Introducing the extension

• Constructive clarification: identify the arguments and points
of contention in the Opening half and show where the
extension will enter the debate
• Clearly delineate the extension from the arguments of
opening teams
– Show why it is different
– Show why it is more relevant/important
• An extension is a new case with a new perspective or a better
explanation for insufficiently substantiated arguments

Debate Team Spirit

How will you be judged?
● Speaker Assessment
o Elements of Speech
▪ MATTER
▪ MANNER
▪ METHOD
o Speaker Roles
● Debate Assessment
o The adjudicator should look at what was said in the context of a
bigger picture.
o Envisioning the debate.

Rebuttals and POI’s

Putting more action and dynamism in the debate.

Why do we need to rebut?

● To respond and engage:
▪ You analyze and digest what the other team said.
▪ You found a logical error/leap.
▪ You saw a false matter.
▪ You just think it is ridiculous.
 ● To be defensive:
▪ You want to persuade them back to your side.
▪ There might be truth to what they are saying but yours is better.

3 DEADLY SINS
• Always be on the lookout for the following most common speaker
mistakes:
1. Assertion – statement made without appropriate evidence
2. Deviation – straying from the topic
3. Insufficiency – missing links, tiebacks, and examples that give less
weight to the potency of an argument

REBUTTALS
Steps for Rebutting
● Identify the argument you wish to debunk
● Briefly explain the gist of the argument
● Explain why argument is wrong
● Explain how the wrongness of the argument means they do not achieve
the goal of the debate

Techniques for Rebuttals

• Irrelevant
• Illogical - conclusion doesn’t follow premise
• Unreasonable - argument not enough reason (too petty, too small,
too minor an issue) to support a stance
• False - argument is dead wrong, e.g. premise is dead wrong or
characterization is inaccurate
• Inconsistent - argument contradicts other arguments of the same
side, or non-even-if rebuttals
• Out of context – argument may be true but not in the debate’s case
or there’s a higher value to it
Rebuttal Speeches

Whip Speakers
• Rebuttal, summation speakers
• GW has the advantage over OW regarding the introduction of new
matter. However, this advantage must be used sparingly.
• Introduction of new matter gives adjudicators the impression that
MG was insufficient in providing constructive material. BE VERY
CAREFUL.
• May be justified if MO introduced a completely new issue that was
unaddressed in the debate.

Points of Information
● POI’s are 15-second interjections, acceptable only after the first minute
and before the last minute of a speech
● A powerful POI can undermine and even destroy an opponent’s argument.
● POI’s must be made as strategically as possible to put the speaker on the
defensive and make him justify his stance.

⚫
Delivering Points of Information
Keep it short and to the point.
 ⚫
⚫Clarify
Make a sharp question that demands an answer.
anything vague about the setup/clash and arguments of the
opposing team.

Variations of POIs
• Give a point of clarification
• Give a counter-example.
• Raise a what-if question.
• Show an error of logic.
• Show lack of relevance.
• Cross-examine evidence.

What to remember
● Handling a POI requires calculation
▪ How many to accept?
▪ Whom to accept?
▪ When to accept?
● Take POIs only after you are done with your argument or setup.
● Always remember:
▪ Answering a POI takes your time
▪ Always deal with the offered point
▪ Never easily dismiss points

Looking it from a bird’s eye view

● Debates are dynamic – you can be questioned anytime.
● It requires active processing and quick yet still logical thinking.
● It demands on-debate adjustments and compromises, what you prepare
would not always what will be exactly said.
ADVANCED DEBATE SEMINAR
Constructing Models

What is a model?
• A model is a framework that consists of a concrete set of actions that will
be employed through a policy in order to address an issue.

What is the model for?

• Sets the frame of the debate
• Grounds and provides direction to the debate
• What principles the model is trying to protect and how the model achieves
that goal?
• A model can spell which issues or arguments are relevant and which are
not

Why create a model?

• To set a direction for the debate
• Provides a frame and thus limits the debate
• Grounds the debate
* A model can spell which issues or arguments are relevant and which are not

Who can give models?

• First Speakers
• For LO, it is usually called counter-proposal or a counter-frame
* LO has to prove that there is a reason for the counter (ie give a better one and
defend it)
* Sticking to SQ can be the counter, but opp has to prove that gov’s frame makes
SQ worse off

When are models used?

• All the time, but not all models have policies.
• THW motions usually entail policies.
• In general, if the motion calls for you to defend something new (that isn’t a
fixed or newly introduced policy); to change SQ; envision a “better world”
Parts of a Model
a. Context
b. Solution to a problem/ Goal
c. Action plan/ Characterization
d. Safeguards
e. Disclaimers

Examples
• THW legalize prostitution
• THBT justices should be elected by the public
• TH supports the CCT in the Philippines

Setting the context

– Set the context in a reasonable way.
• must be consistent with trends, with great plausibility of
happening in the real world, most relevant context
• a false context casts a shadow of doubt on the possibility of
being able to apply the model on the ground

Problem/Solution/Goal
– Why does the context call for this model?
• What is happening in the particular region? What response does the
situation call for? How does the model forward the most appropriate
response?
• a sense of urgency is very important
• Sample Motion Analysis: This House believes that European Governments
should pay parents to have children.

Action Plan
• What concrete measures constitute the policy in terms of addressing the
problem?
• Think of everything: actors involved, timeline, implementation
• If helpful, try imagining you were proposing a law in congress
*While not all debates need policies, but all will need characterization or framing.

Safeguards
 • What concrete measures constitute the policy in terms of addressing the
problem?
• Think of everything: actors involved, timeline, implementation
• If helpful, try imagining you were proposing a law in congress
*While not all debates need policies, but all will need characterization or framing.

Disclaimers
• State and justify any exemptions to the policy, if any
• What are things provided in status quo that the proposal does not remove?

Sample Motion Analysis: This house would use gambling to rejuvenate

economically depressed zones.
• CONTEXT: developing world

• SOLUTION/GOAL/PRINCIPLE: economic development

• ACTION PLAN:
1) Government will develop strategic economic zones such as gambling sites
for high-end gambling like casinos.
2) These sites will be turned into viable tourist areas.
3) The revenues from such an industry will be channeled to social services,
livelihood projects, and other investments for the development of such
economically depressed areas

- SAFEGUARDS:
1.) Stringent government monitoring would ensure that illegal forms of
gambling (ex. jueteng, jai alai) would not be present in such zones.
2.) The targets of such gambling sites are foreigners and rich citizens, not
the poor who cannot afford to put their low income in high-risk ventures.

- DISCLAIMERS:
1.) Crackdown on illegal forms of gambling would still continue.
2.) Using gambling to rejuvenate economically depressed zones would just
complement other programs for economic development.
3.) Only government-sanctioned gambling operators can hold business in
such sites
Notes
• Forwarding a Solution Through the Model
• What does the model provide?
• - Defend your model. How come the benefits that the model gives
outweigh the possible costs?
• Comparing the model with status quo
• - hard line vs. soft line approach
• - hard-line: a big or radical change to the status quo, soft-line: a relatively
small change to the status quo or keeping a big aspect of status quo intact
• - ensure that there is consistency between your framing of the extent of
the problem and the magnitude of change proposed in your model
• - striking the balance: moderate line
• Maximizing the space to argue in your model

Responding to Strong Models

– What assumptions did the other team make when they constructed
the model?
• wrong characterization of the status quo or actors in the
debate?
• Miscalculations on how actors would respond to the issues in
the debate
• Is the model the right solution to the problem at hand?

Responding to String Models

• Another option for opening opposition would be to concede the principles
behind the model that opening government gave, but to show that the
model would only exacerbate the problem and fail in protecting those
principles.
• Opening opposition could also downplay the benefits that the model
forwards and prove that the detriments of the model tremendously
outweigh those marginal benefits.
• It’s also a viable strategy to point out how the benefits that opening
government promised are not mutually exclusive to their side.
• This strategy is strong when opposition points out that it is possible
to achieve the same benefits without incurring the costs of
opening government’s policy through opposition’s
counter-paradigm.
Formulating Elevations
• Nature of an Elevation:
New perspective in the debate
- New and deeper analysis
- Key is progression 🡪 Did the debate move forward after the elevation
was launched?
- Elevations must have remarkable engagement on the cases presented
by the opposing team
- The winning elevation: consistent, but stronger than the opening half🡪
the debate has a crucial, but unresolved issue, and closing team was able to
address it

• Closing Teams Must Address:

- How does your elevation address a relevant issue in the debate?
- Make your elevation a central issue in the debate.
- Engage the challenges, unanswered questions posed by the debate

• As much as possible, avoid:

- Borrowing premises from your opening team (Especially if your
opening team was unable to prove those premises)
- Giving arguments that have the same analysis or logical conclusion
as your opening team

• Building an Extension:
- Point out the obvious arguments first, and work from there🡪 What
aspects of the side’s burden are these arguments not addressing?
- Look at parties involved or stakeholders🡪 Who are the people
involved that need protection? Which party has not been dealt with
by the opening team? (It is important to justify why this party is a key
player in the debate)
- Analyze the proposal in terms of trends🡪 How does the proposal
respond to trends?
Sample Motion Analysis: This house would allow insurance companies to
consider the results of genetic tests in assessing potential customers.
What information do genetic tests give? What are the recent trends in
making use of genetic information? How do insurance companies assess
potential customers?
• Use a very strong rebuttal as a foundation for your extension

Sample Motion Analysis: This house believes that women should have equal
position with men in the military.
• Practice Extension Construction:

Sample Motion Analysis: This House believes that international law should
recognize the right of each state to unilaterally undertake armed humanitarian
intervention.

Try this one, too!

Sample Motion Analysis: This House would use international sporting events for
political change.

Whipping for the Win!

Whipping for the Win Seminar Plan:
Issues-Based Whipping
- What were the points of contention in the debate?
- How does your elevation address these points of contention?
- incorporate the extension in every major point of contention
- make your extension a central issue in addressing a crucial
point of contention in the debate
- justify why your extension addresses a key issue, or rather, the
most important issue in the debate.
- What were the problems that the debate was trying to solve
and how did your elevation address those dilemmas?
(key-and-lock analysis), (“We put the debate back on track”
approach)
- What are the issues that a team must resolve to walk away
with a win in the debate? How did your team perform that
role?
- Identify clinchers in the debate
 • Strength of Response
- Defense of proposal/paradigm🡪 What makes yours work?
- Model engagement (Weigh models, as well as principles defended
by both sides)
- Targeted rebuttals
- Time management is a vital aspect, too🡪 balance time spent on
rebuttals with reinforcing your case

• The “Glorifying” Part of Whipping

I. Differentiate your extension from the line of argumentation
presented by your opening team
II. How to respond to difficult scenarios:
a) Your opening team is very strong
- Treat the OG/OO as the stepping stone to the debate, but show
how you provided the missing answers
• The Whip Aura
I. Manner matters: How do you end the debate with a big bang?

“What Adjudicators Look For In Assessing Debates” Seminar Plan

• Basis for Judging Teams:

- Fulfillment of Burden
- Analysis and Substantiation of Arguments
- Strength of Rebuttals, Responsiveness
- Fulfillment of Team and Speaker Roles

• Which arguments are credited?

- How effective were the arguments in responding to the key issues in the
debate? (*What makes an issue a key issue?)
- Arguments that were pushed to their logical conclusion
- Plausibility of arguments🡪 grounding in the real world
Can this really happen?
“We cannot give you credit for what you did not do.”

• Assessing Models
 - Were they able to prove the viability of their model?
- Was the model defended effectively?

• Engagement in the Debate

- Dynamism🡪 How did the team respond to the way the debate turned out?
- The “out-of-the-debate” scenario: not judged as 4th right away, have to
justify why the other teams were right in boxing that team out

DEBATE ADJUDICATION1
WHO IS AN ADJUDICATOR?
● In a micro-perspective, the adjudicator listens and assesses the debate to
lead to a decision of who won in the round.
● What matters most is his/her perception and understanding of the debate.

1
 ● In a larger perspective, the adjudicators may be seen as the backbone of
any debate tournament.
● The quality of the adjudication pool is essential to the overall level of
fairness and competitiveness of the tournament.
● Their decision determines the match-ups, the breaking teams, the speaker
rankings and of course: the eventual champions.

ADJUDICATOR’S ROLE
● Facilitate the orderly conduct of the debate
- Call the house to order and enforce time limits (Set-up)
● Decide which team was more convincing
- Compare team performances in accordance to rules of the debate
(Process)
● Explain how the decision was reached.
- Discuss the major issue(s) in the debate, how each team won/lost each
issue. (Output)
● Provide constructive feedback.
- What could they have done to win? (Dialogue)

IMPORTANCE OF AN ADJUDICATOR
● The backbone of any debate society and debate tournament.
● The quality of the adjudication pool is indispensable to the growth and
improvement of a debate society and the fairness and credibility of a
tournament.
- Their decisions determine the teams to be fielded in a tournament
(subsidized or not), match-ups, the breaking teams, the speaker
rankings, and the eventual champions.
● Bad adjudicators create incompetent or disillusioned debaters.
- Debaters will either feel they’re good enough and become complacent
or feel cheated.

THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS

● Debate Assessment
– Per individual speakers using matter, manner and method. (Grade
partially)
– The debate as a whole
● Come up with a verdict.
 ● Grade the speeches.
– No low-point win. The tally of the scores should match the ranking
and decision.
● Oral Adjudication

ESSENTIALS OF ADJUDICATION
● Active listening and thinking
– S/he is the most active person in the debate processing every speech,
POI and rebuttals which s/he will need in coming up with a verdict.
● Intelligent note-taking
– Not a simple speech transcription.
– The reality – perception gap (what happened vs. what you
understood)
– Precision and critical points
– Important tool for review and comments

● Fairness and clarity of standards

– As much as there is no single set of standards applicable on a blanket
way to all debates, s/he applies each set of criteria to all teams
equally and holistically.
● Informed and reasonable processing
– The Average Reasonable Person Assumption
– An upper-hand knowledge and specialization of the rules and
technicalities of the debate as a game and as a dialogue.

PRINCIPLES OF DEBATE ASSESSMENT

COMMON ADJUDICATOR STYLES

● The adjudicator adopts not an average reasonable person’s perspective but
an elementary student’s one.
– It assumes the burden for the speakers to package their debate in
the most understandable way
– The adjudicator can question only up to the point of how the debate
went and never anything outside its coverage.
– He cannot question unless the debate questions the point.
● Automaticity and Pessimism
 – The adjudicator will automatically ask everything said in the debate
with the question “Is that true?”
– His/her I-am-convinced meter allows his personal perspectives and
analysis to play in assessing what the speaker says.
– On some instances, even if it is not addressed as false in the debate,
he recognizes a flaw or leap of analysis and deals with it accordingly.
● Treating the debate like a book
– The adjudicator highlights not personal contribution of every
speaker but team dynamics in the debate.
– Every speech counts only in relation to all the speeches said in the
debate.
– Every issue gains merit only relative to the depth of discussion and
coverage at the end of the round.
– Every speech is complete to and complete of themselves.

RECONCILIATION OF PERPECTIVES

LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT
1. Speaker Assessment
● Elements of Speech
 – MATTER
– MANNER
– METHOD
● Elements of a speech 🡪 NOT to be taken separately but holistically

Manner – speaking style, word choice

e.g. Soft, laid-back versus intense, aggressive
Method – structure/organization
e.g. Rebuttals followed by constructive versus issues
Matter – substantiated, relevant/dynamic, consistent argumentation
● Speaker Roles

2. Debate Assessment
● The adjudicator should look at what was said in the context of a
bigger picture.
● Envisioning the debate.

ASSESSING MATTER
How effectively would an average reasonable person be persuaded?
● Positive vs. negative matter
– Positive contribution (i.e. establishes truth) attempt to prove the
VALUE of something to defend a team’s stand and can stand on its
own
– Negative contribution (i.e. establishes falsity) aim to disprove the
premise or conclusion of an opponent’s constructive argument and
cannot stand on its own
– Relates to burden – debaters must show that their side improves
status quo or avoids making it worse
● Role of examples
– Important but not necessary, grounds analysis and establishes realism
– Debaters cannot lose because of zero or wrong examples

ASSESSING MANNER
● Manner is the presentation of a speech.
- The element of style: eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures,
language use, humor and wit, the pacing of the debater’s speech, etc.
 ● There is no single standard of a good manner, but there are at least some
basics thresholds.
- Some examples of bad manner: racist, sexist or plainly offensive
comments about people, derogatory or insulting personal remarks
about other debaters in the debate, garbled speech, fidgety body,
monotonous voice, reading prepared speech

ASSESSING METHOD
● Method is structure, timing and the technical presentation of a speech.
● Distinguish between individual/team method, and arrive at decisions
taking both into consideration.
– Individual method – signposting arguments, the organization of a
debater’s speech so that it is clear and concise, the fulfillment of
speaker roles
How clearly and effectively was a speech presented?
– Team method – the delineation and allocation of arguments, how
teams build, rebuild, rebut cases to cover all relevant issues
How comprehensive and effective was a team’s approach to the debate?
● Good timing means that a speaker gives enough time to each important
part of his/her speech.
● Check speeches for teams’ consistency and responsiveness with regard to
their issues and that of their opponent’s – also an analysis on the
effectiveness of team methods.

HOLISTIC SPEAKER ASSESSMENT

● Technicalities in themselves don’t win debates! What matters is the extent
to which non-adherence to the rules impaired the debate.

● Emerging dominance of matter

– Taste factors into the evaluation of manner and method more than
matter.
– How much can be intelligently said about manner or method?
– When manner and method becomes plainly bad, matter is obviously
weakened.
● Weighing positive versus negative material
– Positive = can be found in the arguments, rebuttals, or POIs
 – Negative = extent of disproving and making incredible the positive
matter of the opponent
● Weighing relevance of matter
– Matter vomit
– Relevance and analysis over quantity of examples
● All things must be considered and equally imposed on all speakers as much
as applicable (eg. Responsiveness of PM).
A NOTE ON PATTERN ADJUDICATION
● Resistance to wild, aggressive debating (bias on manner)
● Insistence of a correct method vs. demanding organization and clarity
– Rebuttal-first-then constructive “rule”
– No-more-than-three-minutes-for-rebuttals “rule”

SPEAKER ROLES RELATIVE TO DEBATE FORMAT

1. British Parliamentary
Speaker Tasks
Position
Prime Provide the set-up.
Minister Advance positive argumentation for their
side.
Leader of Provide the clash.
Oppositi Respond to the PM.
on Advance positive argumentation for their
side.
Deputies Respond to the previous speaker.
Support 1st speaker.
Advance new positive argumentation for their
side.
Members Respond to previous speaker.
Provide an extension.
Whips Support the extension.
Synthesize the debate.

2. Asian Parliamentary
Speaker Position Tasks

Prime Minister Provide the set-up.

 Advance positive argumentation for
their side.
Leader of Provide the clash.
Opposition Respond to the PM.
Advance positive argumentation for
their side.
Deputies Respond to the previous speaker.
Support 1st speaker.
Advance new positive argumentation
for their side.
Members Respond to previous speaker.
Provide an extension.
Whips Support the extension.
Synthesize the debate.

DEBATE ASSESSMENT
● It isn’t enough to base everything on the speaker alone. The debate is
given due justice and fairness when each speech is seen in a bigger picture.
● The assessment in the collective debate level must also give stress to the
format of the debate.
– Speaker roles and requirements shift
– Value and dynamisms differ
– So does criteria in adjudication
– Rule of thumb: THERE IS NO SINGLE CRITERIA FOR
ADJUDICATION.

THE AVERAGE REASONABLE PERSON

● Does not mean the adj is TABULA RASA
● It assumes that the adjudicator has a general knowledge of a literate
person who reads the headlines.
● S/he possesses superior knowledge and grasp of debate rules.
● S/he is an intelligent member of the audience who has not yet made up his
or her mind about the question of the debate.
● S/he is open to both affirmative and negative reasoning.

CRITERIA FOR DEBATE ASSESSMENT

1. Consistency
 ● Is how claims, premises, analysis, and conclusions support or
contradict each other
● Internal
– Did the speaker contradict himself?
● Team
– Did the speakers contradict each other?
● Side consistency
– Did the Closing team contradict their Opening?
– Was it really a contradiction or a nuanced analysis?
– Was it a necessary contradiction?
● Take into consideration all the arguments, rebuttals, and POIs
● Consider both explicit and implicit contradictions
● Differentiate tensions from contradictions
– Motion: THW limit rural to urban migrations
– Gov says rural folk migrating to urban centers because of
opportunities, leading to overcrowding and decay
– Tension: Are cities efficient or inefficient?
– Reconcilable through the concept of Carrying Capacity
– Can’t penalize tensions if not pointed out

2. Substantiation
● Is the way you bring an argument to life
● “Substance”, “Material”
● Logical process
● Evaluate by asking:
– How did this argument get proven?
– Is it believable?
– Does it withstand the criticism of an average, reasonable
person?
– Does it withstand the rebuttals/counterarguments of the other
team?
3. Relevance
● Is how an element in the debate relates to the burden of the motion
and the actual debate (if it has already evolved)
● Argument, speaker, Team
● “Boxed out”
 ● Unengaged arguments do not become irrelevant just because they
are unengaged
● Evaluate by asking:
– What is the scope of the debate?
– Does the argument/speaker/team’s scope coincide with that of the
debate?
4. Dynamism
● Is the sum-total of the positive and negative contribution of a
speaker/team in relation to the needs of the debate at that point in
time
● Includes responses in all their various forms
● Evaluate by asking:
– How did a team respond to rebuttals or arguments? Were they trivial
issues?
– Were there deadlocks left unresolved?
– Were the POIs timely?
5. Role fulfillment
● Is the ability of a speaker/team to fulfill default tasks assigned by the
conventions of debate
● Special tasks
● Common tasks
● Evaluate by asking:
– What is their assigned role?
– Did the speakers/teams fulfill their roles?
– Did the speakers/teams fulfill their roles well?

GRADING A SPEECH
● Grade a speech in itself (elements, role) then relative to the entirety of the
debate
– KEYWORD: holistic grading
● The average speech as a starting point
An average speaker gets a grade of 75 by simply doing what was expected
of him.
● Falling short of or exceeding expectations requires appropriate
deductions/additions from the average speech grade.
● Grades can be made immediately after a speech is delivered, and can be
modified later on to suit the adjudicator’s final decision.
SAMPLE GRADE BREAKDOWN
Comments Substantive Speech Reply Speech
Only flaw is time limit; 80-81 40
excellent analysis,
comprehensive, captured
your attention and wiped
out the other teams
Few weaknesses; 78-79 39-39.5
excellent analysis,
comprehensive and very
convincing
More strengths than 76-77 38-38.5
weaknesses; good
analysis, comparative and
persuasive
Equal strengths and 75 37.5
weaknesses. Fulfilled
speaker roles.
Acceptable 73-74 36.5-37
contribution/some
technical violations;
speech had minor flaws
Minimal 71-72 35.5-36
contribution/gross
technical violations;
speech had fundamental
flaws
No substantive 69-70 34.5-35
contribution to the
debate. Irrelevant.

THE VERDICT
● An oral adjudication should be prepared!
– Way out: Make up your mind while you are in the debate [SILENT
ENGAGEMENT]
 ● An oral adjudication is not a debate speech. It should not take too long.
– You are not arguing but showing the debaters how did you perceive
the debate.
● Again, there is no single style to oral adjudication. What is important is
justifying the decision.
– Domain oral adjudication
– Issue-based adjudication

COMMON STRUCTURE FOR ORAL ADJUDICATION

● Declaring who won (rankings)
● Standards/ Justification for decision
- Why do your criteria point to your chosen winner?
- Avoid mere parroting lines in case and reply, explain its relevance
● Issues in the debate
- If you hadn’t done this already, identify all the issues concisely. Tell
debaters how these issues fell and how that figured into the verdict.
● Constructive comments

SAMPLE ADJUDICATION EXAM

● Motion: THW ban far right political parties
● Asians format (3 versus 3)
● First issue
– Is it legitimate to ban right groups from becoming political parties?
▪ Standards for banning parties
✔ Prop says political parties must be flexible and
accommodating, not uncompromising
✔ Prop says that political parties must not exclude or
discriminate in a democratic society
✔ Opp says that these standards are arbitrary, the
standard should be when it poses a direct harm.
ISSUES IN ADJUDICATION
ENTERING THE DEBATE

CHAIR-PANEL DYNAMICS
● Time limits
– 15 mins MAX for discussion, then vote per ranking
– 5-10 MAX mins for oral adjudication
 ● Grading
– Speaker scores by panel consensus
– Average scores if no consensus
– No decimals for consensus scores

ASSESSING STANDARDS
● What are standards?
– Metric for fairly assessing all debaters
– Includes:
• Logic (not jumping to conclusions? links?)
• Reasonability (realistic? possible? probable?)
• Clarity (understandable?)
• Responsiveness (not dismissive?)
• Persuasive (charismatic? looks you in the eye?)

ASSESSING POINTS OF INFORMATION

● Take into consideration the quality and quantity of POIs during the debate
● Credit teams accordingly
● A point of information can win the debate
– It is considered as part of contribution
● POIs from Opening teams to Closing teams should be considered as timely
and not too late for them to win the debate

DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES
● What is a definition challenge?
– A motion to reject the definition and replace it
● Who can challenge?
– Only OO can challenge – Leader of Opp
– CG and CO need to pick whose definition they accept – OG or OO’s
● What if wrong grounds for challenging?
– Closing teams can modify basis for challenge but not the definition
– Least bad option for the debate
● How will a challenge affect the debate?
– It will make the debate harder to adjudicate because of:
• Responsiveness
• More topics to juggle
 ● How should you judge a debate with a definition challenge?
– Look for an issue you can compare all teams
– Look for even ifs
– Penalize accordingly – weigh substance over technical deficiencies
● Definitions that warrant a definition challenge
1. Squirrels (not the animal)
– Not following the spirit of the motion
• TH regrets child labor.
2. Tautology
– Defining the motion in a circular manner
3. Truism
– Debate defined is a fact of life, cannot be contested
4. Time/Place Set
– Limiting the debate to a particular time or place in a very narrow
manner
• THBT the West should intervene in countries in civil war.

NEW MATTER
● A new issue, actor, right or angle analyzed by the whip
● Do not credit when coming from Opp Whip, may credit when from
Gov Whip
● The test if something is new matter is the absence of relationship
with existing discussions
● Not new matter
• New examples
• Deeper analysis
• Matter given as a rebuttal

HANDLING MATTER BATTLES 2

● If a team claims a fact and the other team disputes its truth content,
what should an adjudicator do?
- Since the adjudicator is assumed to be an average reasonable voter, she
can determine which of the two versions of the disputed fact is ‘true’.
This power of the adj to arbitrate facts, however, can only be exercised
when the fact in question can be categorized as general information.

2
Retrieved from [Link]
 - The adjudicator, therefore, may not use her specialist or insider
knowledge to settle a matter dispute.
- Events, facts, figures and the like that are widely covered in mainstream
media fall into the general information category. Events, facts, figures
and the like that can only be found and accessed in select–oftentimes
exclusive–journals and textbooks, may be considered specialist or
insider knowledge.
- Ideally, the adjudicator is not supposed to judge facts or matter since
these are just tools in making arguments persuasive. It is totally
possible then for an adjudicator to disregard the entire matter battle
and focus only on the analyses which the disputed matter aims to
support. This is because there are arguments that can stand on the
mere strength of the analysis provided without the need for an
example. If the argument relies solely on a piece of matter, chances are,
the argument is weak.
● What should a debater do in a matter battle?
- In a matter dispute, it is not enough for a debater to cite her source to
prove credibility. (Sometimes, it may even be counterproductive.) The
debater must prove why the matter she is claiming to be true can be
logically deduced to be true. She can cite trends and parallel examples
that are more accessible and less contentious than the controversial
matter to prove her point. She may logically trace the causes that led to
the effect which she is claiming to be the truth. This is especially
important in rare cases where the matter may prove to be integral in
the persuasiveness of the argument.
- It is important to note too that matter should not substitute for an
argument. Debaters are expected to analyze their examples and not
completely rely on them to speak for themselves. The team that can
argue beyond the matter quibble and can provide persuasive analysis
whether their matter is true or false has definitely a higher chance of
winning the issue.

BAD PRACTICES IN ADJUDICATION

● Shopping list adjudication
● Impressionist adjudication
● Unreasonable and uneven expectations