1. DEBATE GUIDELINES
BANDUNG
28 – 30 OCTOBER 2013

2. DEBATE IN GENERAL
Debate is a clash of arguments
Debate is about speaking, listening, and respect differences
Debate is to give your opinion about several issues, pros-cons
Debate is using a system, unless it will be “debat kusir”

3. WSDC FORMAT
There are 2 teams, Government/Affirmative and Opposition/Negative with 3 debaters each
Substantial speech: 8 min, reply speech: 4 min
1st Aff  1st Neg  2nd Aff  2nd Neg  3rd Aff  3rd Neg  Reply Neg  Reply Aff
The opposing team may give Points of Information (POI) to the speaker.
POIs allowed between the 1st and 7th.
No POIs in a reply speech.
The speaker has authority to accept or reject

4. A time keeper shall signal the time.
One knock at the 1st and 7th minute, to signal time for POI.
Two knocks at the 8th minute to signal that delivery time for the speech has ended.
Speaking before 7 minutes: undertime
Speaking after 8 minutes 20 seconds: overtime
Both case, his/her points could be reduced
Reply speeches, one knock at the 3rd minute, and two knocks at the 4th minute

5. Every team is given 30 minutes preparation time (casebuild) after the motion is released and before the debate begins
During this time, teams are not allowed to get help from anybody (e.g: coaches, teachers, parents or friends) or using laptop, PDA, or any communication devices
Printed materials are allowed in casebuilding time, but not allowed during the speech

6. Debate is judged by an odd number of judges
There is no draw in the result of a debate
Tabulation:
1. Victory Points
2. Judges Points
3. Team Scores

7. RANK
TEAM NAME VP
JUDGES POINT
TEAM SCORE 1
ISDC JABAR 4 12
1118 2
ISDC NAD 9
1004 3
ISDC JKT 8
1109
ISDC JATIM
1027 5
ISDC SUMBAR
983 6
ISDC KALTIM
1090 7
ISDC NTT
1106
ISDC SULSEL
954
ISDC BALI
871 10
ISDC RIAU
1003

8. Government/Affirmative
ROLE OF SPEAKER
Government/Affirmative
Opposition/Negative
First Speaker:
Give the definition of the motion
Outline the team’s case:
Present the team line
Present the team split
Explain the arguments that are the 1st speaker’s split
Give a brief summary/recap of the speech
Respond to the definition
Rebut 1st Government speaker

9. Government/Affirmative
Opposition/Negative
Second Speaker:
Rebut the Opposition’s main arguments
Briefly restate/reiterate in general the Government’s team case
Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split
Give a brief summary/recap of the speech
Rebut the Government’s main arguments
Briefly restate/reiterate in general the Opposition’s team case

10. Government/Affirmative
Opposition/Negative
Third Speaker:
Rebut Opposition’s arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones
Rebuild the team’s case
Summarize the issues of the debate
Note:
It is not advisable for 3rd Government to bring new arguments
Rebut Government’s arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones
It is forbidden for 3rd Opposition to bring new arguments

11. Government/Affirmative
Opposition/Negative
Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:
Provide a summary or overview of the debate
Identify the issues raised by both teams
Explain why the Government’s case and response are better than the Opposition’s
Note:
Reply speakers are prohibited to bring new arguments and give rebuttals
Explain why the Opposition’s case and response are better than the Government’s

12. MOTION & DEFINITION
Motions are a statements that determine what a debate shall be about
Government team must defend/support the motion, Opposition team must oppose it
Every motion must be define, to have a clear understanding of what the motion means
The right to give a definition belongs to the Government team (in the 1st speaker)

13. Unreasonable Definition:
1. Truistic (True by nature)
Tautological (Self-proving)
Squirreling (No logic and clear link)
Time and Place Set Unfairly
Such case, negative may challenge it.
Definitional Challenge is highly discouraged,
Only if it’s Undebateable (Truistic and Tautological), or Unfair Time and Place Setting

14. CASE
Case is the whole arguments brought by the Government or Opposition team
Case has to touch the issue and spirit of the motion
Has bold stance
Opposition has own stance that in line with their rebuttals (negate the idea of Government). Rebuttals and arguments should be distinct.

15. ARGUMENTS
Good arguments are logical and relevant to the point being proven
Structure of argument:
1. Assertion – the statement which should be proved
2. Reasoning – the reason why that statement is logical
3. Evidence – examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above
4. Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion

16. Arguments also show in form of rebuttals
Arguments also show in form of rebuttals. Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s arguments
Philosophical or Practical argument??
In WSDC system, Philosophical arguments are more favorable
E.g: THW Ban Demonstration
Traffic Jam vs. Freedom of Speech

17. Point of Information (POI)
Stand up and say “On that point, Sir/Mam..”
Content of POIs: Fact, Data, Question, Argument, etc.
Done in maximum 15 seconds
Be polite, no barraging
Not given or accept any POI, do barraging will be penalized

18. ADJUDICATION

19. WHO’S ADJUDICATOR?
Adjudicator is an average reasonable person, with:
Average reasonable knowledge (read newspaper everyday)
Average Intellectual logic
Expert knowledge of debating rules

20. FUNCTION OF ADJUDICATOR
To evaluate and assess the debate from the beginning until the end,
To decide which team has won the debate,
To reflect their assessment in the adjudicator’s sheet,
To provide reasoning for the decision they have reached,
To give constructive criticism and advice to the debaters.

21. DON’Ts
Use your personal right or expert knowledge (Step in into the debate)
Has preconceived opinions on issues
Judging based on personal likes/dislikes
Award victory to a team because they have same belief/opinion with you
Act as if you know nothing and accept any illogical arguments and wrong general facts

22. HOW DO YOU ASSESS A DEBATE
Clashes (in relations to which clash is prioritized)
Burden of proof
Which teams manage to grasp the center issue of the motion
Responses (including POIs)
Minor things : time management, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, gradual explanations

23. Clashes The idea that negated each other
Usually found in form of rebuttal
E.g: THW Legalize All Drugs
Aff: Right of self determination
Neg: Government’s obligation to protect Society’s health
See how the debate goes, weight which arguments is more proven, more important, more significant to the issue

24. Burden of Proof
Things that both team has to proof to achieve their goal
E.g: THW Ban Smoking
Smoking give significant harm to the Society (Issue)
Government has right to regulate the people’s consumption (Justification)
Ban will solve the problem (Solvency)

25. Grasp the issue means that the team know what’s the motion should be about, and provide arguments that significant to the issue
Responses show that one team disagree with the opponent’s idea, it shows from rebuttals and POIs
Time management, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, gradual explanations are problems regarding with their strategy.
Fatal inconsistencies might make them lose

26. IMPORTANT NOTIFICATIONS
One liner argument
Jumping logic
Wrong facts
You may do penalized if :
New matter in third speaker and reply
Undertime or overtime
Not accept or give POI
Barraging

27. Give penalized doesn’t mean the opposing team win, just affect to scoring
There’s No automatic winning or losing, judge the debate on overall aspect, do not decide based only on one factor
Adjudicator musn’t have any relation with any debaters within both teams to prevent conflict of interest (e.g: family, teacher-student)
Make decision only from what happens in the debate, assess as it is

28. SCORING Matter– marked 40 out of 100 (40%)
Manner– marked 40 out of 100 (40%)
Method- marked 20 out of 100 (20%)
Penalized will slightly reduce their score from what they should have, especially affect Method’s mark

29. Matter/Content: The arguments that are used
Assess the weight of the arguments without being influenced by the magnificence of the orator that presented them
Also include an assessment of the weight of rebuttal or clash
If a team introduces a weak argument, it will not score highly in content even if the other team doesn't t refute it
Elaboration to proof the arguments

30. Manner/Style: Method/Strategy: The way the speakers speak
Clarity, fluency is important
Intonation, speed, volume, accent may differ
Method/Strategy:
Structure (remember the role) and timing
Understanding the issues > different with content (argument is analysis to the issue)
Answer and give POIs, politeness

31. MARKING SCALE Standard Overall (100) Matter (40) Manner Method (20)
Godlike 80 32 16
Exceptional
76-79 31
15-16
Excellent
74-75 30 15
Very Good
71-73 29
14-15
Good 70 28 14
Competent
67-69 27
13-14
Pass
65-66 26 13
Improvement Needed
61-64 25
12-13
No Speech 60 24 12

32. MATTER/CONTENT (40%) Score Criteria 80
He/she simply knows everything, all proven
76-79
Arguments comparable with doctrine from experts
74-75
Highly logical arguments with effective elaboration and supported by highly trusted evidence
71-73
Strong arguments with good attempt to elaborate and provide good example, data, etc 70
Average arguments with good attempt to elaborate, average example
67-69
Acceptable arguments with weak attempt to elaborate, minor example (not really significant with the argument)
65-66
Weak arguments with a very weak attempt to elaborate (mostly one liner), no example given
61-64
Dummy ideas, full of repetition 60
Have nothing to say

33. MANNER/STYLE (40%) Score Criteria 80
He/she is able to make you follow his/her new religion
76-79
Can be compared with President Soekarno’s oration
74-75
Really persuasive, very exciting, as fluent as native
71-73
Persuasive, exciting, fluent 70
Understandable, clear, confident
67-69
Somehow understandable, still many hesitation
65-66
Barely understanable, boring, lack of confidence
61-64
Shame performance, barely able to speak in english, almost all audience are sleep except adjudicators 60
An open mouth statute

34. METHOD/STRATEGY (20%) Score Criteria 80
The one who makes the WSDC system
76-79
The new Napoleon Bonaparte, master of strategy
74-75
Trendsetter, others can only try to follow their strategy
71-73
Well structurized, good time management, well engagement 70
Easy to follow, know the proper issue of the debate
67-69
Know how to deliver argument and the issue to engange
65-66
Complicated structure, scatter, undertime
61-64
Can’t be understood 60
Simply knows nothing about the system

35. Practically, there’ll be no score 60 and 80 given to any debater
Usually the score will be within the range of 65-75
The score for Reply speech is half from substantive speech
Range 30-40, with average 35

36. ADJUDICATOR’S CODE OF CONDUCT
Appreciate the debaters
E.g : No texting, answering phone, chatting, sleeping, make disturbing expression and sound
Take a note
Be polite, respect differences
Go past grammar, accent, style
Adjudicate holistically

37. VERBAL ADJUDICATION

38. STRUCTURE OF VERBAL
Tell the decision
Explain the justifications or reasons behind the decision
Give feedback
To the point
Don’t just repeat what the debaters say, do analyze the clashes, burden, etc

39. DEBATE EXHIBITION
Try to analyze the debate exhibition, understand the clashes, burden of both teams, etc
You have minutes to make decision and structurise your verbal before you deliver it
The ideal verbal time is 5 minutes

40. DESIGNING TOURNAMENT

41. WHAT DO WE NEED? Debate System Rules and Regulation Commitee
A-Team and Adjudicators
Participants

42. DEBATE SYSTEM World School’s System (WSDC) Asian Parliamentary System
Australian Parliamentary System
British Parliamentary System

43. RULES AND REGULATION
Rules about the technicalities to conduct a debate tournament, besides the system
General and specific rules, guideline for commitee, participants, and adjudicators
Cover every aspects
E.g: Forfeit, In case of sick, latency, punishment that may be given if break the rules, chances to be government and negative, match up system, etc.
Adapt with your demand

44. MATCH-UP SYSTEM
To determine the Government and Opposition Team for every room, there’re two systems:
1. Power Match
2. Break and Slide

45. 1. Power Match 1st rank meet 2nd rank 3d rank meet 4th rank
Odd number: Government
Even number: Opposition
RANK
TEAM VP 1
ISDC JABAR 3 2
ISDC NAD
ISDC JKT 4
ISDC YOGYA 5
ISDC SULSEL 6
ISDC NTB
RANK
GOV
OPP 1
ISDC JABAR 2
ISDC NAD 3
ISDC JKT 4
ISDC YOGYA 5
ISDC SULSEL 6
ISDC NTB

46. 2. Break and slide Make bracket of the same VP
Break it into two, slide it
If odd, take one from the top of next VP’s bracket
RANK
TEAM VP 1
ISDC JABAR 3 2
ISDC NAD
ISDC JKT 4
ISDC YOGYA 5
ISDC SULSEL 6
ISDC NTB
RANK
GOV
OPP 1
ISDC JABAR 4
ISDC YOGYA 2
ISDC NAD 5
ISDC SULSEL 3
ISDC JKT 6
ISDC NTB

47. COMMITEE Convenor / Project Officer
Tounament Director, focus on tournament, make rules and regulation
Liason Officer, 1 for every team
Gov: chairperson
Opp: timekeeper
Tabulation
Handle the whole tabulation as result of every rounds, match up for the next round
Make the tabulation system

48. A-TEAM & ADJUDICATORS
A-Team consists of Chief Adjudicator, and Deputi Chief Adjudicators, at least one person (one Chief Adjudicator with no Deputi Chief Adjudicator)
Their job is
to gather adjudicator, allocate them in the room for every rounds
To make the motions for every round

49. PARTICIPANTS 3 Persons each teams Total teams has to be in even number
If not even, make one swing team
Pre-eliminary rounds, eliminary rounds
Number of room needed is half of total participants

50. THANK YOU HOPEFULLY WE’LL BE HELPFUL TO OUR STUDENTS