Download - Reference for the Score Sheet
-
8/12/2019 Reference for the Score Sheet
1/4
1 ~@3
~ SMKT 2012
PARLIAMENTARY STYLE ENGLISH DEBATE
BINTULU DIVISION 2012
REFERENCE FOR ADJUDICATORS
1.0 Marks are awarded to each debater according to:
SUBSTANCE
STRATEGY
STYLE
LANGUAGE
2.0 SUBSTANCE
2.1 Substance covers the arguments that are used divorced from the speaking style. It
is as if you are seeing the arguments written down rather than spoken. You must
assess the weight of the arguments without being influenced by the magnificence
of the orator that presented them.
2.2 Substance also includes an assessment of the weight of the rebuttal or clash. This
assessment must be done from the standpoint of the average reasonable person.
2.3 The adjudicators job is to assess the strength of an argument regardless of
whether the other team is able to knock it down. If a team introduces weak
arguments it will not score highly in substance, even if the other teamdoes not
refute. Two consequences follow from these.
2.4 First, if a major argument is plainly weak, an opposing team which doesntrefute
maywellhave committed greater sin than the team which introduced it. In effect,
the team has led the other team to get away with a weak argument. This is not an
automatic rule but it is true in many cases. Of course, it must be a major argument
not a minor example which the opposing team correctly chooses to ignore in
favour of attacking more significant points.
2.5 Second, adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their own beliefs,
nor their own specialised knowledge. For example, if you are a lawyer and you
know that a teamsargument was debunked by the International Court of Justice(ICJ) last week, you should probably not take into account this special knowledge
unless the ICJs decision was a matter of extreme public notoriety.
-
8/12/2019 Reference for the Score Sheet
2/4
2 ~@3
~ SMKT 2012
3.0 STRATEGY
3.1 Strategy requires some attention. It covers two concepts:
i. The structure and timing of the speech.
ii. Whether the debater understood the issues of the debate.
3.2 Structure:
A good speech has a clear beginning, middle and end. Along the way there are
signposts to help us see where the debater is going. The sequence of arguments is
logical and flows naturally from point to point. This is true of the first debater
outlining the Governments case as it is of the third debater rebutting the
Governments case. Good speech structure, therefore, is one component of the
strategy.
3.3 Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There are two
aspects of timing:i. Speaking within the allowed time limit.
ii. Giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech.
3.4 A debater ought to give priority to important issues and leave unimportant ones to
later. It is generally a good idea to rebut or begin with an attack on the other side
by subsequent debaters, before going on to the debaters own case. This is
because it is more logical to get rid of the opposing arguments first before trying
to put something in its place.
3.5 So, the adjudicator must weigh not only the strength of the arguments in theSUBSTANCE category, but also the proper time and priority given in the STRATEGY
category.
3.6 Understanding the issues:
Closely related to the last point is that the debater should understand what the
important issues were in the debate. It is a waste of time for a rebuttal to deal
with points if crucial arguments are left unanswered. Such a speaker would not
understand the important issues of the debate, and should not score well in
STRATEGY. By contrast, a speaker who understood what the issues were and dealt
with them thoroughly should score well in STRATEGY.
3.7 It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between
STRATEGY and SUBSTANCE. Imagine a debate where a debater answers critical
issues with some weak rebuttal. This debater should get poor marks for
SUBSTANCE, because the rebuttal was weak. But the debater should get
reasonable mark for STRATEGY because the right arguments were being
addressed.
-
8/12/2019 Reference for the Score Sheet
3/4
3 ~@3
~ SMKT 2012
4.0 STYLE
4.1 The term is rather misleading. Adjudicators are not looking for debaters who are
stylish.
4.2 Style covers the way the debatersspeak. This can be noted in many ways, in funny
accents, body language (movement, poise, meaningful gestures and eye contact)and with the use of specific terminology. Be tolerant of different ways of
presenting arguments.
4.3 Use of palm cards and notes are allowed and should not be penalised, unless a
debater is reading from them heavily.
4.4 Be tolerant of speaking styles and speed of delivery. Penalise only when a
debatersstyle has gone beyond what everyone would expect.
5.0 LANGUAGE
5.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct sentence
structures and grammar.
5.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of speech. Of
course, English being a foreign language here, adjudicators shouldntbe looking
for QueensEnglish in our debaters. But any expression which is mumbled or not
clearly understood should not merit high marks in the LANGUAGE section.
5.3 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.
6.0 REBUTTAL
6.1 The use of general cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. The OPPOSITION
team cannot concentrate on attacking the examples used by the GOVERNMENT.
The examples might be weak, but the central case might still be sound. Instead,
the team will have to concentrate on that case, because that is where the debate
actually is.
6.2 There is another consequence for rebuttal. It may be that a team has used a
number of examples to illustrate the same point. If they can all be disposed off by
the same piece of rebuttal, the rebutting team does not have toattackeach of the
examples individually as well.
-
8/12/2019 Reference for the Score Sheet
4/4
4 ~@3
~ SMKT 2012
7.0 THE REPLY SPEECH
7.1 The thematic approach to the arguments outlined becomes critical in the reply
speeches. These have been described as an `adjudication from our side and really
amount to an overview of the major issues in the debate.
7.2 A reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or individualexamples. The debater must deal with the two or three major issues in the debate
in global terms, showing how they favour the debatersteam and work against the
opposing team. As a general rule, a reply speaker who descends to the level of
dealing with individual examples probably doesntunderstand either the issues of
the debate or the principles of good arguments.
8.0 POINTS OF INFORMATION
8.1 A `Point of Information is offered in the course of speech by a member of the
opposing team. The debater may either accept or decline. If accepted, theopponent may make a short point or ask a question that deals with some issues in
the debate (preferably one just made by the debater). It is a formal interjection.
8.2 Points of information bring about a major change in the role of the debaters in a
debate. In this style, each debater must take part from beginning to end, not just
during their own speech.
8.3 The debaters play this role by offering points of information. Even if the points are
not accepted, they must still demonstrate that they are involved in the debate by
at least offering. A debater who takes no part in the debate other than by makinga speech would be marked down for SUBSTANCE and STRATEGY.