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.


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.


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.


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.

reference for the score sheet

Documents