rules of the debate

8/3/2019 Rules of the Debate

1/6

English Category RulesGreat Gender Debate 2011

These rules shall govern the English Category of the Great Gender Debate2011.

These rules shall be interpreted by the Chief Adjudicator in consultationwith the Organising Committee.

Each university is allowed to send a maximum of 1 team and each teammust be accompanied by 1 adjudicator (popularly known as N=1requirement of adjudicator)

Each team shall comprise of 3 members including 1 reserve. However, inany round debaters who speak must be a combination of male andfemale, Malay and non-Malay.

The championship will take place in the British Parliamentary DebateFormat as used at the World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC).Basic features of this format are as follows:

- In each debate there shall be four teams, namely: OpeningGovernment (OG), Opening Opposition (OO), Closing Government(CG) and Closing Opposition (CO).

- Each debater will have 7 minutes to speak.- Opposition Whip is not allowed to bring in new arguments.

Government whip may, but recommended not to, introduce newarguments.

- Points of Information (POI) are allowed between the first and lastminute of all speeches.

Teams are not allowed to consult/communicate with any external personduring the 15 minutes preparation time. However, teams are allowed toaccess online or printed materials.

Draws or match-ups for preliminary as well as knock-out stages will bebased on the WUDC Draw format as enumerated WUDC Constitutions andRules which may be found at http://flynn.debating.net/wudccons.htm.

The Debates will be adjudicated based on consensus model of WUDC.Details of the adjudication scheme may found athttp://flynn.debating.net/Sydrules.htm. The WUDC Rules, Part-5 on

adjudication is stated in Appendix 1 which shall be applicable.


2/6

The decision of the judges is final and there shall be no appeal. A brief

scheme of adjudication following WUDC standard is stated in Appendix A.

Where there is any conflict between the written rules of this competitionand the rules at WUDC, the written rules of this completion shall prevail.On any matter where this rule is silent, the practice at WUDC shall beapplied.


3/6

Appendix 1

(Part-5 of the WUDC Rules on adjudication)

Part 5- The Adjudication

5.1 The role of the adjudicator

5.1.1 The adjudicator must:

(a) Confer upon and discuss the debate with the other adjudicators;(b) Determine the rankings of the teams;(c) Determine the team grades;(d) Determine the speaker marks;(e) Provide a verbal adjudication to the members; and

(f) Complete any documentation required by the tournament.

5.1.2 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the adjudication of the

debate. Adjudicators should therefore confer in a spirit of cooperation andmutual respect

5.1.3 Adjudicators should acknowledge that adjudicators on a panel may formdifferent or opposite views of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore attempt

to base their conclusions on these rules in order to limit subjectivity and toprovide a consistent approach to the assessment of debates.

5.2 Ranking teams

5.2.1 Teams should be ranked from first place to last place. First placed teams

should be awarded three points, second placed teams should be awarded twopoints, third placed teams should be awarded one point and fourth placed teamsshould be awarded zero points.

5.2.2 Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive at the debate more

than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate.

5.2.3 Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators unanimously agreethat the Member has (or Members have) harassed another debater on the basisof religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference or disability.

5.2.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings. Where a unanimous

decision cannot be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority willdetermine the rankings. Where a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chairof the panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.


4/6

5.3 Grading and marking the teams

5.3.1 The panel of adjudicators should agree upon the grade that each team isto be awarded. Each adjudicator may then mark the teams at their discretion butwithin the agreed grade. Where there is a member of the panel who hasdissented in the ranking of the teams, that adjudicator will not need to agreeupon the team grades and may complete their score sheet at their owndiscretion.

5.3.2 Team grades and marks should be given the following interpretation:

Grade Marks Meaning

A180-

200

Excellent to flawless. The standard youwould expect to see from a team atthe Semi Final / Grand Final level of

the tournament. The team has manystrengths and few, if any, weaknesses.

B160-179

Above average to very good. Thestandard you would expect to see from

a team at the finals level or incontention to make to the finals. Theteam has clear strengths and some

minor weaknesses.

C140-159

Average. The team has strengths and

weaknesses in roughly equalproportions.

D120-139

Poor to below average. The team hasclear problems and some minor

strengths.

E100-119

Very poor. The team has fundamentalweaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

5.4 Marking the members 5.4.1 After the adjudicators have agreed upon the

grade that each team is to be awarded, each adjudicator may mark the individualmembers at their discretion but must ensure that the aggregate points of theteam members is within the agreed grade for that team.

5.4.2 Individual members marks should be given the following interpretation:

Grade Marks Meaning


5/6

A90-100

Excellent to flawless. The standard ofspeech you would expect to see from a

speaker at the Semi Final / Grand Finallevel of the tournament. This speakerhas many strengths and few, if any,

weaknesses.

B 80-89

Above average to very good. Thestandard you would expect to see froma speaker at the finals level or in

contention to make to the finals. Thisspeaker has clear strengths and someminor weaknesses.

C 70-79Average. The speaker has strengths

and weaknesses and roughly equal

proportions.

D 60-69Poor to below average. The team hasclear problems and some minor

strengths.

E 50-59Very poor. This speaker hasfundamental weaknesses and few, ifany, strengths.

5.5 Verbal adjudications5.5.1 At the conclusion of the conferral, the adjudication panel should provide a

verbal adjudication of the debate.

5.5.2 The verbal adjudication should be delivered by the Chair of theadjudication panel, or where the Chair dissents, by a member of the adjudicationpanel nominated by the Chair of the panel.

5.5.3 The verbal adjudication should:

(a) identify the order in which the teams were ranked(b) explain the reasons for the rankings of team, ensuring that each team is

referred to in this explanation; and(c) provide constructive comments to individual members where the adjudicationpanel believes this is necessary.


6/6

5.5.4 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.

5.5.5 The members must not harass the adjudicators following the verbaladjudication.

5.5.6 The members may approach an adjudicator for further clarification

following the verbal adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite andnon-confrontational.

rules of the debate

Documents