1

WORKSHOP JURI DEBAT BAHASA INGGRIS PROVINSI JAWA BARAT

2010

HOTEL BUMI ASIH JAYA, BANDUNG26 – 28 APRIL 2010

2

WSDC SYSTEM

3

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”

4

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

5

• 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

6

• 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

7

• Debate is judged by an odd number of judges

• There is no draw in the result of a debate• Tabulation:

1. Victory Points2. Judges Points3. Team Scores

8

RANK TEAM NAME VP JUDGES POINT TEAM SCORE1 ISDC JABAR 4 12 11182 ISDC NAD 4 9 10043 ISDC JKT 4 8 11094 ISDC JATIM 3 9 10275 ISDC SUMBAR 3 9 9836 ISDC KALTIM 3 8 10907 ISDC NTT 3 6 11068 ISDC SULSEL 2 6 9549 ISDC BALI 2 4 871

10 ISDC RIAU 1 2 1003

9

ROLE OF SPEAKERGovernment/Affirmative Opposition/NegativeFirst Speaker:1. Give the definition of the

motion2. Outline the team’s case:- Present the team line- Present the team split1. Explain the arguments

that are the 1st speaker’s split

2. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech

First Speaker:1. Respond to the definition2. Rebut 1st Government

speaker3. Outline the team’s case:- Present the team line- Present the team split1. Explain the arguments

that are the 1st speaker’s split

2. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech

10

Government/Affirmative Opposition/NegativeSecond Speaker:1. Rebut the Opposition’s

main arguments2. Briefly restate/reiterate

in general the Government’s team case

3. Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split

4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech

Second Speaker:1. Rebut the Government’s

main arguments2. Briefly restate/reiterate

in general the Opposition’s team case

3. Explain the arguments that are the 2nd speaker’s split

4. Give a brief summary/recap of the speech

11

Government/Affirmative Opposition/NegativeThird Speaker:1. Rebut Opposition’s

arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones

2. Rebuild the team’s case3. Summarize the issues of

the debateNote:It is not advisable for 3rd Government to bring new arguments

Third Speaker:1. Rebut Government’s

arguments, prioritizing the strong/important ones

2. Rebuild the team’s case3. Summarize the issues of

the debateNote:It is forbidden for 3rd Opposition to bring new arguments

12

Government/Affirmative Opposition/NegativeReply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:1. Provide a summary or

overview of the debate2. Identify the issues raised

by both teams3. 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

Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:1. Provide a summary or

overview of the debate2. Identify the issues raised

by both teams3. Explain why the

Opposition’s case and response are better than the Government’s

Note:Reply speakers are prohibited to bring new arguments and give rebuttals

13

MOTION & DEFINITION

• Motions a.k.a topics, 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)

14

• Unreasonable Definition:1. Truistic (True by nature)2. Tautological (Self-proving)3. Squirreling (No logic and clear link)4. 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

15

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.

16

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

logical3.Evidence – examples/data that support the

assertion and reasoning above4.Link Back – the explanation of the relevance of this

argument to the motion

17

• 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 favorableE.g: THW Ban DemonstrationTraffic Jam vs. Freedom of Speech

18

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

19

ADJUDICATION SEMINAR

20

WHO’S ADJUDICATOR?

• Adjudicator is an average reasonable person, with:

1. Average reasonable knowledge (read newspaper everyday)

2. Average Intellectual logic3. Expert knowledge of debating rules

21

FUNCTION OF ADJUDICATOR

1. To evaluate and assess the debate from the beginning until the end,

2. To decide which team has won the debate,3. To reflect their assessment in the adjudicator’s

sheet,4. To provide reasoning for the decision they have

reached,5. To give constructive criticism and advice to the

debaters.

22

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

23

HOW DO YOU ASSESS A DEBATE

1. Clashes (in relations to which clash is prioritized)2. Burden of proof3. Which teams manage to grasp the center issue

of the motion4. Responses (including POIs)5. Minor things : time management, minor

contradictions, inconsistencies, gradual explanations

24

• 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

25

• 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)

26

• 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

27

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

28

• 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

29

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

30

• 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

31

• Manner/Style:– 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

32

MARKING SCALEStandard Overall

(100) Matter

(40) Manner

(40)Method

(20)Godlike 80 32 32 16Exceptional 76-79 31 31 15-16Excellent 74-75 30 30 15Very Good 71-73 29 29 14-15Good 70 28 28 14Competent 67-69 27 27 13-14Pass 65-66 26 26 13Improvement Needed

61-64 25 25 12-13

No Speech 60 24 24 12

33

MATTER/CONTENT (40%)Score Criteria80 He/she simply knows everything, all proven76-79 Arguments comparable with doctrine from experts74-75 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 repetition60 Have nothing to say

34

MANNER/STYLE (40%)Score Criteria80 He/she is able to make you follow his/her new religion76-79 Can be compared with President Soekarno’s oration74-75 Really persuasive, very exciting, as fluent as native71-73 Persuasive, exciting, fluent70 Understandable, clear, confident67-69 Somehow understandable, still many hesitation65-66 Barely understanable, boring, lack of confidence61-64 Shame performance, barely able to speak in english,

almost all audience are sleep except adjudicators60 An open mouth statute

35

METHOD/STRATEGY (20%)Score Criteria80 The one who makes the WSDC system76-79 The new Napoleon Bonaparte, master of strategy74-75 Trendsetter, others can only try to follow their strategy71-73 Well structurized, good time management, well

engagement70 Easy to follow, know the proper issue of the debate67-69 Know how to deliver argument and the issue to

engange65-66 Complicated structure, scatter, undertime61-64 Can’t be understood60 Simply knows nothing about the system

36

• 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

37

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

38

VERBAL ADJUDICATION

39

STRUCTURE OF VERBAL1. Tell the decision2. Explain the justifications or reasons

behind the decision3. Give feedback

• To the point• Don’t just repeat what the debaters say,

do analyze the clashes, burden, etc

40

DEBATE EXHIBITION

• Try to analyze the debate exhibition, understand the clashes, burden of both teams, etc

• You have 10-15 minutes to make decision and structurise your verbal before you deliver it

• The ideal verbal time is 5 minutes

41

DESIGNING TOURNAMENT

42

WHAT DO WE NEED?

1. Debate System2. Rules and Regulation3. Commitee4. A-Team and Adjudicators5. Participants

43

DEBATE SYSTEM

• World School’s System (WSDC)• Asian Parliamentary System• Australian Parliamentary System• British Parliamentary System

44

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

45

MATCH-UP SYSTEM

• To determine the Government and Opposition Team for every room, there’re two systems:

1. Power Match2. Break and Slide

46

1. Power Match– 1st rank meet 2nd rank– 3d rank meet 4th rank– Odd number: Government– Even number: Opposition

RANK GOV RANK OPP

1 ISDC JABAR 2 ISDC NAD3 ISDC JKT 4 ISDC YOGYA5 ISDC SULSEL 6 ISDC NTB

RANK TEAM VP1 ISDC JABAR 32 ISDC NAD 33 ISDC JKT 34 ISDC

YOGYA3

5 ISDC SULSEL

3

6 ISDC NTB 3

47

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 GOV RANK OPP

1 ISDC JABAR 4 ISDC YOGYA2 ISDC NAD 5 ISDC SULSEL3 ISDC JKT 6 ISDC NTB

RANK TEAM VP1 ISDC JABAR 32 ISDC NAD 33 ISDC JKT 34 ISDC

YOGYA3

5 ISDC SULSEL

3

6 ISDC NTB 3

48

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

49

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

50

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

51

SEKIAN DAN TERIMA KASIHDISUSUN OLEH:

DANNY TANUWIJAYAJUNAIDI

HARRIS SUBHAN RIPAREV

WORKSHOP JURI DEBAT BAHASA INGGRIS PROVINSI JAWA BARAT 2010

HOTEL BUMI ASIH JAYA, BANDUNG26 – 28 APRIL 2010