english debate technique (tehnik debat bahasa inggris)

Debating Guide
Junior Chamber International
Worldwide Federation of Young Leaders and Entrepreneurs2
INTRODUCTION
Debating is both a joy and an education. A certain proposition is made or assumed, and its truth and
correctness are determined by a process of logical conclusion. A good debater must marshal his evidence,
condense his remarks, express himself clearly, and deliver his case with the conviction born of confidence.
The fact that the subject of a debate has been stated presupposes that the subject is debatable, and
statements to the contrary should not be made. The statement of the subject also presupposes that the terms
of the subject are capable of definition and must be defined to the best of one’s ability. The purpose of a
debate is not to decide the validity of the original proposition, but to determine which of the two teams can
make the best case in the light of the information available to them.
The JCI Debating Guide is one of several publications prepared by the Junior Chamber International
World Headquarters. We hope this publication will provide the basis for the success of your debating
contest.
We welcome your comments, criticisms, and suggestions so that we may continually improve our services
to you. Let us know your chapter’s needs, and our professional staff will be happy to assist you. Please be
specific in your requests so that we can provide you with pertinent suggestions, publications, and advice.
We are here to help you in whatever way we can.
Secretary General
Junior Chamber International (JCI), Inc.5
Copyright © 2004 by Junior Chamber International. All rights reserved.6
DEBATE TECHNIQUE
1. PREPARE TO WIN:
These three words are more important to the debater than any other single idea or piece of advice that
could be given. If a team prepares to win, rather than to simply make a good showing, then each
member will achieve maximum personal benefit by way of:
a. Knowledge (through research)
b. Personal development (through the desire to improve and win)
c. Enjoyment (through team spirit and team research)
d. Success
Preparing to win requires a certain inspiration: a desire to search for knowledge, truth and
understanding, and the ability to separate fact from opinion, to balance argument and counter argument
and to recognize one’s own areas of ignorance.
2. TEAM PREPARATION:
The ideal technique for the gathering of information is the “Three-meeting System,” used to prepare for
a debate by a three-person team. This entails three planning meetings by the team before the actual
debate takes place. Ideally meetings should be scheduled approximately a week apart to enable the
necessary research to be completed before the next meeting.
It is obvious when one listens to many debates, that the research is far too superficial, extracted from
general sources such as a “Year Book” and press clippings. Although these are not to be belittled as
sources of information, a visit to the reference section of the nearest public library will reveal far richer
resources. If you are debating an issue in which large public companies have a vested interest, do not
hesitate to contact a company, for they can usually supply material for your debate. It is not necessary
to inform them which side you are debating.
3. GENERAL PROCEDURE:
a. First meeting:
I. Discussion of the subject of the debate
The discussion of the subject must address the team’s side of the case, the known facts,
potentially useful reference material, and the use of an accepted dictionary to obtain a clear
definition of the subject.
II. Interpretation of the subject7
The interpretation of the subject can be decided at this meeting, if possible, through the use of
a dictionary. But at all times, common sense should be your guide when defining the subject.
An authoritative reference work can be used to help arrive at a better understanding.
Remember that every subject interpretation must be based on common sense and sound logic.
III. Recognition of areas of ignorance
At this meeting, members must identify any areas of ignorance, and the obligation is with each
member to share in the search for knowledge and understanding during the next week.
b. Second meeting:
I. Informed general discussion of the subject
An informed general discussion of the subject will automatically flow from of each member’s
research findings since the previous meeting. Consider the major arguments, as you share the
reference materials and facts you have collected.
II. Selection of the theme or line of attack
By now, the theme of your team’s argument will be evident as your salient points emerge.
Decide now on the major arguments the team will use. Do not choose too many, as it is far
better to win three major points by developing them fully than to lose eight because they were
not fully explored.
III. Divide the subject and assign sections to speakers so that each speaker will jell with the others
Divide up the team and order these main points in a logical sequence so that they will be easily
understood by the team members, opposition and audience alike. Now each debater can
prepare fully, aware of his individual responsibilities in the debate. Consider the points your
opposition will most likely make. This will assist in determining which arguments need to be
emphasized and which statistics are most likely to be of the greatest importance.
Relevant statistics are important to a team’s case; however, too often speeches have been reduced
to tedium by the repetition of figures and percentages. If statistics are to have meaning, they must
be understood and digested by an audience who has not previously considered the subject. For
example, it is difficult for most people to think in terms of millions. Reduce it to one in ten or a
percentage, figures that are easier to assimilate.
c. Third meeting:
I. Refinement of arguments
At the completion of each address, constructive criticism must follow, and any questionable or
superfluous material deleted. All facets of the case and its presentation should be analyzed and
approved.8
II. Discussion on rebuttal
The critical analysis of the team case will lead to a discussion of argument and counter
argument. The team must consider the other team’s probable plan of attack. Discuss the
opposition’s strongest arguments, pinpointing rebuttal points, and, if possible, seek out
authoritative support for the contrary view. No debater who prepares to win, will treat rebuttal
as an off-the-cuff part of his speech. Sometimes an effective rebuttal from the opposition can
be thwarted by introducing appropriate arguments that anticipate and refute rebuttal
arguments.
III. Teamwork
Debating is a team effort, and no person can win a debate single-handedly. Share with the
other members quotations, references, and your ideas for the introduction of humor, so that
your team spirit will be obvious to all. Do not be over concerned about reusing or
reemphasizing material used by your previous speaker. Rather, in order to promote the team’s
cause, refer to what other members of your team have said and reaffirm any argument which
appears shaky or weak after being scrutinized by the previous opposing speaker.
When alluding to a point someone on your team has made, do not refer to your teammate by name,
but rather as “our second speaker,” or “our leader.”
When referring to your opponents, avoid using the term, “our opposition,” or “the other team.”
This can suggest, in fact, that you have an opposition, or that they are working as a team. Your
suggestion should be that they do not offer you any real opposition and that their teamwork is
definitely suspect. The term normally used is “the members of the other side.” Better still, use “we”
and “they.”
When forming the team, consider individual traits and abilities. If a member is precise and
methodical by nature and possesses a pleasant manner, his position in the team should be leader, or
preferably, second speaker.
The position of third speaker is best suited to experienced debaters, who can rely heavily on quick
thinking and wit. The most important consideration, however, is not personal preference, but how
the team will best be served.
Discuss the order of team members with someone who is qualified to give an opinion and who has
had the opportunity to listen to each member speak. Poor positioning can hurt a well-prepared case
and give the impression of a lack of teamwork, because the subject and debate do not flow evenly
and cohesively. Remember, the third speaker often secures the victory for his team.9
PLAN YOUR ARGUMENT
Success hinges on thorough research, intelligent use of that research, a carefully-planned strategy, and an
interesting presentation; however, you cannot hope to develop your skill merely by awaiting your turn to
recite a prepared address. Learn to listen to your opponents’ remarks with an open mind, strive to
understand both the argument and the theme of the opposition case, and then weave relevant rebuttal
material into your own case.
1. ORGANIZE POINTS OF ARGUMENT:
Preparation is the essence of successful debating because an organized argument is necessary to win a
debate. Your material and attitude, however, must be sufficiently flexible to prevent your argument
from becoming too rigid in presentation. If this is not done, a surprise attack on an angle of the subject
you had not anticipated can leave you floundering. Too often, both teams present rigid,
uncompromising oratory and never really debate the issue.
Remember, you have a dual responsibility to keep your argument intact and puncture the opposition
argument.
Keep your sense of perspective. By all means, speak with fire and passion, but never indulge in
personal attacks. Fiercely attack your opponent’s argument, not your opponent. Enthusiasm and
eloquence are useful in delivering the logic of your argument, but they cannot replace logic. Over
reliance on one’s rhetorical skills will not suffice in a debate. Such tactics are transparently inefficient
to any competent adjudicator and boring for the audience.
2. UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE:
It is essential for you to understand clearly the issues at stake, to always keep those issues in mind, and
to constantly guard against peripheral issues which draw the argument “off the rails.” The subtle use of
red herrings, however, provided that they do not become an obvious part of your team’s tactic or are
the material on which you hang your team’s case, can be used effectively.
A red herring, discovered and exposed as such by the opposing team, can have devastating effects for
your team. If it becomes obvious that the other team has recognized the red herring for what it is, then
leave it alone. Unless you stick to the core issues, you may find yourself attacking or defending issues
that are irrelevant.
In presenting your interpretation of the essential issues, remember that it is not enough for you to
understand what you mean; you must convey it clearly to the audience by relating each point back to
the subject. Only then can you prove the relevancy of your material.10
MANNER
A debate address is similar to public speaking, except for three fundamental differences that will affect
your presentation.
Firstly, you may not actually believe in the side that you are arguing. Despite your personal outlook, as a
speaker, you must convey complete sincerity. This, coupled with your skill in debating, will result in a
competent performance. Remember that although debating is an exercise in organized argument, your
presentation is of immense importance.
Secondly, you are involved in what could become a heated contest, trying to convince the audience that
there is only one right point of view–yours. Accordingly, your choice of words will be strong and assertive;
your manner, positive and confident.
Thirdly, unlike most public addresses where the audience is either friendly or passive, the debate audience
is more likely to be critical, and even hostile on occasions. An adjudicator will be watching your every
move and listening critically to your every word. You are truly “under the microscope,” aware that every
aspect of your presentation must be finely honed so that it is as near perfect as possible. With this charged
atmosphere in mind, consider the major facets of presentation or manner.
1. STANCE:
The most common situation that a debater finds upon taking his position on the dais is that the
chairman and timekeeper are behind him, fellow team members and opponents are on either side and
the audience is grouped in a semicircle before him.
Upon rising, position yourself in front of any tables placed between you and the audience, and midway
between the chairman and your fellow team members. Positioned thus, you will not unconsciously lean
upon the table or place notes upon it. You can then simply half turn your body to the chairman and say
“Mr. Chairman,” turn back, and continue, “Ladies and Gentlemen, . . .”
After the salutations, you can concentrate all of your attention on the audience, addressing all sections
of them in turn. Reference to your own team members or your opponents can be accomplished by an
outward hand gesture only.
This stance will also assist you in resisting the temptation to direct a remark at your opponents and
perhaps becoming involved in an argument with them.
2. VOICE:
You are arguing and trying to convince; therefore, your words will have great earnestness and will be
more aggressive than a normal speech. Because of this need, greater emphasis must be placed on
variation of meter, pitch and volume to avoid the monotonous repetition that can so easily result. A
monotonous voice will quickly alienate an audience.11
Your vocal character may also determine the order in which you speak for your team. While a clear,
measured style may be appropriate for the first or second speaker, the third speaker is often
characterized by a more aggressive and assertive style.
3. NOTES:
In most debating competitions, notes are permitted; therefore, there need not be any concern about this.
No attempt should be made to hide the notes, which should measure no more than 7 x 15cm, held in the
palm of the hand for quick reference.
Do not read your notes. Provided you have thoroughly prepared your material, two or three key words
representing a facet of your argument should be enough reference to bring forth a spontaneous flow of
words and phrases suited to your argument.
Although the debater who uses no notes appears to the vast majority to be quite exceptional, it is better
to be a good debater with notes, than an ineffective one without them.
Reference books and other material are also usually permitted, but in most instances are of dubious
value. The time spent reading from a volume is time lost in audience contact, and the thread of your
argument is sometimes lost. Overuse of reference material is positively damaging, so perhaps the best
rule is to avoid it, unless it is essential to your case.
4. WORDS:
As in all speech-making, the debater must beware of certain pitfalls. Firstly, are the “ums,” “ers” and
“ahs” which can slip out when the mind is racing ahead to crystallize the next thought. Most of us are
prone to do this, but in place of uttering these sounds, pause.
Another danger is the word that you mispronounce. Make sure you know your words. If you invariably
stammer over a certain word, find a substitute. Use simple, everyday, conversational words.
5. HUMOR:
Not everyone has a flair for introducing humor into a speech. Nevertheless, you should look for the
opportunity to introduce relevant humor, particularly as rebuttal material. Humor or satire, introduced
to undercut your opponent’s argument, can be powerful weapons. It can have the advantage of
supplementing your argument while endearing the audience to you at the same time. In addition, humor
may brighten an otherwise dull time for the audience.
6. AUDIENCE CONTACT:
Audience contact appears an intangible, and yet it is the embodiment of most of the preceding
comments. Many otherwise competent debaters never seem to establish common ground with their
audience and thereby lose a great deal of satisfaction, failing in a no technical way to reach their goals.
Perfection in “matter” and “method” are not enough. Your argument should be presented with skill and
care. Nervousness inhibits a natural presentation, and sometimes even comes off as arrogance.
Condescension irritates the audience and adjudicators.12
Don’t be afraid to smile. Let your face reflect a vital, confident personality. Talk to them–not at
them–and invite their understanding.13
METHOD
Method is simply the way in which you arrange your material. The arrangement of your material into an
acceptable pattern is not an encumbrance, but an aid; particularly, in those tension-packed moments of
delivery when the mind of an untrained speaker may refuse to think clearly and the predetermined pattern of
presentation can prevent the dreaded “black-out.”
1. FIRST SPEAKER:
I. Introduction
II. Definition
III. Team plan and allocation
IV. Own segment
V. Segment summary
VI. Peroration
VII. Negative also has rebuttal between “team plan” and “own segment”
Affirmative: Don’t forget, you are responsible for drawing the battle lines with a logical,
intelligent interpretation of the subject.
Negative: If your team agrees with the substance of the argument, don’t waste time with
trifling objections—join the battle.
2. SECOND SPEAKER:
I. Introduction
II. Rebuttal
III. Own segments
IV. Segment summary
V. Peroration
VI. Responsible for major portion of team case
3. THIRD SPEAKER:
I. Introduction
II. Rebuttal
III. Own segment
IV. Peroration
4. REPLIES:
I. Rebuttal
II. Case summary
III. Peroration
5. TIMING:14
It would be folly to state how much time should be allocated to each function because this can vary
according to the subject and the team’s plan of attack; however, to give a broad indication of what is
normally required in a debate with ten-minute speaking limits, the following comments are made:
A. The introduction should be brief, used merely to establish a theme (1 minute).
B. Definitions will vary according to the difficulty and variety of possible meanings of the subject
(1-3 minutes).
C. Team plans are best kept to a minimum. Use summarized headings, accompanied by a short
explanation, if necessary (1 minute).
D. Each speaker’s argument segment will vary according to his individual responsibility and
necessary rebuttal.
E. Rebuttal varies in direct proportion to the content of case argument assigned to each speaker.
F. Case summary for the first four speakers will be brief, as they only have their own arguments to
summarize (1 minute). The final two speakers are summarizing the argument put forward for their
team and therefore must develop the case theme more fully (3 minutes).
G. The peroration should flow from (or as part of) the summary, enabling the address to finish on a
strong, resolute note (1 minute).
The above time suggestions should be used as general guidelines. They are given solely to indicate a
rough, proportional breakdown. Dividing the address into these various segments must not result in a
stilted, fragmented presentation. The entire delivery must flow smoothly as one argument. A speaker
may wish to develop case and rebuttal material concurrently. If handled with care, this is quite
acceptable.
The case material itself should be similarly subdivided into three possible main points. This enables
members of the audience to clearly follow the argument.
6. INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION:
How often have we heard the following type of introduction or conclusion: “The subject for today’s
debate is . . .” and “. . . and we have proven that the . . .” Your introduction and conclusion provide
excellent opportunities, first, to set the stage with a stimulating backdrop, and later, to bring down the
curtain by exciting and moving your audience. Don’t squander your chance with trite repetition of the
subject.
The use of quotations is often an effective way of beginning, but this is so easily overdone. Be guided
by the relevance of the quotation and don’t be afraid to rely on your own choice of words.15
Insufficient attention is paid to these two vital areas of the address. They have great impact potential,
so don’t ignore them.16
TEAMWORK
The final matter of note regards each speaker’s contribution to the overall team case.
You will, of course, spend considerable time on the preparation of your argument. Much of its impact will
be lost if the sum total of the argument reaches the audience’s ears as rambling babble. If your argument is
well-organized, and adhered to by each speaker, the team case will flow as if from one source. The theme
will be evident throughout and the argument all the more difficult to refute. The logical development of the
argument by team members is their prime responsibility and the foundation of their addresses.
TEAM MEMBERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES
Just as you are judged on debating techniques as an individual, so you are bound to accept certain
responsibilities towards your team’s combined presentation. These responsibilities are listed here.
1. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE
Define the subject:
Look at the subject realistically. The ideal definition combines dictionary, common sense and common
usage meanings. Very often the dictionary will give a variety of meanings for a word. Carefully
examine each avenue to ensure you have fully investigated all possible interpretations, then choose the
one that most closely satisfies these three requirements and suits your case. Should you, however, wish
to use authority without overdoing the issue, make the best use of that person’s qualifications, i.e. Dr.
Harold Smith, Professor of Political Science, Center University.
It is on this point that many debates will be won or lost. Having carefully, clearly and concisely defined
the subject, explain why you chose this definition and state your authority (sometimes common usage is
a better authority than a dictionary).
Subject history:
If understanding the subject requires historical background, this is a good place to use it as a lead-in to
your team’s case.
Team case:
You must then outline your team’s approach to the case, stating the case in summary form. The
assignment of each segment to appropriate team members should be concise and clear. Refer to a
teammate as “My second speaker.” Never refer to them by name.
Case segment:
The first speaker will develop that portion of the team case assigned to him. Lucid arguments, simply
stated and with reference to independent authority will earn good marks and begin to sway the17
audience. The speaker should conclude the speech with a well-rehearsed and memorable peroration just
before the time limit expires.
2. FIRST NEGATIVE
Definition:
You have an immediate, considerable responsibility: either to accept or reject the affirmative definition.
If you decide to reject the definition entirely or in part, you must clearly state why and give relevant
authority to support your contention. Objection to the affirmative definition should be restricted to
areas of substantial difference.
The decision to challenge definition is a team responsibility, because obviously the result of this
encounter will affect the arguments of the succeeding speakers. Remember, it is the obligation of the
con side to meet or destroy their opponents’ arguments. Unless your definition is substantially different
and vital to your case and unless you are confident you can make your contention more convincing,
don’t waste your efforts on semantics; get on with the debate.
Rebuttal:
Bearing in mind that your third speaker has the freedom to cover the entire affirmative argument, the
first negative should restrict his remarks, if possible, to issues vital to case structure. A brief argument
that outlines areas of structural fault in your opponents’ argument, may establish a wedge that can be
widened by successive negative speakers. This is of far more value to your team than criticizing a
minor point or example given by your opponent. Such criticism can easily be left to your third speaker
as he widens the breach you have created.
To rebut in this manner requires a clear head and close attention to the first affirmative address; it
seldom, if ever, comes directly from prepared rebuttal material.
A warning: Don’t get carried away with your rebuttal. It should be relatively brief, as your more
important function is the team’s case.
Team case:
The first negative speaker must outline his team’s case, designating a segment of the argument for each
team member, using the same technique as suggested for the leader of the affirmative.
This is treated in the same way as the first affirmative. It is an important part of the team’s case, for
the first speaker sets the line of argument and lays the foundation for building an elaborate defense.
3. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
Rebuttal:
You have heard the basic structure of both arguments and must ask yourself two questions:18
- “How has the con speaker weakened our argument?”
- “What is our response to their remarks?”
Depart from your prepared opening if it is no longer appropriate. To adhere to your original opening in
these circumstances is foolish and violates the basic principles of debating.
Having found the answer to these two vital questions, your challenge should be fundamental in nature
rather than a detailed criticism. Unless you are still “playing” with definition, this rebuttal will both
restore and support the leader of the affirmative’s remarks and cast doubts on the validity of the con
team’s case structure.
Case segment:
The development of this segment of the team’s case is by far the most important in relation to the
overall case. In dividing up the subject, the team may decide to present four points on which their case
is built. The second speaker would present as many as three of these points. The person assuming this
position could be classified as the “anchor”: a solid public speaker who is logical in his thinking and
explicit in his conclusions.
4. SECOND NEGATIVE
Rebuttal:
This speaker has a similar role to the second affirmative, in that he must find some fundamental
answers to the affirmative charges. He has an advantage because he has heard two speakers state the
larger part of the affirmative case. If possible, he can build upon the breach opened by his first speaker
and develop it more fully.
Case segment:
In the event of a head-on clash between the two teams over definition, this person’s burden becomes
even greater. Whereas the first and third con speakers are concentrating on rebutting both the definition
and the other team’s points, this speaker must address the reasons why the head-on clash has occurred.
5. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE
This speaker will develop a smaller segment of his team’s case. This segment must be limited in terms
of time, but it is the last chance that the affirmative team has to introduce new evidence to the audience.
Rebuttal:
It is imperative that the third affirmative speaker be able to see the opposing argument in its broadest
sense, to determine the main issues and the theme adopted by the con side. The most effective rebuttal
will develop this theme and incorporate the salient points.19
Competently handled, such a rebuttal will undermine the opposition argument and simultaneously
enhance your own. Interweaving rebuttal with further evidence for your case will be particularly
effective, and the audience will appreciate it.
Summary:
The culmination of the argument should be a concise summary of the affirmative argument that will
illustrate the superiority of both “theme” and “point.”
6. THIRD NEGATIVE
The duties of this speaker are similar to the third affirmative, but of course he has a much greater
opportunity for rebuttal. He is in the fortunate position to assess the whole case of the affirmative team,
to see the complete theme of their argument and to refute it.
Case segment:
Again, this speaker will develop a segment of his team’s case; however, it is essential that he manage
his time effectively. It is easy to use up the allotted time on pointed, effective rebuttal, only to find that
he is then not able to develop his own case segment.
7. REPLY
The leader’s reply is second only in importance to a clear definition and outline of the team’s case. At
this stage, no new material may be introduced and the leader may only rebut material already
presented. Care must be taken to ensure that new material is not introduced in the rebuttal. What the
leader says now must be a reiteration of or response to something said at some other stage of the
debate.
The leader then reviews his team’s case, point by point. He must highlight the major points that he and
his members have presented through the course of the debate, and he must draw the threads together
and tie the knot that proves that his case is the logical conclusion one inevitably arrives at.
The time allotted for the reply is normally half that of a speaker’s time. Assuming the speakers’ time
was ten minutes, the leader’s reply would be four to five minutes. He must divide this time up
carefully. He should not get carried away with rebuttal—two to two and a half minutes maximum. The
culmination of the reply should be a concise summary of the team’s argument that will illustrate the
superiority of both “theme” and “point.”
The timing of this speech is of paramount importance. The leader does not have time to waste;
therefore, s/he must go the full distance in time. Any time spent beyond the allotted time is wasted, as
an adjudicator then ignores the speaker’s remarks and may even penalize the speaker because s/he did
not finish the address neatly and with flourish.
8. CONCLUSION20
The importance of taking a logical common-sense stand on definition cannot be overemphasized.
Shallowly-based interpretations by the affirmative team will only lead to an entire debate on definition,
as will trifling objections by the con side. Such action is usually the error of inexperienced teams and is
invariably followed by both teams’ tracing predetermined parallel paths, rebutting only definition. The
issue is never really joined and the audience leaves disappointed.
If you want to get the most out of your preparation, decide the issues and the conclusion, and then get
to work defending them.21
IMPROMPTU DEBATING
Impromptu debating is an interesting and stimulating exercise, as it provides a challenge to any would-be
debater or public speaker, as well as being entertaining for the audience.
Teams should have two or three members, depending on the time available, and can be judged using normal
debate rules or by an audience vote. There are no set rules for informal debating, but the following times
are offered as a suggestion:
1. Leader 5 minutes
2. Subsequent speaker 4 minutes
3. Leader’s reply 3 minutes
If the speaking times are too short, little time is available to develop an argument and the purpose of the
exercise is lost.
GOLDEN RULES
1. When you are selected as a member of a team, don’t panic. You may lose your ability to think clearly
and logically. Relax and prepare your material. The rules and techniques for impromptu debating are
similar to set debating, and the guidelines for impromptu speaking should also be followed.
2. After hearing the subject, select sides and team leaders. It is advisable that team members volunteer for
speaking order positions as delayed decisions can waste valuable preparation time.
3. Assign the case segments to each team member and make full use of your preparation time. Only five
minutes is usually allowed, so clear and decisive thinking is important. Don’t try to present too many
facts. A few well-presented points will help the team score well. Remember these basic questions: who,
what where, when, why, and how. They may help to outline ideas for case segments.22
CHAIRING A DEBATE
1. PREPARATION:
Have the hall or room set out so that the two teams are placed at tables on either side of the chairman’s
table. Make sure that the adjudicator has his table placed where he requires it. The adjudicator should
be provided with writing paper and the adjudicator’s report form. Ensure that the names of the
speakers are entered on the form. A jug of water and glasses should be placed on each of the tables.
The timekeeper may sit with the chairman.
2. OPENING AND INTRODUCTION:
Declare the meeting open, welcome the visitors and the adjudicator and introduce the members of both
teams. Announce the subject of the debate and the length of time each speaker has to present his case.
State that a warning bell (or signal) will sound one minute before the total elapsed time and a final bell
(or signal) at full time. Have the timekeeper sound the bell (or show the signal) before the speakers
commence so that they will know what to expect.
Check first that the adjudicator is ready, and, after repeating the title of the debate, call on the first
speaker for the affirmative team, announcing his name clearly. At the conclusion of each speech, wait
for the adjudicator to indicate that he has completed his notes before introducing the next speaker.
3. CONCLUSION:
After the final speech in reply, the adjudicator may take a little time to finish his report. During this
period, the chairman should thank the two teams, the audience, the timekeeper and the adjudicator.
Comments regarding the debate and any views which the chairman may hold should not be expressed,
as they may be at variance with those of the adjudicator.
It is essential that you check the mark sheet carefully before announcing the result, as adjudicators can
make mistakes which can be embarrassing if they are found after the result is announced. Make sure
you check the additions to ensure that marks have been properly placed in each section and that they
are correctly collated.
Reintroduce the adjudicator. Invite him to announce the results after making your final comments. As
the chairman, you may announce the results yourself.
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The leader of the winning team should be called upon to thank the adjudicator. He should also express
his team’s gratitude to the opposing side for their participation in the debate. It is not this speaker’s
prerogative to thank the timekeeper and other people who have assisted in the running of the debate.
His thank-you remarks should be kept to a minimum. The chairman is the one who makes all
thank-you.23
The leaders of debating teams should observe the above; otherwise, words of thanks are duplicated,
and the adjudicator becomes one of a list of names instead of receiving the earnest appreciation which
s/he deserves. Remember, the adjudicator has given up his time and passed on his knowledge in an
endeavor to assist each debater, and without him, there could not have been a debate.24
ADJUDICATION OF DEBATES
In an attempt to provide prospective adjudicators with constructive assistance, these notes are offered as
possible guidelines when adjudicating debates:
MARKING SHEET:
The rules for a debate are geared to a particular marking proportion and for good purpose. Within the
framework provided, marks can be made as each speaker concludes. Swift decisions will be required, as
you should aim to have as little delay as possible between speakers. Score your first speaker (leader for
affirmative team) in a “middle-of -the-road” way. Subsequent speakers should then be measured against
this first speech, gaining more, less or the same points, depending on skill, effectiveness, etc.
When the last speaker has concluded, complete the remainder of the sheet and ask the chairman to check
your additions.25
Junior Chamber International
DEBATE ADJUDICATION SHEET
Subject: Date and place:
Pro Team: Con Team:
SPEAKERS 1st Pro 2nd Pro 3rd Pro 1st Con 2nd Con 3rd Con
NAMES
SUBJECT MATTER
a. Introduction and definition
b. Constructive argument
and coverage
c. Peroration
Max. points
(20)
(30)
(5)
Max. points
(5)
(30)
(5)
Max. points
(5)
(15)
(5)
Max. points
(15)
(30)
(5)
Max. points
(5)
(30)
(5)
Max. points
(5)
(15)
(5)
REASONING
a. Arrangement,
development and logic
b. Rebuttal
Max. points
(10)
Max. points
(10)
(15)
Max. points
(10)
(30)
Max. points
(10)
(5)
Max. points
(10)
(15)
Max. points
(10)
(30)
ELOQUENCE
a. Expression, grammar and
persuasiveness
Max. points
(20)
Max. points
(20)
Max. points
(20)
Max. points
(20)
Max. points
(20)
Max. points
(20)
DEVELOPMENT
a. Use of notes, stance, etc.
Max. points
(15)
Max. points
(15)
Max. points
(15)
Max. points
(15)
Max. points
(15)
Max. points
(15)
TOTAL (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
LEADERS’ REPLY Pro Con
Summary of teams argument (10) (10)
Rebuttal of opposing team’s argument (15) (15)
Persuasiveness (10) (10)
Effectiveness (15) (15)
TOTAL (50) (50)
SUMMARY Affirmative Team Negative Team
1st. Speaker Max. points (100) Max. points (100)
2nd. Speaker Max. points (100) Max. points (100)
3rd. Speaker Max. points (100) Max. points (100)
Leader’s reply Max. points (50) Max. points (50)
Teamwork Max. points (50) Max. points (50)
TOTAL Max. points (400) Max. points (400)26
Winner of the debate:
Adjudicator’s signature
Chairman’s signature2728
Junior Chamber International
15645 Olive Boulevard, Chesterfield, MO 63017, U.S.A.
Tel.: +1 (636) 449 3100 – Fax: +1 (636) 449 3107
2005
JCI Mission:
“To contribute to the advancement of the global
community by providing the opportunity for young people
to develop the leadership skills, social responsibility,
entrepreneurship and fellowship necessary to create
JCI Declaration of Principles:
"We believe:
· That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human
life;
· That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty
of nations;
· That economic justice can best be won by free men
through free enterprise;
· That government should be of laws rather than of men;
· That earth's great treasure lies in human personality;
· And that service to humanity is the best work of life."