1.

Name CyberSAFE in Schools: NATIONAL ICT SECURITY DEBATE: CYBERSAFE CHALLENGE TROPHY

2.0

Format 2.1 A team representing a secondary school under the purview of Ministry of Education Malaysia, which consists of 3 main debaters and 1 reserve. The proposition team is known as the Affirmative or the Government while the opposition team is known as the Negative or Opposition. Allocation of time and speaking order: TURN 1 3 5 8 AFFIRMATIVE 1st Speaker 2nd Speaker 3rd Speaker Reply Speech 1 /2
st nd

2.2 2.3

TURN 2 4 6 7

NEGATIVE 1st Speaker 2nd Speaker 3rd Speaker Reply Speech 1 /2

st nd

TIME 7 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes

Affirmative

Negative

2.4 2.5

The third debater from both teams shall not introduce any new arguments. Their role is mainly to rebut. While the debater is speaking, the opposition team can offer Point(s) of Information (formal interjections). The debater may accept or decline it. After all the debaters have spoken once, the 1st or 2nd debater of each side gives a reply speech with the Negatives Reply Speech being delivered first followed by the Affirmative.

2.6

3.0

Eligibility 3.1 3.2 The competition is open to all secondary school students under the purview of the Ministry of Education, Malaysia. Each secondary school is allowed to send only one team to participate in the debate.

1 of 27

4.0

Adjudication 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 A panel of at least 3 or 5 adjudicators will be appointed for all the rounds at all levels. Experienced adjudicators will be appointed and briefed on the rules of adjudication at least an hour before the debate. Adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own school. Points will be allocated according to the score sheet. The team, which scores a majority of votes from the adjudicators on the panel, will win the debate. Scores awarded by adjudicators are not to be added together to decide the winner. Adjudicators decide the winner of the debate independently. Immediately after a debate, the Speaker will collect the result slip from the Chief Adjudicator. There should be no discussions among the adjudicators when deciding the winner of the debate. Once the score sheets have been handed in, the adjudicators shall meet and confer to decide on the Best Debater. They shall refer to the adjudicators comment sheets to decide on the winner. Individual marks will not be disclosed. Prizes 4.9.1 Cash Money, plaques and certificates of achievement will be awarded to the winning teams. 4.9.2 Certificates of participation will be awarded to all participating teams.

4.6

4.7

4.8 4.9

5.0

Procedure of Debate 5.1 The Debate Process 5.1.1 The debate topics will be given to the competing teams 2 weeks before the competition. 5.1.2 The teams will draw the stand ONE hour before a debate commences. 5.1.3 The draw should take place as scheduled. 5.1.4 The team is allowed to use their own printed reference materials in the quarantine room.
2 of 27

5.1.5 Teams are required to be seated at the debate venue(s) 10 minutes before the debate commences. 5.1.6 If any one team fails to show up 5 minutes after the scheduled time, the team will be disqualified. A walk over will be awarded to the team that is present. 5.1.11 Marks will be deducted under strategy if there is prompting from any individual other than the debaters during the quarantine time and the debate competition. 5.2 The Role of the Chairperson / Speaker 5.2.1 Each team will be chaired by a Chairperson who will be addressed as Mr. Speaker or Madam Speaker. 5.2.2 The Speaker is responsible for the smooth running of the debate. 5.2.3 The Speaker will read out the rules of the debate and then proceed to introduce the timekeeper, adjudicators and debaters. 5.2.4 The Speaker must refrain from making any comments concerning the debate or debaters during the debate. 5.2.5 The Speaker must ensure that the adjudicators be given enough time to fill in their marks and wait for the signal from the Chief Adjudicator before the next debater is called. 5.3 The Role of the Timekeeper

5.3.1 The Timekeeper must ensure that each debater is given the time respectively: 7, 5, 5, and 5 minutes (see 2.3 Allocation of time and speaking order) to deliver his or her speech. 5.3.2 The Timekeeper will ring the bell once 1 minute before the end of the allocated time for Points of Information to signal that the debater has 1 minute left. The bell will be rung twice once the entire allocated time is up. (The timekeeper to indicate the remaining time left, at intervals of one minute may use Placards.) 5.3.3 Maximum time of 3 minutes will be given to both teams to prepare for the Reply Speech. 6.0 Points of Information 6.1 A Point of Information is a formal interjection. It can be:
3 of 27

i. ii. iii. iv. 6.2

A question A remark A clarification A correction of word(s) or statement(s).

A member from the opposing team may be offered a point of information from the 2nd minute onwards. Points of Information are not allowed during the 1st and final minutes of the speech. A bell will be rung to signal the beginning and the end of the time allocated for Points of Information. A time limit of 15 seconds is allowed for each Point of Information. Therefore, the Points of Information put forth must be concise. No heckling or harassment or barracking is allowed at any time during the debate. Giving and taking Points of Information should be done politely. A debater is required to raise his or her hand and to stand when putting forth a Point of Information. Rude, abusive or aggressive behavior in both instances will lead to a deduction of marks from the STYLE section. Debater may either accept the Point of Information or decline it. If accepted, the opponent may make a short point or ask a question that deals with some issues of the debate (preferably one just made by the debater). Debater MUST give or take at least 2 Points of Information during the course of the debate. 6.7.1 Debater who does not offer the minimum number of Points of Information will be marked down for SUBSTANCE and STRATEGY. 6.7.1.1 6.7.1.2 Substance for opportunities failing to take advantage of

6.3 6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7

Strategy for failing to understand the role of the debater under this style

6.7.2 Debater who fails to accept any Points of Information would be marked down for SUBSTANCE AND STRATEGY. 6.7.2.1 6.7.2.2 Substance for failing to allow the other side to make their point Strategy for not understanding the role of the debater under this style or cowardice in not accepting a challenge

4 of 27

6.8 6.9

No Points of Information may be offered during the Reply Speeches. The Etiquette of presenting Points of Information (POI) 6.9.1 A Point of Information is offered by standing and saying Point of Information or something similar. The debater on the floor is not obliged to accept every point. He or she may 6.9.1.1 6.9.1.2 6.9.1.3 Ask the interrupter to sit down Finish the sentence and then accept the point Accept the point there and then.

5 of 27

REFERENCE FOR THE SCORE SHEET 1.0 Marks are awarded to each debater according to: SUBSTANCE STRATEGY LANGUAGE STYLE 1.1 SUBSTANCE 1.1.1 Substance covers the arguments that are used and are 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 who presented them. 1.1.2 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. 1.1.3 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 team does not refute. Two consequences flow from these. 1.1.4 First, if a major argument is plainly weak, an opposing team which does not refute may well have 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 that the opposing team correctly chooses to ignore in favour of attacking more significant points. 1.1.5 Second, adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their own beliefs or their own specialized knowledge. For example, if you are a lawyer and you know that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) debunked a teams argument last week, you should probably not take into account this special knowledge unless the ICJs decision was a matter of extreme public notoriety. 1.2 STRATEGY 1.2.1 Strategy requires some attention. It covers two concepts: 1.2.1.1 1.2.1.2 the structure and timing of the speech and whether the debater understood the issues of the debate.
6 of 27

1.2.2 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. 1.2.3 Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There are two aspects of timing: 1.2.3.1 1.2.3.2 Speaking within the allowed time limit and Giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech

1.2.4 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. 1.2.5 So, the adjudicator must weigh not only the strength of the arguments in the SUBSTANCE category, but also the proper time and priority given in the STRATEGY category. 1.2.6 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 speaker 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. 1.2.7 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 marks for Strategy because the right arguments were being addressed.

7 of 27

1.3

LANGUAGE 1.3.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct sentence structures and grammar. 1.3.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of speech. Of course, English being a foreign language here, adjudicators should not be looking for Queens English in our debaters, but any expression, which is mumbled or not clearly understood, should not merit high marks in the Language section. 1.3.3 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.

1.4

STYLE 1.4.1 The term is rather misleading. Adjudicators are not looking for debaters who are stylish. 1.4.2 Style covers the way the debaters speak. 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. 1.4.3 Use of palm cards and notes are allowed and should not be penalised, unless a debater is reading from them heavily. 1.4.4 Be tolerant of speaking styles and speed of delivery. Penalise only when a debaters style has gone beyond what everyone would expect.

2.0 2.1

REBUTTAL 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. 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 to attack each of the examples individually as well.

2.2

8 of 27

3.0 3.1

THE REPLY SPEECH The thematic approach to argument outlined above 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. A Reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or individual examples. The debater must deal with the two or three major issues in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the debaters team and work against the opposing team. As a general rule, a Reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with individual examples probably does not understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good arguments.

3.2

4.0 4.1

POINTS OF INFORMATION A member of the opposing team will be offered a Point of Information in the course of speech. The debater may either accept or decline. If accepted, the opponent 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. 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 his or her own speech. 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 making a speech would be marked down for Substance and Strategy.

4.2

4.3

Note: The winning teams from the previous year may participate in the current year but the text and presentation must not be an exact replica. This concept paper is valid until further notification or revision from the Ministry of Education and can be used at all levels for competitions organized by the Ministry.

9 of 27

LIST OF EXPRESSIONS TO REQUEST, ACCEPT OR DECLINE POINTS OF INFORMATION

TO REQUEST i. ii. iii. iv. v. TO ACCEPT i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. TO DECLINE i. ii. iii. iv. v. No, thank you. No, thanks. Denied. Sorry, Sir / Miss. Sorry. Yes. Yes, please. Yes, Sir / Miss. Please. Please go ahead. Yes, accepted. Point of Information, please. Point of Information. P.O.I. please. P.O.I Point.

If the opponent (during his / her Point (s) of information) is taking too much of your time, you can ask him / her to sit down if he / she has exceeded the 15 seconds time limit. You may use these expressions: i. ii. iii. iv. Please sit down, Sir / Miss. You are taking too much of my time. You are taking too much of my time. Please sit down. Kindly sit down. You have exceeded the time limit for POI. Your time limit is up.

*** Please note that it is of utmost importance that debaters be polite at all times during the course of the debate especially when accepting or declining Point(s) of Information.

10 of 27

GLOSSARY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. adjudicator barracking case line a person called to judge a debate to determine the winner to criticize loudly, shout or jeer against a team or debater please refer to Stand to seek further information or explanation on matters a sheet where the adjudicators write his / her comments during the proceedings of the debate to discuss and come to a consensus decision

clarification comment sheetconfer -

electronic gadgets- electrical items such as computers, handphones, radios, MP3, digital media players, etc. harassment heckling to trouble, torment or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc. to interrupt by taunts the winner is determined by the number of votes given to the winning team please refer to the reduction of marks a formal interjection where the opposing team can ask questions, clarify, make a remark or correct a word or statement to refute or disprove the opponents arguments by offering contrary contentions or arguments an arena where a debater will sum up the teams arguments and then rebut the opposing teams major arguments brought up during the debate

majority vote marked down point(s) of information rebuttal -

13. 14.

reply speech -

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

reduction of marks- in Parliamentary Style Debate marks are not deducted from a teams or individuals marks but are reduced Speaker stand strategy substance a person who chairs a debate and ensures the smooth running of the proceedings from which angle the team is going to argue the case how each team member work together to argue the case the arguments presented during the debate
11 of 27

ADJUDICATION FORMS
CyberSAFE in Schools: NATIONAL ICT SECURITY DEBATE: CYBERSAFE CHALLENGE TROPHY

TIMING
Role 1st Government 1st Opposition 2nd Government 2nd Opposition 3rd Government 3rd Opposition Reply Speech (Opposition) Time

12 of 27

Reply Speech (Government) Timekeepers Name Signature Date

13 of 27