Are adjudicators then supposed to explicitly ignore everything that is offered through interjection or heckles?
If someone says what you were thinking in your head, that does not subjugate your intelligence and your ideas remain
valid. It is important however to protect the integrity of the speech of the speaker on the floor. The debate format has to
be maintained and if interjections were treated as valid points, no one would bother with making speeches.
Nevertheless there are situations where the context of the debate may deem the interjection legitimate. For example, if
the speaker is not taking any points of information or trying to shut out one of the teams. In those situations, the person
offering the interjection is not trying to interrupt the speech before him but bring attention to the fact that the speaker is
not being dynamic and engaging his ideas. The adjudicator then assesses if this is true, decides if action is necessary
and acts accordingly.
Definitions
What is a good definition?
A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the contention of the debate. Definitely not a
definition that wins the debate, as that means no debate occurs.
How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion?
A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other teams in the debate to question their
approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the definition to what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators
should evaluate the effect of the definition. If Govt defines too narrowly and cannot develop matter to prove their selfproving case, then they contribute little to the debate. If Govt defines poorly and creates too many holes, then
defending their case will be difficult.
Can team parameterise definitions?
Yes. Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as long as those parameters are fair. For
example, in a debate about child labour, restricting it to legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate and
leads to a good debate happening, the action of setting those parameters should be rewarded.
However these are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If the Government unfairly restricts the
parameters of the debate, it is fair for Opposition to expand the area of debate. Thus Govt cannot limit a child labour
debate to discussing the right to earn allowance by shovelling snow if the Opp argues that is unfair and expands it. On
the other hand if the Opp likes to discuss snow shovelling, that is also their right and they should not be punished for
not expanding the parameters.
Do you have to include every word in the motion during the definition?
You do not have to define every word, but the words in the motion define the potential scope of the debate and the
onus of the teams. If the motion reads this house will condemn people who encourage suicide, the focus of the
debate is on people who encourage, not commit suicide and not taking that into account could seriously affect the
direction of the debate. However you do not have to define people and perhaps can even assume what suicide means.
On what basis can you challenge a definition?
A definition can be challenged on the basis that a definition is: (take definitions from rules)
a) time set/place set
b) truistic/tautological
c) wholly unreasonable/squirrel
Who can challenge and who cant?
Any team in the debate can challenge the definition, because each team is a unique entity. Thus, a debate could have 4
definitions.
What happens during a definition debate?
To challenge the definition, one has to
a) explicitly state that you are challenging the definition
b) state why (time or place set, truistic, unreasonable) and explain
c) provide a new definition
You still maintain your positions in the debate and have to argue appropriately. Thus the Opening Opposition, after
challenging the definition and providing a new one would then proceed to oppose the motion, not support it.
Once you challenge a definition, other than to show why the previous definition is inaccurate, you do not have to
address the issues/arguments that fall under it. One basically ignores that definition.
Matter & Manner
What is good matter?
Good matter is matter that is logically developed, relevant to the case at hand and substantiated.
What is good manner?
Good manner is manner that is effective in strengthening the argument/case, is entertaining.
Which is more important?
They are both equally important (check section on scoring). Thus a team could win on manner just as easily as a team
could win on matter.
Scoring
Matter
Manner
Total
Range
25-30
25-30
50-59
poor
30-35
30-35
60-69
below average
35-40
35-40
70-79
average
40-45
40-45
80-89
break worthy
45-50
45-50
90-100
Miscellaneous
Is there such a thing as an automatic last in a debate? What most horrible sin must a team commit to
immediately earn a last position?
No. There is nothing in a debate that you can do to get an automatic last short of not showing up. If a first prop team
squirrels the motion into a tautology and then the second speaker knifes the first, they probably wont win the round
but should not receive an automatic last, they just set a very high threshold for what some other team in the round
would have to do in order to take last place away from them (perhaps wetting themselves during their speech or
something).
Scoring
Matter
Manner
Total
Range
25-30
25-30
50-59
poor
30-35
30-35
60-69
below average
35-40
35-40
70-79
average
40-45
40-45
80-89
break worthy
45-50
45-50
90-100
TEAM
Government
Opposition
OG
MATTER
OG
CG
MANNER
CG
OO
TOTAL
OO
CO
CG
___________________________________
Adjudicator