NOTES FOR CHAIRPERSON

These notes are intended to provide a skeleton for the role of the Chairperson for
this debate. They are written as speech with any comments in italics but are not
meant to be restrictive in the language to be used, but rather to provide an idea
of the different stages.

The Event will begin with a number of speeches from the hosts.

Welcome speeches will conclude with the introduction of the Chairperson for the debate,
Welcome

Welcome to the ************** Debate. This occasion is **************

Introducing the Rules

This debate is between four teams divided between the proposition of the motion and the
opposition. It is their job to convince you, and particularly the adjudicators, that their side
of the argument is the correct one.

Now the debate you will see today is called ‘Parliamentary Style’ debating. It is the style
of debate that is carried out by University debaters throughout the World – indeed it is the
style that is used at the annual World University Debating Championships.

So what will you see? – well we will have two sides, the Proposition and the Opposition
who under certain rules must persuade you that they are right. The rules are hopefully
straightforward –

• Each speaker has up to ( 5 or 7) minutes to deliver their speech before the other side
of the house carries on the debate.
• A bell will be rung during each speech after one minute has elapsed and one minute
before the end. A double bell will signal the end of the allotted time and if the speaker
continues beyond thirty second grace period the bell will be rung consistently.

• Between the first and second bells, members of the other side of the house can offer
points of information to the speaker – these may accepted or declined but it is
considered normal for speakers to accept some during their time with the floor.
Members of the House, the audience, may not interject in any way during the
speeches.

At the end of the formal debate the judges will retire and we will undertake a floor debate
where members of the house can put questions to the speakers or make contributions as
they wish.

Introducing the judges

Now this is a formal debate, and like nearly all formal debates we will have to decide a
winner. Well, in fact, we are very fortunate to have (three/five/seven) esteemed
adjudicators to do that job for us. May I therefore introduce our judges for today:-

1)

2)

3)

4)
5)
Please join me in welcoming them today. (APPLAUSE)

Their job is not to decide what side of the motion is correct but rather which team has
made the best case. They will be looking for three key issues – content (what they say),
style (how they say it) and strategy (how they focus on key issues and tackle main points)

Introducing the teams

So let me introduce now the teams for this debate:-

Speaking for the Proposition and representing -*********** University

**************& ************** (APPLAUSE)

Speaking for the Opposition and representing -*********** University

************** & ************** (APPLAUSE)

Speaking for the proposition and representing -*********** University

************** & ************* (APPLAUSE)

Speaking for the opposition and representing -*********** University

************** & ************** (APPLAUSE)

Introducing the Motion

The motion for today’s debate is

“This house **************”

Starting the debate

It gives me great pleasure therefore to welcome **************to open the debate:-

SPEAKER 1

Thank you ************** – may I now welcome ************** to speak for the
opposition:-

AND SO ON

At the end of the last speech

Thank you **************. That is the conclusion of the formal part of today’s debate.
May I now ask the adjudicators to retire to discuss their verdict.

Floor Debate

The floor debate is a less formal part of today’s event – members of the house, i.e. the
audience can now make contributions or ask questions of the speakers.

(Members of the audience and speakers exchange views and comments under the
Chairman’s control)

At the end of the floor debate

(The adjudicators will re-enter the room and the floor debate should come to a close.)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the adjudicators appear to have come to a verdict. Before I ask
them to announce their view let us take a show of hands here in the audience. Now
remember this vote is not for the best debaters but for the side of the motion you most
agree with.

All those in favour (VOTE)

All those against (VOTE)
Abstentions (VOTE)

I declare the motion lost/ carried.

May I now introduce the Chairman of today’s adjudication panel,**************

 CABINET OFFICE DEBATE

July 5th, Admiralty House

NOTES FOR JUDGES

Thank you for agreeing to judge at this exciting debate. We hope that you find the experience
enjoyable.

The debate is not part of any championship – it is in many ways a ‘friendly’. However as with all
debates the role of the adjudicators is very important in both deciding a winner and in providing
some feedback to the audience and debaters on the debate itself.

The Debate

The debate is in the ‘Parliamentary’ style. Four teams of two speakers each take part in the debate
in the following way:-

Proposition Opposition
First Speaker Team 1 (opening speaker in debate) First Speaker Team 2 (second speaker in debate)
Second Speaker Team 1 Second Speaker Team 2
First Speaker Team 3 First Speaker Team 4
Second Speaker Team 3 Second Speaker Team 4

Each speaker will speak for the same length of time. In each speech there will be an open period
where opposition debaters can offer points of information. These may be accepted or
declined by the speaker with the floor.

It should be noted that it is normally expected that certain speakers will do certain things in the
debate:-

1st Speaker Proposition – Set out the terms of debate, define the motion
1st Speaker Opposition – Set out the main case of the opposition and lay out the key flaws in the
proposition case
3rd Speaker Proposition – As first speaker for his or her team it is expected that this speaker will
extend the debate into new areas or develop new arguments.
Final Speakers for both sides – Final speakers should summarise the debate in full and explain
why their side has won.

The Role of the judges

The judges will be asked to select one winning team from the four in the debate and give some
brief feedback on the decision to the audience at the end of the event.

Judging the debate

The judges will be asked to consider their verdict at the end of the debate in private conference.
Judges are able to use whatever method they feel appropriate in coming to their decision however
for guidance a sample mark sheet is attached. This may be helpful both in coming to a view but
also in providing feedback at the end of the event.

The marksheet provides marks for each speaker in three distinct categories:-
Content (40 marks)

Content covers the arguments that are used, 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 that
presented them.

Content will also include an assessment of the weight of rebuttal or clash. This
assessment must be done from the standpoint of the average reasonable person.

The adjudicator's 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 a weak argument, it will not
score highly in content even if the other team doesn't refute it.

Style (40 marks)

The term is perhaps misleading. Adjudicators are not looking for speakers who are
stylish, but rather they are looking at the style of the speakers.

Style covers the way the speakers speak. This can be done in many ways, in funny
accents and with the use of strange terminology. Put the strangeness out of your mind and
be tolerant of different ways of presenting arguments.

Strategy (20 marks)

A good speech has a clear beginning, middle and end. Along the way there are signposts
to help us see where the speaker is going. The sequence of arguments is logical and flows
naturally from point to point. This is as true of a first speaker outlining the government
case as it is of the eighth speaker rebutting the government case. Good speech structure,
therefore is one component of strategy.

Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There are two aspects to
timing.
1. speaking within the allowed time limit, and
2. giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech.

A speaker should also give more time to important issues. If there is a critical point that
buttresses the whole of that team's case, it ought to get a fair amount of time so that it can
be properly established. But if there is a point that is fairly trivial, it doesn't deserve more
than a trivial amount of time.

So the adjudicator must weigh up not only the strength of the arguments in the content
category, but also the proper time and priority that was given to them in the strategy
category.
It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between strategy and
content. Imagine a debate where a speaker answers the critical issues with some weak
rebuttal. This speaker should get poor marks for content, because the rebuttal was weak.
But the speaker should get reasonable marks for strategy, because the right arguments
were being addressed.

Marking Points of Information

In the Parliamentary style, points of information are important elements of any debate.
They allow speakers to interject while other debaters have the floor to ensure a more
interactive and challenging debate.

It is relatively easy to mark the responses to points of' information, because each
response is incorporated into the speech and that is where it gets marked.

The problems come in marking the offering of points of information, because speakers
will offer points other than during their own speech, at a time when the judge is making
notes about another speaker altogether.

To begin with there is a practical problem. Judges must have some system of recording
points of information from the beginning of the debate even for speakers who will not
speak until the end of the debate. In other words, during the first speaker for the
government, a judge must be able to record something about the offering of points of
information by the third speaker of the opposition.

A speaker would expect to be penalised if he or she:

(i) offered no points of information (or almost none) during the rest of the debate
(ii) offered bad points of information during the rest of the debate
(iii) failed to accept points of information during her or his own speech.

Note that just because the response to a point of information was good, it doesn't mean
that the point was not a good one. Don't judge the worth of the point on the response.
After all if a motion is strongly arguable on both sides, then the major points on each side
should have good counter-arguments.
 PROPOSITION OPPOSITION
TEAM ONE TEAM ONE
PROPOSITION OPPOSITION
TEAM TWO TEAM TWO
MOTION

PROPOSITION TEAM STYLE CONTENT STRATEGY TOTAL

ONE (name of speaker) (/40) (/40) (/20) (/100)

PROPOSITION TEAM
ONE TOTAL (/200)
OPPOSITION TEAM STYLE CONTENT STRATEGY TOTAL
ONE (name of speaker) (/40) (/40) (/20) (/100)

OPPOSITION TEAM
ONE TOTAL (/200)
PROPOSITION TEAM STYLE CONTENT STRATEGY TOTAL
TWO (name of speaker) (/40) (/40) (/20) (/100)

PROPOSITION TEAM
TWO TOTAL (/200)
OPPOSITION TEAM STYLE CONTENT STRATEGY TOTAL
TWO (name of speaker) (/40) (/40) (/20) (/100)

OPPOSITION TEAM
TWO TOTAL (/200)

WINNER