TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA
DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD
CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
RULES AND GUIDELINES
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD
CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
RULES AND GUIDELINES
PART 1
1.0
2.0
Name & Background
1.1
The competition shall be known as the Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Dr.
Abdul Rahman Arshad Challenge Trophy English Language Debate
Competition.
1.2
The competition serves as a platform for students nationwide to compete in a
debating competition that is based on the international standard of the World
Schools Debating Championship.
Format
2.1
2.2
A team must consist of 3 main debaters and 2 reserves.
The proposing team is known as the Government while the opposing team is
known as the Opposition.
2.3
Allocation of time and speaking order:
TURN
GOVERNMENT
TURN
OPPOSITION
TIME
1
1st Debater
2
1st Debater
8 minutes
3
2nd Debater
4
2nd Debater
8 minutes
5
3rd Debater
6
3rd Debater
8 minutes
8
Reply Speech
7
Reply Speech
4 minutes
1st / 2nd Government
1st / 2nd Opposition
2.4
Third debaters from both teams shall not introduce any new arguments. Their
role is to rebut the opponent and to defend the position of the team.
2.5
While a debater is speaking, the opposing team can offer ‘Point(s)
Of Information’ (formal interjections). The debater may accept or decline
it/them.
1
3.0
2.6
After all debaters have spoken once, the 1st or 2nd debater of each team gives
a reply speech with the Opposition reply speech being delivered first followed
by the Government.
2.7
The debate shall be judged according
Adjudicators provided in Part 2 of this paper.
to
the
Guidelines
for
Eligibility
3.1
The competition is open to all students from Form 1 to 5 from all governmentaided secondary schools under the purview of the Ministry of Education,
Malaysia except residential schools.
3.2
A school / state is allowed to send only one team to participate in the
competition. Number of participations at other levels shall be at the discretion
of the respective organisers.
3.3
The active speaking members from each team should consist of at least one
bumiputera student from the same school / state. Exceptions should be
made if the student population consists of a particular ethnic group as the
demographic in that school.
3.3.1 If there is evidence prior to, during or after the competition contrary
to the declared status, the team will be disqualified.
3.4
Every member of a participating team should come from the same school
at district level only.
3.4.1
4.0
Representatives to the state and national level can be chosen
from different schools.
Adjudication
4.1
A panel of 3 or more odd-numbered adjudicators will be appointed for all the
rounds at all levels. The Grand Final at the national level will be adjudicated
by a panel appointed by the Division of Co-curriculum and Arts, Ministry of
Education.
4.2
Adjudicators are to be appointed by the Division of Co-curriculum and Arts,
Ministry of Education for national level competition and by State Education
Departments for state level competition.
4.3
All appointed adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own
schools / districts / states unless there are no qualified adjudicators available.
4.4
All adjudicators should be briefed on the rules of adjudication before the
competition.
2
5.0
4.5
Points will be allocated according to the score sheet.
4.6
Each debate will be won by the team which scores a majority of votes from
the adjudicators in the panel. Scores awarded by adjudicators are not to be
added together to decide the winner. Adjudicators shall decide the winner
of the debate independently.
4.7
The Speaker of the House will collect the score sheets and the result slip
from the Chief Adjudicator to be submitted to the tab master.
4.8
Once the score sheets have been handed in, the adjudicators shall meet
and confer on the Best Debater.
4.9
The oral adjudication should be constructive, short and explain the result
to the debaters and audience. In particular, it should outline the key
reasons why the winning team won, and comment on the significant
matters of the debate.
4.10
At the end of the competition, all the participating teams will receive the full
results.
4.11
Certificates of achievement and participation will be awarded to respective
teams.
Procedure of Debate
5.1
Debate Process
5.1.1 Wherever possible, all competitions should run according to
the process given below:
5.1.1.1 District level organisers should conduct a two-day competition
involving a minimum of two preliminary rounds with at least
one prepared round and one impromptu round. The Grand
Final should be a prepared round.
5.1.1.2
In cases where there are 8 teams or more, it is advisable to
conduct at least three preliminary rounds.
5.1.1.3 The competition should be conducted by having 2 or 3
preliminary rounds on the first day and knockout rounds on the
second day.
3
5.1.1.4 The rounds shall be decided based on;
i. First round shall be done by a random draw.
ii. Second round onwards shall be conducted using a powermatching system.
iii. Power-matching is drawing winners of the first round to be
matched against other winners and vice-versa.
iv. The match-ups shall be decided after ranking each team
immediately after a round.
v. Teams shall be ranked first by the number of wins, then
by the number of ballots, then by the total team scores.
vi. Ballots are the votes of the adjudicators where winning by
a unanimous decision is better than winning by a split
decision.
vii. On the contrary, losing by a split decision is better than
losing by a unanimous decision.
viii. After the first round, a team with the highest number of
wins, followed by the number of ballots gathered, then by
the total team score shall be ranked 1st.
ix. After teams have been ranked, team ranked number 1
shall meet team ranked number 2 for the second round in
competitions involving four teams.
x. In competitions involving 6 teams, team ranked 1st shall
meet team ranked 3rd, team ranked 2nd shall meet the
team ranked 4th, and the team ranked 5th shall meet team
ranked 6th.
xi. In competitions involving 8 teams, the team ranked 1st
after round one shall be matched against team ranked 3rd,
team ranked 2nd shall meet team ranked 4th, team ranked
5rd shall meet team ranked 7th and team ranked 6th shall
meet team ranked 8th, and so on.
xii. The ranking continues and match-ups are drawn until all
preliminary rounds are over.
xiii. After preliminary rounds are over, teams shall be ranked
to decide qualifying into the knockout stage.
5.1.2 The knockout stage shall be conducted as follows.
5.1.2.1 For competitions involving 4 teams, a Grand Final shall be
conducted with team ranked 1st meeting team ranked 2nd after
two preliminary rounds.
5.1.2.2 For competitions involving at least 6 teams, impromptu semifinals shall be conducted with team ranked 1st meeting team
ranked 4th and team ranked 2nd meeting team ranked 3rd.
5.1.2.3 For competitions involving at least 10 teams, impromptu
quarter-finals shall be conducted with team ranked 1st meeting
team ranked 8th, team ranked 2nd meeting team ranked 7th,
team ranked 3rd meeting team ranked 6th, and team ranked 4th
meeting team ranked 5th.
5.1.2.4 After the quarter-finals, the winner of the first quarter-final shall
meet the winner of the fourth quarter-final (winner of 1st vs 8th
meets winner of 4th vs 5th) in an impromptu semi-finals.
5.1.2.5 The Grand Final shall be a prepared round.
4
5.1.3 Debates Using the Prepared Motions
5.1.3.1 The motions and sides for the prepared debates will be given
to the competing teams at least 2 weeks before the
competition; except for the Grand Final where only the motion
is provided and sides will be drawn after the semi-finals.
5.1.3.2 No quarantine time will be given for the debate but teams will
be seated in the debate room 10 minutes before the debate
begins to organise their notes.
5.1.3.3 Any team that is late would have to inform the organisers
within 5 minutes of the scheduled time.
5.1.3.4 The organisers shall only allow a maximum waiting time of 15
minutes before the team forfeits the debate and the team
present will be awarded a walk-over.
5.1.3.5 In a walk-over, the losing team will be awarded the minimum
score of 60 for each speaker and 30 for reply with a -3 ballot
score. The winning team shall receive a winning total of 70 for
each debater and 35 for reply with a +3 ballot score.
5.1.3.6 The scores shall be entered and the teams shall be ranked
according to their overall performance in the preliminary
rounds.
5.1.4 Debates Using the Impromptu Motions
5.1.4.1 The motions for the impromptu debates will be given and sides
are drawn at the start of the quarantine session.
5.1.4.2 Teams will then be quarantined in their quarantine rooms for
ONE hour to prepare for the debate. The quarantine officers
must be in the room with the team.
5.1.4.3 Any team that is late would have to inform the organisers
within 5 minutes of the scheduled time, failure of which, the
team already present will be allowed to draw their side and
quarantine time will commence. A grace period of not more
than 30 minutes will be given to the team that is late after which
quarantine time commences.
5.1.4.4 A team which is late (more than 5 minutes without information
on their whereabouts) would automatically take on the other
position contrary to what the team already present has drawn.
The time for quarantine commences.
5.1.4.5 Only team members competing (3 main debaters and 2
reserves) will be allowed in the quarantine room. The team
members should not be in contact with any unauthorised
personnel.
5.1.4.6 Teams are allowed to use their own printed reference
materials in the quarantine room. No electronic gadgets are
allowed. Teams found using electronic gadgets will be
DISQUALIFIED from the competition.
5
5.1.5 Teams are required to be seated at the debate venue(s) 5 minutes
before the debate commences.
5.1.6 If any one team fails to show up 5 minutes after the scheduled time,
without any valid reason, the team will be DISQUALIFIED. A walk-over
will be awarded to the team that is present.
5.1.7 If there is prompting / help / assistance / communication from any
individual other than the debaters during the quarantine time and
debate competition, the team will be DISQUALIFIED.
5.1.8 Clarification of the motion should be provided for the impromptu motions.
5.2
The Role of the Speaker of the House
5.2.1 Each debate will be chaired by a Speaker of the House who will be
addressed as Mister or Madam Speaker.
5.2.2 The Speaker of the House is responsible for the smooth running of the
debate and inviting the respective debaters to present their speeches
in order of their roles.
5.2.3 Before inviting debaters to present their speeches, The Speaker of the
House will read out the rules of the debate and then proceed to
introduce the timekeeper, adjudicators and debaters.
5.2.4 The Speaker of the House MUST refrain from making any comment
concerning the debate or debaters during the debate.
5.2.5 The Speaker of the House 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 8 minutes to
deliver his or her speech.
5.3.2 The Timekeeper will ring the bell once after the 1st minute and at the
end of the 7th minute to signal the time allocated for Point(s) of
Information. At the end of the 8th minute, the bell will be rung twice.
Placards must be used by the timekeeper to indicate the remaining time
left, at intervals of one minute.
6
5.3.3 A maximum time of 3 minutes will be given to both teams to prepare
for the Reply Speech.
5.3.4 During the Reply Speech, the Timekeeper will ring the bell once at the
3rd minute to signal that the debater has 1 minute left. At the end of the
4th minute, the bell will be rung twice to signal the end of the debate.
5.3.5 After each speech, the Timekeeper will announce the time taken by
each debater.
5.4
The Speaker of the House and Timekeeper should be students.
7
PART 2
Guidelines for Adjudicators
A. Marking Standard
1.0
2.0
3.0
Marks
1.1
Each debater's substantive speech is marked out of 100, with 40 for Content,
40 for Style (20 for Language and 20 for Manner) and 20 for Strategy.
1.2
The reply speech is marked out of 50, with 20 for Content, 20 for Style (10 for
Language and 10 for Manner) and 10 for Strategy.
1.3
In order to encourage consistency of marks, speeches are marked within the
accepted range and adjudicators must not go outside that range. (See the
Marking Standard - Annex 1).
1.4
If a debater declares is unable to make his/her speech after a debate has
begun, another member of the team who was announced by the speaker of
the house as being an active speaker in that debate may speak in his/her
place. In such a situation, adjudicators shall award the speech the lowest
possible score within the Marking Standard, regardless of the quality of the
speech.
1.5
Adjudicators must not use any other marking standard or categories of marks.
Content
2.1
Content is the argument used by a debater, divorced from the speaking style.
2.2
If an argument is weak, it should be marked accordingly, even if the other team
does not expose its weakness.
2.3
In deciding the strength or weakness of an argument, adjudicators should not
be influenced by their own personal beliefs or specialised knowledge.
Style
Style comprises Language and Manner.
3.1
Language
3.1.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct
sentence structures and grammar.
3.1.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of
8
speech. English being a second language here, adjudicators should not
be looking for Queen’s English in our debaters, but any expression
which is not clearly understood should not merit high marks in the
Language section.
3.1.3 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.
3.2
Manner
3.2.1 Manner is the way a debater speaks. This can be noted in many ways;
accent, body language (movement, poise, meaningful gestures and
eye contact) and with the use of specific terminology. Be tolerant of
different ways in presenting arguments.
3.2.2 In general, the use of palm-cards, lecterns, folders, notepads or other
forms of debaters notes should not affect the mark a debater is given.
3.2.3 However, debaters should not read their speeches, but should use
notes that they refer to only from time to time.
4.0
Strategy
4.1
Strategy covers two concepts:
4.1.1 Whether a debater understands what the issues of the debate are.
4.1.2 The structure and timing of a debater’s speech.
4.2
A debater who answers the critical issues with weak responses should get
poor marks for Content but good marks for Strategy.
9
B. Definitions and Cases
1.0
The Government must present a reasonable definition of a motion.
This means:
1.1
On receiving a motion, both teams should ask: ‘What is the issue that the
two teams are expected to debate? What would an average reasonable
person reading the motion think that it is about?’
1.2
If the motion poses a clear issue for debate (i.e. it has an obvious
meaning), the Government must define the motion accordingly. When the
motion has an obvious meaning (one which the average reasonable
person would realise), any other definition would not be reasonable.
1.3
If there is no obvious meaning to the motion, the range of possible
meanings is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate. Choosing
a meaning that does not allow the Opposition room for debate would not
be a reasonable definition. Truisms and tautologies leave the Opposition
no room for debate and are clearly illegitimate.
1.4
When defining words in the motion so as
(i) to allow the obvious meaning to be debated or
(ii) when there is no obvious meaning
to give effect to a possible meaning which would allow for a reasonable
debate, the Government must ensure that the definition is one the
average reasonable person would accept.
2.0
The definition must match the level of abstraction (or specificity) of the motion,
so that the debate is as specific or general as the motion itself. Specific motions
should be defined specifically and general motions generally.
3.0
Motions expressed as general principles must be proven true as general
principles. A single example will neither prove nor disprove a general
principle. Finding arguments that explain the majority of relevant examples will
be more important.
4.0
When suggesting parameters to the debate, or proposing particular models or
criteria to adjudicate it by, the Government must ensure such parameters,
models or criteria are themselves reasonable. They must be ones that the
average reasonable person would accept as applicable to the debate.
4.1
The Government ability to set reasonable parameters to a debate does
not provide a license to restrict the motion arbitrarily.
4.2
When the motion requires the Government to propose a solution to a
problem and the Government has to set out the details of its proposed
10
solution to prove its effectiveness, the Government must ensure that the
detailed solution given (the Government ‘model’ or ‘plan’) is a reasonable
one, such that the average reasonable person would accept it is
applicable to the debate.
5.0
If the Government definition is unreasonable, the Opposition may:
5.1
Accept it anyway (and debate the Government case regardless);
5.2
Challenge it (argue that the definition is unreasonable, put up an
alternative, reasonable definition and a case based on this);
5.3
Broaden the debate back to the words in the motion (if the
Government has unreasonably restricted the motion and is arguing a
narrower version of it);
5.4
Challenge the definition (as in 5.2), but argue that ‘even if’
it is reasonable, the Government case is flawed (as in 5.1).
6.0 Once the definition is settled, each team has to present a case, supported by
arguments and examples. Therefore debates shall not be evaluated based on
their definitions alone.
6.1
A case sums up the team arguments and states why its side of the
motion is correct.
6.2
Arguments are reasons or rationales why the team case is correct.
6.3
Examples are facts, events, occurrences and the like that show the
team arguments are correct.
7.0
Whereas an unduly restrictive definition (such as limiting a general motion to a
single example) is illegitimate and can be challenged or broadened, a
Government that runs a restrictive case (such as limiting itself to a single
argument) acts legitimately and cannot be challenged for doing so, but runs the
risk of the Opposition being able to more easily counter that case (by disproving
that one argument and/ or by raising other arguments that disprove the motion,
as defined).
8.0
In all cases, the team that manages to provide reasons as to why their definition
and cases are the most reasonable, practical and beneficial shall win the debate.
If a debater claims that a definition or a case is unreasonable, then they should
state reasons to support that claim. Adjudicators should balance reasons and
rebuttals in determining which team wins.
11
C. The Roles of Debaters
1.0
The role of the first debater of a Government is to define the topic, establish the
issues for the debate, outline the Government case, announce the case division
between the debaters, and present his or her part of the Government case. The
first speaker may introduce as many points that he/she feels can be adequately
explained given the time limitations.
2.0
The Government may define the topic in any way provided that the definition:
3.0
2.1
Is reasonably close to the plain meaning of the topic,
2.2
Allows the opposition team reasonable room to debate,
2.3
Is not tautological or truistic, and
2.4
Is otherwise a reasonable definition.
Squirrelling, place-setting and time-setting are not permitted.
3.1
Squirrelling is the distortion of the definition to enable a team to argue a
pre- prepared argument that it wishes to debate regardless of the motion
actually set;
3.2
Place-setting is the setting of a debate of general application in a particular
place.
3.3
Time-setting is the setting of a debate of general application in a particular
time, past or future.
4.0
The role of the first debater of an opposition side is to respond to the Government
case, outline the Opposition case, announce the case division, and present his
or her part of the Opposition case.
5.0
The first opposition may challenge the definition only if it does not conform
to 2.0 or 3.0 (B) above. If it challenges the definition, the first opposition must
propose a new definition that conforms to 2.0 and 3.0 (B) and oppose that new
definition.
6.0
If the first opposition does not challenge the definition, the Opposition is taken
to have accepted the definition and the Opposition may not challenge the
definition in any other speech unless the Government significantly alters the
definition in their subsequent speeches.
7.0
In responding to the Government case, the Opposition may produce a positive
choice of its own, or merely attack the case presented by the Government. If it
12
chooses to produce a positive case of its own, it must in fact produce that case
through its speeches, and not concentrate solely on attacking the case
presented by the Government.
8.0
The role of the second debater of a Government is to deal with the
d efinition if it has been challenged, respond to the opposition case, and continue
with the Government case as outlined by the first debater.
9.0
If the second government does not challenge a redefinition of the debate made
by the first opposition, the Government is taken to have accepted the Opposition
redefinition and no further challenges to the definition may be made.
10.0 The role of the second debater of an Opposition is to deal with the definition if it
is still in issue, respond to the Government case, and continue with the Opposition
case as outlined by the first debater.
11.0
The role of both third debaters is to deal with the definition if it is still in issue,
and respond to the other team case.
12.0
The third debater of either team may have a small part of the team case to
present, but his is not obligatory as the third debater’s primary role is to respond
to what has gone before in the debate.
13.0 Third debaters should not bring new arguments; new examples to explain points
that were made previously or to explain a rebuttal is not considered a new
argument.
14.0 The more a debate progresses, the more each debater must spend time dealing
with what has been said by previous debaters.
15.0 Hence the more a debate progresses, the less time will be spent by each debater
in presenting a new part of the team case and the more time will be spent
responding to the other team arguments.
16.0 The role of reply speeches is to sum up the debate from the team viewpoint,
including a response to the other team overall case and a summary of the
debater’s own team case.
17.0
A reply debater may be either the first or second debater of the team, not the
third.
18.0
The reply debaters are in reverse order, with the Opposition reply first and
the Government reply last.
19.0
Neither reply debater may introduce a new part of the team case.
13
20.0 A reply debater may respond to an existing argument by raising a new example
that illustrates that argument, but may not otherwise introduce a new argument.
21.0
A Government does not have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but
merely that its case is true in the majority of cases or as a general government.
22.0 An opposition does not have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but
merely that its case is true in the majority of cases or as a general.
23.0
Where the topic is expressed as an absolute, a Government must prove the
topic true in the significant majority of cases, but not in every single conceivable
instance.
24.0 Where the topic is expressed as an absolute, an Opposition must do more than
present a single instance where the topic is not true and prove that it is not true
for at least a majority of cases.
25.0
An Opposition, beyond disproving that the Government arguments are flawed
as rebuttals must present a case that proves harms on the Government case or
more benefits on their case.
26.0
An Opposition cannot merely rebut a Government without having a position or
case that is supported by arguments to fulfil their role.
D. Point of Information
1.0
Between the first and seventh minutes of a debater’s substantive speech,
members of the other team may offer points of information.
2.0
The purpose of a point of information is to make a short point or ask a short
question of the debater.
3.0
Point of information need not be addressed through the person chairing the
debate, and may be in the form of a question.
4.0
A point of information should be brief, and no longer than 15 seconds.
4.1
Point of information is an important part of the clash between the teams,
and enable debaters to remain a part of the debate even when they are not
making a speech;
4.2
Hence a debater should offer points of information both before and after
he or she has given his or her substantive speech.
14
5.0
A debater has the absolute right to refuse to accept a point of information, or to
accept it only at the end of the next sentence.
6.0
However, a debater is obliged to accept some points of information, provided
that they have been offered at reasonable times in the debater’s speech.
7.0
As a general rule, a debater should accept at least 2 points of information in his
or her speech. However, a debater who accepts a significantly greater number of
points of information risks losing control of his or her speech.
8.0
Members of the opposing team should not offer an excessive number of points
of information to the point that they are barracking. As a general rule, each team
member should offer between 2 and 4 points of information per speech, and
should not offer them within a short time of a previous point of information having
been offered.
9.0
The response by a debater to a point of information should be included in the
mark for that debater’s speech.
10.0
The offering of points of information should be included in the mark for the
debater offering points.
Revised:
10th January 2017
The Division of Sports, Co-Curricular and Arts
Ministry of Education Malaysia
15
Annex One : The Marking Standard
1. Substantive Speeches (out of 100)
STANDARD
OVERALL
(100)
CONTENT
(40)
STYLE
(40)
STRATEGY
(20)
LANGUAGE
(20)
MANNER
(20)
Excellent
76-80
31-32
15-16
15-16
15-16
Good
71-75
29-30
14-15
14-15
14-15
70
28
14
14
14
Satisfactory
65-69
26-27
13-14
13-14
13-14
Weak
60-64
24-25
12-13
12-13
12-13
Average
2. Reply Speeches (out of 50)
STANDARD
OVERALL
(50)
CONTENT
(20)
STYLE
(20)
STRATEGY
(10)
LANGUAGE
(10)
MANNER
(10)
Excellent
38-40
15-16
8
8
8
Good
36-37
14-15
7.5
7.5
7.5
35
14
7
7
7
Satisfactory
33-34
13-14
6.5
6.5
6.5
Weak
30-32
12-13
6
6
6
Average
In marking reply speeches it might be easier to mark them out of 100 and then halve
each mark. That will leave you with half-mark steps, but that is not a problem. Thus
a reply speech could be given, say, 13.5 for content, 14.5 for style and 7.5 for
strategy, for a total of 35.5.
16
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA
DR ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD
CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
ADJUDICATION FORMS
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
SCORING SHEET
Round:
Room:
Name of Adjudicator:
Motion:_
STYLE (40)
GOVERNMENT
TIME
CONTENT
(40)
LANGUAGE
(20)
MANNER
(20)
STRATEGY
(20)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(100)
STYLE (40)
OPPOSITION
First Debater
First Debater
Second Debater
Second Debater
Third Debater
Third Debater
STYLE (20)
GOVERNMENT
TIME
CONTENT
(20)
LANGUAGE
(10)
MANNER
(10)
STRATEGY
(10)
GOV. REPLY:
SPEAKER
SCORE
(50)
TIME
CONTENT
(40)
CONTENT
OPPOSITION
TIME
(20)
LANGUAGE
(20)
Winner: Please circle the winning side (Government/Opposition)
Margin (Winning Team – Losing Team) ____________________________
Adjudicator’s Signature: ______________________
STRATEGY
(20)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(100)
STRATEGY
(10)
SPEAKER
SCORE
(50)
STYLE (20)
LANGUAGE
(10)
OPP. REPLY:
TOTAL TEAM SCORES
MANNER
(20)
TOTAL TEAM SCORES
MANNER
(10)
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD
CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
TIMING
ROLE
First Government
First Opposition
Second Government
Second Opposition
Third Government
Third Opposition
Reply – Opposition
Reply - Government
Timekeeper’s Name
Timekeeper’s Signature
Date
TIME
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR
ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD
CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
_____________ LEVEL / YEAR __
RESULTS
RESULT (Adjudicator’s vote)
WINNING TEAM
TEAM: GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION
Chief Adjudicator’s Signature
(
:
)
TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE
TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
VIRTUAL PLATFORM
METHOD OF COMPETITION FOR STATE LEVEL
1.0
Overall
This competition will be conducted mostly online. All debate sessions are going to be
conducted via Zoom as the primary platform. Each virtual room for all competition
rounds will consist of three active speakers and two reserved speakers from both
teams, one timekeeper, one chairperson and three judges.
2.0
Details
2.1
For the debating technicality, this competition is still following the concept paper
released by the Sports, Co-curricular and Arts Division (BSKK), Ministry of
Education Malaysia in the year 2018.
2.2
Each district will be represented by one team and the team members can be
from various schools. However, there has to be at least ONE active Bumiputera
speaker for each team.
2.3
For each day of the debate, pupils and teachers will be given a Zoom link to
access the Main Meeting (Main Hall) of the tournament. The Main Hall will be
the primary source of announcements, matchups and all things related to the
tournament.
2.4
On the first day, there will be three preliminary rounds. All rounds will be
conducted in different Zoom sessions. The number of sessions are according
to the number of districts in each state. For the preliminary rounds, it will be
following the league system which is in accordance to the BSKK concept paper.
Tentative Schedule
Day One:
Order of Events
Check-In
Preliminary Round 1
Break
Roll Call
Prep Time
Preliminary Round 2
Lunch
Roll Call
Prep Time
BSKK, KPM
Time
08.00 am
08.30 am
10.00 am
10.30 am
11.00 am
12.00 pm
02.00 pm
02.45 pm
03.00 pm
Venue
Zoom
1
2.5
Preliminary Round 3
04.00 pm
The semi-final and quarter-final rounds will be conducted on the second day.
Tentative Schedule
Day Two:
Order of Events
Roll Call
Prep Time
Quarter Finals
Break
Roll Call
Prep Time
Semi Finals
2.6
Time
08.00 am
08.30 am
09.30 am
11.00 am
11.30 am
12.00 pm
01.00 pm
Venue
Zoom
The final round will be on the third day.
Tentative Schedule
Day Three:
Order of Events
Roll Call
Finals
Break
Winners’
Announcement, Prize
Giving and Closing
Remarks and End
Time
08.00 am
08.30 am
10.00 am
11.00 am
Venue
Zoom
2.7
Each virtual room will be controlled by one Virtual Room Master (VRM) who
can also be the timekeeper of the session. The VRM will approve and deny
entry and also mute the mics of debaters when necessary.
2.8
In each virtual room, there will be one timekeeper, one chairperson, three active
speakers of the government side, three active speakers of the opposition side,
one accompanying teacher per team and three judges. However, the
accompanying teachers and the reserves can only be the audience. They have
to be in different physical rooms and they are required to keep their video and
audio off all the time.
2.9
There will be no quarantine time for round one and final as both rounds are
using prepared motions. There will be a surveillance of an hour quarantine time
for preliminary round 2, round 3, quarter-final and semi-final round. Teams will
get into breakout rooms. There should be two cameras set to monitor the room
view during quarantine time. The cameras should capture from the front and
back of all the debaters. Teams will be disqualified if they are caught having
interaction with the mentors or getting help from outside sources.
2.10
The fixtures of all rounds will follow the Power Match-up System as stated in
the BSKK concept paper.
BSKK, KPM
2
2.11
The information of winning, fixture and motions for impromptu sessions will be
delivered in the Main Hall as well as to JPN and PPD Officers.
2.12
Judges are going to be centralised at a place in their own district/state.
2.13
There will be an online closing ceremony at the end of the competition to
officially close the competition. Full results will be announced in the closing
ceremony.
3.0
Contingency in Case of Bad Connection
3.1
If any team appears to be filled with bad connection, the chief adjudicator
should give each team a chance to reconnect. The adjudicator may choose to
run the debate on Discord too. Similar rules will apply in Discord.
BSKK, KPM
3