HICES
HEADS OF INDEPENDENT
CO-EDUCATIONAL SCHOOLS
HICES DEBATING COMPETITION, 2015
The ability to speak confidently and to debate in public are skills to be encouraged in our
students. Not only are they useful talents that will be used throughout life in many different
situations, but they are also useful skills for oral assessments in the HSC, and for practise in
thinking rapidly and arranging arguments in a coherent fashion, tools which are helpful for
essay writing.
The aims of this competition should be twofold. First we should be promoting debating for the
reasons stated above. Secondly, we should be promoting this competition as a way for our
students to have experience in debating not currently available to them through the existing
Independent Schools’ competitions. In addition, we should be hoping to provide entertainment
and education to a wider school audience.
Conditions of Entry
Communications/commitments
1. The closing date to register ‘interest’ for the 2015 competition will be Friday 5
December 2014.
2. Schools will be required Confirm registrations by Monday 2 February 2015
3. In the event that a competition raises four (4) or five (5) teams only, only one (1) team
is permitted to progress to the Finals Round
4. Schools prepared to act as a host venue are required to lodge their interest at the
time of nominating, Friday 5 December 2014.
5. Schools entering any competition are obliged to complete all debates. It is
unacceptable to forfeit or not debate. Any school withdrawing from a competition
severely disadvantages the other teams in their region. As such, teams entering a
competition must make every effort to debate. If a school forfeits a preliminary
round debate that will make that team ineligible for progression to the finals.
6. After the commencement of the competition if any school wishes to withdraw from
the competition this must negotiated with the HICES Debating Chair who may, as
a result, review a school’s eligibility for entry in future competitions.
7. Results of debates must be faxed through to the HICES Debating Coordinator (Sue
Macneil) by the host school’s co-ordinator immediately after the debates. It will be
the responsibility of the teacher/co-ordinator accompanying teams to debates to
collect the result sheet from the adjudicator and hand to the host school co-ordinator
prior to departing from the central venue. A Results Form is included in this
handbook.
The result sheet is attached. Schools are to make sufficient copies for the season.
Please ensure that the adjudicator completes the section for Best Debater points
correctly. The designation of Boy and Girl speakers (1st, 2nd or 3rd speaker) is terribly
important, please ensure that the Gender of each speaker is clearly shown on the
Results Form. This continues to cause problems, please note carefully
8. The adjudicator’s decision is final. Protests will only be considered if the rules of the
competition have been broken. Any disputes regarding any aspect of the conduct
of a debate must be forwarded in writing to the HICES Debating Chair within one
week of the problem arising. Disputes not submitted according to the above
instructions will not be considered.
9. Preliminary Round debates will be held in a nominated school at a fixed date and time,
refer to the Draw. A school will host a round on just one occasion, with the
responsibility for hosting a round shared across four schools in the region.
Host schools
A host school needs to be able to provide enough rooms for simultaneous debates and other
‘spaces’ for preparation for the senior and open teams. The DRAW makes it apparent how
many rooms are required.
Host schools do not have to provide afternoon tea for debaters and adults from visiting
schools during the preliminary rounds. However, it is encouraged during the finals rounds
where greater distances of travel are involved and fewer teams to host.
Host schools
 Should provide sufficient rooms to achieve all required debates, in each room
enough space for the teams to be set up at the front of the room and the
adjudicator at the back, with seating for an audience.

Should provide suitable private preparation rooms for each of the Senior and
Open Division teams. Dictionaries are to be provided. Laptops with internet
capabilities or mobile phones are not to be used. It is terribly important that
teachers accompanying teams attend to this and take devices from students.

Should greet the visiting teams at the entrance of their school, to ensure that the
team reaches the venue for the debate on time.
Digitally recording debates
Debates cannot be recorded unless written permission is granted from both teams. Schools
will have their own protocols and policies in place, but simply, privacy regulations prohibit
recording unless permission has been provided by parents of all debaters.
Regions & Zones
1. Hunter Region
2. Inner North West Sydney
3. Outer North West Sydney
4. South Sydney
5. Southern
6. Western
Competition Calendar
Preliminary Rounds
Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:
Finals
Elimination Final:
Preliminary Final:
Quarter Final:
Semi Final:
Grand Final:
Tuesday 24 February (South Sydney only, Thursday 26 February)
Thursday 19 March
Monday 18 May
Thursday 11 June
to be completed by Friday 31 July
to be completed by Friday 14 August
to be completed by Tuesday 25 August
to be completed by Tuesday 1 September
Thursday 10 September at the Powerhouse Museum, Ultimo,
Sydney
The Draw will be released on Friday 6 February 2015


Topics will be listed with each Draw, and for impromptu debates a subject area will
be identified
Topics for impromptu debates will be notified to school’s co-ordinators by email,
sent at approx. 9.00am on the morning of the debate. The topic is to be
CONFIDENTIAL until preparation time at 3:30pm
Case –
 For impromptu debates, the case is decided by toss of the coin
 For prepared debates in the preliminary rounds, the team named first is the
affirmative team
The team named first in the draw  Provides a chairperson (aspiring debaters are ideal or other squad members) and
a time-keeper, and will also need a bell and a stopwatch.
 Provides water for the speakers and adjudicators
The team named second in the draw
 Provides a suitably qualified adjudicator for the preliminary rounds, at the
expense of the team
In the finals series, each team must provide a qualified and independent adjudicator
Adjudicators
A list of qualified adjudicators (made available to us by DEC NSW) by region will be
distributed to all schools in January 2015. Our contact at DEC is Tony Davey (NSW Debating
& Public Speaking), email anthony.r.davey@det.nsw.edu.au. Tony is extremely helpful.
Another resource may be, Master Academic. However, we have not had any formal dealings
with this group. http://www.mastersacademytraining.com.au/home.html
It is a requirement of nomination to the competition that every school has appropriately
accredited adjudicators who are available for all debates, if required. Schools are to
encouraged to share names of suitable adjudicators with other schools in the region.
Adjudicators are not permitted to adjudicate a team from their own school unless approval
has been granted by the HICES Debating Co-ordinator, after consultation with the other
school’s co-ordinator.
The adjudicator’s decision will be final, but any problems should be directed to the HICES
Debating Co-ordinator or, where this is inappropriate, the HICES Head with responsibility for
Debating.
There will be a sole adjudicator for each debate in the Preliminary Rounds, a panel of two
adjudicators for the Semi Finals (each school is to provide one adjudicator) and a panel of
three adjudicators for the Grand Final (arranged by Sue Macneil).
In the Finals series, where two adjudicators are required, each school will provide an
adjudicator, sharing the cost.
Organisation
All levels of the competition are organised by the HICES Debating Chair, Paul Teys.
All schools should try and nominate at least one team in each division.
Extra team nominations may be included in the main draw where possible
Junior and Middle divisions for the preliminary rounds will remain prepared topics. In the
finals series, impromptu preparation will be used.
All senior and open division debates for all rounds to be impromptu.
Preparation for impromptu debates cannot be supported by any technology inc. mobile
phones, smart phones, iPads and tablet PCs. Debaters are to be limited to writing paper, pens
and Dictionary. Co-ordinators are to collect any technologies that are brought to the debate
and held during preparation.
For all impromptu debates, a general subject area from which the topic will be drawn will be
included in the draw.
For impromptu debates the case will be decided by the toss of the coin. The toin is tossed
prior to the release of the topic. The team that calls successfully can choose whether they
are affirmative/negative. Then, the topic can be released.
In prepared debates the team named first in the draw is the affirmative team.
RULES
1. There will be 4 age divisions in this competition:
Junior = Years 5&6
Senior = Years 9&10
Middle = Years 7&8
Open = Years 11&12
Schools should try to enter a team in all age divisions.
2. It expected that all debates will be held after school: Junior and Middle divisions
commencing at 3.30 pm with Senior and Open divisions commencing at the very
latest, 4.30pm.
Schools should arrive not later than 3.00pm to allow senior and open debaters a full
hour of preparation.
Schools will need to depart from their home school well before the end of the day, of
course, to get to the host school in time.
School’s have to factor in appropriate travel time including a loading for traffic delays.
It is not good enough to say we are later because of traffic delays.
For Senior/Open debates. Preparation must commence at 3:15pm, or very soon
thereafter. If a team arrives after preparation time has commenced, that is, after
3:15pm, the preparation time will be reduced by the equivalent time that the school is
late. For example, a school arriving at 3:40pm will be restricted to 35 minutes
preparation time.
For Junior/Middle debates. If a team arrives after 3:30pm, then the result is a ‘loss’ to
the team that arrives after 3:30pm. The debate can proceed if time permits, that is, if
the debate can still finish well before 4:30pm
3. The competition will consist of three levels of competition – Preliminary Rounds,
Finals Series and Grand Final. When schools have nominated for the competition a
formal draw will be raised to define the competition.
4. Teams are to consist of four members of whom one will be a non-speaker. Each team
must contain boy and girl speakers (1st, 2nd or 3rd speaker). Teams that do not comply
with this by-law will be awarded a ‘loss’ with the debate proceeding. This is not
considered a forfeit, but a loss.
The fourth speaker may participate in preparation and sit with the team and contribute
notes during the debate.
Students may participate in a competition for a higher age group, but not a lower one.
Students may not compete in more than one age division.
The recommended size of a squad is six (6). This is regarded as a stable and reliable group
to get experience and improve across the season.
5. Students are encouraged to speak for the maximum amount of time available to
them. There will be a warning bell, then a “final” bell, then a continuous bell to
indicate that the speaker’s time has expired. Anything said after this time will not be
counted in the adjudication of the debate.
These bells will be rung as follows:
Junior Division: 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes
Middle Division:
4 minutes, 5 minutes, 6 minutes
Senior Division:
4 minutes, 6 minutes, 8 minutes
Open:
6 minutes, 8 minutes, 10 minutes
There will be an award for the Best Debater at each level in the competition. Adjudicators
will record 3, 2 and 1 points for the best debaters after each debate, although these marks
will not be announced. At the end of the competition, marks will be tallied and the results
made public at the Grand Final.
6. Points will be awarded – 2 for a win, 2 for a bye, 0 points for a loss and -1 for a forfeit
7. To qualify for the Finals Series, a team must achieve 6 competition points in the
preliminary rounds. The Final Series will be knockout with the two remaining teams
contesting the Grand Final in each age division.
8. Nominated schools in each region will be host a full round of debates in the
Preliminary Rounds.
Venues for the Finals Series will be participating schools. All schools entering the
competition must be aware that there will be travel involved. If travel to another school
is considerable, schools are advised to use a ‘half way’ school as a venue for the finals
series.
OBLIGATIONS OF STUDENTS
Debating is an exercise in good manners and fairness. If this were not the case, then students
could just be arguing in the playground. This distinction must be stressed, and a good
standard set for the students by their teachers and school in organising each debate and in
debriefing after a debate.
STUDENT BEHAVIOUR
a. Students should bear in mind the principles of good manners and fairness.
b. Bad and inappropriate language, rudeness and disparaging comments about opposing
teams will not be tolerated.
c. Full dress uniform or the nearest equivalent will be expected for all debates.
d. Students will be expected to attend all coaching or preparation sessions organised by their
school.
e. In addition, when available, older students should be encouraged to help younger
students to learn the principles of debating and help them in their preparation.
f.
A student will be expected, if at all possible, to attend all debates in their division in which
their school is involved if they are in the squad, even if they are not in a particular debate.
g. Students must not question the final result of a debate and staff ought to set an example
in this regard. However, they may and indeed should be encouraged to approach the
adjudicator after the debate to ask for any suggestions or advice.
h. Whilst this is an inter-school competition, with all the prestige and accolades this entails,
students should also view it as an opportunity to acquire life skills, and as such should be
encouraged to accept that losing is also an opportunity for learning.
Style of Debating Used
Conflict or Initiative Debating is the style used in the HICES Debating
competition and is generally accepted as the standard for the majority of the
other competitions throughout the state.
The essence of debating is effective communication and conflict of ideas and
arguments. These elements are judged in three categories—Matter, Manner
and Method.
Matter refers to what is said in the debate and incorporates:
The Definition and its Justification
The statement and explanation of the team’s line of argument
(Teamline)
The various Arguments that make up the team’s case
The factual Examples used to support those Arguments
Manner refers to the way in which speakers deliver their speeches and
use their personality to communicate their ideas to the audience. It
incorporates:
—hand gestures, eye contact, stance
—speed of delivery, volume, pitch
—choice of language
Method refers to the way in which the debate is organised. It incorporates:
The structuring of individual speeches
the response to the opposing team’s case
The two teams are called the Affirmative and the Negative.
The Affirmative team supports the topic with factual
Examples.
Arguments
and
The Negative team must disprove the Affirmative team’s case and present a
valid case of their own to disprove the topic.
Both teams must prove their own case (Teamline) and disprove the case
presented by the opposing team.
The First Affirmative is the only speaker who enters the debate with a fully
prepared speech. All subsequent speakers must first disprove the opposing
team’s case, before further developing their own team’s case.
Persistent conflict is vital to effective debating. It is through refutation at the
beginning of a speech that this conflict is created and the initiative of the debate
is captured. In short, conflict is what distinguishes debating from six public
speeches on the same topic.
Definition
The Definition is the team’s interpretation of the topic and should be in line with
the spirit of the topic (the intended issues and real world context of the debate).
The definition should explain important and unclear terms in a way that a
reasonable person can understand. The definition may also have some basis
in the context of events in the news (i.e. A topic about Editorial Independence
in the context of an attempted takeover of a major news company means that
the topic should be about independence from commercial interests of the
company as opposed to a more generic and less relevant definition as being
about free of influence from the government).
As such, using dictionaries although permitted, is unadvised as it often leads to
long and confusing dictionary definitions, that often miss the issues of the
debate and can lead to an unreasonable criteria or setup that impedes the
debate. Most of the topic should be made clear implicitly by the context which
the affirmative team establishes and speakers should not need to needlessly
waste time defining every single word.
The affirmative have right of definition and must set out and justify their
definition clearly at 1st Affirmative. The negative should only challenge the
definition in extreme cases where a team has defined the topic in a way that is
unreasonable or makes the topic not debatable. In the event of a definitional
challenge the 1st Negative must provide a counter definition, and an explanation
of why the affirmative definition was unreasonable and why the negative
definition is more reasonable. Just because a definition has been challenged,
neither team should ignore the other team’s definition. Instead both should
debate issues under both definitions such as through ‘even if’ arguments.
(“Even if we accept their definition, here is why their points still don’t work…”)
Here is an example of a reasonable definition of one of the 2012 HICES topics:
That sporting competitions are improved by technology
Sporting Competitions: Professional or elite competitive events in individual or
team sports such as swimming, cricket and tennis.
Technology: Modern developments and inventions introduced into the sport
either officially or unofficially as a way of adding to/altering that sport or those
who compete in that sport.
Improve: positive contribution that leads to fairer, more reliable play and
improves audience engagement and interests.
Here is an example of an unreasonable definition:
Sporting competition: Professional or elite competitive events in individual or
team sports such as swimming, cricket and tennis.
Technology: Anything man made
Improve: Make better.
This definition is unreasonable because the definition of technology is far too
broad and makes it undebatable because everything including the essential
components of a sport are now defined as technology meaning that the
negative can’t debate against the topic because by definition almost every sport
can’t exist without ‘technology’. Secondly, note that the definition of improve
doesn’t clear up the meaning of it in any way and should also be avoided. Also
see how the first definition, although slightly complex makes it very clear for
both teams and the adjudicator what criteria and the scope of what is being
debated.
Yardsticks/Models
There are two main types of topics in this competition, model (also known as
‘should’ topics) and empirical debates (Topics that ask a team to make a value
judgment about the truth of a statement. I.e. That X is better than Y)
Model (“Should”) Debates – in many debates, part of establishing the team’s
case and defining the debate means proposing a solution or “model” to the a
problem (imperative) that has been identified in the topic and context. The
details of your model should include the scope of the debate (Western
Countries? The Australian Government? The State Government? Schools?)
and should give the debate a clear and simple structure which can be used to
analyse arguments and debate why (or why it won’t) address the problem that
exists. It is important especially for the affirmative to also make sure that the
model actually proposes a substantial enough change from the status quo and
that the model actually addresses the problem specifically set out.
Empirical Debates – In these debates, instead of debating whether or not we
should undertake a certain action in response to an apparent problem, these
topics ask teams to make a judgment about the topic statement – e.g. “that our
politicians are no good”. Your definition of the topic in these kinds of debates is
important as you should set up the criteria/benchmarks (also known as a
Yardstick) by which you’ll be assessing the validity of the topic. As mentioned
in the definition section, it is essential to clearly define reasonable criteria in
order to provide clear markers against which your arguments and that of the
opposition can be evaluated by the adjudicator.
Remember – you should never try to win a debate by your definition (either
Model or Yardstick). Your aim in defining the debate should be to set up a good
strong structure through which both teams can engage with each other’s
arguments
Matter
Teamline
The Teamline or Caseline is simply a sentence which sums up the team’s
Arguments. Teamlines are an important tool for organising the team’s case
and linking the various Arguments therein to a single over-arching argument.
Properly used, a teamline will ensure that all the team’s speakers and
Arguments are heading in the same direction, and clarify for the audience and
adjudicator the exact position the team is taking in the debate.
Once a team has decided how to interpret the topic, it needs to then
ask why the topic is true (Affirmative) or false (Negative). The answer to this
question will be the Teamline. The Teamline should then take the form of a
simple, straightforward sentence. Most Teamlines will be in the form of the
words of the topic followed by the word ‘because’ followed by a short, overall
reason why.
Allocation
The team’s case in its entirety will consist of around five or six Arguments which
will be divided between the First and Second Speakers. Rather than split up
the case randomly, it should be divided into two logical subsets, with similar
Arguments grouped together and the more important arguments being
delivered by the first speaker. This process is known as Allocation.
Arguments
Arguments are the six or seven basic reasons that a team presents to prove
their case. Arguments should consist of both principled arguments
(justifications and analysis for why your side is or ought to be right) and practical
arguments (Harms/Benefits, etc)
Arguments should consist of an idea/proposition, analysis of why that idea is
true (or most likely to be true) and examples that show how that analysis looks
in the real world.
Idea refers to the concept or proposition that you seek to prove – it might be a
principle, such as “the government has an obligation to provide the same level
of protection to citizens regardless of where they are in the world” or it might
just be something that would be helpful to your side of the debate, such as
“Government intervention in the judicial process of another country ensures fair
process for its citizens”. The idea itself, however is not enough as it may be
true, however it also very easily may not be. Teams must then convince the
adjudicator of these ideas by analysis.
Analysis is a series of logical steps and reasoning explaining why and/or how
the idea proposed is most likely to be true. In the first example above about
government obligation, analysis should examine what the role of the
government is and why it has an obligation to look after its citizens and then
establish why that obligation still exists even when its citizens are in other
countries. In the second example about fair process, a way to analyse the idea
is to explain what most likely happens at the moment (status quo) and why that
is the case and then what the model will do in terms of this idea of fair process
and how the government intervening will ensure that is the case.
Lastly the argument should use examples that should be tied into the analysis.
Examples should be real world and factual. Examples can also be analogous
(examples that look at similar situations. So if talking about restricting access
to alcohol, an analogy may be cigarettes and the way in which the sale and
advertising of which is currently restricted). Either way teams should never use
the presence of the example itself to prove a point. Just because an example
exists, it does not prove that you are right, especially when all the opposition
needs is to introduce a counter example to disprove you. Teams must link their
examples to their analysis and show how their example is evidence of their
analysis being true or at the very least the most likely truth.
Rebuttal
Rebuttal or Refutation is the act of attacking the opposing team’s case.
It can be done on several levels including attacking examples and explaining
why they don’t prove the point or are factually incorrect as well as pointing out
contradictions and misrepresentations of something said by previous speakers
as well as providing counter examples and clarifying points. On another level it
can be attacking the analysis and logic of the argument and pointing out
unsupported assertions and generalisations or providing counter analysis to
show why a different cause/outcome is more likely to be the case. It can also
be attacking the ideas and explaining why the propositions of the other teams
arguments are principally wrong. The latter levels of rebuttal require more work
but are far more effective at pulling apart a teams case than merely pointing out
a bad example or inconsistency. Speakers should always explain why (analyse
why) a point is wrong because merely saying that something was wrong/untrue
in itself does not prove anything. At high levels speakers should seek to rebut
not just a collection of statements of the opposition but identify the key issues
of the other team’s case and rebut each issue on various levels and with
multiple lines of attack. Teams should bear in mind that Rebuttal of the
opposition’s case and the development of one’s own case are of equal
importance. As such, all speakers after the First Affirmative should aim to spend
roughly half their time on Rebuttal. By the third speaker they should be rebutting
for about three-quarters of the allotted time with only a brief summary.
Method
Method refers to how matter is organised within an individual speech and
throughout the team.
Debaters often find it difficult to think of good matter, and nervousness can
detract from manner, but it should always be possible to get the various
elements of method correct. There is no excuse for an experienced debater to
make basic errors in method. New debaters should learn exactly what is
required of them in their role as First, Second or Third Speaker and in their
team’s approach to debates. Method is something every debater can get right
every time.
Internal Method is the organisation of a speech in its own right, including
elements like timing and development. External Method is the organisation
of the team’s case as a whole. It includes ensuring the speeches work
together, keeping the team’s Arguments cohesive from speaker to speaker,
and coordinating the team’s approach to Rebuttal as outlined above. Most
importantly, it involves ensuring that each speaker knows and performs the task
assigned to them.
Basically, Method is about following all the rules of debating as closely
as possible, and doing everything that needs to be done at the appropriate
point in the speech or case. Far from being arbitrary, the rules of debating have
evolved over time as the most efficient way of building a case.
While debates are generally decided by the quality of the Rebuttal and
Arguments presented, correct Method helps to ensure that Rebuttal and those
Arguments are as effective as possible.
More broadly, Method is about team work. A team must be consistent in the
presentation of their Definition and Teamline and must adhere to the case
division outlined in the First Speaker’s Allocation. As the debate progresses,
speakers may have to alter the thrust of what the team is saying or extend their
Arguments to answer challenges presented by the opposing team, but there
should be no shift in Definition or change in the Teamline. Any change in these
areas is a definite sign of weakness and should be attacked strongly by the
opposing team.
Manner
Manner relates to the way in which speakers deliver their speeches and use
their personality to communicate their ideas to the audience.
Speakers should present their speeches in a way which is convincing and
sincere. It is the overall impact of the speaker’s presentation on the audience
which is important. Speakers are expected to be natural and to deliver their
speeches in a conversational manner avoiding slang and colloquialisms.
The level of language should be appropriate to the audience and to the topic of
the debate.
The outcome of the debate will not be decided by the Manner with which it is
presented, but Manner is still an important part of ensuring the team’s message
is delivered as effectively as possible. Poor Manner can undermine a team’s
case to the point where it is difficult to understand, making it unlikely the
team will succeed in the debate.
Put simply, poor Manner will adversely affect the team’s Matter, while good
Manner can improve the case. More broadly, developing good Manner helps
speakers feel more confident, which will allow them to concentrate upon the
other more important aspects of the debate.
The fundamental rule of Manner is to not do anything which distracts from the
speech. It should be noted that an overly polished and stuffy Manner is just as
likely to distract the audience from the material being developed as a stumbling,
uncertain style. Again, a down-to-earth, matter-of-fact Manner will always be
preferable. Speakers should also be wary of repetitious Manner.
Variety in all aspects of Manner is preferable.
Paul Teys
HICES Debating Chair
0418610402, 49310713 teysp@hvgs.nsw.edu
01/11/2013
HICES Debating Competition: Results Form
To be completed by Host School Co-ordinator
Age Division:
(Please circle one)
Junior
Middle
Senior
Affirmative
…………………………………………………….......................
Open
School:
Negative School: …………….………………………………………………………..
Topic: …………………………………………………………………………………
Date of debate: ……………….
Full names of team members, first and last name and gender (please print):
Affirmative
M/F Negative
M/F
1
2
3
4
To be completed by Adjudicator (NOT to be announced at time of debate):
Best Debater:
Name
Best
Debater
………………….………………………………..................................
………………….…………………………………………………
2nd
Best
Debater
………………….………………………………………………….
3rd
Best
Debater
Winning School: ……………………………………………………….
Name of Adjudicator (please print): ………………………………
When completed, please fax to Sue Macneil, HICES Debating Co-ordinator
F: (02) 43 244301
Or scan and email, e: sue.macneil@gmail.com