WUDC Manila 1999 Rules

British Parliamentary/World Championship

RULES

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION



1.1 The format of the debate



1.1.1 The debate will consist of four teams of two persons (persons will be known as "members"), a chairperson (known as "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker") and an adjudicator or panel adjudicators.



1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:

Opening Government: "Prime Minister" or "First Government Member" and "Deputy Prime Minister" or "Second Government Member";

Opening Opposition:

"Leader of the Opposition" or "First Opposition Member" and "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or "Second Opposition member";

Closing Government:

"Member of the Government" or "Third Government member and "Government Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member".



1.1.3 Members will speak in the following order:

(a) Prime Minister;

(b) Opposition Leader;

(c) Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) Deputy Opposition Leader;

(e) Member of the Government;

(f) Member of the Opposition;

(g) Government Whip;

(h) Opposition Whip.



1.2 The motion



1.2.1 The motion should be worded clearly.



1.2.2 The motion should reflect that the World Universities Debating Championship is an international tournament.



1.2.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.



1.3 Preparation



1.3.1 Teams should have at least fifteen minutes to prepare for all debates.



1.3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting time for that debate.



1.3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers, and other similar materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and in the debate. It should be borne in mind that the use of printed material during a debate could affect a member's manner.



1.4 Points of Information



1.4.1 Points of Information (question directed to the member speaking) may be asked between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (speeches are seven minutes in duration).



1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand. The Member may place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the other speaking. The member may announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.



1.4.3 The Member who is speaking may allow the person offering the point of information to make the point of information or may decline to take the point of information.



1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.



1.4.5 The Member who is speaking may ask the person asking the point of information to sit down where the person offering the point of information has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.



1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two points ofd information during their speech. Members should also offer points of information.



1.4.7 Points of information will be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information (see Rule 3.3.4).



1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.



1.5 Timing of the Speeches



1.5.1 Speeches will be seven minutes in duration (this should be signalled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over seven minutes and twenty seconds may be penalised.



1.5.2 Points of information may only be offered between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (this periods should be signalled by one strike of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).



1.5.3 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House to time speeches.



1.5.4 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the Duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.



1.6 The Adjudication



1.6.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is possible.



1.6.2 At the convulsion of the debate, the adjudicators should confer and rank the teams, from first placed to last placed. (see Part 6, Marking and Ranking).



1.6.3 There should be no verbal adjudication of the debate and the results of the debate should not be released.





PART TWO: DEFINITIONS



2.1 The Definition



2.1.1 The definition should state the issue for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation.



2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.



2.1.3 The definition of the debate should not be self-proving (truistic or tautological). A truistic definition is self-proving when the case is that something should (or should not) be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable opposing substantive case. A tautological definition is self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists (or does not exist) and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition.



2.1.4 The definition should have a clear and logical link to the motion.



2.1.5 Squirreling (choosing a definition which does not have a clear logical link to the motion) is prohibited.



2.2 Challenging the definition



2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates Rules 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 or 2.1.6.



2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.



2.2.3 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.



2.3 Assessing the Definitional Challenge



2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where

(a) the definition is self-proving (truistic or tautological); or

(b) the definition has no clear and logical link to the motion; or

(c) the definition has been squirreled; or

(d) the definition has time or place set the debate.



2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.



2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.



2.3.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition, provided that the definition of the Opening Opposition team is not unreasonable.









PART THREE: MATTER



3.1 The Definition of Matter



3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the argument a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.



3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal. It includes points of information taken.



3.2 The duty to present matter



3.2.1 Government Members (with the exception of the Government Whip) must present positive matter. The Government Whip may choose to introduce positive matter



3.2.2 Opposition Members (with the exception of the Opposition Whip) should attempt to present positive material. The Opposition Whip may not introduce positive matter (new material).



3.2.3 All members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their own speech and offer points of information during opposing speeches.



3.3 The elements of Matter



3.3.1 Matter should be relevant. Arguments should relate to the issues of the debate and the case being presented. The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.



3.3.2 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well-reasoned.



3.3.3 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent with the speech, their team and the remainder of the members on their side of the debate (subject to Rule 2.3.4).



3.4 Assessing Matter



3.4.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. "The elements of Matter" should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness of the matter presented.



3.4.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should disregard nay specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.



3.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.



3.4.4 Points of Information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information.





PART FOUR: MANNER



4.1 The Definition of Manner



4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



4.1.2 Manner includes the style of the members' presentation and the structure of their presentation.



4.2 The Elements of Style



4.2.1 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it is allows the member to appear more sincere.



4.2.2 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch, tone, pace and volume of the debater and the use of pauses.



4.2.3 Hand gestures may help a member to emphasise important arguments. However, excessive hand movements may be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.



4.2.4 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language which is too verbose or confusing may detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.5 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely on their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.6 The use of humour is permitted and may be used by debaters to assist their presentation.



4.2.7 Any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member.



4.3 The elements of structure



4.3.1 The structure or organisation of material of the speech of each member. The member should structure or organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation.



4.3.2 The structure or organisation of material of the team. The team should organise or structure their matter to improve their presentation's effectiveness.



4.4 Assessing manner



4.4.1 The manner of the member should be effective. 'The elements of style' and the 'The Elements of structure' should assist an adjudicator to assess the effectiveness of the member's presentation.



4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member simply because the manner would be deemed 'inappropriate Parliamentary debating' in their own country.



4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language, (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preferences, age, social status or disability.





PART FIVE: ADJUDICATION



5.1 Ranking of Teams



5.1.1. At the conclusion of the Debate, the adjudicators should rank the teams from first place to last place:

(a) first placed teams should be awarded three points;

(b) second placed teams should be awarded two points;

(c) third placard teams should be awarded one point; and

(d) fourth placed teams should be awarded zero.



5.1.2 Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate without reasonable cause.



5.1.3 Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the Member has (or Members have) discriminated against another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race colour, nationality, sexual preferences, social status or disability.



5.1.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings. Where a unanimous decision cannot be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the rankings. Where a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.



5.2 Marking the Debate.



5.2.1 The marks awarded to members and team should reflect the adjudicators' impression of debate.



5.2.2 The marks awarded to a team should be the total of both members' marks when added together.



5.2.3 The Chair should allocate marks to members and teams in consultation with the other members of the majority. Where the Chair dissents from a majority decision, he or she will nominate another to allocate marks in consultation with the remainder of the majority.



5.2.4 Marks should be in awarded with the following interpretation:



Matter Manner Total Meaning Letter Range

50 50 100 Flawless A (100-90)

47 ½ 47 ½ 95 Excellent

45 45 90 Very good

42 ½ 42 ½ 85 Good B (89-80)

40 40 80 Above Average

37 ½ 37 ½ 75 Average C (79-70)

35 35 70 Below Average

32 ½ 32 ½ 65 Poor D (69-60)

30 30 60 Very Poor

27 ½ 27 ½ 55 Bad E (59-50)

25 25 50 Very Bad

WUDC Manila 1999 World Masters Rules (3 on 3 debate)

World Masters Debating Championship


RULES

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The format of the debate

1.1.1 The debate will consist of two teams of four persons (persons will be known as "members"), a chairperson (known as "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker") and an adjudicator or panel adjudicators.



1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:

Government: "Prime Minister", "Deputy Prime Minister", "Member of the Government" and "Government Whip".

Opposition: "Leader of the Opposition", "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", "Member of the Opposition" and "Opposition Whip".



1.1.3 Members will speak in the following order:

(a) Prime Minister;

(b) Opposition Leader;

(c) Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) Deputy Opposition Leader;

(e) Member of the Government;

(f) Member of the Opposition;

(g) Government Whip;

(h) Opposition Whip.



1.2 The motion



1.2.1 The motion should be worded clearly.



1.2.2 The motion should reflect that the World Masters Debating Championship is an international tournament.



1.2.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.



1.3 Preparation



1.3.1 Teams should have at least fifteen minutes to prepare for all debates.



1.3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting time for that debate.



1.3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers, and other similar materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and in the debate. It should be borne in mind that the use of printed material during a debate could affect a member's manner.



1.4 Points of Information



1.4.1 Points of Information (question directed to the member speaking) may be asked between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (speeches are seven minutes in duration).



1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand. The Member may place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the other speaking. The member may announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.



1.4.3 The Member who is speaking may allow the person offering the point of information to make the point of information or may decline to take the point of information.



1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.



1.4.5 The Member who is speaking may ask the person asking the point of information to sit down where the person offering the point of information has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.



1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their speech. Members should also offer points of information.



1.4.7 Points of information will be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information (see Rule 3.3.4).



1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.



1.5 Timing of the Speeches



1.5.1 Speeches will be seven minutes in duration (this should be signalled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over seven minutes and twenty seconds may be penalised.



1.5.2 Points of information may only be offered between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (this periods should be signalled by one strike of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).



1.5.3 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House to time speeches.



1.5.4 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the Duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.









1.6 The Adjudication



1.6.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is possible. The panel composition will always be an odd number.



1.6.2 The panel will come to a decision, no ties allowed.



1.6.3 The results of the round and the adjudicator’s comments must be released.



1.6.4 Only experienced adjudicators (Worlds level A or B) not competing in the Masters competition may be permitted to adjudicate.







PART TWO: DEFINITIONS



2.1 The Definition



2.1.1 The definition should state the issue for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion, which require interpretation.



2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.



2.1.3 The definition of the debate should not be self-proving (truistic or tautological). A truistic definition is self-proving when the case is that something should (or should not) be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable opposing substantive case. A tautological definition is self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists (or does not exist) and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition.



2.1.4 The definition should have a clear and logical link to the motion.



2.1.5 Squirreling (choosing a definition which does not have a clear logical link to the motion) is prohibited.



2.2 Challenging the definition



2.2.1 Only the Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates Rules 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 or 2.1.6.



2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.



2.2.3 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.



2.3 Assessing the Definitional Challenge



2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where

(a) the definition is self-proving (truistic or tautological); or

(b) the definition has no clear and logical link to the motion; or

(c) the definition has been squirreled; or

(d) the definition has time or place set the debate.



2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.



2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.







PART THREE: MATTER



3.1 The Definition of Matter



3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the argument a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.



3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal. It includes points of information taken.



3.2 The duty to present matter



3.2.1 Government Members (with the exception of the Government Whip) must present positive matter. The Government Whip may choose to introduce positive matter



3.2.2 Opposition Members (with the exception of the Opposition Whip) should attempt to present positive material. The Opposition Whip may not introduce positive matter (new material).



3.2.3 All members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their own speech and offer points of information during opposing speeches.



3.3 The elements of Matter



3.3.1 Matter should be relevant. Arguments should relate to the issues of the debate and the case being presented. The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.



3.3.2 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well-reasoned.



3.3.3 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent with the speech and their team.







3.4 Assessing Matter



3.4.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. "The elements of Matter" should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness of the matter presented.

3.4.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should disregard nay specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.



3.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.



3.4.4 Points of Information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information.





PART FOUR: MANNER



4.1 The Definition of Manner



4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



4.1.2 Manner includes the style of the members' presentation and the structure of their presentation.



4.2 The Elements of Style



4.2.1 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it is allows the member to appear more sincere.



4.2.2 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch, tone, pace and volume of the debater and the use of pauses.



4.2.3 Hand gestures may help a member to emphasise important arguments. However, excessive hand movements may be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.



4.2.4 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language, which is too verbose or confusing, may detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.5 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely on their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.6 The use of humour is permitted and may be used by debaters to assist their presentation.



4.2.7 Any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member.

4.3 The elements of structure



4.3.1 The structure or organisation of material of the speech of each member. The member should structure or organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation.



4.3.2 The structure or organisation of material of the team. The team should organise or structure their matter to improve their presentation's effectiveness.



4.4 Assessing manner



4.4.1 The manner of the member should be effective. 'The elements of style' and the 'The Elements of structure' should assist an adjudicator to assess the effectiveness of the member's presentation.



4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member simply because the manner would be deemed 'inappropriate Parliamentary debating' in their own country.



4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language, (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preferences, age, social status or disability.





PART FIVE: ADJUDICATION



5.1 Deciding on the Winner



5.1.1 At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators award the victory to one team.



5.1.2 Teams may receive a forfeit where they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate without reasonable cause.



5,2 Marking the Debate.



5.2.1 The marks awarded to members and team should reflect the adjudicators' impression of debate.



5.2.2 The marks awarded to a team should be the total of all members' marks when added together.



5.2.3 The decision is either split (by majority) or unanimous.



5.2.4 Marks should be in awarded with the following interpretation:



Matter

Manner Total Meaning Letter Range

50 50 100 Flawless A (100-90)

47 ½ 47 ½ 95 Excellent

45 45 90 Very good

42 ½ 42 ½ 85 Good B (89-80)

40 40 80 Above Average

37 ½ 37 ½ 75 Average C (79-70)

35 35 70 Below Average

32 ½ 32 ½ 65 Poor D (69-60)

30 30 60 Very Poor

27 ½ 27 ½ 55 Bad E (59-50)

25 25 50 Very Bad





PART SIX: PARTICIPATION



6.1 Eligibility



6.1.1 Only one team of four members is allowed per nation.



6.1.2 The following nations were invited to compete at the inaugural tournament (based on prior participation) subject to future decision by World Council:

a. Australia

b. India

c. New Zealand

d. South Africa

e. Canada

f. Japan

g. Philippines

h. United States

i. England

j. Ireland

k. Scotland

l. Thailand

m. Greece

n. Malaysia

o. Singapore

p. Wales



6.1.3 Selections to teams must be determined by a National Debating Organisation or by the institution which represents the nation in Worlds Council.



6.1.4 Masters’ delegates must adjudicate during the regular rounds at Worlds.



6.1.5 Masters’ delegates are eligible to represent a country if a citizen or if they were affiliated with a university which represented it. No other restrictions apply.

WUDC Manila 1999 Invitation

Dear Worlds Delegate,
The Ateneo de Manila University takes great pride in inviting your institution to the XIXth World Universities Debating Championships to be held on our campus from December 27, 1998 to January 3, 1999. We are confident that your stay in Manila will be a truly memorable one.

TOURNAMENT DATES: December 27, 1998 to January 3, 1999

ACCOMODATION: EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, Metro Manila

Registration fee covers accommodation from Dec. 27, 1998 to Jan. 4, 1999 (noon). The hotel charges US$105++ a night (per room) for Worlds participants who plan to arrive earlier or leave after such dates. One room accommodates three persons.

POLICIES:
TEAM CAP: There is a cap of two teams (i.e., total of four debaters) per insitution/society. Should circumstances (hotel space, etc.) signify that the Championship can accommodate more teams, you will be notified at once and slots for such additional teams will be available on a first come, first served basis.

ADJUDICATOR RULE: All universities must follow the n-1 rule, i.e., total no. of teams - 1 = total no. of adjudicators that must be sent.

PROOF OF ENROLMENT: All debaters must submit an official proof of enrolment from their institution.

REGISTRATION FEES:
Registration fee is set at US$295.00 for all adjudicators and debaters. An extra US$50 will be charged to observers. All delegates who pay after the deadline set by the Organizing Committee will be charged an additional US$20 per individual as penalty for late payment.

ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE MADE BY NOVEMBER 27,1998.

CONFIRMATION OF PARTICIPATION: The Organizing Committee requires that all societies must confirm their participation and delegation size by September 30, 1998, regardless of other details (team composition, names of delegates,etc.).

SOCIALIZED HOUSING: There are limited slots available (for about 120 individuals only). Interested universities must send the Organizing Committee information regarding their financial status, which will be used as basis for deliberation. Merely informing the Organizing Committee of one's interest will not suffice. Universities must wait for the confirmation of the Organizing Committee that they have been granted such slots. REGISTRATION FEE for those who will avail of socialized housing is set at US$200. ALL APPLICATIONS FOR SOCIALIZED HOUSING MUST BE IN BY OCTOBER 31, 1998.

HOW TO PAY:
1.. Delegates can pay through any major foreign bank with an affiliation with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). You can try the following banks: Chase-Manhattan, Bank of America and Citibank.

2.. Send the foreign remittance to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Loyola Heights Branch to the dollar savings account name: Ateneo Debate Society, account number 3084-0151-55.

3.. The surcharge of such remittance should be shouldered by the debating society (payee).

4.. Payees MUST inform the Worlds Organizing Committee of the transfer payment via e-mail/fax, addressed to Mr. Edsel Tupaz, Deputy Finance Director of the XIXth World Universities Debating Championships at etupaz at compass.com.ph or (632)426-6080 (fax). In such letter, pls. specify the following:

1.. the name and exact location of the bank from which such transfer has been made

2.. the exact amount sent

3.. the names of delegates covered by such payment and the name of the institution/society and country of which the payment is from.

NOTE: Kindly send us your correspondence as soon as your payment has been made.

The Organizing Committee will send confirmation of the receipt of your payment within two weeks of receipt of your correspondence.



Travel Arrangements:
Flights may be difficult to come by this December. Instone Aviation may be able to help universities who are having difficulty catching flights to Manila. Instone is based in London with several branches worldwide, in almost every continent. They can be faxed at IDD+44-171-407-4258. When you fax them with your information, mention that you are with Worlds.

WORLD MASTERS DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
The Worlds Masters are the all-star debaters representing their nations, not universities. Only the strongest survive in this three round elimination tournament (World Cup Style)to start the festivities of the week. The finals will be held at week's end. The competition is open only to those selected by their national debating council or (only if no such organization exists) by the university which represents the respected country at World Council.

NOTE: The Masters are required to adjudicate at Worlds.

Eligibility to participate in World Masters:
1.. Only one team of four members is allowed per nation.

2.. The following nations were invited to compete at the inaugural tournament (based on prior participation) subject to future decision by Worlds Council: Australia India New Zealand South Africa Canada Japan Philippines United States England Ireland Scotland Thailand Greece Malaysia Singapore Wales

3. Selections to teams must be determined by a National Debating Organization or by the institution which represents the nation in Worlds Council.

4. Masters' delegates are eligible to represent a country if a citizen or if they were affiliated with a university which represented it. No other restrictions apply.

More importantly

HOW TO CONTACT THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:
Website(with on line registration!): worlds.ateneo.net
E-mail: manilaworlds at hotmail.com
Mail: XIXth World Universities Debating Championships
Ateneo Debate Society
c/o The Office of Student Activities
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City
Philippines

WUDC Manila 1999 Financial report

Pia reported on behalf of the Ateneo Organising Committee. She reported on the success of the tournament and how everyone was very happy with how it went. They were particularly happy with the press coverage of the event including television coverage of the final. The university was also happy at all the publicity and visitors.

In financial terms a debt of $44,000 was left by the tournament which the University paid to the Hotel and the debt from using its own venues.

On the Fordham Issue. Ateneo had recently received all the outstanding funds of 1800 US dollars. On the Ben Bolger Issue Ateneo claimed that he hadn't paid.

Finally Ateneo thanked the Worlds Community for their participation in the Manila Worlds tournament.

Athens WUDC 1998

Athens 1998 Final

Deree College was the first mainland European host, billing the event as "Debating coming home". It was also the biggest WUDC till then and the first time it took place in a non- English speaking country. Gray's Inn A (Neil Sheldon and Andy George) won the competition, defeating Western Ontario A (Brent Patterson and David Orr), Oxford] (Dom Hughes and ben Phillips) and Edinburgh University (Colm O'Cinneide and Ben Foss) in the final. Neill Sheldon also took the top speaker award. The top-breaking team after nine rounds was from Ottawa Law A (Casey Halladay and Cory MacDonald). The championships were also saw a change in voting rights on the Council which, loosened the grip of the charter nations and rewarded countries who sent more teams. The council also voted to set up a World Debating Committee to work on issues between championships.

There were problems with delays and judges continually judging at the same level (i.e. the top 3 judges would be in the top room and the bottom 3 ranked judges always judged the bottom room). This led to frustration among some judges seeing a steady stream of weak teams (and frustrated some teams seeing a constant stream of weak judges), culminating in a large no-show from bottom-ranked judges at a delayed round 9. As a result of this, the concept of top ranked "chair" judges in every room and rotating judges around the tab became common.

Athens had ESL semi-finals for the first time to allow the top 8 ESL teams break. Athens were the first championships to publish results during the competition. While this did not meet the requirements of Council set in Stellenbosch (for which Athens were criticized), it was the first time teams had a clear picture of how they were performing at the end of each day. Additionally, the tournament featured social events for every night that, along with the Athenian festive atmosphere and the easy going Greek character, made the Athens Worlds quite a memorable event.


This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.

WUDC Minutes, Athens 1998

Minutes of meetings during the XVII World Universities  Debating Championships  Athens 1998



MINUTES OF THE WDC MEETING
Athens, January 1, 1998

Chairperson: George Vassilaras, Deree College, Greece
Registrar: Phaeny Kessisoglou, Deree College, Greece

Welcome & Roll Call
The Chairperson welcomed delegates and proceeded to acknowledge the presence of delegates from the following countries:

Australia (AUS)
Canada (CAN)
England & Wales (ENG)
Ireland (IRL)
New Zealand (NZL)
Scotland (SCO)
United States of America (USA)
Bangladesh (BAN)
Greece (GRE)
Malaysia (MAL)
Philippines (PHI)
South Africa (RSA)
Bulgaria (BUL)
Croatia (CRO)
Estonia (EST)
India (IND)
Israel (ISR)
Japan (JPN)
Netherlands (NET)
Singapore (SIN)
Slovenia (SLO)

The Chairperson introduced also:
the WDC Registrar, Ms. Phaeny Kessisoglou (PKe), President of the Deree College Debating Club. Ms. Kessisoglou was appointed Registrar by the WDC during its first meeting in South Africa.

The Chairman of the Revision Committee, Mr. Ray d’ Cruz (RdC). Mr. D’Cruz was appointed Chairman of a Multinational committee established by the WDC during its first meeting in South Africa in order to evaluate the constitution and make recommendations to the Council in Athens.

Approval of Minutes of the Stellenbosch Meetings
The Chairperson informed the members that the Minutes of the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 had been timely forwarded by the Stellenbosch Committee, but they had been misplaced during the moving of EOC offices and had not been retrieved yet. As a consequence, the approval of the Minutes of the XVII WDC Meeting was tabled for a later meeting on January 5, 1998.



The Chairperson proposed then that the WDC discusses the three outstanding issues from the Stellenbosch Meetings, namely:



Report of the Revision Committee

The n-1 rule for adjudicators

The verbal adjudication proposal

Rd’C: Suggested that since the Report of the Revision Committee contained several amendments to the WDC Constitution, it would have been better to discuss during the meeting of January 5, 1998.



The suggestion was unanimously accepted. The Council went on to discuss the other two issues:



The n-1 rule for adjudicators



During the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 a motion was passed that each participating University must send one adjudicator for each team after the first.



Chair: Informed the WDC that the "rule" has been observed with great diligence on the part of the Executive Organizing Committee (EOC) and the two cases where the "rule" was not enforced were results of "force majeur" (people falling sick just prior to the arrival)



CAN: Inquired about incidences where judges were turned away.



Chair: Explained that these were limited cases and had to do with adjudicators who applied for participation after the registration deadline.



SCO: Inquired as to the experience and the ranking of the adjudicators



CRO: Inquired what happened in Stellenbosch



Chair acknowledged Simone Murray (SMu) Deputy Chief Adjudicator



SMu: Explained the ranking of judges was done on the basis of their documented past ranking in WUDC as well as the information that they provided in their registration forms and personal knowledge when applicable.



MAL: Indicated that some of the experienced judges get to judge "low" debates



SMu: Explained out that the tournament is in the third round and as power-pairing had only been effected for the last two the effect might not be obvious just yet.



PHI: Proposed that the information regarding the ranking of adjudicators be passed on from one Organizing Committee to another.



SMu: Agreed that this can be arranged



RSA (Carel): Pointed out that as a result of the n-1 rule there was an inflow of judges who were not necessarily qualified. No EOC should be blamed for outside inexperienced judges.



Rd’C: Inquired as to whether there is a problem with tabulation



Chair: Informed members that there were only a few instances where the Chairpersons were misallocated



NZL: Reported one incident where there was no third judge in the panel.



Chair & SMu: Indicated that every effort was being made to avoid this and that during the first three preliminary rounds there were no debates judged by only one adjudicator. Still, the tournament rules allow for panels of two or even a single adjudicator.



SMu: Added that some judges simply leave without notifying



IND: Proposed that we allowed flexibility among the judges to decide for themselves who is more experienced.



SMu: Pointed out that this may have potential for abuse.



SCO: "Institutions should take responsibility for judges and even get penalised if their judges do not show up."



RSA: Asked whether only experienced judges should be allowed to participate



SMu: Indicated that a problem may rise when new countries participate. What about global expansion?



PHI: Proposed a motion that all adjudicators go through a test and are ranked. Institutions should train their judges.



MAL: Asked whether information on judges was transferred from Stellenbosch to Athens.



Chair: Answered that it was and pointed out also that last year’s judges constituted only a small percentage of this year’s.



CAN: Reported that he had rankings and information on judges but they were not accepted.



Chair: Answered that he was not aware of the incident and would look into it.



PHI: Re-addressed the issue of tests and inquired about their effectiveness.



Rd’C: Stated that tests are good and effective and proposed that accreditation tests for judges are organised on Day 1 of each round of the Championship.



SMu: Suggested that this might constitute a problem since videotapes of past finals are common knowledge.



CAN: Proposed instead a live debate similar to the one organised in Cork and moved that the matter be addressed by the Review Committee.



VERBAL ADJUDICation



During the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 a motion was passed that verbal adjudication (including the announcement of results) will be employed on a trial basis in Athens.



Chair: Informed the WDC that the EOC after careful consideration of the conditions and information available viewed this as a very risky exercise and in many ways a logistics nightmare (similar to what happened in Toronto in 1991). Went on to explain that in two instances when it was tried in Greece, not only did it cause substantial delays and aggravation, but also led to several instances where adjudicators were harassed by debaters who disagreed with the decision that they made.



ISR: "The important thing is for the adjudication sheets to be given out before the end of the tournament."



IRL: Suggested that oral adjudication could have caused a lot of tension and arguments.



MAL: Suggested that according to the WDC motion the results should be announced after every round.



Rd’C: Asked on what authority Athens did not comply with the motion.



Chair: Replied that according to the EOC’s estimations it could not be done and it could have a serious effect on the tournament.



ENG: Suggested that probably it can not be done. We have to be realistic.



AUS: Related her experience that verbal adjudication can go on after each round.



RSA: Suggested that it can not work.



NZL: Explained that such a system works in Australasian competitions.



Chair: Suggested that the EOC was not aware of it.



PHI: Asked how much time is required for tabulation.



Chair: About 40 minutes.



CAN: Asked whether Greece can simply violate the rules by not practising verbal adjudication.



SCO: Suggested that the Council’s decisions can not be disregarded.



NZL: Pointed out that nevertheless, pragmatics do count and that the EOC does have authority.



IND: "There has to be flexibility."



USA: Agreed that there has to be flexibility on issues but not on those in the constitution.



Chair: Pointed out that the employment of verbal adjudication on a trial basis was a motion and not a constitutional article. The EOC did its best endeavours but it was not possible to implement it.



Rd’C: So! A meeting of the Council should have occurred PRIOR to the tournament.



Chair: Suggested that this was not feasible because there are not always permanent bodies regulating debate in each country.



NZL: Proposed that for this tournament the adjudication sheets be given to the participants at the end of each day up until the sixth round.



CAN: Asked whether Philippines will employ verbal adjudication.



PHI: Answered positively because it works for them.



ISR: Proposed to table this discussion until next year when it will be tried.



NZL: Suggested that both can be done.



Motion unanimously approved that results and adjudication sheets are released as soon as possible before the seventh round of the competition.



REPORT FROM STELLENBOSCH



REPORT FROM STELLENBOSCH



Chair: Acknowledged Carel Nolte (CNo), Chairman of the EOC of the XVII WUDC.



CNo: Presented the financial report on the Championships which in effect indicated a deficit SAR 140.72.



PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM ATHENS



Chair: Informed delegates that participation in the tournament had exceeded 800 people. The tournament will probably run with a small deficit mostly due to the size of social events, but the college has agreed to cover the difference. Pointed out also, that as the EOC did not constitute a separate legal entity, Deree College had undertaken full control over the finances of the tournament and that at the end of this entire exercise they would be a complete report-audit by an independent accounting firm.



MAL: "Judges are always last in the queues."



CAN: "The queues are very long."



Chair: Indicated that the problem of long queues in the cafeteria was addressed by the EOC and was solved.



PHI: Mentioned that there was a huge problem with Visas.



Chair: Informed members that this was a result of the recently enforced Shenghen treaty. The EOC worked closely with delegates from those countries that could not secure a Shenghen Visa in order to make sure that they were allowed to enter the country. Apart from the fact that the EOC was in close contact with the Greek ministries of Foreign Affairs and Public Order, the Championships Chair, Secretary, and the Tournament Director were at the Passport Control at the airport when the first delegates from the Philippines arrived and an EOC contact has been there since.



confirmation of the 1999 host



Chair: Acknowledged Peejay Garcia (PJG), Chief Adjudicator, XIX WUDC, Ateneo de Manila University.



PJG: Informed the delegates that they have chosen their Deputy Chief adjudicators, namely John Long, Ray d’Cruz, Ben Richards, and Omar Sallahuddin. Accreditation tests will be conducted for all judges as part of a new institution which they will introduce in Manila, the World Masters Debating Championships.



The WMDC will be an open event held simultaneously with the WUDC where competitors are selected by their respective countries. Competitors may be graduates, post-graduates, or whatever else have you and they will all be expected to adjudicate in Worlds.



Visas will not be a problem and what is more, they will be a special queue at the airport at Passport Control.



Because the tournament will be expanded from 7 to 8 days, and because of recent economic developments the participation fee will increase to USD 295.



Moreover, in an effort to keep the tournament to a manageable size we propose to put a cap on participation.



Finally, we will enforce oral adjudication.



CRO: "Will there be arrangements for travelling?"



PJG: Indicated that participants will have to arrange this individually.



USA: Asked what the cap will be.



PJG: Answered that the cap will probably be up to 2 or 3 teams per university.



SCO: Asked whether there will be any deviations from the cap in favour of Asians.



PJG: Indicated that they will be no deviations for anyone. There will be uniform application of the n-1 rule and the cap.



CAN: Suggested that the cap should not apply for future tournaments.



IND: Asked what the criteria for financial assistance will be.



PJG: Indicated that they will probably apply to participants from developing nations and would mostly be discounts.



Motion passed unanimously that the Ateneo de Manila University, Manila, Philippines will be the hosts of the XIX World Universities Debating Championships.



Chair: Wished the Manila Organizing Committee the best of luck in their endeavours.



preliminary bid for the 2000 wudc



Chair: Acknowledged representatives from the University of Sydney (SUU).



SUU: Presented the University of Sydney’s bid, indicated that there will be no problems with the Sydney Olympic Games, and that as a matter of fact, the Championships is considered an Olympic event. The principles of oral adjudication, the cap and the N-1 rule will apply. Participation fee is estimated at USD 250-300 for 8 days. Finally, Julian Morrow would probably undertake to be Chief Adjudicator.



ENG: Asked whether there will be financial assistance for countries from Europe since both tournaments in 1999 and 2000 will be so far away



SUU: Answered that arrangements will be made with Quantas for cheaper tickets and the option of accommodation in dorms will be offered.



Motion passed unanimously that the University of Sydney Union, Sydney, Australia, will be the hosts of the XX World Universities Debating Championships, conditional to confirmation of the bid by the WDC during its meeting in Manila.



eligibility for participation



eligibility for participation



During the X World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1990 a motion was passed that as of 1991, no individual be allowed to participate in the Championships more than four times ("grandfather clause").



Chair: Pointed out that the ‘rule’ has never been enforced and that it constitutes an extremely difficult task for any EOC to perform such a check as there are no records from previous championships.



CAN: Indicated that a way must be found to maintain and forward history.



IRL: Pointed out that violations occurred both at Cork and Stellenbosch.



SCO: Pointed out that the WDC needs to address also whether participants are actually enrolled to the Universities that they represent.



NZL: Indicated that Unions should be responsible for that.



ISR: "Sanctions should be enforced on Universities which cheat. They could be prevented from making the break."



NZL/ MAL: Disagreed as such an approach does not solve the problem.



Rd’C: "Any effort to start keeping records now will be enforceable in 3 years."



CAN: Insisted that something should happen now



BAN: "Each society and university must undertake the responsibility to check."



USA: "A relevant question should be included in the registration form."



ENG: "People might not necessarily be honest and others may be falsely accused."



Rd’C: "The incidents in these Championships are limited to two or three teams."



IND: "It must be on the institution to set foot."



PHI: Questioned whether we should enforce the rule this year or next year



Chair: Agreed with the previous comment. It needs to be established whether it is feasible to enforce the rule this year, given the apparent lack of information.



ENG: Suggested that it is not feasible to enforce the rule this year, but we should let violators know.



SCO: Pointed out that the rule is common public knowledge and that those who are currently violating it are very much in knowledge of it.



Rd’C: Indicated that in essence this discussion applies to one or two people from specific institutions. Went on to mention that it was brought to his attention that members of a specific team from the University of Western Australia seem to be in violation of the rule.



ISR: Proposed that the WDC decides when all the necessary information is available.



ENG: Questioned whether the information can be made available in time!



Members at this point felt that it was not possible to resolve the matter and it was agreed that the matter is tabled until new information arises.



13:40 Recess for lunch



15:00 Meeting begins.



The Chairperson welcomed delegates. Discussion on eligibility criteria and other related issues then commenced anew. Extensive and very productive discussion then followed regarding the issue in hand and various constructive ideas regarding the effective enforcement of the "grandfather clause" and the implementation of eligibility criteria.



BAN: Proposed that a rule be made that each society accredits the participants who represent it in any round of the WUDC.



USA/ ENG/ GRE: All pointed out how this may not necessarily be possible.



Chair: Proposed the following amendment Article 22 part 1 of the WDC Constitution to (to be voted during the meeting on January 5, 1998)



No individual may compete in more than four Championships in which she/he is eligible to make the break



Pointed out also that the WDC should in effect conclude that teams participating as "dummie", "swing", "shadow", or "home " teams cannot make the final series and should be considered non competing.



ENG: Defined the possible problems of eligibility being institutions that do not exist, delegates that are not enrolled and delegates that the institution does not approve of.



MAL: Proposed that we request from all participants to submit a letter from their society that they are endorsed and a certified Xerox copy that they have registered for at least one course to this institution.



ISR: Suggested that we ask for credentials from the relevant Ministries of Education.



ENG: Pointed out that this may also be a problem



Rd’C: Suggested that MAL proposal seemed the only effective solution.



ENG: Questioned whether this would involve increased paperwork for the EOC



CAN: Suggested that once the existence of an institution is established then the rest of the documentation is rather simple and my be incorporated in the Registration Form. Special attention should paid when new institution apply.



IRL: Moves that a list of recognised debating societies, bodies, university club’s etc. be established to which new ones will be added after proving conclusively their existence.



CAN: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously that for the purposes of the WUDC, a list of recognised debating societies, bodies, university club’s etc. be established to which new ones will be added after proving conclusively their existence.



Two more motions were then formulated (Chair, Rd’C, MAL) and unanimously approved in principle (to be officially voted during the meeting on January 5, 1998):



To be replace Article 22, clause 1:



Competitors who satisfy the requirements of the Article may compete in a team eligible to make the final series a maximum of four Championships. This provision shall take place from January 6, 1990.



To be replace Article 22, clause 4:



Competitors shall provide evidence of their student status upon postal registration or by post within three weeks of Internet registration provided that Internet registration takes place at least eight weeks prior to the Championships.



Other Issues



Other Issues



Extensive discussion took place regarding mostly the course of action that should be taken when institutions fail to complete their financial obligations to the host institutions. In particular, the case of McQuarie University (AUS) which was mentioned in the Stellenbosch Report as not having fulfilled its financial obligations to the host was also extensively discussed.



Rd’C: Pointed out that the important thing is to find a way to protect the host institution from "bad debts"



Chair: Informed members that Athens followed a rather stringent policy and did not allow anyone to participate unless they were paid for. Pointed out however, that there are many parameters that cannot be controlled effectively, such electronic transfer of funds, delays in the banks, etc.



Rd’C: Moved that no individual or institution should be allowed to register and participate in any WUDC if they owe money to any previous host and until they pay that host.



MAL: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously that no individual or institution should be allowed to register and participate in any WUDC if they owe money to any previous host and until they pay that host.



Rd’C: Moved that McQuarie pays the Stellenbosch Organizing Committee



RSA: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously that McQuarie pays the Stellenbosch Organizing Committee.



Chair: Asked for any other comments. As they were none, he went on to thank everyone for their participation and remind them the next meeting of the Council will take place on Monday, January 5, 1998 at 18:30, same venue.



Meeting concluded at 18:00







MINUTES OF THE WDC MEETING



Athens, January 5, 1998



Chairperson: George Vassilaras, Deree College, Greece



Registrar: Phaeny Kessisoglou, Deree College, Greece



Welcome & Roll Call



The Chairperson welcomed delegates and proceeded to acknowledge the presence of delegates from the following countries:



Australia (AUS)

Canada (CAN)

England & Wales (ENG)

Ireland (IRL)

New Zealand (NZL)

Scotland (SCO)

United States of America (USA)

Bangladesh (BAN)

Greece (GRE)

Malaysia (MAL)

Philippines (PHI)

South Africa (RSA)

Bulgaria (BUL)

Croatia (CRO)

Estonia (EST)

India (IND)

Israel (ISR)

Japan (JPN)

Netherlands (NET)

Singapore (SIN)

Slovenia (SLO)

Approval of Minutes of the Stellenbosch Meetings



Chair: Asked if delegates had any comment or remarks regarding the Minutes of the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997.



NZL: Proposed the we approve the minutes of Stellenbosch and that every effort be made to secure a copy of the second meeting in Stellenbosch.



IRL: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously that the Minutes of the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 are approved and that every effort should be made so that the minutes of the Second WDC meeting in Stellenbosch be made available in the next WDC meeting in Manila.



Proposed Costitutional Amendments



Chair: Acknowledged the Chairman of the Revision Committee, Mr. Ray d’ Cruz (RdC). Mr. D’Cruz was appointed Chairman of a Multinational committee established by the WDC during its first meeting in South Africa in order to evaluate the constitution and make recommendations to the Council in Athens



Rd’C: Reported that the RevCom consisted of the following members



Ray D’ Cruz (chair)

Brent Patterson

Omar Salahuddin Abdullah

Conrad Kemp

Ben Karlin

Jeremy Green (not present)

Tommy Tonner (not present)

and clarified that the amendments submitted have only been endorsed by the members present.



Following a suggestion from ENG the WDC went on to discuss the Proposed Constitutional Amendments submitted by the Revision Committee (RevCom) (pls. See relevant appendix). For each point discussed, there was extensive discussion which was then reflected in the final phrasing of the motion/ amendment. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity the discussion is not recorded in these minutes, but is available should it be required.



Voting Rights-1



Voting Rights-1



To be inserted as Article 7, Clause 11 (to replace the existing clause 11):



On every substantive motion placed before the WDC, delegates representing Status A nations will be entitled to cast four (4) votes, delegates representing Status B nations will be entitled to cast three (3) votes, delegates representing Status C nations will be entitled to cast two (2) votes, delegates representing Status D nations will be entitled to cast one (1) vote.



Status A nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from four or more recognised institutions for two consecutive years.



Status B nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from three recognised institutions for two consecutive years.



Status C nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from two recognised institutions for two consecutive years.



Status A nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from one recognised institutions for two consecutive years.



Nations are allowed a lapse of one year in the level of their participation, before their status is downgraded. Any change of status can apply for only one (1) level per year.



IRL/ USA: Moved



ENG: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously with the following clarifications:



Host university is considered a recognised institution

At the end of this meeting the status of nations will be determined based on their participation in Athens and will be applied in the meeting in Manila.

The term "charter nation/s" should be replaced by the term "Status A nations"

Voting Rights-2



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 7, Clause 12 is be accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



Voting Rights-2



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 7, Clause 12 is be accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



PHI: Moved



CAN & ISR: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously.



Voting Rights-3



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 13 is accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



IRL: Moved



SCO: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously.



Preliminary Meeting of Council



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 10, clause b is accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



NZL: Moved



ENG & SLO: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously.



Competing in a Maximum of Four Championships



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 22, clause 1 is accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



MAL: Moved



AUS & GRE: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously.



Demonstrating Status as a Student



Motion submitted that



the following be added to Article 22, clause 4 :



Documented evidence of the participant’s student status should be received by the host nation prior to commencement of the Championships. Registration shall be considered incomplete until such evidence is received.



RSA: Moved the above is accepted as amended.



IRL: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously.



Establishment of Permanent Committee



The specific topic caused a spirited yet constructive discussion regarding whether or not there is need for such a Committee. Finally, the majority of the delegates felt that the time is mature for such a step. As a consequence ENG moved that



the proposed amendments/additions to articles 27 and 28 are accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



IRL: Seconded



Motion passed unanimously with the following remarks:



Article 27, clause h should read:



"To liaise with potential sponsors and establish contact between them and the host institution."



Article 27, clause i should read:



"To provide full report to the main meeting of the Council regarding the completion of the duties outlined above."



Article 28, clauses 1-3 should read:



The Committee shall be appointed by Council as a substantive vote. There shall be elected from the debaters and adjudicators of the Championships:

a Chair

a secretary (who will co-ordinate correspondence)

a Registrar (who will maintain all other records)

Nations from the following jurisdictions represented at Council shall elect a delegate from the participants of the Championships:

North America

England- Scotland- Wales- Ireland

Continental Europe

Africa

Asia

Australia- New Zealand and Ocean

The chairperson or a delegate of the following host will be a member of the Committee

Chairing of Council



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 6 is accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



ENG: Moved



IRL: Seconded



This motion was not passed



Providing for the Attendance of the Chair of the Organizing Committee and at others at Council



Motion submitted that the proposed amendment of Article 5 be accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



ISR: Moved



RSA: Seconded



This motion was passed with the following remarks:



Article 5, clauses a should read:



[The Council shall consist of the following members:]



the Chairperson of the Executive Organizing Committee (who does not have vote)

The proposed amendments of Article 8 were withdrawn



It was also commonly agreed by the delegates that in order to distinguish between the two Chairpersons in the WDC Constitution, the following terms will be used:



"Chair of the Committee" for the Chairperson of the World Debating Committee

"Chair of the Executive Organizing Committee" for the Chairperson of the Executive Organizing Committee

The Position of the Deputy Chief Adjudicator



Motion submitted that the proposed addition of Article 29 be accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



GRE: Moved



NZL: Seconded



This motion was passed with the following remarks:



Article 29, clause 1 should read:



1) There shall be a Deputy Chief Adjudicator from a country other than that of the hosting nation appointed to assist the Chief Adjudicator of the host University to:



Article 29, clause 4 should read:



All reasonable transport, accommodation and food expenses of the Deputy Chief Adjudicator should be covered by the Championships budget.

Establishing the Meaning of ESL



Motion submitted that the proposed addition to Article 3, clause 3 be accepted as submitted in the report of the RevCom



NZL: Moved



RSA: Seconded



This motion was passed unanimously



Election of Members of the World debating Committee (WDCm)



Upon completion of the amendments to the constitution the delegates went on to elect the members of the WDCm



The results of the elections were as follows:



Chair

Omar Salahuddin Abdullah



Secretary

Ray D’ Cruz



Registrar

Andrew Hale



North America

Peter Giurgius



England- Scotland- Wales- Ireland

Tanith Muller



Continental Europe

Manja Klemenic



Africa

John Jacobs



Asia

WilbertYuque



Australia- New Zealand- Oceania

Rob Senent





Other Business



Chair: Asked if there were any other comments or remarks.



PHI: Proposed that the next Registrar of the World Debating Council is Ms. Ana Alano, Ateneo de Manila University.



Motion was accepted unanimously.



CAN: Proposed that the World Debating Committee reviews the rules for the Public Speaking Competition



SCO: Agreed and seconded



Motion was subsequently passed that the rules of the Public Speaking Competition be reviewed and compiled by the World Debating Committee.



CAN: Moved to congratulate the Executive Organizing Committee of the XVIII World Universities Debating Championships for the organisation of the Championships .



IRL & ISR: Seconded



Motion accepted unanimously.



Rd’C: Expressed thanks to the Chair for his patience in running the meeting.



Chair: Thanked Ray and everybody else. Asked if there were any other comments or remarks. As they were none, he went on to thank everyone for their participation and their input and expressed great pleasure and satisfaction in being given the opportunity to host Worlds in Athens.



Wishes Peejay and the rest of the Ateneo Organizing Committee the best of luck in their endeavours.



Meeting concluded at 22:00



Status of nations (as determined on 05.01.1998)



Status A
Australia (AUS)
Canada (CAN)
England & Wales (ENG)
Ireland (IRL)
New Zealand (NZL)
Scotland (SCO)
United States of America (USA)

Status B
Bangladesh (BAN)
Greece (GRE)
Malaysia (MAL)
Philippines (PHI)
South Africa (RSA)
Status C
Bulgaria (BUL)
Croatia (CRO)
India (IND)
Japan (JPN)
Netherlands (NET)
Singapore (SIN)
Slovenia (SLO)

Status D
Israel (ISR)
Estonia (EST)

Australasian Adjudication Guide1998

These adjudication Criteria have been taken from the webpage of the Indonesian Varsities English Debate 1998
INTRODUCTION

The assessment made of any debate is inherently a subjective exercise. The adjudicator forms a personal judgment regarding the argument, style, organization and impact of a debate, which in many cases, could differ from that of another adjudicator’s. The main objective in providing these guidelines is to ensure, as much as is possible, that the adjudicators make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines that direct attention to specific issues and thus help limit subjectivity.

The adjudicator’s role is crucial in the discipline of debating - with the divine responsibility of sitting in judgment upon the efforts of debaters. As in any other competitive activity, a thorough understanding of the rules is a prerequisite for the referee and ensuring that these rules are consistently interpreted and applied becomes a critical aspect of the competition.

In assessing debate, you have to adopt the role of an average reasonable person with an average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate but with expert knowledge of the rules of the debate. Debating is an exercise in the skills of persuasion, where the target audience is assumed to be an average cross-section of the community who is open to persuasion. In this context, it is important that the adjudicator’s judgment is not influenced by his or her personal likes and dislikes, prejudices or any other preconceived opinions on issues. There is no denying that each adjudicator carries into the debate an opinion baggage that could be based on personal experiences, expert knowledge of the subject matter, or a set of prejudices. An element of the real test of a debater is, of course, the ability to persuade the adjudicator of the validity of arguments advanced, which may be in contradiction with the adjudicator’s views and perspective on the matter under consideration. But you must be able to eliminate any special or exceptional attitudes which would not be shared by an average group of reasonable people.

The most important thing to realize is that you are sitting in judgment on the relative merits of the two cases that are proposed by the competing teams of the debate, and it is this ability of comparison that assumes importance in adjudication.

It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide whether his or her views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams. The adjudicator has artificial constraints that influence his decision - including the proportional worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and the weight of each individual speech to the overall case of the team. The adjudicator is assessing a process that consists of every single speech and his final judgment is a function of the contribution of each individual in the debate.



There are three important functions performed by adjudicators in any debate:

To decide which team has won the debate,

To provide an explanation of the reasons for that decision, and

To provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters.

The function of deciding which team has won is, of course, the most important function that is played by the adjudicator. In this context, it is very important to note that the decision is made by the adjudicator and not by the marks awarded. In other words, the marks should reflect the adjudicator’s decision; they should not make that decision.

It is not rare in close debates to find the total marks awarded reflect a different decision from the adjudicator’s impression of the debate and the relative merits and demerits of the two cases under consideration. In such circumstances, you should review the notes of the debate and attempt to identify the cause of this discrepancy. For example, you might realize that your final impression was too heavily dependent on a strong third speech, in which case your decision should be modified to reflect a correct weighing for that speaker’s contribution in the overall context of the debate. Or, you might realize that the marks awarded to a particular debater’s speech does not reflect his true contribution to the advancement of his case. What is important to note is that the marks and the adjudicator’s decision should be consistent and it is the final decision should be consistent and it is the final decision of the adjudicator that determines the outcome of the debate.

Debaters are entitled to know the basis of any judgment and you, as an adjudicator, have the obligation to explain your decision and offer constructive criticism. What should be highlighted in such discussion should be critical differences between the two teams and no attempt should be made to replay the whole debate. Adjudicators should also be careful of getting drawn into a further debate with the team members as to the merits of the judgment. While explaining the reasons for the decision, you should be specific in weighing the relative merits of the cases and the important elements of the cases that were crucial in determining your verdict. These issues will be handled in detail later when assessment of the debates are discussed in terms of matter, manner and method.

It should be remembered that the level of explanation provided should be tailored to the experience of the debaters. Very experienced speakers are likely to be concerned with the interaction of argument and the structure of team cases; novices are likely to wish to receive more detailed comment on speaking style, merging into the ‘constructive criticism’ discussed below.

Not every individual has the ability to inspire and motivate. But all adjudicators do have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring that their judgment and criticism and advice that they give perform an educational function in debating. Sound advice from good adjudicators make substantial differences to debating careers. As pointed out earlier, the nature of advice offered should vary with the experience of the debaters. Criticism should invariably be delivered in constructive terms. To a novice speaker for whom the debate itself may have been a traumatic event, there is a world of difference between "The things that you did badly were...." and "The ways in which to improve your debating are....". No adjudication should be scathing, sarcastic or derogatory. You have an obligation to be constructive, supportive and encouraging.

ASSESSING MATTER

One of the fundamental aspects in assessing matter is that the matter presented by a speaker must be logical and relevant to the topic under debate. Logic is the chain of reasoning used to prove an argument. This involves stating, explaining and illustrating the argument. Relevance is established by tying the argument in to the topic under debate.

An example that has been used at the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championship at Monash in 1995 illustrates the point about reasoning of arguments logically. The issue under consideration in the example is that cigarette advertising should be banned. The structure to a team’s case could be as follows:

State an argument in favor of the topic: Cigarette advertising should be banned because it entices young people to smoke by making cigarette smoking look like a glamorous activity.

Explain the argument: Young people see images of sports heroes and models endorsing smoking. They are insecure and in need of some affirmation, so they turn to cigarettes, assuming they will achieve the happiness they believe the sports heroes and models enjoy. This is how they will get addicted.

Use examples: Cigarette companies aggressively advertise in glamorous sports like Formula One. Marlboro spends $50m a year to ensure that McLaren team can have ‘Marlboro’ plastered all over its livery. Their product is seen on the drivers and models that parade around like advertising billboards trying to sell their products, often to kids who are impressionable.

Tie the argument back into the topic: So as you can see, cigarette advertising entices young people into smoking by giving them glamorous images to aspire to. Cigarette advertising is therefore dangerous and it should be banned.

Part of your function is to assess the quality of the argument. This requires you to distinguish a strong argument from a weak argument, from the viewpoint of an average reasonable person. A weak argument remains weak whether or not the opposing team points out its weakness. You should not wait to see whether the opposition attacks an argument before judging whether it is weak or strong. Taking on the role of an average reasonable person does not prevent you from being critical and intelligent in your analysis of the matter presented to you.

Use of examples and references to experts
Properly used, examples are an important aspect of matter. Usually they will be most effective when used to illustrate or bolster an argument that has been constructed already, rather than as the foundation for making an argument. Similarly, authorities cited should only support the argument and not substitute the argument. The fact that an expert holds an opinion holds minor weight in the process of persuasion unless the reasons for that opinion are explained and independently assessed.

Invalid cases
An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required by the topic to prove. For instance, on the topic ‘That cigarette advertising should be banned’, if the affirmative team argues that smoking is harmful, they have not addressed the fundamental issue of the debate - cigarette advertising. Such an approach should be penalized heavily.

Hung cases
Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the first speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as the ‘hung’ case. It occurs when the first speaker doesn’t affirm or negate the topic in itself. The speech is left ‘hanging’ until the second speaker completes the case. It is neither convincing to rely on another speaker to prove the entire case nor fair to ask a first negative speaker to refute a case that is not complete yet. Therefore such an approach should be penalized in both matter and method. An Australasian example is, when on the topic That Capitalism will fail without religion, the first affirmative argued that capitalism will fail and the second speaker argued that capitalism will fail without religion. Here the second speaker was the only speaker to address the topic.

Distinguishing Matter from Manner and Method
In matter, you must assess the quality of the arguments irrespective of how well they were organized. In method, you must assess the quality of organization. When assessing matter, it is important to shed all the effects of manner, namely vocal style, use of gesture and quality of oratory. You should understand and maintain this distinction and prevent the same strength or weakness from being double-scored.

New Matter from third negative
New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been canvassed in the debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend an argument is not considered as new matter.

It is a firm rule of debating that the third opposition speaker in the debate may not introduce any new matter. The purpose of this rule is to prevent unfairness in the debate because an issue raised at this stage does not allow the opposing team to respond to it or comment on it sufficiently. Hence, the final speaker’s argument must be directed to issues that have already been raised in the debate. In general, new matter consists of entirely new issues that have not previously been canvassed in the debate. Introduction of new matter should result in penalties on both matter (as the speaker should be spending time on rebuttal) and method (as the team should have organized and prioritized its argument more effectively). The use of fresh examples to further illustrate an earlier argument or any argument directed to rebuttal of an opposing argument or to defense of the negative case is not new matter.

An example of new matter on a topic That UN is a waste of space is where the first five speakers have been arguing the effectiveness of the UN as a peace keeper and peacemaker and then the third negative decides to discuss at length the humanitarian arms of the organization.

In this context, the rule is not so clear about new matter from the third affirmative. It is a matter for discretion, where you should weigh the value of the matter as substantial material against the detriment suffered by the team in not introducing this earlier in the debate and possible time lost in rebuttal.

Humorous arguments
There are instances where one team adopts a humorous or ‘send-up’ approach and the other team delivers a perfectly serious debate. In the former, you must assess whether the ‘send-up’ has caused the audience to accept or reject the spirit of high farce which pervades such cases. You should assess the ‘send-up’ in the context of the ‘send-up’ reality. Then this is compared with the quality of argument presented by the opposing team in its own context. The adoption of a humorous line does not relieve the team of the necessity to structure its humorous line in the form of an argument.

ASSESSING METHOD
Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, of the team case as a whole and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate. Each of these three elements will be further elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Method of an individual speech
An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither compulsory nor exhaustive):
an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or helps it to warm to the speaker
a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the speech
a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the speaker’s argument
a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be accomplished
a conclusion or summary of the major points made in the speech

Over-time and under-time speeches
Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time limit and conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed. Matter delivered after the time limit does not attract matter marks. The speech will incur a severe penalty in method for continuing significantly after the time limit.

There usually is no penalty for finishing after the first bell but before the time limit (unless the speaker was clearly ‘padding’ the speech in an attempt to make time, without adding anything to the content of the speech). Finishing before the first bell indicates poor organization and usually attracts a method penalty. But this should be assessed with regard to the completeness or paucity of the argument and other aspects of the debate such as whether the opposing team ran a truism and prevented rebuttal.

Method of the team
In considering team method, you are assessing whether the team structured its overall approach to maximize its effectiveness and whether the individual speakers adequately fulfilled their part in the team presentation. In general, a ‘thematic’ team structure will be more effective than a structure consisting of a series of independent arguments. The former approach gives the appearance of being a total body of argument while the latter approach represents a series of isolated points without any link or consistent foundation.

The roles played by each speaker in a team presentation are summarized as follows:

First affirmative speaker
define the affirmative’s interpretation of the topic and specify the essential issues in contention
give an outline of the team structure, indicating the basic theme of the team’s case and the aspects to be dealt with by each speaker
deal with those elements of the case allocated to him or her

First negative speaker
identify the major areas of initial disagreement (including definition issues if appropriate) with the affirmative case up to that time and engage in rebuttal
give a clear outline of the negative’s team structure
deal with those elements allocated to the first speaker

Second affirmative and negative speakers
rebutt opponents’ case and arguments
argue in defense of one’s own case against rebuttal by previous speaker
deal with those elements of the substantial case allocated to him or her

Third speakers on both sides
present an overview of the debate, rebutting the important aspects of the opposing team’s case and defending one’s own team’s case
summarize his or her arguments

Reply speeches
provide an overview that compares and contrasts each team’s views of the central issues of contention in the debate
Response to the dynamics of the debate

This element of method requires you to assess whether a speaker has reacted appropriately to the strategic requirements of the debate as they emerged. The following are examples of such dynamics:

When a negative team has a problem with the affirmative definition, it is important strategically to deal with this at the first negative speech (as well as the second and third) so that the definition does not proceed without dispute until much later.

A method failure results when a speaker argues a point that has already been conceded (thus failing to acknowledge the concession) or a point that is not being contested or relevant to the debate.

In administering a method penalty, you should be careful to note the distinction between matter and method. A speaker who commits a strategic error may be given full credit for the quality of the argument in matter, but a penalty will be imposed in method. On the other hand, if a speaker reacts appropriately to the dynamics of the debate, he or she may be rewarded in both method (for identifying the issue) and matter (for convincingly tackling it).

ASSESSING MANNER
Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the debating case. Good manner will enhance the argument; bad manner will distract or detract the audience from the argument. The most important thing to remember when you assess manner is to ask the question "Was it effective?".

The elements of manner:

Vocal style: Volume of delivery should be audible; enunciation should be clear and plain; pace of delivery should be neither too slow nor too fast; vocal style should have variety and appropriate pauses for relaxation and emphasis; delivery should be reasonably fluent, confident and authoritative (but not arrogant or hectoring)

Use of language: Speakers should not vary from normal conversational language; they should beware of the use of slang or jargon of some field of specialty unfamiliar to the audience.

Use of notes: Notes should be unobtrusive, small enough to be held in one hand and contain only key words or headlines.

Use of eyes: Debaters should attempt to make eye contact with the audience.

Gesture: Gestures should be natural and appropriate and not laborious or distracting; mannerisms should be avoided.

Stance: Speakers may move around or stand still and you should assess the effectiveness of the stance by whether it aided the argument or distracted you from the argument.

Dress: Dress may only be taken into account in the assessment of manner where it is so incongruous that it affects the credibility of the speaker.

Impression of sincerity: A more sincere approach will make the speaker more believable and effective.

Personal attacks on opponents: Derogatory comments will not be tolerated and will suffer manner penalty as such remarks distracts the audience from the argument and also make the speaker lose the sympathetic ear of the audience; speakers should also not refer to the personal convictions held by opposing debaters.

Humor: Humor should be appropriate and may even be used at a crucial time in a serious debate.

Adjudicators must note that manner is assessed as the total impact of all its various elements – not as some aggregation of fixed categories according to rigid weightings.


OTHER ISSUES
Definitions are an important aspect of a debate. They play a large role in determining whether a debate is focused and enjoyable, or waywardly meandering and unclear.

Definition rules
Definitions must be reasonable. There must be a clear and logical link between the definition and the topic. A negative team may only challenge a definition on the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable. Squirreling and time setting are absolutely prohibited.

Truistic, tautological and circular definitions are those that allow the affirmative team to use indisputable truths as evidence, thereby not allowing the negative team to dispute. For example, on the topic "That we should eat and drink and be merry", if an affirmative team defined this topic to mean that we should eat something because otherwise we will die of starvation, we should drink something because otherwise we will die of thirst, and we should be happy because being sad is not a good thing, it leaves the negative team with no grounds to debate on. Wholly unreasonable definitions are those which seek to make the negative’s argument scarce or weak. Squirreling is where there is a reasonably obvious issue to be debated and one team decides to define the debate in a less than obvious way. An example would be, if on the topic "That Elvis is alive and well", the affirmative defined Elvis to be Elvis Martini, an Italian hairdresser known for his sideburn trims. The obvious issue for debate here is of course Elvis Presley. When the debate is set into a particular time, it constitutes time setting. Debates should take place in contemporary society though evidence from the past may certainly be used in argument.

The correct approach to definition is the ‘issue-based’ approach, rather than the ‘individual words’ approach. Many inexperienced debaters will give a careful and detailed definition of each word in the topic, and then string those definitions together into a sentence. It is of course frequently necessary to concentrate on one or more keywords in a topic, but at least as frequently the topic may be defined as a whole by looking at the context. Even with topics in which it may be deemed necessary to consider the nature of an individual keyword, the ultimate objective of definition is to be able to state a clear issue arising out of the examination of the individual words.

You must not start with any preconceived notion of the meaning of the topic (except to the extent that the average reasonable person shares such a notion). Like all matter, you should not wait to see if the definition is attacked before deciding whether or not it is persuasive. The definition is assessed with its supporting arguments when it is delivered.

Competing definitions
When the negative challenges the definition put forth by the affirmative (on the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable), there is no rule that says that the proposition’s definition is automatically invalid. It is just that the affirmative faces the difficulty that an average reasonable person would regard such a proposition as being unreasonable and unlikely to be what was in the mind of the person who set the topic. But the onus is on the disagreeing team to show that the unreasonable definition is heavily biased against their case and cannot be argued against. It is not enough to utter protests that would become a copy of self-pity. The issue is to be resolved by argument. The speakers must argue the relative merits of the competing definitions, not merely assert the merits of their own.

The definition issue is not decisive of the outcome, and the team that loses the definition issue will still have its subsequent arguments assessed on their own merits. When there is a significant divergence of definitions, you should expect teams to engage in an 'even-if' argument. That is:

"Our definition is correct and theirs is incorrect for the following reasons. But even if their definition was correct (which it is not), their case does not stand scrutiny even under their own definition."

This should be followed by an attack on the merits of their opponent's case. In this way, a team is likely to score more matter marks, and the sterility of the definition debate is avoided. This issue is important enough for the absence of an 'even-if' to be penalized in method as a strategic error, if the competing definitions are widely divergent.

Rebuttal
Rebuttal is any argument that logically tends to the conclusion that the opposing team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:

showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact

showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic

showing that the opposing argument is illogical

showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable implications

showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little weight

Matter marks should be used to indicate whether or not the rebuttal was persuasive, irrespective of the structure of the rebuttal. On the other hand, whether or not a speaker has structured the rebuttal so as to make it appear that the entire opposing case, or at least the main issues, has been called into question is an issue of method marks. Sometimes, a more global and thematic rebuttal is adopted over a point-by-point rebuttal of the opposition’s arguments. It is a simple case of focusing on the forest as a whole rather than the trees.


Reply speeches
You must understand the difference between the third speeches and the reply speeches. The replies are not merely tedious repetitions of the key parts of the third speeches. The third speakers should concentrate on detailed rebuttal and leave the summarizing to the reply speakers. The third negative should be especially cautious not to give anything more than a cursory summary at the end if his or her speech because a detailed summary is about to ensue from the reply. Third speakers who embark on extensive overviews and summaries (especially third negatives) should generally score lower marks in matter (for forgoing the opportunity to engage in detailed rebuttal of points) and method (for misunderstanding the role of the third speaker).

The ‘no new matter’ rule applies with a vengeance in reply speeches. To introduce new matter in a reply is a cardinal sin. It misconceives the role of a reply speech, which is a broad overview and not an examination of detail. New matter in a reply speech should be heavily penalized.


Misrepresentations
Misrepresentations are where one speaker inaccurately sets up an argument in order to attack it. This is a serious offense and should be penalized as it often happens during the third speeches and leaves the opposing team little chance to reply. Misrepresentation occurs when one speaker reiterates an opponent’s argument incorrectly or concentrates disproportionately on weaker aspects of the opposing argument, neglecting important issues. Be cautious when assessing misrepresentation to go through your notes and to rely less on memory. It is therefore essential that the information you record during each speech is comprehensive.

Team slides
A team slide is when a team starts off arguing a theme and then widens or narrows that theme under pressure from an opponent or in order to claim the matter being used by the opponents. This is unreasonable. You should pay extra attention during the first few minutes of the first speeches from both sides so that you are able to identify a team slide later in the debate. Team slides should be distinguished from concessions that, if not too substantial, will allow the debate to proceed on the contentious ground. For instance, it would not be an unreasonable concession for a negative team to concede, on the topic, That smoking should be banned, that there is a recognized link between smoking and disease. Such a concession would allow the debate to proceed upon the more contentious issues surrounding prohibition.

Ties
Ties must not be awarded in the tournament. There is no exception to this rule.

MARKING SCALE
Substantive speeches
Substantive speeches are marked out of 100
the average mark is 75
the lowest possible mark is 67 and the highest possible mark is 83
most marks will be between 70 and 80
matter and manner are marked out of 40, method out of 20

Reply speeches
Exactly half of the substantive speeches
the average mark is 37.5
the lowest possible mark is 33.5 and the highest possible mark is 41.5
most marks will be between 35 and 40
matter and manner are marked out of 20, method out of 10


Matter and Manner Method Meaning
27 13 Very poor
28-29 14 Below average - Poor
30 15 Average
31-32 16 Above average - Very Good
33 17 Excellent



Margin in points Meaning
1-4 A very close debate with only minor differences separating both teams
5-9 A relatively clear decision with one team having an obvious advantage
10-12 A very clear win with the losing team probably having failed in one or more fundamental aspects of its argument or presentation


CONCLUSION
You should give a clear and firm decision of who has won, the reasons for that decision, and constructive comments to each speaker. A summary of the decisive issues in the debate and how each team dealt with or used these issues to their advantage or disadvantage may be in order here. Constructive comments made to each speaker should be brief and positive, especially to those who have not debated much before. You have around 5-7 minutes to deliver your adjudication and comments.

WUDC Athens 98 English as a Second Language

Team Rank St Stephens D Winner
Ateneo Graduate A Runner Up
De La Salle A Runner Up
Ateneo A Runner Up