RULES AND GUIDELINES

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE

DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S
TROPHY

1. NAME
The name of the competition is the English Language Debate, Dato’ Dr. Noor
Azmi’s Trophy or Piala Dato’ Dr. Noor Azmi’s bin Ibrahim.

2. FORMAT
2.1 A team representing a school shall consist of 3 main debaters and 1
reserve.
2.2 The proposition team is known as the Affirmative (or the Government)
while the opposition team is known as the Negative (or the
Opposition).
2.3 The first speaker of the proposition team will be known as the Prime
Minister. The other two speakers of the team are known as the second
and third Minister respectively. The first speaker of the opposing team
will be known as the Opposition Leader and the second and third are
known as the second and third Opposer respectively.
2.4 Allocation of the time and speaking order :

GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TIME

1 1st Speaker 2 1st Speaker 8 minutes
3 2nd Speaker 4 2nd Speaker 8 minutes
5 3rd Speaker 6 3rd Speaker 8 minutes
8 Reply Speech 7 Reply Speech 4 minutes
1st / 2nd Government 1st / 2nd Opposition

2.5 The first debater from both teams will introduce only ONE argument
while the second debater presents TWO arguments. His / Her role is
only to rebut.
2.6 While a debater is speaking, the opposition team can offer ‘Point(s) of
Information (formal interjection). The speaker may accept or decline it
politely.
2.7 After all the speakers have spoken once; the first or second speaker
from each side gives a Reply Speech with the Opposition reply being
delivered first and the Government second.

3. ELIGIBILITY
3.1 The competition is open to all Form 4-5 from all Technical/Vocational
schools in Malaysia.
3.2 A school is allowed to send only one team to participate in the
competition. The names of the debaters as stated in the registration
should remain the same throughout the competition.
3.3 Each team comprise at least 2 Bumiputera students who are speaking
members of the team.
3.4 Every member of the participating team should come from the same
school.
3.5 The champion school team shall represent the Zone for the National
Championship.
4. JUDGING
4.1 An odd numbered panel of at least 3 adjudicators shall judge the
debaters from Round 1 to the semi-finals and 5 adjudicators shall judge
the Finals of the debate.
4.2 Adjudicators should be briefed on the rules of judging 30 minutes
before the debate.
4.3 Each school is required to send 2 teachers, one whom will have to be an
adjudicators.
4.4 Adjudicators shall not judge the team from their own school.
4.5 A debate is won by the team which score majority of votes from the
adjudicators on the panel. Team marks or winning margins of the
adjudicators are not to be added together to decide the winner.
4.6 Immediately after a debate, the Speaker will collect the score from the
adjudicators. There should be no discussion among the adjudicators
when deciding the winner of the debate.
4.7 Once score sheet have been handed in, the adjudicators shall meet and
confer to decide the Best Speaker. They shall refer to the Comment
Sheet to decide the winner.

5. PROCEDURE OF A DEBATE
5.1 The process of the Debate

5.1.1 The debate topic will be given to the competing teams 2 weeks
before the actual competition for the National level.
5.1.2 Each team will draw the stand ONE hour before a debate.
5.1.3 The team will then be quarantined in their preparatory room for
one hour to prepare for the debate.
5.1.4 Only the team members competing (3 main speakers and 1
reserve) will be allowed in the preparatory room.
5.1.5 The team is allowed to use only printed reference materials in
the quarantined room. No electronic gadgets are allowed in.
5.1.6 Teams are required to be seated at the debate venue(s) five
minutes before the start of the debate.

5.2 The Role of The Speaker

5.2.1 A chair person who will be addressed as Mr. Speaker or Madam
Speaker will chair each debate.
5.2.2 The Speaker is responsible for the smooth running of the debate.
5.2.3 The Speaker will read out the rules of the debate and then
proceed to introduce the timekeeper, adjudicators and debaters.
5.2.4 The Speaker must refrain from making any comments
concerning the debate or the debaters during the debate.
5.2.5 The Speaker must ensure that the adjudicators are given enough
time to fill in their marks before the debater is called.
 5.3 The Role of The Time Keeper

5.3.1 The timekeeper must ensure that the debater is given eight
minutes to deliver his/her speech and four minutes for the Reply
Speech.
5.3.2 The timekeeper will ring the bell once after the first minute and
the end of the seventh minute to signal the time allocated for the
Point of Information.
5.3.3 A maximum of three minutes to both teams to prepare for the
Reply Speech.
5.3.4 During the Reply Speech, the timekeeper will ring the bell once
at the third minute. After the end of the fourth minute, the bell
will be rung twice to signal the end of the debate.

6. POINTS OF INFORMATION
6.1 A Point of Information is a formal interjection. It can be:

 a question
 a remark
 a clarification
 a correction of word(s) or statement(s)

6.2 The aim of the Point of Information is to give or receive information on

a certain issue being discussed. The opposing team can correct facts that
are erroneous or use the Point of Information to ask for clarification or
to question the opposing team during debate.
6.3 A Point of Information may be offered by a member of the opposing
team from the 2nd minute to the 7th minute of the time allocated to the
debater. Point of Information are not allowed during the1st and the final
minute of the speech. A bell will be rung to signal the beginning and the
end of the time allocated for Point of Information.
6.4 A time limit of 15 seconds is allowed for each Point of Information.
Therefore, the Point of Information put forth must be concise and to the
point.
6.5 No hackling, harassment or barracking is allowed at any time during the
debate.
6.6 Giving and taking of Point of Information should be done politely. A
debater is required to raise his/her hand and to stand when putting forth
a Point of Information. Rude, abusive or aggressive behaviour in both
instances will lead to a reduction of marks in the Style section.
6.7 A debater may either accept the Point of Information or decline it. If
accepted, the opponent may take a short point or ask question that deals
with some issue of the debate (preferably one just made by the debater).
6.8 A debater MUST give or take at least 2 Point of Information during the
course of the debate.

6.8.1 A debater who does not offer the minimum Point of Information
would be marked down for the Substances and Strategy.
  Substances for failing to take advantage of the opportunities.
 Strategy for failing to understand the role of debater under this
Style.

6.8.2 A debater who falls to accept any Point of Information would be

marked down for Substances and Strategy.

 Substance for failing to allow the other side to make their point.
 Strategy for not understanding the role of the debater under this
Style or for cowardice in not accepting the challenge.

6.9 No Point of Information may be offered during the Reply Speeches.

6.10 A Point of Information is offered by standing and saying, “Point of
Information” or something similar. The debater on the floor is not
obliged to accept every point. He/She may :
 ask the interrupter to sit down
 finish the sentence and the accept the point
 accept the point there and then.
 LIST OF
LIST OFEXPRESSION TOR
EXPRESSIONS TOEQUEST, ACCEPT
REQUEST, OR DECLINE
ACCEPT POINTS
OR DECLINE OF OF
POINTS
INFORMATION
INFORMATION ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
DEBATE
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY.
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY

TO REQUEST
1. Point of Information, please
2. Point of Information.
3. P.O.I please.
4. P.O.I
5. Point
6. On that point
7. I beg to Differ

TO ACCEPT
1. Yes.
2. Yes, please.
3. Yes, Sir/Miss.
4. Please.
5. Please go ahead.
6. Yes, accepted.

TO DECLINE
1. No, thank you.
2. No, thanks.
3. Denied.
4. Sorry Sir/Miss.
5. Sorry.

If the opponent (during his/her Point(s) of Information) is taking too much of

the speaker’s time, the speaker can ask him/her to sit down if he/she has
exceeded the 15 seconds time limit.

The speaker may use these expressions:

1. Please sit down Sir/Miss. You are taking too much of my time.
2. You are taking too much of my time. Please sit down.
3. Kindly sit down. You have exceeded the time limit for P.O.I.
4. Your limit time is up.

Please note that it is of utmost importance that debaters be POLITE at all times during
the course of the debate especially when accepting or declining Point(s) of
Information.
 PRIMARY ROLE OF THE DEBATERS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY

NO GOVERNMENT WEIGHTAGE NO OPPOSITION WEIGHTAGE

1 1ST GOVERNMENT % MINS 2 1ST OPPOSITION % MINS
1 Specify definition of topic 10 1 1 Agree or refute definition 10 1

2 Specify Government case line 10 1 2 Rebut 1st Government’s 25 2

or stand arguments

3 Specify role of 2nd and 3rd 5 1 3 Specify Opposition case or 10 1

Government stand

4 Introduce his/her argument on 60 3 4 Specify role of 2nd and 3rd 5 ½

Government case Opposition

5 Reaffirm the Government case 5 1 5 Introduce new arguments on 35 2

Opposition case

6 Points of Information 10 1 6 Reaffirm the Opposition case 5 ½

7 Points of Information 10 1

3 2nd GOVERNMENT 4 2nd OPPOSITION

1 Agree or refute Opposition’s 10 1 1 Rebut 2nd Government’s 40 3
definition (if not mentioned-then arguments
Opposition’s definition stands)

2 Rebut 1st Opposition’s 40 3 2 Rebut 1st Government’s 30 2

arguments arguments

3 Present new arguments on 40 3 3 Present new arguments on 20 2

Government case Opposition case

4 Points of Information 10 1 4 Points of Information 10 1

5 3rd GOVERNMENT 6 3RD OPPOSITION

1 Rebut 2nd Opposition’s 40 3 1 Rebut 3rd Government’s 40 3
arguments arguments

2 Rebut 1st Opposition’s 30 2 2 Rebut 2nd Government’s 30 2

arguments arguments

3 Reaffirm the Government case 20 2 3 Rebut 1st Government’s 10 1

arguments

4 Points of Information 10 1 4 Reaffirm the Opposition case 10 1

5 Points of Information 10 1

8 REPLY SPEECH 7 REPLY SPEECH

1 Rebuttal of Opposition’s case 50 2 1 Rebuttal of Government’s case 50 2

2 Summary of Government’s case 50 2 2 Summary of Opposition’s case 50 2

N.B.

1. Weightage-refers to how much effort (importance) and time a debater should allocate for each aspect of his role. The
percentage of figures do not refer to marks awarded.
2. Marks will be awarded based on the overall performance of a debater under different categories such as Substances, Style,
Strategy and Language (Refer to Assessment Scheme)
3. 1st Government & 1st Opposition - present ONE argument/point only
2nd Government & 2nd Opposition - present TWO arguments / points only
3rd Government & 3rd Opposition - REBUT only
Reply Speech - Summarize and Rebut only
 ASSESSMENT SCHEME
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY
1. PRIMARY SPEECHES

1.1 Marks will be awarded to each debater under the following categories:
a. Substance = 30 marks
b. Style = 30 marks
c. Strategy = 20 marks
d. Language = 20 marks

Total = 100 marks

1.2 Each debater will be given 8minutes to deliver his/her speech

1.3 Guidelines for Marking Scale:

STANDARD SUBSTANCE STYLE STRATEGY LANGUAGE TOTAL

(MINIMUM) (30) (30) (20) (20) (100)
1 Excellent 26-30 26-30 18-20 18-20 86-100
2 Very Good 21-25 21-25 15-17 15-17 70-85
3 Average 16-20 16-20 12-14 12-14 56-69
4 Below Average 11-15 11-15 9-11 9-11 40-55
5 Poor 6-10 6-10 6-8 6-8 24-39

2. REPLY SPEECHES
2.1 Marks will be awarded to each debater under the following categories:

a. Substance = 15 marks
b. Style = 15 marks
c. Strategy = 10 marks
d. Language = 10 marks

Total = 50 marks

2.2 Either the 1st or the 2nd debater from each team will deliver the Reply
Speech. The Opposition shall deliver the Reply Speech first, followed
by the Government.

2.3 Each debater will be given 4 minutes to deliver his/ her speech.

2.4 Guidelines for Marking Scale:

STANDARD SUBSTANCE STYLE STRATEGY LANGUAGE TOTAL

(MINIMUM) (30) (30) (20) (20) (100)
1 Excellent 26-30 26-30 18-20 18-20 86-100
2 Very Good 21-25 21-25 15-17 15-17 70-85
3 Average 16-20 16-20 12-14 12-14 56-69
4 Below Average 11-15 11-15 9-11 9-11 40-55
5 Poor 6-10 6-10 6-8 6-8 24-39
 ADJUDICATOR’S STEP BY STEP GUIDE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY

1. Write down the names of the debaters. The team on the right side of the Speakers is the
Government while the team on the left is the Opposition.

2. While adjudicating, the adjudicators are required to observe whether each debater has
played his/her role. Adjudicate and award marks immediately after each debater has
delivered his/her speech. The adjudicators should ignore whatever has been spoken
once the time limit is up i.e. 8 minutes for the Primary speeches and 4 minutes for the
Reply Speeches.

3. Use the Adjudicator’s Comment Sheet to note down briefly the keywords/ideas such
as stand, strategy and arguments. This information will help when awarding marks for
the respective speakers.

4. Every time a debater completes a component of his/her role, tick the appropriate box.
Failing to complete any of the components will result in a reduction of marks in
Strategy and Substance.

5. Marks for Substances, Style, Strategy and Language should be filled in pencil with the
grand total in ink.

6. Scoring should be done in this manner:

 After listening to the debater, consider whether he/she should be categorized as

Excellent, Very Good, Average, Below Average or Weak. Then decide on the
marks and fill in the appropriate box.
 Marks can be adjusted when both sides have presented their arguments.

7. Once the debate has been completed, make a decision on the winner and fill in the
decision slip.

8. The speaker will collect the decision slips.

9. The adjudicators will leave the room with the comment sheets and confer and concur
on the best speaker and comments on the debate. The adjudicator’s comment should l
look at the strengths and weaknesses of the debate in the areas of Substance, Strategy,
Style and Language.

10. When a decision has been made on the Best Speaker and the comments are agreed on,
the adjudicators will return to the debate venue.

11. The Speaker will then get the result for the Best Speaker from the Chief of
Adjudicators and gets the result sheet validated.

12. The Speaker then invites the Chief Adjudicator to give his/her comments on the
debate.

13. The results of the debate will be announced once the Chief Adjudicator’s comments
have been delivered.
 ADJUDICATOR’S CODE OF ETHICS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY

LET’S BE

 Neat and formal in appearance

 Punctual
 Fair and neutral – in facial expressions, reactions and opinions
 Responsible
 Accountable

WE MUST BE

 Sincere and committed in our adjudication

 Open-minded over topics debated
 Without preconceived ideas about the motion or debating teams
 Without influence or distraction by the audience especially loud comments
and clapping

WE SHOULD

 Confer and concur decisions and comments made

 Nor disclose the details of the debate
 Not discuss our adjudication once the debate is over
 Not make comments on fellow adjudicators

BE PROFESSIONAL
 REFERENCE FOR THE SCORESHEET
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE
DATO’ Dr. NOOR AZMI’S TROPHY

1.0 Marks are awarded to each debater according to:

SUBSTANCE
STYLE
STRATEGY
LANGUAGE

1.1 SUBSTANCE

a. Substance covers the arguments that are used, divorced from the
speaking style. It is as if you are seeing the arguments written down
rather than spoken. You must assess the weight of the arguments
without being influenced by the oratory that presented them.

b. Substance also includes an assessment of the weight of rebuttal or clash.

This assessment must be done from the standpoint of the average
reasonable person.

c. The adjudicator’s job is to assess the strength of an argument regardless

of whether the other team is able to knock it down. If a team introduces
a weak argument, it will not score highly in substance, even if the other
team does not refute it. Two consequences flow from this.

 If a major argument is plainly weak, an opposing team, which

doesn’t refute it, may well have committed a greater sin than the
team, which introduce it. In effect the team has let the other
team get away with a weak argument. This is not an automatic
rule, but it is true in many cases. Of course it must be major
argument, not a minor example, which of the opposing team
correctly chooses to ignore in favour of attacking more
significant points.

 Adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their

own beliefs, or by their own specialised knowledge. For
example, if you are a lawyer and you know that a team’s
argument was debunked by the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) last week, you should probably not take into account
special knowledge unless the ICJ’s decision was a matter of
extreme public notoriety.
1.2 STYLE

a. The team is rather misleading. Adjudicators are not looking for debaters
who are stylish.

b. Style covers the way the debaters speak. This can be noted in many
ways, in funny accents, body language (movement, poise, meaningful
gestures and eye-contact) and with the use of specific terminology. Be
tolerant of different ways of presenting arguments.

c. Use of palm cards and notes are allowed and should not be penalised,
unless a debater is reading from them heavily.

d. Be tolerant of speaking styles and speed delivery. Penalised only when

a debater’s style has gone beyond what everyone would expect.

1.3 STRATEGY

a. Strategy requires some attention. It covers two concepts:

i. the structure and timing of the speech

ii. whether the debater understood the issued of the debate.

b. Structure

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

c. Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There

are two aspects of timing:

i. speaking within the allowed time limit;

ii. giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech

d. A debater ought to give priority to important issues and leave

unimportant ones to later. It is generally a good idea to rebut or begin
with an attack on the other side by subsequent debaters, before going on
to the debater’s own case. This is because it is more logical to get rid of
the opposing arguments first before trying to put something in its place.

e. So, the adjudicator must weigh not only the strength of the arguments in
the SUBSTANCE category, but also the proper time and priority given
in the STRATEGY category.
 f. Understanding the Issues

Closely related to the last point is that the debaters should understand
what the important issues were in the debate. It is a waste of time for a
rebuttal speaker to deal with points if crucial arguments are left
unanswered. Such a speaker would not understand the important issues
of the debate, and should not score well in the Strategy. By contrast, a
speaker who understood what the issues were and dealt with them
thoroughly should score well in Strategy.

g. It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between

Strategy and Substance. Imagine a debate where a debater answers the
critical issues with some weak rebuttal. This debater should get poor
marks for Substance, because the rebuttal was weak. But the debater
should get reasonable marks for Strategy, because the right arguments
were being addressed.

1.4 LANGUAGE

a. Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct

sentence structures and grammar.

b. It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of

speech. Of course, English being a foreign language here, adjudicators
shouldn’t be looking for the Queen’s English in our debaters. But any
expression which mumbled or not clearly understood should not merit
high marks in the Language section.

c. On the other hand, any good language expression, including the use of
figures of speech, idioms, etc. appropriate and apt to the occasion, may
merit positive marks for Language.

1.5 REBUTTAL

a. The use of general cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. The
Opposition team cannot concentrate on attacking the examples used by
the Government. The examples might be weak, but the central case
might still be sound. Instead, the team will have to concentrate on
attacking that case, because that is where the debate is actually is.

b. There is another consequence for rebuttal. It may be that team has used
a number examples to illustrate the same point. If they all can be
disposed of by the same piece of rebuttal, the rebutting team does not
have to attack each of the example individually as well.
1.6 THE REPLY SPEECH

a. The thematic approach to argument outlined above becomes critical in

the Reply Speeches. These have been described as an ‘adjudication
from our side’ and really amount to an overview of the major issues in
the debate.

b. A Reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or
individual examples. The debater must deal with the two or three major
issues in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the
debater’s team and work against the opposition team. As a general rule,
a Reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with individual
examples probably doesn’t understand either the issues of the debate or
the principles of good argument.

1.7 POINTS OF INFORMATION

a. A “Point of Information” is offered in the course of speech by a member

of the opposing team. The debater may either accept or decline. If
accepted, the opponent may take a short point or ask a question that
deals with some issue in the debate (preferably one just made by the
debater). It is, a formal interjection.

b. Points of Information bring about a major change in the role of the

debaters in a debate. In this style, each debater must take part from
beginning to end, not just during their own speech.

c. The debaters play this role by offering Point of Information. Even if the
points are not accepted, they must still demonstrate that they are
involved in the debate by at least offering. A debater who takes no part
in the debate other than by making a speech would be marked down for
Substance and Strategy.