A Typical Setting of Debate
1. Introduction
2. Setting
Debaters sit in front of the room facing the audience and the judges. The two teams may slightly face each other as well. Chairman and Timekeeper are seated near the judges or wherever convenient.
When a debater gives a speech, he/she usually stands up either at the seat or at the podium in the center. In the cross-examination period, the examinee usually remains at the position where he/she gave a speech and the examiner stands up where he/she is sitting. The examiner may also stand side by side with the examinee.
A Typical Setting of Debate
3. Chairperson
Chairperson's job can be shared either by Judge(s) or Timekeeper(s). Chairperson opens the debate, introduces the debaters, calls for speeches, and closes the debate. Chairperson may want to explain special rules which debaters and/or audience are not familiar with.
Examples of Chairperson's Words:
| Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is XXXXX. It
is my pleasure to chair the debate under the proposition that: "XXXXXXXXX."
The affirmative speakers are XXXX and XXXX. On the negative side,
we have XXXXXX and XXXXXX.
[optional]
[other expressions]
[When the last speaker finishes:]
|
4. Timekeeper
Timekeeper tracks the time of each speaking period and preparation time of both sides. For speaking time, Timekeeper shows the remaining minutes by using cards like:
If the cards are not used, Timekeeper orally gives the remaining time saying "three minutes" or "30 seconds." When the speaker runs out of time, Timekeeper declares: "Time (is up)." etc.
Timekeeper also keeps records of how much preparation time each team spent before its speech or cross-examination. Before cross-examination, the preparation time is used of the team which is to ask questions. Timekeeper can use charts to keep track of the consumption of preparation time as in:
Affirmative:
Negative:
The above charts show that the affirmative team has used 3 minutes 30 seconds and the negative team has used 4 minutes 12 seconds. If necessary (and available), Timekeeper can use separate stopwatches to measure speaking time and preparation time. When a team uses up all the preparation time, Timekeeper tells the team that it has no more preparation time left.
5. Judge
Judges in academic debate have two functions: deciding the winner of the round and giving critiques (feedback/comments/advice) to the debaters.
Judges listen to all the speeches and cross-examination exchanges during the debate. They do not interfere with the debate unless it is absolutely necessary. They give the decision after the debate. They give oral/written feedback about debaters' skills and issues/arguments in the debate so that the debaters and audience members learn more from the debate.
The decision of the debate is usually based on the quality of the arguments presented in the debate. Judges ask themselves if the affirmative team has proven that the proposition is probably true. If the affirmative was successful in doing so, it wins the debate. Otherwise, the negative wins the debate. There is no tie. If there are several judges in the round (usually the odd number), they will individually decide the winner and the team with the majority votes wins the debate.
If there is a ballot sheet with analytical categories such as analysis, evidence, reasoning, delivery, etc., judges give scores to each category while the debate is in progress. The total scores are added for each team at the end of the debate. Judges may award the winner either based on or regardless of the scores. These scores are used for feedback and sometimes for other purposes (selecting the finalists in a contest or top debaters).
In making the decision, judges must only consider what the debaters say in the debate. They must disregard their personal opinion about the proposition or other issues in the debate. They must believe debaters' arguments as long as they are supported by reasonable amount of evidence and sound reasoning even if judges themselves do not personally believe them.
In written or oral feedback, judges must give clear explanation why they voted for the affirmative or the negative. In other words, they must be able to justify their decision. They also give advice to the debaters. For example:
Example of Judge's Critique (Comments)
| I voted for the affirmative team because of the following reasons.
1. The affirmative demonstrated a clear advantage of the plan. It would probably save more than 10,000 people every year. The negative team did not challenge the importance of this advantage. 2. The practicality of the plan was weakened because of the negative attacks: (1) the technology of XXXX was still in experimental stage; (2) it might be difficult to find some of the patients. But those points would not seriously weakened the plan. The practicality of the plan in general was demonstrated by the two pieces of evidence in the second affirmative constructive speech. 3. Disadvantage I (XXXXXX) was shown not unique to the affirmative plan by the second affirmative constructive speaker. Her second and third responses about this point were persuasive. The negative team failed to refute this point in later speeches. [This means that Disadvantage I would occur whether the affirmative plan was adopted. Therefore, it cannot be the reason to reject the affirmative plan.] 4. Disadvantage II (risk of economic damage) was successfully defended by the negative team. 5. In the end, I found that the affirmative plan would save at least 10,000 people a year but it would also produce some economic damage. The second affirmative speaker effectively showed that the advantage of saving people was more important than a possible economic damage. The negative team was weak in demonstrating the certainty and the magnitude of the economic loss (the evidence in the second rebuttal was weakened by the following cross-examination; the negative did not give any further evidence). I have several pieces of advice to the debaters. 1. The first affirmative constructive speech was well written in terms of organization. They had easy-to-remember headings and the flow of arguments was straightforward. But some of the quotations were too long. For example, Mr. XX's statement can be shortened by omitting .... 2. The negative team made a strategic mistake in the first rebuttal
by saying ....
|