DATUK WIRA DR.

ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
RULES AND GUIDELINES
1.0

Name
Datuk Wira Dr. Abdul Rahman Arshad Challenge Trophy English Language Debate Competition

2.0

Format
2.1

A team representing a school consists of 3 main debaters and 2 reserves.

2.2

The proposition team is known as the Affirmative or the Government while the opposition team is
known as the Negative or Opposition.

2.3

Allocation of time and speaking order:

TURN

AFFIRMATIVE

TURN

NEGATIVE

TIME

1st Speaker

1st Speaker

8 minutes

2nd Speaker

2nd Speaker

8 minutes

3rd Speaker

3rd Speaker

8 minutes

Reply Speech

Reply Speech

4 minutes

st

nd

st

1 / 2 Affirmative

nd

1 / 2 Negative

2.4

The third debater from both teams shall not introduce any new arguments. Their role is mainly to rebut.

2.5

While the debater is speaking, the opposition team can offer Point(s) of Information (formal
interjections). The debater may accept or decline it.

2.6

After all the debaters have spoken once, the 1 st or 2nd debater of each side gives a reply speech with the
Negatives Reply Speech being delivered first followed by the Affirmative.
1

3.0

Eligibility
3.1

The competition is open to all students from Form 1 to 5 from all government-aided secondary schools
under the purview of the Ministry of Education, Malaysia except residential schools.

3.2

A school is allowed to send only one team to participate in the competition.

3.3

Each team should comprise of at least one Bumiputera student (according to Article 153, The Malaysian
Constitution) who is a speaking member of the team. Exceptions should be made if the student
population consists of a particular ethnic group as the demographic in that school.
3.3.1 If there is evidence prior to, during or after the competition contrary to the declared status, the team
will be disqualified.

3.4

4.0

Every member of a participating team should come from the same school. (Failure in doing so will result
in disqualification)

Adjudication

5.0

4.1

A panel of at least 3 or 5 adjudicators will be appointed for all the rounds at all levels. The final debate at
the national level will be adjudicated by a panel of 5 adjudicators, appointed by the Division of Cocurriculum and Arts, Ministry of Education.

4.2

Experienced adjudicators should be appointed and briefed on the rules of adjudication at least an hour
before the debate.

4.3

Adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own schools / districts / states unless there are no
adjudicators available.

4.4

Points will be allocated according to the scoresheet.

4.5

The debate will be won by the team which scores a majority of votes from the adjudicators on the panel.
Scores awarded by adjudicators are not to be added together to decide the winner. Adjudicators decide
the winner of the debate independently.

4.6

Immediately after a debate, the Speaker will collect the result slip from the Chief Adjudicator. There
should be no discussions among the adjudicators when deciding the winner of the debate.

4.7
4.8

Once the scoresheets have been handed in, the adjudicators shall meet and confer to decide on the Best
Debater. They shall refer to the adjudicators comment sheets to decide on the winner.
2
Individual marks will not be disclosed.

4.9

Prizes
4.9.1

Plaques and certificates of achievement will be awarded to the winning teams.

4.9.2

Certificates of participation will be awarded to all participating teams.

Procedure of Debate
5.1

The Debate Process

5.1.1

The debate topics will be given to the competing teams 2 weeks before the competition.

5.1.2

The teams will draw the stand ONE hour before a debate commences.

5.1.3

The draw should take place as scheduled.

5.1.4

Any team that is late would have to inform the organisers within 5 minutes of the scheduled
time, failure of which, the team already present will be allowed to draw and quarantine time
will commence. A grace period of not more than 30 minutes will be given to the team that is
late after which quarantine time commences.

5.1.5

A team which is late (more than 5 minutes without information on their whereabouts) would
automatically take on the other position contrary to what the team already present has drawn.
The time for quarantine commences.

5.1.6

The team will then be quarantined in their quarantine rooms for ONE hour to prepare for the
debate. The quarantine officers must be in the room with the team.

5.1.7

Only the team members competing (3 main debaters and 2 reserves) will be allowed in the
quarantine room. The team members should not be in contact with any unauthorized personnel.

5.1.8

The team is allowed to use their own printed reference materials in the quarantine room. No
electronic gadgets are allowed.

5.1.9

Teams are required to be seated at the debate venue(s) 5 minutes before the debate commences.

5.1.10

If any one team fails to show up 5 minutes after the quarantine time, the team will be
disqualified. A walk over will be awarded to the team that is present.

5.1.11

Marks will be deducted under strategy if there is prompting from any individual other than
the debaters during the quarantine time and the debate competition.

5.2

5.3

The Role of the Chairperson / Speaker

5.2.1

Each team will be chaired by a Chairperson who will be addressed as Mr. Speaker or Madam
Speaker.

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 debaters
during the debate.

5.2.5

The Speaker must ensure that the adjudicators be given enough time to fill in their marks and
wait for the signal from the Chief Adjudicator before the next debater is called.

The Role of the Timekeeper

5.3.1

The Timekeeper must ensure that each debater is given 8 minutes to deliver his or her speech.

5.3.2

The Timekeeper will ring the bell once after the 1 st minute and at the end of the 7 th minute to
signal the time allocated for Points of Information. At the end of the 8 th minute, the bell will be
rung twice. (Placards may be used by the timekeeper to indicate the remaining time left, at
intervals of one minute.)

5.3.3

A maximum time of 3 minutes will be given to both teams to prepare for the Reply Speech.

5.3.4

During the Reply Speech, the Timekeeper will ring the bell once at the 3 rd minute to signal that
the debater has 1 minute left. At the end of the 4 th minute, the bell will be rung twice to signal
the end of the debate.
4

6.0

Points of Information
6.1

A Point of Information is a formal interjection. It can be:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

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

6.2

A Point of Information may be offered by a member of the opposing team from the 2 nd minute to the 7th
minute of the time allocated to the debater. Points of Information are not allowed during the 1 st and final
minutes of the speech. A bell will be rung to signal the beginning and the end of the time allocated for
Points of Information.

6.3

A time limit of 15 seconds is allowed for each Point of Information. Therefore, the Points of Information
put forth must be concise.

6.4

No heckling or harassment or barracking is allowed at any time during the debate.

6.5

Giving and taking Points of Information should be done politely. A debater is required to raise his or 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 from the STYLE section.

6.6

A debater may either accept the Point of Information or decline it. If accepted, the opponent may make a
short point or ask a question that deals with some issues of the debate (preferably one just made by the
debater).

6.7

A debater MUST give or take at least 2 Points of Information during the course of the debate.
6.7.1

A debater who does not offer the minimum number of Points of Information will be marked
down for SUBSTANCE and STRATEGY.
6.7.1.1

Substance for failing to take advantage of opportunities

6.7.1.2
6.7.2

Strategy for failing to understand the role of the debater under this style

A debater who fails to accept any Points of Information would be marked down for
SUBSTANCE AND STRATEGY.
6.7.2.1
6.7.2.2

5
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
cowardice in not accepting a challenge

6.8

No Points of Information may be offered during the Reply Speeches.

6.9

The Etiquette of presenting Points of Information (POI)

6.9.1

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 or she may
6.9.1.1

Ask the interrupter to sit down

6.9.1.2

Finish the sentence and then accept the point

6.9.1.3

Accept the point there and then.

REFERENCE FOR THE SCORESHEET

1.0

Marks are awarded to each debater according to:

SUBSTANCE

1.1

1.2

STRATEGY

LANGUAGE

STYLE

SUBSTANCE
1.1.1

Substance covers the arguments that are used and are 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 magnificence of the orator who presented them.

1.1.2

Substance also includes an assessment of the weight of the rebuttal or clash. This assessment must be
done from the standpoint of the average reasonable person.

1.1.3

The adjudicators 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 weak arguments, it will not score highly in substance, even if the
other team does not refute. Two consequences flow from these.

1.1.4

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

1.1.5

Second, adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their own beliefs or their own specialized
knowledge. For example, if you are a lawyer and you know that a teams argument was debunked by the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week, you should probably not take into account this special
knowledge unless the ICJs decision was a matter of extreme public notoriety.

STRATEGY
1.2.1

Strategy requires some attention. It covers two concepts:

1.2.1.1 the structure and timing of the speech and
7
1.2.1.2 whether the debater understood the issues of the debate.

1.2.2

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 Governments case as it is of the third debater rebutting the
Governments case. Good speech structure, therefore, is one component of the strategy.

1.2.3

Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There are two aspects of timing:
1.2.3.1

speaking within the allowed time limit and

1.2.3.2

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

1.2.4

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 debaters 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.

1.2.5

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.

1.2.6

Understanding the Issues

Closely related to the last point is that the debater 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 Strategy. By contrast, a speaker who understood what the issues were and dealt with them
thoroughly should score well in Strategy.

1.2.7

It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between Strategy and Substance. Imagine
a debate where a debater answers 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.
8

1.3

1.4

LANGUAGE
1.3.1

Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct sentence structures and grammar.

1.3.2

It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of speech. Of course, English being
a foreign language here, adjudicators should not be looking for Queens English in our debaters, but any
expression which is mumbled or not clearly understood should not merit high marks in the Language
section.

1.3.3

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

STYLE
1.4.1

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

1.4.2

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.

1.4.3

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

1.4.4

Be tolerant of speaking styles and speed of delivery. Penalise only when a debaters style has gone
beyond what everyone would expect.

2.0

REBUTTAL

2.1

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 that case because that is where the debate actually is.

2.2

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

3.0

THE REPLY SPEECH

3.1

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.

3.2

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 debaters team and
work against the opposing team. As a general rule, a Reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with
individual examples probably does not understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good
arguments.

4.0

POINTS OF INFORMATION

4.1

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 make a short point or ask a question that deals with some
issues in the debate (preferably one just made by the debater). It is a formal interjection.

4.2

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.

4.3

The debaters play this role by offering Points 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.

Note:

The winning teams from the previous year may participate in the current year but the text and presentation must
not be an exact replica.
This concept paper is valid until further notification or revision from the Ministry of Education and can be used at
all levels for competitions organized by the Ministry.

LIST OF EXPRESSIONS TO REQUEST, ACCEPT OR DECLINE

POINTS OF INFORMATION
TO REQUEST
i.
Point of Information, please.
ii.
Point of Information.
iii.
P.O.I. please.
iv.
P.O.I
v.
Point.

TO ACCEPT
i.
Yes.
ii.
Yes, please.
iii.
Yes, Sir / Miss.
iv.
Please.
v.
Please go ahead.
vi.
Yes, accepted.

TO DECLINE
i.
No, thank you.
ii.
No, thanks.
iii.
Denied.
iv.
Sorry, Sir / Miss.
v.
Sorry.

If the opponent (during his / her Point (s) of information) is taking too much of your time, you can ask him / her to sit down
if he / she has exceeded the 15 seconds time limit.

You may use these expressions:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Please sit down, Sir / Miss. You are taking too much of my time.
You are taking too much of my time. Please sit down.
Kindly sit down. You have exceeded the time limit for POI.
Your time limit 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.
GLOSSARY
1.
adjudicator

a person called to judge a debate to determine the winner

2.

barracking

to criticize loudly, shout or jeer against a team or debater

3.

case line -

please refer to Stand

4.

clarification

5.

comment sheet-

a sheet where the adjudicators write his / her comments

during the proceedings of the debate

6.

confer

7.

electronic gadgets- electrical items such as computers, handphones, radios,

MP3, digital media players, etc.

8.

harassment

9.

heckling -

to interrupt by taunts

10.

majority vote

11.

marked down -

please refer to the reduction of marks

12.

point(s) of

13.

rebuttal -

to refute or disprove the opponents arguments by offering contrary contentions or arguments

14.

reply speech -

an arena where a debater will sum up the teams arguments and then rebut the
opposing teams major arguments brought up during the debate

15.

reduction of marks- in Parliamentary Style Debate marks are not deducted from a teams or
individuals marks but are reduced

16.

Speaker -

a person who chairs a debate and ensures the smooth running of the proceedings

17.

stand

-from which angle the team is going to argue the case

18.

strategy -

how each team member work together to argue the case

19.

substance -

the arguments presented during the debate

to seek further information or explanation on matters

to discuss and come to a consensus decision

to trouble, torment or confuse by continual persistent

attacks, questions, etc.

the winner is determined by the number of votes given to

the winning team

a formal interjection where the opposing team can ask Information questions, clarify,
make a remark or correct a word or statement

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD

CHALLENGE TROPHY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

TIMING
Role
1st Government
1st Opposition
2nd Government
2nd Opposition
3rd Government
3rd Opposition
Reply Speech
(Opposition)
Reply Speech
(Government)
Timekeepers Name
Signature
Date

Time

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
GOVERNMENT
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
SCORESHEET
SCHOOL/STATE:

ROLE
NAME

TEAM :
ADJUDICATORS

TOPIC :

NAME
FIRST GOVERNMENT
MARKS

SECOND GOVERNMENT

THIRD GOVERNMENT

REPLY SPEECH

26-30

21-25

16-20

11-15

6-10

26-30

21-25

16-20

11-15

6-10

26-30

21-25

16-20

11-15

6-10

14-15

12-13

10-11

8-9

6-7

18-20

15-17

12-14

9-11

6-8

18-20

15-17

12-14

9-11

6-8

18-20

15-17

12-14

9-11

6-8

9-10

7-8

5-6

86100

70-85

5669

4055

2439

86100

7085

5669

4055

2439

86-100

70-85

5669

4055

2439

45-50

3644

3035

2429

1823

SUBSTANCE
(30)
STRATEGY
(30)

MARKS
LANGUAGE
(20)
STYLE
(20)
TOTAL (100)

GRAND TOTAL :
GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION

/350

WINNING TEAM :

ADJUDICATORS NAME :
ADJUDICATORS SIGNATURE :

DATE :

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
OPPOSITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
ADJUDICATORS SCORESHEET
SCHOOL/STATE:

ROLE
NAME

TEAM :

TOPIC :

NAME
FIRST OPPOSITION
MARKS

SECOND OPPOSITION

THIRD OPPOSITION

REPLY SPEECH

26-30

21-25

16-20

11-15

6-10

26-30

21-25

16-20

11-15

6-10

26-30

21-25

16-20

11-15

6-10

14-15

12-13

10-11

8-9

6-7

18-20

15-17

12-14

9-11

6-8

18-20

15-17

12-14

9-11

6-8

18-20

15-17

12-14

9-11

6-8

9-10

7-8

5-6

86100

70-85

5669

4055

2439

86100

7085

5669

4055

2439

86-100

70-85

5669

4055

2439

45-50

3644

3035

2429

1823

SUBSTANCE
(30)
STRATEGY
(30)

MARKS
LANGUAGE
(20)
STYLE
(20)
TOTAL (100)

GRAND TOTAL :
GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION

/350

WINNING TEAM :

ADJUDICATORS NAME :
ADJUDICATORS SIGNATURE :

DATE :

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
REPLY SPEECH
OPPOSITION

GOVERNMENT

REBUTTAL

REBUTTAL

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

ADJUDICATORS NOTES
ST

GOVERNMENT

1ST OPPOSITION

2ND
GOVERNMENT

2ND OPPOSITION

3RD GOVERNMENT

3RD OPPOSITION

NAME :

NAME :

NAME :

NAME :

NAME :

NAME :

POI (INTERJECTED)

POI (INTERJECTED)

POI (INTERJECTED)

POI (INTERJECTED)

POI (INTERJECTED)

POI(INTERJECTED)

POI (ANSWERED)

POI (ANSWERED)

POI (ANSWERED)

POI (ANSWERED)

POI (ANSWERED)

POI(ANSWERED)

Definition:

Defn Agree/Refute
New Definition :

Defn Agree/Refute
Redefine :

Rebut 2nd
Government :

Rebut 2nd
Opposition :

Rebut 3rd
Government :

Rebut 1st Opposition :

Rebut 2nd Government

:

Rebut 1st
Government
Specify Stand :

Specify Stand :

Rebut 1st Opposition :

Rebut 1st
Government :

Specify Role :

Specify Role :

Argument 2 :

Argument 2 :

Argument 1 :

Argument 1 :

Argument 3 :

Argument 3 :

Reaffirm case :

Reaffirm case :

Reaffirm case :

Reaffirm case :

POI

POI

POI

POI

Rebut 1st Government

:

Reaffirm Case :

Reaffirm Case :

POI

IP

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
ELABORATIONS ON ASPECTS OF ADJUDICATION

1.

SUBSTANCE

2.

STRATEGY

3.

Arguments divorced from speaking style

Assess weight of rebuttal
Assess points of argument
Assess weight of argument without influence of oratory

Covers structure and time

Good speech has beginning, middle and ending
Speaking within the time limit
Appropriate amount of time given to issues in the speech
Focus of rebuttal mainly on main issues presented in the debate
Critical issues with weak rebuttal would mean lower score for SUBSTANCE but reasonable marks may be
awarded for STRATEGY because the right arguments were addressed

LANGUAGE
Appropriate expression
Correct sentence structure and grammar
Pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity
Good language and expression appropriately used e.g. idioms and figures of speech

4.

STYLE

Presentation on the way the debaters speak include body language, eye contact and voice modulation. (Be tolerant of
speaking style and speed of delivery)

DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________

RESULT

TEAM

PRELIMINARY / QUARTER FINAL / SEMI FINAL / FINAL

School / State

WINNING
TEAM
BEST DEBATER