II - Conflicts of Law Debate
Competition Mechanics
I. General Mechanics
1. Nature of Competition – this will be a debate competition participated by various law schools as invited by the organizers.
2. Debate Format – a modified Oregon-oxford debate format shall be used as discussed in these mechanics.
3. Competition Format – ideally, there will be two (2) elimination rounds which will decide who will advance to the single final round. The number of rounds will be decided based on the number of participating schools. The venues and schedules for the elimination rounds will also be decided by the organizers depending on what is practical.
4. Eligibility – participating law schools can only send their own students of law actually enrolled in their institutions as their representatives.
5. Adjudication – the judges of each round may vary, but must all be agreed upon by the organizers of the competition. There should always be an odd number of judges, with a minimum of three (3), presiding each round
II. Debate Mechanics
1. Debate and Sides: Each round is participated by two teams representing two sides – the Affirmative and Negative – arguing on a topic given to them at least a week before the actual round.
2. Debate Topic: the topic should be given parameters whenever necessary to avoid confusion. Any questions or clarification on the topic should be raised prior the actual debate round.
3. Speakers: Each team is composed of three (3) speakers each. Each speaker will argue a specific aspect of the topic, namely Necessity, Benefits, and Practicality. These terms are meant to be in their general sense, although competitors are free to choose whatever angle, strategy, or approach for these topics.
4. Speech Time: Speakers are given five (5) minutes each to deliver their case. There will be a timer to remind the speaker and audience. During this time, the speaker has the opportunity to argue or rebut the opposing side, in order to contribute to the persuasiveness of their side.
Note: While it is encouraged that debaters arm themselves with information that will evidence their claims when needed, they are however, NOT REQUIRED to present any physical copies of such evidence.
5. Questioning: At any time during the five (5) minute speeches, each of the judges are allowed to ask the speaker one (1) question, during which the timer will be stopped to allow the speaker to address the question. The timer will resume the moment the speaker is allowed to proceed with his or her speech. Should there be more than three (3) judges, the total number of questions asked of a speaker should not exceed three (3).
6. Interpellation: After his or her speech, every speaker will be subjected to a two (2) minute interpellation by their opposing counterpart. Interpellations, in general, should be a form of cross-examination using categorical questions aimed to discredit the claims of the speaker who had just spoken.
III. Judging
1. Burdens of Proof: While burdens of proof are natural to each side, judges must take care not to unfairly impose more burdens against one side than the other. They must decide on the basis of which team was more compelling in delivering their case.
Note: What is “compelling” is based on the criteria given in the score sheet.
2. Criteria: Judges shall be given their own score sheet which uses a simple 30-point system, as follows:
Speech Content (10 points): Is the speaker sensible and logical in supporting his or her claims?
Manner/Delivery (10 points): Did the speaker seem persuasive with his presentation?
Interpellation (10 points): How well did the cross-examiner question the current speaker?
Total: 30 points
Technically, an average score is five (5) points per criteria. So it is expected that an overall average speech will be 15 points.
Note: There is no specific score for the person being interrogated during interpellation, as it is expected that most questions will be brief and categorical. Should a speaker engage his or her cross-examiner well, then it should reflect how well the latter cross-examined.
3. Questions: Judges should aim to keep their questions simple and in either categorical or clarifying form in order to test the speaker’s confidence in his or her claims.
Note: It is highly recommended that judges simply assess the manner in which the speaker responds to the question raised before them. Judges should refrain from arguing with the speaker by issuing a series of follow-up questions, should he or she find the answer unsatisfactory.
4. Panel Composition: There will be a Chief Judge who will be tasked to announce the winners at the end of the round. In case of a tie, the Chief should confer with his or her co-judges to break the tie.
5. Winners: During the elimination rounds, judges need only choose a winner, who will proceed to the final series.
Each speaker is graded individually, but the team that ultimately wins should be the team with the higher overall score than the other. It is not necessary that every speaker in the winner team should have a higher score than all their opponents.
During the Final Series, judges should choose a winner and a best speaker. The Finals Best Speaker is the one who garners the highest individual speaker score during the final round. The best speaker may not necessarily come from the winning team.
IV. Ethics
1. Follow the Rules. Everyone (including the judges) are expected to read these guidelines. Should they be unclear, don’t hesitate to ask the organizers.
2. Research is a must. Only three team members appear during the round, but there is no limit to the number of students who will help them with research and preparation. While teams can consult experts and other sources for their case-building, it is highly discouraged that faculty members and coaches of the participating schools actively and directly intervene in their team’s preparation. This is supposed to be a competition between the students. Should there be a compelling urge to debate among the coaches, perhaps a separate category for them can be made in the future.
Judges should absolutely refrain from assisting any team during preparation. A person who is known to have aided a team in any way will not be allowed to be a judge where that team debates. This, however, does not disallow such judge from presiding in another round for which he or she has not conflict.
3. Enthusiasm during the debate round is highly encouraged, but the debaters must observe mutual courtesy and respect at all times. It goes without showing that debaters must also show respect to the judges, lest they wish to lose.
4. Communication during the debate round should be limited between the debaters only, except when a judge asks a question. They are not allowed to interact or communicate with their researchers or non-debating colleagues in the middle of the round.
5. Accessing Electronic Gadgets during the round is prohibited. Debaters should come to the round prepared. A timer will be provided.
6. Decisions and awarding of the judges are final.
V. Awards
The competition will give the following awards:
Champion: The winning team of the final round.
Finals Best Speaker: The speaker with the highest individual score during the final round.
I. General Mechanics
1. Nature of Competition – this will be a debate competition participated by various law schools as invited by the organizers.
2. Debate Format – a modified Oregon-oxford debate format shall be used as discussed in these mechanics.
3. Competition Format – ideally, there will be two (2) elimination rounds which will decide who will advance to the single final round. The number of rounds will be decided based on the number of participating schools. The venues and schedules for the elimination rounds will also be decided by the organizers depending on what is practical.
4. Eligibility – participating law schools can only send their own students of law actually enrolled in their institutions as their representatives.
5. Adjudication – the judges of each round may vary, but must all be agreed upon by the organizers of the competition. There should always be an odd number of judges, with a minimum of three (3), presiding each round
II. Debate Mechanics
1. Debate and Sides: Each round is participated by two teams representing two sides – the Affirmative and Negative – arguing on a topic given to them at least a week before the actual round.
2. Debate Topic: the topic should be given parameters whenever necessary to avoid confusion. Any questions or clarification on the topic should be raised prior the actual debate round.
3. Speakers: Each team is composed of three (3) speakers each. Each speaker will argue a specific aspect of the topic, namely Necessity, Benefits, and Practicality. These terms are meant to be in their general sense, although competitors are free to choose whatever angle, strategy, or approach for these topics.
4. Speech Time: Speakers are given five (5) minutes each to deliver their case. There will be a timer to remind the speaker and audience. During this time, the speaker has the opportunity to argue or rebut the opposing side, in order to contribute to the persuasiveness of their side.
Note: While it is encouraged that debaters arm themselves with information that will evidence their claims when needed, they are however, NOT REQUIRED to present any physical copies of such evidence.
5. Questioning: At any time during the five (5) minute speeches, each of the judges are allowed to ask the speaker one (1) question, during which the timer will be stopped to allow the speaker to address the question. The timer will resume the moment the speaker is allowed to proceed with his or her speech. Should there be more than three (3) judges, the total number of questions asked of a speaker should not exceed three (3).
6. Interpellation: After his or her speech, every speaker will be subjected to a two (2) minute interpellation by their opposing counterpart. Interpellations, in general, should be a form of cross-examination using categorical questions aimed to discredit the claims of the speaker who had just spoken.
III. Judging
1. Burdens of Proof: While burdens of proof are natural to each side, judges must take care not to unfairly impose more burdens against one side than the other. They must decide on the basis of which team was more compelling in delivering their case.
Note: What is “compelling” is based on the criteria given in the score sheet.
2. Criteria: Judges shall be given their own score sheet which uses a simple 30-point system, as follows:
Speech Content (10 points): Is the speaker sensible and logical in supporting his or her claims?
Manner/Delivery (10 points): Did the speaker seem persuasive with his presentation?
Interpellation (10 points): How well did the cross-examiner question the current speaker?
Total: 30 points
Technically, an average score is five (5) points per criteria. So it is expected that an overall average speech will be 15 points.
Note: There is no specific score for the person being interrogated during interpellation, as it is expected that most questions will be brief and categorical. Should a speaker engage his or her cross-examiner well, then it should reflect how well the latter cross-examined.
3. Questions: Judges should aim to keep their questions simple and in either categorical or clarifying form in order to test the speaker’s confidence in his or her claims.
Note: It is highly recommended that judges simply assess the manner in which the speaker responds to the question raised before them. Judges should refrain from arguing with the speaker by issuing a series of follow-up questions, should he or she find the answer unsatisfactory.
4. Panel Composition: There will be a Chief Judge who will be tasked to announce the winners at the end of the round. In case of a tie, the Chief should confer with his or her co-judges to break the tie.
5. Winners: During the elimination rounds, judges need only choose a winner, who will proceed to the final series.
Each speaker is graded individually, but the team that ultimately wins should be the team with the higher overall score than the other. It is not necessary that every speaker in the winner team should have a higher score than all their opponents.
During the Final Series, judges should choose a winner and a best speaker. The Finals Best Speaker is the one who garners the highest individual speaker score during the final round. The best speaker may not necessarily come from the winning team.
IV. Ethics
1. Follow the Rules. Everyone (including the judges) are expected to read these guidelines. Should they be unclear, don’t hesitate to ask the organizers.
2. Research is a must. Only three team members appear during the round, but there is no limit to the number of students who will help them with research and preparation. While teams can consult experts and other sources for their case-building, it is highly discouraged that faculty members and coaches of the participating schools actively and directly intervene in their team’s preparation. This is supposed to be a competition between the students. Should there be a compelling urge to debate among the coaches, perhaps a separate category for them can be made in the future.
Judges should absolutely refrain from assisting any team during preparation. A person who is known to have aided a team in any way will not be allowed to be a judge where that team debates. This, however, does not disallow such judge from presiding in another round for which he or she has not conflict.
3. Enthusiasm during the debate round is highly encouraged, but the debaters must observe mutual courtesy and respect at all times. It goes without showing that debaters must also show respect to the judges, lest they wish to lose.
4. Communication during the debate round should be limited between the debaters only, except when a judge asks a question. They are not allowed to interact or communicate with their researchers or non-debating colleagues in the middle of the round.
5. Accessing Electronic Gadgets during the round is prohibited. Debaters should come to the round prepared. A timer will be provided.
6. Decisions and awarding of the judges are final.
V. Awards
The competition will give the following awards:
Champion: The winning team of the final round.
Finals Best Speaker: The speaker with the highest individual score during the final round.
No comments:
Post a Comment