PROGRAMME

6:00
I.

REGISTRATION
National Anthem

II.

Opening Prayer

III.

Opening Remarks

IV.

Introduction of the Adjudicators

Rae Gammad

V.

Introduction of the Participants

Patrick Go

VI.

Rev. Fr. Ramil Esplana

Dr. Rey Oliver Alejandrino

Reading of the Debate Mechanics

VII.

Introduction of the Arbiter

VIII.

Debate Proper

IX.

Raffle

X.

Awarding of Certificate of Recognition

XI.

Announcement of Winner

XII.

Closing Prayer

Rae Gammad

Patrick Go & Rae Gammad

Master of Ceremony

Debate Mechanics

 There are two sides (called Affirmative and Negative) and three
debaters per side. The motion is announced a week before the debate.
The teams agree on the definition of terms and the parameters of the
debate on the same date the sides are chosen and the motion is given.
The burden of proof, while real, is much less significant in this debate
format. Because here, there are two cases on the floor The most
compelling case wins. The affirmative does not carry a significant
burden. Each debater is given two minutes to interpellate (crossexamine) the opposing debater. Each judge is also allowed to ask one
question for each debater.
There are three (3) arguments on both sides Necessity, Beneficiality,
Practicability. Each debater has four (4) minutes to deliver a
constructive speech, rebut the speaker before him) and discuss his
assigned argument.
The first speakers argue on the necessity (affirmative) or non-necessity
(negative) of the motion. The second speakers on beneficiality and the
third speakers on practicability (feasibility) of the motion.
The first affirmative speaker must make the affirmatives case crystal
clear. He must discuss the status quo (whether they seek to defend it
or change it) and why their proposal is necessary.
The first negative speaker will be given two minutes to interpellate the
first affirmative. He must only ask categorical questions (answerable
by yes or no) and arrange these questions in a cross-examination style
to establish the weakness of the affirmatives case and/or establish the
negatives case.
He then has four minutes to clash with the points just made by the first
affirmative and to advance his argument that the affirmatives proposal
is not necessary.
The first affirmative will then have two minutes to interpellate the first
negative speaker (also asking only categorical questions). He may use
this opportunity to rebuild his case and/or destroy the negatives case.
The second affirmative has four minutes to clash with the opposition
case and to deliver his constructive speech on the benefits of adopting
their proposal. He will then be interpellated by the second negative
speaker for two minutes.

 The second negative speaker then has four minutes of his time to
divide between clashing with the affirmative case and delivering his
constructive speech on the repercussions or harmful effects of
adopting the affirmatives proposal. He will then be interpellated by the
second affirmative speaker for two minutes.
The third affirmative has four minutes to clash with the opposition case
and to deliver his constructive speech on the feasibility of adopting
their proposal. He will then be interpellated by the third negative
speaker for two minutes.
The third negative speaker will then have two minutes of his time to
clash with the affirmative case and to deliver his constructive speech
on the impracticability of adopting the affirmatives proposal. He will
then be interpellated by the third affirmative speaker for two minutes.

MARKING OF DEBATERS

There are four evaluation criteria: Constructive Speech or Matter (40

points), Persuasive Skills or Manner (30 points), Interpellation (30
points).
o MATTER: The Matter mark is scored as if the speech was
submitted in essay form. It has everything to do with logic,
preparation, arguments, evidence cited, and analytic skill. It has
nothing to do with the presentation.
Teams are required to conduct research and prepare their
speeches. The formula is ARGUMENT + EVIDENCE =
PROOF. An argument without citing an evidence to support
the same is a mere assertion and does not merit any
consideration.
As law students, the debaters are expected to use
provisions of law and relevant jurisprudence in support of
their arguments. Judges should also consider the quality of
each argument and the relevance of the cited authorities.
o MANNER: Manner or Presentation is marked out of a possible
30 points and judged from a purely public speaking perspective:
How did the debater actually deliver the speech? Was the tone

correct? The rate of speech? The pitch? The pauses? The eye
contact? The confidence? Etc.
Clarity and organization. Judges should listen to the debate
as an average reasonable person with an understanding of
the law. The ability of the debater to convey his/her ideas
in a clear manner and with facility of expression are to be
considered.
The use of humor, the manner of delivery, eye contact,
voice, posture, and the ability of the debater to convince
an audience, are some of the elements within the purview
of the Manner criterion.
o INTERPELLATION:
This refers to the ability to crossexamine the opposing debater. This refers to the success the
debater has in clashing with the arguments of the opposing
team. Has he thoroughly understood the presented arguments
and
have
they
responded
effectively,
logically
and
comprehensively in refutation.
o This also includes courtesy and compliance with the rules.
Judges should take note of how a debater asks his
questions, the logical sequence of these questions, and
their relevance. Debaters are advised to ask only
categorical questions (i.e., those answerable by yes or no);
otherwise broad questions (i.e., how or why questions) will
elicit long explanations and sordid answers. Each debater
is allowed two (2) minutes each to conduct his/her
interpellation.

MARKING OF DEBATERS

CRITERIA
Matter
logic, preparation,
arguments,
evidence
cited,
and analytic skill
ARGUMENT
+
EVIDENCE
=
PROOF
use provisions of
law and relevant
jurisprudence
in
support of their
arguments
Manner
deliver
the
speech; tone; rate
of speech; pitch;
pauses;
eye
contact;
confidence
Clarity
and
organization
ability
of
the
debater
to
convince
an
audience

Required Score

40%

30%

Judges Score

Interpellation
ability to crossexamine
the
opposing debater
how
a
debater
asks his questions,
the
logical
sequence of these
questions,
and
their relevance
TOTAL SCORE

30%

CURRICULUM VITAE

I-

Biographic Profile

II-

Professional Qualification

III-

Educational Attainment

IV-

Organizational Affiliation