2019 Headmaster’s Cup

The 4th SPECTRUM Sponsored Casus Belli Debate Competition

Preliminary Round: December 8, 2019, 10am, UM Bolton
Final Round: December 12, 2019, 4pm, UM Bolton AVR

Rules and Mechanics

1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITIONS

1.1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The Headmaster’s Cup is the SPECTRUM sponsored Casus Belli Debate Competition.
The competition uses the Modified Oregon-Oxford format in accordance with the prescribed
format used during the 2019 IBP Law Week Debate.

1.2 DEFINITIONS

The following terms have the corresponding meanings:

"Tournament Director" refers to the person appointed by SPECTRUM to administer the

motions, pre-debate conferences, and assist the teams in defining the terms of the motions and
set the parameters of the debate.

"Proposition" or “Motion” means the topic for the debate, subject to the definition of terms to
be agreed upon by the parties.

“Coach” means an individual who at any time during the competition has responsibility for
organizing or training a Team.

“House” refers to the year level team, either Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin or Hufflepuff.

"Official Schedule" means the official timetable of the Competition, setting forth all relevant
events and deadlines associated with the competition.

"Rules" means these Official Rules of the Competition and any applicable Rules prescribed by
the Tournament Director.

"Team" means a team of eligible law students recognized by their respective house to compete
in the the Cup.

“The Cup” refers to the 2019 Headmaster’s Cup, Casus Belli debate competition.

1
2. PARTICIPATION AND ELIGIBILITY

2.1. Team Eligibility

(a) All University of Mindanao College of Law (UMCL) students, not expressly
prohibited in the Rules are eligible to join THE CUP;

(b) Each house may enter only one Team.

(c) Any House which utilizes an ineligible Team Member will be disqualified
from the Competition.

2.2. Team Composition and Selection

A Team is composed of three (3) members and one (1) alternate member.

2.2.1. Minimum requirements for Team Member eligibility

A person may be a regular member or alternate member of a Team if he or

she:

(a) Is enrolled at UMCL as a full-time or part-time law student during the

current semester (2nd semester 2019-2020);

(b) Has not been part of a team who has won a final round or
championship of any previous Casus Belli Debate Competition;

(c) Is not a current member of SPECTRUM who has already competed in

any debate tournament/competition inside or outside the school while
enrolled in UMCL;

(d) Be duly classified by the official year level masterlist to belong in the
respective House they will be representing1;

2.2.2. One (1) member of the debate team may be replaced only once during the
duration of the competition. He or she may be replaced if he has severe medical
condition that cannot allow him or her to participate.

2.2.3. The Team Composition and group photo of each team must be submitted to the
SPECTRUM not later than December 8, 2019 via email to Saljoon
([email protected]) .

3. DEBATE MECHANICS

1
We reserve the right to check the name of student submitted with theofficial casus belli masterlist to confirm his or
her year level.

2
3.1. There are two sides (called Affirmative and Negative) and three debaters per side. The
manner of which sides of the teams is through a draw lot.

3.2. Each debater is given two minutes to interpellate (cross-examine) the opposing debater.
Each judge is also allowed to ask one question of each debater.

3.3. There are three (3) arguments on both sides – Necessity, Beneficiality and Practicability.
Each debater has four (4) minutes to deliver a constructive speech, rebut the speaker before him
(except the First speaker of the Affirmative) and discuss his assigned argument.

3.4. The first speakers of each team argue on the necessity (affirmative) or non-necessity
(negative) of the motion. The second speakers of each team argue on the beneficiality, while the
third speakers of each team on practicability (feasibility) of the motion.

3.5. The first affirmative speaker must make the affirmative’s case crystal clear. He must
discuss the status quo (whether they seek to defend it or change it) and why their proposal is
necessary.

3.6. The first negative speaker will be given two minutes to interpellate the first affirmative
speaker. 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 affirmative’s case and/or
establish the negative’s case. He then has four minutes to clash with the points just made by the
first affirmative speaker and to advance his argument that the affirmative’s proposal is not
necessary.

3.7. The first affirmative speaker 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 negative’s case.

3.8. The second affirmative speaker has five 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.

3.9. The second negative speaker then has five 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 affirmative’s proposal. He will then be interpellated by the second
affirmative speaker for two minutes.

3.10. The third affirmative speaker has five 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.

3.11. The third negative speaker will then have two minutes of his time to clash with the
affirmative case and five minutes to deliver his constructive speech on the impracticability of
adopting the affirmative’s proposal. He will then be interpellated by the third affirmative speaker
for two minutes.

3
4. COMPETITION COMMUNICATIONS

4.1. Only oral communications described in this Rules are permitted. In particular, no written
communication or exhibits may be delivered by any Team Member to any judge.

4.2. Written communication during the debate round shall be limited to written
communication among Team Members seated at the table. No other written communication may
take place among the debaters, spectators or Team Members not present at the table.

4.3. During a debate round, debaters at the podium and those seated at the table may not
operate laptop, cell phones, handheld or desktop computers or any other computing device for
any purpose.

5. DEBATE MATCH

5.1 The debate competition shall consist only of two (2) rounds: (1) Knock-out Round; and
(2) Final Round.

5.2. The winners of the two (2) Knock-out matches shall advance to the Final Round.

6. MARKING OF DEBATERS

6.1. There are three (3) evaluation criteria:

Constructive Speech or Matter (40 points),
Persuasive Skills or Manner (30 points), and
Interpellation (30 points).

6.2. 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.

6.3. 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.

6.4. 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.

6.5. 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.

4
6.6. 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.

6.7. 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.

6.8. INTERPELLATION: This refers to the ability to cross-examine 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.

6.9. 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.

7. JUDGES

7.1. There shall be three (3) adjudicators for the two (2) Knock-out matches. Another set of
adjudicators shall judge the Final Round.

7.2. Each adjudicator is allowed to ask ONE categorical question (no follow-ups) of each
debater, either during his speech or as he is being interpellated. The question and response must
fall within the time limits of the speech delivery or interpellation period.

7.3. A Chief Adjudicator will be selected in each panel, whose special function is to rule on
any conflicts that may arise during the debate (e.g. whether or not to allow a disputed line of
questioning). The Chief Adjudicator is also charged with announcing the winner of the debate at
the end of the show. Otherwise, the Chief Adjudicator’s role and the weight of his scores are
equal to those of the other judges. In the event of a tie, the Chief Adjudicator must confer with
his co-adjudicators to break the tie.

8. SCORING OF DEBATE

8.1. The adjudicators score each team based on the evaluation criteria: MATTER (40 points),
MANNER (30 points) and INTERPELLATION (30 points).

8.2. The team with the higher score from each adjudicator garners a vote.

8.3. For the Knock-out Round and Final Round, the team with at least two (2) votes from the
three (3) adjudicators wins the debate round.
9. BEST SPEAKER AND BEST DEBATER

5
9.1. The adjudicators shall choose the Best Speaker and Best Debater from the competing
teams of the Final Round. The adjudicators shall first choose the Best Speaker from the Team
that won the Final Round. Thereafter, they shall choose the Best Debater from the other Final
Round competing Team.

9.2. In the event each adjudicator chooses a different Best Speaker and a different Best
Debater, the Chief Adjudicator must confer with his co-adjudicators to select their Best Speaker
and Best Debater. Their decisions shall be final.
10. Schedule
December 8 – 9am PRE-DEBATE CONFERENCE
December 8 – 10am Preliminary Competition- UM BOLTON
December 12- 4pm finals-UM BOLTON AVR
11. QUERIES
For any inquiries please feel free to contact our Tournament Directors: Saljoon – 0925 745
2806
& Quinn – 0915 310 5378
Or any SPECTRUM member 😊