ホーム > English

English

Rulebook

Tournament Rules

Download (MS Word):

Tournament rules in English: HEnDA-Rule2018Eng.docx

大会ルール(日本語)HEnDA-Rule2018Jpn.docx

 

The 13th National High School English Debate Tournament

Tournament Rulebook

 

All Japan High School English Debate Association (HEnDA)

Judging Committee

 

         This tournament will have high school students attending from various prefectures all over Japan, which means, many styles of debates will have to compete on a common ground. The purpose of this tournament rulebook is to set up a minimum common field of debating; a common field that will realize a fair, educationally fruitful tournament, and will, most importantly, show the students the joys of English debating.

         Some of the rules here are for tournament management purposes, so it is not necessary to read through all of the statutes in this rulebook. However, we’d like the students, their coaches and judges to look through relevant rules before attending the tournament. Topics of importance are framed so please pay extra attention to them. Further comments are provided after the asterisks (*).

         This rulebook provides only minimum requirements for debating. Lack of direct prohibitions does not mean you are allowed to do anything else. Needless to say, students should behave in a morally appropriate manner for a high school student, according to the “HEnDA Make Friends Pledge”. At all times, we expect students and teachers to show the spirit of fair play.  

         If something irregular happens during the tournament, which has no corresponding statute in this rulebook, final decision will be up to the Judging Committee and the Tournament Organizer. In case of such irregularities, all participants will be notified as soon as possible.

 

 

NB: If in any case there are discrepancies among the Japanese and the English version of this rulebook, basically the Japanese version will be used to organize the tournament.

 

 

  1. Procedures of the Tournament. 2

1.1 Preliminary Rounds. 2

1.2 The Finals. 3

1.3 Awards. 4

1.4 Team and its Members. 4

  1. Procedure of the Rounds. 5

2.1 Speeches. 5

2.2 Management of each Round. 9

  1. EVIDENCE. 11

3.1 The definition of Evidence. 11

3.2 The Quotations of Evidence in the Debate. 12

  1. Judges and Judging. 13

4.1 Supervising the debate round speeches. 13

4.2 Judging. 14

4.3 Rating the Communication Points. 15

 

 

1. Procedures of the Tournament

In this tournament, maximum of 64 teams will compete in the 5 preliminary rounds. Then according to the following criteria, top eight teams will be selected for the finals: Quarterfinals, Semifinals and the Final. Winners will be awarded by the results of the final.

 

 

1.1 Preliminary Rounds

         Each team will have 5 rounds in the preliminary rounds. From the 1st to the 4th round, the team will basically have 2 rounds arguing on the Affirmative side, and 2 rounds arguing on the Negative side. (Exception may happen only when there will be bye rounds.) The side in the 5th will be allocated randomly.

 

*The team that debated on the Aff. side in an odd number round will basically debate on the Neg. side on the next round, vice versa.

 

1.1.1 Management of preliminary rounds       

         During the preliminary rounds, teams will not debate each other more than once, and teams from the same prefecture will basically not match against each other.

         The Tournament Organizer will decide who the 1st and 2nd round opponents are by lottery. From the 3rd to the 5th round, matches will be allotted according to the results of the previous rounds, using the Power-pairing system. This Power-pairing system basically matches teams that won the same number of votes.

         In this system, we will adopt the so-called “high-low” rule, in which if several teams have the same number of votes, the team that is higher in rank among the group with the same votes, will be matched against the lower team in the same group.

         Each preliminary round will have two judges. The two judges will decide the winner independently and will vote separately. Each judges’ vote has equal value. (If the judges’ votes split, the round will be virtually a “tie”)

 

* The teams that debate on the Aff. side in the 1st round, will basically be the winners of the regional block tournaments and prefectural tournaments that were the most competitive.

            The Power-pairing system is employed so that the winner is not decided by sheer luck. Moreover, it will decrease the number of schools that win all or no rounds. Furthermore, teams of supposed equal debating skills will have more chance to face each other, enabling more enjoyable debates for all who are involved. This system is often used in debating at universities in both Japan and the USA.

            In some rare cases, the teams that have not won the same number of wins may be matched, for the sake of other tournament requirements: the number of Affirmative/Negative rounds each team should debate on should be the same, opponent of the previous rounds will not be matched again, and teams from the same school will not have a match against each other.

 

1.1.2 Criteria for deciding the finalists           

         The top eight teams who advance to the final rounds will be decided by the following criteria:

.

The 1st criterion: Teams who won the most votes will be in the upper ranking; this would include the team who received a bye round.

The 2nd criterion: For each team, the total number of votes of the opponent teams will be totaled. Among the teams with the same number of votes, the team with the higher total opponent votes will be in the upper ranking. If in case the team or its opponent has received a bye round, the total number will be modified according to the team’s average vote rate.

The 3rd criterion: If both the number of votes and the total opponent votes are the same, the team getting the higher average communication points (average not including the “bye round”) will go to the upper rankings.

The 4th criterion: If the above three criteria are all same, the teams which get the more ‘best debater awards’ on average (average not including the “bye round”) will go to the upper ranking.

The 5th criterion: If the above four criteria are all same, the student leaders of the tied teams will be required to do a “Janken” (Rock, Scissor, Paper) in front of the judges. The winner of the Janken will be ranked higher among the tied teams.

 

1.1.3 Late or absent for the preliminary

         In case that a team is late for their first preliminary round because of an unavoidable accident, for example sickness or traffic accident, the Tournament Organizer and the Judging Committee will decide whether it is appropriate to give them one or two defeats, or to reschedule the match. If the team is late for other reasons, the team cannot participate in the whole preliminary rounds. 

 

1.1.4 Prohibition of forfeiting the rounds

         Teams are not allowed to forfeit any of their preliminary rounds, except for the aforementioned reasons. If a team forfeits a round, the team will be regarded as forfeiting the qualification for the finals.

 

*Forfeiting a round is not permitted, as it will not only deprive the opponent’s chance to debate, but also it may be used for some intentional manipulation or rankings.

 

1.1.5 Exceptions for deciding the finalists

         The top 8 teams will be decided excluding the forfeited teams due to some above mentioned exceptions.

         If the judging committee ruled that a team has maliciously cheated against the tournament rules, such as forging the team membership enrollment, distorting the evidence that are used in a round, or a team has behaved in apparently unbecoming manners for high school students, the team will be disqualified and will not be qualified for the finals.

 

1.1.6 Supplementary Team

         If the total number of participating teams in the preliminary rounds is an odd number, because of some unexpected cancels, the Tournament Organizer will let a Supplementary team participate in the preliminary rounds. Exceptionally, the Supplementary team can be from a school which has another participating team. In the Preliminary rounds, the Supplementary team will be treated as the same as other teams, and will match against other teams regularly (except against the team from the same school) and its wins and loses will be counted when deciding the matching and the finalists.

         However, the Supplementary team will not proceed to the finals, regardless of its ranking. The top 8 teams will be chosen from the teams excluding the Supplementary team.

         The Supplementary team rule will not be applied when the total number of teams become an odd number (for some unexpected reason) after the preliminary rounds have started. If in rare occasions, when the total number of teams including the Supplementary team changed to an odd number, the Supplementary team will continue participating until the end of the preliminary rounds and no additional teams will participate.

 

 

1.2 The Finals

         The qualified 8 teams will debate in the finals, which consist of quarterfinals, semifinals, and the final round. The finals will be single elimination, which means that if a team loses a round, their tournament is over and they will not move on to the next stage.

 

1.2.1 Management of the final rounds              

         The 8 teams will be matched according to their preliminary round results. The following chart shows how the finals will be assigned.

         In the finals, teams that have debated each other in the preliminaries may face each other again. Teams from the same prefecture may also face each other.

         In the finals, the Affirmative and Negative side will be decided as follows: Both teams will count how many times they have debated on the Affirmative side so far (including both the Finals and the prelims). The team with less Affirmative side debates will be the next Affirmative. If both teams have had equal number of past Affirmative side debates, then the student leaders of both teams will do a “Janken” (Rock, Scissor, Paper) in front of the officials at the designated room. The winner team of the Janken will debate on the Affirmative side.

 

 

Preliminary

1st

 

 

 

3rd

 

 

8th

 

Final

 

6th

Semi-

 

5th

Finals

 

 

7th

 

 

 

4th

 

 

 

2nd

 

 

 

 

         The team that won the final round will be the winner of this tournament. The one that lost will be 2nd place. The two teams that lost in the semifinals will share the 3rd place prize. There will be no 3rd place play-off.

 

*From the 10th tournament, this rule was changed concerning how to determine the Affirmative and Negative side. If the Janken takes place, the winner will automatically be the Affirmative (The winner cannot pick the sides.)

 

1.2.2 Prohibition of forfeiting the finals

         Forfeiting the finals intentionally is prohibited. After the announcement of the 8 qualified teams, if, exceptionally for any reason, a team is unable to partake in its assigned round, that team will be considered forfeited and may not continue. In such case, the match assignment will not be changed, and no additional team will be qualified to take the absent team’s place. The assigned opposing team will just be declared the winner and the tournament procedure will proceed without any other change.

 

*To watch each round in the finals is a very beneficial chance to study debate. Thus, abandoning the finals is not allowed, unless something unexpected like sickness made it impossible for a team to participate in the debate.

 

 

1.3 Awards

         In this tournament, the 1st prize, 2nd prize, and 3rd prizes (two teams) are awarded to the top teams decided by the above tournament procedures. Beside team awards, Best Debater/ Best Speaker awards and others are given to excellent individuals.

 

 

1.3.1 Excellent Debater / Excellent Speaker Awards

         As for Individual awards: The “Most Excellent Debater” award, “Excellent Debater” awards will be presented. Also “Most Excellent Speaker” award, and “Excellent Speaker” awards will be presented to the best speakers of each of the four speech types.

         In every preliminary and the final rounds, each judge must (independently, without discussing with other judges) vote for one debater as the candidate of the best debater award in that specific round. Judges may choose from either the winning or losing team. Judges should pick a debater that has contributed most to her/his team, not the lone player type who just shows off without contributing to the team. The excellent debater awards are awarded to the debaters with the highest number of accumulated votes from the judges. All votes from the preliminaries to the Final round are counted. If the votes are equal, the debater from the team with better final result will be awarded.

         The excellent speaker awards will be decided after the 5th preliminary round. Recommendations from the main judges are collected, and the most recommended speakers from each speech type will be awarded. If the votes are equal, the debater from the team with better preliminary rounds’ result will be awarded.

 

1.3.2 Special prizes

         Judging Committee and the Tournament Organizer may decide to offer special prizes to teams/individuals. Some special prizes may be awarded regardless of the results of the tournament. In such case, reasons for the special prize will be announced.

 

 

1.4 Team and its Members

         The unit of competition of this tournament’s preliminary and the final rounds should be a team which consists of the students who belong to the same high school or high technical college in Japan, ranging from 1st to 3rd graders. Only one team is allowed to participate from a school. Plural team entry from one school will be allowed only exceptionally (on conditions that the total team number may be odd), and will be decided by the HEnDA committee.

         All members of the team and its coaches should read the “HEnDA Make Friends” Pledge beforehand, and obey the Pledge.

 

 

1.4.1 Team member lineup and restrictions

         A team should consist of 4 or 6 enrolled members. A team with only 3 members is not allowed. (Only for unavoidable accidental reason, such as enrolled member’s sickness, the tournament organizer may allow a 3 member team, but only very exceptionally).

         Each team member should meet the condition below.

– English native speakers are not allowed to participate in this tournament.

– To whom one or more of the following conditions apply, only two members are allowed to participate in each team. (Only one such member in a round)

(1) A student with more than 12 months experience staying in a country where the first language is English. (If the stay is before entering primary school, the stay need not be counted)

(2) A student from countries where English is not the mother language, but is one of the official languages. (If the student left the country before entering primary school, the stay need not be counted)

(3) A student who mainly uses English at home.

 

* The tournament basically does not allow a team with only 3 members. Exchange students would be allowed to participate in the debate if he/she doesn’t come from an English speaking country.

 

1.4.2 Team members of each round and restrictions      

         4 members out of the enrolled members should attend each round. (Exceptionally, only when the tournament organizer allowed a 3 member team, the number of members in each round will be 3).    The teams are allowed to change its members in each round. But members cannot switch to the substitute member after the round has started.

    To whom one or more of the following conditions apply, only one member can participate in each round.

(1) A student with more than 12 months experience staying in a country where the first language is English. (If the stay is before entering primary school, the stay need not be counted)

(2) A student from countries where English is not the mother language, but is one of the official languages. (If the student left the country before entering primary school, the stay need not be counted)

(3) A student who mainly uses English at home.

 

 

1.4.3 The prohibition of changing members or teams

         Basically, each team is not allowed to change its members after the preliminary round enrollment. Even if a school has more than one team, there should be no change in the membership among the teams. 

 

*After the tournament starts, even between the teams that are from the same school, teams cannot add the members of the already forfeited teams.

 

1.4.4 Penalty against noncooperation or forged enrollment        

         Teams and their coaches (or accompanying judges) are required to cooperate to the instructions of the tournament organizer. If the team or its coaches (or its accompanying judge) violate the instructions, or if any violation of the rules 1.4.1 ~ 1.4.3 were found during the tournament, the team will be penalized. If the violation was judged as malignant, such as intentionally sabotaging the instructions or forging the information, all matches that the team partook will be considered as being defeated, and further participation to the rounds will not be permitted and lose the chance to be qualified to the finals. If violations were found after the tournament, any awards given will be cancelled and prizes must be returned.

 

2. Procedure of the Rounds

         In each round in the preliminaries and the finals, each team should debate on the tournament debate topic, using the following debate format.

 

*Each team must refer to the document that defines this year’s debate topic.

 

2.1 Speeches

         Each round should have the following twelve speeches, using the following debate format. Each team member must follow the speech role defined in the below guidance, and should try to clash her/his arguments with the opponent’s arguments, by making speeches that are easy to follow.

 

Speech

Time

(1) Affirmative Constructive Speech

4min

Preparation Time

1 min

(2) Questions from the Negative

2 min

(3) Negative Constructive Speech

4 min

   Preparation Time

1 min

(4) Questions from the Affirmative

2 min

Preparation Time

2 min

(5) Negative Attack

3 min

(6) Questions from the Affirmative

2 min

(7) Affirmative Attack

3 min

(8) Questions from the Negative

2 min

    Preparation Time

2 min

(9) Affirmative Defense

3 min

(10) Negative Defense

3 min

   Preparation Time

2 min

(11) Affirmative Summary

3 min

(12) Negative Summary

3 min

Total

42 min

 

* The speech time was revised on the last 9th tournament: Attack/Defense speeches were extended and Questions for the constructive speeches were shorten.

The guidance below may not cover all aspects of debate. The debaters should try to make clear, convincing, and creative arguments that are adequate for a high school student.

 

2.1.1 Affirmative Constructive Speech (1)

In the Affirmative Constructive Speech, the Affirmative team should clearly state their basic standpoints on why the debate topic should be affirmed; clearly defining the topic by showing a plan, and showing evidence to prove the Advantages of the plan.

 

2.1.1.1 Affirmative Plan

         A “Plan” is what the Affirmative side proposes as their definition of the topic and their concrete policy. The Affirmative team may propose a Plan at the beginning of the Affirmative Constructive speech, as long as the official definition of the tournament debate topic allows.

         To add or change the plan after the Constructive speech is forbidden.

         If in any case, the Affirmative side did not propose any plans in the Affirmative Constructive speech, the judges will assume that the Affirmative side is supporting a vague standpoint with a minimum Plan action related to the tournament topic.

 

* If you have a plan, please propose that at the beginning of the Affirmative Constructive speech. By clearly explaining the Plan, it will help the judges and the Negative team clearly understand the standpoints of the Affirmative team. This will make the Affirmative side easier to prove why the Advantages will be gained.

 

2.1.1.2 Prohibition of presenting Plans that are irrelevant to the topic

         The Affirmative side is not allowed to propose Plans that are irrelevant to the tournament topic. Apparently irrelevant plans will be ignored by the judges, and so will be the Advantages that stem from them.

 

* Each team must refer to the document that defines this year’s debate topic.

 

2.1.1.3 Limits of the number of Advantages. Proving an Advantage

         The number of the Advantages that can be presented is, at the most two.

         To prove that the Plan has a certain Advantage, the following three sub points should be provided objectively with evidence.

  1. A) “Present situation”: Why the present situation, without the plan, is undesirable.
  2. B) “Effect”: Why the Advantage will be gained by the effect of the plan.
  3. C) “Importance”: How much value this Advantage will bring.

         If two independent issues are within the seemingly one Advantage, the issues should be divided and treated individually as separate Advantages. Even if a team presents seemingly only two Advantages in their Constructive speech, but actually there are more than two implicit Advantages, the judges will ignore all except the two main Advantages mentioned in the Constructive speech.  

 

* This limit aims to help debaters omit trivial issues, and focus their debate on the most probable issues.

            Alternative English expressions for the analysis of the A) “Present situation” are “inherency” or “necessity”. For B) “Effect”, expressions such as “solvency” or causal “process” are also used. For C) “Importance”, expressions such as “significance” or “impact” are also used. In any case, to prove all three sub points are strongly recommended.

 

2.1.2. Negative Constructive Speech (3)

         In the Negative Constructive Speech, the Negative team’s main task is to clarify their basic standpoints on why the debate topic should be negated; clearly proving the Disadvantages of the Affirmative plan.

 

2.1.2.1 Limits of the number of Disadvantages. Proving a Disadvantage

         The number of the Disadvantages that can be presented is, at the most two.

         To prove that the Affirmative Plan has a certain Disadvantage, the following three sub points should be provided objectively with evidence.

  1. A) “Present situation”: Why the present situation, without the plan, is desirable.
  2. B) “Effect”: Why the Disadvantage will be caused by the effect of the plan.
  3. C) “Importance”: How much (negative) value this Disadvantage has.

         If two independent issues are within the seemingly one Disadvantage, the issues should be divided and treated individually as separate Disadvantages. Even if a team presents seemingly only two Disadvantages in their Constructive speech, but actually there are more than two implicit Disadvantages, the judges will ignore all except the two main Disadvantages mentioned in the Constructive speech.  

 

* This limit aims to help debaters omit trivial issues, and focus their debate on the most probable issues.

            Alternative English expression for the analysis of the A) “Present situation” is “uniqueness”. For B) “Effect”, expressions such as “link” or causal “process” are also used. For “Importance”, expressions such as “significance” or “impact” are also used. In any case, to prove all three sub points are strongly recommended.

 

2.1.2.2 Division of labor between the Negative Constructive and the Negative Attack speeches.

         In the Negative Constructive speech, the Negative side should spend their time proving the Disadvantages which will come from the Affirmative plan. Only if the Negative side has so much extra time in their Constructive speech, they may attack the defects of the Affirmative proofs of Advantages.

 

*Arguments such as, ‘The Plan will not meet the Advantage” or “The Plan is not necessary,” are basically issues that the Negative Attack speaker should raise. The Constructive Speech is the only chance the team can add a Disadvantage. Strategically it is better to present the Disadvantages properly, and leave the attacks to the Attack speaker.

 

2.1.3 Negative Attack (5)

         The role of the Negative Attack speech is to attack the fallacies in the Affirmative team’s proofs of the Advantages. For example,

(1) Even without the plan, the claimed Advantage can be gained, so the Plan is not necessary. (Attack to the analysis of the present situation)

(2) The Advantage can not be expected to be caused by the Plan’s effect. The Plan will not solve the present problem. (“No effect”: attack to the effect of the plan)

(3) The Advantage doesn’t have any objective value. (“Not important”: Attack to the importance)

         The Negative side is not allowed to introduce new Disadvantages in this speech. If a new Disadvantage (or Disadvantage disguised as attacks) was introduced in the Attack speech, Judges should ignore the newly added Disadvantage.

 

*In some cases it is difficult to draw a clear line between “attacks” and “Disadvantages”. For example, arguments like “It costs a lot to carry out their plan” are in fact Disadvantages, so it shouldn’t be mentioned in the Attack speech. However, “The Plan cannot solve the problem effectively, because the Government is technically unable to spend the cost that much” may be a valid attack on the Advantage.

            Arguments to counter a specific Affirmative Advantage mentioning “Things mentioned will rather be worse” (Some time called “Case Flip” arguments, or just “Flip” arguments) should be presented in the Constructive Speech. However, to attack and turn only the “importance” of the Affirmative Advantage by arguments showing that “the value mentioned is not good, rather it is bad” is a valid attack (called “Value Turn”).

 

2.1.4 Affirmative Attack (7)

         The role of the Affirmative Attack speech is to attack the fallacies in the Negative team’s proofs of the Disadvantages. For example,

(1) Even without the plan, the situation similar to the Disadvantage will happen, so the Disadvantage is not unique to the plan. (Attack to the analysis of the present situation)

(2) The Disadvantage can not be expected to be caused by the Plan’s effect. (“No effect” or “No link”. Attack to the effect of the plan)

(3) The Disadvantage does not have any objective negative value. (“Not important”: Attack to the importance)

         The Affirmative Attack speaker is not allowed to refute the attacks of Negative Attack speech. Such rebuttal should be done in the Defense speech. If such hasty rebuttals are apparently seen, Judges should ignore them. Only when the Negative Constructive speech contains attacks to the Affirmative Advantages, the Affirmative Attack speaker is allowed to refute to the attacks in the Constructive speech.

         The Affirmative side is not allowed to introduce new Advantages in this speech. If a new Advantage (or Advantage disguised as attacks) was introduced in the Attack speech, Judges should ignore the newly added Advantage.

 

*Arguments to counter a specific Negative Disadvantage mentioning “Things mentioned will rather be better” (Some time called “link turn” arguments) should have been presented in the Constructive Speech. However, to attack and turn only the “importance” of the Negative Disadvantage by arguments showing that “the value mentioned is not bad, rather it is good” is a valid attack (called “Value Turn”).

 

2.1.5 Affirmative Defense (9)

         The role of the Affirmative Defense is to defend (counter-refute) against the Negative Attack’s refutations, and at the same time, re-prove (“reconstruct”) the Affirmative Advantages that they will surely be gained from the Plan proposed in the Constructive Speech.

         The Defense speech should concentrate on being defensive: Basically the Defense should only nullify the Negative Attacks provided against the Advantages in the Affirmative Constructive speech. However, needless to say, if the opponent did not attack the Advantages, the Affirmative side may explain and emphasize their issues again.

         In this speech, it is not allowed to add new Plans or arguments equivalent to new Advantages. Also, it is not allowed to add new attacks against the Negative Constructive speech. Such new Plans, Advantages, or attacks should be ignored by the judges as “New Arguments”.

         Unless it is a new direct attack, the Defense speech can add some points concerning the comparison of already presented arguments.

 

*For example, it is permitted to refute like “The importance of Advantages presented in the Constructive speech, outweighs that of the Disadvantages presented in the Negative Constructive speech”, because this is not itself an attack to the importance of Disadvantages. Moreover, such defense provides an effective comparison. This is, so to say, an indirect attack, and will contribute to the final Summary speech, hence rather recommended.

 

 

2.1.6 Negative Defense (10)

         The role of the Negative Defense is to defend (counter-refute) against the Affirmative Attack’s refutations, and at the same time, re-prove (“reconstruct”) the Negative Disadvantages that were presented in the Constructive Speech, that they will surely be caused by the Affirmative Plan.

         The Defense speech should concentrate on being defensive: Basically the Defense should only nullify the Affirmative Attacks provided against the Disadvantages in the Negative Constructive speech. However, needless to say, if the opponent did not attack the Disadvantages, the Negative side may explain and emphasize their issues again.

         In this speech, it is not allowed to add arguments equivalent to new Disadvantages. Also, it is not allowed to add new attacks against the Negative Constructive speech. Moreover, it is not allowed to re-counter-refute against the Affirmative Defense speech which comes directly before this speech. Such new Disadvantages, attacks, or re-counter-refutations should be ignored by the judges as “New Arguments”.

         Unless it is a new direct attack, the Defense speech can add some points concerning the comparison of already presented arguments.

 

* Re-counter-refutations against the Affirmative Defense speech should be done in the Negative Summary speech if necessary.

            It is permitted, for example, to refute like “The importance of Disadvantages presented in the Constructive speech, outweighs that of the Advantages presented in the Affirmative Constructive speech”, because this is not itself an attack to the importance of Advantages. Moreover, such defense provides an effective comparison. This is, so to say, an indirect attack, and will contribute to the final Summary speech, hence rather recommended.

 

2.1.7 Affirmative Summary (11)

         The role of the Affirmative Summary is to show that the Affirmative issues outweigh those of the Negative, by summarizing the issues, with the refutations and re-refutations on them, considering both the 1) Negative Disadvantages and 2) Affirmative Advantages, and then 3) finally to compare both arguments in sum.

         Here again, it is not allowed to add new Plans or equivalents of Advantages. Also, it is not allowed to add new attacks against the Negative Constructive speech. Such new Plans, Advantages, or attacks should be ignored by the judges as “New Arguments”.

         However, it is permitted to show microscopic comparison of conflicting evidence (for example, re-counter-refutations against the Negative Defense), or macroscopic comparison concerning the whole debate.

 

*For example, it is very crucial and strongly recommended to show some value criteria to resolve that the Advantages outweigh the Disadvantages.

            It is not permitted to attack the Disadvantages that were not attacked in the Affirmative Attack. But macroscopic comparison is still allowed, such as “Even if we grant on their Disadvantage argument, it still would never outweigh our Advantages.”

 

2.1.8 Negative Summary (12)

         The role of the Negative Summary is to show that the Negative issues outweigh those of the Affirmative, by summarizing the issues, with the refutations and re-refutations on them, considering both the 1) Affirmative Advantages and 2) Negative Disadvantages, and then 3) finally to compare both arguments in sum.

         Here again, it is not allowed to add new equivalents of Disadvantages. Also, it is not allowed to add new attacks against the Affirmative Constructive speech. Such new Disadvantages or attacks should be ignored by the judges as “New Arguments”.

         However, it is permitted to show microscopic comparison of conflicting evidence (for example, re-counter-refutations against the Affirmative Defense), or macroscopic comparison concerning the whole debate.

 

*For example, it is very crucial and strongly recommended to show some value criteria to resolve that the Disadvantages outweigh the Advantages.

            It is not permitted to attack the Advantages that were not attacked in the Negative Attack. But macroscopic comparison is still allowed, such as “Even if we grant on their Advantage argument, it still would never outweigh our Disadvantages.”

 

2.1.9 Questions and Answers (2) (4) (6) (8)

         In the Questions and Answers sections, the questioner directly converse with the answerer. The questioner must ask questions on the opponent’s last speech, using interrogative sentences. The questions can either be 1) confirmations on ambiguous point, or 2) examinations of arguments or evidence. The answerer is expected to give speedy and precise answers. In the Questions and Answers section, the questioner team has the right to proceed. Which means, the questioner can move on to the next question if the answerer is taking too much time to answer, or the answers does not correspond to the question.

              In the Q & A sessions (6) and (8) after the Attack speeches, basically the questions should be against the opponent’s Attack speech. However if, for example, some contradiction between the Attack and the Constructive speeches are found, questions regarding the Constructive speech are allowed.

 

*In case the questioner has to interrupt the opponent’s answer and move on to the next question, it is required for the questioner to be polite and making proper excuses to the answerer.. For example, if the opponent is still answering, the questioner should say politely, “Thank you for your answer, but I must ask another question now.” Also, in case the answerer remains silent, the questioner should ask politely, “Excuse me, but I must move on to the next question”

 

2.1.10 Speed and comprehensiveness of Speeches

Debaters should make speeches that is easy to follow for the judges: they should speak loud enough, care for the intonations, slow down and pause adequately. Especially, debaters should speak in an easy to follow speed. The speech speed in average should not exceed 150 words per minute. Thus the Constructive speeches should be maximum 600 words long. Debaters should observe the judges’ gestures and facial expression to check whether the judges are following their speeches.

 

2.1.11 Prohibition of Cell-phone etc. and PC usage

Debaters should not use cell-phones, smartphones, tablets, PCs during the debate round.

*Revised since 11th: The prohibition of communication devices has always been a de facto rule, but to prevent future trouble, the rule is clarified here. Debaters can use electronic dictionaries without communicational functions. But, debaters should not use smartphones for time keeping purposes.

 

 

 

2.2 Management of each Round

         Each debater must follow the cues of the time keeper, and make their speech for certain duration designated in the table below. Each speech must be done by one debater alone, who takes the speech role. (In the table, A1 to A4 represent each debater of the Affirmative side, and N1 to N4, the Negative side.) Speech roles are different if a team has only three members, and not four.

         If the wrong person starts speaking, questioning or answering, the main judge must ask the speaker to stop and the speech must start over with the correct speaker. If a mistake is found, for example, after the next speech, the mistake will be regarded a violation and the team will lose the round with no points gained.

 

AFF

3 debaters-

team

AFF

4 debaters-

team

Speech

NEG

3 debaters-

team

NEG

4 debaters-

team

A1

A1

(1)Affirmative Constructive Speech

A1

A1

(2)Questions from the Negative

N2

N4

(3)Negative Constructive Speech

N1

N1

A2

A4

(4)Questions from the Affirmative

N1

N1

(5)Negative Attack

N2

N2

A3

A3

(6)Questions from the Affirmative

N2

N2

A2

A2

(7)Affirmative Attack

A2

A2

(8)Questions from the Negative

N3

N3

A3

A3

(9)Affirmative Defense

(10)Negative Defense

N3

N3

A1

A4

(11)Affirmative Summary

(12)Negative Summary

N1

N4

 

*For example, if there are four members on the Affirmative team, the first person (A1) takes charge of (1) and (2). If the Negative team has three members, the first person (N2) asks the questions and takes charge of (5) and (6).

            Not only the debaters themselves but also the judges and Time Keepers, all involved, should be careful not to let mistakes happen in terms of the speech order.

 

2.2.1 Where to make a speech

         The Affirmative team shall be seated on the left hand side of the judges and the Negative team to the right. The speakers should be seated in the designated seats in the order of Constructive, Attack, Defense, and Summary speaker. Both Constructive speaker should be seated in the closest seat to the opponent team (Near the room center, facing the judge). Each speaker should stand up there (close to his/her seat, not at the podium, etc.) when making a speech. The debater should stand during the entire speech, including the Questions & Answers section, unless there is inevitable reason not to. In some rooms, the debaters should follow special instructions from the Tournament organizers, especially in larger rooms for the semi-final and final rounds.

         Debaters are allowed to walk a little closer to the judges and opponents, in order to make gestures or presentation more effectively, as long as it is not too much.

 

A4

A3

A2

A1

 

N1

N2

N3

N4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*If the room does not allow the debaters to sit as above, due to reasons such as the desks are fixed, and the room is small, the debaters may sit as shown below, not facing the judges. The debaters must stand up and face the judges during her/his speech.

 

A2

A1

 

N1

N2

A4

A3

 

N3

N4

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGE

 

 

 

2.2.2 Measurement of speech time

         Each speech time will start counting, after the correct speaker has stood up and declared her/his name.

         The duration of each speech will be kept track of by each room’s official Time Keeper’s timer, not the timers of the debaters. Only when there is some apparent accident in time measurement, such as when the Time Keeper’s timer broke down or the Time Keeper mishandled the timer, the main judge may refer to the debater’s timer. If it is not possible to refer even to the debater’s timer, the main judge must take appropriate measures to keep fairness for both teams, such as prolonging the speech time.  

 

 

 

2.2.3 The termination of speeches

         Even if the speaker finishes their speech before the designated speech duration, the official timer does not stop until the designated time. A speech terminates when the designated duration ends.

         The debaters are allowed to finish the last sentence they have started uttering before the end of the designated duration. However, in that case, they must finish the sentence within 10 seconds, and should not speak more than that. Anything uttered after the official speech termination should be ignored by the judges.

 

*This is the same in the Questions & Answers, too. After the Time keeper announces the end of the Q & A, debaters should not answer the question, and move on to the next speech.

 

2.2.4 Prohibition of changing the speaker during a speech 

         Each speech must be finished by the designated debater alone, who has enrolled before the round starts. In each speech, the designated debater may not change to another teammate and may not jointly make a speech with others.

 

2.2.5 Teammate’s advice during the speech 

         During the speech, the debaters are allowed to give some advice to a teammate as long as it is written down on a memo or spoken by word of mouth in as small a voice as possible so the judges and opponents can’t hear what the advice is being said. Teams will lose ‘communication points’ when the advice was in a loud voice.

         Team members participating in the particular round are allowed to give advice. This means substitute members are not allowed to communicate with the team during a round which she/he is not actually participating. If any person in the audience gives advice, memos or scripts, to a team during the round, the team will lose the round with no points gained, regardless of the content of the advice and the arguments presented so far.

 

2.2.6 Preparation time 

         The debaters are not allowed to start a speech during the preparation time. Speeches should start only when the Time keeper makes a starting cue. During the preparation time, not only the next speaking team, but the other team can also have a discussion with the members.

 

2.2.7 Prohibition of making complaints or protesting after the round

         The debaters are never allowed to make a complaint or protest against the judge’s decision after the debate is over. The same applies to, for example, new arguments in the final speech. If debaters or coaches do protest excessively, the team may be penalized, possibly losing the qualification for the finals, the best debater’s award, or even banned from future tournaments. (Before any punishment, the Judging committee will inquire and let the member or coach make some explanation. Verdicts will be announced publicly.)

         Debate teams are allowed to make a protest to the Judging Committee only when

(1) There is certain ground to believe that the opponent team has forged the eligibility of application.

(2) There is certain ground to believe that the opponent’s team used distorted evidence. (Refer to 3.)

(3) The judges managed the round in an extraordinarily unfair manner.

 

*In a debate round, what matters more is not what the debaters insisted, but what the judge had heard. If a round is lost, it simply means there was something wrong in communication. (In such case, the debaters should think humbly about what was their fault in the miscommunication.)

            Debaters should never complain to the Judging Committee just that they can’t stand their defeat.

 

2.2.8 Round Observer

         The tournament observer may place an official round observer in each round. The round observer should check and give advices to the judges on the management of each round. However, the observer should not intervene or influence the judges’ decision.

 

 

3. EVIDENCE

         In this tournament, each debater is required to show appropriate evidence clearly when arguing. The debaters should not discuss each other’s subjective opinions. Needless to say, in a debate round, any distortion or forgery of evidence is strictly prohibited.

 

3.1 The definition of Evidence

         To make an argument based on objective grounds, quoting pieces of evidence is extremely effective. Thus, in this tournament, the debaters are required to use appropriate pieces of evidence, especially in the Constructive speech.

         Of course, the winner of the debate is not directly decided by whether evidence is used or not. To prove an argument effectively, showing concrete examples without any quotations may sometimes be enough. Even if there were quotations, if only low quality evidence were quoted, it would not affect the round.

 

*For example, articles in a tabloid weekly magazine, blogs or net articles that a layperson wrote, irresponsible criticism by some critic, and opinions of an expert outside her/his field of his interest, are just subjective (selfish) opinions. Thus, those subjective opinions will not count as objective evidence.

            Internet resources, such as Wikipedia are not banned, however it will not necessarily counted as being persuasive.

 

3.1.1 Varieties of Evidence

         As for quotation of evidence, quotations of (1) objective factual data, like statistics and legal statutes, should primarily be recommended. Besides that, (2) testimony or analysis by authorized experts, (3) newspaper articles or news from dependable press can be used.

 

*Using TV broadcasts or direct Interviews should be avoided basically, as they can not be verified on paper.

 

3.1.2 Prohibition of distorting Evidence

         The debaters are strictly prohibited in any way of forging evidence, or distorting evidence when you translate Japanese into English. If any such violation is found during or after the round, the team in question will lose the round without gaining any points whatsoever. Moreover, the team may be disqualified for the finals, the best debater’s award, or any team award in the tournament.

         If such malignant act were believed to be systematically conducted by the school itself, the school will receive further severe punishments, such as banning from the future tournaments. (Before inflicting the punishments, the judging committee will inquire the team or its coaches. Punishments will be announced publicly to all the participants.)

         Above all, when the debaters quote expert testimony, it is strictly prohibited to purposely distort the expert’s original intentions.

 

*For example, when you quoted that “A is B” from an expert testimony, however, actually the original source said “There is some opinion that A is B, but it’s wrong”, then such partial quotation is a distortion of evidence. Such omission or summary is prohibited.

*Forgery of evidence means to make up some quotations from nowhere, and quotes as if it really exists. Distortion of evidence is to partly omit or rephrase the expert’s original message to suit the debater’s purpose. Needless to say, both acts are strictly prohibited in debate activity.

 

3.1.2.1 Translation of Evidence

         When quoting from Japanese sources, the debaters should translate it into English beforehand. In such case, it should be carefully translated so that the original message should not be changed. This applies even more when quoting from a Japanese source in a summarized manner. Greatest possible attention should be given not to distort the authors’ conclusions or facts. If distortion or exaggeration of the original intentions were done during the translation or summary, it would be regarded as unfair usage and treated as violation of the rules.

 

3.1.3 Requirement concerning the citation of Evidence and recommendations for its preservation

         When a team quotes evidence or showed figures or charts, the team is required to record (for example as footnotes) the source of the quotes or data: (1) Title of the books or magazines, (2) the date of the publishing, and (3) the page quoted.

         Each team is strongly suggested to bring photo-copies (or, if the evidence source is internet, the printout) of each quotation, so that you can show the evidence source when the opponents or judges ask the team to show it. If a team is not able to show the source when requested, forgetting to bring the source, the team has to apologize to the opponent and the judges on the spot.

         If internet is used as the source of evidence, it is necessary to record the internet URL and the date of access, as the files are rapidly renewed. Also as much as possible, the team should bring the printouts, to be able to show the opponent the printouts, if requested.

 

*The above regulation is extremely important not only to improve the media literacy for evidence, but also to prevent the mistreatment of evidence.

            Using TV broadcasts or direct Interviews should be avoided basically, as they can not be verified on paper. If you want to quote from these sources, the recording dates and the exact transcription of the broadcast/recording should be made and be brought to the tournament.

 

3.2 The Quotations of Evidence in the Debate

         When a team quotes pieces of evidence, in each case, it is necessary to clarify their evidence source and the evidence content should be conveyed in a easy to understand manner. The team is also required to let the opponents freely examine their evidence.

 

*One of the aims of this tournament is for debaters to improve their media literacy, the abilities to objectively and critically analyze information from various sources. In order to acquire these media literacy abilities properly, the debaters are required to obey the minimum rules below.

 

3.2.1 Quoting pieces of evidence

         When quoting pieces of evidence in a speech, debaters must orally cite one of the following information sets, according to the type of evidence.

  • Facts / statistics: The following two pieces of information are necessary.
    1. Source of the statistics and facts (the name of the “white papers”, the name of the bureau, homepages, legal statutes, etc. )
    2. Publication dates of statistics and facts.
  • Testimony or analysis by experts: The following two pieces of information are necessary.
    1. Name of the expert
    2. Titles or authority (Why she/he is credible enough to be treated as an expert. Ex. “professor of economy, specializing in the … field”)

(3) Newspaper articles or news: The following two pieces of information are necessary.

  1. a) The name of the newspaper or news agency
  2. b) Date of the article or news.

 

         When quoting from sources, it need not be a direct quotation; each and every word need not be pronounced line by line. As long as the original data are not distorted, or the intentions of the evidence original source are precisely conveyed, it is allowed for the debaters to summarize the original source when quoting.

 

*However, in most cases, line by line direct quotations will make the argument more convincing. Obviously, if an omission of a phrase will totally change the meaning of the evidence, such omission is not granted. It will be regarded as distortion of evidence, and will be subject to penalties.

 

3.2.2 Presentation of the graphs and tables

         This tournament, in principle, requires the debaters to convey their arguments orally, explaining everything by word of mouth. However, supplementary usage of visual information, e.g. to show evidence in the form of easy to understand graphs or tables, is allowed. In such case, debaters must make the graphs and tables large enough for all the judges, opponents, and the audience to see.

         In such case also, it is basically required to read out substantially all of what is shown in the graphs or tables. Showing videos or running audio tapes is not permitted.

 

*Especially in a larger room, the debaters should be careful to make the audience understand just with words, without the help of graphs or tables, considering the case that the audience is not able to see them.

 

3.2.3 Inspection of the evidence by the opponent (Examination)

         The opponent team is allowed to inspect each quotation and chart used during the round (including the original Japanese source, if it was translated) by borrowing them during the preparation time for scrutiny (examination of evidence). 

         However, this borrowing should be done as long as it does not obstruct the user’s speech preparation; if the speech will start soon, it is not an appropriate time to borrow. The evidence borrowed should be returned right after the preparation time or speech has finished, being considerate not to hinder the user’s speech.

 

*One of the aims of debating is to nurture a critical attitude toward evidence. Thus, lending or borrowing evidence should mutually be promoted.

 

 

4. Judges and Judging

         Judges should decide who the winner is, by rationally deciding whether the debate topic is finally affirmed or negated, comparing both teams’ arguments fairly and objectively.

         Besides just deciding which team won, judges, especially the main judge, should take charge of the round procedures, if necessary, supervising the debate round.

 

4.1 Supervising the debate round speeches

         Judges (especially the main judge) not only should take charge of the round procedures, but also should give some minimum instructions during round, for educational purposes, etc. Judges should even interrupt the speech and make necessary instructions in the following cases:

  • Obstructions concerning speech communication: Debaters’ speech is in too small voice, or in too much speed for high school students to understand, compared to normal average conversation speed.
  • Obstructions concerning the Questions & Answers section: Such cases as, debaters are just making long speeches instead of asking, or being too aggressive in their questioning. Furthermore, the answerer is apparently intentionally prolonging the answers, or not answering at all.
  • Obstructions concerning the room’s quietness: Such cases as; some students or audience are chattering or making noise (like pen clicks) during the speech; there is too much noise around the debate room
  • Emergency cases such as earthquakes, etc.

 

* If debaters are making apparent mispronouncing basic terms, the judges should correct them gently during or between speeches.

            During the Q & A, if the debaters are just making speeches instead of asking, judges should warn her/him by saying “You should ask questions” etc.  If debaters are being too aggressive, judges should warn them, “Both of you, please calm down” etc.

 

4.1.1 Time keeping exceptions in case of judge’s interruption during the speech

         When the above situation happens and the judge’s interruption takes place during the speeches, only in case (3) to cope with some noise occurring during the debate, the judge may order to stop counting the time accordingly, and may add some speech time for what she/he believes to be the fair compensation to the team that was being interrupted. (Otherwise, judges should not offer any speech time compensation if the interruption is due to the debaters’ own fault: For example, when a debater is warned that she/he is speaking too fast, or making irregular Q & As.)

 

4.1.2 Restrictions of judge’s interventions

         Judges should avoid direct commenting or questioning to the argument contents during the speech. They should not make any refutations or questions on each issue, before the end of the whole round, including the preparation time.

         Even if the judge thought the debaters’ arguments are incomprehensible or just ridiculous, don’t warn them on the spot and treat the arguments as being so weak (or in some cases ignorable) to be counted in making the round decision. The judges can and are encouraged to give the debaters some advice on such bad arguments after the round.

 

*The basic rule is, judges should not intervene in the contents of the arguments. However, you don’t have to refrain from nodding when hearing good arguments, or laughing at good jokes. To nurture the students’ attentions toward the judge, judges should respond naturally. 

 

4.1.3 Judges’ Gestures when the speeches are not easy to follow

         Judges are allowed to make hand gestures to the debaters, when the debater’s speech is not easy to follow; when it is spoken too fast, not clearly pronounced. To achieve this, the following gesture is recommended as the common gesture: Raise one hand close to the shoulder, move the hand up and down with the fingers open, palm facing down. Whether and when this hand gesture should be used is left to the judge’s goodwill and discretion. It is not the duty for the judge to make hand gestures. Thus, even if no gestures were made by the judge, it should not be interpreted that the judge were having no problem following the debaters’ speeches.

 

 

4.2 Judging

         Judges are expected to make a decision, judging rationally if the topic is affirmed or not, by fairly and objectively comparing the contents argued within the round, especially comparing the substantial arguments. In concrete, if you are more convinced by the debaters’ arguments that the policy that adopts the debate topic will give more Advantages than the Disadvantages, then you would vote for the Affirmative team. On the contrary, if you feel sure the Disadvantages outweigh Advantages then you would vote for the Negative team.

         When the remaining Advantages and Disadvantages are close, Judges should not easily consider it as a “tie”, and should seek even for small differences and vote for one team. Only very exceptionally, when Judges can no other but consider that the Advantages and Disadvantages are perfectly equal, then the Judges should vote for the Negative team (on the majorly accepted policy debate decision rule presumption).

         Each judge should consider their decision individually and vote for the team they believe is the winner.

 

*A typical bad judgment is as follows, “I think the Negative Attack speech was excellent. I couldn’t find any big differences among the other speeches, so, the Negative wins,” Such decision is a very subjective judgment comparing just the speeches. (Even if part of a speech is excellent, if the final output of a team is not convincing, such decision doesn’t make any sense at all.)   

 

4.2.1 Limited number of Advantages and Disadvantages

         The debaters are allowed to present at the most two Advantages and two Disadvantages respectively in the Constructive speech. If more than two are mentioned during the whole round, judges are to disregard all but the two Advantages and the Disadvantages that they think the most important.

 

*Please refer to 2.1 “Speeches.”

 

4.2.2 Treating the “New Argument” which appears late in the game

         Judges should basically ignore and make little account of the “New Arguments” that appear for the first time in the latter half of the round, such as the Defense or Summary speeches, and should not include such arguments in his/her reason for decision. This should be done regardless of whether the opponent has refuted the argument or not.

         Apparent “New Arguments” are new plans, new Advantages, new Disadvantages or their equivalents, which are first to appear in the Defense or Summary speeches. New attacks using evidence on the opponent’s Advantage or Disadvantage are also treated as “New Arguments”. Especially for instance, the judge should absolutely ignore “New Arguments” in the Summary speeches, which the opponents have unfairly limited opportunity to refute.

         However, if for instance a new piece of evidence is presented to make deeper comparison and to resolve the previous arguments of both teams, such new evidence is for fair comparison of former arguments, and should not be ignored as a “New Argument”.

 

*Please refer to 2.1 “Speeches.” To restrict “New Arguments” to be presented later in the debate, is not just for the spirit of “fair play” but also for educational purposes to promote effective clashes of arguments.

 

4.2.3 Prohibition of changing the decision, dealing with the protests against the decision

         Each judge may never change her/his decision after submitting the ‘Judge Sheet’ to the Judging Committee. The decision of the judges for the game is final. Protesting against the decision is strictly disallowed at all times. If the team do protest excessively the team may be penalized, possibly losing the chance at qualifying for the finals, getting the best debater’s award, or attending future tournaments. (As for the punishment, after the committee inquires an explanation from the team members or coach the decision will be made public via the media.)

 

*If a violation, such as distortion of evidence were found after the debate round, only the Judging Committee may possibly overrule the round result.

 

4.2.4 Deciding the winner of the round          

         In the finals, the team that the majority of judges voted for will win the round. Each final round basically should have odd number of judges, but if the number should become the even number under an inevitable situation, and if the remaining votes were tied, the team who received the vote of the main judge should be the winner. In the preliminary rounds, the “winner” of each round may not exist, if the two judges’ votes split.

 

4.3 Rating the Communication Points

         Each judge is asked to rate each team communication points, ranging from 5 as the maximum and 1 as the minimum. (No fractions, only integers) Judges should scale how well the debate team (not each debater) successfully communicated with the judges, opponents, and the audience during the round. The following scale should be used when rating the points, except in case (4.3.1) you found some violations of the rules: (3 should be the average. 5 and 1 are exceptional rates.)

5

excellent

All the teams’ points in their speeches were easy to understand. ( proper speed, and good pretense) All members were able to communicate with the audience.  ( proper eye-contact, good manner)

4

good

Most of the speeches are easy to understand. Most of the members were able to communication with the audience.

3

average

Slightly difficult to understand, but speech was basically easy to follow. Over half of the members can have good communication skills without serious problems.

2

below average

Often seemed difficult to understand and had little success at communicating during the debate.

1

poor

Most of the speech is difficult to understand, most of the members do not have good communication skills.

 

4.3.1 Penalty subtraction of Communication Points

         The Judge can decrease the Communication Points for penalty under the following conditions. The amount of subtraction should be decided by the judge, depending on how bad the violations are:

  • The attitudes of team members are bad (Obstructing the speeches by chattering or making noise, not obeying the judges’ instructions, or suggesting to the partners too loudly during speeches, Bad manners against the opponent during the questions & answers session. etc.)
  • Not cooperative against the opponent’s request for evidence investigation

         Even if the points are subtracted for penalty, 1 point is the minimum. The judge may not give zero point.

 

 


 

Appendix

 

 

Note: Nov 28th, 2018

Added mention on the Excellent Speakers awards 1.3/1.3.1.

Added explanations on 2.2.1 Speakers seats.

There is no other revision this year.

 

Note: Nov 11th, 2017

There is no revision this year.

 

Revised on Nov 22th, 2016.

Article 1 (Tournament: Total team number), 1.3.1 Best debater prizes, 2.1.11 Prohibition of Cell-phone etc. and PC usage

 

Revised on Oct 11th, 2015.

Article 1 (Tournament: Total team number), 1.2.1 (Finals: Aff. Neg.) were revised. There are no substantial revision other than these, this year. Minor changes are made on wordings concerning 1.1.1 (Prelims) and 2.1.

 

Revised on Nov 23rd, 2014.

Article 2.1 (speech time) was revised. 2.1.10 (Speed), 4.1.3 (judge’s gesture) were added.

 

Note: Nov 26th, 2013

There is no revision this year.

 

Revised on Dec 4th, 2012.

Article 4.2.4 contained unnecessary notions on the winner.

 

Revised on Nov 22nd, 2012.

Articles in section 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 were modified as the preliminary rounds will have two judges. Article 1.4.4 was modified to clarify the responsibility of the team. Other articles are not substantially changed other than some minor wording changes.

 

Revised on Nov 15th, 2011.

Articles in section 1.1 and 1.2 were modified to correspond to the increase of finalist teams. Article 1.4.1 was modified for the change of entry requirement. Article 2.1 Speech times (summaries) are changed. Other articles are not substantially changed other than some minor wording changes.

 

Revised on Nov 11th, 2010.

Articles in section 1.1 and 1.2 were modified to correspond to the increase of preliminary rounds in the 5th tournaments. Article 1.4.1 was modified for the change of entry requirement. Article 2.2.8 was added. Other articles are not substantially changed other than some minor wording changes.

 

Revised on Nov 16th, 2009.

Articles 1.1.6, 1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2 were modified to correspond to the 4th tournaments entry requirement.

 

Revised on Dec 2nd, 2008.

There is no substantial modification from the rules of the 2nd All Japan Tournament, enacted on Dec 8th, 2007; other than the correction of English phrases, the articles 1.1.2 on the criteria for deciding the finalists, and 1.4 entry requirements.

 

Revised on Dec 8th, 2007.

There is no substantial modification from the rules of the 1st All Japan Tournament, enacted on Nov 30th, 2006.

To make it easier to understand, article 1.4 has been added and chapter 4 was given an independently heading.

The 7th Tournament

The 7th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Chiba

Authorized by the World Schools Debating Championships

Qualified for International Debate Education Association Youth Forum

 

  1. Auspices

High school English Debate Association(HEnDA)

President: Mikio Kano, Professor, Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University

 

  1. Co-Host

Chiba Prefecture Senior High School English Education and Research Association

President: Kenji Nakasa, Principal, Inba Meisei Senior High School

 

  1. Main Supporter

GTEC for STUDENTS , Benesse Corporation

 

  1. Supporting Groups

(Now Applying) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology;

National Federation of the Prefectural English Teachers’ Organization;

All Japan High School Cultural Federation;

Chiba Prefecture; Chiba Prefectural Board of Education;

Chiba Prefecture Senior High School Education and Research Association

High School Cultural Federation in Chiba Pref. ;

Japan Debate Association; National Association of Debate in Education

 

  1. Sponsorship through the Year

Sano-Gakuen Kanda University of International Studies, Kanda Gaigo Group; Rikkyo University

 

  1. Date

December 15& 16 , 2012

 

  1. Venue

Makuhari Sohgoh High School

3-1-6 Wakaba, Mihamaku, Chiba, Chiba 261-0014

 

  1. Managing Committee Director: Fumio Takagi (Narita International High School)

 

  1. Adjudicator Chief Adjudicator: Yoshiro Yano, Associate Professor, Chuo University

 

10.Participant Requirements and Restrictions

Participants must be high school students in Japan and should also adhere rigidly to the HEnDA “Make Friends Pledge”. Native speakers of English are not allowed to participate.

Only two members, to whom the following conditions apply, are allowed in each team:

(1) A student with more than 12-month experience staying in a country where the first language is English. (2) A student from countries where English is not the mother language, but is one of the official languages. (3) A student who mainly uses English at home.

If two of these students are on a team, only one of the two is allowed to take part in each game. Team members can be switched, depending on the game.

 

  1. Team

Four to six members may register.  As a rule, four members should participate in each debate. Students may be exchanged for each game.

 

  1. Tournament Procedures Five Preliminary Rounds will be held. The top eight teams will proceed to the Finals (Elimination Rounds). Finalists will be decided by the following criteria:vote-rate, total voted points of all opponents and average of Communication points.

 

  1. Resolution for This Year

Japanese universities should start their academic year in September.

日本の大学は9月から学年を始めるべきである。是か、非か。

For more details, please visit the HEnDA website.  
  1. Schedule
Dec. 17th 10:00~ Reception Dec. 18th  7:50~ Reception
(Sat) 11:00~ Opening Ceremony (Sun)  8:15~ Fifth Round starts
12:00~ First Round starts  9:50 Result of  Preliminary Rounds
13:30~ Second Round starts 10:05~ Quarterfinal Round starts
15:30~ Third Round starts 11:20~ Semifinal Round starts
17:30~ Fourth Round starts 12:35~ Final Round starts
18:30~ A General Meeting 14:00~ Closing Ceremony
20:00 Dismissal 15:00 Dismissal
  1. Rules

The rules  are available on the HEnDA website.

 

  1. How to apply

Download the application form from the HEnDA website.

Fill out the form and send it following the instructions given on the website.

HEnDA will accept applications between October 1st and November 14th.

 

  1. How schools will be chosen

At most 64 schools will be selected for this tournament from all over Japan. Only one team is allowed from each school.  The number of teams selected in each prefecture will be determined by the number of schools to attend the prefecture tournament. Further information can be found on the HEnDA’s website.

 

  1. Entry fee

20,000 yen per team  (To cover tournament expenses) 【Altered this year.】

 

  1. Awards

Prizes will be awarded to the top four debating teams. Several “Grand Debaters” will also receive awards. The highest rank team which has registered to attend the World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) will be awarded the right to attend the event which will be held in Turkey in January 2013. (Some portion of the admission and travel fees will be provided by HEnDA.)

The highest rank team except the participating team of WSDC will be awarded the right to attend the International Debate Association Youth Forum held in July 2013. (Some portion of the admission and travel fees will be provided by HEnDA.)

 

Please forward any inquiries to:High School English Debate Association

Secretary-GeneralTakanori Kobayashi(TakayamaNishiHigh School)

E-mail:coba@takanishi.ed.jp

 

Order of Speech

 

A:Affirmative  A1○     ○N1 N:Negative

A2○        ○N2

A3○           ○N3

A4○              ○N4

Judges ○○

 

Role and Contents Time
Debaters
A1 (1) Affirmative Constructive Speech   (up to 2 dvantages) 4 min.
  Preparation Time 1 min.
N4→A1 (2) Questions from Negative            (A 1 will answer.) 3 min.
N1 (3) Negative Constructive Speech    (up to 2 disadvantages) 4 min.
Preparation Time 1 min.
A4→N1 (4) Questions from Affirmative          (N1 will answer) 3 min.
Preparation Time 2 min.
N2 (5) Negative Attack(Only against Affirmative Constructive Speech) 2 min.
A3→N2 (6) Affirmative questions Neg. Attack(A3 questions, N2 answers.) 2 min.
A2 (7) Affirmative Attack(Only against Negative Construction Speech) 2 min.
N3→A2 (8) Negative questions Aff. Attack(N3 questions, A2 answers.) 2 min.
Preparation Time 2 min.
A3 (9) Affirmative Defense(Reconstruct the attacked Const. Speech) 2 min.
N3 (10) Negative Defense(Reconstruct the attacked Const. Speech) 2 min.
Preparation Time 2 min.
A4 (11) Affirmative Summary(Summarize, comparing both arguments) 3 min.
N4 (12) Negative Summary(Summarize, comparing both arguments) 3 min.

Total 40min.

How to Judge(Outline)

There will be two judges for each preliminary game.   A panel of five judges will judge the final round.

Each judge has to focus on examining each argument objectively, deciding whether the resolution is rationally affirmed, and deciding which team wins.

If the judge thinks Advantages logically surpassDisadvantages, he or she will vote for the affirmative side, and vice versa.  In this tournament, regarding the actual judgment, speech skills or English delivery skills will have no influence on the judgment itself.

・  In the case of a draw, communication points will be used as the tie breaker. Each judge shall give communication points to each team, up to a maximum of 5 points. This is where speech skills and English delivery skills can be rewarded.

 

The Result of the Past Tournament

■Result of the 1st All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 16th (Sat) and Dec. 17th (Sun) in 2006 at Gifu Shoutoku Gakuen University

Resolution: Japan should make English its second official language.
Winner: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu High (Shizuoka), went to the World Championships in Seoul.

2nd place: Fukiai high (Hyogo), 3rd place: Uedasomeya (Nagano), Keio Shonan Fujisawa (Kanagawa)

Hida Award: Shibushi (Kagoshima), Mino Award: Nakamura (Kochi)

Best Debater Award: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu, Inakita, Kato Gakuen Gyoshu, Uedasomeya,Fukiai

World Schools Debating Championship

19th World Schools Debating Championships in Seoul; Kato Gakuen Gyoshu got the best debater award among 3 newcomers.

 

■Result of the 2nd All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 15th (Sat) and Dec. 16th (Sun) in 2007 at Nagoya Gakuin University

Resolution: All elementary and secondary schools in Japan should have classes on Saturdays.
Winner: Kasukabe Joshi High (Saitama), went to the World Championships in Washington D.C.

2nd place: Keio Shonan Fujisawa (Kanagawa)

3rd place: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu (Shizuoka), Inagakuen Sougo (Saitama)

Kinshachi Award: Tsurumaru (Kagoshima), Hida Award: Sapporo Kokusai Jouhou  (Hokkaido)

Best Debater Award: KasukabeJoshi, KeioShonanFujisawa, Izumigaoka, Maibara, Kasumigaoka

 

■Result of the 3rd All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 20th (Sat) and Dec. 21st (Sun) in 2008 at Gifu Shoutoku Gakuen University

Resolution: Japan should lower the age of adulthood to18.
Winner: Eikou Gakuen High (Kanagawa) went to the World Championships in Athens.

2nd place:Ina Gakuen Sogo (Saitama) 3rd place: Keio Shonan Fujisawa (Kanagawa),Nanzan Joshibu(Aichi)

Mino Award: Koshi (Fukui), Hida Award: Onomitchi Higashi (Hiroshima)

Best Debater Award: Eiko Gakuen, Ingakusen Sogo, Nanzan Joshibu, Shibuya Kyouikugakuen Shibuya,

 

■Result of the 4th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 19th (Sat) and Dec. 20th (Sun) in 2009 at Tokyo International University

Resolution: The Japanese Govrnment should prohibit worker dispatching (Haken Roudou.)
Winner: Inakita High (Nagano), went to the World Championships in Doha.

2nd place: Soka (Tokyo) 3rd place: Eiko Gakuen (Kanagawa), St. Mary Jogakuin (Gifu)

Koedo Award: Koshi (Fukui), Hida Award: Takezono (Ibaraki)

Best Debater Award: Inakita, Eiko Gakuen, St.Mary Joshi, Soka

 

■Result of the 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 18th (Sat) and Dec. 19th (Sun) in 2010 at Gifu Shoutoku Gakuen University

Resolution: Japan should significantly relax its immigrants policies.
Winner: Municipal Urawa High (Saitama), will go to the World Championships in Scotland in August.

2nd place: Takayama Nishi (Gifu), will go to the IDEA Youth Forum in Istanbul in July.

3rd place: Inakita (Nagano), Kanazawa Izumi (Ishikawa)

Mino Award: Kumamoto (Kumamoto), Hida Award: Inage (Chiba)

Best Debater Award: Municipal Urawa, Utsunomiya, Inakita, St.Mary Joshi, Takayama Nishi, Kato Gakuen Gyoushu

 

■Result of the 6th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 17th (Sat) and Dec. 18th (Sun) in 2011 at Kanazawa Gakuin University

Resolution: Japan should abolish capital punishment.
Winner: Nada High (Hyogo), will go to the IDEA Youth Forum in Leon Mexico in July.

2nd place: Shuyukan (Fukuoka),

3rd place: Inakita (Nagano) will go to the World Championships in Cape town in January.

Takayama Nishi(Gifu)

5th place: Urawa Daiichi Joshi(Saitama), Municipal Urawa(Saitama),

Kanazawa Nisui(Ishikawa), Utsunomiya(Tochigi)

Hyakumangoku Award: Seirinkan(Aichi), Hida Award: Inage (Chiba)

Best Debater Award: Nada, Inakita, Takayama Nishi, Noboribetsu Akebi, Shuyukan, Utsunomiya

 

 

Prefecture participation for past tournaments

Tournament Year Prefectures Schools Teams Teams Applied Students
Pre 2005 11 26 40 40 160
1st 2006 17 38 52 52 208
2nd 2007 22 50 64 fixed 76 257
3rd 2008 24 62 64 fixed 62 276
4th 2009 29 64 64 fixed 64 295
5th 2010 29 64 64 fixed 73 321
6th 2011 28 64 64 fixed 87 357

 

■The Years of the Tournaments for Each Prefecture                             (2011.4 )

Hokkaido Shizuoka Hyogo Miyazaki  9
Ibaraki Aichi Hiroshima Kagoshima 14
Tochigi Gifu 10 Kochi 13 Okinawa 12
Saitama 10 Toyama Fukuoka 10 Kyushu Dist.
Chiba Ishikawa Saga Shikoku Dist.
Tokyo 15 Fukui Nagasaki
Kanagawa Shiga Oita
Nagano 19 Osaka Kumamoto  7

Judges’ Manual

Debate Judges’ Manual

All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

All Japan High School English Debate Association(HEnDA)

Judging committee

1. What Judges Should Always Keep in Mind

Debate judges should always keep in mind that you are not only judging but you are also teaching the students through that process. To accomplish this, always keep the following three basic principles in mind.

FAIRNESS: Always try to be fair. Needless to say, never take other personal attributes such as nationality, sex, appearance, school-name, school-location, etc. into account. Winners should be decided by the debaters’ performances within the roundyou’re judging. Don’t be bothered by any other previous information.

OBJECTIVITY: Don’t make decisions by hunches or feeling. Try to be rational and objective. Namely, never cast a ballot unless you clearly know the reason why you’ve decided team A is better than B

ACCOUNTABILITY: Make the students understand your reason for decision. At the same time always try to cheer them up! Find good points in both teams and make them feel good.

2. How to Decide the Winner

Winner of the round should be decided by comparing the outcome of the ISSUES of both teams. In short, if you are convinced that supporting the proposition gives more Advantages (ADs) than Disadvantages (DAs), you vote for the Affirmative side (AFF). If you are convinced otherwise that the DAs outweigh the ADs, then you vote for the Negative side (NEG). NO TIES; pick a winner even if you think it’s not possible! (In extreme rare cases, neither AFF/NEG issues were convincing enough to vote for. In such case, it is presumed that the proposition is not true, so vote for the NEG.) Each judge should decide the winner independently without consulting the other judges.

Always take notes (“flows”) during the round. Pay attention to the proof and disproof of each issue (AD and DA). After the round, follow the next procedure and fill in the “DECISION MAKING CHART” to make your decision.

1.List the issues that were extended: How many ADs and DAs were presented, and how many of them were defended and mentioned in the final stage? Write down the titles (tag-lines). The issues should be properly presented following the tournament rules: Maximum number of ADs and DAs should not exceed two. (Ignore the “AD3”s and “DA4”s!) Don’t count new arguments after the constructive speech.

2.Judge the probability (evidential support) of each issue: First consider how convincing the alleged “ADs” or “DAs” were in terms of factual probability. Especially, you should look back at the strength of the proof (evidence) provided within the round. Weigh them lightly if the causal relation between the plan (proposition) and the ADs or the DAs are not supported by evidence. Also diminish the probability, if the opponent’s attacks were successful, or the defenses were poor.

3.Judge the value (significance) of each issue: Next consider the importance of each alleged “AD” and “DA”. What is the value at stake? How much impact will the “DA” bring in terms of quantity and quality? Unless the value mentioned in an issue is explained well by the debaters themselves, don’t weigh such issue as significant (Even if you yourself think it’s important). Note here that values can be sometimes “flipped” by the opponent’s good arguments. (For instance, AFF might argue that “gaps are bad”. However NEG might “flip” the issue by arguing that “gaps are rather welcome”. Compare the reasons supporting both claims. If you think the NEG value assessments were convincing, then the alleged “AD” should rather be treated as a “DA”. )

4.Judge the strength (=multiply probability and value) of each issue: Multiply the above probability (2.) and value (3.) for each remaining ADs and DAs. Note here that “ADs” and “DAs” should not be regarded as “strong” unless both their probability andtheir value are effectively proven and defended.

5.Compare the net sum of the issues:Sum up the strength of the ADs and consider if it outweighs the strength of the summed-up DAs. If the ADs outweigh the DAs then AFF wins, else the NEG wins.
Try to avoid your own point of view coming in. Recollect the latter stage speeches (summary) of the debaters. If a team has explained the “value criteria” for deciding whether the ADs outweigh the DAs, such debater’s “criteria” should be used to determine the winner. (For example, AFF insisted that “each child should have enough math ability” but NEG argued that “children’s individuality should have priority”. Which is more important? Such comparison should be done by the debatersthemselves. A good AFF summary may present a “value criterion” insisting that their plan can meet the necessary “civil minimum” concerning “math ability”, and the value of such necessary ability outweighs the vague “individuality” value. If the NEG can not present a counter-criterion, a judge should decide in favor of the AFF). In some debates, neither team is able to present such value criterion effectively. In that case, a judge should compare the ADs and the DAs rationally, using one’s own value judgments.

EXAMPLE: DECISION MAKING CHART

  1. List of issues
  2. Probability
  × 3. Value (Impact) =4. Strength
Advantage 1

Math & Science

Hi /Lo

No proof: why math scores will improve.

Large / Small

well defended:

necessary for economy

Strong / Weak / None

Very little AD

Advantage 2

Gap Private/Public

Hi/Lo

Well defended.

Gap will be narrowed

Large / Small

Need more explanation why gaps are bad

Strong / Weak / None

A Little AD

Disadvantage 1

Teacher’s Burden

Hi/Lo

Only little increase:

AFF attacks were good

Large / Small

No explanation of the significance

Strong / Weak / None

Close to none

Disadvantage 2

Free Time

Hi/Lo

Not defended

Large / Small

Not explained

Strong / Weak / None

Forgotten by the NEG

  1. Compare the net sum of the issues:
AFF won:IfAD 1 + AD 2> DA 1 + DA 2
NEG won:IfDA 1 + DA 2≧ AD 1 + AD 2
Your VOTING ISSUE was: AD2: I am convinced that the Gap will be solved a little. Since other DAs are not well defended, I will vote AFF for this AD2

3. Instructions / Interruptions during the Debate Round

Basically, judges should leave the debate to the debaters and not intervene in it. However, for educational purposes, do interrupt the speeches in the following exceptional cases: A) SPEECHES are unintelligible (not loud enough, etc.)B) QUESTIONS and ANSWERS are extremely anomalous. C) Speeches are interrupted by NOISE (Chatting, pen-clicking, etc.)

4. Communication Points

Each judge should rate the “communication points” of each team using the following scale. The points should reflect the team’scommunicating ability with the judges, opponents, and the audience. 5 & 1 should be rare. (Only Integers. No 0.5s)

5 5.Excellent Every speech was easy to follow (adequate speed, elocutions etc.). And every team member was successfully communicating with the audience (good eye-contacts, gestures, good manners, etc.)
4 4.Good Most of the speeches had no problem in following. And most of the team members were effectively communicating with the audience.
3 3.Average Though with some exceptions, the speeches were basically easy to follow. Majority of the members had no problem in communication.
2 2.BelowAverage Speeches were quite often hard to follow. Lack of audience communication can be found often.
1 1.Poor Most of the Speeches were hard to follow. None of the team members were communicative.

NB: The winner may have lower communication points (The points are mainly for tie-breaking purpose to select the winners of the preliminary rounds). If a team (or its member) does not obey the judge/chairperson’s instructions, being rude, or obstructing the opponent’s speeches, you can subtract some points for PENALTY.

5. Best Debater

Each judge should choose the best debater of each round. Pick the single most valuable debater of the round (The debater that most contributed to the output of the debate round should be picked. Not necessarily the most eloquent.)

6. To Avoid Common Misunderstandings

1.Don’t add your own issues, attacks… Leave the job to the debaters. Don’t add any ADs/DAs or attacks yourself!

2.Issues that are extended (not forgotten in the latter part of the round) should count: Constructive speeches are just written down speeches. You shouldn’t weigh the issues too much, unless they are defended and summarized effectively afterwards.

3.“New arguments” are prohibited: All the ADs and DAs should be presented in the Constructive Speech. Last minute “surprise attacks” especially in the summary speeches should never be counted.

4.Don’t judge the winner by comparing the “speeches”: A bad reason for decision typically goes like this: “I’ll vote NEG, as I think the NEG Q/As and Attacks were wonderful. I thought the other speeches were even.” (Judges should compare the finally defended ADs/DAs. Even if the Q/As were superb, the team can be terribly unconvincing at the end!)

5.This is not a Parliamentary Debate tournament: “point of information” is prohibited. Never decide winners using subjective “speech points”. Usage of evidence is to be encouraged not discouraged.

6.This is not a Recitation contest: Don’t decide the winners by English fluency, accents, intonation, eye-contacts, etc. Rational contentions should count more than just superficial eloquence.

7.Distinguish “decision making” and “advices”: When deciding the winners, a judge shouldn’t add/attack the issues themselves, nor should they weigh English fluency too much. However, advices on these points are precious. Apart from the decision making,advices on the unmentioned “fallacies” or on English skills would be more than welcome.

Debate Judges’ Manual(2008)
The National High School English Debate Tournament

1. What Judges Should Always Keep in Mind
Debate judges should always keep in mind that you are not only judging but you are also teaching the students through that process. To accomplish this, always keep the following three basic principles in mind.
FAIRNESS: Always try to be fair. Needless to say, never take other personal attributes such as nationality, sex, appearance, school-name, school-location, etc. into account. Winners should be decided by the debaters’ performances within the round you’re judging. Don’t be bothered by any other previous information.
OBJECTIVITY: Don’t make decisions by hunches or feeling. Try to be rational and objective. Namely, never cast a ballot unless you clearly know the reason why you’ve decided team A is better than B.
ACCOUNTABILITY: Make the students understand your reason for decision. At the same time always try to cheer them up! Find good points in both teams and make them feel good.

2. How to Decide the Winner
Winner of the round should be decided by comparing the outcome of the ISSUES of both teams. In short, if you are convinced that supporting the proposition gives more Advantages(ADs) than Disadvantages (DAs), you vote for the Affirmative side (AFF). If you are convinced otherwise that the DAs outweigh the ADs, then you vote for the Negative side (NEG). NO TIES; pick a winner even if you think it’s not possible! (In extreme rare cases, neither AFF/NEG issues were convincing enough to vote for. In such case, it is presumed that the proposition is not true, so vote for the NEG.) Each judge should decide the winner independently without consulting the other judges.

Always take notes (“flows”) during the round. Pay attention to the proof and disproof of each issue (AD and DA). After the round, follow the next procedure and fill in the “DECISION MAKING CHART” to make your decision.

1.List the issues that were extended: How many ADs and DAs were presented, and how many of them were defended and mentioned in the final stage? Write down the titles (tag-lines). The issues should be properly presented following the tournament rules: Maximum number of ADs and DAs should not exceed two. (Ignore the “AD3″s and “DA4″s!) Don’t count new arguments after the constructive speech.
2.Judge the probability (evidential support) of each issue: First consider how convincing the alleged “ADs” or “DAs” were in terms of factual probability. Especially, you should look back at the strength of the proof (evidence) provided within the round. Weigh them lightly if the causal relation between the plan (proposition) and the ADs or the DAs are not supported by evidence. Also diminish the probability, if the opponent’s attacks were successful, or the defenses were poor.
3.Judge the value (significance) of each issue: Next consider the importance of each alleged “AD” and “DA”. What is the value at stake? How much impact will the “DA” bring in terms of quantity and quality? Unless the value mentioned in an issue is explained well by the debaters themselves, don’t weigh such issue as significant (Even if you yourself think it’s important). Note here that values can be sometimes “flipped” by the opponent’s good arguments. (For instance, AFF might argue that “gaps are bad”. However NEG might “flip” the issue by arguing that “gaps are rather welcome”. Compare the reasons supporting both claims. If you think the NEG value assessments were convincing, then the alleged “AD” should rather be treated as a “DA”. )
4.Judge the strength (=multiply probability and value) of each issue: Multiply the above probability (2.) and value (3.) for each remaining ADs and DAs. Note here that “ADs” and “DAs” should not be regarded as “strong” unless both their probability and their value are effectively proven and defended.
5.Compare the net sum of the issues: Sum up the strength of the ADs and consider if it outweighs the strength of the summed-up DAs. If the ADs outweigh the DAs then AFF wins, else the NEG wins.

Try to avoid your own point of view coming in. Recollect the latter stage speeches (summary) of the debaters. If a team has explained the “value criteria” for deciding whether the ADs outweigh the DAs, such debater’s “criteria” should be used to determine the winner. (For example, AFF insisted that “each child should have enough math ability” but NEG argued that “children’s individuality should have priority”. Which is more important? Such comparison should be done by the debaters themselves. A good AFF summary may present a “value criterion” insisting that their plan can meet the necessary “
civil minimum” concerning “math ability”, and the value of such necessary ability outweighs the vague “individuality” value. If the NEG can not present a counter-criterion, a judge should decide in favor of the AFF). In some debates, neither team is able to present such value criterion effectively. In that case, a judge should compare the ADs and the DAs rationally, using one’s own value judgments.

EXAMPLE: DECISION MAKING CHART

1. List of issues 2. Probability ×   3. Value (Impact) = 4. Strength

 

Advantage 1
Math & Science
Hi / Lo
No proof: why math
scores will improve
Large / Small
well defended:
necessary for economy
Strong / Weak / None
Very little AD
Advantage 2
Gap Private/Public
Hi / Lo
Well defended.
Gap will be narrowed
Large / Small
Need more explanation
why gaps are bad
Strong / Weak / None
A Little AD
Disadvantage 1
Teacher’s Burden
Hi / Lo
Only little increase:
AFF attacks were
good
Large / Small
No explanation of the
significance
Strong / Weak / None
Close to none
Disadvantage 2
Free Time
Hi / Lo

Not defended

Large / Small
Not explained
Strong / Weak / None
Forgotten by the NEG
  1. Compare the net sum of the issues:
  2. Instructions / Interruptions during the Debate Round
    Basically, judges should leave the debate to the debaters and not intervene in it. However, for educational purposes, do interrupt the speeches in the following exceptional cases: A) SPEECHES are unintelligible (not loud enough, etc.) B) QUESTIONS and ANSWERS are extremely anomalous. C) Speeches are interrupted by NOISE (Chatting, pen-clicking, etc.)

    4. Communication Points
    Each judge should rate the “communication points” of each team using the following scale. The points should reflect the team’s communicating ability with the judges, opponents, and the audience. 5 & 1 should be rare. (Only Integers. No 0.5s)

AFF won: If AD 1 + AD 2> DA 1 + DA 2
NEG won: If DA 1 + DA 2≧ AD 1 + AD 2  

 

Your VOTING ISSUE was: AD2: I am convinced that the Gap will be solved a little. Since other DAs are not well defended, I will vote AFF for this AD2

 

5 Excellent Every speech was easy to follow (adequate speed, elocutions etc.). And every team member was successfully communicating with the audience (good eye-contacts, gestures, good manners, etc.)
4 Good Most of the speeches had no problem in following. And most of the team members were effectively communicating with the audience.
3 Average Though with some exceptions, the speeches were basically easy to follow. Majority of the members had no problem in communication.
2 Below Average Speeches were quite often hard to follow. Lack of audience communication can be found often.
1 Poor Most of the Speeches were hard to follow. None of the team members were communicative.

NB: The winner may have lower communication points (The points are mainly for tie-breaking purpose to select the winners of the preliminary rounds). If a team (or its member) does not obey the judge/chairperson’s instructions, being rude, or obstructing the opponent’s speeches, you can subtract some points for PENALTY.

5. Best Debater
Each judge should choose the best debater of each round. Pick the single most valuable debater of the round (The debater that most contributed to the output of the debate round should be picked. Not necessarily the most eloquent.)

6. To Avoid Common Misunderstandings
1.Don’t add your own issues, attacks… Leave the job to the debaters. Don’t add any ADs/DAs or attacks yourself!
2.Issues that are extended (not forgotten in the latter part of the round) should count: Constructive speeches are just written down speeches. You shouldn’t weigh the issues too much, unless they are defended and summarized effectively afterwards.
3. “New arguments” are prohibited: All the ADs and DAs should be presented in the Constructive Speech. Last minute “surprise attacks” especially in the summary speeches should never be counted.
4.Don’t judge the winner by comparing the “speeches”: A bad reason for decision typically goes like this: “I’ll vote NEG, as I think the NEG Q/As and Attacks were wonderful. I thought the other speeches were even.” (Judges should compare the finally defended ADs/DAs. Even if the Q/As were superb, the team can be terribly unconvincing at the end!)
5.This is not a Parliamentary Debate tournament: “point of information” is prohibited. Never decide winners using subjective “speech points”. Usage of evidence is to be encouraged not discouraged.
6.This is not a Recitation contest: Don’t decide the winners by English fluency, accents, intonation, eye-contacts, etc. Rational contentions should count more than just superficial eloquence.
7.Distinguish “decision making” and “advices”: When deciding the winners, a judge shouldn’t add/attack the issues themselves, nor should they weigh English fluency too much. However, advices on these points are precious. Apart from the decision making, advices on the unmentioned “fallacies” or on English skills would be more than welcome.

Debate Judges’ Manual(2006)
The National High School English Debate Tournament

1. What Judges Should Always Keep in Mind
Debate judges should always keep in mind that you are not only judging but you are also teaching the students through that process. To accomplish this, always keep the following three basic principles in mind.

FAIRNESS: Always try to be fair. Decide winners only by the debaters’ performances within the round you’re judging.
OBJECTIVITY: Don’t make decisions by hunches. Never cast a ballot unless you clearly know the objective reason for decision.
ACCOUNTABILITY: Make the students understand your reason for decision.(At the same time always try to cheer them up!)

2. Judging Standards
In this tournament, winner of the round should be decided by comparing the outcome of the arguments of both teams. No ties; always pick a winner! Specifically, since the debate is on governmental policy proposition, if the proposition has more merits than the demerits, you vote AFF and vice versa. (If you have judged in other debate tournaments, see Section 6. below for the difference).

Three warnings for novice judges:
(1) Don’t add your own issues. Make decisions only by the debaters’ arguments that are properly presented within the debate format: Debate judges should judge the debaters’ arguments (and their counter-arguments). Don’t add any advantages/disadvantages yourself! Presenting “new arguments” (new merits/demerits) in the attacks, defense, summary speech are forbidden by the rules. Ignore them if they are presented.
(2) Only the issues that are extended (not forgotten in the summary speech) counts: Even if a team sounded better than the other in the early stage of debate, that shouldn’t be taken into your decision if they screwed up in the latter stages. As you will soon see, in most of the debates, earlier stages are just recitation of some prepared scripts. If the students can’t properly defend and summarize their own issues, those issues should be taken lightly in your decision.
(3) Distinguish “reason for decision” and “advices”: As mentioned above, don’t add your own issues in your decision. However, in your advices after the round, teaching the students about such hidden “issues” would be very helpful.

3. Process of Judging
In sum, judging a policy debate is like policy making itself. Just imagine yourself as a rational voter for a national policy referendum, and you are going to vote according to, and only according to the issues that are raised by each opposing party. The following 5 steps might help you to make fairer and more objective decisions.

①List the issues that were extended: How many merits (advantages) and demerits (disadvantages) were presented, and how many of them were defended and mentioned in the final stage. Write down the titles (tag-lines)
②Judge the probability of each issue: How convincing were the alleged “merits” in terms of factual probability? Weigh them lightly if the opponents attack was successful, or the defense was poor, or there wasn’t much explanation even in the Constructive speech on why the plan can really gain such “merits”. Do the same thing to each alleged “demerit” too.
③Judge the value (significance) of each issue: How important is the alleged “merit”? What is the value at stake? How much impact will the “demerit” bring in terms of quantity and quality? If the value mentioned in an issue is not well explained by the debaters, don’t weigh such issue as significant. Values can be sometimes “flipped” by good opponents. (In debate jargons, “turnarounds”: For example, AFF might argue that the plan brings in a lot of tourists from abroad and it’s good. However NEG might “flip” the issue by arguing that the increased tourists may increase the risk or terrorism.
④Judge the strength(=multiply probability and value) of each issue: Multiply the above ②probability and ③value for each remaining merits and demerits.
⑤Weigh ④the strength of AFF and NEG issues on a scale: Sum up the strength of the AFF plan’s merits and consider if it outweighs the strength of the summed-up demerits. If merit outweighs the demerits then AFF wins, else the NEG wins.

Being fair in weighing the issues might not be easy. Try to avoid being subjective in the first place. Recollect the latter stage speeches (summary) of the debaters. If a team has explained the “criteria” for deciding whether the merit outweighs the demerits, such “criteria” should be used to determine the winner. (Of course, if the mentioned “criteria” are irrelevant or not supported by any reason, you don’t have to follow them Honestly speaking, in most high school debates, neither side will present such criterion effectively. In those cases you should decide using your own “usual” value judgments).

For example, AFF insists that their plan has some merit on “international trade”, but NEG pointed out that it might increase “domestic jobless rate”. Which issue is more important? There is no absolute scale that can measure such value comparison. So, such comparison should be done by debaters themselves. A good AFF summary speech may present a “value criterion” insisting that a good policy should ignore short term “jobless increase” and long term merits outweighs such demerits. If the NEG summary cannot present a counter-criterion, a judge should decide by the AFF in favor of the AFF.

If and only if you are reasonably sure that you think there is no way to decide whether the merits outweigh the demerits, then vote for the NEG side (according to the tournament-debate convention: “presumption”.)
Filling in the following “Decision making chart” will help you decide the vote:

(Proposition: Japan should make English its second official language.)

①List of issues ②Probability × ③Value = ④Strength
Merit 1

International exchange

Quite High (Good proof: more foreigners will come to Japan) Big

(More international trade )

STRONG (persuasive)
Merit 2 English will bring together a new global culture None

(Nearly no explanation, no proof)

Big

(Global culture)

NONE

(Big impact, but no reality)

Demerit 1
Japanese language ability will be harmed
High (NEG proved that the school Japanese language classes will be harmed) Little (Poor explanation: on the impact of the decline in Japanese language ability) WEAK (probable, but unclear impact)
Demerit 2

Tax will be wasted

Not defended Not explained NONE

(Not extended)

⑤Comparison: AFF pointed out that international issues are more important than pure domestic matters. NEG did not show any criterion effectively.

Conclusion: AFF team wins. The AFF successfully extended Merit 1 and so did the NEG Demerit 1. However, Merit 1 outweighs the Demerit, as the latter’s impact is not clear

and moreover, AFF criterion for decision was agreeable and I am convinced that more will be gained than lost.

4. Communication Points
Judges should also rate the “communication points” of each team. Scale how well were the debate team (not each debater) successfully communicating with the judges, opponents, and the audience in the round you are judging. 5 is the maximum and 1 is the minimum (No fractions, only integers). 3 should be the average. 5 and 1 should be rare. Use the following scale:

5

Excellent

Every speech was easy to follow (adequate speed, elocutions etc.). And every team member was successfully communicating with the audience (good eye-contacts, gestures, good manners, etc.)
4

Good

Most of the speeches had no problem in following. And most of the team members were effectively communicating with the audience.
3

Average

Though with some exceptions, the speeches were basically easy to follow. Majority of the members had no problem in communication.
2 Below

Average

Speeches were quite often hard to follow. Lack of audience communication can be found often.
1 Poor Most of the Speeches were hard to follow. None of the team members were communicative.

PENALTIES: You should subtract some points for PENALTY in the following conditions: If a team or its member A) does not obey the judge’s/chairperson’s instructions, being rude or making noise; B) was offensive or rude during the Q/As; C) not answering at all in the Q/As.; D) not cooperating to reveal the source of their evidence to the opponents. Subtract as many points as you think it deserves. (The minimum point cannot be below 1 though.) NOTE: In extreme cases, the winning team may have lower communication points but that’s OK. (These points are mainly for tie-breaking purpose to select the finalist after four preliminary rounds.)

5. Instructions / Interruptions during the round
Basically, judges should leave the debate to the debaters and not intervene in it. However, for educational purposes, do interrupt the speeches in the following exceptional cases: A) SPEECHES are unintelligible (too fast, not loud enough, etc.) B) QUESTIONS and ANSWERS are anomalous. (Too few questions, too long silence, questioners making speeches and not asking any Qs., etc.) C) Speeches are interrupted by NOISE (Chatting, pen-clicking, etc.)

6. Some Notes for the Experienced Judges:
(1) This is not a Parliamentary Debate (British impromptu style) tournament:
a) Interruption of speeches by the opponents, so called “POINT(s) OF INFORMATION” is not allowed
b) Decide the winners by the outcome of the argument contents (see Section 2), not by cumulative speech points.
c) The usage of evidence is to be encouraged, not to be discouraged as in some Parliamentary debate contests.
(2) This is not a Recitation contest (Even if some of the rounds may appear to be so!) Don’t decide the winners just by eye-contacts, accents, intonation, etc. Of course those are important for English communication, but as long as the speeches are intelligible, please don’t overweigh such speech delivery aspects when deciding the winners. However, you should comment on them. Please tell the students how to improve their English delivery.
(3) This is not exactly an American Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA style) tournament
a) NEVER encourage fast delivery. Interrupt the speeches, if you think the speeches are too fast.
b) Ignore cheap debate tactics (such as phony “Topicality”, “Counterplans” etc. just to make the opponents upset).

The 6th Tournament

HEnDA

The 6th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

The 6th tournament has finished. Thnak you very much. See you next year in Chiba.

The 6th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Ishikawainfo

17th (Sat) & 18th (Sun)Dec. 2011 / Kanazawa Gakuin University, Ishikawa Prefecture

Japan should abolish capital punishment.
日本は死刑を廃止すべきである,是か非か。
It is forbidden to propose plans that are not necessary for the abolishment of capital punishment. For example, the introduction of life imprisonment (without parole) should not be proposed during the debates.
Major changes after the 5th tournament

・A team can register 4 to 6 debaters.

・A summary speech is 3 minutes long.

・Top 8 teams go on to the final tournament after 5 preliminary rounds.

The 6th AllJapanHigh School English Debate Tournament in Ishikawa Participating Schools

64 schools have been chosen according to the rules of HEnDA. Congratulations!

The 6th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Ishikawa Rulebook

The rulebook was revised reflecting the major changes after the 5th tournament.
Application Form

We changed the form on November 21 as it had the wrong name of the account for bank transfer.

The participating schools should submit Form 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the designated address by the deadline.

2011.11.25 WSDC Cape Town 2012 has announced the prepared motions.

2011.10.3 We added an FAQ on the proposition page in Japanese

2011.8.24 The WSDC report from Scotland by Municipal Urawa High School.

2011.7.9 WSDC announced THE DRAW.

2011.7.7 National Federation of the Prefectural English Teachers’ Organization joined supporting groups.

2011.6.23 The Tournament Outline(JapaneseEnglish)was announced.

2011.6.3 A debate seminar will be held in Tokai area on June 12. infodocapplication

2011.6.1 WSDC announced the prepared motions.

2011.3.4. The 2nd High School English Debate Spring Tournament is on March 27. infoapplication

2011.3.4. The topic of the 5th tournament was announced.details

The 6th AllJapanHigh School English Debate Tournament in Ishikawa

Authorized by the World Schools Debating Championships

  1. Auspices All Japan HighSchool English Debate Association(HEnDA)

President: Mikio Kano, Prof. Kanazawa University

  1. Co-Host English Department ,Senior High School Cultural Federation in Ishikawa
  2. Main SupporterGTEC for STUDENTS , Benesse Corporation
  1. Supporting Groups

(Now Applying) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology;

All Japan High School Cultural Federation;

Board of Education in Ishikawa Prefecture;

English Department, Society for the Study in High School Education in Gifu;

National Association of Debate in Education; Japan Debate Association, and others

  1. Sponsorship through the year

Kanazawa Gakuin University;

JTB Corporation;

Ritsumeikan University;

Ritsumeikan Asian Pacific University;

Sano-Gakuen Kanda Gaigo University, Kanda Gaigo Group;

Rikkyo University

  1. Date 17th (Sat) & 18th (Sun) Dec., 2011
  2. Venue Kanazawa Gakuin University,10 Suemachi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa920-1392
  3. Managing CommitteePresident: Masae Okegawa (Kanazawa Nisui High School)
  4. Adjudicator Chief Adjudicator: Shigeru Matsumoto, Prof. Rikkyo University

10.Participant Requirements and Restrictions

Participants must be high school students in Japan and should also adhere rigidly to the HEnDA “Make Friends Pledge”.

Native speakers of English are not allowed.

Only two members, to whom the following conditions apply, are allowed in each team:

(1) A student with more than 12 months experience staying in a country where the first language is English

(2) A student from countries where English is not the mother language, but is one of the official languages

(3) A student who mainly uses English at home

If two of these students are on a team, only one of the two is allowed to take part in each game. Team members can be switched, depending on the game.

11.Team Four to Six members may register【Altered this year】. As a rule, four members should participate in each game. Students may be exchanged for each game.

  1. Tournament Procedures Five Preliminary Rounds will be held. The top eight teams will proceed to the Finals (Elimination Rounds) 【Altered this year】. Finalists will be decided by the following criteria: wins, vote-rate, and average of Communication points.

13. Resolution for This Year Japan should abolish capital punishment.
            日本は、死刑を廃止すべきである,是か非か。

It is forbidden to propose plans that are not necessary for the abolishment of capital punishment. For example, the introduction of life imprisonment (without parole) should not be proposed during the debates.

 

  1. Schedule

Dec. 17th (Sat)10:00~ Reception 18th(Sun) 8:15~ Fifth Round starts

11:00~ Opening Ceremony   9:50~ Quarterfinal Round starts

12:00~ First Round starts   11:05~ Semifinal Round starts

13:30~ Second Round starts   12:20~ Final Round starts

15:30~ Third Round starts     13:00~ Lunch

17:30~ Fourth Round starts   13:45~ Closing Ceremony

18:30~ A gathering meeting   15:00~ Dismissal

20:00~Dismissal

  1. Rules The rules can be found, in detail, on the HP; http://HEnDA.jp/
  2. How to apply

Please send the application form on the HP. with the necessary data.

Applications must arrive between Oct. 8th (Sat) and Monday, Nov. 7th (Mon).

Information on choosing representatives can be found on the HEnDA’s HP.

Please apply before the prefecture tournament finishes.

  1. How schools will be chosen

At most 64 schools will be selected for this tournament from all over Japan. Only one team is allowed from each school.The number of teams selected in each prefecture will be determined by the number of teams to attend the prefecture tournament.Further information can be found on the HEnDA’s HP.

  1. Entry fee 18,000 yen per team(Covers tournament expenses.) 【Altered this year.】
  2. Awards Prizes will be awarded to the top four debating teams. Several “Grand Debaters” will also receive awards.

The 1st place team will gain the right to attend the World Schools Debating Championships held in Capetown in January 2012. (Part of the admission fees and travel fees will be provided.)

The 2nd place team will gain the right to attend the International Debate E Association Youth Forum held in August 2012. (Part of the admission fees and travel fees will be provided.)

Please forward any inquiries to:High School English Debate Association

Secretary-GeneralTakanori Kobayashi(Takayama Nishi High School)

E-mail:coba@takanishi.ed.jp

Order of Speech

A:AffirmativeA1○      ○N1 N:Negative

A2○         ○N2

A3○            ○N3

A4○             ○N4

Judge

Role and Contents Time
Debaters
A1 (1) Affirmative Constructive Speech (up to 2 merits) 4 min.
Preparation Time 1 min.
N4→A1 (2) Questions from Negative(A 1 will answer.) 3 min.
N1 (3) Negative Constructive Speech (up to 2 demerits) 4 min.
Preparation Time 1 min.
A4→N1 (4) Questions from Affirmative(N1 will answer) 3 min.
Preparation Time 2 min.
N2 (5) Negative Attack(Only against Affirmative Construction speech) 2 min.
A3→N2 (6) Affirmative questions Neg. Attack(A3 questions, N2 answers.) 2min.
A2 (7) Affirmative Attack(Only against Negative Construction speech) 2min.
N3→A2 (8) Negative questions Aff. Attack(N3 questions, A2 answers.) 2min.
Preparation Time 2min.
A3 (9) Affirmative Defense(Reconstruct the attacked Const. speech) 2min.
N3 (10) Negative Defense(Reconstruct the attacked Const. speech) 2min.
Preparation Time 2min.
A4 (11) Affirmative Summary (Summarize, comparing both arguments) 3min.
N4 (12) Negative Summary(Summarize, comparing both arguments) 3min.

Total 40 min

【Altered this year.】In both Affirmative Summary and Negative Summary, the time has been changed into 3 minutes, which makes a round spend 40 minutes in total.

How to Judge( Outline )

There is one judge for each preliminary game.Three judges will attend the Final.

Each judge has to focus on examining each argument objectively, deciding whether the resolution is rationally affirmed, and deciding which team wins.

If the judge thinks Advantage logically surpasses Disadvantage, he or she will vote for the affirmative side, and vice versa.In this tournament, regarding the actual judgment, speech skills or English delivery skills will have no determination on the judgment itself.

・In the case of a draw, communication points will be used as the tie breaker. Each judge shall give communication points to each team, up to a maximum of 5 points. This is where speech skills and English delivery skills can be rewarded.

The Result of the Past Tournament

■Result of the 1st All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 16th (Sat) and Dec. 17th (Sun) in 2006 at Gifu Shoutoku Gakuen University

Resolution: Japan should make English its second official language.
Winner: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu High (Shizuoka), went to the World Championships in Seoul.

2nd place: Fukiai high (Hyogo), 3rd place: Uedasomeya (Nagano), Keio Shonan Fujisawa (Kanagawa)

Hida Award: Shibushi (Kagoshima), Mino Award: Nakamura (Kochi)

Best Debater Award: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu, Inakita, Kato Gakuen Gyoshu, Uedasomeya,Fukiai

World Schools Debating Championship

19th World Schools Debating Championships in Seoul; Kato Gakuen Gyoshu got the best debater award among 3 newcomers.

■Result of the 2nd All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 15th (Sat) and Dec. 16th (Sun) in 2007 at Nagoya Gakuin University

Resolution: All elementary and secondary schools in Japan should have classes on Saturdays.
Winner: Kasukabe Joshi High (Saitama), went to the World Championships in Washington D.C.

2nd place: Keio Shonan Fujisawa (Kanagawa)

3rd place: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu (Shizuoka), Inagakuen Sougo (Saitama)

Kinshachi Award: Tsurumaru (Kagoshima), Hida Award: Sapporo Kokusai Jouhou(Hokkaido)

Best Debater Award: KasukabeJoshi, KeioShonanFujisawa, Izumigaoka, Maibara, Kasumigaoka

■Result of the 3rd All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 20th (Sat) and Dec. 21st (Sun) in 2008 at Gifu Shoutoku Gakuen University

Resolution: Japan should lower the age of adulthood to18.
Winner: Eikou Gakuen High (Kanagawa) went to the World Championships in Athens.

2nd place:Ina Gakuen Sogo (Saitama) 3rd place: Keio Shonan Fujisawa (Kanagawa),Nanzan Joshibu(Aichi)

Mino Award: Koshi (Fukui), Hida Award: Onomitchi Higashi (Hiroshima)

Best Debater Award: Eiko Gakuen, Ingakusen Sogo, Nanzan Joshibu, Shibuya Kyouikugakuen Shibuya,

■Result of the 4th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 19th (Sat) and Dec. 20th (Sun) in 2009 at Tokyo International University

Resolution: The Japanese Govrnment should prohibit worker dispatching (Haken Roudou.)
Winner: Inakita High (Nagano), went to the World Championships in Doha.

2nd place: Soka (Tokyo) 3rd place: Eiko Gakuen (Kanagawa), St. Mary Jogakuin (Gifu)

Koedo Award: Koshi (Fukui), Hida Award: Takezono (Ibaraki)

Best Debater Award: Inakita, Eiko Gakuen, St.Mary Joshi, Soka

■Result of the 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Dec. 188th (Sat) and Dec. 19th (Sun) in 2010 at Gifu Shoutoku Gakuen University

Resolution: The Japan should significantly relax its immigrants policies.
Winner: Municipal Urawa High (Saitama), will go to the World Championships in Scotland in August.

2nd place: Takayama Nishi (Gifu), will go to the IDEA Youth Forum in Istanbul in July.

3rd place: Inakita (Nagano), Kanazawa Izumi (Ishikawa)

Mino Award: Kumamoto (Kumamoto), Hida Award: Inage (Chiba)

Best Debater Award: Municipal Urawa, Utsunomiya, Inakita, St.Mary Joshi, Takayama Nishi, Kato Gakuen Gyoushu

Prefecture participation for past tournaments

Tournament Year Prefectures Schools Teams Teams Applied Students
Pre 2005 11 26 40 40 160
1st 2006 17 38 52 52 208
2nd 2007 22 50 64 fixed 76 257
3rd 2008 24 62 64 fixed 62 276
4th 2009 29 64 64 fixed 64 295
5th 2010 29 64 64 fixed 73 321

■The Years of the Tournaments for Each Prefecture (2011.4 )

Hokkaido Nagano 18 Osaka Oita
Ibaraki Shizuoka Hyogo Kumamoto  6
Tochigi Aichi Hiroshima Miyazaki  8
Saitama Gifu Kochi 12 Kagoshima 13
Chiba Ishikawa Fukuoka Okinawa 11
Tokyo 14 Fukui Saga Kyushu Dist.
Kanagawa Shiga Nagasaki Shikoku Dist.

The 5th Tournament

HEnDA

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

The 5th AllJapanHigh School English Debate Tournament in Gifu

Authorized by the World Schools Debating Championships

1.Auspices

All Japan High School English Debate Association(HEnDA)

President:Mikio Kano(Prof. Kanazawa University)

2.Co-Host

GTEC for STUDENTS(Benesse Corporation )

3.Supporting Groups

(Now Applying) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

All JapanSenior High School Cultural Federation;

Gifu Prefecture;  Board of Education in Gifu Prefecture;

English department, Society for the Study in the High School Education in GifuPrefecture

National Association of Debate in Education ; Japan Debate Association; and others

4.Sponsorship

Sano-Gakuen University,JTB Corporation,RitsumeikanUniversity/ Ritsumeikann Asian Pacific University, Kanda Gaigo Group,RikkyoUniversity

have sponsored this tournament through the year.

5.Date

18th (Sat) & 19st (Sun)Dec. 2010

6.Venue

Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University,Gifu Campus

38-1 Nakauzura Gifu city〒500-8288

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu Access Map & Shuttle Buses

  1. Managing Committee

President:Etsuji Yamada(GifuIndustriialHigh School)

  1. Adjudicator

Chief Adjudicator: Yoshiro Yano(Assistant Prof.ChuoUniversity)

9.Participant Requirements and Restrictions

Participants should be high school students in Japan and should also adhere rigidly to the HenDA “Make Friends Pledge”.

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu Make-Friends Pledge

Native speakers of English are not allowed.

Only two members, to whom the following conditions apply, are allowed in each team:

(1) A student with more than 12 months experience staying in a country where the first language is English

(2) A student from countries where English is not the mother language, but is one of the official languages

(3) A student who mainly uses English at home

If two of these students are on a team, only one of the two is allowed to take part in each game.Team members can be switched, depending on the game.

10.Team

Four or five members may register.As a rule, four members should participate in each game.Students may be exchanged for each game.

In this year’s tournament every team should have 4 members in every debate match. The purpose of this rule change is to enhance fairness, to have more students participate, and to prevent 3- elite- debater teams. So the 3-member teams, which had been exceptionally able to enter the tournament until last year, cannot enter this year. (Contact us if, after the entry, it becomes impossible to have 4 members for a compelling reason.)

  1. Tournament Procedures

Five Preliminary Rounds will be held The top four teams will proceed to the Finals (Elimination Rounds). Finalists will be decided by the following criteria: wins, vote-rate, and average points.

  1. Resolution for This Year.

Japan should significantly relax its immigration policies.

日本は,移民政策を大幅に緩和すべきであるか,否か。

NB: The wording or definitions of this topic may be modified before the actual announcement in June.

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu HEnDA TOPIC 2010

13.Schedule

Dec 18thSat

10:00~ Reception

12:00~ Opening Ceremony

13:00~ First Game starts

14:30~ Second Game starts

16:30~ Third Game starts

17:50~ A gathering meeting

19:00Dismissal

Dec 19thSun

8:10~ Fourth Game starts

9:50~ Fifth Game starts

10:50~ Lunch

11:50~ Semi Final Game starts

13:10~ Final Game

14:20~ Closing Ceremony

15:05Dismissal

14.Rules.

Rules can be found, in detail, on the HP ; →Rulebook

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu Rulebook (Japanese)

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu Rulebook (English)

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu Judges’ Manual

15.Judging training program

From April through November, judging training programs will be held to assist participants in learning more about debating, and tentatively will include practice matches between students. We strongly suggest that you make time to attend these seminars.

Further details and dates are not fixed.You will see details on the HEnDA HP.

16.Application

Please send the application form with the necessary data written on the CD-Rom to

EtsujiYamadaGifuIndustrialHigh School

1700 Tokiwa-cho, Kasamatsu-cho, Hashima-gun, Gifu

Applications must arrive between Saturday, Oct 9th and Monday, Nov 8th.

Information on choosing, representatives can be found on the HEnDA’s HP.

Please apply before the prefectural tournament finishes.

17.How schools will be chosen

At most 64 schools will be selected for this tournament from all over Japan.Only one team is allowed from each school.The number of teams selected in each prefecture will be determined by the number of teams attending the prefectural tournament. Further information can be found on the HEnDA’s HP.

The 5th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament in Gifu Procedures to decide the participants

18.Entry fee

15,000 yen per team( Covers tournament expenses )

19.Awards

Prizes will be awarded to the top four debating teams.Several “Grand Debaters” will also receive awards.The 1st place team will gain the right to attend the World Schools Debating Championship held in Scotland in August 2011.(Part of the admission fees and travel fees will be provided.)

Order of Speech

A:Affirmative A1○      ○N1   N:Negative

A2○          ○N2

A3○               ○N3

A4○                ○N4

○Judge

Role and Contents Time
Debaters
A1 (1) Affirmative Constructive Speech (up to 2 merits ) 4 min.
Preparation Time 1 min.
N4→A1 (2) Questions from Negative  (A1 will answer.) 3 min.
N1 (3) Negative Constructive Speech (up to 2 demerits ) 4 min.
Preparation Time 1 min.
A4→N1 (4) Questions from Affirmative(N1 will answer.) 3 min.
Preparation Time 2 min.
N2 (5) Negative Attack (Only against Affirmative Construction speech) 2 min.
A3→N2 (6)Aff. questions Neg. Attack (A3 questions,N2 answers.) 2min.
A2 (7) Affirmative Attack (Only against Negative Construction speech) 2min.
N3→A2 (8) Neg. questions Aff. Attack (N3. questions,A2 answers.) 2min.
Preparation Time 2min.
A3 (9) Affirmative Defense(Reconstruct the attacked Const. speech) 2min.
N3 (10) Negative Defense(Reconstruct the attacked Const. speech) 2min.
Preparation Time 2min.
A4 (11) Affirmative Summary (Summarize, comparing both arguments) 2min.
N4 (12) Negative Summary(Summarize, comparing both arguments) 2min.

Total38 min

How to Judge( Outline )

There is one judge for each preliminary game.Three judges will attend the final tournament.

Each judge has to focus on examining each argument objectively, deciding whether the resolution is rationally affirmed, and deciding which team wins.

If the judge thinks merit logically surpasses demerit, he or she will vote for the affirmative side, and vice versa.In this tournament, regarding the actual judgment, speech skills or English delivery skills will have no determination on the judgment itself.

・In the case of a draw, communication points will be used as the tie breaker. Each judge shall give communication points to each team, up to a maximum of 5 points. This is where speech skills and English delivery skills can be rewarded.

■Result of the 1st All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Saturday, Dec 16th and Sunday, Dec 17th in 2006at GifuShoutokuGakuenUniversity

ResolutionJapan should make English its second official language.
Winner, Kato Gakuen Gyoushu High(Shizuoka), went to the World Schools Debating Championship in Seoul.

2nd place: Fukiai high (Hyogo)3rd place: Uedasomeya (Nagano),Keio Shonan Fuisawa (Kanagawa)

Hida Award: Shibushi (Kagoshima)Mino Award: Nakamura (Kochi)

Best Debater Award: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu,Inakita,Kato Gakuen Gyoshu,Uedasomeya,Fukiai

World Schools Debating Championship

19th World Schools Debating Championships in Seoul

38 countries attended the event.1st prize: Scotland2nd:Singapore

Kato Gakuen Gyoshu got the best debater award among 3 newcomers.

■Result of the 2nd All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Saturday, Dec 15 and Sunday, Dec 16th in 2007at NagoyaGakuinUniversity

ResolutionAll elementary and secondary schools in Japan should have classes on Saturdays.
Winner, Kasukabe Joshi High(Saitama) , went to the world championship in WashingtonD.C.

2nd place: Keio Shonan Fusisawa (Kanagawa)

3rd place: Kato Gakuen Gyoushu (Shizuoka), Inagakuen Sougo (Saitama)

Kinshati Award: Tsurumaru (Kagoshima),Hida Award: Sapporo Kokusai Jouhou(Hokkaido)

Best Debater Award: KasukabeJoshi,KeioShonanFuisawa,Izumigaoka,Maibara,Kasumigaoka

■Result of the 3rd All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Saturday, Dec 20th and Sunday, Dec 21st in 2008at GifuShoutokuGakuenUniversity

ResolutionJapan should lower the age of adulthood to18.
Winner, Eikou Gakuen High(Kanagawa) , went to the world championship in Athens.

2nd place: Ina Gakuen Sogo (Saitama)

3rd place: Keio Shonan Fuisawa (Kanagawa), Nanzan Joshibu(Aichi)

Mino Award: Koshi (Fukui),Hida Award: Onomitchi Higashi (Hiroshima)

Best Debater Award: Eiko Gakuen, Ingakusen Sogo, Nannzan Joshibu, Shibuya Kyouikugakuen Shibuya,

■Result of the 4th All Japan High School English Debate Tournament

Saturday, Dec 19th and Sunday, Dec 20th in 2009at TokyoInternationalUniversity

ResolutionThe Japanese Govrnment should prohibit worker dispatching (Haken Roudou.)
Winner, Inakita High(Nagano) , went to the world championship in Doha.

2nd place: Soka (Tokyo)

3rd place: Eiko Gakuen (Kanagawa), St. Mary Jogakuin (Gifu)

Koedo Award: Koshi (Fukui),Hida Award: Takezono (Ibaraki)

Best Debater Award: Inakita, Eiko Gakuen St.Mary Joshi, Soka

Prefectural participation for past tournaments

Tournament Year Prefectures Schools Teams Teams Applied Students
Pre 2005 11 26 40 40 160
1st 2006 17 38 52 52 208
2nd 2007 22 50 64fixed 76 257
3rd 2008 24 62 64fixed 62 276
4th 2009 29 64 64fixed 64 295

■The Years of the Tournaments for Each Prefecture (2010.4 )

Hokkaido Nagano 17 Osaka Oita
Ibaraki Shizuoka Hyogo Kumamoto
Tochigi Aichi Hiroshima Miyazaki
Saitama Gifu Kochi 11 Kagoshima 12
Chiba Ishikawa Fukuoka Okinawa 10
Tokyo 13 Fukui Saga Kyushu Dist.
Kanagawa Shiga Nagasaki Shikoku Dist. 2010 starts

200926 prefectures in total(Rate 55.3% )200821prefectures 44.7%  200714 prefectures 29.8%

▲ トップへ戻る