APPENDIX IX

INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES

(THE following instructions to judges of debates have been widely used. The custom is growing, however, of instructing the judges to hand their votes to the presiding officer, without discussion. Furthermore, as suggested in the last paragraph of the thirteenth chapter, section (1) of these instructions does not relate to ideal conditions.)

As you have kindly consented to act as one of the judges in the Debate between

both sides submit for your consideration (1) the following statement of facts and (2) the following instructions as to the basis on which we desire that your decision shall be rendered.

(1) As one college has the choice of the question and the other college has the choice of sides, the side which either team defends need not represent the trend of opinion of the college or the opinion of the speakers.

(2) The two institutions are agreed on the general principle that the award should not be made on the merits of the question but on the merits of the debate; that is to say, consideration as to what may seem to a judge the intrinsic merit of either side of a question should not enter into or determine the award; but the award ought to be made to that college team which evinces greater argumentative ability and better form as speakers.

It is further agreed that in determining argumentative ability the judges should take into consideration thorough knowledge of the subject, power of analysis and structure, logical sequence, skill in selecting and presenting evidence, and effectiveness in rebuttal; and that, in considering the form of the speakers as distinguished from their arguments, the judges should regard bearing, quality of the voice, pronunciation, enunciation, ease and appropriateness of gesture, and direct

ness, variety, and emphasis in delivery. It is agreed that matter is more important than form; and that should one team excel in matter, and the other to an equal degree in form, the award should go to the former.

Finally, the suggestion is offered to the judges that on withdrawing after the debate to make their decision, they cast a written ballot (before consultation), in order thereby to obtain a working basis from which the final decision may be reached. Should there be doubt in the mind of any judge as to the port and intent of these suggestions, the judges may meet just before the debate with a representative of each college to resolve any such doubt.

pur

APPENDIX X

ROUND-ROBIN DEBATING LEAGUE

SPECIMEN ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT

THE Debate Committee of the University of Pennsylvania, the Debating Union of Columbia University, and the Debate Council of Cornell University do hereby agree to form a triangular Intercollegiate Debating League, to hold debates in 1907-08, 1908–09, and 1909–10, under the following conditions:

I. The executive committee of the league shall consist of three members, one representing each university in the league, and shall have charge of all matters pertaining to the league, subject to the provision herein contained. The officers of the league shall be a president, vice-president, and secretary, whose duties shall be those usually pertaining to those offices. They shall be chosen by the committes from its membership. The committee shall meet at least once a year, on the Saturday next following the Friday of the annual debate. The debate shall be held on the following dates: February 28, 1908; February 26, 1909, and February 25, 1910. These dates shall be changed only by unanimous agreement.

II. The league shall hold three intercollegiate debates annually, under the following plan: All three debates shall be held on the same evening and upon the same question, each university being represented by a team maintaining the affirmative and a team maintaining the negative. At each debate, the negative of the question shall be upheld by the visiting team. The schedule of debates shall be as follows:

:

III. The question for debate shall be selected in the following manner: On or before November 1 of each year, each university shall submit to the secretary of the league, in sealed envelopes, two formulated questions for debate. The secretary shall immediately notify the secretary of the debate committees of each university. On December 1 each university shall submit to the secretary of the league its order of preference or choice as to three of the questions suggested. In determining which question has been chosen, first choice shall count three points, second choice two points, and third choice one point. The question thus receiving the greatest total number of points shall be deemed to have been chosen. In the event of a deadlock, the universities shall take another ballot, to decide between the two questions highest on the list. The secretary shall in all cases promptly notify the three universities of the result of the balloting.

IV. The university under whose auspices each debate is held shall have charge of all local arrangements, and shall assume all financial obligations thereof, excepting all the expenses of the visiting delegation.

V. Each university shall select for each team three representatives and an alternate from its student body, but no one shall be chosen who is not a bona fide student and a candidate for a degree, and no member of the Graduate School shall be chosen who receives any stipend. This rule shall not be interpreted as applying to Columbia Law School.

VI. Each debater shall be allowed two speeches, one of ten (10) minutes' duration, the other of five (5) minutes'. The first series of speeches shall be opened by the Affirmative, and shall alternate between the Affirmative and Negative

speakers. The second series shall be in the same order as the first, so far as the sides of the debate are concerned, but either side may, if it chooses, vary the order of its speakers. There shall be an intermission of five minutes between the direct and the rebuttal speeches.

VII. The contest shall be judged and decided by three judges who shall be disinterested persons, not holding a degree from either institution or connected therewith in any relation, and chosen in the following manner:

At least two months before the debates, the visiting university shall nominate to the university holding the debate, thirty-five persons to act as judges, of whom the latter university shall secure any three to act. The university holding the debate shall always be privileged to reject any nominee without assigning any cause, and immediately upon rejecting any names on the list shall notify the other university of the persons thus rejected. The visiting university shall thereupon at once forward the same number of new names. The university holding the debate may at any time reject any names on the list, the visiting university filling the number up to thirty-five. This process shall be continued until three judges are secured.

VIII. The award shall be made on the merits of the argument as presented in the debate, and not upon the merits of the question. (The foregoing sentence shall be printed on the programme for each debate.)

The decision shall be announced by one of the judges.