You are on page 1of 17

Asian Parliamentary Debate Teams: There two opposing teams in an Asians format of debate: 1.

Government side- proposes and defends the motion; 2. Opposition side- refute and negates the motion. Each each side is composed of three members. The Members of the government side are the following: 1. Prime minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances arguments; 2. Deputy prime Minister(DPM)- refute at first instance the case of the opposition, re-establish the government's claim, and advances arguments; 3. Government whip(GW)- makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition's case and summarizes the case of the government. The Members of the Opposition side are the following: 1. Leader of the Opposition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the government by giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge the motion if the definition is challengeable; 2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition(DPL)- refutes the case of the DPM, reestablishes the case of the opposition, and advances an argument; 3. Opposition Whip (OW)- makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government's and summarizes the case of the opposition. Time of Speeches: Each speaker is allocated seven minutes to deliver their constructive speeches. One speaker from each side (For the Government:PM/DPM, for Opposition:LO/DLO) is given four minutes to deliver a reply speech. The speakers will be speaking in the following order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Prime Minister Leader of the opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition whip Opposition Reply Government Reply

During the constructive speeches, Point of Information (POI) may be raised by the opposing side after the first minute up to the sixth minute. POI may be refused or accepted by the speaker. During reply speeches, no POI may be raised. Reply Speech: Reply speech is a comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of both sides. The aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why should the people support the team's claim. The speech is first delivered by the opposition side and followed by the government side who will close the debate. Matter, Manner, Method: Asian Parliamentary Debate is assessed by an Adjudicator Panel composed of an odd number according to the following criteria: 1. Matter (40)- substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented, and the logical

reasoning and presentation of said arguments. 2. Manner (40)- the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of the debaters. 3. Method (20)- the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance of the rules of debate. -Arnel mateo blog Points of Information What part do POIs play in a debate? To give and take Points of Information is the role of every speaker. Not doing either is failing to fulfil your role. POIs contribute matter to the debate, and the way in which they are given or taken is a reflection of manner. Thus not taking any POIs means a failure to fulfil your role and potentially lower contribution in matter (however that does not mean an automatic last place). How long should POIs be? POIs are not a place to make an argument, just a point, an example, an accusation or to ask a question. Typically Points Of Information are about 2 sentences long or 15 seconds in length. If a POI is too long, it eats into the time allocated for the speaker and the adjudicator may call order and request the person asking the POI to quit. How many must I take? It is recommended that each speaker takes 2 points of information, 1 from the opening team and another from the closing team. This is fairest and most optimum for interactivity in the debate. Are speakers who do not take 2 points of information automatically punished? No. However it is a consideration when discussing if teams have fulfilled their roles in the debate. Also speakers who take effort to engage with other speakers and encourage interactivity should be rewarded. While this will not guarantee win/loss, it might make a difference in close debates. The context of the debate should also be taken into account. It is understandable to not take a POI if no POIs are offered, or if the speaker is fulfilling his/her role in some other aspect. Can I take more than 2 points of information? Yes, there is no limit to the number of POIs one can take, but while POIs are an important part of a speech and should become the speech itself. Can I interject into someone elses speech or offer my point of information by saying something colourful (verbalising), instead of just on that point? Interjections, heckles, comments whether in the process of giving POI or otherwise, are not automatically punished unless they interrupt the speech of the speaker on the floor. Then the debater is exhibiting bad manner and the chair can instruct him/her to maintain order. While contributing to the dynamism and interactivity of the debate, interjections etc do not count as matter points. Are adjudicators then supposed to explicitly ignore everything that is offered through interjection or heckles? If someone says what you were thinking in your head, that does not subjugate your intelligence and your ideas remain valid. It is important however to protect the integrity of the speech of the speaker

on the floor. The debate format has to be maintained and if interjections were treated as valid points, no one would bother with making speeches. Nevertheless there are situations where the context of the debate may deem the interjection legitimate. For example, if the speaker is not taking any points of information or trying to shut out one of the teams. In those situations, the person offering the interjection is not trying to interrupt the speech before him but bring attention to the fact that the speaker is not being dynamic and engaging his ideas. The adjudicator then assesses if this is true, decides if action is necessary and acts accordingly. Extensions What is an extension? An extension is matter contribution from the closing team, other than rebuttals. It is an extension of the position of the opening team, and thus should be consistent with them. An extension can be new arguments to support the case, further developments of previous arguments, analysis of previous arguments in a wholly different yet still relevant context or specific case studies that further argue the case of the opening team. However it has to be significantly different from the arguments run by the opening team, enough to distinct the case of the closing and opening. Is it absolutely necessary for closing teams to have an extension? It is the role of every team to further their case in the debate, and extensions are part of that role. Not extending the case is to not fully fulfil your role. Therefore while not having an extension doesnt mean an automatic last, it means a difficult first. In a negative case, do you still need an extension? It becomes more difficult to because there isnt a positive direction that can be extended, but closing teams are still expected to distinct themselves from their opening and offer a unique contribution to the debate. What if the extension contradicts the position of their opening team? The closing team can choose to ditch their opening team (to shaft them so to speak) if they feel their approach to the debate is not acceptable. They risk being cut out of the debate, if no one else engages their approach, but it is a tactical call and is not an automatic loss. However if the closing team unwittingly contradicts the opening team, then their matter is not consistent and becomes less relevant. Definitions What is a good definition? A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the contention of the debate. Definitely not a definition that wins the debate, as that means no debate occurs. How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion? A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other teams in the debate to question their approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the definition to what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators should evaluate the effect of the definition. If Govt defines too narrowly and cannot develop matter to prove their self-proving case, then they contribute little to the debate. If Govt defines poorly and creates too many holes, then defending their case will be difficult.

Can team parameterise definitions? Yes. Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as long as those parameters are fair. For example, in a debate about child labour, restricting it to legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate and leads to a good debate happening, the action of setting those parameters should be rewarded. However these are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If the Government unfairly restricts the parameters of the debate, it is fair for Opposition to expand the area of debate. Thus Govt cannot limit a child labour debate to discussing the right to earn allowance by shovelling snow if the Opp argues that is unfair and expands it. On the other hand if the Opp likes to discuss snow shovelling, that is also their right and they should not be punished for not expanding the parameters. Do you have to include every word in the motion during the definition? You do not have to define every word, but the words in the motion define the potential scope of the debate and the onus of the teams. If the motion reads this house will condemn people who encourage suicide, the focus of the debate is on people who encourage, not commit suicide and not taking that into account could seriously affect the direction of the debate. However you do not have to define people and perhaps can even assume what suicide means. On what basis can you challenge a definition? A definition can be challenged on the basis that a definition is: (take definitions from rules) a) time set/place set b) truistic/tautological c) wholly unreasonable/squirrel Who can challenge and who cant? Any team in the debate can challenge the definition, because each team is a unique entity. Thus, a debate could have 4 definitions. What happens during a definition debate? To challenge the definition, one has to a) explicitly state that you are challenging the definition b) state why (time or place set, truistic, unreasonable) and explain c) provide a new definition You still maintain your positions in the debate and have to argue appropriately. Thus the Opening Opposition, after challenging the definition and providing a new one would then proceed to oppose the motion, not support it. Once you challenge a definition, other than to show why the previous definition is inaccurate, you do not have to address the issues/arguments that fall under it. One basically ignores that definition. Matter & Manner What is good matter? Good matter is matter that is logically developed, relevant to the case at hand and substantiated. What is good manner? Good manner is manner that is effective in strengthening the argument/case, is entertaining.

Which is more important? They are both equally important (check section on scoring). Thus a team could win on manner just as easily as a team could win on matter. Scoring Matter 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 Manner 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 Total 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 Range poor below average average break worthy good (semi-finals level)

Miscellaneous Is there such a thing as an automatic last in a debate? What most horrible sin must a team commit to immediately earn a last position? No. There is nothing in a debate that you can do to get an automatic last short of not showing up. If a first prop team squirrels the motion into a tautology and then the second speaker knifes the first, they probably wont win the round but should not receive an automatic last, they just set a very high threshold for what some other team in the round would have to do in order to take last place away from them (perhaps wetting themselves during their speech or something). Posted by Arnel D. Mateo at 2:29 PM 1 comment: Links to this post

Labels: Adjudication, Definitions, Extensions, Points of Information Sunday, August 26, 2007 Points of Information Points of Information are a vital part of any debate and should not be underestimated. Before and after your speech you can't just sit quietly and enjoy the other speeches. You must keep the adjudicators aware of your presence, ideas and argument. Also P.O.I. can be used as a weapon to undermine, and even destroy, an opponents speech. Also Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege which are used in some debating formats are not permitted at Worlds/BP Presentation: When giving a point of information you are expected to stand up, hold your left hand out (place your right hand on your head, honestly!) and say "On a point of information sir". Different people use slight variations on this but this is the basic one. Often speed is important to get in first, but that is no guarantee that you will be accepted. So you should make sure that you have enough space to stand up quickly and at a split second's notice (without sending your notes flying towards the podium). If you can do without a bench for writing, then a front row seat is ideal. If however you can't then use a seat at the end of a row so that you need only stand out to the side. Once you have been accepted stand facing the speaker at the podium but also try to half face the chair and audience, if possible. Keep your P.O.I. short and to the point. The max. time allowed is 15sec but you should try for

between 5 and 10 sec. Remember that many speakers like to take a P.O.I. and then use the time to check what they will say next while half listening to the person offering the point. Once they know what the next part of their speech is they work out an answer to your point. If your point is only about 5 sec. in duration it doesn't give them enough time and is more likely to catch them (especially if the point is weak and wouldn't work well if they had time to think about it). It looks bad if they have to stop to think what to say, especially if they have to ask you to repeat it. Timing is important. If a speaker is in full stride and knows exactly where they are going for the next few seconds, he/she is unlikely to accept a point. Wait for a pause, for breath etc. by the speaker and then offer the point. Obviously you have to be quick and good reflexes are needed to be on your feet literally within a split second. I've found that a point is more likely to be accepted in this type of case but you can't wait for too long as the point could then be out of place. Styles: Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers disqualified. Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers disqualified. Most speakers prefer to just wait and see how a speech develops. This involves leaving weak points go and use just one or two attacking the central core of the speech once it has developed a bit. Accepting: When you are speaking you should accept 2-3 points. Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every other speaker on your side be careful and don't assume that you can handle them. Points should not be longer than 15 sec. but you can cut that person off before this if they are making a very poor point and particularly if you have a good put-down to use on them. Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up your argument. Always try to dismiss a point as incorrect or irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go against you in adjudication. The Most common mistake I see as a judge is people accepting the first POI they are offered right on one minute. You haven't said anything yet. Don't take a point unless you have developed a point first. The second most common mistake is taking two points back to back. This is like having a conversation and destroys your ability to properly develop your argument. Just because someone offers you a point you DON'T have to take it if you don't want to. British Parliamentary Debate Introduction: This guide is aimed primarily at those of you who have little to no British Parliamentary experience. It is intended to illustrate the mechanics and basic tactics of BP. Sometimes beginners can be discouraged by BP because of various factors in the round. But BP done well can be an incredibly rewarding experience, and trying BP can improve the way you debate in other styles. The Basics: In BP there are 4 teams in each round. Two teams represent the Government, and two teams

represent the Opposition. The Government supports the resolution, and the Opposition opposes the resolution. The teams are also divided into the Opening and Closing halves of the debate. The teams are organized like this in the room:

Opening Government (OG) Opening Opposition (OO) Closing Government (CG) Closing Opposition (CO) There are two speakers on each team. Each speaker has a title. The titles are: OG: Prime Minister OO: Leader of the Opposition Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition CG: Member of the Government CO: Member of the Opposition Government Whip Opposition Whip The speaking order is as follows: 1. Prime Minister First Speaker, OG 2. Leader of the Opposition First Speaker, OO 3. Deputy Prime Minister Second Speaker, OG 4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Second Speaker, OO 5. Member of the Government First Speaker, CG 6. Member of the Opposition First Speaker, CO 7. Government Whip Second Speaker, CG 8. Opposition Whip Second Speaker, CO Debates are presided over by a Speaker, who is often the Chair of the adjudicator panel. The Speaker keeps time and calls debaters to the floor. Each debater has 7 minutes to speak. The first and last minutes are protected time. This means that no POIs may be offered during this time. The Speaker will give a signal at the end and the beginning of protected time, at the seven-minute mark, and at the end of grace. The Speaker will probably not give time signals otherwise, so it is recommended that debaters bring a stopwatch to time themselves or their partner. There are no Points of Order, or Points of Personal Privilege. At the end of each debate, the teams will be ranked from first place to fourth place. Each ranking has a point value associated with it. The common point values used are as follows: First Place = 3 points Second Place = 2 points Third Place = 1 point Fourth Place = 0 points Your points are added over the course of the tournament. The break is determined by point total, and speaker points if some teams have the same point total. Matter and Manner In BP there are two categories that you are judged on as a speaker. Matter is the content of your speech, and manner is how you present that content. Matter and manner are weighted equally. The lists include some of the more common elements of matter and manner, but are not exhaustive.

Matter Includes: Substantive arguments for your side Rebuttal arguments Case Studies / Facts POIs Manner Includes: Humor Appropriate language Engaging the audience Roles of the Teams and Speakers Youll hear a lot about the roles of teams and speakers in BP. In order for a round to be able to develop properly, the teams participating in the round must fulfill certain criteria. When they succeed they will have fulfilled their role and they will be developing the debate. If they fail then the debate will suffer in quality because of it, and this will absolutely be considered in the adjudication.

Roles of the Teams (Overview) Opening Government: Defines the terms of the debate Opens the case for the Government Opposes the case of the Opening Opposition when it is presented Opening Opposition: Opposes the case of the Opening Government Opens the case for the Opposition Closing Government: Extends the Government case Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams Summarizes the debate Closing Opposition: Extends the Opposition case Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams Summarizes the debate Roles of the Speakers (Overview) Prime Minister (Opening Government): Defines the resolution Introduces the Government case Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition): Rebuts what PM said Introduces Opening Opposition case If theres going to be a definitional challenge, the LO must mention it in their speech, otherwise all the other teams in the round must accept the original definition (See: Challenging the Definition) Deputy Prime Minister (Opening Government): Rebuts what LO said

Continues Opening Government case Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition): Rebuts what DPM said Continues Opening Opposition case Member of the Government (Closing Government): Extends the Government case Rebuts what DLO said

Member of the Opposition (Closing Opposition): Extends the Opposition case Rebuts what MG said Government Whip (Closing Government): May introduce new contentions, but its not generally recommended Rebuts what the MO said Summarizes the debate Opposition Whip (Closing Government): Absolutely no new contentions may be introduced, but new evidence in support of existing contentions may be introduced Rebuts what the GW said Summarizes the debate Role of the Opening Government The first goal of an OG team is to present a clear, coherent, and above all, contentious case. Remember that the OG case must be contentious enough to last for eight speeches, and 56 minutes of debate. One of the most important things OG teams should keep in mind is that bold cases are generally better to run than squirreled cases that run out of steam within the first few speeches. It is debate, after all. This doesnt mean that you should propose that humans eat their young. But it does mean that you shouldnt be afraid of proposing controversial models or cases. The major point: Propose bold, but not suicidal cases. The next thing that you must remember as OG is that your case must be within the spirit of the resolution. At most BP tournaments the resolutions are directed. This means that the resolution will hint at the topic that should be discussed. However, the wording will usually be such that the OG will have a degree of flexibility in how they frame their case. However, a degree of flexibility does not mean that the OG can ignore the resolution (like we do at most CUSID tournaments). An example of an acceptable and unacceptable interpretation of a resolution: Resolution: THW Sell its Children Acceptable: THW Legalize Surrogacy for Profit Unacceptable: THBT Developing Nations Should Prioritize Economic Development Over Environmental Protection The reason why the second interpretation is abusive is because the original resolution clearly hints at a topic involving the exchange of children for some benefit. This could be a myriad of things, from surrogacy for profit, to foreign adoption limits. So the OG has a degree of flexibility in choosing a topic relating to the selling of children. With this in mind, the second interpretation clearly goes against the spirit of the resolution.

The Role of the Opening Opposition The Opening Opposition role is probably the one that debaters new to BP will have the least amount of trouble with. Its fairly similar to the standard CP Opposition, but with different timings. However, there are some extremely important differences between the two. As the OO team, your role is twofold. You must refute what the OG team has said, but it is not enough to simply poke holes in the OG case. You must also bring in constructive arguments of your own. It is not enough to go into a BP round as an OO team and do a rebuttal-only opposition. A good OO case would make sense if the wording of the resolution were reversed, and OO became the OG. You have to bring your own constructive analysis to the round. Good OO teams will often tie in some of their rebuttal with their constructive points as well. This allows the judges to see that youre engaging with the other teams arguments as well as using them to build up your own. Using this style will also help you stay under the time limit, which is often a difficult thing to do if youre faced with a lot of rebutting and summarizing. So remember: Its not enough to say why their ideas are stupid, you have to say why your ideas are smart. The Role of the Closing Teams The closing positions of the debate are where we see the most significant difference between BP and CP debating. Both closing teams are expected to offer an extension for their opening teams case. What is an extension? An extension can take many forms: Switching the focus of the debate from practical to philosophical arguments, or vice versa Bringing in new practical/philosophical arguments Focusing on a specific case study Focusing on an already mentioned argument and expanding on it significantly

This is an incredibly short list of acceptable extensions. The main goal for a closing team is to differentiate yourself from the opening team, but still support them. It is very important that you support the opening team. But at the same time its still important for your arguments to be better than theirs. So you have to make sure that your case has an over-arching theme that the judges can easily identify, that makes your team distinct from the opening team, and still supports the opening team. This doesn't have to be difficult. Many teams stress themselves out about the closing positions because of the extension, but being on the closing half of the debate has distinct advantages. The closing teams have the ability not only to introduce their own constructive matter and rebut what the other team has said, but also to summarize the debate in their own words. The summary is to be done by the second speaker on each closing team. This is an integral part of the role of each closing team. There are many ways to summarize the debate. Some speakers like to identify the main themes that were analyzed during the round. Some speakers like to label each team with a name describing their arguments. One of the easiest ways for debaters new to BP to go through their summary speech is to identify three questions that need to be answered at the end of the round, and say why your side, and particularly your team, bring the best resolution to those questions. Any style you choose is fine so long as it gives a substantive summary of the arguments in the round, and why you won those arguments. As a reminder: The Opposition Whip is not allowed any new arguments in their speech, and it is highly recommended that the Government Whip focus entirely on summery, as well. Basic Tactics and Pitfalls: POIs: Give two POIs, and take two POIs POIs shouldn't be given for the sole purpose of destroying the other team's case. POIs should build your case up as well.

If you're in the opening half of the debate your priority in the second half should be to remain involved. Make sure your arguments aren't lost among the second half of the debate. POIs are the best way to accomplish this. If you're in the second half of the debate then you should be extremely careful about the POIs that you give to first half teams. Sometimes your opening team may try and steal your extension if you give too much away in your POIs. Try to remain involved in the debate by standing on POIs, but do not harass the speaker by continually standing on POIs and saying things like "On Liberty", "On the Geneva Convention", etc. It is always better to get in one or two excellent POIs than four or five mediocre ones. One of the best ways to accomplish this is for you and your partner to put a sheet a paper between you with your best POI written down. Then, when the speaker takes either of you you're certain to have an excellent POI. Just because everyone else is standing up on a POI doesn't mean you have to, Sometimes when a speaker says something monumentally stupid everyone on opposite benches will stand up. Usually the speaker won't take a POI at that time, but if there's someone who stood up late, they just might let them ask a question. Often, the debater giving the POI will be caught off-guard by this. So don't stand up on a POI just because everyone else is. But if you do, make sure you have a question. Let people finish their question before you wave them down, but if they start to make a speech, or refuse to sit down, start waving them down immediately. If they still won't sit down then the speaker will deal with them. Finish your thought before you accept a question. It is very easy to forget where you were if you allow someone to interrupt you. If you want to get your question taken it is often better to stand at the end of the speaker's point. They'll be more likely to take you. If you are in a round with teams of very disparate skills, it may at first seem like a good idea to take POIs from the weakest team. And that can work. But the judges will be more impressed if you give a good answer to a difficult POI than if you smack down a weak POI. So you might want to choose to take POIs from the better team. This will show the judges that you're willing to engage the better team in the round.

Organization: At the beginning of your speech tell the judges what you're going to be speaking about. More advanced debaters may feel comfortable speaking without numbering their points or signposting where they're going with their speech. But the majority of beginning BP debaters will probably find it helpful to number their points and to make very clear to the judges what they're speaking about. This helps the judges keep track of your most important points, and it helps you cover everything you need to. Pay attention to your timing. If you say that you're going to introduce three constructive points and then you run out of time, that will reflect poorly on you. Always fill your time. Speaking Style: The most important thing is to keep the audience engaged. You don't want them drifting off and thinking you're boring. There are many ways to keep the audience and judges engaged. These include humor, intelligent analysis, and delivery. Not everyone can be a funny speaker, and that's ok. Most people aren't. But it will help if you can use a few funny quips, or open with a joke. Avoid being monotonous. Vary your tone and pace of delivery. Never insult another debater's race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Anything offensive will be penalized. Err on the side of caution. Analysis: Try to introduce facts, case studies, and philosophical analysis instead of statistics. Statistics are boring, they can be easily dismissed by the opposition, they generally fall into "specific knowledge", and they're easily falsified.

Focus on examples. Appropriate examples and case studies will make a case better for the beginning BP debater than any pretty rhetoric can. Stay focused. Remember what you are trying to communicate to the audience, and then communicate it. Don't go off on tangents. Definitional Challenges: Definitional challenges are exceedingly rare. Do not object to a definition of a resolution if it is merely stupid or generally bad. The only time you should object to the definition is if it is a truism or tautology. The only speaker who can object to the OG definition is the LO. If the LO doesn't object, no one else can. If the LO objects to the definition then they must substitute their own. The remaining debaters then have to decide which definition to use. If the remaining debaters use the LOs definition then the debate can continue on like normal. If there is still disagreement about the definition then the closing teams must decide which definition to support, or whether to substitute their own. This is why it is usually an exceptionally bad idea to challenge a definition that isn't a truism or tautology. It's very messy.

Knifing: Knifing is when a closing team, or even a partner on the same team, blatantly disagrees with a fundamental part of the substantive case that they're supposed to be supporting. (Effectively knifing someone in the back). In the vast majority of situations you should not knife your opening team. It will be a negative factor for you in the adjudication as supporting your opening team is a fundamental part of your role. However, occasionally your opening team will be so shrill and off the mark that you'll have to basically ignore what they said in order to salvage your side of the round. You may have to twist what they said in order to make sense of their case. Be careful with this strategy. You probably won't take a first, but you may be able to salvage a point or two out of the round. Tactics for High Bracket Rounds: While it is always a good thing to take a first place in a BP round, once you get into the high bracket rounds the most important thing is to avoid taking the fourth.. When you get into high rooms you'll find that the competition between the teams becomes that much closer. So it's important not to give the judges an excuse to drop you. Watch the small things as well as the big ones. Be careful with timings, signposting, and rebutting what your opponents have said. Do not stress out about your position in the round, or whether other teams are really good. Concentrate only on staying involved in the round, and demonstrating good analysis and argumentation. A lack of confidence will show through. Source: University of Calgary for Cusid Asian Parliamentary DEBATE university of cordillera I. Motions UNDERSTAND MOTIONS A MOTION CAN BE PHRASED AND INTERPRETTED DIFFERENTLY 1 MOTION PER ROUND OPEN MOTIONS e.g. THBT the glass is half full

SEMI-CLOSED MOTIONS e.g. THW alter its genetic code CLOSED MOTIONS e.g. THW bomb Iraq SPIRIT OF THE MOTION This is what the debate calls for. II. ABBREVIATIONS THW = THIS HOUSE WOULD THS = THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THC = THIS HOUSE CELEBRATES THR = THIS HOUSE REGRETS THBT = THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT III. POLICY VS VALUE JUDGMENT a. POLICY DEBATE Implies the need to institute a policy, program, law, or any other type of action To understand how a program would work requires that you lay down the mechanisms of that program b. VALUE JUDGMENT -Comparison of values and standards c. ALLOWANCE FOR INTERPRETATION -A value judgment debate may need a policy in order to be assessed whether it would truly work (the adjudicator is still an average reasonable person) IV. FORMAT Government Opposition proposes and defends the motion refutes and negates the motion Prime Minister Leader of the Opposition Deputy PM Deputy LO Government Whip Opposition Whip Gov. Reply Speech Opp. Reply Speech Page 1 of 4Page 2 of 4 1. Prime Minister

Provides the set-up of the Debate Definition and Context (preferably non-literal) Parameters Problem (or at least the value to be appraised) Standards and goals (preferably expressly stated) Policy and Mechanisms (For a policy debate) Team Split (very brief please) Provides 1-2 well formulated arguments 1. LABEL/BANNER (catch phrase) Clarify your premise if you need to 2. HOW? 3. WHY? 4. SO WHAT? (Tie-up with your goals and standards) 5. EXAMPLE 2. Leader of the Opposition Rebuts the previous speech errors of fact, faulty premise, inconsistencies, irrelevance Provides a clash, negation, or maintain status quo Provides their team split Provides constructive matter and argumentation based on their clash *AREAS OF REBUTTAL 1. FACTUAL ERRORS 2. LOGICAL ERRORS (No links) 3. LOGIC is sound but the argument does not resolve the issue 4. Faulty Premises - Provide Comparative analysis that allows your team to surpass the others argument 5. Breaking deadlocks

*CLASH COUNTER POLICY - Oppose the proposition and provide an alternative resolution to the problem STATUS QUO IS WORKABLE OR SELF-CORRECTING - The clamor by government is exaggerated, unnecessary, and even if there was a problem it is already self-correcting COUNTER VALUE - There are other values worth protecting - Make a comparative analysis of social values of course *CONSTRUCTIVE VS NEGATIVE MATTER CONTRUCTIVE MATTER argues on the merits of a value or proposal NEGATIVE MATTER merely negates a value or proposal A DEBATE has an equal burden of constructive matter imposed on both sides A mere rebuttal case therefore cannot merit a win for a team Page 3 of 4 3. Deputy Prime Minister/Deputy Leader of the Opposition Provide Rebuttals Rebuilds the case of government/opposition Uses the premise of the first speaker while at the same time providing a distinct argument Avoiding a rehash or repackaged case or argument And if possible a deeper insight into the debate (progression) 4. Government Whip/Opposition Whip Gives some rebuttals and provides a summary of the issues which transpired in the debate and provide a thematic discussion of each issue while advancing the case of the team. Provides a fresh perspective/insight into the debate Provides a thematic approach on their analysis primarily emphasizing the merits of the closing team. No new matter from whip speakers. ISSUE 1: THEY SAID: WE SAID:

WHY WERE BETTER An issue refers to a group of clumped arguments referring to an overall topic - for example, the need to recognize the civic conscience, church dogma, and liberal modern ideals could all be bannered under the issue of MORALITY An ISSUE could also be about contrasting ideologies - for example MORALS vs LIBERAL ECONOMIC IDEALS 5. Reply Speech More often than not, reply speakers would just simply talk about how he/she felt the debate went through and why should the adjudicator give the win to their side (biased adjudication). Reply speech has no bearing to the adjudications decision but will affect the TOTAL TEAM SCORE. To put it simply, a reply speaker would say, adjudicators, make my team win please. V. OTHER PARTS OF THE SPEECH A speech lasts for about 7 minutes A healthy speech lasts from 6:45 to 7:15 Points of Information may be given and taken in the course of a speech - Points of information are those instances when a speaker from an opposing team may be given a short period in order to pose rebuttals or clarify issues.

VI. POINTS OF INFORMATION 1:00 1 CLAP (POIs may now be taken) 6:00 - 1 CLAP (No more POIs) 7:00 2 CLAPS Please end your speeches 7:20 Possible penalties A POI last for up to 15 seconds. The speaker in front must accept it in order for the 15 second period to run. Page 4 of 4 VII. DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE METHOD MUST BE FOLLOWED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE 1. EXPRESSLY STATE THAT YOU ARE CHALLENGING THE DEFINITION 2. STATE THE GROUNDS OF YOUR CHALLENGE 3. STATE YOUR NEW DEFINITION

4. OPPOSE YOUR OWN DEFINITION A. GROUNDS FOR DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE TIME-PLACE SET - Specialized knowledge is highly discouraged. Setting up the debate in Paraguay, or where else that is not that known is not advisable. Also, setting it up in the past and somewhere else that a certain event happened is again not allowed. TRUISM - Simply, debating about a fact that cannot be debated upon. Example of this is: THBT the sun rises on the east. SQUIRREL - In a Squirreled motion, if ever there is room for debate then try to engage the government out of the spirit of dynamism *Only the Leader of the Opposition may impose a definitional challenge VIII. DEBATER DECORUM Do not approach the podium until you have been recognized by the adjudicator Respect the adjudicator when he/she calls for order Do not badger your opponent or use intimidation tactics You may cross the house after the debate Leave the room after the debate but remain within nearby premises