• Debate Round

– 7 minute speeches (first and last minute protected time)

– POI can be raised by opposing team (2nd - 6th minute)
• 15 minute prep
• Iron-person policy - cap of two per team for prelims; not for break
rounds
- The latest that the speaker can accept a POI is immediately at the six-minute bang
•POIs are NOT mandatory but teams are strongly encouraged to take 3 across 2 speeches,
with at least 1 to engage with the diagonal.
•Failure to take a POI, assuming POIs were offered, can affect the outcome. The
consequences may include but are not limited to: lowering the speaker score, flipping a
close call, or reducing the margin of victory.
•Teams should not offer more than one POI every 15 seconds (a.k.a. barracking)
•Teams may NOT code their POIs (e.g. “Contradiction!” or “on Conservative Backlash!”)
Opening Government Opening Opposition

PM: present definitions, stance, LO: present counterpolicy (if any) or def
propose policy (if any). Advance challenge (if any - more info later.
arguments. Respond to PM. Advance arguments.

DLO: respond to OG, advance

DPM: respond to OO, advance arguments
arguments

* Opposition has a duty to clash with Prop case (case should be

mutually exclusive to what Proposition is claiming) *
Closing Government Closing Opposition
MG: new material supporting the motion. MO: new material opposing the motion.
Response to OO and differentiation from Response to OG and CG, differentiation
OG. from OO.

Whip: NO NEW MATERIAL Whip: NO NEW MATERIAL.

• Extensions can be: explicitly new argument, new layers of analysis for
arguments introduced in top half, new rebuttal, criteria or defence of
criteria for weighing arguments, POIs
• Whips can bring: new rebuttal, framing, characterization, responses
• Whips CANNOT bring: new arguments that significantly change the
direction of the team’s case
• Info-slides and word definitions will be given when necessary
– Clarify key terms
– Knowledge necessary to have a functional debate
• Any information in info-slide is assumed true for the debate following
it
• Proposition has fiat – we need to assume the motion will happen for a
debate to happen
• If something is still unclear, speak to the CA Team Only
– You may not talk to your coach/friends/parents during prep
– You may not use the internet or electronic devices during face-to-face prep
• Policy motions: THW…
– Example: THW Ban Cigarettes
• We are the parliament of a country
• The question of the debate is whether we should enact the policy
• Assume that the motion will pass parliament/Congress
• Analysis motions: THBT/THS/THO…
– Example: THBT Gay Pride Parades do More Harm to the Gay
Community than Good
• The question is whether the statement is true.
• NOT about whether the government should ban gay pride parades
• Do not need a mech, but still need to define the debate (e.g. a
metric to more good than harms)
• Analysis motions: THP a World in which…
– Example: THP a World in which all people have superpowers
• The question is whether the statement is true.
• Opp has to compare to S.Q.
• Opp CANNOT invent a new world to compare to!
– E.g. only good people have superpowers
– Abstract: X>Y
– The Opp is not Z>X
• Analysis motions: THBT X Should…
– Example: THBT the US should intervene in Syria
• The question is whether the statement is true from the perspective
of a neutral observer.
• Even though phrased as an analysis, there a policy implemented
• Expects definitions, e.g. which kind of invasion you support
• Actor Motions: TH, as X,…
– Example: TH, as the US, Would Intervene in Syria;
– Example 2: TH, as a Parent, Would not Send its Children to a Private School
• Look at the debate from the perspective of X and don’t ask what is necessarily
best for the world (have the values, knowledge and interests of the specified
actor)
– NOT the same as assuming self-interest is always the case
– Actors can have moral beliefs and principles as well
• THBT X Should is not an actor debate! E.g. THBT parents should not send their
children to private schools (can still claim that the interest of the parent are
prioritized, but this time a neutral observer)
• Analysis motions: THR…
– Example: THR the rise of Xi Jin Ping
• MUST describe how an alternative world would look (e.g. would
Xi’s replacement be better or worse?)
• Debate the level of generality of the motion
• Status quo in international tournaments
– Unless said otherwise, the debate is taking place within a functional democracy
(not necessarily a Western Liberal one)
– Many different SQs in many different countries-> assume that the motion isn’t
(THW ban alcohol, assume not banned)
• You CANNOT:
– Place set or time-set the motion (also, not limited to COVID context unless
specified)
– Limit the debate only to special cases.
– Advance a mechanism not within the spirit of the motion (Squirrel).
• You CAN:
– Define a detailed mechanism to implement the motion
– Enter parameters into the mechanism
• The vast majority of debates are defined legitimately
• Standard: Is the definition a reasonable interpretation of the words
in the motion?
• How to challenge:
– Explain why definition is unreasonable
– Propose alternative definition with justification
– Should still engage with arguments based on original definition
• Opp teams can propose a counter-policy in order to achieve the
same outcomes as Gov teams
• HOWEVER: counter-policies must be mutually exclusive to the prop
case
• Counter-policies should not take significantly more resources to
achieve than Gov policy
• Same kind of fiat applies to Opp (i.e. Congress or Parliament will
pass it)
• No specific knowledge (Country, profession, etc.)
• Does not intervene in the debate with own preferred
arguments/examples
• Willing to be persuaded by either side
• In terms of views and knowledge only, not capabilities:
– Fully understands the rules
– Not less capable of understanding complex concepts
– Not less capable of logically following and analysing the debate
• DO NOT: count arguments
– Saying more arguments =/= that team automatically wins
• DO NOT: Give separate scores for style, sophistication, originality, etc.
• DO NOT: consider accents or voice quality while judging
• Judges should insist that teams ‘engage’ with each others’ arguments as
much as possible
– There is no absolute duty to ‘hit every argument’ from the other side, but
major claims which go unchallenged should be count as conceded by the
team which has passed up the opportunity to respond.
– Judges may consider claims to be responsive, even if not explicitly labelled
‘rebuttal’
• Follow the logical flow of the debate, with the following principles:
– Be comparative
– There is no such thing as an automatic 4th
• Bear in mind the main points of clash in the debate
• Decide which team have provided the best justification for its bench
to win
• Often times, teams will not simply disagree about what is true;
they will dispute what is relevant.
• Judges should decide what’s relevant on the following basis:
– What teams agree is true and important.
– What teams implicitly agree is true and important.
– What one side has successfully proven to be important.
• Where 1-3 do not apply, what the Average Intelligent Voter (not the
judge!) would take to be important
• Same bench:
– Closing teams do not win through minimal additions to already well-
substantiated points, but to the extent to which their contribution
(including the summary) is meaningfully better than what has come before
– As a judge, first identify what was new from closing teams, then compare
this new material to Opening’s material
• Diagonals: Judges may take into account the fact that top-half
teams cannot respond directly to bottom-half teams, but they are
entitled to consider:
– POIs and willingness of teams to offer and accept them
– Quality of engagement by bottom half
– “Robustness” of opening case to potential challenges
– Judges may credit material in opening speeches which is implicitly
responsive to new material from the closing half.
– The judge must not make new arguments for top-half teams; they may
reasonably interpret and apply existing contributions
• Similar to WUDC, we remove the advantage of the violation. E.g.:
– New arguments in summary – Ignore arguments completely -> both in Gov
and Opp Whip!
– Failure to take a POI – see it as showing lack of engagement
– Contradicting or knifing – Any contradictory material is dismissed
• In these cases, we do NOT further penalize the team
• We do penalize for actively harming the debate
– E.g. if team provides an unfair definition / squirrel
• 15 minutes to deliver Oral Adjudication
– Given by chairs
– If rolled, chair’s choice
• Should contain:
– Comparative justifications of the placings
– Advice for improvement
• Should NOT contain:
– Detailed feedback to each speaker
• Personal feedback may be given later, and we expect judges to be
accessible to give it