Part One,
Introduction
|
1.1
|
The
format of the debate
|
| 1.1.1 |
The debate will consist
of four teams of two persons (persons will be known as "members"), a chairperson
(known as the "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker") and an
adjudicator or panel of adjudicators. |
| 1.1.2 |
Teams will consist of the
following members:
| Opening Government |
"Prime Minister" or "First
Government member", and
"Deputy Prime Minister" or "Second government
member" |
| Opening Opposition |
"Leader of the Opposition"
or "First Opposition member", and
"Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or
"Second Opposition member" |
| Closing Government |
"Member of the Government"
or "Third Government member", and
"Government Whip" |
| Closing Opposition |
"Member for the Opposition",
and
"Opposition Whip" |
|
| 1.1.3 |
Members will speak in the
following order:
| Prime
Minister; |
| Opposition
Leader; |
| Deputy
Prime Minister; |
| Deputy
Opposition Leader; |
| Member
for the Government; |
| Member
for the Opposition; |
| Government
Whip; |
| Opposition
Whip. |
|
1.2
|
The
Motion
|
| 1.2.1 |
The motion should be worded
clearly. |
| 1.2.2 |
The Motion should reflect
that the World Universities Debating Championship is an international tournament. |
| 1.2.3 |
The members should debate
the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.
|
1.3
|
Preparation
|
| 1.3.1 |
Teams should have at least
fifteen minutes to prepare for all debates. |
| 1.3.2 |
Teams should arrive at
the debate within 5 minutes of the scheduled starting time for that debate. |
| 1.3.3 |
Members are permitted to
use printed or written material during preparation and during the debate.
Printed material includes books journals, newspapers and other similar
materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation
in the debate. It should be borne in mind that the use of printed material
during a debate could affect a member's manner.
|
1.4
|
Points
of Information
|
| 1.4.1 |
Points of Information (question
directed to the member speaking) may be asked between the end of the first
minute and the 6 minute mark of the speech (speeches are seven minutes
in duration) |
| 1.4.2 |
To ask a Point of Information,
a member should stand. The Member may place one hand on his or her head
and extend the other to the member speaking. The member may announce that
they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this
effect. |
| 1.4.3 |
The person who is speaking
may allow the offeror to make he point of information or may decline to
take the point of information. |
| 1.4.4 |
Points of information should
not exceed 15 seconds in length. |
| 1.4.5 |
The Member who is speaking
may ask the person asking the point of information to sit down where the
offeror has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood. |
| 1.4.6 |
Members should attempt
to answer at least two points of information during there speech. Members
should also offer points of information. |
| 1.4.7 |
Points of Information will
be assessed according to the effect they have had on the persuasiveness
of the case of both the member answering the point of information and the
member offering the point of information (see Rule 3.4.4) |
| 1.4.8 |
Points of Order and Points
of Personal Privilege are not permitted.
|
1.5
|
Timing
of speeches
|
| 1.5.1 |
Speeches will be seven
minutes in duration (this should be signalled by two strikes of the gavel).
Speeches over seven minutes and twenty seconds may be penalised. |
| 1.5.2 |
Points of information may
only be offered between the end of the first minute and the six minute
mark of the speech. (this period should be signalled by one strike of the
gavel at the first minute and one strike of the gavel at the sixth minute). |
| 1.5.3 |
It is the duty of the Speaker
of the House to time speeches. |
| 1.5.4 |
In the absence of the Speaker
of the House, it is the duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to
ensure that speeches are timed.
|
1.6
|
The
adjudication
|
| 1.6.1 |
The debate should be adjudicated
by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is possible. |
| 1.6.2 |
At the conclusion of the
debate, the adjudicators should confer and the teams, from the first placed
to the last placed. (see Part 5: Marking and Ranking) |
| 1.6.3 |
There should be no verbal
adjudication and the results of the debate should not be released.
|
Part
Two, Definitions
|
2.1
|
The
definition
|
| 2.1.1 |
The definition should state
the issue for the debate rising out of the motion and state the meaning
of any terms in the motivation which require interpretation. |
| 2.1.2 |
The Prime minister should
provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech. |
| 2.1.3 |
The definition of the debate
should not be self proving (truistic or tautological). A truistic definition
is self -proving when the case is that something should (or should not)
be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable opposing
substantive case. A tautological definition is self-proving when the case
is that a certain state of affairs exists (or does not exist) and there
is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition. |
| 2.1.4 |
The definition should have
a clear and logical link to the motion. |
| 2.1.5 |
Squirreling (choosing a
definition which does not have a reasonable link to the motion and is obviously
pre-prepared) is prohibited. |
| 2.1.6 |
Time and place setting
the debate is prohibited.
|
2.2
|
Challenging
the definition
|
| 2.2.1 |
The Leader of the Opposition
may challenge the definition if it violates Rules 2.1.3,
2.1.4,
2.1.5
or 2.1.6 |
| 2.2.2 |
The Leader of the Opposition
should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition. |
| 2.2.3 |
The Leader of the Opposition
should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition
of the Prime Minister.
|
2.3
|
Assessing
the definition challenge
|
| 2.3.1 |
The adjudicator should
determine the challenge to be unreasonable where:
| the
definition is self-proving (truistic or tautological); or |
| the
definition has no clear and logical link to the motion; or |
| the
definition has been squirreled; or |
| the
definition has time or place set to the debate. |
|
| 2.3.2 |
The onus to establish that
the definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition. |
| 2.3.3 |
Where the definition is
unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition
that should be accepted by the adjudicators unless it is unreasonable. |
| 2.3.4 |
Where the definition of
the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative definition is
substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce
matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government
and consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition, provided
that the definition of the Opening Opposition is not unreasonable.
|
Part
Three, Matter
|
3.1
|
The
definition of matter
|
| 3.1.1 |
Matter is the content of
the speech, It is the argument a debater uses to further his or her case
and persuade the audience. |
| 3.1.2 |
Matter includes arguments
and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and other material that attempts
to further the case. |
| 3.1.3 |
Matter includes positive
(or substantive) material and rebuttal. It includes points of information
offered and points of information taken.
|
3.2
|
The
duty to present the matter
|
| 3.2.1 |
Government Members (with
the exception of the Government Whip) must present positive matter. The
Government Whip may choose to introduce positive matter. |
| 3.2.2 |
Opposition members (with
the exception of the Opposition Whip) should attempt to present positive
material. The Opposition whip may not introduce positive matter (new material). |
| 3.2.3 |
All members should attempt
to answer at least two points of information during their own speech and
offer points of information during opposing speeches.
|
3.3
|
The
elements of matter
|
| 3.3.1 |
Matter should be relevant.
Arguments should relate to issues of the debate and the case being presented.
The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic
issues of the debate. |
| 3.3.2 |
Matter should be logical.
Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well-reasoned. |
| 3.3.3 |
Matter should be consistent.
members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent within
there speech, their team and the remainder of the members of their side
of the debate (subject to Rule 2.3.4).
|
3.4
|
Assessing
matter
|
| 3.4.1 |
The matter presented should
be persuasive. "the element of mater" should assist an adjudicator to asses
the persuasiveness of the matter presented. |
| 3.4.2 |
Matter should be assessed
from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should
disregard any specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate. |
| 3.4.3 |
Adjudicators should not
allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated
against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual
preference, age, social status or disability. |
| 3.4.4 |
Points of information should
be assessed according to the effects they have on the persuasiveness of
the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the
member offering the point of information.
|
Part
Four, Manner
|
4.1
|
The
definition of manner
|
| 4.1.1 |
Manner is the presentation
of the speech. It is the a style a member uses to further his or her case
and persuade the audience. |
| 4.1.2 |
Manner includes the style
of the member's presentation and the structure of their presentation.
|
4.2
|
The
element of style
|
| 4.2.1 |
Eye contact will generally
assist a member to persuade an audience as it allows the member to appear
more sincere. |
| 4.2.2 |
Voice modulation will generally
assist a member to persuade an audience as the debater may emphasise important
arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch,
tone, pace and volume of the debater and the use of pauses. |
| 4.2.3 |
Hand gestures may help
a member to emphasise important arguments. However excessive hand movements
may be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the
arguments. |
| 4.2.4 |
Language should be clear
and simple. Members who use language that is too verbose (Phil) or confusing
may detract from the argument if they loose the attention of the audience. |
| 4.2.5 |
The use of notes is permitted
but member should be careful that they do not rely on their notes too much
and detract from the other elements of manner. |
| 4.2.6 |
The use of humour is permitted
and may be used by the debaters to assist there presentation. |
| 4.2.7 |
Any other element which
may effect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member.
|
4.3
|
The
elements of structure
|
| 4.3.1 |
The structure or organisation
of material of the speech of each member. The member should structure or
organise his or her ,matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation. |
| 4.3.2 |
The structure or organisation
of material of the team. The team should organise or structure their matter
to improve their presentation's effectiveness.
|
4.4
|
Assessing
manner
|
| 4.4.1 |
The manner of the member
should be effective. "The elements of style" and "The elements of structure"
should assist an adjudicator to assess the effectiveness of the members
presentation. |
| 4.4.2 |
Adjudicators should be
aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles which are appropriate
and that they should not discriminate against a member simply because the
manner would be deemed "inappropriate Parliamentary debating" in their
own country |
| 4.4.3 |
Adjudicators should not
allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated
against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language,
(subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preference, age,
social status or disability.
|
Part
Five, Adjudication
|
5.1
|
Ranking
the teams
|
| 5.1.1 |
At the conclusion of the
debate, the adjudicators should rank the teams from first place to last
place:
| first
placed teams should be awarded three points; |
| second
placed teams should be awarded two points; |
| third
placed teams should be awarded one point; and |
| fourth
placed teams should be awarded zero. |
|
| 5.1.2 |
Teams may receive zero
points where they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after
the scheduled time for debate without reasonable cause. |
| 5.1.3 |
Teams may receive zero
points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the Member has (or
Members have) discriminated against another debater on the basis of religion,
sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, social status or disability. |
| 5.1.4 |
Adjudicators should confer
upon team rankings. Where a unanimous decision cannot be reached after
conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the rankings. where
a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators
will determine the rankings.
|
5.2
|
Marking
the debate
|
| 5.2.1 |
The marks awarded to member
and team should reflect the adjudicators' impression of debate. |
| 5.2.2 |
The marks awarded to a
team should be the total of both members' marks when added together. |
| 5.2.3 |
The chair should allocate
the marks to members and teams in consultation with the other members of
the majority. Where the Chair dissents from the majority decision, he or
she will nominate another to allocate marks in consultation with the remainder
of the majority. |
| 5.2.4 |
Marks should be accorded
the following interpretation:
| Matter |
Manner |
Total |
Meaning |
| 50 |
50 |
100 |
Flawless |
| 47½ |
47½ |
95 |
Excellent |
| 45 |
45 |
90 |
Very good |
| 42½ |
42½ |
85 |
Good |
| 40 |
40 |
80 |
Above average |
| 37½ |
37½ |
75 |
Average |
| 35 |
35 |
70 |
Below average |
| 32½ |
32½ |
65 |
Poor |
| 30 |
30 |
60 |
Very poor |
| 27½ |
27½ |
55 |
Bad |
| 25 |
25 |
50 |
Very bad |
|
Return
to main page