The inaugural

XLRI PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE TOURNAMENT 10-13 September, 2010

th

An Overview of the Competition The competition shall be conducted in two main phases: Phase 1, the Preliminary Rounds will incorporate a maximum of 4 rounds, while Phase 2, the Knock-out Rounds, shall culminate in the finals. The draw for the first preliminary round will be randomly assigned. For subsequent match-ups for round rounds two to four, the ties will be powermatched. [Therefore, following round 1, winning teams will meet other similarly placed winning teams.] The quarter-finals, semi-finals are knock-out rounds with the winning team in each tie advancing to the next round. For the quarter-finals, the top-ranked team from Phase one will face the team ranked last, the second-ranked team will face the team ranked second last and so on. Points from Phase 1 will not be carried forward to Phase 2. The final authority on all aspects relating to the debate vests with the Chief Adjudicators. The Demo Round Phase one will be prefaced by one demo round. This demo round will consist of two volunteer teams of XLRI, and its results will not affect the overall results of the preliminary rounds in any way, nor the draw for the first round of Phase 1 of the competition. All debaters and adjudicators shall attend the demo round, which will also serve as the initial basis for the adjudicator selection process.

Rules and Guidelines The Format of the Debate 1. The debate will consist of two teams of two persons each. 2. The order of speaking will be as follows: 1st member proposition 6+1 minutes 1st member opposition 6+1 minutes 2nd member proposition 6+1 minutes 2nd member opposition 6+1 minutes Cross examination of proposition by opposition 6+1 minutes Cross examination of opposition by proposition 6+1 minutes Reply speech by opposition 3+1 minutes Reply speech by proposition 3+1 minutes. Please note that the timings for the knock-out rounds will be communicated to you after the completion of the preliminary phase. 3. It is the duty of the Chair to time the speeches. 4. Time signals will be given in the following manner for Constructive Speeches Preliminary Rounds: End of first minute - single ring of the bell End of sixth minute - single ring of the bell End of seventh minute - double ring of the bell Part III: Procedure and Role of the Speakers 1. The Chair shall decide the proposing team and opposing team by the toss of a coin. 2. Three semi-closed motions, decided by the organizers, shall be provided for each round. The motions will be announced by the Chair of the adjudicator panel in each round; 20 minutes prior to the scheduled time for each round. Any reading material to be provided shall be given prior to the debate. 3. The resolution of the motion to be debated shall be decided by the following procedure: The Opposition shall first cancel one motion, following which the Proposition shall choose one of the two motions left. 4. The opening member of the Proposition has the prerogative to define the House being debated in and thus provide their link and case statement. The

Opposition is expected to largely adhere to this definition. If however, (in the exceptional circumstance) the definition is found unacceptable they can challenge it and provide an alternative one. 5. Both members of the Opposition and the 2nd member of the Proposition are expected to incorporate rebuttal of the previous speakers in their speeches 6. For the first two constructive speeches, Points of Information may be offered. PoIs are basically like interjections in between a speakers speech. PoIs may be offered during constructive speeches only, after the first single ring of the bell and up to the second single ring of the bell. PoIs may not be offered during the first and last minutes of constructive speeches. If a Point of Information is offered in the first or the last minute of a constructive speech, it is the duty of the speaker holding the floor to reject the same as being out of order. Consecutive PoIs must have at least 15 seconds between them. Points of Information are marked for their strategic use under Method, and for their content under Matter. 7. Following the initial round of speeches, the teams shall cross-examine each other, with the Opposition commencing the questioning. Guidelines for crossexamination shall be a follows: a. Both questions and answers shall be kept brief and to the point. b. The examining team may request the Chair to interrupt the answering team in the event of the following: i. The latter is wasting time ii. The latter is introducing matter irrelevant to the question iii. The latter is introducing arguments not previously stated in their constructive speeches. The Chair may or may not accept the request depending upon his/her discretion. c. The decision of the Chair shall be binding. d. Teams should take note of the fact that the aim of the crossexamination session is to highlight the strengths of their own arguments while exposing the flaws in those of other opponents 8. At the end of the cross-examination session, both teams shall sum up their cases in their respective reply speeches, with the Opposition closing first. No new matter or arguments may be introduced in the closing speeches.

Part IV: Adjudication Each Adjudication Panel (ordinarily) shall consist of two Adjudicators and a Chair. Each member of the panel shall adjudge and award quality points to the speakers independently of her/his fellow panelists. The Chair shall: 1. Keep the time (and duly notify the same to the panel after each speech) 2. Ensure that the Debate is conducted in an orderly, decorous and constructive manner while reserving the right to intervene (while stopping the watch) to ensure the same. 3. In the event of a split-decision with a panel consisting of two adjudicators, the decision of the Chair shall be deemed decisive (the spilt being duly recorded) 4. All queries and clarifications pertaining to the Rules of Debate shall be directed to the Chair. Guidelines to be followed by the adjudicators in the assessment of the debates shall be as follows: a. Matter shall be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonablyinformed person. Adjudicators should disregard any specialist knowledge they may have on the issues of the debate. b. With regard to the definition of the motion: i) The definition is the interpretation of the motion as put forward by the first member of the Proposition. ii) The definition should: a. set out the parameters of the debate b. state the issue for debate arising out of the motion c. state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require clarification d. have a clear and logical link to the motion iii) The definition should not be: a. self proving (a tautology). b. a truism i.e. when it suggests that something should or should not be done, or that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist, and no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition.

c. a squirrel i.e. when the logical link between the motion and the case statement is too long or too weak or too vague. Any misinterpretation of the closed terms of the motion will be counted under squirrel, since the link between the given motion and case statement becomes wholly illogical as a result. d. The definition should not be place-set, i.e. when the subject matter is confined to a particular location, in order for the motion to stand. e. The definition should not be time-set, i.e. when the subject matter is confined to specific time - past, present or future - for the motion to stand. iv) The definition may be challenged if it does not meet the criteria mentioned in Sec. ii., or is any one of the prohibited definitions mentioned in Sec. iii. v) The definition can be challenged ONLY by the first member of the Opposition, with the onus of establishing that it is unreasonable resting on him or her. If the 1st member of the Opposition does not challenge the definition, then no other member of the House can challenge it. vi) When the definition is unreasonable and has been challenged, an alternative one must be presented by the 1st member of the Opposition, which his team must then go on to oppose. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD EITHER TEAM DEBATE THE OTHERS DEFINITION. The adjudicators will under no circumstances, indicate to the debaters, during the course of the debate, which definition is accepted. 6. Speakers shall be awarded Quality Points for the following: Matter: Clearly of the greatest weight, each speaker is expected to present a logical and coherent set of arguments to support her/his thesis (including positive matter and rebuttal). Method: comprising a structured set of propositions, presented in a clearly provided frame work (such as a Team split, delineating positive matter from the rebuttal etc.) Manner: the style and ability to articulate a cogent case, with reasonable latitude towards the broadest possible range of forensic styles.

6.1. Marks carried by each of the parameter are as under: Matter Manner 20 10

Method Total: Q&A Reply Total

10 40x2=80 10 10 100

6.2. All adjudicators are expected to justify their result by providing feedback to the debating teams. These remarks should summarize the Speakers Case and indicate the basis for the adjudicators award of quality points thereof. The aim of each and every Debate is to invite a fair and convincing argumentation of the Motion. The Adjudication Panel should ensure that the Rules and Spirit of Debate are held without qualification or circumvention as the primary and sole guide for the conduct and adjudication of these Debates. Part V: Role of Speakers The speaker must strive to fulfill the following roles in each of their speeches: 1. Prime Minister The Prime Minister (PM) must commence his debate by stating the motion put before the house and clearly introducing the proposition interpretation. He must then define the key words in the given motion as interpreted by the team. He must then put forth a logical link which clearly connects the motion and the proposed definition or the case statement. He must then give his team split, highlighting his main arguments and the main arguments of the Deputy Prime Minister. Since the PM has no rebuttals he would put forth the constructive points. He may also put forth a model. The model must be put forth in the PMs speech only. No floating model is allowed. 2. Leader of Opposition The Leader of Opposition (LO) may reiterate the motion and the case statement as put forth by the Prime Minister. He must then clearly state if he accepts or rejects the definition put forth by the proposition. He must clearly provide a point of clash that determined the basic negative case of the opposition. He may then give his team split, outlining his main arguments and the main arguments of the Deputy Leader of Opposition. He must then go on to rebut certain arguments made by the PM. He must then proceed with his constructive arguments. If an alternative model is to be provided by the opposition, it must be done in the LOs speech.

3. Deputy Prime Minister The Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) must highlight what his main constructive arguments are. He must then go on to rebut the LOs arguments. 4. Deputy Leader of Opposition The Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) must highlight what his main constructive arguments are. He must then go on to rebut arguments that have come from the proposition. He may then proceed with his constructive arguments. 5. Reply Speeches Both sides of the house have a common one minute to prepare their respective reply speeches. The reply speeches should convey to the adjudicators why the particular side deserves to win the debate and provide a biased adjudication in favour of that side. Reply speeches from both sides of the house must be a short summary or conclusion of the debate. They should reiterate the constructive arguments made by that side of the house, and may once again reiterate the main themes of the debate. They must not have any new matter.

Part VI: Some Terms POINT(S) OF CLASH The main point(s) that the opposition realizes is/are debatable. Should be clarified very explicitly by the Leader of the Opposition. BURDEN OF PROOF The onus on either side of the house to prove logically and conclusively that the case statement stands/ falls, for the reasons theyve given. It is not what the speaker says it is. TEAM SPLIT Structure of the debate, breakup of each speakers role in the debate, should be given by the respective leaders. INSUFFICIENT WARNING If either the PM or the LO fail to flag new lines of thought/argument in their succeeding speakers speeches, it counts as insufficient warning to the other side as they have no time to rebut that point. In a 3 x 3 debate, therefore, any new line of argument(s) brought out by the respective whips will be discounted as new matter/ insufficient warning to the other side. POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE May be raised If a speaker feels he/ she has been deeply insulted on a personal level by another competitor. In the case of a personal emergency. Only after the completion of an ongoing speech.

Part VII: Basis for Ranking of Teams Following the five preliminary rounds, the top four ranked teams break into the semi-finals. The criterion for purposes of power-matching and ranking in Preliminary Phase is as follows: A) Win versus Loss record B) Number of Adjudicators C) Margins of Victory D) Head to Head E) Overall points Part VIII: Change of Rules 1. Any or all of the above rules, regulations, and guidelines are subject to change at the discretion of the organizers. 2. The rules are non-negotiable. Part IX: Grievance Redressal Any serious grievances during the course of the competition may be communicated in writing to the Chief Adjudicator for the inaugural XLRI Parliamentary Debate Tournament.