Asian Parliamentary Format

5 Preliminary In-rounds & 4 Out-rounds(tentative)

FORMAT
Two teams of 3 members each
Government vs Opposition
Each debater speaks for 7 minutes
Reply speaker speaks for 4 minutes
POIs between 1st to 6th minute
In total: 3 speeches per team, 8 per debate, 50 minutes run time per debate
25 minutes of preparation time and 5 minutes for ranking of motions
PM LO

DPM DLO

GW OW

GR OR
 SPEAKER ROLES: 1ST SPEAKER

Set their mutually exclusive stance

Set the stance
Identify the burden of opp
Identify the burden of gov
Accept/ Reject & redefine gov’s definition
Define the motion
Outline the counter-model/ proposal
Outline the model/proposal (if any)
Rebut the PM’s speech
Substantive Argumentation
Substantive Argumentation
 SPEAKER ROLES: 2ND SPEAKER
DEPUTY DEPUTY LEADER
PRIME MINISTER OF OPPOSITION

If needed, clarify the stance/burdens If needed, clarify the stance/burden

of the government of the opposition
Rebut the Leader of Opposition Rebut the Deputy Prime Minister
Extend team’s case Extend team’s case

Extension of a team’s case can be done by

either speaker adding analysis to existing ideas or,
introducing new ideas into the debate.
SPEAKER ROLES: 3RD SPEAKER
WHIP SPEAKER

The role of a whip speaker is to settle the debate in his/her team’s favor
The most common method of doing this is to compartmentalize the debate into
distinct issues / themes and show how / why your team won them
No New ideas allowed; new rebuttals to existing ideas are however accepted
and are highly encouraged!
Litmus test for what is new matter: is the analysis derivable from the arguments
already made by his/her teammates?
In some circumstances it is acceptable for the Gov whip to introduce new matter
(Highly unadvisable); but it is never acceptable for the Opp whip to have new matter
SPEAKER ROLES
REPLY SPEAKER

No POIs allowed
4 Minute Speech
Summarize the debate.
Biased oral adjudication
POINTS OF INFORMATION
Lasts for 15 seconds
Can be offered after 1st minute and before 6th minute
Each speaker should take at least one
At the beginning of each round, three motions will be
released
Rank each of the motions, according to your preference
A ‘3’ is the motion you don’t want. It is an automatic
veto. The motion cannot ever be debated because you
gave it a 3.
A ‘1’ is the one you want the most
MA 3 2

MB 1 3

MC 2 1

MOTION C WILL BE DEBATED

MA 3 3

MB 1 2

MC 2 1

COIN TOSS BETWEEN MOTIONS B AND C

MA 3 3

MB 1 1

MC 2 2

MOTION B WILL BE DEBATED

POLICY MOTIONS
THW
Example: THW Ban Reality TV Shows

The question of the debate is whether we should enact the policy

 ANALYSIS MOTIONS
THBT/THS/THO…
Example 1: THBT Facebook does more harm than good
Example 2: THS the X law
Example 3: THO the election of Jair Bolsonaro

Does not need a policy, but still need to define the debate (e.g. a metric/yardstick to more good
than harms, why there is merit to the thing that is being analysed)
POLICY MOTIONS
THR...
Example: THR the rise of democracy

We ask whether the world would have been a better place without the
existence of that which we are regretting
We need to describe and justify how an alternative world would look, can’t
simply assume that without a debate culture everyone will not have a lot of
social capital
We must be comparative
 ANALYSIS MOTIONS
THP...
Example: THP a world in which love is unfaltering.

Opposition cannot invent a new world to compare government world to - they must defend the
status quo!

However, if the motion is "THP a world in which love is unfaltering to a world where
love is conditional" , then opposition must defend a world where love is conditional
 ANALYSIS MOTIONS
THBT X SHOULD/SHOULD NOT…
Example: THBT the US should not have pulled out troops from North Eastern
Syria in early October 2019

The question is whether the statement is true from the prospective of a neutral observer.
 ACTOR MOTIONS
TH, AS X,…
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)

Example: TH, as parents, would not actively encourage their children to adopt their own
religion

THBT X should is not an Actor Motion: THBT parents should not actively encourage their
children to adopt their own religion (can still claim that the interest of the parent are
prioritized, but this time a neutral observer)
DEFINITON CHALLENGE
 Standard: Is the definition a reasonable interpretation of the
words in the motion?
Challenging definition should be done as a last resort and is
rare.
A Government team may define a motion any way they choose
as long as it is within the Spirit of the Motion.
Guidelines- a definition is NOT in line with the spirit when it is:
Ø Truistic
Ø Time place Setting
Ø Squirrel
TRUISM

Where the definition is not debatable.

It is a fact or obvious or cannot be challenged or rebutted.
E.g. – Murder is bad.
Real life e.g. THW make HIV testing mandatory
Set up case as making HIV testing mandatory before blood donation
SQUIRREL
Where the definition escapes a reasonable logic or link with the motion.
E.g. THW ASSASSINATE BASHAR AL ASSAD
Reasonable expectation: By any means to kill Assad not through
legal means.
Unreasonable : We would like to assassinate his character by defaming
him but not kill him.
TIME-PLACE SET
Setting the debate in an unknown or obscure place or where very
special & specific knowledge is needed.
Setting the debate the past or in the future. (e.g. We would legalize euthanasia in
2100 where we can accurately ascertain uncompromised consent)
Or a combination of the two - Legalize euthanasia in Swaziland during the
drought of 1965
 WHEN GOV GAVE A BAD
DEF'N, WHAT CAN OPP DO?
• One of two things
1. Point out unfairness to the judge, but continue to debate it nonetheless
2. Mention to the judge, EXPLICITLY, that you are challenging the definition
In the event of option 2: Redefine the motion and run the debate (Details in the
following slide)
In the event of option 1: If the definition is not what was expected but debatable, feel
free to point it out but should be debated nonetheless.
A CHALLENGE CANNOT BE MADE BY ANYONE ELSE BUT THE LEADER OF
OPPOSITION.
 DEFINITION CHALLENGE
In a definition challenge, the LO must:
Explicitly CHALLENGE the definition
Explain why the definition is invalid
Provide a legitimate alternative
Launch even-if arguments/rebuttals

The DPM may:

Defend and justify the government’s definition and refute LO’s definition
Accept LO’s definition and continue to the debate.
JUDGING A DEFINITION
CHALLENGE
Do not penalize teams who justifiably challenge an invalid definition
It isn’t an automatic loss for the Government. The debate will be evaluated based on
which team engages best.
• Not a clear-cut matter of which definition was more talked about. It’s about which
definition made more sense (argue by the teams)
• It’s also about which team was able to engage BOTH debates more
Judge the debate as it happened instead of what it should’ve been about
 The debate is to be judged from the perspective of an Average
Reasonable Person
• Average Reasonable Person
• Open-minded, unbiased and not swayed solely by rhetoric
• Follows the news but not a specialist in any field
• Able to pick up complicated concepts when explained
• Able to spot contradictory reasoning
Judges can only discredit material that is obviously &
empirically false
 Do not complete the argument for the debater or judge
the version you knew the argument could have been
Judge the
• Degree of substantiation – Depth of the argument, No
lingering questions at the end of the argument
• Explanation – Thoroughness of analysis, demonstrating logical
links from the premises to the conclusion
• Grounding – Extent the argument is relevant to the context of
the debate
Judges should insist that teams engage with arguments,
relevant examples and rebuttals – look for comparative
HOLISTIC JUDGEMENT
Speeches are usually judged on Matter, Manner and Method: Do not get caught up
with these, do not look at them in a vacuum
Like structure, manner is a mechanism for persuasion rather than persuasive
content itself
• Standard: is the material presented clearly and effectively?
• Be careful not to over privilege specific styles (calmness over aggression, big
words over accessible ones, etc.)
• Don’t punish accents or lack of fluency
The gold standard for measuring effectiveness is persuasion
HOLISTIC JUDGING: BURDENS
Teams have equal and opposite burdens. What you give to one should be given to the
other.
Stances don’t have to be COMPLETELY mutually exclusive; however there has to be
some degree of mutual exclusivity
Judges should not force a burden on any side
Ø The teams may however feel free to take on any burden
Ø When one team pushes a burden on another:-
• If there is no response, then the team is assumed to have accepted that burden
• If a team does not accept the burden, judge is to assess the validity of the burden
using the same metrics used to judge other matter
 Within 7 Mins of the conclusion of the debate, Chairs and Panel must
submit their ballots.
Judges are NOT supposed to discuss their decisions. (Not even remarks
about the debate)
When (AND ONLY WHEN) the entire panel has filled their ballots, check to
see if there is a split.
The entire panel is to provide Oral Adjudication and is to be scored by the teams.
In the event of a dissent (Panel or Chair), the dissenting judge goes first.
Trainees shall give feedback first irrespective.
You can not listen to other judges OA, if you aren’t done with yours.
Oral Adjudication for each judge to be 7 Mins strictly (including questions)
For the first 6 speeches (PM, LO, DPM, DLO, GW, OW) – NO decimal
points allowed. Therefore, NO:
• 75.5, 77.1, etc.
To score reply speeches: Score it as you would a regular speech and
divide by two.
• Therefore ONLY whole numbers and 0.5’s ….. You still don’t get to
give out 0.1’s or 0.6’s/0.7’s
The Margin is = total score of winning team – total score of losing
team
• Total score of winning team = sum of scores of all speeches (1st,
2nd, 3rd and Reply)
The Margin cannot be less than zero! (i.e. Total score of winning team
HAS TO BE GREATER than the total score of the loosing team)
 Content is almost never relevant, and is both confusing and confused. No structure or
67 fulfillment of role in any meaningful sense is provided. OR did not speak at all.

The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as

68 arguments. Hard to follow, little/no structure; no evident awareness of role.

The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently unclear and
69 confusing; really problematic structure/lack thereof; some awareness of role.

Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is
70-71 clear enough to be understood the vast majority of the time, but this may be difficult and/or
unrewarding. Structure poor; poor attempt to fulfill role.

Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points

72-73 of peripheral or irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the audience’s attention and is
usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to
fulfill one’s role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.
 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often, the

74-76 speaker may slip into: i) deficits in explanation, ii) simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent
responses, or iii) peripheral or irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds one’s attention, provides clear
structure, and successfully fulfills their basic role on the table.

Relevant and pertinent arguments address key issues in the round with sufficient
77-78 explanation. The speech is clear in almost its entirety, and holds one’s attention
persuasively. Role is well-fulfilled and structure is unlikely to be problematic.

Very good, central arguments engage well with the most important issues on the table and are
79-80 highly compelling; sophisticated responses would be required to refute them. Delivery is clear
and very persuasive. Role fulfillment and structure probably flawless.

Brilliant arguments successfully engage with the main issues in the round. Arguments are very well-

81-82 explained, always central to the case being advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated responses.
The speech is very clear and incredibly compelling. Structure and role fulfillment are executed flawlessly.

Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given, flawless and astonishingly
83 compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses
to any of the arguments made.
 Be Fair and Reasonable
If they didn’t give you the win doesn’t mean that you should mark them
low. Listen to their justification.
They heard the debate for an hour. You OWE it to them to listen for 7
mins.
Don’t heckle. Be patient. Question Politely.
Every Team must fill the ballot using ONE link only.
Strongly advice and encourage teams to leave comments for each and
every score. CAP is going to read every feedback.
 Thorough and convincing justification based solely on what was said in the debate
Excellent & Grand
10 Finals Judge worthy.
judge used holistic criteria and feedback was in-depth with explicit identification and strong justification
for metrics or assumptions employed while judging and extremely comparative.
break 100% and judge Finals

Clear and Extremely detailed with their feedback and caught all issues

8-9 Very good and should judge

farther out rounds.
Clear Comparatives and explanations of metric used in debate
Comprehensive feedback with occasional lack of clarity but not significant
Definitely break and judge farther out rounds

Good to Above Average. Higher Identified and prioritized most issues correctly based on what was saud in the debate

6-7 Panelist/ Possibly Chair lower

rooms and should break
Explanation was convincing, but not necessarily thorough.
Judge needs more clarity and be clearly comparative
Should break

Broadly identified the right issues, however may have mmissed some/ wrongly prioritized

4-5 Average.
Lower Panelist.
May have missed some key bits of analysis/ nuance which impacted decision
Justification was incomplete
Lack of Clarity in comparisions.

Did not identify the right issues in the debate

1-3 Poor to very poor and
should be Trainee.
Missed out?misunderstood entire portions of arguments.
Judge has possible biases and entered the room.
No justification for decision.