| |
European Universities Debating Championship
European Parliamentary Debating Rules
By Ray D'Cruz
Part 1- 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 for the Government" or "Third Government member" and
"Government Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member";
Closing Opposition:
"Member for the Opposition" or "Third Opposition member" and
"Opposition Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member". |
| 1.1.3 |
Members will deliver substantive speeches in the following
order:
(1) Prime Minister;
(2) Opposition Leader;
(3) Deputy Prime Minister;
(4) Deputy Opposition Leader;
(5) Member for the Government;
(6) Member for the Opposition;
(7) Government Whip;
(8) Opposition Whip. |
| 1.1.4 |
Members will deliver a substantive speech of seven
minutes duration and should offer points of information while members
of the opposing teams are speaking. |
1.2 The motion
| 1.2.1 |
The motion should be unambiguously worded. |
| 1.2.2 |
The motion should reflect that the European Universities
Debating Championship is a european 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 |
The debate should commence 15 minutes after the motion
is announced. |
| 1.3.2 |
Teams should arrive at their debate within five 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 and in the debate. |
1.4 Points of Information
| 1.4.1 |
Points of Information (questions directed to the member
speaking) may be asked between first minute mark and the six minute
mark of the members' speeches (speeches are of seven minutes duration).
|
| 1.4.2 |
To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand,
place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards 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 member who is speaking may accept or decline to
answer 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 offering
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 their speech. Members should also offer Points
of Information. |
| 1.4.7 |
Points of Information should be assessed in accordance
with clause 3.3.4 of these rules. |
| 1.4.8 |
Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are
not permitted. |
1.5 Timing of the speeches
| 1.5.1 |
Speeches should be seven minutes in duration (this
should be signalled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over seven
minutes and 15 seconds may be penalised. |
| 1.5.2 |
Points of Information may only be offered between the
first minute mark 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 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 rank the teams, from first placed to last placed. (see
Part 5: The Adjudication). |
| 1.6.3 |
There will be verbal adjudications of the debate after
the first three preliminary rounds of the tournament. The verbal adjudication
should be delivered in accordance with clause 5.5 of these rules. |
Part 2 - Definitions
2.1 The definition
| 2.1.1 |
The definition should state the issue (or issues) for
debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms
in the motion 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 must: |
| |
(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion - this
means that an average reasonable person would accept the link made
by the member between the motion and the definition (where there is
no such link the definition is sometimes referred to as a "squirrel");
|
| |
(b) not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving
when the case is that something should or should not be done and there
is no reasonable rebuttal. A definition is may also be self-proving
when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists or does not
exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are sometimes
referred to as "truisms"). |
| |
(c) not be time set - this means that the debate must
take place in the present and that the definition cannot set the debate
in the past or the future; and |
| |
(d) not be place set unfairly - this means that the
definition cannot restrict the debate so narrowly to a particular
geographical or political location that a participant of the tournament
could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the place. |
2.2 Challenging the definition
| 2.2.1 |
The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition
if it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules. The Leader of the Opposition
should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.
|
| 2.2.2 |
The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative
definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister. |
2.3 Assessing the definitional challenge
| 2.3.1 |
The adjudicator should determine the definition to
be 'unreasonable' where it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules. |
| 2.3.2 |
The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable
is on the members asserting that the definition is unreasonable. |
| 2.3.3 |
Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition
should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted
by the adjudicator provided it is not 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. |
| 2.3.5 |
If the Opening Opposition has substitued a definition
that is also unreasonable, the Closing Government may challenge the
definition of the Opening Opposition and substitute an alternative
definition. |
| 2.3.6 |
If the Closing Government has substitued a definition
that is also unreasonable (in addition to the unreasonable definitions
of the Opening Government and Opening Opposition, the Closing Opposition
may challenge the definition of the Closing Government and substitute
an alternative definition. |
Part 3 - Matter
3.1 The definition of matter
| 3.1.1 |
Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments
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 any other material that attempts to further
the case. |
| 3.1.3 |
Matter includes positive (or substantive) material
and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments
of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information. |
3.2 The elements of matter
| 3.2.1 |
Matter should be relevant, logical and consistent.
|
| 3.2.2 |
Matter should be relevant. It should relate to the
issues of the debate: positive material should support the case being
presented and rebuttal should refute the material being presented
by the opposing team(s). The Member should appropriately prioritise
and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate. |
| 3.2.3 |
Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed
logically in order to be clear and well-reasoned and therefore plausible.
The conclusion of all arguments should support the member's case.
|
| 3.2.4 |
Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure
that the matter they present is consistent within their speech, their
team and the remainder of the members on their side of the debate
(subject to clauses 2.3.4, 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 of these rules). |
| 3.2.5 |
All Members should present positive matter (except
the final two members in the debate) and all members should present
rebuttal (except the first member in the debate). The Government Whip
may choose to present positive matter. |
| 3.2.6 |
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 Assessing matter
| 3.3.1 |
The matter presented should be persuasive. 'The elements
of matter' should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness
and credibility of the matter presented. |
| 3.3.2 |
Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the
average reasonable person. Adjudicators should analyse the matter
presented and assess its persuasiveness, while disregarding any specialist
knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate. |
| 3.3.3 |
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. |
| 3.3.4 |
Points of information should be assessed according
to the effect 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 4 - Manner
4.1 The definition of manner
| 4.1.1 |
Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the
style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade
the audience. |
| 4.1.2 |
Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Some,
but not all, of these elements are listed below. |
4.2 The elements of style
| 4.2.1 |
The elements of style include eye contact, voice modulation,
hand gestures, language, the use of notes and any other element which
may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member. |
| 4.2.2 |
Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade
an audience as it allows the member to appear more sincere. |
| 4.2.3 |
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,
and volume of the member's voice and the use of pauses. |
| 4.2.4 |
Hand gestures will generally assist a member to emphasise
important arguments. Excessive hand movements may however be distracting
and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments. |
| 4.2.5 |
Language should be clear and simple. Members who use
language which is too verbose or confusing may detract from the argument
if they lose the attention of the audience. |
| 4.2.6 |
The use of notes is permitted, but members should be
careful that they do not rely on their notes too much and detract
from the other elements of manner. |
4.3 The elements of structure
| 4.3.1 |
The elements of structure include the structure of
the speech of the member and the structure of the speech of the team.
|
| 4.3.2 |
The matter of the speech of each member must be structured.
The member should organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness
of their presentation. The substantive speech of each members should:
|
| |
(a) include:an introduction, conclusion and a series
of arguments; and |
| |
(b) be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations
and the need to prioritise and apportion time to matter. |
| 4.3.3 |
The matter of the team must be structured. The team
should organise their matter to improve the effectiveness of their
presentation. The team should: |
| |
(a) contain a consistent approach to the issues being
debated; and |
| |
(b) allocate positive matter to each member where both
members of the team are introducing positive matter; and |
4.4 Assessing manner
| 4.4.1 |
Adjudicators should assess the elements of manner together
in order to determine the overall effectiveness of the member's presentation.
Adjudicators should assess whether the member's presentation is assisted
or diminished by their manner. |
| 4.4.2 |
Adjudicators should be aware that at a European 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 5 - The Adjudication
5.1 The role of the adjudicator
| 5.1.1 |
The adjudicator must: |
| |
(a) Confer upon and discuss the debate with the other
adjudicators; |
| |
(b) Determine the rankings of the teams; |
| |
(c) Determine the team grades; |
| |
(d) Determine the speaker marks; |
| |
(e) Provide a verbal adjudication to the members; and |
| |
(f) Complete any documentation required by the tournament.
|
| 5.1.2 |
The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the
adjudication of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore confer in
a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect |
| 5.1.3 |
Adjudicators should acknowledge that adjudicators on
a panel may form different or opposite views of the debate. Adjudicators
should therefore attempt to base their conclusions on these rules
in order to limit subjectivity and to provide a consistent approach
to the assessment of debates. |
5.2 Ranking teams
| 5.2.1 |
Teams should be ranked 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 points. |
| 5.2.2 |
Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive
at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for
debate. |
| 5.2.3 |
Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators
unanimously agree that the Member has (or Members have) harassed another
debater on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality,
sexual preference or disability. |
| 5.2.4 |
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. |
5.3 Grading and marking the teams
| 5.3.1 |
The panel of adjudicators should agree upon the grade
that each team is to be awarded. Each adjudicator may then mark the
teams at their discretion but within the agreed grade. Where there
is a member of the panel who has dissented in the ranking of the teams,
that adjudicator will not need to agree upon the team grades and may
complete their scoresheet at their own discretion. |
| 5.3.2 |
Team grades and marks should be given the following
interpretation: |
|
Grade
|
Marks
|
Meaning
|
|
A
|
180-200
|
Excellent to flawless. The standard you would
expect to see from a team at the Semi Final / Grand Final level of
the tournament. The team has many strengths and few, if any, weaknesses. |
|
B
|
160-179
|
Above average to very good. The standard you
would expect to see from a team at the finals level or in contention
to make to the finals. The team has clear strengths and some minor
weaknesses. |
|
C
|
140-159
|
Average. The team has strengths and weaknesses
in roughly equal proportions. |
|
D
|
120-139
|
Poor to below average. The team has clear problems
and some minor strengths. |
|
E
|
100-119
|
Very poor. The team has fundamental weaknesses
and few, if any, strengths. |
5.4 Marking the members
| 5.4.1 |
After the adjudicators have agreed upon the grade that
each team is to be awarded, each adjudicator may mark the individual
members at their discretion but must ensure that the aggregate points
of the team members is within the agreed grade for that team. |
| 5.4.2 |
Individual members' marks should be given the following
interpretation: |
|
Grade
|
Marks
|
Meaning
|
|
A
|
90-100
|
Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech
you would expect to see from a speaker at the Semi Final / Grand Final
level of the tournament. This speaker has many strengths and few,
if any, weaknesses. |
|
B
|
80-89
|
Above average to very good. The standard you
would expect to see from a speaker at the finals level or in contention
to make to the finals. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor
weaknesses. |
|
C
|
70-79
|
Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses
and roughly equal proportions. |
|
D
|
60-69
|
Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses
and roughly equal proportions. |
|
E
|
50-59
|
Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses
and few, if any, strengths. |
5.5 Verbal adjudications
| 5.5.1 |
At the conclusion of the conferral, the adjudication
panel should provide a verbal adjudication of the debate. |
| 5.5.2 |
The verbal adjudication should be delivered by the
Chair of the adjudication panel, or where the Chair dissents, by a
member of the adjudication panel nominated by the Chair of the panel.
|
| 5.5.3 |
The verbal adjudication should: |
| |
(a) identify the order in which the teams were ranked
|
| |
(b) explain the reasons for the rankings of team, ensuring
that each team is referred to in this explanation; and |
| |
(c) provide constructive comments to individual members
where the adjudication panel believes this is necessary. |
| 5.5.4 |
The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.
|
| 5.5.5 |
The members must not harass the adjudicators following
the verbal adjudication. |
| 5.5.6 |
The members may approach an adjudicator for further
clarification following the verbal adjudication; these inquiries must
at all times be polite and non-confrontational. |
| 5.5.7 |
The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.
|
| 5.5.8 |
The members must not harass the adjudicators following
the verbal adjudication. |
| 5.5.9 |
The members may approach an adjudicator for further
clarification following the verbal adjudication; these inquiries must
at all times be polite and non-confrontational. |
|
|
