बहस-म ब हहस RULE BOOK

Transcription

1 बहस-म ब हहस 1 st ULGULAN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE COMPETITION 2016 RULE BOOK I FORMAT OF DEBATE I.1 Speaking Sequence 1. Each debating match-up shall consist of 2 teams, the Proposition and the Opposition. The Proposition shall consist of: a. Prime Minister / 1st affirmative b. Deputy Prime Minister / 1st affirmative c. Proposition Whip / 3rd affirmative The Opposition shall consist of: a. Leader of Opposition / 1st negative b. Deputy Leader of Opposition / 1st negative c. Opposition Whip / 3rd negative 2. The 6 substantive speeches, followed by 2 reply speeches, shall be in the following order. a. Prime Minister / 1st affirmative b. Leader of Opposition / 1st negative c. Deputy Prime Minister / 1st affirmative d. Deputy Leader of Opposition / 1st negative e. Proposition Whip / 3rd affirmative f. Opposition Whip / 3rd negative g. Opposition reply speech 1

2 h. Proposition reply speech Note Whips from either team are barred from giving the reply speeches. I.2 Speaker Roles Prime Minister (PM) / 1st Affirmative 1. Defines the house, proposes a definition based on the motion and logically links it to the theme by using constructive arguments. 2. Provides the house with a. Clear and concise case statement / proposal (burden of the Proposition), that is not in violation of any of the rules. b. Background, explanation or context for the Government case, if necessary. c. Roadmap, whereby team split and structure of the debate is mentioned. d. Detailed model, if any. 3. A model, if any, shall have to be brought out in the 1st speech from either side. Subsequent speakers may only explain / substantiate such model. If any addition is made to the existing model, it shall be considered a floating model. A floating model will incur negative marking. Leader of Opposition (LOP) / 1st Negative 1. States, citing reasons through own constructive, whether the definition put forth by the Proposition is accepted or rejected. 2. Offers rebuttal to the Government case. 3. Puts forth a counter-model, if any. 4. States burden of the Opposition. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) / 1st Affirmative 1. Presents arguments in support of the proposal. 2. Offers rebuttal to the points established by the LOP. 3. Reiterates (if necessary) and further substantiates the constructive of the PM. 4. Explains extensively the intricacies of the model. 2

3 Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO) / 1st Negative 1. Refutes government s arguments and engages with independent arguments put up by the DPM. 2. Puts forth new constructive at the outset. 3. Strengthens the case based on the burden of the Opposition. Government Whip / 3rd Affirmative 1. Rebuts arguments of the Opposition and reiterate the ones of the Proposition. 2. Points out flaws in argument and logic. 3. Brings out thematic clashes. 4. Cannot introduce new matter, but can establish the same through new examples. 5. Summarizes the debate by emphasizing on issues that lead to the Proposition s victory. Opposition Whip / 3rd Negative 1. Rebuts arguments put forth by the Proposition. 2. Points out flaws in argument and logic. 3. Brings out thematic clashes. 4. Cannot introduce new matter, but can establish the same through new examples. 5. Summarizes the debate by emphasizing on issues that lead to the Opposition s victory. Reply Speech. 1. Framing the debate in favour of the Opposition/Proposition by way of crystallizing issues. Essentially, biased adjudication. 2. Bring to notice concessions, inconsistencies and vague responses by the Proposition/Opposition and arguments or rebuttals that have not been replied to by the Proposition/Opposition. New matter cannot form a part of this speech. 3. POIs cannot be put up during this speech. 4. Discharging of burden of proof is to be evaluated. 3

4 II- Format of the Tournament II.1 The Preliminaries A set of 5 or more rounds (number of rounds may increase based on the 2n rule) shall be debated by each team in order to ensure maximum opportunity and fairness to all participating institutions. More importantly, it allows only the best to surface at the top as these rounds are based on the concept of defending one s rank in the tournament. The first preliminary round will have teams facing each other as per a random draw of lots, which shall take place prior to the first round of debating. After the first match-up, all teams will be ranked on the following basis (in order of preference): 1. Win/Loss 2. Margin of Victory (MOV) 3. Speaker Scores The ranks determined by the first debate will have to be defended and improved in the rest of the preliminary rounds. After each round of debating, teams will be re-ranked based on their performance in the previous round. Teams will then debate their adjacently ranked teams. For example, the team ranked one will debate the second ranking team in the next round. A new rank as determined in the subsequent debate will then have to be defended and improved in the round after that. The basis of ranking in the remaining 4 preliminary rounds will be based on the following criteria (in order of preference): 1. Number of Wins/Losses 2. Margin of Victory (MOV) 3. Speaker Scores The last two rounds among the preliminary rounds will be closed rounds. Outcome of the rounds will not be informed to the teams Adjudication feedback will not be given II.2 Quarter-finals and Semi-finals The top 8 teams after the prelims will subsequently qualify to the Quarter-finals, and if the 4

5 situation demands, 16 teams after the prelims will qualify to the Octo-finals. In this round, teams will now compete against the hierarchically opposite ranked teams. Hence, the team ranked first will debate the team placed at the last position. The semi-finals will also follow the same concept of ranking and match-up. The top ranked team will debate the lowest ranked team. II.3 Speaking Time Each speech in a debate will be timed by a runner. The timing of each speech starts the moment the member begins speaking. The speaking time for the various speeches shall be dependent upon the nature of the round, that is: (For) Constructive Speeches Preliminary Rounds minutes Octo finals minutes Quarter Finals minutes Semi Finals minutes Finals minutes (For) Reply Speeches Preliminary round(s), octo-finals (only if the preliminary rounds are more than 5) and quarter finals: 3+1 Semi finals and final: 4+1 Time will be indicated in the following manner: Constructive Speeches: End of first minute - single knock of the gavel End of second last minute - single knock of the gavel End of last minute - double knock of the gavel Reply Speeches: End of second last minute - single knock of the gavel End of last minute - double knock of the gavel 5

6 Note: Speakers can request for Minute Count, if they require, before they start their speech. Once the double knock of the gavel has been sounded, speakers have a 20 second grace period during which they should conclude their speech. After this grace period has elapsed, there will be a continuous knocking of the gavel, and the adjudicators must disregard the rest of that particular speech. Speakers continuing after the stipulated speaking time may also be penalized by the adjudicators; however, this is up to the discretion of each adjudicator. If the speaker concludes his or her speech before the second single knock of the gavel, he or she should be marked low on Matter. III- Theme and Motions III.1 Release of Motion The Draw: Each round will be based on a well-known theme. The primary phase of any round begins with the declaration of the various draws or match-ups. This declaration will be made common and each match will be assigned a runner (who doubles up as timekeeper) and an odd number of adjudicators/adjudicator. After this point, teams and adjudicators will proceed to their venues. Each runner will be equipped with requisite adjudication sheets and feedback forms. The chairs for the round will receive the motion and the themes from the runners at the venue. All doubts related to the previous round should be cleared before release of motion for next round. No adjudicator replacement plea by any team will be taken into consideration once tabulations are displayed. Any ambiguity in the tabulation chart must be clarified before proceeding to the venue. And problems in regard to this must be addressed to the Organisers or the Chief Adjudicators. Release of Motion: At the tab room, the Core adjudication team will release the theme for the round and the three motions which may be debated under the given theme. Teams shall mark their preferences vis-à-vis the desirability of the motions to be debated. 6

7 The least preferred motion by the two teams i.e. the 3rd in preference shall be cancelled and motion which is most preferred shall be debated. If after the said procedure, there is no consensus as to the motion to be debated, the conflict shall be resolved by a coin toss, which shall be done under the supervision of the Chair/Panellist. It is to be noted, that once a team has marked its preferences, the same shall not be subject to any change. From the time of release of the motion, teams have 25 minutes preparation time, completion of which shall be the time to start the debate. The Motions: There will be a choice of three motions provided under a theme. These motions will be identical for all participating teams. The proposition has the right to prepare in the chambers and the adjudicators, runner & the opposition shall vacate the chambers. The runner of the particular room will inform the teams on half time and when 5 minutes are left for end of the preparation time. III.2 Preparations Following rules, with respect to preparation, shall remain operative throughout the competition and all the participant teams are to strictly abide by the same: 1. Preparation time for a debate starts when the motions are released in the tab room. 2. A team will be given an automatic loss if they reach the venue any later than 10 minutes after the rest of the participants and adjudicators have reached the venue. 3. Preparation time for each preliminary round shall be 25 minutes. However, preparation time will be increased to 30 minutes for octo-finals (if required), quarter finals, semifinals and final. 4. Printed material can be accessed, but only during preparation time. But any information in electronic form is prohibited. Information in electronic form shall include but is not limited to, all kinds of computers, electronic data banks, cellular phones, etc. Printed material, as above mentioned, shall not be accessed once the 1st speaker holds the floor. 5. Once motions have been released, there must be no contact between debaters in a particular team and coaches, trainers, friends, observers or any other individual for the 7

8 purpose of assistance in the context of the debate. Anything done in violation of any of the said rules shall be deemed as cheating and the team(s) contravening any such rule may be disqualified from the event. IV Essential Ingredients of a Parliamentary Debate IV.1 The Definition The definition of the motion is the elucidation of a team s perception of a given motion, and is to be clearly asserted in the first speech of the proposition. In defining the motion, the proposition must first provide the background (case statement) with respect to the theme in order to lay down the context of the debate and provide a logical link of the definition with the background (case statement) of the debate. This is followed by interpretation of each term (if necessary) present in the motion. A good definition will not only include the explanation of the key words of the motion, but also iron out the issues/contentions of the debate, i.e. it should identify the burden of proof. Burdens refer to what a particular team should have said, based on the arguments made by the teams. Burdens do not depend on what the adjudicator thinks but what the team should have said, based on his/her knowledge; it flows directly from the arguments in the debate. Each team may have multiple burdens, both major and minor. If a team has not discharged a major burden, it may lose the debate. This definition once enunciated, must be used for the rest of the debate. The proposing team cannot alter this definition in any subsequent speeches (if done will be taken as a case slide & be marked negatively). The opposition must also clearly explain their interpretation of the motion, their essential Points of Clashes, the burden laid down by the proposition and any other relevant information that is ought to be provided in the given circumstances of the debate. Besides, the opposition is at liberty to not only accept the boundaries of debate as set by the proposition but may also include varied parameters, provided they clearly define these in the 1st negative s speech. 8

9 IV.2 Definition Challenge For a debate to proceed, it is necessary that both the teams have a clear understanding of what the motion actually means. So the 1st affirmative bears the onus of defining the motion, the most elementary part of debate, so that it is clear to everyone as to what is being debated upon. However, the problem arises when two teams present different understandings of the meaning of the motion. If such scenario arises, the focus of debate shifts towards the definition, rather than the motion and the session gets transformed into a Definition Challenge. This is the reason why Definition Challenges are usually discouraged. Nevertheless, it is open for the Negative to challenge the Affirmative s definition on any one or more of the following grounds: Squirrel: If a team twists the wording of the motion to define onto something else, by way of distorting the definition to enable a team to argue a pre-prepared argument, it amounts to squirreling. In order to make sure that the opposition is not deprived of its preparation time and to prevent the debate from getting diverted towards unduly narrow or bizarre subjects, squirreling is made a ground to raise definition challenge. For instance, defining THW legalise performance-enhancing drugs in sport to mean that marijuana should be legalised, by asserting the fact that since sport is fun; life is fun; and thus soft drugs enhance people s ability to have fun in the sport of life, is completely absurd. This sort of debating quickly becomes artificial and makes the preparation of opposition side completely redundant. Truism: A truism is matter that is obviously true. For instance: Literally defining the motion THBT man breathes oxygen would be a truism. There cannot be a debate on this motion because there is no issue as to whether man breathes oxygen or not. Tautology: A tautology is a definition which, in development proves itself. When the Negative challenges on the grounds of a tautology, it is essentially challenging the fact that the Prime 9

10 Minister s arguments are self proving, or circular in nature, which leave the opposition with no room to debate. For example: If, in the motion THBT extremism is the catalyst for progress, the term extremism is defined by the proposition as good extremism in terms of positive change that contribute to the advancement of society, the motion will ultimately end up in something like this: radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society help cause the advancement of society (i.e. progress), which is obviously self proving in nature. Place Set: A place set definition is a definition which gives an unfair advantage to a team by setting it in a particular place. This implies that one team defines the debate in a particular place in order to gain an advantage over the opposition. For example: THW ban sale and consumption of liquor. It will be wrong to state that the debate is happening in Gujarat where the government has already implemented the ban on liquor. Time Set: It refers to setting unnaturally restrictive chronological durations as a major parameter. In other words, debate must take place in the present. For example: This House would invoke an embargo on foreign goods. It would be wrong to set the time of debate in 1937 as Swadeshi movement in the Indian freedom struggle was in full swing. Wholly Unreasonable: The absence of reason in a definition is to be understood in terms of deviation from the obvious meaning of the motion. Debating the obvious meaning of a motion means that if the motion poses a very specific issue, the debate will itself be specific and must focus on the narrow, particular question posed. Thus, when the motion has an obvious meaning (one which the ordinary intelligent person would realise), the proposition must define the motion accordingly and any other definition would not be reasonable. For instance, the motion THW maintain United States military bases in Asia poses a clear issue and is required to be defined accordingly. The Proposition would be at fault if it defines the motion too generally by ignoring the words United States and in Asia and took the debate to mean that THBT Countries Should Have Off-Shore Military Bases. The motion is more specific than this and requires the teams to focus on American bases in Asia today. Similarly, 10

11 Proposition would be equally at fault if it defined the motion too specifically. If it defines the term Asia to mean Japan only, it would amount to giving a definition more specific meaning than the motion itself. #While deciding on the unfairness of a definition, the question that must be asked is whether the opposition could reasonably be expected to know enough about the place or time-context of the definition to debate upon it. When is the Definition not to be challenged? The Negative will not challenge a definition supplied by the Affirmative based on the grounds of: Its own definition being more reasonable. A better debate will result. Nor may the Negative re-define terms or words contained in the motion so that a completely different debate is thereby set up. However, the Negative may contend with the specific or general approach to terminology supplied by the definition of the Affirmative. Executing a Definitional Challenge The Definition Challenge must be made in the speech of the Leader of Opposition, who has the onus of establishing the same, by stating clearly whether the definition is being rejected or challenged. Subsequent speakers are strictly permitted to only clarify the stand of the LOP. Once the Definition Challenge is made, the LOP shall provide a substitute definition, which the Opposition must then go on to negate. If the LOP does not challenge the definition, no other speaker may do so. The adjudicators should not presume the onus to prove that the definition is unreasonable, but the onus is to be proved by the Opposition. Neither team should abandon either the definition or the challenge of its opening speakers. If a Definition Challenge is upheld, the team making the challenge wins by the maximum possible margin. If a definitional challenge fails, the team making the challenge loses by the maximum possible margin. 11

12 IV.3 Points of Information (POI) Points of Information (POI s) may be offered during constructive speeches only, after the first single knock of the gavel and up to the second single knock of the gavel i.e. POI s may not be offered during the first and last minutes of constructive speeches (Protected minutes). If they are, however, it is the duty of the speaker holding the floor to reject the same as being out of order. If the speaker fails to do so, the Chairperson may briefly intervene to call the house to order. The speaker offering the POI must only ask his question or make his point if permission for the same is granted by the speaker holding the floor of the house. POI, if asked, can be accepted or rejected by the speaker holding the floor. If POI is accepted, the point should be phrased as a question and ideally made in not more than 15 seconds. POI s should be such that they allow the member holding the floor some chance of responding. After POI has been offered, no further clarifications may be sought by the speaker holding the floor or by the member offering the POI, except strictly in situations where the POI is clearly inaudible. The gap between two POIs must not be less than 15 seconds. It is ideal for a speaker to take a minimum of 2 POI s in his speech. IV.4 Nuke In any round, both teams have the option of using 1 Nuke against the other team. A nuke is a POI that the speaker holding the floor has to compulsorily take. Either team shall have the option of 1 Nuke only, which can be used anytime during the 3 speeches (barring Protected Minutes and Reply Speeches). IV.5 - Behaviour during the Debate Speakers not holding the floor may not rise, during a speech unless it is to offer a Point of 12

13 Information. Speakers doing so, are considered to be heckling, barracking or whose behaviour is interfering with the acceptable course of a debate will be declared out of order or will be called to order by the Chairperson. Any use of unparliamentarily language shall attract penalty. Chit passing by the members of the team to the speakers holding the floor is allowed. V Essential Ingredients of a Speech. Following are the basic criterion(s) for adjudicating a Parliamentary Debate: V.1 Matter Matter includes all the substantial factual information that relates the issues in debate to the case being presented. Matter should be logical and well reasoned. The issues in the debate should aptly prioritized i.e., the most important should be dealt with as the 1 st issue. Relevance of matter is of prime importance and must be noted by adjudicators. Irrelevant matter must immediately be disregarded as per the discretion of the judges. Matter should be persuasive. The Adjudicators shall not consider points which are brought out of specialized knowledge of the debaters. Bias should not affect an adjudicator s assessment (objective) or evaluation (subjective) of a debate. Debaters must not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status, accent or any disability. New matter must not be introduced in Whip s speeches or Reply speeches. Models when presented by the proposition must be presented entirely in the Prime Ministers Speech. Certain aspects of the model may be elaborated by the Deputy Prime Minister but new features of the model may not be added to it. If all aspects of the model are not clearly expressed in the first speech the model will be called a floating model and may be marked down upon. Only if a fact presented by one side of the house is challenged by the other side of the house can the fact be considered to be in doubt. But this need not be the case for universal truths. V.2 Manner Manner refers to the presentation and delivery style of a speech. The following list represents 13

14 some of the elements which may be considered under Manner. The list is intended as a guide and not a set of marking categories. It is the combination of these elements (rather than the accomplishment of each), in various proportions that contributes to an individual speaker s style. Vocal Style: volume, clarity, pronunciation, pace, intonation, fluency, confidence and authority. Language: conversational or conventional. Use of notes: should not be read, should not distract from speech. Eye Contact: with audience or with opposing team members. Gesture: natural, appropriate. Stance. Sincerity: believability. Humour: effectiveness and appropriateness. Manner if deemed inappropriate by adjudicators must be informed to the speakers during feedback and must be consciously marked down. Speakers must be marked on their speaking styles as compared to debaters debating in the present debating match and not based on other debating matches. If speakers notice any bias on the part of adjudicators they must inform the chief adjudicator. V.3 Method There are 3 major categories in the context of Method. These are: Individual Method Team Method Overall response to the dynamics of the debate. Individual Method pertains to the structure and organization of an individual speaker s speech. This may be evident in a reasonably clear outline of the responsibilities of the speaker and the order of the issues to be dealt with in his/her speech. It may also be apparent in the degree of fluency with which a speech moves from one point to another in a clearly logical sequence. Similarly, a speaker may signpost his/her transitions from one phase to another. 14

15 Individual Method also pertains to the balance of a speech. Whereby, an equable division of speaking time is made to allow each of the phases of the speech a reasonable time for development (opening remarks, rebuttal, own points, summary, etc.). Individual Method also pertains to good time management and appropriate flow of thoughts. Team Method pertains to the effectiveness of the team s case organization and structure as a whole. Team Method also includes the equable division of roles (speakers) and responsibilities during a debate and the effective discharge of these roles and responsibilities. Response to the dynamics of the debate is indicative of the reactive abilities of the speakers and teams to the ongoing strategies employed by both sides, and the shifts in the balance of power from one side to another. Teams and speakers should respond to clear strategic issues, not minor slips of the tongue or insignificant points. Dynamic response could also be reflected in Matter marks for a speaker in cases where the identification of a vital point, the cogent analysis of this point in the context of the debate, and a balanced attack on the same, is developed in an ensuing speech. VI Adjudication VI.1 - Decision Making Process The criterion for adjudication includes matter, manner and method, as explained in the previous section (i.e., Essential Ingredients of a speech ) and each of these components hold a unique importance of their own. During the debate, the Adjudicators are not supposed to confer amongst themselves, except for certain exceptional circumstances. Even after the completion of the debate, the adjudicators cannot confer with each other. All decisions, which shall include both the result sheet as well as the feedback form, are to be handed over to the Runner/Timekeeper within 15 minutes before the adjudicator(s) start pronouncing their respective decision(s). The debaters are not allowed to challenge the decision of the adjudicator. 15

16 VI.2 - Oral Adjudication (Feedback) After both the teams are finished with their respective speeches, the adjudicators shall announce their results, followed by a feedback to the teams, in case of open rounds i.e. 1 st, 1st and the 3 rd round. Feedback would mean that all the adjudicators shall provide reasons as to his decision. It is to be noted that that the winner shall be decided by a majority and the Chair will not have a veto power. In case of a dissent by an adjudicator he/she will give the feedback first, followed by the adjudicators who are in majority, otherwise the Chair shall give his/her adjudication feedback after the panellists have given their respective feedbacks. The adjudicators are requested to confine their respective feedbacks to 5 minutes. VI.3 - Marking Scheme The adjudicator is expected to do things- decide which team won the debate and mark the individual speakers, in that order. After the debate has been decided, each speaker has to be marked within certain parameters. Criteria Range Matter 28-32/40 Manner 28-32/40 Method 13-17/20 Total 69-81/100 Marking Reply Speeches 16

17 Reply Speeches will be marked as follows: Criteria Range Effectiveness 19-23/30 Manner 13-17/20 Total 32-40/50 VI.4 - Marking the Win/Loss Margin At the conclusion of a debate, Adjudicators must determine (independent of individual score) whether the overall margin of win/loss separating the teams was close, clear or thrashing, on a scale of 1 to 12, as per the following parameters: [1] Close win = 1 to 4 points. [2] Clear win = 5 to 8 points. [3] Thrashing = 9 to 12 points. VII Redressal of Grievance Any grievances during the course of competition may be communicated in writing to the Chief Adjudicators and/or the Convener, 1st ULGULAN NPDC VIII Change of Rules Any or all of the above rules, regulations, and guidelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Chief Adjudicators and/or the Convener, 1st ULGULAN NPDC The rules are non-negotiable. 17