Asian Parliamentary Debate

Competition --- 2018

1.1 ​Overview

The MSU Asian Parliamentary Debate Competition will follow a ‘3-on-3’

Asian parliamentary style of debate governed by the following rules,
regulations, and guidelines.

● This brochure is made so that the participants can understand the format
of debate, formation of teams, role of speakers and understand the
dynamics of an APD. Further, types of motions on which debate will
happen in this competition are discussed below to give an Introduction.

1.2 ​Format of the Tournament

Each debating match will consist of two teams; one to propose the motion
and one to oppose it. The team proposing may be known as ‘​The
Government’​. The team opposing may be known as ‘​The Opposition’​.

● Teams will be designated as the Government or the Opposition for each

round of the competition by Tab announcement.

● Each debate shall be adjudicated upon by a panel comprising of an odd

number of adjudicators. One of these shall be designated as Chairperson.
In situations as per the discretion of the adjudication core (only in rounds
before the ‘Break’), a debate may be adjudicated by a single experienced
adjudicator.

● Each debate shall be timed by a timekeeper. In the absence of a

timekeeper, a member of the adjudication panel will time the speeches.
1.3 Teams will comprise of the following members​ :-

1.3.1 The Members of the government side are the following​:

1. Prime minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances
arguments;
2. Deputy prime Minister(DPM)- refute at first instance the case of the
opposition, re-establish the government's claim, and advances arguments;
3. Government whip(GW)- makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition's
case and summarizes the case of the government.

1.3.2 The Members of the Opposition side are the following​:

1. Leader of the Opposition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the

government by giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge
the motion if the definition is challengeable;
2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition(DPL)- refutes the case of the DPM,
reestablishes the case of the opposition, and advances an argument;
3. Opposition Whip (OW)- makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government's
and summarizes the case of the opposition.

The speakers speak in the following order:

● Prime minister

● Leader of opposition

● Deputy prime minister

● Deputy leader of opposition

● Government whip

● Opposition whip
The Government team will always support the topic and the Opposition team

must oppose the topic. You usually won’t have a choice whether you are the

Government or the Opposition on a topic. Each team will have three speakers.

Three in Government and three in Opposition and they will speak in alternating

order. So first you will have one speaker from the Government, and then from

the Opposition, and then the Gov. and then the Opp. and then the Gov. and then

the Opp. Each speaker will speak for ​seven minutes​. So an entire debate will

take 42 minutes. But hold on. At the end of those 42 minutes, both the teams

will get to make an extra speech. How exciting is that? It is kind of a summation

speech, where you are comparing the teams, and you are trying to persuade the

judge Why my team wins over the other team. So it is not really a speech where

you are making new arguments. But we will get into those details later. So at the

end of those six speeches, the teams get to make a reply speech. This one is

shorter. Remember, the earlier speeches were seven minutes long, this speech

will only be ​4 minutes ​long. And if you remember, the government team started

the debate by making the first speech, this time the Opposition team will start,

by giving the first reply speech. So in essence, the Government team always

start the debate, and they always end the debate by having the last reply speech.

So that is the two teams, the speaking order and the timing
1.4 Points of information

When speakers are speaking, between the first and the sixth minute of every

speech, speakers from the other side have the opportunity to rise up and offer a

question. So you can say Point of information, Can I ask a question, On that

point, or something to that effect. If I’m speaking, I can choose, whether or not

to accept this interruption. So I can say Yes, go ahead, ask your question, Or

make a statement, you can say anything you want. But it usually has to be short,

about 15 seconds long, that is about two sentences. So you can get up, you can

say your statement, or ask your question and then I have to respond to it. I don’t

have to accept every question, but if I accept a question, I must respond to that

question. So this adds a huge element of interactivity to the debate. So every

speaker, Government speaker or Opposition speaker has the chance to be

questioned by the other team during their speech. You can only ask points of

information to the other team, and not to your own team. And you should take at

least one, preferably two points of information in your speech. There are no

points of information in the reply speech. So only points of information in the

first six speeches in the debate.

1.4 Matter, Manner, Method: Asian Parliamentary

Debate is assessed by an Adjudicator Panel composed of an odd number

according to the following criteria:
1. Matter (40)- substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented,
and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments.
2. Manner (40)- the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of
the debaters.
3. Method (20)- the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance
of the rules of debate.

1.5 Speaker Roles in Asian Parliamentary Debate Government:

1.5.1 ​Prime Minister (PM)

● Define context and parameters of debate. For example, in an open
motion like "This House Would Support Musicians", the debate could be
contextualized into whether music should be a commodity for trade, or it
should be available gratis (i.e. free music download and transfer)
● Provide concise background or history leading to the issue Give
framework of government bench's case. I.e. mechanisms (if any),
argumentation flow (what the government's first argument is and what the
Deputy Prime Minister will talk about) Introduce 1st argument
● Assert Government stand

1.5.2 Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)

● Rebut first argument from Leader of Opposition
● Rebut rebuttals to PM's argument
● Introduce 2nd and 3rd argument
● Reassert Government stand and case
1.5.3 Government Whip
● Rebut Deputy Leader of Opposition, and Leader of Opposition Rebut
rebuttals to DPM and PM arguments
● Provide a deeper level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals
● No new arguments, but new angles of arguments should be given
● Brief summary of entire case of Government Reassert Government stand
and case

1.6 Opposition:

1.6.1 ​Leader of Opposition:-

● Agree or disagree with context/ parameters of debate (any definitional
challenges, accusations of squirreling, or unfair set up should be made
from the LO speech and no later)
● Rebut Prime Minister's argument
● Give framework for Opposition case (if Opp agrees to problem, then their
case should provide solution, or at least effectively highlight how
Government proposal will worsen the situation)
● Introduce first Opposition argument
● Assert Opposition stand

1.6.2 Deputy Leader of Opposition :-

● Rebut DPM and PM arguments
● Rebut rebuttals to LO arguments
● Introduce 1st and 2nd (if any) argument
● Reassert Opposition stand and case

1.6.3 ​Opposition Whip :-

● Rebut DPM and PM arguments
● Rebut rebuttals to LO & DLO arguments Provide a deeper level of
analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals
● No new arguments, but new angles of arguments should be given
 ● Reassert Opposition stand and case

1.6.4 Reply Speech :-

● Can only be done by either 1st or 2nd speaker from each bench Provide
a biased 'oral adjudication' of why the debate should go to own bench
● Highlight issues you think your side won, carefully tiptoe around issues
you think you lost.
● New examples to expand on discussed examples is usually allowed and
makes the reply speech sound fresh as opposed to verbal regurgitation
● Reassert stand

1.7 What does an adjudicator do?

1.7.1 Things to do before any rounds have begun:

○ Read the rulebook. It is essential that you know the rules before you
judge the tournament.
○ Ask questions if you have any. That’s what the Chief Adjudicators and
the Organizers are there for.

1.7.2 Things to do before the debate begins:

○ If you had a question and didn’t ask it earlier, ask now. It could be about
anything.
○ If you didn’t understand the motion (not much chance of that), then
clarify with the CA’s. It’s better you understand outside, than
misunderstand inside.
○ Dump your biases outside – positive and negative. If you are
uncomfortable with adjudicating a particular match because of some
personal reasons, then notify the CA’s. Also if you have been picked to
adjudicate a match where your institution is competing or an institution
you were affiliated to is competing, do let the CA’s know. It’s not only
about being fair, but also seeming to be fair.
1.7.3 Things to do when the debate is going on:

○ Listen to everything that is said. Little things said in a speech can change
the course of the debate. If you didn’t listen, then your decision may be
wrong.
○ Take notes. Everyone has their style of taking notes so do whatever you
do – different pens, highlighters, lots of papers etc. As long as you have
what was said, it’s all good.
○ Don’t prejudge. Wait for the last word. Then deliberate and decide.
○ Score speakers after the debate is done. This helps because you have to
mark all speakers relatively on his/her merits and the impact of his/her
speech.
○ Don’t show how you feel. As an adjudicator your reactions should be
kept to the minimum. This however, does not preclude you from
appreciating a good point.
○ Remember the Affirmative’s/Government’s/Proposition’s case statement
and burden of proof and the Negative’s/Opposition’s point of clashes.
The former is the adjudicating framework that the
Affirmative/Government/Proposition want you to use, and the later are
the reasons why the Negative/Opposition doesn’t want you to use that
framework. This is what the debate is about.
○ Beware of floating models – elaborating on the model is fine, adding to it
or altering it is just wrong.
○ Watch out for new matter in reply speeches and the speech of the third
Negative/Opposition speaker.
○ If there is a factual clash, use the test of reasonable man. If it’s common
knowledge then take it. If it’s not, then disregard the fact and the
argument that is based on the fact. Your knowledge of nuclear physics
and criminal law is irrelevant.
 ○ If there is a definition challenge (hopefully there wouldn’t be) then be
doubly careful. If in doubt about the rules, contact the CA’s. Though the
latter wouldn’t happen, if you’d already read the rules earlier.

1.7.4 Things to do after the debate is over:

○ Read your notes and go over the case statement, burden of proof and
points of clash. This will help you understand the debate in it’s entirety
(this is why you took notes).
○ Keep track of changes in burden of proof and team lines. Subtle changes
can alter the focus of the debate (your notes will help you keep track of
this).
○ There are generally a couple of key questions in a debate. The side that
answers the questions better wins the debate. You need to prioritize as to
which question is more important and vital to the debate.
○ Do not pretend to know what the speaker said. Most likely, you do not
know. See what was said and base your decision on that. Not on what you
thought the speaker may have meant.
○ Do not get influenced by the other adjudicators in the room. You may be
the lone dissent who becomes the single panel chair in the next round,
because both teams appreciated you adjudication and grasp of the debate.
Unless and until absolutely necessary do not confer as to what was said
with the other adjudicators.
○ Take your time, but don’t sleep on it. It’s a tough job deciding who won
and who lost; so don’t let anyone rush you. But organizers have to get the
next round going, so don’t waste time either.
○ Don’t hold someone’s accent, slur, ability to speak, looks etc., for or
against them. Your job in the room is to weight the arguments and decide
on that.
1.7.4 Things to do while giving feedback:

○ Let the speakers know the two or three major reasons for your decisions.
○ Explain each of these reasons.
○ Use what the speakers said to substantiate your reasons (notes help).
○ If there is time then give individual feedback.
○ Let the teams ask you questions.
○ Maintain your cool. It’s just not a good sight if adjudicators shout at
teams and teams walk out of the debate.
○ A decision once given, cannot be changed. So be careful. However, don’t
doubt yourself after you have decided. The losing team will feel
disgruntled. It’s only natural. Just listen to them, and if needed explain to
them again your reasons for not giving them the round.