world debating website: 1998-03-22

23 March 1998

WUDC Athens 1998 Surival Guide

Here is the Surival Guide published by the organisers of WUDC Athens 1998.

WUDC Athens 1998 Invites

Invites from the 1998 WOrld Championships

Here are the official results taken fromt he website of the 1998 WUDC

Teams Rank Quality Points

1. Ottawa Law 23 1548

2. Edinburgh A 22 1541

3. Gray's Inn A 21 1556

4. Gray's Inn B 21 1536

5. UWA A 20 1561

6. Glasgow A 20 1539

7. NYU A 20 1533

8. UNSW A 20 1522

9. Sydney Union D 20 1503

10. UWO A 20 1499

11. Oxford A 19 1567

12. Sydney A 19 1552

13. Victoria B 19 1529

14. Sydney Union A 19 1521

15. Dublin Law A 19 1518

16. Stanford A 19 1515

17. Monash C 19 1515

18. Cambridge A 19 1514

19. Ateneo Graduate A 19 1496

20. Toronto Hart A 19 1489

21. Inner Temple B 19 1481

22. Monash A 19 1462

23. Toronto Hart B 18 1513

24. Monash B 18 1507

25. Inner Temple A 18 1504

26. Stellenbosch A 18 1484

27. Oxford C 18 1483

28. Queensland B 18 1478

29. Harvard A 18 1474

30. Glasgow B 18 1471

31. UC London A 18 1460

32. Vassar A 18 1457

33. ANU B 18 1454

34. Middle Temple B 18 1453

35. Warwick B 18 1450

36. Gray's Inn C 17 1515

37. Melbourne A 17 1511

38. Melbourne B 17 1509

39. Sydney Union B 17 1505

40. UC London B 17 17 1501

41. Princeton WWHD A 17 1474

42. Middle Temple A 17 1472

43. UCD Literary A 17 1462

44. Stellenbosch C 17 1458

45. UWO B 17 1447

46. Mc Gill B 17 1446

47. Queensland A 17 1446

48. UCD Literary B 17 1442

49. Cork B 17 1439

50. Smith A 17 1439

51. Dublin Historical B 17 1426

52. UNSW D 17 1420

53. Stanford B 17 1406

54. Cork A 17 1401

55. Toronto Hart C 17 1400

56. MIT A 17 1389

57. Durham A 17 1368

58. Creighton A 16 1477

59. ANU A 16 1475

60. Mc Gill A 16 1472

61. York B 16 1436

62. UWA B 16 1429

63. Fordham A 16 1426

64. King's College A 16 1423

65. Guelph A 16 1421

66. Delhi B 16 1414

67. Dundee A 16 1410

68. Victoria C 16 1406

69. St. Stephen's B 16 1398

70. York A 16 1395

71. Wyoming A 16 1392

72. Stanford C 16 1391

73. De La Salle A 16 1388

74. Leeds A 16 1381

75. Northwest A 16 1378

76. Birmingham A 16 1375

77. Portland A 16 1373

78. Denver B 16 1359

79. UNSW C 16 1355

80. Dublin Historical A 16 1337

81. Yale C 15 1524

82. Cambridge B 15 1494

83. Queen's A 15 1493

84. Oxford B 15 1481

85. Harvard B 15 1472

86. Alberta A 15 1461

87. LSE B 15 1434

88. LSE A 15 1433

89. Chicago A 15 1432

90. Carleton A 15 1429

91. Durham Union A 15 1423

92. St. Andrews B 15 1414

93. Glasgow C 15 1413

94. Santo Tomas A 15 1408

95. Amherst A 15 1405

96. Brown A 15 1399

97. King's Inn B 15 1386

98. Ateneo A 15 1385

99. Solicitors A 15 1382

100. Canterbury B 15 1381

101. Macquarie B 15 1373

102. Tasmania A 15 1372

103. La Verne B 15 1361

104. Delhi A 15 1359

105. Wyoming B 15 1351

106. Northwest B 15 1347

107. NUS C 15 1341

108. St. Stephen's D 15 1341

109. Columbia A 15 1336

110. Brown B 15 1328

111. Canterbury A 15 1304

112. Edinburgh B 14 1494

113. Yale A 14 1493

114. Sydney Union C 14 1485

115. Princeton A 14 1463

116. Concordia A 14 1453

117. ANU C 14 1436

118. Bates B 14 1424

119. King´s Inn A 14 1399

120. Durham Union B 14 1395

121. NUS A 14 1392

122. Cork Law B 14 1386

123. Wit A 14 1385

124. Strathclyde A 14 1385

125. Guelph B 14 1385

126. Fairfield A 14 1374

127. Windsor A 14 1369

128. NUS D 14 1366

129. Santo Tomas B 14 1363

130. UNSW B 14 1360

131. Warwick A 14 1351

132. Colorado B 14 1340

133. Wit B 14 1339

134. Bates A 14 1338

135. La Verne Athens E 14 1336

136. Stellenbosch B 14 1335

137. Rhodes A 14 1333

138. Colorado A 14 1331

139. Ryerson A 14 1329

140. UTS A 14 1328

141. NMLS A 14 1327

142. Macquarie A 14 1320

143. Saskatchewan A 14 1313

144. Willamette A 14 1288

145. Zagreb A 14 1283

146. Maryland A 14 948

147. Yale B 13 1445

148. Denver A 13 1444

149. Limerick A 13 1442

150. Victoria A 13 1398

151. Nanyang A 13 1389

152. Swarthmore B 13 1386

153. Texas A 13 1374

154. NUS B 13 1370

155. Mona A 13 1365

156. Queensland C 13 1359

157. Fordham C 13 1353

158. Fordham B 13 1348

159. Southampton A 13 1346

160. Campion B 13 1331

161. Ottawa A 13 1327

162. Rhodes B 13 1324

163. UBC A 13 1319

164. Concordia C 13 1319

165. Alberta B 13 1319

166. Colgate A 13 1318

167. Stellenbosch D 13 1316

168. Erasmus D 13 1315

169. La Verne Athens B 13 1310

170. Sydney Union E 13 1306

171. De La Salle D 13 1305

172. Delhi C 13 1297

173. Regina A 13 1294

174. Dhaka A 13 1290

175. Erasmus C 13 1289

176. Santo Tomas D 13 1287

177. St. Stephen's F 13 1284

178. Rhodes C 13 1280

179. AUB A 13 1259

180. Diliman B 13 1194

181. Windsor B 12 1397

182. St. Andrews A 12 1380

183. Ateneo B 12 1377

184. Princeton B 12 1358

185. Ateneo E 12 1355

186. St. Stephen's C 12 1352

187. Cork Law A 12 1350

188. Swarthmore A 12 1349

189. Rhode A 12 1345

190. Willamette B 12 1343

191. La Verne A 12 1337

192. Wollongong A 12 1332

193. Maribor A 12 1332

194. Croatia NDC A 12 1328

195. Utrecht A 12 1326

196. Concordia D 12 1324

197. Richmond A 12 1324

198. Zagreb B 12 1322

199. Limerick B 12 1321

200. Dublin Law B 12 1314

201. Leicester A 12 1314

202. Cape Town B 12 1309

203. Hong Kong A 12 1296

204. Manila C 12 1296

205. Manila B 12 1287

206. Moldova A 12 1279

207. Groningen A 12 1272

208. Chinese HK A 12 1270

209. Cave Hill A 12 1267

210. Athens A 12 1238

211. Vassar B 11 1435

212. Concordia B 11 1373

213. Pacific B 11 1348

214. Smith B 11 1341

215. Hebrew A 11 1335

216. Erasmus B 11 1333

217. Erasmus A 11 1317

218. Chinese HK B 11 1313

219. Pacific A 11 1313

220. Dhaka B 11 1306

221. Nanyang B 11 1306

222. Saskatchewan B 11 1290

223. Regina B 11 1289

224. De La Salle C 11 1288

225. Ateneo D 11 1285

226. De La Salle B 11 1280

227. Diliman C 11 1275

228. St. Mike´s A 11 1273

229. San Beda A 11 1272

230. Toronto Literary A 11 1270

231. Riga A 11 1268

232. La Verne Athens D 11 1260

233. NMLS B 11 1256

234. AC A 11 1254

235. Utara B 11 1222

236. Dhaka D 11 1209

237. HKUST B 11 1201

238. Chicago B 10 1404

239. Strathclyde B 10 1351

240. Ateneo C 10 1317

241. MIT B 10 1316

242. Mona B 10 1309

243. Santo Tomas C 10 1302

244. AC B 10 1298

245. Leeds B 10 1296

246. Soros B 10 1292

247. La Verne Athens C 10 1281

248. San Beda C 10 1268

249. San Beda D 10 1245

250. Ljubljana A 10 1232

251. Wit C 10 1224

252. Hebrew B 10 1192

253. Seikei A 10 1146

254. Bogazici A 10 1142

255. Bentley A 10 1101

256. Dublin A 9 1329

257. Rijeka A 9 1312

258. Cape Town C 9 1285

259. AC C 9 1273

260. Manila A 9 1273

261. NUS E 9 1264

262. Cape Town A 9 1258

263. Campion A 9 1257

264. La Verne Athens A 9 1250

265. AC D 9 1240

266. Utara A 9 1235

267. ICU A 9 1229

268. Vilnius A 9 1224

269. SHU A 9 1210

270. Leiden A 9 1205

271. Ljubljana B 9 1197

272. Bogazici B 9 1164

273. Handong A 9 1145

274. San Beda B 8 1267

275. Dhaka C 8 1249

276. AUB B 8 1202

277. Chinese HK C 8 1189

278. Leiden B 8 1161

279. Maribor B 8 1139

280. HKUST A 8 1100

281. Tsuda A 8 1045

282. Clarion A 7 1244

283. City Hong Kong A 7 1187

284. Landbouw A 7 1183

285. Tallinn A 7 1163

286. Seikei B 7 1120

287. Takushoku A 7 1120

288. ICU B 7 1108

289. Hanyang A 7 1098

290. Takushoku B 6 1129

291. Arkzin A 5 1044

292. Athens B 3 764

Deree 1998 What is the WUDC

DEBATE: AN INTELLECTUAL SPORT
Debating and rhetoric have long been an integral part of student life at most universities around the world. As an activity which aims to stimulate the intellect, debate has however, a much wider appeal and attracts the attention of the general public. In most countries, public debates, whether formal or not, enjoy substantial attention from the media as well as extensive public participation.

Ancient Greek orators were the first debaters in recorded history, as they were the first to adopt a systematic manner of holding a formal discussion on topics of political interest.

DEBATE IN ANCIENT TIMES
It was in sixth century Athens, the birth place of democracy, were citizens created a method for organized exchange of opinions, that arguments became of grave significance.

Ancient Athenians would gather on the Hill of the Pnyx to decide on the issues of the day, or they would meet in the Agora to exchange ideas informally. Since direct representation was the cornerstone of the political system of the time, it was vital that people cultivated the skill of oratory. As a matter of fact, argumentative skills and rhetorical competence were viewed not only as valuable abilities, but also as distinguished talents. The debates between Themistocles and Aristides and the orations of Pericles and Demosthenes are indicative of the skills and the abilities of just a few of the prominent orators of the time.

Debate is an integral part of Greek life, and Athenians to this day, debate heatedly over political and other matters in the informal environment of the "kafeneio", the coffee shop, while their representatives debate in Parliament on current issues.

INTERNATIONAL DEBATING BETWEEN UNIVERSITIES
International debates between universities began in the years before the Second World War when student delegations from universities in Australia and North America would visit universities in Europe and practice their debating skills. It was not, however, until the beginning of the 1970s that this practice acquired a more structured character and the first intervarsity competitions took place.

The first major international debating competition between universities was the Trans-Atlantic University Speech Association Tournament which was held in London in 1976. University teams from the United States, Canada, England, and Scotland gathered to debate in English.

Two years later, in 1978, university teams from the United States, England, Scotland and New Zealand traveled to Melbourne and Sydney for a series of debating competitions.

This rapid growth throughout the 1970s prepared the ground for the first World Debating Championships, which was organized by the Glasgow University Union in January 1981.

WORLD UNIVERSITIES DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIPS: THE INSTITUTION
Although brief, the history of the World Universities Debating Championships is rather impressive. World's, as it is informally known, has attracted a growing number of young people from all over the world to its annual assembly.

The World Universities Debating Championships is the largest non-athletic university-level competition in the world. Although the language of the debates is English, in the sixteen years World's has grown into a formidable international event, with the participation of more than 300 teams representing 230 colleges and universities from 35 countries.

In the 1987 Championships in Dublin, Ireland teams from France and Greece participated for the first time in the competition extending participation to non-English speaking countries and adding a multi-cultural dimension.

Since the first World's was held in Glasgow, Scotland in 1981, the tournament has been hosted by universities in England, Ireland, Australia and the United States. It has enjoyed the patronage of such prominent leaders as President Reagan, President Clinton, Prime Minister Major, Lady Thatcher, President Jacques Delors and Princess Anne of England, as well as representatives of the United Nations and the European Union.

The main aim of the World Universities Debating Championships is to promote the art of rhetoric and the skills of logic and argumentation on a multi-cultural and international level; to provide a forum of communication and understanding for young people by allowing them to exchange opinions and arguments and thus to increase global understanding and intercultural appreciation.

XVIII WORLD UNIVERSITIES DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
The choice of Athens to host the XVIII World Universities Debating Championships could not be more appropriate. The fact that the competition will take place in Greece is an important turning point, as this is the first time that it will be held in a non-English speaking country. It provides a unique opportunity for all participants to explore the roots of debate, visit the ancient sites where it originated and developed.

The XVIII World Universities Debating Championships, already under the patronage of the Municipality of Athens, will be the largest tournament in history with an expected participation of 350 teams from more than 40 countries on six continents. A priority for the XVIII World's Executive Organizing Committee is to invite participants from as many countries as possible, including newly-formed countries of the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, in order to enhance the Championships' international character and help create a truly global event.

Debates throughout the week of the Championships will be in the traditional parliamentary debate style with four teams in each round debating in English; two proposition and two opposition. Motions will be announced fifteen minutes prior to the start of each debate round, and they will generally address a specific issue, e.g. "This House would abolish capital punishment." Motions will also include general, philosophical, and humorous issues.

Debates during the preliminary rounds will be held at The American College of Greece in Aghia Paraskevi. The Championships Final will take place in the Athens Concert Hall (Megaron) on January 5, 1998. The Final for the English as Second Language Competition will take place at the Old Parliament. Both venues, although quite different in style, constitute two of the finest halls in Athens and provide a magnificent setting for a spirited exchange of arguments

Taken from the 1998 WUDC website

Deree WUDC 1998 Debating Club background

DEREE COLLEGE

The XVIII World Universities Debating Championships will be hosted by Deree College, a division of The American College of Greece.

Since 1875, The American College of Greece has been committed to providing a quality education to an international student body. Deree College, the post-secondary division, is a nonsectarian, independent, coeducational liberal arts college.

The college offers extensive programs in Liberal Arts and in Business Administration to more than 5,000 students. Deree College enjoys a particularly strong reputation for its studies in business and economics. Its 18,000 alumni reside in 51 countries. Those in Greece are a visible force in business, academia and the arts.

Situated in Aghia Paraskevi, on the western slopes of historic Mount Hymettus, the College offers a magnificent view of the valley below and partial vistas of Athens.

DEREE DEBATING CLUB

The XVIII World Universities Debating Championships will be organized by the Deree College Debating Club.

The Deree College Debating Club promotes the rhetorical arts of debate, oral interpretation, and public speaking, and fosters a spirit of sportsmanship among its members.

Since its founding in 1987, the Club has managed to establish itself as one of the most active on campus. It has participated in and hosted a number of international competitions in addition to its activity on a national level.

In March 1990 the Club in cooperation with the American Whig and Cliosophic Society of Princeton University, organized the Deree College - Princeton University Debate Institute. This event was held at Deree College and attracted students from throughout Europe and the Middle East. It was the first event of its kind in this part of the world and it marked the beginning of vigorous debating activity.

The Club's most successful endeavor to date, was the organization of the Third European Debate Championships in February 1993. The competition attracted some of the most prestigious student debating societies in Europe. Only a few months after the official European unification ceremony, the Club provided a forum for its youth to freely exchange ideas in an effort to improve intercultural understanding.

Finally, the Deree College Debating Club is one of the leading debating societies in Greece, and has participated in all World's competitions since 1988. The Club's debaters have excelled on numerous occasions. Recently, in the 1995 World Debating Championships in Princeton, the Club's team succeeded in reaching in the ESL competition final round.

STUDENT UNION

The Deree College Student Union is an independent, non profit student organization with more than 4.000 members.

Since its establishment, the "Union" has played a decisive role in the extra-curricular life of the College and has contributed in the development of academic life off and on campus.

The Union is governed by a seven member body, the Student Council, which is elected directly by the members, every Spring.

The Union considers the organizing of the World Universities Debating Championships in Athens, as a major opportunity for enhancement of the art of rhetoric in the country where "Logos" was born and flourished. The Student Union has always contributed in the best possible way to the activities concerning debate since it acknowledges its immense importance an academic, personal and social level.

This is taken from the website of the 1998 Championships

1998 World Championships Rules

RULES OF THE 1998 WORLD UNIVERSITIES DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Part I — 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 Speaker (known as the "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker"), an adjudicator or panel of adjudicators, of whom one will be designated "Chairperson" by the organisers, and a Timekeeper.

1.1.2

The duties of the Speaker are to call the House to order and recognise members of the House who are to take the floor. In the event a Speaker is not available, the duties of the Speaker will be fulfilled by the Chairperson.

1.1.3

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 Government member";

Closing Opposition:

"Member for the Opposition" or "Third Opposition member" and "Opposition Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member".

1.1.4

Members will deliver substantive speeches in the following order:

(a) Prime Minister

(b) Opposition Leader

(c) Deputy Prime Minister

(d) Deputy Opposition Leader

(e) Member for the Government

(f) Member for the Opposition

(g) Government Whip

(h) Opposition Whip

1.1.5

No member is allowed to deliver more than one speech before the house in a single debate.

1.1.6

Speakers who do not have the floor must remain seated throughout the course of the debate, except when rising to deliver points of information.

1.2 The motion

1.2.1

The motion must be worded clearly.

1.2.2

The motion must reflect that the World Universities Debating Championship is an international tournament.

1.3 Preparation

1.3.1

Teams will be given the motion 15 minutes prior to the commencement of the debate.

1.3.2

Teams should arrive at their venue within 5 minutes of the scheduled commencement time for the debate.

1.3.3

Members are allowed to use printed and written materials during their preparation and the debate. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited both during preparation and during the debate. It is also prohibited for members to pass any printed and written material to their partner whilst he or she has the floor.

1.4 Timing of the speeches

1.4.1

It is the duty of the Timekeeper to time the speeches.

1.4.2

In the absence of a Timekeeper, it is the duty of the Chairperson of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed by an adjudicator in the panel.

1.4.3

The timing of each speech starts when the member, called upon by the Speaker or the Chairperson, has taken the floor.

1.4.4

Speeches will be seven minutes in duration. The end of the seventh minute will be signalled by the Timekeeper with two strikes of the gavel. Speeches over seven minutes and 20 seconds will be penalised.

1.4.5

The end of the first and the beginning of the sixth minute of the speech, will be signalled by the Timekeeper, with one strike of the gavel . Points of information can only be offered between the end of the first minute and the sixth minute of the speech.

1.5 Adjudication

1.5.1

Debates in the nine preliminary rounds, will be adjudicated by panels of three adjudicators, where this is possible. Where this is not possible, debates will be adjudicated by panels of two adjudicators, and if this is not possible either, by a single adjudicator.

1.5.2

Debates in the Octo-Final, Quarter-Final and Semi-Final rounds, will be adjudicated by panels of at least three adjudicators, or by larger odd numbered panels of adjudicators.

1.5.3

The "English as a Second Language" Final will be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, or by a larger odd numbered panel of adjudicators.

1.5.4

The Grand Final will be adjudicated by a panel of seven or nine adjudicators.

1.5.5

Adjudicators eligible to judge after the preliminary rounds, must have extensive adjudicating experience in parliamentary debate. They must have judged at least five previous rounds

and/or have adjudicated or debated in previous World Universities Debating Championships.

1.5.6

Communication of the adjudication results for a debate by the adjudicators to the teams is prohibited.

1.5.7

The results of the first three preliminary rounds will be released to the teams by the organisers, prior to the fourth preliminary round.

Part II — Definitions

2.1 The definition

2.1.1

The definition is the interpretation of the motion, as put forward by the Prime Minister, in the opening remarks of the Government.

2.1.2

The definition should:

a) State the issue for debate arising out of the motion

b) State the meaning of any terms in the motion which

require clarification

c) Have a clear and logical link to the motion

2.1 Prohibited definitions

2.2.1

The definition should not be self-proving (a tautology).

2.2.2

The definition should not be a truism.

A definition is an imperative truism when it suggests that something should (or should not) be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable opposing substantive case. A definition is a practical truism when it suggests that a certain state of affairs exists (or does not exist) and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition.

2.2.3

Definitions that have no clear and logical link to the motion are referred to as ‘squirrels’ and are prohibited.

2.2.4

The definition must not be time set. This happens when the subject matter is confined to a specific time, in the past, present or future, in order for the definition of the motion to stand.

2.2.5

The definition must not be place set. This happens when the subject matter is confined to a specific location, in order for the definition of the motion to stand.

2.2.6

The definition must not require members of the house to possess specific knowledge that only an expert in a particular field would have.

2.3 Challenging the definition

2.3.1

If the definition provided by the Prime Minister is prohibited according to section 2.2, then the Leader of the Opposition has the right to challenge the definition.

2.3.2

The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.

2.3.3

The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition put forward by the Prime Minister.

2.3.4

If the Leader of the Opposition does not challenge the definition, then no other member of the house can challenge the definition.

2.4 Assessing the challenge of the definition

2.4.1

The adjudicator should determine the definition presented by the Prime Minister to be unreasonable when:

a) the definition is tautological; or

b) the definition is truistic; or

c) the definition has no clear and logical link to the motion; or

d) the definition has time set the debate; or

e) the definition has place set the debate; or

f) the definition requires specific knowledge.

2.4.2

The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.

2.4.3

When the definition is unreasonable, the Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable. The adjudicator(s) will not indicate to the debaters during the course of the debate which definition is accepted..

2.4.4

When the definition offered by the Prime Minister is unreasonable and an alternative definition has been put forward by the Leader of the 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 Leader of the Opposition, provided the latter is not also unreasonable.

Part III — Matter

3.1 The definition of matter

3.1.1

Matter refers to the material content of the speech. It includes positive material, rebuttal and points of information.

3.1.2

Positive material includes reasoning and arguments, examples, case studies, facts, statistics, the use of

analogies and any other material that a member uses to further his or her case.

3.1.3

Rebuttal is material introduced to explicitly dispute an argument of an opponent, while positive material furthers the members’ case, but does not explicitly refer to an argument of an opponent.

3.1.4

Matter includes points of information offered (questions directed to the member speaking) and points of information accepted.

3.2 The duty to present matter in substantive speeches

3.2.1

Government members (with the exception of the Government Whip) must present positive material. The Government Whip is permitted to introduce positive matter.

3.2.2

Opposition members (with the exception of the Opposition Whip) should attempt to present positive material. The Opposition Whip must not introduce positive material.

3.3 The duty to answer and offer points of information

3.3.1

Points of information may only be offered to members of opposing teams.

3.3.2

To ask a point of information, a member should stand. The member may place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the member speaking. Members may announce their intention by saying "on a point of information Sir/Madam" or by using other words to this effect.

3.3.3

Points of information should not exceed 15 seconds in duration and must be pertinent to the point being made by the member who has the floor.

3.3.4

The member who is speaking may allow the offeror to make the point of information or may decline to accept the point of information.

3.3.5

The member who is speaking may ask the offeror to sit down when the offeror has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.

3.3.6

All members should accept at least two points of information during their own speech.

3.3.7

All members should try and offer points of information during opposing speeches.

3.3.8

Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.

3.4 Structure

3.4.1

Refers to the organisation of the material content of the speech.

3.4.2

An effective individual structure may include:

(a) An opening and close to the speech

(b) A clear line of argument

(c) Clearly laid out, supported arguments

(d) A well-timed speech

3.4.3

An effective team structure may include:

(a) A clear unifying line of argument and evolution of

reasoning

(b) A division of duties between members of the same team

3.5 The elements of matter

3.5.1

Matter should relate to the issues of the debate and the case being presented. The member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.

3.5.2

Matter should be logical and well reasoned.

3.5.3

Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent within their speech, within their team and with the other members on their side of the debate (subject to Rule 2.4.4)

3.5.4

Closing Government and Closing Opposition teams must advance the debate by presenting new matter, but in a manner generally consistent with the matter proposed by their opening teams (subject to rule 2.4.4).

3.6 Assessing matter

3.6.1

The matter presented should be persuasive. ‘The elements of matter’ should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness of the matter presented.

3.6.2

Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should disregard any specialist knowledge they may have on the issues of the debate.

3.6.3

Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.

3.6.4

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 IV — Manner

4.1 The definition of manner

4.1.1

Manner is the presentation and delivery style of the member.

4.2 The elements of style

4.2.1

Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it allows the member to appear more sincere.

4.2.2

Voice modulation may assist a member to emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch, tone, pace and volume of the member and the use of pauses.

4.2.3

Hand gestures may help a member to emphasise important arguments or to appear confident. However, excessive hand movements may be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.

4.2.4

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, or the audience has difficulty understanding their arguments.

4.2.5

The use of notes is permitted. However, members should be careful not to rely on their notes excessively, as this may become a distraction for the audience and disrupt the quality of delivery of the member.

4.2.6

The use of humour is encouraged and may be used by members to assist their presentation.

4.3 Assessing manner

4.3.1

The manner of the member should be effective. ‘The elements of style’ should assist an adjudicator to assess the effectiveness of the member’s presentation.

4.3.2

Adjudicators should be aware that at a World 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.

4.3.3

Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, nationality, language (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preference, age, social status or disability.

Part V — Ranking and marking

5.1

At the end of every debate, each adjudicator must fill in an Adjudication Sheet, and each panel of adjudicators must prepare a Speed Ballot. It is the Chairperson’s duty to fill in the Speed Ballot.

5.2 Ranking the teams

5.2.1

At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators should confer and rank the teams from first place to last place:

(a) first placed teams should be awarded three (3) points;

(b) second placed teams should be awarded two (2) points;

(c) third placed teams should be awarded one (1) point;

(d) fourth placed teams should be awarded zero (0) points.

5.2.2

Teams will receive zero points when they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate without reasonable cause.

5.2.3

Teams will receive zero points when the adjudicators unanimously agree that the member has (or members have) discriminated against another member on the basis of religion, sex, race, nationality, sexual preference, social status or disability.

5.2.4

Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings. When a unanimous decision cannot be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the rankings. When a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.

5.3 Ranking the Substitute Teams

5.3.1

Two types of substitute teams may be used in the Tournament if need arises. "Shadow Teams" and "Home Teams".

5.3.2

"Shadow Teams" will fill in for competing teams that have failed to arrive to a debate, in order to facilitate the debate. The competing teams will receive a rank of zero points and zero quality points, and a note should be made on the adjudication sheets and the speed ballot of the use of a "shadow team".

5.3.3

"Home Teams" will be used if the total number of competing teams is not divisible by 4. As regards ranking, adjudicators will treat the "Home Teams" as competing teams, assigning ranks based on the performance of the teams in the debate. However members of the "Home Teams" will not receive

quality points, and will not be eligible to qualify.

5.4 Marking the debate

5.4.1
The quality points awarded to members and teams should reflect the adjudicators’ assessment of the persuasiveness of speakers and teams in terms of matter and manner.

Matter Manner Total Meaning
50 50 100 Flawless
47 ½ 47 ½ 95 Excellent
45 45 90 Very good
42 ½ 42 ½ 85 Good
40 40 80 Above Average
37 ½ 37 ½ 75 Average
35 35 70 Below Average
32 ½ 32 ½ 65 Poor
30 30 60 Very Poor
27 ½ 27 ½ 55 Bad
25 25 50 Very Bad

5.4.2
Where there is a panel of adjudicators, the panel should first agree on a letter grade for each individual speaker according to the following table:

Letter Grade Meaning of Grade Quality Points
A Excellent 90-100
B Good, above average 80-89
C Average 70-79
D Poor, bellow average 60-69
E Very Poor 50-69

5.4.3
When a unanimous decision cannot be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the letter grades. Where a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine the letter grades.

5.4.4
After agreeing on letter grades for each individual speaker, adjudicators must then award quality points to each individual speaker at their discretion, but within the confines of the letter grade that they have agreed upon.

5.4.5
Low Point Wins are not allowed. A team with a rank of 3, must have a larger or equal sum of quality points with the team with a rank of 2, which in turn must have a larger or equal sum of quality points with the team with a rank of 1 and so on. It is the responsibility of all adjudicators to check that a low point win does not occur.

Pages