Debaters &

Adjudicators Briefing
TUIDC 2017
 Debating 101 :
ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY
FORMAT
What is the Asian Parliamentary Debating Format?

GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION
(Support the Motion) 3v3 (Disagree with the Motion)

1) Prime Minister (PM) 1) Leader of Opposition

2) Deputy Prime (LO)
Minister (DPM) 2) Deputy Leader of
3) Government Whip Opposition (DLO)
(GW) 3) Opposition Whip (OW)
How long are the speeches?
A Substantive Speech is 7 minutes long.
A Reply Speech, presented after all 6
substantive speeches, is 4 minutes long.
This speech can only be presented by
the first 2 speakers of a team
A Point of Information
(Questions/Rebuttals offered during a
speech by the opposing team) - This can
be offered between the 1st - 6th Minute
of the ongoing speech
1. PM 2. LO

3. DPM 4. DLO

5.Gov 6.Opp
Whip Whip

8.Gov 7.Opp
Reply Reply
To explain Individual Speaker Roles,
we will use the following
debate motion:

This House Would Legalize all Drugs

What does the Prime Minister do?
Define the motion: We will legalize drugs, by which we mean opioids, marijuana, cocaine and any
variation of hard drugs that can now be bought and sold openly

Identify Problem: The unregulated and illegal drug market has created many victims of syndicates
and addiction

Provide Team Stance: Legalizing the consumption of drugs will create a safer environment and
mitigate the effects of harmful practices for all drug users

Propose a Mechanism:
a) All drugs will be sold and purchased at government regulated
stores to those above the age of 18
b) Each store must apply for an operating license and will only
be allowed to sell drugs made of approved substances
c) Those with addiction will be provided with state-sponsored
rehabilitation programmes
d) A free exchange of sterile needles can be provided in
replacement for used needles at these stores
 Prime Minister (Cont.)
Construction of an Argument: Drug Users are prone to being victims of syndicates

What? - Syndicates are multi-billion dollar operations that often use violence and intimidation in the
drug trade

How? - As drugs are illegal, a consumer will have to fork out large amounts of money to purchase a
small amount of the drug. Failing to pay can lead to the purchaser being beaten by middle men.

Why? - Given that many are complicit in the production and transportation of drugs, high costs are
incurred to mitigate the high risk.This is made worse with no regulation to the quality of substances
used in making the drug.

Comparative - We would rather there be government-regulated stores that can cap prices of drugs
as well as ensure high quality use of substances when producing the drugs

Conclusion- Well regulated stores reduce the chances of drug users becoming victims of violence
What does the Leader of Opposition do?
Defining the motion: Only re-define a motion if it was unfairly or wrongly characterized by the PM*

Provide Team Stance: Legalizing of drugs will exponentially increase its consumption and as a
result affect ones rationality in many circumstances

Rebuttals to PM: Why the argument isnt true?

Even if it is true, the outcomes are far worse

Provide 1 0r 2 Arguments: (Follow the simple structure laid out previously)

What does the Deputy Prime Minister/Leader of Opposition do?

If DPM: If DLO:

1) Rebut LOs arguments 1) Rebut PMs & DPMs

2) Reaffirm PMs arguments arguments
3) Point out parts of PMs 2) Point out parts of LOs
Arguments that were arguments that were not
insufficiently responded by responded to
LO 3) Show why LOs arguments
4) Show why PMs arguments still has significance despite
still has significance despite responses by DPM
responses by LO 4) Provide 1 or 2 substantive
5) Provide 1 or 2 new arguments
substantive arguments
What does the Whip Speaker do?
1) Do NOT provide any new Substantive Arguments
2) Compare issues that have taken place in the debate: 1 vs 1
For example:

Drugs allow access to Happiness vs Drugs reduce peoples rationality

3) Show why your arguments create a more preferable world as compared to

the arguments from the other side. Alternatively, show why the opposing
arguments create more harms.

4) Be sure to conclude the outcome of each issue and why your team has created
the more preferable ones.
Reply Speeches
1) Done by PM/DPM and LO/DLO (Whips CANNOT do reply speeches)
2) It is a 4 minute speech with no Points of Information
3) It is a biased summary speech

Identify Key Points for your Identify Key Points for the
Team Opposing Team:

1) What did you say? 1) What did they say?

2) How did the opposing 2) How did you attack it?
team tackle it? 3) How did they not defend
3) How did you defend and it?
support your arguments? 4) How you were able to win
4) Why you win on that on that particular issue?
particular issue?
Points of Information (POI)
1) A Point of Information is provided to the current person speaking by
someone of the opposing team
2) A POI can only be 15 seconds long. Should it exceed the Chair of the round
will say, Order so as to remind the person providing the POI to take a sit or
end the POI immediately
3) A POI aims to interject the debate with an immediate question/rebuttal to
the current argument or point being talked about by the speaker e.g.
(Wouldnt it be preferable to use resources to take down drug cartels instead
of monopolize the business?)
4) A POI can also seek to clarify any mechanism deficiencies when a case is
being set up e.g. (Would you also limit the amount of drugs being sold by a
store?)
What does an adjudicator do?
DOs DO NOT
1) Determine who won the debate 1) Write speaker scores on the ballot
2) Assign speaker scores to each debater until the debate is over
3) Announce the result to both teams after 2) Allow tentative scores to dictate
making a decision decision until after the debate has
4) Provide reasons (Oral Adjudication) to ended and you have evaluated the
arguments and cases of both sides
justify the decision
3) Take more than 10 minutes to make a
5) Provide constructive criticism to
decision if you are a panelist/Chair
debaters in order to further learning 4) Discuss or confer with the chair of
process panelist when deciding. All panelists
6) Judge like the average reasonable and chair will have to individually fill
person in an e-ballot form
Coming to a decision
1. Once the debate is over, invite teams to cross the floor and leave the room.
2. All judges in the room (if there is a panel) should take 5-10 minutes to come
to a decision independently
3. Each judge will fill out an e-ballot independently
4. The chair will then ask for the ballots and check if there is a split (2 judges
giving it to one team and 1 judge giving it to the other)
5. If the chair is in the majority (part of the 2 judges that gave the win to a
team), they will deliver the oral adjudication
6. If the chair is in the minority (the 1 judge that gave the win to a team), one of
the panelist will deliver the oral adjudication
How to provide an Oral Adjudication?
1) You are to deliver the OA if you are the chair of the panel. Should you have
panelists and your panelists form the majority decision and you are the
minority, one of the panelist will deliver the OA.
2) Highlight the differences between teams in terms of technical strengths and
weaknesses, and differences in manner and matter
3) Make sure your OA reflects the actual decision.
4) Be comparative of the issues in the debate. Flag it out and identify the points
that had persuaded you as the judge.
5) Do provide constructive feedback in a motivating and enthusiastic way to
further improve the learning process for all students separately from the
reasoning for your decision
6) You must also provide feedback on your panelists
How to score speeches?
For substantive speeches:

Lowest Score - 67

Average - 75

Highest Score - 83

For Reply Speeches:

Use the same range but divide score by 2

Total up all scores. The team with the highest score is declared the winner.
How to Score speeches? (Cont.)
67 Someone who stands up and sits down after saying Good Morning
Speaks for 1-3 minutes with very little substance in terms of setting up a debate or
providing reasons to an argument

68-69 Speaks between 3-5 minutes

Does sub-par in terms of setting up a debate or providing reasons to be persuaded
of the teams case

70-72 Doesnt fulfill speaker role or burden of proof

Speech is largely incoherent

73-74 Comes close to fulfilling speaker roles

Speech is decent
Has unresolved issues with argumentation and rebutalls

75 This is the average speech

Fulfills speaker roles
Identifies most issues sufficiently
Analyzes arguments but still has inconsistencies
How to Score Speeches? (Cont.)
76 Most issues identified correctly
Prioritization could be better
Good rebuttals and argumentation

77-78 Strong argumentation and rebuttals

Prioritization of rebuttals are accurate

79-80 Speech is comprehensive, concise and compelling

Great depth in argumentation
Impactful rebuttals

81-83 Flawless speech

Settles all issues in the debate well
Sophisticated and great depth in argumentation
High Impact Rebuttals