Alcheringa Parliamentary Debate Rules:

Alcheringa Parliamentary Debate will follow the ‘3-on-3’ Asian parliamentary style of debating
governed by the following rules, regulations, and guidelines.

1. FORMAT OF THE TOURNAMENT

a. 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 Proposition’, ‘The
Affirmative’ or ‘The Government’. The team opposing may be known as ‘The
Opposition’ or ‘The Negative’. Teams will be designated as the Proposition or
the Opposition for each round of the competition.
b. 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.
c. Each debate shall be timed by a timekeeper. In the absence of a
timekeeper, a member of the adjudication panel will time the speeches.
d. Teams will comprise the following members.
i. AFFIRMATIVE
1. Prime Minister, or First Affirmative.

2. Deputy Prime Minister, or Second Affirmative.

3. Government Whip, or Third Affirmative. ii.

NEGATIVE
1. Leader of the Opposition, or First Negative.

2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or Second Negative.

3. Opposition Whip, or Third Negative.

e. Debaters will speak in the following order:
 i. Prime Minister

ii. Leader of Opposition iii. Deputy Prime

Minister iv. Deputy Leader of Opposition

v. Government Whip
vi. Opposition Whip vii. Opposition reply
viii. Government reply
f. Common minute will not be given within reply speeches.

g. Speakers not ‘holding the floor’ may not rise during a speech unless it is to offer a

‘Point of Information’ (see Part Five of this document). Speakers doing so, or
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.
2. MOTIONS

a. The motions for each round will reflect a specific and well-known theme, and each
round of the competition will comprise of three choices of motions.
b. On release of the motions, both teams will rank the motions on the basis of their
preferences. The third option of both teams is immediately dropped. If there remains
a clear favourite, that motion is directly selected.
c. In case of an undecided tie between the two remaining motions, the
motion for that round and match-up will be decided on the basis of toss of coin. It
is the responsibility of the timekeeper to oversee the choice and selection of the
motion.
3. Preparation

a. Match-ups and venues will be announced before motions are revealed.

b. Once the motions are released, teams must immediately rank their motions, select
the motion in the presence of the runner and/or the adjudicators of that round
 and proceed to their venues, where the motion is decided upon. From the time of
release of the motions, teams have 30 minutes preparation time until the
commencement of the debate in that round.
c. The Affirmative have the right to prepare in chambers (venue).

d. Printed and prepared materials may be used during the preparation period.

No access to electronic media or electronic storage or retrieval devices is

permitted after motions have been released. This includes but is not limited to, all
kinds of computers, electronic data banks, cellular phones, etc. Printed and
prepared materials may be accessed during a debate, but may not be used by a
speaker holding the floor.
e. Teams must prepare on their own. 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 purposes of assistance in the context
of the debate. Such contact and assistance is deemed as ‘cheating’ and will be
punished strictly.
f. Teams failing to arrive in time for the debate will forfeit that particular round.

4. TIMING

a. It is the duty of the timekeeper, or of a panel member or Chair (in absence

of a timekeeper), to time all the speeches in each round.
b. The timing of each speech starts at the moment that the member begins speaking. c.
Times for speeches:
i. Substantive Speeches: 6 + 1 minutes.

ii. Reply Speeches: 3+1 minutes in all rounds.

d. Time signals will be given in the following manner:
i. End of first minute - single knock of the gavel. ii.
End of sixth minute - single knock of the gavel.
iii. End of seventh minute - double knock of the gavel.
e. Reply Speeches:
 i. End of third minute- single knock of the gavel.
ii. End of Fourth minute- Double knock of the gavel.

f. Once the double knock of the gavel has 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 adjudicators must disregard the rest of that particular speech. Speakers
continuing after the ‘grace period’ can also be penalized by the adjudicators in the
Method category.
g. If the speaker concludes his/her speech before the second single knock of the gavel,
he or she should be penalized under Method and possibly also under Matter.
The latter, assuming that less matter was advanced, or that it was clearly
underdeveloped.
5. POINTS OF INFORMATION

a. Points of Information (POIs’) may be offered during the six substantive speeches
only, after the first single knock of the gavel and up to the second single knock of
the gavel. Points of Information may not be offered during the first and last
minutes of substantive speeches. If a Point of Information is offered in the first or
the last minute of a constructive speech, it is the duty of the speaker holding the floor
to reject the same as being out of order. Only if the speaker holding the floor fails to
do the same, the chair of the adjudicator panel may very briefly intervene and call
the house to order.
b. A POI must be indicated by a member of an opposing team rising from his/her seat.
A member offering a Point of Information may draw attention to the offer by saying
“on that point Sir/Madam,” or a short word calling attention to the member of the
opposing team raising the point of information. If entire ques tions are posed in the
tag this can be marked down under method.
c. A member holding the floor must respond to an opposing member, or members
offering POI’s, in one of the following ways.
i. A clear gesture or hand signal rejecting the offer.
 ii. A verbal rejection of the offer, or iii. A verbal acceptance of the
offer.

d. If a POI is accepted, the point should be phrased as a question, or clarification, or

comment, and ideally made in no more than 15 seconds. Points of Information
should be such that they allow the member holding the floor some chance of
responding.
e. After a POI has been offered, no further clarifications may be sought either by the
speaker holding the floor or by the member offering the Point of
Information, except strictly in situations where the Point of Information is clearly
inaudible, and therefore a repetition of the same is necessitated.
f. Once a POI is accepted the speaker holding the stage is bound to give adequate time
for the completion of the question.
g. Points of Information are marked for their strategic use under Method, and for their
content under Matter. Unwarranted use of points of information can be marked
down under Manner.
6. DEFINITIONS

a. The definition is the interpretation of the motion as put forward by the Prime
Minister, or First Affirmative, in his opening remarks. The onus for establishing how
the definition ties in with the given motion lies completely upon the Prime
Minister. All subsequent speakers have a purely clarifying role (if any) in this
regard.
b. The definition should be reasonable.

c. The definition should state the issue or issues arising out of the motion to be
debated, state the meanings of any terms in the motion requiring
clarification and display clear and logical links to the wording and spirit of the
motion.
d. The definition should not be:

i. A truism (a matter stated as fact).

 ii. A tautology (a definition which, in development, proves itself).

iii. Place set (setting an unnaturally restrictive geographical or spatial location as

its major parameter). iv. Time set (setting an unnaturally restrictive
chronological duration as its main parameter).
v. Wholly unreasonable (displaying no clear or logical links to the motion).

This is referred to as ‘squirreling’. As mentioned earlier squirreling

essentially implies that a definition has been proposed which is clearly not
in keeping with the spirit of the motion.
e. The Negative may only challenge the definition advanced by the Affirmative on the
basis of one of the above-mentioned conditions, and must clearly state which
individual condition based upon which it is challenging the definition.
f. The Negative may not challenge a definition supplied by the Affirmative on
the basis that:
i. The definition does not adhere to the theme provided for the round ii.
Its own definition is MORE reasonable.
iii. 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, a Negative may contend with the specific or general
approach to terminology supplied by the definition of the Affirmative.
7. CHALLANGING THE DEFINITION

a. The definitional challenge must be made in the speech of the Leader of the
Opposition, following a clear statement that the definition is being rejected. The
onus for establishing the definitional challenge lies completely upon the Leader
of the Opposition. Subsequent speakers are strictly permitted a purely
clarificatory role (if any) in this regard.
b. In the event of a challenge, the Leader of the Opposition must justify his/her
rejection by supplying the grounds on which the original defi nition has been
rejected. Furthermore, a substitute definition must be supplied, which the
Opposition benches must then go on to negate. The opposition is also expected
 to, in the case of the definition being a squirrel, place or time set to submit some
arguments to negate the definition proposed by the government, in the sense of
an even if, i.e. that even if the challenge doesn’t stand, these arguments would
negate the government’s case.
c. If the Leader of the Opposition does not challenge the definit ion, no other
speaker may do so.
d. The onus to prove that a definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition, and should
not be presumed by the adjudicators.
e. Adjudicators should not indicate during the debate whether the definitional
challenge has succeeded. They cannot indicate which definition they find to be
(more) acceptable. The final decision as to whether a definitional challenge has
succeeded must take into consideration all 8 speeches in any debate.
f. Neither team should abandon either the definitions or the challenges of its
opening speakers.
g. Definitions should not require members of the house to have access to, or possess,
specific or expert knowledge.
h. If a definitional challenge is upheld, the team making the challenge does not
necessarily win by the largest possible margin. If the definitional challenge fails,
then the team making such a challenge does not necessarily lose by the largest
possible margin. Adjudicators are expected to make a holistic decision about
the debate on the parameters including the success or failure of the challenge,
as well as how well both teams defend their definitions and fulfil their rule
in proposing and opposing the definitions they have assumed.
A definitional challenge should take place in the rarest of rare cases.
8. MATTER

a. ‘Matter’ relates to the issues in debate, the case being presented and the
material used to substantiate argumentation
b. The issues under debate should be correctly prioritized (by teams) and ordered (by
individuals), dealing with the most important/pertinent first. This guideline may
be departed from, in order to preserve logical continuity and coherence.
 c. Matter should be logical and well reasoned.

d. Matter should be relevant, both to the issue in contention and the cases being
advanced.
e. Matter should be persuasive.

f. Matter will be assessed from the viewpoint of ‘the average reasonable

person’. Adjudicators must disregard any specialist knowledge they have, even
though pertinent to the issues under debate
g. Bias will 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.
h. A debater should ideally take at least two points of information during a speech.
i. The Opposition Whip may not introduce any new matter in to the debate.

Similarly, no new matter may be introduced in both Reply speeches.

9. MANNER

a. Manner refers to the presentation and delivery style of a speaker.

b. The following list represents some of the elements which are, or may be,
subsumed under Manner. The list is intended as a guide, rather than as a
number 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. The major influence on an adjudicator must be: ‘Is the speaker’s
manner EFFECTIVE in advancing the case?’
c. The following are to be considered:

i. Vocal Style : Volume, clarity, pronunciation, pace, intonation, fluency,

confidence, and authority.
ii. Language: Conversational.
 iii. Use of notes: Should not distract, should not be read. iv. Eye Contact: With
audience.
v. Gesture: Natural, appropriate.
vi. Stance vii. Dress: (only an issue if really inappropriate to the place or
occasion).
viii. Sincerity: Believability ix.
Personal Attacks:

x. Humour: Effectiveness of and appropriateness.

d. Debater and adjudicators in the competition must be aware that they will
experience many different debating styles different colleges and countries. There
is no single ‘correct’ or ‘right’ style to adopt in this competition. Nor should
a speaker’s style be dismissed as inappropriate in the national or regional
context of the adjudicators or debaters who witness it.
e. As with Matter, personal bias must not be allowed to influence an
adjudicator’s assessment of Manner.
10. METHOD
a. Method shall be comprising of Individual Method; Team Method, Overall
response to the debate
b. Individual Method pertains to the structure and organization of an
individual speech. This may be evident in a reasonably clear outline of the
responsibilities of the speaker and the order of the issues to be d ealt 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.
c. Individual Method 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).
d. Individual Method pertains to good time management and good time keeping.
 e. Team Method pertains to the effectiveness of the team’s case organization and
structure as a whole.
f. Team Method pertains to the equable division of roles (speakers) and
responsibilities during a debate and the effective discharge of those roles and
responsibilities.
g. Response to the dynamics of the debate pertains to the reactive abilities of
speakers and teams to the ongoing strategies being employed by both sides,
and the shifts in the balance of power from one side to another.
h. Teams and speakers should respond to clear strategic issues, not minor ‘slips of the
tongue’ or insignificant points.
i. 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.
j. Team members may keep time and signal members holding the floor. Time
signals may not be spoken aloud. Speakers may also keep their own time.
11. MARKING THE DEBATE
a. At the end of every debate, each adjudicator must complete their
adjudication forms.
b. There are no draws in competitive debating.

c. Teams failing to turn up for the debate on time, and with no valid reason, will lose
the debate by the widest possible margin. The other team will then face - off
against a stand-by swing team [non-competitive for the purposes of the
competition] constituted by the host University. Failure to turn up for two rounds in
the preliminary phase will result in automatic disqualification from the tournament
d. For constructive speeches, marks shall be awarded to speakers based on the
following:
i. An ‘average’ speech shall be awarded:

1. Matter: 30/40
 2. Manner: 30/40

3. Method: 15/20

4. Total: 75/100

ii. A speaker may not under any circumstance be awarded less than 28/40 in
Matter and Manner, and less than 13/20 in Method. Therefore, the
worst speech in the history of debating would still get 69/100.
iii. A speaker may not under any circumstance be awarded more than 32/40 in
Matter and Manner, and more than 17/20 in Method. Therefore, the
best speech in the history of the world would get no more than 81/100.
e. For reply speeches, marks shall be awarded to speakers based on the following:

i. An ‘average’ reply speech shall be awarded as a normal substantive speech and

then the marks will be halved. Thus, an average speech shall
37.5/50 (75/100)

ii. A speaker may not under any circumstance be awarded less than 34.5/50
(69/100) iii. A speaker may not under any circumstance be awarded
more than

40.5/50 (81/100)
f. The ‘average’ mark for an ‘average team’ is therefore: 75+75+75+37.5 =

262.5/350

g. The lowest possible score is therefore: 69+ 69+69+34.5 = 241.5/350

h. The highest possible score is therefore: 81+ 81+81+40 = 283.5/350
12. WIN LOSS MARGIN
a. Adjudicators must determine, at the conclusion of a debate whether the overall
margin of win/loss separating the teams was (independently of speaker scores) close,
clear or a thrashing margin on a scale of 1 to 12.
i. Close win = 1 to 4 points. ii.
Clear win = 4 to 8 points. iii.
Thrashing = 8 to 12 points.
b. Win/Loss Margins lower than 1 and higher than 12 are not permitted on any count.
c. The difference between the cumulative speaker scores of the two teams in the
match need not be the same as the win loss margin
d. However, the team which wins the debate must have a higher cumulative score.