Rotary Invitational

Debates

Tournament Rules

• Modified Asian Parliamentary

Format

• 4 Elimination Rounds

• Breaks to Quarterfinals

Modified Asians

• 25 Minutes Preparation Time

• No Veto

• 7 Minute Speeches

• 4 Minute Reply Speeches

• 15 Second POI’s

Speaker Positions

Affirmative Negative1

Prime Minister2

Leader of Opposition 3

Deputy Prime Minister 4

Deputy Leader of Opp5

Government Whip 6

Opposition Whip 8

Government Reply 7

Opposition Reply

PUTTING ARGUMENTS IN REAL ACTION

Taken from the UPDS Basic Debate Seminar

7-minute speeches, with the first and last minute being uninterrupted (no points of information)

Provide the set-up

Advance positive argumentation for their side

Prime Minister

Leader of Oppositio

n

Deputy Prime

Minister

Deputy Leader of

the Oppositio

n

Government Whip

Opposition Whip

Government Reply

Opposition Reply

Provide the clash

Respond to PM

Advance positive argumentation for their side

Prime Minister

Leader of Oppositio

n

Deputy Prime

Minister

Deputy Leader of

the Oppositio

n

Government Whip

Opposition Whip

Government Reply

Opposition Reply

Respond to the previous speaker

Support the 1st speaker

Advance positive argumentation for their side

Prime Minister

Leader of Opposition

Deputy Prime

Minister

Deputy Leader of

the Opposition

Government Whip

Opposition Whip

Government Reply

Opposition Reply

Support the extension

Synthesize the debate

Prime Minister

Leader of Oppositio

n

Deputy Prime

Minister

Deputy Leader of

the Oppositio

n

Government Whip

Opposition Whip

Government Reply

Opposition Reply

Provide a biased adjudication

Only constructive speakers (PM, LO, DPM, DLO) can be reply speakers

Prime Minister

Leader of Oppositio

n

Deputy Prime

Minister

Deputy Leader of

the Oppositio

n

Government Whip

Opposition Whip

Government Reply

Opposition Reply

Whips Reply

7 Minute Speeches 4 Minute Speeches

Synthesizes the Debate Biased Adjudication

Makes them wins issues

Shows that they win issues

Responds to standing arguments

Shows their arguments still

stand

Motion

The topic which the Government team must defend and the Opposition team must oppose

Must be defined by the Prime Minister

Defining the Motion Each definition must:

Have a clear link to the debate Be fair and debatable Identify the issues to be debated and the

scope of the debate (standards) Include parameters when necessary

When Should A Definition Be Challenged?

A definition should be challenged when it is one of the following: Squirrel Time/Place Set Truism

How Do You Mount A Definitional Challenge?

If a definition provided by the Prime Minister is a squirrel, time/place set or truism, the LO can challenge the definition.

Only the LO can mount a challenge. If the LO does not challenge, no one else in the debate can do so.

How Do You Mount A Definitional Challenge?

The LO must provide an alternative definition that (s)he must then oppose

Even-if arguments for both sides There are no automatic wins/losses

Matter, Manner, MethodAn Overview

Matter The content of the speech. It is the material

the debater uses to persuade the audience Includes arguments, reasoning and

examples Includes rebuttals Includes Points of Information

How Do You Improve Your Matter?

Read more Read not just to gain examples, but to gain

arguments and frames Train more

Training is the best way to refine your skills Listen more

Listen not just to the person you are rebutting, but also your teammates. Consistency is also important

Manner The style of the speech. It is the presentation

a debater uses to persuade the audience Comprised of many elements

Posture Accent Voice (pitch, loudness, etc) Speed of Talking Humor Gestures

Is There A Correct Style of Manner?

There is no correct style of debating, as long as you make them listen to you and take you seriously

Many styles exist The Statesman The Showman The Angry Man• TIP: ADJUST ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONALITY

Method The organization of the speech. It is the

structure a debater uses to persuade the audience

Comprised of many elements Time Management Signposting Rigor in Argumentation

How Do I Improve My Method? Key Question: Where am I in my speech? Signpost everything: “This is my argument”,

“These are my rebuttals”, etc. Manage time wisely. Look at your timer Make better notes Use simpler language

Scoring Range

67 – 68: No contributions, speech (or lack thereof) hurt the team case

69 – 71: Speech was incoherent and deeply flawed. Major technical violations were committed

71 – 73: Below Average. Ideas were underdeveloped, substantive matter was lacking, little to no responsiveness or dynamism. Minor technical violations were committed

74 – 76: Average. Material was equal parts good and flawed. The speech was largely only adequate in fulfilling role burdens and technical rules.

Scoring Range

77 – 79: Above Average. Arguments were complete, clear and answered questions in the debate. Role positions were fulfilled well, including accepting at least one POI. Material was precise and true to the core of the debate. Meta-argument was also present.

80 – 81: Excellent. Completely brilliant and eye-opening. Showcased not only an understanding of the issues but also compelling insights into them. No complaints in terms of role fulfillment or substantiation.

82-83: Perfect. Speech was absolutely flawless, brilliant and belief-shattering.

Name Institution CV

RJ Lim UPMNDC Finalist, Co-Chief Adjudicator Health Secretary’s Cup, Best Judge

CSB IV

Pam Carbonell UPDAustrals Subsidized Judge, 8th Best

Judge NDC, Finals Judge Philippine Union Cup

Avianna Castano DLSU PDO Finalist, UADC Quarterfinals and EFL Semifinals Judge

Dino De Leon DLSU Breaking Adjudicator WUDC, Chief Adjudicator of ASDC

Renzo Escalona ADMU 10th best judge NDC, 5th best judge LIV

Name Institution CV

Kevin Ganchero FEU Best and Finals Judge PDO, Finalist NDC

Allan Cabrera ADMU UADC, PIDC, WUPID finalist; Australs Octofinalist

Fritzgerdan Malit UPLB CSB IVs Finalist, CA Econvergence, CA Legal Minds V

Dwight Tan ADMU PIDC Semifinalist, 2nd best Judge MINT

JV Valerio ADMU Australasians Finals Judge, WUPID Quarterfinalist