1. Principle of parliamentary debate
Order Of Procedure
The motion for each team will be drawn by lot so that each motion is debated only
once.
The order of procedure for each debate will be as follows:
- Discussion of the topic 5 minutes
- Proposal of the motion 4 minutes
- Opposing of the motion 4 minutes
- Seconding the motion 3 minutes
- Seconding for the opposition 3 minutes
- Open debate with
Intervention from the floor 8 minutes maximum
- Summing up for the opposition 3 minutes
- Summing up for the motion 3minutes

2. The teams next in turn to debate will leave the auditorium after the open debate. The
motion will be then drawn leaving 5 minutes for discussion.
At the end of the debating session, debaters and spectators will be asked to leave
the auditorium to allow the judges to confer.
After reaching their decision judges will announce the winning team and the runners-
up. Before announcing the winners, the panel of judges (or one of its members) will
offer constructive criticism and advice to the speakers.
General
This is a debating competition and not a competition for public speaking. Judges should
watch out for speakers who give little or no evidence of initiative as debaters. The
summing-up speeches are important tests of debating ability.

3. CRITERIA
Judges will assess teams principally on the basis of three criteria: Strategy, Content,
and Style. These three headings are not mutually exclusive: there will inevitably be
some overlap.
1. Strategy
The main aspects of this are teamwork and rebuttal.
Teamwork
The two speakers should complement rather than duplicate each other’s arguments. It
should be clear that their case has been well co-ordinate in advance. Competitors
should remember, however, that arguments and rebuttal will develop quickly and
perhaps unpredictably in the course of the debate.
Rebuttal
Apart from the opening speaker in favors of the motion, all the debaters are expected to
rebut the case of the opposing side at the same time as forwarding their own
arguments. It is not sufficient simply to state that the other side is wrong; there must be
frequent reference to what has been said and an explanation of how points introduced
now counter those previously made. In short, the ability to think on one’s feet should be
rewarded highly. The summing-up of speeches should deal with significant points from
the floor debate and summaries the major arguments of the team by highlighting
principal areas of disagreement and showing why they can only be resolved one way.

4. 2. Content
1. It should be evident from a good speech that the team has carefully considered the
motion. Each speaker should demonstrate an understanding of the issues involved in
the case being argued and support it with carefully selected and relevant evidence.
Irrelevance or disregard for the motion should be penalized
2. Each speech should develop an argument rather than rely on a series of assertions.
Logic, clear structure and consistency of argument will be rewarded.
3. The opening speaker of each side is responsible for establishing clearly the terms on
which the case will be conducted. Weak or frivolous interpretations are unlikely to be
successful and teams should be careful to avoid touristic or tautologies definitions.
(See also note on definition under specific criteria for judges).
4. The summing-up speeches must not include new material except by way of rebuttal.
3. Style
Style may be defined as oratorical skill. It does not cover what is said but how it is said.
The following areas are all relevant. Speakers who do not use oratorical skills will be
penalized but an unnecessarily flamboyant or pretentious style is unlikely to be
successful.
1. The speaker’s ability to express him/herself persuasively.
2. The extent to which the individual develops rapport with the audience.
3. Variety of voice.
4. Use of humour.
5. Diction: choice of language and fluency.
6. Use of notes

5. Comments on the use of notes
Speakers who read a script or recite a memorised piece will be penalised. Notes
brought into the debate should therefore primarily be for reference purposes and a
speaker should not be tied to them. Good debaters will, however, need to make and
refer more closely to notes during the course of the debate in order to rebut the
opposing case.
The Floor Debate
The open period before the summing-up of speeches is an opportunity for members of
the audience to react to the debate so far.
Points should be kept short and addressed to the chair. New arguments may, if
necessary, be introduced to do so, but it is preferable to link rebuttal to an established
line of argument.
The floor debate is meant for students.

6. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR JUDGES
Applying the Criteria
The judges’ task is to determine which team or teams were best. If two teams are to be
selected they may come from the same debate or from different debates. The decision
must be based on the presentation of arguments and evidence by the team as outlined
in the three criteria of Strategy, Content and Style, which have equal status. Since it is
not easy to predict how a debate will develop, judges are strongly advised to take
detailed notes for later reference. In the end, however, it is the overall impression of
which team(s) made the most convincing case that will determine the verdict. The
judges must base their decision on the evidence and arguments raised by the debaters
and on nothing else. The judges’ own views on an issue must be set aside. The teams
are to be marked according to how they would impress a reasonable and impartial
observer. Such an observer can be assumed to have an adequate general knowledge
of the issues but the judges should not penalise debaters who are guilty of a flaw
unobserved by any other speakers and only apparent to someone exceptionally well
versed in the topic.

7. Specific criteria
The judges should not impose too heavy or too unreasonable a burden of proof on the
Proposition. Debates are not criminal cases in which the prosecution must prove the
case beyond a shadow of doubt. Anything that can be proved in so short a time as a
competitive debate round is probably a truism. In genuinely debatable cases there is
always some doubt. If the motion is of an absolute nature the proposers are only
expected to show its validity as a general principle. It is completely invalid or wrong to
claim ”I simply have to give one example, one exception, to destroy the proposer’s
case”. Similarly the Proposition should not have to provide lots of specifics. As long as
their definition is clear, then it is logic and values that are at issue. Judges should
beware of Opposition teams whose speeches consist primarily of ”They have not told
us exactly how it would work”, ”Make them show exactly where the money would come
from”, etc. These are questions or objections but do not constitute compelling
arguments. Whilst an Opposition team is not obliged to put forward a positive case of its
own, it is effective to present a cogent negative philosophy in response to the
Proposition case.
A Note on Defining the Motion
The first Proposer must explain clearly his/her team’s interpretation of the motion.
Intelligent and straightforward definitions are expected. The Opposers should accept
this definition unless they can demonstrate that it is faulty. Such a challenge must be
made by the first Opposer challenging the motion, then the second Proposer must deal
with the question of definition. If not, the Opposer’s new definition will be considered to
have been accepted. It should be emphasised that it is far preferable to avoid a
definitional clash. However, the Opposers must be penalised heavily if they adopt a new
definition without explaining why they have rejected that offered by the Proposers.

8. SOME NOTES ON DEBATING
These notes are not a substitute for the official guidance given to judges and
competitors. They should not be applied too rigidly. However, it is hoped that
they will help all speakers to prepare effectively.
1. Teamwork
Before preparing their speeches the two members of the team should spend some time
discussing the motion and working out how best to divide their material. The two
speakers should complement one another and not simply repeat the same points.
Each speaker must have a clear idea of what the other intends to say before the debate
begins.
2. Logic
Though good factual knowledge is expected, you will above all be assessed on quality
of argument. Make sure what you say is clear and logical. If possible, develop a line of
argument rather than rely on a series of unconnected points.

9. 3. Delivery
Speeches should not be read as this reduces rapport with the audience. In any case, in
a good debate only one of the four speakers (the first proposer) can know in advance
exactly what to say. It is often helpful to use notes written on small cards. Vary the tone
and pace of your speaking. Look at the audience.
4. Rebuttal
This is the most demanding and most interesting feature of a good debate. After
the opening speech, each speaker must spend some time attacking what the opponents
have said. You should try to pick as many holes as possible in the other side’s case
while consolidating your own defense. Treat it like a sport. Debates where each side
concentrates on its own case and ignores its opponents are dull. More specific advice
on rebuttal is given below.
5. Structure of speeches
There are no firm rules in English debating about how speeches are constructed but
these guidelines may help:
The First Proposer should explain how the motion has been interpreted as clearly as
possible. There should follow a description of how the Proposer’s case will be divided
between first and second speakers. The first part of the case, which will probably be the
larger part, follows:

10. The First Opposer should begin by dealing with any difference of opinion over what the
motion means. If there is an argument over definition, the Opposer must explain why
their interpretation is better though it is always preferable for the Opposers to argue on
the Proposer’s own ground. After this, the first Opposer describes how their arguments
will be divided and gives the first part of the case. During the course of this one or two
major points made by the Proposer should be rebutted.
Seconders on each side should divide their time about equally between replying to
points made by their opponents and completing the case for their own side. At the end
of each speech a brief summary of the whole argument should be given.
Summing-up speeches. No new material may be introduced at this stage except by
way of reply. A good summing-up speech will deal with points from the floor, will
summarise the essential differences between the two sides and will explain clearly why
one side is superior to the other. In the absence of worthwhile points from the floor it is a
good tactic to rebut more of the points offered by the main speaker on the other side.
6. Preparation
It follows from the last section that speakers will be better prepared if they have tried to
anticipate what arguments will be used by their opponents and how they can be
rebutted.

11. 7. Conclusion
Anybody who met all the criteria here would be a world-class debater. Do not be
intimidated. At least you have an idea of where you should aim. Above all, regard a
debate as a competitive challenge: you should go in absolutely determined not to let the
opposition better you in argument. Even when not presenting your speech you can keep
involved by passing notes to the other speaker and by offering points of information.
Taken in that spirit, debating is very enjoyable.
DUTIES OF TIMEKEEPERS
1. Make sure you have two reliable stopwatches.
2. You will need an audible signal, preferably a bell. This should be loud enough to be
heard clearly by the speakers and the judges but not so loud as to cause a
disturbance.
3. Each main speech is allocated a maximum of 4 minutes. After the floor debate, a
further 3 minutes will be allowed in which either team member will sum up. An
audible signal will be given after three minutes of each team’s first speech and again
after four minutes to mark the end of the speech. In the summing up: a signal will be
given after 2 minutes and again after 3 minutes.
4. Make a note of the time any speech runs over.
Remember to stop the clock for any other interruption such as point of order or
intervention by the Chair.

12. THE JUDGES’ MARK SHEETS
Marks awarded should reflect the judge’s decision; they should not make that decision
for the judge. Marks, however, are not irrelevancies; they exist as a guide to the judge
and to the competitors as to the nature of the judgments that the judge has made as the
debates progress. For categories marked out of 10, excellence should receive 9-10,
good quality 7-8, average quality 5-6, below average quality 3-4 and poor quality 1-2.
These values are halved for reply speeches, except for strategy, which is again marked
out of 10. These marks apply to the standard of the competition, not to any notional
universal dimension of debating skills. The best speeches of the contest should be
given 27-30 marks out of 30 and the worst 3-6 out of 30. For most debates the range
will be narrower, but there is no point in having marks available that are never used. In
short, every effort should be made to separate teams. Judges are asked to write
explanatory and constructive comments on the mark sheet, not merely unhelpful
criticism. Judges must remember that the competition is also an opportunity to learn and
improve debating techniques and that judges are central to this educational process.
Judges are encouraged to discuss their decisions with competitors after the debate
provided that competitors and coaches do not abuse this openness and see it as an
attack on what they regard as a wrong decision. Written comments on the sheets may
be kept brief in the interests of expediting the adjudication

13. Principle of parliamentary debate
Order Of Procedure
•The motion for each team
will be drawn by lot so that
each motion is debated
only once.
•The teams next in turn to
debate will leave the
auditorium after the open
debate. The motion will be
then drawn leaving 5
minutes for discussion
Criteria
•Judges will assess
teams principally
Strategy on the basis of
three criteria:
• The main Strategy, Content,
aspects of this Style. These three
are teamwork headings are not
and rebuttal. mutually exclusive:
there will
Perliamentary inevitably be some
Debate overlap
Style
•The speaker’s ability to
express him/herself Content
persuasively. •It should be evident
•The extent to which the from a good speech
individual develops •Each speech should
rapport with the audience. develop an argument
•Variety of voice. rather than rely on a
•Use of humour. series of assertions
•Diction: choice of language
and fluency.
•Use of notes

14. Principle of parliamentary debate
Teamwork
Conclusion Logic
Some
Notes On
Debating
Preparation Delivery
Structure of
Rebuttal
speeches