Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary debate is an extemporaneous debating style emphasizing quick thinking, general knowledge, wit, structure andlogical analysis but not research. We compete on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit against schools from all over the United States . Debaters in our circuit vary from experienced high school debaters to people that did not debate until college; from Pre-Law, to economics majors, to engineers, to historians. Regardless of your background, Parliamentary Debate may be for you.

Debout rounds involve two teams of two members each arguing an issue that one team proposes. This style's greatest appeal is that you can propose any topic you want so long as it requires no specific knowledge. Topics can be simple propositions (e.g. The US should legalize soft drugs), or more complicated case statements (e.g. You are the five member powers of the UN and the year is 1945. Invite Germany, Austria and Japan to join the UN). Imagination is truly rewarded and ingenious case statements can lead to debates that you can't have in any other kind of debating. For example, at the National Tournament in 2001, a team from Princeton suggested the following: "A supreme being comes down to Earth and says that it can create a halo around human beings that would reflect their intentions so that if a person has bad intentions, there would be a black halo around their face, or if they had good intentions, it would be a white halo, etc. Do you want to let the Being do it or not?" In this case, the opposing team gets to pick the sides it wants to defend-- another very appealing characteristic of our circuit that leads to very fair rounds.From what you can see, the flexibility and ingenuity of cases found in our circuit is not found anywhere else.

The following are the rules of debate, as written by our president in 2008:

1.00 – OBJECTIVES OF DEBATE

1.01. In American Parliamentary Debate, two teams argue opposing sides of an issue.

1.02. (a) A round of parliamentary debate consists of four active participants comprising two two-person teams and an indeterminate number of adjudicators. (b) At individual tournaments’ discretion, one person may represent both a team’s debaters. (c) The number of judges should preferably be odd so they can reach a majority decision.

1.03. (a) The two teams shall be the Government (“Gov”) and the Opposition (“Opp”). (b) Gov shall present a plan to be debated (“case”) and argue for its implementation; Opp shall argue against the case and for a scenario in which the case is not implemented.

1.04. (a) Each team’s objective is to convince the judge that its advocacy is better than its opponent’s. The definition of “better” is the judge’s responsibility to decide and the teams’ to argue. In general, the winning advocacy could be the most useful, sensible or logical, either from a pragmatic or philosophical perspective. (b) Objectives may change if the round becomes illegal (see 6.00).

1.05. (a) Rounds consist of the individual debaters giving speeches defending their teams’ positions. Speeches shall be strictly ordered and shall take place sequentially (see 3.01). (b) The only exception to individual speeches’ strict order is the presentation of Points (see 4.00).

2.00 – PRELIMINARIES

2.01. When appropriate and possible, the two teams sit opposite each other and speak from a location between their seating areas. The judge ideally faces the speaking area.

2.02. (a) Before the round commences, the two teams should, whenever possible, publicly disclose their debaters’ roles. Gov shall have a Prime Minister (“PM”) and a Member of Government (“MG”); Opp shall have a Leader of the Opposition (“LO”) and a Member of Opposition (“MO”). (b) Debaters will deliver speeches based on their roles (see 3.02).

2.03. (a) The debaters and judge decide, prior to the round, on how to keep and enforce time limits (see 3.01) . (b) If through disagreement or inaction they reach no such decision, teams keep and enforce each other’s time limits and each may rise on Points Of Order (see 4.03) when their opponents exceed their allotted speaking times.

3.00 – SPEECHES

3.01. (a) Speeches are be as follows:

            1. The Prime Minister Constructive (“PMC”) – 7 minutes
            2. The Leader of Opposition Constructive (“LOC”) – 8 minutes
            3. The Member of Government Constructive (“MGC”) – 8 minutes
            4. The Member of Opposition Constructive (“MOC”) – 8 minutes
            5. The Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (“LOR”) – 4 minutes
            6. The Prime Minister Rebuttal (“PMR”) – 5 minutes

(b) Speech have 30-second grace periods after standard time elapses. (c) Judges may at their discretion penalize speakers who exceed their allotted time; judges are encouraged, but not required, to disclose their personal policies on this matter prior to the round.

3.02. (a) The PM delivers the PMC and PMR; (b) the LO delivers the LOC and LOR; (c) the MG delivers the MGC; (d) the MO delivers the MOC.

3.03. (a) In PMC, the PM, before making arguments or delivering analysis, delivers a “case statement” (or “construct”), which describes the position Gov will defend . (b) After delivering the case statement, official time pauses; during paused time, Opp may ask POCs (see 4.01) or make their opp-choice decision (see 5.02) if necessary. (c) After Opp is finished, time resumes, and the PM uses the remaining allotted time to deliver arguments and analysis supporting Gov’s case.

3.04. In LOC, the LO begins by defending Opp’s side with new argumentation. The LO then uses the remaining allotted time arguing in support of Opp’s side against specific arguments the PM made, ideally in their original order.

3.05. In MGC, the MG may begin by introducing new argument or analysis. He/she then argues in support of Gov’s side against specific new arguments the LO made, ideally in their original order. He/she then uses the remaining allotted time to rebut the arguments the LO made against the PM’s arguments, ideally in their original order.

3.06. (a) In MOC, the MO may begin by introducing new argument or analysis. He/she then rebuts specific arguments the MG made against the LO’s new arguments, ideally in their original order. He/she then uses the remaining allotted time to rebut the arguments the MG made against the LO’s arguments against the PMC, ideally in their original order. (b) An MOC is determined an “MO dump” if it contains an inordinate amount of new argument. If Gov thinks an MO dump has occurred, the PM must identify it in PMR, either implicitly or explicitly. The judge decides whether the level of new MOC analysis is inordinate and whether to penalize Opp.

3.07. (a) In LOR, the LO argues a final time in support of Opp’s side. He/she need not address all the round’s argumentation, nor need he/she be follow points’ original order; he/she summarizes the round and explains why the judge should declare Opp the winner. (b) LOR can feature new examples but no new arguments.

3.08. (a) In PMR, the PM argues a final time in support of Gov’s side. He/she need not address all the round’s argumentation, nor need he/she follow points’ original order; he/she summarizes the round and explain why the judge should declare Gov the winner. (b) PMR can feature new examples, except for arguments Gov earlier specifically declined to enhance with examples. PMC can feature no new arguments but those directly rebutting new MOC arguments or new LOR examples.

3.09. If any speech’s order of argumentation deviates from the order 3.03 through 3.08 outlines, the judge need not automatically penalize the offending speaker but may do so at his/her discretion if the deviation harms the round.

3.10. Speeches are verbal; aids are not allowed. Speakers may use hand gestures, bodily gesticulations or movement through the room and may indirectly using pre-existing room items, but speakers may not argue, emphasize or analyze by directly using foreign objects or explicit sensory aids including (but not limited to) charts, pictures, articles, videos, recordings or models.

4.00 – IN-ROUND POINTS

4.01. Points of Clarification: (“POCs”) (a) After the PM reads construct in PMC, official time can be temporarily paused, either at Opp’s request or at the the PM’s discretion. During paused time, Opp may ask POCs: informational questions regarding construct Answers shall join the groundwork case statement outlined. (b) Opp must only ask informational questions. Opp may not badger Gov, argue through questioning or ask questions solely to elongate the time suspension period. (c) The judge has full discretion over the POC period, and may partially or fully end questioning if Opp breaks guidelines in 4.01b or asks excessive questions. The judge may not, however, end or prohibit the POC period without just reason. (d) POCs may only be asked during Gov’s constructive speeches and should be presented in the same manner as POIs (see 4.02). Time does not stop for in-round POCs. (e) Though POCs allow round clarification, Gov’s construct must be reasonably clear without the aid of POCs. Judges may at their discretion penalize Gov for unclear constructs.

4.02. Points of Information: (“POIs”) (a) During each constructive speech, members of the opposite team may rise indicating desire to ask a POI. The speaker may either break from his/her speech and accept the POI or indicate that he/she will not accept it at that time. After accepting a POI, the speaker can end it if he/she feels it is taking too much time but must still answer it. No speaker is expressly required to accept POIs; however, judges should note and adjudicate accordingly if speakers reject POIs excessively. (b) POIs need not be informational. They can advance arguments, stall for time, badger the speaker, appeal to the judge, provide new examples or serve any other strategic or argumentative purpose. A POI need not form a question, but the speaker should respond even to POI statements. (c) Time does not pause during the asking and answering of POIs. (d) Speakers are protected from accepting POIs during the first and last minutes of each speech, the grace period and any time exceeding the grace period.

4.03. Points of Order: (a) Debaters may raise Points of Order at any time to alert the judge to a rule violation. Points of Order do not require the speaker’s acceptance; they automatically enter into the round. (b) The debater raising the Point of Order indicates so verbally. He/she then registers the objection by informing the judge of the alleged violation. If they so choose, members of the opposite side can briefly defend the action in question and explain why it violates no rules. The judge must then respond to the Point of Order in one of three ways (or its equivalent):

1. “Point well taken”; indicates that the objection is valid and that the liable side must, when possible, correct the infraction. For example, if the speaker has violated time constraints, he/she must stop speaking as soon as possible; if the speaker has begun a new argument in a rebuttal, he/she must immediately end the line of argumentation and the new argument shall be stricken from the round. The judge should penalize the infracting team accordingly.
2. “Point not well taken”; indicates that the objection is invalid and that no infraction has occurred. The round may then continue as it was prior to the Point of Order. The judge should penalize, at his/her discretion, any team that excessively raises invalid Points of Order.
3. “Point under consideration”; indicates that the judge is unsure about the objection’s validity and will decide later. The judge should retroactively penalize the infracting team accordingly. A judging panel’s chair can also use this response when unwilling to speak for the entire panel.

(c) Time pauses during Points of Order and only resumes after the judge has responded verbally. (d) Points of Order should not address infractions of rules contained in 5.00 or 6.00; these infractions should be addressed during speeches and evaluated silently by the judge. (e) The judge should evaluate rule infractions even when no Points of Order identify them.

4.04. Points of Personal Privilege: (a) A debater may rise on a Point of Personal Privilege if he/she feels the current speaker has said something wholly inappropriate, unnecessary to the round and deeply offensive, insulting or distasteful. A debater should only rise on a Point of Personal Privilege if he/she is deeply offended and feels the speaker’s inappropriate remarks must immediately cease. (b) The judge should respond either “Point well taken,” if objection is valid, indicating that the speaker should immediately retract his/her statements and make no similar ones, or “Point not well taken,” if it is invalid, indicating that the speaker may continue as before the point was raised. Judge may penalize speakers guilty of valid Points of Personal Privilege at their discretion. Judges should penalize, at their discretion, teams that excessively raise invalid Points of Personal Privilege. (c) If a Point of Personal Privilege objects to an entire construct, it must be raised as soon as possible during the POC period. If the judge deems it valid, Gov may restart the round and provide a new case statement. Judges may punish Gov at their discretion. (d) Time pauses during the raising and evaluating of Points of Personal Privilege.

5.00 LEGAL CASES

5.01. Gov Choice: In a Gov Choice case, Gov presents a scenario or normative statement in PMC and takes a position on the topic to defend. Opp may take any philosophy or position that is mutually exclusive of Gov’s, including a direct opposition or a countercase (see 5.04).

5.02. Opp Choice: (a) In an Opp Choice case, Gov presents a scenario or normative statement in PMC with two or more possible positions. Time then stops while Opp may ask POCs (see 4.01) and selects from the positions one to defend. If only one position remains, Gov must defend it. If multiple positions remain, Gov may either choose from them or allow Opp to choose Gov’s position. Gov may let Opp assign Gov’s position first. Gov may also propose a case where each team must take multiple positions; in this case, Opp must choose first, but can abrogate their first choice to Gov if both sides consent. All subsequent choices will occur through a model Gov determines. (b) Time resumes immediately after both sides have positions. After this, no additional POCs may be asked without the judge’s consent. (c) Opp may not stall for time during the position selection period. All POC rules apply during the suspended time period. (d) Opp must defend the position it selects. Opp may not countercase (see 5.04) or defend a position different from the one it has chosen. Concurrently, Gov must defend exactly the position it takes and may not change its position at any time during the round.

5.03. Time-Space: (a) In a Time-Space case, during PMC, the PM places the judge in the position of another person, real or fictional, at any point in time and in any situation. The judge must then adjudicate the round from the perspective of the person he/she has been assigned. For example, if the PM says,

            We are going to place you in the position of John Hancock on July 4, 1776,

then the judge must, to the best of his/her ability, view the round as John Hancock on that date, instead of as a collegiate debate judge. (b) The judge may not refuse the assigned position. (c) No arguments in the round can pertain to events or examples unknown to the person in the judge’s assigned position. (d) A Time-Space case can be Gov Choice or Opp Choice.

5.04. Countercase: (a) A countercase is the only type of case Opp can propose. Opp must propose at the beginning of LOC. A countercase shifts a round’s burden to Opp: While Gov is still held to its original advocacy, it need not prove its advocacy to win, but rather must only beat Opp’s advocacy. (b) A countercase must operate under the same rules and caveats as Gov’s original case. If it is Time-Space, the judge’s position must remain the same. (c) A countercase must be mutually exclusive of Gov’s original case, and cannot solely be the direct negation of Gov’s case. Opp may include as many new advocacies as it wants, as long as at least one of those advocacies is mutually exclusive to Gov’s original case. (d) Gov may ask POCs and request suspended time following a countercase proposal. (4.01). The same POC rules apply during this period, with Gov’s and Opp’s positions exchanged. (e) Opp may not employ a countercase if Gov’s original case is Opp Choice.

6.00 ILLEGALITIES

6.01. Tight Case: (a) A case is “tight” if it is a Gov Choice case for which no Opp arguments could conceivably win the round. It is not enough if conceivable Opp arguments exist; Opp must be able to win the round. (b) An Opp Choice case may be called tight only if Gov chose its position from among 2 or more possibilities. (c) A case is tight regardless of whether possible countercases exist. (d) A case must be called tight during the LOC. (e) Tournaments have jurisdiction over the shift in in-round procedure following a tight call. If a tournament assigns no explicit policy, the procedure is as follows: “If Opp finds Gov’s case tight, the LO shall call it tight at the beginning of LOC. The round’s only judging criteria shall become whether Gov’s case is tight. Thus, the LOC should argue for the case’s tightness; the MGC should provide reasons the case is not tight (and should ideally prove this by including possible winning Opp arguments); the MOC should reiterate the case’s tightness; the LOR should give a final appeal to the case’s tightness; the PMR should rebut new MOC claims and make a final appeal to the case not being tight. The winning debaters’ speaks and ranks shall become the average of their preceding and following speaks and ranks in all other rounds; the judge should heavily penalize the losing debater’s speaks and ranks.”

6.02. Status Quo Case: A case is “status quo” if it advocates an existing scenario. Gov must only propose cases that change the status quo.

6.03 Low Impact Case: (a) a Gov case is “low impact” if it advocates a scenario that differs insufficiently from the status quo to provide a worthwhile debate round. The judge is the final arbiter on whether a case is low impact. (b) An alternate definition of a low impact case is an Opp-choice case in which no significant debatable distinction separates the choices Gov offers. (c) A low-impact case round should continue as normal; a case’s low impact status is insufficient to win the round for Opp, but the judges may penalize Gov at their discretion.

6.04. Specific Knowledge (“spec knowledge”): (a) “Spec knowledge” is information, data or facts an average college student cannot be expected to know. Gov may not use any spec knowledge in their argumentation; Opp, however, may use spec knowledge. Gov may only use spec knowledge when directly responding to spec knowledge Opp introduces. (b) The judge is the final arbiter of whether something constitutes spec knowledge. (c) If an argument or example is based on spec knowledge, judges disregard it and penalize the offending speaker at their discretion. (d) A Gov case based on spec knowledge is completely illegal and treated as a tight case.

6.05. Case Shift: (a) Gov must maintain a consistent philosophy and case statement. If Gov at any point attempts to alter the groundwork, philosophy or advocacy that case statement outlined, Gov has committed a “case shift.” (b) Opp may identify a case shift  in either LOC or MOC. The judge should penalize Gov appropriately for case shifts. (c) The same case shift rules apply to Opp when countercasing. Gov may identify a countercase shift in MGC or PMR.

7.00 JUDGING SPECIFICS

7.01. (a) After the round, the judge assigns each debater speaker points (“speaks”) and ranks. (b) Speaks have an official scale of 20-30, with 25 an average speech. Judges must obey tournament standards when awarding any speaks other than 25; if a tournament provides no standard, a de facto scale of 22-28 is used, with 28 constituting a flawless speech and 22 constituting a speech with no redeeming qualities. Speaker score increments are half-points or greater. A particular amount of speaks may be assigned up to four times per round. (c) Each debater receives a rank of 1, 2, 3 or 4. Each rank is assigned once and only once. The best debater in the round receives a 1, the second-best receives a 2, the third-best receives a 3 and the worst receives a 4. (d) Ranks concur with speaks; the top-ranked debater must have speaks that are higher than or equal to the second-ranked debater, who in turn must have speaks that higher than or equal to the third-ranked debater, who in turn must have speaks that are higher than or equal to the fourth-ranked debater.

7.02. (a) The winning team must have combined speaks that equal to or exceed  those of the losing team. (b) Tournaments may make an exception to this rule only for rounds involving violations of rules in 5.00 or 6.00.

7.03. Judges at the round’s conclusion submit a ballot upon which they indicate the round’s speaks, ranks and winning team. If a panel adjudicates the round, one ballot suffices unless the tournament staff requests more. If the round is a post-preliminary round, judges choose a winning team but need not assign speaks or ranks.

7.04. (a) If possible, the judge should provide a Reason For Decision (“RFD”) on the ballot. The RFD details the rationale behind the judge’s chosen winning team and final assessment. (b) The judge should also when possible provide comments pertaining to the assigned speaks and ranks.