The Rules and Regulation of
7th ENGLISH FIESTA
it can be download in the download page of this site
7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA
PART I
FORMAT OF DEBATE
1.1 The debate 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’.
1.2 A team is comprised of 3 members. A team may only be eligible to debate with all its members present, and may not add or change members throughout the competition for whatever reason during competition.
1.3 Teams shall only comprise of members who are still active as students in their University
1.4 A team failing to have all its original members present to debate in a particular
round will forfeit the debate (see PART 3: 3.8).
1.5. A debate shall be run under the auspices of a ‘Speaker’ who shall be referred to
as ‘The Speaker of The House’ or ‘Mister/Madam Speaker’.
1.6. A debate shall be adjudicated by a panel comprising an odd number of
adjudicators, one of whom shall be designated as Chair Adjudicator by the
committee.
1.7 A debate shall be timed by a timekeeper. In the event that none has been
nominated in a particular chamber, the function of the timekeeper is to be
taken over by a member of the adjudication panel.
1.8. Teams will comprise the following members:
AFFIRMATIVE
(a) Prime Minister, or Leader of the Affirmative;
(b) Deputy Prime Minister, or Second Affirmative;
(c) Government Whip, or Third Affirmative.
NEGATIVE
(a) Leader of the Opposition, or First Negative;
(b) Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or Second Negative;
(c) Opposition Whip, or Third Negative.
1.9. Debaters (or members) will speak in the following order:
(a) Prime Minister, or 1st Affirmative;
(b) Leader of Opposition, or 1st Negative;
(c) Deputy Prime Minister, or 2nd Affirmative;
(d) Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or 2nd Negative;
(e) Government Whip, or 3rd Affirmative;
(f) Opposition Whip, or 3rd Negative;
(g) Negative Reply (given by 1st or 2nd Negative);
(h) Affirmative Reply (given by 1st or 2nd Affirmative).
1.10. Speakers not ‘holding on the floor’ may not rise during speech unless it is to offer a
‘Point of Information’ (see PART 5: 5.1-5.4). Speakers who are considered to be
Hackling/barracking or whose behavior is interfering with the acceptable
course of a debate will be declared ‘out of order’ by the chairperson.
1.11. Interjections should be brief, pertinent and preferably witty. Interjections are
comments made by members directed at the speech of the member holding the
floor, and made from a seated position.
PART II
MOTIONS
2.1 Motions must reflect the theme of the current round of competition (is stated)
2.2 Motion must be worded clearly.
2.3 Three motions must be offered in each competitive round.
2.4 Impromptu motion
PART III
PREPARATIONS
3.1 Match-ups and venues are announced before motions are revealed.
3.2 Three motions are to be announced/revealed to teams 30 minutes prior to the
commencement of debates in that particular round.
3.3 The motion to be debated in a particular chamber between the teams matched
there in is to be chosen in the following manner, in less than 5 minutes:
3.4. The teams discuss preferred choices separately (less than 3 minutes). Number
the motion in order of preference (1-most preferred, 3-last preferred).
3.5. The teams give their motion preference to their LO.
3.6. LOs compare preferences:
a) Third-choice motions are automatic vetoed;
b) If both teams’ first-choice motions are the same, they debate upon that
motion;
c) If teams’ first-choice motions are different, but their third-choice motions
are the same, they toss a coin. Affirmative representative calls and if calling
correctly, teams debate affirmative first-choice; if calling incorrectly, teams
debate negative first-choice.
3.7 The teams are then, AND ONLY THEN, permitted to leave the debaters’ hall
and begin their preparations.
3.8. If a team fails to show up in time for the motion launch and does not turn up to
do their motion preference until the time allocated to do so is finished, the
team in question loses their right to prefer motion. The motion to be debated
will be decided by their opposing team. Teams are allocated 30 minutes of
preparation time to build their case.
3.9 The affirmative have the right to prepare in chambers (venue).
3.10 Printed and prepared materials may be used during the preparation period. No
access to electronic media nor electronic storage or retrieval devices is
permitted after motions have been released. Printed and prepared material may
be accessed during a debate, but MAY NOT be used during a speech.
3.11 Teams must prepare on their own. Once motions have been released, there
must be no contact between debaters in a particular team and their coachers,
trainers, observers, or any other individual for the purposes of assistance in the
context of the debate. To prevent such contact, all communication devices
belonging to team members, including but not limited to cell phones and
beepers, are prohibited to be used and shall be in the custody of the team’s LO
during the 30 minutes preparation time and during the debate round itself.
Such contact and assistance is cheating and will be punished by having to
forfeit (see PART 13: 13.1) -from the round in question, at the least, and the
competition, at the most- at the discretion of the committee.
3.12 Teams must arrive at their chamber at least ten minutes before the
scheduled/given time of commencement of debate. Teams arriving late may
not be given extra time to prepare outside the allocated 30 minutes preparation
time.
3.13 A debate shall begin after the 30 minutes preparation time has finished, and all
the adjudicators for that particular debate have arrived at the chamber.
3.14 If a team fails to arrive at the chamber after the 30 minutes preparation time has
elapsed and all the adjudicators are present, the debate shall be postponed for 5
minutes to wait for the team to arrive.
3.15 If the team referred to in rule 3.11 still hasn’t arrived at the chamber after the 5
minutes of waiting has elapsed, the team in question will forfeit the debate (see
PART 13: 13.1).
3.16 If any misunderstanding upon the motion to be debated occurs and the two
teams have already started their preparation, the LO will re-evaluate the motion
preference. The motion preference will be conducted once again based on the
original preference made prior to case-building. Both teams will be given extra
time to prepare the debate based on the newly confirmed motion at the amount
of the preparation time which has elapsed, with a maximum of 20 minutes.
PART IV
TIMING
4.1 It is the duty of the timekeeper, or a member of the adjudication panel, to time
speeches.
4.2 The timing of each speech starts at the moment that the member begins
speaking.
4.3 Timings of speeches are as follow:
4.3.1 Preliminary Rounds, Octos, Quarters, and Semis, Final:
Constructive Speeches 8 minutes 20 seconds
Reply Speeches 5 minutes 20 seconds
4.3.2 Time signals will be given in the following manner
4.3.3 Preliminary Rounds, Octos, Quarters, and Semis:
Constructive Speeches
End of first minute – single knock of the gravel;
End of seventh minute – single knock of the gravel;
End of the eighth minute – double knock of the gravel;
Reply Speeches
End of forth minute – single knock of the gravel;
End of fifth minute – double knock of the gravel.
PART V
POINTS OF INFORMATION
5.1 Points of information may be offered during constructive speeches, after the
first single knock of the gravel and up to the second single knock. Points of
information may not be offered during the first and last minutes of constructive
speeches. Points of information may not be offered during the reply speeches.
5.2 ‘Point of Information’ must be indicated by a member of an opposing team
rising from his/her seat, placing one hand on top of his/her head and
extending the others towards the member holding the floor. A member offering
a point of information may draw attention to the offer by saying “on that point
Sir/Madam”, or similar.
5.3 A member holding the floor must respond to an opposing member, or
members offering points of information, in one of the following ways:
a) A clear gesture or a hand signal rejecting the offer,
b) A verbal rejection of the offer,
c) A verbal acceptance of the offer.
5.4 If a point of information is accepted, the point should be phrased as question,
or clarification, or comment, and be made in approximately 15 seconds. The
time keeping of a speaker's substantive speech will not be stopped during a
POI.
5.5 If a point of information is accepted, the speaker accepting must answer or
response to it within the context of his/her speech.
PART VI
DEFINITIONS
6.1 The definitions is an interpretation of the motion as put forward by the Prime
Minister, or Leader of the Affirmative, in the beginning of his/her speech.
6.2 The definitions should be reasonable.
6.3 The definitions 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 link to the wording and spirit of the motion.
6.4 The definition should not be:
6.4.1 A truism (a matter stated as a fact),
6.4.2 A tautology (a definition which in development proves it self),
6.4.3 Place set (setting an unnaturally restrictive geographical of spatial location as its major parameter),
6.4.4 Time set (setting an unnaturally restrictive chronological duration as its main parameter),
6.4.5 Squirreling (displaying no clear or logical links to the motion).
6.5 The negative may only challenge the definitions on the basis of one of these
conditions pertaining (see PART 4: 4.4). The negative may not challenge the
definition on the basis that:
6.5.1 Its own definition is MORE reasonable.
6.5.2 A better debate will result.
6.6. 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.
PART VII
CHALLENGING DEFINITION
7.1 If the definition advanced by the Leader of the Affirmative contravenes any of
the prohibitions set out in this rule (see PART 6: 6.4), the Negative have the
right to challenge the definition.
7.2 The challenge must be made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition,
following a clear statement that the Affirmative’s definition is rejected.
7.3 In the event of a challenge, the Leader of the Opposition must justify his/her
rejection by supplying the grounds of which the original definition is being
rejected. Furthermore, a substitute definition must be supplied, which the
opposition bench must go on to negate.
7.4 The debate which follow is characterized by the use of the ‘even if’ arguments,
unless a truism has been categorically exposed.
7.5 If the Leader of the Opposition does not challenge the definition, no other
speaker may do so.
7.6 The burden to prove that a definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.
7.7 Adjudicators will not indicate during the debate which definition they find to
be more acceptable.
7.8 Neither team should abandon either the definitions or the challenges of its
opening speakers.
7.9 Definitions should not require members of the house to have access to, or
posses, specific or expert knowledge.
PART VIII
MATTER
8.1 ‘Matter’ relates to issues in debate, the case being presented and the material
used to substantive argument.
8.2 The issues under debate should be correctly prioritized and ordered, dealing
with the most important first.
8.3 Matter should be logical and well reasoned.
8.4 Matter should be relevant, both to the issue in contention and the cases being
advanced.
8.5 Matter should be persuasive.
8.6 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.
8.7 Bias will not affect an adjudicator assessment or evaluation of a debate.
Debaters must not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race,
nationality, sexual preferences, age, social status, accent, or any disability.
8.8 Points of information should be assessed according to the effect they have on
both the cases of the speaker offering, and the speaker responding.
8.9 A debater should take at least two points of information during a speech.
8.10 A Government Whip (Third Affirmative) may introduce ‘new matter’ to the
debate, but is advised not to do so (new matter in this context means a new
argument and does not refer to either new perspectives on an old argument or
new examples, unless these change the course of the original argument
entirely).
8.11 An Opposition Whip (Third Negative) is NOT permitted to introduce new
matter into the debate, UNLESS the argument is clearly in rebuttal of a new
argument delivered by the third affirmative.
8.12 No ‘new matter’ is to be introduced during the Reply Speeches. The reply
speech presents teams with an opportunity to focus on major issues in the
debate and the way in which both teams approach that ‘point of clash’. The
reply speech should also give an ‘optimistic overview’ of the general approach
to the debate by both sides and focus on the relative merits on the case of the
side replying, and the relative weaknesses on the case of the opposing team.
Reply Speech should neither continue rebutting arguments, nor advancing old
arguments into significantly new ‘territory’.
8.13 All speakers must develop ‘positive matter’ in advancing their respective cases.
A negative team cannot rely purely on its rebuttal of the affirmative case and
must present a case in opposition.
8.14 Whips (third speakers) may not give reply speeches.
PART IX
MANNER
9.1 Manner refers to the presentation and delivery style of a speaker.
9.2 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’s a 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?”
9.3 The considerations are:
a) Vocal style : volume, clarity, pronunciation, pace,
intonation, fluency, confidence, authority
b) Language : conversational
c) Use of notes : should not distract, should not be read
d) Eye contact : with audience and adjudicators
e) Gesture : natural appropriate
f) Stance : natural appropriate
g) Sincerity : believability
h) Personal attacks : (derogatory comments are not to be tolerated)
i) Humor : effectiveness
9.4 Participants in EF must be aware that they will experience many different
debating styles from different universities represented therein. There is no
single ‘correct’ or ‘right’ style to adopt in this competition.
9.5 As with matter (see PART 8: 8.7), personal bias must not be allowed to
influence an adjudicator’s assessment of manner.
PART X
METHOD
10.1. There are three major elements in the context of debating method. These are:
a) Individual method (speech structure),
b) Team method (case structure and organization),
c) Response to the dynamics of the debate (POIs, interjections and
effectiveness, accuracy and relevance of rebuttals).
10.2 Individual method pertains to the structure and organization of an individual
speech. This may be evident in reasonably clear outline of the issues to be dealt
with in a speaker’s speech. It may also be apparent in the degree of fluency
with which the speech moves from one point to another in a clear, logical
sequence. Similarly, a speaker may ‘sign-post’ his/her transition from one
phase to another.
10.3 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 point,
summary, etc).
10.4 Individual method pertains to good time management and good time keeping.
10.4.1 Over time speeches:
Once the double knock of the gravel has sounded, speakers are given a 20-
seconds ‘grace period’, during which they should conclude remarks already
under contention. It is not a time for a new matter to be introduced, and such
new matter will be discounted by the adjudicators. Speakers continuing after
this ‘grace period’ may be penalized in the Method category.
10.4.2 Under time speeches:
If the speaker concludes his/her speech on or near the second single knock of
the gravel, he/she will not be penalized for an under time speech. However, if
significantly under time, a speaker may be penalized under Method and
possibly also under Matter. The latter, assuming that less matter was
advanced, or that it was clearly underdeveloped.
10.5 Team Method pertains to the effectiveness of the team’s case organization and
structure as a whole.
10.6 Team Method pertains to the equable division of role of speakers and
responsibilities during a debate, and the effective acquittal of those roles and
responsibilities.
10.7 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.
10.8 Teams and speakers should response to clear strategic issues, not minor ‘slips
of the tongue’ or insignificant points.
10.9 Dynamic response may also affect 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 balance attacks on it is develop in an ensuing speech.
10.9 Team members may keep time and signal member holding the floor. Time
signal may not be spoken aloud. Speakers may also keep their own time.
PART XI
TABULATION
11.1 Tabulation guidelines for debaters
11.1.2 The first round of the competition will be completely random.
11.1.3 The subsequent rounds shall be power paired.
11.1.4 Teams shall be ranked and divided into pools based on win-loss ratio at the
end of each round for the purpose of power pairing.
11.1.5 In case a pool has an odd number of teams, the top team (based first on
speaker scores, then on margin of victory) from the bottom pool will be pulled
up to the higher pool.
11.1.6 In case the bottom pool has an odd number of teams, a swing team shall
debate as the bottom team in that pool.
11.1.7 Within each pool, teams shall be ranked first in order of aggregate speaker
scores (including reply scores), then where speaker scores are equal, by
aggregate margin of victory (with a negative margin for defeats) and if that is
equal as well, by random order.
11.1.8 Power pairing shall be done by the sliding-half concept - the pool is divided
into half and then top half then debates the bottom half. The top team in the
top half debates the top team in the bottom half and so on till the bottom
team in the top half debates the bottom team in the bottom half.
11.1.9 The software will automatically allocate affirmative and negative positions
using the following guidelines in the following priority:
1. As far as possible, teams should not see three continuous debates in the
same position.
2. As far as possible, teams should be allocated an even number of affirmative
and negative positions.
3. As far as possible, teams should be allocated alternating affirmative and
negative positions.
4. One-up one-down may be used to ensure that the aforementioned
affirmative and negative guidelines are followed but this rule is subservient to the
rule ensuring that two teams do not meet more than once in the course of the
tournament.
11.1.10 One up, One down shall be used in only the following scenarios in the
following order:
1. If the two teams have not met be
2. To ensure that the affirmative - negative guidelines explained in 11.10.1
and 11.10.2 are met.
3. If one up or one down due to 11.10.3 results in 11.10.4, then the original
combination is reverted to.
4. One up and one-down may only be used within a win-loss pool
(including the extra team that is pulled up from the lower pool in case of
odd number of teams in that pool).
11.1.11 The tabulation software should be able to allocate debates to venues.
1. Lecture theaters should be preferentially allocated to rooms with high
win-loss ratios.
2. The remaining rooms should preferably be allocated to the debates at
random.
3. The software should allow for manual intervention for venue allocation
changes.
11.1.12 The tabulation software should also allow for tabulation of speaker scores
through the debates and display of speaker rankings.
1. Speaker rankings should not include marks for reply speeches.
2. When computing speaker scores for a round, the average of the speaker
score (excluding reply) of all assenting adjudicators for that speaker in
that round must be taken.
3. Replies will be counted towards team totals.
4. When computing team scores for a round, the average of the team totals
given by all assenting adjudicators must be used.
5. The margin of victory should only be the average of margins provided
by all the assenting adjudicators in that debate.
11.2 Tabulation guidelines for adjudicators
11.2.1 The key objectives of Adjudicator Allocation in the tab software are:
1) To ensure that initially all teams and debates have roughly equal access
to the better pool of adjudicators.
2) To ensure that from the 4th round onwards, the teams with the highest
chances to break get the best adjudicators
3) To ensure that good adjudicators aren't placed in panels with majority
adjudicators of a lower grade, impairing their ability to make a fair
decision by getting voted out. Therefore higher grade adjudicators
would be allocated to be single chairs unless they can be placed with
another adjudicator of the same grade. No debate should have a
majority of adjudicators from a lower grade than the minority
adjudicators
4) Adjudicator allocation needs to be done by three methodologies that
follow three distinct phases. This section introduces the phases while
the detailed specifications for the adjudicator allocation during the three
phases will be detailed in the appendix for the detailed tab design (to be
added later).
5) Phase A: (usually from Rounds 1-3) Random Allocation During this
phase, adjudicator panels are randomly allocated to the various rooms
since at this point of the tournament, it is assumed that all teams have
an equal chance of breaking into the knock out stages of the
tournament.
6) Phase B: (usually from Rounds 4-5) Pure Win-Loss Ratio based
Allocation during this phase, adjudicator panels are allocated based
purely on the win-loss ratio of the debating teams. The teams with
highest win-loss ratio are deemed most likely to break and therefore
deemed most deserving of the best adjudicators, while the teams at the
bottom of the pool, are deemed least likely to break and therefore less
deserving of the best adjudicators (though efforts shall be made to
ensure that they don't get all the bottom pool adjudicators)
11.2.2 Adjudicator break to octos
1. Since all adjudicators will receive grades (that shall translate to marks)
and will therefore be graded throughout the tournament based on the
scoring given by debaters and panelists during the rounds, the
adjudicators will be ranked based on the scores received throughout the
tournament.
2. The top bracket of adjudicators (as defined in the constitution) will
break into the finals and the "English as a Foreign language" finals
series. The break will be based purely on the scores obtained in the
adjudication test and the consolidated feedback.
3. Since the Adjudication Core will not be writing the adjudication test,
they shall be graded as 'A' s. They will then be scored based on feedback
similar to the rest of the pool of adjudicators and will also break as per
their scores through the tournament. Therefore it is possible, although
unlikely, that they may not break based on debater and panelist
feedback.
4. Adjudicator break into the subsequent break rounds
11.2.3 Since octos, quarters and semis are silent rounds, there will be no debater
feedback. Panelist feedback will be weighted into the previous test scores and
feedback received by the adjudicators throughout the tournament. This
consolidated tournament feedback will be used to decide the break for the
quarters, semis and finals. Therefore it is entirely possible that the CA, the
DCA's and the Shadow Adjudication Core may not break into these final
rounds based on feedback.
11.2.4 The adjudication core will still be responsible for adjudicator allocation in the
post break rounds.
PART XII
MARKING THE DEBATE
12.2 At the end of every debate, each adjudicator must complete his/her
adjudication forms. In addition, the Chair Adjudicator must complete a ‘speed
ballot’ form and give it to the LO before starting the feedback.
12.3 There is no draw in a competitive debating!
12.4 Composite and swing teams winning (or losing) debates will be marked,
tabulated, and matched for subsequent rounds in the usual way
12.5 Composite and swing teams will not be considered as potentially breaking
teams.
12.6 Speakers from composite or swing teams will not be eligible to become best
speakers of the competition
12.7 Marks shall be awarded to speakers based on the following:
An ‘average’ substantive speech shall be awarded
Matter : 30/40
Manner : 30/40
Method : 15/20
Total : 75/100
12.8 Downwards from this average, the worst speech in the history of debating
would still get 69 or 70/100
12.9 Upwards from this average, the best speech in the history of debating would
only get 80 or 81/100
12.10 Reply speeches are to be marked out of total of 50 marks (or 100/2)
12.11 An ‘average’ reply speech shall be awarded
Matter : 15/20
Manner : 15/20
Method : 7,5/10
Total : 37,5/50
12.12 The ‘average’ mark for an ‘average team’ is therefore:
75+75+75+37,5=262,5
12.13 The weak low is therefore: 70+70+70+35=245.
The strong high is therefore: 80+80+80+40=280
12.14 Half marks cannot be awarded for constructive speeches but may result from
the division of a reply speech mark.
12.15 A possible mark spread of 35 points is unacceptable for the purpose of power
match tabulation. Therefore, adjudicator must determine, at the conclusion of
a debate:
a) Whether the standard of the debate was average, higher than average of
lower than average; and
b) Whether the margin of win/loss was (subjective) close, clear or thrashing.
12.16 Adjudicator must manipulate marks accordingly to reflect their perception of
the standard of the debate and the winning margin, by the following the
maximum mark differentials (between the total marks of the two teams) of:
12.12.1 Close Win = 1 points to 4 points
12.12.2 Clear Win = 5 to 8 points
12.12.3 Thrashing = 9 to 12 points
PART XIII
PENALTIES
13.1 Teams forfeited from a round of debate will lose the debate by the widest
possible margin. The opposing team in such a case will win the debate and be
given the mean average individual and team score for all teams in that
particular round.
13.2 A team forfeited TWICE during the preliminary rounds will be disqualified
from the competition.
13.3 Any violations of the provisions in this rule are subject to penalties at the
discretion of the committee.
13.4 Penalties may include deduction of victory points, margin points, and individual
scores, team scores, or disqualification.
7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA - 7th ENGLISH FIESTA
