United Asians Debating Championship

2022

Debater Briefing
Powered by:

For more info, please contact:

UADC 2022 Adjudication Core (Bea, Megha, Omar, Pragyan, Shruti, Yao Kun)
 ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY
FORMAT
Leader of
Prime Minister
Opposition

Deputy Prime Deputy Leader of

Minister Opposition

Government Whip Opposition Whip

Government
Opposition Reply
Reply
 GENERAL RULES

● Constructive speakers (PM to OW) speak for 7 mins

● Reply speakers speak for 4 mins
● 30 mins preparation time (inclusive of motion preference
discussion)
● 8 Preliminary Rounds
 POINT OF INFORMATION (POI)

➔ Can be asked after the first and before the 6th minute of the
speech
➔ Only for constructive speech
➔ Encouraged to accept at least 1
➔ Limit the POI to 15 seconds
➔ Don’t heckle, wait at least 15 seconds before offering
another POI
➔ Respect POI preference
SPEAKER ROLES
 IRON PERSON RULE

➔ Legitimate reasons only (Must notify adjudication core)

➔ Maximum of THREE rounds (to be eligible for breaks) with
the permission of both the Equity Committee and the
AdjCore
➔ One person must be first speaker and whip. The other
person must be deputy and reply.
➔ Wins are kept.
➔ Present speaker gets score of the better speech. Absent
speaker gets the floor score at the end of the tournament.
 MOTION RANKING

3: Motion you would like to Veto

1: Motion you would like to debate the most
 MOTION RANKING

● Teams can take up to 5 minutes before motion ranking. Within this

time, consult with your teammates and prepare your rankings.
● Once you are ready, confirm that the other team is ready too. Both
teams will enter the motion in the chat at the same time. If there is a
volunteer/chair judge in your room present on the call, you can forward
your rankings to them and they can tell you the motion for the round.
● To avoid confusion use keywords when ranking.
● Confirm motion once before moving into preparation time.
● If the other team is not there/not responding after 5 minutes, the
motion for the round will be the first preference motion of the team that
is there.
 MOTION RANKING: USING KEYWORD

Motions:
1. This house would ban facebook.
2. This house would legalize euthanasia.
3. This house would give children the right to vote.
DEBATING PRINCIPLES
 PERSUASIVENESS

● The persuasiveness of an argument is rooted in the plausible

reasons that are offered to show that it is true and important, and
the clarity and rhetorical power with which these reasons are
explained.
● Analysis and style are not separate criteria on which an argument
is assessed. In particular, AP debating does not consider it
possible for an argument to be persuasive merely because it was
stylish.
 BURDENS

● Burdens pertain to the key things which you have to prove in order to win the debate.
They are important because identifying your burden makes it easier for the judge to
know what you have to prove to win while also establishing the things that you do not
have to defend.
● For example, in “THBT the media should show the full horrors of war” there were two
main burdens for Prop: the first being that showing the full horrors of war is the
responsibility of the media and the second being that this will be good for the public
and/or society and/or the state. This means that in the Government, it is not your
burden to prove that war is bad but simply that reporting on it is important, so the
Opposition cannot push you to say that.
● Burdens can either be implied by the motion or self-imposed.
○ For the media-war debate, an example of a burden that can be implied is that the
media has an obligation to show the full horrors of war.
○ An example of a burden that is self-imposed could be showing the full horrors of
war is good for the public in making smarter voting decisions
CONTRADICTION
 CONTRADICTION

● In debate, teams must not contradict their partners nor

themselves for that matter in their speeches.
● A contradiction is a scenario wherein you make a statement that
is directly opposite to a previous statement that was made within
your team.
● By nature, both statements cannot coexist in the context of the
round and the judge will only credit the first statement that was
made and ignore the second statement.
● Teams however are allowed to provide "even-if" analysis
where teams make claims assuming but not conceding that
their prior statement was untrue.
DEFINITIONS
 DEFINITIONS

● GOV must clearly define and set up the words in the motion. In policy motions, GOV
must also provide a model in explaining the policy.
● Definitions should generally be wide in scope. It's illegitimate for teams to narrow
down the definition in overly-restrictive ways without justification as they must debate
within the spirit of the motion.
● Teams also must not "squirrel" the definition of the motion, meaning that they cannot
mistake the definition for something else.
● Teams also must not time set or place-set debate unless stated otherwise.
 DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE

● Assuming GOV commits any of the mistakes of squirreling or unfairly context-setting

the debate, LO is allowed to challenge the definition of GOV and setup what the
definition actually is. The process of raising a definitional challenge is the following:
○ The LO explicitly flags that they will be raising a definitional challenge.
○ The LO explains why the definition is unreasonable.
○ The LO proposes the new definition, and explains why this is the appropriate
definition to use.

Lastly, the LO is still recommended to engage in “even-if” response by explaining why

even if the definition of GOV stands, why their side is still winning.

Only the LO has the power to raise a definitional challenge, no other opposition
speaker is allowed to contest the definition. Take note that this must be done only if
absolutely necessary and not instances where there are disagreements in
characterization, which means definitional challenges are only a last resort.
TYPE OF MOTIONS
 Motion Types

➔ In motions that call for the implementation of an

action/policy/change, teams may use ‘ to explain how they want
to carry out that action
➔ Type 1: This house would do X: In these debates proposition
team are expected to explain how they would carry out the
action.
➔ Opposition can propose a counter model too, and if they do, the
motion becomes Proposition model v Opposition model
Opposition is NOT required to have a counter model
➔ Some motions make what opposition has to implement clear in
the motion itself
Eg: THW require non violent criminals to perform community
service rather than go to prison
 Motion Types Contd.

A motion being phrased in a different way to “This House would can

also be an action motion. For example:

● TH supports the ‘right to secede’. It is useful for Proposition to

identify the manner by which secession will happen (what criteria
makes a territory eligible, and the process that will be followed,
such as conducting a referendum)
● THBT the US should increase its military presence in Asia. It is
useful for Proposition to explain what they mean by military
presence and in which specific locations are they likely going to
be increased.
 Motion Types Contd.

Type 2:This House believes that X does more harm than good. Eg: This
House believes that the Belt and Road Initiative has done more harm than good

In this debate, the BRI is not being stopped. Debaters are expected to recognize
that it has both benefits and harms, and then argue about whether it is more
beneficial or harmful on balance, which will often require a comparison to a world
without the BRI

Type 3: This House supports/opposes X. Eg: This House opposes the Belt
Road Initiative. In this debate, teams debate whether we have reasons to support
or oppose the BRI. Teams should define and characterise the subject that is
being supported or opposed.

Type 4: This house as X. Eg: This House, as US, would invade Syria. In this
debate, teams debate from the perspective of the US and whether invading Syria
would be in their interest.
 Motion Types Contd.

Type 5: This House prefers X to Y. Eg: This House prefers benevolent dictatorships
to weak democracies.
In this debate, the teams are comparing two political systems. No one is proposing
an action. It is an assessment debate that evaluates which system is better overall.

Type 6: This House regrets X. Eg: This House regrets the Belt and Road Initiative.
This is a retrospective debate. Proposition must say that the world without this X will
have been better off. Both teams need to provide a realistic depiction of what a world
without X might look like. They may or may not agree on this counterfactual world.
What would have existed instead of the BRI? Why is that better than the BRI?
Proposition may say without the BRI, alternatives to Western financial institutions
would still have arisen, but they would not have been solely controlled by China and
explain why those were better Opposition may accept this and argue that China is a
more sustainable lender, or they may suggest a different ‘counter factual’, which is
that the only option would have been Western lending institutions, which would have
been more predatory.
 Fiat Rule

● The government teams are allowed to assume that the policy will pass. It
is NOT a valid opposition line to argue that a parliament will not pass the
policy. Likewise, if government has fiat to institute a level of change,
opposition also has equal fiat on the other side of a THW debate.

● A government team however CANNOT stipulate the way that other actors
will react.

For example, with the motion THBT Russia should make a credible public
offer to the United States for joint decommissioning of their entire nuclear
arsenal, the government can assume that Russia will make the offer. The
government team cannot assume that the United States will accept the
offer.
SCORING JUDGES
 SCORING JUDGES

1. Disagree Respectfully.
2. Wait till after the Oral Adjudication for them to give you the floor to
ask questions.
3. Do not be vindictive while marking the judges. You can raise your
concern by commenting on the judge when submitting feedback, the
adjudication core will take that into account.
4. Similarly, do not hesitate to give judges high scores. Utilize the
score range (explained in the following slides) accordingly!
5. PLEASE FILL FEEDBACK DILIGENTLY AFTER EACH ROUND.
6. All judges present in the room will have to deliver their own OAs,
so do not go anywhere until all judges have done so.
 SCORING JUDGES (1-5)
Accuracy: Broadly accurate call that gets the 'obvious' clashes correct; may fail to produce accurate judgment regarding 'close' comparisons,
or may neglect a significant but not substantial part of the debate.
5—Average
Reasoning/Justification: Some attempt at justifying decision; explanations demonstrating some appreciation of key clashes and issues;
regular slippage into personal biases and assumptions, some of which may undermine the quality of the justification; lack of clarity regarding
specific inter-team comparisons.

Accuracy: Inaccurate call that nonetheless identifies the 'obvious' rankings correctly; call reflects one or more misunderstandings of the
debate; some inability to track important arguments/responses.

4—Below Average
Reasoning/Justification: Unsatisfactory attempt at justifying decision; explanations demonstrate some appreciation of key clashes and
issues, but may not warrant or justify the posited call; frequent slippage into personal biases and assumptions, some undermining the quality
of the justification; lack of clarity regarding most inter-team comparisons.

Accuracy: Inaccurate call failing to identify one or more of the 'obvious' rankings correctly; call reflects several misunderstandings of the
debate, some of which may be fundamental; some inability to track important arguments/responses.

3—Poor
Reasoning/Justification: Poor attempt at justifying decision; explanations demonstrating no appreciation of key clashes and issues;
frequent slippage into personal biases and assumptions, most of which certainly undermine the quality of the justification and severely distort
the results; lack of clarity regarding most inter-team comparisons; justification occasionally slips into utter irrelevance.

Accuracy: Wildly inaccurate call that completely fails to identify more than one of the 'obvious' rankings correctly; call reflects several core
misunderstandings of the debate; clear inability to track important arguments/responses.

2—Very Poor
Reasoning/Justification: Little to no attempt at justifying decision; explanations demonstrating no appreciation of key clashes and issues;
frequent slippage into personal biases, irrelevance and assumptions, that cumulatively undermine the quality of the justification and severely
skew the results; lack of clarity regarding most inter-team comparisons.

Accuracy: Completely inaccurate call that absolutely fails to identify more than one of the 'obvious' rankings correctly; call reflects a
fundamental and foundational misunderstandings of both the debate and British Parliamentary debating in general; clear inability to track
important arguments/responses.
1—Abysmal
Reasoning/Justification: Effectively no rationalisable attempt at justifying decision; explanations demonstrating no or deeply erroneous
appreciation of key clashes and issues; consistent slippage into unwarranted personal biases and assumptions that cumulatively undermine
the quality of the justification and severely skew the results; utter irrelevance.
 SCORING JUDGES (6-10)
Accuracy: Extremely accurate call, reflected through precise appreciation and very meticulous assessment of 'close' comparisons between
teams (reflected through speaker scores); comprehensive recognition of all necessary inter-team comparisons.
10 — Exceptional
Reasoning/Justification: Extremely well-justified justification, evidenced by flawlessly or near-flawlessly outlined explanations that are in-
depth, insightful, and nuanced; explicit identification and strong justification for any weighing metrics or assumptions employed in judging;
certainly should chair.

Accuracy: Very accurate call, reflected through appreciation and correct assessment of 'close' comparisons between teams (reflected
through speaker scores); comprehensive recognition of most necessary inter-team comparisons.
9—Excellent
Reasoning/Justification: Very well-justified justification, evidenced by well-outlined explanations that are in-depth, insightful, and nuanced;
good attempts made to justify weighing metrics in judging; should chair.

Accuracy: Accurate call, reflected through largely correct judgment regarding 'close' comparisons between teams; detailed recognition of
most necessary inter-team comparisons.
8—Very Good
Reasoning/Justification: Comprehensively justified justification, evidenced by well-outlined explanations that are in-depth and nuanced;
very occasional slippage into minor assumptions or personal biases in judging, or minor lack of clarity in one or more inter-team comparisons;
metrics for judging are identified but not explicitly justified; high potential to chair.

Accuracy: Accurate call, reflected through generally correct rankings but potentially wrong regarding 'close' comparisons between teams;
careful acknowledgment of most necessary inter-team comparisons in consideration.
7—Good
Reasoning/Justification: Generally well-justified justification, evidenced by well-outlined explanations; occasional slippage into minor
personal biases and assumptions, or minor lack of clarity in some inter-team comparisons; has potential to chair.

Accuracy: Mostly accurate call, although may fail to get 'close' comparisons between teams correct.

6—Above Average
Reasoning/Justification: Good attempt at justifying decision; explanations demonstrating some appreciation of key clashes and how they
are resolved; occasional slippage into minor or insignificant personal biases and assumptions; lack of clarity in some inter-team comparisons.
OTHER RULES
 OTHER RULES 4

Do not write things in chat unless asking for POI

Even with POIs, dont write “on that point”or on “strawmanning”

Don’t disappear without informing some member of the OrgCom or the

AdjCore.

Please do not cheat or use the internet.

Printed materials are allowed during preparation time but not during the
speech.

No group prepping. You may only prep with your team.

If you have any questions regarding the motions, please ask the
adjudication core only.
United Asians Debating Championship
2022

THANK YOU
Powered by:

For more info, please contact:

UADC 2022 Adjudication Core (Bea, Megha, Omar, Pragyan, Shruti, Yao Kun)