PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE RULES UTEK Category Objective Assess the formal debating skills of the competitors.

. Registration Criteria Two (2) competitors per team. Competition Facilities Multiple amphitheaters One formal debate hall Competition Personnel 3 judges (minimum): The judges must determine the winners of each debate. 1 timekeeper(s): The timekeeper(s) is/are responsible for ensuring that the competitors stay within the time allotted. The timekeeper shall keep track of the time during the question period, solution development, and presentations. 1 Speaker(s): The Chair of the debate ensures the rules of the debate are upheld and structures the event. Debating Rules and Elements The goal of the Parliamentary Debate Category is to encourage undergraduate engineering students to present a well-reasoned viewpoint with a minimum of preparation time. Engineers are often required to evaluate and argue for or against a proposal on short notice. In this category, competitors defend or refute a previously undisclosed resolution using the format of a parliamentary style debate. Category Format Teams in Parliamentary Debate are required to debate resolutions using the format of a parliamentary style debate. The resolutions shall be topics related to science, engineering, technology, education, or other topics of direct interest to engineers and engineering students. A coin toss will determine which team represents the Government and which team represents the Opposition. The resolution will be revealed at the start of the debate. Teams will have fifteen (15) minutes to prepare their initial arguments. The Government will be given the task of preparing an initial argument defending and arguing for the resolution. The Opposition will be given the task of preparing an initial argument refuting and arguing against the resolution. The debates will have the following format: Prime Minister 5 minutes Member of the Opposition 5 minutes Member of the Government 5 minutes Leader of the Opposition 7 minutes (includes 2 minute rebuttal) Prime Minister 2 minute rebuttal Any debater exceeding the time limit will be granted fifteen (15) seconds grace to finish their sentence after which they must sit down. Debaters exceeding the time limit will be assessed a mandatory 5 point deduction by each judge. Debaters who use significantly less than the allotted time will not be assessed a timing penalty; however, it will likely affect their scoring in accordance with the marking scheme. Each team will debate at least once. Four teams will proceed to the semi-final round. The semi-finalists will be the four teams with the highest total points awarded in the preliminary rounds. In the event that a tie has to be broken, the placing will be determined as follows:

The highest judge's score and lowest judge's score of the tied teams awarded during the preliminary rounds will be deleted and the total points will be recalculated. The team(s) with the corrected highest total points will be placed higher. o If the tie is still not broken and the tied teams debated each other during the preliminary rounds. The Government, during that debate, will be placed higher if they won that debate. o If the tie is still not broken, the tie will be broken by a coin toss. The two teams winning the semi-final round will proceed to the final debate. o

In the house, the Government shall sit on the speaker's right with the Opposition on the speakers left. The Prime Minister must define the resolution and state the contention of the debate during the opening speech. The following rules apply to the definition of resolutions: The definition of the resolution must be debatable. The Prime Minister may not define a truistic or tautologic case. A truism is something that is generally accepted to be true (i.e. the space race accelerated research into rocket design). A tautology is something that is by definition true (i.e. professional engineers are licensed to practice the profession of engineering). The definition of the resolution must be fair. The Prime Minister may define a resolution that puts the Government, but not the Opposition, at a disadvantage. For example, the definition The earth is round, is an unfair definition that is difficult or impossible to oppose. On the other hand, the definition: The earth is flat, is a fair definition since it puts the Government, not the Opposition, at a disadvantage. The definition of the resolution must not force the Opposition into an immoral position. For example, the definition Innocent people must be protected against engineering mistakes would force the Opposition to argue that innocent people should not be protected, which, by most people, would be considered an immoral position. The resolution must be interpreted at face value (i.e. literally). In other words, the debates may not be squirreled. The definition of the resolution should be tasteful. This is left to the discretion of the debaters. Time-Place setting will not be allowed. If the Prime Minister presents a truistic, tautologic, unfair, or forced immoral case, or does not interpret the resolution at face value, then the Member of the Opposition may redefine the resolution in a debatable manner. If the Government wishes to debate a plan case, the Prime Minister must outline the entire plan. The Member of the Government may not introduce new parts or redefine terms of the plan. If the Opposition wishes to introduce a counter-plan, Member of the Opposition must outline the entire counter-plan. The Leader of the Opposition may not introduce new parts or redefine terms of the counterplan. Debaters must address all arguments to the speaker and must refer to all persons in the third person. For example, a debater must not directly address an opponent and state, Your argument is ridiculous because ... but must directly address the Speaker and state, Mr. (or Madam) Speaker, the Prime Minister's argument is ridiculous because ... Also, the use of first name references is not allowed. Debaters may only refer to things that are likely within the knowledge base of an intelligent, reasonably informed person. In other words, debaters may not utilize specific knowledge in their arguments. For example, an intelligent, reasonably informed person is expected to know that Professional Engineers Ontario regulates the profession of engineering in Ontario, but the same person isn't expected to know that Professional Engineers Ontario spent X dollars regulating the profession of engineering last year. No new arguments may be presented during the rebuttals. This does not prohibit debaters from bringing up new evidence in support of or counter to a previously raised point as long as the new evidence is brought up in direct response to something that has already been mentioned. During a Point of Order, the Speaker stops the debate and the time clock, the debater who was speaking sits down, and the debater raising the Point of Order stands and explains the point in

10-15 seconds. The speaker may ask for a 10-15 second response from the debater accused of breaking the rules. The Speaker will issue a ruling on the point indicating point well taken, point not well taken, or point taken under advisement which trusts the judges to decide whether or not the point was well taken. The Speaker may inform the judges of the severity of the point for marking purposes. Points of Order will be allowed for the following: o the debater's time has elapsed o unprofessional or offensive behavior or language o definition of a truistic or tautologic case o definition of a unfair case or a case which forces the opposition into an immoral position o interpretation of a resolution not at face value o introduction of parts of a plan by the Member of the Government o introduction of parts of a counter-plan by the Leader of the Opposition o speaking to the opposition instead of the speaker or the use of first name references o the argument relies on specific knowledge not presented to the house o presenting new arguments or facts during the rebuttals o pen-waving (ancient rules treat a pen as a weapon, like a sword) o crossing the center of the House o wearing a hat in the House Points of Information will not be allowed. During a Point of Privilege, the Speaker stops the debate and the time clock, the debater who was speaking sits down, and the debater raising the Point of Privilege stands and explains the point in 10-15 seconds. The Speaker will issue a ruling on the point indicating point well taken, point not well taken, or point taken under advisement which trusts the judges to decide whether or not the point was well taken. The Speaker may inform the judges of the severity of the point for marking purposes. Points of Privilege will be allowed for the following: o personal slandering or insults o direct misquotation by the person speaking Points or Order and Points of Privilege raised on very minor technical issues are discouraged. Any team raising excessive unnecessary points will be penalized. Heckling is allowed if it is short and witty. Speeches from the floor will not be allowed during the preliminary or semi-final rounds. Speeches from the floor will be allowed during the final debate at the discretion of the speaker and after the judges have left to evaluate the debate.

Judging The most important aspects of evaluation in this category are argument and evidence, refutation, organization and analysis, delivery, and ingenuity and wit. Particular attention is given to the summaries presented at the end of the debate. Each speaker on the team is graded out of a total of fifty (50) points for a combined maximum total of one hundred (100) points. In the event of a tie, the debate is awarded to the Government. The team scores will remain confidential. The marking scheme for the Parliamentary Debate Category is as follows: Argument and Evidence Have the important points of the resolution been sufficiently developed? Refutation Did the debater address points brought up by the opponent? Organization and Analysis Were the arguments presented in an ordered and logical manner? Delivery Was the speech clear and precise? Was the debater interesting and entertaining? Ingenuity and Wit Did the debater have a unique style? Did the debater make appropriate use of humour?

10 points 10 points 10 points 10 points

10 points

Debaters will be penalized for any Points of Order or Privilege well taken against them during the debate. The amount of the penalty is dependent on the severity of the offense and is at the discretion of the judges. If a team arrives late to the debate, without a valid reason, their preparation time will be reduced by the amount of time they are late. If they arrive after the scheduled starting time of the speeches, without a valid reason, they will forfeit the debate and automatically be assigned a loss. The debaters may present their reason to the speaker of the house who will rule the reason valid reason or invalid reason. Timekeeping The watch should be stopped when the Speaker is talking. A visual countdown must be given during the last 30 seconds of all speeches. The Competition The competition will be carried out in an elimination style manner. Team positions are selected randomly from the bracket schedule. Assessment and Judges The judges shall have basic experience/knowledge in debating. The panel must have an odd number of judges. The panel must comprise of a minimum 3 judges. The debates are held in front of an audience. Feedback forms, from the judges, shall be provided to each team prior to the closing of the competition.