Rotary
Invitational
Debates
• Modified Asian Parliamentary
Format
• 4 Elimination Rounds
• Breaks to Quarterfinals
Tournament Rules
• 25 Minutes Preparation Time
• No Veto
• 7 Minute Speeches
• 4 Minute Reply Speeches
• 15 Second POI’s
Modified Asians
Affirmative
1
Prime Minister
3
Deputy Prime Minister
5
Government Whip
8
Government Reply
Negative
2
Leader of Opposition
4
Deputy Leader of Opp
6
Opposition Whip
7
Opposition Reply
Speaker Positions
PUTTING ARGUMENTS IN REAL ACTION
Taken from the UPDS Basic Debate Seminar
7-minute speeches, with the first and last
minute being uninterrupted (no points of
information)
Prime
Minister
Leader of
Opposition
Deputy
Prime
Minister
Deputy
Leader of
the
Opposition
Government
Whip
Opposition
Whip
Government
Reply
Opposition
Reply
Provide the set-up
Advance positive
argumentation for
their side
Prime
Minister
Leader of
Opposition
Provide the clash
Deputy
Prime
Minister
Deputy
Leader of
the
Opposition
Respond to PM
Government
Whip
Opposition
Whip
Government
Reply
Opposition
Reply
Advance positive
argumentation for
their side
Prime
Minister
Leader of
Opposition
Deputy Prime
Minister
Deputy
Leader of the
Opposition
Government
Whip
Opposition
Whip
Government
Reply
Opposition
Reply
Respond to the
previous speaker
Support the 1st
speaker
Advance positive
argumentation for
their side
Prime
Minister
Leader of
Opposition
Deputy
Prime
Minister
Deputy
Leader of
the
Opposition
Support the
extension
Governmen
t Whip
Opposition
Whip
Synthesize the
debate
Governmen
t Reply
Opposition
Reply
Prime
Minister
Leader of
Opposition
Deputy
Prime
Minister
Deputy
Leader of
the
Opposition
Governmen
t Whip
Opposition
Whip
Governmen
t Reply
Opposition
Reply
Provide a biased
adjudication
Only constructive
speakers (PM, LO,
DPM, DLO) can be
reply speakers
Whips
Reply
7 Minute Speeches
4 Minute Speeches
Synthesizes the
Debate
Biased Adjudication
Makes them wins
issues
Shows that they win
issues
Responds to standing
arguments
Shows their
arguments still stand
Motion
The topic which the Government team must
defend and the Opposition team must oppose
 Must be defined by the Prime Minister

Defining the Motion

Each definition must:
Have a clear link to the debate
Be fair and debatable
Identify the issues to be debated and the
scope of the debate (standards)
Include parameters when necessary
When Should A Definition Be
Challenged?
 A definition
should be challenged
when it is one of the following:
Squirrel
Time/Place Set
Truism
How Do You Mount A
Definitional Challenge?
If a definition provided by the Prime Minister
is a squirrel, time/place set or truism, the LO
can challenge the definition.
 Only the LO can mount a challenge. If the
LO does not challenge, no one else in the
debate can do so.

How Do You Mount A
Definitional Challenge?



The LO must provide an alternative
definition that (s)he must then oppose
Even-if arguments for both sides
There are no automatic wins/losses
Matter, Manner, Method
An Overview
Matter




The content of the speech. It is the material
the debater uses to persuade the audience
Includes arguments, reasoning and
examples
Includes rebuttals
Includes Points of Information
How Do You Improve Your
Matter?

Read more
 Read not just to gain examples, but to gain
arguments and frames

Train more
 Training is the best way to refine your skills

Listen more
 Listen not just to the person you are rebutting, but
also your teammates. Consistency is also important
Manner


The style of the speech. It is the presentation
a debater uses to persuade the audience
Comprised of many elements
 Posture
 Accent
 Voice (pitch, loudness, etc)
 Speed of Talking
 Humor
 Gestures
Is There A Correct Style of
Manner?


There is no correct style of debating, as long as
you make them listen to you and take you
seriously
Many styles exist
The Statesman
The Showman
The Angry Man
• TIP: ADJUST ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONALITY
Method
The organization of the speech. It is the
structure a debater uses to persuade the
audience
 Comprised of many elements

 Time Management
 Signposting
 Rigor in Argumentation
How Do I Improve My Method?
Key Question: Where am I in my speech?
 Signpost everything: “This is my argument”,
“These are my rebuttals”, etc.
 Manage time wisely. Look at your timer
 Make better notes
 Use simpler language

67 – 68: No contributions, speech (or lack thereof) hurt the team
case
69 – 71: Speech was incoherent and deeply flawed. Major
technical violations were committed
71 – 73: Below Average. Ideas were underdeveloped, substantive
matter was lacking, little to no responsiveness or dynamism.
Minor technical violations were committed
74 – 76: Average. Material was equal parts good and flawed.
The speech was largely only adequate in fulfilling role burdens
and technical rules.
Scoring Range
77 – 79: Above Average. Arguments were complete, clear and
answered questions in the debate. Role positions were fulfilled
well, including accepting at least one POI. Material was precise
and true to the core of the debate. Meta-argument was also
present.
80 – 81: Excellent. Completely brilliant and eye-opening.
Showcased not only an understanding of the issues but also
compelling insights into them. No complaints in terms of role
fulfillment or substantiation.
82-83: Perfect. Speech was absolutely flawless, brilliant and
belief-shattering.
Scoring Range
Name
RJ Lim
Pam Carbonell
Avianna Castano
Dino De Leon
Renzo Escalona
Institution
CV
UPM
NDC Finalist, Co-Chief Adjudicator
Health Secretary’s Cup, Best Judge
CSB IV
UPD
Australs Subsidized Judge, 8th Best
Judge NDC, Finals Judge Philippine
Union Cup
DLSU
PDO Finalist, UADC Quarterfinals
and EFL Semifinals Judge
DLSU
Breaking Adjudicator WUDC, Chief
Adjudicator of ASDC
ADMU
10th best judge NDC, 5th best judge
LIV
Name
Kevin Ganchero
Allan Cabrera
Fritzgerdan Malit
Dwight Tan
JV Valerio
Institution
CV
FEU
Best and Finals Judge PDO, Finalist
NDC
ADMU
UADC, PIDC, WUPID finalist;
Australs Octofinalist
UPLB
CSB IVs Finalist, CA Econvergence,
CA Legal Minds V
ADMU
PIDC Semifinalist, 2nd best Judge
MINT
ADMU
Australasians Finals Judge,
WUPID Quarterfinalist