Rules for Debating and Judging

I. Scope of Rules. These rules shall be binding upon all rounds at the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence. These rules may be used in whole or in part at other tournaments. Tournaments need not use these rules to qualify for NPTE points, but are encouraged to do so as is practical.

II. Enforcement of Rules. Rules applied to debaters shall be enforced as appropriate by the judges in the rounds. Judges who violate or encourage violation of these rules should be reported to the tournament director. The tournament director may remove judges from the tournament and appropriate fees may be assessed.

III. Prior to the Round

A. Topic Areas

1. Publication. Topic areas, listed in no particular order, shall be published at least two weeks prior to the start of the tournament via commonly used methods of communication such as online forums. All resolutions used at the tournament shall be based on the topic areas but not all topic areas will necessarily be used.
2. Application. Topic areas are intended to stimulate education, research and preparation. Topic areas are not intended to impose any specific interpretation or to reflect any "framer's intent" of any particular resolution.

B. Resolutions

1. Scope. Resolutions may be framed and interpreted in either specific or metaphorical language. Resolutions may refer to a broad range of issues including current events, social problems, culture, history, science and philosophy.
2. Framing. No fewer than 3 resolutions shall be established for each preliminary round. Two resolutions shall be established for each elimination round.
3. Criteria. A committee of at least three people shall formulate resolutional wordings making an attempt to ensure that:
A. Both government and opposition have good potential strategic ground.
B. Both teams will have an idea of what they should prepare when the topic is announced.
C. Topic wordings should be clear and easily understood.
D. Topics are reviewed and revised by the committee over a period of a time, at least a few days, to ensure that they will make for good debates.
E. These criteria apply to the way in which resolutions will be FORMED and need not necessarily relate to the way in which they may be INTERPRETED within rounds. 4. Selection and Announcement (preliminary rounds). Immediately prior to the start of preparation time, the tab room director (or designate) shall randomly select the resolution for the round from all resolutions established for that round. The selected resolution shall be announced immediately to all debaters and judges and shall be posted in a public area.
5. Selection and Announcement (elimination rounds). Immediately prior to the start of preparation time, the chair of the judging panel shall conduct a coin flip. Winners of the coin flip may claim "control over sides" (Government/Opposition) or "choice of resolution". The winners must do this within one minute of the coin flip or the decision is reverted to the other team. Losers of the coin-flip process will then control whichever aspect the winners do not. The resolutions will then be revealed and the team with control over "choice of resolution" will select the resolution and announce that selection and must do so within 5 minutes. Then the team with "control over sides" will choose sides and announce that selection within 1 minute.

C. Preparation Time

1. Initiation. Preparation time shall commence immediately upon announcement of the resolution.
2. Duration. Preparation time for each round shall be 20 minutes. If necessary, the tournament may add time for travel to rounds. . For each minute a debater is late, 1 minute shall be deducted from the time allotted to that debater's first speech. If no time is available for the speech, the round will be deemed a forfeit. Debates must begin or be declared a forfeit no later than 10 minutes after preparation time has expired. In cases of verifiable circumstances outside of the control of the debaters, the tournament director may approve exceptions to this rule.
3. Coaching. Coaches may choose to assist teams during preparation time. Coaches must ensure that such activity does not interfere with their judging obligations. Similarly, competitors may choose to collaborate during preparation time. Neither competitors nor coaches may assist teams in a round for which they will be acting as judge.
4. Documentation. Use of published materials during preparation is allowed, but such materials may not be transported into the round in any form including verbatim or near-verbatim transcription (see "Evidence" below). Using these "NPTE Rules for Debating and Judging" in a round shall be deemed an exception to this rule. Debaters and judges may possess, reference and/or quote from these rules in rounds as necessary.

IV. During the Round

A. Audience Attendance. All rounds shall be open to the public. Use of recording devices shall be permitted so long as such use does not substantially interfere with the round. Attendees may applaud, cheer, or hiss as appropriate, but should avoid verbal heckling. Attendees who become disruptive may be removed at the discretion of the judges.

B. Order and Duration of Speeches.

1. Prime Minister Constructive (PMC): 7 minutes
2. Leader of Opposition Constructive (LOC): 8 minutes
3. Member of Government Constructive (MG): 8 minutes
4. Member of Opposition Constructive (MO): 8 minutes
5. Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR): 4 minutes
6. Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR): 5 minutes
7. Prep Time. There shall be no preparation time between speeches.

C. Cases and Arguments.

1. These rules shall not be interpreted so as to require any specific case structure or judging paradigm. Issues of paradigm and debate theory shall be reserved for argument and justification by the debaters.
2. Explicit definition of terms in the resolution shall not be required. Definitions may be presented explicitly, implicitly, contextually, and/or by metaphor.
3. Normative values and/or evaluative criteria may be offered either explicitly or implicitly. Explicit presentation of a value or criterion shall not be a required "prima facie" part of a Government case.
4. Government interpretations of the resolution should reflect a fair division of ground. Specifically, government interpretations should not be framed in such a way as to force the opposition to oppose well-established facts (i.e. physical realities), to embrace overtly racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory positions, or to uphold a value that is tautological with the resolution or with the Government case.
5. Constructive speeches shall be used for the establishment and explication of primary lines of analysis. New arguments may be presented at any time in any constructive speech.
6. Rebuttal speeches shall be used for the crystallization and weighing of previously established lines of argument. New arguments may not be presented in rebuttal speeches except in the case of a Prime Minister responding to an argument originally made by the Member of Opposition.

D. Points of Information. Points of information shall be allowed during constructive speeches, excluding "protected time" during the first and last minute of each speech. Debaters desiring to raise a point of information may so indicate verbally and/or by standing and/or by raising their hand. The debater currently speaking shall have the option to accept or decline each point of information and may so indicate verbally and/or by gesture. While a debater may choose to limit the number of points of information he or she will accept, no such limit shall be imposed by the judge. Points of information may be offered in the form of questions or statements. Points of information may not exceed 15 seconds in duration.

E. Points of Order. Debaters who perceive a violation of the rules may raise a point of order by standing or raising their hand and verbally announcing "point of order". Upon recognition by the judge or chair, the debater should briefly state the nature of the violation. The judge or chair shall then ask the other team for their defense and following that, rule on the point of order. "Point well taken" shall indicate that the point of order was valid. "Point not well taken" shall indicate that the point of order was not valid. "Point taken under consideration" shall indicate that the point of order is being deferred for later evaluation. When a point of order is deemed to be "well taken", the judge may instruct debaters to retract, rephrase, and/or avoid arguments. Points of order are intended only to address rule violations and shall not be raised to insert new arguments or to disrupt another debaters' speech.

F. Points of Personal Privilege. Debaters who perceive that another debater has engaged in personal insult, harassing behavior, or other violation of personal dignity may raise a point of personal privilege. Debaters may also raise a point of personal privilege if they perceive another debater to be deliberately misrepresenting the arguments of others. Such points shall be raised and adjudicated in the same manner as points of order (above). When a point of personal privilege is deemed to be "well taken" the judge may instruct the offending debater to retract and/or apologize for the offensive comments. Points of personal privilege are intended only to maintain the collegial nature of the debate and shall not be raised to insert new arguments or to disrupt another debaters' speech.

G. Timekeeping. The judge or chair of the judging panel shall provide time signals to the debaters or shall appoint someone to do so. The timekeeper shall indicate to the debaters the end and beginning of "protected time" during constructive speeches by loudly striking the table. Time shall not be stopped for points of information, but shall be stopped during presentation and adjudication of points of order and points of personal privilege.

H. Evidence. With the exception of these "NPTE Rules for Debating and Judging", debaters may not use quoted evidence or "cards" in rounds. Debaters may cite statistics or sources for facts or definitions, but such factual citations should not be the sole basis upon which an argument rests. Debaters should rely upon their own analysis as the primary basis for arguments.

I. Specific Knowledge. The basis for arguments should lie within the accessible realm of any reasonably well-educated person. Debaters who desire to present obscure or detailed information should be prepared to explain, in detail, the context of such information and its relationship to broader issues. Judges should exclude as "specific knowledge" only information that lies outside the accessible realm of a reasonably well-educated person and is challenged as such by opposing debaters. Judges should limit their consideration of information as narrowly as possible to exclude only those claims that are so specific or inaccessible as to be impossible to discuss without quoted evidence. The accessibility of the information and the debatability of the claim within the round shall be the critical issue, not lack of prior knowledge on the part of debaters or judges.

V. After the Round

A. Ballot and Speaker Points. As soon as possible after the conclusion of the round, judges shall complete and return to the tab room a written ballot. The ballot must include a designated winner and loser ("double-win" and "double-loss" rounds shall not be allowed). Speaker points shall be assigned to each debater on a 0-30 scale in half-point (.5) increments as follows:

30.0: Rare example of outstanding achievement in analysis and presentation.
28.0-29.5: Excellent accomplishment in analysis and presentation.
26.0-27.5: Good accomplishment of analysis and presentation.
24.0-25.5: Fair accomplishment of analysis and/or presentation with some deficiencies.
22.0-23.5: Serious deficiencies in analysis and/or presentation.
0.5-21.5: Severe deficiencies in analysis and/or presentation, deliberately offensive behavior, intentional violation of rules.
0: Forfeit.

B. Basis for Decision. The resolution forms the basis for the round. The Government shall enjoy the right to derive any linguistically legitimate interpretation of the resolution and construct a case based upon that. If, at the end of the round, the Government has crafted such an interpretation and successfully defended a case based upon it, the Government should win the round. The Opposition may oppose the linguistic legitimacy of the Government's interpretation of the resolution and/or the case itself and/or the underlying resolution as the Government interprets it. If, at the end of the round, the Opposition has successfully opposed the Government in one or more of these areas, the Opposition should win the round.

C. Non-Intervention. Judges shall base their decisions upon the arguments made, persuasive style displayed by the debaters, and the rules for the event. While judges are encouraged to make verbal and written comments to educate debaters as to relevant factual or normative concerns that were not raised by the debaters, the win/loss decision for the round should be grounded solely in the persuasiveness of the arguments made by the debaters.

D. Announcement (preliminary rounds). Immediately after the round, debaters and audience members should leave the room. Judges must complete the written ballot and return it to the tab room before engaging in any disclosure or verbal critiques.

E. Announcement (elimination rounds). Immediately after the round, the chair shall dismiss the debaters and audience members to wait outside the room. Judges should make their decision as quickly as possible, deferring the writing of detailed comments on the ballot until after the decision has been announced. Once all judges have reached a decision, the chair shall invite the debaters and audience back into the room, publicly announce the decision of the panel, and communicate this decision to the tab room. Judges should then provide any verbal critiques, complete their written ballots and return them to the tab room.

F. Disclosure and Verbal Critique. Judges are encouraged to engage debaters in discussion of issues and perceptions about the round, including the nature and justification for the judge's decision. When possible, the tournament should establish a discrete area for such discussions. Debaters, judges, and coaches should recognize the intensity of the competitive environment and avoid engaging in confrontational, demeaning or challenging behavior.

Do you compete in evidence-based debate?
Support DebateAddict by checking out the DebateAddict Research System today!

All website content and ranking data is copyright © 2002 N.P.T.E. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without written permission from the N.P.T.E. board is strictly prohibited.