2009 NPTE Tournament Rules

2009 NPTE Tournament Rules. 1

ARTICLE I. TOURNAMENT SETUP AND TABULATION RULES. 2

Section 1. Topic Selection Process. 2

A. Controversy Area Announcements. 2

B. Resolutions from the Controversy Areas. 2

C. Resolutions. 3

Section 2. Expectations of Judges for the NPTE. 3

Section 3. NPTE Tabulation. 4

A. Assignment of Judges. 4

B. Preliminary Round Procedures. 5

C: Elimination Round Procedures. 5

D. Final Round procedure. 5

E: Awards. 5

F. Public Posting of Debates and Ballots. 5

ARTICLE II: DEBATING AND JUDGING RULES. 5

Section 1. Scope of Rules. 5

Section 2. Enforcement of Rules. 5

Section 3. Topic Announcement and Preparation Time. 5

A. Selection and Announcement of Topics. 5

B. Preparation Time. 5

Section 4. During the Debate Rounds. 5

A. Audience Attendance. 5

B. Order and Duration of Speeches. 5

C. Cases and Arguments. 5

D. Points of Information. 5

E. Points of Order. 5

F. Points of Personal Privilege. 5

G. Timekeeping. 5

H. Evidence. 5

I. Laptops and Handheld Computers. 5

I. Specific Knowledge. 5

Section 5. After Debate Rounds. 5

A. Ballot and Speaker Points. 5

B. Basis for Decision. 5

C. Non-Intervention. 5

D. Announcement (preliminary rounds). 5

E. Announcement (elimination rounds). 5

F. Disclosure and Verbal Critique. 5

2010 Changes are highlighted in light gray.

ARTICLE I. TOURNAMENT SETUP AND TABULATION RULES

Section 1. Topic Selection Process

A. Controversy Area Announcements

1. Committee. A topic committee of at least three people, none of whom have teams at the tournament, shall be appointed by the NPTE Vice-President.

2. Publication. At least three weeks before the NPTE, the Topic Committee shall post a list of 5 controversy areas.

3. Controversy Areas. A controversy area will be a broad resolution with an agent, direction of action, and what the actor will be doing. Example Controversy Area: The U.S. (Agent) should decrease (Direction of Action) its military presence in Somalia (What the actor will be doing).

4. Scope. Controversy Areas may focus on a broad range of issues including current events, social problems, culture, history, science and philosophy.

B. Resolutions from the Controversy Areas

1. Constructing Resolutions. The Topic Committee will make resolutions exclusively using the agent, direction of action and what the actor will be doing as noted in the Controversy Areas. An example resolution for the Somalia Controversy Area released at the tournament before Prep Time would be: The U.S. federal government should halt its air strikes in Somalia.

2. Function. Resolutions and Controversy areas are intended to stimulate education, research and preparation. Resolutions and Controversy areas are not intended to impose any specific interpretation or to reflect any "framer's intent" of any particular resolution.

3. Criteria. Resolution construction should 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.

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. Process. Resolutions shall be reviewed and revised by the committee over a period of a time, at least one week, to ensure that they will make for good debates. The resolutions may be released to the tournament director(s) and tabulation staff up to one week prior to the tournament including for final revisions but may not be released to anyone with teams competing in the tournament.

C. Resolutions.

Resolutions announced for all debates shall be based on these controversy areas.

Section 2. Expectations of Judges for the NPTE.

The NPTE President shall ensure all judges used meet the following criteria:

A. Judges must have at least two full years experience coaching, judging, or competing in intercollegiate debate.

B. Judges with remaining eligibility to compete in undergraduate parliamentary debate shall explicitly forfeit all such future eligibility before being deemed qualified to judge at the NPTE.

C. Judges with only non-parliamentary debate experience must agree to attend a short training exercise about the rules and conventions of parliamentary debate prior to the tournament.

D. All judges shall be required to submit a judging philosophy at least one week prior to the NPTE tournament. Schools with judges who have not submitted their judging philosophy within six days of the NPTE tournament shall be fined $50.

E. The NPTE President may give special consent to particular judges deemed qualified for the tournament or, in an emergency, for judges needed to keep the tournament running.

F. Judges are required to give one team a win and the other team a loss within one hour and 45 minutes of the time the topic is announced. In the event that a judge refuses to render a win and a loss for a debate within that timeframe, the tournament director shall decide the round by coin flip and the judge or school which hired the judge shall be required to pay for an uncovered round. The tournament director, if needed to assure win-loss ballots and the timeliness of the tournament, shall be able to remove such a judge.

G. Judges shall judge two rounds past the elimination of their teams. Further, before the third elimination round, a member of the tab room will request that judges who are highly preferred continue to judge further elimination rounds. These judges shall be compensated for extra rounds that they judge.

Section 3. NPTE Tabulation

A. Assignment of Judges.

Judges will be assigned on the basis of mutual preference.

1. At least 18% of judges shall be given an A; at least 36% of judges shall be given an A or B; at least 54% of judges shall be given an A, B, or C; and at least 72% of judges shall be given an A, B, C, or D. 10% of judges may be struck; the remaining judges shall be given an E or constrained.

2. In assigning judges, the tab should give judges ranked AA first priority, then judges given BB, then judges given CC, then AB, then BC. Before being used, judges ranked BC will be reviewed to see if higher and mutually preferred judges that have not previously seen either team are available. Further, the tab shall attempt to balance panels. So, if there is an "AB" or "BC" judge, the other judge should be "BA" or less preferably "CB."

3. Judges ranked DD, AC, then BD, then EE, then DE, then CE, then AD, then BE, then AE should be given only to teams that are no longer in contention for advancing to elimination rounds or if there is an absolute need to do so. The tab shall seek to balance panels; for example, if there is an "AC" judge, the other judge should be "CA" or "BA" or less preferably "DB" or "EC."

4. Struck judges should never be given to a team unless no other judge is available.

5. Judges should not judge a team more than once in preliminary rounds, once during the first three double elimination rounds, once during the second three double elimination rounds, and once during the last two elimination rounds.

B. Preliminary Round Procedures

1. There will be six preliminary rounds.

2. Teams will be seeded for the first round on the basis of the same process used to rank teams. Teams with half points shall have their half points included in their point total (as described in the half-points explanation in the Qualifying Bylaws) and their win-loss percentage shall include all debates that both debaters have been involved in during the year.

3. Round One will be paired High-Low so that Team #1 hits Team #64; Team #2 hits Team #63; etc.

4. Teams from the same school will not hit each other in preliminary rounds and teams will not hit each other twice. In the event that teams are seeded to do so during the first round, the staff will take the next available seeded pairing and switch the two lower seeded teams. For example, if 20 cannot hit 45, you switch with 21-44 creating 20 vs 44 and 21 vs 45. If 32 cannot hit 33, then you switch with 31-34 creating 31-33 and 32-34. The tab program should be made to approximate this same process within brackets for preliminary debates after round 1.

5. Round Two will be paired High-Low with side constraints (2-0's with highest speaker points will be paired against 2-0's with the lowest speaker points).

6. Round Three shall be paired High-High.

7. Round Four, Five, and Six shall be paired High-Low (within brackets of teams with the same number of ballots and with side constraints). If a team that is still in contention to break but has not broken yet is paired to hit a team with 2 or more ballot wins than they have won (a "double pull up"), then the tab shall switch pairings so that such team hits the lowest seeded team in a lower bracket that solves the double pull up while not creating another double pull up for a team still in contention to break (side constraints and previously hitting teams still respected).

8. Each preliminary round shall be assigned two judges. Judges will render separate decisions both on the ballot and regarding points of order/personal privilege.

9. Results of all preliminary rounds will be posted in a common area as soon as possible after each round. Judges will be encouraged to share decisions and comments about rounds with competitors after ballots are returned to the Tab Room. Adequate time will be included in the tournament schedule to allow teams to view the previous round's results and consult with judges.

C: Elimination Round Procedures WITH NEW ORGANIZATION

1. The top 32 teams that do not have losing records shall advance to elimination rounds. Breaks to elimination rounds shall be based on:

(a) Total number of ballots won.

(b) ZplusWinLossQuality score. The ZplusWLQ score is derived from a tied team's Z-score plus ballots won by the teams that the tied team took a ballot against minus 1/2 of ballots lost by the teams that the tied team lost a ballot against.

(c) Z score.

2. Elimination rounds will be in double-elimination format until the Final Round.

3. Pairing of the first elimination round.

a. Team seeding for the first elimination round will be determined on the same basis as used to determine breaks to elimination rounds.

b. Pairing in the first elim will be the highest seeded team versus the lowest seeded team; the next highest seeded team versus the team just above the lowest seed, etc. Pairing after that will be high-low within brackets (highest seeded 1-0 will hit the lowest seeded 1-0; next highest seeded 1-0 will hit the team just above the lowest seeded 1-0, etc. highest seeded 0-1 will hit lowest seeded 0-1, next highest seeded 0-1 will hit the team just above the lowest seeded 0-1, etc.).

4. Pairing after the first elimination round.

a. After the first elimination round, teams shall be re-seeded after each round. Seeding for the second through final elimination rounds will be determined by (a) elimination round wins, (b) number of elimination round ballots received, and (c) seeding at the end of the preliminary rounds.

b. For purposes of seeding, teams receiving a bye in elimination rounds shall be deemed to have received a win with the minimum majority of ballots sufficient to win the round had it been debated.

5. When there are 6 teams remaining, the tabulation room shall pair the 6 teams as one group with the highest seeded 0 loss team hitting the lowest seeded 1 loss team, second seed versus next lowest seed etc. while attempting to avoid having teams debate each other twice (highest priority) and having teams from the same school debate each other (second priority) as noted above.

6. After the "6 team elim":

a. If there are 3 teams remaining, the top seeded team shall be given a bye and thus advance to finals and the other two teams shall debate each other with the winner advancing to finals.

b. If there are 4 teams remaining, the tabulation room shall pair the 4 teams as one group with the highest seeded team hitting the lowest seeded team and second seed hitting the third seed team while attempting to avoid having teams debate each other twice (highest priority) and having teams from the same school debate each other (second priority) as noted above. The two teams that win this round shall advance to finals.

7. Judge Assignment in the Double Elims.

a. Each double-elimination round shall be assigned a minimum of 3 judges.

b. During the last three elimination rounds prior to finals, and when the highest possible judging preferences are maintained, the Tab Room will establish an initial panel of at least 5 judges and allow each team to strike 1 judge from the proposed panel.

8. What happens when a Pairing is a Repeat or involves a School vs a School:

a. Teams with 1 loss should never be paired against teams with 0 losses except when 6 or less teams remain as explained in 5 above.

b. Teams should never be paired to debate each other more than once unless doing so is required to avoid having a team with 1 loss debate a team with 0 losses.

c. Teams should never be paired to debate teams from the same school unless doing so is required to avoid having a team with 1 loss debate a team with 0 losses OR unless doing so is required to avoid having teams debate each other more than once.

d. When adjusting pairings to avoid teams debating each other more than once or teams from the same school debating each other, the lower seeded team will be switched with the lower seeded team from the next lower pairing. For example, if seed 5 is hitting seed 10 (teams already hit each other) and seed 6 is hitting seed 9; you would switch seed 10 and 9.

9. Teams paired against each other shall be required to engage in a full debate unless the teams are from the same school that has submitted a “School vs School” form to the tournament staff by registration. Teams that concede a ballot, voluntarily forfeit a debate, or clearly throw the round shall be construed as not engaging in the full debate and shall not receive any ballots for that debate. School vs School forms explain which team will win when two teams from the same school are paired to hit each other (such as the higher seed at that point in the elims wins or x team will win because they are seniors). Any interpretation of such form shall be done by the NPTE. Making this form extremely clear is very important.

10. If some unusual situation arises, the tabulation room shall be able to pair remaining elimination rounds via a method as close as is possible to the description in 5 above to assure the tournament finishes in the allotted number of elimination rounds.

D. Final Round procedure.

1. The Tab Room shall establish an initial panel of at least 9 judges based on NPTE Judge Assignment procedure.

2. Each team shall strike 1 judge. If the teams strike the same judge, the tab room will strike an additional judge who most creates an imbalance in preference or whose preference is lowest on the panel. If the remaining judges are balanced and all remaining judges have the same preference level, the tab room will randomly strike an additional judge.

3. The Final Round shall be an at least 7 judge panel with the chair being the judge on the panel who has the highest preferencing overall at the tournament.

E: Awards

1. Speaker awards will be determined in this order: double dropping high/low points, dropping high/low points, total points, and then z-scores for preliminary round ballots.

2. Team awards shall be based on: (1) advancement in the elimination rounds (e.g. finals means first or second place; semi-finals means third or fourth place, etc.); (2) elimination round wins, (3) number of elimination round ballots received, and (4) seeding at the end of the preliminary rounds.

F. Public Posting of Debates and Ballots.

The Vice President shall post online for public viewing electronic versions of the ballots and video of the final round debate as well as other debates.

ARTICLE II: DEBATING AND JUDGING RULES

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. 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.

Section 3. Topic Announcement and Preparation Time.

A. Selection and Announcement of Topics

1. Preliminary Rounds

Immediately prior to the start of preparation time, the resolution shall be announced.

2. Elimination Rounds

a) The Tab will do a Roll call in an attempt to assure that all our schools are there. Of course, the process of topic and side selection shall not be delayed for schools or teams that are excessively late.

b) For each pairing, have the team from further away designate heads or tails.

c) The tab shall do one coin flip for all teams.

d) Coin flip winners each designate control over sides or resolution.

e) Tab shall then display the two resolutions available.

f) Teams with control over resolutions are then given 3 minutes to select the resolution.

g) The tab will announce which resolution will be used for each pairing.

h) Teams with control over sides are then given 2 minutes to declare sides.

i) The tab then announces both sides and resolution for each pairing.

j) Preparation time then begins.

k) In the event that any team fails to announce sides or resolution within the allotted time noted above, that announcement shall be given to the other team to make.

B. 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. Coaches and debaters may use any materials they wish during preparation time but the debaters for that round should use during the debate itself only items that they themselves prepared during the preparation time. Electronic or other "nearly instant" copying of material is not permitted. 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.

Section 4. During the Debate Rounds

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 the document you are reading now, "The NPTE Rules for Debating and Judging," debaters should use only materials that they themselves wrote or similarly transcribed or produced after the announcement of that round's resolution. Debaters should not use in any debate 1) quoted evidence or "cards;" 2) electronically or "nearly instantly" copied files or recordings; 3) art sculpted, painted or drawn, photos taken, music recorded, and similar works of art materially created prior to the topic announcement; nor 4) materials written or similarly transcribed or produced during preparation time by others such as coaches or teammates (except their debate partner for that round). Debaters, of course, may present material they have memorized or remember as they speak. 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. Laptops and Handheld Computers

Use of laptop or handheld computers is not permitted except in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Requests for exemption based on disability must be accompanied or verified by documentation considered sufficient by the Board. Computers used in rounds will be subject to verification by the judge and/or tournament staff to ensure that wireless network access is disabled and that prepared files are not being accessed.

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.

Section 5. After Debate Rounds

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.

1. Judges shall base their decisions upon the arguments made, persuasive style displayed by the debaters, and the rules for the event.

2. Once the decision is announced, that decision is final except in the event of a mistake in the reading of the decision, e.g. the person announcing the decision read the ballot incorrectly, the judge misstates who he or she intended to vote for, or there is a tab error.

3. Decisions may not be changed because a judge changed his or her mind after a decision has been announced.

4. Judges are encouraged to make pedagogically appropriate verbal and written comments to educate debaters about relevant factual or normative concerns that were not raised 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).

1. Immediately after the round, the chair shall dismiss the debaters and audience members to wait outside the room.

2. 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.

3. Judges of the elimination rounds shall not confer with each other in making their decisions.

4. 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.

5. 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.

All website content and ranking data is copyright © 2009 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.