FTD 42

TOURNAMENT POLICY
Tournament Format:

The tournament shall consist of preliminary and qualifying rounds. The preliminary phase consists of five
preliminary rounds, where Preliminary Round 1 shall feature teams paired up at random, and Rounds 2 through 5
shall feature teams paired up on a power matching basis. The power brackets will be decided by the win/loss
record of teams, with the secondary and tertiary sorting criteria being total speaker points, and average margins
of victory respectively.

The qualifying phase will consist of three elimination rounds: quarterfinals, semi-finals and the finals on a single
elimination basis. The 8 breaking teams from the preliminary rounds from both open and novice category shall
be determined on the basis of the following criteria, in order:
▪ Win/loss record
▪ Total speaker points
▪ Average margin of victory (MOV)
Match Format:

Each round shall offer three motions for debate, which may be linked by a common theme. The positions of
Government and Opposition will be pre-decided. The positions of Government and Opposition in post-break
rounds will be released. The team which wins the toss will get to choose the side in which they prefer to debate.
Upon the announcement of the motions for a round, each team must, within 5 minutes, rank the motions in
their order of preference for debate in the round (1 being the most preferred, 3 being the least preferred). Each
pair shall then compare their preferences in order to determine which motion shall be debated in the round. In
case both paired teams rank different motions as their least preferred, then the remaining motion shall prevail
for the round. In case both paired teams rank the same motion as their least preferred and there is no identity as
to their most preferred motion, the motion to be debated in the round shall be decided by way of a single the
motion to be debated in the round shall be decided by way of a single virtual coin toss facilitated by the
Chair/Runner.
Preparation Time :

The draws, motions and clarifications will be released in the academic auditorium of Kirori Mal College. After
announcements and clarifications, teams will have 25 minutes(20+5) from the moment preparation time is
announced to have commenced, to decide upon motions in the manner prescribed above, proceed to the
allocated Rooms and prepare for the round.
Conflict:

A conflict can occur between a team member and adjudicator where a certain
individual is not eligible to adjudicate a debate on the following grounds:
a) Romantic/Sexual relationship
b) Former teammate of the said participant
c) Related to the person(s)
d) Mentored/Been mentored by said participant
e) Any other conflict that you would like to register, the legitimacy of which will be decided by the Equity Team of
the tournament.
Walkover:

In case a team is not present within 5 minutes of the motions being declared to provide their preference of
motion the team present has the right to choose the motion to be debated. If a team has two out of three
members absent five minutes post the first speech was scheduled to begin, the organizers will award a default
win to the team present.

A team that receives a default win will be awarded the average speaker points and MOVs of the winning teams of
that round OR in case of prior information of absence, debate against a swing team to determine scores and
MOVs, and the default-losing team shall get 69s in lieu of speaker points, and -12 as MOVs. The organizers might
entertain exceptional circumstances such as illness or any other emergency while handling walkovers.

Post Match:
Upon the conclusion of the last speech of a match, the judges shall stay in the room to prepare feedback, and
must come up with scores, verdict and feedback completely individually. Panelists will have to submit the scores
to the chair, who will then fill the ballots for all of them. Adjudicators are not permitted to discuss the merits of
the debate with each other.
Debate Format:
Prime Minister (PM): 7 minutes
Leader of Opposition (LO): 7 minutes
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM): 7 minutes
Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO): 7 minutes
Government Whip (GW): 7 minutes
Opposition Whip (OW): 7 minutes
Opposition Reply Statement: 4 minutes
Government Reply Statement: 4 minutes

Basics:
Each round shall feature two participating teams (one team representing side Government, and the other team
representing the Opposition). The Government team consists of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and
Government Whip, while the Opposition team consists of the Leader of Opposition, Deputy Leader of Opposition
and Opposition Whip. The Side Government proposes a case statement based on the motion selected by the
teams for the round. In response, the Opposition team may either challenge the way in which the Government
has defined the motion or seek to establish that the House should not vote for the proposal of the Government,
on the strength of the arguments led by the Opposition. The team which best fulfills its burden, wins the debate.
Order and Timing of Speeches:
Each preliminary round shall consist, in order, of the following speeches:
The six constructive speeches will be followed by the Reply statements. The reply statement can only be delivered
by the first or second speaker from each team.

Points of Information:
At any time between the first and final minutes of the first six speeches of the round, a member of the opposing
team may indicate their willingness to ask a question from the speaker. This may be done by raising your hand or
whatever the speaker delivering the speech might prefer. The speaker must indicate whether or not they intend
to take the point. In case the speaker does not specify their preference, the default poi medium is through the
discord chat. A point of information may interrupt the speaker holding the floor for no longer than 15 seconds and
may not be offered without a minimum gap of 20 seconds between points offered by a team, and not just a
member of that team. Points of Information may only be raised in the first six constructive) speeches of the
debate, that is, PM, LO, DPM, DLO, GW and OW. No points may be raised in either of the Reply Speeches.
Adjudication:
Adjudicators are required to assume the mantle of average reasonable persons possessing expert knowledge of
the rules of debate. They are required to keep aside specialized knowledge they may know about any given issue
and must restrict their knowledge to that possessed by the average newspaper reader. Adjudicators will be
required to give an online Adjudicator Test in advance, on the basis of which the Core Adjudicators will mark
them on a scale (from 1-10) which will determine whether they start as a panellist or a trainee in Round 1. Hence,
allocation in R1 will purely be on the basis of how the judge performs in the judge test. Panelists are supposed to
give their scores to the Chair who will submit the ballot on everyone's behalf.

The Margin of Victory(MOV) is the speaker score differential of the two teams (i.e., total speaks of winning side -
total speaks of losing side). Adjudicators must judge a minimum of 4 rounds to qualify for breaks in the
tournament. The scores that decide whether they break or not will be taken from all 4 rounds that they receive
feedback for.
Scoring Range:(67-83)
0.5s are allowed in reply speeches, they are not allowed in constructive speeches.

83 : Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given, flawless and astonishingly compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up
satisfactory responses to any of
the arguments made.

81-82 : Brilliant arguments successfully engage with the main issues in the round. Arguments are very well-explained, always central to the case being
advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is very clear and incredibly compelling. Structure and role fulfilment are executed
flawlessly
.
79-80 : Very good, central arguments engage well with the most important issues on the table and are highly compelling, sophisticated responses would
be required to refute them. Delivery is clear and very persuasive. Role fulfilment and structure probably flawless.

77-78 : Relevant and pertinent arguments address key issues in the round with sufficient explanation. The speech is clear in almost its entirety and holds
one's attention persuasively. Role is well fulfilled and structure is unlikely to be problematic.

74-76 : Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may slip into:
(i) deficits in explanation, (ii) simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent responses, or (iii) peripheral or irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds
one's attention, provides clear structure, and successfully fulfills their basic role on the table.

72-73 : Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or
irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the audience's attention and is usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may
sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to fulfil one's role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.

70-71 : Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority of
the time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure poor, poor attempt to fulfill role.

69 : The speaker is often relevant but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently unclear and confusing, really problematic structure/lack thereof; some
awareness of role.

68 : The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as agreements. Hard to follow, little/no structure; no evident awareness of role.

67 : Content is almost non-relevant and is both confusing and confused. No structure or fulfillment of role in any meaningful sense is provided. OR did not
speak at all.
Judge scale:(1-10)( 0.5s are not allowed)
1: The judge spoke but could not articulate a coherent logical reasoning of their justification; grossly misapplied
the standards in assessing a debate (such as blatantly considering wrongly an idea as a new matter); did not listen
to a substantial portion of the debate and could not recall or discuss such portions. Automatic complaint and
conflict. The judge did not talk at all and never even attempted to justify their decision, or did attempt to justify
their decision but used standards that are irrelevant to the rules of debate (such as personal beliefs, personal
opinion, and ideas that did not come out in the debate INSTEAD of logic, believability of examples,
responsiveness, and level of substantiation) or used arguments and ideas that did not come out in the debate
(stepping in).

2-3: The judge spoke but could not articulate a coherent logical reasoning of their justification; grossly misapplied
the standards in assessing a debate (such as blatantly considering wrongly an idea as a new matter); did not listen
to a substantial portion of the debate and could not recall or discuss such portions.

4-6: The judge articulated a coherent logical reasoning of their justification but was neither comprehensive nor
detailed, or definitely misapplied some standards in assessing a debate, or definitely misunderstood some parts of
the debate, or was vague and ambiguous in discussing some parts of the debate.

7-8: The judge articulated a clear and coherent reasoning of their justification but was only either comprehensive
or detailed, or arguably misapplied some standards in assessing a debate, or arguably misunderstood some parts
of the debate.

9-10: The judge articulated a clear, coherent, comprehensive, and detailed reasoning of their justification, correctly
applied the standards in assessing a debate, and did not misunderstand any part of the debate.
Equity opt out and Iron Person Policy:
If a team member is uncomfortable with debating all three motions during a round, they can choose to sit out for
that particular round, in which case the team will have to iron person. A team may iron-person not more than one
round in the tournament. The team must inform the OC well in advance if iron-personing. Iron-person is only
permitted in the absence of one speaking member where consecutive speeches by the same speaker are not
allowed. In the event that a team iron-persons a round, the speaker role for which the person is iron-personing
that round will be dropped. While the absent team member will remain unmarked for that round, the team in
question shall still be eligible for breaks. However, the provision will not be allowed in out-rounds.
Break Eligibility:
We will be breaking a set of teams in both open and the novice category. . Teams will be allowed to iron-person
only one round out of the 5 in-rounds for the tournament (including equity opt out). A speaker can't iron-person
consecutive speeches, i.e, they can only iron-person in the 1st & 3rd speech. Voluntary walkovers aren't allowed at
the tournament. In the event of one, the team will not be eligible to break. Invited Adjudicators are required to
judge a minimum of 3 out of 5 open rounds to be eligible to break.

Competitive judges must judge 4 out of 5 open in--rounds to be eligible for breaks, in case of a missed round, the
Adj will get an automatic 0 and that will be considered the lowest score and will be dropped.
Tabbing Policy:
FTD will be using Calico tab for the purpose of tabbing. Calico is a tabbing software, where participants can view
tournament information such as the participants (speakers & adjudicators), draws/match-ups, results, motions,
and standings among other things.

The draw generation method is mid-slide for preliminary rounds and fold for out-rounds. The odd-bracket
resolution method is pull-up from top. Additionally, there is NO pull=up restriction, i.e., teams once pulled up CAN
be pulled up again if the draw asks.

All participants would be mailed their private URLs, which must not be shared in order to prevent tampering of
scores and feedback.

Only the chairs from each room will fill the ballots. The panellists have to submit their respective speaker scores to
the chair who would submit all the scores (including their own) through their private URL. Trainees do NOT have
to score teams, just give an OA.

All teams are required to submit judge feedback through their private URL. Only one member from each team
should fill the same to ensure the deserved score gets taken into consideration.