For Registration Assistance:

Questions you Need to ask

1) How do I reach Chennai? Chennai is well connected by : Road ( NH 45, NH 5, NH 205) Rail- Chennai Central and Chennai Egmore. Air- Kamaraj Domestic Airport and Anna International Airport. 2) Where can I find good food in Chennai. Be it the stereotyped Filter Coffee, the Idly , Vada & Dosa combo or even your Chinese Fix, we have bucket loads to offer. Loyola College is situated in Nungambakkam, the heart of the City. Eataries from Mc Donalds to KFC, to Wangs Kitchen ( Chinese) to Kryptos (Greek) to Moven Pick ( Icecream on cloud 9) to CCDs to Barista all the way down to NRC ( Our personal suggestion) which happen to be within a 3 km radius. If you have a very particular taste, feel free to ask any debsoc member, we would love to help you out. 3) How do I go to the above place? Ampa Mall, a college favourite, can be reached by 'share autos' 10 bucks for a round trip. It houses a food court that spoils you with choices. NRC is on the other side of the road from college and goes easy on the wallet as well. And all the preferred hang out spots fall under a 3 km radius so you could take a rick if need be. 4) Ok, I need more options for my bitter taste. Contact anyone in the organizing committee, we would love to help you. 5) How do I commute around the city? Loyola College is a busy junction which is well connected by train, bus and share autos. We recommend you do not go alone in an auto. They fleece people. Least that should be an option, go in a group of 3 or 4. 6) Any tips on safety? Yes, Unless and otherwise you plan on wearing your family heirloom and walking on the middle of the night, no extra precautions need to be taken. Chennai is pretty safe. But if a Debsoc member gives you some advice, please do take it seriously.

An Overview
The competition shall be conducted in two phases: Phase 1 or the League Rounds will incorporate at least 5 rounds of 3-on-3 Asians style of debating. Phase 2 or the Knock-out Rounds, shall have the quarter-finals, semi-finals and the finals. In the same format as the league rounds.

The match-ups for the first round will be random. For subsequent match-ups for rounds two to six, the ties will be power-matched. Therefore, following round 1, winning teams will meet other similarly placed winning teams. The quarter-finals and semi-finals are knock-out rounds with the winning team in each tie advancing to the next round.

1.
i)

Contingent Ground Rules

As mentioned above, the format used will be the 3-on-3 Asians style. The VIS Debate 2012 is open to Teams representing Institutions, Cross teams and the n rule for the adjudicator to compliment the team (If 2 teams register, 2 adjudicators should compliment them). Also to keep the spirit of creativity alive, the Jerome DSouza Debate is open to fancy names for cross teams, as long as unparliamentarily language does not enter the picture. It is suggested to name a cross team after a team member for all practical purposes.

ii) Loyola College, being a Jesuit institution has a high standard of behaviour and etiquette requirement that is expected to be portrayed by students and followed by its guests. We thus kindly request the debaters/ adjudicators to follow the rules mentioned below (1) Alcohol Consumption inside the campus is strictly prohibited (2) Smoking inside the campus is not allowed (3) Female participants are requested to dress conservatively

2. Structure of the debate and Team Constitution

1.1) There will be essentially be two teams; namely Government (Affirmative Proposing the Motion) Opposition (Negative Opposing the Motion)

1.2)

Each team will consist of three members: Government + The Prime Minister (PM) + The Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)

+ The Government Whip

Opposition + The Leader of the Opposition (LO) + The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO) + The Opposition Whip

1.3)

The Format of the Debate will be as follows. a) Constructive Speech by the Prime Minister b) Constructive Speech by the Leader of the Opposition c) Constructive Speech by the Deputy Prime Minister League Rounds: 5 mins per speaker (1+3+1) Knockout rounds 7 mins per speaker (1+5+1) d) Constructive Speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition e) Constructive Speech by the Government Whip f) Constructive Speech by the Opposition Whip League Rounds: 5 mins per speaker (1+3+1) Knockout rounds 7 mins per speaker (1+5+1)

The Whips (both the government and the opposition) are not allowed to bring in new matter into the debate g) Reply Speech from a Member of Proposition (except Whip) League Rounds: 4 mins per speaker

Knockout rounds 5 mins per speaker h) Reply Speech from a member of the Opposition (except Whip) League Rounds: 4 mins per speaker Knockout rounds 5 mins per speaker

1.4) Time indication

Time signals will be given in the following manner,

Constructive Speeches
League Rounds: End of first minute - single ring of the bell to denote the end of the first protected minute End of fourth minute - single ring of the bell to denote the start of the second protected minute End of fifth minute - double ring of the bell to indicate the end of the allotted time.

Knockout Rounds:

1. Quarter Finals End of first minute - single ring of the bell to denote the end of the first protected minute End of sixth minute - single ring of the bell to denote the start of the second protected minute End of seventh minute - double ring of the bell to indicate the end of the allotted time.

2. Semi Finals End of first minute - single ring of the bell to denote the end of the first protected minute End of sixth minute - single ring of the bell to denote the start of the second protected minute End of seventh minute - double ring of the bell to indicate the end of the allotted time.

3. Finals End of first minute - single ring of the bell to denote the end of the first protected minute End of sixth minute - single ring of the bell to denote the start of the second protected minute End of seventh minute - double ring of the bell to indicate the end of the allotted time.

Reply Speeches

League Rounds: End of third minute- single ring of the bell. End of fourth minute- double ring of the bell.

Knock out Rounds: End of fourth minute- single ring of the bell. End of fifth minute- double ring of the bell.

1.5) The Flow of the Debate

1. The Tabs will be released before the beginning of each round. Once in the respective debating areas, the chair will be decide the proposition and the opposition by virtue of a coin toss.

The teams then have two minutes to decide the motion for the debate: a) The Opposition gets a minute to cancel the least acceptable motion according to them b) The proposition gets a minute to cancel the least acceptable motion according to them c) The final motion is then debated

1.6)

Once the Motion is decided, it is the privilege of the Government to decide whether to prepare their constructive cases inside or outside the room. In case they choose the room assigned, it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the other adjudicators, team members leave the room for the next 25 minutes.

1.7)

Printed and Prepared materials may be used during the preparation period. However, no access is allowed to electronic Media or electronic storage or retrieval devices after the motions are released. This includes but is not limited to, all kinds of electronic databanks, cellular phones etc.

1.8)

At the end of the 25 minutes, the chair and the other team return to the room

1.9)

In case either of the teams does not reach the assigned room, within the next 5 minutes, the team present there, gets a walkover.

1.10)

In the event of both the teams not reaching the assigned room within the next 5 minutes, both teams are treated as having lost the round

2. Speaker Roles
2.1) The PM begins the debate by proposing a definition. The definition here implies:

The interpretation of the motion as seen by the Government It is essential for the PM to give the house: A Logical Link between the motion and the definition in case of a weak logical link the definition is prone to a challenge. A Case Statement which basically refers to the entire definition stated in a single sentence A limiting Context setting the parameters of the Debate The Burden of the Proposition which should essentially reflect what they are out to prove The Team Split whereby the PM informs the house of the structure of the Debate Constructive arguments in support of his/her motion.

2.2)

Following the PMs Speech, the LO comes up and either accepts or challenges the definition. The onus of the LO is: To Accept or Challenge the definition. (If accepted) to identify a Point of Clash which essentially is the point the opposition is debatable. There may be multiple Points of Clash also. To state the Burden of the Opposition. To give his Team Split

2.3)

After the LO, the DPM is invited by the Chair. The onus of the DPM is: Reiterate the Case Statement and Burden of Proposition in case of a Challenge the DPM has to prove why the Challenge does not stand, then proceed with his/her case. If the definition is not challenged, then the DPM Rebuts the Oppositions case. The DPM then goes on to present his/her Constructive arguments in adherence with the PMs Team Split.

2.4)

Then the Chair invites the DLO. It is the DLOs onus to:

Reiterate the Burden of Opposition and go on to refute the Governments arguments. Also, move forward the Constructive Case put forth by the LO. In case of a Challenge, the DLO reiterates the grounds of challenge, and then goes to oppose his/her case as presented by the LO.

2.5)

Then the Chair invites the Proposition Whip. It is the proposition whips onus to:

Summarize the case put forth by the PM and DPM and mention the points of clash and substantiate as to why the point favors the proposition and how the motion is earned. The Proposition Whip IS allowed to bring in new matter.

2.6)

Then the Chair invites the Opposition Whip. It is the Opposition whips onus to:

Summarize the case put forth by the LO and DLO and mention the points of clash and substantiate as to why the point favors the Opposition and how the motion falls.

 The Opposition Whip IS NOT allowed to bring in new matter.

2.7)

The second last speech is delivered by either the LO or the DLO as a Reply speech which is essentially a summary of the arguments, proving in turn how the Oppositions case stands.

2.8)

The last speech is the PMs or the DPMs Reply speech, proving how the motion is earned.

2.9)

Please note that No New Matter can be introduced in the Reply speeches.

3. Definition Challenges
3.1) The Opposition may only challenge the definition advanced by theGovernment on the basis of one of these conditions pertaining:

Truistic definition: These are definitions which are true by nature and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore unreasonable in the context of the debate. If a team defines the debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and supporting evidence. An example of a truistic definition would be if the motion that we should eat, drink, and be merry were defined as that we should eat, because otherwise we would starve to death; drink, because otherwise we would die of thirst, and be merry because we are alive.

Tautological definition: This happens when a definition is given in such a way that it is logically impossible to negate it i.e., it would be self-proving or a circular argument. An example would be no man is an island, and therefore man is a social animal, and if we were to see the logical converse then we would have man is a social animal, therefore no man is an island.

Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the motion and do not have a proper logical link to the motion will constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion this house believes in the Marlboro man, and the government were to define it as the Marlboro man as Michael Schumacher and that he drives a car that endorses Marlboro, and that Michael Schumacher is seen as a representative of the formula one industry, therefore this house is the Formula one association, and it will repair all formula one tracks. It is a really convoluted logical link that is done to suit certain definitions, and qualifies for a challenge.

 Time and place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a particular time and place. For instance, trying to limit the subject matter to only the economic development of Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration.

3.2)

The Opposition may not challenge a definition supplied by the Governmenton the basis that: Its own definition is MORE reasonable A better Debate will result. Nor may the Opposition re-define terms or words contained in the motion so that a completely different debate is thereby set up.

3.3)

The challenge must be made in the speech of the Leader of Opposition, following a clear statement that the definition is being rejected. The onus for establishing the definitional challenges lies completely on the Leader of Opposition. The DLO is strictly permitted a purely clarificatory role (if any) in this regard.

3.4)

In the event of a challenge. The LO must justify his/her rejection by supplying the grounds on which the original definition has been rejected. Furthermore, a substitute definition must be supplied, which the Proposition benches must then go on to negate. Please note, following a definitional challenge, the Opposition must provide an alternate definition that the proposition must then go on to oppose.

3.5)

The Opposition on challenging the definitions not permitted to make an if then else argument. That is, once the definition has been challenged, they cannot proceed to rebut the Government defined case.

3.6)

The LO does not challenge the definition, no other speaker may choose to do so.

3.7)

The onus to prove that a definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.

3.8)

Adjudicators should not indicate during the debate whether the definitional challenge has succeeded. They cannot indicate which definition they find to be (more) acceptable. The final decision as to whether a definitional challenge has succeeded must take into consideration all 4 speeches in any debate.

3.9)

If a definitional challenge is upheld, the team making the challenge is to b e declared the winner by the largest possible margin. If the definitional challenge fails, the team making such challenge loses the debate by the largest possible margin.

3.10)

A Soft Challenge or a definition challenge where the opposition accepts a part of the defining and rejects the remaining, or Selects a particular terminology used to define the motion and tries to redefine that alone, is not allowed in the tournament.

3.11)

A definitional challenge should take place in the Rarest of Rare Cases.

4. Points of Information
a) Basic Information i) Points of Information (PoIs) may be offered during constructive speeches only, after the first bell which signals the end of the first protected minute and up to the sixth bell, signifying the start of the second protected minute.

ii) PoIs may not be offered during the first and last minutes of constructive speeches. iii) The gap between two PoIs put forth should be 15 seconds at the least. iv) A PoI tag cannot exceed the tag limit of 3 under any circumstance.

b) Mode of Phrasing a POI i) If a PoI is accepted, the point should be phrased as

(1) A question (2) A clarification (3) A comment. Ideally a PoI should be injected in no more than 15 seconds.

c) Mode of Offering a POI i) A PoI must be indicated by a member of an opposing team rising from his/her seat.

ii) A member offering a PoI may draw attention to the offer by saying on that point Sir/Madam, or a short phrase.

d) Mode of Responding to a POI i) A clear gesture or hand signal rejecting the offer. No unparliamentarily signs would be tolerated.

ii) A verbal rejection of the offer. Usage of parliamentary language is to be strictly followed while rejecting the PoI iii) A verbal acceptance of the offer and the answer should follow

5. The Adjudication Process

5.1) Adjudication Participating Adjudicators will essentially be slotted into threecategories: o Category A ( Chair ): criterion for selection may be one of the following along with performance at the adjudication test conducted during the exhibition debate(Primary Factor): Has participated/adjudicated in an international debating championship Has been placed in a minimum of 5 inter-college debates Has been a previous semi-finalist or finalist at a national level parliamentary debate

Category B ( Panelist): criterion for selection may be one of the following along with performance at the adjudication test conducted during the exhibition debate (Primary Factor): Are/have been an office bearer of their college Debating Society Has been placed at a minimum of 3 inter-college debates

 A panelists evaluation can be evaluated by Chief Adjudicators and Chairs alone. A positive evaluation will render the panelist being promoted to the level of a chair. A negative evaluation will render the panelist to be taken off the tabs, thereby making him a trainee

Category C (Trainee): Any adjudicator who, after taking the adjudication test, fails to fall under Category A or Category B automatically fall under this category.

A trainees evaluation can be evaluated by Chief Adjudicators and Chairs alone. A positive evaluation will render the trainee being promoted to the level of a panelist.

The Debates will be generally judged by three adjudicators (The combination will be formulated from a pool consisting of; The Chief Adjudicators, The Chairs, The Panelists. In case the numbers fall short, there would be only one adjudicator per debate, preference will be given to an adjudicator whose cumulative points are high.

The adjudicators will reach their decisions on an individual basis, following which they shall fill in the Adjudication Forms and cast their votes either for the Government or the Opposition.

5.2)

Margin of Victory
Adjudicators must determine, at the conclusion of a debate, whether the overall margin of win/loss separating the teams was (independently of speaker scores) close, clear or a thrashing margin on a scale of 1 to 12. Close win = 1 to 4 points. Clear win = 5 to 8 points. Thrashing = 8 to 12 points. Win/Loss Margins lower than 1 and higher than 12 are not permitted.

In the case of a definitional challenge, the adjudicators will confer and see whether the definition stands or falls, and must in all cases have a unanimous decision, with the margin of victory being the highest possible margin. Any definitional challenge which, the adjudicator is forced to assume, is to trivialize the very idea of the debate should be brought to the notice of the ad-core at the earliest.

 In all cases the majority vote prevails.

Adjudicators will be selected to the next round based on adjudicator evaluation sheets that will be given to the teams after a debate to the teams.

5.3)

Adjudicator Evaluation

Adjudicators will be evaluated by both the proposition and opposition on a scale of 0 to 5. Wherein 5 being the highest. Both the sides will have to evaluate the adjudicator based on the feedback, and in case of abnormal evaluation i.e. Rating 0 or Rating 5. The side penalizing the adjudicator or awarding the same, will have to explain their reasons for doing so.

The Basis of selecting teams for the next round will be: o Number of Victories o Adjudicator Points: All adjudicators will carry 1 point only.

5.4)

Adjudicator Feedback

o After filling the Adjudicating sheets, the adjudicators may discuss the debate and their feedback before announcing the results before the teams, in all open adjudication rounds. In all of these rounds, there will be an open adjudication after the decision for each debate is announced, where adjudicators will give reasons for their respective decision. However, the adjudication sheets will not be shown to debaters or any other participants. The speaker scores or margins of victory cannot be disclosed. They can, however, mention whether the debate was close, clear or thrashing, and who the Best Speaker was.In the event of closed adjudication rounds, the adjudicators will not disclose the result or any aspect of it to the teams, under any circumstance. However, each panelist will give a feedback to the Chair, which should not be disclosed to the other panelist, who will stay out of the room during the feedback.

6. The Grievance Redressal Committee

The Tournament Director will head the grievance redressal committee (GRC). In the unlikely event of unparliamentarily or vindictive behaviour by any team/ team member/ adjudicator or any other team/ team member/ adjudicator from the time the roll call starts for the first round till the start of the finals, any valid complaints can be brought to the GRC in written form and fair action will be taken immediately. However, the word of the Tournament Director is final. And no case filed, can be reopened unless the Tournament Director initiates it.
7. Change of rules

The rules mentioned above are subjected to change under rare circumstances. However, in the event of a change in a rule, or the change in the rule itself, the debaters and adjudicators will be informed from a predetermined venue (to be mentioned at the opening ceremony) for all practical purposes. Till such time, these rules are to be strictly followed.