Constitution of the Asian BP Debating Council

1. Citation and Commencement

1.1. This document should be cited as The Constitution of the Asian BP Debating Council
or The Constitution.

1.2. This Constitution will commence from the 28th of October 2012 upon ratification by a
majority of Institutions present and voting at the Asian BP
Council Meeting of 2012.

2. Definitions

Council refers to the Asian BP Debating Council.

Championship refers to the Asian BP Debating Championships, the flagship

tournament of the Council.
Composite Team a team of participants from more than one institution. The
composition of the team is stable for the duration of the tournament.

"Executive Committee" is the body appointed at the Council Meeting to represent the
Council and is the body authorized to discharge actions on behalf of the Council

over the course of the year.

Host Institution means the institution which has been endorsed by the Council to
host the Championship.

Institution means individual campuses of a body awarding degrees (or their equivalent)
and governed by an administrative body headed by a chancellor and/ or Vice-chancellor
(or similar). Individual faculties which do not have individually awarded degrees or
separate administrative system may not participate as separate institution.

Swing Team means a team formed by the host institution to create an even number of
teams in the draw. The composition of this team is not stable.

Council Meeting is the annual meeting of the Council and is the peak body which
governs the operation of the Asian BP Debating Championship.

Council Session refers to virtual (on-line) sessions of the Council convened to address
matters that arise in between Championships.

3. Purposes and Objectives of the Council

3.1. The purpose of the Council is to provide a platform for Asian institutions to engage

in a fair, transparent and representative debating competition to identify an annual Asian

debating champion.

3.2. T
he objectives of the Council are to:-

3.2.1. e nhance the quality of Asian debating and adjudication;

3.2.2. provide a platform for discussion of topics pertinent to the general interest
of the community and promote a free exchange of ideas on these topics;

3.2.3. p
rovide a platform for interaction between Asian institutions;

3.2.4. p
romote debating interest in Asia; and,

3.2.5. a ssist and monitor the host institution of the Championship.

3.3. The Council operates independently from the United Asian Debating Union (hereafter
referred to as UADU) but aims to cooperate with the UADU in the form of selecting the
regional representative of Asia at the immediate World Universities Debating
Championship.

4. Membership of the Council

4.1. The debating association of any tertiary education institution in Asia is eligible
and has the right to be a member of the Council and to participate in the
championships.

4.2. There will only be one debating association recognized from each

institution. If more than one association seeks membership, the Council will decide
on the eligibility to accord member status.

4.3. Membership for a particular year commences from the date the institution

pays the membership fees and expires on the last date the membership fees for the
following year is due.

4.4. The annual Council membership fee will be set by the Executive Committee on
the basis of its budget, which will be presented to the Council for ratification.

4.5. With respect to the fees in Article 4.4, it will be collected by the
Treasurer upon ratification by the Council.
 4.6 Any institution that is present at the Championship for the current year has the
right to vote in the Council Meetings and Council Sessions for the duration of the
membership, provided the institution has paid the Council membership fee.

4.7 On every substantive motion placed before the Council, Charter A status
institutions will be entitled to cast three (3) votes, Charter B status institutions will
be entitled to cast two (2) votes, Charter C status institutions will be entitled to cast
one (1) vote, with each Charter status defined as:

4.7.1 Charter A institutions participated in three

consecutive Championships of the immediate past (which includes

the Championship for the current year)

4.7.2 Charter B institutions participated in two

consecutive Championships of the immediate past (which includes

the Championship for the current year)

4.7.3 A
ll other member institutions shall be granted Charter C status.

4.7.4 Member institutions are allowed a lapse of one year in the level of their

participation, before their status is downgraded. Any change of status can apply for only
one (1) level per year.

4.8. Hosts institutions shall be granted Charter A status in the year leading up
to and concluding with their hosting of the tournament.

4.9. The Executive Committee shall provide the following years Council budget 2
weeks before the Council Meeting.

5. Meetings of the Council

5.1. The Council will comprise all registered member institutions participating

at the Championship.

5.2. All registered member institutions participating at the Championship

shall select one delegate to represent their institution in the Council.

5.3. Q
uorum for the Council Meeting can be satisfied by the presence of:
5.3.1. Institutions representing more than half of the accumulated votes based on charter
status for registered member institutions in attendance at the Championship; or,

5.3.2. By the presence of more than half of the institutions for registered member

institutions in attendance at the Championship.

5.4. There will be at least two meetings of the Council at each

Championship, one being prior to the preliminary rounds (hereafter referred to as
the preliminary meeting) and one after the completion of the preliminary rounds
and prior to the grand finals (hereafter referred to as the main meeting).

5.5. The preliminary meeting shall determine eligibility disputes or constitutional

disputes which require immediate determination.

5.6. The main meeting shall deal with matters relating to the Constitution, the

election of the Executive Committee for the following year, and the selection of a
host institution for the following 2 years.

5.7. Emergency meetings can also be provided for during the championship, to

cater to constitutional and tournament related issues. Any participant wishing the
Council to discuss an issue of significance should bring it up to the Executive
Committee, who will convene an emergency meeting during a free time (defined as a
time where there is no debate round) in the tournament schedule.

5.8. Motions of the Council must be passed by a simple majority of votes of the

Council.

5.9. Motions which amend the tournament rules must be passed by a simple

majority of votes of the Council.

5.10. Motions which amend the appendices in the constitution must be passed by a
simple majority of votes of the Council.

5.11. Motions which amend the substantive portions of the Constitution must
be passed by two thirds of the votes Council in the first attempt.

5.11.1. In the event that a majority but less than two-thirds of the Council vote in
favour of a Constitutional amendment, a working committee is to be established
which will carry out an independent study of the proposed amendment. The
working committee will present their findings to the Council for the following year
and in the event a majority not amounting to two thirds is again in favour of such
constitutional amendment in the following year, the article in the constitution shall
be amended.

5.12. Proxy votes must be notified to the Secretary at the beginning of the meeting.
 5.13. Each delegate is limited to hold the proxy of only one other institution.

6. Council Sessions

6.1. The Executive Committee is responsible for acting on behalf of the Council in

between Championships and ensuring that all Council member institutions are
informed of the venue and location of any Council Session at least 2 weeks prior to
the actual date of the session.

6.2. Sessions of the Council cannot amend the Constitution, but may amend the

tournament rules and pass directives for the Executive Committee or host
institution.

6.3. nline sessions could be arranged for a variety of motions or any single
O
motion.

6.4. ( Deleted)

6.5. ( Deleted)

6.6. It is the responsibility of the institutions to provide current contact details of

their delegate to the Executive committee.

6.7. A
t the end of 2 weeks, voting will be open for 1 week which will allow

institutions to vote on the proposal. After voting is completed, the Executive

Committee will consider the motion passed, if the session was quorate and a simple
majority was obtained.

6.8. (Deleted)

7. Asian British Parliamentary Debating Executive Committee

7.1. T
he Executive shall be comprised of the officers defined in Appendix A

(Asian British Parliamentary Debating Executive Committee). The roles and

responsibilities as well as the working model for the Executive Committee shall be
as defined in Appendix A.

7.2. To be eligible for election to the Executive Committee, the candidate must be

enrolled as a student or employed as a member of the faculty or staff of a tertiary

institution which is a member of the Council.
 7.3. N
o one person may occupy more than one Executive position at one

time.

7.4. Members of the Executive shall not sit as delegates at the Council meeting.

7.5. Casual vacancies that arise may be filled at a Council Session.

8. Eligibility

8.1. In order to be considered eligible to debate at the Championship, a

debater shall be enrolled in a course of study, leading to a degree, and lasting at least
one academic year at the institution which he or she represents and must be
attending classes, pursuing research or preparing for examinations or graduation
(with the exception of incoming freshmen) at that institution on the last day of term
preceding the tournament. Exchange students who fulfill this criterion in their home
universities are exempted from the fulfilling the requirement for the university they
are on exchange in, and may also represent their exchange universities.

8.2 Competitors shall be recognized by the University debating society or

equivalent, or in the absence of such a body, by the University administration and
must be able to demonstrate their bona fides if called upon to do so by a member of
the host organization.

8.3 Teams from a host institution may debate throughout the tournament as long
as the participants comply with 8.1 and 8.2 and in addition do not hold the following
portfolios in the Championship's organising committee: -

8.3.1. Convenor

8.3.2. Chief Adjudicator

8.3.3. Tournament Director

8.3.4. Assistant/Deputy Chief Adjudicator

8.3.5. Assistant/Deputy Tournament Director

8.3.6. Assistant/Deputy Convenor

8.3.7. Tab Director

In principle, such individuals must have no access to tabulation data and

information relating to debating motions.

8.4. In the event of non-payment of full registration fee an institution shall

8.4.1. Not be eligible to participate in future ABP championships until
payment is settled

8.4.2. At the discretion of the Organizing Committee, be dropped off of tabs

either on the first or second day of preliminary rounds, and be
ineligible to break.
 8.4.3. At the discretion of the Organizing Committee, be denied off of access
to the tournament accommodation.

8.5 Organizing Committee must make a public announcement about the last cut
off dates for teams to pull out of the Championship.

8.5.1. In the event that teams pull out after the cut off date, the
Organizing Committee shall present to Precouncil the teams that did so. The
Organizing Committee together with Precouncil will decide whether the
reasons for pulling out were reasonable. If not, they will decide what is the
necessary punitive measure that should be taken.

9. Bidding process for the Championship

9.1. All Council member institutions are eligible to bid for the hosting of the

Championship (hereafter referred to as bidding institutions).

9.2. Bidding institutions must indicate their interest to the Executive Committee

at least two weeks before the Council Meeting of the Championship in which they
intend to bid.

9.3. The bidding will be opened by the Council at the Council Meeting of a

Championship for the Championship to be held in 2 years time.

9.4. Bids must contain proposed Convenor, Chief Adjudicator, Tournament

Director and details pertaining to every aspect of a tournament.

9.5. Council may impose conditions on bids to be made tabled and passed by

simple majority in Council Meeting. The Executive Committee is responsible for

ensuring compliance.

9.6. Bids shall be presented to the Council in a sequence determined by a coin toss
for a duration determined by the Council at the meeting. This will be followed by a
question and answer session, where Council members will be allowed to obtain
further details from the host on any aspect of the bid.

9.7. Upon completion of listening to all the bids, members of the Council will vote
to award the Championship to a single institution. This will be determined by a
simple majority. If a simple majority is not obtained after a round of voting, the
member tallying the least votes will be eliminated from the bidding group, and the
voting shall be performed, until there emerges one winner with a simple majority.

9.8. Any changes to agreed-upon criteria of hosting during the course of the two
years need Council authorization which is to be obtained in a Council Session.
 9.9. All awarded Championship bids will be subject to scrutiny at the Championship
meeting immediately prior to the year of their being hosted.

9.9.1. The Council may reject this bid, under extraordinary circumstances,
with a two thirds majority, but, only after exhausting every possible effort in
providing assistance to the host if required, and after exhausting every
possible effort to reach reconciliation on (if any) contentious issues.

9.9.2. Bidding will be opened for the next year to any member of the Council
at that Council meeting. In the absence of any prospective bidder,
prospective institutions will be asked to contact the Executive Committee as
soon as they can with their bid details, and an online session will be held to
approve the bid.

9.10. In case of non-compliance to the defined standards in this Constitution

and the rule book by the host, the Council retains the power to gauge impact
of the non-compliance on the participants, and, based on that assessment
take punitive action. This action can range from censure of the host, to a two
year ban of the host from participating at future Championships. This will
require a two thirds majority vote at a Council Meeting, and will only be
applicable for the Championships to be held in the immediate future and not
at the Championship where the Council Meeting is convened.

10. D
ebating

10.1. All debates shall be contested between four teams; namely an Opening
Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government and Closing Opposition, and
will follow the debating rules as identified in the Tournament Rules of the World
Universities Debating Championship (hereafter referred to as the Tournament
Rules).

10.2. There shall be 2 categories in the tournament

10.2.1. A
n Open category for all participants

10.2.2. A category for institutions that are assigned an "English as a Foreign

Language" status

10.3. There shall be 3 series of debating. A preliminary series of at least 6 rounds in

which all registered teams in the tournament will be allowed to debate, and a finals
series of rounds which shall comprise the top 24 ranked teams as determined by the
preliminary series. In addition at least the top 8 ranked English as Foreign Language
teams, not ranked in the teams debating in the final series, will debate in an "English
 as a Foreign Language" finals series. The draws for each round should be formed
based on guidelines provided in the Tournament Rules.

10.4. Teams ranked in the top 24 for the final series must meet the following
criteria:

10.4.1. All debating members of the team must be eligible as per Article 8.1
and the team should represent that institution. Composite and Swing teams
will not be allowed to participate in, or break into, the finals series

10.4.2. No debating member must have debated in more than 5 previous

Championships

10.5. The number of breaking teams from an institution is capped to the top 5
ranking teams.

10.6. A
designated "English as a Foreign language" team can be declared

ineligible for the break in spite of being ranked in the top 8 (or more as defined by
the host) of the "English as a Foreign language" teams if the team broke into the
finals series.

10.7. In the event of a team being declared ineligible for either of the two finals
series, the next highest ranked team from the draw at the end of the preliminary
series shall be pulled up to complete the group of 24 / 8 (or more for the English as
a Foreign language series) in the next available slot.

10.8. The finals series shall be in the form of a knock-out as defined in the
Tournament Rules and the winner shall be crowned the Asian British Parliamentary
Debating Champion.

10.9. The "English as a Foreign Language" series will be in the form of a knock-out
as defined in the Tournament Rules and the winner shall be crowned the
Asian British Parliamentary - "English as a Foreign Language" Debating
Champion.

11. Adjudication Core

11.1. The Adjudication Core must comprise of a Chief Adjudicator (hereafter

referred to as the CA) and a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4 Deputy Chief
Adjudicators (hereafter referred to as DCAs).

11.2. The CA shall be appointed at the discretion of the hosting institution whilst the
remaining DCAs shall be elected by the Council.
 11.3. The Council may only disqualify the appointment of the CA if he/she does not
meet the criteria of appointment, which are:

11.3.1. that he/she must have broken as a debater/adjudicator at the

Championship, the United Asian Debating Championship, the Australasian

Intervarsity Debating Championship, or the World Universities Debating
Championship within the last two years (Amended)

11.3.2. that he/she must not have been a member of the

Adjudication Core of the Championship within the last two years

11.4. Two DCAs cannot represent the same country.

11.4.1. A DCA can choose which country he/she represents as long as

he/she has debated or adjudicated (at the Championship, the United Asian
Debating Championship, the Australasian Intervarsity Debating
Championships, or the World Debating Championships) for an institution
(while studying in the institution) of that country, or, is currently a registered
full-time student in an institution of that country.

11.5. The members of the Adjudication Core may not be used to fill the N-rule
requirement for any institution.

12. Adjudication

12.1. Adjudication accreditation, grading and tabulation rules are defined in the
Tournament Rules. The key principles and methodologies are provided here.

12.2. All adjudicators will be assessed and graded before and during the preliminary
rounds, and the results of this assessment will be used to determine who is ranked
as an adjudicator or as a trainee during the course of the preliminary rounds.

12.2.1. An adjudicator can officially judge a round, while a trainee cannot

participate in the determination of a result of a round but can provide

feedback to an adjudicator or teams on his/her evaluation of the debate.

12.3. T
he adjudicators will be assessed and graded on the basis of two components:-

12.3.1. An anonymous written test which will require written

evaluation of a taped or live debate, as well as, set of questions relating to
hypothetical debating scenarios.

12.3.2. Consolidated feedback obtained from panelists, chairs and the teams
they adjudicate for each round they adjudicate
 12.4. The top 24 graded adjudicators will break to adjudicate the finals series of
both the main category and the English as Foreign Language category.. There will
be no exceptions to this rule. The subsequent top 4 graded adjudicators will break as
reserve adjudicators.

12.5. (Deleted)

13. R
esponsibilities of the Host Institution

13.1. The host institution must appoint a Convenor, a Chief Adjudicator, a

Tournament Director, a Treasurer, a Participant Liaison Officer (or Participant
Liaison Officers), Tournament Equity Officer and as many other officers as deemed
appropriate to conduct the organisation of the Championship. The roles and
responsibilities for these officials are provided in Appendix D.

13.2 The Council shall have capacity to consent over decisions made by the host
institution if it materially differs from the promises disclosed during the bid of the
Championship.

14. Conflicts of Interest

14.1. All participants at Council accredited tournaments will comply with the following
code of Conduct.

14.1.1. C
onflicts are defined as, but not limited to:

14.1.1.1. adjudicating debaters from an institution in which the

Adjudicator has debated or adjudicated for in the present or past;

14.1.1.2. adjudicating debaters who either is or were in a legal or

otherwise intimate relationship with the adjudicator or,

14.1.1.3. adjudicating institutions with which the Adjudicator has a

professional relationship. For the purposes of this policy, this is
defined as being an employee or expecting to receive/having received
remuneration from the institution in the last year in any capacity,
including as a lecturer, tutor, debating coach or a trainer.

14.1.2. I t is the responsibility of the Adjudicators and Teams to:

14.1.2.1. alert the Tournament Organising Committee of any potential

conflicts; and,
 14.1.2.2. remind the Adjudication Core of any conflicts which concern
the institutions present at the tournament.

14.1.3. I t is the responsibility of the Adjudication Core to:

14.1.3.1. be aware of conflicts as notified by the Tournament

Organising Committee or by the relevant Adjudicator; and,

14.1.3.2. not allocate debates to an Adjudicator who is likely to be

compromised by a conflict with an institution.

14.1.4. It is the responsibility of the Tournament Organising Committee

to:

14.1.4.1. ensure conflicts are updated on the database

promptly.

14.1.4.2. provide a form to all teams and adjudicators to register

conflicts of interests prior to the commencement of the first round of
debates.

15. Code of Conduct

15.1. All participants at Council accredited tournaments will comply with the
following code of Conduct.

15.1.1. D
ebaters will:

15.1.1.1. t reat the occasion, each other, and the adjudicators with
respect;

15.1.1.2. respect the rules of the competition; and,

15.1.1.3. accept the adjudicators decision.

15.1.2. D
ebaters will not:

15.1.2.1. disrupt or distract from another debaters speech or the

adjudicators comments;

15.1.2.2. use offensive language or behaviour;

15.1.2.3. make denigrating comments on the basis of age, culture,

gender, race, sexuality, disability, religion, family; or
 15.1.2.4. harass their opponents or the adjudicator.

15.1.3. A
djudicators will:

15.1.3.1. treat the debate in a formal and professional manner;

15.1.3.2. limit their adjudications to a reasonable length, and make

constructive comments to assist the debaters; and,

15.1.3.3. be sensitive when commenting upon physical or

physiological disabilities.

15.1.4. A
djudicators will not:

15.1.4.1. a llow bias or personal knowledge to influence their

decisions.

15.1.5. O
bservers will:

15.1.5.1. hear the speakers in reasonable silence;

15.1.5.2. encourage and foster a spirit of fair play and good

sport; and,

15.1.5.3. request and receive permission from both teams, and

the adjudicator before recording any debate in whole or part.

15.1.6. O
bservers will not:

15.1.6.1. harass debaters and adjudicators before, during or

after the debate.

16. R
eview of the decisions of the Executive Committee

16.1. Any delegate may request that any decision of the Executive Committee should
be reviewed by the Council.

16.2. The Council may amend, vary or substitute any decision of the
Executive Committee with at least two-thirds majority.

APPENDIX A- Asian British Parliamentary Debating Executive Committee

1. Duties and Functions of the Executive Committee

1.1. There shall be an Asian British Parliamentary Debating Executive Committee.

1.2. The committee shall carry out administrative tasks for the Asian British

Parliamentary Debating Council. These tasks include but are not limited to developing the
British Parliamentary debating in Asia and distributing debate related information to the
Council's institutions. The Executive Committee shall carry out the following duties:

1.2.1. Establish and maintain an Asian British Parliamentary Debating Council

Website.

1.2.2. Coordinate and conduct the Council meetings and sessions according to

the guidelines specified in the Constitution.

1.2.3. Establish the website as a center of information exchange concerning the

upcoming Championships, rules of the tournament, training information, records of

participation from universities and individuals at each tournament, Constitution of
the Council, minutes from Council Meetings, and records of all important matters
brought to the attention of the Executive Committee.

1.2.4. Collect and maintain registration information, debating results, adjudicator

rankings and test results from the host institution.

1.2.5. Maintain and review the rules of the tournament to ensure consistency

with the evolution of debating styles and adjudication principles.

1.2.6. Provide recommendations to the Council on significant issues based on

Executive Committee meetings or discussions with members of the debating

community.

1.2.7. Assist in inviting universities to the tournament and provide information

and advice to new institutions in establishing their debate societies

1.2.8. Develop the level of adjudication by involving alumni in conducting

periodic adjudication seminars

1.2.9. To provide a year-end report to the Council regarding the discharge of the

duties of the members of the Executive Committee as described in item 8.

2. Decision Making Power of the Executive Committee

 2.1. The Executive Committee shall execute decisions for the Council. The Executive
Committee shall make decisions relevant to the discharge of its
duties.

3. Composition of the Executive Committee

3.1. The executive committee shall be composed of the following office

holders : -
3.1.1. Chair
3.1.2. Secretary
3.1.3. Treasurer
3.1.4. Equity Officer
3.1.5. Communications Officer
3.1.6. Adjudication Officer
3.1.7. Publications Officer
3.1.8. Tournament Oversight Officer
3.1.9. Training Officer

4. Executive Committee Election Procedure

4.1. The Council shall appoint a returning officer. The returning officer should not
be a candidate for any position.

4.2. C
andidates must be nominated for election by two delegates.

4.3. Candidates will be allowed to make an election speech of two minutes

duration each.

4.4. A
secret ballot shall be conducted.

4.5. Election to office shall be determined by a relative majority (highest vote

getter) where the position is contested. In the case of a tie, a coin toss
conducted by the returning officer will determine the successful candidate.

5. Tenure of Office

5.1. All members in the Executive Committee shall hold office for one full year. No

individual should serve more than two terms in the Executive Committee in total.

5.2. Elected members of the Executive Committee shall assume office after one week

following the elections.

5.3. In cases of resignation or vacancy of office, any person nominated to assume a

vacated office, following the provisions of Item 10, shall hold office
only for the remaining period of the predecessor officer.

6. Duties of the members of the Executive Committee

6.1. T
he Chair will:

6.1.1. Chair the Council Meeting;

6.1.2. Act as a representative for the Council;

6.1.3. Co-ordinate the activities of the Executive Committee;

6.1.4. Submit a report to the Council providing an overview of the

activities of the Executive Committee and the Council;

6.1.5. Be a signatory to the Councils bank account; and,

6.1.6. Appoint a temporary Secretary among the members of the

Executive Committee if the Secretary decides to vacate or is removed from

office. The temporary Secretary will complete the duties as outlined in 6.3
until a replacement is determined by the Executive Committee and
confirmed by a Council Session.

6.2. T
he Secretary will:

6.2.1. Hold a current version of the Constitution and distribute it to

members when requested to do so;

6.2.2. Record and hold the minutes of the Council Meetings as well as any

meeting related to the Council;

6.2.3. Distribute minutes of the Council Meetings and Sessions to all

Council members no later than one month after the final date of the relevant
tournament;

6.2.4. Distribute an updated copy of the Constitution within one month of

any change;

6.2.5. Pass on to the next Secretary all Council records in their

keeping;

6.2.6. Coordinate correspondence between the Executive Committee

and the Council members; and,

 6.2.7. Keep a register of member institutions which contains the name

and contact address of each member institution.

6.3. T
he Treasurer will:

6.3.1. Hold all financial records of the Council;

6.3.2. Maintain a bank account in the name of the Council and deposit all

monies received into this account;

6.3.3. Keep the accounts of the Council including registration fees

paid;

6.3.4. Present a financial statement to the Council at the main Council

Meeting of all revenue and expenditure of the Council including

receipts and invoices;

6.3.5. Be a signatory to the Councils bank account; and,

6.3.6. Ensure that all expenditure is authorized by the Chair.

6.4. T
he Equity Officer will:

6.4.1. Ensure minority groups will be able to provide input into the

decision making structures of the Council;

6.4.2. Suggest and implement debate and adjudication initiatives that

address concerns and needs of minority groups;

6.4.3. Investigate issues relating to discrimination in Council activities,

including the Championship; and,

6.4.4. Be able to convene sessions to address these issues and if required,

present the Council with necessary motions to sanction associated parties.

6.5. T
he Communications Officer will:

6.5.1. Maintain the website of the Council and administer the online

forum and mailing group;

6.5.2. Will provide website support for tournaments held by any

institution in the region; and,

 6.5.3. Will provide video debate support to distribute copies of debates

to the member community.

6.6. T
he Adjudication Officer will:

6.6.1. Own the debater and adjudicator tabulation rules and evaluate any

proposals for change;

6.6.2. Own the definition of the adjudicator accreditation process and

evaluate any proposals for change

6.6.3. Consolidate the database of all past adjudication accreditation

results / rankings obtained by all adjudicators at past Championships;

6.6.4. Work with adjudication representatives of other

tournaments to adopt best practices where applicable.

6.7. T
he Publications Officer will:

6.7.1. Gather, consolidate and provide content for the online debating

information database;

6.7.2. Co-ordinate the distribution of debate related hard and soft

paraphernalia to institutions from all Asian regions; and,

6.7.3. Solicit contributions from alumni and current participants

for periodic debate/adjudication articles.

6.8. T
he Tournament Oversight Officer will:

6.8.1. Advise the Organising Committee for all key processes of

tournament hosting, including but not limited to the provision of accommodation,

conduct of socials events, interaction with participants, registration process & fee,
selection of adjudication core, tabulation processes, and public post-tournament
review;

6.8.2. Provide details of the expectation of minimum standards for each

process on the Councils website; and,

6.8.3. Solicit reviews from participants to gauge whether the requirements

are met.

6.9. T
he Training Officer will:
 6.9.1. Provide resources for debating and adjudication initiatives in the

region;

6.9.2. Plan, develop and execute British Parliamentary debating and

adjudication trainings for Councils member institutions whenever deemed

necessary; and,

6.9.3. Solicit reviews from participants to gauge whether training

objectives and requirements are met.

7. Vacancy of Office

7.1. The Executive Committee shall be responsible for nominating to the Council a

replacement for any vacant post.

7.2. Such nomination shall be based on the recommendation of the vacating member. A
vacating member of the Executive Committee shall make several recommendations upon
which the remaining members of the Executive Committee shall vote to determine such
replacement. A vote of simple majority of all members shall determine such replacement.

7.3. The remaining members of the Executive Committee may disregard the

recommendations of the vacating member through a vote of simple majority by the

remaining committee members.

7.4. Any replacement as approved by the Executive Committee shall act only in acting

capacity until confirmed by the Council through an online vote.

7.5. A
ny replacement must be confirmed within six months following the

selection made by the Executive Committee otherwise the replacement shall be deemed as
confirmed.
7.6. A vote of simple majority of the Council is required for confirmation.

8. Removal of Elected Members of the Executive Committee

8.1. The following shall constitute as grounds for the removal of any elected officer in the
Executive Committee:

8.1.1. Failure to implement the decisions made by the Council;

8.1.2. Withholding of information requested by the Council or by members

of the Executive Committee or by members of the organizing

committee of the host institution wherein such information is
necessary for the fulfillment of their respective duties upon which
 such failure proved to be detrimental to the Council;

8.1.3. Dereliction of duties as enumerated in item 6;

8.1.4. Falsification and distortion of any records held by the

Executive Committee;
8.1.5. S pread of false information;

8.1.6. Misappropriation of funds, fraudulent record keeping and

disbursements of funds without the proper approval of the Executive Committee;

8.1.7. Using the name of the Executive Committee without

Authorization;

8.1.8. Acting or behaving in a manner likely to endanger the competition,

the administration of the tournament, or host institution; and,

8.1.9. Violation of rules regarding the qualification, eligibility, decorum or

preparation for a debate.

8.2. A written complaint must be filed before the Executive Committee addressed to the

Chair and the Secretary of the Executive Committee, expressly stating the request for
removal of the officer. (What happens if against chair)

8.3. When a complaint is made against the Chair, a written complaint must be filed before
the Executive Committee addressed to the other members of the Executive Committee.

8.4. The Executive Committee shall give a written notice to the officer cited
in the written complaint.

8.5. The Executive Committee shall determine the validity of the complaint by discussion
and a simple majority. The complaint shall be forwarded to a Council Session with the
Executive Committees recommendation. The defenses of officer cited in the written
complaint must be attached to the files forwarded to the Council Session.

8.6. All official representatives in the Council shall cast their vote under the model

defined by the Constitution of the Council.

8.7. A vote to remove a member of the Executive Committee shall require

two thirds vote of the Council.

APPENDIX B - Qualification as an English as a Foreign Language or an English as a

Second Language speaker
1. For the purposes of classifying speakers of the Championship as either an English as

a Foreign Language (hereafter referred to as EFL) speaker or an English as a Second

Language (hereafter referred to as ESL) speaker, the Language Review Officers shall
evaluate whether all applicants have complied with the listed criteria in Appendix B.

2. The purposes of the qualifications are as follows:

2.1 Speakers who qualify as EFL speakers, if they compose the same team, shall be

eligible to break under the EFL final series of the Championship

2.2 Speakers who qualify as ESL speakers are granted recognition by this Council of their
qualification.

3. The criteria for qualification as either EFL or ESL speaker are as follows:

3.1 Speakers qualify as EFL when they:

3.1.1 Do not come from an English language speaking family,

3.1.2 Their social interactions have not primary been in English,

and

3.1.3 They have not spent a majority of two periods or more of their
primary, secondary, or tertiary education in an education system where
English is the language of command.

3.2 An appendix consisting of working guidelines for committee procedures, a list of

countries where English is the primary medium of exchange and a list of institutions which
use English as their primary medium of instruction will be maintained for continuity.

3.3 A consistent classification of speakers should be maintained throughout the

Championship.

APPENDIX C - Tournament Rules

Chapter 1 - Structure of a debating round

1. The format of the debate

1.1 The debate will consist of four teams of two persons (persons will be known as
"members"), a chairperson (known as the "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame
Speaker" and an adjudicator or panel of adjudicators.

1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:

1.3 Members will deliver substantive speeches in the following order:

(1) Prime Minister;
(2) Opposition Leader;

(3) Deputy Prime Minister;

(4) Deputy Opposition Leader;
(5) Member for the Government;
(6) Member for the Opposition;
(7) Government Whip;
(8) Opposition Whip.

1.3.1 Opening Government consists of the "Prime Minister" or "First Government

member" and "Deputy Prime Minister" or "Second Government member";

1.3.2 Opening Opposition consists of the "Leader of the Opposition" or "First Opposition
member" and "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or "Second Opposition member";

1.3.3 Closing Government consists of the "Member for the Government" or "Third

Government member" and "Government Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member";

1.3.4 Closing Opposition consists of the "Member for the Opposition" or "Third Opposition
member" and "Opposition Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member".

1.4 Members will deliver a substantive speech of seven minutes duration and should offer
points of information while members of the opposing teams are speaking.

2. The Motion

2.1 The motion should be unambiguously worded.

2.2 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.

3. Preparation
3.1 The debate should commence 15 minutes after the motion is announced.

3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting time
for that debate.

3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and
during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers and other similar
materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and in the
debate.

4. Points of Information

4.1 Points of Information (questions directed to the member speaking) may be asked
between first minute mark and the six-minute mark of the members speeches (speeches
are of seven minutes duration).

4.2 To ask a Point of Information, the member may announce that they would like to ask a
"Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.

4.3 T
he member who is speaking may accept or decline to answer the Point of Information.

4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.

4.5 The member who is speaking may ask the person offering the Point of Information to
sit down where the offeror has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.

4.6 (Deleted)

4.7 P
oints of Information should be assessed in accordance with clause 3.3.4 of these rules.

4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.

5. Timing of the speeches

5.1 Speeches should be seven minutes in duration (this should be signaled by two strikes
of the gavel). Speeches over seven minutes and 15 seconds may be penalised.

5.2 Points of Information may only be offered between the first minute mark and the six
minute mark of the speech (this period should be signaled by one strike of the gavel at the
first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).
5.3 (Deleted)

5.4 It is the duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.
(Amended)

6. The Adjudication

6.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is
possible.

6.2 At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators should confer and rank the teams,
from first placed to last placed.

6.3 There will be verbal adjudication of the debate after the first six preliminary rounds of
the tournament.

Chapter 2 - Definitions

7. The definition

7.1 The definition should state the issue (or issues) for debate arising out of the motion and
state the meaning of any terms in the motion, which require interpretation.

7.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.

7.3 The definition must:

7.3.1 have a clear and logical link to the motion - this means that an average
reasonable person would accept the link made by the member between the
motion and the definition (where there is no such link the definition is
sometimes referred to as a "squirrel");

7.3.2 not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving when the case is that

something should or should not be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A

definition is may also be self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs
exists or does not exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are
sometimes referred to as "truisms").

7.3.3 not be time set - this means that the debate must take place in the present

and that the definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and

7.3.4 not be place set unfairly - this means that the definition cannot restrict the
debate so narrowly to a particular geographical or political location that a
 participant of the tournament could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge
of the place.

8. Challenging the definition

8.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates clause 7.3 of
these rules. The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging
the definition.
8.2 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after
challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.

9. Assessing the definitional challenge

9.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where it violates
clause 7.3 of these rules.

9.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members asserting
that the definition is unreasonable.

9.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative
definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is reasonable (Amended)

9.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative
definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce
matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and
consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition.

9.5 If the Opening Opposition has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable, the
Closing Government may challenge the definition of the Opening Opposition and substitute
an alternative definition.

9.6 If the Closing Government has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable (in
addition to the unreasonable definitions of the Opening Government and Opening
Opposition, the Closing Opposition may challenge the definition of the Closing Government
and substitute an alternative definition.

Chapter 3 - Matter

10. The definition of matter

10.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or
her case and persuade the audience.
10.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other
material that attempts to further the case.

10.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments

specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points
of Information.

11. The elements of matter

11.1 Matter should be relevant, logical and consistent.

11.2 Matter should be relevant. It should relate to the issues of the debate: positive
material should support the case being presented and rebuttal should refute the material
being presented by the opposing team(s). The Member should appropriately prioritise and
apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.

11.3 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear
and well reasoned and therefore plausible. The conclusion of all arguments should support
the members case.

11.4 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is
consistent within their speech, their team and the remainder of the members on their side
of the debate (subject to clauses 2.3.4, 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 of these rules).

11.5 All Members should present positive matter (except the final two members in the
debate) and all members should present rebuttal (except the first member in the debate).
The Government Whip may choose to present positive matter.

11.6 All Members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their
own speech and offer points of information during opposing speeches.

12. Assessing matter

12.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. The elements of matter should assist an
adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness and credibility of the matter presented.

12.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person.
Adjudicators should analyse the matter presented and assess its persuasiveness, while
disregarding any specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.
12.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not
be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual
preference, age, social status or disability.

12.4 Points of information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the
persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the
member offering the point of information.

Part 4 Manner

13. The definition of manner

13.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to
further his or her case and persuade the audience.

13.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Some, but not all, of these elements
are listed below.

14. The elements of style

14.1 The elements of style include eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures, language,
the use of notes and any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the
presentation of the member.

14.2 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it allows the
member to appear more sincere.

14.3 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the
debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This
includes the pitch, tone, and volume of the members voice and the use of pauses.

14.4 Hand gestures will generally assist a member to emphasise important arguments.
Excessive hand movements may however be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the
audience to the arguments.

14.5 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language which is too
verbose or confusing may detract from the argument if they lose the attention of the
audience.

14.6 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely on
their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.
15. The elements of structure

15.1 The elements of structure include the structure of the speech of the member and the
structure of the speech of the team.

15.2 The matter of the speech of each member must be structured. The member should
organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation. The
substantive speech of each members should:

15.2.1 i nclude: an introduction, conclusion and a series of arguments; and

15.2.2 be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations and the need to

prioritise and apportion time to matter.

15.3 The matter of the team must be structured. The team should organise their matter to
improve the effectiveness of their presentation. The team should:

15.3.1 c ontain a consistent approach to the issues being debated; and

15.3.2 allocate positive matter to each member where both members of the team
are introducing positive matter;

16. Assessing manner

16.1 Adjudicators should assess the elements of manner together in order to determine the
overall effectiveness of the members presentation. Adjudicators should assess whether the
members presentation is assisted or diminished by their manner.

16.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles
which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member simply
because the manner would be deemed inappropriate Parliamentary debating in their own
country.

16.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not
be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language
(subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preference, age, social status or disability.

Chapter 5 - Adjudication

17. The role of the adjudicator

17.1 The adjudicator must:

 17.1.1 Confer upon and discuss the debate with the other adjudicators;

17.1.2 Determine the rankings of the teams;

17.1.3 (Deleted)

17.1.4 Determine the speaker marks;

17.1.5 Provide a verbal adjudication to the members; and

17.1.6 Complete any documentation required by the tournament.

17.2 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the adjudication of the debate.
Adjudicators should therefore confer in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect

17.3 Adjudicators should acknowledge that adjudicators on a panel may form different or
opposite views of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore attempt to base their
conclusions on these rules in order to limit subjectivity and to provide a consistent
approach to the assessment of debates.

18. Ranking teams

18.1 Teams should be ranked from first place to last place. First placed teams should be
awarded three points, second placed teams should be awarded two points, third placed
teams should be awarded one point and fourth placed teams should be awarded zero
points.

18.2 Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive at the debate more than
five minutes after the scheduled time for debate.

18.3 (Deleted)

18.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings. Where a unanimous decision cannot
be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the rankings. Where
a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine
the rankings.

19. Marking the members

19.1 Speaker points should be given the following interpretation:

 Marks Meaning
90-100 Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech you would expect to see from a
speaker at the Semi Final / Grand Final level of the tournament. This speaker has many
strengths and few, if any, weaknesses.

80-89 Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a speaker at
the finals level or in contention to make to the finals. This speaker has clear strengths and
some minor weaknesses.
70-79 Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly equal proportions.

60-69 Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor strengths.

50-59 Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

20. Verbal adjudications

20.1 At the conclusion of the conferral, the adjudication panel should provide a verbal
adjudication of the debate.

20.2 The verbal adjudication should be delivered by the Chair of the adjudication panel, or
where the Chair dissents, by a member of the adjudication panel nominated by the Chair of
the panel.

20.3 The verbal adjudication should:

20.3.1 Identify the order in which the teams were ranked

20.3.2 Explain the reasons for the rankings of team, ensuring that each team is
referred to in this explanation; and

20.3.3 Provide constructive comments to individual members where the

adjudication panel believes this is necessary.

20.4 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes

20.5 T
he members must not harass the adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.

20.6 The members may approach an adjudicator for further clarification following the
verbal adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite and non-confrontational.
20.7 (Deleted)

20.8 T
he members must not harass the adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.

20.9 (Deleted)

APPENDIX D - Roles and responsibilities of host organizing committee

1. The host institution must appoint a Convenor, a Chief Adjudicator, a Tournament

Director, a Treasurer, a Participant Liaison Officer (or Participant Liaison Officers),

Tournament Equity Officer and as many other officers as deemed appropriate to conduct
the organisation of the Championship.

2. The Convenor:

2.1. i s the chief administrative officer of the Championship;

2.2. must ensure that all parts of this Constitution and rule are complied with in

the organization and conduct of the tournament;

2.3. must attend the main Council meeting of the tournament at which he
or she is the Convenor;

2.4. must submit a report to the main Council meeting of the tournament which

may include recommendations for future Championships;

2.5. m
ust provide the next host of the tournament (or any other Council

tournament where specifically requested) with a list of universities which attended

the tournament and their contact details;

2.6. shall consult the Tournament Director and Tournament Equity Officer on the

content of briefings and publications; and;

2.7. shall ensure that, prior to registration, all participants must acknowledge

having read and agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct.

2.8. In the event that tap water is not drinkable, must allocate budget for drinking
water for the participants throughout the tournament.

3. The Adjudication Core:

3.1. must provide at least one seminar which comprehensively covers the rules of
debate and the guidelines for adjudication;

3.2. must conduct, grade and provide results for the adjudication test which will be
based on a taped or live debate. They need to provide guidelines for approaching the
test to adjudicators before the test is conducted.

3.3. must allocate adjudicators to debate for the preliminary rounds as defined by
the tabulation rules in the tournament rule book;

3.4. m
ust deal with any adjudication related complaints;

3.5. must set up the motions for the rounds in accordance with the guidelines

provided in the tournament rulebook;

3.6. must set up a Shadow Adjudication Core (of not more than three individuals),
that adjudicators can approach to have their test grade re-evaluated.

3.6.1. The Shadow Adjudication Core, must reach consensus on whether

to retain or upgrade the adjudicator's test score. The anonymity of the

appeals process should be maintained by channeling all appeals on the
adjudication test through a third party, independent of the shadow
adjudication core.

3.6.2. The Shadow Adjudication Core can increase the appealing

adjudicators test score by up to two (2) points. Once reviewed, this new
adjudication grade will be retained, and the old one cannot be reverted to.

3.6.3. The re-evaluation must occur before the third preliminary round of

debate commences.

3.6.4. The Shadow Adjudication Core will be disbanded after the third

round of debate,

3.6.5. The Shadow Adjudication Core must attend the main Council
meeting.

3.7. T
he Tournament Director:

3.7.1. must ensure that the debater-adjudicator ratio prescribed in the

Tournament Rules book is adhered to by all institutions. The Tournament

Director shall table this information at the preliminary meeting. The Council
can then gauge the extent of participation of teams from these institutions in
the finals series of the tournament.
 3.7.2. must tabulate the results from all preliminary rounds in accordance

with the Tournament Rules;

3.7.3. must rank all teams after the preliminary rounds and set the finals

draw in accordance with the Tournament Rules;

3.7.4. must rank speakers for the purpose of best speaker awards in

accordance with the Tournament Rules;

3.7.5. must rank adjudicators according to their grades and tabulate their

feedback during the preliminary rounds in order to assist the

Adjudication Core with the adjudicator allocation in accordance with the

Tournament Rules;

3.7.6. must attend the main Council Meeting of the tournament at which he

or she is Tournament Director and circulate a list of the top 32 teams with their
total number of wins at that meeting; and,

3.7.7. must provide institutions with their results sheet after the

Tournament.

3.8. T
he Treasurer:

3.8.1. must record all income and expenditure through the issue and

acquisition of receipts;

3.8.2. must provide the Executive Committee with a financial statement of

income and expenditures for the Championship with 6 months of the

conclusion of the tournament;

3.8.3. must table the financial statement of income and expenditure at the

following Council Meeting of that particular tournament;

3.8.4. must ensure that all participants are required to pay the same

registration amount;

3.8.5. must ensure that the surplus of the previous years Championship is

in the current organizing committees possession; and,

3.8.6. must ensure that the surplus of the current Championship (which

they are organizing) is passed on to the next Championships Treasurer.

3.9. T
he Participant Liaison Officer:
 3.9.1. must be available so that participants may express any concerns that

they may have; and,

3.9.2. must bring these concerns to the attention of the Disputes Tribunal

where the behavior of a participant or participants allegedly contravenes the

Code of Conduct.

3.10. The Tournament Equity Officer

3.10.1. must ensure that the local laws relating to sexual harassment and

sexual assault are published in the tournament handbook; and,

3.10.2. must conduct a presentation on sexual harassment and sexual

assault at the first briefing of the tournament.

3.11. The Disputes Tribunal Team (Previously known as Equity Appeal team)

3.11.1. Consists of a member of the Adjudication Core, a member of the

Organizing Committee, a member of the Council Executive Committee, a
member of the Tournament Equity Team, and another individual not a member
of the previously mentioned categories.

3.11.2. Reviews any decisions made by the Tournament Equity Team.

3.11.3. Handles appeal cases once the Tournament Equity Team has made a
decision. They handle appeals during the tournament and before the next ABP.
Decisions made by the Disputes Tribunal Team are irreversible.

3.11.4. In order for the Tournament Equity Team to reverse or revoke a

decision, they need the approval of the Disputes Tribunal Team.

3.12. The host institution must submit a financial income and expenditure statement
to the Chair or Treasurer of the Council within 6 months of the completion of the
tournament.

3.12.1. The financial statement should be accompanied by receipts for all

expenditures.

3.12.2. The host institution should table financial statement at the following

Council Meeting of the particular tournament.

3.12.3. It is the duty of the Treasurer and Convenor to ensure compliance

with this requirement.

3.13. The host institution shall forward all surplus monies to the next host of the
Championship, or where a host has not been selected, to the Treasurer of the Council.

3.13.1. Officers of the Championship may be reimbursed only where

they provide receipt for their expenditures or otherwise verify expenditures by

statutory declaration.

3.13.2. Under no circumstances may anyone associated with the

organization of the tournament receive a dividend from the Championship.

3.13.3. It is the duty of the Treasurer and Convenor to ensure compliance

with this requirement.

3.14. The host can cap the number of teams from an institution to a minimum of three
teams per institution if required. There is no maximum limit.