A Guide to Parliamentary Debate: the Rules of

Parliamentary Debate
Section Contents
Introduction
Order and Timing of Speeches
New Arguments
Points of Information
Points of Order
Points of Personal Privilege
Cases and Resolutions
Tight Cases and Tautologies
Specific Knowledge Cases
Time/Space Cases
Cases and Casing
Counter-Cases

Introduction
A debate round has two teams with two debaters each and a Speaker. The Speaker serves as both the
judge and arbiter of the rules during the round. Note here that "Speaker" always refers to the judge from
this point forward. One team represents the Government, while the other represents the Opposition. The
Government team is composed of a Prime Minister, who speaks twice, and a Member of Government, who
speaks once. The Opposition team is composed of a Leader of the Opposition, who speaks twice, and a
Member of the Opposition, who speaks once. The Government proposes a specific case statement, which
the government team must demonstrate to be correct. The Opposition does not have to propose anything,
but must demonstrate that the case statement is not correct. The Speaker decides at the end of the round,
based on the arguments made in the round, whether the Government has proved its case or whether the
Opposition has disproved it. The team which met its burden more convincingly wins.

Order and Timing of Speeches

Prime Minister Constructive (PMC): 7 minutes
Leader of the Opposition Constructive (LOC): 8 minutes
Member of the Government Constructive (MG or MGC): 8 minutes
Member of the Opposition Constructive (MO or MOC): 8 minutes
Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR): 4 minutes
Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR): 5 minutes

Note: Each speech has a thirty second grace period.

New Arguments
New arguments can be made at any time during the first four speeches. These speeches are called
constructives. New arguments cannot be made during rebuttals, the last two speeches of the round. The
Prime Minister can, however, respond to new opposition arguments that were made during the MO. So the
PMR may contain new responses, but not new arguments.

Points of Information

During the PMC, LOC, MG, MO debaters may rise to ask the debater who is speaking a question or insert a
short statement. The procedure for this is as follows:
1.
2.

3.

The debater who wishes to ask a Point of Information (POI) rises from his or her seat, places one hand on top of his
or her head and extends his or her other arm to signal that he or she has a point.
The debater who is speaking may choose to recognize the point or not. If the debater does not want to recognize the
point, he or she simply says "No thank you," or waves the questioner off. The questioner then sits down. A debater
may not simply interrupt if his or her point is not taken.
If the debater who is speaking recognizes the point, then he or she says "On that point" and allows the questioner to
give their point. At any time, the debater whose speech it is may stop the POI and tell the questioner to sit down.

The debater who is speaking does not have to recognize or refuse the point immediately. She/he can leave
the questioner standing until it is convenient for the debater who is speaking to indicate whether the point
will be entertained. Some debaters ask a special form of POI called a point of clarification. Clarification
means that a debater does not understand the case or a particular argument. If possible, the speaker
should try to answer the clarification to ensure a confusion-free debate round. Do not abuse the idea of
clarification by asking too many clarification questions or disguising arguments as clarification.

Points of Order
A point of order is raised when a competitor believes that one of the rules of debate is being broken. There
are two circumstances during a debate round under which a debater should raise a point of order. The first
is when the debater who is speaking has exceeded her/his grace period. The second is when a debater
introduces a new argument during one of the two rebuttal speeches. The procedure for either point is as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The debater rises from his or her seat and says "Point of Order."
The debater who is speaking stops their speech.
The debater who rose on the point indicates what rules violation they are raising the point on by saying "the speaker
is overtime" or "the speaker just made the new argument _____ which is new in rebuttal."
The speaker of the round, who has been judging the debate, will rule the point "Well Taken" or "Not Well Taken." A
well taken point means that the speaker must conclude their speech if they are over time or that the new point will
not be considered as it was offered during a rebuttal. A not well taken point means that the speaker disagrees with
the point and will allow the debater to go on speaking or will consider the argument as not being new. The speaker,
not the debater who is speaking, may also rule the point "under consideration," which means that the speaker will
determine whether the point is true at a later time. "Under consideration" only applies to new arguments in rebuttal,
not to time limits.

Although debaters may break other rules, for example, the Government may run a specific knowledge
case, debaters do not need to bring up these violations on points of order. These violations should be
mentioned during a regular speech. A debater may not argue about a point of order. Once a debater has
stated a point, all debaters must remain quiet while the speaker rules on the point.

Points of Personal Privilege

These are almost never used. Do not rise on a point of personal privilege unless you have been deeply
insulted on a personal level by an intentional attack on your person. The procedure for a point of personal
privilege is:
1.
2.

Rise and say, "Point of personal privilege."

The speaker will say "Point well taken" or "Point not well taken."

3.

The debate continues, while the speaker notes down any serious offences.

Points of Personal Privilege may also be used for a personal emergency.

Note: Speakers will take into consideration extremely rude behavior without any debater raising a point, so
there is no need to do so.

Cases and Resolutions

APDA has very few rules and regulations regarding cases. Debaters should, however, clearly understand
how a case functions in a debate round and how each side may defend and attack the case. The term
"case" refers to the position the Government team has chosen to defend. Some people also use the term
"case" to mean the entirety of arguments presented by one side in a debate round. In that sense, both
Government and Opposition could have a case. The rules and regulations apply to the first meaning of the
word "case." Throughout these rules, assume that "case" refers to the position of the Government and the
arguments that team has advanced for that position. Cases must link appropriately to the resolution. The
resolution will be read when pairings are announced. A resolution can be a phrase or sentence that forms
the starting point for the debate. The Prime Minister begins each debate by repeating the resolution and
verbally connecting that resolution to the case statement of the government team. There are three types
of links which the Prime Minister may be called on to make:
Loose Link.

The most common type of link, a loose link means that the PM only has to make a passing connection to
the resolution. The link cannot be a voting issue in the round and the resolution will often be something
outrageous. If the resolution were, "Attack dogs have all the fun," a suitable loose link could be: "Attack
dogs have all the fun. Their viciousness makes them successful. I want to talk about some other vicious
people, the New York City Police department. I propose that each New York City police officer be required
to spend one day a year in a public school teaching students about their rights under the constitution." This
example demonstrates that a loose link resolution will often be unrelated to the case statement of the
Government.
Tight Link.

A tight link forces the Prime Minister to link to and argue a case that complies with a position prompted by
the resolution. Examine the tight link resolution "This house would legalize freedom." The Prime minister
could link to a case about legalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage or embargoing China until it granted
freedom of the press. A link to the case "We should fix an explosive collar around every US citizen, so that
we can terminate trouble makers" would be poor, because the fascist policy proposed above does not
legalize freedom in any meaningful sense. Poor tight links can be a voting issue against the government.
Straight Link.

This type of link means that the resolution is the case statement. "The United States should assassinate
Saddam Hussein" means just that - kill him. It does not mean maim, wound, embargo or anything else.
Not following a tight link would be a big mistake, because the judge cannot vote for you. Do not try to
dodge the meaning of the resolution by using obscure definitions of words. The term "United States" in the
example resolution does not mean "United States of a Free Kurdistan." It means "United States of
America."
Cases have three other requirements. They must not be status-quo. That means they cannot support a
position that people generally agree on or that has already been enshrined in law. The case The United
States should not allow child labor would be unacceptable, because child labor has already been outlawed.
This rule applies primarily to policy cases which propose a specific law or plan, because the total of all
current laws and plans and traditions constitutes the status quo. Cases also cannot be tight or tautological,
and they must not be specific knowledge. These conditions are discussed below.

Tight Cases and Tautologies

Tight cases are cases which the opposition does not feel they are able to argue the opposition side of fairly.
Even if there are some minor arguments for opposition, a case is tight if it does not allow the opposition to
make arguments which could beat the case. "People should not be dragged from their homes randomly by
boyscouts and subjected to electro-shock therapy" would constitute a tight case. Even if someone could
conceive of a good reason to shock random people or a possible psychological benefits to young boyscouts
from earning their torture merit badge, the case falls to the government side easily. Tautologies are one
step further. These are government case statements which are self-evidently true. Earth is smaller than
the Sun, for example, is a tautology. There can be no argument with this factual statement. More
commonly, a tautology occurs when a certain position is the only option; e.g., "Clinton is the best
Democratic president since 1981."
If a PM proposes a tight case, the LO must point this out during the LOC. Ordinarily, the LO would then
propose an alternative version of the case statement which the opposition would be willing to oppose. If
the Government team accepts this alternative, then the debate can be judged as if the alternative were the
original case statement. If the LO does not propose an alternative or the government does not accept the
alternative then the key issue in the round is whether or not the governments case is tight or tautological.
If the opposition proves that the case is tight, then the opposition wins. If the government proves that the
opposition could have beaten the case, then the opposition loses. Regardless of how the round goes, both
sides should try to argue their side as effectively as possible.
Please note that you should offer reasons why a case is tight. "I am not good enough to beat this case"
does not mean that the case is tight. "No moral person can argue for the torture of innocents without
cause" does constitute an argument for tightness. Certain cases may be considered "APDA tight." That
means that although some people argue for each side of the debate, the general characteristics of APDA as
a community of college students make the opposition side too difficult to defend. Legalizing sodomy may
be debatable, but a vast majority of APDA debaters would support that case, so the case could be
considered tight. Debaters who choose to run a government case in favor of banning sodomy would be
forced to defend the position they choose.

Specific Knowledge Cases

Sometimes the government team will propose a case that deals with specialized subject matter that makes
the case un-debatable. The case "NASA should replace the current sealant used on the space shuttle with
hypoxynucleotide-C4598" would be specific knowledge. It may be that there are very good reasons to
replace the compound or to keep the old compound, so the case would not be tight. The subject matter of
the debate, however, would revolve around very specific scientific knowledge which only chemical
engineers would have. The opposition should stand up in the LOC and say that the case is specific
knowledge and attempt to debate or argue whatever they can. Even though I do not know about those
particular chemical sealants, for example, I could argue that the old sealant must work to some degree,
because we have been launching so many shuttles during the past six years. I could further say that NASA
has limited funding and should concentrate its efforts on the Mars program instead of sealents which do
not constitute a significant threat. All of those arguments can be made without knowing about the specific
topic. The government team would be heavily penalized for running a specific knowledge case and the
opposition would win in the above example. Parliamentary debate does not allow evidence. Debates which
require research may well be considered specific knowledge, unless the Government team can adequately
explain all of the relevant information.
Most cases will not be as clear cut as the one above. The standard we apply on APDA is that of the
"reasonable college student." A well-informed student should be able to debate the topic. Debaters may
also think of a New York Times standard. "Could I read and debate about the subject of this debate based on
information available in the New York Times?" This means that discussing WWII or the Kosovo conflict would
be fair game. The standard should not be abused by arguing that a person could read all about a specific
merger deal in the business section, so a debate about the merger of two European software companies

would be general knowledge. General knowledge would be found on the front page or in major articles in
the national or international sections of the paper.
The fact that an individual does not know about a particular area does not mean that it is specific
knowledge. Important events in history, major works of literature and current events are general
knowledge. The opposition team can, however, ask the Government team for an outline of the facts in a
particular case. The Government team must disclose all the information. They may not try to win by
concealing the truth. Even cases which could be specific knowledge are not if the Government teams does
an adequate job of explaining the situation and giving the opposition team the facts required to construct
an opposition. One could, for example, run a case about Korean War policy provided that they outlined who
fought in the war, the general political circumstances of the time and any major events that had recently
occurred. The Korean War began in the 1950s, so the government would mention that after WWII the
world had polarized along capitalist and communist lines and that the USSR had demonstrated its nuclear
capability prior to the start of the war. The United States presence in the Philippines might also be
relevant, but the grain production in Outer Mongolia for the years 1955-60 would not be relevant; the
Government team would be expected to know and outline for the Opposition US military presence in the
far east, but not specific, unimportant events. Despite the fact that the Korean War is a major event in the
20th century, the Government team must be prepared to outline the conflict for uninformed opponents.
The Opposition should also be given ample opportunity to ask questions about the case and the time
period.
Many APDA debaters know a lot about certain specific areas, for example, constitutional interpretation.
Although a successful debater should probably learn about some of these topics, the burden rests with the
government to adequately explain what the debate is about. The case "The Supreme Court should reverse
its ruling in Ambach v Norwick" would be specific knowledge unless the government clearly laid out the issue
in the case and framed a debate which someone without legal training could win.
Other specific knowledge topics could include baseball realignment, a particular movie or your favorite TV
show. The fact that MASH and Seinfeld had high TV ratings does not mean that everyone should be
expected to know the details of the characters or anything about certain plot lines. The government can
still make a good debate about specific knowledge by introducing the case and explaining the situation
properly.

Time/Space Cases
The Government may choose to run a special kind of case referred to as time-space. Time-space means
that the Government team places the judge in the role of a particular person or decision making body at a
particular time in history in a particular place or position. The judge must then decide the round based on
the viewpoint of those people in that situation. The case "You are Bill Clinton in 1991, do not seek the
Presidential nomination" would be a time-space case, because the judge must adopt the persona of Clinton
and view the round from the perspective of 1991. Note that the government does not have to specify each
parameter or person, time and place. If these factors are not specified, assume the reasonable or average
circumstance. The example above does not specify a particular place, because the decision to run for the
nomination was made over a period of time in several different places. When no person is included,
assume the persona of an average person. If Government does not specify a time, assume the current
day. The Opposition should always have the opportunity to ask the Government exactly who, when and
where a particular case is set. To introduce a time-space case, the Prime Minister should specify that the
case is time-space and then clearly tell the judge "You are ____. The time is ____. You should [insert the
case statement]."
Time-space cases are subject to all of the rules for regular cases, including tightness and specific
knowledge. Two extra rules must be considered in a time-space situation. First, events that have not
happened yet or facts that are not yet true in the specified time period may not be used in a historical
case. If the Government team has set its case in the 1800s, the Opposition cannot make arguments about
nuclear war or personal computers. This rule has a nuanced exception. A team may refer to future events
in order to prove facts that have occurred in the time of the case, if the validity of their facts is questioned.

Examine the following example.

The Government team runs a case about India a year before India tested its nuclear weapons. The
Government chooses to make the speaker the government of India. The Opposition teams makes an
argument about Indias nuclear capability to which the Government responds that India does not have
nuclear weapons. The Government team has not told the truth. India did have nuclear weapons a year
before it tested them and the speaker, acting as the Indian government, knows that India has nuclear
weapons. In order to prove the fact about Indias nuclear capability, the Opposition may remind the judge
that India tested it nuclear weapons a year after the time of the debate, which means that their weapons
were ready or nearly complete at the time of the debate. The Indian government would know that, but the
judge and the Government team might not. The only way for Opposition to prove its assertion
about currentfacts (in the time of the case) is to talk about events that have not yet happened. This does
not violate time-space, because the actual argument the Opposition makes uses only facts that are true at
the time of the case. The future event only proves the validity of the Opposition argument. The Opposition
could not assert that India will test nuclear arms in a year or that Pakistan will test nuclear arms in
response. Opposition cannot argue that because the Indian government could not be sure that it would test,
it could only be sure that it did have the weapons to test. The Indian government would also not know
about the exact state of the Pakistani nuclear program or Pakistans plans to test. The Opposition could
argue that India would have some idea that Pakistan had an advanced nuclear program, but could not
state the facts with the same clarity as facts about the Indian government. If the time-space case had
made the judge the Pakistani government, the Opposition could argue about the exact state of the
Pakistani arms program, but would have to be more vague about the Indian program, because the speaker
has different knowledge depending on which role the speaker adopts.
The second extra rule deals with the nature of making the judge a particular person or group. People are
not the same and do not view arguments the same way. Adolf Hitler and Ghandi have very different views
on arguments about war, race and religion. The psychology of the judges persona should be considered
when judging the round or making effective arguments. Consider the case "You are Hitler, do not attack
the Russian during WWII." This case has many great arguments for it. No army has successfully survived
the Russian winter. The Russians could be conquered later, after the fall of Britain. Fighting a war on two
fronts will be very hard. The case, however, should not win. Adolf Hitler does not think like a rational
person. He believes his armies are invincible, his conquests pre-ordained. The Opposition should point out
these character flaws and then make arguments that do appeal to Hitler. The Russians are of inferior racial
stock. Their communist ways have left them weak. These arguments would not be particularly effective in
an ordinary debate round, but they have devastating effects in the context of a particular time and place.
Given these rules, the Government team must be careful to construct a case that can be argued from both
sides. Cases which give the speaker an extreme set of psychological characteristics will often be
psychological tautologies or psychological falsisms. A psychological tautology is a case that cannot be
argued against because of the speakers assumed psychology. "You are the Orthodox Jews of the Shas
party, do not give up your claim to Jerusalem" would be a psychological tautology because this group of
Orthodox Jews has a religious zeal that defines their character and does not permit negotiation on
Jerusalem. "You are Yoda, surrender to the dark side of the force" would be a falsism, because Yodas
personality would never permit him to go to the dark side.

Cases and Casing

Creating fun and debatable cases can be difficult, so many debaters think of cases in advance. The process
of coming up with cases is called "casing." Although people think of ideas in advance, debaters should not
research or over-prepare. Debaters should also refrain from running the same case too many times.
Debating the same topic can be boring. Debaters often do not argue as effectively about an issue they
have talked about too much. Debaters who rely on a small number of cases, moreover, do not develop the
ability to debate about many different issues and will not enjoy success against better teams.

Counter-Cases

The LO may elect, in the LOC only, to propose a counter-case. This case should be different from the
status quo (the current situation in the world) and must be mutually exclusive with the Government's case.
Mutually exclusive means that one could not do both what the Government and the Opposition propose. If,
for example, the Government proposed that we legalize drugs, then the Opposition could propose that we
switch strategy in the drug war while leaving drugs illegal. One cannot legalize drugs and have a war on
illegal drugs at the same time. The Opposition could not, however, propose that we educate the public
about the harms of drug use, because education can be done regardless of whether drugs are illegal. If the
Opposition proposes a non-mutually exclusive counter-case, they will not gain credit for any arguments
that stem from that case. Sometimes, the Opposition may propose a case which is not mutually exclusive
by itself, but then demonstrate why the Opposition case will work better than the Government case or the
Government case plus the counter-case. The Opposition has demonstrated that its case is superior to the
Government case and that the Government case should not be adopted. Judges should allow this strategy.
In the above example, the Opposition could say that education will solve most of the problems that
legalizing drugs would. That would be non-mutually exclusive, so the judge should not credit the
Opposition team for that type of counter-case. If the Opposition team argued, however, that education was
more effective when drugs were illegal and that legalization did not solve any problems that education
could not solve alone, then the Opposition would have presented arguments against the Government case
that proved that the counter-case was preferable to the status-quo or a combination of the government
and counter-case. That argument would aid the Opposition considerably.