Eco-Matters
Do you enjoy comprehensive research and insightful discussions? Do you get praised for your rhetorical prowess? Do you have a passionate opinion about current economic affairs?
Then this event is just for you. Come, test your debating skills at an international level with incredibly interesting motions.
“Eco-Matters", the flagship-debating event of Econvista, encourages you to come up with new perspectives on pertinent economic issues - to challenge the boundaries of your thinking and defend your point of view.
Round1: Conventional pre-prepared
Number of participants per team: 2 (Conventional Debate)
Cross teams are allowed.
Speaking time: 2+1 minutes
Two member team conventional debate with one member proposing and the other opposing the motion. Preferably an open motion. Number of Interjections allowed will be one for both proponent and opponent respectively.
Motions are as follows:
1. This House believes that in the WTO, the ends justify the means.
2. This House believes that the dragon is overpowering the tiger.
3. This House believes that the sun has set on the West
These are open motions, but are to be interpreted keeping in mind the theme for Econvista 2015. Please choose ANY ONE motion to debate within the scope of the context provided.
Round 2: Two-on-two format with on-the-spot motion
Two best teams will advance to the 2nd round and will be pitted against each other to debate a closed motion.
Speaking time: 3+1 minutes with inbuilt rebuttal.
Note: In case of too many registrations, there will be an online written screening round in the initial stage. Participants will be intimated about this in advance.
Prizes
1 best team prize and 1 best interjector prize. We also hope to give prize certificates (with no cash) to the runners-up.
Then this event is just for you. Come, test your debating skills at an international level with incredibly interesting motions.
“Eco-Matters", the flagship-debating event of Econvista, encourages you to come up with new perspectives on pertinent economic issues - to challenge the boundaries of your thinking and defend your point of view.
Round1: Conventional pre-prepared
Number of participants per team: 2 (Conventional Debate)
Cross teams are allowed.
Speaking time: 2+1 minutes
Two member team conventional debate with one member proposing and the other opposing the motion. Preferably an open motion. Number of Interjections allowed will be one for both proponent and opponent respectively.
Motions are as follows:
1. This House believes that in the WTO, the ends justify the means.
2. This House believes that the dragon is overpowering the tiger.
3. This House believes that the sun has set on the West
These are open motions, but are to be interpreted keeping in mind the theme for Econvista 2015. Please choose ANY ONE motion to debate within the scope of the context provided.
Round 2: Two-on-two format with on-the-spot motion
Two best teams will advance to the 2nd round and will be pitted against each other to debate a closed motion.
Speaking time: 3+1 minutes with inbuilt rebuttal.
Note: In case of too many registrations, there will be an online written screening round in the initial stage. Participants will be intimated about this in advance.
Prizes
1 best team prize and 1 best interjector prize. We also hope to give prize certificates (with no cash) to the runners-up.
Guidelines:
Two best teams will advance to the 2nd round and will be pitted against each other to debate a closed motion.
The debate will follow a modified American Parliamentary debate format.
The house will be held by two teams- the Proposition and the Opposition with two speakers per team, namely the Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister [side Proposition] and the Leader of Opposition & Deputy Leader of Opposition [side Opposition].
The organizers of the Tournament will release three Motions once matchups have been announced. A coin will be tossed, and the winning side will choose its role for the upcoming debate. The opposition will strike one motion it is not willing to debate after which the proposition will do the same. The remaining motion will be debated. The teams will get 20 minutes of preparation time before debating commences.
No access to electronic media or electronic storage or retrieval devices including but not limited to personal computers, netbooks, tablet PCs, mobile phones, PDAs are permitted after the motions have been released. Teams are strictly banned from communicating or seeking help from any third party including but not limited to coaches, seniors, and other members of their contingent once motions have been released.
The Proposition can choose to debate the motion as it stands or to define it in suitable terms, within the scope of the pre-defined theme for the round.
The order of speaking is Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Deputy Prime Minister, and Deputy Leader of Opposition. These four speeches are called substantive or constructive speeches. These will include receiving and answering points of information. Each speaker shall be permitted to take a maximum of one point of information only (due to time constraints). The teams are expected to use these points of information as a means of logically and succinctly questioning errors and inconsistencies in the arguments of the opposing side. Both questions and answers should be kept brief and to the point. The Chairperson can step in if he or she feels that a speaker is stalling or wasting time.
There will be no reply speeches due to time constraints.
In case of any discrepancy, the decision of the Chair will be final.
Roles
The round will be associated with a theme, with the motions for the round drawn from the ambit of the theme which is directly linked to Economics. It is the prerogative of the Proposition to define the motion.
The Prime Minister has to lay out the following in his/her speech:
The Leader of the Opposition has to provide:
Points of Information, Order and Privilege:
Teams are encouraged to offer Points of Information while a speaker of the opposing team holds the floor. Points of Information may be offered only during a substantive speech. Points of Information may be offered only at the end of the first minute and before the commencement of the final minute of the speech [both indicated by the Chairperson/timekeeper by a single knock of the gravel].
A speaker offering a PoI must stand at his/her place uttering “On that point, sir/madam” or other words to that effect. The speaker holding the floor must clearly indicate verbally or through gestures whether the PoI has been accepted. PoI’s can be asked only at 15-second intervals. The Chairperson can call teams violating this guideline or otherwise heckling to order.
A speaker holding the floor is encouraged to accept 1 PoI during the course of his or her speech. Failure to do so would cause the speaker to be penalized on speaker scores. Failure to offer even one Point Of Information would result in the same. On the other hand, heckling the other team will also be penalized. In this debate, due to shortened speeches, every team is encouraged to offer 2 points of information only.
A speaker may raise a Point of Personal Privilege if he/she believes that he or she has been personally deeply wounded by something that the other side said or did. A Point of Personal Privilege is a serious matter, and raised only in the rarest of rare instances.
Scoring and Judging criteria:
Speakers shall be awarded Quality Points for the following:
a) Matter: Clearly of the greatest weight, each speaker is expected to present a logical and coherent set of arguments to support her/his thesis (including positive matter, as well as rebuttal).
b) Method: comprising a structured set of propositions, presented in a clearly provided framework (such as outlining the burden of proof, delineating positive matter from the rebuttals etc.)
c) Manner: the style and ability to articulate a cogent case, with reasonable latitude towards the broadest possible range of forensic styles.
Two best teams will advance to the 2nd round and will be pitted against each other to debate a closed motion.
The debate will follow a modified American Parliamentary debate format.
The house will be held by two teams- the Proposition and the Opposition with two speakers per team, namely the Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister [side Proposition] and the Leader of Opposition & Deputy Leader of Opposition [side Opposition].
The organizers of the Tournament will release three Motions once matchups have been announced. A coin will be tossed, and the winning side will choose its role for the upcoming debate. The opposition will strike one motion it is not willing to debate after which the proposition will do the same. The remaining motion will be debated. The teams will get 20 minutes of preparation time before debating commences.
No access to electronic media or electronic storage or retrieval devices including but not limited to personal computers, netbooks, tablet PCs, mobile phones, PDAs are permitted after the motions have been released. Teams are strictly banned from communicating or seeking help from any third party including but not limited to coaches, seniors, and other members of their contingent once motions have been released.
The Proposition can choose to debate the motion as it stands or to define it in suitable terms, within the scope of the pre-defined theme for the round.
The order of speaking is Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Deputy Prime Minister, and Deputy Leader of Opposition. These four speeches are called substantive or constructive speeches. These will include receiving and answering points of information. Each speaker shall be permitted to take a maximum of one point of information only (due to time constraints). The teams are expected to use these points of information as a means of logically and succinctly questioning errors and inconsistencies in the arguments of the opposing side. Both questions and answers should be kept brief and to the point. The Chairperson can step in if he or she feels that a speaker is stalling or wasting time.
There will be no reply speeches due to time constraints.
In case of any discrepancy, the decision of the Chair will be final.
Roles
The round will be associated with a theme, with the motions for the round drawn from the ambit of the theme which is directly linked to Economics. It is the prerogative of the Proposition to define the motion.
The Prime Minister has to lay out the following in his/her speech:
- The motion for debate
- The definition of the House
- The proposition’s interpretation of the motion and its context, which leads to the formulation of the Case Statement [the motion as it is finally to be debated].
- The logical link between the original motion and the Proposition’s case statement.
- The team split – an outline of the arguments proposed by the Prime Minister and his deputy.
- The Proposition’s Burden of Proof – what the proposition intends to show by the end of the debate.
- The Proposition’s Policy/Model – if there is one it must come in the Prime Minister’s speech in its entirety. The deputy is allowed a purely clarificatory role in this regard. A “floating model”, i.e. a situation where some major aspect of the model is presented in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech is not acceptable and any points of the Model occurring in the Deputy’s speech shall be ignored by the adjudicators.
The Leader of the Opposition has to provide:
- The Opposition’s Point(s) of Clash – one or two major points on which the Opposition intends to contest the Proposition’s Case Statement.
- The Burden of the Opposition – what the opposition intends to show by the end of the debate
- The Team Split – an outline of the arguments to be proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy. Part of the Opposition’s Model/Policy [if one exists] must come in the Leader of Opposition’s speech. However, the Deputy Leader of Opposition is allowed to add to the policy as proposed by his/her Leader; therefore his/her role may be more than clarificatory in this regard. If the Opposition’s second speaker substantially alters the model proposed by the Opposition’s first speaker, then it is to be considered a “team slide” and penalized accordingly. The entirety of the Opposition’s model cannot appear in the deputy speech – the Leader of the Opposition has to give fair warning about the nature of their Policy to the Proposition.
Points of Information, Order and Privilege:
Teams are encouraged to offer Points of Information while a speaker of the opposing team holds the floor. Points of Information may be offered only during a substantive speech. Points of Information may be offered only at the end of the first minute and before the commencement of the final minute of the speech [both indicated by the Chairperson/timekeeper by a single knock of the gravel].
A speaker offering a PoI must stand at his/her place uttering “On that point, sir/madam” or other words to that effect. The speaker holding the floor must clearly indicate verbally or through gestures whether the PoI has been accepted. PoI’s can be asked only at 15-second intervals. The Chairperson can call teams violating this guideline or otherwise heckling to order.
A speaker holding the floor is encouraged to accept 1 PoI during the course of his or her speech. Failure to do so would cause the speaker to be penalized on speaker scores. Failure to offer even one Point Of Information would result in the same. On the other hand, heckling the other team will also be penalized. In this debate, due to shortened speeches, every team is encouraged to offer 2 points of information only.
A speaker may raise a Point of Personal Privilege if he/she believes that he or she has been personally deeply wounded by something that the other side said or did. A Point of Personal Privilege is a serious matter, and raised only in the rarest of rare instances.
Scoring and Judging criteria:
Speakers shall be awarded Quality Points for the following:
a) Matter: Clearly of the greatest weight, each speaker is expected to present a logical and coherent set of arguments to support her/his thesis (including positive matter, as well as rebuttal).
b) Method: comprising a structured set of propositions, presented in a clearly provided framework (such as outlining the burden of proof, delineating positive matter from the rebuttals etc.)
c) Manner: the style and ability to articulate a cogent case, with reasonable latitude towards the broadest possible range of forensic styles.