Regulations of tournament

4.1.The maximum number of teams that can participate in qualifying rounds is 24.

4.2. Qualification part consists of three rounds in American Parliamentary format.

4.3. In the first round, participating couples (teams) assigned randomly, after that, rooms are organized by "high-high" principle, which means that in next round best teams play with best ones.

4.4. Priority criterion of team rating in qualification part of team’s points:

I rank - 1 points

II rank - 0 points

4.5. In case of equal number of points of two or more teams these criteria are taken into consideration (by importance):

• Individual speaker points sum;

(100 points)

Speaker points rubrics:

18 Content is almost never relevant, and is both confusing and confused. No structure or fulfillment of role in any meaningful sense is provided.

19 The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as arguments. Hard to follow, little/no structure, no evident awareness of role.

20-21 The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently unclear and confusing, problematic structure/lack thereof, some awareness of role.

21-22 Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority of the time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure is poor, poor attempt to fulfill the role.

23-24 Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the audience’s attention and is usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to fulfill one’s role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.

25-26 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may slip into: 1) deficits in explanation, 2) simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent responses or 3) peripheral or irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds one’s attention, provides clear structure, and successfully fulfills their basic role on the table.

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

28 Very good, central arguments engage well with the most important issues on the table and are highly compelling; sophisticated responses would be required to refute them. Delivery is clear and very persuasive. Role fulfillment and structure probably flawless.

29 Brilliant arguments successfully engage with the main issues in the round. Arguments are very well explained, always central to the case being advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is very clear and incredibly compelling. Structure and role fulfillment are executed flawlessly.

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

18 points- minimum number of speaker points.

28 баллов – maximum number of speaker points.

· Results of individual contest of teams;

4.6. Time regulations of speakers:

PM - 7 minutes

LO - 8 minutes

MG - 8 minutes

MO - 8 minutes

PS – 1 minute (Parliamentary speeches are optional)

LO – 4 minutes

PM – 5 minutes.

4.7. 2 teams with higher number of ranks and speaker points break to the semifinal rounds. Winners of the semifinal break to the final round, where the winner of the tournament is to be determined,

4.8. The format suggests a possibility of presenting free parliamentary speeches between constructive and analytical speeches.

Adjudicating

5.1. For adjudication of each round Speaker of the House of the round (Chair) is appointed. Adjudicator cannot judge teams, which presents same debate club or delegation.

5.2. Adjudicating assembly is always open for the constructive criticism and proposals of participating teams during the tournament, which means, that every constructive suggestions of participators on each specific round will be taken into consideration.

5.3. After the end of each round adjudicator must (1) determine winning team, (2) determine sum of points of each team, (3) determine individual points and (4) determine individual rating of speakers, then Speaker of the House of the round fill the ballot and transmit the information to the Head adjudicator of the tournament.

5.4. In qualification part Speaker of the House (Chair) makes short review of the game and announce results of the round and reasons of his/her decision.

5.5. Results of the rounds are peremptory.

5.6. When deciding on the winner of the round adjudicator takes into account the following criterions:

· persuasiveness;

· argumentation of proposing ideas;

· proofs and supports;

· structure of speech;

· manner of speech;

· Must be taken into account: justice, clearness, honesty and respect.

Date: 2016-04-22; view: 810