Key extracts from Worlds Adjudication Criteria  

1.4 Points of Information

• 1.4.1 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).

• 1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand, place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the member speaking. The member may announce that they would like to ask a “Point of Information” or use other words to this effect.

• 1.4.3 The member who is speaking may accept or decline to answer the Point of Information.

• 1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.
  1.4.5 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.

• 1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two Points of Information during their speech. Members should also offer Points of Information.

• 1.4.7 Points of Information should be assessed in accordance with clause 3.3.4 of these rules.

• 1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.

1.5 Timing of the speeches

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

• 1.5.2 Points of Information may only be offered between the first minute mark and the six-minute mark of the speech (this period should be signalled by one strike of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).

2.1 The definition

• 2.1.1 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.

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

• 2.1.3 The definition must:

  • (a) 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”);

  • (b) 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”).  (c) 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  (d) 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.

2.2 Challenging the definition

• 2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules. The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.

• 2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister. 

2.3 Assessing the definitional challenge

• 2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be ‘unreasonable’ where it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules.

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

• 2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.

• 2.3.4 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.

• 2.3.5 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.

• 2.3.6 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.