Overview
APDA is a 2 v 2 format, with one team on the Government and the other on the Opposition. The Government team consists of the Prime Minister (PM) and Member of Government (MG), and the Opposition, of the Leader of the Opposition (LO) and Member of the Opposition (MO).
There are 3 speeches given for each side with the following order:
PMC/Prime Minister Constructive (1st Gov speech): 7 minutes, 30 seconds
LOC/Leader of Opposition Constructive (1st Opp speech): 8 minutes, 30 seconds
MG or Member of Government (2nd Gov speech): 8 minutes, 30 seconds
MO or Member of Opposition (2nd Opp speech): 8 minutes, 30 seconds
LOR or Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (Final Opp speech): 4 minutes, 30 seconds
PMR or Prime Minister Rebuttal (Final Gov speech): 5 minutes, 30 seconds
The speech names indicate the debater on each team who gives the respective speeches. Notice that side opposition has a “block,” where the Member of Opposition speech and Leader of Opposition Rebuttal occur consecutively.
Speeches must occur consecutively. Debaters may use 30 seconds if necessary (to drink water, organize their notes) to begin their speech, but they do not have any preparation time and are expected to start in a timely manner.
Speakers may offer Points of Information (POIs) during their opponents’ speeches, and acceptance of these points are optional. POIs may be offered via verbal interruption (“point”) or by raising a hand or standing up. Unlike in other parliamentary formats such as BP, these POIs are not mandated, and judges are instructed not to reduce speaks based on a lack of acceptance. They may be offered after minute 1 and before minute 6 of PMC, and after minute 1 and before minute 7 of LOC, MG, and MO. A POI must be affirmatively accepted by the speaker to be delivered. They may not last longer than 15 seconds.
Debaters on the same team may not speak to each other during their own speeches.
Preparation
Teams must not, under any circumstances, use the Internet to research the motion or case, utilize generative artificial intelligence (AI) for any purpose, or to communicate with anyone that is not the CA team, the organizers of the tournament, or their partner. These bans are put in place as soon as the motion is released or case statement is read in round.
Teams are allowed to use digital matter files (such as pre-prepared blocks in Google Drives) and online communication with a partner such as via Google Docs or a shared spreadsheet.
There are two kinds of APDA tournaments:
- Cases debate, where the government teams bring their own topics
- Motions debate, where the tournament sets pre-written topics, and each team has 15 minutes to prepare their assigned side
Cases Debating
Government teams have the obligation to bring their own topic. They should provide the case statement, and if necessary, a “construct” that describes the relevant background of the case. Government teams, in their PMC or in future speeches, may not utilize “spec”– broadly defined as information so esoteric that debaters would not be expected to know it. Information provided in a construct is both true for the round and not spec, given it is provided to all debaters.
The first reading of case construct and statement occurs “off time” (it does not count in the time for any gov speech or eat into the 15 minutes of opposition prep). While opposition teams may take a moment to read over case construct, they must begin prep time promptly after case construct and statement are read. Judges reserve the right to begin prep time at a reasonable time after the reading of construct and statement.
Opposition teams have the ability to ask Points of Clarification, or POCs during preparation time. These are questions about the case statement, relevant background information, or the case construct provided by side Government. Opposition may ask POCs until their 15 minutes of prep elapses. Government teams are obligated to provide answers, but the answer may suffice at “it is up for debate.”
If the Opposition team believes that the case is unfair and unwinnable, they may “tight call”. Tight calls must be called at the very start of LOC. The only issue in the round then becomes whether or not the case is tight. For the opposition to win the debate, they must prove the case is tight (ie that the original gov side of the case is correct). For the government to win the debate, they must prove the case is not tight (the opposite).
If the Opposition believes that the government team has used “spec,” they may point this out in their own speeches when responding to particular arguments.
Motions Debating
In motions debating, tournaments will release sides and a motion, then begin a 15 minute timer. Both teams will prep at the same time, and any clarifying questions must be directed towards the organizing body that set the motions, typically called a Chief Adjudication Panel (or CAP).
If the government team has the capacity to model, based on the motion type, and exercises that right in PMC, opp may ask POCs about the model. Once opp calls a POC, the PMC time stops, and restarts when POCs are over.
New Material
There are no restrictions on content in PMC, LOC, MG, or MO. However, starting in the LOR, no new arguments may be read. New examples and new weighing are allowed in both the LOR and PMR; however, wholly new arguments are not.
The sole exception to the rule is that the PMR may respond to wholly new arguments in the MO with wholly new arguments. However, content that originates in LOC and repeated in MO is not able to be responded to newly by PMR.
To keep in compliance with this rule, both government and opposition teams are expected to call “Points of Order,” or POOs, during their opponent’s final rebuttal. POOs are made contemporaneously (eg during the speech), and opponents should stop time once a POO is called. Once time is stopped, the team calling the POO should explain why a particular argument made is new, and the other team should have an opportunity to respond. Time restarts when the POO concludes. There is no limit on how many POOs can be asked.
Motion & Case Statement Types
Given lack of specification from teams, these are the default methods of evaluating a round on the following motion types. In motions rounds, these rules are binding; however, if a Government team in cases specifies a different method of evaluating the round, that holds for that particular debate.
Further explanation on types of motions can be found in the Motion Wording Guide.
THW:
Motions of the form ‘This House Would [do X]’ involve Government teams arguing that they should be enacting policy X. A policy is a concrete course of action that Government teams wish to convince the judges should be implemented. Such motions are about whether the House should do X – with Government teams arguing that they should and Opposition teams arguing that they should not. These debates are purely normative. They do not require teams to discuss whether or not policy X is likely to be enacted in the real world, or whether or not policy X is currently status quo.
For the purposes of the debate, the Government teams have the powers of the actor implied by the perspective of the motion (this may be a government, an individual, society, etc.), and the debate is about whether they should or should not do a policy or action, not whether their real world counterparts will or will not. It should be assumed that the policy will be implemented in the manner that the Government teams set up (also known as Government fiat). As such, it is never a valid line of opposition to such motions to state that ‘but the government would never do this’ or, more subtly, ‘but politicians would never pass this law’.
- For Policy motions, Opposition teams may choose to defend status quo, propose a counter-proposition or suggest an alternative. It is not necessary for Opposition teams to present a counter-proposition, though it may be beneficial in some instances. If presenting a counter-proposition, Opposition teams are granted the same amount of fiat power that Government teams have: the debate should assume that whatever counter-proposition Opposition proposes will also be implemented, and it would be similarly futile to argue that Opposition’s counter-proposition would never be passed by any parliament in real life. However, it is crucial to note that the Opposition’s counter-proposition must use the same or fewer resources.
THBT X should Y:
Motions of the form ‘THBT [X] should [Y]’ where [X] is an actor and [Y] is an action or policy are policy motions. Even though these motions are phrased as statements of belief, government teams have fiat to model how X is done, and opposition teams have fiat to propose a counter-proposition. However, this fiat is from the perspective of the actor [X], which means government and opposition teams may only fiat in things which the actor has the power to do. These motions are about whether or not the statement is true from the perspective of a neutral observer.
THBT:
Motions that begin with ‘This House Believes That [X]’ are value judgement debates about the statement represented by X. They require Government teams to argue that X is true, whilst Opposition teams argue that X is not true. Government may not implement a model in these debates, as they are not proposing a policy.
THS/THO:
Motions that begin with ‘This House Supports/Opposes [X]’ are debates that require teams to support or oppose [X] in the way it is likely to manifest in the world. The burden on Government is to prove that [X] does or will do more good than harm in ‘This House supports’ motions (or more harm than good, in a ‘This House opposes’ motion). Similarly, the burden on Opposition is to prove that [X] does or will do more harm than good in ‘This House supports’ motions (or more good than harm in a ‘This House opposes’ motion). Both the Government and Opposition teams do not have the fiat to assert or dictate where, when, or how [X] will manifest. Instead, the debate should be evaluated based on the probable outcomes of [X], as analysed or agreed upon by the teams participating in the debate.
THP:
Motions that begin with ‘This House Prefers’ function in the same way as other analytical debates. However, Opposition teams are bound to defend the specific comparison provided by the motion. They must either: in motions phrased THP X to Y: defend Y; or in motions phrased THP X: defend the status quo.
- Debaters should be aware that there is a unique version of THP motions, which are phrased ‘THP a world in which X’. These types of motion set a burden on Government teams to envision and argue in favour of the alternate world described in the motion. As in all other types of THP motions, Opposition is still bound to defend the status quo, or whatever comparison is presented in the motion. As these debates require the conceptualisation of an alternative world, arguments about transitions between the status quo and the alternative world are not permissible. Debaters should also use their common sense to determine the point at which this new world most likely diverged from the status quo.
Actor debates:
Motions that begin with ‘This House, as [A], would do [X]’ are actor motions. Actor motions require teams to consider the motion from the actor’s own perspective instead of merely considering what would be best for the world. This means focusing on the actor’s own reasoned judgement about what they ought to do. What an actor should do is different to what the actor is likely to do. Actor motions are not about predicting likely behaviour but rather about what most conforms with the values, interests, and duties of the actor in question. Whilst past statements of intent help us understand an actor’s perspective, the actor may nevertheless be persuaded to follow a different path.