Asian Parliamentary AP
Three-on-three regional format dominant across South and Southeast Asia. POIs throughout. Whip and reply speeches collapse.
Asian Parliamentary is the dominant format across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and most of Southeast Asia. Three debaters per team, two teams (Government and Opposition). The format is structurally similar to WSDC but with regional inflections — slightly more aggressive POI culture, more frequent use of definitional debate, and reply-speech conventions that differ from WSDC.
Government opens by defining the motion and presenting the case. Opposition responds with rebuttal and counter-case. Each team's third speaker (whip) collapses to the strongest clash. The reply speech goes to either the first or second speaker and is purely weighing — no new material.
Indian and South Asian school circuits run hundreds of Asian Parli rounds every weekend. The format rewards clarity, speed of refutation, and POIs that the speaker actually answers (not just acknowledges).
Speech structure
| Speech | Time | Side |
|---|---|---|
| PM Prime Minister | 7 min | Gov |
| LO Leader of Opposition | 7 min | Opp |
| DPM Deputy Prime Minister | 7 min | Gov |
| DLO Deputy Leader of Opposition | 7 min | Opp |
| GW Government Whip | 7 min | Gov |
| OW Opposition Whip | 7 min | Opp |
| Reply Opp Opposition Reply | 4 min | Opp |
| Reply Gov Government Reply | 4 min | Gov |
How judges score it
- Argument quality + clash + style, weighted roughly equally.
- POIs are expected — refusal across a full speech reads as evasion.
- Definitional challenges are common but should not be the only response.
- Whip speeches synthesize, reply speeches weigh.
- Manner matters but speed does not disqualify if clarity holds.
What wins this format
- Definition that is reasonable, predictable, and clearly within the motion.
- Aggressive but answerable POIs — set traps with them.
- Whip that names the three best clashes and explicitly weighs them.
- Reply speech that does NOT recap — it tells the judge what they already know in the order they should write it.
What loses this format
- Squirreling the definition (defining outside reasonable scope).
- POIs that re-ask what the speaker already addressed.
- Whip speeches that introduce new examples or contentions.
- Reply speeches that re-argue rather than weigh.
Sample motions
- This House would scrap the gaokao / JEE in favor of holistic university admissions.
- This House would lift the ban on commercial surrogacy in India.
- This House would require all candidates for high office to release a decade of tax returns.
- This House would require children to obtain parental consent to use social media until age 16.
Try a AP round against the AI.
The AI knows the structure, the judging criteria, and the moves that win this format specifically. Pick a side, give a speech, get a judge ballot.
Start a AP round →