Preliminary Rounds

The principle of EYP is to offer a forum for constructive debate for the youth of Europe on matters that affect them. The jury criteria below give an indication of the specific qualities and abilities sought. The criteria are given in descending order of importance.

  1. Ability to grasp tide of debate, respond to issues raised, and move the debate forward
    The jury will be looking for teams who listen carefully to the debate and who thus can respond to the points made, grasping the tide of debate and moving the debate forward. Teams who do not pay attention to what is said in debate and continually repeat points already made will not impress.
  2. Ability to work as a team with full participation by all delegation members
    The ability to work as a team is to be prized. Nevertheless, a team’s strength comes from its individuals, and the jury firmly believes that every individual has something positive to contribute. As such, it is hoped every member of the team will make a point in debate, as well as participate fully in the team’s preparation.
  3. Ability to develop and learn from new situations
    A successful team will show an ability to learn from the experience of the conference and to develop their skills in the fields outlined in these criteria, especially during Teambuilding and Committee Work.
  4. Constructive and respectful attitude in debate
    It is important for teams to respect EYP’s parliamentary procedure and present their arguments without causing offence or trivialising debate. Indeed teams which are constructive, by supporting points they agree with, by coming up with alternative approaches to those presented, and by giving concrete reasons for a particular stance, will be noted positively by the jury.
  5. Evidence of preparation and research of the issues
    The jury will be looking for arguments based on a sound grasp of the issues across all the debates and not just the debates in which the team is the main proposer or opposer. Teams which have done insufficient preparation and research will let themselves down by being strong on rhetoric but weak on substance.
  6. Ability to present oneself clearly and engage the audience
    The emphasis is on effectively communicating one’s ideas to the other delegates. Good structure, diction and use of humour and passion can help in this, but most important is getting the message across. The jury recognises there are many different styles of doing this.

 What does this mean concretely?

The jury will seek a balance of the above criteria. The above aspects together form an impression of the delegation which can then be measured against other delegations. To provide some indication of what we mean by these criteria, we have given some more elaborate examples:

  1. Ability to grasp tide of debate, respond to issues raised, and move the debate forward
    Above expected would be if a delegate shows that he is always aware of the discussion’s direction by making the most relevant point for that moment in the discussion. Below expected would be a delegate who repeats points which were already made sufficiently clear by others and who thus does not add to the debate, or a delegate who makes irrelevant contributions to the debate.
  2. Ability to work as a team with full participation by all delegation members
    Above expected: All delegates are actively involved in the discussion; there is an equal distribution of points made. In Teambuilding and Committee Work, the delegates are always acting in the interest of the team and support the other committee members. In the General Assembly, there is constant interaction within the committee and post-its are passed around to share knowledge and opinions. Below expected would be if one person is clearly dominant and is keeping others from speaking. Also, if in the General Assembly there is no communication at all between the committee members, this will be noted as disappointing.
  3. Constructive and respectful attitude in debate
    Above expected: Delegates who continuously respond to points of others, express what they think is good, make concrete points in stead of asking questions, and then build upon those existing points to provide a new perspective on the topic. Expected from delegates is that they take into account the courtesy to respectfully address the assembly. Below expected would be comments which are only meant to take the other committee down, laughing at other peoples’ contributions but also not listening to other committees.
  4. Evidence of preparation and research of the issues
    Below expected: when delegates lack the preparation to bring up different perspectives on a topic or bring in different ideas. When there is a low contribution of the delegation to specific debates this is noted negatively (preparing only for their own resolution, for example). When there is a clear ‘expert’ on every topic in the committee, this person is still expected to make sure that the rest of the committee can contribute to the discussion. Above expected would be if all points made have a clear base in preparation and are supported with sources.
  5. Ability to present oneself clearly and engage the audience
    Above expected:  speeches and points are made in a fully convincing manner and keep the attention of the audience from the beginning until the end. Below expected: presentation is without real conviction, e.g. it takes place in a dull and monotone way.

Really want to prepare well? Have a look at our preparation material or find the jury criteria in PDF here.)