•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 12-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

The NLIU Parliamentary Debate is back! The third edition is going to be grander than ever before, with over 24 teams battling it out for the top honours and bragging rights. The event is spread out over three days from 31st October to 2nd November and we shall bring to you all the updates of what is happening, ranging from match-ups to results to interim events and much more. 

The offcial website of the event can be accessed here where the details of the event are provided. For starters, you can check out our promotional video for the Debate. 

We will also try and capture the memorable moments in photographs which would be put up on our Facebook page

Do follow this live blog for an insight into all the fun, drama, faux pas and of course, the results. 


The Media Team

3rd NLIU Parliamentary Debate



Good Afternoon,
The first round of the much anticipated NLIU Debate is about to begin. Keep checking in for matchups, motions, and other updates.
If you wish to be a part of the experience, comment below, or on the Facebook page; We'd love to hear from you!



The motions for the First round are -:

1. The house believes that welfare system should financially reward parents whose children perform well at school .

2. The house supports the creation of exclusive schools for LGBTQIA children.

3. The house would forcefully induct children from tribal communities into mainstream public schools.


While we wait for the results of the First Round, here's the incentive for winning the NLIU Debate (This is, of course, in addition to the bragging rights you earn if you manage to make it to the top!)~






The prep time for the Second Round begins!

The theme for this round is POLITICS, and the motions are~

  1. This house as the Indian Government would grant amnesty to people who voluntarily disclose disproportionate holdings within Swiss banks for the payment of a one time high tax.
  2. This house will elect a special majority (66%) of Rajya Sabha members by random opt-in (voluntary) lottery.
  3. This house believes the government should run a balanced budget unless otherwise approved by a referendum of young voters.


8:30 pm

The results of the first preliminary round, albeit a little delayed, for which we sincerely apologize.

Match up: Victor

ILS A vs. Swing Team: ILS A

Nirma B vs. MANIT: MANIT 

Shaheed Bhagat Singh College vs. Stephens B: Stephens B

Hindu A vs. Stephens C: Stephens C

Nirma C vs. NUSRL: Nirma C

IIM, Indore vs. Hindu B: Hindu B

Xaviers B vs. UPES: Xaviers B

Amity, Noida vs. KIIT: KIIT

Nirma A vs. Xaviers A: Xaviers A

Love Jihad (Not the name of the college, I’m guessing?) vs. RMLNLU: Love Jihad

Hain? (Who comes up with these?) vs. NLSIU: Hain?

JLU A vs. Stephens A: Stephens A

JLU B vs. NLU, Delhi: NLU, Delhi



Congratulations to the winners of the first round! 

Stay tuned for results of the second round, which will be broadcasted shortly.

9: 20 pm

The results of the second preliminary round have been released. Kudos to our tabulation team!

Match up: Victor

MANIT vs. Xaviers A: Xaviers A


NLSIU vs. Amity, Noida: NLSIU

Shaheed Bhagat Singh College vs. Hindu A: Hindu A

NUSRL vs. Nirma A: Nirma A


Hindu B vs. Hain?: Hain?

Love Jihad vs. Xaviers B: Love Jihad

Stephens C vs. ILS A: ILS A

Stephens A vs. Nirma C: Nirma C

Swing Team vs. ILS B: ILS B

NLU, Delhi vs. KIIT: NLU, Delhi

CNLU vs. Stephens B: Stephens B

JLU A vs. Nirma B: Nirma B 

That's all from the result desk for today. We shall also try and get some insight from the adj core on the Debate. Stay tuned!


                                                                                   10:00 pm 

On asked how the debates were turning out on the first day, the adj core drew what enthusiasm they had left after a tiring day and gave insightful comments. 

All members agreed that it was too soon to say with just two rounds having been completed but sounded very hopeful that a brilliant debate would unravel in the next two days. 

Aditya Mitra and Aniruddh Basu, the two external adjudicators both said, to quote, "Though its too soon to tell, we have seen an atmosphere of enthusiastic speakers and are sure a successful tournament will follow."


That's the last of the updates of the first day of the NLIU Debate 2014. Glad that the first day ended on a good note, we wish you all a good night and assure you we'll be back tomorrow with more updates. Do stay tuned in, adios. 



10:30 am

Good morning folks! 

We will have three preliminary rounds followed by high tea and a sumptuous dinner for the participants on Day 2 of the Debate. 

The third preliminary round is just about to begin. In the meantime, you can check out the photos from yesterday and be a part of this wonderful experience, here.

 11:00 am

The motions for the Third Preliminary Round are out! Look forward to a raging debate on these topics~

  1. This House supports corporations which afford unlimited vacations (no minimum or maximum) to their employees at the employees discretion.
  2. In WLDs, this house will remove all forms of professional licensing.
  3. This house will allow corporations to pay employees in lieu of opting out of union membership.

We wish all the participating teams the best of luck! 

1: 15 pm

Here is a peek at the results of the third prelim round. 

Match up: Victor


ILS B vs. Stephens A: Stephens A

Hindu B vs. MANIT: Hindu B

Xaviers B vs. CNLU: Xaviers B

Nirma B vs. RMLNLU: Nirma B

Hindu A vs. JLU B: Hindu A

Hain?! vs. ILS A: Hain?!

Nirma C vs. Love Jihad: Love Jihad

Xaviers A vs. NLU, Delhi: NLU, Delhi

Stephens B vs. Stephens C: Stephens C

Nirma A vs. Swing Team: Nirma A

JLU A vs. Shaheed Bhagat Singh College: Shaheed Bhagat Singh College

IIM, Indore vs. UPES: UPES

Amity, Noida vs. NUSRL: NUSRL

Two rounds still to go! So, the top 8 spots are still up for grabs. 

2:40 pm

The motions for the Fourth Round are out, and the prep time has begun! The theme for this Round is INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, and the motions are~

  1. This House will remove the Kyoto Protocol in favour of a non-coercive, non-punitive agreement on climate change (like the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate)
  2. This House supports the boycott, divestment, and sanction ("BDS") campaign against Israel.
  3. This House regrets India's position on the Doha WTO Deal. 

The Round is about to begin. May the better team win!

                                                                                     6:00 pm


Here are the result of the fourth round. 

Match up: Victory


NLUD vs. Hain?!: Hain?!

Stephen's C vs. Love Jihad: Love Jihad

Stephen's A vs. Xavier's B: Xaviers B 

NLS vs. Nirma C: NLS

Nirma A vs. Hindu B: Hindu B

Xavier's vs. ILS A: ILS A

Stephen's B vs. Nirma B: Stephen's B

RML vs. Hindu A: Hindu A

Disco D's Angels vs. Amity Noida: Disco D's Angels

IIM Indore vs. JLU A: JLU A




One round still to go! 


6:45 pm

Here are the motions for the last round! It is going to be a closed round, so no results and feedback of the round. 

The theme is 'FEMINISM'. Girl Power!!! The adj core consisting of four guys should be lauded for this one. 

The motions are-

  1. This House believes that the feminist movement should reject the "HeForShe" Campaign. 
  2. This House believes that the feminist movement should reject military missions aimed at the emancipation of women in oppressive communities. 
  3. This House will embrace "Anaconda" as a feminist anthem. 

We shall announce the breaks in a short while. So, stay glued. 


After two days of challenging rounds, we're down to the last and final day of the 3rd NLIU Debate. We congratulate the breaking teams on making it this far. The journey certainly has not been easy, but the goal- victory, is now in sight. This is where the real competition begins. 

Without further ado, these are the top 8 teams~

  1. Hain?! (With 5 Wins and a total speaker score of 1355.46)
  2. Love Jihad (With 4 wins and a total speaker score of 1345.3)
  3. Stephen's B (With 4 Wins and a total speaker score of 1328.83)
  4. Hindu A (With 4 Wins and a total speaker score of 1326.67)
  5. Hindu B (With 4 Wins and a total speaker score of 1326.5)
  6. NLS (With 3 Wins and a total speaker score of 1334.5)
  7. Stephen's C (With 3 Wins and a total speaker score of 1333.5)
  8. Stephen's A (With 3 Wins and a total speaker score of 1333)

P.S.: Shoutout to NLUD and Xaviers B for making it to the reserves with 3 Wins each.


The results for the Quarters have been declared, and here are the results!

Match Up : Victor

Hain?! vs. Stephen's A : Hain?!

Love Jihad vs. Stephen's C: Love Jihad

Stephen's B vs. NLS : Stephen's B

Hindu A vs. Hindu B : Hindu B

Congratulations to the Top Four teams- you guys are one step closer to the top!


The Clash of the Titans, or the Semi, are over, and here are the Winners!

Match Up : Victor

Hain?! vs. Hindu B : Hain?!

Stephen's B vs. Love Jihad: Love Jihad

We have our finalists; A round of applause for Hain?! and Love Jihad!


Prep Time

The last and Final round of the 3rd NLIU Debate is here!

It's the final battle between Love Jihad, and Hain?!, both cross teams, which will determine the Victor. The debate is being held at the Auditorium, and the motion is:

This House will ban all hate speeches, irrespective of whether or not they incite violence.

The Judging Panel consists of Yash, Parnil, Aparna, Sanjana, and Sparshit.


The debate was higly challenging, with heavy clashes between the Proposition- Love Jihad, and the Opposition- Hain?! Both the sides came up with brillliant speeches, and well conceived contructives. The Proposition talked about how necessary it was for hate speeches, which cause friction among communities, and cause some sort of hegemony, or propogate the idea of one community being superior to the other, leading to a situation where there is no chance of the communities in question functioning together in a healthy way, should be banned, because even if they don't lead to physical manifestations of violence, the ideological violence they cause is detrimental to society as a whole. 

On the other hand, the Opposition stated that Hate Speeches should be allowed, because banning them would severly limit a person's Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, and would prohibit them from speaking due to fear of it being interpreted as a hate speech. Furthermore, if a community hates another, or if a person hates someone or something, they probably have a reason to do so, and so they should have the opportunity to express it, as well as the fact that the public should have an opportunity to know too. They compared the notion of the government banning hate speeches that may or may not cause any violence because of the fear of violence to the event of the USA wrongly launching strikes on a country because of the fear of that country possibly using nuclear weapons against it in the future.

The Proposition laid down the analogy of a person shooting someone and missing- he might not have killed anyone, but the intent and motive to do so was present, irrespective of the fact that he missed. Similarly, even though hate speeches might not put two communities against each other or incite violence, the intention to do so still remains. 

There was a clash on the line between criticism and hate speech, and what the repercussions of hate speeches are. The Opposition showed how Hate Speeches are necessary, so that the prejudices of people are brought out in the open, and they're corrected and addressed the right way, for example, Varun Gandhi receiving flak for his hate speech. Furthermore, banning hate speeches might lead to such sentiments festering within the community and cultivating to an extent where there are violent outbreaks, which nullifies the entire point of banning such laws. 

The Prop put forward the argument that not everyone is rational enough to not be influenced by hate speeches. For example, a person doesn't kill people because the laws of the state say that it would be wrong to. He does it because his morality tells him it's wrong, and hate speeches tamper with that very morality, which is why they're a threat, and should be banned.

Therefore, the debate centered around the idea of what hate speech is, how harmful it is, and what the effects of banning it would be.


The most awaited part of the 3rd NLIU Debate- the results! The team that took the trophy  (and 30K!) this time was... (Wait for it)...


(National Cross)

The Opposition took it away with a unanimous decision by all the five adjudicators, and Raunaq Chandrashekhar, the Deputy Leader of Oppposition, won the BEST SPEAKER.

Best Adjudicator went to Sparshit Sampath.

The Runner Up was Love Jihad (Hindu Cross).

We'd like to congratulate the Winners for their splendid performance and on their success, as well as all the other participants who made this debate what is was- that is, simply outstanding. 



No comments yet: share your views