The document provides information about the Literary and Debate Society (Debsoc) at M.S. Ramaiah College of Law. It discusses what the Debsoc is, how it functions, meeting times, types of members, attendance requirements, benefits of membership, accolades earned, and tips for parliamentary debate. The Debsoc is the official debating institution of the college and is student-run with guidance from faculty. Meetings are typically held on Mondays and Thursdays at 3PM to practice debating skills through competitions and workshops.

1. M.S. Ramaiah College Of Law
Literary and Debate Society
Debate Workshop

2. What is the ‘Debsoc’
• The Literary and Debating society of M.S. Ramaiah College of Law is the official
debating institution of the college.
• All debating activities in relation to the college are routed through the debating
society.
• We are an autonomous student run and administered society functioning with
guidance of the Principal Smt. Manjushree Mishra as our chief patron.
• We are additionally guided by our faculty in-charge, Mr. Om Prakash and Mr.
Asif.
MSR Law Debsoc

3. How do we function?
• We have democratically elected Office Bearers to take
care of all offical work of the Debsoc.
• Convener – Vignesh Ram
• Co- Convener – Sandeep Christopher
• Secretary – Natasha Ponappa
• Treasurer – Bindiya Rao
MSR Law Debsoc

4. When do we meet?
• 3 PM every Monday and Thursday
• No meetings are held if college declares a holiday
• Meetings are suspended 2 weeks before the start of
the Preliminary Exams before the Sem-End exams.
MSR Law Debsoc

5. What are the the types of members?
• Novice Member – 1-2 Debates
• Ordinary Members – 3-7 Debates
• Veteran Debates – 8 and above Debates
• Advisory Members – Veteran members, not OB and
selected by the OB for service rendered to the
Debsoc.
MSR Law Debsoc

6. Attendance Requirements
• 60% - All members except Novice Members
• 70% - Novice members
• Attendance is calculated only if the student has attended college, not
otherwise.
• Absence from 3 consecutive meetings will lead to a show cause and a vote
which will result in removal or reinstatement.
• Failure to appear on date of show cause notice without reasonable cause
will be deemed as consent to removal.
MSR Law Debsoc

7. Benefits of the Debsoc
• The only college institution to garner wins and qualifications in
the last 4 years
• Wins on national level at open debates against competition of
students of Law, Medicine, Engineering, Commerce, Arts,
Sciences, etc and working professionals.
• Cross-Soc Practice sessions with PESIT, Christ University,
RVCE, NLSIU and MSRIT.
MSR Law Debsoc

8. A few of the accolades won by the Debsoc.
• NUJS Kolkata 2011 – Novice Break Win, Highest Novice speaker on tabs
• NLU Delhi – Best Adjudicator
• ILS Pune 2013 – Best Adjudicator
• NLSIU Bangalore 2013 – Best Adjudicator
• GNLU Ghandinagar 2014 – Best Adjudicator
• Breaks at IIT Bombay 2011, NALSAR Hyderabad, 2012, MCCDT 2012, IIT
Madras 2012, Christ University, Bangalore 2012,2013, LSR Delhi 2013,
MSRIT 2011,2012,2013,2014 etc.
MSR Law Debsoc

9. Before getting into Parliamentary Debate
• Make reading the newspaper a daily morning activity.
• Follow trends on twitter, reddit etc.
• Make Wikipedia your new best friend. Refer for all doubts on current affairs.
• Keep an open mind, tow the middle path and keep a diplomatic mindset in
order to understand the other side of the case.
• Avoid using profanity, complex words, un-parliamentary statements, racist,
sexist comments or anything of a defamatory nature.
MSR Law Debsoc

10. Other essentials
• Do nt typ lyk dis, k?
• Speak using official & clear communication.
• Use comparatives instead of superlatives.
• Address speakers holding the floor as Sir/ Ma’am.
• Body language can makes arguments more persuasive.
• Eloquence and Etiquette also add to persuasiveness
MSR Law Debsoc

11. Asian Parliamentary Debate
An Introduction
MSR Law Debsoc

12. Brief
• Asian PD is a form of parliamentary debate that features two
houses, Government (or Positive or Affirmative or Proposition)
and Opposition (or Negative)
• Modeled off a two party system prevalent in most Asian
countries and USA (eg. Democratic and Republican Parties)
MSR Law Debsoc

13. Team Compositions
• Government
- Prime Minister
- Deputy Prime Minister
- Government Whip
• Opposition
- Leader of the Opposition
- Deputy Leader of the Opposition
- Opposition Whip
MSR Law Debsoc

14. Order of Speeches and Timings
1. Prime Minister (7 minutes) *Constructive Speeches
2. Leader of the Opposition (7 minutes) “
3. Deputy Prime Minister (7 minutes) “
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (7 minutes) “
5. Government Whip (7 minutes) *Summary Speeches
6. Opposition Whip (7 minutes) “
7. Opposition Reply (4 minutes) *Reply Speeches only by
8. Government Reply (4 minutes) constructive Speakers
*** Government has the first and last word of the Debate ***
MSR Law Debsoc

15. Time requirements and Points of Information
• The first and Last minute (0:00 – 1:00 and 6:00 – 7:00) is protected time, No POIs may be
raised.
• A clap or a tap on the bench will signal the end of the 1st minute and also at the start of the
6th minute. A double clap or tap will signal the end of the 7th minute.
• After the 7th Minute, 20 seconds is given to the speaker to wrap up their speech after which
at 7:20, the speaker will be drowned out.
• POIs may be offered from the end of the 1st minute to the end of the 5th minute i.e. 5:59.
• POIs can be offered only in intervals of 15 seconds from each other.
MSR Law Debsoc

16. Preparing for a debate
• A theme is released along with 3 motions in relation to the theme.
• Teams rank motions and one is selected by both teams and in event of a tie, coin toss.
• 15 minutes is given for preparation and selection where government holds the room.
• Question EVERYTHING!
• Derive a principle stance.
• Devise a module for implementation if necessary.
• Status Quo and Post Facto Analysis.
• Run a negative, or alternative stance to the Government, If opposition.
• Use of any electronic devices is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Non-electronic material is allowed for
reference.
MSR Law Debsoc

17. Questions to ask yourself
1. “Why Should we implement resolution?” (Principle)
2. “How would we implement this resolution?” (Model)
3. “Why should we implement this model?” (Arguments)
MSR Law Debsoc

18. ARGUMENTATION (Basics)
• S.E.E.L – State | Explain | Example |Link
• S.P.E.R.M – Social |Political |Economic |Religious |Moral
• Status Quo – Current status (Why should it remain? Or why should it
change?)
• Post facto Analysis (PFA) – After Implementation ( Positive or Negative
Impact)
• Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) – Do the benefits justify or outweigh the costs?
MSR Law Debsoc

19. ARGUMENTATION (Part 1)
• Affirmative: Is what we as debaters usually refer to as “going for the motion”. Clearly when 'not', 'cannot', 'does not', etc. get
involved in motions, the implications of going on the affirmative side is bound to change as well. Simply, it means the side
that has to agree with and defend the Motion through their Case.
• Analogy: An argument that supports associations/parallels between things based on their similarity or dissimilarity.
• Argument: A controversial statement, frequently called a claim, supported by evidence and a warrant. The standards of a
logically good argument include acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. See also Standard of acceptability, Standard of
relevance, standard of sufficiency.
• Argument by principle: An argument that supports a certain action based on the connection between that action and a
general principle. Ballot: A document on which the judge records the decision, the reasons for the decision, and speaker
points awarded to each debater.
• Biased Adjudication: Is Parliamentary Debating slang for what a reply speech essentially becomes. In a reply speech; one
speaker from each side recounts the entire match and points out clashes, arguments, points, examples, etc. and justifies
why their given side should win on those counts. It is called Biased Adjudication as a reply speech (most/a good one)
becomes what the adjudicator would say about the winning side’s case-biased adjudication as it is delivered by a speaker
from each team.
MSR Law Debsoc

20. ARGUMENTATION (Part 2)
• Blanket ban: Making a general and total prohibition of an action or activity formerly allowed because it is shown to be
harmful.
• Burden: A burden is, simplistically, the weight on both sides of the Motion. Burdens are to be created by the Affirmative on
the case of the negative and vice versa. In the course of a debate, any issues that either side points out and raises with
reference to the case of their opponents becomes a Burden on that side of the house. It is here that PD gets tricky in that
while creating burdens each side, the affirmative and negative, are trying to clear the burdens and issues raised by the
opposing side of the house. .
• Burden of Proof: The Burden of Proof is the burden/issue inherent to the given side of the motion. Both sides of the house
will have a Burden of Proof before any actual speaking begins; their respective cases are aimed at clearing the Burden of
Proof. E.g. In the course of a debate (a policy debate) the burden of proof on the Affirmative side is to justify the need for
their course of action and prove the benefits (in implication) of it; the Negative’s being to counter the need and disprove its
benefits (by implication).
• Case shift: A case shift occurs when a team alters or changes their stand or proposal from one speaker to the next. This
usually happens when the opposing team points out a flaw in the proposal and pressures the following speaker to drop,
expand, or modify the proposal. It can also occur when the speakers of the same team are not clear about the parameters of
their own proposal. MSR Law Debsoc

21. ARGUMENTATION (PART 3)
• Case split: A case split is the distribution of roles of the speakers of a team and their corresponding arguments. The case
split is provided by the first speaker of each team as the skeleton or backbone to their proposal. An example case split given
by the first speaker is, “I will be addressing the issue of.... while my Deputy will speak about...” Clashes: Clashes are the
points/aspects of the case(s) on which the two teams engage and argue with each other directly. Clashes happen (they do!)
as an argument stated by either one side is met and rebutted by the team opposing them. Clashes can be fairly considered
the essence of Parliamentary Debating. Clashes are distinct from everything a team would say in the course of a match, in
that only points picked up and rebutted become clashes. Constructive speech: A speech that presents a debater’s basic
arguments for or against the resolution.
• Cost Benefit Analysis: CBA is an effective tool used in comparing the cases for both sides of the motion. Obviously each
side uses it to prove their case stronger, better and better argued than their opposition’s. Cost Benefit analysis’ simply
involves the laying out of the cases as delivered (especially useful for Policy Debates) and pointing out the Costs involved in
the implementation of a given action or accepting a certain belief, etc. and to further stack the costs against the benefits of
the same-laying out rather plainly why one’s side should win that particular match
• Counterargument: An argument raised by an opposing team to directly refute a previous argument.
• Counter-plan: A plan proposed by the negative team as an alternative to the affirmative plan.
MSR Law Debsoc

22. ARGUMENTATION (Part 4)
• Definitional challenge: An official objection made by the Opposition regarding the context or
interpretation of the motion set by the Proposition/ Government. Depending on the format of debate, it
may only acceptable on the following grounds: time-place set up, truistic set-up, squirreling or any other
set up seen as grossly unfair and un-debatable. After a definitional challenge, the roles of speakers, the
flow of the debate, and scoring will differ from a normal debate.
• Flow: A style of note-taking during a debate that notates each speech into a column to make seeing
rebuttals easier.
• The House: is, though, open to interpretation and definition by the Affirmative side, in the course of the
Prime Minister’s speech. The Definition of the house is worked by the Affirmative but should be
conducive enough to a debate (i.e. The Negative Case).
MSR Law Debsoc

23. ARGUMENTATION (Part 5)
• The Definition of houses range from
-6 rational people
-The Government of India…Ministries of GoI, Departments, etc.
-The UN, and its Subsidiaries, UNHRC, UNICEF, WHO, etc.
-American Government, or any other country’s e.g. Switzerland, Germany, etc. (keep the case in mind while making
the house a different nation)
• Model: A model is the framework of an action-plan. It can also be used to refer to existing examples of policies and their
manner of implementation. Models are used in the course of Policy Debates to clearly deliver precisely what course of action
their side of the house is arguing take place.
• Negative: Negative Sides are what we refer to as “going against the motion”. Meaning of course the side that has to disagree
with the motion and defend that stance against the Affirmative’s case.
• Preparation time: The time allotted to each team for preparation during the debate
• Status quo: The course of action currently pursued (i.e., the present system)
MSR Law Debsoc

24. ARGUMENTATION (What not to do)
• Case Slide – 2nd speaker takes a contrary
position or contradicts the 1st speaker
• Case Knife: 2nd team in a BP takes a contrary
stance or contradicts the 1st team.
• Fallacies (explained next slide)
MSR Law Debsoc

25. .
MSR Law Debsoc

26. .
MSR Law Debsoc

27. .
MSR Law Debsoc

28. .
MSR Law Debsoc

29. ARGUMENTATION (Fallacies)
• Appeal to Authority – If X said so, it must be right
• Ad Hominem – X is an idiot, anything he says is false and stupid, just like him.
• Slippery Slope – If A happens , then Z will happen, hence A must not happen
• Inconsistent Comparison - product X is less expensive than product A, has better quality than product B,
and has more features than product C(Don’t compare apples and oranges)
• Nirvana Fallacy –
Statement – Seatbelts are bad, people will die by rash driving of other anyway.
Rebuttal - While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of
dying in a car crash.
• Wikipedia- List of fallacies
MSR Law Debsoc

30. Definition Challenges
• Truism – The sun rises in the east.
• Tautology – X may happen or X may not happen, If I shoot myself in the
head with a gun, I will die. (Self explanatory and answering or repetitive in a
different sense)
• Place Set- Debate on ban of alcohol, In Saudi Arabia.
• Time set – We will invest in phone tapping substantially in the year 1880.
• Squirrel – THW not allow smoking on college campuses; THW not allow
smoking hot girls and boys onto campuses as they are a distraction.
MSR Law Debsoc

31. DC, When made
The definitional challenge must be made in the speech of the Leader of opposition only, following a clear statement that the
definition is being rejected or challenged. The onus for establishing the definitional challenge lies completely upon the Leader of
Opposition. Subsequent speakers are strictly permitted a purely clarificatory role (if any) in this regard.
The opposition can challenge the Government’s definition on any one ground only.
In the event of a challenge, once the grounds of challenge have been stated by the Leader of Opposition, a substitute definition
must be supplied, which the Opposition must then go on to
negate.
If the Leader of Opposition does not challenge the definition then no other speaker may do so.
The onus to prove that the definition is unreasonable lies on the Opposition and should not be presumed by adjudicators. The final
decision as to whether a definitional challenge has succeeded must take into consideration all 8 speeches in any debate.
If a definitional challenge is upheld, the team making the challenge wins by the maximum possible margin. If a definitional
challenge fails, the team making the challenge loses by the maximum possible margin.
Definitional challenges must fall if the definition provided a reasonable scope for debating & was fair enough to proceed.
MSR Law Debsoc

32. SPEAKER ROLES
.
MSR Law Debsoc

33. Prime Minister
The PM begins the debate by proposing a definition. i.e the interpretation of the motion as seen by the Government within the
theme of the round. The PM must give the house:
A Logical Link between the motion and the definition , this is not mandatory if the motions are fairly close-ended.
- Setting the parameters of the debate specifically within the theme of the round, if any
- A Case Statement which basically refers to the entire definition stated in a single sentence.
- The Burden of the Proposition which should essentially reflect what they are out to prove and the essentialities around which
their debate rests.
The Team Split whereby the PM informs the house of the structure of their debate
- Constructive Arguments in support of his/her motion. If the proposition wishes to run a Practicality based debate, then the PM
must also put forth a Detailed Model.
- No floating model is allowed i.e. The DPM can only explain certain points in the model as put forth by the PM, but cannot add
any new points to the model.
- If the proposition wishes to run a Principle based debate then it is not essential to put forth a model, since it is not of great
significance in this case.
MSR Law Debsoc

34. Leader of Opposition
• The LO comes up and either accepts or challenges the definition (the details On grounds of a challenge and the proceedings
are given in the next segment).
• The onus upon the LO is:
- To Accept or Challenge the definition.
- (If accepted) to identify the Point(s) of Clash – which essentially is the point the opposition realizes is debatable.
There may be multiple Points of Clash also.
- To state the Burden of the Opposition.
- To rebut certain arguments made by the Prime Minister
- To present his own constructive arguments and/or put forth a model.
- To give his Team Split which is in no way an absolute must but when present has a positive effect on scores.
A proper structure, if missing in the LO’s speech should not be marked down by the adjudicators, considering that he has the
least time to prepare his speech.
MSR Law Debsoc

35. Deputy Prime Minister
• The DPM is supposed to:
- Reiterate the Case Statement and Burden of Proposition – in case of a
Challenge the DPM has to prove why the Challenge does not stand and then
proceed with his/her case.
- If the definition is not challenged, then the DPM rebuts the Opposition’s case.
- The DPM then goes on to present his/her Constructive arguments and/or
explain the model, in adherence with the PM’s team split.
MSR Law Debsoc

36. Deputy Leader of Opposition
The DLO is supposed to :
- Reiterate the Burden of the Opposition and go on to refute the
Government’s Arguments. - Move forward the Constructive Case
and/or explain the model put forth by the LO.
- In case of a Challenge, the DLO reiterates the grounds of
challenge, and then goes on to oppose his/her case as
presented by the LO.
MSR Law Debsoc

37. Government Whip
- Rebut the points raised by the PM and DPM.
- Rebut the case of the opposition, pointing out the major flaws in
argumentation and logic
- New matter is not allowed in the Government Whip’s speech
although; he/she is allowed to bring in new examples to explain
previously made points or arguments.
- Rebuild the team’s case and summarize the issues of the debate and
thematize the debate.
MSR Law Debsoc

38. Opposition Whip
- Rebut the points raised by the PM, DPM
- Bring out the flaws in argumentation and logic of the Proposition. -
Summarize the issues of the debate and thematize the debate.
- The third negative has duties similar to that of the 3rd affirmative. The
3rd negative cannot introduce new matter, since the proposition would
be at a disadvantage as they would not have any speech left to
respond. Although, he may give examples to reinforce an argument
brought up previously.
MSR Law Debsoc

39. Reply Speeches
- The second last speech is delivered by either the LO or the DLO as a Reply speech. - The last speech is the
PM’s or the DPM’s Reply speech.
- Please note that No New Matter can be introduced in the Reply speeches.
- No POIs are allowed during the reply speeches.
- The purpose of the Reply speech is to sum up the debate and provide a Biased Adjudication. An ideal reply
speech should explain the debate by elucidating the arguments and by evaluating the themes and underlying
ideas of the debate. It analyses the debate from an outsider’s perspective and aims at drawing attention to the
larger picture.
- Apart from themes, reply speeches should also evaluate the burden of proof undertaken by each side,
proving how one side discharged the burden while the other did not.
- A reply speech is meant to be detached and reflective as contrasted to the other more stylistic speeches.
MSR Law Debsoc

40. Judging a Debate (Part 1)
Parliamentary Debates are judged by Adjudicators. Adjudicators are
impartial, neutral observers of the debate who are required to have no specific
knowledge of the topics being discussed.
Adjudicators are required to judge debates based only on what was said on
the floor of the house and not his/her own personal beliefs, values or
specialized knowledge.
Adjudicators will disregard any form of expert knowledge in any speech.
Debates are usually judged by a panel of three or five adjudicators.
MSR Law Debsoc

41. Judging a Debate (Part 2)
Adjudicators mark debates on the basis of: (Both for individuals as well as teams)
At the end of this tournament a “Best Speaker” award is presented on the basis of cumulative scores given
by adjudicators.
Adjudicators are not allowed to confer with each other before handing in their speed ballots (judging
sheets) to the runners.
All debaters must leave the chambers while the adjudicators tabulate scores and arrive at their decisions.
In case of a dissenting judge, the decision of a simple majority of the panel will decide the debate.
Adjudicators are required to give open adjudication to the teams after deciding the debate and
turning in speed ballots. Teams must not indulge in excessive cross questioning of the panel.
MSR Law Debsoc

42. Marking a debate
1. Matter (40) - substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence
presented, and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments.
2. Manner (40) - the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of
the debaters.
3. Method (20) - the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the
observance of the rules of debate.
* 40 + 40 +20 = 100
MSR Law Debsoc

43. Marking Guidelines (Average Scores)
• Matter – 30
• Manner – 30
• Method – 15
• 30 + 30 + 15 = 75 = Average Speech
• Worst Speech – 68 – 70 Above Average Speech – 76 - 77
• Bad Speech – 70-72 Very Good Speech – 78 - 79
• Below Average Speech – 73-74 Jesus is alive – 80+
Reply Speech = Normal Speech Score / 2
MSR Law Debsoc

44. Marking Guidelines ( Margins)
A debate can either be close, clear or thrashing.
Margins vary from (close, smallest possible margin) 1 – 12 (Thrashing) Close = 1 – 3, Clear = 4 – 7,
Thrashing = 8 – 12
Close: The standard of debating between the teams was equally matched and the teams engaged in a debate where
both sides stated relevant arguments.
Clear: The standard of debating of one team was obviously superior and their arguments clearly outweighed the
arguments of the opposing team.
Thrashing: In case of a definitional challenge or forfeit on the part of the opposing team or if the opposing team did not
engage in the debate at all.
Win/Loss margins below 1 and above 12 are not permitted.
The difference in cumulative speaker scores between the teams need not match the margin of
victory. The margin of victory is at the discretion of the adjudicator however the team that wins must have the higher
cumulative score. Teams must aim at winning by the highest possible margin.
MSR Law Debsoc

45. British Parliamentary Debate
An Introduction
MSR Law Debsoc

46. Brief
• British PD is a form of parliamentary debate that features two
coalition houses, Government (or Positive or Affirmative or
Proposition) and Opposition (or Negative)
• Modeled off a 4 party system prevalent in most British ruled
countries and Britain (eg. Labor, Conservative, Democratic and
Republican Parties)
• Each Houses consist of 2 parties (Opening and Closing or Majority
and Ally)
MSR Law Debsoc

47. The Motion
• Every debate has a motion; this is the issue for discussion. A good motion has clear
arguments in favor of it and against it. The motions used in the All Competition will be
on topics that a young person who frequently reads a good newspaper and thinks
about what they are reading will be well equipped to argue about.
• Often, the motions are based on certain topics. The motion is expressed “This
House...” this is a convention and “The House” is all the people present at the debate.
• Unlike Asian PD, Only 1 motion is given and all 4 teams have to debate the given
topic.
• All 4 teams prepare and present separately and not together.
MSR Law Debsoc

48. Similarities to Asian PD
• Time requirements and Points of Information
• Preparation for a debate (only addition of extensions)
• Argumentation
• Points of Information
• Definition Challenge (Grounds not Procedure)
• Speaker roles of PM, LO, DPM, DLO
MSR Law Debsoc

49. Differences from Asian PD
• 4 teams, not two (OG, OO, CG, CO)
• 2 closing teams have to bring in new perspectives to the ongoing debate in
terms of extensions or additional grounds.
• No reply speeches.
• Teams win in any manner, not by manner of house. (eg OG, OO, CO, CG)
• Best Idea wins, negative cases lose.
• Format used in the Worlds University Debating Championship.
MSR Law Debsoc

50. Teams in a BP
- Opening Government – Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
- Opening Opposition – Leader of Opposition and Deputy Leader of
Opposition.
- Closing Government – Member of Government and Government Whip
- Closing Opposition – Member of Opposition and Opposition Whip
MSR Law Debsoc

51. New Speaker Roles
• PM, LO, DPM and DLO are the same as
Asian PD.
MSR Law Debsoc

52. Member of Government
The Member of Government must stake his team’s claim in the debate by doing one of the
following:
1. Extend the debate into a new area (i.e. “this debate has so far focused on the developed
world, and now our team will extend that to look at the important benefits for the developing
world)
2. Introduce a couple of new arguments that make the case on his side more persuasive.
Again, this decision depends on the scenario. This is quite a complex part of debating to
master, but it is very important to add something new to the debate or you will be penalized.
MSR Law Debsoc

53. Member of Opposition
1. You must rebut the new analysis of the Member of
Government.
2. You must also bring an extension to the debate –
i.e. extend the debate into a new area or bring a
couple of new arguments to the debate.
MSR Law Debsoc

54. Government Whip
The last speech of a debate is known as a Summary Speech. In it you should step back and
look at the debate as a whole and explain why on all the areas you have argued your side has
won. You can:
1. Go through the debate chronologically (this is not very advanced and usually not very
persuasive either).
2. Go through one side’s case and then the other.
3. Go through the debate according to the main points of contention (this is the most
persuasive and advanced way) explaining why on each of the main issues that have been
debated have been won by your side.
MSR Law Debsoc

55. Opposition Whip
• Like the Government Whip, the last
opposition speaker must devote their
whole speech to a summing up and should
not introduce new material.
MSR Law Debsoc

56. The End
• Contact Debsoc Members for any doubts
MSR Law Debsoc