Starting in Autumn 2026
The Geneva's University Rhetoric Society organizes debates in the parliamentary format every week, open to everyone. From 6:15 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Uni Mail, students (whether beginners or experienced speakers) are invited to practice public speaking, develop their critical thinking skills, and compete against other teams in a challenging, stimulating, and supportive academic environment.
Eight speakers.
Two teams.
Five minutes each.
There is no requirement to actively participate; you are welcome to simply attend.
The first speaker, responsible for setting out a draft bill, outlining their team’s plan and introducing the topic.
Discuss one aspect of the draft bill in depth.
Discuss one aspect of the draft bill in depth.
Do not simply present your arguments; refute each of the opposing speakers’ points and summarise the debate.
The second speaker, tasked with criticising the bill, setting out his team’s plan and introducing the topic.
Discuss one aspect against the draft bill in depth.
Discuss one aspect against the draft bill in depth.
Do not simply present your arguments; refute each of the opposing speakers’ points and summarise the debate.
Examples of topics:
The FPR is designed to facilitate in-depth debates whilst maintaining enough momentum to ensure they are enjoyable to watch. In five minutes, each speaker has enough time to really explore their chosen argument in depth; in 40 minutes, the audience gains a comprehensive overview of the topic, including its proposals and contradictions.
The two sides take turns: first the Council of State, then the Opposition, then the Council of State, then the Opposition...
Awarded to the team that has best developed its reasoning, in terms of both quality and quantity.
Awarded to the team that best analyzed the opposing team’s arguments — examining their basis, premises, applications, or consequences.
Awarded to the team that best combined the elements of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason); and that produced the best variations in voice (timbre, pitch, speed, and rate of speech).
Awarded to the team that asked the most relevant, most challenging, and most appropriate questions.
Awarded to the team that asked the most interesting questions, remained composed, and turned the tables by asking their own questions.
Awarded to the team that best embodied the ethics of the ideal politician, that managed to avoid meta-discourse, and that embodied Parliament and the ideals of its office.