Rules of the UK Chemistry Tournament

The UK Chemistry Tournament consists of two stages, each built as science debates rather than written exams. 

In every stage, teams take turns assuming the roles of Reporter, Opponent, and Reviewer, and in groups of four teams, an additional team becomes the Observer. 

Each role is performed once per stage, ensuring that every team presents a solution, challenges another team’s work, and delivers an independent evaluation. Students may take each role only once across the whole Tournament.

Each Stage of the Chemistry Tournament follows a timed sequence moderated by the Section Moderator.

1. Challenge

The Opponent team begins the Round by challenging the Reporter team with one of the Tournament problems.

The Reporter may accept the challenge or reject it – teams have a limited number of allowed refusals, including strategic refusals that block a problem for the rest of the Tournament.

Once the challenge is accepted, both teams announce their active speakers for the Round.

2. Report

The Reporter gives a monologue presentation of their solution to the chosen problem.

Only the Reporter may speak during this part, and the presentation comes from a prepared in advance PowerPoint.

3. Opposition

After a short preparation interval, the Opponent delivers a monologue opposition, showing weaknesses, gaps, assumptions, or scientific inaccuracies in the Report.

The Reporter then gives a short response, followed by an academic discussion (science debate) between the Reporter and Opponent, where both may question, defend, and challenge each other’s ideas.

4. Review

The Reviewer presents a brief monologue evaluating both the Report and the Opposition, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and the scientific quality of the debate.

The Reviewer’s role is not to repeat arguments but to provide a balanced meta-analysis of the round.

5. Questions and Evaluation

Jury members ask questions to any of the active participants, followed by a short general discussion including other teams in the room.

Finally, the Jury records and announces the grades for the Reporter, Opponent, and Reviewer, which are converted into Technical Points (TPs) for scoring.

The Reporter presents the team’s solution after a problem has been challenged and accepted. The Report is a monologue (no more than 6 minutes) delivered without assistance from teammates and must clearly explain the team’s approach, reasoning, and conclusions. The Reporter is expected to outline the theory behind the problem, describe the methods used, present the results, and justify the final solution in a structured and accurate manner.

After the Report, the Opponent delivers their critique. The Reporter then gives a short response, addressing key objections, clarifying misunderstandings, and reinforcing essential points. This is followed by an academic discussion (science debate) between the Reporter and Opponent, during which the Reporter must defend the scientific validity of the solution, answer technical questions, and explain limitations or assumptions.

The Reporter’s task is to communicate the team’s work clearly, respond effectively to criticism, and demonstrate strong chemical understanding and logical reasoning throughout the debate.

The Opponent evaluates and critiques the Reporter’s solution after the Report has been presented. Their speech is a monologue focused on the scientific content of the Report – not on presenting their own solution. The Opponent highlights strengths and weaknesses in the Reporter’s reasoning, points out unclear assumptions or inaccuracies, and acknowledges correct results where appropriate.

After the critique, the Opponent leads the academic discussion by asking relevant questions, testing the coherence of the Reporter’s claims, and guiding the debate towards the key scientific issues.

The Opponent’s role is to critically analyse the Report, challenge its conclusions, and maintain a constructive scientific debate.

The Reviewer is the third active participant in the Round and evaluates both the Report and the Opposition. Remaining neutral, the Reviewer listens to the debate and then gives a short monologue summarising the key points from both sides. Their task is not to introduce new arguments, but to assess the clarity, scientific correctness, and relevance of the Reporter’s solution and the Opponent’s critique.

The Reviewer highlights where each side was strong or weak, comments on the coherence of the discussion, and judges whether the main scientific aspects of the problem were addressed. In essence, the Reviewer provides a balanced, informed overview that reflects a solid understanding of the problem and fair scientific judgement.