The British Parliamentary Debate Format
A debate format consists of a description of the teams in
the debate and the order and times for the speeches that make up that debate. The
British Parliamentary debate format[1] differs from many other
formats because it involves four teams rather than two. Two teams, called the “First Proposition” and
the “Second Proposition” teams, are charged with the responsibility of
supporting the proposition while two other teams, “First Opposition” and
“Second Opposition,” are charged with opposing it.
Two speakers represent each of the four teams and each
speaker gives a speech of seven minutes.
The following chart describes the basic format and time limits. As you will see from the chart, each speaker
is given a unique title.
British Parliamentary Debate Format
|
Speaker
|
Time
|
|
Prime Minister
1st speaker for 1st
proposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Leader of Opposition
1st speaker for 1st
opposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Deputy Prime Minister
2nd speaker for 1st
proposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Deputy Leader of Opposition
2nd speaker for 1st
opposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Member of Government
1st speaker for 2nd
proposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Member of Opposition
1st speaker for 2nd
opposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Government Whip
2nd speaker for 2nd
proposition:
|
7 minutes
|
|
Opposition Whip
2nd speaker for 2nd
opposition:
|
7 minutes
|
As can be seen from the table above, the first four speeches
are delivered by the First Proposition and the First Opposition teams then the
last four speeches are delivered by the Second Proposition and Second
Opposition teams. Therefore, the First Proposition and First Opposition teams
generally are responsible for the first half of the debate and the Second
Proposition and Second Opposition teams have the responsibility for the second
half.
The table above describes all of the formal speeches but it
does not describe one of the most important and dynamic parts of the debate:
points of information. Points of
information provide opportunities for members of each team to interact with
members of the teams defending the opposite side of the motion[2].
Points of information can be requested after the first
minute of a speech and prior to the last minute of the speech. The first and last minute of each speech is
“protected” against interruption. The point of information can last no more
than fifteen seconds and may take the form of a question, a statement, or an
argument.
Only a debater defending the opposite side of the
proposition as the speaker can request a point of information. In other words, the debaters for the
proposition can request points of information of members of the opposition teams
and vice versa. To request a point of information, a debater rises and politely
says something like “point of information please,” or “on that point.”
The debater giving the speech has the authority to accept or
to refuse the request for a point of information. In general, debaters should accept a minimum
of two points during their speech so that the judges and the audience will know
they are able to answer points quickly and directly. Accepting more than one or two points is not
advisable because to do so may have the effect of disrupting the speech. To
refuse a point of information, the debater may say something like “No thank
you” or “not at this time,” or may simply use a hand gesture to indicate the
person should take return to their seat.
If the request for a point of information is accepted, the
person who has requested the point has a maximum of fifteen seconds to make the
point. As stated earlier, the point can
be a question, a statement, or an argument.
Sometimes points of information are made to force an opponent to clarify
a position but more commonly, they are made to attempt to undermine an argument
being made by the speaker.
After accepting a point of information, the speaker should
answer the question directly. The person
offering the point of information is not allowed to follow-up with additional
questions. Points of information are
among the most important and most interesting parts of British Parliamentary
debate because they introduce an element of spontaneity to the debate and give
each debater the chance to demonstrate critical thinking skills.
Although points of information are a common occurrence in
every speech in the debate, each speech contains elements that are unique to
that speech. The following table
explains the basic responsibilities of each speaker in British Parliamentary
debate. Following the table is a fuller
explanation of the responsibilities of each speech.
Speaker Responsibilities for British Parliamentary Debate
|
Speaker
|
Speaker Responsibilities
|
|
Prime Minister
1st speaker for 1st
proposition:
|
Defines and interprets the
motion
Develops
the case for the proposition
|
|
Leader of Opposition
1st speaker for 1st
opposition:
|
Accepts the definition of the
motion
Refutes the case of the 1st
proposition
Constructs one or more arguments against the Prime Minister’s
interpretation of the motion.
|
|
Deputy Prime Minister
2nd speaker for 1st
proposition:
|
Refutes the case of the 1st
opposition
Rebuilds the case of the 1st
proposition
May add new arguments to the
case of the 1st proposition
|
|
Deputy Leader of Opposition 2nd speaker for 1st
opposition:
|
Continues refutation of case
of 1st proposition
Rebuilds arguments of the 1st
opposition
May add new arguments to the
case of the 1st opposition
|
|
Member of Government
1st speaker for 2nd
proposition:
|
Defends the general direction
and case of the 1st proposition
Continues refutation of 1st
opposition team
Develops a new argument that
is different from but consistent with the case of the 1st
proposition (sometimes called an extension).
|
|
Member of Opposition
1st speaker for 2nd
opposition:
|
Defends the general direction
taken by the 1st opposition.
Continues general refutation
of 1st proposition case
Provides more specific
refutation of 2nd opposition
Provides new opposition
arguments
|
|
Government Whip
2nd speaker for 2nd
proposition:
|
Summarizes the entire debate
from the point of view of the proposition, defending the general view point
of both proposition teams with a special eye toward the case of the 2nd
proposition
Does not provide new
arguments.
|
|
Opposition Whip
2nd speaker for 2nd
opposition:
|
Summarizes the entire debate
from the point of view of the opposition, defending the general view point of
both opposition teams with a special eye toward the case of the 2nd
opposition
Does not provide new
arguments.
|
The following sections briefly
describe the speeches given by each of the eight speakers listed in the
previous table. These are very brief descriptions that will be expanded in
later chapters.
Prime Minister
The debate begins with a seven-minute
speech by the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister has two basic responsibilities: to define and interpret the motion and
to develop the case for the proposition.
The first of these responsibilities is to define and interpret the
motion for debate. The definition and
interpretation is particularly important because it sets the stage for the
entire debate. Remember, the Prime Minster has the right to define the motion
and the responsibility to do so in a reasonable fashion. Therefore, if the
Prime Minister’s interpretation is a poor one, the likely result will be a poor
debate.
In order to properly define and
interpret the proposition, the Prime Minster should do the following:
1) Define any ambiguous terms in the proposition.
2) Show how these definitions are reasonable ones.
3) Outline a model that will be used by all teams in advancing
the debate.
More will be said about these
three points in Chapter 5 on constructing a case for the proposition.
The second responsibility of
the Prime Minister is to construct a case for the proposition. Simply stated, a “case” consists of one or
more arguments supporting the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the
motion. Therefore, the Prime Minister
will outline the arguments supporting the interpretation and begin to develop
each of those arguments. The Prime
Minister need not present all of the arguments for the First Proposition
team. In many cases, the Prime Minister
will state that the First Proposition team will have a certain number of
arguments and that some will be presented in this speech and the Deputy Prime
Minister will present the rest.
Leader of the Opposition
The Leader of the Opposition
has three primary responsibilities: to accept the definition and interpretation
of the proposition, to refute part or all of the Prime Minister’s case, and to
present one or more arguments in opposition to the Prime Minister’s
interpretation of the motion.
First, in most ordinary
situations, the Leader of the Opposition should explicitly accept the definition
and interpretation of the motion as presented by the Prime Minister. In
extraordinary cases, when the definition is completely unreasonable as to
preclude meaningful debate, the Leader of the Opposition has the right to
reject the definition. The problem with
rejecting the definition is that such an action will ultimately lead to a very
bad debate and the First Opposition team likely will get the blame. Therefore, even in the event of an
unreasonable definition, the Leader of the Opposition should point out to the
judge and the audience that the definition and interpretation presented by the
Prime Minister is unreasonable and then should go ahead and accept the
definition for the purposes of the current debate.
Second, the Leader of the
Opposition should refute part or all of the Prime Minister’s arguments for the
motion. Because of the limits of time,
the Leader of Opposition cannot reasonably expect to refute all of the Prime
Minister’s arguments. The proper goal is
to select and refute the most important arguments presented by the Prime
Minister.
Finally, the Leader of the
Opposition should present one, two, or three arguments directed against the
Prime Minister’s interpretation of the motion.
These arguments are different from those arguments offered in
refutation. They should consist of the most persuasive reasons that the Leader
of the Opposition can present to convince the audience to reject the
proposition.
Deputy Prime Minister
The Deputy Prime Minister has
three primary obligations: to defend the case presented by the Prime Minister,
to refute any independent arguments presented by the Leader of the Opposition,
and to add one or more arguments to the case presented by the Prime Minister.
First, the Deputy Prime Minister defends the case presented
by the Prime Minister by engaging any refutation presented against the case by
the Leader of the Opposition. This task needs to be accomplished in a very
systematic fashion. The Deputy should
take up the Prime Minister’s argument one by one and defend each argument
against any refutation by the Leader of the Opposition. Thus, at the end of
this section of the Deputy’s speech, the audience should see that the case
originally presented by the Prime Minister still stands as strongly as it did when
initially presented.
Second, the Deputy Prime Minister should refute any of the
independent argument presented by the Leader of the Opposition. Like the Leader of Opposition, the Deputy
should not try to refute all arguments, just the most important ones.
Finally, the Deputy Prime Minster should add one or two
arguments to the case presented by the Prime Minister. The reasons for adding new arguments in this
speech are two-fold: First, the Prime
Minister may not have had adequate time to develop all of the arguments that
the First Proposition team wishes to present and second, presenting these
additional arguments gives the judges and audience a way to judge the ability
of the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to the ability to construct arguments.
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
The duties of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are
similar to those of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Leader should 1) defend the refutation offered by the Leader
of Opposition, 2) defend the arguments offered by the Leader of the Opposition,
and 3) add one or more new arguments to those being offered by the First
Proposition team.
First, the Deputy Leader should defend the refutation
offered by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Deputy Prime Minister will have engaged the refutation presented by
the Leader of Opposition. At this time,
the Deputy Leader needs to show that the original refutation is still sound.
Second, the Deputy Leader should defend the arguments
presented by the Leader of the Opposition.
The task of the Deputy Leader is to make sure that these arguments still
stand firm in the mind of the judges and audience. To do so, the Deputy leader needs to consider
each argument one by one, engage any refutation offered by the Deputy Prime Minister,
and therefore rebuild each argument.
Third, the Deputy Leader should present one or more
arguments against the proposition. These
arguments can be similar to those arguments raised by the Leader of the
Opposition, yet they should be new ones to give the judges and audience the
ability to judge the Deputy Leader’s argument construction skills.
Member of Government
The Member of Government initiates the second half of the
debate. The Member of Government needs
to defend the general direction taken by the First Proposition team but needs
to offer a new perspective from the Second Proposition team. In other words, the Member of Government
needs to defend the thesis of the First Proposition team while doing so for
different reasons. The obligations of
the Member of Government can be summarized as follows: 1) Defend the general
perspective of the First Proposition team, 2) Continue refuting arguments made
by the First Opposition team, 3) Develop one or more new arguments that are
different from but consistent with the case offered by the First Proposition
team.
The first responsibility of the Member of the Government is
to defend the general direction of the debate as started by the First
Proposition team. In so doing, the
Member of Government demonstrates a sense of loyalty to the other debaters
defending the proposition. This part of the Member’s speech is important but
need not be time consuming. One or two
minutes devoted to this aspect of the speech will probably be sufficient.
Second, the Member of Government should continue refuting
arguments made by the First Opposition team. The Member of Government should
not use the same refutation as provided by debaters of the First Proposition
team, but should introduce new points of refutation unique to the Second
Government team. To the extent possible,
the refutation should focus on the arguments presented by the Deputy Leader of
the Proposition.
Finally, the Member of Government should develop one or more
arguments that are different from but consistent with the arguments offered by
the Prime Minister. These new arguments
sometimes are referred to as an “extension.” This extension is one of the most
important elements of the Member of Government’s case as it provides an
opportunity to distinguish the Second Proposition team from the First
Proposition while simultaneously remaining consistent with their overall
approach.
Member of Opposition
The Member of Opposition begins the second half of the
debate for the Opposition side. Like the Second Proposition team, the goal of
the Second Opposition team is to remain consistent with the First Opposition
team while presenting a unique perspective of their own. To accomplish this
goal, the Member of Opposition needs to fulfill three obligations: 1) Defend
the general direction taken by the First Opposition team, 2) Continue the
refutation of the case as presented by the First Proposition, 3) Provide more
specific refutation of the arguments introduced by the Member of Government,
and 4) Present one or more new arguments that are consistent with, yet
different from, those presented by the First Opposition team.
First, the Member of Opposition should defend the general
perspective taken by the First Opposition team.
This need not be a time-consuming enterprise, but the Member of
Opposition should make clear that the Second Opposition team is being loyal to
the arguments of the First Opposition team.
Second, the Member of Opposition should briefly continue the
refutation of the case presented by the First Proposition team. Again, this
continued refutation should be brief and should involve new points of
refutation not yet considered by members of the First Opposition team.
Third, the Member of Opposition should present more specific
refutation of the arguments introduced by the Member of Government. Refutation
of the Member of Government’s arguments is an important task because these are
completely new arguments supporting the proposition side and have not yet been
joined by the opposition side.
Finally, the Member of Opposition should present an
extension—an argument consistent with, yet different from that presented by the
First Opposition team. Like the
Government’s extension, this is an important responsibility of the Member of
Opposition because it allows the Second Opposition team to show its loyalty to
the First Opposition team while clearly differentiating themselves form the
First Opposition.
Government Whip
The whip speakers for both teams have the responsibility to
close the debate for their respective sides.
The Government Whip should accomplish three goals: 1) Refute the
extension offered by the Member of Opposition, 2) Defend the extension offered
by the Member of Government, and 3) Summarize the debate from the perspective
of the Proposition side.
The first responsibility of the Government Whip is to refute
the extension offered by the Member of Opposition. This extension has yet to be discussed by the
Proposition team and doing so is an important responsibility of the Government
Whip.
Second, the Government Whip should defend the extension
offered by the Member of Government. The
Member of Government’s extension is a very important party of the Second
Government’s case and in all likelihood has been refuted by the Member of
Opposition. Therefore, defending this
extension is an important responsibility of the Government Whip.
The final, and perhaps most important responsibility of the
Government Whip is to summarize the debate from the perspective of the Proposition
side. The summary may be accomplished in a number of ways. One of the most
effective ways is to identify the most crucial issues in the debate and discuss
how each side has dealt with each. The
summary should, of course, be made from their side’s perspective while being
and appearing to be fair-minded.
Similarly, the summary should be fair to the First Proposition team but
should focus on the arguments pursued by the Second Proposition team.
Opposition Whip
The responsibilities of the Opposition Whip are almost
identical to those of the Government Whip except they are accomplished from the
perspective of the Opposition side rather than from the Proposition side.
Again, the Opposition Whip should 1) Refute the extension
offered by the Member of Government, 2) Defend the extension offered by the
Member of Opposition, and 3) Summarize the debate from the perspective of the
Opposition side.
The details of this speech are exactly like those of the
previous speech except that they focus on the Opposition side of the debate
rather than the Proposition side. Once
again, the primary goal of this speech is to summarize the debate from the
perspective of the Opposition side, particularly from the point of view of the
Second Opposition team. This summary
should fairly support the Opposition side of the debate while focusing on the
accomplishments of the Second Opposition team.
Judging
All judges, although it may not seem like it, are
human – honest! That
is to say, they are not perfect, debate-judging
machines. They can (and do)
make mistakes. But they try very, very hard not to
make mistakes, and
most of the time, they succeed.
So what will they look for from you? Put simply, all
of the above!
Structure, style, arguments backed up by examples
and supported by
analysis, good rebuttal of an opposing team’s
arguments, and plenty of
POIs being offered. All these help you win a debate,
but there will be times
when you do all of this, and still don’t win. So
what happened?
The judge has to balance the arguments he/she has
heard – what
were the ‘killer’ points, and who made them? Did the
style of the PM
overcome the substance of the Leader of the
Opposition? It is very rare
that debaters will be evenly matched in all areas,
and the judge must decide
what was more important in that debate.
What a judge should never do is bring his/her own
knowledge to the
debate. Judges are not there to judge you on what wasn’t
said, or on what
they expect to be said, they judge on what
has been brought to the table by
you. That is not to say that, if the ‘big’ arguments
have been missed, they
cannot mention it in their feedback (e.g. “I was
surprised that nobody
mentioned X, as it is central to the debate, [but it
has not affected the
decision in any way]…) as feedback is not just about
why they made the
decision they did, it is about helping you to become
better debaters.
So what will happen when the debate is done, and
judgment has
been made? For most debates, you will receive ‘open’
adjudication – you
20
will be told your position in the debate, and
reasons for it. For later rounds,
semi-finals, etc., it will generally be kept secret
until the finalists are
announced. This helps to keep the suspense. In any
case, once a decision
is announced, you can then approach your judges for
feedback.
Remember, even if you disagree with the decision,
listen to the
reasons for it. Most judges have debated before,
some to an exceptionally
high level, and will be able to justify their choice
of winner and loser. If you
think a decision is wrong, and the ‘justification’
given also seems wrong,
you may wish to complain to the tournament
organisers – they won’t
change the decision, but will look carefully at that
judge in the future.
Be careful, though. If you complain about every
decision where you
lose or come third, people may start to think that
the problem lies with you
rather than with your judges. Bad judging does
sometimes happen, and it
can be devastating, but all debaters suffer from it,
and all have to deal with
it. It is unfortunate, but it is also the nature of
debating, and how you cope
with a bad decision, and how you respond to it in
the next round, often
says more about you as a debater than winning every
round
Summary
This then is the basic format of British Parliamentary
debating: four teams of two persons each engage one another through a series of
seven-minute speeches interspersed by points of information. The teams from
each side attempt to maintain loyalty with one another while simultaneously
demonstrating the unique qualities of their own arguments.
Much has been introduced here that was not fully
developed. Later chapters will further
explore issues only mentioned here, issues such as case construction,
opposition arguments, points of information, refutation and many others.
[1]
British Parliamentary debate sometimes is referred to as Worlds-style debate or
simply four-team debate.
[2]
The topic for the debate is called the motion, proposition, resolution, or
sometimes just the debate topic. All of
these words are used interchangeably.
Facebook Blogger Plugin by Tanzaniastar
Post a Comment