Introduction to British Parliamentary Debate 英国议会制辩论赛简介
Introduction to British Parliamentary Debate
British Parliamentary Debate is very widespread,and has gained major support in the United Kingdom,Ireland,Europe,Africa,and United States.It has also been adopted as the official style of the World Universities Debating Championship and the European Universities Debating Championship.
The Motion
Every debate has a motion;this is the issue for discussion.
A good motion has clear arguments in favour of it and against it.
The motions used in most debating competition will be controversial issues,and a young person who frequently reads newspaper and thinks about what they are reading will be well equipped to win in debate.
The motion is expressed“This House…”:this is a convention and“The House”is all the people present at the debate.
Team Constitution
(Two sides and Four factions)
1.Opening Government(first faction):
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
2.Opening Opposition(second faction):
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
3.Closing Government(third faction):
Member for the Government
Government Whip
4.Closing Opposition(fourth faction):
Member for the Opposition
Opposition Whip
Team Rules
Each team is allocated whether they will propose or oppose the motion.
The teams are allocated whether they will speak first or second on their side of the motion.
You must not contradict the other team on your side,but you are competing against them.
You must show the judges that you can debate more persuasively that the teams on
the other side and the other team on your own side.
You should therefore not discuss with the other team on your side what you are going to say or help them in any way.
You must not talk to anyone other than your partner during the preparation period.
The Roles of the Four Teams
Opening Proposition Team
Opening Opposition Team
Closing Proposition Team
Closing Opposition Team
The Roles of the Opening Proposition Team
First speaker(Prime Minister)
1.Define the motion(see below).
2.Outline the case he and his partner will put forward and explain which speaker will deal with which arguments.
3.Develop his own arguments,which should be separated into two or three main points.
4.Finish by summarizing his main points.
The Roles of the Opening Proposition Team
Second speaker(Deputy Prime Minister)
1.Recapitulate(扼要重述)the team line.
2.Rebut the response made by the first opposition speaker to his partner’s speech.
3.Rebut the first opposition speaker’s main arguments.
4.Develop his own arguments–separated into two or three main points.
5.Finish with a summary of the whole team case.
The Roles of the Opening Opposition Team
First speaker(Leader of the Opposition)
1.Respond to the definition if it is unfair or makes no link to the motion.
You can re-define(offer an alternative interpretation of the motion),but this can be risky and should only be done when the definition is not debatable(usually better to complain a little and hope the adjudicator gives you credit–“well this is a silly definition but we’re going to debate it and beat you on it anyway”approach).
2.Rebut the first proposition speech.
3.Outline the case which she and her partner will put forward and explain which speakers will deal with which arguments.
4.Offer additional arguments(roughly2)about why the policy is a bad idea,or develop
a counter case(i.e.an alternative proposal).This decision is largely based on the
circumstances of the debate,and only experience will provide guidance on this.
The Roles of the Opening Opposition Team
Second speaker(Deputy Leader of the Opposition)
1.Rebut the speech of the second proposition speaker.
2.Offer some more arguments to support your partner’s approach to the motion.
3.Summarize the case for your team,including your own and your partner’s arguments.
The Roles of the Closing Proposition Team
First speaker(Member for the Government)
The first speaker 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.
(Note: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.)
The Roles of the Closing Proposition Team
Second speaker(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.
(Note:You should not introduce new argument.)
The Roles of the Closing Opposition Team
First speaker(Member for the Opposition)
This is very similar to the second proposition role.
1.You must rebut the new analysis of the third proposition speaker.
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.
The Roles of the Closing Opposition Team
Second speaker(Opposition 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.
(Note:You should not introduce new argument.)
Notes for Two Whips
1.They must respond to both opposing factions'arguments;
2.They should briefly sum up their Opening Faction's case;
3.They should offer a conclusion of their own faction's case extension.
Debating Procedure
Speaking alternates between the two sides and the order of the debate is therefore: Phase1:Prime Minister
Phase2:Leader of the Opposition
Phase3:Deputy Prime Minister
Phase4:Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Phase5:Member for the Government
Phase6:Member for the Opposition
Phase7:Government Whip
Phase8:Opposition Whip
Points of Information
POI(Point of Information)is important in British Parliamentary style,as it allows the first two factions to maintain their relevance during the course of the debate,and the last two factions to introduce their arguments early in the debate.
Rules of POI
1.Points of information should be offered in unprotected time(i.e.in the time between the two time signals).
2.They should be offered by members of the opposite side only.
3.You offer a point of information by standing and saying“point of information”.
4.You should aim to offer one point of information every minute during someone else’s speech.This is just a rough guideline.If you offer too few it will look like you cannot argue against the point they are making,and if you offer too many it will look like you are trying to unsettle or harass the speaker.
5.Speakers may accept or decline the point of information in any way they like;the simplest is by saying“yes please”,or“no thank you”.
6.You should aim to accept two points of information during a7minute speech.
7.Points of Information should be quick and to the point(no more than about fifteen seconds).They should offer a new piece of information to explain why what the speaker is saying at the time is wrong.
How To Deal With POI
Many new debaters find points of information one of the scariest bits of debating.
This is usually because they vastly overestimate the intelligence of the speakers on the other side.
Remember confidence does not equal intelligence,it only gives that impression and is designed to do so.
There are a number of ways of dealing with Points of Information.
1.Dismiss them briefly and then get on with your speech(if it was a stupid point).
2.Answer them more fully and merge your answer into what you were going to say next.
3.Say that you are planning to deal with that point later on in your speech and carry on where you were.If you do this,you absolutely MUST make it utterly explicit when you refute the point later on.You must not use this as a ducking tactic since adjudicators will notice.
Case Building
One of the most difficult skills in debating is preparing cases(i.e.being First Proposition).
Many teams find it difficult to come up with a good case statement and supporting arguments in the15minutes that most tournaments allot for preparation time.
The key to success is to recognize your time constraints and live within them.
Every other team in the tournament will have similar restrictions placed on them when they are in opening proposition.Accept it and move on.
It is not ok to run a case with no opposition to it at all.If your case is
(1)tautological(true by definition:the Sun rises in the morning),
(2)truistic(true by commonly accepted principles:Hitler was bad)
you will be penalised,and will probably lose the debate by default.
If the definition is tautological or truistic,the first opposition speaker should explain this,substitute a fair definition and then argue against this new definition.
How to make definition
The following are possible means,not the necessary method for every definition.For different motion,we need to make different definition according to debating experience.
1.Time Set
THBT retirement age should be extended.(how many years?)
2.Place Set
THBT smoking should be banned in China.(in which location?)
3.Extent Set
THBT athletes should be permitted to use Performance Enhancing Drugs in competition.
4.Amount Set
THBT subsidies should be granted to inter-faith and inter-ethnic marriage.
5.Object Set
THBT euthanasia should be legalized in China.
6.Range Set
THBT casino should be legalized in China.
2.Classification of Debating types
A)Proposition of Fact(What/Which?)
e.g.“That gunpowder was invented in China.”
(Debated only between researchers/specialists)
B)Proposition of Value(What/Which?)
e.g.“This House believes that Affirmative Action is praiseworthy.
(keyword here is an adjective)
C)Proposition of Policy(How?)
e.g.“This House would appease North Korea”
(keyword here is a verb)
D)Value debating+Policy debating
Prostitution should be legalized in China.
3.Debating Perspectives
(1)Profitability
THBT manned mission should be sent to Mars.
(2)Efficiency
This house believes that health industry should be privatized.
(3)Urgency Degree
THBT developed Nations should accept global warming refugees.
(4)Significance
THBT prostitution should be legalized.
(5)Feasibility(hard to implement or supervise)
THBT children should be banned to watch TV over3hours each day.
(6)Effectiveness
THBT paper examination should be abolished.
(7)Justice and Equity
THBT judiciary judges should be elected.
(8)Necessity
THBT Yuanmingyuan should be rebuilt.
(9)Fairness
THBT retirement age should be extended.
(10)Humanity
THBT voluntary euthanasia should be legalized.
4.Essential abilities and quality for debater
Linguistic competence(esp.listening,speaking)
Broad Knowledge Reserves(esp.social focus)
Logic Thinking
Dialectical Thinking
Independent Thinking
Teamwork Spirit
Courtesy
Devotion&Passion
Positive Mentality(open-mindedness,optimism,aggressiveness,boldness, perseverance,modesty,etc.)
5.Opposition Strategies
Review Types of Resolutions(each has unique arguments)
Basics of Refutation(4Step Refutation)
Opposing Policies
Opposing Values
Opposing Facts
General Opposition Arguments
Policy Resolutions
Example:“The European Union should diplomatically pressure Myanmar to open its borders.”
Policy Resolutions
Ask the Proposition to alter or change a current situation.
Identified grammatically by“should”or“would”
Require opposition to prove
Problem in the status quo
Plan to deal with that problem
How plan will“solve”for the problem
Value Resolutions
Example:“This house believes security needs outweigh environmental needs.”
Value Resolutions
Ask the proposition to prove one thing is better than another
Requires a structure to assess the comparison(a hierarchy of values)
identified grammatically by a comparison,for example“better than,”“greater,”“more important,”“justified.”
Requires Proposition to prove
Value Hierarchy is good interpretation
Their interpretation improves,in some manner,the value
Fact Resolutions
Example:“China’s non-intervention policy with Myanmar has strengthened the region.”
Fact Resolutions
Ask the proposition to prove something is true or something caused something else Identified grammatically by infinitive verb,for example“to be,”“is,”or“are.”
Basics of Refutation
Four Step Process
Step1:say what opponent said
Step2:provide a response(refute it)
Step3:explain response
Step4:create impact comparison
This process allows:
Judge and opposing team to follow your arguments
Makes explicit your“warrants”or reasons for why your arguments are to be preferred In other words,it forces you to answer the“why”question
Opposing Policies
Arguments you can make
Plan is not necessary(no problem)
Plan does not solve for the problem
Plan causes worse things to happen
Plan could be solved better by another course of action
Opposing Values
Opposing Values—Arguments you can make
Value structure is bad(value is wrong)
Proposition does not uphold their value
Proposition does not prove their value application
Opposing Facts
Arguments you can make
Proposition does not prove its statement about the fact claim
Offer a counter interpretation of the fact claim
“resolution claim”-argue the Propositions case is not linked to the resolutions given for the debate
How should the resolution be interpreted
How does the proposition case not meet this interpretation
Generic Opposition Arguments
Critique underlying assumptions
Argue the proposed interpretation(plan,value or fact)rests on faulty assumption that needs be refuted,or criticized
Argue the assumption is harmful to society or that assumption would cause harm
Uniting Strategies
Do not think of propositions of fact,value,and policy as being always distinct from one another.These areas overlap.Consequently,the strategies overlap.
Think practically—what happens if the proposition is affirmed as“true.”
If you were a judge of the debate,do you think the proposition has done enough to get your vote?Where do they fail to meet the needs of convincing you?These are avenues for you to point out to your judge.