Introduction to British Parliamentary Debate 英国议会制辩论赛简介(1)

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 ud 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 expresd “This Hou…”:this is a convention and “The Hou” is all

the people prent at the debate.

Team Constitution

(外国的诗 不白活一回 Twosides and Four factions

1. Opening Government (firstfaction:

Prime Minister

Deputy Prime Minister

2. Opening Opposition (condfaction:

Leader of the Opposition

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

3. Closing Government (thirdfaction:

Member for the Government

Government Whip

4. Closing Opposition (fourthfaction:

Member for the Opposition

Opposition Whip

Team Rules

Each team is allocated whether they will propo or oppo the motion.

The teams are allocated whether they will speak first or cond 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 (PrimeMinister

1. Define the motion (ebelow.

2. Outline the ca he and his partner will put forward and explain which speaker

will deal with which arguments.

3. Develop his own arguments, which should be parated into two or three main

points.

4. Finish by summarizing his main points.

The Roles of the Opening Proposition Team

Second speaker (DeputyPrime Minister

1. Recapitulate(扼要重述 the team line.

2. Rebut the respon 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 – parated into two or three main points.

5. Finish with a summary of the whole team ca.

The Roles of the Opening Opposition Team

First speaker (Leaderof the Opposition

1. Respond to the definition if it is unfair or makes no link to the motion.

You can re-define (offeran alternative interpretation of the motion, but this can be

risky and should only be done when the definition is not debatable (usuallybetter 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 ca 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 ca ( alternative proposal. This decision is largely bad on the

circumstances of the debate, and only experience will provide guidance on this.

The Roles of the Opening Opposition Team

Second speaker (DeputyLeader of the Opposition

1. Rebut the speech of the cond proposition speaker.

2. Offer some more arguments to support your partner’s approach to the motion.

3. Summarize the ca for your team, including your own and your partner’s

arguments. The Roles of the Closing Proposition Team

First speaker (Memberfor 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 focud 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 ca 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 (GovernmentWhip

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 th苏轼介绍 e debate chronologically (thisis not very advanced and usually not

very persuasive either.

2. Go through one side’s ca and then the other.

3. Go through the debate according to the main points of contention (thisis 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 (Memberfor the Opposition

This is very similar to the cond 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 (OppositionWhip

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 (thisis not very advanced and usually not

very persuasive either.

2. Go through one side’s ca and then the other.

3. Go through the debate according to the main points of contention (thisis 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' argumen豆条 ts;

2. They should briefly sum up their Opening Faction's ca;

3. They should offer a conclusion of their own faction's ca extension.

Debating Procedure

Speaking alternates between the two sides and the order of the debate is therefore:

Pha 1:Prime Minister

Pha 2:Leader of the Opposition

Pha 3:Deputy Prime Minister

Pha 4:Dpc肌肉 eputy Leader of the Opposition

Pha 5:Member for the Government

Pha 6:Member for the Opposition

Pha 7:Government Whip

Pha 8:Opposition Whip

Points of Information

POI(Pointof Information is important in British Parliamentary style, as it allows the

first two factions to maintain their relevance during the cour 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 ( 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

el’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 unttle 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 plea”, or “no thank you”.

6. You should aim to accept two points of information during a 7minute speech.

7. Points of Information should be quick and to the point (nomore than about fifteen

conds. 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 becau 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 (ifit 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, y腌制芥菜 ou absolutely MUST make it utterly explicit when

you refute the point later on. You must not u this as a ducking tactic since adjudicators

will notice.

Ca Building

One of the most difficult skills in debating is preparing cas ( First

Proposition.

Many teams find it difficult to come up with a good ca statement and supporting

arguments in the 15minutes 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 ca with no opposition to it at all. If your ca is

(1tautological (trueby definition:the Sun ris in the morning,

(2truistic (trueby commonly accepted principles:Hitler was bad

you will be penalid, and will probably lo 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 u 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 rearchers/specialists B Proposition of Value (What/Which? e.g.

“This Hou believes that Affirmative Action is praiworthy. (keyword here is an

adjective C Proposition of Policy (How? e.g. “This Hou would appea 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 nt to Mars. (2 Efficiency This hou 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 supervi THBT children should be banned to watch TV over 3 hours 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. Esntial abilities and quality for debater Linguistic

competence (esp. listening, speaking Broad Knowledge Rerves (esp. social focus Logic

Thinking Dialectical Thinking Independent Thinking Teamwork Spirit Courtesy

Devotion & Passion Positive Mentality (open-mindedness, opti灾难的英文 mism, perverance,

modesty, etc. 5. Opposition Strategies Review Types of Resolutions (each has unique

arguments Basics of Refutation (4 Step 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安排英文 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 aggressiveness,

boldness,

Value Resolutions Example: “This hou believes curity needs outweigh

environmental needs.” Value Resolutions Ask the proposition to prove one thing is better

than another Requires a structure to asss 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 caud

something el Identified grammatically by infinitive verb, for example “to be,” “is,” or

“are.” Basics of Refutation Four Step Process Step 1: say what opponent said Step 2:

provide a respon (refute it月小结 Step 3: explain respon Step 4: 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 caus wor

things to happen Plan could be solved better by another cour 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 ca is not linked to the resolutions given for the debate

How should the resolution be interpreted How does the proposition ca not meet this

interpretation Generic Opposition Arguments Critique underlying assumptions Argue the

propod 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

cau harm Uniting Strategies Do not think of propositions of fact, value, and policy as

being always distinct from one another. The areas overlap. Conquently, 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? The are avenues for you to

point out to your judge.