Introduction to British Parliamentary DebateBritish 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 MotionEvery 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 MinisterDeputy Prime Minister2.Opening Opposition(second faction):Leader of the OppositionDeputy Leader of the Opposition3.Closing Government(third faction):Member for the GovernmentGovernment Whip4.Closing Opposition(fourth faction):Member for the OppositionOpposition WhipTeam RulesEach 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 onthe 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 TeamsOpening Proposition TeamOpening Opposition TeamClosing Proposition TeamClosing Opposition TeamThe Roles of the Opening Proposition TeamFirst 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 TeamSecond 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 TeamFirst 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 developa counter case(i.e.an alternative proposal).This decision is largely based on thecircumstances of the debate,and only experience will provide guidance on this.The Roles of the Opening Opposition TeamSecond 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 TeamFirst 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 TeamSecond 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 TeamFirst 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 TeamSecond 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 Whips1.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 ProcedureSpeaking alternates between the two sides and the order of the debate is therefore: Phase1:Prime MinisterPhase2:Leader of the OppositionPhase3:Deputy Prime MinisterPhase4:Deputy Leader of the OppositionPhase5:Member for the GovernmentPhase6:Member for the OppositionPhase7:Government WhipPhase8:Opposition WhipPoints of InformationPOI(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 POI1.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 POIMany 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 BuildingOne 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 definitionThe 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 SetTHBT retirement age should be extended.(how many years?)2.Place SetTHBT smoking should be banned in China.(in which location?)3.Extent SetTHBT athletes should be permitted to use Performance Enhancing Drugs in competition.4.Amount SetTHBT subsidies should be granted to inter-faith and inter-ethnic marriage.5.Object SetTHBT euthanasia should be legalized in China.6.Range SetTHBT casino should be legalized in China.2.Classification of Debating typesA)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 debatingProstitution should be legalized in China.3.Debating Perspectives(1)ProfitabilityTHBT manned mission should be sent to Mars.(2)EfficiencyThis house believes that health industry should be privatized.(3)Urgency DegreeTHBT developed Nations should accept global warming refugees.(4)SignificanceTHBT prostitution should be legalized.(5)Feasibility(hard to implement or supervise)THBT children should be banned to watch TV over3hours each day.(6)EffectivenessTHBT paper examination should be abolished.(7)Justice and EquityTHBT judiciary judges should be elected.(8)NecessityTHBT Yuanmingyuan should be rebuilt.(9)FairnessTHBT retirement age should be extended.(10)HumanityTHBT voluntary euthanasia should be legalized.4.Essential abilities and quality for debaterLinguistic competence(esp.listening,speaking)Broad Knowledge Reserves(esp.social focus)Logic ThinkingDialectical ThinkingIndependent ThinkingTeamwork SpiritCourtesyDevotion&PassionPositive Mentality(open-mindedness,optimism,aggressiveness,boldness, perseverance,modesty,etc.)5.Opposition StrategiesReview Types of Resolutions(each has unique arguments)Basics of Refutation(4Step Refutation)Opposing PoliciesOpposing ValuesOpposing FactsGeneral Opposition ArgumentsPolicy ResolutionsExample:“The European Union should diplomatically pressure Myanmar to open its borders.”Policy ResolutionsAsk the Proposition to alter or change a current situation.Identified grammatically by“should”or“would”Require opposition to proveProblem in the status quoPlan to deal with that problemHow plan will“solve”for the problemValue ResolutionsExample:“This house believes security needs outweigh environmental needs.”Value ResolutionsAsk the proposition to prove one thing is better than anotherRequires 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 proveValue Hierarchy is good interpretationTheir interpretation improves,in some manner,the valueFact ResolutionsExample:“China’s non-intervention policy with Myanmar has strengthened the region.”Fact ResolutionsAsk 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 RefutationFour Step ProcessStep1:say what opponent saidStep2:provide a response(refute it)Step3:explain responseStep4:create impact comparisonThis process allows:Judge and opposing team to follow your argumentsMakes explicit your“warrants”or reasons for why your arguments are to be preferred In other words,it forces you to answer the“why”questionOpposing PoliciesArguments you can makePlan is not necessary(no problem)Plan does not solve for the problemPlan causes worse things to happenPlan could be solved better by another course of actionOpposing ValuesOpposing Values—Arguments you can makeValue structure is bad(value is wrong)Proposition does not uphold their valueProposition does not prove their value applicationOpposing FactsArguments you can makeProposition does not prove its statement about the fact claimOffer a counter interpretation of the fact claim“resolution claim”-argue the Propositions case is not linked to the resolutions given for the debateHow should the resolution be interpretedHow does the proposition case not meet this interpretationGeneric Opposition ArgumentsCritique underlying assumptionsArgue the proposed interpretation(plan,value or fact)rests on faulty assumption that needs be refuted,or criticizedArgue the assumption is harmful to society or that assumption would cause harmUniting StrategiesDo 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.。