Intro to Debate
Debating is hard and often intimidating. Most novice debates are just concerned about getting the format correct, let alone speaking! When I first started college debate, I was so nervous I would forget the speaking order, that I forgot what the content of my speech was! Please use this guide and the attached references to squash that fear! The following guide is to give you a background on British Parliamentary Debate :) good luck!
Basic Rules and Structure:
British Parliamentary Debate, sometimes called Worlds Debate, can seem confusing, but I promise it gets easier with practice.There are four teams in each room. Each team is composed of two members. There are four positions in each round. Opening Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government, and Closing Opposition. Each speaker gives one seven minute speech. The speaking order and the positions are shown in the picture below.
Speeches and POI's:
All speeches are seven minutes. Members from the opposite bench from the speaker can ask questions, called Points of Information in BP. (The Opening Government and Closing Government are a bench and they may ask questions to the Opposition teams.) The first and last minute of each speech is protected, meaning that members can not ask questions during that time. The Chair, the judge, will give verbal signals when the first minute has ended and when the last minute has begun.When the speaker has accepted a question they secede the floor for 15 seconds. This means the person asking the question has no more than 15 seconds to make their point. Each team should answer between 3 and 5 questions. (For example, the Prime Minister might take two questions and the Deputy Prime Minister might take one question.) Members should stand up when they would like to ask a question. 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.Scoring:
The head judge is called the Chair. They are assisted in the their decision by Wing Judges. After the last speaker gives their presentation. The Chair will ask all teams to leave the room. Then, the Chair and the Wings will decide the points and the rankings for each team. Teams are ranked 1-4, 1 is the best and 4 is the worst. Teams can be ranked regardless of side. (Opening Government could get the 1, Closing Opposition could get the 2, Closing Government could get the 3, and Opening Opposition could get the 4.) The 1 is worth 3 points, 2 is worth 2 points, 3 is worth 1 point, and the 4 is worth 0 points. You want as many points as you can get. The judges, also, give individual speaker scores to everyone in the round.Now that we understand the basic structure of BP, lets go over the positions. Sam will teach you how to Whip and PM. Don't worry you'll get the hang of the jargon soon!
Positions:
Prime Minister's Speech in Opening Government:
When you start departing, this is the most intimidating speech. I was always scared to start the debate—especially when I was unsure of the motion or how to set up the debate properly. However, after learning more about the opening government position, and mainly the prime minister’s speech, this is actually one of the most fun and interesting places to be in a debate. So…fear not! Together we will walk through the steps on how to make a good prime minister’s speech.
How
to start? When my partner and I are assigned an opening
government position in a debate, we sit together and re-read the motion three
to four times. We always make sure that together
we understand what the motion is asking us to argue. It the government’s burden
to define the motion in a reasonable way that is accessible.
Unreasonable definitions create a bad debate, and as
the opening government team, you will be penalized for definitions of a motion
that are exclusive.
After you have an understanding of how you want to
shape the debate, begin to think of your case and argument. Between you and
your partner, brainstorm independently for about five minutes. After you
brainstorm ideas about what to argue and support your claim, talk with your
partner and find the strongest points. Usually, because the prime minister has
to also accomplish model work, your deputy prime minister will tackle two
constructive points and the pm will handle one, longer constructive point.
For an example speech, I usually begin with the
model work. Depending on the motion this could take anywhere from 1-3 minutes.
Within the model, remember to define who the house
is, the limits of the motion, and what you think the burdens are for each side
of the debate.
Model
example: THB that representative government has failed.
Actor: I would define it as Western liberal
democracies; however, a more limited actor could be the European Union or
Britain. An unexpected and poor example would be North Korea as the actor.
Limits of the Debate: The burden of the government
is to prove that representative governments have done more harm than good to
their constituencies and have failed in their original goals when created. The
burden of the opposition is to prove how representative governments have met
their goals.
For the conclusion of the speech, the PM will focus
on building the constructive matter of the speech.
For a time breakdown:
· 1
Minute – win the audience, capture the attention of your judges, define you
speech, state your argument in a concise manner, define your team approach
(preview what your partner will say)
· 2
minute – do not take POIs until you have developed the argument, transition
into your first constructive point
· 3-6
minutes – accept POIs, continue to reference your tagline that the judges will
remember from the beginning of your speech
· 7th
minute – finish your point and summarize your argument, restate the main point
of your argument
The best advice I receive for improve at the PM
position is to have fun! Be confident and own the debate space. There is nothing
better than speaking first and setting the tone for a good, fun, educational
debate.
Best of luck!
Deputy Leader of Government in Opening Government:
I think that hardest position to learn is Opening Government. The Deputy Leader plays an important role in the round. Your job is to help your partner prep the model and prep their points. You should prep PM's speech before you start preparing your own.The DPM has four obligations in the round. First, defend and rebuild the case started by the PM.
Second, destroy the opposition case. Third, add new arguments to the round. Fourth, respond to the back half team.
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. 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. Remember, your case is your ship. You can not win if your ship does not float. Protect your ship before you attack your opponents.
Second, the Deputy Prime Minister should launch attacks at the new arguments presented by the opposition. Don't try and attack everything. You should only go after the most import arguments to the round. Defending your partners arguments and refuting the opposition should take no more that 4 minutes. Ideally, you should spend the majority of your time presenting new points of positive matter.
Third, present new arguments that help your case. These arguments should be unique from your partners speech.
Lastly, try to answer the arguments that the closing opposition team is going to go for. This can be very challenging because you may not know what they are planing on arguing. However, let them ask a question. This can help you stay relevant in the round.
Leader of Opposition in Opening Opposition:
I find
this speech one of the most challenging because you have to introduce the
opposition argument, refute the Prime Minister, and challenge any
irregularities in the model…whew!
Structurally,
the Leader of Opposition (LO) is similar to the PM’s speech (many teams will
have the same member give both speeches.)
Often
you will agree with the general idea proposed by the government but disagree
with the mechanism. For example, if the resolution was
“This
house would subsidize all education”
The
sentiment is to support increasing access to education. On opposition, you can
agree with that sentiment, but disagree with the mechanism that for instances
the government will provide a voucher program to accomplish that aim.
Ensure
that you directly rebut the information from the PM.
Tips for
good rebuttal:
·
Destructive
material to discredit material brought by the other side
·
Attack
the evidence used to support the claims (sometimes a poor strategy b/c the team
can provide more evidence or attack yours...that equals a stalemate in the
debate)
·
Attack
the argument at the analysis level – more difficult but highly effective. Excellent
technique b/c you damage the credibility of the other team.
·
Attack
the idea! – the concept brought to the debate by the other team is flawed and
is not true in the context of the debate…this is very challenge to do BUT is a
FATAL blow to the other team.
Examples
for initiating rebuttal arguments:
- The argument is flawed
- There is not enough warrants to support the claim of the argument
- The argument is insufficient compared to …. (more weighty arguments)
- The argument lacks sufficient logic
- The argument is factually incorrect
- While we concede that …. Costs a lot of money, the benefits of …. Are worth it.
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Opening Opposition:
This position is very similar to the DPM speech. Do the same thing rebuild your partners arguments, rebut the Government arguments, and make new arguments.
Tips for good rebuttal:
· Destructive material to discredit material brought by the other side
· Attack the evidence used to support the claims (sometimes a poor strategy b/c the team can provide more evidence or attack yours...that equals a stalemate in the debate)
· Attack the argument at the analysis level – more difficult but highly effective. Excellent technique b/c you damage the credibility of the other team.
· Attack the idea! – the concept brought to the debate by the other team is flawed and is not true in the context of the debate…this is very challenge to do BUT is a FATAL blow to the other team.
Government and Opposition Member Speeches:
My favorite speeches are member speeches! They are so much fun! The member speeches begin the back half of the debate. They have three obligations. First, clean the debate and make sure that everything has a clear framework. Second, you should create a new and distinct case from opening. Third, you need to respond to the other sides arguments.
Spend most of your prep time thinking about a lot or arguments. Be flexible and willing to find new arguments if your opening team uses them during their speeches.
The easiest way to win from back half is to clear up a messy debate. If the top half has not set up a clear debate. (The round is a mess because no one knows what the goal is or people don't understand what the round is supposed to be about.) You can go in and provide new framing. For example, you can explain that the round should be judged based on who creates the most good and stops the most amount of harms. You could also explain that the United States doesn't care about health care and that we need to be talking about a global debate.
Some questions to ask your self:
What is this round about?
What should it be about?
What impacts or arguments should matter most?
What does the status quo look like?
These questions can help you find ways to restructure the round.
Most importantly, you need to present a case that is different from what your top half team has already said. This is called making an extension. If you say the same things that they say you are derivative of them and will have a hard time winning the round.
Your unique extension can be done in multiple ways.
You can provide new arguments to prove why your side is right.
You can re-frame the round with a new framework.
Theoretical Arguments can make great extensions. (Arguments that focus on promoting autonomy or proving that governments have an obligation to do or not do something.)
Ask yourself these questions:
Who are the stakeholders (who is impacted by this proposal)?
What action is being taken?
Why should that group or person be the one to take the action instead of another group or person?
What are the short term consequences?
What are the long term consequences?
Is there a better way to do this?
How would this work in practice?
How would this work in a perfect world?
All of these questions can help you find areas of the debate that have not been explored. If no one has talked about it yet, it can make a great extension. Additionally, you can extend the debate by providing more examples or providing the links that were missing in the opening cases.
Tips and tricks:
Find one or two things and focus on them. Don't talk about a lot of small things. You need to go deep! Be nice to your partner, you need to give them something to work with. Ask for their opinion. Don't forget, a good whip normally requires at least a decent member speech! Sam is a miracle worker, but she can't win the round on her own. (Sometimes she can and it is amazing :))Your partner needs you to say something somewhat intelligible!
Government and Opposition Whip Speeches:
The Whip speeches are the most different in the
debate. They are designed to summarize the debate for the judges. However, they
report the summary in favor of their bench. Most importantly, these speeches do not add new material to the debate.
I usually do not start preparing my whip speech
until the first two speakers have started the debate. It is helpful to give
yourself time to understand the framework of the debate and situate yourself in
the context of the round. I do take notes of the main points from each speaker.
Tips to structure the summary speech:
· Clash
points
o
Summarize the main areas of clash and
place all the speakers in contention with each other
o
Identify the main clash points in the
debate and then argue why your side has more adequately argued those areas
o
Highlight how your bench (and mostly
your partner!) has provided the evidence to win the round
o
Often I ask a “crystalizing question” to
summarize the debate and provide the judges some structure (I will outline my
Whip structure below)
· Case
Construction/ Deconstruction
o
Identify the main burden of proof for the debate
o
Articulate how your bench (mostly your
partner) provided the contribution that clarified the debate and satisfied the
burden of proof
o
For instance, if the debate was to
“create free education for all individuals” than the summary speaker can
advances that: there exists a right to free education, and free education
results in good outcomes
o
This technique allows the summary speaker
to focus less on the other teams arguments and more on what was advanced by
your bench
· Main
points to remember
o
Do NOT bring new material
o
Support the extension speech!!
o
Explicitly rebut the arguments made by
the extension speaker of the opposition side
o
REBUT the previous arguments from the
extension speaker (especially on government whip)
o
Create a good comparative
o
Extra emphasize on your partners
material
Sam’s
Set-Up from Whip Speeches:
·
At
the top of two pages, I create two (or three) summary questions that highlight
the main points of the debate
·
Underneath
each question, I write all the teams in the debate and one/two lines of the
most important material they contributed to support that point
·
Underneath
my small summaries of each of the teams, I write a summary of my partner’s
speech as it applies to that crystalizing question
Sources
/ References: Cambridge
Schools BP debating Guide:
Comments
Post a Comment