Parliamentary Debate Format
Compiled by Heidi Hinds
Time Limits for Parliamentary Debate
Prep Time = 15 minutes (This will be extended for class)
Prime Minister (PM) = 7 minutes
Leader of Opposition (LO) = 8 minutes
Member of Government (MG) = 8 minutes
Member of Opposition (MO) = 8 minutes
Leader of Opposition rebuttal/Reply Speech = 4 minutes
Prime Minister rebuttal/ Reply Speech = 5 minutes
Please note that there is no prep time in between each of the speeches. The following speaker is recognized by the judge, known as The Speaker of the House, as soon as the previous speaker has finished.
The Basics of Each Speech
Regardless of the speech, there are some basics to keep in mind. You can never been too clear or too obvious. Never assume anything. If you think something is wrong, point it out and exactly why it is wrong. The judge cannot vote on anything not said in the debate (they can’t argue the debate for you). So the other teams definitions maybe totally off base, but unless you say they are, the judge can’t vote on that. You should wait to start your speech until you are recognized by the Speaker of the House.
Prime Minister Constructive (PMC) – 7 minutes:
1. Acknowledge the judge (Speaker of the House), the opposition, and your colleague. All individuals similarly do this upon their first speaking occasion in the round -- just propriety. There is not set wording for this, the idea is simply to show respect – someone like bowing to your opponent before a karate match. After acknowledgements, declare (verbatim) which resolution will be used for the debate.
Examples:
“Good afternoon, my partner and I of the Government Team would like to start off by thanking the Speaker of the House for adjudicating this debate, acknowledging the admirable Opposition Team and welcome the House to what we hope will be an interesting debate. So let’s look at the resolution we have before us…”
“Good evening, we of the Government would like to begin by welcoming the audience, thanking the Speaker for judging this debate and recognize the Opposition in what we hope will be a rousing debate on today’s resolution. With that said, let’s look at the resolution we have before us…”
“Thank you Mister/Madame Speaker, we’d like to start by thanking you for adjudicating today’s debate as well as thank the House for coming to listen and greet the worthy Opposition Team in what we hope will be an exciting debate on the resolution we have before us…”
2. Reading of the exact resolution.
3. Offering definitions for any terms or phrases in the resolution the Government team believes are unclear and/or need to be defined.
4. Re-reading the resolution with the definitions inserted.
5. Government’s Primary Inference Statement (interpretation of the resolution). This will often be derived from the reading of the resolution with the Government's definitions inserted.
6. Government's Primary Inference Explanation. This is the Government Team's chance to explain their primary inference (their interpretation of the resolution). This should be a good paragraph or two and may include examples or incidences that the Government believe illustrates their position in the debate. The Government Team at this point is trying to explain why the judge/audience should believe in the Government interpretation.
7. Exact statement of the Government’s case (one sentence that says exactly what the Government team will be advocating in the debate). The government's case MUST ALWAYS side WITH the resolution, but AGAINST the status quo. Remember the PM establishes the figurative ground for the debate – the PM establishes what is in-bounds and out-of-bounds for the play of the debate. The Government Team also needs to state if they are arguing the resolution as a Question of Fact/Value/Policy.
For debates on Questions of Value, the Government Team needs to provide a “highest value” and a value criteria upon which the debate should be judged.
Example of #2-#7:
“When my partner and I on the Government Team first looked at the resolution “This House believes that developing nations need strong dictatorship” the thought that came to mind, aside from the literal interpretation, is the ever-growing phenomenon of on-line gambling. The Government in today's debate believes on-line gambling involving actual money is a fast growing problem. We believe that action needs to be taken to deal with the problem of people losing money to this internet activity since, present, there are no
regulations on online-gambling. We will define House as the house or audience for today's debate, we will define “developing nations” as online gambling casinos and “strong dictatorship” as state regulations for online gambling limits. So with the definitions inserted, "This House believes that online gambling casinos need State regulations for online gambling limits. This lead's to the Government's primary inference that States need to regulate online gambling. Online gambling has become a serious problem. Not only feeding people with gambling addition but creating gambling addition problems for people who find out how easy it is to gamble on the internet. Imagine if an alcoholic suddenly found they could have alcohol delivered to their house - any time, any kind, all they wanted. That is the problem with online gambling. No longer do gamblers need to find a casino to gamble in, now the casino comes to the comfort of their home. They can gamble anytime they want, 3am or 3pm. Furthermore, they don't have the distraction of other people saying, "maybe you've had enough." They can gamble until the money runs out and beyond with no one to place any limits on them. At the very least online gambling enables people with a very serious problem. With that in mind, we will be arguing the resolution as a Question of Policy that States ought to limit the amount an individual can gamble in online casinos to $100 per week. We have three areas of analysis to illustrate our point..."
8. Clearly spell out the case, setting forth three to four main arguments or observations. The Government bears the burden of proof - they have to prove there is a need to make a change from the status quo. The case should be clearly signposted, meaning you need to say “Point One….Point Two….or Observation One…Observation Two…etc.” The arguments/points/observations need to clearly support the case.
With a Question of Fact, the observations need to specifically deal with:
Observation/Point #1 – Evidence (in the book this is Effect): What evidence do you have to back up your case? Think a lawyer presenting evidence in a court case. What evidence lead you to believe the fact (the guilt or innocence) that you do? (think: fingerprints, DNA evidence, leather glove)
Observation/Point #2 – Significance of the Evidence: What is the importance or significance of the evidence? Why are the claims in OB1 being made important to the issue of the fact? (think: how important are the fingerprints, DNA evidence, leather glove to proving the defendant's guilt or innocence?)
Observation/Point #3 – Precipitating Factors (in the book this is Significance): What lead up to the evidence that you are presenting in OB1. Why do the claims made exist? Why is whatever is happening, happening? What in the status quo has lead to the current situation, and therefore the fact in question being true/false. (think: How did the fingerprints get there? How did the DNA evidence get there, what is the motivation for the murder?)
Observation/Point #4 – Preemptive Arguments: This OB is optional. This is the chance for the Government Team to head off arguments they think the Opposition Team might bring up.
With a Question of Value, the observations need to specifically deal with:
Observation/Point #1 – Effect: What effect will the value object(s) have? Think causal relationships. What has the value object(s) done?
Observation/Point #2 – Impact (in the book this is significance): What is the magnitude, severity or frequency with which the effect (OB1) occurs? The value criteria will be used to measure this. Show how the value object fulfills the value criteria and upholds the highest value. Basically, show them why you win the debate since it hinges on this.
Observation/Point #3 – Causation (in the book this is inherency): Are the effect and impact attributed to the value object legitimate and related to the value criteria? This is the linkage/causation point. This causation (inherency) is often the result of societal attitudes toward the value object. The causality is often the consequence of complex, interrelated factors, so causation arguments have to consider the possibility of multiple causes.
With Questions of Policy, the observations need to specifically deal with:
Observation/Point #1 – Plan
a. Change – What behaviors are to be enacted that are not presently being enacted? What will be done different?
b. Mechanism – On whose authority will these behaviors be undertaken? Will a new law be passed, a new agency or institution created, or will individuals do this on their own?
c. Financing – If the change or mechanism incurs any costs, how much will they be, and how will they be paid?
d. Enforcement – Unless everyone is willing to go along with the change, how will violations be detected? Who will be responsible for this detection, and how will violators be dealt with? What means are used to ensure compliance?
Observation/Point #2 – Solvency: How will the plan solve the problem?
Observation/Point #3 – Inherency: What is preventing the problem from currently being solved? Why hasn’t your plan been put into place before this?
Observation/Point #4 – Workability: Practicality.
Observation/Point #5 – Subsidiary Effects: Benefits beyond solving the problem.
Generally, the Government team is granted “fiat power” meaning that it is assumed the plan will be approved or passed or voted in by the appropriate powers. In other words, the Government team doesn’t have to worry about Congress passing their proposed law.
9. Summarize the Government’s case. This is the Government's chance to make sure the judge/audience got everything on the flow. It also is a means to leave that last thought in the judge/audience's mind.
10. “Call for the ballot” – ask the judge to vote your way.
Examples:
“…and for all these reasons, we respectfully request a Government ballot.”
“After reviewing our case, we believe that the Speaker has no other choice but Government ballot”
Leader Opposition Constructive (LOC) – 8 minutes:
1. Acknowledge the judge (Speaker of the House), the government, and your colleague
2. Reading the exact resolution.
3. State if you accept or don't accept the Government Team's definitions. If you do not
accept the definitions, you need to offer counter definitions. If you offer counter
definitions, you also need to explain why your definitions are better and consequently,
why the Speaker and House should accept your definitions.
4. Opposition Philosophy
The first thing that the Opposition should do upon hearing the case statement is to construct an Opposition Philosophy. As the name implies, the Opposition Philosophy is the basic idea the opposition will support. The opposition philosophy is to the Opposition what the primary inference is to the Government. Opposition Philosophy is the Opposition Team’s view of the resolution. It is often helpful to brainstorm the resolution interpretation or case the Government might run in order to consider the Opposition Philosophy.
Presenting an idea to support (Opposition Philosophy) is a much stronger approach than simply attacking the ideas of the Government for two reasons. First, the opposition philosophy allows the Opposition to adopt an affirmative stance. Instead of merely tearing down what is said by the Government and playing the role of devil's advocate, the Opposition adopts an independent set of ideals that they can support. Second, by giving
the Opposition something to advocate, the Opposition Philosophy compels the Government not only to support their own statement -- they now must attempt to discredit the Opposition philosophy as well.
The Opposition philosophy must do two things:
1. It should be a position statement that contradicts the Government case.
2. It should help create a framework for Opposition arguments.
5. Direct Clash
Direct Clash should be the mantra for all remaining speeches. The Opposition team needs to try to hit everything said by the Government Team. That does not mean that if the Government says "white" the Opposition Team has to say "black." In other words, the Opposition does not necessarily have to adopt the position diametrically opposed to the Government. The point of Direct Clash is to be sure that you meet the Government Team’s case argument for argument.
6. Strategy for Attack
After presenting the Opposition Philosophy, the Opposition then wants to address the Government case point by point keeping in mind both the Opposition Philosophy and the idea of Direct Clash. The Opposition wants to follow the flow sheet down and bring up issues such as:
Has the Government appropriately analyzed the resolution?
Is the case topical?
Have they established inherency?
Has the Government presented a tautology or truism?
Will you accept the Government’s definitions?
Has the Government correctly identified the resolution as a Question of Fact/Value/Policy?
Should the Value Criteria be changed? Is something else more valuable?
Is there a real harm evident?
Is their plan practical (if there is one)?
Will we get benefits from their plan (if there is one)?
Will the plan solve the problem (if there is one)?
How can the goal be better accomplished?
Are the arguments or observations rational? reasonable? logical? valid?
Realize you are not randomly going down this list in the LOC, you are following the PMC on the flow sheet and addressing your concerns to their flow.
7. Summarize the Opposition’s philosophy and objections
8. “Call for the ballot” – ask the judge to vote your way.
Examples:
“…and for all these reasons, we respectfully request an Opposition ballot.”
“After reviewing our case, we believe that the Speaker has no other choice but an Opposition ballot”
Member Government Constructive (MGC) – 8 minutes:
Your main jobs are to reinforce the Prime Minister's arguments and refute the Leader of Opposition's arguments, and, if needed, introduce new points.
1. Acknowledge the judge (Speaker of the House), the opposition, and your colleague
2. Address definitions. If they have accepted the definitions, state that. If they offered
counter definitions, either accept their definitions or argue why the Government's
definitions are better and should be accepted. If they offer counter definitions and you
say nothing, the definitions default to the Opposition Team's definitions.
3. Attack Opposition Philosophy
The MG is primarily responsible for addressing the Opposition Philosophy since it is the only constructive the Government has available to do so. Why doesn’t it work? Why is the Government interpretation/case better, stronger, more valid. It is essential that the MG address the OP because if it is dropped, that is a big winning point for the Opposition Team.
4. Rebuild the Primary Inference. You have to show why your basic interpretation of the
resolution still stands. Part of rebuilding the Primary Inference should be a further statement explaining why it is valid - more examples, more explanation. So prior to the debate when the Government is developing their PI, they should develop one not only for the PMC but for the MGC as well.
5. Rebuilding the Case. You should follow the flow point by point. If they have questioned your case, show why their objections don’t apply. Your job is to back up your partner and show to the judge why the Government’s position still stands strong.
Part of the MG job is also to Note Dropped Points - this goes hand in hand with rebuilding the case. As you rebuild the case, you want to be sure you point out anything the Opposition Team dropped.
If the Opposition dropped anything (didn’t talk about something your partner discussed) you need to point this out to the judge and claim it in your favor (this also goes for conceded points). If the opposition didn’t talk about your second observation, you need to point that out to the judge. The judge can only vote on what is discussed by the teams in the debate, meaning, they can’t debate the round for you. So if the Opposition team doesn’t touch your third point, the judge can’t award you the point unless you claim it. Just because the Opposition team drops something doesn’t mean you drop it. You want to be sure to cover everything, absolutely everything, your partner said in the PMC.
Example:
“As you will note on your flow, the Opposition team dropped our Observation about the underage access available with on-line gaming, so we ask that you pull that across to the Government team and let me go over that point again…”
6. Plug Any Leaks
If indeed the Opposition has found a problem with your case, something you missed, something you didn’t anticipate, it is your job to fix these problems. You can bring up new arguments to counter any problems the Opposition pointed out in your case.
7. Summarize the Government’s case. It is important for the MG to do a strong summary of the Government case since the Opposition Block will follow (12 minutes of Opposition speeches). So it is important that the judge/audience has a clear picture of the Government Case before the Opposition Block.
8. “Call for the ballot” – ask the judge to vote your way.
Examples:
“…and for all these reasons, we again respectfully request a Government ballot.”
“After reviewing our case, we again believe that the Speaker has no other choice but a Government ballot”
Member Opposition Constructive (MOC) – 8 minutes:
Your main jobs are to reinforce the Leader of Opposition's arguments and refute the Member of Government’s arguments, and, if needed, introduce new points.
1. Acknowledge the judge (Speaker of the House), the government, and your colleague
2. Address definitions. If you have already accepted the Government's definitions, then you
just need a quick statement of that. If the Opposition Team and the Government Team
are still debating definitions, then you need to address why the Opposition Team's
definitions should be accepted.
3. Rebuild the Opposition Philosophy. Remember this is the only area the Opposition Team has that is uniquely their own - where they are forcing the Government to play on their terms. So it is critical to review the OP and offer more examples, more reasoning as to why the OP should be accepted over the Government's PI. If the MO drops their own OP it could mean the end of the debate for the Opposition Team.
4. Attack the Primary Inference. Remember, if the MG drops their PI, then you can argue the OP wins by default. Willing PI or OP can be a crucial part of the debate. You should pay particular attention to new PI arguments brought up by the MG.
5. Rebuilding - remember the rebuilding needs to be guided by Direct Clash
You want to rebuild your side against any objections the Government may have raised. Your job is to back up your partner and show to the judge why the Opposition’s side still stands strong. Re-attack the Case. You should follow the flow point by point.
Note Dropped Points - this goes hand in hand with rebuilding the case. As you rebuild the case, you want to be sure you point out anything the Government team dropped.
If the Government team dropped anything (didn’t talk about something your partner discussed) you need to point this out to the judge and claim it in your favor (this also goes for conceded points). If the opposition didn’t talk about your second observation, you need to point that out to the judge. The judge can only vote on what is discussed by the teams in the debate, meaning, they can’t debate the round for you. So if the Government team didn't go back over their third point, the judge can’t award you the point unless you claim it. Just because the Government team drops something doesn’t mean you drop it. You want to be sure to cover everything, absolutely everything, your partner said in the LOC.
Example:
“As you will note on your flow, the Government team dropped our counter argument about the underage access available with on-line gaming, so we ask that you pull that across to the Opposition team and let me go over that point again…”
6. Plug Any Leaks
If the Government has found a problem with your philosophy or counter claims, it is your job to fix these problems. You can bring up new arguments to counter anything brought up by the Government.
7. Summarize the Opposition’s case. Since this is the last constructive, it is important that you provide a good summary of the Opposition's position before the debate goes into rebuttals.
8. “Call for the ballot” – ask the judge to vote your way.
Examples:
“…and for all these reasons, we again respectfully request an Opposition ballot.”
“After reviewing our case, we again believe that the Speaker has no other choice but an Opposition ballot”
Leader Opposition Rebuttal (LOR) – 4 minutes:
1. Acknowledge the judge (Speaker of the House), the government, and your colleague
This is your last chance to sell the Opposition side. You may not introduce new arguments. You should address everything in the debate - definitions, PI, OP and case.
2. You should decide on the 3-4 main areas you really believe the Opposition has won in the debate (and consequently, why they have won the over all debate).
Areas you might have won (and this list is by no means exhaustive).
- Primary Inference vs. Opposition Philosophy
- Definitions
- Topicality arguments
- Analysis of Observations (this is going to be the main areas for a win)
The format should be to give one sentence addressing the area you think you have won and then explain in detail why you think you have one that point.
Example: "We on the Opposition Team believe there are three key areas on which we win the debate. The first area is on Observation Three, Causation because we have shown that the Government Team has not provided a solid link between the evidence and the fact we are here to establish today. (Follow this with a detailed discussion why)
3. Summarize the Opposition’s position - this is the last chance for the Opposition team so make sure the judge/audience knows how you want them to vote and why.
4. "Call for the ballot” – ask the judge to vote your way.
Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR) – 5 minutes:
1. Acknowledge the judge (Speaker of the House), the opposition, and your colleague
2. It is allowed you can briefly touch on anything said in the MOC since there was not a
constructive left for the Government to do this. However, since time is so short, you
have to make it fast, simply touching on highlights, not a detailed analysis as you would
in a constructive.
This is your last chance to sell the Government side. You may not introduce new arguments. You should address everything in the debate - definitions, PI, OP and case.
3. You should decide on the 3-4 main areas you really believe the Government has won in the debate (and consequently, why they have won the over all debate).
Areas you might have won (and this list is by no means exhaustive).
- Primary Inference vs. Opposition Philosophy
- Definitions
- Topicality arguments
- Analysis of Observations (this is going to be the main areas for a win)
The format should be to give one sentence addressing the area you think you have won and then explain in detail why you think you have one that point.
Example: "We on the Government Team believe there are three key areas on which we win the debate. The first area is on Observation Three, Causation because we have proven a solid link between the evidence and the fact we are here to establish today. (Follow this with a detailed discussion why)
4. Summarize the Government’s case. This is the last speech of the debate, make sure the judge/audience knows how you want them to vote and why.
5. “Call for the ballot” – ask the judge to vote your way.
Additional Aspects of the Formal Debate
In addition to Constructives and Rebuttals, there are addition aspects of the spoken debate.
Point of Information:
Not to be used in the first or last minute of any constructive (the Speaker or timekeeper will usually bang the table once loudly at the one-minute-in and one-minute-to-go mark to signify that POIs are now possible). A debater from the side not speaking is permitted to interrupt any of the four Constructive speeches of the round with a point of information. This is typically done by standing up, placing one hand on the back of one's head and extending the other outwards with the palm up and saying "Point of information, Sir/Madame". The debater delivering the speech has the privilege of determining whether to accept the point of information or not. Usually a debater will accept two to three points of information (since rejecting every one may appear to the Speaker as if the debater is afraid to answer questions). A speaker who doesn't accept any points is considered impolite, as is the over-use of the privilege by the askers. When a debater does not feel like taking a point of information, he/she will simply say, "not right now, thank you”, and carry on with his/her speech. The judge is not to comment on the question or reply. A point of information serves to undermine a debater's speech in some way (since it is an interruption). However a good debater will learn how to turn one into his or her own advantage. One does not ask points of information from one's own teammate. The clock does not stop during POI’s. Generally Points of Information are used to clarify information that is missed but can be used to make a point in the form of a question. Bottom line, they should be respectful and on topic.
The following are directly addressed to the Judge (Madame or Mr. Speaker). If a point is considered legitimate, the Judge will state, “Point well taken." If the point is irrelevant or false, then the Judge will state, “Point not well taken." If the Judge can’t decide or wants to think more about it, he/she will state, “Point under consideration."
If the point is well taken or under consideration, the time taken to make the point and the judge's period of deliberation counts as speech time. If the point is not well taken, the time spent raising and resolving it is restored to the speaker.
Point of Order:
Implemented by rising and directly stating, “Point of Order,” followed by a short description of the violation. Usually used when the rules are being bent or for any other grave miscellaneous reason (such as a new point being brought up in a rebuttal). You should be very certain of the rules being broken before you call a Point of Order.
Point of Personal Privilege:
Invoked only when one feels misquoted, gravely insulted, or misrepresented. The debater stands and says, “Point of Personal Privilege, I did not state..." Note: Use extremely sparingly. It is your opponent's job to misrepresent you, and if you're doing your job the judge will see through their deception. Points of Personal Privilege should only be used in extreme circumstances or you will be viewed as whining and not enjoying the spirited nature of debate.
On Points of Order or Points of Personal Privilege, the Speaker of the House may rule in one of three ways.
1. Point Well Taken - the Speaker believes the person making the point is correct and is ruling in
their favor. The person the point is taken against should at this point, stop discussing it.
2. Point Not Well Taken - the Speaker does not believe the person making the point is correct.
The person the point is taken against can continue to discuss the point if they choose.
3. Point Taken Under Consideration - the Speaker is not ruling but rather will consider the point
and decide later. The person the point is taken against can either keep discussing the point or choose to move on to something else.
Absolute No-No’s for the Government Case
Certain things are banned from being part of Government cases. If the Government violates these bans and the Opposition points it out, it is pretty much an automatic win for the Opposition. However, since there still needs to be a debate, is important that the Opposition offer counter definitions/interpretations to try to overcome these problems.
Tautologies: A case is a tautology if it is defined in such a manner that it proves itself. A classic example is ``Coke is it'' - Coke is a soft drink and ``it'' can refer to a soft drink, so therefore, Coke is it. Tautology is by definition, a case or statement that no one can logically argue; more or less, a thoroughly sound and accepted truth. A way to think about tautology is that it is a defined truth -- while not necessarily true on face, the Government uses its right to define terms to set up the round in such a way that they cannot lose. Sometimes two definitions which are perfectly reasonable on their own can combine to form a tautology. For example, if the Government defines “X” as a college student and argues that “X” ought to be enrolled in college, they have created a tautology – a college student can’t be such unless they are enrolled in college.
Truisms: A case is a truism if it proposes something no reasonable human being could oppose. An example would be ``physical abuse is bad.'' Obviously, these cases are very difficult to defeat, and eliminate Opposition ground.
Specific Knowledge: Debate cases must consist of reasonably general knowledge. Current event information or commonly known historical information is fair game. Teams should not run cases that presuppose a very high level of knowledge of a subject. However, specific cases can be run if the government provides, in its opening, the necessary details of a case, or if that which is debated is the broad, philosophical value of a specific case. Anything covered in class is considered “general knowledge” for the purposes of our debates.
Getting Started Once You Get the Resolution
Since you are working under time limits, this is not the time to be shy or hesitant. Once you get the resolution, you both need to jump in and get started.
The absolute worst possible scenario is:
Partner A: “What do you think?”
Partner B: “I dunno, what do you think?
Partner A: “I dunno”
Don’t be worried that your partner will think you are aggressive, bossy, and opinionated. You want to be all those things! Both of you should be throwing out ideas and making comments. If you are on the Government Team, you should dive into resolution interpretation and definitions. If you are on the Opposition Team, you should dive into Opposition Philosophy and possible counter definitions. You and your partner should be pushing each other as much as possible to get as prepared as possible.
Flowing the Debate
Because winning a debate is mostly a matter of winning all the smaller battles rather than winning an overall war, it becomes essential to keep track of all the points of the debate. Keeping notes during the debate is called “flowing” or “to flow” (verb), the notes are called the “flow” (noun). Both members of both teams should flow the debate. It is how you keep track of points and are able to engage in direct clash. It is crucial the members of both teams flow extensively. The flow is what you are going to speak from for your constructive.
The Speaker of the House, as well as the Members of the House should flow the debate as well.
While there are as many ways to flow as there are speakers, one of the most popular (because it tends to be the most successful in keeping track of the debate) is to get a legal size sheet (many use legal size notebooks since they will flow many debates) and turn it side ways. They will then draw vertical columns corresponding with each speech. Additionally they will use one color pen to flow Government arguments and another color pen to flow Opposition arguments.
PMC Definitions: Interpretation: OB#1 OB #2 OB #3 | LOC Definitions: Interpretation: OB#1 OB #2--------- OB #3 | MGC Definitions: Interpretation: OB#1 --------------- OB #3 | MOC Definitions: Interpretation: OB#1 -Ã OB #2 OB #3 | LOR | PMR | |
The Prime Minister sets the flow since he/she is the first speaker. Commonly, when the LO, the MG and the MO preview their constructives, they will say “I will be following the flow” – meaning, they will be going point by point through the organization established by the PM. If a speaker drops a point or concedes a point, the next speaker will often say, “Pull that argument across the flow” – meaning, circle the argument, and draw a line through the previous speaker’s column (since they dropped it, there will be a blank section) and to the column of the current speaker to show they won the point. Speakers may also ask the Speaker and House to look at the flow, mark something down on the flow. Speakers may also use humor with the flow: “See observation 2 on your flow? Go ahead and draw a smiley face on it since it shows all the wonderful benefits our plan provides!” Or they may use the flow for dramatic effect: “This next point is so important, I want you to underline this, no, double underline this on your flow.”
Judging
It cannot be over-emphasized how important it is to state clearly and directly every aspect of the constructives and rebuttals. A judge is prohibited from arguing a debate in his/her head. So even if they notice something, if you don’t say it, they can’t flow it and judge on it. Many judges will say, “If it isn’t on my flow, I can’t judge it.” So you may think, well that point of theirs is so weak, we win that one for sure. But if you don’t point that out, you don’t win it. This is also why it’s important to follow the flow. If your judge is confused and not sure what point you are trying to clash will, they might not flow it the way you want and it will appear on their flow like you dropped a point.
Attitude
While debating is focused on argumentation and the debate should be taken seriously, debate should be fun and humor is certainly encouraged where appropriate. Amusing stories can be used to introduce a case or illustrate a point. Jesting comments maybe directed at the audience or one’s own partner: “We’d like to welcome the overwhelmingly intelligent looking audience to this debate.” As long as the spirit of the comments is positive and friendly, have fun with them.
There maybe times when you debate a team that is not as skilled as you or is having trouble with the debate. This is not the time to pounce on them and go for the jugular. A debater who is kind, helpful and gracious will be view much more positively than one that seems to make things worse with vindictive behavior. While someone will win and someone will lose, it should be a learning experience for everyone. There should be a competitive spirit to the debate, but not at the cost of being respectful and courteous to your opponents.
Your Partner
While you want to work as a team, remember, not everyone thinks and reacts in the same way. While you can talk with your partner, even while they are giving their speech, some people find this very annoying and it causes them to lose their train of thought. Some people use post-it notes to pass notes to their partner during speeches rather than speaking to them. These issues should be worked out before the debate starts. Remember, you need your partner to win the debate, so work with them, not against them.
Common Courtesy
You are allowed to talk with your partner all through the debate, even when the other team is talking (it’s hard to flow and talk to your partner, but you will probably need to discuss strategy points). But be courteous to the person speaking and keep your discussion with your partner to low whispers or written notes. When you rise for a Point of Information, you should be ready to ask the question directly and prepared for the answer. So, if you are going to ask someone to repeat the main idea of a point, you or your partner should be ready to write their answer so you don’t have to ask again. Don’t expect someone to re-deliver for you their whole point or case. You are eating into their time after all. If you are going to decline a Point of Information, be polite about it.
Debaters and Members of the House are allowed to knock and shame during the debate (unless the Speaker of the House asks them not to do so). Knocking/shaming should be done to show agreement/disagreement with the speaker but should not be used to disrupt a speaker. So a few knocks or a low whispered ‘shame, shame” is enough to make the point. You are welcome to knock during your partner’s speech to show your enthusiastic support for the case/point (one would hope you would not shame your own partner). You can shame during an opponent’s speech, but again, it should be done relatively quietly.
Talking during the debate by Members of the House is strictly prohibited (this includes calling out comments or whispering to the person next to you). You should be too busy flowing to do anything else except for a few well-placed knocks or shames.
The over all tone of the debate should be one of respect for everyone involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment