ваш e-mail

Parliamentary debating formats vary among different countries, even within countries in different debate leagues or at special­ized tournaments. Rules for debating are formally established and institutionally maintained; this chapter discusses two popular and distinct parliamentary formats—the American format and British for-mat. In addition to formal rules (and it is important to note that there are few “official” rules of parliamentary debating, which is one of the more attractive features of the event, regardless of format), there are informal conventions. These latter guidelines are often understood, or misunderstood, as “rules” for contest debating. The rules of debating primarily address speaking times, number of teams and speakers, order of speeches, and decision making. THE AMERICAN FORMAT A standard American competitive format for a parliamentary debate includes two debate teams, one on each side of a motion. Each team has two people. One team supports a motion for debate (the motion is also known as the topic, proposition or resolution). The team sup­porting the motion is known as the proposition team. (In the USA and some other countries, the proposition team is also known as the “government.”) The proposition team has the burden to prove that the motion for debate is more probably true than false. In other words, the proposition team must convincingly demonstrate that it has successfully supported the motion. The other team in the debate is known as the opposition. (They are not ever known as the anti-government, rebel alliance, revolutionary front or the oxymoronic Anarchists United.) The opposition team argues against the proposition’s support for the motion. For each debate, a motion is announced and the teams are given a period of time to prepare the debate. The typical preparation time peri­od is fifteen minutes, although there are variations. The debate begins after preparation time has ended. There are six speeches in the debate. The first four speeches, known as constructive speeches, form the foundation of the debate. The proposition and opposition constructive speeches establish the core arguments for each team’s side of the motion. The latter two speeches are rebuttal speeches, with each side get­ting one speech to summarize. Each rebuttal speaker uses her speech to identify the salient issues for her team and propose the reasons why her team has convincingly won the debate. The debate proceeds as follows: • First proposition constructive speech 7 minutes • First opposition constructive speech 8 minutes • Second proposition constructive speech 8 minutes • Second opposition constructive speech 8 minutes • Opposition rebuttal 4 minutes • Proposition rebuttal 5 minutes Yhese speeches are also known by the following titles and ~breviations: • Prime Minister Constructive (PMC) • Lead Opposition Constructive (LOC) • Member of Government (MG) • Member of Opposition (MO) • Lead Opposition Rebuttal (LOR) • Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR) The speakers for the proposition open and close the debate. The open­ing speaker for each side presents two speeches in the debate — the open­ing constructive speech and the rebuttal speech. The second person on each side delivers a single speech — the member speech for her team. There is no preparation time for speakers during the debate. Each speak­er, in appropriate turn, immediately follows the previous speaker. There is a judge for each debate. In many debates, particularly those directly determining the outcome of a tournament, there are pan­els of judges, typically three or five judges per panel, with individual deliberation and a majority decision to decide a contest. In some cases, there may be a designated Speaker of the House (or “Chair”) or presiding parliamentary officer. More commonly, however, the judge or designated individual on a panel of judges, functions as Speaker of the House, introducing debaters for their speeches and ruling on parliamentary points directed to the chair. There is no preparation time between speeches. After one speech is finished, the Speaker of the House calls upon the next debater to proceed. A debate may have a designated timekeeper to track preparation time and speaking time. In the absence of a timekeeper, the judge usu­ally keeps time. The timekeeper announces the end of preparation time. Technically, the debate officially begins immediately at the con­clusion of the preparation time. The timekeeper signals time to the speakers during the debate with hand signals or a series of cards mdi­11 cating remaining time. For example if a speaker is delivering a seven minute speech and has used tlut’t ttt,,et,tt’. tel lieu time, the timekeeper should signal “four,” the remaining time for speech . The timekeep­er should never signal elapsed time in a speech. It is sufficiently chal­lenging to deliver a winning debate spin it wit iotut having to perform an arithmetic calculation to determimtt .tt.’dul~tI.le P.lpeaking time. The person keeping time should signal the tetti.ttuttut~ time to the speakers at the passing of each full minute and at t he kill tttinute mark of the final minute. The timekeeper should also iioie wheii the speaker has no remaining time. The timekeeper announces available time For points of information during the constructive speeches. After the first mtiittute and before the last minute of each constructive speech, the t iinekceper will “knock;” that is, rap her knuckles on a desk or table, slap a table with a gavel or palm of her hand, ring a bell, fire a blast of an air horn, squeeze a duck unexpectedly, or perform some other brief~ noisy gesture. Each round of tournament debating has a different topic; the motion for debate is announced just before the debate begins. There are different approaches to the announcement of a motion. They are listed in the order of their popularity. • A motion may be attached to the ballot presented to each judge to com­plete regarding the outcome of the debate. (See the chapter on judging for more on ballots and decision making. A sample parliamentary debate ballot is included in the resources appendix.) When the two teams and judge arrive at the assigned location for the debate, the judge announces the motion to the teams and begins preparation time. • The tournament may have a central gathering place. At that site, a tournament representative will make a verbal announcement of the motion for all participants. • A sheet of paper may be attached to the judge’s ballot. The sheet will contain three potential motions for debate. The proposition team and opposition team each “strike” a debate topic, i.e., each I’eliIt)VC a tnot ion from the list. The remaining t01)ic is I he utot it cmi lou t itt’ t lt’lmtc. • Two motions are attached to the judge’s ballot or announced at a cen­tral gathering place. One motion is ‘open’ and the other is “closed.” (Open and closed motions are discussed in the chapter on topic inter­pretation.) For example, one motion may be “open~~ — “Bury it,” and other “closed” — “This House would eliminate the secret policy delib­erations of the WTO.” The proposition team selects either motion. • A motion is attached to the judge’s ballot. The motion contains oppos­ing statements. For example, a motion might read “This House would/would not support NATO expansion into Russia.” The propo­sition team then selects either possibility for the debate. In other words, the proposition team may defend either “This House would support NATO expansion into Russia,” or “This House would not support NATO expansion into Russia.” In some leagues or tourna­ment competitions, it is appropriate for the proposition team to declare their selection before preparation time begins. On other occa­sions, the proposition does not announce the motion for debate until their opening speech. THE BRITISH FORMAT A standard British intervarsity tournament substantially departs from the American parliamentary format. Each debate involves four teams, with two teams on each side of the motion. Each team has two people. As in the American format, the teams supporting the motion are known as the proposition and the teams opposing them are known as the oppo­sition. This is one of many similarities between the American format and the British format. The language and argument style of all parlia­mentary debating is liberally borrowed from the British, Irish and Canadian formats. This might explain the use of the titles “Prime Minister” and “Leader of the Opposition” in American parliamentary debating. We believe this is a slightly better explanation for the use of these anachronistic, somewhat perplexing terms than the other popular claims regarding their use —collective madness for all things Anglo. Of the two teams on the same side of the motion, one is designated ht’st i)m’oix)siI ion an(l the other as second proposition. The same is the t.mst’ lttI tin. tppusit iou teatts: te~ttts ate listed as fit’st oi’ secontl oppo— sition. Each team has a different role described in detail below in the section on speaker responsibilities. Briefly, the first proposition teams function in the same way as American debaters d0 ri the constructive speeches, establishing an argument for the motion and defending and disputing it. The second proposition team provides an extension of the original case of the first proposition team, expandiri~ the debate to new areas of critical examination. The second opposition team refutes this new argument direction. The final speakers for each team in the debate are much like rebuttalists in the American format, iffectively summa­rizing the winning points of the debate for their resFective side. The announcement of a motion for debate at a central gathering site is this format’s preferred model. Preparation time is similar to American format event. The debate commences 15 dir 20 minutes after the announcement of the motion. There are eight speeches in the debate. Each SPe~ker delivers a sin­gle speech. Each speech is the same duration, US~ally either five or seven minutes. There is no preparation time for 5Peakers during the debate. Each speaker, in appropriate turn, immediatqy follows the pre­vious speaker. In the British format, a proposition team opens the debate and an opposition team closes the debate. Although argun~~~5 are integrated during a debate, it is also appropriate to considet and evaluate the debate format as if it constitutes two parallel deb~tes, administered consecutively. • First proposition, first speaker • First opposition, first speaker • First proposition, second speaker • First opposition, second speaker • Second proposition, first speaker • Second opposition, first speaker • Second proposition, second speaker • Second opposition, second speaker Points of information play a particularly import a it ole in this format and are available after the lust minute and ln’ltt j Iiti~tl minute ol’ FORMATS AND SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES each of the eight speeches. Because each speaker only has a single stand on the floor, it is important for each debater to make his or her presence known at other portions of the debate. For example, the opening speakers will not be heard for nearly 45 minutes if they do not successfully make points of information during their opponents’ speeches. Likewise, the latter speakers will not play a role in establish­ing the debate’s foundational issues if they fail to advance information­al points at an early stage of the proceedings. Managing points of information is a particular challenge in this for­mat. Because of the importance of making points, debaters are more likely to make them in the British than the American format. In addi­tion, a speaker holding the floor faces four respondents, rather than two, who are able to make points of information. With less speaking time to make winning claims, it is extraordinarily challenging to pres­ent organized, winning material and at the same time manage the dis­tractions and interruptions from the other side. There may be one or more than one judge for the debate. In the American format, each judge deliberates privately and makes a decision about the outcome of the debate. The judge decides a winner of the debate in a zero-sum game: The team that does not win the debate loses the debate. The judge also provides individual marks for each of the four debaters. Because there is private deliberation and voting by judges, it is necessary to have an odd number of judges for each debate. (This requirement is distinguished from the common complaint of debaters, namely, that there are a number of odd judges at each tournament.) In the British format, judicial decision making is by consensus. ‘[‘his means that debates may be evaluated by an odd or even number of’ critics. After their deliberation at the conclusion of the debate, the judge or judging panel issues a single decision. The debate decision ranks the four teams in the round of debate from first to fourth place. Each judge also provides individual speaker marks for the participants. Iii older to suecee~i, debate teams must not only defeat the two tt’~iiiis till tltt’ t)j)pOSiilg SI(IC but must also outperform the debate team st~syttte 1 tic tht~ same side of I he motion. Teams do not coordinate infor— ultiut teen eu cit ltt’rwtst’ work ttgt’t lieu’ diii’iig pm’eparalion tIme in these 141 Id tt~ I dl it I d’dlit ~ttt~ Id it’~i tile Ii~’ It It IdIIV .41141 ill I i’.l SiItIW St Wit’ Iov~ It V to the team on its side and simultaneously demonstrate superiority to that team. Debaters are penalized for failing to support the debate team on its side of the motion. There is likely to be a person designated Speaker of the House (“Chair”) to announce each speaker in turn. Points of order and per­sonal privilege are not available in the format and the chair is not called on to issue rulings on these parliamentary matters. Parliamentary points, such as points of information, points of order, and points of personal privilege, are discussed at length in a later chapter. They should not be confused with speaker points, which are points on a fixed scale assigned by judges to individual competitors in the debate after the debate has transpired. Parliamentary points are an integral part of the process of debating, but their accumulation (or lack thereof) does not directly influence the outcome of a debate. For more on how debates are decided, please reference the section on judging in the “Skills” chapter. SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES THE AMERICAN FORMAT Parliamentary debating is extemporaneous argument. Debaters are presented with a motion for debate and have a scant 15 minutes to pre­pare. They do not read published material or argument briefs gathered prior to preparation time during their presentations. Parliamentary debaters speak from notes they’ve made during the preparation time prior to or during the debate. Each speaker position in parliamentary debate involves responsi­bilities for effective presentation, defense, and refutation of motions. In addition, parliamentary debaters are members of teams and some responsibilities of speakers involve shared efforts with a colleague. Many parliamentary debaters, particularly in the USA, have developed an unfortunate habit of beginning each speech with a series of “thanks” to the Speaker of the House, opponents, partner, meIiil)ers of the audience, furniture, and any other carbon-based lii> Foitt or inorganic matter occupying space in the debating (‘llailll)t’I IItt’ •tllt.t tation is apparently designed to instruct the assembled judges and audience that faux civility is back in fashion. The disingenuousness and mechanistic construction of thanking conventions is almost certain to bore or rankle any listener with critical thinking skills or even those with slight ripples of brain wave activity. Does the speaker genuinely believe that the opponent, a complete stranger, is “honorable”? Is the speaker truly “happy” that the proposition team has presented a pow­erful case for debate? Can the dermatologically challenged youth per­forming the role of erstwhile rent-a-partner be accurately described as either “lovely” or “brilliant”? In a similar manner, speakers end their stand on the floor with a resoundingly obvious “I/We beg to propose” or the clever rejoinder, “I/We beg to oppose.” Really? The proposition team wants the propo­aition team to win the debate and the opposition team wants the oppo­ •ition team to win the debate? What an unexpected development in the proceedings! Want more advice? Stop begging. It is unseemly; it does not resonate with persuasive authority. Debaters, all debaters, should begin and end speeches with proper Introductions and conclusions. (This matter is discussed in the chapter on performance). This section on speaker responsibilities identifies the fUndamental strategic and tactical roles of speakers. Subsequent chap­frri offer more complete commentary on preparing and delivering the full text of each speech in a debate. Each speaker is known by one or more references to the speech she will deliver in the debate. The opening speaker for the proposition 4P4W1 is variously known as “Prime Minister,” “first prop,” or The latter is a code for the title of the speech itself — it literally trans­Sat.. as “Prime Minister Constructive,” but it has come to be used as a title for the speaker as much as a reference to the speech. The other •peakers in the debate are known in a similar manner: • t~’frnt speaker, proposition: Prime Minister, first prop, PMC • Ftvnt speaker, opposition: Leader of the Opposition, Leader, Leader • SPetmmitl speaker, proposition: Member of Government, member of ART, ARGUMENT ANIJ ALJVLJLP.L.T • Sedond speaker, opposition: Member of Opposition, member opp, secpnd prop, MO •0~position rebuttalist: Lead Opp rebuttal, LOR • PrOposition rebuttalist: Prime Minister rebuttal, Pi1’vIR (for some depaters, this speaker is also known as “that lying, deceitful, manip­ulative &~%@#, always with a new argument in the final speech of the debate”) FIR~T SPEAKER, PROPOSITION (A.K.A., “PRIME MINISTER CONSTRUCTIVETIVE”). The opening speaker in the debate makes a case for ~he motion. To make a case, a speaker offers a logical proof, a demonstration that the motion is more probably true than false. The first speaker for the proposition interprets the motion for debate, defin­ing ~ny ambiguous terms or otherwise clarifying the foundation for the argument. The speaker may establish additional frameworks for the discussion, including decision making criteria or other evaluative tools to a~SL5t the judge. The speaker is likely to offer a history of the debate’s subject mat­ter. Parliamentary debate topics are generated from all academic disci­plines and subject fields: economics, philosophy, cultural studies, the scieflees~ the law, politics, social studies, women’s studies, media stud­ies, immigration, race relations, education, human rights, national defC~nse and social welfare. It is not likely that judges have precisely the same knowledge base as opening speakers. A history of the issue in controversy helps debaters inform the judge in a way that might assist the judge’s appreciation of subsequent argument claims from the proposition team. After the opening speaker provides a clear foundation for the debate, she presents a case, that is, a detailed exposition of arguments in ~urno~ of her interpretation of the motion. A succinct interpretation 0f ~he motion is also known as a case statement.. The case typically corISlStS of three or four main arguments with corresponding examples or ~ther forms of contemporary or historical evidence. It is the obligation of the opening speaker to prove the motion. As R1vmond Alden explained in his 1900 t t’eat is’ or. ‘Vh1’ A ut of I )~Ilttr,thL’I’t’ iS itO obIig~itioui tt’stitig 1114(411 glInt III tititt’I ~t,4I lIe~ tti it controversy to establish by proofs a given proposition, before being entitled to receive an answer from the other side.” This responsibility rests, he concluded, “upon the side that would be assumed to be defeated if no progress at all were made in the consideration of the case. The case will typically consist of three or four main arguments, with corresponding examples or other forms of contemporary or historical evidence. For example, on the motion, “This House would abolish affirmative action,” an opening speaker might organize her main argu­ments in the following manner: 1. Affirmative action has failed to address race and gender issues over time. 2. Affirmative action policies undermine community reform by assimi­lating the best and brightest of marginalized communities into mainstream culture. 3. Alternatives to affirmative action are more likely to deal with the root causes of racism and sexism. The opening speaker would have sufficient reasoning and examples to make concise, complete, and compelling arguments on each of these i~ucs. The speaker would offer a summary of her speech to demon­ml mate the manner in which the arguments met the burden of proof for lie,’ interpretation for the motion. FIRST SPEAKER, OPPOSITION (A.K.A., “LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION”). The opposition team provides “clash” in the debate. (iliish, one of the fundamental principles of any kind of debate, is sim­ply what happens when arguments directly oppose each other. This 6de~t is examined more in the chapter on argument theory. The opposi­ttoti team provides clash when they attempt to undermine the logic of the proposition team’s case. The opposition argues that the motion, as tnterpm’etcd by the proposition, does not hold. ‘I’Iw flu’s: opposition speaker uses tactics of direct and indirect refu­lsliomt to cc)tImlteI’ the proposition team’s case. The opening speaker for the tt~ Ip tsut uout mtiav challenge I lie definition of’ the motion or the propo-interpretation for more on arguing theses issues). The first opposition speaker may also challenge the main arguments of the proposition’s case. Refuting the main points of the case, that is, disputing the argu­ment analysis or factual claims of the opening speaker, is called direct refutation. The opening speaker for the opposition should critically evaluate the first proposition speaker’s arguments, pointing out incon­sistencies, trivialities, logic gaps, argument fallacies, improper causal chains and exaggerated claims. This speaker might also offer counters to the examples presented in the proposition case. The opposition could also promote clash with the proposition case through indirect argumentation. Indirect argumentation involves issues that are not formally included in the proposition team case (i.e., the issues not mentioned in the opening speech by the first proposition speaker) but are, nonetheless, intimately related to consideration of the matter. These material arguments, including disadvantages, counter-plans and critiques, are discussed in detail in subsequent chapters. The optimal opposition strategy in the opening speech is to present some combination of direct and indirect refutation, carefully selecting from among all available opposition arguments the more salient and potentially effective ones for presentation in the debate. The opposition is not obliged to disagree with every argument of the proposition team s case. It is wearying and ineffectual to engage in this sort of reactionary gainsaying of each of the proposition’s main arguments. It may be, in fact, to the advantage of the opposition to agree with a proposition argument. Agreement may focus the discus­sion on those points in genuine controversy or may support a different and more powerful position for the opposition team. Opposition debaters, particularly in the opening speech, should at least account for all the main arguments of the proposition case. Thu opening opposition speaker should do this in a forthright and form.a I manner, making it apparent to the judge that all major elements of th1 proposition case have been addressed. By this, we mean that the first opposition speaker should say something about each of the rnaj issues of the case, either by identifying points of agreement and lull eating the core issues of the debate to other matters 01. by cIiiuuII~’ indirectly disputing the proposition claims. 20 FORMATS AND SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES This approach does not necessarily limit the options of the opposi­tion speaker, nor does it involve a mechanical rejoinder to each of the proposition team’s major issues. ft is possible for the opening opposi­tion speaker to identify two or three main lines of argument, for exam­ple, one to address the issues of the case (direct refutation) and two new initiatives that could undermine the proposition position in the debate but, at the same time, are not ideas articulated in the opening speech (indirect refutation). The Opposition speaker might then let the )Udge know that these three issues are of greater import than the other matters in the opening speech, i.e., the other major arguments for the proposition team are trivial distractions and not fundamental to a prop­er evaluation of the motion. SECOND SPEAKER, PROPOSITION (A.K.A., “MEMBER OF GOVERNMENT’J). The second constructive speech for the proposi­andi is that team’s last Opportunity to introduce new arguments ssues. The only stand on the floor for the proposition, after this Constructive speech, is the final rebuttal speech in the debate. This is a I particularly important speech for the proposition, as it immediately S precedes two consecutive Opposition speeches — the second Opposition Constructive speech (or “Member of the Opposition” speech) and the I Opposition rebuttal speech (or “Leader of the Opposition rebuttal.”) The Opposition speeches give that side of the debate 12 consecutive minutes to advance arguments. The second proposition speaker must ConVincingly prove her side’s case to withstand the serious forthcom­ - Ifl~ opposition assault. The second speaker for the proposition refutes all the major objec— tioni o the case as offered by the opening speaker for the Opposition. additIon, this speaker reestablishes the principles of the case, initial­ly pre~t~tuted by her colleague in the first proposition speech. In doing Mn, Mhe might supplement her colleague’s reasoning, offer additional e~ample~ (II’ otherwise amplif~i the opening presentation. SECOND SPEAKER, OPPOSITION (A.K.A., “MEMBER 0F OPPOSITION). This the final constructive speech in the debate for the oppsition team. No new arguments can be introduced after this speech by the side opposing the motion. The second speaker for the opposition has several options for her speech. She may continue the objections of the first opposition speak­er to the proposition team’s case; present new arguments against the proposition team (these arguments may be either direct or indirect refutation); defend and expand the opposition’s counterplan, disad­vantages, critiques and other indirect argumentation if they have been presented; and evaluate inconsistencies between the arguments 0f the first and second proposition speakers. Although the speech is known as a constructive speech and a proposition team may make points of information during “unprotect­ed” speaking time, debaters should be cautious about presenting infor­mation as if the second opposition speech was a constructive speech. It should function as an opposition rebuttal speech. The second opposition speaker, like any constructive speaker in the debate, may introduce new arguments1 but this is an unwise tactic because this speaker will be immediately followed by the opposition’s last speech in the debate, its sole rebuttal speech. If the second Opposi­tion speaker introduces new arguments into the debate, the opposition rebuttalist will be able to repeat that information in her speech but will not be able to expand or amplify the points. There is no foundation to do so as the proposition team has not yet had an opportunity to dispute any of the claims from the second opposition constructive speaker. In fact, the only opportunity for the proposition team to answer these issues is in their next stand on the floor, the proposition rebuttal, which also happens to be the last speech in the debate. This means that any positions advanced by the second speaker of the opposition are, essentially, “naked” arguments. The opposition debaters are unable to explain, defend, or extend the arguments. Virtually any argument in the proposition rebuttal will defeat these newly entered issues and a clever proposition speaker might try to capture new arguments or turn them to her advantage, employing them as winning strategies for the her side. Paradoxically, new arguments presented in the second oppo­sition speech might be the key to victory for the proposition. It is vital to expand the arguments from t lie first opposition speah• It is equally important to answc[ ut at”’ ,tn,t I or the key issues itt’ t It FORMATS AND SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES second proposition speaker. The opposition team, in their second speech, should be careful about introducing new arguments or unnec­essarily expanding arguments in the debate. If the second opposition speech functions as a rebuttal, then the Opposition offers an integrated front of 12 minutes of argumentation, an effective tactic to overwhelm a final proposition rebuttalist’s five-minute speech. The second opposition speaker should effectively sum­marize issues, explaining carefully the impact of each argument (i.e., the manner in which the argument plays a decisive role in the outcome of the debate). Opposition speakers should share rebuttal responsibil­ities, with each speaker managing a section of the debate. OPPOSITION REBUTTALIST (A.K.A., “LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION REBUTTAL”). This part of the debate is the summary speech for the Opposition team, the last opportunity this side will have to explain winning arguments. Rebuttals are an Opportunity to contrast the main lines of argument of the proposition and opposition. The speaker should select from among the issues of the debate. It is not pos­sible to cover every argument in the debate. There are likely to be too tnany argument points from the constructive speeches in the debate, ttn(l, to compound difficulties, the rebuttalist has approximately one­luilt’ the allotted time of the constructive speakers. (The Opposition CCI)Llttalist has four minutes for the speech, in contrast to the proposi­tion constructive speakers who have, respectively, seven- and eight-minute speeches.) ‘[‘he opposition rebuttal speaker should focus attention on the Mstlient two to four major issues that might tip the debate to the oppo­Nit iou side. The Opposition should select more than one issue. Multiple, independent winning arguments may increase the probability that the OppositiOn will succeed in the debate. l’hese arguments must have a foundation in the constructive speech­en. New at’gutnents may not be introduced in the Opposition rebuttal. Th~ opposition rebitttahist should carry through important issues from o~wtting stwe’h in the debate, as well as her partner’s constructive speech. The speaker sould be cautious to avoid rote repetition of the second oppsition speach. Too many oppsition rebuttalists merely repeat the issues from their partner’s speech Bad idea. Simple repetition is hardly the most effective explanatory, argumentative or persuasive presentation. Simple repetition is hardly the most effective explanatory, argumentative or persuasive presentation. Simple repetition is hardly the most effective explanatory, argumentative or persuasive presentation. (That last bit should just about settle the matter.) Rebuttal repetition does not advance the opposition’s agenda in the debate. It retards it. It suspends it for four minutes. It also provides the proposition rebuttalist with time to prepare her speech. The proposi­tion speaker has already heard the opposition’s potentially winning arguments in the final opposition constructive speech. There is no rea­son for her to listen to the issues again. By repeating the arguments in the opposition rebuttal, the opposition merely sets free the proposition rebuttalist. There is no reason to pay attention to the opposition rebut­tal speaker. She is on to more important tasks. With four minutes to craft her five-minute speech1 the final rebuttalist is almost certain to offer effective rejoinders to the opposition’s claims. Paradoxically, the conventional opposition rebuttal, a restatement of the issues of the sec­ond opposition speaker, works best for the opposing side. PROPOSITION REBUTTALIST (A.K.A.; “PRIME MINISTER REBUTTAL”). The proposition has the final speech in the debate. This speech should effectively summarize the entire debate. The proposition rebuttalist has similar goals as the final opposition speaker. The final rebuttalist should extend the arguments from the constructive speech­es, taking care to answer the major arguments from the opposition speakers, particularly the final opposition stand on the floor. The proposition rebuttalist should offer multiple, independent proofs of the motion to increase the probability that any single idea will be sufficient for a victory. For this speaker, there may be an exception to the “no new argu­ments in the rebuttal” rule. The proposition rebuttalist is entitled to answer new arguments made in the second opposition constructive speech, because the final rebuttal is the first opportunity in the debate that the proposition team has to refute these issues. Although the answers to tI te t m w ~tu’gu merits ut the set’otu I ~ ~ isi t t tttt ~‘‘ the ttt av appear to be “new,” they are not new arguments in the debate. They have their foundation in a constructive speech. THE BRITISH FORMAT There are subtle and dramatic differences in speaker roles between the American and British debate formats. Many of the roles, particularly for speakers opening and closing the debate, are nearly identical to speaker roles in the American format. As in the American format, after the. opening proposition case, British format debaters advance new Lasues and challenge the ideas of their opponents. PINUT SPEAKER, FIRST PROPOSITION. The first speaker in the british debate format has a nearly identical role to the first speaker for the proposition in the American format. The speaker interprets the F ~ Thotion and makes a convincing case for it. The case should provide Ii Opportunities for serious debate and for argument extension. (See the I - ~1. of the first speaker, second proposition, above.) FIRST SPEAKER, FIRST OPPOSITION. Same as the first speaker, oposition, in the American format. SECOND SPEAKER, FIRST PROPOSITION. This is extraordinarily munilar to the second speaker, proposition, in the American format. ThiM pcaker should amplify the arguments of her partner and initiate at least one new argument in the debate. SECOND SPEAKER, FIRST OPPOSITION. Same as the second speaker, opposition, in the American format. This speaker should amplify the arguments of her partner and initiate at least one new argument in the debate. FIRST SPEAKER, SECOND PROPOSITION. At last, a serious point of departurebetween the British and American formats. The second proposition team's first speakermist establish an extension of the case presented by the first proposition opening speaker. the case extension may not simply repeat the ideas of the opening speaker of the debate, nor may the speaker offer yet another example for the same argument. While showing loyalty to the opening proposition team, the first speaker of the second proposition team must subtly shift the discussion to new area of investigation or amplify an opening team’s symbols, themes or underlying assumptions. This speaker then follows the form of the opening speaker, establishing a case for modifying the motion. The case includes three or four main lines of argument constituting a logical proof for the second proposition team’s interpretation of the motion. Because the second proposition team shares a side of the motion with the first proposition team, it is important for the second team to offer a position that is consistent with the initial argument claims. To do otherwise, that is, to undermine the arguments of the opening proposition team, is to figuratively stab colleagues in the back. (At least the authors hope that it is only figurative knife play.) When this under­mining occurs, the second proposition team is said to “knife” the first team. “Knifing” is almost always held against a second proposition team. It is so disfavored by judges that it is difficult for a team engag­ing in the practice to receive a rank higher than fourth place. Consider that parliamentary debate’s roots lie in governing bodies, which fre­quently involve coalition governments of more than one party. When one party rejects the claims of their supposed partner, they are in effect disbanding the coalition. FIRST SPEAKER, SECOND OPPOSITION. Same as the first speaker, opposition in the American format. This speaker must rebut the case presented by the second proposition team’s first speaker. SECOND SPEAKER, SECOND PROPOSITION This speech is very much like a rebuttal in the American format. The speaker summarizes the debate, making the necessary points for a winning conclusion for her team. SECOND SPEAKER, SECOND OPPOSITION. Same as the second speaker, opposition, in the American format, or second speaker, proposition, in the British format. 20 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON FORMATS Although there are substantial differences between parliamentary debate formats, the major styles are quite similar in substance. The process of argumentation and refutation to determine winners and losers of debates varies little from debate to debate. The proposition team will, invariably, make a case for the topic. The opposition team will refute or otherwise undermine the proposition team’s case. As the debate progresses, both teams will develop lines of argument to prove why their side wins the debate. At the end, both sides have a chance to summarize their arguments and refute the major issues raised by their opponents. Finally, the htdge or judges will render a decision about the debate, assigning either ranks or a winner and a loser. They will assign speaker points on a fixed SCale to individual debaters. After these decisions are made, the judge will offer oral and written critiques of the debate. req Regardless of the specific format used for debate, good debate Uires ethical practice. We advise you to consider the seriousness of event when you practice debate. Do not, through your behavior or arguments, make the event a joke. This is a waste of money and time for your organization and for your opponents and critics. As a debater, critic, or trainer, you shoulder an obligation to know and IolIow the policies of tournaments and leagues in which you par­IIVeIt~ite. At tournaments, the rules often dictate the format and other procedures, including judge behavior. At the league level, policies regulate behavior, including harassing behavior, between debaters and tournament participants. In the USA, the National Parliamentary Debate Association has the following harassment poli­ cies their by-laws (updated July 2001): Acadamic debate provides a forum for the expression, criticism, and discussion (and for the tolerance) of a wide range of opinions. Participants are encouraged to develop skills in reasoned and supported argument while avoiding the pitfalls of faulty argument. Acadamics debatedoes not provide a license for demeaning actions ART, ARGUMENT AND ADVOCACY and it does not tolerate sexual harassment. Any participant who suffers discrimination or harassment as part of the activity is denied the guarantee of an equal opportunity to work, learn, and grow in the area of academic debate and may be harmed in mind, body, and performance.” “Sexual harassment is a form of diSCrimination and consists of verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, imposed on the basis of sex, that has the effect of denying or limiting one’s right to participate the activity, or creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive environ­ment that places the victim in an untenable situation and/or dimin­ishes the victim’s opportunity to participate fairly. Sexual conduct can become discriminatory and harassing when the nature of the interac tion is enwelcome, or when a pattern oFBEHAVIOR THAT IS IS OFFENSIVE to a “reasonable woman” (or man, as the case may be) exists. These definitions, which comply with the EEOC and other legal definitions, rely strongly on the perceptions of the complainant and it is important to recognize that differences in social position between the complainant and the accused can compound the degree of threat or potential harm perceived in a situation.” It is important that leagues work to develop policies regarding harassment and other exclusionary behaviors that might occur at tourna­ments or other league events. As you become involved in debate, you should investigate the relevant policies of your league to ensure that your behavior is in compliance with the norms of the organizations in which you participate. Regardless of policies and procedures, however, debaters, trainers, and judges have an obligation to behave in a civil and respectful manner towards other participants in the activity. In the interest of pursuing open debate and discussion, all participants must respect each other and create an environment free of intimidation. All debate formats create space for dynamic, engaged, and informed discussion. One of the only major variables to change from debate to debate in parliamentary debating is the topic. Teams should expect to debate a different topic in each debate. In the next chapter, we discuss the types of topics and explain the process of topic analysis that debaters should employ.

Материалы |  О нас |  Новости |  Статьи |  Ресурсы |  Материалы турниров |  Клубы |  Консультация |  Календарь |  Форум |  Контакты

Web Hosting