British Parliamentary Debating Format
The Motion
Every debate has a motion; this is the issue for discussion. A good motion has clear arguments in favor of it and against it. The motion is expressed “This House…”: this is a convention and “The House” is all the people present at the debate.
Debate Structure
A debate round has two teams with two debaters each and a Speaker.
The Speaker serves as both the judge and arbiter of the rules during the round.
One team represents the Government, while the other represents the Opposition.
The Government team is composed of a Prime Minister, who speaks twice, and a Member of Government, who speaks once. The Government proposes a specific case statement, which the government team must demonstrate to be correct.
The Opposition team is composed of a Leader of the Opposition, who speaks twice, and a Member of the Opposition, who speaks once. The Opposition does not have to propose anything, but must demonstrate that the case statement is not correct.
The Speaker decides at the end of the round, based on the arguments made in the round, whether the Government has proved its case or whether the Opposition has disproved it. The team which met its burden more convincingly wins.
Order and Timing of Speeches
Prime Minister Constructive (PMC): 7 minutes
Leader of the Opposition Constructive (LOC): 8 minutes
Member of the Government Constructive (MGC): 8 minutes
Member of the Opposition Constructive (MOC): 8 minutes
Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR): 4 minutes
Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR): 5 minutes
Note: Each speech has a thirty second grace period.
Speakers’ Roles
Government Team
PMC
1. Define the motion (see below).
2. Outline the case he and his partner will put forward and explain which speaker will deal with which arguments.
3. Develop his own arguments, which should be separated into two or three main points.
4. Finish by summarizing his main points
MGC
1. Re-cap the team line.
2. Rebut the response made by the first opposition speaker to his partner’s speech.
3. Rebut the first opposition speaker’s main arguments.
4. Develop his own arguments – separated into two or three main points.
5. Finish with a summary of the whole team case.
PMR
1. Summary speech of the round.
2. Go through the debate according to the main points of contention.
3. Explain why on each of the main issues that have been debated have been won by your side.
Opposition Team
LOC
1. Respond to the definition if it is unfair or makes no link to the motion. You can re-define (offer an alternative interpretation of the motion), but this can be risky and should only be done when the definition is not debatable (usually better to complain a little and hope the adjudicator gives you credit – “well this is a silly definition but we’re going to debate it and beat you on it anyway” approach).
2. Rebut the first proposition speech.
3. Outline the case which she and her partner will put forward and explain which speakers will deal with which arguments
4. Offer additional arguments (roughly 2) about why the policy is a bad idea, or develop a counter case (i.e. an alternative proposal). This decision is largely based on the circumstances of the debate, and only experience will provide guidance on this.
MOC
1. Rebut the speech of the second proposition speaker.
2. Offer some more arguments to support your partner’s approach to the motion.
3. Summarise the case for your team, including your own and your partner’s arguments.
LOR
1. Devote the whole speech to a summing up.
2. Avoid introducing new material.
Speech Structure
Speeches should have a clear Internal Structure. It is often best to begin by attacking the arguments of previous speakers from the other side (especially the one just before you) and then to make you own points.
Try to separate your arguments into two, three or four areas (e.g. a social argument, a political argument and an economic argument).
Signpost your arguments clearly (e.g. “this is my first point”, “now to move onto my second points”, “lastly, looking at my third point” etc): this makes it much easier for the audience and the judges to follow your speech.
Work as a team, ensuring that your arguments are consistent and complementary.
New Arguments
New arguments can be made at any time during the first four speeches. These speeches are called constructives. New arguments cannot be made during rebuttals, the last two speeches of the round. The Prime Minister can, however, respond to new opposition arguments that were made during the MO. So the PMR may contain new responses, but not new arguments.
Points of Information
During the PMC, LOC, MG, MO debaters may rise to ask the debater who is speaking a question or insert a short statement. The procedure for this is as follows:
The debater who wishes to ask a Point of Information (POI) rises from his or her seat, places one hand on top of his or her head and extends his or her other arm to signal that he or she has a point.
The debater who is speaking may choose to recognize the point or not. If the debater does not want to recognize the point, he or she simply says "No thank you," or waves the questioner off. The questioner then sits down. A debater may not simply interrupt if his or her point is not taken.
If the debater who is speaking recognizes the point, then he or she says "On that point" and allows the questioner to give their point. At any time, the debater whose speech it is may stop the POI and tell the questioner to sit down.
The debater who is speaking does not have to recognize or refuse the point immediately. She/he can leave the questioner standing until it is convenient for the debater who is speaking to indicate whether the point will be entertained. Some debaters ask a special form of POI called a point of clarification. Clarification means that a debater does not understand the case or a particular argument. If possible, the speaker should try to answer the clarification to ensure a confusion-free debate round.
Note: Do not abuse the idea of clarification by asking too many clarification questions or disguising arguments as clarification.
Points of Order
A point of order is raised when a competitor believes that one of the rules of debate is being broken. There are two circumstances during a debate round under which a debater should raise a point of order.
The first is when the debater who is speaking has exceeded her/his grace period.
The second is when a debater introduces a new argument during one of the two rebuttal speeches.
The procedure for either point is as follows:
The debater rises from his or her seat and says "Point of Order."
The debater who is speaking stops their speech.
The debater who rose on the point indicates what rules violation they are raising the point on by saying "the speaker is overtime" or "the speaker just made the new argument _____ which is new in rebuttal."
The speaker of the round, who has been judging the debate, will rule the point "Well Taken" or "Not Well Taken." A well taken point means that the speaker must conclude their speech if they are over time or that the new point will not be considered as it was offered during a rebuttal. A not well taken point means that the speaker disagrees with the point and will allow the debater to go on speaking or will consider the argument as not being new. The speaker, not the debater who is speaking, may also rule the point "under consideration," which means that the speaker will determine whether the point is true at a later time. "Under consideration" only applies to new arguments in rebuttal, not to time limits.
A debater may not argue about a point of order. Once a debater has stated a point, all debaters must remain quiet while the speaker rules on the point.
Note: Although debaters may break other rules, for example, the Government may run a specific knowledge case, debaters do not need to bring up these violations on points of order. These violations should be mentioned during a regular speech.
Points of Personal Privilege
These are almost never used. Do not rise on a point of personal privilege unless you have been deeply insulted on a personal level by an intentional attack on your person. The procedure for a point of personal privilege is:
Rise and say, "Point of personal privilege."
The speaker will say "Point well taken" or "Point not well taken."
The debate continues, while the speaker notes down any serious offenses.
Points of Personal Privilege may also be used for a personal emergency.
Note: Speakers will take into consideration extremely rude behavior without any debater raising a point, so there is no need to do so.
Case Building
One of the most difficult skills in debating is preparing cases. Many teams find it difficult to come up with a good case statement and supporting arguments in the 15 minutes that most tournaments allot for preparation time.
Sometimes, the motion won’t be very helpful in locating a case. These are known as Open Motions. For example:
• This House would use the force.
• This House believes fish swim faster in cold water.
Usually the subject for debate more obvious. These are known as Closed Motions. Here, it is clear about what you should be arguing; you will be penalized for any attempts to debate about something else.
For example:
• This House would legalize euthanasia.
• This House would bomb North Korea.
You should identify your contention/case statement (even if it’s just a rewording of the resolution) in a one sentence. For Example:
• “The proposition will argue that doctors in the UK should be allowed to administer lethal drugs to terminally ill patients.”
• “We believe that the US and its allies should bomb North Korea now to halt its production of nuclear weapons.”
Judges like succinct (one-sentence) case statements. A short case statement will help your own thought processes.
It is not ok to run a case with no opposition to it at all. If your case is
• tautological (true by definition: the Sun rises in the morning),
• truistic (true by commonly accepted principles: Hitler was bad)
you will be penalized, and will probably lose the debate by default. If the definition is tautological or truistic, the first opposition speaker should explain this, substitute a fair definition and then argue against this new definition.
Having now identified the case statement, all you need to do is answer the following questions:
1. “How would we implement this resolution?” (model)
2. “Why should we implement this model?” (arguments)
The Model
The government’s model/plan should be introduced in the first minute of the first speaker’s speech. In building the model, you want to work out how your proposition will be implemented.
In the motion about euthanasia above, government team should outline how their plan would work, perhaps referring to somewhere where euthanasia is or has been legal
(e.g. The Netherlands, Oregon, the Northern Territories of Australia). They should refer to things like the people who would be eligible (e.g. those of sound mind with terminal illnesses causing severe pain or distress, who have expressed a consistent wish to die), how these people would indicate that they wished to die and what safeguards there would be (e.g. two doctors agreeing independently about the patient’s condition).
Often, motions do not demand an answer to the question “how”? The resulting debates are called “philosophical” debates and can be quite enjoyable. For example:
“This House believes that the Roman Catholic Church should ordain female
priests.”
• You argue that the Roman Catholic Church SHOULD do this for all sorts of logical and theological reasons; you do NOT need to propose invading the Vatican to make them do it!
