GUIDE TO DEBATING

I. General Rules and Conventions

Rules of British Parliamentary Debate

Proceedings of the Round

• Teams will consist of two speakers
  
  
• Teams will be informed of the motion to be debated, after which they will have about fifteen minutes’ preparation time before the round begins
  
  
• Each round will have two teams for the proposition and two for the opposition. All teams, even those on the same side, are effectively competing against each other and should not confer, although second prop and opp teams should always be seen where possible to complement and never contradict their respective first teams.
  
  
• The order of debate begins with a speech from the first speaker for the proposition, followed second by the first speaker for the opposition, followed third by the second speaker for the proposition, and so forth until the last opposition speaker
  
  
• Speeches will be five minutes in duration (it can be six or seven minutes)
  
  
• Speakers should always address the Chair as ‘Mr/Madam Speaker’ or ‘Mr/Madam Chairman’ unless it is the President or Convenor of a Debating Society

Roles of Teams and Speakers in the Debate

• The task of the first speaker for the first prop team is to provide a specific definition of the motion and only then to set out the case of the first prop team in defending the motion as defined. All teams should work within the parameters of the definition that has been given unless it is a truism, utterly vague or completely obscure in terms of subject-matter in which case the first opp speaker only would be expected to offer a re-definition.
  
  
• All speakers after the first speaker for the first prop team are expected to spend some of their time refuting arguments made by previous speakers.
  
  
• The general task of the first prop and first opp teams is to point out the major arguments for and against the motion as defined. The task of the first speaker for the second prop and second opp teams should always be to introduce a case complementing that of their first teams, ideally one which is new in terms of approach at the same time as being a relevant extension of the debate.
  
  
• The second speaker for the second prop and second opp teams must summate what has been said and must not introduce any new arguments or information except to refute an opponent.

Interjections in the Debate

• Points of Order concerned with the chairing of the round may be given to the Chair at any stage in the debate but should generally never be given, only if there is a very serious problem without which the round cannot effectively proceed.
  
  
• All junctures in a speech, the end of the first minute, the end of the penultimate minute, the end of the last minute, fifteen seconds later, ten seconds after that and then every five seconds, will be signalled by a loud knock from a timing assistant using a gavel.
  
  
• During the first and last minute of a speech Points of Information will not be allowed: these are ‘protected’ minutes.
  
  
• To offer a Point of Information to whoever is speaking a participant should stand up with one hand on the head and say "On a Point of Information", "On that Point" or something similar to signal the Point unless they have already secured the speaker’s attention
  
  
• Points of Information may be refused, cannot be given unless accepted by the speaker by saying "Accepted" or by some other signal and can also be ‘put down’ at any time.
  
  
• Points of Information should be short, never more than seven seconds long.
  
  
• Each speaker should ideally accept two Points of Information apart from the first speaker defining for whom it is usually acceptable to take just one.
  
  
• Each speaker should ideally attempt to offer at least one Point of Information to each of their opponents.

The Judging Criteria

Judges will typically ask two questions.

First,

Did the speaker fulfil the role of their Position on the Table, e.g. defining, summating, etc.? The roles of all Positions on the Table are spelt out on the next page.

Second,

How well did they live up to each of the major determinants of a speech from any Position on the Table? These are as follows

.

(a mnemonic code to help you remember: S T R A P S )

Roles of Speakers

The following list illustrates the major differences between speakers in terms of what they are supposed to cover in their speeches. Except in the case of addressing Points of Information, speakers should generally follow the order outlined below of all sections within speeches.

Proposition	Opposition
First speaker - defines motion - sets out case of first prop team: . 2/3 arguments - should take one Point of Information .	First speaker - responds if necessary to definition - briefly rebuts previous arguments - sets out case of first opp team: 2/3 . arguments (or rebuttals) - should take two Points of Information
Second Speaker - rebuts previous arguments - completes first prop team-case: 1/2 . argument/s - should take two Points of Information	Second Speaker - briefly rebuts previous arguments - completes first opp team-case: 2/3 . arguments (or rebuttals) - should take two Points of Information
Third speaker - rebuts previous arguments - sets out and ideally distinguishes . complementary case of second prop . team: 2/3 arguments - should take two Points of Information	Third speaker - rebuts previous arguments - sets out and ideally distinguishes . complementary case of second opp . team: 2/3 arguments (rebuttals) - should take two Points of Information
Summater - sums up and rebuts main opposition . arguments at length (at least three . minutes) - sums up proposition and especially . second prop team arguments (but . introduces no new material) - should take two Points of Information	Summater - sums up and rebuts main proposition . arguments at length (at least three . minutes) - sums up opposition and especially . second opp team arguments (but . introduces no new material) - should take two Points of Information

NB: summaters must not go through the debate in order of speakers but should either sum up both sides respectively or sum up theme by theme, dealing with both sides in doing so

General Points about Making a Speech

Here are some general points about making a speech.

Basically, make sure you have

(i) a dignified but relaxed posture

(ii) clear enunciation

(iii) diaphragm projection

(iv) minimal, appropriate use of gesture

(v) occasional eye-contact with your judges and audience

Notes

Do not rely on notes. Put down key words in large letters and then set down your paper and glance down occassionally to see where you are in your speech.

II. Elements of Debate

The Definition

If you are the first proposition speaker, you must present a definition of the motion before the House which must

(i) take the form of some kind of specific proposal or observation which it must then be possible in the case of the proposition to provide a number of arguments for and in the case of the opposition to provide a number of arguments against.

(ii) specify, where unclear, the meanings of all words in the motion, sometimes including even to whom "This House" refers.

(iii) ideally make proposing an easier task then opposing, especially by presenting a specific framework within which your proposal applies to prevent charges of vagueness or impracticality.

There are two types of motions

(ii) the ‘open’ motion.

A specific motion already points towards a tangible and debatable proposal whereas an open motion requires further specification.

An example of a fairly specific motion defined

‘This House calls for a minimum wage’

Here, the definition is pretty much entailed in the motion itself but should still be (and is) stated in a way that really smacks of a thorough definition for the judges.

An example of a fairly open motion defined

‘This House believes that the answer is blowing in the wind’

Here, we move from an open motion to a specific, tangible proposal, also making sure to waste enough -but not too much- time in order to keep the first opp team in suspense. Importantly, the proposal must not be so broad (e.g. "European integration in general is good") as to bring about a situation in which there is nothing specific that all speakers in the round must address, which is crucial to a rigorous debate.

The Link Between Motion and Definition

The important thing to remember is that there must be a clear link (i.e. suggested by normal dictionary definitions of the words) between all of the words of the motion and the definition, even if -as in the last example- it is achieved through a metaphor (i.e. the flag of Europe).

Here is an example of a more shaky definition

'This House believes that rock’n’roll is the devil’s music'

In this example, the onus of defending that particular religious position has been cleverly shifted to the opposition so that the proposition can simply stand up for free expression. But the link between motion and definition seems to have been lost. One cannot repeat the motion without feeling that it has very little to do with supporting rock’n’roll. The definition says ‘rock’n’roll is seen as the devil’s music and that’s a good thing’, which is quite different in spirit from ‘rock’n’roll is the devil’s music’.

How Not to Define

As a definer you have the responsibility of setting the subject-matter of the debate. For this reason, you must at all costs avoid definitions (examples on page 7) which are

(i) truisms (i.e. self-evident or without any real possible opposition)

(ii) vague (i.e. so that there is nothing clear about which to debate), or

(iii) obscure in terms of subject matter (i.e. presumes far too much specialist knowledge)

Definition Subject Matter

The kind of subject matter in general would be that covered by the press in its reports on current affairs and must not presume an in-depth academic knowledge of any subject, although one needs a fairly good grasp (a journalistic knowledge) of a number of issues and terms that are likely to feature. It is probably advisable to stray away from definitions that force a particular religious belief on the entire debate (for example, in the case of a debate defined -assuming a Christian point of view- on whether or not to disestablish the Church of England). The general class of subjects which are recognised as safe areas of debate at competitions are covered roughly in the list of motions at the end of this guide. Generally, the definition should be some kind of proposed national or international governmental legislative or executive development, or a moral observation about one, but there are some exceptions that are often accepted as legitimate (notably definitions concerning ‘society’ and also educational reform, schools having their own kind of ‘internal’ government).

The "Squirrel"

Motions can sometimes be ‘squirreled’ by definers. This is where the motion clearly suggests either one specific proposal or a number of alternative possible specific proposals but the first speaker in the debate defines the motion as something radically different. Usually, this is a very bad idea and should almost always be avoided. In many cases it will be penalised heavily. If there is still a very clear link between the words of the motion and the definition, however, then the end result is sometimes respectable, even impressive.

An example of a good squirrel

‘This House would protect smokers' rights’.

And for an example of a bad squirrel

‘This House would keep off the grass’

Hmmm.... What garden? If this was allowed one might even say the garden of the free market or progress or practically anything! Grass in this case should refer to something which its dictionary definition might suggest, cannabis that should be legalised, for example, or National Heritage Sites that deserve continued state protection. As the above example shows, even a fairly open motion can be squirreled illegitimately and this happens because there is very little link between motion and definition.

The general rule remains the same, however. Do not squirrel unless

(i) there is a very clear link retained between motion and definition

(ii) you can make a far better case out of the definition it leaves you with, particularly if you would find it very difficult to argue a ‘straight’ case (i.e. from whatever definition might be expected)

The second point is particularly important because there are some judges who will be as a rule harsher when allocating marks to a team that squirrels simply because they will assume that they have gained a considerable tactical advantage, especially as squirrels leave other teams with an effectively useless preparation period before the round.

Responding to a Definition

Always be presented as arguing a reasonable case. If you are the first opposition speaker you are at liberty to adopt a sensible position by proposing some kind of ‘half-way house’ to whatever the definer is proposing. In a debate defined as abolishing the monarchy, for example, you might respond by saying that you merely want to defend the ceremonial and diplomatic functions of a royal head of state. This would allow you to defend the monarchy without having to insist that the Monarch retains any constitutional power.

Bear in mind that an opposition case should ideally spell out an alternative to what is being proposed, even if that alternative is merely a defence of the status quo. Often, a first opp speaker will respond to the definition by arguing quite simply that, although a present situation is not ideal, what is being proposed would make the situation worse.

Rejecting a Definition?

Rather like squirreling, which sometimes annoys judges even when the squirrel is quite legitimate, rejecting a definition is a big danger-area generally to be avoided by any first opp speaker. Nevertheless, if the definition is a truism, utterly vague or completely obscure in terms of subject-matter then the judges would expect some kind of re-definition for the sake of the debate.

An example of an utterly vague definition

‘This House believes that the answer is blowing in the wind‘

An example of a truistic definition

‘This House would laze on a sunny afternoon’

An example of an obscure definition

‘This House would resist the changing times’

If you do reject a definition, make sure to show precisely

(i) why it has to be re-defined (all reasons)

(ii) how you are re-defining it, and

(iii) where necessary, why you are re-defining it in that particular way

Generally speaking a re-definition has to be a re-interpretaion of a definition and so should not be vastly different at least in spirit and usually wherever possible (unless you want to take the risk) should actually be similar to the original definition.

For example,

The ‘answer is blowing in the wind’ debate could be redefined as an enterprise culture definition (‘go out there and get it’ slightly misrepresented so as to mean ‘you can go out there and achieve something’) opposed through a defense of the necessity of welfare provision by the State.

The ‘laze on a sunny afternoon’ debate could be redefined in the same way, (by inserting ‘make your money and then’ laze on a sunny afternoon because ‘you’ve earned it’).

The ‘resist the changing times’ debate could be redefined as arguing that the older drilling approach to education is better than education emphasising independent thought.

If a definition is ever as unreasonable as any of the above three examples (i.e. not really amounting to any serious debatable proposal), one can even get away with re-defining quite radically if one is careful enough. For example, one could say

Generally speaking, though, the rule is the same : do not reject a definition unless it absolutely has to be rejected. A very surprising and difficult squirrel or even a bad definition with no real link to the motion should not be rejected as long as it is still debatable.

The Team Case

The first prop and opp teams should each seek to outline about four or five of the major arguments of the debate. The first speakers for the second prop and opp teams should present a complementary case of two or three main arguments to that of the previous team on their side of the House. However, if any major arguments have been left out they should always make sure to deal with these. If the team before them have set out a ridiculous case it would be advisable for them to put a special emphasis the ‘complementary’ ‘new’ approach which their case takes in order to effectively ignore what has previously been argued on their side of the House but without changing the spirit of the debate.

Generally speaking, it is better to stick to fewer arguments rather than more as this allows one to be rigorous not only in one’s presentation of the team-case but also - vitally - in one’s rebuttals. Rebuttals generally score the highest marks, being one of the most interactive elements of debate. As the first prop team have only one speaker who can rebut points, i.e. the second speaker, it is worthwhile for that speaker to have only one argument but to deal thoroughly with every objection and counter-argument raised by the first opposition speaker.

Presenting a Team Case

When it is clear from both speeches from a team that they agree on

(i) how many arguments they have

(ii) what those arguments are

(iii) in which order they come, and

(iv) which team-mate deals with which arguments

then we have an example of a well-presented team-case. This will score high marks on teamwork and structure.

Here are a few standard labels for categorising and dividing up arguments in a case.

Political	Social	Economic	Legal	Moral
Historical	Cultural	Environmental	Aesthetic	Psychological

Here are a few standard labels for categorising and dividing up approaches in a team

National : International

Internal : External

Pragmatic: Theoretical