Anda di halaman 1dari 39

British Parliamentary Debating

Sophia Ong

Debate Structure
Proposition
1st Prop.
Prime Minister or 1st Speaker 1st Prop.
Deputy Prime Minister or nd Speaker 1st Prop. 2

Opposition
1 3 2 4
Leader of the Opposition or 1st Speaker 1st Opp.
Deputy of the Opposition or nd Speaker 1st Opp. 2

1st Opp.

2nd Prop.

Member of Government or st Speaker 2nd Prop. 1 Government Chief Whip or nd Speaker 2nd Prop. 2

6
8

Member of the Opposition or st Speaker 2nd Opp. 1 Opposition Chief Whip or nd Speaker 2nd Opp. 2

2nd Opp.

Points of Information P.O.I

Prime Minister
1
3 2

Role: Setup the Debate Present the Most Important Arguments (Normally 2) Structure: Definition / Introduction
Sign Post

5 7

6 8

Present 1st Substantive Present 2nd Substantive


Conclusion

Prime Minister
Definition:

1
3

Provide Sufficient Background Define Contentious Terminology Identify The Problem (Why is it a problem?) Provide Policy (Find a Solution)
Explain Who dose What and When, How does it solve the problem, Why is this a better situation than before Who is going to be affected by this and how is that better?

5 7

6 8

(Easiest Solution is to Provide an Existing Model)

Prime Minister
1
3 2

Sign-Posting & Conclusions


Letting others know what you are going to say.

Explaining & Associating the topic.

5 7

6 8

Reminding them of what you said.

Prime Minister
Substantive:

1
3

Title

5 7

6 8

Premises Inference Conclusion Supportive Statistics / Examples


Link Back

Leader of the Opposition


1 3

2
4

Role:
Set the tone of the Opposition

5 7

6 8

Following the 1st Speaker:


1) Good / Clear / Structured 2) Bad / Unclear / Unstructured 3) No Debate / Truism / Ridiculous

Leader of the Opposition


(1) Following a Good Prime-Minister:

1 3

2
4

Structure:
Sign Post Reiterate Clarify / Simplify Rebut -Why are they wrong: not going to win on rebuttal alone (negative matter) Present Substantive - New Counter Substantive: Why are we right (positive matter Conclusion

5 7

6 8

Leader of the Opposition


(1) Following a Good Prime-Minister: 1 3

2
4

Rebut:
Time line: Now Action Then
Wont work / Impractical / cant be done Wont solve the problem

5 7

6 8

Outcome / Side-Effects worse than Solution.

Leader of the Opposition


1 3

2
4

(2) Bad / Unclear Prime-Minister: (case of a squirrel)


Advantage Can Set the motion up to be rebutted

Clarify:
No Problem Exists / Factually inaccurate
Suggest Most Logical Conflict Rebut it as before

5 7

6 8

Not Relevant to the Debate eg THBT states should not fund scholarships to study abroad.(PM- states as in
state level government, state govt dont have enough $ to fund scholarships abroad so leave it to the federal level government to do it instead proceed to argue that fed govt has more $ to do so)

Must be logical criteria eg. THW ban cosmetic surgery (PM- ban only for children)

Leader of the Opposition


1 3

2
4

(3)Following a Truism / Ridiculous Def:


E.g.: THW completely ban smoking (PM-in public areas only) E.g.: THW legalize duels to the death (PM- legalize cock fighting)

Definition Debate:
Challenge the Definition (Prop it) 2 debates running at the same time. The Right Definition wins the debate
(Not Necessarily the best arguments)

5 7

6 8

Judges dont like it avoid it if possible (Both sides)

The Deputies
1 2

Role: Develop the Case Rebut the Opponents

3
5 7

4
6 8

Structure:
Sign Post

Rebut Reinforce Add Substantive


Conclusion

Extensions
1 3 2 4

Role: Extension: Shift the focus of the Debate


Deeper Analysis Different Point of View (Global / Local) Additional (Better) Arguments

Must be the same Motion !

5
7

6
8

Structure:
Sign Post

Rebut Extension (Normally 2 Substantives)


Conclusion

Extensions
Deeper Analysis: 1 3 2 4
Who does it affect? What can / will they do about it? Who is going against them? Is this better or worse Why?

Different Point of View:

5
7

6
8

Global / National / Local National / Conservative / Labour / Liberal Communist / Socialist / Capitalist
Show a deeper understanding of the motion and its issues

Extensions
Additional (Better) Arguments:

1 3

2 4

PEESTLE:
Political Economical Environmental Social Technological Legal Ecological

5
7

6
8

Why is this point more important?

Knife, shaft or backstab

Whips
Role:
1 3 2 4
Show Your side (Team) won the debate:

Speaker by Speaker 3 Main Themes Time line: Now Action Then

New Information:
Answer a rebuttal or P.O.I. Give a new analogy / example (to an existing issue / argument)

Judging Criteria
Manner 50 % Matter 50%
Manner Style:
Confidence, Confidence, Confidence Tone of Voice: Pace, Pitch & Pause Body Language: Stand Upright, Eye Contact, Hand Gestures Energy Level Timing Structure / Signposting P.O.I (Taken & Received) Teamwork

Matter Content:
Backup / Support to Argument Validity of Argument Level of Analysis / Understanding

Ranking & scoring the teams


Contributions towards the debate. Give credit where its due. Ranking 1st 3 points, 2nd 2 points, 3rd 1 point, 4th- gets a hug. Scoring Range : 69- 83

QUESTIONS?

Types of debate / motions

Every debate falls into one of three very simplistic categories

Trade-off debates Values debates Ban VS Regulate debates

Trade off debates


two options in a zero-sum system Examples: THW allow trade some privacy for security THW allow constituents to recall their MPs, or THW allow constituents to call for referendums

Values debates
Opposite of trade off debates involves two views on what the world should look like that are hostile to one another. Examples: THBT the media should show the full horrors of war THW privatise the National Health System (NHS) THW stop supporting HIV medications and focus on prevention of HI in Africa.
The important thing to remember is that you cant think both sides of the debate have a virtuous principle behind them, it is not a trade off, you have to hate the other sides principles.

Ban vs regulate debates


Examples: THW legalise all drugs THW legalise prostitution THW ban guns in America
They are all essentially the same debate. Does anyone know why?

the typical political spectrum, big government vs small government Left vs right They all typically run on the same principles Clashes can be identified from motion itself

Foundational first principles


You cannot debate(well) without those

Important basic concepts


There are certain philosophical ideas that come up more than any other in debates:
Utilitarian calculus. Social contract theory and the state of nature The state and its role/right in curbing autonomy (The harm principle).

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a ethical theory that suggests the outcomes of your actions are what determine the morality of them. It reduces morality down to a numbers game, and is used widely (/crudely) in debating because it is quick and easy to apply. explain why your side of the debate will lead to more social/economic/cultural/whatever utility, that is to say it has the best outcomes for the biggest number of people.

THBT we should force treatment upon the mentally ill. THBT every able-bodied man must serve for the military for a period of time THBT overpopulated countries should adopt a one-child per family policy.

Social Contract Theory and Governance


Social contract theory and the state of nature are two concepts that explain why the state has a right to enforce its laws upon us. The state of nature is a theoretical world where there is no government, and no one is there to punish you for your actions. What would it be like?(CHAOS! ANARCHY!) How do you get out of this state of nature?

Social Contract Theory and Governance


Enter into a contract with everyone else in the state of nature. You all give up some of your autonomous right to do whatever you want to a sovereign govt who can enforce law and order. For example I give up my right to carry out vengeance upon a murderer. But I dont give it up for nothing, instead I receive a benefit from the sovereign in exchange. In this case the sovereign will provide a police force and court that will take vengeance for me. This is a social contract. I have entered into a contract with everyone in society, we all agree to not do illegal things to one another and place a sovereign in charge to make sure we comply.

Social Contract Theory and Governance


The Basics -- These are things that are necessary for the survival of any society.
Protection of life and property. This means there will be prohibitions against murder, assault, theft and vandalism. A police force will be needed. Other rules needed to secure the benefits of social living. Protection of society against outside threats. An army might be needed.

Youll need a Government and a system of Law and Order

SCT - Application in debates


THBT it is legitimate for governments to require their people to be vaccinated against common diseases. THW Censor the internet THW forcibly test its citizens for HIV THW allow the state to forcibly treat those with highly infectious disease THW make organ donation mandatory upon death THW ban cosmetic surgery

Autonomy
The other widely used theory requires us to first understand a concept called autonomy. Autonomy is the word we give to a persons right to determine their future through the actions they carry out. Whenever I make a decision and I am not forced or coerced into that decision I am exercising my autonomy. (It is also important that I am rational and of sound mind) There is no reason I should not be able to use my body to do as I please, it is my property, it is my life, my body, and I know whats best for me. But how far does my autonomy stretch?

Limits to autonomy1 Harm to others


Is my autonomy unlimited? I presume I have the right to exercise my autonomy by waving my arm in front of me, I see no reason why not. I presume I have the right to move around and do the same.

But do I have a right to wave my arm where you are standing? Doubtful, youll probably hit me right back. And the reason is I have caused you harm. Thats the harm principle.
I have the right to exercise my autonomy up until the point that it prevents you from exercising your autonomy. Motion: THW Ban smoking in public areas

Limits to autonomy2 Harm to oneself


But does the state have a further right to stop me from hurting myself? For example:
Drug use Suicide / euthanasia Consuming non-approved medications Smoking

Limits to autonomy2 Harm to oneself


Well there are three answers to that question: 1) No, you can harm yourself as much as you want, we regularly allow people to harm themselves this is no different. 2) Yes, you are about to do something irrational, the state knows better and should protect you from your own stupidity. 3) Yes, the action you are about to take is something you cant consent to. You have no idea what the consequences will be, the state does and should therefore protect you from your ignorance.

Limits to autonomy 3
Lack of cognitive capacity and information

Lack of cognitive capacity


1) children (age of consent, mandatory education, voting/smoking/drinking age, juvenile crimes have lesser sentences) 2) Mentally sick & incapacitated( comatose) 3) Addiction(drugs, smoking, video games)

Lack of information
1) Do we have the information?( advertisement censorship, seatbelt, drugs

Application in debates
THW legalise consensual duelling to settle disputes THW completely ban smoking THW legalize marijuana THBT we should force treatment upon the mentally ill. THW allow the terminally ill access to untested drugs. THBT minors should not be allowed to access social networking sites. THW restrict the number of hours minors can have access to online gaming sites

Summary
Utilitarian calculus. Social contract theory and the state of nature The state and its role/right in curbing autonomy (The harm principle). They exist in most social themed debates and its highly likely that youll see all of the above within one debate. They would become your classic clashes of the debate

Anda mungkin juga menyukai