Fallacies
British Parliamentary
1. Common form of academic debate 2. Gained support in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Philippines, etc. 3. Named as such due to its vague resemblance to the debates that occur in the British Parliament
Four (4) Teams, consists of Two (2) Members/Speakers, Chair Person Panel of Adjudicators
Composition
The Opposition
(against the resolution)
About the Structure: Each team is competing against each other. Each team is tasked to give a unique case and
contradict each other- even if they are trying to beat each other.
The BP format requires responsiveness and
creativity.
The Order of Speeches: Opening Government Prime Minister Deputy Prime Minister Closing Government Member of Government Government Whip Opening Opposition Leader of Opposition Deputy Leader of Opposition Closing Opposition Member of Opposition Opposition Whip
The Opening Teams (OG and OO) are all constructive speakers.
Constructive Speakers: Their main burden is to give a positive case. To
prove an idea or a stand.
The Closing Teams (CG and CO) have one Extension Speaker and one Whip speaker.
Extension Speakers: Their main burden is to give a positive case that is based on the case of their opening house. Their case must be different in terms of, depth of analysis, idea developed and arguments. Whips: Their main burden is to give negative cases. To prove that their opponents arguments were wrong. They also need to prove why their team is right.
Motion Definition Case Clash Extension Knifing Points of Information
seconds long
Opening Government
Defines the terms of the debate Opens a contentious case for the Government
Motion
it is the proposition which the Government side is supposed to defend.
Definition
Have a direct link to the motion Be fair and debatable Identify the issues to be debated and the scope of the debate (criteria or standard) Include parameters when necessary Bad or illegal definitions are usually challenged: -truisms -squirrels -time/place sets
SQUIRREL a mode of defining a debate which is not really related to the motion, or is an acceptable interpretation, but is unfairly beneficial to one side.
TIME/PLACE Sets Defining a motion to contextualize the debate only for a specific time or a specific place (that is otherwise not relevant historically or currently) because the side happens to have expert knowledge of that time and place.
Case
Should be linked to the resolution (must be within the spirit of the resolution) Must be contentious
Contentious Case
The proposition will argue that doctors in the UK should be allowed to administer lethal drugs to terminally ill patients. The proposition will argue that senior citizens should be confined to homes for the aged for they can be an impediment to the able workforce.
We believe that the US and its allies should bomb North Korea now to halt its production of nuclear weapons We believe that food shipments and medical commodity to North Korea be halted to forced Kim Jung Un to step down from his seat.
Tautological Cases
The Sun rises in the morning. Davao is in Mindanao. There are 7 days in a week.
Truistic Cases
Opening Opposition
Opposes the case of the Opening Government Opens the case for the Opposition
Clash
A case that directly goes against the case of the government The first and most important role of the opposition
substantial in context.
Net Values.
Net Benefits
Net Detriments
(+)
Net Benefits
Our case is better because it solves a very important problem Their case will not solve the problem
Constructive Arguments
- help succeeding speakers
Closing Teams
Extension of their respective case Opposes the each others cases Summarizes the debate
Extension
Bringing in new practical/philosophical arguments Focusing on an already mentioned argument and expanding on it significantly This is also the time where you can make a good argument better or bad argument worst.
when speaker disagrees from the points raised from their side
Not recommended
Knifing
OG
OO
CG
CO
JUDGES
Prime Minister
Defines the terms or concepts in the debate Comes up with a way of implementing the motion (this is called as the mechanism) States and analyses the main points in favour of the Government bench.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Rebuts and explains the flaws of the arguments presented by the opposing teams.
Repairs any holes in their partner's case made by the opposing teams States and analyzes some new points in the debate
The Member of Government and the Member of the opposition
Extends the cases of their respective teams Are encouraged not to knife their complementary opening team unless what theyre saying blatantly disagrees with what youre espousing and this is the only way that you can salvage your side of the round (this, however, can have a negative factor on you on the adjudication process so, stick to the script) Rebuts and explains what the flaws are of the opposing teams arguments
The Government Whip
the spin doctor of the Government it is their job to explain why their side of the argument wins and why specifically their partner won their side of the debate. Rebuts what the MO said
The Opposition Whip
The spin doctor of the Opposition it is their job to explain why their side of the argument wins and why specifically their partner won their side of the debate Rebuts what the Government Whip had said Absolutely no new contentions may be introduced, but new evidence in support of existing contentions may be introduced (so if the motion is to ban the eating of pork, and no one has mentioned the excruciating effect the ban may have on some people, then the whips cannot bring that case on their speech too bad)
Fallacies of Debate
Amphibology
A fallacy when there is miscommunication due to the grammatical error.
Plurium Interrogationum
(complex question)
A fallacy when a question is structured to assume something to be true, where the presumed thing true hasnt been established.
Argumentum ad hominem
(argument directed at the person)
Argumentum ad nauseam
(argument to the point of disgust)
A fallacy when a particular idea is being said, again and again , in manner that doesnt add value to an argument.
Argumentum ad metum
Tu quoque
(You too)
A fallacy that takes the heat off the accused having to defend themselves and shifts the focus back onto the accuser themselves