[Selchie]

PARLIAMENTARY
STYLE DEBATING


Hello everyone ^^,
My name is Selchie and I’m setting up an online debating club.

(Even if the idea doesn’t immediately appeal, please read the rest of this document before making up your mind: debating is interesting, enjoyable and looks fantastic on a CV )


What is debating?

Parliamentary style debating is a common form of academic debate. The basic idea is that we’re members of the British Parliament debating whether or not to pass a proposed law.

Normally, the debating group will consist of nine people; the adjudicator, (who organises the debate), and the eight ‘speakers’. The eight ‘speakers’ are divided into two teams of four people by the adjudicator; one team argues in favour of passing the law and the other team argues against passing the law.


Why should I be interested?

Firstly, the words “Parliamentary Debating” looks pretty damn fantastic on a CV/ Resume: employers who know what debating entails will read “intelligent, confident and great communications skills’ and, even if they haven’t heard of debating, they’ll be impressed. Either way, it’s a win.

Secondly, debating is stimulating, interesting and, as most debaters have a decent sense of humour, quite often funny. If you and your friends like chatting about the rights and wrongs of the world and what you’d do to remedy them, then debating is definitely for you.


How long would it take?

Each debate will last around an hour; the group will be given 15 minutes to prepare their arguments and 7 minutes each to speak. As for times and dates, I’d suggest that debates are held at the weekend because, with all of our disparate time-zones, it’d be easiest to find a time which suits everybody. If you are interested in debating, please feel free to suggest times. I’m in England (GMT) but I don’t mind getting up early or staying up late for a debate (within reason )


How does it work?

I’ve tried to explain the rules of debating as fully and clearly as possible. However, although this takes up a fair bit of paper, they are really very simple and easy to follow.

THE DEBATING GROUP

A debating group should consist of a minimum of nine people: eight speakers and an adjudicator. These people each have a particular role to play in the debate. (The following is lifted from Wikipedia- with one or two clarifications from me ^^):

The Opening Factions

1. The Prime Minister (PM)
2. The Opposition Leader (OL)
3. The Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)
4. The Deputy Opposition Leader (DOL)

The first faction on each Government and Opposition team, known as the Opening Factions, have four basic roles in a British Parliamentary debate. They must:

• Define the motion of the debate. (explained below: not as scary as it looks- promise!)
• Present their case. (i.e. introduce points which support their argument)
• Respond to arguments of the opposing first faction.
• Maintain their relevance during the debate.


o “Defining the motion of the debate” (a daunting mouthful- isn’t it) is the PM’s job. This basically means briefly explaining the proposed law; for example

“This government proposes that aborting a child for anything other than medical reasons should be made a criminal offence”

With this proposition, the PM would decide what a ‘medical’ reason was and what constitutes “abortion”. “Medical” may be interpreted to include psychological risks (e.g. in the case of rape) or mental risks (i.e. learning disabilities/ mental illness) and “abortion” might be interpreted to include the “Morning After Pill”.


o The Opening Government team has the “semi-divine right of definition”, preventing the opposition from challenging their definition of the motion unless it is either a Truism, or clearly unreasonable. (i.e. if the government team tried to suggest that contraceptives were a form of abortion, this could be challenged as it is clearly unreasonable. However if the government suggested that the ‘Morning After Pill’ was a form of abortion this could not be challenged because this suggestion is not unreasonable.)

o “Presenting your case”: generally, the first speaker on each team (PM or OL) will introduce the three most obvious arguments for/against the law and the second speaker on the team (the DPM/DOL) will introduce three obvious points in favour/ against the law.

o “Responding to arguments”: The OL, DPM and DOL will respond to arguments of the opposing team.

The Closing Factions

5. A Member for the Government (GM)
6. A Member for the Opposition (OM)
7. A Government Whip (GW)
8. A Opposition Whip (OW- no pun intended

The GM and OM’s job is to

• Introduce a case extension.
• Establish and maintain their relevance early in the debate.
• Respond to the arguments of the first factions.
• Respond to the case extension of the opposing second faction.

Generally, the GM/OM will introduce three much less obvious arguments for/against the proposed law and enlarge upon points raised by the Opening Faction. For example, making abortion illegal would be a disincentive for unsafe sex- meaning that less people would get STDs- and it might also act as an indirect disincentive to binge drinking, etc.

The final two speakers of the debate (known as the Whips) summarize their team’s arguments and close the debate. Their role is as follows:

• They must respond to both opposing factions' arguments;
• They should briefly sum up their Opening Faction's case;
• They should offer a conclusion of their own faction's case extension.

The opposition whip may not introduce new arguments for their faction, they may add new positive material as long as it's "small" and does not start a new line of argument.


FINALLY…

The Adjudicator.

For the first few debates, I will probably adjudicate. However, in later debates I’ll select someone randomly to adjudicate so everyone can experience the various roles. The adjudicator has quite a few responsibilities, including:

a) Choosing a suitable law to be debated: i.e. “this government proposes that aborting a child for anything other than medical reasons should be made a criminal offence”

b Randomly allocating a role to each member of the group.

c) Emailing the group 16 minutes before the debate, informing them as to the proposed law and their roles in the debate.

d) Introducing the speakers, timing their speeches, ringing a “bell” after the first minute, the sixth minute and the seventh minute.

e) Judging the teams and, if they are asked, giving feedback confidentially.


THE DEBATE

This is how I propose to run the debate; if anyone has any ideas for improvements then please inform me- any feedback would be most welcome ^^

1) The adjudicator chooses a suitable law to be debated and randomly allocates roles to group members.

2) 16 minutes before the debate, the Adjudicator will inform the group by email about to the proposed law and their roles in the debate. The adjudicator will be available on Live Messenger to give tips and pointers.

3) The ‘speakers’ will contact the other member of their ‘faction’ through Skype (or Live Messenger or whatever) to discuss ideas. Teams are as follows:


Opening Government (first faction):
1. Prime Minister
2. Deputy Prime Minister

Opening Opposition (second faction):
3. Leader of the Opposition
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Closing Government (third faction):
5. Member for the Government
6. Government Whip

Closing Opposition (fourth faction):
7. Member for the Opposition
8. Opposition Whip

4) After 15 minutes, everyone logs into Ventrilo and the debate starts when the Adjudicator proposes the law and introduces the first person and invites them speak. This is the order in which the Adjudicator will call people to speak:

1. Prime Minister
2. Leader of the Opposition
3. Deputy Prime Minister
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
5. Member of the Government
6. Member of the Opposition
7. Government Whip
8. Opposition Whip

5) Each speaker will be given seven minutes to speak. After the first minute has passed a ‘bell’ will be rung and, after six minutes, a second bell will be rung.

a) Between these two ‘bells’ members of the opposing team are entitled to offer ‘Points of Information’. PoI are questions or points which undermine the speaker’s argument. People offering PoI should speak for no more than 15 seconds.

b The speaker must select one person to give a point of information.

c) For the ‘maiden’ debate, PoI will not be allowed.

d) On the Seventh minute, the Adjudicator will ring the bell for the final time. The speaker may finish their sentence/point within 30 seconds.

e) In a face to face debate, a bell would be rung and speakers offering PoI would stand up. I suggest that the adjudicator simply says ‘bell’ on the first, sixth and seventh minute and the people wishing to give PoI press the Ctrl key until they are selected or obviously ignored.

6) At the end of the debate, the Adjudicator will deliver their judgement as to which faction has won 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th place and briefly explain why. The adjudicator will be available to give confidential feedback after the debate.

For further information see these websites:

A good overview: http://en.wikipedia....iamentary_Style

A few more rules and pointers: http://flynn.debating.net/genguide.htm

For the competitive, the confused and the nervous: http://www.britishde...guide_deane.pdf


Sounds daunting…

For our first few debates, I will choose topics which are both highly controversial and frequently discussed by the media. So, unless you’ve been living in a cellar for the past 20 years, you’re going to know quite a few arguments in favour and against these proposed ‘laws’ before even beginning to discuss it with your partner.

Secondly, this is a team enterprise: as ‘speakers’, you will have fifteen minutes to discuss your topic with your team-mate and the adjudicator will be available to give you pointers and ideas. So, even if you don’t know a topic inside out, you’ll have support ^^.

Thirdly, this is for fun: we’re all here to enjoy ourselves and facilitate each-other’s enjoyment. Therefore, if you’re worried that you’ll blank in the middle of your speech or come down with ‘foot in mouth’ syndrome don’t be; everyone’s had it happen to them once in their lives (I know I have) and it isn’t the end of the world. Take a deep breath and start again

(Catty remarks, by the way, are fine as long as they relate to the points that are being argued. Personal remarks, however, are not fine: if someone fluffs their speech and you make fun of them, you’re being a jerk. Although the governments and legislatures which run our world are full of jerks, they aren’t welcome here.)


Why are you suggesting this, crazy lady?

During my Bar Vocational Course (I’m training as a Barrister) I became a member of the Inner Temple Debating Club and I very much enjoyed participating in the debates. However, as I’m no longer studying in London, it’s a bit of a palaver (not to mention expensive) to hike up to the capital for the weekly debates. Therefore, I thought that I’d try and create an online debating group. If you’re interested in debating or even just listening in on a debate, post a reply to this thread.


FINALLY

Thanks for reading