HOME DEBATE INFO Introduction to Debate Guide to Debate Tournament Schedule Frequently Asked Questions Links TEAM INFO Team News Constitution Practice Schedule Contact Us TEAM TOURNAMENTS UMBC Tournaments Point Scale Tab Rules Role of the Speaker TEAM HISTORY Awards Archives |
| An Introduction to Parliamentary Debate Welcome to our site! The former version of this little intro document opened as follows: “parliamentary debate is an extemporaneous contest of wit and rhetorical skill which is based on the British parliamentary system.” Sure…. We all know what debate is—structured arguing. Parliamentary debate is a form of debate that steals a little from policy debate, a little from Lincoln Douglas debate, and a little from Mock Congress. True, it’s schizo, but it’s also a great way to travel, have fun and maybe even win some stuff. I’m supposed to help with the latter of the three, so here’s my little introduction into the wild and wonderful world of APDA’s game du jour. The acronyms and abbreviations commonly used by debaters are in parenthesis, and terms are in bold. The Structure of a Parliamentary Debate In case you were wondering, APDA stands for the American Parliamentary Debate Association. They set the general guidelines for the way Parliamentary debate works and act as its occasionally functional governing body. I say “occasionally functional” because there are few things funnier than an APDA meeting where people are trying to accomplish something despite the absolute futility of the task. If you can imagine a group of people who insist on discussing everything, even when it doesn’t matter, and then make those people debaters, you have a clue how these meetings go. Anyway, on to something relevant. All debates consist of four things: the two teams debating, a topic, and a judge. In Parliamentary debate the two teams are called the Government (Gov) and the Opposition (Opp), the topic is called the Case, and the Judge is referred to as Madam or Mr. Speaker (depending, obviously, upon their gender). Each team has two people on it who are assigned speaking positions. The government consists of the Prime Minister (PM) and the Member of the Government (MG). The opposition’s two speakers are the Leader of the Opposition (LO) and the Member of the Opposition (MO). The government proposes a case in the Prime Minister’s first speech, and then the opposition refutes it, the government refutes the opposition’s arguments, and so on (I’ll get into how cases work later). The speech order for all of this is as follows: The Prime Minister’s Constructive (PMC): 7 minutes The Leader of the Opposition’s Constructive (LOC): 8 minutes The Member of the Government’s Constructive (MG): 8 minutes The Member of the Opposition’s Constructive (MO): 8 minutes The Leader of the Opposition’s Rebuttal (LOR): 4 minutes The Prime Minister’s Rebuttal (PMR): 5 minutes There is no preparatory time between the speeches, so you have be quick on your feet. Note also that both sides get the same amount of time to talk, but the negative gets 2 speeches in a row—this is called the negative block. There is an important difference between constructives and rebuttals. In constructives, the debaters are expected to make new arguments and construct their positions, hence the speeches’ names. In rebuttals, the debaters are expected to wrap up their arguments and explain why they won the debate. You cannot make new arguments in rebuttals, only provide responses to old arguments or new examples to make your point clear. Following the debate it is common procedure to thank the judge and then split ASAP. Judge disclosure is against the rules, so it’s easier to just let them decide in peace. Later (like at the tournament party), if you want to, you can find the judge and ask what you can improve upon, but don’t specifically ask about the round’s results because that’s considered tacky. Resolutions, Cases, and Things Governmental At every tournament the team hosting presents the debaters with resolutions for them to debate. There are two types of resolutions they can choose from, and most of the time tournaments provide one of each. Straight resolutions are usually quite concrete and must be debated as is; an example of this is “Be It Resolved That (BIRT): The United States should attack China if the Chinese attack Taiwan.” Linkable resolutions tend to be more vague (and occasionally humorous) and are debated by linking a case to the resolution; an example of this second type is “BIRT: The South will rise again!” “So how,” you’re probably thinking, “does one link a case to a resolution?” If you’re not thinking this, you should be… Anyway, you link a case to the resolution during the opening of the PMC by logically connecting the two. This connection can either be loose (producing a loose link case) or tight (making a tight link case). For example, if we use the Southern resurgence resolution given above a loose link might go as follows: “Madam Speaker, the South will rise again. And so will professional baseball—it will rise from its current fanless, dejected status to that of a sport maybe even rivaling hockey in popularity, but only if we speed up the games. Therefore we on the government side proudly propose that the strike zone ought to be expanded to make the innings move faster.” This loose link was on the word “rise,” but you can even loose link a case on the fact that both it and the resolution are in English. In contrast, the opening of a tight link case might go something like this: “Mr. Speaker, the South will rise again—but only if Southern economies continue to grow. Therefore, we on the government side propose that the federal government ought to sponsor economic aid packages to fund industrial development in Southern states.” This tight link was on the whole resolution. You can see the difference: loose link cases run far afield and don’t have much to do with the resolution, while tight link cases deal with most, if not all, of the resolution. Most tournaments allow loose and tight link cases, but some only allow tight links, hence this little explanation. The tightness or looseness of the link is not usually a voting issue. So you’ve got a rough idea of a case and you’ve figured out how to link it to the resolution. Now what? Before you can argue that case (or “run it”) you have to make sure that it meets a few criteria. Simply put, your case cannot be one you’ve run before, it cannot be based upon specific knowledge, it cannot be a truism, and it cannot be a tautology. Specific knowledge cases involve the government basing their case upon some obscure thing not in the common knowledge of people. For example, a case dealing with the tribal relations between two small clans in southwest Zimbabwe is probably based upon specific knowledge. This standard also applies to arguments in the case: a debater cannot say “Well, 72.3% of people think Bill Clinton has poor taste in women, so…” because that uses the specific knowledge of a statistic. There is a way around this, however, just in case you’re dying to debate about Zimbabwean tribesmen and tribeswomen. If you provide enough detail in the PMC to make the case clear and provide the ground for a debate, specific knowledge cases are OK. The other two types of cases are illegal because they don’t allow any ground for a debate. A truism is a case that has no opposition because no non-psychotic person could possibly be against it. For example, a truistic case would be “The holocaust was a bad thing.” Similarly, a tautology (remember this from high school grammar?) is something that proves itself and thus can’t be argued. For example, a case could claim “Coke is it.” If “it” is a carbonated, caramel colored beverage with lots of sugar and caffeine (plus that scandalous “secret ingredient” recently clarified to be "vegetable extract") that is produced by a company that enjoys a monopoly over GU’s soft drink distribution system, then the case proves itself and is a truism. People will sometimes run these types of cases anyway, or they may run one without realizing their case is unfair. The burden for identifying these types of cases and calling the rules violation to the judge, then, lies with the opposition. The argument that a case is a truism, tautology or is based upon specific knowledge is presented during the negative speeches. Watch out for cases that collapse down into truisms as well. For example, suppose I run a case that the US should negotiate with China if they invade Taiwan and I claim better US China relations and the possible salvation of Taiwan as benefits. I could eventually kick out of (drop) the Taiwan advantage and simply argue that the US and China talking is good—essentially a truism, if you’re at all familiar with international relations. Keep an eye open, then, for this government trick because if you miss it you’ll find yourself caught between a rock and a hard place. In addition to normal cases, there are two types of cases that are a little different and often a good deal of fun. Wellesley Cases are cases that give the negative a decision as to how they are argued. For example, I could say “We want to debate about the merits of President Clinton’s policy track record. I’ll let the negative choose which side they want us to take: do you want us to argue that Clinton has been effective or ineffective?” The negative chooses, and the debate proceeds. Time-space cases are a second subtype of cases, and they are used quite frequently. A time-space case, as its name suggests, allows the debaters to magically transport the debate round into a previous time and place in order to argue about something that happened then. For example, the government could place the debate in Chicago during the summer of 1968, make the judge Mayor Richard Daley and attempt to convince his honor that he should not crack down upon the teenage protesters at the Democratic National Convention. The limit on these cases is that you can only use the information available at the time; for example, you cannot run a Cold War case set in 1960 and note that the US will win the “war” in 1989. So if you’ve got a decent sense of history, these cases offer a great way to talk about something other than President Clinton’s sex life. Cases are not exclusively the turf of the government, by the way. Negative teams can run countercases if they think one exists that would be better than the government case. In order to win a countercase, the negative must prove that the case provides some benefit that the government case does not (that it is net beneficial) and that its countercase and the government case cannot be done at the same time (that it is mutually exclusive). For example, say the government case is that Disco should be made the official national musical style. The negative countercase could be that we should ban disco music entirely—it’s mutually exclusive because you really can’t ban the official national musical style, and the net benefit would be that disco sucks and we get rid of it. Sure, you’d have to deal with denying in inherent musical genius of Gloria Gaynor, but it’s still a valid countercase. Making Points and Asking Questions Parliamentary debate doesn’t have a cross-examination period like policy debate, but it does allow for a little face-to-face discussion between its participants. This back and forth occurs when a debater rises to make a point. Either of the debaters on the not-currently-speaking team may rise to make a point if they want to, and there are three types of points that can be made. Points of Information are questions that are asked to make a point, correct the debater speaking or honestly find out what the hell the debater is talking about. These can be accepted or rejected by the debater speaking (who will usually accept 2 or 3, but you can ask as many as you want), and they cannot be made during rebuttals or within the first or last minute of a speech. They do take up speech time. Points of Order are to be brought up if the debater speaking somehow violates house rules (example: they make a new argument in a rebuttal). These points are supposed to be recognized by the judge, and the judge rules on their validity by saying “Point well taken,” “Point not well taken,” or “Point under consideration.” These do not consume speech time. Points of Personal Privilege are made when the debater speaking either misrepresents the previous debater’s words (example: you argued that Scooby Doo and Shaggy were clearly pot smokers but the kid on the other team is saying you said they weren’t) or insults their character (example: the other debater calls you, in the elegant phrasing of one of my housemates, an "anal spelunker"). The judge rules upon these points, but they’re very rarely raised. Settling the Dust: Judge Decisions and Speaker Points The last speaker finishes their speech, you all shake hands and then trot off across campus back to your team. The judge is left behind in the room, head in his hands weeping at the sheer beauty of the debate you’ve left him to decide. Now what? How does that translate into a result-filled ballot? The judge decides who won the round by reviewing and comparing the arguments on his or her flow. A flow is a written record of the arguments in the debate, usually written in some form of shorthand on a piece of legal paper. After the winner and loser is determined, the judge then assigns speaker points and ranks. Ranks are the rank of the debaters in the round, from the best (a rank of 1) to the worst (a rank of 4). Speaker points (speaks) are given on an absolute scale of speaking quality and are used to determine who wins speaker awards and, in the case of tied records, which teams get to advance to elimination rounds. The speaker point scale basically goes as follows: 18—You were physically present, but that’s about it 19—Bad job; you need some major work on your delivery 20—A few major problems, but not exceedingly bad 21—Good try, but not too good 22—Decent; just a little below average 23—An average speech 24—A solid speech, just slightly better than average 25—Good speech, especially good in one area 26—Very good speech 27—Excellent speech; you rock 28—Unbelievable speech; you rocked the judge’s world and he/she’s in awe 29—The speech of the decade; write it down and frame it somewhere 30—Really, really, REALLY good; you just delivered the new Gettysburg Address Scores below 21 or above 27 are pretty rare. When deciding the round, the judge must total up each team’s points and the winners must have received more points than the losers (low-point wins do not exist). Ranks are used for deciding speaker awards when speaks are tied and who gets to go to elimination rounds when records & speaker points are tied. We keep your old ballots in the debate team office so you can compare your speaker points and see how you’re progressing toward debate immortality. Closing Thoughts: What to Expect at a Tournament Tournaments usually run late and are a little chaotic, but they’re a lot of fun. The dress code is pretty formal (a suit or coat and tie for guys, dresses or skirts for girls), but bring a change of normal clothes for the party. When you get there, expect to hang out for a bit in the General Assembly (GA), a large lecture hall where everybody gathers between rounds, while other teams arrive (bring a book or something). When everybody arrives, the tournament directors (TDs) will read off the pairings, or the list who is debating whom. You will be assigned a letter (i.e. UMBC C), or if it’s a theme tournament you may be assigned a name. Make sure you write down who you’re debating, what side of the debate you’re on, and where other UMBC teams are so you can find people later if you need to. After the pairings the TDs will announce the resolutions—write these down, too. Then head to your room. When you get there, write your team name, speaker position, your own name and the resolution you’re using on the board so the judge can fill out the ballot (we’ll show you the standard format for this). If you’re government, you then have 10 minutes to prepare your case so head out to the hall, find a quiet corner and start writing that PMC. You’re responsible for timing the speeches yourself, and while it’s common for people to run over time you probably want to rise on a point of order if the other team’s debater is 30-45 seconds over time and not wrapping up yet. During the debate you need to pass time signals onto your partner when they’re speaking, and a good way of doing this is via hand signals (we’ll show you). You also need to be flowing the round, and we’ll show you how to do that as well. But that’s it—that’s your introduction to Parliamentary debate. Feel free to ask any team member any questions you may have, and again welcome to the team. We hope you’ll enjoy this form of debate as much as we do. Ye Olde Cheat Sheet Speech Order 1) Prime Minster’s Constructive—7 minutes 2) Leader of the Opposition’s Constructive—8 minutes 3) Member of the Government’s Constructive—8 minutes 4) Member of the Opposition’s Constructive—8 minutes 5) Leader of the Opposition’s Rebuttal—4 minutes 6) Prime Minister’s Rebuttal—5 minutes Points to Raise 1) Points of Information—Questions to the speaker 2) Points of Order—Procedural (rules-based) issues raised to the judge (Madam or Mr. Speaker) 3) Points of Personal Privilege—Problems with the speaker misstating your words or insulting you; these are raised to the judge |
 |