Parliamentary Style of Debatingand its Mechanics

Parliamentary Style of Debating

• Evolved from the British Parliament.• Viewed as the best type of debate in the

contemporary times.• Used worldwide since it sharpens the mind

and the tongue and makes one critical of the issues of the day.

The Important Skills Derived from Parliamentary Debate Type

1. Critical Thinking Skills2. Development of Leadership Potentials3. Open-Mindedness4. Investigation and Analysis5. Thinking on One’s Own6. Speaking Skills

House Rules

There are usually certain house rules followed in the parliamentary debate type. These are:

• Presence of a timer.– Each debater is given 7 minutes to develop his

constructive speech. After the first minute, the timer puts up a time and this signals a Point of Information. During the last minute, the same sign is put up but no Point of Information is allowed.

• The audience is not allowed to applaud.– Creating noise might distract the judges and the

debaters and might drown out speeches. If the audience signals an approval, they just simply tap the arm chair and if they strongly agree they say “hear! hear!” If they disagree, they say “shame! shame!” These are usually done in the normal speaking voice.

– If the audience becomes unruly, the chief adjudicator calls the house to order and says: “Order in the House!”

– The audience is given a chance to react to the speeches of each of the debaters whether government or opposition sides. In this way, there is active audience participation. This feature is not present in the Oxford-Oregon type of debate.

The Typology of Subjects in the Parliamentary Debate Type

1. The subject that involves some forms of comparison and contrast.– For example: “That justice is more important

than peace.”

2. The subject that must be scrutinized for key words or phrases since they lead the argument to a precise decision.– For example: “That the Filipino value of

‘pakikisama’ is not a problem.

3. The subject that concerns the truth of the proposition. – For example: “That poverty is related to

corruption in Government.” – “That violence is justified.”

4. The subject that turns on ‘should’. – For example: “That priests should get married.”– “That the preservation of the natural resources

should give way to progress and development.”

5. The subject that requires interpretation.– For example: “That grapes are sour.” – “That Las Vegas is the happiest place on planet

earth.”

6. The subject that is metaphorically light.For example: “That all women are fickle-minded.” “That all men are two-timers.”

7. The subject that is controversial.

How to Construct your case Using the Parliamentary Debate Type

An apt saying runs: “Always make it a point to remember the “SAY GO” formula.”

S - “Know your Subject”A – “Know your Audience”Y – “Know your Self”GO – “Go for It!”

A similar quotation says: “Never make it easy for your opponent”

• Have a thorough preparation, stressing in quality than quantity.

• Never place yourself in a defensive position.• Always be on the offensive.• A case that is not well defended offers a perfect

excuse for the opponent to strike you when you are not most prepared and for which you have no supporting evidence.

• When making assertions, always have the necessary grounds. It is the duty of the one who asserts to prove the assertions not of the one who denies.

Organization During the Periodof Restricted Preparation

During the thirty-minute period budgeted for the speech preparation, the Government debate is

allotted the following time frame:

• Essentially, in the first period, the team must come up with a decision regarding definition, interpretation of the subject or topic or the proposition. This includes the opposing team and the manner of handling them. Added to that is the time allocation and material sharing between the first two speakers.

• In the period that follows, the entire team will review the whole case so that each speaker knows what his colleagues will be arguing about in order to avoid undue duplication or overlapping of arguments. This is also aimed at ironing any difficulties that may arise.

On the other hand, the negative’s division or that of the opposition may differ to the way of giving extra time in the first period for deeper analysis of the group’s possible strategies.

All Argument Require Proof!

• The basic rule in debate is: “if you cannot present proofs to what you claim, do not bother to say it.”

• For every claim, there must be a fitting support. Avoid doing the following:– Making a hasty generalization;– Giving an unfounded assertion;– Making a sweeping assumption; and– Making an overstatement or understatement.

One last thing about the parliamentary form of debate:

• In this debate type, the is basically no burden of proof. Both the affirmative and the negative sides must summon and marshal all evidences and proofs. The affirmative team must assert positively that the proposition under the debate is simply and basically true. And all negative must do is to assert positively that it is untrue or false. It is not just sufficient for the opposition or negative team to rely solely on rebutting the arguments of the government side.

The Parliamentary Style as Differentiated from the Oxford-

Oregon Style

1. Since topics are revealed thirty minutes before the debate, there are usually:– No prepared speeches– No evidence cards– Little or no use of notes;– No definition of terms beforehand.

2. The parliamentary style of debating emphasizes the necessity of research-orientedness.

3. The parliamentary style of debating is dynamic. 4. The parliamentary style of debating puts a high

premium on extemporaneousness, spontaneity, speaking skills, and stock knowledge.

5. Although one may bring reference materials and other evidences during the debate, he is not allowed to browse or open any of them in the course of the debate.

6. Propositions are not merely limited to propositions of policy and fact.

7. There are no strict adherence to the issues of necessity, beneficiality, and practicability. Instead, the structure of the speeches should adapt to the dynamics of the debate.

8. There is no strict adherence to the affirmative side having the burden of proof and the negative having the burden of rebuttal.

9. The parliamentary style of debating has no period of interpellation or cross-examination.

10.There is no strict adherence to quoting from authorities and journals to ensure that arguments plus evidence equals proof. Authorities should be cited only to support your argument not to substitute for it.

11.There is no strict adherence to the affirmative side having the burden of proof and the negative having the burden of rebuttal.

12. In the rebuttal speeches, there is no strict requirement where one must expose fallacies, revealing incorrect answers during interpellations, and belittling of the opponent in terms of the quantity of evidences and proofs presented.

13.Although the argument must be characterized by the principles of logicality and consistency, this type of debate is not a logical class. Simply mentioning the fallacies and strictly adhering to the rules of logic reduces the class into one.

14.Even if speaking skills are important, the greater weight is given to the quality and content of the speech.

15.The parliamentary debate style is not generally the one following the hierarchical form.

16. In the parliamentary debate type, a debater is evaluated using three very simple yet accurate measures or criteria: These are: a) Matter, b) Manner, c) Method

17. In the parliamentary style of debating, an adjudicator does not add up the marks to determine the winner. What is being done is he must first evaluate the merits of the debate, determine who is going to win, adjust the marks accordingly whenever the need to adjust is manifested.