ASIAN
DEBATE PARLIEMENTARY
Teams:
There
two opposing teams in an Asians format of debate:
· Government
side- proposes and defends the motion;
· Opposition
side- refute and negates the motion.
· Each side is composed of three members.
The
Members of the government side are the following:
· Prime
minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances arguments;
· Deputy
prime Minister(DPM)- refute at first instance the case of the opposition,
reestablish the government’s claim, and advances arguments;
· Government
whip (GW)- makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition’s case and
summarizes the case of the government.
The
Members of the Opposition side are the following:
· Leader
of the Opposition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the government by
giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge the motion if the
definition is challengeable;
· Deputy
Leader of the Opposition(DPL)- refutes the case of the DPM, reestablishes the
case of the opposition, and advances an argument;
· Opposition
Whip (OW)- makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government’s and summarizes
the case of the opposition.
Time
of Speeches:
Each speaker is
allocated seven minutes to deliver their constructive speeches. One speaker
from each side (For the Government:PM / DPM, for Opposition: LO/DLO) is given
four minutes to deliver a reply speech. The speakers will be speaking in the
following order:
1. Prime Minister
2. Leader of the
opposition
3. Deputy Prime
Minister
4. Deputy Leader of the
Opposition
5. Government Whip
6. Opposition whip
7. Opposition Reply
8. Government Reply
During the constructive
speeches, Point of Information (POI) may be raised by the opposing side after the first minute up to
the sixth minute. POI may be refused or accepted by the speaker.
During
reply speeches, no POI may be raised.
Reply
Speech:
· Reply
speech is a comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of
both sides.
· The
aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why should the people
support the team’s claim. The speech is first delivered by the opposition side
and followed by the government side who will close the debate.
Speaker
Roles in Asian Parliamentary Debate
· Government:
Prime
Minister (PM)
Define context and
parameters of debate. For example, in an open motion like “This House Would
Support Musicians”, the debate could be contextualized into whether music
should be a commodity for trade, or it should be available gratis (i.e. free
music download and transfer)
▪ Provide concise
background or history leading to the issue
▪ Give framework of
government bench’s case. I.e. mechanisms (if any), argumentation flow
(what the government’s
first argument is and what the Deputy Prime Minister will talk about)
▪ Introduce 1st
argument
▪ Assert Government
stand
Deputy
Prime Minister (DPM)
▪ Rebut first argument
from Leader of Opposition
▪ Rebut rebuttals to
PM’s argument
▪ Introduce 2nd and 3rd
argument
▪ Reassert Government
stand and case
Government
Whip
▪ Rebut Deputy Leader
of Opposition, and Leader of Opposition
▪ Rebut rebuttals to
DPM and PM arguments
▪ Provide a deeper
level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals
▪ No new arguments, but
new angles of arguments should be given
▪ Brief summary of
entire case of Government
▪ Reassert Government
stand and case
· Opposition:
Leader
of Opposition
▪ Agree or disagree
with context/ parameters of debate (any definitional challenges, accusations of
squirreling, or unfair set up should be made from the LO speech and no later)
▪ Rebut Prime
Minister’s argument
▪ Give framework for
Opposition case (if Opp agrees to problem, then their case should provide
solution, or at least effectively highlight how Government proposal will worsen
the situation)
▪ Introduce first
Opposition argument
▪ Assert Opposition
stand
Deputy
Leader of Opposition
▪ Rebut DPM and PM
arguments
▪ Rebut rebuttals to LO
arguments
▪ Introduce 1st and 2nd
(if any) argument
▪ Reassert Opposition
stand and case
Opposition
Whip
▪ Rebut DPM and PM
arguments
▪ Rebut rebuttals to LO
& DLO arguments
▪ Provide a deeper
level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals
▪ No new arguments, but
new angles of arguments should be given
▪ Reassert Opposition
stand and case
Reply Speech:
▪ Can only be done by
either 1st or 2nd speaker from each bench
▪ Provide a biased
‘oral adjudication’ of why the debate should go to own bench
▪ Highlight issues you
think your side won, carefully tiptoe around issues you think you lost
▪ New examples to
expand on discussed examples is usually allowed and makes the reply
speech sound fresh as
opposed to verbal regurgitation
▪ Reassert stand
Debate is a structured and argumentative process in which two or more parties strive to persuade an audience of their viewpoints on a specific topic. As a form of public speaking, debate not only tests one's ability to speak confidently but also involves critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and persuasive skills. Understanding the material of debate is crucial for constructing compelling arguments and effectively engaging with opponents. This article delves into the detailed components of debate and provides examples of best practices in the European Parliament debate format.
Initially, debates begin with the establishment of a topic or resolution to be discussed. This topic should be both relevant and complex enough to allow for in-depth discussion. For instance, a topic such as "Should the European Union implement a unified digital tax policy?" allows for a broad discourse on economic and technological issues. The resolution is divided into two main sides: the proposition, which supports the resolution, and the opposition, which contests it. Both sides must prepare arguments and evidence to support their respective positions.
The structure of arguments is essential in debate. Each side organizes their arguments based on claims, reasons, and evidence. A claim is a statement that the debater seeks to prove, a reason is an explanation of why the claim is valid, and evidence consists of data or facts that support the reason. This structured approach helps in developing robust arguments and persuading the audience effectively. For example, in a debate on climate policy, the proposition might claim that stricter emission regulations are necessary, reason that they would reduce pollution, and support this with scientific data on air quality improvements.
Effective debating also involves mastering techniques such as rebuttal and handling counterarguments. Rebuttal refers to the ability to counter an opponent’s arguments with strong counterpoints. This is critical for demonstrating the weaknesses in the opponent’s position. Handling counterarguments involves preparing responses to potential objections raised by the opposing side, ensuring that one's own arguments remain resilient. In a European Parliament debate, for example, a debater arguing against a new agricultural subsidy might need to address counterarguments about its potential economic benefits.
Ethical considerations and strategic approaches are also important in debate. Debaters must present their arguments respectfully and professionally, even when disagreeing strongly with opponents. Effective strategies include managing time efficiently, utilizing appropriate rhetoric, and understanding the audience’s perspective. In a European Parliament setting, a debater might use persuasive rhetoric to highlight how proposed legislation aligns with broader EU values, while respecting opposing views to maintain a constructive dialogue.
Finally, the conclusion of a debate is a pivotal moment where each side summarizes their arguments and emphasizes key points. This is the opportunity to leave a lasting impression on the audience and ensure that the main arguments are clearly understood. A strong conclusion can significantly influence the outcome of the debate or at least leave a compelling impression of the presented position. In European Parliamentary debates, concluding remarks often reiterate the alignment of proposed measures with EU priorities and values, making a final appeal to the audience’s sense of common good.
By understanding and applying the detailed components of debate, individuals can enhance their public speaking abilities, critical thinking skills, and persuasive impact. Successful debate requires thorough preparation, effective argumentation, and the ability to adapt to evolving discussions.
Set up For Debate :
1. Problem identification
Identifying Issues in Argument
When you have arguments for and against a proposition or claim, you can identify the arguments on which the outcome of the argument turns. Catalog the points of dispute between the proponent and respondent in the argument. These are actual issues.
2. Stance
"Stance," is an individual's attitudes in emotional and intellectual matters, or a philosophical position in a logical argument. "Rhetorical Stance" involves taking a position, and effectively developing an argument in favor of that position, in order to persuade an audience.
The definition of stance is the position taken on an issue, the beliefs held about something, or the way a person stands or holds themselves. When you have an absolute no tolerance policy for lying, this is an example of a strong stance on lying. When you stand firm and tall, this is an example of a stance.
To do this, state your topic and your team's position on the topic. For example, "Today we're here to discuss the topic X. As the affirmative/negative side, my team firmly believes that Y." You should also make certain to define any key words in your topic.
3. Mechanism
• Contention – a debate case is organized into contentions – claims made for or against the resolution – usually stated in one declarative sentence.
• Cross Examination – questioning period.
• Refutation – directly attacking the opposing debater/s' arguments
• A formal debate usually involves three groups: one supporting a resolution (affirmative team), one opposing the resolution (opposing team), and those who are judging the quality of the evidence and arguments and the performance in the debate.
• There are multiple formats a debate can follow, this is a basic debate structure:
• A topic is chosen for each debate - this is called a resolution or motion. It can be a statement, policy or idea. The motion is usually a policy which changes the current state of affairs or a statement which is either truth or false. The motion typically starts with "This House..."
• There are two teams of three speakers:
• The Affirmative team support the statement
• The Negative team oppose the statement
• Sometimes you will be asked to take a position in the debate but in other debates you will be allocated your position.
• Teams are provided with time to prepare - usually one hour
• Each speaker presents for a set amount of time
• Speakers alternate between the teams, usually a speaker in the Affirmative team starts, followed by a Negative speaker, then the second Affirmative speaker presents, followed by the second Negative speaker etc.
• The debate is then judged.
• There may be an audience present but they are not involved in the debate
• Once you have learned how to debate in one format you can easily switch to another.
4. Rebuttal
Arguments are weakest at the evidence stage as it's easy to argue against, for example, the evidence may consist of isolated examples or there may be counter evidence. But it's not a good technique because the opposition can provide more evidence or rebut your criticisms.
It's difficult to rebut claims because they are usually reasonable but if you can attack a claim then that speaker's whole argument falls apart. So if you think a claim is vulnerable then rebut it but you will need a strong explanation to show why it doesn't matter.
There are common flaws you can look for to form a rebuttal:
1. False dichotomy - this is where the speaker is trying to falsely divide the debate into two sides even though there are more alternatives than they state. It's likely the speaker is doing this on purpose but in some cases they do not understand the debate.
2. Assertion - this is when a speaker presents a statement which isn't actually an argument because there is no reason to believe that the statement is valid. It may just be an assumption. You can point out that there has not been enough examination to prove this validity and then give a reason why the assertion is (probably) not valid.
3. Morally flawed - arguments can be morally flawed, for example, "All criminals given a prison sentence should be given the death penalty instead, this will save the country money and space." What has been argued is true but it's clearly morally flawed.
4. Correlation rather than causation - a speaker may suggest a link between two events and suggest one led to the other. But the speaker may not explain how one caused the other event which can make an argument invalid.
5. Failure to deliver promises - sometimes a speaker might fail to complete a task they promised to deliver. For instance, they may state that they will provide evidence supporting a certain claim but they may lose track of what they have said and not actually do this.
6. Straw man - the opposing team introduces an argument and then rebuts it. They may use an extreme example of your proposal or perhaps they were hoping that you would make this argument.
7. Contradiction - an argument the other team presents may contradict one of their previous arguments. You must point out that the arguments cannot be true simultaneously and then explain how this reduces their case's credibility.
8. Compare the conclusion to reality - think "what would happen if what they (the other team) are suggesting is implemented right now?" This usually shows that it's more complicated than they have suggested and the changes can cause secondary problems.
5. POI (Point Of Information)
A point of information (POI) is offered in the course of a speech by a member of the opposing team. The speaker may either accept the point or decline it. If accepted, the opponent may make a short point or ask a short question that deals with some issue in the debate.
Examples of valid offers, that may be combined with any of several common hand gestures, are:
• "On a point of information."
• "May I have this point, sir/miss"
• "On [subject] (e.g., political capital or feasibility)"
• "On that point, sir/miss"
• "POI, sir/ma'am?"
• "Point, sir/ma'am"
The WSDC rules dictate that a Debater has 15 seconds to deliver a POI. In reality, however, the Debater speaking may elect to cut off the POI giver in 5 to 10 seconds. As such, it is imperative for the POI to contain the main point in the very first line.
The best moment to take the POI is whenever you feel the most confident taking it. This moment is usually after you´ve finished explaining one part of your case, before you move to another. Do not take a POI in the middle of any explanation or analysis you are doing
