How To Do Well In Parliamentary Debate

Doing Well in Parliamentary Debate

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE is one of the popular debate formats utilized especially in college-level institutions in English-speaking nations. Seen as a good venue to somewhat practice the so-called parliamentary procedure, this debate type (also referred to as ‘Parli’) is commonly favored by institutions related to policy making, law, political science, and legal management.

The Format and Terminology

Many debate formats are dubbed as ‘parliamentary’ since the debate structure is roughly patterned after the practices of the parliamentary system which originated from the British government. For one thing, the ‘motion’ (also referred to as ‘proposition’ and ‘resolution’) in a Parliamentary debate is treated like a legislative bill placed before the UK House of Commons. This debate form is thus preferred when the proposition has something to do with legislation.

The motion or proposition in Parliamentary debate is always put forward by the Government. For this reason, the Government, which is similar to the affirmative side in other debate types, is also called the ‘Proposition.’ On the other hand, the Opposition does not have to propose anything in the debate, but must demonstrate that the motion is unsound and thus should not be adopted. The side which met its burden more effectively and convincingly wins.

Many terms used in the House of Commons have also been adopted in Parliamentary Debate. For example, the first Government speaker is called the Prime Minister and the first Opposition speaker is referred to as the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair (the presiding adjudicator also called ‘Speaker of the House’) is usually referred to as Mister or Madam Speaker and all remarks during the debate are basically addressed to him/her.

One of the distinct features of Parliamentary format is the use of the so-called Points of Information (POI). This allows debaters to interrupt an opponent delivering a speech to ask a question or introduce pertinent information which may favor their side in the debate.

Compared to Oxford-Oregon format, Parliamentary Debate is more extemporaneous as it typically provides debaters relatively shorter time (sometimes 15 or 20 minutes only) to prepare before the debate proper. Though loosely based on the British model of parliament, Parliamentary Debate has evolved to a more Americanized hybrid of extemporaneous argumentation. This debate type thus rewards extemporaneous delivery in presenting arguments supporting one’s side and refuting those of the opponent team.

One basic form of Parliamentary debate has two opposing teams (the Government and Opposition) with only two debaters each. The Government team comprises a Prime Minister, who speaks twice (Constructive and Rebuttal speeches), and a Member of the Government, who speaks once (Constructive Speech). The Opposition team is composed of a Leader of the Opposition, who speaks twice, and a Member of the Opposition, who speaks once (like their respective counterparts).

What will be discussed here in detail however is the so-called World Schools Style debate format. Today, mastering this particular type of debate is more practical for many international debate contests adopt this format. Essentially parliamentary, this debate format as well provides us a considerable parliamentary orientation and background. (Read the detailed discussion on The World Schools Style Debate)

Points of Information, Order, and Personal Privilege

In Parliamentary Debate, these points permit debaters to interrupt the speaker holding the floor or speaking.

The Point of Information (POI) is a request that the debater delivering a speech yield time to an opponent for a question or information (data, statement, or argument) which favors his (the one offering POI) team. Both Government and Opposition debaters can offer PoIs, but only to the other side. It is not mandatory to accept a POI, though in debate competitions, debaters are ‘penalized’ for not taking any.

The Point of Order (PO or POO) is raised when a debater believes that a debate rule is violated by the opponent team. It may be raised, for instance, when a speaker has exceeded his grace period or introduced an entirely new argument during the rebuttal. To raise a point of order, a debater rises from his seat and says “Point of Order.” The debater who is speaking stops his speech and the ‘POO raiser’ briefly states (but not argues for) the rule supposedly transgressed (e.g. “The speaker is overtime” or “The rebuttal speaker just made the new argument.”).

The debaters do not argue about the points of order. It is the main adjudicator who rules the point as “Well taken,” “Not well taken,” or “Under consideration.” A ‘well taken’ point means that the debater delivering a speech must immediately conclude his speech if he is over time, or that the rebuttal speaker’s new argument will not be considered. A ‘not well taken’ point means that the adjudicator disagrees with the point raised.

A point ‘under consideration’ means that the adjudicator will determine whether the point is true at a later time. “Under consideration” only applies to ‘new argument charges’ in rebuttal, but not to overtime claims.

The Point of Personal Privilege (PPP) is almost never used as it is raised only when any debater has been maligned on a personal level (“below the belt”) by a deliberate insult, a debater has made an offensive or tasteless remark, or has maliciously distorted another’s words or statements.

To raise this point, a debater rises and says, “Point of personal privilege.” The adjudicator will say either “Point well taken” or “Point not well taken.” The debate then continues, while the judges note down the serious offence if the point is well taken. Points of Personal Privilege may also be raised for personal emergencies.

Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are serious charges and must not be raised for negligible transgressions. Teams may be penalized for raising flimsy points of orders and spurious points of personal privilege. In many Parliamentary debate tournaments, these two types of points are either discouraged or not employed at all. In British Parliamentary, for instance, there is no such thing as Points of Personal Privilege. (Read: The POI in WSS)

Heckling

Heckling and Point of Information are the only two ways through which the debaters not speaking can be ‘speaking and scoring’ in a debate. Like POI, heckling can be a way to make obvious the opponents’ flaws or shortcomings and even earn team points. But contrary to POI, heckling can be said at any time in the debate as there is no ‘protected time’ in heckling.

Heckling refers to the brief verbal or non-verbal interjection made when someone is delivering a speech to provide information to the judges or challenge the opponent’s claim. Verbal heckles are spoken words or brief phrases to call the attention of the judges to the defects of the points recently expressed by an opponent or to the strong points being made by a teammate. Non-verbal heckles are usually supportive of teammates, like brief applause during a teammate’s speech and rapping of knuckles or the palm of hands on a desktop when a teammate just made a substantive point.

There are however rules or conventions on heckling to maintain an orderly and gentlemanly debate. Verbal and non-verbal heckles must strictly be brief. Verbal ones cannot be more than three-word long and they cannot be said just to distract the debater speaking. Furthermore, heckles should not be so loud as to over-shout the opponent delivering a speech. Heckling should be spaced more than 10 seconds a part at minimum. Disrupting a speaker through continuous and rude ‘heckling’ (often called ‘barracking’ or ‘the heckler’s veto’) is not permitted.

The following are some common heckles and their corresponding meaning:

a. “Evidence”

The opponent offered a major point without including evidence to support his reasoning.

b. “Irrelevant”

The opponent’s point is unrelated and thus immaterial in the debate at hand.

c. “Our definition”

The opponent’s point does not fit in with the given contextual definition and is thus meaningless.

d. “Causation, not correlation”

Just because A apparently causes B does not mean that A is the only thing causing B.

e. “Isolated incident”

The example or case mentioned is an accidental case and not a usual occurrence.

f. “Source?”

The opponent is asked for a credible source to back up his claim.

g. “Shame”

A heckle used only when an opponent said something truly ridiculous and stupid.

h. “Here! Here!”

A heckle said during one own side’s speech to agree with what a teammate is saying and to bring his sound points to the judges’ attention … Continue reading

©by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com

Read: Is academic debate the same as religious debate?

Also Check Out:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog

INTERACTIVE ONLINE ACTIVITY

Go online to www.OurHappySchool.com. On the left section of the homepage, click the square image “RH.” Read the short article on “RH Bill.” Below the article, click the button that corresponds to your stand (“ANTI” or “PRO” RH Bill). Accomplish the Facebook “Add a comment” (3-5 sentences) below the page. Invite at least three (3) relatives to leave a reply on your post. Print your comment and its replies and submit the print-out to your professor.

SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE READING

Look for the lecture “Philippine Sangguniang Kabataan (SK): Abolition or Reformation?” through the search engine (upper right section) of www.OurHappySchool.com. In the comment section below the online debate, pay attention to the way students prove their stand.