Basic Parliamentary Format
1.
2.
3.
4.
General overview of Asian Parliamentary Debate Format
Prime Minister speech
Class Activity
Quiz 1
Format
Affirmative/Government
Negative/Opposition
Speaking time
University format: 6~7 minutes
Secondary Format: 7~8 minutes
Elementary Format: 4~5 minutes
Elementary Format
In the Asian debate parliamentary format, the debate starts with the first speaker of the
affirmative side.
It is default that the first speaker of the affirmative will be the first one speaking.
1
affirmative
negative
2
3
affirmative
negative
4
5
affirmative
negative
6
8
affirmative
negative
7
Note: since the affirmative side opens the debate, they should close the debate.
Speaker Roles
Prime Minister
(PM)
Leader of the
Opposition
Deputy Prime
Minister (DPM)
Deputy Leader
of the
Opposition
(DLO)
Government Whip
(GW)
Opposition
Whip (OW)
Government Reply
(GR)
Opposition
Reply (GR)
Each speaker in the Asian parliamentary debate format has a title.
WHY? The Asian parliamentary debate format. This is a modified debate format of another
format. The most famous debate format nowadays that is being used in competitions is the
British parliamentary format. In the British parliament, this is basically a mockery. The Asian
parliamentary format therefore follows these names.
Traditionally, in any secondary debate format there are only 3 speakers. However, in this
debate format there are 4 people.
Speaker Roles
Government
Opposition
Prime Minister (PM)
Leader of the Opposition
-Define and set-up the debate
-Respond to definition and set-up
-Present position & case
-Present team position and case
-Make 1 or 2 Arguments
-Rebut government arguments
-Make 1 or 2 arguments
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)
Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)
-Defend your case
-Defend your case
-Attack the case of the other side
-Attack the case of the other side
-Present new arguments
-Present new arguments
Government Whip (GW)
Opposition Whip (OW)
-Summarize and defend your case
-Summarize and defend your case
-Summarize and prioritize issue in the
debate
-Summarize and prioritize issues in the
debate
-Analyze and rebut issues
-Analyze and rebut ideas
Government Reply (GR)
Opposition Reply (GR)
PRIME MINISTER
1
Set-up and define
-What is the status quo
In the status quo…
But the problem is…
-What’s the problem with the status quo
-Introduce the debate
Define key important terms
Identify: what type of debate
Provide: model or criteria
2
Positions and team split
Simply by outlining arguments and how
the debate will be discussed by your team
3
Argue
4
Summarize
To address this,
We would like to clarify some
terms in the topic…
Also, we would like to
propose…
assess…
We as the affirmative, we have # arguments
which are
1.
2.
3.
Now onto my arguments. My first argument
is…
In conclusion, I’ve discusses 2 arguments
which are… that’s why we
support/oppose…
Basic Types of Debate
1. Policy- propose something
Ex. Legalize, ban ,…
2. Assessment
Evaluate or appraise ideas
Does more harm than good
Better off, worse off etc.
In a policy motion, you need to be able to
propose something.
Often times, the topic will be worded that
gives clues to whether it will be policy or
assessment.
Depending on the type of debate, you must be able to provide with specific
expectations/proposal.
Policy Debate
Introduction: What is the status quo
Status quo- present situation (What’s happening now…)
Use a problem-solution approach in you introduction
Example Topic: make education for free
Status quo
PROBLEM: Right now…the problem is…
Education is expensive
Not everyone can go to school
SOLUTION: mention the topic
Make education for free
Assessment Debate
Introduction: What is the status quo
Status quo- present situation (What’s happening now…)
You can use a problem-solution approach in you introduction
Example Topic: K-pop idols does more harm than good
PROBLEM: Right now…the problem is…
Idolizing K-pop stars sets standards of beauty
Makes people conform to certain trends
Instead of a SOLUTION: mention the topic
We would like to assess whether or not K-pop does more harm than good
Status quo, problematize and then introduce the debate. Trying to provide a background
information, opening the speech.
By defining key terms, it refers to clearing up what specifically you are talking about.
Defining the debate
Policy: it needs an action plan (a proposal)
 Who will do it?
 What’s the plan?
 What’s the expected result
Assessment: it needs a criteria (how are we going to assess it)
 Which principle is more important?
 Harms and benefits to individuals and society at large.
FULL EAMPLE OF A PRIME MINISTER SPEECH
1 Set-up and define
-What is the status quo
In the status quo…everyone likes education
But the problem is…it is expensive
-What’s the problem with the status quo
-Introduce the debate
Define key important terms
Identify: what type of debate
Provide: model or criteria
2
Positions and team split
Simply by outlining arguments and how
the debate will be discussed by your team
3
Argue
4
Summarize
To address this,
We would like to clarify some
terms in the topic…
Education - HS and university
Also, we would like to
propose…
Govt- passing a law
Tuition fee will be waived for
everyone
Increase college graduate rate
We as the affirmative, we have # arguments
which are
1. Role of the govt
2. Benefits to poor students
3.Benefits to society and economy
Now onto my arguments. My first argument
is…
In conclusion, I’ve discusses 2 arguments
which are… that’s why we
support/oppose…
Speech
Good afternoon. In the status quo, we think that everyone likes education, everyone thinks its
very important. All parents are planning and wishing that their children go to school. But the
problem is that education in Korea is very expensive. Not everyone can go to school and that’s
why in this debate we want to address this issue by making education for free.
Now we would like to clarify some terms in the topic. In today’s topic, when we talk about
education, we want to talk about highschool and university education. Because currently like
elementary and middle school education in Korea is already free. But more importantly we also
want to make sure that we clarify that this debate when you talk about education is specifically
going to be limited to public education and not private education because free elementary and
middle school education are only for public schools. So the proposal is just an extension of free
public school, not only until middle school but until university.
Now, what is our plan (since this is a policy debate). Our plan is that we think that 1) the
government, specifically the parliament, must be able to pass a law in making tuition fee free
for everyone by making sure they would to a lot a portion of the tax to cover all these expenses.
And as a result, we would like to see and we believe that there would be an increase pf college
graduate rates at the end of this proposal.
We as the affirmative side would have three arguments to support this motion. First, we want
to talk about the role of the government, seconds the benefits to poor students, and third the
benefits to society and economy. I as a prime minster will talk about the first two things and
while my second sister would like to talk about the third argument.
Now, onto my argument. Let me discuss the first argument regarding the role of the
government (discuss) (discuss). Onto my second argument is the benefits to poor students.
Summarize
Conclusion
Now, onto my argument. Let me discuss the first argument regarding the role of the
government (discuss) (discuss). Onto my second argument is the benefits to poor students.
Summarize
Conclusion
Now, onto my argument. Let me discuss the first argument regarding the role of the
government (discuss) (discuss). Onto my second argument is the benefits to poor students.
Summarize
Conclusion
So, in conclusion
Activity
Topic: Break-up Chaebols (big business conglomerates)


Support the topic
Policy debate  Needs a proposal/action plan
What are chaebols?
Chaebol’s are family-owned business that typically have subsidiaries across diverse industries.
Traditionally, the chaebol corporate structure places members of the founding family in
ownership or management positions, allowing them to maintain control over affiliates. Chaebol
have relied on close cooperation with the government for their success: decades of support in
the form of subsidies, loans, and tax incentives helped them become pillars of the South Korean
economy.
Although more than forty conglomerates fit the definition of a chaebol, just a handful wield
tremendous economic might. The top five, taken together, represent approximately half of the
South Korean stock market’s value. Chaebol drive the majority of South Korea’s investment in
research and development and employ people around the world.
Origin
Many of South Korea’s chaebol date to the period of Japanese occupation before the end of
World War II, modeling themselves after Japan’s powerful industrial and financial
conglomerates, known as zaibatsu. As U.S. and international aid flowed into Seoul following
the Korean War (1950–1953), the government provided hundreds of millions of dollars in
special loans and other financial support to chaebol as part of a concerted effort to rebuild the
economy, especially critical industries, such as construction, chemicals, oil, and steel.
Why it’s a problem
Tight-knit relationship between Seoul and the chaebol has fostered a culture of corruption, in
which embezzlement, bribery, and tax evasion have become standard. Chaebol’s have
contributed more to Korean social inequality than to society.
Some other issues are:
Though chaebol are responsible for the majority of the country’s investment in research and
development, experts say they may also introduce challenges to the health of the Korean
economy. Behemoth conglomerates often use their monopolistic clout to squeeze small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) out of the market, often copying their innovations rather than
developing their own or buying out the SMEs. In this predatory environment, SMEs, which
provide for most of the country’s employment, are unable to grow.
There is also a significant wage gap, as the average pay for workers at SMEs is only 63 percent
of that at chaebol. South Korea faces growing income inequality levels and limited job growth,
with high youth unemployment rates.
Further, experts say that large-scale corruption, often associated with the chaebol, reduces
economic competitiveness diminishes social trust, leads to wasteful spending and poor
decision-making, and sometimes necessitates large bailouts.
1
Set-up and define
-What is the status quo
-What’s the problem with the status quo
-Introduce the debate
Define key important terms
Identify: what type of debate
Provide: model or criteria
In the status quo… chaebol’s played a
central role in transforming South Korea
from what was once a humble agrarian
market into one of the world’s larges
economies. The country became a key
manufacturer in both heavy industry and
high technology sectors in the world.
But the problem is…that chaebol’s
challenge the health of Korean economy as
they have to resemble more of monopolies.
It has led to a predatory environment in the
market where these chaebol’s squeeze
small and medium enterprises(SME) out of
the market by copying their technology
instead of developing or buying the SMEs. It
has led to a significant wage gap, income
inequality levels, limited job growth with
high youth unemployment rates. Largescale corruption associated with chaebol
has reduced economic competitiveness has
led to diminished social trust.
To address this,
We would like to clarify some
terms in the topic…
Chaebol’s are family-owned
business that typically have
subsidiaries across diverse
industries. Traditionally, the
chaebol corporate structure places
members of the founding family in
ownership or management
positions, allowing them to maintain
control over affiliates.
For today’s debate, I want to clarify
that we specifically want to address
chaebol’s with major influence over
the political and economic growth
in South Korea.
Also, we would like to
propose…
Govt should strictly revise chaebol
reformation policies and carry out
punitive measures.
Govt should invest into other
economic sectors/businesses so as
to slowly replace chaebol’s major
influence in the political landscape
and economic health of the country.
Policies should be made to protect
SMEs to improve the market.
2
Positions and team split
Simply by outlining arguments and how
the debate will be discussed by your team
We as the affirmative, we have # arguments
which are
1. The outgrowing influence of the chaebol
over the country’s political and economical
development over the governments.
2. Chaebols lead to unfair market
outcomes.
3. Chaebols lead to greater social inequality,
corruption, and to plutocracy replacing the
representative democratic republic.
3
Argue
4
Summarize
Now onto my arguments. My first argument
is…
In conclusion, I’ve discusses 2 arguments
which are… that’s why we
support/oppose…