Guide to British Parliamentary
University Debating
PO Box 287
Cardiff
CF24 4WD
T 078 1205 0721
F 0796 8204 709
E info@walesdebate.org.uk
www.walesdebate.org.uk
CONTENTS
What is debating?
3
Outline of a debate
4
How to set up a debating
society in your college or university
5
Inter-varsity debating
7
Rules of British Parliamentary University Debating
8
Guide to the different roles and skills
within a British Parliamentary. Debate
10
Appendix 1
Notes for a chairperson
(incorporating the rules of a show debate)
16
Appendix 2
How to chair a meeting
18
Appendix 3
How to take minutes
19
Appendix 4
How to write a press release
20
2
What is debating?
This guide aims to provide a brief introduction to the world of university debating, which
can help readers to set up debating societies in their own universities, and to enter into
and enjoy the competitive inter-university debating scene.
Let us begin by defining the terms.
Debate (n.) [2] Contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion: esp. the
discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any Assembly. (OED)
Debating (vbl. sb.) [b] attrib., as in debating society, a society whose members meet for
practice in debating.
Everyone has engaged in debating at some point, from childish squabbles to pub chats of
philosophical depth. Debating societies are simply an extension of this, where issues are
considered at scheduled times instead of arising naturally out of conversation.
Debates have been a feature of democracy and civilised society from Athens onwards.
Government and opposition parties debate, appeal to the undecided to support them, and
put their proposition to the vote. Persuasive speaking has therefore always had a real
significance in history, as many great orators have won support for their legislation or
ideas through the success of their speeches.
The British Parliament has given birth to two forms of debating in the country today,
Show debating and Competitive debating.
Show debating is practised in university unions, where students and/or invited guest
speakers put forward two sides of a controversial topics to win the votes of the audience.
These events are good nights out as well as exciting ways of encouraging people to take
up debating.
Many will involve celebrity or expert speakers who provide great
entertainment and insight into the important issues of the topic.
Competitive debating is the practice of debating in its purest form: tournaments
consisting of several debates on set topics in front of panels of trained adjudicators, who
evaluate the most persuasive speakers according to set criteria. University tournaments
are held almost every weekend in Britain and Ireland between October and March. In
some cases prize money is awarded, in others only prestige is at stake.
"Parliamentary" debate loosely describes the format of debate practised in the UK,
Ireland, Canada, parts of the USA, Australasia, Asia and many other countries, where
debaters are judged as if they were persuading an audience of lay-people. "British
Parliamentary" is a specific format, used in the UK and at the World Universities
Debating Championships, and will be discussed later in this guide.
So, why debate?
There are many reasons why university students debate. The social life is great, with
show debates giving a chance to meet guest speakers and many other students. Equally,
competitive debating tournaments involve students from all over Britain and Ireland, and
further afield for some tournaments, meeting up for intensive debating, and almost as
intensive partying. Debating Societies are set up to allow students to participate in this
global activity which looks great on the CV and is a perfect excuse to travel the world!
3
The Outline of a debate
Generally, a topic for debate is given by the society or tournament organisers in the form
of a motion, which uses the phrasing of the House of Commons, eg. "This House believes
that money is the root of all evil", “This House would legalise cannabis” etc.
The Proposition team argues in agreement with the motion as it is phrased, and the
Opposition team against. One speaker from the Proposition is given their chance to
speak, then one from the Opposition, then another from the Proposition, and so on until
everyone has spoken.
The Chairperson has the job of ensuring that both teams are given a chance to speak by
impartially making sure that the rules of the debate, whatever they may be, are followed.
He or she also acts as a master of ceremonies, introducing the topic for the motion, the
speakers, and any sponsors or judges, as well as inviting contributions from the audience
after all the speakers have concluded their speeches. A brief guide example for
Chairpersons can be found at the end of this guide in Appendix 1. In all debates some
time will be given to the floor debate, this is when members of the audience can make
comments and ask questions of the teams.
An important element to note in any debate is that both sides of the motion are given an
equal amount of time to convince the audience that their position is the correct one. The
Chairperson is primarily responsible for ensuring this equality, but is often assisted by the
timekeeper who is responsible for the accurate timing of each speech, so that signals can
be given at the appropriate points.
A point of information is a formal part of a debate: it is an interruption by a member of
the non-speaking team to the speaker who has the floor at that time. These interruptions
can often liven up a debate, and keep all the speakers involved in the debate until the
end. However, the speaker controls the debate whilst they are speaking, so may choose
to accept or decline an offered point. In competitive debating points of information
(p.o.i.’s) are limited to the middle minutes of a speech, as will be explained below. In
show debates it is up to the society to decide whether they wish to allow p.o.i.’s at all, and
if they do whether from the audience or just the speakers, and at what point during the
speeches, eg. each speaker could be given a ‘protected’ first minute to lay out their case
before being open to interruptions. Often points of information are phrased as questions
e.g. ‘Isn’t it true that…’ or ‘How can you defend…’, and can be deadly rhetorical weapons if
used in the right way at the right time.
A good debater, whether in a show debate or in competitive debating, should use
rebuttal in their speeches. This is the answering of the other side’s arguments using
what they have said to undermine their side of the debate. Debaters should be prepared
to respond to the arguments of their opponents, as this is where the drama of debating
4
becomes obvious. Rebuttal is one of the most convincing tools available to a speaker and
is at the heart of a good debate!
For examples of motions for show debates it is often useful to get ideas from other
organisations, such as the Oxford and Cambridge Union Societies, both of whom have
excellent web-sites. For examples of motions found in inter-university tournaments
www.britishdebate.com and www.walesdebate.org.uk are useful.
For more information about debating in general, and upcoming debating events visit
www.walesdebate.org.uk, the web-site of the Wales Debating Federation which was
founded to promote and organise debating in universities and schools across Wales. The
Wales Debating Federation can provide support, expertise and literature to any university
debating society in Wales in being set up, and competing in inter-university debating
tournaments.
5
How to set up a Debating Society
in your College or University
A debating society, which can hold regular debates within the college and organise teams
which may be sent to inter-varsity tournaments, is an important element in university
debating. Every debating society is different, although all rely on the work of members to
organise and publicise their activities.
(1) The first task is to enlist the support of the university or college authorities and the
student union. The authorities may be able to provide financial support to a new society,
which is vital if members wish to attend tournaments, and if the expenses of a show
debate are to be covered. Similarly, the student union may be able to help in allowing the
society to use union rooms for meetings or debates, financial aid, and in gaining publicity.
(2) An initial meeting must then be organised. This event should be well publicised,
perhaps with advertising at freshers' fairs, in department buildings and lectures, and
student publications. This meeting should have the aim of gaining members, and
ascertaining the expertise of such members. Perhaps such an initial meeting could be
accompanied by a show debate to gain publicity, and give potential members a taste of
debating.
Here are some of the elements a debating society may want to consider:
Meetings
It is up to the society to decide how often debates are held. It will depend on the level of
interest, and many other factors. However, time should be given to planning how the
group will work, what motions would be fun and how to get others involved. Further,
weekly show debates, or internal competitions between members of the society, ensure a
consistently high profile for the society within the college or university. The regular
activity allows the society’s members to recruit further members, whilst maintaining the
speakers own skills as debaters.
Finance
Debating is potentially an expensive business.
Show Debates – Typically, guest celebrity or expert speakers are not paid for
their time, but are paid travel expenses, given a meal and drinks before and/or after the
debate, and are provided with overnight accommodation if required.
Inter-Varsity Tournaments – Usually, university debaters are paid a portion of
their travel expenses, after a personal contribution from individual speakers.
The
proportion of personal contribution to society funding is, however, a determination for the
society to make.
The society should, however, pay the entry fees for all such
tournaments, which may range from £25 - £50 per team.
Sponsorship – Individual show debates, a series of show debates, within
university debating tournaments, and even attendance at external competitions are
potential events for which sponsorship may be received. Large companies, and local
companies are often interested in gaining publicity amongst the types of students which
are attracted to debating. E.g. A show debate on a legal topic may attract sponsorship
from a law firm; a bank may be interested in sponsoring a series of economic debates etc.
In approaching potential sponsors a debating society must:



Provide an estimated budget of the event proposed;
Demonstrate to the sponsors what they will get from participating in the
event, the estimated audience at a show debate for instance.
Most importantly, not be shy or pessimistic in outlining the plans for the
society’s future successes.
Further, the university union or authorities may provide grants to a society, in the same
way that such grants are provided to sports teams and other societies.
6
Officers
All well-run debating societies have certain positions of responsibility. These can be
elected for a length of time (say a term or an academic year) at a designated meeting. It
is up to the group to decide what positions are needed, but the following are a few
suggestions:
President - to have overall responsibility for the society and ensure that all work
is completed and everyone knows what they are doing, whilst acting as a
figurehead in outside relations. A guide to chairing meetings, an essential task for
a President, can be found at the end of this booklet in Appendix 2.
Secretary - to keep an official minute of meetings and debates and of the
decisions and votes taken, and to notify officers of upcoming meetings. A guide to
minute-taking is provided at the end of this booklet in Appendix 3.
Treasurer - to monitor any money and expenditure.
Publicity Officer - to co-ordinate advertising and media relations.
writing press releases is provided at the end of this booklet.
A guide to
Director of Debating – to have responsibility for competitive debating, the
coaching of debaters, and the co-ordination of entries into inter-varsity
tournaments.
Rules of the Society
All debates need some rules. These guide the speakers and ensure a fair debate. At the
end of this booklet are example rules of a show debate in Appendix 1. These can be used
as a starting point, but can be changed to suit the debate and speakers. Some speakers,
particularly those new to debating may be more willing to try debating if the time for each
speaker is reduced, or there is a limit on points of information. You may wish to have
three or more speakers on each side. Whatever is decided, it is important that the
speakers and others are absolutely clear on the rules.
7
Inter-Varsity Debating
Although there are several variations on the format of debate which is used in
competitions around the world, the form used in Britain and Ireland, and in the World
University Debating Championships, is known as British Parliamentary debating.
It is relatively easy to get involved in debating tournaments in other universities, as from
October to March these so-called ‘inter-varsity’ tournaments (IV) take place almost every
weekend. Traditionally each debating society holds its own IV annually as a method of
fundraising, although this may be difficult for a new society to do in its first few years.
The vast majority of IVs take place on Friday evening and all day Saturday, with so-called
‘crash’ accommodation being provided on the bedroom floors of the host institution’s
debaters. Most IVs provide free, or heavily subsidised, alcohol on both Friday and
Saturday night, dinner, and often lunch and breakfast on the Saturday. Most IVs provide
cash prizes for the winning team and the best individual speakers. For the details of the
entry fees of upcoming tournaments, their dates and contact addresses visit
www.walesdebate.org.uk and www.britishdebate.com.
There are four teams in a British Parliamentary debate. IVs will typically involve five
rounds of debates for all teams over the Friday and Saturday, followed by two semi-finals,
and a grand Final, so every team is guaranteed a minimum of five debates at least. Some
IVs obviously will have more or less than the usual five. The adjudicators at every IV are
themselves expert debaters who, along with other competitors in the tournament, are
always keen to share their knowledge and skills of debating with speakers who are new to
debating and IVs.
Most motions in tournaments will involve a mix of topics, from international affairs and
domestic political issues (such as the role of the UN Security Council, or mandatory
voting), to social and legal issues (homelessness, or criminal sentences), and from science
(Genetically Modified foods) to the environment (the Kyoto Protocol). Guidance as to
potential motions and topics, as well as examples and sources of arguments can easily be
found on the internet from news sites, or pure debating sites such as
www.debatabase.com.
Next is a quick summary of the rules of British Parliamentary Debating, and what is
important in a debating speech of any type, particularly suitable for IVs. This is followed
by a more detailed analysis of the roles of each speaker in a British Parliamentary debate,
and is essential reading for any prospective IV competitor.
8
Rules of British Parliamentary University Debating
1.1)
In each debate there are 4 teams: 2 in proposition, 2 in opposition. Each
team consists of two people. Each team of 2 works independently prior to the
debate itself. The order of speeches are as follows:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
First prop team, first speaker
First opp team, first speaker
First prop team, second speaker
First opp team, second speaker
Second prop team, first speaker
Second opp team, first speaker
Second prop team, second speaker
Second opp team, second speaker
1.2)
Each speaker has five minutes to speak (this can be changed, you will be told
at tournaments how long speeches are but this is the usual length). The first and last
minutes are 'protected time.' During this time no Points of Information (P of I) may be
asked.
1.3)
Points of Information: P of I are questions or points made by the opposition to
challenge the speaker - you should accept at least one P of I during your speech but no
more than two – ideally you should accept 2. The judges will mark you down if you take
too few or too many P of I. When offering a P of I it should be short and to the point.
They should never be more than 10 seconds. Remember, the person speaking is in
charge - they can decline or accept P of I's whenever they choose and they can tell you sit
down before you have finished this point - this happens if the questioner is taking too long
(don't worry if you're cut off unfairly, judges will take account of this). In a debate always
ensure you offer plenty of points (although you may not be accepted at all you must at
least try - you are marked down for offering too few P of I). Finally, never barrack.
Barracking occurs when the opposition excessively offers P of I's to the extent such that
the speaker is unable to continue sensibly with the speech.
1.4)
Speakers 7 and 8 are summators and must summarise the debate. They need
to look at both sides (not just their own) and overall show how their side won the debate.
Summators MUST NOT bring in any new material into their speeches - they cannot contain
new arguments or examples. However, you can reargue a previous point in a more
coherent form.
1.5)
Judges or Chairman’s decisions are final. The chairman in the room (usually
a judge) must be obeyed throughout the debate - if he or she tells you to sit down or stop
insulting opponents then you must or risk losing the debate by default.
1.6)
You should be polite at all times - although debates can become quite heated
on inflammatory issues remember that your opposition are arguing what they've been told
to argue and may not believe arguments they're using - you're discussing issues so never
personally insult opponents.
2) Structure
In debating one of the most important thing is structure. Structure is all about forming
your speech so that your points follow coherently on from one and another. It also
enables the judges and audience to listen to your speech clearly without getting lost. A
debating speech has three main areas: the introduction, the arguments and the
summation (peroration).
2.1) The introduction
In the introduction you need to tell the room what you are going to talk about in your
speech. The simplest way to do this is along the lines of "Today we are going to present
you with three arguments for/against the motion 'This house would . . Argument 1 will be
X. Argument 2 will be Y and argument 3 will be Z. I will now go onto argument X."
9
The introduction needs to be short and to the point - it should never last more than a
minute. In the introduction you can tell the room what the general themes of your speech
will be but don’t over-elaborate. However, how you form your introduction is affected by
the position in which you are speaking. For example, if you are the first speaker in the
debate (first proposition speaker) then you must DEFINE the motion. This means clearly
saying what you will be arguing about and how you are interpreting the meaning of words
in the motion. (Example: This house believes that cannabis should be legalised. You
need to define how it would be legalised. In this example you could say it would be
available at specially licensed shops and could only be sold to over 18's). You MUST be
clear on what you mean. You then lay out your arguments and then proceed to argue
them point-by-point. For all other speakers (except for the last speaker on each side,
dealt with later in SUMMATORS) your introduction should clearly tell the audience what
you are going to be saying and then you need to head into the arguments - the middle of
the overall debate is where the arguments are truly thrashed out.
2.2) The arguments
It is the job of the Proposition team to show that in the majority of cases the motion
under debate should be supported and the role of the Opposition to challenge and show
that the motion is not true in the majority of cases or that there are better alternatives.
The arguments part consists of two sections: your own constructive arguments and your
rebuttal to the other side’s arguments. It is common to do your introduction and then
rebut the other side before moving onto your own arguments. You must attempt to show
why the opposition are wrong with their points and you must also show that your
arguments hold true. This is why good structure is needed. You need to clearly tell the
judges at the beginning of each point what opposition argument you are rebutting or
which of your arguments you are talking about. If you fail to do this you will not only
make yourself confused but also the judges and audience - it sounds simple but actually
doing it is difficult and requires practice. Another important part is the use of examples.
In debating you cannot just assert something without reasonable evidence to back it up (in the cannabis example you could talk about Amsterdam). In the debate you need to
show why your examples are good and, just as importantly, why the opponent's examples
do not hold. It is very common for people to find good examples and then use them as
arguments. What I mean by this is that speakers will describe an example and then leave
the point as though the example is all that needs to be said. Ideally, an example should
back up your points, not be the point itself. (Example: TH would lower the legal drinking
age in pubs. Prop teams often argue that the age is less on the continent so it should be
lower here. This is not an argument. You need to explain why they have lower drinking
ages and why they work).
2.3) The summation or peroration
During (approximately) the last 30 seconds of each speech you should summarise what
you have been saying. This is to finish your speech in a nice way and to hit home your
case to the judges. The usual way of doing this is to repeat your main arguments and
your main rebuttal points - don't repeat all the arguments, just the important parts. It is
important that you finish near the end time and you should not transgress more than 30
seconds over it.
However, the last speaker for each side does a summary speech. Their job is not to bring
in any new material or arguments. Instead they must sum up both sides and then show
why their side won. This speech must be well structured and the key points concentrated
on. It is often useful to try to separate the whole debate into two or three distinct areas.
This clarifies the debate and it demonstrates that you have a good understanding of what
has been going on. A technique often used is the 'three questions.' You introduce at the
start of your speech three questions that you will answer in the summary. You then talk
about what prop/opp said and argue why your answer is correct. The judges will reward
debaters who clarify points and manage to bring lots of strings together into a tight
closing speech. To get full credit you need to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the
debate (see principles of debating in Appendix 5).
10
Guide to the different roles and skills within a British
Parliamentary debate
1)
First Proposition Team
First proposition is considered by most debaters to be the hardest position in a debate.
However, with careful thought it can often be turned to your advantage.
1.1)
Role
The main role of first prop is to set up the debate. They define what the debate is about
and what each side argues. How they do this depends on the type of motion set (see
below). But, in general first prop must put forward a good definition which allows the
issues to be debated on both sides. You will get credit for setting up a good debate but
be penalized heavily for a poor definition which leads to a ‘narrow’ or ‘definitional’ debate.
1.2)
Closed motions
If the motion is 'closed' (the organisers want a specific debate - e.g. 'This house would
place cameras in court') then the definition must be on this topic. In this case first prop
should clearly define any terms and present at the beginning of the debate the arguments
that they'll be using. In this type of debate keep any preamble down to an absolute
minimum because you need to tackle the issues quickly and hard - remember your side
finishes speaking after only 3 speakers so you need to make an impression on the judges.
This debate is most like schools debate so the format of speeches should be similar.
1.3)
Open motions
The motion is 'open' (no real definition of what the debate is about - e.g. 'This house
believes there can only be one'). The motion will guide you onto an area (for example it is
about competition) but you get to decide what the debate will be about. DO NOT argue on
broad, general terms (for example, you do not discuss competition in general). You must
narrow the debate down onto a specific topic (the example was taken that 'there can only
be one form of funding for higher education' in which it was argued that Oxbridge should
stop receiving extra money from the Government).
This type of debate often results in first prop coming first or last. If first prop set up a
sensible and interesting debate with good arguments then they'll often do well. If first
prop set up a silly proposition then they could lose easily. You should prepare for a range
of motions before each tournament. You want to cover a wide spectrum of areas
(international and domestic politics, international and domestic social issues, finance and
law are common areas). This way, if you have an open motion then you should be able to
use a well-prepared case and the 15 minutes before the debate should be used to finalise
any problems and to work on the connection or link between a familiar debating issue and
the motion. You must justify how your proposition follows from the motion - this depends
on the motion, if it is very broad then the link should be easy, if it trying to push you into
a particular area then you must think carefully about the link. However, the link should be
short (no more than 15 seconds) and judges tend to mark down for a bad link but not up
for a good one - it is your arguments that count. When preparing a case it is often easy to
come up with a brilliant argument that is next to impossible to counter. You should always
think about each case you prepare and see how many opposition arguments you can think
of. If you can't think of any good arguments (or there is only one) then your case is
probably too tight. If you run a next to unarguable case for opposition you will lose the
debate by default. The simple advice for an open motion is keep it simple and interesting.
You should always avoid, time-setting, place-setting (e.g. Pre-revolutionary France) or
truistic or tautological arguments.
1.4)
Semi-closed motions
You can get semi-closed motions. This is often when the motion is area specific but the
actual proposition is decided by first prop. (e.g. This house would end economic sanctions
- this could be defined as referring to Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba etc. but the debate must be
11
about sanctions). This is very much like a closed motion; just ensure that your proposition
is within the spirit of the motion.
1.5)
Summary of first prop
i) Keep it clear - judges don't appreciate confusing cases
ii) Get onto the motion quickly - don't waffle at the beginning with an overly long
introduction
iii) Ensure you use the best arguments - don't leave the best arguments to second prop
iv) Speak clearly - especially important from first prop since a garbled beginning can ruin
the whole debate.
2)
First Opposition Team
2.1)
Role
The role of first prop is two-fold. Firstly you must set out your main rebuttal points to the
first prop. This deals with their definition (try to find loop-holes in it etc.) and their main
arguments. Secondly, you must put forward constructive arguments of your own –
it not good enough to just rebut the proposition. Opposition must be constructive, you
can not just criticise the proposition
2.2)
What to expect
First opps will be faced with two standard situations - closed or open cases. Closed cases
should be treated like school motions - use the best arguments and keep it clear. You
should be able to come up with the best arguments in the prep time and this needs to be
manipulated to fit the exact definition. First opp is a position where knowledge really
counts. You need to be abreast with current news (particularly law and social issues)
because to come up with a complete opp in 15 minutes on a subject you know little about
is very hard. However, in general for a first opp on a closed motion, look for the glaring
flaws and contradictions in the prop case and if none exist make sure you undermine the
main basis of the prop case.
If the proposition put forward a plan to solve a problem it is often useful to use two prongs
of attack - firstly argue that the plan simply won't work and secondly argue that if the plan
did work then the apparatus being suggested to implement it would be ineffective.
(example: This is often a very good way of countering legalisation of cannabis – and
other drugs - cases. How and where would the drug be prescribed is a question which is
very difficult to answer satisfactorily).
Life gets more complicated in first opp to an open motion (or 'squirreled' motion - one
where the prop twist the motion into something completely different). These can often be
on areas in which you have little specialist knowledge and you have to think fast on your
feet. If you know the issues concerned then you should be able to thrash out the main
opposition arguments in the first 5 minutes - this is where the importance of a clear first
prop comes in. If first prop fail to define the motion quickly and get onto the main
arguments then first opp can have as little as 2/3 minutes to prepare an opposition. If
this happens to you in opposition judges will generally make allowance but you would still
be expected to get good arguments out. The second speaker for first opp should
constantly be trying to think of arguments whilst first opp prepares to speak - you have to
work as a team!
2.3)
First Principle Argumentation
If you cannot think of good arguments against or you have little knowledge on the specific
topic then fall back onto 'first principle' arguments. These are arguments such as:
Cost - who pays for the idea and how are they made to pay (if it's a plan put forward)
Social issues - will people accept it (if it's a social case)
Will it solve in the long-term the problem it set out to? Are there better alternatives?
Does it breach international law - human rights etc
12
First principle arguments can virtually always be used. If the judges deem the motion to
be specialist knowledge then you stand a good chance of winning the debate - you have
made an attempt at reasonable debate on a rare topic. However, just because a case is
weird doesn't mean it's bad (example: motion squirreled onto 'this house would end
sanctions on Angola.' Although most people don't even know there are sanctions on
Angola you should be aware of all the general pro-sanction arguments and also have a
brief knowledge of African politics - you can then argue about destabilising the region.
First prop won this debate because the opp teams panicked although there were strong
opp arguments that could be used).
2.4)
Role of second speaker
In general most motions are straightforward and the arguments come out quickly. The
second speaker for first opp has a lot more rebuttal in his or her speech. He or she has
two speeches to counter (it is unlikely that first opp speaker will be able to cover
everything in just 5 minutes) and must also carry on the constructive case. It is
important to really push your good points here and deal with any cracks in your own case
because after this speech the second half of the table comes in and you need to leave an
impression on the judges. It is important that the good opp arguments are used as
effectively as possible - you do not want to gift second opp an easy win because you
forgot an important argument. The second speaker is also expected to show a good
understanding of the debate and the last 30 seconds of the speech should be an
aggressive summary.
2.5)
Summary of first Opp
i) The most important advice for first opp is remain calm, work together and make sure
you have a broad range of knowledge (or books to help you if you don't-but not in the
debate!).
ii) Work as a team–find out how you do this best but you MUST communicate effectively
iii) Remember your first principles!
iv) Stay calm – if you counter a hard first prop calmly and sensibly then the judges will
reward you
3)
Second Proposition Team
3.1)
Role
In general a second proposition team needs to introduce new arguments and it must
distinguish itself clearly from first proposition team. Just rewording first props arguments
but better will result in you getting a position below them. The two speakers in the second
prop team have distinct jobs. The first speaker must add new material and continue the
debate. The second speaker must summarise the debate as a whole (not just prop side)
but with an emphasis on why the prop has won the debate.
3.2)
Scenarios for second prop
In second prop there are a number of scenarios in which you can find yourself:
3.2.1) First prop has put forward a good case and a good debate has followed:
(this is the most common scenario)
a)
Second prop in this position should ideally add new arguments. Two or three new
arguments that deal with first opp and give scope for further debate are the optimum. You
need to highlight the difference between yourself and first prop but you MUST NOT stab.
'Stabbing' is a debating term for accusing your fellow side of being wrong. Even if first
prop has said something stupid you are on the same side in the debate so you mustn't
undermine their arguments. Judges will mark teams down for stabbing in almost all
cases. The judges will reward a second prop team that introduces strong, new arguments.
b)
The second option for second prop in this position is to change the focus of the
debate - the extension. For example, if the debate has been British specific then you
might want to think about extending the issue to a world-wide one if it is relevant.
13
Alternatively, you will sometimes find yourself in a position where the debate has been
rather broad and specific issues have not been dealt with so you can narrow in on a
relevant point. (Example: First prop wants to introduce compulsory voting to encourage
better representation and the first half of the table exhaust the main arguments: second
prop extends onto proportional representation since this is in keeping with the ethos of the
debate but is unique from first prop.) In debating second prop often ends up introducing a
non-relevant extension to the debate. In scenario 1, new arguments are the best
solution and an extension should be used with caution.
3.2.2) First prop have introduced a plan to solve a problem (e.g. AIDS drug
patents)
If the first prop plan is good then either add new arguments why or add further
parameters to deal with any opp points. Again, new arguments work best. If the first prop
plan is bad then either add a set of parameters (it is surprisingly common for a team to
have a plan but no idea how to introduce it) or extend the debate onto an area that will
benefit you. In this situation it is hard to introduce new arguments because you'd
invariably lose due to first props bad start. Here, it is important to clearly distinguish
yourself from first prop – if their plan is bad you don’t want to be dragged down with
them.
3.2.3) First prop are idiots
You will be surprised how many bad first props are run in debating. (example:
encouraging child labour in the third world so that multinationals will invest there).
In second prop you can (virtually) disown first opp in this case (in the example you could
extend onto ideas of solving third world economic problems - debt relief). You should pick
on something said by first prop and use this to justify what you're talking about. Even
though first prop could be stupid you still need to justify your extension.
3.3)
Summary
Last speaker for second prop must summarise the debate. This speaker must not
introduce new material or arguments. It is important to realise that you are summarising
the whole debate, not just what you said. However, make sure that you emphasise what
your side brought to the debate and why your side won (see end of second opp). Some
extra pointers are:

Emphasise what your team has brought to the debate. It is important that you stress
what your team has done (but DON’T overplay this, the judges will penalise you for
acting as though there was only one proposition team).

Make sure that you clarify the prop case and its parameters (if it has them). Try to
show why the case is solid despite opp claims – basically, tidy things up.

At the beginning of your speech you have to deal with the second opp extension. Try
to do this quickly and efficiently. Dismissing it entirely will put you in problems but if
you spend too much time on it you won’t have time to summarise.
4)
Second Opposition Team
4.1)
Role
Second opposition is generally considered to be the easiest position in university debating.
You have 25 minutes after the debate has started before the first person speaks so your
speeches should be clear and well structured. In second opp the first speaker must
introduce new material to the debate. This is almost always new arguments. You will have
new arguments to deal with the second prop extension and also you can attack first prop
with arguments not taken by first opp (but your emphasis should be to first destroy
second prop's extension or new arguments). If first opp is rubbish then this is excellent
news - you should be able to go through the main opp arguments quickly and clearly and
often this will win you the debate. Where as second prop must introduce new material,
you are dealing with the additions with new arguments anyway so the problems of
distinguishing yourself should be nullified. The last speaker for second opp is vitally
important. He or she sums up the whole debate and is the last person the judges will hear
14
before their decision. Make sure you take advantage of this – stress how good your team
was and why the opp win.
5)
Principles of Debating
5.1)
What are they?
As you debate more and become better you’ll find yourself debating against better
debaters. As a beginner it is often good enough to just give arguments to win a debate.
However, at the higher levels you need to show a deeper understanding of the debate. I
like to look at this as the ‘principles’ of debate (although many will call it lots of other
things!). This section tries to demonstrate how to spot deeper themes and topics and
hence enable you to win at the highest level. This is particularly prevalent to the second
half of the debate because with the extra preparation time you have to give the judges
something different.
5.2)
Finding Themes/Principles
Spotting themes can be difficult. If the first half of the table has been confused then it is
often hard to spot the underlining basis. However, if you spot it, then you’ll be rewarded
by the judges. Some techniques include trying to step back from the debate and asking
yourself what an observer would say – it is common, when watching debates, to spot
many things that the debaters don’t – the best debaters manage to apply this in their
speeches.
In British Parliamentary it is not necessary to rebut every argument point by point.
It is often much better to argue a general principle, prove it and show how it defeats the
arguments of the other side. Often this is what you need to do in the second half of the
table.
Example: THW abolish the automatic right of bishops to have a seat in the House of
Lords. In this debate the first half of the table will tend to battle about the benefits of the
bishops and the inequality against other religions. There aren’t that many arguments in
this debate so the second half must look for something else. In this case the second half
should discuss the principle of democracy and argue whether appointed positions are
compatible with this – i.e. do you have all positions of power elected or have some
positions appointed (clash between the USA model where judges etc. are elected with
European models where there is a large appointed make-up to Government).
The example hopefully shows what is meant by looking at the general principle of a
debate. In this example it is quite clear but often it will be more difficult.
Another technique is to have a separate piece of paper in the debate on which you write
each argument of both sides in the debate clearly and concisely. Contrast them and try to
spot the theme (although you should be writing the arguments down anyway this
technique clearly distinguishes the arguments and makes spotting themes easier). In the
second half of the table you should have time to do this and still keep a careful watch on
the debate.
5.3)
Types of themes/principles
There is more than one type of principle you can use in debates. This can be roughly split
into theoretical and practical. The above example is a case of a theoretical principle. The
ideas of practical principles most often applies to international relations. You need to
contrast political ideologies and demonstrate how these mean that the proposal
can/cannot work.
Example: THW limit the right to asylum. The first prop team said that they would allow
countries to stop unlimited refugees from entering the country and destabilising it (as in
Albania with Kosovo and Congo with Rwanda). First opposition team said that they would
have an international body but gave no details. What second prop did was to look at the
underlining causes of refugee crises and demonstrated why no international body would
be able to protect the surrounding countries from destabilisation – they discussed
15
international attitudes to refugees and why the causes of refugee crises in themselves
were a bar to international bodies acting. Second opp had to argue for an international
body (extension of UN powers) but the principles of second prop held through and they
took the debate.
5.4)
Summary
Too sum up this section basically: if you want to win debates you have to show a level of
analysis far higher than just giving the arguments. You need to investigate underlying
principles instead of just trying to score points with good examples.
16
APPENDIX 1
Notes for chairperson
(incorporating the rules of a show debate)
These notes are intended to provide a skeleton for the role of the Chairperson for this
debate. They are written as speech with any comments in italics but are not meant to be
restrictive in the language to be used, but rather to provide an idea of the different
stages.
Welcome
Welcome to the [Termly / Weekly / Annual etc.] Debate.
The two sides before you are the Proposition and the Opposition who under certain rules
must persuade you that they are right.
The motion for today’s debate is
“This house believes that the monarchy ought to be abolished.”
Introducing the teams
So let me now introduce the teams for this debate:The first speaker for the proposition is [David Pritchard] (APPLAUSE)
The second speaker for the proposition is [Helen Jarman]
The third speaker for the proposition is [James Brimble]
Opposing them tonight, the first speaker for the Opposition is [Amy Thomas]
The second speaker … etc.
The Rules
The rules are hopefully straightforward –
Each speaker has up to [5 or 7 or 10] minutes to deliver their speech before the other side
of the house carries on the debate.
A bell will be rung during each speech after one minute has elapsed and one minute
before the end. A double bell will signal the end of the allotted time and if the speaker
continues beyond a thirty-second grace period the bell will be rung repeatedly.
Between the first and second bells, members of the other side of the house can offer
points of information to the speaker – these may accepted or declined but it is considered
normal for speakers to accept some during their time with the floor. Members of the
House, the audience, may not interject in any way during the speeches.
At the end of the formal debate we will undertake a floor debate where members of the
house can put questions to the speakers or make contributions as they wish.
Starting the debate
It gives me great pleasure therefore to welcome [Mr. David Pritchard] to open the debate.
17
SPEAKER 1
Thank you [Mr. Pritchard] – may I now welcome [Miss Helen Jarman] to speak for the
opposition.
AND SO ON
At the end of the last speech
Thank you [Mr Jones]. That is the conclusion of the formal part of today’s debate.
Floor Debate
The floor debate is a less formal part of today’s event – members of the house, i.e. the
audience can now make contributions or ask questions of the speakers.
(Members of the audience and speakers exchange views and comments under the
Chairman’s control)
At the end of the floor debate
(The adjudicators will re-enter the room and the floor debate should come to a close.)
Ladies and Gentlemen, finally, let us take a show of hands here in the audience. Now
remember this vote is not for the best debaters but for the side of the motion you most
agree with.
All those in favour (VOTE)
All those against (VOTE)
Abstentions (VOTE)
I declare the motion [lost / carried]
18
APPENDIX 2
How to chair a meeting
Why do meetings fail? Well, there may be reasons such as lack of time, a badly designed
agenda or an unsatisfactory venue. However, if the chairman is doing his or her job, it
should be possible to overcome these difficulties.
Chairing a meeting means ensuring that a meeting achieves its aims. The meeting should
have been called for a specific purpose and all discussion at the meeting must be steered
to this end. This may sound simple in theory but in practice it is a very demanding task.
The skills required include:
Impartiality
A chairperson is like a judge in a court. He or she should ensure that all participants have
an opportunity to express their point of view. It can be difficult to leave your own opinions
at home, but if you can’t remain impartial, you shouldn’t have taken the job.
Assertiveness
Ensuring that everyone gets a hearing will almost certainly involve stopping someone from
dominating the proceedings. The more contentious the issue the more likely you are to
require firmness. You don’t need to be rude or dogmatic. Phrases such as “I think we
should hear from John on this” or “can we have some comments from the debaters on
this” should be sufficient in most cases. Once you provide this opening, however, you
need to ensure that there are no interruptions while the next speaker has their say.
Staying on course
How often have you seen an agenda left totally aside? The meeting starts off well but
becomes embroiled in a particular topic (perhaps the first item on the agenda) and ends
when time runs out. A Chairperson must assess the importance of each item on the
agenda, and allot time to each topic as required. If one issue begins to dominate the
chairman must take control. You might suggest a further meeting to discuss the issue at a
later date, or that the main parties concerned could continue the discussion at the end of
the meeting. Sometimes it will be necessary to call for a decision and then move on to the
next topic. You need to stay alert and make sure that the issue has been given an
adequate and impartial hearing within the allotted time.
Summarising
Summarising can be used to end a topic, to end a discussion, to limit the need for
discussion and at the end of a meeting to ensure that everyone has a clear overview of
what took place or what action is now required. It is an invaluable skill for a chairperson.
Summarising requires active listening. You have to state concisely what was said in an
impartial way and end with a clear statement about what is expected to happen next. It
takes practice to summarise well, but it is a skill well worth developing.
Many people feel that being a chairperson means opening the meeting and stopping rows.
There is much more to it than that. Prior to the meeting, the chairperson should consult
with the secretary of the meeting regarding the agenda, ensure that all interested parties
have been notified, assess the level of interest and the potential for divisiveness for each
item, and allot time to each item, based on decisions required and number of people
attending.
During the meeting, the chairperson must focus on the decisions required of the meeting,
ensure that all participants are accorded adequate time, decide when to end debate on
each topic, use appropriate questions to elucidate information or re-direct discussion,
listen carefully to all contributions, and clearly summarise proceedings with an emphasis
on decisions taken and future plans.
The above are all key ingredients for a fruitful meeting. A tactful but assertive chairperson
will facilitate an effective meeting, and that’s what everyone wants.
19
APPENDIX 3
How to take minutes
These days, many of us find ourselves in the position of taking meeting minutes without a
clue of how to go about it. The following is a guide for making this task easier:
Make sure that all of the essential elements are noted, such as type of meeting, name of
the organisation, date and time, name of the chairperson or facilitator, main topics and
the time of adjournment. Include approval of previous minutes.
Prepare an outline based on the agenda ahead of time, and leave plenty of white space for
notes. By having the topics already written down, you can jump right on to a new topic
without pause.
Prepare a list of expected attendees and check off the names as people enter the room.
Or, you can pass around an attendance sheet for everyone to sign as the meeting starts.
To be sure about who said what, make a map of the seating arrangement, and make sure
to ask for introductions of unfamiliar people.
Don't make the mistake of recording every single comment, but concentrate on getting
the gist of the discussion and taking enough notes to summarise it later. Remember that
minutes are the official record of what happened, not what was said, at a meeting.
Use whatever device is comfortable for you, a notepad, a laptop computer or a tape
recorder.
Be prepared! Study the issues to be discussed and ask a lot of questions ahead of time. If
you have to fumble for understanding while you are making your notes, they won't make
any sense to you later.
Don't wait too long to type up the minutes, and be sure to have them approved by the
chairperson or facilitator before distributing them to the attendees.
Don't be intimidated, you may be called upon many times to write meeting minutes, and
the ability to produce concise, coherent minutes is widely admired and valued.
Example of Minutes Form
Name of Organisation:
Purpose of Meeting:
Date/Time:
Chair:
Topic
Discussion
Action
Person
Responsible
1.
2.
3.
20
APPENDIX 4
How to write a press release
Make it newsworthy. Does the debate deal with a topical issue? Will it be of interest to
local people and help promote your activity? As students in local schools or college you
will be at an advantage as local papers are keen to promote such activity.
A headline that gets to the point. Craft a headline which conveys immediately why this
news is important. What you say here determines whether the reader will read the rest of
the release.
A strong leading paragraph for your press releases. Answer who, what, where, when, why,
and how. Write this paragraph as an abstract or summary for the press release.
Detailed explanation from the reader's perspective. Give details of the news so the editor
understands why it's important to his/her readers e.g. a public meeting, involving
students in an important issue. Any background information, quotes of note from the
Headteacher or visiting dignitary, which illustrate the importance of this news should be
included here.
Short summary. Include especially any information about sponsors or support from
organisations. Also provide some background to debating in the school/college, how long
the society has existed etc. Keep it short.
Include complete contact information. Write a release that includes contact name,
School/College name, full address, phone number, email address, and Web site URL. The
contact name should be someone who's available and capable of answering questions.
Keep it short. Maximum length should be one page and no more than 300 words
Add a photo if possible
21