The British format of Parliamentary debates was formed at the beginning of the 20th century in Great Britain completely separate from the formats of Lincoln-Douglas and Polis-debates that arose in the USA and are the basis for all subsequent varieties of Parliamentary debates .
The leading centers in which this format was formed are universities of the cities of Oxford , Cambridge , Limerick ( Ireland ), Darham , Bristol , Glasgow ( Scotland ), Edinburgh (Scotland). Today, this format is most widely represented in the UK and Ireland, as well as in other European countries, and is the official format of the World Parliamentary Debate Championships. The British format is a model of the British parliament, in which two approving teams (Government teams) and two denying teams (Opposition teams), consisting of two speakers each, try to convince the judge of their rightness. Teams, depending on the referee's decision, at the end of the round receive places from first to fourth. The first place gets the best team in hand, the fourth, respectively, the worst. In tournaments, a certain number of team points are awarded for each place. First place - 3, second - 2, third - 1, fourth - 0
British Format: Speaker Order [1]
| Speaker | Performance time | Functions |
|---|---|---|
| Prime Minister (I speaker of the I government) | 7 minutes | Interpretation of the proposal (topic, resolution) of the debate, clearly related to this topic, that is, its narrowing or specific perspective. This “narrowing” should be a proposal to solve a problem, Next, you need to present the case of your team, which is the following argument structure:
Another case structure is possible:
Perhaps the disclosure of the case by aspects:
|
| Opposition Leader (I speaker of the first opposition) | 7 minutes | First, respond to the interpretation made by the government. Then refute all or the most important arguments put forward by the government and explain the reasons why they are not valid in the light of what your side claims. The following structure is possible here:
It is possible to introduce your own case, which should be mutually exclusive. |
| Deputy Prime Minister (II speaker of the first government) | 7 minutes | You should continue to develop your team’s argument. Give counterarguments and evidence of what the first opposition speaker said. Then, you should support your teammate by clarifying weak or controversial judgments and restoring your case with new evidence, facts, and examples. |
| Deputy Leader of the Opposition (II speaker of the first opposition) | 7 minutes | Like the second government speaker, you must support your teammate. But twice as much time should be spent to refute the judgments made by the previous opponent. You should be as constructive as possible, citing numerous facts and examples in support of your position. |
| Member of the Government (I speaker of the second government) | 7 minutes | “Expansion” should be introduced, that is, new content (new lines of argumentation, a new perspective, perspective or context of consideration). The retelling in other words of what the first government has already stated, the proposal of new facts and examples, as well as a new remedy (plan) is not considered a good “extension”. At the same time, colleagues from the first government should not contradict. When developing your case, you should simultaneously use it to refute the judgments of the second opposition speaker. |
| Member of the Opposition (I speaker of the second opposition) | 7 minutes | This is a difficult role in the meaning of the strategy. You cannot deliver a speech consisting of 100% rebuttal and you are also limited by the fact that your partner, according to his role, will not be able to devote much time to developing his case (see the role of the Opposition Whip /). You should think over a performance strategy in advance. You should state the essence of the argumentation line of your team and the opposition as a whole and focus on the refutation of the "expansion" made in the previous speech of the opponents. At the same time, one should not forget to react to his objections regarding the speech of member 1 of the opposition, supporting his colleague. |
| Secretary of Government (II Speaker of the Second Government) | 7 minutes | Both “secretaries” will be punished if they cannot summarize the point of view of their team and refute (rebut) opponents. Two tasks should be performed: to refute the judgments of the previous opponent and to summarize the point of view of your team and the government as a whole. So, it follows:
You should remember about the competition with your colleagues from the first government and answer the question: "Why should judges vote for the government in general and for the second team in particular." |
| Secretary of the Opposition (II speaker of the second opposition) | 7 minutes | Refutation, refutation and once again refutation. In this case, a significant amount of time (2-2.5 minutes) should be devoted to summarizing. No new arguments should be made. In a rebuttal speech, new indicative examples are possible as counterarguments. The question should be answered: "Why should judges vote for the opposition in general and for the second team in particular." You can use the last “protected” minute to summarize all the debate, and not just your speech, this may contradict the structure of speech, as written in textbooks, but this is a fairly common practice. |
- - a characteristic feature of this format is the absence of cross-questions (that is, time periods when the speaker of one team asks questions to the speaker of the other team). Instead, they use so-called information requests (small questions or remarks that speakers should make during the speech of the speaker of opponents with his permission).
- - In the Parliamentary debate there is no time for preparation between speeches, which makes this format very dynamic.
- - The above order of speeches within the British format is far from the only one. In particular, there is a procedure according to which all the first speakers speak first, and then all the second; There are also speech orders for rounds, where individual speakers play not teams, [2] . For example, in Australia , competition between two teams of 3 people is practiced in win-lose mode.
British Tournaments and Championships
Today, there are a large number of regional, national and international tournaments for parliamentary debate. The largest is the World Cup. About 300 teams from more than 100 universities from approximately 70 countries take part in these competitions.
The first world championship was held in 1980 in Glasgow. Initially, it was held in different formats, but since 1996 ( Cork , Ireland ) the British Parliamentary was officially adopted by the main format of the world championships.
Features of the British format
The features of the British parliamentary debate can be reduced to two groups. The first group is “features of the spirit, philosophy” of the Parliamentary Debate. Among them, the following provisions can be distinguished:
Features of the spirit and philosophy of debate
- Attention to improvisation. A feature of the Parliamentary Debate is that the debaters learn the topic of the round in 15 minutes. before it starts. In preparation, they can use any sources of information other than electronic, and after the start of the round, they cannot use any sources. This is significantly different from the Policy Debate, where the only topic for the year is announced, the preparation of which (collection of information, analysis and preparation of affirming and denying positions) the team carries out throughout the school year. Thus, the element of improvisation, and with it liveliness, surprise in the policy debate is often absent.
- Particularly informative. Of course, a well-prepared informative debater has more chances to win than a poorly prepared debater. But the preparations for the debates in the search for information are significantly different in the policy - \\ and the Parliamentary debate. With a single topic for the season, debaters who play politics debate are constantly looking for information to support the arguments developed. Thus, they accumulate entire volumes of information that they constantly have with them in tournaments and use during rounds. As for the debaters playing in the Parliamentary debates, they, not knowing the specific topic that they will discuss, carry out the so-called “general search”: they try to accumulate and systematize information from the widest possible range of problems. The determining factor in this case is the amount of information. Partially makes it easier for the debaters to do the fact that they know the general theme of the tournament in which they participate. In general, the ideal debater for Parliamentary Debate is a well-informed and well-read student in a wide range of issues.
- Training. In principle, the debaters in the Parliamentary debates carry out all preparations for the round precisely during the “general search”. For the 15 minutes that they have before the round, you can revise the dictionary or the latest newspapers, but no more. It is more advisable to use these 15 minutes to better structure your position or optimize your strategy. If we compare the preparation with the study, then the preparation for the Parliamentary debate is a basic course, and for Polisi - a special course. Debaters in Political Debate “dig” in depth, and debaters in Parliamentary Debate - in breadth.
- Limitations In Parliamentary debates, there are certain restrictions on the information that can be used by debaters. The information used by the approving team must be understood by a knowledgeable and well-read person. If she goes beyond these limits, the denying team may resort to the special protection “specific information” or “specialized knowledge” and claim that the approving team places them in unequal conditions and does not allow for a clash of opinions. If so, the approving team must lose. Only the negating team owns this privilege [3] . But in case the approving team can name the source of information and in a short period of time (2-3 minutes during the constructive speech of the Prime Minister) is able to explain the essence of this information, it will not be considered special.
- The specificity of the means of persuasion. The most common means of persuasion in Parliamentary debates are inferences and arguments. While in the policy debate, evidence (facts) is no less important. Such differences are explained by the speed and dynamism of the Parliamentary debate. For this format, the ability to build different types of arguments in a short period of time is very relevant. For policy debates, the ability to develop a position in a high-quality and meaningful way is more relevant. As for the opposite to belief, the ability to deny, it is also characterized by certain specifics. For Parliamentary debate, refutation of the arguments of opponents point-by-point is less important than for the policy debate or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate. The main thing for this format is the denial of the main lines of argumentation that opponents offer. The importance of the ability to build your own line of argumentation in such a way that it simultaneously discourages / denies the line of argumentation of opponents. Such a complex technique is called cross-apply.
- Public character. The parliamentary debate was conceived, first of all, as a public format of debate. Their primary goal is to interest the audience. This explains their dynamism and mobility. Therefore, one of the principles of the Parliamentary Debate is the maximum accessibility of the content of speeches to the audience. This is where Parliamentary debates differ from the two formats discussed above. For them, the use of “technical argumentation,” that is, criticism of the debate tricks and means that opponents use, was characteristic and common.
Debate Evolution
The debate is being developed by influential public and international organizations.
The International Educational Debate Association (IDEA) was created in 1999 in order to organize and develop the debate, as well as related forms of activity. Initially, the IDEA was created to coordinate the pilot debate programs of the Open Society Institute. However, now the Association can safely be called the most influential independent debate community in the world, which brings together organizations, debate clubs and individual debaters sharing IDEA values: promoting mutual understanding and the spread of democratic values. IDEA's activity is a wide range of educational and strategic initiatives: from the development of educational programs and trainings to international student exchanges and annual, so famous international youth forums. IDEA is registered in the Netherlands, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and organizes debates in more than 50 countries around the world in more than 60 languages. IDEA Coordination Center in Russia is based in St. Petersburg, and in the Central Asian region in Bishkek [4] .
In St. Petersburg, the debate movement is developing through the efforts of the St. Petersburg Debate Federation, established in 2011. The Federation cooperates with the debate clubs of St. Petersburg universities, providing the coaches and referees necessary for playing debates, and organizes tournaments and public events. Among the projects of the Higher League of Debates Federation is a tournament where debaters argue on relevant topics in front of a wide audience. During the existence of the tournament, its guests were Pavel Durov , Andrei Urgant and others. In addition, the Debate Federation conducts trainings for beginners and experienced debaters, during which the trainers share factual knowledge, teach the basics of argumentation and the specifics of the British format of parliamentary debates.
In Ukraine, the debate movement is being developed by the Moscow Debate Academy and the Ukrainian Debate Federation .
Notes
- ↑ The materials of the book by Konstantin Zadoya THE BURDEN OF PROOF (Basic handbook in Policy Karl Popper Debate For Ukrainian Humanitarian Lyceum's Debate Club), Kiev, 2002. Translated from Ukrainian by Sergey Naumov and Anastasia Solovieva, 2008
- ↑ For details, see University of Limerick Tutorial Handbooks by Colm Flynn
- ↑ In addition, there are several other means of ensuring fair play in Parliamentary debates. The first one is that the negating team accuses the opponents of truism - that is, the interpretation of the topic proposed by the approving team is a statement that does not need proof. For example, "2x2 = 4" or "The crime rate needs to be reduced." Another trick is to accuse the approving team of putting forward an interpretation impossible for debate - an interpretation that does not contain a problem. For example, the statement “Ukraine should not join NATO at the moment” is such, because today Ukraine is not going to join NATO , but is going to do so in the future. It should be noted that such tactical techniques translate the Debate into the plane of proof / Denial of accusations of using Special Knowledge, Truism, or an interpretation impossible for debating. He who proves his case will win the round. For more on the issue of Special Knowledge, see Debate: A Guide for Teachers and Students, as well as ON THE LIMITS OF SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE: AN ANALYSIS OF POLICY AND PARLIAMENTARY CONTEST DEBATING IN THE UNITED STATES By David M. Berube, Ph.D. . Assoc. Prof., Speech Communication University of South Carolina, USA
- ↑ International Educational Debate Association. About Us. Archived July 12, 2013 on Wayback Machine
Links
- UK Parliamentary Debate Format: Full Description
- Official Russian-language website of the International Educational Debate Association (IDEA)
- Training material for British Parliamentary Style, prepared by the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union .
- An introductory Guide to BP Debating by Alex Deane.
- British Debate
- World Debate Website