BP Guide

British Parliamentary Debate

(from the Oxford Schools Competition Guide)

Format and Style of Debates

All debates in our competition will be impromptu. This means that teams will only have 15 minutes between hearing the motion and starting the debate to prepare. During this time, you may not use reference material and must not consult with coaches, supporters, other teams, or anyone else.

All debates will in “British Parliamentary” style. This means that there will be two teams, each consisting of two speakers, on each side. The first team arguing in favour of the motion is the “first proposition team”, the second team is the “second proposition” team; the first team arguing against the motion is the “first opposition team”, the second is the “second opposition team”. The speakers are also numbered-so the second proposition team comprises the third and fourth proposition speakers.

Ostensibly teams on the same side are supporting one another and competing against the other side; in reality, everyone is competing against everyone else. Teams win or lose debates, sides do not. It is perfectly possible for the second opposition team to win the debate and the first opposition team to come last. Thus, while being careful to support the other team on your side and not to contradict them, you are trying to show the adjudicator that your team has made the more significant contribution to the debate. Almost needless to say, since you are competing against the other team on your side, you should not collaborate with them during preparation or let them know what you will be arguing.

Speeches in the debates will be five minutes long. A single knock of the gavel will signal that you are one minute into your speech, another single knock will signal that you have one minute left, and two knocks will signal that your time is up.

Between the first and last minute of a speech, points of information are both allowed and expected. Points of information are formalised interruptions that you can offer to a speaker on the other side. Simply stand up and say “On a point of information” or something similar. The speaker can accept the point immediately, accept it when he reaches a natural break in his speech, or reject it. The speaker has absolute control of the floor: if he declines the point, you cannot make it. Equally if he has heard enough and cuts you off in mid-sentence, you must sit down (which is not to say this is a wise strategy for speakers to employ).

The Basic Debating Skills

Style

Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part of debating to master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material in a confident and persuasive way. There are many elements to style which affect how you sound and look when debating and the important aspects of these are detailed below. There is, however, no correct way to debate. Everyone must find a style that suits them. Some very good debaters are aggressive, funny, and loud; some are calm, logical, and restrained. The key things are to avoid obvious errors and to sound natural.

Speed

It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to say what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood. Be very sensitive to the reactions of others: if you are talking as fast as you would in a normal conversation then that is too fast. Variation in speed can allow you to emphasize particular points, but the variation should be subtle or you will sound contrived (for an example of this see any speech by Tony Blair).

Tone

Variation in tone is what makes you sound interesting. Adjudicators and audiences can get used to a particular tone and begin to adapt their hearing so that it becomes background noise. Needless to say this is rarely advantageous. Whilst some speakers are relentlessly aggressive throughout their entire speech, this tends to make it difficult to explain anything complicated or even draw breath. It also may sound strange to get very worked up about a relatively trivial issue (for an example of this see any speech by John Prescott). Likewise calm monotony can be unintentionally soporific and seem to lack punch. Often it is good to quite aggressively attack the opposite side's arguments, but try to advance your own in a more logical, calm way. As with many things, it is better to work towards a climax than to gradually tail off. A reasonably aggressive ending can sound very challenging and persuasive. Sarcasm in debating can work well, but should be used sparingly. Remember it may be more obvious to you than to the audience why something is worth mocking and it may end up backfiring.

Volume

Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout through every debate regardless of context. Whilst no one will hear you at the back of a large room if you whisper, most people will be ill disposed to you if you bellow at them in a small room. There is absolutely no need speak any more loudly than the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting does not win debates. Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since adjudicators and audiences cannot judge what they cannot hear. Variation of volume (particularly speaking more quietly at certain points) can give useful emphasis to important material.

Diction

Clear enunciation is obviously vital. If you have a strong accent, be aware that your audience may not be used to it and it may be necessary to take more care than usual with pronunciation. This is especially important if your natural style is to speak quite fast.

Language

Whilst long words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible. A varied vocabulary is easy on the ear, and more formal language gives a speaker more authority, but at all times it is essential to remain within the boundaries of plain English. Scientific or technical jargon is just as out of place as slang and swearing.

Clarity

The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. At the top level this is the most important element of style. The key to clarity is for your brain to always be about two seconds ahead of your voice. Evidently people vary in their capacity to do this, even with practice. The main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the “stream of thought” which is keeping them going. This may because they have made bad notes (see later) or else because they have attempted a sentence with so many sub-clauses they can't remember what point they were making at the start of it. They then resort to rambling or use the wrong words or grammar to finish their point. For examples of this (even in very short sentences) watch Match of the Day . Short, clear sentences therefore work much better and are easier to understand anyway. Don't be afraid of simplicity. Often one sees debates where speech after speech from accomplished debaters is packed full of complex examples, little-known facts, and impressive statistics, but not one has been clearly expressed. The best speeches in such debates are usually the ones with the simplest approach.

Fluency

This is similar to clarity in that the key to achieving it lies with your brain being ahead of your voice. Losing clarity in what you are saying can often end with a loss of fluency and the dreaded “umm¦”. A generally good level of fluency can be achieved by most people with some practice, however, since we can all talk fairly fluently in normal conversation. The key things are to relax and to talk reasonably extemporaneously. Whilst it is important to know very clearly the sense of what you are going to say, it is never a good idea to write it down verbatim and attempt to stick to it. When you do that you shut off the part of your brain that is good at thinking of what to say and you end up reading, losing your way and stuttering. Fluency comes more easily with practice and confidence, but is aided by keeping all notes that you use simple and clear. You don't need the safety net of word-for-word notes: in fact you are less likely to trip up if you don't have them.

Humour

Humour can be a useful, but difficult ally. Sometimes it can fall flat, sometimes it can detract from the substance of your speech and sometimes it can sound like a cheap cop-out. The best way to use humour is as part of rebuttal: pointing out any absurdities, mistakes, ironic references, and so on in a humorous way can be very effective. Sometimes a set-piece joke at the start of a speech can wake the audience up, especially if it is in the middle of a dull debate. There is no doubt a good and funny speech is much better than a simply good one and in the right setting humour can win debates. Learning how to be funny is difficult, but most people have some comic potential. The key is to have the confidence to find it.

Stance, gestures, and expressions

Your stance must look confident and assertive. Don't walk around too much, though sometimes this can be effective if (as in the Oxford Union chamber) the audience are all around you and you can't face all of them at once in any one position. Don't over-gesticulate, but some expressive gestures work much better than keeping your hands fastened to the lectern or dispatch box (which incidentally is widely done in the House of Commons and at political rallies and is an absolute no-no!) or else clutching onto your notes. Occasionally facial expressions are a useful aid-rolling the eyes, raising the eyebrows, smiling at the right moment, and so on.

Use of notes and eye contact

Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organised to be effective. There is absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. That would be like running the Olympic hundred metre final backwards-although it would be very impressive in theory, it puts you at a disadvantage and you get no extra credit for it. Of course, notes should never become obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they ever be read from verbatim. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under each. When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using. People vary greatly in their technique here and it makes absolutely no difference so long as the resulting notes enable you to say what you want to say in the style that you want to say it.

Some people take notes on cards, some on A4 paper, one debater even used the back of an A2-sized calendar (given out as a freebie at a World Championships). Most university debaters in the UK use pads of A4 paper and will usually use a number of sheets. The best thing is to order these and put them on the lectern or leave them on the table, since carrying them around is unsightly and impedes any gesticulation. Notes should be glanced at occasionally, to remind you of what you should say next. A clear structure (both in the speech and the notes) is a great asset.

Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your gaze: no one likes to be stared at.

Content

Content is what you actually say in the debate, the arguments used to develop your own side's case and rebut the opposite side's. This is the bread and butter of debating, the concepts are simple, but often a lot of practice is needed before speakers master the skills of defining the motion, developing a case, and rebutting the opposition.

Definitions

Whatever the motion is, the first speaker in the debate must define it. This means that he must explain what the debate will be about. Sometimes the motion given is very clear (e.g. “This House believes that we should bomb Iraq”-this is a little out of date now, but it may not be for very long!) and sometimes it is very vague (e.g. “This House would use the Force”). In the former case it is necessary only to clarify the terms of the motion-in the example above it would be necessary to explain what exactly was meant by the terms “we” and “bomb”-whereas in the latter case the actual issue itself must be decided and explained and a reasonable link must be made with the motion as given. Examples of possible definitions for these two motions are given below:

“This House believes that we should bomb Iraq”

“This means that the UK and the US alone should start a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets right now.”

“This means that if UN diplomacy breaks down the UN as a whole should sanction a programme of air strikes against Iraqi military targets.”

“This means that the UK should drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad as soon as possible.”

and so on.

“This House would use the Force”

“The force in question here is the force of the law and we would use it to make voting in General Elections in the UK compulsory.”

“The force in question here is the police force and we would use it to adopt a policy of zero tolerance on petty crime (as in New York) throughout the UK.”

“The force in question is the force of nature and we believe we should harness this by investing more in renewable energy sources.”

and so on.

As you can see, even a quite specific motion can still apply to a wide range of possible cases, and a vague one can apply to almost anything at all. The two most important things are that the resulting debate is fair and two-sided and that the subject you have chosen links satisfactorily with the motion. The definition you have given cannot be challenged by any other speaker unless it is unfair. A fair definition must be set in the present, it must not be a self-proving or truistic assertion (e.g. that education is a good thing) and it must not be too obscure. This latter point means firstly that specialist knowledge should not be required to understand and argue it (a good rule of thumb is to ask: “Could someone who regularly reads a quality newspaper be expected to know about this?”) and secondly that if you decide to tie yourself down to a particular geographical area, this should be because the issue is of wider relevance (e.g. East Timor), not because no one else will know about it (e.g. traffic laws in Burkina Faso).

The easiest way to define a motion is to come up with a proposal or policy and argue in favour of it. This is, however, not strictly necessary. It is possible to simply argue for or against a particular notion or idea. Sometimes the motion is phrased so as to encourage this. For example, the motion “This House Believes that the Media is more powerful than the Government” does not immediately suggest a possible course of action; it more urges you to argue in general terms about the relative power of the two institutions. The problem here is that you have to very careful when defining what exactly is meant by “powerful”, and also how you propose to assess it. An example might be that “more powerful” means they have more influence on what and how people think, as measured by how they vote, which issues they lobby about and what they say in opinion polls. In general, it is much harder to debate this type of motion because it is more suited to an academic paper or essay than to a verbal argument. The only solution is to define very carefully and make sure your argument is well structured.

Case-the parts

Having defined the motion you must then begin to build a case. The best way to do this is to divide your case into between two and four arguments. You can justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, quotations, and analogies. If you don't do this you can only assert rather than argue. There are well worn ways of dividing up cases according to groups of arguments (e.g. political/economic/social, moral/practical, or international/regional) but, if you can't group any together, the case can just be divided up according to the individual arguments. Under each of these basic headings you should then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it using the methods outlined above. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first. Some examples of case outlines are shown below:

“The UK and the US alone should start a program of air strikes against Iraqi military targets right now. This is true for four reasons. Firstly, morally: Iraq must not be allowed to stockpile weapons of mass destruction which they are now doing. Secondly, internationally: the UN and its constant threats to use force if diplomacy is not successful will be undermined permanently if no one ever carries these threats through. Thirdly, regionally: it is important to maintain stability in the Middle East which is a very volatile region and this stability threatened if no one stands up to Saddam Hussein. Finally, nationally: these strikes will weaken Saddam's grip on power and hasten the arrival of a more benign successor.”

“The force in question here is the force of the law and we would use it to make voting in General Elections in the UK compulsory. This would be a good thing for three reasons. Firstly, morally: we all have a duty to uphold democracy and not voting impairs and undermines the democratic process; it should therefore be a punishable offence. Secondly, socially: groups which are currently isolated and on the margins of society would now be included in the democratic process which will benefit them and society as a whole. Thirdly, politically: political parties would be forced to modernise their political agendas to lure the disenfranchised and apathetic who currently don't vote to support them: this would greatly improve the ideologically stagnant world of present day politics.”

“The media exert more influence over what people think than the government do. This is true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their opinions on what they see and hear in the media and the media have great freedom to put forward biased and one-sided views. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda by deciding what issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonised politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to believe journalists than politicians who are seen as power-hungry and hypocritical.”

All of the arguments in these case outlines are eminently debatable (almost immediately you can see the counter-arguments), but they give the cases a wide range which cover all kinds of issues. The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well argued one. Think “Can I argue it?” not “Is it really true?”

Case-the whole

The case must be outlined in your introduction. This involves stating your main arguments and explaining the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. Starting with the first argument, you should then detail your justification including sub-arguments, reasoning, examples, statistics, quotations, and analogies. It is important to pace your speech so you have time to deal with all the arguments you have said you will deal with. At the end it is useful to summarise briefly what you have said.

Rebuttal-the parts

Arguments can be factually, morally, or logically flawed; they may be misinterpretations; and they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. In addition, a team may contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects. An example of each is given below:

“Murder rates are rising in the UK. This is because we have got rid of capital punishment.” Firstly, you could argue that murder rates aren't rising (a direct factual error ), or if they are rising this is only because a greater proportion of murders are now reported which masks the real trend (an indirect factual error ). Secondly, you could dispute the causal link with capital punishment and argue that the evidence shows that state-sanctioned murder can appear to condone violent crime and leads to a rise in its incidence rather than deterring against it ( misinterpretation ).

“Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and healthcare.” This is true, but is morally flawed .

“Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke because it will make smoking more mysterious and taboo.” This is logically flawed , the ban would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking.

“Free entry to public museums in a country would boost its international tourist industry.” This is simply not important : the waiving of an entry fee will not entice very many people from abroad to spend hundreds of pounds on flights and hotels who would not otherwise have done so.

“We should not join the Euro because I don't want to share a currency with the likes of the French, who eat too much garlic.” The dietary preferences of the French are not relevant to a debate about the economic advantages or otherwise of joining the Euro.

“Although this would cost the taxpayer a lot of money it will be worth it in the end… ” “This will not cost the taxpayer a penny as all the funding will come from the National Lottery.” Regardless of the truth of either of these remarks, they contradict each other and a lot of mileage can be got from the fact that the speaker or team in question are not clear about their case.

“My partner will then look at the economic issues... ” “Blah… blah… blah… (five minutes later and still no mention of the economic issues).” This is a clear failure to explain a major part of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with, “to win this debate there are three things I must do… ”. If the speaker fails to do any of those things you can then hang him in his own noose by repeating his words to him-by his own admission he cannot have won the debate.

Rebuttal-the whole

It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to identify what the key arguments are. It isn't enough to rebut a few random arguments here and there. Of course the techniques used above are invaluable but they must be used appropriately. There are a number of things you should do to break down a team's case systematically:

Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case and whether their methodology is flawed.

Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact discharged these.

Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes and then try to refute these.

Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a piece of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You won't have time and your aim is to show the other side's case to be flawed in the key areas, not to be a smarty-pants.

Strategy

Strategy is the most technical part of debating. It is the observation of the basic elements of strategy that make a debate what it is. Although strategy is worth fewer marks than style and content in a competition, it is often what actually separates very good teams. Strategy encompasses fulfilling your role in the debate, structure, timing, teamwork, and participation in the whole debate.

Fulfilling the correct role

Each speaker in a debate has a different role and these are summarised below:

The first proposition team:

The first speaker must define the motion and justify the definition if need be. Then he must outline the case his team will put forward and explain which speaker will deal with which arguments. He should then develop his own arguments and finish by summarising his main points.

The second speaker should re-cap the team line and then rebut the response made by the first opposition speaker to her partner's speech. She should then develop her own arguments and finish with a summary of the whole proposition case.

The first opposition team:

The first speaker must respond to the definition, mentioning whether it is fair and whether it makes a reasonable link to the motion. If it does not or is unfair she can re-define (offer an alternative interpretation of the motion). This can be risky and should only be done when the definition is not debatable. Usually it is better to complain a little and hope the adjudicator gives you credit. Next, she must rebut the first proposition speech. She can do this and nothing else, she can do this and then develop a counter-case (i.e. an alternative proposal), or she can structure her rebuttal into a counter-case. What to do depends on the debate.

Going back to Case-the parts on pages 16-17: in response to the first case it might be best to rebut and then develop a counter case (this protects you from the “What would you do instead?” argument which would arise if you did nothing but rebut). In response to the second case it would almost certainly be better simply to rebut the case and do nothing else (on the grounds that doing nothing would be better). In response to the third case it would be easy to develop a “mirror image” counter-case which rebuts the points made and constructively argues the opposite point of view.

The second opposition speaker should very much follow this lead and continue with the same strategy as his partner. If a counter-case has been developed, he should summarise this at the end of his speech.

The second proposition team:

The first speaker must stake his team's claim in the debate. He may extend the debate into a new area, introduce a couple of new arguments which make the case on his side more persuasive, or simply tidy up what has gone before into a more organised case and show how that rebuts what the opposition side have said. Again, it depends on the scenario. This is quite a complex part of debating to master, but it is very important to add something constructive to the debate (and not merely rebut) or you will be penalised.

The second speaker may briefly add to what her partner has said, but should fairly quickly get round to summing up the debate for her side. This involves going through the whole debate to show why the proposition side has won. Either you can go through the debate chronologically (this is not very advanced and usually not very persuasive either), go through one side's case and then the other (if the clash between the two has not been intensive), or go through the debate according to the main points of contention (this is the most persuasive way, but it is vital you have understood the debate and prioritise the issues accordingly). It is often a good idea to finish by summarising the main reason why your side has won.

The second opposition team:

This is very similar to the second proposition team's role, except that what the first speaker does depends on whether the opposition have a counter-case.

The last opposition speaker must devote his whole speech to a summing-up and should not introduce new material.

Rebuttal v. Case:

The amount of time you spend on case development versus rebuttal changes as the debate progresses. The second proposition speaker should aim for about three minutes case and two minutes rebuttal, the third proposition speaker for 2-3 minutes case (depending on what they are aiming to do) and the rest rebuttal. Opposition speakers should do roughly the same, though probably with more emphasis on rebuttal (depending on the scale of their counter-case). This is not to imply that the two must be separate: it is quite possible to combine the two and often works very well. If you decide to address rebuttal and case separately, you must deal with the rebuttal first. The idea is to “clear the decks” so you can get on with your case. It also ensures that your rebuttal follows on directly from the previous speech from the opposite side.

Timing and structure

It goes without saying that a speech which is too long or too short exhibits poor strategy. Not only that but a short speech will also score poorly on content, since there is less of it! Most inexperienced debaters occasionally run out of things to say. The best strategy is to summarise or repeat what you have already said: at best, you will then think of what to say or someone will offer you a point of information and, at worst, you will eat up some more time. Many more experienced debaters have the opposite problem. Five minutes really isn't long and it is important not to get carried away on one point and not leave enough time to deal fully with the rest. When it is time to finish, just finish. Many debaters go 30 seconds over time as they try to find a strongly worded ending. If you have difficulties doing this then write one down before you stand up.

It is vital to structure your speech. Say what you are going to say, say it, and then say what you've said said. It can transform a speech and makes it much easier to adjudicate. Outlining the structure of your speech at the start in this way is called “flagging”. It is vital that once an argument has been flagged, it does actually appear in the debate. Always be aware how much you have to get through and pace your speech accordingly. Aim for about 15 seconds at the end when you can conclude and summarise. With experience you can judge times quite well in your head (you are given a time signal after the first minute, at the start of the last, and at the end of the last), but a digital stopwatch can help, as can signals from your partner (so long as they remember to give them).

Teamwork

It is important to work as a team with your partner. Refer to each other's speeches as much as possible and ensure that what you say links together well. Try to have a strong team line to which you can both refer (though it does not have to alliterate, as by the twentieth repetition, it may have become tedious). Make sure you communicate well and you know what the other is thinking, planning to say, and so on. I once debated with someone who would only respond to written communications during a debate and would wave his hand at me if I attempted to talk to him. Such behavior may be necessary (he claimed he couldn't concentrate if someone talked to him), but it is a shortcoming and talking (very quietly of course) during the debate is a vital part of teamwork. Discuss what your strategy and main arguments will be and pass on any rebuttal points or examples which you think will help your partner with his speech. The most vital area of teamwork is an appreciation that you are in the same boat and that no one benefits if you don't perform as a team. In other words you have the same goal-to win the debate.

Participation in the whole debate

A key part of strategy is to maintain your involvement in the debate all the way through. This obviously precludes leaving the room or falling asleep, but usually it means offering points of information regularly throughout all of the opposing speeches.

Points of information can usually be offered between the first and second time signals (i.e. between the end of the first minute and the start of the last) by members of the opposite side only. You offer a point of information by standing and indicating this, usually by saying “point of information” or similar. You can offer as many as you like, but if you offer more than one in a twenty second spell it may look as if you are trying to unsettle or harass the speaker and you may be penalised. The speaker may accept or decline the point in any manner they like, but most speakers will take two points during a five minute speech and either two or three during a seven minute speech. It is usually not wise to take a point very early in a speech as it may disrupt your structure before you have started. Taking more than two or three points usually leaves too little time to finish your material (unless you are running short of things to say) and fewer implies you are reluctant to engage the other side (although it may be acceptable to take only one point if not many are offered). If your point is accepted you should address a short question, contradictory example, or other such gem designed to challenge what the speaker is saying. It must be short (less than 15 seconds) and to the point. Many inexperienced debaters are afraid of taking points of information. Usually this is because they vastly over-estimate the intelligence of the people they are debating and are paranoid that they themselves are talking nonsense.

There are a number of ways to deal with points of information. You can dismiss them briefly and then get on with your speech (if it was a bad or a stupid point). You can answer them more fully and dovetail your answer into what you were going to say next, or answer them and dovetail the answer into a later part of your speech which you can then omit (or refer back to briefly) when you come to it again. Finally you can simply say that you are planning to deal with that point later on in your speech and carry on where you were. If you do the latter, you absolutely must make it utterly explicit when you refute the point later on. You must not use this as a ducking tactic since adjudicators will notice. Points of information have decided several debates I have been in or adjudicated. You must make them regularly (and you must accept a couple) or you will lose vital strategy marks.