Coast Forensic League
Parliamentary Debate Judging Instructions
Event Description: The format of parliamentary debate is based on the structure of the British
Parliament. As such, all the speakers enjoy having titles used in the British parliament.
The Resolutions
Traditionally in parliamentary debate, there are three different types of resolution: the resolution of fact, the resolution of value, and the resolution of policy. Later, metaphorical resolutions were also adopted, which act as a sort of “wild card” and can be any of the aforementioned three resolutions.
A resolution of fact is one in which the validity of the resolution is questioned. For example, student aptitude is best-assessed through standardized testing or the teaching of sex education in high schools is counterproductive in preventing teen pregnancy.
A resolution of policy is one in which the government team must uphold a certain governmental advocacy. For example, the United States Federal government should grant the right of same sex marriage or the United Nations ought to send peacekeepers into the Sudan.
A resolution of value is one in which two competing values are measured against one another. For example, economic freedom ought to be valued over providing for the needs of the poor or socialism ought to be valued over capitalism.
Finally, a metaphorical resolution is one in which the debaters take something abstract and build it
down to something concrete. For example, if the resolution were Wild thing, you make my heart sing, a
debater might argue, “President Bush has done some controversial things in the past; in fact, some might call
him a wild thing. To make one’s heart sing is to make someone feel happy and elated. Therefore, the
resolution is asking President Bush to do something that would make his citizenry happy. Thus, we propose
that President Bush go forth with his tax cuts.” The debaters would then proceed to offer a case outlining the
benefits of tax cuts for the people of the United States. (This, of course, would be a metaphorical resolution
that the debaters turned into a resolution of policy.) The opposing team need not accept the other team’s
interpretation of the resolution, especially if they feel it is an unfair case to debate. At this point, you would
have to decide whether or not the proposed case was fair or if you should accept the opposing team’s
interpretation.
Speakers & Timing
During each debate there are two teams: the government team, which defends the resolution and the
opposition team, which opposes the resolution. The government team is made up of the prime minister and
the member of government. The opposition team is made up of the leader of the opposition and the member
of the opposition. The structure of the debate is as follows:
Prime Minister Constructive (PMC) – 7 minutes
Leader of Opposition Constructive (LOC) – 7 minutes
Member of Government Constructive (MGC) – 7 minutes
Member of Opposition Constructive (MOC) – 7 minutes
Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR) – 5 minutes
Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR) – 5 minutes
Parliamentary Debate Judging Instructions
You’ll probably notice two things almost immediately when looking at the debate structure. First,
there is one speaker on each side (the prime minister and the leader of the opposition) who get to speak twice;
there is also one speaker on each side (the member of government and the member of the opposition) who
will only be speaking once. Also, towards the end of the debate there are two opposition speeches in a row
(the Member of Opposition Constructive followed immediately by the Leader of Opposition Rebuttal).
As with all other forms of debate, the constructive speeches are the place to “construct new
arguments.” The rebuttal speeches are a place where the debaters focus on where they are winning the round.
No new arguments are allowed in the rebuttals, though new examples are allowed to support old arguments.
Think on Your Toes
The debaters only receive the resolution 20 minutes before they must debate it. They have no idea
what the resolution will be and must come up with all their arguments during the 20 minutes before the round.
There is no “preparation time” once the round begins. As soon as one speaker finishes speaking, the next
speaker must rise and give the next speech. Furthermore, no printed evidence is allowed in the debating
chambers. Debaters must come up with arguments on their own; they must use their own brains, rather than
using the brains of a professor, philosopher, or think tank.
Informality
One of the fun points of parliamentary debate is that it is relatively more relaxed than other forms of
debate. Don’t be surprised if debaters start banging the table and yelling “hear, hear!” as they hear arguments
that they like. Similarly, don’t be alarmed if debaters start jeering “shame, shame!” when they hear arguments
that they do not like.
Points of Information
One uniqueness of parliamentary debate is that it has no formalized cross-examination period.
Instead, any speaker may rise during any of his or her opponent’s speeches. The current speaker has discretion
over whether he or she will choose to yield the floor to the person who wishes to ask a question.
You may notice that some of the debaters will do a silly motion while rising for a question, involving
placing one hand on his or her head and the other hand motioning towards the current speaker; this is a relic
left from the British Parliamentary system. The politicians of the days of yore wore really big wigs on their
heads and if they were to suddenly rise, their wigs might go flying across the room. The questioner, when
rising, must thus hold his or her wig down while showing an open hand to the current speaker (in order to
indicate, of course, that he or she is unarmed and will not stab Madame Prime Minister!)
Generally speaking, it is good form for each speaker to take two or so questions from the opposing
team. Taking fewer questions is a sign of weakness because it shows that the speaker is afraid of letting the
other team make a point during his or her speech. Taking more questions is also a sign of weakness, though,
as it shows that the current speaker is willing to let the other team dominate his or her speech time. This is just
a guideline; there is no rule on how many questions a speaker must take (or not take).
Taking Notes/“Flowing”
During the round, you will want to take active notes of the arguments being made through the round. You
should draw five columns on your sheet of paper: the first column is the PMC (Prime Minister Constructive),
the second is the LOC (Leader of Opposition Constructive), the third the MGC (Member of Government
Constructive), the fourth the MOC/LOR (the two opposition speeches in a row—the Member of Opposition
Constructive and the Leader of Opposition Rebuttal), and the final column is the PMR (the Prime Minister
Rebuttal).
DO NOT DISCLOSE YOUR DECISION IN THE ROUND TO
ANYONE UNTIL AFTER THE AWARDS CEREMONY!!!!
-2-
Coast Forensic League
Parliamentary Debate Judging Instructions
It helps if you flow each argument of the PMC in order, putting each argument on a new line. Then during the
LOC, when s/he responds to an argument, you should put the argument in the LOC column right next to the
PMC argument. Draw an arrow pointing to the PMC argument, showing that the LOC responded to it. Here is
an example of one possible flow if the resolution were This House would abolish the Electoral College in the
United States of America.
PMC
Undermines the
idea of “one
person, one vote”
Candidates only
campaign in
“swing states” and
avoid campaigning
in “safe states”
such as California
The Electoral
College inhibits
third parties since
a candidate only
becomes important
when he or she
wins an entire
state. Without an
Electoral College,
third parties can
gradually grow by
gaining higher
proportions of the
nation’s vote.
LOC
America is not a
centralized state
but a federation of
states. It makes
sense to vote as a
federation of
states.
Candidates would
still only campaign
in certain states.
They would only
campaign in large
states such as
California, New
York, and Texas.
They will ignore
rural America.
This is true. But a
two-party system
is good for
America. When
there are only two
parties, it forces
both parties to be
more centrist.
With a multitude
of parties, they
will run the
political spectrum
with some being
very extreme.
MGC
This is inherently
undemocratic. In a
democracy, every
vote ought to be
heard—even if we
are a federation of
states
MOC/LOR
PMR
They dropped this
argument. For the
United States to be
a democracy, it
must abolish the
Electoral College
This is not true.
Even if extreme
opinions are
formed, the people
will not vote for
them and this will
decrease the
appeal of such
parties.
Dropped
argument.
Candidates will
not enter rural
America. This
means a vast
decline in certain
lifestyles in
America and
ultimately
decrease diversity.
The fact of the
matter is that
extreme opinions
are more likely to
surface with more
than two parties
active. Even if
they are not
elected in most
circumstance, the
chances of them
being elected are
higher without an
Electoral College.
No one foresaw an
election of Hitler
until after it
happened.
The claim that
Hitler will emerge
in a multi-party
system is
completely
unwarranted. Look
to the United
Kingdom where
many different
(non-Hitler)
parties exist.
Extreme parties
will never be
elected, regardless
of presence or
absence of an
Electoral College
DO NOT DISCLOSE YOUR DECISION IN THE ROUND TO
ANYONE UNTIL AFTER THE AWARDS CEREMONY!!!!
-3-
Coast Forensic League
Parliamentary Debate Judging Instructions
Speaker of the House
You, as the judge and adjudicator, are the Speaker of the House. Don’t be surprised if the
debaters refer to you as Mister or Madame Speaker. As Speaker of the House, you also have the option to the
privilege of acknowledging the debaters before and after they speak. For example, you might say “I bring this
house to order and call upon the right and honorable Prime Minister to indulge us in seven minutes of her
eloquence!” Or you might say “I thank the Prime Minister for her eloquent remarks and beg the Leader of the
Opposition to engage us in seven minutes of his eloquence.” However you want to phrase the words is
perfectly fine within the confines of the debate round. Have fun with the format; unless you are Dennis
Hastert or Newt Gingrich, it’s not often that you get to be Speaker of the House!
Completing the Ballot
There are two things you need to rank on the ballot and they are not necessarily intertwined. First,
you must decide who won the round. Who was more persuasive? Who was more believable? This should not
be a measurement of who you most agreed with. The debaters did not get to decide which side of the
resolution to uphold and may not be arguing what they believe in! You should not vote against them just
because they had the tougher side to argue. Vote for whoever was more persuasive in their side of the
resolution.
Second, though, you must decide how each speaker was individually. This is separate from who may
have won the round and you can give higher speaker points to the losers than you gave to the winners (such a
scenario is called a “low-point win” or an LPW). For example, if two are not very good speakers but they are
still making all the right, intelligent points, they may win with low speaker points. Similarly, there may be
very polished, articulate, and engaging speakers who just aren’t making very good arguments; these debaters
may receive high speaker points and the loss.
DO NOT DISCLOSE YOUR DECISION IN THE ROUND TO
ANYONE UNTIL AFTER THE AWARDS CEREMONY!!!!
-4-