Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary debate, or "parli" as it is called by its practitioners is a style favored by many speakers and students. Parli events in our area are sponsored by three main bodies, the Debate Association of New England Independent Schools (DANEIS), the Yale Debate Association's (YDA) tournaments held annually at their late September fall Invitational Tournament and again on a Sunday in April, and for college students at several elite North American colleges and universities, the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA). Dozens of Barlow students and alums have participated and won big in all three leagues and recently the Connecticut Debate Association has opted to experiment with parli at its tournaments.Parli is fairly similar to the CDA extemporaneous style and most NFL events in that debaters compete in pairs and a series of timed speeches, but there are several important differences debaters need to know in order to be successful:

Parli has its own theory and jargon. The parli style asks you to imagine that you are speaking in front of a body similar to the British Parliament, a bizarre legislature that for unexplained reasons is composed of just five persons, four teenage MPs from two opposing parties and an adult speaker. Mysteriously, nearly everyone lost their British accents, only one person in the room gets to vote on the resolution, the speaker, a person who due to an irony built into the system is only permitted to speak when inviting the other four members to talk. Despite the herculean suspension of disbelief that it requires, parli debate is just as much fun as it is strange.

Given this odd premise, it should hardly be surprising that parli borrows most of its jargon and conventions of floor speeches and Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) delivered across the pond in the British House of Commons. Here are the highlights...

1. Resolutions: Unlike CDA extemp, or NFL policy, Lincoln-Douglas, or public forum debate, you will not know your topic until about ten to fifteen minutes before you speak. And there is always a new topic in each round. Hence, the newshound and the policy wonk who keep up with the details of today's policy questions have a tremendous advantage over those who spend their leisure time gaming or on facebook.

Sometimes topics are assigned, while and at most DANEIS tournaments, debaters do a coin flip to determine who gets the choice of three possible topics and who gets to choose the side.

Resolutions are often phrased with a different convention from the CDA or NFL. Instead of "Resolved: The United States should abolish capital punishment," a typical parli res reads as "this house would (THW) abolish capital punishment" or "this house believes that (THBT) America's tax rates are too high." The "house" in question is of course the parliament itself and the vote of the speaker determines what the house does or thinks. The job of government and opposition are to persuade the speaker to act on their views. Sometimes resolutions in parli are called motions. A debater would therefore say, "I urge the speaker to move on the government's proposal," or "Madam Speaker, the motion before this house is a path to perdition."

2. Who's who: In parli, the side advocating the resolution is called the side government and those urging negation are called side opposition, each of whom literally and figuratively occupies a different side within the aforementioned "house." Refer to your judge as Mister or Madam Speaker. The first government speaker is usually called the Prime Minister (PM) and his or her partner is the Member of the Government or Minister of the Crown (MG or MC). The first opposition speaker is called the Member of the Opposition (MO) and his or her partners is called the Leader of the Opposition or (LO).

3. Prep Time: You get ten to fifteen minutes to prepare cases before the round. By custom, side government usually leaves the room to prepare. During that time, you cannot consult any print materials or surf the web to get any data, so you have to rely on what you already know. The only exception to that rule are CDA parliamentary tournaments where a packet of articles is issued to everyone. You don't get any more prep time after the round begins, so when your opponent finishes their speech, the speaker will immediately thank the previous debater and then invite you to get up and start yours. Time yourself or have your partner give you signals, so don't forget to bring some device with a stopwatch function.

4. Points & rules for Opposition Cases: Also the two or three supporting arguments called contentions by CDA extemp debaters are called points in parli. Number then as you transition between them, just as you would in any style. Given time constraints, no point should take more than a minute and thirty seconds to explain.

In CDA extemp, it's not uncommon for an aff case to contain a contention asserting that the resolution will save taxpayers money and for negative's case to contain a contention claiming the opposite. Since parli is shorter, there's no time to handle those contentions separately, so parli debaters deal with them as one issue. If side government runs a point about saving money and the opposition prepared a point arguing the opposite, the opposition must deliver that response as an answer to the government, not as a part of their own case.

So here's what this means, opposition cases are composed exclusively of independent points, that is to say issues NOT raised by side government. As such, it is perfectly normal for side opp to only have one or two independent points in a round.

For example if side government argues that we should abandon capital punishment to save money, to spare the lives of those wrongly convicted, once the opposition was done answering those points, they would transition to their own case, offering the ideas of N1. deterrence and N2. retributive justice as independent points.

There is also a specialized type of independent point that opp can make that deserves some consideration. Sometimes opp team offer a better path to achieving the objectives of the government. If that path is incompatible with the resolution, it is a counter-case. Here's how APDA explains it: "The opposition may elect, in their first constructive only, to propose a counter case. This case should be different from the status quo (the current situation in the world) and must be mutually exclusive with the Government's case. Mutually exclusive means that one could not do both what the Government and the Opposition propose. If, for example, the Government proposed that we legalize drugs, then the Opposition could propose that we switch strategy in the drug war while leaving drugs illegal. One cannot legalize drugs and have a war on illegal drugs at the same time. The Opposition could not, however, propose that we educate the public about the harms of drug use, because education can be done regardless of whether drugs are illegal. If the Opposition proposes a non-mutually exclusive counter-case, they will not gain credit for any arguments that stem from that case. Sometimes, the Opposition may propose a case which is not mutually exclusive by itself, but then demonstrate why the Opposition case will work better than the Government case or the Government case plus the counter-case. The Opposition has demonstrated that its case is superior to the Government case and that the Government case should not be adopted. Judges should allow this strategy. In the above example, the Opposition could say that education will solve most of the problems that legalizing drugs would. That would be non-mutually exclusive, so the judge should not credit the Opposition team for that type of counter-case. If the Opposition team argued, however, that education was more effective when drugs were illegal and that legalization did not solve any problems that education could not solve alone, then the Opposition would have presented arguments against the Government case that proved that the counter-case was preferable to the status-quo or a combination of the government and counter-case. That argument would aid the Opposition considerably."

I recommend that you run counter cases as your third independent point, flagging it as 'there are better alternatives to the government's resolution.' That way you can debate them from both the standpoint of the status quo and from a different resolution. So if the judge doesn't believe your cp is better, you can still win arguing that no change is better than the res.

5. Rhetoric: There is a greater emphasis on fluency, civility, entertainment, and ceremony in parli than in CDA extemp. Almost all speakers begin their talk by thanking "Mr. (or Madame Speaker…" and their "honorable opponents on the other side of the house." Action on the resolution is often referred to using phrases like "this house believes," "if this house were unwise enough to support the motion before us," and "I ask the speaker to imagine the benefits if this house were to implement the resolution." If you know your opponents, you could say something like, "our friends on the other side of the house have unfortunately been mislead into believing that…"

Parli judges tend to reward sincere, witty, and passionate speaking. So at the end of your speeches, it's not uncommon to say something like. "and for all the aforementioned reasons concerning the well being of our money, our children, and our collective moral conscience, madame speaker, we are proud to oppose."

6. Speech times: As a general rule, parli debates are noticeably shorter than CDA extemporaneous, DANEIS switch sides, or NFL public forum styles. Nevertheless, DANEIS, Yale, the CDA, and APDA each have different numbers, sequences and lengths of speeches and you can scroll below to see them laid out for you. But one thing they all have in common is 'grace time,' the ability for speakers to go thirty seconds beyond the stated time without interruption.

7. Rising on Points: There is no cross examination period in parli. Instead debaters are allowed to spontaneously rise during their opponents constructive speeches to raise issues. There are several different types, each with their own rules:

PoI, Point of Information: If you have a killer cross-ex question you're dying to ask, make it into a PoI. This is the post common point to raise during a round. To make a PoI, rise holding one hand out with the other on the back of your head to keep your invisible wig from falling off. Wait for your opponent to call on you or for them to wave you down. You typically cannot ask redirecting questions, so make sure the first sentence out of your mouth gets right to the heart of the matter. PoIs are allowed in all leagues we compete in with DANEIS finally getting on board in 2014.

Also, one your opponent has accepted two or three PoIs, it is considered rude to demand more. Conversely, refusing to accept any PoIs makes you look weak.

Lastly, PoIs cannot be introduced during protected time, that is to say the first minute of a constructive or during rebuttal. Experienced judges will knock on a table or desk to signal that protected time has ended. The clock doesn't stop for PoIs, so when you accept them, keep track of your speech time.

Here's how APDA explains it: "During the PMC, LOC, MG, MO debaters may rise to ask the debater who is speaking a question or insert a short statement. The procedure for this is as follows:

1. The debater who wishes to ask a Point of Information (PoI) rises from his or her seat, places one hand on top of his or her head and extends his or her other arm to signal that he or she has a point.

2. The debater who is speaking may choose to recognize the point or not. If the debater does not want to recognize the point, he or she simply says "No thank you," or waves the questioner off. The questioner then sits down. A debater may not simply interrupt if his or her point is not taken.

3. If the debater who is speaking recognizes the point, then he or she says "On that point" and allows the questioner to give their point. At any time, the debater whose speech it is may stop the PoI and tell the questioner to sit down.

The debater who is speaking does not have to recognize or refuse the point immediately. She/he can leave the questioner standing until it is convenient for the debater who is speaking to indicate whether the point will be entertained. Some debaters ask a special form of PoI called a point of clarification. Clarification means that a debater does not understand the case or a particular argument. If possible, the speaker should try to answer the clarification to ensure a confusion-free debate round. Do not abuse the idea of clarification by asking too many clarification questions or disguising arguments as clarification."

Hint google "pmq" on the youtubes. David Cameron and Tony Blair are masters.

PoC, Point of Clarification: This from APDA... "Clarification means that a debater does not understand the case or a particular argument. If possible, the speaker should try to answer the clarification to ensure a confusion-free debate round. Do not abuse the idea of clarification by asking TOO MANY (emphasis added) clarification questions or disguising arguments as clarification." The clock stops during PoCs. I've also seen some debaters deliberately pause after definitions and formally invite PoCs from the opposition. I think that's a good idea since it shows that you're organized and that you are civil. DANEIS vacillates on whether or not PoCs are permitted.

PoO, Point of Order: In some rare instances the other side cheats, and in Parli you get to call them on it. This again from APDA, "A point of order is raised when a competitor believes that one of the rules of debate is being broken. There are two circumstances during a debate round under which a debater should raise a point of order. The first is when the debater who is speaking has exceeded her/his grace period, speaking more than 30 seconds beyond the time limit. If you're timing your opponent, and you notice they've gone 45 over, you should rise on a PoO if and only if the speaker hasn't started to 'pound them down.'

DANEIS vacillates on whether or not PoOs are permitted.

The second is when a debater introduces a new argument during one of the two rebuttal speeches. The procedure for either point is as follows:

1. The debater rises from his or her seat and says "Point of Order."
2. The debater who is speaking stops their speech.
3. The debater who rose on the point indicates what rules violation they are raising the point on by saying "the speaker is overtime" or "the speaker just made the new argument _____ which is new in rebuttal."
4. The speaker of the round, who has been judging the debate, will rule the point "Well Taken" or "Not Well Taken." A well taken point means that the speaker must conclude their speech if they are over time or that the new point will not be considered as it was offered during a rebuttal. A not well taken point means that the speaker disagrees with the point and will allow the debater to go on speaking or will consider the argument as not being new. The speaker, not the debater who is speaking, may also rule the point "under consideration," which means that the speaker will determine whether the point is true at a later time. "Under consideration" only applies to new arguments in rebuttal, not to time limits"

PPP, Point of Personal Privilege: Hopefully you'll never need one of these, but if you're truly being egregiously abused by your opponents, it's the thing to do. Again from APDA, "These are almost never used. Do not rise on a point of personal privilege unless you have been deeply insulted on a personal level by an intentional attack on your person. The procedure for a point of personal privilege is:

1. Rise and say, "Point of personal privilege."
2. The speaker will say "Point well taken" or "Point not well taken."
3. The debate continues, while the speaker notes down any serious offenses.

Points of Personal Privilege may also be used for a personal emergency. DANEIS vacillates on whether or not PPPs are permitted.

Note: Speakers will take into consideration extremely rude behavior without any debater raising a point, so there is no need to do so."

Heckling: Some parli events allow debaters to rise and make spontaneous, humorous asides during their opponent's speeches. But heckling is risky business for anyone who isn't both English and funny. Americans usually look like asses when they try it. Unless you've memorized a substantial portion of Monty Python's oeuvre, been repeatedly bullied at a British public school, or have successfully done stand up improv comedy, you're almost certainly not qualified to heckle. You'll look incredibly rude and immature when your heckles misfire, and you'll probably lose as a consequence, too. Just ask South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson, whose heckle of the 2009 State of the Union Address went 0-3, being deemed rude and unfunny, being formally censured, and declared factually wrong.

But if you sincerely believe that you've got the right stuff, you still should not try it more than once per round. If you land one, making the speaker and your opponents smile and/or laugh, thank your lucky stars.

And we do have some local talent to consult on this issue. And despite being native-born Americans, Mr. Powers and Mr. Angell are renowned among the Barlow faculty for their ability to heckle without giving offense. Consult them for advice. DANEIS vacillates on whether or not heckling is permitted.

8. Thumping and 'Hear, hear!': Sometimes in a good parli round when a debater says something particularly rousing and truthful, it's not uncommon for their partner, their opponents, and even the speaker to beat the desks with their fists and declare "hear, hear!" or "hear him" just like MPs do in the House of Commons. Some speakers will do this at the conclusion of every speech.

I've seen that it is often hard for Americans to imagine why any debater should wish to encourage their opponents, but there are many reasons. Cheering your opponents shows love for the game, that you value good debate more than you do winning and losing. And speakers generally look favorably on good sportsmanship and reward debaters who act charitably to their opponents, treating them as if they are principles and sincere people who, like you and your partner, want what's best - but who, Mister Speaker, I regret to point out happen to be tragically mistaken about the capacity of this resolution to achieve what both sides value (e.g. justice, peace, freedom, prosperity, equality, etc.).

Conversely, never hiss or "boo" at your opponents, as the MPs in the Commons sometimes do when they hear something that displeases them greatly. Some parli debaters do it, too, but they almost always lose.

2. Parli League Rules:

As I've repeatedly mentioned above, different parli leagues have their own conventions and traditions in addition to everything I've mentioned above...

DANEIS Parliamentary Debate (DANEIS)

This private school league sponsors several of parli events that are subtly different from the types offered by Yale at the Osterweis tournament and the system used by college debaters. Each event has its own scoring scale and subtle variations. But for all their tournaments, here's the sequence of speeches:

Prime Minister - 5 minute constructive

Member of the Opposition - 8 minute speech

Minister of the Crown - 8 minute speech

Leader of the Opposition - 8 minute speech

Prime Minister - 3 minute rebuttal

DANEIS tournaments usually offer competition for two divisions, advanced (instead of varsity) and novice.

DANEIS parli rounds begin with a coin flip. The side that wins gets to either choose the resolution or the side. If the winners opt for resolution, they pick it and then their opponents announce the side they're taking. If the winners opt to pick side, they wait for their opponents to select a resolution before choosing to 'gov' or 'opp.'

As soon as these choices are made, the ten or fifteen minute prep period begins with the opposition typically leaving the room to work in the hall.

DANEIS events vary as to whether or not they allow PoCs, PoOs, PPPs, or heckling. Someone always asks about this during the meeting before rounds begin, so pay attention to the answers. If you learn that rising on points is not allowed, the wise debater knows how to work around it. He or she builds them into their own speeches in something like this: "If we are to preserve capital punishment as the opposition has argued that we should, they must answer the following question: What would they do if they learned that they executed someone who is later found to be innocent? If they cannot establish that there's some consideration on their side of the house that gives the state the power to take innocent lives, they must provide it in their next speech."

CDA Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary debate is popular at the college level in the US, and the primary form of debate outside of the US. The sequence and timing of the speeches differs from CDA extemporaneous debate, but these are relatively minor. Like CDA debate it is extemporaneous in that debaters have limited time and materials to prepare their arguments. CDA debaters have done well at Parliamentary format tournaments held by Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania.

CDA parli varies from DANEIS and Yale styles in three important ways. FIrst, the motions are thematically related to materials provided in a packet. Second, the speeches are generally a bit longer than other parli styles, but they are shorter than CDA extemp, so consequently there will be four preliminary rounds instead of three at CDA parli tournaments before a final round is announced. Third, CDA parli preserves the hour of prep time at the beginning of the tournament where students will build cases for all three resolutions.

Just like in DANEIS, CDA parli rounds begin with a coin flip. The side that wins gets to either choose the resolution or the side. If the winners opt to select the resolution, they announce their choice and then their opponents announce the side they're taking. If the winners opt to pick the side, they wait for their opponents to select a resolution before choosing to 'gov' or 'opp.' CDA parli speeches have 30s of grace time and PoI, PoC, and PoO are allowed.

FYI, the CDA league director, Everett Rutan, offers a week-long summer debate camp in the parli style at Dartmouth every summer. Our own Evan Streams '09 coached it and Emma Thomas '17 attended last year and won the tournament. If you're interested, contact them and talk to Emma.

Prime Minister's Constructive, PMC - 7

Leader of the Opposition's Constructive, LOC - 8

Member of the Government's Constructive, MGC - 8

Member of the Opposition's Constructive, MOC - 8

Leader of the Opposition's Rebuttal, LOR - 4

Prime Minister's Rebuttal, PMR - 5

Below are some files explaining Parliamentary format and how it will be conducted in CDA:

• APDA training resources. Really good stuff, here.
• Parli Videos (website)

Yale-Osterweis Parliamentary Debate

The Yale Debate Association (YDA) has sponsored a tournament in April for high school students for several decades. In recent years, they've also offered parli at The Yale Invitational, a full weekend event they put on in late September. And every year since 2005, Barlow has competed at Yale in the Osterweis Tournament and brought home some hardware. In fact, one Osterweis Champion from Barlow, Alyssa Bilinski '09 is one of the YDA's most esteemed members.

Yale parli events up to this point have not separated fields for varisty and novices, so some unlucky freshmen always end up facing some tough seniors. Yale does, however, keep track of who the novices are and give awards to the ones who manage the best scores. And speaking of scoring, at Osterweis the scale they use is between 27 and 25 with half points. If speakers go higher or lower, they have to justify their decision to the officials in the tab room.

Historically, they've always encouraged debaters to rise on points. Lately, they've also offered three resolutions per round, requiring the coin flip ritual similar to DANEIS. But they have never required or allow redefinition of resolutions, but you would be wise to have some idea about what specific policy you're advocating for on side gov. Also note that in recent years that the number of speeches and their length have followed the APDA model:

Prime Minister's Constructive, PMC - 7

Leader of the Opposition's Constructive, LOC - 8

Member of the Government's Constructive, MGC - 8

Member of the Opposition's Constructive, MOC - 8

Leader of the Opposition's Rebuttal, LOR - 4

Prime Minister's Rebuttal, PMR - 5

One option that exists for government teams at Yale is the ability to list definitions or factually describe a model off the clock, prior to the beginning to the PMC. Make sure to not to present any arguments, only a dispassionate description of the motion.

And after you graduate, you can move on to the big leagues joining several distinguished Barlow alums....

American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA)

College parli ups the ante over high school competition in several respects. In this league, students from many of the world's most elite universities and colleges travel across the country and into Canada to compete. Government gets to prepare and run a case for whatever unannounced topic they want and opp has to be able to deal with it with no prep time. They also get longer speeches and all the judges are college kids. Humor, risk taking, incivility, oratory, and colorful language often figure more prominently in college debate than in high schools styles. Several Barlow Debate alums have distinguished themselves in this league, among them Alyssa Bilinski '09, Cary Glynn '09, Matt Gombos '10, Eilise Brennan '10, Nicolò Marzaro '13, and Ben Lewson '13.

Parli Strategy... You would be wise to discuss and reflect on these issues as you practice...

1. Speaker adaptation...

2. Use PoC to get gov to commit...

3. "MO dumping"...

4. LOR strategy...

5. Transition to rebuttal in DANEIS LOCs...

5. PMR rebuild…