Life after CDA

What is Parliamentary Debate?

Parliamentary debate is an off-topic, extemporaneous form of competitive debate which stresses rigorous argumentation, logical analysis, quick thinking, breadth of knowledge, and rhetorical ability over preparation of evidence. It is patterned after the style of platform debate first made famous at Oxford University. The format pits two two-person teams against each other in a contest of argument, wit and rhetoric which roughly simulates debate in a House of Parliament. The Government (proposing) team prepares and presents a case for debate based on a topic or resolution announced only 15 minutes before the beginning of the round. The Opposition attempts to rebut the Government's proposal through counter-argument and refutation. The use of recorded evidence during the debate round is prohibited. A different resolution is debated in every parliamentary debate round. Resolutions are chosen from a wide variety of political, philosophical, economic, cultural and humorous topics, and debaters often have a broad scope in which to define the specific case for debate which is drawn from the resolution. Hundreds of colleges and universities in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and over thirty other nations participate in parliamentary debate. It is the fastest-growing form of intercollegiate debate in the world.

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 drug abuse education in high schools is counterproductive in preventing teen drug addiction.

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. 

An example of how choosing a resolution/ leading up to debate works:

All debaters will go to their rooms after pairings are read, where judges will read the three resolutions. Then:
1. There will be a coin flip.
2. The winner of the coin flip will decide whether that team would like to pick resolution or side.
3. The resolution will be chosen.
4. The team that did not choose the resolution will choose their desired side.
5. Each time has 15 minutes to prep.

Speakers & Timing

During each debate there are two teams: the government team, which defends the resolution and the opposition team, which opposes the resolution. On each team, one debater is the lead speaker and the other is the member. The leader delivers the opening and closing speeches for their team. The member presents the middle speech. For the Government, the leader is known as the Prime Minister (PM) and the member is called the Member of Government (MG). On the Opposition team, the debaters are the Leader of Opposition (LO) and the Member of Opposition (MO).The structure is as follows (can vary based on tournament, but at Yale):

Each team will have twelve minutes in total to speak, divided as follows:
Prime Minister's Constructive (PMC) - Four minutes
Leader of the Opposition's Constructive (LOC) - Five minutes
Member of Government's Constructive (MG) - Five minutes
Member of Opposition's Constructive (MO) - Five minutes
Leader of the Opposition's Rebuttal (LOR) - Two minutes
Prime Minister's Rebuttal (PMR) - Three minutes

In parliamentary debate, new arguments may only be made in constructive speeches, the first four speeches of the round. Judges will ignore new arguments made in the final two rebuttal speeches. The purpose of a rebuttal speech is to sum up the round and explain why one's side won the debate.

Points of Information

During any constructive speech, either debater from the team that is not speaking may stand to ask a Point of Information. This is a question designed to advance one's own arguments or undercut those of the opponent. For example, if the Prime Minister argues in a debate about vegetarianism that human suffering and animal suffering should be weighed equally, a good Point of Information would be, "So you would also ban all animal testing?" This shows the intuitive problem with the argument.

The speaker may choose to take the Point of Information or to wave the questioner back to his or her seat.

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.