This slide is left intentionally blank

British Parliamentary Debate: Composition & Team Roles w/

some fallacies
British Parliamentary
-Brief description -Composition -Some Debate Jargons -Team Roles -Speakers -Amphibology -Argument by Rhetorical Question -Complex Question -Argumentum ad hominem -Argumentum ad nauseam -Argumentum ad metum -Tu quoque

Fallacies

British Parliamentary

1. Common form of academic debate 2. Gained support in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Philippines, etc. 3. Named as such due to its vague resemblance to the debates that occur in the British Parliament

The British Parliamentary Debate Format

Four (4) Teams, consists of Two (2) Members/Speakers, Chair Person Panel of Adjudicators

Composition

Structure of the British Parliamentary Debate

The Government
(favors the resolution)

The Opposition
(against the resolution)

Opening Government * Prime Minister

* Deputy Prime Minister

Opening Opposition * Leader of Opposition

* Deputy Leader of Opposition

Closing Government * Member of Government

* Government Whip

Closing Opposition * Member of Opposition

* Opposition Whip

About the Structure: Each team is competing against each other. Each team is tasked to give a unique case and

a unique set of arguments.

Teams belonging to the same side must not

contradict each other- even if they are trying to beat each other.
The BP format requires responsiveness and

creativity.

The Order of Speeches: Opening Government Prime Minister Deputy Prime Minister Closing Government Member of Government Government Whip Opening Opposition Leader of Opposition Deputy Leader of Opposition Closing Opposition Member of Opposition Opposition Whip

The Opening Teams (OG and OO) are all constructive speakers.
Constructive Speakers: Their main burden is to give a positive case. To
prove an idea or a stand.

They must give rebuttals, but it is not their main burden.

The Closing Teams (CG and CO) have one Extension Speaker and one Whip speaker.
Extension Speakers: Their main burden is to give a positive case that is based on the case of their opening house. Their case must be different in terms of, depth of analysis, idea developed and arguments. Whips: Their main burden is to give negative cases. To prove that their opponents arguments were wrong. They also need to prove why their team is right.


Motion Definition Case Clash Extension Knifing Points of Information

Points of Information (POIs):

Must be no more than 15

POIs can be:

1. A clarification 2. A direct rebuttal Can only be raised between:

seconds long

It is the discretion of the

person speaking whether to recognize the point or not

Each speaker must accept

2nd and 6th Minute

at least two points of information per speech

Roles of the Team

Opening Government
Defines the terms of the debate Opens a contentious case for the Government

Motion
it is the proposition which the Government side is supposed to defend.

Definition
Have a direct link to the motion Be fair and debatable Identify the issues to be debated and the scope of the debate (criteria or standard) Include parameters when necessary Bad or illegal definitions are usually challenged: -truisms -squirrels -time/place sets

TRUISM - Literally a Truism is a statement that is, by definition, unarguably true.

SQUIRREL a mode of defining a debate which is not really related to the motion, or is an acceptable interpretation, but is unfairly beneficial to one side.

TIME/PLACE Sets Defining a motion to contextualize the debate only for a specific time or a specific place (that is otherwise not relevant historically or currently) because the side happens to have expert knowledge of that time and place.

Case
Should be linked to the resolution (must be within the spirit of the resolution) Must be contentious

Contentious Case

Be it resolved that euthanasia be legalized.

The proposition will argue that doctors in the UK should be allowed to administer lethal drugs to terminally ill patients. The proposition will argue that senior citizens should be confined to homes for the aged for they can be an impediment to the able workforce.

Be it resolved that North Korea be bombed

We believe that the US and its allies should bomb North Korea now to halt its production of nuclear weapons We believe that food shipments and medical commodity to North Korea be halted to forced Kim Jung Un to step down from his seat.

Tautological Cases

The Sun rises in the morning. Davao is in Mindanao. There are 7 days in a week.

Truistic Cases

Adolf Hitler is a bad person.

Opening Opposition
Opposes the case of the Opening Government Opens the case for the Opposition

Clash
A case that directly goes against the case of the government The first and most important role of the opposition

The Clash: Validity of a Clash.

A clash is valid when it is negating in essence, but positive and

substantial in context.

The clash must be adopted by all speakers in the opposition bench.

Net Value of the Case:

Both Cases (government and opposition) must have

Net Values.

Net Benefits
Net Detriments

The Net Value (-)

Net Detriments
Value Neutral

(+)
Net Benefits

Our case is better because it solves a very important problem Their case will not solve the problem

Their case makes the problem/situation worse

Constructive Arguments
- help succeeding speakers

(Government and Opposition)

Closing Teams

Extension of their respective case Opposes the each others cases Summarizes the debate

Extension
Bringing in new practical/philosophical arguments Focusing on an already mentioned argument and expanding on it significantly This is also the time where you can make a good argument better or bad argument worst.

when speaker disagrees from the points raised from their side
Not recommended

Knifing

Roles of the Members

OG

OO

CG

CO

JUDGES


Prime Minister
Defines the terms or concepts in the debate Comes up with a way of implementing the motion (this is called as the mechanism) States and analyses the main points in favour of the Government bench.

Leader of the Opposition

Points out the problems with the motion Challenges the definition which the Prime Minister may have given (This action is unique to the LO) Rebuts and explains what is wrong with the government case States and analyses the main points in favour of the Opposition bench.


The Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Rebuts and explains the flaws of the arguments presented by the opposing teams.
Repairs any holes in their partner's case made by the opposing teams States and analyzes some new points in the debate


The Member of Government and the Member of the opposition
Extends the cases of their respective teams Are encouraged not to knife their complementary opening team unless what theyre saying blatantly disagrees with what youre espousing and this is the only way that you can salvage your side of the round (this, however, can have a negative factor on you on the adjudication process so, stick to the script) Rebuts and explains what the flaws are of the opposing teams arguments


The Government Whip
the spin doctor of the Government it is their job to explain why their side of the argument wins and why specifically their partner won their side of the debate. Rebuts what the MO said

may introduce new contentions, but its not generally recommended


The Opposition Whip
The spin doctor of the Opposition it is their job to explain why their side of the argument wins and why specifically their partner won their side of the debate Rebuts what the Government Whip had said Absolutely no new contentions may be introduced, but new evidence in support of existing contentions may be introduced (so if the motion is to ban the eating of pork, and no one has mentioned the excruciating effect the ban may have on some people, then the whips cannot bring that case on their speech too bad)

Fallacies of Debate

Amphibology
A fallacy when there is miscommunication due to the grammatical error.

Argument by rhetorical question

A fallacy where question is structured to get a particular answer.

POOR KID. WAS HE ALWAYS STUPID?

Plurium Interrogationum
(complex question)

A fallacy when a question is structured to assume something to be true, where the presumed thing true hasnt been established.

Argumentum ad hominem
(argument directed at the person)

A fallacy when the speaker is attacked instead of the idea.

Argumentum ad nauseam
(argument to the point of disgust)

A fallacy when a particular idea is being said, again and again , in manner that doesnt add value to an argument.

(argument from adverse consequences)

Argumentum ad metum

A combination of several logical fallacies designed to play to the fears of an audience

Tu quoque
(You too)

A fallacy that takes the heat off the accused having to defend themselves and shifts the focus back onto the accuser themselves