Speaker Roles in Asian Parliamentary Debate [Edit Edit]]
Government: Prime Minister (PM) •
• •
• •
Define context and parameters of debate. For example, in an open motion like "This House Would Support Musicians", the debate could be contextualized into whether music should be a commodity for trade, or it should be available gratis (i.e. free music download and transfer) Provide concise background or history leading to the issue Give framework of government bench's case. I.e. mechanisms (if any), argumentation flow (what the government's first argument is and what the Deputy Prime Minister will talk about) Introduce 1st argument Assert Government stand
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) • • • •
Rebut first argument from Leader of Opposition Rebut rebuttals to PM's argument Introduce 2nd and 3rd argument Reassert Government stand and case
Government Whip • • • • • •
Rebut Deputy Leader of Opposition, and Leader of Opposition Rebut rebuttals to DPM and PM arguments Provide a deeper level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals No new arguments, but new angles of arguments should be given Brief summary of entire case of Government Reassert Government stand and case
[Edit Edit]]
Opposition: Leader of Opposition
•
• •
• •
Agree or disagree with context/ parameters of debate (any definitional challenges, accusations of squirreling, or unfair set up should be made from the LO speech and no later) Rebut Prime Minister's argument Give framework for Opposition case (if Opp agrees to problem, then their case should provide solution, or at least effectively highlight how Government proposal will worsen the situation) Introduce first Opposition argument Assert Opposition stand
Deputy Leader of Opposition • • • •
Rebut DPM and PM arguments Rebut rebuttals to LO arguments Introduce 1st and 2nd (if any) argument Reassert Opposition stand and case
Opposition Whip • • • • •
Rebut DPM and PM arguments Rebut rebuttals to LO & DLO arguments Provide a deeper level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals No new arguments, but new angles of arguments should be given Reassert Opposition stand and case
[Edit Edit]]
Reply Speech: • • •
•
•
Can only be done by either 1st or 2nd speaker from each bench Provide a biased 'oral adjudication' of why the debate should go to own bench Highlight issues you think your side won, carefully tiptoe around issues you think you lost New examples to expand on discussed examples is usually allowed and makes the reply speech sound fresh as opposed to verbal regurgitation Reassert stand
--Most importantly, try to have fun while you're doing all this. ;)
Strategies & Tips for Limited Preparation Debating [Edit Edit]]
Read Widely Even just skimming a few international news websites, like BBC news, news, Al Jazeera or The or The New York Times will help keep you abreast of international issues. If you have a computer, set one of these sites as your homepage so that global g lobal issues "sink in" each time you open your browser. A great weekly read for sheer breadth is the The Economist. Economist.
[Edit Edit]]
Research Timely Issues If there is an issue that is dominating the news and you have a debate tournament coming up, you can be sure that there will be a motion on that topic. Split tasks with your partners and teammates and create briefs on these issues before the tournament so that everyone can be up to speed. Keep these briefs throughout the year so that you can update them as events change.
[Edit Edit]]
Research Key Countries and Organizations Some countries are global players and will enter nearly any international debate in which you find yourself. Being even passingly familiar with the political structures and current situations of these countries - or groups of countries - can help you win debates. Some good places to start are: China China,, the US US,, Russia Russia,, the EU and Japan Japan.. International organizations, especially the UN UN,, feature prominently in many debates as well. Knowing the decision-making machinery of these organizations, their jurisdiction and their activities will help you immensely. In addition to the UN, you may want to look into NATO into NATO,, ASEAN ASEAN,, the WTO and the G8 G8.. [Edit Edit]]
Use IDEA's Free Resources Debatepedia (the wiki you are on right now) is a free resource open to anyone with internet access. It is a great place to get a sense of an issue and begin constructing arguments. You may want to dig deeper into important events and controversies, but with thousands of articles, Debatepedia is a good place to start.
Asian Parliamentary Debate Teams:
There two opposing teams in an Asians format of debate: 1. Government side- proposes and defends the motion; 2. Opposition side- refute and negates the motion. Each each side is composed of three members. The Members of the government side are the following: 1. Prime minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances arguments; 2. Deputy prime Minister(DPM)- refute at first instance the case of the opposition, re-establish the government's claim, and advances arguments; 3. Government whip(GW)- makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition's case and summarizes the case of the government. The Members of the Opposition side are the following: 1. Leader of the Opposition(LO)Opp osition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the government by giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge the motion if the definition d efinition is challengeable; 2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition(DPL)Op position(DPL)- refutes the case of the DPM, reestablishes the case of the opposition, and advances an argument; 3. Opposition Whip (OW)- makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government's and summarizes the case of the opposition. Time of Speeches:
Each speaker is allocated seven minutes to deliver their constructive speeches. One speaker from each side (For the Government:PM/DPM, for Opposition:LO/DLO) is given four minutes to deliver a reply speech. The speakers speake rs will be speaking in the following order: 1. Prime Minister 2. Leader of the opposition 3. Deputy Prime Minister 4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Op position 5. Government Whip 6. Opposition whip 7. Opposition Reply
8. Government Reply During the constructive speeches, Point of Information (POI) may be raised by the opposing side after the first minute up to the sixth minute. POI may be refused or accepted by the speaker. During reply speeches, no POI may be raised. Reply Speech:
Reply speech is a comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of both sides. The aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why should the people support the team's claim. The speech is first delivered by the opposition side and followed by the government side who will close the debate. Matter, Manner, Method:
Asian Parliamentary Debate is assessed by an Adjudicator Panel composed of an odd number according to the following criteria: 1. Matter (40)- substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented, and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments. 2. Manner (40)- the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of the debaters. 3. Method (20)- the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance of the rules of debate.
Overview of Asian Parliamentary Debate In Asian Parliamentary Style, there are 2 teams - Government and Op position. Each team has 3 members and each team gives 4 speeches. The format is a limited preparation format, meaning that the topic is announced, depending on the tournament, roughly 30 minutes before the debate. The 3 members of the Government should defend the motion. The 3 members of the team, each of which gives a 7 minute speech, are: • • •
1) Prime Minister 2) Deputy Prime Minister 3) Government Whip
One speaker from the Government team - either the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister - is charged with giving a 4 minute reply speech that clarifies the debate from the Government perspective without bringing forth new arguments. The 3 members of the Opposition team should negate the motion and refute arguments brought forth by the Government. The 3 members of the team, each of which gives a 7 minute speech, are:
• • •
1) Leader of Opposition 2) Deputy Leader of Opposition 3) Opposition Whip
Like the Government team, one speaker from the Opposition team - either the Leader of Opposition or Deputy Leader of Opposition - is charged with giving a 4 minute reply speech that clarifies the debate from the Opposition perspective without bringing forth n ew arguments. In the 7 minute speeches, the opposing team can stand up and ask for Points of Information (POI) after the first minute and until the sixth minute. A POI should be a brief question or comment and not a long-winded monologue or back and forth cross examination session. A complete list of Debatepedia articles related to this topic can be found at Category:Asian Parliamentary Debate.
Times and Order of Asian Parliamentary Debate Speeches •
Prime Minister - 7 minutes
•
Leader of Opposition - 7 minutes
•
Deputy Prime Minister - 7 minutes
•
Deputy Leader of Opposition - 7 minutes
•
Government Whip - 7 minutes
•
Opposition Whip - 7 minutes
•
Opposition Reply Speech - 4 minutes
•
Government Reply Speech - 4 minutes
Asian Parliamentary Debate format sreda, 09 januar 2008 # of people in the debate: 6 # of people in a team: 3
# of teams in the debate: 2 Duration of the speeches: Constructive and whip speeches 7 minutes, replies 4 minutes Questions format: Points of information This debate format is mainly used in the Asia (news Sherlock :D) and is also the basics of the World schools debate format. The speakers speak in the following order: Prime minister Leader of opposition Deputy prime minister Deputy leader of opposition Government whip Opposition whip All these speeches are seven minutes long. Prime minister presents the case, Leader of opp presents its own arguments and rebuttals the gov's, Deputy PM has also his own argument(s) and makes some rebuttal, of course he/she should not forget that she has to speak about the arguments of the PM and reafirm them. Deputy leader of opp has the same task, meaning new argument(s), rebuttal, own previous arguments. The government whip is allowed to present "new matter" but is advised not to, and the opp whip is not allowed to do that. Now follow two reply speeches, first the oppositional and then the governmental reply. The speeches are given by the first or the second speaker from each side. The speeches should focus on the great ideas, arguments, clashes in the debate and present them.
Parliamentary debate From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Parliamentary Debate is an academic debate event. Many university level institutions in English speaking nations sponsor parliamentary debate teams, but the format is currently spreading to the high school and poo poo poo levels as well. Despite the name, the Parliamentary style is not related to debates in governmental parliaments.
Contents [hide]
•
1 British Parliamentary Debate 2 Parliamentary Debate Books 3 American Parliamentary Debate 4 World Schools Style 5 See also
•
6 External links
• • •
•
[edit] British Parliamentary Debate Main article: British Parliamentary Style British Parliamentary Debate is very widespread, and has gained major support in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Europe, Africa, Philippines and United States. It has also been adopted as the official style of the World Universities Debating Championship and the European Universities Debating Championship (at which the speakers are given only fifteen minutes' notice of the motion). Speeches are usually between five and seven minutes in duration. The debate consists of four teams of two speakers, sometimes called factions, with two teams on either side of the case. Because of the style's origins in British parliamentary procedure, the two sides are called the Government and Opposition, while the speakers take their titles from those of their parliamentary equivalents (such as the opening Government speaker, called the Prime Minister ). Furthermore, since this style is based on parliamentary debate, each faction is considered to be one of two parties in a coalition. They must therefore differentiate themselves from the other team on their side of the case in order to succeed in their own right. All speakers are expected to offer Points of Information (POIs) to their opponents. POIs are particularly important in British Parliamentary style, as it allows the first two teams to maintain their relevance during the course of the debate, and the last two teams to introduce their arguments early in the debate. The first and last minute of each speech is considered "protected time", during which no POI may be offered. Depending on the country, there are variations in speaking time, speaking order, and the number of speakers. For example, in New Zealand, both the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister offer a short summary as the last two speakers.
[edit] Parliamentary Debate Books
Robertson, Eric- Strategic Argumentation in Parliamentary Debate (available in hard copy, e book and in the Apple Ibookstore) http://parlidebatebook.info (direct purchase) or http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Argumentation-Parliamentary-DebateRobertson/dp/0557135370 The blog of Eric Robertson is http://ericjamesrobertson.com Meany, John- fArt, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate http://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Advocacy-MasteringParliamentary/dp/0970213077/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264153788&sr=1-2 Crossman, Mark- Burden of Proof http://www.amazon.com/Burden-Proof-IntroductionArgumentation-Parliamentary/dp/0759315841/ref=sr_1_1? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264153767&sr=1-1 Meany, John- On that point- An introduction to parliamentary debate http://www.amazon.com/That-Point-Introduction-ParliamentaryDebate/dp/0972054111/ref=pd_sim_b_2
[edit] American Parliamentary Debate American Parliamentary Debate is supported by a number of organizations in the United States at the tertiary and secondary levels. The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA), the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA), the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence (NPTE), the Lincoln Parliamentary League (LPL), and the National Forensic League (NFL), all offer collegiate parliamentary debate. This style consists of two teams, with the following speakers:
1. Government 1. Prime Minister (PM) 2. Member of the Government (MG) 2. Opposition 1. Leader of the Opposition (LO) 2. Member of the Opposition (MO) American Parliamentary style debating includes an additional speech from the Leader of each team, in which they are allowed additional time to respond to the opposing team's arguments and sum up their own case, but may not introduce new arguments. Therefore, the speaking order and timings of each debate is generally:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Prime Minister : 7 minutes Leader of the Opposition : 8 minutes Member of the Government : 8 minutes Member of the Opposition : 8 minutes Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal: 4 minutes Prime Minister Rebuttal : 5 minutes
As with any debating style, the individual timings may vary between organizations. In most variations on the style, Points of Information may be asked of the speaker during the first four speeches, except during the first and last minute of each speech (this is kn own as protected time). Under California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules, Points of Information are permitted in all six speeches. Depending on the variation of the style, the opposing team may interrupt the speaker during a Rebuttal Speech in order to offer one of two kinds of point: •
•
Points of Order , when the speaker is introducing a new argument during a rebuttal speech, or grossly mischaracterizing arguments. Points of Personal Privilege , when the speaker makes offensive claims or personal attacks.
The spirit of Parliamentary Debate is debate that can be taken to the streets. This means that it is easy to understand and educational to all at the same time, no matter the audience member's expertise of the resolution. The audience is encouraged to show their fervor during Parliamentary Debate. As in British Parliament, anyone in the room (excluding the judge) may cheer or hiss - alternatively, knock in approval or "shame" in disapproval - at any point during a round.
[edit] World Schools Style Main article: World Schools Style Debating This is a combination of the British Parliamentary and Australian formats, which results in a debate comprising eight speeches delivered by two three-member teams (the Proposition and the Opposition). Each speaker delivers an eight-minute speech - the first two are substansive matter and the third a rebuttal speech; then both teams deliver a "reply speech" lasting four minutes, with the last word being reserved for the Proposition. In junior debates, these limits are changed to about 5 minutes, and in some local competitions, speeches are 7 minutes. Between the end of the first and the beginning of the last minute of an eight-minute speech, the opposing party may offer "points of information". The speaker may refuse these, but should take at least one or two points during his or her speech. No points of order or Privilege are used. Topics can be supplied long in advance, or may be given 45 minutes or an hour before the debate begins. There is not much room for re-definition, and squirreling is strictly prohibited. The World Schools Debating Championships is attended by many countries, and is in this format. A similar format, with 7 minute speeched and Points-of-Information, is known as the Asian Parliamentary Format and is used by the United Asian Debating Championships
[edit] See also • •
•
Public debate International university debating o World Universities Debating Championship o American Parliamentary Debate Association o Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate o North American Debating Championship o North American Public Speaking Championship o National Parliamentary Debate Association o National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence International high school debating o World Schools Debating Championships o World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championship •
o •
Debate#Australia-Asia debateDebate
Other o
Spin room
Debat Dari Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas Belum Diperiksa
Langsung ke: navigasi, cari Debat adalah kegiatan adu argumentasi antara dua pihak atau lebih, baik secara perorangan maupun kelompok, dalam mendiskusikan dan memutuskan masalah dan perbedaan. Secara formal, debat banyak dilakukan dalam institusi legislatif seperti parlemen, terutama di negaranegara yang menggunakan sistem oposisi. Dalam hal ini, debat dilakukan menuruti aturan-aturan yang jelas dan hasil dari debat dapat dihasilkan melalui voting atau keputusan juri.
Contoh lain debat yang diselenggarakan secara formal adalah debat antar kandidat legislatif dan debat antar calon presiden/wakil presiden yang umum dilakukan menjelang pemilihan umum. Debat kompetitif adalah debat dalam bentuk permainan yang biasa dilakukan di tingkat sekolah dan universitas. Dalam hal ini, debat dilakukan sebagai pertandingan dengan aturan ("format") yang jelas dan ketat antara dua pihak yang masing-masing mendukung dan menentang sebuah pernyataan. Debat disaksikan oleh satu atau beberapa orang juri yang ditunjuk untuk menentukan pemenang dari sebuah debat. Pemenang dari debat kompetitif adalah tim yang berhasil menunjukkan pengetahuan dan kemampuan debat yang lebih baik.
Daftar isi [sembunyikan] •
1 Debat kompetitif dalam pendidikan o 1.1 Debat kompetitif di Indonesia o 1.2 Berbagai gaya debat parlementer 1.2.1 Australian Parliamentary/Australasian Parliamentary ("Australs") 1.2.2 Asian Parliamentary ("Asians") 1.2.3 British Parliamentary ("BP") 1.2.4 Format World Schools 1.2.5 American Parliamentary o 1.3 Debat kompetitif selain debat parlementer 1.3.1 Debat Proposal 1.3.2 Lincoln-Douglas Debate 2 Kegiatan lain yang serupa o 2.1 Model United Nations o 2.2 Moot court
•
•
3 Lihat pula
[sunting] Debat kompetitif dalam pendidikan Tidak seperti debat sebenarnya di parlemen, debat kompetitif tidak bertujuan untuk menghasilkan keputusan namun lebih diarahkan untuk mengembangkan kemampuankemampuan tertentu di kalangan pesertanya, seperti kemampuan untuk mengutarakan pendapat secara logis, jelas dan terstruktur, mendengarkan pendapat yang berbeda, dan kemampuan berbahasa asing (bila debat dilakukan dalam bahasa asing). Namun demikian, beberapa format yang digunakan dalam debat kompetitif didasarkan atas debat formal yang dilakukan di parlemen. Dari sinilah muncu l istilah "debat parlementer" sebagai salah satu gaya debat kompetitif yang populer. Ada berbagai format debat parlementer yang masingmasing memiliki aturan dan organisasinya sendiri. Kejuaraan debat kompetitif parlementer tingkat dunia yang paling diakui adalah World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC) dengan gaya British Parliamentary di tingkat universitas dan World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) untuk tingkat sekolah menengah atas. Kompetisi debat bertaraf internasional umumnya menggunakan bahasa Inggris sebagai pengantar. Tidak ada bantuan penerjemah bagi peserta manapun. Namun demikian, beberapa kompetisi memberikan penghargaan khusus kepada tim yang berasal dari negara-negara yang hanya menggunakan bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa kedua (English as Second Language - ESL).
Negara-negara yang terkenal dengan tim debatnya antara lain Inggris, Australia, Irlandia, dan Amerika Serikat. Di Asia, negara yang dianggap relatif kuat antara lain Filipina dan Singapura.
[sunting] Debat kompetitif di Indonesia Artikel Utama: Debat kompetitif di Indonesia Di Indonesia, debat kompetitif sudah mulai berkembang, walaupun masih didominasi oleh kompetisi debat berbahasa Inggris. Kejuaraan debat parlementar pertama di tingkat universitas adalah Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED) yang diselenggarakan tahun 1997 di Universitas Katolik Parahyangan, Bandung, dan diikuti oleh tim-tim dari berbagai wilayah di P. Jawa. Kejuaraan debat se-Indonesia yang pertama adalah Indonesian Varsity English Debate (IVED) 1998 di Universitas Indonesia. Hingga kini (2006), kedua kompetisi tersebut diselenggarakan setiap tahun secara bergilir di u niversitas yang berbeda. Sejak 2001, Indonesia telah mengirimkan delegasi ke WSDC. Delegasi tersebut dipilih setiap tahunnya melalui Indonesian Schools Debating Championship (ISDC) yang diselenggarakan oleh Departemen Pendidikan Nasional bekerjasama dengan Association for Critical Thinking (ACT).
[sunting] Berbagai gaya debat parlementer Dalam debat kompetitif, sebuah format mengatur hal-hal an tara lain: • • • • • • • • • •
jumlah tim dalam satu debat jumlah pembicara dalam satu tim giliran berbicara lama waktu yang disediakan untuk masing-masing pembicara tatacara interupsi mosi dan batasan-batasan pendefinisian mosi tugas yang diharapkan dari masing-masing pembicara hal-hal yang tidak boleh dilakukan oleh pembicara jumlah juri dalam satu debat kisaran penilaian
Selain itu, berbagai kompetisi juga memiliki aturan yang berbeda mengenai: •
•
•
penentuan topik debat (mosi) - apakah diberikan jauh hari sebelumnya atau hanya beberapa saat sebelum debat dimulai (impromptu ) lama waktu persiapan - untuk debat impromptu , waktu persiapan berkisar antara 15 menit (WUDC) hingga 1 jam (WSDC) perhitungan hasil pertandingan - beberapa debat hanya menggunakan victory point (VP) untuk menentukan peringkat, namun ada juga yang menghitung selisih (margin ) nilai yang diraih kedua tim atau jumlah vote juri (mis. untuk panel beranggotakan 3 juri, sebuah tim bisa menang 3-0 atau 21)
•
sistem kompetisi - sistem gugur biasanya hanya digunakan dalam babak elimiasi (perdelapan final, perempat final, semifinal dan final); dalam babak penyisihan, sistem yang biasa digunakan adalah power matching
Format debat parlementer sering menggunakan peristilahan yang biasa dipakai di debat parlemen sebenarnya: • •
•
• •
•
topik debat disebut mosi ( motion ) tim Afirmatif (yang setuju terhadap mosi) sering disebut juga Pemerintah (Government ), tim Negatif (yang menentang mosi) disebut Oposisi (Opposition) pembicara pertama dipanggil sebagai Perdana Menteri ( Prime Minister ), dan sebagainya pemimpin/wasit debat ( chairperson ) dipanggil Speaker of The House penonton/juri dipanggil Members of the House (Sidang Dewan yang Terhormat) interupsi disebut Points of Information (POI)
[ sunting ] Australian Parliamentary/Australasian Parliamentary ("Australs")
Gaya debat ini digunakan di Australia, namun pengaruhnya menyebar hingga ke kompetisikompetisi yang diselenggarakan di Asia, sehingga akhirnya disebut sebagai format Australasian Parliamentary. Dalam format ini, dua tim beranggotakan masing-masing tiga orang berhadapan dalam satu debat, satu tim mewakili Pemerintah (Government ) dan satu tim mewakili Oposisi (Opposition), dengan urutan sebagai berikut:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Pembicara pertama pihak Pemerintah - 7 menit Pembicara pertama pihak Oposisi - 7 menit Pembicara kedua pihak Pemerintah - 7 menit Pembicara kedua pihak Oposisi - 7 menit Pembicara ketiga pihak Pemerintah - 7 menit Pembicara ketiga pihak Oposisi - 7 menit Pidato penutup pihak Oposisi - 5 menit Pidato penutup pihak Pemerintah - 5 menit
Pidato penutup ( Reply speech) menjadi ciri dari format ini. Pidato penutup dibawakan oleh pembicara pertama atau kedua dari masing-masing tim (tidak boleh pembicara ketiga). Pidato penutup dimulai oleh Oposisi terlebih dahulu, ba ru Pemerintah. Mosi dalam format ini diberikan dalam bentuk pernyataan yang harus didukung oleh pihak Pemerintah dan ditentang oleh Pihak Oposisi, contoh: (This House believes that) Globalization marginalizes the poor.
(Sidang Dewan percaya bahwa) Globalisasi meminggirkan masyarakat miskin.
Mosi tersebut dapat didefinisikan oleh pihak Pemerintah dalam batasan-batasan tertentu dengan tujuan untuk memperjelas debat yang akan dilakukan. Ada aturan-aturan yang cukup jelas dalam hal apa yang boleh dilakukan sebagai bagian dari definisi dan apa yang tidak boleh dilakukan. Tidak ada interupsi dalam format ini. Juri (adjudicator ) dalam format Australs terdiri atas satu orang atau satu panel berjumlah ganjil. Dalam panel, setiap juri memberikan voting -nya tanpa melalui musyawarah. Dengan demikian, keputusan panel dapat bersifat unanimous ataupun split decision. Di Indonesia, format ini termasuk yang pertama kali dikenal sehingga cukup populer terutama di kalangan universitas. Kompetisi debat di Indonesia yang menggunakan format ini adalah Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED) dan Indonesian Varsity English Debate (IVED). [ sunting ] Asian Parliamentary ("Asians")
Format ini merupakan pengembangan dari format Australs dan digunakan dalam kejuaraan tingkat Asia. Perbedaannya dengan format Australs adalah a danya interupsi (Points of Information) yang boleh diajukan antara menit ke-1 dan ke-6 (hanya untuk pidato utama, tidak pada pidato penutup). Format ini juga mirip dengan World Schools Style yang digunakan di WSDC. Di Indonesia, format ini digunakan dalam ALSA English Competition (e-Comp) yang diselenggarakan (hampir) setiap tahun oleh ALSA LC [[Universitas Indonesia]. [ sunting ] British Parliamentary ("BP")
Gaya debat parlementer ini banyak dipakai di Inggris namun juga populer di banyak negara, sebab format inilah yang digunakan di kejuaraan dunia WUDC. Dalam format ini, empat tim beranggotakan masing-masing dua orang bertarung dalam satu debat, dua tim mewakili Pemerintah (Government ) dan dua lainnya Oposisi (Opposition), dengan susunan sebagai berikut: Opening Government: - Prime Minister - Deputy Prime Minister Closing Government: - Member of the Government - Government Whip
Opening Opposition: - Leader of the Opposition - Deputy Leader of the Opposition Closing Opposition: - Member of the Opposition - Opposition Whip
Urutan berbicara adalah sebagai berikut:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Prime Minister - 7 menit Leader of the Opposition - 7 menit Deputy Prome Minister - 7 menit Deputy Leader of the Opposition - 7 menit Member of the Government - 7 menit Member of the Opposition - 7 menit
7. Government Whip - 7 menit 8. Opposition Whip - 7 menit Setiap pembicara diberi waktu 7 menit untuk menyampaikan pidatonya. Di antara menit ke-1 dan ke-6, pembicara dari pihak lawan dapat mengajukan interupsi (Points of Information). Bila diterima, pembicara yang mengajukan permintaan interupsi tadi diberikan waktu maksimal 15 detik untuk menyampaikan sebuah pertanyaan yang kemudian harus dijawab oleh pembicara tadi sebelum melanjutkan pidatonya. Juri dalam debat BP bisa satu orang atau satu panel berjumlah ganjil. Di akhir debat, juri menentukan urutan kemenangan dari peringkat 1 sampai 4 untuk debat tersebut. Dalam panel, keputusan sebisanya diambil berdasarkan mufakat. Bila mufakat tidak tercapai, Ketua Panel akan membuat keputusan terakhir. Di Indonesia, format ini digunakan dalam ko mpetisi Founder's Trophy yang diselenggarakan oleh Komunitas Debat Bahasa Inggris Universitas Indonesia setiap tahun. [ sunting ] Format World Schools
Format yang digunakan dalam turnamen World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) dapat dianggap sebagai kombinasi BP dan Australs. Setiap debat terdiri atas dua tim, Proposisi dan Oposisi, beranggotakan masing-masing tiga orang. Urutan pidato adalah sebagai berikut:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Pembicara pertama Proposisi - 8 menit Pembicara pertama Oposisi - 8 menit Pembicara kedua Proposisi - 8 menit Pembicara kedua Oposisi - 8 menit Pembicara ketiga Proposisi - 8 menit Pembicara ketiga Oposisi - 8 menit Pidato penutup Oposisi - 4 menit Pidato penutup Proposisi - 4 menit
Pidato penutup (reply speech) dibawakan oleh pembicara pertama atau kedua masing-masing tim (tidak boleh pembicara ketiga) dan didahului oleh pihak Oposisi dan ditutup oleh pihak Proposisi. Aturan untuk interupsi ( Points of Information - POI) mirip dengan format BP. POI hanya dapat diberikan antara menit ke-1 dan ke-7 pidato utama dan tidak ada POI dalam pidato penutup. Di Indonesia, format ini digunakan dalam ke juaraan Indonesian Schools Debating Championship (ISDC). Beberapa SMU di Indonesia yang pernah mengadakan kompetisi debat juga menggunakan format ini. [ sunting ] American Parliamentary
Debat parlementer di Amerika Serikat diikuti oleh dua tim untuk setiap debatnya dengan susunan sebagai berikut:
•
•
Government o Prime Minister (PM) o Member of the Government (MG) Opposition o Leader of the Opposition (LO) o Member of the Opposition (MO)
Debat parlementer diadakan oleh beberapa organisasi berbeda di Amerika Serikat di tingkat pendidikan menengah dan tinggi. National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA), American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA), dan National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence (NPTE) menyelenggarakan debat parlementer tingkat universitas dengan susunan pidato sebagai berikut: • • • • • •
Prime Minister - 7 menit Leader of the Opposition - 8 menit Member of the Government - 8 min Member of the Opposition - 8 min Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal - 4 min Prime Minister Rebuttal - 5 min
California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) dan National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL) menyelenggarakan debat parlementer tingkat sekolah menengah dengan susunan pidato sebagai berikut: • • • • • •
Prime Minister - 7 menit Leader of the Opposition - 7 menit Member of the Government - 7 menit Member of the Opposition - 7 menit Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal - 5 menit Prime Minister Rebuttal - 5 menit
Dalam semua format tersebut kecuali CHSSA, interupsi berupa pertanyaan dapat ditanyakan kepada pembicara keempat pidato pertama, kecuali pada menit pertama dan terakhir pidato. Dalam format CHSSA, keenam pidato semuanya dapat diinterupsi. Di Indonesia, format debat ini belum populer dan belum ada kompetisi reguler yang menggunakannya.
[sunting] Debat kompetitif selain debat parlementer [ sunting ] Debat Proposal
Dalam gaya Debat Proposal ( Policy Debate), dua tim menjadi penganjur dan penentang sebuah rencana yang berhubungan dengan topik debat yang diberikan. Topik yang diberikan umumnya mengenai perubahan kebijakan yang diinginkan dari pemerintah. Kedua tim biasanya memainkan peran Afirmatif (mendukung proposal) dan N egatif (menentang proposal). Pada
prakteknya, kebanyakan acara debat tipe ini hanya memiliki satu topik yang sama yang berlaku selama setahun penuh atau selama jangka waktu lainnya yang sudah ditetapkan. Bila dibandingkan dengan debat parlementer, debat proposal lebih mengandalkan pada hasil riset atas fakta-fakta pendukung (evidence). Debat ini juga memiliki persepsi yang lebih luas mengenai argumen. Misalnya, sebuah proposal alternatif (counterplan) yang membuat proposal utama menjadi tidak diperlukan dapat menjadi sebuah argumen dalam debat ini. Walaupun retorika juga penting dan ikut mempengaruhi nilai setiap pembicara, pemenang tiap babak umumnya didasari atas siapa yang telah "memenangkan" argumen sesuai dengan fakta pendukung dan logika yang diberikan. Sebagai konsekuensinya, juri kadang-kadang membutuhkan waktu yang lama untuk mengambil keputusan karena semua fakta pendukung harus diperiksa terlebih dahulu. Di Amerika Serikat, Debat Proposal adalah tipe debat yang lebih populer dibandingkan debat parlementer. Kegiatan ini juga telah dicoba dikembangkan di Eropa dan Jepang dan gaya debat ini ikut mempengaruhi bentuk-bentuk debat lain. Di AS, Debat Proposal tingkat SMU diselenggarakan oleh NFL dan NCFL. Di tingkat universitas, debat ini diselenggarakan oleh National Debate Tournament (NDT), Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), National Educational Debate Association, dan Great Plains Forensic Conference. Debat Proposal terdiri atas dua tim beranggotakan masing-masing dua orang dalam tiap debatnya. Setiap pembicara membawakan dua pidato, satu pidato konstruktif (8 atau 9 menit) yang berisi argumen-argumen baru dan satu pidato sanggahan (4, 5, atau 6 menit) yang tidak boleh berisi argumen baru namun dapat berisi fakta pendukung baru untuk membantu sanggahan. Biasanya, sehabis setiap pidato konstruktif, pihak lawan diberikan kesempatan untuk melakukan pemeriksaan silang (cross-examination) atas pidato tersebut. Setiap isu yang tidak ditanggapi oleh pihak lawan dianggap sudah diterima dalam debat. Dewan juri secara seksama mencatat semua pernyataan yang dibuat dalam suatu babak (sering disebut flow). Di Indonesia, format debat ini belum populer dan belum ada kompetisi reguler yang menggunakannya. [ sunting ] Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Nama gaya debat ini diambil dari debat-debat terkenal yang pernah dilakukan di Senat Amerika Serikat antara kedua kandidat Lincoln dan Douglas. Setiap debat gaya ini diikuti oleh dua pedebat yang bertarung satu sama lain. Argumen dalam debat ini terpusat pada filosofi dan nilai-nilai abstrak, sehingga sering disebut sebagai debat nilai (value debate). Debat LD kurang menekankan pada fakta pendukung (evidence) dan lebih mengutamakan logika dan penjelasan. Di Indonesia, format debat ini belum populer dan belum ada kompetisi reguler yang menggunakannya.
[sunting] Kegiatan lain yang serupa
[sunting] Model United Nations Model United Nations adalah kegiatan yang banyak dilakukan di tingkat sekolah dan universitas di dunia. Dalam kegiatan ini, peserta memainkan peran sebagai delegasi Perserikatan Bangsa bangsa (PBB) yang mewakili negara tertentu (dalam kompetisi internasional, negara yang diwakili umumnya bukan negara asal sebenarnya dari tim tersebut). Di Indonesia, kegiatan ini relatif belum berkembang. Namun, Jakarta International School (JIS), sebuah sekolah internasional di ibukota, memiliki kegiatan ekstrakurikuler ini.
[sunting] Moot court Kompetisi Moot court biasa dilakukan oleh mahasiswa hukum di tingkat universitas.
[sunting] Lihat pula •
•
•
•
•
Debat kompetitif di Indonesia o Indonesian Varsity English Debate o Java Overland Varsities English Debate o Indonesian Schools Debating Championship o Parahyangan English Debate Society o Homepage English Debating Society - Universitas Gadjah Mada (EDSUGM) Kompetisi internasional tingkat universitas o World Universities Debating Council Kompetisi internasional tingkat sekolah menengah o World Schools Debating Championships Organisasi Debat Internasional o International Debate Education Association o International Public Debate Association o Australasian Intervarsity Debating Association o Australasian Intervarsity Debating Association (2002-3) Lain-lain o 'Debating': A free online 'how-to' guide (A free 200-page debating book written by a former winner of the World Schools Debating Championhip) o Debate Network (Arguments for and against a wide variety of debate topics) o Associated Leaders of Urban Debate (A national organization promoting debate to the general public) (US, K-12, collegiate) o World Debate Website Information about university debating events around the globe o Oxford Union (Oxford University)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o
American Parliamentary Debating Association (U.S., collegiate) National Parliamentary Debate Association (U.S., collegiate) Cross Examination Debate Association (U.S., collegiate) National Debate Tournament Home Page (U.S., collegiate) British Debate Information about school and university debating in Britain Debating SA Helpful resources for Primary and Secondary School debaters in Australia Debate Central Wide ranging debate training website. Includes several online videos National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (U.S., secondary and middle school) National Forensic League (U.S., secondary school) National Christian Forensics and Communications Association (U.S., secondary school) National Parliamentary Debate League (U.S., secondary school) Planet Debate An online store for debate resources run by Harvard Debate. National Debate Coaches Association (U.S., secondary school) eDebate Mailing list for high school and college debate coaches. Debate Outreach Network A resource for starting a debate team. Includes video from the Dartmouth Debate Institute Debatepoint dot com Web-based debate software New Zealand Schools Debating Council Website of the New Zealand Schools Debating Council, who organise schools debating in New Zealand Slovak Debate Associaton ARDOR - Romanian National Debate Association ASDV Bonaparte is the academic debating society in Amsterdam Parliamentary Debate League - Parli Grand Nationals (U.S., secondary school) Cross-X.com Website for high school and college debaters run by former debater Phil Kerpen. DebateRoom.com Debate forums for a variety of issues.
United Asian Debating Championships From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. •
It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2010.
•
It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since April 2010.
•
The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since April 2010.
University Parliamentary Debating World Universities Debating Championship Regional & National Championships
Australasia · Canada · Europe · Ireland · John Smith Memorial Mace · North America · United Asian Debating Championships Organizations
APDA · CUSID · English-Speaking Union · NPDA · CEDA · NDT · NCFCA Styles
Australasian · British Parliamentary Societies
Aberystwyth · Alberta · Auckland · Brown · Cambridge · UCC Law · UCC Philosoph · Durham · Galway · Glasgow · Limerick · Manchester · Otago · Ottawa · Oxford · Pitt · Princeton · St Andrews · Sydney · TCD-Hist · TCD-Phil · Tilbury · Toronto · UBC · UCD-L&H · UCD-LawSoc · Victoria · Virginia Jeff · Virginia-Wash · Western Ontario · Yale This box: view • talk • edit
The United Asian Debating Championship (UADC) is an annual debating tournament for teams from universities in Asia. It will be the largest inter-varsity Parliamentary Debate tournament in Asia, with over 600 participants. The UADC holds debates in the Asian 3-on-3 format Parliamentary Debating. The 1st UADC will be hosted by Assumption University, Thailand in Bangkok from 12–19 May 2010. The UADC was created after a decision to merge the two separate championships that were held after the Asian Debating community split in 2005 - The Asian Universities Debating Championship (AUDC) and the All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships (AIDC or "AllAsians"). The decision to unite the two competing tournaments, and thus, create a single debate
championship for Asia was taken at the last Asian Universities Debating Championships hosted by East West University in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2009. The first edition of this tournament is slated to be h eld in Assumption University in Bangkok , Thailand from 12 to 19 May.[1] Assumption won the right to host the tournament against a rival bid made by De La Salle University, in Manila, Philippines.[2]
[edit] Origin Arising out of a unification of the Asian Universities Debating Championship as well as the AllAsian Intervarsity Debating Championships, UADC represents the results of efforts to bridge the schism that emerged in Asian debating. Institutions who were unhappy about aspects of the organisation of the All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships established the Asian Universities Debating Championship in 2005 as an alternative to the All-Asians Championship.[3] Since then, many universities in Asia with strong debating traditions – most notably universities from the Philippines and Singapore, including all except one of the institutions who won the All-Asian championships up to 2 004 – had chosen not to participate in the All-Asian Intervarsity Championships and have instead entered teams in the Asian Universities Debating Championship. While not necessarily intended to be a rival tournament, the last three AUDCs coincided with the schedule of the All-Asian Championship, which made it impractical for teams to attend both tournaments. After many overtures, including a proposal to have an Asian Unity Tournament in Multimedia University, Malaysia,[4] which was not accepted by the AUDC Council, it was agreed that the All-Asian Universities would attend the AUDC Championships held in 2009 in Dhaka hosted by East West University. It was decided here in Council that the two tournaments would unite in the next edition, and the name of this new tournament would be the United Asian Debating Championships. Assumption University won the right to host after bidding, and the tournament took place from the 12th to the 19th of May, 2010. The next edition of the tournament will be hosted by the University of Macau, 2011.
[edit] Format of the event The UADC, like the AUDC and the All-Asians, is held annually in May. The competition involves eight preliminary rounds, which become power-paired as the tournament progresses, matching the strongest-performing teams against each other. The debates follow the Asian 3-on-3 format, which is a variation of the Australs format. One team (of 3 speakers each) forms the government and the other as the opposition. The process of scoring and pairing these teams is known as tabbing. The scoring of teams is done by judges, most of whom are students or former students from the competing institutions, who return ballots
with their scores to the adjudication team, led by a Chief Adjudicator (CA) who is assisted by one or more deputies (DCAs). The preliminary rounds are followed by a "Break Nite Party" , at which the teams proceeding to elimination rounds are announced. Separate breaks are announced for English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) team competition. 32 teams proceed to octo-finals. While preliminary rounds are usually judged by up to three judges, break rounds are judged by panels of five, and the finals by a panel of nine.
[edit] References 1. ^ UADC 2010 website 2. ^ 2009 EWU AUDC Union Meeting Minutes, [1]. 3. ^ "Invitation to the First AUDC". http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AUDC/message/1 . Retrieved 2007-06-05. 4. ^ MMU Unity Bid Document 5. 6. Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument.
7. Asian Parliamentary Debate 8. Teams: There two opposing teams in an Asians format of debate: 1. Government side- proposes and defends the motion; 2. Opposition side - refute and negates the motion. Each each side is composed of three members. The Members of the government side are the following: 1. Prime minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances arguments; 2. Deputy prime Minister (DPM ) - refute at first instance the case of the opposition, reestablish the government's claim, and advances arguments; 3. Governments whip (GW) - makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition's case and summarizes the case of the government. The Members of the Opposition side are the following: 1. Leader of the Opposition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the government by giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge the motion if the definition is challengeable; 2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DPL) - refutes the case of the DPM, reestablishes the case of the opposition, and advances an argument; 3. Opposition Whip (OW) - makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government's and summarizes the case of the opposition.
Time of Speeches:
Each speaker is allocated seven minutes to deliver their constructive speeches. One speaker from each side (For the Government: PM/DPM, for Opposition: LO/DLO) is given four minutes to deliver a reply speech. The speakers will be speaking in the following order: 1. Prime Minister (7 minutes) 2. Leader of the opposition (7minutes) 3. Deputy Prime Minister (7 minutes) 4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (7 minutes) 5. Government Whip (7 minutes) 6. Opposition whip (7 minutes) 7. Opposition Reply (4 minutes) 8. Government Reply(4 minutes) During the constructive speeches, Point of Information (POI) may be raised by the opposing side after the first minute up to the sixth minute. POI may be refused or accepted by the speaker. During reply speeches, no POI may be raised. Reply Speech:
Reply speech is a comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of both sides. The aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why should the people support the team's claim. The speech is first delivered by the opposition side and followed by the government side that will close the debate. Matter, Manner, Method:
Asian Parliamentary Debate is assessed by an Adjudicator Panel composed of an odd number according to the following criteria: 1. Matter (40)- substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented, and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments. 2. Manner (40) - the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of the debaters. 3. Method (20) - the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance of the rules of debate.
Debate From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Discussion" redirects here. For a related article, see Discourse.
For discussion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)
University Parliamentary Debating World Universities Debating Championship Regional & National Championships
Australasia · Canada · Europe · Ireland · John Smith Memorial Mace · North America · United Asian Debating Championships Organizations
APDA · CUSID · English-Speaking Union · NPDA · CEDA · NDT · NCFCA Styles
Australasian · British Parliamentary Societies
Aberystwyth · Alberta · Auckland · Brown · Cambridge · UCC Law · UCC Philosoph · Durham · Galway · Glasgow · Limerick · Manchester · Otago · Ottawa · Oxford · Pitt · Princeton · St Andrews · Sydney · TCD-Hist · TCD-Phil · Tilbury · Toronto · UBC · UCD-L&H · UCD-LawSoc · Victoria · Virginia Jeff · Virginia-Wash · Western Ontario · Yale This box: view • talk • edit
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion; in d ebating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.
In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence,
the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Although this implies that facts are based on consensus, wh ich is not factual. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies. The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to attack; to experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or attacked after the same amount of preparation time, usually quite short.[citation needed ] Lawyers argue forcefully on behalf of their client, even if the facts appear against them. However one large misconception about debate is that it is all about strong beliefs; it is not. Debates are sometime organized for purely competitive purposes, particularly at the US highschool level, but also in other English-speaking co untries.
Contents [hide] • •
•
•
1 Competitive debate 2 Forms of debate o 2.1 Parliamentary (Parli) debate o 2.2 Mace Debate o 2.3 Jes Debate o 2.4 Public Debate o 2.5 Australasia debate o 2.6 World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID) o 2.7 Asian Universities Debating Championship o 2.8 Policy debate o 2.9 Classical debate o 2.10 Extemporaneous debate o 2.11 Lincoln-Douglas debate o 2.12 Karl Popper debate o 2.13 Simulated legislature o 2.14 Impromptu debate o 2.15 Moot court and mock trial o 2.16 Public Forum (Po Fo) Debate o 2.17 Paris Style Debating 3 Other forms of debate o 3.1 Online debating o 3.2 U.S. presidential debates o 3.3 Comedy debate 4 Debate Strategies o 4.1 Moral High Ground
•
4.2 Model Construction / Destruction 5 See also 6 References
•
7 External links
o
•
[edit] Competitive debate Competitive debate , also known as a debate contest, is an organized to argue with other teams, competing at the local, national, and international level.[1] It is popular in English-speaking universities and high schools around the world, most notably in South Africa, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Many different styles of debate occur under a variety of organizations and rules.
In schools and colleges, often, it takes the form of a contest with explicit rules. It may b e presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution) which if adopted would change something with the exception allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted. To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.
[edit] Forms of debate [edit] Parliamentary (Parli) debate Main article: Parliamentary debate Parliamentary Debate (sometimes referred to as "parli" in the United States) is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary procedure. It features the competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows terms such as "government" and "opposition" from the British parliament (although the term "proposition" is sometimes used rather than "government" when debating in the United Kingdom). This is usually very formal. Throughout the world, parliamentary debate is what most countries know as "debating", and is the primary style practiced in the United Kingdom, India, Greece and most other nations. The premier event in the world of parliamentary debate, the World Universities Debating Championship, is conducted in the British Parliamentary style.Not formal. Even within the United Kingdom, however, British Parliamentary style is not used exclusively; the English-Speaking Union runs the national championships for schools in a unique format, known as the 'Mace' format after the name of the competition, while simultaneously using British Parliamentary format for the national universities ch ampionships.Sort of formal.
In the United States the American Parliamentary Debate Association is the oldest national parliamentary debating organization, based on the East Coast and including all of the Ivy League, although the more recently founded National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is now the largest collegiate sponsor. The National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL) is the umbrella organization for all parliamentary debating at the second ary school level in the United States. And in Canada, the Canadian Universities Society for Intercollegiate Deba ting (CUSID) is the umbrella organization for all university-level debating; at the second ary school level, the Canadian Student Debating Federation (CSDF) has the same function. Topics in parliamentary debate can either be set by the tournament or determined by the debaters as the "Government" side begins. For example, if the topic was "This House Would Bomb Cultural Sites", the Government could define it in any way which it feel suitable, for example, only during wartime, and excluding religious cultural sites. The Government must be sure the definitions does not give them an unfair advantage, and the Opposition may dispute the definition if it feels it violates fair play. In many forms of the activity rhetoric and style, as well as the more traditional knowledge and research, can play a significant role in determining the victor with marks shared equally between matter and manner. It has been widely labeled as the most democratic form of debate.
[edit] Mace Debate This style of debate is prominent in Britain at schools level. Two teams of two debate an affirmative motion (e.g. "This house would give prisoners the right to vote,") which one team will propose and the other will oppose. Each speaker will make a seven minute speech in the order; 1st Proposition, 1st Opposition, 2nd Proposition, 2nd Opposition. After the first minute of each speech, members of the opposing team may request a 'point of information' (POI). If the speaker accepts they are permitted to ask a question. POI's are used to pull the speaker up on a weak point, or to argue against something the speaker has said. However after 6 minutes, no more POI's are permitted. After all four have spoken the debate will be opened to thefloor , in which members of the audience will put questions to the teams. After the floor debate, one speaker from each team (traditionally the first speaker), will speak for 4 minutes. In these summary speeches it is typical for the speaker to answer the questions posed by the floor, answer any questions the opposition may have put forward, before summarising his or her own key points. In the Mace format, emphasis is typically on analytical skills, entertainment, style and strength of argument. The winning team will typically have excelled in all of these areas. THIS IS A FORMAL EVENT.
[edit] Jes Debate This style of debate is particularly popular in Ireland at Secondary School level. Developed in Coláiste Iognáid (Galway) over the last ten years, the format has five speakers: two teams and a single 'sweep speaker' on each side. Speeches last 4:30 minutes with 30 secon ds protected from POIs at either end of the debate. Adjudication will depend on BP marking, but with particular recognition of principled debating.A ten minute open house will also be adjudicated. Traditionally, the motion is always opposed in the final vote.[citation needed ]
[edit] Public Debate Main article: Public debate The International Public Debate Association (IPDA), inaugurated on February 15, 1997 at St. Mary's University (Texas) in San Antonio, Texas, is a national debate league currently active in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Florida, and Oklahoma. Among universities, IPDA is the fastest growing debate association within the United States. Although evidence is used, the central focus of IPDA is to promote a debate format that emphasizes public speaking and real-world persuasion skills over the predominate use of evidence and speed. To further this goal, IPDA predominantly uses lay judges in order to encourage an audience-centered debate style. Furthermore, although the main goal of the debater is to persuade the judge, IPDA also awards the best speakers within each tournament. IPDA offers both team debate where two teams of two debate and individual debate. In both team and individual debate a list of topics are given to the two sides thirty minutes before the start of the round. A striking negotiation ensues to pick a topic. The sides, one affirming the resolution and one negating the resolution, then prepare an opening speech, a cross-examination of the other side, and closing remarks for the round. While most member programs the International Public Debate Association are associated with colleges or universities, participation in IPDA tournaments is open to anyone whose education level is equivalent to seventh-grade or higher.
[edit] Australasia debate Main article: Australia-Asia debate Australasia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That", for example, "That cats are better than dogs," or "This House", for example, "This House would establish a world government." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the participants and their audiences. Each team has three members, each of whom is named according to their team and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the terminology used. Each of the speakers' positions is based around a specific role, the third speaker for example has the opportunity to make a rebuttal towards the opposing teams argument introducing new evidence to add to their position. The last speaker is called the "Team Advisor/Captain". Using this style, the debate is finished with a closing argument by each of the first speakers from each team and new evidence may not be introduced. Each of the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to each other beginning with the
Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative. The context in which the Australasia style of debate is used varies, but in Australia and New Zealand is mostly used at the Primary and Secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year.
[edit] World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID) WUPID is an invitational tournament that employs the BP or Worlds format of debating. It invites the top 30 debating institutions in accordance to the list provided by the World Debate Website administered by Colm Flynn. If any or some of the teams cannot participate than replacements would be called in from the top 60 teams or based on strong recommendations from senior members of the University Debating community. WUPID was first held in December 2007 with Sydney University being crowned cha mpion. The second installation in 2008 saw Monash taking the trophy home. The third WUPID will be held in University Putra Malaysia (UPM) in December 2009. The first two tournaments were cohosted by Univerisiti Kuala Lumpur (UNIKL). WUPID was the brainchild of Daniel Hasni Mustaffa, Saiful Amin Jalun and Muhammad Yunus Zakariah. They were all former debaters for UPM who took part at all possible levels of debating from the Malaysian nationals to the World Championship.
[edit] Asian Universities Debating Championship This is the biggest debating tournament in Asia, where teams from the Middle East to Japan come to debate. It is traditionally hosted in southeast Asia wh ere participation is usually highest compared to other parts of Asia. Asian debates are largely an adaptation of the Australasian format. The only difference is that each speaker is given 7 minutes of speech time and there will be points of information (POI) offered by the opposing team between the 2nd to 6th minutes of the speech. This means that the 1st and 7th minute is considered the 'protected' period where no POIs can be offered to the speaker. The debate will commence with the Prime Minister's speech (first proposition) and will be continued by the first opposition. This alternating speech will go on until the third opposition. Following this, the opposition bench will give the reply speech. In the reply speech, the opposition goes first and then the proposition. The debate ends when the proposition ends the reply speech. 4 minutes is allocated for the reply speech and no POI's can be offered during this time.
[edit] Policy debate
Main article: Policy Debate Policy Debate is a style of debating where two teams of two debaters advocate or oppose a plan derived from a resolution that usually calls for a change in policy by a government. Teams normally alternate, and compete in rounds as either "affirmative" or "negative". In most forms of the activity, there is a fixed topic for an entire year or another set period. In comparison to parliamentary debate, policy debate relies more on researched evidence and tends to have a larger sphere of what is considered legitimate argument, including counterplans, critical theory, and debate about the theoretical standards of the activity itself. While rhetoric is important and reflected in the "speaker points" given to each debater, each round is usually decided based on who has "won" the argument according to the evidence and logic presented. Additionally, in certain segments of the activity, debaters may "speed" (speak very rapidly), in order to present as much evidence and information as possible and counter the other side. People speed read in the attempt to "spread" the opponent out of a speech. In effect, the debater presents so much information, spread out over many topics, that the opponent does not have time to cover everything and must ignore arguments that the original team then focuses on. Policy Debate is mostly practiced in the United States (where it is sometimes referred to as Cross-Examination, or CX debate), although it has been attempted in Europe, Venezuela, Colombia, and Japan and has certainly influenced other forms of debate. Successful high school policy debaters are frequently recruited for and offered college scholarships for their policy debate experience. Former policy debaters have also credit their success in virtually every field, including politics, law, academia, business, entertainment, and more. The National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, and the various individual debate leagues, are set up in order to provide students of all economic backgrounds an opportunity to experience and succeed in this life-changing activity.
[edit] Classical debate Classical debate is a relatively new debate format, first created and primarily practiced in the state of Minnesota. It was formed as an alternative to Policy debating. Certain judges and coaches felt that the development of Policy had led it to become an extremely specialized form of debate with heavy reliance on near-incomprehensible speed in speaking and less emphasis on real-world arguments in favor of "strategic" arguments that often bordered on the near-absurd. With a structure similar to that of Policy, Classical debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion. For this reason, it is often nicknamed "Policy Lite". As opposed to Policy, where each Affirmative proposes a new plan, classical debate is simpler: one resolution is chosen at the beginning of the season, which the Affirmative affirms and Negative negates. The emphasis on depth instead of breadth provided by the restriction can make for interesting rounds that often come down to arguments that might otherwise pale in other formats.
[edit] Extemporaneous debate
Extemporaneous debate is a style that involves no planning in advance, and two teams with a first and second speaker. While a majority of judges will allow debaters to cite current events and various statistics (of which opponents may question the credibility) the only research permitted are one or more articles given to the debaters along with the resolution shortly before the debate. It begins with an affirmative first-speaker constructive speech, followed by a negative; then an affirmative and negative second-speaker constructive speech respectively. Each of these speeches are six minutes in length, and are followed by two minutes of cross examination. There is then an affirmative and negative first-speaker rebuttal, and a negative an d affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively. These speeches are each four minutes long. No new points can be brought into the debate during the rebuttals. This style of debate generally centers around three main contentions, although a team can occasionally use two or four. In order for the affirmative side to win, all of the negative contentions must be defeated, and all of the affirmative contentions must be left standing. Most of the information presented in the debate must be tied in to support one of these contentions, or "sign posted". Much of extemporaneous debate is similar to policy debate; one main difference, however, is that extemporaneous debate focuses less on the implementation of the resolution.
[edit] Lincoln-Douglas debate Main article: Lincoln-Douglas debate Lincoln-Douglas debate is primarily a form of United States high school debate (though it also has a college form called NFA LD) named after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, it is a one-on-one event focused mainly on applying philosophical theories to real world issues. Debaters normally alternate sides from round to round as either the "affirmative", which upholds the resolution, or "negative", which attacks it. The resolution, which changes bimonthly, asks whether a certain policy or action conforms to a specific value. Though established as an alternative to policy debate, there has been a strong movement to embrace certain techniques that originated in policy debate (and, correspondingly, a strong backlash movement). Plans, counterplans, critical theory, postmodern theory, debate about the theoretical basis and rules of the activity itself, and kritiks have all reached more than occasional, if not yet universal, usage. Traditional L-D debate attempts to be free of policy debate "jargon". Lincoln-Douglas speeches can range from a conversational pace to well over 300 wpm (when trying to maximize the number of arguments and depth of each argument's development). This technique is known as speed. There is also a growing emphasis on carded evidence, though still much less than in policy debate. These trends have created a serious rift within the activity between the debaters, judges, and coaches who advocate or accept these changes, and those who vehemently oppose them. Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate tournaments are often held concurrently at the same school.
[edit] Karl Popper debate
Karl Popper debate, named after the famed philosopher, is a widely used debate format in Eastern European and Central Asian high schools. Originally created by the Open Society Institute as a more flexible team debate format, Karl Popper debate has risen greatly in popularity as the first format that many high school students learn. It focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Constructed similarly to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, each side is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing side. The first speakers of each side have 6 minutes to present their constructive cases, or in the negative's case a rebuttal. The other 4 speakers each have 5 minutes to deliver a speech supporting their team's main arguments. There is also an allotted 3 minutes after each of the first 4 speeches for cross-examination, during which the o pposing team has a chance to clarify what was stated in the preceding speech. Each year, the International Debate Education Association hosts an annual Youth Forum, during which the Karl Popper World Championships are held. Nations from all around the world attend this Forum for the tournament, as well as the 2 week debate training camp.
[edit] Simulated legislature High school debate events such as Student Congress, Model United Nations, European Youth Parliament, Junior State of America and the American Legion's Boys State and Girls State events are activities which are based on the premise of simulating a mock legislature environment.
[edit] Impromptu debate Main article: Impromptu debate Impromptu debate is a relatively informal style of debate, when compared to other highly structured formats. The topic for the debate is given to the participants between fifteen and twenty minutes before the debate starts. The debate format is relatively simple; each team member of each side speaks for five minutes, alternating sides. A ten-minute discussion period, similar to other formats' "open cross-examination" time follows, and then a five-minute break (comparable to other formats' preparation time). Following the break, each team gives a 4-minute rebuttal.
[edit] Moot court and mock trial In the United Kingdom the national mooting championships are run by the English-Speaking Union.
[edit] Public Forum (Po Fo) Debate Public Forum combines aspects of both Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate, with shorter speech lengths, but longer periods, called "cross-fires", of interaction between the debaters. Since its introduction by the National Forensic League into high school debate in the United States, it
has exploded in popularity in some parts of the country due to its accessibility to both debaters and audiences through its simplistic emphasis on logical pe rsuasion (supported by evidence as appropriate) and due to its ability to help develop real-world argumentation and speaking skills.
[edit] Paris Style Debating This is a new, specifically French format. Two teams of five d ebate on a given motion. One side is supposed to defend the motion while the other must defeat it. The debate is judged on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the rhetoric, the charisma of the speaker, the qu ality of the humor, the ability to think on one's feet and, of course, the teamwork. The first speaker of the Proposition (Prime Minister) opens the debate, followed by the first speaker of the Opposition (Shadow Prime Minister), then the second speaker of the Proposition and so on. Every speaker speaks for 6 minutes. After the first minute and before the last minute, debaters from the opposite team may ask Points of Information, which the speaker may accept or reject as he wishes (although he is supposed to accept at least 2). The French Debating Association[2] organizes its National Debating Championship upon this style.
[edit] Other forms of debate [edit] Online debating With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet, differing opinions arise frequently. Though they are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, there do exist formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because o f the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.).Forums are Moderated and welcome online d ebaters in a friendly format so all may speak their pros and cons. Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weake r opinions on things, many times for debate in formal debates (such as the ones listed above ) or for fun arguments with friends. The ease-of-use and friendly environments make new debaters welcome to share their opinions in many communities.
[edit] U.S. presidential debates Main article: United States presidential election debates Since the 1976 general election, debates between presidential candidates have been a part of U.S. presidential campaigns. Unlike debates sponsored at the high school or collegiate level, the participants, format, and rules are not independently defined. Nevertheless, in a campaign season
heavily dominated by television advertisements, talk radio, sound bites, and spin, they still offer a rare opportunity for citizens to see and hear the major candidates side-by-side. The format of the presidential debates, though defined differently in every election, is typically more restrictive than many traditional formats, forbidding participants to ask each other questions and restricting discussion of particular topics to short time frames. The presidential debates were initially moderated in 1976, 1980, 1984 by the League of Women Voters, but The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. However, in announcing its withdrawal from sponsoring the debates, the League of Women Voters stated that it was withdrawing "because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission was formed in the hope of establishing an independent sponsor for presidential debates, with a more voter-centric role in the definition of the participants, format, and rules.
See also: Leaders debate
[edit] Comedy debate Main article: Comedy debate With the growing popularity of debate among the general public, comedy debates have developed as a form of entertainment with an often educational twist. While comedy debates are not generally mainstream events, they have gained significant popular support at occasions such as the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and are often popular fixtures among experienced debaters. All forms of debate, whether consciously or not, make certain assumptions about argumentation theory. The core concept of argumentation theory is the notion of advocacy. In most cases, at least one side in a debate needs to maintain the truth of some proposition or advocate some sort of personal or political change or action. A debate could also potentially be between two or more competing propositions or actions. Or debate could also be a purely performative exercise of charisma and emotion with no assumption of fixed advocacy, but it would possibly lose much of its coherence.
[edit] Debate Strategies While debating is an art, involving aspects from showmanship to critical thinking, there are certain strategies that are commonly used to shape the direction of a debate.
[edit] Moral High Ground
One such strategy is to adopt the Moral High Ground, consigning the other parties to appear weak, unethical. In this strategy, the party will try to illustrate the moral benefits that their side of the debates bring to the table. i.e. more environmentally aware, pro-human rights etc.
[edit] Model Construction / Destruction Often, in the process of debates, each party will need to build a conceptual model of the topic on which to base the debate. Thus merits will be given to the team with the better model. The model can be assessed on the following count. • • •
completeness timeliness feasibility
A model can be attacked as well by highlighting undesirable effects. e.g. Floodgate effect that can follow a policy, the social backlash that could happen.
[edit] See also Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Debate
• • •
CreateDebate Debates Dialectics
International high-school debating • • •
Harvard Model United Nations World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championships World Schools Debating Championships
International university debating Debate camp#Popular camps/institutes Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships American Parliamentary Debate Association Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate Harvard World Model United Nations •
•
•
•
•
•
National Association of Urban Debate Leagues North American Debating Championship North American Public Speaking Championship
•
•
•
International Public Debate Association
•
World Universities Debating Championship
Lecture: Parliamentary Debate - Motions You are Unprepared For
Famous debater for Ateneo de Manilla, Philippines, Eleanor Uy gives this talk at the 2005 Asian Debate Institute in Seoul, Korea. There are three ways to watch this video, in the order we suggest you use: 1. Right click on the link to download, drag it into your iTunes application, watch it in full screen mode. Once it is downloaded you can watch it now, save it for later, or put it on another computer. 2. Right click on the link to download and then watch it using your QuickTime application. 3. Click on the link and watch it in a small browser window while it downloads. Click to view or right click to save to your hard drive:
http://bankskripsi.com/archive/http://debatevideoblog.blo gspot.com/2007/07/lecture-parliamentary-debatemotions.html Parliamentary Debate Rules By Shane Hall, eHow Contributor
updated: August 18, 2009 Parliamentary Debate is an academic debate even t that is popular in English-speaking universities as well as some high schools. Although the event pits two teams, known as the government and the opposition, Parliamentary Debate is not connected to debates that occur in government houses of Parliament. Parliamentary Debate features two teams, plus a person who serves as judge.
Identification 1. Each team in a Parliamentary Debate event has two debaters. The Government team consists of a prime minister and a member of government. The second team, known as the Opposition, consists of the Opposition Leader and Opposition Member. The judge of the debate is known as the Speaker.
Types 2. According to the National Parliamentary Debate Association, the resolution or topic of a debate centers on current affairs or a question of philosophy.
Structure of Debate 3. A debate round involves a series of speeches presented by the debaters. The Government team begins the debate by presenting a specific statement or resolution, which it must demonstrate to be correct. The Opposition, by its arguments and speeches, must show the Government team's position to be incorrect. The debate round begins with a speech by the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition then replies with an opening speech. Following the Opposition Leader, the Government member speaks, then the Opposition member. Rebuttal speeches then follow, beginning with the Opposition leader and ending with the Prime Minister.
Timing 4. According to the American Parliamentary Debate Association, the Prime Minister's opening speech is limited to seven minutes, and the Opposition Leader has a limit of eight minutes. The two team members--Government and Opposition--have eight minutes each for their speeches. The rebuttals are four minutes for the Opposition Leader and five minutes for the Prime Minister.
Point of Information 5. During the speeches by the Prime Minister, Member of Government, Opposition Leader or Opposition Member, other debaters may rise to ask a question of the person speaking or to make a point. This is known as a point of information. To raise a point of information, the debater must stand, place a hand on top of her head and raise her other arm to signal. The debater who is speaking may recognize the point by saying "on that point," then allow the questioner to speak. If the debater does not wish to recognize the point of information, he says "no thank you," at which point the questioner sits.
Points of Order and Personal Privilege 6. When a debater believes a rule of debate has been broken, she can stand and say, "Point of order." The debater who is speaking must then stop and allow the debater who rose to state what rule has been violated. The judge of the debate round, known as the Speaker, then rules on the point of order, deciding if it is "well taken" or "not well taken." A "well taken" point means the debater must conclude his speech. The debater can continue if the Speaker rules the point to be "not well taken." Although rarely used, a debater can raise a "point of personal privilege" if she has been personally insulted during a debate. As with points of order, the speaker rules whether the point is well taken or not well taken.
Read more: Parliamentary Debate Rules | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5315301_parliamentary-debaterules.html#ixzz153Cyn9hI
Speaker Roles in Asian Parliamentary Debate November 13, 2009 abinadakhairiyah Leave a comment Go to comments (taken from http://wiki.idebate.org)
Government: Prime Minister (PM) •
• •
• •
Define context and parameters of debate. For example, in an open motion like “This House Would Support Musicians”, the debate could be contextualized into whether music should be a commodity for trade, or it should be available gratis (i.e. free music download and transfer) Provide concise background or history leading to the issue Give framework of government bench’s case. I.e. mechanisms (if any), argumentation flow (what the government’s first argument is and what the Deputy Prime Minister will talk about) Introduce 1st argument Assert Government stand
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) • • •
Rebut first argument from Leader of Opposition Rebut rebuttals to PM’s argument Introduce 2nd and 3rd argument
•
Reassert Government stand and case
Government Whip • • • • • •
Rebut Deputy Leader of Opposition, and Leader of Opposition Rebut rebuttals to DPM and PM arguments Provide a deeper level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals No new arguments, but new angles of arguments should be given Brief summary of entire case of Government Reassert Government stand and case
Opposition: Leader of Opposition •
• •
• •
Agree or disagree with context/ parameters of debate (any definitional challenges, accusations of squirreling, or unfair set up should be made from the LO speech and no later) Rebut Prime Minister’s argument Give framework for Opposition case (if Opp agrees to problem, then their case should provide solution, or at least effectively highlight how Government proposal will worsen the situation) Introduce first Opposition argument Assert Opposition stand
Deputy Leader of Opposition • • • •
Rebut DPM and PM arguments Rebut rebuttals to LO arguments Introduce 1st and 2nd (if any) argument Reassert Opposition stand and case
Opposition Whip • • • • •
Rebut DPM and PM arguments Rebut rebuttals to LO & DLO arguments Provide a deeper level of analysis for previous arguments and rebuttals No new arguments, but new angles of arguments should be given Reassert Opposition stand and case
Reply Speech: • • •
Can only be done by either 1st or 2nd speaker from each bench Provide a biased ‘oral adjudication’ of why the debate should go to own bench Highlight issues you think your side won, carefully tiptoe around issues you think you lost
•
•
New examples to expand on discussed examples is usually allowed and makes the reply speech sound fresh as opposed to verbal regurgitation Reassert stand
Most importantly, try to have fun while you’re doing all this. ;) Motion A motion is the term used as a referral of the topic about to be debated in the Asian Parliamentary system. Most motions in the system begin with the phrase “This House…,” with the ‘House’ referring to a governing body debating the particular motion. Teams and Speaker Responsibilities Similar to any forms of debates, the Asian Parliamentary has two opposing sides; the government, to propose and defend the motion and the opposition, to oppose and negate the motion. Each of these two teams comprise o f three speakers with distinct roles and responsibilities. The speakers of the government side are: - Prime Minister, whose role is to provide the interpretation of the motion and setup a ground for the debate, as well as open the case for the government - Deputy Prime Minister, whose role is to effectively rebut the case delivered by the opposition, amplify the arguments initiated by the previous speaker of the team and later advances the government’s case by delivering a new argument - Member of The Government, whose role is to refute the opposition’s whole case by summarizing the entire debate from the gove rnment’s perspective and give final analysis on why the government should win The speakers of the opposition side are: - Leader of The Opposition, whose role is to state where the opposition’s position in the particular debate, respond to the initial case brought by the government and open the case for the opposition - Deputy Leader of The Opposition, whose role is quite similar to the Deputy Prime Minister, taking the opposition’s perspective - Member of The Opposition, whose role is similar to the Member of The Government, taking the opposition’s perspective Each speaker is 7 (seven) minutes to deliver a speech. After all speakers have spoken, each team will be given the chance to give a reply speech. A reply speech is a speech that concludes the debate and state why a particular team’s case is better than the opposing one. The speakers allowed to deliver a reply speech would be either the first or the second speaker of each team. A time constrain of 4 (four) minutes is given for reply speeches. The order of speeches would go as follows: 1. 1st government, Prime Minister 2. 1st opposition, Leader of Opposition 3. 2nd government, Deputy Prime Minister 4. 2nd opposition, Deputy Leader of Opposition 5. 3rd government, Member of Government 6. 3rd opposition, Member of Opposition 7. Government reply
