Monash Association of Debaters

by Ray D'Cruz

Note: in 2002 the Martin Sorensen Internal Competition will be run in three-on-three style, not in the style detailed below. The tutorial below describes a variation on American Parliamentary style which was used for this competition in previous years.

The Martin Sorensen Internal Competition is based on the American Parliamentary style of debating, with a few variations. It has features which make it a good change from the traditional three on three debating.

The first thing you will notice is that there are only two members per team. They each deliver a main speech (of 6 8 minutes though this can be lowered by agreement between the teams) and a reply speech, half the length of the main speeches. The great advantage of this style at university is that you can do your prep, have your debate and receive an adjudication all in the one lunchtime.

The debate starts with the first speaker, the 'Prime Minister (told you it was loosely based on American Parliamentary) delivering the opening speech. He or she should, just like three on three debating, give a defintion, a team split and then present substantive matter.

The second speaker, the 'Leader of the Opposition' should follow the pattern of a regular first negative speaker: address the validity of the definition, rebut, give a split and then present substantive matter.

The definition rule is important in this style because it differs from three on three debating. In this style, the affirmative (known as the 'Government) cannot be challenged unless their definition is adsurd, truistic or has no logical link to the topic. Be very clear about this: a truism is where your opponent gives you an argument you cannot argue against. If you can rebut them then it is not a truism. If their defintion had no logical link it means that they have chosen a definition out of left field. Even this may be difficult to challenge in a topic that is worded a bit vaguely. The general rule with defintions in this style, which you've probably guessed by now, is try not to challenge the definition unless you absolutely have to.

The second affirmative, 'the Deputy Prime Minister' then rebuts (dealing with the definition if need be) and presents substantive material. The second negative, 'the Deputy Leader of the Opposition', does this same but with a little more rebuttal and a little less substantive matter.

Replies are simple. You should summarise the debate into a few simple issues, two, three or four and show why your team has argued these issues in a better way. Make sure you include a brief summary, though you may choose to do this throughout. Do not under any circumstances include new matter in your reply.

In American Parliamentary there were also 'points of information' (which you will read about in the article on British Parliamentary debating) and 'points of order' which are used when your opponent is introducing new matter in a reply or badly misrepresenting what your team said.

Internal Competition Style