Monash Association of Debaters

by Ben Richards

The British Parliamentary style of debating is an exciting and highly interactive style that is so named because the debaters imagine that they are debating a motion (topic) in a house of parliament.

The Chair is therefore known as Mister or Madame Speaker, while the first and second speakers of each team, as there are only two in a team, are referred to as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (on the affirmative - the Government) or the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (on the negative - the Opposition).

At university competitions, including the World IV, speaking times are seven minutes, with a knock at one minute and another at six between which 'points of information' may be given and taken.

There are three major differences with this style when compared to the Australian format...

First, there are four teams in each debate, two on each side. The role of the first team on each side is to set up a case in much the same way as in the Australian style. Both speakers should have substantive arguments, and each team should adhere to a structure that you are used to, that is, it should have a formal definition, a team line, and an allocation of arguments between both speakers (a team split).

The role of the second team on each side is to support the case offered by the first team, but to add a new dimension to the case. For instance, in a debate about euthanasia, if the first team argued primarily about the effects of euthanasia on the family, the second team must agree with these arguments but should also advance an additional argument, for instance, the effects of euthanasia on society. Fourth speakers should not introduce new matter, much like third speakers in Australian debating. Each side of the debate must display unity and co-operate with the other team on their side of the house.

The second difference concerns the definitional rule. In Australian debating the negative team has an equal right of definition, but must prove that their definition is more reasonable than the other in a dispute. In this style, the Opposition may only challenge the definition of the Government if the definition is absurd, truistic, or has no logical link to the topic. This means that definitional challenges in British Parliamentary debating are thankfully rare. As a result, a definition that could be challenged in the three on three style might not be able to be challenged in British Parliamentary style.

The final difference concerns points of information. These are questions which are asked of any speaker by any opposing speaker between the first and second bells. They are offered by standing up, placing one hand on your head (good look) and saying 'point of information'. It is completely up to the speaker to decide whether or not to accept the point - they can tell you or motion to you to sit down rather that take the point. It is a good idea to accept at least two points but no more than four.

Points of information are not designed to be speeches in themselves, they should be short and pertinent, sometimes witty where it is appropriate. While you have 15 seconds to put forward your point, you should take less time than this. The best points are simple questions that advance your case and are difficult for your opponent's to answer.

So there it is, a lively, interactive and sometimes heated style of debate! Enjoy.

British Parliamentary Style